CreativeAmerica Literally Resorts To Buying Signatures

from the grassroots! dept

Wed, Feb 1st 2012 1:08pm — Mike Masnick

Remember CreativeAmerica? This is the slickly produced operation that claims to be a "grassroots" organization in favor of SOPA and PIPA... but which is actually funded by the major studios, staffed by former MPAA employees, and has had all the major studios directly pushing employees and partners to sign up for the program -- even to the point of threatening to take away business if they don't sign.

This is also the group that was caught copying an anti-SOPA activism letter, and using the exact same words as if it was written by themselves (I guess they're fine with plagiarism). It's also been caught using funny math to pump up its tiny number of supporters.

In December, we joked that CreativeAmerica had resorted to buying support, after it released a big (and expensive) advertising campaign all over TV and on some big screens in Times Square. Not exactly a "grass roots" operation.

Either way, it appears the group has gone more direct now: to the point that it's literally paying people for signatures. I've received very credible evidence, that a consulting firm hired by CreativeAmerica is now offering to pay people to get signatures on CreativeAmerica's petition. The following email was forwarded to me, with some details redacted to protect privacy:

the organization I am doing work for is Creative America, which is a grassroots organization that is working to stop foreign rogue websites from illegally distributing American content such as books, music, films, etc.... These specific websites costs the U.S. and the 2.2 million middle class industry workers $5.5 billion in wages and hundreds of thousands of jobs. Your job would be just collecting signatures from whoever is interested in signing up for updates. A newsletter may come once a month and anyone can unsubscribe if they don’t want it. We don’t care if they do; all I care about is getting initial signups.

The hours are flexible and we will pay you $1/signature, so if you collect 100 signatures a week, we would pay you $100/week. We will also pay for you to go to local film festivals in the area (SXSW, Austin Film Festival, etc.). We are also taking as many people as possible, so if you have some friends who are interested in doing it we can take them as well. Let me know your thoughts....

This raises even more questions about the already anemic number of people supporting CreativeAmerica and its pro-SOPA, pro-PIPA, MPAA-driven agenda. As the email makes clear, they're willing to pay as many people as possible to get signatures to make the group look larger than it is. That's pretty crazy. I think we can be pretty sure that the millions of people who spoke out against SOPA/PIPA did so without someone paying them $1 per call or email.

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: astroturfing, buying support, copyright, grassroots, pipa, protect ip, sopa
Companies: creativeamerica, mpaa

85 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 1 Feb 2012 @ 1:13pm

Something about hammers...
When the only tool you have is corruption, everything starts looking like a bribe.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 1 Feb 2012 @ 1:20pm
  
  Re: Something about hammers...
  uhm ....
  
  When the only tool you have is corruption, everything starts looking like a politician?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 1 Feb 2012 @ 1:52pm
    
    Re: Re: Something about hammers...
    Yeah, that's probably better. I was trying for a quick one liner and had trouble finishing it off.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Another AC, 1 Feb 2012 @ 2:28pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Something about hammers...
      I'm still voting funny, for the team effort :)
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 1 Feb 2012 @ 6:17pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Something about hammers...
        A for effort :)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- gorehound (profile), 1 Feb 2012 @ 1:21pm
  
  Re: Something about hammers...
  These guys are scumbags.The MPAA are scumbags.The RIAA are scumbags.The Big Content Industry are scumbags.
  This News Story is not surprising at all.
  Hopefully some very smart IT TYpes will be able to get into the private emails of these Arses and out to the Public the Dirt that we all know exists in the scummy Hollywood Industry.
  Paying off Politicians,Paying Private Citizens Now, and their "LEGAL" ways of Accounting which is the true cause of money loss in the film Industry.
  Boycott Big Content Organization on FB
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 1 Feb 2012 @ 1:22pm
    
    Re: Re: Something about hammers...
    What I want to know is if an IP critic did something like this to a petition opposing IP, will government investigators investigate? Maybe big tech can start paying for petitions to abolish copyright, they can afford to pay a whole lot more and get a whole lot more signatures.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Chosen Reject (profile), 1 Feb 2012 @ 1:25pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Something about hammers...
      Actually, I'd like to get hired to do this. I'll show up at SXSW, Austin Film Festival, or even at etc. under the official SOPA support booth and tell everyone how horrible SOPA is.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 1 Feb 2012 @ 1:41pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Something about hammers...
        I wonder ... if they pay $1 per signature and you worked 1 hour per signature, that sounds like it would violate minimum wage laws. They can pay you by commission, sure, but then laws dictate that the commission must at least meet minimum wage.
        
        Also, buying votes tends to be illegal. Are there any laws against what is happening here?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous 314159, 1 Feb 2012 @ 3:59pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Something about hammers...
        If it's you buying votes, that's illegal. If it's the entertainment industry, then it's perfectly legal.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Feb 2012 @ 6:57am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Something about hammers...
        Once the persons hired to collect the signatures realise that it is much easier to just forge signatures from people found in the local phone book, the hourly rates goes way up. You have to be severely ethically challenged to be on the **AA roster I imagine, so why would they not resort to fraud?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - E. Zachary Knight (profile), 1 Feb 2012 @ 1:56pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Something about hammers...
      The funny thing is (as was pointed out in the article) that the anti-SOPA petitions were gathered for free and ammassed are whole freaking lot more than the pro-SOPA petitions.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 1 Feb 2012 @ 1:26pm
    
    Re: Re: Something about hammers...
    yes yes hell yes, ive had those same thoughts, a worthy cause for anon
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- :Lobo Santo (profile), 1 Feb 2012 @ 1:23pm
  
  Re: Something about hammers...
  Wait, shouldn't that be 'when the only tool you have is bribes, everything starts to look like corruption'?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 1 Feb 2012 @ 1:49pm
    
    Re: Re: Something about hammers...
    Maybe when the only tool you have is money, everyone starts to look like a politician.
    
    Think of it this way. Hammer is a tool that gets applied to nails. Bribes/money is a tool that gets applied to politicians.
    
    Corruption is a tool that gets applied to ... the public (since that's who it hurts)?
    
    I'm sure someone can come up with something funny, but right now I can't.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - The eejit (profile), 1 Feb 2012 @ 2:40pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Something about hammers...
      Corruption is the tool used to rape the public.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Rapnel (profile), 1 Feb 2012 @ 3:14pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Something about hammers...
        Politicians are tools.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 1 Feb 2012 @ 3:23pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Something about hammers...
        Politicians are puppets used to entertain big corporations.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Feb 2012 @ 1:21pm

Talk about desperation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jay (profile), 1 Feb 2012 @ 2:11pm
  
  Re:
  "Will you support Sopa?"
  "Not if you paid me for it..."
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Feb 2012 @ 1:24pm

so the gist of this is, that anyone who argues for these bills might POTENTIALLY have been paid to do so, essentially, sell outs.

and the rest are poor delusional sheep, looking out for the best interests of corporations

yes mike, why yes, i have to agree
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Feb 2012 @ 1:25pm

What are the legal ramifications of this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Greevar (profile), 1 Feb 2012 @ 1:31pm
  
  Re:
  I've never heard of any law against being a lying sleezeball, but I could be wrong.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 1 Feb 2012 @ 1:37pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Are there any laws against buying laws? How do they apply here?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - PlagueSD (profile), 1 Feb 2012 @ 2:21pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I'm sure there are, but due to National Security concerns
      
      [CENSORED]
      
      Thank you for your concern.
      
      RIAA/MPAA
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - The eejit (profile), 1 Feb 2012 @ 2:41pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You misspelled IPDoJ.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- E. Zachary Knight (profile), 1 Feb 2012 @ 1:58pm
  
  Re:
  Paid petition gathers are nothing new. They have been used for quite a few things. Here in Oklahoma, they are used to gather petition signatures for new political parties and to get questions added to the ballot. They come in handy when you have a strict deadline to get a minimum number of signatures. Often times, voluntary gathering doesn't work.
  
  However in this case it merely shows that there is no real grass roots support for SOPA.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 1 Feb 2012 @ 2:13pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Thank you.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - ltlw0lf (profile), 1 Feb 2012 @ 3:03pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Paid petition gathers are nothing new. They have been used for quite a few things. Here in Oklahoma, they are used to gather petition signatures for new political parties and to get questions added to the ballot. They come in handy when you have a strict deadline to get a minimum number of signatures. Often times, voluntary gathering doesn't work.
    
    The funny thing about this is that the unions here tried to use this as a reason why signature-gathering was nefarious a while back. They actually had ads saying that those gathering signatures for petitions were being paid (along with them being criminals,) and thus people should never sign a petition or they were opening themselves up to fraud and identity theft. The goal was to keep people from signing petitions that the unions didn't like, but unfortunately it backfired for them because when they actually wanted people to sign petitions for stuff they wanted, the people wouldn't sign because of fears of identity theft and fraud.
    
    http://libertarianpeacenik.blogspot.com/2011/08/california-radio-ad-hinders-petition.html
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 1 Feb 2012 @ 4:42pm
    
    Re: Re:
    What is the name of that new party? I ran into one of their petitioners and meant to look them up. United Americans or something like that?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 1 Feb 2012 @ 6:52pm
    
    Re: Re:
    I don't see where that is handy.
    If you must pay to gather things quickly you probably didn't had the support anyways.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - E. Zachary Knight (profile), 1 Feb 2012 @ 7:04pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Or it is because of obscene signature amounts. To get a new political party recognized in Oklahoma you need 10% of the votes cast in the last general election. This year that is over 50,000. Two years before it was 75,000.
      
      To get a question on the ballot, depending on what type it is, it can be from 8% to 15%.
      
      On top of the actual amount is the time restraint. One must get all the required signatures in a fairly short period of time. In Oklahoma's case it is 6 months. Next we have the issue of what makes a valid signature. One must clearly print their name, sign their name, fill out the exact address (not a PO box) and date it. Additionally, all signatures have to be grouped by county. If you sign on a page that is not your county, your signature is not valid.
      
      So with all these restrictions and hurdles one must get 1.5x to 2x the number actually required to make sure they get the needed amount. You need a lot of people gathering. While volunteers will work for some of the larger political movements, smaller ones have a need to get paid petitioners.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Capt ICE Enforcer, 1 Feb 2012 @ 1:26pm

Woot I'm Rich
If everyone signs Me, Myself, and I. I will get three times the cash. I love the companies that make no money due to infringing butt pirates. Yet still have cash to pay me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gwiz (profile), 1 Feb 2012 @ 1:30pm

In Related News...
4 out 5 actors hired to portray dentists prefer Trident.

(the fifth is holding out for a better contract)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Gwiz (profile), 1 Feb 2012 @ 1:39pm
  
  Re: In Related News...
  err... 4 out of 5
  
  Geesh. I keep losing small words in my posts lately. If anyone out there is receiving an influx of extra words like "and", "the", "a", or "of", please send them back to me. Thanks.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- btrussell (profile), 1 Feb 2012 @ 5:49pm
  
  Re: In Related News...
  4 out of 5 pro IP people prefer Camels.
  
  The fifth likes women!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Robert (profile), 1 Feb 2012 @ 1:31pm

Sign Me Up
But I don't want $1.

I want full publishing, distribution, licensing, performance rights, and copyright, ownership and control over every copyrighted song and video currently owned by RIAA/MPAA members. Secondly, I want full control and ownership over every patent controlled/owned by Intellectual Ventures, Kodak, Novell, Motorolla, Apple, Sun, Microsoft, etc..

When the bullshit lawsuits stop over "IP violations" and "copyright violations" (and they would because I'd own all of it) only then will I give you my signature and support.

PS: The DOJ cannot act without my permission either.

Seriously though, talk about desperation, paying people to sign in support of legislation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Greevar (profile), 1 Feb 2012 @ 1:33pm
  
  Re: Sign Me Up
  Paying people gather signatures...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 1 Feb 2012 @ 1:51pm
    
    Re: Re: Sign Me Up
    Paying people to gather signatures is OK. Paying them based on the number of signatures they get is at the least ethically grey.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Greevar (profile), 1 Feb 2012 @ 2:26pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Sign Me Up
      I didn't say I agree with it. Giving monetary incentives to get people to sign up as many people as they can is really slimy behavior.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 2 Feb 2012 @ 8:43am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Sign Me Up
      Paying people to gather signatures is OK. Paying them based on the number of signatures they get is at the least ethically grey.
      
      So this is ethically gray and taking music or video from its creator without compensation is cool. Right. You're not freedom fighters, not freeloaders.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 5 Feb 2012 @ 8:31am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Sign Me Up
        taking music or video from its creator without compensation is cool.
        
        Wrong word. "Taking" implies the creator no longer has it. Copying it, or using it without permission is perfectly fine, yes.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 1 Feb 2012 @ 1:51pm
    
    Re: Re: Sign Me Up
    I know they are paying people to push people to sign, I'm just saying they can pay me directly to sign.
    
    I was trying to be funny, but I wasn't clever enough at it for people to get the humour and laugh.
    
    Failed.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 1 Feb 2012 @ 8:14pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Sign Me Up
      Every time I try my attempt at mocking trolls I usually get taken seriously. I guess it's not that easy to tell the trolls apart from the parodies.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Glen, 1 Feb 2012 @ 1:39pm

Usually when you joke about "What's the worse they can do" usually ends up being the case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Feb 2012 @ 1:41pm

What's more grassroots then paying people for their support? That's what free market capitalism is all about, and anyone who disagrees is just a socialist/communist!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- DogBreath, 1 Feb 2012 @ 2:20pm
  
  Re:
  Go away, Chris Dodd.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Gwiz (profile), 1 Feb 2012 @ 2:27pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Go away, Chris Dodd.
    
    Nah, that can't be Dodd. He wouldn't comment anywhere that the public could respond. He stays on his nice safe MPAA blog with the comments closed.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - DogBreath, 1 Feb 2012 @ 5:20pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Your probably right. It's more than likely just one of his many subordinate shills who post everywhere, kind of like spreading manure, to see if anything grows or just attempt to stink up the place.
      
      At least we know for certain it can't be Senator Joseph McCarthy. Last time I checked he was still dead, although I doubt that U.S. Senate rules would preclude him in voting for SOPA.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Cowardly Anonymous, 1 Feb 2012 @ 8:41pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Funny, I could of sworn that was sarcasm from the AC. Please tell me that was sarcasm.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        DogBreath, 2 Feb 2012 @ 4:08pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Oh, it may very well have been sarcasm from the AC, but just in case it actually was Chris Dodd or someone working for him, I couldn't pass up the opportunity to tell them to go away.
        
        Even if it was just a sarcastic remark, I'm sure the AC got as much of kick out of the reply as we did about their post.
        
        Either way, I believe it can serve as an example of that Win-Win scenario people talk about.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Just Syd, 2 Feb 2012 @ 12:08pm
  
  Re:
  You say communist/ socialist like it is a bad thing.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Feb 2012 @ 1:44pm

OH! Wait! They are paying people to work.

A fucking concept that is!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 1 Feb 2012 @ 1:50pm
  
  Re:
  OH! Wait! They are paying people to work.
  
  If so, then they need to obey Federal minimum wage laws. OH! Wait! They're not.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Hephaestus (profile), 1 Feb 2012 @ 3:18pm
    
    Re: Re:
    OH! Wait! They are paying people to work. Look, its more than they pay their artists.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- mischab1, 1 Feb 2012 @ 1:56pm
  
  Re:
  Many states ban paying per signature on ballot initiatives. Paying per hour is fine, per signature is not. The problem is that paying per signature frequently leads to fake signatures and fraud.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Al Bert (profile), 2 Feb 2012 @ 12:14am
    
    Re: Re:
    Fake signatures are still signatures; after all, this industry runs on fraud.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
West Coast Kenny, 1 Feb 2012 @ 1:48pm

Buying signatures
There's nothing wrong about buying signatures. Liberal causes as well as conservative causes pay their signature gatherers per signature. It only sounds bad if you didn't know that's the way it's done.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 1 Feb 2012 @ 2:04pm
  
  Re: Buying signatures
  It only sounds bad if you didn't know that's the way it's done.
  
  I'll argue that it still sounds (and is) bad even if you know that's how it's regularly done. No matter which side is doing it.
  
  Copyright is not a typical liberal/conservative issue, as the SOPA protests demonstrated. Many issues aren't, either, but still end up covered that way, unfortunately.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Gwiz (profile), 1 Feb 2012 @ 2:13pm
  
  Re: Buying signatures
  It only sounds bad if you didn't know that's the way it's done.
  
  Yeah, but it sounds even worse when it's an astroturf group trying to portray itself as a grassroots organization.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 1 Feb 2012 @ 2:24pm
  
  Re: Buying signatures
  This. Paying petition gatherers $1 a signature is quite standard and normal. Otherwise, not enough people would take the time. Paying people to find people to join a political group though, is just odd and reeks of astroturfing.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 1 Feb 2012 @ 3:04pm
  
  Re: Buying signatures
  it is when you consider a bill might pass not because of its merits, but because the other guy has more money
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Feb 2012 @ 1:48pm

I'm sure Amanda Hugandkiss, Seamore Butts, Mike Hunt, and Ivana Screw will sign those petitions multiple times.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The eejit (profile), 1 Feb 2012 @ 2:44pm
  
  Re:
  You forgot F. Hoff and Shi-ton-mai Doorstep, as well as Mickey Mouse and Stone Cold Steve Austin.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
GMacGuffin (profile), 1 Feb 2012 @ 1:54pm

So they're taking a page from California's wholly awful Proposition process, in which folks stand on the street collecting petition signatures (for pay-per-sig) to get a bill to "save the children" on the ballot, which the public then passes at the next election, only to find that the only children saved were those of the special interests who funded the petition drive, through bolstered profits and lowered accountability the new law gave the special interests at the expense of citizens' pocketbooks and civil liberties. Whew...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Feb 2012 @ 2:20pm

org names
How come every organization with a feel-good upbeat patriotic name is a shell organization for some evil filthy greedy corporation that is attempting to use it to ass-rape you, the good honest peace-and-freedom-loving individual, with it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 1 Feb 2012 @ 2:26pm
  
  Re: org names
  If your business is selling something that people don't need, you get really good at selling.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Greevar (profile), 1 Feb 2012 @ 2:31pm
  
  Re: org names
  You catch more flies with honey than vinegar? The bitter pill is easier to swallow with sugar? It's easier for the wolf to hunt the sheep if he dresses like one? I could go on, but you get it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 1 Feb 2012 @ 3:59pm
  
  Re: org names
  Peace & Love Incorporated (warning: tvtropes link)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
JJ, 1 Feb 2012 @ 2:59pm

There are more internet users than there are corporations. Create a fund, people can donate even just a dollar, and then pay $1.25 to gather pro-Internet signatures. With the current stakes, a lot of people would be willing to do it gratis. Start playing the same manipulative games in wording the petition title, i.e. something about saving jobs, protecting children, etc
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Feb 2012 @ 3:15pm

SOP for CA
I almost signed up for their newsletter and so I could submit comments to the user forums on their site. You know, keep track of their lies, know your enemy and all. But I didn't because I realized they would count as a supporter, which I most certainly am not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
fb39ca4, 1 Feb 2012 @ 3:33pm

sweet I'm in
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nick Burns (profile), 1 Feb 2012 @ 4:59pm

Kind of sad when you have to pay for your friends.

This is ripe for gaming the system:
1)Get a name generator
2)have a bunch of friends start signing those names
3)profit!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- techflaws.org (profile), 2 Feb 2012 @ 2:35am
  
  Re:
  Maybe someone should do this, driving up their signatures into the billions so it's even more obvious, it's fake (and might hurt them economically as well).
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Feb 2012 @ 5:58pm

Nuge! Where the hell are you? First pro-SOPA advertisements plastered over America, despite alleged overwhelming support for said laws, and now this? Are you so dispensible now that you can't even come up here and explain yourself?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
btrussell (profile), 1 Feb 2012 @ 6:07pm

2,2 million?
5.5 billion?
$2500/yr?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- btrussell (profile), 1 Feb 2012 @ 6:10pm
  
  Re:
  Somehow my comment got cut off. Here is the rest:
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - btrussell (profile), 1 Feb 2012 @ 6:13pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Okay then, one more time:
    
    $2500/yr is less than $50/wk
    
    They are just trying to hide union dues.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Al Bert (profile), 2 Feb 2012 @ 12:07am

job growth
Oh finally! I was waiting for the entertainment industry to come up with all that job growth they said they provide.

On a side note, i wonder if they'll notice or care if all the petitions are filled out with random repeating garbage by people who just want the ghetto payout.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Josef Anvil (profile), 2 Feb 2012 @ 12:35am

If at first you don't succeed...
I gotta love this. If buying the politicians doesn't work, buy the people they represent.

The funny thing is that they should have done that first and saved themselves some cash. $1 x 10,000,000 voters or $1,000,000 x 60 senators, simple math.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Groove Tiger (profile), 2 Feb 2012 @ 6:00am

This is Big Content. The signature gatherers will probably never recoup.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hmm (profile), 2 Feb 2012 @ 9:20am

All i want to see
is the private emails of the heads of some of these big corporations...

I can imagine in private Murdoch is laughing at parliament and their attempts to "investigate" his business all whilst he's bribing the prime minister to 'disappear' important evidence....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Feb 2012 @ 7:19pm

As much as I hate SOPA and the MPAA it is common practice to pay people to gather signatures. However, in some states it is illegal. If the petition driver isn't paid by the signature than they are generally paid by the hour. Minimum wage is a topic of litigation but for reasons beyond my understanding paying people by the signature doesn't violate minimum wage laws. Some petition drivers are paid minimum wage and then additional commission.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 3 Feb 2012 @ 12:57am
  
  Re:
  It's not so much the legality of the whole thing as opposed to the question: if support for SOPA is unanimous why do you need to pay people to sign for something that should have them coming to sign in droves?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pirate, 8 Jun 2012 @ 1:37pm

I don't think you read that correctly
I'm in no way for creative america myself, but I think you should avoid doing basically what you are accusing them of.

They aren't paying people for signatures according to this email, they are paying people to canvas and collect emails. There is a difference. Doing as this email says is not much different than having someone on payroll to spam the nation and get people to sign up.

If they said you are authorized to OFFER $1 to anyone that signs up then your article title would be correct. But it isn't.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to download Prometheus and burn it to a DVD...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]