PROTECT-IP and SOPA Acts would kill BTF. READ MORE HERE.

[Ashveer]

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

Please look up communism. Root word is commune. That's not whats at stake.

 

[mithu]

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

Well obama's admin. is against the bill. Obama has really nothing to do with this.


http://www.dailytech.com/Obama+Admin+Declares+War+on+SOPA+SOPA+Author+Caught+Stealing+Work/article23783.htm

 

[J Wong]

http://congressandme.blogspot.com/ follow me

 

[siddyp]

Honestly, all these buddhe who have no idea what the internet is and how it works cannot possibly be allowed to regulate it the same way children are not allowed to regulate foreign trade or law enforcement.

this

 

[himynameis]

http://www.marketwatch.com/video/asset/sopa-bill-faces-new-hurdles/992A421D-928F-4C28-9C3A-9A5CF52CF5CB

 

[sartajjudge]

Honestly, all these buddhe who have no idea what the internet is and how it works cannot possibly be allowed to regulate it the same way children are not allowed to regulate foreign trade or law enforcement.

LOL true say.

 

[Saab]

Watch the daily show segment of this. Although it doesn't go into great detail about the bills, it starkly shows the character and thought process behind the committee members who keep saying that this technology is "beyond them" and that "Im not a nerd....maybe we should bring nerds in".

....What? They mean experts right?

Candy from willie wonka will not solve this problem, only make the moronic and ill-informed representatives presentation of their lack-of-knowledge awkwardly sweet.

 

[jfried]

All I know is that it's no longer okay for our Representatives and Senators to not understand technology. It was almost cute when Ted Stevens had his "series of tubes" moment, but when John Roberts, a Harvard Law grad who was in his early 50s (read: who was a contemporary, both intellectually and age-wise, with my dad, who knows how to text/what texting is), couldn't distinguish the difference between a pager and text messaging a few years ago in City of Ontario, California v. Quon , it started to get scary. The fact of the matter is that if you're unwittingly committing violations that would get you sued and put away under a law you're proposing (hey, Lamar Smith and your unattributed background pictures on your website), you shouldn't be allowed to "write" this legislation.

I put write in quotation marks, because it's obvious he didn't write it. SOPA ended up on Smith's desk after being written by the MPAA and introduced to the Representative through lobbyists. The fact of the matter is that due to their access with Reps and Senators, the MPAA has been extremely good at getting their legislation pushed through Congress. Why else, after all, would the Senate and House deadlock on something important, like deficit control, and yet, an odious bill like SOPA or PIPA gets bipartisan support. Amusing to me.

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.

In short: We're selling out our future to protect a dying industry if we sign PIPA/SOPA into law. KEEP CALLING YOUR SENATORS AND REPS. Keep the pressure against the bill on, especially those of you in CA and other states where your Senator sponsored the act. If you have Senators who are opposed to PIPA, call and thank them. Tell them to talk to Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) about his alternative bill. This is a big fucking deal, people.

EDIT: If you like nannu.info, that site would be gone in the blink of an eye if SOPA/PIPA passes.

 

[mafzal]

I wrote to my rep - took less than 1 minute - everyone do it

Go here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:CongressLookup?new=yes

Type your zip

Fill out the short form and just write "I oppose PIPA and SOPA"

That's it!

 

[Basim]

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

 

[jfried]

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.

 

[GSingh]

Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) on SOPA: 'Bring in the Nerds'

Congressman Mel Watt defends SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act)

 

[yraparla]

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.

 

[J Wong]

So megaupload is down

 

[siddyp]

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

 

[Sue Sylvester]

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.

 

[jfried]

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.

I'm inclined to agree with you on the duration of time argument, but also look at the site I posted in the last post. It's clear that tech companies are underspending by a huge amount compared to the RIAA and MPAA. Also, note that some companies like Microsoft and other large tech firms are/were in favor of SOPA since they've been killed by piracy.

I also found out something interesting/amusing about one of the supporters of PIPA today. Senator Barbara Boxer could be jailed and end up inadvertently getting senate.gov (the senate's website) blacklisted for posting copyright infringing pictures on her website. Rather than posting up all of the links here and cluttering every subsequent reply with a buttload of pictures, I'll post up the reddit post I made. Check it out and if you think it's interesting, give it an upvote and facebook it.

 

[GSingh]

I'm inclined to agree with you on the duration of time argument, but also look at the site I posted in the last post. It's clear that tech companies are underspending by a huge amount compared to the RIAA and MPAA. Also, note that some companies like Microsoft and other large tech firms are/were in favor of SOPA since they've been killed by piracy.

I also found out something interesting/amusing about one of the supporters of PIPA today. Senator Barbara Boxer could be jailed and end up inadvertently getting senate.gov (the senate's website) blacklisted for posting copyright infringing pictures on her website. Rather than posting up all of the links here and cluttering every subsequent reply with a buttload of pictures, I'll post up the reddit post I made. Check it out and if you think it's interesting, give it an upvote and facebook it.

She's not the only one. Lamar Smith, the bill's "author" has been found guilty of similar charges

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/281037/20120112/lamar-smith-sopa-bill-author-infringing-copyright.htm

http://twitpic.com/88ueqz#.Txdtm2dMitM.facebook

http://www.texansforlamarsmith.com/ (tis down... I wonder why...)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/oxherder/4189641199/# (Image owner's response)

 

[hsdeol]

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.

it was the perfect plan