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

141–150 of 173 posts

Re: The next SOPA

#141

Post by anamax »

comicjk wrote: post #137
InclinedPlane wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Campaign finance reform is a bad idea. Not only would it also limit legitimate free speech it also wouldn't solve the problem. The real problem is excessive power in the hands of the government. Today congress has its fingers in every industry, to a degree that can easily result in causing the success or failure of one or another company based on their more or less arbitrary decisions. This creates a natural need to…

I don't think this is a reasonable position at all, especially in my own industry, chemical engineering. The externalities that some businesses can impose on the public are so large that the public MUST have regulatory powers. If that encourages corruption we have to prosecute the corrupt, not weaken the oversight.

> The externalities that some businesses can impose on the public are so large that the public MUST have regulatory powers. If that encourages corruption we have to prosecute the corrupt, not weaken the oversight.

You're confusing "MUST" (actually SHOULD) with "CAN".

Look into regulatory capture. You can't ignore it or legislate it away any more than you can ignore or legislate away gravity.

Re: The next SOPA

#142

Post by anamax »

mikeknoop wrote: post #110
nostromo wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Special interest groups have stereotypically obtained their goals by lobbying, donations, guaranteed positions, etc.

You mean like AARP?

> When someone talks negatively about special interest groups, it is because typically special interest groups have achieves their goals by disingenuous methods.

Some supporting evidence would be nice.

Here's a question - which side of the obamacare debate was "special interests"?

Re: The next SOPA

#143

Post by nextparadigms »

Here it is, the next SOPA, made by no other than Lamar Smith - PCIP Act (Protecting Children From Internet Pornographers Act), or H.R.1981 - a bill much more dangerous than SOPA 1.0, and very hard to attack because of its name and "intent":

http://gcn.com/articles/2011/08/05/protecting-children-bill-...

http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/old7e/sopa_is_ba...

Re: The next SOPA

#144

Post by nitrogen »

PaulHoule wrote: post #66
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 a…

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.

I think that framing a discussion in terms of what people "deserve" is dangerous, because everybody has a different idea of what someone else deserves.

Re: The next SOPA

#145

Post by jgeerts »

hatefully how they ignore such a huge market potential, renting movies online and streaming them... that would be so great and would generate huge profits. But yet they don't and just expect their customers to go to the store and buy a DVD so we can watch it one time and then leave it in our closets for the rest of our lives? Or they want us to drive 20 mins to a rental store each day? Stop ignoring the market potential, try to grow, try to change, try to generate more profit. They don't evolve, but their users do and they don't like it. They are too stupid and old fashioned to see that the way media is spread just changed, all they need is a different approach to their end users.

Re: The next SOPA

#146

Post by gbhn »

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."

Good point. While there is such a thing as the "general interest," what it is is contested by definition. Also it is often quite difficult to figure out with enough detail to produce action. So it is unsurprising that special interests, who by definition are more organized and informed on the topic, tend to dominate public and political discussion.

Hence the way to political power is to become part of a more powerful special interest coalition. (And by extension, the bigger and more powerful the coalition, the more right it has to speak for the general interest, as well.) In this case, I think the optimism of the Jan 18th actions is well placed. "Netizens" as a whole are extremely diverse, but there are definitely issues which can form a coalition, and it is absolutely crucial that this coalition be recognized as powerful, well-organized, possessed of deliberate and well-connected leadership, and deadly willing to play in heavy contact mode for its beliefs and priorities.

Re: The next SOPA

#147

Post by technomancy »

atonse wrote: post #34
kapitalx wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your comparison is invalid. Apple's bootloader locks are a better comparison (Not referring to SIM lock which is provider mandated). Or the fact that you can't change batteries on your devices? Seems to me the purpose behind that is for you to change your device when the battery can't hold a good enough charge instead of just changing the batteries! How does that benefit the consumer? HTC removes bootloader locks: ht…

Non-removable batteries are an extreme edge case that simply don't adversely affect most consumers. In fact, they benefit most consumers with increased battery life. I've never met a single person that actually used this feature (most people I know have their laptops plugged in most of the time). On the other hand, I'd consider content DRM as a non-edge-case that does harm and affect a majority of consumers. Let's no…

> I've never met a single person that actually used this feature (most people I know have their laptops plugged in most of the time).

I think he's talking about non-removable batteries in phones and iPods.

Re: The next SOPA

#148

Post by TravisLS »

InclinedPlane wrote: post #134
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…

Campaign finance reform is a bad idea. Not only would it also limit legitimate free speech it also wouldn't solve the problem. The real problem is excessive power in the hands of the government. Today congress has its fingers in every industry, to a degree that can easily result in causing the success or failure of one or another company based on their more or less arbitrary decisions. This creates a natural need to…

This is somewhat circular. The government's influence over all these industries is partially a product of the fact that these industries finance the campaigns of the representatives.

Representatives without sufficient capital to finance their own campaigns rely on being in their financiers' (corporations) good graces. That means strategically putting their fingers in every industry.

There's no solution to the government industrial complex without campaign finance reform.

Re: The next SOPA

#149

Post by TravisLS »

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."

Indeed. I would argue that the state of campaign finance is such that only special interest groups have the influence required with congress to pass or kill anything. When 100% of your time is dedicated to raising money, you only ever talk to the people who provide that money - for better or worse. Representatives need not be in the pocket of industry shills for campaign finance to be a problem, there's simply nobody else around for them to talk to.

Re: The next SOPA

#150

Post by contextfree »

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…

Republicans and Democrats (and even Liberal/Conservative, which mean different things to different people at different times) are also loosely aligned coalitions that don't really have that much of a common ideology though, or rather they're designed to give each individual in the coalition the impression that there is a common ideology and it's that individual's ideology.
Post reply on HN