DF's picture

    SOPA, SoCal, So What?

    By DF on Wed, 01/11/2012 - 12:37am | Politics

    I stumbled across a site called SOPAOpera that's keeping track of who is and isn't supporting the Stop Online Piracy Act, or SOPA, and the PROTECT-IP Act, SOPA's counterpart in the Senate.  The site also tracks how much money congresscritters have received from the entertainment and tech industries respectively.  SOPAOpera lists the data source as OpenSecrets, which indexes FEC data.

    The site lists 106 members that have committed one way or the other so far.  That's about 20% of the total.  The thing that stands out when looking at the top level is that support for this bill is bipartisan so far, with over 70% of Dems and 80% of GOPers supporting.

    If you look at the state level, you'll notice two things.  One is that the Senate basically has a lock for PROTECT-IP, with 49 supporting and only five opposing.  So if these bills make it out of committee, the action will be in the House, which remains relatively uncommitted at 32 for and 20 against.  Looking at the House, the other thing that stands out is that all the action so far is in California, originating 18 of the 52 currently committed members.

    This should not be surprising since one way to view SOPA is as a political battle between the economic interests of the two aforementioned industries - both of which happen to live in California.  Now, recall I mentioned support for this bill is not falling along party lines.  If you examine California, you'll see almost to a person support for these bills correlates with a net positive contribution from the entertainment industry, less contributions from the tech industry.

    The only exceptions to this are Doris Matsui from Sacramento and Nancy Pelosi from San Francisco.  Neither is particularly surprising when you consider that both politicians are from northern California, where tech lives.  Their constituents are much better served by a no vote on these bills.

    Both of our lovely Dem lady Senators are in favor.  Barbara Boxer's tenfold financial advantage over Feinstein reflects the fact that the junior Senator was up for re-election in 2010.  Guess it's time to do Hollywood a solid.

    So there appears to be a split among the Dems in California on this one, but perhaps more importantly the House Minority Leader appears to be part of the dissent.  That leads to the question of how this will manifest as the bill moves through the House.

    The other question is whether or not Obama would sign a bill that largely resembles SOPA or PROTECT-IP.  He's said he'll uphold neutrality, but he's said that before.  Maybe he'll listen to one of his crusty old professors.

    In the meantime, it looks like Hollywood is winning the campaign finance war for SOPA, but the smart money says political favor is a good buy.

    Welcome to 2012.

    UPDATE: Here is a brief primer on SOPA from the EFF.

    Topics: 
    Politics

    Comments

    Thanks DF, I haven't been a big follower of this, although my boys are of course against it, (both nerds).  Thanks for the info.

    t.


    by tmccarthy0 on Wed, 01/11/2012 - 6:23am

    NP.  To me, this is really a story about an older, more politically connected and entrenched industry versus a younger, less connected industry.  Congress is also full of rich old-timers that don't get the 'net - series of tubes and all that.  That doesn't help the cause either.

    At the core though, it's about entertainment failing to adapt their business models to new technology and seeking to protect their interests using political power instead of successfully innovating and winning in the marketplace.

    Maybe if we keep it up, our economy can soon be based on nothing but farcical financial fictions and loquacious lawyering.


    by DF on Wed, 01/11/2012 - 10:56am

    If it passes with bipartisan support, I can't see Obama not signing it.  Yes, it'll tick off people who write on the Internet, but I don't where most people get too worked up over this.  My own opposition certainly isn't rooted in stopping content creators from enforcing copyrights.  It's about the lack of due process for those accused.  But, practically speaking, unless you own your own servers, the truth is that Hollywood or a big publishing company can already shut you down by going to your server provider.  Let's face it. Godaddy is not going to fight a lawsuit for you against a deep pocketed plaintiff, even if you're right.  This law absurdly lets them forego even the threat of a lawsuit and a cease and desist letter.  But it doesn't seem to change the playing field that much.


    by Michael Maiello on Wed, 01/11/2012 - 8:46am

    It's not just people that write on the Internet or the lack of due process.  Throwing prior restraint out the window only scratches the surface.  If you didn't check it out, I highly recommend reading Laurence Tribe's legis memo that I linked above.  It's quite accessible.  To briefly summarize why these bills are actually a problem for the industry as a whole, Tribe points out that the bill potentially undermines the entire "web 2.0" business model, which relies heavily on user created content.

    SOPA makes web site operators entirely responsible for all content, even user generated content, even on mere "portions" of a web site (say, a forum that isn't even the main content of the site).  This has potentially devastating implications for all of the heavy hitters - Facebook, Twitter, Google, Reddit.. and even sites like Dag.

    Say a Dag user plagiarizes some content, unbeknownst to our benevolent hosts.  The copyright owner notices, contacts legal and out the nastygrams go.  Goodbye, Dag.

    I'd like to find better numbers, but these are somewhat illuminating: here are the Fortune 500 lists for the most profitable industries in the US in 2008 and 2009.  The key thing to notice is that entertainment registers in the top 10 during 2008, clocking a respectable 12.4% profit margin.  In 2009, it was -%10.

    The entertainment industry says we have to ruin the Internet to kill piracy to save their industry.  Of course, they said the same thing about home taping.  And piracy didn't just suddenly start in 2009.  Their prescription will have a tremendous impact one of the few growing industries in the US.  The tech sector has been able to thrive throughout the downturn.

    We're on pace to return to full employment sometime by the end of the decade - assuming nothing else goes wrong between now and then.  Since Congress won't do anything about that, it's nice to see that they'll cross the aisle and put aside their differences to protect old Hollywood money and kick a young, vibrant industry in the nuts.

    Methinks it's high time for Silicon Valley's boy billionaires to turn on the lobbying spigot.


    by DF on Wed, 01/11/2012 - 11:24am

    I'm down with everything you're saying.  I just wonder to what extent this changes the current playing field, not in terms of legality but in terms of practicality.  Like, if a big company writes to your ISP and says, "make that user take that site down," the ISP is not going to back you up, even if you're right.  Nobody's going to get sued for you. 


    by Michael Maiello on Wed, 01/11/2012 - 1:10pm

    This is far too reductive.  First of all, no one is hosting with their ISP.  Web sites are hosted in data centers, which are increasingly cloud-based, distributed endeavors.  How big are the entities in question?

    Assume I'm running a site with a copyright claim against it.  I probably have it hosted with someone and maybe have my domain name registered with them, maybe not.  "Taking the site down" might involve getting my name host to stop hosting my DNS, but that only makes the site difficult to access.  This was attempted with the Pirate Bay.  The numerical IP address was rapidly distributed through other sites.

    Or it might involve getting my actual host, in other words the entity actually responsible for running the hardware and software that powers my site, to remove the site from their servers.  If I'm a much bigger player than the the copyright claimant, what is the incentive for hosting entities to comply with a nastygram?  This should be a pure cost-benefit analysis, not a foregone conclusion.  If you follow EFF, you know that disputes like this happen all the time.  It is simply not the case that web sites fold every time a lawyer mails a letter.

    Now think about the big boys like Google and Facebook.  They don't need hosting companies.  They are hosting companies (this is increasingly true of Google and Amazon).  They have massive data centers.  Of course, they sometimes contract with third-parties to diversify network presence, but that's really immaterial here.  There is no way you can get a host to take them down.  Who wouldn't clamor for their business, no matter the legal threats?  Surely Google and Facebook are willing to protect their own interests in the legal process and have the resources to do it.

    This is what SOPA seeks to do.  They want to be able to threaten entities like Google with direct, extra-judicial Federal action if Google does something like, say, make it easy to find a torrent.  This is completely and utterly different then the present DMCA regime.  If it wasn't, there would be no reason to pass the bill and no reason to care.


    by DF on Wed, 01/11/2012 - 2:23pm

    Also, GoDaddy might not get sued for you, but they sure as hell turned on a dime with respect for SOPA when the 'net started a mass exodus.


    by DF on Wed, 01/11/2012 - 2:27pm

    Thanks for the info.  I guess you can tell that I'm a freeloader without his own site.  Guess that's why I call Dag home.  And, yes, you're right... the tech industry is going to have to better organize to defend itself.


    by Michael Maiello on Wed, 01/11/2012 - 2:30pm

    This has been extremely informative for me.  I've worked in the industry for so long that it's easy to forget that not everyone knows how this stuff works.  Perhaps Dag needs a SOPA/PROTECT-IP primer.  I know we've got a couple of other geeks here that could weigh in.


    by DF on Wed, 01/11/2012 - 2:37pm

    Latest Comments