SOPA Creator In TV/Film/Music Industry's Pocket

First time accepted submitter en4bz writes "Representative Lamar Smith, the creator of the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), has been consistently receiving donations averaging $50 000 from the TV/Film/Music industry for each of his re-election campaigns for the past ten years. Smith has received roughly half a million dollars from the TV/Film/Music lobby over the past ten years according to opensecrets.org. Check out the source link for a full breakdown of donors to Smith's campaigns." Speaking of SOPA, new submitter DarkStar1O9 submits this "explanation in simple terms of why this dangerous new bill in congress could result in the extinction of sites that are based on user-generated content like YouTube, Reddit, and StumbleUpon." Update: 12/18 20:42 GMT by T : An anonymous reader writes "Eric S. Raymond weighs in on SOPA and the question of why so many people hate this bill and not the dozens of others just like it that get passed on a regular basis."

Comments

LOL

[Colin Smith]

Well DUH.

Go vote for Ron Paul.
 

Re:LOL

[Anonymous Coward]

I voted for Ron Paul because some guy told me to do so in the comments section of a YouTube video where a group of monkeys danced to Michael Jackson's Thriller.

He'll protect the Internet and stuff. I particularly like how he fights for freedom, except if it involves abortion, separation of church and state, gay marriage, gay people in the military,

Re:LOL

[SpeZek]

Your comment is the definition of homophobia. You're afraid of gay people. Quit being such a fucking wimp and deal with your prejudice.

Re:LOL

[ninetyninebottles]

How would you like it if you were in the military and had to go through basic training, where the circumstances require you to shower in a room with up to 50 other guys showering in it... and they were allowed to be openly gay?

Umm, what exactly is the problem with that? Are you afraid the gay will rub off or something?

It's not like we can separate them from us like they do with female groups...

Which is itself a relic of gender inequality. I say put everyone together and teach discipline. If you can't behave honorably and control yourself in a shower with your fellow soldiers you shouldn't be in the military in the first place. How can such a person be expected to act under real stress where their suppressing their animal impulses and obeying orders will save the lives of their fellows or prevent the kinds of sickening, dishonorable abuse that has made American soldiers so easy to hate.

There shouldn't be any openly gay people in the military.

There shouldn't be homophobes in the military, nor people who can't see past one attribute of a fellow soldier and treat them as a person, with respect and honor.

Gays need to accept that the way they are is NOT the status quo...

Prejudiced dinosaurs like yourself need to realize the world has moved on. Ignorance and repression were socially acceptable in the past. People of other races, religions, philosophies, and preferences are as much people as you are and if you can't deal with it and them, you have no place representing the United States of America in any official capacity.

Re:LOL

[Anonymous Coward]

Personally I can't support Ron Paul. I view the Tea Party to be major source of problems with my country and what a lot of people have already forgotten is the Tea Party was born out of a quasi-independent movement based on Libertarianism. Mr. Paul, a staunch Libertarian, may not be directly tied to what is now considered to be the typical 'Tea Party Stupid' segment of our population but he is still it's de-facto leader. He may talk a good game as a candidate but once you dig into the issues, his previous history and the current Tea Party are based on the same socially, financially, and politically conservative principles.

Re:LOL

[IndustrialComplex]

(Caveat: This post was written while I was on the phone with customer service and probably didn't get the full attention an issue like this deserves. I'll respond to clarify if you have questions. )

His main point is that we are running this country in a much too centralized manner, so EVERYTHING becomes applicable to EVERYONE in the United States. One of the reasons I can support Ron Paul even though I disagree with a lot of his subissues is that I find it more important that we decentralize a lot of topics like this.

His main issue is one that helps compartmentalize the damage that a voting group can do. It is much more agreeable to me that poor laws can be limited to a subset of states than to have poor laws applied to ALL of the states.

For example, we have drug legislation that applies to ALL states uniformly. As a result, you have many states like Colorado or California in which their citizens have chosen to legalize Marijuana on a limited basis. You have other states such as New York or Utah in which their citizens have chosen NOT to legalize marijuana.

It allows local groups of people much greater freedom in deciding what works for them. Naturally we can come up with a whole assortment of issues which we feel should apply to everyone, and each of us is going to have a different set of issues. That's why I can support Ron Paul even though I disagree with him on certain aspects.

One of the reasons I don't live in DC is because I dislike their local laws. I live in Virginia, but I don't like their personal property taxes. I'm considering moving to Pennsylvania but their alcohol laws are something that has bothered me in the past.

When it comes to something like marriage, I don't think it should be a federal issue at all, and in that respect, I agree with congressman Paul even though I'm on the completely opposite side from him when it comes to who can get married.

For me, it's much more important that we don't try to run every issue in this country from Washington DC, because to pretend that there is a uniform US culture, is really going to hurt us in the long run. We can see it now in these repeated deadlocks in which issues which COULD be resolved on more regional/local levels are becoming federal issues because we have given the federal government way too much jurisdiction.

It's more important to me that things be run in a manner which still allows for a chance to 'escape' from laws which I do not agree with (by moving to a different state), than the very real fear that a slim majority may be able to apply laws which will impact everyone no matter where they go in the country.

There is no guarantee that 'my' people will be in charge forever, and I think it is much more important to keep the protections for minority groups from being abused by the majority than it is to have a government which can be unlimited in authority.

It's a bit odd, because I think the best way to ensure that we don't end up with a LOT of bad laws which limit our freedom, is to not allow the federal government absolute power in all areas. In some cases that may mean some regions are 'less free' with respect to a specific issue, but it will also mean that we won't end up with all regions being 'less free' with respect to a specific issue.

Re:LOL

[Man On Pink Corner]

His main point is that we are running this country in a much too centralized manner, so EVERYTHING becomes applicable to EVERYONE in the United States.

There are two problems with Ron Paul: one, he is religiously motivated, and two, he seems just crazy enough to be sincere about it.

Certain things should be applicable to "EVERYONE in the United States," as you put it. Among them are educational opportunities. In Ron Paul's ideal society, a child attending public school in Oklahoma City will learn one thing in science class, while a child in Seattle learns something very different.

Making that happen is very important to the so-called "religious right" in the US. Keeping it from happening is very important to everyone in possession of two or more brain cells. So: no RONPAUL!!! for me, thanks. His idea of "libertarianism" is just the same old schtick of trading one liberty for another.

Re:LOL

[misexistentialist]

Feminist-progressivism has driven you insane. What kind of discipline is going to stop men from looking at boobs in co-ed showers (and a look, "the male gaze", is enough for women to complain of harassment)? Castration? But killing and dying takes balls, not a suppression of those "animal impulses". I'll agree that guys aren't that sensitive so mixed showers with gays might not be a problem, but sex within communal living situations will erode discipline. Bradley Manning is currently arguing that being gay is a kind of mental illness that made him unfit to serve...will gays always have a "get out of army free card" even after "don't ask don't tell"?

Re:LOL

[ninetyninebottles]

Feminist-progressivism has driven you insane.

Feminist-progressivism? It is funny that espousing opinions often written by legionnaire military leaders is interpreted through the eyes of such sad, pseudo-polysci nonsense.

What kind of discipline is going to stop men from looking at boobs in co-ed showers (and a look, "the male gaze", is enough for women to complain of harassment)?

Looking is fine. Staring, leering, and being creepy is disrespectful and dishonorable. Such people are a liability not an asset to a modern military.

Castration?

I'm flattered you'd ask my opinion. If it is the only way to control yourself, I say go for it.

But killing and dying takes balls, not a suppression of those "animal impulses".

Bullshit. Brave hyped up men and women can do the dying. Soldiers are built of discipline and obeying orders regardless of your emotions is what wins battles.

I'll agree that guys aren't that sensitive so mixed showers with gays might not be a problem, but sex within communal living situations will erode discipline.

Please. People have been fucking forever. A disciplined soldier puts that behind them and does their bloody duty when it is time. In their off time, let them screw as they please.

Bradley Manning is currently arguing that being gay is a kind of mental illness that made him unfit to serve...will gays always have a "get out of army free card" even after "don't ask don't tell"?

First, this is off topic. Second, if the fact that someone argued something in their defensive arguments on trial were a valid reason to change what we do, we'd all be up shit creek. Berkowitz argued that his dog told him to murder. Does that mean we ban soldiers from owning dogs in case one tries to argue their dog told them to do it and thus use that "get out of jail free" card? What utter and complete nonsense. You should be ashamed of such empty rhetoric.

No shit?

[AngryDeuce]

Which representative isn't in someone's pocket? Good fucking luck finding one...

Broke

[Wowsers]

Speaking as a non American, this is how the USA looks today to non Americans. The USA economy is broke, bust, only surviving by the willingness of countries like China to prop you up. Like many Western countries, you sent your manufacturing economy abroad, believing in the fairy story of "Intellectual Property" as the new way of making money.

Intellectual Property is worthless, especially to the many countries that don't care about it. It's not as if the USA cares about fair trade, using geopolitical muscle to frighten smaller states into submission.

If you keep on electing the same morons who push controls on the internet for big corporate friend donors, then the only person you can blame is yourself.

Re:Broke

[AngryDeuce]

If you keep on electing the same morons who push controls on the internet for big corporate friend donors, then the only person you can blame is yourself.

If you lived here you would see the sheer numbers of completely ignorant people there are in this country that don't give a fuck about anything beyond what is happening on Keeping Up With the Kardashians

Far too many of our populace has become completely complacent. Throw some McDonald's, Coca-Cola, and NASCAR at them and nothing else in the whole goddamned world matters, so long as we're "fighting the terrorists".

Things will change, it is inevitable as this level of ignorance is unsustainable; unfortunately, this country is going to have to suffer a total economic collapse before people start opening their eyes. I wish it were not so, but there's been a real anti-intellectual bent in this country over the last 30 years or so, so there are just too many people that can't see beyond tomorrow or their own backyards. Hell, any attempt to upset the status quo is widely dismissed and mocked, go to CNN and read the comments on any article about an Occupy protest here in the states and you'll see for yourself what we're fighting against.

So you tell me, Non-American: what do we do? Start locking up stupid people? Require IQ tests to vote? How do we nullify the moron voter base? They don't want to hear reason, because they're trained by Talk Radio ideologues to distrust anyone that disagrees with them. So what's your solution? Because honestly, we could use one, and I would really like to find one that doesn't involve Hitler-esque eugenics programs...

Re:Broke

[artor3]

You're misinformed. China owns a whopping 8% of the US debt. The country is nowhere near broke. Eliminating the Bush tax cuts and putting some common sense reforms in place in Medicare and Social Security (e.g. means testing, increase the payroll tax cap, allow young healthy people to buy into Medicare) are all we need to get back in the black.

Our problem is a political one, not an economic one. The Republicans have abandoned any notion of loyal opposition, and now view politics as a war in which one's opponent must be destroyed utterly, no matter the cost. So solutions that are entirely reasonable, such as Obama's proposed plan to reduce the deficit by $2 trillion, get torpedoed, simply because a Democrat proposed them. Instead we get plans like the super committee, which was supposed to cut $600B from each of domestic spending and the military. But even that's too much compromise for the Republicans, so now they're trying to weasel out of the very same deal that they insisted on a few months ago.

As long as voters continue to view politics as a team sport, we're screwed.

Re:Broke

[artor3]

Look at Obama. He's honest, smart, and completely helpless. He wasted most of his first two years trying to negotiate with people who had no intention of ever working with him. All the while, his opponents spread vicious lies about "death panels". They accused him of trying to indoctrinate school children when he told them to stay in school. They demonized his wife for suggesting kids shouldn't eat fast food every day. They complained about him raising taxes ("Taxed Enough Already!") when he had actually cut taxes, as part of the stimulus. They lied and lied and lied and the drooling masses lapped it up, with the result that the liars gained power.

Stupidity and hatred will beat reason and cooperation every time. The GP is optimistic. A total economic collapse will not get the idiots to open their eyes. They'll blame the collapse on whomever Limbaugh tells them to blame. Spoiler alert: they're going to blame liberals, and immigrants, and Muslims, and gays. And the idiot masses will start killing.

Re:Broke

[RazorSharp]

I'm an American, but here's my answer to your question: Educate. That's our only hope, to educate our way out of this, and that's where the Democrats should narrow their focus. An uneducated person doesn't understand Rawlsian economics. An uneducated person doesn't understand that the U.S. Constitution is outdated and needs to be replaced. Or that socialism isn't a dirty word.

What the neo-cons have done is make a religion out of Americanism. They paint their opponents as unpatriotic blasphemers and the general public buys it. They buy it because they're uneducated, which makes them suckers.

Educate children. Extend the schoolday to 9-10 hours long (most people work at least 8 hours a day, so a 6-7 hour school day necessitates child care of some sort), allow more time for physical activity, self-study, and hands-on learning. Keep these kids away from their idiot parents as long as possible and teach them about the world. Ensure that they're well versed in logic, mathematics, science, and multiple languages. That they are in good physical condition.

There's this bizarre attitude in this country that a parent knows best. That by becoming a parent, some slumbering genius is awakened in each and every one of us and these instincts will guide our children to happiness. Mothers especially love this bullshit - the "maternal instinct" they speak of so reverently. Of course, they fail to mention that infanticide brought on by postpartum depression is nothing more than "maternal instinct."

I would rather see a Brave New World than my country devolve into ancient Rome, a land of bread and circuses, which is the way things appear to be headed. Take these kids away from their parents and fill their heads with every bit of objectively verifiable knowledge we can. That way, when they get older and start making subjective assessments, they'll at least be rooted in logic, which is clearly not the case right now.

Re:What?

[AngryDeuce]

If it is "user generated" why would anyone take it down?

Ask Universal Media Group, since they did just that less than a week ago.

Re:Not to mention totally legal

[Anonymous Coward]

This needs to stop NOW! seriously, this is corruption.

Ron Paul is economically illiterate

[circletimessquare]

I agree with Ron Paul 100% that we need to get corporate influence out of our politics.

However, everything else he believes will destroy our economy, his beliefs are economic suicide.

We don't defeat the plutocracy in Washington DC by embracing a vision even worse than the plutocracy.

Re:Ron Paul is economically illiterate

[circletimessquare]

it's like listening to a goddamn creationist

would you please educate yourself as to simple facts of economics and economic history before you vomit this quasireligious belief system of yours in defiance of reality and obvious facts?

you need a central reserve, you idiot. it's not because the Bilderberg Group wants to impoverish you for fun, or whatever the paranoid schizophrenic narrative it is that underlies your delusions. it's to prevent this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_banking_crises

WHY did these bank runs happen, genius? WHAT safeguard prevents them, einstein?

please, start with that link, and EDUCATE YOURSELF, you deranged fool

power in the hands of ron paul, who thinks like you, will destroy our economy. i know you don't understand this, that's what makes you so goddamn dangerous. that so many crackpots are out there like you who believe this ignorant tripe about economics

YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND ECONOMICS

Re:Ron Paul is economically illiterate

[circletimessquare]

so you reform the regulations right?

you don't GET RID OF THE REGULATIONS. right?!

it's insane the way people like you think:

"the lock on the bank door didn't work"

"buy a better lock?"

"no, just stop locking the door"

insane! that's the solution to our economic problems some idiots actually believe

you REFORM the regulations, you don't get rid of them

Re:Not to mention totally legal

[Transfinite]

Yup I guess corruption could be seen as a form of speech. Still it is corruption and should have no place whatsoever in politics.

Re:Not to mention totally legal

[Berkyjay]

Just because it is technically legal doesn't mean it isn't corrupt. There is such a thing as rigging the system to legally profit from selling influence. That is pretty much what lobbying has become. Sure, if we all had the same amount of money to throw around at politicians maybe it would work for everyone. But since a very small percentage of US citizens hold most of the money, that influence is unevenly distributed.

Re:Not to mention totally legal

[Berkyjay]

Well, it is all well and good to bring in so called "expertise and nuance" into government so that legislators can make informed decisions. So can I assume that you would be OK with eliminating campaign contributions from these so called experts? Because if not, what you wrote is a bunch of BS and just a convenient excuse for buying off politicians.

Shockingly small amounts of money

[transporter_ii]

One of the shocking things to me is how cheap it is to buy your own laws. A million people could part with one dollar and easily block these laws. A million people isn't even 1% of the population. I think we need to start a PAC (or some type of corporation) and start buying our laws just like everyone else. Surly, as non-caring as everyone is about these issues, we could get 1% of the population to go in on some laws that favor the people.

Re:Not to mention totally legal

[lacaprup]

Individual natural persons have rights. Corporations are legal constructs, which means that the concept of corporations having rights makes no sense.

I would refer you to Dartmouth College v. Woodward 1819. The U.S. was built on corporations having rights. It's one of several factors that made us the most powerful nation in history.

Re:"Do-noting Congress"?

[Scareduck]

Yay for the "do-nothing Congress!"

"No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session."

-- Gideon J. Tucker

It's interesting to me that Smith is in Texas. It always seems like the entertainment biz is keeping cow state politicians in cash. For a long time, one of the senators from South Carolina -- I want to say Ernest/Fritz Hollings -- was in Disney's pocket. The lesson seems to be, buy a Southern politician: they're cheaper and they stay bought.

Re:Not to mention totally legal

[Berkyjay]

"In the case of this issue, you have huge corporations with vast sums of money working on both sides of the issue." That's your justification? So it's not corruption because we have huge corporate proxies fighting for both sides? This is laughable. It' not about which side you are on. It's about the fact that money is involved in influencing a politician to legislate favorably to those who support their campaign efforts. I don't care which side you are on, this is corrupt and it's not how our government is supposed to work. There was never any vision for paid lobbyists within our system. Congressmen and Senators are supposed to be influenced by the voters in their states and districts, not to the corporation who throws the most money at them.

Re:Not to mention totally legal

[Berkyjay]

Don't you see that in the current system most of us are deprived access to influence? Our votes are the only power we have in this system. I'll never be able to influence my local congressman to pass legislation that favors me, especially if the local corporation can work against me and contribute far more money to their campaign than I can. The simple reality is that this is about who should have the political influence in our country. Because if money is removed from the electoral process then you pretty much remove the influence of corporations and give the power back to the individual voter. But that will never happen will it? Politicians love their money too much and corporations love their influence too much and the American public just sleeps.

Re:Not to mention totally legal

[Forty Two Tenfold]

made us the most powerful nation in history

HAHA LOL. No, you're not. First of all, you're not a "nation" because that requires ethnic unifromity. Second, you never were, are not and hopefully never will be the most powerful.

Re:Not to mention totally legal

[Forty Two Tenfold]

The U.S. was built on corporations having rights

No. The U.S. was built on slave labour and international swindles.

I think the point was

[rsilvergun]

that Ron Paul's being put forward as the candidate for personal freedom, but that his stance on several issues isn't consistent with the ideology of personal freedom so long as you're not infringing on others. If personal freedom is a core tenet of his ideology it stands to reason he would apply it at a Federal level; because it's a basic principle he would found government on. You wouldn't leave such things up to the States, any more than you would leave them up to individual counties. e.g. If you start breaking down your core principles of governing and saying that you can leave them up to a smaller body of gov't (States instead of Federal), where does it end? Couldn't separate laws apply depending on what part of the city you live in? But even the code of Hammurabi required the law apply equally to everyone.

So to summarize: If you can't count on Ron Paul to apply what he touts as his basic principles of gov't at the national level, then what business does he have running the national gov't?

Re:I think the point was

[rsilvergun]

Right, but certain laws are not legal in any state because they violate what we consider core tenets of a just society. Freedom of speech and the right to bear arms are the Republican's favorites. Freedom from discrimination is the Dems. Those are core ideological concepts for how a just society is governed. What the grandparent was getting at is that Ron Paul espouses a core ideology that is built around personal freedom, but refuses to back that up with policy. He can still be a constitutionalist and be consistent with this ideology. All he has to do is start lobbying for an amendment to make gay marriage a right. But he's not doing that, and so his position is ideologically inconsistent.

Re:I think the point was

[rsilvergun]

I'd agree with you if Marriage was simply a religious our thought construct without any legal or financial ramifications. But that's not the case. Marriage is defined in our legal system as a certain type of contract between two individuals. There are many practical effects to Marriage; insurance, divorce proceedings, child visitation rights, etc. The argument goes that the Gays can have something like Marriage but that's not Marriage. The trouble with that is that in law small differences in wording make big differences. If you give them Marriage w/o the legal effect it's not Marriage. If you pass a law that says Gay unions are just like Marriage, well, you've just legalized Gay Marriage.

What defines 'Gay' doesn't matter. What matters is that two consenting adults are allowed to enter into a free contract that is recognized as having certain legal advantages and obligations; and are allowed to do so so long as positive harm to society cannot be show. This is not a fundamental human condition; it's just requiring that the law apply equally to all.

Now, if you're argument is based on the fact that homosexual Marriage is inherently harmful to society, then you've got something there. Your freedom ends where other people's freedom begins. We don't let cousins marry because their offspring would have deformities due to inbreeding. There is positive harm to society and the child by allowing that. We also do not allow Polygamy, because allowing one man to monopolize the pool of available women creates a dangerously unstable society (e.g. lots of men with no prospects for a mate running around angry and violent). I don't want to start of this debate, I'm just trying to point out that if you're a libertarian you need a different argument against homosexual Marriage besides 'State's rights'.

Re:Wrong on 3 out of 4

[PopeRatzo]

adoptions work

They don't work when a woman has an ectopic pregnancy and would die if she actually had to undergo childbirth. Rep Paul claims he is 100% against abortion under any circumstances. He supports a constitutional amendment saying life begins at conception. That means such a woman would have no choice but to die in childbirth. Apparently his "4000" baby deliveries did not give him much regard for the girl babies who grow up to be women. He wants "small government" but he's got no problem turning every bathroom where a miscarriage has taken place into a crime scene.

And abortion is not nearly Ron Paul's worst position. He is an unbalanced old crank who would see the country fail before questioning a single one of his absolutist beliefs.

The place for unbalanced old cranks is the House of Representative, where Rep Paul's permanent crankiness and occasional shit-in-your-pants insanity can actually provide an opportunity for testing some of the flabby rationale of most legislation and where he can't do much damage.

He just doesn't belong in the White House, where he could do a LOT of damage.

do you know what i honestly think?

[circletimessquare]

i think you are gay. you are a closeted homosexual who has not come to grips with the contrast between his upbringing and what your family and society expects of you and your true innate homosexual impulses. i'm being serious

look: as a heterosexual male, homosexuality or gay men have no effect on me. it doesn't frighten me. it doesn't arouse me. it doesn't confuse me. it doesn't do anything for me at all. i feel nothing. make me watch gay porn for hours and what will i do? i will fall asleep. BECAUSE I'M NOT GAY

now show some me a pair of full breasts or a nice ass, and i will get promptly aroused and excited. because i'm a heterosexual male. duh! show me two guys kissing and what do i feel? anger? arousal? confusion? no, i feel nothing

so whenever i see someone getting REALLY upset at this hypothetical shower scenario, i think: you are a closeted homosexual. if you were straight, you simply would not care

and in fact i think a lot of homophobia is driven by people like you: deeply closeted gay men deeply in the closet, projecting their internal psychological struggle onto the outside world. we suffer, because you haven't come to grips and made peace with the fact you are a gay man. accept it, deal with, move on, and stop forcing us to bear witness to your ugly struggle between the societal expectations you have internalized and your true identity

i'm 100% serious. the greatest loudest homophobes in this world are deeply closeted gay men. no one else except them care so much about homosexuality. i'm looking at you rick santorum