Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Censorship Piracy The Internet Your Rights Online Politics

Viacom's SOPA/PIPA Pitch Video, Annotated 177

Lauren Weinstein writes "Viacom has just released a video calling for support of global Internet censorship via SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act) and PIPA (Protect IP Act). A truth annotated version of this approximately seven-minute video is now available." Reader quantumplacet writes with word that the Business Software Alliance (probably for reasons other than this video) has withdrawn its support for SOPA, claiming that "Valid and important questions have been raised about the bill." Writes quantumplacet: "While the BSA has a long history of focusing on the worst offenders and mostly ignoring casual piracy, this still represents a dramatic turnaround as the organization has been a SOPA supporter since the act's inception. BSA President Robert Hollyman posted on the company blog that 'Due process, free speech, and privacy are rights that cannot be compromised. ....Some observers have raised reasonable questions about whether certain SOPA provisions might have unintended consequences in these areas.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Viacom's SOPA/PIPA Pitch Video, Annotated

Comments Filter:
  • by elrous0 ( 869638 ) * on Tuesday November 22, 2011 @10:31AM (#38135178)

    How many times now have similar bills died, only to be reintroduced under more and more bizarrely inaccurate names? Next time I suspect they'll call it the "Stop Online Pedophiles Act" and use the argument that it can be used to combat child predators. After all, you don't want to support pedophiles *DO YOU*?

    I propose a law that mandates that laws introduced in the future can only be called by their official Congressional letter-number designation. I'm calling it the "Super-Patriot I-Love-America Act."

  • How long till (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Dyinobal ( 1427207 ) on Tuesday November 22, 2011 @10:52AM (#38135460)
    So how long until the corporate masters send a take down notice to youtube for that "obviously" infringing video.
  • by Jason Levine ( 196982 ) on Tuesday November 22, 2011 @10:52AM (#38135472) Homepage

    Either that, or they'll use the "feed the dog a pill" approach. First, they'll chop SOPA up into component parts. Next, they'll hide pieces of it into must-pass legislation. "We need to pass this emergency bill to help those poor flood victims. [mumbled tone]and require ISPs to block whatever websites we tell them to[/mumble]. You don't hate flood victims, do you?" This will keep us from noticing it until much or all of it is already law. Or, at least, that's what the SOPA proponents would hope to achieve. Hopefully, enough eyes will be on those non-related riders to sniff out these hidden pills.

  • by TWX ( 665546 ) on Tuesday November 22, 2011 @10:59AM (#38135570)

    Heh. I'm no supporter of Herman Cain, but there is some merit in wanting bills to be shorter and plainer in their language. I would support requiring the entire text of a bill to be read out loud either in committee or on the main chamber floor with a quorum present before a vote on it can be called. That might shorten the bills a bit...

  • by Lumpy ( 12016 ) on Tuesday November 22, 2011 @11:06AM (#38135668) Homepage

    "You don't hate flood victims, do you?"

    Well, looking at what happened with Katrina... Yes, the Congress does in fact hate flood victims.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 22, 2011 @11:19AM (#38135848)

    Disagree, we stopped this iteration of the bill with nothing more than a wave of emails. Congresscritters hate it when they think people are paying attention. All we need to do is - pay attention.

  • by TheRaven64 ( 641858 ) on Tuesday November 22, 2011 @11:25AM (#38135918) Journal

    And Viacom, you allow to watch me Colbert Report for free on your own damn website. With ads.

    They don't allow me to watch it, because I'm not in the USA. But if I watched it on some other site then I would still count towards their however-many-billion statistic of people watching it illegally. The Daily Show and the Colbert Report are both things I'd probably pay to be able to stream / download (without ads or DRM), but Viacom would rather bitch about piracy and try to get laws passed to make it even more illegal than it already is than sell me what I want. Their video made the point that content is a product - perhaps someone should point out that you only make money from products if you're willing to sell it to potential customers...

  • Re:Annotations... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by gallondr00nk ( 868673 ) on Tuesday November 22, 2011 @11:25AM (#38135928)

    I hope I'm not the only one who was gravely disappointed with these "nuh-uh!"-style counterpoints. Rather than "and yet the film industry made record profits", let's drop some actual numbers. If our premise - that these guys have failed to make their case to support SOPA - is correct, then all of the world's facts should back us up.

    Precisely this. Far too many arguments and debates simply turn into dogmatic slanging matches, where both sides make meaningless assertions without taking any time to construct a reasonable argument. If SOPA is as bad as people say there should be piles of ammunition to use against it.

    Why aren't people challenging these figures about piracy and demanding to see the factual evidence? Why aren't people combing the industry produced literature on the subject and pointing out blatant corruptions of fact and any absurdities within them? Why aren't people producing counter proposals and statistics for the change they would like to see?

    The way to win an argument is to make your opponent's position untenable by the use of factual information and well versed, coherent debate. Not to simply scream in their face louder than they scream in yours, which plays into their hands. Fight your battles on higher intellectual ground!

  • Re:Annotations... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by LordLimecat ( 1103839 ) on Tuesday November 22, 2011 @12:10PM (#38136540)

    You can't counter emotive appeals with facts. While it may be logically sound and correct, people don't care about logic and correctness.

    The only proper way to expose half-truths and emotional BS is to clearly show why theyre half-truths and BS. Responding with your own BS just makes people realize that noone is capable of rational discussion anymore, and causes both sides to lose credibility.

  • by rnturn ( 11092 ) on Tuesday November 22, 2011 @12:30PM (#38136876)

    Yeah, right. Like the corporate drafters of SOPA didn't consider how it would make virtually anything done beyond passively viewing their content a felony. They'll deny it , of course, but they know full well that a prosecutor would be able twist the provisions of SOPA to fit anything they want to nail someone.

    "Ah, puny citizen... you are charged with violating section 27.1.14 of the EULA that was updated on the vendor's website six months after you last read it. How do you plead?"

    Think that won't happen?

If I had only known, I would have been a locksmith. -- Albert Einstein