Senator Leahy Hands Republicans A Gift By Giving Them Credit For Delaying Vote On PIPA/SOPA
from the do-these-people-have-no-clue? dept
We’ve noted how intellectual property issues are historically non-partisan. Sometimes, that’s good, because it means that debates on the issues don’t fall into typical brain dead partisan arguments. Sometimes, it’s bad, in that it basically means both Republicans and Democrats are generally really bad on IP issues… happy to give industries greater and greater monopoly rights for no good reason. However, we noted an interesting thing happening on the way to the collapse of PIPA and SOPA: the Republicans were first to come together as a party and decide to speak out against these bills, recognizing the groundswell of public interest. That resulted in Republican leadership coming out against the bills, and Republican Presidential candidates all rejecting the approach in the bill. The Democrats, who have traditionally been considered more “internet friendly,” simply couldn’t bring themselves to go against Hollywood and unions — two regular allies.
However, as many more net savvy Democrats have explained, this appears to be a major miscalculation on the part of Democratic party leadership — potentially losing an entire younger generation of voters to the Republicans. Already, mutliple strategists have been suggesting that the Republican Party use this as a chance to cozy up with Silicon Valley, despite its typically “blue” leanings (though, generally with a strong libertarian bent). It certainly appears that the Republicans are ready to do just that. House majority leader, Eric Cantor recently tweeted about meeting with Sergey Brin.
The Democratic leadership, however, still doesn’t seem to recognize the importance of the tech community and the wider internet. Rather than learning anything from what happened last week, PIPA sponsor Senator Leahy is actually trying to blame the Republicans for killing PIPA. It’s (yet again) an amazingly tone deaf response. It’s as if he’s pushing the internet and the tech community right into the Republicans’ arms. Perhaps he’s making a bet that those constituencies don’t matter as much as Hollywood… but that seems like a pretty risky bet to make.
Filed Under: copyright, democrats, patrick leahy, pipa, politics, protect ip, republicans, sopa
Comments on “Senator Leahy Hands Republicans A Gift By Giving Them Credit For Delaying Vote On PIPA/SOPA”
Corrupted Lying Washington
My post title is all I really need to say.
Everyone here has probably clicked on the links and read thru the many News Stories and the Government’s own Public Information.It is rather obvious to anyone sane just what is going on in our Government and what is going on in the Big Content Industry.
Re: Corrupted Lying Washington
And what’s going on with Big Search:
http://news.yahoo.com/googles-4q-lobbying-bill-triples-3-76-million-205546163.html
Re: Re: Corrupted Lying Washington
You mean how they’re now forced to spend millions of dollars lobbying in order to help real people defend our internet from Hollywood?
Re: Corrupted Lying Washington
Capital letters rock.
“this appears to be a major miscalculation on the part of Democratic party leadership — potentially losing an entire younger generation of voters to the Republicans”
If the discussions I’ve been seeing all over the internet are in any way representative of the bigger picture, many younger Americans are completely fed up with the Donkey vs Elephant politics.
The Democrats may have lost the younger generation, but I don’t think the younger generation went to the Republicans…
Re: Re:
It’s completely in their hands, though. If they dump the religious and totalitarian ends of their spectrum and embrace the small-government parts instead, they could have a shot at the future.
We’ll have to see whether they have their eyes on the long game.
Re: Re: Re:
The small government doesn’t necessarily jive with the younger generation either. Right now, the Department of Education is the only government agency that gives young adult any form of assistance, in the form of financial aid. If you reduce government, or get rid of the the DOEd as Ron Paul has suggested, you’ve just made a bunch of poor students who can’t get decent jobs due to lack of education, training, experience, and opportunity (since the boomers aren’t retiring on time) have to get private loans on stricter terms.
For the Republicans to get the younger vote, they would need to be the Pirate Party.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I think you’d be surprised how easy it would be to get a job if the tax rates were near zero.
I think you’d be surprised how easy it would be to get an education – a whole education, not a McEducation – without the DOE.
The think one of the things people miss about the libertarian philosophy is how spectacularly motivating it is to be without so many safety nets.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Laissez Faire was done in the 19th century
It led to massive povery, massive health problems and vaste swathes of the population going without education altogether.
This whole thing has been done and was a demonstrable failure for the vast majority, in that it is like the prohibition on drugs coming after the prohibition of alcohol.
Nothing about the effects cannot be predicted and only the mad believe that doing the same thing again will bring about a different result.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
And by pretending either that leveling the playing field doesn’t matter or that it is level enough, all it does is entrench those already in power.
Wow, sounds like just what we need.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
I like that you complain about Laissez Faire and prohibition in the same post.
You realise that those that want properly free markets are generally against prohibition, right?
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
The point is not that prohibition was an example of laissez faire policy.
Rather, it is that repeating a failed policy (e.g., prohibition; laissez faire) is likely to lead to another failure.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
The robber barons were severely conjoined with the government.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
And that’s not even considering how big the DoE has gotten and how much students have to pay back while not finding a job.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
I have to agree, the reason you need cubic money to go to school is that the DOE made it available and education raised its rates to suck up all available funds.
It’s kind of like how insurance corrupted and ruined the medical industry.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
The think one of the things people miss about the libertarian philosophy is how spectacularly motivating it is to be without so many safety nets.
Just ask a Somali pirate!
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
“The think one of the things people miss about the libertarian philosophy is how spectacularly motivating it is to be without so many safety nets.”
Wow, wonderful.
No one is more motivated than a starving 3 year old to find food. If only we’d remove those safety nets, he could go get it without all that damn government interference.
Libertarianism, like all other utopian schemes, is a road to dystopia.
Just moronic.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Libertarianism is a contradiction. To have a self-regulating market, you have to have an organized and well-educated consumer class that always acts in its own best interests and balances out the natural efforts of the rich and powerful to corrupt the system and change the rules in their favor. To achieve this, you’d have to institute a “socialist” public education system that raises up the otherwise uneducated masses.
There’s a reason people like the Koch brothers support the Tea Party and other so-called libertarian ideologies. If you start out wealthy and influential, libertarianism is a government regulation-free power vacuum just waiting for you to corrupt it.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
“I think you’d be surprised how easy it would be to get a job if the tax rates were near zero.”
I’d definitely be surprised. If you reduce the size of government, will the sacked government workers not need new jobs? Tell me, where will those come from? And also, by reducing those people’s purchasing power, you are effectively cutting jobs in other areas. The overall result would be even more unemployment.
“I think you’d be surprised how easy it would be to get an education – a whole education, not a McEducation – without the DOE.”
It’s a matter of supply and demand. If your libertarian fantasy-land were to happen and there was a “truly free jobs market”, then the supply of educated people would strive to meet the demand. No more and no less.
The DOE was giving loans so more people could get complete educations than there was demand — in other words, cutting it would make it harder to get an education.
“The think one of the things people miss about the libertarian philosophy is how spectacularly motivating it is to be without so many safety nets.”
People starving in the streets would be very motivating indeed, huh?
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
After the debacles we’ve seen in wiping out regulation in the financial markets, for the life of me, I cannot understand why people still believe that shit.
Libertarianism is a utopian fantasy. In reality, those seem to always turn wrong, but there’s always someone out there saying “Yeah, but we just didn’t do it ENOUGH”.
They are sounding more and more like the dead-ender Communists than anyone else these days.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
“After the debacles we’ve seen in wiping out regulation in the financial markets…”
And forcing banks to send to poor credit risks to they can have the “American Dream(tm)”.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
You are wrong. The bad loans originated almost entirely from banks that were NOT subject to those regulations. The problem was lack of regulation, plain and simple. Fact:
The Community Reinvestment Act is the law you say “forced” the banks to make subprime loans.
Source: http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2011/11/charts-facts-economic-crisis/
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
you obviously don’t know how the mortgage system in the US works. All small banks bundle mortgages and then sell them to Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac. So claiming that most of the loans originated form banks outside of the regulations… umm unless they were FORGIN BANKS they were required to abide by that law.
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
I think I have a fair understanding.
What I’m saying is that the data shows that only one of the main originators of subprime loans was subject to that regulation, while the rest were exempt but did it of their own accord.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
The idea that just because you take a job away from the Federal Government that it just stops getting done is ridiculous, naive and plain stupid.
There are LOTS of NGOs that do WAY better than their federal counterparts at doing almost everything, they just dont get funding because ‘the government already does that’.
Using starvation as an attack Libertarianism is a straw man argument of the worst variety.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
“The idea that just because you take a job away from the Federal Government that it just stops getting done is ridiculous, naive and plain stupid.
There are LOTS of NGOs that do WAY better than their federal counterparts at doing almost everything, they just dont get funding because ‘the government already does that’.”
What’s the point of taking jobs out of the government if your goal is not to increase efficiency (ie., “doing it way better” like you say)? Newsflash: increasing efficiency means doing the same thing with fewer jobs. What’s more, many (if not most) government jobs exist to keep the government’s own bureaucracy running.
“Using starvation as an attack Libertarianism is a straw man argument of the worst variety.”
It’s not a strawman, you just have no counterargument because it’s true: if there are no safety nets, some unlucky people WILL make mistakes and end up in absolute poverty. There is no way to dispute that.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
And it’s even worse when the powerful realize that they can make a profit by pushing people towards poverty. Or into foreclosure, or into prison.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
It’s not a strawman, you just have no counterargument because it’s true: if there are no safety nets, some unlucky people WILL make mistakes and end up in absolute poverty. There is no way to dispute that.
Your assumption being that if there is no government safety net there is no safety net, as blaktron said:
The idea that just because you take a job away from the Federal Government that it just stops getting done is ridiculous, naive and plain stupid.
As has already been stated charitable giving is higher in countries with lower taxes – the larger the welfare state the less likely people are to give to charity.
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
Why should they? They’re already giving at the office.
“who have traditionally been considered more “internet friendly,””
You keep saying that, but it’s not true. Clinton signed the DMCA and many similar bills were also signed by democrats.
Re: Re:
(and lets not forget the Copyright Term Extension Act also signed by Clinton. Do you really want me to go on because the fact is that democrats have arguably been worse than republicans when it comes to this issue).
Re: Re: Re:
can you blame them? Hollywood and unions are their ticket to the White House. Democrats and Hollywood go hand in hand.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
and lets not forget that Obama, a democrat, pushed for ACTA.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It is a major miscalculation on the part of the democrats. 14 million people came out against SOPA – PIPA. Those are just the ones that actually did something. There are a ton more that were disgusted and did nothing. You never get 100% participation on things like this.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Not to mention the people who would likely come out against these bills if they were as informed as the Internet community. But because the govt established media cartel keeps them ignorant …
Re: Re: Re:
Nor Republicans nor Democrats, both screwed everybody.
But the Republicans got their in the form of the Tea Party that although put some crazy people there has one good quality, it showed to everyone what a group of people can do, if they have just draft the laws and put forth real guidelines to people who they put there it could have been a historical event, where not one figure moved the people, the people all by itself moved along created laws and put in place the tools(politicians) to see them applied.
Re: Re:
Your problem here is that you seem to believe that the words “traditionally been considered more” carry the same meaning as “have been more”
I’ve been able to vote on the last three presidential elections, and have generally voted for Democrats. However, with the stuff going on with Obama saying he would veto NDAA, then immediately signed it into law, and the fact the US has been applying pressure to force other countries to adopt SOPA/PIPA type laws, in addition to helping push ACTA, I can honestly say I don’t fall on either side anymore. Both sides are ridiculous, neither side cares about anything other than lining their pockets and staying in power. It’s disgusting, and I wish the independent parties were stronger and had a bigger foothold in US politics, because that would be who I would vote for.
Re: Re:
Of course they can only get bigger, if you do support and vote for them.
Re: Re:
‘I wish the independent parties were stronger and had a bigger foothold in US politics, because that would be who I would vote for.’
Do it. By voting for one of whatever the two parties offers us, the cycle is simply sustained and strengthened. Did you think the revolution was started by the Silent Majority or something?
Re: Re:
Of course, you also have to understand that by the time a party gets big enough to start making impacts on multiple issues, they start to become targets of corporate lobbyists looking the next johnny-come-lately to corrupt.
That’s the problem. Dems, Repubs, and everyone else eventually succumbs to the corruption.
This is just one of the reason all of the young people I’ve seen support Ron Paul.
Replace the government
These things wouldn’t happen if we just had a few things happen. Note this is an ideal, which doesn’t mean it is necessarily possible.
1. Very short terms for Congress members.
2. Make it illegal for politicians to get donations from lobbyists and super-packs during election periods; running must use their personal fortune.
2a. Illegal for super-packs, donations and lobbying to politicians period whether it’s inside congress/Washington D.C. or outside.
3. Limit how much all political candidates can spend on advertizement.
4. Get rid of electoral college.
These restrictions on politicians would set very fair campaigning. There would be little room for corruption. Plus by limiting how much one can spend on advertizement for campaigning, this makes it fair for everyone and wont’ lead to the “richest man wins” in publicity. The common man could run for president.
Of course if donations during elections need to be a necessity, they must be anonymous and reviewed by the DoJ or some other policing sector to make sure no under-the-table deals take place. The penalty would be prison time.
I know this sounds naive and maybe a bit extreme, but the way I look at it, with all the draconian laws putting the general public at disadvantages, I think it’s about time we see politicians suffer from like-policies, laws and restrictions.
Re: Replace the government
I cannot agree more with what you have stated there. I feel the same for Canadian Politics. When it’s time for an election of some sort, you see signs everywhere, clearly displaying each parties budget. If we had a set budget for crap like that, then maybe we could finally see some creativity in these signs, instead of whomever can place the biggest sign in the best spots.
Re: Replace the government
“2. Make it illegal for politicians to get donations from lobbyists and super-packs during election periods; running must use their personal fortune.”
“3. Limit how much all political candidates can spend on advertizement.”
Congratulations, you’ve just elected Hollywood for your government. I’d think your format assures that already established personalities will have a massive advantage.
Re: Replace the government
1. Very short terms for Congress members.
Of course, part of the problem is the short terms, in that they have to start running again pretty much as soon as they are elected
2. Make it illegal for politicians to get donations from lobbyists and super-packs during election periods; running must use their personal fortune.
Personal fortunes would clearly advantage the wealthy, make it illegal for them to use any funds other than those raised from voters, with a cap of ten dollars per person as the maximum donation.
If they want to spend ten million dollars, they’ll need at least a million supporters, now that seems pretty fair.
2a. Illegal for super-packs, donations and lobbying to politicians period whether it’s inside congress/Washington D.C. or outside.
Ban all donations other than those from individuals, and cap those at 10 dollars per person – even if a corporate pseudo person.
3. Limit how much all political candidates can spend on advertizement.
Problem resolved by the limit on donations.
4. Get rid of electoral college.
True, it’s a relic of a different time and the reasons for it simply do not apply now.
Re: Re: Replace the government
“4. Get rid of electoral college.
True, it’s a relic of a different time and the reasons for it simply do not apply now.”
That part you are uniformed about, for the people in sparsely populated stated to have any voice in government it or something much like it is needed.
Not that anyone without a lobbyist has any say in government any more, but still you are giving the strength of the votes to the cities and therefore to the “Haywood pay my electric bill” group, aka the Democrats.
Re: Re: Re: Replace the government
People in sparsely populated states have far to much a voice using the ridiculous electoral college. One person one vote, plain and simple, there is no need for the electoral college at all.
Re: Re: Replace the government
“4. Get rid of electoral college.
True, it’s a relic of a different time and the reasons for it simply do not apply now.”
That part you are uniformed about, for the people in sparsely populated stated to have any voice in government it or something much like it is needed.
Not that anyone without a lobbyist has any say in government any more, but still you are giving the strength of the votes to the cities and therefore to the “Haywood pay my electric bill” group, aka the Democrats.
Re: Re: Re: Replace the government
one person one vote is not putting anyone at a disadvantage, and to not have it is not why the electoral colleges were created.
Re: Re: Re: Replace the government
Naw, you are misinformed.
There’s no reason that we shouldn’t have a popular vote for president. It is ridiculous that my vote cast in CA doesn’t mean the same thing as someone’s vote does in a “swing state” where they go from one side to the other.
Re: Re: Re:2 Replace the government
Sure let’s create more voters like this:
http://revolutionarypolitics.tv/video/viewVideo.php?video_id=15915
Re: Re: Replace the government
Short terms are not the problem they are the solution, once people start taking the drafting of laws into their own hands you will be thinking why terms are not shorter.
Leahy is irrelevant
Another horse that’s past due and time to be put out to pasture. Feinstein is another one. These folks long ago stopped representing citizens, forgot that people vote for them, and measured their success by dollars raised. Corporate pawns just about right.
Mind you, on classic right/left issues, the Leahy’s & Feinsteins will vote so as to coincide with those little checkboxes on the candidate position things. But if it’s not a left-right issue, if it’s below the radar, then they have shown time & again that their vote is simply for sale to the highest bidder.
Shameful. Mostly its cognitive dissonance, but there’s also some true greed in there as well. Washington is broken because of this at-any-cost attitude & only I can fix it. Which I’ll do at any cost!
Re: Leahy is irrelevant
They represent rigged voting districts.
Get rid of the Gerrymandered districts to get real candidates and elections.
Re: Re: Leahy is irrelevant
‘They represent rigged voting districts.’
What do you mean, Vermont? The whole state? Leahy’s a Senator, and I seem to recall each state gets two. Unless you are claiming that ‘states’ represent rigged voting districts.
Yeah, I do support some of the stances that Ron Paul takes on several issues. Unfortunately, it’s sad that he most likely won’t be nominated because he hardly gets any attention in the Republican debates. All the attention focuses on Newt and Romney, neither of which are fit to be President, in my opinion (not saying that Obama IS fit to be president, because he certainly hasn’t kept most of his campaign promises) and hasn’t helped trim any deficit or change anything specific with American policy.
Re: Re:
If his viability is merely suffering from lack of visibility, we can fix that. This is the internet.
One thing I’ve noticed, people waffle over the other cadidates, but Ron Paul supporters are spectacularly solid.
Re: Re: Re:
Yes, but the 1,000 superfans strategy might keep one from starving, but will never win a national election.
He’s too kooky for the mainstream.
Could Someone Please Fully Qualify "economic threat"?
“I thank the majority leader for seeking to schedule that debate on this serious economic threat. I understand that when the Republican leader recently objected, and Republican senators who had cosponsored and long supported this effort jumped ship, he was faced with a difficult decision,”
What the fuck? Where is this “threat” exactly? The only threat I can make out is to the pockets of legislators and that of placing poorly run businesses as a priority over the Constitution, people and reality.
Copyright – FIX IT, IT’S BROKEN. Damn it! Reset.
Hollywood of yesteryear is done, broken and barely relevant – must we drag this on and damage *everything*?
‘Perhaps he’s making a bet that those constituencies don’t matter as much as Hollywood’
guess it’s up to the voters to decide then
“… happy to give industries greater and greater monopoly rights in exchange for a nice fat check.“
FTFY.
Democrats don’t wont give up on SOPA or PIPA because their powerful paymasters in Hollywood give them huge sums of cash to stay loyal and tow the MPAA, Union, and RIAA line. When someone is throwing huge sums of money at you it is hard to say no!
i think u misinterpreted the situation completely on this one. this isn’t leahy talking to the people or in response to anything other than hollywoods threat to cut off money to the dem party. leahy is trying to lay blame on the repubs hoping that they take it up. then he can go back to hollywood and say look at what these nasty repubs are trying to do your business, be a shame if we weren’t in power to stop it. hollywoods biggest mistake was trying to shake down a shake down artist.
SOPA/PIPA won't matter that much
Republicans may have backed away from SOPA and PIPA, but that won’t swing most younger voters toward the Republican party.
Younger voters are heavily driven by social issues, and they tend to be much more liberal in their social outlooks than older voters are. Given the choice between a Republican who is anti-gay/anti-choice and and anti-SOPA, or a Democrat who is pro-equality/pro-choice and pro-SOPA, most young people will choose the Democrat.
Re: SOPA/PIPA won't matter that much
I beg to differ, if the iGeneration feels their online/gaming world is threatened, they won’t give a rats ass about gay rights or abortion.
They will Grand Theft Auto their way through it.
Isn’t interesting that the only politicians willing to publicly say this kind of stuff are ones that aren’t up for election this year?
I guess none of them want to be labeled as the representative who bailed out Hollywood.
Pick Your Crook
The reds have their rich buddies paying half the marginal tax rate of people who work for a living while the blues sell the Internet to Hollywood. Who stole more?
Re: Pick Your Crook
The rich buddies are Hollywood.
All i can say is the Pirate Party has at least one vote from me in every election if they’d just get off their asses and organize in the US already
I feel that Leahy and Smith should both be censured for this fiasco. It’s absurd that they are even on committees, as clearly out of touch with reality that they both are.
Screw them all!
I am a life-long democrat, and gave as much as I legally could to elect Obama in 2008. Now, I am not giving a penny to the Democrats. The Republicans are disgusting, but the Dems are clueless! It is time to throw the entire bunch of dishonest, self-serving, hypocrites out of office and into jail, as far as I’m concerned. I think I am voting for “None of the Above” in this election…
Re: Screw them all!
We need to scrap both parties and create a bunch of smaller ones to show the spectrum.
Artists believe they are imune to the idiotic laws that their master are trying to pass, no they aren’t.
Take Jay-Z for example.
http://www.whosampled.com/artist/Jay-Z/
The guy stole music from others(i.e. sampled) almost for every single music he ever performed so he is a thief, but there is more if promoting a crime is a crime sure that means that every rap musician is a criminal, every movie that depicts something wrong is criminal, those laws won’t stop at the “copyright content” those things will get expanded to include others forms of crime and artists will find themselves in hot waters.
Libertarians Rising
I, for one, will not be soon forgetting that it was my very own congressman, Lamar Smith (R), that was the author of SOPA. The man never met a ham-handed expansion of federal police power he didn’t like.
And yes, the democrats are every bit as bad as the Republicans. If you want to reject the expansion of the police state, vote Libertarian. GaryJohnson2012.com
SOPA and Democrats
You certainly highlight a problem. The GOP is firmly committed to “No New Taxes”, aka “Welfare for the Wealthy”. It has been shown by several people that the key to a vibrant middle class is MONEY SUPPLY, and as long as we continue to concentrate more and more wealth in the hands of the extremely wealthy (and out of the middle class) incomes will continue to fall (for the 99 percent) and the middle class will shrink. That’s important.
But the Democrats are slow to recognize the threat of SOPA and PIPA. Important, yes, as important as destroying the middle class, NO!
However, with a characteristically unthinking, knee-jerk reaction, the “informed people” will kill themselves by supporting the GOP (and more “Welfare for the Wealthy). Smart, really smart – I don’t think!
Leahy is irrelevant
Fair to the point, Senators are not directly affected by Gerrymendering. They are subjected to the other State Reps (in the state and in DC) who can politically pressure them.
Get the Gerrymandering out to preserve a truer representation of the people’s voice.