posted
Chris Dodd, chairman and chief lobbyist of the MPAA, went on fox news and said this!
quote:"Those who count on quote 'Hollywood' for support need to understand that this industry is watching very carefully who's going to stand up for them when their job is at stake. Don't ask me to write a check for you when you think your job is at risk and then don't pay any attention to me when my job is at stake,"
Yes! No embellishment! It's pretty much exactly what it sounds like. It's straightforward and overt. He is directly and publicly threatening politicians that oppose him by not being corrupt enough to stay bought.
Then, there was this:
quote:The NY Times has a fascinating, if ridiculous, interview with Chris Dodd about everything that happened regarding SOPA/PIPA. It starts off with the suggestion that the real problem here was that, due to Senate ethics rules, Dodd can't personally lobby Congress until 2013. You may recall that, before leaving the Senate, Chris Dodd promised that he would not become a lobbyist -- a promise he broke just a few months later in taking the top job at the MPAA. And make no mistake about it: Dodd's role is as a lobbyist. He is barred from personally lobbying Congress, but can lobby the White House, and is the main "strategist" behind the MPAA's PIPA/SOPA strategy trainwreck.
But the bigger issue in the article is that Dodd still doesn't seem to understand what happened....
*goes off to dance in a very unsubtle political cartoon where every visual element is labeled 'lobbying,' 'bribery,' 'democracy for sale' 'this is money that is being used to buy elections and lawmaking, it is in a giant sack, a pig in a suit is holding it how can i make this a more blatant visual analogy' and 'citizens united'*
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The ideas behind SOPA/PIPA aren't over yet. The forces that sponsored it are still out there, and they'll be back.
Posts: 338 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, in this case, Earl is absolutely right. The forces that sponsored SOPA/PIPA are still out there, and the bills are already being pushed through again. Bad law never gets defeated for good; it just gets delayed until someone runs out of money.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Yes! No embellishment! It's pretty much exactly what it sounds like. It's straightforward and overt. He is directly and publicly threatening politicians that oppose him by not being corrupt enough to stay bought.
Is it more corrupt to accept a bribe to vote a certain way and then chicken out at the last moment, or accept the bribe and then cast your vote as agreed despite pressure from those you represent? Honest question: it's hard to tell what the right thing to do is when you've sold your morals that far downstream to begin with.
posted
I'm just giving you crap because of the way you phrased your statement.
Yeah, the groups that very publicly backed SOPA still exist, and still want to achieve those results.
Calling them "forces" and saying they are "still out there" makes them sound like a shadowy, nefarious conspiracy instead of just greedy and misguided people trying to solve what they see as a problem. At least, it sounded that way to me. Especially coming from a die-hard Ron Paul supporter, because, frankly, Ron Paul is a conspiracy nut, and so are a lot of his fans.
In general, your language sounded very ominous and mysterious, so I jumped to a conclusion that this was intended. Sorry. I agree with you that the RIAA and the MPAA and SOPA's other major sponsors still exist, since I think their dissolution would have probably made the news.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Yes! No embellishment! It's pretty much exactly what it sounds like. It's straightforward and overt. He is directly and publicly threatening politicians that oppose him by not being corrupt enough to stay bought.
Is it more corrupt to accept a bribe to vote a certain way and then chicken out at the last moment, or accept the bribe and then cast your vote as agreed despite pressure from those you represent? Honest question: it's hard to tell what the right thing to do is when you've sold your morals that far downstream to begin with.
Hobbes
And yet, with the amounts of money needed to run for office and the way we have allowed unlimited corporate money, how is any politician supposed to get elected without being beholden to corporate interests in just the way Dodd was talking about?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Yes! No embellishment! It's pretty much exactly what it sounds like. It's straightforward and overt. He is directly and publicly threatening politicians that oppose him by not being corrupt enough to stay bought.
Is it more corrupt to accept a bribe to vote a certain way and then chicken out at the last moment, or accept the bribe and then cast your vote as agreed despite pressure from those you represent? Honest question: it's hard to tell what the right thing to do is when you've sold your morals that far downstream to begin with.
Hobbes
Both are corrupt. They have both taken bribes to further their political career. One is weak in the sense that they are intimidated enough to drop their bargain with their bribers, one is weak in the sense that they are coerced enough to stick with the bargain to their own detriment, 'or else.' The difference between the two, as stated, offers no compelling argument that one is taking a less amoral path due to their response to unexpected challenges to the tactical validity of their selling out.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I didn't want to go into details at the time, so I used the more abstract "forces," but specifically this means institutions like the RIAA and MPAA and individual lawmakers and lawyers that support them. These institutions and people still exist, and they still want tougher regulation of intellectual property on the internet. What political clout got them PIPA/SOPA is still with us since these organizations and people haven't run out of money or willingness to push their regulatory ideas in Congress.
Eventually they will try again. They probably see recent events as a temporary setback.
Posts: 338 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Don't worry about it.
Posts: 338 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Being a conspiracy theorist when it comes down to the regulation of the internet is actually the reasonable properly paranoid stance; for example International Treaties actually trump the constitution and can side step the first amendment issues of the SOPA and PIPA bills and generally harder to notice or fight against like ACTA which is a treaty currently under discussion I believe that will force many other countries to adopt SOPA and PIPA like regulation of the internet while consolidating it in the USA.
Its basically a tower defence game for the freedom of the internet.
IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
