Slashdot Mirror


US Congress May Not Have Stomach For Another SOPA

alphadogg writes "As a new session of Congress convenes in early 2013, don't expect lawmakers to rush out a new version of the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) or the Protect IP Act (PIPA). While some groups representing copyright holders still want to see stronger online enforcement, U.S. lawmakers don't seem to have the collective will to reintroduce similar bills and potentially face another massive online protest. In January 2012, more than 10 million Web users signed petitions, 8 million attempted calls to Congress and 4 million sent email messages, and more than 100,000 websites went dark in protest as the Senate scheduled a vote on PIPA. Lawmakers supporting the two bills baled out in droves, Senate leaders cancelled the PIPA vote, and SOPA's sponsor in the House of Representatives withdrew his legislation. 'That was an avalanche they've never seen,' said Ed Black, head of the Computer and Communications Industry Association. 'They're going to tiptoe in this area very carefully.'"

22 of 95 comments (clear)

  1. Bullshit by SpiralSpirit · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This kind of "oh they won't do that again" serves the other side, not ours. They'll just sneak it onto another bill, if they have to. Only calling them to account for their actions will work.

    1. Re:Bullshit by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 4, Insightful

      bingo.

      "you guys won. we give up. no more copyright stuff in our laws. we promise."

      yeah, check is in the mail, too. honest!

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    2. Re:Bullshit by Culture20 · · Score: 2

      Any other side. "We won, they won't try that again!" is a message of "Stop caring, stop being vigilant." No matter what the political viewpoint is.

    3. Re:Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      This is exactly what happened with the NDAA. Harry Ried broke into proceedings a couple weeks ago and very quickly (almost too fast to understand) said a bunch of mumbo jumbo about amendments and extensions being added to some bill and then motioned for it to be accepted, it was, and then left and they went back to the former proceedings he had interrupted. In all, it took about 30 seconds. What was this bill he was so weirdly inserting something into? Bill 4310. The NDAA.

      Nobody knows about it (unless they were watching CSPAN in the middle of the night during those 30 seconds and thought enough to ask what 4310 was). Nobody is accountable for it. And nobody has made a big deal about it.

      They can and will do what they want and you and I can eat a dick.

    4. Re:Bullshit by tqk · · Score: 2

      This kind of "oh they won't do that again" serves the other side, not ours.

      "Ours"? Methinks you presume too much.

      Yeah, the US' copyright regime is fscked, but don't presume everyone's a "pirate". I advocate boycotting the bastards. Let 'em go out of business, ASAP. Support producers who don't want to enslave you, or sue you into oblivion. A quarter of a million dollar fine for dupping a DVD? Get serious. We can all do without. There's lots of stuff out that that is nowhere near as demanding.

      --
      "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
  2. Almost makes you think democracy works by Black+Parrot · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Too bad they don't get this kind of response on all the other crap legislation they produce.

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    1. Re:Almost makes you think democracy works by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      People only have so much time to pay attention. After all, they are not full time politicians. Also, most potentially new laws are not universally hated.

    2. Re:Almost makes you think democracy works by Githaron · · Score: 2

      Google and other major sites do not usually organize a unified effort to inform the public of most crap legislation.

    3. Re:Almost makes you think democracy works by Culture20 · · Score: 2

      And if they did, it would only take a couple days for people to start to tune it out, and a couple more for "political statement blocker" plugins to be developed and downloaded for FF and Chrome (not by Big Brother, but by the users themselves).

  3. Better luck next time by davidbrit2 · · Score: 5, Funny

    I guess calling it PIPA wasn't enough to slip it past everybody. Maybe they'll have to call it KATE MIDDLETON or something.

    1. Re:Better luck next time by SuricouRaven · · Score: 2

      What they need is something with a really good acronym. Something that everyone would want to support and none would dare oppose. 'PATRIOT' act would be a good one, if it hadn't already been used for that purpose.

    2. Re:Better luck next time by MysteriousPreacher · · Score: 2

      Joint Universal Salvation from Terrorism Instigated by Copyright Enemies - JUSTICE!

      The US habit of requiring cool acronyms seems a bit like a 12 year old boy coming up with cool names for their GI Joe doll's super secret stealth ninja elite team who discreetly patrol the streets in a flying tanks, pausing occasionally to subtly blow-up half of the city.

      Just be glad you don't have Theresa May over there. My God, that bastard must regret being born to late to get a decent position in the GDR.

      --
      -- Using the preview button since 2005
    3. Re:Better luck next time by giorgist · · Score: 2

      I am not sure, PIPA in Greek means blow job

  4. The RIAA always gets what it pays for by kawabago · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The RIAA and other industry groups buy support in both houses with massive political donations. They don't give it freely! They expect legislation that favors them. They bought it and they want their congressional lackies to provide what they paid for. If they don't get it they support another candidate who will give it to them. There is so much corruption in the US system now that it's no wonder the country is falling apart. The government no longer acts in the best interests of the people, but in the best interests of their largest corporate sponsors. One person one vote no longer means anything when legislation can be bought with campaign donations.

    1. Re:The RIAA always gets what it pays for by Artifakt · · Score: 2

      Not to disagree with that, as far as it goes, but it's a limited explanation for many reasons - for just two:

      1. There are hardware manufacturers and net service providers who are also very big companies. Some of them, i.e. Intel or even Apple, are much larger than any of the RIAA or MPAA members. To understand why new copyright legislation proposals are nearly constant while new laws favoring tech giants aren't, means first understanding what the content industries offer the legislative branch which these other companies can't. It's not more money - maybe it's a matter of much more effective lobbying with fewer fiscal resources, or maybe 'Hollywood glamour' sometimes counts for more than cash contributions.

      2. At least some major players among the RIAA and MPAA members are notorious for shady deals and creative accounting. If they butt heads with other powerful entities, they should be relatively easy marks for investigations or lawsuits that leave them with no resources to lobby, because they will be to tied up in covering their asses. It would probably be a lot easier to get the public at large riled up at the recording industry than it would against any of the businesses they are inconveniencing. It would also appear that the RIAA, etc. would have a hard time pressuring any congressmen that were prepared to take support from other sources instead - that is another way of saying the recording industry has carrots, but not many sticks. The actual history of their lobbying efforts doesn't fit that - their great success at getting very extensive changes to the laws suggests instead they have people who know a lot of dirt on the legislators, and opposing the industry effectively requires knowing something of what that dirt is and when the RIAA, MPAA, etc. switch to 'non-fiscal incentives'.

      --
      Who is John Cabal?
  5. A shame.. by Roogna · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That the public doesn't turn out to protest every horrible bill that way. Pretty sure the patriot act could have used that kind of response.

    1. Re:A shame.. by blahplusplus · · Score: 2

      "That the public doesn't turn out to protest every horrible bill that way."

      This is a dangerous an naive point of view. I think everyone would benefit from watching this video:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYmi0DLzBdQ

      There's been an ongoing effort to manufacture consent and manage public perception so that people are pitted against one another and don't grasp what their real interests are. Not only that all private media is complicit in shaping the publics view of the world and most privately owned media is totally right wing / pro capitalism / imperalism / establishment while playing the ignorant public about their true political stance.

      http://www.amazon.com/Manufacturing-Consent-Political-Economy-Media/dp/0375714499/

  6. Re:The way they'll pull it off by Beardo+the+Bearded · · Score: 2, Funny

    The shooter in CT was known to download music and movies. If only we had been able to track his movie choices properly, and note a slide towards more violent movies and video games, then we could have prevented the tragedy of 20 kindergarten children.

    It's a fairly small price to pay, having each person's movie preferences checked and analysed a licensed psychologist. Mandating that devices can only play movies that have been approved by the MIAA, and music approved by the RIAA, ensures that our children will be safe at school. /The outside of my molars in delicious, by the way.

    --

    ---
    ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
  7. Re:The way they'll pull it off by AlphaWolf_HK · · Score: 2

    It's not necessarily that, but feel good issues as well. During the last election, there were attack ads from a democrat aimed at Jeff Flake (who is anti sopa) saying that he voted against veterans benefits. I don't recall the particular bill, but when I looked into it, it turned out that he voted against it due to numerous other provisions which had nothing at all to do with veterans.

    It's of no consequence though, as he had overwhelming support of veterans (which includes me) in the actual election, but it just goes to show the absurd nature of earmarks (which, by the way, Jeff Flake has been aggressively trying to kill; another reason I support him.)

    --
    Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
  8. Tiptoe? by Scutter · · Score: 5, Insightful

    'They're going to tiptoe in this area very carefully.'

    Why should they have to tiptoe? The People have spoken loudly and clearly. They've told them exactly what they want and how they should vote. There is no tiptoeing. You either do what your employers tell you to do or you're fired. "Tiptoeing" implies that you'll still try to do it anyway, but in a way that won't piss off several million constituents.

    --

    "Tell me doctor, with all of your defenses, are there any provisions for an attack by killer bees?"
  9. Re:Focus their energy in legal methods to get cont by kaatochacha · · Score: 2

    yeah, um, having ads in your movies does not equal rape.

  10. Of course it doesn't by fnj · · Score: 2

    Of course it doesn't have the stomach for it. The US Congress collectively does not have the stomach to hold its own dick while it relieves itself. If there were no dick holders provided in the Congressional restrooms, they would all burst open from not having the balls to relieve themselves, nor the common sense to realize that they HAVE to relieve themselves. These assholes don't even have the guts to address the nation's real problems. All they do is bring up useless frill after self serving pandering bill. That is, when they can move themselves to stir from their beauty sleep at all.

    Punks, that's all they are. Corrupt remains of a system which is the biggest enemy of their own population.

    As it is, the rot that is inside them is enough to wipe out the population if the pustulence ever escapes into the general population. I am goddam sure what the folks in 1776 would have done with this loathsome group of bought and paid for poseurs.