Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Government The Internet Your Rights Online

RIAA CEO Hopes SOPA Protests Were a "One-Time Thing" 441

Posted by samzenpus
from the wishful-thinking dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

RIAA CEO Hopes SOPA Protests Were a "One-Time Thing"

Comments Filter:
  • by bbtom (581232) on Thursday March 01, 2012 @06:53PM (#39215301) Homepage Journal

    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.

  • Door in face (Score:5, Informative)

    by StripedCow (776465) on Thursday March 01, 2012 @06:56PM (#39215327)

    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.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 01, 2012 @07:13PM (#39215477)

    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.

  • by Imrik (148191) on Thursday March 01, 2012 @10:07PM (#39216613) Homepage

    The part that exempted American citizens and lawful residents was removed from the bill before it was passed.

  • by artor3 (1344997) on Thursday March 01, 2012 @10:28PM (#39216723)

    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.

  • by wonkavader (605434) on Thursday March 01, 2012 @10:54PM (#39216857)

    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.

  • by Daniel Dvorkin (106857) on Thursday March 01, 2012 @11:07PM (#39216903) Homepage Journal

    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.)

  • by Aryden (1872756) on Thursday March 01, 2012 @11:37PM (#39217071)
    It wasn't until the french stepped in and supplied us with trained personnel, supplies and ships to run blockades...
  • by cpt kangarooski (3773) on Friday March 02, 2012 @01:39AM (#39217637) Homepage

    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.

  • by artor3 (1344997) on Friday March 02, 2012 @04:20AM (#39218381)

    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.

APL is a write-only language. I can write programs in APL, but I can't read any of them. -- Roy Keir

Working...