Throwing Hollywood under the bus could pay dividends for GOP

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2012/01/throwing-hollywood-under-the-bus-could-pay-dividends-for-gop.ars

by evo_9 • 15 years ago

51 30 15 years ago

Natsu• 15 years ago

I would hate to see this become a partisan issue. There are plenty of people on every side who hate this crap.

mlinksva• 15 years ago

I'd be happy to see the parties compete on this issue of how to make Hollywood and friends no longer a threat to free speech and the net.

Democrats could push for European-style subsidy of production. Republicans could push for letting the market work - advertising, product placement, etc are all that's needed. Both programs can agree on eliminating copyright for entertainment works.

_delirium• 15 years ago

While that'd be a nice way for competition to play out, I doubt that's what we're actually going to see. What both programs really agree on is precisely "copyright for entertainment works". The Democrats are pushing SOPA; the Republicans pushed the DMCA and copyright extension. They disagree mainly over tactics/timing/details.

I can see the Republicans trying to strongly dissociate themselves from SOPA, but I give it approximately 0% chance that they're going to recant the DMCA or Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act, or even loosen their position on the DMCA moderately to the extent of supporting more exemptions to the anti-circumvention clause.

ConstantineXVI• 15 years ago

On the flip side, making it a partisan issue implies a solid opposition, making such laws harder to pass without anyone noticing. We're stuck with this ugly system at the moment, may as well take what we can get from it.

binarybits• 15 years ago

Obviously, the best situation would be for majorities in both parties to be against this stuff. But a world where Republicans are against it and Dems are for it is much better than the world we've had for the last few years, in which both parties were on Hollywood's side.

nextparadigms3• 15 years ago

Hopefully the Democrats will fail to promote their restrictions to the younger/more liberal crowd.

maratd3• 15 years ago

On the contrary, it would be fantastic for this to become a partisan issue. Competition works just as well in the political arena as it does in the marketplace.

Parties don't always take opposite sides of each issue. Frequently, they try to take the higher ground by claiming they do "more" ...

Wouldn't it be wonderful for both parties to compete as to who opposes draconian garbage like SOPA/PIPA more?

Iv• 15 years ago

So is the way of politics.

But arguably now that most of the people who usually vote dems for other reasons take SOPA/PIPA seriously, the only dem candidates that will stand a chance will be people taking their money outside MPAA/RIAA

nextparadigms3• 15 years ago

While this may work in the short term, this is exactly what I was worried about - for Internet freedom to become a partisan issue - with some standing to defend Internet freedom, and others wanted to restrict it. Because that means that eventually a party or a candidate will be elected to implement those restrictions. That would be an awful outcome, and I hope we can maintain Internet freedom as bi-partisan, or better yet, non-partisan.

tomjen3• 15 years ago

Don't worry. Take a look at abortion -- there is a lot of talk about it in DC, but even those who are against it don't pass legislation, because if they did they wouldn't have that to yell about.

kstenerud• 15 years ago

Great! Now if the Republicans also cut their ties to religion and stopped wasting so much money on war zones, they could become a party worth voting for.

nextparadigms3• 15 years ago

Seeing how all candidates besides Ron Paul, and I would think a big part of the Republican party right now wants more laws like the Patriot Act, defending the Internet seems completely incompatible with the current Republican party. Sure, they used to be about limited Government and all that, but I don't think that's really their core anymore. If they do this, it will be purely a political play. But who knows, maybe this will give the opportunity to some people who actually believe in this to rise up in the party. But ultimately, I'd still hate for this to become a partisan issue. Both - or all - parties should want Internet freedom.

jacoblyles3• 15 years ago

It's hard for us bay area folks to remember this sometime, but 90% of Americans identify themselves as religious. Your advice would be spectacularly bad for the GOP.

I believe my time is better spent promoting federalism and other variations of "live and let live" than convincing others to drop their religion.

joejohnson• 15 years ago

Wow. I did not realize Al Franken was a PIPA co-sponsor.

http://sopatrack.com/congressperson/F000457-sen-al-franken

davidw• 15 years ago

This article crosses the line for me. I'm tired of largely redundant SOPA articles in any event, and one that gets into broader political trends is one step too far.

https://twitter.com/#!/patio11/status/161131025097961475

balloot• 15 years ago

This is idiotic. Silicon Valley and all the surrounding areas vote overwhelmingly Democratic. One stupid piece of legistation doesn't overcome the fact that the GOP are science-hating religious zealots. Republicans have a LOT of work to do before many people in this region would even consider a vote for them.

potater• 15 years ago

I'm not sure I agree that it is idiotic. Certainly the GOP's track record on neutrality is abhorrent, but if the Republicans successfully turn this into a partisan issue where they are against and the dems are for, those who typically vote democrat and also support the internet will be faced with a decision in regard to what issue(s) take priority and who will be rewarded with the vote.

Keep in mind that a republican does't necessarily have to get a democrat's vote to come out ahead in this case. All it takes is for the democratic voter to be so disgusted with his party's position that he either votes third party or doesn't vote at all.

I despise the idea of it becoming a for & against partisan issue because of the swell of support that would ultimately result in, but it could be politically effective in an evil-ish way.

jacoblyles3• 15 years ago

I'm against net neutrality because I don't want to give the FCC any additional powers over content transmission on the internet. I may change my mind if the ISPs start flagrantly abusing their market position. But right now the net neutrality advocates are touting a solution in search of a problem.

jacoblyles3• 15 years ago

You should try to have coffee with five people in your area who sometimes vote for republicans over the next month. Do you think they are all idiotic science-hating religious zealots?

ifearthefeds2• 15 years ago

There are other parties. If you don't want to vote for Republicans or Democrats, then don't.

muuh-gnu2• 15 years ago

Instead of spending time and effort to persuade people to throw their votes away, spend time and effort changing the voting system so that voting for third parties isnt as futile as FPTP. In the European parliament, the members belong to approx 160 different parties. In the US, you have 2. It has been known for a long time that FPTP converges to 2 (Duverger's law). It makes no sense to keep FPTP but then make voters responsible for the unhealthy situation that emerges from it and persuade them to change their voting behaviour knowing that it makes no sense for them to change it.

stfu• 15 years ago

But please don't use the European structure as an example for a democratic system. The European Commission (who are the core authority for proposing legislation) is not a democratically elected body but an "appointed" entity by the Council - a Council that up until the Lisbon Treaty wasn't even required to hold their meetings in public.

ifearthefeds2• 15 years ago

Name five democratic or republican candidate who support changing the status quo so that it helps smaller parties.

icarus_drowning• 15 years ago

The big takeaway from this isn't that the GOP is a knee-jerk anti-hollywood, anti-SOPA party. Indeed, there are plenty of people in the conservative establishment who were either supportive of or mute on SOPA and SOPA-like legislation prior to blackout day, and who changed not out of principle, but practicality.

But this does highlight the fact that our overly-simplified view of political parties in the United States as monolithic entities of zombie-politicians who take marching orders from the party establishment is quite out of step with the reality, particularly where conservatives are concerned. The GOP is a surprisingly diverse political entity, accepting the likes of Ron Paul on one extreme and George W. Bush on the other. Indeed, in the "center", it can often be difficult to tell the difference between "moderates" of either party.

All of which is to say, it is often unwise to make sweeping statements about large political entities simply because prominent politicians within that movement are vocal about a particular issue. Often the fight within a large political party is as heated as the battles with other political parties. Savvy voters would do well to recognize that fact.

ChristianMarks• 15 years ago

The Republicans found out that the computing hardware and software industry is economically significant, whereas the so-called premium content industry is not.

I quote from http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/sssca3.html

"According to the RIAA, the value of all CD's, live presentations, music videos, dvds in 1998 (from http://www.riaa.com/pdf/md_riaa10yr.pdf) was 13.72 billion US$.

According to the SOI, in 1998 the business receipts of the computer and electronic product manufacturing including both hardware and software (they do not divide it further) was 560.27 billion US$. This of course excludes the value of all the data stored on computers."

Also, Silicon Valley's business model depends on public trust of the cloud. As David K. Levine points out, SOPA/PIPA undermines public trust in the cloud, so Silicon Valley was right to oppose it. The choice is between supporting an industry in decline that turns to government for protection from competition, versus supporting a dynamic industry where the incentive is to grow businesses.

DanielBMarkham• 15 years ago

I'm a political junkie, but I'm also a long-time HNer; I urge caution with stories like this.

As an systems architect and somebody who consults with large technology organizations, I am extremely interested in how systems of people interact -- hence the political junkie thing. But as part of watching that interaction, I've noted that we all we have a tendency to become very tribal, especially when the topic of our favorite "teams" come up.

So yes, I think it's very important to learn facts like the number of Republicans that jumped ship and the fact that Al Franken was a sponsor of the bill. Just like it's important to know that many members of the Democrat party hang on to the idea of the bill and that the administration was in support of it before they jumped ship as well. These are facts -- if you care about PIPA/SOPA you should know this.

But once we move into political analysis, which side is doing what for which reasons, I think the article becomes much more shaky as a topic for HN. Whether or not one party may benefit or not touches directly on what you already think of each party, so the comment thread could end up with just so much posturing.

As a libertarian, to me the interesting things are 1) that both parties supported the bills by large margins (or they wouldn't have been reported out of committee) until they got caught and 2) many years ago there was some general bipartisan agreement to freaking leave the internet alone. I'd like to know what happened to that. But because that's going to be a "team story" that's probably a topic for a different board besides HN.

maratd3• 15 years ago

> many years ago there was some general bipartisan agreement to freaking leave the internet alone. I'd like to know what happened to that.

It wasn't a threat at that point. It was a novelty. It's easy to agree to leave a novelty alone. It's difficult when it's threatening the revenue stream of the guys lining your pockets.

> that both parties supported the bills by large margins (or they wouldn't have been reported out of committee) until they got caught

Look, as much as we want to believe that our representatives actually read the stuff they're pushing, the truth is, they don't. I would be shocked if a singe member of the committee responsible for the bill actually read the damn thing. Each of them is on quite a few other committees, responsible for quite a few other bills, have speaking engagements, businesses, books they're writing, etc etc.

They decide on what to vote for and push based on who's supporting it. Some members of the GOP saw the Chamber of Commerce as a supporter and jumped on board. Commerce = Business = Good. Seriously, that was the thought process.

Once they saw the push-back, they realized things were more complicated than that, and dropped support.

Can the GOP be a strong ally for leaving the Internet alone? Absolutely. As long as Google, Microsoft, Apple, Amazon, etc. line their pockets right before re-election time. If that happens, I promise you, they'll vote for whatever bill the "Internet" endorses. Without reading it. It's a promise.

driverdan• 15 years ago

Isn't it about time for people in our industry to admit they're libertarian and vote (and donate) that way?

Both parties are against our interests. Conservatives are for maintaining the status quo which is the opposite of what we do. Both parties cater to special interests, in this case placing democrats against us.

If our industry started putting votes and money behind a third party that let us do what we do best and left us alone (aka Libertarians) we'd be much better off.

maratd3• 15 years ago

> Isn't it about time for people in our industry to admit they're libertarian and vote (and donate) that way?

Yes!

> If our industry started putting votes and money behind a third party

No!

For you to win in the general election with 3 parties, you'd need to muster at least a third of the vote.

That's a lot of people!

For you to win a primary of a major party, you would need to muster the vote of a fourth of the voting populace. Actually, it's even lower than that, since many don't affiliate themselves with a party and out of those, many don't vote in primaries. On top of that, you can end the primary early as long as you kill off your opponents in a few early states.

So it's much easier to take over an existing party (like the GOP) than to create a third. On top of that, all those conservatives you don't like ... well, they'll vote for your guy now. Because they have a choice of two and they like your guy more.

Ron Paul is doing it right. That's the only way a libertarian leaning pol will ever get close to the presidency.

Throwing Hollywood under the bus could pay dividends for GOP

Related Stories