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 in the history of this nation than Barack Obama during his presidential campaign, and the letter from his administration helped kill the bills. How about Rep. Issa and Sen. Wyden? Guess what, they got into office by spending donated money as well.
The problem isn't money, the problem is engagement. The tech industry, particularly on the Internet entrepreneurial side, has long prided itself on staying out of Washington. Well, now we see the consequence of that approach: it took a last-minute emergency OMG shitstorm to stop some bills--bills that could have easily been shaped, adjusted, or stopped much earlier if the industry had been engaged and paying attention.
The U.S. government is participatory. It will respond to citizen wishes, but only if citizens actively and continuously make their wishes known.
And it is inclusive. No matter how much you might think copyright should end, or that the MPAA should just go away forever and die, there are enough people who disagree with you that it's just not going to happen. Internet companies and advocates need to get comfortable with continuously engaging content companies in the legislative process, seeking common ground, and compromising.
IP law is not a winnable war. It is an ongoing negotiation that must be managed forever.
I disagree. IP law is a new term, so why not frame the debate around the original ones?
Copyright and patents have the U.S. Constitution to back them, but copyright has been diverted to serve large media companies -- through copyright term extensions that are frankly unreasonable.
Ideas are not property. Piracy is not theft. Copying and hacking should not be de facto crimes. Copyright should not be retroactively extended to re-copyright works that entered the public domain.
That doesn't make me extreme. To the contrary, it hilights the extreme political stance of the large media companies. I'll pick one as an example:
Rupert Murdoch, Jan 14, 2012:
"""So Obama has thrown in his lot withSilicon Valley paymasters who threaten allsoftware creators with piracy, plain thievery."
"Piracy leader is Google who streams movies free, sells advts around them.No wonder pouring millions into lobbying."""
In practical terms how would you go about go about educating enough people to make a change? I ask this because while you're statements may be logical and internally consistent it bypasses the entire practical side of this whole debate. As soon as you enter the reality of the political arena the OP's points become valid. It's a negotiation.
I probably am misunderstanding you (please clarify), because what I hear you saying is: "in the political arena there will always be corrupt politicians, and there will always be large media companies paying them to re-introduce SOPA."
Yes, but it's easy enough to educate people about what's going on. Young people inherently understand the things I'd try to teach them -- but don't know what to do about it. Older people know what to do -- but don't care or pay attention to these issues. Networking with people can be rewarding and fun!
Actually I wasn't saying anything so much as asking. Given our current political realities what practical ways would you go about changing it? I ask because I truly do not know what practical ways would have any chance of success short of political negotiation.
>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.
You make a very bold statement without backing it with any line of reasoning or pointing to any supporting material. I am no expert in this matter so I can not know if you are wrong.
But in an older thread someone posted this excellent talk by Lawrence Lessig: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ik1AK56FtVc. It's well worth watching and counters your statement. His arguments are very well presented and reasoned. He also shows some supporting data.
Given that, I cannot attribute much weight to your statement.
"Why should I shoot myself in the foot to keep someone else from shooting me in the foot?"
Because sometimes democracy is harder than just doing what you want to do.
"This idea that the root cause of all bad legislation is political donations: it's wrong, and not supported by the data."
Of course bad legislation has no root cause, but money surely contributes. $94MM in contributions last year focused on one issue.
"No one raised more political money in the history of this nation than Barack Obama during his presidential campaign"
I think you're confusing raising campaign money with taking political donations and going out to thousand dollar meals with lobbyists.
"The tech industry, particularly on the Internet entrepreneurial side, has long prided itself on staying out of Washington."
No we haven't, but we've certainly been busy working and trying to ignore it. Plus, they never really came after us directly before.
"IP law is not a winnable war. It is an ongoing negotiation that must be managed forever."
Thats a terribly lazy reason to not protest something. We give them power through direct consumer spending. One great way to reduce that power is to educate each other about where our dollars go.
I agree with your conclusion, but your statement on political donations is contrary to my understanding of the process.
Donations don't literally buy votes, but what they do literally buy is face time. That is, people in Congress will hold fundraisers, and lobbyists pay to attend those fundraisers. The understanding is that the lobbyists who attend those fundraisers will have time to talk to the politician about the issues their clients care about.
Now, if you have two sides to an issue, and only one side of that issue has active lobbyists who buy that face time with people in Congress, then you will have a situation where the people in Congress only understand one side of the issue.
The U.S. government is participatory. It will respond to citizen wishes, but only if citizens actively and continuously make their wishes known.
It is an opportunity cost for industries to be spending their money on lobbying instead of spending their money on R&D that will benefit society. Industries or citizens should not have to be constantly talking to representative in Washington to make sure that they will not do anything wrong when they're not looking.
The U.S. government may be participatory but only the one that shouts the loudest get heard.
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 and re-runs of Star Trek on AMZN Prime than watch Spongebob Squarepants, Adventure Time, CNN Fox News, or any of these reality shows about Coupons and Pawn Shops that never stop.)
On the other hand, Hollywood employs a lot of people in good, largely unionized jobs that aren't in danger of being exported to China. 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.
The question is having some regime that's fair to everybody.
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.
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.
If lobbyists' money didn't give their words extra weight, why would they donate any of it?
There are two interlocked selection mechanisms: politicians select the issues they pursue, and sponsors select the politicians whom they want to give voice (and money).
In dumb evolutionary environments and in anthropics, there is no direct feedback between these two mechanisms. Bacteria get born, behave in a predefined way, and either procreate or die. Successful bacteria are not smart, but simply lucky. They are selected for fitness by a dumb process.
Similarly, activists enter politics to pursue certain interests, these interests do not change significantly, and then the newcomer either gathers enough support to get elected and influence public opinion, or doesn't. Sponsors select the politicians which have already taken a favorable stance, and help them get heard and get elected. Successful activists are those which pursue important issues which attract support and sponsorship.
I suspect that this is how the system is supposed to work, but it breaks when politicians can be adjusted, that is, bought.
It's not that money gives lobbyists's words extra weight. Money allows their words to be heard. That is, without the contributions, you don't get to talk to the politician. Contributions are an entry fee to a meeting.
This. Realizing that the other side is not the devil and has legitimate interests of their own, even if they are clumsy in communicating them or harmful in their actions.
Viewing the other side as evil is lazy. Coming to authentic, common ground is very hard work.
The truth is, there is a small group (MPAA/RIAA members) that can profit immensely from an act that is detrimental to the rest of society, and they pursue it.
It's about as "evil" as one basketball team can consider their opponent "evil"; the title is useless.
But just like on the basketball court, you have to do your best to defeat the other team, because they are doing their best to defeat you. And unlike the basketball court, they have so far had the upper hand every single time (e.g. DMCA, Mickey Mouse Protection Act a.k.a Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act, government passes NBC commercials as official position, etc).
SOPA/PIPA is probably the first time they have had a real setback. I think they'll still win, unfortunately -- the overton window keeps shifting.
I just think that if we techies try to understand some of the concerns of the copyright holders, we are in a position to propose legislation of our own. Until then, we are resigning ourselves to playing defense.
> Coming to authentic, common ground is very hard work.
Or rather, with the implied meaning that coming to a common ground is at all desirable. It is not. They (MPAA/RIAA) out to get us (complement of MPAA/RIAA in the set of people) for monetary and political gain, and we should aspire to make it impossible for them to do that, and take back what they have already won (e.g. reverse the Mickey Mouse Protection Act)
As Louis XIV said, never sign a treaty you don't intend to break and until the technological playground settles into a few large, relatively static players there is always room for a more lucrative treaty.
The problem is not engagement. It is the duty of citizens to elect representatives and its the duty of legislature to make laws in accordance with the constitution. They are the ones who should be doing the research to find an optimum solution to the problem. It's their job after all. What you are suggesting is that we should guide them like children and show them the way so they can do what they were supposed to do in the first place. If they are our representatives why do we need someone else to represent ourselves to our representatives?
When elections come there are'nt any better alternatives either. The power of voting is over rated doesnot amount to much.
I think you're right, but I hate that you're right. I wish government could just be sensible without needing a pressure group of sensible people riding herd on them forever.
Given that the author is Marco (and the article is on HN because it is from Marco Arment), I wonder what his boycott position is regarding Apple? Apple has a long history of supporting draconian IP policies, and has a business model built around controlling what you can do with what you bought. Financially Apple absolutely dwarfs the combined revenue of all of the MPAA realm.
I don't mean to distract the conversation or hate on Apple, but it's a very pertinent question -- Marco and friends defend Apple's right to control their devices and their content, but are up in arms about media companies doing the same? Explain the reasoning why one company has the right to limit your freedoms while another doesn't?
(*- I will happily provide numerous citations of both Marco defending Apple draconian policies, and Apple supporting jackboot government-backed IP protections)
I'll throw my hat in the ring here. After I upvote you for starting a good discussion (which it seems few people ever do on HN).
The MAJOR difference I see is that Apple does what it does, and doesn't hide behind a lobbying group to take the heat. They say "this is the way we are going to do this, because it is better." We may not agree, and I usually don't, but whatever.
The movie studios, however, let the MPAA do all the dirty work and get all scorn. That way, MPAA == evil corporate mongers, while, say Warner Brothers == "ooh, Dark Knight Rising comes out this year!!!"
Boycotting MPAA's member companies is a way to say we see through their crap, and aren't going to put up with it.
Explain the reasoning why one company has the right to limit your freedoms while another doesn't?
If you look at the specific examples Marco spelled out (" region locks and unskippable screens and encryption and criminalization of fair use.") those are restrictions that benefit only the studios and inconvenience the customer. The iOS restrictions Apple propagates benefit Apple, but for many customers (not HN types) they are beneficial.
It's a fine line, and Apple has had their share of jackboot actions but it can be argued that it's not exactly the same. As for Apple defending Apple policies, I'd bet most of those examples demonstrate the benefit to consumers. (and has he defended the really egregious Apple missteps, like the security officer pretending to be a police officer?)
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?
I believe Apple's stated reason for the battery thing is that the mechanism for making a battery removable takes up a lot of space, and by getting rid of it, they can make the actual battery bigger.
That is true, and you can replace the battery. Doing so voids your warranty, but by the time your Li-Polymer battery no longer holds a charge your laptop will be out of warranty anyway, even with AppleCare. All you need is a screwdriver.
But Apple does support a lot of draconian IP policy. I think they're in need of a whipping over this.
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 not allow the noise of such edge-case complaints distract from more relevant restrictions that DO hurt consumers on a daily basis, like content DRM.
I've had multiple relatives show fear of plugging in their iPods because iTunes wipes out their iPod. My wife refused to plug in her iPod to her new laptop because she felt she'd lose the episodes she had bought on the iPod itself. And that's not an irrational fear. Even I had it before iCloud enabled you to redownload all your purchased content.
Macbook Pros went from 5 to 7-8 hours usual time on a charge by making the batteries non-(trivially) removable. You can also pay a modest fee to have the battery replaced, so there's no need to replace your device, as you suggest.
Apple also do a lot of these kinds of region locking restrictions, like locking iPhones to certain regions. Now iPhones are released in many many countries. But when it was just USA, people in the EU would be breaking the region locking to use an iPhone they bought in the USA.
DRM and hacker-unfriendly hardware protections are bad for the people using those products. Laws like SOPA are bad for everyone. It's quite possible to support Apple's lockdown without supporting the neutering of the internet.
Indeed, but the piece is primarily anti-MPAA. See-
"The MPAA studios hate us. They hate us with region locks and unskippable screens and encryption and criminalization of fair use. They see us as stupid eyeballs with wallets, and they are entitled to a constant stream of our money. They despise us, and they certainly don’t respect us."
Apple has draconian restrictions on stuff like iOS for the user's sake (and for Apple's partially), and with the huge amount of users they obviously got that right. I'm not entirely sure what Apple's stance on SOPA is (I heard they supported it, but then I heard they didn't), but I don't think it would matter to them. They don't need to sue for piracy because they have the iTunes Store, which only distributes content. Apple even removed the DRM from their iTunes Store media a few years ago. They don't limit your freedom in the way that SOPA or PIPA will. You're comparing two completely different industries.
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 "open" vs "closed" but once someone can do "open done right for non-techies" that's where the industry will go.
I used to think that yes, Apple makes neat things, but it's still evil because it locks us down. But consider, for example, how trivial it is to install OS X on a PC. There certainly are many ways Apple could go to prevent that, but they don't and will even give away updates for such installations.
This makes me think that Apple has consciously made its top priority delivering the smooth experience and working device/software. For that, Apple chose to sacrifice breadth for the sake of depth—focusing on fewer use cases, but better working them through. This means fewer features and poorer extensibility. We tend to perceive that as restrictions, but it limits the non-technical users' ability to shoot themselves in the foot, and allows for better quality.
True to a point, although I think this is a but of a false dichotomy. I'm not 100% sure having to do slightly less tech support is really worth the cost of giving one company complete control of our computing experiences anyway.
For years the most common cause of people's computer issues was a combination of the terrible security or MS operating systems circa Windows 95 - XP and overly complex programs with badly designed UIs.
I'm sure it is possible to create a platform where one can install whatever software you like but not run a huge risk of malware. For example you can run applications in a sandbox which will stop them from damaging the system. Applications would then only be able to break out by exploiting the OS itself, so you build it on top of something like OpenBSD.
So you can avoid security problems without complete control, but you also mentioned the UI, and it is just one part of the overall experience.
E.g., today most people don't really differentiate parts of their experience defined by the OS from those defined by application makers. So you have to control the ways your users install software, if you want users to not hate your product because of some crappy app.
To be honest, I doubt that without such complete control there would exist a computer / tablet I could recommend to, say, my non-technical mother, and be more or less sure that she won't hate all computer-related things afterwards.
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 around with the operating system or type a lot of intimidating commands into a terminal just to change something. They want to go on Facebook, play some games, listen to music, or type term papers. DRM does nothing but prevent things from "just working." It locks down where you can watch DVDs, how you can watch them, how you can use things, and can even lock you out of something if there's a problem on the developer's end (example: Assassin's Creed 2 included a DRM that needed an internet connection whenever you played the game, so if Ubisoft's servers went down or you don't have access to Internet, you can't play the game). To say that DRM is for the user's benefit and totally not for the developer's is insane.
Comparing the MPAA's restrictions with Apple is a bit unfair, and their success is only due to almost a complete monopoly in that area. The MPAA executives look at their audience with dollar signs in their eyes. Apple looks at them with those same dollar signs, but also with care and pride for the products they push out. They want to get a good product out. They adopted new business models like iTunes, iCloud, and even Siri. The MPAA is the antithesis of innovation and doesn't care about the products it pushes out, it just wants money.
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 just a little more), but I have yet to see an argument that excuses Apple policies that isn't just as applicable to the MPAA, which is exactly why I asked the original question regarding Marco. I found his entry odd given his history.
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.
Replace "consumer" with "musician" or "filmmaker", and every argument in support of Apple's locked down systems also applies to the RIAA and MPAA. To hear them speak, these policies are the only think keeping the ravening barbarian hordes of Internet users from destroying the all of the art and culture in our society.
The MPAA views Internet users in the same way that Apple views people attempting to unlock or jailbreak their device. They have nothing but contempt for those of us who dare to use the products that we've purchased in a way that they have not envisioned. In their world, they tell us what we are and are not allowed to do, and we meekly submit. Both MPAA and Apple have this mentality and I find it rather hateful.
Apple's restrictions do nothing but prevent things from "just working". It locks down where you can obtain apps, what you can do with them, and can even lock you out of something if there's a problem on Apple's end (example: iOS 4 was widely considered to be unusable on the iPhone 3G, yet it was impossible to downgrade unless you had the foresight to use circumvention tools in advance of iOS 4's release).
One could argue that DRM is required for there to be a thriving market in media, and therefore is to the user's benefit. Now, you don't believe that, I don't believe that, and maybe even the MPAA doesn't believe that, but the argument isn't invalid on its face. It's clear that restrictions which only limit users can be considered to be good for them. Apple's restrictions only limit users, yet you and many others argue that they're good for users.
I don't really care about Apple's intentions, care, or pride. I see Apple as pushing the entire world to a much worse model of computing. The MPAA, on the other hand, is fading into obsolescence one way or another.
I agree, and I'd kind of like to boycott Apple at this point. But the problem is that I need to get my work done, and Apple has a monopoly.
On what?
On decent UI design and hardware/software that "just works."
Linux UIs are getting slightly better with Gnome 3 and Unity, but they still suck. (And they're getting better by copying Apple.) Windows UIs have been getting worse since XP. (All the good features in Windows 7 are copied from Apple, like their Expose equivalent.) Neither OS offers anything like the plug-and-go and design cleanliness that Apple offers.
It really makes a difference in terms of productivity. I know how to futz around with my machine to make it work, but I have better things to do with my time.
Until either a competitor or the open source community can offer good design -- which matters -- I am stuck with Apple.
BTW, I'll give you all a hint on good design: minimal is a synonym for good. Exterminate features.
When I'm working on Linux, I wish I'd work on OS X. When I'm on OS X, I wish I'd work on Linux.
OS X just works and all that, but it is a constrained environment that lacks the Debian repository. MacPorts is painful as hell, it broke my installed packages twice and the last thing you ever want to do is to upgrade all installed packages (because, you know, you might fear security risks). It also installs its own replacements for whatever OS X ships with, being its own little bubble, which drives me insane.
And what's the fix for MacPorts? That's right, Homebrew, which is a bunch of scripts that compiles your packages (again) from source and you end up praying to God that the software you want is available, that it takes care of all dependencies and that it compiles until the end, as you've got no idea what to do otherwise. Like it's freaking 1996.
So you know, now I'm happy working on Ubuntu full-time, which inherits the most awesome software repository ever from Debian. It may not be the shiniest and most polished operating system ever, but it treats me well as a developer, it doesn't restrict me in any way and I never had any problem that's unworkable.
BTW, I'll give you all a hint on good design:
minimal is a synonym for good. Exterminate features.
In general people saying that don't know what they are talking about. Any simple interface that actually does what you want is actually a beast under the hood. If it isn't then the software is mostly useless.
What most people are missing: the interface/software should do what you want, not the other way around.
This is my biggest problem with Ubuntu lately. I would have rather preferred for them to not fuck around with Gnome's interface, pulling out a proven and working interface, replacing it with broken software in the name of simplicity. I want it to work, not marvel at how simple, shiny and useless it is.
I don't. I'd like to, but thats the reason I don't.
If something done for my own good drives me to another product, what does that say about if it is actually for my own good? Thats my problem with the GP's post.
Although there are a lot of people here that like Apple products and support their policies, there are also lots of people here who use Free Software/Open Source. Lots of us are already boycotting lots of companies that don't fit what our ethics are.
I'm a hacker, Hacker News community member, and a FLOSS user/developer, and I oppose Apple's draconian policies.
His bedrock assumption is that MPAA companies hate their customers, and that is why he suggests a boycott. But if you asked him the same thing about Apple, he would say that they like their customers, and want to delight them.
You might not agree with him about whether these organizations really hold these stances toward their customers, but his argument flows from these two underlying assumptions.
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, newspaper coverage under CFR amounts to a (huge) in-kind contribution in the form of PR. And especially when it comes to the MPAA, many of its member companies own media outlets in addition to movie studios.
Rupert Murdoch, for example, put the Wall Street Journal and Fox News to work in promoting SOPA/PIPA as that furthers the interests of 20th Century Fox.
So because no conceivable campaign finance regulation is going to muzzle the Wall Street Journal or the New York Times during an election, we may have to look elsewhere to check the MPAA's power. I think it's going to have to be something like a souped up version of Xtranormal, which makes production of high quality movies just as easy as distribution of said movies.
This isn't that unrealistic. Blogger made production and international distribution of high quality opinion possible with a few keystrokes, which led in part to the ongoing revenue collapse in print media. Video and audio are obviously much more complex on a frame-by-frame basis than text, but I have to believe that authoring tools can get far better than where they are. Make them web based, build in all kinds of samples and templates akin to blogger templates, use some of the new HTML5 toys to make authoring easier and easier.
Most of the results will be terrible, but most blogs are terrible. As long as enough high quality open access audio/video content is produced, the MPAA/RIAA will start to face the same financial fate as print media. Producing a technically and ethically superior product will always be more effective in the long run than a boycott.
Have you seen Lawrence Lessig's plan [1]? It involves offering tax vouchers to citizens to spend on candidates who pledge to only raise funds via those vouchers. Plenty of money would be spent on candidates, it would just happen in a more flat, distributed fashion.
Also? The current system already gives an immense amount of power to media companies; a huge sum of campaign finance contributions wind up in their coffers, and they have tremendous incentives to maximize controversy and conflict, indirectly forcing candidates to spend more and more on advertising. And at the end of the day, they still have a strong voice in creating self-fulfilling prophecies over who is "electable".
Campaign finance reform and biased media coverage are different beasts entirely. Murdoch owns Fox whether corporations are people or not, and he loves your disparaged argument. Besides, I'd rather be lied to in the face by the news that have my senators bought and sold behind closed doors.
Also, all of the plan you propose is already happening. It's called the creative process. I bet a large portion, if not the majority, of your entertainment is now facilitated by self published content given away for free on the internet. Youtube videos, remixes, wikipedia, flickr, twitter, facebook updates. All of this stuff is 'High Quality' culture that is available to you for free.
Copyright is great. It's necessary. It facilitates things like Creative Commons and the GPL. Abusive copyright holding organizations on the other hand are not so great. They exist only to exert control over their holdings and have recently risen to unprecedented levels of power because of the money we directly give them.
To call a boycott against these organizations futile is to miss the point of the boycott. It's not about putting them out of business. It's about awareness and slowly changing the overall public perception of an issue so fundamental and important as copyright reform and voting with your dollars.
So try not to get so discouraged and remember you give them the power. Seriously. Vote with you dollars (and with a ballot).
Here in the UK we actually have rules that say that TV news shows must remain non partisan. Of course people still accuse them of bias, but they are nothing like Fox news.
I imagine the 1st amendment would prevent a similar thing happening in the US.
Our newspapers however are often extremely partisan however and Murdoch still has much influence here through "The Sun" paper.
I guess with more content online , people could do something similar. "I have 100,000 followers, don't pass SOPA or I'll make a mean youtube video about you".
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 try to control or influence that power. If we take away the ability to contribute to campaigns then corporations and moneyed interests will simply turn to more direct forms of corruption.
In short corruption is a symptom, trying to stop the least objectionable types of it will merely drive it underground and more direct. The problem we need to solve is the ability of corruption to be successful.
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.
I do not mean an absence of regulation, I mean limits on regulation, regulation as nothing more than the rule of law, and far less excessive government spending and "earmarks". A company should properly be concerned with whether or not it is complying with the law, and that should be an existential concern especially when it comes to significant externalities.
A company should not be concerned with whether or not it has enough influence in Washington relative to its competitors.
I'd speculate that for most industries the latter tends to be a higher level of concern than the former, and that is not in any way ok.
> 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.
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.
I actually think that the new unidirectional media monopoly that has emerged as TV and radio have become dominant is a large contributor to today's biggest problems in social thought. Before radio, local newspapers ruled and while they certainly do not accept input, it is easy to launch a competing paper; while presses weren't cheap necessarily, they were obtainable to men with reasonable means, and such men can be found on almost every side of an issue. It was common in the 1800s for a retaliatory newsletter or paper to publish and get roughly common circulation with the item whose claims it sought to address. Thus, people received both sides of an issue, and with some legwork could create a response and receive a more or less equivalent initial readership.
That changed immensely as we entered the radio age, where extremely expensive equipment was required to broadcast and there was some competition for a limited spectrum of airwaves. No longer could one semi-wealthy backer get a viewpoint published; it now took some very serious capital and/or investment only available by forming large amalgamations of wealthy people (or having a SERIOUSLY large backer on par with Rockefeller or other barons), and even if you got that together, you had to file requests for airspace which the government does exactly distribute loosely or quickly. The problem was exacerbated even further as television took over and expensive cameras, lights, and other equipment became necessary to produce a piece with equivalent credibility.
The internet has restored the equivalence and access of publication that existed in the days of paper and taken it further than it ever existed before; now there is almost no barrier to entry whatsoever to publish something across the whole world. Naturally, the corporations and interests that thrived with an exclusive voice among the people are beginning to wane and they are going down kicking and screaming. We will see what is ultimately required to root them out entirely.
Just think what would have become of the revolution if Thomas Paine's Common Sense went unread because everyone was too busy watching TV broadcasted by what were indeed 4 separate entities, but entities all friendly to the Crown which had already allotted them privileges and protection, and entities which were in identical businesses and therefore shared the same legal interests.
I think we have been thoroughly manipulated the last 70-100 years or so and I believe that we are continually reaping the consequences of that manipulation. Thank God for the internet and the freedom to publish which it restored, and which makes it among the most important structures in the world today.
I highly recommend this excerpt as food for thought, bottom of page 4 - page 5:
"Political candidates' campaign discourse provides more information about issues than print or electronic news media. There are several explanation for this finding. First, news reporting tends to concentrate on the 'horse race' aspects of the campaign: Who is ahead in the polls? Who is running the campaign? Which states are being contested by the campaigns? Will the candidates attack one another? Who will be included in the presidential debates? The answers to these questions may be news, but they simply do not help voters decide which candidate should be elected president...
From January through October of 1980, CBS and UPI devoted 65 percent of their coverage to the horse race, 26 percent to issues, and 10 percent to candidates...
A second reason why voters cannot rely on the news media for policy information is that campaign news is only one story among many. The network news, for example, is a half hour long, but subtracting commercials, stories on non-campaign topics, and horse-race coverage leaves little time to explain the candidates' opposing views on policy questions. Particularly in the latter phases of a campaign, political ads, presidential debates, and other message forms provide more issue information to viewers than the news media...
To make matters worse, there may be a trend toward less and less coverage. The length of a typical political news story decreased by about 20 percent and the number of political news stories dropped by 20 percent from 1968 to 1988...average nightly news coverage of the campaign in 1996 was 12.3 minutes, down from 24.6 minutes in 1992...Furthermore, the news media have a tendency to offer short sound bites from candidates instead of thoughtful and extended consideration of issues...in 1968, the average quotation from candidates in the news was 43 seconds long. After 20 years, candidate quotations had shrunk to a mere 9 seconds...this figure had dropped to 8.2 seconds in 1996."
There's also the flip side: when everyone can say something, they do, and we get a ton of cat pictures and other... less intellectually stimulating material. Or more pungently: Opinions are like ----, everyone's got one, and they don't always smell good.
There's some level of value in having some barrier to competition, it discourages the apathetic and very casual participant and encourages a higher signal:noise ratio in the discussion discussion.
Both very insightful parents. Note also that the TV/radio/press oligopoly ("mainstream media," if you will, though we could also say the "WP: Reliable sources" monopoly) receives a huge hidden subsidy in the form of confidential government information.
Ie, it's legal in practice for government officials to leak to Punch Sulzberger, but not to Julian Assange. This makes it very hard for the latter to start his own competing "WP: Reliable Source." (Just how do I become WP:Reliable anyway? Or how do I lose the privilege, if I abuse it?)
You could fix this hole by enacting a media equivalent of the SEC's Reg FD: the government must release all information to everyone at the same time. Short of this, the mainstream press is best considered as a government organ - almost every story is the product of privileged information which leaves the journalist captive to his "source." If he writes the wrong thing, the source stops sourcing and the journalist's career may well be over.
More broadly, those who attribute SOPA and the like solely to electoral corruption are seeing the moon but not the sun. Corporate bribes are certainly one form of institutional power in the American system, but not the only form or even the strongest. In most areas, in fact, there's a permanent war between unaccountable corporate bribery and unaccountable bureaucratic tyranny.
What makes SOPA and the IPR area so awful is that the lobbyists and bureaucrats are both on the evil side. Certainly no one's bribing the State Department to twist Spain's arm on IPR legislation. State doesn't need or accept Hollywood's campaign contributions - it's a permanent agency.
Campaign finance reform is not a panacea. I notice that it's popular to blame money in politics for everything. Don't like a bill? Any bill? Obviously corrupt politicians are bought and paid for! Why else would they vote for such junk, right?
Wrong. SOPA and PIPA to a congressperson and to a large number of ordinary people make sense. The internet seems like a lawless place. To lawmakers, this is infuriating. People in government, left and right, believe in government solutions to most problems. Otherwise why would they work in government? As in most professions, there is a strong bias for action. Action feels like progress, even when the cure is worse than the disease.
Even if you got every dollar out of politics you will always see this pattern: lawmakers have one tool, instead of a hammer it's legislation, and all the world looks like a nail.
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 democracy direct, and the system work for us. And so will we.
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 a special interest group achieving its goal by overwhelming support (more representative of a democracy). When someone talks negatively about special interest groups, it is because typically special interest groups have achieves their goals by disingenuous methods.
> 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"?
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.
It feels more to me that the reason for the change was due to true grassroots support - not an industry special interest group. Wikipedia highlighted the problem to "ordinary" users and they trusted that Wikipedia was more on their side than movie studios.
Does anyone remember when the NRA was one of the most feared special interest groups? It used to be that if a representative crossed them they would have a tough election fight next time. It seems like "the internet" should flex it's muscles and fight against Lamar Smith's re-election. Getting him kicked out would get some attention.
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.
As I suggested in an earlier thread, why is noone starting a copyright liberalization campaign? If there was a strong political coalition to limit the duration of copyright to 25 years, to limit the use of overly broad patents, etc. it would provide a counteracting force that would force the copyright holders to compromise "in the middle". Instead we are doing boycotts and strongly worded letters, which while helpful, does not really do enough to stop them from steamrolling along with their agenda.
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.
Actually, I've thought about this, and I'm pretty sure the MPAA Hates their customers, and, given a choice, if they could get their money without having to deal with customers, would prefer to do so.
I'm not saying the actors, and the grips, and the makeup people, Hate me _personally_ - but the commercial organizations they represent, as a collective, hate the fact that I'm an active viewer and consumer of their end product.
Because active viewing/consuming means I want do do things like, well, _view_ the product. And that all sorts of uncomfortable ramifications in that I don't want to dedicate a not-insignificant portion of my time being fed their "BIG RED SCREEN OF ANTI-COPYRIGHT-THEFT-PROPOGANDA" (Btw, I make it a point, every time I am forced to see one of those screens, to go torrent a movie - seeding for at least a day. It's actually the _only_ time I typically do torrent movies - the fact that they control my DVD player just annoys the crap out of me)
They Hate me because I want to watch a movie released in brazil, that everyone is talking about, in the United States.
They Hate me because I want to watch the movie I just purchased, on my iPad. Not the brick of electronics that happens to be sitting in my living room that I haven't watched a movie on in two+ years.
Basically, the MPAA, and the commercial organizations they represent, Hate me, because instead of just sending them $50-$100 / month as a passive consumer, I'm an active consumer that loves the material they create - and that's an annoyance, and a difference from what they used to work with 50 years ago.
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.
Attacking campaign finance is not the way to go, because (a) it can't work, and (b) it's shooting ourselves in the foot by constraining our own right to speak.
Consider, all of you that moan about Citizens United: if it's wrong for a corporation to support a political position, then why are your cheering about what Wikipedia, reddit, Google, etc., have done to support the opposition to SOPA/PIPA?
And there's no way to stop monetary influence on politics. Even in the most draconian case, where all private funding to candidates was banned, with money coming from public coffers, there are countless backdoors. A CEO hoping for special treatment mind just mention something that turns out to make the politician a pile of money in stock trading, for example.
By "campaign finance" I'm referring to direct contributions to candidates (and promises of cushy jobs upon retirement).
You're absolutely correct that corporations/unions/organizations can and should be able to support positions, but that doesn't have to be a direct benefit to a candidate in that way that campaign contributions are.
I don't think you can stop money affecting politics any more than you can stop piracy, or stop people from taking harmful drugs, or stop people from saying stupid things, or a lot of other things. In those cases I think the costs of stopping them outweigh the benefits. I just don't see any other way than constant vigilance.
We (I'm speaking for the entire internet community, which is probably a bad thing to do) could also stop pirating as well.
I mean it would be really something if everyone halved their entertainment budget and halved their "illegal downloads/sharing". That would be a significant message as well. It wouldn't be very easy to convince Joe SixPack, but it might be easier than true campaign finance reform.
Yes, you are. You would probably also be downvoted for suggesting that we "Give peace a chance." As nice a sentiment as it might be, it's more platitude than practicality. You don't even mention why or to what end you're suggesting that people stop pirating, so no one is likely to change their stance or behavior based on your comment.
Moreover, the piracy numbers thrown out by the industry are almost entirely fabricated (it really doesn't seem like they have any good idea about how much piracy is going on), so even if everyone did what you would suggest, the industry would almost certainly blame piracy for their profits falling by 50% anyway.
I didn't really think stopping pirating would do anything, just like I don't think we can practically convince people to stop giving MPAA money.
But if we could do the latter, perhaps we could do the former as well? Because if we were able to only do the latter, it would give MPAA and Congress even more reasons to push this kind of shit through.
Hmm, my point is that if we can convince people to give less money to the MPAA (buying movies, movie tickets), we should also discourage pirating those same movies, to avoid the exact scenario Anechoic mentioned.
I don't think its like asking criminals to not be criminals. I thinks more like: "if you want those bullies to pick on you less, try to act less like a dork". Some may feel like it would be betraying their values, but it really would give the bully less motivation to attack your values.
The comical thing is that people do argue that infringement raises awareness of a product and thereby increases sales. Whether it's true or not, I don't know, but if so it would certainly be at cross purposes to a boycott.
Technology's favorite lawyer, Lawrence Lessig, has a new book out advocating for campaign finance reform. Like most things from Lessig, his arguments are well-considered, balanced and thought-provoking.
He includes a quote I found particularly compelling, especially in the light of Marco's link between 'the next SOPA' and campaign finance reform: For every one striking at the leaves of evil, there is one striking at the root. - Thoreau. Marco wants us to strike the root.
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 system is not fit for purpose.
If that is not the case then you should be able to beat these bills with good reasoning and debate alone.
As I've said elsewhere in the thread, I think many people get the motivations confused. We don't have to assume that the politicians are voting on bills based on how they think the lobbyists will contribute to their next campaign. Rather, you only get to talk to people in Congress if you make campaign contributions. Those contributions get you into parties where you have a chance to talk to the person in Congress.
The tech industry does a poor job of lobbying. For that reason, only MPAA and RIAA lobbyists have been talking to people in Congress. Imagine a random person who did not understand the internet and technology in general. Now imagine that they had, over the course of many months, only ever heard the RIAA and MPAA explain their side of the issue, and had never heard tech people explain the other side. How do you think they would vote?
We don't need to assume a calculation of "If I don't vote yes on this bill, lobbyist Joe will not give me any more money." It's sufficient for them to think "Lobbyist Joe made a lot of sense when he explained this issue to me. I'm going to vote yes." Lobbyist Jane, who would explain why this issue is a terrible idea, does not exist.
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 course you would really need 2 parties so people could express their left or right wing beliefs.
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.
What I meant was that I am surprised how important campaign contributions are in an age where it is fairly cheap to get your message across online and get people talking.
After all the London riots were an example (albeit not a pleasant one) of how social networking etc can very quickly get people to take action.
Hopefully you could get enough contributions from private citizens and small business to run an effective campaign.
Regards the 2 parties point. It would be difficult to create a third party that would appeal to both liberals and conservatives so in reality you might need a 4th party also.
I assume your suggesting that people wouldn't vote for a 3rd party because the media would tell everyone that they were unelectable and a wasted vote?
Unfortunately I don't really have an answer for that question, the only way around it would be to hammer home just how bad the current system really is.
It's not that the media "tells" you that; though they do. But that's just a reflection of the current state of mind of the populace. People "know" this "fact", that a 3rd partier basically has no chance. I mean, look at Ron Paul. He's completely different from the normal Republican; by all rights he should have been in a separate party. But he wouldn't have gone very far with that. He had to stick with the big party to see it through. The problem is that Republicans and Democrats just have too much power. They have critical mass, and nobody else does.
It is exactly what they are suggesting, because that is how it works in the Land of the Free[1]. Bills are usually written by lobbiests, paid large sums by the entrenched industries, and sponsored by congressmen who received large donations from the industry. Unless there is a real threat to votes (aka job security) these are passed. The only things that get serious attention and debate are the ones where 2 industries are fighting via congress proxies.
Sad, but true.
[1] Free is not an absolute scale, but proportional to the amount of money you can spend - e.g. lots of money means more freedom to pass laws, to get out of trouble, to buy licenses to do restricted things, etc.
The focus on campaign finance reform is wrong-headed and risks fracturing the internet freedom coalition.
America has a strong tradition of individual rights and liberties, stronger than anywhere else in the world. This is especially true regarding the rights of free speech and the free distribution of information. It is possible to build on these principles to create a platform that appeals to a large swathe of the American electorate, an “Electronic Bill of Rights”.
We cannot taint this with other pet causes on the right or left. I am looking for allies right now to help push for pro-freedom legislation that will push the middle in our direction. I’ve explicitly written off working with freedom advocates that are too heavily invested in other high-profile political stances with a partisan lean.
For this to succeed, we need to reach both the Tea Party and the OWS crowd while not alienating anybody. The good news is that the mainstream is with us. President Obama and all four contenders for the Republican Presidential nomination oppose SOPA. Let’s take this momentum and use it to erect lasting bulwarks to protect internet liberty.
Let’s pass something that we can all agree on. Let’s not get bogged down arguing with each other over campaign reform, or other peripheral issues.
> 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.
A solution I don't see being discussed much is MPAA and RIAA disruption. This is occurring on some platforms like YouTube, iTunes, and Spotify. If artists no longer need to use them as a middleman, they will cease to have money and power. Startups that disrupt these two, and are more profitable for artists, could wipe out this whole issue.
I agree they are making money from these platforms, but independent artists are also making money and getting exposure using these platforms that would have been impossible a decade ago. If something is created that is more effective for artists (and possibly gives them a bigger cut..see Louis C.K.), this would be quite effective.
The only piece of the puzzle missing here is how would you finance the creation to begin with?
I know a lot of the equipment has become cheaper but it's still expensive for an 18 year old kid to put in his garage. Not to mention the diverse skillset you would need to produce a record or movie.
The record company being able to dangle an advance (not to mention the promotion and contacts they can hook them up with) seems a pretty good carrot to dangle and people like Louis C.K have probably made enough money to begin with to finance themselves.
I also get a feeling from musicians that I have talked to that your not considered a "real" band unless you are signed to a major label, although I suppose that attitude can change over time.
You almost need a VC type system for musicians but the issue is that most creatives don't really want to think of themselves as "businesspeople".
Perhaps the answer to this is to make it more difficult for politicians to sign off on bills. Require some sort of education on the topic at hand before making a decision. If the bill isn't understood by the representative, they shouldn't be allowed to vote. With the current organization of our government, this will never happen. A point that Marco touched on was that we won't be able to rely on protesting every single bad decision that comes our way; people will lose interest and control will eventually be back in the hands of the government. He's right and we need to really focus on the bigger picture of removing lobbying from congress and ensuring that those representing us actually can.
Actually, it would be helpful just requiring that they at least have read the full bill, cover to cover, every word, before voting on it. Considering that most don't read the bills they vote on (do you really think they each read an 8,000+ page appropriations bill cover to cover?) that would go a long way towards helping things ever so slightly.
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.
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 there, and much incentive to fight against it.
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.
Yeah, you'd have to watch out for abuses. But the main point is to change the incentive for them to beg corporations for money. Making it illegal, and making it easier for normal individuals to donate would help switch that incentive from going to corporations to going to individuals.
I'm surprised Marco didn't mention the most empirically effective alternative - make our own legislative investments. Where is the tech industry lobbying firm? Are the industry leaders like Apple, Amazon, Google, and Facebook pumping money into it?
Obviously this is a short term solution that ends up making the root problem - money's influence in politics - worse. But sometimes you have to pick between the lesser of two evils. I'd rather have a good set of laws brought about by an unfair process than a bad set of laws brought on because we sat around complaining about how unfair the system is.
That's a dangerous game.
Once you've convinced Google and Facebook to start lobbying and they realize they like it and it is effective what happens next time congress thinks about changing laws on say privacy?
What do you think is the source of the problem in France?
Maybe the way money influences politics is more so a problem here. I do think it is a stretch to say it is completely irrelevant, because it seems clear that it isn't.
You're right. To clarify, in the US, the problem is partly related to campaign finance, yes, because this vehicle is available to lobbyists to influence politicians.
But my point is, if you remove this vehicle the problem doesn't go away, it just takes another form.
And in fact I think it's good that it takes the form of campaign finance, because at least it's visible: you can see who gives how much money to which man / party / cause.
And anyway, politicians don't care about "freedom"; they care about big companies, because they have dinner with CEOs; they care about "jobs" because they think that's what matters to their constituents. Solving campaign finance wouldn't change any of that.
My thoughts exactly. While cutting out watching movies on Netfilx and TV is going to be difficult, I most definitely wont be purchasing any movies on iTunes, at Best Buy or going to a theater to watch them. If the tech community could band together to boycott these three huge money makers for the MPAA, we might see better results.
To be honest it wouldn't make much difference , tech community is a small % of the population and it's members probably commit a much higher than average rate of piracy anyway.
It would probably be more effective to stand outside a cinema waving banners.
A boycott is only successful if you know who owns what. Short of selling my HDTV (which would be way popular with my family), I don't see how I can avoid MPAA content.
You don't have to sell the TV, just don't watch movies on it.
The harder part, is getting non-tech people to join your boycott. Good luck trying to tell people not to see the new Batman movie when it comes out.
What would be good to know is if actors, directors, and other movie makers support the MPAA's actions. With the RIAA, you could sense that musicians often were at odds with the record companies that signed them. Is that the case with movies? Are there movie studios that don't support things like SOPA and PIPA? Maybe we'd have something if those people (if they exist) spoke out publicly against the MPAA.
I think you'll have to get rid of the TV. SOPA supporters include CBS, NBC, ABC, FOX, Viacom, ESPN, NFL, NBA, and the MLB. Also, the Directors Guild of America (DGA) and Screen Actors Guild (SAG) are supporters. The Writers Guild of America (WGA) does not support SOPA, however.
> You don't have to sell the TV, just don't watch movies on it.
But the "content companies" don't only create movies. Now they own large swaths of normal TV. Disney owns ABC which owns ESPN. So every time you watch an advert on SportsCenter, you're funding Disney.
The fact is, you can't win at this game. The way to win is to create an alternate funding mechanism (ie, campaign finance reform and/or owning your own congresscritters). The media cartel owns the (so called public) airwaves.
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."
"It's not a waiting game, it's a game of poker. Lamar Smith has a royal flush and few people know it.
SOPA may pass. It may not. He doesn't care, and it doesn't matter. The MPAA and RIAA started working on their legislative strategy to pass a new anti-piracy bill in late 2010. SOPA was designed to raise the noise. Everyone is playing right into the entertainment industries hand. The lobbyists are laughing manically at the ignorance of the mob. Even Wikipedia and reddit have played into it."
You can get started without waiting for everyone else, and when they'll ask you why you act that way you'll tell them. We can't kill that industry in one week but you and I can start today and more people will join later. That's what's happened in the last years.
I've actually stopped telling people I don't watch TV because there is now a "holier than thou" aura around it. I think most people hate how much they like TV, but if you mention how you just stopped TV all together, they think you are just rubbing it in, like you're better than them. Like the guy who always talks about he was just "hitting the gym". No one like that guy either.
This is very true for any lifestyle decision that seems to suggest a more productive way of living to someone else. We naturally feel the need to have our lifestyle habits justified as the right choice. Any threat to that, is a threat to our egos.
A better strategy would be to point out the progress (even if false) that someone is making in living a better life (less TV for example). If you can successfully plant that identity seed in their head, they will feel empowered to continue to cut back. The ego is a funny construct.
We can argue all we want about whether copyright is good or not, but that is the wrong question. The right question is if (enforced) copyright is compatible with the existence of a free internet.
IMHO, it is not. Current copyright law means restrictions on the copy of data. A free internet means freedom to interchange data.
So either we lose the free net, or we push for a deep reform of IP laws, something like that the law should only restrict for-profit infringement.
A LOT of people have fought very hard for campaign finance reform over the past 20 years I can remember. The result is more money in politics than ever.
Supporting campaign finance reform will do nothing. We tried that over decades, the supreme court shot it down.
You have two options:
1. Constitutional reform.
Make it specifically distinguish campaign finance from free speech. No plain law will ever stand with the constitution as it is today.
2. Greatly increase the number of representatives.
This may be a lot easier as it is just a plain law. At some point we decided too many members of the house would be too chaotic. So we hugely raised the ratio of people to representatives.
This favors the lobbying power of interest groups.
While individuals still have a lot of influence if they write or in person visit their representative, it is universally accepted that the fewer people are in your district the more influence each individual has. And the opposite is also true. This is why, unlike the senate, the house is supposed to be the people's house.
If you dramatically raise the total number of representative you bring power closer to the people.
Will this also result in grid lock? Yes! Is that still totally worth it? YES!
"Their bills have had mixed success and usually die before being brought to a vote, but SOPA and PIPA came frighteningly close to becoming law. The internet-wide protest this week seems to have stalled their progress and probably killed them for now."
Frighteningly close! One of them was almost scheduled for debate in the Senate! The other almost had a second round of markup in committee scheduled!
The reaction to SOPA and PIPA was way overblown. Like the article says, this sort of thing happens all the time, and usually fizzles out. While this bill did have more co-sponsors than most, indicating support, it still only made it to the first verse of Schoolhouse Rock.
Somehow it caught on as an Internet meme, though, and got inordinate attention. It was definitely for the best, though.
We can attack this by aggressively supporting campaign finance reform to reduce the role of big money in U.S. policy
Blaming money for problems in politics is just like focusing on money when running a business -- you're looking in the wrong spot.
Money is a result of something, not a cause. There's a lot of money in politics as a result of concentrating so much political power in one place. Just like in a business where the money represents value exchanged, in politics the money represents influece -- big, powerful people in groups that want to be heard. Starting off another holy crusade along the lines of prohibition simply because you've managed to distill your problems into one word isn't going to help anything.
I'd suggest reading Lawrence Lessig's new book, "Republic, Lost". It is a deep, sober-minded inspection of the issue of campaign finance. You may arrive at the other end feeling differently than you do now. (It certainly changed my perspective.)
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":
Here is the problem with this solution...the sacrifice is too large, from too many people. If I and the entire HN crowd (say 1,500,000 people?) decide not to watch any more movies - while that may depress their earnings a bit...I would think the net effect would be about a 20% reduction in earnings. The vast majority of HNers probably don't buy every single movie they watch.
So, the real solution needs to be one that is incremental and can be adopted more mainstream. I don't know what it is, but I don't see 'stop watching all movies' as a realistic goal.
Genuine interest: Marco calls this a 'campaign finance problem', but isn't politicians submitting bills for money usually called 'corruption'? Why aren't the Americans really mad about it?
The best part about stopping to support companies that support the MPAA and RIAA is that they are going to say they are loosing revenue through piracy and not direct consumer withdrawal.
This is why we need to find a technological solution that will make future legislation infeasible or impossible. We need a decentralized DNS and total encryption of the internet.
I don't see how encryption would help here, it's only really useful as a way to prevent some forms of snooping, it couldn't really be used to get around a block.
If DNS was decentralized they would just do the blocking on an IP address level.
Also, rather than supporting the MPAA/RIAA industry, try checking out the Blender Foundation, Jamendo, and similar sites that stream or support free content that is licensed under Creative Commons licenses.
And of course, since software is as big an issue as creative content, it should be said that the FSF is having a donation drive currently: https://my.fsf.org/associate/support_freedom
I think campaign finance reform is a good thing in theory, but in practice I feel confident that big money would still find its way into the pockets of our lawmakers with relative ease. In the end, no amount of money can save an elected official if their constituents are determined to see that official ousted. We can't legislate our way out of corruption, the price of freedom is eternal vigilance.
One good thing that did come out of this - I can't remember people protesting so much, in a united way online, against any issue. Last year it was against oppressive regimes, this year it is against stupid bills. People are using the internet to protest, that is a good thing. Right now, it is more quantity than quality - hopefully that'll change too.
The real problem is, that the US has no real democracy. When the government did something similar to SOPA in Germany, the "Piraten Partei" got more votes and the bigger parties rethought their plans because of this.
But small parties do not have a chance in the US system.
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.
There should be a constitutional amendment protecting the Internet and its underlying structure. Maybe not today, maybe it's premature, but one day soon this will seem appropriate and needed. It would put the Judicial branch on our side.
You can think about this as a campaign finance problem or as a federal politicians have too much power problem. You don't have campaign finance as a problem if lobbying doesn't do these companies any good.
You know what Ron Paul would say about this... It's not campaign finance reform that's needed, its decreasing the power of the gov't to have so much power. That's the root cause, not the money.
That's such a pessimistic statement. With that attitude, some SOPA-like Bill will pass. As an example, if MLK had that attitude, the whole Civil Rights movement would've failed.
I think it would be good if only registered voters can give campaign money to candidates. If they want to call it donations, then so be it. BUT only registered voters can give donations as well.
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 in the history of this nation than Barack Obama during his presidential campaign, and the letter from his administration helped kill the bills. How about Rep. Issa and Sen. Wyden? Guess what, they got into office by spending donated money as well.
The problem isn't money, the problem is engagement. The tech industry, particularly on the Internet entrepreneurial side, has long prided itself on staying out of Washington. Well, now we see the consequence of that approach: it took a last-minute emergency OMG shitstorm to stop some bills--bills that could have easily been shaped, adjusted, or stopped much earlier if the industry had been engaged and paying attention.
The U.S. government is participatory. It will respond to citizen wishes, but only if citizens actively and continuously make their wishes known.
And it is inclusive. No matter how much you might think copyright should end, or that the MPAA should just go away forever and die, there are enough people who disagree with you that it's just not going to happen. Internet companies and advocates need to get comfortable with continuously engaging content companies in the legislative process, seeking common ground, and compromising.
IP law is not a winnable war. It is an ongoing negotiation that must be managed forever.