Congressional Staffers Still Can't Come To Terms With What Happened Over SOPA

from the time-to-learn dept

In a short article about a panel of Congressional staffers at the NCTA show, they basically admitted that any new "anti-piracy" legislation may be tough to pass -- with one staffer saying that the SOPA protests "poisoned the well." However, perhaps more interesting were the comments from Stephanie Moore, the "Democrat's chief counsel on the House Judiciary Committee" who apparently still refuses to believe that the public actually spoke out against the bill of their own free will:
“What happened was a misinformation campaign,” said Moore. “People were basically misled into contacting Congressmen with claims that were extraordinary. There was some genuine concern, but as for it being a genuine home grown grassroots up-from-the-streets opposition, I beg to differ on that.”
I always find this line of reasoning quite extraordinary. If you look at the history of copyright law -- especially over the past 40 years or so, it's been one "misinformation campaign" after another by RIAA and MPAA lobbyists. As we've discussed, Congress has bent over backwards to pass 15 anti-piracy laws in the last 30 years -- each one pushed by industry lobbying about how they would collapse and die without the laws being passed, and how no one will create content without such laws. They've been wrong every single time. So even if it was a misinformation campaign on the other side, at best all it would do is even out the playing field. Besides, looking at the arguments in favor of SOPA and PIPA, they were so full of blatant misinformation that I don't think any amount of misinformation against the bills would have even out the score.

But, to be clear, since I was pretty closely involved in the effort to stop these dangerous bills, I can say first hand that the claim that this was a "misinformation campaign" and that it wasn't about an "up-from-the-streets opposition" are hogwash by a person speaking from ignorance, anger or jealousy over having their own pet bill blocked. The folks working against the bill worked pretty damn hard to paint a clear and accurate picture of the bill. While there were various people who helped shepherd the process along, the protests didn't take on any life until various communities of people took them over and ran with them -- starting with the users on Tumblr and Reddit (followed closely by those on Wikipedia).

Of course, when you have any large group of internet users, not all of them are going to understand the nuances or the details. So, certainly some misinformation got into the discussion. To be fair, though, the largest bit of "misinformation" I saw on the anti-SOPA side was from people who didn't realize that (under serious public pressure), Lamar Smith issued a manager's amendment to take out the worst of the worst of SOPA (still leaving in plenty of bad). Some people mistakenly referred to the impact of the original bill in protesting later versions. This was, indeed, a mistake, but hardly a result of "misinformation." After all, those issues were in the original bill and were clearly part of what the House Judiciary Committee's staff was going for when it scribbled down the bill as the MPAA dictated it crafted the bill.

What I do know is that when misleading suggestions were made on the anti-SOPA email list, knowledgeable people quickly pushed back against those claims, noting that they were not true and should not be used. I did not see that on the other side. When the bogus claims of the entertainment industry were widely debunked, the supporters of SOPA kept on quoting them (and still do, to this day).

So, I'm sorry, but the idea that the defeat of SOPA was a misinformation campaign and not a grassroots effort is pure bunk. And if Moore wants to avoid a repeat, rather than lashing out mistakenly, and misunderstanding what happened, she should perhaps spend some time actually learning about why people were so upset by SOPA. But, of course, we know that won't happen.

Filed Under: anti-piracy, house judiciary committee, mpaa, ncta, sopa, stephanie moore


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  1. icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), 22 May 2012 @ 3:13pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    I get the feeling you have no interest in actually engaging factually, but just a few points:

    The was no such nuance in the many inflammatory messages to your base. And there was no disavowing of that claim when DNS blocking was removed from the bill. It was simple bumper sticker politics and it was used from start to finish for the express purpose of inflaming people, knowing (like most of the electorate) they'd look no further than the lie itself.

    We actually had a careful discussion of what was meant by "breaking the internet" as well as multiple detailed discussions about what it meant when DNS was supposedly *temporarily* removed. No DNS removal ever actually happened. Merely it was stated that the Senate would *consider delaying implementation* until after the issue had been studied. The House said it would remove DNS from the bill, for the time being, but never actually presented the result.

    So, yes, people were reasonably concerned because we had not yet seen the final product. However, we did, in fact -- contrary to your bullshit assertion -- have a nuanced discussion on this point.

    What are you talking about? I still have a screen shot of the ad with Bieber in the prison cell. I'm pretty sure it was compliments of your friends at Fight For The Future. Good job getting the pre-pubescent set involved.

    Yes, to make a point -- one that sailed over your head apparently. No one thought that Bieber himself was going to prison. The point was that the bill *would* have made a felony out of what he did. You can't rebut that point because it's true.

    I'm not that familiar with the case, but they were based in California so they weren't subject to SOPA.

    Bull and shit. As I said "under the original SOPA" which was NOT restricted to foreign sites, so they were abso-fucking-lutely subject to SOPA.

    Apparently the CEO, Dmitry Shapiro has a somewhat broader take on their bankruptcy saying:

    In which he says that the legal fight was a major part of why they went out of business. I've spoken with Dmitry, and he has told me that without that lawsuit they'd probably still be around.

    Have you spoken to him?

    I stand by what I said.


    You shouldn't, because you're wrong. And if you really stood behind it, you'd put your name on it. But you won't because you know you're wrong and you don't want to have that associated with your reputation.

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Show Now: Takedown
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.