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."
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
If I tell the people about the legislation I am crafting there will be outrage. So don't tell anyone. Obviously.
... 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.
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.
The usual suspects: money and power.
I live ze unknown. I love ze unknown. I am ze unknown.
Yes but the person that introduced SOPA is a staunch conservative....Lamar Smith (R-Tx) Yeah Texas no less. So we have a liberal from Ct and a Conservative from Tx What exactly is your point?
The thing is, if the *AAs actually acknowledged the new reality, and worked with it, rather than against it, they probably would be able stop almost all piracy. They won't ever make as much money as they used to, because the Internet allows us all to do our own distribution. Why should we pay extra for a separate media distribution service when we've got a perfectly effective one in the Inteternet?
What we're seeing is the *AAs trying to cripple the Internet as a distribution medium because it encroaches on the job they (used to) do. Part of your movie ticket or CD purchase pays for the production of that movie or CD, and part of it pays for the whole distribution channel. Cut out the distribution channel from that price and a whole lot of profit dissapears (that would never have gone to the original artists).
Perhaps there should be some "consumer information" printed on the movie ticket / DVD / CD that tells us how much of it actually goes to the actors / artists and production crews, and how much goes into "studio" coffers.
The common factor is that they are both filthy rich and consider themselves far too poor.
The word you're looking for is greed.
Very true, it will probably be round 4 in 2014 before the outrage fatigue sets in and the MPAA gets about 60% of what it's asking for. By round 6 it'll be up to 135%. By 2025 your children will be required to name their children after an Oscar winner, and pay monthly license fees accordingly.
I think the obvious solution is a better compromise. I think most people are fine with the idea of making money off of creating things, whether they be movies, drugs, or whatever. The issue is that there is no end to the greed of the companies that control these things. It isn't like the average musician is making loads of money - it all goes to line executive pockets, and shareholders.
Copyrights and patents need to be reigned in and given durations appropriate to their nature. Go ahead and let Apple have a year or two lead if they come up with multitouch or whatever, but after that anybody can use it. If a new song comes out, give the artist a year or two to make a load of money on it, and then it goes in the bargain bin. Perhaps books last a little longer (not sure what the profits vs costs look like there). Let movies have a month of theater protection, and two years of DVD/streaming protection. Maybe for drugs set a cap on profits - you get 10 years from market approval (and another 10 years to get it to market as long as you actively pursue it), or a few billion dollars, whichever comes first.
There is nothing wrong with rewarding people who create things that are useful to society, even if only for entertainment. The issue is that these rights get used to stifle all kinds of potential innovation, and are far in excess of what is required to create an incentive.
Actually, he's conservative. Most modern Democrats are conservative, or centrist. If you want a liberal Democrat, look at Elizabeth Warren, Al Franken, or Russ Feingold.
There's a reason out of thousands of innate natural rights, the Founding Fathers decided to include guns as one of the top 10. No not for hunting. For self-defense. Both of yourself and your fellow compatriots.
We haven't hit that stage yet, but we're getting very very close. If they start rounding-up Americans and throwing them in jail without trial (NDAA), I'm running for office. I'm fed up. And if they start executing americans.....
Let's just say the 2nd amendment is the only right left that I have not exercised. But that will change. Time to follow the example of our fellow human beings in Egypt. Libya. Eastern Europe. And the original 14 states (including Vermont).
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
For God's sake, stop falling for the tired old left-right lie they've been foisting upon us. It's not about left-right, liberal-conservative, or whatever other obfuscation the bastards want you to believe in. It's about the corporate state vs individual liberty. Some D's are OK and some R's are OK. The rest are in the bag.
When and if this dawns on enough people, it's Katie bar the door. It will be the end of the evil empire and they know it.
The point that Macaulay made is that while we can concede that copyrights must exist, it is mandatory that they have an end as well as a beginning. Any legislation enforcing copyright monopolies must enforce both the beginning and the end of copyright terms. Make the government responsible for prosecuting infringements upon the public domain and make the damages comparable to those awarded to infringement on private copyrights. Oh, and make the length of the terms short enough that there actually *is* an end. None of the copyright legislation in the last two decades, or indeed anyone in power, has mentioned enforcement of the public domain. Without a strong public domain, copyright becomes monopoly for monopoly's sake, rather than for the public good, and that is what makes it evil.
It's the same thing as you've just asserted has happened to the word liberal. "Conservative" is now something else entirely.
Should've been clear as day to people when Bush started the Wall St. bailouts and then Obama continued them! What more do people need to see to realize what's going on? The parties are the same! They try to distract you with little non-economic trivialities like abortion or gay marriage but when it comes to looting the economy they are both the same.
The only way to stop it for good, is to destroy the industries that bright it into being. They will never stop, insane psychopathic greed drove them to seek ways to censor and shutdown the peoples version of the internet so they could create an eighties version of mass media on it instead.
That kind of sick thinking doesn't stop until the people behind it and then people behind them have lost all the power.
We will be fighting the SOPA battle for the next decade at least and possibly longer. They spend years perverting the news, they spent billions buying up control and they still lie on those mass media channels day in and day out. Fox not-News is just the very worst example, not just the only one spreading corporate propaganda as news.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
If the U.S. armed forces are capable of all that, why can't they beat 3000 farmers with little access to firearms and technology in Afghanistan?
It's not like dissenters will line up on a battlefield with the army and all take turns shooting each other. They'll be an insurgency. Your neighbors. People you work with. And they'll have easy access to guns and technology.
Politicians of both parties speak of seeking common principles on which they can all agree. It seems they've found one.
Yes, because the US of today is like Libya, Egypt, Yugoslavia and the colonies in America circa 1700. And Obama and Bush are like Ghaddafi, Mubarak, Tito and King George I. *roll eyes* I'm always wildly amused by the type of hyperbole that is coming from some people in the US public. To some extent, it shows exactly how little they know about the world, and even about their own government. On the other hand, it also shows just how frighteningly violent they are.
Good thing that entertainment in the US is highly efficient, and very good at keeping people glued to the couch. And that it really isn't as bad as people make it sound like. It means all this talk will just stay that - talk.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
Why hasn't the Catholic Church been declared a conspiracy to aid and abet child molestors? The reason is emm-oh-enn-ee-why, that's what. The MPAA, rotting from within or not, still has a shit-ton of money, and they're happy to toss it around to try to get what they want -- and so far they're fairly effective at it.
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
Main problem with dissenters is how easy it is to disband them. Firstly any body needs a head, and the FBI/CIA have practice with headshots. If anyone starts making sense they throw them in jail. It's really easy given todays level of population surveillance and overbearing laws.
Downloaded a song? Jailtime. Smoke weed? Jailtime had a younger girlfriend when he was in collegue? Statutory rape => jailtime.
Even if nothing can be found to get rid of a target (Cardinal Richelieu whould be dissapoint) you can thrump up false charges or, if pressed for time, charge him with disrruption of order or (for anyone seeking *actual* effective action) incitation to violence. It's therefore almost impossible to coordinate an organized rebelion. Which only means that any rebellion that does succed will be utter chaos.
But... the future refused to change.
Nonsense. The easiest way to overthrow the current batch of elected officials is to make the people enraged (not anger, which burns bright, then not at all; enraged, the sort of rage that glows like a lump of coal, and possesses a man to keep fighting even during bitter winters in places like Valley Forge). I have a book which purports that it's the printing of propaganda, timing, and anger that destroys entrenched governments.
In short, you personally do not do anything (violence, demonstrations, etc. only undermine your position, and draws the attention of power-brokers / rulers); you let the authorities fuck up, by shooting unarmed citizens or something equally unpalatable, then ensure that everyone knows they fucked up. Several incidents of a similar nature over a few years, supplied with the right condemnation, creates a firestorm that money & military cannot put out. Again, based off of this book's writings, it was the action of a certain founding father who helped turn the colonists against the crown (well, a little more than helped; more along the lines of ensuring that a military conflict would occur, and that the military would be loathed / despised / shunned by even the prostitutes).
I am John Hurt.
Best guess? It won't be a problem.
Why? Because the power-brokers are aware that the military has some reservations about firing upon an unarmed populace, specifically their own people. The military is required to swear an oath of loyalty to uphold the US Constitution, and the protect the people. They lack, for the vast majority, the psychological profile needed; and they are taught all about the Nuremberg trials, and how "I was only following orders" is not a valid defense; they are required to reject illegal orders, even from the commander in chief.
Instead, LEOs will be used. LEOs have shown that when outfitted with surplus military hardware, and trained with military tactics, they can be every bit as deadly as the military, while having little to no reservations over shooting an unarmed populace, specifically their own people (they do it all the time as it is). It also neatly sidesteps the issue of declaring martial law, which would put everyone on guard against a possible dictatorship. If the US President were to declare martial law today, an invisible clock would start ticking; a clock which various power-brokers would sell their own grandmother to prevent ticking. It's the kind of clock which has the citizenry polishing their pitchforks and acquiring fuel for torches, the kind of clock that has the military trying to decide whether it has a "problem," the kind of clock that gets the crazies thinking of being a 'hero' by sacrificing themselves to take out the "Big Bad." Using LEOs means you can say you're just trying to restore 'order' (plausible deniability), while you maintain control through your 'not-an-army.'
I am John Hurt.
US armed forces can easily erase ANY organized armed group from the face of the Earth. The problem is, insurgents are not an 'organized group'.
They are a diffuse network, and rooting them out in reality is more of a police work (i.e. building networks on informants, fighting weapon smuggling, etc.) than military work.
This works if there's no difference between one armed person and another. You no longer have parity.
Allow me to repeat DavidTC's excellent post from http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=346351&cid=21193115
Contents:
"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."
Then why is "conservative" presidential candidate Rick Santorum, for example, so keen on telling people what they can do with their bodies?
The real truth: Liberals are people who value fairness and preventing harm. Conservatives aren't as keen on those, principles they believe that fairness and preventing harm can be limited to the good people who live the correct way, because they place a high moral values on conformity, tribal identity*, and obedience. Liberals, generally speaking, do not appreciate those conservative values. That is the root source of much conflict between liberals and conservatives. Conservatives seek to limit the government when the governments actions appear to benefit non-conservatives, and support government action when it appears to support conservative values. That's why conservatives think it's ok to have laws on who you can put your tally-wacker into and what you can smoke. Those laws reinforce the tribal identity that conservatives would like American to mean. Liberals meanwhile support government actions that increase fairness and prevent harm, and oppose government actions they think will decrease fairness or harm people without just cause. For example liberals generally oppose everything conservatives want done to enforce conformity, because they see that as unnecessary harm.
Libertarians are technically neither conservative nor liberal. They value individual liberty above all else. They care little for fairness, preventing harm, conformity, tribal identity, or obedience except where those values align with liberty.
* Tribal identity for many conservatives is "conservative", though it can also be based on nation, city, favorite sports term or something else.
Fanatically anti-fanatical