Former Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT), now the head of the MPAA and the main spokesperson for SOPA and PIPA (now shelved or withdrawn), just told Andrea Mitchell a bunch of nonsense on MSNBC. Here are some of his major points, with translations into truth to set the record straright:
In sum - Dodd, after being rebuked by the withdrawal of SOPA, is starting off on the wrong foot for where we go from here. A little truth would help.
Dodd: Most people misunderstood what the bills were about - which was, to stop the loss of American jobs due to Internet piracy.
Truth: Everyone understood that purpose of the bills. What we also understood were the provisions of the bill that would have held entire sites responsible for even one pirated item on their otherwise massive, non-pirated sites and could have crippled the Internet as we know it. Dodd said nothing whatsoever about that.
Dodd: the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 has been effective against Internet pirates and has led to the shutdown of many sites. SOPA and PIPA were just trying to extend its provisions to international pirates operating here.
Truth: Right, the DMCA has been very effective. So why not just extend its provisions to cover international pirates? The DMCA has none of the provisions of SOPA and PIPA which could have crippled the Internet.
Dodd: The First Amendment does not protect criminals, people who libel and slander others, etc.
Truth: Right, but the First Amendment does protect from government regulation all modes of speech and press which are not engaged in criminal, slanderous, or libelous actions. If The New York Times, for example, inadvertently published something deemed libelous, it could be sued for libel under the current laws. Those same laws can be used against anything online - without the need for SOPA and PIPA - and the same applies to piracy (with extension of DMCA to cover international pirates). The problem with SOPA and PIPA is they went way too far, and would have have seriously violated the First Amendment.
In sum - Dodd, after being rebuked by the withdrawal of SOPA, is starting off on the wrong foot for where we go from here. A little truth would help.
1 comment:
If you say you want the truth the response would be something like this:
"You can't handle the truth! Son, we live in a world that has walls and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it, you? You, Lieutenant Weinburg? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom! You weep for Santiago and you curse the Marines! You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know! That Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives! And my existence, while grotesque, and incomprehensible to you, saves lives! You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall! You need me on that wall! We use words like 'Honor,' 'Code,' 'Loyalty!' We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline! I have neither the time, nor the inclination, to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it! I would rather you just said 'Thank you', and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand at post! Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to!"
---Col. Jessup, during his breakdown at the climax of A Few Good Men
Of course the exact wording would be different, but, you get the idea.
Post a Comment