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."

24 of 279 comments (clear)

  1. If that language doesn't by kungfuj35u5 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Spit out plain and simple bribed legislation I don't know what does.

  2. Yawn... by Black+Parrot · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:Yawn... by iter8 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I like how he said "that Hollywood and the technology industry 'need to come to an understanding' about new copyright legislation." Hollywood and industry? We peasants don't get a say I guess.

    2. Re:Yawn... by TubeSteak · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's hard for them to see us as stakeholders in the society whose rules they are trying to manipulate
      As opposed to consumers that they are trying to sell a product to.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
  3. It's ironic, but... by FridayBob · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... the fact that we can't resist buying his shit is what gives him the money to keep trying to censor our Internet.

  4. Why we fail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  5. Of course by nine-times · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  6. Moron by WML+MUNSON · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Chris Dodd said that there were

    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.

  7. Re:My goodness by hondo77 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The usual suspects: money and power.

    --
    I live ze unknown. I love ze unknown. I am ze unknown.
  8. Re:Obviously by Riceballsan · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Sounds about right, They felt the system failed them last time, because major webpages actually told the public what was being planned. The goal the next round is going to be to figure out how to slip it in without anyone who actually understands it getting a voice. It still cracks me up how with SOPA, the most common statement from the congressmen making the decision was "I'm not a computer nerd, so I don't understand how this works at all", that part was what the **AA's considered, the process as intended. The companies and people who were effected by it speaking up and making sure that the ramifications of it were understood, that was an "abuse of power".

  9. Re:My goodness by andydread · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

  10. Re:My goodness by an+unsound+mind · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The common factor is that they are both filthy rich and consider themselves far too poor.

  11. Re:My goodness by e9th · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The word you're looking for is greed.

  12. Re:My goodness by Fast+Thick+Pants · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  13. Re:My goodness by ohnocitizen · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  14. Re:LOL! American Freedom! by cpu6502 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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"
  15. Re:My goodness by fnj · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  16. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's the same thing as you've just asserted has happened to the word liberal. "Conservative" is now something else entirely.

  17. Re:My goodness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  18. Re:Speaking of Lamar Smith... by rtb61 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
  19. Re:LOL! American Freedom! by Requiem18th · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  20. Re:LOL! American Freedom! by lightknight · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  21. Re:LOL! American Freedom! by lightknight · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  22. Re:LOL! American Freedom! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    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:

    Have fun in your little made-up universe where the government comes to round you up and you manage to fight it off.

    In the real world, fascism is when the corporations and governments work as a single entity, and you can wander around with your fucking gun all you want. In fact, you'll have to wander around, because the government/corporations took your house and your car, and no one will hire you.

    At which point you'll be arrested, not as some big anti-government hero by jackboot thugs, but for stealing bread to live on, by a perfectly normal cop who's just doing his job, a job that absolutely no one except you disagrees with, so when you shoot and kill him you're getting the electric chair and no one thinks you're a hero at all.

    There are different types of totalitarian governments, and assuming a fascist one operates like a communist one is faulty. Fascist governments don't put troops in the streets...they work with corporations to make sure 'the wrong sort of people' do not have any economic power, and do not have anywhere to peddle their ideas.

    Modern fascist states don't even bother to kill those people, and pretending they're going to show up in some stormtrooper outfit and start a gun battle with you is insane. They'll show up with a court order to evict you from your home because you failed to pay your mortgage, because pressure came from the top at your company to let you go. Or they'll just sue you and ruin your finances.

    America is not a bunch of tiny castles where, as long as you can hold off the invading armies, you will be fine. The idea that that is how the world works is astonishingly naive. Almost all the population of America lives in housing they do not fully own, they get food from places they do not control like the supermarket, they require operating in society for money to obtain said food and shelter, a society where economics are controlled by some very large players that can crush them like bugs.

    And a fascist state isn't going to 'assume control', you asshat. There's not going to some insane coup, there's a going to be a slow change, which has, in fact, already happened, or have you not looked at the telecom immunity stuff? That's classic fascism. The government breaks the law, the government gets private companies to break the law, the government gives said companies huge amounts of cash, the government attempts to make such behavior legal retroactively. We've got government officials and AT&T officers leaping back and forth between each other in an incestuous loop. Your government spying on you, sponsored by AT&T. It's not 'totalitarian' yet, as evidenced by the fact Democrats managed to stop the immunity, but it is fascism, at least the start of it. (And the same thing's happened with Blackwater.)

    Oh, and before you start ranting about gun control some more, be forewarned I'm against it. I'm just not stupid enough to think that the US government being slowly corrupted by business is something that can be fought off with gunpowder. Guns are useful to deter crime and to deter invasion. They aren't useful against a corrupt government in any meaningful way.