Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 16th Jan 2012 19:33 UTC
Internet & Networking Big news from Capitol Hill in Washington DC today: House Oversight Chairman Darrell Issa has said that the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) has been "shelved" in the House of Representatives, meaning it has been put on indefinite hold until a consensus about the act can be reached. Sadly, SOPA's counterpart in the Senate, the Protect IP Act (PIPA) will still be pushed forward, meaning we must remain vigilant. Despite all of this, Wikipedia has announced it will join the blackout coming Wednesday.
Thread beginning with comment 503716
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Valhalla
Member since:
2006-01-24


Those are actually two distinct statements. One, that it was completely empty. And two, that it would allow some wiggle room without losing face.

No, he said the statement was empty and thus he could later go either way. You added the 'wiggle room' statement, why would Obama need 'wiggle room' when he hasn't in the slightest committed to anything?

The companies backing this bill will throw enough money at politicians to get it through once the media gets tired of covering this as a story.

I've seen pretty much jack-sh*t about SOPA on 'traditional' media and what little I've seen has been slanted as a bill to 'protect american jobs' (lol, yeah right), anti-SOPA has pretty much been an all internet campaign from start to finish and it's been hugely successful in building momentum.

Obviously this scares the sh*t out of alot of people with power out there, given that while traditional media is so narrow that it can easily be controlled, people on the internet get their information from a wide range of sources, not only that but they also get to discuss this information on a global scale, no longer are we confined to political discussions around the dinner table. All this together with the ease at which people can quickly rally around/against something, again on a global scale, makes all these powermongers scared and thus incredibly motivated to control the web. This goes way beyond online piracy.

Given this, obviously there will be alot of shills out there now trying to make the shelving of SOPA the result of 'the White House's statement' and downplaying the importance of the organized it-industry/internet campaign against SOPA. This is because that if people understand just how much power they have and start organising in order to make things happen then the power structure enjoyed by big organisations will start to crumble and power will be shifted.

With the internet we have a voice which can in effect rival the huge amounts of paid lobbyists the corporations and rich private interests can muster. Not only that, but we can put it into action by campaigning directly against companies who are working against our interests (see GoDaddy).

Reply Parent Score: 6

sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

With the internet we have a voice which can in effect rival the huge amounts of paid lobbyists the corporations and rich private interests can muster...

Of course, the problem you have there is keeping all your ducks in a row. Who's "we"? People who agree with you? I'd love to see that Venn Diagram evolve over time.

It depends upon the topic, of course. Protecting people's "right" to violate copyright on the sly is likely to yield you a large backing of "fine upstanding citizens" who are appalled by the bill in question, for the most ethereal, Platonic, and idealistic reasons.

But that has nothing to do with the true value or worthlessness of the bill.

What if the bill was spcifically targeted at violators of the copyright of GPL'd works, and contained a few draconian clauses. And you found yourself against it because of that. How do you think that might affect your operational definition of "we"?

Edited 2012-01-17 18:34 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

Valhalla Member since:
2006-01-24

Of course, the problem you have there is keeping all your ducks in a row. Who's "we"? People who agree with you?

'We' are all of us. That includes people who doesn't share my view, that also include people who share my view on certain things and not on others, and (most unlikely) those who share my views on everything.

What if the bill was spcifically targeted at violators of the copyright of GPL'd works, and contained a few draconian clauses. And you found yourself against it because of that. How do you think that might affect your operational definition of "we"?

It wouldn't change the concept of we being able to rally support, spread awareness and apply pressure no matter which side you are on this question. I would oppose such a bill as you proposed, someone else would be in favour of it and we will both be able to use the internet to get our points across and rally support for our respective causes.

If a huge amount of people rally around either of our causes then we have a real power to affect things.

Reply Parent Score: 2