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?
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.
... 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
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
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'
Perhaps we should call in a Connecticutioner?
Help protect civil rights from abuse by the TSA - visit TSA News Blog.
http://www.tsanewsblog.com
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.
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.
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
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.
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.
It's the same thing as you've just asserted has happened to the word liberal. "Conservative" is now something else entirely.
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.
People who say "sheeple" have about as much sophistication as an AOL user, and in fact are probably actually AOL users.
You're confusing conservatives with libertarians.
Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
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