OK, So SOPA And PIPA Are Both On Hold: Where Do We Go From Here?
from the just-the-beginning dept
There is a rather odd atmosphere within the parts of the online community that fought so hard against SOPA this week – relief that all that work seems to have had an effect, mixed with a certain disbelief that for once the outside world sat up and took notice of the tech world's concerns. Amidst all the justified back-patting, there is a temptation to celebrate the fact that both SOPA and PIPA are "delayed", and to move on.
As Lauren Weinstein points out in an excellent, monitory blog post entitled "Battling Internet Censorship: The Long War", that would be a big mistake:
you might be tempted to assume that the battle is over, the war is won, and that -- as Maxwell Smart used to say -- "Once again the forces of niceness and goodness have triumphed over the forces of evil and rottenness."
So the question then becomes, how can a fast-moving industry that is easily distracted by cool hardware and pictures of cats hope to match the lumbering but unswerving attack of the copyright dinosaurs?
Nothing could be further from the truth.
In fact, the forces arrayed in favor of Internet censorship are not only powerful and well funded, but are in this game for the very long haul indeed. A day of demonstrations to them, as annoying as they may be to these censorship proponents in the very short run, are in the final analysis more like a single human lifetime compared against the centuries.
One of the key problems is that few within the Internet world know much about how "DC" – the inner circle of US policy-making – really works. One person who does is Christine Paluch, as she explains in this post seconding Weinstein's warning about "The Long War":
Here in DC the long war is not some analogy, it is a way of life. This is a town of strategists and researchers who often lay intellectual groundwork for legislation that gets put into place long after they have moved on to another issue. I should know this, I was one of the researchers, and I worked on a few major issues involving regulatory policy, specifically labor and employment, environmental issues, consumer product safety, and healthcare. It is not very often that somebody sees their work used in laying the groundwork for historic legislation, but the work of me and my fellow researchers was used in a few pieces of historic legislation. It was a part of the long game, one that took over 5 years to completely play out, and I was only there for part of it. I was already left the campaign by the time the legislation went through congress.
She also has some very useful advice for the geek world she now calls her own ("Somehow I was roped in by technologists and they have assimilated me into their development processes"):
in my honest opinion it needs to go beyond a simple censorship campaign, and have a much broader focus. What [Weinstein] is citing is a defensive campaign, but from my own experiences, the best campaigns are not just defensive, but also strategic and proactive. I also think it needs to focus on broader goals for science and technology as well, as I think the SOPA and PIPA campaign are part of a larger pattern that needs to be addressed.
In other words, the tech world really needs to think big on this. The rest of the post is well-worth reading for its information about some of the details of DC policy making; but the central message is very simple:
SOPA and PIPA should not be the end, but rather the beginning. This is the best advice to making technology a larger and permanent force in DC as somebody who at one point was part of this system.
Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+
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: blackouts, copyright, pipa, proactive, protect ip, protests, reform, sopa
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Too true
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Too true
At this point what could the Government do or the Big Content Industry do without TECH ?
And yes this Censorship Battle has only begun.I kept saying over and over SOPA/PIPA/OPEN = WAR
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Too true
And patents? Big Search is filing them like crazy. Don't think they won't use them either against anything that threatens to make them Little Search.
Get a clue. SOPA has nothing to do with freedom for you. Fighting SOPA has everything to do with ensuring freedom for Big Search and Big Piracy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Too true
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Too true
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Too true
? Umm... not that it really matters, but I'm pretty sure this argument is not correct.. They have been doing this for a while.
Also putting funny labels like Big Search and Big Content won't make any difference, it isn't who they are that matters but their actions. When "Big Search" is the one (by their own admission even) buying legislation for their benefit at the expense of others instead of "Big Content", then I will be fighting them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Too true
They are already doing this for how long Big Bob?
"Piracy" can't be as Big Bad as they Big Claim or they would have Big Quit making movies Big Years ago.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Too true
It's so much harder to fight these things when they don't have catchy names.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Too true
OPEN-Online Protection and Enforcement of Digital Trade Act
There's a few terrifying tidbits buried in that sucker.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Too true
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Too true
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Too true
Except...it's already been completely pre-defeated. It won't work. See "several hundred million bots" and think, for ten seconds, about what the operational impact of that situation is on ANY attempt to create an online identity system. (And in the following ten seconds, consider this: The Bad Guys already have some motivation to create bots. Even with that limited motivation, they've been wildly successful. What will happen to that motivation if any of these boneheaded ID initiatives goes into effect?)
The people pushing it either (a) don't know this -- in which case they are ignorant or (b) know this but don't care -- in which case they are lying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Too true
OPEN on the other hand, I still have to read that to see how bad it is, but I'm already against it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Too true
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just kidding.
Seriously though, a lot of the supporters that got us this far are gonna be like that. We're all kinds of boned.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
With legislation you're either the movers or the moved.
Up until and including now the internet has been the moved, with the only level of influence the tech community has been having is to have some effect on how far were being moved.
But all the moves are in the wrong direction, tech needs to step up and put the legacy industries onto the backfoot for a change, and then keep them there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It took millions to overcome a handful
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It took millions to overcome a handful
He knew that keeping freedom was always going to be difficult, but was definitely worth the fight.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Offensive
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Offensive
Oh geeze, I feel dirty now after realizing there is a way for the Republicans to get my vote, even if its entirely theoretical.
The Democrats tested that the last Presidential cycle, but that seems to have resulted in mass disillusionment.
Yeah, that's what usually happens when you don't follow through on promises to change things and go back to the old corrupt system and even fail using that to get much done.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But how
If you want strategy, then here you go. Work with human nature. If they want to be lazy, let them do nothing. The next step? Well... I don't know, that's where the Think Tank comes in, but we have a good first step.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: But how
the sheeple's gotta have their ... whatever big MAFIAA star is making movies/songs right now
you try and talk them into boycotting they probably won't even know what the word means, nor find the cause "important" enough to support, heck, they probably WANT to give them money because they've been long since brainwashed by the piracy propaganda
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: But how
We can do it, but one thing we need to do is not fall back on the "sheeple" idea. It provides a scapegoat for those who are on the fence. We need to pull them over.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: But how
i agree
i've been turned quite sour from years of trying to gain support to things ("oh my that's so horrible! well, gotta go, the superbowl's on!") & hitting dead ends at every turn
and that's something i have no idea how to do, most of the time they seem pretty happy to kick back and eat some popcorn as the struggle goes on, for every sheeple out there's one person who genuinely don't want to get involved with it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: But how
That last part is important. They think that they can't do anything about it, so they don't. We just need to show them that they can do something, we've proved it today.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But how
Couldn't agree with you more.
It's the most important thing in this fight and people must be continually reminded that a single voice can change the world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: But how
There's an inherent problem with the 'long game' in that the 'protest' side of any movement mostly wants to be left alone, and invariably - absolutely invariably - gets tired of the fight first. For us fighting these kinds of battles means taking time out of the life we've already got, for the pro-legislative side it's just a day in the life. Wrangling the public is what they do. There's a reason that guys like Lamar exist.
One of these tech groups or freedom groups is going to have to actually draft legislation that does these things we always suggest and yell about. Fixing Copyright. Fixing Patents. Codifying internet rights and freedoms in no uncertain terms. And we're going to have to get behind that effort and do all this over again.
SO... anybody got a bill? The sooner the better, or everybody's going to have forgotten this skirmish.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: But how
As Chronno S. Trigger said somewhere else in this comment section, the important thing is getting people to realize that anyone of us can effect change. This is an important point to be grounded as if our 2nd nature.
Yes for us fighting is taking time from our normal lives. But if (and a big if) everyone of us knows that whatever we do have impact, it'll take just a little spark to re-ignite a similar movement like last Wednesday, or maybe bigger.
So I think a group of dedicated motivators is also needed alongside with a balanced bill proposal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: But how
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: But how
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: But how
We can't do it all at once, as has been said, we need to think strategically. Fighting a war on multiple fronts is not strategic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: But how
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: But how
It will be us vs. them.
If you are not for us, you are against us.
Two sides.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: But how
Isn't it obvious: The Big Government has been allowed to arrogate to itself the power to determine who prospers and who fails. So long as Big Government is allowed to go beyond enforcing honesty in dealings, Big AnythingElse will find it easier to corrupt the governors than to make themselves useful.
The US reached that stage long ago. The only possibility that I can see is Jefferson's observation, quoted above — take the power away from Big Government. I don't know how to do that, except by Jefferson's prescription, but Big Government also protects itself by whatever force it thinks it needs and can get away with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And it was, at least for now, successfully.
Realising that they can indeed have an impact and have their voices heard is probably a huge morale boost that is unlikely to be the most important thing to come out of this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We need to ABOLISH COPYRIGHT
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: We need to ABOLISH COPYRIGHT
copyright is more than a disease, it is a religion, of which there are many MANY zealot fanatics & fandumb sheeple who've been bullied and/or pressured into going along with it
from the MAFIAA to the control-freak artist, it is maintained by some of the most unbelievably rude, disrespectful, egotistical & self-entilted spoiled brats i ever had the misfortune of knowing
it isn't just a disease it is a self-repairing, world-eating cancer, of which i know no cure, perhaps the secret lies with the people behind it, and of that i know no solution for either
i believe a good step towards a solution would be to create content sites that go by creative commons (specifically CC-BY-SA) where people who are into free content have a special place to go, right now there is none and that is a huge problem
cannot take on this disease head-on, nor it's masters, but we can dissolve it slowly by making our own copyright free corner of the net
i would very much like to make such a site, but i don't think anyone would join it, so until i see support or interest i won't say no more on it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: We need to ABOLISH COPYRIGHT
So while you imagine it's going to lead to some Shangri La where you can just download $100m movies for nothing and it will all be way cool, you're wrong. The $100m movies will be replaced by cat videos from YouTube and the artists who are actually able to work as artists will need to get regular jobs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: We need to ABOLISH COPYRIGHT
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: We need to ABOLISH COPYRIGHT
I can name a few musicians where that has already happened. They sign up to an RIAA label who claim copyright over their music in exchange for a contract. The small print abuses them far more than copyright law ever would.
Then later another music company buys out their label. The former business is dead so contacts null and void BUT they transferred the ownership rights to the new company. Ergo the artists no longer get paid when their music is sold.
The artists would actually love our copyright reform when it would say every musician has a shared ownership right by default which cannot be sold or given away. You create it then you share the reward.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: We need to ABOLISH COPYRIGHT
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: We need to ABOLISH COPYRIGHT
To paraphrase a popular trolling phrase these days, hahahahahahahaha
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: We need to ABOLISH COPYRIGHT
That gave me a Big Laugh, Big Bob. Bigger than ROFLMFAO!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: We need to ABOLISH COPYRIGHT
"The majestic equality of laws forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets and to steal bread."
- Jacques Anatole I. France (Jacques Anatole Thibault)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: We need to ABOLISH COPYRIGHT
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I say a few things need to happen
Second the RIAA/MPAA are right. We do share a common consensus that piracy and intellectual property theft are an issue. If they will finally adapt, change, and develop new business models they can make more money then ever. A real discussion with the tech sector and the public about how to address piracy. No one is unwilling to have this conversation except for them. I work in both the tech sector and content creation sector. Network engineer/musician.I understand both sides. It's a shame the RIAA/MPAA have taken this stance of them vs the tech sector. No one in the tech sector has a problem with their argument. But I think most people in my industry are relatively smart, able people. But they understand the importance of free speech and over regulating the internet.
Protecting free speech should be the #1 concern of our Congress at all times. If there is even a remote chance a new law may abridge the constitutional rights of a citizen it should be closely examined and put through peer review. Congress is there to represent us and maintain the constitution/bill of rights. The rights of the people should always be the first concern of any new law. So when we see a new bill come that attacks the very foundation of those rights we all resoundingly said no way. Congress is going to do even more damage to their image if they pass this bill in any form. The furor is there and I don't think any revision of this bill will work now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I say a few things need to happen
It is used as an economic term (double-speak) meaning "freedom for corporations to operate" - no enviromental laws, overtime, child labor or that from local governments. This is what the U.S. applied to trade agreements.
Go back and read a few speeches - I became aware of this double-speak under Bush Jr.
But this gave a whole new meaning whenever anyone talks about policy and democracy - they aren't talking "majority rules" and "voting". This economic policy was re-imported domestically.
Using phrases including trigger words like "democracy" is exactly HOW they have gotten measures accepted in the U.S.
Everything is a soundbite that will fit into a headline. Those who don't do well - fail. The Dems are a perfect example.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It may not be over, but....
There was just no way in the past that there was a way to mobilize millions of people to call one another and then call their reps in DC. Social networks are one way to spread information but they are terribly limited when trying to reach the masses. As we all got to witness, all it took were a few VERY popular sites to direct a fraction of their traffic toward DC.
I think Google, Facebook, and Wikipedia just figured out that they really don't need to conform to the DC pay to play game. Why donate a million dollars when you have the eyes and ears of a million voters?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It may not be over, but....
Many sites -- MANY! -- who are struggling to get by made the sacrifice. They answered the call. Facebook did not.
We need to remember this. Zuckerberg does not deserve a voice. He does not deserve a seat at the table. He was tested and found wanting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It may not be over, but....
That's how the banking laws were changed to benefit the few. Bush didn't need laws to change regulations. Most of them didn't need a congressional audience either. Just a flexible legal department.
As it is, trade agreements don't need public oversight - ACTA. That's more poweful than the president.
The trick is to engage the public in a meaningful debate when 99% of their information sources are backing SOPA / PIPA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It may not be over, but....
I think the best action we could take would be a very strong offensive against all of the areas which have been used against us in recent decades. I have no idea how to organize to get enough support behind it, but if we could keep the bad guys busy fighting our offensive, they would have less time and energy to spend on their offensives, and maybe we'll even win back some of what has been taken from us.
I said all the areas which have been used against us. Hang onto your seat.
This offensive's goals should include:
- Abolish copyrights and patents, including cancelling all existing ones.
- Prohibit any court from enforcing provisions of existing contracts which require payment (or other actions) that were agreed to in order to license copyrights or patents.
- Outlaw DRM in any form, hardware or software, with a corporate death penalty for any company that tries to sneak DRM into a product.
- Require publishing of programming specifications for all hardware products.
- Completely separate the companies who provide telephone, cable, Internet backbone, and/or Internet access service from any other business, with a corporate death penalty for any company that tries to evade this.
- Require the companies in the previous point to offer access to their physical plant, as once was required (CLEC), with a corporate death penalty for any company that obstructs or otherwise unfairly competes with companies taking that offer.
- Eliminate all restrictions that restrict local governments or associations from providing Internet service.
- Probably something to whack the cell phone companies, but I don't know what would best promote improvement for the users of the cell network. Perhaps establishing a single standard would be part of it.
- Repeal the rights-trampling parts of the Patriot Act.
- Sharply reduce the personhoodness of corporations, and reestablish that they must, by law, operate in the public interest. Explicitly repudiate the notion that the only purpose is to increase shareholder value.
- Devise a way to force all lobbying to take place entirely in the open, and remove contributions from the process entirely. Making your or your company's desires known and pointing out the public benefits that would result is valid. Buying legislation is not. I don't know how to do this, but someone else might.
No doubt there are goals that should be in the list that I'm not thinking of right now.
As I already said, I have no idea how to organize to build support for this very large effort. I hope someone does.
Some might point out that abolishing copyrights undermines the GPL. True, but wouldn't what we win be worth it?
To those who might say we cannot do some of these things because of existing treaties, trade agreements, or the like, I say ignore them. Treaties get ignored when they no longer align with national interests. Similarly to those who might say we would face other forms of international opposition. We should tough it out. Our rights are at stake.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: It may not be over, but....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: It may not be over, but....
"Violate property rights"?
"Unjust, anti-property laws..."?
"Impose yet more property violations on society"?
Seems to me you have a propensity for getting "drunk on your own wine".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: It may not be over, but....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It may not be over, but....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It may not be over, but....
Oh, I don't know. How about I raise some cows, milk them, and sell the milk, but to get a little better price I add a little melamine, to make the milk test like it has higher protein content? The state has no right to stop me from doing it? I'm not violating people's rights? Take it or leave it?
Okay, that example is a little over the top, but I think it very clearly establishes that the state certainly does have a right to tell you to stop doing certain things. There are numerous safety-related regulation about what you must do or must not do in making your product. There are implied warranty and fitness for purpose laws, that tell you what you must do or must not do when making your product.
DRM prohibition would be related to the laws about products being fit for purpose. DRM prevents things like making backup copies, moving files from one device to another -- things which a reasonable person would expect to be able to do with the products. In hardware it prevents some kinds of customizations or repurposing that ought to be routinely possible. So the state has a good reason to protect individual buyers' rights by prohibiting DRM. If you don't want to produce a DRM-free product, that's not violating your rights. Take it or leave it. (How does it feel to be on the other side of that?)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It may not be over, but....
As long as you disclose it it's not a violation of rights. If you fail to it could be fraud or some other tort.
"Okay, that example is a little over the top, but I think it very clearly establishes that the state certainly does have a right to tell you to stop doing certain things."
No it does not. In fact the state is criminal and the only thing it has a right to do is disband. In any case, at most, the state ought to enforce only laws that prohibit action that actually violates individual property rights.
" There are numerous safety-related regulation about what you must do or must not do in making your product."
They are all illegitimate.
"There are implied warranty and fitness for purpose laws, that tell you what you must do or must not do when making your product."
Yes, and slavery was also legal at one point. What the law is does not prove what it should be.
"DRM prohibition would be related to the laws about products being fit for purpose. DRM prevents things like making backup copies, moving files from one device to another -- things which a reasonable person would expect to be able to do with the products. In hardware it prevents some kinds of customizations or repurposing that ought to be routinely possible. So the state has a good reason to protect individual buyers' rights by prohibiting DRM. If you don't want to produce a DRM-free product, that's not violating your rights. Take it or leave it. (How does it feel to be on the other side of that?)"
It is violating your rights. State force is being aimed at someone to threaten then to refrain from peaceful conduct that does not violate anyone's rights. It's pure aggression.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It may not be over, but....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It may not be over, but....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It may not be over, but....
So, you can add it but, good luck with the customers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: It may not be over, but....
I think what we really need is open and public discussion where everyone, including the public, is invited to participate, instead of legislation written behind closed doors and pushed through with hopes nobody notices.
There is a point of compromise in every debate where all parties can agree. Tech companies are willing to work with content companies, and the government should force them to work things out, not play to the highest bidder. And the government must represent the general public, not the corporations.
The easiest fix is to remove all money from the equation. I don't know if even that is possible though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: It may not be over, but....
Note also that nowhere did I say that my "draconian" laws should be written behind closed doors and pushed through, hoping no one notices. That's one of the tactics of the content industry. I didn't say we should do that.
That word "compromise" is a funny word. Put aside for the moment that the content industry has shown precious little propensity to engage in it, in the sense that you mean. But you know, there is another meaning of "compromise". Look at dictionary.com's 6th meaning: "to expose or make vulnerable to danger, suspicion, scandal, etc.; jeopardize: a military oversight that compromised the nation's defenses." In that sense, the content industry has been compromising our rights all along, and I, for one, am fed up with that kind of compromise. I guess I'm an odd guy -- whenever I hear people calling for a compromise on these matters, my first thought always is that the content industry has already compromised a lot of our rights, and I don't want them doing any more of it. Funny language, English is.
Anyway, I want no compromise between giant content companies and giant tech companies that divvy up our rights between them, leaving none for us. And I don't want the government pushing for that. I want the government to protect the little guys' rights.
Interesting that your last point is about removing money from the process. Did you make it all the way to my last point? You and I certainly seem to be on the same page as far as that issue goes, and if you calmly consider what the other things I suggested actually would mean, should a miracle occur and they ever were enacted, I think you would conclude that you would agree with a lot more of them than you initially seem to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You go to the ballot box
That's where we go. We keep it up. We remind our government that We the People matter, and not what some $1000 suit wearing Hollywood studio exec thinks.
Enough is enough.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fire with Fire
Bottom line, DC doesn't know how to talk to a person much less negotiate with one, they only will speak with representatives of people, be that congress, senate or a lobby.
Surely one of the well financed organizations who were against these bills can stand up a webpage and grass roots lobby organization that fights for the openness of the internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111224/01031317187/jack-abramoff-explains-return-invest ment-lobbying-22000-is-surprisingly-low.shtml
Why don't these lobbyists discuss these issues in Congress openly for the public to see? Why do these discussions often occur elsewhere behind closed doors?
We need to be proactive. The government-industrial complex has already managed to regulate cable and broadcasting against the public interest through govt established cableco and broadcasting monopolies. Not only must we ensure that the govt doesn't do to the Internet what it has wrongfully accomplished outside the Internet, we need to proactively undo the publicly detrimental cableco and broadcasting regulations that already exist and ensure that, to the extent these communication channels are regulated, they are regulated in the public interest (which isn't happening now).
We need to be more proactive and repeal the existing IP laws that are against the public interest (like copy protection lengths, among many others), along with many other existing anti-competitive laws that are socially detrimental (like govt established taxi cab monopolies).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't think they'll be happy until they can say, "You want to embed videos on your blog? Then pay up a licensing fee that will cover any copyrighted use." They've already done it with streaming radio. They want everything online to be licensed. They'll use the performance rights fees payed by restaurants and bars as a template.
Once the licensing fees are in place, they can slowly raise them until the only people that can afford to be online are the big players. It's the only way they'll maintain the revenue streams of the past.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No it's NOT Thinking Big
The Public Relations theme that needs to be present is to restore Copyright to its original intent. The basic problem is that copyright/patent law are complex, many people only have casual knowledge and are easily swayed by sound-bytes.
1. Piracy is one sound byte. It is easy to sway people that piracy is wrong because it is theft. A simple Motherhood statement. At last night's Republican debate the CNN moderator prefaced his remarks what the loaded language that piracy is theft. So one challenge is how to convince the public that the contents industry's definition of piracy is wrong.
2. Static concept of Copyright is another sound byte. Like piracy it is easy to casually assume that the copyright law has not been changed and is somehow deficient. Consequently it is easy to fall for the need for stronger copyright to protect the poor starving artists. What is seldom expressed, but seems to be vaguely recognized,is that copyright has been getting stronger and stronger and stronger with each iteration. The challenge is how to explain this massive "Land-Grap", so that the public realizes that the content industry is "stealing" from them.
3. The law is another misused sound byte. The content industry claims that it has the law on their side. Since they bought the law, I guess that they do. But this is an opportunity in the sense that the law is meant to serve society, not a special interest group. Furthermore, when a law is not reflective of social norms it is ignored. Civil disobedience in the form of piracy is one example. The challenge is how to make the public aware that these industry sponsored laws are an anathema to liberty.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No it's NOT Thinking Big
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: No it's NOT Thinking Big
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: No it's NOT Thinking Big
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: No it's NOT Thinking Big
Not if Big Bob has his Big way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No it's NOT Thinking Big
2. The people already get the abuse that Copyright does when they only need to read around. To be honest then I did promote some advanced SOPA/PIPA concepts myself which did go around and put fear into people. I could not even say myself if it was true but the theory fitted the facts. Terms like "land grab" are those which work best.
3. Everyone hates big brother and corrupt politics. To be detached from that and instead from the Interwebz seems quite a bonus. A few memes would soon convince them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Reservation
I am just not sure we would be welcomed to start writing new laws and then those MPAA/RIAA bunch would only seal the room and start a fire. "Lets cut the copyright span down to 30 years. Do you smell smoke?"
Maybe what we just did may have impressed them enough. SOPA and PIPA were on fast track for easy passage then only in a short span of time over 6000 websites mobilized over 8 million voting Americans to have these bills shot down.
It is not hard to miss that those same 8+ million plus can swing election votes. These same people would sure as hell welcome a few branches in the tree of Copyright to be pruned.
Most of us do not have a problem with copyright in terms of stopping commercial exploitation but we want them to adapt to this new market with lawful services.
The span of copyright does need to be reduced and then the Public Domain sure as hell need a lot more respect than what it is given. This is not the crap leftovers but a public resource of ideas and enjoyment.
Congress has for too long been the Copyright Fortress and abuser of the world. We can understand their reasons but it is not like we welcome what they do. Clearly more people mobilize against the abuses of Copyright as each day passes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Reservation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Reservation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Without public outcry, the blackout would have failed. The first step is to keep the debate open and in front of the public so they aren't caught so clueless about what's going on.
That's gonna be hard when most people are living lives that have nothing to do with the inner workings of the internet and their news comes from sound bites or headlines off readers. Issues like SOPA/PIPA aren't "entertainment" and cause most folks to fall asleep.
Apathy is the real enemy.
The blackout worked because it was a novelty. It won't be as successful the next time.
I was surprised that most of the lobby money came from TV and Cable - followed by entertainment. They control the "news".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
In fact I will show you one...
http://imgur.com/gallery/4096B
Impressed yet? People do create some wonderful things to reflect developments. Then right there you have "fair use" copyright infringement which is used to "create"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I laughed! I cried!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You can also see that they do have news photos including about Congress so it is educational. Photos are linked to sites like Reddit to increase viewers.
That one photo does wonderful things showing that we can all stand together to protect the Internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Where to go Next
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Without public outcry, the blackout would have failed. The first step is to keep the debate open and in front of the public so they aren't caught so clueless about what's going on.
That's gonna be hard when most people are living lives that have nothing to do with the inner workings of the internet and their news comes from sound bites or headlines off readers. Issues like SOPA/PIPA aren't "entertainment" and cause most folks to fall asleep.
Apathy is the real enemy.
The blackout worked because it was a novelty. It won't be as successful the next time.
I was surprised that most of the lobby money came from TV and Cable - followed by entertainment. They control the "news".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Make no mistake we need to take the fight to them directly and in the open, don't let them use the rules for radicals against us, or in the end we are doomed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/20/opinion/smith-sopa-support/index.html?hpt=hp_bn9
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And that is the problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And that is the problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The only way to fight them is by hurting their income. By boycotting alone is not enough. You have to actively discourage others from funding MPAA and RIAA.
You can start by going to bedbugregistry.com or bedbugreports.com and mark all theaters near you as having bedbugs.
Go to yelp.com or googlemaps and write negative reviews citing bad customer service and linking to people being arrested for filming short segmets of a movie: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/01/AR2007080102398.html
You can also go to rottentomatoes and imdb and give negative review to the recent blockbusters.
Be proactive, find other websites where you can use rating tools and reviews to discourage people from shelling out their cash to MPAA and RIAA.
Make an impression that going to the movies is not safe and a waste of time. Make it uncool to buy CDs and DVDs from the big name media stores. Create memes, like "every time you buy a CD a kitten dies". Or whatever sticks.
If enough people join this form of protest against MPAA and RIAA there will be a significant and noticable impact on their income. We have the tools to show our displeasure and it's about time we start using them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
THE GREAT BLACKOUT of 2012
I blacked-out all of my websites. The few hundred visitors that frequent them seemed to support the effort. I lost only one subscriber from my mailing list. I salute the subscriber who left because that person exercised the right that I was fighting for – the right to get uncensored information and to choose for him/herself what to do with that information.
Defeating SOPA – PIPA pales in comparison to what is an historic event; THE GREAT BLACKOUT of 2012. The blackout was a demonstration of the FIRST EVER TRULY FREE PRESS - internet bloggers, website publishers , search engines, social networks, classified advertising, and the average day to day guy with a Facebook page – in unison took down the what is arguably one of the most powerful lobbies in Washington – the music and film industry.
Whether you support or oppose SOPA – PIPA you should be in awe of what has happened in the last three days.
This is a demonstration of what can be done by those willing to stand up and be counted.
This is democracy at its finest.
Long live the people.
Dan Laget
The Campus Herald
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hello? Large pink elephant visible!
Senator admits to being bought.
Lobbyist angry paid for politicians not falling into line.
No one else says anything.
Unless we fix this fundamental problem with the way the govt works, sopa and pipa type legislation will keep coming at us until we drown in it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hello? Large pink elephant visible!
I have no doubt that there is a public.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Here's where I thing we should go from here ...
I'd suggest that we need a concerted effort to get real changes in the IP laws in the USA. How about making fair-use a well defined right just to start?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Here's where I thing we should go from here ...
You can only make a deal with someone willing to deal and so far they haven't. Was the debate open while writing SOPA PIPA? Offers were made and turned down.
When they have been willing to deal - they have backslided on every agreement. Just listen to the mentality. They feel entitled to earn a living from everything the public sees and hears. It's truley astounding elitism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
OK, So SOPA And PIPA Are Both On Hold: Where Do We Go From Here?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: OK, So SOPA And PIPA Are Both On Hold: Where Do We Go From Here?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Another suggestion
[ link to this | view in chronology ]