×

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!

RIAA Chief Whines That SOPA Opponents Were "Unfair"

Unknown Lamer posted more than 2 years ago | from the unlike-the-misinformation-in-print-media dept.

The Media 525

First time submitter shoutingloudly writes "In a NY Times op-ed today, RIAA chief Cary H. Sherman accuses the opponents of SOPA of having engaged in shady rhetorical tactics. He (wrongly) accuses opponents such as Wikipedia and Google of having disseminated misinformation about the bills. He lashes out at the use of the term 'censorship,' which he calls a 'loaded and inflammatory term.' Most Slashdot readers will get the many unintentional jokes in this inaccurate, hypocritical screed by one of the leaders of the misinformation-and-inflammatory-rhetoric-wielding content industry lobby." A gem: "As it happens, the television networks that actively supported SOPA and PIPA didn’t take advantage of their broadcast credibility to press their case. That’s partly because 'old media' draws a line between 'news' and 'editorial.' Apparently, Wikipedia and Google don’t recognize the ethical boundary between the neutral reporting of information and the presentation of editorial opinion as fact."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

525 comments

A little uncomfortable (5, Insightful)

bonch (38532) | more than 2 years ago | (#38968669)

I didn't like the legislation either, but isn't this headline and summary kind of biased? I don't know...I just feel uncomfortable having the submission frame it specifically to make me react a certain way. I mean, it flat-out states how "most /. readers" will respond. I'd rather just read what Cary Sherman has to say and come to my own conclusions, which will likely align with others here, but at least I arrived there on my own.

Maybe it's just me. Carry on.

Re:A little uncomfortable (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38968737)

You're new here aren't you ...

Re:A little uncomfortable (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38968769)

Slashdot is unbelievably biased. The submitter simply recognizes and embraces that. It's only a problem if bias is denied or unrecognized.

Re:A little uncomfortable (1)

Rivalz (1431453) | more than 2 years ago | (#38968775)

Yep just you. Trolling / Flamewars are the new news.
Most of the hey look at what this dumbass said articles on /. are of course bias.
Otherwise they would just have a link which isn't that much fun.

Re:A little uncomfortable (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38968783)

If you haven't come to a conclusion about the RIAA, then by all means go and read what he has to say too. Most of us weren't born yesterday and don't need to hear another round of lies and diversions from the people who would turn off the internet to save their business model if that were at all possible.

To Mr. RIAA: Censorship is a loaded word? Guess what, censorship is even worse when implemented and not just talked about, and we just need to talk about it because you're trying to actually DO IT!

I Think It's Humorously Appropriate (5, Insightful)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 2 years ago | (#38968805)

After all Slashdot didn't write any of that opinion, it was shoutingloudly so you should have known that it was just an opinion or editorial in response to the editorial. Wait, you mean you didn't read it as such? That's odd, I guess that was just confusion. Sort of like, you know when one of the 'old media' news channels has one of those bullshit talk shows like Glenn Beck that they play on their "news network" where he has free reign to act like a newscaster. And then when he says something completely false, they throw up their hands and go "It's just his opinion that happens to closely align with what we want people to believe. This show is entertainment, not news we just happen to have the Fox News Channel logo at the bottom of the screen at all times."

"As it happens, the television networks that actively supported SOPA and PIPA didn’t take advantage of their broadcast credibility to press their case. That’s partly because 'old media' draws a line between 'news' and 'editorial.' Apparently, Wikipedia and Google don’t recognize the ethical boundary between the neutral reporting of information and the presentation of editorial opinion as fact."

And when does Cary Sherman recognize the ethical boundary of paying off the people who vote on this bill -- a bill which clearly serves his interests?

Re:I Think It's Humorously Appropriate (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38968877)

Free 'rein'. Thought you would have known that.

Re:I Think It's Humorously Appropriate (4, Funny)

srussia (884021) | more than 2 years ago | (#38969167)

Free 'rein'. Thought you would have known that.

Maybe he wasn't willing to give up his kingdom for a horse.

Re:I Think It's Humorously Appropriate (5, Insightful)

s73v3r (963317) | more than 2 years ago | (#38969179)

You essentially said, "Its ok for us to do it because Fox News does it too!" That excuse really doesn't fly.

Re:A little uncomfortable (5, Insightful)

Brain-Fu (1274756) | more than 2 years ago | (#38968821)

Since you could, in theory, take politically-impactful action, every person with a political agenda has a direct incentive to influence your opinions. Writing a piece that tells you what your emotional response should be is a common way of doing that.

There is nothing wrong with complaining about this, of course, but don't expect it to change. Better to maintain eternal vigilance in your guardianship of your ability to form independent conclusions, especially when confronted with such biased information sources.

Re:A little uncomfortable (5, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#38969085)

Complaining about this is a way of maintaining that eternal vigilance. If people don't regularly point out dirty tricks, people will stop noticing the dirty tricks.

Re:A little uncomfortable (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38969307)

Having an incentive doesn't mean you have an obligation. Taking the high road is best policy as your detracters can't simply dismiss you of bias.

Re:A little uncomfortable (2, Insightful)

Anrego (830717) | more than 2 years ago | (#38968851)

I agree.

Most of the slashdot crowd would probably come to this conclusion anyway and discussion would have centered around the stated ideas, however having it so blatantly and "matter-of-fact"ly stated in the summary comes across as very unprofessional in my opinion.

Re:A little uncomfortable (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38969007)

Since when is Slashdot professional?

Re:A little uncomfortable (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38968871)

Accurate though, slashdot relies on publicly submitted responses and news items, which these bills would have rendered impossible to police effectively enough to protect the site, shutting slashdot. Thus the assumption that we might dislike the bill and mock those responsible fro supporting it.

Re:A little uncomfortable (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38968885)

TFA is an opinion piece that has the headline, "What Wikipedia Wonâ(TM)t Tell You", implying that Wikipedia is lying by omission about the facts of SOPA/PIPA/TPP/ACTA etc., and you're bothered that Slashdot features a summary and headline about TFA that's just as opinionated? Color me unimpressed by your delicate selective sensitivity to bias, bonchyboy.

Re:A little uncomfortable (4, Insightful)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 2 years ago | (#38969115)

Direct bribery/payoff of politicians is sooooo much more ethical than using shady rhetoric!

Re:A little uncomfortable (3, Insightful)

Hentes (2461350) | more than 2 years ago | (#38969293)

Even most newspapers aren't neutral and you demand neutrality from a site based on user submissions? If you don't care about the opinion of others why come to /. in the first place, you could just read the sites where the articles come from.

I won't do it. (4, Interesting)

apcullen (2504324) | more than 2 years ago | (#38968709)

I won't click the link. I just don't want to in any way encourage the Times to print this stuff.

Re:I won't do it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38969267)

What was that? I'm sorry, there's so much irony slathered all over that comment it's a little hard to read.

Here's the sound of ... (5, Funny)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 2 years ago | (#38968715)

Well, it would be the sound of the world's tiniest violin playing a sad song, but due to copyright restrictions I can't actually post a link to it.

Hello (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38968721)

I am Templeton Beckmarsh (aka Flampton Hoppings) and I approve of this story.

"Loaded and inflammatory" (5, Insightful)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 2 years ago | (#38968741)

Yes, calling a bill that requires ISPs and search engines to block access to certain websites a "censorship" bill is obviously bad -- it gets people angry! We should just sugar coat it and hope that nobody notices that the bill pushes for censorship.

Re:"Loaded and inflammatory" (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38968777)

How about the "Protect Our Internet from Child Terrorists and Puppy-Kicking Pornographers" act

Re:"Loaded and inflammatory" (1)

Whatanut (203397) | more than 2 years ago | (#38969097)

Thanks. I just hurt myself trying to pronounce that acronym. You wouldn't make it very far in the bill naming arena...

Re:"Loaded and inflammatory" (5, Insightful)

mdwstmusik (853733) | more than 2 years ago | (#38968843)

Yep, using the term "censorship" is "loaded and inflammatory"...unlike the term "pirate."

Re:"Loaded and inflammatory" (5, Insightful)

Kemanorel (127835) | more than 2 years ago | (#38968997)

Or the terms "stealing" and "theft," when copyright infringement in no way removes the original items from the copyright holders. Yes, it is infringement, and yes, it probably does impact their bottom line in some way (I tend to believe in more positive ways than negative than they realize), but copying an item is far different than taking it.

Re:"Loaded and inflammatory" (0, Flamebait)

s73v3r (963317) | more than 2 years ago | (#38969221)

but copying an item is far different than taking it.

In both however, you're ending up with the item without paying the author. You've essentially said, "I deserve access to your hard work FOR FREE!"

Re:"Loaded and inflammatory" (5, Insightful)

Nadaka (224565) | more than 2 years ago | (#38969125)

They have moved on to calling it theft now that "pirate" has been ingrained in the public mind. Maybe in a few years it will be called copyright rape or intellectual property murder.

It is all part of a war on language to guide the arguments, demonize those who would defend sharing (like Jesus?), and brainwash people into being incapable of forming a rational opinion on the subject.

Re:"Loaded and inflammatory" (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38969199)

Maybe in a few years it will be called copyright rape or intellectual property murder.

Only fitting, since the MPAA compared the VCR to the Boston Strangler.

Re:"Loaded and inflammatory" (2)

Jason Levine (196982) | more than 2 years ago | (#38968981)

Don't forget that it would require the blocking based on *allegations* of copyright infringement. Because, of course, waiting for due process takes too long! (See the RIAA's opposition to OPEN.)

Re:"Loaded and inflammatory" (3, Insightful)

s73v3r (963317) | more than 2 years ago | (#38969239)

I can see their point on this, but no. The right to due process is far more important to preserve than their ability to block a site in the US.

Re:"Loaded and inflammatory" (5, Informative)

Tharsman (1364603) | more than 2 years ago | (#38969045)

The part I found the funniest was the "gem"

A gem: "As it happens, the television networks that actively supported SOPA and PIPA didn’t take advantage of their broadcast credibility to press their case. That’s partly because 'old media' draws a line between 'news' and 'editorial.' Apparently, Wikipedia and Google don’t recognize the ethical boundary between the neutral reporting of information and the presentation of editorial opinion as fact."

I am not sure what retcon he is trying to inflict. I saw a lot of news broadcasts, tv shows, entertainment programs, some owned by "Pro SOPA" organizations, actually supporting the frigging anti SOPA movement! If "old media" is so right, then... SOPA is indeed bad!!! But no. He just relies on the old "lets tell them no one talked about it and hope they don’t remember that 'old media' did speak about it."

Well (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38968757)

With fiction of that quality, he should write for the studios in a screenwriting capacity instead.

Re:Well (3, Insightful)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 2 years ago | (#38969215)

Or "steal". You wouldn't steal a car....

The music and movie industries have blatantly twisted word to their advantage for far too long. The only reason they are "surprised" and "shocked" now is that after decades of the general public just rolling over, the industries finally woke the sleeping giant, which they expected to remain asleep despite their incessant poking.

Delusion runs high in the RIAA/MPAA (MAFIAA) camp (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38968765)

Oh man, I'm suprised that Mr Sherman didn't proclaim that guantanamo bay was a holiday camp.
RIAA : one notch less evil than Gheddafi and Al Assad. We need regime change. ^_^

Not delusion, manipulation (1)

Brain-Fu (1274756) | more than 2 years ago | (#38968845)

He isn't stating facts so much as attempting to create them. From that perspective, everything he says makes perfect sense.

Really? You call that a summary? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38968781)

I don't like the RIAA at all, but if Wikipedia and Google aren't guilty of what is claimed, the submitter sure as hell is. It's great that you've provided an opinion for me 'Unknown Lamer,' because surely I can't be trusted to form one on my own.

Re:Really? You call that a summary? (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 2 years ago | (#38968931)

Slashdot is not a source of unbiased news. If you expected that you are as dumb as those who expect unbiased news from FOX NEWS.

World's Tiniest Violin Playing.... (5, Insightful)

PortHaven (242123) | more than 2 years ago | (#38968787)

Seriously, RIAA has some balls....

Piracy - originally a violent theft (usually at sea). Equivalent of a mugging. But they've changed it to simply mean unauthorized use.

Theft - the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it. Wait, have the downloaders deprived ANYONE of any tangible property? Nope...once again, RIAA has changed meaning to unauthorized use.

So if "unauthorized use" can mean theft and piracy. Then SOPA can mean censorship.

Re:World's Tiniest Violin Playing.... (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38968985)

So, the RIAA was around in 1654?!

From OED, definition fo Piracy:

"2. The unauthorized reproduction or use of an invention or work of another, as a book, recording, computer software, intellectual property, etc., esp. as constituting an infringement of patent or copyright; plagiarism; an instance of this.

[1654 J. Mennes Recreation for Ingenious Head-peeces clxxvi, All the wealth, Of wit and learning, not by stealth, Or Piracy, but purchase got.]
1700 E. Ward Journey to Hell ii. vii. 14 Piracy, Piracy, they cry'd aloud, What made you print my Copy, Sir, says one, You're a meer Knave, 'tis very basely done.
1770 P. Luckombe Conc. Hist. Printing 76 Theywould suffer by this act of piracy, since it was likely to prove a very bad edition.
1855 D. Brewster Mem. Life I. Newton (new ed.) I. iv. 71 With the view of securing his invention of the telescope from foreign piracy.
1886 Cent. Mag. Feb. 629/1 That there are many publishers who despise such piracydoes not remove the presumption that publishers and papermakers have been influential opponents of an equitable arrangement.
1977 Gramophone Apr. 1527/3 Governments have begun to realize that unauthorized reproduction of records (so-called piracy) adversely affects also the rights ofcomposers, authors and performers.
1996 China Post (Taipei) 1 May 16/3 Authorities here said they have cracked down on piracy in recent years, but foreign computer firms claim they are still soft on piracy."

Re:World's Tiniest Violin Playing.... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38969001)

> the television networks that actively supported SOPA and PIPA didn’t take advantage of their broadcast credibility to press their case. That’s partly because 'old media' draws a line between 'news' and 'editorial.' Apparently, Wikipedia and Google don’t recognize the ethical boundary between the neutral reporting of information and the presentation of editorial opinion as fact.

I wonder how the 'old media' that was so gallant about guarding the journalistic integrity would react if, say, a bill was introduced that allowed tech companies the right to pull the plug - for example, by shutting down transmitters - on any broadcaster that the tech companies *thought* was using unlicensed software. Think BSA on steroids. You want fair? Let's see that bill.

Re:World's Tiniest Violin Playing.... (3, Informative)

Nugoo (1794744) | more than 2 years ago | (#38969013)

What are you talking about? Those are totally different. The RIAA had to redefine theft. SOPA is practically a textbook implementation of censorship.

Re:World's Tiniest Violin Playing.... (4, Informative)

kipsate (314423) | more than 2 years ago | (#38969041)

You're making it sound as if it is a stretch to call SOPA censorship. It is not.

Re:World's Tiniest Violin Playing.... (-1, Flamebait)

chrissandvick (844662) | more than 2 years ago | (#38969193)

Wait, have the downloaders deprived ANYONE of any tangible property?

It's really simple. Somebody puts something out there and asks a price for it. You have it and haven't paid. You're a fucking thief. Everything else is rationalization.

Re:World's Tiniest Violin Playing.... (1)

s73v3r (963317) | more than 2 years ago | (#38969261)

Piracy - originally a violent theft (usually at sea). Equivalent of a mugging. But they've changed it to simply mean unauthorized use.

No. Piracy has always meant that. Don't stoop to their level.

Re:World's Tiniest Violin Playing.... (1)

snowgirl (978879) | more than 2 years ago | (#38969265)

Theft - the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it.

Just a nitpick here, but there are misdemeanor thefts out there as well...

Why didn't big meda report on SOPA and PIPA? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38968789)

Perhaps the major media organisations didn't editorialize on SOPA and PIPA because they didn't report on it at all until the bloggers and big web started to make a stink about what big media and the politicians were up to.

Re:Why didn't big meda report on SOPA and PIPA? (1)

luther349 (645380) | more than 2 years ago | (#38969227)

or because big media cuts there checks. but when it exploded into mass protest they had no choice.

Come on (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38968795)

SOPA sucks, but the opponents *were* unfair. Nerds love to break free from their boring lives and pretend that they're freedom fighters, and companies like Google played along because it made the nerds happy--never mind that Google didn't shut down their services like a lot of places did, so they cynically got their cake and ate it too. Same with Slashdot. Slashdot is an advocacy site that gets its page views by stirring up the emotions of a particular demographic, and "first time submitter shoutingloudly" pushed all the right inflammatory buttons up there.

I'm all for changing the legislation, but can we stop with this goofy bogeyman stuff against the RIAA? There are valid reasons to fight against piracy. It ruins the argument to be so silly and inflammatory.

Re:Come on (1, Flamebait)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#38968869)

There are valid reasons to fight against piracy.

There are no valid reasons to fight against piracy. Technology has changed the world, and you're not going to change it back. Adapt or die, those are the choices.

Re:Come on (4, Insightful)

bonch (38532) | more than 2 years ago | (#38969255)

So I can steal GPL code then? Technology lets me do it, after all.

Not to cut in on the INFORMATION-WANTS-TO-BE-FREE rant, but culture can't survive in the long term if its creators don't get rewarded for their work. Just because something can be done technologically doesn't mean it justifies itself. Some people, who are often new to OSS, get confused over the fact they can download Linux software for free and end up thinking everything should be free. As the saying goes, it's free-as-in-speech, not free-as-in-beer. If someone wants to sell their software, they have that right too. Would you like it if your boss withheld your paycheck and told you your code "wanted to be free" and that you were a casualty of technology changing the world?

You have to be rational and fight against overreactions like SOPA while acknowledging sane solutions for compensating content creators so that we can continue to enjoy cool shit in our society.

Re:Come on (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38969279)

"There are no valid reasons to fight against piracy"

There are no valid reasons to fight against digital copying.

Fixed

Re:Come on (1)

s73v3r (963317) | more than 2 years ago | (#38969283)

No, there are valid reasons to fight against piracy. However, implementing shit like SOPA is not one of them.

And you've essentially said that you deserve the hard work of all these people for free, just because. Which makes you an asshole.

Re:Come on (5, Informative)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 2 years ago | (#38969113)

There are valid reasons to fight against piracy

There are plenty of laws on the books to help companies pursue copyright, patent, and trademark violations. SOPA, PIPA, and ACTA are about creating this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_scarcity [wikipedia.org]

By turning this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet [wikipedia.org]

Into a fancy version of this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cable_television [wikipedia.org]

Using tactics borrowed from this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_firewall_of_china [wikipedia.org]

We do not need more legislation, we need innovative business models that monetize entertainment in new ways. As long as there is an Internet and people can buy general purpose (read: not restricted by DRM) computers that connect to the Internet, there will be downloading. Future business models for the entertainment industry will have to use downloading in some profitable way (this is not terribly far fetched -- musicians have been known to use filesharing systems as a form of free advertising).

Re:Come on (4, Insightful)

dkuntz (220364) | more than 2 years ago | (#38969137)

There are valid reasons to fight against piracy.

I agree... I hate it when my ship gets boarded by skallywags and they take all my stuff... and shoot at me too! It's very depressing.

Re:Come on (1)

luther349 (645380) | more than 2 years ago | (#38969273)

nobody really shut down most sites just had a little script that ran pressing esc was enough to get passed it. and Google did have a big censer bar on there site and if you clicked it it brought up sopa info. youtube users flooded the site with a psa video. so yes google did there part.

Re:Come on (1)

s73v3r (963317) | more than 2 years ago | (#38969309)

So saying exactly what would happen as a result of the bill being passed is "unfair" now?

RIAA Thief (-1, Offtopic)

WilyCoder (736280) | more than 2 years ago | (#38968797)

That RIAA chief has got to be the worst kind of sociopath.

Probably cheats on his wife.....with underage children prostitutes.

Screw that douchebag and whatever backstabbing he had to do to become the RIAA chief...

Re:RIAA Thief (4, Insightful)

Anrego (830717) | more than 2 years ago | (#38968929)

I actually sometimes wonder about the individual people involved in big media.

I mean we like to personify the RIAA and friends.. talking about it as some kind of big bad pure evil entity, but it's actually a huge collection of people all doing their individual (evil) parts. I wonder if these guys actually take these attitudes home with them, or if they just play the part at work/in public.

Re:RIAA Thief (2)

Baloroth (2370816) | more than 2 years ago | (#38969231)

That RIAA chief has got to be the worst kind of sociopath.

Probably cheats on his wife.....with underage children prostitutes.

Screw that douchebag and whatever backstabbing he had to do to become the RIAA chief...

Yes, ad hominem attacks with absolutely zero evidence of any kind are definitely the way to invalidate his point that anti-SOPA people are using shady rhetorical tricks.

Fffuuu... (1)

JeanCroix (99825) | more than 2 years ago | (#38968813)

I seriously don't think I could read more than a sentence or two of the full op-ed without turning into Rage Guy.

the very first comment on the NY times page (5, Funny)

Dr. Tom (23206) | more than 2 years ago | (#38968817)

Mr. Sherman: You made a good point in your conclusion, "we need reason not rhetoric." That's exactly why it was a terrible idea for you to have written this rhetoric-filled inflammatory piece /we're done here

Pot meet Kettle (5, Interesting)

Registered Coward v2 (447531) | more than 2 years ago | (#38968867)

In a NY Times op-ed today, RIAA chief Cary H. Sherman accuses the opponents of SOPA of having engaged in shady rhetorical tactics

Fortunately, the RIAA and it's brethren always engage in reasoned, non-iflammatory rhetoric when presenting their case. After all, it's a well documented fact that every unauthorized, err illegal, d/l of material they own directly results in a terrorist organization receiving money.

Unfair huh? (1)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 2 years ago | (#38968875)

No good sir. If anything, they were far too kind to you. If your opponents were being unfair, they would have made it so when you opened your mouth, only the truth came out instead of bullshit.

Re:Unfair huh? (4, Funny)

Jason Levine (196982) | more than 2 years ago | (#38969039)

I think this is what he found so unfair. SOPA/PIPA opponents went about brandishing the truth when everyone knows that the truth is poison to the RIAA. This just in: Truth declared a WMD! (Weapon of Media-conglomerate Destruction)

Re:Unfair huh? (1)

Uniquitous (1037394) | more than 2 years ago | (#38969135)

I see no point in being "fair" to the **AA anyway. When you're dealing with cockroaches, you don't try to be "fair" to them. You just kill them and go about your business.

Pathetic (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38968893)

It's pathetic that within the first line, Mr. Sherman uses the imagery of a "tsunami" to describe what was happened to SOPA.

Comparing your politicking travails to the plight of people and Hawaii, Japan, and elsewhere is just despicable.

It also goes a long way to show how the RIAA and their ilk have completely lost touch with reality. I'm sure none of them see themselves as the bad guys that they are, and feel genuine in their right to complain.

Re:Pathetic (1)

sizzzzlerz (714878) | more than 2 years ago | (#38969017)

He was gonna use Holocaust but thought that might be a bit rhetorical.

Re:Pathetic (2)

P-niiice (1703362) | more than 2 years ago | (#38969233)

"During the negotiations for SOPA/PIPA we experienced the kristallnacht of the online community's false rhetoric and the gas chamber of old media's refusal to support it."

Re:Pathetic (1)

luther349 (645380) | more than 2 years ago | (#38969083)

there crying because there normal tactic of pushing around other country's then going but they are doing it also failed. the acta protest has also killed that bill.

He Still Doesn't Get It (5, Interesting)

Tackhead (54550) | more than 2 years ago | (#38968899)

From TFA:

But what the Google and Wikipedia blackout showed is that itâ(TM)s the platforms that exercise the real power. Get enough of them to espouse Silicon Valleyâ(TM)s perspective, and tens of millions of Americans will get a one-sided view of whatever the issue may be, drowning out the other side.

Cary Sherman still thinks this is a battle between "Google and Wikipedia" vs "Media Companies". And that the only reason his companies lost is because the other companies had better PR.

He still doesn't get that what happened was the people who consume the content - content linked to by GOOG, content distributed by Wikipedia, and content licensed by RIAA and MPAA - who finally got off their duffs and exercised their rights as citizens to demand that their elected representatives actually represent them.

I can't be too hard on him. When I ask "Who does Sen. or Rep. X represent", my answer is typically a company or group of companies that funded his/her campaign, and/or hired the lobbyists to write the bills that the politicians sponsor.

To put it in language that Sherman can understand, it's not that Rep./Sen. X changed from (R/D - MPAA) to (R/D - GOOG). It's that, this being an election year, and there being tens of millions of active internet users who are also eligible voters, Rep./Sen X represented (R/D - wishes of their constituents as tallied by their staffers, regardless of donation size).

Re:He Still Doesn't Get It (1)

luther349 (645380) | more than 2 years ago | (#38969177)

very true but that was not the only difference maker. when the protest got large enough and they acully paused for a second and saw this was also going to personalty effect them the bill was doomed. because this was not just a matter of pirate bay they could block anyone they pleased and that could have been your hoster for your website because they had a mp3 someone uploaded.

Re:He Still Doesn't Get It (1)

HWguy (147772) | more than 2 years ago | (#38969263)

He still doesn't get that what happened was the people who consume the content - content linked to by GOOG, content distributed by Wikipedia, and content licensed by RIAA and MPAA - who finally got off their duffs and exercised their rights as citizens to demand that their elected representatives actually represent them.

Exactly. Mr. Sherman's RIAA works to prop up a dying business model by attacking the business' customer. This protest may have been enabled by Wikipedia and others, but it was the consumer speaking. Consumers have proven they will pay for music, given a reasonable and fair business model. SOPA and PIPA were not about moving the industry more towards a reasonable and fair business model.

Re:He Still Doesn't Get It (4, Informative)

Baloroth (2370816) | more than 2 years ago | (#38969287)

He still doesn't get that what happened was the people who consume the content

Don't forget: quite a few of the people who actually create that content(as opposed to simply distribute it) opposed it too.

Before you get angry at the New York Times... (5, Insightful)

RobinEggs (1453925) | more than 2 years ago | (#38968995)

Please remember that a good paper publishes relevant opinions, not just ones they agree with. I've seen abortion opponents, global warming deniers, and all kinds of whackos published in their letters section, and you can be damn sure the paper doesn't agree with them. I'm not sure they ever publish full-length editorials they truly disagree with, but you still can't take the presence of this piece as the Times endorsement of Sherman's viewpoint.

So please calm down and stop saying things like "I won't click the link. I don't want to in any way encourage the Times to print this stuff". Censorship isn't just suppressing the very existence of opposing views in the media, you know, you can also censor yourself by refusing to even acknowledge and examine the viewpoints of people who disagree with you. You even ultimately censor your friends and peers to some degree when your behavior leads them to stop thinking and automatically ignore data from certain sources or types of people.

So click the damn link. Know what was actually said rather than just knowing the summary opinions and selective quotations from someone who did read it and already thinks like you. Understand that encouraging full-length discourse over sound bites is always a good thing, even if it it means encouraging lobbyists and liars sometimes.

Re:Before you get angry at the New York Times... (3, Interesting)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 2 years ago | (#38969171)

So where are the "anti-SOPA" opinions in the New York Times? Where are the opinions of people like Cory Doctorow? Where are the calls for rethinking the copyright system, the arguments against artificial scarcity, or the opinions of people who question the very premise of SOPA/PIPA/ACTA?

Maybe I just do not read the New York Times enough, but I cannot remember seeing such opinions being published.

the old media makes this distiction? (4, Insightful)

davydagger (2566757) | more than 2 years ago | (#38969023)

That’s partly because 'old media' draws a line between 'news' and 'editorial.'

They say they do, but did they ever?

they play fast and loose about this too much. I think every subculture group thats ever been covered in the news can attest to this. They have a great way of influencing court decisions by assuming guilt or lack there of on the onset, and using "news" articles to cater to their opinions.

just because they keep the TONE quasi npov(less and less these days), doesn't mean the content is in any one bit NPOV. When they mean "fair and impartial" they just mean they "dead pan" it to have the stylistic elements of being "fair and impartial". Anyone who's ever watched cable news know how skewed it is, and how news broadcasters use heavy bias in their reporting.

FOX News

MSNBC

CNN

Even before this, they had a long history of skewing the news in any dirrection they like. They NEVER lived up to the standards they pretended to. Like the rest of their arguments, its a bold face lie. This is about command and control, and their made up authority.

Cary Sherman lives in a bubble (5, Insightful)

LordZardoz (155141) | more than 2 years ago | (#38969035)

I do not mean in the 'bubble boy' sense. Specifically, I do not think that Sherman interacts with anyone not in a position where piracy has caused real damage to their income, or who does not have a personal interest in maintaining the current copyright laws. There is no one who Sherman is talking to who is going to say anything negative about copyright.

Talking to Sherman about the privacy situation is like trying to talk to your grandmother about the internet. You may work with the internet every day and you may be aware of what Meme's are, you have an opinion on Facebooks privacy policies, and you know enough not to click on links to a certain .cx domain. If you work in that world every day, and all of your friends work in that world every day, it gets harder to relate to people who chose to live a life without an internet connection.

I have no doubt that Sherman was truly surprised at the amount of visible and high profile backlash because in Shermans world, he cannot understand why a 'normal' every day person would have a problem with SOPA and PIPA. So clearly someone else must have manipulated the agenda to turn the masses against his agenda. So I bet that Sherman is certain that once he carefully explains his position that everyone will understand why SOPA / PIPA is a good thing.

END COMMUNICATION

30 million unemployed because of his editorial (3, Funny)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 2 years ago | (#38969061)

Did you know that, in the 12 hours since Cary Sherman posted his editorial, over 10,000 Americans have lost their jobs? Clearly this man must be stopped before he destroys our economy! And that's why I urge you to support the Stop Cary Sherman/Super-Patriot/I Love America/Support Out Children Act. To do anything less is to deny our children a future of hope and prosperity!

Neutrality? BS! (1)

Uniquitous (1037394) | more than 2 years ago | (#38969089)

Apparently when one is threatened and attacked, one is expected to maintain "neutrality" between oneself and the attacker.

A bit off... (1)

larys (2559815) | more than 2 years ago | (#38969095)

As it happens, the television networks that actively supported SOPA and PIPA didn’t take advantage of their broadcast credibility to press their case. That’s partly because 'old media' draws a line between 'news' and 'editorial.' Apparently, Wikipedia and Google don’t recognize the ethical boundary between the neutral reporting of information and the presentation of editorial opinion as fact.

While Google and Wikipedia were very straightforward with their stances on SOPA and PIPA and how they believed it would negatively impact their businesses as well as the freedom of their customers, television networks are not so upfront. Instead of television networks saying what they, as companies, stand for in such a direct way, they make sure to fund and air shows which support their views in an indirect way which doesn't always make it obvious to viewers that what is presented, is in fact mostly opinion. This is transparent in the differences between "news" shows on different networks. Some "news" will take one spin on an issue, vilifying those involved, whereas another will boast about the issue's grand points and turn those involved into saints, all the while claiming this is "news" which as defined by Merriam-Webster, is a "report of recent events" as opposed to opinion parading itself as fact.

Whatever opinions I may otherwise have about some of Google's past behavior, this was a very upfront and honest play on both their part and Wikipedia's. The person who wrote the quote above obviously doesn't look at what they watch on television critically -- which they should. You can't believe everything you hear -- tv included. It's not like there's some governing body making sure what's said on tv is accurate...it's maybe just a notch higher up on the validity ladder than what someone might say to you in passing on the street (though, admittedly with better makeup and lighting).

Censorship is such a loaded term... (2)

Jason Levine (196982) | more than 2 years ago | (#38969105)

... We here at the RIAA prefer the term: Corporate Approved Network Demarking and Inhibiting. After all, who doesn't like a nice piece of CANDI?

It's not property. (4, Insightful)

trout007 (975317) | more than 2 years ago | (#38969159)

"Policy makers had recognized a constitutional (and economic) imperative to protect American PROPERTY from theft, to shield consumers from counterfeit products and fraud, and to combat foreign criminals who exploit technology to steal American ingenuity and jobs."

From the Constitution Article 1 Section 8 - Powers of Congress

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

It's not theft of property. It is a violation of your Congressionally granted limited monopoly.

RIAA's position (5, Insightful)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 2 years ago | (#38969173)

We have record profits but want more money. This is a crucial issue that Congress needs to tackle, because record profits aren't enough. To that end, we think that we should have the right to seize personal property without due process. And even though we're currently abusing the DCMA (filing mass take-downs for content they don't own or review), we feel we need more power and promise not to abuse it for censorship.

Why wouldn't people support that?

The RIAA holds artists back from making more money by fighting the adoption of digital music. As content becomes more convenient to digest, people will consume more of it. Stop fighting consumers and embrace them. That is the way to combat piracy. Just look at iTunes, Hulu, Netflix, Amazon Prime streaming, HBO Go, Spotify, etc. etc.

What a load of poo nuggets! (5, Interesting)

Ynsats (922697) | more than 2 years ago | (#38969201)

First off, the "author" (used loosely) unfairly lumps the ENTIRE population into the category of gullible schlubs lapping up the misinformation spread by Wikipedia and Google. He assumes (which is par for the course for RIAA and MPAA) that the consuming public is completely made up of blithering idiots and thundering morons and that none of us are capable of understanding any piece of legislation that isn't presented to us in a manner that we "can understand". That destroys any credibility to his statements.

So I'm going to largely ignore what was said in the article because he largely ignored that I leaned about SOPA when the legislation first came about and read up on it for the length of time it was being deliberated in Congress. PIPA as well. Wikipedia only made it stupidly easy to contact my representatives...which I had already emailed about 9 times each concerning SOPA and PIPA prior to the day of protest.

I'm all for protecting intellectual property. But there are serious concerns with those bills that money-grubbing windbags like my senator, Frank Lousyberg, don't see. SOPA and PIPA are both bills intended to prevent people OUTSIDE the U.S. from stealing U.S. property. Great! I love it! But, explain to me HOW a U.S. law will apply to a jurisdiction outside of it's reach like, I dunno, Russia? China maybe? How are you going to punish Oleg in Moscow for a crime against the U.S. using U.S. based legislation without Russian buy in? Simple, you're not. The legislation will only serve to watch and punish U.S. citizens, the ones they say it's going to "protect".

SOPA and PIPA give FAR too much control to non-law enforcement bodies like the RIAA and MPAA by allowing them to get websites and even domains shutdown with "evidence" that amounts to "Hey, that looks like my words "the" and "and" on that webpage! I'd better tell a judge and get them shut down so I can investigate further!" (yes, I know it's exaggeration but it's used to show the absurdity) Once you prove that the ass trumpet that went to court and got the order is wrong, you can get your site turned back on and BAU it all day long. BUT! You have to prove your innocence first.

Let me restate that. You have to PROVE YOUR INNOCENCE FIRST.

What happened to innocent until proven guilty, in a court of law, by a jury of your peers? When did the RIAA become a law enforcement body with judicial responsibilities and furthermore, my peer? In most court rooms, someone with an invested financial stake is tossed off the jury or even reassigned because of a POTENTIAL conflict of interest. Not even an actual conflict, just the potential to have one.

I for one am not happy about any of that. I think the legislation is self-serving and far too open for interpretation. I don't even care about what Google and Wikipedia were on about. I don't care if they were spread "misinformation" or not. What I care about is some windbag, crybaby in L.A. putting out BS articles like this because legislation serving his personal agenda was shutdown by a government for the people and by the people because THOSE people think it sucks.

BTW Mr. Sherman, your profits and sales are down since 1999 because you make a shit product. Nobody wants to pay for your over-priced, overly produced, auto-tuned schlock. Piracy isn't destroying your business, your customers are. If my company lost 50% of it's market share over the last 12 years we'd be out of business...mainly because we don't have half of Congress in our back pocket to prop up our sucktastic business model and mediocre product line. I guess it's easier to point the finger away than to look at your sniveling, self-serving mug in the mirror, huh? So, tell me, what happens when you do actually get to stop piracy (good luck) and you're still hemorrhaging money and market? Who are you going to blame then? Or will we all still be stupid and not know a good thing when we are told to like it?

The only thing we want to hear from Sherman... (1)

JockTroll (996521) | more than 2 years ago | (#38969313)

... Is the death rattle. Die, Sherman, die along with your family, slowly and horribly. A cancer on you and your loved ones. May your suffering be unalleviable by medical science, despite how much money your throw at it. Look into the cesspit of Death, and despair!
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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...