3 ms·

Honestly, I would LOVE to see the MPAA and RIAA stop writing checks to politicians. Many folks think that there is already way too much money in politics, part

by Nrsolis 15y ago

Honestly, I would LOVE to see the MPAA and RIAA stop writing checks to politicians. Many folks think that there is already way too much money in politics, particularly to those politicians who are incumbent. Consequently, if the MPAA/RIAA stop buying our politicians out from under us, maybe we'll get them to pay attention to us again. That's really where the MPAA should be spending its money anyhow: convincing individual voters that piracy is hurting their business and what the effects will be. Honestly, I do think we need some modifications to the copyright regime in this country (US). I just want the MPAA/RIAA to stop bypassing the voters and appealing to the folks we elected to represent our interests. If the MPAA/RIAA stop funding elections, that means victory for the rest of us.

epscylonb 15y ago
They aren't going to stop writing checks, they are going to write checks to different politicians (or people trying to get elected). While the electorate are apathetic, moneyed interests will get their way.
- Nrsolis 15y ago
  In principle, I don't necessarily disagree with the idea that people should be allowed to use their resources to get their message out. I do feel that's limiting speech. What I disagree with is the conveyance of funds to front groups that obscure WHO is doing the speaking. There is a distinct flavor to the PACs && SuperPACs that connecting the message to the author would allow the public to gauge WHY they are taking a particular position. Given the government's/industry's attempts to limit the anonymity of individuals, I find the corporate attempts to enhance and leverage that anonymity troubling. I don't think we'll get the money out, but I do think we need transparency in the process for all or for none.
  - russell 15y ago
    I agree with your call for transparency. In California statewide self funded candidates, millionaires like Whitman or Huffington, tend to fail. The same is true of blatant corporate initiatives.

by Nrsolis 15y ago

epscylonb 15y ago

They aren't going to stop writing checks, they are going to write checks to different politicians (or people trying to get elected). While the electorate are apathetic, moneyed interests will get their way.

Nrsolis 15y ago
In principle, I don't necessarily disagree with the idea that people should be allowed to use their resources to get their message out. I do feel that's limiting speech. What I disagree with is the conveyance of funds to front groups that obscure WHO is doing the speaking. There is a distinct flavor to the PACs && SuperPACs that connecting the message to the author would allow the public to gauge WHY they are taking a particular position. Given the government's/industry's attempts to limit the anonymity of individuals, I find the corporate attempts to enhance and leverage that anonymity troubling. I don't think we'll get the money out, but I do think we need transparency in the process for all or for none.
- russell 15y ago
  I agree with your call for transparency. In California statewide self funded candidates, millionaires like Whitman or Huffington, tend to fail. The same is true of blatant corporate initiatives.