15 ms·

The next SOPA

558 points by dpkendal 15y ago

daintynews 15y ago
I think it would be good if only registered voters can give campaign money to candidates. If they want to call it donations, then so be it. BUT only registered voters can give donations as well.
nostromo 15y ago
Campaign finance reform is not a panacea. I notice that it's popular to blame money in politics for everything. Don't like a bill? Any bill? Obviously corrupt politicians are bought and paid for! Why else would they vote for such junk, right? Wrong. SOPA and PIPA to a congressperson and to a large number of ordinary people make sense. The internet seems like a lawless place. To lawmakers, this is infuriating. People in government, left and right, believe in government solutions to most problems. Otherwise why would they work in government? As in most professions, there is a strong bias for action. Action feels like progress, even when the cure is worse than the disease. Even if you got every dollar out of politics you will always see this pattern: lawmakers have one tool, instead of a hammer it's legislation, and all the world looks like a nail.
- ypcx 15y ago
  That is a flawed reasoning. Campaign donations and revolving doors are the plague of democracy. Politicians are here to work for us and to listen to us - they are supposed to be our servants, with all due dignity and respect. Today's politics is completely driven by interest groups, and this must end. This is not 1800's. We have information technology at our disposal and we can make the politics transparent, the democracy direct, and the system work for us. And so will we.
  - nostromo 15y ago
    This week a very powerful interest group killed SOPA and PIPA and HN cheered. "Special interest groups" seem to always be defined as "any interest other than my own." Politicians like the term because some people hear it and think "bankers" while other people hear it and think "gays and tree huggers."
    - mikeknoop 15y ago
      Your point is intriguing (addressing only your first two lines). I would say that special interest groups are not defined by how broadly the general population agrees their opinion (therefore, both entertainment conglomerate and internet conglomerate would count). Special interest groups have stereotypically obtained their goals by lobbying, donations, guaranteed positions, etc. On the other hand, this week, you had a special interest group achieving its goal by overwhelming support (more representative of a democracy). When someone talks negatively about special interest groups, it is because typically special interest groups have achieves their goals by disingenuous methods.
      - anamax 15y ago
        > Special interest groups have stereotypically obtained their goals by lobbying, donations, guaranteed positions, etc. You mean like AARP? > When someone talks negatively about special interest groups, it is because typically special interest groups have achieves their goals by disingenuous methods. Some supporting evidence would be nice. Here's a question - which side of the obamacare debate was "special interests"?
    - asmithmd1 15y ago
      It feels more to me that the reason for the change was due to true grassroots support - not an industry special interest group. Wikipedia highlighted the problem to "ordinary" users and they trusted that Wikipedia was more on their side than movie studios. Does anyone remember when the NRA was one of the most feared special interest groups? It used to be that if a representative crossed them they would have a tough election fight next time. It seems like "the internet" should flex it's muscles and fight against Lamar Smith's re-election. Getting him kicked out would get some attention.
    - deleted 15y ago
      [deleted]
    - gbhn 15y ago
      Good point. While there is such a thing as the "general interest," what it is is contested by definition. Also it is often quite difficult to figure out with enough detail to produce action. So it is unsurprising that special interests, who by definition are more organized and informed on the topic, tend to dominate public and political discussion. Hence the way to political power is to become part of a more powerful special interest coalition. (And by extension, the bigger and more powerful the coalition, the more right it has to speak for the general interest, as well.) In this case, I think the optimism of the Jan 18th actions is well placed. "Netizens" as a whole are extremely diverse, but there are definitely issues which can form a coalition, and it is absolutely crucial that this coalition be recognized as powerful, well-organized, possessed of deliberate and well-connected leadership, and deadly willing to play in heavy contact mode for its beliefs and priorities.
jczhang 15y ago
You know what Ron Paul would say about this... It's not campaign finance reform that's needed, its decreasing the power of the gov't to have so much power. That's the root cause, not the money.
vijayr 15y ago
One good thing that did come out of this - I can't remember people protesting so much, in a united way online, against any issue. Last year it was against oppressive regimes, this year it is against stupid bills. People are using the internet to protest, that is a good thing. Right now, it is more quantity than quality - hopefully that'll change too.
ramanujan 15y ago
Marco's heart is in the right place here, but campaign finance reform actually ends up disproportionately empowering media outlets. While various kinds of direct donations to candidates are capped or made more difficult by CFR, newspapers and television outlets aren't banned from writing stories on particular candidates, even up to the day or morning of the election. Because advertising can't happen, but articles can, newspaper coverage under CFR amounts to a (huge) in-kind contribution in the form of PR. And especially when it comes to the MPAA, many of its member companies own media outlets in addition to movie studios. Rupert Murdoch, for example, put the Wall Street Journal and Fox News to work in promoting SOPA/PIPA as that furthers the interests of 20th Century Fox. So because no conceivable campaign finance regulation is going to muzzle the Wall Street Journal or the New York Times during an election, we may have to look elsewhere to check the MPAA's power. I think it's going to have to be something like a souped up version of Xtranormal, which makes production of high quality movies just as easy as distribution of said movies. This isn't that unrealistic. Blogger made production and international distribution of high quality opinion possible with a few keystrokes, which led in part to the ongoing revenue collapse in print media. Video and audio are obviously much more complex on a frame-by-frame basis than text, but I have to believe that authoring tools can get far better than where they are. Make them web based, build in all kinds of samples and templates akin to blogger templates, use some of the new HTML5 toys to make authoring easier and easier. Most of the results will be terrible, but most blogs are terrible. As long as enough high quality open access audio/video content is produced, the MPAA/RIAA will start to face the same financial fate as print media. Producing a technically and ethically superior product will always be more effective in the long run than a boycott.
- lukifer 15y ago
  Have you seen Lawrence Lessig's plan [1]? It involves offering tax vouchers to citizens to spend on candidates who pledge to only raise funds via those vouchers. Plenty of money would be spent on candidates, it would just happen in a more flat, distributed fashion. Also? The current system already gives an immense amount of power to media companies; a huge sum of campaign finance contributions wind up in their coffers, and they have tremendous incentives to maximize controversy and conflict, indirectly forcing candidates to spend more and more on advertising. And at the end of the day, they still have a strong voice in creating self-fulfilling prophecies over who is "electable". [1] http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-december-13-2011/exclusive---lawrence-lessig-extended-interview-pt--2 http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-december-13-2011/exclu...
asdfasdghasdf 15y ago
"Their bills have had mixed success and usually die before being brought to a vote, but SOPA and PIPA came frighteningly close to becoming law. The internet-wide protest this week seems to have stalled their progress and probably killed them for now." Frighteningly close! One of them was almost scheduled for debate in the Senate! The other almost had a second round of markup in committee scheduled! The reaction to SOPA and PIPA was way overblown. Like the article says, this sort of thing happens all the time, and usually fizzles out. While this bill did have more co-sponsors than most, indicating support, it still only made it to the first verse of Schoolhouse Rock. Somehow it caught on as an Internet meme, though, and got inordinate attention. It was definitely for the best, though.
r00fus 15y ago
A boycott is only successful if you know who owns what. Short of selling my HDTV (which would be way popular with my family), I don't see how I can avoid MPAA content.
- umjames 15y ago
  You don't have to sell the TV, just don't watch movies on it. The harder part, is getting non-tech people to join your boycott. Good luck trying to tell people not to see the new Batman movie when it comes out. What would be good to know is if actors, directors, and other movie makers support the MPAA's actions. With the RIAA, you could sense that musicians often were at odds with the record companies that signed them. Is that the case with movies? Are there movie studios that don't support things like SOPA and PIPA? Maybe we'd have something if those people (if they exist) spoke out publicly against the MPAA.
  - chaz 15y ago
    I think you'll have to get rid of the TV. SOPA supporters include CBS, NBC, ABC, FOX, Viacom, ESPN, NFL, NBA, and the MLB. Also, the Directors Guild of America (DGA) and Screen Actors Guild (SAG) are supporters. The Writers Guild of America (WGA) does not support SOPA, however. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_organizations_with_official_stances_on_the_Stop_Online_Piracy_Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_organizations_with_offi... http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111213/17373717070/writers-guild-realizing-that-sopa-goes-too-far-union-support-censoring-internet-begins-to-crack.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111213/17373717070/writer...
  - r00fus 15y ago
    > You don't have to sell the TV, just don't watch movies on it. But the "content companies" don't only create movies. Now they own large swaths of normal TV. Disney owns ABC which owns ESPN. So every time you watch an advert on SportsCenter, you're funding Disney. The fact is, you can't win at this game. The way to win is to create an alternate funding mechanism (ie, campaign finance reform and/or owning your own congresscritters). The media cartel owns the (so called public) airwaves.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
the_paul 15y ago
A good way to support said finance reform is to follow Lessig's recommendation (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lawrence-lessig/on-the-significance-of-th_b_831166.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lawrence-lessig/on-the-signifi...) and help out Buddy Roemer's campaign.
mlapida 15y ago
My thoughts exactly. While cutting out watching movies on Netfilx and TV is going to be difficult, I most definitely wont be purchasing any movies on iTunes, at Best Buy or going to a theater to watch them. If the tech community could band together to boycott these three huge money makers for the MPAA, we might see better results.
- jiggy2011 15y ago
  To be honest it wouldn't make much difference , tech community is a small % of the population and it's members probably commit a much higher than average rate of piracy anyway. It would probably be more effective to stand outside a cinema waving banners.
aptimpropriety 15y ago
"It's not a waiting game, it's a game of poker. Lamar Smith has a royal flush and few people know it. SOPA may pass. It may not. He doesn't care, and it doesn't matter. The MPAA and RIAA started working on their legislative strategy to pass a new anti-piracy bill in late 2010. SOPA was designed to raise the noise. Everyone is playing right into the entertainment industries hand. The lobbyists are laughing manically at the ignorance of the mob. Even Wikipedia and reddit have played into it." http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/old7e/sopa_is_back_it_has_not_been_shelved_and_its/c3i9fqe http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/old7e/sopa_is_ba...
- untog 15y ago
  It irritates me that posts like that get so many upvotes on Reddit when they provide absolutely no evidence for what they say. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that it's incorrect, but it is speculation stated as fact.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
groggles 15y ago
Given that the author is Marco (and the article is on HN because it is from Marco Arment), I wonder what his boycott position is regarding Apple? Apple has a long history of supporting draconian IP policies, and has a business model built around controlling what you can do with what you bought. Financially Apple absolutely dwarfs the combined revenue of all of the MPAA realm. I don't mean to distract the conversation or hate on Apple, but it's a very pertinent question -- Marco and friends defend Apple's right to control their devices and their content, but are up in arms about media companies doing the same? Explain the reasoning why one company has the right to limit your freedoms while another doesn't? (*- I will happily provide numerous citations of both Marco defending Apple draconian policies, and Apple supporting jackboot government-backed IP protections)
- funkah 15y ago
  His bedrock assumption is that MPAA companies hate their customers, and that is why he suggests a boycott. But if you asked him the same thing about Apple, he would say that they like their customers, and want to delight them. You might not agree with him about whether these organizations really hold these stances toward their customers, but his argument flows from these two underlying assumptions.
- larrik 15y ago
  I'll throw my hat in the ring here. After I upvote you for starting a good discussion (which it seems few people ever do on HN). The MAJOR difference I see is that Apple does what it does, and doesn't hide behind a lobbying group to take the heat. They say "this is the way we are going to do this, because it is better." We may not agree, and I usually don't, but whatever. The movie studios, however, let the MPAA do all the dirty work and get all scorn. That way, MPAA == evil corporate mongers, while, say Warner Brothers == "ooh, Dark Knight Rising comes out this year!!!" Boycotting MPAA's member companies is a way to say we see through their crap, and aren't going to put up with it.
- daeken 15y ago
  DRM and hacker-unfriendly hardware protections are bad for the people using those products. Laws like SOPA are bad for everyone. It's quite possible to support Apple's lockdown without supporting the neutering of the internet.
Anechoic 15y ago
it would be more productive to significantly reduce or eliminate our support of the MPAA member companies starting today The problem is that any reduction in income to the studios would be spun as "fallout from pirates stealing our IP." Attacking campaign finance is the way to go. edit: spelling
- thebigshane 15y ago
  We (I'm speaking for the entire internet community, which is probably a bad thing to do) could also stop pirating as well. I mean it would be really something if everyone halved their entertainment budget and halved their "illegal downloads/sharing". That would be a significant message as well. It wouldn't be very easy to convince Joe SixPack, but it might be easier than true campaign finance reform.
  - thebigshane 15y ago
    Am I really being downvoted for suggesting people stop pirating?
    - wormwood28 15y ago
      The comical thing is that people do argue that infringement raises awareness of a product and thereby increases sales. Whether it's true or not, I don't know, but if so it would certainly be at cross purposes to a boycott.
    - groupthink 15y ago
      It seems to me that this solution simply isn't going to work- similar to asking criminals to stop stealing cars/ murdering people.
      - thebigshane 15y ago
        Hmm, my point is that if we can convince people to give less money to the MPAA (buying movies, movie tickets), we should also discourage pirating those same movies, to avoid the exact scenario Anechoic mentioned. I don't think its like asking criminals to not be criminals. I thinks more like: "if you want those bullies to pick on you less, try to act less like a dork". Some may feel like it would be betraying their values, but it really would give the bully less motivation to attack your values. But I agree its unlikely to happen.
paul9290 15y ago
It's a nice thought, but you have to get your cousin, third cousin, your parents, your grandparents and etc to boycott Hollywood too. How do you accomplish this when media is engrained in our daily lives & culture?
- oscardelben 15y ago
  You can get started without waiting for everyone else, and when they'll ask you why you act that way you'll tell them. We can't kill that industry in one week but you and I can start today and more people will join later. That's what's happened in the last years.
  - thebigshane 15y ago
    There's a backlash here though. I've actually stopped telling people I don't watch TV because there is now a "holier than thou" aura around it. I think most people hate how much they like TV, but if you mention how you just stopped TV all together, they think you are just rubbing it in, like you're better than them. Like the guy who always talks about he was just "hitting the gym". No one like that guy either. Any suggestions?
    - laglad 15y ago
      This is very true for any lifestyle decision that seems to suggest a more productive way of living to someone else. We naturally feel the need to have our lifestyle habits justified as the right choice. Any threat to that, is a threat to our egos. A better strategy would be to point out the progress (even if false) that someone is making in living a better life (less TV for example). If you can successfully plant that identity seed in their head, they will feel empowered to continue to cut back. The ego is a funny construct.
    - deleted 15y ago
      [deleted]
- rmc 15y ago
  One step at a time. There are lots of people engaged in ethical boycotts. This is not a new concept.
AdamFernandez 15y ago
A solution I don't see being discussed much is MPAA and RIAA disruption. This is occurring on some platforms like YouTube, iTunes, and Spotify. If artists no longer need to use them as a middleman, they will cease to have money and power. Startups that disrupt these two, and are more profitable for artists, could wipe out this whole issue.
- jiggy2011 15y ago
  afaik RIAA member labels are still making money from spotify and iTunes. Taking the youtube example though, I suppose legislation like SOPA could wipe them out and neuter them enough.
  - AdamFernandez 15y ago
    I agree they are making money from these platforms, but independent artists are also making money and getting exposure using these platforms that would have been impossible a decade ago. If something is created that is more effective for artists (and possibly gives them a bigger cut..see Louis C.K.), this would be quite effective.
    - jiggy2011 15y ago
      The only piece of the puzzle missing here is how would you finance the creation to begin with? I know a lot of the equipment has become cheaper but it's still expensive for an 18 year old kid to put in his garage. Not to mention the diverse skillset you would need to produce a record or movie. The record company being able to dangle an advance (not to mention the promotion and contacts they can hook them up with) seems a pretty good carrot to dangle and people like Louis C.K have probably made enough money to begin with to finance themselves. I also get a feeling from musicians that I have talked to that your not considered a "real" band unless you are signed to a major label, although I suppose that attitude can change over time. You almost need a VC type system for musicians but the issue is that most creatives don't really want to think of themselves as "businesspeople".
      - deleted 15y ago
jiggy2011 15y ago
I don't quite understand. Are people suggesting that congress considers legislation primarily based on campaign contributions and that this is the same for both main parties? So they will only go against legislation proposed by lobbyists if they feel the votes they would lose would outweigh the benefit of those contributions to their next campaign? If that is the case then I'm sorry to say but your entire government system is not fit for purpose. If that is not the case then you should be able to beat these bills with good reasoning and debate alone.
- api 15y ago
  It is the case. The U.S. congress basically runs on payola. You can buy any bill you want.
  - jiggy2011 15y ago
    If that is true then I'm amazed that a credible 3rd party has not yet surfaced that vowed to reform politics. Assuming even a half competent set of politicians they would be able to do an objectively better job since they would consider things on merits rather than contributions. Why do you need so much money to run a campaign anyway? Surely you could get the word out online and take donations from the public. Of course you would really need 2 parties so people could express their left or right wing beliefs.
    - TheSOB88 15y ago
      I don't understand your points at all - and your last sentence sounds ironic. Should I be taking you at face value? Anyways, your 3rd party situation has one pitfall: how would it get into power? The 2 party system's devisors have us beat; nobody believes an independent can even get elected. There's an enormous barrier to entry.
      - jiggy2011 15y ago
        No not intended to be ironic, just badly worded. What I meant was that I am surprised how important campaign contributions are in an age where it is fairly cheap to get your message across online and get people talking. After all the London riots were an example (albeit not a pleasant one) of how social networking etc can very quickly get people to take action. Hopefully you could get enough contributions from private citizens and small business to run an effective campaign. Regards the 2 parties point. It would be difficult to create a third party that would appeal to both liberals and conservatives so in reality you might need a 4th party also. I assume your suggesting that people wouldn't vote for a 3rd party because the media would tell everyone that they were unelectable and a wasted vote? Unfortunately I don't really have an answer for that question, the only way around it would be to hammer home just how bad the current system really is.
narrator 15y ago
As I suggested in an earlier thread, why is noone starting a copyright liberalization campaign? If there was a strong political coalition to limit the duration of copyright to 25 years, to limit the use of overly broad patents, etc. it would provide a counteracting force that would force the copyright holders to compromise "in the middle". Instead we are doing boycotts and strongly worded letters, which while helpful, does not really do enough to stop them from steamrolling along with their agenda.
- jerf 15y ago
  Everyone would diffusely benefit from copyright liberalization, but it isn't the top priority for anyone. A few people (in relative terms) greatly benefit from copyright extension, and it is their top priority. I'm not sure there's a form of government that avoids this problem, but representative republic certainly isn't one of them.
  - narrator 15y ago
    Maybe this was the reason the Pirate Party of Germany and Sweden were formed. Someone had to make it their top issue.
bambax 15y ago
> we’re not addressing the real problem: the MPAA’s buying power in Congress. This is a campaign finance problem. This is delusional at best. I'm from France, where campaigns are paid for by public money. France: the country that brought you Hadopi and where SOPA-like laws have been in place for a long time. This has nothing to do with campaign finance.
- TheCowboy 15y ago
  What do you think is the source of the problem in France? Maybe the way money influences politics is more so a problem here. I do think it is a stretch to say it is completely irrelevant, because it seems clear that it isn't.
  - bambax 15y ago
    You're right. To clarify, in the US, the problem is partly related to campaign finance, yes, because this vehicle is available to lobbyists to influence politicians. But my point is, if you remove this vehicle the problem doesn't go away, it just takes another form. And in fact I think it's good that it takes the form of campaign finance, because at least it's visible: you can see who gives how much money to which man / party / cause. And anyway, politicians don't care about "freedom"; they care about big companies, because they have dinner with CEOs; they care about "jobs" because they think that's what matters to their constituents. Solving campaign finance wouldn't change any of that.
snowwrestler 15y ago
But I like to watch movies. I think a lot of movies are great--great enough to pay for them. Why should I shoot myself in the foot to keep someone else from shooting me in the foot? This idea that the root cause of all bad legislation is political donations: it's wrong, and not supported by the data. The vast majority of political donations are made by people who are not lobbyists. No one raised more political money in the history of this nation than Barack Obama during his presidential campaign, and the letter from his administration helped kill the bills. How about Rep. Issa and Sen. Wyden? Guess what, they got into office by spending donated money as well. The problem isn't money, the problem is engagement. The tech industry, particularly on the Internet entrepreneurial side, has long prided itself on staying out of Washington. Well, now we see the consequence of that approach: it took a last-minute emergency OMG shitstorm to stop some bills--bills that could have easily been shaped, adjusted, or stopped much earlier if the industry had been engaged and paying attention. The U.S. government is participatory. It will respond to citizen wishes, but only if citizens actively and continuously make their wishes known. And it is inclusive. No matter how much you might think copyright should end, or that the MPAA should just go away forever and die, there are enough people who disagree with you that it's just not going to happen. Internet companies and advocates need to get comfortable with continuously engaging content companies in the legislative process, seeking common ground, and compromising. IP law is not a winnable war. It is an ongoing negotiation that must be managed forever.
- Dn_Ab 15y ago
  >This idea that the root cause of all bad legislation is political donations: it's wrong, and not supported by the data. The vast majority of political donations are made by people who are not lobbyists. You make a very bold statement without backing it with any line of reasoning or pointing to any supporting material. I am no expert in this matter so I can not know if you are wrong. But in an older thread someone posted this excellent talk by Lawrence Lessig: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ik1AK56FtVc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ik1AK56FtVc. It's well worth watching and counters your statement. His arguments are very well presented and reasoned. He also shows some supporting data. Given that, I cannot attribute much weight to your statement.
RexRollman 15y ago
Personally, I think we need to make it so that only registered voters can give money to candidates, with a maximum amount set per contributor. That would automatically disallow all direct contributions from corporations and prevent the rich from having more influence than the poor. (Of course, something like this would probably have to be a constitutional amendment, and I doubt that would ever happen.)
- TheSOB88 15y ago
  There's always a workaround - spending lots of money spread over different people's names, for instance. Of course, you'd have to buy the mules first, and that affects the efficiency, but cheating would still occur. But anyways, yeah, the hard part would be actually putting this into place. I mean, nobody in power would want this to happen. It would be bad for the lobbyists and bad for the congressmen. No incentive there, and much incentive to fight against it.
  - jedbrown 15y ago
    Lessig's suggestion would significantly increase the amount of money available to politicians relative to now. The difference is that it would all come in small dollar amounts to make politicians accountable to constituents instead of the corporations currently financing them. More money might conceivably be sufficient incentive for those in power to act.
  - nextparadigms 15y ago
    Yeah, you'd have to watch out for abuses. But the main point is to change the incentive for them to beg corporations for money. Making it illegal, and making it easier for normal individuals to donate would help switch that incentive from going to corporations to going to individuals.
- nextparadigms 15y ago
  I think that's a good idea. Limit campaign donations only to individuals and at a $1000 cap. No single individual, and especially corporations, should be able to dramatically influence the results by leveraging his wealth. Just like votes are equal, donations from everyone should be more or less equal, too. It would also remove the incentive for politicians to go and beg for the corporations' money. Basically, campaign donations should be more like Kickstarter. If enough people like your idea and support you with money, then you will have enough momentum and money anyway.
TomOfTTB 15y ago
I think he makes a valid point but then gets lost in emotionalism. Here’s the thing. They don’t hate you. The people who work at the companies that support the MPAA absolutely don’t hate you. They simply like themselves and like the money they’re getting now. If anything they’re afraid of you because they think you want to eliminate the way they make a living. The problem is people on the other side don’t agree on what they want. Some want media to be free, some want studios to die and artists and directors to find ways to get paid directly and some just want laws that aren’t as draconian as SOPA. So to the labels and the studios people like Mr. Arment are terrorizing them. Threatening to take their livelihood away while offering no alternative system. That’s why not supporting member companies won’t work. Because it just reinforces their fears. What technology companies and people who are passionate about technology really need to do is suggest an alternate solution. The world works in opposites. Republican/Democrat, Liberal/Conservative, and so on. The only way to deal with the labels is to create another side and coalesce around a common ideology. One that still allows the system that currently creates media to work but which allows people control over their media. Because the one thing Mr. Arment is absolutely right about is this: You haven’t won anything as of now. In fact, what you have done is sent a clear message that laws like SOPA need to be done under the radar from now on and that’s a step backwards not forwards.
- nextparadigms 15y ago
  They might not hate you, but they are surely trying to criminalize pretty much everyone who comes even close to infringing anything.
- ghshephard 15y ago
  Actually, I've thought about this, and I'm pretty sure the MPAA Hates their customers, and, given a choice, if they could get their money without having to deal with customers, would prefer to do so. I'm not saying the actors, and the grips, and the makeup people, Hate me _personally_ - but the commercial organizations they represent, as a collective, hate the fact that I'm an active viewer and consumer of their end product. Because active viewing/consuming means I want do do things like, well, _view_ the product. And that all sorts of uncomfortable ramifications in that I don't want to dedicate a not-insignificant portion of my time being fed their "BIG RED SCREEN OF ANTI-COPYRIGHT-THEFT-PROPOGANDA" (Btw, I make it a point, every time I am forced to see one of those screens, to go torrent a movie - seeding for at least a day. It's actually the _only_ time I typically do torrent movies - the fact that they control my DVD player just annoys the crap out of me) They Hate me because I want to watch a movie released in brazil, that everyone is talking about, in the United States. They Hate me because I want to watch the movie I just purchased, on my iPad. Not the brick of electronics that happens to be sitting in my living room that I haven't watched a movie on in two+ years. Basically, the MPAA, and the commercial organizations they represent, Hate me, because instead of just sending them $50-$100 / month as a passive consumer, I'm an active consumer that loves the material they create - and that's an annoyance, and a difference from what they used to work with 50 years ago. And they Hate change.
jobeirne 15y ago
There will always exist groups of people who want to abrogate the rights of the average person for the benefit of a select class. What makes people think this struggle is unique to the MPAA or the RIAA or even media on the internet? It's time to think about how we can restructure our government to avoid this class of problems, not just the next SOPA. In the words of Eric S. Raymond, "For freedom to flourish, the Internet must be kept free of government control. The Internet needs to be kept free of corporate control, too. But, as we have seen with the DMCA, corporations that want to control the net have to do so by buying bad laws from the government — they can't jail or kill you themselves. Thus, the most important front in the battle is still heading off bad laws and regulations."
lux 15y ago
> But what will happen when the MPAA buys the next SOPA? We can’t protest every similar bill with the same force. Eventually, our audiences will tire of calling their senators for whatever we’re asking them to protest this time. Isn't this the crux of the problem with the current democratic systems though? If you never communicate with your political representatives, how do they know what you as a voter want? Part of what makes a democracy work is that connection between voters and politicians, but it has to come from us. If enough of us vocalize our concerns, they'll be heard. Politicians want to keep their jobs, and they need votes to do so. Sure it's not perfect (nothing is), and lobbyists easily manipulate the system on behalf of groups like the MPAA, but it's a basic thing that few people actually do to uphold their part of the bargain. That's why the system can continually be eroded with the assurance that even though SOPA/PIPA failed this time, some mutated version will slip by eventually.
joejohnson 15y ago
This is why we need to find a technological solution that will make future legislation infeasible or impossible. We need a decentralized DNS and total encryption of the internet.
- jiggy2011 15y ago
  I don't see how encryption would help here, it's only really useful as a way to prevent some forms of snooping, it couldn't really be used to get around a block. If DNS was decentralized they would just do the blocking on an IP address level.
vectorpush 15y ago
I think campaign finance reform is a good thing in theory, but in practice I feel confident that big money would still find its way into the pockets of our lawmakers with relative ease. In the end, no amount of money can save an elected official if their constituents are determined to see that official ousted. We can't legislate our way out of corruption, the price of freedom is eternal vigilance.
nova 15y ago
We can argue all we want about whether copyright is good or not, but that is the wrong question. The right question is if (enforced) copyright is compatible with the existence of a free internet. IMHO, it is not. Current copyright law means restrictions on the copy of data. A free internet means freedom to interchange data. So either we lose the free net, or we push for a deep reform of IP laws, something like that the law should only restrict for-profit infringement.
nextparadigms 15y ago
Another interesting twist (not surprised at all, though). MPAA lied about the number of people being employed by the entertainment industry: http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/images/sopa_busted.gif http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/images/sopa_busted.g... The tech industry employs 10 times as many. I'm glad their lies are finally debunked. We need to debunk their "lost revenue" numbers, too.
rglover 15y ago
Perhaps the answer to this is to make it more difficult for politicians to sign off on bills. Require some sort of education on the topic at hand before making a decision. If the bill isn't understood by the representative, they shouldn't be allowed to vote. With the current organization of our government, this will never happen. A point that Marco touched on was that we won't be able to rely on protesting every single bad decision that comes our way; people will lose interest and control will eventually be back in the hands of the government. He's right and we need to really focus on the bigger picture of removing lobbying from congress and ensuring that those representing us actually can.
- pwg 15y ago
  Actually, it would be helpful just requiring that they at least have read the full bill, cover to cover, every word, before voting on it. Considering that most don't read the bills they vote on (do you really think they each read an 8,000+ page appropriations bill cover to cover?) that would go a long way towards helping things ever so slightly.
- ConstantineXVI 15y ago
  Who decides that the rep is properly educated? You risk allowing more bias into the system by putting such a gate on voting.
mrdingle 15y ago
The best part about stopping to support companies that support the MPAA and RIAA is that they are going to say they are loosing revenue through piracy and not direct consumer withdrawal.
jjguy 15y ago
Technology's favorite lawyer, Lawrence Lessig, has a new book out advocating for campaign finance reform. Like most things from Lessig, his arguments are well-considered, balanced and thought-provoking. He includes a quote I found particularly compelling, especially in the light of Marco's link between 'the next SOPA' and campaign finance reform: For every one striking at the leaves of evil, there is one striking at the root. - Thoreau. Marco wants us to strike the root. Book: http://www.amazon.com/Republic-Lost-Money-Corrupts-Congress/dp/0446576433 http://www.amazon.com/Republic-Lost-Money-Corrupts-Congress/... NYTimes review: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/15/books/republic-lost-campaign-finance-reform-book-review.html?pagewanted=all http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/15/books/republic-lost-campai...
rikurrr 15y ago
Financial reform? Use bitcoin. Ask your favorite artists to accept bitcoin purchases or donations.
MarkTraceur 15y ago
Also, rather than supporting the MPAA/RIAA industry, try checking out the Blender Foundation, Jamendo, and similar sites that stream or support free content that is licensed under Creative Commons licenses. And of course, since software is as big an issue as creative content, it should be said that the FSF is having a donation drive currently: https://my.fsf.org/associate/support_freedom https://my.fsf.org/associate/support_freedom
dlokshin 15y ago
You can think about this as a campaign finance problem or as a federal politicians have too much power problem. You don't have campaign finance as a problem if lobbying doesn't do these companies any good.
nbashaw 15y ago
I'm surprised Marco didn't mention the most empirically effective alternative - make our own legislative investments. Where is the tech industry lobbying firm? Are the industry leaders like Apple, Amazon, Google, and Facebook pumping money into it? Obviously this is a short term solution that ends up making the root problem - money's influence in politics - worse. But sometimes you have to pick between the lesser of two evils. I'd rather have a good set of laws brought about by an unfair process than a bad set of laws brought on because we sat around complaining about how unfair the system is.
- jiggy2011 15y ago
  That's a dangerous game. Once you've convinced Google and Facebook to start lobbying and they realize they like it and it is effective what happens next time congress thinks about changing laws on say privacy?
marcamillion 15y ago
Here is the problem with this solution...the sacrifice is too large, from too many people. If I and the entire HN crowd (say 1,500,000 people?) decide not to watch any more movies - while that may depress their earnings a bit...I would think the net effect would be about a 20% reduction in earnings. The vast majority of HNers probably don't buy every single movie they watch. So, the real solution needs to be one that is incremental and can be adopted more mainstream. I don't know what it is, but I don't see 'stop watching all movies' as a realistic goal.
jacoblyles 15y ago
The focus on campaign finance reform is wrong-headed and risks fracturing the internet freedom coalition. America has a strong tradition of individual rights and liberties, stronger than anywhere else in the world. This is especially true regarding the rights of free speech and the free distribution of information. It is possible to build on these principles to create a platform that appeals to a large swathe of the American electorate, an “Electronic Bill of Rights”. We cannot taint this with other pet causes on the right or left. I am looking for allies right now to help push for pro-freedom legislation that will push the middle in our direction. I’ve explicitly written off working with freedom advocates that are too heavily invested in other high-profile political stances with a partisan lean. For this to succeed, we need to reach both the Tea Party and the OWS crowd while not alienating anybody. The good news is that the mainstream is with us. President Obama and all four contenders for the Republican Presidential nomination oppose SOPA. Let’s take this momentum and use it to erect lasting bulwarks to protect internet liberty. Let’s pass something that we can all agree on. Let’s not get bogged down arguing with each other over campaign reform, or other peripheral issues.
bh42222 15y ago
A LOT of people have fought very hard for campaign finance reform over the past 20 years I can remember. The result is more money in politics than ever. Supporting campaign finance reform will do nothing. We tried that over decades, the supreme court shot it down. You have two options: 1. Constitutional reform. Make it specifically distinguish campaign finance from free speech. No plain law will ever stand with the constitution as it is today. 2. Greatly increase the number of representatives. This may be a lot easier as it is just a plain law. At some point we decided too many members of the house would be too chaotic. So we hugely raised the ratio of people to representatives. This favors the lobbying power of interest groups. While individuals still have a lot of influence if they write or in person visit their representative, it is universally accepted that the fewer people are in your district the more influence each individual has. And the opposite is also true. This is why, unlike the senate, the house is supposed to be the people's house. If you dramatically raise the total number of representative you bring power closer to the people. Will this also result in grid lock? Yes! Is that still totally worth it? YES!
ryandickherber 15y ago
Maybe the problem is that there exists an organization which initiates the use of force to solve problems, which actually creates more problems than it solves.
nextparadigms 15y ago
Here it is, the next SOPA, made by no other than Lamar Smith - PCIP Act (Protecting Children From Internet Pornographers Act), or H.R.1981 - a bill much more dangerous than SOPA 1.0, and very hard to attack because of its name and "intent": http://gcn.com/articles/2011/08/05/protecting-children-bill-could-kill-internet.aspx http://gcn.com/articles/2011/08/05/protecting-children-bill-... http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/old7e/sopa_is_back_it_has_not_been_shelved_and_its/c3i9fqe http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/old7e/sopa_is_ba...
jgeerts 15y ago
hatefully how they ignore such a huge market potential, renting movies online and streaming them... that would be so great and would generate huge profits. But yet they don't and just expect their customers to go to the store and buy a DVD so we can watch it one time and then leave it in our closets for the rest of our lives? Or they want us to drive 20 mins to a rental store each day? Stop ignoring the market potential, try to grow, try to change, try to generate more profit. They don't evolve, but their users do and they don't like it. They are too stupid and old fashioned to see that the way media is spread just changed, all they need is a different approach to their end users.
almutasim 15y ago
There should be a constitutional amendment protecting the Internet and its underlying structure. Maybe not today, maybe it's premature, but one day soon this will seem appropriate and needed. It would put the Judicial branch on our side.
DanielBMarkham 15y ago
We can attack this by aggressively supporting campaign finance reform to reduce the role of big money in U.S. policy Blaming money for problems in politics is just like focusing on money when running a business -- you're looking in the wrong spot. Money is a result of something, not a cause. There's a lot of money in politics as a result of concentrating so much political power in one place. Just like in a business where the money represents value exchanged, in politics the money represents influece -- big, powerful people in groups that want to be heard. Starting off another holy crusade along the lines of prohibition simply because you've managed to distill your problems into one word isn't going to help anything.
- davepeck 15y ago
  I'd suggest reading Lawrence Lessig's new book, "Republic, Lost". It is a deep, sober-minded inspection of the issue of campaign finance. You may arrive at the other end feeling differently than you do now. (It certainly changed my perspective.)
bytenotes 15y ago
Terms limits should help significantly. It would consume a great deal of energy and money from special interests to corrupt ever renewing congress.
skrebbel 15y ago
Genuine interest: Marco calls this a 'campaign finance problem', but isn't politicians submitting bills for money usually called 'corruption'? Why aren't the Americans really mad about it?
peq 15y ago
The real problem is, that the US has no real democracy. When the government did something similar to SOPA in Germany, the "Piraten Partei" got more votes and the bigger parties rethought their plans because of this. But small parties do not have a chance in the US system.
Iv 15y ago
We finally have the initiative. These last years we just reacted to bad laws trying to prevent or at least weaken them. Now we have finally a voice. Let's make this victory a durable one and let's propose a constitutional amendment so that such laws can never ever be brought back again.
antrover 15y ago
"Eventually, we will lose." That's such a pessimistic statement. With that attitude, some SOPA-like Bill will pass. As an example, if MLK had that attitude, the whole Civil Rights movement would've failed.
code_duck 15y ago
I'm pleased to say I despise Hollywood movies and give these studios no money whatsoever. If only the public developed good sense and taste.

558 points by dpkendal 15y ago

I think it would be good if only registered voters can give campaign money to candidates. If they want to call it donations, then so be it. BUT only registered voters can give donations as well.

nostromo 15y ago

Campaign finance reform is not a panacea. I notice that it's popular to blame money in politics for everything. Don't like a bill? Any bill? Obviously corrupt politicians are bought and paid for! Why else would they vote for such junk, right? Wrong. SOPA and PIPA to a congressperson and to a large number of ordinary people make sense. The internet seems like a lawless place. To lawmakers, this is infuriating. People in government, left and right, believe in government solutions to most problems. Otherwise why would they work in government? As in most professions, there is a strong bias for action. Action feels like progress, even when the cure is worse than the disease. Even if you got every dollar out of politics you will always see this pattern: lawmakers have one tool, instead of a hammer it's legislation, and all the world looks like a nail.

ypcx 15y ago
That is a flawed reasoning. Campaign donations and revolving doors are the plague of democracy. Politicians are here to work for us and to listen to us - they are supposed to be our servants, with all due dignity and respect. Today's politics is completely driven by interest groups, and this must end. This is not 1800's. We have information technology at our disposal and we can make the politics transparent, the democracy direct, and the system work for us. And so will we.
- nostromo 15y ago
  This week a very powerful interest group killed SOPA and PIPA and HN cheered. "Special interest groups" seem to always be defined as "any interest other than my own." Politicians like the term because some people hear it and think "bankers" while other people hear it and think "gays and tree huggers."
  - mikeknoop 15y ago
    Your point is intriguing (addressing only your first two lines). I would say that special interest groups are not defined by how broadly the general population agrees their opinion (therefore, both entertainment conglomerate and internet conglomerate would count). Special interest groups have stereotypically obtained their goals by lobbying, donations, guaranteed positions, etc. On the other hand, this week, you had a special interest group achieving its goal by overwhelming support (more representative of a democracy). When someone talks negatively about special interest groups, it is because typically special interest groups have achieves their goals by disingenuous methods.
    - anamax 15y ago
      > Special interest groups have stereotypically obtained their goals by lobbying, donations, guaranteed positions, etc. You mean like AARP? > When someone talks negatively about special interest groups, it is because typically special interest groups have achieves their goals by disingenuous methods. Some supporting evidence would be nice. Here's a question - which side of the obamacare debate was "special interests"?
  - asmithmd1 15y ago
    It feels more to me that the reason for the change was due to true grassroots support - not an industry special interest group. Wikipedia highlighted the problem to "ordinary" users and they trusted that Wikipedia was more on their side than movie studios. Does anyone remember when the NRA was one of the most feared special interest groups? It used to be that if a representative crossed them they would have a tough election fight next time. It seems like "the internet" should flex it's muscles and fight against Lamar Smith's re-election. Getting him kicked out would get some attention.
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
  - gbhn 15y ago
    Good point. While there is such a thing as the "general interest," what it is is contested by definition. Also it is often quite difficult to figure out with enough detail to produce action. So it is unsurprising that special interests, who by definition are more organized and informed on the topic, tend to dominate public and political discussion. Hence the way to political power is to become part of a more powerful special interest coalition. (And by extension, the bigger and more powerful the coalition, the more right it has to speak for the general interest, as well.) In this case, I think the optimism of the Jan 18th actions is well placed. "Netizens" as a whole are extremely diverse, but there are definitely issues which can form a coalition, and it is absolutely crucial that this coalition be recognized as powerful, well-organized, possessed of deliberate and well-connected leadership, and deadly willing to play in heavy contact mode for its beliefs and priorities.

jczhang 15y ago

You know what Ron Paul would say about this... It's not campaign finance reform that's needed, its decreasing the power of the gov't to have so much power. That's the root cause, not the money.

vijayr 15y ago

One good thing that did come out of this - I can't remember people protesting so much, in a united way online, against any issue. Last year it was against oppressive regimes, this year it is against stupid bills. People are using the internet to protest, that is a good thing. Right now, it is more quantity than quality - hopefully that'll change too.

ramanujan 15y ago

Marco's heart is in the right place here, but campaign finance reform actually ends up disproportionately empowering media outlets. While various kinds of direct donations to candidates are capped or made more difficult by CFR, newspapers and television outlets aren't banned from writing stories on particular candidates, even up to the day or morning of the election. Because advertising can't happen, but articles can, newspaper coverage under CFR amounts to a (huge) in-kind contribution in the form of PR. And especially when it comes to the MPAA, many of its member companies own media outlets in addition to movie studios. Rupert Murdoch, for example, put the Wall Street Journal and Fox News to work in promoting SOPA/PIPA as that furthers the interests of 20th Century Fox. So because no conceivable campaign finance regulation is going to muzzle the Wall Street Journal or the New York Times during an election, we may have to look elsewhere to check the MPAA's power. I think it's going to have to be something like a souped up version of Xtranormal, which makes production of high quality movies just as easy as distribution of said movies. This isn't that unrealistic. Blogger made production and international distribution of high quality opinion possible with a few keystrokes, which led in part to the ongoing revenue collapse in print media. Video and audio are obviously much more complex on a frame-by-frame basis than text, but I have to believe that authoring tools can get far better than where they are. Make them web based, build in all kinds of samples and templates akin to blogger templates, use some of the new HTML5 toys to make authoring easier and easier. Most of the results will be terrible, but most blogs are terrible. As long as enough high quality open access audio/video content is produced, the MPAA/RIAA will start to face the same financial fate as print media. Producing a technically and ethically superior product will always be more effective in the long run than a boycott.

lukifer 15y ago
Have you seen Lawrence Lessig's plan [1]? It involves offering tax vouchers to citizens to spend on candidates who pledge to only raise funds via those vouchers. Plenty of money would be spent on candidates, it would just happen in a more flat, distributed fashion. Also? The current system already gives an immense amount of power to media companies; a huge sum of campaign finance contributions wind up in their coffers, and they have tremendous incentives to maximize controversy and conflict, indirectly forcing candidates to spend more and more on advertising. And at the end of the day, they still have a strong voice in creating self-fulfilling prophecies over who is "electable". [1] http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-december-13-2011/exclusive---lawrence-lessig-extended-interview-pt--2 http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-december-13-2011/exclu...

asdfasdghasdf 15y ago

"Their bills have had mixed success and usually die before being brought to a vote, but SOPA and PIPA came frighteningly close to becoming law. The internet-wide protest this week seems to have stalled their progress and probably killed them for now." Frighteningly close! One of them was almost scheduled for debate in the Senate! The other almost had a second round of markup in committee scheduled! The reaction to SOPA and PIPA was way overblown. Like the article says, this sort of thing happens all the time, and usually fizzles out. While this bill did have more co-sponsors than most, indicating support, it still only made it to the first verse of Schoolhouse Rock. Somehow it caught on as an Internet meme, though, and got inordinate attention. It was definitely for the best, though.

r00fus 15y ago

A boycott is only successful if you know who owns what. Short of selling my HDTV (which would be way popular with my family), I don't see how I can avoid MPAA content.

umjames 15y ago
You don't have to sell the TV, just don't watch movies on it. The harder part, is getting non-tech people to join your boycott. Good luck trying to tell people not to see the new Batman movie when it comes out. What would be good to know is if actors, directors, and other movie makers support the MPAA's actions. With the RIAA, you could sense that musicians often were at odds with the record companies that signed them. Is that the case with movies? Are there movie studios that don't support things like SOPA and PIPA? Maybe we'd have something if those people (if they exist) spoke out publicly against the MPAA.
- chaz 15y ago
  I think you'll have to get rid of the TV. SOPA supporters include CBS, NBC, ABC, FOX, Viacom, ESPN, NFL, NBA, and the MLB. Also, the Directors Guild of America (DGA) and Screen Actors Guild (SAG) are supporters. The Writers Guild of America (WGA) does not support SOPA, however. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_organizations_with_official_stances_on_the_Stop_Online_Piracy_Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_organizations_with_offi... http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111213/17373717070/writers-guild-realizing-that-sopa-goes-too-far-union-support-censoring-internet-begins-to-crack.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111213/17373717070/writer...
- r00fus 15y ago
  > You don't have to sell the TV, just don't watch movies on it. But the "content companies" don't only create movies. Now they own large swaths of normal TV. Disney owns ABC which owns ESPN. So every time you watch an advert on SportsCenter, you're funding Disney. The fact is, you can't win at this game. The way to win is to create an alternate funding mechanism (ie, campaign finance reform and/or owning your own congresscritters). The media cartel owns the (so called public) airwaves.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

the_paul 15y ago

A good way to support said finance reform is to follow Lessig's recommendation (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lawrence-lessig/on-the-significance-of-th_b_831166.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lawrence-lessig/on-the-signifi...) and help out Buddy Roemer's campaign.

mlapida 15y ago

My thoughts exactly. While cutting out watching movies on Netfilx and TV is going to be difficult, I most definitely wont be purchasing any movies on iTunes, at Best Buy or going to a theater to watch them. If the tech community could band together to boycott these three huge money makers for the MPAA, we might see better results.

jiggy2011 15y ago
To be honest it wouldn't make much difference , tech community is a small % of the population and it's members probably commit a much higher than average rate of piracy anyway. It would probably be more effective to stand outside a cinema waving banners.

aptimpropriety 15y ago

"It's not a waiting game, it's a game of poker. Lamar Smith has a royal flush and few people know it. SOPA may pass. It may not. He doesn't care, and it doesn't matter. The MPAA and RIAA started working on their legislative strategy to pass a new anti-piracy bill in late 2010. SOPA was designed to raise the noise. Everyone is playing right into the entertainment industries hand. The lobbyists are laughing manically at the ignorance of the mob. Even Wikipedia and reddit have played into it." http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/old7e/sopa_is_back_it_has_not_been_shelved_and_its/c3i9fqe http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/old7e/sopa_is_ba...

untog 15y ago
It irritates me that posts like that get so many upvotes on Reddit when they provide absolutely no evidence for what they say. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that it's incorrect, but it is speculation stated as fact.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

groggles 15y ago

Given that the author is Marco (and the article is on HN because it is from Marco Arment), I wonder what his boycott position is regarding Apple? Apple has a long history of supporting draconian IP policies, and has a business model built around controlling what you can do with what you bought. Financially Apple absolutely dwarfs the combined revenue of all of the MPAA realm. I don't mean to distract the conversation or hate on Apple, but it's a very pertinent question -- Marco and friends defend Apple's right to control their devices and their content, but are up in arms about media companies doing the same? Explain the reasoning why one company has the right to limit your freedoms while another doesn't? (*- I will happily provide numerous citations of both Marco defending Apple draconian policies, and Apple supporting jackboot government-backed IP protections)

funkah 15y ago
His bedrock assumption is that MPAA companies hate their customers, and that is why he suggests a boycott. But if you asked him the same thing about Apple, he would say that they like their customers, and want to delight them. You might not agree with him about whether these organizations really hold these stances toward their customers, but his argument flows from these two underlying assumptions.
larrik 15y ago
I'll throw my hat in the ring here. After I upvote you for starting a good discussion (which it seems few people ever do on HN). The MAJOR difference I see is that Apple does what it does, and doesn't hide behind a lobbying group to take the heat. They say "this is the way we are going to do this, because it is better." We may not agree, and I usually don't, but whatever. The movie studios, however, let the MPAA do all the dirty work and get all scorn. That way, MPAA == evil corporate mongers, while, say Warner Brothers == "ooh, Dark Knight Rising comes out this year!!!" Boycotting MPAA's member companies is a way to say we see through their crap, and aren't going to put up with it.
daeken 15y ago
DRM and hacker-unfriendly hardware protections are bad for the people using those products. Laws like SOPA are bad for everyone. It's quite possible to support Apple's lockdown without supporting the neutering of the internet.

Anechoic 15y ago

it would be more productive to significantly reduce or eliminate our support of the MPAA member companies starting today The problem is that any reduction in income to the studios would be spun as "fallout from pirates stealing our IP." Attacking campaign finance is the way to go. edit: spelling

thebigshane 15y ago
We (I'm speaking for the entire internet community, which is probably a bad thing to do) could also stop pirating as well. I mean it would be really something if everyone halved their entertainment budget and halved their "illegal downloads/sharing". That would be a significant message as well. It wouldn't be very easy to convince Joe SixPack, but it might be easier than true campaign finance reform.
- thebigshane 15y ago
  Am I really being downvoted for suggesting people stop pirating?
  - wormwood28 15y ago
    The comical thing is that people do argue that infringement raises awareness of a product and thereby increases sales. Whether it's true or not, I don't know, but if so it would certainly be at cross purposes to a boycott.
  - groupthink 15y ago
    It seems to me that this solution simply isn't going to work- similar to asking criminals to stop stealing cars/ murdering people.
    - thebigshane 15y ago
      Hmm, my point is that if we can convince people to give less money to the MPAA (buying movies, movie tickets), we should also discourage pirating those same movies, to avoid the exact scenario Anechoic mentioned. I don't think its like asking criminals to not be criminals. I thinks more like: "if you want those bullies to pick on you less, try to act less like a dork". Some may feel like it would be betraying their values, but it really would give the bully less motivation to attack your values. But I agree its unlikely to happen.

paul9290 15y ago

It's a nice thought, but you have to get your cousin, third cousin, your parents, your grandparents and etc to boycott Hollywood too. How do you accomplish this when media is engrained in our daily lives & culture?

oscardelben 15y ago
You can get started without waiting for everyone else, and when they'll ask you why you act that way you'll tell them. We can't kill that industry in one week but you and I can start today and more people will join later. That's what's happened in the last years.
- thebigshane 15y ago
  There's a backlash here though. I've actually stopped telling people I don't watch TV because there is now a "holier than thou" aura around it. I think most people hate how much they like TV, but if you mention how you just stopped TV all together, they think you are just rubbing it in, like you're better than them. Like the guy who always talks about he was just "hitting the gym". No one like that guy either. Any suggestions?
  - laglad 15y ago
    This is very true for any lifestyle decision that seems to suggest a more productive way of living to someone else. We naturally feel the need to have our lifestyle habits justified as the right choice. Any threat to that, is a threat to our egos. A better strategy would be to point out the progress (even if false) that someone is making in living a better life (less TV for example). If you can successfully plant that identity seed in their head, they will feel empowered to continue to cut back. The ego is a funny construct.
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
rmc 15y ago
One step at a time. There are lots of people engaged in ethical boycotts. This is not a new concept.

AdamFernandez 15y ago

A solution I don't see being discussed much is MPAA and RIAA disruption. This is occurring on some platforms like YouTube, iTunes, and Spotify. If artists no longer need to use them as a middleman, they will cease to have money and power. Startups that disrupt these two, and are more profitable for artists, could wipe out this whole issue.

jiggy2011 15y ago
afaik RIAA member labels are still making money from spotify and iTunes. Taking the youtube example though, I suppose legislation like SOPA could wipe them out and neuter them enough.
- AdamFernandez 15y ago
  I agree they are making money from these platforms, but independent artists are also making money and getting exposure using these platforms that would have been impossible a decade ago. If something is created that is more effective for artists (and possibly gives them a bigger cut..see Louis C.K.), this would be quite effective.
  - jiggy2011 15y ago
    The only piece of the puzzle missing here is how would you finance the creation to begin with? I know a lot of the equipment has become cheaper but it's still expensive for an 18 year old kid to put in his garage. Not to mention the diverse skillset you would need to produce a record or movie. The record company being able to dangle an advance (not to mention the promotion and contacts they can hook them up with) seems a pretty good carrot to dangle and people like Louis C.K have probably made enough money to begin with to finance themselves. I also get a feeling from musicians that I have talked to that your not considered a "real" band unless you are signed to a major label, although I suppose that attitude can change over time. You almost need a VC type system for musicians but the issue is that most creatives don't really want to think of themselves as "businesspeople".
    - deleted 15y ago

jiggy2011 15y ago

I don't quite understand. Are people suggesting that congress considers legislation primarily based on campaign contributions and that this is the same for both main parties? So they will only go against legislation proposed by lobbyists if they feel the votes they would lose would outweigh the benefit of those contributions to their next campaign? If that is the case then I'm sorry to say but your entire government system is not fit for purpose. If that is not the case then you should be able to beat these bills with good reasoning and debate alone.

api 15y ago
It is the case. The U.S. congress basically runs on payola. You can buy any bill you want.
- jiggy2011 15y ago
  If that is true then I'm amazed that a credible 3rd party has not yet surfaced that vowed to reform politics. Assuming even a half competent set of politicians they would be able to do an objectively better job since they would consider things on merits rather than contributions. Why do you need so much money to run a campaign anyway? Surely you could get the word out online and take donations from the public. Of course you would really need 2 parties so people could express their left or right wing beliefs.
  - TheSOB88 15y ago
    I don't understand your points at all - and your last sentence sounds ironic. Should I be taking you at face value? Anyways, your 3rd party situation has one pitfall: how would it get into power? The 2 party system's devisors have us beat; nobody believes an independent can even get elected. There's an enormous barrier to entry.
    - jiggy2011 15y ago
      No not intended to be ironic, just badly worded. What I meant was that I am surprised how important campaign contributions are in an age where it is fairly cheap to get your message across online and get people talking. After all the London riots were an example (albeit not a pleasant one) of how social networking etc can very quickly get people to take action. Hopefully you could get enough contributions from private citizens and small business to run an effective campaign. Regards the 2 parties point. It would be difficult to create a third party that would appeal to both liberals and conservatives so in reality you might need a 4th party also. I assume your suggesting that people wouldn't vote for a 3rd party because the media would tell everyone that they were unelectable and a wasted vote? Unfortunately I don't really have an answer for that question, the only way around it would be to hammer home just how bad the current system really is.

narrator 15y ago

As I suggested in an earlier thread, why is noone starting a copyright liberalization campaign? If there was a strong political coalition to limit the duration of copyright to 25 years, to limit the use of overly broad patents, etc. it would provide a counteracting force that would force the copyright holders to compromise "in the middle". Instead we are doing boycotts and strongly worded letters, which while helpful, does not really do enough to stop them from steamrolling along with their agenda.

jerf 15y ago
Everyone would diffusely benefit from copyright liberalization, but it isn't the top priority for anyone. A few people (in relative terms) greatly benefit from copyright extension, and it is their top priority. I'm not sure there's a form of government that avoids this problem, but representative republic certainly isn't one of them.
- narrator 15y ago
  Maybe this was the reason the Pirate Party of Germany and Sweden were formed. Someone had to make it their top issue.

bambax 15y ago

> we’re not addressing the real problem: the MPAA’s buying power in Congress. This is a campaign finance problem. This is delusional at best. I'm from France, where campaigns are paid for by public money. France: the country that brought you Hadopi and where SOPA-like laws have been in place for a long time. This has nothing to do with campaign finance.

TheCowboy 15y ago
What do you think is the source of the problem in France? Maybe the way money influences politics is more so a problem here. I do think it is a stretch to say it is completely irrelevant, because it seems clear that it isn't.
- bambax 15y ago
  You're right. To clarify, in the US, the problem is partly related to campaign finance, yes, because this vehicle is available to lobbyists to influence politicians. But my point is, if you remove this vehicle the problem doesn't go away, it just takes another form. And in fact I think it's good that it takes the form of campaign finance, because at least it's visible: you can see who gives how much money to which man / party / cause. And anyway, politicians don't care about "freedom"; they care about big companies, because they have dinner with CEOs; they care about "jobs" because they think that's what matters to their constituents. Solving campaign finance wouldn't change any of that.

snowwrestler 15y ago

But I like to watch movies. I think a lot of movies are great--great enough to pay for them. Why should I shoot myself in the foot to keep someone else from shooting me in the foot? This idea that the root cause of all bad legislation is political donations: it's wrong, and not supported by the data. The vast majority of political donations are made by people who are not lobbyists. No one raised more political money in the history of this nation than Barack Obama during his presidential campaign, and the letter from his administration helped kill the bills. How about Rep. Issa and Sen. Wyden? Guess what, they got into office by spending donated money as well. The problem isn't money, the problem is engagement. The tech industry, particularly on the Internet entrepreneurial side, has long prided itself on staying out of Washington. Well, now we see the consequence of that approach: it took a last-minute emergency OMG shitstorm to stop some bills--bills that could have easily been shaped, adjusted, or stopped much earlier if the industry had been engaged and paying attention. The U.S. government is participatory. It will respond to citizen wishes, but only if citizens actively and continuously make their wishes known. And it is inclusive. No matter how much you might think copyright should end, or that the MPAA should just go away forever and die, there are enough people who disagree with you that it's just not going to happen. Internet companies and advocates need to get comfortable with continuously engaging content companies in the legislative process, seeking common ground, and compromising. IP law is not a winnable war. It is an ongoing negotiation that must be managed forever.

Dn_Ab 15y ago
>This idea that the root cause of all bad legislation is political donations: it's wrong, and not supported by the data. The vast majority of political donations are made by people who are not lobbyists. You make a very bold statement without backing it with any line of reasoning or pointing to any supporting material. I am no expert in this matter so I can not know if you are wrong. But in an older thread someone posted this excellent talk by Lawrence Lessig: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ik1AK56FtVc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ik1AK56FtVc. It's well worth watching and counters your statement. His arguments are very well presented and reasoned. He also shows some supporting data. Given that, I cannot attribute much weight to your statement.

RexRollman 15y ago

Personally, I think we need to make it so that only registered voters can give money to candidates, with a maximum amount set per contributor. That would automatically disallow all direct contributions from corporations and prevent the rich from having more influence than the poor. (Of course, something like this would probably have to be a constitutional amendment, and I doubt that would ever happen.)

TheSOB88 15y ago
There's always a workaround - spending lots of money spread over different people's names, for instance. Of course, you'd have to buy the mules first, and that affects the efficiency, but cheating would still occur. But anyways, yeah, the hard part would be actually putting this into place. I mean, nobody in power would want this to happen. It would be bad for the lobbyists and bad for the congressmen. No incentive there, and much incentive to fight against it.
- jedbrown 15y ago
  Lessig's suggestion would significantly increase the amount of money available to politicians relative to now. The difference is that it would all come in small dollar amounts to make politicians accountable to constituents instead of the corporations currently financing them. More money might conceivably be sufficient incentive for those in power to act.
- nextparadigms 15y ago
  Yeah, you'd have to watch out for abuses. But the main point is to change the incentive for them to beg corporations for money. Making it illegal, and making it easier for normal individuals to donate would help switch that incentive from going to corporations to going to individuals.
nextparadigms 15y ago
I think that's a good idea. Limit campaign donations only to individuals and at a $1000 cap. No single individual, and especially corporations, should be able to dramatically influence the results by leveraging his wealth. Just like votes are equal, donations from everyone should be more or less equal, too. It would also remove the incentive for politicians to go and beg for the corporations' money. Basically, campaign donations should be more like Kickstarter. If enough people like your idea and support you with money, then you will have enough momentum and money anyway.

TomOfTTB 15y ago

I think he makes a valid point but then gets lost in emotionalism. Here’s the thing. They don’t hate you. The people who work at the companies that support the MPAA absolutely don’t hate you. They simply like themselves and like the money they’re getting now. If anything they’re afraid of you because they think you want to eliminate the way they make a living. The problem is people on the other side don’t agree on what they want. Some want media to be free, some want studios to die and artists and directors to find ways to get paid directly and some just want laws that aren’t as draconian as SOPA. So to the labels and the studios people like Mr. Arment are terrorizing them. Threatening to take their livelihood away while offering no alternative system. That’s why not supporting member companies won’t work. Because it just reinforces their fears. What technology companies and people who are passionate about technology really need to do is suggest an alternate solution. The world works in opposites. Republican/Democrat, Liberal/Conservative, and so on. The only way to deal with the labels is to create another side and coalesce around a common ideology. One that still allows the system that currently creates media to work but which allows people control over their media. Because the one thing Mr. Arment is absolutely right about is this: You haven’t won anything as of now. In fact, what you have done is sent a clear message that laws like SOPA need to be done under the radar from now on and that’s a step backwards not forwards.

nextparadigms 15y ago
They might not hate you, but they are surely trying to criminalize pretty much everyone who comes even close to infringing anything.
ghshephard 15y ago
Actually, I've thought about this, and I'm pretty sure the MPAA Hates their customers, and, given a choice, if they could get their money without having to deal with customers, would prefer to do so. I'm not saying the actors, and the grips, and the makeup people, Hate me _personally_ - but the commercial organizations they represent, as a collective, hate the fact that I'm an active viewer and consumer of their end product. Because active viewing/consuming means I want do do things like, well, _view_ the product. And that all sorts of uncomfortable ramifications in that I don't want to dedicate a not-insignificant portion of my time being fed their "BIG RED SCREEN OF ANTI-COPYRIGHT-THEFT-PROPOGANDA" (Btw, I make it a point, every time I am forced to see one of those screens, to go torrent a movie - seeding for at least a day. It's actually the _only_ time I typically do torrent movies - the fact that they control my DVD player just annoys the crap out of me) They Hate me because I want to watch a movie released in brazil, that everyone is talking about, in the United States. They Hate me because I want to watch the movie I just purchased, on my iPad. Not the brick of electronics that happens to be sitting in my living room that I haven't watched a movie on in two+ years. Basically, the MPAA, and the commercial organizations they represent, Hate me, because instead of just sending them $50-$100 / month as a passive consumer, I'm an active consumer that loves the material they create - and that's an annoyance, and a difference from what they used to work with 50 years ago. And they Hate change.

jobeirne 15y ago

There will always exist groups of people who want to abrogate the rights of the average person for the benefit of a select class. What makes people think this struggle is unique to the MPAA or the RIAA or even media on the internet? It's time to think about how we can restructure our government to avoid this class of problems, not just the next SOPA. In the words of Eric S. Raymond, "For freedom to flourish, the Internet must be kept free of government control. The Internet needs to be kept free of corporate control, too. But, as we have seen with the DMCA, corporations that want to control the net have to do so by buying bad laws from the government — they can't jail or kill you themselves. Thus, the most important front in the battle is still heading off bad laws and regulations."

lux 15y ago

> But what will happen when the MPAA buys the next SOPA? We can’t protest every similar bill with the same force. Eventually, our audiences will tire of calling their senators for whatever we’re asking them to protest this time. Isn't this the crux of the problem with the current democratic systems though? If you never communicate with your political representatives, how do they know what you as a voter want? Part of what makes a democracy work is that connection between voters and politicians, but it has to come from us. If enough of us vocalize our concerns, they'll be heard. Politicians want to keep their jobs, and they need votes to do so. Sure it's not perfect (nothing is), and lobbyists easily manipulate the system on behalf of groups like the MPAA, but it's a basic thing that few people actually do to uphold their part of the bargain. That's why the system can continually be eroded with the assurance that even though SOPA/PIPA failed this time, some mutated version will slip by eventually.

joejohnson 15y ago

This is why we need to find a technological solution that will make future legislation infeasible or impossible. We need a decentralized DNS and total encryption of the internet.

jiggy2011 15y ago
I don't see how encryption would help here, it's only really useful as a way to prevent some forms of snooping, it couldn't really be used to get around a block. If DNS was decentralized they would just do the blocking on an IP address level.

vectorpush 15y ago

I think campaign finance reform is a good thing in theory, but in practice I feel confident that big money would still find its way into the pockets of our lawmakers with relative ease. In the end, no amount of money can save an elected official if their constituents are determined to see that official ousted. We can't legislate our way out of corruption, the price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

nova 15y ago

We can argue all we want about whether copyright is good or not, but that is the wrong question. The right question is if (enforced) copyright is compatible with the existence of a free internet. IMHO, it is not. Current copyright law means restrictions on the copy of data. A free internet means freedom to interchange data. So either we lose the free net, or we push for a deep reform of IP laws, something like that the law should only restrict for-profit infringement.

nextparadigms 15y ago

Another interesting twist (not surprised at all, though). MPAA lied about the number of people being employed by the entertainment industry: http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/images/sopa_busted.gif http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/images/sopa_busted.g... The tech industry employs 10 times as many. I'm glad their lies are finally debunked. We need to debunk their "lost revenue" numbers, too.

rglover 15y ago

Perhaps the answer to this is to make it more difficult for politicians to sign off on bills. Require some sort of education on the topic at hand before making a decision. If the bill isn't understood by the representative, they shouldn't be allowed to vote. With the current organization of our government, this will never happen. A point that Marco touched on was that we won't be able to rely on protesting every single bad decision that comes our way; people will lose interest and control will eventually be back in the hands of the government. He's right and we need to really focus on the bigger picture of removing lobbying from congress and ensuring that those representing us actually can.

pwg 15y ago
Actually, it would be helpful just requiring that they at least have read the full bill, cover to cover, every word, before voting on it. Considering that most don't read the bills they vote on (do you really think they each read an 8,000+ page appropriations bill cover to cover?) that would go a long way towards helping things ever so slightly.
ConstantineXVI 15y ago
Who decides that the rep is properly educated? You risk allowing more bias into the system by putting such a gate on voting.

mrdingle 15y ago

The best part about stopping to support companies that support the MPAA and RIAA is that they are going to say they are loosing revenue through piracy and not direct consumer withdrawal.

jjguy 15y ago

Technology's favorite lawyer, Lawrence Lessig, has a new book out advocating for campaign finance reform. Like most things from Lessig, his arguments are well-considered, balanced and thought-provoking. He includes a quote I found particularly compelling, especially in the light of Marco's link between 'the next SOPA' and campaign finance reform: For every one striking at the leaves of evil, there is one striking at the root. - Thoreau. Marco wants us to strike the root. Book: http://www.amazon.com/Republic-Lost-Money-Corrupts-Congress/dp/0446576433 http://www.amazon.com/Republic-Lost-Money-Corrupts-Congress/... NYTimes review: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/15/books/republic-lost-campaign-finance-reform-book-review.html?pagewanted=all http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/15/books/republic-lost-campai...

rikurrr 15y ago

Financial reform? Use bitcoin. Ask your favorite artists to accept bitcoin purchases or donations.

MarkTraceur 15y ago

Also, rather than supporting the MPAA/RIAA industry, try checking out the Blender Foundation, Jamendo, and similar sites that stream or support free content that is licensed under Creative Commons licenses. And of course, since software is as big an issue as creative content, it should be said that the FSF is having a donation drive currently: https://my.fsf.org/associate/support_freedom https://my.fsf.org/associate/support_freedom

dlokshin 15y ago

You can think about this as a campaign finance problem or as a federal politicians have too much power problem. You don't have campaign finance as a problem if lobbying doesn't do these companies any good.

nbashaw 15y ago

I'm surprised Marco didn't mention the most empirically effective alternative - make our own legislative investments. Where is the tech industry lobbying firm? Are the industry leaders like Apple, Amazon, Google, and Facebook pumping money into it? Obviously this is a short term solution that ends up making the root problem - money's influence in politics - worse. But sometimes you have to pick between the lesser of two evils. I'd rather have a good set of laws brought about by an unfair process than a bad set of laws brought on because we sat around complaining about how unfair the system is.

jiggy2011 15y ago
That's a dangerous game. Once you've convinced Google and Facebook to start lobbying and they realize they like it and it is effective what happens next time congress thinks about changing laws on say privacy?

marcamillion 15y ago

Here is the problem with this solution...the sacrifice is too large, from too many people. If I and the entire HN crowd (say 1,500,000 people?) decide not to watch any more movies - while that may depress their earnings a bit...I would think the net effect would be about a 20% reduction in earnings. The vast majority of HNers probably don't buy every single movie they watch. So, the real solution needs to be one that is incremental and can be adopted more mainstream. I don't know what it is, but I don't see 'stop watching all movies' as a realistic goal.

jacoblyles 15y ago

The focus on campaign finance reform is wrong-headed and risks fracturing the internet freedom coalition. America has a strong tradition of individual rights and liberties, stronger than anywhere else in the world. This is especially true regarding the rights of free speech and the free distribution of information. It is possible to build on these principles to create a platform that appeals to a large swathe of the American electorate, an “Electronic Bill of Rights”. We cannot taint this with other pet causes on the right or left. I am looking for allies right now to help push for pro-freedom legislation that will push the middle in our direction. I’ve explicitly written off working with freedom advocates that are too heavily invested in other high-profile political stances with a partisan lean. For this to succeed, we need to reach both the Tea Party and the OWS crowd while not alienating anybody. The good news is that the mainstream is with us. President Obama and all four contenders for the Republican Presidential nomination oppose SOPA. Let’s take this momentum and use it to erect lasting bulwarks to protect internet liberty. Let’s pass something that we can all agree on. Let’s not get bogged down arguing with each other over campaign reform, or other peripheral issues.

bh42222 15y ago

A LOT of people have fought very hard for campaign finance reform over the past 20 years I can remember. The result is more money in politics than ever. Supporting campaign finance reform will do nothing. We tried that over decades, the supreme court shot it down. You have two options: 1. Constitutional reform. Make it specifically distinguish campaign finance from free speech. No plain law will ever stand with the constitution as it is today. 2. Greatly increase the number of representatives. This may be a lot easier as it is just a plain law. At some point we decided too many members of the house would be too chaotic. So we hugely raised the ratio of people to representatives. This favors the lobbying power of interest groups. While individuals still have a lot of influence if they write or in person visit their representative, it is universally accepted that the fewer people are in your district the more influence each individual has. And the opposite is also true. This is why, unlike the senate, the house is supposed to be the people's house. If you dramatically raise the total number of representative you bring power closer to the people. Will this also result in grid lock? Yes! Is that still totally worth it? YES!

ryandickherber 15y ago

Maybe the problem is that there exists an organization which initiates the use of force to solve problems, which actually creates more problems than it solves.

nextparadigms 15y ago

Here it is, the next SOPA, made by no other than Lamar Smith - PCIP Act (Protecting Children From Internet Pornographers Act), or H.R.1981 - a bill much more dangerous than SOPA 1.0, and very hard to attack because of its name and "intent": http://gcn.com/articles/2011/08/05/protecting-children-bill-could-kill-internet.aspx http://gcn.com/articles/2011/08/05/protecting-children-bill-... http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/old7e/sopa_is_back_it_has_not_been_shelved_and_its/c3i9fqe http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/old7e/sopa_is_ba...

jgeerts 15y ago

hatefully how they ignore such a huge market potential, renting movies online and streaming them... that would be so great and would generate huge profits. But yet they don't and just expect their customers to go to the store and buy a DVD so we can watch it one time and then leave it in our closets for the rest of our lives? Or they want us to drive 20 mins to a rental store each day? Stop ignoring the market potential, try to grow, try to change, try to generate more profit. They don't evolve, but their users do and they don't like it. They are too stupid and old fashioned to see that the way media is spread just changed, all they need is a different approach to their end users.

almutasim 15y ago

There should be a constitutional amendment protecting the Internet and its underlying structure. Maybe not today, maybe it's premature, but one day soon this will seem appropriate and needed. It would put the Judicial branch on our side.

DanielBMarkham 15y ago

We can attack this by aggressively supporting campaign finance reform to reduce the role of big money in U.S. policy Blaming money for problems in politics is just like focusing on money when running a business -- you're looking in the wrong spot. Money is a result of something, not a cause. There's a lot of money in politics as a result of concentrating so much political power in one place. Just like in a business where the money represents value exchanged, in politics the money represents influece -- big, powerful people in groups that want to be heard. Starting off another holy crusade along the lines of prohibition simply because you've managed to distill your problems into one word isn't going to help anything.

davepeck 15y ago
I'd suggest reading Lawrence Lessig's new book, "Republic, Lost". It is a deep, sober-minded inspection of the issue of campaign finance. You may arrive at the other end feeling differently than you do now. (It certainly changed my perspective.)

bytenotes 15y ago

Terms limits should help significantly. It would consume a great deal of energy and money from special interests to corrupt ever renewing congress.

skrebbel 15y ago

Genuine interest: Marco calls this a 'campaign finance problem', but isn't politicians submitting bills for money usually called 'corruption'? Why aren't the Americans really mad about it?

peq 15y ago

The real problem is, that the US has no real democracy. When the government did something similar to SOPA in Germany, the "Piraten Partei" got more votes and the bigger parties rethought their plans because of this. But small parties do not have a chance in the US system.

Iv 15y ago

We finally have the initiative. These last years we just reacted to bad laws trying to prevent or at least weaken them. Now we have finally a voice. Let's make this victory a durable one and let's propose a constitutional amendment so that such laws can never ever be brought back again.

antrover 15y ago

"Eventually, we will lose." That's such a pessimistic statement. With that attitude, some SOPA-like Bill will pass. As an example, if MLK had that attitude, the whole Civil Rights movement would've failed.

code_duck 15y ago

I'm pleased to say I despise Hollywood movies and give these studios no money whatsoever. If only the public developed good sense and taste.