Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Tech Industry Reps To Speak Before Congress About SOPA

Posted by samzenpus on 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.'"

35 of 273 comments (clear)

  1. I applaud his efforts... by AngryDeuce · · 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 · · 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 · · 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 Jawnn · · 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".

    4. Re:I applaud his efforts... by AngryDeuce · · 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.

    5. Re:I applaud his efforts... by elrous0 · · 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.
    6. Re:I applaud his efforts... by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    7. Re:I applaud his efforts... by interkin3tic · · 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.

    8. Re:I applaud his efforts... by Curunir_wolf · · 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
    9. Re:I applaud his efforts... by shentino · · 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.

    10. Re:I applaud his efforts... by AngryDeuce · · 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...

  2. Huzah by Iamthecheese · · 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.
  3. This should be fun... by I'm+just+joshin · · Score: 5, Funny

    So do we like Issa today or is he still evil?

    1. Re:This should be fun... by NevarMore · · 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 · · 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.

  4. Good sign by gman003 · · 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 · · 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 AngryDeuce · · 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!!

  5. We're doomed by gaspyy · · 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_ · · 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 · · 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 · · 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.

  6. Re:Hopeless... by AngryDeuce · · 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.

  7. Re:Hopeless... by Samantha+Wright · · 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!
  8. Re:Hopeless... by Daetrin · · 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
  9. Paul ryan says... by hero-author · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "I believe it creates the precedent and possibility for undue regulation, censorship and legal abuse."

  10. Re:Hopeless... by tlhIngan · · 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.

  11. Congress wakeing up? by DarkOx · · 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
  12. Re:Hopeless... by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

  13. Re:Hopeless... by jmac_the_man · · 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.

  14. Re:Hopeless... by Hatta · · 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!
  15. Whats stopping by future+assassin · · 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*
  16. Re:Hopeless... by Hatta · · 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!
  17. Re:First... by Shikaku · · 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/

  18. Tackle corruption with corruption by mrops · · 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.