Slashdot Mirror
MPAA Chief Dodd Hints At Talks To Revive SOPA
suraj.sun writes "Christopher Dodd, the former Connecticut senator who now leads the MPAA, hasn't given up on his dream of censoring the Internet. In an interview with Hollywood Reporter, he said that Hollywood and the technology industry 'need to come to an understanding' about new copyright legislation. Dodd said that there were 'conversations going on now,' about SOPA-style legislation, but that he was 'not going to go into more detail because obviously if I do, it becomes counterproductive.' Asked whether the White House's decision to oppose SOPA had created tensions with Hollywood, Dodd insisted that he was 'not going to revisit the events of last winter,' but said he hoped the president would use his 'good relationships' with both Hollywood and the technology industry to broker a deal."
LOL! American Freedom!
What motivates this man to be so evil?
What a fucked up state. Please Connecticutions stop breeding NOW.
Spit out plain and simple bribed legislation I don't know what does.
The *AA will keep sponsoring legislation until they get what they want. Then they'll decide they want more.
News, indeed.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
I believe the current bill trying to snake its way into US law is CISPA:
http://kat.ph/blog/GreenPirate/post/1774/
If I tell the people about the legislation I am crafting there will be outrage. So don't tell anyone. Obviously.
"Broker a deal" means "Bend over and take whatever we give you"
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
You'd think the guy could at least try to resist the temptation to sound like he's in a mob movie. Unless that's part of the draw of the whole being evil thing.
Long live Jack Valenti!
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
... the fact that we can't resist buying his shit is what gives him the money to keep trying to censor our Internet.
Copyright is the problem, it needs to be limited to 20 years. Only people should be allowed to own copyright. Businesses should only be allowed to lease copyright.
Here's the understanding, Chris: Computers copy data. Period. End of novel; no sequel coming. It is a fact of the landscape that is not going to change.
And that, as far as any clear-thinking technologist is concerned, is the end of the discussion. Business models must be constructed around this reality. (And if your business model is not based on reality, but instead on a la-la fairy land where every computer is under MPAA/RIAA/SPAA control, unsanctioned copies never happen, every view is metered, and directors and actors work for naught but "exposure"... Well, they have anti-psychotics that can help with that now.)
BTW, anyone hoping to debate the merits of copyright policy is REQUIRED to read this speech by Thomas Babington Macaulay -- it will easily be among the most enlightening forty-odd minutes of your life.
Schwab
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
Ok, in case you didn't know this, of course they're going to revive it. They're going to keep pushing it and keep pushing it until it goes through. You thought we beat it because it didn't pass that one time? What, did you think the entertainment industry ran out of money and stopped paying congressmen?
They'll wait a little while, they'll rename it, they'll alter it to hide the more controversial aspects, and they'll wage a propaganda war. They will not stop trying to consolidate their power until they're ousted from power.
conversations going on now
but that he was
not going to go into more detail because obviously if I do, it becomes counterproductive.
It becomes counterproductive because nobody fucking wants this, and the people you're "having discussions" with are probably corrupt.
The technology industry wipes out the existing business model introducing a more efficient one, retaining only the creative elements that produces movies and music. That's what IT does.
I mean evolving business models was the whole idea of capitalism in the first place, from memory.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
Lets everybody keep a sharp eye out for whatever the fuck they may be trying, and shout it down when it comes out again... just like SOPA.. again
C|N>K
Chris Dodd makes me ashamed to be a life-long Connecticut Resident.
Voltaire says it best in 'When You're Evil'...
I'm the fly in your soup, I'm the pebble in your shoe
I'm the pea beneath your bed, I'm a bump on every head...
You want to know how to help your kids? LEAVE THEM THE F*&K ALONE. --George Carlin
I guess corporate dollars and political motivation can't get spelled out much clearer than that. Anyway, there have been plenty of alternatives proposed to SOPA/PIPA. If he can't work with what's been proposed then he should be fired.
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
We may disagree with you about social issues and government assistance, but you'd better believe we're your brothers in fucking arms when it comes to the overreach of Hollywood and big government censorship.
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/kevinglass/2012/01/18/republicans_backing_off_internet_piracy_acts
http://www.buzzfeed.com/jpmoore/15-republicans-you-can-thank-for-bailing-on-sopap
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_US_Congresspersons_who_support_or_oppose_SOPA/PIPA
It's time to organize a general boycott of the productions of their member companies. Can't you find some entertainment other than seeing the latest movie? I haven't bought a theater ticket in 10 years, and I do just fine. Most of their stuff these days is garbage anyway. The only way we are EVER going to be free of this tyranny is to deprive the members of the money they need to keep supporting it.
The world is my oyster. That's why it's always in a stew.
The reason this is happening is because the *AA is pumping so much money into members of Congress. The tech giants, however, have far more money than the *AA.
Why aren't the tech giants protecting their interests by spending more than the *AA are on lobbying?
Fuck that guy.
'We are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible, because only in that way can we find progress.' RPF
As a Canadian, I'm torn between taking some sort of sadistic delight in seeing that the characteristic of elected representatives making decisions contrary to the electorate's desires is not a uniquely Canadian trait, and feeling genuine empathy for the USA in this situation.
After careful consideration, I'll go with the latter. It's a more PC.
I am Canadian, after all.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Go fuck your self with a wiffle ball bat.
Just no.
Do sign, please. It may not help, but it can't hurt.
Maybe Chris Dodd needs to come to an understanding with a bucket of tar and a pile of feathers.
What is it about liberal ideology that makes us want to align with a group of large corporations to screw over large numbers of individuals just to line the pockets of said corporations? I thought liberals were bad people for doing precisely the opposite. Make up your minds!
You, me a couple of my friends meet at the back alley behind the bar, with my favorite "mr happy stick" and we'll reach "an understanding"
fucking trash.
How much more explicitly should he say that he doesn't give a rat's ass about the general interest? Should he say "I poop on all you little folks!"
I swear, Americans seem to just *love* these self-interested politicians.
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
Why don't we have more signatures on this petition to have him investigated for bribery?
"We &@$%ing own the executive branch! And we've already bribed Congress. Only nine more people to buy; five if we're not interested in a unanimous decision."
All the people that complained about special interest groups... well, this is what they're good for... EFF has been pretty good about fighting this stuff off in the past. And as time goes on this will be a bigger struggle.
You can't ban special interests. You can only counter special interests with special interests. The abortion people fight each other. The gun people fight each other. And now we're going to have a war between the MPAA etc and the EFF etc.
Bring it.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
You're advocating fascism.
Senator Thomas J. Dodd Memorial Stadium is a minor league baseball stadium in Connecticut. It was named after a Senator who was censured in 1967 for converting campaign funds to his personal accounts and spending the money.
That's Christopher Dodd's father. And the memorial stadium was built in 1995 during Chris Dodd's tenure as a Senator. Senator Chris Dodd has had his share of scandals too.
Something about apples not falling too far from the tree comes to mind.
I can't believe I voted for this jerk.
Actually, he's advocating vigilantism. Dodd is (one of many) advocating fascism.
Get SOPA on, and then hunt the GPL violators with it. I'm sure some of them are in the MPAA-related companies and groups. They'll be so very happy about the better way of enforcing copyright then. That's what they want, right?
http://www.tomsguide.com/us/REddit-TestPAC-SOPA-PIPA-Lamar-Smith,news-14720.html
"What better way to kill the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) bill for good than to nuke its author right out of Congress? That's what a group of Reddit users are trying to do after forming a Political Action Committee, or PAC. They want Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX.) booted out of office, and will do everything they can to see it happen."
If they succeed in booting Smith in the primary, that should put some fear into others who might otherwise support SOPA/PIPA style legislation.
Dodd is a cunt and everyone knows it.
Come to think of it, you've got a point there.
I'm usually more careful about throwing around the F word, but, in this case, I think it's clearly misapplied.
if its covered at all. This issue is supposed to be do-or-die for the media, but they're keeping it pretty quiet.
This is one of the many corporatist putsches where they expect to write the legislation and pay the campaign funds (or hold out the golden parachutes) and have it pass quietly while the media keep us distracted with 98% nonsense. Its like the debate over extending Medicare to the rest of the population -- oh, wait! There was no debate: We were told we could either deal with the private insurance companies, or the private insurance companies. And healthcare reform was a media megaproduction compared to ACTA/SOPA/DMCA.
Exactly so. It's for this reason that I wish those on the left would stop referring to the system we currently have as "capitalism". It's not even close, it's corporatism, and that's very different, and vastly inferior. Now, if those on the left don't like capitalism either, then that's their prerogative, but those on the left and the right who are not part of the establishment should recognize that corporatism is their mutual enemy, and that it should be rooted out first, and differences settled afterwards.
Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
I think the country's interests would be better served if Scalia or Roberts were to come to an untimely end. Not that I'm advocating vigilantism or violence, but this is going to [continue to] be an ugly era for American ideals if SCOTUS sticks with its current trend.
He doesn't realize that even hinting at it like this is also counterproductive? Wow, what a retard.
politicians! What the common people using the Internet want is irrelevant and totally and completely meaningless to them!
Quote: "but said he hoped the president would use his 'good relationships' with both Hollywood and the technology industry to broker a deal."
The big corporations in media and technology who finance the politicians should get together for a "solution". What the people want is not even considered for a microsecond by the **AA and others in Hollywood. When the first Tuesday in November comes, remember who these politicians were that sponsored and supported SOPA and PIPA and vote them ALL out of office. If they are still in office after November, it is reasonably certain that such laws and worse ones WILL get forced down everybody's throat.
A sufficiently advanced simulation is indistinguishable from reality.
He's an all-around scumbag.
More like Diss Crodd amirite?
Your comment in the subject line. Thank
--
you!
Obviously the kickbacks are too good
The difference is only in how much of the rotten stuff they do get caught in the media, and how much is never found out.
If it goes as dystopian as having execution.... They would not even need it. They just need to put the unfortunate victim in a fed pen, without being watched over, and drop a hint to the "lifer" there that ending that victim life, they will get better condition. Or whisper the guy is in fed pen due to child pornography. Or just let out it was a "rat". Or an ex policeman. Or put a black in the same shower as 5 aryan brotherhood guy, or a white in the same shower as 5 black panther guy and in both case make sure the 5 guys understand the single guy insulted them, well you get my drift. It might not be as efficacious as a direct execution, and more slow, but boy that is much much safer , allow them to have clean hand. And as to why you were put there as a prisoner ? There are enoug law on the book to have a reason for anybody and everybody.
Whatever the intent of the founding fathers, (who are dead and whose opinions therefore don't matter now because WE have to live in this country, NOT them...) the reality of today was not envisioned by them. They saw America as a largely agrarian society. They lived before the industrial revolution, and way before the information age. To try to live by how they thought and felt in today's world would be as absurd as taking someone who has only ever driven a donkey cart and putting him at the controls of a jumbo jet or a nuclear submarine.
Further, people have been arguing over the second amendment for almost as long as there's been one. The arguments usually tend to center on what "they" intended. The founders. People who lived in a time when a flintlock was HIGH TECH STUFF! If the founders had simply intended that no American citizen should ever be deprived of the right to bear arms, why didn't they just write exactly that?
What was that "A well regulated militia..." business about? Why even put that in there? Seems to me they meant "A strong militia is important, and since in this era, unlike in the distant future, we expect soldiers to show up already armed when we draft them, everyone should have a gun, if they want it. That way, they'll already have one when we call them up to serve, and so they can protect themselves from marauding Indians or bears."
They lived in a different world. In their world, Britain was a global superpower because their fleet of sailboats was superior to the sailboats of other nations. The founders did not, nor indeed could they have foreseen even so far as the Gatling gun, to say nothing about automatic grenade launchers, hollow point bullets, laser sights, sniper rifles that allow you to pick a target off a mile away, fully automatic machine guns, the list goes on and on and on.
To suggest we should still have the same rules just because they said so, when they were living in such a different time is ridiculous. The ridiculousness of the idea is only outdone by the ridiculousness of the idea that your weapons that you imagine the second amendment grants you the right to have, would give you a snowball's chance in Hell of standing up to even the smallest elements of the US military's CONVENTIONAL forces.
Do you really think, that you and your family, with your little cache of weapons could hold the fort, so to speak, against even a single infantry platoon? If so, you're out of fucking mind.
Even if you did hold out, if the government decided to take you down, how are you going to deal with an Apache helicopter hovering across the street? How the Hell will you, with your 12 gauges and AK-47's, and whatever other small arms you have, going to fare when a drone drops a Hellfire missile on your dumb ass?
The idea that the second amendment, and the guns it lets you keep are what's keeping this government in check, and preventing it from dropping all remaining pretense that it governs with our consent, and not actually despite us, is hilarious. If you believe it, you're out of your goddamned mind, or you're fuckin' high, or both. The US Marshals service, the US Army, the Marines, the Navy, and the Air Force, are not the least bit worried about your pitiful little stockpile of a few hundred guns. If there's only a dozen of you shooting, it doesn't matter how many guns you have. The more ordnance laying around your "compound", the bigger the fireworks there will be when they drop bombs on your house.
Just sayin'.
Christopher Dodd is a political slut. Dodd and his pal Barney Frank are the primary culprits in the Congressional protection given to Fannie & Freddie. As soon as their cover was blown, Dodd bailed and Frank is right behind him. Now Dodd is busy destroying another iconic U.S. business--the movies. Weeda Peeple tolerate sluts like Christopher Dodd for what reason?
Since compromise is required for anyone to get behind SOPA/PIPA, I suggest the following concessions of the MPAA: * Copyright is reduced from 75 years after authors death to 10 years after the creation of a protected work. * No more software patents. * Lobbying groups that donate more than $1 million dollars annually to politicians shall be taxable. While I realize that this is purely a fantasy and likely to never happen, I think a compromise like this would help MPAA and others at least sell their snake oil. Wondering what concessions others slashdotters would like to see in order for them to accept SOPA/PIPA in it's current form.
We don't live in Shouldland.
if anyone thought this was dead, they are sadly mistaken.
These groups wont stop until yo cant even *think* about content without being jailed, and get 100% of your income funneled to them automatically by the government as a 'fee' for breathing.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
How many times do you need to say NO! to a child before he stop?
I was raised by progressives in an overwhelmingly progressive community, and had a similar experience to yours moving from that to libertarianism. I think you know, then, that while some libertarians seek no government, the majority of libertarians call for a very limited government that sticks to national defense and a criminal justice system that addresses only crimes with actual victims and civil dispute resolution.
Without addressing the issue that most politicians who say they're conservative really aren't, conservatives may be good when it comes to individual freedom in the economic sphere and in some other cases, like the right to self defense. But they are not standing up for individual freedom when it comes to other social issues, such as immigration, drug use, prostitution, and gay rights.
That last one is a good example of how the three ideologies really differ. Progressives think gay marriage should be legal. Conservatives think it shouldn't. But only libertarians ask why government is in the marriage business in the first place. The mindset is simply different from either of the others.
Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
Obama is waiting for a big donation from Lefty Wood before 'finding' his position.
Two things that should be labeled DO NOT RESCUSCITATE.
On with the revolution. As in guillotine's and neck-ropes for the "elite"...
Freedom and liberty are not subject to a deal or negotiation!
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
maybe the mpaa should stop trying to be a horse and buggy maker in a car world instead.
Dodd said that there were 'conversations going on now,' about SOPA-style legislation, but that he was 'not going to go into more detail because obviously if I do, it becomes counterproductive.
Well no shit, if you tell the people about the new law that you're going to introduce, it's going to be popular with NO ONE (again), and everyone's going to piss on your doorstep about it (again)
Fuck off sir.
What do I know, I'm just an idiot, right?
The second amendment as we know it started out as an amendment forbidding the government to maintain a standing army in times of peace (many founding fathers considered standing armies to be a threat to freedom). The original wording was about maintaining militias to fill in for the lack of a standing professional army in times of peace. The wording got hacked down to what we see today. Heck, in their day, militia members didn't even store their militia weapons in their own homes; they stored such weapons in armories.
Guns should be legal because most citizens want them to be legal, but to claim that individual gun ownership should be legal because of the second amendment is a bad argument based on a lie.
The founding fathers did not include Guns as one of the top 10, it was done over their objection.
It was the people in the states, that demanded the constitution be made acceptable Most states could not "politically find a way to ratify the constitution and at the same time satisfy its citizens". So the ratification process was at a stand still. Unless and until the so called founders
made their constitution acceptable to the voters of the states. the states could not ratify it.
What the people in the states wanted was protection from abuse of government. So the founders negotiated; what settled out was an agreement,
you ratify and we will amend to include some of your demands. The minimum demand acceptable to the politics existing in the states are found in the first ten amendments [known today as the Bill of Rights].
The federalist were desperate to replace the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union Government with their constitution because they were in need of protection from the angry people [colonel Shaw was typical of the anger] and because their commercial enterprises where under competitive siege. These nobodies were outperforming the somebodies and the somebodies did not like it.