Any comments on SOPA and Wikipedia's blackout?

[Thailandnotes]

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/dec...fight-20111205
Piracy legislation pits Hollywood against Silicon Valley

Film director Penelope Spheeris' new comedy, "Balls to the Wall," had barely premiered in Europe when bootleg copies started popping up on the Internet, throwing its U.S. release into jeopardy. A Spheeris assistant sent out as many as 30 cease-and-desist notices a day in a desperate, but failed, attempt to halt the piracy.

“It's like putting out a forest fire with your bare feet," she said.

That helps explain why Spheeris and other filmmakers are backing tough new legislation making its way through Congress that would give the Justice Department broad powers to shut down websites that host pirated material and would open the door for movie studios, music companies and other copyright holders to seek court injunctions against Internet companies they believe are aiding in copyright theft, which amounts to $58 billion a year.

Internet entrepreneur Gabriel Weinberg just as adamantly opposes the proposed law, fearful it will punish legitimate search engines that unwittingly link to pirated content and curtail innovation on the Web. Having just raised $3 million for his fledgling search engine DuckDuckGo, "I wouldn't want to spend it all on legal costs," said Weinberg, the company's president.

Spheeris and Weinberg represent opposite camps in a congressional fight that divides California's two most glamorous and energetic industries: Hollywood and Silicon Valley. On one side are old-media entertainment companies such as Warner Bros. and 20th Century Fox, which accuse the search companies of acting as fences for private property by collecting advertising revenue from the sites where pirates lurk. On the other are new-media giants such as Google, Yahoo, EBay and Facebook, which say the proposed legislation threatens free speech and will jeopardize the technological stability of the World Wide Web

"This is truly an epic battle between two huge interests that are both very, very important to our national economy," said Rep. Anna G. Eshoo (D-Menlo Park), who represents Silicon Valley.
The pending bills in the House and Senate would give the Justice Department power to seek court orders requiring U.S. search engines and Internet sites to block access to foreign websites hawking pirated material. Private companies such as Paramount Pictures and Sony Music Entertainment would also be able to seek court orders preventing such sites from receiving ads and payments services from the U.S.

The fight is curiously nonpartisan, with conservative Republicans and liberal Democrats teamed on both sides of the issue. Some of the split is based on which industry is more dominant in a lawmaker's region. Many Southern California representatives back Hollywood's position, and most Northern California members side with the Internet companies. But political philosophy also plays a role, leading anti-big-government conservatives to join with liberal civil libertarians in opposition to giving Washington what they fear would be broad censorship power over websites.

In the thick of the fight is the Motion Picture Assn. of America. Hollywood's chief lobbying arm has enlisted support from a broad coalition of industry and labor unions, including the AFL-CIO and the Recording Industry Assn. of America. Because the bills also protect against counterfeit goods and safeguard prescription drug patents, they also have the support of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the influential pharmaceutical trade group PhRMA.

[thriftyandboringinohio]

Re: Any comments on SOPA and Wikipedia's blackout?

I like the blackout. Other sites, like boingboing, are also doing it.
Even though SOPA has been shelved, a similar bill, PIPA, is still active.
I thinks it's good for wildly popular sites like wikipedia to show one and all what a censored net might feel like.

This fight is very old. I remember the record industry trying to outlaw cassette tape decks that could make recordings of vinyl disks in the 1970s.

[dcarrigg]

Re: Any comments on SOPA and Wikipedia's blackout?

I like the blackout. Other sites, like boingboing, are also doing it.
Even though SOPA has been shelved, a similar bill, PIPA, is still active.
I thinks it's good for wildly popular sites like wikipedia to show one and all what a censored net might feel like.

This fight is very old. I remember the record industry trying to outlaw cassette tape decks that could make recordings of vinyl disks in the 1970s.

Read it while you still can.

[lektrode]

Re: Any comments on SOPA and Wikipedia's blackout?

Read it while you still can.
...
The movement emerged in the harsh economic climate of the Napoleonic Wars and difficult working conditions in the new textile factories. The principal objection of the Luddites was to the introduction of new wide-framed automated looms that could be operated by cheap, relatively unskilled labour, resulting in the loss of jobs for many skilled textile workers. The movement began in Nottingham in 1811 and spread rapidly throughout England in 1811 and 1812. Mills and pieces of factory machinery were burned by handloom weavers, and for a short time Luddites were so strong that they clashed in battles with the British Army. Many wool and cotton mills were destroyed until the British government suppressed the movement.

now all we need is some sort of explaination of how the ENERGY LUDDITES were able to take over the discussion here in The US, which has allowed... hell, why mince words - FORCED us into endless war in the middle east over oil, stripmining and burning coal, with all of its attendant death in the mines, rampant pollution of the air, acid rain etc - the disgorgement of wealth/income from the citizenry, rampant subsidized boondoggles for 'alternatives' that might - someday - provide us with 2or3% of our energy requirements?? -AND FOR WHAT?

to "save us" from nuclear power that has never killed anybody? (directly, well.. cept for maybe a few in chernobyl, with their defective/corrupt design/operations)

to "save us" from LNG, even tho we're awash in the stuff worldwide?

how about the TRILLIONS WE'VE DUMPED INTO THE ARABS POCKETS THAT NOW WANT TO KILL US?

i want an explaination from the ENERGY LUDDITES on just what, precisely, the 'benefits' of their hysterical opposition to the above constitutes?

tell me how many lives have been "saved" by their forcing us into the middle east rather than drilling for our own oil and building enough nuclear energy plants to cover even as much electrical demand as GASP!!! _france_ has managed, all without so much as a single accident or loss of a single life?

its simply amazing that this is never even discussed.... and never mind the DISGUST it has engendered for the political process - nope - we wouldnt even wanna talk about _that_ now, would we?

(not aimed at you, dc - but good point/link/comment ;)

[Thailandnotes]

Re: Any comments on SOPA and Wikipedia's blackout?

"According to the Patriot Act, the government without a court order can read your email if it is older than 180 days."

http://therealnews.com/t2/component/...video_id=72782

[Thailandnotes]

Re: Any comments on SOPA and Wikipedia's blackout?

The Connecticut Mirror, August 30, 2010 – “Dodd Foreswears a Lobbying Career”:
WASHINGTON — Sen. Chris Dodd says he still doesn’t know what he’ll do come January 2011, when, for the first time in 36 years, he will no longer be a member of Congress. But he has ruled out one option.
“No lobbying, no lobbying,” Dodd said in a recent interview. That Dodd would forgo a trip through Washington’s “revolving door,” using his policy and political expertise–and a thick Rolodex–to launch a new career in the influence industry, may come as a surprise.
The L.A. Times, yesterday – “MPAA’s Chris Dodd takes aim at SOPA strike”:

Hollywood’s chief lobbyist lashed out at tech companies for mounting*Tuesday night’s planned online blackout to*protest proposed anti-piracy legislation that has pitted Southern California movie and music*distributors against Silicon Valley*Internet corporations.
Motion Picture Assn. of America Chief Executive Chris Dodd, the former Senator from Connecticut, accused technology companies such as Google, Mozilla and Wikipedia of resorting to stunts. . . .
“It is an irresponsible response and a disservice to people who rely on them for information and who use their services,” Dodd*said in a statement. “It is also an abuse of power given the*freedoms these companies enjoy in the marketplace today.”
____________
Chris Dodd’s emphatic 2010 pledge not to lobby once he finally left the Senate was prompted by widespread speculation that he spent the last two years in office blatantly shilling for corporate interests in order to ensure a prosperous post-Congress career. Particularly during the 2010 financial reform debate — when it became increasingly apparent that allegations of improper benefits from Countrywide Financial*would make his re-election close to impossible*— Dodd served on multiple occasions as*chief spokesman for, and*defender of, the*interests of Wall Street*and*corporate America. Though sleazy and grotesque, it was therefore entirely unsurprising when it was announced last March that Dodd would “be Hollywood’s leading man in Washington, taking the most prestigious job on K Street”: Chairman and CEO of the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), “whose perks include a $1.2 million-a-year salary and getting to attend the Academy Awards ceremony.”
It is in that capacity that Dodd has become the leading public spokesman and private lobbyist for the truly dangerous*PROTECT IP Act (PIPA) in the Senate and Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) in the House, bills craved by the industry that pays him. These bills, which vest the power in large corporations and the government to seize and shutdown websites with little or no due process in the name of stopping piracy,*pose the greatest dangers to Internet freedom of any bill in the last decade, at least. So serious are these threats that they have prompted a rare — and inspiring — protest movement from numerous large Internet companies and blogs in the form of an Internet “blackout” today.
In his SOPA advocacy, Dodd has resorted to holding up Chinese censorship as the desired model, mouthing the slogans of despots, and even outright lying. Like virtually all extremist, oppressive bills backed by large industry, SOPA and PIPA have full bipartisan support; among its co-sponsors are Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy and GOP Rep. Lamar Smith, with many Senators*from both parties in support and*Harry Reid pushing it*forward*(to its credit, the*White House expressed opposition*to several of the worst provisions, though has not yet issued a veto threat).
It’s behavior like Chris Dodd’s that makes it rational not only to be cynical about our political culture, but outright jaded. What makes Dodd’s shilling for this censorship law so galling is that, during the 2008 presidential campaign, he postured as the candidate who would devote himself first and foremost to defending core Constitutional freedoms and civil liberties. When Dodd led the 2007 fight against warrantless surveillance and amnesty for lawbreaking telecoms as part of the FISA debate, I, along with several other blogs and MoveOn.org, helped raise close to $250,000 in a few days from small donors for his flagging presidential campaign. Several months earlier — in August, 2007 — I interviewed Dodd about the prominence of Constitutional issues, civil liberties and the rule of law in his presidential campaign, and this is what he told me:
It saddens me that it even has to be an issue — the fact that “defending the Constitution” even has to be an issue in the presidential race.
But there is an audience for this. This is really important. This is not a narrow audience. This is a broad audience. This is an audience that will surprise you if articulated well. We can win on this.
A campaign for president allows you to have a megaphone here on a national scale to talk about these things, at a time when this crowd, if it continues, can enable you to stop them, do even more than raise the issues. But secondly, if I don’t win this thing, I want everyone else to be talking about these issues. . . .
I carry every day, and have for 26 years, a copy of the U.S. Constitution given to me by Robert Byrd [takes Constitution out of his back pocket]. And to me, what could be more fundamental? With all due respect, I care about health care, education, global warming. But if you get this wrong — what do you got? A trade association. Who wants to be president of a trade association?
And this [holding the Constitution] is the spark, the illumination, it is, if I may so say, the envy of many around the world.
Apparently, the person Chris Dodd scorned back then as someone “who wants to be president of a trade association” was . . . Chris Dodd, who is now President of Hollywood’s trade association. Back then, Dodd was running around inducing large numbers of people (including me) to cheer on his presidential campaign by venerating Constitutional freedoms as the supreme value. Now, a mere three years later, he is peddling his influence in Washington — assembled during his 35 years in Congress — on behalf of a bill that, as several law professors in The Stanford Law Review*recently wrote,*”not only violates basic principles of due process by depriving persons of property without a fair hearing and a reasonable opportunity to be heard, it also constitutes an unconstitutional abridgment of the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment” (Constitutional law professor Laurence Tribe has argued the same).
Furthermore, one of the bill’s chief Senate sponsors is a liberal Democrat from Vermont, Pat Leahy, who during the Bush years flamboyantly*depicted himself as a stalwart defender of Constitutional liberties — and whose “top 3 campaign contribution sources*[are]*lawyers, entertainment industry, lobbyists.” Those industries are, of course, also major donors to Leahy’s House GOP counterpart. It’s all redolent of how Howard Dean quickly converted himself from a righteous presidential candidate who inspired large numbers of young Americans into little more than a paid shill who exploits his political celebrity by reciting the script of whichever political interests are paying him the most.
In the face of pervasive, sleazy conduct like this, it’s not only tempting to be jaded about partisan activism: it’s rational. Watching Chris Dodd and Pat Leahy join equally compromised Republicans in crusading for an Internet censorship bill — not even out of sincerely held authoritarian impulses but just base, corrupted subservience to industry — reveals most of what one needs to know about how the political class functions and who owns and controls it.
* * * * *
The backlash against these bills has caused its sponsors to put them on hold (and it’s notable that it takes the opposition of a large industry — in this case, Silicon Valley — to achieve that outcome). In many circles, this delay is being interpreted as a lethal, final defeat, but as we’ve repeatedly seen, industry-backed measures do not die even when they prompt massive public opposition that appears to prevent them. They simply slink away to re-tool and return when the opportunity is right. That will definitely happen with SOPA. Vigorous, ongoing opposition is therefore vital; EFF offers a couple of ways to participate here.

[*T*]

Re: Any comments on SOPA and Wikipedia's blackout?

It's a censorship law. How else can it be enforced?

Join your pirate party.
Support the EFF.

Let the cost of data fall to the marginal cost of production: zero.

[dcarrigg]

Re: Any comments on SOPA and Wikipedia's blackout?

It's a censorship law. How else can it be enforced?

Join your pirate party.
Support the EFF.

Let the cost of data fall to the marginal cost of production: zero.

Pirate party? That sounds awfully quaint from this side of the pond. Parliamentary systems must truly be lovely, you know, make you feel like one can make progress and all that.

It would likely be more effective in America to keep clicking google's ad words and let them fight the good fight in the inter-corporate arena (a.k.a. congress), than to try to organize a third party in this system. Besides, if it gets popular enough, one party or another will just absorb its support by paying it lip service.

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Any comments on SOPA and Wikipedia's blackout?

Pirate party? That sounds awfully quaint from this side of the pond. Parliamentary systems must truly be lovely, you know, make you feel like one can make progress and all that.

It would likely be more effective in America to keep clicking google's ad words and let them fight the good fight in the inter-corporate arena (a.k.a. congress), than to try to organize a third party in this system. Besides, if it gets popular enough, one party or another will just absorb its support by paying it lip service.

That is my FEAR....and I think we saw that with the Tea Party.

But my HOPE is that if the incredibly abrasive Ross Perot was able to nearly pull it off pre-internet....then maybe there's a chance the internet will be the platform to "end-around" traditional media and entrenched interests at the polls.

While I do believe those who steal IP are criminals......it must be balanced against protecting the greatest tool for freedom.

[Thailandnotes]

Re: Any comments on SOPA and Wikipedia's blackout?

US prosecutors shut down one of world’s largest file-sharing sites, Megaupload

The Justice Department said in a statement said that Kim Dotcom, formerly known as Kim Schmitz, and three other executives were arrested Thursday in New Zealand at the request of U.S. officials. Two other defendants are at large.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/busine...y.html?hpid=z2

[unlucky]

Re: Any comments on SOPA and Wikipedia's blackout?

The entertainment industry is at war not with pirates, but with its own customers. I would like to pay for, download and watch the latest and greatest movies right now on my laptop. But I can't. Unless I go to a pirate site.

Netizens will happily pay for quality legitimate content - a proven fact for iTulipers. But the industry just won't give us what we want. Because it doesn't trust us. Control of the means of the distribution has been very profitable in the past and they don't want to give it up. To retain control they are willing to:

- Impose massive inconvenience on their own customers and prevent us from accessing what we want, when we want - even tho we are willing to pay
- Lobby congress in an effort to break the domain name system and put the economics of the Internet in peril

These firms HATE the Internet and no Internet law that they write could ever be trusted. But the problem they face is a fundamental one: new technology means the world does not need traditional distribution firms anymore to get access to music, video, or any other kind of information content. They are economically redundant and headed the same way as Kodak.

How will artists get paid in this brave new world? whines the entertainment industry. Artists are content-creators, not content-distributors. They have been around far longer than the entertainment industry as we know it today. They can get paid in at least the same ways as they did in the past: performances and patronage. In addition, the Internet means that they no longer need the blessing of the distribution firms to reach a mass audience. Apply some imagination to that fact.

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Any comments on SOPA and Wikipedia's blackout?

US prosecutors shut down one of world’s largest file-sharing sites, Megaupload

The Justice Department said in a statement said that Kim Dotcom, formerly known as Kim Schmitz, and three other executives were arrested Thursday in New Zealand at the request of U.S. officials. Two other defendants are at large.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/busine...y.html?hpid=z2

As I understand it....this Kim Dotcom fella shifted down to NZ about 2 years ago and attempted to purchase what was reportedly the most expensive home in the country.

It sounds like his application to purchase was declined by the Overseas Investment Office(certain properties purchased by foreigners requires office approval) due to his prior criminal convictions/character/etc.

I don't think he possesses the "right stuff" raw material to become a poster boy to oppose "the man".

[flintlock]

Re: Any comments on SOPA and Wikipedia's blackout?

The way you stop the piracy, as with other crimes, is harsh punishment for people who are caught. Examples have to be made. Instead, as is the current trend, they try to "preempt" every crime by punishing everyone in advance. You see this everywhere these days with government. A few terrorists use box cutters? Everyone has to lose their nail clippers before they can fly, etc. The trend is toward restricting freedoms and privileges of everyone because of a few bad apples. I think it could just be an excuse to grab more power and control as well.

So maybe a record company donates some money to a politician pushing SOPA? So what? I think most people today realize that cash is about the only way to get government motivated to stop white collar crimes. So corporations will always have their justice I suppose. Too bad government doesn't see fraud as a crime anymore unless there is a campaign donation to point it out.

I understand the need to protect intellectual property, but if it comes down to some corporate interest or the public's, choose the public's. Its never a perfect world, and some times you can't protect everyone from everything. Its not like this is the only crime not being stopped by government. They choose NOT to enforce lots of laws that could be more easily enforced than this.

Jack up the punishments and you'll see a reduction, but not elimination, of all types of crime. By that I mean bring back corporal punishment and refuse to deal with nations that don't police illegal actions within their own borders. I know we cannot get to a lot of these criminals, but we can put pressure on those who can. Problem is, we have no plan on how we choose to go about trade with other nations. Its all this laissez-fair, anything goes crap. Only in the real world that falls apart when one nation is a nation of laws and the other isn't. The US used to have the power and influence to pressure trading partner nations to go after criminals who break out laws from overseas. But when you are 15 trillion in debt, its hard to ask your lender for any favors.

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Any comments on SOPA and Wikipedia's blackout?

As I understand it....this Kim Dotcom fella shifted down to NZ about 2 years ago and attempted to purchase what was reportedly the most expensive home in the country.

It sounds like his application to purchase was declined by the Overseas Investment Office(certain properties purchased by foreigners requires office approval) due to his prior criminal convictions/character/etc.

I don't think he possesses the "right stuff" raw material to become a poster boy to oppose "the man".

I might have been wrong about Kim Dotcom buying NZ's most expensive house.....I read his application for purchase was declined....but somehow the NZ Police arrested him in a $30 million house.....and had to extract him out of a "safe room" armed with a short barrel shotgun.

Behavior sounds more reminiscent of a drug dealer than an internet political freedom fighter.

[c1ue]

Re: Any comments on SOPA and Wikipedia's blackout?

The way you stop the piracy, as with other crimes, is harsh punishment for people who are caught. Examples have to be made.

I'm not so sure - unless we start corporal punishment for piracy. I'm sure you've seen the stories of the RIAA going after 12 year olds, threatening million dollar fines and jail terms:

http://brainz.org/14-most-ridiculous...riaa-and-mpaa/

On the other hand, this is something in which the societal good vs. the private gain could potentially be considered. Copyright protection is a privilege and not a right.

As said by Thomas Macaulay:

Copyright is monopoly, and produces all the effects which the general voice of mankind attributes to monopoly.

...

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.