Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The next SOPA

marco.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 173 posts

Re: The next SOPA

#101

Post by thebigshane »

chc wrote: post #92
thebigshane wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Am I really being downvoted for suggesting people stop pirating?

Yes, you are. You would probably also be downvoted for suggesting that we "Give peace a chance." As nice a sentiment as it might be, it's more platitude than practicality. You don't even mention why or to what end you're suggesting that people stop pirating, so no one is likely to change their stance or behavior based on your comment. Moreover, the piracy numbers thrown out by the industry are almost entirely fabrica…

I agree and thanks for the clarification.

I didn't really think stopping pirating would do anything, just like I don't think we can practically convince people to stop giving MPAA money.

But if we could do the latter, perhaps we could do the former as well? Because if we were able to only do the latter, it would give MPAA and Congress even more reasons to push this kind of shit through.

Re: The next SOPA

#102

Post by jerf »

narrator wrote: post #26

As I suggested in an earlier thread, why is noone starting a copyright liberalization campaign? If there was a strong political coalition to limit the duration of copyright to 25 years, to limit the use of overly broad patents, etc. it would provide a counteracting force that would force the copyright holders to compromise "in the middle". Instead we are doing boycotts and strongly worded letters, which while helpful…

Everyone would diffusely benefit from copyright liberalization, but it isn't the top priority for anyone.

A few people (in relative terms) greatly benefit from copyright extension, and it is their top priority.

I'm not sure there's a form of government that avoids this problem, but representative republic certainly isn't one of them.

Re: The next SOPA

#103

Post by marchdown »

DanI-S wrote: post #95
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…

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. If lobbyists' money didn't give their words extra weight, why would they donate any of it?

There are two interlocked selection mechanisms: politicians select the issues they pursue, and sponsors select the politicians whom they want to give voice (and money).

In dumb evolutionary environments and in anthropics, there is no direct feedback between these two mechanisms. Bacteria get born, behave in a predefined way, and either procreate or die. Successful bacteria are not smart, but simply lucky. They are selected for fitness by a dumb process.

Similarly, activists enter politics to pursue certain interests, these interests do not change significantly, and then the newcomer either gathers enough support to get elected and influence public opinion, or doesn't. Sponsors select the politicians which have already taken a favorable stance, and help them get heard and get elected. Successful activists are those which pursue important issues which attract support and sponsorship.

I suspect that this is how the system is supposed to work, but it breaks when politicians can be adjusted, that is, bought.

Re: The next SOPA

#104

Post by ypcx »

nostromo wrote: post #98

Campaign finance reform is not a panacea. I notice that it's popular to blame money in politics for everything. Don't like a bill? Any bill? Obviously corrupt politicians are bought and paid for! Why else would they vote for such junk, right? Wrong. SOPA and PIPA to a congressperson and to a large number of ordinary people make sense. The internet seems like a lawless place. To lawmakers, this is infuriating. People…

That is a flawed reasoning. Campaign donations and revolving doors are the plague of democracy. Politicians are here to work for us and to listen to us - they are supposed to be our servants, with all due dignity and respect.

Today's politics is completely driven by interest groups, and this must end. This is not 1800's. We have information technology at our disposal and we can make the politics transparent, the democracy direct, and the system work for us. And so will we.

Re: The next SOPA

#105

Post by zaphar »

sounds wrote: post #88
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 disagree. IP law is a new term, so why not frame the debate around the original ones? Copyright and patents have the U.S. Constitution to back them, but copyright has been diverted to serve large media companies -- through copyright term extensions that are frankly unreasonable. Ideas are not property. Piracy is not theft. Copying and hacking should not be de facto crimes. Copyright should not be retroactively exte…

In practical terms how would you go about go about educating enough people to make a change? I ask this because while you're statements may be logical and internally consistent it bypasses the entire practical side of this whole debate. As soon as you enter the reality of the political arena the OP's points become valid. It's a negotiation.

Re: The next SOPA

#106

Post by jczhang »

You know what Ron Paul would say about this... It's not campaign finance reform that's needed, its decreasing the power of the gov't to have so much power. That's the root cause, not the money.

Re: The next SOPA

#107

Post by nostromo »

ypcx wrote: post #104
nostromo wrote: post #98

Campaign finance reform is not a panacea. I notice that it's popular to blame money in politics for everything. Don't like a bill? Any bill? Obviously corrupt politicians are bought and paid for! Why else would they vote for such junk, right? Wrong. SOPA and PIPA to a congressperson and to a large number of ordinary people make sense. The internet seems like a lawless place. To lawmakers, this is infuriating. People…

That is a flawed reasoning. Campaign donations and revolving doors are the plague of democracy. Politicians are here to work for us and to listen to us - they are supposed to be our servants, with all due dignity and respect. Today's politics is completely driven by interest groups, and this must end. This is not 1800's. We have information technology at our disposal and we can make the politics transparent, the demo…

This week a very powerful interest group killed SOPA and PIPA and HN cheered.

"Special interest groups" seem to always be defined as "any interest other than my own."

Politicians like the term because some people hear it and think "bankers" while other people hear it and think "gays and tree huggers."

Re: The next SOPA

#108

Post by sounds »

zaphar wrote: post #105
sounds wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree. IP law is a new term, so why not frame the debate around the original ones? Copyright and patents have the U.S. Constitution to back them, but copyright has been diverted to serve large media companies -- through copyright term extensions that are frankly unreasonable. Ideas are not property. Piracy is not theft. Copying and hacking should not be de facto crimes. Copyright should not be retroactively exte…

In practical terms how would you go about go about educating enough people to make a change? I ask this because while you're statements may be logical and internally consistent it bypasses the entire practical side of this whole debate. As soon as you enter the reality of the political arena the OP's points become valid. It's a negotiation.

I probably am misunderstanding you (please clarify), because what I hear you saying is: "in the political arena there will always be corrupt politicians, and there will always be large media companies paying them to re-introduce SOPA."

Yes, but it's easy enough to educate people about what's going on. Young people inherently understand the things I'd try to teach them -- but don't know what to do about it. Older people know what to do -- but don't care or pay attention to these issues. Networking with people can be rewarding and fun!

Re: The next SOPA

#109

Post by beagle3 »

techiferous wrote: post #90
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…

> seeking common ground, and compromising > negotiation This. Realizing that the other side is not the devil and has legitimate interests of their own, even if they are clumsy in communicating them or harmful in their actions. Viewing the other side as evil is lazy. Coming to authentic, common ground is very hard work.

Not this.

The truth is, there is a small group (MPAA/RIAA members) that can profit immensely from an act that is detrimental to the rest of society, and they pursue it.

It's about as "evil" as one basketball team can consider their opponent "evil"; the title is useless.

But just like on the basketball court, you have to do your best to defeat the other team, because they are doing their best to defeat you. And unlike the basketball court, they have so far had the upper hand every single time (e.g. DMCA, Mickey Mouse Protection Act a.k.a Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act, government passes NBC commercials as official position, etc).

SOPA/PIPA is probably the first time they have had a real setback. I think they'll still win, unfortunately -- the overton window keeps shifting.

Re: The next SOPA

#110

Post by mikeknoop »

nostromo wrote: post #107
ypcx wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is a flawed reasoning. Campaign donations and revolving doors are the plague of democracy. Politicians are here to work for us and to listen to us - they are supposed to be our servants, with all due dignity and respect. Today's politics is completely driven by interest groups, and this must end. This is not 1800's. We have information technology at our disposal and we can make the politics transparent, the demo…

This week a very powerful interest group killed SOPA and PIPA and HN cheered. "Special interest groups" seem to always be defined as "any interest other than my own." Politicians like the term because some people hear it and think "bankers" while other people hear it and think "gays and tree huggers."

Your point is intriguing (addressing only your first two lines). I would say that special interest groups are not defined by how broadly the general population agrees their opinion (therefore, both entertainment conglomerate and internet conglomerate would count). Special interest groups have stereotypically obtained their goals by lobbying, donations, guaranteed positions, etc.

On the other hand, this week, you had a special interest group achieving its goal by overwhelming support (more representative of a democracy). When someone talks negatively about special interest groups, it is because typically special interest groups have achieves their goals by disingenuous methods.

Post reply on HN