White House Signals Opposition to Contentious SOPA, PIPA Legislation

@Animasta said:

I love when the white house makes statements, makes me think that the white house is actually a transformer

That is a amazing thought. Imagine The US gets invaded so the white house transforms and must fight for the country.

War on Piracy, war on drugs, war on terror......what next? War on Pornography?

Well... I guess it's a start. A very small, tenuous, probably meaningless start.

@Branthog said:

What a distraction. It's a temporary ploy and the intended goal will still be pushed through. If not now, then slightly later, when attention is not focused on it. The current alternative (OPEN) while possibly well-intended suffers much of the same failures. Also, let's remember all the other things the white house and this president has said. Like "we will conduct all business in the open, before the people" (and after election, there have been plenty of closed-door and closed-to-the-media activities). And let's not forget "every bill will be put online and Americans will have at least three days to read and respond to every bill".

Oh, and let's not forget the veto threat to the NDAA -- which is even more fundamentally hideous than SOPA/PIPA. Yeah. Ended up not being vetoed. But "hey, gosh guys, we won't do anything naughty with it!".

Every inch you give to government is an inch you will never ever get back. How's that PATRIOT ACT (with the sunset provision to make sure the extreme laws enacted in it dont' remain forever) going for ya?

What he said. Join your local revolutionary group and stock up on ammo, because there's going to be one soon if shit keeps going this way.

It figures republicans endorse the SOPA. Southerns...

Giant Bomb is an amazing place. And it's run by amazing people. Adding Patrick to the group was an amazing move. Fun when it's time to be fun but bringing the news when it's need to be brung like some sort of modern day (famous news guy).

I hope the White House holds true to their words. I can't say I'm very optimistic about this.

@BadaBinger said:

yeah.. let's get the government to do it, the same government that can't do anything else. steam, redbox and itunes are how you fight piracy. not regulate everything until it doesn't work anymore.

Yeah, pretty much. Don't fuck the customer in the ass all the time and they'd be surprised how many people are willing to pay for their products.

War on Piracy, war on drugs, war on terror......what next? War on Pornography?

Lamar Smith, that's the dude I sent my letter to. It makes me think that at least this guy listens to his constituents.

I love when the white house makes statements, makes me think that the white house is actually a transformer

@Bonsai: @Bonsai said:

Businesses should definitely have a method of protection against copyright infringement, but stopping something like sopa is more important.

I agree with the second thing you said.

Lawmakers treat copyright infringement like the Holy Grail nowadays, just look at SOPA and PIPA; they're ready to throw the internet under a bus just to protect their corporate masters' copyrights. The source of this problem isn't people using copyrighted materials improperly, it's the copyrights themselves. Copyright holders have far too many rights and power already, as evidenced by how much influence they have over the lawmaking process, they need some of that removed before more crooked bills get pushed through.

"Sopa" means "soup" in Spanish. "Pipa" is "sunflower seed".

That's my contribution there. Bye.

One way or another they will get their way. They want the power to censor the internet without due process or oversight. It's not really about piracy, although that is a side benefit for hollywood and the corps that pay to get them re-elected.

Why is copyright longer than ~15-20 years anyway? Anything longer than 20 works directly against the very purpose of copyright. Their is a point where a once good idea is so thoroughly abused and unnaturally mutated that it ceases to be useful. Copyright is about at that point.

Won't be even remotely satisfied until this bill is dead. Nice try though, White House. Until then, fuck you, government cunts.

Not expecting the Obama administration to start honoring promises any time soon. They havent so far. Fuck those chuckleheads.

Just like the NDAA right Obama?

@PulledaBrad said:

Not expecting the Obama administration to start honoring promises any time soon. They havent so far. Fuck those chuckleheads.

Exactly. Guantanamo, medical marijuana, on so on.

How is this any different than Obama's denouncement of the NDAA's language that allows for American citizens to be arrested and imprisoned without proof or ever given a trial, but passing it anyway, saying he would never use that power? ....Then multiple Senators say on the House Floor that the original bill they sent for Obama to sign specifically excluded US citizens in no uncertain terms, but Obama himself demanded the re-wording. I'm not trying to play politics, especially not on a gaming site, but if you are going to post an article to alleviate concern over SOPA because Obama says not to worry, I would like to add that IF he indeed does turns down an opportunity to seize more power, it would be for the first time. The man is a habitual liar, regardless of political affiliation. Despite what Chris Matthews says, it is NOT racist to call him out on it, either.

@xbob42 said:

@Waffles13 said:

@ImmortalSaiyan said:

That is a amazing thought. Imagine The US gets invaded so the white house transforms and must fight for the country.

It just turns into Liberty Prime.

No. It uses Lady Liberty AS A SWORD. And the Pentagon as a SHIELD!

It'd be GLORIOUS!

Really? I just assumed it would use the Washington Monument as a sword. And Sean Hannity as a human shield.

Maybe that was just a glorious dream I had.

@selbie said:

War on Piracy, war on drugs, war on terror......what next? War on Pornography?

Rick Santorum, the next potential leader of the Republican party, has openly said he wants to make pornography illegal.

So yeah.

@Pinworm45 said:

@selbie said:

War on Piracy, war on drugs, war on terror......what next? War on Pornography?

Rick Santorum, the next potential leader of the Republican party, has openly said he wants to make pornography illegal.

So yeah.

What is with the US rightwing and values from the 1930s I have always wondered...

As someone who lives in Sweden this is flabbergasting

@Sharingan said:

What is with the US rightwing and values from the 1930s I have always wondered...

As someone who lives in Sweden this is flabbergasting

It flabbergasts us too.

I try to make sense of it myself all the time. It's just there's a huge subset of the population that's convinced that everyone is out to attack their way of life or their religion (thanks Fox News, thanks). So they grasp even more stubbornly at tradition for the sake of tradition in an effort to thwart these "attacks". That's the only explanation that I have for the rise of evangelicals.

I don't want to put the blame on religion though, religion is more of an excuse than anything. It's more about the political mind games and this horribly corrupt circle of greed and corporate manipulation that feeds back into the populace. It's all a confusing mess and I don't know how long it will take to get things back on track.

Man. America is CRAZY!

oh look, a texas republican is the chief sponsor of the biggest regulatory bill in the history of the internets

STOP GOVERNMENT REGULATION, IT KILLS JOB GROWTH

EXCEPT FOR THE INTERNET, THAT SHOULD BE GOVERNMENT REGULATED

these people are full of shit

@CanItRunBF3 said:

How is this any different than Obama's denouncement of the NDAA's language that allows for American citizens to be arrested and imprisoned without proof or ever given a trial, but passing it anyway, saying he would never use that power? ....Then multiple Senators say on the House Floor that the original bill they sent for Obama to sign specifically excluded US citizens in no uncertain terms, but Obama himself demanded the re-wording.

My guess is he'll remain firmly opposed to SOPA largely because the election's coming up and, unlike the NDAA which sort of slipped itself through, SOPA has gotten a pretty high amount of negative publicity before it has even gone through the House. In other words, I think he'll remain opposed to it not because of any morals, since I doubt any of our politicians in the US still have those, but simply because a clear opposition is bound to earn him some votes come election day.

@The_Laughing_Man said:

@Animasta said:

I love when the white house makes statements, makes me think that the white house is actually a transformer

Made me laugh.

Thanks, Obama.

@Pinworm45 said:

@selbie said:

War on Piracy, war on drugs, war on terror......what next? War on Pornography?

Rick Santorum, the next potential leader of the Republican party, has openly said he wants to make pornography illegal.

So yeah.

I'm pretty sure he's just pissed that they're using his name.

All those businesses still making millions probably shouldn't be worried so much.
 
Also, i wish my name was Lamar Smith R-Texas.

When I had to look SOPA up on Wikipedia, I knew this shit would fail.

@phrali said:

oh look, a texas republican is the chief sponsor of the biggest regulatory bill in the history of the internets

STOP GOVERNMENT REGULATION, IT KILLS JOB GROWTH

EXCEPT FOR THE INTERNET, THAT SHOULD BE GOVERNMENT REGULATED

these people are full of shit

I WANT SMALL GOVERMENT...

IT SHOULD JUST BE BIG ENOUGH TO TELL YOU WHO YOU CAN MARRY AND FUCK THOUGH.

@Zaxex said:

I hope someone can figure out how to properly combat piracy without punishing the people who pay for their products.

This is completely erroneous sentiment. Like Valve's Gabe said: "combating piracy is done by providing better service than pirates", not through legislation..

@YoThatLimp said:

@phrali said:

oh look, a texas republican is the chief sponsor of the biggest regulatory bill in the history of the internets

STOP GOVERNMENT REGULATION, IT KILLS JOB GROWTH

EXCEPT FOR THE INTERNET, THAT SHOULD BE GOVERNMENT REGULATED

these people are full of shit

I WANT SMALL GOVERMENT...

IT SHOULD JUST BE BIG ENOUGH TO TELL YOU WHO YOU CAN MARRY AND FUCK THOUGH.

Republicans were never for small government, every single republican government had a humongous increase in government spending, they just say so because they know that mainstream corporate media is intellectually bankrupt(just as their electoral base) and they will just gobble up anything they say.

The whole thing about big/small government is for idiotic people(republican base) anyway, either you have rational, efficient government proportionate to the needs of the country or you don't and become a third world country.

Republicans are really good at making non-issues relevant thanks to US population which lacks any intellectual curiosity and reasoning skills of all the industrialized nations, which every research done affirms again and again.

For example did you know that the vast majority of Americans believe in angels?

So this means Shenmue 3 right?

I love when the white house makes statements, makes me think that the white house is actually a transformer

oh look, a texas republican is the chief sponsor of the biggest regulatory bill in the history of the internets

STOP GOVERNMENT REGULATION, IT KILLS JOB GROWTH

EXCEPT FOR THE INTERNET, THAT SHOULD BE GOVERNMENT REGULATED

these people are full of shit

@CanItRunBF3 said:

How is this any different than Obama's denouncement of the NDAA's language that allows for American citizens to be arrested and imprisoned without proof or ever given a trial, but passing it anyway, saying he would never use that power? ....Then multiple Senators say on the House Floor that the original bill they sent for Obama to sign specifically excluded US citizens in no uncertain terms, but Obama himself demanded the re-wording.

My guess is he'll remain firmly opposed to SOPA largely because the election's coming up and, unlike the NDAA which sort of slipped itself through, SOPA has gotten a pretty high amount of negative publicity before it has even gone through the House. In other words, I think he'll remain opposed to it not because of any morals, since I doubt any of our politicians in the US still have those, but simply because a clear opposition is bound to earn him some votes come election day.

@Zol said:

@Zaxex said:

I hope someone can figure out how to properly combat piracy without punishing the people who pay for their products.

This is completely erroneous sentiment. Like Valve's Gabe said: "combating piracy is done by providing better service than pirates", not through legislation..

Sure. I entirely support what Gabe said, it's certainly a great motivator when the content's there and the service great. I don't think companies should outright give up against piracy though, it doesn't matter how good Steam is, people will still choose the free option if it's easy; maybe even if it's not. The internet can't work on the trust system lol. "Please don't copy our stuff, thanks!".

I was thinking more technical than legislative. DRM for instance punishes the people who bought the content as often as not. Surely the ideal is that people don't pirate games or whatever?

@Hurricrane said:

@Branthog said:

What a distraction. It's a temporary ploy and the intended goal will still be pushed through. If not now, then slightly later, when attention is not focused on it. The current alternative (OPEN) while possibly well-intended suffers much of the same failures. Also, let's remember all the other things the white house and this president has said. Like "we will conduct all business in the open, before the people" (and after election, there have been plenty of closed-door and closed-to-the-media activities). And let's not forget "every bill will be put online and Americans will have at least three days to read and respond to every bill".

Oh, and let's not forget the veto threat to the NDAA -- which is even more fundamentally hideous than SOPA/PIPA. Yeah. Ended up not being vetoed. But "hey, gosh guys, we won't do anything naughty with it!".

Every inch you give to government is an inch you will never ever get back. How's that PATRIOT ACT (with the sunset provision to make sure the extreme laws enacted in it dont' remain forever) going for ya?

What he said. Join your local revolutionary group and stock up on ammo, because there's going to be one soon if shit keeps going this way.

Yeah, that will never *ever* happen in this country. Our founding fathers upheld the ideology that men should be armed and they should be actively civic minded, because the only way to maintain a free country is for the tyrannical within it to be afraid of the people (NOT the people afraid of the government). Push the people too far, and the people push back. Self cleansing like a nice forest brush-fire.

Instead, we are all either afraid of our government or delusionally believe our government is a great protector, nestling us under its wings and providing for us - which is just as bad. Habeus corpus has been suspended for years. We have justified the practice of torture. We have signed into law (and seen practiced) disappearing American citizens and treating them like enemy combatants. We have seen intimidation for mere dissent. We have seen protestors relegated to fenced-in "free speech zones", complete with razor-wire. We have seen our government set a trap for DVD Jon (DeCSS creator) and prosecute him as if he were a terrorist. We've seen the same just happen with the extradition of a UK citizen for prosecution in American courts, for the terrorist act of linking from his website to a files hosted outside of his website that contained copyrighted content (an act that was likely not criminal where any of this occurred, but is somehow still within the reach of our government). And we've seen countless cities ban citizens with arms, despite constitutionality (because when it comes down to it, the last way citizens can defend themselves collectively is with arms and if you take those away, they are yours to intimidate and abuse en masse). We've even seen our government enter nation after nation with often bizarre and untrue justifications (Khadaffi is feeding his military viagra so they can rape children durp durp!) and we've seen footage of our troops in a helicoptor coordinating blowing away unarmed civilians (including a van with a child in it and an EMT coming to rescue a man we blew to shit) . . . and then covered it up.

And our response? America, fuck yeah! We don't give a shit, because Jesus loves Tim Tebow and we have hot and cold running reality television on tap, and six packs are cheap.

If we haven't been moved to do anything more than have a very small part of our population occasionally sit in a drum circle chanting and holding clever signs (ooh, that'll scare 'em!) by now after the last fifteen years of bullshit, we are never ever going to do anything significant beyond waving signs and chanting ever. Under any circumstance. No matter how bad things get.

@MrCandleguy said:

@selbie said:

War on Piracy, war on drugs, war on terror......what next? War on Pornography?

I will fight against that war!

Uh. Hey, guys? That war has been around longer than all three of those other "wars". Where do you think obscenity laws, the MPAA, and the ESRB stemmed from? Read up on how the obscenity laws came to be an you will be disgusted. The whole concept is unconstitutional and still managed to be rammed through decades ago. Prior to that, the idea that anyone had the right to determine what content was or wasn't fit for any other person (other than a child's parents for that child) was absurd. And today, we just act like "well, of course everything should be censored if you're under eighteen years old because boobies and vagina!".

TL;DR: The pornography wars already happened and we lost.

@paulunga said:

@Pinworm45 said:

@selbie said:

War on Piracy, war on drugs, war on terror......what next? War on Pornography?

Rick Santorum, the next potential leader of the Republican party, has openly said he wants to make pornography illegal.

So yeah.

I'm pretty sure he's just pissed that they're using his name.

God damn it, I was drinking a milkshake.

I'm glad that this is suggesting that they won't pass IPA or SOPA, but I still want the witch hunt for pirates (who for some strange reasons are always foreign, zenophobic much?) to be over. The American government can just shoot at it, like most of its problems....

@Branthog said:

@MrCandleguy said:

@selbie said:

War on Piracy, war on drugs, war on terror......what next? War on Pornography?

I will fight against that war!

Uh. Hey, guys? That war has been around longer than all three of those other "wars". Where do you think obscenity laws, the MPAA, and the ESRB stemmed from? Read up on how the obscenity laws came to be an you will be disgusted. The whole concept is unconstitutional and still managed to be rammed through decades ago. Prior to that, the idea that anyone had the right to determine what content was or wasn't fit for any other person (other than a child's parents for that child) was absurd. And today, we just act like "well, of course everything should be censored if you're under eighteen years old because boobies and vagina!".

TL;DR: The pornography wars already happened and we lost.

There is no government regulation of any form of media in the US as far as I'm aware. All decency standards are set by the organizations tied to each industry. Doesn't sound like much of a loss to me. Additionally, censorship on cable TV is handled by advertisers, not government. Cable networks don't show obscene content because advertisers don't buy time-slots during those types of shows. There are outliers, of course (like Comedy Central's after hours thing where they ran movies/standup uncensored), but that's the standard. There are, however, laws about network television that state content must serve the public interest, which is why the Janet Jackson Superbowl thing was such a big deal. Even then, I've heard stories of network affiliates running obscene content because the small population it affected was okay with it.

The government is a lot more hands off on media content than you might think.

@mystakin: This is only half true - anything that is broadcast over the air (radio stations and broadcast networks) are subject to oversight by the FCC. That's why FOX was forced to pay a fine when the Janet Jackson nipple slip happened at the Superbowl.

On cable, however, you're right. As long as you're not showing something illegal (child porn, for instance) the only thing holding you back is advertisers.

@mystakin said:

@Branthog said:

@MrCandleguy said:

@selbie said:

War on Piracy, war on drugs, war on terror......what next? War on Pornography?

I will fight against that war!

Uh. Hey, guys? That war has been around longer than all three of those other "wars". Where do you think obscenity laws, the MPAA, and the ESRB stemmed from? Read up on how the obscenity laws came to be an you will be disgusted. The whole concept is unconstitutional and still managed to be rammed through decades ago. Prior to that, the idea that anyone had the right to determine what content was or wasn't fit for any other person (other than a child's parents for that child) was absurd. And today, we just act like "well, of course everything should be censored if you're under eighteen years old because boobies and vagina!".

TL;DR: The pornography wars already happened and we lost.

There is no government regulation of any form of media in the US as far as I'm aware. All decency standards are set by the organizations tied to each industry. Doesn't sound like much of a loss to me. Additionally, censorship on cable TV is handled by advertisers, not government. Cable networks don't show obscene content because advertisers don't buy time-slots during those types of shows. There are outliers, of course (like Comedy Central's after hours thing where they ran movies/standup uncensored), but that's the standard. There are, however, laws about network television that state content must serve the public interest, which is why the Janet Jackson Superbowl thing was such a big deal. Even then, I've heard stories of network affiliates running obscene content because the small population it affected was okay with it.

The government is a lot more hands off on media content than you might think.

The hell there isn't any government regulation of forms of media in the US. Read of the history of adult films and how obscenity laws (that concept alone, also obscene) arose. About people being arrested and serving time, for appearing in adult films. About Larry Flint and adult magazines and films. About how adult content is handled entirely differently - not because a business determines that it's the classy thing to do so they can cater to their community - but because of government enforcement. There are two issues. The censorship of material - as in its existence. And then the censorship of material, as in who may consume it. While you and I may agree that we don't want a five year old reading Hustler, that is not something for any government to be involved in and there is no such exception in the constitution stating that free speech is excepted based on age.

Further, it is a massive mistake to say "well, the movie industry censors itself, so that's okay". They censor themselves (as does the music industry, gaming industry, etc) because the alternative is direct (and unconstitutional, of course) government intervention. In fact, self-censorship is far fucking worse than government censorship. If the government directly involved themselves and said "this game can not exist", then those who are rational and oppose the action can take it up in a court of law. When the industry themselves is doing it, there is no recourse, because, because there is no accountability. There is no "censorship" (as in, government intervention in the free speech). Therefore, the government (and religious lobbyists, etc) achieve the same goal, by putting it into someone else's hands. And the result to you and me is exactly the same. If I force you to commit an action, it is no different than if I committed the action myself. The end result remains. Except, in this case, one could be challenged in court. The other can't.

You can see further examples of this (and the corruption) by reading up on the vile MPAA (their formation, their inconsistencies, their in-accountabilities, their affiliations with the catholic and other churches, and the impact it has on free speech by rendering many films and filmmakers incapable of doing business, as a result of the draconian institution).

And, again, there are plenty examples of direct government censorship - beyond simply influencing it by threat against industries. For example, free-speech zones. Is it not censorship to take entire groups of dissenting persons and shove them down the street out of the way into a razor-wire fenced in area where they are allowed to "freely exercise speech"? Sounds like censorship, to me.

Anyone who buys the WH statement is a fool. Obama's a corporatist, and will do nothing to upset the corporate oligarchy that runs this country.

@ztiworoh said:

@mystakin: This is only half true - anything that is broadcast over the air (radio stations and broadcast networks) are subject to oversight by the FCC. That's why FOX was forced to pay a fine when the Janet Jackson nipple slip happened at the Superbowl.

On cable, however, you're right. As long as you're not showing something illegal (child porn, for instance) the only thing holding you back is advertisers.

They were forced to pay a fine because there were complaints about the content of the Superbowl. Had there been no complaints, the FCC would have no power to fine FOX. That's the point I'm getting at.

@Branthog in my years as a student in media studies, I haven't run across these issues you state. As it pertains to the media, government censorship power is limited and corporate censorship power is strong. There are certainly situations outside of media where censorship feels like it crosses a line (I personally hate that people can't protest inside shopping malls), but media is relatively self-contained. Organizations like ESRB and rating systems rose out of public concern over media content not just government concern. They exist because they provide a service that the consumer wants, not just because the government forced it.

I actually support SOPA fuck the internet