Twitter Beats Patent Troll Who Patented Letting Famous People Interact Online

White House Petition Against E-PARASITE/SOPA

from the speak-up dept

Tue, Nov 1st 2011 1:27pm — Mike Masnick

Last week, as part of our trip of startup entrepreneurs, innovators, artists and venture captialists, we were able to meet with senior White House staff about our concerns over the E-PARASITE/SOPA bill that would fundamentally change the regulatory and policy framework of the internet, seriously hindering the ability to create new startups, new jobs and new platforms to help everyone. The White House has not officially taken a position on the bill, but one thing was made clear from the very start of the meeting: the legacy players in Hollywood and at the US Chamber of Commerce were putting a ton of pressure on the White House to support E-PARASITE, despite the fact that the State Department itself is quite worried about the bill, as it would almost entirely undermine all of its efforts to promote internet freedom around the globe.

I'm usually not one to believe in the power of various "online petitions," but since the White House has set up its own petition system, in which 25,000 signatures will guarantee a response, this actually seems like a case where just such a petition would work well. So it's great to see that someone has created just such a petition against E-PARASITE. Of course, technically it should be against SOPA, since the framers of the bill recognized just how silly E-PARASITE sounds, and removed that from the bill after everyone started making fun of them. Still, it's important to push this point home and let the White House know, in no uncertain terms, that the public is against this bill.

And it should be clear, by the way, that it's not just the public. Many people within the federal government are equally worried about this bill, which appears to serve no other purpose than to keep a few legacy players in Hollywood fat and happy, and keep them from having to actually innovate for a short while longer.

The real question, however, is whether or not the Obama White House wants to directly contradict Hillary Clinton and the State Department. Remember, Clinton has become a staunch defender of internet freedom against attempts to censor the internet worldwide. In her speech earlier this year, she noted:

So this is a critical moment. The choices we make today will determine what the Internet looks like in the future.... For the United States, the choice is clear. On the spectrum of Internet freedom, we place ourselves on the side of openness. We recognize that an open Internet comes with challenges. It calls for ground-rules to protect against wrongdoing and harm. And Internet freedom raises tensions, like all freedoms do. But its benefits are worth it.

And that's exactly the opposite of the approach being taken by Congress, which aims to put forth a top-down policy of censorship. A top down policy that nearly perfectly mimics the functional nature of the Great Firewall of China. Should the Obama administration go against its own State Department, it will serve to undermine Clinton's long term efforts in pushing internet freedom around the globe. That would be quite a legacy to leave: to contradict one's own Secretary of State who is pushing for greater internet freedom, and impose a system of censorship on the US. Please tell the White House not to take such a drastic measure.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: e-parasite, great firewall, internet freedom, petition, sopa, state department, white house

113 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 1 Nov 2011 @ 1:34pm

Mike, first off, I have to say that having about every other post be about this topic is slightly overkill. I think we get it already, you don't like the bill(s).

However, I do think this is a chance for you to come clean. Considering your work the last week or so has bordered on sounding like a lobbyist, would you perhaps like to declare your working relationships with the various groups involved here? Are you a member of any of the groups, are any of them paying for your time, your hotel, your airfare, your meals, or otherwise supporting your efforts, and are you getting paid in any way to do this work?

Your visits in Washington, are they as Mike Masnick, concerned citizen, or Mike Masnick, representing (insert group name here)?

I think it is really time you came clean on this stuff.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- E. Zachary Knight (profile), 1 Nov 2011 @ 1:49pm
  
  Re:
  I honestly don't care if he was there representing himself or any other group. Why? Because the position he took there and here is the same as mine.
  
  So why would someone care? Because they want to find some way to discredit him and his position. It is an act of desperation.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 1 Nov 2011 @ 2:42pm
    
    Re: Re:
    I agree completely. I don't care if a group of monkeys who support the advancement of democratic monkeys into our society are the ones supporting him. I agree with his position on many things and that's what really matters.
    
    I don't care if Google is funding him, Microsoft, Disney (as much as I have learned to disrespect them after learning about their efforts to expand copy protection lengths), China, Japan, North Korea, South Korea, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Russia, The Communist Party, The Pirate Party, The Libertarian Party, the U.S. government (well, I guess I wouldn't be too happy if our taxpayer money was supporting him and it went undisclosed, since governments have no business secretly promoting private agendas or even promoting them at all), the pharmaceutical cartel, it almost doesn't really matter to me. So long as Mike isn't knowingly taking stolen money or money that was obtained wrongfully, I'm fine with it. I agree with his position and almost whatever way he's being funded to support his position is fine (with a few extreme exceptions of course).
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 1 Nov 2011 @ 4:05pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      If you believe governments have no business secretly promoting private agendas (word for word quote from you), then you are absolutely against this bill.
      
      Case closed.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 1 Nov 2011 @ 4:23pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The government has decided to keep copyright and support intellectual property.
        
        There's no point in whining about them enforcing those concepts. None.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The Incoherent One (profile), 1 Nov 2011 @ 8:56pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Except when it has the potential to stifle speech. There is a reason that its the FIRST Amendment, and the FIRST Part of the BIll of Rights.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 1 Nov 2011 @ 4:27pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Where did I say I support this bill? I do not.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- A Monkey with Atitude, 1 Nov 2011 @ 1:52pm
  
  Re:
  As soon as you come clean - I am sure Mike will too... Anonymous Coward....(but I am willing to bet his will be short if any at all)
  
  Or would that be against your Lobbyist Shill credo ("screw the Citizens unless they pay")?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 1 Nov 2011 @ 1:54pm
    
    Re: Re:
    I have long since some clean. I don't work for any content companies. I don't work for any political action committees, I don't visit washington, and I don't spend my time trying to get into elected members offices to chat. I am not in any way paid for my posting, my beliefs, or my opinions.
    
    I am 100% clear.
    
    Mike? Hello Mike?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 1 Nov 2011 @ 1:56pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      You're not clear until you prove so by revealing and using your identity. Hell, I can sit here and say I'm a gorgeous drool-inducing woman, and no one can determine otherwise.
      
      Put up or shut up.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 1 Nov 2011 @ 1:58pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I have no reason to reveal my identity. I am not running a public blog as a front for political lobbying. Thanks for trying to make it about me, but sorry, you lose.
        
        Mike, it's your turn.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 1 Nov 2011 @ 2:16pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "I am not running a public blog as a front for political lobbying."
        
        You're commenting on a public blog as a front for political lobbying.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The eejit (profile), 2 Nov 2011 @ 1:17am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Hypocrite.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Nov 2011 @ 8:11am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You are an Anonymous Coward, and so am I. If you want to come clean, do it on your own, don't drag all of us anons into it. So technically, YOU haven't come clean at all, since nobody knows who YOU are.
        
        Your turn Anonymous Coward.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 1 Nov 2011 @ 2:14pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You're not clear until you prove so by revealing and using your identity. Hell, I can sit here and say I'm a gorgeous drool-inducing woman, and no one can determine otherwise.
        
        Put up or shut up.
        
        So you're calling him out ..... anonymously. That's a laugh. Why don't you go pound salt?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 1 Nov 2011 @ 2:21pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        AC is not claiming anything about himself, he's just noting the irony of an anonymous person suggesting that Mike might have unrevealed conflicts of interest when the anonymous commenter does not want to publicly reveal his identity for the community to scrutinize. The community knows Mike so we can massively and publicly investigate and scrutinize his background to a much greater degree. We can't with this other AC. The fact that you can't tell the difference here simply evidences your willful stupidity.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 1 Nov 2011 @ 2:24pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The AC is also noting the fallacy of assuming that others are guilty until proven innocent with absolute, absolutely impossible to obtain proof. Mike is less likely to be guilty, being that he is non-anonymous so we can better scrutinize his background. The AC here is more likely not to be telling the truth about his alleged lack of any conflicts of interest being that we can't scrutinize his/her background. So who should we believe, Mike or some rambling AC that no one can investigate?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 1 Nov 2011 @ 4:34pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        [Sound of crickets...]
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 1 Nov 2011 @ 5:03pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So... let me get this straight... you are calling out an anonymous coward for calling out an anonymous coward for calling out someone that isn't an AC for somehow not being transparent enough?
        
        Stupid much? Thanks for making my point!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - A Monkey with Atitude, 1 Nov 2011 @ 1:57pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Sure you are... Because anyone that visits Washington is a hypocrite? If you visit an elected Member you must be a shill? is that really your point?
      
      I for the record have been to Washington, I have visited my House Representative (by his own invite) and have met both my Senators... Does that (by your definition) make me a shill or lobbyist?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 1 Nov 2011 @ 1:59pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Do you spend your days trying to get into every reps office? Do you spend time in Washington as part of a vacation, or is it your business to see the government?
        
        You are trying very hard to deflect for Mike, but the question remains:
        
        Is he just being an incredibly shill against SOPA, or is he a paid lobbyist or representative? Is this a blog, or a PAC in disguise?
        
        Stop worrying about me... worry about Mike.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 1 Nov 2011 @ 2:03pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I trust Mike more then I trust you. Way more.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 1 Nov 2011 @ 2:06pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Than
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 1 Nov 2011 @ 2:14pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Possibly a mistake.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 1 Nov 2011 @ 2:56pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Right - since trusting some random anonymous mouthy jerk on the internet is less of a mistake.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 1 Nov 2011 @ 2:05pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Your fear smells funny.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        A Monkey with Atitude, 1 Nov 2011 @ 2:14pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        No i was invited to thank me for my service
        
        and you are trying very hard to steer the conversation away from the points
        
        - why have petitions that are at best useless and at worst misleading
        - why have more laws that break the very foundations of one of the best innovations of the last century
        - will the White House contradict its own State Department?
        
        Are you so scared of a blog you have to label it as a PAC or make it to be nefarious... more telling about you than me really (or your supporters)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        lucidrenegade (profile), 1 Nov 2011 @ 6:37pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "No i was invited to thank me for my service"
        
        Ah, so you blew a congressman.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 1 Nov 2011 @ 2:15pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I go to church with my rep. We've talked about some of the issues because I'm politically active and try to keep up with areas where I'm knowledgeable. We don't always agree, but usually we can see the other side of things.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - jackwagon (profile), 1 Nov 2011 @ 2:50pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Why do you support SOPA?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Old Fool (profile), 2 Nov 2011 @ 5:11am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      So essentially, you don't do anything, merely complain when others do.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 2 Nov 2011 @ 6:56am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      The above statement as an AC is without meaning.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 1 Nov 2011 @ 2:02pm
  
  Re:
  As a concerned citizen I really don't give a flying bleep if Mike is representing himself and/or a group/business/whatever. I share his views and I am glad he is getting the message out there to a wider audience.
  
  If you think all the E-Parasite articles are overkill then don't read the blog, pretty simple.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Someantimalwareguy (profile), 1 Nov 2011 @ 2:09pm
  
  Re: Hmm...sounds familiar somehow
  Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist party? Come clean and you will not get into trouble or be harassed...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Killercool (profile), 1 Nov 2011 @ 2:33pm
  
  Re:
  I love how people on all sides of any issue, be it copyright, vaccinations, or even daylight savings time, try to discredit the "other side" by calling them a lobbyist. Of course they are. Anyone who tries to convince their representatives that a specific stance is what is wanted is a lobbyist.
  
  I don't like it from my side any more than theirs. Especially since baseless accusations of lobbying cannot be disproven, no matter what you say. All AC #1 has to do is call Mike a liar, no matter what he says, and we're back to square one.
  
  On the other hand, I'm pretty sure Mike HAS disclosed his working relationships. He does run a business, after all. And he drums up that business by running this blog. And everyone who contributes, for or against him, are helping his business.
  
  Remember, jerky ACs:
  Every time you bash Mike, Glyn, Dark Helmet, or anyone else who is posting on here, either as a blog, or as a commenter, you're helping Mike PAY for this blog. I hope he laughs at you all the way to the bank.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - BeeAitch (profile), 1 Nov 2011 @ 10:34pm
    
    Re: Re:
    "I am sure he laughs at this AC all the way to the bank."
    
    FTFY
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- henry r, 1 Nov 2011 @ 3:00pm
  
  Re:
  i agree. stop lobbying.
  
  piracy will always exist.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Anonymous Coward, 1 Nov 2011 @ 4:47pm
  
  Re:
  "Mike, first off, I have to say that having about every other post be about this topic is slightly overkill."
  
  So you think LESS speech is the correct way to take a position in the face of the 'monied lobbying' that is going on? That is not the position 'they' take. 'They' take meetings with congress-critters that 'normal' folk (aka constituents) are not allowed to attend. That is a pretty BIG restriction of speech, that might require volume (quantity not loudness) to overcome.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Karl (profile), 1 Nov 2011 @ 8:46pm
  
  Re:
  Your visits in Washington, are they as Mike Masnick, concerned citizen, or Mike Masnick, representing (insert group name here)?
  
  I would imagine it would be Mike Masnick, representing Floor64, the company he founded.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Mike Masnick (profile), 2 Nov 2011 @ 4:25am
    
    Re: Re:
    I would imagine it would be Mike Masnick, representing Floor64, the company he founded.
    
    Bingo. Though I am sincerely concerned about many other startups as well and the impact it will have on them.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 2 Nov 2011 @ 5:36am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Crazy talk is so rad. Dressing up, pretending yer something you're not is so hot.
      
      Of course you've gotta get that cool part down, and then you'll be all good, k Mike?
      
      Best of luck with that.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 2 Nov 2011 @ 6:23am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Crazy talk is so rad.
        
        Finally your comments make sense.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 2 Nov 2011 @ 7:08am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      So Mike Masnick, representing Floor64, can get into all of these officials offices without issue? Who went with you? EFF?
      
      Perhaps you would still like to make a more full declaration of your activities as a lobbyist. Perhaps a nice full blog post so we can understand what you are really up to, and so that few people buying your "swag" can understand what their money is used for.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Killer_Tofu (profile), 2 Nov 2011 @ 7:52am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        If it is used for fighting the stupid shit the entertainment industry wants like this insanely horrible bill, I think I would donate more money even without getting another T-shirt. As long as it has more of an impact than my emails and letters to my congressmen do (which is that they are promptly ignored because there is no check attached or some other lame reason).
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 2 Nov 2011 @ 8:14am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "EFF?"
        
        Why not ask them?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Nov 2011 @ 9:25am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        EFF makes it clear what they do on their site. Mike does not.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The Logician (profile), 2 Nov 2011 @ 12:55pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Incorrect, AC 108. Mike does make it clear what he does and what he stands for. It can be found easily in the different sections of this site merely by exploring the links. You simply do not wish to accept it, because doing so is admittance that you are wrong. And like Lewis' character Uncle Andrew, you have convinced yourself that it cannot be true simply because you do not wish it to be. And so you hear and see only what you wish to.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2011 @ 8:16am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Sorry... can you show me which link points to Mike's lobbying activities, and explains who he works for while doing them?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2011 @ 8:31am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      The truth comes out... you went for CEA....
      
      http://www.ce.org/AboutCEA/CEAInitiatives/227_230.asp
      
      http://www.ce.org/Press/CurrentN ews/press_release_detail.asp?id=12191
      
      OOPS MIKE! Would you care to comment?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rob, 1 Nov 2011 @ 1:41pm

Petition
"in which 25,000 signatures will guarantee a response, this actually seems like a case where just such a petition would work well"

It'll guarantee a response, which doesn't mean a damn thing about "working well". Given all the responses I've seen for the other ones that have been publicized, this petition means exactly squat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
out_of_the_blue, 1 Nov 2011 @ 1:42pm

IM-POSSIBLE that anyone thinks State Dept is for /any/ freedom.
>>> "...the State Department itself is quite worried about the bill, as it would almost entirely undermine all of its efforts to promote internet freedom around the globe."

Just lost your last shred of credibility.

>>> "seriously hindering the ability to create new startups, new jobs and new platforms to help everyone." -- No, as I've said many times: you're for leveraging grifters over actual producers of content. Your notions benefit a narrow range of grifters, NOT everyone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 1 Nov 2011 @ 1:51pm
  
  Re: IM-POSSIBLE that anyone thinks State Dept is for /any/ freedom.
  oh ok. punish everyone for the actions of a few bad players
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 2 Nov 2011 @ 5:41am
    
    Re: Re: IM-POSSIBLE that anyone thinks State Dept is for /any/ freedom.
    11/10.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 1 Nov 2011 @ 2:54pm
  
  Re: IM-POSSIBLE that anyone thinks State Dept is for /any/ freedom.
  If I were you and I were posting here I really wouldn't want to make any discussion about credibility.
  
  Is this really the best you can do, suggesting that the notion 'don't pass E-PARASITE' works only to 'benefit a narrow range of grifters?' Sure, you've admitted in other threads that there will be collateral fallout from this but who cares about that now?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 1 Nov 2011 @ 3:55pm
    
    Re: Re: IM-POSSIBLE that anyone thinks State Dept is for /any/ freedom.
    LOL at "collateral fallout".
    
    I guess the "collateral fallout" that has befallen artists and workers due to illegal behavior doesn't matter...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - JMT (profile), 1 Nov 2011 @ 6:49pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: IM-POSSIBLE that anyone thinks State Dept is for /any/ freedom.
      Y'know what, no, it doesn't matter. Not as much as you want it to anyway. New technology and the internet allow us to do things that weren't practical or possible a decade ago, and those that don't want to adapt to these new and better ways of doing things should not be holding back those of us that do. It's called disruptive technology for a reason.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - techflaws.org (profile), 1 Nov 2011 @ 11:40pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: IM-POSSIBLE that anyone thinks State Dept is for /any/ freedom.
      I guess the "collateral fallout" that has befallen artists and workers due to illegal behavior doesn't matter...
      
      No, they keep whining about being cheated by the labels like forever and nothing changes.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - The eejit (profile), 2 Nov 2011 @ 1:22am
      
      Re: Re: Re: IM-POSSIBLE that anyone thinks State Dept is for /any/ freedom.
      No, it befell them because they didn't employ actual economists! A-duh!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- lucidrenegade (profile), 1 Nov 2011 @ 6:40pm
  
  Re: IM-POSSIBLE that anyone thinks State Dept is for /any/ freedom.
  "Just lost your last shred of credibility."
  
  Coming from someone who never had any to begin with.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
W Klink (profile), 1 Nov 2011 @ 1:46pm

I guess you haven't been reading WH responses
So far, the responses to the petitions have been pretty insulting. Before you sign that petition, you ought to first sign this one:

https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions#!/petition/actually-take-these-petitions-seriously-ins tead-just-using-them-excuse-pretend-you-are-listening/grQ9mNkN
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- E. Zachary Knight (profile), 1 Nov 2011 @ 1:50pm
  
  Re: I guess you haven't been reading WH responses
  I signed them both.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 1 Nov 2011 @ 2:01pm
  
  Re: I guess you haven't been reading WH responses
  I signed both and posted on Google+ for others to do the same. Hopefully, some actually listen.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- BearGriz72 (profile), 1 Nov 2011 @ 9:16pm
  
  Re: I guess you haven't been reading WH responses
  I have also signed both & posted both to Google+ & Facebook. I would have posted both to Reddit too but "take us seriously" one had already been posted several times.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 1 Nov 2011 @ 10:27pm
  
  Re: I guess you haven't been reading WH responses
  Unfortunately different voters seem to be signing different petitions. I loaded this petition (and held onto the end button to let much of it load) and in comparing a few of the names and locations with this petition (using the Firefox find feature of course), I find difficulty finding that many duplicates. IOWs, everyone is signing different petitions that are all petitioning about the same thing. We need to decide on one petition and stick to it.
  
  It's nice to see how many signatures these petitions are getting so quickly though. The first petition was only created Oct 31, 2011 and already has 6,645 votes (needs 25,000 by Nov 30th) and the second petition has 10,762 (needs 25,000 by Nov 27th) and was only released Oct 28. The numbers are increasing by the minute. Nice to see more and more members participate in important issues, but it would be nice if we can combine them to a single petition.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 Nov 2011 @ 7:41am
  
  Re: I guess you haven't been reading WH responses
  I signed that one a while ago.
  
  I guess I'm glad they're trying something, but the site seems like a failure, because the responses are always "No, and here's a few thousand words why it's very important to keep the status quo." It's not really a dialogue. I'm glad that the petitions seem to be answered by various people in the administration, but I cringe when they talk up things like the America Invents act as some great success instead of a blatant industry wishlist.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous, 1 Nov 2011 @ 1:48pm

I use ghostery so apparently i'm not allowed to view or vote on any petitions at whitehouse.gov
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Travis, 1 Nov 2011 @ 4:59pm
  
  Re:
  Sometimes its worth it to disable your anti-tracking measures.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Nov 2011 @ 1:52pm

"The real question, however, is whether or not the Obama White House wants to directly contradict Hillary Clinton and the State Department."

Mike, I also have to take some exception here, because you are taking the comments made by Clinton and applying your own meaning to them.

Openess does not mean lawlessness. Nobody in the State Department is going to condone illegal activity, they are not standing up for pirates, filesharing sites, or file lockers packed full of pirated material.

An open internet does not mean a free for all. Pirating stuff, selling counterfeit materials, and otherwise abusing the law online isn't some sort of right. The openness discussed was political and social in nature, not some sort of support for your infinite distribution piracy model.

Your intentional misreading of Clinton's comments are somewhere between amusing and sad. Fail for you, sir.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- A Monkey with Atitude, 1 Nov 2011 @ 2:05pm
  
  Re:
  Define illegal... something you don't like or understand is not illegal.. But you all seem to like to write laws to make things you don't like or understand illegal (or just to create a "legal" protectionist racket)
  
  You say Pirate, because its a hot button, but define what it means... File sharing = pirate - Gosh that doesn't added up.. But you have to come up with something to call them to de-humanize and make it sound bad, when in reality it is far far different...
  
  So sorry you failed long ago and now its time to bury this IP Protectionist crap next to the buggy whip makers so the technologist can continue to move ahead instead being held back by the blind and lethargic
  Obama said Open and all your keywords and that's worked out so well that i wouldn't vote for him again if Stalin ran against him (or Mao)...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 1 Nov 2011 @ 2:15pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Hi Marcus. Don't you have work to do?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - A Monkey with Atitude, 1 Nov 2011 @ 2:18pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      sorry not Marcus, but nice try... Your still at -10 Internets... but ill give you 1 for the effort
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 1 Nov 2011 @ 2:56pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Brilliant rebuttal. I was floored.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - rubberpants, 1 Nov 2011 @ 3:07pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Seriously, talk about punting.
        
        Also, note the irony again of an AC accusing someone else of sock-puppetry.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Marcus Carab (profile), 1 Nov 2011 @ 3:38pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Wow I really have made you paranoid, haven't I?
      
      I thought you claimed that I was masquerading as an AC in order to attack mike and destroy your credibility - now I'm masquerading as an AC to support him? Which is it?
      
      Funny thing is, I actually HAVE made a few AC comments lately, because I haven't been very active here the past couple of weeks (yes, i DO have work to do, thanks for noticing) and I just didn't bother logging in for quick comments. In the same timespan I've noticed you accuse two ACs of being me - one on a thread in which I was indeed present as an AC - and yet both times you've missed the mark.
      
      You're even bad at being paranoid! Amazing.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - The Groove Tiger (profile), 1 Nov 2011 @ 8:54pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I am SpartMarcus!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Andrew F (profile), 1 Nov 2011 @ 3:09pm
  
  Re:
  Here's one reason why the State Department would be concerned.
  
  Let's say that, as required by law, GoDaddy blocks access to the Pirate Bay, which is hosted in a foreign country. OK, let's assume that's OK with the State Dep't.
  
  However, the bill also prohibits making and distributing any technology that allows an American to circumvent GoDaddy's ban of the Pirate Bay.
  
  Here's the problem. The technology that allows an American to circumvent a ban to access the Pirate Bay is the same technology that a Chinese dissident would use to access the Wikipedia entry about Tiananmen Square.
  
  Would the U.S. government take action against a technology producer whose products were used primarily to circumvent Chinese censorship? Unlikely.
  
  But suppose the technology, which might be Tor or something similar, was used 51% of the time to circumvent copyright protections, and only 49% to circumvent human rights restrictions. Would that be subject to restrictions? What about 80-20? How about technology that was intentionally designed to circumvent copyright restrictions, but ended up being used mostly to evade human rights restrictions? Or vice versa?
  
  The bill isn't very clear, and it's not hard to see how there could be a significant negative effect on censorship-circumvention technologies promoted by the State Department.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 2 Nov 2011 @ 4:20am
  
  Re:
  Your intentional misreading of Clinton's comments are somewhere between amusing and sad. Fail for you, sir.
  
  It's not intentional misreading. I have spoken with people in the State Department. They don't like this bill. At all.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 2 Nov 2011 @ 9:26am
    
    Re: Re:
    Umm, yeah. Could you add a little information. One liners don't really do much to explain away why you took the comments clearly out of context to try to support your views.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
sophisticatedjanedoe (profile), 1 Nov 2011 @ 1:53pm

Sorry for crossposting, but I'm extremely amused (I even twitted back to @MPAA)

----

MPAA (or CreativeAmerica to be precise) also have a petition that already generated 100,000 signatures... Oh wait, did it?

@MPAA just twitted:

Impressive! RT @creativeamerica: Creative America supporters have sent over 100,000 letters to #Congress for stronger content theft laws.

But if you follow the link in the original @creativeamerica twit, you'll find a page that says "4,173 Letters Sent So Far".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- anothermike, 1 Nov 2011 @ 2:10pm
  
  Re:
  Can we use this 4173 : 100000 conversion factor with other MPAA math?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jay (profile), 1 Nov 2011 @ 2:16pm
  
  Re:
  Wow
  
  The CA people can't count. How does 4,000 look like 100,000? If you squint just right you can eke out two more people, maybe even 3 more. It's kind of funny.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 1 Nov 2011 @ 2:47pm
    
    Re: Re:
    I notice they don't allow us to make any modifications.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - BearGriz72 (profile), 1 Nov 2011 @ 9:24pm
    
    Re: Re:
    It was not the Creative America people that can't count, it was the MPAA using RIAA math.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - BearGriz72 (profile), 1 Nov 2011 @ 10:11pm
    
    Re: Re:
    ROFLMAO!
    Now, Send a Message to Your Representatives in Congress
    This House seat is currently vacant, but we will deliver your letter as soon as it is filled.
    Each letter is individually addressed to each official, and the letters are private.
    
    The following letter text will be sent:
    Please Support the Stop Online Piracy Act (H.R. 3261)
    
    More than 2 million Americans in all 50 states depend on film and television to make a living. Millions more treasure the work they create and believe that American jobs, creativity and innovation deserve to be protected. The entertainment community has helped grow the U.S. economy and expand America's positive image and contributions around the world. But it is threatened by an accelerating epidemic of content theft. It has already cost America tens of thousands of jobs, and more are at stake. That's why I am asking you to support the Stop Online Piracy Act (H.R. 3261) which cracks down on rogue websites and makes illegal streaming of content a felony.
    
    These rogue sites are responsible for peddling stolen creative works to tens of millions of unsuspecting consumers each and every day. These sites look legitimate, take credit cards, carry ads, show up in search results - and they are run by sophisticated thieves who make millions off of the hard work of the men and women whose efforts made these works possible.
    
    New laws are needed to shut down these sites, cut off their stolen revenue and protect American jobs and the American consumer. It's time for Congress to act. Now.
    
    Please help. Please protect these millions of jobs and America�s creativity by co-sponsoring and supporting passage of the Stop Online Piracy Act (H.R. 3261).
    Sincerely,
    Your signature will be added from the information you provide below.
    Oh the funny!
    How may lies and misleading truths can you jam into one letter?
    
    I also notice that they DO NOT allow any customization or personalization of these letters the way the organizations on our side of the fence (e.g. EFF, Public Knowledge, Demand Progress, & Fight For The Future) do. I wonder what they are afraid of?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- E. Zachary Knight (profile), 1 Nov 2011 @ 2:28pm
  
  Re:
  Meh. That is a common misdirection. The hope is that most people who read the tweet will not follow up on it and read the source. Rather they expect the majority to simply take it at face value and possibly retweet.
  
  It is pretty disgusting, but not unexpected from the likes of the MPAA.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 1 Nov 2011 @ 3:04pm
  
  Re:
  It's funny clicking through those twitter posts on the MPAA's twitter account.
  
  While I'm not that familiar with using Twitter, I noticed some things that seem a little odd.
  
  The MPAA's twitter account claims 604 followers but if I click on the followers many of them aren't pictures of people's faces and they don't seem to name or be associated with any people in particular. One of them Sky Fall Carroll which has a picture of an Eagle with an American flag in the background. Many of his tweets seem to resemble general announcements that have some sort of twisted and undisclosed political agenda? One of the accounts tweeting to that account(?) was PublicInterests. Its image displays Live Feed in red text with a black background. Again, most of its tweets seem to be composed of randomized general announcements.
  
  It seems like the MPAA's twitter following is a fabricated echo chamber?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 2 Nov 2011 @ 12:48am
    
    Re: Re:
    Probably done by one of those companies that sells Twitter followers. I don't know why they bothered; nobody that actually uses the internet is going to be fooled, and any congresschump that buys it would probably be just as awed by 60 followers as 600.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - hmm (profile), 2 Nov 2011 @ 5:18am
    
    Re: Re:
    604 "followers" but 603 of those are waiting til they catch an MPAA Exec alone in a dark alley......
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- hmm (profile), 2 Nov 2011 @ 5:16am
  
  Re:
  and 4,173 of those will be copy-kit identical spams.
  
  MPAA also has a nasty history of faking peoples agreement and sending letters "on your behalf". They usually target groups such as the elderly or disabled or non-english speakers (who SOMEHOW manage to write in english just this once!) who won't realize that anything has been sent in their name without their knowledge claiming a stance they themselves may not even care 2 bits about.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Nov 2011 @ 2:05pm

That would be quite a legacy to leave: to contradict one's own Secretary of State who is pushing for greater internet freedom, and impose a system of censorship on the US.

Sorry, the tail doesn't wag the dog. The SoS works for the President, not vice-versa.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- hmm (profile), 2 Nov 2011 @ 5:20am
  
  Re:
  Yes but this is Obama's turning point.
  He either needs to be FOR or AGAINST censorship, and this is going to be how people remember him:
  
  either "yeah, I remember Obama, he's the guy that didn't give a crap about the public and sided with corporations and broke the internet and started the civil war"
  
  or "Yeah, I remember Obama, he's the guy that stopped corporations putting in their own laws and robbing the US blind"
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
cennis (profile), 1 Nov 2011 @ 2:24pm

White House petition process appears to be a waste of time
So far, I have received 5 responses to my White House petitions; all crappy canned responses; all having plenty of words but telling me nothing...waste of time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Griff, 2 Nov 2011 @ 1:34am
  
  Re: White House petition process appears to be a waste of time
  What kind of response do you expect to a popular petition - 25,000 hand written letters ?
  
  The measure of a petition's success if if they take notice, not if they write you a nice letter.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
.-=rww=-., 1 Nov 2011 @ 2:44pm

Anonymous Coward, Nov 1st, 2011 @ 1:34pm
@Anonymous Coward, Nov 1st, 2011 @ 1:34pm

Put up or shut up. Or better yet, STFU. You add very little to anything. You waste my air. Show your identity and prove you are human or go away. I'm tired of you lazy trolling.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bear (profile), 1 Nov 2011 @ 3:22pm

Petition?
What the hell good is any White House petition site when the responses that they have given to date are nothing but the pure 'fuck you' mindset of the "Administration's" positions?

Who wants the TSA?

Who wants the Patriot Act?

Who wants marijuana prohibition?

Who wants anything from these ass hats with "protection" in its description?

What am I missing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TechnoMage (profile), 1 Nov 2011 @ 3:56pm

obviously they don't want to answer many of these
hmmm a jump from 5000 to 25000 to get a response from the white house... leads me to believe they don't want to have to give too many responses (and this isn't knocking Obama, this is just how our presidency has been the last 40 years(+?) )
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The Incoherent One (profile), 1 Nov 2011 @ 4:37pm
  
  Re: obviously they don't want to answer many of these
  OVER 9000!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 1 Nov 2011 @ 4:49pm
  
  Re: obviously they don't want to answer many of these
  It has 6000 in one day and they have 30 days to get 25,000. Do you really think they won't get 19,000 more? I'd be willing to bet this one blows past 50,000 and never looks back.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Karl (profile), 1 Nov 2011 @ 8:50pm
  
  Re: obviously they don't want to answer many of these
  hmmm a jump from 5000 to 25000 to get a response from the white house
  
  Yeah, I noticed that, too. I was just on the petition site the day before yesterday, and the required number was 5000 signatures.
  
  I'd like to think it's just a coincidence, but I'm not so sure...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Old Fool (profile), 2 Nov 2011 @ 5:13am
  
  Re: obviously they don't want to answer many of these
  Its 100,000 in Britain, and we have a much smaller population.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jeff MacDougall, 1 Nov 2011 @ 5:02pm

This bill will do a lot of unfortunate things but one thing it won't do is keep Hollywood "fat" or "happy".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
6, 1 Nov 2011 @ 6:58pm

NEW PETITION UP

NEW PETITION UP

NEW PETITION UP

https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions#!/petition/pursue-software-patent-abolition/fHkD8wYM

Also

https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions#!/petition/take-petitions-seriously/bHPkPddj
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Paul M Devino, 1 Nov 2011 @ 7:06pm

Stop the E-PARASITE Act.
I so wanted to sign this petition. The bill is patently unconstitutional, vaguely written, and ripe for abuses of the worst kind. I'm sickened that such a bill could even be introduced to the floor of either house, let alone both under different guises. I signed up for Whitehouse.gov just to sign, but upon entering my username and password I get an error 404 page not found. They sure arn't making it easy to speak out against this. Anyone who has already signed, did you experience this runaround?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 1 Nov 2011 @ 7:32pm
  
  Re: Stop the E-PARASITE Act.
  Didn't work for me in Chrome. Had to resort to IE. :-P
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- wizened (profile), 2 Nov 2011 @ 12:38am
  
  Re: Stop the E-PARASITE Act.
  Didn't work for me in Chrome OR IE.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Nov 2011 @ 10:06pm

"Remember, Clinton has become a staunch defender of internet freedom against attempts to censor the internet worldwide."

She'll change her tune if she gets elected. Opposing ridiculous IP bills (and laws) is a good selling point to get elected because politicians know that the general public doesn't like these laws. Once elected, she'll change her mind and start supporting such legislation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
wizened (profile), 2 Nov 2011 @ 12:36am

I'm not sure they are all that interested
I went to the site. Clicked on a link to create an account. Got a big blank blue box. Turns out the site doesn't work in Chrome. Tried again in IE. Got a form. Filled it out. Received a message to look for an email and to respond to it. No email came. Went back, tried to register again. Got message that email was already registered and to ask for my password. Asked for password. Got message that an email had been sent. No email received. Tried twice more. No emails. Not sure they really want to hear from the public.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 Nov 2011 @ 7:34am
  
  Re: I'm not sure they are all that interested
  Well, the number of petitioners are continuing to increase. I see them constantly going up. I suspect the limiting factor here is the web servers capacity, otherwise those numbers would likely be increasing at a more rapid rate even. Other Techdirt commenters seem to also be having problems, so apparently this petition is really popular and over flooding the servers. Keep trying.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Nov 2011 @ 7:10am

I expect the White House to do nothing but what the Liberal/Progressive base wishes it to do that are in line with Obama' mind set.

Remember the party of no, when Obama' party held the keys to the country, Obama still had a hard time getting things passed. 60 in the senate and the majority in the house.
But they tried to blame the Republicans for not getting every thing the Obama White House wanted. Hell the Republicans were excluded from everything, not even allowed to offer amendments.

What the Senate and White House want is to tell you what to do and when to do it. To give that power to a bunch of government bureaucrats and to strip every one of their wealth unless you agree with them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Logician (profile), 2 Nov 2011 @ 7:51am

When one's livelihood depends on ignorance and deceit, as those of the legacy entertainment industry, their supporters in government, and their shills here do, acknowledgement of that ignorance and of the true nature of their character is unlikely to happen by them themselves, only by those who recognize it for what it is. The survival of the old guard and those who speak for them depends on their blindness, and so they will not give it up, nor will they allow themselves to see the truth of what we are saying.

It is much like C.S. Lewis wrote in The Magician's Nephew of the character of Uncle Andrew, who could not hear Aslan or the other creatures speak because he would not allow himself to believe that they could, but only what he wanted to believe. It is the same with those who wish this bill and others like it to pass. They do not wish to accept that what we have been saying is true, they only wish to believe what they choose to. As Lewis wrote, "the trouble with trying to make yourself stupider than you really are is that you very often succeed."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Keith_Emperor_of_Penguins (profile), 2 Nov 2011 @ 8:26am
  
  Re:
  Ultimately, the world moves on despite the ones who fail to adapt. From the Telegraph to the telephone to the fax machine. The future takes no prisoners.
  Even today we move forward, using the ones who failed to evolve as fuel.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
NetSurfer, 2 Nov 2011 @ 8:50am

Need more signatures
So far there are only 7115 signatures on the petition against the act - please take the time to click the link and sign.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Nov 2011 @ 9:23am

Thanks to yesterday's hearings and the American Censorship campaign, this petition is now over 34,000 signees as of last night and we're only half-way through the month. At least now we'll hear what the White House has to say on it since Obama hasn't said a word on it in public. I'm sure the response will be vapid and condescending though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]