Slashdot Mirror


Protect IP Act May Be Amended

angry tapir writes "The controversial U.S. copyright enforcement bill called The Protect IP Act may be amended on the Senate floor later this month in response to ongoing concerns about its provisions affecting Internet service providers and the domain-name system, according to the bill's chief sponsor, Senator Patrick Leahy, a Vermont Democrat."

65 of 179 comments (clear)

  1. Sorry, but fuck you. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    We still don't want it even with an amendments.

    1. Re:Sorry, but fuck you. by Xanny · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I know it is drony and hive minded and all that other jazz, but let us be honest: those in congress do not care if you want this bill or not. They just want it passed, so they get their payout by big media for passing it. They barely know how to use email because they are all ancient farts, but they are not ignorant - they know this law is destroying the most open medium of communication and exchange of information in history, and for politicians, it is a bad thing - educated and informed people will decide representatives based on their voting records, rather than talking points, and they want anything but to be held accountable.

      SOPA / PIPA / NDAA all show the true colors of our political system in the USA - paid for by corporations, and always against the interests of the people, because career politicians need ways to keep people ignorant, voting for them, and preferably, not voting at all. The fewer people vote, the smaller their message needs to be, the less they need to spend on campaigning, and the more they can pocket. And then they can get paid off day after day by big business to pass laws completely against the spirit of America, freedom, and entrepreneurship (hello hundred year copyright) and sit on their laurels waiting for the next election cycle to talk about abortion, illegal immigrants, and nebulous "jobs" and who is making more "jobs".

      I know I'm extremely hypocritical about saying it, because honestly, I do not want to inconvenience myself to change a broken political system I have inherited from hundreds of years of Americans. I want change to happen without having to make sacrifices for it. I want government to be run the way I want, even though I have no political experience. But we are losing our freedoms and we have lost our representation, so unless someone much better than myself, and much braver than myself, will step up (along with millions of other better, braver people) out of the woodwork to fix the broken system, we are just going downhill. And talking about it on the internet accomplishes nothing.

    2. Re:Sorry, but fuck you. by game+kid · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Amending an "IP" "protection" bill is like cleaning the engine cylinders of a bomb-rigged Yugo as it hurtles toward a crowded mall--better to just detonate it before it even makes the parking lot.

      --unless, of course, said mall is filled with mindless zombies instead of people. Perhaps the government of this crowded mall looked at our voting record and thinks we are all mindless zombies. I'm not sure I could blame them then.

      --
      You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
    3. Re:Sorry, but fuck you. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The fewer people vote, the smaller their message needs to be, the less they need to spend on campaigning, and the more they can pocket

      So you recommend that people grudgingly continue to vote for the fossilized farts who don't represent them just to inconvenience them? Do you understand that by casting a vote you legitimize the system, so whatever corrupt dickhead wins the election can point to the results and say "See, most Americans voted, therefore I'm what the people really want!". Make your displeasure known, it's the only way to show how disillusioned you are with the current "one-party" political system.

    4. Re:Sorry, but fuck you. by ByOhTek · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And by not casting a vote, allow the system to roll over you without saying anything. The politicians don't care if the people legitimize the system, as long as they get their money and power.

      At least, by casting a vote, you can nudge the system in the right direction. It's a lot more than what you would get by not voting.

      --
      Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
    5. Re:Sorry, but fuck you. by Strawser · · Score: 4, Insightful

      they know this law is destroying the most open medium of communication and exchange of information in history

      Not break it as much as control it. I doubt they see that as a bad thing. In the olden day it was difficult for people who don't have access to large amounts of capital to publish information to a large audience, and people with large amounts of capital are already a part of the system. With the intarwebz, anyone has that publishing capability, and the US Government has little control over that. This gives them that control.

      --
      The louder he talked of his honour, the faster we counted our spoons. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson
    6. Re:Sorry, but fuck you. by smpoole7 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      > And by not casting a vote, allow the system to roll over you without saying anything

      Sad, but true. For Congress Creatures(tm), it's all about obtaining the numbers for re-election. If you're disgusted and inclined to vote against them, they *hope* you *won't* vote. Their strategists will say, "we'll lose support on this one, but after all, we have time before the next election. We have a war chest and can afford $$$$ TV and radio ads. We can get our base back [by opposing the war] / [supporting the war] / [being pro-choice] / [being pro-life] / whatever. We'll run negative ads to attack our opponent. And if we can demoralize the opposition, make them believe that their vote is pointless, so much the better."

      A high turnout ALWAYS sends a message, even if they're re-elected. If your Creature was re-elected by a 10% margin in the previous election, but pulls out a squeaker in this one -- especially if he/she sees a good bit if his/her "base" go for a third party candidate -- it will make him or her think.

      Hopefully, anyway. :)

      --
      Cogito, igitur comedam pizza.
    7. Re:Sorry, but fuck you. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes, the studios and record labels are all greedy bastards, but they're the ones who do have an actual stake in IP rights. When you're making a living based on how well your art is received, then let's talk.

      Um, what? The fuck you say---EVERYONE has a stake in this. EVERYONE. This is not about money, homeboy, it's about our CULTURE.

      The big media trusts are not merely "greedy". They are THIEVES, pure and simple, trying to steal as much of the public domain as they possibly can from us so they can sell it back to us.

    8. Re:Sorry, but fuck you. by rohan972 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And yes, Congressional officials don't care about whether or not YOU want it, because let's face it, you don't have any stake what so ever in monetization or piracy of IP goods. So you really don't give one shit or another.

      We do have a stake in what our laws are and Protect IP will impact every one of us. We have an interest in not being censored.

      Yes, the studios and record labels are all greedy bastards, but they're the ones who do have an actual stake in IP rights. When you're making a living based on how well your art is received, then let's talk.

      Will you shut up about every topic that doesn't involve how you make your income? I see you've posted on a number of stories with different topics. How dare you comment on things unrelated to your employment?

      The only justification of copyright in US law is the progress of science and useful arts. I don't care how artistic you think you are, you don't get to screw the country over regarding the progress for the sake of your profits. It is more fitting to say that anyone currently working on such "intellectual goods" ipso facto does not require changes to copyright law to provide an incentive as they have demonstrated that the current law is sufficient to motivate them to work in that industry.

    9. Re:Sorry, but fuck you. by TFAFalcon · · Score: 3, Interesting

      And what if you also disagree with the other major candidate? Voting for him will make it look like you support him. And voting for a 3rd (or 99th) party candidate will not make any difference. Do you think a candidate will be worried if he wins with only gets 10% of the vote, as long as all the other candidates each get less then 1%. He'll point at the results and yell about he has more then ten times the support of his opponents.

      As long as there is not a minimum % of the votes a candidate must get to win then any 3rd party votes ARE wasted. If there was a requirement that a candidate must win at least (for example) 40% of the votes, then voting against them (or just turning in a blank ballot) would make sense.

    10. Re:Sorry, but fuck you. by joebagodonuts · · Score: 2

      And we are free to be critical of our government and society, and to express that criticism. That is a one of those great traditions you mentioned.

      --
      "Give a woman two glasses of wine and some pad thai, and they'll agree to just about anything." the Sports Guy
    11. Re:Sorry, but fuck you. by Gideon+Wells · · Score: 2

      Back in 2006 this was my ballot:

      Bob Casey - Senator - D: Co-sponsor of PIPA: http://sopatrack.com/congressperson/C001070-sen-bob-casey
      vs
      Rick Santorum - Senator Incumbent - R: Watch the news to see what he is up to.

      We set a record for the highest out-voting of a candidate since 1980 in getting rid of Santorum. It sent a signal. It helped get us PIPA. Well, it'd still be here. Santorum would still have voted for PIPA.

      Except for PIPA and the NDAA, Casey was the preferable option by far.

      --
      by Anonymous Coward: I, for one, welcome the shift from car analogies to pizza analogies. um.. overlords?
    12. Re:Sorry, but fuck you. by Xanny · · Score: 2

      I'm already in change congress and rootstrikers, and I do vote. The point of my post was more along the lines that the majority of middle class America is complacent in its ignorance of the issues and they don't react as a body to the loss of freedoms because they are glued to reality TV and moral issues between candidates more so than the more technical and unsettling issues like how the US still maintains a larger military force than the rest of the world combined, spends more on military than the rest of the world combined, and goes deeper into debt every year than the rest of the world combined.

      I do my part to try to change it, but an outspoken minority won't get the constitutional convention Lessing wants, and its what we need, but until either congress does something blatantly evil enough to upset the middle class and baby boomers into action, we are still a vocal, tiny minority.

      And it isn't much of a conspiracy theory. There is plenty of documentation about how the corrupt congressmen take huge campaign contributions from big business, and then act on their behalf when elected. There are dozens of districts across the US that will always vote along a single party line no matter who runs, and they produce some of the most corrupt scum of the Earth because they rise to the top because they know to exploit the moral leanings of an unmovable voting block.

      And no, I have not had first hand experience with corruption elsewhere because I live in the US. I know how bad it is elsewhere, how totalitarian the governments of Bulgaria, China, Pakistan, etc are, but saying we have it better than everyone else when what we have is corporate sellouts exploiting ignorance says a lot about progress in this modern age. Having the best pile of shit on Earth still leaves you with a pile of shit, and trying to make it less shitty is something everyone should be trying to do.

    13. Re:Sorry, but fuck you. by Joce640k · · Score: 5, Informative

      The problem is that when you vote somebody out, all their garbage laws stay behind.

      --
      No sig today...
    14. Re:Sorry, but fuck you. by sgt+scrub · · Score: 2

      And talking about it on the internet accomplishes nothing.

      I completely disaggree. Talking about it on the internet works. All the way up to 2000 we didn't know how much congresscritters were getting paid for pushing legislation through or who was paying them. Now, with the internet and sites like slashdot, we hear about who is voting for what and who paid them to vote for that what. We need to continue to talk about what they are doing while we still can. If not, IMHO, the day will come when we will not be allowed to. Having web sites people can pull up on their phones while standing in line at the voting booth that shows detailed info about the candidates voting history and business relationships, again IMHO, will fix the system.

      --
      Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
    15. Re:Sorry, but fuck you. by sgt+scrub · · Score: 3, Informative

      This gives them that control.

      I agree. Taking away advertisement money to sites that post nagative oppionons about candidates because they linked to an article, or snipped some of a "copyrighted" article into theirs, is about an inch down the slope PIPA will take us.

      --
      Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
    16. Re:Sorry, but fuck you. by CarboRobo · · Score: 2

      This is all bullshit anyway. The proposed amendment doesn't remove anything from the bill - just postpones the worst bit until after the bill is passed!!!

    17. Re:Sorry, but fuck you. by SuricouRaven · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It goes back further than that. One of the biggest expansions of federal power was actually regarding narcotics. Notice that Prohibition required a constitutional amendment - at the time, the federal government didn't have the authority to prohibit the sale of alcohol with anything less than a constitutional amendment. The closest they could have managed would be to prohibit its transport across state lines under the commerce clause. Today, a few supreme court rulings later, and it doesn't need any such amendment to ban all the currently prohibited narcotics: A simple law will suffice.

    18. Re:Sorry, but fuck you. by unity100 · · Score: 5, Informative

      record labels are making a LIVING based on how well THEIR art is received, you say ?

      are you a fucking moron ? excuse me, but really, are you a fucking idiot ?

      record labels do NOTHING other than keeping bands perpetually in debt to them, and give just cents over dozens of dollars of album sales, forcing them to go on tours worldwide not to make money, but to be able to pay the 'loans' they got from the record label in the initial contracts.

      http://www.negativland.com/albini.html

      http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=10/07/13/1737224

      THEY DONT EVEN PAY ARTISTS !

      http://gizmodo.com/5417318/my-6247-royalty-statement-how-major-labels-cook-the-books-with-digital-downloads

      http://www.demonbaby.com/blog/2007/10/when-pigs-fly-death-of-oink-birth-of.html

      you dont know shit about this, yet you are making grandstand statements like 'When you're making a living based on how well your art is received, then let's talk'.

      LETS talk then. lets talk about how record labels are not paying musicians, keeping them in perpetual debt, dodging taxes and royalties, and gulping 90% of the revenue generated by content sales.

      or alternatively, you can just shut the fuck up, and educate yourself before you make another grandstanding statement for next time. i think that's the better option.

    19. Re:Sorry, but fuck you. by Anthony+Mouse · · Score: 3, Informative

      The key is not voting for a Democrat instead of a Republican or vice versa. By the time of the general election it's too late.

      The primaries are what matter. In most cases, the reason you only have a choice between an imbecile and a turd sandwich is because the Republican primary chose an imbecile and the Democratic primary chose a turd sandwich. You can pretty well bet that there were candidates running in those primaries that would do you better -- certainly you have a better chance of that with six candidates running in a primary than with two running in the general election. On top of that, because fewer people vote in primaries, your vote counts for more when you do.

    20. Re:Sorry, but fuck you. by Anthony+Mouse · · Score: 2

      OK, so call Casey up and tell him why you voted for him last time and why you might just not vote for him next time if he continues to support PIPA and if the Republicans decide to field a candidate less batshit than Santorum.

    21. Re:Sorry, but fuck you. by BlueStrat · · Score: 2

      Well unity100, you may have me tagged as "Freak" in your "relationships" user settings, but here, lo and behold, we agree.

      I actually am one of those artists, and if anything, you give the record labels and content cartels too much positive credit. Calling them larcenous rat-bastards is an insult to larcenous rat-bastards everywhere.

      The poster you replied to is without clue, as you've shown.

      You know these SOBs have to be *really* bad, when even political/ideological polar-opposites like unity100 and myself can find common ground in opposing their agendas and behaviors.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    22. Re:Sorry, but fuck you. by sjames · · Score: 2

      Write in ficus. Even the most shameless politician will be a bit red faced if he 'wins' only because the actual winner was disqualified for being a plant.

    23. Re:Sorry, but fuck you. by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I live in California, and by the time the primaries come here, the race is already over. I don't get to vote for (D) or (R) Candidates for President, at least I don't have a vote that counts in any meaningful way.

      Primaries do matter, but only for those "early" states. The reason we have a choice between Imbecile and Turd Sandwich is because we don't have meaningful elections.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    24. Re:Sorry, but fuck you. by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 2

      Romney vs Obama .. nuff said ... except ... I suppose it could be worse, it could have been Bachman

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
  2. Someone help me out here - business question by mykos · · Score: 5, Informative

    What's that business concept called where they run the business to its crashing point, then try to run it just a hair above that? They do it to try to figure out where the rock bottom is on what they can get away with to maximize profits.

    I'm thinking the same thing goes on in government. They do something that has people breaking out their guillotines so they can do juuuuuuust slightly less than that.

    1. Re:Someone help me out here - business question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What's that business concept called where they run the business to its crashing point, then try to run it just a hair above that? They do it to try to figure out where the rock bottom is on what they can get away with to maximize profits.

      Capitalism?

    2. Re:Someone help me out here - business question by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 5, Funny

      What's that business concept called where they run the business to its crashing point, then try to run it just a hair above that? They do it to try to figure out where the rock bottom is on what they can get away with to maximize profits. I'm thinking the same thing goes on in government. They do something that has people breaking out their guillotines so they can do juuuuuuust slightly less than that.

      Capitalism.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    3. Re:Someone help me out here - business question by Joce640k · · Score: 4, Insightful

      SOPA could be the leverage to get all the other IP stuff passed. They'll take this to the brink then say, "all right, we won't do SOPA". Everybody will be so relieved they'll overlook all the other laws they just slipped through.

      Next time it will be something SOPA plus something that makes SOPA look mild by comparison. We'll get in such a panic over the other one that we'll let SOPA through with a sigh of relief that we "won".

      --
      No sig today...
    4. Re:Someone help me out here - business question by Lumpy · · Score: 4, Informative

      Next time? they are already crafting SOPA-II

      It's called the OPEN act. and they are in the initial stages. It's exactly as you describe. but nobody is paying attention to it, exactly as they have it planned.

      http://youtu.be/9TpZJA9EIPY -- On how we got here, and how this fight is not over with. The scumbags in congress have no intention in stopping this behavior.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    5. Re:Someone help me out here - business question by Solandri · · Score: 5, Interesting

      What's that business concept called where they run the business to its crashing point, then try to run it just a hair above that? They do it to try to figure out where the rock bottom is on what they can get away with to maximize profits.

      Evil.

      Despite the jokes others have made in response, capitalism works because in a free society, transactions are only made when the result is beneficial to both parties. Say I have a business transporting furniture. I buy the horse and buggy whip from you for $200 because they're worth more than $200 to me. You sell the horse and buggy whip to me for $200 because they're worth less than $200 to you. In this way, even though the amount of stuff does not change from the transaction, its value increases. With each transaction, items get moved to the hands of people who are better able to make use of them to improve their productivity. Whereas the horse and buggy whip only cost you $190 worth of productivity to make, in my hands it can generate (say) $310 worth of productivity.

      When a company forms a monopoly or subverts the market with laws like the content industry is trying, they break this mechanism. I buy the horse and buggy whip from you for $300 because it's worth $310 to me. To you they're only worth $190 because that's what they cost you to make. In functioning capitalism, market forces would drive the price down to about $200. But by subverting the free market with your monopoly and eliminating competition, you're able to drive the price the other way and get it near the maximum I'd be willing to pay. I end up paying an extra $100.

      Furthermore, I should be able to buy a horseless carriage for $250 which will give me $500 worth of productivity. But you've gotten a law passed which bans it from the market. So by being forced to buy the horse and buggy whip, I also lose out on $190 worth of productivity.

      The consequence of all this is that I no longer have an extra $100 to spend on something else productive, and my productivity has been lowered by $190 from where it should be. And you, because the extra $100 you made came too easily, you don't fully appreciate its value and are more likely to waste the extra money you make on silly things like gold plated toilet seats. The economy overall is harmed, the rate of technological progress slows down, recessions become more common, and increases in the standard of living slows down or even regresses.

      It's normal to put your needs ahead of those of the single person you're dealing with in a transaction. People who buy high and sell low don't survive for long, and everyone has a personal obligation to look out for themselves. But putting your needs ahead of all of society by subverting free market forces for personal gain is just plain evil.

    6. Re:Someone help me out here - business question by Ihmhi · · Score: 5, Funny

      Hurm. Today I learned the difference between Score2, Insightful and Score 5, Funny all comes down to punctuation.

      That's pretty cool.

      That's pretty cool?

      That's pretty cool!

      iEsta muy frio!

      Kakko ii desu!

      (And now, let's see how the shotgun approach works.)

    7. Re:Someone help me out here - business question by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 2

      but it's "open", so it must be good!

      The way things are looking at the moment, the Acts with the least ominous names turn out to be the most harmful to society.

      What's the betting that they call the Act denying CxO bonuses for failure and increasing taxation on high-income individuals the PEDO4PRESIDENT Act?

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    8. Re:Someone help me out here - business question by cptdondo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That sort of backyard capitalism only works when there's relative parity between the parties. In our current "big business is good, regulation is bad, consumer protection is bad" there is no parity.

      A health insurance company doesn't care if they lose you as a customer. They only want you if you are a net profit to them. And because the companies can legally collude and share information, no other company will want you either. So there's no parity.

      There's parity if you buy a soda; you can always buy Coke, or Pepsi, or RC, or the local brand. But the things that are really critical to us as a society have no parity between the parties.

    9. Re:Someone help me out here - business question by Joce640k · · Score: 5, Informative

      Where's that Heinlein quote...oh, yes, here it is:

      "There has grown in the minds of certain groups in this country the idea
      that just because a man or corporation has made a profit out of the
      public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged
      with guaranteeing such a profit in the future, even in the face of changing
      circumstances and contrary to public interest. This strange doctrine is
      supported by neither statute or common law. Neither corporations or
      individuals have the right to come into court and ask that the clock
      of history be stopped, or turned back."

      - Heinlein, Life Line, 1939

      --
      No sig today...
    10. Re:Someone help me out here - business question by 0123456 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      SOPA, PIPA, whatever will all fail, because by design, they're fatally flawed. When everyone gets their IP protected, it will be impossible to develop something new.

      You seem to believe that's an unintended consequence. The current big players have no desire to see anyone 'develop something new' that might take away their business.

      Obviously it will hasten America's decline into bankruptcy and irrelevance, but so long as they can rake in the money for a few more years they don't care.

    11. Re:Someone help me out here - business question by Torodung · · Score: 2

      Patent law, by design, has always been a circular firing squad in the tech sector. In any sector really, it's meant to be a last resort against extreme foul play. It is understood that if one company files patent claims against another, there will be reciprocation, eventually grinding your entire industry to a halt. What is concerning in the Microsoft/Android case is that there has to be some fundamental weakness in the profitability of operating software engineering, as a business model, to introduce this sort of behavior. Microsoft is literally cannibalizing its own markets, and its clients. Since MS must know that, it's disturbing to watch them clutch at it to remain profitable, while they figure out what their actual, sustainable business model is going to be.

      I imagine they feel justified, because FOSS undermined the profitability of software licensing and copyright monopolies, justifiably or no, and put it squarely into genuine software innovation and quality support services. So they are serving it right back to Stallman, in their book, by going after Android. But the fact is: Microsoft has neither innovation nor good support services any longer, and so they really are forced to eat themselves alive.

      I would argue they never had those traits. They started up as Quick-and-Dirty OS, and that's all they've ever been. An expediency driving the ultimate commoditization of software and hardware alike. We all ran it because it was cheap (or free) and it worked (mostly). Now, with FOSS, the method of software is essentially valueless to anything but the furtherance of software itself, and the value is in what people can actually do with it. A hammer should not have a copyright, the act of driving in a nail shouldn't be patentable.

      What's disturbing to me is what this says about the profitability of the entire sector, as it now stands, once you get past "boutique" electronics like Apple products, and into a larger, sustainable software economy and ecosystem. All the major software houses are in a scramble to find their own relevancy. In the end-user markets, the majors seem to have settled on "look and feel." But that's a failure too. If we keep trending towards patent law in this way, denying each other simple tools like a "menu grid of rounded boxes," "ribbons," "swiping a finger," or even the use of the word "app," everyone is going to suffer. Microsoft isn't alone in this one, not by a long shot, and it's hard to tell who started it.

      But now that the battlefield has moved away from copyright and licensing, and toward patents, what we have is a very deliberate circular firing squad. Patent law is designed that way. It doesn't matter who started it, because in the same stroke they're all finishing it. It's like Jonestown. Do not drink the Kool-Aid of acrimony. That's cheap and plentiful, and deadly. It's a far better idea that we take stock of where we are, figure out where we're going, and carefully decide if that's really some place we can live.

    12. Re:Someone help me out here - business question by unity100 · · Score: 2
      stupid. for the reason below :

      Despite the jokes others have made in response, capitalism works because in a free society, transactions are only made when the result is beneficial to both parties

      this is a make-believe, childish understanding of social dynamics. its extremely ignorant of history of this planet and its society too. like a believer of a religion, putting TRUST in something, despite it always happened otherwise.

      the evil of capitalism is not in its transactions or the basic premise of trade. it is in the fact that there is no limit to wealth in capitalism, and wealth breeds wealth, and wealth is ultimately power. there is no way to remedy that in capitalism.

      capitalist economic systems, EVEN if they are employed/practiced in fascist, dictatorial or imperial political systems, always allow the biggest wealth holder to decide how things end up in both economy and politics - no exceptions. fuggers have practically governed holy roman empire for around 150 years, and charles v was their bitch (and he was commanding half of europe), even in the deepest pit of war, nazi germany was still handing out production and design contracts to private corporations instead of mobilizing entire country and commanding their assets directly, and in dictatorships of mussolini, peron et al, the rich always had the power to have things done their way. even roman emperors were obliged to the wealthy - and actually they were the most prominent among that wealth class in the first place - patricians. (except military chaoses that occasionally appeared)

      so, even if you have a strictly hierarchical and dictatorial regime in politics, wealth STILL exerts power.

      now, imagine what happens if you remove the strictly hierarchical, hereditary dictatorial/imperial political system from a capitalist economy - now, there is nothing to check the power of wealth - wealth directly becomes de facto political power.

      the perfect picture, you are seeing in america. remember that :

      wealth is power. and if you allow wealth to concentrate in any segment, you allow power to concentrate in that segment. and in capitalism, this becomes the 1% minority.

    13. Re:Someone help me out here - business question by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 2

      You realize that monopolies are consistent with Free Market theory, right? It's evil socialist regulations that stop monopolies from forming.

      --
      I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
    14. Re:Someone help me out here - business question by cptdondo · · Score: 2

      So the banking and financial market de-regulation we've seen in the last 10 years has led to "highest innovation, best products, and most wealth creation" - which is where we are now. If you're in the 1%, it has. If you're in the 99%, you got screwed or at best flatlined. So if you have enough wealth to have parity, the system works for you. If you don't you don't. I guess you see what you want to see.

    15. Re:Someone help me out here - business question by Travelsonic · · Score: 2

      I thought the OPEN act was meant to be an ALTERNATIVE to SOPA.

      --
      If you believe in privacy, and believe you have "nothing to hide" at the same time, you're a goddammed idiot
    16. Re:Someone help me out here - business question by Pluvius · · Score: 2

      I don't know what they call it in business, but the political term you're looking for is "shifting the Overton window." The window itself is the range of policies that policymakers are willing to accept. Politicians and lobbyists shift the window by espousing radical ideas that few sane people would accept so that when they later present a "compromise position," it appears to be much more acceptable by comparison than it would have if they'd just started with the compromise position to begin with.

      Rob

  3. put pressure on your congresscritter by MollyB · · Score: 5, Interesting

    After reading the earlier Slashdot story, I wrote all three of both our Vermont congressmen and urged them to reconsider support for PIPA and SOPA. The only reply I received was from Sen. Patrick Leahy.

    Here's a snippet from TFA with a relevant notion: contacting your representative can't hurt:

    "[...]However, sponsors of the bill have heard concerns about its effect on the domain name system from fellow lawmakers, Internet engineers, human rights groups and "a number of Vermonters."," [Leahy] said.

    1. Re:put pressure on your congresscritter by eclectro · · Score: 2

      put pressure on your congresscritter

      Stop giving critters a bad name.

      --
      Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
    2. Re:put pressure on your congresscritter by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 2

      ... all three of both...

      My brain just HCF'd.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
  4. To elaborate on the summary... by PSVMOrnot · · Score: 4, Informative

    This isn't so much an amendment, as a plan to think about amending it. From the article:

    "...plans to offer an amendment that would require a study of the impact of the ISP provisions in the bill before they are implemented. If the study found negative impacts, it's likely the ISP provision would be killed."

    The above is pretty much all of the article which is not political filibustering, back patting or stating things which won't change (the payment freezing, and search engine stuff).

    TL;DR version: they're thinking about maybe possibly backing down on one point.

    1. Re:To elaborate on the summary... by hat_eater · · Score: 2

      Quote from the Leahy press release: "As I prepare a managersâ(TM) amendment to be considered during the floor debate, I will therefore propose that the positive and negative effects of this provision be studied before implemented, so that we can focus on the other important provisions in this bill, which are essential to protecting American intellectual property online, and the American jobs that are tied to intellectual property. I regret that law enforcement will not have this remedy available to it when websites operating overseas are stealing American property" Does anyone have any doubts which way will they decide? This is nothing more than a diversionary maneuver.

    2. Re:To elaborate on the summary... by Joce640k · · Score: 2

      Dear Leahy,

      You mean the likely effects of the new law weren't actually studied yet...?

      Color me shocked.

      --
      No sig today...
    3. Re:To elaborate on the summary... by Ihmhi · · Score: 4, Interesting

      This is why I believe we need limitations on how fast a bill can be voted for.

      Something like 1 day/page should be a good way to either (a) slow the legislature down and give them time to actually read the bills, or (b) make the laws much, much shorter.

      Oh, and no overlapping. No "March 15th is the day for these three bills". One day per page (with predetermined font and page sizes so there's no loophole here) of a bill.

      "Emergency bills" should have a higher threshold of voting such as 4/5 or 5/6 majority. If there's greater than 1/6 opposition then it probably isn't an emergency.

      Oh look, I just stopped a whole buttload of bad laws coming out every year! Now all we have to do is actually get them to follow these rules. Ha.

  5. No confidence. by Karmashock · · Score: 2

    The sad reality is that if it took a public outcry for them to realize this was a bad idea then they really have no grasp as to what is going on here at all.

    Congress passes too many ill considered laws without thinking things through properly. I don't need a congress that passes lots of laws all the time if the price is that they won't actually understand what they're passing.

    As much as possible, congress must be comfortable with the idea of taking things slow and not being hasty. Congress should really think about completely rewriting the whole thing from the start with a fresh understanding of what they're actually legislating.

    We don't need grandstanding politicians full of their own self importance pushing on agenda or another. We need sober and mature statesmen that will investigate issues, hear all sides, and THEN craft legislation. Anything that comes expressly from one lobbying group or another will be a creature of that faction against every other.

    And if all sides cannot agree to a final bill... let us all learn to love the deadlock for it is in the deadlock that our freedoms are truly kept safe.

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    1. Re:No confidence. by Karmashock · · Score: 5, Insightful

      People have always been disinterested in continuous political engagement. We don't have the time for it. We have jobs. We have personal and local problems. We simply don't have the attention span or energy to manhandle the political powers that be all the time.

      What is supposed to contain that issue is that the government... at least in the US... isn't supposed to be this powerful. It's been out of control for three generations so this is nothing new. But it's really well beyond anything the people can keep in check.

      It's been said that the worst thing that ever happened to Washington DC was air conditioning. There was a time when it was just too hot and nasty to stay in the city throughout much of the year. Might as well add central heating to that as well. Congress just meets too often, passes too many laws, and doesn't particularly think about any of them very deeply.

      Nearly all legislation should be state or city legislation where as the Federal government should be as minimalistic as possible if only because we can't really control or escape federal excesses as easily as state issues. If a state goes crazy we have 50 others. No critical harm if one of them goes broke or does something crazy. But the federal government is another matter.

      Perhaps I'm showing my ideological stripes here, but I think this would be less of an issue if congress AND the presidency got their wings clipped a bit. They're too eager to involve themselves in our lives and too disinterested with doing their traditional jobs.

      I think the president has more then enough to worry about with the economy and foreign policy. He really doesn't need to concern himself with anything else right now. And as to congress, anything that doesn't fix the budget problem should be sidelined. I don't want to hear ANYTHING from congress that doesn't either increase revenue or reduce spending. No new regulation. No new issues. NOTHING. Just balance the stupid budget.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    2. Re:No confidence. by shiftless · · Score: 2

      Exactly... congress isn't evil on this issue... just ignorant.

      Willful ignorance, when placed in a position of power over other people's lives, IS evil.

  6. A one-eyed, ex-lawyer, son of a printer, Senator by Demonoid-Penguin · · Score: 2

    All you need is a couple of midgets, a parrot, a bartender and an Irish nun.

    But this is serious - the need to shut down, and block search engines that link to them. any sites the US DOJ considers puts American jobs at threat. Like fake Gucci, Reebok, Adidas items - that rob sales of companies that employ so many North Americans. And those big movies (made in New Zealand or Australia), that never seem to make a profit (because of the pirates). Jobs, it's just about jobs [insert tasteful joke about dead marketing "genius" here].
    If he could point at foreign websites selling pirate cheese I'd buy the concerned, but senile politician line - but as it is he's the one who appears to have been bought.
    But as several "Vermonters" and the "majority of ISPs" (Cable companies) are "concerned" - he might, maybe, possibly, consider, a bit of a test first (to see if anyone is awake) before pushing through the legislation needed to begin another stupid war. I'm betting that jobs line will get the bill through.

    That anarchic internet was nice while it lasted, but it just isn't enough like television for some "people" (sigh).

  7. Give em enough rope... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ...and let them hang themselves.

    - Increase the length of a copyright to 200 years.
    - Make the minimum penalty for copyright infringement 2 years jail, and make it a criminal offence, so the MAFIAA can't pick and choose who gets pinged.
    - and make it mandatory to defend your IP in court or lose your rights - similar to trademarks.

    Then see how much the MAFIAA want this fight.

    1. Re:Give em enough rope... by Alsee · · Score: 2

      Make the minimum penalty for copyright infringement 2 years jail, and make it a criminal offence

      While the minimum penalty for infringement is merely big fines, most copyright infringement is already a criminal offense. For example effectively any P2P copyright infringement is already a felony with up to 1, 3, 5, or even 10 years in prison depending on circumstances. That's right, a FIVE YEAR felony for of having a modest sized music library on P2P, and a TEN YEAR felony for a second offense of having a modest sized music library on P2P. A rather substantial percentage of the united states population, several tens of millions of people, are already technical subject to several years in federal prison for criminal copyright infringement. The fact that the law is rarely enforced does not alter the fact that the law exists, and does not alter the fact that several tens of millions of people are legally guilty and legally subject to several years in prison but merely "not yet charged" for the crime.

      Lets forget the fact that several legislators themselves would be imprisoned. Lets forget the fact that the MAJORITY of legislators would be seeing one or more of their own kids imprisoned. Lets forget the fact that we'd need to build something like twenty times as many prisons as exist now. Lets forget the fact that the US economy would instantly collapse if you attempted to imprison such a large percentage of the population. If copyright law were actually and fully enforced, the population of the United States would overthrow the entire US government in under 48 hours. When you factor in the outraged friends and families of the copyright-felons, you'd have over two hundred million people ready to burn down every congressional office for the utter STUPIDITY of attempting to imprison several tens of millions of ordinary people for several years merely because they used P2P.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  8. As long as they amend the part.... by Lumpy · · Score: 2

    Where it exists.

    I.E. burn it in a trash can.

    I just hope all the fervor over SOPA is translated to every time this thing morphs. as SOPA is already being rewritten and name changed.

    The scumbags in Congress will not stop until they do the bidding of their masters.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  9. Cable by Kjella · · Score: 2

    I remain confident that the ISPs -- including the cable industry, which is the largest association of ISPs -- would not support the legislation if its enactment created the problems that opponents of this provision suggest,

    And there's absolutely no conflict of interest between their role as ISPs and their role as content providers here, none whatsoever. They don't hate that fact that people can watch other things than their programming and wouldn't like to turn Internet back into cable TV.

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  10. Doesn't make a difference by jonwil · · Score: 2

    The bill still allows ISPs, web hosts, social networks, search engines and content providers to be forced to take content down even when the one issuing the take down notice has no ownership or connection to the content. And it still provides no option to challenge the take down.

  11. History repeats itself. by VJmes · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There's a pattern to this. Politicians at the behest of self-interest groups and self-appoint moralists, begin to regulate what was a benign social issue. Uninformed, policy gets drafted by these people which gains traction from these self-interest, righteous minorities and soon thanks to ignorant third-parties the very inaccuracies that are used to draft these policies are perpetuated. The use of loaded words like criminal, scourge & terror helps to convince a mostly oblivious public. Before long the regulation comes into effect and pushes the issue underground, initially it's deemed a success. However as it becomes apparent that the matter is thriving underground, a war is declared, harsher penalties combined with the perpetuation of gross-inaccuracies and lies continue to waste your tax dollars.
    It's history repeating itself, and it's always follows a similar pattern. Though the end result is the same; tax dollars are wasted, usage increases unabated and the constant game of cat and mouse continues because those elected to listen to the people who know best, won't.

    If I went about my job with the same level of ignorance, incompetence and sheer corruption as the supposed leaders of the United States, I'd be out of a job very quickly. If the private sector won't tolerate it, why does capital hill seem to be a breeding ground for these bottom-feeders?

    1. Re:History repeats itself. by smpoole7 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Where history is actually repeating itself lies in the fact that bought-out politicians are nothing new. This comment is going to sound like it's off at a tangent, but I'm sharing it to maybe calm some people down. To quote someone I heard a while back, "hate is like a deadly poison. YOU'RE the one drinking it, but you hope the OTHER guy dies!"

      Instead of hopeless or mindless rage, channel that into a determined anger that will actually change things. The biggest aid for that is a sense of perspective.

      I like to read alternate history; a good one is Eric Flint's "Rivers of War" series (currently just two books, but I'm gonna give him a noogie if he doesn't produce #3 pretty soon) for a good look at the political situation right after the US was founded. Even then, there were political parties, deals in back rooms, posturing, money and favors ... and (of course) a disastrous war that made some people rich, others poor.

      A lot was said (admittedly, with some justification) about Cheney and Haliburton during W's term, but go back to WWII. Go watch Little Orphan Annie; her benefactor was called "Daddy Warbucks." That was a common joke back then: it was a guy who got rich selling arms during the war. Go back to the Civil War, and you'll find the same thing: there were some people who got ridiculously wealthy off of that conflict. Even in the Revolutionary war, which is the closest you might come to an "ideological" conflict, there were people who stood to lose or gain a great deal on the outcome, and it determined their actions.

      In times of peace, the same thing happens. As Flint points out, some supported a National Bank for noble reasons, but others supported it simply because they thought it was a path to riches. Those who opposed it were equally divided.

      What I've said, in my usual long-winded way, is that politicians have ALWAYS been corrupt. Don't ever give up trying to Fight The Machine(tm), but don't let rage consume you and don't (worst of all) become demoralized if you think your efforts make no difference.

      Usual disclaimer: just my opinion, and worth precisely what you paid for it. :)

      --
      Cogito, igitur comedam pizza.
  12. yeah by unity100 · · Score: 2

    so unless someone much better than myself, and much braver than myself, will step up (along with millions of other better, braver people) out of the woodwork to fix the broken system

    such people attempted to come out of the woodwork recently. you ridiculed them, despised them, called them names, called them out about shit, and then beat them down with police batons. it was called 'ows'.

    im sure at the moment you read the word 'ows', a good many of you immediately lapsed to very reactionary and negative mindsets. let me tell you : it doesnt matter what you feel about what particular aspect of a revolution/change movement - NO revolution/change on the planet is going to be in the way you exactly want it. there will always be things you dont like, there will always be things you do like. the important thing is overall change to be for the better.

  13. Suggestion by LtGordon · · Score: 2

    May I suggest an amendment?
    Prefix the bill with: /*
    Postfix the bill with: */

    Because it looks prettier that way ... yeah, that's why.

  14. See, the problem here is by unity100 · · Score: 4, Informative

    The top 5% of society is taking 72% of everything.

    http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

    of course, that is an optimistic statistic. since, the bulk of the wealth at the top is undetectable in offshore banks, swiss banks, various fund schemes etc. if you count this unaccounted for wealth in, it really goes towards 1% owning near 90% or more. (the total wealth in swiss banks is assumed to be 7 times or so the value of everything - goods, services, land, everything - in the world, so go figure.).

    now, see, the 1% people on the top, want to keep taking such 70-90% of everything. and the whole story behind laws like this, is that. that is a bigger share of the economy than biggest dukes had in medieval times.

    so life, is 90% more expensive because this 1% segment gets 90% out of the economy and everyone has to work to generate that extra 90%, and give it to them through the system. imagine how life would be, if everything was 90% cheaper ... or 90% more abundant ...

    so, instead of thinking this like 'some law bought by lobby interests', think it as like 'feudal lords trying to keep their hold on peasantry' -> for this is exactly what it is.

    doing this, would break various mental conditionings that were built into your brain through the education and media systems and through conditioning of society at large. and, you would be free to seek any alternatives. the least benefit would be that you would be able to analyze the situation objectively, instead of instinctively skipping by the fact that someone in this society is taking 90% of every effort you spare, away from you through the economy - not even taxes. taxes are calculated after that 90% is taken away from you.

    ( for the naive out there - NO, if you are running your own business, this does not change - you are still spending on a lot of costs to run your business or your life, and ANY cost you spend out of your pocket - or opportunity costs - has that 90% drain on them - for, you cant exist outside economy while being in it, even if you work for yourself )

  15. Comcast by wytcld · · Score: 2

    "I remain confident that the ISPs -- including the cable industry, which is the largest association of ISPs -- would not support the legislation if its enactment created the problems that opponents of this provision suggest," Leahy said.

    So this is about Comcast/NBC Universal as the largest "ISP" in the "largest association of ISPs"? Fuck that. Not only is their main business content rather than service, but they're a last-mile provider, in which capacity they'd be far less affected by the onerous requirements of this bill than backbone providers or hosting providers.

    What this really shows is that service providers should not be allowed to have a business interest in content. Period. It corrupts their perspective. And it allows them to get big enough to corrupt the perspective of paid-for representatives.

    --
    "with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
  16. History rhymes but never repeats. by bussdriver · · Score: 2

    Details always matter (except to most Americans; you prove otherwise!)

    While what is going on is similar to the past it is also similar to the fall of Rome and even more generally the fall of every non-conquered democracy. It "rhymes," that is, it is a similar pattern. All democracy falls into despotism by the accumulated incompetence of the people over time. The more successful and distracted the more quickly things are likely to slip bye the public. Its a flaw of human nature to accept a past of only 20-30 years as the way it always has been; this makes evolutionary sense given how much shorter life spans were and how the old procreated much less (still much less.) Anyhow, this fact of human nature is why there is always a slow downward fall as small bits are lost over decades and the people get used to the boiling water they themselves added the last few degrees; well, more likely added quite a bit more because at the end it accelerates during the panic as some realize there is a crisis and create confusion and panic. (see Tea Party)

    Here is a rhyme you may find interesting, watch the late 80s documentary "The Panama Deception" and pay attention to the officials involved. Only about 10 years later they repeated almost the same thing but went further; having got away with it previously they knew they could do it again. Next time, it can be taken further; perhaps far enough to attack Iran (which is still the plan BTW.)

    Something that "repeats" is how political group form rather publicly. There are think tanks and books put out in the open to bring in like minded people and once they have enough people then they become more closed and more secretive, but in the beginning when building their core architects put the information is out there. Its harder to see with a 2 party smokescreen which sometimes I think exists solely to hide what is going on (their members can differ so much its truly sad they share the same label.)