RIAA CEO Hopes SOPA Protests Were a "One-Time Thing" 441
hapworth writes "After posting a controversial op-ed in The New York Times saying Wikipedia and Google 'misinformed' the public about SOPA and PIPA, Cary Sherman, CEO of the RIAA said in an interview yesterday that he hopes the SOPA protests were a 'one-time experience.' He also said that Wikipedia and Google users were duped into thinking SOPA was a bad bill because they assume "if it comes from these sources, it must be true." In another hilarious comment, Sherman blames the Internet for making it impossible for Congress to get out its side of the story, and for not spreading information with the same 'clarity and integrity' of broadcast journalists."
One time experience? (Score:5, Insightful)
That's easy enough to accomodate. Stop pressing for draconian censorship legislation and this will never happen again.
Re:One time experience? (Score:5, Insightful)
We're talking about Cary Sherman and the RIAA here.
What was it Mad-Eye Moody was saying during D-A-D-A classes? Oh yeah - CONSTANT VIGILANCE.
Re:One time experience? (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, let's talk about Cary and his band of thieves calling the kettle black.
Whining little bitch is holdin on to his CEO title tight, 'cause he knows the industrys days are numbered and all he can do is harvest from courts.
Well if he thinks we should sit still and give his lies calm consideration he should lie in one hand and shit in the other, then see which hand fills up first.
The internet has empowered people to Open-Government in an indirect way. The people are saying "NO!" in a very God-like way," we are tired of you witholding talent and ripping off musicians for more than a century.We are tired of your manipulation guiding the path of the music we hear.We don't acknowledge your right to survive and continue to screw us all with your antics over the years. We see that musicians can live better without you and prosper. No industry is needed for this scenario. BTW, go die.We will also out your paid politicians treason and they will have nothing more to do with you. Viva la Revolution"
Re:One time experience? (Score:5, Insightful)
The whole point was that the Death Eater was so good at his impersonation of Moody that he taught the class just as Moody would have. So the best Defense Against Dark Arts teacher Harry Potter had was in fact a Death Eater. And that, Ms. Morissette, is irony.
(the map being able to see right through the disguise, and no one noticing until far too late... now THAT was bad writing)
Re:One time experience? (Score:5, Funny)
The whole point was that the Death Eater was so good at his impersonation of Moody that he taught the class just as Moody would have. So the best Defense Against Dark Arts teacher Harry Potter had was in fact a Death Eater. And that, Ms. Morissette, is irony.
(the map being able to see right through the disguise, and no one noticing until far too late... now THAT was bad writing)
Actually, that makes sense. For a car analogy, who better to teach you how to deal with car salesmen than a care salesman? *
* My apologies to any reputable care salesmen or friends/relatives of reputable care salesmen on slashdot. **
** Why does that feel like apologizing to the tooth fairy?
Re:One time experience? (Score:5, Funny)
Yes, proper wand movement. Any student paying close attention, like say Hermione, would probably be able to rip them right off. And didn't Harry use one of the curses with no other training, against Bellatrix?
Wow, I never thought I'd construct a comment nerdier than one deconstruction Star Wars. Thank god I'm in a relationship now.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:One time experience? (Score:5, Interesting)
Sadly, you may be right... but fighting for the freedom to speak by forcefully shutting down someone else's ability to speak (a la Anon.)..? Is that the right answer? I think that it happened to work out well last time without having to run around in a nerd-skills pissing contest.
I agree with the message, just not the methods.
Re:One time experience? (Score:5, Insightful)
but fighting for the freedom to speak by forcefully shutting down someone else's ability to speak (a la Anon.)..? Is that the right answer?
It beats ighting for the freedom to speak by forcefully shutting down someone else's ability to live, like our founding fathers did.
Re:One time experience? (Score:4, Insightful)
"we fought with soldiers against soldiers"
You need to go back to school. We fought with frontiermen and minutemen against soldiers.
Re:One time experience? (Score:5, Informative)
Closer, but you need to read a little more. Our frontiermen and minutemen fought against soldiers, as did the French soldiers and navy that helped us. We also killed non-military colonists who were pro-crown, or just burned 'em out or tarred and feathered them (which was sometimes fatal). The Brits and Tories generally returned the favour, though I gather they were less imaginative about it.
Wars are complex.
Re:One time experience? (Score:5, Informative)
You need to go back to school. We fought with frontiermen and minutemen against soldiers.
You should have gone to a better school. We fought with militias against professional soldiers, and got our asses kicked. It wasn't until we started building a real army of our own that the Revolution had even a prayer of succeeding.
(It's probably not your fault; the "rugged individualist frontiersman sniping from behind the trees at the stupid Redcoats marching down the middle of the road" idea is deeply embedded in our national mythos, and a lot of otherwise decent history teachers pass it onto their students. But it is a myth, and one which is easily disproved with a modicum of research.)
Re:One time experience? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Militias are composed of.....?
Frontiersmen and Minutemen (well, minutemen get selected out of unrecognized militias.)
Um, that was my point. I was using "militia" as shorthand for your "frontiersmen and minutemen." Who, routinely, constantly, got their asses handed to them by the British regulars.
Oh, and no, we were getting our asses kicked until we had the EQUIPMENT from the French plus more men. We never built any real sort of professional standing army, most men had their training right in the heat of battle in their home towns.
Washington would disagree with you. Seriously, read what he had to say sometime about the militias as opposed to his Continental Army sometime; it's not pretty. He built and trained an army of real soldiers, and the Revolution was won by those soldiers, not by a bunch of whoopin' and hollerin' irregulars running around in the
Re:One time experience? (Score:5, Insightful)
anonymous formed because these groups ARE actively shutting down free discourse whenever it threatens their business interest.
Re:One time experience? (Score:4, Interesting)
I hardly doubt that.
You cannot silence a person or movement by just DDoSing his official site. Everybody has alternative
distribution routes. If Anon would really want to play dirty they wouldn't `deface` websites they hacked,
they would introduce subtle, hard to identify changes that would work in a destructive manner to the
hacked site once consumed by visitors.
That RIAA guy is deploying classical diplomat tactics here: "deny that the voting was correctly educated
on the topic until you can spin facts in your favor"
Journalists and bloggers alike need to keep the consuming public alert of the fact that diplomats always
speak on personal agenda, otherwise the future of free speech is bleak at best.
Re:One time experience? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Let's start with the fact that corporations don't have the freedom of speech. They're not endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.
Re:One time experience? (Score:4)
There's a difference between promoting a political opinion and directly financing a campaign. If the people who have grouped together want to give money to a campaign, then they can do so of their own money and their own will. The corporation itself, the manifestation of the group, should not be able to.
Re:One time experience? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:One time experience? (Score:5, Interesting)
In a corrupt world where money is speech, and the RIAA is tantamount to that point, you're nudging the idea that Anon did something wrong?
If someone is, by corrupt basis, speaking so loudly that nobody else can be heard, it is heroic to take their megaphone away ( the megaphone they only got through corruption).
Re:One time experience? (Score:5, Informative)
Oh, it'll go through. It's just a matter of time. Like any bad law, they can just keep bringing it up again and again and again and again, a hundred times a year if they want. All they need is one single success, and then it's too late to go back ever again. They just need to wear people down until it can juuuuuuust slide through people's defenses, and then it's over and done with.
Remember... a thousand failures and a single success is still fully successful.
Re:One time experience? (Score:5, Interesting)
Or they will do like they did with the US Armed forces now being able to detain without trial or cause any American citizen. It was hidden in a "Defense Spending" Bill, and Obama signed it on 12/31/11 when the rest of the US was out getting drunk.
Re:One time experience? (Score:5, Insightful)
You should go to your local Obama campaign headquarters and tell them that.
Re:One time experience? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The second is that vetoes often expend political capital.
The only "political capital" that should matter is the elected official's "political capital" with the people who elected him.
Everything you wrote is basically Nuremberg thinking in action.
Re:One time experience? (Score:5, Insightful)
Hate to break it to you, Pollyanna, but the people who elected him would not re-elect him when they found out that he vetoed a bill to provide healthcare to wounded veterans. The average American voter is an easily manipulated moron.
He did the absolute best he could do to diminish the effect of the law, but there was nothing he could do to stop it. If you don't like it, then don't sit out the midterms. The idiot "liberals" who handed Congress over to the Repubs in 2010 by staying home are responsible for every bit of harm the GOP has done.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
"He [Obama] did the absolute best he could do to diminish the effect of the law..."
Obama didn't object to the indefinite detention clauses at all, given how the reason it was in the bill in the first place was because the White House asked for it to be included. The only objections Obama had were about limiting the discretion of the White House in choosing when and how to detain someone indefinitely. The revised language, passed and signed into law, EXPANDS the president's power by giving him that discret
Re:One time experience? (Score:5, Informative)
False.
Obama opposed the law, called it "ill-conceived" in his signing statement, and he has now issued executive orders curtailing its effect. [nytimes.com] Essentially, under his new guidelines, a panel of six people has to approve each such military detention. All six have to agree, i.e. each of the six has the ability to veto it and force the person to go through the civilian justice system. One of those members is the secretary of state (currently Ms. Clinton), whose primary job is keeping other countries happy with us.
Of course, as soon as Obama is out of office, be that in one year or five, the next president can erase all that and come up with their own guidelines. It is a bad law, and it should be changed. But it won't be changed so long as Republicans control Congress.
Re:One time experience? (Score:4, Informative)
No. A line item veto for the President is unconstitutional. It was tried back in the 90s and overturned. You'd need an amendment to allow for it. State constitutions may or may not allow their governors to have line item vetos, but that's of no help at the federal level.
Instead the President has to veto or approve entire bills.
Re:One time experience? (Score:4, Insightful)
what is the wisdom (or was the wisdom) in the idea of an all or nothing bill approval?
sounds like it was DESIGNED to be gamed.
I hear lots of respect for our constitution and method of justice, but the more I look, the sicker I get about it all. it may be better than what many other countries have, but its FAR from the best we could do or could have done. it a '1.0' effort if there ever was one. and the fact that its so damned hard to change is also a bug in the system.
it seems we run on inertia and fumes and the gas tank has been empty for a long time, now. (sorry to mention gas; I know its also a touchy subject these days)
Re:One time experience? (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, the line item veto can also be gamed. Let's say that Obama and the Democrats propose a new bill. It raises taxes on the rich by 1% and uses that money to fund food banks. To get the Republicans on board (pretend for the moment that the current GOP strategy isn't to oppose everything with Obama's name on it), they also include a section in the bill that cuts corporate taxes by 1%. After both houses of Congress pass it, Obama could just line item veto the tax cut part, while keeping the part he wanted.
Essentially, the line item veto allows the party that controls the White House to negotiate in bad faith. By making bills all or nothing, you make it possible for Congress to trust in the knowledge that the other side will keep their end of the bargain. The current system sucks, but line item vetos would be worse.
Re: (Score:3)
The first is that a veto not only would have been over ridden by both houses, but would have been EASILY over ridden.
Ah yes, one of the oldest and finest traditions in the world - "it's gonna happen anyway, so why bother fighting it?"
Re:One time experience? (Score:5, Informative)
No, it was not. Go read it. Here's the link [loc.gov]. Click on the PDF link for #7, which says "National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Enrolled Bill [Final as Passed Both House and Senate]". Read Subtitle D, Section 1021, paragraph (e). It's on page 265. I'll repost it here for you so that you have no excuse not to read it, but by all means check the actual document as well so that you know I'm not lying.
(e) AUTHORITIES.—Nothing in this section shall be construed
to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of
United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States,
or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United
States.
I can't make the truth any easier for you to see. This whole thing is just a smear intended to discredit Obama in the minds of his supporters, and the sad thing is, they're falling for it.
Re:One time experience? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:saving children and 1-time events (Score:5, Interesting)
Hate to break it to you, but anything you can dream up with satire, they're already dreaming up for real.
SOPA-II is ... wait for it ... PC-FIPA, HR1981 = Protecting Children from Internet Pornographers Act.
I submitted it a week ago for a Slashdot story. It got voted up Red Hot in the Firehose. Slashdot didn't run it. They ran the Idle piece of "Eternal Copyright" instead.
So yes, RIAA-Guy is partially right. We're already bored with Blackouts.
"If you don't get your bill passed, make it WORSE, change the backstory to the ultimate counter line, and submit it again!"
Re:One time experience? (Score:5, Insightful)
You don't honestly think they are going to propose SOPA as a stand alone bill now do you? No, they will simply attach it to some unrelated "must pass" legislation. It will be the poison pill that must be swallowed in order to keep the country running. It wouldn't surprise me to see it on the next go around of debt ceiling fights.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:One time experience? (Score:5, Insightful)
"we" don't make laws. "we" have not had a say for generations, to be honest.
this is the problem.
Re:One time experience? (Score:4, Interesting)
This is why a defensive strategy is insufficient. We have to strike back and get our legislation protecting the internet in before they get theirs to kill it. We need legistlation which will put America's Copyright Crusade to a stop.
If the RIAA gets to the government before people do, it'll be over. If we our vote across before they do, then they are gonna be the ones fighting back. The way to win the fight isn't to stay standing when you're pushed - it's by pushing the other guy down and keeping him there.
Re:Times have changed: secrecy is dead (Score:4, Insightful)
there's no more ammo box stage. you seriously think any citizen group can fight ANY modern 1st or 2nd world country's government?
when the balance of power existed, gov lived with us. now, they live over us and its never going to go back again.
ammo box is a null idea. it was great while we had it but its GONE. gone gone gone.
Re:One time experience? (Score:5, Insightful)
I read this as corporate-idiotese for "Goddamn you pirate fuckers! Do you have any idea how much money we blew blowing the lawmakers? You bastards owe us for the money we spent, not to mention all the money piracy is still costing us, so you all need to shut up and stop trying to kill our failed business model!"
Nope.avi (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Nope.avi (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry, Mr RIAA CEO, it wasn't a one time deal. As long as you morons try passing this crap, we'll keep protesting. And the protests will only get bigger and bigger.
I so hope you are correct. Sadly that does not seem to be how these things traditionally work. They keep making slight changes and resubmitting them over and over until the public becomes apathetic and finally passing it.
Re:Nope.avi (Score:5, Interesting)
Remember the Blue Ribbon campaign in the early years of the web? The SOPA protest was essentially the latest version of that strategy, where content providers across the web banded together against Hollywood's lobbies.
So yeah, I'd say there's a pretty good chance we'll be protesting again next time. (And there will always be a next time.)
Re: (Score:3)
Sorry, Mr RIAA CEO, it wasn't a one time deal. As long as you morons try passing this crap, we'll keep protesting. And the protests will only get bigger and bigger
I so hope you are correct. Sadly that does not seem to be how these things traditionally work. They keep making slight changes and resubmitting them over and over until the public becomes apathetic and finally passing it
Or worse !
They could have hired a skilled FUD expert from Microsoft to replace that dumbfuck Cary Sherman as CEO of MAFIAA
Through carefully placements of artfully crafted FUDs that guy (or gal) would be able to assemble tons of MAFIAA fanbois to spread whatever of his "gospel truths" to the world !
Re:Nope.avi (Score:5, Funny)
Honestly, his statements sound like they belong in an Onion article.
"Daryl Gates Hopes L.A. Riots Were a One-Time Thing, Eager to Resume Beating Black People"
Re:Nope.avi (Score:5, Insightful)
Honestly, his statements sound like they belong in an Onion article.
"Daryl Gates Hopes L.A. Riots Were a One-Time Thing, Eager to Resume Beating Black People"
The L.A. Riots didn't happen because a bunch of cops beat the shit out of Rodney King.
The Riots happened because a court refused to do anything about it. Every now and then people get sick and tired of cops being above the law.
A few convictions would have prevented the whole thing.
Funny... (Score:5, Funny)
Thats funny... I was hoping SOPA was the one time thing.
Re:Funny... (Score:4, Insightful)
Then he'll get his wish--the next protest won't be about SOPA, but rather about the new bill! :)
You want it to be a "One-Time Thing"? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
What's the old saying? "When freedom is outlawed, only outlaws will have freedom."
I think I speak for the entire Internet when I say (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I think I speak for the entire Internet when I (Score:5, Insightful)
That's not how you spell "I hope every nerve ending in your body is permanently made to think it's on fire and you live forever", but yeah, the entire Internet is saying this.
I can't believe I'm actually saying this, but... (Score:5, Interesting)
Cary Sherman did have at least one good point. On the RIAA's Music Notes blog, [riaa.com] he discussed how he went through and read every one of the 280 some comments on his very poorly received New York Times op-ed.
I was one of the ones who posted a substantive, up-voted comment on his op-ed, and his blog post addressed something I (and several other commenters) pointed out. Just Googling for the text of the bill leaves one with a misleading impression, because important amendments were not included in that text. I took Sherman to task for what I viewed as purposefully misleading people in his op-ed, doing exactly what he was complaining Wikipedia and Google were doing.
On that particular detail, I was wrong, and Sherman was right. So the point is taken that there is a lot of misunderstanding about what precisely this bill will do and not do. That said, what I think he continually fails to understand is that his association (and really, the entire industry) has virtually no credibility in the minds of the tech-savvy, Internet-using public. We know the record companies rip off actual artists with raw contracts. We know the RIAA supported the ridiculous tactic of suing individual file-sharers for astronomical damages in order to bully them into settlement. We know they inflate their losses, that they massage data, and that they lobby hard for what they want. In fact, that last part is to be expected by any industry trade group.
We're Americans. We know that practically everyone in politics is lying to us whenever they open their mouth. That's not news. I'm not sure why Cary Sherman expects a free pass on this issue... you've got the lobbying money, get in there and play hardball like everyone else.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not sure why Cary Sherman expects a free pass on this issue... you've got the lobbying money, get in there and play hardball like everyone else.
I bet a lot more journalists are paying attention there now that Chris Dodd stuck his foot in his mouth and admitted that (at least from the MPAA's perspective if not the congressmen's perspectives) the MPAA was buying votes. They'll have to let that sleep for a while before they can start makin' it rain again.
Re:I can't believe I'm actually saying this, but.. (Score:5, Insightful)
We're Americans. We know that practically everyone in politics is lying to us whenever they open their mouth. That's not news. I'm not sure why Cary Sherman expects a free pass on this issue... you've got the lobbying money, get in there and play hardball like everyone else.
Cary's problem is that he doesn't have the money. Music is a pathetically small business compared to other media...only a couple $billion/year. The movie industry is measured in tens of $billions/year, and so are the videogame and TV industries. The very quiet, very boring print industry behemoth is over one $trillion/year. (If that surprises you, compare Lady Gaga's wealth to JK Rowling's. People spend more money on books in one summer than has ever been spent on music ever.)
What the RIAA expected was for every other media industry to follow their lead in drawing a line in the sand and fighting digital delivery and taking a hard-line stance on piracy. They would lead the charge and thought eventually the others would back them up with real resources later. MPAA stuck with them for a little while, but the other industries starting hedging their bets and seeing where the technology goes. Oops.
Re:I can't believe I'm actually saying this, but.. (Score:5, Insightful)
"The fact is, content and tech need each other."
He is absolutely correct. Now I wish he would tell us how exactly the RIAA is helping to create content, or protect the artists (aka content creators). Because all I see them doing is protecting the dinosaurs that still run the music industry.
Artists who are true to their craft want people to listen to their music, and if they make a ton of money off of it that's a bonus. If I was an independent musician that uploaded my new music video to youtube and got 50 million views, I would make a nice piece of change on that ad revenue (and using existing laws I could task youtube with making sure other users don't re-post my stuff). The RIAA is all about protecting the middle man from getting screwed out of that money and putting consumers over a barrel while compensating the artist as little as possible. It has nothing to do with protecting or creating content.
Re:I can't believe I'm actually saying this, but.. (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't really care if the RIAA comes up with a super duper bill that will solve the world starvation or bring the world peace.
My problem is the whole concept of copyright, how it is enforced and how it invades my privacy and my property rights.
Fist of all is the term of copyright is overblown and kills our culture. How is a copyright term of over 100 years going to encourage anything? It just kills the public domain and thus our culture.
Second, is the dragonical punishment for copyright infringement, even for private, non commercial infringement. Private, non commercial infringement should either be allowed or should have a punishment fee like 50$.
Third, it's the invasion of my privacy, with DRM and with EULAs or TOS. When I buy your stuff, it's mine to do what ever I like in my own home, for private use. That is, I can copy it as much as I like, I can format shift it and I can give it to my friends. I can play it how, when and on what device I like.
Finally, when I buy it, it's mine. I can sell it or lend it. It's my property.
And I don't care how many artists have to starve to death or how "unfair" it is. An artist have no right to be paid indefinitely over a one time job, neither have she the right to be paid or to make a living from her art. And no, that will not be the end of all art as we know it.
So just fuck of RIAA MPAA GEMA and what not. I don't need you, I don't want you, and I don't need your laws.
Broadcast journalists? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Oh, the press is perfectly free. Free to be apologists, accomplices, and cheerleaders for scum.
Yeah, yeah, Wikipedians were deluded (Score:5, Informative)
Wikipedia admin here that was quite involved with the shutdown. RIAA guy thinks we were 'deluded'.
Here's what actually happened. We had a discussion on Wikipedia for a few weeks. We asked the Wikimedia Foundation to instruct their General Counsel to prepare us a detailed listing of exactly what the problems are for Wikipedia with the bill. He did so, and produced a document listing a variety of problems that SOPA might cause for Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects. We then had a vote as to whether or not to take action.
By 'deluded', he means we as a community decided to ask a lawyer to look at the bill and tell us what he thinks, and then decided to take action. If that's delusion, I'm not sure what counts as sanity any more.
Re:Yeah, yeah, Wikipedians were deluded (Score:5, Funny)
Wait, you had an actual lawyer look at it?
That's more than Congress did.
Re:Yeah, yeah, Wikipedians were deluded (Score:4, Funny)
Wow, I don't think I ever felt bad for a lawyer before.
Re: (Score:3)
What counts as sanity? According to the xxAA, whatever they want us to believe.
Re: (Score:3)
Have Jimmy write a letter to the editor of the NYT rebutting the claims that you were misinformed. They'll publish it.
Suggestion duly made - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Response_to_NYT_piece_on_SOPA [wikipedia.org]
Black March (Score:4)
Let's hope not.
black-march.com [black-march.com]
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
http://images.paralegal.net.s3.amazonaws.com/hypocrisy-hollywood.png [amazonaws.com]
Wall of text in an image but worth a read. Maybe even a printout with flyers.
Door in face (Score:5, Informative)
SOPA is just part of an exercising of the "door in the face technique". See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Door-in-the-face_technique [wikipedia.org]
Soon, they'll loosen their demands a little and suddenly governments will be okay with it.
SOPA protests were just a start (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:SOPA protests were just a start (Score:4, Interesting)
... the next time RIAA tries to bribe a heaping pile through Congress.
What I don't get is why anyone thinks lobby groups buying legislation is the right way!
George Costanza says... (Score:5, Funny)
Clarification (Score:4, Funny)
Clearly,
Since the way we communicate has changed greatly since the arrival of the internet, and there people afraid to embrace that change, we the denizens of the internet are in the wrong.
Seriously, My daughter's arguments for why she shouldn't have to do her homework are more well thought out than Mr. Sherman's.
It wasn't misinformation... (Score:5, Insightful)
...it was that the public was PROPERLY informed for the *very first* time.
In other words, the public *wasn't* misinformed on these ideas for the very first time.
And look at the amount of effort it took. It proves the posit that we've all been saying: corporate monopoly of information is one of the worst things that can happen to a free society. There is no real marketplace of ideas in the U.S. This is one of the few times in scores of years there has been anywhere near a fair debate on an important subject, and certain players had to scream LOOK AT ME LOOK AT ME to get it.
Re:It wasn't misinformation... (Score:5, Interesting)
And, in the RIAA's eyes, that's the problem. How dare the Internet (meaning Wikipedia, Google, and the others that spread the word), make people aware of the awful law they were trying to push through? Don't these people know how it goes? The RIAA brib.... I mean lobbies a few members of Congress. They then get those Congressfolk to submit bills that they (the RIAA) have written. Congress passes the bills and everyone is happy. (Where "everyone" equals "The RIAA.") Subverting that process is just unAmerican! (Where "American" equals "what the RIAA wants done.")
Clarity and integrity (Score:5, Funny)
of broadcast journalists
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
He's right. (Score:5, Insightful)
> He also said that Wikipedia and Google users were duped into thinking SOPA was a bad bill because they assume "if it comes from these sources, it must be true."
That's because, if it comes from those sources, it probably is true. Yes, that's right, we trust Google and Wikipedia more than some record industry executive. Dupe you.
Now that we've gotten that out of the way, why don't you start letting people download music from your website? You know you could be making money right now, doing that, instead of making a fool of yourself, right?
But don't take my word for it. Google it.
Re:He's right. (Score:4, Funny)
Prepare to be sued by the MPAA for copyright infringement.
He's right! (Score:3)
Dear Mr. Sherman (Score:3, Insightful)
The inferred message here is that the RIAA (and presumably the MPAA, et al) will continue to try to pass this crap.
I have an inferred message right back (holds up a single finger).
In the wake of ESR's open letter to Chris Dodd [ibiblio.org], do I really need to remind you:
[D]on't screw with the Internet. Because it will screw you right back.
??
The RIAA/MPAA have no room to talk. (Score:5, Interesting)
They've been spreading disinformation for years on the news. Wikipedia on the otherhand does a much better job living up to standards like NPOV, and all its sub-rules, like no weasal words than any mainstream news source ever did.
Before anyone questions this what did Wikipedia do that comes close to "hackers on steroids"? This was a modern mainstream news segment. Did anyone loose their job over that? Thats not even touching RFC 1392, for what a hacker even was, something that seemed to be ignored by just about every mainstream media outlet(represented by the RIAA/MPAA that is).
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1392
But hey, what do trade organizations know? I mean they just
What was the big media's coverage of SOPA/PIPA to begin with??? Thats right, a total blackout. There was no discussion of this on mainstream news. The tactic was obviously sneak it by without anyone in the general public thinking about it until it was way to late.
As for piracy rules, they are already far too strong. They are basicly forcing start ups and small businesses who don't have the money to hire lawyers out of their own IP by letting well funding legal harrassment campaigns deprive them out of the very IP that is said to be protected?
Anyone who's ever used a free music track on youtube knows this. This is not content creators going after their work, its trolls and bullys stealing from people using the law via intimidation.
We need intellectual property law reform, and we need to place limits and what can and cannot be owned, and big time restrictions on acusations of unauthorized use.
The Universal Library (Score:5, Insightful)
The Internet community is in the process of creating the "Universal Library". I'm a librarian at heart, and want to see all of mankind's knowledge available to everyone, everywhere, instantly. The benefit of having that far outweighs the loss to particular people who want to keep knowledge enslaved to their ownership. The last decade has seen enormous progress towards that goal.
Libraries and publishers have always been at odds, but they don't prevent publishers from making money. It's when the publishers get too greedy and restrict the circulation of knowledge that it causes brain damage to civilization. This is why libraries are funded by governments, donations, and universities - on the whole they are a good thing.
Organizations like the RIAA are simply going to be roadkill on the way to the Universal Library. Excuse me while I go work on it some more...
Cary Sherman: (Score:5, Insightful)
I suppose it's a sign (Score:5, Insightful)
of how weak his own position is that his only response is the cry foul and claim everyone who opposed the bill had been misled. We weren't misled. We knew exactly why this bill was such a horrible piece of legislation. If anyone, it was him and the bills backers who were deluded in thinking that people would not get pissed off by such horribly half-baked legislation. We're talking about something that would have essentially made him and his friends judge and jury on copyright infringement online, will little to no recourse for the accused to defend themselves, and even then only after the fact.
We've seen how well they handled even lesser power in these matters, between frivolous DMCA takedown notices (sometimes on stuff they didn't even own the rights to), and more recently the case of a company claiming birdsong was in violation of its copyrights. The bill demonstrated a blatant disregard for internet security, by potentially crippling DNSSEC. And their response was simply, "Well, you're just going to have to scratch that plan and come up with something else, now aren't you?"
Given their practical disdain for how the internet works, and a plethora of precedents demonstrating they will not hesitate to abuse any power given them, we simply must have been misled into believing they didn't have our best interests at heart. I find this patronizing, "You just don't worry about it, we know what's best for you." attitude completely offensive. I'll be watching for the next time they try and slip garbage like this through, and you can be damn sure I'll be opposed to it then. Don't call me misled when you're lying through your teeth to me. I don't take kindly to it, and I would hope no one else would either. I'd love to see this inane series of statements by him blow up in his face and lead to even greater opposition next time he and his friends try to force something like SOPA down our throats.
Sherman blames the Internet (Score:4, Insightful)
Damned inconvenient, that Internet. Maybe we can have it shut off when we resubmit our legislation to Congress again.
We've got to get people behaving more like broadcast journalists. So we can just call their sales department and remind them who pays their bills.
Snarky headline (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
There's only so far backward you can bend to stay with neutral language. After that you just have to bow to the extremity of the situation and call it what it is.
Congress' Side? (Score:3)
I can't believe he thinks that Congress has a side to tell. Their job is to listen to the people and not come up with their own version of the truth.
The problem is that Congress' side involves money from the RIAA.
As someone who once respected IP law... (Score:4, Insightful)
As someone who once respected IP law, I've long since decided that because of your disproportionate response to violators and your manipulation of our government, that you need to be fought. I now pirate any music I like, go out of my way not to pay, and encourage other to do the same. I do this in order to cut off your supply of money, which you use to oppress people. Pass it on.
Mainstream media conflicts of interest (Score:3)
Re:Would you kindly... (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah, where are the NRA nutjobs when you actually need them to get something done. Look, we've let you keep your firearms. Now comes your half of the bargain.
Re:Would you kindly... (Score:5, Insightful)
Try and take them. ;)
Sorry, we believe in the liberty to be a moron. We don't like it, but it's your right. If people would stop voting for corrupt sly assholes and actually paid attention to what they do, guys like this wouldn't get a foothold. Ain't a gun-applicable problem yet, but give it another 15 to 20 and it might be.
Re:Would you kindly... (Score:4, Insightful)
Come on slashdot, self-police our nutjobs.
Re: (Score:3)
Why is this "too far"? Let's say SOPA gets made into law, through this guy's direct efforts. What do you suppose it will take to get our rights back? They certainly won't say, "Oh, shucks! You're right. Our bad." If an eventual SCOTUS ruling makes SOPA permanent, will it result in fighting in the streets over our freedoms? Who knows?
That's why SkyNet so badly wanted to go back in time and kill John Connor before he could become a powerful leader of the resistance.
Re:Would you kindly... (Score:5, Insightful)
SOPA can't be made permanent by a Supreme Court ruling. It's merely legislation, and legislation can always be repealed. The way to remove SOPA is to elect people who will repeal it. Even Constitutional Amendments can be repealed, although that is fairly uncommon (but it has happened at least a few times).
In any event, no fighting is required. Yes, it may be hard to remove the people in power without guns if they are entrenched in the system, but all you technically need are votes.
Now if they start seriously cheating on the elections...and I don't mean one or two contested elections... that's the time to start consider the guns, because then, there is almost no recourse but that. Just remember that the French Revolution started with the best of intentions, and ended up causing rivers of blood both in France and elsewhere. Let's not get too hasty in our appeal to the gun, even if we should defend our right to have that ability.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
So by your logic, beheading a lot of people to end a monarchy/empire just to give rise to Napoleon was a good thing.... so was a war AGAINST state's rights which ended in the slaughter and pillaging of the southern half of the then-existent country? Last I checked, we are now having state's rights issues that we wouldn't have if the south had been allowed to assert that the states could secede and form a new confederacy.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:One time? (Score:4, Insightful)
Two words: PATRIOT Act.
True, we may not have forgotten it, and I'll never forgive the treasonous assholes who foisted it on us, but that doesn't mean we did anything effective about it.
Re: (Score:3)
Whereas insurance companies would never deny treatment. And people who just pay for their own medical treatment would never not be able to afford something and have to deny treatment.