[jasonlotito]

Not that I support the MPAA, but it isn't some faceless entity. It's made up of people. And the people that make up the MPAA have given the MPAA the power to speak on their behalf. So, when a representative speaks with a member of the government, he's doing it on behalf of people. Most likely, people that are his constituents.

The people opposing SOPA did the same thing. We organized via various organizations (such as Reddit, for example), and called or wrote to our law maker. In some capacity, we had Google representing us.

MPAA isn't taking things off the table. Rather, they are working to propose something that doesn't include some feature that was hotly contested.

So, what is inherently wrong with people approaching their congressmen with proposals?

[un1xl0ser]

>So, what is inherently wrong with people approaching their congressmen with proposals?

On it's face, nothing. Deeper however, too many laws are passed because lobbyists are paid to ensure that corporate interests are taken care of. I don't have a lot of time to push my agenda, but corporations convert money into people's time.

Lots of us aren't even convinced that there is an issue. If there is, lets see the numbers and talk about them, and if we see something that needs a solution, we can come up with one.

This is a jobs saving law, they should be focused on jobs creation. They can save jobs by outlawing outsourcing, but nobody things that is a good idea.

[jasonlotito]

> Deeper however, too many laws are passed because lobbyists are paid to ensure that corporate interests are taken care of.

Except, SOPA isn't passed yet, and so far, the push back has been successful. There is still a fight, but the corporations aren't winning.

And we do have the means to voice our opinion. We have our own version of lobbyists. Not only do we have the ability to directly contact our law makers, we can also support organizations who do have the time to fight these battles for us. EFF is a great example.

https://supporters.eff.org/donate

They do accept donations.

Other organizations out there include Mozilla, Apache, etc. Couple this with support of companies that support the things you want. And if the companies do support something (for example, BSA's support of SOPA, and by extension, Apple and MS), you complain.

> I don't have a lot of time to push my agenda

I can throw that back at you: if your agenda isn't important enough to put forth effort, and for you to take a part in the process, how will I know your opinion?

If you don't speak up, you can't complain when no one listens.

Note: I'm not trying to insult you. Hopefully I don't come off that harsh. =)

[rayiner]

+1 to the EFF taking donations. This is just how things get hashed out in a huge representative democracy. Let's make sure our side is well-funded. The EFF runs on under $4m/year. That's chump change.

10,000 people donating $30/month would double the EFF's revenues. That's the cost of taking your girl to the movies or buying an EA game on clearance, and unlike those things it doesn't go right into the pockets of terrible companies.

[un1xl0ser]

> If you don't speak up, you can't complain when no one listens.

I do spend quite a bit of time engaging with politicians. Certainly if I am taking my time out to discuss this with not only my peers online, but in person. I written my congress people, and will be taking this into consideration when I go to the polls next. Yes yes, this is how politics work here.

That said, I don't think that you are fully understanding the amount of time and money that corporate interests put into politics. Or maybe I am not understanding it correctly. I'm more aware of the amount of money in politics than the number of people paid to influence politicians, but that should probably be reported somewhere I hope.

> Hopefully I don't come off that harsh.

No problem, I'm used to dealing with your type. Sometimes I can even be that way given circumstances.

Now back to C-SPAN.

[jasonlotito]

> That said, I don't think that you are fully understanding the amount of time and money that corporate interests put into politics.

Why would you think that? Based off my few comments, that didn't' touch on this? It's an absurd assumption to make, if I might be so bold. I'm not blind to the amount of pressure people at corporations put into politics. However, I'm not blinded by the fact that they are, in fact, people, and not some faceless corporation.

> No problem, I'm used to dealing with your type. Sometimes I can even be that way given circumstances.

My type? Hopeful? Polite? Intelligent? Not blinded?

Why thank you. May you continue to strive to be like me, as you seem to want.

[un1xl0ser]

> It's an absurd assumption to make,

I agree. I can be absurd sometimes.

> My type? Hopeful? Polite? Intelligent? Not blinded?

Direct.

You mentioned what's wrong with "people" coming in with their legislation. I guess that I would re-state that by the time laws get to discussion in the public, the laws are mostly written by politicians that are heavily lobbied. Something that goes through that type of taint by money or business interests is not always in the best interest of the people. Do the members of congress get some things better than technology? Maybe, I kind of doubt it. I watched a few hours of the house talking about energy changes, and it was clear who was lobbying for what. Nobody was actually watching from the House floor, but I assume that everyone get's C-SPAN in their offices in case something interesting comes up.

I have to compete very hard to get my agenda's addressed. I do have my own time and money to spend on politics, and I do it. That said, it feels like a drop in the bucket, and I think that is not just my feeling but actually the case.

I like donating to the EFF, a great idea. That is just one of the areas that I am interested in. The more causes that I add (and there are MANY), the more I need to pay to combat the fact that there is too much money in politics.

So, lets go back to corporations not being people, reasonable and accountable PACs, and stop having revolving door career lobbyists/politicians.

I really like our system of government, but I think that it is fair to level the playing field.

[tomkarlo]

The MPAA is made up of companies / corporate interests more than it's "made up of people". They're not SAG or AFTRA, as much as they like to pretend they speak for the "little guy" in Hollywood.

From their web site:

MPAA’s members are the six major U.S. motion picture studios

Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures

Paramount Pictures Corporation

Sony Pictures Entertainment, Inc.

Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation

Universal City Studios LLC

Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc.

[jasonlotito]

sigh

You've completely missed the point.

"Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures"

This company is made up of people. Without these people, this company wouldn't have any power.

"Sony Pictures Entertainment, Inc."

This company has people as well. Employees, board members, everyone.

The MPAA is made up of people. Indeed, if you remove the people from the MPAA, you are left with nothing. Corporations aren't a life form.

[tomkarlo]

Corporations are very different from other types of organizations - they make no pretense of representing the interests of the individuals within them. Their interests _may_ align at times with those of their employees, but they often don't - and they're not supposed to.

At the end of the day, corporations are _supposed_ to prioritize the interest of their shareholders, and in practical terms, they often also prioritize the interests of their senior executives, if for no other reason than those executives are compensated in shares of equity.

[joshontheweb]

Just because a company is made up of people does not mean that it will push legislation that represents those people. The interests of a corporation as a whole can be quite different than those of the individual.