Internet giants place full-page anti-SOPA ad in NYT • Hacker News Board

Re: Internet giants place full-page anti-SOPA ad in NYT

#81

Post by dylangs1030 » Thu, Nov 17, 2011, 2:30 AM UTC

damoncali wrote: post #75

dylangs1030 wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Despite their recent PR blunder (and what a blunder it was), they're still considered a tech giant. Their IPO passed a billion benchmark, so they are in a position to say, "Hey, look at us, we kinda know a thing or two about the internet."

Giant? There are a bajillion small tech companies across the country that make more money than that.

In terms of their industry - no company does as well with social networking games. It piggybacked on Facebook's success before Facebook made it more difficult to become very successful in that area.

Re: Internet giants place full-page anti-SOPA ad in NYT

#82

Post by lotu » Thu, Nov 17, 2011, 2:33 AM UTC

natch wrote: post #78

A TLDR skim of this ad by the average NYT reader will see only this: We support the bill. Yes, I omitted the words "goals of the" [edit: 's stated goals] but I'm talking about what the average reader will get out of the ad before they flip to the next page. Not good, imho. And yes, they do care about the average reader. If they were trying to reach people other than the average reader, there are better ways to do tha…

That is irrelevant as the average NYT reader is not the target of this ad. This ad is a letter to the people listed in the first line, delivered to them via the NYT. Unlike a letter which will be handled by an intern this letter will be read directly by the congressmen it is addressed to, and by spending the money for the full page ad they express who serious they are about this.

Re: Internet giants place full-page anti-SOPA ad in NYT

#83

Post by masonlee » Thu, Nov 17, 2011, 2:41 AM UTC

fpgeek wrote: post #73

yahelc wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's certainly in Apple's interest that this pass. Less piracy -> More iTunes customers. More iTunes customers -> More iOS devices sold. More iOS devices sold -> More profit for Apple.

What about iCloud? Wouldn't they be liable for every song, every photo, every video, every document their users store? Maybe they've got songs (mostly) covered via the agreements for iTunes Match, but the rest seem hard to pull off (especially since, IIRC, taking a picture (or video) of a copyrighted painting, sculpture, etc. can be infringement in some cases).

iCloud doesn't enable public sharing. It's a personal backup system.

Re: Internet giants place full-page anti-SOPA ad in NYT

#84

Post by impendia » Thu, Nov 17, 2011, 2:55 AM UTC

muppetman wrote: post #40

This is great. It's just a shame the last time anyone picked up a paper was about 10 years ago. Can't argue with the sentiment though.

I happened to buy today's NYT, as I often do. I find it nice to go offline and hold a physical paper.

Re: Internet giants place full-page anti-SOPA ad in NYT

#85

Post by bluedanieru » Thu, Nov 17, 2011, 3:05 AM UTC

enmaku wrote: post #64

jrockway wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Merry Christmas" is a very different message from "Get rid of a law that will cause us to make less money".

More like "stop a bill from being passed into law which may shut down us and the rest of the internet as you know it" - do you have any idea how much labor it would take to be a search engine, video site or social networking site if you were liable for the legal status of all user-created content? Practically every site you use would go under, including the one we're on right now.

Well, that's not how it would happen of course. It's actually worse than you think. If the law were used like you propose, there would be a massive outcry to the point that it would have to be invalidated. Instead, it will be selectively enforced, like everything else these days, in the interest of maintaining power and control for the parties that have purchased this law from their government.

Of course, in ten years time it could have an industry-wide chilling effect much like the DMCA, however in the meantime that will not happen. That's not how you introduce creeping, malicious legislation, and the folks responsible for this know that, of course.

Re: Internet giants place full-page anti-SOPA ad in NYT

#86

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Nov 17, 2011, 3:56 AM UTC

philwelch wrote: post #10

ck2 wrote: post #9

Where is the url in there for more information/followup? Wasted opportunity. I don't mean to diminish this effort but just imagine this kind of response every time we decided to declare war somewhere far far away. I'd be impressed. Certainly sending people to be maimed or killed is just as critical?

Don't you remember the momentous uproar over Iraq? There were non-stop protests for at least a year before the war actually started, and for years afterwards. There were no similar protests over Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Libya because the US was only providing air support, and because Afghanistan started only a month after 9/11 and everyone was still shocked and compliant.

[deleted]

Re: Internet giants place full-page anti-SOPA ad in NYT

#87

Post by Vivtek » Thu, Nov 17, 2011, 3:59 AM UTC

philwelch wrote: post #10

ck2 wrote: post #9

Where is the url in there for more information/followup? Wasted opportunity. I don't mean to diminish this effort but just imagine this kind of response every time we decided to declare war somewhere far far away. I'd be impressed. Certainly sending people to be maimed or killed is just as critical?

Don't you remember the momentous uproar over Iraq? There were non-stop protests for at least a year before the war actually started, and for years afterwards. There were no similar protests over Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Libya because the US was only providing air support, and because Afghanistan started only a month after 9/11 and everyone was still shocked and compliant.

ck2 probably doesn't remember the momentous uproar over Iraq because the media was not at all interested in covering the protests. Unless you were in a city where a protest was going on and physically saw it, it basically didn't happen.

And there were protests over Afghanistan; I participated in some myself. We weren't all shocked and compliant - the first thing I said upon seeing burning towers on the TV at the Indiana University Student Union was "Reichstag", and I wasn't wrong.

Re: Internet giants place full-page anti-SOPA ad in NYT

#88

Post by maaku » Thu, Nov 17, 2011, 4:23 AM UTC

Joakal wrote: post #50

fmota wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Allow me to be cynical but, if SOPA passes and breaks the Internet, these software companies would gain a lot. Especially Microsoft. Remember the "good old days" of Microsoft Everything? I hope you're as fond of them as these software companies seem to be.

I hope Bill Gates with his philanthropy drive goes publicly against Microsoft company's support for censorship.

Bill Gate's philanthropy is funded with Microsoft (and Berkshire-Hathaway) stock. They'd be fighting against themselves.

Re: Internet giants place full-page anti-SOPA ad in NYT

#89

Post by lambda » Thu, Nov 17, 2011, 4:49 AM UTC

mikemoka wrote: post #3

Web companies should know how to write a readable text, it's pity they could just come up with something like that. This text is not coincise, it doesn't draw the attention of the reader to any specific point and it shows several other shortcomings, if the message ever comes across I am pretty sure this page won't help.

Sometimes, longer, more thoughtful text can be more powerful than short, punchy advertising copy.

Re: Internet giants place full-page anti-SOPA ad in NYT

#90

Post by skb_ » Thu, Nov 17, 2011, 5:30 AM UTC

I've been thinking a bit about this and it's more a detriment to the United States than it is to the Internet. Censorship is a losing battle, especially with an educated public. There's just no way that this can work, it's a perpetual cat and mouse at best.

I feel that SOPA will pass, there's no doubt in my mind - it will just be a much watered down version, much like any other bill that passes these days. Even this so-called "anti-SOPA" ad is not really anti-SOPA, it just disagrees with certain aspects of the bill. They're basically asking for a compromise and they'll get it. There will probably be a long and expensive process in order to shut sites down. There will probably be some clauses about staying up if you are compliant with take-down notices. And there will probably be more bureaucrats added to the system, with jobs that are essentially useless and another needless expense. Ultimately, it will be like the War on Drugs, War on Terror, TSA and what have you; some far-fetched, pie in the sky plan that never had a chance of working in the first place.

The sad part is that people in Washington don't understand the consequences of what they are doing. They seem to think they have a blank check to play around with. Slowly but surely, they add things like this and the government gets bigger and more expensive to run. You can't just fire bureaucrats, they have a knack for sticking around.

I can't help but feel like I'm watching the slow death of a once great nation. I haven't heard anything lately coming out of Capitol Hill that has any semblance of intelligence.