Beta

×

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!

US Congress May Not Have Stomach For Another SOPA

samzenpus posted about a year and a half ago | from the lets-not-do-that-again dept.

Privacy 95

alphadogg writes "As a new session of Congress convenes in early 2013, don't expect lawmakers to rush out a new version of the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) or the Protect IP Act (PIPA). While some groups representing copyright holders still want to see stronger online enforcement, U.S. lawmakers don't seem to have the collective will to reintroduce similar bills and potentially face another massive online protest. In January 2012, more than 10 million Web users signed petitions, 8 million attempted calls to Congress and 4 million sent email messages, and more than 100,000 websites went dark in protest as the Senate scheduled a vote on PIPA. Lawmakers supporting the two bills baled out in droves, Senate leaders cancelled the PIPA vote, and SOPA's sponsor in the House of Representatives withdrew his legislation. 'That was an avalanche they've never seen,' said Ed Black, head of the Computer and Communications Industry Association. 'They're going to tiptoe in this area very carefully.'"

cancel ×

95 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Bullshit (5, Insightful)

SpiralSpirit (874918) | about a year and a half ago | (#42383765)

This kind of "oh they won't do that again" serves the other side, not ours. They'll just sneak it onto another bill, if they have to. Only calling them to account for their actions will work.

Re:Bullshit (4, Insightful)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | about a year and a half ago | (#42383791)

bingo.

"you guys won. we give up. no more copyright stuff in our laws. we promise."

yeah, check is in the mail, too. honest!

Re:Bullshit (1)

Jetra (2622687) | about a year and a half ago | (#42383923)

"Yeah, check is in the mail, too. honest" (No idea how to do quotes, sue me)

Now, let's talk about WDCWYTWPIA, We Don't Care What You Think, We Are Passing It Anyway which allows no term-limit on copyright, and massive fines on everyone, even if they only use a site that holds the copyrighted material. With the twinkies gone and the looming fiscal cliff, The American Public now doesn't have the willpower to stop us, so nyeh!

Re:Bullshit (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42384995)

(No idea how to do quotes, sue me)

You click "Quote Parent" at the bottom of the post beside "Preview", and delete the parts you don't want to include in the quote.

Re:Bullshit (1)

Jetra (2622687) | about a year and a half ago | (#42385133)

Thank you good sir.

Re:Bullshit (1)

gnupun (752725) | about a year and a half ago | (#42390247)

I clicked "Reply to This" for your post. But I don't see a "Quote Parent" link anywhere near "Preview".

No stomach? (1)

AliasMarlowe (1042386) | about a year and a half ago | (#42383943)

TFA is a cynical jest, or worse. Heinlein's definition of a committee comes to mind: a beast with no brains and a hundred bellies [anvari.org] . Congress has got all the stomach it would take, and then some.

Re:Bullshit (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42384331)

"you guys won. we give up. no more copyright stuff in our laws. we promise."

Are they telling a fib? Wash their mouths out with sopa!

Re:Bullshit (1)

AlphaWolf_HK (692722) | about a year and a half ago | (#42383859)

What other side?

Re:Bullshit (2)

Culture20 (968837) | about a year and a half ago | (#42383959)

Any other side. "We won, they won't try that again!" is a message of "Stop caring, stop being vigilant." No matter what the political viewpoint is.

Re:Bullshit (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42383889)

Well simple fact is we're playing for sheep stations here and people need come to a solution that works for everyone. SOPA Might have worked for its proponents - but it would have been bad news for the wider community. Unfortunately the current situation does devalue media industry's intellectual property and this needs to be addressed appropriately

Re:Bullshit (1, Troll)

symbolset (646467) | about a year and a half ago | (#42384175)

I think we could appropriately address the unfairness of the current situation by throwing the media moguls in prison. And then setting the prison on fire.

Re:Bullshit (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42385093)

Lets see, back in the 60s and 70s, the copyright was a certain length and companies were ok with the bargain or they wouldn't have released anything. Now 40 years later, and they aren't happy with the bargain and retroactively change it. How would you like it if 20 years later, your house builder comes back and says, yeah, you know that price we quoted you? yeah it just went up, pay us more. Same thing retroactive copyright term extensions really do. They take non monetary benefit away from the public.

Re:Bullshit (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42383939)

It will probably be attached as a rider to the National Day of Mourning for Newtown and We Love Teddy Bears Act

What, you're protesting teddy bears? Those awful Internet people.

Re:Bullshit (1)

symbolset (646467) | about a year and a half ago | (#42384283)

They already tried to weasel it into a "protect the children" bill.

Re:Bullshit (1)

bzipitidoo (647217) | about a year and a half ago | (#42388271)

We're wiser to that sort of thing, and it won't be easy, maybe not even possible to get away with it. Even if they do pass some terrible bill, it may be struck down in court. Or it may be simply ignored.

What bothers me is these bastards are trying things they know are against the will of the majority and the public interest. When they try sneakiness, that's a sign they know an act doesn't have public support. They're supposed to represent us, not special interests. What do they prove when they ignore the express will of the people? That representative democracy doesn't work? That the only way we can get a fair deal is to start a revolution? The US has been in a long slide towards greater inequality, with deliberate neglect of a variety of problems.

Indeed (1)

aepervius (535155) | about a year and a half ago | (#42384439)

It will eb a rider for the "protect the orphan of our military anti-porn act 2013" or some other rider in a bullshitty law nobody can refuse.

Re:Bullshit (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42384793)

This is exactly what happened with the NDAA. Harry Ried broke into proceedings a couple weeks ago and very quickly (almost too fast to understand) said a bunch of mumbo jumbo about amendments and extensions being added to some bill and then motioned for it to be accepted, it was, and then left and they went back to the former proceedings he had interrupted. In all, it took about 30 seconds. What was this bill he was so weirdly inserting something into? Bill 4310. The NDAA.

Nobody knows about it (unless they were watching CSPAN in the middle of the night during those 30 seconds and thought enough to ask what 4310 was). Nobody is accountable for it. And nobody has made a big deal about it.

They can and will do what they want and you and I can eat a dick.

Re:Bullshit (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42390229)

Nobody knows about it (unless they were watching CSPAN in the middle of the night during those 30 seconds and thought enough to ask what 4310 was). Nobody is accountable for it. And nobody has made a big deal about it.

Yeah, it's all a big secret [loc.gov] . Sounds to me like they amended a bill and everyone was fine with that. What did they do wrong? You haven't stated a single problem with the amendment.

Re:Bullshit (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42384897)

This kind of "oh they won't do that again" serves the other side, not ours. They'll just sneak it onto another bill, if they have to. Only calling them to account for their actions will work.

Doing so would have branded anyone who protested as un-American. Which is the worst slur you can ever put on an American apparently.

Being British I find the whole thing cute anyway.

Re:Bullshit (2)

tqk (413719) | about a year and a half ago | (#42385955)

This kind of "oh they won't do that again" serves the other side, not ours.

"Ours"? Methinks you presume too much.

Yeah, the US' copyright regime is fscked, but don't presume everyone's a "pirate". I advocate boycotting the bastards. Let 'em go out of business, ASAP. Support producers who don't want to enslave you, or sue you into oblivion. A quarter of a million dollar fine for dupping a DVD? Get serious. We can all do without. There's lots of stuff out that that is nowhere near as demanding.

Re:Bullshit (1)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | about a year and a half ago | (#42386125)

but don't presume everyone's a "pirate".

When did he do that?

Re:Bullshit (1)

tqk (413719) | about a year and a half ago | (#42388363)

but don't presume everyone's a "pirate".

When did he do that?

"This kind of "oh they won't do that again" serves the other side, not ours."

I despise what the MafiAA is doing, but that doesn't put me in the pirates' camp. "Ours" presumes I am, and is wrong. Boycott the !@#$%^&*. Nobody *needs* their !@#$. Put 'em out of business. Don't play their game!

Re:Bullshit (1)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | about a year and a half ago | (#42388655)

I'm still a bit confused. When he mentioned "ours," I think he was referring to people who oppose draconian copyright legislation, not necessarily pirates.

Re:Bullshit (1)

tqk (413719) | about a year and a half ago | (#42389273)

You're right. It was I who was presuming too much.

Re:Bullshit (1)

nurb432 (527695) | about a year and a half ago | (#42387175)

Right, and news like this just serves to distract people from what is really going on, as they sneak stuff in.

Its how the government works now, and people really need to wake up.

Almost makes you think democracy works (2, Interesting)

Black Parrot (19622) | about a year and a half ago | (#42383767)

Too bad they don't get this kind of response on all the other crap legislation they produce.

Re:Almost makes you think democracy works (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42383797)

People only have so much time to pay attention. After all, they are not full time politicians. Also, most potentially new laws are not universally hated.

Re:Almost makes you think democracy works (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42383799)

copyright enforcement is for niggers.

yeah i know you do not like that word. it is one of the ugliest words around (except maybe for "cunt"). but ugly concepts deserve to be branded with ugly words. this has nothing to do with black people. copyright enforcement and all the corruption that goes with it is nigger shit. nothing wrong with saying that.

we are all adults here. we do not need to worry about saying wordie-dirties. we can say it like it is. copyright cartel buying draconian enforcement is niggerfied.

mod this up if you care about telling the truth more than you care about cowardly people's imaginary right to never be offended.

Re:Almost makes you think democracy works (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42383845)

Language evolves. And it has evolved to a point where "nigger" is not racist. There are black niggers, there are white niggers, there are asian niggers. Nigger is not racist. However, there is a racist element in claiming it's racist -- since you're thereby claiming all blacks are niggers.

That said, copyright enforcement is not for niggers and you're misusing the word.

Re:Almost makes you think democracy works (-1, Offtopic)

AlphaWolf_HK (692722) | about a year and a half ago | (#42383969)

Well in that context, you forgot to say wigger and sandnigger.

Re:Almost makes you think democracy works (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42383981)

Shut up nigger.

Re:Almost makes you think democracy works (2)

Githaron (2462596) | about a year and a half ago | (#42383809)

Google and other major sites do not usually organize a unified effort to inform the public of most crap legislation.

Re:Almost makes you think democracy works (2)

Culture20 (968837) | about a year and a half ago | (#42384199)

And if they did, it would only take a couple days for people to start to tune it out, and a couple more for "political statement blocker" plugins to be developed and downloaded for FF and Chrome (not by Big Brother, but by the users themselves).

Immigration (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42383971)

Same thing happened when Bush was president over the topic of immigration. Congress has yet to pass anything close to the bill Bush proposed.

Instead Obama bypassed congress and with executive order put into place the Dream Act that congress could not pass. He has now shown he is unanswerable to the people or Congress. So don't worry, if Obama wants it Congress is just an inconvient step that used to be necessary to pass a bill, today he is a dictator. I expect the same thing to happen with gun control when it can't pass congress.

Congratulations for voting yourself a dictatorship USA!

Re:Almost makes you think democracy works (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42383983)

Yup.

A lot of people think the problem is that Congress doesn't listen to the public, but that isn't really true. Congress does listen to the public.

The problem is that 99.9% of the time, when they listen to the public, the public says "We don't care."

don't worry (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42383777)

They'll just slip it in piece by piece by attaching amendments to "feed the orphans" and "love thy flag" bills.

The way they'll pull it off (1)

Ralph Spoilsport (673134) | about a year and a half ago | (#42383785)

is by gluing it to some defence authorisation bill, where it will be "vote for this bill or you're WITH THE TERRISTS!!!" and every lily livered suck up meat bag on Capitol Hill will fall in line and vote against the terrists and in the process destroy online file trading systems, for ever. That's how it works.

Pathetic, I know...

Re:The way they'll pull it off (1)

The Grim Reefer (1162755) | about a year and a half ago | (#42383841)

is by gluing it to some defence authorisation bill, where it will be "vote for this bill or you're WITH THE TERRISTS!!!" and every lily livered suck up meat bag on Capitol Hill will fall in line and vote against the terrists and in the process destroy online file trading systems, for ever. That's how it works.

Pathetic, I know...

Perhaps, but my guess is that in the wake of the shooting in Connecticut it would be more likely to be a bill to "save the children". Then they can lump it in with internet predator and cyber bullying laws. No one is going to have the balls to vote against that.

Re:The way they'll pull it off (2, Funny)

Beardo the Bearded (321478) | about a year and a half ago | (#42383941)

The shooter in CT was known to download music and movies. If only we had been able to track his movie choices properly, and note a slide towards more violent movies and video games, then we could have prevented the tragedy of 20 kindergarten children.

It's a fairly small price to pay, having each person's movie preferences checked and analysed a licensed psychologist. Mandating that devices can only play movies that have been approved by the MIAA, and music approved by the RIAA, ensures that our children will be safe at school. /The outside of my molars in delicious, by the way.

Re:The way they'll pull it off (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42384069)

Good, that means the people who listen to whiny crap like Linkin Park, Avenged Sevenfold, and H.I.M. will be targeted for fitting the profile.

And I can continue to get away with listening to Cannibal Corpse's "Addicted to Vaginal Skin," Dying Fetus' "Kill your mother/rape your dog," or G.G. Allin's "Drink, Fight, and Fuck." without being watched.

  Merry Christmas, Motherfuckers! [youtube.com]

-- Ethanol-fueled

Re:The way they'll pull it off (2)

AlphaWolf_HK (692722) | about a year and a half ago | (#42383947)

It's not necessarily that, but feel good issues as well. During the last election, there were attack ads from a democrat aimed at Jeff Flake (who is anti sopa) saying that he voted against veterans benefits. I don't recall the particular bill, but when I looked into it, it turned out that he voted against it due to numerous other provisions which had nothing at all to do with veterans.

It's of no consequence though, as he had overwhelming support of veterans (which includes me) in the actual election, but it just goes to show the absurd nature of earmarks (which, by the way, Jeff Flake has been aggressively trying to kill; another reason I support him.)

Better luck next time (5, Funny)

davidbrit2 (775091) | about a year and a half ago | (#42383801)

I guess calling it PIPA wasn't enough to slip it past everybody. Maybe they'll have to call it KATE MIDDLETON or something.

Re:Better luck next time (2)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about a year and a half ago | (#42384021)

What they need is something with a really good acronym. Something that everyone would want to support and none would dare oppose. 'PATRIOT' act would be a good one, if it hadn't already been used for that purpose.

Re:Better luck next time (2)

MysteriousPreacher (702266) | about a year and a half ago | (#42384339)

Joint Universal Salvation from Terrorism Instigated by Copyright Enemies - JUSTICE!

The US habit of requiring cool acronyms seems a bit like a 12 year old boy coming up with cool names for their GI Joe doll's super secret stealth ninja elite team who discreetly patrol the streets in a flying tanks, pausing occasionally to subtly blow-up half of the city.

Just be glad you don't have Theresa May over there. My God, that bastard must regret being born to late to get a decent position in the GDR.

Re:Better luck next time (1)

grcumb (781340) | about a year and a half ago | (#42391135)

What they need is something with a really good acronym.

Prevention of Unlimited Peer to Peer Internet Exploitation Strategies Act.

Now, find me a congresscritter that would dare vote against PUPPIES.

Re:Better luck next time (1)

arbiter1 (1204146) | about a year and a half ago | (#42384303)

Yea it wasn't enough hence why they tried to pass ACTA next, and since its a "trade agreement". Good question how it was able to get that label. It would bypass house and senate and go right to obama's desk or slipped under bathroom stall with a very fat envelope .

Re:Better luck next time (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42384525)

The senate has to approve all treaties for them to take effect

Re: ACTA (1)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | about a year and a half ago | (#42385359)

We basically beat that one too, they're at like 0-4 and they're pissed. Hence we're seeing the spin campaigns starting. I think the Fiscal Cliff is crowding out the meme space, so they have to get past that one, and then we might see more updates about spring.

Re:Better luck next time (2)

giorgist (1208992) | about a year and a half ago | (#42385937)

I am not sure, PIPA in Greek means blow job

The RIAA always gets what it pays for (4, Insightful)

kawabago (551139) | about a year and a half ago | (#42383871)

The RIAA and other industry groups buy support in both houses with massive political donations. They don't give it freely! They expect legislation that favors them. They bought it and they want their congressional lackies to provide what they paid for. If they don't get it they support another candidate who will give it to them. There is so much corruption in the US system now that it's no wonder the country is falling apart. The government no longer acts in the best interests of the people, but in the best interests of their largest corporate sponsors. One person one vote no longer means anything when legislation can be bought with campaign donations.

Re:The RIAA always gets what it pays for (2)

Artifakt (700173) | about a year and a half ago | (#42385749)

Not to disagree with that, as far as it goes, but it's a limited explanation for many reasons - for just two:

1. There are hardware manufacturers and net service providers who are also very big companies. Some of them, i.e. Intel or even Apple, are much larger than any of the RIAA or MPAA members. To understand why new copyright legislation proposals are nearly constant while new laws favoring tech giants aren't, means first understanding what the content industries offer the legislative branch which these other companies can't. It's not more money - maybe it's a matter of much more effective lobbying with fewer fiscal resources, or maybe 'Hollywood glamour' sometimes counts for more than cash contributions.

2. At least some major players among the RIAA and MPAA members are notorious for shady deals and creative accounting. If they butt heads with other powerful entities, they should be relatively easy marks for investigations or lawsuits that leave them with no resources to lobby, because they will be to tied up in covering their asses. It would probably be a lot easier to get the public at large riled up at the recording industry than it would against any of the businesses they are inconveniencing. It would also appear that the RIAA, etc. would have a hard time pressuring any congressmen that were prepared to take support from other sources instead - that is another way of saying the recording industry has carrots, but not many sticks. The actual history of their lobbying efforts doesn't fit that - their great success at getting very extensive changes to the laws suggests instead they have people who know a lot of dirt on the legislators, and opposing the industry effectively requires knowing something of what that dirt is and when the RIAA, MPAA, etc. switch to 'non-fiscal incentives'.

This means (1)

KarlIsNotMyName (1529477) | about a year and a half ago | (#42383879)

This means keep up the pressure. It doesn't mean take it easy on them.

A shame.. (5, Insightful)

Roogna (9643) | about a year and a half ago | (#42383893)

That the public doesn't turn out to protest every horrible bill that way. Pretty sure the patriot act could have used that kind of response.

Re:A shame.. (1)

GNious (953874) | about a year and a half ago | (#42383945)

Perhaps next time someone has to vote/agree on TSA's continued budget....

Re:A shame.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42384671)

Except there's a BIG difference. You can't spin (in the political sense) copyright protection as a national security issue. Or maybe you can, if you can think of a nice acronym like PATRIOT that makes it sound anti-American to download movies and mp3's for free.

Re:A shame.. (2)

blahplusplus (757119) | about a year and a half ago | (#42384873)

"That the public doesn't turn out to protest every horrible bill that way."

This is a dangerous an naive point of view. I think everyone would benefit from watching this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYmi0DLzBdQ [youtube.com]

There's been an ongoing effort to manufacture consent and manage public perception so that people are pitted against one another and don't grasp what their real interests are. Not only that all private media is complicit in shaping the publics view of the world and most privately owned media is totally right wing / pro capitalism / imperalism / establishment while playing the ignorant public about their true political stance.

http://www.amazon.com/Manufacturing-Consent-Political-Economy-Media/dp/0375714499/ [amazon.com]

Re:A shame.. (1)

JWW (79176) | about a year and a half ago | (#42388829)

Yeah, if only the left wing anti-media, anti-capitalism forces could help us take the RIAA and MPAA out.

I have no respect at all for people like you who thing that your precious left would save us from these schmucks.

BOTH parties are totally sold out to the media companies. That's why, no matter what side your reps are from you have to continually tell them how evil these bills are.

Re:A shame.. (1)

blahplusplus (757119) | about a year and a half ago | (#42389189)

I have no idea what you are talking about since I don't subscribe to any ideology. Nice fabrication there. I know both parties are sold out, but they are sold out to hard core capitalists/corporatists. i.e. they sold out 'for money'. This is the natural state of capitalist societies since capitalism is a totalizing system that erodes everything in it's path for profits.

We know that both parties are sold out, but the idea we need to go back to the golden days of 'free markets' at this point is something someone politically illiterate would say. Markets lead to this outcome. So the any kind of resistance will be seen as 'anti capitalist' necessarily de-facto by the simple minded.

There are people of all stripes regardless of ideology that speak against then the things they don't like this does not make them X or Y ideologue, it means they have principles.

Re:A shame.. (1)

Roogna (9643) | about a year and a half ago | (#42395701)

There is nothing naive about thinking that "We the People", should maybe be a bit more concerned with the actions of our government. Not just during election years, and not only when the bill threatens our precious entertainment. There's plenty of other bills that should have had equally strong responses, that were basically ignored as inevitable. Heck, look at this complete laziness on the part of the Senate as it is. Yet we toss our hands up in the air and declare how we know how useless politicians are. As a form of acceptance. People -do- write, call, email, and pester their representatives. But mostly it's just a hum to them. A quiet hum in the background that's easily ignored. SOPA/PIPA showed that we the employers of these people -CAN- make enough noise to be heard.

Re:A shame.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42384919)

That the public doesn't turn out to protest every horrible bill that way. Pretty sure the patriot act could have used that kind of response.

If they had, they would have been called un-American. Which is apparently the worst slur you can receive.

Being British I find the whole concept cute anyway.

Re:A shame.. (1)

Tuoqui (1091447) | about a year and a half ago | (#42385989)

What... You have the time to protest every single bill they write up? I dont. I just have the time to protest the ones important to me.

Just goes to show how important the internet is to everyone.

I'm being pessimistic but they'll eventually wear people down by continuing to introduce similar bills until people are desensitized to it.

This isn't the beginning of the end... (1)

Johann Lau (1040920) | about a year and a half ago | (#42383903)

... and it may not even be the end of the beginning, but here's hoping.

their still going to try (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42383911)

they may tiptoe in the area ... but they still intend to go there.

Translated that means... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42383927)

What that really means is they will break it up and tack it onto unrelated bills.. including some that are impossible to oppose.. in order to sneak it in under the radar. Excellent example of this... the TIA (total information awareness) program from like 10 years ago. All the elements of what that was supposed to do are effectively in place.. or being implemented right now.

Instead of representing the will of the people... congress these days is more about finding ways to undermine it without attracting attention.

Tiptoe? (5, Insightful)

Scutter (18425) | about a year and a half ago | (#42384051)

'They're going to tiptoe in this area very carefully.'

Why should they have to tiptoe? The People have spoken loudly and clearly. They've told them exactly what they want and how they should vote. There is no tiptoeing. You either do what your employers tell you to do or you're fired. "Tiptoeing" implies that you'll still try to do it anyway, but in a way that won't piss off several million constituents.

Re:Tiptoe? (1)

shentino (1139071) | about a year and a half ago | (#42384097)

Until federal recall happens we can't exactly fire them.

Re:Tiptoe? (1)

Scutter (18425) | about a year and a half ago | (#42384213)

I just wish we could get people to respond on other issues, too. Many of which are far more important but go essentially ignored by an apathetic population.

Re:Tiptoe? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42384605)

No no silly, not fire them from their job, but fire them as in ignition!

Re:Tiptoe? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42384129)

And that's exactly what I expect them to do.

Re:Tiptoe? (1)

ohnocitizen (1951674) | about a year and a half ago | (#42384365)

Because they want it, regardless of what the public wants. This just means they'll try their very best to be even sneakier next time.

Re:Tiptoe? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42384551)

You merely have to look at the title, "US Congress May Not Have Stomach For Another SOPA". Somehow I fear they'll merely use their regular stomach some time later. Ugh.

OH ho ho ho ho, youuuuu~ (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42385037)

Are you... seriously... implying....

I mean, politicians being employed by constituents and doing as they are told? What do you think this is, some kind of republic or something?

Man, some people are just so deluded.

Re:Tiptoe? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42391463)

I'll play devils advocate. They don't want another outburst like that time, but there are issues that they want to resolve through law. Last time they tried, they crossed the line. So now, by tiptoeing means that they want to find a solution that actually works without pissing so many people off (ANY law is going to piss some people off).

Not that I don't think it's complete BS and that they're just going to try exactly the same thing, just more discreetly, I just disagree with your definition of tiptoeing.

Re:Tiptoe? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42395567)

"Tiptoeing" implies that you'll still try to do it anyway, but in a way that won't piss off several million constituents.

Exactly.

Baled? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42384141)

I'm no grammar nazi, but baled != bailed.

Unless that means legislators are really rolling their sleeves up and getting to work, or getting out of jail.

Re:Baled? (1)

kaatochacha (651922) | about a year and a half ago | (#42384443)

The all got together and worked to reduce the nation's lack of hay bales.

I hope that... (1)

yuhong (1378501) | about a year and a half ago | (#42384171)

This will help stop another Mickey Mouse-like copyright extension too. Hopefully copyright renewal will be bought up.

We still need it. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42384189)

SOPA was one of those things that 95% of the people outraged by it were only outraged because thats the cool thing to do online is jump on some bandwagon blindly because its what others do online. Its cool to dis the president online, its cool to say you hate call of duty, its cool to bash michael bay movies, its cool to hate sony online and so on just because its what everyone else does. And most people who go on a crusade just spit out the same exact thing as the next person because they dont actually know anything, they see what someone else says and repeats it again.

People want security, safety and all that other stuff but when someone comes along that is willing to make a tough choice then suddenly everyone is against because they want things fixed, they just dont want to be inconvienced by it.

No one really knew what SOPA was or what it was in place for, they all just ran some half assed conspiracy theories with no real knowledge of what they were talking about. People love to think they are smart enough to understand and love to bitch so they just made up a bunch of cockamamy bullshit in order to say the world is ending.

Re:We still need it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42385953)

You fail to state a single reason why "we still need it".

Re:We still need it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42386095)

"No one really knew what SOPA was" was part of the problem. The politicians didn't know, because they didn't understand or they didn't get a chance to see the full text of the agreement and neither did the people. Legislation should be done in the open, not as a fucking covert super-spy-mission.

Focus their energy in legal methods to get content (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42384327)

If they want to reduce piracy there are a few steps they can take. First off, lower prices. I stopped buying blurays or DVDs, they are too expensive. Hard drives are getting so cheap that having a digital always version is way easier. Rentals also need to be dropped in price. A good example of this is 2012. I know the movie was terrible, but this was the time of year to watch it. Not available on Netflix or other streaming. Most companies wanted $4 - $5 to rent it. Sorry, not going to dish out that much for a single use. Hell, I wouldn't pay that for many good movies let alone bad ones.

Second, I still can't believe how many movies I can't find in digital. Everything should be available in digital form, they have the money and the resources to make this happen. They choose not to.

Third, stop being so damn annoying with ads. You are just being greedy when you put 4 trailers in front of the summer block buster movie when released on DVD or Bluray. What is even worse is that you can't skip them right to the menu. You either need to fast forward or skip each trailer 1 at a time.

What do I end up doing in these 3 cases ? Welp, off to a torrent site. Where I don't need to deal with any of that crap. If you want my money, fix your business model and I will be happy to pay. I do not enjoy getting raped.

Re:Focus their energy in legal methods to get cont (2)

kaatochacha (651922) | about a year and a half ago | (#42384455)

yeah, um, having ads in your movies does not equal rape.

Re:Focus their energy in legal methods to get cont (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42385427)

"yeah, um, having ads in your movies does not equal rape."
Yeah, um, Yes it DOES! We already pay for the content, it should be completely free of ads and promotion. Or at least you should have to choose a menu option to see that crap, and it should never precede or interupt the movie!!

HollyWEED obviously has a very (erroniously) inflated view of the actual value of its products, thus the universal overpricing of movie and TV show disks, which in part drives people to find ways to get the content that they want for free. Annoying ads and promos that can't be skipped doesn't help either.

Nah. (1)

froth-bite (2777385) | about a year and a half ago | (#42384483)

lobby interests paying serious money, versus potential voters that don't/hardly contribute. this will be raised again and again until the funding goes away. It's not that I'm cynical, and these guys are assholes, but more like HFT games the system; those who are paying for results are making things happen over those of us who merely protest.

TPP is still going (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42384705)

they go no stomach my ass...
when that stops then ill know they stop being retards.
OH and to the Canadian prime minister thanks for completely bending over to it like a real proper homosexual communist pinko.
we get nothing and give everything what a fucking nut ...if you like hte usa so much fuyck off and go live with romney you wanker.

Liberal Name Calling (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42384773)

Being a right-winger, I thought I'd give an opinion that you may not have thought about. I don't care, and I'll support anything like this. I have been called bigot and racist so many times by liberals, and just this week I was told I should be marched into a concentration camp and shot. Well, I used to agree with some of you all, but because of your childish behavior I think I'll support any SOPA replacement. It won't affect me all that much, I don't bother downloading illegally because thier crap is crap. And don't think I'm a GOPer, because I don't care for them either, but at least they don't call people like me terrorist and such every time I disagree with them.

Congratulations liberals, you have made me oppose your issues just because they are your issues. I guess its time to write a check to Chris Dodd. lol

Maybe if you can grow up I'll change my opinion, but I doubt that will happen. I'm also sure I'm not the only one.

Re:Liberal Name Calling (0)

Skapare (16644) | about a year and a half ago | (#42384859)

Afraid to use your real nick, eh? Making up your political position based on who you hate, eh?

Re:Liberal Name Calling (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42385593)

Well thank goodness your newsletter there has a great deal of substance and informed rational thought. I'm intrigued by this notion of yours that the GOP doesn't call people that don't agree with them terrorists. I'm fascinated by this idea that only liberals resort to name-calling.

Hyper-partisanship, dogmatic stubbornness, and inflexible obstructionism are the problems. And neither major party is entirely to blame.

Congress critter have stomachs... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42385035)

people should be more concerned about their lack of spines.

Of course it doesn't (2)

fnj (64210) | about a year and a half ago | (#42385181)

Of course it doesn't have the stomach for it. The US Congress collectively does not have the stomach to hold its own dick while it relieves itself. If there were no dick holders provided in the Congressional restrooms, they would all burst open from not having the balls to relieve themselves, nor the common sense to realize that they HAVE to relieve themselves. These assholes don't even have the guts to address the nation's real problems. All they do is bring up useless frill after self serving pandering bill. That is, when they can move themselves to stir from their beauty sleep at all.

Punks, that's all they are. Corrupt remains of a system which is the biggest enemy of their own population.

As it is, the rot that is inside them is enough to wipe out the population if the pustulence ever escapes into the general population. I am goddam sure what the folks in 1776 would have done with this loathsome group of bought and paid for poseurs.

Re:Of course it doesn't (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42385297)

Right you are Sir.

Congress has more important things to worry about (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42385425)

Congress shouldn't be wasting time trying to protect multi-billionaires from having to pay their fair share. They have more important things to worry about, like trying to stop our children being mowed down by right wing tea party lunatics with machine guns. Between Phoenix AZ and Aurora CO and now Newtown CT, it should be crystal clear to anyone that the mission of government for at least the next decade should be to get guns out of the hands of everyday morons once and for all. The only people who should have them are police and active-duty military while engaged in conflict.

No stomach...? (1)

trudyscousin (258684) | about a year and a half ago | (#42386051)

But sopapipas are delicious with honey!

ah, /. "english as a third language" editors... (1)

sribe (304414) | about a year and a half ago | (#42392253)

Lawmakers supporting the two bills baled out in droves,

bale 1 |bl|
noun
verb [ trans. ]
make (something) into bales : they baled a lot of good hay | [as n. ] ( baling) most baling and field work have been finished.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

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>