The next SOPA
marco.org
marco.org
This idea that the root cause of all bad legislation is political donations: it's wrong, and not supported by the data. The vast majority of political donations are made by people who are not lobbyists.
No one raised more political money in the history of this nation than Barack Obama during his presidential campaign, and the letter from his administration helped kill the bills. How about Rep. Issa and Sen. Wyden? Guess what, they got into office by spending donated money as well.
The problem isn't money, the problem is engagement. The tech industry, particularly on the Internet entrepreneurial side, has long prided itself on staying out of Washington. Well, now we see the consequence of that approach: it took a last-minute emergency OMG shitstorm to stop some bills--bills that could have easily been shaped, adjusted, or stopped much earlier if the industry had been engaged and paying attention.
The U.S. government is participatory. It will respond to citizen wishes, but only if citizens actively and continuously make their wishes known.
And it is inclusive. No matter how much you might think copyright should end, or that the MPAA should just go away forever and die, there are enough people who disagree with you that it's just not going to happen. Internet companies and advocates need to get comfortable with continuously engaging content companies in the legislative process, seeking common ground, and compromising.
IP law is not a winnable war. It is an ongoing negotiation that must be managed forever.
Copyright and patents have the U.S. Constitution to back them, but copyright has been diverted to serve large media companies -- through copyright term extensions that are frankly unreasonable.
Ideas are not property. Piracy is not theft. Copying and hacking should not be de facto crimes. Copyright should not be retroactively extended to re-copyright works that entered the public domain.
That doesn't make me extreme. To the contrary, it hilights the extreme political stance of the large media companies. I'll pick one as an example:
Rupert Murdoch, Jan 14, 2012:
"""So Obama has thrown in his lot withSilicon Valley paymasters who threaten allsoftware creators with piracy, plain thievery."
"Piracy leader is Google who streams movies free, sells advts around them.No wonder pouring millions into lobbying."""
Yes, but it's easy enough to educate people about what's going on. Young people inherently understand the things I'd try to teach them -- but don't know what to do about it. Older people know what to do -- but don't care or pay attention to these issues. Networking with people can be rewarding and fun!
You make a very bold statement without backing it with any line of reasoning or pointing to any supporting material. I am no expert in this matter so I can not know if you are wrong.
But in an older thread someone posted this excellent talk by Lawrence Lessig: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ik1AK56FtVc. It's well worth watching and counters your statement. His arguments are very well presented and reasoned. He also shows some supporting data.
Given that, I cannot attribute much weight to your statement.
Because sometimes democracy is harder than just doing what you want to do.
"This idea that the root cause of all bad legislation is political donations: it's wrong, and not supported by the data."
Of course bad legislation has no root cause, but money surely contributes. $94MM in contributions last year focused on one issue.
"No one raised more political money in the history of this nation than Barack Obama during his presidential campaign"
I think you're confusing raising campaign money with taking political donations and going out to thousand dollar meals with lobbyists.
"The tech industry, particularly on the Internet entrepreneurial side, has long prided itself on staying out of Washington."
No we haven't, but we've certainly been busy working and trying to ignore it. Plus, they never really came after us directly before.
"IP law is not a winnable war. It is an ongoing negotiation that must be managed forever."
Thats a terribly lazy reason to not protest something. We give them power through direct consumer spending. One great way to reduce that power is to educate each other about where our dollars go.
Donations don't literally buy votes, but what they do literally buy is face time. That is, people in Congress will hold fundraisers, and lobbyists pay to attend those fundraisers. The understanding is that the lobbyists who attend those fundraisers will have time to talk to the politician about the issues their clients care about.
This episode of Planet Money clearly demonstrates this: http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2011/11/01/141913370/the-tues...
Now, if you have two sides to an issue, and only one side of that issue has active lobbyists who buy that face time with people in Congress, then you will have a situation where the people in Congress only understand one side of the issue.
It is an opportunity cost for industries to be spending their money on lobbying instead of spending their money on R&D that will benefit society. Industries or citizens should not have to be constantly talking to representative in Washington to make sure that they will not do anything wrong when they're not looking.
The U.S. government may be participatory but only the one that shouts the loudest get heard.
Yes, Hollywood has done many things wrong -- the TV sector in particular is in long-term danger because the "bundling" business model of cable doesn't give consumers any way to give feedback about the quality of content. (I'd much rather watch Al Jazeera on Youtube and re-runs of Star Trek on AMZN Prime than watch Spongebob Squarepants, Adventure Time, CNN Fox News, or any of these reality shows about Coupons and Pawn Shops that never stop.)
On the other hand, Hollywood employs a lot of people in good, largely unionized jobs that aren't in danger of being exported to China. People like a lot of stuff that they make, and they invest a lot of money to make it -- they deserve to get some return on their investment.
The question is having some regime that's fair to everybody.
I think that framing a discussion in terms of what people "deserve" is dangerous, because everybody has a different idea of what someone else deserves.
> negotiation
This. Realizing that the other side is not the devil and has legitimate interests of their own, even if they are clumsy in communicating them or harmful in their actions.
Viewing the other side as evil is lazy. Coming to authentic, common ground is very hard work.
The truth is, there is a small group (MPAA/RIAA members) that can profit immensely from an act that is detrimental to the rest of society, and they pursue it.
It's about as "evil" as one basketball team can consider their opponent "evil"; the title is useless.
But just like on the basketball court, you have to do your best to defeat the other team, because they are doing their best to defeat you. And unlike the basketball court, they have so far had the upper hand every single time (e.g. DMCA, Mickey Mouse Protection Act a.k.a Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act, government passes NBC commercials as official position, etc).
SOPA/PIPA is probably the first time they have had a real setback. I think they'll still win, unfortunately -- the overton window keeps shifting.
I just think that if we techies try to understand some of the concerns of the copyright holders, we are in a position to propose legislation of our own. Until then, we are resigning ourselves to playing defense.
> Coming to authentic, common ground is very hard work.
Or rather, with the implied meaning that coming to a common ground is at all desirable. It is not. They (MPAA/RIAA) out to get us (complement of MPAA/RIAA in the set of people) for monetary and political gain, and we should aspire to make it impossible for them to do that, and take back what they have already won (e.g. reverse the Mickey Mouse Protection Act)
If lobbyists' money didn't give their words extra weight, why would they donate any of it?
In dumb evolutionary environments and in anthropics, there is no direct feedback between these two mechanisms. Bacteria get born, behave in a predefined way, and either procreate or die. Successful bacteria are not smart, but simply lucky. They are selected for fitness by a dumb process.
Similarly, activists enter politics to pursue certain interests, these interests do not change significantly, and then the newcomer either gathers enough support to get elected and influence public opinion, or doesn't. Sponsors select the politicians which have already taken a favorable stance, and help them get heard and get elected. Successful activists are those which pursue important issues which attract support and sponsorship.
I suspect that this is how the system is supposed to work, but it breaks when politicians can be adjusted, that is, bought.
I don't mean to distract the conversation or hate on Apple, but it's a very pertinent question -- Marco and friends defend Apple's right to control their devices and their content, but are up in arms about media companies doing the same? Explain the reasoning why one company has the right to limit your freedoms while another doesn't?
(*- I will happily provide numerous citations of both Marco defending Apple draconian policies, and Apple supporting jackboot government-backed IP protections)
The MAJOR difference I see is that Apple does what it does, and doesn't hide behind a lobbying group to take the heat. They say "this is the way we are going to do this, because it is better." We may not agree, and I usually don't, but whatever.
The movie studios, however, let the MPAA do all the dirty work and get all scorn. That way, MPAA == evil corporate mongers, while, say Warner Brothers == "ooh, Dark Knight Rising comes out this year!!!"
Boycotting MPAA's member companies is a way to say we see through their crap, and aren't going to put up with it.
If you look at the specific examples Marco spelled out (" region locks and unskippable screens and encryption and criminalization of fair use.") those are restrictions that benefit only the studios and inconvenience the customer. The iOS restrictions Apple propagates benefit Apple, but for many customers (not HN types) they are beneficial.
It's a fine line, and Apple has had their share of jackboot actions but it can be argued that it's not exactly the same. As for Apple defending Apple policies, I'd bet most of those examples demonstrate the benefit to consumers. (and has he defended the really egregious Apple missteps, like the security officer pretending to be a police officer?)
HTC removes bootloader locks: http://www.pcworld.com/article/228823/htc_ends_locked_bootlo...
But Apple does support a lot of draconian IP policy. I think they're in need of a whipping over this.
I've never met a single person that actually used this feature (most people I know have their laptops plugged in most of the time).
On the other hand, I'd consider content DRM as a non-edge-case that does harm and affect a majority of consumers.
Let's not allow the noise of such edge-case complaints distract from more relevant restrictions that DO hurt consumers on a daily basis, like content DRM.
I've had multiple relatives show fear of plugging in their iPods because iTunes wipes out their iPod. My wife refused to plug in her iPod to her new laptop because she felt she'd lose the episodes she had bought on the iPod itself. And that's not an irrational fear. Even I had it before iCloud enabled you to redownload all your purchased content.
I think he's talking about non-removable batteries in phones and iPods.
"The MPAA studios hate us. They hate us with region locks and unskippable screens and encryption and criminalization of fair use. They see us as stupid eyeballs with wallets, and they are entitled to a constant stream of our money. They despise us, and they certainly don’t respect us."
If its for my sake, why must they treat me like a child and not let me choose to have them remove that restriction on my device?
If something done for my own good drives me to another product, what does that say about if it is actually for my own good? Thats my problem with the GP's post.
Personally, I think Apple's policies are more destructive. They're doing a pretty decent job of convincing an entire generation that locked-down, manufacturer-controlled computing is good.
Not that I'm boycotting them....
I've spent 20 years playing tech support to friends and family who have accidentally fubar'd their open computing devices. IME that has done far more to convince folks that locked-down, manufacturer-controlled computing is good moreso than anything Apple's done.
The conflict is framed as "open" vs "closed" but once someone can do "open done right for non-techies" that's where the industry will go.
I used to think that yes, Apple makes neat things, but it's still evil because it locks us down. But consider, for example, how trivial it is to install OS X on a PC. There certainly are many ways Apple could go to prevent that, but they don't and will even give away updates for such installations.
This makes me think that Apple has consciously made its top priority delivering the smooth experience and working device/software. For that, Apple chose to sacrifice breadth for the sake of depth—focusing on fewer use cases, but better working them through. This means fewer features and poorer extensibility. We tend to perceive that as restrictions, but it limits the non-technical users' ability to shoot themselves in the foot, and allows for better quality.
For years the most common cause of people's computer issues was a combination of the terrible security or MS operating systems circa Windows 95 - XP and overly complex programs with badly designed UIs.
I'm sure it is possible to create a platform where one can install whatever software you like but not run a huge risk of malware. For example you can run applications in a sandbox which will stop them from damaging the system. Applications would then only be able to break out by exploiting the OS itself, so you build it on top of something like OpenBSD.
E.g., today most people don't really differentiate parts of their experience defined by the OS from those defined by application makers. So you have to control the ways your users install software, if you want users to not hate your product because of some crappy app.
To be honest, I doubt that without such complete control there would exist a computer / tablet I could recommend to, say, my non-technical mother, and be more or less sure that she won't hate all computer-related things afterwards.
You're also assuming that everyone who uses a computer knows how to modify it and not break it. Understand that a lot of Apple users want a device that just works. They don't want to have to mess around with the operating system or type a lot of intimidating commands into a terminal just to change something. They want to go on Facebook, play some games, listen to music, or type term papers. DRM does nothing but prevent things from "just working." It locks down where you can watch DVDs, how you can watch them, how you can use things, and can even lock you out of something if there's a problem on the developer's end (example: Assassin's Creed 2 included a DRM that needed an internet connection whenever you played the game, so if Ubisoft's servers went down or you don't have access to Internet, you can't play the game). To say that DRM is for the user's benefit and totally not for the developer's is insane.
Comparing the MPAA's restrictions with Apple is a bit unfair, and their success is only due to almost a complete monopoly in that area. The MPAA executives look at their audience with dollar signs in their eyes. Apple looks at them with those same dollar signs, but also with care and pride for the products they push out. They want to get a good product out. They adopted new business models like iTunes, iCloud, and even Siri. The MPAA is the antithesis of innovation and doesn't care about the products it pushes out, it just wants money.
Sorry for the long rant, but I needed to do it.
The MPAA views Internet users in the same way that Apple views people attempting to unlock or jailbreak their device. They have nothing but contempt for those of us who dare to use the products that we've purchased in a way that they have not envisioned. In their world, they tell us what we are and are not allowed to do, and we meekly submit. Both MPAA and Apple have this mentality and I find it rather hateful.
One could argue that DRM is required for there to be a thriving market in media, and therefore is to the user's benefit. Now, you don't believe that, I don't believe that, and maybe even the MPAA doesn't believe that, but the argument isn't invalid on its face. It's clear that restrictions which only limit users can be considered to be good for them. Apple's restrictions only limit users, yet you and many others argue that they're good for users.
I don't really care about Apple's intentions, care, or pride. I see Apple as pushing the entire world to a much worse model of computing. The MPAA, on the other hand, is fading into obsolescence one way or another.
On what?
On decent UI design and hardware/software that "just works."
Linux UIs are getting slightly better with Gnome 3 and Unity, but they still suck. (And they're getting better by copying Apple.) Windows UIs have been getting worse since XP. (All the good features in Windows 7 are copied from Apple, like their Expose equivalent.) Neither OS offers anything like the plug-and-go and design cleanliness that Apple offers.
It really makes a difference in terms of productivity. I know how to futz around with my machine to make it work, but I have better things to do with my time.
Until either a competitor or the open source community can offer good design -- which matters -- I am stuck with Apple.
BTW, I'll give you all a hint on good design: minimal is a synonym for good. Exterminate features.
OS X just works and all that, but it is a constrained environment that lacks the Debian repository. MacPorts is painful as hell, it broke my installed packages twice and the last thing you ever want to do is to upgrade all installed packages (because, you know, you might fear security risks). It also installs its own replacements for whatever OS X ships with, being its own little bubble, which drives me insane.
And what's the fix for MacPorts? That's right, Homebrew, which is a bunch of scripts that compiles your packages (again) from source and you end up praying to God that the software you want is available, that it takes care of all dependencies and that it compiles until the end, as you've got no idea what to do otherwise. Like it's freaking 1996.
So you know, now I'm happy working on Ubuntu full-time, which inherits the most awesome software repository ever from Debian. It may not be the shiniest and most polished operating system ever, but it treats me well as a developer, it doesn't restrict me in any way and I never had any problem that's unworkable.
BTW, I'll give you all a hint on good design:
minimal is a synonym for good. Exterminate features.
What most people are missing: the interface/software should do what you want, not the other way around.
This is my biggest problem with Ubuntu lately. I would have rather preferred for them to not fuck around with Gnome's interface, pulling out a proven and working interface, replacing it with broken software in the name of simplicity. I want it to work, not marvel at how simple, shiny and useless it is.
I'm a hacker, Hacker News community member, and a FLOSS user/developer, and I oppose Apple's draconian policies.
You might not agree with him about whether these organizations really hold these stances toward their customers, but his argument flows from these two underlying assumptions.
Because advertising can't happen, but articles can, newspaper coverage under CFR amounts to a (huge) in-kind contribution in the form of PR. And especially when it comes to the MPAA, many of its member companies own media outlets in addition to movie studios.
Rupert Murdoch, for example, put the Wall Street Journal and Fox News to work in promoting SOPA/PIPA as that furthers the interests of 20th Century Fox.
So because no conceivable campaign finance regulation is going to muzzle the Wall Street Journal or the New York Times during an election, we may have to look elsewhere to check the MPAA's power. I think it's going to have to be something like a souped up version of Xtranormal, which makes production of high quality movies just as easy as distribution of said movies.
This isn't that unrealistic. Blogger made production and international distribution of high quality opinion possible with a few keystrokes, which led in part to the ongoing revenue collapse in print media. Video and audio are obviously much more complex on a frame-by-frame basis than text, but I have to believe that authoring tools can get far better than where they are. Make them web based, build in all kinds of samples and templates akin to blogger templates, use some of the new HTML5 toys to make authoring easier and easier.
Most of the results will be terrible, but most blogs are terrible. As long as enough high quality open access audio/video content is produced, the MPAA/RIAA will start to face the same financial fate as print media. Producing a technically and ethically superior product will always be more effective in the long run than a boycott.
Also? The current system already gives an immense amount of power to media companies; a huge sum of campaign finance contributions wind up in their coffers, and they have tremendous incentives to maximize controversy and conflict, indirectly forcing candidates to spend more and more on advertising. And at the end of the day, they still have a strong voice in creating self-fulfilling prophecies over who is "electable".
[1] http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-december-13-2011/exclu...
Also, all of the plan you propose is already happening. It's called the creative process. I bet a large portion, if not the majority, of your entertainment is now facilitated by self published content given away for free on the internet. Youtube videos, remixes, wikipedia, flickr, twitter, facebook updates. All of this stuff is 'High Quality' culture that is available to you for free.
Copyright is great. It's necessary. It facilitates things like Creative Commons and the GPL. Abusive copyright holding organizations on the other hand are not so great. They exist only to exert control over their holdings and have recently risen to unprecedented levels of power because of the money we directly give them.
To call a boycott against these organizations futile is to miss the point of the boycott. It's not about putting them out of business. It's about awareness and slowly changing the overall public perception of an issue so fundamental and important as copyright reform and voting with your dollars.
So try not to get so discouraged and remember you give them the power. Seriously. Vote with you dollars (and with a ballot).
Here in the UK we actually have rules that say that TV news shows must remain non partisan. Of course people still accuse them of bias, but they are nothing like Fox news.
I imagine the 1st amendment would prevent a similar thing happening in the US.
Our newspapers however are often extremely partisan however and Murdoch still has much influence here through "The Sun" paper.
I guess with more content online , people could do something similar. "I have 100,000 followers, don't pass SOPA or I'll make a mean youtube video about you".
In short corruption is a symptom, trying to stop the least objectionable types of it will merely drive it underground and more direct. The problem we need to solve is the ability of corruption to be successful.
A company should not be concerned with whether or not it has enough influence in Washington relative to its competitors.
I'd speculate that for most industries the latter tends to be a higher level of concern than the former, and that is not in any way ok.
You're confusing "MUST" (actually SHOULD) with "CAN".
Look into regulatory capture. You can't ignore it or legislate it away any more than you can ignore or legislate away gravity.
Representatives without sufficient capital to finance their own campaigns rely on being in their financiers' (corporations) good graces. That means strategically putting their fingers in every industry.
There's no solution to the government industrial complex without campaign finance reform.
That changed immensely as we entered the radio age, where extremely expensive equipment was required to broadcast and there was some competition for a limited spectrum of airwaves. No longer could one semi-wealthy backer get a viewpoint published; it now took some very serious capital and/or investment only available by forming large amalgamations of wealthy people (or having a SERIOUSLY large backer on par with Rockefeller or other barons), and even if you got that together, you had to file requests for airspace which the government does exactly distribute loosely or quickly. The problem was exacerbated even further as television took over and expensive cameras, lights, and other equipment became necessary to produce a piece with equivalent credibility.
The internet has restored the equivalence and access of publication that existed in the days of paper and taken it further than it ever existed before; now there is almost no barrier to entry whatsoever to publish something across the whole world. Naturally, the corporations and interests that thrived with an exclusive voice among the people are beginning to wane and they are going down kicking and screaming. We will see what is ultimately required to root them out entirely.
Just think what would have become of the revolution if Thomas Paine's Common Sense went unread because everyone was too busy watching TV broadcasted by what were indeed 4 separate entities, but entities all friendly to the Crown which had already allotted them privileges and protection, and entities which were in identical businesses and therefore shared the same legal interests.
I think we have been thoroughly manipulated the last 70-100 years or so and I believe that we are continually reaping the consequences of that manipulation. Thank God for the internet and the freedom to publish which it restored, and which makes it among the most important structures in the world today.
I highly recommend this excerpt as food for thought, bottom of page 4 - page 5:
"Political candidates' campaign discourse provides more information about issues than print or electronic news media. There are several explanation for this finding. First, news reporting tends to concentrate on the 'horse race' aspects of the campaign: Who is ahead in the polls? Who is running the campaign? Which states are being contested by the campaigns? Will the candidates attack one another? Who will be included in the presidential debates? The answers to these questions may be news, but they simply do not help voters decide which candidate should be elected president...
From January through October of 1980, CBS and UPI devoted 65 percent of their coverage to the horse race, 26 percent to issues, and 10 percent to candidates...
A second reason why voters cannot rely on the news media for policy information is that campaign news is only one story among many. The network news, for example, is a half hour long, but subtracting commercials, stories on non-campaign topics, and horse-race coverage leaves little time to explain the candidates' opposing views on policy questions. Particularly in the latter phases of a campaign, political ads, presidential debates, and other message forms provide more issue information to viewers than the news media...
To make matters worse, there may be a trend toward less and less coverage. The length of a typical political news story decreased by about 20 percent and the number of political news stories dropped by 20 percent from 1968 to 1988...average nightly news coverage of the campaign in 1996 was 12.3 minutes, down from 24.6 minutes in 1992...Furthermore, the news media have a tendency to offer short sound bites from candidates instead of thoughtful and extended consideration of issues...in 1968, the average quotation from candidates in the news was 43 seconds long. After 20 years, candidate quotations had shrunk to a mere 9 seconds...this figure had dropped to 8.2 seconds in 1996."
There's some level of value in having some barrier to competition, it discourages the apathetic and very casual participant and encourages a higher signal:noise ratio in the discussion discussion.
Well, at least in my opinion. :)
Ie, it's legal in practice for government officials to leak to Punch Sulzberger, but not to Julian Assange. This makes it very hard for the latter to start his own competing "WP: Reliable Source." (Just how do I become WP:Reliable anyway? Or how do I lose the privilege, if I abuse it?)
You could fix this hole by enacting a media equivalent of the SEC's Reg FD: the government must release all information to everyone at the same time. Short of this, the mainstream press is best considered as a government organ - almost every story is the product of privileged information which leaves the journalist captive to his "source." If he writes the wrong thing, the source stops sourcing and the journalist's career may well be over.
More broadly, those who attribute SOPA and the like solely to electoral corruption are seeing the moon but not the sun. Corporate bribes are certainly one form of institutional power in the American system, but not the only form or even the strongest. In most areas, in fact, there's a permanent war between unaccountable corporate bribery and unaccountable bureaucratic tyranny.
What makes SOPA and the IPR area so awful is that the lobbyists and bureaucrats are both on the evil side. Certainly no one's bribing the State Department to twist Spain's arm on IPR legislation. State doesn't need or accept Hollywood's campaign contributions - it's a permanent agency.
Wrong. SOPA and PIPA to a congressperson and to a large number of ordinary people make sense. The internet seems like a lawless place. To lawmakers, this is infuriating. People in government, left and right, believe in government solutions to most problems. Otherwise why would they work in government? As in most professions, there is a strong bias for action. Action feels like progress, even when the cure is worse than the disease.
Even if you got every dollar out of politics you will always see this pattern: lawmakers have one tool, instead of a hammer it's legislation, and all the world looks like a nail.
Today's politics is completely driven by interest groups, and this must end. This is not 1800's. We have information technology at our disposal and we can make the politics transparent, the democracy direct, and the system work for us. And so will we.
"Special interest groups" seem to always be defined as "any interest other than my own."
Politicians like the term because some people hear it and think "bankers" while other people hear it and think "gays and tree huggers."
On the other hand, this week, you had a special interest group achieving its goal by overwhelming support (more representative of a democracy). When someone talks negatively about special interest groups, it is because typically special interest groups have achieves their goals by disingenuous methods.
You mean like AARP?
> When someone talks negatively about special interest groups, it is because typically special interest groups have achieves their goals by disingenuous methods.
Some supporting evidence would be nice.
Here's a question - which side of the obamacare debate was "special interests"?
Hence the way to political power is to become part of a more powerful special interest coalition. (And by extension, the bigger and more powerful the coalition, the more right it has to speak for the general interest, as well.) In this case, I think the optimism of the Jan 18th actions is well placed. "Netizens" as a whole are extremely diverse, but there are definitely issues which can form a coalition, and it is absolutely crucial that this coalition be recognized as powerful, well-organized, possessed of deliberate and well-connected leadership, and deadly willing to play in heavy contact mode for its beliefs and priorities.
Does anyone remember when the NRA was one of the most feared special interest groups? It used to be that if a representative crossed them they would have a tough election fight next time. It seems like "the internet" should flex it's muscles and fight against Lamar Smith's re-election. Getting him kicked out would get some attention.
A few people (in relative terms) greatly benefit from copyright extension, and it is their top priority.
I'm not sure there's a form of government that avoids this problem, but representative republic certainly isn't one of them.
Here’s the thing. They don’t hate you. The people who work at the companies that support the MPAA absolutely don’t hate you. They simply like themselves and like the money they’re getting now. If anything they’re afraid of you because they think you want to eliminate the way they make a living.
The problem is people on the other side don’t agree on what they want. Some want media to be free, some want studios to die and artists and directors to find ways to get paid directly and some just want laws that aren’t as draconian as SOPA.
So to the labels and the studios people like Mr. Arment are terrorizing them. Threatening to take their livelihood away while offering no alternative system. That’s why not supporting member companies won’t work. Because it just reinforces their fears.
What technology companies and people who are passionate about technology really need to do is suggest an alternate solution. The world works in opposites. Republican/Democrat, Liberal/Conservative, and so on. The only way to deal with the labels is to create another side and coalesce around a common ideology. One that still allows the system that currently creates media to work but which allows people control over their media.
Because the one thing Mr. Arment is absolutely right about is this: You haven’t won anything as of now. In fact, what you have done is sent a clear message that laws like SOPA need to be done under the radar from now on and that’s a step backwards not forwards.
I'm not saying the actors, and the grips, and the makeup people, Hate me _personally_ - but the commercial organizations they represent, as a collective, hate the fact that I'm an active viewer and consumer of their end product.
Because active viewing/consuming means I want do do things like, well, _view_ the product. And that all sorts of uncomfortable ramifications in that I don't want to dedicate a not-insignificant portion of my time being fed their "BIG RED SCREEN OF ANTI-COPYRIGHT-THEFT-PROPOGANDA" (Btw, I make it a point, every time I am forced to see one of those screens, to go torrent a movie - seeding for at least a day. It's actually the _only_ time I typically do torrent movies - the fact that they control my DVD player just annoys the crap out of me)
They Hate me because I want to watch a movie released in brazil, that everyone is talking about, in the United States.
They Hate me because I want to watch the movie I just purchased, on my iPad. Not the brick of electronics that happens to be sitting in my living room that I haven't watched a movie on in two+ years.
Basically, the MPAA, and the commercial organizations they represent, Hate me, because instead of just sending them $50-$100 / month as a passive consumer, I'm an active consumer that loves the material they create - and that's an annoyance, and a difference from what they used to work with 50 years ago.
And they Hate change.
So would I. I'd love to make free money too if I could.
The problem is that any reduction in income to the studios would be spun as "fallout from pirates stealing our IP."
Attacking campaign finance is the way to go.
edit: spelling
Consider, all of you that moan about Citizens United: if it's wrong for a corporation to support a political position, then why are your cheering about what Wikipedia, reddit, Google, etc., have done to support the opposition to SOPA/PIPA?
And there's no way to stop monetary influence on politics. Even in the most draconian case, where all private funding to candidates was banned, with money coming from public coffers, there are countless backdoors. A CEO hoping for special treatment mind just mention something that turns out to make the politician a pile of money in stock trading, for example.
You're absolutely correct that corporations/unions/organizations can and should be able to support positions, but that doesn't have to be a direct benefit to a candidate in that way that campaign contributions are.
I mean it would be really something if everyone halved their entertainment budget and halved their "illegal downloads/sharing". That would be a significant message as well. It wouldn't be very easy to convince Joe SixPack, but it might be easier than true campaign finance reform.
Moreover, the piracy numbers thrown out by the industry are almost entirely fabricated (it really doesn't seem like they have any good idea about how much piracy is going on), so even if everyone did what you would suggest, the industry would almost certainly blame piracy for their profits falling by 50% anyway.
I didn't really think stopping pirating would do anything, just like I don't think we can practically convince people to stop giving MPAA money.
But if we could do the latter, perhaps we could do the former as well? Because if we were able to only do the latter, it would give MPAA and Congress even more reasons to push this kind of shit through.
I don't think its like asking criminals to not be criminals. I thinks more like: "if you want those bullies to pick on you less, try to act less like a dork". Some may feel like it would be betraying their values, but it really would give the bully less motivation to attack your values.
But I agree its unlikely to happen.
He includes a quote I found particularly compelling, especially in the light of Marco's link between 'the next SOPA' and campaign finance reform: For every one striking at the leaves of evil, there is one striking at the root. - Thoreau. Marco wants us to strike the root.
Book: http://www.amazon.com/Republic-Lost-Money-Corrupts-Congress/...
NYTimes review: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/15/books/republic-lost-campai...
Are people suggesting that congress considers legislation primarily based on campaign contributions and that this is the same for both main parties?
So they will only go against legislation proposed by lobbyists if they feel the votes they would lose would outweigh the benefit of those contributions to their next campaign?
If that is the case then I'm sorry to say but your entire government system is not fit for purpose.
If that is not the case then you should be able to beat these bills with good reasoning and debate alone.
The tech industry does a poor job of lobbying. For that reason, only MPAA and RIAA lobbyists have been talking to people in Congress. Imagine a random person who did not understand the internet and technology in general. Now imagine that they had, over the course of many months, only ever heard the RIAA and MPAA explain their side of the issue, and had never heard tech people explain the other side. How do you think they would vote?
We don't need to assume a calculation of "If I don't vote yes on this bill, lobbyist Joe will not give me any more money." It's sufficient for them to think "Lobbyist Joe made a lot of sense when he explained this issue to me. I'm going to vote yes." Lobbyist Jane, who would explain why this issue is a terrible idea, does not exist.
Assuming even a half competent set of politicians they would be able to do an objectively better job since they would consider things on merits rather than contributions.
Why do you need so much money to run a campaign anyway? Surely you could get the word out online and take donations from the public.
Of course you would really need 2 parties so people could express their left or right wing beliefs.
Anyways, your 3rd party situation has one pitfall: how would it get into power? The 2 party system's devisors have us beat; nobody believes an independent can even get elected. There's an enormous barrier to entry.
What I meant was that I am surprised how important campaign contributions are in an age where it is fairly cheap to get your message across online and get people talking.
After all the London riots were an example (albeit not a pleasant one) of how social networking etc can very quickly get people to take action.
Hopefully you could get enough contributions from private citizens and small business to run an effective campaign.
Regards the 2 parties point. It would be difficult to create a third party that would appeal to both liberals and conservatives so in reality you might need a 4th party also.
I assume your suggesting that people wouldn't vote for a 3rd party because the media would tell everyone that they were unelectable and a wasted vote?
Unfortunately I don't really have an answer for that question, the only way around it would be to hammer home just how bad the current system really is.
Sad, but true.
[1] Free is not an absolute scale, but proportional to the amount of money you can spend - e.g. lots of money means more freedom to pass laws, to get out of trouble, to buy licenses to do restricted things, etc.
America has a strong tradition of individual rights and liberties, stronger than anywhere else in the world. This is especially true regarding the rights of free speech and the free distribution of information. It is possible to build on these principles to create a platform that appeals to a large swathe of the American electorate, an “Electronic Bill of Rights”.
We cannot taint this with other pet causes on the right or left. I am looking for allies right now to help push for pro-freedom legislation that will push the middle in our direction. I’ve explicitly written off working with freedom advocates that are too heavily invested in other high-profile political stances with a partisan lean.
For this to succeed, we need to reach both the Tea Party and the OWS crowd while not alienating anybody. The good news is that the mainstream is with us. President Obama and all four contenders for the Republican Presidential nomination oppose SOPA. Let’s take this momentum and use it to erect lasting bulwarks to protect internet liberty.
Let’s pass something that we can all agree on. Let’s not get bogged down arguing with each other over campaign reform, or other peripheral issues.
Isn't this the crux of the problem with the current democratic systems though? If you never communicate with your political representatives, how do they know what you as a voter want? Part of what makes a democracy work is that connection between voters and politicians, but it has to come from us. If enough of us vocalize our concerns, they'll be heard. Politicians want to keep their jobs, and they need votes to do so.
Sure it's not perfect (nothing is), and lobbyists easily manipulate the system on behalf of groups like the MPAA, but it's a basic thing that few people actually do to uphold their part of the bargain. That's why the system can continually be eroded with the assurance that even though SOPA/PIPA failed this time, some mutated version will slip by eventually.
Taking the youtube example though, I suppose legislation like SOPA could wipe them out and neuter them enough.
The record company being able to dangle an advance (not to mention the promotion and contacts they can hook them up with) seems a pretty good carrot to dangle and people like Louis C.K have probably made enough money to begin with to finance themselves.
I also get a feeling from musicians that I have talked to that your not considered a "real" band unless you are signed to a major label, although I suppose that attitude can change over time. You almost need a VC type system for musicians but the issue is that most creatives don't really want to think of themselves as "businesspeople".
(Of course, something like this would probably have to be a constitutional amendment, and I doubt that would ever happen.)
Basically, campaign donations should be more like Kickstarter. If enough people like your idea and support you with money, then you will have enough momentum and money anyway.
Here is a cynical primer outlining how lobbying works: http://www.2abd.com/politics/protesting/protesting-versus-lo...
But anyways, yeah, the hard part would be actually putting this into place. I mean, nobody in power would want this to happen. It would be bad for the lobbyists and bad for the congressmen. No incentive there, and much incentive to fight against it.
Obviously this is a short term solution that ends up making the root problem - money's influence in politics - worse. But sometimes you have to pick between the lesser of two evils. I'd rather have a good set of laws brought about by an unfair process than a bad set of laws brought on because we sat around complaining about how unfair the system is.
This is delusional at best. I'm from France, where campaigns are paid for by public money.
France: the country that brought you Hadopi and where SOPA-like laws have been in place for a long time.
This has nothing to do with campaign finance.
Maybe the way money influences politics is more so a problem here. I do think it is a stretch to say it is completely irrelevant, because it seems clear that it isn't.
But my point is, if you remove this vehicle the problem doesn't go away, it just takes another form.
And in fact I think it's good that it takes the form of campaign finance, because at least it's visible: you can see who gives how much money to which man / party / cause.
And anyway, politicians don't care about "freedom"; they care about big companies, because they have dinner with CEOs; they care about "jobs" because they think that's what matters to their constituents. Solving campaign finance wouldn't change any of that.
It would probably be more effective to stand outside a cinema waving banners.
The harder part, is getting non-tech people to join your boycott. Good luck trying to tell people not to see the new Batman movie when it comes out.
What would be good to know is if actors, directors, and other movie makers support the MPAA's actions. With the RIAA, you could sense that musicians often were at odds with the record companies that signed them. Is that the case with movies? Are there movie studios that don't support things like SOPA and PIPA? Maybe we'd have something if those people (if they exist) spoke out publicly against the MPAA.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_organizations_with_offi... http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111213/17373717070/writer...
But the "content companies" don't only create movies. Now they own large swaths of normal TV. Disney owns ABC which owns ESPN. So every time you watch an advert on SportsCenter, you're funding Disney.
The fact is, you can't win at this game. The way to win is to create an alternate funding mechanism (ie, campaign finance reform and/or owning your own congresscritters). The media cartel owns the (so called public) airwaves.
It's time to think about how we can restructure our government to avoid this class of problems, not just the next SOPA. In the words of Eric S. Raymond,
"For freedom to flourish, the Internet must be kept free of government control. The Internet needs to be kept free of corporate control, too. But, as we have seen with the DMCA, corporations that want to control the net have to do so by buying bad laws from the government — they can't jail or kill you themselves. Thus, the most important front in the battle is still heading off bad laws and regulations."
SOPA may pass. It may not. He doesn't care, and it doesn't matter. The MPAA and RIAA started working on their legislative strategy to pass a new anti-piracy bill in late 2010. SOPA was designed to raise the noise. Everyone is playing right into the entertainment industries hand. The lobbyists are laughing manically at the ignorance of the mob. Even Wikipedia and reddit have played into it."
http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/old7e/sopa_is_ba...
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that it's incorrect, but it is speculation stated as fact.
How do you accomplish this when media is engrained in our daily lives & culture?
I've actually stopped telling people I don't watch TV because there is now a "holier than thou" aura around it. I think most people hate how much they like TV, but if you mention how you just stopped TV all together, they think you are just rubbing it in, like you're better than them. Like the guy who always talks about he was just "hitting the gym". No one like that guy either.
Any suggestions?
A better strategy would be to point out the progress (even if false) that someone is making in living a better life (less TV for example). If you can successfully plant that identity seed in their head, they will feel empowered to continue to cut back. The ego is a funny construct.
IMHO, it is not. Current copyright law means restrictions on the copy of data. A free internet means freedom to interchange data.
So either we lose the free net, or we push for a deep reform of IP laws, something like that the law should only restrict for-profit infringement.
Supporting campaign finance reform will do nothing. We tried that over decades, the supreme court shot it down.
You have two options:
1. Constitutional reform.
Make it specifically distinguish campaign finance from free speech. No plain law will ever stand with the constitution as it is today.
2. Greatly increase the number of representatives.
This may be a lot easier as it is just a plain law. At some point we decided too many members of the house would be too chaotic. So we hugely raised the ratio of people to representatives.
This favors the lobbying power of interest groups.
While individuals still have a lot of influence if they write or in person visit their representative, it is universally accepted that the fewer people are in your district the more influence each individual has. And the opposite is also true. This is why, unlike the senate, the house is supposed to be the people's house.
If you dramatically raise the total number of representative you bring power closer to the people.
Will this also result in grid lock? Yes! Is that still totally worth it? YES!
Frighteningly close! One of them was almost scheduled for debate in the Senate! The other almost had a second round of markup in committee scheduled!
The reaction to SOPA and PIPA was way overblown. Like the article says, this sort of thing happens all the time, and usually fizzles out. While this bill did have more co-sponsors than most, indicating support, it still only made it to the first verse of Schoolhouse Rock.
Somehow it caught on as an Internet meme, though, and got inordinate attention. It was definitely for the best, though.
Blaming money for problems in politics is just like focusing on money when running a business -- you're looking in the wrong spot.
Money is a result of something, not a cause. There's a lot of money in politics as a result of concentrating so much political power in one place. Just like in a business where the money represents value exchanged, in politics the money represents influece -- big, powerful people in groups that want to be heard. Starting off another holy crusade along the lines of prohibition simply because you've managed to distill your problems into one word isn't going to help anything.
http://gcn.com/articles/2011/08/05/protecting-children-bill-...
http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/old7e/sopa_is_ba...
So, the real solution needs to be one that is incremental and can be adopted more mainstream. I don't know what it is, but I don't see 'stop watching all movies' as a realistic goal.
If DNS was decentralized they would just do the blocking on an IP address level.
And of course, since software is as big an issue as creative content, it should be said that the FSF is having a donation drive currently: https://my.fsf.org/associate/support_freedom
http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/images/sopa_busted.g...
The tech industry employs 10 times as many. I'm glad their lies are finally debunked. We need to debunk their "lost revenue" numbers, too.
Let's make this victory a durable one and let's propose a constitutional amendment so that such laws can never ever be brought back again.
That's such a pessimistic statement. With that attitude, some SOPA-like Bill will pass. As an example, if MLK had that attitude, the whole Civil Rights movement would've failed.