DailyDirt: Measurements That Make You Go Hmmmm...

Apparently Congress Wants To Pretend No One Is Really That Concerned About SOPA

from the so-that's-how-they're-playing-it dept

Mon, Dec 12th 2011 8:06pm — Mike Masnick

Despite all of the significant concerns with SOPA, it appears that Rep. Lamar Smith won't let a little thing like the American public stop his plan to help out his friends in Hollywood. It's been confirmed (as has been rumored for weeks) that Smith is planning to hold the markup and followup Judiciary Committee vote over SOPA this Thursday. The manager's amendment doesn't really fix any but the most glaring of problems -- and basically just brings the bill more in line with the already problematic PROTECT IP bill. From what we've heard, Smith and other SOPA supporters still don't believe the American public really cares enough about this bill.

Plenty of folks are working to convince Smith and others that they're underestimating the public's opinion towards censoring the internet. EFF, Public Knowledge, American Censorship, Demand Progress, Engine Advocacy and others are all providing tools to let you speak up. If you think that Rep. Smith and others in Congress are mistaken about the public's feelings towards these bills, pick your favorite and speak up. There's also the amazing new site, I Work For The Internet, which is asking people to add simple photos of themselves in protest of SOPA.

Related to this, the folks at Cato have also officially come out against SOPA and PIPA with the following video:

Julian Sanchez, who appears in the video helped explain the privacy problems with the bill last week here on Techdirt. At this point, the only people we actually see supporting the bill are those in the industry itself. It appears that almost no one else is willing to speak up in support of the bill.

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: congress, lamar smith, pipa, protect ip, sopa

103 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

BreadGod (profile), 12 Dec 2011 @ 8:09pm

If even the CATO Institute opposes SOPA, you know it's a horrible bill.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Nuge (profile), 12 Dec 2011 @ 10:03pm
  
  Re:
  First time I heard that argument!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Dec 2011 @ 8:18pm

Piracy is not killing the recording industry...crazy random Hollywood shooters are!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2011 @ 1:30am
  
  Re:
  Is a consequence of all the drugs they keep taking over there and I am not talking about marijuana.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Dec 2011 @ 8:22pm

Apparently Masnick thinks people other than tech dweebs are against SOPA and PIPA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- BreadGod (profile), 12 Dec 2011 @ 8:24pm
  
  Re:
  Ahem. This is an essay by John Whitehead.
  
  http://njtoday.net/2011/12/12/the-stop-online-piracy-act-yet-another-stealth-maneuver- to-control-the-internet/
  
  He's a prominent conservative, and even he's opposed to SOPA. If you actually bothered to do some digging, then you will realize that many diverse groups of people oppose SOPA.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jay (profile), 12 Dec 2011 @ 8:38pm
  
  Re:
  Here's Neil Stevens at Redstate that says to do without the censorship.
  
  Who is actually supporting this other than a few people that are affiliated with the movie and music industry?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 12 Dec 2011 @ 8:44pm
  
  Re:
  Apparently Masnick thinks people other than tech dweebs are against SOPA and PIPA.
  
  A million emails sent on one day and 90,000 calls? Those are all tech dweebs? Some of the biggest conservative groups (Tea Party) have come out against the bill, as have some of the biggest liberal groups (MoveOn).
  
  If you honestly think that this is just about "tech dweebs," you're in for a surprise.
  
  Meanwhile, the Hollywood effort, Creative America convinced a whopping 161 people to sign its petition over the entire month of November, despite all the Hollywood studios funding it.
  
  It seems that pretty much everyone is against you on this. At some point, you might want to consider that perhaps you're wrong.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Nuge (profile), 12 Dec 2011 @ 10:13pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Mike, you're intentionally miscounting again. We have multiple sources of petition signers. You count one. We've been through this before. Be honest.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Mike Masnick (profile), 12 Dec 2011 @ 11:01pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Mike, you're intentionally miscounting again. We have multiple sources of petition signers. You count one. We've been through this before. Be honest.
      
      But the one on your site had 161 new signers in the month of November, even as NBC Universal was threatening its partners to sign.
      
      I mean... no offense, that's just sad. You have to admit, Nuge, that your "grassroots" effort (paid for by the major studios) isn't attracting anything that looks like a grassroots following?
      
      Why? Because they know you guys are crying wolf again.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2011 @ 2:31am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      There's Masnick's intellectual dishonesty again.
      
      He just can't seem to tell the truth.
      
      Do your parents know you lie like this, Masnick? Are they the ones that taught you to behave this way?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2011 @ 11:27am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        ...Do your parents know you lie like this, Masnick? Are they the ones that taught you to behave this way?
        Do your's know of your dishonesty? At least Mike posts under his name...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - wvhillbilly (profile), 15 Dec 2011 @ 9:52pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You wouldn't happen to be a shill for the RIAA/MPAA by any chance, would you?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2011 @ 2:33am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Why not simply cite your multiple sources and post them here in an attempt to debunk Mike?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Nuge (profile), 12 Dec 2011 @ 10:13pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Mike, you're intentionally miscounting again. We have multiple sources of petition signers. You count one. We've been through this before. Be honest.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Richard (profile), 13 Dec 2011 @ 3:16am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Nuge your intentionally miscounting the figures by postiing multiple times.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- btr1701 (profile), 12 Dec 2011 @ 8:47pm
  
  Re:
  > Apparently Masnick thinks people other than tech dweebs
  > are against SOPA and PIPA.
  
  Well, that and actual reality.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2011 @ 4:21am
    
    Re: Re:
    Don't be too sure.
    
    http://www.4029tv.com/r/29982817/detail.html
    
    It may seem unrelated, but it's not. You just don't mess around with the American public.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - ltlw0lf (profile), 13 Dec 2011 @ 6:59am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      It may seem unrelated, but it's not. You just don't mess around with the American public.
      
      I suspect that may have more to do with South Carolina Sheriff Tells Women to Carry Guns and the Kathleen Scharbarth case in San Diego.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 12 Dec 2011 @ 9:22pm
  
  Re:
  The CATO institute is made up of tech dweebs? What type of alternate reality do you live in? Or it is just your own delusion?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 12 Dec 2011 @ 9:29pm
  
  Re:
  You freeloaders just like laws that will enhance your capabilities to steal from others.
  
  But one titanic problem with ContentID has received little attention: the use of ContentID by those who falsely or incorrectly assert ownership over public domain works � works that have no copyright at all � and then either block access to the videos, or collect the advertising revenue from these videos.
  
  http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/dec/12/pirates-of-youtube-cory-doctorow?utm_sourc e=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - BreadGod (profile), 12 Dec 2011 @ 9:31pm
    
    Re: Re:
    0/10
    
    Troll harder.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2011 @ 12:31am
    
    Re: Re:
    That is a weird troll, but not quite a 0/10
    
    Self contradictory points in the post is a definite plus
    
    freeloaders is not quite freetards, but it's not bad
    
    troll grade 4/10
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2011 @ 1:26am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Where are the contradictory points, the freeloading companies want to keep stealing from the public domain.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2011 @ 1:38am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Ah... you didn't specify who the freeloaders were. My mistake.
        
        I hereby retract my troll rating.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chuck Norris' Enemy (deceased) (profile), 13 Dec 2011 @ 6:27am
  
  Re:
  Tech dweebs like Ron Paul and Nancy Pelosi?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Hephaestus (profile), 13 Dec 2011 @ 8:05am
    
    Re: Re:
    "Tech dweebs like Ron Paul and Nancy Pelosi?"
    
    Wow, I just had this mental flash of Ron Paul and Nancy Pelosi trying to kill each other in a Gears of War tourney.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2011 @ 5:58pm
    
    Re: Re:
    It's not a big surprise to me Ron Paul would be against this.
    
    I really didn't see Pelosi object until the day after news broke that several opponents to incumbent were using support for this as campaign fodder. To me she's just covering her ass just to play it safe (gotta make sure potential fallout from this bill can't come back to bite her later you know).
    
    THe fact that even Michele Bachmann has expressed serious concerns? Now that's saying something.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nigel Lew (profile), 12 Dec 2011 @ 8:31pm

For all intents and purposes the only people in support of this are.... the copyright regimes and the asshole trying to ram it through congress.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Hephaestus (profile), 13 Dec 2011 @ 8:07am
  
  Re:
  More like they are trying to bend us over and ram it through.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
demented, 12 Dec 2011 @ 8:42pm

No one - NO ONE - except the corrupt MAFIAA types and the politicians they've bought actually supports this. Conservatives, liberals, Repubs, Demos, nerds, scholars - all of them agree that these two bills are disasters and need to die.

And yet Smith and Congress are sticking their fingers in their ears and going, "LALALALALALA CAN'T HEAR YOU LALALALALALA NOBODY IMPORTANT HATES OUR BILL..."

I'm waiting for civil war to break out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 12 Dec 2011 @ 8:47pm
  
  Re:
  Because no one has made any rational claim why it's bad.
  
  Justin Beiber going to jail?
  
  ha, yeah, I'm sure Congress didn't recognize that as hyperbole.
  
  It'll destroy DNS?
  
  Why hasn't child-porn blocking destroyed DNS?
  
  Ebay, etc, being taken offline?
  
  More obvious and baseless fear-mongering.
  
  Those that oppose this bill have done it with such hysterical and outlandish claims that it was impossible for Congress to take them seriously.
  
  Nice work.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - btr1701 (profile), 12 Dec 2011 @ 8:55pm
    
    Re: Re:
    > Because no one has made any rational claim why it's bad.
    
    That's the great thing about our system of government. The people don't have to justify why a law shouldn't be passed. The government has to justify why it should.
    
    > it was impossible for Congress to take them seriously.
    
    The only reason Congress isn't taking the opposition here seriously is because its viewpoint didn't come attached to a large check or a Caribbean vacation.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Kevin H (profile), 12 Dec 2011 @ 8:56pm
    
    Re: Re:
    1.5/10. All your assertions have been proven false in the very extensive coverage on this website alone. I will explain the Beiber analogy just because it really is a good example of WHY this bill is shit.
    
    Most politicians don't know or care who Beiber is first off. Secondly hes already made it, but perhaps there is another child who has (I use this loosely) "musical talent" who may very well be fined and possibly jailed for singing one of Beiber's songs on youtube. The very thing that help Beiber make it, may put another person in prison.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 12 Dec 2011 @ 9:05pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      LOL
      
      Keep goin to the well, guy. And keep getting your talking points from Mike Masnick.
      
      Maybe you'll stumble upon someone stupid enough to fall for them.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 12 Dec 2011 @ 9:13pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Boring.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 12 Dec 2011 @ 9:22pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You probably shouldn't bring up "talking points" when that is all you have to spew.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - The eejit (profile), 13 Dec 2011 @ 6:15am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Who pays your talking points?
        
        Fox and Warner Bros. That tells you everything you need to know.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - BreadGod (profile), 12 Dec 2011 @ 8:57pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Oh hi Lamar Smith.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 12 Dec 2011 @ 9:09pm
    
    Re: Re:
    I actually think you're right on target. The opponents mass hysteria has pretty much numbed legislators. The surrender to hyperbole worked for awhile but then people looked past the veneer and saw that it won't break the internet, isn't censorship, won't put Justin Beiber in jail nor takedown YouTube. Their campaign failed because while the intellectually lazy electorate may succumb to bumper sticker sloganeering, the legislators voting on this, look beyond the hyperbole and are themselves masters of bumper sticker politics. Many also remember the frantic Chicken Little dances performed in their offices by many of the same players before DMCA became law. The claims about destroying the internet then, as now were utter bullshit.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - BreadGod (profile), 12 Dec 2011 @ 9:11pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Sockpuppet detected.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Nuge (profile), 12 Dec 2011 @ 10:05pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Hope the managers' amendment provides a way forward.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Nuge (profile), 12 Dec 2011 @ 10:05pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Hope the managers' amendment provides a way forward.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 12 Dec 2011 @ 10:19pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      So if the DMCA didn't destroy the Internet why would you need more legislation that does exactly the same thing as the DMCA?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Nuge (profile), 12 Dec 2011 @ 10:56pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        DMCA is instance-of-title by instance-of-title skirmish, is after the fact - after infringers get their stolen revenue, is usually ignored by foreign rogue sites, and is way too costly if not way beyond the means of small content owners. Carefully constructed, SOPA and PIPA will stop US support of foreign rogue sites themselves that are in the business of trafficking in stolen content to the US as determined by an impartial court.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 12 Dec 2011 @ 11:05pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        DMCA is instance-of-title by instance-of-title skirmish, is after the fact - after infringers get their stolen revenue, is usually ignored by foreign rogue sites, and is way too costly if not way beyond the means of small content owners.
        
        Or, as most normal, sensible people would say, the DMCA actually targets infringing content, as opposed to SOPA's nuclear bomb approach to taking down anything, whether infringing or not.
        
        Back here, in the real world, where we believe in the First Amendment, that's called prior restraint.
        
        As for it "being ignored" by foreign sites, that's actually rarely the case. The biggest rogue sites listed by the US Chamber of Commerce were Megaupload and Rapidshare. Both of them abide by the DMCA. And they represent about 40% of the traffic you guys call rogue.
        
        In the meantime, it's nice that you've started commenting here again. Will you finally admit that you were totally wrong on your false claim that South Korea's entertainment industry was decimated by piracy. I provided a detailed response to that bogus claim on your Facebook page and (shocking, shockers) you never came back to respond.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2011 @ 2:36am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You are truly the biggest liar on the internet.
        
        You really need to seek professional mental health care.
        
        BTW, how many gigs of stolen media do you have on your hard drives again, Mike "I LOVE PIRACY" Masnick?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 13 Dec 2011 @ 2:51am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You are truly the biggest liar on the internet.
        
        Here's a simple point you might want to learn: if I were lying, then you would easily be able to prove me wrong by presenting that facts that prove I am lying.
        
        Jumping up and down with ad hom attacks and calling me a liar does not make it so. In fact, since you seem to come here quite often, accuse me of all sorts of things, question my mental health, and yet you have NEVER (not once) shown me to actually be a liar, I'm at a loss as to who you think you're convincing.
        
        BTW, how many gigs of stolen media do you have on your hard drives again, Mike "I LOVE PIRACY" Masnick?
        
        I believe we've discussed this before. I don't "love piracy" and I don't and have never engaged in it. So the answer is zero. I don't know if that disappoints you. I still prefer to either get the music I like from bands that are giving it out for free, or I buy it. Since Spotify launched I pay for a pro account there too. But I still buy plenty of music. I also support bands I like on Kickstarter and other platforms. But one thing I don't do is pirate any music.
        
        It troubles me that you continue to insist I must do so, despite us having this discussion in the past.
        
        Now why would you do so?
        
        And, you see, that's the difference between a random ad hom attack and an actual lie. You claim that I love piracy. But I do not. You are lying. I can confirm that. Yet you have never shown any of my statements to be lies.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        out_of_the_blue, 13 Dec 2011 @ 6:46am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @ Mike Masnick IS lying.
        >>> "Here's a simple point you might want to learn: if I were lying, then you would easily be able to prove me wrong by presenting that facts that prove I am lying."
        
        Lying comes in many forms, and you're fairly slippery, just like Slick Willie Clinton. YET, I presented a clear case of your outright lying in:
        
        http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111011/17205216309/course-study-shows-that-getting-rid-drm -reduces-piracy.shtml
        With my post titled:
        'NO, MIKE: "analytical modeling" NOT "empirical evidence"!'
        The "study" you presented as collected data was just made-up numbers in a computer, and you then tried to imply it proves something in reality. -- Your failure to correct that after two months makes it lying.
        
        You're getting pretty shrill in defense because you know that LIAR tag is sticking: 8 defensive posts here.
        
        AND in any case, you arrogantly miss the fact that IF Big Media were lying, then you'd be able to pin it on them. However, you can't get round the fact that piracy is a problem, though you try to every day.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The eejit (profile), 13 Dec 2011 @ 8:17am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @ Mike Masnick IS lying.
        Eminem would like a word with you, as would Chuck D.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2011 @ 2:53am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        *Stupid person argues*
        *Mike makes good point*
        *Stupid person anonymously flings mud*
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The eejit (profile), 13 Dec 2011 @ 6:19am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        MMM! I love the smell of slander in the morning.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Nuge (profile), 13 Dec 2011 @ 6:41pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Mike, sorry, I owe you a response on Korea. I've been busy but intend to get back to you. Good discussion ahead ....
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2011 @ 1:34am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        DMCA is instance-of-title by instance-of-title skirmish, is after the fact
        
        I'm guessing here but I think all criminal law is "after the fact", I would be concerned if the law was being applied before anything wrong was done.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Colin, 13 Dec 2011 @ 6:21am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Need more precogs.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Nuge (profile), 13 Dec 2011 @ 6:45pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Good point AC. It's the diff between chasing a dealer after each meth transaction or chasing a dealer knowing their only business is meth transactions.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2011 @ 1:36am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        About the costs, do you care about the cost of the other innocent people who will not be able to defend themselves against baseless/malicious accusations?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Nuge (profile), 13 Dec 2011 @ 2:53am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        DMCA is instance-of-title by instance-of-title skirmish, is after the fact - after infringers get their stolen revenue, is usually ignored by foreign rogue sites, and is way too costly if not way beyond the means of small content owners. Carefully constructed, SOPA and PIPA will stop US support of foreign rogue sites themselves that are in the business of trafficking in stolen content to the US as determined by an impartial court.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 13 Dec 2011 @ 3:11am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        DMCA is instance-of-title by instance-of-title skirmish, is after the fact - after infringers get their stolen revenue, is usually ignored by foreign rogue sites, and is way too costly if not way beyond the means of small content owners. Carefully constructed, SOPA and PIPA will stop US support of foreign rogue sites themselves that are in the business of trafficking in stolen content to the US as determined by an impartial court.
        
        I think the Nugebot 1.0 is malfunctioning. It's posting the exact same debunked crap hours after it already posted it -- and we'd already debunked it.
        
        Care to actually address the responses? Or do you not do that sorta thing? You certainly don't do it on your Facebook page. I guess the studios don't pay you enough to actually have to engage with people who have the facts on their side.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2011 @ 6:08pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        To quote Slappy Squirrel:
        
        What a yutz.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2011 @ 1:30am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      tell that to dajaz1.com
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 14 Dec 2011 @ 10:19am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Shut up nigger freak, stop supporting censorship you fucking nigger bitch. >:(
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 15 Dec 2011 @ 4:56pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 12 Dec 2011 @ 9:32pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Child porn is not blocked at the DNS level dumbass.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Jon B., 12 Dec 2011 @ 10:10pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Please give us a rational explanation of the good in this bill...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Mike Masnick (profile), 12 Dec 2011 @ 10:59pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Because no one has made any rational claim why it's bad.
    
    Bullshit. Your inability to read the myriad reports explaining why it's bad doesn't mean that no one has made such arguments, just like when you stick those fingers in your ears, it doesn't mean the other kids weren't still taunting you.
    
    Justin Beiber going to jail?
    
    ha, yeah, I'm sure Congress didn't recognize that as hyperbole.
    
    A Harvard professor has explained how that's actually what the law says. Where'd you get your law degree?
    
    It'll destroy DNS?
    
    Why hasn't child-porn blocking destroyed DNS?
    
    No, it's harm DNSSEC, and child porn isn't blocked at the DNS level.
    
    This is why supporters of SOPA get so little respect. All they can do is lie.
    
    Those that oppose this bill have done it with such hysterical and outlandish claims that it was impossible for Congress to take them seriously.
    
    Well, let's just see what happens. I think Congress is taking these complaints a lot more seriously than you imagine.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2011 @ 3:51am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "A Harvard professor has explained how that's actually what the law says. Where'd you get your law degree?"
      
      I love this sort of comment.
      
      The Harvard professor was very careful to avoid discussing the terms "UP TO" when it came to sentencing, and seemed more intent on putting the biggest scare possible out there. Yes, I am suggesting that the fine professor was getting very close to scaremongering.
      
      The reality is (1) that even if stopped and charged, it is likely Beiber would get nothing except a slap on the fingers and a small fine, and (2) because "user contributed content" would be better vetted under SOPA, it is unlikely that he would have done it to start with.
      
      What the professor did is akin to going to a part of a road where the speed limit was dropped from 50 to 40, and then pointing out all of the people who might have been fined thousands of dollars for speeding. You cannot change one side of things (the law) without considering how it would change public behaviour.
      
      It's bullshit, and you know it.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2011 @ 4:25am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I don't know what he knows, but what I do know is that a) you appear to be desperate b) you are full of it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - MAJikMARCer (profile), 13 Dec 2011 @ 5:52am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        it is unlikely that he would have done it to start with.
        
        That's very unfortunate that this law would put a chilling effect on what amounts to a fan singing his favorite songs and posting them on YouTube so his friends can see.
        
        What about all those aspiring young film makers who want to recreate their favorite movie in their back yard?
        
        Are you suggesting that these kids should not be posting these videos to the Internet? Maybe it's just because YouTube is too open? What about on Facebook where it's only shared with some people?
        
        While the creator might be able to claim fair use, what about the hosting site? Will they be protected too?
        
        The new wording in SOPA may help these cases a bit, but as broadly written as this is, I can't help but feel that fair-use and safe harbor provisions will need to be beefed up/expanded to balance the equation and give normal every day users, the freedom to use the Internet for what it was designed for, the sharing of expression and ideas.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Dave, 13 Dec 2011 @ 7:30am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        because "user contributed content" would be better vetted under SOPA, it is unlikely that he would have done it to start with.
        
        So under SOPA, a recording industry mega-star, who currently makes them barrels and barrels of cash, would have remained in obscurity forever. So why do the record labels want this again?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Richard (profile), 13 Dec 2011 @ 3:22am
    
    Re: Re:
    Why hasn't child-porn blocking destroyed DNS?
    
    Because you can detect child porn by just looking at it and there is a high degree of agreement in the population that it should be blocked. Hence blocking it generates a relatively small footprint in the internet.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - btrussell (profile), 13 Dec 2011 @ 3:28am
    
    Re: Re:
    Unless you are sexually aroused by children, there is no such thing as "child porn."
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2011 @ 4:17am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Wow
      
      I hate to do it, but I'm going to have to give you a troll rating for that.
      
      obviously misstating facts
      
      troll rating 2/10
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - btrussell (profile), 13 Dec 2011 @ 3:24pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "obviously misstating facts"
        
        So you are sexually aroused by children!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Dec 2011 @ 7:14am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You are obviously an idiot, and a troll.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        btrussell (profile), 14 Dec 2011 @ 11:46am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Obviously
        
        "Pornography or porn is the explicit portrayal of sexual subject matter for the purposes of sexual arousal and erotic satisfaction."
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porn
        
        "the depiction of erotic behavior (as in pictures or writing) intended to cause sexual excitement"
        http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pornography?show=0&t=1323891261
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Dec 2011 @ 8:49pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Yes, it is intended to cause arousal. Some sick fuck makes something intended to cause arousal.
        
        Just because it causes revulsion in others doesn't mean that it was the pornographers intended purpose.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        btrussell (profile), 15 Dec 2011 @ 1:47am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        That means we have a sick fuck, not that we have child porn.
        
        Revulsion? Mothers are taking pics of their kids everyday. While the kids are nude even! This is normal. Finding it sexually arousing is not normal.
        
        Should we declare a woman eating a Popsicle or a banana in public a public pornographic performance because some may get off on it?
        
        I am sure some even consider a mother breastfeeding to be erotic, should we ban that too?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        nasch (profile), 15 Dec 2011 @ 6:39am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I know you're not an idiot btrussell, but I have no idea where you're coming from on this one. I'm not aroused by men having sex with each other, but that doesn't mean there's no such thing as gay porn. The same is true of child porn. It's out there whether AC or you or I get turned on by it or not.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 14 Dec 2011 @ 10:17am
    
    Re: Re:
    Shut up niggercunt, stop saying not nice thing. >:(
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 15 Dec 2011 @ 5:29pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      You said "nigger" and "cunt". Then you said "not nice thing". Really? If you include racism in a post, at least include meaner words. That's like a child calling someone a "motherfucking doo-doo head".
      
      Also, if I had never heard of SOPA and had limited understanding of how the web worked, if Lamar Smith came up to me, shown me your post, and said that all people who hate the SOPA bill were like that, I would become out_of_the_blue quickly,
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - nasch (profile), 15 Dec 2011 @ 5:47pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Also, if I had never heard of SOPA and had limited understanding of how the web worked, if Lamar Smith came up to me, shown me your post, and said that all people who hate the SOPA bill were like that, I would become out_of_the_blue quickly,
        
        You believe things that Congresspeople say? How cute! ;-)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2011 @ 4:39am
  
  Re:
  It's getting closer, gun sales are up 32%. It's about to get real. :)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- gorehound (profile), 13 Dec 2011 @ 4:52am
  
  Re:
  I am too.I hate this government and want to see it changed one way or the other.
  SOPA/PIPA is a piece of toilet paper.
  STOP BUYING RIAA & MPAA NOW !!!
  Cancel all your Netflix,ITUNES,AMZ,etc and stop theter going.You really want to send a message then DO IT WITH YOUR WALLET
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Dec 2011 @ 9:47pm

American public, time to vote for better politicians...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jay (profile), 12 Dec 2011 @ 10:12pm
  
  Re:
  Won't work if the lobbying money isn't taken out. Or the voting system isn't replaced.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - The eejit (profile), 13 Dec 2011 @ 8:18am
    
    Re: Re:
    Obligatory non-serious Viking motto: "Kill them and take their stuff!"
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Liz (profile), 13 Dec 2011 @ 12:07am

So who's started the betting pool on which industry position Lamar Smith will get once he's out of office? I got $20 on a do-nothing executive position at Universal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Marcel de Jong (profile), 13 Dec 2011 @ 2:36am
  
  Re:
  I'll say Warner.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2011 @ 12:15am

Christian Bale reacts to SOPA

Youtube is funny today with all the videos against SOPA.

Protect IP Act (SOPA) is Internet Censorship and Must Be Stopped!

Anonymous - #OpTyler U.S. Call to Action
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2011 @ 2:01am

" EFF, Public Knowledge, American Censorship, Demand Progress, Engine Advocacy and others "

Mike, these are groups that are together on almost everything. Were they not all the same groups that were part of your "censorship day" project?

Seems like you are astroturfing here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 13 Dec 2011 @ 2:45am
  
  Re:
  Seems like you are astroturfing here.
  
  I don't think you know what that word means.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2011 @ 3:41am
    
    Re: Re:
    Trying to create the look of grass roots support of something. Often done by creating false front groups - and some of the groups on your censorship day thing certainly look like they were freshly minted.
    
    I think you don't realize what it is you are really doing here.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2011 @ 4:30am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Freshly minted means nothing, when will you learn?
      Is about who is behind it, if it is a special group trying to create support or it was created by a natural desire to effect change.
      
      The occupy movement is new are they astroturfers?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2011 @ 5:14am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Most of those groups appear to be outcrops of existing groups, going for "wider coverage" to make it appear like they have grass roots support. Yet, when you look at the groups, it's the same players behind them, ex-this group and ex-that group people, past interns, and so on... and they often seem to be getting support and exposure from the larger groups.
        
        Smells like plastic astroturf to me.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        A Guy (profile), 13 Dec 2011 @ 7:01am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I have never worked for, had an internship with, or taken money from any of these groups.
        
        When I have talked about this bill with other people I hear things like "fucking politicians" and "Are you sure? That can't be right." With other technically inclined people, I often hear a lot of laughing.
        
        In my experience, one side is clearly an astroturf operation, and the other side, the anti-SOPA people, have a lot of grass root support. It's hard to get 90k calls to the House without people supporting you.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The eejit (profile), 13 Dec 2011 @ 8:19am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Oh, like the Tea Party, whose funds came directly from known criminals and fraudsters?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2011 @ 11:54am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Most of those groups appear to be outcrops of existing groups, going for "wider coverage" to make it appear like they have grass roots support...
        Perhaps it would interest you to know that until recently, I did not participate in advocacy outside my field of interest/expertise in the computer privacy and security sectors until I started reading more about what is going on with laws like the DMCA and now SOPA/PIPA.
        
        It may also be telling to know that I have never been an intern, member of an activist group, or even engaged in the political process outside of dispatching my civic duties of voting and Jury duty when picked. It is the activities of your side that have actually moved me to protest and activism which is true for many I know in my same age group (40 somethings).
        
        Nice job - you pushed too hard, now reap the whirlwind...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Psyga Sanichigo (profile), 13 Dec 2011 @ 9:10am

I mentioned before how the Congress is made of spoiled brats who go "lalalalalala I'm not listening".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Chilly8, 13 Dec 2011 @ 8:38pm

A few changes to note

-The latest version does not penalize cosumers for using any tool to circumvent the blacklist. Only the providers of such products and services are affected. So you are not breaking the law by using a subscription VPN service. However, if you are an an annual payment plan, you might want to change to a monthly plan, so that you are not out hundreds of dollars for an annual subscription if the Feds nick your VPN provider

-The felony streaming provisions have been changed where it now requires commercial or financial gain. So viewers of content, as well as hobbyist streamers (those tho stream without making any money) would be off the hook. However, I think that Justin TV, Ustream, Sopcast, and other platforms could be criminally liable under the law, even if an individual streamer or viewer is not. I would expect Justin, Ustream, and other US-based streaming sites to pack up and leave the country.

These two changes are welcome changes to the bill, but will they survive the conference committee, when they get the bill? It will have to be merged with the Senate version.

Interesting times lie ahead when the conference committee gets the bills. Between SOPA, PIPA, and OPEN, I expect it will be a big fight in conference committee
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
wvhillbilly (profile), 15 Dec 2011 @ 9:26pm

The only thing I see in this bill is enormous potential for abuse. Abuse that could even go as far as destroying the Internet, or making it unusable for its intended purpose. This bill is tilted 90 degrees on the side of copyright holders and 100% against everyone else. If the entertainment industry has its way copyright will be so airtight that any use whatever of their content will constitute infringement, thus defeating its purpose for being. Nobody would know what might constitute infringement and this bill if it becomes law probably would criminalize even normal Internet activity. And if someone had a grudge against somebody or wanted to get rid of a competitor, all he'd have to do is file a complaint against that website or person claiming infringement (no proof needed) and voila! the competing website vanishes instantly from the Web, never to be seen again. No due process, no evidence, just Poof! and it's gone.

SOPA and PIPA are very extremely dangerous laws that need to be stopped at all costs, before they tear the Internet to shreds.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Dec 2011 @ 11:33pm

Wow Cato, way to go. Never cheer much out of this organization, but here I do. Well freakin' done.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
AshleyTran, 26 Jan 2012 @ 7:50pm

The entertainment industries already have their money. They are filthy rich and yet they are going to try and make more profits. I say we just boycott buying music/movies and show them that we are not playing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]