I'm having a hard time coming to terms with the fact that the MPAA gets to decide what's "off the table" in legislation. Is there no longer even a pretense of separation of corporations and the government?
Not that I support the MPAA, but it isn't some faceless entity. It's made up of people. And the people that make up the MPAA have given the MPAA the power to speak on their behalf. So, when a representative speaks with a member of the government, he's doing it on behalf of people. Most likely, people that are his constituents.
The people opposing SOPA did the same thing. We organized via various organizations (such as Reddit, for example), and called or wrote to our law maker. In some capacity, we had Google representing us.
MPAA isn't taking things off the table. Rather, they are working to propose something that doesn't include some feature that was hotly contested.
So, what is inherently wrong with people approaching their congressmen with proposals?
>So, what is inherently wrong with people approaching their congressmen with proposals?
On it's face, nothing. Deeper however, too many laws are passed because lobbyists are paid to ensure that corporate interests are taken care of. I don't have a lot of time to push my agenda, but corporations convert money into people's time.
Lots of us aren't even convinced that there is an issue. If there is, lets see the numbers and talk about them, and if we see something that needs a solution, we can come up with one.
This is a jobs saving law, they should be focused on jobs creation. They can save jobs by outlawing outsourcing, but nobody things that is a good idea.
> Deeper however, too many laws are passed because lobbyists are paid to ensure that corporate interests are taken care of.
Except, SOPA isn't passed yet, and so far, the push back has been successful. There is still a fight, but the corporations aren't winning.
And we do have the means to voice our opinion. We have our own version of lobbyists. Not only do we have the ability to directly contact our law makers, we can also support organizations who do have the time to fight these battles for us. EFF is a great example.
Other organizations out there include Mozilla, Apache, etc. Couple this with support of companies that support the things you want. And if the companies do support something (for example, BSA's support of SOPA, and by extension, Apple and MS), you complain.
> I don't have a lot of time to push my agenda
I can throw that back at you: if your agenda isn't important enough to put forth effort, and for you to take a part in the process, how will I know your opinion?
If you don't speak up, you can't complain when no one listens.
Note: I'm not trying to insult you. Hopefully I don't come off that harsh. =)
+1 to the EFF taking donations. This is just how things get hashed out in a huge representative democracy. Let's make sure our side is well-funded. The EFF runs on under $4m/year. That's chump change.
10,000 people donating $30/month would double the EFF's revenues. That's the cost of taking your girl to the movies or buying an EA game on clearance, and unlike those things it doesn't go right into the pockets of terrible companies.
> If you don't speak up, you can't complain when no one listens.
I do spend quite a bit of time engaging with politicians. Certainly if I am taking my time out to discuss this with not only my peers online, but in person. I written my congress people, and will be taking this into consideration when I go to the polls next. Yes yes, this is how politics work here.
That said, I don't think that you are fully understanding the amount of time and money that corporate interests put into politics. Or maybe I am not understanding it correctly. I'm more aware of the amount of money in politics than the number of people paid to influence politicians, but that should probably be reported somewhere I hope.
> Hopefully I don't come off that harsh.
No problem, I'm used to dealing with your type. Sometimes I can even be that way given circumstances.
> That said, I don't think that you are fully understanding the amount of time and money that corporate interests put into politics.
Why would you think that? Based off my few comments, that didn't' touch on this? It's an absurd assumption to make, if I might be so bold. I'm not blind to the amount of pressure people at corporations put into politics. However, I'm not blinded by the fact that they are, in fact, people, and not some faceless corporation.
> No problem, I'm used to dealing with your type. Sometimes I can even be that way given circumstances.
My type? Hopeful? Polite? Intelligent? Not blinded?
Why thank you. May you continue to strive to be like me, as you seem to want.
> My type? Hopeful? Polite? Intelligent? Not blinded?
Direct.
You mentioned what's wrong with "people" coming in with their legislation. I guess that I would re-state that by the time laws get to discussion in the public, the laws are mostly written by politicians that are heavily lobbied. Something that goes through that type of taint by money or business interests is not always in the best interest of the people. Do the members of congress get some things better than technology? Maybe, I kind of doubt it. I watched a few hours of the house talking about energy changes, and it was clear who was lobbying for what. Nobody was actually watching from the House floor, but I assume that everyone get's C-SPAN in their offices in case something interesting comes up.
I have to compete very hard to get my agenda's addressed. I do have my own time and money to spend on politics, and I do it. That said, it feels like a drop in the bucket, and I think that is not just my feeling but actually the case.
I like donating to the EFF, a great idea. That is just one of the areas that I am interested in. The more causes that I add (and there are MANY), the more I need to pay to combat the fact that there is too much money in politics.
So, lets go back to corporations not being people, reasonable and accountable PACs, and stop having revolving door career lobbyists/politicians.
I really like our system of government, but I think that it is fair to level the playing field.
The MPAA is made up of companies / corporate interests more than it's "made up of people". They're not SAG or AFTRA, as much as they like to pretend they speak for the "little guy" in Hollywood.
From their web site:
MPAA’s members are the six major U.S. motion picture studios
Corporations are very different from other types of organizations - they make no pretense of representing the interests of the individuals within them. Their interests _may_ align at times with those of their employees, but they often don't - and they're not supposed to.
At the end of the day, corporations are _supposed_ to prioritize the interest of their shareholders, and in practical terms, they often also prioritize the interests of their senior executives, if for no other reason than those executives are compensated in shares of equity.
Just because a company is made up of people does not mean that it will push legislation that represents those people. The interests of a corporation as a whole can be quite different than those of the individual.
You are basically asking "Why aren't they trying to fool us anymore?". Just look at opensecrets.org - it's all there, at least the visible part - donations and revolving doors (no blackmail, threats, assassinations etc.). People still discussing any other problem than money in politics are under a strong, remotely-induced hypnosis. You know, the hypnotists that can make people not see other people, seeing right through them. That explanation is the only thing keeping me sane these days.
It's a face saving gesture and after the fact, but they're basically acknowledging that they can't ask their lawmaker friends for DNS blocking on anything.
*edit: Should also point out that the MPAA is purely a lobbyist organization. Influencing legislation on behalf of the interests of their members is their raison d'etre. Chris Dodd, former Senator from Connecticut who's name is on a lot of laws is the current chairman and CEO.
While their influence is obviously a big problem, keep in mind that you've picked one of two ways to read that line, that they are declaring their decision. The other way to read it is that they are stating a fact, which could come from discussions with politicians, even if in those discussions the MPAA was screaming for it to stay in the bill.
The old content producers are very much in bed with the government. Radley Balko wrote about instances where RIAA (or MPAA, can't remember) representatives were with federal agents during raids.
> Radley Balko wrote about instances where RIAA (or MPAA, can't remember) representatives were with federal agents during raids.
That's fairly common wrt trademarked goods (such as high-end purses). I assume that the reason is something along the lines of "federal agents can't recognize counterfeit goods".
If the trademark owner is liable for claiming that something is counterfeit when it isn't, that doesn't seem like a horrible idea.
How do you think that federal agents should recognize counterfeit goods?
It sounded to me as though DNS filtering was off the table until the controversy dies down. I don't think the MPAA/RIAA is going anywhere. They want to control the technology & destroy it if necessary. This is a strategic retreat on their part.
Yes, my take as well. DNS filtering is the easiest thing to retreat on (it was the only thing specifically called out in the White House's response) and the NFL et al. can continue to work with ICE to seize domains the old-fashioned way.
SOPA was shelved in its current form. And DNS filtering was one mechanism to enforce the provisions of SOPA. That doesn't mean that the industry and congress have given up the basic premise of SOPA: the idea that all content on the internet should be pre-screened thoroughly for any hint of IP infringement, that standards of evidence and due process should be thrown out the window and the mere act of accusation should be sufficient to warrant adjudication of a punishment on the site owners.
All of it is double speak. The bill can be revived at a moments notice, when we finally let up and go back to being complacent it will be pulled from the shelve and passed as quickly as possible.
I think that is a good idea. We should have a movement to destroy destructive entities like the MPAA, RIAA, NAR, and other groups that inhibit innovation with lobbying and lawsuits.
The MPAA/RIAA argument amounts to: We would like to do business on the Internet but existing Internet architecture isn't satisfactory for our business model. Let's make a law to change the architecture.
Notice the stealth loaded question: censoring the internet is cool, just all this backlash is because dns blocking. They are thinking hmm, how can we get dns blocking without all this backlash?
