Obama promised change and he's doing just that.... Changing the US to communism Theres a really Fine line between taking away piracy and taking away liberty and this guys way beyond it

Quote from: jfried on January 19, 2012, 11:02:42 AM

In any case, the big issue at stake here is that we're killing the one major growth sector of our economy in order to preserve the outdated business model of legacy media, an industry that's dying a slow, protracted death, because it refused to acknowledge technology. YOU DON'T KILL GROWTH TO PRESERVE A DYING BUSINESS MODEL. IT'S MORONIC. That's what we're up against here, and because the tech industry (for the most part) sort of subscribes to this notion that they don't need to play the political game because of misguided idealism, there's no competing interest to battle the legacy content owners here. Sure, a groundswell of internet rage is useful, but it's only going to accomplish so much.

 
While I can see where you're coming with your argument, could you please expand on the above statement? Are you saying that tech companies don't have lobbyist that are advocating their demands to politicians? I'm sure they are just as much (if not more) trying to push their agendas of new technology and how it will help free market capitalism.
 
If so, I believe you're way off in your assessment. To prove my point, you can go to the U.S. House of Representatives lobbyist disclosure website (http://disclosures.house.gov/ld/ldsearch.aspx) and search by "Registrant Name" using any big tech company out there. You'll see various lobbyists that have prereseted their companies in front of Congressmen and full disclosure on how much they were compensated for their "services."
 
Here is an example of Intel's recent disclosure of their lobbyist filing: http://soprweb.senate.gov/index.cfm?event=getFilingDetails&filingID=CB6B1AF5-4D0F-48D2-BA4A-BF3BE56562E7
 
Also, here is a interesting article that indentifies Healthcare companies and Internet companies as the biggest players in the game for spending their earnings on lobbying activities (as of 3rd quarter 2011): http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2011/11/09/health-and-internet-companies-top-in-3rd-quarter-lobbying
 
Overall, I agree with your stance on the SOPA/PIPA issue at hand.
 
~ Basim

Quote from: Basim on January 19, 2012, 12:04:57 PM

Quote from: jfried on January 19, 2012, 11:02:42 AM

In any case, the big issue at stake here is that we're killing the one major growth sector of our economy in order to preserve the outdated business model of legacy media, an industry that's dying a slow, protracted death, because it refused to acknowledge technology. YOU DON'T KILL GROWTH TO PRESERVE A DYING BUSINESS MODEL. IT'S MORONIC. That's what we're up against here, and because the tech industry (for the most part) sort of subscribes to this notion that they don't need to play the political game because of misguided idealism, there's no competing interest to battle the legacy content owners here. Sure, a groundswell of internet rage is useful, but it's only going to accomplish so much.

 
While I can see where you're coming with your argument, could you please expand on the above statement? Are you saying that tech companies don't have lobbyist that are advocating their demands to politicians? I'm sure they are just as much (if not more) trying to push their agendas of new technology and how it will help free market capitalism.
 
If so, I believe you're way off in your assessment. To prove my point, you can go to the U.S. House of Representatives lobbyist disclosure website (http://disclosures.house.gov/ld/ldsearch.aspx) and search by "Registrant Name" using any big tech company out there. You'll see various lobbyists that have prereseted their companies in front of Congressmen and full disclosure on how much they were compensated for their "services."
 
Here is an example of Intel's recent disclosure of their lobbyist filing: http://soprweb.senate.gov/index.cfm?event=getFilingDetails&filingID=CB6B1AF5-4D0F-48D2-BA4A-BF3BE56562E7
 
Also, here is a interesting article that indentifies Healthcare companies and Internet companies as the biggest players in the game for spending their earnings on lobbying activities (as of 3rd quarter 2011): http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2011/11/09/health-and-internet-companies-top-in-3rd-quarter-lobbying
 
Overall, I agree with your stance on the SOPA/PIPA issue at hand.
 
~ Basim

Basim,

In this case, there's a difference between legacy companies like Intel and Microsoft and newer players like Facebook and Google. Yes, companies like Facebook and Google are ramping up their spending big-time, but they have to play catch-up to organizations like the MPAA, who've been at this game for far longer (2 years for FB, 5 for Google compared to many times that for the MPAA, RIAA, etc). I'm less concerned about Google and Facebook, though, and more concerned with up and coming companies. Look at so-called successful companies like Twitter, Square, Kickstarter and the like. These guys are raising huge venture rounds, or are big, established companies (in the case of Twitter) and they haven't even dipped their toes into the waters of lobbying at all. All three could potentially be wiped out as a result of this legislation, twitter as a result of links, square as a payment processor, and kickstarter for a host of different things. Yet, these companies, all of which were startups or hadn't existed 5 years ago, are some of the fastest growing companies in the US, and are rapidly generating new ideas and a shitload of innovative new IP. To see what I'm talking about, go to SOPA Track (http://sopatrack.com) and look at the huge difference in campaign contributions between pro-SOPA and anti-SOPA groups.

In short: some of the larger tech companies do have some lobbying representation, but many do not, and generally speaking, the most innovative and/or newest companies generally completely overlook stuff like lobbying until it becomes seriously and immediately apparent that they need to be spending this kind of money.

So megaupload is down

Quote from: jfried on January 19, 2012, 02:39:51 PM

Quote from: Basim on January 19, 2012, 12:04:57 PM

Quote from: jfried on January 19, 2012, 11:02:42 AM

In any case, the big issue at stake here is that we're killing the one major growth sector of our economy in order to preserve the outdated business model of legacy media, an industry that's dying a slow, protracted death, because it refused to acknowledge technology. YOU DON'T KILL GROWTH TO PRESERVE A DYING BUSINESS MODEL. IT'S MORONIC. That's what we're up against here, and because the tech industry (for the most part) sort of subscribes to this notion that they don't need to play the political game because of misguided idealism, there's no competing interest to battle the legacy content owners here. Sure, a groundswell of internet rage is useful, but it's only going to accomplish so much.

 
While I can see where you're coming with your argument, could you please expand on the above statement? Are you saying that tech companies don't have lobbyist that are advocating their demands to politicians? I'm sure they are just as much (if not more) trying to push their agendas of new technology and how it will help free market capitalism.
 
If so, I believe you're way off in your assessment. To prove my point, you can go to the U.S. House of Representatives lobbyist disclosure website (http://disclosures.house.gov/ld/ldsearch.aspx) and search by "Registrant Name" using any big tech company out there. You'll see various lobbyists that have prereseted their companies in front of Congressmen and full disclosure on how much they were compensated for their "services."
 
Here is an example of Intel's recent disclosure of their lobbyist filing: http://soprweb.senate.gov/index.cfm?event=getFilingDetails&filingID=CB6B1AF5-4D0F-48D2-BA4A-BF3BE56562E7
 
Also, here is a interesting article that indentifies Healthcare companies and Internet companies as the biggest players in the game for spending their earnings on lobbying activities (as of 3rd quarter 2011): http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2011/11/09/health-and-internet-companies-top-in-3rd-quarter-lobbying
 
Overall, I agree with your stance on the SOPA/PIPA issue at hand.
 
~ Basim

Basim,

In this case, there's a difference between legacy companies like Intel and Microsoft and newer players like Facebook and Google. Yes, companies like Facebook and Google are ramping up their spending big-time, but they have to play catch-up to organizations like the MPAA, who've been at this game for far longer (2 years for FB, 5 for Google compared to many times that for the MPAA, RIAA, etc). I'm less concerned about Google and Facebook, though, and more concerned with up and coming companies. Look at so-called successful companies like Twitter, Square, Kickstarter and the like. These guys are raising huge venture rounds, or are big, established companies (in the case of Twitter) and they haven't even dipped their toes into the waters of lobbying at all. All three could potentially be wiped out as a result of this legislation, twitter as a result of links, square as a payment processor, and kickstarter for a host of different things. Yet, these companies, all of which were startups or hadn't existed 5 years ago, are some of the fastest growing companies in the US, and are rapidly generating new ideas and a shitload of innovative new IP. To see what I'm talking about, go to SOPA Track (http://sopatrack.com) and look at the huge difference in campaign contributions between pro-SOPA and anti-SOPA groups.

In short: some of the larger tech companies do have some lobbying representation, but many do not, and generally speaking, the most innovative and/or newest companies generally completely overlook stuff like lobbying until it becomes seriously and immediately apparent that they need to be spending this kind of money.

I think you'd be underestimating the amount they spend on candidates....their lobbying may not be as sophisticated/established but they are definitely spending money. And in a lot of ways they are just showing their hands because if the MPAA-constituents lose money there's a tangible economic hit (thousands of jobs) but if google/twitter decides to do something we're talking about a mass revolt...and the politicians know that.

The real issue is that many of the current congressman have longer ties to MPAA,RIAA etc. So you'd have to overspend to get the same level of kickback from elected officials. Easier instead to incite huge populist protests which politicians fear in an election cycle. The complete disregard for the expert testimony and analysis is the bigger issue here, it's clear they (congressman) have an agenda (protecting American companies from foreign pirates).

The fact that the American people also consume the content was actually secondary to the foreign aspect of it. Truly many congressman don't' see the problem with asking american companies to help embargo foreign sites that hurt american companies. It becomes a matter of morality to them that is separate from the ethics of our current internet and the economic opportunity it provides.

Quote from: siddyp on January 19, 2012, 04:49:36 PM

Quote from: J Wong on January 19, 2012, 04:28:31 PM

So megaupload is down

uh oh...

http://www.factmag.com/2012/01/19/swizz-beats-is-the-ceo-of-megaupload/

http://gizmodo.com/5877612/feds-kill-megaupload

Swizz Beats is the CEO of Megaupload? This is too hilarious.

Entertainment industry (but more so their lawyers) rallies against piracy to find out one of the biggest pirate sites is owned by one of their own.