"You can be secure that it won't impact you and still take issue with the principle behind the bill... It's a shame that Lamar Smith can't understand that..."
I think you've just underlined a vital element of Representative Smith's character. The idea of standing up for other people's rights is simply alien to him; he can talk about it with some effort, but it doesn't occur to him naturally, and he can't really see it.
Instead of trying to get publicity with a TSA-compliant cupcake,...
Imagine an advertising campaign for cupcakes that terrify the TSA! Big yummy cupcakes with mounds of icing, Arabic script and/or "wiring" in ganache, "Death By Chocolate", "Allah Ak-Berry", "Sweet Revenge". Television spots with stupid, arrogant TSA bullies running in panic from a pretty girl with gorgeous baked goods (by which I mean cupcakes -- by which I mean actual cupcakes). Oh, this could work...
I imagined a bomb squad in full armor creeping up on a cupcake in an evacuated concourse-- then the laugh caught in my throat when I remembered how the Boston police panicked over some silly little light displays, and Logan Airport security tackled a girl because she had some LEDs on her jacket. In both cases the authorities closed ranks and defended their infantile behavior. And some in the public supported them.
"...We are confident that no one who legally owns one of our games has been required to compensate us for copyright infringement..."
Which is not exactly the same as saying that no one who legally owns one of their games has received one of their shakedown letters and "compensated" them out of fear of being dragged into court.
And it's nowhere near saying that no one who does not own one of their games and didn't download one either has coughed up some money.
Come to think of it, how can they even make that statement? They coerced thousands of people-- how can they know that not one of them legally owned a copy of one of their games? They weren't even careful enough to make sure everyone on the list had downloaded one of their games, which should be a lot easier to determine.
I think I'll steer clear of their games for a couple of years, just to be on the safe side.
I don't claim to be an expert in congressional politics, but...
Is it possible that they just want to postpone the vote until after the election, so that they can vote for it with impunity?
The correct countermove is to modify our message: we don't just want the bill not passed, we want it defeated before the election. We should make postponement beyond the election just as toxic as the bill itself, and no neutrality allowed.
So the vital question is whether you can oust a politician for something he did years ago. Can you hold a grudge that long? If you can't, then forgiveness will always be easier to obtain than permission, and you'll get more laws like this.
Quick, without looking, what was the worst legislation of 2008, and who was behind it?
"The tech [giants'] next move should be to get the internet as a whole protected under the First Amendement..."
It already is, in theory, just not in practice. The only way to bring about what you suggest is to get a good ruling in a "People v. Internet" case, preferably from the Supreme Court. Any idea how to make that happen?
This is a very old tactic. When the people you're trying to rob pull together into a serious resistance, compromise: ease up a little, distract, try focusing on some victims so that the others will be tempted to quit and go home, lie low until the heat is off...
The counter-tactic is almost as old: when you catch a thief, you don't just make him give back some of what he stole. At the very least he has to give it all back, and then you either lock him up, flog him or hang him, depending on your circumstances.
It took a great deal of effort to bring this much pressure to bear, millions of hours of work by people who had other things to do. Those responsible should not get away with 90% of what they wanted. Political careers should end over this, companies should take losses they won't recoup for years, if ever. When the next battle in this war comes, all those asked to lead the charge for SOPA-2 should know that it could cost them very dearly.
My guess is that SOPA has been recognized within Capcom as such a live wire that even "no comment" is dangerous (as it should be). So they attempted to distance themselves from the whole question, having a minor spokeswoman direct all inquiries to ESA. Digital Trends quite correctly took Capcom at its word: Capcom is in favor of SOPA. Now Capcom is taking fire, and must retreat. Throwing the (unnamed?) spokeswoman under the bus would only draw more attention, so they must unsay what they said, retreat to a weaselly form of "No Comment" (what does "internal stance" mean?), lock down the forums and hope that some other company will make a similar gaffe soon and draw fire from Capcom.
Refusing to take a stand is one thing, but this kind of duplicity is something else, and I think that as responsible citizens we have a duty to punish companies that behave this way.
I agree with you folks -- and I'm running for office
This is not a reasoned critique of SOPA, and it doesn't predate the net outrage over SOPA. The language of this writeup is weak (quite apart from the sickening abuse of the words "theft" and "literally"), and makes conciliatory nods to the industries who launched SOPA in the first place. It plays on the the most vote-tropic themes (e.g. sending jobs overseas) and doesn't even touch on the deeper principles at stake (e.g. freedom of speech and the right to due process).
Mr. Arnold is joining the procession at the tail end. He wants votes now, but isn't ruling out accepting money later for supporting an "improved" version of SOPA. He might be worth voting for, but he'll definitely need watching later; a position he can assume when the issue is hot is one he can abandon when it cools off.
1) First the plaintiff must persuade the court that the case is not obviously invalid (the plaintiff really does hold the copyright, the defendant appears to have infringed, fair use and safe harbors do not appear to apply, etc.) before the defendant ever gets involved. That will rule out a lot of bogus copyright claims -- it's possible that the entire Veoh case could have been settled by this before Veoh even knew it was being sued.
If the plaintiff can pass that hurdle, the defendant must then respond. The provisional judgements of the first phase have no weight; the plaintiff's arguments are open to challenge and counterargument, and the defendant may require that the case be assigned to a new judge.
2) If the court determines that the suit was clearly without merit from the start (e.g. obvious fair use), then it can strip the plaintiff of the copyright for the material in question; it goes straight into the public domain. And a plaintiff who turns out to have never held the copyright in the first place is really in trouble.
Finally. Someone other than me suggesting that we should change our voting system.
We use plurality voting for almost everything: one round, each voter gets one vote, the candidate who receives the most votes wins. It's so familiar that many Americans are familiar with other systems only in the context of professional sports (which is why I seldom argue about it any more-- I'm tired of the blank looks).
Consider just two of the many alternatives: acceptance voting and ranked-choice voting. These systems are not perfect (no voting system is) but they can largely eliminate many of the problems created by our current system (and many of the criticisms of them are that in some cases they would not give exactly the same results as a plurality vote!). Once you are familiar with alternatives like this, you begin to see some of the biggest problems in American politics (e.g. the power of money in campaigns, the inviability of third parties, the power of a dark horse candidate to split -- and thereby destroy -- the vote of a party, the distorting effect of the electoral college, the endless debate about trivialities) not as inherent in politics or in human nature, but as consequences of a choice of voting method. Anyone who has not given serious thought to these systems has no business pontificating about campaign reform.
In my opinion one of the worst things about plurality voting is that it forces the voter to consider not just the merits of the candidates, but how others will vote. Instead of voting for an outstanding candidate who doesn't stand a chance, a wise voter will try to choose between whichever two candidates seem most likely to win. If everyone thinks you'll lose, you'll lose. This makes electability an important quality in a candidate, maybe the most important, which makes advertising vital in campaigns, which makes money essential.
I don't approve of the particular system you suggest, because it suffers from the same flaw, and it requires as many rounds as it allows candidates (minus one). But it's long past time we had some serious discussion about alternatives.
Political campaigns, including paid advertising, are free speech.
Should we ban political speech that costs money and has a bearing on an election, but wasn't paid for out of the official fund? If I maintain a blog (which costs money) and want to express such a political opinion, should the legality of my expression depend on whether I care about the outcome of the election? Whether I made the connection in my head? Whether my essay was more persuasive in one direction or the another? May I recommend the writings of, say, Voltaire, whose philosophy happens to bear directly on an issue of the day? May I mention a recent scandal, or make fun of a gaffe? May I tell a personal anecdote?
And how does one get nominated, in order to get a slice of this official money? How do I campaign to get nominated, and who will decide whether I'm in the race or not? Will it take money? Will it be decided by the public, or by a party committee in a smoke-filled room?
Trying to stop campaign finance abuse with a simple rule based on arbitrary definitions is like trying to stop a river by driving a spike into it.
Some of the people who walk down streets are terrorists. Are you in favor of searches of everyone who walks down your street?
The basic question is what you're willing to give up in exchange for how big an increase in safety. The TSA searches represent a huge expenditure of money and erosion of personal rights in exchange for a moderate protection against a laughably narrow range of threats of vanishingly small probability.
Honestly, it's as if you think there's a secret terrorist cell someplace where people say "let's kill a bunch of Americans exactly the same way we did last time-- oh, wait, we can't, never mind, let's do nothing." I don't know who's stupider, the fictional terrorists who can't think of a crowded place to set off a bomb, or the citizens willing to give up everything for protection against them.
On the post: Lamar Smith & MPAA Brush Off Wikipedia Blackout As Just A Publicity Stunt
like the fourth dimension
I think you've just underlined a vital element of Representative Smith's character. The idea of standing up for other people's rights is simply alien to him; he can talk about it with some effort, but it doesn't occur to him naturally, and he can't really see it.
On the post: Bakery Creates TSA-Safe Cupcakes After TSA Defends Its Confiscation Of 'Dangerous' Cupcakes
opportunity
Imagine an advertising campaign for cupcakes that terrify the TSA! Big yummy cupcakes with mounds of icing, Arabic script and/or "wiring" in ganache, "Death By Chocolate", "Allah Ak-Berry", "Sweet Revenge". Television spots with stupid, arrogant TSA bullies running in panic from a pretty girl with gorgeous baked goods (by which I mean cupcakes -- by which I mean actual cupcakes). Oh, this could work...
On the post: Bakery Creates TSA-Safe Cupcakes After TSA Defends Its Confiscation Of 'Dangerous' Cupcakes
Re:
Now I just feel embarrassed for my country.
On the post: CD Projekt Listens To Fans, Abandons Piracy Witch Hunt
lawyerspeak
Which is not exactly the same as saying that no one who legally owns one of their games has received one of their shakedown letters and "compensated" them out of fear of being dragged into court.
And it's nowhere near saying that no one who does not own one of their games and didn't download one either has coughed up some money.
Come to think of it, how can they even make that statement? They coerced thousands of people-- how can they know that not one of them legally owned a copy of one of their games? They weren't even careful enough to make sure everyone on the list had downloaded one of their games, which should be a lot easier to determine.
I think I'll steer clear of their games for a couple of years, just to be on the safe side.
On the post: PIPA's Own Sponsors Backing Off Bill; Ask Senate To Hold Off On Voting [Updated!]
the long game
Is it possible that they just want to postpone the vote until after the election, so that they can vote for it with impunity?
The correct countermove is to modify our message: we don't just want the bill not passed, we want it defeated before the election. We should make postponement beyond the election just as toxic as the bill itself, and no neutrality allowed.
On the post: Don't Be Fooled: Leahy Is NOT Removing DNS Blocking Provisions, Merely Delaying Them
Re: Leahy not up for re-election until 2016
Quick, without looking, what was the worst legislation of 2008, and who was behind it?
On the post: As SOPA/PIPA Becomes Toxic, Frantic Congress Test Runs Dropping DNS Blocking Provisions
Re:
It already is, in theory, just not in practice. The only way to bring about what you suggest is to get a good ruling in a "People v. Internet" case, preferably from the Supreme Court. Any idea how to make that happen?
On the post: As SOPA/PIPA Becomes Toxic, Frantic Congress Test Runs Dropping DNS Blocking Provisions
point of no return
The counter-tactic is almost as old: when you catch a thief, you don't just make him give back some of what he stole. At the very least he has to give it all back, and then you either lock him up, flog him or hang him, depending on your circumstances.
It took a great deal of effort to bring this much pressure to bear, millions of hours of work by people who had other things to do. Those responsible should not get away with 90% of what they wanted. Political careers should end over this, companies should take losses they won't recoup for years, if ever. When the next battle in this war comes, all those asked to lead the charge for SOPA-2 should know that it could cost them very dearly.
On the post: Has Hollywood Hubris Awakened Silicon Valley To The Importance Of Telling DC To Knock It Off On Bad Laws?
Re: Re:
On the post: Capcom Tries To Tapdance Out Of Its SOPA Support, Blames 'Bad Journalism' For Its Own Statements
Splonge!
Refusing to take a stand is one thing, but this kind of duplicity is something else, and I think that as responsible citizens we have a duty to punish companies that behave this way.
On the post: Why SOPA Would Be A Disaster For Scientific Publishing
Re: Just an incoherent thought
Larry Page?
On the post: Why SOPA Would Be A Disaster For Scientific Publishing
Re: Re: Re:
You may use this sentence as a calibration standard, Einstein.
On the post: The Ongoing War On Computing; Legacy Players Trying To Control The Uncontrollable
hey...
On the post: Another Candidate Campaigning Against SOPA Supporter: Jack Arnold
I agree with you folks -- and I'm running for office
Mr. Arnold is joining the procession at the tail end. He wants votes now, but isn't ruling out accepting money later for supporting an "improved" version of SOPA. He might be worth voting for, but he'll definitely need watching later; a position he can assume when the issue is hot is one he can abandon when it cools off.
On the post: Shouldn't There Be Significant Punishment For Bogus Copyright Claims That Kill Companies?
two ideas
If the plaintiff can pass that hurdle, the defendant must then respond. The provisional judgements of the first phase have no weight; the plaintiff's arguments are open to challenge and counterargument, and the defendant may require that the case be assigned to a new judge.
2) If the court determines that the suit was clearly without merit from the start (e.g. obvious fair use), then it can strip the plaintiff of the copyright for the material in question; it goes straight into the public domain. And a plaintiff who turns out to have never held the copyright in the first place is really in trouble.
On the post: Jack Abramoff Explains The Return On Investment For Lobbying: 22,000% Is Surprisingly Low
Re: Vote Off - last past the poll
We use plurality voting for almost everything: one round, each voter gets one vote, the candidate who receives the most votes wins. It's so familiar that many Americans are familiar with other systems only in the context of professional sports (which is why I seldom argue about it any more-- I'm tired of the blank looks).
Consider just two of the many alternatives: acceptance voting and ranked-choice voting. These systems are not perfect (no voting system is) but they can largely eliminate many of the problems created by our current system (and many of the criticisms of them are that in some cases they would not give exactly the same results as a plurality vote!). Once you are familiar with alternatives like this, you begin to see some of the biggest problems in American politics (e.g. the power of money in campaigns, the inviability of third parties, the power of a dark horse candidate to split -- and thereby destroy -- the vote of a party, the distorting effect of the electoral college, the endless debate about trivialities) not as inherent in politics or in human nature, but as consequences of a choice of voting method. Anyone who has not given serious thought to these systems has no business pontificating about campaign reform.
In my opinion one of the worst things about plurality voting is that it forces the voter to consider not just the merits of the candidates, but how others will vote. Instead of voting for an outstanding candidate who doesn't stand a chance, a wise voter will try to choose between whichever two candidates seem most likely to win. If everyone thinks you'll lose, you'll lose. This makes electability an important quality in a candidate, maybe the most important, which makes advertising vital in campaigns, which makes money essential.
I don't approve of the particular system you suggest, because it suffers from the same flaw, and it requires as many rounds as it allows candidates (minus one). But it's long past time we had some serious discussion about alternatives.
On the post: Jack Abramoff Explains The Return On Investment For Lobbying: 22,000% Is Surprisingly Low
Re:
Should we ban political speech that costs money and has a bearing on an election, but wasn't paid for out of the official fund? If I maintain a blog (which costs money) and want to express such a political opinion, should the legality of my expression depend on whether I care about the outcome of the election? Whether I made the connection in my head? Whether my essay was more persuasive in one direction or the another? May I recommend the writings of, say, Voltaire, whose philosophy happens to bear directly on an issue of the day? May I mention a recent scandal, or make fun of a gaffe? May I tell a personal anecdote?
And how does one get nominated, in order to get a slice of this official money? How do I campaign to get nominated, and who will decide whether I'm in the race or not? Will it take money? Will it be decided by the public, or by a party committee in a smoke-filled room?
Trying to stop campaign finance abuse with a simple rule based on arbitrary definitions is like trying to stop a river by driving a spike into it.
On the post: TSA Continues To Embarass The Elderly With Unnecessarily Degrading Search Procedures
Re: Re:
The basic question is what you're willing to give up in exchange for how big an increase in safety. The TSA searches represent a huge expenditure of money and erosion of personal rights in exchange for a moderate protection against a laughably narrow range of threats of vanishingly small probability.
Honestly, it's as if you think there's a secret terrorist cell someplace where people say "let's kill a bunch of Americans exactly the same way we did last time-- oh, wait, we can't, never mind, let's do nothing." I don't know who's stupider, the fictional terrorists who can't think of a crowded place to set off a bomb, or the citizens willing to give up everything for protection against them.
On the post: TSA Continues To Embarass The Elderly With Unnecessarily Degrading Search Procedures
Re:
On the post: TSA Continues To Embarass The Elderly With Unnecessarily Degrading Search Procedures
think it through
What authority would this person have? Who would pay this person's salary? What kind of behavior would get this person fired, and by whom?
Next >>