Who Will Be The First Politician To Be GoDaddy'd?

from the turning-into-an-election-issue dept

Having GoDaddy back off its support for SOPA/PIPA is one thing, but it hardly kills off these bills. Politicians are still very much in support of the bills, and both bills are poised to move forward in Congress when it comes back into session in late January. Of course, 2012 is an election year, which means that all of the members of the House who are supporting SOPA are up for re-election, and 1/3 of the Senate is up for re-election. If I were a candidate looking to challenge the incumbents, I'd be paying close, close attention to what happened to GoDaddy, and seeing how the "netroots" community was willing to band together quickly to make things happen. I'd be especially focused on this if I were running against one of the key supporters of SOPA, like Lamar Smith, John Conyers, Bob Goodlatte or Mel Watt (whose opponent should just play that video of him saying he doesn't understand technology, but believes the experts are wrong anyway, over and over and over again).

Perhaps a little crowdsourcing is in order. Can we figure out who's already registered to run against the incumbent supporters of SOPA and PIPA, and reach out to get their opinions on the bills and of censorship of the internet?

Here's the full list of the current co-sponsors for SOPA. If any of their opponents in next year's election are paying attention, they should be using this as a key issue and reaching out to the internet community, ASAP. What happened to GoDaddy can happen to a politician in an instant:
  • Mark Amodei [NV2]
  • Joe Baca [CA43]
  • John Barrow [GA12]
  • Karen Bass [CA33]
  • Howard Berman [CA28]
  • Marsha Blackburn [TN7]
  • Mary Bono Mack [CA45]
  • John Carter [TX31]
  • Steven Chabot [OH1]
  • Judy Chu [CA32]
  • John Conyers [MI14]
  • Jim Cooper [TN5]
  • Ted Deutch [FL19]
  • Elton Gallegly [CA24]
  • Robert Goodlatte [VA6]
  • Tim Griffin [AR2]
  • Tim Holden [PA17]
  • Peter King [NY3]
  • John Larson [CT1]
  • Ben Lujan [NM3]
  • Thomas Marino [PA10]
  • Alan Nunnelee [MS1]
  • William Owens [NY23]
  • Ben Quayle [AZ3]
  • Dennis Ross [FL12]
  • Steve Scalise [LA1]
  • Adam Schiff [CA29]
  • Brad Sherman [CA27]
  • Lee Terry [NE2]
  • Debbie Wasserman Schultz [FL20]
  • Melvin Watt [NC12]
And here's the list of Senators who are both supporters of PIPA and are up for re-election in 2012. Wikipedia lists who's already registered to challenge them.
  • Ben Cardin [Maryland]
  • Bob Casey [Pennsylvania]
  • Bob Corker [Tennessee]
  • Dianne Feinstein [California]
  • Kristen Gillibrand [New York]
  • Orrin Hatch [Utah]
  • Amy Klobuchar [Minnesota]
  • Bob Menendez [New Jersey]
  • Bill Nelson [Florida]
  • Sheldon Whitehouse [Rhode Island]
Jeff Bingaman in New Mexico, Joe Lieberman in Connecticut and Herb Kohl in Wisconsin are all up for re-election in 2012... but all have announced that they're retiring. It may still be worthwhile to reach out to those running for their seats, but it becomes less of an election issue in those states. Dianne Feinstein still hasn't technically announced that she's running for re-election, but most people expect her to do so. She's also an interesting one. Despite being from Northern California, she has done almost nothing to cultivate support of the tech community, and is so out of touch that she thinks they're okay with PIPA.

It seems that anyone running against these folks would be missing out on a huge opportunity not to make the incumbent's support of censoring the internet into a campaign issue.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 27th, 2011 @ 12:19pm

    Did you find a good supplier for jack boots?

    Holy crap, you guys really don't care about free speech or rights to have an opinion unlike yours.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Dec 27th, 2011 @ 12:23pm

    Re:

    Holy crap, you guys really don't care about free speech or rights to have an opinion unlike yours.


    You've already had free speech explained to you, and yet you continue to be totally ignorant.

    Do you honestly think it's a violation of free speech rights to campaign against a politician?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 27th, 2011 @ 12:30pm

    Re:

    Holy crap, you guys really don't care about free speech or rights...

    You keep using those words. I do not think they mean what you think they mean.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 27th, 2011 @ 12:32pm

    Re:

    "Holy crap, you guys really don't care about free speech or rights to have an opinion unlike yours."

    Funny, when you lobbied and protested in favor of SOPA, it was "the will of the people".

    Apparently, you believe in freedom of speech for you, but not for those who disagree!

    I think you take a size 11 jackboot.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 27th, 2011 @ 12:32pm

    Re: Re:

    no but a troll sees when one sentence can get hmm 50-80 responses and will keep using it as long as people keep paying attention. Trolling is all about finding the easiest way to get peoples panties in a bunch.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 27th, 2011 @ 12:32pm

    Re:

    Are you really that stupid?

    Here's what the relevant part of the first amendment means ... and I'll use small word where possible:
    The government is not allowed to stop you saying stuff.

    There! That's it.

    It says nothing about stopping people passing on their own opinions to others, even when ... get this ... even when you don't like what they are saying.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  
    icon
    ChurchHatesTucker (profile), Dec 27th, 2011 @ 12:34pm

    Ben Cardin

    On it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 27th, 2011 @ 12:40pm

    Anybody knows who in Colorado is in favor of SOPA and PIPA?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9.  
    identicon
    NewYorkTech, Dec 27th, 2011 @ 12:46pm

    In New York, both Senators Chuck Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand support PIPA.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 27th, 2011 @ 12:46pm

    If a democrat runs against Casey in the primary then I'll support them, I already didn't like Casey much before this anyway.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11.  
    identicon
    Chairman Miao, Dec 27th, 2011 @ 12:46pm

    Report from Conyers' neighborhood

    Report on the local terrain from this left-leaning SOPA opponent:

    One can probably forget any effort to target Rep. John Conyers (D-MI 14). He's the longest-serving black member of Congress (nearly 50 years) from a majority-black district (mostly Detroit) which has been configured (by the state GOP) to be a lock for him. His wife Monica Conyers is doing prison time for a City of Detroit corruption scandal and even this does not seem to have dented Rep. John Conyers' popularity.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12.  
    identicon
    NewYorkTech, Dec 27th, 2011 @ 12:47pm

    In New York, both Senators Chuck Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand support PIPA.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13.  
    icon
    jakerome (profile), Dec 27th, 2011 @ 12:47pm

    Thought it meant something else...

    When I saw the headline, I thought it might have more to do with GoDaddy's cover their ass, screw their customers first policy to dealing with DMCA infringements. With all the bogus DMCA notifications being sent, and Go Daddy's overzealous response (which typically pulls down an entire domain for a single alleged infringement before notifying the customer), I figure it's just a matter of time before some SOPA or PIPA supporting politician sees their campaign website disappear.

    Then again, it's probably happened already. Dirty tricks by politicians is the oldest trick in the book-- I know Talking Points Memo has been targeted in the past for highlighting regrettable comments caught on film.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  14.  
    icon
    Overcast (profile), Dec 27th, 2011 @ 12:49pm

    Wait until a month before elections people and start the cease and desist orders.

    I'm sure if I LOOK hard enough, I could find a copyright violation on 80% of sites out there - maybe more.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  15.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Poster, Dec 27th, 2011 @ 12:50pm

    Re:

    I know you're a troll. I can see right through your act.

    I'm still going to reply, anyway.

    Mike Masnick and the commenters here at Techdirt -- including myself -- care more about the rights to free speech and freedom of expression than you will ever know or care to comprehend.

    Differing opinions aren't the problem here; uninformed opinions about the effects SOPA and PIPA will have upon the Internet and the First Amendment rights of American citizens are the problem.

    SOPA and PIPA will attack the security of the Internet and put in place an architecture for censorship that will be abused by those in power (and I don't mean the jackasses in Congress who deign to pass dangerous laws like SOPA and PIPA). Political dissent, "offensive" content that has been ruled legal, and content of all kinds that could be considered "illegal" (fanart, fanfiction, fan videos on YouTube, videogame playthroughs, video reviews of movies/TV shows/videogames/etc., music remixes, mashups) would be made potential targets of broad-sweeping censorship under SOPA and PIPA.

    SOPA and PIPA are broadly defined and offer no true solution to the real problem facing the media conglomerates that are behind the bill (the failure of said conglomerates to adapt to the Internet Age and use the Internet to their advantage). Those two bills represent the clearest attack to a free and open society that many of us have ever seen in our lifetimes.

    Free speech is the first right guaranteed to American citizens in the Constitution of the United States. The First Amendment is arguably the most important law ever signed into existence by the American government.

    Supporters of SOPA and PIPA don't give a shit about that, though, because what's some collateral damage to them when they have a "war" to fight?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  16.  
    icon
    btr1701 (profile), Dec 27th, 2011 @ 12:50pm

    Re: Re:

    > Here's what the relevant part of the first
    > amendment means ... and I'll use small word
    > where possible: The government is not allowed
    > to stop you saying stuff.

    The even more relevant portion is "...or the right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

    Speaking out against pending legislation is one of the core freedoms protected by the Constitution.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  17.  
    icon
    bjupton (profile), Dec 27th, 2011 @ 12:54pm

    Feinstein has got to go.

    I'd prefer a good primary challenge, but that's not likely in the offing.

    Can I get a none of the above?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  18.  
    identicon
    hegemon13, Dec 27th, 2011 @ 12:54pm

    Nebraska Challenger

    In Nebraska, Brett Lindstrom is challenging Lee Terry, and I have sent him and email requesting a statement of his position on SOPA/PIPA. In the meantime, I looked over his Web site, and I would be surprised if he supported it. He is a vocal opponent of the NDAA because of its infringement on American civil rights.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  19.  
    identicon
    Chairman Miao, Dec 27th, 2011 @ 12:56pm

    Re: Report from Conyers' neighborhood

    Here is an analysis of Conyers' district from fivethirtyeight, dated for the 2010 election:

    http://elections.nytimes.com/2010/house/michigan/14

    Conyers had a squeaker of a contest :-) in 2010, winning only 77% of the vote in the Tea Party's boom year. Usually he wins with 80-90%.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  20.  
    identicon
    hegemon13, Dec 27th, 2011 @ 12:58pm

    Re: Nebraska Challenger

    Just found this on his blog at the end of his statement on NDAA:

    "Terry’s support of this bill, in addition to his recent support of both the Mobile Information Call Act and the Stop Online Piracy Act, demonstrates a troubling trend of disregard for our individual freedoms."

    Here's the link to the post: http://lindstromforcongress.blogspot.com/2011/12/brett-lindstrom-national-defense.html

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  21.  
    icon
    Robert P (profile), Dec 27th, 2011 @ 1:00pm

    Lee Anderson against John Barron (GA)

    Looks like Lee Anderson has registered with the FEC to go up against John Barrow.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  22.  
    identicon
    hegemon13, Dec 27th, 2011 @ 1:02pm

    Re: Nebraska Challenger

    And, an EXTREMELY rapid response from his campaign office:

    "We feel SOPA could have unintended consequences and could lead to communist-style censorship. We do not support it."

    So, those of you in the Omaha area, get to it and support this guy!

    http://www.lindstromforcongress.com/

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  23.  
    identicon
    Floppy Copy, Dec 27th, 2011 @ 1:03pm

    Re:

    A good troll would cause complete chaos. You're clearly not a good troll lol. Thanks to you, anytime someone stumbles across one of these articles and reads the resulting discussion, they'll see hundreds of posts by netizens who are standing united, people who truly care about the future of freedom and liberty both on the net and off. So I raise my glass to you, troll, for you have done more good for our cause than anyone else could have ever done! :-)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  24.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 27th, 2011 @ 1:12pm

    Re:

    if only. That is what our ballot needs a "none of the above option" if that option wins get a whole new set of candidates and try again.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  25. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 27th, 2011 @ 1:12pm

    Re: Re:

    And no one cares what you people think about the Constitution because the founding fathers also used the Constitution to grant congress the right to write copyright law, something you shit on every day.

    Besides, as anyone can tell, Masnick is now focused on PIPA, because it also tackles piracy enforcement- which he hates, because no one loves piracy more than Mike Masnick.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  26.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 27th, 2011 @ 1:16pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    I care what they think. The real question is, does anybody care what YOU think?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  27.  
    identicon
    Yankee Infidel, Dec 27th, 2011 @ 1:18pm

    to Mike Masnick

    I love the work that you do, but honestly, any time you list politicians, it seems that you are scared to list their political party.

    While you may prefer to come across as non-partisan, the politicians' political affiliations are matters of fact and should be reported any time you list them. It is especially helpful in this case to demonstrate that not only is the support for SOPA and PIPA bipartisan but so is the opposition.

    Also, it is possible to remove these people in the upcoming primaries for those up for re-election this year so that the parties in their local districts can actually boot out those copyright fascists and put up a more worthy candidates in the general elections.

    Case in point: you have radio talk show host Erick Erickson who is a self-identified conservative is starting a campaign to unseat Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) in the upcoming primaries.

    http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/12/sopa-faces-growing-opposition-among-co nservatives.ars

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  28.  
    identicon
    Machin Shin, Dec 27th, 2011 @ 1:18pm

    Hello, My name is......

    Hmm, I think maybe there is something to be learned from that movie. Something about underestimating the Dread Pirate Roberts.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  29.  
    icon
    TtfnJohn (profile), Dec 27th, 2011 @ 1:19pm

    Re:

    I'd suggest, very seriously, that if you look 100% of campaign sites you'll find copyright infringements up the ying/yang. And you won't have to look hard either.

    Let's just "quote" this, sounds like it supports us! Attributing the quote to someone who doesn't and who still has control over their copyright. (OK, that's a very rate beast, indeed, but I'm told they still exist.)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  30.  
    icon
    Brendan (profile), Dec 27th, 2011 @ 1:33pm

    Re: disingenuous AC

    Au contraire, I think motivating voters to act to displace their "representatives" who are working against public interest (and free speech, natch) is the epitome of Free Speech in action.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  31.  
    icon
    Kevin H (profile), Dec 27th, 2011 @ 1:36pm

    Re: Re:

    size 4... you know what I am hinting at.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  32.  
    icon
    Kevin H (profile), Dec 27th, 2011 @ 1:38pm

    Called my guys Reno and DC office

    The guy in Reno may not know how to tie a show, and of course I just get a voicemail from the office in DC. We will see how nothing happens.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  33.  
    icon
    Liz (profile), Dec 27th, 2011 @ 1:40pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    ...the founding fathers also used the Constitution to grant congress the right to write copyright law

    The laws were written by the entertainment industry for the better part of a century. They were only passed by Congress because the people were for the most part, uninformed and unaffected.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  34.  
    identicon
    Machin Shin, Dec 27th, 2011 @ 1:43pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    I find it hilarious that you are actually able to see this in total black and white. Those against the bills must be evil pirates that just steal everything from the poor content creators.

    If only things were really so clear then there would be no argument. Trouble is that nothing is black and white. These bills have a great potential for abuse. In the past we have seen that if people can cheat the system they will. This is what a lot of us fear.

    I will admit quite proudly, I am a pirate. I have pirated a lot of things supposed to be "impossible" to copy due to DRMs. I can say a large part of that was because I love to take on a challenge. I will also say though, every time I took something that I actually used I would go out and pay for a copy.

    If you took a moment to look you would find that many of these "filthy pirates" are really everyday people all around you. Most of them know what is going on and will support content creators if they provide a good product. A lot of the "piracy" is really people trying out the software seeing if they really want to purchase it. I know if I'm going to spend over $100 for some software I would sure like to know it is going to do what I want before I buy it.

    So yes, I'm a pirate. I can also stand here and say though that I would not mind seeing the end of piracy so long as with it comes reasonable copyright laws. The laws were put in place to encourage innovation. It is supposed to motivate you to produce more content. Well how does a copyright that last for half a century after the death of an artist help do that? You think after he has been dead 10 years he is going to write a new song or story?

    Copyright like most laws in this nation needs to be reformed. It does not need to be added too, and it does not need better enforcement. It needs to be overhauled back into what it was intended to be. Once these laws are back into the realm of sanity then the general population will respect them. As they stand now though they are a joke. No one will respect them.

    I support content creators I like. Why am I going to support someone who has nothing to do with the content? If the author has been dead for over 10 years then why am I paying some random company for his work? What are they really giving me now? People really need to stop and really think about how stupid this system has become.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  35.  
    icon
    Liz (profile), Dec 27th, 2011 @ 1:47pm

    Re: to Mike Masnick

    I love the work that you do, but honestly, any time you list politicians, it seems that you are scared to list their political party.

    Why does it matter what affiliation a politician falls under?

    The support may be bi-partisan. But the opposition is non-partisan. Meaning people on all sides of the political spectrum reject it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  36.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Dec 27th, 2011 @ 1:51pm

    Re: to Mike Masnick

    I love the work that you do, but honestly, any time you list politicians, it seems that you are scared to list their political party.

    Not scared. I've said it plenty of times before that I don't list political party unless it's directly relevant to the story. And there's a reason for that: as soon as you list political parties partisan idiots turn it into a partisan debate about how many Ds vs. Rs there are or focus on D talking points vs. R talking points.

    Fact is this isn't a partisan issue.

    While you may prefer to come across as non-partisan, the politicians' political affiliations are matters of fact and should be reported any time you list them.

    They are factual, but there's lot of factual things I don't list when I talk about politicians. And, again, that's because it doesn't matter here.

    Case in point: you have radio talk show host Erick Erickson who is a self-identified conservative is starting a campaign to unseat Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) in the upcoming primaries.

    Which we wrote about long before Ars ever touched it:

    http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111223/02475917176/prominent-rightwing-blogger-promises-to -work-hard-to-defeat-any-rightwing-sopa-supporters-congress.shtml

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  37.  
    identicon
    Jim Nutt, Dec 27th, 2011 @ 1:58pm

    Bill Owens

    Rep. Bill Owens in NY claims to be a co-sponsor of the bill as well, thinks it's good for the country.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  38.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 27th, 2011 @ 2:02pm

    Re: Nebraska Challenger

    Lee Terry is a supporter of OPEN, and opposed to SOPA and PIPA

    http://keepthewebopen.com/supporters

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  39.  
    icon
    The eejit (profile), Dec 27th, 2011 @ 2:05pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    You know what?

    If this goes through, I will never spend another penny on entertainment ever again. I will literally buy huge hard drives, put everything on there and sell them at cost + £3. I'm talking video games, music, movies.

    You fucks wouldn't even know the meaning of the word privilege, seeing as how you're entitled to make money hundreds of times, whilst evryone else only gets to make it once.

    Fuck you and the horse you rode in on.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  40.  
    icon
    Jeffrey Nonken (profile), Dec 27th, 2011 @ 2:09pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    You know what they say. Big hands, big feet mean... big gloves, big shoes.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  41.  
    icon
    Ben (profile), Dec 27th, 2011 @ 2:26pm

    Re: Re:

    Free speech is the first right guaranteed to American citizens in the Constitution of the United States. The First Amendment is arguably the most important law ever signed into existence by the American government.

    Not so minor point: The First Amendment is not a law. It is an integral part of the Constitution, arguably as important as us having three branches of government and not being able to purchase liquor .... er, I mean allowing women to vote.

    I have always been a little annoyed at the founding fathers that they had to separate out the "Bill of Rights" rather than having them as part of the core document. On the whole, though, I think they got it right.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  42.  
    identicon
    Justin Olbrantz (Quantam), Dec 27th, 2011 @ 2:29pm

    Re:

    You have officially been appointed the intellectual standard of SOPA supporters.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  43.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 27th, 2011 @ 2:40pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    This comment of yours is so full of fail, it's mind boggling.

    First off, Congress has the ability to allow for copyright, it's not a right, it's a privilege. Enacted for a limited time, with the intent that after set time has expired (in it's original form, ONLY 10 years), what was copyrighted goes into the public domain.

    That's the long and short of it. Copyright is NOT a right.

    Mike and the rest of us on here have no problem with tackling piracy enforcement. What we have a problem with are bad laws that will have (un)intended consequences of the rest of us and our rights.

    You want to enforce copyright and take a stance against piracy, by all means, knock yourself out.

    Doing so with bad laws that won't actually do anything about it and will cause harm to the internet and my rights though, you can bet your a$$ I'm going to be against it and point out all the flaws and stupidity of such a thing.

    You sir fail as a troll. But I'm sure you think you're oh so clever.

    Oh, fyi, there have been ample quotes (from Mike himself) regarding his stance on piracy. I'll give you a hint, he's not in love with it. Ah heck, I'll just say it for your simple minded, he does not support, condone, approve of it. He understands some of the reasons it happens, he acknowledges that it will NEVER be stamped out entirely, he offers ideas on how you can deal with it (mostly by just admitting you can't get rid of it, then focusing more on the people who do matter, the paying customers, and how to entice them to keep giving you their money and also on how to provide better products/services than the pirates).

    Of course, let's not anything like facts and actual things Mike has said and advocates for (the rest of us included) get in the way of your daily tirade against Mike and piracy and the rest of us. You poor fool.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  44.  
    icon
    TheNutman69321 (profile), Dec 27th, 2011 @ 2:52pm

    Re:

    You sure seem to be reading this site alot for someone who seems to hate the site so much.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  45.  
    icon
    Capitalist Lion Tamer (profile), Dec 27th, 2011 @ 2:54pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Big feet means clowns.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  46.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Poster, Dec 27th, 2011 @ 3:01pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    the founding fathers also used the Constitution to grant congress the right to write copyright law, something you shit on every day.

    Modern copyright law is a perversion of the original intent of copyright law ("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"). Under the right set of circumstances and with a broad enough scope, anyone is an infringer of copyright.

    A movie trailer gets uploaded to a YouTube account other than the official studio's channel and gets one million views. Under the law, that's one million separate acts of copyright infringement (the uploader didn't have any right to upload the trailer to their account, after all).

    Does that sound fair or right?

    Copyright law was conceived in a day and age where reproduction of copyrighted works was expensive and time-consuming (as compared to the ease of copying today). The founding fathers of America -- nor anyone who conceived of the original copyright laws -- could not have forseen the Internet. Modern copyright law is nothing more than an attempt to apply 18th Century logic to the 21st Century, and it is failing miserably. More people pirate content than ever before, and a fair number of those people feel no remorse whatsoever for committing illegal acts of piracy. The state of copyright law today turns everyone into criminals, and nobody is to blame for that but the media companies that pushed through extensions and alterations to copyright law that perverted copyright into its current state.

    Copyright law can be used to silence legally-protected speech, too. Under the law, it's the burden of the accused to prove that a certain use of a copyrighted work in a derivative work is "fair use". When the average Internet user is faced with a DMCA complaint for a derivative work that they may have felt used a prior work "fairly", they will often give up the fight to have the derivative work reinstated because they can't afford a legal battle of any sort.

    Does that sound fair or right?

    Copyright now lasts in perpetuity; there has never been a shortening of the length of a copyright term in the history of copyright law.

    Copyright is a legal cudgel; the laws governing this special right can be used to swat content out of existence if even a tiny portion of a work is used in a wholly different work.

    Copyright needs to be rewritten from the ground up with the 21st Century in mind -- and until that happens, copyright in this day and age will be seen as little more than an annoying obstacle to sharing information and experiencing new content.

    By the way: if the government and the media companies really want to attack piracy, they should start by writing narrowly-defined laws that target the real problems instead of writing broadly-defined laws that will erect a framework for censorship that China would be jealous of.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  47.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 27th, 2011 @ 3:07pm

    Re: Hello, My name is......

    Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!


    No... wait that's not quite right...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  48.  
    identicon
    Spaghetti, Dec 27th, 2011 @ 3:11pm

    List of SOPA political opponents

    Let's see a list the political oponents of these SOPA-supporting politicians here so we can support those against!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  49.  
    icon
    oddboyout (profile), Dec 27th, 2011 @ 4:40pm

    Berman & Sherman

    Berman and Sherman will both be running for the same seat under CA's redistricting. My district. :\ Is there some kind of strategy to take advantage of this?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  50.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 27th, 2011 @ 4:47pm

    Re: Berman & Sherman

    My district. :\ Is there some kind of strategy... ?

    You are hereby nominated to head up the strategy and action committee for your district. Good luck. Godspeed.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  51.  
    icon
    Atkray (profile), Dec 27th, 2011 @ 7:33pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Only for the lulz.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  52.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 27th, 2011 @ 8:21pm

    Re: Re:

    No, but I think it gets very close to "shouting them down" and working against people's rights to have and hold an opinion.

    A small, noisy group of people forcing politicians to take a stand that they do not agree with, or "face the consequences" seems like really pushing the limits.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  53.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Dec 28th, 2011 @ 1:29am

    Re: Re: Re:

    A small, noisy group of people forcing politicians to take a stand that they do not agree with, or "face the consequences" seems like really pushing the limits.

    Push the limits of what, pray tell?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  54.  
    icon
    btrussell (profile), Dec 28th, 2011 @ 3:35am

    Re: Re: Re:

    You mean like the **AAs are doing?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  55.  
    identicon
    Anonymous 314159, Dec 28th, 2011 @ 7:22am

    Re: Re: Re:

    The actual text of that clause is: "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" (US Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8; capitalization in original, bolding mine). SOPA / PIPA hinder the Progress of Science and the useful Arts by making it so that small start-ups are afraid to innovate; copyrights now last essentially forever and are sold to giant corporations.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  56.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Poster, Dec 28th, 2011 @ 7:45am

    Re: Re: Re:

    A small, noisy group of people forcing politicians to take a stand that they do not agree with, or "face the consequences" seems like really pushing the limits.

    By "small, noisy group of people", are you referring to the SOPA/PIPA detractors, or the heads of Big Media?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  57.  
    icon
    btrussell (profile), Dec 28th, 2011 @ 8:50am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "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"

    That sounds like they can't sell their works to publishers, just licenses. :)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  58.  
    identicon
    hegemon13, Dec 28th, 2011 @ 10:09am

    Re: Re: Nebraska Challenger

    He's a co-sponsor in the above list.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  59.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 28th, 2011 @ 10:14am

    Re: Re: to Mike Masnick

    I think you are wrong here to not list their parties. I would like to honestly see how "bi-partisian" it really is.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  60.  
    icon
    JMT (profile), Dec 29th, 2011 @ 7:13pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    "A small, noisy group of people forcing politicians to take a stand that they do not agree with, or "face the consequences" seems like really pushing the limits."

    A large, widespread group of people strongly suggesting that politicians take a stand that represents them instead of corporate sponsors, or face the possibility of not getting re-elected, seems like how representative democracy is supposed to work.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This