Slashdot Mirror
SOPA Protests 'Poisoned the Well,' Says Congressional Staffer
Techdirt has a story about statements from Congressional staffer Stephanie Moore, who had some interesting — and somewhat insulting — things to say about the 'net-wide protests against the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA). "Netizens poisoned the well, and as a result the reliability of the internet is at risk," she said. Moore went on, "Congress was criticized for not being tech savvy, but from a lot of the comments we got it became clear that the people who were calling us did not understand the bill any better than we did." The article also points out comments from Steve Metalitz, a lawyer who represents members of the entertainment industry: "Most countries in the world already have this option at their disposal to deal with this problem. If site blocking broke the internet, then the internet would already be broken."
The protests ruined the staffer's lobbying gig that is on the other side of the revolving door.
Fugue for Aaron Swartz
When you go into politics, what kind of device do they ram up where to rip your ability to feel embarrassment out?
Moore and Metalitz still don't get it. Its not about the Internet or site blocking, its about that fundamental characteristics of our nation. Its about due process and freedom of speech.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
"Congress was criticized for not being tech savvy, but from a lot of the comments we got it became clear that the people who were calling us did not understand the bill any better than we did."
Soooooo, we (Congress) didn't understand a law we wrote (or at least the lobbyist wrote) and all of you protesting didn't understand it either - making you just as dumb as us!
In your face!
When we do it, it is "poisoning the well", but when they do it, it is a well executed strategic victory and they should all get bonuses.
Sorry, that didn't work in the third grade and it doesn't now that I'm 44.
"Congress was criticized for not being tech savvy, but from a lot of the comments we got it became clear that the people who were calling us did not understand the bill any better than we did."
So you were passing legislation that you did not understand. That is not why you were elected. You were not elected to be a rubber stamp. If we wanted one of those we could probably have bought on at Staples and it would have been been way cheaper than your salary.
Undetectable Steganography? Yep, there's an app fo
Her lips are moving.
In those countries where they do filter and block websites, the internet is broken. No one has any free speech. Political opposition is just blocked along with anything "offensive" like pornography. Anything the government does not agree with is shut down. That is very broken and for a country that considers itself the home of the free, then those systems would be considered completely corrupt and unethical.
But who cares. It's all for the greater good.
The greater good.
The greater good.
"Most countries in the world already have this option at their disposal to deal with this problem. If site blocking broke the internet, then the internet would already be broken."
Countries like China and Iran. Do we want the Internet controlled like those countries?
Well, yes, for residents of countries that have that power, the Internet is, in fact already broken.
There are more than enough people and resources behind each and every bill brought up before the Senate and/or Congress. There is more than enough study and research behind the scenes. Playing out "ignorance" in any respect is merely a show, merely another part of the "smoke and mirrors" game. The unfortunate advantage of the intelligent "netizens" is that we DO know, we DO have facts, we DO have experience and in general, it's those of us that helped to build what is called "The Internet" - old school BBS Sysops and hackers and the likes - that are speaking out - and we're the one's that actually understand the entire paradigm. This, to me, is mere BS marketing.
YankDownUnder Veni, Vidi, volo in domum redire
EC member Anders Jessen, Trade, suggested that the negotiations surrounding ACTA were unfair; not because of all the shrouded-in-secrecy/hidden-agenda stuff, but because of 'threats' against governments (hacks on government websites, threats to release data if governments voted in favor of ACTA) and the focus on the 'digital' section.
He suggested that if that section had not been there, ACTA would have been accepted, and that would have been a good thing with regard to fake physical articles such as clothes and parts (specifically pointing out aircraft parts).
Yet it doesn't dawn on him that maybe they should remove the 'digital' section and re-submit. Or, more likely, it does - but he knows as well as anybody else that the 'digital' part is actually the meat and the 'physical' is just to get major manufacturers and their lobbying prowess on board.
Some of that shines through in his statement that Google's revenue is now bigger than that of all newspaper publishers together, noting that in this era you can make copies much, much faster and that 'online users have cannibalized offline users'.
He does admit to some mistakes and that this is a time for self-reflection for the EC as the EP critized him and suggested that next time something is put forth to which a yes-or-no vote is to be cast, they should better coordinate and cooperate with the EP.
Source:
http://www.nu.nl/tech/2841489/europese-commissie-vreest-gevolgen-bij-afwijzen-acta.html
Translated (horribly):
http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=nl&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nu.nl%2Ftech%2F2841489%2Feuropese-commissie-vreest-gevolgen-bij-afwijzen-acta.html
Wow. Did she really just justify US policy-making by making a "majority of nations" argument???
There are 87 UN member states that are full-fledged democracies or "fully free" according to Freedom House. There are a total of 193 UN member states.
Which means that even in the United Nations (which doesn't contain all autonomous national entities) ONLY 45% ARE EVEN DEMOCRACIES.
Dear Stephanie, if policy makers used the "most countries in the world" argument to justify policy decisions, the WORLD would be broken.
------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
"If site blocking broke the internet, then the internet would already be broken"
Most countries aren't at the center of the Internet and most countries don't play such a pivotal role in core Internet technologies like America does.
I think the content industry has an entitlement problem. We live in a democracy, not a utopia. Churchill said something to the effect of "a democracy is a terrible form of government, but its the best one anyone has come up with so far"; I am butchering the quote.
The only way for a democracy to ever be a utopia is if everyone agreed with everyone else on everything. That is not likely to happen. We all have rights, and sometimes in exercising those rights we are going to infringe in some mild way on the rights of others. Its unavoidable. One of the stated goals of our organizing document is to promote the general welfare; a big part of that is maximizing each individuals ability to exercise their rights, and putting some minimal controls in place to limit the amount of infringement on the rights of others that occurs. That infringement can't be eliminated so where permitted it should happen in a fair way, in that harm is spread around equally.
The content industry does not seem to recognize that society has already given them all sorts of concessions; which limit the rights of others in order to protect them. They have copyright extensions that go well beyond what the Constitution stated the aim of copyright to be; they have tools like DMCA, the have FBI acting like the own team of private investigators, the have the FCC requiring completely unnecessary content control features in electronics, the list goes on.
None of those things are sufficient to eliminate copyright violations. I think may of them already go to far but in any case the amount of copyright infringement going on out there is at a perfectly acceptable level. Why, well because the content industry is wildly profitable, and while I think private property is the cornerstone of freedom, these guys are not hurting they don't need more protection for the state to hold on to what is theirs. Any good it would do them is in no way proportional the harm it does to others.
Lots of folks are limited by what the content industry already has. Indie artists can't use all sorts of material because is locked up under copyright in perpetuity, small manufactures are locked out of the market because they can't implement mandatory DRM, tinkers are locked out of their hobbies by draconian FCC rules, citizens have the privacy violated by the FBI and others all the time. Giving the content industry the right to completely curb stomp our ability to express ourselves on the Internet, with no process and no appeals; is simply unjustified.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Those are two separate areas of understanding. Understanding technology and understanding a particular bill don't necessarily translate, particularly when said bill is 78 pages of legalese in it's final form, and was subject to a number of amendments and changes.
She seems to be confused as to the reason why mob rule is not always right. It's not right when it allows the majority to oppress a minority. Not allowing the majority to be oppressed by a minority is not mob rule.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
I love the argument that "everybody else is doing it!" Yes: China, Pakistan, India, and Iran block free speech. So why can't we? If it works for them, it has to work for us, right?
but from a lot of the comments we got it became clear that the people who were calling us did not understand the bill any better than we did
This is probably true. It is a frustrating part of fighting any legislation. Most people are emotionally motivated, not logically motivated. They don't understand what the heck they are talking about. Yet you need sheer numbers so you can't say "don't call your legislator unless you have a CS degree and can explain all this." So unfortunately, no matter what the issue, most of the people standing with you don't know what they are talking about. Same goes for most of the people standing against you too.
From the title on her LinkedIn page, she most likely represents the establishment position.
The problem here is that due process means courts -- long, expensive procedures are used to decide if copyright infringement took place. Nobody can make the argument that such a system is appropriate in this century. As the RIAA discovered, you simply cannot sue everyone who infringes copyrights online, there are too many people doing it.
The copyright industry thinks that the problem is with due process, as opposed to attempting to apply a concept that originated in an age of printing presses to a society where everyone has the equipment needed to make perfect copies in their homes.
Palm trees and 8
Well if the internet is already broken does America, the land of the 'free and brave' and all that crap, etc. etc., need to jump on the bandwagon? We are supposed to be world leaders, doing what is best for our citizens, but yet we entertain such idiocy. I don't care how the rest of the world does it, honestly. Listening to our internet engineers might be a wise idea. Oh, and if we only understood the bill as well as they do then they are still a joke as far as I'm concerned. It is their job to know the policies they enact and for us to decide if we think they should lose their jobs/lives over their decisions. That's why it's best to ask first, then create laws.
SOPA isn't the problem, it's just a symptom of a larger issue, copyright law, the DMCA to be specific.This whole thing came to a head when the DMCA was passed, and now it's just getting worse, like a festering wound. but if it weren't for the DMCA, SOPA wouldn't have stood a chance on it's own or it's own merits.
Yes, copyrights have been around for a long time, and yes, they've been used in the past as a way to control and in some cases, monopolize, but with the coming of the DMCA, it's taken a whole new turn, and who wrote and pushed for the DMCA, the RIAA and the MPAA and all of their cronies. They lobby congress to handle an issue that's not congress' to handle, this is an issue that should have been left to the copyright owners to deal with through proper legal channels in the first place, or to change their business models so it wouldn't be an issue to begin with. The recording industry has to learn to change with the times, instead of living in the past, but they are incapable, unwilling, and/or too greedy to change.
Along with the overturning of Citizens United, and the passing of DMCA, the playing field has changed in favor of large corporations, like the recording companies and motion picture industry, and the publishers, who can now use the courts as their personal hitmen to go after alleged copyright infringes, with no proof. They can send take down notices on material they don't even own, and have it removed from sites like YouTube, which ends up making the real owner have to work that much harder to have their own material out there, because they didn't go through the recording or motion picture industries to do so. People like photographers who self publish their works on their own websites now have to deal with people stealing their work, and then get blindsided by those very thieves, and accused of stealing their own works, all because the DMCA made it possible.
If people really want to fix the situation, some changes need to be made:
1: Overturn the DMCA, it's bad law and only works in the favor of deep pocket corporations.
2: Overturn the ruling in Citizens United, and put corporations back where they belong, and have them stop meddling in politics.
3: Find a way to get our Congressmen and women to start working for us, the people, again, like it's supposed to be. Let corporations work their things out themselves, and stop using congress and the courts as their personal tools and WMD's.
4: And for the sake of everyone's sanity, the people need to start taking an interest in government, learn how it works, learn the issues, read the proposed bills, and take a stand on issues they don't agree with. Write their congressmen when they want their voices to be heard on issues, make public statements in a clear and concise manner, so others who wish to, can add their voices to that cause.
What was done to stop SOPA was a good example of people making their voices heard and sticking with the same issue, and in that case it worked. It won't always work, especially if 'The People' don't stand up for what's right, and get the government doing what it's supposed to do, work for the people.
Occupy Wall Street had a good idea, but it got out of hand, it wasn't well organized, and too many others, with their own agendas, tried to take it over. Their are ways to do things, and ways not to, this was an example of how not to do something. Once you get something started, keep it going in a positive direction, and don't get sidetracked, don't let others use your cause for their cause, unless they are the same, otherwise, all it'll do is water down your voice and cause, and people will not respect or wish to side with you.
And finally, contact your congressmen and women, and get them to make changes for the better, change the way the courts are used as hitmen for special interests. The government works for us, 'The People', not for the corporations. The corporations are supposed to be non-entities, they are not "people", so why are they allowed to act like "people"?
Stand together for change and for the future, be a part of the solution and not sheep or lemmings. Don't be a part of the problem.
That's what Moore's comments are. In front of the cameras all of the Washington crowd crows about democracy and rights and thinking of the children and the like, but they secretly despise all of those things and all of us who cherish them. They mock honesty because dissembling is the air they breathe. They hate action because the status quo fills their pockets. They hate freedom because it curbs their power. Think of the worst cartoonish super villain you can think of, then imagine an entire city filled with them, and you have the capitol of the United States. They're all psychopaths.
That's why we need to clear all of them out and do a serious reboot of the country. We know a lot of things now that we didn't know 200 years ago when the first iteration of the Constitution was written, and we've had 200 years to watch the outputs of the first system. We can engineer a system of government that does not select for the psychopaths we have now.
If not us, who? If not now, when?
She already makes 6 figures a year as a staffer... Here is a summary. She must be running short on cash or gunning for her boss's job.
"One more thing, capitalism is the only way a country 16T in debt is going to crawl out of the hole"
The only way to get a country into 16Tn debt is by capitalism.
But I guess it melds nicely into the fundamental depravity of religious thinking: give you a problem, then claim they are the only ones with a cure.
"Capitalism is the other way around."
Capitalism is the screed of greed. End of story.
"It's people who are free to vote with their dollars."
And then, to gather power, you get more money. Wich means more power, and the ability to get more money. Which means a continuing descending spiral of greed.
You can't vote with your dollars and not pay for food.
And if you have no money because some rich bastard has offshored your job, you have no say.
Capitalism is the only political system that takes away your rights and claims it to be your fault all along. You really are a horrible piece of slime, you are.
"If you want to succeed, you need to provide something with value."
So you're against inheritance and want it taxed at 100%, right? You want investment dividends removed, right? You want management removed, right? And charging for banking loans should be banned, yes?
After all, the only ones producing the valueable stuff you're selling are the workers, not their dependants and not the leeches who are syphoning money off the working populace merely because they've managed to leech money off someone dead or already wealthy.
"You ALWAYS end up shrinking the economy."
Yes these capitalists investing their dividends OUTSIDE the economy, who don't spend the money in the economy and who are free to remove themselves entirely from the source of their unearned wealth ALWAYS ends up shrinking the economy.
Hell, the difference between Clinton (higher taxes, reduced debt, economic boom) with shrub who inhereted the windfall economy then by removing taxes caused a worldwide recession, and with Obama's spineless kowtowing to the rabid right-wing whereby stalling the economy even further because idiotic parasites like you whine and bitch about government, should show you your unthinking and poisonous mental garbage proposition is PROVEN FALSE.
"There is a huge difference between greed and self-interest."
There isn't.
But capitalism as practiced by people like you don't bother with the self-interest beyond "am I making more money?" and is in no sense different from rapatious greed.
This is what happens when the meaning of "tech savvy" gets usurped and people that can use apps in a smartphone get labeled "tech savvy" and think they know enough to make legislation that involves truly technical details about something like how the internet works.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
"... the people who were calling us did not understand the bill any better than we did"
I can't believe she used this as an argument. If they don't understand the bill, and their constituents didn't understand the bill, there can only be two reasons for trying to pass it:
1) Passing legislation for legislation's sake (Stupid)
2) Passing legislation because you are compelled to by another party that only holds it's own interests (Evil)
So they are either stupid or evil (or both)
google b5 quotes Ver Cotto for details.
Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge