I was on BloombergTV talking SOPA today - how'd I do?
bloomberg.com
bloomberg.com
But here is the problem I see with this whole SOPA debate...
I didn't see anything that would help my Uncle Art understand what this is all about in his language and why he should care.
This is what he sees:
- There is a bill in congress.
- It's to stop people from stealing other peoples' stuff.
- There are strong opinions on both sides.
- The old companies I love (movies, etc.) support it.
- The Chamber of Commerce (mother, apple pie) supports it.
- This young guy was very articulate; I like him.
- I don't understand the Constitutional argument.
- He says this new stuff wouldn't have happened. So what?
- What is reddit?
- I thought Facebook was for kids.
- Who is Louie CK? I really don't understand what he did.
- Why is the internet so afraid of ethical behavior?
I read the comments in this thread before I watched the video (like I usually do), so I was waiting for Alexis to say something like squeee said. Something that would get the great mass of those who don't understand the argument to take notice and take action.
Alexis, keep up the good fight. And find a way to get our aunts, uncles, and grandparents to "get it". I believe that will be the turning point of the battle.
Where's there's a hot topic issue, the Republicans will come out in lockstep with voices on the same wavelength. They use clear and simple language with a single antagonist. In the really big battles they even coin phrases like 'Obamacare', 'Death tax', & 'energy exploration', that succinctly convey their point of view. Each of those phrases will be used repeatedly by every Republican on TV, until their opponents (Democrats) even adopt the same language they've invented.
This why I like that 'shoplifter in the store' analogy. Its pretty simple and relatable to just about anyone. On the topic of language though, the opponents of SOPA should be creating their own word/phrase. If we refer to SOPA as 'online piracy', then we've already conceded more ground that we need to.
This is the word: Prohibition. It's our "death panels".
This is how you tell it to grandma:
- The music & movie industries want a Prohibition on user-created content.
- When radio was invented, they wanted a Prohibition on it.
- When cable TV was invented, they wanted a Prohibition on it.
- When the VCR was invented, they wanted a Prohibition on it.
- Now Youtube and many other websites have been invented.
- Youtube is very entertaining; you can watch funny cat videos all day long.
- They want the Government to create a Prohibition on Youtube.If I had to paint in broad, evocative strokes, I'd claim the industries are using the government to prop up their outdated business models by destroying competition from users.
So I'd suggest 'Monopoly.'
"They want the Government to create a Prohibition so they can have a Monopoly on content"
That said, I do think 'Prohibition' is an accurate description. SOPA may well be the first step in a 'War on Piracy' that does have strong parallels with '20s prohibition and the drug war. SOPA is a futile attempt to stop normal human behavior - sharing of content. It won't work. The fact that it won't work could lead to even more draconian blocking measures, creating a self-reinforcing loop of ever-escalating restrictions and punishments. 'Prohibition' conveys that futility and extremeness pretty well for a single term.
The key thing to focus on is the imbalance of power SOPA creates and how that will end up getting in the way of Uncle Art's evening entertainment. So far the shoplifting shutting down the store analogy is the most pointed I've heard, but still not a catch phrase.
My hope with the term 'Prohibition' is to turn it around and put the focus on the evil being done by the media companies. They want the government take away your rights, because they don't want to compete fair and square with web technologies.
Here's an analogy I've been using that might work: "They're tying your hands behind your back so you have to pay them to feed you."
Yes- they are so good at this, its a great lesson in conveying with power.. George Lakoff beautifully explains how they do this in his book- "Don't Think of an Elephant!: Know Your Values and Frame the Debate".. You also mention they get the other political parties to use "their" terminology as well, George Lakoff goes through this in the book as well. I found a ton of communication lessons in the book, and I dont think the tone will alienate anyone, even though its clear the author doesn't lean too far to the right. A great book to read if anyone is at all interested in how the Right owns the game...
If some kids at a mall talk about shoplifting, all the malls that company owns get shut down without a trial.
We know and understand user-created content because we've been using it (and creating it) for years. That's the thing we need to get across to the great masses - not that websites should be penalised for giving out unauthorised copies (which they'll largely agree with), but that a huge percentage of the websites they use and love are no more in constant control of what appears on every page of their websites than malls are able to control every last thing that happens within them, and that the penalties should be organised accordingly.
The real metaphor is, "If you own a pawn shop and let obviously dirt broke people come in and sell you stolen Rolexes all the time, you may be shut down."
It is like you own this huge supermarket. Lately some shady guys have started putting flyers with information on where you could buy pirated merchandise from China for cheap.
With SOPA this would mean the Governmnet could shut down _your_ supermarket because someone found one of these flyers at your place.
I think this runs at odds with what some people are trying to do, which is educate the electorate on why this kind of thing is a bad idea so that these types of issue branding tricks can't get past the public.
All that being said, I'm not sure that much of the electorate can be educated in this way, which probably does account for the success of this sort of thing.
Not to get to OT with politics, but another important part of the "Republicans are better at messaging" thing is that in general conservative positions tend to be very simple, e.g.
"drill for more oil" vs. "if we create a market for greenhouse gas emissions we can incentivize a market-based transition to a cleaner...."
"get tough on crime" vs. "focusing on incarceration ratherthan rehabilitation for certain classes of crimes actually increases crime by decimating minority communities and perpetuating a cycle of...."
"the government is bloated" vs.
Etc.
(And you never throw the baby out with the bath water!)
"SOPA is Internet Mutilation"
Here's the analogy I tweeted a couple weeks ago: "SOPA is the equivalent of allowing Disney to shut down a restaurant because a customer drew Mickey Mouse on a napkin."
I think anyone can recognize the injustice in that.
The shoplifting analogy seems more immediate and straight-forward to me. I understand that the shoplifting analogy equates piracy with theft but the distinction isn't really all that relevant to SOPA. Uncle Art probably equates piracy with theft anyway, so why fight the battle on two fronts?
One final point on this, by indirectly conceding the piracy/theft point you're less likely to step out of alignment with Uncle Art thus making it easier for him to agree with everything else you say. :)
P.S. I know we're all probably focusing too much on that killer soundbyte but I do think it was the missing ingredient. :)
If we abstract analogies too far, I worry that people will ignore them. I tried to leave Uncle Art with very few dots to connect by only changing the "host" business in my analogy.
The struggle I have with metaphors like yours is that it doesn't accurately describe piracy (because it's not the same as theft). This feels a bit disingenuous, but definitely makes for a great soundbyte.
It's a catch-22: the thoughtful, reasonable explanation of why it's a terrible idea will never get through to anyone except the people who already know.
I think a very accurate, yet simple metaphor would be something like:
Imagine this: If a man sings a Lady Gaga song in a park, then Universal Music Group will be able to close the park.
(Turn it into: "If a girl sings a Lady Gaga song in her school, then Universal Music Group might ask to close the school." and you may win every mother's support =P )
Or also: If a thief tells someone where he left a stolen wallet, government may close the buidling where the talk took place.
PS: Hi everyone, I'm from Argentina, but I really care about SOPA because it may set a very bad precedent in Internet legislation. Right now, in a lot of countries, this kind of bill would make the proponent look like someone come from Iranian or Chinese government. A fascist person looking for a way to censor the Internet. But if this bill passes, a GLOBAL consequence will be that politicians in other countries (like Argentina, in my case) will say: "Look, this law was approved in the USA. And they care about Freedom of Speach, so, it's not a big deal. -End of story-". And of course, they will use laws like this, to censor much more than just piracy. I dont want to sound fatalistic, but if this bill passes... well, we can start saying goodbye to the Internet as we know it.
And the best Company X I can think of is a sports franchise. (A customer base that is too large to monitor in real time, and that forms a community that would get shut down along with the business.) So what are Y and Z? I don't think they even have to differ from the reality. "Imagine if the government shut down the Boston Red Sox because one of its fans was handing out ripped Beyonce CDs." Or maybe the fan should be selling fake Rolexes, since that probably actually happens.
What is happening in many cases is the Boston Red Sox gave the guy selling the Rolexes a booth to sell them in, and directed people searching for "Rolexes" to his booth. The Red Sox hung up ads along the way and made money from all the people who walked past those ads on their way to get Rolexes. Someone reported those Rolexes stolen, so the Red Sox kicked the guy out with no penalty to the guy or the Red Sox, and then let some other fake watch seller setup shop in the same booth. This kept happening for years, and Rolex had to lay off 4000 people, while the Red Sox made a killing.
SOPA is like a law that would allow your local bar to be shut down if some of its customers meet there to swap pirated Music and Films, only the bar is website on-line.
Imagine you are a shop owner and someone writes something offensive on the outside of your building without you even knowing about it. This bill would allow the government to shutdown your store before you even knew the writing existed.
Today we already have in place a mechanism to notify the store owner, but SOPA changes that. It makes it possible to shut down entrepenuers, the store owners and wealth creators on the internet, before they even have a chance to get started helping to revitalize the American economy.
"But how would you not notice someone graffitied your wall?"
I dig this analogy: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3426990
I was picturing an outside wall with the shop owner inside all day behind the counter. The Mickey Mouse one is more concise though.
If the analogy is somewhat askew, but still suitable, just beginning it with "A _crude_ analogy would be ... " should amend that.
Either way, I do not believe that the faults in analogy would be any real disadvantage in a debate. Here's why:
• Old Grandpa would not be tech-savvy enough to notice the flaw at all, but he would still understand the intended message of the analogy
• The knowledgeable people that support you would understand what you really mean, and either way would have no interest in pointing out flaws in your arguments
• The knowledgeable people that oppose you (e.g Hollywood) would not want to point out the flaw for anything in the world, because then they would have to concede that piracy is not theft (a notion they are working very hard on establishing).
But if you want a more fitting analogy, how about something were people plan illegal activities in the store, instead of shoplifting? The police finds out that some customers have been discussing smuggling in a toystore that you own - the whole store gets shut down without anyone contacting you first.
Most older people seem to think piracy=stealing, and I suspect any argument designed to make a distinction will probably just steel their resolve.
The only way to explain how its bad is to latch onto examples of things that were made possible by the DMCA, and would no longer be possible under SOPA. So I would focus on internet stuff most people DO know about. Basically what you said about reddit, but applied to even more mainstream 2.0 sites. The obvious ones-
"If SOPA had been in place, youtube would never have existed, and if SOPA passes, youtube will probably shut down."
"If SOPA had been in place, WIKIPEDIA could easily have been shut down for something as simple as a user uploading a picture of a celebrity for their entry"
Those sites are big enough that they're known even by older people. At the very least they've heard about them. And if not you can talk about how amazing they are to warm them up.
Then, you can explain that wikipedia has millions and millions of entries by tens of thousands of people, and if the laws are that brittle and unforgiving, collaboration on that scale simply becomes impossible.
It's true indeed that this wouldn't be helpful for your Uncle Art.
Since shoplifters use roads to make their getaway, SOPA would have us set up roadblocks to catch all the thieves.
Could we catch more thieves by setting up roadblocks? Of course! So why don't we? For the same reasons SOPA would be bad law: we don't stop and search people in roadblocks (4th amendment prevents unreasonalbe search and seizure). Also, as a practical matter, roads, like DNS, are shared resources and the collateral damage to transportation (and internet routing) would be massive.
Using an analogy to aid understanding can seriously backfire when your opponents make fallacious arguments from analogy, because the audience doesn't actually understand the issue so they go with whatever the analogies makes believable.
I like the analogy, but it's off by a mark. "If someone leaves stolen goods in your store, this bill allows the government to shut down your store." would be a closer match, but misses a nuance.
"If someone post a notice advertising stolen goods on the community noticeboard in your store, this bill allows the government to shut down your store." would be even closer, but is a little harder to grok.
Prostitution is illegal in most states. SOPA is nearly equivalent to shutting down a bar because somebody went into the bathroom and scrawled "For a good time, call XXX-XXXX" on the wall.
- SOPA is bad for websites that rely on user-generated-content (and entrepreneurs like him)
- We (i.e. tech community) intimidated GoDaddy and forced them to back away from their support for SOPA
- One guy made a million dollars by requesting donations on PayPal instead of demanding payments from all users. This is a great example of innovation. The private sector should innovate like this guy (i.e. they should rely on business models that request payments, not require payments)
I realize that SOPA has zero support on HN and that my criticism of Alexis' interview-responses won't be popular. However, imo, a better approach to win public support would be to come up with specific solutions for the copyright problem and also acknowledge that copyright holders do have some legitimate concerns.
As Alexis said that's a problem for their industry. It's quite a false flag to say that the tech sites need to come up with a solution. Additionally, DMCA is already one solution.
We aren't for piracy, we're just aware of how futile trying to legislate against it is. I think we can make a case for this that articulates the genuine problem and still resonates with the average American.
The types of solutions that are possible are the types they are least inclined accept. Piracy is not killable without taking away the ability to communicate privately and probably not even then. Soviet attempts merely lead to Samizdat, in spite of going to extreme lengths to track people down. Also, prior to the internet, copyright infringement was widespread over sneakernet. Attempts to control that via technical means merely taught a generation of kids how to crack software.
That's not to say there are no solutions. William Patry has a new book about copyright reform. There are new ways of doing business. For example, iTunes proved successful, in spite of the fact that anyone who wanted to could have downloaded the same songs for free. None of those things are stuff they want to hear, though. They don't want to change. They don't think they should have to change. But reality has the last word and reality has no qualms about being unfair.
Now, the evidence points to the fact that downloaders are also the biggest buyers of CDs and DVDs. If you look at it that way, there have been no lost revenues, and in fact the entertainment industry has benefited immensely from free downloading, which has helped it to reach a much broader market.
The main problem with SOPA is that it is not possible to solve a market problem with legislation. Copyright infringement is a market problem, and markets are a lot more effective in delivering solutions than Governments. Consequently, SOPA will utterly fail to prevent copyright infringement, resulting in even MORE draconian laws sometime in the future.
Specific to the problem of music and film is that these markets are highly regulated oligopolies that use their market power to engage in price fixing. Unlike efficient markets, in which there are a range of different prices, the music and film markets only have two prices: Idiotically expensive and free (illegal).
Personally, I would LOVE to pay $1 per episode to watch my favourite HBO series at a time, and in a place of my own choosing. Sadly I cannot. Hence, I either don't watch it at all, or I obtain it by 'other' means. Monopolies/oligopolies only offer one price, and they are free to gouge their customers as long as they can prevent any competition in the market.
In other words, SOPA is NOT about preventing piracy (because that is a hopeless cause, much like the war on drugs), but about protecting the music and film industries illegal, anti-competitive price fixing practices (by way of preventing any other production/distribution of that type of media). Illegal price fixing is a small price that all Governments will gladly pay, as music and film support the propaganda/mythology creation industry of Government.
The simplest solution to prevent piracy would be to open the music and film markets to competition, but that is exactly what the RIAA and MPAA are trying to prevent.
This is the problem with how these bills are named.
SOPA stands for "Stop Piracy Online Act". I.e., how can you be against something that stops theft?
It would have a completely different mainstream reaction if it were called the "Censor the Internet Act" or "Stop Free Speech Online Act".
I like to use the following: "A person tells the government that they saw a TV in the local pawn shop which is really theirs. They never asked the pawn shop owner for it back and they have no reason to suspect the pawn shop owner knows it is stolen. The government will then shut down the pawn shop without even talking to the owner first or having significant proof that the item was really stolen. Every phone book will be required to remove the pawn shop's phone number from it and maps will not be allowed to show the pawn shop. The pawn shop can then attempt to get their store back from the government but if it turns out that the item really was stolen then the government will not return it." In the analogy the pawn shop is a website, the owner of the item is the copyright holder, the item is copyrighted content, and the removal of the phone number and map info is dns-delisting and search-engine de-indexing.
I think the above analogy holds up fairly well and clearly demonstrates the ridiculous measures SOPA goes to. It's also much more easily understandable by non-tech-savvy people. Please tell me if it is not accurate in some way or is unclear.
Edit: If you want to add some sympathy, replace pawn shop with Salvation Army and TV with pair of jeans.
Technically the store isn't shut down it's only removed from the phonebook. At this point the analogy breaks down as that doesn't sound as drastic at all. However, on the web, being removed from DNS would be a death sentence to legitimate sites but ironically (and tragically) not for sites dedicated to copyright infringement.
A car is used as a getaway vehicle in a robbery so the government goes after the car manufacturer.
A safety deposit box contains an illegal item, so the bank gets shut down.
While visiting my parents for Christmas, I scoffed when we drove past a car with a Lamar Smith bumper sticker (they live in TX). My parents asked me why I didn't like him; he was a stand-up representative as far as they knew. I mentioned SOPA and how horrible it is and they both drew a blank...turns out they had never even heard of SOPA. I was shocked since they watch the local and national news almost daily and discuss any story they see regarding technology/the internet with me.
Actually, it's more like, if the government gets a tip that someone shoplifted in your store, the government can instantly shut your store down for a long period of time while it gets investigated.
"If a store in a mall sells counterfeit goods, the entire mall gets shutdown"
She's just teasing - she's the one who invited me on as their tech contributor in the first place: http://search1.bloomberg.com/search/?content_type=all&pa...
I don't believe anyone should be judged on their attire, but if it'll get some people to listen, so it goes.
agree with what other people said about tightening up talking points - wouldn't hesitate to give specific examples about your own companies and the services people use that would be turned off if someone does something stupid, reviews, social networking sites etc.,
as other people said, would try to focus your attention on the interviewer and the camera like they're two friends you're engaging, avoid looking around into space.
good camera presence, good job!
1) Some would recommend not saying "I think" or "I feel" in interview situations. You're the expert -- what you say is fact and the truth. It simply is, not what "you think." I know this is a belligerent, but his is a big issue, so don't forget to pull out the rhetorical stops. However, "we think" may work in these instances. It's congenial, yet conveys that you have the backing of many (and you do, quite frankly), and that you are a thought leader.
2) You need to begin to build some sort of presence in Washington. You're well positioned to do so, and it's the most likely way to stop SOPA/PIPA. Get meetings with as many elected official there as you can, and educate them. It's what Big Media does, and its how they wrote SOPA/PIPA. If you don't think our policymakers know enough about the internet, teach them -- they're smart people, all in all. IIRC you had some success with individual meetings during the first SOPA/PIPA hearings, so you know what I mean. Bloomberg interviews, boycotts, and blackouts are incredibly valuable, but they all pale in comparison to meetings with people who vote on the policy.
Point 2 will of course prompt the question "How the heck is Alexis supposed to meet with these guys, cmon?" My answer: you're an entrepreneur. Hustle. Do what it takes :)
1) Yes, you're absolutely right - it matters and I've gotta break the habit.
2) I actually had a really productive set of meetings with a bunch of reps, sens, and their staffs back in Nov. One of whom, Chaffetz [R-Utah], has been a good voice of reason in House Judiciary Committee Meetings: https://plus.google.com/113164038788726940319/posts/ab9eFgmo... I'm doing everything I can to go back - and early signs are looking promising.
But, to answer your question; great job. Did you get the sense that she truly had any idea what would happen if SOPA/PIPA pass as they are written today?
Politics lives by the fallacy of middle ground: the compromise is always right, and anyone refusing to compromise is always wrong and can be safely ignored. Put that together with the Overton window (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window), and politics compromises its way towards whatever position it wants. Zeno's Paradox, applied to law.
Nice interview!
- You said "you know" reflexively while she asked questions.
- You look young. The cool hair (which I like, personally) makes you look even younger.
- You bob your head.
- You mentioned PIPA without defining it. Most people you need to convince won't know what you're talking about.
- Emphasizing "One Million Dollars!" doesn't sound too huge compared with how often we hear "Billion" and "Trillion" thrown around in the news. LouisCK was great, and it's a good point, but I think it doesn't make the point you want to the people who don't already understand.
Some suggestions on content:
Play up "government intervention is bad" even more. The conservative electorate might be tough on crime, but they're also pro-business. Paint SOPA as a government-subsidized bailout intervention evil that is anti-business and taking away our constitutional rights.
People respect Google, and at least go "those people are smart!" even if they don't get the internet. A lot of conservatives got traction against Obamacare by saying "Doctors hate it, and we trust doctors." Play that up: Smart, innovative businesses like Google oppose this government intervention in the free market. We trust Google, etc. etc.
If I had one sentence to suggest it would be:
"SOPA lets the government intervene to take away the right to free speech from trusted businesses like Google that are the future of our economy, just to bail out the movie industry."
That's one hell of an oversimplification, but I think it's enough to perk up ears. This isn't defense spending - conservatives don't necessarily have any love for "Hollywood liberal PETA supporters" (as my mother puts it). In Hollywood versus Google, Google at least has "pro-business" points. The thing to remember is that if they don't get the internet, the won't get your explanation of any nuances.
The implication here is that he movie industry is in trouble, and needs bailing out. And no-one wants to see the movie industry go under.
Does Hollywood really need a bail-out?
Is there a word missing there perhaps? A word that we've become accustomed to in its routine presence in the media?
When members of the media talk about crimes the word "alleged" might as well be "uh" given the frequency it drops from their mouths. But not here.
Even a news outlet as savvy as Bloomberg is utterly clueless about the pitfalls of erasing the presumption of innocence and due process for the online world.
1) These laws will not prevent IP infringement. They might not even reduce it. They will definitely not increase profits.
2) These laws will hinder domestic innovation in software, but will not stop innovation - it will just happen elsewhere (probably China).
3) Enforcement of these laws is extrajudicial. If someone does not like something on a site, they can claim IP infringement and have the site removed without a trial. That isn't even prudent, never-mind upholding the ideals of Americans.
SOPA and PIPA won't help Hollywood, will cripple Silicon Valley, and will create a means of silencing unwanted speech. I can't see how anyone who understands the reality of the situation could support them. You might as well legislate sunny days and outlaw umbrellas.
I'm glad that you spoke for all of us in such a public manner. It takes nerve and resolve to stand in front of that camera.
- From the outside-in perspective, you carry the impression of being a young, successful, and likable Silicon Valley entrepreneur.
- From the inside-out, you have the ultimate cred, not just for starting one of the most influential online communities but imbuing it with your distinctive ethos of caring, humor and nerd.
With these two identities, you're in the position to really help influence how the future is shaped.
It's going to take much more than a few TV news appearances, though. It's on all of us to motivate our friends & family to educate their representatives about the horrors of these bills. We're on the right side of this, but it's going to take a concerted effort from all of us to win the day.
I may be getting another chance to return to Washington later this month to meet with decision-makers. I'll be back here to solicit feedback on my testimony.
https://plus.google.com/113164038788726940319/posts/ab9eFgmo...
Oh, and be sure to check out http://engineadvocacy.org
1) This will kill innovation in the US, hurting job growth.
Mentioned
Not mentioned at all
Not mentioned at all.Think about how to appeal to someone who is retried or involved in managing a bakery or who runs a flower shop. We don't want to come off as a bunch of elitist nerds. We want them to understand that we're concerned about the future of innovation in this country and the preservation of free speech. We should focus on explaining how SOPA wildly oversteps the bounds of reasonable measures to prevent piracy and causes an enormous amount of collateral damage to the rest of the economy and innovation.
The store analogy was a pretty good start, IMHO.
1. At 3.27 she asks, "..where's the compromise in-between, is there one?", and you reply "Unfortunately, the way this technology works....", so three seconds into your answer, applying a binary filter, your answer is "no". Assuming your objective is to move the 'swing voters' towards your position, that's probably not ideal. A more politic thing would be to say "Yes, there is.. <details...>". Even if those details don't pertain to legislation at all, you can still present it as a compromise in the sense that it gets the other party the thing they ultimately want.
2. Distance yourself further from the real bad guys and the prime targets of this legislation (some extreme example like counterfeit manufacturers of safety equipment). You did this once or twice, but I think this point needs hammering. Most people don't know that Reddit isn't some sketchy movie sharing site. Do this in a way that demonstrates empathy for the other side. I want to help solve their problem, but this isn't the way
3. While I love what Louis CK did, and it is a good example of the type of innovation big media should be trying, I don't think it's a great example to bring into this debate - it's just too complicated for most people to understand.
2) I need to stress that this is well-intentioned legislation that is a problem I want to help solve, just not this way.
3) Sigh. Yeah. I didn't expect that question and through out the first example from recent history that came to mind.
Thanks! I hope there'll be a round 2.
Alexis, did you talk about Internet Freedom? How anyone in the world can use Internet to read about controversial topics, to share memories, etc. However, certain industries can not compete in controlling topics, memories, etc, so they are bringing the laws in, making website owners at the mercy of aging industries?
Did you know that SOPA is just one of the many bills? I highly recommend adopting Internet Freedom movement that seeks to clearly say any SOPA-related restrictions are unacceptable. Otherwise, how do would you explain a bill titled "Stop Online Child Pornography Act"?
Quite a mouthful, though.
I'd say SOPA is giving corporations the power to control Free Speech on the Internet because it's illegal for the government to do so. If you don't want the government or big companies to read what you type online, then demand Internet Freedom.
It's too bad she didn't open the window for you to stick a jab out at the film/music industry - but you pretty much covered it [politely] by saying it's up to them to innovate.
We all know the speed at which updated encryptions techniques are created and then cracked. Thus, the film/music industry should not be looking to secure their work (i.e. Blu-ray), but should instead explore and create new models for distribution.
"Invent."
Computers are like people that can talk incredibly fast. Two computers can now exchange the contents of an entire book in the time it takes a person to speak a single word. "Piracy" on the internet is the equivalent of declaring it illegal to say certain combinations of words without permission.
A website is like a building where a very large number of visitors can talk to each other using their computers. This is what makes the internet great. SOPA will make it possible to shut down such a building if a single visitor says one of the forbidden word combinations. If SOPA passes, such websites will be forced to either forbid talking entirely, or attempt to prevent a huge number of people from saying the forbidden word combinations, which would be incredibly expensive and essentially impossible to do.
Thus, SOPA would make it legally possible to shut down virtually any website that permits talking, effectively destroying the thing that made the internet great in the first place.
Even with SOPA, people could still speak the forbidden words to one another in the streets or in private buildings, so what was the point of SOPA again?
I think one or two more simple 'take-aways' would help. I also think people want to know why a company Facebook would be against SOPA. If they understood that in the form of a simple example, that would go a long way. Everyone uses Facebook.
Really great job. Very articulate. I would have added 50 ums. :/
Another point a coworker made is that we are squeezing the inefficiency out of these systems. Models of business that worked well 10-50 years ago don't work nearly as well or at all now because there is technology in place that eliminates the need for some or all of the distribution methods in place that they are trying to protect.
You could mention the recent study from the swiss government: https://www.ige.ch/fileadmin/user_upload/Juristische_Infos/e...
Interesting quotes: - "in spite of numerous media reports and public awareness campaigns, a majority of internet users still do not know which offers are legal and which are not." - "The percentage of available income spent in this area by consumers remains constant. However, shifts can be seen within this budget. For example, money saved by consumers at exchange platforms is still being spent in the entertainment sector. However, that available amount is now being put towards concerts, going to the cinema and merchandising instead of music or film recordings."
When someone makes a copy, they do not deprive anyone of their own copy - so it is unlike stealing a physical good. It may cause some harm to the copyright holder, but only incidentally, and with difficult to calculate damages. Rather than have blanket, one-size-fits-all criminal penalties, we should require parties prove the damages in court in order to receive compensation.
Doing so would put MPAA and RIAA back in their place; let THEM bear the cost of fighting infringers of their copyrights - I don't want them sucking up the resource of my government just to benefit them.
But the music industry is to be blamed for this - for a long time all the music you could buy from iTunes was DRM-enabled. This worked in Apple's favor, contributing to the popularity of iTunes, because once hooked, the millions of iPod customers couldn't switch to something else easily without losing the music they've bought.
So who pushed DRM on (honest) customers, punishing them for not pirating? They made their own bed, now they are bitching about it.
Also, wadsworth constant applies.
Otherwise, I like how you mentioned PIPA at the beginning as well - too many people are forgetting what else is going on behind SOPA.
The most influential single line in the entire interview -- "...we simply have been spend our money innovating instead of lobbying."