8 ms·

Alexis Ohanian vs NBC - Debating SOPA

233 points by sethbannon 15y ago

emehrkay 15y ago
Richard Cotton had talking points and stuck to them.
- notatoad 15y ago
  i especially liked how he kept pushing the same two lines over and over again, but as soon as alexis came close to saying any sort of soundbyte he just yells out "sloganeering doesn't help anything".
  - Nrsolis 15y ago
    Cotton was used to the environment where he knows there is a limited amount of time to make his case to the public. He (attempted to) connect it with a subject they care about (jobs) and then did everything he could to shut down any substantive exchange on the issue by talking over Alexis. Within the limited amount of time available, Cotton got more of his message across than Alexis. I feel like I should be uploading episodes of 30 Rock to every site I can find just to even things out.
- cbo 15y ago
  No one likes the tactic of interrupting every dissenting opinion, but without a doubt it's extremely effective. I know that having everyone at podiums or at a table is a very human thing for debates, making them seem like they're open discussions, but tactics like this prevent such discussions, and are fairly obnoxious for people who are actually trying to listen. I'd rather just put everyone in sound booths with cameras and then mute them when it's not their turn.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
yangez 15y ago
"This legislation specifically says there can be no secondary liability [to US-based sites]." - Richard Cotton. Then he contradicts himself 15 seconds later. Is Richard Cotton a liar or just ignorant?
- Nrsolis 15y ago
  He's a lawyer. Does that answer your question?
- thebigshane 15y ago
  Neither, just non-specific. US-based companies are forced to comply with take-down requests after X (5?) days, but SOPA explicitly says that they are not required to filter or monitor for potential infringement.
RandallBrown 15y ago
I'm really surprised how rude Richard Cotton was. It doesn't matter what anyone else was saying, he would just interrupt and tell them they were wrong.
- ericb 15y ago
  It strikes me that he is deliberately lying and pretending SOPA actually says only something that more people would support, ie "shutting down illegal foreign websites stealing american content." I suspect that someone at his level who is speaking publicly on the issue knows exactly what is in this bill. After all, it is his lobbying money that is buying the bill in the first place. How can Alexis defend against this bald-faced lie in future debates? It seems like a tough thing to defend against.
  - dpeck 15y ago
    This is something that those against SOPA and other measures are going to have to get better at. He knows he's lying (or "framing"), he's had years of practice at it. Alexis and others speaking for the technology sector don't. In general they tend to be somewhat humble, confident, and mostly honest people. The success they've had in their lives has been built on the work of countless others and there is a certain amount of deference and pragmatism even in our brightest and accomplished spokespeople. This needs to change. There is an art to hyperbole, and as much as it makes us all cringe, we need to start engaging in it and framing the argument in a way that will get the visceral juices flowing a bit. "This bill will cause Facebook to delete your account and any of your friends if you post a video", "This bill will force youtube to delete all the videos you took at your childs birthday party", etc. You lose the argument when you accept a compromise when starting from the position you want to finish in. You have to pull back much further, like SOPA proponents are doing, and hope that the middle ground falls further in your interest than others.
  - msb 15y ago
    Unfortunately fifteen minute segments in which the opponent is given 75% of the talking time does not provide enough opportunity to create a strong defense. It was clear that any attempt to highlight the inaccuracy of Mr. Cotton's statements would have been met with interruption. Either that or you fall into a 'yes it does', 'no it doesn't' debate. I think the only successful response to "shutting down illegal foreign websites stealing american content" is to point to industry experts and other various authorities that claim SOPA goes beyond that goal. Hayes attempted to do this at one point, but was quickly contradicted by Cotton. At that point Alexis needed to reaffirm that Hayes was correct and hammer home the idea that the legislation is far from clear.
inmygarage 15y ago
A summary for those who don't have 18 minutes: 1. Excellent introduction and overview of the debate by Chris Hayes 2. NBC General Counsel makes three interesting (cringe-worthy) points: -jobs -this only applies to international sites -the internet is a lawless place 3. He is mostly shot down by Hayes who said if it really only applied to international rogue sites then people wouldn't be making such a big deal about it 4. Alexis makes the points: -the problem of piracy will best be solved by innovation, not legislation -the internet is not a "lawless" place and the DMCA is effective -"piracy is a service problem" ie, if you provide better access to information you will win 5. Random other dude chimes in and says the government did a massive study and can't conclusively say that piracy is killing jobs at all... the entertainment industry is actually growing 6. NBC GC talks a little bit more, mostly being hysterical about how piracy is rampant and terrible. Great job Alexis!!
- badclient 15y ago
  -"piracy is a service problem" ie, if you provide better access to information you will win I see this argument time and again and as much as I agree with it, it just doesn't sound very convincing to the mainstream argument against piracy. This is gonna be a huge-ass debate and HN, in some ways, is preparing ground for our folks. One of the things I hope we will do is be dicks and challenge the arguments laid out by folks we like and support, including Alexis, so that the next time they go on, they are better prepared. I know personally when I prepared for debates in debate class, I'd purpose take a completely opposite position to my own and try to crush my own arguments. It helped me lots - better me crushing nuances in my arguments than my opponents. To play devil's advocate, here's a counter: Indeed, piracy may be a service problem. But that does not keep it from also being an enforcement problem. Even in the best case scenario where we have optimal innovation, piracy will require enforcement. We believe there isn't enough of enforcement right now. This has little to do with innovation.
  - cbs 15y ago
    >Even in the best case scenario where we have optimal innovation, piracy will require enforcement. I disagree. Copyright, at least in the US, was created as a tool to encourage innovation. If innovation is at its maximum potential, there is no need for more enforcement.
jhck 15y ago
It's a shame that the "piracy is a matter of convenience" argument is dismissed so quickly. Living in the US you can easily get legal access to lots of creative content through the web, but for people outside of the US it's a different story.
- LocalPCGuy 15y ago
  Even in the US, with all the legal means to access content, I wouldn't say it is always convenient. Studios delay or prohibit sites from showing content, or require you already have a subscription to a participating cable company (which in many cases the consumer cannot control whether they are "participating"), before you can legally get access to much of the content. Compare this to the ability to download a movie literally days after it is in the theater, or a show hours after it shows on TV, and then to play it in whatever manner you choose, instead of being tied to a specific medium by the company producing the content (for instance, Google TV is blocked by many "approved" content websites, you HAVE to watch on your computer.) I'm not advocating the piracy, just showing how much more convenient it really is. And until the media companies start innovating in how the content is delivered and can be accessed, piracy will be appealing and more convenient. One of the biggest problems with ProtectIP/SOPA is that they would stifle the need for the media companies to innovate, which is exactly what they want. The media companies do not want to innovate or find better ways, they want the status quo from 10 years ago.
  - jcrites 15y ago
    I think the problem is the natural psychological reaction people have to price discrimination. For example, what if you could watch a movie online the day it's released, but it costs $50 per view? People would be upset about that, even though it's strictly in their interest by giving them an option they don't have today; it would also be enabling/creating competition in a "release-day download" market. Amazon ran experiments like this in the past, offering products at different prices over short periods of time, according to the person or according to market factors (supply). There was a huge community backlash against the idea that price discrimination might be going on. I don't know what the solution is, but I agree it would be vastly preferable to me if all content were available immediately and online at some price, even if it's a high price. It should never be arbitrarily unavailable.
mkolodny 15y ago
I love what Alexis is doing, but unfortunately I think Richard Cotton won this one. As someone who cares about the future of technology and the internet, I know that what Mr. Cotton said isn't true, that this legislation will not only affect foreign companies "wholesalely devoted to illegal content". Yet, as a consumer, I come away from that debate remembering little past the fact that the media companies and their supporters only want to go after these evil foreign websites. "Sure it might not work, but it doesn't mean we shouldn't try." We need to push a clear explanation of why and how this legislation does actually affect US companies in a negative and unjust way. I believe it does, but not having read the legislation (neither will 99.9% of Americans), I don't know exactly how, or why. SOPA supporters' strongest argument seems to be that this act will not harm lawful, job creating US companies. We need a concise explanation of how this harms US companies that is easy for the non-technical American to understand.
badclient 15y ago
My critique: "The internet is a lawless place." Alexis responds by citing DMCA. DMCA is probably the weakest thing to cite when trying to show that the Internet is already regulated. How about citing all the myriad other laws that are applied everyday to prosecute and jail folks for fraud over the internet? You could literally make the guy look like a fool over that one word: lawless. The good thing is, this is such a common argument it will come up again and again. Just remember: everyday folks get arrested and prosecuted for crime over the internet; is that common in a lawless place?
- nextparadigms 15y ago
  It should also be noted and remind everyone who says that the more chaotic and "lawless" nature of the Internet is also what helps innovation to thrive on it. It should be said that you can't have one without the other.
cal5k 15y ago
That was absolutely frustrating to watch. Alexis is a well-spoken guy with cogent points to make, but I think he was outmatched in that debate by a guy with way more media experience. Richard Cotton stuck to his deceptive, populist talking points ("jobs", "wholesale theft", "will not affect a single US site") to great effect. Alexis will get better as he continues to appear in the media, and I'm sure he's getting media coaching, but he needs to be more aggressive in, for example, telling Richard Cotton to shove it when he rudely interrupts. It's as simple as "Richard, Richard... I let you speak, now let me finish my point. The problem with..." Still, props to Alexis for actively fighting against these awful, awful bills!
- toyg 15y ago
  I don't think he was outmatched. If anything, he came out as a young, smart, polite guy running a successful business at the forefront of innovation -- the best America can offer, really. Cotton came out as the rich, smiling shark that he is, which makes smart people dismissive of anything he has to say. His very first line "let's make a step back: we are talking about jAAAAAbs" sounds like something any two-faced lying politician would say. He did get more airplay, because he was incredibly rude, but I don't expect anything less from an executive of the network that is producing the show in the first place (it was actually kinda ballsy for Hayes to tell him he was flat-out wrong). So, all in all, I don't think Alex should change much in his presentation; the only mistake he made, I think, was that he was too eager to push the "piracy is a service problem" soundbite before he had actually explained why that is the case.
  - palish 15y ago
    Cotton came out as the rich, smiling shark that he is, which makes smart people dismissive of anything he has to say. Most people, by definition, are closer to average or dumb. This war unfortunately requires convincing large numbers that SOPA is a really, really bad idea.
    - cabinguy 15y ago
      I don't want to disparage the masses with words like "dumb" but your comment does touch on a very important fact. The masses are moved by simple, but powerful themes. Cotton understands this and used it to his advantage. In my opinion, anti-SOPA debaters should stick to "Do we want to become like China?" ...and use it over and over and over.
dpapathanasiou 15y ago
Alexis is doing a fine job, but I'd really like to see Tim O'Reilly on these shows and appearing before Congress: http://gigaom.com/2012/01/13/tim-oreilly-why-im-fighting-sopa/ http://gigaom.com/2012/01/13/tim-oreilly-why-im-fighting-sop... Not only is he running a media company (which ostensibly should be in favor of SOPA), but also he's the same generation as the lawyers, lobbyists, and legislators supporting SOPA.
- freerobby 15y ago
  Agree with this completely, nobody is more qualified to talk about piracy than the guy who went to open formats, anti-DRM, etc. and is still growing his publishing business year after year.
- cbs 15y ago
  O'Reilly is able to hold the position he does because he publishes high quality work. If you walk into a bookstore knowing nothing other than you need a book on Subject X, the book you walk out with will probably have a pen and ink animal drawn on the cover. Most other creators are just churning out low rate disposable content. Their business models are struggling under the legal alternatives the internet has come to offer, just look at what happened to newspapers. Now that distribution is solved, competition has sky-rocketed and they're fighting a market that wants to show them just how little their product is worth these days. Steam may be the internet distribution posterboy, but think of any other type of media producer who looks at steam. There are rock bottom prices on everything that isn't a AAA title released in the last 6 months. They're stuck fighting the new marketplace realities, they can't afford to see piracy in the periphery (like O'Reilly can), so they do the one thing they know how to: give cash to congress to make that problem go away.
  - mkr-hn 15y ago
    This is exactly how I got the PHP reference that's sitting next to me when I walked into the bookstore years ago. I didn't even know who O'Reilly was then, but the book was clear and easy to understand.
  - Natsu 15y ago
arthurgibson 15y ago
Mr. Cotton is stuck in the brick and mortar business mode. He clearly does not understand that the Internet has no borders. He is "wholesale" lumping every international web site into this pot of illegal activity. Why didn't NBC bring a VP or media exec on?
- thirsteh 15y ago
  Richard Cotton is general council AND EVP of NBCUniversal: http://www.nbcuni.com/corporate/management/senior-corporate-executives/nbc-universal/richard-cotton http://www.nbcuni.com/corporate/management/senior-corporate-...
nohat 15y ago
So is there a good explanation (link to those lawyer analyses mentioned by Hayes perhaps) of specifically how US sites are affected? My understanding is that if someone posts a circumvention method (eg. link to new domain) then the site on which it was posted have liability. Is this correct?
marcamillion 15y ago
Honestly...I kinda feel like Alexis could have been more 'technically prepared'. i.e. he should have been able to specifically point to clauses that he disagrees with and why.
- Nrsolis 15y ago
  I dont agree. He should have fought fire with fire and connected their attempt to fight online piracy with the intrusive methods used by the large media companies to control content. For example, how the media companies force you to watch commercials that can't be skipped when you purchase a DVD. People HATE those and using that as an example of a world where SOPA/PIPA are the law of the land would win a few points. He should have also been much more forceful or accusatory and mounted a good offense that Cotton would have been forced to defend against. This is an effective debating strategy, nearly equivalent to the question "when did you stop beating your wife" and can totally change the win/loss column. But the BEST way to frame this debate is to discuss how INTRUSIVE the methods will be. The ISPs will HAVE to install means of monitoring everything that is done online in order to protect themselves from liability. This same technology, once installed, could be used to block access to offshore poker/gambling sites and that it s HUGE business in the US. There is literally NO END to the kinds of disfavored businesses or information sources that could be censored and if you don't know about them, then its likely to completely change the open nature of the Internet. Making the point that this censorship regime would look exactly like China's Great Firewall is effective. For all intensive technological purposes, the two are the same.
  - marcamillion 15y ago
    Well....sounds like you are agreeing with me. I said I didn't think he was well prepared enough. He should have spoken about SPECIFIC issues. i.e. highlighted SPECIFIC ways the legislation recommends that things will be implemented, or other specific ways that the internet (and our way of life) will be impacted via language found in the legislation. None of which he did. I felt like that could have been me talking - when it shouldn't have felt like that. It should have felt like someone that is intimately familiar with the legislation and have talking points about why it is bad with specific examples. i.e. what you said :)
swanson 15y ago
I have to ask, what is the rebuttal to Richard Cotton's assertion that this only effects "wholesale piracy websites outside the USA"? Because no one seemed to be able to come up with one on the show - which is disturbing since I would think the opposition would have a strong counter argument to this. People (on the show and in this thread) keep saying that what Cotton said isn't true and is deceptive - but where are the factual arguments?
- jcrites 15y ago
  I agree. I found it unusual that so many people are claiming it's not true, but without citing any facts. Upon some brief research (Wikipedia), it seems that Cotton's claims are true: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Online_Piracy_Act#Contents http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Online_Piracy_Act#Contents "The bill would authorize the U.S. Department of Justice to seek court orders against websites outside U.S. jurisdiction accused of infringing on copyrights, or of enabling or facilitating copyright infringement" A court finding that a site is facilitating copyright infringement seems like a high bar to meet.
- pingswept 15y ago
  The rebuttal is this: The bill defines "foreign infringing sites" as those infringing sites that have their domains registered outside the US, are "US-directed" and "used by users in the United States." This would include, for example, all the sites that use Libya's top-level domain, like bit.ly, but would not include a site like thepiratebay.org, as the US controls the .org top-level domain. You can check that this is true by reading Sec. 101.3-8 and Sec. 102.1.a. (13 lines of text in total) on the Library of Congress website here: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.3261: This doesn't address whether a site is "infringing" or not, but it makes it clear that sites that most people would consider US websites, like bit.ly, can certainly be affected by the bill. Cotton's argument that only foreign sites will be affected is bogus, when you look at the details of what "foreign" means.
  - swanson 15y ago
    You link isn't working for me - but I will take your word. That is an interesting point and seems simple enough for most people to understand, I wonder why it wasn't brought up. Do you know any details about the "wholesale piracy" portion of the claim? Is it just a matter of setting a dangerous precedent (who defines "wholesale", etc) or is there a more concrete counterpoint in the bill?
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
jaekwon 15y ago
"This legislation specifically says there can be no secondary liability. The only thing that can happen pursuant to a court order is that an ad network, a credit card company, or a search engine has to respond with respect to a specific site that has been adjudicated by the court to be wholesale..." Search is a commodity. Look at the bottom of HackerNews. HackerNews is also a search engine. It seems that there can be no secondary liability because SOPA basically addresses all of the internet as we know it. Also, what is to stop Google and other sites opposing SOPA from simply blocking results to NBC and SOPA supporters? Throw them off the internet and let them taste a bit of what they're asking for! Don't we have the right and ability to do so?
nextparadigms 15y ago
Alexis has done a great deal to help fight against SOPA and his company Reddit was one of the very first to schedule a blackout, but I don't think he's the right guy to fight this on TV and in the long term. We need someone like Doctorow, Rick Falkvinge, John Perry Barlow, or Tim O'Reilly to keep fighting this on TV and in debates. We need someone who can argue philosophically against bills like SOPA and PIPA, and someone who has studied the bills well enough to be able to defend and attack every single point SOPA-supporters can make. Reddit and Google will only be able to keep fighting this as long as it directly impacts them. There needs to be someone to argue against SOPA even after they say it doesn't affect US sites. Just because it doesn't affect US sites, doesn't mean it still won't break the Internet if it shuts down foreign sites with little due process. Also, if I'm not mistaken, SOPA also makes copyright infringement a felony, which I believe is a first in US law. It also makes the service provider responsible for the user's content. Again, this is unacceptable. There are more examples like these in the bill, so there are other reasons besides the DNS provision why this bill is bad. Someone needs to study it properly and challenge them.
citricsquid 15y ago
Honestly, the host was awful (constant stammering) and that combined with Alexis's naivety (with regards to how to present points) made the opposition argument completely worthless. If I had no knowledge of why SOPA is bad I would have come away from that video with the opinion that SOPA is fine... I'm not sure why in any broadcast I've seen someone doesn't give examples, why doesn't someone opposing SOPA say that "If a person goes to Facebook and posts a link to thepiratebay.org then Warner Brothers can request Facebook be taken offline"? Surely that is more than enough to explain the problem.
- thebigshane 15y ago
  No one says that, because no one on TV believes that. I don't believe Alexis Ohanian believes that either. 1) thepiratebay isn't targeted by SOPA. 2) Facebook isn't a foreign site, and not targeted by SOPA. 3) A court would have to agree that the site be taken down. 4) The entire site wouldn't be taken down because it isn't primary designed or operated to enable or facilitate infringement.
  - robryan 15y ago
    From that though it sounds like it is possible, given a judge willing to take some liberties with interpretation of SOPA. Unless it's explicitly not possible it's still fair game to suggest that the bill is opening up that possibility. Given that content producers do things like claim every pirated copy as lost income even though in reality they know this isn't the case I think taking the powers given by SOPA to the extreme case could be a good tool in the argument.
    - thebigshane 15y ago
      Wait, #2 and #4 would also have to be true for this to be possible. To answer your question, it's explicitly not possible, because Facebook.com is domestic and is not primarily designed or operated to enable or facilitate infringement.
djbender 15y ago
"A bill that you may have never heard of." :'(
- sage_joch 15y ago
  "... thanks largely to us."
  - earbitscom 15y ago
    At least he pretty much said thanks largely to us and people like us.
freerobby 15y ago
This post explains well the problems with Richard Cotton's argument: http://ammori.org/2011/12/31/sopapipa-copyright-bills-also-target-domestic-sites/ http://ammori.org/2011/12/31/sopapipa-copyright-bills-also-t...
djbender 15y ago
Lol at the diagram for Arpanet that was displayed.
iconfinder 15y ago
Can anybody who has knowledge about SOPA answer some questions for me? 1. Will the websites that are blocked by a result of SOPA only affect US citizens? 2. Can a foreign TLD such as .dk, .se etc. get blocked? 3. What happens if you use the IP-adress to ThePirateBay instead of the domain name?
- thebigshane 15y ago
  1. That's complicated. It only directly affects US citizens. But indirectly, foreign companies, websites etc could be affected. 2. Are you talking about the entire TLD? Then, no. If you are talking individual domains, then, yes, those are the targets of this bill. 3. ThePirateBay is exempt from SOPA DNS-blocking since it is a dot-org. IP-addresses are exempt of course from DNS-blocking. Plus, it looks like DNS-blocking has been pulled entirely from SOPA (but let's watch that play out). AFAIK no one is exempt from interfering with payments from advertising and payment processing companies.
- toyg 15y ago
  1. Who knows? It all depends on how they intend to implement this DNS blocking. I'd expect non-US ISPs would stop using any US-based root nameserver, circumventing the block. Considering most of entities taking care of the root zone are either American institutions or US-base multinationals, this would really pout a strain on the existing non-US infrastructure, but could actually result in a better designed network (i.e. less reliant on US bodies). 2. Yes, blocking access to foreign websites is the whole point of the legislation. Note that this would only mean that US-based users wouldn't be able to resolve your .dk, but everybody else (i.e. in Europe or Asia etc) would still be able to do it. 3. Good question. Again, this will depend on the technical implementation; I believe at the moment they're only talking about blocking DNS resolution. The minute they block IP-based connections, you basically have the Great Firewall of America in place.
walru 15y ago
Chris Hayes's introduction was excellent. The guy Alexis was up against is assine. He stuck to his talking points, as instructed, which many are blatantly incorrect, but were portrayed in a way that joe public is able to understand and get behind. During these kinds of talks, I'd like to see Alexis point out more how this is censorship in it's highest form, and list the reasons/examples why. Impassioned approaches are great, but the moment you step on the big stage you have to become cold blooded and go for the jugular. A big part of what I like about Alexis is that he's not that kind of guy. However, if he's going to be representing us in this fight then he needs to arm himself with the same drivel and talking points that his opponents have. Otherwise, he himself is just a tool to help drive home the point of the SOPA-PROS. It's because of the capricious nature of this bill that we are left with the prospects that this could be used as a method to squash speech deemed undesired by those with the power to control it. Pointing out a hypothetical case where someone in an elevated position, like Rupert Murdock, could have had (online/third party) magazines, who were reporting on their recent phone tapping scandal, shutdown for any number of reasons would be a perfect example. Many of us agree that piracy is primarily a service problem. The fact that Netflix makes up over 30% of the United States nightly internet traffic is proof. That's a whole lot of bandwidth that people are using because of the convenience. However, this can't be the only argument we make to say why this is poison legislation. That said, I'd also like to have the talk that this legislation is still easily circumvented not even mentioned. It's worth noting, but once again it can't be a talking point as to why this legislation is bad.
balloot 15y ago
After watching the video, it's clear that the argument of SOPA supporters is going to be "this will never affect US companies". Google and Facebook have come out very strongly against the bill, and I assume they did so not on a whim, but on the advice of very high priced and intelligent legal counsel who think these US companies WILL be affected. The NBC exec successfully skated around any scenario that may happen in which a US company gets punished due to SOPA. At the very end of the interview, the talk was getting there ("So Google HAS to take Pirate Bay down from search. What happens if it doesn't?") but the segment ended. We need someone to get out there and clearly enumerate the scenarios in which generally law-abiding US companies can get burned by SOPA. This was not accomplished in the interview.
patrickod 15y ago
On a similar vein: for those of you who have not yet seen it Cory Doctorow's talk "The coming war on general computing"[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUEvRyemKSg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUEvRyemKSg] is definitely worth viewing. The most dangerous part of SOPA in my opinion is not the damage it'll do immediately but the incredibly shortsighted legal precedent it'll make for future legalization to use as reference.
balloot 15y ago
So I'm going to play devil's advocate: The main talking point of the NBC exec is "This law will only effect foreign companies engaged in wholesale theft". It was never refuted on the interview, and I don't see it refuted in this comment thread anywhere. Is this actually true?
xenator 15y ago
I wonder how ppl watch tv. Every 5 minutes they makes a stop for adv block (even it is cut from online video). This makes my mind blowing. I know that this discussion is about more important thing but you "forced me" to spend time to it as I care about SOPA. But anyway I don't understand. TV is annoying and awful.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
jimmy_cheese 15y ago
Get in front of the camera as much as you can Alexis, great job for your first showing. Don't be afraid to show how passionate you are about the ramifications and the importance of freedom. Point out that it's the media companies that are eroding any goodwill that remains for them by criminalising their best customers instead of taking the opportunity to listen to them. Unless I'm very wrong, a majority of the audience will be people who both pirate at times and consume legal content when its easy and fairly priced. I think the average Joe would be against SOPA if they realised the ramifications - don't be afraid to point out horrible scenarious that could happen uner the letter fo the law, and don't accept "oh it would never realistically be used in that way". Make people realise what is being given away here.
plasma 15y ago
Unfortunately, like (every single debate ever?), there isn't enough time. A few people never got a chance to speak, Alexis is rightly looking a bit frustrated at not being able to respond at times. Why can't a debate last for 5 hours instead of 20 minutes? Then we could see the details explored further (such as the act supposedly not affecting US sites) instead of frustratingly brushed over due to time constraints.
robryan 15y ago
A good analogy could be a shopping center found to be renting a shop to a business selling some counterfeit products. The SOPA equivalent would be to cancel their ability to take further rent payments, remove their advertising ability and something akin to lockin the front gate people use to get in (the DNS block).
dotBen 15y ago
The video quality was poor at fullscreen but it looked like Alexis Ohanian was wearing a talkback earpiece in his left ear (does anyone else see it?) I'm wondering whether he was receiving a live brief from his counsel backstage during the debate? I doubt he'd be connected to the production room's on-set talkback system, even the host didn't seem to have talkback in his ear. EDIT: Talkback is the industry term for the closed radio connection between production room and studio floor where the host will receive timing cues, which camera to look at, etc.

233 points by sethbannon 15y ago

emehrkay 15y ago

Richard Cotton had talking points and stuck to them.

notatoad 15y ago
i especially liked how he kept pushing the same two lines over and over again, but as soon as alexis came close to saying any sort of soundbyte he just yells out "sloganeering doesn't help anything".
- Nrsolis 15y ago
  Cotton was used to the environment where he knows there is a limited amount of time to make his case to the public. He (attempted to) connect it with a subject they care about (jobs) and then did everything he could to shut down any substantive exchange on the issue by talking over Alexis. Within the limited amount of time available, Cotton got more of his message across than Alexis. I feel like I should be uploading episodes of 30 Rock to every site I can find just to even things out.
cbo 15y ago
No one likes the tactic of interrupting every dissenting opinion, but without a doubt it's extremely effective. I know that having everyone at podiums or at a table is a very human thing for debates, making them seem like they're open discussions, but tactics like this prevent such discussions, and are fairly obnoxious for people who are actually trying to listen. I'd rather just put everyone in sound booths with cameras and then mute them when it's not their turn.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

yangez 15y ago

"This legislation specifically says there can be no secondary liability [to US-based sites]." - Richard Cotton. Then he contradicts himself 15 seconds later. Is Richard Cotton a liar or just ignorant?

Nrsolis 15y ago
He's a lawyer. Does that answer your question?
thebigshane 15y ago
Neither, just non-specific. US-based companies are forced to comply with take-down requests after X (5?) days, but SOPA explicitly says that they are not required to filter or monitor for potential infringement.

RandallBrown 15y ago

I'm really surprised how rude Richard Cotton was. It doesn't matter what anyone else was saying, he would just interrupt and tell them they were wrong.

ericb 15y ago
It strikes me that he is deliberately lying and pretending SOPA actually says only something that more people would support, ie "shutting down illegal foreign websites stealing american content." I suspect that someone at his level who is speaking publicly on the issue knows exactly what is in this bill. After all, it is his lobbying money that is buying the bill in the first place. How can Alexis defend against this bald-faced lie in future debates? It seems like a tough thing to defend against.
- dpeck 15y ago
  This is something that those against SOPA and other measures are going to have to get better at. He knows he's lying (or "framing"), he's had years of practice at it. Alexis and others speaking for the technology sector don't. In general they tend to be somewhat humble, confident, and mostly honest people. The success they've had in their lives has been built on the work of countless others and there is a certain amount of deference and pragmatism even in our brightest and accomplished spokespeople. This needs to change. There is an art to hyperbole, and as much as it makes us all cringe, we need to start engaging in it and framing the argument in a way that will get the visceral juices flowing a bit. "This bill will cause Facebook to delete your account and any of your friends if you post a video", "This bill will force youtube to delete all the videos you took at your childs birthday party", etc. You lose the argument when you accept a compromise when starting from the position you want to finish in. You have to pull back much further, like SOPA proponents are doing, and hope that the middle ground falls further in your interest than others.
- msb 15y ago
  Unfortunately fifteen minute segments in which the opponent is given 75% of the talking time does not provide enough opportunity to create a strong defense. It was clear that any attempt to highlight the inaccuracy of Mr. Cotton's statements would have been met with interruption. Either that or you fall into a 'yes it does', 'no it doesn't' debate. I think the only successful response to "shutting down illegal foreign websites stealing american content" is to point to industry experts and other various authorities that claim SOPA goes beyond that goal. Hayes attempted to do this at one point, but was quickly contradicted by Cotton. At that point Alexis needed to reaffirm that Hayes was correct and hammer home the idea that the legislation is far from clear.

inmygarage 15y ago

A summary for those who don't have 18 minutes: 1. Excellent introduction and overview of the debate by Chris Hayes 2. NBC General Counsel makes three interesting (cringe-worthy) points: -jobs -this only applies to international sites -the internet is a lawless place 3. He is mostly shot down by Hayes who said if it really only applied to international rogue sites then people wouldn't be making such a big deal about it 4. Alexis makes the points: -the problem of piracy will best be solved by innovation, not legislation -the internet is not a "lawless" place and the DMCA is effective -"piracy is a service problem" ie, if you provide better access to information you will win 5. Random other dude chimes in and says the government did a massive study and can't conclusively say that piracy is killing jobs at all... the entertainment industry is actually growing 6. NBC GC talks a little bit more, mostly being hysterical about how piracy is rampant and terrible. Great job Alexis!!

badclient 15y ago
-"piracy is a service problem" ie, if you provide better access to information you will win I see this argument time and again and as much as I agree with it, it just doesn't sound very convincing to the mainstream argument against piracy. This is gonna be a huge-ass debate and HN, in some ways, is preparing ground for our folks. One of the things I hope we will do is be dicks and challenge the arguments laid out by folks we like and support, including Alexis, so that the next time they go on, they are better prepared. I know personally when I prepared for debates in debate class, I'd purpose take a completely opposite position to my own and try to crush my own arguments. It helped me lots - better me crushing nuances in my arguments than my opponents. To play devil's advocate, here's a counter: Indeed, piracy may be a service problem. But that does not keep it from also being an enforcement problem. Even in the best case scenario where we have optimal innovation, piracy will require enforcement. We believe there isn't enough of enforcement right now. This has little to do with innovation.
- cbs 15y ago
  >Even in the best case scenario where we have optimal innovation, piracy will require enforcement. I disagree. Copyright, at least in the US, was created as a tool to encourage innovation. If innovation is at its maximum potential, there is no need for more enforcement.

jhck 15y ago

It's a shame that the "piracy is a matter of convenience" argument is dismissed so quickly. Living in the US you can easily get legal access to lots of creative content through the web, but for people outside of the US it's a different story.

LocalPCGuy 15y ago
Even in the US, with all the legal means to access content, I wouldn't say it is always convenient. Studios delay or prohibit sites from showing content, or require you already have a subscription to a participating cable company (which in many cases the consumer cannot control whether they are "participating"), before you can legally get access to much of the content. Compare this to the ability to download a movie literally days after it is in the theater, or a show hours after it shows on TV, and then to play it in whatever manner you choose, instead of being tied to a specific medium by the company producing the content (for instance, Google TV is blocked by many "approved" content websites, you HAVE to watch on your computer.) I'm not advocating the piracy, just showing how much more convenient it really is. And until the media companies start innovating in how the content is delivered and can be accessed, piracy will be appealing and more convenient. One of the biggest problems with ProtectIP/SOPA is that they would stifle the need for the media companies to innovate, which is exactly what they want. The media companies do not want to innovate or find better ways, they want the status quo from 10 years ago.
- jcrites 15y ago
  I think the problem is the natural psychological reaction people have to price discrimination. For example, what if you could watch a movie online the day it's released, but it costs $50 per view? People would be upset about that, even though it's strictly in their interest by giving them an option they don't have today; it would also be enabling/creating competition in a "release-day download" market. Amazon ran experiments like this in the past, offering products at different prices over short periods of time, according to the person or according to market factors (supply). There was a huge community backlash against the idea that price discrimination might be going on. I don't know what the solution is, but I agree it would be vastly preferable to me if all content were available immediately and online at some price, even if it's a high price. It should never be arbitrarily unavailable.

mkolodny 15y ago

I love what Alexis is doing, but unfortunately I think Richard Cotton won this one. As someone who cares about the future of technology and the internet, I know that what Mr. Cotton said isn't true, that this legislation will not only affect foreign companies "wholesalely devoted to illegal content". Yet, as a consumer, I come away from that debate remembering little past the fact that the media companies and their supporters only want to go after these evil foreign websites. "Sure it might not work, but it doesn't mean we shouldn't try." We need to push a clear explanation of why and how this legislation does actually affect US companies in a negative and unjust way. I believe it does, but not having read the legislation (neither will 99.9% of Americans), I don't know exactly how, or why. SOPA supporters' strongest argument seems to be that this act will not harm lawful, job creating US companies. We need a concise explanation of how this harms US companies that is easy for the non-technical American to understand.

badclient 15y ago

My critique: "The internet is a lawless place." Alexis responds by citing DMCA. DMCA is probably the weakest thing to cite when trying to show that the Internet is already regulated. How about citing all the myriad other laws that are applied everyday to prosecute and jail folks for fraud over the internet? You could literally make the guy look like a fool over that one word: lawless. The good thing is, this is such a common argument it will come up again and again. Just remember: everyday folks get arrested and prosecuted for crime over the internet; is that common in a lawless place?

nextparadigms 15y ago
It should also be noted and remind everyone who says that the more chaotic and "lawless" nature of the Internet is also what helps innovation to thrive on it. It should be said that you can't have one without the other.

cal5k 15y ago

That was absolutely frustrating to watch. Alexis is a well-spoken guy with cogent points to make, but I think he was outmatched in that debate by a guy with way more media experience. Richard Cotton stuck to his deceptive, populist talking points ("jobs", "wholesale theft", "will not affect a single US site") to great effect. Alexis will get better as he continues to appear in the media, and I'm sure he's getting media coaching, but he needs to be more aggressive in, for example, telling Richard Cotton to shove it when he rudely interrupts. It's as simple as "Richard, Richard... I let you speak, now let me finish my point. The problem with..." Still, props to Alexis for actively fighting against these awful, awful bills!

toyg 15y ago
I don't think he was outmatched. If anything, he came out as a young, smart, polite guy running a successful business at the forefront of innovation -- the best America can offer, really. Cotton came out as the rich, smiling shark that he is, which makes smart people dismissive of anything he has to say. His very first line "let's make a step back: we are talking about jAAAAAbs" sounds like something any two-faced lying politician would say. He did get more airplay, because he was incredibly rude, but I don't expect anything less from an executive of the network that is producing the show in the first place (it was actually kinda ballsy for Hayes to tell him he was flat-out wrong). So, all in all, I don't think Alex should change much in his presentation; the only mistake he made, I think, was that he was too eager to push the "piracy is a service problem" soundbite before he had actually explained why that is the case.
- palish 15y ago
  Cotton came out as the rich, smiling shark that he is, which makes smart people dismissive of anything he has to say. Most people, by definition, are closer to average or dumb. This war unfortunately requires convincing large numbers that SOPA is a really, really bad idea.
  - cabinguy 15y ago
    I don't want to disparage the masses with words like "dumb" but your comment does touch on a very important fact. The masses are moved by simple, but powerful themes. Cotton understands this and used it to his advantage. In my opinion, anti-SOPA debaters should stick to "Do we want to become like China?" ...and use it over and over and over.

dpapathanasiou 15y ago

Alexis is doing a fine job, but I'd really like to see Tim O'Reilly on these shows and appearing before Congress: http://gigaom.com/2012/01/13/tim-oreilly-why-im-fighting-sopa/ http://gigaom.com/2012/01/13/tim-oreilly-why-im-fighting-sop... Not only is he running a media company (which ostensibly should be in favor of SOPA), but also he's the same generation as the lawyers, lobbyists, and legislators supporting SOPA.

freerobby 15y ago
Agree with this completely, nobody is more qualified to talk about piracy than the guy who went to open formats, anti-DRM, etc. and is still growing his publishing business year after year.
cbs 15y ago
O'Reilly is able to hold the position he does because he publishes high quality work. If you walk into a bookstore knowing nothing other than you need a book on Subject X, the book you walk out with will probably have a pen and ink animal drawn on the cover. Most other creators are just churning out low rate disposable content. Their business models are struggling under the legal alternatives the internet has come to offer, just look at what happened to newspapers. Now that distribution is solved, competition has sky-rocketed and they're fighting a market that wants to show them just how little their product is worth these days. Steam may be the internet distribution posterboy, but think of any other type of media producer who looks at steam. There are rock bottom prices on everything that isn't a AAA title released in the last 6 months. They're stuck fighting the new marketplace realities, they can't afford to see piracy in the periphery (like O'Reilly can), so they do the one thing they know how to: give cash to congress to make that problem go away.
- mkr-hn 15y ago
  This is exactly how I got the PHP reference that's sitting next to me when I walked into the bookstore years ago. I didn't even know who O'Reilly was then, but the book was clear and easy to understand.
- Natsu 15y ago

arthurgibson 15y ago

Mr. Cotton is stuck in the brick and mortar business mode. He clearly does not understand that the Internet has no borders. He is "wholesale" lumping every international web site into this pot of illegal activity. Why didn't NBC bring a VP or media exec on?

thirsteh 15y ago
Richard Cotton is general council AND EVP of NBCUniversal: http://www.nbcuni.com/corporate/management/senior-corporate-executives/nbc-universal/richard-cotton http://www.nbcuni.com/corporate/management/senior-corporate-...

nohat 15y ago

So is there a good explanation (link to those lawyer analyses mentioned by Hayes perhaps) of specifically how US sites are affected? My understanding is that if someone posts a circumvention method (eg. link to new domain) then the site on which it was posted have liability. Is this correct?

marcamillion 15y ago

Honestly...I kinda feel like Alexis could have been more 'technically prepared'. i.e. he should have been able to specifically point to clauses that he disagrees with and why.

Nrsolis 15y ago
I dont agree. He should have fought fire with fire and connected their attempt to fight online piracy with the intrusive methods used by the large media companies to control content. For example, how the media companies force you to watch commercials that can't be skipped when you purchase a DVD. People HATE those and using that as an example of a world where SOPA/PIPA are the law of the land would win a few points. He should have also been much more forceful or accusatory and mounted a good offense that Cotton would have been forced to defend against. This is an effective debating strategy, nearly equivalent to the question "when did you stop beating your wife" and can totally change the win/loss column. But the BEST way to frame this debate is to discuss how INTRUSIVE the methods will be. The ISPs will HAVE to install means of monitoring everything that is done online in order to protect themselves from liability. This same technology, once installed, could be used to block access to offshore poker/gambling sites and that it s HUGE business in the US. There is literally NO END to the kinds of disfavored businesses or information sources that could be censored and if you don't know about them, then its likely to completely change the open nature of the Internet. Making the point that this censorship regime would look exactly like China's Great Firewall is effective. For all intensive technological purposes, the two are the same.
- marcamillion 15y ago
  Well....sounds like you are agreeing with me. I said I didn't think he was well prepared enough. He should have spoken about SPECIFIC issues. i.e. highlighted SPECIFIC ways the legislation recommends that things will be implemented, or other specific ways that the internet (and our way of life) will be impacted via language found in the legislation. None of which he did. I felt like that could have been me talking - when it shouldn't have felt like that. It should have felt like someone that is intimately familiar with the legislation and have talking points about why it is bad with specific examples. i.e. what you said :)

swanson 15y ago

I have to ask, what is the rebuttal to Richard Cotton's assertion that this only effects "wholesale piracy websites outside the USA"? Because no one seemed to be able to come up with one on the show - which is disturbing since I would think the opposition would have a strong counter argument to this. People (on the show and in this thread) keep saying that what Cotton said isn't true and is deceptive - but where are the factual arguments?

jcrites 15y ago
I agree. I found it unusual that so many people are claiming it's not true, but without citing any facts. Upon some brief research (Wikipedia), it seems that Cotton's claims are true: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Online_Piracy_Act#Contents http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Online_Piracy_Act#Contents "The bill would authorize the U.S. Department of Justice to seek court orders against websites outside U.S. jurisdiction accused of infringing on copyrights, or of enabling or facilitating copyright infringement" A court finding that a site is facilitating copyright infringement seems like a high bar to meet.
pingswept 15y ago
The rebuttal is this: The bill defines "foreign infringing sites" as those infringing sites that have their domains registered outside the US, are "US-directed" and "used by users in the United States." This would include, for example, all the sites that use Libya's top-level domain, like bit.ly, but would not include a site like thepiratebay.org, as the US controls the .org top-level domain. You can check that this is true by reading Sec. 101.3-8 and Sec. 102.1.a. (13 lines of text in total) on the Library of Congress website here: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.3261: This doesn't address whether a site is "infringing" or not, but it makes it clear that sites that most people would consider US websites, like bit.ly, can certainly be affected by the bill. Cotton's argument that only foreign sites will be affected is bogus, when you look at the details of what "foreign" means.
- swanson 15y ago
  You link isn't working for me - but I will take your word. That is an interesting point and seems simple enough for most people to understand, I wonder why it wasn't brought up. Do you know any details about the "wholesale piracy" portion of the claim? Is it just a matter of setting a dangerous precedent (who defines "wholesale", etc) or is there a more concrete counterpoint in the bill?

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

jaekwon 15y ago

"This legislation specifically says there can be no secondary liability. The only thing that can happen pursuant to a court order is that an ad network, a credit card company, or a search engine has to respond with respect to a specific site that has been adjudicated by the court to be wholesale..." Search is a commodity. Look at the bottom of HackerNews. HackerNews is also a search engine. It seems that there can be no secondary liability because SOPA basically addresses all of the internet as we know it. Also, what is to stop Google and other sites opposing SOPA from simply blocking results to NBC and SOPA supporters? Throw them off the internet and let them taste a bit of what they're asking for! Don't we have the right and ability to do so?

nextparadigms 15y ago

Alexis has done a great deal to help fight against SOPA and his company Reddit was one of the very first to schedule a blackout, but I don't think he's the right guy to fight this on TV and in the long term. We need someone like Doctorow, Rick Falkvinge, John Perry Barlow, or Tim O'Reilly to keep fighting this on TV and in debates. We need someone who can argue philosophically against bills like SOPA and PIPA, and someone who has studied the bills well enough to be able to defend and attack every single point SOPA-supporters can make. Reddit and Google will only be able to keep fighting this as long as it directly impacts them. There needs to be someone to argue against SOPA even after they say it doesn't affect US sites. Just because it doesn't affect US sites, doesn't mean it still won't break the Internet if it shuts down foreign sites with little due process. Also, if I'm not mistaken, SOPA also makes copyright infringement a felony, which I believe is a first in US law. It also makes the service provider responsible for the user's content. Again, this is unacceptable. There are more examples like these in the bill, so there are other reasons besides the DNS provision why this bill is bad. Someone needs to study it properly and challenge them.

citricsquid 15y ago

Honestly, the host was awful (constant stammering) and that combined with Alexis's naivety (with regards to how to present points) made the opposition argument completely worthless. If I had no knowledge of why SOPA is bad I would have come away from that video with the opinion that SOPA is fine... I'm not sure why in any broadcast I've seen someone doesn't give examples, why doesn't someone opposing SOPA say that "If a person goes to Facebook and posts a link to thepiratebay.org then Warner Brothers can request Facebook be taken offline"? Surely that is more than enough to explain the problem.

thebigshane 15y ago
No one says that, because no one on TV believes that. I don't believe Alexis Ohanian believes that either. 1) thepiratebay isn't targeted by SOPA. 2) Facebook isn't a foreign site, and not targeted by SOPA. 3) A court would have to agree that the site be taken down. 4) The entire site wouldn't be taken down because it isn't primary designed or operated to enable or facilitate infringement.
- robryan 15y ago
  From that though it sounds like it is possible, given a judge willing to take some liberties with interpretation of SOPA. Unless it's explicitly not possible it's still fair game to suggest that the bill is opening up that possibility. Given that content producers do things like claim every pirated copy as lost income even though in reality they know this isn't the case I think taking the powers given by SOPA to the extreme case could be a good tool in the argument.
  - thebigshane 15y ago
    Wait, #2 and #4 would also have to be true for this to be possible. To answer your question, it's explicitly not possible, because Facebook.com is domestic and is not primarily designed or operated to enable or facilitate infringement.

djbender 15y ago

"A bill that you may have never heard of." :'(

sage_joch 15y ago
"... thanks largely to us."
- earbitscom 15y ago
  At least he pretty much said thanks largely to us and people like us.

freerobby 15y ago

This post explains well the problems with Richard Cotton's argument: http://ammori.org/2011/12/31/sopapipa-copyright-bills-also-target-domestic-sites/ http://ammori.org/2011/12/31/sopapipa-copyright-bills-also-t...

djbender 15y ago

Lol at the diagram for Arpanet that was displayed.

iconfinder 15y ago

Can anybody who has knowledge about SOPA answer some questions for me? 1. Will the websites that are blocked by a result of SOPA only affect US citizens? 2. Can a foreign TLD such as .dk, .se etc. get blocked? 3. What happens if you use the IP-adress to ThePirateBay instead of the domain name?

thebigshane 15y ago
1. That's complicated. It only directly affects US citizens. But indirectly, foreign companies, websites etc could be affected. 2. Are you talking about the entire TLD? Then, no. If you are talking individual domains, then, yes, those are the targets of this bill. 3. ThePirateBay is exempt from SOPA DNS-blocking since it is a dot-org. IP-addresses are exempt of course from DNS-blocking. Plus, it looks like DNS-blocking has been pulled entirely from SOPA (but let's watch that play out). AFAIK no one is exempt from interfering with payments from advertising and payment processing companies.
toyg 15y ago
1. Who knows? It all depends on how they intend to implement this DNS blocking. I'd expect non-US ISPs would stop using any US-based root nameserver, circumventing the block. Considering most of entities taking care of the root zone are either American institutions or US-base multinationals, this would really pout a strain on the existing non-US infrastructure, but could actually result in a better designed network (i.e. less reliant on US bodies). 2. Yes, blocking access to foreign websites is the whole point of the legislation. Note that this would only mean that US-based users wouldn't be able to resolve your .dk, but everybody else (i.e. in Europe or Asia etc) would still be able to do it. 3. Good question. Again, this will depend on the technical implementation; I believe at the moment they're only talking about blocking DNS resolution. The minute they block IP-based connections, you basically have the Great Firewall of America in place.

walru 15y ago

Chris Hayes's introduction was excellent. The guy Alexis was up against is assine. He stuck to his talking points, as instructed, which many are blatantly incorrect, but were portrayed in a way that joe public is able to understand and get behind. During these kinds of talks, I'd like to see Alexis point out more how this is censorship in it's highest form, and list the reasons/examples why. Impassioned approaches are great, but the moment you step on the big stage you have to become cold blooded and go for the jugular. A big part of what I like about Alexis is that he's not that kind of guy. However, if he's going to be representing us in this fight then he needs to arm himself with the same drivel and talking points that his opponents have. Otherwise, he himself is just a tool to help drive home the point of the SOPA-PROS. It's because of the capricious nature of this bill that we are left with the prospects that this could be used as a method to squash speech deemed undesired by those with the power to control it. Pointing out a hypothetical case where someone in an elevated position, like Rupert Murdock, could have had (online/third party) magazines, who were reporting on their recent phone tapping scandal, shutdown for any number of reasons would be a perfect example. Many of us agree that piracy is primarily a service problem. The fact that Netflix makes up over 30% of the United States nightly internet traffic is proof. That's a whole lot of bandwidth that people are using because of the convenience. However, this can't be the only argument we make to say why this is poison legislation. That said, I'd also like to have the talk that this legislation is still easily circumvented not even mentioned. It's worth noting, but once again it can't be a talking point as to why this legislation is bad.

balloot 15y ago

After watching the video, it's clear that the argument of SOPA supporters is going to be "this will never affect US companies". Google and Facebook have come out very strongly against the bill, and I assume they did so not on a whim, but on the advice of very high priced and intelligent legal counsel who think these US companies WILL be affected. The NBC exec successfully skated around any scenario that may happen in which a US company gets punished due to SOPA. At the very end of the interview, the talk was getting there ("So Google HAS to take Pirate Bay down from search. What happens if it doesn't?") but the segment ended. We need someone to get out there and clearly enumerate the scenarios in which generally law-abiding US companies can get burned by SOPA. This was not accomplished in the interview.

patrickod 15y ago

On a similar vein: for those of you who have not yet seen it Cory Doctorow's talk "The coming war on general computing"[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUEvRyemKSg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUEvRyemKSg] is definitely worth viewing. The most dangerous part of SOPA in my opinion is not the damage it'll do immediately but the incredibly shortsighted legal precedent it'll make for future legalization to use as reference.

balloot 15y ago

So I'm going to play devil's advocate: The main talking point of the NBC exec is "This law will only effect foreign companies engaged in wholesale theft". It was never refuted on the interview, and I don't see it refuted in this comment thread anywhere. Is this actually true?

xenator 15y ago

I wonder how ppl watch tv. Every 5 minutes they makes a stop for adv block (even it is cut from online video). This makes my mind blowing. I know that this discussion is about more important thing but you "forced me" to spend time to it as I care about SOPA. But anyway I don't understand. TV is annoying and awful.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

jimmy_cheese 15y ago

Get in front of the camera as much as you can Alexis, great job for your first showing. Don't be afraid to show how passionate you are about the ramifications and the importance of freedom. Point out that it's the media companies that are eroding any goodwill that remains for them by criminalising their best customers instead of taking the opportunity to listen to them. Unless I'm very wrong, a majority of the audience will be people who both pirate at times and consume legal content when its easy and fairly priced. I think the average Joe would be against SOPA if they realised the ramifications - don't be afraid to point out horrible scenarious that could happen uner the letter fo the law, and don't accept "oh it would never realistically be used in that way". Make people realise what is being given away here.

plasma 15y ago

Unfortunately, like (every single debate ever?), there isn't enough time. A few people never got a chance to speak, Alexis is rightly looking a bit frustrated at not being able to respond at times. Why can't a debate last for 5 hours instead of 20 minutes? Then we could see the details explored further (such as the act supposedly not affecting US sites) instead of frustratingly brushed over due to time constraints.

robryan 15y ago

A good analogy could be a shopping center found to be renting a shop to a business selling some counterfeit products. The SOPA equivalent would be to cancel their ability to take further rent payments, remove their advertising ability and something akin to lockin the front gate people use to get in (the DNS block).

dotBen 15y ago

The video quality was poor at fullscreen but it looked like Alexis Ohanian was wearing a talkback earpiece in his left ear (does anyone else see it?) I'm wondering whether he was receiving a live brief from his counsel backstage during the debate? I doubt he'd be connected to the production room's on-set talkback system, even the host didn't seem to have talkback in his ear. EDIT: Talkback is the industry term for the closed radio connection between production room and studio floor where the host will receive timing cues, which camera to look at, etc.