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."

Comments

Money.

[Anonymous Coward]

And nothing more.

Re:Money.

[Anonymous Coward]

Negative publicity.. where? You mean a few pathetic campaigns online?
Almost nobody that can affect the outcome of this will even see those.

Re:Money.

[cjcela]

It is not only money. There is something else that is remarkable. Our elected officials listen more to their 'friends' that to the people who vote them in power. And we seem to be complacent with this. Somehow we have to find a way in the US to held individuals working for the government accountable for their actions, if we want the land of the free to be so for our children.

Re:Money.

[Luckyo]

Money is what votes politicians in power. Sheep that enter votes will obey their media masters. Money buys media masters.

Re:Money.

[shentino]

That's because politicians quit answering to voters once they are elected.

If congress critters were subject to recall like their local and state counterparts you'd see a LOT more responsiveness.

In the regular 9 to 5 world us working class folks live in, your boss actually gets to fire you if you screw up.

Re:Money.

[Cow Jones]

Lobbying pays:

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

Re:Money.

[Spodi]

The worst thing is, this has pretty much just become an accepted fact of America. The only people who can stop it are those who are making all the money from it.

Re:Money.

[SuricouRaven]

Indeed. The majority of citizens don't know about SOPA and won't know until it's too late, because there has been a sort of informal media blackout. Mainstream news coverage is nonexistant.

Re:Money.

[Anonymous Coward]

the home of democracy

You put it like the EU is less democratic than the US. Are you an idiot? Democracy was created thousands of years ago in Europe. And it is still stronger in the EU than in the US. The EU has no Guantanamo, Patriot Act, but it has e.g. much stronger protection of privacy and rights of their citizens (including minorities).

Re:Money.

[SuricouRaven]

SOPA is making pirates feel a lot less guilty. I'm waiting for some activists to start burning DVDs full of pirate movies and leaving them scattered around public spaces.

Re:Money.

[Dekker3D]

I'll go out on a limb and guess that, like the "defender of the free world" right after it, he was just listing opinions commonly-held by some Americans, that seem like a bit of a joke to the rest of us people. "Whoosh", as they'd say.

Re:Money.

[am 2k]

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.

That's not the whole story. The bigger part of the outcry is because he wanted to silence the publication (no, I'm not calling "Bild" a newspaper. Compared to it, even Fox News is fair and accurate...) that wanted to publish this piece of information and threatened the "reporter" via phone (the exact wording is still unknown, as far as I know). Freedom of the press is still a big thing in Germany.

But generally, politicians get booted for receiving money from companies in any shape or form in Europe, exactly to avoid the disaster happening in the US right now.

Re:Money.

[starfishsystems]

Twenty years ago, while in Germany, I saw a television documentary which described the United States as a "dollar democracy", ie. one dollar = one vote. It's overly simplistic, of course, but has more than a little truth to it.

Re:Money.

[KDR_11k]

I'm pretty sure there are other "benefits" for politicians in Germany. Like the ever popular high paying board member job after retiring from politics. That's why it's so damn hypocritical that they're making big news out of the president while there are so many more important news stories to cover (Euro financial crisis, Hungary's descent into fascism, the whole Iran saber rattling, etc).

Re:Money.

[ScrewMaster]

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.

That's actually not the worst part of it. Look who's been funding any number of bad copyright-related laws, such as the Audio Home Recording Act, Sonny Bonehead Copyright Extension Act, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and others in that vein. It's mostly non-U.S. corporations (granted, through local intermediaries such as the MPAA/RIAA), but they follow the orders of their people who fund them. What we have here are foreign-owned entities that are directly influencing American lawmakers and public policy. That ought to be enough to put certain Congresspeople up on treason charges (or something along those lines.)

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.

I can imagine what would happen in Germany if, say, Ford or General Motors attempted to bribe some of their ministers to get favorable laws passed. There would be prison sentences handed out all around.

Re:Money.

[HiThere]

Sorry, but Greece is "the home of Democracy", as Britain is "the mother of Parliments". The US is generally called (by it's anthem) "the land of the free", but it's well to remember that when that line was written, slavery was legal.

Of the three examples, only Britain seems to be living up to it's image. (Or, "Don't trust slogans!")

Re:Money.

[iamnobody2]

.... the states rights are the right to make laws about all matters not reserved for the federal government by the constitution. its sorta what the tenth amendment is about. 'The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.'

Re:Money.

[DaleSwanson]

If congress critters were subject to recall like their local and state counterparts you'd see a LOT more responsiveness.

Every member of the House must be reelected every 2 years. The reelection rate never drops below 80%. While I would support recall at the federal level, I don't know how much a difference it would make. Most people are simply too apathetic and ignorant about anything that doesn't obviously and directly affect their day to day lives.

http://www.opensecrets.org/bigpicture/reelect.php

Re:Money.

[shentino]

2 years is plenty of time for an angry public to either quit caring, or have something even worse dumped on them as a distraction.

2 years is ALSO plenty of time to do enough favors for your sponsors that you'll have a nice and cushy private sector job waiting for you if you ever DO get run out of town during election season.

Re:Money.

[shentino]

And you can bet that a decent chunk of that "return on investment" just gets plowed right back into congress's corporate feed trough.

Re:Money.

[Sosarian Avatar]

Bingo... My mother has fairly average media habits for her age (61), which includes the various local/national news shows on ABC, and she hadn't heard about SOPA. Worse, she's one of the Clueless Public in many ways (not for lack of effort on my part) and in order to get her to really grasp why SOPA is a problem, I had to carefully step her through ways it could/would likely be abused along with examples proving that each possibility could really happen here.

Unless every single anti-SOPA person with communicative skills gets out there and starts carefully educating their Clueless Relatives on it, we're completely fucked, and even then it's probably too late.

Re:Money.

[NorQue]

[...] (no, I'm not calling "Bild" a newspaper. Compared to it, even Fox News is fair and accurate...) [...]

Have you actually watched Fox News? Compared to their venom spouting gibberish fake news BILD would be a quality newspaper.

And I hate BILD with a passion...

Re:Money.

[am 2k]

Have you actually watched Fox News? Compared to their venom spouting gibberish fake news BILD would be a quality newspaper.

Heh, I won't get into that discussion. Have a picture I took in Cologne instead :)

Re:Money.

[gknoy]

Where can I find good, concrete (well, hypothetical) examples that I can use for explaining this to friends or family?

Re:Money.

[Mephistophocles]

Most people are simply too apathetic and ignorant about anything that doesn't obviously and directly affect their day to day lives.

I don't know about that. Most people do have pretty strong opinions, and if you ask around (seriously, just as an experiment, stand on a well-walked street sometime and unobnoxiously, unobtrusively ask - it's fun and very enlightening, and unless you have no social skills and/or look like an axe murderer, the number of people willing to talk to you will surprise you) you'll find that most people's opinions are the same: "congress sucks. The president is an idiot. All I really want to do is live my little life the way i want to and be left alone, and to hell with all of them."

All that to say, I personally don't think elections mean squat. I don't even think votes are recorded, much less counted. I have no possible way to prove that, just lots of circumstantial evidence. Not that it probably matters anyway, since if I'm right there's not a damn thing any one of us can do about it.

Re:Money.

[DaleSwanson]

you'll find that most people's opinions are the same: "congress sucks. The president is an idiot. All I really want to do is live my little life the way i want to and be left alone, and to hell with all of them."

I'll agree that's a common opinion. Yet, Congress consistently gets reelected. People want to be left alone until someone else is doing something they don't like. People can think congress is doing a horrible job all they want, but they just keep reelecting them, rewarding failure. Many people don't know their representatives, let alone how they've voted on important issues in the past. When it comes time to vote people will just pick which ever person is on their team (D or R), even if that guy voted for things like SOPA or the Patriot Act or the wars.

Stand up, people!

[intellitech]

Write to your senators, your representatives! Tell them you oppose this bill!

http://www.opencongress.org/contact_congress_letters/new?bill=112-h3261&position=oppose

Tell your family, friends, even the guy at the gas station to do the same!

This bill WILL get passed if we don't make our position clear to elected officials!

Re:Stand up, people!

[ae1294]

Write to your senators, your representatives! Tell them you oppose this bill!

http://www.opencongress.org/contact_congress_letters/new?bill=112-h3261&position=oppose

Tell your family, friends, even the guy at the gas station to do the same!

This bill WILL get passed if we don't make our position clear to elected officials!

Be sure to include a check for at least $10,000.

Re:Stand up, people!

[betterunixthanunix]

This bill WILL get passed regardless of whether we make our position clear to elected officials!

FTFY. When congressmen will not even listen to expert testimony on these matters, what makes you think they will listen to their constituents?

Re:Stand up, people!

[nurb432]

Don't you mean 'write a check' instead? Money talks, Anything else is ignored.

Re:Stand up, people!

[Paladeen]

Their chances of re-election don't hinge on the experts, but if enough of their constituents kick up a fuss, they might think twice.

Or maybe I'm just being hopelessly optimistic.

Re:Stand up, people!

[DougBTX]

Their reelection depends on having funds to mount a reelection campaign, hence the $10,000.

Re:Stand up, people!

[Prof.Phreak]

on the one hand they got ``$21 Million has been donated to Congressmen who favor the bill,'' on the other your letter. Hmm... whom would they listen...

Re:Stand up, people!

[Raisey-raison]

What I find interesting is that it's never mentioned much in the mainstream media. It's not mentioned in the presidential debates. And I don't understand why unions, Americans for Tax reform and builders associations support it. Our current extreme IP inhibits economic growth (which is why tax reforms should be against it) and helps to bolster income inequality (which is why unions and builders associations should oppose it).

I understand that this this is the ONE issue that CNN, MSNBC and FOX all agree on. Because they all are part of media companies that want ever stronger IP to bolster their profits. The whole subject is censored.

So many of my so called 'informed' friends aren't aware of it and they say IP is boring. My god - what are we to do!

Re:Stand up, people!

[Nrrqshrr]

You could send a million letters. If the guy is recieving a million $$ in "donations", he ain't gonna listen to you any time this year.

Re:Stand up, people!

[betterunixthanunix]

You are being hopelessly optimistic. Not only do most people not care at all about SOPA, even if they did care they would forget about it by the time election season rolled around. Politicians know this, and that is why the DMCA was passed, the Mickey Mouse bill was passed, the PATRIOT act, etc. That is why I have little hope for SOPA or PIPA being defeated; I wrote to my representatives in the House and the Senate, and I have told everyone I know that these bills are bad and why they are bad, but I doubt there will be much of an effect.

Ten years from now, when the Internet has been conquered by old media interests and there are toll booths and walls everywhere, people will start to get annoyed -- and by then, it will be too late. People are annoyed by the DMCA now, but there is little hope of getting it overturned. SOPA will be no different.

Re:Stand up, people!

[bzipitidoo]

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.

Re:Stand up, people!

[betterunixthanunix]

I don't understand why unions...support it

"It protects American jobs!"

AFL-CIO is a political organization; sometimes they do things that legitimately help the working class, other times they do things that they can claim help the working class. SOPA is squarely in the second category: labor organizations can point to it and say, "We are helping protect your job by supporting this legislation!"

Our current extreme [copyright/trademark/patent/trade secrets enforcement regime] inhibits economic growth

Only over the long term. In the short term, the fat cats get to report big profits and continue to buy yachts and mansions. Over the long term, consumers are forced to wait longer for new products and technologies, pay more for existing products and technologies, and forced to turn over their own profits to the entrenched businesses and trolls. Eventually the rest of the world will start ignoring American demands about trademarks and copyrights, and then the system's hollow core will be exposed and the fat cats will abandon ship and leave the rest of us to our fate.

When the design of a logo or the composition of a soft drink is considered to be a major economic issue, you know the system is destined to fail. We still have a chance to turn things around...but not with the current set of politicians.

Re:Stand up, people!

[todrules]

I already did. Here's the response I got back. Looks like Senator Isakson is already bought and paid for. I'll definitely vote for whoever runs against him in the next election, though.

Thank you for contacting me regarding intellectual property theft. I appreciate hearing from you and I appreciate the opportunity to respond.

S.968, the Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property (PROTECT IP) Act of 2011, was introduced by Senator Leahy (D-VT) on May 12, 2011, and was referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee. On May 26, 2011, it was reported out of Committee and is currently pending in the Senate. The bill targets websites, particularly those registered outside of the United States, which are "dedicated to infringing activities." These rogue websites typically offer unauthorized downloading or streaming of copyrighted content or the sale of counterfeit goods including music, movies, and pharmaceutical drugs.

Websites targeted by this bill are foreign owned and outside the reach of U.S. laws despite the fact U.S. intellectual property is being infringed upon and U.S. consumers are the targets. Rogue websites cost American workers jobs and cost businesses millions of dollars in lost revenue. As online technology and commerce advances, we must see to it that injured parties have the ability to stop infringers from profiting from counterfeit products. For example, a victim of infringement will have the authority to file a civil action against the owner or registrant of a rogue site. If an order is granted by the court, third parties will be required to stop processing payments from the infringing sites, therefore, preventing infringers from collecting payments. I will work to ensure that our laws our modernized to protect intellectual property, and will keep your thoughts on this bill in mind should it come before the Senate for a vote.

Re:Stand up, people!

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

Yeah, imagine that. The top states that are supporting this :
* New York (2x)
* Nevada
* California
* Massachusetts

And the top counties :
* Richmond, Virginia
* Los Angeles, California (ie. Silicon Valley) (TWICE)
* Washington environs, Maryland
* Charleston, South Carolina
* Boston, Masachusetts

Hey those are the guys who voted in the major SOPA supporters. Representatives are supposed to represent the will of the people ... well in theory anyway.

Really sad that the opposition couldn't even take Los Angeles.

Re:Stand up, people!

[Yvanhoe]

So rather, make it known that you will boycott products from SOPA supporters, who can tell congressmen what to vote for. Someone developped a nifty app for that :

http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/o78co/my_friend_and_i_wrote_an_application_to_boycott/

Re:Stand up, people!

[mdf356]

I'll definitely vote for whoever runs against him in the next election, though.

Don't forget to vote in the primary as well. Knocking a candidate out in the primary can mean that you can play party politics as usual in the general. In Washington state now, the general isn't even a two-party election, it's a runoff from the top two vote getters in the primary.

Re:Stand up, people!

[arkenian]

And the top counties :

* Los Angeles, California (ie. Silicon Valley) (TWICE)

Hey those are the guys who voted in the major SOPA supporters. Representatives are supposed to represent the will of the people ... well in theory anyway.

Really sad that the opposition couldn't even take Los Angeles.

errr. Silicon valley is not in Los Angeles, Hollywood is. Hollywood's support for this bill makes sense, silicon valley's does not.

Re:Stand up, people!

[dgatwood]

The correct statement is, "I have prepared a campaign platform and a war chest with the intent to run against you and unseat you during the primary if you are stupid enough to vote for this bill."

Re:Stand up, people!

[shentino]

If the favors they do for their corporate bedfellows line them up a cushy enough job in the private sector they won't give a damn about re-election.

Re:Stand up, people!

[blackraven14250]

There's a reason that the blackout option is expected to be highly effective if it happens. Just wait until the flood of angry constituents makes their voice heard in Washington.

Re:Stand up, people!

[Nemyst]

The one thing I hate most about these, though, is that the Americans basically think themselves as above everybody else. What can I do, as a Canadian citizen, to stop this bill? Nothing. But if it passes, I will have to live with the consequences.

If it were just the Americans that would be affected, I'd just let them hang themselves. They seem very capable in doing so. However, when their laws start trespassing borders to affect the entire PLANET, I think something is clearly wrong.

Re:Stand up, people!

[Lord_Jeremy]

Isn't PBS still controlled by the republicans?

Re:Stand up, people!

[Stiletto]

MY senators? MY representatives?

News Flash: I don't have any representative to write to. Time Warner has representatives. ExxonMobil has representatives. Pfizer has representatives. Lockheed Martin has representatives. You and I don't have squat in terms of governmental representation.

Re:Stand up, people!

[El_Muerte_TDS]

SOPA affects me too, but I'm not an USA citizen, live there, work there, etc.
How can the rest of the world help in fixing this political problem in the US? Should we send our army to overthrow the corrupt government?

Re:Stand up, people!

[Anonymous Coward]

Um, hate to break it to you, but CNN had a SOPA article on their front page all day yesterday and I believe it's still there as the 2nd or 3rd headline. These days a large portion of their content is showcasing or reacting to user generated content, something SOPA will surely curtail.

Re:Stand up, people!

[e**(i pi)-1]

this article gives a reason: journalists would risk a lot.

Re:Stand up, people!

[houghi]

I'll definitely vote for whoever runs against him in the next election, though.

He will be bought as well. It does not even matter if he has a D or an R after his name.

With the two-party system you can choose if they shoot you in the left or the right kneecap. Please don't forget and register to vote. That will show how nice of a citizen you are.

And it will get worse, much worse. Also read http://www.rense.com/general37/char.htm and especially:
9.

Re:Stand up, people!

[Anonymous Coward]

The United States government isn't behind this ... they are merely a means to an end. The MULTINATIONAL CORPORATIONS are pulling the strings here. Not that that changes anything. You don't get to vote for/against those assholes either.

Re:Stand up, people!

[TheRaven64]

Out of interest, have you ever tried writing to the senators or representatives for your constituency? On any matter? I most often hear this 'my elected representatives don't represent me' from people who have never bothered letting the politicians that are supposed to represent them know what they think.

Re:Stand up, people!

[paimin]

So "not very" then.

Re:Stand up, people!

[Slashdot Assistant]

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?

Re:Stand up, people!

[Haedrian]

This bill WILL get passed if we don't make our donations to elected officials!

Fixed that for you.

Re:Stand up, people!

[brendank310]

I tried when the Patriot Act was up for renewal. The form letter I received in return made it ostensibly clear that my representative did not read, nor care to address any of the points I made in my letter.

Re:Stand up, people!

[Anonymous Coward]

This is one of the many reasons I will be voting for Ron Paul. I know what you are thinking (oh boy another one). I am a convert. I didnt vote for him last time as I think his ideas are reckless and destructive (still do). However, the alternative is more of the same. Which is even more reckless and destructive. I had hoped Obama would show the will to stand up to congress. Instead he just pushed whatever the flavor of the month was thru. He could clean up the budget mess real damn quick with 'i will veto every bill put in front of me that is not the budget'. Instead he is just pointing fingers with the rest of them, at each other.

My voice says enough of this shit. I am going to vote for the party of NO. No more of this damn crap.

I am encouraging those I know to vote for him (staunch republicans and a couple of staunch democrats). They are listening to me. As I make good arguments about what is going on.

This is just a part of the symptom of the problem. Too much money buying votes. Hell here in NC you can buy a state legislature for little more than 2k. Sounds like in some states they get better money for the federal level.

When you guys make Ayn Rand start to sound sane you are doing it wrong...

I am going to vote in the republican primaries (usually dont bother) I will be casting my vote for Ron Paul.

http://www.2012presidentialelectionnews.com/2012-republican-primary-schedule/

If he looses the primary I will write it in.

Re:Stand up, people!

[SuricouRaven]

By continuing to pirate after SOPA, and helping those in America to the same, to demonstrate that the law is utterly useless at its stated purpose.

Then in five years the MPAA can write SOPA2, which will ban all encryption software and VPNs.

Re:Stand up, people!

[nazsco]

Sounds pretty good to me

Why are you guys opposing it again?

If it's not like that, can't he be removed from office from lying?

Re:Stand up, people!

[Scaba]

Also, write to any of the corporate sponsors of the bill and tell them you are taking your business to a non-SOPA supporting competitor. This will be more effective if you actually have an account history with a company that they can see, and you actually do take your business elsewhere. And publicly post about it, and send them links to said postings. Enough of these complaints and it's quite likely said company will drop support for the bill. It worked with GoDaddy, it can work with others. This is also the only real way non-Americans who want SOPA stopped can have a voice in opposing it. American senators don't give a shit about the opinions of the other 95% of the world, but many US corporations have foreign subsidiaries and hitting their bottom line will also hit the US parent's bottom line.

Re:Stand up, people!

[Man On Pink Corner]

I hear a lot of talk about smashing shit up, killing people, and sending letter bombs, but I don't see a lot of news stories about heroic revolutionary acts committed by someone known only as "JockTroll."

101st Fighting Keyboarders, pre-sent arms!

Re:Stand up, people!

[Imbrondir]

This certainly attests that a centralized DNS controlled by the US was a bug to begin with. I wonder if there exists any technical solution to this? If there was one, changing might not be that hard if you could get MS, Google, Apple, Mozilla and Opera in on it.

Re:Stand up, people!

[T Murphy]

I would love to see other countries speak out against the US on this. I wish we could get economic sanctions from passing a law like this. If you aren't American maybe it's at least something to write to your representatives and ask them to release a statement against the US about this, or even seek to take action (such as push to end the lopsided power we wield over the internet). Sure, some Canadian politician writing a complaint to the US might not mean much, but if said complaint is signed by dozens, and similar occurs in many European countries, at the very least the American public might realize SOPA is a big deal.

Re:Stand up, people!

[DMUTPeregrine]

I've written to "my" representatives. Every time I get "thank you for your concerns but... form letter bullshit explaining why my concerns won't have any impact..."

Re:Stand up, people!

[todd_is_not]

*Los Angeles is Hollywood, not Silicon Valley.

Re:Stand up, people!

[Unkyjar]

Here's a tad bit more info:

http://youtu.be/l9oeJgrVrq0

Re:Stand up, people!

[Anonymous Coward]

The broad American belief that their media has a heavy left wing slant never ceases to amaze and amuse me. It's a complete Poe; you really couldn't lampoon it. You peeps would probably think Nazi government announcements in the 30s and 40s had a liberal bias.

Re:Stand up, people!

[Thing 1]

If it were just the Americans that would be affected, I'd just let them hang themselves. They seem very capable in doing so. However, when their laws start trespassing borders to affect the entire PLANET, I think something is clearly wrong.

James Cameron really hit the mark with "Avatar", even if it was a retelling of Pocahontas.

Re:Stand up, people!

[phorm]

If you think that, you're deluded. Unless there are some serious changes in Canada, our government is taking the same path as the U.S.

As they go downhill, our politicians will follow with their lips firmly attached to the arses of the same corps as their US counterparts.

Re:Stand up, people!

[ScrewMaster]

We'll have to route around the USA. Make the DNS root be in EU or iceland, and start paying for things in bitcoin, rather than Mastercard or Visa. Actually, it's not so big a deal. It can be done!

Yes, it is a big deal because DNS only works _if everyone uses it._ One of the big fears about DNS (one that I think Congress is not considering because, well, they're fundamentally stupid) is what will happen to the global network when DNS becomes balkanized, with every nation (or blocs of nations) running their own systems. Granted, the Internet couldn't care less about DNS: all it cares about is IP addresses. But the Domain Name System is a vital part of the World Wide Web, and URLs are everywhere, even within embedded systems.

Secondly, there is no single "DNS root". There are, last I was aware, thirteen root servers that are geographically distributed around the world, and hundreds of thousands of secondary domain name servers operated by ISPs and large organizations of one kind or another. Historically, the U.S. government pretty much left the things alone, and that worked out very well for all concerned. The fact that we're going to be sacrificing the trust other countries placed in us when they got on-board the Internet, just to satisfy the greed of an industry worth a paltry five or ten billion dollars a year is just astonishing. The rest of us, the ones who run our 2.4 trillion dollar economy, are more than a little pissed off about this.

To be fair, you can thank several _European_ corporations, the big media conglomerates such as Sony, Vivendi, BMG and others, for spending the millions to buy SOPA, PIPA, and a host of other similar bad laws. So you don't get to dump all of this in our laps, and if our Justice Department hadn't already been subverted by big media (several top spots at the DoJ are currently occupied by ex-RIAA lawyers) several Congresspeople would be under investigation for treason.

Re:Stand up, people!

[ScrewMaster]

I would love to see other countries speak out against the US on this. I wish we could get economic sanctions from passing a law like this. If you aren't American maybe it's at least something to write to your representatives and ask them to release a statement against the US about this, or even seek to take action (such as push to end the lopsided power we wield over the internet). Sure, some Canadian politician writing a complaint to the US might not mean much, but if said complaint is signed by dozens, and similar occurs in many European countries, at the very least the American public might realize SOPA is a big deal.

Well, economic sanctions against superpowers (even ones like us that are on the way out) generally don't work out too well. The problem is that Congress has demonstrated over the past several years an inability to think globally about Internet-related issues. They just seem to be unaware of the fact that, well, hundreds of millions of people in other countries are just as economically and culturally dependent upon the network as we are, and don't appreciate anyone screwing around with it.

Re:Stand up, people!

[__aasdno7518]

"Americans basically think themselves as above everybody else." We don't,our government and the corporations who control it sure do.

Re:Stand up, people!

[ScrewMaster]

I've written to "my" representatives. Every time I get "thank you for your concerns but... form letter bullshit explaining why my concerns won't have any impact..."

Sure, because they get thousands upon thousands of letters and other communications and no one person could possibly read them all. Are you naive enough to have expected a personal response? The best you can hope for is a form-letter that is usually written to be as inoffensive as possible. However, a well-thought-out letter likely will be read by their staff, and they most certainly do collate that information for decision-making purposes. It's in their best interests to know what their constituents are up in arms about.

Re:Stand up, people!

[ScrewMaster]

By continuing to pirate after SOPA, and helping those in America to the same, to demonstrate that the law is utterly useless at its stated purpose. Then in five years the MPAA can write SOPA2, which will ban all encryption software and VPNs.

Won't take five years, and I wouldn't be surprised to find they've got a rider ready to be attached to SOPA at the last minute. They have to be careful with that though: there are far too many legitimate, mainstream uses for VPNs and encryption for a general ban to ever be enforced. Banks and large corporations, for example, would go ballistic. Millions of people telecommute using encrypted VPNs: how do you distinguish between legitimate encrypted traffic and that used for (ahem!) nefarious purposes? Do you have the ISP do it? Do you have the government maintain lists of approved VPN destinations? It's not a simple task.

Re:Stand up, people!

[T Murphy]

You can contact Ford here. Especially those of you who own a Ford vehicle should consider writing to them. I doubt enough people would write to them to make a difference, but in the event that Ford did switch I think it would be a huge boost for us, as that would do a lot to kill the argument that the bill protects American workers and productivity.

Re:Stand up, people!

[lightknight]

Thank You.

The long and short of it, is that this bill is, put charitably, penny-wise and pound-foolish. We will lose $300 billion to get back $10 billion. And that's just the monetary aspect. From the freedoms aspect, we stand to lose a fair amount more.

Two points need to made here:
1.) Steam figured out how to use DRM and not piss off its customer base. That members of the MPAA and RIAA are seemingly incapable of doing the same is a reason I would not invest in either their constituent's companies, given the choice (leadership failure, lack of vision).
2.) Using jack-booted thugs (off-duty police offices dressed like members of SWAT) to bust into people's homes, and arrest someone's grandmother for copyright violations is f*cked up. Any sane politician would cut off his own arm to NOT be associated with that kind of imagery.

The only possible reason I can contemplate that some members of government are getting on board with this is some sort of power-grab. Which is cute. The people you are going after are already US citizens, but for some reason you feel the need to degrade and humiliate your own people. Basically, it's a form of power masturbation: it gives our country something to do, but in the end, we're f*cking themselves.

Re:Stand up, people!

[TheRealGrogan]

Well, for example, when youtube and various sites shut down or become a mere shadow of what they are today, this Canadian will be affected. When America puts economic and political pressure on other countries to adopt their sick laws, non Americans like myself will also be affected.

Re:Stand up, people!

[wytcld]

Bernie Sanders was still short of a full commitment when he responded to me, but seems to be leaning against. Hope other Vermonters will push him on this. Play the anticorporate card - Bernie is strongly suspicious of the power of large corporations.

Leahy of course belongs to the Devil (aka his old buddy Michael Eisner) on this one.

Re:Stand up, people!

[wytcld]

And because of that, PBS has been leaning over backwards to appease the Republicans for years. That's exactly how the Republicans distort our media. They bully them all into line. Certainly the TV news operations have been cowed. The only exception is the NY Times, which is powerful enough not to care. But it has it's own problem: it always sucks up to whoever holds the presidency and to our military leaders.

Re:Stand up, people!

[HiThere]

Not sure of the difference you are making between overthrown and revisited. If you are arguing that some similar bill (similar how?) is desireable, then I'm willing to listen. But the current bill is so bad in so many different places that the best answer is to just get rid of it. And then get rid of the Sony-Bono copyright extension act, too. That wasn't quite as bad, but it was bad enough.

WRT the DMCA the worst part of the bill is that you can file false charges against someone without suffering any penalties. It's far from the only bad part, but that part in and of itself is sufficient that the bill should have never have been voted, and should be repealed immediately.

Note that the specification of how this is to be done is that the person filing the charge must have a "good faith belief" (don't know the exact wording) that the person who asked them to file the charge is acting honestly. There's no requirement that this be tested. There's no requirement that there not be a prior history of misrepresentation. And there's no penalty as long as he told you it was infringing. And he can lie without penalty.

So essentially you CAN'T get someone prosecuted for filing a false claim against you. Or even for repeatedly filing the same false claim against you. And you can't file civil proceedings on the basis of this law, only on something like "interference with business relations" or something.

Catuion: I Am Not A Lawyer. But I believe this information to be correct.

Re:Stand up, people!

[HiThere]

My Senators? I've written, but they'll vote for it anyway. (One of them I didn't bother to read the response from, as that entity has lied about how they're going to vote before. But they are both solidly in the pocket of both the MPAA and the RIAA.)
My Representative? She may vote against it. I've written. But it doesn't have much of her attention, so she might not. I wrote, but....well, I'm uncertain.

Re:Stand up, people!

[Arch_Android]

Heck, American Senators don't listen to 95% of Americans.

Re:Stand up, people!

[Scaba]

You contact the subsidiaries in your country of SOPA-supporting American companies and tell them why you will no longer/never be using their services or purchasing their goods. Also contact their American parent company. Publicly post this information and point them to it. Encourage others to do the same. The only thing that will keep SOPA and PIPA from passing is by making a real dent in the profits of the companies who have rented American senators and congressmen to pass this law for them.

Re:Stand up, people!

[dgatwood]

Q: 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?

A: They all just made my disqualified vendor list.

To be fair, Ford was already on that list. My Windstar's right turn signal started acting up about a year ago. Now, in addition to having become somewhat worse, the problem has also spread to the driver's side door lock, the driver's side window, and with varying degrees of frequency, both sliding door locks, the passenger's side door lock, and the door open chime/lights. The only door lock that *hasn't* started misbehaving over the last three is the tailgate (and even then, I can't be certain). I'm already on my third check engine light, at least two of which were directly caused by a design flaw in the front valve cover. The transmission has already been rebuilt once, and I've already had to replace both the power steering pump and the steering rack. Oh, and the ABS light regularly comes on. This is at a little over a hundred thousand miles. Like I really need another reason not to buy anything else from them. Ford, where Quality is #1, and Reliability is #2....

Re:Stand up, people!

[mirix]

Sanders is sort of a rare beast among US politicians. I think he'd be one of the harder ones to buy.

Re:Stand up, people!

[StikyPad]

Nice site you got there at http://www.rense.com/. David Duke videos? Check. Conspiracy theories about Mars? Check. Chemtrails? Check. Miracle cures? Check. Rampant antisemitism? Check.

Though for what it's worth, the original source seems to be here: http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=library&page=index_23

And the author, Laurence Britt*, seems to have no other credentials than his article appearing in a free, irregularly published journal of, let's say uncertain repute. (Don't forget to pick up his novel, June, 2004,, which depicts a future America dominated by right-wing extremists, still available new from 5 sellers for just $49.99.)

Of course none of that makes what he says any less true by default. Fascist nations probably possess most of those characteristics. It's also true that serial killers all have many characteristics in common: they have noses, mouths, ears, eyes, hair, and always seem to show up in human form (so far). Be on the lookout!

Re:Stand up, people!

[Nemyst]

Oh don't get me wrong, I'm well aware the pressure doesn't strictly come from American companies. I'm merely pointing out that even with this in mind, there's nothing I, as a foreigner, can do, short of stopping to buy the concerned companies' products. That's not going to put much of a dent in their resolve, I can assure you.

Re:Stand up, people!

[Thing 1]

Yeah, the way I see it, we're fucked. Get your guns as fast as you can, and realize they're nothing compared to tanks and drones...

Re:Stand up, people!

[shentino]

I'll do you one better

DMCA should

1) Remove the circumvention bullshit in cases where you can (and should) be allowed to use non-infringing usage as an affirmative defense, if not outright. Prevention of anything but actual infringement is anti-competitive and unfair to end users.

2) Apply the same "under penalty of perjury" to initial notices regarding allegations of infringement as applies to counter-notices. There needs to be more accountability for sending a frivolous notice. It should be treated the same way as any other false report...as a crime.

Re:Stand up, people!

[swilver]

It will only affect America, as we'll just shift to services not based in America. On the internet, nothing lasts forever, and if youtube, imdb, google or whatever else no longer fulfills the needs of its users people will go elsewhere.

Re:Stand up, people!

[catmistake]

errr. Silicon valley is not in Los Angeles, Hollywood is. Hollywood's support for this bill makes sense, silicon valley's does not.

GP probably meant Silicone Valley, which is LA.

Re:Stand up, people!

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

Right, of course. Oops. Silicon valley is San Francisco of course.

Re:Stand up, people!

[hoboroadie]

Awful nice of Jeff Rense to promote Lawrence Britt to "Dr."

I want "Prof.", I'll write something too.

Re:Stand up, people!

[silentcoder]

They've been doing that for years. When Bush invaded Iraq the price of fuel in South Africa jumped up 40% overnight. Food prices followed within the month.
The lives of everybody in the country (a poor one for the most part) was made massively worse because a US president wanted to step out of his daddy's shadow.
And not one of the people in South Africa has a vote or any other ability to have done anything about it, they didn't elect Bush but many of them starved because of his reckless warmongering.
Since South Africa would last all of 30 seconds in a war against the USA - they couldn't even lobby their own government to protect their interests.
I am quite sure that every human being in every country on earth now has lived through similiar stories (or the same one) of having their lives adversely affected by the government of an America they cannot vote for (or against).

Re:Stand up, people!

[X86Daddy]

Here's the answer... here's why you don't understand:

There is an existing game, an existing set of rules for getting what is wanted out of the US government. (A) be an enormous corporation or a confederation of smaller ones, (B) buy legislation, and (C) make sure the populace doesn't riot by managing their "news" etc... about the important work done by the government.

The Internet is finally showing itself to be a major threat to the status quo. Arab Spring... Ron Paul's increasing popularity, Steissand Effects everywhere, Wikileaks, Anti-Sec... And so, while the rules of the game are still mostly in effect, the Game Players who have enjoyed successful ownership of the largest government on Earth are working to ensure they will maintain that ownership.

All unions, All PACs, all politicians participating in the election games, and definitely the media empires... all of them currently enjoy winning at the game with the current set of rules. A free Internet only provides benefits to their opponents in this game: us. Humans. People who care about how they're governed and dare disagree with how Sony wants us governed. So, there will be no media coverage. No major PAC, party, union, etc... with an interest in its long-term survival will dare bring SOPA up.

The actual battle is going to be technological. Legislation is a foregone conclusion.

Re:Stand up, people!

[ReinoutS]

For what it's worth, the Dutch GreenLeft MP Arjan El Fassed asked written questions in Parliament about American pressure on EU countries to support internet freedom-threatening laws.

Re:Get over it

[M. Baranczak]

If they got no salary, and no "campaign donations" either, they'd vote exactly the same way.

Stop it, you're killing me.

Do something

[Anonymous Coward]

VPNs are not a viable alternative but there are other technologies that can help. Write one-click installers for darknets, p2p networks, distributed DNS systems. Seriously, technology cannot solve social problems but at least can alleviate them. SOPA will come, so it's time to act now.

Re:Do something

[nurb432]

In reality none of those are viable long term options either. Since the ISPs ( which are also content providers ) support this they will just take the next logical step, if these alternatives becomes common place, and ratchet down your "open" bandwidth to the point that you cant afford to do anything.

Buying content from their servers will of cousre not count against your measly cap.

The only true solution will be point-to-point community networks. ( mainly neighborhood wifi mesh )Get rid, and get around, the need for a link to the 'public internet' except for perhaps your online banking and buying stuff from amazon.

Who all here remembers BBSs and FidoNet?

Re:Do something

[countertrolling]

Heh, when they start jamming our wifi, we'll be back to good old sneakernet... we can increase the bandwidth of that with pony express...

Re:Do something

[betterunixthanunix]

Who all here remembers BBSs and FidoNet?

You say this as if FidoNet were a thing of the past. FidoNet is still out there, there are lots of Internet/FidoNet gateways, and FidoNet nodes still communicate using dialup modems.

Re:Do something

[blind biker]

The only true solution will be point-to-point community networks. ( mainly neighborhood wifi mesh )Get rid, and get around, the need for a link to the 'public internet' except for perhaps your online banking and buying stuff from amazon.

Who all here remembers BBSs and FidoNet?

I do. Strange, now that you mention FidoNet, I find some kind of fascination and liking to that old, slow network. I have no idea how it would be implemented nowadays, except by a community of private or semi-private LAN networks connected in one of more internets (lowercase "i").

Re:Do something

[nurb432]

I was speaking more towards the fact that most people around here are too young to remember it, not that its 'gone'.

But you will have to admit its a shadow of its former self. As is dial-up, UUCP, etc.

Re:Do something

[nurb432]

I would suggest something like layering it on top of a 'transparent distributed store' system like freenet.

That way the underlying 'network' will no longer really be a factor. As long as your packets can get there somehow, it still works.

Re:Do something

[betterunixthanunix]

FidoNet is still around; the implementation today is identical to the implementation of 20 years ago.

Re:Do something

[ErikInterlude]

I don't know about this. Yes, a lot of slashdotters could build a wifi mesh for given area, but they are also the minority in a given area as well. The initial mesh would be primitive. It would get more robust and attractive with growth, but the average Internet user won't want to access it unless it was so easy as to be accidentally done.

What about content? Quality would be up, but amount would be small. The general public won't come in initially because there's nothing there to consume. The tech crowd might find it a haven since the initial content would be tech-centric, but there still wouldn't be a huge amount of movement initially.

SOPA would have jurisdiction no matter what. If it doesn't, laws can get passed that would grant it. A strict rule of etiquette would have to be in place with the idea that all content is public domain, and that copyright-infringing content will be removed on discovery.

If the meshes got big enough, companies would be interested in coming in. A strict rule would have to be in place to reject this. Governments would be interested as well. If a government doesn't get access to something, it can become regulated or outlawed. Given that wifi uses radio signals regulated by the FCC, some regulation is inevitable.

I supposed you could start by getting colleges involved. Students wouldn't be interested because there wouldn't be much content to study off it. This would have to be pitched as some kind of research project. Maybe local community groups could get involved, if they're upset enough about government interference or unfair laws, or something to that effect. There wouldn't be many nodes to start with, and the meshes would not be able to connect to each other without using the regular Internet, putting them directly under SOPA's jurisdiction.

Really, it comes down to what you want out of the Internet. If you want to share content, you can (basically) already do that without worrying about SOPA. If you want to connect to others from far away, you can already do that without SOPA (assuming a reasonably non-restrictive country). If you want an Internet without corporate interference, without government inspection (almost impossible), and complete freedom of sharing and communication no matter what, then yes, you could build this mesh.

Over time, however, it would need to be replaced by something else. Like anything, it would be subject to change and eventually steer away from it's initial vision. It would either get subsumed by the regular Internet or just close down. Maybe it could continue on, but this would take a lot of work over a long period of time. A lot of people have been bringing up this idea for a while, so that may already speak to it's general viability.

Re:Do something

[SuricouRaven]

Actually, that could be quite practical. Those sneakers can carry a huge amount of data now. Eight gig on a USB stick, two terabytes on a portable hard drive... a couple of those could hold the entire collection of even the most obcesssive pirate. I can easily imagine the return of the Knock-Off Nigel, that coworker or fellow student who is happy to supply friends with pirate media. One Nigel with the knowledge to access darknets and contacts with other Nigels could supply many, many people, who would in turn supply more, who would supply more... a p2p network in the offline world. Latency would be no good for grabbing the latest blockbuster movie, but perfect for back-catalog piracy.

Re:Do something

[SuricouRaven]

You could almost use Freenet - it wouldn't need much modification to run over a non-IP network, or even an ad-hoc network, and it'd remain entirely compatible. You'd need to put a huge amount of storage in the routers to get decent retention, but that's doable these days... a 2TB hard drive should do it.

Re:Do something

[Vegemeister]

From what I recall of Freenet's routing algorithms, nodes would bootstrap a good bit faster if the network had an underlying structure (social, geograpical, etc.).

Re:Do something

[Vegemeister]

SOPA would have jurisdiction no matter what. If it doesn't, laws can get passed that would grant it. A strict rule of etiquette would have to be in place with the idea that all content is public domain, and that copyright-infringing content will be removed on discovery.

Doesn't that kind of defeat the purpose? The entire point to a technical solution to a social problem is that you can sidestep those persnickety legal issues.

Students wouldn't be interested because there wouldn't be much content to study off it.

How long has it been since you were a student, exactly?

Re:Do something

[Idbar]

Since the ISPs ( which are also content providers ) support this

What else would you expect from the Comcast-NBC merger? Networks are becoming carriers, carriers are becoming networks. And turned out they both own the government.

Re:Do something

[ErikInterlude]

Doesn't that kind of defeat the purpose? The entire point to a technical solution to a social problem is that you can sidestep those persnickety legal issues.

Well, yes, you're right. My overall point was that it probably wasn't a possible thing to do. Once an alternative becomes viable in a mainstream sense, there will be legislation to put it under control.

Assuming a working alternate network was able to run under the radar of the powers that be, it would probably be so small and with such little viable content that it would be little more than a niche medium. Kind of like Gopher today.

How long has it been since you were a student, exactly?

Over ten years. I grant that students now are different than students then, but I think my point still holds. It's really all about content and convenience. Why do research on this alt-net when you have Wikipedia and Google on the regular Internet? Chat rooms? Message boards? Videos? Games? Porn? The regular Internet already has that and more. The only interest I can see from students is as some kind of academic research project.

You can't just make a product and say "Use this product!". It doesn't work that way. You have to think of the convenience of the consumers of that product. You've got to be able to offer something that the user base wants within an acceptable threshold of effort. And that acceptable threshold is defined by whatever other product is out there that fulfills the same need. In this case, the Internet. Which is ubiquitous. That's why I don't think students of today would be attracted to it.

This isn't to say that I don't think it would be an interesting effort. I just don't think the momentum would be sustainable. It would almost have to be made with the idea that it would be dropped for something else.

Re:Do something

[omnichad]

2TB satiating the most obsessive pirate? My legitimate DVD rips (well, legitimate ignoring DMCA not letting me rip my own DVD's) are well over 800GB. And that's compressed at H.264 (2mbps).

I guess I don't understand...

[TWX]

...what non-information companies have to gain by this bill. Ford is limited to intellectual property related to their physical products, and only could really deal with software piracy for ECM and BCM computers which are limited to use in Ford products anyway. Nike could face a competitor stealing their product designs which would be easier to make than Ford's, but still would fall into industrial espionage rather than casual piracy, and Estee Lauder makes cosmetics and other products that again, aren't exactly end-consumer-piratable...

I wonder if it's a bigger deal that these companies are supporting Congressmen who are passionate about this bill, and this is just another way of helping to keep these Congressmen in their pockets.

Re:I guess I don't understand...

[betterunixthanunix]

Have you ever gone to Chinatown and seen all the "fake" handbags (it is hard to call them "fake" when they are probably produced by the same people who make "genuine" handbags)? Online, there are plenty of websites that will sell you a bag or a shoe that looks just like an expensive brand for a fraction of the cost. SOPA is meant to block access to such websites, which are often hosted offshore where US law enforcement agencies cannot touch them.

Re:I guess I don't understand...

[Anonymous Coward]

I used to work for Ford, they have a ton of other software that they wrote that could be useful for others. During the 1990s they had their own satellite network called FordStar that connected all the dealerships in North America to various facilities in Dearborn, MI and used custom software for diagnostics. I got to play with a very early version of wireless ethernet during that time.

Re:I guess I don't understand...

[del_diablo]

Look at it this way: All creditcard companies and banks have a webpage.
By effect that means that if you ask them to block something under SOPA, you basically ask for them to do a complete block of all products of that company. And since all transfers is done via the web anyhow, you have just killed all their economical support.
So basically the reason they want to support SOPA is because that gives them more rights to deal with other companies, at every level but what is being sold in the store if its not imported.

Re:I guess I don't understand...

[jo42]

Ford doesn't want China to be able to build fake Fords.

Estee Lauder doesn't want China to make fake stinks (AKA perfumes) and war paints (AKA makeup).

Re:I guess I don't understand...

[edalytical]

Exactly counterfeit goods are a big deal for companies and consumers. There is a need to prevent these counterfeiters from tricking consumers, but SOPA is not the solution. Just do a google search for "cheap uggs" the first result is a warning from UGG Australia about counterfeiters and the second result is a counterfeiter selling "fake" uggs. Unfortunately this does need to be stopped! However, I can't think of a way that would not compromise the Internet and civil liberties, etc.

Re:I guess I don't understand...

[Nrrqshrr]

Look, am a guy who supports SOPA, okay? Problem is, SOPA ain't very popular. I only have a couple of bro congressmen in my pocket. So I need "popular" friends to support it, okay? But hey wait! That guy, Nike, is quite popular, he's like the richest kid in the rich folks, you know? I will ask him to support my SOPA soap, and in exchange, I give him some "donations", so that he will make some "donations". Oh and when later he needs support for some cool idea of his that will probably end up being unpopular (say, cutting chinese hands that make bad not-Nike shoes), me and my bro congressmen will support him all the way.

Smells like profit, man.

Re:I guess I don't understand...

[lexman098]

I don't have mod points, but that's a great point. Thanks.

Re:I guess I don't understand...

[Dr_Barnowl]

On the one hand, I can see the point of view of the designers who are annoyed about the counterfeiting of their product.

On the other hand, what does it say about the actual value of their designs? It says that people are not willing to pay the prices they demand for the somewhat ephemeral value that their design commands.

It used to be that artisans had makers marks because their product was of superior quality and they wished to differentiate it. People seeing the superior quality of the product and desiring that quality for themselves would see the makers mark and know where they could get an item of similar quality.

Quality is no longer the differentiation though - price is. The relationship has inverted ; a maker no longer puts their mark on something to identify the maker of the product and generate sales, he puts the mark on to increase the perceived value of the product. As some people are no doubt pointing out - a lot of the so-called "counterfeit" product is made on the same production line, from the same materials, by the same workers using the same amount of labour.

There is no difference in the intrinsic value of the product - it's the same material object with the same properties - so why can Loius Vuitton sell it for more than Mr Chang? Because Loius Vuitton inflates the perception of value of their products in ways that have nothing to do with their actual utility - they put them in a swanky shop with a flunky on the door, they don't pile them high, and they don't sell them cheap.

The real counterfeit is therefore the perceived value of the "genuine" product - people are buying fake value. This is not an artisan product made by a skilled craftsman. This is a product designed to be made as piecework in a third world sweatshop - a product that by definition, has to be makable by the lowest common denominator of skill.

Re:I guess I don't understand...

[betterunixthanunix]

Quality is no longer the differentiation though - price is

Bingo. This is the problem with the current legal framework and enforcement regime.

Re:I guess I don't understand...

[sadboyzz]

Have you ever gone to Chinatown and seen all the "fake" handbags (it is hard to call them "fake" when they are probably produced by the same people who make "genuine" handbags)? Online, there are plenty of websites that will sell you a bag or a shoe that looks just like an expensive brand for a fraction of the cost. SOPA is meant to block access to such websites, which are often hosted offshore where US law enforcement agencies cannot touch them.

Yes, they will be blocked, just like how all the websites who do not paint the Chinese government positively are blocked in China, which are often hosted offshore where Chinese law enforcement agencies cannot touch them.

And if they don't even bother prosecuting those selling counterfeit goods in Chinatown in broad day light, what sense does it make to give them such broad power to censor the Internet in the name of curbing IP theft?

Re:I guess I don't understand...

[UnknownSoldier]

Interesting/Informative post, but you miss two key issues:

1. You ARE aware that the whole fashion industry has NO copyright and yet still continues to profit, right?
Johanna Blakley: Lessons from fashion's free culture
http://www.ted.com/talks/johanna_blakley_lessons_from_fashion_s_free_culture.html

> There is no difference in the intrinsic value of the product.
2. Correct. You are close to a key Insight to reach the next level of understanding but not quite there yet; so let me help you out --> Value is multi-valued! i.e. Two different people can value the same thing differently; what is it "perceived" value then? The High, the Low, the Average? No, it is BOTH the low AND the high. It is a 1-to-many relationship, NOT a 1-to-1 relationship. THIS is the main factor on why [almost] all economic theories are doomed to fail -- they don't accurately model the relationship of value -- multi-valued, not single-valued.

> The real counterfeit is ... people are buying fake value
People literally buy into the pseudo-cool factor all the time. They are called "fads." Suckers have yet to learn that having object X doesn't matter one bit when you the true value in life is relationships. e.g. The rest of us get on with our lives buying the $20 jeans instead of the $100 designer jeans laughing (and/or feeling sad) at the sucker ^H^H^H financial idiot willing to throw away his money at a lame attempt of being a hipster.

There is a much bigger issue looming on the horizon ( 100 - 400 years) though that you will want to ponder -- what happens to "value" when anyone can simply "print" whatever object they want? =)

Cheers

Re:I guess I don't understand...

[edalytical]

Quality is no longer the differentiation though - price is.

You couldn't be more wrong! I've had a family member buy counterfeit UGG boots and the difference in quality, craftsmanship, and materials is laughable. On the one hand you have a boot that is made from lamb skin, its durable, water proof and most of all it has a warranty from the manufacture. But the other was made from cotton, was already falling apart, was not water proof by any stretch of the imagination. Worst of all it had exact copies of the UGG Australia labels, do you think UGG Australia should have to provide warranty services for counterfeit boots?!? This isn't about perceived value. There is real value in brand products and you'd be a fool to think otherwise. Sure you can buy a PC that looks like an Apple, but it isn't an Apple! If someone puts an Apple sticker on a PC and sells it as an Apple, that's FRAUD! The difference isn't a trick by the brand to get you to buy it. The brand is there so you know it's a legit product. That's the difference.

Re:I guess I don't understand...

[betterunixthanunix]

What makes you think that a "fake" handbag was not produced in the same sweatshop as a "real" handbag? It is not as if some people in China came to the United States, purchased a pair of Nike sneakers, went back to China with them and tried to copy the design. There is nothing "fake" about it -- it is made using the same designs, same materials, and in some cases the same labor force as what you might buy in a mall.

Re:I guess I don't understand...

[Lord_Jeremy]

What makes you think consumers are being tricked? The fact that they are googling "cheap uggs" in the first place is an indication that some (or many) people don't want to pay the high price of the "official" footwear. From what I've read, the majority of counterfeit clothing comes from the same assembly line as the brand name stuff. Why should a consumer care if the designer sanctioned a pair of shoes or not? Especially if the designer-sanctioned shoes cost five times as much as the alternatives. This is not a problem for the consumer.

Re:I guess I don't understand...

[edalytical]

You don't know anything about the current state of affairs. The counterfeiters are not selling things made in the same factories, nor from the same materials, nor from the same designs. About the only thing that is the same is the labels and trademarks. The products are "fake" in every sense of the word. They're only made to resemble the product so that a sale can be made. When it's online they use pictures of the actual products but send out something that resembles but is not the product. If they were coming from the same factories that would be theft, not fraudulent counterfeits. I'm fairly sure the factories are not that incompetent, they'd know when inventory went missing. That's not the problem -- the problem is fraud.

Re:I guess I don't understand...

[betterunixthanunix]

Yet I had dozens of friends in high school who bought "counterfeit" handbags in Chinatown without any problem. The bags performed just as well as the officially sanction bags for a fraction of the cost.

Sure you can buy a PC that looks like an Apple, but it isn't an Apple

Right, it will cost hundreds of dollars less than the Apple product for the same hardware. Software is not hardware and SOPA has little to do with software.

If someone puts an Apple sticker on a PC and sells it as an Apple, that's FRAUD

Actually it is trademark infringement.

The difference isn't a trick by the brand to get you to buy it

No, the value of the brand is propped up by the law, which allows people to sue for trademark infringement and thus create value where there would otherwise be none.

The brand is there so you know it's a legit product

In theory, yes, that is what trademarks are supposed to do. In practice, however, consumer products are of such low quality (regardless of the price range) that the trademark is irrelevant for any purpose other than marketing. You know that Coca Cola is a soft drink you like, but most people would have trouble distinguishing Coca Cola from competing brands. While there are still a few brands that really are distinguished by quality, they tend to be in niche markets. For the most part, most of the brands you buy have artificially inflated prices that have little to do with the quality of the goods.

Re:I guess I don't understand...

[betterunixthanunix]

Actually, my experience has been that knock-offs are roughly the same quality as most brand name consumer goods. I think you just had one bad experience.

I'm fairly sure the factories are not that incompetent, they'd know when inventory went missing

What makes you think anything went missing? What stops a factory from ordering more supplies than would be needed for the official order size?

Re:I guess I don't understand...

[edalytical]

From what I've read, the majority of counterfeit clothing comes from the same assembly line as the brand name stuff.

[citation needed]

Re:I guess I don't understand...

[edalytical]

my experience has been that knock-offs are roughly the same quality as most brand name consumer goods

Tell that to the companies that get warranty request from people who have bought the knock-offs. Then tell that to the poor consumers who thought they bought a legitimate product that should be under warranty.

Re:I guess I don't understand...

[edalytical]

Now you're just splitting hairs and your argument has slipped to nitpicking.

Re:I guess I don't understand...

[edalytical]

Sorry, but the real handbags and boots have warranties. You don't know what you're talking about.

Re:I guess I don't understand...

[DanielRavenNest]

There is a much bigger issue looming on the horizon ( 100 - 400 years) though that you will want to ponder -- what happens to "value" when anyone can simply "print" whatever object they want? =)

You might want to drop a couple of zeroes from the time estimate. There's are projects to open-source the core hardware manufacturing equipment like a plasma torch: http://opensourceecology.org/wiki/CNC_Torch_Table Once you are able to automate general production tools (lathe, milling machine, drill press, etc), you can then make more specialized tools, which in turn make the end products. It becomes a matter of software (CAD files) to produce all the parts. Some stuff, like computer chips, are too specialized to make locally, but it is quite feasible to do 80% today in a community fabrication shop. At the present state of technology, a generalized fab will not fit in your garage, but it should fit in a medium warehouse. That will improve over time just like computers once required large rooms for a single primitive version.

Besides the parts making machines, you also need materials handling (overhead cranes, robotic carts), and assembly robots, and lots of software. For now, it won't be hit "print" and an inkjet printer sized device spits out another printer, but a warehouse sized shop will be able to make all the parts for another shop. That upends the economics of the physical world the same way file sharing upends the economics of digital content. Making paper books or prints of movies on film reels is a linear process, it takes the same amount of work to make each copy. File sharing and self-copying fabrication shops are exponential.

Getting back to the discussion topic, that is also why SOPA will fail even if passed. Takedowns are a linear process. It is limited by how many people are working to detect the websites, get to a judge to order the removal, etc. File sharing distributes an exponential number of copies of whatever people want, so will always win that race. If necessary, the sharing will go on offline, by portable hard drives and pirate wifi hotspots (share with anyone in range, but not on the internet), but it will still be exponential growth as long as one person can share with at least two others.

Re:I guess I don't understand...

[Lord_Jeremy]

http://europeforvisitors.com/venice/articles/illegal-street-vendors.htm
http://www.q2hoo.com/2009/07/shanghai-fake-designer-bag-stores.htm
http://tightwadsurvivalguide.com/HowtoTellAuthenticDesignerClothingandPursesfromFakes.aspx
http://shops.st701.com/resources/index.php?c=article&aid=29992&title=$189-for-a-$1,000-dress?-Copy-that

Re:I guess I don't understand...

[SuricouRaven]

Because it devalues the brand. The purpose of brand-name clothing is a conspiculous display of wealth: You wear it to show everyone else that you have money to burn on fashion. If everyone starts wearing cheap knocks-offs that are indistinguishable from the real thing, how can you show everyone else how rich you are?

It's a more serious issue with counterfeit drugs and unsafe toys, but in the case of sneakers the only consumers to suffer are the smugly wealthy.

Re:I guess I don't understand...

[Goat of Death]

Interesting/Informative post, but you miss two key issues:

1. You ARE aware that the whole fashion industry has NO copyright and yet still continues to profit, right?
Johanna Blakley: Lessons from fashion's free culture
http://www.ted.com/talks/johanna_blakley_lessons_from_fashion_s_free_culture.html

>

I watched this awhile ago, and while correct that fashion has no copyright, it does have trademark protection. By making trademark an essential part of the designs fashion has in many ways achieved very similar protections to if they had copyright. My wife's Coach purse has their C as a very intrinsic part of the design. You could not create the same purse without that trademark as part of the design. And if you created a purse using a similar C they could go after you for the trademark violation as your C is too close to the Coach C and could be seen as diluting their trademark which is a legal no-no. Integrating your trademwark into a design has sort of become a design constraint of the fashion industry by which they achieve IP protection. It's not quite as good as full copyright protection, but it does cover a lot.

There is no difference in the intrinsic value of the product.
2. Correct. You are close to a key Insight to reach the next level of understanding but not quite there yet; so let me help you out --> Value is multi-valued! i.e. Two different people can value the same thing differently; what is it "perceived" value then? The High, the Low, the Average? No, it is BOTH the low AND the high. It is a 1-to-many relationship, NOT a 1-to-1 relationship. THIS is the main factor on why [almost] all economic theories are doomed to fail -- they don't accurately model the relationship of value -- multi-valued, not single-valued.

This I have thought about a lot in the past and wholeheartedly agree with. I have items, like Neverwinter Nights, that looking back, given the hours and fun I had with that game that probably has closer to a value of $250-$300. I have expensive recumbent panniers that cost me $390. However, they have lasted me years thus far, have a lifetime warranty and I expect them to last years to come. These I would be willing to pay $1000 for given their actual utility and value. The problem of course is I don't know that before I purchase something. I can only guess if my $50 for a game will really pan out. As I've bought plenty of games for which it's a bad investment. So it's really difficult to parse out what the correct perceived value should be, even for myself at purchase time. I won't really know the value until several months down the road. At best I'm making an educated guess at purchase time, which I would say for a lot of items ends up being incorrect in some way.

Re:I guess I don't understand...

[SuperTechnoNerd]

I remember a few years ago Ford was claiming any photo or video with a ford vehicle in it is their property. So that's probably why they want it. After all it's not really your vehicle.

Re:I guess I don't understand...

[edalytical]

I can not believe this has to be said but here it goes:

[authoritative citation needed]

Re:I guess I don't understand...

[Maritz]

True. Still, I find it hard to believe that anyone buying fake stuff doesn't realise it's fake. They just don't care. I'd be surprised if crushing the market for fakes led to sales for the real stuff. If people aren't going to buy it because it's too expensive and instead opt for a fake, I don't see how they're going to save up a thou for the real thing just because you can't get the fake for a tenner any more.

Re:I guess I don't understand...

[Vegemeister]

There is absolutely no reason for this shit to go on.

And why not? Allocating $2000 of resources per unit to hand bags is monstrously inefficient.

Re:I guess I don't understand...

[TheRealGrogan]

It's only counterfeit if it's being misrepresented as the original brand. It is perfectly legal to copy clothing design... it happens to the fashion industry all the time. In most cases you are just paying big bucks for the name, not superior quality or design. Unless you are infringing on some patent for a particular type of cushioned sole or something (which may or may not be recognized in your foreign country), you are perfectly within your rights to design a pair of "Smith and Jones" brand sneakers that look like Nike.

Re:I guess I don't understand...

[Rennt]

Online, there are plenty of websites that will sell you a bag or a shoe that looks just like an expensive brand for a fraction of the cost. SOPA is meant to block access to such websites, which are often hosted offshore where US law enforcement agencies cannot touch them.

I thought that was why we had Customs at the border and all those lovely intellectual property treaties with other nations. Guess not.

Re:I guess I don't understand...

[catmistake]

Right, it will cost hundreds of dollars less than the Apple product for the same hardware.

Uh, dude, Apple products are free. Apple gives their computers to students everywhere absolutely free, and has been doing so for over a decade. Wow, isn't it easy to make up shit? Apparently, the trick to accuracy, however, is telling the truth, and not just making shit up to make your point.

Go after the companies

[krelvin]

Go after the companies that are supporting the bill as well. Look what happened to GoDaddy when it was found out they were supporting it. Imagine what happens when companies like 1800contacts, Ford, Adidas and others start getting consumers telling them to drop support as well or lose business.

Business funds Congress... if they start saying no, Congress will say no too.

Re:Go after the companies

[Prof.Phreak]

So you're saying we have to lobby companies who would in turn lobby congress? Democracy at its best!

Re:Go after the companies

[Samantha Wright]

I can indeed imagine: nothing. GoDaddy got shafted because it was a business that dealt largely with IT professionals; companies like Ford and Adidas don't have customer bases that are anywhere near similar in overall composition. We need to face the facts and deal with the core problem: the Internet's interests will continue getting shafted as long as it lacks the financial backing of those who seek to destroy it. Hopefully, the blackout protest will turn a couple of eyes... but you kinda have to wonder if maybe it's time to break net neutrality and start a war.

Re:Go after the companies

[mcavic]

Absolutely. With Corporate America supporting SOPA by a vote of 158 to 87, I wouldn't blame Congress for passing it. Who's right, Corporate America, or you and I? I don't know, but I know who has more lobbying power, and it ain't me.

Re:Go after the companies

[DocHoncho]

In an ideal world, you and I. Unfortunately, that world only exists in textbooks and dreams. Monied interests have always trumped the public and always will

Re:Go after the companies

[Anonymous Coward]

Ford, at least, is "too big to fail". So any revenue they lost to a boycott, would just come out of your social security, or wherever they choose to take it.

Re:Go after the companies

[Mitreya]

Look what happened to GoDaddy when it was found out they were supporting it.

Nothing happened to GoDaddy. They lost some customers, but half of that was due to them being a crappy company. Also, many people are under the mistaken impression that GoDaddy withdrew support (or opposed) SOPA. Neither of those things happened - they just toned down their support to control PR. They are still for SOPA.

Imagine what happens when companies like 1800contacts, Ford, Adidas

There is less of a direct channel there. I haven't bought anything from 1800contacts or Ford or Adidas in a while. Also, for Ford and Adidas at least, you buy from a retail intermediary. I am sure if I stopped by a Ford dealership to tell them that I boycott Ford purchases, they would call the headquarters immediately!

Re:Go after the companies

[mcavic]

Yes, but putting greed aside, a company should be smarter than you and me because they have more resources. I don't blame the government for listening to companies. But with so many companies lobbying on our behalf, we may need to report to the companies if we want to change the vote.

Re:Go after the companies

[ScrewMaster]

Look what happened to GoDaddy when it was found out they were supporting it.

Nothing happened to GoDaddy. They lost some customers, but half of that was due to them being a crappy company. Also, many people are under the mistaken impression that GoDaddy withdrew support (or opposed) SOPA. Neither of those things happened - they just toned down their support to control PR. They are still for SOPA.

Imagine what happens when companies like 1800contacts, Ford, Adidas

There is less of a direct channel there. I haven't bought anything from 1800contacts or Ford or Adidas in a while. Also, for Ford and Adidas at least, you buy from a retail intermediary. I am sure if I stopped by a Ford dealership to tell them that I boycott Ford purchases, they would call the headquarters immediately!

I think GoDaddy plans to make money from resale of seized domains. Those are likely to be worth some serious scratch.

Re:Go after the companies

[DocHoncho]

But with so many companies lobbying on our behalf, we may need to report to the companies if we want to change the vote.

Oh yes, nothing like another layer of indirection to make everything much simpler!

Pointers to pointers. Fantastic.

Comcast?

[J'raxis]

Another tech company? Where's the boycott against them like the one against GoDaddy?

Don't tell me, "Comcast is the only provider" wherever you are. Dialup and satellite are available most everywhere, even if Comcast has their government-granted cable monopoly in your area.

Re:Comcast?

[MBCook]

They own NBC now, don't they?

Re:Comcast?

[kiwimate]

And millions of geeks observe their heads explode as they realize the companies opposing this bill include:

* AOL
* Facebook
* Microsoft
* Zynga

Re:Comcast?

[betterunixthanunix]

I thought we were already boycotting Comcast for the way they interfered with BitTorrent traffic?

Really though, with the coming of 700MHz unlicensed networks and the widespread availability of 2.4GHz and 5.8GHz equipment, people could create WISP coops if they really wanted to. Unless you live somewhere really isolated, you could probably find enough people in your area willing to split the cost of a T3 line and some directional antennas and routers.

Of course, that means talking to your neighbors, getting organized, and dealing with the inevitable lawsuits from companies like Comcast.

Re:Comcast?

[nurb432]

When you are a virtual monopoly in a particular area, its sort of hard to boycott them even if you think there are other non-viable alternatives.

Re:Comcast?

[Anonymous Coward]

If it makes you feel better, I think I almost made the Comcast salesmen cry when they showed up the other day trying to get me to switch away from RCN... Their cockiness visibly went up in smoke as I started listing grievances against Comcast (bandwidth caps, net neutrality issues, speed, etc). They seemed almost annoyed that it REALLY didn't make sense for them to become RCN subscribers only because their Comcast service is free.

Anyway, you wanna really hit Comcast, sure, you CAN point out satellite and dialup to folks in the middle of nowhere, but its hard to take that kind of thing all that seriously given the difference in service levels (it's just a sacrifice people aren't willing to make without a bigger reason and an achievable end in sight...the latter more important generally than the former). Best of making the push in the cities, where there are often 3 main competitors for broadband: Verizon (lol), Comcast, and RCN. Verizon engages in union busting lobbying for anti-net-neutrality measures, etc etc etc...no brainer to point out. Comcast...yea. The issue is, most people don't seem to realize that there IS a company like RCN which has 0 bandwidth caps, no history of filtering or other net neutrality issues, and offers great speeds at often cheaper prices than competition. Oh, and I left out AT&T...but hopefully, so does everyone else when shopping for Internet.

Re:Comcast?

[stinerman]

Agreed.

It'd be like saying you're going to boycott the federal government. The only way you can do it is to move to a different country.

Re:Comcast?

[maxwell demon]

If you use any of those, you're not a true geek anyway. :-)

Re:Comcast?

[Surt]

Dialup and satellite are not suitable substitutes for most people. Dropping an order of magnitude, or two, of bandwidth is going to be a tough sell to geeks. GoDaddy was comparatively painless to give up, in most cases people who made the switch had only the pain of the switch, and then get to live with a better provider forever after.

Re:Comcast?

[quickgold192]

I'd take you more seriously if you ditched your cable for dialup on principle.

Re:Comcast?

[nurb432]

Ya, we can. Until we get sued by comcast/at&T/whowever, then they buy laws to prohibit it.

Re:Comcast?

[J'raxis]

No it doesn't; boycotting simply means not giving them any more money.

I've been doing that for years.

Re:Comcast?

[J'raxis]

I thought we were already boycotting Comcast for the way they interfered with BitTorrent traffic?

I have been, at least. But an awful lot of people around here seem to treat Comcast like they do the big media corporations: Oh, we hate them for their "IP" lobbying but we'll still slurp up all the content they produce! Wasn't that new movie great!?

Re:Comcast?

[J'raxis]

So there is another provider in your area---but it's "too slow."

Remember every dollar you give to these bastards is helping them make your already limited Internet experience worse.

Re:Comcast?

[J'raxis]

Verizon engages in union busting lobbying for anti-net-neutrality measures, etc etc etc...

Verizon is on my boycott list for other reasons, but not this. I don't support "net neutrality" any more than I support any other attempt to regulate the Internet.

Re:Comcast?

[J'raxis]

When I moved to a my first apartment where I was paying for Internet service myself, in a suburb of Boston, Massachusetts, I ensured that SpeakEasy.net DSL was available before I signed the lease on the place. At the time, Comcast didn't even exist. I had previously had AT&T cable (*.attbi.net) in an apartment shared with a roommate; when AT&T started implementing inbound filtering of port 80 in response to the Code Red worm, they landed on my boycott list.

When I moved to Manchester, New Hampshire in 2007, I ensured that I moved somewhere where there was not a cable TV monopoly infesting the ISP market. There were multiple DSL providers at the time. SpeakEasy.net wasn't available in New Hampshire unfortunately, but I found a local DSL provider (MV Communications, out of business now) and ensured they were available before I signed any leases. I think I called them 5-6 times asking them to check a phone number or address on an apartment.

When I moved to a small town in New Hampshire a little while later, I moved somewhere where we split a T-1 line (1.5Mb/s), so the balance I paid was about $50/mo. DSL has become available via a regional company called FairPoint since, and we've switched to that. Cable TV is not even available in the town, but if any of the cable providers in N.H. try to move in and have the town establish a monopoly for them, which I believe they have to do via warrant article on the town ballot, I would do whatever I could to oppose such a measure.

So yes, I am absolutely serious about not giving my money to corporate bastards like Comcast. If you piss me off, you will not get my money no matter how much I "need" your services.

Re:Comcast?

[betterunixthanunix]

Net neutrality is not about regulating the Internet, it is about ensuring that ISPs do not try to fracture the Internet for their own benefit. Net neutrality protects the Internet from the sort of thing that SOPA is meant to establish.

Re:Comcast?

[beefncheese]

Please don't tell me that Oracle is opposing it too. I'll have a nerdvous breakdown.

Re:Comcast?

[J'raxis]

Very Orwellian of you.

It's about regulating the entities that provide Internet access so they can't filter, limit, or shape traffic. Just because it's government interference that would benefit you, doesn't mean it's not government interference.

After years of attempts to regulate the Internet (CDA, COPA, DMCA, SOPA, PIPA, &c., &c.), and being opposed by IT people at every turn, they've finally figured out how to regulate the Internet in a way that geeks will not only not oppose but actually support and promote.

And like all government interference, it will come back to bite us all in the ass. Today it's about regulating behemoths like Comcast, Verizon, or whatnot. A decade from now, we'll need to fill out a four-page form, file it with the FCC, pay a fee, and wait six months, just so we can type `iptables -j DROP` on that router we IT geeks maintain for a college or office LAN or small local netcafe.

Re:Comcast?

[tepples]

and dialup at 56K is not an option as it is well really slow.

I will grant you that an 0.05 Mbps connection is "well really slow", but how does being "well really slow" make an 0.05 Mbps connection completely unusable when the alternative is supporting a company that wants to reduce your connection to 0.00 Mbps?

Re:Comcast?

[J'raxis]

Refusing to use an alternative because you've decided it's too slow does not mean Comcast is your "only choice." It means you choose to use Comcast.

Re:Comcast?

[omnichad]

In order to get dial-up you have to pay for a landline, thereby supporting a DSL company that you may or may not like. Not sure how dial-up gets you away from this.

Re:Get over it

[nurb432]

Except that taking payments for endorsements is illegal. "Capitalism" in this manner does not apply to congressional votes. ( or at least shouldn't, in a perfect world ).

The money totals are BS

[Anonymous Coward]

It looks like dozens of entire industries support SOPA, while opponents include Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, stag tech CEOs like Zuckerburg and Newmark, and a whole bunch of bloggers.

This list seems to total the contributions that anyone in either list made to Congresspeople during the period in question. Since there are many more supporters who have lobbying budgets (for many and diverse legislation), naturally pro-SOPA will come out ahead in the numbers. Doesn't mean that all or even most of the lobbying $$$ were about SOPA. On the opposing side, they probably aren't counting contributions made by employees of Facebook, eBay, craigslist, Twitter, Linkedin, HuffPo, etc, except for the chiefs named on the list, so that seems a bit biased too.

Sample letter

[Anonymous Coward]

You need to put it into terms they'll understand:

The Honorable [congresscritter]:

I see you are supporting SOPA. If I may, let me clarify some issues that will change your mind about your support.

For one, online piracy is all done by the Somalis. They have not gone online and don't plan to: there are no ships online and they can't put them online. There hasn't been any ship hijackings online and as you know, pirating a ship with ones computer is ludicrous.Ships don't travel on the internet! They can't get into the tubes!

Secondly, I really don't like making accusations, but the folks who are behind this bill have been lying to you. They have ulterior motives and will make a fool of you.

Yours,

A tech savvy constituent.

Re:Sample letter

[Alain Williams]

The Honorable [congresscritter]:

There was a time when that greeting might have been true. However it now seems that the majority of politicians are there for what they can get out of it for their own personal benefit rather than the benefit of those who they claim to serve. This is, in part, why little has been done to prosecute those who caused huge financial destruction to the world in recent times -- they just keep the donations (== bribes) flowing to ensure that the politicos remember on which side their bread is buttered.

Re:Sample letter

[TheRaven64]

In the first meeting of the Welsh Assembly (devolved government), one of the newly elected assembly members referred to another as 'the Honourable Member from...' The speaker interrupted saying 'there are not honourable members here boyo'.

Government is for SOPA

[roman_mir]

Government is automatically for SOPA, there is nothing more pleasing to the ears of the little power and money hungry dictators that you have 'elected' to be your government officials.

Here is a test for you, "progressive" liberals out there, will Obama VETO SOPA and PIPA?

Dream on. He signed the NDAA a week ago, with military style indefinite detention against US citizens, which you really should understand as martial law and concentration camp powers in the hand of the POTUS, this or future.

Re:Government is for SOPA

[betterunixthanunix]

What does the Democrat party have to do with progressive liberalism? When last I checked, they were just as pro-business as the Republican party, only they favor a different set of businesses (but not entirely disjoint).

Re:Government is for SOPA

[Surt]

No, Obama won't. But Romney won't either, so this one isn't a reason to switch.

Re:Government is for SOPA

[Erikderzweite]

Which leaves Ron Paul. Although his ideas are somewhat extreme and by all means, unorthodox, he is the only one with the balls to veto SOPA. I don't know whether he'll really make it in case he gets elected, but all the others are not even pretending to oppose SOPA and NDAA.

$26M, politicians will learn from this

[The Creator]

They will learn to propose ridiculous bills more often.

I dont get...

[IronHalik]

...the american system.

How is it possible, that you can publicly 'donate' money to a representative supporting your cause. IMHO political offices should be state funded.

Re:I dont get...

[Surt]

Yep, fundamental human nature. Humans seek self-advantage. Politics has a tendency to create opportunities for advantage, and advantage seekers will find those opportunities.

Re:I dont get...

[HiThere]

IIRC this garbage got started around the time of the civil war (1865) though I can't remember whether before or afterwards. The term lobbying was invented because these people would meed the legislators in the lobby, and talk them into coming out for a meeting. I don't recall whether this was due to a change in the laws, or whether it was just the lax environment created by the war, but I seem to recall (as in don't really believe this) that it was a legal change.

Re:I dont get...

[xtracto]

Our wonderful Supreme Court ruled that corporations are people.

This right here is the one thing I believe makes the whole American Capitalist system go down. I can imagine such a ruling was done in order to provide some rights to corporations. However, although I am not against handling such rights, I think Corporations should fall in a completely different legal framework than people.

Re:I dont get...

[stewbee]

While not entirely true, I believe that the Ctizens United case (ie. "people are corporations") says that corporations are allowed to give unlimited funds to political organizations (like Super PACs) and not have to disclose how much and to whom they are giving the money. Contributions to Individual campaign however do not follow under this rule, IIRC. This is in part why you only hear about the super PACs for the individual candidates making any commercials than the candidates themselves.

I think most recently, Gingrich was trying to take down Romney about his Super PAC. The rules for Super PACs are that they cannot coordinate with the candidate that they are supporting. However if you look at Romney's main Super PAC, it is filled with people that were heavily involved with his campaigns just prior to its formation. Gingrich is suspect that he is in violation of the 'no coordination' aspect of the requirements for Super PACs.

As a side note, you should check out The Colbert Report episodes which feature his Super PAC. In particular, look for the episodes featuring Trevor Potter (this is his lawyer for his Super PAC, and has the episodes tagged with his name). They have been the most informative in showing what the true power and absurdity of the idea of Super PACs. I laugh, but deep down part of me dies when I see what power these Super PACs have.

Business Software Alliance....

[rrossman2]

You know when *they* are anti-SOPA, there's something wrong with it...

Re:Business Software Alliance....

[Errol backfiring]

Well, I already know that there is a lot wrong with both SOPA and BSA. Does that change anything?

Come on...

[ledow]

All those people that were berating others for supporting (or even just not caring about) the GoDaddy debacle, come out in force and NOW follow your own advice.

You should now throw away anything you wear that has Adidas or Nike on it, cut your Comcast connections, stop listening to country music (okay, no great loss there), take all the Estee Lauder gear back that you bought your girlfriend for Christmas, sell any Ford you might have, start returning your photocopiers, etc.

No? Or is it actually not that important compared to moving a couple of domains around? Boycotts like that were stupid for one reason - you didn't know WHO supported it because many companies have kept absolutely silent about their stance and almost every company would have an opinion on it. Surprise, surprise a profit-making business supports the option that makes the most profit for them.

As I said back then: You have zero idea what political agenda any company is secretly supporting or not.

If you want to boycott, then you can't selectively boycott. And then you will realise that virtually all profit-making companies would support something that you would want to boycott (unless you were a shareholder).

Re:Come on...

[betterunixthanunix]

You should now throw away anything you wear that has Adidas or Nike on it, cut your Comcast connections, stop listening to country music (okay, no great loss there), take all the Estee Lauder gear back that you bought your girlfriend for Christmas, sell any Ford you might have, start returning your photocopiers, etc.

Actually, I am not terribly far from that:

1. Shoes are a bit tough, it is not very easy to find off-brand shoes. I can make the pledge now, however: when my current pair of boots needs replacing, I will find a pair made by a small, local business.
2. My landlord provided service through Comcast until recently...because Comcast cut off our service. I have been working on setting up a wireless connection to the nearby university campus (I work there, so that helps), at which point my landlord agree to cut the rent in exchange for my use of that connection (as it turns out, this is a hard thing to do -- I am working on an agreement with some neighbors to put a repeater on their roof).
3. I have not listened to mainstream music in many years, and I never listen to music recorded by an RIAA company.
4. I would not spend the money on brand name cosmetics and my girlfriends both knows and supports that position.
5. I do not drive a car (I know this is not going to work for most people and I would not expect them to follow suit).
6. I only use photocopiers/printers on rare occasions and only those provided by my employer. Who spends time and money printing things on paper, except as required by their employer?

If you want to boycott, then you can't selectively boycott. And then you will realise that virtually all profit-making companies would support something that you would want to boycott

Which is why, when possible, I try not to buy things made by megacorp. Living one's life in the modern world makes it pretty hard to avoid megacorp entirely, but one can reduce their dependence on megacorp to some degree without too much pain.

Re:Come on...

[impaledsunset]

What you say is true in theory. Each and every thing that you buy is produced by someone who has done something worth boycotting.

That's not the point, though. One of the reasons that this happens too much is that they are never penalized for it. Not by the government, not by their customers. They simply get away with it with no losses. And while you can't change that by simply not buying from those that are guilty of something, you should by all means take the chance to use the bad publicity surrounding the GoDaddy's move to support SOPA to send them a message that their customers this. And these customers happened to be exactly the people who SOPA will hurt.

It was a small thing and a drop in the ocean, but at least to some point they were aware that their SOPA support hurt them their bottom line, even by a bit. That's something. And other registrars know that supporting such legislation would also hurt them.

And if people reacted like this more often, you'd even force corporations to do less questionable things. It's not a boycott of a bad company, it's a boycott against a single bad policy to discourage it. If people boycotted companies "selectively" more often, some would use this as an advantage to gain customers over one of their policies, next over the other, and eventually push their competition to do the same.

Re:Come on...

[biodata]

Yes I think you're right. It really is best to avoid buying things as much as possible, unless you now the person who made them, and wish to support that person's enterprise.

Re:Come on...

[blind biker]

If you want to boycott, then you can't selectively boycott.

Says who? Your lazy, uninterested, pro-SOPA ass? Fuck you, we'll boycott whomever we can, and if one company happens to be the lowest hanging fruit, we will damn well kick that one in the nuts, and proceed from there.

It's really simple: those who didn't even bother to boycott GoDaddy, have really no say in the issue. Some of us did at least a little bit to knock down the first domino (GoDaddy) and a few other dominos followed.

Re:Come on...

[tepples]

Who spends time and money printing things on paper, except as required by their employer?

Members of families whose other members have not yet all bought tablet computers. Or people who have switched to dial-up because they boycott Comcast, and sending big photos over dial-up is painful.

Re:Come on...

[Intrinsic]

And if people reacted like this more often, you'd even force corporations to do less questionable things. It's not a boycott of a bad company, it's a boycott against a single bad policy to discourage it. If people boycotted companies "selectively" more often, some would use this as an advantage to gain customers over one of their policies, next over the other, and eventually push their competition to do the same

In my view, if a company has a history of supporting polices that are bad for its customers, then by definition it is a bad company. They maybe able to mend there ways in the future and then opinion can change. But until they can show me they are in line with basic human rights there is no quarter to the amount of bad press I will bring to their door step by speaking to my friends and family, writing bad reviews and the like. activism like this done on a small scale does make a difference, its just harder to quantify in the near future and the long term.

Re:Come on...

[catmistake]

I have been working on setting up a wireless connection to the nearby university campus (I work there, so that helps)

Probably not for long if you believe its a good idea to leverage your employer's non-free technical resources, and your job, just so you can have non-comcast internet in your apartment.

Re:Come on...

[xtracto]

This, a thousand times!

People should boycott companies in reaction to specific actions. If Sony puts a spying rootkit in CDs. People should join and massively stop buying Sony stuff (including discs) in response to that. If PayPal screws their customers, people should remove their money and stop using it to pay until PayPal recants.

Companies only look for their bottom line profit. They are "evil" because consumers let them be evil. Companies do not kill (well, some argue that those like Monsanto may actually have done so) because society would not allow it. As you correctly say, the more companies are held accountable for their actions (in a way that it hurts them, i.e., in the money) the better they will behave.

Re:Come on...

[betterunixthanunix]

It helps in the sense that I have the permission of the IT staff.

Re:Come on...

[catmistake]

Ah... the IT staff... which sits above the board of directors and is usually the major revenue source of any organization! Seriously, man. A bad idea is a bad idea. You gonna get fired. They not gonna tell you why. But know why. When you work, leave home at home. When you're home, leave work at work. What you're planning is way beyond taking pens and pads. You are bartering with resources that don't belong to you nor to those that have given you the permission you believe you have, which they have no right to do in the first place. IT resources at a university do not belong to the IT staff. Beyond the obvious, that it is illegal... it is also immoral. Try to see why.

Re:Come on...

[betterunixthanunix]

Revenue source? Board of directors? How does any of that have anything to do with how people use the university network? I do not know what sort of a fascist institutions you have experience with, but around here the rules are straightforward:

1. Disrupting any other person's use of the network is prohibited
2. Illegal activity (including copyright infringement) is prohibited; since this is a state school and I am therefore a state employee, certain laws regarding the use of state computers also apply to me, but these are not hard to follow.
3. Attaching any device other than a personal computer/computing device (e.g. video game systems, phones, etc.) is only allowed if the network administrator approves it -- and that is the approval I received, since this setup will involve the use of a WiFi repeater.

You are bartering

Bartering? I am installing a repeater on someone's roof, with their permission. There is no bartering occurring; they are friendly neighbors who do not mind a small pole being attached to their house and who are willing to lend me a few watts of power. If they demanded it, I would even compensate them for that power, but they made no such demand.

Now, it is understandable how you might have been confused, since elsewhere I encouraged someone else to set up a wireless coop. That is separate from what I am doing here; my operation is small scale and only covers my apartment. I would like to create a wireless coop some day, especially when 700MHz gear becomes more available, but for the time being I am just concerned with getting access for myself.

that it is illegal

No, it is not illegal, and to be honest I have been more concerned with complying with FCC regulations on radio than anything else -- that is actually something that I could violate if I am not careful about power levels (though I generally keep my transmitter power as low as possible).

it is also immoral

Immoral? It is immoral to connect to a wireless network that I have legal access to because I happen to be a particular distance from the network? Please, there is no moral argument here -- people make use of university networks in a variety on non-professional contexts. There are thousands of people who live on this university's campus. There is a strip of bars right across the street, where people use the university's connection to log on to Facebook and post messages about how drunk they are. There are a number of student residences near enough to the university that a typical laptop can connect to the network. The only thing that makes my situation different is that I have to traverse a half mile, and there are trees and buildings in the way -- thus I am forced to use less common equipment.

Re:Come on...

[catmistake]

Bartering?

Allow me to refresh your memory:

at which point my landlord agree to cut the rent in exchange for my use of that connection

You are clearly intending to take something of value, something that is not free, something that costs actual money, that doesn't belong to you for your own personal gain. Am I correct in assuming you have no intention of compensating your employer for this? And if your employer asked for compensation, you'd just not do it?

Theft (that is, taking something that isn't yours and not paying for it) is illegal, and, yes, immoral.

Let me make it chrystal clear to you. IF you believe you have this right, then what makes you different from every other IT staffer? So take it to the universal, if it is right for you, then it is right for EVERYONE. Now... consider that every IT staffer is doing the same thing as you. Doesn't work. It only works FOR YOU. This is called psychological egoism and its really not all that far from sociopathic behavior.

I'd have fired you for even asking. Do your damn job, and stop trying to leverage your employer's resources for your own personal gain.

Re:Come on...

[betterunixthanunix]

You are clearly intending to take something of value, something that is not free, something that costs actual money, that doesn't belong to you for your own personal gain

Something I already have access to and for which my access is not restricted by location or time. There is nothing in any agreement or law that says I have to be physically on university property to use their wireless connection.

Theft

Theft of what? I already have access to the university wireless network and I am allowed to use it whenever I want. How is using it from my house theft?

Now... consider that every IT staffer is doing the same thing as you. Doesn't work.

1. What gave you the idea that I am an IT staffer?
2. Why would it be a problem if other people did this? I really want to know -- what would be wrong with people connecting to a network they are free to connect to at any time, if they happen to do so from their house? I really want to hear your logic begin this statement -- why would it be a problem if the IT staff were connecting from their own homes?

I'd have fired you for even asking.

If I had a fascist boss who fired people for asking if they are allowed to do something I would quit -- if I had made the mistake of even accepting a job at such an establishment.

Do your damn job

Is there some reason you think I am not doing my job?

stop trying to leverage your employer's resources for your own personal gain.

Right, I should not use resources that I am entitled to use. Maybe you do not understand this, but I am under the same network usage agreement as the thousands of people who live on this campus and use the network as their primary Internet connection. Employees of this university routinely log on to banks' websites, social network sites, youtube, and a variety of other not-work-related systems using the school's connection -- nobody is breaking any rules by doing so.

Moreover, there are plenty of university employees who use university resources for their hobbies. Most of the members of the HAM radio club are university employees, and they use equipment and electricity that is all owned and paid for by the university -- and they are doing so with the university's blessing. University employees are entitled to take courses without paying tuition. The university does not limit access to its resources to the undergraduates, and the mission here is not to squeeze every penny of profit out of every resource.

Re:Come on...

[catmistake]

You are clearly intending to take something of value, something that is not free, something that costs actual money, that doesn't belong to you for your own personal gain

Something I already have access to and for which my access is not restricted by location or time. ÂThere is nothing in any agreement or law that says I have to be physically on university property to use their wireless connection.

I guarantee that your granted access does not extend to your landlord and his other tenants.

Theft

Theft of what? ÂI already have access to the university wireless network and I am allowed to use it whenever I want. How is using it from my house theft?

Are you being intentionally daft? We're not discussing you legally using the access you have a right to, we're discussing your leveraging that access for financial gain by bartering that access with your landlord against breaks on rent. Your landlord has no right to access the network, nor do the other tenants. And you have no right to trade access to the network for a break on rent. This is clearly theft. Moreso, there are laws against providing access to any network to those that have no legitimate access. In essance, its the same thing as the cable pirates: one person pays for cable access, and hooks up all his neighbors to his cable for free. Its stealing, whether you live in a fascist state or a communist one or any idealogy in between. But the difference is, the extra bandwidth you will allow your neighbors to use will actually cost the university money. Bandwidth isn't free.

Now... consider that every IT staffer is doing the same thing as you. Doesn't work.

1. What gave you the idea that I am an IT staffer?
2. Why would it be a problem if other people did this? I really want to know -- what would be wrong with people connecting to a network they are free to connect to at any time, if they happen to do so from their house? I really want to hear your logic begin this statement -- why would it be a problem if the IT staff were connecting from their own homes?

Ah, you are being intentionally daft. This is not the argument. The argument is not "people that are allowed access are allowed access." The argument is that you intend to take your access, and share your access with untold, unaccounted others that may or may not have legitimate access to the network. Your landlord certainly has no claim to the network.

stop trying to leverage your employer's resources for your own personal gain.

Right, I should not use resources that I am entitled to use.

Are you thick? YOU are entitled to use the resource. You are entitled to the resource... you are NOT entitled to lease, sell or trade the resource however twisted your fallicious rationalizations are.

ÂÂMaybe you do not understand this, but I am under the same network usage agreement as the thousands of people who live on this campus and use the network as their primary Internet connection. ÂEmployees of this university routinely log on to banks' websites, social network sites, youtube, and a variety of other not-work-related systems using the school's connection -- nobody is breaking any rules by doing so.
Â

Ah, so you wish to continue with this newly introduced strawman fallacy. First you say you want to share the access you have with others that clearly have no right to access, and you support this argument by saying lots of people have access, so why shouldn't you give access to those that have no right to access the network? Your logic is nonexistent.

Moreover, there are plenty of university employees who use university resources for their hobbies. ÂMost of t

Re:Come on...

[betterunixthanunix]

I guarantee that your granted access does not extend to your landlord and his other tenants.

1. Where did I say anything about other tenants?
2. Everyone who is on the lease is affiliated with the university and has access to the same network.
3. Even if they were not affiliated, I am setting up a repeater, which means that if someone who was not supposed to have access did somehow gain access using my system, they would be able to do exactly the same thing if they simply went to the university campus a few blocks away.

we're discussing your leveraging that access for financial gain by bartering that access with your landlord against breaks on rent

So if I were to tell my landlord that I no longer intend to use the Internet service he is providing, and walk over to the university to use their service when I wanted to go online, then what? Would you call that "bartering" too? What difference does it make if I walk a few blocks, or set up a repeater and save myself the walk?

First you say you want to share the access you have with others

Really? Where did I say that? I seem to remember specifically saying that I am not planning to do that:

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2609766&threshold=1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&pid=38641192#38643828

Hey, you do not have to read the posts you are replying to, but if you want to actually discuss something then it would help if you actually did so. Everything else in your post is based on some kind of assumption that I am doing something that I am not actually doing and that I never had any intention of doing. All I am doing and all I ever intended on is to access to campus network from my house; I never planned to share that access with someone who is not authorized. I will still have to register all my devices and go through the same authentication process as I would have to go through if I were on campus.

As far as I can tell, whatever college you went to had strict policies forbidding anyone who is not a student from making use of any school resources, under any circumstances. That must have been a rough experience. Around here, and at my alma mater, there are procedures for allowing non-students and even people who are not affiliated with the university to use school resources. As I said, as you apparently failed to read, employees are even allowed to take courses for credit without paying tuition.

I really do not see much point in continuing this discussion with you, since you are not even bothering to read what I am writing.

Re:Come on...

[catmistake]

Really? Where did I say that?

right here:

My landlord provided service through Comcast until recently...because Comcast cut off our service. I have been working on setting up a wireless connection to the nearby university campus (I work there, so that helps), at which point my landlord agree to cut the rent in exchange for my use of that connection (as it turns out, this is a hard thing to do -- I am working on an agreement with some neighbors to put a repeater on their roof).

First of all, your narrative is attrocious. You must work at Yale or something. But the salient details here are that you no longer have access to comcast at home... but if you can stretch your employeers network, for some unknown reason, your landlord will cut you a break on rent. Why? What would it matter to your landlord if you provided yourself access to the internet, and it had nothing to do with him? Obviously, your landlord isn't just handing out breaks on rent. You intend to give him something for the break on rent. Hmm... I wonder what it could be? Perhaps... unauthorized access to the university network? For him and all his tenants? Also, it matters not if all the other tenants are students and employees of the university. Check your terms of use carefully and you will see you alone have your access, and you can not share that access... period, regardless of anothers right to the network, they do not have a right to the network through your access.

I really do not see much point...

Nice backpeddling. I believe the trouble is not that I didn't bother to read your posts... but that you did not bother to think about whether you should do what you are planning. You see free cookies and you want to eats them and share them with anyone that wants them... you do not care who cookies belong to or what cookies cost is to those that produced them... you just see what you want, and rationalize your criminal, psychological egoist behavior. But you will be rudely welcomed to this world, because here there are no free cookies, and there is no free lunch. Its pay to play.

Re:Come on...

[betterunixthanunix]

What would it matter to your landlord if you provided yourself access to the internet, and it had nothing to do with him?

Right now, he is providing Internet service, and the cost is rolled into the rent. This is not an uncommon arrangement.

You intend to give him something for the break on rent. Hmm... I wonder what it could be? Perhaps... unauthorized access to the university network? For him and all his tenants?

So you are just going to assume that I have a particular arrangement, then criticize me for it even when I specifically say that I am not making that arrangement? The ironic thing here is that you accused me of pushing a straw man argument. Nobody is getting unauthorized access to anything.

Also, it matters not if all the other tenants are students and employees of the university. Check your terms of use carefully and you will see you alone have your access, and you can not share that access... period, regardless of anothers right to the network, they do not have a right to the network through your access.

Had you read what you were replying to, you would have seen the part where I said that I am setting up a repeater; perhaps it would have been easier for you to understand if I used the marketing term "range extender." Anyone who uses this system will still have to go through the university registration process on their own; the university itself uses similar repeaters on various parts of the campus. This is not some consumer wifi router/ap/NAT gateway system.

I believe the trouble is not that I didn't bother to read your posts... but that you did not bother to think about whether you should do what you are planning.

So not reading my posts is not a problem, because you simply assume that I did not bother to think about the plan? Like I said, I took the time to go through the proper procedure for attaching a repeater to the wireless network -- how is that an example of not thinking things through?

you do not care who cookies belong to or what cookies cost is to those that produced them...

Right, I am recklessly using this network, which is why I took the time to contact the people who run it and go through the established procedure for connecting a repeater.

your criminal, psychological egoist behavior

What criminal behavior would you be referring to? I can legally use the network any time I want, and nobody would be able to use my repeater to illegally access the system. You are continuing to operate under an assumption that I have repeatedly addressed, and it is making this conversation pointless.

Re:Come on...

[catmistake]

To be absolutely, brutally honest, I feel silly believing anything these days. But I appreciate our time together. You know I've been trolling, and you've left me hooks and inspired me and let me take the alleged high road of moral superiority... sometimes an entertaining vantage... and someday maybe I can return the favor. My appetite for this is also satisfied, so I genuinely thank you and wish you luck, and now return to my native lurking layer. Long live /.

Can comcast use the SOPA on dish / directv?

[Joe_Dragon]

And tell them if you don't remove the line saying better then Comcast we will use this law to shut down your web site?

If Comcast was will to pull the VS BS when they pulled it from directv also later on they sued DirecTV over NFL Sunday ticket ads while at the same time running ad's saying most live sports on comcast (not true) and running ad's say no long term contracts (not fully true) . How far will they go?

Why?

[nurb432]

The reason its not being discussed is that they want this to pass without the general public hearing about it.

Why is that? Aside from the supposed 'IP protection' it helps squelch our right of free speech, which most of those entities are in support of, as THEY want the free speech, but not us.

Re:Why?

[shentino]

Kinda like ACTA isn't it?

Data is from MapLight and OpenSecrets.org

[stoub]

At the bottom of this and all other "Money Trail" pages on OpenCongress, there's a note explaining that OpenCongress aggregates this data from other sources:

            Data on bill support and opposition provided by MapLight.
            Campaign contribution data provided by OpenSecrets.org, the nonpartisan guide to money in politics. Contribution data is constantly being updated and this data may not be entirely up to date.

Why doesn't Congress sell laws ?

[BlueTak]

At least that would be honest, because, seen from France, that's the way things look : auction for a law. (I dont't say this would never happen here, but corporations rather buy presidents... who launch dirty "3 strikes" crap)

Re:Why doesn't Congress sell laws ?

[nurb432]

Its not 'the way things look', its really how things work now.

Weird money

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

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
, Electronic Components Industry Association) ... are these names just an attempt to point "broad support" or ? Weird weird weird.

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

Re:Weird money

[geniice]

When you consider the importance of sports TV rights and how badly they risk getting mangled online the appearance of the United States Tennis Association is understandable.

Re:Weird money

[Sponge Bath]

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 ...

Hmmm... you don't mention of the republicans on the list (John Beohner, Eric Cantor, Scott Brown, Robert Portman, Patrick Toomey, Mark Kirk) and you bring up Obama, who is not on the list. Thank you for clearly identifying your ideological slant.

Re:Weird money

[blackraven14250]

Benefit of the doubt; he pulled the Senators list, and was curious about Obama. The first 3 on the senator list happen to be Democrats, and TBH, I'd be curious as to what Obama received as well.

Re:Weird money

[Nemyst]

The BSA is unsurprising actually. Many of their members (including Microsoft) have online services with user-generated content which could be targeted by the bill.

Re:Weird money

[poetmatt]

importance of sports tv rights?

you do realize that they don't even own the broadcast, say if someone were to record from an apartment next to the field?

sports tv rights are the definition of part of the problem.

Re:Weird money

[ironjaw33]

In the case of the Wrigley Rooftops, the Chicago Cubs argued that baseball games are "a work of art" and even viewing a game without paying royalties is copyright infringement. The case was settled out of court, however, but all major league teams have a history of being just as bad as the RIAA or ASCAP when it comes to recording or viewing games.

Re:Weird money

[Yetihehe]

...but all major league teams have a history of being just as bad as the RIAA or ASCAP when it comes to situations in which they can get more money for the thing they already do

There, fixed that for you.

Re:Weird money

[dokc]

Maybe if the Slashdot community developed an anti-SOPA fund, then we could donate this money to the politicians who currently support SOPA so that they will stop supporting SOPA. The idea being that the anti-SOPA people donate more than the pro-SOPA people, so that we have more votes on our side.

So, democracy today functions as follows:
1, "elect" bunch of people (doesn’t meters who they are because they all come from the same pool)
2. some group/company/organization needs some law to make more money, so they pay for it
3. "our representatives" push the law where it needs to be pushed
4. interested groups/companies/organizations organize auction and who gives more wins
5. "we" are screwed in any case

I really wonder why is that still called democracy (for those who doesn't know the term comes from the Greek word – (demokratía) "rule of the people",which was coined from (demos) "people" and (Kratos) "power")

Re:Weird money

[jdpars]

The Greeks also considered "demokratos" to be equivalent to anarchy.

Re:Weird money

[JWW]

Obama is a singular individual who can kill this bill directly. He has more power over it becoming law than anyone else.

Damn right we need to know what his position on this bill is and why.

The next most important influences on this bill becoming law are Reid (already betrayed us by bringing it up for a vote) and Boehner (very likely to betray us by bringing SOPA to a vote in the house).

I just can't shake the feeling that when SOPA/PIPA passes, that the Internet will catch fire and rain down torment on 'our' elected officials and the content industry.

Perhaps all the shooting in the next revolution will happen online.

Re:Weird money

[dokc]

The Greeks also considered "demokratos" to be equivalent to anarchy.

The meaning of anarchy is different, as Kant explains:
Immanuel Kant's societal categories

The German philosopher Immanuel Kant defined "Anarchy" in his article about anthropology in the chapter "Freiheit und Gesetz" (http://korpora.zim.uni-duisburg-essen.de/kant/aa07/330.html) as follows:

A Law And Freedom without Violence (Anarchy)
B Law And Violence without Freedom (Despotism)
C Violence without Freedom And Law (Barbarism)
D Violence with Freedom And Law (Republic)

Re:Weird money

[Anonymous Coward]

Even if Obama vetoed it, it looks like there are enough backers to override it.

Re:Weird money

[SuricouRaven]

A lot of those on the list aren't interested in copyright so much as they are in branding, like the National Confectioners Association and Nike. They couldn't care less about internet piracy - they just want a way to shut down overseas-run websites selling counterfeit products with their logo on.

Re:Weird money

[SuricouRaven]

If Obama were to oppose SOPA, expect to see a huge amount of negative news coverage of him come the election, and plenty of glowing stories about his opponent. The electorate may choose the president, but it is the media that really tells them who to vote for, and the media wants SOPA badly.

Re:Weird money

[SuricouRaven]

Just need to raise a few tens of millions of dollars then! Easy.

A lot of slashdot types would dislike the idea on princible too, as it outright admits that the US is now an outright plutocracy where laws may be purchased.

Re:Weird money

[Anonymous Coward]

A lot of slashdot types would dislike the idea on princible too, as it outright admits that the US is now an outright plutocracy where laws may be purchased.

Do you think politicians are swayed by rational argument, or by money?

I remember reading about a (historic; early 20th century) Democrat who was losing votes because the Republican candidate would always publish slanderous lies about him. Since he didn't want to lose the next election the Democrat decided to tell lies about his Republican counterpart. (I wish I could remember his name, but Google didn't help me this time).

Sometimes its unethical to play the game, but as in business, the cheaters usually win. It's a structural thing, because the people who really do want to help the country (instead of themselves) are less likely to cheat and therefore less likely to win. Choose your evil.

Re:Weird money

[eugene ts wong]

That long list doesn't surprise me. It's not weird at all, when you focus on who could be in the organization, as opposed to what it does.

Tennis isn't an inner sport of the poor. Tennis tends to be popular among the middle and upper classes.

Re:Weird money

[Unoriginal_Nickname]

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 ?

Yes, basically.

The teamsters would have signed up because they get work from the motion picture industry. Union solidarity pulls in AFL-CIO, electrical workers, fire fighters, construction workers, and law enforcement.

The rest sound fake because they are. Mostly large businesses and rich people who fund private associations to commit their sins, so they don't get literally executed when the revolution comes.

Re:Weird money

[TheLink]

Don't forget it's politics. He can't do everything he wants. He might want to do "X" and he might want to stop "SOPA". BUT the other politicians may say to him, we'll kill "X" if you kill "SOPA". So it's a matter of which battles he can fight and how many he can get on his side.

The voters are a big part of problem. Think about it, a politician getting lots of campaign money does not force you to vote for that politician. You can vote for someone else, or even be a candidate.

But maybe many actually do like voting for politicians who get the most campaign money. That's democracy for you.

Re:Weird money

[ScrewMaster]

"Thank you for clearly identifying your ideological slant."

Maybe the GP is just pointing out that republicans are easier to buy?

That may be, but if you look at the history of this, the Democrats have long been the ones who are the most "rightsholder friendly." Consequently, they already had the Democrats in their pocket ... acquiring a few Republicans is just icing on the cake.

People complain constantly about the Republicans being under corporate control, but the reality is that the other side of the aisle is just as corporatist: traditionally it was just a different set of industries.

Re:Weird money

[ScrewMaster]

Sometimes its unethical to play the game, but as in business, the cheaters usually win. It's a structural thing, because the people who really do want to help the country (instead of themselves) are less likely to cheat and therefore less likely to win. Choose your evil.

It's like I've always said, the system selects for people who are good at getting elected, which has little to do with how they will perform in office. There seems to be an inverse relationship, when you get right down to it.

Re:Weird money

[ScrewMaster]

A lot of those on the list aren't interested in copyright so much as they are in branding, like the National Confectioners Association and Nike. They couldn't care less about internet piracy - they just want a way to shut down overseas-run websites selling counterfeit products with their logo on.

Perhaps ... but an enlightened capitalist realizes that he won't always get what he wants, and shouldn't get everything he wants if the cost to society is too great. Fact is, anyone supporting SOPA for financial gain has demonstrated that they think like the big media companies: do whatever it takes no matter who gets hurt.

That's more than enough to make me look elsewhere for my needs.

Re:Weird money

[ScrewMaster]

The rest sound fake because they are. Mostly large businesses and rich people who fund private associations to commit their sins, so they don't get literally executed when the revolution comes.

Yah ... plausible deniability. Like the big studios and record labels and their "industry trade groups" like the RIAA, MPAA, CRIA, etc.

Re:Weird money

[kwark]

Get over it, all politicians get bought eventually. It doesn't matter what side/party they are on.

Re:Weird money

[HiThere]

Obama hasn't done much of anything worthwhile in the last year. And that's the best I can say for him.

So if he want's something done, it's probably better that it not be done. You can't be certain without more info, but that's the way the odds lie.

My wife thinks he's a Republican pretending to be a Democrat, but I think he's evidence that both parties want the same thing...and it's *not* the good of the citizenry. (Generally I say that the Democrats want to be liked more, but Obama has called that into severe question.)

Re:Weird money

[SuricouRaven]

That's the idea of free markets. The basic princible on which they are supposed to operate: Set things up so that each person, by acting in their own selfish interests, nontheless acts for the good of society as a whole. It doesn't always work.

Re:Weird money

[helix2301]

President Obama is probably against the bill he is a massive supporter of social media and the digital age. He has been called the Facebook President and is the only President to use Twitter for regular Q &A sessions. This is the same guy who refused to give up his Blackberry. He started the StartUp America Campaign and meet with Apple, Google, Facebook and a lot of other Silicon Valley based businesses. If he does not veto the bill he will loose A LOT of support from those big contributers and supports of his campaign.

Re:Weird money

[Grishnakh]

Wrong. Ron Paul is obviously not corrupt, and he's been a Representative for decades. He's not going to get bought off either; the guy is old. Yes, most politicians do get corrupt these days, but it's not an absolute rule.

Of course RP also has a lot of very controversial and extreme ideas. If you want someone that's really middle-of-the-road but incorruptible, you're probably out of luck.

Re:Weird money

[msobkow]

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 ALL lobbyists are trying to game the system for personal or corporate benefit like the media companies are.

Some of them are just run by people who have an opinion and want to support what they think is a good idea, no matter how much I might disagree with them. Everyone has an opinion, but very few have reached a logical conclusion based on facts.

Re:Weird money

[cheekyjohnson]

(let's just say people might think they know why these guys are opposed, and it's not for the right reasons)

Yeah, the average person would probably ignore all of their arguments and just attack their characters. I think they're pretty good at that.

Re:Weird money

[a_nonamiss]

What makes you think that his personal feelings on the matter would in anyway affect his political support for it?

Re:Weird money

[Almost-Retired]

Obama is a singular individual who can kill this bill directly. He has more power over it becoming law than anyone else.

I've got this horrible feeling it will pass with a veto proof majority. These folks simply, and only, understand one thing and that is how much who paid for a vote one way or the other.

Damn right we need to know what his position on this bill is and why.

I agree wholeheartedly.

The next most important influences on this bill becoming law are Reid (already betrayed us by bringing it up for a vote) and Boehner (very likely to betray us by bringing SOPA to a vote in the house).

Well, if its on the agenda, they eventually need to do something with it. If they bring it up and it fails then they have done their job. If they bring it up and it passes it must be the will of the people (who wrote all those checks of course, nothing to do with constituent email blasting it)

I just can't shake the feeling that when SOPA/PIPA passes, that the Internet will catch fire and rain down torment on 'our' elected officials and the content industry.

Which they will have coming, so I have -zero or less sympathy, and they'll be so busy gloating over it they won't pay attention to anything but the box being down 50% because people are pissed, so they clamor for even more draconian measures until you can't legally take a picture of your grand children and email them to their Aunt Tillie.

The only way I see that is good for our so-called "government" is to copy out and print that list of who got how much from the link at the head of this thread, and if you live where you can vote in their district, vote for anyone else BUT them. Fortunately for them, none of the 3 reps nor the 2 senators that I get to vote for, are listed as having been enriched by this scheme.

Perhaps all the shooting in the next revolution will happen online.

Don't you wish it would be that quiet? I recommend the purchase of some decent shooting muffs, and as always, keep the faith and your powder dry. You will likely need both...

Cheers, Gene
--
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
  soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)

Re:Weird money

[BlueStrat]

It's like I've always said, the system selects for people who are good at getting elected, which has little to do with how they will perform in office.

Agreed. It's like the old Groucho Marx quote; "I wouldn't want to join a club that would have me as a member!".

There seems to be an inverse relationship, when you get right down to it.

Of course. It makes perfect sense if one uses the actual names for who is being discussed, pitchmen and statesmen. One is an expert at sales & marketing, the other helps guide the fates of peoples and nations.

The qualities that make superior pitchmen versus statesmen are nearly polar opposites, if one accepts the premise that such things as being honest, truthful, competent, consistent, forthright, bold, visionary, and charitable are desirable qualities in a statesman.

I'm hoping that the internet helps people find the statesmen, elect them while helping keep them in check, and out the pitchmen. Which, of course, is precisely the reason pitchmen and those in power wish to control the internet, who is allowed to do what on it, and what can be published on it.

In the constant struggle of people against forever-encroaching government power, abuse, and corruption, the internet has seriously escalated the arms race between them in the people's favor. Of course government will have to respond. The threat to their corruption and lust for more power is too great to ignore.

Currently they respond with attempts at control because they believe they can control and use it to their advantage. Once it becomes clear that they cannot control it, they will attempt to destroy it, likely by carving it up into regional/national or even strictly local, heavily-monitored nets.

Strat

Re:Weird money

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

That form of anarchy doesn't exist. Any realistic view would consider your definitions for "anarchy" and "barbarism" as identical.

Re:Weird money

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

Tennis isn't an inner sport of the poor.

So ? Basketball is, and it's on there too.

Re:Weird money

[Serpents]

I'm not surprised by the strange names on the list considering that some companies didn't even know they were listed as SOPA supporters

Re:Weird money

[Ginger Unicorn]

In an ideal world, it shouldn't matter. His job is to serve the interest of the population, not secure his own re-election. He should throw himself on his sword if need be to stop this insanity. But of course he won't; because that would be a change you could believe in.

Re:Weird money

[silentcoder]

>The Greeks also considered "demokratos" to be equivalent to anarchy.

That's a very ignorant statement. Mostly because there really wasn't such a society as "The greeks". The various greek cities were effectively independent city-states (known as Polis, plural Pollii) with very different cultures and political systems. Some were absolute monarchies, some were democracies (several variations on the theme though none had universal suffrage). About the only thing they had in common was language and religion - their political systems were as different as England and America - in fact, much more so in many cases. Oh and they regularly went to war on each other. Do not imagine for one second that the politics of Sparta and the politics of Athens had anything in common.

The monarchic Greeks indeed considered the democratic cities to be anarchies (and Plato wrote that monarchy is the ideal form of government while democracy is doomed to fall into chaos- but since he lived under one we must consider the possibility that he just wrote what the king would like to hear in a classic case of CYA - especially since his own mentor Socrates had gotten the death penalty for saying things that weren't popular).

So your statement is rather meaningless - much more interesting is how the people living in the democracies described their cities and how they ran them. Tellingly the democracies came with a set of basic behaviours deemed appropriate for a citizen in such a Polis - about how to respectfully getting along with your fellow citizens. The proper behavior for living in the Polis is "to be polite" - which is where the word came from. Those whose daily lives revolved around maintaining law and order in the democracies were the "men of the Polis" - from which we get the origins of modern "policemen" and those elected to govern a polis were Politicians.

Your history lesson is now concluded and you are slightly less ignorant.

Re:Weird money

[eugene ts wong]

My bad. I only looked at your list. :^/ Thanks for your correction.

That being said, the NBA isn't an inner city organization.

And that being said, I'm surprised at how big the tennis association is. I thought that it was just a club for rich people. :^D I should think more before I make responses.

Re:Weird money

[Jammer6502]

Everybody is for sale. The size of the bribe has to do with how much they already agree with what you are asking for. In this case the dems are at the top of the list because it is taking more to convince them to betray the people that voted them in. The reps would probably go along with it anyway to "support small business" and only require a token donation.

Re:Weird money

[dj245]

It may be a kind of "lobbyist ring".

In some cases, customers of a lobbyist may be asked to support pieces of legislation that have little or nothing to do with them. In return, the other businesses will support their pet legislation when it comes due.

Re:Weird money

[Bearded Frog]

Asuming his opponent supports it? I know Ron Paul is against it, not sure about romney. Although considering his contributors I wouldnt be suprised if he was for it.

Re:Weird money

[SuricouRaven]

Ron Paul, his miraculous primary showing aside, is a joke - and everyone except his followers knows it.

Re:Weird money

[Mephistophocles]

Very Rand-sian of you, but actually that has never worked (to my knowledge anyway), not once in all of history. It's a great idea in theory but just doesn't work in the real world. This is why revolutions are necessary.

Re:Weird money

[SuricouRaven]

A randian would have left out my sarcastic 'it doesn't always work' at the end. They believe the princible actually works all the time. I just believe it works most of the time, and when it goes wrong can go very wrong indeed.

Re:Weird money

[Anonymous Coward]

The only joke is people like you who keep voting in lying warmongers instead of those who really want to fix the broken system that exists.

Re:Weird money

[mattack2]

Obama is a singular individual who can kill this bill directly.

You need to go watch "I'm Just a Bill" again(*). His veto can be overridden.

(*) OK, that's mostly a joke, because it doesn't really describe the veto override process. It just says "If the President vetoes me, I have to go back to Congress and they vote on me again..."

Re:Weird money

[Burning1]

Apparently, they are also the only ones with Mod points today. :)

Re:Weird money

[Dasher42]

To those weird appearances on the list, I would ask how many of them are under umbrella organizations or holding companies or even majority shareholders with large stake in the movie industry. The actual money behind the scenes is highly concentrated and shareholders, especially big ones, keep diverse portfolios.

Google don't support it.

[Gordonjcp]

Therefore, let it pass, and then let them wonder why "Estee Lauder" no longer features prominently in Google search results.

1-800 Contacts? Really?

[mmalove]

Well, I literally just wrote them to tell them to remove me from their mailing list, and will be purchasing contacts elsewhere. I'm sure I confused the crap outta whoever gets that web case, as they probably have no frickin clue what a SOPA is, but I'm pissed about SOPA and our bought Congress waltzing it right through, and I'm happy to boycott everyone I can that made it possible.

(Can't drop Time Warner, as they're the ONLY cable internet provider here, but I did send them an email expressing my dissent.)

I hope my fellow slashdotters are as diligent about getting off their duff and contacting some of these people. But either way, at least I won't be further financially supporting the demise of my rights, so long as I can help it.

It's Opposite Day!

[RobinEggs]

You'll always be right if you automatically believe and do the exact opposite of Sony.

Seriously, I'd be convinced even if the Dalai Lama, Jesus Christ, and the entire cast of Firefly were all on the sponsor list. Sony likes that shit? Vote No!

Re:Get over it

[oztiks]

You're an idiot. Sheep. Fool. Moron ... Damn there are plenty of words out there that describe people like you ... The best word would be naive.

Re:1-800 Contacts? Really?

[betterunixthanunix]

Can't drop Time Warner, as they're the ONLY cable internet provider here

This might be a good time to talk to your neighbors about starting a WISP coop. I have been working on establishing a wireless connection from my house to a nearby university, and the equipment costs are not too high. The biggest issue so far has been establishing a decent line of sight, which has led me to talk to my neighbors about placing repeaters on their property -- and they have not rejected the idea outright.

Depending on where you live, you might be able to do something even grander: you might be able to set up a coop with a couple dozen people and share a T3 connection. The up-front costs will be a little high, in the hundreds or low thousands of dollars depending on your specific needs, and the monthly cost will probably be in the low to mid thousands -- split up among enough households, this may be less than Time Warner.

This assumes that your neighbors are friendly like mine.

Re:1-800 Contacts? Really?

[alphatel]

(Can't drop Time Warner, as they're the ONLY cable internet provider here, but I did send them an email expressing my dissent.)

We're currently working on cancelling our TWC in full, not only replacing the wired internet with wireless, but switching to internet-only powered TV instead of braodcast cable. It's all an incredible sham for customers but it will take years for the mess to get sorted out.

Re:Do something - When?

[jginspace]

The only true solution will be point-to-point community networks. ( mainly neighborhood wifi mesh )Get rid, and get around, the need for a link to the 'public internet' except for perhaps your online banking and buying stuff from amazon.

Oh great. And here we are in 2012 and only half the Linux distros I try can connect to a Windows XP ad-hoc network. I've never seen a demonstration of hetrogenous Linux distros connecting in a 'wifi mesh'.

the government corporation

[7311587]

It was interesting that the politicians got 21 million for the act and 5 million against. That is a great money making model for the politicians in the government. They just have to come up with proposals that are zero sum and hurt some company's business and help others. Then the companies will be motivated to bid for or against the law. The more damaging the law to some companies the more money they can make.

Not surprising

[jessiej]

158 Corporations and $21 Million shouldn't be a surprise. It's the status quo for US politics.

SOPA is just one of the many pieces of legislation being bought and paid for by corporations. So after you write your senators and representatives, go to http://movetoamend.org/ and sign the petition to end corporate personhood!

Re:Do something - When?

[nurb432]

I think the key will be to use ones router for this for 'stable coverage'. Not actual computers. But, i suppose i could see it being handy on phones, to extend the range ...

Who says money cant buy votes?

[dontgetshocked]

I got more money than you,pick me!

Congress has a 9% approval rating...

[rsilvergun]

the bill will be passed regardless of what you think/want. A Majority of Americans wanted single payer healthcare; Congress shot it down. A Majority of Americans were against the bank bail out. Congress passed it through.

I don't really have a solution. The problem is we're too balkanized. It's easy to divide and conquer. Blacks & Whites. Gays and Straights. Union & non-Union. Hell, a good friend of mine is vehemently anti-Union. He just described to me how the non-Union guys at his work got a pay cut so the Union guys could get a pay raise. He didn't even notice the company was pitting the non-Union against the Union, let alone ask why BOTH groups didn't get a raise...

The only way to win is not to play. Don't have children. If you do; only have one. If there's fewer rats in the race you've got to keep the ones you got alive. Aside from that I'll keep plugin away with my liberal/progressive agenda on /. and hope for the best...

Re:Congress has a 9% approval rating...

[stdarg]

He just described to me how the non-Union guys at his work got a pay cut so the Union guys could get a pay raise. He didn't even notice the company was pitting the non-Union against the Union, let alone ask why BOTH groups didn't get a raise...

Do you really think it was the company's idea to do that, and not the union's? That seems unlikely.

The only way to win is not to play. Don't have children. If you do; only have one.

It's the total opposite. The only way to win is to have more children and make them good citizens who care about each other.

Re:158?

[drainbramage]

Any chance most of those you listed are Soros funded?

Fascist States of America

[Artemis3]

Calling them fake is ignorant at best. First, China makes the "genuine" ones; then they make "non genuine" of varying qualities, starting from identical, all down to rip-off. Also, you can make them stamp anything on them, starting from an identical logo, subtle variations to avoid "counterfeit" claims in different countries, down to generic or whatever you want written on them. These variations have different prices and levels of legality (within China). They will officially deny to stamp "Sony" in some random electronic equipment, but if you are willing to pay, it can be done. Kinda defeats the saving of buying a cheap alternative in the first place? You decide, but people is stupid enough to buy for brands.

Many times I'd rather buy a Chinese labelled device because at least the price is fair, some people do try to sell you bad quality but brand stamped stuff; when instead you could buy good quality but generic Chinese brand instead. Indeed, you can buy in Hong Kong super expensive brands, or cross the street and obtain very high quality same brand stamped "non genuine" product. Knowing to recognise which is which can be very hard, sometimes they copy packaging, stickers and such very well; and normally that doesn't matter there because it has the fair (much lower price) while keeping the same quality very often.

What I hate is when they try to sell you a counterfeit with almost the same price of the genuine, or sometimes just a little cheaper. Software is silly, "counterfeit" price is 0$ in the net, but fakes are sold online for 25$ or such, sometimes with good enough packaging, aluminium (plant pressed) CDs etc for software meant to cost 100$, 500$ etc.

Does these justify blocking of sites? the Bill is a blacklist, how do you fall on it or how do you get out of it is shady at best. Further, the State is not even enforcing it directly (like China or Iran), it passes the responsibility to the ISPs. This means they will rather block in excess rather than infringe the law; and many will be falsely accused and promptly disconnected in fear.

Iran is requiring full ID before using the net, and America is not far from that. China forbids cryptographic connections, America will get there as well, because this gets in the way of proper deep packet inspection; and only criminals have something to hide... Soon enough dissent will get banned, it is too easy to make a site go down by having agents post links to blacklisted sites; and this way the establishment cannot be accused. See? Americans are much more refined than China and Iran, while achieving the same.

Of course, the countries who do not implement these laws become "source of terrorism", blah, blah lets invade (war helps the economy, stupid).

Re:Fascist States of America

[HeckRuler]

Wellllll now, often the "non genuine" ones are a batch that failed to get through quality control and should have been destroyed, but are sold out the back. Or if there is a group that has an extra run that they're selling on the side, they simply bypass quality control, because it's not their name on the line. So it's not quite as simple as paying extra for a brand. Where quality isn't vital, I go for cheap too.

And this is beyond the United States

[lsolano]

It seems to me that we've overlooked the fact that SOPA will affect laws in many countries with Free Trade Agreements with the US.

So, there could not be easy solutions to this stupid thing like moving datacenters out of the US. This SOPA thing is indeed an abomination.

Anyway, technology will always have a way. I know that. I still remember when the music industry, in its world of fantasy, thought that blocking the transfers of MP3s was a solution for music piracy.

Re:WTF is SOPA?

[Osgeld]

your cousin bob uploads a video to youtube featuring the first dance at his wedding reception, in the background plays a copyrighted song, your cousin bob is now criminal, and probably be sued for thousands of dollars and face jail time

A 5-year Mission?

[Turbine2k5]

Maybe this'll just end up like "A Taste of Armageddon" and we'll kill ourselves.

Require elected officials to wear endorsements

[Slashdot Assistant]

Much of this donation information is available, but not very visible to the average voter.

Require all elected officials to wear a cloak, on to which the total amount of money received in the last six months is printed, and have logos pasted on to represent donations received over x amount of dollars. It'd be cool, like NASCAR, but serving a purpose. Some of these guys are going to need cloaks longer than a royal wedding dress train.

Acceptance

[symbolset]

I believe it's time to accept that these stupid laws will be passed no matter how offensive they are, no matter how destructive to freedom of speech. Workarounds should be in progress now.

Re:Acceptance

[Turnerj]

With things like politicians accepting money to support legislation, my general rule is don't trust people.

Time to rebuild the internet.

Seconds

[tepples]

Even products coming from the same assembly line might be "slightly irregular" and thus not worthy of the maker's mark.

Boycott...

[Anonymous Coward]

I would live to see a company like Google post some basic information about SOPA on their core search page, with a link to companies that are supporting it.
Get that out in the public, and let them start boycotting products from them, and then you'll have their attention...

Probably too late at this point, but I would still love to see it.

Boycotting a monopolist

[tepples]

When a service has become an alleged necessity analogous to electric power or running water, and only one provider provides this service, how does one either A. not pay the provider or B. survive without the necessity?

Re:Boycotting a monopolist

[J'raxis]

They're not a monopoly providing Internet service. They're a monopoly providing cable TV, and they've also, as of late, gotten into the Internet business. Satellite and dialup are available almost anywhere.

Re:Boycotting a monopolist

[tepples]

[Cable ISPs are] not a monopoly providing Internet service.

They are for people who can't get DSL and whose job requires high-speed Internet access.

Move

[tepples]

The issue is, most people don't seem to realize that there IS a company like RCN which has 0 bandwidth caps, no history of filtering or other net neutrality issues, and offers great speeds at often cheaper prices than competition.

Either that or they don't want to move their entire family to a city where a company like RCN offers service.

Single digit GB per month cap

[tepples]

We're currently working on cancelling our TWC in full, not only replacing the wired internet with wireless, but switching to internet-only powered TV

How are you going to use IPTV with the single digit GB per month caps that satellite and cellular Internet providers typically impose?

Re:Get over it

[tepples]

Except that taking payments for endorsements is illegal.

Or at least it was until Citizens United.

or at least shouldn't, in a perfect world

The perfect system of things is coming, but it won't be ruled by men.

Re:Get over it

[Man On Pink Corner]

If they got no salary, and no "campaign donations" either, they'd vote exactly the same way.

Question for you: who do you think wrote the SOPA legislation, and where do you think it was done?

For certain definitions of democracy

[F69631]

Democracy was created thousands of years ago in Europe

I guess you're referring to ancient Athens, where a subset of adult male citizens were allowed to vote on certain matters. Not only was the people allowed to vote a very exclusive group but the population didn't have many rights that we currently associate with democratic societies. Whether you count Athens as a democracy or not, it's certainly not the first one. Many primitive tribes operated through consensus, which makes it essentially certain that at least Africa invented actual democracy well before Europe.

Re:For certain definitions of democracy

[silentcoder]

>which makes it essentially certain that at least Africa invented actual democracy well before Europe.

Just to pick a minor nit. Consensus government is not democracy but a form of anarchism or libertarianism. Nearly all socialist-libertarians and certainly all anarchists believe that government by consensus is the only form that can be held as valid.

Vote with your wallet

[T Murphy]

I have a Ford Focus I am very happy with, but I'm writing to Ford to let them know if SOPA passes I won't be buying Ford again (of course my Focus is only a year old though, so I can't say I'm going out an purchasing a Toyota next week). GoDaddy was an easy company to boycott, but make it clear you intend to vote with your wallet when it comes to any of these companies. Plus, as we've seen with GoDaddy, companies really do consider the opinions of their consumers, at least more-so than congressmen (who seem to ignore us entirely). Yes, those who care about SOPA are quite a minority of Ford customers compared to GoDaddy, but it doesn't take much time to make your voice heard.

Americans for Tax reform... pro regulation?

[xmorg]

"ATR works to increase transparency in the regulatory process and opposes any attempt to restrict free market options absent deliberate and comprehensive debate. "

-lol, hypocrites.

No Corporations

[Doc Ruby]

It's a goddamn crime that the list of those supporting this heinous, un-American tyranny is topped with giant corporations. Multinational corporations. Foreign corporations.

These foreign non-people should have absolutely no influence over the laws set by the government of the United States. The legitimate government is by, of and for the people, not the people's property like corporations.

The Constitution does not give the government any power to represent corporations. But even from the beginning the Constitution has needed amendments that spelled out for corrupt government officials the limits to its power that were not already spelled out: the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights shouldn't have been necessary, because the powers it prohibits aren't granted in the original document. But obviously it was necessary; obvious when it was written and passed, and obvious ever since as it must be constantly invoked when government reaches across its bounds. It's clear by now that we need to amend the Constitution to spell out that corporations aren't people. That they don't have rights, that the government can restrict their actions with the existing powers government has.

There is already such an amendment in the works. Closing in on 200,000 people have already signed on supporting it. You should too. If you're a person, anyway. Why suffer being a second class citizen behind corporations that aren't even people?

The People's Lobby

[jmactacular]

Since it is about money, I had an idea. Why do we have to limit our votes to a person? Why can't they be for specific issues?

I thought about creating a website, even registered a domain, peoplelobby.org, where you could create an issue, and allow people to vote. They could donate $1 per vote. Then the site would donate all of those funds for that issue to the most relevant legislator's campaign if and when they vote accordingly. With all the rules and "super-pacs" out there, is this idea legal?

What do you guys think?

United Corporations of America

[ks*nut]

They should just go ahead and change the name. The days of individual rights are numbered.

Re:WTF is SOPA?

[Ksevio]

Also, the blog that cousin Bob embedded the youtube video on is shutdown and the domain confiscated.

Dreamhost

[phorm]

I have a dreamhost account for some basic web-stuff. I recently got a letter from them basically stating that SOPA is a big floating turd and that they're fully against it.

Time for the nuclear option

[jonwil]

Web sites have been talking about blacking out their front pages for 24 hours to get the point across. The time for talk is passed. With votes on SOPA due soon, now is the time for these sites to act.

Take Facebook for example. They have millions of users in the US (I cant find an exact figure). If Facebook replaced their front page (including the front page as seen through the various mobile devices and apps) so that it basically said "The US government is currently debating a new law that will force web sites like Facebook to shut down. Please write your congressmen and senators and tell them to vote NO on SOPA" and said it in a way that even normal people can understand (and included a link to a site to make it simple to find out how to contact their representatives), it might actually get enough of the population to sit up and take notice. An awful lot of people are going to care if they cant update their Facebook status anymore and cant send tweets and cant watch funny videos on YouTube.

Re:Time for the nuclear option

[Turnerj]

I agree. Have large warnings on sites that will be affected by SOPA could do it. I would really like to see it happen though, not just be talk.

Why? What do they get out of it?

[Altheron]

I can understand the motivation for a content producer to "protect" their "property"... (This is their logic, not mine.)

I'm just having a hard time figuring out what a cosmetics company, or a shoe company, give two shits about this.

Is it really just to force negative press / reviews offline? Does SOPA even give that power?

If not that, then... why throw money at it?

(Nike and Ford both make software.. so.. MAYBE.... BUT.. Estee Lauder? I'm pretty sure they don't...)

VOTE THEM ALL OUT!

[Anonymous Coward]

Folks, there is already an "American's Elect" organisation. Let's rally around the idea that NOBODY vote for any Republican or Democrat in 2012. Let's do a votethemallout.org.

One of two things is likely to happen:

#1 Both parties get nailed hard in the next election. Politicians learn their place.

#2 Both parties hang on to power by altering the vote (see Hacking Democracy). Evidence is collected, and corrupt politicians are charged with crimes and incarcerated.

Re:VOTE THEM ALL OUT!

[morgauxo]

Yeah right. Get the American people to stop voting for the lizards? I'll do my part and vote third party (if I can find a third party that isn't running on a platform of 'the same as the other two but even more extreme'). Or maybe I'll just try to write somebody in. How do you do that anyway?

But expect enough people to actually do this that it matters? Yeah right! Most Americans feel that it is an unchangeable fact of life that either a Republican or a Democrat will be get elected to every office. They all have their ideas that one is somehow better or at least less evil than the other and that if they vote for anyone else they are 'wasting' their vote since they are voting for someone who has no chance anyway.

What to do

[Anonymous Coward]

I think half the reason for the NDAA and the other "terrorize American" bills is the fact that less popular than Ebola Congress is well aware of the fact that a great many people are sooner than later no longer going to accept them as legitimate with predicable results. SOPA is part of it but its all about 1% shafting everyone else.

They figure with a sufficient security state they can save their lousy skins and those of the bribery artists from the usual consequences allocated to groups who are considered traitors by the next group.

Other parts of this bill are about getting more money from a broke populace. Big content figures that people will be forced to buy there swill if they can't pirate it. I doubt this will help, 100% of a broke persons money is still zero.

  Of course SOPA and its ilk do have an upside, making young people angry, very angry . When they happen (probably small chance they might not) and the Feds cutoff the free distraction and the pr0n and all and people are liable to need new distractions, Between that and the drug shortages maybe people will come out of their stupor and maybe they can be induced to join some political cause and get active. That might not help but if it fails, well there are always options.

As for the topic at hand, we need to write letters, vote in every primary, write letters to corporations and avoid buying from supporters, This may mean dead tree letters as the Congress-Things are rather old too so be aware and get with that rusty handwriting ....

Beyond defeating these bills we need to lock the revolving door and find mean to shut off the money spigot. This will not be easy as doing so will require removal of the authority of the lower courts from the bill (perfectly Constitutional BTW) and stacking the Supreme Court Roosevelt style which hold considerable risks.

There are tons of ideas good and bad along those lines but that not germane now.

Planned blackout of facebook, twitter etc..

[w0mprat]

http://techland.time.com/2012/01/05/sopa-what-if-google-facebook-and-twitter-went-offline-in-protest/ It's actually being seriously talked about.

Re:This isn't considered bribery?

[Errol backfiring]

Yes, this is bribery. But in the USA, this is the norm. Especially with media companies. And that has a history. Back in the days when publishing cost a lot of money, it may have actually made sense to let the industry regulate itself. Today, it regulates Joe Average, though.

BBS Anyone?

[CayceeDee]

Is anybody else missing the old days of the BBS. Maybe its time to take a small step backward to ensure our freedom.

Re:1-800 Contacts? Really?

[X0563511]

Sent to comcast:

Hello,

This is addressed to Rick Germano, Senior Vice President of Customer Operations, and anyone else responsible for decision making at the corporate level.

It has come to my attention that Comcast is supporting H.R. 3261, also known as SOPA.

I'm sure that I am not the only customer who would be appalled by this support, should it be brought to their attention and the repercussions SOPA's passing would have. SOPA would be ineffective at it's stated purpose (reduction/elimination of media and/or software piracy), while at the same time opening the door to a wide range of abuse - similar to the recent DMCA abuses committed by Universal (via Youtube takedowns). This would make the inappropriate seizure of DNS domain names by ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) look minor in comparison.

If you are not familiar with this piece of proposed legislature, I strongly advice you educate yourself and your colleagues as this will have vast repercussions from the perspective of an ISP and content provider.

I have been happy as a Comcast customer since I opened my account - and I hope Comcast's support of SOPA (H.R. 3261) will not cause this to change.

Thank you,
<snip>
Comcast Account: <snip>

To which company do you refer?

[tepples]

I looked at the SOPA supporters list in the article and didn't see any DSL company that I immediately recognized. To which company do you refer?

Re:To which company do you refer?

[omnichad]

I never said it would be a DSL company that supports SOPA. But you may have other reasons for not supporting the DSL provider.

Re:To which company do you refer?

[tepples]

Once you give up land-line, cable, satellite, and cell phones, you might as well join the Amish. And as I understand it, the Amish lifestyle is not exactly on-topic on an IT news discussion site like this one.