The next SOPA • Hacker News Board

Re: The next SOPA

#61

Post by te_platt » Fri, Jan 20, 2012, 6:55 PM UTC

Anechoic wrote: post #47

CWuestefeld wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Attacking campaign finance is not the way to go, because (a) it can't work, and (b) it's shooting ourselves in the foot by constraining our own right to speak. Consider, all of you that moan about Citizens United : if it's wrong for a corporation to support a political position, then why are your cheering about what Wikipedia, reddit, Google, etc., have done to support the opposition to SOPA/PIPA? And there's no way…

By "campaign finance" I'm referring to direct contributions to candidates (and promises of cushy jobs upon retirement). You're absolutely correct that corporations/unions/organizations can and should be able to support positions, but that doesn't have to be a direct benefit to a candidate in that way that campaign contributions are.

I don't think you can stop money affecting politics any more than you can stop piracy, or stop people from taking harmful drugs, or stop people from saying stupid things, or a lot of other things. In those cases I think the costs of stopping them outweigh the benefits. I just don't see any other way than constant vigilance.

Re: The next SOPA

#62

Post by jiggy2011 » Fri, Jan 20, 2012, 6:58 PM UTC

AdamFernandez wrote: post #39

jiggy2011 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

afaik RIAA member labels are still making money from spotify and iTunes. Taking the youtube example though, I suppose legislation like SOPA could wipe them out and neuter them enough.

I agree they are making money from these platforms, but independent artists are also making money and getting exposure using these platforms that would have been impossible a decade ago. If something is created that is more effective for artists (and possibly gives them a bigger cut..see Louis C.K.), this would be quite effective.

The only piece of the puzzle missing here is how would you finance the creation to begin with? I know a lot of the equipment has become cheaper but it's still expensive for an 18 year old kid to put in his garage. Not to mention the diverse skillset you would need to produce a record or movie.

The record company being able to dangle an advance (not to mention the promotion and contacts they can hook them up with) seems a pretty good carrot to dangle and people like Louis C.K have probably made enough money to begin with to finance themselves.

I also get a feeling from musicians that I have talked to that your not considered a "real" band unless you are signed to a major label, although I suppose that attitude can change over time. You almost need a VC type system for musicians but the issue is that most creatives don't really want to think of themselves as "businesspeople".

Re: The next SOPA

#63

Post by joejohnson » Fri, Jan 20, 2012, 7:00 PM UTC

This is why we need to find a technological solution that will make future legislation infeasible or impossible. We need a decentralized DNS and total encryption of the internet.

Re: The next SOPA

#64

Post by nextparadigms » Fri, Jan 20, 2012, 7:01 PM UTC

TheSOB88 wrote: post #49

RexRollman wrote: post #41

Personally, I think we need to make it so that only registered voters can give money to candidates, with a maximum amount set per contributor. That would automatically disallow all direct contributions from corporations and prevent the rich from having more influence than the poor. (Of course, something like this would probably have to be a constitutional amendment, and I doubt that would ever happen.)

There's always a workaround - spending lots of money spread over different people's names, for instance. Of course, you'd have to buy the mules first, and that affects the efficiency, but cheating would still occur. But anyways, yeah, the hard part would be actually putting this into place. I mean, nobody in power would want this to happen. It would be bad for the lobbyists and bad for the congressmen. No incentive t…

Yeah, you'd have to watch out for abuses. But the main point is to change the incentive for them to beg corporations for money. Making it illegal, and making it easier for normal individuals to donate would help switch that incentive from going to corporations to going to individuals.

Re: The next SOPA

#65

Post by cbs » Fri, Jan 20, 2012, 7:03 PM UTC

iamandrus wrote: post #19

groggles wrote: post #8

Given that the author is Marco (and the article is on HN because it is from Marco Arment), I wonder what his boycott position is regarding Apple? Apple has a long history of supporting draconian IP policies, and has a business model built around controlling what you can do with what you bought. Financially Apple absolutely dwarfs the combined revenue of all of the MPAA realm. I don't mean to distract the conversation…

Apple has draconian restrictions on stuff like iOS for the user's sake (and for Apple's partially), and with the huge amount of users they obviously got that right. I'm not entirely sure what Apple's stance on SOPA is (I heard they supported it, but then I heard they didn't), but I don't think it would matter to them. They don't need to sue for piracy because they have the iTunes Store, which only distributes content…

Apple has draconian restrictions on stuff like iOS for the user's sake

If its for my sake, why must they treat me like a child and not let me choose to have them remove that restriction on my device?

Re: The next SOPA

#66

Post by PaulHoule » Fri, Jan 20, 2012, 7:03 PM UTC

snowwrestler wrote: post #40

But I like to watch movies. I think a lot of movies are great--great enough to pay for them. Why should I shoot myself in the foot to keep someone else from shooting me in the foot? This idea that the root cause of all bad legislation is political donations: it's wrong, and not supported by the data. The vast majority of political donations are made by people who are not lobbyists. No one raised more political money…

I also think that articles like that are counterproductive. The political class and most people will think we're a bunch of freaks if we talk like that.

Yes, Hollywood has done many things wrong -- the TV sector in particular is in long-term danger because the "bundling" business model of cable doesn't give consumers any way to give feedback about the quality of content. (I'd much rather watch Al Jazeera on Youtube and re-runs of Star Trek on AMZN Prime than watch Spongebob Squarepants, Adventure Time, CNN Fox News, or any of these reality shows about Coupons and Pawn Shops that never stop.)

On the other hand, Hollywood employs a lot of people in good, largely unionized jobs that aren't in danger of being exported to China. People like a lot of stuff that they make, and they invest a lot of money to make it -- they deserve to get some return on their investment.

The question is having some regime that's fair to everybody.

Re: The next SOPA

#67

Post by vectorpush » Fri, Jan 20, 2012, 7:05 PM UTC

I think campaign finance reform is a good thing in theory, but in practice I feel confident that big money would still find its way into the pockets of our lawmakers with relative ease. In the end, no amount of money can save an elected official if their constituents are determined to see that official ousted. We can't legislate our way out of corruption, the price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

Re: The next SOPA

#68

Post by thebigshane » Fri, Jan 20, 2012, 7:05 PM UTC

thebigshane wrote: post #16

Anechoic wrote: post #9

it would be more productive to significantly reduce or eliminate our support of the MPAA member companies starting today The problem is that any reduction in income to the studios would be spun as "fallout from pirates stealing our IP." Attacking campaign finance is the way to go. edit: spelling

We (I'm speaking for the entire internet community, which is probably a bad thing to do) could also stop pirating as well. I mean it would be really something if everyone halved their entertainment budget and halved their "illegal downloads/sharing". That would be a significant message as well. It wouldn't be very easy to convince Joe SixPack, but it might be easier than true campaign finance reform.

Am I really being downvoted for suggesting people stop pirating?

Re: The next SOPA

#69

Post by nova » Fri, Jan 20, 2012, 7:05 PM UTC

We can argue all we want about whether copyright is good or not, but that is the wrong question. The right question is if (enforced) copyright is compatible with the existence of a free internet.

IMHO, it is not. Current copyright law means restrictions on the copy of data. A free internet means freedom to interchange data.

So either we lose the free net, or we push for a deep reform of IP laws, something like that the law should only restrict for-profit infringement.

Re: The next SOPA

#70

Post by ghshephard » Fri, Jan 20, 2012, 7:06 PM UTC

TomOfTTB wrote: post #52

I think he makes a valid point but then gets lost in emotionalism. Here’s the thing. They don’t hate you. The people who work at the companies that support the MPAA absolutely don’t hate you. They simply like themselves and like the money they’re getting now. If anything they’re afraid of you because they think you want to eliminate the way they make a living. The problem is people on the other side don’t agree on wh…

Actually, I've thought about this, and I'm pretty sure the MPAA Hates their customers, and, given a choice, if they could get their money without having to deal with customers, would prefer to do so.

I'm not saying the actors, and the grips, and the makeup people, Hate me _personally_ - but the commercial organizations they represent, as a collective, hate the fact that I'm an active viewer and consumer of their end product.

Because active viewing/consuming means I want do do things like, well, _view_ the product. And that all sorts of uncomfortable ramifications in that I don't want to dedicate a not-insignificant portion of my time being fed their "BIG RED SCREEN OF ANTI-COPYRIGHT-THEFT-PROPOGANDA" (Btw, I make it a point, every time I am forced to see one of those screens, to go torrent a movie - seeding for at least a day. It's actually the _only_ time I typically do torrent movies - the fact that they control my DVD player just annoys the crap out of me)

They Hate me because I want to watch a movie released in brazil, that everyone is talking about, in the United States.

They Hate me because I want to watch the movie I just purchased, on my iPad. Not the brick of electronics that happens to be sitting in my living room that I haven't watched a movie on in two+ years.

Basically, the MPAA, and the commercial organizations they represent, Hate me, because instead of just sending them $50-$100 / month as a passive consumer, I'm an active consumer that loves the material they create - and that's an annoyance, and a difference from what they used to work with 50 years ago.

And they Hate change.