NDAA + SOPA = Orwellian Nightmare in America?

[Sedai]

Word has it Obama's threat to veto the NDAA is being withdrawn. The NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act of 2012), combined with with SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act) have some critics claiming the end of American Democracy as we know it. Care to chime in on this potentially terrifying prospect?

Article (http://www.businessinsider.com/ndaa-set-to-become-law-the-terror-is-nearer-than-ever-2011-12) (Source - Business Insider)

Article II (http://www.amnestyusa.org/news/press-releases/appalled-but-not-surprised-by-congressional-ndaa-vote-and-administration-s-veto-threat-withdrawal-sa) (Source - Amnesty International)

Article III (http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2011/12/nitty-gritty-ndaa) (Source - Mother Jones/Kevin Drum)

Article IV (http://rt.com/usa/news/anonymous-congress-ndaa-sopa-013/) (Source - RT)

There is clearly some media confusion over all this, so do your own research if you are so inclined. I'm still researching...

[Harry Lime]

I'm surprised there aren't more Americans here commenting on this.

[Powdered Water]

I don't even know what this is, guess I better do some reading. Not that a joe schmoo like me has any say in it. But yeah.

[wintertriangles]

When will we know what passed? I'm trying not to read too much about it because I don't trust the motives of the media, I did a part by signing petitions that fight against these, so I feel it's a standstill until there's a final result. Obviously both of these things are scary to me...especially because people don't understand that these things have been snowballing and it'll only open doors to even worse things.

[Sedai]

NDAA will allegedly go through, as the threat to veto has been withdrawn...

SOPA vote got delayed! :)

[Powdered Water]

I can't believe SOPA will ever make it through the way it is now. Would it surprise me? Certainly not, but I still believe that there's enough money behind the reason NOT to have it in place to keep it from happening.

[Yoda]

It's all going to depend on the wording. We were talking about this in The Shoutbox the other day; McKeon, one of the guys on the committee, was swearing up and down (and citing specific text in the legislation to support the idea) that the President cannot waive the exemption for U.S. citizens. I don't know if it's changed since then, however. These things can change a lot before they're passed. So I'll wait and see what's in the final bill.

[voneil7]

Here is a quick little summary article on the topic, with a link to a few more in depth articles.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/mythbusters/articles/mythbuster-adam-savage-sopa-could-destroy-the-internet-as-we-know-it-6620300

I personally think the wording as it stands is a little over the top. This will make it too easy to shut down sites without actual proof. Suspicion would seem to be sufficient enough reason. I still need to research this further, but my initial thoughts are that this certainly isn't the direction this country needs to go, let alone an issue that should be at the forefront of political action.

[Deadite]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NW-e7z7S6VI

[wintertriangles]

How hard would it be to impeach EVERYONE?

That video was basically another Ron Paul commercial. "You thought the Patriot Act was bad? hahahahahahha"

[Deadite]

How hard would it be to impeach EVERYONE?

That video was basically another Ron Paul commercial. "You thought the Patriot Act was bad? hahahahahahha"

I don't think the video was perfect, no. It was just a youtube video, after all.

But I do think this country is seething, and something unthinkable may yet happen.

I don't have any answers for you, dude. I just look at everything that's happening and feel sad.

[Deadite]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came%E2%80%A6

First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

[wintertriangles]

So time for a poll, who thinks Civil War II will start before WWIII?

[gandalf26]

Senator Jay Rockefellar said "The Internet should never have been invented".

Him and his Cabal don't like that they can't control the Internet like they can with the Media, layers upon layers of sub editors before you can get something into a Newspaper or onto TV etc. With the Internet all you need is a Laptop and you can get stuff into the public arena.

People are aware of what the likes of the Rockefellar family has been upto (bankrolling Nazi Eugenics, human experimentation etc) thanks to the Internet and SOPA is their way of fighting back.

[Deadite]

HR 3166

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hzpr7bL1Iw4

[Yoda]

Section 1021 of the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2012 (page 655):

"Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States"
On the very next page (656):
"The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States."

[Deadite]

Big government fan now, Yoda?

[wintertriangles]

Obama specifically asked for the criteria that the law includes US citizens for him to sign it.

[Yoda]

Big government fan now, Yoda?
Nope, just not a fan of people engaging in hysterical melodrama without stopping to make sure they have any damn idea what they're talking about first.

By the way, I predicted in my head that you'd reply, and your reply would contain absolutely nothing resembling a response to what I just quoted, which is precisely what happened. I'd like to take more pride in that, but this is pretty much all you do now.

[Deadite]

http://www.dailypaul.com/197585/combating-the-distortions-over-ndaa-military-detentions-does-this-mean-you-youd-better-believe-it

However, although the section says it is not "required" that US citizens be held in military detention, it is nevertheless "allowed." This is a key spin of the disinformation on NDAA. You clearly see the words "does not extend to citizens of the United States." You can see that, Buford, can't you see that? What you don't clearly see is the word "requires," which is not to say "does not allow." *It's the fine print. To put it bluntly, it's a ********* lawyer's trick.

Never think this does not apply to you. It does.

[Yoda]

Uh, that doesn't at all apply to this first bit:

"Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States"
EDIT: it looks like another part of that article mentions the first bit, but it doesn't actually contradict it at all. It only confirms exactly what this says: that this does not expand new authority to detain U.S. citizens indefinitely. It just doesn't. It doesn't roll back the authority that I'm sure you've disagreed with for years, but it also isn't granting new authority over U.S. citizens, which is precisely what people are claiming. When they say that, they're wrong.

[Yoda]

By the way: as predictable as it was that your first reply would be vapid sarcasm, it was more predictable still that you'd take my response as some kind of endorsement of the bill. It isn't. It's a rejection of the harmful attitude that makes it impossible to spot actual threats to liberty because it's too busy claiming everything is a threat to liberty. That crap makes it more likely we'll get screwed by this sort of thing, not less.

There are plenty of arguments to be made about NDAA, the most reasonable and rational being that the language is way too vague for something so important. That's a discussion worth having, though it's plainly evident no such discussion is going to take place here. Not when another hysterical dogpile is oh so much easier.

[Deadite]

Hey, buddy, you're right, I'm not interested in having a discussion with you. I'm posting links here.

Be sure to pick it all apart and keep telling me how hysterical I am. I couldn't care less.

http://www.salon.com/2011/12/16/three_myths_about_the_detention_bill/singleton/

[Yoda]

Hey, buddy, you're right, I'm not interested in having a discussion with you. I'm posting links here.
Precisely. This is a discussion forum. If all you want to do is post links, go start a freakin' blog. Then you can monologue to your heart's content without the nuisance of people disagreeing with you.

[Deadite]

Precisely. This is a discussion forum. If all you want to do is post links, go start a freakin' blog. Then you can monologue to your heart's content without the nuisance of people disagreeing with you.

Oh, I discuss plenty with plenty of people here but if you want me to leave your forum, just say so. There's no need for you to find excuses.

[Yoda]

Being able to have discussions with people about perfectly benign topics, or with people who already agree with you about less benign ones, isn't a great test of how reasonable someone is.

I'm not hiding what I want. In fact, I'll even list it, in order from what I want most to what I want least:

1) You stay here and start having useful, open-minded, level-headed discussions with people you disagree with.
2) You leave.
3) You stay here and keep posting exactly the way you post now.
That's what I want.

[Deadite]

Hey, yeah. Except there's nothing to discuss. This crap is eroding away everything America is supposed to stand for, and I'm gonna post what I think about that, not debate with you precisely how far down the sh!tter we've gone.

Ban me any time you feel the need, Chris. I'm not backing down.

[Fiscal]

Moreover, I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens. Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a Nation. My Administration will interpret section 1021 in a manner that ensures that any detention it authorizes complies with the Constitution, the laws of war, and all other applicable law.

An exerpt from Obama on the legislation. My biggest problem, which I think I saw mentioned earlier in the thread, is that Obama is having to explain how his administration interprets the detention portion. It implies that there could be multiple interpretations which is crazy dangerous and ridiculous when it comes to pooping all over basic American rights.

[planet news]

Any state action is a threat to liberty, Yoda. That's kind of a way of defining the state. It's that part of the contract where you trade in your rights. The problem is, we actually don't have rights, as is commonly understood, without the state. It's a kind of retroactive contract. The state actually defines all the rights we have -- even the ones we traded in. Thus there's no real contradiction when it reigns some in or extends others. It does what it pleases. We are lucky in that at least some of that doing is tempered by the people's voice. Some.

What we really have is not rights or liberty but something like an unrelenting principle of divergence and freedom. That's really why people don't like SOPA; because -- whatever its supposed benefits to commerce -- it will end up being a striating force on creativity.

Y'all dig?

</blog>

[Yoda]

Hey, yeah. Except there's nothing to discuss. This crap is eroding away everything America is supposed to stand for, and I'm gonna post what I think about that, not debate with you precisely how far down the sh!tter we've gone.
So, you won't discuss things because there's "nothing to discuss." Even though whether or not there are things to discuss is precisely the topic of discussion. How wonderfully circular.

This is the same little argumentative fort you built in the OWS thread, where the issue is apparently so obvious you don't have to defend it, and so important that any criticisms of it can be dismissed as trivial. Net result? You get to ignore everything you don't like.

Ban me any time you feel the need, Chris. I'm not backing down.
Ah, the Martryr of the Message Board returns. I'm not asking you to "back down," whatever that means. I'm asking you to have useful discussions with people you disagree with. The fact that you always conflate these appeals to reason as some sort of compromising of your principles is beyond weird.

Regardless, you really haven't thought this through, because there is no angle from which your attitude here makes sense. If you really believe what you're saying, then I'm exactly the kind of person you need to be trying to convince. And it should be abundantly obvious by now that what you're doing (whatever you want to call it) is not persuading anyone who doesn't already agree with you. So what's the point? To preserve your prescient doom for posterity? Because if you're being even remotely truthful about wanting to change or stop things, your posture towards dissent makes even less sense.

[Yoda]

Moreover, I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens. Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a Nation. My Administration will interpret section 1021 in a manner that ensures that any detention it authorizes complies with the Constitution, the laws of war, and all other applicable law.

An exerpt from Obama on the legislation. My biggest problem, which I think I saw mentioned earlier in the thread, is that Obama is having to explain how his administration interprets the detention portion. It implies that there could be multiple interpretations which is crazy dangerous and ridiculous when it comes to pooping all over basic American rights.
That's very possible. I think there are two possible explanations for Obama's need to "explain" his decision:

1) There's a lot of panic and misinformation floating around, and it was worthwhile to cut through a lot of it.

2) Exactly what you just said: it's way too vague for a subject this important.

Worth pointing out, however, that "this legislation is too vague and could be misinterpreted" is already thirty times more nuanced and thoughtful than 99% of the commentary floating around about this bill. I realize that sentence isn't as pithy as "Orwellian Nightmare," (with the superfluous question mark and everything) but it's clearly a better description of whatever threat this might represent. And that's the hysterical dogpile I was talking about. It happens every time something like this is passed (or even introduced), and all it does is make people tune out and miss the real threats if and when they come along. People need to leave themselves a gear to ramp up to when it's actually required if they expect to be effectively heard.

[Yoda]

Any state action is a threat to liberty, Yoda. That's kind of a way of defining the state. It's that part of the contract where you trade in your rights. The problem is, we actually don't have rights, as is commonly understood, without the state. It's a kind of retroactive contract. The state actually defines all the rights we have -- even the ones we traded in. Thus there's no real contradiction when it reigns some in or extends others. It does what it pleases. We are lucky in that at least some of that doing is tempered by the people's voice. Some.

What we really have is not rights or liberty but something like an unrelenting principle of divergence and freedom. That's really why people don't like SOPA; because -- whatever its supposed benefits to commerce -- it will end up being a striating force on creativity.

Y'all dig?

</blog>
I dig that this is the social contract view and what you believe. But America's founding documents don't agree with you: they go out of their way to say that they are acknowledging rights, not granting them. The Declaration of Independence (a very carefully worded document) says that Governments are created to "secure" these rights, which is very different than saying it is bestowing them. That's why they're called "unalienable rights"--because you can only violate them, not remove them or grant them. This is why it's special.

[planet news]

I dig that this is the social contract view and what you believe. But America's founding documents don't agree with you: they go out of their way to say that they are acknowledging rights, not granting them. The Declaration of Independence (a very carefully worded document) says that Governments are created to "secure" these rights, which is very different than saying it is bestowing them. That's why they're called "unalienable rights"--because you can only violate them, not remove them or grant them. This is why it's special.Naw, man. Just naw.

I don't think there is, was, or ever will be a social contract. I think the whole idea is f*cked, because I don't think there are, were, or ever will be "unalienable rights." There are no objects in the universe called rights outside of the object of the State.

The social contract view is the founders' view and exactly the view you just laid out: we begin with rights and we trade in some to the State for security or peace or whatever. The social contract theory is entirely dependent on the idea of natural or unalienable rights. Otherwise, with what would you make the contract? :shrug:

What I'm saying is that this is simply a fiction. Rights are a construction of the State. They are not already there. They might seem like they were there, but that's only because you are always looking at it from within a State. Even during the formation of the contract -- whatever actual event this thing is supposed to abstractly model (???) -- you are already within a State, since the contract introduces the notion of rights.

Rights entirely fictions of the State. They are certainly a way of representing something, but I don't think there's any reason to believe that these somethings are the natural or unalienable rights that the contract theory speaks of.

My idea would be that the something being represented by the State's mechanism of rights is simply creativity or freedom.

Thus any State action is a limitation of that thing -- including the action of instituting rights in the first place.

Why? Because rights are inadequate representations of something else. Moreover, they're linguistic representations and are subject to a wide range of interpretation. Interpretation occurs in the realm of the State. It is always possible to find interpretations more or less restrictive. That's the big problem with arguing from these supposed "unalienable rights."

I actually don't know why I'm pushing this point now, so I'm gonna cut this out, but it might be something to think about.

===

TL ; DR

"A New Account of Rights I Just Pulled Out of My Arse"

by planet news

1) There is something like a force towards creativity and divergence.
2) That something is valued by us as synonymous with life.
3) The State appears (somehow).
4) The State represents that something in the form of rights (representation).
5) The State manipulates those rights to maintain itself.
6) Sometimes there's so much manipulation in the realm of rights (representation) that we forget about the something.
7) People get mad about infringement of their rights (representation).
8) What they really should be mad about is infringement of something.
9) That way, there is no goofy interpretation game.

[Deadite]

The State doesn't exist; People do. They have self-determination. The State is just an abstraction. At most, it represents the will of a group of people.

[wintertriangles]

(d) Constitutional Limitation on Applicability to United States Persons- The authority to detain a person under this section does not extend to the detention of citizens or lawful resident aliens of the United States on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.

Basically the bill says both things. In other words, the administration can do as it pleases. In even plainer words, the administration will do what is most convenient for them. You'd have to be a Candide sort of fool to think they won't abuse that like they do everything else.

[Deadite]

It's all about the wiggle room.

[Yoda]

I don't think there is, was, or ever will be a social contract. I think the whole idea is f*cked, because I don't think there are, were, or ever will be "unalienable rights." There are no objects in the universe called rights outside of the object of the State.
We disagree. If you want to have a much broader argument about the notion of rights, that's cool, but this discussion is pretty much based on the acceptance of America's founding documents and the principles laid out within, and whether or not things like NDAA and SOPA are inconsistent with them, or have the potential to be. That was the extent of my point: that unalienable rights are a crucial concept and a part of our system, and thus the Founding Fathers disagree with your views here. You're having an argument worth having, it just isn't an argument that fits in this context. It does nothing to defend or condemn these pieces of legislation to question the American notion of rights altogether.

[wintertriangles]

In Obama's signing statement that came with the bill he said that in his administration he would choose, use the option, not to use the bill against US citizens. This not only proves that bill can do this, but that future presidents can do whatever they want. Frankly Obama can change his mind too, he's been consistent in being a liar. And, according to Carl Levin's video that makes it clear Obama pushed this bit into the bill, he probably will.

[Yoda]

It doesn't "prove" that the bill can do that, it proves that some people are worried about it enough to warrant mention and reassurance.

The strongest argument someone can make against this bill while remaining reasonable is that it's too ambiguous. Anything more forceful than that just doesn't seem to be supported by the language. Certainly not definitively.

[honeykid]

I don't know anything about this subject, but I do know that any and all governments will take all the power that they can and once it's gone, it's incredibly difficult to get back, short of a change in society (and only then if the politician needs to listen to them) or a politician desperate for power themselves.

[DexterRiley]

The Young Turks' Cenk breaks it down awfully well imo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-gstBozWfhQ&feature=relmfu

[Deadite]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3zr8ZY5c1c

[DexterRiley]

Elbow from the sky

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNQh56czKgc

[honeykid]

English Wiki's going dark tomorrow in protest to the proposed SOPA and PIPA acts.

To: English Wikipedia Readers and Community
From: Sue Gardner, Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director
Date: January 16, 2012

Today, the Wikipedia community announced its decision to black out the English-language Wikipedia for 24 hours, worldwide, beginning at 05:00 UTC on Wednesday, January 18 (you can read the statement from the Wikimedia Foundation here). The blackout is a protest against proposed legislation in the United States—the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) in the U.S. House of Representatives, and the PROTECT IP Act (PIPA) in the U.S. Senate—that, if passed, would seriously damage the free and open Internet, including Wikipedia.

This will be the first time the English Wikipedia has ever staged a public protest of this nature, and it’s a decision that wasn’t lightly made. Here’s how it’s been described by the three Wikipedia administrators who formally facilitated the community’s discussion. From the public statement, signed by User:NuclearWarfare, User:Risker and User:Billinghurst:

It is the opinion of the English Wikipedia community that both of these bills, if passed, would be devastating to the free and open web.

Over the course of the past 72 hours, over 1800 Wikipedians have joined together to discuss proposed actions that the community might wish to take against SOPA and PIPA. This is by far the largest level of participation in a community discussion ever seen on Wikipedia, which illustrates the level of concern that Wikipedians feel about this proposed legislation. The overwhelming majority of participants support community action to encourage greater public action in response to these two bills. Of the proposals considered by Wikipedians, those that would result in a “blackout” of the English Wikipedia, in concert with similar blackouts on other websites opposed to SOPA and PIPA, received the strongest support.

On careful review of this discussion, the closing administrators note the broad-based support for action from Wikipedians around the world, not just from within the United States. The primary objection to a global blackout came from those who preferred that the blackout be limited to readers from the United States, with the rest of the world seeing a simple banner notice instead. We also noted that roughly 55% of those supporting a blackout preferred that it be a global one, with many pointing to concerns about similar legislation in other nations.

In making this decision, Wikipedians will be criticized for seeming to abandon neutrality to take a political position. That’s a real, legitimate issue. We want people to trust Wikipedia, not worry that it is trying to propagandize them.

But although Wikipedia’s articles are neutral, its existence is not. As Wikimedia Foundation board member Kat Walsh wrote on one of our mailing lists recently,

We depend on a legal infrastructure that makes it possible for us to operate. And we depend on a legal infrastructure that also allows other sites to host user-contributed material, both information and expression. For the most part, Wikimedia projects are organizing and summarizing and collecting the world’s knowledge. We’re putting it in context, and showing people how to make to sense of it.

But that knowledge has to be published somewhere for anyone to find and use it. Where it can be censored without due process, it hurts the speaker, the public, and Wikimedia. Where you can only speak if you have sufficient resources to fight legal challenges, or, if your views are pre-approved by someone who does, the same narrow set of ideas already popular will continue to be all anyone has meaningful access to.

The decision to shut down the English Wikipedia wasn’t made by me; it was made by editors, through a consensus decision-making process. But I support it.

Like Kat and the rest of the Wikimedia Foundation Board, I have increasingly begun to think of Wikipedia’s public voice, and the goodwill people have for Wikipedia, as a resource that wants to be used for the benefit of the public. Readers trust Wikipedia because they know that despite its faults, Wikipedia’s heart is in the right place. It’s not aiming to monetize their eyeballs or make them believe some particular thing, or sell them a product. Wikipedia has no hidden agenda: it just wants to be helpful.

That’s less true of other sites. Most are commercially motivated: their purpose is to make money. That doesn’t mean they don’t have a desire to make the world a better place—many do!—but it does mean that their positions and actions need to be understood in the context of conflicting interests.

My hope is that when Wikipedia shuts down on January 18, people will understand that we’re doing it for our readers. We support everyone’s right to freedom of thought and freedom of expression. We think everyone should have access to educational material on a wide range of subjects, even if they can’t pay for it. We believe in a free and open Internet where information can be shared without impediment. We believe that new proposed laws like SOPA—and PIPA, and other similar laws under discussion inside and outside the United States—don’t advance the interests of the general public. You can read a very good list of reasons to oppose SOPA and PIPA here, from the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

Why is this a global action, rather than US-only? And why now, if some American legislators appear to be in tactical retreat on SOPA?

The reality is that we don’t think SOPA is going away, and PIPA is still quite active. Moreover, SOPA and PIPA are just indicators of a much broader problem. All around the world, we're seeing the development of legislation intended to fight online piracy, and regulate the Internet in other ways, that hurt online freedoms. Our concern extends beyond SOPA and PIPA: they are just part of the problem. We want the Internet to remain free and open, everywhere, for everyone.

Make your voice heard!

Bookmark with Facebook Share on Twitter Share on reddit.com Share on Digg.com

On January 18, we hope you’ll agree with us, and will do what you can to make your own voice heard.

Sue Gardner,
Executive Director, Wikimedia Foundation
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/English_Wikipedia_anti-SOPA_blackout

If you click the underlined part of the above, you'll be taken here.

How PIPA and SOPA Violate White House Principles Supporting Free Speech and Innovation

Over the weekend, the Obama administration issued a potentially game-changing statement on the blacklist bills, saying it would oppose PIPA and SOPA as written, and drew an important line in the sand by emphasizing that it “will not support” any bill “that reduces freedom of expression, increases cybersecurity risk, or undermines the dynamic, innovative global Internet."

Yet, the fight is still far from over. Even though the New York Times reported that the White House statement "all but kill[s] current versions of the legislation," the Senate is still poised to bring PIPA to the floor next week, and we can expect SOPA proponents in the House to try to revive the legislation—unless they get the message that these initiatives must stop, now. So let’s take a look at the dangerous provisions in the blacklist bills that would violate the White House’s own principles by damaging free speech, Internet security, and online innovation:

The Anti-Circumvention Provision

In addition to going after websites allegedly directly involved in copyright infringement, a proposal in SOPA will allow the government to target sites that simply provide information that could help users get around the bills’ censorship mechanisms. Such a provision would not only amount to an unconstitutional prior restraint against protected speech, but would severely damage online innovation. And contrary to claims by SOPA’s supporters, this provision—at least what’s been proposed so far—applies to all websites, even those in the U.S.

As First Amendment expert Marvin Ammori points out, “The language is pretty vague, but it appears all these companies must monitor their sites for anti-circumvention so they are not subject to court actions ‘enjoining’ them from continuing to provide ‘such product or service.’” That means social media sites like Facebook or YouTube—bascailly any site with user generated content—would have to police their own sites, forcing huge liability costs onto countless Internet companies. This is exactly why venture capitalists have said en masse they won’t invest in online startups if PIPA and SOPA pass. Websites would be forced to block anything from a user post about browser add-ons like DeSopa, to a simple list of IP addresses of already-blocked sites.

Perhaps worse, EFF has detailed how this provision would also decimate the open source software community. Anyone who writes or distributes Virtual Private Network, proxy, privacy or anonymization software would be negatively affected. This includes organizations that are funded by the State Department to create circumvention software to help democratic activists get around authoritarian regimes’ online censorship mechanisms. Ironically, SOPA would not only institute the same practices as these regimes, but would essentially outlaw the tools used by activists to circumvent censorship in countries like Iran and China as well.

The “Vigilante” Provision

Another dangerous provision in PIPA and SOPA that hasn’t received a lot of attention is the “vigilante” provision, which would grant broad immunity to all service providers if they overblock innocent users or block sites voluntarily with no judicial oversight at all. The standard for immunity is incredibly low and the potential for abuse is off the charts. Intermediaries only need to act “in good faith” and base their decision “on credible evidence” to receive immunity.

As we noted months ago, this provision would allow the MPAA and RIAA to create literal blacklists of sites they want censored. Intermediaries will find themselves under pressure to act to avoid court orders, creating a vehicle for corporations to censor sites—even those in the U.S.—without any legal oversight. And as Public Knowledge has pointed out, not only can this provision be used for bogus copyright claims that are protected by fair use, but large corporations can take advantage of it to stamp out emerging competitors and skirt anti-trust laws:

For instance, an Internet service provider could block DNS requests for a website offering online video that competed with its cable television offerings, based upon “credible evidence” that the site was, in its own estimation, promoting its use for infringement....While the amendment requires that the action be taken in good faith, the blocked site now bears the burden of proving either its innocence or the bad faith of its accuser in order to be unblocked.

Corporate Right of Action

PIPA and SOPA also still allow copyright holders to get an unopposed court order to cut off foreign websites from payment processors and advertisers. As we have continually highlighted, copyright holders already can remove infringing material from the web under the DMCA notice-and-takedown procedure. Unfortunately, we’ve seen that power abused time and again. Yet the proponents of PIPA and SOPA want to give rightsholders even more power, allowing them to essentially shut down full sites instead of removing the specific infringing content.

While this provision only affects foreign sites, it still affects Americans' free speech rights. As Marvin Ammori explained, "The seminal case of Lamont v. Postmaster makes it clear that Americans have the First Amendment right to read and listen to foreign speech, even if the foreigners lack a First Amendment speech right." If history is any guide—and we’re afraid it is—we will see specious claims to wholesale take downs of legitimate and protected speech.

Expanded Attorney General Powers

PIPA and SOPA would also give the Attorney General new authority to block domain name services, a provision that has been universally criticized by both Internet security experts and First Amendment scholars. Even the blacklist bills’ authors are now publicly second-guessing that scary provision. But even without it, this section would still force many intermediaries to become the Internet police by putting the responsibility of censorship enforcement on those intermediaries, who are usually innocent third parties.

The Attorney General would also be empowered to de-list websites from search engines, which, as Google Chairman Eric Schmidt noted, would still "criminalize linking and the fundamental structure of the Internet itself." The same applies to payment processors and advertisers.

These are just some of the egregious provisions in PIPA and SOPA that would drastically change the way we use the Internet (for the worse), and punish millions of innocent users who have never even thought about copyright infringement. As Reddit co-founder Alexis Ohanian explained, PIPA and SOPA are “the equivalent of being angry and trying to take action against Ford just because a Mustang was used in a bank robbery.” These bills must be stopped if we want to protect free speech and innovation on the web.

Please take action now and tell your Congressional representatives you oppose the blacklist bills.

[Yoda]

Supporters are bailing and the President says he won't sign it. Seems pretty close to dead, at least in its current incarnation.

[wintertriangles]

He also said that about NDAA but he abandoned that too

[DexterRiley]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMFMYh0aVBA&feature=relmfu

[Yoda]

AHHHHH WIKIPEDIA IS DOWN HOW WILL I FIND OUT THINGS???

DOES ANYONE KNOW WHO INVENTED FRUIT PUNCH??!?!

[Powdered Water]

I went to Google, but it was blacked out, so I had to go to Bing to search for Google.

[Sedai]

Where is everything????

Everyone is so:

http://www.cinema-suicide.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/lost_logo.jpg

[DexterRiley]

AHHHHH WIKIPEDIA IS DOWN HOW WILL I FIND OUT THINGS???

DOES ANYONE KNOW WHO INVENTED FRUIT PUNCH??!?!

I did. Now you know.

:D

[Yoda]

He also said that about NDAA but he abandoned that too
I recall him saying he had issues with certain provisions of it, but I don't think the White House came anywhere near condemning it as strongly as it condemned SOPA (https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petition-tool/response/combating-online-piracy-while-protecting-open-and-innovative-internet). And there's not going to be one-tenth as much political pressure on anti-piracy measures as there are for issues of national security. There isn't much reason to think this is bluster.

By the by, the MPAA has taken the DNS censorship aspect of the legislation out of the bill (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2012/01/reeling-mpaa-declares-dns-filtering-off-the-table.ars). While good news, I think this is the only real threat: that the legislation will be sufficiently watered down to pass in a version that is bad, but not to such an absurd degree.

[Powdered Water]

Your first linky, no worky Chris. But yeah, I think for what its worth having the President making statements about it at least tells me that there's a lot of money behind protecting the internet for the time being. The MPAA is going up against some pretty heavy opposition so I guess it will just be a money pissing war. I hope the good guys win!

[Yoda]

Whoops, sorry, link fixed.

Anyway, I feel pretty good about this; even if it gets through Congress I don't think the President signs it; the White House's position seems pretty unequivocal, at least on this version of the bill. This has sparked a pretty substantial grassroots backlash and there doesn't appear to be any real mechanism to counter that; it's not like there's some other voting bloc of citizens that feels even a fraction as passionately about the opposite side of the issue. The only thing we're up against are people in Congress who probably didn't realize what kind of chilling effect this could have, though most are receiving a crash-course in it now.

[Powdered Water]

Hmmm, well, I have a lot of problems with that "article or petition" but at least its something.

[Yoda]

Yeah, it's not perfect, but at the same time they can't conceivably release a statement that rejects the legislation without also affirming that it's committed to stopping piracy, so some of it's kind of obligatory. Anyway, it's difficult to imagine the President signing the bill after that statement.

[Yoda]

Heh, just saw this on Facebook:

‎"How am I going to find out what SOPA is if I can't wikipedia it?!"

[Yoda]

Rubio's dropped his support (https://www.facebook.com/SenatorMarcoRubio/posts/340889625936408) for PIPA.

I really think a lot of people in Congress supported this thing initially simply out of ignorance about its ripple effects. It probably sounds pretty innocuous at first to people who don't spend, like, hours a day on the Internet. Anyway, whatever the reason, people are only jumping off. Can't recall seeing anything about people jumping on to support the bill since this flared up.

[Powdered Water]

Good.

[Yoda]

Heard a report (dunno if it's true) that Chuck Schumer's phone lines had gone down.

Probably people demanding to know who invented fruit punch.

[Powdered Water]

I like fruit punch. And Tacos. And also movies.

[DexterRiley]

Whoops, sorry, link fixed.

Anyway, I feel pretty good about this; even if it gets through Congress I don't think the President signs it; the White House's position seems pretty unequivocal, at least on this version of the bill. This has sparked a pretty substantial grassroots backlash and there doesn't appear to be any real mechanism to counter that; it's not like there's some other voting bloc of citizens that feels even a fraction as passionately about the opposite side of the issue. The only thing we're up against are people in Congress who probably didn't realize what kind of chilling effect this could have, though most are receiving a crash-course in it now.

right, like the government gives two Sh!ts what the rank and file public likes or doesnt like.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GwZJPFIcbsE

Strange the head of Fox news would be down on the internet, the last bastion of a true free market.

isnt that what he supposedly advocates?

[Yoda]

Well, they have to give the occasional, er, crap. Sure seems like they do this time; the bill's own co-sponsors are dropping their support! The backlash is clearly having an effect, thank goodness.

[ash_is_the_gal]

I really think a lot of people in Congress supported this thing initially simply out of ignorance about its ripple effects. It probably sounds pretty innocuous at first to people who don't spend, like, hours a day on the Internet. Anyway, whatever the reason.ahh. yet another example of the higher ups blindly supporting something that affects aspects of every day life that they never conceivably would know about.

[will.15]

They supported it because the Hollywood people give them money.

The only reason it is in trouble niow is it has become unpopular.

[Sexy Celebrity]

I believe two things about this:

1.) This is bulls--t that's not going to get passed.

2.) This is a disgusting joke the way all these sites - including Google - are protesting this thing. Why the hell isn't The Internet fiercely fighting for so many other more important causes in the world this way? No -- our stupid ability to have all this free stuff on the internet is more important than so many other dire causes out there. I really am sickened by all of this today. We have this incredible way of fighting for stuff - The Internet, Google, Wikipedia, all of these sites - and the only time I really see protests like this are when they have to do with The Internet itself. The Internet will shut down for The Internet but not anything else. I am disgusted. And I don't know specifically what other causes to fight for, but certainly we could protest for more than just what was done today.

[ash_is_the_gal]

well, what are you fighting for? are you saying you're better than them because you aren't protesting this, even though you're not protesting anything else?

people protest for what directly affects them. that's where the passion comes from, homes.

[Fiscal]

Rand Paul is promising to filibuster SOPA/PIPA.

[Sexy Celebrity]

well, what are you fighting for? are you saying you're better than them because you aren't protesting this, even though you're not protesting anything else?

people protest for what directly affects them. that's where the passion comes from, homes.

I am for this protest, but I am saying that this seems to be the only kind of major protest I've noticed internet sites, like Google, take part in, and I just think it's not enough and I think it's sad that the only time a large internet based protest happens -- because this particular event, with Google notably, but other sites like Wikipedia -- it happens so that we can all enjoy all our entertainment that we get through the internet. So that we don't have to deal with the copyright laws taking them away and such.

I don't care if the "passion" is for what's directly affecting them -- that's wrong, I believe, if it's going to be the only kind of major protest I'm seeing. Why can't Google have the balls to protest wars and such? Protest against more serious problems concerning people? I get that this is a serious problem, as well -- but it's like... this seems to be the only time I've noticed such a protest. And it's for all this free stuff on the internet.

It just looks very sad to me. I'd like to see Google and other sites fight back against a lot of other issues in such a large way as this. There's something about this whole thing that seems so hedonistic.

[will.15]

I believe two things about this:

1) Now I know how to access wikipedi anyway they can blackout as long as they want. I never use those other sites that are protesting with blackouts.

2) I should have posted this in the shoutbox instead so it would help get me on the leaderboard.

[Sexy Celebrity]

I don't understand this blackout business with Wikipedia. I've checked it and I don't see any difference at all!

[ash_is_the_gal]

so... you're disgusted because the first real protest Google has ever partaken in wasn't, like, to stop war or poverty or something? and had this blackout never occurred, it would have never occurred to you to even be disgusted? am i understanding this right?

[wintertriangles]

Google and all of the many participating sites have no say in war or poverty, maybe that's why they stick to, ya know, the internet. And by the way it's about way more than piracy.

[Sexy Celebrity]

so... you're disgusted because the first real protest Google has ever partaken in wasn't, like, to stop war or poverty or something? and had this blackout never occurred, it would have never occurred to you to even be disgusted? am i understanding this right?

Yeah, but so what? The good news is that it has now occured to me. And I believe it should occur to everyone else.

WT: If Google and these sites can have a say in SOPA, they certainly can have a say in other causes to protest against. They just have to wipe off the big, happy grin they put on every day except today and actually DO something. But they won't.

[wintertriangles]

Oh hey totally missed my point cool

[Sexy Celebrity]

Go to Hell.

[wintertriangles]

Oh hey no conception of reality cool. Who cares that websites are protecting the internet from being destroyed by the government THEY DONT MAKE MEEEEEE HAPPPYYYY. I totally get your argument. Google and Wikipedia should have a totally biased agenda just like the misinformation that is the current news media, that will surely solve some problems. And while they're at it, get bought out by politicians and end up supporting things like SOPA. I'm glad someone's thinking right, and it's YOU.

[mark f]

They have good internet connections from Hell... I should know.

[Sexy Celebrity]

Oh hey no conception of reality cool. Who cares that websites are protecting the internet from being destroyed by the government THEY DONT MAKE MEEEEEE HAPPPYYYY. I totally get your argument. Google and Wikipedia should have a totally biased agenda just like the misinformation that is the current news media, that will surely solve some problems. And while they're at it, get bought out by politicians and end up supporting things like SOPA. I'm glad someone's thinking right, and it's YOU.

First off, go to Hell again and second -- who says all that buying off business is destined to happen? Nothing wrong with preparing for the worst, but come on -- you totally kill off the idea without any hope.

Third, you're missing my own point -- I have no problem with this protest. I just think it's sad that this is probably the only kind of protest we're gonna see (perhaps). I'm just saying Google and others could do so much more. I have faith that it can be done without all the negative traits you think it would take on.

[wintertriangles]

I have no problem with this protest.You said multiple times "I'm disgusted with this." And I guess the worldwide protests don't count as protests we're gonna see. And I guess Google doesn't do enough for the world, only giving $600 million to multiple charities, those bastards.

Also if you think the media isn't bought out, you're wrong. If you think a website that isn't bought out, which suddenly takes a stance on multiple issues, will not eventually get brought under the wing of some political mess, you're wrong. This is why these websites don't force their opinions down the throats of every viewer. Otherwise, the internet would be one giant ad.

[Sexy Celebrity]

*throws hands up in the air*

Sorry. But I'm still an optimist who thinks more could be done. I'm only disgusted with the fact that it isn't - or won't be. And it really just disgusted me because this protest - while important - deals with something that I think, overall, is kind of silly compared to a lot of other things. I love the internet, I love the way it's running right now, but I'd rather lose it all if it meant something else could be saved. I just think there's more important issues in this world and it's a shame that more can't be done. I think that what Google is doing today could be done for some other cause and it would be huge and people would take notice.

[wintertriangles]

So you're mad that the general person is too ignorant to know the issues of the world. Cool. And you're an optimist but still negative towards a ballsy protest. Things like the Patriot Act, SOPA, and NDAA move the country away from freedom and towards North Korea. You need to take a history class or seven.

[ash_is_the_gal]

I just think there's more important issues in this world and it's a shame that more can't be done. I think that what Google is doing today could be done for some other cause and it would be huge and people would take notice.

how would a google blackout help stop war?

[Sexy Celebrity]

how would a google blackout help stop war?

Anything's possible. It's the vibe that counts. I'm not saying it would work -- just like it may not even work for SOPA -- and yes, WT, I understand perfectly that SOPA is bad, thank you. Doing a protest against war or something else would set a vibe. It would linger - it would have after effects. Doing nothing -- well, that has its own after effects, but I think it would just be ... mmmm... unhelpful. Bland. Pathetic.

[ash_is_the_gal]

do you even get why it needed to be companies like Google and Wikipedia that did this today? the blackout was poetic because it showed people what could be if these bills are passed. it was a specific outcome to a potential threat. it makes sense for these companies to stand up for this sort of thing. if Google or Wikipedia decided to take their servers down in protest of a war, what good would that do, except throw up a shetload more barriers to stop people across the pond to be able to access communication and each other?

and what message does that even give to people? "STOP SUPPORTING THE WAR OR NO MORE LOOKING UP THE DEFINITION OF LINE DANCING FOR YOU!" what the frilly heck, man?

[Sexy Celebrity]

and what message does that even give to people? "STOP SUPPORTING THE WAR OR NO MORE LOOKING UP THE DEFINITION OF LINE DANCING FOR YOU!" what the frilly heck, man?

I laughed at that, though. People will work with you better if you make them laugh. Yes - that's how Google will make it work. They will take away line dancing definitions and even instructions to those who support the war.

[Powdered Water]

I see SC is hijacking yet another perfectly good thread. Awesome dude. Thanks!

[Sexy Celebrity]

I see SC is hijacking yet another perfectly good thread. Awesome dude. Thanks!

Dude, I thought you liked me. Now you're against me, too? Stop being so crotchety. This isn't hijacking -- this is amplifying.

[planet news]

You're hijacking, because there's no way you're actually disgusted. There's no way you believe anything you're saying, because you have no real views.

Still, your point isn't totally irretrievable, but even then it's still senseless. Your disgust could be clarified as being towards the fact that Google and Wikipedia want most to sustain themselves, and that they will never take action to jeopardize that, while they will take the most drastic actions when their own assets are at stake.

I mean, okay, but why don't you take action to donate money to charity or something?

If you mean they're not doing all they can, okay. But no one does all they can to improve all of society. Each person, each corporation is expected to only do so much. In capitalism, they are only expected to look after their own welfare. That's supposed to have the effect of improving things overall.

If you want to say that more is demanded you have to show why. And then you have to apply that to everyone who is eligible.

You're not a revolutionary, so don't pretend to be. You have no intention of changing the status quo.

In short, you can't just pick and choose your demands on Google and Wikipedia at will. You're just doing it now to cause problems.

Why not just walk into every thread where protests are going on and pretend to be outraged while asking them to do more? Surely, they can. Now, sometimes I do say stuff like this, but at least I understand that, in order for people to do more, the social order has to change. So, unless you have a reason, you're just talking out your ass, which is not uncommon for you.

[Sexy Celebrity]

you're hijacking, because there's no way you're actually disgusted. There's no way you believe anything you're saying, because you have no real views.

Still, your point isn't totally irretrievable, but even then it's still senseless. Your disgust could be clarified as being towards the fact that google and wikipedia want most to sustain themselves, and that they will never take action to jeopardize that, while they will take the most drastic actions when their own assets are at stake.

I mean, okay, but why don't you take action to donate money to charity or something?

If you mean they're not doing all they can, okay. But no one does all they can to improve all of society. Each person, each corporation is expected to only do so much. In capitalism, they are only expected to look after their own welfare. That's supposed to have the effect of improving things overall.

If you want to say that more is demanded you have to show why. And then you have to apply that to everyone who is eligible.

You're not a revolutionary, so don't pretend to be. You have no intention of changing the status quo.

In short, you can't just pick and choose your demands on google and wikipedia at will. You're just doing it now to cause problems.

Why not just walk into every thread where protests are going on and pretend to be outraged while asking them to do more? Surely, they can. Now, sometimes i do say stuff like this, but at least i understand that, in order for people to do more, the social order has to change. So, unless you have a reason, you're just talking out your ass, which is not uncommon for you.

Ban This Ass.

[wintertriangles]

Can I protest illogical comments like that one or would I be labelled disgusting?

[ash_is_the_gal]

oh my god, STOP HIJACKING THREADS. please, for once. every thread goes the same way. user A is perpetually pissed off at user B and it has to bleed through every argument, making every discussion thread turn into the same drivel. it's meaningless. it's juvenile. no one else gives a crap about your issues with so-and-so. just stop, already. discuss the topic.

[will.15]

Yes, mother.

[wintertriangles]

Relevant video showing an example of the "people" in favor of SOPA and PIPA. I would post an article but I am under the assumption no one reads them when they're posted.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=go9ub2HNnlg&list=UU1yBKRuGpC1tSM73A0ZjYjQ&index=10&feature=plcp

[re93animator]

SOPA was drained of even more credibility during the recent CNN GOP debate. It's pretty much done for now, but I wouldn't be surprised to see an abridged version present itself under a different name in the future.

[ash_is_the_gal]

ooookay, so apparently some people thought my reprimanding is due to my secret desire of "non-thought" so i'm going to respond to planet's post, since SC didn't bother to even though it is the best response he's received yet. also just in case it looked like i was poo-pooing on the below discourse.

Your disgust could be clarified as being towards the fact that Google and Wikipedia want most to sustain themselves, and that they will never take action to jeopardize that, while they will take the most drastic actions when their own assets are at stake.
....
If you mean they're not doing all they can, okay. But no one does all they can to improve all of society. Each person, each corporation is expected to only do so much. In capitalism, they are only expected to look after their own welfare. That's supposed to have the effect of improving things overall.

If you want to say that more is demanded you have to show why. And then you have to apply that to everyone who is eligible.

SC, this. why not actually try responding to it instead of writing in big pink letters? i found your dismissal a little strange, because this was the first response you'd gotten that was actually somewhat throwing you a bone. i was trying to make a point similar to this one last night, here:

and had this blackout never occurred, it would have never occurred to you to even be disgusted? am i understanding this right?

because, basically, what is the difference between being disgusted with a company who participates in a SOPA protest and being disgusted with those who didn't? aren't they all not doing more with the power they've got? going by that logic, you should be disgusted with every powerful corporation, right?

basically, you can't say you're actually "for" this protesting if it's just occurred to you that the protestors haven't done more.

sorry if it looked like i was trying to stop discussion, peeps. not that i have that kind of power, but i wasn't, it's just the quoting-a-huge-block-of-a-good-response and replying with, like, three words that don't even apply to anything stated that i was protesting against.

that's right, protesting.

[wintertriangles]

Hokay we have 3 people asking for real responses, LET'S SEE WHAT HAPPENS

[planet news]

It's pretty much done for now, but I wouldn't be surprised to see an abridged version present itself under a different name in the future.This sounds plausible.

Pirating is the kind of "problem" that will never go away but will only get worse.

People say the market will devise new ways of re-integrating the pirating crowd -- namely, by increasing incentives to actually buy materials online instead of, say, torrent them, but god knows how this could be achieved, since digital materials of the highest quality are now being passed about, and the entire process is just about as easy as it could possibly get for the average consumer.

Nevertheless, people are clever and the markets are rumored to be able to solve any problem.

Still, the easiest solution is to introduce violence, i.e. to actually enforce the laws that currently exist. That's what SOPA was. The state-side solution is never ingenuity, never cleverness, always force, always violence.

Still, the possibility remains that capitalism will never find a way to recapture digital materials in the same way it has most every other material and there will forever be this gap in the market through which flows uncoded by capital can freely express themselves.

If this is true for digital materials, and it very way may be, then if the law is to survive, something like SOPA or whatever must be reinstated.

Otherwise, the breakdown of the entire market of intellectual property with which the state is deeply entwined.

===

Best case: a turning point in redefining our notions of property and freeing a large segment of it into common ownership

Worse case: the necessity of maintaining these traditional notions of property for the consistency of the law forces the advent of a highly regulated internet.

===

Middle cases: new devices of enforcement not yet in existence, new ways of making enforcement transparent, new markets coming about to recapture these flows, new offline forms of marking intellectual property

[Harry Lime]

Eventually something like this will get passed, maybe even worse. The internet is still a kid.

[wintertriangles]

While all of the above is the future on paper, there will always be innovations and people paying for them. Just for the sake of offering the other half of the plate, certain artists are making ways in which their product is more of an essential buy. For instance, Bjork's new record is literally an interactive app whereby you can learn more about the songs, Les Discret's last record came with a giant-ass art book relevant to the songs by the composer of the music as well as his animated film, I'm planning on including lots of bonus stuff in my record release, there are ways to get paid as long as you accept you will get ripped off by a number of people. Creative incentives work more than people give credit for. But the future of artistry's career will not survive under a capitalism that is stuck in the past. Most people don't understand that you don't need one format of doing something, you can destroy and move on. If SOPA or a reincarnation of it goes through, the intellectual property will move out of the country.

[planet news]

While all of the above is the future on paper, there will always be innovations and people paying for them. Just for the sake of offering the other half of the plate, certain artists are making ways in which their product is more of an essential buy. For instance, Bjork's new record is literally an interactive app whereby you can learn more about the songs, Les Discret's last record came with a giant-ass art book relevant to the songs by the composer of the music as well as his animated film, I'm planning on including lots of bonus stuff in my record release, there are ways to get paid as long as you accept you will get ripped off by a number of people. Creative incentives work more than people give credit for. But the future of artistry's career will not survive under a capitalism that is stuck in the past. Most people don't understand that you don't need one format of doing something, you can destroy and move on. If SOPA or a reincarnation of it goes through, the intellectual property will move out of the country.This, so much.

Computers are pretty amazing visually and aurally, but the vast variety of experience life offers might be the way to go. Draw people away from computers if you want their money. Information transfer on the level of touch is far less prone to pirating.

Vinyls might come back into style. Haven't they in some way already?

Further, while I personally don't have a problem with it, but still, analogously, one could imagine a much more improved theater-going experience. As perverse as this sounds, especially coming form me, there is much money to be made by selling the very communal experience of watching a film with others without those others just being an annoyance.

[wintertriangles]

Computers are pretty amazing visually and aurally, but the vast variety of experience life offers might be the way to go. Draw people away from computers if you want their money. Information transfer on the level of touch is far less prone to pirating.EXACTLY god when more people figure that out it'll be great. And they wonder why they have dry eyes all the time...

Vinyls might come back into style. Haven't they in some way already?Yes

Further, while I personally don't have a problem with it, but still, analogously, one could imagine a much more improved theater-going experience. As perverse as this sounds, especially coming form me, there is much money to be made by selling the very communal experience of watching a film with others without those others just being an annoyance.I'm surprised there hasn't been any advancements outside air-conditioning. Kinda sad honestly. One of the theaters I go to has an ad for themselves in which the theater turns into this elaborate CGI forest with alien plants and **** it's awesome why can't there be theaters like that? Scratch n sniff is half assing it. I could also understand the price of theater tickets if we didn't have to sit next to the public.

[Sexy Celebrity]

SC, this. why not actually try responding to it instead of writing in big pink letters?

Big pink letters? Oh, I guess 'cause I'm gay or something, I must only write in big pink letters.

They were RED letters. Get your eyes checked.

[Yoda]

People say the market will devise new ways of re-integrating the pirating crowd -- namely, by increasing incentives to actually buy materials online instead of, say, torrent them, but god knows how this could be achieved, since digital materials of the highest quality are now being passed about, and the entire process is just about as easy as it could possibly get for the average consumer.
I don't think so. I'm sure it becomes easy as you get used to it, but the whole idea of "seeding" and keeping ratios up and such is far, far more complicated than "BUY THIS" on iTunes or Amazon Video. Throw in the fact that some of these torrents are invite-only, and it's even more difficult. And then there's the small chance of getting caught, along with the morality of the act.

There are some people who won't buy these things no matter how convenient the industries involved make it for them, but all the reasons above should be more than enough to persuade most people to take the easier route, provided it's made cheap and convenient enough. Which it probably will be before long.

Best case: a turning point in redefining our notions of property and freeing a large segment of it into common ownership

Worse case: the necessity of maintaining these traditional notions of property for the consistency of the law forces the advent of a highly regulated internet.

===

Middle cases: new devices of enforcement not yet in existence, new ways of making enforcement transparent, new markets coming about to recapture these flows, new offline forms of marking intellectual property
The problem with what you call the "best case" is that it probably involves the eradication of any large-scale expensive album, film, or TV show. It would be insanely difficult to get something like that organized and financed in a world where you had almost no control over its distribution.

This part of the debate couldn't be clearer, really: it's true that the companies involved still make lots of money, but that's because most people don't pirate these things and some actually pay for them online. If this becomes highly rare, then they won't still be making lots of money, and investments in these types of intellectual property won't make sense any more. It's nice to think about some "common ownership," I guess, but the things we'd be commonly owning wouldn't be anything like the grandiose productions we enjoy now.

[Yoda]

I'm surprised there hasn't been any advancements outside air-conditioning. Kinda sad honestly. One of the theaters I go to has an ad for themselves in which the theater turns into this elaborate CGI forest with alien plants and **** it's awesome why can't there be theaters like that? Scratch n sniff is half assing it. I could also understand the price of theater tickets if we didn't have to sit next to the public.
Heh. I have the same thing; AMC, right? With a Burger King kids club of three ethnically diverse teenagers?

Anyway, two thoughts:

1) You're right about commercial enterprise that draws people away from the computer. From what I understand the vast majority of artist profits in the music industry come from concerts, anyway. The albums are more a promotion for the concerts.

2) Theaters around here have innovated a fair bit, at least if you're willing to think back. When I started this site the nearest theater to me had rickety old seats on a long, sloped, sticky floor with bad sound. Now two theaters near me have stadium-style seating and every screen is much, much closer to the audience.

I think the next innovation, for what it's worth, is the Alama Drafthouse-style cinephile haven, where bans against talking and texting are actually enforced. I'd pay double the ticket price for that, happily.

[Yoda]

Back on topic: all four Republican candidates came out against SOPA last night, and Harry Reid has canceled the PIPA vote. Lots have bailed (mostly Republicans (http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-57361237-281/protests-lead-to-weakening-support-for-protect-ip-sopa/), it seems, which makes sense given that 90% of the movie industry's contributions go to Democrats (http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/totals.php?ind=C2400)).

Beware both coming back modified (though if they're modified a lot, obviously they may cease to be so objectionable), but in their current incarnations they're pretty clearly dead.

[will.15]

Back on topic: all four Republican candidates came out against SOPA last night, and Harry Reid has canceled the PIPA vote. Lots have bailed (mostly Republicans (http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-57361237-281/protests-lead-to-weakening-support-for-protect-ip-sopa/), it seems, which makes sense given that 90% of the movie industry's contributions go to Democrats (http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/totals.php?ind=C2400)).

Beware both coming back modified (though if they're modified a lot, obviously they may cease to be so objectionable), but in their current incarnations they're pretty clearly dead.
Go ahead and make this partisan. The reality is the bill had bipartisan support and bipartisan opposition. The most vocal legislative proponent of the bill is Lamar Smith, a Republican. Only very recently have conservative groups come out opposing the bills. The main critics have been civil liberty groups usually alligned with Democrats. Obama came out against it before many Republicans publicly bailed and he is not a Republican.

[Yoda]

That's a very impressive bludgeoning of straw men, none of which changes what I said in the slightest. Indeed, many Republicans and Democrats alike supported it initially and some from both parties oppose it now. Hooray. But then lots of them started dropping their support, and most of them were Republicans. The industry backing the bill donates far, far more to Democrats than they do Republicans. That's not a coincidence.

Them's the facts. If their existence bothers you take it up with, I dunno, reality.

[will.15]

The Republicans didn't bail in a big way until yesterday after the internet protest and the Democrats are doing what, trying to ram the legislation through the Senate? No. Reid dropped putting it up for a vote. Who publicly is still defending the bill in a big way? Which Democrat? The biggest defender is and always has been Lamar Smith. The most vocal opponents of the bill when it looked like it was going to sail through Congress were Democrats.

[Yoda]

I love how you've morphed the question into "who publicly is still defending the bill in a big way?" Uh, nobody, because it's unpopular now. Even politicians willing to support bad legislation because their contributors want it have the good sense not to draw attention to that fact. That's not the question, because that wasn't the claim.

Allow me to recap: both parties liked this. It became obvious it was terrible, and many lawmakers bailed. Most of them were Republicans. The party that did less bailing is the party that receives way, way more money from the industry that supports it. Those two things are related, as much as you might bristle at anyone pointing it out.

Kick up all the dust you want; the situation is exactly as I've described.

[will.15]

And the most vocal opponents when it wasn't popular to do so were Democrats.

And as to nobody is publicly defending it, not true. The main engine for this was the House bill and the Republican who authored it there and still the main defender.

You are looking at total dollars going to Democrats and Republicans instead of what politicians receive the most from political contributions and that often tells a different story. I suspect that Lamar guy because of his position in the House received plenty of money and the relevant point is not to look at the movie industry in general, but specific movie industry groups who are involved with this legislation.

[Yoda]

I wonder how you're measuring "most vocal." Notice that my claims are based on actual, publicly stated policy stances, and yours are based on some unquantifiable metaphorical decibel level. I think I know why. But even these conveniently metaphysical claims are pretty suspect; lots of Tea Party groups were forcefully against this from the start.

I've seen this song and dance from you enough to recognize it right away when the music starts up: there are some facts here that don't look great for the Democrats still holding out on this. You like Democrats in general, so you feel you have to make some token effort to challenge this observation. Since it's not really an arguable claim, you'll settle for some good old-fashioned attrition.

It's okay, you know: you can keep liking Democrats without constructing some elaborate false equivalence. Nobody's going to pop out of your closet and force you to switch parties if you actually admit that too many of them are on the wrong side of this.

[will.15]

LOOK AT THIS

http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00001811

[Yoda]

Yeah, I'd already looked at it before you posted it, guy. And I was surprised zero to see that Lamar Smith gets a lot of money from Hollywood. That's my entire claim: that people getting money from Hollywood are way more likely to back this crappy legislation. And most of those people are Democrats.

What on earth do you think you're disputing? Why the crap am I even talking to you?

[Yoda]

I mean, really, bang-up job. You really smacked me down, given that I'm the President of the Lamar Smith Fan Club and all.

Wait, hold on, I'm getting word that...okay, according to this piece of paper I'm pretending to read, I am not, in fact, the President of the Lamar Smith Fan Club. A quick scouring of the Internet reveals 0 results for the search term "Chris Bowyer + Lamar Smith + Wants-to-make-out-with." More on this as it develops. Which it won't.

[will.15]

Because you are trying to make it partisan when it isn't. You are looking at the movie industry in general instead of following where specific groups are giving their money. Like Republicans are not more likely to support the oil industry than Republicans and overall get more money. So what? The reality is this is not a partisan bill, it has opposition and support from across the aisle. The leading opponent of the bill in the Senate is a Democrat and in the beginning he was a voice in the wilderness. Where was the vocal Republican opposition then? It took an internet blackout for six Republicans sponsors to desert like rats from a sinking ship.

I am not defending Democrats. I am opposed to your partisan spin the Dems are the sole bad guys in supporting this bill.

[will.15]

I mean, really, bang-up job. You really smacked me down, given that I'm the President of the Lamar Smith Fan Club and all.

Wait, hold on, I'm getting word that...okay, according to this piece of paper I'm pretending to read, I am not, in fact, the President of the Lamar Smith Fan Club. A quick scouring of the Internet reveals 0 results for the search term "Chris Bowyer + Lamar Smith + Wants-to-make-out-with." More on this as it develops. Which it won't.
This is a Twilight Zone post. The point is you were claiming Democrats are the big supporters of this bill and they receive so much money from the movie industry. And I was pointing out the guy who got this thing started is a Republican and the movie industry is his number one contributor. I am saying follow the money, not the ideology, but you want to make this all partisan.

[Yoda]

I dunno where the number 6 is coming from; 14 Republicans bailed on this thing in the Senate alone this week.

Where on earth did I say "Dems are the sole bad guys"? I'll save you the time: I said it in Nowhereville, the capital of Neverhappenedsylvania. My claim, which I'm now repeating for the third time, was: they're the main holdouts, and the ones still holding out are doing it to please their campaign contributors. Here's uber-liberal Markos Moulitisas taking Democrats to task (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/01/18/moulitsas-democrats-incredibly-stupid-for-still-backing-sopa/) for exactly the same thing.

[will.15]

Some of them say they no longer support the bill the way it is written. They are hardly supporting it, just laying low.

And the reality still is leftist Democrats not Republicans were making the most noise against it until opposition became widespread. Is it a coincidence Republicans didn't start dropping their support until conservative groups that rate candidates for Republican orthodoxy for the first time publicly opposed it after sitting on the fence or leaving mixed messages?

[Sexy Celebrity]

I want to go ahead and respond to this piece of crap - sorry for interrupting - I just feel I ought to say something. Hopefully this won't be deleted because this seriously needs to be addressed.

You're hijacking, because there's no way you're actually disgusted. There's no way you believe anything you're saying, because you have no real views.

You are a dirty scumbag if you think you know me and know how I feel. How dare you come in here and say such things as if you have access to my mind and personal feelings. This, in my opinion, is far worse than what I have ever said to anyone else around here that might have been taken the wrong way. This is worse than when I tried to say that Mark F only prefers movie characters that are good, as if I was totally sure of that.

You are coming in here and saying I have no real views on anything and that I don't believe in anything I say. This is why I demanded that you be banned. Because you always act this smug and arrogant - and I'm sick of it. I am sick of your ass coming on here and thinking you know everything, when you don't. You don't know a g-damned thing about me and my views. How dare you.

Still, your point isn't totally irretrievable, but even then it's still senseless. Your disgust could be clarified as being towards the fact that Google and Wikipedia want most to sustain themselves, and that they will never take action to jeopardize that, while they will take the most drastic actions when their own assets are at stake.

I mean, okay, but why don't you take action to donate money to charity or something?

Why don't you shut the hell up? This was never about me donating money to charity. That is a totally separate thing that I don't care to discuss. What are you trying to prove by saying I should do that?

If you mean they're not doing all they can, okay. But no one does all they can to improve all of society. Each person, each corporation is expected to only do so much. In capitalism, they are only expected to look after their own welfare. That's supposed to have the effect of improving things overall.

If you want to say that more is demanded you have to show why. And then you have to apply that to everyone who is eligible.

I see a great way movements and protests could take place - via something like Google - and I am just angry that nothing's really been done before using that kind of platform until this SOPA thing. I realize I'm asking a lot from something like Google, but the thing is, I believe there's more important matters in this world than losing all of our entertainment and copyrighted material, so I feel that Google should care the same way about certain issues and do more. There are tons of issues they could fight for - and I'm sure that Google has done some stuff already - but I feel that the SOPA protest was their first really visible protest to the public, as far as I know. I can't imagine what else they might have done... but like, where have they been during the war in Afghanistan and all of that? How come they never put up a main page with an image protesting the war? All they'd have to do is spark debate about these things and show that they have a side. My point is I want them to care about more humanitarian causes and protest something that I think is more important to life on this planet, for example. I am completely okay with the SOPA protest because I know that would bring about some awful laws and such that would hurt people and I don't want it to happen as well -- but I feel like if they could protest something like that, they can protest something else. Maybe it's a little naive of me, but I have no problem with saying something about it. Even if it's "talking out of my ass."

I never meant to make things so heated with what I said. I especially wanted to be taken seriously, though. I had an idea that I thought contributed to the thread and that was that. Wasn't hijacking. I literally did feel disgusted by Google's protest because I thought the issue was silly compared to so much else out there. I love the internet, but f**k the way things are now if it means the world can be changed for the better in some other more important way. Maybe the vastness of how important this SOPA thing really hasn't fully integrated into my system, although I can understand how much it is so -- but I just think that it's gotta be smaller when compared to other matters. We have survived as a species in the past without the internet and all the copyrighted stuff. Why not protest against something more serious, more older, more widespread? As great as the internet is, I just think it's not the #1 issue in the world right now. But Google is going all out for it - visibly.

You're not a revolutionary, so don't pretend to be. You have no intention of changing the status quo.

Again, how the hell do you know? Frankly, I think I am a revolutionary. I'll be sure to make that my next MoFo User Title - Revolutionary.

In short, you can't just pick and choose your demands on Google and Wikipedia at will. You're just doing it now to cause problems.

What problems? Pissing off those of you here who won't listen or agree? Get over it! It's not like I went directly to Google and Wikipedia with these demands. I'm a goon on a little movie themed forum. You want better? Find it.

Why not just walk into every thread where protests are going on and pretend to be outraged while asking them to do more? Surely, they can. Now, sometimes I do say stuff like this, but at least I understand that, in order for people to do more, the social order has to change. So, unless you have a reason, you're just talking out your ass, which is not uncommon for you.

Screw the social order. And screw you.

[Yoda]

Some of them say they no longer support the bill the way it is written. They are hardly supporting it, just laying low.

And the reality still is leftist Democrats not Republicans were making the most noise against it until opposition became widespread. Is it a coincidence Republicans didn't start dropping their support until conservative groups that rate candidates for Republican orthodoxy for the first time publicly opposed it after sitting on the fence or leaving mixed messages?
Yeah, some of them say that. And some of them don't, which is the whole point. And I again question your alleged ownership of a Most Vocal Measuring Machine, though if you have managed to build one in-between your busy Ricky Perry Voodoo Doll sewing sessions, I question its effectiveness given its apparent lack of a Tea Party sensor.

What I said has been heretofore undisputed, and as I pointed out, other Democrats/liberals are saying the same thing. Sorry, but it's true. Admitting it won't cause you to wake up in the morning with a pinstripe suit and a sudden hostility to poor people. I promise.

[Yoda]

Re: the PN/SC stuff. It needs to go down a notch. I really don't want to delete these posts, because the bulk of them are actual arguments about actual disagreements, but they're mixed in with way too many direct personal attacks. More of the same, however, will be deleted, and I'd strongly urge both of you to make your case (smugly, arrogantly, with hostility, whatever; you're allowed) without the highly personal invective tacked onto it.

[7thson]

Does this mean I can still do a Google search for hot babes?

http://pets.lohudblogs.com/files/2010/07/CREDIT-FARM-SANCTUARY_Kim-Gordon-piglet-1.jpg

[will.15]

My Rick Perry voodoo doll worked.

[Sedai]

Some of them say they no longer support the bill the way it is written. They are hardly supporting it, just laying low.

And the reality still is leftist Democrats not Republicans were making the most noise against it until opposition became widespread. Is it a coincidence Republicans didn't start dropping their support until conservative groups that rate candidates for Republican orthodoxy for the first time publicly opposed it after sitting on the fence or leaving mixed messages?


Well, I made this thread weeks ago, ringing the alarm bell back in 2011, and I am a Libertarian.

Let me see here... since Dems were the early warning people, I am sure I will see Will15's posts all over the place on the first page of the thread...hmmmm...nope. There surely must be some on the second page...him being an early warning leftist...damn, nothing there, either. Whoops!

I figured I would add some useless info to the debate, as well. ;)

[will.15]

I was referring to leftist Democrats in Congress. Harry Reid and those guys are big money, big interest middle of the roader Democrats.

I must say I never heard of the damn bill until lately.

[Sedai]

Yeah, I was just being a dick, anyway. God job rolling with the punches and all that...

[planet news]

First of all, I think talking about the substance, cause, and future of the bill is definitely on-topic, and it is certainly more productive than the recent exchange between will and Yoda. I'm not sure why talking about which purely indexical party moniker supports it more is on-topic at all, actually.

I don't think so. I'm sure it becomes easy as you get used to it, but the whole idea of "seeding" and keeping ratios up and such is far, far more complicated than "BUY THIS" on iTunes or Amazon Video. Throw in the fact that some of these torrents are invite-only, and it's even more difficult. And then there's the small chance of getting caught, along with the morality of the act.

There are some people who won't buy these things no matter how convenient the industries involved make it for them, but all the reasons above should be more than enough to persuade most people to take the easier route, provided it's made cheap and convenient enough. Which it probably will be before long.That's fine. As I said, I have full confidence in capitalism's ability to find a way around this. Movie and music sales will most likely not be capitalism's downfall. Still, keeping alive spaces of free transmission of material is vital to ensure its eventual downfall.

The problem with what you call the "best case" is that it probably involves the eradication of any large-scale expensive album, film, or TV show. It would be insanely difficult to get something like that organized and financed in a world where you had almost no control over its distribution.Your objection is essentially a rewording of the following assumption: capitalism is the only form of social organization that could ever succeed in producing something like a film or a tv-show (and, more generally, succeed in creating a free form of social organization at all).

Just keep in mind that this is precisely the point where we have always disagreed. You didn't make any argument here.

This part of the debate couldn't be clearer, really: it's true that the companies involved still make lots of money, but that's because most people don't pirate these things and some actually pay for them online. If this becomes highly rare, then they won't still be making lots of money, and investments in these types of intellectual property won't make sense any more. It's nice to think about some "common ownership," I guess, but the things we'd be commonly owning wouldn't be anything like the grandiose productions we enjoy now.Of course the products we have now will all be products of capitalism. That's hardly an argument that the entire idea of common ownership is flawed or dependent on private ownership.

It's like arguing with someone that they can't inhale air whilst they're underwater. Of course they can't do it without water entering their lungs, but that doesn't mean there isn't a space in which they potentially can -- namely, the free air above.

All we need to do is maintain such a space. I would not believe what I do politically if I did not think that the production of fine art was possible under communism.

===

Lastly, I just want everyone who thinks I started this mess to compare my post to SC's reply, and tell me who needs to calm down.

[Sexy Celebrity]

Lastly, I just want everyone who thinks I started this mess to compare my post to SC's reply, and tell me who needs to calm down.

When people try to speak for you, as you tried to do with me, and say that they know what their belief systems are, and basically say that they know how their mind operates --- you can get as angry as you want.

[Yoda]

That's fine. As I said, I have full confidence in capitalism's ability to find a way around this. Movie and music sales will most likely not be capitalism's downfall. Still, keeping alive spaces of free transmission of material is vital to ensure its eventual downfall.
Agreed. It'll be sexbots that brings it all down.

Your objection is essentially a rewording of the following assumption: capitalism is the only form of social organization that could ever succeed in producing something like a film or a tv-show (and, more generally, succeed in creating a free form of social organization at all).

Just keep in mind that this is precisely the point where we have always disagreed. You didn't make any argument here.
I don't think this is what I said. For one, what I'd really be saying is that capitalism is the only form of social organization that could succeed producing films or TV shows at such high resource/cost levels, which is totally different from saying it's the only one that could produce films or TVs at all. But I wasn't even saying that; I was presupposing a future capitalist society where intellectual property has become virtually impossible to control. In that potential future, it stands to reason that we simply won't see investments in media at the level we see them now. That was the entirety of my claim, and I assumed this was the context in which we were talking, since you were parsing out the end result of what's happening now. If your "best case" scenario was actually looking much, much further down the line, into some hypothetical future where our entire societal structure is different, I'd kind of need to know that before engaging with it. As it was, I was assuming a very realistic, fairly probable near-term future where we're still capitalist, but technology has damaged the ability to protect intellectual property. Posit a different circumstance, and I'll have something different to say. :)

Of course the products we have now will all be products of capitalism. That's hardly an argument that the entire idea of common ownership is flawed or dependent on private ownership.

It's like arguing with someone that they can't inhale air whilst they're underwater. Of course they can't do it without water entering their lungs, but that doesn't mean there isn't a space in which they potentially can -- namely, the free air above.

All we need to do is maintain such a space. I would not believe what I do politically if I did not think that the production of fine art was possible under communism.
Yeah, between this quote and the one before, I feel like you expanded the context of this discussion without specifically telling anyone. Well, me, at least.

Anyway, beyond that I'll simply point out that it's exceedingly easy to say that we'd actually still enjoy all these benefits simply because everything would be so different, and that all the seemingly rational reasons why they wouldn't exist (or wouldn't be the same) only seem rational because of how incredibly submerged we are in this particular system. That's technically true...and totally unfalsifiable. I guess it's possible we can find some incredible system that somehow allows for similarly vast numbers of time, creativity, and resources to be marshaled in service of some common good. But it doesn't seem consistent with what I perceive to be human nature.

As always, if you think this is worth pursuing, I'll rustle us up a fresh thread and all that.

[wintertriangles]

When people try to speak for you, as you tried to do with me, and say that they know what their belief systems are, and basically say that they know how their mind operates --- you can get as angry as you want.It's extremely easy to know how one's mind operates based on their behavior. Psych 101. You get angry because he's right. Psych 102. Lucky for me I've taken 400-level psych courses.

If your "best case" scenario was actually looking much, much further down the line, into some hypothetical future where our entire societal structure is different, I'd kind of need to know that before engaging with it. As it was, I was assuming a very realistic, fairly probable near-term future where we're still capitalist, but technology has damaged the ability to protect intellectual property. The arts can exchange outside the primary system given the artists are not bound by things also bound by it, such as Hollywood or record companies. Outside this, it's merely trade, and to add any more business would be insulting to the process. That's not being ignorant that some art will continue to be manufactured under capitalism, but just as music found ways to progress without any coverage, the whole movement itself can circumnavigate the infection for them that is capitalism. This kinda ties in with the rest of your post whereby you acknowledge that we are too embedded in one system to be able to see something outside of it so I guess that's it for now.

[Sexy Celebrity]

It's extremely easy to know how one's mind operates based on their behavior. Psych 101. You get angry because he's right. Psych 102. Lucky for me I've taken 400-level psych courses.

Then psychoanalyze me and explain my situation. Prove that you know what's going on in my mind. Just because I'm angry doesn't mean I'm agreeing with him and refusing to admit it. Or can't because of some deep psychological reason. I've heard this type of thing before. I still stand by what I've said -- Planet News (and you) don't know what I'm thinking at all. Nor are you guys correct in that I don't really feel disgust at Google and how they handle protests.

[Yoda]

The arts can exchange outside the primary system given the artists are not bound by things also bound by it, such as Hollywood or record companies. Outside this, it's merely trade, and to add any more business would be insulting to the process. That's not being ignorant that some art will continue to be manufactured under capitalism, but just as music found ways to progress without any coverage, the whole movement itself can circumnavigate the infection for them that is capitalism.
Could you rephrase, er, all of this? Because I've read it four times and I don't understand what you're trying to say.

This kinda ties in with the rest of your post whereby you acknowledge that we are too embedded in one system to be able to see something outside of it so I guess that's it for now.
If your takeaway from that was that I was "acknowledging" the idea, then we have a misunderstanding. I acknowledge that this is technically possible, but the point I was making is that it's conveniently unfalsifiable, and that you can use it as an excuse to claim that all sorts of wholly counterintuitive things would be plausible if only we'd embrace some revolution first.

[planet news]

Yeah, between this quote and the one before, I feel like you expanded the context of this discussion without specifically telling anyone. Well, me, at least.We don't need another thread. This stuff is theoretical, but it is the only kind of talk that gets at the heart of why this whole SOPA/PIPA/NDAA thing is important. By continuing this, we are neither going broader or shifting the focus. If anything, we are moving closer to the heart of the thing itself.

===

I don't think this is what I said. For one, what I'd really be saying is that capitalism is the only form of social organization that could succeed producing films or TV shows at such high resource/cost levels, which is totally different from saying it's the only one that could produce films or TVs at all.Clearly, the former is what I meant, and it's lost on me how you could think I meant the latter. I mean, of course the challenge to communism is whether or not the expensive films that exist today under capitalism could exist in communism. I say it can... on a matter of principle.

Discussing this point further would be moving off the topic. I don't want to yet anyway.

===

But I wasn't even saying that; I was presupposing a future capitalist society where intellectual property has become virtually impossible to control. In that potential future, it stands to reason that we simply won't see investments in media at the level we see them now. That was the entirety of my claim, and I assumed this was the context in which we were talking, since you were parsing out the end result of what's happening now. If your "best case" scenario was actually looking much, much further down the line, into some hypothetical future where our entire societal structure is different, I'd kind of need to know that before engaging with it. As it was, I was assuming a very realistic, fairly probable near-term future where we're still capitalist, but technology has damaged the ability to protect intellectual property. Posit a different circumstance, and I'll have something different to say.What I call "best case" is precisely what I meant. Let me quote it again: a turning point in redefining our notions of property and freeing a large segment of it into common ownership.

If you actually meant what you wrote above and not what I read you as saying, then you have no real objection. When no market exists for intellectual property or other forms of property that can no longer 1) be enforced by the State, or 2) be recaptured in substance by the market, those market-freed forms of property are, for me, perfectly freed.

An enormous sector of freed property undergoing free transmission will simply not be taken as property at all. For example, it would be absurd to call the .avi I downloaded my property. It makes no sense. Even certain devices of recapture like Netflix challenge the notion of property, because the DVDs are no longer really seen as yours. So, almost any move away from our current, traditional notions of property due to the onslaught of pirating will challenge the legitimacy and, most importantly, intelligibility.

"Property" does not really exist. Everyone knows this. The important thing about pirating is that it reveals this truth through practice.

We needn't already be in communism for this to be the case. This is going on right now -- the seeds of revolution.

===

Anyway, beyond that I'll simply point out that it's exceedingly easy to say that we'd actually still enjoy all these benefits simply because everything would be so different, and that all the seemingly rational reasons why they wouldn't exist (or wouldn't be the same) only seem rational because of how incredibly submerged we are in this particular system. That's technically true...and totally unfalsifiable.Listen, you can't use unfalsifiable as a criticism unless I try to pass an unfalsifiable claim onto you as an additional premise. I only made the unfalsifiable claim to refute your wrong thought -- that the stability of the current situation implies the instability of another. It's the is-ought or naturalistic fallacy to give it a name. Unfalsifiable statements (or logically valid statements) are only ever brought up to remind the other person of a logical error they made.

Furthermore, even beyond the logic, there is a very real component where your embeddedness within a certain state of affairs biases you into thinking it's the only possible state of affairs: whatever happened, happened, and it couldn't have happened any other way.

===

I guess it's possible we can find some incredible system that somehow allows for similarly vast numbers of time, creativity, and resources to be marshaled in service of some common good. But it doesn't seem consistent with what I perceive to be human nature. Yeah, well, I believe that what you perceive to be human nature is essentially synonymous with capitalism's top-down striating effect on the human subject. You asked me how we could not be free under capitalism. Well, this is you answer. You yourself cannot even conceive of a different human nature. Not even within yourself. Not in your wildest imagination.

This particular topic, of human nature, is also too complicated to address here, but I think we both now understand the playing field for future reference.

===

The following are some big things I realized as I wrote this. If you read/respond to nothing else, read/respond to this:

Look at the following relationships to pirating.

1) The communist (the Common) does want to keep pirating around.
2) The capitalist (the Market) does not want to keep pirating around.
3) SOPA/PIPA/NDAA (the State) does not want to keep pirating around.

2) and 3), the capitalist (the Market) and SOPA et. al. (the State) agree about pirating. Why? Because pirating is a transgression of both the capitalist (the Market) -- trade through capital -- and SOPA et. al. (the State) -- property through law.

But, somehow, the capitalist (the Market) can oppose SOPA et. al. (the State) even though their wants are essentially the same: to maintain the current state of things.

The difference is in how, for the capitalist (the Market), SOPA et. al. (the State) is essentially disposable in terms of getting rid of pirating. Pirating can be got rid of by the introduction of new sectors of the Market that draw people away from pirating, thereby recapturing the freed intellectual property.

Yet, what you say is a confused case. It's the case where the capitalist (the Market) very much fails to reincorporate intellectual property into its flows. Do you realize in this case pirating thrives more than ever? If the Market fails then the only other solution is the State.

So do you see what's happening here? If SOPA is to stay away permanently, the Market must succeed in recapturing intellectual property. If the Market succeeds in recapturing intellectual property, the seeds planted by the communist (the Common) whither away and die.

BUT

If the Market fails to recapture intellectual property -- if it merely shifts away from it and leaves all of its material basis untouched -- then pirating thrives and SOPA must once again return.

UNLESS

We change our concepts of intellectual property -- indeed, abolish them -- and the law no longer seeks to recognize such property under its jurisdiction. We will thus be brought one step closer to the Common. Perhaps all property can be abolished this way -- through the proliferation of pirating forcing the hand of the State to give way.

Thus, the only true opposition to the Common is the Market. Capitalism vs. Communism: the fundamental antagonism of society -- what Marx had been saying all along. SOPA is thus merely a kind of mediator -- a nagging reminder from the State that pirating is a problem for the current state of affairs. The true challenge is, was, and forever will be whether or not the Market can absorb pirating or not.

Do you get all this?

[mark f]

I'll check later, seriously, if you care, planet.

That was a bit longer than I have time for, just exactly now.

[will.15]

We don't need another thread. This stuff is theoretical, but it is the only kind of talk that gets at the heart of why this whole SOPA/PIPA/NDAA thing is important. By continuing this, we are neither going broader or shifting the focus. If anything, we are moving closer to the heart of the thing itself.

===

Clearly, the former is what I meant, and it's lost on me how you could think I meant the latter. I mean, of course the challenge to communism is whether or not the expensive films that exist today under capitalism could exist in communism. I say it can... on a matter of principle.

Discussing this point further would be moving off the topic. I don't want to yet anyway.

===

What I call "best case" is precisely what I meant. Let me quote it again: a turning point in redefining our notions of property and freeing a large segment of it into common ownership.

If you actually meant what you wrote above and not what I read you as saying, then you have no real objection. When no market exists for intellectual property or other forms of property that can no longer 1) be enforced by the State, or 2) be recaptured in substance by the market, those market-freed forms of property are, for me, perfectly freed.

An enormous sector of freed property undergoing free transmission will simply not be taken as property at all. For example, it would be absurd to call the .avi I downloaded my property. It makes no sense. Even certain devices of recapture like Netflix challenge the notion of property, because the DVDs are no longer really seen as yours. So, almost any move away from our current, traditional notions of property due to the onslaught of pirating will challenge the legitimacy and, most importantly, intelligibility.

"Property" does not really exist. Everyone knows this. The important thing about pirating is that it reveals this truth through practice.

We needn't already be in communism for this to be the case. This is going on right now -- the seeds of revolution.

===

Listen, you can't use unfalsifiable as a criticism unless I try to pass an unfalsifiable claim onto you as an additional premise. I only made the unfalsifiable claim to refute your wrong thought -- that the stability of the current situation implies the instability of another. It's the is-ought or naturalistic fallacy to give it a name. Unfalsifiable statements (or logically valid statements) are only ever brought up to remind the other person of a logical error they made.

Furthermore, even beyond the logic, there is a very real component where your embeddedness within a certain state of affairs biases you into thinking it's the only possible state of affairs: whatever happened, happened, and it couldn't have happened any other way.

===

Yeah, well, I believe that what you perceive to be human nature is essentially synonymous with capitalism's top-down striating effect on the human subject. You asked me how we could not be free under capitalism. Well, this is you answer. You yourself cannot even conceive of a different human nature. Not even within yourself. Not in your wildest imagination.

This particular topic, of human nature, is also too complicated to address here, but I think we both now understand the playing field for future reference.

===

The following are some big things I realized as I wrote this. If you read/respond to nothing else, read/respond to this:

Look at the following relationships to pirating.

1) The communist (the Common) does want to keep pirating around.
2) The capitalist (the Market) does not want to keep pirating around.
3) SOPA/PIPA/NDAA (the State) does not want to keep pirating around.

2) and 3), the capitalist (the Market) and SOPA et. al. (the State) agree about pirating. Why? Because pirating is a transgression of both the capitalist (the Market) -- trade through capital -- and SOPA et. al. (the State) -- property through law.

But, somehow, the capitalist (the Market) can oppose SOPA et. al. (the State) even though their wants are essentially the same: to maintain the current state of things.

The difference is in how, for the capitalist (the Market), SOPA et. al. (the State) is essentially disposable in terms of getting rid of pirating. Pirating can be got rid of by the introduction of new sectors of the Market that draw people away from pirating, thereby recapturing the freed intellectual property.

Yet, what you say is a confused case. It's the case where the capitalist (the Market) very much fails to reincorporate intellectual property into its flows. Do you realize in this case pirating thrives more than ever? If the Market fails then the only other solution is the State.

So do you see what's happening here? If SOPA is to stay away permanently, the Market must succeed in recapturing intellectual property. If the Market succeeds in recapturing intellectual property, the seeds planted by the communist (the Common) whither away and die.

BUT

If the Market fails to recapture intellectual property -- if it merely shifts away from it and leaves all of its material basis untouched -- then pirating thrives and SOPA must once again return.

UNLESS

We change our concepts of intellectual property -- indeed, abolish them -- and the law no longer seeks to recognize such property under its jurisdiction. We will thus be brought one step closer to the Common. Perhaps all property can be abolished this way -- through the proliferation of pirating forcing the hand of the State to give way.

Thus, the only true opposition to the Common is the Market. Capitalism vs. Communism: the fundamental antagonism of society -- what Marx had been saying all along. SOPA is thus merely a kind of mediator -- a nagging reminder from the State that pirating is a problem for the current state of affairs. The true challenge is, was, and forever will be whether or not the Market can absorb pirating or not.

Do you get all this?

No.

[mark f]

"The Power of Christ Compels You!" NOT

[Deadite]

Death by a thousand cuts...

http://www.slate.com/articles/business/small_business/2012/01/sopa_stopping_online_piracy_would_be_a_social_and_economic_disaster_.html

[DexterRiley]

1st Sexy does his level best to derail, and now Will and Yoda are flirten. Get a private room u2.

:D

[Sexy Celebrity]

1st Sexy does his level best to derail, and now Will and Yoda are flirten. Get a private room u2.

:D

I thought I was on your ignore list.

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lvmoqhXxRM1qilqzxo1_400.gif

[wintertriangles]

It's too bad there isn't a real one that filters oh never mind

[Deadite]

I find that the best way to deal with trolls is to actually ignore them by not reading their posts or at least not responding.

It works with Yoda, anyway. :D

[DexterRiley]

Add H.R. 313, the Drug Trafficking Safe Harbor Elimination Act of 2011 to the "end is nigh list".

Its passed the House and has been, at this time, read twice in the Senate and sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

H.R. 313 provides for federal criminal penalties for any U.S. citizen who would travel to any country and, while in said country, violate the provisions of the United States Controlled Substance Act – even if they were not violating that country’s laws.

Planning a trip to Amsterdam where you will smoke some weed and visit art museums? Criminal conspiracy. A friend goes on vacation to the UK, calls, and mentions they have a terrible cough - so you mention they can get cough syrup w/ codeine without a prescription in the UK from any pharmacy? Criminal conspiracy.

Worse yet it includes anything that can “aid or abet drug trafficking outside the United States." So you work as an academic in a needle exchange program where you analyze data? You might be considered abetting drug trafficking by encouraging drug use. Criminal conspiracy. What if you're are a US-based analyst for Heroin-Assisted Treatment in the United Kingdom, Denmark, the Netherlands, Germany, or Switzerland? Well you're certainly violating the Controlled Substances Act because it doesn't recognize heroin as a medically useful substance - you'll have to cut all ties with your researchers.

Importantly: anyone who violates the provisions of this would certainly be subject to criminal asset forfeiture. Universities would have to make sure their professors cut all ties or face the potential of losing any and all equipment and even buildings that were used in the research process. The implications for civil asset forfeiture are even more severe - try proving to a court that your $500 smartphone wasn't utilized in an international drug conspiracy when the police show a transcript of an international call where you mentioned you could legally buy cough syrup with codeine without a prescription. The implications are, simply, severe.

This has already passed the United States House of Representatives. Right now this legislation is at its most vulnerable position, the Senate Judiciary Committee, and this is the best chance to make sure it goes no further. We have no way of knowing how Pres. Obama will come down on this legislation, and I doubt there will be a mass rally to stop it when it comes to a full Senate vote.

Check Project Vote Smart or Open Congress to see if your state's two Senators are on the Senate Judiciary Committee. If they are - call them and ask for the Senator's position. If they don't know what it is - tell them you're a constituent and express your desire for this legislation to go no further, and make sure you can explain why it is bad legislation. After you've called, go to your Senator's website and send them an email urging them to not support the legislation.

If your state's Senators are not on the Senate Judiciary Committee then please consider contacting Senators from other states who are on the committee.

This legislation is a fundamental change in what it means to be American - it effectively extends America's criminal law to Americans even if they're not in America. It sets a horrible precedent - even if you're against drug use. It has the effect of scaring researchers out of working on novel approaches to addiction or any research involving drugs.

I hope you will find the time to spend 10 minutes conversing with your Senator. I've already done so for mine. This must stop.

Edit: Senators on the Senate Judiciary Committee

Patrick J. Leahy Chairman, D-Vermont

Herb Kohl D-Wisconsin

Chuck Grassley Ranking Member, R-Iowa

Dianne Feinstein D-California

Orrin G. Hatch R-Utah

Chuck Schumer D-New York

Jon Kyl R-Arizona

Dick Durbin D-Illinois

Jeff Sessions R-Alabama

Sheldon Whitehouse D-Rhode Island

Lindsey Graham R-South Carolina

Amy Klobuchar D-Minnesota

John Cornyn R-Texas

Al Franken D-Minnesota

Michael S. Lee R-Utah

Christopher A. Coons D-Delaware

Tom Coburn R-Oklahoma

Richard Blumenthal D-Connecticut

http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/oub61/a_chance_to_stop_the_unthinkable_hr_313_the_drug/

If the Liberals win the next federal election up here, looks like Canada is due for spike in immigration.

Federal Liberals endorse marijuana legalization

They overwhelmingly approved Sunday a resolution calling for the legalization and regulation of marijuana -- a position immediately endorsed in principle by interim leader Bob Rae, although it remains to be seen how, or if, the resolution translates into a platform plank for the next election.

"Let's face up to it, Canada, the war on drugs has been a complete bust," Rae declared in a closing speech to a three-day Liberal renewal convention.

Until now, Liberals have called only for decriminalization of marijuana, as has the NDP. The new call to legalize it completely and regulate its production and sale, much as is done with alcohol, is in stark contrast to the governing Conservatives, who've included stiffer penalties for marijuana possession in their omnibus tough-on-crime bill.....

http://www.ctvbc.ctv.ca/servlet/an/l...shColumbiaHome

[Yoda]

You know what's both highly fascinating and highly ironic about this issue? The way people of all political stripes talk about SOPA and PIPA. They'll tell you about how the Internet is open, and how that openness helps spark creativity and ingenuity, and how the power to censor it can be so easily abused and would have a chilling effect on the wonderful freedom it now enjoys. All great stuff. Agree completely.

What's ironic about this is that it's a single noun replacement away from being indistinguishable from a defense of free markets in general. They could be describing all business, rather than just Internet entities, and you wouldn't have to change a single word outside of the subject. You can have a dyed-in-the-wool socialist sounding like they belong to the Club For Growth when you get them talking about censoring the Internet.

Everyone seems to "get" the free market argument when they talk about the Internet, probably because it's new and hasn't been under the same kind of sustained political attack as other spheres of the economy. It'll be interesting to see if most people see this parallel and carry the lesson over into other areas of business, or if, instead, the Internet will become just like the rest of them; just another political football that politicians fight for control over.

[will.15]

The internet and anti trust laws are not comparable.

[Yoda]

Oh, if mere statements made things so, will. But I wasn't thinking of antitrust laws, anyway.

[ash_is_the_gal]

I find that the best way to deal with trolls is to actually ignore them by not reading their posts or at least not responding.

It works with Yoda, anyway. :D

yeah, i was wondering why your responses to him never made much sense, but now that I know you aren't actually reading them IT'S ALL COMING TOGETHER IN MY HEAD.

:p

[Deadite]

You're a fool, Yoda. A well-meaning fool, but still a fool. You still think the problem is government restricting business?

Government is business. We are in deep ***** - not just as one group of people or another - but collectively, precisely because government is owned by business, and business is out of control. Humans don't need more opportunity to buy and sell each other *****. And even If there were zero government oversight, we would be at least as bad off as we are now. There would be no "stabilization" of a "free market", no healing of some "natural" system of trade.

It's a joke to argue how to "fix the system", I think. It can't be fixed. It isn't the real problem, anyway. There is no system on earth devised cleverly enough to cage human greed. Your precious free market ideal isn't going to change a damn thing. You're just another sucker in a false dichotomy. You are playing intellectual football, that's all.

Anyway, I'm sure you'll have a smooth rebuttal. Good for you.

[Deadite]

yeah, i was wondering why your responses to him never made much sense, but now that I know you aren't actually reading them IT'S ALL COMING TOGETHER IN MY HEAD.

:p

That's okay, ash. I don't expect anyone to understand me anymore. Besides, words are so easily twisted, so it doesn't much matter what I say.

[Deadite]

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Lawrence_Lessig

When it has become silly to suppose that the role of our government should be to "seek balance," then count me with the silly, for that means that this has become quite serious indeed. If it should be obvious to everyone that the government does not seek balance, that the government is simply the tool of the most powerful lobbyists, that the idea of holding the government to a different standard is absurd, that the idea of demanding of the government that it speak truth and not lies is just naïve, then who have we, the most powerful democracy in the world, become?

[Yoda]

You're a fool, Yoda. A well-meaning fool, but still a fool. You still think the problem is government restricting business?
I reject the premise that there is a singular thing wrong with everything. But I think government restrictions are causing lots of problems.

Government is business. We are in deep ***** - not just as one group of people or another - but collectively, precisely because government is owned by business, and business is out of control. Humans don't need more opportunity to buy and sell each other *****. And even If there were zero government oversight, we would be at least as bad off as we are now. There would be no "stabilization" of a "free market", no healing of some "natural" system of trade.
This is where your claims start colliding with each other. If government and business are indistinguishable, the position that we need more regulation (or that we'd be harmed by deregulation) becomes nonsense. By equating the two you lose the ability to take sides between them. Though you still try, because for all your talk about how one is no better than the other, I only ever see you picking fights with the one side of the issue.

It's a joke to argue how to "fix the system", I think. It can't be fixed. It isn't the real problem, anyway. There is no system on earth devised cleverly enough to cage human greed. Your precious free market ideal isn't going to change a damn thing. You're just another sucker in a false dichotomy. You are playing intellectual football, that's all.
Of course there is no system on earth clever enough to cage human greed. That's precisely the argument for free markets in the first place. It is an argument from humility: some of us don't know as much as all of us, and all of us know more about our own situation than the rest of us.

Now, apart from sarcastically prefixing the word "precious" to something you don't like, do you have an actual response to what I said about Internet freedom rhetoric and its parallel with business deregulation? Because I posted an observance intended to generate discussion. I'm pretty sure nobody benefits from someone sashaying into every political discussion with an apocalyptic sandwich board on their shoulders to tell us how pointless it all is.

[planet news]

Your wording intrigues me.

>there is no system on earth clever enough to cage human greed

There is no s y s t e m on earth c l e v e r enough to c a g e human greed.

Capitalism is precisely that. It is a system, because it has objects, relations, domains. It is clever, because it is cleverer than top-down planning. It is a cage, because human greed is allowed to run rampant within the cage of market equilibrium.

So what do you even mean here? There is no system on earth clever enough to cage human greed except capitalism, yes?

As far as I can tell, there are only two rigorous ways to segregate the government from a firm. 1) By pointing to its immeasurable excess advantage in the capacity for violence, that is, it's capacity to use force. 2) By pointing to its transcendental relation to the existence of a market in the first place, that is, it's protection of property rights, standardization of currency, etc.

As one might already be able to tell, even these two seemed tied together.

Regulations and such belong to the first category of excess. Yet, there would be no real way to maintain a transcendental field to allow for the flourishing of a market WITHOUT and excess in violence potential. How else are we to protect property rights and stop people from burning money?

So, while I disagree with Deadite that the gov't is just another firm. I cannot disagree that the government and its powers are not utterly coimplicated with capitalism.

You cannot have a stable groundwork for the system of capitalism without violence. It is this same violence that is ultimately used to shape the market from the top down. The government capacity for force exists on all levels of capitalism. You cannot remove one level without removing all the others.

This is not to say that the republicans are advocating some impossibility. This is simply to say that they are simply advocating a certain different type of government, not any more or less of government. The only people who want less government are anarchists and communists. The only people who want more government are socialists.

[Yoda]

Your wording intrigues me.

>there is no system on earth clever enough to cage human greed

There is no s y s t e m on earth c l e v e r enough to c a g e human greed.

Capitalism is precisely that. It is a system, because it has objects, relations, domains. It is clever, because it is cleverer than top-down planning. It is a cage, because human greed is allowed to run rampant within the cage of market equilibrium.

So what do you even mean here? There is no system on earth clever enough to cage human greed except capitalism, yes?What I mean is that capitalism harnesses it, which is not the same thing as caging it. If you strap a harness to a bull, you aren't caging the bull, you're simply channeling its movement towards some useful purpose. Every caged thing is free to "run rampant within the cage." The question is how far that cage extends.

What is meant by the phrase "there is no system on earth clever enough to cage human greed" (at least insofar as I agreed with it, because it wasn't my phrase), is that there is no system that will make it go away or reliably constrict it. There are only systems that acknowledge this basic human flaw, or not. There are systems contingent on the idea that it can be controlled, and there are those that admit it cannot.

As far as I can tell, there are only two rigorous ways to segregate the government from a firm. 1) By pointing to its immeasurable excess advantage in the capacity for violence, that is, it's capacity to use force. 2) By pointing to its transcendental relation to the existence of a market in the first place, that is, it's protection of property rights, standardization of currency, etc.

As one might already be able to tell, even these two seemed tied together.

Regulations and such belong to the first category of excess. Yet, there would be no real way to maintain a transcendental field to allow for the flourishing of a market WITHOUT and excess in violence potential. How else are we to protect property rights and stop people from burning money?

So, while I disagree with Deadite that the gov't is just another firm. I cannot disagree that the government and its powers are not utterly coimplicated with capitalism.

You cannot have a stable groundwork for the system of capitalism without violence. It is this same violence that is ultimately used to shape the market from the top down. The government capacity for force exists on all levels of capitalism. You cannot remove one level without removing all the others.
You seem to be arguing that the power to coerce is necessary, because the free market is only made possible by the threat of coercion towards those who would violate others' property rights in the first place. That's true, and I made the same argument to you months ago in a discussion we had about government and force. So, no issue there. But that doesn't defend any specific philosophy or level of regulation, which was (I thought) the topic. You wouldn't respond to allegations of police brutality by pointing out that some kind of police force is necessary, so I'm not sure what argument this is intended to address.

This is not to say that the republicans are advocating some impossibility. This is simply to say that they are simply advocating a certain different type of government, not any more or less of government. The only people who want less government are anarchists and communists. The only people who want more government are socialists.
As I've said to many a cheeky progressive who's tried to make hay out of those terms, the phrases "more government" or "less government" are just shorthand. The only people who take them literally are those trying to score some cheap rhetorical points, rather than actually discuss the ideas underlying each phrase.

That said, they're not even technically inaccurate, for two reasons. First: Less regulation means less regulators, and more regulation means more, and thus the amount of regulation and oversight we put on business alters the total number of people working for government. Thus, more regulation actually does mean "more government," in terms of both people and money. Second: "more" need not be a literal term. It can also refer to purview, and more regulation means more purview, and is therefore also "more government." So, I think both phrases are technically accurate and acceptable as shorthand for more nuanced ideas. Take your pick.

Anyway, I'd really like to hear your thoughts on what I said about freedom of the Internet and freedom for business in general. I feel safe assuming that you're a big fan of Internet openness and recognize the benefits of that openness, so what stops you from applying the same cost/benefit philosophy to other areas? Preemptively, I can speculate that you might think intellectual property reform is a necessary condition of applying this lesson to business in general, but that done, it seems like a smooth transition.

Still be open to hearing how other people reconcile this, too. There's some pretty clear tension from progressives, who seem to grasp free market arguments when the Internet is involved but suffer some kind of economic amnesia as soon as they leave the topic.

[will.15]

Anyway, I'd really like to hear your thoughts on what I said about freedom of the Internet and freedom for business in general. I feel safe assuming that you're a big fan of Internet openness and recognize the benefits of that openness, so what stops you from applying the same cost/benefit philosophy to other areas? Preemptively, I can speculate that you might think intellectual property reform is a necessary condition of applying this lesson to business in general, but that done, it seems like a smooth transition.

Still be open to hearing how other people reconcile this, too. There's some pretty clear tension from progressives, who seem to grasp free market arguments when the Internet is involved but suffer some kind of economic amnesia as soon as they leave the topic.
It is impossible to react becuae you are not being specific about what you mean about applying the freedom of the intenret to freedom of business. When I brought up antitrust laws earlier you said you were not thinking about antitrust laws. So what do you mean with specific examples?

[TheUsualSuspect]

Looks like the Canadian government is trying their own little SOPA agenda.

[Yoda]

If you're asking for specific examples, then you didn't understand what I asked, I'm afraid. I'm asking a question about general philosophy. I'll try again:

If you recognize that the openness of the Internet is valuable and produces all sorts of creativity and innovation, and if you oppose regulating much of it to preserve this creativity and innovation, what stops you from recognizing the same value in a less-regulated marketplace in other areas?

[will.15]

Your question is meaningless if you are excluding antitrust laws with regard to business.

You are asking a question wih no explanation to what you are actually asking.

[Yoda]

I'm really not, and I don't know how you reach the conclusion that antitrust laws are the only laws this question has implications for, either.

We have far more regulation of business in general than the Internet, right? And you want to keep it this way, yes? So why is one necessary, and the other terrible? Why are all the arguments about the benefits of a free Internet not applicable outside of the Internet? They are virtually indistinguishable from free market arguments outside of the nouns involved.

This is a very simple question, and the only reason I can see for you not to answer it would be because doing so would reveal the cognitive dissonance present.

[will.15]

Freedom on the internet that got folks stirred up specifically referred to the free flow of information.

How is that applicable to not regulating business?

You want to turn apples into oranges.

Take something specifically about business regulation and connect it to SOPA so we can understand your point.

[Yoda]

Somehow, I doubt there's a "we" that is having trouble understanding this point.

When you say some business regulation is necessary and/or ask if I feel the same way, I don't need you to specifically enumerate all the regulations you're referring to in order to respond. I can answer "yes" with the obvious understanding that I'm being asked a general question, and not signing off on a specific list.

That's what's happening here. I'm asking you a question of general economic and political philosophy. I'm asking you why reasoning that works as a defense of intervention in one area of the economy doesn't in another. It's a completely straightforward, answerable question that requires no elaboration or enumeration to consider and respond to.

[will.15]

We are still talking about apples and oranges.

Conservatives generally are less concerned about civil liberties like free speech and more concerned about not putting constraints on free markets. Liberals the opposite.



There is no contradiction here and nothing to discuss unless you have a specific area to discuss.

[Yoda]

Yes, there totally is. There are such things a general philosophical questions. There are such things as general political philosophies. I know this because you've asked general questions, and espoused general opinions, many dozens of times before, without requiring itemization.

But I'll ask a similar question, anyway, just to see how far this evasiveness extends: do you believe regulating the Internet would damage its creativity and innovation? If so, do you believe business regulation similarly damages business creativity and innovation?

[will.15]

Regulation already exists on the internet.

Those torrent sites get shut down a lot.

Certain type of regulations would damage its creativity and innovation.

NDAA/SOPA would have had that affect the way it was written.

I am not aware of any business regulation that damages creativity and innovation. Apple doesn't seem to be having any problem.

[Yoda]

Certain type of regulations would damage its creativity and innovation.
What types do you think those would be?

I am not aware of any business regulation that damages creativity and innovation.
Do you think there is any connection between investment dollars and innovation? If so, do you think there are business regulations that damage investment? Because if there are, then you are, in fact, aware of business regulation that damages innovation.

Apple doesn't seem to be having any problem.
Do you honestly not spot the problem with this reasoning?

[will.15]

What types do you think those would be?
Oh,now you want me to get specific, but you resist it. Actually, to be specific, the proposed law did not create actual new regulation of the internet by a government entity. It did not create an internet regulatory agency. It enabled other businesses and individuals, through new laws that enabled them, to create what was perceived by critics to be onerous restrictions on internet based enterprises. It could be argued the internet was hindering these businesses and individuals their creativity and innovation by allowing their legally protected works to be distributed on the internet without permission, making them less valuable and discouraging them from creating other works under the present system. So what you have is not direct government regulation of the internet, but rather allowing competing enterprises to restrict the current free access model of the internet. Government restrictions on business through antitrust laws, minimum wage, child labor laws, tax policy, etc. are not comparable at all to SOPA.

Do you think there is any connection between investment dollars and innovation? If so, do you think there are business regulations that damage investment? Because if there are, then you are, in fact, aware of business regulation that damages innovation.
Now you are making a leap. Business regulations may create some disincentive on certain types of investment. But where is the evidence it actually discourages innovation? New products and new ideas are being introduced all the time. The United States is still where most of those ideas originate.



Do you honestly not spot the problem with this reasoning?
I don't, but I assume you will enlighten me.

[Yoda]

Oh,now you want me to get specific, but you resist it.
Er, no, I want you to be specific because you inexplicably demanded specifics. If you had actually, you know, answered my question, I would have been fine with a general answer. But you didn't.

Actually, to be specific the proposed law did not create actual new regulation of the internet by a government entity. It did not create an internet regulatory agency. It enabled other businesses and individuals through new laws that enabled them to create onerous restrictions on internet based enterprises. It could be argued the internet was hindering their creativity and innovation.
I'm not sure what this has to do with what I asked. But if you're saying that you don't think it's great that the Internet is open, then I don't know why we're even discussing this, because my entire point was directed at people who believed that.

Now you are making a leap. Business regulations may create some disincentive on certain types of investment. But where is the evidence it actually discourages innovation?
Good lord, is this a serious question? The evidence is that innovation isn't free. Prototypes cost money. Research costs money. Trying things costs money. Money means investment. Business regulations can and do create disincentive for many investors. Ergo, business regulations harm innovation. Leap? There's not even a skip. It's a straight shot from the premises to the conclusion.

New products and new ideas are being introduced all the time. The United States is still where most of those ideas originate.
I don't, but I assume you will enlighten me.
Certainly: the problem is that you're treating creativity and innovation as binary, as if you either are or you aren't. As if an economy is either friendly to it or not. In reality, there are degrees. You can innovate more or less. You can invest more or less. The fact that companies exist that are doing innovative things tells us precisely nothing about whether or not innovation or creativity is being harmed by this or that policy.

[will.15]

Er, no, I want you to be specific because you inexplicably demanded specifics. If you had actually, you know, answered my question, I would have been fine with a general answer. But you didn't.

You weren't asking a question as worded that makes sense. As I said before it was apple and oranges. Just because you want to link two divergent things in a question doesn't make the question valid unless you back the question with something that makes it so.


I'm not sure what this has to do with what I asked. But if you're saying that you don't think it's great that the Internet is open, then I don't know why we're even discussing this, because my entire point was directed at people who believed that.

I do think the internet should be open in the context of the law that this thread is about. I don't have a problem with shutting down torrent sites. That is the problem also with your question. You are making a sweeping general statement about regulation in general. The criticism about SOPA was the type of regulation. What I was pointing out was the proposed law did not directly regulate the internet. The law enabled other private persons and companies to restrict the internet. It is not comparable to direct regulation by government of business on behalf of the public.


Good lord, is this a serious question? The evidence is that innovation isn't free. Prototypes cost money. Research costs money. Trying things costs money. Money means investment. Business regulations can and do create disincentive for many investors. Ergo, business regulations harm innovation. Leap? There's not even a skip. It's a straight shot from the premises to the conclusion.

Nope. You are still leaping. Show me one product or innovation that government regulations prevented. It is too casual. Was there more product development before government regulation of business? Show me that study. It is not regulation in general that could be a disincentive to product development and innovation, but the type of regulation. SOPA was a harmful restriction of the internet. You feel apparently all government regulation of business is harmful to business innovating and developing so it must be so. Where is your evidence?

I can think of one area where it could be argued government does potentially restrict innovation. But there is a reason for it and it has to do with the public welfare. That was never an issue with SOPA.



Certainly: the problem is that you're treating creativity and innovation as binary, as if you either are or you aren't. As if an economy is either friendly to it or not. In reality, there are degrees. You can innovate more or less. You can invest more or less. The fact that companies exist that are doing innovative things tells us precisely nothing about whether or not innovation or creativity is being harmed by this or that policy.

Okay, but then what are we arguing about? Really, you are not saying anything that has anything to do with what this thread is about and you have found no way to connect it. Your point now seems to be government regulation discourages some investment and more money means potentially more money to fund research and development. That is very broad and general. When does that have to with the internet and SOPA?

The internet as we speak is not completely free. The issue was did SOPA go too far? It did. Are there some specific government regulations that go too far? Maybe. But you have to single them out so what you are trying to say makes sense.

And, of course, the main opposition to SOPA was not that it prevented internet innovation, even though it did, but that it was an onerous restriction of the free flow of information. The core of the opposition had to do with free speech. The only real valid comparison would have been with news gathering sources and other media and laws and regulatory agencies that potentially restrict free speech.

And again, conservatives are less tolerant about free speech, are more interested in using government to restrict speech on the airwaves, but more willing to have less restrictions on companies to buy and control markets. Liberals go the other way. The internet controversy is consistent with liberals' desire to have content unrestricted as much as possible. Conservatives are more prone to restrict content, but less concerned about companies monopolizing the sources of the content.

[planet news]

This was much longer, but I cut it down just in case you want to respond to it. My thinking, I'll expand more if you respond with questions. Maybe I'll convince you... :laugh:

What I mean is that capitalism harnesses it, which is not the same thing as caging it. If you strap a harness to a bull, you aren't caging the bull, you're simply channeling its movement towards some useful purpose. Every caged thing is free to "run rampant within the cage." The question is how far that cage extends.This isn't clear. The problem with these two words, cage and harness, is that they are proposed from different points of view. A bull might very well be harnessed for the sake of tilling fields, but to it, there is only a cage. This is just one of many ways in which we can see that capitalism is a top-down formation.

What is meant by the phrase "there is no system on earth clever enough to cage human greed" (at least insofar as I agreed with it, because it wasn't my phrase), is that there is no system that will make it go away or reliably constrict it. There are only systems that acknowledge this basic human flaw, or not. There are systems contingent on the idea that it can be controlled, and there are those that admit it cannot.I only responded to you before, because I wanted to bring out this kind of speech. If ever possible, I want to bring out your ideas about human nature, because they are the root of your entire ideology. If to be human is intrinsically to be greedy, then of course you are correct. That is, you are correct about everything this human nature entails. Yet, as I say before, it would entail two things. If you are indeed correct about human nature -- and, just to be clear, I think you are completely mistaken, and a few counterexamples will show that (perhaps for later) -- then capitalism as a system of representation and flows of those representations cannot alone be enough to sustain a society. For, as we both seem to agree, the state remains the necessary conditions for the flourishing of any market at all, and it stakes itself as necessary for precisely the same reasons why capitalism is necessary: human nature is greed. For, without the law, the unconscious injunctions of human nature would respect neither the boundaries of property nor the equalities of trade of that property.

Thus, even taking your (what I claim to be) mistaken view of human nature, you necessitate the state. That is, the state must exist.

That's all I even need to say for my argument to work.

But that doesn't defend any specific philosophy or level of regulation, which was (I thought) the topic. You wouldn't respond to allegations of police brutality by pointing out that some kind of police force is necessary, so I'm not sure what argument this is intended to address.It absolutely does. It defends any level of regulation whatsoever, that is, it places no discernible limit on the amount of regulations instituted, because human nature necessitates it. Market regulations are just a branch of regulations or laws in general.

My argument is not that we should embrace government regulations, it's simply that you can make no argument against it if you hold your views about human nature and how capitalism deals with that. The market depends on the existence of the state. They are hopelessly co-implicated by form alone. I speak nothing of the transformation of the political process into a market, which people like Deadite and D. Riley talk about.

No. The "corruption" of government and capitalism lies at their very core, their very being.

That said, they're not even technically inaccurate, for two reasons. First: Less regulation means less regulators, and more regulation means more, and thus the amount of regulation and oversight we put on business alters the total number of people working for government. Thus, more regulation actually does mean "more government," in terms of both people and money. Second: "more" need not be a literal term. It can also refer to purview, and more regulation means more purview, and is therefore also "more government." So, I think both phrases are technically accurate and acceptable as shorthand for more nuanced ideas. Take your pick.This is the kicker. Do you even know what regulation is? It is not a price control or a tax. A regulation is a transcendental condition for the market. We regulate banks in order to maintain the very existence of banks. Otherwise, they'd fail like during the Depression and disappear. We regulate property in order to maintain the very existence of property. Otherwise, it fails like through bittorrent and disappears. We regulate businesses to maintain the very existence of businesses. Otherwise, they fail like in 2008 and disappear. We regulate loans in order to maintain the very existence of loans. Otherwise, they fail like in 2008 and disappear.

Regulations maintain capitalism. They make it possible. They keep it going.

And this is all assuming your notion of human nature, which I personally do not even assume.

===

Anyway, I'd really like to hear your thoughts on what I said about freedom of the Internet and freedom for business in general. I feel safe assuming that you're a big fan of Internet openness and recognize the benefits of that openness, so what stops you from applying the same cost/benefit philosophy to other areas?First off, I'm not a liberal. I "hate" liberals (as in the people I like but the ideas a crap). I don't want internet openness because it promotes creativity and innovation, because that line of argument ultimately devolves into the clause for eventual use in the market. I want freedom, creation as such. Furthermore, I want internet openness for the very sake of breaking the law. No liberal dares say this because they don't believe it. I just saw a video with Bill Maher complaining about bittorrent because he's just as big of a capitalist as you. No. I want the law to be broken because it destroys any notion of property. If I download a file, it is not my property. I don't see it as that. How could it be? How could it ever be? How could it be even if you bought it from itunes? It is something else entirely, and it is always that something else. This is why I want the internet to be open. Cost/benefit is the market's vulgar presentation of the world, not mine. Creativity has infinite value. Freedom has infinite value. Neither are impossible to achieve perfectly.

Furthermore, businesses can never be free because the government needs to be there to sustain them all the time.

This is how human nature is entirely constructed by the social, by the world we live in. The state and the market as a single, irreducible entity. It encompasses all parts of human psychology. Both the super-ego and the id.

Still be open to hearing how other people reconcile this, too. There's some pretty clear tension from progressives, who seem to grasp free market arguments when the Internet is involved but suffer some kind of economic amnesia as soon as they leave the topic.Progressive talk nonsense all the time. They are searching for something, and if I may be bold, I'd say they are searching for communism, but they can never quite get their heads around it. That's why everything they say is a contradiction. They want the best of both worlds. They can't get it, but at least they preserve a sliver of hope for the world I think can exist. That's why I'm still voting Obama 2012.

[Yoda]

I'll take the first two together, since they're answered by the same thing:

You weren't asking a question as worded that makes sense. As I said before it was apple and oranges. Just because you want to link two divergent things in a question doesn't make the question valid unless you back the question with something that makes it so.
I do think the internet should be open in the context of the law that this thread is about. I don't have a problem with shutting down torrent sites. That is the problem also with your question. You are making a sweeping general statement about regulation in general. The criticism about SOPA was the type of regulation. What I was pointing out was the proposed law did not directly regulate the internet. The law enabled other private persons and companies to restrict the internet. It is not comparable to direct regulation by government of business on behalf of the public.
You're really, really not getting this. The question was about the reasoning and the rhetoric in the SOPA debate, not the legislation itself. Please read what I actually wrote. If you do, you'll notice that I didn't address my question to any one who was against SOPA, I addressed it to people who opposed it and gave reasons that emphasized the openness of the Internet and how that facilitates innovation and creativity.

Let's try this again: in the context of the Internet, many people of all political persuasions recognized that a lack of government involvement facilitated creativity, innovation, and lots of other nice things. With me so far? Great. The question is: if this lack of government involvement facilitated these things on the Internet, why wouldn't the same be true of business? There is zero reason this question cannot be answered. If government intervention is terrible in one area, it is perfectly legitimate to ask why it's supposedly awesome in another.

Nope. You are still leaping. Show me one product or innovation that government regulations prevented. It is too casual. Was there more product development before government regulation of business? Show me that study.
Sweet screamin' monkeys. You can't, by definition, show someone a product or innovation that didn't happen because of regulation, because...wait for it...it didn't happen. That's called a counterfactual, and the failure to understand this concept is at the heart of most bad economics.

Questions like this are why we can't have nice things, and by "nice things" I mean "non-pointless arguments about economics." I'll talk with anyone about anything if I feel they're arguing in good faith. But if you can't invest the 30 seconds of reflection necessary to reveal why this is such a muddled question (and ditto for what you said about Apple before), then I sure don't see any reason to put 30 minutes into explaining it.

It is not regulation in general that could be a disincentive to product development and innovation, but the type of regulation. SOPA was a harmful restriction of the internet. You feel apparently all government regulation of business is harmful to business innovating and developing so it must be so. Where is your evidence?
Er...logic? The fact that innovation isn't free, and that regulation decreases investment, and that less investment means less research and innovation? How is this even arguable? I can't reason with someone if they live in a financial fairy tale where government mandates to business somehow has absolutely no negative effect on their profit or productivity. In the real world, the argument is about whether or not the loss of profit and productivity is a necessary evil in light of the apparent necessity of the regulation, but this is probably the first time I've heard someone pretend that there isn't even any tradeoff involved. That's ridiculous. If there were no loss or tradeoff, they wouldn't have to be compelled in the first place.

Okay, but then what are we arguing about? Really, you are not saying anything that has anything to do with what this thread is about and you have found no way to connect it. Your point now seems to be government regulation discourages some investment and more money means potentially more money to fund research and development. That is very broad and general. When does that have to with the internet and SOPA?
You can thank your own refusal to answer the inital question for that disconnect, man. When you refused to answer it, I had to ask other questions that would eventually lead back to related issues. So congrats, you've successfully ducked the question and complained that the alternate questions I asked don't immediately link back to the original subject. No matter what I ask you, you've got a plan to drive the discussion into the ground ready and waiting.

And again, conservatives are less tolerant about free speech, are more interested in using government to restrict speech on the airwaves, but more willing to have less restrictions on companies to buy and control markets. Liberals go the other way. The internet controversy is consistent with liberals' desire to have content unrestricted as much as possible. Conservatives are more prone to restrict content, but less concerned about companies monopolizing the sources of the content.
How? What're you talking about, decency laws? It wasn't conservatives that floated the Fairness Doctrine. It wasn't conservatives that were pushing for campaign finance restrictions. The distinction you're making between content and corporations strikes me as a bad one, anyway, but even if we grant it as valid, it's simply not true to suggest that liberals have consistently favored the free flow of content. Not remotely.

[Yoda]

This was much longer, but I cut it down just in case you want to respond to it. My thinking, I'll expand more if you respond with questions. Maybe I'll convince you... :laugh:
You never know! Trying's the fun part, anyway. Though I think we'd have more interesting discussions where we both stood better chances of convincing the other if we argued about things that didn't tie to core beliefs.

This isn't clear. The problem with these two words, cage and harness, is that they are proposed from different points of view. A bull might very well be harnessed for the sake of tilling fields, but to it, there is only a cage. This is just one of many ways in which we can see that capitalism is a top-down formation.
That's fine; both are imperfect metaphors, anyway. The distinction I'm focusing on is that one places a hard limit on something, and the other just makes use of it as-is. Capitalism is a lot closer to the latter than the former, I think, if we have to choose from imperfect metaphors.

I only responded to you before, because I wanted to bring out this kind of speech. If ever possible, I want to bring out your ideas about human nature, because they are the root of your entire ideology. If to be human is intrinsically to be greedy, then of course you are correct. That is, you are correct about everything this human nature entails. Yet, as I say before, it would entail two things. If you are indeed correct about human nature -- and, just to be clear, I think you are completely mistaken, and a few counterexamples will show that (perhaps for later) -- then capitalism as a system of representation and flows of those representations cannot alone be enough to sustain a society. For, as we both seem to agree, the state remains the necessary conditions for the flourishing of any market at all, and it stakes itself as necessary for precisely the same reasons why capitalism is necessary: human nature is greed. For, without the law, the unconscious injunctions of human nature would respect neither the boundaries of property nor the equalities of trade of that property.

Thus, even taking your (what I claim to be) mistaken view of human nature, you necessitate the state. That is, the state must exist.

That's all I even need to say for my argument to work.
Up to you if you want to argue about human nature, though I'm pretty curious as to how you'd go about it. It'd probably be necessary to say beforehand, though, that I'm using the word "greed" in this context as a catch-all to include not just greedy actions, but merely self-interested ones. And the history of humans prioritizing their self-interest is a pretty long one.

It absolutely does. It defends any level of regulation whatsoever, that is, it places no discernible limit on the amount of regulations instituted, because human nature necessitates it. Market regulations are just a branch of regulations or laws in general.

My argument is not that we should embrace government regulations, it's simply that you can make no argument against it if you hold your views about human nature and how capitalism deals with that. The market depends on the existence of the state. They are hopelessly co-implicated by form alone. I speak nothing of the transformation of the political process into a market, which people like Deadite and D. Riley talk about.

No. The "corruption" of government and capitalism lies at their very core, their very being.
It defends any level of regulation necessary. The fact that there is no inherent theoretical limit on how much regulation may be necessary doesn't really tell us anything about whether a given level makes for an ideal balance at any particular moment. All that claim does is kick the libertarians and socialists out of the discussion for rejecting theoretical limits or mandating theoretical minimums, respectively.

This is the kicker. Do you even know what regulation is? It is not a price control or a tax. A regulation is a transcendental condition for the market. We regulate banks in order to maintain the very existence of banks. Otherwise, they'd fail like during the Depression and disappear. We regulate property in order to maintain the very existence of property. Otherwise, it fails like through bittorrent and disappears. We regulate businesses to maintain the very existence of businesses. Otherwise, they fail like in 2008 and disappear. We regulate loans in order to maintain the very existence of loans. Otherwise, they fail like in 2008 and disappear.

Regulations maintain capitalism. They make it possible. They keep it going.

And this is all assuming your notion of human nature, which I personally do not even assume.
I begin to see part of the problem. It sounds like you're treating all laws as "regulation," though that's certainly not how most people use the term. I don't think laws against theft and murder that prevent, say, Coca-Cola from rustling up guns and literally conquering Pepsi to be "business regulation." If you hold everything under the word "regulation," then yes, regulation is what makes these enterprise possible in the first place. But a) it's usually a narrower term than that, and b) that does nothing to defend any particular level of regulation.

Also, lots of regulations are, basically, akin to price controls. When you mandate that someone must provide their employees with X, that reduces wages. It's often a very flimsy, easily compensated-for price control, but it's definitely a price control. If these sorts of regulations did not attempt to artificially control something (be it the price of an item or the price of labor), there'd be no reason to enact them in the first place.

First off, I'm not a liberal. I "hate" liberals (as in the people I like but the ideas a crap). I don't want internet openness because it promotes creativity and innovation, because that line of argument ultimately devolves into the clause for eventual use in the market. I want freedom, creation as such. Furthermore, I want internet openness for the very sake of breaking the law. No liberal dares say this because they don't believe it. I just saw a video with Bill Maher complaining about bittorrent because he's just as big of a capitalist as you. No. I want the law to be broken because it destroys any notion of property. If I download a file, it is not my property. I don't see it as that. How could it be? How could it ever be? How could it be even if you bought it from itunes? It is something else entirely, and it is always that something else. This is why I want the internet to be open. Cost/benefit is the market's vulgar presentation of the world, not mine. Creativity has infinite value. Freedom has infinite value. Neither are impossible to achieve perfectly.

Furthermore, businesses can never be free because the government needs to be there to sustain them all the time.

This is how human nature is entirely constructed by the social, by the world we live in. The state and the market as a single, irreducible entity. It encompasses all parts of human psychology. Both the super-ego and the id.
Progressive talk nonsense all the time. They are searching for something, and if I may be bold, I'd say they are searching for communism, but they can never quite get their heads around it. That's why everything they say is a contradiction. They want the best of both worlds. They can't get it, but at least they preserve a sliver of hope for the world I think can exist. That's why I'm still voting Obama 2012.
I'll take these together, since the answer to them is about the same:

Clearly, while you may like the Internet because it deals a blow to the feasbility of intellectual property, it's still much more a libertarian system than a communist one. The things created on it (which you like very much, I assume) are the result of many things, including unenforcable IP and capitalist motivations. Which means that it produces the best outcome for someone like you, outside of actually abolishing capitalism, yes?

Okay, join that to an argument I've made to you before: if you want to get rid of capitalism, and if you maintain that regulation protects capitalism from destroying itself, then why wouldn't you support the party that generally favors deregulation? Surely it'll only hasten along your utopia. Your argument is that those who favor regulation preserve the status quo that you hate, so why support them?

Taken together, it seems to me that an economic libertarianism, according to what you believe, will both a) give you more enjoyable creative outputs in the short-term and b) lead to destruction of the status quo in the long term. So why back Obama?

[will.15]

I'll take the first two together, since they're answered by the same thing:



You're really, really not getting this. The question was about the reasoning and the rhetoric in the SOPA debate, not the legislation itself. Please read what I actually wrote. If you do, you'll notice that I didn't address my question to any one who was against SOPA, I addressed it to people who opposed it and gave reasons that emphasized the openness of the Internet and how that facilitates innovation and creativity.

Let's try this again: in the context of the Internet, many people of all political persuasions recognized that a lack of government involvement facilitated creativity, innovation, and lots of other nice things. With me so far? Great. The question is: if this lack of government involvement facilitated these things on the Internet, why wouldn't the same be true of business? There is zero reason this question cannot be answered. If government intervention is terrible in one area, it is perfectly legitimate to ask why it's supposedly awesome in another.

Was there someone or someones in this thread who specifically focused on the openness and creativity of the internet as their reason for opposing SOPA and did they also either here or elsewhere express their support of government regulation of business? Otherwise, you are creating your own straw baby to argue with.

Now to answer your new question, business and the internet is different. The internet encompasses more than business. Potential creativity and innovation on it is not restricted to business. It is content based. The real focus of the opposition to SOPA was the free flow of information, not requiring employers to have workers compensation or mandating the amount of smog that goes into the air.


Sweet screamin' monkeys. You can't, by definition, show someone a product or innovation that didn't happen because of regulation, because...wait for it...it didn't happen. That's called a counterfactual, and the failure to understand this concept is at the heart of most bad economics.

Questions like this are why we can't have nice things, and by "nice things" I mean "non-pointless arguments about economics." I'll talk with anyone about anything if I feel they're arguing in good faith. But if you can't invest the 30 seconds of reflection necessary to reveal why this is such a muddled question (and ditto for what you said about Apple before), then I sure don't see any willing to put 30 minutes into explaining it.

I realized later what I did there, but decided to leave it. But you still haven't shown and can't show innovtion was stopped because regulations prevents it, except to argue more availavle money would mean more research. So what? That is not an argument conservatives make when liberals want more money to solve social problems.

Let's look at it another way. Would SOPA have prevented creativity and innovation on the internet? Yes, because the situation it created was stifling. It would have turned content providers into policemen for copyright holders. Even a forum like this would have been vulnerable to the wrath of anyone who had a grievance because something that was posted here. Your argument for business innovation versus regulation is more casual. And again, the internet is not now completely free, but SOPA would have made it more difficult to function. Does government regulation of business create the type of barriers SOPA would have created on the internet? No, I think not. It is up to you to argue and show it does.


Er...logic? The fact that innovation isn't free, and that regulation decreases investment, and that less investment means less research and innovation? How is this even arguable? I can't reason with someone if they live in a financial fairy tale where government mandates to business somehow has absolutely no negative effect on their profit or productivity. In the real world, the argument is about whether or not the loss of profit and productivity is a necessary evil in light of the apparent necessity of the regulation, but this is probably the first time I've heard someone pretend that there isn't even any tradeoff involved. That's ridiculous. If there were no loss or tradeoff, they wouldn't have to be compelled in the first place.

Now you are putting words in my mouth. Did I say government mandates has absolutely no negative effect on business profit or productivity? No. I said you supplied no evidence current government laws create onerous restrictions on business innovation. And you haven't. I am also saying the enactment of SOPA would have had that effect for the internet.

Here is the problem with your question. The internet issue is focused on a specific law, SOPA, not regulation of the internet in general. You are trying to compare opposition to a specific law to all regualation of business. Apples and oranges.


You can thank your own refusal to answer the initial question for that disconnect, man. When you refused to answer it, I had to ask other questions that would eventually lead back to related issues. So congrats, you've successfully ducked the question and complained that the alternate questions I asked don't immediately link back to the original subject. No matter what I ask you, you've got a plan to drive the discussion into the ground ready and waiting.

All you have to do so your question makes some kind of sense is to focus on specific business regulations you feel prevents innovation. It shouldn't be that hard. But your refusal to do so is interesting.


How? What're you talking about, decency laws? It wasn't conservatives that floated the Fairness Doctrine. It wasn't conservatives that were pushing for campaign finance restrictions. The distinction you're making between content and corporations strikes me as a bad one, anyway, but even if we grant it as valid, it's simply not true to suggest that liberals have consistently favored the free flow of content. Not remotely.
Oh, look at the FCC under Powell and how he became much stricter about regulating language on the airwaves, but wanted to greatly increase media control of markets. The Fairness Doctrine is not inconsistent about what I said about liberals. Read it again. And campaign finance restrictions is really another argument.

[Powdered Water]

So why back Obama?

Why indeed. I'm not backing any of these Chumps. How can I? To me, they aren't the problem. The system is the problem. Politicos are all just pawns.

Also: There is no such thing as Human Nature. If a company could patent that saying, they'd stand to make even more money.

[Deadite]

We may just be in a no-win situation we can't get out of. We need capitalism because it de-centralizes industry. Even if everyone in this lifetime decided to play fair and live in some kind of commune, what about people a hundred years from now, and two hundred, and so on?

The truth is, you can't build a lasting system based on the best of people. If that sounds cynical, I say it's merely a statement of how humans already tend to operate; It's the de facto system, give or take a few social experiments.

The codification and institutionalization of practical cynicism.

Cheers.

[Yoda]

Was there someone or someones in this thread who specifically focused on the openness and creativity of the internet as their reason for opposing SOPA and did they also either here or elsewhere express their support of government regulation of business? Otherwise, you are creating your own straw baby to argue with.
I don't think that's even possible, because the question is only directed at people who believe that. I heard this sort of reasoning in many other places, and I feel comfortable assuming it underlies the opposition for many people here. If it doesn't, then they need not reconcile anything because the question doesn't apply to them.

Now to answer your new question, business and the internet is different. The internet encompasses more than business. Potential creativity and innovation on it is not restricted to business. It is content based. The real focus of the opposition to SOPA was the free flow of information, not requiring employers to have workers compensation or mandating the amount of smog that goes into the air.
It's the same question, man, I just phrased it in a way that makes it harder to dodge. Original question (emphasis added):

"I feel safe assuming that you're a big fan of Internet openness and recognize the benefits of that openness, so what stops you from applying the same cost/benefit philosophy to other areas?"

The "new" question:

"...in the context of the Internet, many people of all political persuasions recognized that a lack of government involvement facilitated creativity, innovation, and lots of other nice things. With me so far? Great. The question is: if this lack of government involvement facilitated these things on the Internet, why wouldn't the same be true of business?"

Anyway, onto your answer (such as it is): I don't trust your interpretation of the "real focus of the opposition," nor does it really matter, anyway. See two quotes below for more on why.

I realized later what I did there, but decided to leave it. But you still haven't shown and can't show innovtion was stopped because regulations prevents it, except to argue more availavle money would mean more research. So what? That is not an argument conservatives make when liberals want more money to solve social problems.
Well, first off, the "except to argue..." part is a pretty big exception. I don't need other examples, because that makes the argument all by itself. It's not an aside, as you seem to think.

And that last sentence feels like yet another thing you'd have to realize is bunk 30 seconds after contemplating it. The problem is not that money doesn't do anything, it's that money requires an effective profit/less mechanism and direct lines of accountability to produce the best outcomes. Conservative opposition to federal programs is not about whether or not money can fix some problems, it's about whether or not those programs are an efficient way of fixing them.

Let's look at it another way. Would SOPA have prevented creativity and innovation on the internet? Yes, because the situation it created was stifling. It would have turned content providers into policemen for copyright holders. Even a forum like this would have been vulnerable to the wrath of anyone who had a grievance because something that was posted here. Your argument for business innovation versus regulation is more casual. And again, the internet is not now completely free, but SOPA would have made it more difficult to function. Does government regulation of business create the type of barriers SOPA would have created on the internet? No, I think not. It is up to you to argue and show it does.
Not at all, because I'm not arguing that current business regulation is as stifling as SOPA would have been. There's no way to know that.

Here's the thing I think you're missing: this is not about SOPA. I didn't ask a question which has anything to do with the specifics of the legislation. I asked a question about what people thought and said while talking about the legislation. It could be about breeding alpacas, for all I care. But if someone, in the course of talking about alpaca breeding, held forth on the virtues of an unregulated alpaca breeding market, then the question could be asked.

Now you are putting words in my mouth. Did I say government mandates has absolutely no negative effect on business profit or productivity? No. I said you supplied no evidence current government laws create onerous restrictions on business innovation. And you haven't. I am also saying the enactment of SOPA would have had that effect for the internet.
So you admit that government mandates have a negative effect on profit and productivity? Great. That's all that's required to make my point.

Here is the problem with your question. The internet issue is focused on a specific law, SOPA, not regulation of the internet in general. You are trying to compare opposition to a specific law to a all regualation of business. Apples and oranges.
Again, we come to the heart of the problem: SOPA is not the issue here. SOPA simply revealed what I'm talking about.

The fact that there are differences is not a hurdle for my question get over: it's the entire reason the question exists. If there were not differences, and the relationship were obvious, people wouldn't contradict themselves. They'd see that SOPA fits into their existing ideology and they'd have to moderate their views one way or the other to decide where it goes. The fact that it's different is what allows them to create the cognitive dissonance that I'm talking about. The existence of differences (albeit superficial ones) is what makes the question possible in the first place.

All you have to do so your question makes some kind of sense is to focus on specific business regulations you feel prevents innovation. It shouldn't be that hard. But your refusal to do so is interesting.
It really isn't, for a few reasons.

First, because you've already agreed with it when you say that profit or productivity is harmed by business mandates. Unless you want to make the utterly bizarre argument that profit and productivity have nothing to do with innovation.

Second, the problem is not that there are no specific examples, but that almost any specific example will do. Any instance in which government mandates something to business relating to wages, benefits, safety, whatever, they harm innovation. Many people can make a reasonable case that at least some of these are necessary. A good argument can be made otherwise, too, but that would be a more reasonable discussion. But the idea that they do, in fact, harm innovation is beyond reproach.

Oh, look at the FCC under Powell and how he became much stricter about regulating language on the airwaves, but wanted to greatly increase media control of markets. The Fairness Doctrine is not inconsistent about what I said about liberals. Read it again. And campaign finance restrictions is really another argument.
I don't see why it would be another argument, nor how the Fairness Doctrine is at all consistent with what you said. You said liberals are generally for less regulation of content as opposed to businesses. Again, putting aside whether or not this distinction even makes any sense, I've given you two very high profile examples to the contrary. Campaign finance restricts the content people can pay for and support. The Fairness Doctrine regulates what kind of political content can be disseminated.

And, frankly, they're both way more important examples than regulating curse words on public airwaves. I won't argue with the idea that some conservatives groups are way too worked up about that, but I'm not the one claiming my side isn't restricting content, either. And telling someone they can't swear is way, way less harmful to free speech than regulating the actual content of their opinions. Decency laws restrict the way you can say something, but they don't restrict the actual political opinion of the person or the content provider. That's apples and oranges.

[will.15]

I don't think that's even possible, because the question is only directed at people who believe that. I heard this sort of reasoning in many other places, and I feel comfortable assuming it underlies the opposition for many people here. If it doesn't, then they need not reconcile anything because the question doesn't apply to them.

So you are admitting no one in this thread made that argument? That sounds like creating straws to argue with to me.


It's the same question, man, I just phrased it in a way that makes it harder to dodge. Original question (emphasis added):
"I feel safe assuming that you're a big fan of Internet openness and recognize the benefits of that openness, so what stops you from applying the same cost/benefit philosophy to other areas?"
The "new" question:
"...in the context of the Internet, many people of all political persuasions recognized that a lack of government involvement facilitated creativity, innovation, and lots of other nice things. With me so far? Great. The question is: if this lack of government involvement facilitated these things on the Internet, why wouldn't the same be true of business?"


Anyway, onto your answer (such as it is): I don't trust your interpretation of the "real focus of the opposition," nor does it really matter, anyway. See two quotes below for more on why.


Well, first off, the "except to argue..." part is a pretty big exception. I don't need other examples, because that makes the argument all by itself. It's not an aside, as you seem to think.

And that last sentence feels like yet another thing you'd have to realize is bunk 30 seconds after contemplating it. The problem is not that money doesn't do anything, it's that money requires an effective profit/less mechanism and direct lines of accountability to produce the best outcomes. Conservative opposition to federal programs is not about whether or not money can fix some problems, it's about whether or not those programs are an efficient way of fixing them.

Money by itself really doesn't do anything. How many products and innovations have been created in a garage? If you have unlimited money to invest in research that doesn't mean you will spend that money wisely. Some companies by their corporate policies and environment don't do well in innovation even when they have plenty of money to spend on it. Just because Hollywood can spend two hundred million dollars on a movie with state of the art special effects doesn't mean they will make a movie anyone will want to see. More money does not mean more innovation, just more research. And it is obvious by the example of companies like Apple current government regulation hasn't impeded them. The big concern now about Apple is not government regulations, but the death of Steve Jobs, without him Apple could stagnate the way many large companies do as happened with IBM. This has nothing to do with government regulations, it has to do with corporate culture.


Not at all, because I'm not arguing that current business regulation is as stifling as SOPA would have been. There's no way to know that.

Here's the thing I think you're missing: this is not about SOPA. I didn't ask a question which has anything to do with the specifics of the legislation. I asked a question about what people thought and said while talking about the legislation. It could be about breeding alpacas, for all I care. But if someone, in the course of talking about alpaca breeding, held forth on the virtues of an unregulated alpaca breeding market, then the question could be asked.

If the question becomes that general it is meaningless. Laws impedes the Mafia's ability to be creative and innovative.

So you admit that government mandates have a negative effect on profit and productivity? Great. That's all that's required to make my point.

Of course it will have a negative effect on profits to some extent. When the government recalled pet food made in China for America that were killing dogs and cats that had a negative effect on profits. When there are laws on the books that require that businesses' buildings are up to code and have appropriate fire exits that will affect their profits


Again, we come to the heart of the problem: SOPA is not the issue here. SOPA simply revealed what I'm talking about.

The fact that there are differences is not a hurdle for my question get over: it's the entire reason the question exists. If there were not differences, and the relationship were obvious, people wouldn't contradict themselves. They'd see that SOPA fits into their existing ideology and they'd have to moderate their views one way or the other to decide where it goes. The fact that it's different is what allows them to create the cognitive dissonance that I'm talking about. The existence of differences (albeit superficial ones) is what makes the question possible in the first place.

Straw babies are contradicting themselves because you have admitted nobody here made that argument. Even if you heard that argument, it would be useful to actually use an exact quote because the way it was worded may be significant. And the source may or may not be contradicting themselves. if it is coming from a libertarian, there is no contradiction. You are assuming there are people who have contradictory beliefs. That may be so, but unless you can bring one out and show it you are arguing with the wind (or straw).


It really isn't, for a few reasons.

First, because you've already agreed with it when you say that profit or productivity is harmed by business mandates. Unless you want to make the utterly bizarre argument that profit and productivity have nothing to do with innovation.

They have something to do with innovation in some instances. There is no evidence more profit would result in much more research and directly lead to much more innovation. Many companies have huge budgets and produce meagre results. Other companies have smaller budgets and are more successful. I think it is possible there could be evidence smaller companies are more successful in this way.

If business had absolutely no regulations they would certainly be more profitable, but the health and welfare of Americans would be much more at risk. There was a time when there was actual coke in Coca Cola. Before government regulated the tobacco industry, half of Americans smoked. Their profits compared to those days are way down. Is this what you think is more important, business profits be more important than Americans lives? Left on their own, the tobacco industry would be much more innovative, creating candy flavored cigarettes to appeal to minors. Oh, they did do that and the government stopped it.

Second, the problem is not that there are no specific examples, but that almost any specific example will do. Any instance in which government mandates something to business relating to wages, benefits, safety, whatever, they harm innovation. Many people can make a reasonable case that at least some of these are necessary. A good argument can be made otherwise, too, but that would be a more reasonable discussion. But the idea that they do, in fact, harm innovation is beyond reproach.

Okay, but business and the internet is still different, vastly. If regulating the internet affected health, would those arguing for an unregulated internet be making that argument? Except for Libertarians, they wouldn't. And many of the laws that affect business also affects them on the internet. People making your internet argument are not arguing businesses operating there should be exempt from existing laws simply because they advertise and distribute product there. That prevents those businesses potentially it could be argued from innovating on the internet.


I don't see why it would be another argument, nor how the Fairness Doctrine is at all consistent with what you said. You said liberals are generally for less regulation of content as opposed to businesses. Again, putting aside whether or not this distinction even makes any sense, I've given you two very high profile examples to the contrary. Campaign finance restricts the content people can pay for and support. The Fairness Doctrine regulates what kind of political content can be disseminated.

The fairness doctrine does not regulate what kind of political content can be disseminated. It creates an equal time rule. Campaign finance reform is intended to minimize special interests owning politicians. And not all liberals are worked up about the fairness doctrine. Have you seen any serious attempts to bring it up in the Senate? When has Obama championed it?

And, frankly, they're both way more important examples than regulating curse words on public airwaves. I won't argue with the idea that some conservatives groups are way too worked up about that, but I'm not the one claiming my side isn't restricting content, either. And telling someone they can't swear is way, way less harmful to free speech than regulating the actual content of their opinions. Decency laws restrict the way you can say something, but they don't restrict the actual political opinion of the person or the content provider. That's apples and oranges.'Previous paragraph also applies here.

[Yoda]

So you are admitting no one in this thread made that argument? That sounds like creating straws to argue with to me.
It's a straw man if nobody says it, which clearly isn't the case. And even though a couple of people have responded to this idea (including you), nobody's claimed that they disagree with the premise (including you). If someone wants to come forward and say that they don't think that the opennness of the Internet is a good thing that should not be restricted, great: they're exempt from the question.

Money by itself really doesn't do anything. How many products and innovations have been created in a garage? If you have unlimited money to invest in research that doesn't mean you will spend that money wisely. Some companies by their corporate policies and environment don't do well in innovation even when they have plenty of money to spend on it. Just because Hollywood can spend two hundred million dollars on a movie with state of the art special effects doesn't mean they will make a movie anyone will want to see. More money does not mean more innovation, just more research. And it is obvious by the example of companies like Apple current government regulation hasn't impeded them. The big concern now about Apple is not government regulations, but the death of Steve Jobs, without him Apple could stagnate the way many large companies do as happened with IBM. This has nothing to do with government regulations, it has to do with corporate culture.
And Apple grew because it was able to secure venture capital and startup money. Quite a lot of it, in fact. The question is not whether or not you need money immediately; as you point out, sometimes you just need an idea to get started. But there are basically zero examples of this sort of thing completely producing its own cash flow. Far more often, it attracts outside investors to get off the ground and make it to the big time.

Of course there's no guarantee than the money will be spent wisely in any one specific example, but in total the link is obvious.

If the question becomes that general it is meaningless. Laws impedes the Mafia's ability to be creative and innovative.
Laws, sure, but the mafia isn't particularly hindered by business regulation. I'm not saying laws against murder hurt business, so I don't know what this has to do with anything.

Of course it will have a negative effect on profits to some extent. When the government recalled pet food made in China for America that were killing dogs and cats that had a negative effect on profits. When there are laws on the books that require that businesses' buildings are up to code and have appropriate fire exits that will affect their profits
Bingo. Now you're getting somewhere: all these regulations hurt business, even the good ones. Admitting this point is the first step towards recovery. Now, you have to argue why this or that is necessary, rather than maintaining the fiction that they don't hurt business. Which is a much harder sell.

Now, remember what the point of discussion was? It was me saying that regulations hurt innovation, and you saying that was a "leap." Now you're admitting they do, but that it's necessary. See the change?

Straw babies are contradicting themselves because you have admitted nobody here made that argument. Even if you heard that argument, it would be useful to actually use an exact quote because the way it was worded may be significant. And the source may or may not be contradicting themselves. if it is coming from a libertarian, there is no contradiction. You are assuming there are people who have contradictory beliefs. That may be so, but unless you can bring one out and show it you are arguing with the wind (or straw).
You do not appear to understand what a staw man is. It's misrepresenting an opponent position's in order to make it easier to argue with, which I'm not doing.

They have something to do with innovation in some instances. There is no evidence more profit would result in much more research and directly lead to much more innovation. Many companies have huge budgets and produce meagre results. Other companies have smaller budgets and are more successful. I think it is possible there could be evidence smaller companies are more successful in this way.
Relative to size, yes, but not in total. And it's not really relevant that in some cases companies with huge budgets do poorly. I'm talking about the issue in aggregate. The fact that some people pay-too-much-for-that-muffler doesn't mean, in aggregate, we don't charge about the right amount for them.

If business had absolutely no regulations they would certainly be more profitable, but the health and welfare of Americans would be much more at risk. There was a time when there was actual coke in Coca Cola. Before government regulated the tobacco industry, half of Americans smoked. Their profits compared to those days are way down. Is this what you think is more important, business profits be more important than Americans lives? Left on their own, the tobacco industry would be much more innovative, creating candy flavored cigarettes to appeal to minors. Oh, they did do that and the government stopped it.
Double-bingo. Same thing as above: this is the entire point. Even good regulations reduce productivity and innovation in some ways. The problem is, nobody talks about it that way, and four posts ago you were disputing the idea.

Okay, but business and the internet is still different, vastly. If regulating the internet affected health, would those arguing for an unregulated internet be making that argument? Except for Libertarians, they wouldn't. And many of the laws that affect business also affects them on the internet. People making your internet argument are not arguing businesses operating there should be exempt from existing laws simply because they advertise and distribute product there. That prevents those businesses potentially it could be argued from innovating on the internet.
Nothing I'm saying suggests that the Internet is entirely lawless, or that the situations are perfectly identical. Of course they aren't; nothing ever is. I'm asking you to explain why the principles that are apparently good for one aren't good for the other. You keep telling me they're different, but I'm asking you questions about the nature of the difference.

The fairness doctrine does not regulate what kind of political content can be disseminated. It creates an equal time rule. Campaign finance reform is intended to minimize special interests owning politicians. And not all liberals are worked up about the fairness doctrine. Have you seen any serious attempts to bring it up in the Senate? When has Obama championed it?
And again the goalposts move. Your initial claim was that Republicans like to regulate content and Democrats don't. Now we've moved all the way over to "yeah, but when has the current President CHAMPIONED it?" And now you're making a distinction between regulating content type and content amount even though the latter is still regulating content.

And believe me, I know what campaign finance reform is intended to do. And perhaps you can make the case that it's a good idea. But good idea or not, it's another example of regulating content.