As SOPA/PIPA Still Loom, Techies Already Creating Workarounds

from the of-course-they-are dept

While there's still a fight over whether or not SOPA and PIPA will pass, it seems that people are already working up basic hacks to make the laws obsolete, should they pass. The folks behind MAFIAAFire, the browser plugin designed to route around ICE seizures has created a new offering, dreadfully named "The Pirate Bay Dancing," which will route around any DNS or IP blocking by using a rotating list of proxy servers. If you thought that ICE was upset about MAFIAAFire, you'd have to imagine they won't be at all pleased about this bit of code. Of course, SOPA does have an anti-circumvention clause in there, which would effectively make this plugin illegal. Of course, I can't see how they could possibly enforce something like that. Using a proxy in general is legal. How will they know if you're using a proxy to get around these particular blocks? Either way, it's yet another example of why the MPAA's insistence that DNS blocking remain in the bill shows (yet again) how technically clueless they are. DNS blocking is a total waste of time. It makes the internet less secure. It fragments key pieces of the internet. Breaks the basic agreement of how the internet is supposed to work... And all for what? To create a system that won't actually block much at all?

Filed Under: blocking, circumvention, dns, ip blocking, mafiaafire, pipa, pirate bay dancing, protect ip, sopa, technology, workarounds

MPAA Pretends To Capitulate On SOPA, Will Offer Changes For 'Legitimate Concerns'

from the yeah,-ok dept

This is barely even worth mentioning, but it's making some news, so we'll point it out. The MPAA's point man on SOPA/PIPA, Michael O'Leary, told the press today that they're willing to "tone down" the legislation in response to the "legitimate concerns" raised:

“We will come forward with language that will address some of the legitimate concerns” of technology companies that have opposed the Stop Online Piracy Act in the House, and a similar Protect I.P. Act in the Senate, Mr. O’Leary said.

First of all, this is nothing new. Rep. Lamar Smith, the official sponsor of the bill had already been on record using that exact same phrase: "legitimate concerns." The thing is, what they consider to be "legitimate concerns" are basically none of the concerns that many people have raised.

The more telling point in all of this is the outright admission that the MPAA is the one writing the bill. We've seen some reports making the rounds where defenders of the bill keep insisting "this bill isn't being written by Hollywood," but in the quote above, you can see that O'Leary is confirming that the MPAA is providing the language. The NYTimes report makes this point even clearer:

He said those who were pushing the far-reaching antipiracy legislation have been huddling with Congressional staff members from both parties and both the House and Senate in the last few days, in an effort to answer some objections raised by Google, Yahoo and others who say the bills reach too far.

Notice who's not included in those discussions? That's right. Everyone who raised objections. How the hell do you address concerns if you don't actually include the people who are concerned? The answer is you don't, and the whole thing is a sham. O'Leary also points out that most of the tech folks still won't be satisfied, which basically is an admission that he doesn't actually care about the concerns. From there he starts making stuff up:

“It’s all rhetoric and there are no proposals,” he said of the position staked out by the opponents to the bills. “From where I sit, it’s hard to see that as anything but a pretext for running out the clock and preserving the status quo.”

The thing is, O'Leary knows that's untrue. He knows damn well that plenty of folks have presented or are working on alternative proposals. It's just that when they're not allowed in the discussion at all, it's kinda difficult to have those proposals heard. Meanwhile, as we noted earlier, Senator Wyden has already said he's working on an alternative bill. Pretending otherwise is simply false.

Filed Under: copyright, michael o'leary, pipa, protect ip, sopa
Companies: mpaa

Keith Olbermann, No Longer Afraid Of Corporate Parent Interference, Willing To Talk On Air About PIPA/SOPA

from the stand-up-to-the-man dept

We've noted widespread, mainstream media coverage of the massive problems with both SOPA and PIPA (PROTECT IP). With papers like the NY Times and the LA Times coming out against SOPA, this isn't just a fringe issue any more. But you know where it's been almost totally absent? TV news. In particular, cable news has been totally ignoring the concerns with the bill. Want to take a guess as to why? Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that all of the big TV news channels -- Fox News, MSNBC and CNN -- happen to be owned by the very companies that are the biggest supporters of this bill. NBC Universal, of course, has been making a big push to get the bills approved. Think they would allow SOPA/PIPA criticism on the air?

So, it's interesting to see that someone who is willing to discuss this issue on TV is Keith Olbermann. Love him or hate him (and I recognize the strong emotional feelings he brings out in people), he's still a big name in TV news... just not on one of the big channels any more. As you may recall, he had a bit of a "falling out" with MSNBC. One of the points he made when he signed on with Current TV was that he constantly felt some pressure not to piss off corporate ownership:

During the conference call, Olbermann acknowledged another upside in his new arrangement: not being tied to a larger corporation like Comcast or G.E. Olbermann said the “purity of this operation” is that he doesn’t have to worry about whether what he says on air will affect the conglomerate's other non-news businesses.

"There is nothing on my shoulder other than getting the best news, information and commentary show on the air every day," Olbermann said, adding later that in writing practice shows, "I’ve stopped myself from stopping myself."

Thus, it should come as no surprise that while the big cable channels seem to have a blackout on anything criticizing these bills, Olbermann had Senator Wyden come on to discuss the problems with the bill, as well as some of Wyden's suggestions for ways to fix the bill. Wyden also noted that he's working on a bipartisan alternative bill that doesn't involve censorship or breaking fundamental tenets of the internet, and which (hopefully) won't hold back innovation online. We'll certainly be interested to see what he comes up with.

Either way, it kind of makes you wonder how much longer the big cable news channels can continue to ignore the story... and what that says about the editorial independence of their reporters and commentators. Still, the message should be loud and clear for those working at any of those stations: if your corporate bosses get pissed off at you for challenging them on SOPA/PIPA... the internet will be quite happy to embrace you.

Filed Under: journalism, keith olbermann, pipa, protect ip, ron wyden, sopa
Companies: nbc universal

Best Selling Author Barry Eisler On Copyright, Piracy And Why SOPA/PIPA Are 'Extremely Disturbing'

from the papyrus-scrolls-are-difficult-to-pirate dept

I've written about best-selling author Barry Eisler a few times, for his recent decisions to turn down a half million dollar publishing deal in order to focus on alternative paths to bringing his books to market (first self-publishing ebooks and then doing a deal with a much more innovative and nimble Amazon). I had the pleasure of meeting up with Barry for lunch recently, where we had a fascinating conversation on a variety of topics -- some of which we decided to turn into a few interview posts for Techdirt. The first one is on copyright, a subject Eisler is quite familiar with. Prior to becoming such a successful author... he was an IP lawyer. Of course, now, as an author, many might think he would support stricter copyright laws, but he actually goes the other way and makes a bunch of cogent points not just on copyright in general, or even the legal proposals like SOPA and PIPA, but also why we're in such a situation with those laws being proposed.

Techdirt: While millions of people know you as a bestselling novelist, many people might not realize that prior to your career as a writer you were an intellectual property lawyer. Obviously, the combination gives you an unusual perspective on the question of copyright law. What are your thoughts on the state of copyright law today?

Eisler: It’s out of balance. The purpose of copyright laws—indeed, the purpose of intellectual property laws generally—is to create a limited monopoly on the part of the copyright holder sufficient to incentivize artists and inventors to create. The theory behind copyright is that without a means by which they might profit from their work, many artists might not bother, in which case the wider society would be denied the benefit of paintings, movies, music, novels, software, etc. But extending the monopoly past the point at which it creates the incentive itself is harmful to society, because doing so keeps copyrighted works out of the public domain. Think of it this way: anything beyond what’s required to incentivize artists is a windfall to artists and a detriment to society.

Historically, copyright law has moved in one direction only—it’s expanded. A common theory of copyright is that great protections must be good for authors, and if it’s good for authors, it’s good for the public. In your experience, is that accurate... and as an author, how do you feel about this view of copyright law?

Many people approach the question of how long a copyright should endure from the standpoint of what’s fair to artists (purely coincidentally, many of these people are artists). “But the artist created it!” the thinking goes. “Shouldn’t she profit?”

The answer is yes—but unless you believe that, for some sort of artist-centric moral reason, the artist should profit forever (along with her heirs into perpetuity), the next question is, “For how long?” And this question is properly answered not only by reference to profits for artists, but also by a consideration of benefits for society.

Imagine you’re starting a new country and that you have three alternatives for the creation of the country’s copyright law. You can have no protection for artists at all, in which case less art and fewer useful inventions will be produced, meaning that society is denied the benefit of these unproduced items. Second, you can have copyright protection lasting forever, in which case art and inventions will be available but always at a price. Third, you can have a limited copyright term just sufficient to incentivize the production of art and useful inventions, in which case art and inventions will be available and in relatively short order will become part of the public domain. Of these three possibilities, if your primary concern is what is good for the wider society, you’ll design your copyright laws based on #3, and you won’t have a term that’s a day longer than what you judge necessary to incentivize artists and inventors.

Copyright terms have grown to be over a century. No reasonable person can claim that, with a term of less than a century, artists wouldn’t be adequately incentivized to create. So current copyright terms are clearly too long from the standpoint of what’s best for society overall. Personally, I think a twenty-five year term would be more than enough. Anyone who claims he wouldn’t bother creating if he could only commercially exploit his creation for a quarter century wasn’t going to create anything worthwhile anyway.

Frequently, the battles over copyright law are positioned as being the “tech industry” vs. the “content industry.” And yet, many of the innovations from the tech industry have resulted in a much healthier content industry—since the tech world provides many of the tools that help create, distribute, promote and monetize works. As someone who’s lived in both worlds, is this a battle between two sides? If not, why do you think many view it that way?

I don’t see it as a battle at all, for precisely the reason you articulate. For example, I sell more books now in digital than I ever did in paper, so without the advent of digital distribution technology, I’d be making less of a living from my books. Now, digital enables piracy in a way paper never did, so you might argue that digital is bad for authors, but this argument is belied by my own bottom line and that of increasing numbers of other authors. In fact, anyone who thinks that new distribution technology, by enabling piracy, must be bad for artists must also believe artists were better off in the age of papyrus scrolls and stone tablets, which, as we all know, are notoriously difficult to pirate.

Anyway, all these concerns about new technologies enabling piracy are missing a larger and more important point. To prove that piracy has hurt an artist’s profits, you have to demonstrate that: (i) the artist would be making more money in the absence of the pirate-enabling technology than in its presence (that is, that for example a novelist would be making more money in a pure paper world than in an increasingly digital one); and (ii) pirates, if somehow denied the opportunity to pirate the artist’s work for free, would have instead purchased a legitimate copy. These are exceedingly difficult things to prove and so far as I know no one has ever offered empirical evidence in support. By contrast, there is ample empirical evidence to show that piracy actually boosts legitimate sales.

One other thing you’d have to do to prove that piracy is harmful: you’d have to screen out the benefits of piratical word of mouth. Because how many legitimate copies were purchased as a result of the wider awareness of the work caused by pirates accessing it for free? Novelist J.A. Konrath, for example, practically begs people to pirate his books, and has sold over a half-million legitimate copies in part as a result. Anyone who believes there’s no word-of-mouth benefit to piracy must also believe there’s no word-of-mouth benefit to library loans.

The only way to fight piracy, and the best way to turn it to your advantage, is with cost and convenience. Fighting piracy with DRM and lawsuits is not only futile; it’s actually detrimental to the artist’s bottom line.

As to why some people insist on viewing the relationship between content and distribution technology as a battle, I think it’s a manifestation of a weird but widespread human tendency to think in either/or terms when more often things are both. Look at the way digital publishing is often discussed, with many people, including authors, insisting that writers must be legacy-published or self-published when common sense and empirical evidence demonstrate that in fact, authors can (and often should) be both.

I think there’s an element of fear at work, as well. After all, if we’re making a living one way and something disruptive comes along, it’s natural to see the new thing as a threat to what’s established rather than as an enabler of something even better, and we’ll often fight the new thing rather than opening our minds and figuring out a way to embrace and exploit it. Natural, but from a business standpoint, counterproductive.

Do you have any thoughts specifically about the new bills proposed in Congress to expand copyright law (SOPA in the House, PROTECT IP in the Senate) by making third party service providers liable for certain forms of infringement and/or requiring them to cut off access and services to accused websites?

I’d call these bills insane except that, like many bills that seem insane when you judge them by their ostensible purposes, this one begins to make a great deal of sense when you understand what it’s really intended to do. For example, you might wonder why the Bush administration scooped up thousands of terror suspects and tortured them in Guantanamo and black sites, or why Obama administration has been so public about its torture of accused Wikileaks whistleblower Bradley Manning. Both cases, at first blush, seem to be public relations disasters for the politicians in question, and it’s only when you understand what these politicians are in fact trying to accomplish—a demonstration that the US government can pluck you out of any recognizable legal framework, prevent you even from access to a lawyer and from visits from the Red Cross, hold you indefinitely and abuse and torture you mercilessly—that you can begin to understand that these policies are not insane, but are instead carefully designed to strike fear into the hearts of anyone who might oppose US policy or undermine its obsessive secrecy.

Similarly, you might think Obama’s attempts at health insurance reform were a fiasco, until you realize that it makes perfect political sense for him to pay lip service to progressive goals so as to garner progressive votes, and then blame Republican obstruction for the failure to achieve those goals and for the passage of insurance industry-serving legislation instead, thereby ensuring continued receipt of industry campaign contributions. Votes from the base; money from the corporations. Every politician’s wet dream, and no accident when it happens.

So yes, on the surface, the notion that the government might via SOPA shut down any website that doesn’t police content to the government’s satisfaction seems insane—as insane as penalizing kitchen knife manufacturers for stabbings or automotive companies for drunken driving or telcos for crank calls. But when you consider that SOPA will not only grant content providers enormous power to intimidate and disable content outlets of which they disapprove—a shortcoming that has been extensively covered here on Techdirt and elsewhere—but also that SOPA will give the government, too, unprecedented power to police Internet content, you start to understand that from a certain nefarious perspective, SOPA begins to make a great deal of sense indeed. And for anyone who values Internet freedom, such a purpose and result should be extremely disturbing and worthy of a fight.

As someone who has long relied on new technologies yourself—and who is now betting strongly on ebooks—do you worry about the unintended consequences of bills like these to actually do more harm than good to your own efforts as an author?

I do. Every time content providers try to slow, control, or stop new distribution technology, they wind up hurting not just consumers, but also themselves. Hollywood fought television and then video recorders, both of which turned out to be huge Hollywood moneymakers after Hollywood’s litigation attempts failed. The music industry succeeded in destroying Napster, and in the process helped turn Apple into the world’s largest online music retailer, with the record labels as its supplicants. Lower-cost, more efficient distribution methods are developments content providers should embrace, not attempt to stymy, and fighting technologies that benefit consumers is about the best way I can imagine to lose money, create new pirates, and seed business opportunities to competitors.

And of course, then there’s the problem of a new Chinese-firewall level of governmental control over content. But as I note above, that’s not an unintended consequence. That one is by design.

What would you say to the big traditional publishers in New York who think laws like this are necessary?

I’d tell them to make original mistakes instead of repeating ones already made by the music and movie industries. I’d tell them to stop relying on monopoly rents to shore up their business and learn to compete in the digital marketplace, instead. I’d tell them that properly understood, digital distribution is an enormous opportunity, not a threat, and if they could only focus on building windmills rather than windbreaks, they could survive and even thrive in the digital world that, whether they like it or not, is fast displacing analogue.

Thanks to Barry for an enjoyable conversation. We'll have a further discussion more specific to publishing and his experiences there soon....

Filed Under: barry eisler, copyright, pipa, protect ip, sopa

Questionable 'Consumer' Group Releases Most Misleading Report Imaginable, Falsely Claiming People Support SOPA

from the how-to-lie-with-stats dept

The supporters of SOPA/PIPA practically shoved each other aside this week to hype up a "study" released by the "American Consumer Institute,*" which claims that Americans support things like SOPA and PIPA by a wide margin (basically 80%). Of course, the actual survey used suggests no such thing. If it were true, there wouldn't be so much grass roots opposition to the bills (and hardly any grassroots support).

The details of ACI's study suggest why it got the responses it wanted -- it's basically because they asked ridiculous, leading questions where the answers are obvious, rather than asking anything about what people are really concerned about. You can see the full results here, and the questions have nothing to do with what SOPA/PIPA actually do. These are the three key ones:

3. Would you support or oppose legislation that would increase criminal penalties for anyone who knowingly sells counterfeit goods, equipment and parts to the U.S. military?

A. Support (80%)
B. Oppose (14%)
C. DK/Refuse (6%)

4. Would you support or oppose legislation that would increase criminal penalties for anyone who knowingly sells counterfeit drugs and medicines to Americans online?

A. Support (81%)
B. Oppose (13%)
C. DK/Refuse (6%)

5. Would you support or oppose legislation that would help block foreign-based Internet websites from trafficking counterfeit goods, content or services to Americans?

A. Support (79%)
B. Oppose (14%)
C. DK/Refuse (7%)

Note, first of all, that nowhere does ACI ever actually say what the current criminal penalties are for such offenses. That right there makes the whole thing pointless. How can you ask someone if penalties should be worse or better when most respondents have no idea what the current penalties are. It's like me asking you "do you think I should walk my dog more or less each day." Since you have no clue how much I currently walk my dog, it's a totally meaningless question. You don't ask an "increase/decrease" question when people have no idea what the starting position is... unless your intent is to mislead.

And, of course, these questions are designed to get people to say "support." In fact, the only really surprising thing is that anyone said "oppose." Nobody wants counterfeits going to the military or for counterfeit drugs to be sold to people. But those are the very narrow and extreme cases that supporters of SOPA and PIPA rely on in trying to push this bill forward. If SOPA and PIPA focused solely on stopping people from knowingly selling actual counterfeit military products and drugs, I would support the bill. I don't think many people would oppose it. The problem is that the bill goes way, way, way beyond that, and targets a ton of stuff that have absolutely nothing to do with the military or drugs.

Finally, when you have a five question survey, and you kick it off with the first four questions all being about "horrors" associated with the absolute worst of the worst in counterfeiting -- the parts that everyone agrees should be dealt with -- and then you finish up with a broad question about supporting legislation that would "block foreign-based Internet websites from trafficking counterfeit goods, content or services to Americans?" of course people are going to say yes. You've led them down that path.

At no point did ACI actually explain what SOPA and PIPA really do or the much wider impact they would have. Nowhere does it explain that the mechanism behind the bill is to censor websites, using the same functional system as the Great Firewall of China. Nowhere does it mention that even the leading legal experts who support SOPA and PIPA admit that the bills will censor protected speech. In other words, nowhere does the study actually ask about SOPA and PIPA. Instead, it asks about some mythical version that the US Chamber of Commerce and the MPAA want you to believe SOPA and PIPA are about.

And, of course, we've actually seen what happens when a real academic does a study that asks people about the things really found in the bill: they don't support it.

* You should be quite wary of the "names" of various groups. There are multiple reports out there that suggest that the American Consumer Institute is purely an astroturfing group, with no actual consumer mandate or interest. It came on the scene a few years ago, started by a former big telco exec, and was almost exclusively focused on putting out research that (conveniently) claimed that everything the big telcos wanted was actually wonderful for consumers. Even Consumers Union -- the well-respected publisher of Consumer Reports -- and who really does have a reputation for looking out for consumers -- has called out the American Consumer Institute and questioned why its positions seem to contradict that of "nearly every other major consumer group." Make of that what you will.

Filed Under: astroturf, consumers, copyright, pipa, protect ip, research, sopa
Companies: american consumer institute

The Hypocrites Of Congress: Who Voted Against Net Neutrality, But For SOPA/PIPA

from the just-checking dept

An interesting article by Grant Gross over at PC World notes the hypocrisy of many in Congress who screamed loudly about how net neutrality was a dangerous attempt by government to "regulate the internet," but are now the main supporters of SOPA. We already highlighted one of these, Rep. Marsha Blackburn, who went so far as to create a video hysterically warning about the dangers of regulating the internet: As we noted at the time, many of her arguments apply equally to SOPA's regulation of the internet, but she just doesn't seem to get it. Here are just a few of her arguments:

But some people fear that without government intervention, that entrepreneurs and innovators are going to hijack the internet that you enjoy... the World Wide Web! This has never happened and there has never been a time that a consumer has needed a federal bureaucrat to intervene.... Here's what they want to do: Take the private internet and put it all under government control. Think about it: what's going to happen to the next Facebook innovator, if they have to go apply with the government to get approval to develop a new application. And what would happen to your small business, if you had to depend on internet speeds that Uncle Sam says is going to be okay.... We want to keep [the internet] open, free and prosperous.

How that doesn't apply equally to SOPA... I don't know. But she's listed as a co-sponsor. Funny, that. Especially since SOPA is likely to have a much more direct impact on "the next Facebook innovator" than anything in the (yes, poorly designed) net neutrality rules put forth by the FCC.

Unfortunately, Gross's article only names a few names. But not all of them. So we thought we might as well do that. Below, for your viewing pleasure, the list of hypocritical Congressional Reps and Senators who claim to be against regulating the internet, but have no problem doing so when it comes to SOPA or PROTECT IP (PIPA):

• Rep. Marsha Blackburn, Tennessee
• Rep. Mary Bono Mack, California
• Rep. John Carter, Texas
• Rep. Steven Chabot, Ohio
• Rep. Elton Gallegly, California
• Rep. Robert Goodlatte, Virginia
• Rep. Tim Griffin, Arkansas
• Rep. Peter King, New York
• Rep. Thomas Marino, Pennsylvania
• Rep. Alan Nunnelee, Mississippi
• Rep. Dennis Ross, Florida
• Rep. Steve Scalise, Louisiana
• Rep. Lee Terry, Nebraska
• Sen. Lamar Alexander, Tennessee
• Sen. Kelly Ayotte, New Hampshire
• Sen. Roy Blunt, Missouri
• Sen. John Boozman, Arkansas
• Sen. Saxby Chambliss, Georgia
• Sen. Thad Cochran, Mississippi
• Sen. Bob Corker, Tennessee
• Sen. Michael Enzi, Wyoming
• Sen. Lindsey Graham, South Carolina
• Sen. Charles Grassley, Iowa
• Sen. Orrin Hatch, Utah
• Sen. John Isakson, Georgia
• Sen. James Risch, Idaho
• Sen. Marco Rubio, Florida
• Sen. David Vitter, Louisiana

Of course, the really amazing thing is that SOPA and PIPA are much more about regulating the internet than the FCC's "net neutrality" rules are. I already think the FCC's rules are pretty silly (designed more to protect a few big businesses), but they'll have little to no impact on everyday internet startups. That's not true of SOPA/PIPA. Those rules will have a massive impact on every day startups. So how can supporters of SOPA/PIPA claim to be against "regulating the internet" while signing on to a bill that is almost entirely about regulating the internet?

Filed Under: copyright, internet, net neutrality, protect ip, regulations, sopa

NBC Universal Threatens Partners That They Need To Sign 'Grassroots' Support Of SOPA/PIPA Or It Might Have To Drop Them

from the this-is-getting-sad dept

We've talked about CreativeAmerica, the astroturfing group set up by the major Hollywood studios, pretending to be a "grassroots effort" in favor of SOPA & PIPA. A month ago, we challenged the group's claim that it had "sent 100,000 letters to Congress." Turns out that wasn't true. They had sent 4,191, and then about 33,000 people had "signed a petition" that the group had set up. The math by CreativeAmerica is that each thing sent out three letters: one to your Congressional Representative and one to each of your two Senators. Of course, petitions are mostly ignored. Letters have only slightly more weight -- and based on Creative America's own math, they really only had about 1,400 people sign their letter.

Either way, it seemed somewhat amusing to discover that some of the top execs at NBC Universal have been threatening all NBC Universal suppliers to sign the letter that CreativeAmerica put together or NBC might no longer be able to do business with them:

We are writing to ask you for help on an issue that is one our top business priorities – content theft on the Internet, which is a major threat to the strength of our business. Our major guilds and unions are joining us in the fight to keep our businesses strong so that the tidal wave of content theft does not kill jobs. But if the current trend continues, it’s not too strong to say that this threat could adversely affect our business relationship with you.

Grassroots effort? When NBC Universal's General Counsel, Rick Cotton -- who famously once claimed that piracy was destroying the lowly corn farmer, since people who watch pirated movies don't eat popcorn (or something) -- is threatening suppliers who don't sign on? That's not grassroots. That's just insane. Now, it's true that Cotton wrote this carefully such that you can read it to suggest it means that if this law doesn't pass, NBC Universal's business will be in so much trouble that it has to shut down or cut off deals with suppliers. But it seems pretty clear that the obvious implication is: sign this or we may no longer do business with you.

But, given that "the big guns" at NBC Universal are pushing all their suppliers to directly sign (or else!) the letter found at CreativeAmerica's site, you might think that a lot more people would have signed on. Especially over the last month, with SOPA making so much news. So we went and checked. It appears that 4,673 letters have been sent. A month ago it was 4,191. That's a grand total of 482 new letters sent since we last checked almost a month ago. That means in a month, with this story making major news every which way... and the major studios putting a lot of marketing muscle behind it and even threatening partners to sign on, they only rustled up 482 more signatures. And, since CreativeAmerica claims that each person who signs really sends 3 letters, we should divide that by three.

That gives us 161 new signatures (actually 160.666666 etc -- which makes me wonder what happened to that extra third of a person). 161. In a month.

Meanwhile, a real grassroots campaign turned out one million emails to Congress and 87,834 calls in one day. It should be clear at this point that the public clearly does not support SOPA/PIPA, and no amount of "faking it" is driving any public support.

Filed Under: astroturf, creative america, grassroots, hollywood, protect ip, rick cotton, studios
Companies: creativeamerica, nbc universal

Tech Companies Getting Called Out For Supporting PIPA/SOPA

from the might-not-be-a-wise-move dept

With the growing public sentiment against SOPA/PIPA, it seems that some of their dislike of these bills is coming back to bite tech companies that have lobbied in support of the bill. It appears that some have been combing through OpenSecrets, and discovered that Sony and Nintendo both lobbied in favor of PROTECT IP (PIPA). This isn't a huge surprise, give who we're talking about. Neither company relies that much on an open internet, but is more focused on closed, proprietary systems that may make use of the internet. But, either way, it seems that people's anger is being directed at such companies pretty quickly these days. Makes you wonder if any other tech companies would actually come out in favor of such bills, and risk a public backlash.

Filed Under: pipa, protect ip, sopa, tech companies

Call Your Senators Today: Tell Them To Vote Against Censoring The Internet

from the make-this-stop-already dept

As mentioned last week, there's a big push going on by the MPAA and the US Chamber of Commerce (the largest lobbying organization in the world) to get PROTECT IP voted on and approved in the next few days or weeks. Some in the Senate leadership have decided that with everything else going wrong in the economy these days, they can repackage this as a "jobs" bill, and pretend that they're "helping the economy." Of course, nothing is further from the truth. PROTECT IP (PIPA) is a sure jobs killer in that it will significantly hinder innovation on the internet, including those responsible for millions of new jobs over the past decade. On top of that, it will set up the very first massive internet censorship program within the US. It's hard to see how that's helpful for jobs at all.

The backers of this bill are hoping that since SOPA is even worse than PIPA, there will be less protest and some may see it as a "compromise." That's ridiculous. It's a very dangerous bill that will have long-lasting consequences. If you're an American citizen and believe in the importance of innovation online, today is the day to call your Senators. The folks at Fight for the Future have set up a very easy system to do that. You just put in your info, and it will first give you a quick summary of key points, and then connect you to your Senators. If the Senate realizes that the public really is against this bill, then hopefully they'll finally dump it.

Filed Under: copyright, free speech, internet, pipa, protect ip, regulations, senators, sopa

If You Want To Better Understand SOPA & PIPA, Here's An Article To Read

from the get-to-it dept

Last week, as I was writing my big post on the problems with SOPA & PIPA, Alex Howard, over at O'Reilly's Radar blog, was putting the finishing touches on a massive, but incredibly comprehensive discussion of both bills. If you're just waking up to this issue now and want a really complete analysis of what's going on and how we got here (and why you should be worried about both bills), it really is a fine place to start.

Filed Under: alex howard, censorship, copyright, free speech, pipa, protect ip, sopa