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

I was on BloombergTV talking SOPA today - how'd I do?

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 163 posts

Re: I was on BloombergTV talking SOPA today - how'd I do?

#151

Post by evildeadxsp »

lloeki wrote: post #145
wowtip wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would put i like this: It is like you own this huge supermarket. Lately some shady guys have started putting flyers with information on where you could buy pirated merchandise from China for cheap. With SOPA this would mean the Governmnet could shut down _your_ supermarket because someone found one of these flyers at your place.

Another take: in this huge supermarket two random people talk about drugs, and a police officer overhears their ramblings, so the supermarket gets shut down.

I think this would work best in communicating with an older audience. It's like shutting down the whole store because the customers are sharing illegal information with each other.

Re: I was on BloombergTV talking SOPA today - how'd I do?

#152

Post by pfraze »

wes-exp wrote: post #121
DevX101 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Despite my differences with much of the Republican party platform, one thing that they are damn good at and I respect them for is an ability to communicate with their target base. Where's there's a hot topic issue, the Republicans will come out in lockstep with voices on the same wavelength. They use clear and simple language with a single antagonist. In the really big battles they even coin phrases like 'Obamacare',…

Agreed. So here's how we do it. This is the word: Prohibition . It's our "death panels". This is how you tell it to grandma: - The music & movie industries want a Prohibition on user-created content. - When radio was invented, they wanted a Prohibition on it. - When cable TV was invented, they wanted a Prohibition on it. - When the VCR was invented, they wanted a Prohibition on it. - Now Youtube and many other websit…

I don't think that's accurate enough. 'Prohibition' is better for the War on Drugs, which draws a more meaningful connection to the 20s.

If I had to paint in broad, evocative strokes, I'd claim the industries are using the government to prop up their outdated business models by destroying competition from users.

So I'd suggest 'Monopoly.'

Re: I was on BloombergTV talking SOPA today - how'd I do?

#154

Post by jberryman »

bane wrote: post #124
DevX101 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Despite my differences with much of the Republican party platform, one thing that they are damn good at and I respect them for is an ability to communicate with their target base. Where's there's a hot topic issue, the Republicans will come out in lockstep with voices on the same wavelength. They use clear and simple language with a single antagonist. In the really big battles they even coin phrases like 'Obamacare',…

I agree with you to some extent. However, one of the problems with how the Republican party communicates is that, amomg their target base, they will often conflate "memorizing and regurgitating" talking points with understanding/groking the issues. They may not know why they don't like Obamacare, but they can memorize that catchy word and they know it spells trouble. But later when/if their party decides to change po…

> They may not know why they don't like Obamacare, but they can memorize that catchy word and they know it spells trouble.

Not to get to OT with politics, but another important part of the "Republicans are better at messaging" thing is that in general conservative positions tend to be very simple, e.g.

"drill for more oil" vs. "if we create a market for greenhouse gas emissions we can incentivize a market-based transition to a cleaner...."

"get tough on crime" vs. "focusing on incarceration ratherthan rehabilitation for certain classes of crimes actually increases crime by decimating minority communities and perpetuating a cycle of...."

"the government is bloated" vs.

Etc.

Re: I was on BloombergTV talking SOPA today - how'd I do?

#155

Post by mckoss »

Why is copyright infringement a crime? It seems to me we should be asking Congress to recategorize copyright as a civil matter; companies and individuals would be able to sue for damages, but we should get the precious resources of our police force and justice department out of this dispute.

When someone makes a copy, they do not deprive anyone of their own copy - so it is unlike stealing a physical good. It may cause some harm to the copyright holder, but only incidentally, and with difficult to calculate damages. Rather than have blanket, one-size-fits-all criminal penalties, we should require parties prove the damages in court in order to receive compensation.

Doing so would put MPAA and RIAA back in their place; let THEM bear the cost of fighting infringers of their copyrights - I don't want them sucking up the resource of my government just to benefit them.

Re: I was on BloombergTV talking SOPA today - how'd I do?

#156

Post by mashkeyboard »

I know I'm late to the party, and I know you're looking for a sound bite, but here is how I would put things. It might be a mouthful, but it is an actual explanation (more or less) that relates to censorship in a concrete sense. I think a lot of smart but less technically inclined people might appreciate that.

Computers are like people that can talk incredibly fast. Two computers can now exchange the contents of an entire book in the time it takes a person to speak a single word. "Piracy" on the internet is the equivalent of declaring it illegal to say certain combinations of words without permission.

A website is like a building where a very large number of visitors can talk to each other using their computers. This is what makes the internet great. SOPA will make it possible to shut down such a building if a single visitor says one of the forbidden word combinations. If SOPA passes, such websites will be forced to either forbid talking entirely, or attempt to prevent a huge number of people from saying the forbidden word combinations, which would be incredibly expensive and essentially impossible to do.

Thus, SOPA would make it legally possible to shut down virtually any website that permits talking, effectively destroying the thing that made the internet great in the first place.

Even with SOPA, people could still speak the forbidden words to one another in the streets or in private buildings, so what was the point of SOPA again?

Re: I was on BloombergTV talking SOPA today - how'd I do?

#157

Post by wes-exp »

pfraze wrote: post #152
wes-exp wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. So here's how we do it. This is the word: Prohibition . It's our "death panels". This is how you tell it to grandma: - The music & movie industries want a Prohibition on user-created content. - When radio was invented, they wanted a Prohibition on it. - When cable TV was invented, they wanted a Prohibition on it. - When the VCR was invented, they wanted a Prohibition on it. - Now Youtube and many other websit…

I don't think that's accurate enough. 'Prohibition' is better for the War on Drugs, which draws a more meaningful connection to the 20s. If I had to paint in broad, evocative strokes, I'd claim the industries are using the government to prop up their outdated business models by destroying competition from users. So I'd suggest 'Monopoly.'

'Monopoly' is a good one too. I don't think the terms are mutually exclusive:

"They want the Government to create a Prohibition so they can have a Monopoly on content"

That said, I do think 'Prohibition' is an accurate description. SOPA may well be the first step in a 'War on Piracy' that does have strong parallels with '20s prohibition and the drug war. SOPA is a futile attempt to stop normal human behavior - sharing of content. It won't work. The fact that it won't work could lead to even more draconian blocking measures, creating a self-reinforcing loop of ever-escalating restrictions and punishments. 'Prohibition' conveys that futility and extremeness pretty well for a single term.

Re: I was on BloombergTV talking SOPA today - how'd I do?

#158

Post by enjalot »

pfraze wrote: post #152
wes-exp wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. So here's how we do it. This is the word: Prohibition . It's our "death panels". This is how you tell it to grandma: - The music & movie industries want a Prohibition on user-created content. - When radio was invented, they wanted a Prohibition on it. - When cable TV was invented, they wanted a Prohibition on it. - When the VCR was invented, they wanted a Prohibition on it. - Now Youtube and many other websit…

I don't think that's accurate enough. 'Prohibition' is better for the War on Drugs, which draws a more meaningful connection to the 20s. If I had to paint in broad, evocative strokes, I'd claim the industries are using the government to prop up their outdated business models by destroying competition from users. So I'd suggest 'Monopoly.'

I don't like 'Monopoly' because most people don't recognize that as a fundamental problem. In fact in the case of media, monopoly is assumed as necessary to provide you with what you want (hundred million dollar blockbuster films).

The key thing to focus on is the imbalance of power SOPA creates and how that will end up getting in the way of Uncle Art's evening entertainment. So far the shoplifting shutting down the store analogy is the most pointed I've heard, but still not a catch phrase.

Re: I was on BloombergTV talking SOPA today - how'd I do?

#159

Post by wes-exp »

enjalot wrote: post #158
pfraze wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think that's accurate enough. 'Prohibition' is better for the War on Drugs, which draws a more meaningful connection to the 20s. If I had to paint in broad, evocative strokes, I'd claim the industries are using the government to prop up their outdated business models by destroying competition from users. So I'd suggest 'Monopoly.'

I don't like 'Monopoly' because most people don't recognize that as a fundamental problem. In fact in the case of media, monopoly is assumed as necessary to provide you with what you want (hundred million dollar blockbuster films). The key thing to focus on is the imbalance of power SOPA creates and how that will end up getting in the way of Uncle Art's evening entertainment. So far the shoplifting shutting down the…

I find the shoplifting analogy decent, but the main flaw I see is that it keeps the discussion framed around crimes being committed and what is the punishment. Even if the punishment is seen as really extreme, centuries of legislation have shown that being "tough on crime" is extremely popular.

My hope with the term 'Prohibition' is to turn it around and put the focus on the evil being done by the media companies. They want the government take away your rights, because they don't want to compete fair and square with web technologies.

Re: I was on BloombergTV talking SOPA today - how'd I do?

#160

Post by pfraze »

wes-exp wrote: post #159
enjalot wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't like 'Monopoly' because most people don't recognize that as a fundamental problem. In fact in the case of media, monopoly is assumed as necessary to provide you with what you want (hundred million dollar blockbuster films). The key thing to focus on is the imbalance of power SOPA creates and how that will end up getting in the way of Uncle Art's evening entertainment. So far the shoplifting shutting down the…

I find the shoplifting analogy decent, but the main flaw I see is that it keeps the discussion framed around crimes being committed and what is the punishment. Even if the punishment is seen as really extreme, centuries of legislation have shown that being "tough on crime" is extremely popular. My hope with the term 'Prohibition' is to turn it around and put the focus on the evil being done by the media companies. Th…

Fair points on Prohibition. It definitely has the negative-only effect that you'd want; I'll have to think about it.

Here's an analogy I've been using that might work: "They're tying your hands behind your back so you have to pay them to feed you."

Post reply on HN