Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Rackspace: SOPA "Is a Deeply Flawed Piece of Legislation"

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the jumping-on-the-pile dept.

Piracy 213

hypnosec writes "Cloud-based hosting service provider Rackspace has joined the ever expanding list of companies that are opposed to the U.S. Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA). In a blog post, Rackspace CEO Lanham Napier said that the controversial bill, which will get its final vote before the House Judiciary Committee, will do more harm than good, punishing innocent users in the process. 'The SOPA bill, as it stands, is a deeply flawed piece of legislation. It is bad for anyone who uses the Internet, including Rackspace, the more than 160,000 business customers that we serve, and the tens of millions of retail customers that they serve. It is bad for job creation and innovation,' Napier wrote."

cancel ×

213 comments

Flawed? (4, Funny)

BronsCon (927697) | more than 2 years ago | (#38519966)

No shit?

Re:Flawed? (2, Funny)

BronsCon (927697) | more than 2 years ago | (#38520230)

I was going for funny, but redundant works, I guess.

Re:Flawed? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38520536)

Sherlock is just cranky today.

Re:Flawed? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38520690)

Flawed? No, shit!

Fixed that for you.

Nearly all laws are (5, Insightful)

reboot246 (623534) | more than 2 years ago | (#38519976)

Most all laws over the last few decades have been deeply flawed in some way. That's what you get when you elect idiots.

Re:Nearly all laws are (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38520030)

Or rather, that's what you get when your politicians can make promises of intent without any fear of being held accountable once elected.

Re:Nearly all laws are (5, Insightful)

reboot246 (623534) | more than 2 years ago | (#38520096)

Tell me about it! My Congressman is Spencer Bachus, one of the biggest crooks and liars in Washington. We're probably going to vote him out next year, but whoever replaces him will probably be just as bad.

I say "probably" because we have a lot of idiot voters, too.

Re:Nearly all laws are (3, Funny)

Nadaka (224565) | more than 2 years ago | (#38520342)

On the bright side, you could always get someone worse.

Re:Nearly all laws are (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38520570)

True, but the person who replaces him will not get to be the chair on any committee of any importance. It takes years of seniority, helped by having a incredibly safe district, to get the important positions before you can become a Grade A crook in DC.

Re:Nearly all laws are (4, Informative)

JustinKSU (517405) | more than 2 years ago | (#38520862)

My Kansas Senator is proposing an alternative: http://moran.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/news-releases?ID=4a3d7f95-6208-445f-9e25-2f290a334938 [senate.gov]

I haven't seen any detailed legislation, but assuming it does what it says it does, it would be nice if those against SOPA could put some weight behind this approach instead.

Re:Nearly all laws are (5, Insightful)

ColaMan (37550) | more than 2 years ago | (#38520386)

Oh they're not idiots.

They're very smart.

It's just that they have different goals to what you would like.

Re:Nearly all laws are (1)

Osgeld (1900440) | more than 2 years ago | (#38520948)

they are con-artists who are jerked around by the balls by big money, and too fucking stupid to notice

Re:Nearly all laws are (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38520968)

See Hanlon's Razor.

When politicians in a position of leadership are known for their continued repetition of failure, rather than a record of general social improvement and progress, it is safe to conclude that ineptness is winning the hand.

Re:Nearly all laws are (1, Insightful)

0123456 (636235) | more than 2 years ago | (#38520530)

Most all laws over the last few decades have been deeply flawed in some way. That's what you get when you elect idiots.

No, it's what you get when you let a bloated central government interfere with every aspect of your life.

Central planners almost always fsck up, even when they're acting with good intentions; when they get something right it's almost always by chance.

Re:Nearly all laws are (5, Insightful)

deblau (68023) | more than 2 years ago | (#38520622)

That's what happens when Congress is in the pocket of big business. Any good business person will tell you that you need recurring revenue. Congress does it through sunset provisions: "Oh, that law you really like is expiring soon? Well, maybe I can get an extension passed, but it'll cost lots of money to advance that ahead of extensions that other people want." It's really a racket.

and yet it will probably pass (1)

s1d3track3D (1504503) | more than 2 years ago | (#38519996)

yes, we all know it's bad, and yet it will probably pass

Re:and yet it will probably pass (5, Insightful)

erroneus (253617) | more than 2 years ago | (#38520470)

I don't know. We said the same thing about the AT&T buyout of T-Mobile. We all knew it was bad for competition. We all knew AT&T was lying to the government about it. And even when the truth leaked out, AT&T and various government people continued to push for it. It looked really bad. But there was LOTS of talk. It became very high profile. The added light and notice the issue got eventually killed the deal.

People need to continue shouting from the rooftops about SOPA.

One thing I have yet to see talked about is how laws like DMCA and the proposed SOPA continue to increasingly put police and government powers in the hands of non-government people... people who aren't otherwise accountable for their actions. It's a huge violation of government trust.

PR opportunity (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38520008)

I highly doubt Rackspace would have come out and said this if it wasn't for what GoDaddy is going through. If GoDaddy's public stance on supporting SOPA was supported by the IT/tech/informed community, I suspect Rackspace would be shouting, "hey, we support SOPA too!!!"

Maybe I'm a bit bias since I have had few positive experiences with Rackspace over the years?

Re:PR opportunity (4, Insightful)

sd4f (1891894) | more than 2 years ago | (#38520120)

I think it's just free publicity, like just look, they got on /.

Re:PR opportunity (2)

king neckbeard (1801738) | more than 2 years ago | (#38520196)

GoDaddy apparently had a material benefit in SOPA. It doesn't matter whether or not Rackspace is shitty, this cuts into their bottom line. Anyways, I'm glad they've publicly come out against it. We need all the help we can get in making sure that SOPA doesn't pass, and even if this is nothing more than lipservice PR, it's lipservice PR that makes SOPA appear less supported.

Re:PR opportunity (4, Interesting)

the_B0fh (208483) | more than 2 years ago | (#38520378)

Actually, if you're on Google Plus, you'll have seen that the CEO of RackSpace have been fighting SOPA for quite some time now.

Ugh (5, Insightful)

rwven (663186) | more than 2 years ago | (#38520012)

The most hilariously annoying part of this bill is that there's not a single sane citizen of this country who, when properly educated on the bill's impact, would vote for such a thing....yet the lunatics running this country will probably pass it right on through since they're in the chokehold of the industries and power mongers which DO want it.

If it's possible to lose any more faith in the people at the top, I certainly will if this is passed. I'll also cast opposing votes against any representatives who vote for it, regardless of party affiliation.

Re:Ugh (5, Interesting)

vlm (69642) | more than 2 years ago | (#38520062)

I'll also cast opposing votes against any representatives who vote for it, regardless of party affiliation.

Since both of the big parties are owned by the same people, I assume that you will only vote 3rd party from now on?

Voting D or R is throwing your vote away. The only valid way to vote is to vote for a 3rd party candidate. Or an "extremist" D or R... The only R I would currently consider voting for is Ron Paul and the only D I would consider voting for, if he runs for anything, is Feingold.

Re:Ugh (4, Interesting)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 2 years ago | (#38520104)

What is wrong with kucinich?

I can't bring myself to vote for Ron Paul. I do not believe he can keep himself from forcing his religious views on others once he gains some power. While I know he did not write it, putting your name on racist newsletters does not speak to his good judgement either.

Re:Ugh (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38520198)

So you don't vote for any candidate with a religious ideology? If you do you're a fucking hypocrite and/or a total retard.

Re:Ugh (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 2 years ago | (#38520262)

I attempt not to. It is hard to avoid though. In this case his beliefs are way out and center. To me that means he is more likely to let them sway his decisions.

Re:Ugh (4, Interesting)

Nadaka (224565) | more than 2 years ago | (#38520424)

Or you can go by his actual record. Where he has intentionally attempted to subvert the us constitution and remove the oversight of the supreme court over religious based state laws. If it had passed, states would have been free to violate individual civil liberties by endorsing specific state religions.

Yes. Ron Paul is an anti-constitutionalist, anti-libertarian (he only cares that the federal government is neutered, he loves the idea of the individual states violating peoples rights), a hypocrite, a liar, a theocrat and anti-American traitor.

Re:Ugh (0)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 2 years ago | (#38520576)

I find that very interesting. Do you know what bill this was? I would like to read more about it.

Re:Ugh (5, Informative)

Nadaka (224565) | more than 2 years ago | (#38520772)

One of them is the "We the People Act": http://www.independentamericanparty.org/2011/09/1949/ That is strait from the horses mouth.

See section 3. It boils down to forbidding the US supreme court from hearing cases on the constitutionality of state laws based on religion, abortion or sexual orientation discrimination. If it were in effect, each state could ban abortion in violation of roe vs wade or make homosexuality a felony. States could ban atheists, muslims, jews, mormons, catholics or even protestants from serving in public office without federal challenge among many many other backwards theocratic and anti-constitutional edicts.

I believe he has at least one other proposed law with similar effects.

Re:Ugh (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 2 years ago | (#38520854)

That does seem to be pretty terrible.

I wonder why that is not brought up by the media.

Re:Ugh (2)

Nadaka (224565) | more than 2 years ago | (#38521004)

Probably because until now he never had a shot at being the republican nominee. Ron Paul has a few good traits that have really stood out quite well in recent debates (mostly due to the majority of his competition being clinically retarded). But the really scary horrific shit, like his views on states rights, theocracy and foreign policy take some digging to find. Now I also believe his more well known economic policy is also scary horrific shit that will ruin the country, but that seems to be in vogue right now with most republicans.

Re:Ugh (2)

thunderclap (972782) | more than 2 years ago | (#38521094)

You do realize that if you actually read the federalist papers. he fits in with them. He is simply a founding father 200 yrs later. What amuses me is people are scared of Pat Robertson decrees while ignore the fact that the Muslim mullahs in Dearborn, MI are far worse and are as devout in their religion as he is. If I actually thought he had a hope pf winning I would vote for him, just to see the insanity. It would be no worse than now.

Re:Ugh (1)

ChodaBoyUSA (2532764) | more than 2 years ago | (#38520998)

Not taking either side of the debate, but you know that is how it used to be, right? The states could have a state religion and, unfortunately, discriminate against whomever they wished. Some argue that by allowing the Federal laws to overrule the state's laws, the states have lost much of their independence. We are the United States, as in many independent states that have united together. Like so many other topics, this one is not so "cut and dry" as it may seem. IMHO, Paul and Kucinich are lunatics, so no vote (or soup) for them.

Re:Ugh (2)

Nadaka (224565) | more than 2 years ago | (#38521088)

The states are "less independent" because states don't have the right to take away the liberties enshrined in the bill of rights from US citizens? Cry me a fucking river. It absolutely is cut and dry. Independence of the individual is the noble ideal of libertarianism, not independence of the state. And a federal government that protects the rights of its citizens from the trespasses of states is more libertarian than one that can do nothing as its people are enslaved one territory at a time.

Re:Ugh (1)

ChodaBoyUSA (2532764) | more than 2 years ago | (#38521204)

Unfortunately, not everyone agrees whether the U.S. Constitution protects things like homosexuality from discrimination. Although Congress shall not establish a religion, the states are/were free to do as they liked. Again, there is that slippery slope. If you allow the Government to interfere to control certain things, you are opening the door for the Government to control EVERYTHING. I sure don't have the solution.

Re:Ugh (2)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 2 years ago | (#38520638)

Yes. Ron Paul is an anti-constitutionalist, anti-libertarian..., a hypocrite, a liar, a theocrat and anti-American traitor.

...and still the best of the bunch. I will probably vote for him knowing that he won't win - but this time I will vote to send the message that I'm sick of the establishment's shit. I lost every bit of Hope and Change in mainstream candidates after Obama's reign.

We aren't going to be productive by votes, the system is too powerful and manipulative to allow that. We're gonna be productive by Sacking the traitors [huffingtonpost.com] from within.

Re:Ugh (1)

mrchaotica (681592) | more than 2 years ago | (#38520890)

...and still the best of the bunch.

What, in your opinion, makes Ron Paul better than Jon Huntsman?

Re:Ugh (3, Insightful)

element-o.p. (939033) | more than 2 years ago | (#38521102)

Yes. Ron Paul is an anti-constitutionalist, anti-libertarian (he only cares that the federal government is neutered, he loves the idea of the individual states violating peoples rights), a hypocrite, a liar, a theocrat and anti-American traitor.

Really? You think that because he maintains the position that the powers of government not enumerated in the Constitution are reserved for the states, Ron Paul is anti-Constitutionalist, a hypocrite, a liar and a traitor? Even though I can see how you might think that refusing to support a bill that might, in fact, be Libertarian and even good for the country on the basis that it requires the federal government to usurp a power that it does not legally have as being entirely a Bad Thing, I find it consistent with his philosophy of government, and even a Good Thing. There is a mechanism in place to grant power to the federal government that the Constitution does not already grant: it's called a Constitutional amendment. If the law really is that good, pass an amendment. If the amendment doesn't pass, then there's a pretty good chance that the value of the bill has not been adequately established. If the failure to pass such a bill means that individual states pass bad laws, well, at least it's easier to change a local government than a federal one. Furthermore, if a state law truly sucks that bad, it's far easier to move to another state than to another country. Depending upon where you live and where you move to, you might not even have to quit your job to move (even though I would...it's a heck of a commute to Alaska from anywhere else).

Re:Ugh (1)

Nadaka (224565) | more than 2 years ago | (#38521188)

The amendments have already been passed. The 14th for example, and it included the due process clause that under incorporation protects the rights of people from being infringed from the states. And Ron Paul does not agree with it.

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws

Re:Ugh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38520338)

Are you illiterate or something? The OP stated "I do not believe Ron Paul [not *anyone with a religious ideology*], can keep himself from forcing his religious views on others once he gains some power". That's the OP's opinion about Ron Paul and how he would handle newly attained power.

Re:Ugh (5, Insightful)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 2 years ago | (#38520374)

The problem is that, for a variety of reasons, American presidential candidates are obligated to be Christian and are kinda stuck pandering to religious morons - The clout of the shadowy Family [wikipedia.org] and attendance of their National Prayer Breakfast [wikipedia.org] is a good example.

Many of us believe in a god, or (like me) are outwardly atheist, but many of us who don't believe in a god claim a religion or denomination for reasons of family history(and, more specifically, the risk of being ostracized or written out of the lucrative will for angering the more traditional elders).

Ethanol-fueled, where is this rant going?

Religious people want censorship. The internet's free flow of information is anathema to their shackled minds and irrational fear of truth.

Re:Ugh (5, Interesting)

element-o.p. (939033) | more than 2 years ago | (#38521198)

Religious people want censorship. The internet's free flow of information is anathema to their shackled minds and irrational fear of truth.

Stereotype much? Yes, there are "religious" people who do -- and have done -- some pretty crappy things throughout history. There are "religious nutcases" who are certainly the "shackled minds" that you mention above. There are also those who claim religious affiliation (for more than purposes of securing a position in a will) who don't fit that mold -- those who are vocal Libertarians, who love science and technology and who abhor censorship. I am one. So are a number of my friends. Kindly refrain from confusing us with those who truly are as bad as you claim, 'kay? Thanks.

Re:Ugh (1)

vlm (69642) | more than 2 years ago | (#38520284)

What is wrong with kucinich?

He's 99% sane and logical, but that last 1% is crazy anti-gun nut, weird anti-free speech last century pre-internet era fan of the fairness doctrine, and even worse he's an anti-nuke nut. I suppose he's probably more sane, more often, than I am, on average, so as much as some of his beliefs really stink, I would certainly vote for him as a distant 3rd choice after RP and Feingold, if RP and/or Feingold were not on the ballot.

The sad part is if the other D's and R's were sane rational statesmen, he would not be worth considering, but, of course, they're not, which places him as one of the best choices, which is the sad part.

I do really like his outlook on foreign military misadventure, and as a prez he's probably got a heck of a lot more impact as CinC on that, than he does in trying to eliminate the 1st amendment on /. when discussing politics, or trying to shut down all the nukes which would basically perma-blackout the country.

I'll give you that both Kucinich and RP are nutty about things they would have little control over and could never implement from the executive office, but both are pretty reasonable about the stuff they actually could do.

Re:Ugh (1)

king neckbeard (1801738) | more than 2 years ago | (#38520308)

Separating his personal views from his political philosophy is Ron Paul's thing, though.

Re:Ugh (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 2 years ago | (#38520396)

I flatly do not believe that. Perhaps he is capable of that, but I don't think so.

I would vote for near anyone as the lessor of two evils. I voted for Obama to keep fascist grandpa and hillbilly barbie out of power. Had McCain run the 2008 campaign as he did the 2000 race I might have been convinced to select him as the lessor of two evils.

Re:Ugh (4, Insightful)

vlm (69642) | more than 2 years ago | (#38520446)

I don't think you get how this works.

Two candidates are proposed, both owned by the same corporations planning to support identical policies.

You apparently really hate the marketing message the R people used, but that doesn't mean they would have done anything different.

Oh sure, they would have attended twice as many prayer breakfasts, and half as many MLK parades, but I'm not thinking the end result would be any different.

Standard /. car analogy is its like getting all emotional about cars because the Saturn was a really nice car but the commercials suck so you bought a Toyota which is also a really nice car and thinking its important that the Toyota tv commercials don't suck as much.

Re:Ugh (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 2 years ago | (#38520562)

I don't think it goes quite that far. They are both bought and sold to the 1%/corporatists/whatever but outside what those folks want they are a little different.

Re:Ugh (1)

king neckbeard (1801738) | more than 2 years ago | (#38520488)

His record seems to confirm it. He's been very open about ending the war on drugs, and allowing pretty much anything at the federal level.

Re:Ugh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38520770)

Exactly, its call federalism and is what this country was founded on. Have few laws at the federal level and let the states manage themselves. If you don't like the way your state is going, likely there will be another you can move to which has a more favorable climate to you. As it stands, we've let the nanny state form and every "crisis" requires a federal law, which is bullcrap.

Re:Ugh (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38520346)

Ron Paul has disavowed those letters. Isn't the saying "Actions speak louder than words" mean anything? especially if you cannot prove that those where his words. And as much as he believes his faith, he always votes for the Constitution and freedom first. There are many things to judge a person's ability to uphold an office, personal matters of theirs (ex. religion) are not one of them, and things they did when first starting out to be a politician (ex, let a ghost writer or an untrustworthy person write letters under your name) is most certainly not one. You do not get angry at a child for earnestly learning to play the piano or scold them for their past ability to play.

Also, atheist here.

Re:Ugh (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 2 years ago | (#38520438)

I did not claim otherwise. He allowed them to be printed with his name on them. Either he showed poor judgement in putting his name on such filth, or he never read it and showed even worse judgement.

Personal matters are something to judge someone on., when the odds are they would impact their performance in the task at hand.

Re:Ugh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38520372)

Contrary to popular tripe, a President does not run our nation. So without a doubt, the most extreme notions of Ron Paul are only worth discussing if you're an idiot. This basically leaves controversial stuff such as deregulation. Which is ironic in that he claims we need more deregulation when in fact, industry is extremely deregulated already and we can draw a directly line between deregulation and rampant fraud which caused this world economic downturn. The flip side of that is, there is a lot of sanity that does come out of his mouth.

Of the candidates known so far, Paul is the only option. Which is not to say its my preference.

And if you EVER supported Cane, please kill yourself. You'd be doing the gene pool and this current generation of humanity a huge favor.

Beyond that, the gp is absolutely right. Voting convention D or R is absolutely a vote for morons and is begging to maintain the status quo of literal theft, graft, murder, and money laundering which permeates Washington today.

Re:Ugh (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 2 years ago | (#38520546)

I honestly cannot take any of the Republican candidates seriously. Cain might be one of the worst in your eyes, but Perry executed an innocent man, Gingrich is clearly pandering to the worst rightwing fascist fringes, and the rest make their entire debate arguments out of lies and faslehoods.

Re:Ugh (4, Interesting)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | more than 2 years ago | (#38520616)

I can't bring myself to vote for Ron Paul. I do not believe he can keep himself from forcing his religious views on others once he gains some power.

1) Wouldn't being a congressman for 30+ years qualify as "some power?" That said, you would think if he was going to abuse it he would have done so by now.

2) Paul is the only candidate who rabidly (or seemingly at all, for that matter) adheres to the concept that the U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land; in that, the Constitution guarantees religious freedom. Paul also abhors the concept of "executive privilege," i.e. the practice of letting the President do whatever he wants and civil liberties be damned, so it therefore stands to reason that Ron Paul would honor the Constitution and thus not impose his ideals of religion on the masses.

3) There are more people involved in the American legislative process than just the President; contrary to modern belief, there exists a system of checks and balances [wikipedia.org] that, when honored and followed, prevent unconstitutional legislation from becoming law. I know it's pretty passe these days to talk about responsible governance in accordance with the Constitution, but that is exactly the ideology Paul embraces.

As for the accusations regarding RP and the "racist newsletter," I say meh; I didn't get sucked into the whole "Jeremiah Wright hates America So That Means Obama Does Too" non-story, and I intend on patently ignoring this one as well.

Cheers!

Re:Ugh (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 2 years ago | (#38520672)

1) More power more corruption. He also seems happy to let states ban abortion for instance. I believe that interferes with personal freedom.

2) I don't believe that. I might be wrong.

3) It seems these days checks and balances are a thing of the past. For recent examples see the bailouts and middle east adventures.

Obama did not let Mr.Wright print his name on those rantings. Being seen with crazy people is quite different than putting your name on their musings. Either he agreed with this filth or he never read it. Neither speaks well of him.

Re:Ugh (1)

jamstar7 (694492) | more than 2 years ago | (#38520678)

What is wrong with kucinich?

Other than he's a total loon?

He did some crazy shit as mayor of Cleveland back in the day.

Re:Ugh (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 2 years ago | (#38520722)

And Ron Paul is not?
He thinks gold, which is a commodity, is the same thing as money.

Please do elaborate about this "crazy shit" that kucinich did as mayor of Cleveland. Should at least be good for a laugh.

Re:Ugh (1)

OutSourcingIsTreason (734571) | more than 2 years ago | (#38520406)

In the year 2000, there were 10,000 Floridians who thought that Al Gore wasn't liberal enough, so they voted 3rd party for Ralph Nader instead. As Rick Perry would say, "Oops."

How to choose (1)

DanielRavenNest (107550) | more than 2 years ago | (#38520648)

Vote for the guy who has taken the least in bribes, I mean "campaign contributions", from corporations. It's easy enough to find out how much from third party sites like http://www.opensecrets.org/ [opensecrets.org]

Re:Ugh (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38520234)

The aristocracy is quite sane. They simply have different values than you do, as a result of their position of being a whole lot richer and more powerful than you ever will be.

Re:Ugh (3, Insightful)

jamstar7 (694492) | more than 2 years ago | (#38520486)

Of course this bill will pass overwhelmingly. It's an attempt to centralise and monopolise a decentralised and antimonopolistic service. Those who bought and paid for this bill won't be satisfied until the only way to get any kind of content off the net is after you pull out your credit card. Forget about content creation, if you're not a big buck studio, you won't have a seat at the table anymore.

And don't scream too loudly if any of your ideas are ripped off by Big Bizz to make a buck off of. The true citizens of the US (multinational corporations) have certainly gotten their money'sworth this time. Until an individual can amass the cash that a multinational can, their voice does not matter.

Doesn't matter, the fix is in (5, Insightful)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 2 years ago | (#38520020)

Obama and most of the Democratic Party are owned by the big Hollywood studios. The Republican Party is owned by big business in general. The only reason this hasn't passed already (without even a public debate) is that Google and a handful of other big players are fighting it. But even Google is a relatively small fish in this money game.

As for those of us without deep pockets--well save yourself that stamp on a letter to your Congressman.

Re:Doesn't matter, the fix is in (4, Insightful)

vlm (69642) | more than 2 years ago | (#38520080)

Democratic Party are owned by the big Hollywood studios. The Republican Party is owned by big business

Those are two sides of the same coin.

Re:Doesn't matter, the fix is in (4, Insightful)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 2 years ago | (#38520270)

yes - BUT - the R party is also owned by Big Religion.

that is their permanent (until they decide to change this) handicap.

there may be some small good points that the R's have but the fact that they sold their souls to the american taliban (christian right extremists) means I could never vote for any of them, on that principle, alone. the party is too tainted by that one controlling force.

remove that force (it was not always embedded in the R point of view) and then we might have a valid 2 party system. but right now, we have a religious party, a whichever-way-the-wind-blows party and that's pretty much it. neither is worth voting for. both are owned by big business; just different ones.

Re:Doesn't matter, the fix is in (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38520212)

Easy fix. Just do what we do in Canada. Make it illegal. Although golfing is still legal.

Re:Doesn't matter, the fix is in (4, Insightful)

andydread (758754) | more than 2 years ago | (#38520222)

Its unfortunate truth you speak unfortunately. Joe Biden is the biggest whore for Hollywood MPAA and RIAA in washington along with Orin Hatch and Berman from California. Just go look up his record when he was in the senate. one shudders....

Re:Doesn't matter, the fix is in (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38520240)

Google could kill this dead if they wanted to play dirty. Imagine all Google-owned services (Search and Youtube in particular) being replaced for a day by an explanation of SOPA urging people to call their respective congresscritters and tell them to send this thing where the sun don't shine. If the politicians are convinced voting for this thing is absolute political suicide they won't care how much campaign donations the MPAA gives them.

Re:Doesn't matter, the fix is in (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38520258)

But even Google is a relatively small fish in this money game.

Actually, Larry and Sergei could buy all of the movie and music studios with their personal money. I'm not even saying Google could buy them (which obviously, it could), but I'm saying Larry and Sergei could.

The entertainment industry is actually not that big, in terms of economic impact. They just have a huge soap box by virtue of what they do, so it appears they are bigger than they are.

Re:Doesn't matter, the fix is in (3, Insightful)

king neckbeard (1801738) | more than 2 years ago | (#38520332)

But Google is actually bigger than Hollywood. They just don't spend as much on lobbying because their business model is based largely on being left alone, while Hollywood's business model currently depends on having the government tell others what they can't do.

Corporate support is crumbling (5, Interesting)

cultiv8 (1660093) | more than 2 years ago | (#38520058)

Interesting paragraph in this article [politico.com] from politico:

“The dynamic is clear. Once SOPA — and its Senate counterpart, Protecting IP Act, or PIPA — became high-profile among the Internet community, the lazy endorsements from companies and various hangers-on became toxic. And now, those supporters are scrambling, hollowing out the actual support for the bill. Suddenly, a bill with ‘widespread’ corporate support doesn’t have much support at all,” Dayden said.

Doublespeak/Equivocation (1, Troll)

Midnight_Falcon (2432802) | more than 2 years ago | (#38520084)

While Rackspace here says that SOPA is a flawed piece of legislation (jumping on the bandwagon after seeing the turmoil caused for GoDaddy in the blog and geekospheres), it leaves the door open for them to support future, similar acts when that becomes fashionable or serves to make them money.
Coming out now and making a public statement in support would be suicide for their business, especially their cloud hosting business that has a lot more tech-savvy and SOPA-conscious customers than GoDaddy's services like wordpress hosting etc.
But at the end of the day, if anyone sends Rackspace a subpoena or DMCA letter, they knee-jerk right into compliance and give what they want. They don't have a policy of fighting things like Twitter (which is of arguable utility), and have no history of using their legal resources to do anything but guarantee business continuity.
Rackspace is not known a company with any strong moral, ethical or other principles, it's just out there for profit, and it says what is fashionable for profit at the time.

Re:Doublespeak/Equivocation (1)

vlm (69642) | more than 2 years ago | (#38520136)

it says what is fashionable

Yet, as bad as you make it sound, its the closest that any non-corporate entity in the US will ever get to providing input to our leaders/owners.

If the only voice we have is not philosophically consistent, at least it IS a voice against an otherwise our otherwise non-representative government.

Re:Doublespeak/Equivocation (4, Insightful)

Midnight_Falcon (2432802) | more than 2 years ago | (#38520202)

How about what Google is doing, paying lobbying groups and using lots of their resources to actively campaign against SOPA?

What Would Happen... (5, Interesting)

IonOtter (629215) | more than 2 years ago | (#38520112)

Serious question for consideration:

What would happen if the "big players", such as Level 3, Verizon, Google and the like came out and said, "If you pass this legislation, we are turning off all of our equipment. We will back up our servers, send our customers their data, rip out the equipment, sell it for scrap, leave the wires hanging, sell our buildings and retire to the Caribbean. If you pass this, we won't be able to do our jobs, so we will simply quit and leave you with nothing to legislate. Good luck suing us, because you'll be back to typewriters, pens and wired telephones."

Totally NOT going to happen, but as an exercise in thought, would it be possible?

Could a company as big and powerful as Google hold the world hostage with nothing more than a power switch?

Re:What Would Happen... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38520218)

Could a company as big and powerful as Google hold the world hostage with nothing more than a power switch?

No. As much as Slashdotters like to deify Google, it has no power in this way. If it pulls out, the name will be reclaimed by some wannabe search engine within hours. If it holds in and just keeps a page up of 'Due to SOPA, Google is dead,' it will be replaced in the public mind in less than a week.

Re:What Would Happen... (1)

youn (1516637) | more than 2 years ago | (#38520414)

That would probably be bing... their numbers have been increasing quite a bit

Re:What Would Happen... (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38520224)

See, this is where the whole "the U.S. says corporations are people" meme falls apart. Level 3, Verizon and Google aren't people who can suddenly say "fuck this, we are going to the Carribean." They are nominally accountable to shareholders (who are people, or are institutions like CalPERS who help people) who would raise a metric shitfit if these businesses suddenly said "we are thriving now, we will probably still thrive after, but we think it is time to scrap everything." And that will land some decisionmakers in jail.

Re:What Would Happen... (2)

CyprusBlue113 (1294000) | more than 2 years ago | (#38520236)

No, because these are public companies, and their executives would be personally liable for the damage to the stock by this kind of action.

Re:What Would Happen... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38520326)

their executives would be personally liable for the damage to the stock by this kind of action.

The executive's job is not to do what is profitable, but to do what the shareholders want. Sure, that's nearly always the same -- but if the shareholders assembly decided to hold the world hostage, that's what the executives would have to do.

Re:What Would Happen... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38520768)

Not if they say "Uh, hey, our business model became illegal when this legislation was passed" or otherwise demonstrate it's not them *them* damaging the stock.

Re:What Would Happen... (5, Insightful)

itchythebear (2198688) | more than 2 years ago | (#38520252)

Interesting thought, but as has been pointed out before, they don't actually care what happens to the internet. The Govt will fund a Govt only network (if they need it) and big media will finally not have to worry about people illegally downloading their "product" and can go back to charging 20 bucks for a CD and forcing television down everyone's throats.

Yet more proof of how little our representatives care about us eh?

Re:What Would Happen... (2)

itchythebear (2198688) | more than 2 years ago | (#38520280)

they don't actually care what happens to the internet

clarification: they == politicians

Re:What Would Happen... (5, Funny)

king neckbeard (1801738) | more than 2 years ago | (#38520360)

Yeah, the government and the studios don't care, but the public does. If the internet is shut down, Americans can't get their porn. And if Americans can't get their porn, they'll bring out their guns.

Re:What Would Happen... (1)

jamstar7 (694492) | more than 2 years ago | (#38521068)

The Govt will fund a Govt only network (if they need it)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARPANET [wikipedia.org] Been done. Some of us have a short sense of history.

And what they did before, they can do again, especially if it has the Disney(tm) logo on it.

Re:What Would Happen... (5, Interesting)

Zocalo (252965) | more than 2 years ago | (#38520296)

Well, since we're playing what if... In Google's case they wouldn't actually need to throw the switch, just have a search equivalent of the Black Out day Jimmy Wales proposed for Wikipedia. Let's say you are coming from a US based IP address. You go to Google and enter a search, but get... No results, just some ads down the side of the screen and a message saying something to the effect of:

If enacted, SOPA and PIPA could be used to force us not to display links that might infringe copyright or face criminal sanctions. Since we can't determine that automatically, here's what is safe for us to display.

Click here for what non-US based netizens (i.e. your competitors) would see via our non-US based "affiliates", or here for more info on these two acts currently under consideration.

Needless to say, clicking the link would return the normal links, and second set of ads providing move revenue for Google, so there's an incentive there and the resultant uproar would be... entertaining.

Re:What Would Happen... (1)

Brainman Khan (1330847) | more than 2 years ago | (#38521114)

The chance of google shutting down for a day in protest against our government is probably the exact same chance of ICE or DHS taking googles domain name for linking to protected and terrorist links.

Re:What Would Happen... (1)

harl (84412) | more than 2 years ago | (#38520618)

What would happen?

Congress calls their bluff. They pass the bill. They know those companies are going to do no such thing.

Re:What Would Happen... (4, Interesting)

DanielRavenNest (107550) | more than 2 years ago | (#38520680)

That would not happen, but it would be possible to delist supporters of SOPA from search engines, and refuse them hosting, network connections, etc. If they are trying to destroy your business, there is no rule that says you have to do business with them.

A nice change for Rackspace (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38520256)

I remember back in 2004 when Rackspace turned over entire hard drives to the FBI that contained data for Indymedia websites as part of a terrorism investigation. The FBI only wanted copies of logs, but Rackspace I suppose wanted to go the extra mile.

http://jebba.blagblagblag.org/?p=175

Wait!! (-1, Redundant)

M0j0_j0j0 (1250800) | more than 2 years ago | (#38520294)

Nooo, to the obvious cave!!!!

Politicians or Money (4, Insightful)

andydread (758754) | more than 2 years ago | (#38520312)

Lets face it. The problem is money in politics. When the RIAA and MPAA come knocking with oodles of cash to help get congress critters elected how can they refuse? The only way to solve this problem and much of the problem with Washington is to thoughtfully and radically remove money from politics. Until that is done the politicians will just keep on promising the people and delivering to the corporations with the fattest wallet.

Re:Politicians or Money (2)

Endo13 (1000782) | more than 2 years ago | (#38520474)

Which will never happen, because the people who could make that happen are the same ones collecting the money.

Re:Politicians or Money (4, Insightful)

phorm (591458) | more than 2 years ago | (#38520496)

Money (cash)
Promises of cushy jobs after your term is up.
Fancy dinners/events
etc
etc
How exactly would one go about removing it all from the equation. Block one way and they'll find another, and no politician is going to vote against his/her ability to receive favours...

Re:Politicians or Money (1)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | more than 2 years ago | (#38520504)

The only way to solve this problem and much of the problem with Washington is to thoughtfully and radically remove money from politics. Until that is done the politicians will just keep on promising the people and delivering to the corporations with the fattest wallet.

If that were done, the politicians would just keep on promising to the people and delivering to the corporations that own the most TV stations and newspapers.

Or did you really think that "the media" is unbiased, in spite of them being owned by the same people you spend most of your time excoriating?

Re:Politicians or Money (1, Insightful)

0123456 (636235) | more than 2 years ago | (#38520594)

The only way to solve this problem and much of the problem with Washington is to thoughtfully and radically remove money from politics.

No, the way to fix it is to remove _POWER_ from politics. If government is limited to things that only government can do (e.g. courts, military, etc) then you don't need to worry about it making crazy laws that will destroy things it knows nothing about; if government interferes in every aspect of your life, you can guarantee it will fsck things up.

It won't punish the users (1)

houghi (78078) | more than 2 years ago | (#38520388)

The users of that law are the MAFIAA.All others are irrelevant.

Something not mentioned.... (5, Insightful)

dcigary (221160) | more than 2 years ago | (#38520462)

Rackspace is a large constituent of Lamar Smith's District 21 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Texas.21st.Congressional.District.gif) as they are headquartered in San Antonio, Texas. Having this large of an employer in his own district against the legislation should be a big wake-up call to Rep. Smith.

Re:Something not mentioned.... (1)

Insightfill (554828) | more than 2 years ago | (#38521216)

Having this large of an employer in his own district against the legislation should be a big wake-up call to Rep. Smith.

There was a past interview with a Senator - I believe Chuck Grassley - who said in a TV interview that he would vote against his state's interests if the party said so.

Party unity and marching orders over local needs.

It really is a matter of "when" (1)

Turnerj (2478588) | more than 2 years ago | (#38521226)

From the looks of it and from other comments about SOPA on the internet, one way or another this will be brought in. What can we actually do once it is brought in to get around the problems of the law? It sounds more than just changing your DNS information to still access the sites taken down. Wasn't the law talking about actually bringing down the business (ie. youtube for copyright)? Is it just a matter of "bringing down the business" is just blocking domain name resolutions of "youtube.com" or actually removing all youtube servers?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...