Senator Leahy Hands Republicans A Gift By Giving Them Credit For Delaying Vote On PIPA/SOPA
from the do-these-people-have-no-clue? dept
We've noted how intellectual property issues are historically non-partisan. Sometimes, that's good, because it means that debates on the issues don't fall into typical brain dead partisan arguments. Sometimes, it's bad, in that it basically means both Republicans and Democrats are generally really bad on IP issues... happy to give industries greater and greater monopoly rights for no good reason. However, we noted an interesting thing happening on the way to the collapse of PIPA and SOPA: the Republicans were first to come together as a party and decide to speak out against these bills, recognizing the groundswell of public interest. That resulted in Republican leadership coming out against the bills, and Republican Presidential candidates all rejecting the approach in the bill. The Democrats, who have traditionally been considered more "internet friendly," simply couldn't bring themselves to go against Hollywood and unions -- two regular allies.However, as many more net savvy Democrats have explained, this appears to be a major miscalculation on the part of Democratic party leadership -- potentially losing an entire younger generation of voters to the Republicans. Already, mutliple strategists have been suggesting that the Republican Party use this as a chance to cozy up with Silicon Valley, despite its typically "blue" leanings (though, generally with a strong libertarian bent). It certainly appears that the Republicans are ready to do just that. House majority leader, Eric Cantor recently tweeted about meeting with Sergey Brin.
The Democratic leadership, however, still doesn't seem to recognize the importance of the tech community and the wider internet. Rather than learning anything from what happened last week, PIPA sponsor Senator Leahy is actually trying to blame the Republicans for killing PIPA. It's (yet again) an amazingly tone deaf response. It's as if he's pushing the internet and the tech community right into the Republicans' arms. Perhaps he's making a bet that those constituencies don't matter as much as Hollywood... but that seems like a pretty risky bet to make.
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: copyright, democrats, patrick leahy, pipa, politics, protect ip, republicans, sopa
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Corrupted Lying Washington
Everyone here has probably clicked on the links and read thru the many News Stories and the Government's own Public Information.It is rather obvious to anyone sane just what is going on in our Government and what is going on in the Big Content Industry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Corrupted Lying Washington
http://news.yahoo.com/googles-4q-lobbying-bill-triples-3-76-million-205546163.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Corrupted Lying Washington
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Corrupted Lying Washington
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If the discussions I've been seeing all over the internet are in any way representative of the bigger picture, many younger Americans are completely fed up with the Donkey vs Elephant politics.
The Democrats may have lost the younger generation, but I don't think the younger generation went to the Republicans...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
We'll have to see whether they have their eyes on the long game.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
For the Republicans to get the younger vote, they would need to be the Pirate Party.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I think you'd be surprised how easy it would be to get an education - a whole education, not a McEducation - without the DOE.
The think one of the things people miss about the libertarian philosophy is how spectacularly motivating it is to be without so many safety nets.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It led to massive povery, massive health problems and vaste swathes of the population going without education altogether.
This whole thing has been done and was a demonstrable failure for the vast majority, in that it is like the prohibition on drugs coming after the prohibition of alcohol.
Nothing about the effects cannot be predicted and only the mad believe that doing the same thing again will bring about a different result.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Wow, sounds like just what we need.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You realise that those that want properly free markets are generally against prohibition, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Rather, it is that repeating a failed policy (e.g., prohibition; laissez faire) is likely to lead to another failure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's kind of like how insurance corrupted and ruined the medical industry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Just ask a Somali pirate!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Wow, wonderful.
No one is more motivated than a starving 3 year old to find food. If only we'd remove those safety nets, he could go get it without all that damn government interference.
Libertarianism, like all other utopian schemes, is a road to dystopia.
Just moronic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
There's a reason people like the Koch brothers support the Tea Party and other so-called libertarian ideologies. If you start out wealthy and influential, libertarianism is a government regulation-free power vacuum just waiting for you to corrupt it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'd definitely be surprised. If you reduce the size of government, will the sacked government workers not need new jobs? Tell me, where will those come from? And also, by reducing those people's purchasing power, you are effectively cutting jobs in other areas. The overall result would be even more unemployment.
"I think you'd be surprised how easy it would be to get an education - a whole education, not a McEducation - without the DOE."
It's a matter of supply and demand. If your libertarian fantasy-land were to happen and there was a "truly free jobs market", then the supply of educated people would strive to meet the demand. No more and no less.
The DOE was giving loans so more people could get complete educations than there was demand -- in other words, cutting it would make it harder to get an education.
"The think one of the things people miss about the libertarian philosophy is how spectacularly motivating it is to be without so many safety nets."
People starving in the streets would be very motivating indeed, huh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Libertarianism is a utopian fantasy. In reality, those seem to always turn wrong, but there's always someone out there saying "Yeah, but we just didn't do it ENOUGH".
They are sounding more and more like the dead-ender Communists than anyone else these days.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And forcing banks to send to poor credit risks to they can have the "American Dream(tm)".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The Community Reinvestment Act is the law you say "forced" the banks to make subprime loans.
Source: http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2011/11/charts-facts-economic-crisis/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What I'm saying is that the data shows that only one of the main originators of subprime loans was subject to that regulation, while the rest were exempt but did it of their own accord.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
There are LOTS of NGOs that do WAY better than their federal counterparts at doing almost everything, they just dont get funding because 'the government already does that'.
Using starvation as an attack Libertarianism is a straw man argument of the worst variety.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
There are LOTS of NGOs that do WAY better than their federal counterparts at doing almost everything, they just dont get funding because 'the government already does that'."
What's the point of taking jobs out of the government if your goal is not to increase efficiency (ie., "doing it way better" like you say)? Newsflash: increasing efficiency means doing the same thing with fewer jobs. What's more, many (if not most) government jobs exist to keep the government's own bureaucracy running.
"Using starvation as an attack Libertarianism is a straw man argument of the worst variety."
It's not a strawman, you just have no counterargument because it's true: if there are no safety nets, some unlucky people WILL make mistakes and end up in absolute poverty. There is no way to dispute that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Your assumption being that if there is no government safety net there is no safety net, as blaktron said:
The idea that just because you take a job away from the Federal Government that it just stops getting done is ridiculous, naive and plain stupid.
As has already been stated charitable giving is higher in countries with lower taxes - the larger the welfare state the less likely people are to give to charity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You keep saying that, but it's not true. Clinton signed the DMCA and many similar bills were also signed by democrats.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
But the Republicans got their in the form of the Tea Party that although put some crazy people there has one good quality, it showed to everyone what a group of people can do, if they have just draft the laws and put forth real guidelines to people who they put there it could have been a historical event, where not one figure moved the people, the people all by itself moved along created laws and put in place the tools(politicians) to see them applied.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Do it. By voting for one of whatever the two parties offers us, the cycle is simply sustained and strengthened. Did you think the revolution was started by the Silent Majority or something?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That's the problem. Dems, Repubs, and everyone else eventually succumbs to the corruption.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Replace the government
1. Very short terms for Congress members.
2. Make it illegal for politicians to get donations from lobbyists and super-packs during election periods; running must use their personal fortune.
2a. Illegal for super-packs, donations and lobbying to politicians period whether it's inside congress/Washington D.C. or outside.
3. Limit how much all political candidates can spend on advertizement.
4. Get rid of electoral college.
These restrictions on politicians would set very fair campaigning. There would be little room for corruption. Plus by limiting how much one can spend on advertizement for campaigning, this makes it fair for everyone and wont' lead to the "richest man wins" in publicity. The common man could run for president.
Of course if donations during elections need to be a necessity, they must be anonymous and reviewed by the DoJ or some other policing sector to make sure no under-the-table deals take place. The penalty would be prison time.
I know this sounds naive and maybe a bit extreme, but the way I look at it, with all the draconian laws putting the general public at disadvantages, I think it's about time we see politicians suffer from like-policies, laws and restrictions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Replace the government
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Replace the government
"3. Limit how much all political candidates can spend on advertizement."
Congratulations, you've just elected Hollywood for your government. I'd think your format assures that already established personalities will have a massive advantage.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Replace the government
Of course, part of the problem is the short terms, in that they have to start running again pretty much as soon as they are elected
2. Make it illegal for politicians to get donations from lobbyists and super-packs during election periods; running must use their personal fortune.
Personal fortunes would clearly advantage the wealthy, make it illegal for them to use any funds other than those raised from voters, with a cap of ten dollars per person as the maximum donation.
If they want to spend ten million dollars, they'll need at least a million supporters, now that seems pretty fair.
2a. Illegal for super-packs, donations and lobbying to politicians period whether it's inside congress/Washington D.C. or outside.
Ban all donations other than those from individuals, and cap those at 10 dollars per person - even if a corporate pseudo person.
3. Limit how much all political candidates can spend on advertizement.
Problem resolved by the limit on donations.
4. Get rid of electoral college.
True, it's a relic of a different time and the reasons for it simply do not apply now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Replace the government
True, it's a relic of a different time and the reasons for it simply do not apply now."
That part you are uniformed about, for the people in sparsely populated stated to have any voice in government it or something much like it is needed.
Not that anyone without a lobbyist has any say in government any more, but still you are giving the strength of the votes to the cities and therefore to the "Haywood pay my electric bill" group, aka the Democrats.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Replace the government
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Replace the government
True, it's a relic of a different time and the reasons for it simply do not apply now."
That part you are uniformed about, for the people in sparsely populated stated to have any voice in government it or something much like it is needed.
Not that anyone without a lobbyist has any say in government any more, but still you are giving the strength of the votes to the cities and therefore to the "Haywood pay my electric bill" group, aka the Democrats.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Replace the government
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Replace the government
There's no reason that we shouldn't have a popular vote for president. It is ridiculous that my vote cast in CA doesn't mean the same thing as someone's vote does in a "swing state" where they go from one side to the other.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Replace the government
http://revolutionarypolitics.tv/video/viewVideo.php?video_id=15915
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Replace the government
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Leahy is irrelevant
Mind you, on classic right/left issues, the Leahy's & Feinsteins will vote so as to coincide with those little checkboxes on the candidate position things. But if it's not a left-right issue, if it's below the radar, then they have shown time & again that their vote is simply for sale to the highest bidder.
Shameful. Mostly its cognitive dissonance, but there's also some true greed in there as well. Washington is broken because of this at-any-cost attitude & only I can fix it. Which I'll do at any cost!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Leahy is irrelevant
Get rid of the Gerrymandered districts to get real candidates and elections.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Leahy is irrelevant
What do you mean, Vermont? The whole state? Leahy's a Senator, and I seem to recall each state gets two. Unless you are claiming that 'states' represent rigged voting districts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Leahy is irrelevant
Get the Gerrymandering out to preserve a truer representation of the people's voice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
One thing I've noticed, people waffle over the other cadidates, but Ron Paul supporters are spectacularly solid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
He's too kooky for the mainstream.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Could Someone Please Fully Qualify "economic threat"?
What the fuck? Where is this "threat" exactly? The only threat I can make out is to the pockets of legislators and that of placing poorly run businesses as a priority over the Constitution, people and reality.
Copyright - FIX IT, IT'S BROKEN. Damn it! Reset.
Hollywood of yesteryear is done, broken and barely relevant - must we drag this on and damage *everything*?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
guess it's up to the voters to decide then
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
FTFY.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
SOPA/PIPA won't matter that much
Younger voters are heavily driven by social issues, and they tend to be much more liberal in their social outlooks than older voters are. Given the choice between a Republican who is anti-gay/anti-choice and and anti-SOPA, or a Democrat who is pro-equality/pro-choice and pro-SOPA, most young people will choose the Democrat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: SOPA/PIPA won't matter that much
They will Grand Theft Auto their way through it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I guess none of them want to be labeled as the representative who bailed out Hollywood.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pick Your Crook
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Pick Your Crook
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Screw them all!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Screw them all!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Take Jay-Z for example.
http://www.whosampled.com/artist/Jay-Z/
The guy stole music from others(i.e. sampled) almost for every single music he ever performed so he is a thief, but there is more if promoting a crime is a crime sure that means that every rap musician is a criminal, every movie that depicts something wrong is criminal, those laws won't stop at the "copyright content" those things will get expanded to include others forms of crime and artists will find themselves in hot waters.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Libertarians Rising
And yes, the democrats are every bit as bad as the Republicans. If you want to reject the expansion of the police state, vote Libertarian. GaryJohnson2012.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
SOPA and Democrats
But the Democrats are slow to recognize the threat of SOPA and PIPA. Important, yes, as important as destroying the middle class, NO!
However, with a characteristically unthinking, knee-jerk reaction, the "informed people" will kill themselves by supporting the GOP (and more "Welfare for the Wealthy). Smart, really smart - I don't think!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]