SOPA Protests 'Poisoned the Well,' Says Congressional Staffer 330
Techdirt has a story about statements from Congressional staffer Stephanie Moore, who had some interesting — and somewhat insulting — things to say about the 'net-wide protests against the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA). "Netizens poisoned the well, and as a result the reliability of the internet is at risk," she said. Moore went on, "Congress was criticized for not being tech savvy, but from a lot of the comments we got it became clear that the people who were calling us did not understand the bill any better than we did." The article also points out comments from Steve Metalitz, a lawyer who represents members of the entertainment industry: "Most countries in the world already have this option at their disposal to deal with this problem. If site blocking broke the internet, then the internet would already be broken."
Translation (Score:5, Insightful)
Wow you still don't get it (Score:5, Insightful)
Moore and Metalitz still don't get it. Its not about the Internet or site blocking, its about that fundamental characteristics of our nation. Its about due process and freedom of speech.
Ha! You're just as stupid as we are! (Score:5, Insightful)
"Congress was criticized for not being tech savvy, but from a lot of the comments we got it became clear that the people who were calling us did not understand the bill any better than we did."
Soooooo, we (Congress) didn't understand a law we wrote (or at least the lobbyist wrote) and all of you protesting didn't understand it either - making you just as dumb as us!
In your face!
A strategic victory (Score:2, Insightful)
When we do it, it is "poisoning the well", but when they do it, it is a well executed strategic victory and they should all get bonuses.
The Main Problem with SOPA (Score:5, Insightful)
"Congress was criticized for not being tech savvy, but from a lot of the comments we got it became clear that the people who were calling us did not understand the bill any better than we did."
So you were passing legislation that you did not understand. That is not why you were elected. You were not elected to be a rubber stamp. If we wanted one of those we could probably have bought on at Staples and it would have been been way cheaper than your salary.
Re:Wow you still don't get it (Score:5, Insightful)
Due process and freedom of speech get in the way of maximizing the bottom line.
It is broken in those countries. (Score:5, Insightful)
But who cares. It's all for the greater good.
The greater good.
The greater good.
Most countries have this (Score:4, Insightful)
"Most countries in the world already have this option at their disposal to deal with this problem. If site blocking broke the internet, then the internet would already be broken."
Countries like China and Iran. Do we want the Internet controlled like those countries?
It would already be broken (Score:5, Insightful)
As if anyone's really UN-educated. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Ha! You're just as stupid as we are! (Score:5, Insightful)
That was my thought as well, if they didn't understand the bill any more than the protesters, that's a damn good reason not to be voting for it. These are our elected officials and they're supposed to have more of an understanding of the bills than the constituents do.
"Most governments in the world" (Score:5, Insightful)
Wow. Did she really just justify US policy-making by making a "majority of nations" argument???
There are 87 UN member states that are full-fledged democracies or "fully free" according to Freedom House. There are a total of 193 UN member states.
Which means that even in the United Nations (which doesn't contain all autonomous national entities) ONLY 45% ARE EVEN DEMOCRACIES.
Dear Stephanie, if policy makers used the "most countries in the world" argument to justify policy decisions, the WORLD would be broken.
Re:Translation (Score:5, Insightful)
The lawyer's comment is particularly funny, too. Most countries in the world already have the option at their disposal because, duh, they censor all sorts of things anyway.
Huh? (Score:2, Insightful)
"If site blocking broke the internet, then the internet would already be broken"
Most countries aren't at the center of the Internet and most countries don't play such a pivotal role in core Internet technologies like America does.
The content industry is an entitlement problem (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the content industry has an entitlement problem. We live in a democracy, not a utopia. Churchill said something to the effect of "a democracy is a terrible form of government, but its the best one anyone has come up with so far"; I am butchering the quote.
The only way for a democracy to ever be a utopia is if everyone agreed with everyone else on everything. That is not likely to happen. We all have rights, and sometimes in exercising those rights we are going to infringe in some mild way on the rights of others. Its unavoidable. One of the stated goals of our organizing document is to promote the general welfare; a big part of that is maximizing each individuals ability to exercise their rights, and putting some minimal controls in place to limit the amount of infringement on the rights of others that occurs. That infringement can't be eliminated so where permitted it should happen in a fair way, in that harm is spread around equally.
The content industry does not seem to recognize that society has already given them all sorts of concessions; which limit the rights of others in order to protect them. They have copyright extensions that go well beyond what the Constitution stated the aim of copyright to be; they have tools like DMCA, the have FBI acting like the own team of private investigators, the have the FCC requiring completely unnecessary content control features in electronics, the list goes on.
None of those things are sufficient to eliminate copyright violations. I think may of them already go to far but in any case the amount of copyright infringement going on out there is at a perfectly acceptable level. Why, well because the content industry is wildly profitable, and while I think private property is the cornerstone of freedom, these guys are not hurting they don't need more protection for the state to hold on to what is theirs. Any good it would do them is in no way proportional the harm it does to others.
Lots of folks are limited by what the content industry already has. Indie artists can't use all sorts of material because is locked up under copyright in perpetuity, small manufactures are locked out of the market because they can't implement mandatory DRM, tinkers are locked out of their hobbies by draconian FCC rules, citizens have the privacy violated by the FBI and others all the time. Giving the content industry the right to completely curb stomp our ability to express ourselves on the Internet, with no process and no appeals; is simply unjustified.
Everybody else is doing it! waaahhh (Score:5, Insightful)
I love the argument that "everybody else is doing it!" Yes: China, Pakistan, India, and Iran block free speech. So why can't we? If it works for them, it has to work for us, right?
but from a lot of the comments we got it became clear that the people who were calling us did not understand the bill any better than we did
This is probably true. It is a frustrating part of fighting any legislation. Most people are emotionally motivated, not logically motivated. They don't understand what the heck they are talking about. Yet you need sheer numbers so you can't say "don't call your legislator unless you have a CS degree and can explain all this." So unfortunately, no matter what the issue, most of the people standing with you don't know what they are talking about. Same goes for most of the people standing against you too.
Courts and the Internet (Score:5, Insightful)
The copyright industry thinks that the problem is with due process, as opposed to attempting to apply a concept that originated in an age of printing presses to a society where everyone has the equipment needed to make perfect copies in their homes.
Re:Ha! You're just as stupid as we are! (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, politicians are just elected people of the population. Garbage in, garbage out.
Re:Embarrassment extractor (Score:5, Insightful)
good post.
really, capitalism is greed. reduce it to what it really is and call a spade a space.
capitalism is greed, in action.
and we are SURPRISED AND SHOCKED that such a system has utterly failed us?
no boundaries, no limits and greed-driven laws and ethics.
its no wonder we are as fucked up as we are! I'm talking about the world, here; since the capitalism disease has spread thru much of the world and the US is intent on forcing it on every last nation, too.
that's what are 'democracy building' is. forcing our levels of greed on the rest of mankind.
nice......
Re:Ha! You're just as stupid as we are! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Wow you still don't get it (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, and putting out a hit-man on your competition in order to 'maximize your bottom line' is also unconstitutional. Just because something gets in the way of maximizing your profits doesn't mean you can legislate your way around such obstacles...... Oh, nevermind, I forgot.... that's EXACTLY how business maximizes profits in this country.
Re:Embarrassment extractor (Score:5, Insightful)
Would it be nice if there's a better way? Of course. But no such ways are feasible.
Re:Translation (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes we poisoned the well of censorship.
Re:Embarrassment extractor (Score:5, Insightful)
Humans are always going to have compassion.
Humans are always going to have rapists.
Humans are always going to have intelligence.
Humans are always going to have illness.
I don't see why greed ought to be the thing to pick to base your society on. And don't forget that humans are nature+nurture - you can play down or reinforce qualities in any community.
Also, how is the xkcd reviewing going? I do tend to picture neckbeards as dilettante libertarians, so thanks for confirming another stereotype. ;-)
Re:Embarrassment extractor (Score:4, Insightful)
OF COURSE there are better ways.
curbs. curbs on how much power and wealth you can amass.
we have not tried that, not really. we have curbs on the stock market (or, we used to!) and that worked for a while.
no curbs on power in the capitalistic west. let the powerful get more powerful. and, due to that, those below that level sink even lower.
is this really the best that mankind can do? I hardly think so!
we are lazy and have given up trying to make better ways to govern and care for ourselves.
but there *are* ways to fix our broken system. its just that those in power keep the old system since it favors their situation.
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Translation: If you understood, you'd agree (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Embarrassment extractor (Score:3, Insightful)
This is what someone who hasn't actually studied capitalism thinks. This is the propagandized version.
Capitalism is the other way around. It's people who are free to vote with their dollars. If you want to succeed, you need to provide something with value. The only way to divert from capitalism is to remove its freedoms. You force the money into places where there isn't value. You make people behave according to some arbitrary government agenda rather than market demands. You ALWAYS end up shrinking the economy.
The "no boundaries" bit is ignorant nonsense as well. There are always laws regarding financial transactions. There is a huge difference between greed and self-interest. Greed generally causes damage to one's reputation and leads to laws start being broken and opens up the door to competitors...unless you have a monopoly or are aligned with corrupt government.
One more thing, capitalism is the only way a country 16T in debt is going to crawl out of the hole. We need all the economic activity we can possibly achieve.
Apparently it's you who doesn't understand. (Score:5, Insightful)
"One more thing, capitalism is the only way a country 16T in debt is going to crawl out of the hole"
The only way to get a country into 16Tn debt is by capitalism.
But I guess it melds nicely into the fundamental depravity of religious thinking: give you a problem, then claim they are the only ones with a cure.
"Capitalism is the other way around."
Capitalism is the screed of greed. End of story.
"It's people who are free to vote with their dollars."
And then, to gather power, you get more money. Wich means more power, and the ability to get more money. Which means a continuing descending spiral of greed.
You can't vote with your dollars and not pay for food.
And if you have no money because some rich bastard has offshored your job, you have no say.
Capitalism is the only political system that takes away your rights and claims it to be your fault all along. You really are a horrible piece of slime, you are.
"If you want to succeed, you need to provide something with value."
So you're against inheritance and want it taxed at 100%, right? You want investment dividends removed, right? You want management removed, right? And charging for banking loans should be banned, yes?
After all, the only ones producing the valueable stuff you're selling are the workers, not their dependants and not the leeches who are syphoning money off the working populace merely because they've managed to leech money off someone dead or already wealthy.
"You ALWAYS end up shrinking the economy."
Yes these capitalists investing their dividends OUTSIDE the economy, who don't spend the money in the economy and who are free to remove themselves entirely from the source of their unearned wealth ALWAYS ends up shrinking the economy.
Hell, the difference between Clinton (higher taxes, reduced debt, economic boom) with shrub who inhereted the windfall economy then by removing taxes caused a worldwide recession, and with Obama's spineless kowtowing to the rabid right-wing whereby stalling the economy even further because idiotic parasites like you whine and bitch about government, should show you your unthinking and poisonous mental garbage proposition is PROVEN FALSE.
"There is a huge difference between greed and self-interest."
There isn't.
But capitalism as practiced by people like you don't bother with the self-interest beyond "am I making more money?" and is in no sense different from rapatious greed.
Re:Translation (Score:3, Insightful)
Neither is informed thinking.
Re:Courts and the Internet (Score:4, Insightful)
Would you also suggest that in the United States nobody can make the argument that the court system is the appropriate for dealing with accusations of criminal conduct in this century?
Considering how vast, broad, and overwhelmingly complex our criminal code is, I absolutely would make that argument. It was recently pointed out that if everyone who is arrested did exercise their right to a jury trial, the system would come grinding to a halt:
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/11/opinion/sunday/go-to-trial-crash-the-justice-system.html [nytimes.com]
When more people are criminals than the court system can deal with, the problem is the law, not the behavior of the people. Most people are not murderers, robbers, rapists, arsonists, etc., yet almost everyone living in America is guilty of some felony offense. We need legal reforms, we need them to be sweeping and we need them to happen soon.
This is the worst argument ever (Score:5, Insightful)
I can't believe she used this as an argument. If they don't understand the bill, and their constituents didn't understand the bill, there can only be two reasons for trying to pass it:
1) Passing legislation for legislation's sake (Stupid)
2) Passing legislation because you are compelled to by another party that only holds it's own interests (Evil)
So they are either stupid or evil (or both)
Re:Translation (Score:5, Insightful)
I wouldn't be surprised if the staffer actually internalized as her personal beliefs the lobbyists positions she was indoctrinated with for several months.
Personal perception varies, often far from reality.
Re:Translation (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Translation (Score:3, Insightful)
More like: poisoned the trough.
Re:Embarrassment extractor (Score:4, Insightful)
When Bush the younger started to gut the EPA and turn it into a White House mouthpiece I suddenly developed a strange and new found respect for Richard Nixon.
That is deeply and truely sad. Perversely symmetrical too.
Re:Translation (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly. Saying it works in Somalia, and needs to be brought immediately to the US, because 'it works there,' is a far cry from an endorsement.
But more importantly, is the understanding of 'If site blocking broke the internet, then the internet would already be broken,' which again, shows the utter cluelessness of this bill's proponents. These are the people, I remind you, who f*cked with compact discs and the error correction technology, because they woefully believed it would somehow prevent end-users from copying them; and in doing so, made it so one little scratch renders the disc unreadable. They managed to defeat the intrinsic error-correction scheme that is a part of the compact disc's spec, and screw over many of their customers to boot.
Their understanding of technology is super-bad. They are like my younger brother, whose lack of understanding of networking does not prevent him from plugging a network cable from the LAN into the WAN port of any item with a DHCP server, thus kicking everyone off the network. The only thing they are accomplishing with their mad schemes is f*cking up the internet, turning what was once a thriving ecosystem into a wasteland.
Re:Translation (Score:1, Insightful)
I agree SOPA and similar bills are wrong ethically, morally, and legally, but let me try to play devil's advocate here and give you some arguments a pro-SOPA lobbyist might.
1) Cyberwarfare is a real threat! One could foresee an instance where hackers from Russia or China successfully compromised a major content provider and planted malware that would install a rootkit from a ubiquitous and otherwise innocuous looking flash ad served from Akamai, Doubleclick, or whatnot meaning that all you needed to do to be infected is visit Yahoo, Amazon, eBay, Valve, or even Slashdot.-- or receive an email from someone you know well whose computer is now part of the botnet which runs on Windows, Mac, Linux, iOS, or Android. CERN recognises the severity of the threat and knows that by the time the agency with the proper jurisdictional authority is notified and a judicial take-down order is received, far more damage will have been done over shutting the compromised site(s) down immediately.
2) Sites like Wikileaks have already seriously hampered US diplomatic relations with the secret documents they've exposed. Shutting the site down now is pointless as the data has already been shared far and wide. However we must be vigilant to protect against a future security breach. Were a file containing highly sensitive data to be published such as a dossier of CIA operatives worldwide; or a database of all SSNs with names, addresses, phone numbers and dates of birth associated with them; it would be imperative to shut the site down immediately before this data could likewise be spread across the globe.
3) Telling a copyright holder that they have to obtain a warrant to have a site which is unlawfully distributing their IP would be like you coming home to find a burglar loading your possessions into a truck and having to get a court order before you could attempt to stop the burglar or even try to protect the remaining contents of your house.