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!

cancel ×

179 comments

Sorry, but fuck you. (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38683968)

We still don't want it even with an amendments.

Re:Sorry, but fuck you. (5, Insightful)

Xanny (2500844) | more than 2 years ago | (#38684038)

I know it is drony and hive minded and all that other jazz, but let us be honest: those in congress do not care if you want this bill or not. They just want it passed, so they get their payout by big media for passing it. They barely know how to use email because they are all ancient farts, but they are not ignorant - they know this law is destroying the most open medium of communication and exchange of information in history, and for politicians, it is a bad thing - educated and informed people will decide representatives based on their voting records, rather than talking points, and they want anything but to be held accountable.

SOPA / PIPA / NDAA all show the true colors of our political system in the USA - paid for by corporations, and always against the interests of the people, because career politicians need ways to keep people ignorant, voting for them, and preferably, not voting at all. The fewer people vote, the smaller their message needs to be, the less they need to spend on campaigning, and the more they can pocket. And then they can get paid off day after day by big business to pass laws completely against the spirit of America, freedom, and entrepreneurship (hello hundred year copyright) and sit on their laurels waiting for the next election cycle to talk about abortion, illegal immigrants, and nebulous "jobs" and who is making more "jobs".

I know I'm extremely hypocritical about saying it, because honestly, I do not want to inconvenience myself to change a broken political system I have inherited from hundreds of years of Americans. I want change to happen without having to make sacrifices for it. I want government to be run the way I want, even though I have no political experience. But we are losing our freedoms and we have lost our representation, so unless someone much better than myself, and much braver than myself, will step up (along with millions of other better, braver people) out of the woodwork to fix the broken system, we are just going downhill. And talking about it on the internet accomplishes nothing.

Re:Sorry, but fuck you. (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38684126)

The fewer people vote, the smaller their message needs to be, the less they need to spend on campaigning, and the more they can pocket

So you recommend that people grudgingly continue to vote for the fossilized farts who don't represent them just to inconvenience them? Do you understand that by casting a vote you legitimize the system, so whatever corrupt dickhead wins the election can point to the results and say "See, most Americans voted, therefore I'm what the people really want!". Make your displeasure known, it's the only way to show how disillusioned you are with the current "one-party" political system.

Re:Sorry, but fuck you. (4, Insightful)

ByOhTek (1181381) | more than 2 years ago | (#38684456)

And by not casting a vote, allow the system to roll over you without saying anything. The politicians don't care if the people legitimize the system, as long as they get their money and power.

At least, by casting a vote, you can nudge the system in the right direction. It's a lot more than what you would get by not voting.

Re:Sorry, but fuck you. (1)

luther349 (645380) | more than 2 years ago | (#38684514)

as long as you voting for a new party. if your just choosing the same from the same corrupted coin just the different side your not helping. yes i rather toss a 3rd party vote in the mix yes they will never be enough votes for a 3rd party because most amarcans wile poor unemployed and on welfare vote for the same shits that made it that way.

Re:Sorry, but fuck you. (2)

CarboRobo (1932000) | more than 2 years ago | (#38685614)

This is all bullshit anyway. The proposed amendment doesn't remove anything from the bill - just postpones the worst bit until after the bill is passed!!!

Re:Sorry, but fuck you. (5, Insightful)

smpoole7 (1467717) | more than 2 years ago | (#38684542)

> And by not casting a vote, allow the system to roll over you without saying anything

Sad, but true. For Congress Creatures(tm), it's all about obtaining the numbers for re-election. If you're disgusted and inclined to vote against them, they *hope* you *won't* vote. Their strategists will say, "we'll lose support on this one, but after all, we have time before the next election. We have a war chest and can afford $$$$ TV and radio ads. We can get our base back [by opposing the war] / [supporting the war] / [being pro-choice] / [being pro-life] / whatever. We'll run negative ads to attack our opponent. And if we can demoralize the opposition, make them believe that their vote is pointless, so much the better."

A high turnout ALWAYS sends a message, even if they're re-elected. If your Creature was re-elected by a 10% margin in the previous election, but pulls out a squeaker in this one -- especially if he/she sees a good bit if his/her "base" go for a third party candidate -- it will make him or her think.

Hopefully, anyway. :)

Re:Sorry, but fuck you. (3, Interesting)

TFAFalcon (1839122) | more than 2 years ago | (#38684736)

And what if you also disagree with the other major candidate? Voting for him will make it look like you support him. And voting for a 3rd (or 99th) party candidate will not make any difference. Do you think a candidate will be worried if he wins with only gets 10% of the vote, as long as all the other candidates each get less then 1%. He'll point at the results and yell about he has more then ten times the support of his opponents.

As long as there is not a minimum % of the votes a candidate must get to win then any 3rd party votes ARE wasted. If there was a requirement that a candidate must win at least (for example) 40% of the votes, then voting against them (or just turning in a blank ballot) would make sense.

Re:Sorry, but fuck you. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38685388)

Voting for the marginal competitor will definitely make more difference then not voting at all, it will send a message.

Re:Sorry, but fuck you. (2)

Gideon Wells (1412675) | more than 2 years ago | (#38685026)

Back in 2006 this was my ballot:

Bob Casey - Senator - D: Co-sponsor of PIPA: http://sopatrack.com/congressperson/C001070-sen-bob-casey [sopatrack.com]
vs
Rick Santorum - Senator Incumbent - R: Watch the news to see what he is up to.

We set a record for the highest out-voting of a candidate since 1980 in getting rid of Santorum. It sent a signal. It helped get us PIPA. Well, it'd still be here. Santorum would still have voted for PIPA.

Except for PIPA and the NDAA, Casey was the preferable option by far.

Re:Sorry, but fuck you. (1, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#38685400)

For Congress Creatures(tm), it's all about obtaining the numbers for re-election. If you're disgusted and inclined to vote against them, they *hope* you *won't* vote.

You have two options. You can either vote for someone who could possibly win, or not. Whether you vote for someone who can't win or vote for no one at all doesn't really make a difference. If you vote for someone who could win, you might legitimately knock the congressperson out of his seat. But what have you done? You've just elected someone who shares at least 99% of the same positions as the guy you were disgusted with.

And this is how they get us. Voting Democrat is an endorsement of 99% of the Republican platform. And vice versa. Vote third party or don't vote at all. Voting for either major party is throwing your vote away.

Re:Sorry, but fuck you. (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 2 years ago | (#38685756)

how about directly ignoring the system ?

Re:Sorry, but fuck you. (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 2 years ago | (#38685504)

No, voting does not "legitimize the system" if you don't vote for the person who wins. Not voting allows the person to win by a larger margin. Rather, if you are fed up with politics vote for the candidate you believe in even if it is a candidate that has no chance of getting elected. Vote Libertarian, vote Green, vote Constitution, heck, vote for the Socialist Equality Party if you believe in that.

Those in power want votes. By spreading a message that you don't vote, there is no hope for any change because they are simply going to ignore you. But if you vote for a candidate that actually stands for what you believe in they see that there are people unhappy with the 2 party system. Simply a low voter turnout just means that people are uninterested in politics. Complaining about the system but doing nothing to stop it is silly. Complaining about Obama but not having registered a vote against him makes no sense (assuming of course you were legally able to vote but chose not to). Complaining about congress and the "Protect IP Act" makes no sense if you didn't do your part to vote for someone who sides with your conscience.

I can say that I took a stand against the (essentially) 1 party system and did my part to prevent the protect IP, PATRIOT act and every other piece of tyrannical legislation passed since I've been legally able to vote. Of course this doesn't mean that the candidate I voted for won, but at the end of the day if asked if I just stood idly around while the US fell into a police state I can look my children/grandchildren in the eye and tell them honestly that I opposed every bit of it.

Not voting sends absolutely no message to any candidate. Imagine if libertarians decided simply not to participate in politics, instead of having major debates and a libertarian candidate (Dr. Ron Paul) in the headlines, instead there would be only support for the "establishment" candidates. Regardless of what you think of the libertarian political philosophy, you have to admire the fact that it has gone mainstream because of people who have consistently voted against the one party system and who haven't chosen the "least evil" of the evil.

Re:Sorry, but fuck you. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38685880)

Vote for independent and/or out of the box candidates. And don't say they are all the same, that is like buying broken TVs after broken TVs and saying you wont try another brand because "its all the same"..

Re:Sorry, but fuck you. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38684174)

Can't wait for the Martian colonies to get started...

Re:Sorry, but fuck you. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38684340)

I" know I'm extremely hypocritical" "And talking about it on the internet accomplishes nothing."

Not to mention redundant.

Re:Sorry, but fuck you. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38684394)

In America, we were given an unusual amount of freedom (and the Constitution was the beginning of the end for slavery in America). But, we had one responsibility: to be involved and defend it. Actually, we had another responsibility. Our immigration policy was to welcome those wanted to live here, but teach them about our history, government, and way of life. This will help ensure that future generation continue to support our founding principles. A combination of political correctness and a broken immigration system has led us to hold outside traditions and cultures higher than our own, and our government will break down as a result. We are in perpetual Constitutional crisis and we frequently cite laws in other countries to defend unconstitutional acts. We either get some patriotism and and nationalism back in our blood and get rid of the PC guilt that's been drilled into all of us and start holding our government to its original standards, or we'll continue to fade away.

Re:Sorry, but fuck you. (2)

joebagodonuts (561066) | more than 2 years ago | (#38685016)

And we are free to be critical of our government and society, and to express that criticism. That is a one of those great traditions you mentioned.

Re:Sorry, but fuck you. (5, Informative)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 2 years ago | (#38685158)

The problem is that when you vote somebody out, all their garbage laws stay behind.

Re:Sorry, but fuck you. (1)

0123456 (636235) | more than 2 years ago | (#38685350)

The problem is that when you vote somebody out, all their garbage laws stay behind.

The problem is you can't vote somebody out, you can only vote somebody else in... and they're probably just as bad.

The only solution is to radically limit the power of government, which is what the Founders tried to do with the US Constitution. But that's tossed aside every time the government say 'national security' or 'think of the children'.

Re:Sorry, but fuck you. (3, Insightful)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 2 years ago | (#38685784)

It goes back further than that. One of the biggest expansions of federal power was actually regarding narcotics. Notice that Prohibition required a constitutional amendment - at the time, the federal government didn't have the authority to prohibit the sale of alcohol with anything less than a constitutional amendment. The closest they could have managed would be to prohibit its transport across state lines under the commerce clause. Today, a few supreme court rulings later, and it doesn't need any such amendment to ban all the currently prohibited narcotics: A simple law will suffice.

Re:Sorry, but fuck you. (4, Insightful)

Strawser (22927) | more than 2 years ago | (#38684486)

they know this law is destroying the most open medium of communication and exchange of information in history

Not break it as much as control it. I doubt they see that as a bad thing. In the olden day it was difficult for people who don't have access to large amounts of capital to publish information to a large audience, and people with large amounts of capital are already a part of the system. With the intarwebz, anyone has that publishing capability, and the US Government has little control over that. This gives them that control.

Re:Sorry, but fuck you. (3, Informative)

sgt scrub (869860) | more than 2 years ago | (#38685340)

This gives them that control.

I agree. Taking away advertisement money to sites that post nagative oppionons about candidates because they linked to an article, or snipped some of a "copyrighted" article into theirs, is about an inch down the slope PIPA will take us.

Re:Sorry, but fuck you. (0, Flamebait)

RyuuzakiTetsuya (195424) | more than 2 years ago | (#38684570)

oh please, spare me the conspiracy theory about power tripping greedy corrupt politicians. You guys don't fucking know corruption.

Pat Leahy is not corrupt. Ferdinand Marcos(Who's regime I did get to witness first hand from the safety of a USAF base), now there's a right bastard for you.

You middle class, first world, pampered BRATS have it easy. Seriously. The true colors of our political system?

The true colors of our political system is the fact that highway funding bills are getting caught up in congress because of infighting over top marginal tax rates.

Have you volunteered? Have you called your congress critter? What have you done other than bitch on slashdot or maybe boingboing or reddit over this?

And yes, Congressional officials don't care about whether or not YOU want it, because let's face it, you don't have any stake what so ever in monetization or piracy of IP goods. So you really don't give one shit or another.

Yes, the studios and record labels are all greedy bastards, but they're the ones who do have an actual stake in IP rights. When you're making a living based on how well your art is received, then let's talk.

Re:Sorry, but fuck you. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38684620)

Yes, the studios and record labels are all greedy bastards, but they're the ones who do have an actual stake in IP rights. When you're making a living based on how well your art is received, then let's talk.

Um, what? The fuck you say---EVERYONE has a stake in this. EVERYONE. This is not about money, homeboy, it's about our CULTURE.

The big media trusts are not merely "greedy". They are THIEVES, pure and simple, trying to steal as much of the public domain as they possibly can from us so they can sell it back to us.

Re:Sorry, but fuck you. (5, Insightful)

rohan972 (880586) | more than 2 years ago | (#38684680)

And yes, Congressional officials don't care about whether or not YOU want it, because let's face it, you don't have any stake what so ever in monetization or piracy of IP goods. So you really don't give one shit or another.

We do have a stake in what our laws are and Protect IP will impact every one of us. We have an interest in not being censored.

Yes, the studios and record labels are all greedy bastards, but they're the ones who do have an actual stake in IP rights. When you're making a living based on how well your art is received, then let's talk.

Will you shut up about every topic that doesn't involve how you make your income? I see you've posted on a number of stories with different topics. How dare you comment on things unrelated to your employment?

The only justification of copyright in US law is the progress of science and useful arts. I don't care how artistic you think you are, you don't get to screw the country over regarding the progress for the sake of your profits. It is more fitting to say that anyone currently working on such "intellectual goods" ipso facto does not require changes to copyright law to provide an incentive as they have demonstrated that the current law is sufficient to motivate them to work in that industry.

Re:Sorry, but fuck you. (1)

Penguinisto (415985) | more than 2 years ago | (#38685556)

Pat Leahy is not corrupt.

He is - just that he's a bit more collegiate (a nice way of saying "sneaky") about it.

Ferdinand Marcos(Who's regime I did get to witness first hand from the safety of a USAF base), now there's a right bastard for you.

The base is formerly known as Clark AB, before Mt. Pinatubo turned it into a giant ashtray. I know of what you speak, but... the thing about Marcos (and his ilk) was that his greed was a lot more blatant, and that he was able to enforce his will in the open, and without opposition for a very long time. I'm very willing to wager that if you took half the congresscritters we have and put them into the same culture and situation, they'd behave in much the same way as Marcos did.

Have you called your congress critter?

I'm kind of lucky in a way - most of mine (Oregon) are actually decent people (except for Wu - who the frig knew he was a Furry?) As a matter of fact, one of the biggest opponents to SOPA [arstechnica.com] happens to be Sen. Wyden (D - OR).

Yes, the studios and record labels are all greedy bastards, but they're the ones who do have an actual stake in IP rights. When you're making a living based on how well your art is received, then let's talk.

Bad assumption, in that they don't give a shit about how well it is received, as long as they are the ultimate arbiters of it, and can make money off of it to the exclusion of everyone else - legitimately or not.

Re:Sorry, but fuck you. (5, Informative)

unity100 (970058) | more than 2 years ago | (#38685826)

record labels are making a LIVING based on how well THEIR art is received, you say ?

are you a fucking moron ? excuse me, but really, are you a fucking idiot ?

record labels do NOTHING other than keeping bands perpetually in debt to them, and give just cents over dozens of dollars of album sales, forcing them to go on tours worldwide not to make money, but to be able to pay the 'loans' they got from the record label in the initial contracts.

http://www.negativland.com/albini.html [negativland.com]

http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=10/07/13/1737224 [slashdot.org]

THEY DONT EVEN PAY ARTISTS !

http://gizmodo.com/5417318/my-6247-royalty-statement-how-major-labels-cook-the-books-with-digital-downloads [gizmodo.com]

http://www.demonbaby.com/blog/2007/10/when-pigs-fly-death-of-oink-birth-of.html [demonbaby.com]

you dont know shit about this, yet you are making grandstand statements like 'When you're making a living based on how well your art is received, then let's talk'.

LETS talk then. lets talk about how record labels are not paying musicians, keeping them in perpetual debt, dodging taxes and royalties, and gulping 90% of the revenue generated by content sales.

or alternatively, you can just shut the fuck up, and educate yourself before you make another grandstanding statement for next time. i think that's the better option.

Re:Sorry, but fuck you. (1)

Monchanger (637670) | more than 2 years ago | (#38684738)

so unless someone much better than myself, and much braver than myself, will step up ... out of the woodwork to fix the broken system,

Check out Buddy Roemer- he's running in the Republican* primary and limiting the contributions he accepts to $100 per human. Brave enough for you?

Then join Rootstrikers(.org), started by Lawrence Lessig, and read his recently released "Republic Lost" which address this issue with the goal of fixing the problem.

As for "millions of others", You have a solution now. Grok it and pass it along., or give me a better one.

(*don't worry- he's not a fanatical old fart who misses the days before toilet paper. He's quite moderate and reasonable. If Republican party members weren't psychotic and corrupt politicians and truly wanted to replace Obama, this would be the guy they'd send.)

Re:Sorry, but fuck you. (2)

Xanny (2500844) | more than 2 years ago | (#38685080)

I'm already in change congress and rootstrikers, and I do vote. The point of my post was more along the lines that the majority of middle class America is complacent in its ignorance of the issues and they don't react as a body to the loss of freedoms because they are glued to reality TV and moral issues between candidates more so than the more technical and unsettling issues like how the US still maintains a larger military force than the rest of the world combined, spends more on military than the rest of the world combined, and goes deeper into debt every year than the rest of the world combined.

I do my part to try to change it, but an outspoken minority won't get the constitutional convention Lessing wants, and its what we need, but until either congress does something blatantly evil enough to upset the middle class and baby boomers into action, we are still a vocal, tiny minority.

And it isn't much of a conspiracy theory. There is plenty of documentation about how the corrupt congressmen take huge campaign contributions from big business, and then act on their behalf when elected. There are dozens of districts across the US that will always vote along a single party line no matter who runs, and they produce some of the most corrupt scum of the Earth because they rise to the top because they know to exploit the moral leanings of an unmovable voting block.

And no, I have not had first hand experience with corruption elsewhere because I live in the US. I know how bad it is elsewhere, how totalitarian the governments of Bulgaria, China, Pakistan, etc are, but saying we have it better than everyone else when what we have is corporate sellouts exploiting ignorance says a lot about progress in this modern age. Having the best pile of shit on Earth still leaves you with a pile of shit, and trying to make it less shitty is something everyone should be trying to do.

Re:Sorry, but fuck you. (1)

StoneyMahoney (1488261) | more than 2 years ago | (#38684824)

My own personal alternative when there's no-one there worth voting for is to show up and spoil my ballot paper. If you stay at home and don't bother to show up, the statisticians who analyze the turn-out put you in the "disinterested" box and tell their bosses they can happily ignore your wishes. If you make the effort to find out about the candidates, get your registration sorted out, turn up and vote for no-one, that gets you in the "undecided" box and people start figuring out how to get you to vote for them. After all, if they don't pander to you and the other guy does...

Re:Sorry, but fuck you. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38684846)

...so unless someone much better than myself, and much braver than myself, will step up (along with millions of other better, braver people) out of the woodwork to fix the broken system, we are just going downhill...

So, you're admitting that you're a coward. Well, at least you're honest about it.

Re:Sorry, but fuck you. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38685038)

I doubt the the politicians are actively trying to destroy the internet in order to better manipulate the population - at least in this case. I do agree with you that they are motivated almost purely by self interest, i.e. payouts and other favours from big media. I think, however, that the destruction of the internet is merely a side product of this, which somehow makes it all the worse.

Re:Sorry, but fuck you. (2)

sgt scrub (869860) | more than 2 years ago | (#38685284)

And talking about it on the internet accomplishes nothing.

I completely disaggree. Talking about it on the internet works. All the way up to 2000 we didn't know how much congresscritters were getting paid for pushing legislation through or who was paying them. Now, with the internet and sites like slashdot, we hear about who is voting for what and who paid them to vote for that what. We need to continue to talk about what they are doing while we still can. If not, IMHO, the day will come when we will not be allowed to. Having web sites people can pull up on their phones while standing in line at the voting booth that shows detailed info about the candidates voting history and business relationships, again IMHO, will fix the system.

Re:Sorry, but fuck you. (1)

Xanny (2500844) | more than 2 years ago | (#38685358)

I'm not saying information being distributed on the internet accomplishes nothing, I just mean the political circle jerk on sd & hn & reddit about how broken and horrible the US political system has become, but you are preaching to the choir in all these places - educated, often technical, engineers, who are at least somewhat active in politics and in the 15 - 35 age bracket. In other words, the biggest voting minority block there is. If the message never reaches older people, or less educated people, then you have a tiny minority stake in the whole population of the country. And those groups aren't using social news sites, so you aren't winning anyone over talking about it here.

I am for the distribution of information, fact checking, and transparency of the crimes of politicians through the medium, just not the rampant circle jerk about how broken the system is. We arn't changing it by bitching about it to each other.

Re:Sorry, but fuck you. (0)

Digital Vomit (891734) | more than 2 years ago | (#38685710)

One can waste their time voting and writing all the letters they want, but if history is any example, the only way the United States government is going to change is if the important people in it start dying.

The only coercion stronger than the allure of money and power to a politician is the threat of death.

It's a terrible thing to say, and a horrible thing to contemplate, but we all know it's true. As long as a man is unwilling to use force to defend himself, he will always be at the mercy of those who oppose him.

yeah (2)

unity100 (970058) | more than 2 years ago | (#38685740)

so unless someone much better than myself, and much braver than myself, will step up (along with millions of other better, braver people) out of the woodwork to fix the broken system

such people attempted to come out of the woodwork recently. you ridiculed them, despised them, called them names, called them out about shit, and then beat them down with police batons. it was called 'ows'.

im sure at the moment you read the word 'ows', a good many of you immediately lapsed to very reactionary and negative mindsets. let me tell you : it doesnt matter what you feel about what particular aspect of a revolution/change movement - NO revolution/change on the planet is going to be in the way you exactly want it. there will always be things you dont like, there will always be things you do like. the important thing is overall change to be for the better.

Re:Sorry, but fuck you. (4, Insightful)

game kid (805301) | more than 2 years ago | (#38684074)

Amending an "IP" "protection" bill is like cleaning the engine cylinders of a bomb-rigged Yugo as it hurtles toward a crowded mall--better to just detonate it before it even makes the parking lot.

--unless, of course, said mall is filled with mindless zombies instead of people. Perhaps the government of this crowded mall looked at our voting record and thinks we are all mindless zombies. I'm not sure I could blame them then.

Re:Sorry, but fuck you. (1, Redundant)

reboot246 (623534) | more than 2 years ago | (#38684130)

It's like polishing a turd. Yeah, it's shiny, but it's still a turd.

Someone help me out here - business question (5, Informative)

mykos (1627575) | more than 2 years ago | (#38683986)

What's that business concept called where they run the business to its crashing point, then try to run it just a hair above that? They do it to try to figure out where the rock bottom is on what they can get away with to maximize profits.

I'm thinking the same thing goes on in government. They do something that has people breaking out their guillotines so they can do juuuuuuust slightly less than that.

Re:Someone help me out here - business question (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38684022)

What's that business concept called where they run the business to its crashing point, then try to run it just a hair above that? They do it to try to figure out where the rock bottom is on what they can get away with to maximize profits.

Capitalism?

Re:Someone help me out here - business question (5, Funny)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | more than 2 years ago | (#38684024)

What's that business concept called where they run the business to its crashing point, then try to run it just a hair above that? They do it to try to figure out where the rock bottom is on what they can get away with to maximize profits. I'm thinking the same thing goes on in government. They do something that has people breaking out their guillotines so they can do juuuuuuust slightly less than that.

Capitalism.

Re:Someone help me out here - business question (1)

fishermen7777 (2026898) | more than 2 years ago | (#38684088)

poisk kladov [kraeved-samara.ru]

Re:Someone help me out here - business question (5, Funny)

Ihmhi (1206036) | more than 2 years ago | (#38684408)

Hurm. Today I learned the difference between Score2, Insightful and Score 5, Funny all comes down to punctuation [slashdot.org] .

That's pretty cool.

That's pretty cool?

That's pretty cool!

iEsta muy frio!

Kakko ii desu!

(And now, let's see how the shotgun approach works.)

Re:Someone help me out here - business question (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38684976)

So you complained about getting 2, Insightful instead of 5, Funny, and got 5, Funny for that...
Will your heart burst, when I tell you that Funny doesn't count against your karma? :D

Re:Someone help me out here - business question (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38684054)

Capitalism?

Capitalism.

Well, I'm glad we have a consensus. Next topic!

Re:Someone help me out here - business question (4, Insightful)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 2 years ago | (#38684092)

SOPA could be the leverage to get all the other IP stuff passed. They'll take this to the brink then say, "all right, we won't do SOPA". Everybody will be so relieved they'll overlook all the other laws they just slipped through.

Next time it will be something SOPA plus something that makes SOPA look mild by comparison. We'll get in such a panic over the other one that we'll let SOPA through with a sigh of relief that we "won".

Re:Someone help me out here - business question (4, Informative)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 2 years ago | (#38684196)

Next time? they are already crafting SOPA-II

It's called the OPEN act. and they are in the initial stages. It's exactly as you describe. but nobody is paying attention to it, exactly as they have it planned.

http://youtu.be/9TpZJA9EIPY [youtu.be] -- On how we got here, and how this fight is not over with. The scumbags in congress have no intention in stopping this behavior.

Re:Someone help me out here - business question (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38684350)

but it's "open", so it must be good!

Re:Someone help me out here - business question (2)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | more than 2 years ago | (#38684446)

but it's "open", so it must be good!

The way things are looking at the moment, the Acts with the least ominous names turn out to be the most harmful to society.

What's the betting that they call the Act denying CxO bonuses for failure and increasing taxation on high-income individuals the PEDO4PRESIDENT Act?

Re:Someone help me out here - business question (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 2 years ago | (#38685798)

Sooner or later someone is going to work out that if you call a law the JWMNXLQZXYL act, people won't *want* to talk about it.

Re:Someone help me out here - business question (1)

luther349 (645380) | more than 2 years ago | (#38684590)

its because the guys that bribe them will not stop until they pass some stupid law hat can never be enforced.its all bought killing sites like youtube. becouse thats what will happen yes they will go after something like piratbay first but then all of a suddion any youtube video with even a hint of music even if they don't own it will be taken down this is fact being they have been caught doing so aruldy. why because they want to keep there dead format alive and these old rich fossels simply refuse to get with the facts that the economy is dead music has been dead for years they sign utter shit for artiest and nobody whants there drm ridden cds that blow up your pc. this has nothing to do with pirates people have been doing forever long before a pc was even around. its bought a dieing business model going down in flames and burning everyone on its way down.

Re:Someone help me out here - business question (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38684662)

SOPA, PIPA, whatever will all fail, because by design, they're fatally flawed. When everyone gets their IP protected, it will be impossible to develop something new. You want to make some revolutionary phone, well, too bad, because 95% of what you put in there is "owned" by some corporation, they'll be tripping all over each other, and making/selling something innovative will become impossible in the US.

What this means, is that all western firms with ties to the US will become boggled down by patents and royalties, just as they already are to some extent. Look at Android and Microsoft. Imagine what happens, when every firm starts making it's own demands on all kinds of brands. You'll get huge price increases, while the Chinese, to whom the US won't be able to say squeak, will be selling cheaper stuff.

I live in the EU, and they're still young, so I still have some faith in the system, but regardless what happens, I rather would have read about it in a history book in school than see it live for myself.

Re:Someone help me out here - business question (4, Insightful)

0123456 (636235) | more than 2 years ago | (#38685368)

SOPA, PIPA, whatever will all fail, because by design, they're fatally flawed. When everyone gets their IP protected, it will be impossible to develop something new.

You seem to believe that's an unintended consequence. The current big players have no desire to see anyone 'develop something new' that might take away their business.

Obviously it will hasten America's decline into bankruptcy and irrelevance, but so long as they can rake in the money for a few more years they don't care.

Re:Someone help me out here - business question (2)

Torodung (31985) | more than 2 years ago | (#38685778)

Patent law, by design, has always been a circular firing squad in the tech sector. In any sector really, it's meant to be a last resort against extreme foul play. It is understood that if one company files patent claims against another, there will be reciprocation, eventually grinding your entire industry to a halt. What is concerning in the Microsoft/Android case is that there has to be some fundamental weakness in the profitability of operating software engineering, as a business model, to introduce this sort of behavior. Microsoft is literally cannibalizing its own markets, and its clients. Since MS must know that, it's disturbing to watch them clutch at it to remain profitable, while they figure out what their actual, sustainable business model is going to be.

I imagine they feel justified, because FOSS undermined the profitability of software licensing and copyright monopolies, justifiably or no, and put it squarely into genuine software innovation and quality support services. So they are serving it right back to Stallman, in their book, by going after Android. But the fact is: Microsoft has neither innovation nor good support services any longer, and so they really are forced to eat themselves alive.

I would argue they never had those traits. They started up as Quick-and-Dirty OS, and that's all they've ever been. An expediency driving the ultimate commoditization of software and hardware alike. We all ran it because it was cheap (or free) and it worked (mostly). Now, with FOSS, the method of software is essentially valueless to anything but the furtherance of software itself, and the value is in what people can actually do with it. A hammer should not have a copyright, the act of driving in a nail shouldn't be patentable.

What's disturbing to me is what this says about the profitability of the entire sector, as it now stands, once you get past "boutique" electronics like Apple products, and into a larger, sustainable software economy and ecosystem. All the major software houses are in a scramble to find their own relevancy. In the end-user markets, the majors seem to have settled on "look and feel." But that's a failure too. If we keep trending towards patent law in this way, denying each other simple tools like a "menu grid of rounded boxes," "ribbons," "swiping a finger," or even the use of the word "app," everyone is going to suffer. Microsoft isn't alone in this one, not by a long shot, and it's hard to tell who started it.

But now that the battlefield has moved away from copyright and licensing, and toward patents, what we have is a very deliberate circular firing squad. Patent law is designed that way. It doesn't matter who started it, because in the same stroke they're all finishing it. It's like Jonestown. Do not drink the Kool-Aid of acrimony. That's cheap and plentiful, and deadly. It's a far better idea that we take stock of where we are, figure out where we're going, and carefully decide if that's really some place we can live.

Re:Someone help me out here - business question (5, Interesting)

Solandri (704621) | more than 2 years ago | (#38684382)

What's that business concept called where they run the business to its crashing point, then try to run it just a hair above that? They do it to try to figure out where the rock bottom is on what they can get away with to maximize profits.

Evil.

Despite the jokes others have made in response, capitalism works because in a free society, transactions are only made when the result is beneficial to both parties. Say I have a business transporting furniture. I buy the horse and buggy whip from you for $200 because they're worth more than $200 to me. You sell the horse and buggy whip to me for $200 because they're worth less than $200 to you. In this way, even though the amount of stuff does not change from the transaction, its value increases. With each transaction, items get moved to the hands of people who are better able to make use of them to improve their productivity. Whereas the horse and buggy whip only cost you $190 worth of productivity to make, in my hands it can generate (say) $310 worth of productivity.

When a company forms a monopoly or subverts the market with laws like the content industry is trying, they break this mechanism. I buy the horse and buggy whip from you for $300 because it's worth $310 to me. To you they're only worth $190 because that's what they cost you to make. In functioning capitalism, market forces would drive the price down to about $200. But by subverting the free market with your monopoly and eliminating competition, you're able to drive the price the other way and get it near the maximum I'd be willing to pay. I end up paying an extra $100.

Furthermore, I should be able to buy a horseless carriage for $250 which will give me $500 worth of productivity. But you've gotten a law passed which bans it from the market. So by being forced to buy the horse and buggy whip, I also lose out on $190 worth of productivity.

The consequence of all this is that I no longer have an extra $100 to spend on something else productive, and my productivity has been lowered by $190 from where it should be. And you, because the extra $100 you made came too easily, you don't fully appreciate its value and are more likely to waste the extra money you make on silly things like gold plated toilet seats. The economy overall is harmed, the rate of technological progress slows down, recessions become more common, and increases in the standard of living slows down or even regresses.

It's normal to put your needs ahead of those of the single person you're dealing with in a transaction. People who buy high and sell low don't survive for long, and everyone has a personal obligation to look out for themselves. But putting your needs ahead of all of society by subverting free market forces for personal gain is just plain evil.

Re:Someone help me out here - business question (5, Insightful)

cptdondo (59460) | more than 2 years ago | (#38684808)

That sort of backyard capitalism only works when there's relative parity between the parties. In our current "big business is good, regulation is bad, consumer protection is bad" there is no parity.

A health insurance company doesn't care if they lose you as a customer. They only want you if you are a net profit to them. And because the companies can legally collude and share information, no other company will want you either. So there's no parity.

There's parity if you buy a soda; you can always buy Coke, or Pepsi, or RC, or the local brand. But the things that are really critical to us as a society have no parity between the parties.

Re:Someone help me out here - business question (1)

WalkingBear (555474) | more than 2 years ago | (#38685346)

And if you look at the entire picture, you'll see that the areas where there is the least parity are those with the highest level of Governmental interference. The areas where the highest innovation, best products, and most wealth creation are those with little to no Govt interference.

Re:Someone help me out here - business question (5, Informative)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 2 years ago | (#38685182)

Where's that Heinlein quote...oh, yes, here it is:

"There has grown in the minds of certain groups in this country the idea
that just because a man or corporation has made a profit out of the
public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged
with guaranteeing such a profit in the future, even in the face of changing
circumstances and contrary to public interest. This strange doctrine is
supported by neither statute or common law. Neither corporations or
individuals have the right to come into court and ask that the clock
of history be stopped, or turned back."

- Heinlein, Life Line, 1939

Re:Someone help me out here - business question (2)

unity100 (970058) | more than 2 years ago | (#38685954)

stupid. for the reason below :

Despite the jokes others have made in response, capitalism works because in a free society, transactions are only made when the result is beneficial to both parties

this is a make-believe, childish understanding of social dynamics. its extremely ignorant of history of this planet and its society too. like a believer of a religion, putting TRUST in something, despite it always happened otherwise.

the evil of capitalism is not in its transactions or the basic premise of trade. it is in the fact that there is no limit to wealth in capitalism, and wealth breeds wealth, and wealth is ultimately power. there is no way to remedy that in capitalism.

capitalist economic systems, EVEN if they are employed/practiced in fascist, dictatorial or imperial political systems, always allow the biggest wealth holder to decide how things end up in both economy and politics - no exceptions. fuggers have practically governed holy roman empire for around 150 years, and charles v was their bitch (and he was commanding half of europe), even in the deepest pit of war, nazi germany was still handing out production and design contracts to private corporations instead of mobilizing entire country and commanding their assets directly, and in dictatorships of mussolini, peron et al, the rich always had the power to have things done their way. even roman emperors were obliged to the wealthy - and actually they were the most prominent among that wealth class in the first place - patricians. (except military chaoses that occasionally appeared)

so, even if you have a strictly hierarchical and dictatorial regime in politics, wealth STILL exerts power.

now, imagine what happens if you remove the strictly hierarchical, hereditary dictatorial/imperial political system from a capitalist economy - now, there is nothing to check the power of wealth - wealth directly becomes de facto political power.

the perfect picture, you are seeing in america. remember that :

wealth is power. and if you allow wealth to concentrate in any segment, you allow power to concentrate in that segment. and in capitalism, this becomes the 1% minority.

Re:Someone help me out here - business question (1)

sgt scrub (869860) | more than 2 years ago | (#38685360)

You forgot, "then amend it to totally fuck people over later when nobody is looking".

put pressure on your congresscritter (5, Interesting)

MollyB (162595) | more than 2 years ago | (#38684050)

After reading the earlier Slashdot story, I wrote all three of both our Vermont congressmen and urged them to reconsider support for PIPA and SOPA. The only reply I received was from Sen. Patrick Leahy.

Here's a snippet from TFA with a relevant notion: contacting your representative can't hurt:

"[...]However, sponsors of the bill have heard concerns about its effect on the domain name system from fellow lawmakers, Internet engineers, human rights groups and "a number of Vermonters."," [Leahy] said.

Re:put pressure on your congresscritter (2)

eclectro (227083) | more than 2 years ago | (#38684152)

put pressure on your congresscritter

Stop giving critters a bad name.

Re:put pressure on your congresscritter (2)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | more than 2 years ago | (#38684240)

... all three of both...

My brain just HCF'd.

mangled post (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38684294)

...too many edits and not enough proofreading. Guilty as charged...
Hope your brain recovers. Sorry 'bout that.

Re:put pressure on your congresscritter (1)

Cornwallis (1188489) | more than 2 years ago | (#38684242)

Exactly the same experience. His form letter blew off any concerns I addressed by ignoring them.

To elaborate on the summary... (4, Informative)

PSVMOrnot (885854) | more than 2 years ago | (#38684060)

This isn't so much an amendment, as a plan to think about amending it. From the article [techworld.com.au] :

"...plans to offer an amendment that would require a study of the impact of the ISP provisions in the bill before they are implemented. If the study found negative impacts, it's likely the ISP provision would be killed."

The above is pretty much all of the article which is not political filibustering, back patting or stating things which won't change (the payment freezing, and search engine stuff).

TL;DR version: they're thinking about maybe possibly backing down on one point.

Re:To elaborate on the summary... (2)

hat_eater (1376623) | more than 2 years ago | (#38684070)

Quote from the Leahy press release: "As I prepare a managersâ(TM) amendment to be considered during the floor debate, I will therefore propose that the positive and negative effects of this provision be studied before implemented, so that we can focus on the other important provisions in this bill, which are essential to protecting American intellectual property online, and the American jobs that are tied to intellectual property. I regret that law enforcement will not have this remedy available to it when websites operating overseas are stealing American property" Does anyone have any doubts which way will they decide? This is nothing more than a diversionary maneuver.

Re:To elaborate on the summary... (2)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 2 years ago | (#38684172)

Dear Leahy,

You mean the likely effects of the new law weren't actually studied yet...?

Color me shocked.

Re:To elaborate on the summary... (4, Interesting)

Ihmhi (1206036) | more than 2 years ago | (#38684498)

This is why I believe we need limitations on how fast a bill can be voted for.

Something like 1 day/page should be a good way to either (a) slow the legislature down and give them time to actually read the bills, or (b) make the laws much, much shorter.

Oh, and no overlapping. No "March 15th is the day for these three bills". One day per page (with predetermined font and page sizes so there's no loophole here) of a bill.

"Emergency bills" should have a higher threshold of voting such as 4/5 or 5/6 majority. If there's greater than 1/6 opposition then it probably isn't an emergency.

Oh look, I just stopped a whole buttload of bad laws coming out every year! Now all we have to do is actually get them to follow these rules. Ha.

Re:To elaborate on the summary... (1)

Rockoon (1252108) | more than 2 years ago | (#38684390)

The translation is:

"We are going to reduce the opposition to this bill by pretending that later on we will have an honest appraisal before implementing 100% of everything thats in the current bill"

writing your congressman can't hurt (-1, Redundant)

MollyB (162595) | more than 2 years ago | (#38684080)

After reading this earlier Slashdot story [slashdot.org] , I wrote all three of both our Vermont congressmen and urged them to reconsider support for PIPA and SOPA. The only reply I received was from Sen. Patrick Leahy.

Here's a snippet from TFA with a relevant notion: contacting your representative can't hurt (emphasis added):

"[...]However, sponsors of the bill have heard concerns about its effect on the domain name system from fellow lawmakers, Internet engineers, human rights groups and "a number of Vermonters."," [Leahy] said.

Re:writing your congressman can't hurt (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38684122)

oops. duplicate by accident...

No confidence. (2)

Karmashock (2415832) | more than 2 years ago | (#38684114)

The sad reality is that if it took a public outcry for them to realize this was a bad idea then they really have no grasp as to what is going on here at all.

Congress passes too many ill considered laws without thinking things through properly. I don't need a congress that passes lots of laws all the time if the price is that they won't actually understand what they're passing.

As much as possible, congress must be comfortable with the idea of taking things slow and not being hasty. Congress should really think about completely rewriting the whole thing from the start with a fresh understanding of what they're actually legislating.

We don't need grandstanding politicians full of their own self importance pushing on agenda or another. We need sober and mature statesmen that will investigate issues, hear all sides, and THEN craft legislation. Anything that comes expressly from one lobbying group or another will be a creature of that faction against every other.

And if all sides cannot agree to a final bill... let us all learn to love the deadlock for it is in the deadlock that our freedoms are truly kept safe.

Re:No confidence. (1)

Rooked_One (591287) | more than 2 years ago | (#38684166)

The other side of the coin is the sad reality that people seem to need a cattle prod in the arse to wake up. We have a society of sheepel at the moment. When the shit hits the fan because of this, perhaps it will wake people up into realize the one party system we are truly in, and retake government. Of course, this is going to be next to impossible. Sheepel will not change, and the people in power will find round about ways of keeping their interests in mind while ignoring the masses. It would literally take mass killings of politicians who have proven to make stupid mistakes for them to crawl out of their 10,000 thread count Egyptian cotton threaded slippers lined with bald eagle feathers and start to fear the populous, as was intended.

Re:No confidence. (5, Insightful)

Karmashock (2415832) | more than 2 years ago | (#38684484)

People have always been disinterested in continuous political engagement. We don't have the time for it. We have jobs. We have personal and local problems. We simply don't have the attention span or energy to manhandle the political powers that be all the time.

What is supposed to contain that issue is that the government... at least in the US... isn't supposed to be this powerful. It's been out of control for three generations so this is nothing new. But it's really well beyond anything the people can keep in check.

It's been said that the worst thing that ever happened to Washington DC was air conditioning. There was a time when it was just too hot and nasty to stay in the city throughout much of the year. Might as well add central heating to that as well. Congress just meets too often, passes too many laws, and doesn't particularly think about any of them very deeply.

Nearly all legislation should be state or city legislation where as the Federal government should be as minimalistic as possible if only because we can't really control or escape federal excesses as easily as state issues. If a state goes crazy we have 50 others. No critical harm if one of them goes broke or does something crazy. But the federal government is another matter.

Perhaps I'm showing my ideological stripes here, but I think this would be less of an issue if congress AND the presidency got their wings clipped a bit. They're too eager to involve themselves in our lives and too disinterested with doing their traditional jobs.

I think the president has more then enough to worry about with the economy and foreign policy. He really doesn't need to concern himself with anything else right now. And as to congress, anything that doesn't fix the budget problem should be sidelined. I don't want to hear ANYTHING from congress that doesn't either increase revenue or reduce spending. No new regulation. No new issues. NOTHING. Just balance the stupid budget.

Re:No confidence. (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#38685554)

The sad reality is that if it took a public outcry for them to realize this was a bad idea then they really have no grasp as to what is going on here at all.

No, they know exactly what is going on. The have always known this was a "bad idea" with respect to a functioning internet and healthy society. They don't care, it's good for the people who pay their bills, so fuck the rest of us. The public outcry only showed them it's not going to be as easy to get away with as they thought, but they'll figure out how to do it.

A one-eyed, ex-lawyer, son of a printer, Senator (2)

Demonoid-Penguin (1669014) | more than 2 years ago | (#38684118)

All you need is a couple of midgets, a parrot, a bartender and an Irish nun.

But this is serious - the need to shut down, and block search engines that link to them. any sites the US DOJ considers puts American jobs at threat. Like fake Gucci, Reebok, Adidas items - that rob sales of companies that employ so many North Americans. And those big movies (made in New Zealand or Australia), that never seem to make a profit (because of the pirates). Jobs, it's just about jobs [insert tasteful joke about dead marketing "genius" here].
If he could point at foreign websites selling pirate cheese I'd buy the concerned, but senile politician line - but as it is he's the one who appears to have been bought.
But as several "Vermonters" and the "majority of ISPs" (Cable companies) are "concerned" - he might, maybe, possibly, consider, a bit of a test first (to see if anyone is awake) before pushing through the legislation needed to begin another stupid war. I'm betting that jobs line will get the bill through.

That anarchic internet was nice while it lasted, but it just isn't enough like television for some "people" (sigh).

Re:A one-eyed, ex-lawyer, son of a printer, Senato (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38685230)

"I'm betting that jobs line will get the bill through."

ooh ooh and freedom, freedom is very big at the moment. And safety, nothing like an on going series of wars/liberations to bring safety to the top. Ooh and America, they should definately have put america in the name.

Give em enough rope... (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38684138)

...and let them hang themselves.

- Increase the length of a copyright to 200 years.
- Make the minimum penalty for copyright infringement 2 years jail, and make it a criminal offence, so the MAFIAA can't pick and choose who gets pinged.
- and make it mandatory to defend your IP in court or lose your rights - similar to trademarks.

Then see how much the MAFIAA want this fight.

Re:Give em enough rope... (2)

Alsee (515537) | more than 2 years ago | (#38685462)

Make the minimum penalty for copyright infringement 2 years jail, and make it a criminal offence

While the minimum penalty for infringement is merely big fines, most copyright infringement is already a criminal offense. For example effectively any P2P copyright infringement is already a felony with up to 1, 3, 5, or even 10 years in prison depending on circumstances. That's right, a FIVE YEAR felony for of having a modest sized music library on P2P, and a TEN YEAR felony for a second offense of having a modest sized music library on P2P. A rather substantial percentage of the united states population, several tens of millions of people, are already technical subject to several years in federal prison for criminal copyright infringement. The fact that the law is rarely enforced does not alter the fact that the law exists, and does not alter the fact that several tens of millions of people are legally guilty and legally subject to several years in prison but merely "not yet charged" for the crime.

Lets forget the fact that several legislators themselves would be imprisoned. Lets forget the fact that the MAJORITY of legislators would be seeing one or more of their own kids imprisoned. Lets forget the fact that we'd need to build something like twenty times as many prisons as exist now. Lets forget the fact that the US economy would instantly collapse if you attempted to imprison such a large percentage of the population. If copyright law were actually and fully enforced, the population of the United States would overthrow the entire US government in under 48 hours. When you factor in the outraged friends and families of the copyright-felons, you'd have over two hundred million people ready to burn down every congressional office for the utter STUPIDITY of attempting to imprison several tens of millions of ordinary people for several years merely because they used P2P.

-

Re:Give em enough rope... (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 2 years ago | (#38685850)

Standard procedure in any corrupt system of law, I imagine. First make the law so strict that almost every person has done something criminal - then, if someone starts making trouble for those in power, it only takes a little digging to find something they have done that they can be jailed for. Avoids all the hastle of having to pay off the police to frame them if they actually are guilty.

As long as they amend the part.... (2)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 2 years ago | (#38684180)

Where it exists.

I.E. burn it in a trash can.

I just hope all the fervor over SOPA is translated to every time this thing morphs. as SOPA is already being rewritten and name changed.

The scumbags in Congress will not stop until they do the bidding of their masters.

8fucK?! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38684188)

about who can rant This post brought Operating systems by BSDI who sel7 Things I still

Cable (2)

Kjella (173770) | more than 2 years ago | (#38684232)

I remain confident that the ISPs -- including the cable industry, which is the largest association of ISPs -- would not support the legislation if its enactment created the problems that opponents of this provision suggest,

And there's absolutely no conflict of interest between their role as ISPs and their role as content providers here, none whatsoever. They don't hate that fact that people can watch other things than their programming and wouldn't like to turn Internet back into cable TV.

PIPA and SOPA (1)

AssholeMcGee (2521806) | more than 2 years ago | (#38684254)

PIPA Democrat --- SOPA--- Republican, no difference, (maybe slight difference in wording of the bills) I guess they find this to be a good way to waste money and time. I understand the copyright issue, with the film, software, and music industries. But for other companies like automobile makers, medical/prescription companies to support this is funny, and disturbing. I have read some comments over these bills and some say it is nothing to worry about it only effects out of country web sites, and that is understandable. But they could block web sites that sell goods, so I go to pay (PAY) for something I am not allowed to purchase it outside the US? Just asking and curious if this bill would effect web sites that sell goods? Ebay and others I seem to have concerns over this!! So I cannot buy drugs outside the US (already blocked from Canada) or anything else unless I buy it here in the US? If IF this is the case is it not up to the consumer to choose or make a decision on buying something, there are suckers, but there are those who research if buying XXXXX is worth it. Is it also not on the companies like NIKE to watch, or other watch groups to report when a web sites is selling knock off shoes, or clothing? The other thing I would wonder, is if a US based web site had comments, blogs, or content from outside countries the US based site could be blocked, I am not talking Search engines, Ads links, redirects or links to other web sites, ect..

Doesn't make a difference (2)

jonwil (467024) | more than 2 years ago | (#38684270)

The bill still allows ISPs, web hosts, social networks, search engines and content providers to be forced to take content down even when the one issuing the take down notice has no ownership or connection to the content. And it still provides no option to challenge the take down.

History repeats itself. (4, Insightful)

VJmes (2449518) | more than 2 years ago | (#38684274)

There's a pattern to this. Politicians at the behest of self-interest groups and self-appoint moralists, begin to regulate what was a benign social issue. Uninformed, policy gets drafted by these people which gains traction from these self-interest, righteous minorities and soon thanks to ignorant third-parties the very inaccuracies that are used to draft these policies are perpetuated. The use of loaded words like criminal, scourge & terror helps to convince a mostly oblivious public. Before long the regulation comes into effect and pushes the issue underground, initially it's deemed a success. However as it becomes apparent that the matter is thriving underground, a war is declared, harsher penalties combined with the perpetuation of gross-inaccuracies and lies continue to waste your tax dollars.
It's history repeating itself, and it's always follows a similar pattern. Though the end result is the same; tax dollars are wasted, usage increases unabated and the constant game of cat and mouse continues because those elected to listen to the people who know best, won't.

If I went about my job with the same level of ignorance, incompetence and sheer corruption as the supposed leaders of the United States, I'd be out of a job very quickly. If the private sector won't tolerate it, why does capital hill seem to be a breeding ground for these bottom-feeders?

Re:History repeats itself. (5, Insightful)

smpoole7 (1467717) | more than 2 years ago | (#38684658)

Where history is actually repeating itself lies in the fact that bought-out politicians are nothing new. This comment is going to sound like it's off at a tangent, but I'm sharing it to maybe calm some people down. To quote someone I heard a while back, "hate is like a deadly poison. YOU'RE the one drinking it, but you hope the OTHER guy dies!"

Instead of hopeless or mindless rage, channel that into a determined anger that will actually change things. The biggest aid for that is a sense of perspective.

I like to read alternate history; a good one is Eric Flint's "Rivers of War" series (currently just two books, but I'm gonna give him a noogie if he doesn't produce #3 pretty soon) for a good look at the political situation right after the US was founded. Even then, there were political parties, deals in back rooms, posturing, money and favors ... and (of course) a disastrous war that made some people rich, others poor.

A lot was said (admittedly, with some justification) about Cheney and Haliburton during W's term, but go back to WWII. Go watch Little Orphan Annie; her benefactor was called "Daddy Warbucks." That was a common joke back then: it was a guy who got rich selling arms during the war. Go back to the Civil War, and you'll find the same thing: there were some people who got ridiculously wealthy off of that conflict. Even in the Revolutionary war, which is the closest you might come to an "ideological" conflict, there were people who stood to lose or gain a great deal on the outcome, and it determined their actions.

In times of peace, the same thing happens. As Flint points out, some supported a National Bank for noble reasons, but others supported it simply because they thought it was a path to riches. Those who opposed it were equally divided.

What I've said, in my usual long-winded way, is that politicians have ALWAYS been corrupt. Don't ever give up trying to Fight The Machine(tm), but don't let rage consume you and don't (worst of all) become demoralized if you think your efforts make no difference.

Usual disclaimer: just my opinion, and worth precisely what you paid for it. :)

Re:History repeats itself. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38685696)

Just a tiny correction here: Daddy Warbucks made his fortune during WW ONE, not WW TWO. Annie first appeared during the Great Depression, several years prior to the outbreak of WW Two. The rest of your comment is right on, however. The more things change, the more they remain the same...

Occupy Senate ... except, they wouldn't notice ... (1)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | more than 2 years ago | (#38684318)

. . . most Senators just show up to vote once in a while anyway . . .

. . . the rest of their time they spend out somewhere else . . . um, . . . like doing Senate business . . .

Privacy vs. copyright (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38684388)

Copyright got sponsors in RIAA and MPAA. Privacy ought to have sponsors in elected officials performing their fiduciary duty to their voting constituency. Anyway in a political system thoroughly corrupted by the need for (re)election funding it is clear who wins again.

Re:Privacy vs. copyright (1)

TheReaperD (937405) | more than 2 years ago | (#38685062)

The problem with this theory is that organizations that support privacy and corporate vs. consumer balance, such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF [eff.org] ), tend to oppose such tactics and are loathe to use them.

Unfortunately, the only thing likely to get big money out of Washington if forced publicly funded elections with long prison terms for any persons or organizations that try to subvert the process. The big problem is that the people who would have to approve this change are the very same people that benefit from the current system.

A Different Take (1)

Fnord666 (889225) | more than 2 years ago | (#38684482)

They may be actually waking up, or maybe someone showed them the article [techdirt.com] on Techdirt that seems to indicate a flaw in the plan. The author of the Techdirt article believes that since SOPA/PIPA are targeted at foreign sites and the registrars for .com and org are US companies, SOPA/PIPA are actually not applicable. It may be that the desired "amendment" is to try and patch this loophole.

Spelling? (1)

data2 (1382587) | more than 2 years ago | (#38684550)

Wow, normally I won't complain, but the spelling here is getting awful. Dear editors, please consider using some kind of software like After The Deadline to reduce this again.

Re:Spelling? (1)

thegarbz (1787294) | more than 2 years ago | (#38684732)

Don't bother. Editors are right up there with yetis, the loch ness monstor, and the y2k bug.

We've all heard of them but I've never seen any. At least we have foot prints and blurry photographs to give credit to some of the above, but here on slashdot I don't think we've ever seen any editing.

Maybe we can hope for fairies to correct the spelling in submissions.

I'm surprised the FBI isn't lobbying against this (1)

MikeRT (947531) | more than 2 years ago | (#38684726)

This law will make it a lot harder for the FBI to fight online white collar crime and the FBI actually has a lot of its own lobbyists on capitol hill. I can't believe that they are going along with this.

Re:I'm surprised the FBI isn't lobbying against th (1)

synapse7 (1075571) | more than 2 years ago | (#38685166)

Why should they worry about lobbying against it when they operate unrestricted as it is.

Typo? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38684884)

How that 'l' move so far across? That's one hell of a typo! Haha

"Protect IP" can never be good (1)

Stormwatch (703920) | more than 2 years ago | (#38685264)

Something called "Protect IP" can never be good, because "IP" is a monstrous scam that ought to be abolished for the good of all mankind.

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...