The next SOPA • Hacker News Board

Re: The next SOPA

#51

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Jan 20, 2012, 6:45 PM UTC

Anechoic wrote: post #38

mikeash wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I could say that the MPAA's restrictions are also for the viewer's sake, and with the huge amount of viewers they obviously got that right. I don't believe it, but I don't see where it's wrong but the equivalent for Apple is right. Personally, I think Apple's policies are more destructive. They're doing a pretty decent job of convincing an entire generation that locked-down, manufacturer-controlled computing is good.…

They're doing a pretty decent job of convincing an entire generation that locked-down, manufacturer-controlled computing is good. I've spent 20 years playing tech support to friends and family who have accidentally fubar'd their open computing devices. IME that has done far more to convince folks that locked-down, manufacturer-controlled computing is good moreso than anything Apple's done. The conflict is framed as "…

[deleted]

Re: The next SOPA

#52

Post by TomOfTTB » Fri, Jan 20, 2012, 6:45 PM UTC

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 what they want. Some want media to be free, some want studios to die and artists and directors to find ways to get paid directly and some just want laws that aren’t as draconian as SOPA.

So to the labels and the studios people like Mr. Arment are terrorizing them. Threatening to take their livelihood away while offering no alternative system. That’s why not supporting member companies won’t work. Because it just reinforces their fears.

What technology companies and people who are passionate about technology really need to do is suggest an alternate solution. The world works in opposites. Republican/Democrat, Liberal/Conservative, and so on. The only way to deal with the labels is to create another side and coalesce around a common ideology. One that still allows the system that currently creates media to work but which allows people control over their media.

Because the one thing Mr. Arment is absolutely right about is this: You haven’t won anything as of now. In fact, what you have done is sent a clear message that laws like SOPA need to be done under the radar from now on and that’s a step backwards not forwards.

Re: The next SOPA

#53

Post by TheSOB88 » Fri, Jan 20, 2012, 6:47 PM UTC

jiggy2011 wrote: post #44

api wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is the case. The U.S. congress basically runs on payola. You can buy any bill you want.

If that is true then I'm amazed that a credible 3rd party has not yet surfaced that vowed to reform politics. Assuming even a half competent set of politicians they would be able to do an objectively better job since they would consider things on merits rather than contributions. Why do you need so much money to run a campaign anyway? Surely you could get the word out online and take donations from the public. Of cou…

I don't understand your points at all - and your last sentence sounds ironic. Should I be taking you at face value?

Anyways, your 3rd party situation has one pitfall: how would it get into power? The 2 party system's devisors have us beat; nobody believes an independent can even get elected. There's an enormous barrier to entry.

Re: The next SOPA

#54

Post by jobeirne » Fri, Jan 20, 2012, 6:48 PM UTC

There will always exist groups of people who want to abrogate the rights of the average person for the benefit of a select class. What makes people think this struggle is unique to the MPAA or the RIAA or even media on the internet?

It's time to think about how we can restructure our government to avoid this class of problems, not just the next SOPA. In the words of Eric S. Raymond,

"For freedom to flourish, the Internet must be kept free of government control. The Internet needs to be kept free of corporate control, too. But, as we have seen with the DMCA, corporations that want to control the net have to do so by buying bad laws from the government — they can't jail or kill you themselves. Thus, the most important front in the battle is still heading off bad laws and regulations."

Re: The next SOPA

#55

Post by nextparadigms » Fri, Jan 20, 2012, 6:48 PM UTC

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.)

I think that's a good idea. Limit campaign donations only to individuals and at a $1000 cap. No single individual, and especially corporations, should be able to dramatically influence the results by leveraging his wealth. Just like votes are equal, donations from everyone should be more or less equal, too. It would also remove the incentive for politicians to go and beg for the corporations' money.

Basically, campaign donations should be more like Kickstarter. If enough people like your idea and support you with money, then you will have enough momentum and money anyway.

Re: The next SOPA

#56

Post by jedbrown » Fri, Jan 20, 2012, 6:49 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…

Lessig's suggestion would significantly increase the amount of money available to politicians relative to now. The difference is that it would all come in small dollar amounts to make politicians accountable to constituents instead of the corporations currently financing them. More money might conceivably be sufficient incentive for those in power to act.

Re: The next SOPA

#57

Post by nextparadigms » Fri, Jan 20, 2012, 6:50 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…

They might not hate you, but they are surely trying to criminalize pretty much everyone who comes even close to infringing anything.

Re: The next SOPA

#58

Post by nextparadigms » Fri, Jan 20, 2012, 6:52 PM UTC

jiggy2011 wrote: post #24

I don't quite understand. Are people suggesting that congress considers legislation primarily based on campaign contributions and that this is the same for both main parties? So they will only go against legislation proposed by lobbyists if they feel the votes they would lose would outweigh the benefit of those contributions to their next campaign? If that is the case then I'm sorry to say but your entire government…

I think "approval voting" would help weaken the 2 party system, and eliminate the need to vote for the "lesser evil" in elections:

http://www.electology.org/approval-voting

Re: The next SOPA

#59

Post by lux » Fri, Jan 20, 2012, 6:53 PM UTC

> But what will happen when the MPAA buys the next SOPA? We can’t protest every similar bill with the same force. Eventually, our audiences will tire of calling their senators for whatever we’re asking them to protest this time.

Isn't this the crux of the problem with the current democratic systems though? If you never communicate with your political representatives, how do they know what you as a voter want? Part of what makes a democracy work is that connection between voters and politicians, but it has to come from us. If enough of us vocalize our concerns, they'll be heard. Politicians want to keep their jobs, and they need votes to do so.

Sure it's not perfect (nothing is), and lobbyists easily manipulate the system on behalf of groups like the MPAA, but it's a basic thing that few people actually do to uphold their part of the bargain. That's why the system can continually be eroded with the assurance that even though SOPA/PIPA failed this time, some mutated version will slip by eventually.

Re: The next SOPA

#60

Post by iamandrus » Fri, Jan 20, 2012, 6:53 PM UTC

groggles wrote: post #50

iamandrus wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I never said that Apple was right. There are a lot of things I disagree with in regard to Apple (I hated the first iPhone, I really did). I said that you're comparing two completely different models and range of products. You're also assuming that everyone who uses a computer knows how to modify it and not break it. Understand that a lot of Apple users want a device that just works . They don't want to have to mess a…

Do you perhaps see the Apple glass as half full, and the MPAA glass as half empty? As the GP argued, one could just as easily argue that every MPAA policy is for your own good . Further I think it's incredibly unfair to say that the MPAA member companies -- and the many artists and professionals behind it -- don't care about their product. I'm hardly an MPAA booster (when a blu-ray has unskippable ads I hate them jus…

Of course you can argue that, but you'd be wrong. Ask anyone on the street what they think of Apple locking down their products and not allowing you to modify them, and you'd get mostly positive responses about Apple. Now ask them about DRM (in an understandable way, of course), like how they might buy a song on one music store and not be able to listen to it on their iPod. You'd get negative responses, guaranteed. I don't mean to say that artists don't care about the product they created. Artists deserve a lot for the stuff they make. But the MPAA just uses these artists to make money. Has their ever been an MPAA album, or has the MPAA itself (not the artists) released a single? The executives just care about money, not the music or the culture behind the music. If they actually cared about the audience, they wouldn't use DRM and lawsuits to make people pay for their product.