6 ms·

I'm having a hard time coming to terms with the fact that the MPAA gets to decide what's "off the table" in legislation. Is there no longer even a pretense of s

I'm having a hard time coming to terms with the fact that the MPAA gets to decide what's "off the table" in legislation. Is there no longer even a pretense of separation of corporations and the government?

TDL 15y ago
The old content producers are very much in bed with the government. Radley Balko wrote about instances where RIAA (or MPAA, can't remember) representatives were with federal agents during raids.
- anamax 15y ago
  > Radley Balko wrote about instances where RIAA (or MPAA, can't remember) representatives were with federal agents during raids. That's fairly common wrt trademarked goods (such as high-end purses). I assume that the reason is something along the lines of "federal agents can't recognize counterfeit goods". If the trademark owner is liable for claiming that something is counterfeit when it isn't, that doesn't seem like a horrible idea. How do you think that federal agents should recognize counterfeit goods?
corin_ 15y ago
While their influence is obviously a big problem, keep in mind that you've picked one of two ways to read that line, that they are declaring their decision. The other way to read it is that they are stating a fact, which could come from discussions with politicians, even if in those discussions the MPAA was screaming for it to stay in the bill.
ypcx 15y ago
You are basically asking "Why aren't they trying to fool us anymore?". Just look at opensecrets.org - it's all there, at least the visible part - donations and revolving doors (no blackmail, threats, assassinations etc.). People still discussing any other problem than money in politics are under a strong, remotely-induced hypnosis. You know, the hypnotists that can make people not see other people, seeing right through them. That explanation is the only thing keeping me sane these days.
spinchange 15y ago
It's a face saving gesture and after the fact, but they're basically acknowledging that they can't ask their lawmaker friends for DNS blocking on anything. *edit: Should also point out that the MPAA is purely a lobbyist organization. Influencing legislation on behalf of the interests of their members is their raison d'etre. Chris Dodd, former Senator from Connecticut who's name is on a lot of laws is the current chairman and CEO.
jasonlotito 15y ago
Not that I support the MPAA, but it isn't some faceless entity. It's made up of people. And the people that make up the MPAA have given the MPAA the power to speak on their behalf. So, when a representative speaks with a member of the government, he's doing it on behalf of people. Most likely, people that are his constituents. The people opposing SOPA did the same thing. We organized via various organizations (such as Reddit, for example), and called or wrote to our law maker. In some capacity, we had Google representing us. MPAA isn't taking things off the table. Rather, they are working to propose something that doesn't include some feature that was hotly contested. So, what is inherently wrong with people approaching their congressmen with proposals?
- un1xl0ser 15y ago
  >So, what is inherently wrong with people approaching their congressmen with proposals? On it's face, nothing. Deeper however, too many laws are passed because lobbyists are paid to ensure that corporate interests are taken care of. I don't have a lot of time to push my agenda, but corporations convert money into people's time. Lots of us aren't even convinced that there is an issue. If there is, lets see the numbers and talk about them, and if we see something that needs a solution, we can come up with one. This is a jobs saving law, they should be focused on jobs creation. They can save jobs by outlawing outsourcing, but nobody things that is a good idea.
  - jasonlotito 15y ago
    > Deeper however, too many laws are passed because lobbyists are paid to ensure that corporate interests are taken care of. Except, SOPA isn't passed yet, and so far, the push back has been successful. There is still a fight, but the corporations aren't winning. And we do have the means to voice our opinion. We have our own version of lobbyists. Not only do we have the ability to directly contact our law makers, we can also support organizations who do have the time to fight these battles for us. EFF is a great example. https://supporters.eff.org/donate https://supporters.eff.org/donate They do accept donations. Other organizations out there include Mozilla, Apache, etc. Couple this with support of companies that support the things you want. And if the companies do support something (for example, BSA's support of SOPA, and by extension, Apple and MS), you complain. > I don't have a lot of time to push my agenda I can throw that back at you: if your agenda isn't important enough to put forth effort, and for you to take a part in the process, how will I know your opinion? If you don't speak up, you can't complain when no one listens. Note: I'm not trying to insult you. Hopefully I don't come off that harsh. =)

TDL 15y ago

The old content producers are very much in bed with the government. Radley Balko wrote about instances where RIAA (or MPAA, can't remember) representatives were with federal agents during raids.

anamax 15y ago
> Radley Balko wrote about instances where RIAA (or MPAA, can't remember) representatives were with federal agents during raids. That's fairly common wrt trademarked goods (such as high-end purses). I assume that the reason is something along the lines of "federal agents can't recognize counterfeit goods". If the trademark owner is liable for claiming that something is counterfeit when it isn't, that doesn't seem like a horrible idea. How do you think that federal agents should recognize counterfeit goods?

corin_ 15y ago

While their influence is obviously a big problem, keep in mind that you've picked one of two ways to read that line, that they are declaring their decision. The other way to read it is that they are stating a fact, which could come from discussions with politicians, even if in those discussions the MPAA was screaming for it to stay in the bill.

ypcx 15y ago

You are basically asking "Why aren't they trying to fool us anymore?". Just look at opensecrets.org - it's all there, at least the visible part - donations and revolving doors (no blackmail, threats, assassinations etc.). People still discussing any other problem than money in politics are under a strong, remotely-induced hypnosis. You know, the hypnotists that can make people not see other people, seeing right through them. That explanation is the only thing keeping me sane these days.

spinchange 15y ago

It's a face saving gesture and after the fact, but they're basically acknowledging that they can't ask their lawmaker friends for DNS blocking on anything. *edit: Should also point out that the MPAA is purely a lobbyist organization. Influencing legislation on behalf of the interests of their members is their raison d'etre. Chris Dodd, former Senator from Connecticut who's name is on a lot of laws is the current chairman and CEO.

jasonlotito 15y ago

Not that I support the MPAA, but it isn't some faceless entity. It's made up of people. And the people that make up the MPAA have given the MPAA the power to speak on their behalf. So, when a representative speaks with a member of the government, he's doing it on behalf of people. Most likely, people that are his constituents. The people opposing SOPA did the same thing. We organized via various organizations (such as Reddit, for example), and called or wrote to our law maker. In some capacity, we had Google representing us. MPAA isn't taking things off the table. Rather, they are working to propose something that doesn't include some feature that was hotly contested. So, what is inherently wrong with people approaching their congressmen with proposals?

un1xl0ser 15y ago
>So, what is inherently wrong with people approaching their congressmen with proposals? On it's face, nothing. Deeper however, too many laws are passed because lobbyists are paid to ensure that corporate interests are taken care of. I don't have a lot of time to push my agenda, but corporations convert money into people's time. Lots of us aren't even convinced that there is an issue. If there is, lets see the numbers and talk about them, and if we see something that needs a solution, we can come up with one. This is a jobs saving law, they should be focused on jobs creation. They can save jobs by outlawing outsourcing, but nobody things that is a good idea.
- jasonlotito 15y ago
  > Deeper however, too many laws are passed because lobbyists are paid to ensure that corporate interests are taken care of. Except, SOPA isn't passed yet, and so far, the push back has been successful. There is still a fight, but the corporations aren't winning. And we do have the means to voice our opinion. We have our own version of lobbyists. Not only do we have the ability to directly contact our law makers, we can also support organizations who do have the time to fight these battles for us. EFF is a great example. https://supporters.eff.org/donate https://supporters.eff.org/donate They do accept donations. Other organizations out there include Mozilla, Apache, etc. Couple this with support of companies that support the things you want. And if the companies do support something (for example, BSA's support of SOPA, and by extension, Apple and MS), you complain. > I don't have a lot of time to push my agenda I can throw that back at you: if your agenda isn't important enough to put forth effort, and for you to take a part in the process, how will I know your opinion? If you don't speak up, you can't complain when no one listens. Note: I'm not trying to insult you. Hopefully I don't come off that harsh. =)