22 ms·

Two things about SOPA/PIPA and then I'll shut up

709 points by johnthedebs 15y ago

LVB 15y ago
A solution is for the Internet industry to start giving free advertising to political campaigns on our own new media assets... assets like YouTube that are rapidly displacing television. I'm not sure what this fixes. I already get to see and hear campaign ads incessantly. What would be my desire to go watch more on YouTube? They've already become background noise to me because the messages originating from the candidates and super PACs range from heavily spun at best to plainly false. I don't learn anything from them. Better would be to offer more compelling solutions than ads. Things like highly interactive, real-time Q/A and debating schemes would engage the electorate by allowing them to rapidly see who is for real and who is an empty, purchased, Presidential-looking shell. I'll throw out one specific idea: during debates, let's have a Watson-like presence on stage that is, in real time, able to display the BS-factor of what's being uttered. Wouldn't that be fun?
- fferen 15y ago
  Well, presumably ads are fairly effective for the majority of the populace as candidates are willing to spend a lot of money on them. On a side note, I personally see a Ron Paul ad every other Youtube video on the occasions when I have AdBlock disabled, which may be why he has such strong support among younger voters.
toyg 15y ago
The problem is not just campaign contributions; it's also the "revolving doors" system, of which Mr. Christopher Dodds is such a shining example. That's extremely difficult to regulate, so the best option is to find some place where ex-political operatives can be "re-purposed" for the tech community. I'd also be careful not to stir the hornets' nest that is the patents system. Depending on how you do it, you end up on the opposite side of companies like Apple and Microsoft, which you need on board for any push on copyright (easing copyright rules would make it easier for them to keep building tools for creatives; easing the patent system will just make life easier for their competitors). Patents, copyright and trademarks are not as closely intertwined as some people believe, they are actually very different concepts.
- nostromo 15y ago
  A friend of mine had a genius idea. We pay everyone in congress like $1mm a year for the rest of their life, but we don't allow them to ever work for money again. If they want to work, fine, but it's free. I bet they'd spend less time lobbying and more time working on noble pursuits.
  - kijin 15y ago
    That's what generous salaries for elected officials was supposed to accomplish in the first place. In reality, why would a would-be corrupt politician forgo multiple tens of millions in exchange for only 1 million?
    - timdev2 15y ago
      I think that's kind of the point, isn't it? Make elected office unattractive to those motivated by the thought of megabux. Of course, such lavish pensions would still create gravity for the self-serving types who just don't think as big.
      - nextparadigms 15y ago
        I would normally agree with that. Make it even $5 million per year if needed be. But I have one worry - that they become too disconnected with regular people. Then again, there aren't too many politicians these days who aren't already rich, so maybe that won't change too much.
    - cynicalkane 15y ago
      Because corruption comes in degrees and utility curves shrink. The difference between 1 million and tens of millions is not enough to sway your person of average morality to the Dark Side. But the difference between tens of millions and 170k or however much is a more tempting offer, especially when you live in the unbelievably expensive DC area and also half your peers are filthy rich.
  - nthj 15y ago
beachgeek 15y ago
I got tired of seeing notices to "contact your senator" on Wikipedia/Craigslist etc and sent a note to Senator Feinstein. To my surprise someone from her office actually responded. My response was pretty similar to Joel's. Its easy to kvetch on your favorite Internet forum, but if you get things started your Congressional reps will listen. This is way easier than cold-calling a customer!
ph33t 15y ago
I don't think Joel is wrong per say, however, I don't think he is attacking the symptom not the problem. The answer lies in federalism and giving power to the states. If the federal government didn't have such broad and sweeping power it wouldn't be worth the money to fund their campaigns in the first place. Let's take the power away from the federal government. Big business can only benefit from massive donations if the clowns in power can give them a return.
thebigshane 15y ago
I am in full support of Joel's intentions here. But... 1) How are we going to prevent this powerful lobby group from betraying us (the smaller guys) in the laws they lobby for? 2) How are we going to determine who gets to participate in this equal share of air time on these YouTube/FaceBook spots? Do I get a spot if I want one? Who gets to decide? The same GOP/DNC? How do we prevent YouTube/Facebook from working deals with candidates for favors after they get elected? How do we guarantee candidate A has the same face time as candidate B? What if candidate B is campaigning on shutting down this technology lobby, will he still get face time? I suppose all of his suggestions are better than the current situation, but I don't feel they are that much better. We are still going to have to become incredibly vigilant and anti-apathetic with these new powerful groups we form, and I just don't think that's realistic, given our current situation.
twainer 15y ago
A modest proposal for Joel: Ten years as a period for copyright? How about you go first. Since the tech industry understands copyright so much better than everyone else it might be good for them to set an example and show all the 'old' dodo-like industries how it's done. After ten years all code should be made open-source. Google has made plenty of money - and I think it's time that they release their algorithm so other innovative and disruptive companies can make better use of it. I mean, how many Google bikes can one ride behind? Fogcreek has had a nice run too - surely some open-sourced FogBugz would be of great value in second and third world countries that have emergent tech sectors but can't possibly afford the cost of the real service? Certainly, even 10-year-old Fogbugz is going to help society a lot more than license-free copies of My Big Fat Greek Wedding [2002] or Stuart Little 2 [2002]. Anyway, since many of these places exchange rates means they could never purchase software in the first place, it's not like there would be any lost sales, right? Oh another thing: very important:: a short term of copyright like a few years would be the biggest boon to Hollywood ever as they could simply sit and wait for works to drop into the public domain before turning around and producing them without paying the creators a penny. There would be tons of creators strung along via a studio option - just long enough till the work dropped into the public domain. It would harder than ever for individuals to profit from their creative work and easier than ever for Hollywood to make money off of it. So - sorry to say - I'm a bit disappointed! But that's just my fault - assuming that people who knew so well the cure for the ills of the content industry would actually have an idea about how that world works. My bad.
- gergles 15y ago
  Fine, the copyright protection for Google's algorithm has evaporated. Where do you plan on getting a copy of it? And even if you did somehow acquire it, how do you plan on using it without violating Google's trade secret protection on it? There are existing legal frameworks in place (trade secret, trademark, service marks, etc.) that complement copyright and would enable software (and movies!) to remain viable enterprises even with drastically shorter copyright terms (or no copyright at all.)
  - twainer 15y ago
signalsignal 15y ago
What are people's opinions on removing copyright laws? Not just copyrights on music and movies, but also all copyrights on software, computer graphics, wordpress themes, etc. Is this something that the YCombinator community is behind?
- ericd 15y ago
  Abolishing copyright completely is an extreme position even here, I think. What most people are pulling for is shortening copyright from it's currently obscenely long term.
- dlitz 15y ago
  Jonathan Coulton said it well: "I believe in copyright. I benefit from it. I don’t want it to go away. I love that we have laws and people to enforce them. But if I had to give up one thing, if I had to choose between copyright and the wild west, semi-lawless, innovation-fest that is the internet? I’ll take the internet every time." http://www.jonathancoulton.com/2012/01/21/megaupload/ http://www.jonathancoulton.com/2012/01/21/megaupload/
  - signalsignal 15y ago
    I can see indie filmmakers being innovative, but I fail to see how Megaupload was innovative. Yet noone has made the argument or the claim that it was, though it is obviously more important than the arts to the people on this forum. As though it was a representation of the innovation of the Internet and now the rallying cry for entrepreneurship. Is the Internet really only about data-center storage and distributing other people's content without compensation to the authors or producers? Is Ycombinator really going to become a forum about evading laws due to loopholes like Megaupload was?
- tomjen3 15y ago
  I think ten years would make sense -- you would constantly have to produce new stuff in order to make money which is what copyright is about. On the other hand copyright may not be enforceable much longer (it could be argued that it is already unenforceable) and I would prefer to give up copyrights before the internet.
fufulabs 15y ago
There's a startup called Votizen that I think makes your voting profile visible and therefore be easily considered by political parties. I would imagine that if there is critical mass of people in that platform interesting tools can be derived for any mass actions for/against politicians.
ojbyrne 15y ago
After reading this, I donated to the EFF and the ACLU. Because there are already lobbying organizations for the tech viewpoint.
yonasb 15y ago
This is genius. I really hope this post gets some exposure
techiferous 15y ago
Per Joel's second point, I've recently noted at how absurd it is that campaigns spend so much money communicating their message when technology has made it extremely easy to communicate a message to millions of people at very low cost. I fully support a move away from TV-dominated campaigns to Internet-dominated campaigns, especially since the Internet is more interactive anyway.
tzs 15y ago
On the issue of copyright terms, one thing I've not seen discussed much is the idea of having different terms for different copyright rights. Copyright is not a monolithic things--it encompasses several rights. In particular, there is the right to make and distribute copies, and there is the right to make derivative works. (There are other rights, but those are the most important). I think a good case can be made that different durations are appropriate for these rights, and also that different durations are appropriate for different kinds of works. Let's start with artistic works. In particular, let's consider the infamous Mickey Mouse copyrights. The reproduction right should be fairly short. It's purpose is to allow the creator to get paid for their time and effort in creating the work. We maximize creating of new works if creators can get paid for creating. If creators cannot do so, and so have to turn to ancillary methods of making money, they have less time for creating. (This is why the argument that musicians can make their living touring is not persuasive to me. I'd much rather have great musicians creating new music than spending a lot of time playing their old songs over and over and over to make a living. How would we feel as programmers if employers did not pay us to program--they hired us to do tech support, and then told us that we should be writing programs on our down time so there would be something to provide tech support for?). I think it is quite reasonable for the derivative works right, on the other hand, to have a very long term. That encourages other artists to come up with new characters to tell their stories. I think we'd have a lot less great cartoon characters if everyone who wants to make a cartoon could just make their own Mickey Mouse cartoon. A long derivative works right also helps preserve our culture, by preserving the artistic integrity of bodies of work. A fictional character, such as a Mickey Mouse, or a Frodo, or a Harry Potter, or a Sherlock Holmes, has a personality, character, mannerisms, morals, etc., developed by the creator. They become in a sense real and part of our culture. If someone else comes along and starts producing fiction with those characters that does not fit in with how those characters should behave, it diminishes the value of the original to society. If you want to write stories about hot boy on boy wizard sex, make up your own wizards--leave Harry and Ron alone. To summarize so far, for artistic works like films (including cartoons) and fictional books, I'd like to see a relatively short reproduction right combined with very long derivative works rights. For utilitarian works, such as computer programs, it would not make sense to have a long derivative works right. Programs do not become beloved parts of our culture. (Characters introduced in programs sometimes do--Mario and Zelda are good examples, so I'd argue that while the game code for a Zelda game should have a short derivative work right because it is a program, if you make a game based on it you would have to come up with new characters).
cmcewen 15y ago
It seems like most people agree that "something should be done", but the question remains what can be done? Should there be a day where everyone calls and complains to Congress about copyright issues? Start an Internet Industry Association of America? I think calling Congress could be effective, but it'd be hard to get the volume required to make a difference, and there is no bill to explicitly support. Likewise, an IIAA might work, but it seems like Google, Facebook, and Twitter would have to be deeply involved to make a difference. My only remaining thought is to use the tactics of the MPAA and RIAA: hire a lobbyist. The only thing I could think of would be a sort of Kickstarter project. Everyone pledges money, and once a target is reached, a lobbyist is hired to draft a bill on Issue X, and lobby Congress for its passage. There'd have to be a sympathetic member of Congress in order to introduce the bill, and I'm sure a serious amount of money would have to be raised, but this is the only way I can think of that the average joe on the Internet could do anything besides complain on HN. Thoughts?
tzs 15y ago
> Create a legal doctrine that merely linking is protected free speech I disagree with this one. How about this instead? * Create a legal doctrine that linking is legally the equivalent of a citation in a printed publication If something is protected free speech in a book or magazine or newspaper or flyer, it should be so on the internet. If something would not be protected free speech when published in a book, etc., then I don't see why merely being published on the internet should make a difference. In other words, the internet is just another publication medium. In most areas it does not need different laws. The ones we have for other media are fine.
- Dylan16807 15y ago
  I'm curious now; how could a citation in a book be illegal?
  - tzs 15y ago
    I'm not sure if it is possible or not for a citation in a book to be illegal. If by "illegal" we include civil liability, not just criminal liability, I could imagine that a book could contain libelous citations. For instance, if someone published a book called "Child Molesters Among Us!" that contained citations to a bunch of people in the community that are not in fact child molesters (basically people that the author simply didn't like) he'd be in for some serious lawsuits. If he did the same thing on a web page, with the links being names that when clicked brought up the person's house on Google Maps I'd have no objection to him being in for the same lawsuits.
chernevik 15y ago
Here is an old Fog Creek software management reading list: http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/FogCreekMBACurriculum.html http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/FogCreekMBACurriculum... And, an old Joel Spolsky reading list on programming: http://www.joelonsoftware.com/navlinks/fog0000000262.html http://www.joelonsoftware.com/navlinks/fog0000000262.html These are terrific lists, I've learned a ton from them and haven't yet gotten further than halfway through either. But I submit that the politics of the United States of America are every bit as complicated as software. We have _one_ fundamental problem, and that related to the TV ads? Um, how likely is it that so broad and general a statement about software development would be true, never mind helpful? We will not understand our country's politics until we give them the same attention we give our profession. We shouldn't be silent before we've checklisted some reading list -- but maybe we ought to speak as if perhaps this is a big and complicated system about which we have a lot to learn.
- saulrh 15y ago
  There are plenty of complex systems with complex problems but deceptively simple solutions. Those solutions might be difficult to implement, and might have nasty little details, but they're still simple enough to sum up in one sentence. For example, back in 1911, the problem was "monopolies", and the answer was "regulate the maximum size of a corporate entity." I'm not saying that this particular problem has a simple solution. I'm saying that we shouldn't throw out ideas because they seem too simple. And, of course, the more angles we have on the problem, the better.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
forrestthewoods 15y ago
Are you kidding me? The first Harry Potter book came out in 1997. A 10 year copyright means that 5 years ago someone could have taken the book, mass produced their own copy, and sold it at Barnes and Noble. That would be the same time the 7th and final book came out and well before the movies were complete. That is a simply absurd idea. Edit: Downvotes aren't surprising but I'd love to hear the argument why rights to a creative work should be lost when it's still in development and rapidly growing with each day.
- philwelch 15y ago
  For one, that wouldn't interfere in the slightest with Rowling's ability to successfully sell her seventh book. In fact, it might get her to write some more books, since the first wouldn't be sufficient to make her quite as rich as she is.
  - forrestthewoods 15y ago
    Because watching other people get rich off of your work is such a good incentive.
EGreg 15y ago
I always wanted to meet Joel Spolsky. I should soon :)
ggchappell 15y ago
This is a nice little essay, and I agree with most of it, but this part is rather naive: > A solution is for the Internet industry to start giving free advertising to political campaigns on our own new media assets... A comment by daeken on the "Can we kill the music business too?" HN post (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3493002 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3493002) has some ideas that apply nicely here, too. From that comment: > While I think the author's heart is in the right place, I think he's fallen into the trap that nearly everyone in the music startup industry has fallen into: the content and distribution are the easy parts, getting people to give a damn is the hard part. > The hard part in all this is getting it in front of users, and getting them to care about the music. Similarly, the hard part of a political campaign is getting noticed. 100,000 people out there would be happy to run for president I'm sure; the vast majority of them are never noticed. Some few are. Fewer still are noticed a lot. I would love to see a world in which money-buys-attention is not the primary rule that determines who gets the most powerful job there is. But turning on the firehose and flooding people with free ads from 100,000 presidential hopefuls, does not look to me like the way to make that happen. How to make it happen, is worthy of some serious discussion. Again, nice post. I think the first part is right on target.
Jayasimhan 15y ago
Lobbying is corruption irrespective of how we cut it. Finding ways to abolish it should be the only goal.
henrikschroder 15y ago
If you are in the EU, and you want these things Joel talks about, vote for your local Pirate Party. Vote for them in your national elections, and vote for them in the elections to the European Parliament. We don't need external lobbying to get what we want; we can just elect the representatives we want. So do it.
bambax 15y ago
Joel is right. As it is, we have to win every time: they need to win only once.
daintynews 15y ago
Joel is right on some terms, however the problem is how are we going to know who gets to join in this share of air time on these sites? Also, who is going to determine that?
talos 15y ago
well said. what kind of lobbying power have Google et al invested in? with their cash flow, I see no reason why they couldn't fund/push for reasonable legislation that defends their corporate existence.
infocaptor 15y ago
Joel, why don't you and other Internet personalities start something and we all will join. Setup a website, get donation from every developer, hire lobbyists or whatever is needed. You and people you know have the reach and get things in motion. We will follow the lead.
MarkMc 15y ago
As a side note, Google Plus is clearly still in beta - the page crashes using Safari on my iPad.
mrdingle 15y ago
We also need to seriously start electing people that represent us. Honestly, we need to pick people who understand technological issues and we need to cycle them regularly. Most importantly, we all need to participate in government.
drcube 15y ago
Regarding point 2: Advertising is an arms race. Nobody benefits from spending millions of dollars on advertising; they benefit from outspending their competitors. Everybody would be happier if they could outspend their competitors without spending millions of dollars. But they can't. As soon as there is a cheap, or even free alternative to spending megabucks for tv slots, those channels will get filled up in addition to your traditional outlets. And the internet isn't free, nor is coordinating a massive internet campaign. The net result of number 2 is that we'll have more political advertising, and the person with the most money will still win. Still, there is a democritizing influence to be had from shifting campaigns from traditional broadcast media to the internet. We're seeing that already and it's only going to grow. So, in essence, point 2 won't help, and it's already happening. This is a hard problem.
naner 15y ago
So I'm an engineer for a living which means I'm probably about as politically (un)knowledgeable as most people here, but do all of our "calls to action" seem hopelessly naive to anyone else? I mean take the first example: elimination of software patents. This is great and I would like this to happen, too. A pretty significant problem, however, is that some of the most successful and most powerful American companies are built around these laws and prop up these laws, help write these laws, etc. Does anyone believe our legal system is going to say: "Sorry, Microsoft (Apple, IBM, whoever), all the billions you spent on software patents and legal fees and all the money you earn from them is gone. We've decided software patents are unfair so that massive part of your business is now invalid." We can sit around all day outlining what we think would be the most fair policies. It is all irrelevant if we can't define a path to get there.
- keen 15y ago
  How about banning new software patents, and letting existing ones run their course? The Apples and Microsofts of the world might be okay with that.
- studentrob 15y ago
  Raising awareness of the problem is the first step. A lot of people still do not know why software patents are bad. Similar to sopa and pipa, except to a larger degree here, mostly software engineers and very internet savvy users are aware of the problem with software patents. We need more anecdotes and evidence, then a way to deliver the message. Once the problem is defined, the solution will present itself. If it doesn't, we have failed at defining and convincing people of the problem.
- chadmalik 15y ago
  You have to articulate a goal to get there. I'm not going to make obvious comparisons but clearly there were plenty of legal regimes in the past that people thought could never end that did in fact end.
- beatpanda 15y ago
  What's fair or even possible isn't the point. "We don't have to get all this stuff. We merely have to tie them up fighting it, and re-center the "compromise" position." See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window, Richard Stallman
mhb 15y ago
The problem isn't that it costs a lot to win an election. It will always be expensive to get people's attention regardless of the medium. The problem is that the government is too powerful and it's worth so much to win an election. But that's even harder to fix.
jebblue 15y ago
Elimination of software patents, ok, so patents bad. I stopped reading after that.
VMG 15y ago
I forgot that political parties had to pay for TV time in the US and how this influences elections. In Germany, we actually have (nearly?) the system Joel describes with equal time for everybody which has some interesting consequences: * I don't think campaign financing is that big of a deal in Germany * There are a lot of TV ads from politically extreme or plain weird parties during election time. There also is a satirical party that makes pretty funny ads. * The politically extreme parties can refund their advertising costs if they are above a certain threshold of votes, which causes some controversy Edit for clarity: of course every party can refund their expenses, but for politically extreme parties this is controversial
- nostromo 15y ago
  In the US giving equal time to all would likely be considered unconstitutional because you're limiting freedom of speech. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Elec...) What I like about Joel's approach is that it doesn't limit speech, but instead expands it online. I have no idea if Google (et al) would go for such a thing, essentially giving away ad time for free / cheap, but it's a great idea. YouTube has already sponsored debates where candidates take questions from the public (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNN-YouTube_presidential_debates http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNN-YouTube_presidential_debate...) so it's not unthinkable.
  - jonmc12 15y ago
    If there was a way to opt out of exposure to political advertising (kind of like can-spam and do-not-call lists), and most Americans adopted this option, maybe it would remove the motivation to exercise this 1st amendment right.
    - jcitme 15y ago
      Even better: the key word is "give" All google has to do is 'give' x ad views before some videos on youtube, for each candidate. If someone tries to get Google to do otherwise, they're limiting GOOGLE'S freedom of speech.
jeffool 15y ago
I can't agree enough. And the longer we take to address all if these problems, the harsher the backlash is going to be. I'm so disgruntled with copyright I almost think 10 years is too long.
- grncdr 15y ago
  Cross-posted from the G+ thread: Regarding limiting copyright to 10 years, and since you brought up ponies, I feel that solves the wrong problem. The issue I see is that a few large greedy corporations effectively monopolize the copyrights for the vast majority of the nation/worlds creative output, that they then further exploit a corrupt political system to extend those copyrights indefinitely is almost secondary. A thought experiment: make the sales/purchase of copyright ownership illegal. This would still allow an artist or creator to license the right to sell and distribute their work, but leave them unable to lose (legal) control of such distribution. This still allows a lot of room for the mega-corps to profit, but with less outright exploitation of artists than we currently see. Copyrights are held by the creator(s) for life, and works pass into the public domain after death, not the artists estates (or more often, the organization that owns the copyright). I feel this is simple to understand, fair to creators, and still provides business incentives to non-creators to invest time and money in the production and promotion of quality content.
  - stan_rogers 15y ago
    A lot of legitimate copyright ownership depends on the ability to assign copyright. It varies by work and by jurisdiction, but the default copyright holder (by statute) is not always the party it should be. In the US, for instance, a corporation's identity might belong by default to the designer, such that they may be able to register trademarks but be prevented from using them freely without copyright assignment. In Canada, the commissioner, not the creator, of a work holds copyright by default, so contracts of commission for things like portraits and weddings photos usually include a copyright assignment clause. (That's actually an improvement over the previous state of affairs, in which the photographer would have to hire the subject as a model for a nominal fee in one contract, then have another contract for purchase and use of the work.) I suppose you could legislate the general condition, but there will always be edge cases. Unfortunately, allowing for edge cases is going to result in abuse.
amirmc 15y ago
> "And ponies. We want ponies. We don't have to get all this stuff. We merely have to tie them up fighting it, and re-center the 'compromise' position" I bet the MPAA et al have used this tactic to their own advantage thus far. I'm aware of this concept from negotiation tactics and it's made me think of the current situation in a completely different way. Thanks Joel.
- saryant 15y ago
  Yes, it's known as the Overton Window (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window) and has certainly been a primary tactic of the entertainment industry for the last several years in their war against the internet. It's high time we began using it ourselves.
  - jeffool 15y ago
    Agreed! ... Anyone have suggestions on what idealistic things to ask for?
    - marshray 15y ago
      Let's be sure to stick to things that are plausible and would represent an actual improvement if implemented. * Copyright reform would be great, but seems like a lot of it is international treaty. * Real net neutrality * More and better broadband. * Support for net security (DNSSEC) and anonymity (e.g. Tor), maybe IPv6. * In defense of the first-sale doctrine and promote compatibility - eliminate the anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA * Truth in labeling - all systems using DRM have to be fully described on the outside of the box and all advertising materials Ideally we'd want regulations on the other guy more than on the yourself. But just because Hollywood doesn't want it doesn't mean it we would. For example Hollywood would fight tooth and nail against something like "Free trade for DVDs - End region locking" but it would probably only help them in the long run.
      - jeffool 15y ago
        I think net neutrality and proper labeling work perfectly with his list. And I don't think that "bad for established media" should be the guiding principe, just "good for people". To that end, "no artificial geographic restrictions" seems reasonable to me. That said: * Legal recognition of public domain donations. * Legal recognition of public domain recursive work (in the vein of the GPL, where work from it must also be in the public domain.)
crazygringo 15y ago
Indeed... why isn't there an IIAA (Internet Industry Association of America), modelled along the same lines of the MPAA/RIAA? Google, Facebook, etc. could be the main contributors, but smaller companies would donate too (there might be a very significant long tail). It could lobby for everything Joel talks about.
- thebigshane 15y ago
  I think that's a lot of trust being put into Google, Facebook, etc to not use this same lobby group to lobby for laws that would benefit them over smaller companies.
- bcrawl 15y ago
  I support this notion. I dont think there is any current organization which deals with patent rights + free internet etc. There is EFF but no one takes it seriously. EFF is such a joke that Google autocomplete doesnt even find it even if you type EFF! Patents stuff is too confusing for me, but the concept of ad space on popular websites to spread the voice of Joel/Internet would be awesome. I think Reddit will participate because they have been pretty devoted so far, definitely not Facebook though. I dont think they want any of this drama..... asusal.
- adambarber 15y ago
  More to the point, what's stopping Google from declaring war on the MPAA? I imagine a lot of money would be lost if Google just pulled every site belonging to a member of the MPAA from the search results. Aside from a few people at the top of Google with a sense of restraint and fair play, if Google alone decided to ruin the movie industry, they could - quickly. Obviously an IIAA pays more respect to the current way of doing things, rather than just making a unilateral decree that the movie industry doesn't get to exist anymore if they won't extend the same courtesy to the tech industry. Slightly less drastically, I wouldn't mind Google making a note in the SERPs about which members of Congress are in favor of censoring freedom of speech. A small note with that person's position on SOPA would be a handy tool to keep the public informed.
  - 15y ago
mark_l_watson 15y ago
Excellent. Is the EFF a reasonable organization to lead this fight? I am not a member of the EFF but sometimes I give them tiny bits of money when they do something that I particularly like. I am not 100% sure about this, but isn't the "Internet economy" much, much larger than the "Entertainment economy?" I don't hold out much hope of curing the corruption in our political system but I do hope that we can continue shining a bright light at corruption so more people know what is happening. Unfortunately it is the threat of a bright light of public accountability that causes attacks on Internet freedoms.
- Duff 15y ago
  I think the EFF is a great organization and advocate for individual rights. But their agenda is often at odds with the interests of the "industry".
- rabidsnail 15y ago
  The EFF is a public interest organization with its own goals. We need an industry lobby. The closest things to that that we currently have are ACM and IEEE, both of which suck hard as lobbies.
  - _delirium 15y ago
    The ACM and IEEE probably suck even more than they need to, but I don't see much hope of the tech industry being a good lobbying force even with a better organization. Part of the problem is that it isn't really all on "our" side (if you read "our" to be the EFF side). We do have a fairly strong industry lobby of sorts already, the BSA, but it almost always takes the Hollywood side (and initially supported SOPA). I think, unfortunately, a lot of "our" companies just aren't on "our" side (Microsoft, Apple, Oracle, etc.), because of their MPAA-esque paranoia about piracy, jailbreaking, etc. If it would be possible to make a professional association like the ACM take a stronger and more visible stance, imo that'd be a better approach, because the tech industry's employees are often intelligent, but the tech industry's companies would imo be more likely to just lobby as a special interest, not in any sort of enlightened way. So it needs to be structured so the employees, not their employers, control the lobbying organization.
snowwrestler 15y ago
Political campaigns are not, in the broader context of the U.S. economy, that expensive. The average cost of a winning House campaign in 2010 was less than $1.5 million. The max limit on a personal donation to any federal political campaign is $2,500. These are numbers that are pretty small compared to the value and salaries generated in either the entertainment or tech industries. The difference is that the entertainment industry has developed the culture and institutions to direct some of their value toward political activities. The tech industry largely has not. Joel's idea of free political advertising on tech properties could be problematic because advertising, even if freely given, has an economic value. Corporations are expressly forbidden from donating money to federal political campaigns, so this whole idea might be squashed by the FEC.
- marquis 15y ago
  What if a non-profit was the middle-man for placing ads, for example? The crowd-funding covers the donation requirements from individuals, many who do not donate to normal elections but might put $5 on this. I'm sure there are tricks already used to get around funding caps that could be taken advantage of.
  - snowwrestler 15y ago
    Non-profits are corporations too; they are also forbidden from donating to political campaigns. If you created a PAC, then you could solicit donations from individuals and spend it on whatever candidates you, the PAC director, chose. But, PAC contributions and distributions are also pretty strictly limited: $5,000 per person, and $5,000 per candidate, respectively. Political parties can spend a lot more money, but only on candidates who are members of the same party. So for instance if you started the Internet Party, you couldn't give much money to a politician who is a declared Democrat or Republican.
  - noibl 15y ago
    Political Action Committees can raise unlimited sums from corporations: 'In 2010, the landmark case filed by Citizens United changed the rules regarding corporate campaign expenditures. This ruling made it legal for corporations and unions to spend from their general treasuries to finance independent expenditures. Direct corporate and union contributions to federal campaigns, however are still prohibited.' 'The 2010 election marked the rise of a new political committee, dubbed "super PACs," and officially known as "independent-expenditure only committees," which can raise unlimited sums from corporations, unions and other groups, as well as individuals. [...] Super PACs are not allowed to coordinate directly with candidates or political parties since they are "independent".' -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_action_committee http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_action_committee

709 points by johnthedebs 15y ago

LVB 15y ago

A solution is for the Internet industry to start giving free advertising to political campaigns on our own new media assets... assets like YouTube that are rapidly displacing television. I'm not sure what this fixes. I already get to see and hear campaign ads incessantly. What would be my desire to go watch more on YouTube? They've already become background noise to me because the messages originating from the candidates and super PACs range from heavily spun at best to plainly false. I don't learn anything from them. Better would be to offer more compelling solutions than ads. Things like highly interactive, real-time Q/A and debating schemes would engage the electorate by allowing them to rapidly see who is for real and who is an empty, purchased, Presidential-looking shell. I'll throw out one specific idea: during debates, let's have a Watson-like presence on stage that is, in real time, able to display the BS-factor of what's being uttered. Wouldn't that be fun?

fferen 15y ago
Well, presumably ads are fairly effective for the majority of the populace as candidates are willing to spend a lot of money on them. On a side note, I personally see a Ron Paul ad every other Youtube video on the occasions when I have AdBlock disabled, which may be why he has such strong support among younger voters.

toyg 15y ago

The problem is not just campaign contributions; it's also the "revolving doors" system, of which Mr. Christopher Dodds is such a shining example. That's extremely difficult to regulate, so the best option is to find some place where ex-political operatives can be "re-purposed" for the tech community. I'd also be careful not to stir the hornets' nest that is the patents system. Depending on how you do it, you end up on the opposite side of companies like Apple and Microsoft, which you need on board for any push on copyright (easing copyright rules would make it easier for them to keep building tools for creatives; easing the patent system will just make life easier for their competitors). Patents, copyright and trademarks are not as closely intertwined as some people believe, they are actually very different concepts.

nostromo 15y ago
A friend of mine had a genius idea. We pay everyone in congress like $1mm a year for the rest of their life, but we don't allow them to ever work for money again. If they want to work, fine, but it's free. I bet they'd spend less time lobbying and more time working on noble pursuits.
- kijin 15y ago
  That's what generous salaries for elected officials was supposed to accomplish in the first place. In reality, why would a would-be corrupt politician forgo multiple tens of millions in exchange for only 1 million?
  - timdev2 15y ago
    I think that's kind of the point, isn't it? Make elected office unattractive to those motivated by the thought of megabux. Of course, such lavish pensions would still create gravity for the self-serving types who just don't think as big.
    - nextparadigms 15y ago
      I would normally agree with that. Make it even $5 million per year if needed be. But I have one worry - that they become too disconnected with regular people. Then again, there aren't too many politicians these days who aren't already rich, so maybe that won't change too much.
  - cynicalkane 15y ago
    Because corruption comes in degrees and utility curves shrink. The difference between 1 million and tens of millions is not enough to sway your person of average morality to the Dark Side. But the difference between tens of millions and 170k or however much is a more tempting offer, especially when you live in the unbelievably expensive DC area and also half your peers are filthy rich.
- nthj 15y ago

beachgeek 15y ago

I got tired of seeing notices to "contact your senator" on Wikipedia/Craigslist etc and sent a note to Senator Feinstein. To my surprise someone from her office actually responded. My response was pretty similar to Joel's. Its easy to kvetch on your favorite Internet forum, but if you get things started your Congressional reps will listen. This is way easier than cold-calling a customer!

ph33t 15y ago

I don't think Joel is wrong per say, however, I don't think he is attacking the symptom not the problem. The answer lies in federalism and giving power to the states. If the federal government didn't have such broad and sweeping power it wouldn't be worth the money to fund their campaigns in the first place. Let's take the power away from the federal government. Big business can only benefit from massive donations if the clowns in power can give them a return.

thebigshane 15y ago

I am in full support of Joel's intentions here. But... 1) How are we going to prevent this powerful lobby group from betraying us (the smaller guys) in the laws they lobby for? 2) How are we going to determine who gets to participate in this equal share of air time on these YouTube/FaceBook spots? Do I get a spot if I want one? Who gets to decide? The same GOP/DNC? How do we prevent YouTube/Facebook from working deals with candidates for favors after they get elected? How do we guarantee candidate A has the same face time as candidate B? What if candidate B is campaigning on shutting down this technology lobby, will he still get face time? I suppose all of his suggestions are better than the current situation, but I don't feel they are that much better. We are still going to have to become incredibly vigilant and anti-apathetic with these new powerful groups we form, and I just don't think that's realistic, given our current situation.

twainer 15y ago

A modest proposal for Joel: Ten years as a period for copyright? How about you go first. Since the tech industry understands copyright so much better than everyone else it might be good for them to set an example and show all the 'old' dodo-like industries how it's done. After ten years all code should be made open-source. Google has made plenty of money - and I think it's time that they release their algorithm so other innovative and disruptive companies can make better use of it. I mean, how many Google bikes can one ride behind? Fogcreek has had a nice run too - surely some open-sourced FogBugz would be of great value in second and third world countries that have emergent tech sectors but can't possibly afford the cost of the real service? Certainly, even 10-year-old Fogbugz is going to help society a lot more than license-free copies of My Big Fat Greek Wedding [2002] or Stuart Little 2 [2002]. Anyway, since many of these places exchange rates means they could never purchase software in the first place, it's not like there would be any lost sales, right? Oh another thing: very important:: a short term of copyright like a few years would be the biggest boon to Hollywood ever as they could simply sit and wait for works to drop into the public domain before turning around and producing them without paying the creators a penny. There would be tons of creators strung along via a studio option - just long enough till the work dropped into the public domain. It would harder than ever for individuals to profit from their creative work and easier than ever for Hollywood to make money off of it. So - sorry to say - I'm a bit disappointed! But that's just my fault - assuming that people who knew so well the cure for the ills of the content industry would actually have an idea about how that world works. My bad.

gergles 15y ago
Fine, the copyright protection for Google's algorithm has evaporated. Where do you plan on getting a copy of it? And even if you did somehow acquire it, how do you plan on using it without violating Google's trade secret protection on it? There are existing legal frameworks in place (trade secret, trademark, service marks, etc.) that complement copyright and would enable software (and movies!) to remain viable enterprises even with drastically shorter copyright terms (or no copyright at all.)
- twainer 15y ago

signalsignal 15y ago

What are people's opinions on removing copyright laws? Not just copyrights on music and movies, but also all copyrights on software, computer graphics, wordpress themes, etc. Is this something that the YCombinator community is behind?

ericd 15y ago
Abolishing copyright completely is an extreme position even here, I think. What most people are pulling for is shortening copyright from it's currently obscenely long term.
dlitz 15y ago
Jonathan Coulton said it well: "I believe in copyright. I benefit from it. I don’t want it to go away. I love that we have laws and people to enforce them. But if I had to give up one thing, if I had to choose between copyright and the wild west, semi-lawless, innovation-fest that is the internet? I’ll take the internet every time." http://www.jonathancoulton.com/2012/01/21/megaupload/ http://www.jonathancoulton.com/2012/01/21/megaupload/
- signalsignal 15y ago
  I can see indie filmmakers being innovative, but I fail to see how Megaupload was innovative. Yet noone has made the argument or the claim that it was, though it is obviously more important than the arts to the people on this forum. As though it was a representation of the innovation of the Internet and now the rallying cry for entrepreneurship. Is the Internet really only about data-center storage and distributing other people's content without compensation to the authors or producers? Is Ycombinator really going to become a forum about evading laws due to loopholes like Megaupload was?
tomjen3 15y ago
I think ten years would make sense -- you would constantly have to produce new stuff in order to make money which is what copyright is about. On the other hand copyright may not be enforceable much longer (it could be argued that it is already unenforceable) and I would prefer to give up copyrights before the internet.

fufulabs 15y ago

There's a startup called Votizen that I think makes your voting profile visible and therefore be easily considered by political parties. I would imagine that if there is critical mass of people in that platform interesting tools can be derived for any mass actions for/against politicians.

ojbyrne 15y ago

After reading this, I donated to the EFF and the ACLU. Because there are already lobbying organizations for the tech viewpoint.

yonasb 15y ago

This is genius. I really hope this post gets some exposure

techiferous 15y ago

Per Joel's second point, I've recently noted at how absurd it is that campaigns spend so much money communicating their message when technology has made it extremely easy to communicate a message to millions of people at very low cost. I fully support a move away from TV-dominated campaigns to Internet-dominated campaigns, especially since the Internet is more interactive anyway.

tzs 15y ago

On the issue of copyright terms, one thing I've not seen discussed much is the idea of having different terms for different copyright rights. Copyright is not a monolithic things--it encompasses several rights. In particular, there is the right to make and distribute copies, and there is the right to make derivative works. (There are other rights, but those are the most important). I think a good case can be made that different durations are appropriate for these rights, and also that different durations are appropriate for different kinds of works. Let's start with artistic works. In particular, let's consider the infamous Mickey Mouse copyrights. The reproduction right should be fairly short. It's purpose is to allow the creator to get paid for their time and effort in creating the work. We maximize creating of new works if creators can get paid for creating. If creators cannot do so, and so have to turn to ancillary methods of making money, they have less time for creating. (This is why the argument that musicians can make their living touring is not persuasive to me. I'd much rather have great musicians creating new music than spending a lot of time playing their old songs over and over and over to make a living. How would we feel as programmers if employers did not pay us to program--they hired us to do tech support, and then told us that we should be writing programs on our down time so there would be something to provide tech support for?). I think it is quite reasonable for the derivative works right, on the other hand, to have a very long term. That encourages other artists to come up with new characters to tell their stories. I think we'd have a lot less great cartoon characters if everyone who wants to make a cartoon could just make their own Mickey Mouse cartoon. A long derivative works right also helps preserve our culture, by preserving the artistic integrity of bodies of work. A fictional character, such as a Mickey Mouse, or a Frodo, or a Harry Potter, or a Sherlock Holmes, has a personality, character, mannerisms, morals, etc., developed by the creator. They become in a sense real and part of our culture. If someone else comes along and starts producing fiction with those characters that does not fit in with how those characters should behave, it diminishes the value of the original to society. If you want to write stories about hot boy on boy wizard sex, make up your own wizards--leave Harry and Ron alone. To summarize so far, for artistic works like films (including cartoons) and fictional books, I'd like to see a relatively short reproduction right combined with very long derivative works rights. For utilitarian works, such as computer programs, it would not make sense to have a long derivative works right. Programs do not become beloved parts of our culture. (Characters introduced in programs sometimes do--Mario and Zelda are good examples, so I'd argue that while the game code for a Zelda game should have a short derivative work right because it is a program, if you make a game based on it you would have to come up with new characters).

cmcewen 15y ago

It seems like most people agree that "something should be done", but the question remains what can be done? Should there be a day where everyone calls and complains to Congress about copyright issues? Start an Internet Industry Association of America? I think calling Congress could be effective, but it'd be hard to get the volume required to make a difference, and there is no bill to explicitly support. Likewise, an IIAA might work, but it seems like Google, Facebook, and Twitter would have to be deeply involved to make a difference. My only remaining thought is to use the tactics of the MPAA and RIAA: hire a lobbyist. The only thing I could think of would be a sort of Kickstarter project. Everyone pledges money, and once a target is reached, a lobbyist is hired to draft a bill on Issue X, and lobby Congress for its passage. There'd have to be a sympathetic member of Congress in order to introduce the bill, and I'm sure a serious amount of money would have to be raised, but this is the only way I can think of that the average joe on the Internet could do anything besides complain on HN. Thoughts?

tzs 15y ago

> Create a legal doctrine that merely linking is protected free speech I disagree with this one. How about this instead? * Create a legal doctrine that linking is legally the equivalent of a citation in a printed publication If something is protected free speech in a book or magazine or newspaper or flyer, it should be so on the internet. If something would not be protected free speech when published in a book, etc., then I don't see why merely being published on the internet should make a difference. In other words, the internet is just another publication medium. In most areas it does not need different laws. The ones we have for other media are fine.

Dylan16807 15y ago
I'm curious now; how could a citation in a book be illegal?
- tzs 15y ago
  I'm not sure if it is possible or not for a citation in a book to be illegal. If by "illegal" we include civil liability, not just criminal liability, I could imagine that a book could contain libelous citations. For instance, if someone published a book called "Child Molesters Among Us!" that contained citations to a bunch of people in the community that are not in fact child molesters (basically people that the author simply didn't like) he'd be in for some serious lawsuits. If he did the same thing on a web page, with the links being names that when clicked brought up the person's house on Google Maps I'd have no objection to him being in for the same lawsuits.

chernevik 15y ago

Here is an old Fog Creek software management reading list: http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/FogCreekMBACurriculum.html http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/FogCreekMBACurriculum... And, an old Joel Spolsky reading list on programming: http://www.joelonsoftware.com/navlinks/fog0000000262.html http://www.joelonsoftware.com/navlinks/fog0000000262.html These are terrific lists, I've learned a ton from them and haven't yet gotten further than halfway through either. But I submit that the politics of the United States of America are every bit as complicated as software. We have _one_ fundamental problem, and that related to the TV ads? Um, how likely is it that so broad and general a statement about software development would be true, never mind helpful? We will not understand our country's politics until we give them the same attention we give our profession. We shouldn't be silent before we've checklisted some reading list -- but maybe we ought to speak as if perhaps this is a big and complicated system about which we have a lot to learn.

saulrh 15y ago
There are plenty of complex systems with complex problems but deceptively simple solutions. Those solutions might be difficult to implement, and might have nasty little details, but they're still simple enough to sum up in one sentence. For example, back in 1911, the problem was "monopolies", and the answer was "regulate the maximum size of a corporate entity." I'm not saying that this particular problem has a simple solution. I'm saying that we shouldn't throw out ideas because they seem too simple. And, of course, the more angles we have on the problem, the better.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

forrestthewoods 15y ago

Are you kidding me? The first Harry Potter book came out in 1997. A 10 year copyright means that 5 years ago someone could have taken the book, mass produced their own copy, and sold it at Barnes and Noble. That would be the same time the 7th and final book came out and well before the movies were complete. That is a simply absurd idea. Edit: Downvotes aren't surprising but I'd love to hear the argument why rights to a creative work should be lost when it's still in development and rapidly growing with each day.

philwelch 15y ago
For one, that wouldn't interfere in the slightest with Rowling's ability to successfully sell her seventh book. In fact, it might get her to write some more books, since the first wouldn't be sufficient to make her quite as rich as she is.
- forrestthewoods 15y ago
  Because watching other people get rich off of your work is such a good incentive.

EGreg 15y ago

I always wanted to meet Joel Spolsky. I should soon :)

ggchappell 15y ago

This is a nice little essay, and I agree with most of it, but this part is rather naive: > A solution is for the Internet industry to start giving free advertising to political campaigns on our own new media assets... A comment by daeken on the "Can we kill the music business too?" HN post (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3493002 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3493002) has some ideas that apply nicely here, too. From that comment: > While I think the author's heart is in the right place, I think he's fallen into the trap that nearly everyone in the music startup industry has fallen into: the content and distribution are the easy parts, getting people to give a damn is the hard part. > The hard part in all this is getting it in front of users, and getting them to care about the music. Similarly, the hard part of a political campaign is getting noticed. 100,000 people out there would be happy to run for president I'm sure; the vast majority of them are never noticed. Some few are. Fewer still are noticed a lot. I would love to see a world in which money-buys-attention is not the primary rule that determines who gets the most powerful job there is. But turning on the firehose and flooding people with free ads from 100,000 presidential hopefuls, does not look to me like the way to make that happen. How to make it happen, is worthy of some serious discussion. Again, nice post. I think the first part is right on target.

Jayasimhan 15y ago

Lobbying is corruption irrespective of how we cut it. Finding ways to abolish it should be the only goal.

henrikschroder 15y ago

If you are in the EU, and you want these things Joel talks about, vote for your local Pirate Party. Vote for them in your national elections, and vote for them in the elections to the European Parliament. We don't need external lobbying to get what we want; we can just elect the representatives we want. So do it.

bambax 15y ago

Joel is right. As it is, we have to win every time: they need to win only once.

daintynews 15y ago

Joel is right on some terms, however the problem is how are we going to know who gets to join in this share of air time on these sites? Also, who is going to determine that?

talos 15y ago

well said. what kind of lobbying power have Google et al invested in? with their cash flow, I see no reason why they couldn't fund/push for reasonable legislation that defends their corporate existence.

infocaptor 15y ago

Joel, why don't you and other Internet personalities start something and we all will join. Setup a website, get donation from every developer, hire lobbyists or whatever is needed. You and people you know have the reach and get things in motion. We will follow the lead.

MarkMc 15y ago

As a side note, Google Plus is clearly still in beta - the page crashes using Safari on my iPad.

mrdingle 15y ago

We also need to seriously start electing people that represent us. Honestly, we need to pick people who understand technological issues and we need to cycle them regularly. Most importantly, we all need to participate in government.

drcube 15y ago

Regarding point 2: Advertising is an arms race. Nobody benefits from spending millions of dollars on advertising; they benefit from outspending their competitors. Everybody would be happier if they could outspend their competitors without spending millions of dollars. But they can't. As soon as there is a cheap, or even free alternative to spending megabucks for tv slots, those channels will get filled up in addition to your traditional outlets. And the internet isn't free, nor is coordinating a massive internet campaign. The net result of number 2 is that we'll have more political advertising, and the person with the most money will still win. Still, there is a democritizing influence to be had from shifting campaigns from traditional broadcast media to the internet. We're seeing that already and it's only going to grow. So, in essence, point 2 won't help, and it's already happening. This is a hard problem.

naner 15y ago

So I'm an engineer for a living which means I'm probably about as politically (un)knowledgeable as most people here, but do all of our "calls to action" seem hopelessly naive to anyone else? I mean take the first example: elimination of software patents. This is great and I would like this to happen, too. A pretty significant problem, however, is that some of the most successful and most powerful American companies are built around these laws and prop up these laws, help write these laws, etc. Does anyone believe our legal system is going to say: "Sorry, Microsoft (Apple, IBM, whoever), all the billions you spent on software patents and legal fees and all the money you earn from them is gone. We've decided software patents are unfair so that massive part of your business is now invalid." We can sit around all day outlining what we think would be the most fair policies. It is all irrelevant if we can't define a path to get there.

keen 15y ago
How about banning new software patents, and letting existing ones run their course? The Apples and Microsofts of the world might be okay with that.
studentrob 15y ago
Raising awareness of the problem is the first step. A lot of people still do not know why software patents are bad. Similar to sopa and pipa, except to a larger degree here, mostly software engineers and very internet savvy users are aware of the problem with software patents. We need more anecdotes and evidence, then a way to deliver the message. Once the problem is defined, the solution will present itself. If it doesn't, we have failed at defining and convincing people of the problem.
chadmalik 15y ago
You have to articulate a goal to get there. I'm not going to make obvious comparisons but clearly there were plenty of legal regimes in the past that people thought could never end that did in fact end.
beatpanda 15y ago
What's fair or even possible isn't the point. "We don't have to get all this stuff. We merely have to tie them up fighting it, and re-center the "compromise" position." See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window, Richard Stallman

mhb 15y ago

The problem isn't that it costs a lot to win an election. It will always be expensive to get people's attention regardless of the medium. The problem is that the government is too powerful and it's worth so much to win an election. But that's even harder to fix.

jebblue 15y ago

Elimination of software patents, ok, so patents bad. I stopped reading after that.

VMG 15y ago

I forgot that political parties had to pay for TV time in the US and how this influences elections. In Germany, we actually have (nearly?) the system Joel describes with equal time for everybody which has some interesting consequences: * I don't think campaign financing is that big of a deal in Germany * There are a lot of TV ads from politically extreme or plain weird parties during election time. There also is a satirical party that makes pretty funny ads. * The politically extreme parties can refund their advertising costs if they are above a certain threshold of votes, which causes some controversy Edit for clarity: of course every party can refund their expenses, but for politically extreme parties this is controversial

nostromo 15y ago
In the US giving equal time to all would likely be considered unconstitutional because you're limiting freedom of speech. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Elec...) What I like about Joel's approach is that it doesn't limit speech, but instead expands it online. I have no idea if Google (et al) would go for such a thing, essentially giving away ad time for free / cheap, but it's a great idea. YouTube has already sponsored debates where candidates take questions from the public (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNN-YouTube_presidential_debates http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNN-YouTube_presidential_debate...) so it's not unthinkable.
- jonmc12 15y ago
  If there was a way to opt out of exposure to political advertising (kind of like can-spam and do-not-call lists), and most Americans adopted this option, maybe it would remove the motivation to exercise this 1st amendment right.
  - jcitme 15y ago
    Even better: the key word is "give" All google has to do is 'give' x ad views before some videos on youtube, for each candidate. If someone tries to get Google to do otherwise, they're limiting GOOGLE'S freedom of speech.

jeffool 15y ago

I can't agree enough. And the longer we take to address all if these problems, the harsher the backlash is going to be. I'm so disgruntled with copyright I almost think 10 years is too long.

grncdr 15y ago
Cross-posted from the G+ thread: Regarding limiting copyright to 10 years, and since you brought up ponies, I feel that solves the wrong problem. The issue I see is that a few large greedy corporations effectively monopolize the copyrights for the vast majority of the nation/worlds creative output, that they then further exploit a corrupt political system to extend those copyrights indefinitely is almost secondary. A thought experiment: make the sales/purchase of copyright ownership illegal. This would still allow an artist or creator to license the right to sell and distribute their work, but leave them unable to lose (legal) control of such distribution. This still allows a lot of room for the mega-corps to profit, but with less outright exploitation of artists than we currently see. Copyrights are held by the creator(s) for life, and works pass into the public domain after death, not the artists estates (or more often, the organization that owns the copyright). I feel this is simple to understand, fair to creators, and still provides business incentives to non-creators to invest time and money in the production and promotion of quality content.
- stan_rogers 15y ago
  A lot of legitimate copyright ownership depends on the ability to assign copyright. It varies by work and by jurisdiction, but the default copyright holder (by statute) is not always the party it should be. In the US, for instance, a corporation's identity might belong by default to the designer, such that they may be able to register trademarks but be prevented from using them freely without copyright assignment. In Canada, the commissioner, not the creator, of a work holds copyright by default, so contracts of commission for things like portraits and weddings photos usually include a copyright assignment clause. (That's actually an improvement over the previous state of affairs, in which the photographer would have to hire the subject as a model for a nominal fee in one contract, then have another contract for purchase and use of the work.) I suppose you could legislate the general condition, but there will always be edge cases. Unfortunately, allowing for edge cases is going to result in abuse.

amirmc 15y ago

> "And ponies. We want ponies. We don't have to get all this stuff. We merely have to tie them up fighting it, and re-center the 'compromise' position" I bet the MPAA et al have used this tactic to their own advantage thus far. I'm aware of this concept from negotiation tactics and it's made me think of the current situation in a completely different way. Thanks Joel.

saryant 15y ago
Yes, it's known as the Overton Window (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window) and has certainly been a primary tactic of the entertainment industry for the last several years in their war against the internet. It's high time we began using it ourselves.
- jeffool 15y ago
  Agreed! ... Anyone have suggestions on what idealistic things to ask for?
  - marshray 15y ago
    Let's be sure to stick to things that are plausible and would represent an actual improvement if implemented. * Copyright reform would be great, but seems like a lot of it is international treaty. * Real net neutrality * More and better broadband. * Support for net security (DNSSEC) and anonymity (e.g. Tor), maybe IPv6. * In defense of the first-sale doctrine and promote compatibility - eliminate the anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA * Truth in labeling - all systems using DRM have to be fully described on the outside of the box and all advertising materials Ideally we'd want regulations on the other guy more than on the yourself. But just because Hollywood doesn't want it doesn't mean it we would. For example Hollywood would fight tooth and nail against something like "Free trade for DVDs - End region locking" but it would probably only help them in the long run.
    - jeffool 15y ago
      I think net neutrality and proper labeling work perfectly with his list. And I don't think that "bad for established media" should be the guiding principe, just "good for people". To that end, "no artificial geographic restrictions" seems reasonable to me. That said: * Legal recognition of public domain donations. * Legal recognition of public domain recursive work (in the vein of the GPL, where work from it must also be in the public domain.)

crazygringo 15y ago

Indeed... why isn't there an IIAA (Internet Industry Association of America), modelled along the same lines of the MPAA/RIAA? Google, Facebook, etc. could be the main contributors, but smaller companies would donate too (there might be a very significant long tail). It could lobby for everything Joel talks about.

thebigshane 15y ago
I think that's a lot of trust being put into Google, Facebook, etc to not use this same lobby group to lobby for laws that would benefit them over smaller companies.
bcrawl 15y ago
I support this notion. I dont think there is any current organization which deals with patent rights + free internet etc. There is EFF but no one takes it seriously. EFF is such a joke that Google autocomplete doesnt even find it even if you type EFF! Patents stuff is too confusing for me, but the concept of ad space on popular websites to spread the voice of Joel/Internet would be awesome. I think Reddit will participate because they have been pretty devoted so far, definitely not Facebook though. I dont think they want any of this drama..... asusal.
adambarber 15y ago
More to the point, what's stopping Google from declaring war on the MPAA? I imagine a lot of money would be lost if Google just pulled every site belonging to a member of the MPAA from the search results. Aside from a few people at the top of Google with a sense of restraint and fair play, if Google alone decided to ruin the movie industry, they could - quickly. Obviously an IIAA pays more respect to the current way of doing things, rather than just making a unilateral decree that the movie industry doesn't get to exist anymore if they won't extend the same courtesy to the tech industry. Slightly less drastically, I wouldn't mind Google making a note in the SERPs about which members of Congress are in favor of censoring freedom of speech. A small note with that person's position on SOPA would be a handy tool to keep the public informed.
- 15y ago

mark_l_watson 15y ago

Excellent. Is the EFF a reasonable organization to lead this fight? I am not a member of the EFF but sometimes I give them tiny bits of money when they do something that I particularly like. I am not 100% sure about this, but isn't the "Internet economy" much, much larger than the "Entertainment economy?" I don't hold out much hope of curing the corruption in our political system but I do hope that we can continue shining a bright light at corruption so more people know what is happening. Unfortunately it is the threat of a bright light of public accountability that causes attacks on Internet freedoms.

Duff 15y ago
I think the EFF is a great organization and advocate for individual rights. But their agenda is often at odds with the interests of the "industry".
rabidsnail 15y ago
The EFF is a public interest organization with its own goals. We need an industry lobby. The closest things to that that we currently have are ACM and IEEE, both of which suck hard as lobbies.
- _delirium 15y ago
  The ACM and IEEE probably suck even more than they need to, but I don't see much hope of the tech industry being a good lobbying force even with a better organization. Part of the problem is that it isn't really all on "our" side (if you read "our" to be the EFF side). We do have a fairly strong industry lobby of sorts already, the BSA, but it almost always takes the Hollywood side (and initially supported SOPA). I think, unfortunately, a lot of "our" companies just aren't on "our" side (Microsoft, Apple, Oracle, etc.), because of their MPAA-esque paranoia about piracy, jailbreaking, etc. If it would be possible to make a professional association like the ACM take a stronger and more visible stance, imo that'd be a better approach, because the tech industry's employees are often intelligent, but the tech industry's companies would imo be more likely to just lobby as a special interest, not in any sort of enlightened way. So it needs to be structured so the employees, not their employers, control the lobbying organization.

snowwrestler 15y ago

Political campaigns are not, in the broader context of the U.S. economy, that expensive. The average cost of a winning House campaign in 2010 was less than $1.5 million. The max limit on a personal donation to any federal political campaign is $2,500. These are numbers that are pretty small compared to the value and salaries generated in either the entertainment or tech industries. The difference is that the entertainment industry has developed the culture and institutions to direct some of their value toward political activities. The tech industry largely has not. Joel's idea of free political advertising on tech properties could be problematic because advertising, even if freely given, has an economic value. Corporations are expressly forbidden from donating money to federal political campaigns, so this whole idea might be squashed by the FEC.

marquis 15y ago
What if a non-profit was the middle-man for placing ads, for example? The crowd-funding covers the donation requirements from individuals, many who do not donate to normal elections but might put $5 on this. I'm sure there are tricks already used to get around funding caps that could be taken advantage of.
- snowwrestler 15y ago
  Non-profits are corporations too; they are also forbidden from donating to political campaigns. If you created a PAC, then you could solicit donations from individuals and spend it on whatever candidates you, the PAC director, chose. But, PAC contributions and distributions are also pretty strictly limited: $5,000 per person, and $5,000 per candidate, respectively. Political parties can spend a lot more money, but only on candidates who are members of the same party. So for instance if you started the Internet Party, you couldn't give much money to a politician who is a declared Democrat or Republican.
- noibl 15y ago
  Political Action Committees can raise unlimited sums from corporations: 'In 2010, the landmark case filed by Citizens United changed the rules regarding corporate campaign expenditures. This ruling made it legal for corporations and unions to spend from their general treasuries to finance independent expenditures. Direct corporate and union contributions to federal campaigns, however are still prohibited.' 'The 2010 election marked the rise of a new political committee, dubbed "super PACs," and officially known as "independent-expenditure only committees," which can raise unlimited sums from corporations, unions and other groups, as well as individuals. [...] Super PACs are not allowed to coordinate directly with candidates or political parties since they are "independent".' -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_action_committee http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_action_committee