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."

Comments

LOL! American Freedom!

[Anonymous Coward]

LOL! American Freedom!

Re:LOL! American Freedom!

[cpu6502]

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).

Re:LOL! American Freedom!

[Anonymous Coward]

Why hasn't the MPAA been declared an illegal price-fixing conspiracy under RICO statutes yet? They've been convicted of price fixing TWICE...

Re:LOL! American Freedom!

[Anonymous Coward]

Why hasn't the MPAA been declared an illegal price-fixing conspiracy under RICO statutes yet? They've been convicted of price fixing TWICE...

Because they buy off the politicians.

Re:LOL! American Freedom!

[dbet]

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.

Re:LOL! American Freedom!

[NeutronCowboy]

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.

Re:LOL! American Freedom!

[kheldan]

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.

Re:LOL! American Freedom!

[Requiem18th]

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.

Re:LOL! American Freedom!

[lightknight]

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).

Re:LOL! American Freedom!

[lightknight]

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.'

Re:LOL! American Freedom!

[Cyberax]

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.

Re:LOL! American Freedom!

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:LOL! American Freedom!

[jythie]

Because it makes a useful example of the same basic problem. It isn't really bringing in religion (and more then talking about the MPAA is bringing up movies), but instead a specific example of a quasi-state institution that receives preferential legal treatment that weaker groups could only dream of, including getting away with behavior that, if another group tried it, they would be locked up. Both are examples of the privilege that comes with private power.

Re:LOL! American Freedom!

[jythie]

Scary part is, probably the only group that actually could challenge the US government with any degree of organized effort would be the drug cartels. Though I could also see another civil war type situation where groups of states decide that the general direction of the country is not in their best interest and take parts of the military with them. Neither situation is all that likely though.... as much as people complain about how the US is going to 'hell in a handbasket' and people are on the verge of revolt.. realistically we have it pretty damn sweet here, in fact we are spoiled rotten.. it would take things getting much, much, MUCH worse to actually cause real action as opposed to talk/rallies.

Re:LOL! American Freedom!

[canadian_right]

You guys did not beat "3000 farmers" because you are too civilised to bomb the whole country into rubble, and it was a lot more than 3000 farmers.

I have no doubt that if the full might of the USA armed forces was unleashed on Afghanistan, without any civilized restraints, the war, well slaughter, would have been over in a year.

This is a good thing.

My goodness

[Sigvatr]

What motivates this man to be so evil?

Re:My goodness

[Anonymous Coward]

He's liberal.

Re:My goodness

[hondo77]

The usual suspects: money and power.

Re:My goodness

[andydread]

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?

Re:My goodness

[an unsound mind]

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

Re:My goodness

[betterunixthanunix]

My guess is that he has a thing for green pieces of paper with pictures of dead men and numbers printed on them.

Re:My goodness

[e9th]

The word you're looking for is greed.

Re:My goodness

[Fast Thick Pants]

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.

Re:My goodness

[fustakrakich]

Not sluts, whores...

Sluts do it for free. Whores get paid

Re:My goodness

[philip.paradis]

Sluts do it for free.

There's always a price, man. There's always a price.

Re:My goodness

[ohnocitizen]

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.

Re:My goodness

[c0lo]

What motivates this man to be so evil?

This is not half that evil as others... watch out CIPSA

Re:My goodness

[fnj]

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.

Re:My goodness

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:My goodness

[Wild_dog!]

I think these guys are so bought and paid for they don't really have any moral fiber. All that is holding them up is the stacks of cash which are stacked around them. They have no opinions except those that money can buy.

Re:My goodness

[e9th]

Politicians of both parties speak of seeking common principles on which they can all agree. It seems they've found one.

If that language doesn't

[kungfuj35u5]

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

Re:If that language doesn't

[geminidomino]

Are you kidding? That's downright diplomatic for Dodd.

Did you forget about him Calling out the government for not doing what they were told?

Yawn...

[Black Parrot]

The *AA will keep sponsoring legislation until they get what they want. Then they'll decide they want more.

News, indeed.

Re:Yawn...

[iter8]

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.

Re:Yawn...

[TubeSteak]

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.

Re:Yawn...

[AlamedaStone]

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 as products.

I have altered your comment to more accurately reflect the situation.

Pray I do not alter it further.

CISPA

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe the current bill trying to snake its way into US law is CISPA:
http://kat.ph/blog/GreenPirate/post/1774/

Re:CISPA

[lightknight]

I have a solution. Let's (all) stop looking for bugs and security issues in software; the problem will then quietly attend to itself.

Obviously

[Anonymous Coward]

If I tell the people about the legislation I am crafting there will be outrage. So don't tell anyone. Obviously.

Re:Obviously

[Riceballsan]

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".

In MPAA-speak...

[sconeu]

"Broker a deal" means "Bend over and take whatever we give you"

Come to an understanding?

[russotto]

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.

It's ironic, but...

[FridayBob]

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

Re:It's ironic, but...

[Bucky24]

Speak for yourself. I have much better things to do with my time, and it's been that way for a long time in my household.

The problem is, you and people like you are the minority. FridayBob doesn't speak for you, clearly, but does speak for the majority of American citizens.

Why we fail

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Why we fail

[__aaltlg1547]

Corporations are people my friend.

Re:Why we fail

[Anonymous Coward]

Corporations are people my friend.

You know, I'm not a republican, but I gotta defend Romney on this one just because I absolutely hate when either side takes a quote out of context to make the other guys look bad. If you have to resort to fooling people instead of legitimately making a good argument, you don't have a leg to stand on.

At the event in question, Romney was making the point that either we had to cut certain welfare programs or "raise taxes on people." It's a statement I agree with, but he argued that you shouldn't raise taxes, and instead should cut the benefits of programs like social security and medicare (which I don't agree with, I believe we should raise taxes). That said, someone on the audience screamed out in response, "tax the corporation, not the people!" to which Romney answer, "corporations are people, my friend" as a way of explaining that corporations are composed of people so ultimately that's who you're taxing. It's, once again, a correct statement.

You can disagree with Romney, and I do. I say tax the corporations but I understand that's a tax on people. It is, however, a tax on wealthy people, and not being republican, I don't see anything wrong with wealth redistribution, and see it as necessary in fact. That said, he was not making on argument on the whole "corporations should have the same rights as people" front, which is what this quote is used by the media and his opponents to imply he was saying.

Re:Why we fail

[HiThere]

They had stepped off the moral high ground long before that. That was when they stopped even trying to pretend.

An "Understanding," You Say?

[ewhac]

In an interview with Hollywood Reporter, [Dodd] said that Hollywood and the technology industry 'need to come to an understanding' about new copyright legislation.

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

Re:An "Understanding," You Say?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:An "Understanding," You Say?

[the eric conspiracy]

Well, I read the Macaulay speech. And found that it had nothing to do with this particular discussion. In fact it could be construed to support the idea of copyright, in so far as that it recognized granting a monopoly to authors as the solution to seeing they are paid.

"It is good that authors should be remunerated; and the least exceptionable way of remunerating them is by a monopoly. Yet monopoly is an evil. For the sake of the good we must submit to the evil; but the evil ought not to last a day longer than is necessary for the purpose of securing the good."

Clearly legislation that controls the content of the internet, or tries to is evil. I was among the many who was active in opposing SOPA and PIPA. However that does not solve the issue - making sure authors get paid. And sometimes the cost of authoring is great, especially in the realm of film.

So SOPA-like legislation is not acceptable. But what happens when there are exceptions to monopolies?

Re:An "Understanding," You Say?

[robot256]

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.

Re:An "Understanding," You Say?

[dweller_below]

Thanks for the link to Macaulay on Copyright. It is extremely relevant. His summation was amazingly prescient:

"And you will find that, in attempting to impose unreasonable restraints on the reprinting of the works of the dead, you have, to a great extent, annulled those restraints which now prevent men from pillaging and defrauding the living."

This is the modern copyright wars in a nutshell. Copyright can NOT exist in defiance of common sense. It must be reasonable or it will destroy our respect for the law. If we wish to continue as a lawful nation, we must restore reason to copyright.

Reason would look like:

• Copyright should last 20 years.
• Things that can't be copied (IE works with effective technical copying restrictions) are not subject to copyright.
• And, either no punishment for non-commercial copying or the punishment is limited to just the actual cost of buying a copy.

But, when negotiating with a crazy opponent, you can't begin with reason.

Our initial negotiating position must be:

• Copyright is only granted to works submitted to the Library of Congress.
• Mandatory licensing. Anybody can get a copy from the Library of Congress at any time for $1
• Copyright duration is 5 years, with 1 renewal.

Miles

Of course

[nine-times]

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.

Re:Of course

[martin-boundary]

Which is why we have to keep following and mentioning it on slashdot, even if we already know this. We (the public) can outlast them, if a relatively small number of us are dedicated to bringing the attempts to light, again and again, for as long as it takes.

Re:Of course

[c0lo]

It's called CISPA.

FTFY. Now, go and try to do something.

Moron

[WML MUNSON]

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.

The New Deal

[MrKaos]

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.

Well, OK then

[inode_buddha]

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

I found this guy's theme song...

[Cazekiel]

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...

This is why center-left .\ needs Conservatives

[windcask]

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

Re:This is why center-left .\ needs Conservatives

[windcask]

And don't confuse being a remember of the Republican party with being Conservative. Hatch is the quintessential old guard Republican, having been in office longer than half of the people reading this thread have been alive. He has massive lobbying interests in pharmaceuticals and other areas as well, not just the RIAA.

Let's do something about it.

[Pinkfud]

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.

It's just like home...

[mark-t]

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.

Really?

[Benfea]

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!

Re:Really?

[paiute]

Progressive policies are those which seek to establish control over all aspects of people's lives by experts who know better what those people really want and need than those people do themselves.

In stark contrast to that are the Conservative policies, which seek to establish control over all aspects of people's lives by nonexperts who know better what those people really want and need than those people do themselves.

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:Really?

[zieroh]

No, conservatives seek to limit government to the minimum amount of power necessary to keep society functioning. Unfortunately, there are many politicians who claim to be conservatives, and manage to appeal to conservatives by careful marketing, who seek to expand their power and thus the power of government.

So in other words, none of the so-called conservatives actually behave in the way that you think they ought to, but it never dawned on you that if that's what all the conservatives do, then that's probably the de-facto definition of conservative. Meanwhile, you ascribe a ridiculous set of beliefs onto liberals, but it never dawns on you that what you think liberals are is in fact just some made-up crap that so-called conservatives like to believe about liberals to make their own heartless existence more tolerable.

Or, put another way, you're completely full of shit.

Re:Really?

[SteveFoerster]

You're confusing conservatives with libertarians.

Re:Really?

[Attila Dimedici]

Then how come have corporations become more powerful as government has implemented more progressive policies?
Look at the history of progressives. They have always sought to expand the reach of government authority and take it out of the hands of elected officials and give it to unaccountable "experts".

Re:Really?

[tbannist]

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.

Re:Really?

[tbannist]

Not really. Take an example from Canada we have a Prime Minister who campaign on honesty, integrity, openness and transparency who has run the most secretive, deceitful, closed, and ideological government we've ever seen. Sometimes the guy who promises to limit government will be worse than the guy who doesn't. You should spend more time looking at actual individual positions on issues (and their history of actions taken) so you can judge more accurately who is less worse. Conservative politicians are generally lying when they say they want less government, see this explanation, they don't want less government they want government to stop helping people they don't like. It means they want a government that punishes those who are different and rewards those conform to their idea of who Americans should be.

Re:Senator *AND* he leads the MPAA???

[R3d M3rcury]

In this case, the title is honorary. Much like George Bush is still referred to as "President Bush" even though he isn't in the White House anymore, Senator Dodd is no longer a senator.

Re:Connecticut

[CelticWhisper]

Perhaps we should call in a Connecticutioner?

How much more openly?

[blind biker]

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.

Genes perhaps?

[danwiz]

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.

Speaking of Lamar Smith...

[Freddybear]

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.

Re:Speaking of Lamar Smith...

[rtb61]

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.

Re:Speaking of Lamar Smith...

[Freddybear]

"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."

Re:Speaking of Lamar Smith...

[canadian_right]

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.

Exactly. The problem is that the MPAA, RIAA, etc... have to admit that the current and future state of technology has made their business model as obsolete as a buggy whip maker. It is time to move on. It is time for copyright reform that is based on the actual behaviour of citizens, not the desires of a dying cartel.

I propose 20 year free copyright, 1 time expensive 20 year extension, well defined fair use, well defined right to copy for non-commercial use, copyright cannot be transferred to companies, except for work for hires, but stays with the artist, and a reasonable compulsory royalty rate for copying all works after the first twenty years is up.

Re:There's a petition for everything

[c0lo]

http://act.demandprogress.org/sign/new_sopa/

Do sign, please. It may not help, but it can't hurt.

While at it, give CISPA a bump... while you still can.

Only Corporations matter to these

[grantspassalan]

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.

Most liberarians are not anarchists

[SteveFoerster]

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.

Re:Yet another reason....

[cayenne8]

...and replace him with who, another puppet? They're all lawyers, so the old saying old boss, same as the new boss. Yeah.

Given that I know the current one, and don't know for 100% sure on the next one...I'll at least take my chances on the next one....