MPAA Chief Dodd Hints At Talks To Revive SOPA 279
suraj.sun writes "Christopher Dodd, the former Connecticut senator who now leads the MPAA, hasn't given up on his dream of censoring the Internet. In an interview with Hollywood Reporter, he said that Hollywood and the technology industry 'need to come to an understanding' about new copyright legislation. Dodd said that there were 'conversations going on now,' about SOPA-style legislation, but that he was 'not going to go into more detail because obviously if I do, it becomes counterproductive.' Asked whether the White House's decision to oppose SOPA had created tensions with Hollywood, Dodd insisted that he was 'not going to revisit the events of last winter,' but said he hoped the president would use his 'good relationships' with both Hollywood and the technology industry to broker a deal."
LOL! American Freedom! (Score:5, Funny)
LOL! American Freedom!
Re:LOL! American Freedom! (Score:5, Insightful)
There's a reason out of thousands of innate natural rights, the Founding Fathers decided to include guns as one of the top 10. No not for hunting. For self-defense. Both of yourself and your fellow compatriots.
We haven't hit that stage yet, but we're getting very very close. If they start rounding-up Americans and throwing them in jail without trial (NDAA), I'm running for office. I'm fed up. And if they start executing americans.....
Let's just say the 2nd amendment is the only right left that I have not exercised. But that will change. Time to follow the example of our fellow human beings in Egypt. Libya. Eastern Europe. And the original 14 states (including Vermont).
Re:LOL! American Freedom! (Score:5, Interesting)
Why hasn't the MPAA been declared an illegal price-fixing conspiracy under RICO statutes yet? They've been convicted of price fixing TWICE...
Re:LOL! American Freedom! (Score:5, Informative)
Why hasn't the MPAA been declared an illegal price-fixing conspiracy under RICO statutes yet? They've been convicted of price fixing TWICE...
Because they buy off the politicians.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, because the US of today is like Libya, Egypt, Yugoslavia and the colonies in America circa 1700. And Obama and Bush are like Ghaddafi, Mubarak, Tito and King George I. *roll eyes* I'm always wildly amused by the type of hyperbole that is coming from some people in the US public. To some extent, it shows exactly how little they know about the world, and even about their own government. On the other hand, it also shows just how frighteningly violent they are.
Good thing that entertainment in the US is hi
Re:LOL! American Freedom! (Score:4, Insightful)
This works if there's no difference between one armed person and another. You no longer have parity.
Allow me to repeat DavidTC's excellent post from http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=346351&cid=21193115 [slashdot.org]
Contents:
Re:LOL! American Freedom! (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not like dissenters will line up on a battlefield with the army and all take turns shooting each other. They'll be an insurgency. Your neighbors. People you work with. And they'll have easy access to guns and technology.
Re:LOL! American Freedom! (Score:5, Insightful)
Main problem with dissenters is how easy it is to disband them. Firstly any body needs a head, and the FBI/CIA have practice with headshots. If anyone starts making sense they throw them in jail. It's really easy given todays level of population surveillance and overbearing laws.
Downloaded a song? Jailtime. Smoke weed? Jailtime had a younger girlfriend when he was in collegue? Statutory rape => jailtime.
Even if nothing can be found to get rid of a target (Cardinal Richelieu whould be dissapoint) you can thrump up false charges or, if pressed for time, charge him with disrruption of order or (for anyone seeking *actual* effective action) incitation to violence. It's therefore almost impossible to coordinate an organized rebelion. Which only means that any rebellion that does succed will be utter chaos.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:LOL! American Freedom! (Score:4, Insightful)
US armed forces can easily erase ANY organized armed group from the face of the Earth. The problem is, insurgents are not an 'organized group'.
They are a diffuse network, and rooting them out in reality is more of a police work (i.e. building networks on informants, fighting weapon smuggling, etc.) than military work.
Re: (Score:3)
You guys did not beat "3000 farmers" because you are too civilised to bomb the whole country into rubble, and it was a lot more than 3000 farmers.
I have no doubt that if the full might of the USA armed forces was unleashed on Afghanistan, without any civilized restraints, the war, well slaughter, would have been over in a year.
This is a good thing.
Re:LOL! American Freedom! (Score:5, Insightful)
Nonsense. The easiest way to overthrow the current batch of elected officials is to make the people enraged (not anger, which burns bright, then not at all; enraged, the sort of rage that glows like a lump of coal, and possesses a man to keep fighting even during bitter winters in places like Valley Forge). I have a book which purports that it's the printing of propaganda, timing, and anger that destroys entrenched governments.
In short, you personally do not do anything (violence, demonstrations, etc. only undermine your position, and draws the attention of power-brokers / rulers); you let the authorities fuck up, by shooting unarmed citizens or something equally unpalatable, then ensure that everyone knows they fucked up. Several incidents of a similar nature over a few years, supplied with the right condemnation, creates a firestorm that money & military cannot put out. Again, based off of this book's writings, it was the action of a certain founding father who helped turn the colonists against the crown (well, a little more than helped; more along the lines of ensuring that a military conflict would occur, and that the military would be loathed / despised / shunned by even the prostitutes).
Re:LOL! American Freedom! (Score:5, Insightful)
Best guess? It won't be a problem.
Why? Because the power-brokers are aware that the military has some reservations about firing upon an unarmed populace, specifically their own people. The military is required to swear an oath of loyalty to uphold the US Constitution, and the protect the people. They lack, for the vast majority, the psychological profile needed; and they are taught all about the Nuremberg trials, and how "I was only following orders" is not a valid defense; they are required to reject illegal orders, even from the commander in chief.
Instead, LEOs will be used. LEOs have shown that when outfitted with surplus military hardware, and trained with military tactics, they can be every bit as deadly as the military, while having little to no reservations over shooting an unarmed populace, specifically their own people (they do it all the time as it is). It also neatly sidesteps the issue of declaring martial law, which would put everyone on guard against a possible dictatorship. If the US President were to declare martial law today, an invisible clock would start ticking; a clock which various power-brokers would sell their own grandmother to prevent ticking. It's the kind of clock which has the citizenry polishing their pitchforks and acquiring fuel for torches, the kind of clock that has the military trying to decide whether it has a "problem," the kind of clock that gets the crazies thinking of being a 'hero' by sacrificing themselves to take out the "Big Bad." Using LEOs means you can say you're just trying to restore 'order' (plausible deniability), while you maintain control through your 'not-an-army.'
Re: (Score:3)
Given that I know the current one, and don't know for 100% sure on the next one...I'll at least take my chances on the next one....
My goodness (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:My goodness (Score:5, Funny)
Re:My goodness (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:My goodness (Score:5, Insightful)
The common factor is that they are both filthy rich and consider themselves far too poor.
Re:My goodness (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
I think these guys are so bought and paid for they don't really have any moral fiber. All that is holding them up is the stacks of cash which are stacked around them. They have no opinions except those that money can buy.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Speaking of Lamar Smith... (Score:5, Interesting)
http://www.tomsguide.com/us/REddit-TestPAC-SOPA-PIPA-Lamar-Smith,news-14720.html [tomsguide.com]
"What better way to kill the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) bill for good than to nuke its author right out of Congress? That's what a group of Reddit users are trying to do after forming a Political Action Committee, or PAC. They want Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX.) booted out of office, and will do everything they can to see it happen."
If they succeed in booting Smith in the primary, that should put some fear into others who might otherwise support SOPA/PIPA style legislation.
Re:Speaking of Lamar Smith... (Score:5, Insightful)
The only way to stop it for good, is to destroy the industries that bright it into being. They will never stop, insane psychopathic greed drove them to seek ways to censor and shutdown the peoples version of the internet so they could create an eighties version of mass media on it instead.
That kind of sick thinking doesn't stop until the people behind it and then people behind them have lost all the power.
We will be fighting the SOPA battle for the next decade at least and possibly longer. They spend years perverting the news, they spent billions buying up control and they still lie on those mass media channels day in and day out. Fox not-News is just the very worst example, not just the only one spreading corporate propaganda as news.
Re:Speaking of Lamar Smith... (Score:4, Insightful)
"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."
Re: (Score:3)
Exactly. The problem is that the MPAA, RIAA, etc... have to admit that the current and future state of technology has made their business model as obsolete as a buggy whip maker. It is time to move on. It is time for cop
Really? (Score:3)
Re:Really? (Score:5, Interesting)
Progressive policies are those which seek to establish control over all aspects of people's lives by experts who know better what those people really want and need than those people do themselves.
In stark contrast to that are the Conservative policies, which seek to establish control over all aspects of people's lives by nonexperts who know better what those people really want and need than those people do themselves.
Re:Really? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's the same thing as you've just asserted has happened to the word liberal. "Conservative" is now something else entirely.
Re:Really? (Score:4, Informative)
No, conservatives seek to limit government to the minimum amount of power necessary to keep society functioning. Unfortunately, there are many politicians who claim to be conservatives, and manage to appeal to conservatives by careful marketing, who seek to expand their power and thus the power of government.
So in other words, none of the so-called conservatives actually behave in the way that you think they ought to, but it never dawned on you that if that's what all the conservatives do, then that's probably the de-facto definition of conservative. Meanwhile, you ascribe a ridiculous set of beliefs onto liberals, but it never dawns on you that what you think liberals are is in fact just some made-up crap that so-called conservatives like to believe about liberals to make their own heartless existence more tolerable.
Or, put another way, you're completely full of shit.
Re: (Score:3)
Not really. Take an example from Canada we have a Prime Minister who campaign on honesty, integrity, openness and transparency who has run the most secretive, deceitful, closed, and ideological government we've ever seen. Sometimes the guy who promises to limit government will be worse than the guy who doesn't. You should spend more time looking at actual individual positions on issues (and their history of actions taken) so you can judge more accurately who is less worse. Conservative politicians are g
Re:Really? (Score:4, Informative)
You're confusing conservatives with libertarians.
Most liberarians are not anarchists (Score:3)
I was raised by progressives in an overwhelmingly progressive community, and had a similar experience to yours moving from that to libertarianism. I think you know, then, that while some libertarians seek no government, the majority of libertarians call for a very limited government that sticks to national defense and a criminal justice system that addresses only crimes with actual victims and civil dispute resolution.
Without addressing the issue that most politicians who say they're conservative really ar
Re:Really? (Score:4, Insightful)
Then why is "conservative" presidential candidate Rick Santorum, for example, so keen on telling people what they can do with their bodies?
The real truth: Liberals are people who value fairness and preventing harm. Conservatives aren't as keen on those, principles they believe that fairness and preventing harm can be limited to the good people who live the correct way, because they place a high moral values on conformity, tribal identity*, and obedience. Liberals, generally speaking, do not appreciate those conservative values. That is the root source of much conflict between liberals and conservatives. Conservatives seek to limit the government when the governments actions appear to benefit non-conservatives, and support government action when it appears to support conservative values. That's why conservatives think it's ok to have laws on who you can put your tally-wacker into and what you can smoke. Those laws reinforce the tribal identity that conservatives would like American to mean. Liberals meanwhile support government actions that increase fairness and prevent harm, and oppose government actions they think will decrease fairness or harm people without just cause. For example liberals generally oppose everything conservatives want done to enforce conformity, because they see that as unnecessary harm.
Libertarians are technically neither conservative nor liberal. They value individual liberty above all else. They care little for fairness, preventing harm, conformity, tribal identity, or obedience except where those values align with liberty.
* Tribal identity for many conservatives is "conservative", though it can also be based on nation, city, favorite sports term or something else.
Re: (Score:3)
Look at the history of progressives. They have always sought to expand the reach of government authority and take it out of the hands of elected officials and give it to unaccountable "experts".
Re:My goodness (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:My goodness (Score:5, Insightful)
For God's sake, stop falling for the tired old left-right lie they've been foisting upon us. It's not about left-right, liberal-conservative, or whatever other obfuscation the bastards want you to believe in. It's about the corporate state vs individual liberty. Some D's are OK and some R's are OK. The rest are in the bag.
When and if this dawns on enough people, it's Katie bar the door. It will be the end of the evil empire and they know it.
Re:My goodness (Score:5, Insightful)
Should've been clear as day to people when Bush started the Wall St. bailouts and then Obama continued them! What more do people need to see to realize what's going on? The parties are the same! They try to distract you with little non-economic trivialities like abortion or gay marriage but when it comes to looting the economy they are both the same.
Re:My goodness (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Genes perhaps? (Score:5, Informative)
Senator Thomas J. Dodd Memorial Stadium is a minor league baseball stadium in Connecticut. It was named after a Senator who was censured in 1967 for converting campaign funds to his personal accounts and spending the money.
That's Christopher Dodd's father. [wikipedia.org] And the memorial stadium was built in 1995 during Chris Dodd's tenure as a Senator. Senator Chris Dodd has had his share of scandals [wikipedia.org] too.
Something about apples not falling too far from the tree comes to mind.
Re: (Score:3)
What motivates this man to be so evil?
This is not half that evil as others... watch out [digitaltrends.com] CIPSA [eff.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Not sluts, whores...
Sluts do it for free. Whores get paid
Re:My goodness (Score:4, Funny)
Sluts do it for free.
There's always a price, man. There's always a price.
Re:My goodness (Score:5, Insightful)
If that language doesn't (Score:5, Insightful)
Spit out plain and simple bribed legislation I don't know what does.
Re:If that language doesn't (Score:5, Interesting)
Are you kidding? That's downright diplomatic for Dodd.
Did you forget about him Calling out the government for not doing what they were told? [foxnews.com]
Yawn... (Score:5, Insightful)
The *AA will keep sponsoring legislation until they get what they want. Then they'll decide they want more.
News, indeed.
Re:Yawn... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Yawn... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's hard for them to see us as stakeholders in the society whose rules they are trying to manipulate
As opposed to consumers that they are trying to sell a product to.
Re:Yawn... (Score:5, Funny)
It's hard for them to see us as stakeholders in the society whose rules they are trying to manipulate
As opposed to consumers that they are trying to sell as products.
I have altered your comment to more accurately reflect the situation.
Pray I do not alter it further.
CISPA (Score:5, Interesting)
I believe the current bill trying to snake its way into US law is CISPA:
http://kat.ph/blog/GreenPirate/post/1774/ [kat.ph]
Re: (Score:3)
I have a solution. Let's (all) stop looking for bugs and security issues in software; the problem will then quietly attend to itself.
Obviously (Score:3, Insightful)
If I tell the people about the legislation I am crafting there will be outrage. So don't tell anyone. Obviously.
Re:Obviously (Score:5, Insightful)
In MPAA-speak... (Score:5, Informative)
"Broker a deal" means "Bend over and take whatever we give you"
Come to an understanding? (Score:4, Funny)
You'd think the guy could at least try to resist the temptation to sound like he's in a mob movie. Unless that's part of the draw of the whole being evil thing.
Re: (Score:2)
It's ironic, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Speak for yourself. I have much better things to do with my time, and it's been that way for a long time in my household.
The problem is, you and people like you are the minority. FridayBob doesn't speak for you, clearly, but does speak for the majority of American citizens.
Why we fail (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Corporations are people my friend.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Corporations are people my friend.
You know, I'm not a republican, but I gotta defend Romney on this one just because I absolutely hate when either side takes a quote out of context to make the other guys look bad. If you have to resort to fooling people instead of legitimately making a good argument, you don't have a leg to stand on.
At the event in question, Romney was making the point that either we had to cut certain welfare programs or "raise taxes on people." It's a statement I agree with, but he argued that you shouldn't raise taxes,
Re: (Score:2)
Hollywood stepped off the moral high ground in 1998:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act [wikipedia.org]
Until we're back to where we were in 1997 the copyright lobby won't get a dime from me. I hope they all go bankrupt and I'll do anything I can to help that happen.
Re: (Score:3)
They had stepped off the moral high ground long before that. That was when they stopped even trying to pretend.
Re: (Score:2)
As for corporations not holding copyright, I don't understand why you think this is an issue or helps. Some things cost a lost of money to create. If we corporations can't hold copyright, then those things won't get created.
An "Understanding," You Say? (Score:5, Informative)
Here's the understanding, Chris: Computers copy data. Period. End of novel; no sequel coming. It is a fact of the landscape that is not going to change.
And that, as far as any clear-thinking technologist is concerned, is the end of the discussion. Business models must be constructed around this reality. (And if your business model is not based on reality, but instead on a la-la fairy land where every computer is under MPAA/RIAA/SPAA control, unsanctioned copies never happen, every view is metered, and directors and actors work for naught but "exposure"... Well, they have anti-psychotics that can help with that now.)
BTW, anyone hoping to debate the merits of copyright policy is REQUIRED to read this speech by Thomas Babington Macaulay [kuro5hin.org] -- it will easily be among the most enlightening forty-odd minutes of your life.
Schwab
Re: (Score:2)
Here's the understanding, Chris: Computers copy data. Period. End of novel; no sequel coming. It is a fact of the landscape that is not going to change.
It's also a fact of the landscape that to get online and function once you're there, most Americans go through very few gatekeepers/ways.
Whether we're talking about ISPs, search engines, payment processors, file hosts, etc... there aren't actually that many.
By attacking these gateways, the **AA can focus its power much more efficiently than if they were going after every American online.
/And the money they spend on advocating this crap gets written off on their taxes, so it isn't a big loss to them.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The thing is, if the *AAs actually acknowledged the new reality, and worked with it, rather than against it, they probably would be able stop almost all piracy. They won't ever make as much money as they used to, because the Internet allows us all to do our own distribution. Why should we pay extra for a separate media distribution service when we've got a perfectly effective one in the Inteternet?
What we're seeing is the *AAs trying to cripple the Internet as a distribution medium because it encroaches o
Re: (Score:3)
Well, I read the Macaulay speech. And found that it had nothing to do with this particular discussion. In fact it could be construed to support the idea of copyright, in so far as that it recognized granting a monopoly to authors as the solution to seeing they are paid.
"It is good that authors should be remunerated; and the least exceptionable way of remunerating them is by a monopoly. Yet monopoly is an evil. For the sake of the good we must submit to the evil; but the evil ought not to last a day longer t
Re:An "Understanding," You Say? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:An "Understanding," You Say? (Score:5, Interesting)
"And you will find that, in attempting to impose unreasonable restraints on the reprinting of the works of the dead, you have, to a great extent, annulled those restraints which now prevent men from pillaging and defrauding the living."
This is the modern copyright wars in a nutshell. Copyright can NOT exist in defiance of common sense. It must be reasonable or it will destroy our respect for the law. If we wish to continue as a lawful nation, we must restore reason to copyright.
Reason would look like:
But, when negotiating with a crazy opponent, you can't begin with reason.
Our initial negotiating position must be:
Miles
Of course (Score:5, Insightful)
Ok, in case you didn't know this, of course they're going to revive it. They're going to keep pushing it and keep pushing it until it goes through. You thought we beat it because it didn't pass that one time? What, did you think the entertainment industry ran out of money and stopped paying congressmen?
They'll wait a little while, they'll rename it, they'll alter it to hide the more controversial aspects, and they'll wage a propaganda war. They will not stop trying to consolidate their power until they're ousted from power.
Re:Of course (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Of course (Score:4, Informative)
It's called CISPA [digitaltrends.com].
FTFY. Now, go [avaaz.org] and try to do something.
Moron (Score:5, Insightful)
conversations going on now
but that he was
not going to go into more detail because obviously if I do, it becomes counterproductive.
It becomes counterproductive because nobody fucking wants this, and the people you're "having discussions" with are probably corrupt.
Re: (Score:2)
Or he's trying like hell to corrupt them or bamboozle them into thinking MPAA's vision is a good idea and not a scheme that puts the utility of the internet at risk.
The New Deal (Score:4, Insightful)
The technology industry wipes out the existing business model introducing a more efficient one, retaining only the creative elements that produces movies and music. That's what IT does.
I mean evolving business models was the whole idea of capitalism in the first place, from memory.
Well, OK then (Score:3)
Lets everybody keep a sharp eye out for whatever the fuck they may be trying, and shout it down when it comes out again... just like SOPA.. again
I found this guy's theme song... (Score:3)
Voltaire says it best in 'When You're Evil' [youtube.com]...
I'm the fly in your soup, I'm the pebble in your shoe
I'm the pea beneath your bed, I'm a bump on every head...
Senator *AND* he leads the MPAA??? (Score:2)
I guess corporate dollars and political motivation can't get spelled out much clearer than that. Anyway, there have been plenty of alternatives proposed to SOPA/PIPA. If he can't work with what's been proposed then he should be fired.
Re: (Score:3)
In this case, the title is honorary. Much like George Bush is still referred to as "President Bush" even though he isn't in the White House anymore, Senator Dodd is no longer a senator.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
We may disagree with you about social issues and government assistance, but you'd better believe we're your brothers in fucking arms when it comes to the overreach of Hollywood and big government censorship.
Don't confuse being the "party of no" with being anti-MAFIAA.
Take, for example Orrin Hatch [wikipedia.org] former republican senator from Utah and RIAA bitch.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
No worries, we'll just wait for "conservatives" in Congress to back big oil, big coal, and other large industries.
Let's do something about it. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Also no rentals or Netflix subscriptions.
Re: (Score:2)
The only way we are EVER going to be free of this tyranny is to deprive the members of the money they need to keep supporting it.
But, then I'll miss Battleship [battleshipmovie.com]!
Chris Dodd (Score:2, Redundant)
It's just like home... (Score:4, Interesting)
As a Canadian, I'm torn between taking some sort of sadistic delight in seeing that the characteristic of elected representatives making decisions contrary to the electorate's desires is not a uniquely Canadian trait, and feeling genuine empathy for the USA in this situation.
After careful consideration, I'll go with the latter. It's a more PC.
I am Canadian, after all.
There's a petition for everything (Score:2)
Do sign, please. It may not help, but it can't hurt.
Re: (Score:3)
http://act.demandprogress.org/sign/new_sopa/ [demandprogress.org]
Do sign, please. It may not help, but it can't hurt.
While at it, give CISPA [digitaltrends.com] a bump [avaaz.org]... while you still can [eff.org].
An understanding? (Score:2)
Maybe Chris Dodd needs to come to an understanding with a bucket of tar and a pile of feathers.
How much more openly? (Score:4, Interesting)
How much more explicitly should he say that he doesn't give a rat's ass about the general interest? Should he say "I poop on all you little folks!"
I swear, Americans seem to just *love* these self-interested politicians.
Quoted as saying (Score:2)
Electronic Frontier Foundation needs to step up (Score:2)
All the people that complained about special interest groups... well, this is what they're good for... EFF has been pretty good about fighting this stuff off in the past. And as time goes on this will be a bigger struggle.
You can't ban special interests. You can only counter special interests with special interests. The abortion people fight each other. The gun people fight each other. And now we're going to have a war between the MPAA etc and the EFF etc.
Bring it.
Re:Connecticut (Score:5, Funny)
Perhaps we should call in a Connecticutioner?
Re: (Score:2)
You're advocating fascism.