New Media Giants Take Out Print Ad Against SOPA 234
itwbennett writes "Slashdot readers will recall that the SOPA hearings earlier this week 'excluded any witnesses who advocate for civil rights. Google's Katherine Oyama was the only witness to object to the bill in a meaningful way.' So to get the attention of lawmakers, new media giants Google, Facebook, and Zynga turned to the only place they knew that politicians gather daily. They took out a full page ad in the New York Times. The irony of taking out a newspaper ad to protect the Web is certainly lost on no one."
Why not use their own sites? (Score:5, Interesting)
Politicians use Google and Facebook too. Put messages there.
Heck, they could be really direct and block Google/Facebook for congressional IP ranges.
Re:Why not use their own sites? (Score:5, Insightful)
Heck, they could be really direct and block Google/Facebook for congressional IP ranges.
Now that would be ironic.
Re:Why not use their own sites? (Score:4, Funny)
Now that would be ironic.
I think it would be ironic if everything were made of iron.
Re:Why not use their own sites? (Score:4, Insightful)
No, that would be ferronic, wouldn't it?
Re:Why not use their own sites? (Score:5, Interesting)
Politicians use Google and Facebook too. Put messages there.
Or you could get together with 87,834 of your closest friends and call them [tumblr.com].
It's good to see people mobilisation en masse to oppose this bill, but as others have said [google.com], it remains to be seen whether Congress will listen to anyone unless they dangle a cheque in front of their nose.
The big danger that I see [imagicity.com] is how dangerously regressive and backward-looking attitudes on the Hill are.
Perhaps the most shocking aspect of the recent House Judiciary Committee hearing was that Google, the sole opponent to the legislation allowed to present at the hearing, was castigated by most of the people there, impugned for purportedly profiting from piracy and cast as the villain in this whole affair.
Seeing one of the few growing and dynamic drivers of the information economy not only cast out of the fold but actively opposed, one can only conclude that the captains of the US media industry are perfectly content to cut their nose off to spite their face. They will burn the bridge represented by Google rather than cross it.
I see two immediate dangers if this regime is actually allowed to take the shape proposed for it:
The latter outcome is the more dangerous of the two. Losing influence in the direction the Internet’s development takes also means losing the uniquely American ethos of freedom and individualism.
There are numerous new media and technological players poised in the wings right now. But few of them (with the possible exception of Al Jazeera) have any moral stake in human rights or even individual expression. Not, at least, in the same way that many American developers do - that is, at the axiomatic level, rather than as a conscious overlay to their world view.
Re:Why not use their own sites? (Score:5, Interesting)
The arrogance of little boys (Score:4, Interesting)
How old was Dennis Ritchie when he died just recently? WELL above 50. If you are 40 then computers were a part of your childhood.
Anyway, when recorded music was itself new, it didn't need long at all to be understood by politics and have the current copyright introduced. It is about the maturity in the industry as in knowing how the game is played (bribes). Google just doesn't get it.
This ad is a good example. Wall of text rather then a heart-warming story of innocent and pure-blooded American Google being bastarized by the evil japanse Sony music.
Re:The arrogance of little boys (Score:5, Insightful)
If you are 40 then computers were a part of your childhood
Nonsense. If you are 40 then you were born in 1970. Home computing started to appear in the very late '70s, but didn't become common until the '90s. I'm just under 30, and at least half of the people I knew growing up didn't have a home computer. When I came to university, a lot of my friends didn't have their own computer (well, all of my geek friends did). I bought the computer I took to university with money from a summer job, and it cost about as much as four months rent in student accommodation. People who had to work a part-time job to afford the rent certainly couldn't afford one.
It would be more accurate to say 'if you are 40, middle class, and from a family with a technical background who thought computers were important, then computers were a part of your childhood'. If you were poor, they were not. If your parents didn't think computers were important, they were not.
Re:The arrogance of little boys (Score:5, Insightful)
Just nit-picking here, but he did not actually mention "home computers" or "personal computers"; he just said "computers".
Access to other computers is even rarer. Schools typically didn't have them at all, universities did but access was limited to a science and engineering students. If you didn't encounter a computer until you arrived at university, then you can hardly be said to grow up with them.
I'm in my 50s, and I have used computers since my teens
I'm in my 20s and can dance argentine tango, but neither of these facts lets you extrapolate to the general population. A few people in their '40s and '50s grew up using computers, but most did not.
Re: (Score:3)
So none of those in congress grew up with computers or really understand those who did.
You don't have to grow up with a thing to understand it. I didn't grow up with computers, computers grew up with me. [kuro5hin.org] Yes, since I'm a nerd I had a computer in 1982 when I could finally afford a cheap one, but computers and the internet have been pretty much a part of most people's lives for over a decade now. Most of today's geezers are every bit as comfortable with computers as you kids are.
It's just that politicians are
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Why not use their own sites? (Score:5, Insightful)
I think he is saying that there is more to this world than USA, and by allowing SOPA and PROTECT IP, USA will effectively isolate themselves from the rest of the world.
This in turn means that USA won't benefit from what Europe, Asia, Australia, South America and the rest of the world invents, which means the rest of the world will outrun USA when it comes to technology. In fifty years USA will still be stuck with 2010 tech while Europe etc will have 2060 tech. Both SOPA and PROTECT IP will drag down USA in the mud. Shame, really, since the US had some really great things going for it...
Re:Why not use their own sites? (Score:5, Insightful)
Welcome to the real world.
In the starting days of the automobile, the horse farmers and buggy whip manufacturers managed to come up with all sorts of insane fucking laws. For instance, these [trafficticketsecrets.com]. In a few states, you had to have a flagman walk in front of your car (yes WALK) waving a flag and beeping a horn to "warn" drivers of horse-drawn carriages that one of these crazy horseless contraptions was coming through.
Eventually, good sense prevailed, and the buggy whip manufacturers fell to their proper place in history... but some of these crazy stupid laws remain on the books, just unenforced.
Likewise, we'll probably see the same thing happen here. "Piracy", as the MafiAA goons tell it, is killing their ability to rip off artists of money. Sooner or later, the artists will find a way to make money that doesn't involve the goons and the illegal MafiAA price-fixing monopolies. It's already starting to happen. "Piracy" is also, thanks to fucked up copyright laws, becoming the only way to preserve our digital history; in the meantime, plenty has been lost, such as software for the Cray-1 [chrisfenton.com] that wasn't preserved and that can't be run on other platforms. The Apple II/e library is preserved only because "pirates" have preserved most of it and crafted emulation for it. Similar for most of the early Commodore computers, the Atari lines... DosBox almost REQUIRES that you have "pirate" software that ran on 5 1/4" disk in order to run it (e.g. "copy the disk") for some of the oldest stuff it runs, but modern computers don't even have the connections required to attach an actual 5 1/4" disk even if you could find media that hasn't succumbed to bit-rot.
It's impossible to say that copyright is meaningful when so much of "copyrighted" products today is covered by a law that lasts 100x longer than the expected platform lifespan. That's just ridiculous on the face of it and deliberately breaks the contract between copyright holders and society, which is that the copyrighted work WILL enter the public domain as repayment to the public for the grant of LIMITED duration monopoly.
Re:Why not use their own sites? (Score:5, Insightful)
But it still doesn't really matter much when the only realistic choices for office are chosen for us ahead of time by the kingmakers at the GOP and DNC.
Yes, I know that anyone can technically run for office, but we all know that the only way to compete with the GOP and the DNC is to have their monetary resources so as to plaster your face and message on every billboard and television screen and radio within your voting district. I actually follow politics pretty closely in my corner of the country and every time there's a vote there are still people on the ballot I've never even heard of, have no website, have no information about them or their platforms at all.
Plus, after Nader cost Gore the election in 2000 and we ended up with that idiot George W. Bush as President a lot of people started really voting for the lesser of two evils in earnest. What other choice do the people have? Support a fringe candidate that is just not going to win, period? Or throw your hat in with the guy you disagree with the least that may actually win the election?
I say this, of course, because I'm sitting here wondering what the hell I'm going to do in 2012. I'm severely pissed off at Obama for all the campaign promises he reneged on (Gitmo, the wars, campaign reform, regulatory reform...I could go on and on and on) but what am I supposed to do if he's up against someone like Michele Bachmann or Rick Santorum, that want to roll back civil rights to the 50's and start throwing gays into reeducation centers? I can vote for a third party, but we all know that is throwing your vote away, especially as regards a Presidential Election. Ross Perot and Ralph Nader got a whopping 18.9% and 2.7% of the popular vote, respectively. [wikipedia.org] Neither won any electoral votes at all. You have to go back 100 years to the election of 1912 to find a third party candidate that got more than 20% of the vote, and that was Teddy fucking Roosevelt, one of the greatest President's this country has ever had in history, beloved by almost everyone. He managed to get a whole 27% of the vote running under the Bull Moose party, and this is one of four people on Mount Rushmore for Christ's sake...
So what do I do? Vote my conscience and throw my vote away on a third party? Or do my part to try and make sure that we don't turn into a fucking Christian Theocracy where abortion is murder, even in cases of rape, vaccines cause autism and are therefore banned, no mosques within 1000 feet of a government building, ridiculous shit like that? I'm heartily sick of voting for the lesser of two evils, but short of pulling an Egypt and overthrowing our government, I see no other recourse. We need to sever the ties between wealth and politics in this country, but I see no legal way to do so. There won't ever be one, there is no incentive for any of our sitting reps to change these things, and the only way one can even achieve these offices is by allowing yourself to be corrupted by this system in the first place.
So what do we do? Seriously, someone tell me how the hell we can solve these problems without plunging our country into anarchy, because I just see no other way at all...
Re: (Score:3)
I can vote for a third party, but we all know that is throwing your vote away, especially as regards a Presidential Election.
That's exactly what the two parties want you to think. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy if you get enough people to decide not to "throw their vote away".
If, instead, everyone always voted their choice, you limit the amount of crap that major party candidates can keep doing after being elected, as all it takes is for a third-party candidate will win one state before real fear will set in for the major parties.
Re:Why not use their own sites? (Score:5, Interesting)
Go for broke, I say. Get Facebook, Wiki(m|p)edia, Youtube, and Twitter to go dark for a day. Hell, they could go dark for an hour and still the world would riot. I don't like how integral these sites have become to day-to-day life for most people, when ten years ago none even existed,[1] but for Congress to think that the people in this country or this world care one iota about "e-parasites" when put up against Honey Badger [youtube.com] and Farmville is just bogus. Show Washington what this bill actually means for America and they'll all change. You can't get reelected on "I voted to shut down Facebook and Youtube."
1. Okay fine, Wikipedia was around, but few knew about it. Besides, it's for the sake of the narrative!
Re: (Score:2)
Get Facebook, Wiki(m|p)edia, Youtube, and Twitter to go dark for a day.
I say you have it backwards.
Let Capital Hill go dark for a day. A week would be better. Give them a taste of what they're trying to legislate.
Re:Why not use their own sites? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Why not use their own sites? (Score:5, Informative)
You are thinking too small. To be truly effective, each of these sites should have a total blackout for one day. Coordinate, and choose one day that they actively refuse every connection made to any of their servers. 24 house for the entire world to see what it will be like to have no Google, no YouTube, No Gmail, no Facebook, No Zynga (kinda redundant with no Facebook, I know...) Heck, cut off all those useful Android utilities while you are at it.
24 hours worth of profits to most of these companies is chump change... 24 hours of profits lost by those other companies who rely on these services though would make a huge impact. One that could not be ignored.
Re:Why not use their own sites? (Score:5, Insightful)
A page with explanation instead of no page would be better.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Why not use their own sites? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Why not use their own sites? (Score:4, Informative)
No they don't. Their staffers take care of their representation on Facebook and the like. Ted Stevens represented the most knowledgeable politician with respect to the Internet.
Ten movies streaming across that, that Internet, and what happens to your own personal Internet? I just the other day got an Internet was sent by my staff at 10 o'clock in the morning on Friday. I got it yesterday [Tuesday]. Why? Because it got tangled up with all these things going on the Internet commercially. [] They want to deliver vast amounts of information over the Internet. And again, the Internet is not something that you just dump something on. It's not a big truck. It's a series of tubes. And if you don't understand, those tubes can be filled and if they are filled, when you put your message in, it gets in line and it's going to be delayed by anyone that puts into that tube enormous amounts of material, enormous amounts of material.
Re: (Score:3)
No they don't. Their staffers take care of their representation on Facebook and the like. Ted Stevens represented the most knowledgeable politician with respect to the Internet.
Nonsense. Patrick Leahy [senate.gov] of Vermont is probably the most Internet-saavy politician currently in office (even though he's pretty much a tool of the RIAA/MPAA IP cabal). Going back to the 80's and early 90's, you had Al Gore of Tennessee, and even Conrad Burns of Montana was knowledgeable enough to co-sponsor (with Leahy) a bill to overturn Clinton-era restrictions on cryptography strength for American consumer products.
You may have been trying to be funny. If so, the joke fell flat enough that you got modded
Re: (Score:2)
Lobby (Score:5, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Lobby (Score:5, Interesting)
Easy solution. Hollywood is great at lobbying. So the tech industry should just -buy- Hollywood. After all, the entirety of Hollywood would cost the big tech giants little really. Split it up, each tech giant can buy a studio, and just straight up fire the entire executive staff. Then going forward the media industry can lobby in a tech friendly manner.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Like Sony did? Let's see Microsoft owning Warner Brothers and IBM buying 20th Century Fox... that's about as appealing as Big Tobacco owning Kraft foods..., oh wait [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
I thought the tech industry already owned Hollywood. Have you never seen a James Bond movie?
Re:Lobby (Score:5, Insightful)
It is not just about money paying for corruption of politics via lobbying it is about censoring and silencing the voices of opposition. It was visible in the attack upon OWS when cities around the US coordinated their attack upon the OWS movement via the Federal government.
The US government knows full well it works in opposition to the wishes of the majority, it has known that for that last thirty years, which is why corporate controlled mass media worked so hard at silencing the voices of the majority whilst pretending the corporate marketing voice was the voice of the majority.
The problem is we have allowed psychopaths and narcissist to gain control of major corporations and the government, these people will not let go the levers of power without a fight, a destructive fight which they will orchestrate.
The only place to tackle this mess is in the US primaries, the active will of the OWS movement to replace corporate stooges with representatives of the people. First step fight people to apply and start openly and publicly testing them. Test their health, intelligence, knowledge and most important of all their psychological state.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"The President of the United States and all of Congress is basically going to tell Silicon Valley to go fuck off."
He will get a very unpleasant surprise on the next fund-raising trip if he tries that.
He'll have more than enough money to beat the yahoos on the other side. And even if he signs SOPA, I'll still vote for him, only because I know the fascist on the other side would have signed SOPA *and* reinstated Don't Ask Don't Tell.
Re:Obama and Silicon Valley (Score:4, Insightful)
Gotta love the US two-party system.
Re:Obama and Silicon Valley (Score:5, Insightful)
Holy fucking jesus christ on a rotating spit, how many times do we have to say that IT ISN'T A TWO PARTY SYSTEM.
Re: (Score:3)
Wasted vote? I'll tell you what's a wasted vote -- a pot smoker voting for a Republican or a Democrat when both of them want him in jail.
If a vote for a loser is a wasted vote, then all the people who voted for McCain last election all wasted their votes!
Personally, rather than wasting my vote on a man who wants me incarcerated, I'll "waste" it on a candidate who doesn't want me going to prison, even if he will lose. It isn't a horse race.
Re: (Score:3)
That's one of the reasons I kind of hope it does pass initially it will cause a lot of problems (technical and otherwise). But we'll have to come up with solutions to those problems and when they really want to censor us it will be a lot more difficult. Where as if it doesn't pass it will likely be replaced shortly by more reasonable and enforceable means of censorship. At least right now we have some big players (like Google) who's interest happen to align with the people. Then again maybe I'm just a being
Re:Lobby (Score:5, Insightful)
That's one of the reasons I kind of hope it does pass initially it will cause a lot of problems (technical and otherwise). But we'll have to come up with solutions to those problems and when they really want to censor us it will be a lot more difficult. Where as if it doesn't pass it will likely be replaced shortly by more reasonable and enforceable means of censorship.
I think that's actually a bit too optimistic. What Hollywood, "traditional media", Politicians and associated Moneypolists want is to turn the web into Television. They want a one-way medium to distribute their content, whether it be entertainment, political platform or other stuff they sell. They don't want the regular Joe to generate their own content, hence the extremes they go to brand anything not made by them as spurious and pirated.
If this law was to remain, it would cement their grip on the medium so they can turn it into the advertisement broadcast platform they want it to be: sanitized, monetized and sales-orientated. They want to know who you are and where you are so you can't dodge them; they want you to be a trapped consumer, and they want to keep tabs on you to better tailor their efforts at shovelling their crap down your throat. This is why that MoFo Murdoch (or was it Turner?) said the Internet should have been patented from the start. This is why politicians and law enforcement agencies everywhere want it muzzled, they don't want disent they want obedience and mindless consumerism.
Re:Lobby (Score:5, Insightful)
I think that's actually a bit too optimistic. What Hollywood, "traditional media", Politicians and associated Moneypolists want is to turn the web into Television. They want a one-way medium to distribute their content, whether it be entertainment, political platform or other stuff they sell. They don't want the regular Joe to generate their own content, hence the extremes they go to brand anything not made by them as spurious and pirated.
If this law was to remain, it would cement their grip on the medium so they can turn it into the advertisement broadcast platform they want it to be: sanitized, monetized and sales-orientated. They want to know who you are and where you are so you can't dodge them; they want you to be a trapped consumer, and they want to keep tabs on you to better tailor their efforts at shovelling their crap down your throat. This is why that MoFo Murdoch (or was it Turner?) said the Internet should have been patented from the start. This is why politicians and law enforcement agencies everywhere want it muzzled, they don't want disent they want obedience and mindless consumerism.
And I want a pony. I think they will find putting the cat back in the bag to be more of a problem than they think. Especially, since we no longer have a real interest in the bag...
Re: (Score:3)
But think of all of those cat-bag makers that will be put out of work! I say we need to pass a law requiring all cats to be in not one, but two bags!!!! Any bag-less cat is a lost sale and lost sales are unamerican!
Re: (Score:2)
If this law was to remain, the USA as a superpower would be history for sure. Most of the rest of the world would distance themselves from the USA and say "You know what, fine. We're not interested in your shit anymore." Isolation makes it very hard to ignore.
And yeah, nukes? You seriously believe they'll fire nukes at us for refusing to take their shit? All that would do would serve to alienate us non-US:ers even more. It would be both counter-productive and stupid. Control by fear is never as effective as
Re: (Score:2)
I think the result of things like this will be that there is another Great Firewall built, and people in the free world shake their heads and say "tut tut tut."
Re: (Score:3)
I'm amazed at how many slashdotters get all their news from Limbaugh and Fox. Your ignorance is appalling (apologies if you're just injecting a sarcastic parody).
OWS is a bunch of radical leftists who have nothing but fear and loathing of Middle America.
OWS is middle America.
Is it any surprise Middle America doesn't support them?
Where do all these falsehoods come from? Heve you not seen the poll results? Oh, since you only get your news from Fox, you wouldn't have. The fact is, a majority of people are chee
What a useless article... (Score:5, Informative)
Its three needlessly long paragraphs reiterating what was said in the summary and contains links or scans to the ad in question. How did something like this get voted to the front page?
If you're going to link to a site talking about it, at least link to a site that has the ad! [boingboing.net] Two seconds with Google people, was that really all that hard? I just wish these guys would have mentioned in the ad the combined net worth of all their companies and contrasted it to the net worth of the media empires trying to ram this shit through. Would have really gotten people talking and asking the hard questions.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes the piece in ITWorld [itworld.com] seemed like an introduction instead of a real article. Ridiculous! It was also written by some dyslectic teenager: read the last sentence! I can't take ITWorld seriously after having read that piece of trash.
Re: (Score:3)
To be fair, most of the article was just random citations from unknown commenters on other sites.
There uses to be a time when journalists did research. Or so my granddad told me.
Re:What a useless article... (Score:4, Insightful)
I love how the ad tacks on "and job creation" in several places.
Good to know atleast the "buzzword inserter" hasn't lost his job.
"Job creation"... It's always fun to see a corporation twist a necessity of business into an act of kindness.
Re: (Score:3)
It doesn't matter if Boing-Boing sucks or not because for the purposes of this story it has a copy of the ad in question and was the first hit on Google, I literally found it in two seconds.
They should get serious (Score:5, Interesting)
Instead of taking out a newspaper ad, the "new media giants" should take a page out of the unions' book and go on strike. No Google. No Facebook. No YouTube. Just put up a static page all day explaining the threat this law poses to new media. That would get people's attention.
Interesting proposal (Score:2)
Maybe just a new Google Doodle. [reteaparty.com]
Re:They should get serious (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe that's plan B. It's usually better to start small with methods of persuasion, rather than just bringing out the big guns right away.
Remember, most Google, Facebook, and YouTube users don't know squat about SOPA and have never heard of it; they don't read Slashdot. Shutting down these sites all of a sudden over an issue that no one's heard of is only going to create a lot of anger. Don't forget, Google has an active competitor called Bing that people could easily switch to, and it's backed by a company that's probably A-OK with SOPA. The last thing Google needs is to cause most of their users to switch to Bing during a brief "strike", and then never return.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I never said it was great, but if Google went down for a while even I'd use it the interim.
Protecting interests? (Score:5, Insightful)
Just who's interests are these entities protecting, Ours, or their own?
Google owns Youtube. I dont think I need to explain that.
Facebook sells people's personal data, including photos, to advertisers.
Zygna has been embroiled at least once for outright stealing of graphical assets from other commercial games companies.
I am not saying to look the gift horse in the mouth here-- if it gets our dumbass leaders to shelve their onerous legislation and bury it at sea without honors, I am all for it, but I draw the line at saying these corporations represent *MY* interests.
Re:Protecting interests? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
As I said in the post, I dont want to look the gift horse in the mouth. I am very happy that they are doing this.
I was just pointing out that this is not a reason to get your fanboi on. These companies do not give a lick about little interests like ours.
Re: (Score:2)
It's called "enlightened self interest" and it's how capitalism should always work. Unfortunately, it doesn't.
Thank goodness we've had government in there neck-deep attempting to "social engineer" the economy and society since the 1930s with taxes, legislation, and regulation into a Progressive Utopia.
Worked out well, hasn't it?
But don't complain when it does, as society as a whole benefits.
Yes, society does benefit greatly when enlightened self-interest, through capitalism, works. It's what has created the highest living standards and levels of individual freedom humans have ever known, and for more people over a longer time, than anything else ever tried.
These days and under
Re:Protecting interests? (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, society does benefit greatly when enlightened self-interest, through capitalism, works. It's what has created the highest living standards and levels of individual freedom humans have ever known, and for more people over a longer time, than anything else ever tried.
But, on the other hand, the best average standard and happiness comes through balancing capitalism with socialism in a democracy. And your US freedoms are quickly eroding.
No, capitalism works to funnel money into ever fewer hands. Capitalism wants real freedom for the richest. Damn the consequences for anyone else.
What really is good for a society is democracy and education. These are not automatically provided by capitalism.
Even if capitalism could be said to have been the shit for a period in history, it's not doing us much more good now. The US is in a sorry state, humanity-wise and freedom-wise.
Thank you capitalism for all the burgers and denim and rock 'n' roll, but onwards from here democratic socialism is the way to go.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The enemy of my enemy is my friend - at least until the battle is done.
Re:Protecting interests? (Score:4, Interesting)
The fact is that "creators" are pretty passive about this law, hovering from moderately for to moderately against, but they have nothing like the sort of passion you see around these parts. Here's a forum I read [gearslutz.com], everyone here is a recording engineer or sound designer in feature film, television and ads -- the original poster is a professional associate of mine. Most are pro-SOPA, because they see anyone who's vocally against it as objectively pro-turnstyle-jumping, and the people that are against are pretty measured, they never invoke fundamental human rights, and the focus on the practicality.
The fact is, if SOPA passes, the winners are Sony Pictures Distribution, Buena Vista Entertainment, and MTV Networks. If SOPA fails, the winners are Google, Facebook and Yahoo; either way, the biggest winners are middlemen. The anti-SOPA corporations would have you believe that SOPA is about squelching new art forms and creative channels, but it's really about making the advertising, aggregation, and monetization of new channels more or less practical, nothing more or less.
Content creators just sell there stuff one way or the other, and the practical ways off containing illicit copying are evolving. I'd personally much rather content creators continue to get their share of the box office, and they get a cut of all the ad and anciliary revenues as they do now. If Google and Facebook win, the ad revenues all walk out the door through the new middlemen, and maybe Google will give artists a 70% cut of some first (and really last) sale, but Google's going to use their data and aggregations thereof a hundred times over to make new applications, offer new services and SELL ADS, all of which will make them money. At least when somebody like Peter Jackson does a deal with New Line, New Line doesn't cut him off at a share of the box office, and then take no action to prevent people from xeroxing their ticket stubs.
Re:Protecting interests? (Score:5, Insightful)
Know some other losers?
How about slahshdot? How about any forum period. Equestriadaily? gone. Penny-arcade? gone. Stackoverflow? gone.
All it takes is someone purposefully posting copyrighted stuff to any of those pages and the site can be blocked.
Re: (Score:3)
Please, somebody, mod parent up.
In fact one doesn't even need to post copywrigted (what isn't copyrighted?) stuff on those pages. One just need to complain, no need for actual evidence.
Also, you are forgeting about political speech. I bet if OWS (for example) would ever put a site on the web, there will be plenty of people wanting to take it down.
Re: (Score:2)
*Facebook sells people's personal data, including photos, to advertisers.*
where can I buy that then? or you mean embedding avatars as recommenders on pages they click yes this is cool?
of course they represent their own interests. point is that after this law your own facebook page could just disappear because someone just says that you're a look-a-like of marlon brando and therefore stepping on their interests (or facebook would disappear).
maybe someone posts a copyrighted verse on your blog.. you have then
Re: (Score:2)
Uhm? I DID say that I was against the onerous legislation right? Yes?
The point was that while I am happy that these agencies are voicing opposition (and because they are big corps, which is all capital hill seems willing to listen to these days, such opposition is well received), I was merely pointing out that the reasons for which they are voicing that opposition are not the same reasons that little people like you or I are opposed to it.
Pointing this out does not automatically mean that I am in favor of
Why NY Times? (Score:2)
An ad opposing legislation posted in the New York Times strikes me, at least, as posturing to the media. After all, Congress is located in Washington DC. An ad in the Washington Post would be much more likely to be read by the Congressperson him/herself. If they were serious about this, the ad should have appeared in the Washington Post and probably LA Times, too.
Re:Why NY Times? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
So I guess it would be a big surprise to these people, or at least their agents, to know that there are actually people who live outside of The City and don't read the NY Times.
Re:Why NY Times? (Score:4, Informative)
For starters, when you run a nationwide full page political ad, you traditionally do it in the NYT. Sort of like when you give a civil rights speech, you do it on the steps on the Lincoln memorial. Second, there are two nationwide newspapers - USA Today and the New York Times. USA Today has a higher distribution due to hotels and whatnot, but NYT is a paper people actually pay for and read.
Old as shit (Score:5, Informative)
This was on every other website on the internet yesterday when the ad appeared. Today the rest of the internet is covering how 27 tech companies are supporting SOPA:
http://thenextweb.com/insider/2011/11/17/which-tech-companies-back-sopa-microsoft-apple-and-27-others/
I realize this might be unsettling for Slashdot users used to living in the past. Sorry for that.
Re: (Score:3)
Surprise surprise...
Look who supports this shitstained rag of legislation. Seeing MS and Apple on that list is hardly surprising.
Re: (Score:2)
It's pretty sad to see Intel on that list too. Guess I won't be buying any more Intel CPUs for a while.
Re:Old as shit (Score:5, Insightful)
This is an article linking anyone who supports the BSA to supporting SOPA. Just because a company supports the BSA does not mean they support SOPA. They might and they might not.
Personally, I don't presume guilt by association.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I realize this might be unsettling for Slashdot users used to living in the past. Sorry for that.
We're used to it by now. Heck, it says "yesterday's news" right at the bottom of the front page!
Irony Lost? (Score:3)
If I had to guess, despite the summary's "irony of taking out a newspaper ad to protect the Web" being "lost on no one", that the irony will be lost on the RIAA, the MPAA, Righthaven, LLC, and most members of Congress.
Why doesn't Google... (Score:5, Insightful)
Grow a pair and put something about it on their logo/main search page? They can change it for International-Paper-Mache-With-Your-Kids Day, but not for THIS??!?
a good idea considering the audience (Score:4, Insightful)
Considering how disconnected politicians and lawmakers are from technology issues in general, i think it's a fairly good idea to post the ad in a newspaper. Seems to me this bill should be stopped with all means available...
If they really want their attention... (Score:5, Insightful)
Google and Facebook can drop the politicians who support this bill from their respective sites....completely. Sorry, Congressman, you don't turn up in search any more, no Facebook page. Oh, and that email to your constituents? Sorry, gmail doesn't recognize your account.
Re:If they really want their attention... (Score:5, Funny)
Cut the Cord (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I think the political backlash would be to big for them to take that risk, however it would be very good for most people.
Which is why these sites should block everyone for 24 hours. Replace their homepage with a short paragraph explaining why, a link to the article for those who want to read it, and a link to a writeyourcongresscritter.com style site. Maybe even a list of phone numbers for the offices of the supporters.
Uhm... (Score:3, Funny)
The irony of taking out a newspaper ad to protect the Web is certainly lost on no one.
It's lost on me, you insensitive clod.
Re: (Score:2)
Threaten to de-invest (Score:3)
If the new media companies like google and facebook don't like what the government is planning threaten to de-invest in the USA. By that I mean start moving jobs, charity work, headquarters overseas to someplace with reasonable laws. I promise that a full page ad in the New York times about the issue will generate less controversy than headlines reading:
Google moving 10,000 jobs overseas, says government stifles growth.
Why Ad? Old Media not reporting? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
exactly.
daily newspaper is moderated though.
Misspent money (Score:2)
Should have spent it putting it into the politicians' hands. Money talks, ads look pretty (and who reads an ad?)
Easy solution if SOPA passes (Score:3)
Do this for every public message they try to get out, wherever they post. If & once a claim is rejected, another person comes along to claim copyright ownership and restart the process.
Re:So the mere fact that the industry is buying ad (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't think that many people will complain about corporations buying ads in newspapers to get their point out. How is it really any different from advertising? Except that while still trying to sway your opinion with their ad, they're not trying to sell you anything.
The problem with corporate "speech" is not when they spend a bunch of money on ads, it's when they hand bags of money to politicians and call them "campaign contributions". Somehow the SCOTUS equate giving money to someone as "speech", which it's not, it's a bribe. With these ads, there's zero money going from the corporations to the politicians; only the newspaper is getting any money, and we can presume they charge the same rates for these ads as they'd charge anyone else for that same ad space.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with corporate "speech" is not when they spend a bunch of money on ads, it's when they hand bags of money to politicians and call them "campaign contributions". Somehow the SCOTUS equate giving money to someone as "speech", which it's not, it's a bribe.
Are you sure about that? I think Citizens United was more about the first one than the second one.
The concern is that advertising sets the tone for a campaign. If a specific candidate supports SOPA and world+dog outside of Hollywood (including the candidate's district) opposes it, advertising that fact will cause the candidate to lose votes. And there will be issues of that nature for any candidate, which de facto allows corporations to crush anyone they don't like merely by bringing up the specific issues
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sorry, I don't see the problem. If the issue really is unpopular, and the corporations merely point out the candidate's stand on the issue, then what's the problem? As long as they're not committing libel, it's fine. Otherwise, how are you supposed to know the candidate's stand? Listen to the candidate's own paid advertisements? Listen to the biased media? Listen to political action groups' paid ads? Oh wait, how is a PAC (which isn't a person either) different from a corporation? It's not.
It's
Re:So the mere fact that the industry is buying ad (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is that if you can choose the issues that get media attention then you can choose the winner. As between a candidate that agrees with the majority of a district on 80% of the important issues vs. one that agrees on substantially fewer, you would expect the first candidate to win. But if you throw ten million dollars behind a campaign to bring the the remaining 20% of issues to the forefront of the debate, you cause the "better" candidate to lose. Which you can do merely because you disagree with the candidate on one of the issues for which that candidate agrees with the majority of the district, if you have a big enough pile of money.
You don't even have to find issues where the candidate disagrees with the majority. If the majority of the district supports strong measures against illegal immigration and so does the candidate, but 80% of Spanish-speaking constituents strongly oppose those measures, you run ads describing the candidate's position in Spanish. If the candidate is pro choice, you run ads on religious TV networks. If the candidate is pro life, you run ads on liberal women's networks. If the candidate opposes further unfunded increases in Medicare benefits, you put ads in AARP publications, etc.
It's easy to destroy an honest candidate by telling the truth in inconvenient places.
Re: (Score:3)
No, it's the other way around. The problem is that corporations have more money, so they can buy more speech than the actual candidates. The answer to speech is more speech, so the answer to money is more money. Public financing of elections.
Probably the best way to do it is some kind of anti-matching funds system, where every dollar someone spends against you means that you get an extra dollar of public financing so that you can answer the attack. (I'm not sure whether that is constitutional under the exis
Re: (Score:2)
Wait wait wait - you're asking why everyone has a problem with corporate-sponsored political ads, then go through the laundry list of issues of information sources that can't possibly be more biased, but are at least nominally supposed to be less biased?
Here's the second part: when they're putting out ads that are 100% match of a candidates position, it doesn't matter whether that they're not directly giving to a candidates campaign. They might as well, because the result is 100% the same.
Re: (Score:2)
If a specific candidate supports SOPA and world+dog outside of Hollywood (including the candidate's district) opposes it, advertising that fact will cause the candidate to lose votes.
What about if the world+dog outside of hollywood is largely unaware of SOPA, as is the case here?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Corporations are the government.
Fixed that for you. If it weren't for corporations' reckless control of the government, this wouldn't have happened.
Re:Slashdot readers are fucking bastards (Score:5, Funny)
[citation needed]