Lamar Smith, Against Regulating The Internet... Until Hollywood Became His Biggest Campaign Funder

from the politics-in-action dept

Thu, Dec 29th 2011 11:34am — Mike Masnick

Well, well. Via Julian Sanchez, we learn that SOPA's official "sponsor" and chief supporter, Lamar Smith, spoke out in 2006 about how Congress shouldn't regulate the internet:

"I want a vibrant Internet just like they do," said Rep. Lamar Smith, a Texas Republican. "Our disagreement is about how to achieve that. They say let the government dictate it...I urge my colleagues to reject government regulation of the Internet."

Kind of funny, then, that he's now sponsoring one of the most aggressive attempts ever to have the government regulate the internet, isn't it? Or, perhaps not so funny when you look at a second point made by Sanchez. In 2006, the top donator to Smith's campaign... was the tech industry. In 2012, it's "TV/Movies/Music." Computers/Internet is now ranked all the way down at number eight.

I'm sure it's just a coincidence, right?

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: campaign contributions, copyright, funding, internet, lamar smith, regulations, sopa

63 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

FM Hilton, 29 Dec 2011 @ 11:45am

Not exactly a coincidence
Let's face it-it's very expensive to run for public office, and you need all the friends you can get.

He just knows who has the most money.

Public interest be damned.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
average_joe (profile), 29 Dec 2011 @ 11:45am

Smith was talking about net neutrality--he rejects government regulation of the internet in the context of net neutrality. What's that got to do with SOPA? Seems like a desperate stretch. Just because he's against government regulation of the internet in one context doesn't mean he's against it in others. You're reading too much into things as usual...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- E. Zachary Knight (profile), 29 Dec 2011 @ 11:49am
  
  Re:
  Both Net Neutrality and SOPA are government intrusions on the internet. Why support one but not the other? Both can cause harm to the internet (although SOPA is far more harmful as it actually blocks access to sites and makes the internet far less secure).
  
  The fact is, he wants to regulate the internet if it helps those businesses that fund his campaign. He doesn't actually care about the people that he is supposed to represent.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Kevin H (profile), 29 Dec 2011 @ 11:53am
  
  Re:
  You can't have it both ways on this one. There is no confusing that statement. Trying to add a reasons why it has a different definition then vs now is insulting. Lamar is one of the least qualified persons to even be voting on it. Let alone in charge of the proceedings. The stench of corruption on this is palpable.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 29 Dec 2011 @ 12:02pm
  
  Re:
  Smith was talking about net neutrality--he rejects government regulation of the internet in the context of net neutrality.
  
  He didn't say "I urge my colleagues to reject this specific type of internet regulation." He said he urges them to reject regulating the internet.
  
  So why is he for it now?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Richard (profile), 29 Dec 2011 @ 12:08pm
    
    Re: Re:
    He didn't say "I urge my colleagues to reject this specific type of internet regulation." He said he urges them to reject regulating the internet.
    
    Only because the latter sounds better. He's a politician remember.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - average_joe (profile), 29 Dec 2011 @ 12:35pm
    
    Re: Re:
    He didn't say "I urge my colleagues to reject this specific type of internet regulation." He said he urges them to reject regulating the internet.
    
    So why is he for it now?
    
    If he was so against regulation of the internet in 2006 (while he was chair of the House Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property, no less), then why was he introducing bills like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_Property_Protection_Act_of_2006
    
    You're taking one sentence that he said out of context, stretching it, and trying to come up with a silly "Gotcha!" moment. Surely there's some real reporting you could be doing. Oh, never mind...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 29 Dec 2011 @ 1:52pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Real reporting like on the television? All the news reports about SOPA? All none of them? Like that kind of real reporting?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - harbingerofdoom (profile), 29 Dec 2011 @ 2:33pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      yes. by all means point to a wikipedia entry that attempts to make a tenuous link of wholesale copyright violation on a commercial scale by means of a link that even in actual article linked to john malcolm says that there is no solid evidence to support the idea that file trading results in financial support of terrorist activity when asked directly by smith... he just says that he wouldnt be surprised if it were large... and smith even after being told point blank that there is no solid evidence saddles right up with the content industry...
      
      by all means do hold that up as a shining example of how legit smith is...
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - average_ioe (profile), 29 Dec 2011 @ 3:10pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      because a member of the BSA, Dell, was his #1 supporter in 2006 he supported the 3rd failed incarnation of IPPA.
      
      because AT&T was #5, they got his opposition to net neutrality.
      
      Its hard to take money out of context.
      
      and seriously wikipedia...
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Richard (profile), 29 Dec 2011 @ 12:05pm
  
  Re:
  he rejects government regulation of the internet in the context of net neutrality. What's that got to do with SOPA?
  
  I agree with your analysis here. He is not sophisticated anough to believe (as Mike does) that regulation for net neutrality is a bad idea because it will be subverted - and that net neutrality is best guaranteed by competition. He is against regulation for net neutrality because he is against net neutrality.
  
  Being against net neutrality and supporting SOPA are totaly consistent positions to hold - because SOPA is designed to destroy net neutrality by undermining the ability of small and startup organisations to use the internet at all.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 29 Dec 2011 @ 12:07pm
  
  Re:
  It's a stretch, but it's the sort of "gotchya" politics that Mike is willing to play on this issue. Basically, he is slinging mud, rather than addressing issues. Personal attacks and attempting to find any sort of double speak is a trait of the desperate (and the Tea Baggers are good at it)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - MrWilson, 29 Dec 2011 @ 12:47pm
    
    Re: Re:
    You're just labeling what Mike says in the manner most consistent with your derisive narrative.
    
    Example:
    
    Actual personal attack: "Mike is a dirty pirate-defender!"
    
    Legitimate question: "Why does it appear that Lamar Smith's opinion on the issue of regulation of the internet fluctuates with the donation of campaign funds from SOPA supporters?"
    
    It's a stretch to say that Mike is making a personal attack since Lamar Smith's stated opinions do seem to contradict each other.
    
    Would you consider it a personal attack if I accurately described you as hypocritical?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 29 Dec 2011 @ 1:21pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      There is no stretch here. Mike is making the post to personally attack Lamar Smith, to try to ridicule him, to try to make fun of him, and to paint him as a money grubbing politician doing the bidding of his corporate sponsors.
      
      He may be right, but it's petty and stupid to be doing this sort of thing. This is exactly the bullshit in politics that makes is almost impossible to get anything done.
      
      Sorry, but in this case, Mike's motives are clear.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - MrWilson, 29 Dec 2011 @ 2:37pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        It's not "petty and stupid" (personal attack words from you...) to point out where public officials who purport to represent their constituents appear to change their minds on issues of legislation based on the campaign contributions by corporations in a particular industry.
        
        Your logic elsewhere:
        
        Reporter: "President Nixon, you have been accused of lying about the Watergate break-in. This is considered a deep breach of the public trust. How do you respond to these allegations?"
        
        Nixon: "This is just a personal attack! It's petty and stupid to ask such questions!"
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 30 Dec 2011 @ 8:56am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Mr Wilson, I am not describing Mike as "petty and stupid", I am describing that type of political action. If he chooses to use that type of political action to further his agenda, the label sticks. His choice, not mine.
        
        Further, you have to remember that "public officials who purport to represent their constituents " represent ALL of their constituents, and not a small minority of people whining about a particular issue. Like it or not, big business has a powerful voice because their businesses touch so many of those constituent's lives, directly or indirectly.
        
        If Smith abused the public trust, that is a subject for debate. But what we are talking about here is taking words said in one context, in the reasonably far past, and attempting to apply them to a current day issue.
        
        It's bullshit, and even Mike knows it. He just hopes people like you will buy it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        MrWilson, 30 Dec 2011 @ 9:55am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You're actually arguing that businesses are constituents or are able to represent constituents? Last I recall, despite a few rulings to the contrary, businesses are not in fact people and are not in fact political representatives of their employees.
        
        Big business has a powerful voice because they have a lot of money to contribute to political campaigns of politicians like Lamar Smith and to hire lobbyists to "lobby" for their cause and to hire bureaucrats and politicians who have served them well while in office.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 30 Dec 2011 @ 11:04am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        No, I am not arguing that. I am arguing that big businesses tend to have a big economic footprint, and plenty of the people in the economy either directly or indirectly getting paid as a result of that business.
        
        When the hospitality industry talks against tax increases for hotels, example, they are not "one person", but as an industry group that touches perhaps 2% of the total job market - maybe higher. They are trying to stay in business, keep their business profitable, and yes, keep the people they have working for them employed. Those people are EXACTLY the same types of constituents as you and I are.
        
        You may want to paint them as faceless, useless corporations. But the Movie industry as an example represents everyone down to the ushers at the theaters, and (as the infamous example goes) the farmer in the field growing the corn for popcorn. There are, remarkably, actually people involved.
        
        No, they are not the "political representatives" of their employees, but their well being has much to do with those employees getting paycheck next week.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        MrWilson, 31 Dec 2011 @ 9:57am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I've worked in one of those jobs you assign to representation by the movie industry and these corporations did not represent me. I'd rather have my free speech than a paycheck from them. I can get another job. I can't get back rights that the government takes away on their behalf.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- average_ioe (profile), 29 Dec 2011 @ 12:12pm
  
  Re:
  2006 At&T was in the top 5 donors = against net neutrality
  
  2012 cc media holding is in the top 5 donors = support SOPA
  
  Dont to go far to find these, as always you are heavy on rhetoric and light on supporting facts.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 29 Dec 2011 @ 1:14pm
    
    Good point...
    ...and I agree. Lamar Smith is now and has always been consistently corrupt.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - ZeeBat (profile), 29 Dec 2011 @ 1:18pm
    
    Re: Re:
    So when, exactly, do we get to fucking drive representatives about legislation that affects us all?
    
    When things so blatantly reflect the direction of money, corporate fucking money no less, why the hell wouldn't you call out every fucking possible interconnect? Do you like being driven? Because I fucking don't. When I get some God Damn representation up in this mother fucker I'll calm down. Until then you can take your mike wah-wah bullshit up through your daddy's master and have a donation crafted to legislate this site's views and commentary off of your planet.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- el_segfaulto (profile), 29 Dec 2011 @ 12:14pm
  
  Re:
  In fairness, true net neutrality isn't about policing the internet but about making sure that every packet is treated equally. Now, in practice this isn't feasible since you almost have to have QOS to ensure that certain packets like those used for VoIP and the like get to their destination quickly (I'd be happy to go over the technical details if people don't understand the reasoning). From a geek context, net neutrality is about making sure that ISPs cannot throttle a connection that delivers content that may compete with its own offerings. An example would be a FIOS company that gives its own television offerings unthrottled and without counting against a monthly cap while making sure your Netflix stream never gets above a certain bandwidth. In my nerdy opinion, media companies should never have been allowed to merge with ISPs, the possibility of customer abuse by these means are simply too high.
  
  But please, if you (or anybody else) want to take the Fox News opinion that Net Neutrality exists so that the government can stop red-blooded republicans from voicing their opinions online then by all means keep drinking the kool-aid. Rush and Papa Bear will thank you.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 29 Dec 2011 @ 1:22pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Net neutrality isn't about allowing crime to run rampant online. There is nothing that can justify doing online what you cannot do in public without getting arrested.
    
    Once again, Mike ignores the real issue (piracy) and tries to instead get us looking somewhere else.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - JMT (profile), 29 Dec 2011 @ 1:36pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      It's funny that you think piracy is the "real issue". The collateral damage these bills will do is far worse that the overblown claims of harm from piracy. More importantly, the number of people will are genuinely negatively affected by piracy are vastly outnumbered by those who will be negatively affected by these bills.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 29 Dec 2011 @ 1:45pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        JMT - million and millions of copyright violations, versus the potential of a few potential issues of collateral damage. Seems like I can see the real issue just fine, I am not going to force copyright holders to give up their rights so a few pirates can hide behind their blogs and act like it's all free speech.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        E. Zachary Knight (profile), 29 Dec 2011 @ 2:14pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Nobody is asking the copyright holders to give up their rights. We are simply warning them that failure to adapt will lead to their fiscal death. We are also warning them that SOPA will not solve their problem. They will still need to adapt their business models or die.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        MrWilson, 29 Dec 2011 @ 2:45pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The fact that you consider even the potential for collateral damage involving freedom of speech acceptable in the overzealous protection of monopoly rents by dinosaurs who fail to adapt to technological and social paradigm shifts is a significant problem.
        
        When anyone's speech is curbed, all of our speech is curbed. Freedom is like an idea - the more it spreads, the more powerful it is.
        
        The only people who don't fear losing their speech over the curbing of the speech of another person is the people who only speak with their money.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        JMT (profile), 29 Dec 2011 @ 7:04pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "million and millions of copyright violations, versus the potential of a few potential issues of collateral damage."
        
        Millions and millions of copyright violations most of which cause no provable harm, versus the potential of thousands of potential issues of collateral damage, based on our experience with existing legislation.
        
        FTFY
        
        "...I am not going to force copyright holders to give up their rights..."
        
        Sorry, what rights are copyright holders being forced to give up?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 30 Dec 2011 @ 11:05am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Your "fix" is bullshit. It just turns it into a lie.
        
        Show me the "provable harm" in a few misdirected copyright infringement notices. Not theoretical harm... actual.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        An onymous Co-Ward, 31 Dec 2011 @ 4:24am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        veoh?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - E. Zachary Knight (profile), 29 Dec 2011 @ 2:12pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Mike is not ignoring the real issue. Mike is quite clear that the real issue is that legacy gatekeepers need to adapt to the internet. Piracy is merely a symptom of their failure to adapt. SOPA is them fighting to the death to avoid having to adapt.
      
      I don't see where he is missing anything.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 29 Dec 2011 @ 8:26pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Mike is quite clear that the real issue is that legacy gatekeepers need to adapt to the internet"
        
        Why?
        
        This is the point I never get. If the "legacy" companies want to keep selling shiny plastic discs and such, good on them. Congrats. If the market shifts away from them, they will die because they have a bad business model.
        
        What I am NOT seeing is anyone really stepping up with a real alternative online. There isn't one, because the "alternative" is basically the same music and movie content pirated.
        
        You are suggesting perhaps that a rape victim should try to enjoy the sex, as after all, the complaining and fighting is just not working out? Adapt to the situation, always a good plan!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 29 Dec 2011 @ 10:25pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You ignore online offerings that, when actually presented to consumers at reasonable rates and in formats they will use, actually earns huge profits while insisting that piracy is a loss of sales, which has never been proven. Take the proof that exists and stop trying to beat other businesses into the ground to keep doing what you are doing.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 30 Dec 2011 @ 1:05am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "What I am NOT seeing is anyone really stepping up with a real alternative online. "
        
        Apart from the last decade of posts on this and other sites, which you attack Mike for being a "piracy apologist" for suggesting.
        
        Sorry if these suggestions aren't what you prefer to hear, but they are being made.
        
        "You are suggesting perhaps that a rape victim should try to enjoy the sex,"
        
        ...and you prove you're a frigging moron, yet again, with no moral level you won't stoop to in order to defend your corporate gods. Congrats.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 30 Dec 2011 @ 11:09am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Paul, I have read most of them, and most of them make me laugh. They are either impractical, or based on a short term gimmick, or not something that will scale.
        
        The idea is to toss out what was a 50 billion dollar a year industry (music in year 2000) and replace it with a few million dollar businesses today. I can't see how that is moving us forward.
        
        "you prove you're a frigging moron, yet again, with no moral level you won't stoop to in order to defend your corporate gods. Congrats."
        
        On par with what people here will do to defend their open piracy. Zach's comments is that business should learn to take it up the ass from pirates, and find out how to enjoy it. The point is, they shouldn't have to take it up the ass from pirates to start with. Once again, you guys look in the wrong place and blame the victim. Congrats. I think Afghanistan would like to hire you to work as judges.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 31 Dec 2011 @ 1:40am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Paul, I have read most of them, and most of them make me laugh. They are either impractical, or based on a short term gimmick, or not something that will scale."
        
        Yeah, we know and you reject any new idea on any pretence you can come up with. Your objections are so superficial and predictable that people laugh about them before you're even made them. If the artist is famous, it can't work for newcomers. If an unknown is successful. Louis CK's million dollars can't possibly have come from actually servicing his market, it has to be because he offered the download for $5 or that everybody is already a fan (both demonstrably untrue assertions).
        
        Your objections are pathetic excuses not to accept that the industry is the source of many of its own woes. Arguing with you is like discussing science with a creationist - you won't listen because you're religiously devoted to the old order that's just not working any more.
        
        "The idea is to toss out what was a 50 billion dollar a year industry (music in year 2000) and replace it with a few million dollar businesses today."
        
        No, it's not. Maybe one day the actual points raised will make it through that thick neanderthal skull of yours.
        
        "On par with what people here will do to defend their open piracy. "
        
        You're yet to offer an intelligent rebuttal to people like me who don't pirate. Oh you accuse me of it on many occasions when you can't think of an easy pathetic excuse to ignore my valid point, but you'd be surprised at how many people you attack for piracy do no such thing.
        
        As for people wishing the industry's just desserts for abusing and ignoring customers for so long? You don't need to be a pirate to see the poetic justice in that, although it's far from too late for them to turn around and actually service their customer base instead of pretending that the last 20 years of market changes haven't happened.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Dec 2011 @ 11:47am

Oh, let's see... 5 years later, perhaps he has seen the actual damage being done, perhaps he has *gasp* actually expanded his view of the world to understand both sides.

You could learn something from him, Mike, because you are still grinding the same axes you have been working on for a decade.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- E. Zachary Knight (profile), 29 Dec 2011 @ 11:51am
  
  Re:
  Oh, let's see... 5 years later, perhaps he has seen the actual damage being done, perhaps he has *gasp* actually expanded his view of the world to understand both sides.
  
  Yeah, a truck load of money will do that for you.
  
  Considering that his opposition to Net Neutrality was due to the influence of the cable and telco oligopoly and his support for SOPA is due to the MAFIAA, I can see why he would have such a differing opinion on regulating the internet. But in reality, his position is whatever his campaign contributors want it to be.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 29 Dec 2011 @ 11:52am
  
  Re:
  You know, I've tried to expand my view to understand both sides, but all I get is how your right to make money is more important then my right to speak. Maybe if you payed me a few thousand dollars I'd change my world view too.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 29 Dec 2011 @ 12:02pm
    
    Re: Re:
    ", but all I get is how your right to make money is more important then my right to speak."
    
    You always have you right to speak. You just don't have the right to speak it with their content.
    
    If you are willing to change your world view just for a few dollars... well...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - E. Zachary Knight (profile), 29 Dec 2011 @ 12:13pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      You always have you right to speak. You just don't have the right to speak it with their content.
      
      See, this is where the idea of unintended consequences slips right on by you. When SOPA blocks a website from the US, it is not just blocking the infringing content from the US but all the content on the site. So my free speech on that website is now blocked from the US.
      
      Willful ignorance of the issue is not a virtue.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 29 Dec 2011 @ 1:43pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "ee, this is where the idea of unintended consequences slips right on by you."
        
        I understand that fully. You seem to be completely convinced that I don't understand anything (you have spoken down to me a couple of times today like that).
        
        I understand the "unintended consequences", but I step back a but and try to see what is really going on. The "unintended consequences" comes from people who will post their "free speech" on the same site that embeds pirated material, sells counterfeit goods, or facilitates access to pirated material.
        
        In the same manner that I wouldn't post my personal political manifesto on the wall of a crack house, I wouldn't post it in the middle of a pirate site either.
        
        The "unintended consequences" are a result of people being careless about the sites they support and use, not about the law squashing their rights.
        
        Perhaps you might want to stand back and see the bigger picture. Things look a lot different when you take your nose away from a single, narrow issue and look at the overall effects.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        E. Zachary Knight (profile), 29 Dec 2011 @ 2:09pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You absolutely do not understand the the unintended consequences of SOPA.
        
        The "unintended consequences" comes from people who will post their "free speech" on the same site that embeds pirated material, sells counterfeit goods, or facilitates access to pirated material.
        
        What you call that, I call Youtube, Facebook, Twitter, Myspace, tumblr, Flicker etc. These sites are valuable tools that millions of people use to share legal content. However, these sites are consider "rogue sites" by legacy gatekeepers that want to regain the control they have lost. Every legal user of these sites will be threatened with censorship if SOPA passes.
        
        In the same manner that I wouldn't post my personal political manifesto on the wall of a crack house, I wouldn't post it in the middle of a pirate site either.
        
        Yet, Every minute of every day someone is posting their legal free speech to the so called "crack houses" of the internet. What you call crack houses I call incredibly useful tools to share my views and content.
        
        The "unintended consequences" are a result of people being careless about the sites they support and use, not about the law squashing their rights.
        
        People are not careless in their choice of sites to use. They choose those sites because that is where their friends are. That is where their audience is. Why should some legacy gatekeeper decide whose audience is important or whose friends are important. Nobody uses a site unless there is value in it. That value will tank once SOPA passes and that is the worst thing that could ever happen to these great tools.
        
        Perhaps you might want to stand back and see the bigger picture. Things look a lot different when you take your nose away from a single, narrow issue and look at the overall effects.
        
        I understand quite well what is happening. We have a handful of legacy gatekeepers that are losing the control over distribution that they have managed to hang onto for the last few centuries. Faced with the prospect of individual creators bypassing them and making money on their own by connecting directly with fans scares them to death and they are lashing out like a cornered animal. That is what SOPA is.
        
        you have spoken down to me a couple of times today like that
        
        Yes I have, only because you continue to spout the same lies and half truths despite being proven time and time again to be incorrect.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        ZeeBat (profile), 29 Dec 2011 @ 5:32pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        +1
        
        So until folks that are white knuckling copyrights can take a breath we will continue to have to deal with strong arm propaganda financing (contracting apparently) our representatives in order to have them produce yet more counter-productive and short-sighted legislation.. Propping up history and thieving and squeezing all of society far and near.
        
        It'd be nice if they (media investment services and the supposed perpetual owners of culture) would start taking reality head on, embrace the changes of communication and realize that a single send key can port data virtually anywhere. And yet you expect your ancient distribution and control protocols to matter? We are customers and pirates, listeners, watchers and readers, smart and not so and the traditional mediums and format of delivery, even the majority of "current" ones, are failing reality tests.
        
        Evolution happens. It might be time to jump that train. You'd better run.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Pitabred (profile), 29 Dec 2011 @ 12:19pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      And how is most of it still "their content"? Oh, right... the bought off congress to extend copyright and trademark into areas it never existed before, as well as lengthening the duration.
      
      Funny how that works...
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - The eejit (profile), 29 Dec 2011 @ 12:33pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      WE don't speak content - we speak marketing.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - PaulT (profile), 30 Dec 2011 @ 1:28am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "You just don't have the right to speak it with their content."
      
      Sometimes, I don't even have the right to legally purchase their content. My money is literally rejected. Somehow pointing this out makes me pa pirate in the eyes of morons like yourself, though.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Richard (profile), 29 Dec 2011 @ 11:58am
  
  Re:
  perhaps he has *gasp* actually expanded his view of the world to understand both sides.
  
  Nah - he has been completely consistent. He has always backed the rights of big, established businesses to do what they like at the expense of the ordinary man.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 29 Dec 2011 @ 10:32pm
  
  Re:
  Oh, I understand both sides quite well, and I find it offensive that you consider my natural rights inferior to their granted rights.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
anonymous, 29 Dec 2011 @ 11:51am

like all politicians, he is nothing less than a two-faced ass hole that will go with whichever corporation/industry/company/individual that will line his pocket with 'campaign contributions'. lobbying of any kind should be made illegal, just as accepting any sort of funding from any source that means favoritism of any kind in return! all politicians should be investigated to see what Bills they are trying to introduce, why they are introducing that Bill and who will benefit if that Bill becomes law! they should start doing their job. working for the benefit of the people and the Country, not individuals of any description!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
weneedhelp (profile), 29 Dec 2011 @ 11:55am

Prostitutes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Machin Shin, 29 Dec 2011 @ 12:03pm
  
  Re:
  Hey now, lets not insult the prostitutes. Most prostitutes have much higher standards than politicians. Sure a prostitute will do a lot for money but they do at least draw the line somewhere. Politicians on the other hand are willing to do anything for the mighty dollar.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
sehlat (profile), 29 Dec 2011 @ 11:59am

"Whose bread I eat, his song I sing."
This is true 99.9% of the time. There is no known explanation for the 0.1%.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
All US politicians bribed, 29 Dec 2011 @ 12:11pm

USA public = suckers
I would say without hesitation that all USA politicians have had their opinions bought and shaped by the organizations that donate to them. Look at all the politicians supporting SOPA - everyone of them has been bribed by media companies with donations to support their cause. If someone came along with more money, they would change their tune. This is how politics works in America, and the country is a joke. Get ready for revolution 2.0.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Dec 2011 @ 12:22pm

"It's not big government when we do it."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- bjupton (profile), 29 Dec 2011 @ 12:42pm
  
  Re:
  "These regulations aren't 'regulations' when we do it either."
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Dec 2011 @ 1:34pm

"Money changes everything." -Cyndi Lauper
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Overcast (profile), 29 Dec 2011 @ 1:40pm

No, you buy politicians like you do panties.

Not really much difference - and when the corporation is done with them - they get tossed out too.

I would like to see a politician with a backbone and real guts - I'd vote for him happily.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 29 Dec 2011 @ 2:55pm
  
  Re:
  you mean their all thongs that look good but ultimately get wedged in your ass?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
fjpoblam, 29 Dec 2011 @ 7:54pm

Anything you get for free is worth about what you pay for it
Which politician is in _your_ wallet?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ella, 18 Jan 2012 @ 5:48pm

STOP SOPA
you wouldn't be pushing this bill as hard as you are without
Hollywood becoming your Biggest Campaign funder. Stop taking away our rights as American's in which our brothers and sisters before us have died for. I am so sick of our government trying to control every aspect of our lives.
Stop passing bills that take rights from us for OUR own good.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ian morgan, 21 Jan 2012 @ 5:12pm

Lamar what is stuck on your head?
Lamar, what the hell have you got stuck on top of your head? ..... It sure as hell isn't real hair ! How can anyone take what you say seriously, when you go on Fox News wearing a dead Rat, for hair? ... Get a life..retire
.... Ian
ps You look like you could do with a visit to the dentist, and get somd new teeth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]