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

111–120 of 173 posts

Re: The next SOPA

#111

Post by asmithmd1 »

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."

It feels more to me that the reason for the change was due to true grassroots support - not an industry special interest group. Wikipedia highlighted the problem to "ordinary" users and they trusted that Wikipedia was more on their side than movie studios.

Does anyone remember when the NRA was one of the most feared special interest groups? It used to be that if a representative crossed them they would have a tough election fight next time. It seems like "the internet" should flex it's muscles and fight against Lamar Smith's re-election. Getting him kicked out would get some attention.

Re: The next SOPA

#112

Post by pwg »

rglover wrote: post #76

Perhaps the answer to this is to make it more difficult for politicians to sign off on bills. Require some sort of education on the topic at hand before making a decision. If the bill isn't understood by the representative, they shouldn't be allowed to vote. With the current organization of our government, this will never happen. A point that Marco touched on was that we won't be able to rely on protesting every sing…

Actually, it would be helpful just requiring that they at least have read the full bill, cover to cover, every word, before voting on it. Considering that most don't read the bills they vote on (do you really think they each read an 8,000+ page appropriations bill cover to cover?) that would go a long way towards helping things ever so slightly.

Re: The next SOPA

#113

Post by wormwood28 »

thebigshane wrote: post #68
thebigshane wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

The comical thing is that people do argue that infringement raises awareness of a product and thereby increases sales. Whether it's true or not, I don't know, but if so it would certainly be at cross purposes to a boycott.

Re: The next SOPA

#114

Post by [deleted] »

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."

[deleted]

Re: The next SOPA

#115

Post by vijayr »

One good thing that did come out of this - I can't remember people protesting so much, in a united way online, against any issue. Last year it was against oppressive regimes, this year it is against stupid bills. People are using the internet to protest, that is a good thing. Right now, it is more quantity than quality - hopefully that'll change too.

Re: The next SOPA

#116

Post by ramanujan »

Marco's heart is in the right place here, but campaign finance reform actually ends up disproportionately empowering media outlets. While various kinds of direct donations to candidates are capped or made more difficult by CFR, newspapers and television outlets aren't banned from writing stories on particular candidates, even up to the day or morning of the election.

Because advertising can't happen, but articles can, newspaper coverage under CFR amounts to a (huge) in-kind contribution in the form of PR. And especially when it comes to the MPAA, many of its member companies own media outlets in addition to movie studios.

Rupert Murdoch, for example, put the Wall Street Journal and Fox News to work in promoting SOPA/PIPA as that furthers the interests of 20th Century Fox.

So because no conceivable campaign finance regulation is going to muzzle the Wall Street Journal or the New York Times during an election, we may have to look elsewhere to check the MPAA's power. I think it's going to have to be something like a souped up version of Xtranormal, which makes production of high quality movies just as easy as distribution of said movies.

This isn't that unrealistic. Blogger made production and international distribution of high quality opinion possible with a few keystrokes, which led in part to the ongoing revenue collapse in print media. Video and audio are obviously much more complex on a frame-by-frame basis than text, but I have to believe that authoring tools can get far better than where they are. Make them web based, build in all kinds of samples and templates akin to blogger templates, use some of the new HTML5 toys to make authoring easier and easier.

Most of the results will be terrible, but most blogs are terrible. As long as enough high quality open access audio/video content is produced, the MPAA/RIAA will start to face the same financial fate as print media. Producing a technically and ethically superior product will always be more effective in the long run than a boycott.

Re: The next SOPA

#117

Post by asdfasdghasdf »

"Their bills have had mixed success and usually die before being brought to a vote, but SOPA and PIPA came frighteningly close to becoming law. The internet-wide protest this week seems to have stalled their progress and probably killed them for now."

Frighteningly close! One of them was almost scheduled for debate in the Senate! The other almost had a second round of markup in committee scheduled!

The reaction to SOPA and PIPA was way overblown. Like the article says, this sort of thing happens all the time, and usually fizzles out. While this bill did have more co-sponsors than most, indicating support, it still only made it to the first verse of Schoolhouse Rock.

Somehow it caught on as an Internet meme, though, and got inordinate attention. It was definitely for the best, though.

Re: The next SOPA

#118

Post by larrik »

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…

I'll throw my hat in the ring here. After I upvote you for starting a good discussion (which it seems few people ever do on HN).

The MAJOR difference I see is that Apple does what it does, and doesn't hide behind a lobbying group to take the heat. They say "this is the way we are going to do this, because it is better." We may not agree, and I usually don't, but whatever.

The movie studios, however, let the MPAA do all the dirty work and get all scorn. That way, MPAA == evil corporate mongers, while, say Warner Brothers == "ooh, Dark Knight Rising comes out this year!!!"

Boycotting MPAA's member companies is a way to say we see through their crap, and aren't going to put up with it.

Re: The next SOPA

#119

Post by lukifer »

ramanujan wrote: post #116

Marco's heart is in the right place here, but campaign finance reform actually ends up disproportionately empowering media outlets. While various kinds of direct donations to candidates are capped or made more difficult by CFR, newspapers and television outlets aren't banned from writing stories on particular candidates, even up to the day or morning of the election. Because advertising can't happen, but articles can…

Have you seen Lawrence Lessig's plan [1]? It involves offering tax vouchers to citizens to spend on candidates who pledge to only raise funds via those vouchers. Plenty of money would be spent on candidates, it would just happen in a more flat, distributed fashion.

Also? The current system already gives an immense amount of power to media companies; a huge sum of campaign finance contributions wind up in their coffers, and they have tremendous incentives to maximize controversy and conflict, indirectly forcing candidates to spend more and more on advertising. And at the end of the day, they still have a strong voice in creating self-fulfilling prophecies over who is "electable".

[1] http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-december-13-2011/exclu...

Re: The next SOPA

#120

Post by steauengeglase »

beagle3 wrote: post #109
techiferous wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

As Louis XIV said, never sign a treaty you don't intend to break and until the technological playground settles into a few large, relatively static players there is always room for a more lucrative treaty.
Post reply on HN