Tech Industry Reps To Speak Before Congress About SOPA

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Tech Industry Reps To Speak Before Congress About SOPA

Posted by samzenpus on Tuesday January 10, 2012 @04:29AM from the in-today's-sopa-news dept.

Nemesisghost writes "Rep. Darrell Issa (R-California), a major opponent of the Stop Online Piracy Act has announced he plans to call a hearing where Tech industry representatives will get to speak out about how legislation like SOPA will negatively affect the internet. From the article 'Representative Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) has called a hearing that will bring more voices from the technology industry to Washington, D.C. to discuss how legislation such as the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) would affect the Internet. On Jan. 18, industry representatives that include Brad Burnham from Union Square Ventures; Lanham Napier, the CEO of Rackspace Hosting; and Alexis Ohanian, co-founder of Reddit.com, will testify before Congress.'"

216 of 273 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

I applaud his efforts... by AngryDeuce · 2012-01-10 04:32 · Score: 5, Insightful

But I think it's clear that very few people on Capital Hill give much of a shit about the side effects of this crap. The voices howling in opposition mean nothing compared to the 6 figures they're being paid by proponents of this bill.
Not only do they not understand, but they don't want to. There is no defense against willful ignorance.
1. Re:I applaud his efforts... by Jawnn · 2012-01-10 04:49 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  There is no defense against willful ignorance.
  True enough, sadly, but there is a defense against corporate control of our system of law and government. http://movetoamend.org/
2. Re:I applaud his efforts... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-10 04:49 · Score: 1
  
  There is no defense against willful ignorance.
  Sure there is. Removal from office. When, is optional.
3. Re:I applaud his efforts... by Applekid · 2012-01-10 04:59 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  But I think it's clear that very few people on Capital Hill give much of a shit about the side effects of this crap. The voices howling in opposition mean nothing compared to the 6 figures they're being paid by proponents of this bill.
  Not only do they not understand, but they don't want to. There is no defense against willful ignorance.
  Yup, it's pretty much lipservice so no one can say later that they didn't even entertain the sane side of the argument. Meanwhile I imagine the bought and paid congressional goons are just singing the Meow Mix jingle in their heads during these hearings.
  
  --
  More Twoson than Cupertino
4. Re:I applaud his efforts... by DNS-and-BIND · 2012-01-10 05:01 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  So, why don't the good guys raise some cash and start bribing politicians? This sort of thing goes both ways, you know. Evil is bribing Neutral...surely Neutral, being neutral, is equally amenable to Good's money as well? At the very least it drives the price up for Evil.
  
  --
  Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
5. Re:I applaud his efforts... by muon-catalyzed · 2012-01-10 05:03 · Score: 1
  
  $3.5M for the top dog pushing SOPA is pathetic, Google could throw in like $100M if they really wanted to. Most of the opposers are just opposing and not paying, and having TorrentFreak and 4chan among the figures against it might only hasten passage of this bill.
6. Re:I applaud his efforts... by countertrolling · 2012-01-10 05:04 · Score: 2
  
  There is no defense against willful ignorance.
  We're not dealing with ignorance. These people aren't stupid by a long shot. "For me and mine" is the theme of the day. And that goes for genpop just as much as it does for the warden and the guards.
  
  --
  For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
7. Re:I applaud his efforts... by Synerg1y · 2012-01-10 05:04 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, but if the politician catches a wiff of bad ratings based on their decisions on SOPA, that is where PR can help stop SOPA.
8. Re:I applaud his efforts... by na1led · 2012-01-10 05:06 · Score: 2
  
  Congress's approval is about as low as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad! Yet they still don't care, and nether does mr. Ahmadinejad!
  
  --
  -- By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out.
9. Re:I applaud his efforts... by Jawnn · 2012-01-10 05:12 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Respectfully, you can't count on that as an option. When any candidate, incumbent or challenger must accept corporate money in order mount a viable campaign, all you are doing is "rearranging the deck chairs".
10. Re:I applaud his efforts... by AngryDeuce · 2012-01-10 05:12 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I have a hard time getting behind the idea of fighting corruption with more corruption.
  Don't you find it a little ridiculous that the only real option people have to get a person to represent their interests is to buy one off? Too many people have resigned themselves to "Well, that's the way it is, those are the rules of the game." Fuck that. When the game is rigged you don't play along; you flip the fucking board and walk away from the cheating little shit that's rigging the game.
  We need serious campaign reform to include barring direct financial contribution to any candidate and mandating that all elections be publicly funded equally to all qualifying candidates regardless of party affiliation. Everything short of that is just spinning our wheels and playing the rigged game with the cheaters.
11. Re:I applaud his efforts... by elrous0 · 2012-01-10 05:15 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  EFF: This bill will infringe on users' rights, burden ISP's and search engines, and create a climate where corporations and the media industry completely control the internet with no oversight.
  Representative: Well, you've made an excellent point--well argued, reasonable, and strongly supported. Does anyone else have a response?
  Entertainment Industry: Yes sir, in rebuttal, we would like to offer you this $50,000 donation to your reelection campaign.
  Representative: Well, you've made an even *better* point.
  
  --
  SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
12. Re:I applaud his efforts... by DanTheStone · 2012-01-10 05:24 · Score: 2
  
  I predict that would work as well as banning "payola". They'd just funnel their "contributions" through an additional layer or two of indirection: discounted TV spots, tickets to movie premiers, free services, free upgrades, etc.
13. Re:I applaud his efforts... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-10 05:28 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I agree with everything you just said, but it's not going to happen through normal channels. None of the big parties that benefit perpetually under the current system is going to instigate reform, that only leaves revolution, and the West seem to have spent a lot of time and money putting in place the backbone of what could effectively become a real police state overnight (suddenly all those cameras and stop and search powers start to look less like security theatre and more like a means for native population control). It would be nice to imagine the people still have the power to take back control of their government like we've seen happening in less developed parts of the world recently - I wonder how true that is anymore.
14. Re:I applaud his efforts... by interkin3tic · 2012-01-10 05:39 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  You're right that there is no way to completely stop someone from buying influence in government and no way to prevent all elected officials from being bought, but making it inefficient and as difficult as possible is good. It's exactly what the MPAA and RIAA are doing to pirates. Many if not most of them know that SOPA won't actually end piracy, but they're doing it anyway, because by adding another hurdle, they can cut down on at least some of it, and to them, that's better. The only difference is that with theirs, there will be more collateral damage, people who are not pirating will be affected by SOPA. There will likely be negative consequences of saying money from corporations to politicians is not speech (and that's assuming Move to Amend focuses their efforts on that instead of attacking all aspects of corporate personhood) but I don't think the consequences will be as far-reaching as SOPA's.
15. Re:I applaud his efforts... by Curunir_wolf · 2012-01-10 05:40 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  We need serious campaign reform to include barring direct financial contribution to any candidate and mandating that all elections be publicly funded equally to all qualifying candidates regardless of party affiliation. Everything short of that is just spinning our wheels and playing the rigged game with the cheaters.
  That's a non-starter. Anything that gets any real consideration at all under the banner of "campaign finance reform" will be nothing but another way to protect incumbents and make it even harder for real grassroots efforts to get any traction. We've seen it happen with McCain-Fiengold, an nearly with the DISCLOSE act (which provided exemptions for groups like the NRA, but would have put any smaller issue-advocacy groups completely in chains).
  You're not going to get ANY rules or laws passed that will allow you to avoid the necessary responsibility of keeping informed and involved in your government. Nothing. The American system will succumb to the monied interests and corrupt politicians over and over without constant vigilance of a significant proportion of the citizens - there is simply no way around it. We are where we are now because of too much apathy and too many people just not wanting to deal with politics.
  
  --
  "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
  --- Jerry Garcia
16. Re:I applaud his efforts... by dpilot · 2012-01-10 05:42 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Along that line:
  http://sanders.senate.gov/petition/?uid=f1c2660f-54b9-4193-86a4-ec2c39342c6c
  
  --
  The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
17. Re:I applaud his efforts... by Brain-Fu · 2012-01-10 06:20 · Score: 1
  
  The people who would have to take action in order to make this amendment real are the very people who stand to lose the most from it.
  That doesn't mean it is impossible, but it means that the amount of political force that must be brought to bear is tremendous.
  This is an uphill battle, to say the least.
18. Re:I applaud his efforts... by shentino · 2012-01-10 06:29 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  It's not even that much.
  Corporations own the media.
  The only people you see on TV are the ones who pass the corporate ass kissing test by selling their soul.
19. Re:I applaud his efforts... by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve · 2012-01-10 06:29 · Score: 2
  
  Don't you find it a little ridiculous that the only real option people have to get a person to represent their interests is to buy one off? Too many people have resigned themselves to "Well, that's the way it is, those are the rules of the game." Fuck that. When the game is rigged you don't play along; you flip the fucking board and walk away from the cheating little shit that's rigging the game.
  We need serious campaign reform to include barring direct financial contribution to any candidate and mandating that all elections be publicly funded equally to all qualifying candidates regardless of party affiliation. Everything short of that is just spinning our wheels and playing the rigged game with the cheaters.
  This sounds great, but I don't think it's possible. First of all, the American public is too stupid so anything that requires them to be smart enough with regards to voting will never work. A few weeks ago I saw a pole where something like 76% of the public wanted to "vote everybody in Congress out" but something like 56% of those same people said "Everybody but my Congressman needs to go". This is why nothing changes. Secondly, like it or not the US Supreme Court in recent years has had a good deal of decisions that could be described as "We're not saying that this is a good idea, but as we do not believe in legislating from the bench we are forced to reach a decision on the merits alone of the law and that may not be a good thing". McCain-Feingold got struck down as a free speech issue. That was probably our last best chance to to try to level the field financially for elections. I am skeptical that future legislation could be written in a way that would pass a Supreme Court challenge related to free speech.
20. Re:I applaud his efforts... by shentino · 2012-01-10 06:32 · Score: 1
  
  Flipping the fucking board and walking away from the cheating little shit won't work.
  For one, thanks to corporate corruption of regulatory agencies, it's rather akin to trying to play a game that is not only rigged, but is hosted in a convention where local security is on the cheater's payroll, and you either get screwed or you get kicked out.
  Back in the real world this means getting arrested, sued, banned from TV, and whatever else.
21. Re:I applaud his efforts... by shentino · 2012-01-10 06:34 · Score: 1
  
  That will only work if they actually fear the voters.
  I think that when this thing passes many politicians will find themselves lined up with cushy private sector jobs working for the companies that paid them off to pass the damn thing.
22. Re:I applaud his efforts... by AngryDeuce · 2012-01-10 06:35 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Meanwhile I imagine the bought and paid congressional goons are just singing the Meow Mix jingle in their heads during these hearings.
  Or surfing the web, even tweeting how "boring" listening to someone argue against the bill during a fucking meeting explicitly for that purpose was...
  Here's some of what he found "boring":
  
  "But there are sufficient loopholes here that would allow innocent sites to be shut down, thereby a loss of jobs. Have we answered the question dealing with national security? And as well are we recognizing the value of the First Amendment?"
  Yeah, the First Amendment is just so fucking boring...
23. Re:I applaud his efforts... by rmstar · 2012-01-10 06:40 · Score: 1
  
  The American system will succumb to the monied interests and corrupt politicians over and over without constant vigilance of a significant proportion of the citizens.
  As far as I can tell, it is happening despite that. The ideas of those doing the vigilance have to make sense, and they currently do not. Libertarians have played the usefull idiot successfully time and again, being "vigilant" against exactly the wrong things, and playing into the hands of the wrong people. The result is that now you have a market based democracy. Don't you love it? It's just money, and no laws above it!
  Now, the option is to realize that this is all wrong, and to actually participate in political discourse. Wake up your neighbors, and study to know and understand how things actually work and can be improved realistically (and not just how they should work in an ideal world, which will always lead to disapointment).
  No need to pull punches, though. A less corrupt government, good cheap healthcare for all, etc. are big, good things, but for that the US has to start seeing itself as an actual society.
24. Re:I applaud his efforts... by Jawnn · 2012-01-10 06:44 · Score: 1
  
  If you are suggesting that such an amendment would have no effect, I disagree, but will also ad that the real solution is public campaign financing and run-off elections.
25. Re:I applaud his efforts... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-10 06:45 · Score: 1
  
  I realize the impossibility of it ever happening, but it'd be REALLY nice if representatives and elected officials simply weren't so goddamn easy to buy with shit like that.
  So some company gives you free tickets to a hockey game. You're upgraded to first class (as if you weren't there already) in the plane, you have a free stay at any of X hotel in any city, hell... some company donates a dump truck full of money directly to you and lets you keep the truck too.
  Why in the absolute bloody FUCK are you changing your mind on your stance on whatever issue from this?!?!?! "Hmm... I totally agree with this bill, but this free hotel room and briefcase full of money has now changed my inherent way of thinking, and now I'm completely going to change my whole thought process and belief system."
  Does nobody have any fucking balls to actually stick to what they believe in? Sure, when you don't change your mind, you'll have to pay for that hotel room again, and you won't be able to buy your fifth yacht in cash. But maybe if you look longer term, you're NOT destroying the future for all citizens, and maybe, just maybe, people will actually like you for doing that, and give you other free shit from the OTHER side, since you're so goddamn greedy and need kickbacks.
  But of course, this can never happen. Someone not buyable like a fucking frozen pizza? Never happen in politics.
26. Re:I applaud his efforts... by shentino · 2012-01-10 06:46 · Score: 1
  
  I'd bet that any company daring to show its face in opposition to this bill will get special attention once SOPA starts getting enforced.
27. Re:I applaud his efforts... by shentino · 2012-01-10 06:48 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  It's not just that.
  It's "Vote my way or I'll take this truck of money I was going to give you, and I'll give it to anyone who runs against you. And don't piss me off or I'll make sure you never get a job in the private sector again."
  Corruption isn't just about carrots, there's sticks on the table too.
28. Re:I applaud his efforts... by bfandreas · 2012-01-10 07:00 · Score: 2
  
  When somebody is offering you a carrot then simply bending over backwards is sending the wrong signal.
  
  When you ask who is actually paying for your campaining then the correct answer is: concerned blue collar workers. Like you and me.
  
  --
  20 minutes into the future
29. Re:I applaud his efforts... by Curunir_wolf · 2012-01-10 07:06 · Score: 1
  
  It didn't happen "despite that [constant vigilance]", it happened because the American people have been asleep at the wheel. For at least the last 50 years. People are waking up, but it takes time to root out the evil because it's so firmly rooted into the system.
  There really hasn't been much of a result, other than finally the discussion over unsustainable debt and runaway deficits is happening. But you can't have unrealistic expectations, and you have to be as dedicated to keeping up the fight as the corrupt politicians are to trying to hold on to their seats.
  
  good cheap healthcare for all
  Nice example of unrealistic expectations. It can be good, or cheap, or unrationed, but it can't be all three.
  
  --
  "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
  --- Jerry Garcia
30. Re:I applaud his efforts... by b4dc0d3r · 2012-01-10 07:13 · Score: 2
  
  The problem is, anyone opposing will only contribute to the next campaign.
  From a congress critter's point of view, it makes more sense. MAFIAA donated X amount of dollars for my last campaign, without having any specific issue on the table. Just to get me elected. All I have to do is not annoy them, and I can count on about that much for my next campaign.
  On the other hand, if you piss them off, they will send their dollars to get you unelected, hoping the next guy supports them.
  It's not about 'buying' a congressthing for a specific issue, it's about having continuous support as long as you don't vote against their interests. One time donors will forget about you the moment they feel safe.
31. Re:I applaud his efforts... by Applekid · 2012-01-10 07:57 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  It would be nice to imagine the people still have the power to take back control of their government like we've seen happening in less developed parts of the world recently - I wonder how true that is anymore.
  Answer: not at all true anymore. In the name of national security there are warrant-less wiretaps, warrant-less GPS tracking, data-mining 3rd party databases to sidestep the restriction of building dossiers on citizens, militarized police, unrestrained use of weapons against citizens because they're "non-lethal", indefinite detention of US citizens, even killing US citizens without due process, all in the name of stomping out terrorism. Of course, the same government gets to decide who is and isn't a terrorist, and you better believe anyone that doesn't shut up, watch TV, secure debt, and buy buy buy is a terrorist. Unless they pay tithes to the election campaigns of the ruling class. Of which the word "campaign" is rather funny because the masses wouldn't dream of "wasting their vote" for someone who isn't a Republocrat.
  The Bill of Rights? Restraints on Power? Checks and Balances? Merely a sentimental reminder of halcyon days.
  
  --
  More Twoson than Cupertino
32. Re:I applaud his efforts... by SiChemist · 2012-01-10 08:14 · Score: 1
  
  DAMN YOU SIR! I now have the "Meow Mix" jingle stuck in my head.
  
  --
  God is imaginary
33. Re:I applaud his efforts... by McGuirk · 2012-01-10 08:35 · Score: 2
  
  This is upsetting me.
  
  Crap like this lets me know this bill is absolutely going to pass and ruin the internet. That, in turn, means I'm going to have to shoot a few people. That is very inconvenient for me.
34. Re:I applaud his efforts... by compro01 · 2012-01-10 08:46 · Score: 1
  
  Nice example of unrealistic expectations. It can be good, or cheap, or unrationed, but it can't be all three.
  Not necessarily cheap in absolute dollars, but certainly cheaper than the current US system. Between medicare, medicaid, and state programs, the US governments already spend as much per capita as any country with universal healthcare. Then you spend as much again in private spending.
  There is no way the US couldn't create a universal healthcare system in a financially neutral manner if there wasn't so much ideological opposition to it in the House and Senate.
  
  --
  upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
35. Re:I applaud his efforts... by Culture20 · 2012-01-10 09:09 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  When somebody is offering you a carrot then simply bending over backwards is sending the wrong signal.
  When somebody is offering you a carrot, then bending over forward is sending the wrong signal too.
36. Re:I applaud his efforts... by Dr_Barnowl · 2012-01-10 10:58 · Score: 1
  
  Indeed. If the USA were really being proper capitalists about it, they'd ship all their cancer patients to Cuba - they spend a tenth of what the USA does per capita, but have better cancer survival rates.
  Even paying a third of what you pay in the states, both the USA and Cuba would be getting a bargain.
37. Re:I applaud his efforts... by Thing+1 · 2012-01-10 12:41 · Score: 1
  
  When the game is rigged you don't play along; you flip the fucking board and walk away from the cheating little shit that's rigging the game.
  I've done that exactly once in my life. JG (last name forgotten), who punched me in the stomach when I expressed defeat during a Monopoly game, by raising my arms over my head (i.e., he was such a fucktard that an exposed weakness was something to immediately hassle; I do recall that his dad was absent, so that's likely the reason but not excuse). I was so startled and upset (at 12 or so) that I flipped the board up and walked home; I was going to stay the night. Hope he's having a wonderful life.
  
  --
  I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
38. Re:I applaud his efforts... by Thing+1 · 2012-01-10 12:45 · Score: 1
  
  Of course, the same government gets to decide who is and isn't a terrorist, and you better believe anyone that doesn't shut up, watch TV, secure debt, and buy buy buy is a terrorist. Unless they pay tithes to the election campaigns of the ruling class.
  I recall a short-lived drama, "Over There", from the mid-2000s or so. In one episode they found a home with a ton of dollars stuffed in the walls, and started removing it.
  The homeowner comes back home, sees looters, and starts shooting. You can guess the result.
  At the time, I thought "It would be an interesting twist if the military had identified a wealthy person who might cause issues for the military with their wealth, and decided to remove them from the equation."
  These days I'm thinking that I've accumulated a bit of wealth.
  
  --
  I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
39. Re:I applaud his efforts... by Thing+1 · 2012-01-10 12:48 · Score: 2
  
  Even paying a third of what you pay in the states, both the USA and Cuba would be getting a bargain.
  I heard a sound bite from the NH primary today, driving home: Ron Paul wants to reestablish trade with Cuba.
  
  --
  I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
40. Re:I applaud his efforts... by Thing+1 · 2012-01-10 12:52 · Score: 1
  
  Back in the real world this means getting arrested, sued, banned from TV, and whatever else.
  Jared Loughner likely received/will receive the first, second, and fourth in your list; however, he drastically increased his presence on the television. That is, for one interpretation of "flipping the board".
  
  --
  I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
41. Re:I applaud his efforts... by Creepy · 2012-01-11 05:04 · Score: 1
  
  I oppose SOPA because it both violates freedom of speech and is fundamentally broken. It doesn't actually block IPs, it blocks DNS names, so it can be bypassed simply by using a foreign DNS server or just using the IP address (or an add-on like DeSOPA for Firefox, which I believe uses foreign DNS). I said violates freedom of speech, as well - SOPA allows for a copyright holder to ask for a block on an address that talks about piracy but doesn't contain any actual files - this violates our constitutional right to discuss such things if we so choose (it's called freedom of speech - see the first amendment to the US Constitution - congressmen and women that write these laws should at least be aware of it, but have proven wrong before, like when they passed the CDA only to have it tossed out immediately in court).
  I oppose piracy, but since nothing in SOPA will stop (intentional) piracy since it is easily circumvented and because it potentially violates civil rights, I can't support it.
42. Re:I applaud his efforts... by cdrguru · 2012-01-11 06:37 · Score: 1
  
  Direct campaign financing in the US would quickly turn into a Welfare program. I bet I can get the government to supply me with enough funds to maintain a decent standard of living as long as I keep running for office. Any office. I can run for President every four years, but every two years run for something else. And in the odd off years, I'll bet there are state and local elections that I can get supported to run for.
  See, if you take the view that everyone is in it for the best possible outcome for everyone you can easily be deluded into thinking something like direct campaign financing is a good idea. However, if you look at from the standpoint of everyone is in it for as much as they can grab for themselves, you discover that paying people to run for office ensures you get an even worse set of candidates than you have now. And, because they are paid-for up front, their loyalty is clearly for sale right from the beginning.
  I really like the idea that legislators need to pay for legislation. If they are so convinced that we need some new law, they can pay to have it enacted themselves. No salary for congresspeople - they must depend on donations. And the maximum donation should be $100 from any single source so if they aren't popular they better be rich or they are going to starve. Would this fix things? No, but it would be a lot clearer to people what they can expect from government. Zealots and fanatics.
43. Re:I applaud his efforts... by Coren22 · 2012-01-12 04:00 · Score: 1
  
  The problem with America finally waking up is that we had protests of the abuses that were occurring as a normal business practice of the elite in the form of the Occupy movement, and everyone just called them dirty hippies because they didn't listen to their message, just what the media showed.
  Anyone who is working class and can't understand the message of Occupy, didn't hear the message.
  
  --
  APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
44. Re:I applaud his efforts... by Curunir_wolf · 2012-01-12 05:12 · Score: 1
  
  You mean it was more than "all rich people are evil" and "pay my student loans" and "eat the rich"?
  Occupy certainly stirred up some shit, and I applaud them for pointing out the frustration of regular Americans with the corporate welfare and financial inequities inherent in the system. The problem is that most people already see those problems, but Occupy never came up with any coherent solutions. Blaming all the rich just looks like class envy, much of it driven by trust account students. The problems are caused by the corrupt, rent-seeking, and Washington game-playing rich that mostly earn their wealth through government largess and influence with administration policy-makers.
  Maybe you have a different take?
  
  --
  "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
  --- Jerry Garcia
45. Re:I applaud his efforts... by Coren22 · 2012-01-12 05:31 · Score: 1
  
  I saw the main theme of the Occupiers to be: Big banks gambled on our future, then were bailed out, but still caused the depression we are now in. Please fix these issues so we can actually get jobs to pay our student loans.
  I don't think that Occupy itself stood for everyone paying their student loans, though that may have been a few. The main issue I saw was a general inability to find work due to the economic problems which were rooted in the elite gambling with the economy, then getting bailed out. I don't believe that they were looking for handouts.
  
  --
  APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Huzah by Iamthecheese · 2012-01-10 04:33 · Score: 4, Insightful

It's delightful to know they're getting input but... Well I hate to be cynical but a lot of these congress-critters have had the best interests of the nation in one hand and a bag of money in the other. Guess which one wins?

--
If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
1. Re:Huzah by tom17 · 2012-01-10 05:11 · Score: 1
  
  The best interests of the nation, of course! That's what they are there for.
  Oh wait...
This should be fun... by I'm+just+joshin · 2012-01-10 04:33 · Score: 5, Funny

So do we like Issa today or is he still evil?
1. Re:This should be fun... by NevarMore · 2012-01-10 04:53 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Issa has actually done a pretty good job. He has become well known for exposing important issues that others would ignore or actively hide. His hearings on SOPA are to the tech community as his hearings on Gunwalker/Fast and Furious are to the right to keep and bear arms community.
2. Re:This should be fun... by OakDragon · 2012-01-10 04:56 · Score: 1, Troll
  
  He's a Republican, so Slashdot users cannot officially indicate support.
  So who's paying Issa for this?
  
  --
  Dark Reflection
3. Re:This should be fun... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-10 05:08 · Score: 1
  
  I know Issa better for his continued attempts to gut the USPS, and his parliamentarian gamesmanship in preventing an up-or-down vote on a competing bill that could help save it.
4. Re:This should be fun... by elrous0 · 2012-01-10 05:24 · Score: 1, Flamebait
  
  ISSA represents a district with Google and Microsoft as some of his biggest constituents (and donors). He's not doing this out of any streak of nobility. He's just doing what his corporate masters want him to do. The only major difference between SOPA and his proposed bill is that his exempts search engines like Google and Bing from liability.
  
  --
  SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
5. Re:This should be fun... by interkin3tic · 2012-01-10 05:46 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Your post implies that Issa is either good or evil. Tell me, do you imagine Issa is a character in a Disney film or do you realize he is actually guy who exists in the real world?
  
  He's a real person, and a politician at that. Neither completely good nor completely bad. Don't oversimplify.
6. Re:This should be fun... by I'm+just+joshin · 2012-01-10 06:29 · Score: 1
  
  Your reply to my post indicates that you do not understand the concept of humor. Here, let me help you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humor
  Sheesh.
7. Re:This should be fun... by Archangel+Michael · 2012-01-10 06:50 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Issa is from Northern California, but not the Bay Area. His district is in the North Sacramento Valley, Semi Rural (farms, orchards etc). He is not "evil" anymore (or any less) than say Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid are "evil" ... Wouldn't you agree? These people are all power trolls.
  The problem with people like you is that you see things in absolutes that don't help. Issa is right on this issue, and deserves our support, ON THIS ISSUE, the same way I don't generally like Al Franken, but support him on some issues. The worst thing in the world is being tied to false dichotomy choices, such as (R) bad, (D) good or visa versa.
  So today, Issa is both Good and Evil ... depending on your point of view on which topic. ;)
  
  --
  Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
8. Re:This should be fun... by Archangel+Michael · 2012-01-10 06:53 · Score: 1
  
  Never mind about my Geography. He's from Southern California ....
  
  --
  Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
9. Re:This should be fun... by LanMan04 · 2012-01-10 08:22 · Score: 1
  
  Don't forget his constant and totally false scandal-mongering of the Solyndra episode!
  Issa is a douche, 1st class.
  
  --
  With the first link, the chain is forged.
10. Re:This should be fun... by Toonol · 2012-01-10 09:51 · Score: 1
  
  In other words, liberty.
11. Re:This should be fun... by Archangel+Michael · 2012-01-10 11:25 · Score: 1
  
  Thanks, Fixed that already
  
  --
  Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
12. Re:This should be fun... by Archangel+Michael · 2012-01-10 11:27 · Score: 1
  
  Thanks, but ... no thanks.
  
  --
  Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
13. Re:This should be fun... by tiqui · 2012-01-10 16:57 · Score: 1
  
  False scandal mongering?
  If the Bushies had illegally funneled half a billion dollars of taxpayer money to their political donors through a company in this way, every lefty on slashdot would be outraged. Federal law is quite specific on the matter of putting taxpayers ahead of other investors in deals like that one and yet the Obama admin violated that law and they continue to point fingers every-which-way and pretend to have no recollection when Issa asks for the name of the person/persons who violated that law
  Solyndra was rotten from the beginning. Issa has already forced the executive branch to dump enough docs that we now know the Bush admin turned them down for their loans because a review of their business model showed that it was doomed to fail (and the govt analysts even predicted the month and year when the thing would inevitably go down.... quite accurately it turns out). The shovel loads of money Obama threw at Solyndra did NOT save the company, but they DID let the Obama fundraisers who had invested in it get THEIR cash out replacing it with taxpayer money that was then lost in the collapse. Oh, that's right, Obama is a Democrat.... move along...... nothing to see here......Issa is the bad guy.....
Hopeless... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-10 04:34 · Score: 2, Interesting

...if those Tech Industry Reps have not more than $21 million to offer.
Maybe we should start collecting. Freedom isn't free they say.
1. Re:Hopeless... by AngryDeuce · 2012-01-10 04:41 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I find it ridiculous that so many people think the answer to corruption is just more corruption.
  The only way to stop this bullshit is to mandate that all campaigns be publicly funded and disallow direct financial contribution to any candidate by anyone, period. We need to get money out of politics, not start throwing more in on the other side. All that's going to accomplish is a fucking cold war type situation where both sides try to outspend the other, and the fact is, the people are going to lose that fight every time. People struggling to pay their bills don't have the means to donate to political candidates, so their voice is ignored. This must end.
2. Re:Hopeless... by Samantha+Wright · 2012-01-10 04:45 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  This. This right here... will never happen in the United States. How would you get the law passed? Every lobbyist on the planet would shovel money at their playthings as fast as possible to ensure it didn't. Except perhaps the underdogs, who have less money anyway. You're going to have to found a new country or have a violent revolution, and then get this particular piece of sound advice directly in the founding document.
  
  --
  Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
3. Re:Hopeless... by Daetrin · 2012-01-10 04:47 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  And we're going to get that law passed _and_ retroactively seize the $21 million that the SOPA supporters have already paid, all in less than a few weeks?
  
  Your idea is laudable, i think outlawing campaign contributions and actually making it stick is totally impossible, but the idea is laudable. However there's no way it could be implemented within the time frame we're talking about. Until we can actually get some kind of reform passed i sure hope the tech companies are willing to lobby in the only way that's currently effective.
  
  --
  This Space Intentionally Left Blank
4. Re:Hopeless... by Ice+Tiger · 2012-01-10 04:51 · Score: 2
  
  Yes, let the free market decide. Tech industry reach into your pockets!
  
  --
  "Because we are not employing at entry level, offshoring will kill our industry stone dead."
5. Re:Hopeless... by tlhIngan · 2012-01-10 04:56 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  The only way to stop this bullshit is to mandate that all campaigns be publicly funded and disallow direct financial contribution to any candidate by anyone, period. We need to get money out of politics, not start throwing more in on the other side. All that's going to accomplish is a fucking cold war type situation where both sides try to outspend the other, and the fact is, the people are going to lose that fight every time. People struggling to pay their bills don't have the means to donate to political candidates, so their voice is ignored. This must end.
  Good suggestion, but doesn't last. The next government will just scrap it.
  Look at Canada - we had a per-vote subsidy for party members (everyone got $1.25 per vote). The present Harper Government (yes, the Government of Canada is officially known as the Harper Government) scapped it under the guise of "budget deficit". (Plus a few people were complaining that they had to support a "losing" party). Total amount saved - around $10M or so per year.
  Perhaps the biggest thing that can be done is to drop the tax benefits that come from campaign contributions (yes, that curious little loophole was NOT removed...). That way if people want to contribute, they can do it from after tax income and not expect any plum tax benefits out of it. if you want to know, contributing $1 to a political party gets you far more in tax benefits than contributing $1 to charity.
  That's how lopsided the laws are.
6. Re:Hopeless... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-10 04:59 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  And even if you did fix the campaign financing issue, there's still a much more insidious type of money in politics that's harder to stop...the move to the private sector. In addition to helping them get elected, large corporations provide cushy jobs for representatives that did them favors while in office. And it's practically impossible to write a law that prevents this type of arrangement.
7. Re:Hopeless... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-10 05:05 · Score: 1
  
  Then we could all run for president, get $100,000 in campaign funds (free from the government).. The whole country wold be rich!
8. Re:Hopeless... by tobiasly · 2012-01-10 05:08 · Score: 1
  
  People struggling to pay their bills don't have the means to donate to political candidates, so their voice is ignored. This must end.
  
  So you're proposing a scheme in which people struggling to pay their bills are forced to donate to political candidates? That is, after all, how taxes work. Oh wait, let me guess: raise taxes on the rich! That'll solve it!
9. Re:Hopeless... by Attila+Dimedici · 2012-01-10 05:11 · Score: 2
  
  So, who qualifies for public funding for their campaigns? Anybody who says they are running? Does this mean that you want to outlaw me taking out ads on my own to oppose (or support) a particular candidate? How do you square that with the first amendment?
  You don't apparently realize that, so far, every law that has been passed to "get money out of politics" has resulted in increasing the influence of corporations.
  
  --
  The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
10. Re:Hopeless... by jmac_the_man · 2012-01-10 05:12 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Look at Canada - we had a per-vote subsidy for party members (everyone got $1.25 per vote). The present Harper Government (yes, the Government of Canada is officially known as the Harper Government) scapped it under the guise of "budget deficit". (Plus a few people were complaining that they had to support a "losing" party).
  I don't know, I'd actually be kind of pissed too if I was being forced to subsidize... say... SOPA supporters just because people voted for them.
  
  Perhaps the biggest thing that can be done is to drop the tax benefits that come from campaign contributions.
  In America, political donations (of any kind: hard money, soft money, Super PACs, etc) are not tax deductible. You're theoretically supposed to go to jail if you use money that was donated to you under a tax deduction for political campaigning.
11. Re:Hopeless... by Fned · 2012-01-10 05:12 · Score: 2
  
  This. This right here... will never happen in the United States. How would you get the law passed?
  I think Neo in The Matrix had the quote of the day on this one.
12. Re:Hopeless... by forkfail · 2012-01-10 05:14 · Score: 1
  
  Which, unfortunately, rather makes term limits also a hopeless cause. No point in term limits if there's a seven figure job waiting for those who vote the right way...
  
  --
  Check your premises.
13. Re:Hopeless... by countertrolling · 2012-01-10 05:16 · Score: 1
  
  The only way to stop this bullshit is to mandate that all campaigns be publicly funded... We need to get money out of politics
  Wait! What?? You don't see the conflict there? And besides, just who do you expect to pay for this 'public funding'? How 'bout fuck the idea of campaigns entirely, since they're just a pack of lies, and just make sure the politicians' voting records stand out more than their fancy speeches and soon to be broken promises?
  
  --
  For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
14. Re:Hopeless... by RobinH · 2012-01-10 05:24 · Score: 2
  
  It's easier to just take money out of the equation. How do you do that? Just make it so that house and senate votes use a secret ballot, just like the way we vote for our representatives. If they can't prove how they voted, then trying to buy their votes is pointless. The only incentive left to them will be to vote the way they *personally* think would be the best. For most of us, that's along our ideals. Sure you wouldn't be able to check up on how your representative voted, but that feature clearly isn't solving the problem anyway.
  
  --
  "I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
15. Re:Hopeless... by Hatta · 2012-01-10 05:30 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  That's because the fundamental problem isn't with our political system, it's with our economic system. You can't have a government by, for, and of the people unless your economy is similarly populist. Capitalism and democracy are fundamentally incompatible.
  
  --
  Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
16. Re:Hopeless... by cforciea · 2012-01-10 05:35 · Score: 1
  
  While that's bad, it only provides a means to corrupt politicians once they are in office rather than making corruption a requirement to make it to office. Most of them say yes to that sort of arrangement right now because they are already the type of people that were perfectly willing to sell their votes to get elected in the first place; more of them will say no if there is an avenue to political office besides selling the country out.
17. Re:Hopeless... by Samantha+Wright · 2012-01-10 05:40 · Score: 1
  
  Digging now... ooh, so many wonderfully inappropriate quotes to choose from. Perhaps you were going for this one?
  
  Neo: Mr. Wizard. Get me the hell out of here.
  
  --
  Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
18. Re:Hopeless... by Alistar · 2012-01-10 05:43 · Score: 2
  
  I believe the op meant that it's not tax deductible for the giver.
  So donating 5 million to a campaign is no longer a nice 5 million tax write off for a corporation.
19. Re:Hopeless... by Curunir_wolf · 2012-01-10 05:46 · Score: 1
  
  It's easier to just take money out of the equation. How do you do that? Just make it so that house and senate votes use a secret ballot, just like the way we vote for our representatives. If they can't prove how they voted, then trying to buy their votes is pointless. The only incentive left to them will be to vote the way they *personally* think would be the best. For most of us, that's along our ideals. Sure you wouldn't be able to check up on how your representative voted, but that feature clearly isn't solving the problem anyway.
  I think you've got an issue there with "accountability".
  
  --
  "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
  --- Jerry Garcia
20. Re:Hopeless... by DarkOx · 2012-01-10 05:49 · Score: 2
  
  The only way to stop this bullshit is to mandate that all campaigns be publicly funded... We need to get money out of politics
  Wow that might be the *worst* idea I have ever seen. Look how the existing two major parties are enshrined in to law. How do you hold a primary as the third party in most states? answer: you don't. How get on a ballot if your not a GOP or DNC candidate in a national race in most states? answer: only with a great amount of difficulty and run around, its not as simple as having enough signatures most places.
  So when the current incumbents are put in charge of writing the legislation that governs who gets those campaign funds and how, what chance do thing outsiders will have for qualifying? answer: little. What does that do to our democracy? answer: Becomes a bigger barrier to new comers and opposition candidates then the current money driven mess ever could.
  
  --
  Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
21. Re:Hopeless... by sidthegeek · 2012-01-10 05:58 · Score: 1
  
  No, actually we don't have capitalism. We have corporatism.
22. Re:Hopeless... by Anthony+Mouse · 2012-01-10 05:59 · Score: 1
  
  How would you get the law passed?
  I still think the best way to do it is at the state level. Have each state pass a law offering state money to fund the campaigns for federal office for that state's senators and representatives. You don't even have to do it all at once that way -- the more states you get to sign on, the less corruption there is. And the people who are voting to do (state legislators) it are not the ones affected (federal legislators). On top of all that, all the big lobbyists are in D.C. Exxon and the MPAA have very few lobbyists in Phoenix or Boise, which limits their ability to stop it.
23. Re:Hopeless... by sidthegeek · 2012-01-10 06:00 · Score: 1
  
  Sorry, meant to say "Corporatocracy".
24. Re:Hopeless... by Anthony+Mouse · 2012-01-10 06:09 · Score: 2
  
  And even if you did fix the campaign financing issue, there's still a much more insidious type of money in politics that's harder to stop...the move to the private sector.
  Not necessarily. Suppose you fix the campaign finance issue, but you have no term limits and therefore you still have career politicians -- it's just that to make it a career they have to do what their constituents want to keep getting reelected. Then you would still have a revolving door for the corrupt candidates, but as soon as you get an honest candidate in office who wants to stay, they do. From then on, every election cycle reduces the number of corrupt candidates because they're the ones who quit in order to take the payday while all the honest candidates stick around.
  The reason it can't happen that way now is that if an honest candidate proves they're honest while in office, corrupt money funds their opponents until they lose, which prevents the honest candidates from being consistently reelected.
25. Re:Hopeless... by AngryDeuce · 2012-01-10 06:21 · Score: 1
  
  Obviously there would have to be criteria met to qualify for candidacy. For instance, a certain percentage of verifiable sponsor signatures collected from the electorate you wish to represent. It works well enough for purposes of recalling a rep (speaking as a Wisconsin resident here; we've got recall fever), why not make it an eligibility requirement for running for office in the first place?
  It doesn't even have to be very high, say 5% of the total number of votes in the previous election for that seat. If you can't even manage to convince 5% of the constituency to support your candidacy, what the hell are you even running for? That alone would be sufficient barrier of entry to prevent idiots from turning it into a circus unless they were really determined (and enough of their fellow citizens wanted to turn it into one), and if that actually comes to pass, I think it's fair to let the circus continue. After all, if a sizable enough percentage of the population wants to turn the election into a farce, than obviously there are serious problems with the election in the first place that bear further investigation, i.e., making a mockery of the situation to illustrate how broken the situation really is.
26. Re:Hopeless... by Zenaku · 2012-01-10 06:22 · Score: 1
  
  I'm guessing the answer he was looking for is "Guns. Lot's of guns."
  
  --
  If fate makes you a motorcycle, you become a motorcycle.
27. Re:Hopeless... by Hatta · 2012-01-10 06:26 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  We do, because we can't have capitalism. In capitalism, money makes money faster than labor does. This effect compounds on itself to produce inequality. Since economic power and political power are equivalent, this produces political inequality as well. This allows those who got rich during the brief period of capitalism to lock down their positions through political means. That is corporatism.
  Capitalism is an unsustainable utopian idea.
  
  --
  Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
28. Re:Hopeless... by Dripdry · 2012-01-10 06:27 · Score: 2
  
  They make it work in other countries. Once out of office, a political figure can't get a job with any company they had dealings with while in office for something like 5-10 years. U.K. perhaps? Germany?
  
  --
  -
29. Re:Hopeless... by Curunir_wolf · 2012-01-10 06:32 · Score: 1
  
  And we don't have that issue today, right now, with the very law the subject is supposed to be about (SOPA)? The PP answered your complaint in his post, and you completely ignored it. Read the last sentence you quoted again.
  This?
  
  Sure you wouldn't be able to check up on how your representative voted, but that feature clearly isn't solving the problem anyway.
  It's wrong. Entirely. Many representatives lost their seats in 2010 precisely because of their votes during the last session. Politicians will lie when the truth will do, and if you don't know how they are voting then there is no way to tell what they are lying about - the lies are your only way to judge. That's a piss-poor way to select a representative. In fact, if more people were less gullible, and looked at voting records more closely, we wouldn't have as many corrupt politicians as it is.
  
  --
  "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
  --- Jerry Garcia
30. Re:Hopeless... by interkin3tic · 2012-01-10 06:37 · Score: 1
  
  We are limited on options at this point. The vote on the bill is happening soon, before elections where we can boot out the proponents of the bill, before we can make the sweeping changes to campaign contributions you're talking about (if that's possible at all, which I don't think it is.) Once the bill gets passed, it's staying in effect for years at least.
  
  Our options are to play just as dirty as the other side has to stop censorship now, or vainly fight the good fight after the battle has already been lost.
31. Re:Hopeless... by Dripdry · 2012-01-10 06:37 · Score: 2
  
  Right, but I'm not sure enough people understand: Tax benefit or no, the money still goes away. It's NOT about tax write-offs (I am a financial advisor and getting my CFP). It's more about Return On Investment.
  Contributing money to charity doesn't get you any monetary benefit. You still don't get to keep that money.
  With our marginal tax rate system, tax deductions don't magically change how much all one's money is taxed, it only moves that money out of a tax rate "bucket" so it isn't taxed at a certain rate.But the money is still gone, and if it is better spent elsewhere then it should be spent elsewhere.
  Point if it's to verbose: Donations don't save money, so only donate if it gets you something (like good will, good feeling, or in this case a 22000% rate of return, http://videosift.com/video/TYT-22-000-rate-of-return-on-lobbying-investment?loadcomm=1)
  I don't have the link to the study, sorry.
  
  --
  -
32. Re:Hopeless... by shentino · 2012-01-10 06:54 · Score: 1
  
  Said honest politicians will find themselves impeached rather quickly.
33. Re:Hopeless... by shentino · 2012-01-10 06:58 · Score: 2
  
  Raising taxes on the rich would save everyone money, even the rich.
  With the tax burden lifted from the middle class, they'd keep more of their earnings and spend more, and the rich folks would more than make up in extra business what they lose in taxes.
  Plus, shifting the tax burden to the rich will save the government money when they trim down the IRS a bit.
  The fact that the rich so strongly oppose it tells me one of two things:
  A) They're knee-jerkers that can't see past the immediate benefits
  B) They care more about keeping everyone else poor than being rich themselves.
34. Re:Hopeless... by shentino · 2012-01-10 06:59 · Score: 1
  
  Not to mention the referees are on their payroll.
35. Re:Hopeless... by desdinova+216 · 2012-01-10 07:07 · Score: 1
  
  well, the simple answer would be to base the public funding on ballot Eligibility
36. Re:Hopeless... by frank_adrian314159 · 2012-01-10 07:54 · Score: 1
  
  So donating 5 million to a campaign is no longer a nice 5 million tax write off for a corporation.
  No, it's what it's always been to the corporation - a $5M investment in its own future.
  
  --
  That is all.
37. Re:Hopeless... by Tranzistors · 2012-01-10 08:02 · Score: 1
  
  Closed votes can be worked around — company pays the party if the bill gets passed. If you want the money, vote for it and hope others will do the same.
38. Re:Hopeless... by Digital+Vomit · 2012-01-10 08:18 · Score: 1
  
  ...all those people that complain that he stole the election because he only had 40% of the vote (Don't remember exact number)
  His party won a majority government with something like the votes of 23% or 24% of eligible voters.
  
  --
  Modern copyright is theft of culture from everyone and it retards the progress of the useful arts and sciences.
39. Re:Hopeless... by Shadow99_1 · 2012-01-10 09:03 · Score: 1
  
  Being rich is heavily about a 'right' to be an elitist... It's the 'right' to send your kids to a school that basically guarantees employment at any place they wish... It's the 'right' to go to restaurants and other service establishments that don't let just everyone in... It's the 'right' to live walled off from those who cannot afford to live where you do with guards to keep those people out... It's the 'right' to have people do the jobs you don't want to do...
  If they didn't keep everyone else poor how would they manage to be the elite anymore? Anyone could eventually be 'rich enough' to have the same 'rights' as they do.
  
  --
  we are all invisible unless we choose otherwise
40. Re:Hopeless... by jmac_the_man · 2012-01-10 09:03 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, that's what I meant too. Donating money to a candidates campaign, or a PAC, or a 527 group is not tax deductible in the US and never has been. A donation to a 501(c)(3) group (a public charity) is tax deductible.
  If a 501(c)(3) uses donated funds to conduct political activities, that's tax fraud and members of the group can be sentenced to jail time.
41. Re:Hopeless... by shentino · 2012-01-10 09:13 · Score: 1
  
  We already lost the game.
  The corruptocrats have got a deathgrip on the one thing that can exterminate it, and they aren't going to let go.
  They have already demonstrated
  A, they don't give a crap what we have to say
  B, they are willing to use force to hold onto their power
42. Re:Hopeless... by shentino · 2012-01-10 09:15 · Score: 1
  
  Economics is defined by rules.
  Once the rules themselves are for sale, you have meta economics, and not just regular economics.
43. Re:Hopeless... by blahplusplus · 2012-01-10 09:25 · Score: 1
  
  Economics is defined by rules.
  Once the rules themselves are for sale, you have meta economics, and not just regular economics.
  This is just nerd bullshit and denial of reality, human beings do not work like economists and theorists think they do. It's not about inventing the perfect legal or theoretical ideas, it's about WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENS after you make such a system because it is populated by mere human beings. I wish economists and people like yourself would model actual human behavior under your chosen ruleset empirically and then look at the results after n-generations to see what happens.
  Evidence based... not the fantasies you're espousing. Capitalism and markets as economists would have them are - utopian. People are always looking to find ways to game the system, especially the rich and powerful who can buy laws through lobbying which cannot be effectively checked (as we've seen).
44. Re:Hopeless... by shentino · 2012-01-10 09:32 · Score: 1
  
  Let me put it this way.
  The elite are never going to let go of the advantage they have, and they will use their political influence to veto anything that might take away their power.
45. Re:Hopeless... by quacking+duck · 2012-01-10 09:50 · Score: 2
  
  Look at Canada - we had a per-vote subsidy for party members (everyone got $1.25 per vote). The present Harper Government (yes, the Government of Canada is officially known as the Harper Government) scapped it under the guise of "budget deficit". (Plus a few people were complaining that they had to support a "losing" party).
  I don't know, I'd actually be kind of pissed too if I was being forced to subsidize... say... SOPA supporters just because people voted for them.
  I was hoping someone would reply with this. The following is not directed at you personally.
  The per-vote subsidy was an awesome idea. You weren't subsidizing a party you didn't vote for. You were subsidizing a party you *did* vote for. If you didn't vote, you saved a paltry $1.25 of taxpayer money, but wasted a right that millions of people are literally fighting and dying for.
  You know what should actually piss you off? If I as a Canadian citizen donate the full allowable amount to a political party ($1100, increasing to $1200 this year), I get over $600 back as a tax credit.
  That's fucking right, you and other taxpayers just subsidized $600 of my $1100 donation, to a party you probably don't support, so I'm actually only out-of-pocket $500.
  I don't care which party you support, that's a fucking outrageous travesty compared to the $1.25-per-vote subsidy that existed for an all-to-brief time. If you're rich enough to waste money donating to political parties or organizations, put your goddamn money where your mouth is--there should be NO tax credit, it should ALL be out-of-pocket. It's not like you'll miss a measly $600!
46. Re:Hopeless... by Attila+Dimedici · 2012-01-10 09:51 · Score: 1
  
  What about campaigning before you become eligible to be on the ballot? How do you gain enough support to be eligible for the ballot if you aren't allowed to raise money to campaign?
  
  --
  The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
47. Re:Hopeless... by Toonol · 2012-01-10 09:52 · Score: 1
  
  Capitalism and democracy are fundamentally incompatible.
  
  Despite all history indicating otherwise.
48. Re:Hopeless... by Toonol · 2012-01-10 09:56 · Score: 1
  
  Your ethics is purely based on what benefits you and only you?
  
  Some people vote based on principles, and have a problem with penalizing other people just to put more in their own pocket. Strange.
49. Re:Hopeless... by jmac_the_man · 2012-01-10 10:21 · Score: 1
  
  If you're rich enough to waste money donating to political parties or organizations, put your goddamn money where your mouth is--there should be NO tax credit, it should ALL be out-of-pocket. It's not like you'll miss a measly $600!
  Um... I'm not Canadian. But I agree with you, and so does American law. As I said in my previous post, under American law, ALL political contributions ARE out of pocket, and there's NO tax deduction for political contributions of any kind.
  I disagree with automatic public financing of ridiculous candidates that I would never vote for. (And I should get to decide who is sufficiently non-ridiculous to receive my money.) If you're campaigning for something that I don't want, what makes it OK for you to reach your hand into my wallet?
  That said, I'm also not Canadian, and my opinion on Canadian campaign finance reform law should matter very little. The reason I posted at all is because the article is about an American bill being debated by American elected officials. The concern you posed initially (eliminating the tax deduction enshrined in Canadian law for political contributions) wouldn't help THIS problem because donations to THESE elected officials are already not tax deductible.
50. Re:Hopeless... by Anthony+Mouse · 2012-01-10 10:45 · Score: 1
  
  Half of Congress is going to impeach the other half? Don't be a defeatist.
51. Re:Hopeless... by quacking+duck · 2012-01-10 10:52 · Score: 1
  
  Fair enough, and like I said my reply wasn't directed at you personally. I meant to inform other Canadian readers who weren't aware of the hypocritical BS from Conservatives and their supporters when this came up, where they conveniently ignored the fact a more odious subsidy already existed in our system (but greatly benefits their party).
  If the US already has 100% out of pocket donation laws, that's one of many examples where your tax system is superior to ours (I don't agree with the $$ = free speech US court ruling though; but as you repsectfully noted opinions of non-citizens doesn't matter much).
52. Re:Hopeless... by desdinova+216 · 2012-01-10 11:41 · Score: 1
  
  that sadly is a bit of a catch-22
53. Re:Hopeless... by Thing+1 · 2012-01-10 13:04 · Score: 1
  
  Agreed. I think the founding document should include text something like: "Whoever is involved in passing an unconstitutional law which is reversed as being unconstitutional, shall be stripped of: any current government position/job; all government retirement benefits; their freedom for X years; the right to vote; citizenship; life." Stop that sentence when you've heard enough. :)
  
  --
  I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
54. Re:Hopeless... by Thing+1 · 2012-01-10 13:20 · Score: 1
  
  In fact, if more people were less gullible, and looked at voting records more closely, we wouldn't have as many corrupt politicians as it is.
  I don't see them as people (or consumers, or citizens, or meatbags -- bear with me).
  I see any matter that is moving as a machine. Machines can be influenced in their behavior; by actively directing them, or by subtly influencing them.
  Unfortunately, most observing machines do not observe reality. They observe reality through a "fantasy lens", generally not of their own invention, and one that downplays seeing reality for reality.
  Therefore, convincing them "what's what" is generally impossible; some of them will be able to grok the world for what it really is, but most, even if they abandon their fantasy mindset, will latch on to another type of fantasy, one involving economics ("voodoo", "trickle down", "job creators", "too big to fail", etc).
  Not sure what the solution is, although I absolutely agree that the more information we give these machines, the better decisions they'll be able to make. I.e., voting records of elected politicians should remain visible.
  I can't wait until Watson can vote. And then run for office.
  
  --
  I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
55. Re:Hopeless... by tiqui · 2012-01-10 17:19 · Score: 1
  
  The biggest single block of campaign money in many places (like the state of California) is the massive state workers unions NOT the corporations. The biggest among these are the teachers unions and the SEIU. In many places, Indian tribes with casinos are nearly as powerful. Corporate spending is often less that the unions and casinos.
  See, for example:
  latimesblogs.latimes.com/california-politics/2010/03/teachers-union-tops-list-of-state-political-spenders.html
56. Re:Hopeless... by tiqui · 2012-01-10 17:46 · Score: 1
  
  This is where people who spend too much time in lecture halls listening to socialist professors and not enough time reading actual history and working in the real world go astray
  First, this is not a democracy. Our founders were quite specific about that. Democracy is nothing more than organized mob-rule. In a "Democracy" with a dozen wolves and two sheep guess who is for dinner? (hint: it's the same outcome as in a might-makes-right, mob-rule system). This is a Republic with democratically elected representatives of a largely Judeo-Christian population (from which the intellectual framework and public expectation of "rights of the minority" originally derived). Note that communists (like the East Germans, North Koreans, and Soviets) have at various times claimed to be economic democracies. Many who crave some form of combined economic and political "democracy" fail to understand that they would be among the first occupants of the resulting gulags, since these systems usually hate free speech and free thought above nearly everything else.
  Second, such a system CAN work in a free market as long as the population consists of entrepreneurial citizens.....self-starting people who are more likely to start their own business or work in their relative's or neighbor's business than to desire a life-long career as a cog in a gigantic multinational corporation (willing to trade slavery for security). Your freedom is at risk WHENEVER power is concentrated in the hands of too few corruptible human beings, which is why big business, big unions, and big governments are ALL dangerous.
  Patriotism is not only NOT bigotry, it is sometimes that only thread that ties together enough people to resist the worst forms of evil and tyranny over man
57. Re:Hopeless... by tiqui · 2012-01-10 18:00 · Score: 1
  
  Capitalism is an unsustainable utopian idea
  No. "Capitalism" it a term Marx coined to denigrate one of the most successful economic systems ever created (free markets) while promoting one of the worst (socialism). As harsh as free markets can be and as imperfect as they are, they are so much more efficient at directing resources to where they will best be used that the surpluses elevate all and have provided more and better food, clothing, shelter, and medicine to more people than any other system. Other schemes that promise more utopian outcomes generally fail to supply even the most basic needs
  The solution to the concerns of businesses growing to monster proportions and then throwing their weight around is simple: properly constructed and universally enforced anti-trust laws. That's it. For such rules to work, however, they really need to apply equally to big unions. If you are not going to allow, for example, one car company to dominate the car market, then you also must not allow one labor union to dominate, in this example, the car-workers market. Unfortunately, many on the left do not want to throttle the unions and many on the right do not want to throttle the businesses. If you only favor limits on one, but not the other, then you are part of the problem.
58. Re:Hopeless... by MechaStreisand · 2012-01-10 18:04 · Score: 1
  
  There's actually no way to implement it at all, as others have already pointed out. The existing corrupt politicians will simply never let it pass.
  
  It's too late. The American public has completely lost all power over its federal government.
  
  --
  Disclaimer: IANAL. This post is, however, legal advice, and creates an attorney-client relationship.
59. Re:Hopeless... by MechaStreisand · 2012-01-10 18:14 · Score: 1
  
  I wish there was a party that supports gun rights in Canada that was not also complete, total, and utter evil, as the Conservatives are.
  
  --
  Disclaimer: IANAL. This post is, however, legal advice, and creates an attorney-client relationship.
60. Re:Hopeless... by Creepy · 2012-01-11 06:39 · Score: 1
  
  If you want to quibble about the US being a republic with democratically elected officials, you should get your terms correct on other accounts, since all of those "communists" mentioned are or were actually dictatorships. Communism is actually an economic system, not a political system, but this was largely smeared into a combined term during the cold war in reference to communist dictatorships like the Soviet Union, so people talk of it like it is a political system, even though that is incorrect. In the same way, "economic democracy" really doesn't mean anything (the masses can vote on prices maybe?) since democracy is a political system, not an economic system - they should say they are an economic capitalism.
  So put in economic and political terms, the US is a capitalist republic, and North Korea is a communist dictatorship, with an emphasis on dictatorship because the ruling party lives in opulence while the masses live in poverty, as is common in dictatorships.
61. Re:Hopeless... by cdrguru · 2012-01-11 06:45 · Score: 1
  
  Unless you limit such financing to "qualified candidates", this doesn't work because it becomes a huge Welfare program for anyone with the brains to be a candidate. Once you limit it to "qualified candidates" you have just insured the incumbents will stay on and nobody else will ever become "qualified" unless they are hand-picked by the incumbent and/or party bosses. It makes the parties far more powerful, like they were in the beginning of the 20th century.
  Of course, if you don't limit it to any sort of qualifications we have a full employment program for the US. I think I would like to run for office, any office, endlessly and get my campaign financed by the government. Of course, it means I have to live on whatever leaks out around the edges of the campaign financing but that shouldnt' be too difficult. My guess is we can get 8-9% of the population to sign on to this sort of program as well. It would make elections much more interesting.
Good sign by gman003 · 2012-01-10 04:36 · Score: 5, Insightful

The fact that they're revisiting the whole "this will break the internet" aspect means they're paying at least lip service to public opinion. Which means that it's causing enough bad publicity for Congress that they're increasingly likely not to pass it.
If they were really intent on passing it, they'd try to sneak it through with as little debate or even thought as possible. Delays like this means they just might actually listen to their constituency for once.
1. Re:Good sign by El+Torico · 2012-01-10 04:40 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Or they may be shaking the money tree harder.
  
  --
  In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is usually crucified.
2. Re:Good sign by splutty · 2012-01-10 04:45 · Score: 2
  
  How is this going to matter in any way, shape or form when Congressional Ratings have been about as low as they can get...
  http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/congressional_performance
  Brings back the old 'joke': What's the opposite of progress? Right. Congress.
  If you think they care a wit about the average American, you're hopelessly naive (in general, not as a response to the parent, although thinking they'll listen... Ah well :)
  
  --
  Coz eternity my friend, is a long *ing time.
3. Re:Good sign by AngryDeuce · 2012-01-10 05:02 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I think this is the real motivation. We've got the 2012 elections coming up, after all, and this is likely to be the most costly election cycle of modern politics. They need as much money as they can get, and what better way to squeeze out a few extra zeroes from the MAFIAA than to say "Welllllll, you know, um, the people are starting to really oppose this bill....I may have to look into it a little more deeply...."?
  That's about the point when the lobbyists lick their lips and say "Yes, I understand your concerns; let me go ahead and write this check and I think you'll see that this is really what's best for America...", at which point our reps invariably say "Well, I'm convinced!!" with a shit-eating grin on their stupid fucking face.
  America! Fuck Yeah!!
4. Re:Good sign by dgatwood · 2012-01-10 05:44 · Score: 2
  
  And there's only one way to stop this. Find a viable candidate to run against that politician, preferably in the primary.
  Here in California, we're unfortunately stuck with Boxer because her only real competition was Fiorina, who nearly bankrupted one of the largest computer companies in the world because she had such a poor understanding of business and technology, but we can get rid of Feinstein in 2012. Now is the time to start applying pressure, both directly (as in, "You stand no chance of reelection if you vote for this bill") and indirectly (as in choose a Democrat to unseat her in the primary race).
  While you're at it, start working now on a constitutional amendment to allow recall of U.S. Senators.
  
  --
  Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
5. Re:Good sign by Fned · 2012-01-10 10:31 · Score: 1
  
  but we can get rid of Feinstein in 2012.
  This is what has me torn... she's one of, what, six senators that voted against the 2011 NDAA due to objections to indefinite detention? And is currently co-sponsoring a repeal of that section?
  Grrrrrrr. I hate situations like this.
Great. by mrquagmire · 2012-01-10 04:37 · Score: 2

This will be just another dog and pony show. Since when have these hearings done anything other than create the appearance that congress gives a shit about what "the people" want?

--
giggity
We're doomed by gaspyy · 2012-01-10 04:37 · Score: 5, Insightful

Not to troll or anything, but that's all they could come up with? Where's Sergey Brin, Mark Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos - representatives of big companies that the congressmen can actually listen to?
1. Re:We're doomed by i_want_you_to_throw_ · 2012-01-10 04:40 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Please mod parent WAY up. If it's that serious, there need to be some hellaciously bigger guns testifying for this one.
2. Re:We're doomed by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-10 04:49 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  These guys already backtracked on the "nuclear option".
  Also:
  Domain Name:WIKIPEDIA.ORG
  Sponsoring Registrar:GoDaddy.com, Inc. (R91-LROR)
3. Re:We're doomed by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-10 04:52 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  They've already said they might put notices on their own websites. I think if the likes of Facebook can get 500million+ to notice something on their website then there may be just enough ire lit under a congressman's ass. Considering their Facebook pages may just explode with complaints.
4. Re:We're doomed by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-10 04:56 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  You make the false assumption that the congressional "opposition" as any intention of stopping SOPA. At best they'll hold it hostage for something they want, but it WILL pass, and the tech giants - that includes Google - WANT it to pass, too.
  SOPA is going to kill Internet startups. We all know that. The entrenched players won't even have to blink. They know that too.
  But after seeing public outcry towards GoDaddy, you can bet Google and the other tech giants will be ineffectively "anti-SOPA" right up until it passes because they didn't bother lobbying against it or testifying against it or mentioning it on their website[1] or doing anything that might threaten it.
  So expect to see more of this token opposition, to "prove" that there's no real opposition and to make sure all the Ts are crossed before they pass this bill anyway.
  [1] You know how you can tell Google wants SOPA to pass? There's no mention of it on their website. You think Google could manage to get the word out if they were really concerned about SOPA.
5. Re:We're doomed by blind+biker · 2012-01-10 05:02 · Score: 1
  
  Also:
  Domain Name:WIKIPEDIA.ORG
  Sponsoring Registrar:GoDaddy.com, Inc. (R91-LROR)
  Wow! Fuuuck, it's true! At first I thought you were trolling, since Wikipedia announced long ago they'll be leaving GoDaddy.
  What the fuck Jimmy Wales, grow a pair. Heck, this doesn't even require balls, just keep your damn word.
  
  --
  "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
6. Re:We're doomed by Phreakiture · 2012-01-10 05:04 · Score: 2
  
  True, though that relationship clearly existed well before SOPA reared its ugly head. Wikipedia has been fiercely anti-SOPA, to the point of putting the banner ads -er- appeals on the top of every page.
  GoDaddy has recently been pushed to reverse their stance by customers leaving. I think Wikipedia may have been one of those threatening to leave.
  
  --
  www.wavefront-av.com
7. Re:We're doomed by Hentes · 2012-01-10 05:22 · Score: 1
  
  Because the CEOs of big companies will spread their own agenda instead of technological insight. Also, a Google representative was already heard.
8. Re:We're doomed by Dragonslicer · 2012-01-10 06:00 · Score: 1
  
  I think if the likes of Facebook can get 500million+ to notice something on their website then there may be just enough ire lit under a congressman's ass.
  Considering that would a couple hundred million more than the population of the entire country...
9. Re:We're doomed by shentino · 2012-01-10 06:42 · Score: 2
  
  I can think of a very good reason for Google not to even TRY to interfere.
  The fact that the feds have them by the balls right now with an anti-trust investigation.
10. Re:We're doomed by The+Moof · 2012-01-10 07:03 · Score: 1
  
  I also imagine that would also make their respective lawyers sweat quite a bit. I would like to see that happen just to get the word out and hopefully make the average person give a damn, but that would also be directly going against the powers that be in Congress. Suddenly, your company may end up under a microscope of some government committee for whatever reason.
  
  Google's already been hinted at for anti-trust/privacy violations, Facebook scrutinized over their privacy... This move, while fully supported by us, would probably move that "hinted at" into "full-on investigation" territory. It's one of those "your company is fully within its rights doing that, but we're going to make your existence much more complicated and painful" situations.
11. Re:We're doomed by b4dc0d3r · 2012-01-10 07:37 · Score: 1
  
  I doubt Google would do anything on either side, in order to keep toeing the line. They want to be seen as neutral, with the anti-trust investigations and being a target for piles of DMCA takedowns. If they are against it, which they probably are not, they will protest quietly.
  More importantly, Congress has probably realized that they will also have the power to shut down parts of the internet, keeping their constituents' eyes shut. No one wants websites to show those pesky flip-flops and lies, and if they can shut it down with a copyright complaint, many of their problems go away.
  The only thing these hearings are doing is making clear exactly what would break, what wouldn't, and how far they can push it. That way they can say they did due diligence and concluded the bill was sound.
12. Re:We're doomed by JonWan · 2012-01-10 08:08 · Score: 1
  
  Some people have already started.
  http://bama.edebris.com/manuals/
  This will be the kind of site that will be shut down. Nasty pirates stealing old ham radio equipment manuals.
13. Re:We're doomed by dissy · 2012-01-10 12:23 · Score: 1
  
  Also from the whois results, the domain is paid up until 2015, with no modifications/renewals since 2009.
  So he is being true to his word, which was "We are moving. They will not get another penny. We are being thoughtful about choosing."
  Luckily for him, he can sit on his hands for another 3 years and still keep his promise of not sending GoDaddy another cent, with plenty of wiggle room left over.
  I usually only pay 1-2 years on my domains, depending how important the particular domain is to me. But I had one ready to expire Feb 1st, so had to move pretty quick. 1-2 months is "down to the last minute" when it comes to domain transfers and the tricks they can pull to legally steal your domain.
  I also note that the zones SOA record shows the last DNS record update was Nov 10th 2011. So they haven't touched any of this dns/domain stuff since a while before deciding and announcing they would leave GoDaddy.
  I'll give Jimmy the benefit of the doubt here that he truly is just really busy.
  Perhaps events on the upcoming Jan 23rd will be more telling.
  If Wikipedia joins in on the SOPA internet blackout, I'll take that as a favorable sign. If not, I admit I will be disappointed.
14. Re:We're doomed by gmhowell · 2012-01-10 15:23 · Score: 1
  
  I'll give Jimmy the benefit of the doubt here that he truly is just really busy.
  Exactly. Panhandling and creating a society of tin pot dictators are NOT part time jobs.
  
  --
  Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
15. Re:We're doomed by blind+biker · 2012-01-11 22:09 · Score: 1
  
  Thanks dissy, that was quite interesting. I storngly disapprove of Wales waiting it out, isntead of immediately switching registrars away from Go Daddy. The move would be a symbolic gesture anyway, from a financial point of view. By waiting 3 years, the symbolic effect is lost completely.
  
  --
  "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
16. Re:We're doomed by dissy · 2012-01-12 06:01 · Score: 1
  
  Fair enough.
  I pretty much have to agree with you on that one however. Waiting too long won't send any message to them about why you are moving away.
  It's kinda like when you catch the dog pissing on the carpet, you need to discipline him right in the act, or seconds afterward.
  If you wait until the next day to smack the dog on the head with a paper, not only will it not apply the negative reinforcement to the behavior you don't want, but you create another negative reinforcement that just confuses the poor dog.
  Not to say GoDaddy is the poor dog of course ;} But that the negative feedback (Moving domains away) needs to be done close to the bad behavior you want to discourage.
  I assumed it would be the first three months where the majority of it happens.
  But I was very disappointed with last months numbers... They only had a net loss of like a thousand domains.
  Hopefully the next months stats show a much much larger number of lost domains.
  I figure the 3rd month would just be stragglers, and the smallest numbers. But going by the last report, things don't look promising :/
When will "copyright owners" equate "censors"? by h00manist · 2012-01-10 04:38 · Score: 3, Interesting

It seems reasonable to debate that the political winds could eventually change direction, and "copyright owners" would simply start being viewed as "censors", rather than "legitimate business interests", "job generators", "authors and artists", etc. Possible or not?

--
Build your own energy sources from scratch. http://otherpower.com/
1. Re:When will "copyright owners" equate "censors"? by Thing+1 · 2012-01-10 13:35 · Score: 1
  
  For some, it already does.
  
  --
  I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
Good on Issa, really, but.. by blind+biker · 2012-01-10 04:40 · Score: 2

These testimonies will fall on deaf ears. Or better say, ears fully clogged with stacks of dollar bills.
In the meantime, I am organizing an anti-Adidas campaign on Google+ Wish me luck.

--
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
issa = politician by h00manist · 2012-01-10 04:43 · Score: 2

He is a politician. He wants to get re-elected. Hollywood is in his state, and so is Silicon Valley, both paying him. There are a few voters too, but it is not clear if they are paying attention. They usually aren't, and besides, they have short memory. So politicians usually pander to money > buy ads > get votes.

--
Build your own energy sources from scratch. http://otherpower.com/
1. Re:issa = politician by h00manist · 2012-01-10 04:46 · Score: 2
  
  Oh, his principles? Forget it, the voters themselves don't know their principles, how can they see any?
  
  --
  Build your own energy sources from scratch. http://otherpower.com/
Just set it on fire already. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-10 04:49 · Score: 1

Just burn all the G@# D@#$ money already! Plato was right, our leaders should sacrifice the right to even make money, everything they need should be provided by the public. Who the hell are they calling terrorist anyways, looks like they are doing a mighty fine job of destroying america by themselves.
Paul ryan says... by hero-author · 2012-01-10 04:52 · Score: 5, Interesting

"I believe it creates the precedent and possibility for undue regulation, censorship and legal abuse."
Congress wakeing up? by DarkOx · 2012-01-10 04:57 · Score: 5, Insightful

This nation faces a serious crisis which few are talking about but is very real. Sure no individual Congress person has approval numbers as bad as the bodies 11% but just because they don't worry about being re-elected does not mean they don't have to worry about being relevant.
When only 11% of the public thinks the legislature, our law makers, are doing good work, why would rest of them have a higher opinion of that bodies output? When bad laws are created that are not followed because they a counter to what the public considers just or laws that are usually not enforce but left in place as tool to be used by tyrants at will, the people's respect for all law is diminished.
If Congress continues to burn though the capital, that is the will of the public to be a nation, things will soon get bad. You can already see it with protest movements like Occupy, and to a lessor degree the early TEA Party gatherings before it. These have been mostly peaceful and lawful warnings from the people but they won't stay that way; witness Greece or Thailand. At some point congress has to start being seen as serving the people's interest and not pandering to a few special people's interests, or that nationalistic capital will run dry.

--
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
1. Re:Congress wakeing up? by forkfail · 2012-01-10 05:27 · Score: 2
  
  Link from TFA:
  http://mediamatters.org/blog/201201050008
  The people aren't hearing about this because those who benefit most are also the keepers of the majority of the nation's information.
  
  --
  Check your premises.
2. Re:Congress wakeing up? by Curunir_wolf · 2012-01-10 05:57 · Score: 1
  
  That article is pretty out of character for MediaMatters. It was practically devoid of hyperbole, provide details on methodology, and somehow even avoided blaming the whole issue on "teh satanic kitten-killing GOP and lying liars a teh Faux News".
  
  --
  "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
  --- Jerry Garcia
Didn't they already by Dyinobal · 2012-01-10 04:57 · Score: 3, Informative

Didn't they already do that at one point? I remember a lady who represented google, made some good points and the politicians and sopa supports just said 'you support piracy har har har'.
1. Re:Didn't they already by Dan667 · 2012-01-10 05:45 · Score: 1
  
  politicians should be asked why it is ok to prop up failing business models with draconian laws. Services like Valve's Steam service or even Netflix show that if big business was willing to adapt they would not have a problem making even more money than they already are.
huh? by trifish · 2012-01-10 05:10 · Score: 1

Union Square Ventures; Lanham Napier, the CEO of Rackspace Hosting; and Alexis Ohanian, co-founder of Reddit.com
Wait, WTF are those entities?
Finally they came for you by roman_mir · 2012-01-10 05:26 · Score: 2

First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.
You see, it's all good while the government just uses its powers to shake down small businesses in unrelated industries, the business must be regulated, right?
When they "regulate" the movers or when they regulate the retailers or when they regulate the brick manufacturers etc. etc., what do you think they are really doing? You think they are doing you a favour? Guess why the business and labour regulations cause massive outflow of investment and jobs to countries with much fewer regulations.
This is the same thing, but finally they hit somewhere it hurts and you can't ignore it and even CHEER for it.
When gov't regulates the banks and creates a massive monopoly formation by destroying competition and the government ensures the monopoly with FDIC (you didn't think they insured YOU with this nonsense, did you? It was creating a massive moral hazard, so you wouldn't care what bank you lent your money to), when gov't creates a monopoly in banking and then gives banks free money from Federal reserve, counterfeits the money, sets crazy 0% price on money borrowing and destroys the credit market for businesses, you don't care, you think it's good - it's gov't regulations.
Now they show you how it's done with something you care about, and what now? Why is this more important than anything else they've done before? Medical regulations and monopoly creation, same with education, same with banking, houses, money itself, energy, food, you pick your subject, it's government regulated and destroyed.
It's exactly the same thing, the difference is it's not a small enough group of people for you not to care about their rights being violated. Yes, this is violation of your right to speech and to do business, just like every other government regulation is a violation of your right to speech and property and business, all of them are, it's just different industries are not as visible to you and you don't care.
This is good, the fact that the government now decided to hit you where it hurts is good, because that's when the masses start caring, only when it starts hurting them very very directly.

--
You can't handle the truth.
1. Re:Finally they came for you by forkfail · 2012-01-10 05:43 · Score: 1
  
  Here's the thing that your argument misses.
  There has to be a way for the interests of the people to be enacted into law.
  Take dumping raw sewage into the river. To stop that, we need law (regulation). This is an example of good regulation.
  Then there's this. SOPA regulation is the equivalent of allowing the factory owners to control what gets dumped into the river. And of course, that's going to be a brand new pipeline of proverbial sewage if it passes.
  So - it's not all regulation that is evil. Yes, telling corporations that they can't dump sewage into the river may drive some away to places that will allow that sort of thing; on the other hand, what's a job worth when your children are dying of the poisons from drinking the river water?
  
  --
  Check your premises.
2. Re:Finally they came for you by roman_mir · 2012-01-10 06:19 · Score: 1
  
  Take dumping raw sewage into the river. To stop that, we need law (regulation). This is an example of good regulation.
  - actually the dumping itself was only possible because of the consent that the government gave to its utility monopolies, which it created by destroying competition in utility fields.
  The only way to fix the specific problems of pollution is to get government protection out of the utility business and enact property right laws.
  
  --
  You can't handle the truth.
3. Re:Finally they came for you by Curunir_wolf · 2012-01-10 06:27 · Score: 1
  
  Take dumping raw sewage into the river. To stop that, we need law (regulation). This is an example of good regulation.
  Ever wonder why we need 1,835 PAGES of legislation to say "Do Not dump raw sewage into the river."? But this is always the popular talking point of apologists for the current level of oppressive legislation, as if just because it doesn't take submitting 34 applications to 8 federal bureaucracies and paying $26,000 in fees means that suddenly meat packing plants will be putting rat feces into your cream of chicken soup. It's not 1906 anymore. The combination of regulations for do business in the US these days defies common sense.
  
  Then there's this. SOPA regulation is the equivalent of allowing the factory owners to control what gets dumped into the river.
  No, not at all. It's telling every landowner with waterway on their land that they have to put barriers at every ingress and egress of the river and make sure that only an approved list of chemicals, flotsam, and jetsam can be allowed through. Or something. Oh and if somebody throws something in the river and you don't return it to its rightful owner your waterway will be forfeited.
  
  --
  "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
  --- Jerry Garcia
4. Re:Finally they came for you by forkfail · 2012-01-10 06:32 · Score: 1
  
  If it is all "property rights based", then money talks the loudest (most property), and the factories will absolutely dump their crap into the rivers.
  That's how it was prior to regulation; we already tried your way, and it failed. Now we have relatively clean rivers, and you want to go back to the failed approach?
  
  --
  Check your premises.
5. Re:Finally they came for you by b4dc0d3r · 2012-01-10 07:42 · Score: 1
  
  Ever wonder why we need 1,835 PAGES of legislation to say "Do Not dump raw sewage into the river."?
  
  No. Lawyers will endlessly debate that a regulation is too vague and does not cover the case, so you have to cover all the conceivable corner cases in legally specific wording. Because it will be interpreted in a legal venue. And build in loopholes for your contributors. That takes a lot of pages.
6. Re:Finally they came for you by Curunir_wolf · 2012-01-10 08:25 · Score: 1
  
  Ever wonder why we need 1,835 PAGES of legislation to say "Do Not dump raw sewage into the river."?
  No. Lawyers will endlessly debate that a regulation is too vague and does not cover the case, so you have to cover all the conceivable corner cases in legally specific wording. Because it will be interpreted in a legal venue. And build in loopholes for your contributors. That takes a lot of pages.
  Bzzzt! Sorry, the only part you got right was all the lawyers involved. "The case" of "Do Not dump raw sewage into the river." is not vague, open to interpretation, or full of myriad loopholes. You need lawyers and thousands of clauses that refer to other, existing clauses and you have to get involved in writing the legislation. Which of course is never written by representatives or even staffers. It's primarily written by lobbyists. The reason for all the pages is so that you can create hidden privileges and advantages for specific industries or entities, difficult to work out. And then you have a nice set of rules that creates barriers to entry for any small guys, and codified advantages over your competition. A little funding for something that helps you out, too, if you're smart. After all, it's only going to cost the tax payers a few cents each. They'll never notice...
  
  --
  "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
  --- Jerry Garcia
7. Re:Finally they came for you by roman_mir · 2012-01-10 09:51 · Score: 1
  
  If it is all "property rights based", then money talks the loudest (most property), and the factories will absolutely dump their crap into the rivers.
  - no, money only talks loudest when it can get the support of government. It is the role of the government to protect liberty and private property, otherwise there is no point to a government at all. All of those principles have been compromised and it's time to revamp them obviously, but money must not be an object of discussion when a judgement is made on whether 'dumping crap into rivers' is a private property violation or not, if multiple private properties are on that river and that river is used by more than one private owner.
  As to 'prior to regulations' failing - that's nonsense. The government has been bought for a very long time, and that is where the failure comes in. It's these phantom regulations that are changed based on who has more money and influence in government.
  There are only these regulations that must be protected: private liberty, privacy and private property.
  
  --
  You can't handle the truth.
Another Way to stop corruption..... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-10 05:26 · Score: 1

......is to never vote for an incumbent. Make every representative and every senator a one term policy maker with the need to return to the real world and suddenly you will find that the legislative branch will become more effective.
1. Re:Another Way to stop corruption..... by forkfail · 2012-01-10 05:45 · Score: 1
  
  I fear that approach would just mean that congress would become the practicum for high end jobs in the corporate world.
  I don't have an answer; all I know is that we've allowed the center of power to shift from the interests of the people to the interests of the corporations, and made them post industrial fiefdoms.
  
  --
  Check your premises.
2. Re:Another Way to stop corruption..... by Hatta · 2012-01-10 06:00 · Score: 1
  
  I have an answer. Socialism and direct democracy.
  
  --
  Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
3. Re:Another Way to stop corruption..... by Hatta · 2012-01-10 06:30 · Score: 1
  
  It's harder to bribe 100 million Americans than it is their representatives. Since you can't count on representatives doing their jobs, I don't see what the point is in having them. Anyone who wants a representative is free to delegate his vote to someone else.
  
  --
  Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
4. Re:Another Way to stop corruption..... by 0123456 · 2012-01-10 06:50 · Score: 1
  
  It's harder to bribe 100 million Americans than it is their representatives.
  Remember that when your neighbours vote to steal all your stuff.
  The only way to limit government corruption is to limit what government can do. Until people realise that, this kind of nonsense will never end.
5. Re:Another Way to stop corruption..... by forkfail · 2012-01-10 08:23 · Score: 1
  
  Unfortunately, power abhors a vaccuum. Take away government's power, something will fill it. In fact, that's arlready happened in large; the government has surrendered its effective power to the corporations, who still use government for their ends, but with whom the actual power lies.
  As a whole, and to some degree, our nation was convinced during the Reagan years that government was somehow inherently evil. We somehow forgot about what the founders thought of it:
  "...That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."
  In other words, that government is supposed to be the tool of the people, protecting the rights of the people, and being the organization that did those things that were necessary for a health society and nation that wouldn't happen without some sort of organization.
  Not everything can be privately owned/controlled/motivated. At the core, that is what feudalism is; a hierarchical chain of ownership. Our government may be badly damaged; its enemies may have convinced the people that should be supporting it and fixing it that it is evil, but it is still what stands between us and a true third world state.
  
  --
  Check your premises.
6. Re:Another Way to stop corruption..... by Hatta · 2012-01-10 09:35 · Score: 1
  
  Any government that is powerful enough to protect me from aggressors who want to take my stuff is powerful enough to take my stuff. The only question is how much of a say do I get. Government is at least potentially democratic. I will take that over skirmishes in the streets between private armies any time.
  
  --
  Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Not Sergey by pavon · 2012-01-10 05:30 · Score: 2

Google has already testified on SOPA, but the bills backers are convinced that Google is an evil enemy of the Good Media Companies, out to leverage it's monopoly on search to make money off of "rampant piracy" (YouTube, Book Scanning, Google News, etc).
Putting him on the stand will do more damage than good. Bezos is a good option, as people view him more as enabling media sales. But in general concentrating on back-end folks will be much more effective.
1. Re:Not Sergey by shentino · 2012-01-10 09:35 · Score: 1
  
  How about
  "They've already made up their minds, are fat on bribes, and are just looking for an excuse to be able to claim they passed it fair and square."
2. Re:Not Sergey by Roogna · 2012-01-10 09:53 · Score: 1
  
  I still think the obvious solution for Google, is to take some money out of their piggybank and just perform a hostile takeover of one of the larger media outlets. Maybe Viacom. Then they -are- one of the major media companies and could then tell the MPAA, and Congress exactly what they think about SOPA and maybe finally get listened to.
  Hell, I've been saying for years that the tech industry, which is absolutely massive compared to the media industry, should just divvy up the media companies and each buy out one. The obvious thing would be say, Apple buy Disney, Google Viacom, Microsoft can buy Comcast since they already have a relationship through NBC. Then just fire the entire executive teams and lawyers who've been pushing for these horrible copyright bills in the first place.
why any discussion at all on sopa? by Dan667 · 2012-01-10 05:42 · Score: 1

it is not needed, just throw it in the trash.
1. Re:why any discussion at all on sopa? by shentino · 2012-01-10 07:04 · Score: 1
  
  They have to discuss SOPA to placate the fury of an angry public.
Ahhh but by future+assassin · 2012-01-10 05:52 · Score: 1

The industry needs to fork over huge lumps of money at one time while 10000+ citizens can split the cost, some can donate $5 and some $1000 which gives them a better chance overall in the long run.

--
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
Youtube would never have existed.... by mark-t · 2012-01-10 05:53 · Score: 1

... if SOPA had been around at the time. Plenty of people utilized Youtube to share copyrighted content quite some time before it started to become *really* popular, and agencies who discovered it would have been all over it to stop. Why bother with DMCA takedowns when you can just block the domain entirely? Because it was not yet popular, it's very likely that a judge, if one is involved, would not have perceived a widespread substantial non-infringing use and the request for blocking would likely be approved. Problem effectively solved. Most people would probably have never heard of Youtube today if that had been the case.
So really, what SOPA does is ensure that nothing particularly new or innovative is liable to ever surface on the Internet again... since when it starts getting used for piracy, it will be shut down before it can really start becoming a widespread phenomenon with legitimate use being obvious to most people.

--
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
1. Re:Youtube would never have existed.... by 0123456 · 2012-01-10 06:53 · Score: 1
  
  ... if SOPA had been around at the time.
  You seem to be under the impression that that is an unintended consequence. You don't honestly think that big media companies want competition from Youtube, do you?
  
  So really, what SOPA does is ensure that nothing particularly new or innovative is liable to ever surface on the Internet again.
  You seem to be under the impression that that is an unintended consequence. This is an attempt to roll the clock back to the good old days of centralised push media.
2. Re:Youtube would never have existed.... by mark-t · 2012-01-10 07:00 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, I am under the impression that if the general public could be educated on *WHY* SOPA is bad, in ways that would directly impact them, and explained in highly nontechnical terms that they are liable to immediately understand and relate to, rather than trying to spend time trying to teach them why concepts like DNSSEC and "end-to-end" are important, then it is much more likely that their elected officials would realize that supporting SOPA drastically affects their chances of re-election, and simply would not support it.
  
  --
  File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Representative: "Why yes, that's what it's for." by zooblethorpe · 2012-01-10 05:54 · Score: 3, Insightful

EFF: This bill will infringe on users' rights, burden ISP's and search engines, and create a climate where corporations and the media industry completely control the internet with no oversight.
I imagined the second line a bit differently:

Representative: Well, you've made an excellent point--well argued, reasonable, and strongly supported. And in fact that's what this bill is supposed to do, so I don't see any problems here. All in favor?

--
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
revenge by scharkalvin · 2012-01-10 05:55 · Score: 1

Well if this POS bill passes, then maybe we should just shut down the internet until it is repealed!
(IE: EVERY site you try to go to will show the same message, Contents blocked by act of congress!)
Whats stopping by future+assassin · 2012-01-10 05:59 · Score: 4, Interesting

people around the world from hacking sites and publishing "illegal content" on those sites, then reporting those sites so they get blocked. 6 months later the US has blocked itself from 75% of the Internet. I'm sure the rest of the world will survive while the US rots its in own closed environment. Just make sure your domain is not a tld controlled but the US.

--
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
This illustrates why lobbying is necessary by shadowofwind · 2012-01-10 06:05 · Score: 1

In another thread yesterday, someone was modded up for suggesting that lobbying be made illegal. Lobbying is how people who are directly affected by legislation provide expert feedback to congress. Its absolutely essential, even though reforms are needed such as to prevent congressional insider trading. Unfortunately there's no way to absolutely prevent corruption. We're a democracy, and most people are in fact willing to sacrifice justice for the sake of their own personal gain. All we can do is try to pull in the right direction.
1. Re:This illustrates why lobbying is necessary by UnknownSoldier · 2012-01-10 06:27 · Score: 1
  
  > We're a democracy,
  Uh, no offense, but you might want to try _reading_ the Constitution sometime there buddy ...
  http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html
  
  Article. IV.
  Section. 4.
  The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government,
2. Re:This illustrates why lobbying is necessary by shadowofwind · 2012-01-10 06:57 · Score: 1
  
  I'm aware of those distinctions. A federal republic is a form of representative democracy.
NONE of this seems to fit by Dripdry · 2012-01-10 06:15 · Score: 1

I don't think SOPA itself is the entire point of all this. I understand the internet is a real issue, but the introduction of such a bill is so incredibly ludicrous... it feels like this is just eating up time before the election so nothing useful can actually get done.
Look, businesses are quite unhappy about the lack of tax and health care direction. You'd think that might take a little more precedent?
I KNOW we are all whipped into a frenzy over SOPA, but it's just so crazy it hardly seems real.

--
-
A possible solution? by TiggertheMad · 2012-01-10 06:28 · Score: 1

The lobbyists and politicians seem to be oblivious/callous to the problems with this legislation. The question is how to communicate to them that it is completely unacceptable on all levels. I wonder if a general strike could be organized? I am sure that if the internet stopped working for a day, that would get everyone's attention. If this issue causes Joe Average to flood the offices of the Politicians with angry calls, it will be dead legislation within an hour.

--

HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
1. Re:A possible solution? by tsa · 2012-01-10 20:06 · Score: 1
  
  That's easy. Pay them more money than the companies who want SOPA pay them to get your message across.
  Getting laws like SOPA introduced is much cheaper for companies than actually making good products that sell well, thanks to the way the American government works.
  
  --
  -- Cheers!
Chicken versus Egg by ThatsNotPudding · 2012-01-10 06:35 · Score: 3, Insightful

We need serious campaign reform to include barring direct financial contribution to any candidate and mandating that all elections be publicly funded equally to all qualifying candidates regardless of party affiliation.
And please, pray tell, how do we force those in power and benefitting from a rigged system to vote for it to end, especially in light of our corrupt Supreme Court already having ruled that corporations are persons and unlimited campaign donations is merely free speech?
1. Re:Chicken versus Egg by Tom · 2012-01-10 19:38 · Score: 1
  
  And please, pray tell, how do we force those in power and benefitting from a rigged system to vote for it to end
  Robert Heinlein answers that question decades ago: Take Back Your Government
  
  --
  Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Re:First... by Shikaku · 2012-01-10 06:48 · Score: 4, Informative

https://market.android.com/details?id=com.boycottsopa.android
There's an app for that (for Android) that allows you to boycott companies that support SOPA by product with a scan of the product.
There is also a Chrome addon that does the same except with websites: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/gagmjmoimnkgoijihaaeodbefhcapjcj?utm_source=chrome-ntp-icon
And in case this passes there are add-ons already out that will bypass SOPA: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/desopa/
Free Speech by invid · 2012-01-10 07:08 · Score: 2

Let's say all direct financial contributions by anyone were banned. And let's say there's a candidate that you like, named Jane Smith. She's up against a billionaire incumbent named Joe Moneybags. You decide to help Jane Smith by putting up a web site called ILikeJaneSmith.com. You write about how good she is. Joe Moneybags sees this and says, "Hey, you have put your money into her campaign, that is illegal." Your web site is shut down. Meanwhile, Joe Moneybags puts up a web site called ILikeJoeMoneyBags.com He finances it himself, which is fine and legal. If no one could put money into campaigns, only billionaires would be in government.

--
The Moore-Murphy Law: The number of things that will go wrong will double every 2 years.
1. Re:Free Speech by invid · 2012-01-10 08:20 · Score: 2
  
  Ah, I'm glad you caught that. So now Fred, the CEO of OmniMegaCorp can create a web site, called JoeMoneyBagsIsGreat, using his own money. What is to stop him from doing that? You think Joe MoneyBags is going to appreciate that? Maybe give him some favors in return? Or why can't he make commercials for Joe MoneyBags? It's his own money. If you advocate in a way that costs money, it is considered a donation to the campaign (at least if it make any difference).
  
  --
  The Moore-Murphy Law: The number of things that will go wrong will double every 2 years.
2. Re:Free Speech by Thing+1 · 2012-01-10 13:24 · Score: 1
  
  If you are speaking using your vocal cords, then you are spending money (by using the ATP powering your muscles that you purchased food to generate, which you will need to purchase food to replace), and thus you are donating the the campaign.
  I agree, this way lies idiocracy.
  
  --
  I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
How To Get Money Out of the Equation by Tokolosh · 2012-01-10 07:20 · Score: 1

Numerous posters are arguing for term limits, campaign financing regulations, publically-funded elections, restricting lobbying and so on. None of these will succeed in the long run, and only create barriers to entry for well-qualified candidates. Have you seen the current regulations - they are byzantine, a lawyer's dream, and will only get worse. http://www.fec.gov/law/feca/feca.pdf
No, the only way is to remove from government the power to make such regulations in the first place. If they were not able to hand out sweetheart legislation, they would not have dollar bills waved in their faces. Some would argue that this is already in the constitution.
Imagine the government were allowed to billet troops in your house. Imagine the continuous lobbying and legislation that would result, trying to influence who would receive how many soldiers, what the homeowners responsibilities should be? Imagine the government could favor one religion or sect over another, in the form of tax breaks, subsidies and so on. The value of a Congress seat would double. But we (mostly) do not have a problem in this regard, because Congress does not have the power.

--
Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
1. Re:How To Get Money Out of the Equation by Toonol · 2012-01-10 10:04 · Score: 1
  
  It's much like the tax code. The complexity of all the myriad rules, each intended to have a beneficial motivating effect, has combined to make an ultimately negative effect. Society would be better served without all the rules intended to better serve society.
Step away from the congressman! by wavedeform · 2012-01-10 08:38 · Score: 1

I just hate it when I find myself in agreement with Darrell Issa.
Tackle corruption with corruption by mrops · 2012-01-10 09:00 · Score: 5, Insightful

So these politicians can be bought, this is not news.
What I can't figure out is why haven't the tech giants got together and paid them more money. I know, they shouldn't have to, but as long as corrupt politicians exist, do the same.
Media industry is worth a fraction of what the internet industry is worth. If there is a MPAA and RIAA, there could be IIAA - Internet Industry Association of America, get lobbyist, get moving, buy politicians. Its going to be cheaper than complying with SOPA and keeping their businesses up and running on a broken Internet.
1. Re:Tackle corruption with corruption by Thing+1 · 2012-01-10 12:33 · Score: 1
  
  Exactly. I tagged "talkwithmoney".
  
  --
  I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
2. Re:Tackle corruption with corruption by couchslug · 2012-01-10 12:46 · Score: 1
  
  Buy the entertainment industry instead. Not the lobbyists, the fucking industry.
  Buy the record labels and disband the RIAA.
  Buy the film industry, and shitcan the MPAA.
  
  --
  "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
3. Re:Tackle corruption with corruption by shentino · 2012-01-10 15:20 · Score: 1
  
  With MAFIAA lawyers now staffing the DOJ I don't think that either of those groups are for sale anymore.
4. Re:Tackle corruption with corruption by Tom · 2012-01-10 19:35 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  What I can't figure out is why haven't the tech giants got together and paid them more money.
  In the long term, simply buying out the movie industry would be a cheaper.
  Don't fool yourself. For all their yelling and whining, the movie and music industry are tiny compared to any of the real industries out there. Food, for example. Every single one of the major food corporations easily dwarves the entire movie and music industry put together.
  Same for the Internet industry, btw. - we see it as this huge thing, but Nestle (to pick a random food company) has four times the revenue and four times the profit of Google.
  
  --
  Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
5. Re:Tackle corruption with corruption by Paul+Fernhout · 2012-01-11 14:29 · Score: 1
  
  How would the companies that make processor chips and computers and network hardware compare?
  
  --
  A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
Sorry for the double post by jmac_the_man · 2012-01-10 09:06 · Score: 1

Sorry, I should have read your post closer. Also, in American politics/tax law, corporations can't make political contributions directly, and no individual can give more than $2000 to a candidate per election cycle.
So for a company to donate $5 million to a candidate, and then write that off on their taxes, is illegal under three different parts of the tax law.
Re:FYI by roman_mir · 2012-01-10 09:46 · Score: 1

You are absolutely 100% correct, I hate democracy as a principle because I've met the average voter. That's why I absolutely agree with those who wrote US Constitution, that a representative republic is better than a democracy, simply because the majority must never be allowed to rule the minority in any way.

--
You can't handle the truth.
If SOPA fails... by shastamonk · 2012-01-10 10:35 · Score: 2

we're in for a bigger problem, where all of the lobbyists from the RIAA/MPAA et. al. realize they're better off tackling their goals in smaller portions, getting their congressman to tack on various pork projects scattered through different bills down the road that can avoid the kind of mass media attention we're able to bring to bear at the moment against a large, focussed piece of legislation - in other words, business as usual. Part of the dialogue going on at the moment needs to be about lobbying, and which congressman are in the pockets of various interests. They may realize SOPA is not worth the political backlash at the moment, but have no problem a few months down the road helping their boys out when the radar is clear. How do we parlay the current mainstream attention on this issue into a longer term vigilance against such attempts?
1. Re:If SOPA fails... by VortexCortex · 2012-01-10 19:26 · Score: 1
  
  SOPA? Oh, you mean the smoke screen for PIPA?
  Why break your heinousness up into easy to swallow chunks, when you can just throw a truly offensive turd in the punch bowl and rob the coat room while everyone's distracted?
Re:Schrodinger's politician? by Archangel+Michael · 2012-01-10 11:28 · Score: 1

HAHAHAHHA, I wish I thought of that myself If you weren't AC, I'd friend ya ;)

--
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Re:meowmeowmoewmoew by Sosarian+Avatar · 2012-01-10 15:49 · Score: 1

It'd be fun to be a voice actor and be able to take credit for that at parties... I think that the emphasis changed between commercials, but here's how I remember it:
meow, meow, meow, meow -- meow, meow, meow, meow
meow...meow...meow...meow...meow, meow, meow, meow

--
Apathy Sucks, Nobody for President!
It sounds like you're agreeing with parent by csirac · 2012-01-11 00:17 · Score: 1

So perhaps you're responding to:

you have meta economics, and not just regular economics.
I.e. that there's no such thin as 'regular' economics, but then that nit-pick sounds like nerd bullshit too