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.'"

81 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 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
3. 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!
4. 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
5. 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.
6. 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".
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. 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
13. 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.
14. 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.
15. 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.
16. 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...
17. 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.
18. 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
19. 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.
20. 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
21. 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.
22. 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.
23. 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.
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.
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 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.
3. 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.
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 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
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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
11. 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!
12. 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.
13. 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
14. 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.
15. 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!
16. 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?
  
  --
  -
17. 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.
  
  --
  -
18. 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.
19. 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!
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.
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 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
6. 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.
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/
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/
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.
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'.
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.
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.
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."
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*
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?
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.
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 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
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?