Slashdot Mirror


RIAA CEO Hopes SOPA Protests Were a "One-Time Thing"

hapworth writes "After posting a controversial op-ed in The New York Times saying Wikipedia and Google 'misinformed' the public about SOPA and PIPA, Cary Sherman, CEO of the RIAA said in an interview yesterday that he hopes the SOPA protests were a 'one-time experience.' He also said that Wikipedia and Google users were duped into thinking SOPA was a bad bill because they assume "if it comes from these sources, it must be true." In another hilarious comment, Sherman blames the Internet for making it impossible for Congress to get out its side of the story, and for not spreading information with the same 'clarity and integrity' of broadcast journalists."

441 comments

  1. One time experience? by Hatta · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That's easy enough to accomodate. Stop pressing for draconian censorship legislation and this will never happen again.

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    1. Re:One time experience? by Moryath · · Score: 4, Insightful

      We're talking about Cary Sherman and the RIAA here.

      What was it Mad-Eye Moody was saying during D-A-D-A classes? Oh yeah - CONSTANT VIGILANCE.

    2. Re:One time experience? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, I was just gonna say the same thing. Stop pushing for this bullcrap, and we won't need to protest it.

      But as long as they insist on trying to make these damaging changes, we're gonna squawk, every time.

    3. Re:One time experience? by Moheeheeko · · Score: 2

      I have a strong feeling that once word gets out of these comments, any website affiliated with the RIAA is gonna have a little "encounter" with Anon. also, inb4 Cary's personal info is leaked to the web.

    4. Re:One time experience? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Oh, it'll go through. It's just a matter of time. Like any bad law, they can just keep bringing it up again and again and again and again, a hundred times a year if they want. All they need is one single success, and then it's too late to go back ever again. They just need to wear people down until it can juuuuuuust slide through people's defenses, and then it's over and done with.

      Remember... a thousand failures and a single success is still fully successful.

    5. Re:One time experience? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      We're talking about Cary Sherman and the RIAA here.

      What was it Mad-Eye Moody was saying during D-A-D-A classes? Oh yeah - CONSTANT VIGILANCE.

      You mean the Death Eater impersonating Mad-Eye? He never taught the class.

    6. Re:One time experience? by nhstar · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Sadly, you may be right... but fighting for the freedom to speak by forcefully shutting down someone else's ability to speak (a la Anon.)..? Is that the right answer? I think that it happened to work out well last time without having to run around in a nerd-skills pissing contest.

      I agree with the message, just not the methods.

      --
      --- no sig to see here... move along.
    7. Re:One time experience? by s.petry · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Or they will do like they did with the US Armed forces now being able to detain without trial or cause any American citizen. It was hidden in a "Defense Spending" Bill, and Obama signed it on 12/31/11 when the rest of the US was out getting drunk.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    8. Re:One time experience? by Culture20 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      but fighting for the freedom to speak by forcefully shutting down someone else's ability to speak (a la Anon.)..? Is that the right answer?

      It beats ighting for the freedom to speak by forcefully shutting down someone else's ability to live, like our founding fathers did.

    9. Re:One time experience? by honestmonkey · · Score: 3, Interesting

      True dat. I mean, that's what he says. He hopes that "the internet" doesn't protest next time. There is going to be a next time. They will couch it differently, it's saving children or penguins or cats or something, and oh, yeah, by the way, we can send you to Gitmo for "illegally" downloading. Okay, not Gitmo, just a fine of 3 times your salary. Okay, okay, just one times your salary. See, we're reasonable.

      --
      Everything you know is wrong, Just forget the words and sing along.
    10. Re:One time experience? by Raved+Thrad · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I read this as corporate-idiotese for "Goddamn you pirate fuckers! Do you have any idea how much money we blew blowing the lawmakers? You bastards owe us for the money we spent, not to mention all the money piracy is still costing us, so you all need to shut up and stop trying to kill our failed business model!"

      --
      Life, ultimately, boils down to the Four Fs: Fighting, Fleeing, Feeding, and Mating.
    11. Re:One time experience? by nhstar · · Score: 0

      The symantics behind this are a little off... we fought with soldiers against soldiers... we did not destroy England to do so.

      Now, Japan/Germany on the other hand...

      Still, I don't agree with those methods either.

      (poor sense of humor, but still...)

      --
      --- no sig to see here... move along.
    12. Re:One time experience? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      anonymous formed because these groups ARE actively shutting down free discourse whenever it threatens their business interest.

    13. Re:One time experience? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I donated money and went door to door for Obama in 2008.

      Obama's signature on the NDAA is the reason I'm not voting for Obama in 2012.

    14. Re:One time experience? by Hatta · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You should go to your local Obama campaign headquarters and tell them that.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    15. Re:One time experience? by penix1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You don't honestly think they are going to propose SOPA as a stand alone bill now do you? No, they will simply attach it to some unrelated "must pass" legislation. It will be the poison pill that must be swallowed in order to keep the country running. It wouldn't surprise me to see it on the next go around of debt ceiling fights.

      --
      This is a sig. This is only a sig. Had this been an actual sig you would have been informed where to tune for more sigs.
    16. Re:One time experience? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean Thomas Covenant?

    17. Re:One time experience? by Khyber · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "we fought with soldiers against soldiers"

      You need to go back to school. We fought with frontiermen and minutemen against soldiers.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    18. Re:One time experience? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Attacking their websites is interfering with their freedom of speech? How does that work? You are talking about the people who control everything that is broadcast on television and radio. Short of numerous nuclear explosions, how do you silence those people? You can't. Silence them? My ass.

    19. Re:One time experience? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That's easy enough to accomodate. Stop pressing for draconian censorship legislation and this will never happen again.

      If only we lived in such a magical wonderland. One where obvious patents were rejected, regular patents ran out, and nobody yelled about people making parodies of songs using 5 seconds of the actual music.

      I'm gearing up for round two.

      HOLD STRONG SISTERS AND BROTHERS!

    20. Re:One time experience? by blankinthefill · · Score: 5, Insightful

      While I don't agree with the bill at all, you should consider two things before blaming it entirely on Obama. The first is that a veto not only would have been over ridden by both houses, but would have been EASILY over ridden. There was far more votes than the necessary 2/3 in both houses, so there wouldn't have even been a fight for the over ride. The second is that vetoes often expend political capital. When an administration has high approval ratings and is well liked by their own party, they can afford to throw out a symbolic veto or two, especially if it's on a bill that is widely and wildly unpopular. However, when an administration is already under attack from all sides, NOT throwing out a veto can save, or potentially even create, some of that much needed political capital. Now, you can always make the argument that it would have raised his standing among members of the public to veto it... but I'm not so sure. Considering the other provisions of the bill, it very easily could have been turned around and painted as 'not supporting our troops.' And that's pretty much political suicide. (One of my friends mistakenly thought that I was stumping for Obama when I pointed this all out, but the fact is I'm not. You would be hard pressed to find ANY administration that would have acted differently if faced with the exact same circumstances. I don't like that this is the way that the game is played... but it is.)

    21. Re:One time experience? by NicknameAvailable · · Score: 5, Funny

      If only the founding father's included a reciprocity clause in the constitution to the effect of: If you attempt to take away free speech, we cut out your tongue.

    22. Re:One time experience? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You need to check your facts. The bill in no way authorized what you claim it did. Read the actual text of the actual bill and you'll see it in no way applies to citizens or anyone else legally on American soil.

    23. Re:One time experience? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suppose you didn't see the other news today then.

    24. Re:One time experience? by Man+On+Pink+Corner · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The second is that vetoes often expend political capital.

      The only "political capital" that should matter is the elected official's "political capital" with the people who elected him.

      Everything you wrote is basically Nuremberg thinking in action.

    25. Re:One time experience? by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      Your entire post is an excuse, not an explanation. We know WHy he did it, that doesnt take away from the wrongness of it. Continuing to play the game is a fucking cop out.

      --
      Good-bye
    26. Re:One time experience? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

      He should have done his job and vetoed the bill.

      Ron Paul 2012 :)

    27. Re:One time experience? by Imrik · · Score: 1, Informative

      The part that exempted American citizens and lawful residents was removed from the bill before it was passed.

    28. Re:One time experience? by artor3 · · Score: 5, Informative

      No, it was not. Go read it. Here's the link. Click on the PDF link for #7, which says "National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Enrolled Bill [Final as Passed Both House and Senate]". Read Subtitle D, Section 1021, paragraph (e). It's on page 265. I'll repost it here for you so that you have no excuse not to read it, but by all means check the actual document as well so that you know I'm not lying.

      (e) AUTHORITIES.—Nothing in this section shall be construed
      to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of
      United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States,
      or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United
      States.

      I can't make the truth any easier for you to see. This whole thing is just a smear intended to discredit Obama in the minds of his supporters, and the sad thing is, they're falling for it.

    29. Re:One time experience? by Dan541 · · Score: 0

      Anonymous attempt censorship and suppression for any speech they don't agree with.

      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
    30. Re:One time experience? by artor3 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Hate to break it to you, Pollyanna, but the people who elected him would not re-elect him when they found out that he vetoed a bill to provide healthcare to wounded veterans. The average American voter is an easily manipulated moron.

      He did the absolute best he could do to diminish the effect of the law, but there was nothing he could do to stop it. If you don't like it, then don't sit out the midterms. The idiot "liberals" who handed Congress over to the Repubs in 2010 by staying home are responsible for every bit of harm the GOP has done.

    31. Re:One time experience? by wonkavader · · Score: 5, Informative

      Closer, but you need to read a little more. Our frontiermen and minutemen fought against soldiers, as did the French soldiers and navy that helped us. We also killed non-military colonists who were pro-crown, or just burned 'em out or tarred and feathered them (which was sometimes fatal). The Brits and Tories generally returned the favour, though I gather they were less imaginative about it.

      Wars are complex.

    32. Re:One time experience? by wonkavader · · Score: 1

      Then take a look voting for Rocky Anderson.

    33. Re:One time experience? by wonkavader · · Score: 1

      Hear hear.

      Rocky Anderson 2012.

    34. Re:One time experience? by wonkavader · · Score: 1

      No, I think you're wrong on that. The lawmakers were REALLY cheap. A drop in the bucket. Maybe he'd be upset about how much they spent on lobbyists, but the politicians themselves were a bargin.

    35. Re:One time experience? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While I don't agree with the bill at all, you should consider two things before blaming it entirely on Obama. The first is that a veto not only would have been over ridden by both houses, but would have been EASILY over ridden. There was far more votes than the necessary 2/3 in both houses, so there wouldn't have even been a fight for the over ride.

      If someone disagrees with something they should vote their conscience and let it get reversed by others, no?

    36. Re:One time experience? by Ihmhi · · Score: 2

      The first is that a veto not only would have been over ridden by both houses, but would have been EASILY over ridden.

      Ah yes, one of the oldest and finest traditions in the world - "it's gonna happen anyway, so why bother fighting it?"

    37. Re:One time experience? by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 5, Informative

      You need to go back to school. We fought with frontiermen and minutemen against soldiers.

      You should have gone to a better school. We fought with militias against professional soldiers, and got our asses kicked. It wasn't until we started building a real army of our own that the Revolution had even a prayer of succeeding.

      (It's probably not your fault; the "rugged individualist frontiersman sniping from behind the trees at the stupid Redcoats marching down the middle of the road" idea is deeply embedded in our national mythos, and a lot of otherwise decent history teachers pass it onto their students. But it is a myth, and one which is easily disproved with a modicum of research.)

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    38. Re:One time experience? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

      What was it Mad-Eye Moody was saying during D-A-D-A classes? Oh yeah - CONSTANT VIGILANCE.

      Since Mad-Eye Moody in that case was actually a Death Eater masquerading as Moody, does that mean because you're preaching this now that you are a secret agent for the RIAA?

    39. Re:One time experience? by Zenin · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "He [Obama] did the absolute best he could do to diminish the effect of the law..."

      Obama didn't object to the indefinite detention clauses at all, given how the reason it was in the bill in the first place was because the White House asked for it to be included. The only objections Obama had were about limiting the discretion of the White House in choosing when and how to detain someone indefinitely. The revised language, passed and signed into law, EXPANDS the president's power by giving him that discretion...it does NOTHING to "diminish" the clause at all.

      When it comes to matters of spying on and arresting US citizens without oversight, trial, or recourse, the Obama Administration has started from where Bush left off and hit the ground running hard.

      The reality is Obama is a hard-right neo-con who's done a fantastic job of fooling the dirty hippie masses that he's a liberal. He's done a 180 on everything he promised (except his promise to greatly expand the war in Afghanistan...that promise, sadly, he has kept).

      --
      My /. uid is better then your /. uid
    40. Re:One time experience? by elashish14 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      This is why a defensive strategy is insufficient. We have to strike back and get our legislation protecting the internet in before they get theirs to kill it. We need legistlation which will put America's Copyright Crusade to a stop.

      If the RIAA gets to the government before people do, it'll be over. If we our vote across before they do, then they are gonna be the ones fighting back. The way to win the fight isn't to stay standing when you're pushed - it's by pushing the other guy down and keeping him there.

      --
      I have left slashdot and am now on Soylent News. FUCK YOU DICE.
    41. Re:One time experience? by Aryden · · Score: 4, Informative

      It wasn't until the french stepped in and supplied us with trained personnel, supplies and ships to run blockades...

    42. Re:One time experience? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Exactly right. It's just a pathetic excuse, which these idiot Obama supporters constantly come up with to defend his sorry ass.

      The facts are simple: it was a bad bill, and it doesn't matter if Congress would have voted for it (which is questionable; the Republicans aren't that powerful there). Obama's base, i.e. the Democrat voters, are mostly against it. Therefore, he should have voted for it if he wants the Democrat voters to bother showing up in November to vote for him. From what I'm reading (such as the AC above who went door-to-door for him in '08 and won't vote for him now), somewhere around half of the people who voted for him aren't going to in November, because of his backstabbing moves like this.

      Even if his vote had been overridden, taking a stand against a bad bill like this would have increased his political capital among his voters. The problem with Obama is that he doesn't care about his voters, he only cares about getting re-elected, so he's brazenly assumed that all the Democrat voters are automatically going to turn out and vote for him in November, so he doesn't have to do anything to keep them happy, so all his moves are to act like a Republican, so that he can get as many "swing" voters as possible, plus as many on the right as possible.

      It remains to be seen if this strategy will work out for him. There's a lot of bitter ex-Obama fans like the AC above, but we won't know until November whether they're going to go ahead and vote for him anyway just to keep the possibly even worse Republican candidate from getting elected, or just stay home and let this fucking house of cards of a country collapse as it's going to do sooner or later.

      What's really annoying however, and we can probably blame the news media mostly for this, is that Obama still has to win the Democrat primaries, and he hasn't done this yet. There's another guy running named Darcy Richardson. I've registered as a Dem in my (red) state so I can give this Darcy guy a vote, and hopefully get Obama out of there. It probably won't work, but you never know. LBJ wasn't able to be re-nominated because he was so unpopular, so there is a precedent.

    43. Re:One time experience? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      He should have vetoed it no question. But...

      it doesn't matter if Congress would have voted for it (which is questionable

      It was nowhere near questionable. Congress had enough votes on both sides of the aisle to override a veto. The Senate passed it 88 to 12 and the house passed it 283 to 136. Sadly, it was supported by our legislatures, our two parties, and our President.

    44. Re:One time experience? by Khyber · · Score: 0

      Militias are composed of.....?

      Frontiersmen and Minutemen (well, minutemen get selected out of unrecognized militias.)

      I actually went to a great school. 4th place school district in the nation at that time. I knew exactly what we had to deal with, as my grandfather, a retired USMC Lt. Col., taught me very well (and it was much gorier and more informative than the books at the time.)

      Oh, and no, we were getting our asses kicked until we had the EQUIPMENT from the French plus more men. We never built any real sort of professional standing army, most men had their training right in the heat of battle in their home towns.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    45. Re:One time experience? by russotto · · Score: 4, Insightful

      that whole part was done.. poorly. but lets assume it's true; you can inherit all the memories of the victim with poly juice...

      The whole point was that the Death Eater was so good at his impersonation of Moody that he taught the class just as Moody would have. So the best Defense Against Dark Arts teacher Harry Potter had was in fact a Death Eater. And that, Ms. Morissette, is irony.

      (the map being able to see right through the disguise, and no one noticing until far too late... now THAT was bad writing)

    46. Re:One time experience? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Couldn't he do the "Line Veto" thing where he could veto that particular section of the law and have them revote on it? Then they couldn't try and say he vetoed the bill as he essentially allowed it to pass, just with that 1 provision removed. And then it would have put the ball in their court again where they had 2/3rds of them voting to go over his head and allow this change, which for THEM would have been political suicide (hopefully)

    47. Re:One time experience? by Culture20 · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      It beats fighting for the freedom to speak by forcefully shutting down someone else's ability to live, like our founding fathers did.

      The symantics behind this are a little off... we fought with soldiers against soldiers... we did not destroy England to do so.

      England had no power to make us do anything except via their soldiers. The revolutionary minutemen forcefully shut down the redcoats' abilities to live. It wasn't some DDoS of inconvenience.

    48. Re:One time experience? by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Militias are composed of.....?

      Frontiersmen and Minutemen (well, minutemen get selected out of unrecognized militias.)

      Um, that was my point. I was using "militia" as shorthand for your "frontiersmen and minutemen." Who, routinely, constantly, got their asses handed to them by the British regulars.

      Oh, and no, we were getting our asses kicked until we had the EQUIPMENT from the French plus more men. We never built any real sort of professional standing army, most men had their training right in the heat of battle in their home towns.

      Washington would disagree with you. Seriously, read what he had to say sometime about the militias as opposed to his Continental Army sometime; it's not pretty. He built and trained an army of real soldiers, and the Revolution was won by those soldiers, not by a bunch of whoopin' and hollerin' irregulars running around in the woods.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    49. Re:One time experience? by joocemann · · Score: 5, Interesting

      In a corrupt world where money is speech, and the RIAA is tantamount to that point, you're nudging the idea that Anon did something wrong?

      If someone is, by corrupt basis, speaking so loudly that nobody else can be heard, it is heroic to take their megaphone away ( the megaphone they only got through corruption).

    50. Re:One time experience? by joocemann · · Score: 1

      +1 perfect

    51. Re:One time experience? by currently_awake · · Score: 1

      I was not aware that the US constitution granted congress the power to do that. I guess I'll have to re-read it.

    52. Re:One time experience? by currently_awake · · Score: 2

      We really need to make use of this ourselves. Add a line to some "must pass" bill shrinking copyright to 7 years only with no extensions.

    53. Re:One time experience? by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 3, Informative

      No. A line item veto for the President is unconstitutional. It was tried back in the 90s and overturned. You'd need an amendment to allow for it. State constitutions may or may not allow their governors to have line item vetos, but that's of no help at the federal level.

      Instead the President has to veto or approve entire bills.

      --
      -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
    54. Re:One time experience? by boorack · · Score: 1

      Geez. Those so called "captains of industry" are worse than soviet "nomenklatura" 30 years ago. They're openly pushing things against the will of "we the people" (and I'm not talking about government but about big business acquiring real power over us). Those fucks even don't hide it anymore.

      My feeling is we should not stop when they stop - we need to force them out of their powerful positions and bring them to justice. Should current laws be enforced, most of them would land in prison. If most of our big banks and corporations bring us nothing but corporate crime, we'd be way better without them. Forget about this "economies of scale" and "benefits of globalization" crap - indirect public costs associated with this seem to be way higher than gains thanks to "externalities".

    55. Re:One time experience? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think Poly Juice gives you their memories. You just take their form. Mad Eye would not have shown the students the unforgivable curses.

    56. Re:One time experience? by justforgetme · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I hardly doubt that.

      You cannot silence a person or movement by just DDoSing his official site. Everybody has alternative
      distribution routes. If Anon would really want to play dirty they wouldn't `deface` websites they hacked,
      they would introduce subtle, hard to identify changes that would work in a destructive manner to the
      hacked site once consumed by visitors.

      That RIAA guy is deploying classical diplomat tactics here: "deny that the voting was correctly educated
      on the topic until you can spin facts in your favor"

      Journalists and bloggers alike need to keep the consuming public alert of the fact that diplomats always
      speak on personal agenda, otherwise the future of free speech is bleak at best.

      --
      -- no sig today
    57. Re:One time experience? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or do what conservatives did in Canada and name it "Protecting Children from Online Perverts" bill. Now who would want to go on record as voting against protecting children, even if the bill doesnt have much to do with it.

    58. Re:One time experience? by steelfood · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Let's start with the fact that corporations don't have the freedom of speech. They're not endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    59. Re:One time experience? by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 3, Insightful

      what is the wisdom (or was the wisdom) in the idea of an all or nothing bill approval?

      sounds like it was DESIGNED to be gamed.

      I hear lots of respect for our constitution and method of justice, but the more I look, the sicker I get about it all. it may be better than what many other countries have, but its FAR from the best we could do or could have done. it a '1.0' effort if there ever was one. and the fact that its so damned hard to change is also a bug in the system.

      it seems we run on inertia and fumes and the gas tank has been empty for a long time, now. (sorry to mention gas; I know its also a touchy subject these days)

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    60. Re:One time experience? by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      voting for someone else?

      kang or kodos?

      being serious, as messed up as obama is, I can't see any of the loser repubs being better for the american people or even the world.

      we have a choice of sucks_a_lot or sucks_even_worse.

      some choice, huh?

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    61. Re:One time experience? by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "we" don't make laws. "we" have not had a say for generations, to be honest.

      this is the problem.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    62. Re:One time experience? by DarwinSurvivor · · Score: 4, Funny

      that whole part was done.. poorly. but lets assume it's true; you can inherit all the memories of the victim with poly juice...

      The whole point was that the Death Eater was so good at his impersonation of Moody that he taught the class just as Moody would have. So the best Defense Against Dark Arts teacher Harry Potter had was in fact a Death Eater. And that, Ms. Morissette, is irony.

      (the map being able to see right through the disguise, and no one noticing until far too late... now THAT was bad writing)

      Actually, that makes sense. For a car analogy, who better to teach you how to deal with car salesmen than a care salesman? *

      * My apologies to any reputable care salesmen or friends/relatives of reputable care salesmen on slashdot. **

      ** Why does that feel like apologizing to the tooth fairy?

    63. Re:One time experience? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      He never taught them how to use the curses. I'm going to assume there is more to it than knowing the correct words.

    64. Re:One time experience? by artor3 · · Score: 5, Informative

      False.

      Obama opposed the law, called it "ill-conceived" in his signing statement, and he has now issued executive orders curtailing its effect. Essentially, under his new guidelines, a panel of six people has to approve each such military detention. All six have to agree, i.e. each of the six has the ability to veto it and force the person to go through the civilian justice system. One of those members is the secretary of state (currently Ms. Clinton), whose primary job is keeping other countries happy with us.

      Of course, as soon as Obama is out of office, be that in one year or five, the next president can erase all that and come up with their own guidelines. It is a bad law, and it should be changed. But it won't be changed so long as Republicans control Congress.

    65. Re:One time experience? by artor3 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, the line item veto can also be gamed. Let's say that Obama and the Democrats propose a new bill. It raises taxes on the rich by 1% and uses that money to fund food banks. To get the Republicans on board (pretend for the moment that the current GOP strategy isn't to oppose everything with Obama's name on it), they also include a section in the bill that cuts corporate taxes by 1%. After both houses of Congress pass it, Obama could just line item veto the tax cut part, while keeping the part he wanted.

      Essentially, the line item veto allows the party that controls the White House to negotiate in bad faith. By making bills all or nothing, you make it possible for Congress to trust in the knowledge that the other side will keep their end of the bargain. The current system sucks, but line item vetos would be worse.

    66. Re:One time experience? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Which would be all well and good. Except that under this act, it would be impossible for you to prove in court that you are an American citizen, should you happen to be nabbed off the streets and taken to Gitmo (entirely by accident, I am sure).

    67. Re:One time experience? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's the problem of this age. Everyone think they can't do anything so they don't. Therefore nothing is changed.

      So, yes, he is [also] to blame.

    68. Re:One time experience? by khallow · · Score: 1

      Like any bad law, they can just keep bringing it up again and again and again and again, a hundred times a year if they want. All they need is one single success

      How much is it going to cost for that single success? Even if our resistance to such laws is ultimately overcome, it still costs them a lot more than they would spend, if we didn't.

    69. Re:One time experience? by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yes, proper wand movement. Any student paying close attention, like say Hermione, would probably be able to rip them right off. And didn't Harry use one of the curses with no other training, against Bellatrix?

      Wow, I never thought I'd construct a comment nerdier than one deconstruction Star Wars. Thank god I'm in a relationship now.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    70. Re:One time experience? by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      It will be the poison pill that must be swallowed in order to keep the country running.

      That's not what poison spill legislation is. Poison pill is when something totally outrageous is put on a bill someone doesn't like in order to kill it, like "... and income tax is 70% for those who earn under $100,000 per year." or "... and all paedophiles in prison get a pardon and state sponsored housing for the next 20 years."

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    71. Re:One time experience? by Jawnn · · Score: 1

      "we" don't make laws. "we" have not had a say for generations, to be honest.

      this is the problem.

      Bingo. This is precisely why questioning the "ethics" of the actions of Anonymous is absurd.

    72. Re:One time experience? by flyneye · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well, let's talk about Cary and his band of thieves calling the kettle black.
      Whining little bitch is holdin on to his CEO title tight, 'cause he knows the industrys days are numbered and all he can do is harvest from courts.
      Well if he thinks we should sit still and give his lies calm consideration he should lie in one hand and shit in the other, then see which hand fills up first.
      The internet has empowered people to Open-Government in an indirect way. The people are saying "NO!" in a very God-like way," we are tired of you witholding talent and ripping off musicians for more than a century.We are tired of your manipulation guiding the path of the music we hear.We don't acknowledge your right to survive and continue to screw us all with your antics over the years. We see that musicians can live better without you and prosper. No industry is needed for this scenario. BTW, go die.We will also out your paid politicians treason and they will have nothing more to do with you. Viva la Revolution"

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
    73. Re:One time experience? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      RIAA and MPAA will try again. The only way to stop them is making them realize that there can and will be a serious downside. At this point in time society grants some obscene 50 to 70 years monopolies for creative content. Compare that to some 12 years only for pharmaceuticals which require enormous investments. There is no real reason for the obscene duration for the monopolies granted for creative content. The only reason for their existence is a corrupted political system bribed by campaign contributions to fail their fiduciary duty to citizens and society to get this in the public domain as soon as possible. So lets start a discussion to shorten the duration of these monopolies to the duration comparable with pharmaceuticals 12 years. Only if RIAA and MPAA give up there meddling one might consider a few years more.

    74. Re:One time experience? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agreed with you in a disagreement sort of way. So I modded you Score 0, Insightful

    75. Re:One time experience? by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 2

      Let's start with the fact that corporations don't have the freedom of speech. They're not endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.

      However, corporations are composed of people who are so endowed. Those people do not lose their rights just because they choose to form a corporation. That is the basis for the Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United. The Supreme Court found that the people who formed Citizens United had the right to form such a corporation in order to say certain things and the fact that they had formed a corporation did not diminish their right to say those things.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    76. Re:One time experience? by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      Oh come on, is there anything he has done that makes you think he meant that? This is way down on the list of things he has done that violate that oath (although I agree that a President should veto any bill that he thinks violates the Constitution). He "recess" appointed several people while the Senate was in session in clear violation of the Constitution. He amended the No Child Left Behind Act by granting waivers to states for some of the provisions, even though there is no provision in any law for such waivers. There are other things that could be listed, but those two are not just failures to defend the Constitution, but outright violations of it.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    77. Re:One time experience? by ifrag · · Score: 2

      and the fact that its so damned hard to change is also a bug in the system

      Working as intended? You might not like the system requirements, but that doesn't make it a bug.

      --
      Fear is the mind killer.
    78. Re:One time experience? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 2

      I hope you don't support that decision, it was extremely damaging to the US' democracy.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    79. Re:One time experience? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Mod parent Insightful!

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    80. Re:One time experience? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      supplies?

      Would that be fries, cheese and monkeys?

    81. Re:One time experience? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, the relative difficulty of "working around" (i.e. disregarding or ludicrously reinterpreting) it vs. changing it is a bug.

      The absolute difficulty of changing it is a feature; read the documentation (federalist papers). The line item veto isn't the unambiguous good you think (see artor3's reply), but if it were, and if we were accustomed to considering and voting on amendments when we realized a deficiency, instead of asspulling an "interstate commerce" justification, do you really think we wouldn't/couldn't pass it?

    82. Re:One time experience? by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      How does allowing people to group together with others to express their political opinions damage democracy? Or are you one of those people who believe that only corporations that own newspapers/magazines/television stations should be allowed to promote their political opinions? Or maybe you think that only those individuals wealthy enough to buy airtime/print ads/billboards should be able to express their opinion? If I need to pool my money with others in order to do so, you don't want to hear what I have to say?

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    83. Re:One time experience? by Chowderbags · · Score: 2

      I'll be a'ok with the argument that human rights flow from people to corporations just as soon as legal responsibility flows back from corporations to people. If we as a society accept the legal fiction that corporations are a separate entity from the people running them then the entire argument that the rights flow from the actual humans to the corporation falls apart. At that point it isn't legally just a group of people getting together to send out a message, it's something wholly separate.

    84. Re:One time experience? by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      The question still is, why should the New York Times Corporation get protected by the First Amendment but Citizens United Corporation shouldn't?

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    85. Re:One time experience? by Strawser · · Score: 1

      Actually, Anonymous "formed", as it were, years ago, and they did it for the lulz, not for vigilante justice against the growing influence of corporate fascism. They just happened to jump on this, also.

      --
      The louder he talked of his honour, the faster we counted our spoons. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson
    86. Re:One time experience? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Let's not dance around the issue. The decision allowed money to have more say in politics, that's a bad thing in any case IMO since I believe you should speak with your words and not your cash (that includes using money to set up a platform for more powerful speech - a more difficult issue, but I don't believe that fighting unwanted money influence with MORE unwanted money influence is a good idea), but it's an especially bad thing in a world where corporations and the super-rich run rampant, holding most of the money. I think this article says it all:

      http://edition.cnn.com/2012/02/15/opinion/wertheimer-super-pacs/index.html

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    87. Re:One time experience? by jedidiah · · Score: 2

      That is a rather disingenuous description of what a modern corporation is. In practice, they are not terribly democratic entities. They are closely held cartels made up of a small number of the ultra wealthy.

      No one else has any power.

      This leads to small cartels of the ultra-wealthy being given unfettered abilities to distort public discourse in their favor.

      Natural Rights should not be extended to entities that have no moral responsibility nor any moral awareness.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    88. Re:One time experience? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Probably - it's so annoying when they do stuff like that. Really should be ways to punish members of the legislative body when they do stuff like that. Of course, who are the ones who decide what is and isn't illegal? Thus, the core of the problem. There should be a way for the public to pass laws (of course, still being subject to the same constraints as normal laws in so far as the Supreme Court being able to throw them out and all) without the legislative body being able to interfere beyond their own votes as citizens.

    89. Re:One time experience? by SirGeek · · Score: 1

      If only the founding father's included a reciprocity clause in the constitution to the effect of: If you attempt to take away free speech, we cut out your tongue.

      I would say we cut something off that hangs LOWER ...

    90. Re:One time experience? by SirGeek · · Score: 2

      He should have vetoed it no question. But...

      it doesn't matter if Congress would have voted for it (which is questionable

      It was nowhere near questionable. Congress had enough votes on both sides of the aisle to override a veto. The Senate passed it 88 to 12 and the house passed it 283 to 136. Sadly, it was supported by our legislatures, our two parties, and our President.

      And one other little tidbit to think about, Who WROTE the law ? Not President Obama.

    91. Re:One time experience? by maple_shaft · · Score: 1

      We never built any real sort of professional standing army, most men had their training right in the heat of battle in their home towns.

      I advise you pick up a history book. We had a relatively well organized professional standing army consisting of multiple generals (Washington, Greene, etc...) and they provided a lot of training. The problem was that they were outgunned, outskilled and outnumbered by the British regulars, but then again, every nation was. The British military was the envy of every nation.

      Everything back then was Napoleanic style so the measure of your army was really in the structure, order, rigid discipline and morale that you instilled in your men. Each side reloaded, shot, repeated and marched, and if you were in the front of the line and didn't piss your pants or rout then your army would overcome. This is why well supplied and well troops were important because they had more morale which gave them less fear, which meant less soldiers running away in terror. Washington and many of the officers knew all of this and had the top British military training being veterans of the French-Indian war. The troops had top training, just poorly supplied, poorly fed and poorly equipped.

    92. Re:One time experience? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We're talking about Cary Sherman and the RIAA here.

      What was it Mad-Eye Moody was saying during D-A-D-A classes? Oh yeah - CONSTANT VIGILANCE.

      Actually, that was Barty Crouch Jr. masquerading as Moody via polyjuice potion. ...though it is something Moody would have said.

    93. Re:One time experience? by maple_shaft · · Score: 1

      Let's start with the fact that corporations don't have the freedom of speech. They're not endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.

      However, corporations are composed of people who are so endowed. Those people do not lose their rights just because they choose to form a corporation. That is the basis for the Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United. The Supreme Court found that the people who formed Citizens United had the right to form such a corporation in order to say certain things and the fact that they had formed a corporation did not diminish their right to say those things.

      And this has what to do with speech = money? And even if we accept that speech = money, are the people that compose a corporation spending their own money/speech on political bribes ... er.... I mean advertisements?

    94. Re:One time experience? by zeroshade · · Score: 3

      There's a difference between promoting a political opinion and directly financing a campaign. If the people who have grouped together want to give money to a campaign, then they can do so of their own money and their own will. The corporation itself, the manifestation of the group, should not be able to.

    95. Re:One time experience? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      YES it is right, cause without (a la Anon.) this issue would have come ,gone,and been passed like all the other bad laws that go through without hitch, and your only comments would have been like all the other Slashdot comments, one or two jokes then sigh as you accept the law and move on with your life. (a la Anon.) Is believe it or not, NOT a corporation its people who have things to do, STOPPING to focus on taking action.

      Even in the hacker world, it’s not worth it to hack without some sort of reward. This is saying a lot when all these people come together give up their time, to take action and make a real change, they got a bad bill removed that otherwise would have been forced down our throat by an industry more powerful than YOUR voice. ANNOYMOUS takes action on what you’re thinking, but too afraid to do. Do you honestly think, if you speak out against RIAA, PIPA, SOPA, BIG MEDIA, and get large enough, as an individual you will not be harassed by them.

      If you try to think through this..step by step you will see no one person is in any position to spear head taking on the Big Media without suffering the effects. Think of it this way, (a la Anon.) is not silencing a small child trying to talk, but a BRUT who yells daily at all of us and will happily SUE any mother, child OR person on this planet to make a profit. Without regard of who you are, what’s happen and doesn’t even bother to be fair. I didn't see you in the newspapers pushing to stop them or anyone else. It’s pretty sad day when (a la Anon.) has to become our voice because we too afraid to take action, other than quirty comments on some online geek forum before we slide back into silent depths of the internet sea.

    96. Re:One time experience? by maple_shaft · · Score: 1

      Even if his vote had been overridden, taking a stand against a bad bill like this would have increased his political capital among his voters. The problem with Obama is that he doesn't care about his voters, he only cares about getting re-elected, so he's brazenly assumed that all the Democrat voters are automatically going to turn out and vote for him in November, so he doesn't have to do anything to keep them happy, so all his moves are to act like a Republican, so that he can get as many "swing" voters as possible, plus as many on the right as possible.

      Here is a brief lesson in American politics. Republican voters don't win elections for Republican presidents. Democrat voters do not win elections for Democrat presidents. It is the hopelessly ignorant, easily led astray masses of Independents and Undecideds that are highly susceptible to media blitz campaigns that decide the President.

      When that bill ended up on Obamas desk, you could have heard Admiral Ackbar screaming, "ITS A TRAP!" from a mile away. It was designed such that Republicans could manufacture a political disaster for him in the upcoming election if he had veto'ed the damn bill. The lesser of two evils here applies. If you turn around and vote for Romney then I guaran-FUCKING-tee you the first thing on his agenda will be to privatize social security, giving all of your retirement away to his ass-hat yachting buddies on Wall Street. You will never see that money as long as you live. Please God tell me the American people are not this ignorant.

    97. Re:One time experience? by dwpro · · Score: 2

      Corporations are nothing like collective representations of individuals, they are liability shielding profit vehicles. As it stands, many of us are represented by organizations opposite our values via pensions and large investment collectives, and personally I would rather not have to worry about my money running around and misrepresenting me in my 401k or pension. Do you vet and accept the political speech on your behalf on each of the entities of which you have an investment? If you do, you're in a very small minority. and I'd rather just keep the politics out of the abstraction of investment. I support individuals speaking as a group, but corporations and businesses speaking on behalf of their investors politically seems like a bad idea.

      --
      Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon. -- Susan Ertz
    98. Re:One time experience? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Personally I'm thinking it'd be better to let Romney or even Santorum win the election at this point. The worse the President, the better, because that'll make the country collapse faster, instead of making us suffer longer. The faster the country falls apart, the sooner we can get to work rebuilding something better, because what we have now just isn't worth expending any effort at all to sustain. It's broken beyond repair.

    99. Re:One time experience? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, he did, but he didn't do it very well. Bellatrix taunted him and said "You have to MEAN it"

    100. Re:One time experience? by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      Why do you believe that the New York Times Corporation has more right to express their political opinion than the Citizens United Corporation? Which is what the law the Supreme Court overturned in the Citizens United case said.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    101. Re:One time experience? by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      Why should the New York Times Corporation have more First Amendment rights than the Citizens United Corporation?

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    102. Re:One time experience? by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 0

      are the people that compose a corporation spending their own money/speech on political bribes ... er.... I mean advertisements?

      Does the New York Times Corporation have more First Amendment rights than the Citizens United Corporation?

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    103. Re:One time experience? by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      So why does the New York Times Corporation get an exemption?

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    104. Re:One time experience? by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      Why does the New York Times Corporation get more First Amendment rights than the Citizens United Corporation?

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    105. Re:One time experience? by FreeUser · · Score: 2

      The Supreme Court found that the people who formed Citizens United had the right to form such a corporation in order to say certain things and the fact that they had formed a corporation did not diminish their right to say those things.

      Which completely ignores the emergent properties of large groups and corporations, such as the mutliplicative effect of mob power, the internal enforcement of speech and attitude (if you say something that pisses off the group, you're out of the group), and the power of the mob to deny others their rights. It also ignores the inequalities between one person speaking their mind, and an organization pommelling back with organized propoganda at a scale only an organization can achieve. To equate the two is idiocy...unless your goal is to replace democracy with corpratism, which more and more circumstancial evidence seems to indicate that the majority of supreme court justices are looking to achieve.

      Worse, and more fundamental, the Supreme Court seems to think money equals speech. Which maybe it does for people used to being bribed, but for human beings with a modicum of ethical sense and knowledge of the difference between right and wrong, the two things are clearly and fundamentally different. But not anymore, thanks to the Citizen United Abortion of Justice.

      --
      The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
    106. Re:One time experience? by kilfarsnar · · Score: 1

      Thanks for that link. It's hard to know what to think these days. It seems almost everyone with information also has an agenda. Is it any wonder the American public is so mis/uninformed when the objective of so many is not to inform but to manipulate? My sig gets more true every day.

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
    107. Re:One time experience? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suppose you just happened to miss the FACT that the Obama Administration requested that the very provision you have cited be removed from the bill?

    108. Re:One time experience? by IronAmbassador · · Score: 1

      Creating the corporation never stopped anyone from still having their individual voice.

      Before Citizens United they were prevented from having, in addition to their individual voice, an additional "super voice" controlled by the owner(s) of the corporation they bought into.

      That "super voice" should never be put on the same level as a single individual. For how can a single person compete with an aggregate of thousands?

      Now we have to put up with all this PAC crap as a result.

    109. Re:One time experience? by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      Why does the law in question in the case give the New York Times Corporation more First Amendment protection than it gives Citizens United?

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    110. Re:One time experience? by Hatta · · Score: 1

      The first is that a veto not only would have been over ridden by both houses, but would have been EASILY over ridden.

      That's no excuse. Make the fascists fight for fascism in public, where everyone can see.

      Now, you can always make the argument that it would have raised his standing among members of the public to veto it... but I'm not so sure.

      I don't care. He violated his oath to defend the constitution. He is totally unfit for office.

      And that's pretty much political suicide.

      That's the fundamental problem with the American system. Anyone who's working to save their hide, instead of fixing the utterly broken system is not a friend of freedom. He could have used this opportunity to illustrate how broken the system is. People don't like riders.

      Instead, he *chose* to sell out the American people and betray his oath to the constitution. Hang the bastard.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    111. Re:One time experience? by artor3 · · Score: 1

      Well if we're assuming that the government is ignoring the law and just straight up abducting people, then it doesn't much matter what the law says, now does it? They could have kidnapped people without passing anything. Thankfully, for all America's problems, we're not yet that far gone.

      If you think we are, then there's no point discussing it, since no matter what they write on paper, you could still choose to believe as you do. Your belief is non-falsifiable.

    112. Re:One time experience? by Hatta · · Score: 1

      He did the absolute best he could do to diminish the effect of the law, but there was nothing he could do to stop it. If you don't like it, then don't sit out the midterms. The idiot "liberals" who handed Congress over to the Repubs in 2010 by staying home are responsible for every bit of harm the GOP has done.

      Bullshit. It was clear by 2010 that the Obama was no friend of liberty, and neither were any other Democrats. Any continued show of support for Democrats would have legitimized this, and every other horrible policy foreign and domestic Obama is responsible for.

      If you want liberal voters, you have to govern in a way that's distinguishable from a neocon. Obama hasn't and he doesn't deserve a single liberal vote.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    113. Re:One time experience? by Hatta · · Score: 1

      Obama opposed the law

      Signing a law is not opposition.

      called it "ill-conceived" in his signing statement

      Signing statements are meaningless. To whatever extent they have meaning, they are unconstitutional. Laws are written by the legislature.

      and he has now issued executive orders curtailing its effect

      Which will do absolutely nothing to prevent future presidents from recinding those orders and detaining anyone he wants for as long as he wants for whatever reason he wants.

      Of course, as soon as Obama is out of office, be that in one year or five, the next president can erase all that and come up with their own guidelines

      Exactly. Obama signed the law for political leverage. Now he can fear monger more effectively about what a republican president would do. Such cynical politicking with our basic liberties should not be rewarded.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    114. Re:One time experience? by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      Really, you mean that the New York Times Corporation does not have any more "voice" than an average citizen? Why does the New York Times Corporation have more right to a say in public dialogue than Citizens United Corporation?

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    115. Re:One time experience? by IronAmbassador · · Score: 2

      Stop spamming your damn New York Times prattle already.

      We agree that if you compare two corporations they should be treated equally.

      But Citizens United also said that these corporations should be compared to people. And that's what's pissing everyone off.

      Neither NYT or CU should have a voice.

    116. Re:One time experience? by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      The case in question was whether or not Citizens United could distribute their movie about Hilary Clinton within the 60 days before the election. The FEC said that the law said that they could not...maybe it would help if you were familiar with the law that was being challenged in that case. That law treated Citizens United differently than it treated the New York Times.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    117. Re:One time experience? by tqk · · Score: 1

      The question still is, why should the New York Times Corporation get protected by the First Amendment but Citizens United Corporation shouldn't?

      i) Freedom of the Press is explicitly named in the 1st.
      ii) The shareholders of Citizens United Corp. are already protected by the 1st.
      iii) Because it shouldn't. See ii).

      I realize iii) is a value judgment, but similar judgments were made creating the patent and copyright regimes.

      What is gained for society by giving golems freedom of speech? The golem's owners already enjoy that freedom. Why do they deserve a second kick at the can?

      --
      "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
    118. Re:One time experience? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My God man! It's obvious you've never been subject to massive monkey wave attacks. You get those simian bastards hopped up on french fries and cheese and they're damn near unstoppable!

    119. Re:One time experience? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it may be better than what many other countries have, but its FAR from the best we could do or could have done

      the US system is actually worse then pretty much all constitutional democracies. Just my opinion.

    120. Re:One time experience? by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      The first person to actually address the point. The law being challnged in the Citizens United case gave special privileges to corporations like the New York Times that it restricted from corporations like Citizens United. Citizens United was a corporation created expressly for the purpose of making a film about Hillary Clinton. The law said that they could not distribute that film within 60 days (I believe that is the correct number) of the election, yet allowed the New York Times to endorse a candidate (or to negatively comment about a candidate).
      The best information I have been able to find suggests that the word "press" as used by the Framers of the Constitution refers to printing press, not news media. That is, a reading of the First Amendment relative to that would be "Congress shall make no law abridging people's right to publish whatever they want."
      I do not believe there is any way to limit the ability of corporations to publish what they want that does not result in the government picking and choosing who gets to control public dialogue about political issues. And if the government starts picking and choosing who gets to control the public dialogue, it will not be long before the people it chooses are those who support the politicians who are in power.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    121. Re:One time experience? by TheSpoom · · Score: 1

      The first is that a veto not only would have been over ridden by both houses, but would have been EASILY over ridden.

      And that's why he should have taken a page from the Bush playbook and written a line-item veto. If they had overridden that, they would have looked like dicks.

      I don't like that this is the way that the game is played... but it is.

      Can we get someone who will just up and say "fuck the game, this is what I believe in, take it or leave it," please? (Ron Paul is close but I disagree with some of his more extreme viewpoints, and some of the "states control everything, federal controls next to nothing" ideas as well.)

      --
      It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
      - E. Debs
    122. Re:One time experience? by TheSpoom · · Score: 1

      Of course, as soon as Obama is out of office, be that in one year or five, the next president can erase all that and come up with their own guidelines.

      This is the problem, because the guidelines under a Republican president will be "because I say so." Guaranteed.

      --
      It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
      - E. Debs
    123. Re:One time experience? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Women would get a free pass in that case.

    124. Re:One time experience? by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      Hopefully, we can get the rest of the liberal progressives out of congress this time around.

      Frankly, I think they all need to leave, and let us start over. No one from congress can run again...start fresh. But hopefully on a more realistic thought...lets at least get out the people that are trying to grow the federal govt in size and influence over the states....repeal the obamacare laws, and try to honestly start cutting govt and reducing the deficit.

      I don't hold that much hope for the Reps, but anything has got to be better than what we've dealt with the past 3+ years.

      I'd vote for a small soap dish over BHO....

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    125. Re:One time experience? by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "Each side reloaded, shot, repeated and marched,"

      Hell no, we were given a terrorist label by the British Monarchy for a reason. We routinely ignored those conventions of war, from the 1770s past the civil war.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    126. Re:One time experience? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      The NYT is a for-profit media company. Certainly they can hold political sway as a side effect. Citizens United exists purely for channeling and laundering donations to political candidates. If Citizens United started a for-profit or non-profit media company instead, similar to the NYT, except with the express intention of political shilling, that would have been better. Make them play by the same rules.

      I don't want to level the playing field if it means giving anyone more money influence. It's like countering a bad regulation with another bad regulation, surely you can understand.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    127. Re:One time experience? by WhyNotAskMe · · Score: 1

      What struck me was how his reaction was so reminiscent of Former Senator Chris Dodd, the Chairman and CEO of the Motion Picture Association of America, when he felt betrayed after the defeat of SOPA and PIPA in spite of having paid millions in "bribes" to congressmen and senators. He said to them, "Those who count on 'Hollywood' for support need to understand that this industry is watching very carefully who's going to stand up for them when their job is at stake. Don't ask me to write a check for you when you think your job is at risk and then don't pay any attention to me when my job is at stake," Many feel this is an open admission of bribery.

    128. Re:One time experience? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem as I see it is there is no distinction between a corporation that consists of a group of people who have specifically joined together to achieve a common goal, and a corporation that is simply my workplace, where I not only may not agree with their political ideals, I whole-heartedly disagree with them.

    129. Re:One time experience? by Tristonian · · Score: 1

      Just like how the "moral objections" amendment that would have allowed any employer to decline portions of a healthcare to their employees on the basis it conflicts with their personally and allegedly private beliefs... was attempted to be passed in a transportation bill!

    130. Re:One time experience? by tqk · · Score: 1

      I do not believe there is any way to limit the ability of corporations to publish what they want that does not result in the government picking and choosing who gets to control public dialogue about political issues.

      This makes no sense. I say again, the shareholders of that corporation are already individually protected by the 1st. Why does a business entity made up of the banding together of those shareholders deserve to have its "freedom of speech" protected in addition to the protection already afforded the individual shareholders? What is gained in that situation except the bullying power of corporate machinery?

      And how in the world do you get, "government picking and choosing who gets to control public dialogue" out of this? Every individual citizen is already protected, so where's the leeway for gov't to pick and choose?

      --
      "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
    131. Re:One time experience? by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      HOLD STRONG SISTERS AND BROTHERS!

      Lots easier to hold weak sisters and brothers than it is to hold strong ones.

    132. Re:One time experience? by dwpro · · Score: 1

      I would say that's a separate issue, and I'm in agreement with you that the media has far too much influence in elections.

      --
      Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon. -- Susan Ertz
    133. Re:One time experience? by FishOuttaWater · · Score: 1

      "We?" How old *are* you?!

    134. Re:One time experience? by webheaded · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately any attempt to change it in this day and age would completely ruin it. We're stuck with what we've got because the people who could potentially change it are so thoroughly corrupt that we would NOT like what they did.

      --
      "Those who would sacrifice essential liberties for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - BenF
    135. Re:One time experience? by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      Why does the New York Times Corporation get special privileges? The law in question in the Citizens United case gave the New York Times privileges it did not give Citizens United.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    136. Re:One time experience? by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      So, if Citizens United had bought a newspaper company than you would accept that they had the right to distribute their movie about Hillary Clinton right up until election day?
      Citizens United existed solely for the purpose of creating a movie about Hillary Clinton, not to promote someone's candidacy, but to oppose someone's candidacy.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    137. Re:One time experience? by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      The law in question in the Citizens United case had special exemptions in place for "media" companies. Why should it matter if I own a "media" company or not as to what I can publish?
      I should check that we agree that movies/tv shows/music/internet blogs are protected under the First Amendment by the combination of the "speech" clause and the "press" clause (the latter which refers to printing press, not "news media"). Is this correct?
      If freedom of the press applies to the New York Times Corporation, it applies to Citizens United Corporation (or any other corporation for that matter).

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    138. Re:One time experience? by danbert8 · · Score: 1

      Nope, sadly the Republicans are doing everything they can to put a big government idiot up against him. What do you do when liberals can't vote for a democrat and conservatives can't vote for a republican?

      --
      Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
    139. Re:One time experience? by danbert8 · · Score: 1

      But Ron Paul is the only candidate who has an iota's chance of getting elected. You may not agree with 100%, but he is still 90% better than anyone else who is running. Let him cut as much spending as he can in 4 years and then we'll run another election. If Ron Paul doesn't get the nomination (and it's not looking promising right now) it will be the end of the republican party. Between the sellout (Gingrich), the liberal (Romney), and the religious nutjob (Santorum), none of them can win a general election. Heck none of them can win more than 30-some percent of republican votes.

      Ron Paul if given the nod will get all of his supporters (who will vote for him regardless if he gets the nomination or not) PLUS:
      Anyone who votes for whoever has an (R) next to their name
      Anyone who wants real spending cuts
      Anyone who values states rights
      Anyone who wants to end wars
      Democrats who are pissed off at Obama

      That all adds up to Ron Paul and Obama statistically tied for a general election win. And if he gets the Republican nomination, that will surely bump him over the edge.

      --
      Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
    140. Re:One time experience? by Thuktun · · Score: 1

      You seem to be suggesting that a line-item veto would be immune to Congress' power to override a Presidential veto.

    141. Re:One time experience? by Foobar+of+Borg · · Score: 1

      We're talking about Jews, here—there's a difference: One takes things out of your house but the other takes you out of your house.

      while were at it .. Fat Disgusting White Women. the ones who smell like sour milk cuz they cant properly clean between all the rolls of fat. theyre niggers too. their kids are always half black with their poofy shitty nappy hair. when you see em out in public you knwo what you never see with theM? thats right, the baby-daddy. and you never will. he was just a sperm donor. he found another fat disgusting white woman to fuck, or maybe one of those black women who acts all militaristic like she grew up in boot camp even though she didnt. really whats wrong with these fat chicks? they never heard of birth control or somethin? they think the ghetto nigger is gonna stay with them? they think anybody wants to be seen with them? fuck. just like the 350lb women who spend a lot of money to get their hair permed. what the fuck for? you cant polish a turd. they think men say "well her hairs nice so ill ignore the digusting rolls of lard that id need a bag of flour to find the wet spot in"?

      While I find your ideas intriguing, please don't write a newsletter. No one will subscribe to it.

    142. Re:One time experience? by Hatta · · Score: 1

      One big government idiot over another big government idiot. Why should I vote Obama? It's obviously not going to prevent things like the NDAA getting passed. So what's the point?

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    143. Re:One time experience? by Foobar+of+Borg · · Score: 1

      "We?" How old *are* you?!

      "No one has ever known we were among you. Until now..."

    144. Re:One time experience? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then we would all be blind and toothless.

    145. Re:One time experience? by DinDaddy · · Score: 1

      Sorry I called your wife a bloated warthog.

      Good day.

    146. Re:One time experience? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So the American revolution wasn't started by a bunch of terrorists?

    147. Re:One time experience? by DinDaddy · · Score: 1

      Your entire post gives reasons why Obama may have signed this bill while being against the portions for detaining citizens. Since he is actively in support of a currently running a UAV program used to execute the occasional citizen without a trial - (some deservedly so, some maybe not, but regardless there should be some sort of trial: http://www.salon.com/2011/10/20/the_killing_of_awlakis_16_year_old_son/ )

      I am guessing he doesn't have much heartburn with mere detention.

    148. Re:One time experience? by Genda · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, but until the common man has;

      • - The Corporate Veil
      • - Unlimited lifespan
      • - Virtually unlimited financial resources
      • - Therefore, virtually unlimited legal resources
      • - Advantage of IP ownership
      • - Profound access through lobby power, to political representatives

      Then sane and substantial restrictions on the rights and freedoms of corporations, as corporations need to created and enforced. The people of which the corporation is composed should be afforded all the rights of any person, but when those individuals have access to the power and rights of the corporation, the expression of rights in service to that corporation must be strictly limited to address the unfair advantage that corporations have over human beings..

      The Scalia decision giving corporations unrestrained access to our government has been incredibly damaging to democracy and in fact points use dangerously in the direction of becoming (even more of) a fascist state. There is clearly today as much a need of separation of corporation and state as there is a need to separate church and state.

    149. Re:One time experience? by tqk · · Score: 1

      Why does the New York Times Corporation get special privileges? The law in question in the Citizens United case gave the New York Times privileges it did not give Citizens United.

      You're a 'bot. You don't listen to replies. You reply to every answer with the same damned loaded question.

      !@#$ you.

      --
      "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
    150. Re:One time experience? by am+2k · · Score: 1

      As far as I remember from the books, the spells also require a certain set of mind (blind rage for Avada Kedavra or something like that), just like the Patronus charm requires you to recall a good memory.

    151. Re:One time experience? by am+2k · · Score: 1

      Actually, in my experience having HP knowledge is actually a bonus to many girls.

    152. Re:One time experience? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      My lady found the whole series on DVD for $20 on eBay, cracked keepcase. Win, win. If anyone wants a HD-DVD/DVD combo of order of the phoenix I have one lying around, I'll never get HD-DVD. I already have LD, how many dead formats do I need.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    153. Re:One time experience? by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      Why should the government be allowed to restrict Citizens United corporation's speech differently than it restricts the New York Times' speech? How does the government deciding which corporations qualify for "freedom of speech" not damage democracy even more than what you are complaining about (not without merit)?

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    154. Re:One time experience? by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      That is because only one or two people have answered the question. If we are going to discuss the issue of corporate speech, we need to recognize that most of our news media is composed of corporations. What gives those corporations different rights regarding freedom of expression than other corporations? For that matter is it a good thing if those news media corporations have different rights regarding freedom of expression from other corporations? I would contend that it is a bad thing for the government to decide that certain corporations have a right to freedom of expression, but other corporations do not. Because once the government starts making that distinction, it will not be long until those corporations that are deemed to have a right to "freedom of expression" are only those who use it to support the positions of those in power.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    155. Re:One time experience? by oiron · · Score: 1

      Since you seem to want to flood every single post with the same question, someone might as well answer you:

      First, corporations don't have rights to freedom of speech (aside: for heaven's sake, stop calling them "First Ammendent" rights - the rest of the world has fundamental rights too, you know). Only people have such rights. When people band together to form a corporation, it's still only those people who have the right to life, right to freedom of speech, belief, or anything else. A corporation is merely an association of persons that is treated as a single entity, so that the individuals involved have limited liability. Under US law, it would appear to be difficult to create corporate rights without hacking them into a form of "person" which somehow has to have a right to life, though it's not alive in the first place... In other countries, we have much better systems where the rights of a corporation are established by a separate act of the legislature. They are not people, but can be treated as having rights and duties similar to people for certain purposes (like appearances in court, etc).

      Second, and more importantly, the NYT does not speak. Reporters and editors, and columnists speak within the pages of the NYT's publications. Every article (or most, at least) will have a by-line, showing just who wrote it. It's the people speaking, not the corporation. Just who's doing the speaking again, in the Citizens United case?

      And the most important - the case wasn't about speech. It was about funding. The idea is that a candidate's run for office should stand on its own merits, and not be won or lost merely on the basis of money. An individual speaking in support of a candidate is different from a company being hired for its own profit motive, to create a documentary about a candidate, and calling for their victory or defeat. An election is a very tricky subject - it's important that it's free and fair, and that the people are given information and not propaganda. I personally feel that both sides in the US (and god knows! elsewhere in the world) are equally guilty of violating this. But allowing unregulated campaign contributions blocked off by the veil of corporate personhood is NOT the right way of going about correcting this.

    156. Re:One time experience? by oiron · · Score: 1

      The best information I have been able to find suggests that the word "press" as used by the Framers of the Constitution refers to printing press, not news media. That is, a reading of the First Amendment relative to that would be "Congress shall make no law abridging people's right to publish whatever they want."

      I've personally never understood this fetishism about what the Framers of the Constitution wanted or didn't want, in the US context. Maybe it's because quite a few of my constitution's framers are still alive and the memory is still fresh in our minds; maybe it's because our constitution has been amended 96 times, so I don't see it as the Ten Commandments, but it still puzzles me!

      What's important is how to use the law in current context, not how the law worked in 1792, when a "car" meant something pulled by a horse, electric was something to do with amber, and ships couldn't navigate right into the wind... Your constitution is good, much of what its framers said and wrote is interesting, but it's not context-free. Times change, and the interpretation of the law has to change with times. That's why we have a common law system in both our countries...

    157. Re:One time experience? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      'clarity and integrity' of broadcast journalists." LMAO, right this man hit it on the nail on the head... Unreal

    158. Re:One time experience? by bhtooefr · · Score: 1

      In which case you also need a line item congressional vote.

      Or, you know, just don't do omnibus bills - each individual change is its own bill.

    159. Re:One time experience? by Some+Bitch · · Score: 1

      supplies?

      Would that be fries, cheese and monkeys?

      I've said this before on Slashdot but these comments piss me off. The French were instrumental in helping you kick our arses and becoming independent, show them some respect or give them the Statue of Liberty back.

    160. Re:One time experience? by bhtooefr · · Score: 1

      Vote for a third-party candidate?

    161. Re:One time experience? by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      Just who's doing the speaking again, in the Citizens United case?

      Well, if you go to IMDB you discover that the movie being discussed in the Citizens United case does have a writer, actually it has three. They are Alan Peterson, who is also the director, Lee Troxler, and Michale Wright. Additionally, if one looks at the cast, one discovers a list of cast members, many of whom are known for writing political opinion columns. So, guess what, the Citizens United case was about a place where individual people were speaking, just as much as individual people are speaking in the pages of the NYT.

      And the most important - the case wasn't about speech. It was about funding.

      So, the NYT corporation does not provide the funding for publication and distribution of the speech of its writers? Speech which frequently and consistently expresses a political view, especially as one approaches election. How is the NYT corporation providing the funding for the distribution of the political views of its writers different than Citizens United providing funding for the distribution of the political views of the people involved with Hillary: The Movie?

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    162. Re:One time experience? by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      Because if you use the words according to changes in the definition over time, you no longer have a document that provides for a government that is by rule of law, because politicians, and others, will distort the meanings of words so as to allow them to do what they want rather than being limited by a set of rules. One of the intents of the Framers of the Constitution was to create a document which limited the power of government. I heartily approve of that intention because when the government does not have strictly limited powers, the people do not have any rights, even if the government pretends to give them some for a period of time. If the government gives you "rights", they are not rights, they are privileges that the government may revoke at any time.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    163. Re:One time experience? by wonkavader · · Score: 1

      OK, you understand the gag of Kang and Kodos is that America is so frightened of voting for a third party that one of the two has to win. "What? And throw your vote away? HAHAHAHAHA!"

      When faced with the choice of two evils, YOU MUST NOT VOTE FOR EITHER ONE.

      Take a look at Rocky Anderson.

    164. Re:One time experience? by Trogre · · Score: 1

      Well "we" kind of asked for exactly this, by insisting on a two-party system.

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    165. Re:One time experience? by zeroshade · · Score: 1

      Exemption from what? If the NYT is giving money directly to finance a campaign, I have a problem with that just as if any other company was financing a campaign.

    166. Re:One time experience? by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      The Citizens United case was about a corporation that created a movie about Hillary Clinton (a negatvie one) that was told it could not show this movie on cable TV within 60 days of the primaries because it violated campaign finance laws. Yet, the NYT is allowed to publish anything it wants about candidates up until and including the day of the election. For that matter, CNN could produce and broadcast a documentary about a candidate in the same time period. That is the "exemption" I am talking about. The NYT and CNN can endorse or denounce a candidate at any time, yet Citizens United was regulated to not being able to do so within a certain time period of the election.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    167. Re:One time experience? by zeroshade · · Score: 1

      You have to look at the context and end results.

      The reason why they were prohibited to show the movie they created, was that it was determined by the courts that it was not a "bona fide commercial activity" it was instead "an elongated version of a negative 30-second television spot." Which "served no purpose other than to discredit Clinton's candidacy for Presidency."

      This is of course different from reporting, ostensibly, news from the NYT and CNN. Notice that the law does not say that they cannot publish anything they want about a candidate. It says that a corporation cannot use their general treasury to fund "electioneering communications." There's a very big difference from reporting a story and running a campaign advertisement.

    168. Re:One time experience? by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      There's a very big difference from reporting a story and running a campaign advertisement.

      That would explain why Evan Thomas said the news media was worth 5-10 points for Obama in 2008.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    169. Re:One time experience? by zeroshade · · Score: 1

      Just because news can benefit a particular candidate, does not make it the same as a campaign advertisement....

    170. Re:One time experience? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why stop human rights abuse? The rule of law has been shown to be an effective suppressor of the dissenting human voice? Rule of law has completely truncated the Bill of rights. The rule of law censorship methods,silence the dissent of the whole communities humanity with the stoke of a single pen. Rule of law abridging freedom and imposing censorship brings the military, the police, the high technology spy technology, and the bureaucratic administrative oversight of the member nations of the global nation state system of corporate controlled governments and corporate approved elected officials to the task of making the taxpayers pay for enforcement of privately owned intangible property rights.

        Nothing says terror like the enforcement of censorship.
      Nothing cost society more than state sponsored private party commercial rights!

    171. Re:One time experience? by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      Just because news can benefit a particular candidate, does not make it the same as a campaign advertisement....

      Just because a movie about a particular candidate can hurt that candidate does not make it the same as a campaign advertisement.
      More importantly, how is an editorial endorsement of a candidate different from a campaign advertisement for that same candidate?

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    172. Re:One time experience? by zeroshade · · Score: 1

      Just because a movie about a particular candidate can hurt that candidate does not make it the same as a campaign advertisement.

      I agree with you on that. Guess what, that's why there was a court case. The judge decided that the particular tone and content of the movie they made was nothing different than an elongated version of a 30 second television advertisement. If the decision was limited to the interpretation of the law and stated that the judge was wrong based on the content and tone of the movie that would have been fine. The problem I have is the expansion to remove any limitations on corporate spending with politics.

      More importantly, how is an editorial endorsement of a candidate different from a campaign advertisement for that same candidate?

      In the same way that a blog endorsement is different from a campaign advertisement. A private citizen making a statement (regardless of the platform) is not the same as an advertisement paid for from the general treasury of a corporation.

    173. Re:One time experience? by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      A private citizen making a statement (regardless of the platform) is not the same as an advertisement paid for from the general treasury of a corporation.

      But the NYT is not a private citizen. The NYT is a corporation. The NYT endorses candidates, not an individual who happens to work for the NYT, rather an individual who represents the NYT and not always an individual sometimes it is "the editorial board" (at least at some newspapers).

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    174. Re:One time experience? by zeroshade · · Score: 1

      You specifically stated an editorial. I have never seen any newspaper that had an editorial that did not have a disclaimer that stated since it was an editorial it did not reflect the views of the company as a whole. Thus, the editorial is a private citizen expressing their views, not representing the company.

      As I said, an editorial is the same as a blog post edorsement. These are not the same as a campaign advertisement. However, could it be construed as a campaign advertisement? Perhaps, and if so, then they should be penalized for breaking the law.

      The entire point here, is the effect that was bad from Citizens United was not who can make advertisements, but the fact that companies can donate unrestricted amounts of money to political campaigns and do not have to disclose it. Which results in the fact that corporations can effectively buy elections.

  2. Nope.avi by Alunral · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Sorry, Mr RIAA CEO, it wasn't a one time deal. As long as you morons try passing this crap, we'll keep protesting. And the protests will only get bigger and bigger.

    1. Re:Nope.avi by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Sorry, Mr RIAA CEO, it wasn't a one time deal. As long as you morons try passing this crap, we'll keep protesting. And the protests will only get bigger and bigger.

      I so hope you are correct. Sadly that does not seem to be how these things traditionally work. They keep making slight changes and resubmitting them over and over until the public becomes apathetic and finally passing it.

    2. Re:Nope.avi by MrEricSir · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I so hope you are correct. Sadly that does not seem to be how these things traditionally work.

      Remember the Blue Ribbon campaign in the early years of the web? The SOPA protest was essentially the latest version of that strategy, where content providers across the web banded together against Hollywood's lobbies.

      So yeah, I'd say there's a pretty good chance we'll be protesting again next time. (And there will always be a next time.)

      --
      There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
    3. Re:Nope.avi by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 2

      Sorry, Mr RIAA CEO, it wasn't a one time deal. As long as you morons try passing this crap, we'll keep protesting. And the protests will only get bigger and bigger

      I so hope you are correct. Sadly that does not seem to be how these things traditionally work. They keep making slight changes and resubmitting them over and over until the public becomes apathetic and finally passing it

      Or worse !

      They could have hired a skilled FUD expert from Microsoft to replace that dumbfuck Cary Sherman as CEO of MAFIAA

      Through carefully placements of artfully crafted FUDs that guy (or gal) would be able to assemble tons of MAFIAA fanbois to spread whatever of his "gospel truths" to the world !

      --
      Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    4. Re:Nope.avi by pushing-robot · · Score: 5, Funny

      Honestly, his statements sound like they belong in an Onion article.

      "Daryl Gates Hopes L.A. Riots Were a One-Time Thing, Eager to Resume Beating Black People"

      --
      How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
    5. Re:Nope.avi by causality · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Honestly, his statements sound like they belong in an Onion article.

      "Daryl Gates Hopes L.A. Riots Were a One-Time Thing, Eager to Resume Beating Black People"

      The L.A. Riots didn't happen because a bunch of cops beat the shit out of Rodney King.

      The Riots happened because a court refused to do anything about it. Every now and then people get sick and tired of cops being above the law.

      A few convictions would have prevented the whole thing.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    6. Re:Nope.avi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can protest, but it won't matter... their agenda will succeed eventually. Just look at PROTECT IP - it passed with flying colors. If people really cared about IP law they would be waging full on war trying to get that repealed and push hard to strengthen website safe harbor protections.

    7. Re:Nope.avi by DJ+Particle · · Score: 1

      In fact, I resurrected my old blue ribbon graphic from 1996 and put it back on my website with a link to the EFF. :)

    8. Re:Nope.avi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I dont disagree that the cops went overboard...but so did the public and the media, he still did the things he was accused of doing. if he were white we would never even know who rodney king is

    9. Re:Nope.avi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And so, sadly, it will continue until somebody screws up Americans' TV to where someone can't watch Idol or some other trivia without inserting a dollar. Then, but not until then, will most of my apathetic non-voting countrymen bother to get up off the couch. Pitiful.

    10. Re:Nope.avi by darkmeridian · · Score: 1

      It wasn't the court that refused to do anything about it, but rather a jury of men and women who acquitted the cops. A member of the jury who voted to acquit said that she was horrified at the beating, and thought that it was inhumane, but that the evidence was that the LAPD's protocol at the time to disable a violently resisting suspect was to break their long bones until they physically could not resist. (Yes, following protocols, however brutal, was a defense but following orders was not. Hrrrm.) The cops were not supposed to hit the head or spinal column or joints. So the jury looked at the videos again and again to see if the cops hit Rodney King in a prohibited area and concluded that they did not. Following the law, the jury voted to acquit the police.

      Cops should not be above the law, and they should be tried with extra scrutiny, but we shouldn't impose super-harsh laws only because they are cops.

      --
      A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
    11. Re:Nope.avi by UdoKeir · · Score: 1

      I just took a look at the video of the beating and see multiple hits to his torso and possibly his head. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGKRSQCvBfM Given the pictures of him after the beating I think it's obvious his head was struck several times. Unless he fell down the stairs at the police station, of course.

  3. Funny... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Thats funny... I was hoping SOPA was the one time thing.

    1. Re:Funny... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It was, next time it will have a brand new name!

    2. Re:Funny... by Xtifr · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Then he'll get his wish--the next protest won't be about SOPA, but rather about the new bill! :)

  4. You want it to be a "One-Time Thing"? by ToiletBomber · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The answer is very simple. Knock it off with your attempts to control the internet.

    1. Re:You want it to be a "One-Time Thing"? by NIN1385 · · Score: 2

      AMEN! Keep fucking around with free speech and the use of it on the internet and we will keep coming back in bigger and bigger numbers.

      What's the old saying? "When freedom is outlawed, only outlaws will have freedom."

      --

      If carrots got you drunk, rabbits would be fucked up. - Comedian Mitch Hedberg R.I.P. 03/30/68-2/24/05
    2. Re:You want it to be a "One-Time Thing"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Part of what stirred so much anger over SOPA was that they refused to reform the bill or reason about it at all. They mocked its detractors, stacked hearings on the bill with supporters, and told people it was needed to protect them - the "culture creators". They only started to talk of amendments and compromise when Internet media shocked them by actually having some teeth.

  5. I think I speak for the entire Internet when I say by spidercoz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    go fuck yourself, Cary.

    --
    "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall, re Voltaire
  6. Broadcast journalists? by DanTheStone · · Score: 5, Insightful

    From what I recall, those broadcast journalists didn't even cover the bills. I'm sure they would greatly prefer the internet doing the same.

    1. Re:Broadcast journalists? by NIN1385 · · Score: 2

      Freedom of the press is an illusion, has been for a long time now.

      --

      If carrots got you drunk, rabbits would be fucked up. - Comedian Mitch Hedberg R.I.P. 03/30/68-2/24/05
    2. Re:Broadcast journalists? by jd2112 · · Score: 1

      Freedom of the press is an illusion, has been for a long time now.

      Freedom of the press is reserved for those who have one, and most of the press is controlled by a few companies which also just happen to be the big content companies.

      --
      Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
    3. Re:Broadcast journalists? by fnj · · Score: 2

      Oh, the press is perfectly free. Free to be apologists, accomplices, and cheerleaders for scum.

    4. Re:Broadcast journalists? by oldmac31310 · · Score: 1

      My understanding is that most 'broadcast journalists' are merely reading from a script and that the stories are actually researched by nameless and faceless journalists.

      --
      http://www.acetonestudio.com
    5. Re:Broadcast journalists? by tqk · · Score: 1

      Freedom of the press is an illusion, has been for a long time now.

      Freedom of the press is reserved for those who have one, and most of the press is controlled by a few companies which also just happen to be the big content companies.

      Lack of imagination detected, on both your parts.

      Democracy Now

      PBS

      Al Jazeera

      No one needs to limit themselves to the likes of MSNBC, CBS, ABC, NYT, Forbes, Fox, Mother Jones, ..., not to mention the plethora of webbish stuff (blogs & etc.). Anyone who does is just being lazy (or has kids, so no time :-).

      --
      "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
  7. What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    My God! He sure is retarded!

  8. Yeah, yeah, Wikipedians were deluded by bbtom · · Score: 5, Informative

    Wikipedia admin here that was quite involved with the shutdown. RIAA guy thinks we were 'deluded'.

    Here's what actually happened. We had a discussion on Wikipedia for a few weeks. We asked the Wikimedia Foundation to instruct their General Counsel to prepare us a detailed listing of exactly what the problems are for Wikipedia with the bill. He did so, and produced a document listing a variety of problems that SOPA might cause for Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects. We then had a vote as to whether or not to take action.

    By 'deluded', he means we as a community decided to ask a lawyer to look at the bill and tell us what he thinks, and then decided to take action. If that's delusion, I'm not sure what counts as sanity any more.

    --
    catch (HumourFailureException e) { e.user.send("You, sir, are a humourless idiot."); }
    1. Re:Yeah, yeah, Wikipedians were deluded by gman003 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Wait, you had an actual lawyer look at it?

      That's more than Congress did.

    2. Re:Yeah, yeah, Wikipedians were deluded by sconeu · · Score: 2

      What counts as sanity? According to the xxAA, whatever they want us to believe.

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    3. Re:Yeah, yeah, Wikipedians were deluded by Surt · · Score: 3, Funny

      Wow, I don't think I ever felt bad for a lawyer before.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    4. Re:Yeah, yeah, Wikipedians were deluded by Swanktastic · · Score: 1

      Have Jimmy write a letter to the editor of the NYT rebutting the claims that you were misinformed. They'll publish it.

    5. Re:Yeah, yeah, Wikipedians were deluded by bbtom · · Score: 2

      Have Jimmy write a letter to the editor of the NYT rebutting the claims that you were misinformed. They'll publish it.

      Suggestion duly made - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Response_to_NYT_piece_on_SOPA

      --
      catch (HumourFailureException e) { e.user.send("You, sir, are a humourless idiot."); }
    6. Re:Yeah, yeah, Wikipedians were deluded by suutar · · Score: 1

      Nah, congress is mostly lawyers. I'm sure lots of them looked at it. Not necessarily _read_ it, mind you...

    7. Re:Yeah, yeah, Wikipedians were deluded by Antimatter3009 · · Score: 1

      I think this is an excellent idea. If other tech industry people could be convinced to write one, even better. The RIAA has chosen to go to the public and try to paint the tech industry as the bad guys. Fight fire with fire, especially when they're the bad guys to begin with.

    8. Re:Yeah, yeah, Wikipedians were deluded by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apparently it's too 'old news' for Jimmy.

    9. Re:Yeah, yeah, Wikipedians were deluded by jd2112 · · Score: 1

      Wow, I don't think I ever felt bad for a lawyer before.

      I'm sure the lawyer billed for time. And probably padded the hours.

      --
      Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
    10. Re:Yeah, yeah, Wikipedians were deluded by bbtom · · Score: 2

      I know that's a joke, but actually the lawyer who looked over it for Wikipedia is staff counsel and gets a salary rather than bills by the hour. Geoff Brigham used to be a federal prosecutor and has worked in private practice.

      He's a good guy: I've had a few dealings with him over content issues on Wikipedia - he does what a good lawyer should, tells you exactly what the legal situation is in plain, clear English without bullshit. When he says that SOPA was "a serious threat to freedom of expression on the Internet", I tend to believe him over the RIAA shill.

      --
      catch (HumourFailureException e) { e.user.send("You, sir, are a humourless idiot."); }
    11. Re:Yeah, yeah, Wikipedians were deluded by tqk · · Score: 1

      When he says that SOPA was "a serious threat to freedom of expression on the Internet", I tend to believe him over the RIAA shill.

      From what I've seen, no one but *the* paid shills (Congress) believes anything the *AAs say. Whether that's ignorance or money talking is another question.

      Bravo Wikimedia, et al, and thanks for all the fish. :-)

      --
      "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
  9. One time? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We never forget. We never forgive.

    1. Re:One time? by evil_aaronm · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Two words: PATRIOT Act.

      True, we may not have forgotten it, and I'll never forgive the treasonous assholes who foisted it on us, but that doesn't mean we did anything effective about it.

    2. Re:One time? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've regularly asked my Senator for my constitution back, how about you ?

      jr

    3. Re:One time? by Patch86 · · Score: 1

      Has he ever given it back? Has he started speaking in the Senate on the issue for you, where before he wasn't?

      The effectiveness of your tactic is debatable.

    4. Re:One time? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We were too in shock to do anything effective. Like the folks on the first 3 jets. "Ok, wow, they hijacked our plane. I'm sure they'll just talk to some hostage negotiators and we'll get out of this all right."

      PATRIOT act, NDAA detention provisions? "Well, they may be corrupt, but they aren't crazy. We'll be all right."

    5. Re:One time? by tqk · · Score: 1

      I've regularly asked my Senator for my constitution back, how about you?

      Asked!?! For !@#$'s sake man! Any politico not upholding that thing deserves nothing less than a well aimed ice pick.

      It's probably a good thing I don't own a sniper rifle and have no idea how to build bombs. Nowadays, I sure wish I did, a lot.

      --
      "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
  10. Black March by Nugoo · · Score: 3

    Let's hope not.

    black-march.com

    --
    I explicitly release the above into the public domain.
    1. Re:Black March by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      http://images.paralegal.net.s3.amazonaws.com/hypocrisy-hollywood.png

      Wall of text in an image but worth a read. Maybe even a printout with flyers.

  11. One time things make a difference. by sehlat · · Score: 1

    Just like the American Revolution, the French Revolution, the Civil War...

    1. Re:One time things make a difference. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      So by your logic, beheading a lot of people to end a monarchy/empire just to give rise to Napoleon was a good thing.... so was a war AGAINST state's rights which ended in the slaughter and pillaging of the southern half of the then-existent country? Last I checked, we are now having state's rights issues that we wouldn't have if the south had been allowed to assert that the states could secede and form a new confederacy.

    2. Re:One time things make a difference. by pushing-robot · · Score: 1

      ...the war of 1812, the 1848 revolution, the civil rights movement...

      --
      How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
    3. Re:One time things make a difference. by mhajicek · · Score: 2

      Revolution isn't a one time thing, you have to keep doing it on a regular basis.

    4. Re:One time things make a difference. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So by your logic, beheading a lot of people to end a monarchy/empire just to give rise to Napoleon was a good thing.... so was a war AGAINST state's rights which ended in the slaughter and pillaging of the southern half of the then-existent country? Last I checked, we are now having state's rights issues that we wouldn't have if the south had been allowed to assert that the states could secede and form a new confederacy.

      He said they made a difference. Nothing about them being "good things".

    5. Re:One time things make a difference. by NormalVisual · · Score: 1, Insightful

      "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants." - Thomas Jefferson

      --
      Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
    6. Re:One time things make a difference. by tqk · · Score: 1

      So by your logic, beheading a lot of people to end a monarchy/empire just to give rise to Napoleon was a good thing ...

      What've you got against Napoleon? Monarchies deserve nothing less than a headsman's axe. Go read this, then tell me he wasn't an improvement on what came before.

      Cf. "Perfidious Albion" (Britain) at the time.

      Okay, I'll admit "Emperor" is pretty much "Monarchy", but still ...

      --
      "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
    7. Re:One time things make a difference. by tqk · · Score: 1

      Revolution isn't a one time thing, you have to keep doing it on a regular basis.

      And you guys are way overdue. WTF's taking so long?!?

      --
      "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
    8. Re:One time things make a difference. by mhajicek · · Score: 1

      IIRC last time we had a bunch of help from the French.

  12. In other words by phorm · · Score: 2

    Our way is the only way, our reality is the only reality ...

    but just in case, we'll try to be sneakier about it next time so we don't get caught.

  13. Door in face by StripedCow · · Score: 5, Informative

    SOPA is just part of an exercising of the "door in the face technique". See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Door-in-the-face_technique

    Soon, they'll loosen their demands a little and suddenly governments will be okay with it.

    --
    If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
    1. Re:Door in face by PPH · · Score: 1

      Officer. That crazy guy is knocking on my door again. I slammed it on him once, but he isn't taking the hint.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    2. Re:Door in face by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      "Honey can I put it in your ass. No. Okay how about just a blowjob."

      Mod this +5 informative.

      Come on at least +1 Funny.

    3. Re:Door in face by deblau · · Score: 1

      So why aren't we doing this?

      --
      This post expresses my opinion, not that of my employer. And yes, IAAL.
    4. Re:Door in face by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      As I like to put it "If you want a puppy, ask for a horse."

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    5. Re:Door in face by shoutingloudly · · Score: 1

      I don't even think they were trying the door-in-the-face technique. Their ideas really are just that crazy! The **AAs are such fundamentalists in their beliefs they make Rick Santorum look like a flip-flopper. If their goal was to get something more reasonable through, e.g. the OPEN Act, they would have jumped on it between the first day of action (November), which itself drew a million people to contact Congress, and the second (January).

    6. Re:Door in face by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What kind of weak-willed minstrel falls for that shit? I'd actually become MORE way, MORE aggressive (see my caps? It's working already), etc.

      You insult me like that the first time? Next time I'm gonna be downright *hostile* towards you (RIAA, not StripedCow) when you even look in my direction!

  14. Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think that I speak for everyone when I openly wonder : Should someone this mentally deficient really be the spokesperson of SOPA and the Congress? It's not really the best product placement, even if its not a good idea to begin with.

    1. Re:Seriously? by tqk · · Score: 1

      I think that I speak for everyone when I openly wonder : Should someone this mentally deficient really be the spokesperson of SOPA and the Congress?

      You get what you pay for, and apparently they're not smart shoppers. "Can you lie?" "Yup." "Scruples?" "Nope." "You're hired."

      --
      "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
  15. SOPA protests were just a start by xs650 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Nothing encourages like success. More people are aware and ready to participate the next time RIAA tries to bribe a heaping pile through Congress.

    1. Re:SOPA protests were just a start by AGMW · · Score: 3, Interesting

      ... the next time RIAA tries to bribe a heaping pile through Congress.

      What I don't get is why anyone thinks lobby groups buying legislation is the right way!

      --
      Eclectic beats from Leeds, UK
      handmadehands.co.uk
    2. Re:SOPA protests were just a start by tqk · · Score: 1

      ... the next time RIAA tries to bribe a heaping pile through Congress.

      What I don't get is why anyone thinks lobby groups buying legislation is the right way!

      Godwin alert. Remember back in 1930s Germany, nobody took Hitler's crazy ideas seriously? They may not think buying legislation is the right way, but apathy and lethargy are so much easier than recognizing the problem and growing a backbone, and actually standing up to dictatorships and saying no.

      --
      "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
  16. Integrity and Clarity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What fantastic points, Sherman! ...especially since broadcast journalists' "integrity and clarity" never ever push an agenda...

  17. George Costanza says... by Golgafrinchan · · Score: 4, Funny

    Hey Cary: the jerk store called, and they're running out of you!"

    --
    My userid is prime!
    1. Re:George Costanza says... by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      George Costanza says... Hey Cary: the jerk store called, and they're running out of you!"

      Friend, you had one strange See 'n Say.

  18. Clarification by NeveRBorN · · Score: 4, Funny

    Clearly,

    Since the way we communicate has changed greatly since the arrival of the internet, and there people afraid to embrace that change, we the denizens of the internet are in the wrong.

    Seriously, My daughter's arguments for why she shouldn't have to do her homework are more well thought out than Mr. Sherman's.

  19. The old saying.. by ilsaloving · · Score: 1

    There's that old saying, don't blame on malevolence, what can be blamed on stupidity.

    I think it needs to be flipped around, because I simply cannot accept that these people really are that mindblowingly stupid.

    1. Re:The old saying.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's that old saying, don't blame on malevolence, what can be blamed on stupidity.

      I think it needs to be flipped around, because I simply cannot accept that these people really are that mindblowingly stupid.

      Yes, they can be. It's like hogs at the trough, like it's always been.

    2. Re:The old saying.. by tqk · · Score: 1

      I think it needs to be flipped around, because I simply cannot accept that these people really are that mindblowingly stupid.

      I once thought as well of my fellows, but I've learned it never pays to underestimate stupid. Stupid goes all the way down to the bottom. Half the population is stupider than the "average" person.

      I'm sure some statistics nazi will be along any moment to prove me wrong too.

      --
      "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
  20. It wasn't misinformation... by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...it was that the public was PROPERLY informed for the *very first* time.

    In other words, the public *wasn't* misinformed on these ideas for the very first time.

    And look at the amount of effort it took. It proves the posit that we've all been saying: corporate monopoly of information is one of the worst things that can happen to a free society. There is no real marketplace of ideas in the U.S. This is one of the few times in scores of years there has been anywhere near a fair debate on an important subject, and certain players had to scream LOOK AT ME LOOK AT ME to get it.

    1. Re:It wasn't misinformation... by arbiter1 · · Score: 1

      Yea they are claiming everyone was misinformed but when public wasn't informed properly on a bill and it was passed it end up being abused. Its something that might be applied to the DMCA, yea its a bill to allow rights holder to get their works removed from like Youtube etc. But allowed for almost 0 punishment when a company claims rights to something they don't own (ex, Twit.tv's show called TNT they had a clip of a Megaupload video, they are a new show which they fall under fail-use UMG had video pulled with a bogus copyright claim when they had no right to do it.) What bill is said to be meant for vs what bill is worded and CAN be used for are usually not told to the public cept when a lawyer from say EFF read it and say what it can be used for.

    2. Re:It wasn't misinformation... by Jason+Levine · · Score: 4, Interesting

      And, in the RIAA's eyes, that's the problem. How dare the Internet (meaning Wikipedia, Google, and the others that spread the word), make people aware of the awful law they were trying to push through? Don't these people know how it goes? The RIAA brib.... I mean lobbies a few members of Congress. They then get those Congressfolk to submit bills that they (the RIAA) have written. Congress passes the bills and everyone is happy. (Where "everyone" equals "The RIAA.") Subverting that process is just unAmerican! (Where "American" equals "what the RIAA wants done.")

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    3. Re:It wasn't misinformation... by GmExtremacy · · Score: 2

      What's even worse is that the DMCA basically forces a guilty until proven innocent mentality upon you. Either remove the content and let the uploader dispute the claim, or the safe harbor no longer applies.

      This forces large websites to resort to automated systems which are continually abused because they can't possibly response to every DMCA complaint. Whoever thought this nonsense was a good idea is an idiot.

    4. Re:It wasn't misinformation... by tqk · · Score: 1

      Whoever thought this nonsense was a good idea is an idiot.

      Hey, you elected them. :-P

      --
      "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
  21. Re:I think I speak for the entire Internet when I by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That's not how you spell "I hope every nerve ending in your body is permanently made to think it's on fire and you live forever", but yeah, the entire Internet is saying this.

  22. That's just horseshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bollix Wikipedia cites everything also most of us knew it was horseshit before hand. This just made some people get of their collective asses and do something about it. God knows how much world productiveness went up when reddit went down.

  23. Clarity and integrity by rust627 · · Score: 5, Funny

    of broadcast journalists

    ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

    --
    da da da dum indeed.
    1. Re:Clarity and integrity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmmm.... Must not have seen Fox News :)

  24. He's right. by Dr.+Tom · · Score: 4, Insightful

    > He also said that Wikipedia and Google users were duped into thinking SOPA was a bad bill because they assume "if it comes from these sources, it must be true."

    That's because, if it comes from those sources, it probably is true. Yes, that's right, we trust Google and Wikipedia more than some record industry executive. Dupe you.

    Now that we've gotten that out of the way, why don't you start letting people download music from your website? You know you could be making money right now, doing that, instead of making a fool of yourself, right?

    But don't take my word for it. Google it.

    1. Re:He's right. by arbiter1 · · Score: 1

      here is a quote for RIAA/MPAA, "Roman Nagel: You're analog players in a digital world." - From movie Ocean's Thirteen

    2. Re:He's right. by sconeu · · Score: 3, Funny

      Prepare to be sued by the MPAA for copyright infringement.

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
  25. Re:Would you kindly... by Surt · · Score: 5, Funny

    Yeah, where are the NRA nutjobs when you actually need them to get something done. Look, we've let you keep your firearms. Now comes your half of the bargain.

    --
    "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
  26. He's right! by Edsj · · Score: 2

    "... and for not spreading information with the same 'clarity and integrity' of broadcast journalists." I'm with him! I don't use the internet to get reliable information. Why waste time checking the source integrity if you can get all the information you need from Fox News? They even do the job to filter 'bogus' information for me! Right? RIGHT?!?? What? Fox News isn't reliable? I don't trust you! You are probably a terrorist from the internet!

    1. Re:He's right! by Experiment+626 · · Score: 1

      Because the other news outlets were doing such a great job of covering SOPA before the protests broke out...

    2. Re:He's right! by honestmonkey · · Score: 1

      I don't know what's worse, the fact that you say Fox News is good information, or the almost sarcastic tone you've taken in your entire post. I mean, really!

      --
      Everything you know is wrong, Just forget the words and sing along.
  27. Dear Mr. Sherman by bughunter · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The inferred message here is that the RIAA (and presumably the MPAA, et al) will continue to try to pass this crap.

    I have an inferred message right back (holds up a single finger).

    In the wake of ESR's open letter to Chris Dodd, do I really need to remind you:

    [D]on't screw with the Internet. Because it will screw you right back.

    ??

    --
    I can see the fnords!
    1. Re:Dear Mr. Sherman by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Why did you give him a thumbs up?

    2. Re:Dear Mr. Sherman by ravenshrike · · Score: 1

      His progenitors could be from one of those countries where a thumbs up means up your ass.

    3. Re:Dear Mr. Sherman by desdinova+216 · · Score: 1

      who said it was a thumb?

  28. The RIAA/MPAA have no room to talk. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    They've been spreading disinformation for years on the news. Wikipedia on the otherhand does a much better job living up to standards like NPOV, and all its sub-rules, like no weasal words than any mainstream news source ever did.

    Before anyone questions this what did Wikipedia do that comes close to "hackers on steroids"? This was a modern mainstream news segment. Did anyone loose their job over that? Thats not even touching RFC 1392, for what a hacker even was, something that seemed to be ignored by just about every mainstream media outlet(represented by the RIAA/MPAA that is).
    https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1392

    But hey, what do trade organizations know? I mean they just

    What was the big media's coverage of SOPA/PIPA to begin with??? Thats right, a total blackout. There was no discussion of this on mainstream news. The tactic was obviously sneak it by without anyone in the general public thinking about it until it was way to late.

    As for piracy rules, they are already far too strong. They are basicly forcing start ups and small businesses who don't have the money to hire lawyers out of their own IP by letting well funding legal harrassment campaigns deprive them out of the very IP that is said to be protected?

    Anyone who's ever used a free music track on youtube knows this. This is not content creators going after their work, its trolls and bullys stealing from people using the law via intimidation.

    We need intellectual property law reform, and we need to place limits and what can and cannot be owned, and big time restrictions on acusations of unauthorized use.

    1. Re:The RIAA/MPAA have no room to talk. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Thats not even touching RFC 1392, for what a hacker even was, something that seemed to be ignored by just about every mainstream media outlet(represented by the RIAA/MPAA that is).
      >https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1392

      a black news reporter talking about crackers breaking into the fbi...

  29. idiot by O('_')O_Bush · · Score: 1

    Of course he does, he doesn't get it. SOPA protests didn't hurt his bottom line.

    That is why we (I) am participating in Black March. Hit them somewhere they do understand.

    --
    while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
    1. Re:idiot by bhtooefr · · Score: 1

      The problem is, they'll just blame piracy.

      And, why boycott them for just *March*?

  30. How Alarming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did they just use "integrity" and "journalist" in the same sentence ?

  31. Cary Sherman: by Ralph+Spoilsport · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Fuck. You.

    --
    Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
    1. Re:Cary Sherman: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wonderful, wish I had mod points

  32. I suppose it's a sign by shikitohno · · Score: 5, Insightful

    of how weak his own position is that his only response is the cry foul and claim everyone who opposed the bill had been misled. We weren't misled. We knew exactly why this bill was such a horrible piece of legislation. If anyone, it was him and the bills backers who were deluded in thinking that people would not get pissed off by such horribly half-baked legislation. We're talking about something that would have essentially made him and his friends judge and jury on copyright infringement online, will little to no recourse for the accused to defend themselves, and even then only after the fact.

    We've seen how well they handled even lesser power in these matters, between frivolous DMCA takedown notices (sometimes on stuff they didn't even own the rights to), and more recently the case of a company claiming birdsong was in violation of its copyrights. The bill demonstrated a blatant disregard for internet security, by potentially crippling DNSSEC. And their response was simply, "Well, you're just going to have to scratch that plan and come up with something else, now aren't you?"

    Given their practical disdain for how the internet works, and a plethora of precedents demonstrating they will not hesitate to abuse any power given them, we simply must have been misled into believing they didn't have our best interests at heart. I find this patronizing, "You just don't worry about it, we know what's best for you." attitude completely offensive. I'll be watching for the next time they try and slip garbage like this through, and you can be damn sure I'll be opposed to it then. Don't call me misled when you're lying through your teeth to me. I don't take kindly to it, and I would hope no one else would either. I'd love to see this inane series of statements by him blow up in his face and lead to even greater opposition next time he and his friends try to force something like SOPA down our throats.

    1. Re:I suppose it's a sign by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      They represent a dying industry. You almost have to feel sorry for them. They've known since Napster burst on the scene (and had no lack of hints prior to that) that their distribution and business models were going to die, but at best their efforts to adapt have been half-assed. All that money spent on lawyers and greasing politicians' palms could have been put to better use.

      Oh well, good riddance. They can join all the other defunct industries out there.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    2. Re:I suppose it's a sign by shikitohno · · Score: 1

      They'll get no pity from me. People have been telling them for years now that they need to get with the times and change. They've chosen not to, so as far as I'm concerned, they can rot. If you can't be bothered to make necessary changes to your business model, when everyone is telling you that you will die if you don't, no amount of legislation and lawsuits are going to save you. They're only prolonging their miserable death at this point.

    3. Re:I suppose it's a sign by misexistentialist · · Score: 1

      The problem is we're going to be dealing with their shit for the rest of our lives, and things will probably get worse before they get better.

    4. Re:I suppose it's a sign by JustNiz · · Score: 1

      I'm amazed the big labels have lasted this long.
      Back in the 50's they actually used to provide services to artists and really did do at least some of what Carey is trying to convince us they do now: help bands get to market.
      By the 80's they had all the distribution channels so locked down that they had become the gatekeepers, so found they could charge artists a tax for doing nothing other than allowing them to sell.
      This is why they hate the internet so much, it's a market place they can't control, an open path around their carefully constructed tollbooth they thought would last forever.
      Given the big labels are now entirely parasitic and can no longer remember how to provide actual services anymore, I'm amazed they have lasted even this long especially since the internet came about.

    5. Re:I suppose it's a sign by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Are you kidding? In the 1950s they were stealing artists blind? Even in the 1960s a lot of artists ended up with what mounted to pennies per unit sold. If you got to be really big you certainly could negotiate much better contracts, but for ever Ray Charles out there negotiating kick ass deals with high royalties and ownership of the masters and full control of the publishing rights, there were a dozen Bo Diddleys basically being robbed blind.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  33. Thank goodness... by __aamdvq1432 · · Score: 1

    ...we have such a selfless paragon of virtue to set us straight.

  34. Sherman blames the Internet by PPH · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Damned inconvenient, that Internet. Maybe we can have it shut off when we resubmit our legislation to Congress again.

    We've got to get people behaving more like broadcast journalists. So we can just call their sales department and remind them who pays their bills.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
    1. Re:Sherman blames the Internet by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      Personally, I'm just going to stop buying recorded music from the big labels. It's all carp anyway.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    2. Re:Sherman blames the Internet by compro01 · · Score: 1

      It's all carp anyway.

      There is no need to defame perfectly useful fish by comparing it to RIAA-member produced "music".

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    3. Re:Sherman blames the Internet by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      You're absolutely right. I apologize to the carp.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
  35. In other news, people all over the world ... by aix+tom · · Score: 1

    ... hoping that the RIAA and similar institutions all over the world (The German GEMA especially) are a "One-Time Thing"

  36. Re:Would you kindly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oo oo do Harper next!

  37. Since I don't see it here yet... by MitchDev · · Score: 1

    RIAA, if you think you can slip this by, then to "pirate" the old song lyric "You ain't seen nothin' yet."

  38. I can't believe I'm actually saying this, but... by langelgjm · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Cary Sherman did have at least one good point. On the RIAA's Music Notes blog, he discussed how he went through and read every one of the 280 some comments on his very poorly received New York Times op-ed.

    I was one of the ones who posted a substantive, up-voted comment on his op-ed, and his blog post addressed something I (and several other commenters) pointed out. Just Googling for the text of the bill leaves one with a misleading impression, because important amendments were not included in that text. I took Sherman to task for what I viewed as purposefully misleading people in his op-ed, doing exactly what he was complaining Wikipedia and Google were doing.

    On that particular detail, I was wrong, and Sherman was right. So the point is taken that there is a lot of misunderstanding about what precisely this bill will do and not do. That said, what I think he continually fails to understand is that his association (and really, the entire industry) has virtually no credibility in the minds of the tech-savvy, Internet-using public. We know the record companies rip off actual artists with raw contracts. We know the RIAA supported the ridiculous tactic of suing individual file-sharers for astronomical damages in order to bully them into settlement. We know they inflate their losses, that they massage data, and that they lobby hard for what they want. In fact, that last part is to be expected by any industry trade group.

    We're Americans. We know that practically everyone in politics is lying to us whenever they open their mouth. That's not news. I'm not sure why Cary Sherman expects a free pass on this issue... you've got the lobbying money, get in there and play hardball like everyone else.

    --
    "Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
  39. Snarky headline by tomhath · · Score: 2

    While I'm not a supporter of SOPA, headlines with statements like "In another hilarious comment..." come across as more than a little biased. I hope News For Nerds doesn't sink to Blog For Nerds.

    1. Re:Snarky headline by sjames · · Score: 2

      There's only so far backward you can bend to stay with neutral language. After that you just have to bow to the extremity of the situation and call it what it is.

    2. Re:Snarky headline by oldmac31310 · · Score: 1

      That wasn't a headline. It was part of the body of the summary.

      --
      http://www.acetonestudio.com
  40. Re:Would you kindly... by BobZee1 · · Score: 1

    "we've let you keep your firearms" !?!??!?!?!? I am glad you got modded 'funny'. {whistle}

    --
    dumber people are doing harder things everyday
  41. Real people ... by Skapare · · Score: 1

    Are hoping that the stupidity of SOPA and proposals like it are a one time thing. If not, then be sure the protest won't be, either. And if it tries to sneak through, expect things to move to the next level (yes, there is a next level).

    --
    now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
  42. Congress' Side? by Tihstae · · Score: 2

    I can't believe he thinks that Congress has a side to tell. Their job is to listen to the people and not come up with their own version of the truth.

    The problem is that Congress' side involves money from the RIAA.

  43. Re:Would you kindly... by HeckRuler · · Score: 3, Insightful

    No. Too far. Telling him to go fuck himself is perfectly fine, but inciting people to go kill him is clearly over the line.
    Come on slashdot, self-police our nutjobs.

  44. Re:Would you kindly... by brainboyz · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Try and take them. ;)

    Sorry, we believe in the liberty to be a moron. We don't like it, but it's your right. If people would stop voting for corrupt sly assholes and actually paid attention to what they do, guys like this wouldn't get a foothold. Ain't a gun-applicable problem yet, but give it another 15 to 20 and it might be.

  45. Fucking assholes.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I hope they all get bone cancer and die.

  46. I'm reminded of my childhood. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    making it impossible for Congress to get out its side of the story

    I feel you guys, after i threatened to kill that asshole on the playground, waving a knife around, the teachers wouldn't listen to my side of the story either.

  47. what an idiot by swschrad · · Score: 1

    Cary Sherman apparently lost the use of his ears and eyes at an early age, and has compensated for it by becoming a complete dictatorial moron for the dark side.

    not that there's anything wrong with that. oh, hell, yes there is. idiot, most of us have already purchased a use license for media (only crooked lawyers can steal full rights,) and want to utilize the Fair Use Provisions of the Copyright Act to transport this personal entertainment in the most convenient form.

    keep demanding full price per thought of usage, fool, and you will wipe out your industry.

    and get off my screen with your inanities.

    --
    if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
  48. Case of mistaken identity by cvtan · · Score: 1

    If it weren't for the fact that these guys were trying to protect bad music, they would be mistaken for a nut-case religious cult spouting their "I know I'm right" dogma.

    --
    Sorry, but gray text on gray background is making my eyes bleed.
  49. What is his thought process? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It just amazes me that there is a class of people who practice this kind of deception ([cough]Death Panels [/cough]), and it amazes me again that it will work with a modest part of the population. It just seems so uncivil, anti-society, almost inhuman. How do they breath with the lies and hypocrisy filling them up to their throats?

      I know, I know: MacBain:
    "on a bed of money with many beautiful women"

    1. Re:What is his thought process? by ravenshrike · · Score: 1

      Death panels, while hyperbole, was a turn of phrase quite indicative of what will be erected. The government will be forced to cut costs, and that is what happens. It denies treatment. The truly rich will of course still get theirs, and now you'll have added to that every political bloodsucker who might not be very rich or have access to the congressional health plan getting theirs as well. This is especially true as the magic sack of money will go poof in the next 15-50 years and even if you were to completely remove defense spending right now we're still running a large deficit, and it's only going to get worse. The really fucking hilarious part of this is the insurance market is primarily fucked up because of the employer insurance credit and lack of interstate insurance. This makes all moving jobs or losing your job much more precarious than it otherwise would be.

    2. Re:What is his thought process? by nedlohs · · Score: 2

      Whereas insurance companies would never deny treatment. And people who just pay for their own medical treatment would never not be able to afford something and have to deny treatment.

    3. Re:What is his thought process? by GmExtremacy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What's even worse is that some people think that piracy (something I can't see anyone believing is worse than jaywalking) is so bad that we need draconian, rights-violating legislation to combat it (it won't work, either).

      Some artists even support SOPA. And if you're not an artist yourself, I've seen them say, "You're not an artist! Therefore, your criticism is invalid!" as if you must be an artist to reject draconian laws that will affect everyone. This mentality of dismissing all criticism because someone isn't in the same group as you (content makers) is retarded. They don't even see their own bias (as if someone who thinks they directly benefit from such legislation isn't biased).

  50. What a moron by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "I sure hope that getting my hand burned when I stuck it in the operating furnace was a one-time thing!"

    Yeah, Sherman, it was a one-time thing. You should feel confident in throwing the rest of your body into it next time. Please.

  51. As someone who once respected IP law... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    As someone who once respected IP law, I've long since decided that because of your disproportionate response to violators and your manipulation of our government, that you need to be fought. I now pirate any music I like, go out of my way not to pay, and encourage other to do the same. I do this in order to cut off your supply of money, which you use to oppress people. Pass it on.

    1. Re:As someone who once respected IP law... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Parent is a great comment. I have the same philosophy. I don't know if I ever respected IP law, but I didn't think about it much. These days for example, I still waste money on fast food when I know I could eat cheaper. Piracy used to be harder. If big content hadn't gotten so greedy and out of touch, I probably would never examined the morality of IP and would have continued throwing money at them.
       
      MAFIAA blames piracy for declining profits on record sales since 1999. Coincidentally the same year they were forced to stop price fixing in an antitrust lawsuit.

  52. Re:Would you kindly... by evil_aaronm · · Score: 2

    Why is this "too far"? Let's say SOPA gets made into law, through this guy's direct efforts. What do you suppose it will take to get our rights back? They certainly won't say, "Oh, shucks! You're right. Our bad." If an eventual SCOTUS ruling makes SOPA permanent, will it result in fighting in the streets over our freedoms? Who knows?

    That's why SkyNet so badly wanted to go back in time and kill John Connor before he could become a powerful leader of the resistance.

  53. Re:I can't believe I'm actually saying this, but.. by Culture20 · · Score: 2

    I'm not sure why Cary Sherman expects a free pass on this issue... you've got the lobbying money, get in there and play hardball like everyone else.

    I bet a lot more journalists are paying attention there now that Chris Dodd stuck his foot in his mouth and admitted that (at least from the MPAA's perspective if not the congressmen's perspectives) the MPAA was buying votes. They'll have to let that sleep for a while before they can start makin' it rain again.

  54. Integrity from the RIAA, really? by bsy-1 · · Score: 1

    I would think that the last thing the RIAA wants in a message to the public that has either clarity or integrity, as either would get in the way of their agenda.

  55. Out of touch... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are these people truly that out of touch from their end users?

    *astounded*

  56. Re:I can't believe I'm actually saying this, but.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    We're Americans. We know that practically everyone in politics is lying to us whenever they open their mouth. That's not news. I'm not sure why Cary Sherman expects a free pass on this issue... you've got the lobbying money, get in there and play hardball like everyone else.

    Cary's problem is that he doesn't have the money. Music is a pathetically small business compared to other media...only a couple $billion/year. The movie industry is measured in tens of $billions/year, and so are the videogame and TV industries. The very quiet, very boring print industry behemoth is over one $trillion/year. (If that surprises you, compare Lady Gaga's wealth to JK Rowling's. People spend more money on books in one summer than has ever been spent on music ever.)

    What the RIAA expected was for every other media industry to follow their lead in drawing a line in the sand and fighting digital delivery and taking a hard-line stance on piracy. They would lead the charge and thought eventually the others would back them up with real resources later. MPAA stuck with them for a little while, but the other industries starting hedging their bets and seeing where the technology goes. Oops.

  57. I have an idea by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

    the RIAA can just leave the internet alone. If you don't like it, dont be a part of it.

  58. No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let me be among the first million or so to say, "Not fucking likely."

  59. fuck the new york times by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    love paywalls that restrict free speech

  60. Re:Would you kindly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You mean despite the 2nd amendment never being ratified and requiring one to be a member of a militia? We haven't needed militias since we reformed the army.

  61. Mainstream media conflicts of interest by ppanon · · Score: 2

    Many of the mainstream media outlets in the US are part of corporate conglomerates that also own content provider members of the RIAA or MPAA. Even assuming that reporters still have 'clarity and integrity', their program managers and others up the corporate hierarchy may strongly discourage reporting on the subject accurately due to corporate conflicts of interest. As someone else pointed out, SOPA got no coverage by most mainstream news organizations until the blackouts of Wikipedia, Google, and other large websites made knowledge of it so widespread that it became impossible to ignore and still pretend to be a provider of news.

    --
    Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
  62. Re:Gadammed Techcrunch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Someone tell stupid-ass AOL that some tablet browsers DO NOT WANT the mobile version.

    Man, they've gone completely in the shitter.

    and you were expecting what?

  63. Re:Would you kindly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's why SkyNet so badly wanted to go back in time and kill John Connor before he could become a powerful leader of the resistance.

    I agree, rather than rely on a random nutjob we just need to develop a self-aware super computer that, in turn, develops a killer cyborg (who happens to look like the former governor of California) and a time machine. Do you think next Friday is a realistic completion date for the first part?

  64. Who exactly is representing Who!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I find it laughable when RIAA comes out saying about protecting Recording Artists and their Copyrights. It has been proven by sharing music through various sites, there is an increase in sales of people actually going out and purchasing albums after hearing it through torrent or shared facilities. Why are more music artists realising this and releasing stuff on youtube and various other mediums. What RIAA speaks is protectionism of thier profits, where they can restrict where, how and when music gets released, prices paid and in which areas it happens. Full of shit Cary.. And fossils like you can go F' yourselves.

  65. Remember... by yoshi_mon · · Score: 1

    Remember Jerry, its not a lie...if you believe it.

    --

    Really, I know what I'm doing...Ohhhh, look at the shiny buttons!
  66. Lesson you cant fix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Stupid.
    Kool-Aid

    I always laugh over the years cassette tapes, vcr, were evil and they had to be dragged kicking and screaming to the money.
    I laugh at them Again because other are beating them to the money this time.

  67. Re:Would you kindly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Instead of coming up with dishonest arguments grow a pair and try to repeal it.

  68. SOPA really bout stopping sales of Fake Pharmies? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What does RIAA have todo with counterfeit pharmaceuticals? lol

    Mofo says in the article:
    "Would they have cast their clicks if they knew they were supporting foreign criminals selling counterfeit pharmaceuticals to Americans?"

    Wats the next thing he gonna say, think about the children... lol
    Is RIAA is now DEA too?

    Mofo needs stfu, and go back to pumping out his gay lady gaga records, teaching children how to be posers

    -HasHie

  69. Re:Would you kindly... by tnk1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    SOPA can't be made permanent by a Supreme Court ruling. It's merely legislation, and legislation can always be repealed. The way to remove SOPA is to elect people who will repeal it. Even Constitutional Amendments can be repealed, although that is fairly uncommon (but it has happened at least a few times).

    In any event, no fighting is required. Yes, it may be hard to remove the people in power without guns if they are entrenched in the system, but all you technically need are votes.

    Now if they start seriously cheating on the elections...and I don't mean one or two contested elections... that's the time to start consider the guns, because then, there is almost no recourse but that. Just remember that the French Revolution started with the best of intentions, and ended up causing rivers of blood both in France and elsewhere. Let's not get too hasty in our appeal to the gun, even if we should defend our right to have that ability.

  70. The Universal Library by DanielRavenNest · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The Internet community is in the process of creating the "Universal Library". I'm a librarian at heart, and want to see all of mankind's knowledge available to everyone, everywhere, instantly. The benefit of having that far outweighs the loss to particular people who want to keep knowledge enslaved to their ownership. The last decade has seen enormous progress towards that goal.

    Libraries and publishers have always been at odds, but they don't prevent publishers from making money. It's when the publishers get too greedy and restrict the circulation of knowledge that it causes brain damage to civilization. This is why libraries are funded by governments, donations, and universities - on the whole they are a good thing.

    Organizations like the RIAA are simply going to be roadkill on the way to the Universal Library. Excuse me while I go work on it some more...

    1. Re:The Universal Library by UltimaBuddy · · Score: 1

      We are now known as the digital custodians. Or digital librarians.

      It's time we get rid of the "piracy = theft" meme.

  71. Re:I can't believe I'm actually saying this, but.. by sdguero · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Interesting read. It seems a lot more reasonable than his op-ed piece. I think one of the most telling things from his blog post is this:
    "The fact is, content and tech need each other."

    He is absolutely correct. Now I wish he would tell us how exactly the RIAA is helping to create content, or protect the artists (aka content creators). Because all I see them doing is protecting the dinosaurs that still run the music industry.

    Artists who are true to their craft want people to listen to their music, and if they make a ton of money off of it that's a bonus. If I was an independent musician that uploaded my new music video to youtube and got 50 million views, I would make a nice piece of change on that ad revenue (and using existing laws I could task youtube with making sure other users don't re-post my stuff). The RIAA is all about protecting the middle man from getting screwed out of that money and putting consumers over a barrel while compensating the artist as little as possible. It has nothing to do with protecting or creating content.

  72. Interesting thought by Osgeld · · Score: 1

    but dont you have to find a new child to exploit now that bieber is 18?

  73. BWPAA by DanielRavenNest · · Score: 1

    Let's start referring to them as the "Buggy Whip Protection Association of America", since they are equally out of tune with the times (pun intended).

    1. Re:BWPAA by compro01 · · Score: 1

      I would instead propose we revive the buggy whip industry by having everyone on slashdot purchase one and use them on these jokers every time they say something stupid.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
  74. Re:Would you kindly... by evil_aaronm · · Score: 1
  75. Just Stop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Stop trying to control and monetize the Internet. It's ours, not yours, you ass clown.

  76. Re:Would you kindly... by sjames · · Score: 1

    I say we compromise and give the *AA the internet death penalty. Kill all of their connections, shut down all their web presence. Send them back to the 20th century (or perhaps they'd be more comfortable in the 19th).

  77. Re:Would you kindly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's not dishonest. Your assertion completely ignores the history of the amendment. It's the only one which didn't follow the normal ratification process. I can't think of any other where the version passed the legislature differs from the version that was ratified.

    Additionally, it's quite clear that the amendment exists because there was no military at the time.

  78. Re:Would you kindly... by c · · Score: 1

    > Telling him to go fuck himself is perfectly fine, but inciting people to go
    > kill him is clearly over the line.

    Fine...

    How about a compromise?

    Cary Sherman, go fuck yourself to death.

    --
    Log in or piss off.
  79. Re:Would you kindly... by Imrik · · Score: 1

    As long as next Friday is the arrival date and not the construction date, sure.

  80. Republican games by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    That is a Republican game, so Fox could label him weak on terrorism. So he says "it doesn't go far enough" and refuses to sign it, thus defeating their game. They then put in safeguards for Americans and he then signs it, but refusing to ever use it.

    You come along and try to label it as 'Obama' law. However it was pure politics, and attempt to give Fox a sound bite to scare Americans into changing Presidents.

    A Republican game in an election year.

    The solution is to not vote for those idiot Republicans and to re-introduce the requirement that broadcast networks be fair and balanced. The recent Fox GOP talking points memo, revealed that the GOP writes Fox's talking points for them, as such they're a campaign company outside the normal PAC limits, and well outside of the campaign finance limits.

    Rupert Murdoch should not pick the USA President.

    1. Re:Republican games by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      I have a few problems with this. For one, what is "fair and balanced"? How can broadcast networks possibly grant equal time to every single opposing opinion out there. In the mind of many moronic Americans, there's only two "sides", but in reality, there's far more. If the networks only have to grant time to the "other side", then nothing of value is achieved, because both the Democrats and the Republicans are really on the same side.

      Secondly, are you not aware there's other news networks besides Fox News? Everyone knows their coverage is biased towards the Republicans. If you don't like that, go somewhere else, like MSNBC, CNN, etc.

    2. Re:Republican games by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      Secondly, are you not aware there's other news networks besides Fox News? Everyone knows their coverage is biased towards the Republicans. If you don't like that, go somewhere else, like MSNBC, CNN, etc.

      [s]
      But we have a right not to be offended or have our views challenged by other people's views we don't agree with!
      [/s]

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
  81. Here is a question or three for you all by RandomStr · · Score: 1

    Do you think RIAA would stop seeking a SOPA/PIPA style solution if everyone stopped illegally downloading music and video?

    How long would it take RIAA to run out of money for "legal bullying", if everyone stopped buying music and other media(as a protest)?

    If a SOPA/PIPA style bill dose eventually get through, will it stop people from finding a new way to download music?
    And if all the illegal down-loaders move on, will the ineffective and draconian censorship of the Internet be removed?

    The problem with such bills is that they are so susceptible to abuse and manipulation, and ultimately, do not address the actual problem, just a symptom; at the end of the day stealing is already a crime, and law enforcement agency's around the world already have the power to shut-down counterfeiting operations, and do on a regular basis, we don't need "special laws" allowing proper due process and oversight to be circumvented.

    1. Re:Here is a question or three for you all by MitchDev · · Score: 1

      With huge USB sticks and portable hard drives, the old sneakernet would really leave the RIAA (and their evil scum-sucking brethren) out of the loop.

  82. Times have changed: secrecy is dead by msobkow · · Score: 1

    The days when corporations and special-interest lobby groups could operate behind the smokescreen of media reporting are over.

    There are hundreds of thousands of people interested enough in different issues to monitor the news, Parliament, Congress, twitter accounts, websites, and God knows what else for hints of abuse of the rights of citizens over the power of government and business.

    What that means is it's virtually impossible to have another Watergate without someone tweaking to it well before it can escalate into such a debacle.

    Witness the way the Harper government is being held to task over the robocalls. Much as they wish it would go away, it's pretty clear that the opposition MPs, the people on the internet, and the media of all kinds are not willing to "let it go" or let it be swept under the rug again. The Harper government has a major credibility problem right now, the same as the US government had when they were caught selling out to the *AA special interest lobbyists by tabling SOPA.

    While the *AA have money to keep buying Congress, the people have nothing but free time to monitor Congress for each and every attempt to bring this nightmare legislation back.

    Any industry which relies on kickbacks and lobbyists better rethink their strategy. Because while they can buy Congressmen and MPs, the Congressmen and MPs can't get away without getting caught any more.

    --
    I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
    1. Re:Times have changed: secrecy is dead by currently_awake · · Score: 1

      Soap box, ballot box, ammo box. The American public is at the ballot box stage. You have been warned.

    2. Re:Times have changed: secrecy is dead by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 3, Insightful

      there's no more ammo box stage. you seriously think any citizen group can fight ANY modern 1st or 2nd world country's government?

      when the balance of power existed, gov lived with us. now, they live over us and its never going to go back again.

      ammo box is a null idea. it was great while we had it but its GONE. gone gone gone.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    3. Re:Times have changed: secrecy is dead by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      ammo box is a null idea. it was great while we had it but its GONE. gone gone gone.

      I disagree. Yes, any 1st world army will slaughter a popular uprising, but then there'd be nobody to vote, buy things, pay taxes, clean streets, hell join the army.

      Pyrrhic victory

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    4. Re:Times have changed: secrecy is dead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would say Egypt qualified as a second world military. Maybe even Libya. A citizen's revolt does not require ammunition to be successful, for example: the unification of Germany and the fall of the Soviet Union. Of course, it helps to be ready to use that box if necessary (Tiananmen Square).

    5. Re:Times have changed: secrecy is dead by maple_shaft · · Score: 2

      The days when corporations and special-interest lobby groups could operate behind the smokescreen of media reporting are over. There are hundreds of thousands of people interested enough in different issues to monitor the news, Parliament, Congress, twitter accounts, websites, and God knows what else for hints of abuse of the rights of citizens over the power of government and business. What that means is it's virtually impossible to have another Watergate without someone tweaking to it well before it can escalate into such a debacle.

      While this is technically true, it should be pointed out that because of the very free flow of information we now experience we are also highly subject to massive amounts of information overload. This makes it very difficult for the uninformed person to make an accurate judgement on the information that is presented to them and when they get 18 different wildly different viewpoints, how do you know what to believe? Clearly some of these are exaggerations of the truth. Some are pretty close to the truth. Some are disingenous or ill informed themselves. Some are just downright lies fueled by a hidden agenda. Then you find 200 disparate sources arguing over whether the hidden agenda for opinion X even exists or not.

      So the flow of information can no longer be controlled, but it can be obfuscated for the vast majority to the point where you create bitter divides and polarities in society allowing you more control and freedom to gain more power and influence. The game has changed, the vast majority are still misinformed and greatly outnumber the handful of people who actually see and can understand what is actually going on, so the powers that be pretty much can just ignore them.

    6. Re:Times have changed: secrecy is dead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stop saying "the Harper government", you're just inflating the ego of that jackass.

    7. Re:Times have changed: secrecy is dead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On the other hand, there is also a good chance that 1st world armies will refuse to fire on their own citizens when ordered to do so, which leads to other units refusing to fire on the renegade unit, and so on. When push comes to shove, that's what will be the deciding factor - the unit that says "this is crazy, I won't do it" first.

    8. Re:Times have changed: secrecy is dead by WhyNotAskMe · · Score: 1

      The game has changed, the vast majority are still misinformed and greatly outnumber the handful of people who actually see and can understand what is actually going on, so the powers that be pretty much can just ignore them.

      I would suggest that you underestimate the intelligence and capability of citizens these days. In the first place, they are better educated than ever before in the entire history of mankind. Furthermore, having a myriad of sources for information, rather than confuse, I would suggest allows us to form an educated opinion far faster than ever before. Thirdly, we have instant access these days to our trusted social networks through which we may filter our opinions. Clearly I take an optimist view here. Let me give you a practical example of what kind of thing I base my optimism on...

      Late last night, I read the piece by Cary Sherman, than for the next two hours I read every single comment below it, some 250 comments at that point (and closed off to further comments). I was absolutely amazed and astonished at how well informed the overwhelming number comments were. Furthermore, they all were overwhelmingly well thought out - the product of well digested thought. They were also overwhelmingly critical of Cary Sherman, I would say > 95%, and based on rational argument.

      I would think after that Cary Sherman wouldn't dare raise his head up again in public if he read through those comments. He should feel thoroughly humiliated.

      I was very, very encouraged, so much so that I will stop proselytizing my little manifesto. (I expect this to be the last link to it I'll bother to post, at least here.) People have moved past that now, and have already moved on to reshaping the future of copyright law reforms. There is a revolution underway, and there is no turning back. The people won't stand for it.

      I have followed this Slashdot discussion up to here, and I see it has gone off on interesting little side trips. I strongly recommend anybody to read the discussion over at the NYT article, which stays on focus, for an eye opener. It is a wonderful and glorious piece of contemporary collective consciousness.

    9. Re:Times have changed: secrecy is dead by AdrianKemp · · Score: 1

      You do realize that soldiers are still people, yes?

      I'm not saying that an armed uprising would be automatically successful, but I assure you that there would be a) plenty of people in the army who agreed with it, and b) a vastly greater number that wouldn't want to go slaughtering countrymen wholesale.

      Of course I'm referring to an uprising of any substantial clout here... a small militia wouldn't even give the militarized police forces a run for their money. There comes a point where the soldiers actually start to question the blood bath.

    10. Re:Times have changed: secrecy is dead by maple_shaft · · Score: 1

      I would suggest that you underestimate the intelligence and capability of citizens these days. In the first place, they are better educated than ever before in the entire history of mankind. Furthermore, having a myriad of sources for information, rather than confuse, I would suggest allows us to form an educated opinion far faster than ever before.

      I do not underestimate the capability and education of citizens. I agree with this statement that we are better educated than ever before. I was once terribly uneducated and misinformed and the Internet helped me to change my world view. I do find social psychology fascinating however. My world view is that while we are intellectually more capable, we are still emotionally driven. Given a choice people will choose a familiar and comfortable hell over an unfamiliar and strange heaven. This holds true for what we DECIDE to believe as well, as ultimately it comes down to a persons decision about what they choose to believe. Did Obama sign NDAA into law? I believe he did in light of evidence but I chose to believe that since I did not see him do it in person. Do I believe he is a muslim? No I do not choose to believe that because I don't think there is evidence for it.

      The bottom line is that acceptance of an unconvenient truth may be satisfying to our logic, however emotionally distasteful to our belief structures, our world views, our culture that we grew in and became familiar with, or the consequences of that thing being true are too distasteful for us to accept. We may be smart, but we have an innate nature to use that very intelligence to try and rationalize and justify viewpoints that are tolerable to our fragile emotional states. The bottom line is that while I respect your optimism, I truly believe that humanity is deeply flawed in this way and will always be so for a long long time.

      we have instant access these days to our trusted social networks through which we may filter our opinions. Clearly I take an optimist view here.

      Our trusted social networks are hand selected by the most biased source imaginable, ourselves. We may pick friends and family but those who disagree with us give us emotional turmoil and upset relative calm and balance. We will choose to socialize with others whom we have more in common with and that generally means that we subconciously pick sites, forums and media that are primarily comprised of like-minded individuals (unless of course if we get a thrill at being a rabble rouser on the opposing sides team). If anything this means we filter the massive amount of available information to that which is most savory to ourselves, further alienating ourselves from opposing viewpoints and information sources that could potentially challenge and threaten our beliefs and world view.

      Your example of the NYT article perfectly demonstrates this. The large number of left-leaning commenters is because the NYT is more savory to left leaning individuals than right leaning individuals. You would get a completely different commentary for the exact same article if it was posted on the Cato Institutes or Heritage Foundations site. This is the same false sense of mass mentality that we can witness on Slashdot commentary. If Slashdot was a true sampling of the average person, the average person would mostly consist of software developers, engineers, scientists and IT professionals and would primarily be Liberal-Left or Libertarian. Very few people in the world are actually Liberal-Left or Libertarian.

    11. Re:Times have changed: secrecy is dead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Soap box, ballot box, ammo box. The American public is at the ballot box stage. You have been warned.

      Wooden box. Once you gun nuts finally revolt, this place will be much nicer with you in the ground.

    12. Re:Times have changed: secrecy is dead by bhtooefr · · Score: 1

      Sure it's gone?

      In a direct battle lines war, sure, the people are far out-gunned.

      But, look at how much of a pain in the ass the Iraqi insurgency was against the US military. That's a bunch of uneducated, dirt-poor people using what they could, and not actually being there for the attack, and not winning, but being fairly effective.

  83. Re:Would you kindly... by ganjadude · · Score: 1, Insightful

    seriously, no one "lets me" keep my guns except for me

    --
    have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
  84. never thought... by Mariomario · · Score: 1

    never thought I'd see a democrat actually admit that he thinks the American people are stupid.

  85. Re:I can't believe I'm actually saying this, but.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    (If that surprises you, compare Lady Gaga's wealth to JK Rowling's. People spend more money on books in one summer than has ever been spent on music ever.)

    [citation needed]

    Besides, JK Rowling is a bad example to show how much money can be made in books. How many Harry Potter movies are out there? Novel authors only make a fortune if their work moves on to other media. Movies, toys, video games...all of which Harry Potter has done.

  86. I'm sorry? by roc97007 · · Score: 1

    > and for not spreading information with the same 'clarity and integrity' of broadcast journalists."

    Um, I think I just threw up a little in the back of my mouth. (I hate it when that happens. It's hard on the fillings.)

    --
    Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
  87. Re:SOPA really bout stopping sales of Fake Pharmie by symbolset · · Score: 1

    By "counterfeit" he means "generic" - or worse, the exact same legitimate medicine in the same packages from the same factory once exported and sold abroad for less than the US price and then re-imported.

    --
    Help stamp out iliturcy.
  88. Congress' side of the story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Congress' side of the story is... THE LAWS IT ACTUALLY PASSES. If a law doesn't pass, Congress has said that it sucked. Or didn't have enough money/power/manipulation thrown at it.

  89. Re:I can't believe I'm actually saying this, but.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "The fact is, content and tech need each other."

    I call bullshit. Technology does not need copyrighted content to survive or flourish. If profit motive won't drive technological advances, the human spirit will.

  90. keep dreaming ... by MadMaverick9 · · Score: 1

    this is just the beginning ... of the end.

  91. Re:Would you kindly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    They would never steal votes I wouldn't think.....

    Did you know that by many accounts, Bush Jr lost the 2004 election by over 300,000 votes... OMG ANTHRAX IN THE MAIL! ANTHRAX IN THE MAIL!!!!! Whew, glad that was over, what was I talking about???? Oh, some Florida state investigator looking into voting fraud turned up dead along with a few other people? Oh well, didn't hear about it on any mainstream news station so must not be a problem.....

    Now, go mod me down as troll or flamebait anyways......

  92. Re:I can't believe I'm actually saying this, but.. by fnj · · Score: 1

    We're Americans. We know that practically everyone in politics is lying to us whenever they open their mouth.

    Not everyone in politics is a lying SOB. Just about everyone in the political ESTABLISHMENT is. There are plenty of good candidates who run for office. They are "in politics" by definition, but almost always not in the political establishment. There are a fair number of people who actually get elected and who at least begin as principled and honorable public servants. Sure, a large majority of them get corrupted when they gradually slide into the political establishment.

    Our true problem is that lying is widely EFFECTIVE in politics. Voters fall for it. Or they overlook it because there is some pandering position they agree with.

  93. Mmm hmm by Starfleet+Command · · Score: 1

    Yeah, right...I bet he does.

  94. DUH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Turn off your television!

  95. Re:Would you kindly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Try pointing your gun at someone randomly and see if "we" take it away. Sorry.

    Brave words, but meaningless.

  96. The machine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No one wants their "magic money making machine" to become useless. They will kick, scream and fight all the way for it. The Music Industry is doing just that.
    They are hoping people won't wake up to the fact that they are trying to sell the intangible. They don't care if they have to stomp on people to do so.

    1. Re:The machine by MadMaverick9 · · Score: 1

      the fact that they are trying to sell the intangible

      they are not even trying ...

      where is the shop that i can go to with my usb stick in one hand and a ten dollar bill in the other hand and buy some mp3 music files, an avi movie file or a piece of software?

      it doesn't exist ... and that's exactly the problem.

  97. The public is not the enemy by Karmashock · · Score: 1

    The RIAA needs to stop treating the public like the enemy or the public will treat the RIAA the same.

    Paying off a bunch of politicians and running a little secret program to radically change the laws overnight without a proper public debate was a hostile act.

    Stop doing that or you'll be regarded henceforth as an enemy to be wiped out.

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    1. Re:The public is not the enemy by CodeHxr · · Score: 1

      Personally, I think they've already crossed that threshold and I've stopped buying music of any sort. As a gamer, I don't really have the time to listen to much music anyway, so I'm not really missing out on anything.

    2. Re:The public is not the enemy by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      I do lots of things that can't be done in front of a computer... like walking or driving...

      And I don't blame an art form for the militancy of a tiny minority in it's publishing industry that have created this monster.

      Many artists are more against the RIAA then you are...

      I think something the studio heads need to grasp is that the music going public has lost a lot and they're trying to get it back by often illegal means.

      We can't even sell our digital downloads... where as past generations could resell music.

      If the RIAA wants to get the current generation to take them seriously then they need to compromise somewhere. Strike a balance.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
  98. Re:I can't believe I'm actually saying this, but.. by steelfood · · Score: 1

    You are right about the RIAA, but the MPAA is a much larger industry than you are giving it credit. J.K. Rowling only has so much money because the Harry Potter films are a cash cow for her, and they reinforce and encourage book reading.

    The saving grace is, the MPAA isn't nearly as affected by the digitization of media, because part of what they sell is the movie theater experience. The DVD sales is icing on the cake for them. However, the RIAA doesn't control concerts. In fact, it's one of the parts of the much larger music industry that they don't control either directly or indirectly. Also, moving pictures with sound are much harder to digitize than just sound. So the MPAA isn't as threatened by file sharing as the RIAA is.

    This difference is why the MPAA can take their sweet time in shutting down sites like Suprnova while the RIAA is running around suing their customers' pants off. It's easy to pass an MP3 around even using an ad-hoc network between two proximal devices. It takes considerably more resources to do the same with a feature-length motion picture. The MPAA still has time (while broadband adoption is low).

    The print industry isn't going anywhere. Tablets and self-publishing are both threats, but they're not real threats to the industry, only to its growth. There's nothing like picking up a book and flipping through its pages. Until a machine can replicate that experience, books are going nowhere. And piracy is an afterthought, as books ultimately get priced sufficiently low that it's not too expensive for anyone to purchase recreationally.

    --
    "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
  99. Re:Would you kindly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They don't need to cheat on elections. They don't care which candidates you vote for, because they've arranged the system so that all of the candidates are adequately corrupt and dishonest. The representative democracy system is no longer working for the public the way it was originally intended, and needs an overhaul. It's looking increasingly likely that said overhaul will not be brought about in an entirely peaceful manner.

  100. RIAA CEO needs to shut his pie hole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When everyone is against you throwing punches is not bloody likely to improve your position.

    Keep running your mouth... Train wrecks are fun to watch.

    1. Re:RIAA CEO needs to shut his pie hole by compro01 · · Score: 1

      Train wrecks are fun to watch.

      Yes, from a distance, assuming the train isn't barreling towards your house.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
  101. Re:Would you kindly... by brainboyz · · Score: 1

    You're off topic and trolling now, but for amusement sake: now you sound like the nutters that claim income tax isn't legal because it wasn't ratified. 2A was signed in as part of the original 10 and happens to be the reason you can enjoy the other 9, and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future.

    Oh, and the militia is defined as all able-bodied men between 17 and 45 per US Code. But for equality we've let every adult have one if they so choose and haven't had the right taken by court order.

  102. Poor RIAA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Surely those single widowed mothers who were mercifully sued by the RIAA for illegally downloading a car feel their pain.
    WOE IS THE RIAA.

    Let us join in the march to Washington protesting such cruelties against the RIAA.
    The pain I feel that Kayne has to delay buying another jag for a few days is BEYOND TOLERANCE.
    *Sobs miserably*

  103. Re:I can't believe I'm actually saying this, but.. by devent · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I don't really care if the RIAA comes up with a super duper bill that will solve the world starvation or bring the world peace.

    My problem is the whole concept of copyright, how it is enforced and how it invades my privacy and my property rights.

    Fist of all is the term of copyright is overblown and kills our culture. How is a copyright term of over 100 years going to encourage anything? It just kills the public domain and thus our culture.

    Second, is the dragonical punishment for copyright infringement, even for private, non commercial infringement. Private, non commercial infringement should either be allowed or should have a punishment fee like 50$.

    Third, it's the invasion of my privacy, with DRM and with EULAs or TOS. When I buy your stuff, it's mine to do what ever I like in my own home, for private use. That is, I can copy it as much as I like, I can format shift it and I can give it to my friends. I can play it how, when and on what device I like.

    Finally, when I buy it, it's mine. I can sell it or lend it. It's my property.

    And I don't care how many artists have to starve to death or how "unfair" it is. An artist have no right to be paid indefinitely over a one time job, neither have she the right to be paid or to make a living from her art. And no, that will not be the end of all art as we know it.

    So just fuck of RIAA MPAA GEMA and what not. I don't need you, I don't want you, and I don't need your laws.

    --
    http://www.mueller-public.de - My site http://www.anr-institute.com/ - Advanced Natural Research Institute
  104. Re:Would you kindly... by VortexCortex · · Score: 1

    Yeah, where are the NRA nutjobs when you actually need them to get something done. Look, we've let you keep your firearms. Now comes your half of the bargain.

    Try and take them. ;)

    Uh, take your firearms? No no... Try and NOT stand up for the 1st amendment and watch all the others fall like dominoes. In other words, "Try and Take ANY of my rights." is what should be said instead... perhaps that's what you meant? (I'll just assume so).

    Sorry, we believe in the liberty to be a moron. We don't like it, but it's your right. If people would stop voting for corrupt sly assholes and actually paid attention to what they do, guys like this wouldn't get a foothold. Ain't a gun-applicable problem yet, but give it another 15 to 20 and it might be.

    Wait 20 years!?!?!? NO. Guns aren't worth piss if the country isn't worth fighting for... Go back and read your Declaration of Independence:

    Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

    You want to see a moron? Look at the fools who "suffer, while evils are sufferable" instead of "abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed." Don't you see? The system is corrupt no matter who we vote in. Look up Gerrymandering, or read about Lobbyists who basically OWN both sides of the fence. If it's not ALREADY bad enough for you to be rallying support to change things, then it never will be. Sit on your pile of useless weapons until you absolutely have to use them... wow, just wow.

  105. Re:saving children and 1-time events by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Hate to break it to you, but anything you can dream up with satire, they're already dreaming up for real.

    SOPA-II is ... wait for it ... PC-FIPA, HR1981 = Protecting Children from Internet Pornographers Act.

    I submitted it a week ago for a Slashdot story. It got voted up Red Hot in the Firehose. Slashdot didn't run it. They ran the Idle piece of "Eternal Copyright" instead.

    So yes, RIAA-Guy is partially right. We're already bored with Blackouts.

    "If you don't get your bill passed, make it WORSE, change the backstory to the ultimate counter line, and submit it again!"

    --
    My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
  106. Re:Would you kindly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't think fighting would help, but currently the USA is locked into a two-party voting system just like the UK and a handful of other countries, and yet you think that that's normal because you're used to it.

    I really think that what you need is a constitutional change to proportional representation, this is what the rest of the world has and it works much better (of course not perfect).

    One mechanism to achieve this would be a political party that vows to amend the constitution so that you'd get a multi-party system, and then hold general elections again.

    For example: in many European countries, the Green party equivalents have something like 7% of the vote. Everywhere except for the USA and UK, this means that they have some influence on coalitions, their talking points get heard instead of ignored, etc. etc.

    Here on Slashdot (I don't even bother reading other USA news media) everybody talks about how the Republican candidates are morons (except for Ron Paul) and Obama has disappointed his nation. You lot ONLY talk about the Republicans and Democrats, the right-wing half of the Party of Power and the crazy ultra-right-wing half of the Party of Power.

    Why (the fuck) not vote for Ralph Nader instead, then? Have you even heard of him? Nobody talks about the USA Green Party because in a stable two-party system, a third party has almost no chance to get elected (except the Whigs got kicked out by the Republicans apparently in 1856). THAT's how inflexible your current system is!

    And THAT's why it's vulnerable to "campaign donations" too: corporations just pay both sides of the Party of Power.

    If the system doesn't represent the wishes of its electorate, the system must be changed, and peaceful mechanisms to bring about this change must be evaluated.

    Oh and for the right-wingers: in a working multi-party system, Ron Paul would lead his own political party, I'm sure. So he would no longer be associated with the rest of the Republican candidates, which I agree he doesn't seem to deserve.

    Sigh.

  107. Seriously, independent labels are going strong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's really only the RIAA labels that are actually fighting the tech revolution. Nuclear Blast and Century Media are two independent labels(they also have most of the good metal bands signed to them) and they do fairly strong. They push a lot of merchandise, like t-shirts and limited edition things. Like, I pre-ordered an album, it came with a shirt and signed poster for the same price as I'd pay for any RIAA published CD by itself. And that's including postage. Seriously, try to realise that there are other ways to make money, Nuclear Blast and Century Media both have their own Youtube channels as well which as new music videos are uploaded receive thousands to millions of views so they'd be making a bit on them as well.
    They do also offer electronic downloads(never used one because I like physical copies), not sure if it is through them or just Amazon. These are the sort of labels that will survive because they learn to adapt, not the ones that are opposing the Internet.

  108. "if it comes from these sources, it must be true." by AtomicJake · · Score: 1

    I doubt that people think that "if it comes from these sources, it must be true." for everything what Google or Wikipedia says. However, we can be sure that people think "if it comes from these sources, it must be false." for everything the RIAA CEO says about those laws. So, basically, he reinforced with his comment what people understood about SOPA etc.

  109. Offshoring means nobody to buy things by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because, as Ford knew, if you pay your workers a bare minimum only, they have no money to spend to get the economy buying your product.

    So, despite offshoring being a removal of taxes to be collected, people to buy things and so on, not only are the politicians unconcerned, they're actively promoting the process!

    They'll cash in on the uptick.

  110. He misses an important point by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

    He misses an important point when he says that people were duped because they believe that if it comes from sources such as Google and Wikipedia that it must be true. That point is that people make another assumption, if it is supported by the RIAA and the MPAA, people assume, accurately in every case I can think of, that it is a bad bill.

    --
    The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
  111. Re:I can't believe I'm actually saying this, but.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is a difference between being an artist and being a musician/singer. Not all content creators are artist. The majority of them (at least the ones promoted by the content industry) are not artists. They are just that: content creators.

    'Content creators' start creating content with the idea of let's make some money (the 'why'), the 'how' comes only after that, and the 'what' is either music, movie, photography, etc depending on the skillset. Making money is the goal.

    'Artists' create content because they want to express something (an idea, a feeling, a vision, etc.; the 'why'), the 'what' and 'how' parts are quite similar to the other group. Making money is only a nice side-effect and is representing the appreciation of the content consumers.

    Both categories can have their places in the world, I just wish that the first group (and Big Media representing them) would not call themselves 'artists', because they aren't.

  112. Re:Would you kindly... by HopefulIntern · · Score: 1

    Even the famous phrase goes "a well armed militia being necessary for the preservation of a free state, the right for the people to bear arms shall not be infringed" (i may have slightly paraphrased, but that's almost it). This implies that firearms aren't just for organised militamen, rather, the citizens themselves *are* the militia, and therefore everyone shall be allowed to own firearms.

  113. Hey Mr. Sherman..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We hope SOPA is a "one time thing!"

    Well, one can wish, can't one?

  114. Fuck Cary Sherman and the RIAA by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

    Cary Sherman,

    Destroyer of culture, obliterator of freedom, pusher of dreck, worthless massive drain on humanity's resources, blatant unrepentant liar, stinking black stain on human history.

    Fuck off and die in a fire you piece of scum. I hope the next breath you take is "a one-time thing." I hope your family loses all their ill-gotten gains and lives in poverty, and has to change their last names and go into hiding to avoid the association with your dark legacy. I consider that a very fair punishment.

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    1. Re:Fuck Cary Sherman and the RIAA by CodeHxr · · Score: 1

      I'm CodeHxr and I approve this message.

  115. Forget about it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He talkes about sources?? Its in the text of the bill itself, and it does not matter if it was handed to you by the President, God, or Peter Pan. The bill is the bill is the bill.

  116. I have a tank I drive. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If I want your gun, I WILL take it from your cold dead hands. Even if I have to back up to find your body to do it.

  117. Re:Would you kindly... by GmExtremacy · · Score: 2

    It doesn't matter. The amendment exists now.

  118. Re:Would you kindly... by GmExtremacy · · Score: 2

    They do make a habit of ignoring the constitution.

  119. RIAA existence... by halfkoreanamerican · · Score: 1

    I was kind of hoping that the existence of the RIAA would be a one time thing and that it had a terminal illness by now... When will it die? Euthanasia anyone?

  120. Re:Would you kindly... by tnk1 · · Score: 1

    I'm not sure a multi-party system is much better by default. In essence you have the special interests with actual representation, instead of the interests just paying someone off in one of the two parties (or both). More transparent, sure, but better? There are plenty of examples where small minority parties have controlled the agenda despite not even having close to a majority.

    George Washington warned about the dangers of political faction, and personally, I think we'd be better off with two less parties, not a half-dozen more of them. I recognize that people will tend to organize themselves for certain goals, but the way that the two parties have sort of flip flopped and somersaulted over one another in their century or so of existence makes me wonder if they aren't just vehicles for certain personalities, as opposed to even platforms.

  121. Re:I can't believe I'm actually saying this, but.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Of course he's only interested in the industry. What did you think the 'I' in 'RIAA' stood for? If they were at all interested in artists they would perhaps be the RAAA, but they're not. Artists only indirectly pay the RIAA; they do it with money the industry has 'allocated' on their behalf. RIAA's real customers are SONY, Warner Brothers and the like. Artists, not so much.

  122. WHOAH WHOAH WHOAH!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    SPOILER ALERT PLEASE.

  123. Re:Would you kindly... by brainboyz · · Score: 1

    Any loss of rights is deplorable, agreed. The 2nd tends to put teeth on the defense of them.

    My point was there are still civil ways to enact change. I believe the popular phrase is "Soap box, ballot box, jury box, ammo box: use in that order." While the system is slow, it can still be used if people pull their heads out and stop voting for "both" sides; stop picking those who talk out of both sides of their mouth, and start convincing good local people to run for positions.

    Rallying, protesting, and otherwise showing political force is good. The guns shouldn't be pulled out until all else is failed, but that in no way means you should sit while the state crumbles around you. SOPA is a perfect example. Tons of money behind that, but people spoke out in numbers and the politicians backed off (except the few, particularly in CA, who are known to not give a damn what people want).

  124. Easy Fix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Europeans, don't use Google. Ta-da!!

    Seriously, if anyone outside of European politicians are concerned with the privacy policy, then Europeans will stop using Google services forcing Google to either a) adjust their policies to accommodate their customer base or b) not give a damn' and just do what they want to do.

    Google's services are free to use, most of them anyway, they have a choice.

  125. Tried to subvert the democratic process, failed. by shoutingloudly · · Score: 1

    The copyright fundamentalists should have taken the OPEN Act (which itself still needs some tweaks; see the EFF write-up) and called it a day. It really says something that the voices for fair use—Ron Wyden, Zoe Lofgren, Jared Polis, etc.—were the ones introducing a bill to create a mechanism to starve allegedly infringing sites of funding.

    Previous legislative processes, e.g. the development of the ideas that became the anticircumvention proceedings in the DMCA, showed at least some willingness to compromise and listen to critical input—hardly done in a good-faith effort to craft good legislation for the 21st Century, but at least willing to hold multiple hearings and actually hear from all of the critics. That at a time when there weren't nearly as many critics!

    This time around, the copyright zealots and their allies in Congress decided on a fingers-in-the-ears, ram-it-through-ASAP strategy. That is, until January 18. Now, suddenly, they're claiming that the tech industry and civil society groups need to be more willing to sit down and talk. This while Chris Dodd won't even make time for lunch with Gary Shapiro—the head of the Consumer Electronics Association, not exactly Richard f'ing Stallman.

    The gall these folks have shown in the last two years, the pure nerve, is amazing—even in the context of the copyright debate for the previous 25+ years, a time when they've some real chutzpah.

  126. Re:saving children and 1-time events by TheSpoom · · Score: 1

    Protecting Children from Internet Pornographers Act

    Well, we're boned. There aren't enough Congresspeople or Senators that would have the balls to vote against a bill titled as such, no matter what we do.

    --
    It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
    - E. Debs
  127. Re:I think I speak for the entire Internet when I by TheSpoom · · Score: 1

    That sounds like an awesome comic book villain.

    --
    It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
    - E. Debs
  128. Re:I can't believe I'm actually saying this, but.. by WhyNotAskMe · · Score: 1

    Interesting comment, but your link didn't work for me.

    I also read every one of the comments, on into the night. My impression is here. I concluded that this guy should feel so humiliated after reading all those comments he should want just crawl up in a hole somewhere and die.

    I wouldn't worry that you discovered you were wrong about some little point. The point is that having the RIAA dictating legislation is wrong to the point of absurdity. Nothing good could have ever come of it. It had to be discarded like tainted evidence brought to a trial, on principal alone, in a swift summary judgment.

  129. Re:I can't believe I'm actually saying this, but.. by oldmac31310 · · Score: 1

    Dragonical! Awesome! I think you just invented a new word!

    --
    http://www.acetonestudio.com
  130. Re:Would you kindly... by Eivind+Eklund · · Score: 1

    What you describe about the parties being vehicles for personalities seems correct, from my detached point of view, as somebody that are from another country but is interested in US politics and living in the US. However, my impression is that your parties are vehicles for personalities because you've set up your election system so it elects individuals instead of parties - which also leads to your two-party system.

    Where I'm originally from (Norway), the system works quite well. Elections are based on voting for lists of people[1], generally supplied by parties[2] but being possible to set up without forming a party. Voting is tabulated by county (there's only 20 counties in Norway; for US federal elections, this would have to be by state) and the number of positions available is split between the different candidates from the lists based on the number of votes[3]. This will leave some votes for particular lists 'over' - to compensate for that, there's some extra positions nationally that's divided among all parties with >4% of the vote, to even out their left over votes.

    The 4% limit is to avoid having too many extremely small/single interest parties, which we worry would make the political process work worse. (I don't necessarily agree, but that's the rationale.)

    The overall result of this is a political system with about 8 major active political parties, and some stray parties with a single representative, covering a range of different interests. The overall political process is generally seen to work well.

    There's a couple of other important details that are likely significant in this: We prohibit political TV and radio advertising, and parties have automatic access to public debates.

    [1] You have to start with an approved list, but you can remove people and add people and re-order; however, as far as I know changing the list has only ever made a difference in city elections, never at the national level. It is certainly not common for changes to have an effect at the national level.

    [2] The power of parties is that they can supply the lists as detailed in [1] without having to have more than two signatures, they get some value out of 'left over votes', they get some financial support, and they have an automated right to defense of their name against confusion from other parties or list creators. To create a party you need a certain number of signatures; for the national election it's 5000 signatures from people that are (or will shortly be) eligible to vote. If you don't have a party, you can publish a list for voting: It needs to to have 500 signatures on the list of candidates for the national and county elections, or 2% of the voters in the city for a city (but 300 signatures will always be considered sufficient for a city election).

    --
    Doubting the existence of evolution is like doubting the existence of China: It just shows that you're uninformed.
  131. okay right by KingBenny · · Score: 1

    thanks for this link i could use a good laugh ... one time thing, that's like ... really really funny

    --
    Free speech was meant to be free for all... how can anyone grow up in a nanny state ?
  132. Re:I can't believe I'm actually saying this, but.. by DinDaddy · · Score: 1

    So you're saying the MPAA has been secretly bribing the telecom and broadband industry to keep bandwidth artificially low all this time.

    Hmmmm.

  133. Re:saving children and 1-time events by bhtooefr · · Score: 1

    This is disgusting, because it's supporting child abuse and using children as political pawns, but...

    Maybe it's time to donate to NAMBLA?

    If NAMBLA was powerful, it'd at least destroy the "but child pornography!" argument for bad bills...

    (I'm not being entirely serious here, just for the record.)

  134. Apathy, or revulsion? by tqk · · Score: 1

    Then, but not until then, will most of my apathetic non-voting countrymen bother to get up off the couch.

    Perhaps your non-voting countrymen have simply come to the realization that voting for $bad1, $bad2, ... $badN isn't going to change a thing. I mean, come on. Barach Obama, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum; that's a choice? They're all going to end up doing essentially the same shitty stuff and end up in the pocket of rich lobbyists, so why even bother? The game's rigged against you no matter which way you play.

    Politics in Syria these days are more interesting than USA politics. At least they know what they're fighting, and dieing, for.

    --
    "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
  135. Re:I think I speak for the entire Internet when I by tqk · · Score: 1

    That's not how you spell "I hope every nerve ending in your body is permanently made to think it's on fire and you live forever", but yeah, the entire Internet is saying this.

    I'm not ordinarily a religious man (far from it), but even I'll say Amen to that.

    Feel the hate, Cary. I advocate boycotting *AAs and don't pirate, yet even I feel this way. You're a destroyer of worlds; anathema. :-|

    --
    "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
  136. Re:I can't believe I'm actually saying this, but.. by tqk · · Score: 1

    They'll have to let that sleep for a while before they can start makin' it rain again.

    You can close the barn door as many times as you want once the horse has bolted. It still won't be in there. This kind of !@#$ is pretty hard to forget, even for 30 second attention span sheeples. When the National Post (Canada) has two inch high headlines like (paraphrased), "How To Cope When The Web Goes Dark", even my Mom wonders what's smelling so bad.

    --
    "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
  137. Re:I can't believe I'm actually saying this, but.. by tqk · · Score: 1

    Both categories can have their places in the world, I just wish that the first group (and Big Media representing them) would not call themselves 'artists', because they aren't.

    Chauvenist.

    Back when I was into that stuff, we had "Fine Art" and "Arts and Crafts." The former included things like painting, sculpture, & etc. The latter included things like pottery, batique, & etc.

    I'd put some of my hand thrown pottery up against a Picasso any day, and it would win on relevance alone. Some of my glazes were to die for; far more subtle than anything *any* painter has ever done. You haven't lived until you've seen what can be done with Raku pottery techniques.

    Bite me, Pablo, you pretentious git. Take Jackson Pollock with you when you go.

    --
    "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
  138. Re:I can't believe I'm actually saying this, but.. by tqk · · Score: 1

    Our true problem is that lying is widely EFFECTIVE in politics. Voters fall for it. Or they overlook it because there is some pandering position they agree with.

    I disagree. The true problem is most voters are ordinarily lazy, ignorant slugs. They don't think about the issues. They vote for "their guys" (partisan politics), regardless of what's really going on, because "the other guys" are either socialists/commies/liberals/mushy or fascists/capitalists/religious nutcases/"think of the children".

    Last Friday, my provincial premier outright lied to us. "Blah, blah, blah MUST be on the table!" A couple of days later, it came out that it wasn't going to be on the table. The ensuing outroar is damned near deafening. Nobody's falling for it. It's *the* big topic in all local media.

    Politicians underestimate us regularly. They think they can get away with anything, but the reality is otherwise, as the SOPA/PIPA/ACTA reaction proves. Unfortunately, even voting them out changes nothing, as the likes of Chris Dodd proves.

    --
    "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
  139. Re:I can't believe I'm actually saying this, but.. by devent · · Score: 1

    I think I will trademark it. :p

    --
    http://www.mueller-public.de - My site http://www.anr-institute.com/ - Advanced Natural Research Institute
  140. "Resistance is Futile" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This guy sounds like a cross between the Borg and the Terminator.

    Will he ever give up?

    I don't think that understanding the wishes of the many is part of his programming.

  141. Re:Would you kindly... by WillDraven · · Score: 1

    ...and I don't mean one or two contested elections...

    At the risk of godwining the hell out of this thread.. well.. it only took ONE bad government to end up with the holocaust...

    --
    This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
  142. Congress can't control interwebs for propaganda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Sherman blames the Internet for making it impossible for Congress to get out its side of the story, and for not spreading information with the same 'clarity and integrity' of broadcast journalists."
    ... In other words "Sherman blames the Internet for making it impossible for Congress to get out its side of the story... Because Congress can't control the internet... It can only control broadcast journalists for its propaganda"

  143. The first rule of PR is... by Ramin_HAL9001 · · Score: 1

    If someone exposes your dishonest scheme, lie, lie, lie, lie, and lie some more, repeat the same lies over and over again in every venue and on every news network so often that people start to think you are telling the truth. Accuse everyone else of being dishonest, accuse everyone else of conspiring against you, tell everyone who will listen, and if anyone who listens actually believes your lies, praise them for being fair and balanced.

    The second rule of PR is...
    lie, lie, lie, lie, and lie some more, repeat the same lies over and over again in every venue and on every news network so often that people start to think you are telling the truth. Accuse everyone else of being dishonest, accuse everyone else of conspiring against you, tell everyone who will listen, and if anyone who listens actually believes your lies, praise them for being fair and balanced.