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."

17 of 441 comments (clear)

  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 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.
    2. 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.

    3. 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.)

    4. 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.

    5. 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!
  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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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
  5. 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.

  6. 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.

  7. 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.

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

    Fuck. You.

    --
    Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
  9. 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.

  10. 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.

  11. 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.