SOPA Sponsors: Pass SOPA To Protect The Troops; Everyone Else: WTF?
from the seriously? dept
The main sponsors of SOPA, Reps. Lamar Smith and John Conyers, are taking political cynicism to new and extreme levels. We've certainly joked about how politicians love to put things like "for the children" or "to save jobs!" on every piece of legislation, because no one wants to be called out for being "against" those things. But now they're simply attaching things that have absolutely nothing to do with SOPA to SOPA... such as claiming that it "protects the troops." That link is to a PDF of a letter sent by Smith and Conyers to their colleagues in Congress, with the headline:Promote Jobs and Economic Growth: Protect Consumers and Our Troops - Support H.R. 3261(Amusingly, the URL of that letter also says "Rouge Websites" rather than "Rogue Websites" -- a mistake that lots of folks make, but you'd really expect a bit better of Congress.)
So what does SOPA have to do with the troops? Well, they try to stretch the bill by noting the following:
Trafficking in counterfeit military goods -- H.R. 3261 creates a strong deterrent to those who knowingly risk the lives of members of our armed forces and law enforcement by significantly increasing criminal penalties on those who knowingly traffic in counterfeit military goods or goods sold to law enforcement.Um. Sorry, but it's already very much against the law to sell counterfeit military goods. SOPA changes nothing there, and certainly won't deter anyone. This is just the ultimate cynical ploy by some Congressional Representatives who appear to have no shame at all, trampling on the good name of our military to pass a bailout bill for Hollywood.
Hell, even the "jobs" claim is bogus. The entertainment industry isn't losing jobs because of "piracy." It's losing jobs because its out-of-touch management hasn't figured out how to adapt to a changing marketplace. Instead, we're seeing tons of innovation and new jobs -- including jobs and innovative tools for content creators come out of the tech industry -- the same industry this bill seeks to regulate, which will significantly slow innovation and job creation.
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
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Keep it up Mike... but you really should register as a lobbyist if you are going to keep going.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[sarcasm]As should every American who expresses political speech.[/sarcasm]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Well that was a stupid thing to think.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Well said by a lobbyist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Well said by an idiot.
If Mike were a lobbyist, he'd be getting paid, like the shills you work with, boy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
We still have plenty more to say about SOPA, and there will still be lots of posts about SOPA (especially as the bill continues through this process), but hopefully we'll be going back to a more balanced schedule, with stories on lots of other topics as well...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Protect Consumers and Our Troops - Support H.R. 3261
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Protect Consumers and Our Troops - Support H.R. 3261
SOPA is written on a piece of used toilet paper.
I hope we can investigate the finances of these asses in government who are voting in favor of this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
No, he's making a statement to the LACK of ability of congressmen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
apparently it's #BF7253;
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The government issued equipment is so crappy that soldiers and police officers that can afford go online to buy new equipment.
That is just priceless.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Anyone else remember SA.com receiving donations to purchase body armor for a forum member's unit that the military deemed not important enough?
If that wasn't enough, you may also recall Paypal froze the donation account and I believe there was also considerable stonewalling from the military trying to get the vests to the troops.
http://www.somethingawful.com/d/news/update-from-frontlines.php
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Replacement gear
It's total bogus nonsense.
Besides: if you want to protect consumers then enforce consumer protection laws. This copyright nonsense has nothing to do with protecting consumers of any sort.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragon_Skin_(body_armor)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The easiest way to explain it is that on occasion contractors working for the military cut corners, buy from unverified sources, and those counterfeit components/equipment ends up in the product that they deliver to the military as a part of their contract. The military isn't expecting a contractor they hired to act in such a way, so the problem can go undetected for awhile.
Just to repeat the earlier point, though: this problem has nothing to do with the online world and SOPA is useless to combat it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The easiest way to explain it is that on occasion contractors working for the military cut corners, buy from unverified sources, and those counterfeit components/equipment ends up in the product that they deliver to the military as a part of their contract. The military isn't expecting a contractor they hired to act in such a way, so the problem can go undetected for awhile.
Just to repeat the earlier point, though: this problem has nothing to do with the online world and SOPA is useless to combat it.
Try reading the bill douchenozzle. It provides for sentencing enhancements in Title II, section 204
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Nevermind the fact that as OP stated and others have said, SOPA will in no way effect these purchases since most of this is done at the "non-electronic" level.
I know with 100% certainty that the government contracting will be unaffected by SOPA and counterfeit components will continue to find their way into the government procurement process regardless to how many sentencing enhancements are included in Title II, section 204. I suspect even those electronic systems operated by GAO and the services will be exempt from SOPA, so the $500 counterfeit hammers we are forced to buy will still be there on the GAO website for us, regardless to what SOPA does.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
There's no requirement for transaction to be electronic for enhanced sentences for introduction of counterfeits into military supply chain. Try reading.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Maybe I wasn't fully clear above. I'm not talking about military contractors who purposefully or intentionally sell counterfeit goods to the military. I'm talking about contractors who get counterfeit goods/components somewhere in their supply chain unwittingly--usually due to someone in the supply chain cutting corners by not verifying a supplier 100%--and unintentionally selling a product to the military that is in whole or in part counterfeit. I did read the section of the bill you referenced, but I'm not seeing how it would stop this scenario from occurring.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Regardless of whether one can take issue with that one part of Mike's statement, the military counterfeits aspects is a pretty weak argument for adopting SOPA wholesale. There's already a similar, standalone military counterfeits bill in the Senate, so if Congress cares about that issue, they already have a vehicle to deal with it, without adopting SOPA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Big contractor buys stuff from smaller contractor, who buys stuff from X supplier, who gets his stuff from someone else. Every component has parts that have gone through multiple companies. The person directly selling to the government probably has zero idea anything was up as the issue arose long before he touched the goods.
Being online has absolutely zero to do with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who buys this stuff?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Who buys this stuff?
The media naturally will parrot this view without explaining what the bill was really about. And voters en mass aren't smart enough to dig into it and see what the bill was really all about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Who buys this stuff?
But to follow up to what I was saying, this is all just part of the ridiculous farce that is our Republican form of government. It's the game they play with rules that have evolved over the past 240 or so years.
Which has me thinking: Hasn't technology gotten to the point to where we can do away with Republican government and go back to a straight up democracy? Forgive this digression, which I'm sure has been brought up before (as nothing is original).
With a majority of the population in possesion of a cellphone and more and more people using smartphones, couldn't we just say that everyone who wants to vote has to do so by a cellphone registered to their SSN? But not voting for elected officials; instead every item that Congress would normally vote on gets voted on by the entire population, including commitee and subcomitee issues.
No more lobbying to politicians. Instead they have to advertise to the public (and you thought campaign ads were bad). A drawback to be sure, but there could be limits impossed.
Tell me why this is a bad idea or wouldn't work. And then tell me how we can make it work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Who buys this stuff?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Who buys this stuff?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How many more jobs would be created if entertainment businesses invested in technology of distribution instead of legal waste for anti-distribution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"the good name of our military"?
Mike, YOU'VE already fallen for the lowest and oldest trick in the book: start a war and accuse anyone against it of siding with the enemy.
Until you recognize that the real "regulatory capture" has been by the military-industrial complex, you're just full of it, another neo-con or at best their dupe.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "the good name of our military"?
Then again, this is your standard tactic. See a single word or sentence and try and spin it as an attack against Mike, most of the time making yourself look a complete fool for doing so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "the good name of our military"?
----------
Ellipsis?! MIKE once again //you/\ have fallen prey of our grammar /overlords/!!/. $ WHEN $ will you learn /that/ Imperialists forcing US to use ~their~ sentence construction �RULES�. This just proves that PIRACY //*++--..CANNOT--��� BE allowed to //:::::) THRIVE ::// in this country! You're such a #COLLEGE BOY%, Why can't you be a ��Farm Boy��!!??����
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "the good name of our military"?
FTFY.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "the good name of our military"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "the good name of our military"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "the good name of our military"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "the good name of our military"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "the good name of our military"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "the good name of our military"?
That's because he did do something about it. I'm not saying it was a good idea, but it's what he did and the media reported on it.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/06/obama-taps-strategic-petroleum-reserve-will-rele ase-more-if-necessary/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "the good name of our military"?
Never has a poster possessed a more accurate nom-du-net than out_of_the_blue.
Few, if any, of his posts have any relationship to the discussion at hand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "the good name of our military"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "the good name of our military"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "the good name of our military"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pass SOPA, save the children!
SOPA will save the children, the troops, jobs, the economy, heck, maybe even prevent global warming and bring about peace in the Middle East.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If this bill will stop the poor firefighters from buying counterfeit smoke detectors, and the sponsors of the bill and the firefighters have assured us it will, then it is as plain and day that it will also stop our brave military personnel from buying counterfeit military gear.
Why do you hate our military?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
More lies FUDboy? Did you Read Title II, Section 204? I don't know why you think enhanced sentencing for anyone introducing counterfeit goods into the military supply chain doesn't strengthen protection- other than it not suiting your own disinformation campaign.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So, here's the sentencing guidelines that would be enhanced by SOPA. The penalties range from up to $2,000,000 and/or 10 years imprisonment to $15,000,000 and/or 20 years imprisonment just for being involved in counterfeiting goods. If you bring causing death into the equation, the penalties jump to a fine as stated above and life imprisonment.
I suppose that because there are no minimum penalties outlined a counterfeiter could in theory cause someone's death, get caught, and get away with a slap on the wrist. If you can provide some cases where this actually happened, I'd love to see them.
As it is, increasing the penalties for a crime is the weakest method of reducing crime. If there's already enough incentive to commit the crime of counterfeiting when you could be fined $15,000,000 and go to jail for 20 years then increasing these penalties is won't stop criminals from counterfeiting. The risk of getting caught is simply comes with the territory.
Anyone who is really genuinely interested in reducing harmful counterfeiting will be looking at ways that reduce the incentive to counterfeit in the first place, rather than dealing with the problem after it has already occurred as that's all a penalty increase will do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We Also Support This Bill
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: We Also Support This Bill
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: We Also Support This Bill
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Embarrassing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
SOPA lies
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
thats impossible
and to quote one serviceman i know: they just want to use us.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
...I'll get my coat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Great expectations
Nope. No, I really wouldn't...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Question
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I thought Washington D.C. decided they were well off enough to pay for there own private health care.
Frag'em.
Awww...that wasn't nice. After all, the government is creating soooo many part time jobs that you can pay taxes on but not receive unemployment when you get your constructive dismissal so they can hire more people and get more checks from Unky Sam.
Wait, that's not completely true, politicians are supporting business' to hire full timers as well, just not that they turn around and fire them all before they've worked a year and a half to hire a whole bunch more full timers and get a whole bunch more checks.
But that's OK because said companies donate a lot of money to their political campaigns. That's Patriotic. So what have we done for congress lately?
Shame on us for talking about our rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
btw: am not even american or a military officer, and i understand their pain
[ link to this | view in chronology ]