Slashdot Mirror
SOPA Makes Strange Bedfellows
davide marney writes "What do 1-800-Contacts, Adidas, Americans for Tax Reform, Comcast, the Country Music Association, Estee Lauder, Ford, Nike and Xerox all have in common? According to OpenCongress.org, they all have specifically endorsed H.R. 3261, the Stop Online Piracy Act. A total of 158 corporations have signed up in favor of the bill, and only 87 against. $21 Million has been donated to Congressmen who favor the bill, but only $5 Million to those against. Thanks to OpenCongress for these insights. This goes a long way towards explaining why this bill has so much traction, despite all its negative publicity."
PBS might also support it. Last month, the News Hour ran a story on piracy. They interviewed two "opposing" parties, the Open Internet Coalition and the MPAA, whose only difference was how much copying should be regulated: a lot, or a lot more. That was the most biased, unbalanced, and stupidly wrong coverage I'd ever seen from PBS. I thought they were a cut above the rest of the mainstream media. They weren't, not that time.
Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
Just look at these amounts :
Sen. Harry Reid [D, NV] $3,502,624
Sen. Charles Schumer [D, NY] $2,648,770
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand [D, NY] $2,080,651
I wonder how much Obama got ... in the beginning of an election year no less. What do you think Obama > Harry Reid or the reverse ?
Weird, weird names on the list though :
* United States Tennis Association
* Council of state governments
* National Confectioners Association
* Major City Chiefs
* Let Freedom Ring
* Outdoor Industry Association
* Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council
* Eli Lilly and Company
* Center for Individual Freedom
* Concerned Women for America
* Americans for Tax Reform
* Society of Plastics Industry
* Beam Global Spirits &Wine
Half of these sound extremely fake. Most of these look like it's VERY unlikely they would get themselves on this list if it didn't gain them money ...
Not that I tell myself these guys collectively contributed even 1% of those amounts ... very strange names here. Were the pressured into signing this ? There's another collection of names that clearly were pressured to get in there (National Electrical Manufacturers Association ... are these names just an attempt to point "broad support" or ? Weird weird weird.
, Electronic Components Industry Association)
Interesting though : all but one electronics manufacturers are in the opposing category ... /me suspects threats from customers. All think tanks, democrat or republican, are on the opposing side. So clearly both parties are aware of the publicity loss. Lots of the organisations supporting this bill are subsidiaries of other supporters (so the supporter list shoulds be a LOT shorter). WTF is visa doing supporting these guys ?
Some organisations could have contributed more by staying out of it, me thinks :
* 4chan
* Torrentfreak
* Tumblr
(let's just say people might think they know why these guys are opposed, and it's not for the right reasons)
And, surprisingly in the "opposing" category (although I must admit this legislation doesn't strike me as conservative, and it doesn't seem like it's supported by the software industry either, it's almost purely privilege grab by the entertainment industry) :
* Business Software Alliance (also known as Microsoft)
* Brookings Institute
* Competitive Enterprise Institute
In a recent study, researchers Raquel Alexander and Susan Scholz calculated the total amount the corporations saved from the lower tax rate. They compared the taxes saved to the amount the firms spent lobbying for the law. Their research showed the return on lobbying for those multinational corporations was 22,000 percent. That means for every dollar spent on lobbying, the companies got $220 in tax benefits.
You know what's funny? In Germany, the president is currently under a lot of pressure, and may have to resign, because he got a private credit for his house at too favorable a rate of interest. In the US (the home of democracy, defender of the free world, etc), corporations can openly bribe their senators to get the laws they want.
Something's rotten in the state of Merica...
CJ
Ah, arrogance and stupidity, all in the same package. How efficient of you. -- Londo Mollari
The DMCA doesn't necessarily need to be overturned, but certainly it needs to be revisited. The DMCA provides a standardized method for handling alleged copyright infringement, allowing the host to avoid being caught in the cross-fire. This has been abused by infringers, and certainly by people wishing to censor. I've had both types of complaints, albeit not under circumstances covered by the DMCA. In the case of some guy trying to remove an embarrassing critique of some private messages in which he libeled me, I was fortunate to have had a hosting company who didn't just buckle for their own safety, and had the DMCA applied, the complainant could have sent a take-down, which I could have countered - leaving the host off the hook. I think it helped that the guy sending the complaint was clearly a whining bitch, demonstrating his fundamental lack of legal knowledge through his references to "Internet laws". The DMCA also poses problems for content owners who find themselves playing whack-a-mole with sites that repeatedly allow copyright infringement. I see that as a legitimate concern. I'm very much in favor of equitable copyright protection, the cornerstone of which should be severally shortened copyright terms. Things have clearly swung too far in favor of rights owners, with the bulk of the money appearing to miss the pockets of the producers themselves.
My main issues with the DMCA lie in how it interferes with the bypassing of DRM, and reverse engineering. Another problem though is that the DMCA introduced pretty stiff penalties for infringement, yet what happens when a media company, with the presumption that they have legal people who should know better, send pretty obviously frivolous take-down notices. In theory this is perjury, yet how many prosecutions do we see? Out of curiosity, should I receive a malicious take-down notice from an American entity, how would I get a prosecution rolling? Send a letter to the FBI, or would I instead need to engage a solicitor to begin civil proceedings?