jenl’s Techdirt Profile


About jenl

jenl’s Comments comment rss

  • Apr 9th, 2012 @ 5:40pm

    Re: Re: Re: Viral Outrage is Viral

    It was the legal disclosure about 2011's lobby money and what they spent lobbying money on pre-PAC. Sorry if I was unclear.

  • Apr 9th, 2012 @ 5:38pm

    Re: Re: Re: Viral Outrage is Viral

    I'd just like someone to step up and say "We were neutral on SOPA/PIPA but there was this Patent thing and we lobbied on that. We did not lobby SOPA/PIPA".

    My frustration is that I have now seen this not just on RT, but on Forbes, Politico, all with the same stance. In looking for pro-Netflix articles, I have seen Netflix, this, and Silicon Beat - and Silicon Beat had the disclosure that seemed to indicate where this came from.

    I disagree that this was "made up", and it seems to be stating they already spent money to lobby on intellectual property laws in a legal disclosure is an indication of where this firestorm started.

    While SOPA may be dead, CISPA is breathing life into some of the issues.

  • Apr 9th, 2012 @ 5:12pm

    Re: Re: $500K on "Intellectual property issues" in 2011 for...what?

    Again, they did state in their disclosure that in 2011 they lobbied on Intellectual property issues. Nothing you named has to do with intellectual property issues.

    They need to state what intellectual property issues they lobbied on in 2011, since they disclosed they did spent money on lobbying intellectual property issues in 2011.

  • Apr 9th, 2012 @ 5:09pm

    Re: Viral Outrage is Viral

    Nothing in the article above outlined what part of that $500K was spent on the "Intellectual property issues" that they lobbied regarding, or what stance they took. I again ask: What company spends money on lobbyists to take a basically neutral position on the biggest intellectual property issue of 2011?

    The Intellectual property issues they disclosed they spent lobbying money on last year may, as hard as it might be to believe, have had nothing to do with SOPA/PIPA. But until they disclose what "Intellectual property issues" they spent lobbying money on (and again, they already disclosed they did), SOPA/PIPA seems the most likely candidate.

    It may not be. But just shrugging and saying "OMGs you silly interwebs" or pointing to the article above specifying the non-intellectual property lobbying they did do isn't really an answer.

    Please remember it was the PAC's disclosure that they spent money lobbying regarding intellectual property issues that turned folks eye towards them - and perhaps shoddy reporting exacerbated the hysteria, but the question still remains.

    What part of the 500K was spent lobbying on Intellectual property issues, what were those issues, and what was Netflix's stance?

    The answer may be completely innocent, and show this has all been mass-hysteria - but so far, I haven't seen anyone answer it yet.

  • Apr 9th, 2012 @ 4:45pm

    $500K on "Intellectual property issues" in 2011 for...what?

    On their disclosure according to the Silicon Beat article:

    "And in 2011, the company spent $500,000 lobbying Congress on topics such as: 'Telecommunications issues, Internet non-discrimination; Internet privacy, Intellectual property issues; Internet competition issues; H.R. 2471, Video Privacy Protection Act,' according to Senate lobbying disclosure records."

    So far this, and that article, and Netflix's link to that article, are the only 3 things I see defending Netflix. My question if if they were neutral on SOPA and PIPA, as you state, what would be the purpose of spending any lobbying money on advancing a neutral position?

    "Hi, I'm a lobbyist well paid by Netflix to lobby on Intellectual property issues and I just wanted to stop by and let you know we're neutral."

    To me, that makes no sense. If you have another explanation, I'm all ears.