Hollywood Union Members Sign Petition Asking MPAA & Hollywood Unions To Stop Supporting PIPA/SOPA

from the losing-your-own-members dept

Tue, Jan 3rd 2012 9:03am — Mike Masnick

The opposition to SOPA and PIPA continues to come from all sorts of places. The latest interesting one? Union members who work on movies and TV... whose bosses signed them up as supporters of SOPA and PIPA against their wishes. They've put together a petition urging the MPAA, IATSE, IBT, WGA, SAG, DGA, and AFTRA to formally oppose both SOPA and PIPA, noting that it would be a barrier to innovation that Hollywood desperately needs, wouldn't actually stop infringement, and would also be an online security nightmare. The groups listed in the petition are basically all of the groups that have been major supporters of the bill, but as some of the signatories note, they want no part of this. Just a few examples:

I'm a proud Local One and USA829 member, and am appalled to find my union supporting this act. While I agree that piracy is bad, this act is ill-designed by legislators with no clue how the internet works, and guided by greedy corporations who have ulterior motives, and who have a track record of abusing the DMCA the same way they'll abuse this.

It will do nothing to stop it, will give unfettered power prone to abuse to corporations who don't deserve it, will short circuit due process, and will have huge unintended negative effects on the internet as a whole.

And, another one from a studio grip:

Proud Local 80 Motion Picture Studio Grip and I'm signing because these bills go too far. I'd like to think that IATSE is just trying to do what's best for its members. But, I think once they dig past the surface they will see the same thing I did. And that is that these bills need to be quashed. We need another way to deal with piracy.

Once again, for all the talk of widespread "support" of SOPA and PIPA, it seems to be crumbling in every direction, including from within the groups who have acted as if these bills were absolutely necessary.

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: hollywood, pipa, protect ip, sopa, unions
Companies: aftra, dga, iatse, ibt, mpaa, sag, wga

79 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Mike C. (profile), 3 Jan 2012 @ 8:11am

Corporate support though.
What I'm seeing is that the bulk of the support for SOPA/PIPA is corporate level support. Unfortunately, that's what a lot of the Congress-critters are listening to these days. This makes it even more important that you call/write/contact your legislators and let them know how you feel.

I've sent messages to every candidate and sitting elected congressman that support for this issue will automatically garner a vote for their opponent because it's obvious they don't understand their job of supporting and defending the Constitution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 3 Jan 2012 @ 9:54am
  
  Re: Corporate support though.
  Even if the bulk of support is corporate level, even that isn't apparently without consequences. While not directly related to SOPA/PIPA. it seems Montana at least is prepared to give the middle finger (or at least a partial one) to the US Supreme Court with regards to the Citizen United case.
  
  While the complacency of the population at large has allowed the current corporate and political climate, those corporations and politician have also become largely complacent for lack of any serious challenges.
  
  I don't think that the corps and politicians realize how much things like NDAA and SOPA (especially SOPA) are beginning to stir the slumbering masses. Seriously, it's not just those who feel disenfranchised, even people I've known for ages who are normally staunch republicans and democrat who've spend ages bickering among themselves are starting to become more irritated with Congress as a whole than with each other.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 3 Jan 2012 @ 10:57am
    
    Re: Re: Corporate support though.
    I spoke with a few people about SOPA...friends of mine. Not my tech savvy friends. My normal friends who live normal lives. Some of them stated that they hadn't heard of the bill. Some stated that they didn't care about online piracy nearly as much as they care about being taken from their beds in the night and put away forever as a terrorist.
    
    Of course I explained that just because the Patriot Act had the word patriot in it that you weren't some sort of anti-American if you didn't support it. That seemed to open their eyes. However, anecdotal evidence (admittedly) suggests that most people don't give a crap one way or another about SOPA, but they are worried about the implementation of the NDAA.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Kyle, 4 Jan 2012 @ 11:29am
  
  Re: Corporate support though.
  and the bulk of the anti-sopa rhetoric can be traced back to Google (anxious to protect profits by maintaining the status quo with regard to content theft monetization).
  
  There are plenty of people who earn their living working in the content creation industry who support SOPA. Just because they don't endlessly re-tweet on Twitter doesn't mean they don't exist.
  
  The echo-chamber of hysteria around SOPA is laughable. Certainly the bill needs work, and some adjustments have already been made. However, blathering on using false rhetoric is a disservice.
  
  The internet should not be above the law. Illegal commerce using stolen goods is not protected speech. Time to take action against profiteers online who steal other work.
  
  BTW, ask Google about their latest patent acquisitions. That is one type of law they respect since it's in their interest to do so. Not the case with copyright law. Unsettling to see such a powerful corporation that only respects the law when it's in its own interests to do so. Their arrogance will catch up with them eventually.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - nasch (profile), 4 Jan 2012 @ 7:15pm
    
    Re: Re: Corporate support though.
    There are plenty of people who earn their living working in the content creation industry who support SOPA. Just because they don't endlessly re-tweet on Twitter doesn't mean they don't exist.
    
    Yeah, trust me, there are tons of people who support SOPA. They just don't say they support it. But they're out there; I know because, well just because.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 5 Jan 2012 @ 5:45am
    
    Re: Re: Corporate support though.
    Unsettling to see such a powerful corporation that only respects the law when it's in its own interests to do so.
    
    I'm sorry, you must be new here. That seems to be standard practice for any reasonably-large corporation.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hephaestus (profile), 3 Jan 2012 @ 8:31am

I have been wondering what the MPAA and the RIAA hope to get out of this. It doesn't stand a chance of making a dent in infringement. It will be abused like any law that has no consequences. It violates the 1st and 4th amendments of the US constitution. It is toxic to be associated with.

My only conclusion is that the MPAA and RIAA sold a bill of goods, to the labels and studios, to show they are doing "something" to stop infringement. All in order to maintain their funding. You would think that after 30 years of failure, the studios and labels would get wise to this and pull funding or reign them in. Isn't one of the definitions of insanity, doing the same thing over and over again hoping to get a different outcome.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike C. (profile), 3 Jan 2012 @ 8:38am
  
  Re:
  They're hoping to get control and leverage. In other words - "pay up or we shut you down" or any other way you care to describe what is becoming legalized extortion.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Loki, 3 Jan 2012 @ 9:26am
    
    Re: Re:
    It's not just "pay up or we shut you down". There entire business models rely on copyright assignment. If they can't force copyright holders to relinquish control of their copyright they can't leverage that copyright.
    
    And if you don't control/limit all the major (and perhaps even some of the minor) routes of distribution as much as possible you don't have the leverage to force rightful copyright owners to relinquish control.
    
    Just look at eMusic as an example. Despite their claims of Apple charging too little Sony (and then others) was willing to accept half the price for MP3s. Despite the claim of DRM being necessary (rootkit anyone?)they were willing to ditch that too. Why? Because eMusic was making inroads by selling independent label music, much of which was outside the control of the major labels and even the RIAA.
    
    Anyone who thinks this isn't ALL about control is either being dishonest or naive.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - bjupton (profile), 3 Jan 2012 @ 4:38pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Give up my total control on the culture? No way!
      
      That's where my money and blowjobs come from!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Hephaestus (profile), 3 Jan 2012 @ 9:38am
    
    Re: Re:
    The instant they do that they risk a constitutional challenge and the law being shot down. Personally I think it is the MPAA and RIAA just wanting to show, "they are doing something" in order to justify their existence.
    
    It is totally the wrong move on the part of the studios and labels. They seem to be using the **AA's as a crutch so they do not have to face the realities of competing in an ever more competitive entertainment market.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Mike C. (profile), 3 Jan 2012 @ 10:14am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Yes, they do risk a Constitutional challenge. They also know that the court system will take at least 2-3 years before an appeal to the Supreme Court is even close to being ready. In the mean time, they'll be pushing for the next level of control. It's an endless cycle of greed for these jerks* and someday soon, it will all come crashing down around their heads. Personally, I can't wait... :-)
      
      * jerks: Not the word I'd use face to face, but technically, we're in public... lol
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - btr1701 (profile), 3 Jan 2012 @ 11:53am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        > Yes, they do risk a Constitutional challenge. They also know
        > that the court system will take at least 2-3 years before an
        > appeal to the Supreme Court is even close to being ready.
        
        What usually happens in cases involving constitutional/free speech/prior restraint issues is that the court issues an injunction against enforcement of the law until the courts issue a final verdict on the matter. This prevents years of potentially unconstitutional prior restraint of protected speech by the government while the case is being tried.
        
        This is what happened with COPA (the Child Online Protection Act). It was passed in 1998 and the ink wasn't even dry on Clinton's signature before its constitutionality was challenged. The court issued an immediate order enjoining the government from implementing/enforcing the law until the constitutional issues were decided by the court. The law never actually took effect, as three separate rounds of litigation led to a permanent injunction against the law in 2009.
        
        Hopefully SOPA will share a similar fate.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Hephaestus (profile), 3 Jan 2012 @ 12:20pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Hopefully SOPA will share a similar fate."
        
        It probably will share a similar fate. So again I ask, WTF do they think they are going to accomplish? Everything in this bill is ill conceived and will do more harm to big content than good.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        robin, 3 Jan 2012 @ 1:50pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So again I ask, WTF do they think they are going to accomplish?
        
        getting paid.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        bjupton (profile), 3 Jan 2012 @ 4:39pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I really wonder with this SC.
        
        This could be yet another 5-4.
        
        Of course, they are all above the fray. Each and every one of them.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 3 Jan 2012 @ 1:11pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        This prevents years of potentially unconstitutional prior restraint of protected speech by the government while the case is being tried.
        
        Need we point out Dajaz1?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Keroberos (profile), 3 Jan 2012 @ 9:24am
  
  Re:
  No it won't stop infringement, and they'd be retarded to think it would. The stopping infringement part is just a red herring hiding the real purpose of these laws, stopping legitimate competition before it has a chance to gain a foothold in the market and give the real content creators a way of distributing their works without going through the old gatekeepers charging monopoly rents.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Simon, 3 Jan 2012 @ 9:31am
    
    Re: Re:
    It's similar to DRM. The real abusers will just ignore it and continue as usual, meanwhile the legitimate competitors trying to abide by the law will get another road block barring them from entering a market controlled by the incumbents.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Hephaestus (profile), 3 Jan 2012 @ 10:21am
    
    Re: Re:
    Stopping legitimate competition is shooting themselves in the foot. We have seen how the music industry shuts down every website that has the potential to make them a profit. They do it by charging ridiculous amounts for their content, making websites financially unworkable. By reducing the avenues they have for distribution, they will have to increase prices to compensate, and we are already at the price the market will bear for digital content. Mixed with an ever shrinking distribution chain, its a recipe for failure.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Keroberos (profile), 3 Jan 2012 @ 1:52pm
      
      They're Afraid of Becoming Irrelevant
      Any competition that is capable of distributing content from the MPAA/RIAA studios/labels is also capable of distributing content from creators that have nothing to do with the MPAA/RIAA making it much easier for creators to sell directly to the public. Given time the quality/quantity of content available from these independents will rival/exceed that of the MPAA/RIAA content making it impossible consumers to tell the difference (or even care). Once this point is reached, what benefit does a creator have by staying in the MPAA/RIAA system? Many content creators currently are afraid of being independent (the devil you know verses the one you don't), once new distribution methods become more mature and they see the independents becoming more successful/profitable they will start leaving the MPAA/RIAA studios/labels in droves (or they will become irrelevant like the MPAA/RIAA are becoming).
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 3 Jan 2012 @ 2:03pm
        
        Re: They're Afraid of Becoming Irrelevant
        I couldn't agree more. The MPAA/RIAA want to control content distribution and couldn't care less about innovating or competing. Just because they *could* make money doing new things doesn't mean they will actually be able to compete against new up and coming distribution models.
        
        All the while the government get to pass a law under the guise of protecting US IP but in reality gain a tool to control free speech. From that perspective this law is an incredible win for all parties involved and is the very reason people should be terrified of this law.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Keroberos (profile), 3 Jan 2012 @ 2:34pm
        
        Re: Re: They're Afraid of Becoming Irrelevant
        Not only do they not are about competing or innovating, I don't think they even know how, especially because in innovating they would be competing with their old business models. Very few companies are willing to gut their old business model by embracing new ways of doing things. The only ones I can think of right now that are doing this are Netflix and Amazon both have been changing how they will do business in the future at the expense of their old ways (Netflix changing to a streaming video service, and Amazon turning into an ebook distributer and even becoming a publisher).
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Kyle, 4 Jan 2012 @ 11:35am
        
        Re: Re: Re: They're Afraid of Becoming Irrelevant
        Actually, the part of SOPA that will make an impact is holding the payment processors and ad services accountable. Piracy is flourishing and growing because thieves can make money by stealing content. Get rid of the easy money and the legitimate access points will not have to compete with free. It's simple economics and makes perfect sense.
        
        Most don't want to bother with torrents and the like. The P2P model is diminishing and cyberlocker downloads increasing. Cyberlockers are in the business of making money. Cut off access to that and those sites will have to turn to more legitimate sources of commerce. They could easily activate a content ID system like Youtube's. That would be a huge step in the right direction and protect the rights of content creators small and large.
        
        Piracy will never disappear, but no one expects that. However, as efficient and legal online gateways continue to evolve, the pirates who cannot offer equivalent access will fall by the wayside. Take away the access to easy income and that will be the natural result. I think that is the expectation.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 5 Jan 2012 @ 5:51am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: They're Afraid of Becoming Irrelevant
        I think you're misunderstanding the phenomenon. I think people want to BELIEVE that piracy works because it's profitable, but I don't think that's the case in reality. Piracy works because of underserved consumers. Piracy has existed for a very long time; the advent of the Internet and digital content has just made it more widespread and apparent. Piracy exists because people want to share content they like, and use content the in the ways and places they want. None of that will change if you cut the funding lines to a few websites. The pirates will sneakernet the content if they have to. It's not about money.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- :Lobo Santo (profile), 3 Jan 2012 @ 9:27am
  
  Re: Grape Nuts
  Obviously the Studios are married the the MAFIAA.
  
  You don't pull out after 30 years of marriage just because your partner's routinely an abject failure--you wait for your partner to die.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 3 Jan 2012 @ 11:03am
    
    Re: Re: Grape Nuts
    Or...take them out yourselfs >:)
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- jupiterkansas (profile), 3 Jan 2012 @ 9:42am
  
  Re:
  They want all media on the internet to be licensed and paid for with legal contracts, because that's how they have to do business. You don't have lawyers? Get off the net.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 3 Jan 2012 @ 9:56am
  
  Re:
  The definition of insanity is whatever you want it to be when you make can throw billions at lobbyists, apparently.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- btr1701, 3 Jan 2012 @ 11:31am
  
  Re:
  > It violates the 1st and 4th amendments of the US constitution.
  > It is toxic to be associated with.
  
  And for that reason, it will almost certainly be overturned by the Supreme Court, so in the end, it will never even take effect. They have a bunch of smart lawyers working for them who certainly realize this, which makes their push for the law all the more inexplicable, since they'll get nothing out of it in exchange for all the bad publicity.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PaulT (profile), 3 Jan 2012 @ 1:55pm
  
  Re:
  Ultimately, it's about control. Over the last few decades, some of the content industries have gotten used to controlling both the supply and demand sides of business. For example, the RIAA essentially controlled the radio (Clear Channel), the distribution (supermarkets, major record chains), advertising (MTV) and other important areas of the music business and ancillary markets. This has started to collapse due to the internet. People no longer have to buy when, where and how the industry dictates, and that has led to a major disruption in their business.
  
  Rather than adapt to the modern marketplace, they simply want to regain the control they had 30 years ago. This is impossible without destroying the very channels through which consumers have discovered not only new music, but more control themselves over the way in which they consume music. Of course, whereas the ACs here would claim that this is due purely to piracy, there are hundreds of factors ranging from unbundling to good old fashioned competition from rival markets at fault.
  
  At this point, it's pretty much do or die. Turning the giant tanker that is the RIAA on to the correct course may take too long to save it at this point in time. So, rather than adapt to the last couple of decades of progress, they seek to destroy it. If the internet no longer exists in its current form, maybe people will return to buying lucrative rip-off bundles than exercising their own rights. Maybe.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jeff (profile), 3 Jan 2012 @ 8:58am

Right hand - meet the left hand...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Average Joe / Bob / OOTB, 3 Jan 2012 @ 9:11am

Well obviously the Hollywood Union Members are just pirates and/or depend on piracy to survive. I mean there is no other reason anyone would be against this bill.

/wait what?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Dark Helmet (profile), 3 Jan 2012 @ 9:22am
  
  Re:
  Oooooh, there should be a fictional meta-character Techdirt troll named Average Out Of The Bob....
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Average Out of the Bob, 3 Jan 2012 @ 9:27am
    
    Re: Re:
    Well that, like you, would be stupid.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - :Lobo Santo (profile), 3 Jan 2012 @ 9:30am
      
      Re: Re: Re:-P
      Quick, register with that before somebody else does!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Average Bob of the Blue, 3 Jan 2012 @ 9:32am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Actually this name is better. Also I didn't infringe it so it is over 9000 times /better/. None of you /obviously/ have the capacity to understand WHY its better. Because you are all a bunch of DIRTY thieves if you disagree with me.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Almost Anonymous (profile), 3 Jan 2012 @ 9:43am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Add an "angry" after "average" and your golden... er, blue-er.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        angry dude, 3 Jan 2012 @ 11:00am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Leave me the hell out of this, piss pants.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        angrier dude, 3 Jan 2012 @ 5:04pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Shitcock!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - mike allen (profile), 3 Jan 2012 @ 10:45am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Average? nooo well below in the brain dept.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Ninja (profile), 3 Jan 2012 @ 9:32am
    
    Re: Re:
    Average /Out/ of The Bob.
    
    Forgot the //.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - average_ioe (profile), 3 Jan 2012 @ 9:42am
    
    Re: Re:
    Ah yes, making the angry troll angry, the gentleman commenter's sport. Miming the account in a childish manner and offering decently sourced rebuttals (and disparaging remarks) has certainly been effective.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Ninja (profile), 3 Jan 2012 @ 9:50am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      And the bait worked wonders...
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Average Bob /of the/ BLUE, 3 Jan 2012 @ 9:53am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Thats ioe, not joe. He is not one of my three man-fathers just a name infringing dirtbag. Hell, he isnt even a failed artist blaming piracy for his lack of even enough talent to get one of those golden industry contracts for which he would happily sell all his copyrights just for a fat paycheck.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - RD, 3 Jan 2012 @ 9:55am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "Ah yes, making the angry troll angry, the gentleman commenter's sport. Miming the account in a childish manner and offering decently sourced rebuttals (and disparaging remarks) has certainly been effective."
      
      Yeah because strawmen arguments backed by absolutely nothing (ignoring the actual points raised in favor of specious ones) and ad-hominem personal attacks are so much more effective and enlightened.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Dark Helmet (profile), 3 Jan 2012 @ 9:59am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I see you've used many multi-sylabic words and flowery language....but I have no idea what you're trying to say in this comment....
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - average_ioe (profile), 3 Jan 2012 @ 10:18am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        just that the name string becoming an even longer amalgamation, might draw the ire of larger pool. Using my localized example.
        
        Then I enjoyed some fine misinterpretation.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Dark Helmet (profile), 3 Jan 2012 @ 10:26am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Ah, dammit. IOE. I've been had....
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        average_ioe (profile), 3 Jan 2012 @ 11:35am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        aww, i rarely scoop up regulars in my jest. And the next time my dark overlord refers to something as flowery it better be a makeshift grave.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The eejit (profile), 3 Jan 2012 @ 12:01pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        IS it powered by the speed at which Thomas Jefferson turns in his grave?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 3 Jan 2012 @ 11:32am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Amalgamations should only be dps'd down to 20% until 9 of the boiling bloods are killed.
        
        Then, drag the Amalgamation over the bloods until he gains 9 stacks....then take him to the front of the plate and dps him the rest of the way down, in order to initiate the Nuclear Blast....get 20 yards out, and wait for it to blow. DPS down the burning tendon....rinse, repeat.
        
        What, I thought we were talking about the Spine of Deathwing.....
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 3 Jan 2012 @ 11:40am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You seem to enjoy that a lot. Perhaps a switch to misinterpretation lite is in order, you know to keep your health up.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Marcus Carab (profile), 3 Jan 2012 @ 9:31am

When you're petitioning your union to stop siding with your employers, isn't it time to start questioning who your union is really working for?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Ninja (profile), 3 Jan 2012 @ 9:37am
  
  Re:
  We all know the answer to this question. I'm not against the Unions but they have lost their true identities and purposes for a while now (with very few examples). They represent themselves and the highest bidder.
  
  As for the rest of the supporters I'm sure we can change their minds, those critters will happily shake their arses in joy if you wave a few hundred dollars in front of their noses. That's probably the only thing they understand right now.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 3 Jan 2012 @ 10:33am
    
    Re: Re:
    They represent themselves and the highest bidder.
    
    This is precisely why I AM against Unions. They served a purpose at some point in the past, but now they're just cruft at best.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
anonymous, 3 Jan 2012 @ 9:32am

i tend to agree with Mike C, post #1. however, i do not for one second believe that these union members etc didn't know that the unions themselves had signed up in support of SOPA and PIPA. so, why has it taken so long for union members to 'come out of the closet', speak their minds and ask that the unions stop their support?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Average Bob /of the/ Blue, 3 Jan 2012 @ 9:41am
  
  Re:
  Well obviously they were all paid off by google. These are just a couple Rogue outliers. No need to be concerned about these mavericks they mostly run pirate websites in their spare time, the ones Big Search didn't buy off that is. Plus these people aren't creators, they are just slubs like you who want to go home and steal shit off the internet rather than pay for it because ENTITLEMENT. /end of story/
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jon Lawrence (profile), 3 Jan 2012 @ 12:37pm
  
  Re:
  You should believe it. The communication channels from union leaders to their members is generally awful, and once in a while bubbles up to only slightly bad.
  
  I've worked with a lot of IATSE members and they are regularly surprised by things their "leadership" does.
  
  Also interesting to note that my own industry trade association (not a union), the Producers Guild of America, seems to have taken no public stance on this issue; which makes me wonder if they're using my annual dues to fund lobbying on behalf of SOPA... hm.
  
  I better ask.
  
  (and let's see if anyone there responds: http://twitter.com/#!/MPGjon/status/154300218865754113
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Jan 2012 @ 9:39am

Hey if lobbyists can pay people to come and cause disruptions at town hall events of people who oppose their legislation (similar to what Health Insurance lobbyists were caught doing a few years ago) then why not pretend people support the legislation that don't? Politicians do that trick all the time, sending out mailers claiming to be endorsed by local politicians who either haven't endorsed them, or who have endorsed their opponent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Violated (profile), 3 Jan 2012 @ 10:10am

Hell
Those were some nice words. Yes it is all about an Internet land-grab for market control and to take out rivals.

The Internet is the greatest innovation of our time and an amazing source of creation. No one country or organization should be allowed to abuse and censor the Internet for their own game.

So damn SOPA and PIPA to the worst level of Hell. OPEN is a much better plan.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Violated (profile), 3 Jan 2012 @ 10:10am

Hell
Those were some nice words. Yes it is all about an Internet land-grab for market control and to take out rivals.

The Internet is the greatest innovation of our time and an amazing source of creation. No one country or organization should be allowed to abuse and censor the Internet for their own game.

So damn SOPA and PIPA to the worst level of Hell. OPEN is a much better plan.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jay (profile), 3 Jan 2012 @ 10:21am
  
  Re: Hell
  Open is still a bad bill.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 3 Jan 2012 @ 10:47am
    
    Re: Re: Hell
    troo dat, Open is just positioned to look like the reasonable alternative to SOPA/PIPA, when in truth they should all be disregarded and their authors chemically neutered.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Jan 2012 @ 10:44am

Reading all this has me wondering what the going rate for an astroturfing campaign is. Cuz srsly, if you dont think we've had the MAFIAA astroturfers here on techdirt i have this condo on the moon that i'm selling timeshares for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Brian (profile), 3 Jan 2012 @ 10:58am

Fail?
Last I remember these bills were touted as protecting the artists and the jobs of those in the industry. So when the people who's jobs your claiming to save are against your bill because even they recognize how bad it is doesn't that mean you failed?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
cosmicrat (profile), 3 Jan 2012 @ 1:00pm

Perspective from a union member
I have been working in the motion picture and TV industry for 14 years and have been a union member for 12. First of all let me say I am glad to see this petition. Very much against SOPA/PIPA and will be signing it right away and also publicizing it at my next union meeting. I do want to take issue with some points made in this thread:

"i do not for one second believe that these union members etc didn't know that the unions themselves had signed up in support of SOPA and PIPA. so, why has it taken so long for union members to 'come out of the closet', speak their minds and ask that the unions stop their support?"

I think you overestimate how "tuned in" to current events most union members are. Remember most of us work full time jobs in a blue collar environment (I work 60-70 hours a week), we are not sitting in front of a computer all day, and PIPA/SOPA have not been that well reported in the mainstream press. My experience is that union members tend to be honest, hard working salt-of-the-earth types but not necessarily tech savvy or politically sophisticated. I myself didn't become aware of PIPA until the middle of last year, and that was only after about the 4th wave of propaganda from IATSE intl. landed in my in box and I decided to check out what the heck they were talking about. I was appalled and begin agitating within my union against the bill. Even now when I talk to other members about it, the majority have little or no clue what these bills really entail. And if they have read anything at all it's likely come from IATSE, which basically regurgitates propaganda from MPAA and USCOC. The rank and file of the unions are just now becoming aware of the issues.

"When you're petitioning your union to stop siding with your employers, isn't it time to start questioning who your union is really working for?"

It is very dismaying. While I think it is a bad mistake for IATSE's leaders to support SOPA/PIPA, I do think it is an honest mistake. We are entering an era when corporations will try to bust the unions. I see this as an attempt to curry favor with the corporations, form alliances that can stave that off. IATSE and the Teamsters will be entering a fight with employers this year over health benefits. Some of IATSE's health insurance funding comes from residuals on TV reruns and DVD sales (although I have been unable to figure out just how significant a percentage this is -if someone knows, please say). Like so many other people, we will be fighting for our economic lives in the future and our leaders are almost frantic to do anything they can to save us.

"This is precisely why I AM against Unions. They served a purpose at some point in the past, but now they're just cruft at best."

I couldn't disagree more. I think the unions are just as relevant as ever. I think it's inadequate protection against corporate greed and avarice, but it's all we've got. It's true there have been mistakes made (and this is one of them), but that doesn't obviate the whole purpose of the unions. I will agree that the structure and functioning of the unions is often stodgy, conservative and seems always to be about 20 years behind the times. I am hoping that as younger and more progressive people filter into leadership positions, the culture of the unions will change. We really need to enter the 21st century.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Lawrence D'Oliveiro, 3 Jan 2012 @ 7:52pm
  
  Re: think it's inadequate protection against corporate greed and avarice, but it's all we've got.
  So in place of corporate greed and avarice, you�ve now got union greed and avarice. Is it a big surprise to anyone to discover that the unions� interests do not coincide with those of their members?
  
  Maybe I�ll be proven wrong, and the unions will back down in the face of pressure from their members. But I�m not holding my breath...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 3 Jan 2012 @ 8:20pm
    
    Re: Re: think it's inadequate protection against corporate greed and avarice, but it's all we've got.
    So how many people signed the petition? How many members do those unions have? How many people who signed petition are actually members of those unions?
    
    Last I checked there were about 150 signatures. DGA, IA, SAG, AFTRA have like 300,000 members. Teamsters have over a million. So this group of 150 who may or may not be actual members somehow represents the true view of the rank and file? I don't see how the unions stand to benefit from their position other than by job creation, which ultimately benefits the membership.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Jan 2012 @ 12:16am

"DGA, IA, SAG, AFTRA have like 300,000 members. Teamsters have over a million."

Teamsters don't care about copyright.
They move furniture and drive.

Actors are more concerned about residuals than copyright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
cosmicrat (profile), 4 Jan 2012 @ 2:09pm

Underwhelming
"So how many people signed the petition? How many members do those unions have? How many people who signed petition are actually members of those unions?"

Yeah, the tidal wave of opposition is overwhelming...

It would be difficult to design a petition that validated each signature as a bona-fide union member, but if you look in the comments with many of the signatures you will see people giving the number of their local. Also note that there is no facebook or twitter share links on the petition (a convenience I have come to consider a norm, and the reason I haven't shared it yet). If this petition was being emailed to every union member's inbox you can bet there would be a lot of signatures!

"Teamsters don't care about copyright.
They move furniture and drive."

But they like their entertainment as much as anyone else. I'll bet the majority of teamsters have listened to some kind of copyright infringing work on the job in the last year, whether it's a CD a friend burned them or some mp3's on someone's player. Like I say, they are not known for being tech-savvy or politically sophisticated though.

"Actors are more concerned about residuals than copyright."

Basically the same thing for purposes of this discussion.

"There are plenty of people who earn their living working in the content creation industry who support SOPA."

This is true, and one of the things I've been wondering is do they constitute a minority or a majority? I'm pretty sure it's a minority but I have no way of validating that. I'll confine my comments to blue-collar workers in the movie and TV industry since that's where I work: I would like to see a referendum vote taken, of the rank and file union members as to whether they support SOPA, BUT ONLY AFTER the opposition of SOPA has a year to freely distribute literature, talk openly, educate people as to the drawbacks, hold public debates, spread propaganda etc., JUST LIKE THE PROPONENTS HAVE done through union channels. People like me are afraid to even speak about the issue on the job because we're afraid of getting fired (I work for a major studio who is very much a SOPA supporter), but the proponents can express their views openly with the blessing of the employer! How could anyone propose to take a fair referendum vote under these circumstances? (Not that anyone is moving to do that, just hypothetically).

Actually I think it's very telling that so many union members are staying silent on the issue given the amount of pro-SOPA/PIPA propaganda that has been directed at them.

"Actually, the part of SOPA that will make an impact is holding the payment processors and ad services accountable....Get rid of the easy money and the legitimate access points will not have to compete with free"

I somewhat agree. The OPEN proposal also aims to choke off the payments and does it with (arguably) a much better regard for due process. I (tentatively) support OPEN. I disagree that torrents will not be an ongoing issue, though, because once the video streaming and file-locker sites have been tamped back a bit we will see torrenting make a comeback, aided by easy to use clients that make the interface as simple as the sources they replace. Torrents are the biggest economic problem in fighting piracy; since it is so cheap to facilitate them people do it as a hobby, a few banner ads can support the bandwidth for an index site. I don't think there's any way to stop torrents cold either (and why would we want to...they have many good uses including making "Internet 2.0" faster...). I think there will be a lot of collateral damage trying to stop torrents though, I can't see any next step in this DNS blocking madness other than outlawing encryption, and by extension privacy in general.

I'll be interested to see if the numbers on this petition improve any over the weekend.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 5 Jan 2012 @ 5:58am
  
  Re: Underwhelming
  "Torrents are the biggest economic problem in fighting piracy"
  
  'Fighting piracy' is the biggest economic problem in fighting piracy. With a small percentage exception, pirates are your biggest fans and strongest supporters -- you just aren't selling them what they want. Focus on making your product better and meeting the desires of your customers, and the piracy 'problem' will go away. 'Fighting piracy' just means throwing money at a symptom.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Terry Hancock (profile), 5 Jan 2012 @ 9:19am

Encouraging sign
I recently spent some time exploring whether AFTRA/SAG actors could work on free-culture projects without violating union rules (for my project, which needs voice actors for animation, the relevant union is apparently AFTRA). It appears that they can.

I think it would be really cool to see that happen, and I want to pursue it. So, it's really encouraging to see the artists resisting the legacy entertainment industry's heavy-handed tactics. It gives me hope that I'll be listened to when I start proposing this.

Still... it's just 189 signatures so far, and I'm not even sure how we know these are union members signing it (aside from the comments).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Andy Leviss, 5 Jan 2012 @ 8:01pm

Ironic copyright violation
Ironically in an article on SOPA/Piracy, the author has decided it's appropriate to use my statement without either permission or attribution. I would appreciate this article being update to remove my statement, as I only intended it to appear on the petition for the eyes of IA leadership and my fellow members, and do not appreciate it being reprinted here, especially without asking.

Thank you,
Andy (the Local 1/USA829 member quoted above)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Andy Leviss, 5 Jan 2012 @ 9:26pm

Update
It's been brought to my attention that, although in a form equivalent to a shrink-wrap agreement that may not be valid, my post on Change.org was technically under a Creative Commons license, so this is not a copyright violation.

I apologize for that accusation, but would encourage the author to make an effort to contact writers before quoting them, if for nothing other than common courtesy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- nasch (profile), 6 Jan 2012 @ 7:29am
  
  Re: Update
  It's been brought to my attention that, although in a form equivalent to a shrink-wrap agreement that may not be valid, my post on Change.org was technically under a Creative Commons license, so this is not a copyright violation.
  
  It would almost certainly be fair use anyway.
  
  I apologize for that accusation, but would encourage the author to make an effort to contact writers before quoting them, if for nothing other than common courtesy.
  
  Was there contact information posted with your comment? Because of the fair use issue (let alone the creative commons license), I don't agree that he should have asked permission, but if there was contact information it would have been polite to inform you that he was going to quote you.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nicole, 22 Mar 2012 @ 3:25am

I always read about "Creative Commons". So if something written is under a Creative Commons license, it's okay to repost it even without permission?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PaulT (profile), 22 Mar 2012 @ 3:38am
  
  Re:
  "So if something written is under a Creative Commons license, it's okay to repost it even without permission?"
  
  That depends on the CC licence used. Think of it like this: standard copyright grants a particular licence, which may be too restrictive or otherwise not meet the user's needs. CC offers a range of different licences that try to meet these needs.
  
  By issuing under a CC licence, different uses are explicitly allowed - for example, you may be permitted to reuse the material without separate permission so long as you don't alter it, or do as you wish so long as you attribute the original author.
  
  There's a quick primer here: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
frederickolson (profile), 27 Mar 2012 @ 4:22am

one good thing about the unions... they can stand up for their rights and freedoms...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]