I was on BloombergTV talking SOPA today - how'd I do?(bloomberg.com)
bloomberg.com
I was on BloombergTV talking SOPA today - how'd I do?
http://www.bloomberg.com/video/83688294/
162 comments
Despite my differences with much of the Republican party platform, one thing that they are damn good at and I respect them for is an ability to communicate with their target base.
Where's there's a hot topic issue, the Republicans will come out in lockstep with voices on the same wavelength. They use clear and simple language with a single antagonist. In the really big battles they even coin phrases like 'Obamacare', 'Death tax', & 'energy exploration', that succinctly convey their point of view. Each of those phrases will be used repeatedly by every Republican on TV, until their opponents (Democrats) even adopt the same language they've invented.
This why I like that 'shoplifter in the store' analogy. Its pretty simple and relatable to just about anyone. On the topic of language though, the opponents of SOPA should be creating their own word/phrase. If we refer to SOPA as 'online piracy', then we've already conceded more ground that we need to.
Where's there's a hot topic issue, the Republicans will come out in lockstep with voices on the same wavelength. They use clear and simple language with a single antagonist. In the really big battles they even coin phrases like 'Obamacare', 'Death tax', & 'energy exploration', that succinctly convey their point of view. Each of those phrases will be used repeatedly by every Republican on TV, until their opponents (Democrats) even adopt the same language they've invented.
This why I like that 'shoplifter in the store' analogy. Its pretty simple and relatable to just about anyone. On the topic of language though, the opponents of SOPA should be creating their own word/phrase. If we refer to SOPA as 'online piracy', then we've already conceded more ground that we need to.
"Despite my differences with much of the Republican party platform, one thing that they are damn good at and I respect them for is an ability to communicate with their target base."
Yes- they are so good at this, its a great lesson in conveying with power.. George Lakoff beautifully explains how they do this in his book- "Don't Think of an Elephant!: Know Your Values and Frame the Debate".. You also mention they get the other political parties to use "their" terminology as well, George Lakoff goes through this in the book as well. I found a ton of communication lessons in the book, and I dont think the tone will alienate anyone, even though its clear the author doesn't lean too far to the right. A great book to read if anyone is at all interested in how the Right owns the game...
Yes- they are so good at this, its a great lesson in conveying with power.. George Lakoff beautifully explains how they do this in his book- "Don't Think of an Elephant!: Know Your Values and Frame the Debate".. You also mention they get the other political parties to use "their" terminology as well, George Lakoff goes through this in the book as well. I found a ton of communication lessons in the book, and I dont think the tone will alienate anyone, even though its clear the author doesn't lean too far to the right. A great book to read if anyone is at all interested in how the Right owns the game...
It doesn't hurt that they have a 24hr propaganda network dedicated to repeating these catch phrases and sound bites over and over again.
That came later after talk radio built the audience. The political messaging came first, over decades, to whip up a base of support. Fox is the number one news channel in the US because it resonnates with the receptive base audience.
"SOPA is the Great Wall of America"
"SOPA is Internet Mutilation"
"SOPA is Internet Mutilation"
People generally think the Great Wall is pretty cool, and also that it was effective and did good things.
I agree, tacking on "of America" only makes it sound more positive to most people. Even I'm having a hard time thinking "SOPA is the Great Wall of America" doesn't sound really awesome.
[deleted]
Agreed. So here's how we do it.
This is the word: Prohibition. It's our "death panels".
This is how you tell it to grandma:
This is the word: Prohibition. It's our "death panels".
This is how you tell it to grandma:
- The music & movie industries want a Prohibition on user-created content.
- When radio was invented, they wanted a Prohibition on it.
- When cable TV was invented, they wanted a Prohibition on it.
- When the VCR was invented, they wanted a Prohibition on it.
- Now Youtube and many other websites have been invented.
- Youtube is very entertaining; you can watch funny cat videos all day long.
- They want the Government to create a Prohibition on Youtube.I went and found my password for this account which I haven't used in an age just to say this is a really good idea, I hope other people who get a chance to talk on TV about this pick up on it.
I don't think that's accurate enough. 'Prohibition' is better for the War on Drugs, which draws a more meaningful connection to the 20s.
If I had to paint in broad, evocative strokes, I'd claim the industries are using the government to prop up their outdated business models by destroying competition from users.
So I'd suggest 'Monopoly.'
If I had to paint in broad, evocative strokes, I'd claim the industries are using the government to prop up their outdated business models by destroying competition from users.
So I'd suggest 'Monopoly.'
'Monopoly' is a good one too. I don't think the terms are mutually exclusive:
"They want the Government to create a Prohibition so they can have a Monopoly on content"
That said, I do think 'Prohibition' is an accurate description. SOPA may well be the first step in a 'War on Piracy' that does have strong parallels with '20s prohibition and the drug war. SOPA is a futile attempt to stop normal human behavior - sharing of content. It won't work. The fact that it won't work could lead to even more draconian blocking measures, creating a self-reinforcing loop of ever-escalating restrictions and punishments. 'Prohibition' conveys that futility and extremeness pretty well for a single term.
"They want the Government to create a Prohibition so they can have a Monopoly on content"
That said, I do think 'Prohibition' is an accurate description. SOPA may well be the first step in a 'War on Piracy' that does have strong parallels with '20s prohibition and the drug war. SOPA is a futile attempt to stop normal human behavior - sharing of content. It won't work. The fact that it won't work could lead to even more draconian blocking measures, creating a self-reinforcing loop of ever-escalating restrictions and punishments. 'Prohibition' conveys that futility and extremeness pretty well for a single term.
I don't like 'Monopoly' because most people don't recognize that as a fundamental problem. In fact in the case of media, monopoly is assumed as necessary to provide you with what you want (hundred million dollar blockbuster films).
The key thing to focus on is the imbalance of power SOPA creates and how that will end up getting in the way of Uncle Art's evening entertainment. So far the shoplifting shutting down the store analogy is the most pointed I've heard, but still not a catch phrase.
The key thing to focus on is the imbalance of power SOPA creates and how that will end up getting in the way of Uncle Art's evening entertainment. So far the shoplifting shutting down the store analogy is the most pointed I've heard, but still not a catch phrase.
I find the shoplifting analogy decent, but the main flaw I see is that it keeps the discussion framed around crimes being committed and what is the punishment. Even if the punishment is seen as really extreme, centuries of legislation have shown that being "tough on crime" is extremely popular.
My hope with the term 'Prohibition' is to turn it around and put the focus on the evil being done by the media companies. They want the government take away your rights, because they don't want to compete fair and square with web technologies.
My hope with the term 'Prohibition' is to turn it around and put the focus on the evil being done by the media companies. They want the government take away your rights, because they don't want to compete fair and square with web technologies.
Fair points on Prohibition. It definitely has the negative-only effect that you'd want; I'll have to think about it.
Here's an analogy I've been using that might work: "They're tying your hands behind your back so you have to pay them to feed you."
Here's an analogy I've been using that might work: "They're tying your hands behind your back so you have to pay them to feed you."
I agree with you to some extent. However, one of the problems with how the Republican party communicates is that, amomg their target base, they will often conflate "memorizing and regurgitating" talking points with understanding/groking the issues. They may not know why they don't like Obamacare, but they can memorize that catchy word and they know it spells trouble. But later when/if their party decides to change positions on the issue, a new catchy term with a positive connotation is coined for the masses to latch onto.
I think this runs at odds with what some people are trying to do, which is educate the electorate on why this kind of thing is a bad idea so that these types of issue branding tricks can't get past the public.
All that being said, I'm not sure that much of the electorate can be educated in this way, which probably does account for the success of this sort of thing.
I think this runs at odds with what some people are trying to do, which is educate the electorate on why this kind of thing is a bad idea so that these types of issue branding tricks can't get past the public.
All that being said, I'm not sure that much of the electorate can be educated in this way, which probably does account for the success of this sort of thing.
> They may not know why they don't like Obamacare, but they can memorize that catchy word and they know it spells trouble.
Not to get to OT with politics, but another important part of the "Republicans are better at messaging" thing is that in general conservative positions tend to be very simple, e.g.
"drill for more oil" vs. "if we create a market for greenhouse gas emissions we can incentivize a market-based transition to a cleaner...."
"get tough on crime" vs. "focusing on incarceration ratherthan rehabilitation for certain classes of crimes actually increases crime by decimating minority communities and perpetuating a cycle of...."
"the government is bloated" vs.
Etc.
Not to get to OT with politics, but another important part of the "Republicans are better at messaging" thing is that in general conservative positions tend to be very simple, e.g.
"drill for more oil" vs. "if we create a market for greenhouse gas emissions we can incentivize a market-based transition to a cleaner...."
"get tough on crime" vs. "focusing on incarceration ratherthan rehabilitation for certain classes of crimes actually increases crime by decimating minority communities and perpetuating a cycle of...."
"the government is bloated" vs.
Etc.
I always though it was interesting how the right is very good at sounding authoritative, but when they try humor it comes across poorly or obviously self serving. The left however is very good with humor and satire, but when they try and speak strongly it more often comes across unclear or whiny.
Call me crazy, but Reagan was a pretty funny guy.
SOPA is throwing the baby out with the bath water.
(And you never throw the baby out with the bath water!)
(And you never throw the baby out with the bath water!)
The shoplifting metaphor might be simple and relatable, but it's inaccurate because it's not just someone stealing in your store, it's other people putting stolen merchandise in your store to be re-stolen by someone else.
The real metaphor is, "If you own a pawn shop and let obviously dirt broke people come in and sell you stolen Rolexes all the time, you may be shut down."
The real metaphor is, "If you own a pawn shop and let obviously dirt broke people come in and sell you stolen Rolexes all the time, you may be shut down."
No, that's not it either. It's not that your letting people do stuff you know they can't legally be doing. It's that your pawn shop is so incredibly huge that you can't be sure what's happening everywhere at any given time. By the time you get to one side to see what's happened, the other side has turned into Somalia. You put up signs, hire security guards but the floor space is so enormous it would be prohibitively expensive to keep any wrong doers out and trying to do so would cost more than the whole thing is making in revenue.
It's not that mine is incorrect. It's that we're both correct, plus a whole other slew of equally plausible scenarios. In plenty of cases it is what I described, plus the owner is painfully aware that his shoppers mostly only buy from the fake watch guys, and they hide behind a description like the one you've crafted, crying "poor me, my job is so hard."
I would put i like this:
It is like you own this huge supermarket. Lately some shady guys have started putting flyers with information on where you could buy pirated merchandise from China for cheap.
With SOPA this would mean the Governmnet could shut down _your_ supermarket because someone found one of these flyers at your place.
It is like you own this huge supermarket. Lately some shady guys have started putting flyers with information on where you could buy pirated merchandise from China for cheap.
With SOPA this would mean the Governmnet could shut down _your_ supermarket because someone found one of these flyers at your place.
Another take: in this huge supermarket two random people talk about drugs, and a police officer overhears their ramblings, so the supermarket gets shut down.
I think this would work best in communicating with an older audience. It's like shutting down the whole store because the customers are sharing illegal information with each other.
One more suggested metaphor -
If some kids at a mall talk about shoplifting, all the malls that company owns get shut down without a trial.
We know and understand user-created content because we've been using it (and creating it) for years. That's the thing we need to get across to the great masses - not that websites should be penalised for giving out unauthorised copies (which they'll largely agree with), but that a huge percentage of the websites they use and love are no more in constant control of what appears on every page of their websites than malls are able to control every last thing that happens within them, and that the penalties should be organised accordingly.
If some kids at a mall talk about shoplifting, all the malls that company owns get shut down without a trial.
We know and understand user-created content because we've been using it (and creating it) for years. That's the thing we need to get across to the great masses - not that websites should be penalised for giving out unauthorised copies (which they'll largely agree with), but that a huge percentage of the websites they use and love are no more in constant control of what appears on every page of their websites than malls are able to control every last thing that happens within them, and that the penalties should be organised accordingly.
We really need to do a better job arguing this case. This is about justice vs. injustice, not jobs in tech vs. jobs in movies/tv.
Here's the analogy I tweeted a couple weeks ago: "SOPA is the equivalent of allowing Disney to shut down a restaurant because a customer drew Mickey Mouse on a napkin."
I think anyone can recognize the injustice in that.
Here's the analogy I tweeted a couple weeks ago: "SOPA is the equivalent of allowing Disney to shut down a restaurant because a customer drew Mickey Mouse on a napkin."
I think anyone can recognize the injustice in that.
I've been offline for the last few hours, just came back to start picking through the notes. I like this Mickey Mouse analogy most of all the ones I've seen so far. Concise and relatable (and accurate).
I agree that the Mickey Mouse analogy is probably more accurate than the shop-lifting analogy but I can't help thinking that it sounds a bit frivolous and contrived on first listen (if you analyze it then it makes perfect sense, but soundbytes shouldn't need analysis).
The shoplifting analogy seems more immediate and straight-forward to me. I understand that the shoplifting analogy equates piracy with theft but the distinction isn't really all that relevant to SOPA. Uncle Art probably equates piracy with theft anyway, so why fight the battle on two fronts?
One final point on this, by indirectly conceding the piracy/theft point you're less likely to step out of alignment with Uncle Art thus making it easier for him to agree with everything else you say. :)
P.S. I know we're all probably focusing too much on that killer soundbyte but I do think it was the missing ingredient. :)
The shoplifting analogy seems more immediate and straight-forward to me. I understand that the shoplifting analogy equates piracy with theft but the distinction isn't really all that relevant to SOPA. Uncle Art probably equates piracy with theft anyway, so why fight the battle on two fronts?
One final point on this, by indirectly conceding the piracy/theft point you're less likely to step out of alignment with Uncle Art thus making it easier for him to agree with everything else you say. :)
P.S. I know we're all probably focusing too much on that killer soundbyte but I do think it was the missing ingredient. :)
I guess my analogy is a bit contrived, but definitely less than this legislation ;)
If we abstract analogies too far, I worry that people will ignore them. I tried to leave Uncle Art with very few dots to connect by only changing the "host" business in my analogy.
If we abstract analogies too far, I worry that people will ignore them. I tried to leave Uncle Art with very few dots to connect by only changing the "host" business in my analogy.
How about this slight modification: "SOPA is the equivalent of allowing the US Government to shut down a restaurant because Disney thinks a customer may have drawn Mickey Mouse on a napkin."
Thanks. I love this feedback and agree that connecting with normals is vital; it's something that comes up again & again with my girlfriend as I "pitch" her on how to discuss these bills.
The struggle I have with metaphors like yours is that it doesn't accurately describe piracy (because it's not the same as theft). This feels a bit disingenuous, but definitely makes for a great soundbyte.
It's a catch-22: the thoughtful, reasonable explanation of why it's a terrible idea will never get through to anyone except the people who already know.
The struggle I have with metaphors like yours is that it doesn't accurately describe piracy (because it's not the same as theft). This feels a bit disingenuous, but definitely makes for a great soundbyte.
It's a catch-22: the thoughtful, reasonable explanation of why it's a terrible idea will never get through to anyone except the people who already know.
Hey, what about this?
I think a very accurate, yet simple metaphor would be something like:
Imagine this: If a man sings a Lady Gaga song in a park, then Universal Music Group will be able to close the park.
(Turn it into: "If a girl sings a Lady Gaga song in her school, then Universal Music Group might ask to close the school." and you may win every mother's support =P )
Or also: If a thief tells someone where he left a stolen wallet, government may close the buidling where the talk took place.
PS: Hi everyone, I'm from Argentina, but I really care about SOPA because it may set a very bad precedent in Internet legislation. Right now, in a lot of countries, this kind of bill would make the proponent look like someone come from Iranian or Chinese government. A fascist person looking for a way to censor the Internet. But if this bill passes, a GLOBAL consequence will be that politicians in other countries (like Argentina, in my case) will say: "Look, this law was approved in the USA. And they care about Freedom of Speach, so, it's not a big deal. -End of story-". And of course, they will use laws like this, to censor much more than just piracy. I dont want to sound fatalistic, but if this bill passes... well, we can start saying goodbye to the Internet as we know it.
I think a very accurate, yet simple metaphor would be something like:
Imagine this: If a man sings a Lady Gaga song in a park, then Universal Music Group will be able to close the park.
(Turn it into: "If a girl sings a Lady Gaga song in her school, then Universal Music Group might ask to close the school." and you may win every mother's support =P )
Or also: If a thief tells someone where he left a stolen wallet, government may close the buidling where the talk took place.
PS: Hi everyone, I'm from Argentina, but I really care about SOPA because it may set a very bad precedent in Internet legislation. Right now, in a lot of countries, this kind of bill would make the proponent look like someone come from Iranian or Chinese government. A fascist person looking for a way to censor the Internet. But if this bill passes, a GLOBAL consequence will be that politicians in other countries (like Argentina, in my case) will say: "Look, this law was approved in the USA. And they care about Freedom of Speach, so, it's not a big deal. -End of story-". And of course, they will use laws like this, to censor much more than just piracy. I dont want to sound fatalistic, but if this bill passes... well, we can start saying goodbye to the Internet as we know it.
A better analogy might abstract away the merits of copyright infringement, and focus on who got punished for that infringement. Maybe something like: "Imagine if the government shut down Walmart because one of its customers was caught handing out ripped Beyonce CDs."
Yes.. I like this. What do you think about this one? http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3426990
I don't think it's a correct analogy, since the copyright infringer isn't doing any possible (or perceived) damage to Disney. I think the pattern should be: "Company X gets shut down because one of its customers broke Law Y at the expense of Company Z".
And the best Company X I can think of is a sports franchise. (A customer base that is too large to monitor in real time, and that forms a community that would get shut down along with the business.) So what are Y and Z? I don't think they even have to differ from the reality. "Imagine if the government shut down the Boston Red Sox because one of its fans was handing out ripped Beyonce CDs." Or maybe the fan should be selling fake Rolexes, since that probably actually happens.
And the best Company X I can think of is a sports franchise. (A customer base that is too large to monitor in real time, and that forms a community that would get shut down along with the business.) So what are Y and Z? I don't think they even have to differ from the reality. "Imagine if the government shut down the Boston Red Sox because one of its fans was handing out ripped Beyonce CDs." Or maybe the fan should be selling fake Rolexes, since that probably actually happens.
Unfortunately, while you may stumble upon an analogy that describes what could happen to some "poor business", they will all be disingenuous because your analogy leaves out the scenarios that Uncle Art would probably want to see action taken on.
What is happening in many cases is the Boston Red Sox gave the guy selling the Rolexes a booth to sell them in, and directed people searching for "Rolexes" to his booth. The Red Sox hung up ads along the way and made money from all the people who walked past those ads on their way to get Rolexes. Someone reported those Rolexes stolen, so the Red Sox kicked the guy out with no penalty to the guy or the Red Sox, and then let some other fake watch seller setup shop in the same booth. This kept happening for years, and Rolex had to lay off 4000 people, while the Red Sox made a killing.
What is happening in many cases is the Boston Red Sox gave the guy selling the Rolexes a booth to sell them in, and directed people searching for "Rolexes" to his booth. The Red Sox hung up ads along the way and made money from all the people who walked past those ads on their way to get Rolexes. Someone reported those Rolexes stolen, so the Red Sox kicked the guy out with no penalty to the guy or the Red Sox, and then let some other fake watch seller setup shop in the same booth. This kept happening for years, and Rolex had to lay off 4000 people, while the Red Sox made a killing.
I think the annology needs to be as close as posible to relating to "real life" and products and services being infringed. How about:
SOPA is like a law that would allow your local bar to be shut down if some of its customers meet there to swap pirated Music and Films, only the bar is website on-line.
SOPA is like a law that would allow your local bar to be shut down if some of its customers meet there to swap pirated Music and Films, only the bar is website on-line.
Have you tried Graffiti analogy?
Imagine you are a shop owner and someone writes something offensive on the outside of your building without you even knowing about it. This bill would allow the government to shutdown your store before you even knew the writing existed.
Today we already have in place a mechanism to notify the store owner, but SOPA changes that. It makes it possible to shut down entrepenuers, the store owners and wealth creators on the internet, before they even have a chance to get started helping to revitalize the American economy.
Imagine you are a shop owner and someone writes something offensive on the outside of your building without you even knowing about it. This bill would allow the government to shutdown your store before you even knew the writing existed.
Today we already have in place a mechanism to notify the store owner, but SOPA changes that. It makes it possible to shut down entrepenuers, the store owners and wealth creators on the internet, before they even have a chance to get started helping to revitalize the American economy.
(Devil's advocate)
"But how would you not notice someone graffitied your wall?"
I dig this analogy: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3426990
"But how would you not notice someone graffitied your wall?"
I dig this analogy: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3426990
I think that one is better too.
I was picturing an outside wall with the shop owner inside all day behind the counter. The Mickey Mouse one is more concise though.
I was picturing an outside wall with the shop owner inside all day behind the counter. The Mickey Mouse one is more concise though.
A better base for the analogy might be a mall, since there are a variety of situations where SOPA could result in a slew of virtual storefronts being taken down due to the actions of a customer in a single store that wasn't doing proper policing of its customers (never mind whether the stores should be responsible for policing their customers, attacking this at the domain level is like shutting down a mall because of the nonviolent actions of a few customers, and blaming it on the mall.)
Related to Graffiti, I came up with this:
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3427835
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3427835
'The government could shut down your pub cause 2 old guys were at a table bitch'n about Obama.'
It might feel disingenuous, but an analogy does not always have to be perfectly aligned with reality (since, of course, it just an analogy).
If the analogy is somewhat askew, but still suitable, just beginning it with "A _crude_ analogy would be ... " should amend that.
Either way, I do not believe that the faults in analogy would be any real disadvantage in a debate. Here's why:
• Old Grandpa would not be tech-savvy enough to notice the flaw at all, but he would still understand the intended message of the analogy
• The knowledgeable people that support you would understand what you really mean, and either way would have no interest in pointing out flaws in your arguments
• The knowledgeable people that oppose you (e.g Hollywood) would not want to point out the flaw for anything in the world, because then they would have to concede that piracy is not theft (a notion they are working very hard on establishing).
But if you want a more fitting analogy, how about something were people plan illegal activities in the store, instead of shoplifting? The police finds out that some customers have been discussing smuggling in a toystore that you own - the whole store gets shut down without anyone contacting you first.
If the analogy is somewhat askew, but still suitable, just beginning it with "A _crude_ analogy would be ... " should amend that.
Either way, I do not believe that the faults in analogy would be any real disadvantage in a debate. Here's why:
• Old Grandpa would not be tech-savvy enough to notice the flaw at all, but he would still understand the intended message of the analogy
• The knowledgeable people that support you would understand what you really mean, and either way would have no interest in pointing out flaws in your arguments
• The knowledgeable people that oppose you (e.g Hollywood) would not want to point out the flaw for anything in the world, because then they would have to concede that piracy is not theft (a notion they are working very hard on establishing).
But if you want a more fitting analogy, how about something were people plan illegal activities in the store, instead of shoplifting? The police finds out that some customers have been discussing smuggling in a toystore that you own - the whole store gets shut down without anyone contacting you first.
Right there is why the bad guys always win - they don't care that an effective metaphor is not strictly accurate. We are ham-strung by our integrity, which is a sad state of affairs.
>"The struggle I have with metaphors like yours is that it doesn't accurately describe piracy (because it's not the same as theft). This feels a bit disingenuous, but definitely makes for a great soundbyte."
Most older people seem to think piracy=stealing, and I suspect any argument designed to make a distinction will probably just steel their resolve.
The only way to explain how its bad is to latch onto examples of things that were made possible by the DMCA, and would no longer be possible under SOPA. So I would focus on internet stuff most people DO know about. Basically what you said about reddit, but applied to even more mainstream 2.0 sites. The obvious ones-
"If SOPA had been in place, youtube would never have existed, and if SOPA passes, youtube will probably shut down."
"If SOPA had been in place, WIKIPEDIA could easily have been shut down for something as simple as a user uploading a picture of a celebrity for their entry"
Those sites are big enough that they're known even by older people. At the very least they've heard about them. And if not you can talk about how amazing they are to warm them up.
Then, you can explain that wikipedia has millions and millions of entries by tens of thousands of people, and if the laws are that brittle and unforgiving, collaboration on that scale simply becomes impossible.
Most older people seem to think piracy=stealing, and I suspect any argument designed to make a distinction will probably just steel their resolve.
The only way to explain how its bad is to latch onto examples of things that were made possible by the DMCA, and would no longer be possible under SOPA. So I would focus on internet stuff most people DO know about. Basically what you said about reddit, but applied to even more mainstream 2.0 sites. The obvious ones-
"If SOPA had been in place, youtube would never have existed, and if SOPA passes, youtube will probably shut down."
"If SOPA had been in place, WIKIPEDIA could easily have been shut down for something as simple as a user uploading a picture of a celebrity for their entry"
Those sites are big enough that they're known even by older people. At the very least they've heard about them. And if not you can talk about how amazing they are to warm them up.
Then, you can explain that wikipedia has millions and millions of entries by tens of thousands of people, and if the laws are that brittle and unforgiving, collaboration on that scale simply becomes impossible.
To be fair to Alexis, this was for BloombergTV so I think his emphasis on the creation of wealth (or lack thereof) and the economic impact of SOPA was appropriate.
It's true indeed that this wouldn't be helpful for your Uncle Art.
It's true indeed that this wouldn't be helpful for your Uncle Art.
I was trying to hit my audience of bankers, daytraders, and wealthy people, but I'm very mindful of these Uncle Arts, because in the end they're the ones who will win the day: http://navantigroup.com/content/world-changing-power-reasona...
My favorite analogy on the DNS and monitoring problems:
Since shoplifters use roads to make their getaway, SOPA would have us set up roadblocks to catch all the thieves.
Could we catch more thieves by setting up roadblocks? Of course! So why don't we? For the same reasons SOPA would be bad law: we don't stop and search people in roadblocks (4th amendment prevents unreasonalbe search and seizure). Also, as a practical matter, roads, like DNS, are shared resources and the collateral damage to transportation (and internet routing) would be massive.
Since shoplifters use roads to make their getaway, SOPA would have us set up roadblocks to catch all the thieves.
Could we catch more thieves by setting up roadblocks? Of course! So why don't we? For the same reasons SOPA would be bad law: we don't stop and search people in roadblocks (4th amendment prevents unreasonalbe search and seizure). Also, as a practical matter, roads, like DNS, are shared resources and the collateral damage to transportation (and internet routing) would be massive.
Doesn't work very well, because police do in fact set up roadblocks for any number of reasons, such as drunk driving "checkpoints", and for that matter borders. Anyone using that analogy would just trigger a response of "but SOPA only targets foreign companies, and we do set up roadblocks on our borders".
Using an analogy to aid understanding can seriously backfire when your opponents make fallacious arguments from analogy, because the audience doesn't actually understand the issue so they go with whatever the analogies makes believable.
Using an analogy to aid understanding can seriously backfire when your opponents make fallacious arguments from analogy, because the audience doesn't actually understand the issue so they go with whatever the analogies makes believable.
> "If someone shoplifts in your store, this bill allows the government to shut down your store."
I like the analogy, but it's off by a mark. "If someone leaves stolen goods in your store, this bill allows the government to shut down your store." would be a closer match, but misses a nuance.
"If someone post a notice advertising stolen goods on the community noticeboard in your store, this bill allows the government to shut down your store." would be even closer, but is a little harder to grok.
I like the analogy, but it's off by a mark. "If someone leaves stolen goods in your store, this bill allows the government to shut down your store." would be a closer match, but misses a nuance.
"If someone post a notice advertising stolen goods on the community noticeboard in your store, this bill allows the government to shut down your store." would be even closer, but is a little harder to grok.
The best I could come up with is: "It's like if you were a landlord renting one apartment in a large building to someone you thought was a guitar teacher giving private lessons, but he turned out to be selling stolen jewelry; your whole apartment complex could be shut down by the government before the trial of your tenant took place, even if you evicted the tenant as soon as you discovered criminality."
"If anyone posted a classified ad for stolen goods in your local newspaper, this bill allows the government to shut down the newspaper."
Here's one I just thought of. Maybe not entirely serious:
Prostitution is illegal in most states. SOPA is nearly equivalent to shutting down a bar because somebody went into the bathroom and scrawled "For a good time, call XXX-XXXX" on the wall.
Prostitution is illegal in most states. SOPA is nearly equivalent to shutting down a bar because somebody went into the bathroom and scrawled "For a good time, call XXX-XXXX" on the wall.
I think this is the best fitting analogy so far... You can extend it to further talk about content owners, publishers, user-generated content, paid subscribers and free readers, etc. Newspapers also deal with existing regulations that address the same type of issues, such as first amendment rights vs. libel laws and the public's right to know vs. need for privacy.
Here is what Alexis seemed to be saying in the interview.
- SOPA is bad for websites that rely on user-generated-content (and entrepreneurs like him)
- We (i.e. tech community) intimidated GoDaddy and forced them to back away from their support for SOPA
- One guy made a million dollars by requesting donations on PayPal instead of demanding payments from all users. This is a great example of innovation. The private sector should innovate like this guy (i.e. they should rely on business models that request payments, not require payments)
I realize that SOPA has zero support on HN and that my criticism of Alexis' interview-responses won't be popular. However, imo, a better approach to win public support would be to come up with specific solutions for the copyright problem and also acknowledge that copyright holders do have some legitimate concerns.
- SOPA is bad for websites that rely on user-generated-content (and entrepreneurs like him)
- We (i.e. tech community) intimidated GoDaddy and forced them to back away from their support for SOPA
- One guy made a million dollars by requesting donations on PayPal instead of demanding payments from all users. This is a great example of innovation. The private sector should innovate like this guy (i.e. they should rely on business models that request payments, not require payments)
I realize that SOPA has zero support on HN and that my criticism of Alexis' interview-responses won't be popular. However, imo, a better approach to win public support would be to come up with specific solutions for the copyright problem and also acknowledge that copyright holders do have some legitimate concerns.
SOPA may have zero support on HN (it's not a well-written law) but the MPAA and RIAA have more support than you might assume.
`come up with specific solutions for the copyright problem and also acknowledge that copyright holders do have some legitimate concerns`
As Alexis said that's a problem for their industry. It's quite a false flag to say that the tech sites need to come up with a solution. Additionally, DMCA is already one solution.
As Alexis said that's a problem for their industry. It's quite a false flag to say that the tech sites need to come up with a solution. Additionally, DMCA is already one solution.
I don't want karma, I want useful criticism. We need to win public support. Granted, BloombergTV is far from mainstream, but we're taking babysteps.
We aren't for piracy, we're just aware of how futile trying to legislate against it is. I think we can make a case for this that articulates the genuine problem and still resonates with the average American.
We aren't for piracy, we're just aware of how futile trying to legislate against it is. I think we can make a case for this that articulates the genuine problem and still resonates with the average American.
Noam Chomsky once noted that the problem of the soundbite age is that some questions don't have simple answers that fit inside 30 seconds or 2 minutes.
The main problem with SOPA is that it is not possible to solve a market problem with legislation. Copyright infringement is a market problem, and markets are a lot more effective in delivering solutions than Governments. Consequently, SOPA will utterly fail to prevent copyright infringement, resulting in even MORE draconian laws sometime in the future.
Specific to the problem of music and film is that these markets are highly regulated oligopolies that use their market power to engage in price fixing. Unlike efficient markets, in which there are a range of different prices, the music and film markets only have two prices: Idiotically expensive and free (illegal).
Personally, I would LOVE to pay $1 per episode to watch my favourite HBO series at a time, and in a place of my own choosing. Sadly I cannot. Hence, I either don't watch it at all, or I obtain it by 'other' means. Monopolies/oligopolies only offer one price, and they are free to gouge their customers as long as they can prevent any competition in the market.
In other words, SOPA is NOT about preventing piracy (because that is a hopeless cause, much like the war on drugs), but about protecting the music and film industries illegal, anti-competitive price fixing practices (by way of preventing any other production/distribution of that type of media). Illegal price fixing is a small price that all Governments will gladly pay, as music and film support the propaganda/mythology creation industry of Government.
The simplest solution to prevent piracy would be to open the music and film markets to competition, but that is exactly what the RIAA and MPAA are trying to prevent.
The main problem with SOPA is that it is not possible to solve a market problem with legislation. Copyright infringement is a market problem, and markets are a lot more effective in delivering solutions than Governments. Consequently, SOPA will utterly fail to prevent copyright infringement, resulting in even MORE draconian laws sometime in the future.
Specific to the problem of music and film is that these markets are highly regulated oligopolies that use their market power to engage in price fixing. Unlike efficient markets, in which there are a range of different prices, the music and film markets only have two prices: Idiotically expensive and free (illegal).
Personally, I would LOVE to pay $1 per episode to watch my favourite HBO series at a time, and in a place of my own choosing. Sadly I cannot. Hence, I either don't watch it at all, or I obtain it by 'other' means. Monopolies/oligopolies only offer one price, and they are free to gouge their customers as long as they can prevent any competition in the market.
In other words, SOPA is NOT about preventing piracy (because that is a hopeless cause, much like the war on drugs), but about protecting the music and film industries illegal, anti-competitive price fixing practices (by way of preventing any other production/distribution of that type of media). Illegal price fixing is a small price that all Governments will gladly pay, as music and film support the propaganda/mythology creation industry of Government.
The simplest solution to prevent piracy would be to open the music and film markets to competition, but that is exactly what the RIAA and MPAA are trying to prevent.
> However, imo, a better approach to win public support would be to come up with specific solutions for the copyright problem and also acknowledge that copyright holders do have some legitimate concerns.
The types of solutions that are possible are the types they are least inclined accept. Piracy is not killable without taking away the ability to communicate privately and probably not even then. Soviet attempts merely lead to Samizdat, in spite of going to extreme lengths to track people down. Also, prior to the internet, copyright infringement was widespread over sneakernet. Attempts to control that via technical means merely taught a generation of kids how to crack software.
That's not to say there are no solutions. William Patry has a new book about copyright reform. There are new ways of doing business. For example, iTunes proved successful, in spite of the fact that anyone who wanted to could have downloaded the same songs for free. None of those things are stuff they want to hear, though. They don't want to change. They don't think they should have to change. But reality has the last word and reality has no qualms about being unfair.
The types of solutions that are possible are the types they are least inclined accept. Piracy is not killable without taking away the ability to communicate privately and probably not even then. Soviet attempts merely lead to Samizdat, in spite of going to extreme lengths to track people down. Also, prior to the internet, copyright infringement was widespread over sneakernet. Attempts to control that via technical means merely taught a generation of kids how to crack software.
That's not to say there are no solutions. William Patry has a new book about copyright reform. There are new ways of doing business. For example, iTunes proved successful, in spite of the fact that anyone who wanted to could have downloaded the same songs for free. None of those things are stuff they want to hear, though. They don't want to change. They don't think they should have to change. But reality has the last word and reality has no qualms about being unfair.
Why not take a more radical approach, and deny that there is a copyright problem. The supposed losses of the entertainment industry are all based on the argument that whatever is downloaded is lost revenue. In fact revenue should be compared to sampling - you try out a lot of stuff, and only buy the best. But you do buy. I download hundreds of e-books that are not locally available in bookstores, I browse through them, and purchase the best ones through Amazon. I do a lot more buying than if I did no downloading, so it's a net gain for the publishing industry.
Now, the evidence points to the fact that downloaders are also the biggest buyers of CDs and DVDs. If you look at it that way, there have been no lost revenues, and in fact the entertainment industry has benefited immensely from free downloading, which has helped it to reach a much broader market.
Now, the evidence points to the fact that downloaders are also the biggest buyers of CDs and DVDs. If you look at it that way, there have been no lost revenues, and in fact the entertainment industry has benefited immensely from free downloading, which has helped it to reach a much broader market.
Agreed. The shoplifting analogy isn't even necessary, just an accurate depiction of what is so scary: "If just one user uploads copyright material to youtube, SOPA allows the government to shut down all of youtube. Even if youtube removes the material as quickly as possible."
This is similar to how I described it to my relatives as well. They know enough about Facebook to understand - I told them that if I took a picture of a painting in a gallery and posted it on my facebook wall, the government could take down all of facebook.
Another analogy: "If someone gets pulled over for speeding in their Ford Mustang, Ford is liable for their illegal behavior"
Why is the internet so afraid of ethical behavior?
This is the problem with how these bills are named.
SOPA stands for "Stop Piracy Online Act". I.e., how can you be against something that stops theft?
It would have a completely different mainstream reaction if it were called the "Censor the Internet Act" or "Stop Free Speech Online Act".
This is the problem with how these bills are named.
SOPA stands for "Stop Piracy Online Act". I.e., how can you be against something that stops theft?
It would have a completely different mainstream reaction if it were called the "Censor the Internet Act" or "Stop Free Speech Online Act".
It's a little more in depth than the shop lifting analogy.
I like to use the following: "A person tells the government that they saw a TV in the local pawn shop which is really theirs. They never asked the pawn shop owner for it back and they have no reason to suspect the pawn shop owner knows it is stolen. The government will then shut down the pawn shop without even talking to the owner first or having significant proof that the item was really stolen. Every phone book will be required to remove the pawn shop's phone number from it and maps will not be allowed to show the pawn shop. The pawn shop can then attempt to get their store back from the government but if it turns out that the item really was stolen then the government will not return it." In the analogy the pawn shop is a website, the owner of the item is the copyright holder, the item is copyrighted content, and the removal of the phone number and map info is dns-delisting and search-engine de-indexing.
I think the above analogy holds up fairly well and clearly demonstrates the ridiculous measures SOPA goes to. It's also much more easily understandable by non-tech-savvy people. Please tell me if it is not accurate in some way or is unclear.
I like to use the following: "A person tells the government that they saw a TV in the local pawn shop which is really theirs. They never asked the pawn shop owner for it back and they have no reason to suspect the pawn shop owner knows it is stolen. The government will then shut down the pawn shop without even talking to the owner first or having significant proof that the item was really stolen. Every phone book will be required to remove the pawn shop's phone number from it and maps will not be allowed to show the pawn shop. The pawn shop can then attempt to get their store back from the government but if it turns out that the item really was stolen then the government will not return it." In the analogy the pawn shop is a website, the owner of the item is the copyright holder, the item is copyrighted content, and the removal of the phone number and map info is dns-delisting and search-engine de-indexing.
I think the above analogy holds up fairly well and clearly demonstrates the ridiculous measures SOPA goes to. It's also much more easily understandable by non-tech-savvy people. Please tell me if it is not accurate in some way or is unclear.
Thanks for writing this. While it's more thoughtful, it's also much more verbose -- deadly in our soundbyte-driven media.
also while all analogies have problems the verbosity here introduces more complications.
Technically the store isn't shut down it's only removed from the phonebook. At this point the analogy breaks down as that doesn't sound as drastic at all. However, on the web, being removed from DNS would be a death sentence to legitimate sites but ironically (and tragically) not for sites dedicated to copyright infringement.
Technically the store isn't shut down it's only removed from the phonebook. At this point the analogy breaks down as that doesn't sound as drastic at all. However, on the web, being removed from DNS would be a death sentence to legitimate sites but ironically (and tragically) not for sites dedicated to copyright infringement.
It is definitely more accurate than the shoplifting story. However, pawn shops don't have the best reputations to begin with, so you'd be comparing yourself to something that people already find sleazy/sketchy/dirty/etc.
Edit: If you want to add some sympathy, replace pawn shop with Salvation Army and TV with pair of jeans.
Edit: If you want to add some sympathy, replace pawn shop with Salvation Army and TV with pair of jeans.
The problem I have with the shoplifting analogy as presented is that someone unfamiliar with SOPA might conclude that the website at risk must also be the victim of the crime. How about analogies to other crimes like stealing from another customer, assaulting another customer, etc. What's ironic is that the bar/nightclub industry is effectively governed by such a law. It seems that, when patrons decide to do bad things in a bar, the government can revoke the establishment's liquor license. Even the number of police visits to an establishment due to customers' bad behavior has been used against the establishment. While I might have sympathy for the government if the bartenders were encouraging drunkenness, few other establishments must worry about their own culpability when a customer does something bad on premises.
Other analogies:
A car is used as a getaway vehicle in a robbery so the government goes after the car manufacturer.
A safety deposit box contains an illegal item, so the bank gets shut down.
A car is used as a getaway vehicle in a robbery so the government goes after the car manufacturer.
A safety deposit box contains an illegal item, so the bank gets shut down.
Two people are overheard talking in a grocery store about how you can make your own orange juice at home from oranges. Tropicana shuts the store down.
I agree that getting our aunts, uncles, etc to "get it" is very important. But I wonder if most of them even know this is an issue. Time for an anecdote:
While visiting my parents for Christmas, I scoffed when we drove past a car with a Lamar Smith bumper sticker (they live in TX). My parents asked me why I didn't like him; he was a stand-up representative as far as they knew. I mentioned SOPA and how horrible it is and they both drew a blank...turns out they had never even heard of SOPA. I was shocked since they watch the local and national news almost daily and discuss any story they see regarding technology/the internet with me.
While visiting my parents for Christmas, I scoffed when we drove past a car with a Lamar Smith bumper sticker (they live in TX). My parents asked me why I didn't like him; he was a stand-up representative as far as they knew. I mentioned SOPA and how horrible it is and they both drew a blank...turns out they had never even heard of SOPA. I was shocked since they watch the local and national news almost daily and discuss any story they see regarding technology/the internet with me.
There is another comment in this thread by squeee which is the first one I read that my Uncle Art would understand, something like, "If someone shoplifts in your store, this bill allows the government to shut down your store."
Actually, it's more like, if the government gets a tip that someone shoplifted in your store, the government can instantly shut your store down for a long period of time while it gets investigated.
Actually, it's more like, if the government gets a tip that someone shoplifted in your store, the government can instantly shut your store down for a long period of time while it gets investigated.
I agree, make it simple and something the layman could understand. I'd adjust the analogy to "If someone shoplifts a DVD from Best Buy, this bill allows the government to shut down the store."
Is that really true (in the sense of being analogous to what the bill does)? I thought it was more like, "If someone carries a shoplifted CD into Best Buy and leaves it on a shelf, it allows the government to shut down all Best Buys".
Good point. Maybe this would be more fitting:
"If a store in a mall sells counterfeit goods, the entire mall gets shutdown"
"If a store in a mall sells counterfeit goods, the entire mall gets shutdown"
Am I the only one that was upset at her seeming to dismiss you as a "hoodie wearing geek" at the end there?
I've been on a number of times (occasionally in a hoodie, which their producers really seemed to like and I'm certainly comfortable in) and decided I should dress a little better after my grandfather told me I "looked like a bum." He watched BloombergTV 24-7, so I figured he's a good representation of the demo.
She's just teasing - she's the one who invited me on as their tech contributor in the first place: http://search1.bloomberg.com/search/?content_type=all&pa...
I don't believe anyone should be judged on their attire, but if it'll get some people to listen, so it goes.
She's just teasing - she's the one who invited me on as their tech contributor in the first place: http://search1.bloomberg.com/search/?content_type=all&pa...
I don't believe anyone should be judged on their attire, but if it'll get some people to listen, so it goes.
would go whole hog and get someone from the SOPA PR swat team to help you pick an interview suit/blazer - looked OK, but would get a solid red tie, and something about the shirt collar and suit looked a little out of whack. Only superficial people don't judge by appearances LOL (Wilde)
agree with what other people said about tightening up talking points - wouldn't hesitate to give specific examples about your own companies and the services people use that would be turned off if someone does something stupid, reviews, social networking sites etc.,
as other people said, would try to focus your attention on the interviewer and the camera like they're two friends you're engaging, avoid looking around into space.
good camera presence, good job!
agree with what other people said about tightening up talking points - wouldn't hesitate to give specific examples about your own companies and the services people use that would be turned off if someone does something stupid, reviews, social networking sites etc.,
as other people said, would try to focus your attention on the interviewer and the camera like they're two friends you're engaging, avoid looking around into space.
good camera presence, good job!
Well done!
Good talk.
Nice work - you totally owned it.
Good work :D
I love how everyone keeps asking where is the compromise from the tech industry. This bill is like someone saying "Hi Bob, this store you have here is great, but sometimes someone comes in and steals one of my products off your shelves and since you can't guarantee me that I will get paid for every one of my products that walks out the door I'm going to have to shut down your store until you can."
But, to answer your question; great job. Did you get the sense that she truly had any idea what would happen if SOPA/PIPA pass as they are written today?
But, to answer your question; great job. Did you get the sense that she truly had any idea what would happen if SOPA/PIPA pass as they are written today?
> I love how everyone keeps asking where is the compromise from the tech industry.
Politics lives by the fallacy of middle ground: the compromise is always right, and anyone refusing to compromise is always wrong and can be safely ignored. Put that together with the Overton window (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window), and politics compromises its way towards whatever position it wants. Zeno's Paradox, applied to law.
Politics lives by the fallacy of middle ground: the compromise is always right, and anyone refusing to compromise is always wrong and can be safely ignored. Put that together with the Overton window (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window), and politics compromises its way towards whatever position it wants. Zeno's Paradox, applied to law.
Yes, I find it very frustrating too. My response would probably be "The compromise was the DMCA. Usually when I make a compromise I try to stick by it."
Nice interview!
Nice interview!
This analogy is as bad as people who say that piracy is the same as stealing from a shop - in your story, the content producer does get paid for that product, it's Bob the store owner who loses money. You think shops can turn around to their suppliers and say "hey, a few things got stolen so we'd like a refund for them"?
Looking sharp. We're lucky to have a charismatic figure from our demographic who can articulate the issues that matter to us.
- From the outside-in perspective, you carry the impression of being a young, successful, and likable Silicon Valley entrepreneur.
- From the inside-out, you have the ultimate cred, not just for starting one of the most influential online communities but imbuing it with your distinctive ethos of caring, humor and nerd.
With these two identities, you're in the position to really help influence how the future is shaped.
- From the outside-in perspective, you carry the impression of being a young, successful, and likable Silicon Valley entrepreneur.
- From the inside-out, you have the ultimate cred, not just for starting one of the most influential online communities but imbuing it with your distinctive ethos of caring, humor and nerd.
With these two identities, you're in the position to really help influence how the future is shaped.
Thank you. reddit was started and sold from Somerville, MA though ;)
It's going to take much more than a few TV news appearances, though. It's on all of us to motivate our friends & family to educate their representatives about the horrors of these bills. We're on the right side of this, but it's going to take a concerted effort from all of us to win the day.
I may be getting another chance to return to Washington later this month to meet with decision-makers. I'll be back here to solicit feedback on my testimony.
https://plus.google.com/113164038788726940319/posts/ab9eFgmo...
Oh, and be sure to check out http://engineadvocacy.org
It's going to take much more than a few TV news appearances, though. It's on all of us to motivate our friends & family to educate their representatives about the horrors of these bills. We're on the right side of this, but it's going to take a concerted effort from all of us to win the day.
I may be getting another chance to return to Washington later this month to meet with decision-makers. I'll be back here to solicit feedback on my testimony.
https://plus.google.com/113164038788726940319/posts/ab9eFgmo...
Oh, and be sure to check out http://engineadvocacy.org
Good job Alexis :)
Very well said. And nice suit! ;)
Nice suit and great job!
Quite a grilling from the nice lady. As usual her facts were shaky, and this might be an important time to adopt more mainstream arguments. We're familiar with the nuances, but often miss the important points.
1) These laws will not prevent IP infringement. They might not even reduce it. They will definitely not increase profits.
2) These laws will hinder domestic innovation in software, but will not stop innovation - it will just happen elsewhere (probably China).
3) Enforcement of these laws is extrajudicial. If someone does not like something on a site, they can claim IP infringement and have the site removed without a trial. That isn't even prudent, never-mind upholding the ideals of Americans.
SOPA and PIPA won't help Hollywood, will cripple Silicon Valley, and will create a means of silencing unwanted speech. I can't see how anyone who understands the reality of the situation could support them. You might as well legislate sunny days and outlaw umbrellas.
I'm glad that you spoke for all of us in such a public manner. It takes nerve and resolve to stand in front of that camera.
1) These laws will not prevent IP infringement. They might not even reduce it. They will definitely not increase profits.
2) These laws will hinder domestic innovation in software, but will not stop innovation - it will just happen elsewhere (probably China).
3) Enforcement of these laws is extrajudicial. If someone does not like something on a site, they can claim IP infringement and have the site removed without a trial. That isn't even prudent, never-mind upholding the ideals of Americans.
SOPA and PIPA won't help Hollywood, will cripple Silicon Valley, and will create a means of silencing unwanted speech. I can't see how anyone who understands the reality of the situation could support them. You might as well legislate sunny days and outlaw umbrellas.
I'm glad that you spoke for all of us in such a public manner. It takes nerve and resolve to stand in front of that camera.
It's an achievement when you have better presence then the reporter!
Great performance! For the amount of time they gave you to speak, you hit most of the main points (and notably, using specific examples we've seen lately).
It's too bad she didn't open the window for you to stick a jab out at the film/music industry - but you pretty much covered it [politely] by saying it's up to them to innovate.
We all know the speed at which updated encryptions techniques are created and then cracked. Thus, the film/music industry should not be looking to secure their work (i.e. Blu-ray), but should instead explore and create new models for distribution.
"Invent."
It's too bad she didn't open the window for you to stick a jab out at the film/music industry - but you pretty much covered it [politely] by saying it's up to them to innovate.
We all know the speed at which updated encryptions techniques are created and then cracked. Thus, the film/music industry should not be looking to secure their work (i.e. Blu-ray), but should instead explore and create new models for distribution.
"Invent."
Just in case anyone else is wondering, the video won't load if Ghostery is running. Incredibly lame.
I had no problem with click-to-run enabled in Chrome.
You did an excellent job, Alexis. Thank you for being out there. I hope that other big media outlets are calling!
Notice the blatant verbal blunder the reporter makes in the first few minutes, she says: "SOPA would allow the government and private companies to shut down websites enabling copyright infringement..."
Is there a word missing there perhaps? A word that we've become accustomed to in its routine presence in the media?
When members of the media talk about crimes the word "alleged" might as well be "uh" given the frequency it drops from their mouths. But not here.
Even a news outlet as savvy as Bloomberg is utterly clueless about the pitfalls of erasing the presumption of innocence and due process for the online world.
Is there a word missing there perhaps? A word that we've become accustomed to in its routine presence in the media?
When members of the media talk about crimes the word "alleged" might as well be "uh" given the frequency it drops from their mouths. But not here.
Even a news outlet as savvy as Bloomberg is utterly clueless about the pitfalls of erasing the presumption of innocence and due process for the online world.
That was one of the most rational discussions about the SOPA debate that I have seen. There is far too much vitriolic debate over the extremes of this type of legislation, it was nice to see you avoid that entirely. Your reference to Louis C.K. managed to subtlety communicate why SOPA is more about power than preventing piracy, a focal point that is often missed. Well done.
I think the one weakness was using the phrase 'user-generated website' out of context, because understanding what this means is really the key to getting people to understand the implications of the bill. I think most people probably have a vague idea of what user generated content is, but I'm not sure they would have connected all the dots from just this phrase, in terms of understanding why exactly the bill would cause sites like reddit, ebay, google, etc. to get shut down. Overall pretty good though, especially considering how insane live TV is.
How wrong is it to just simplify and say "websites?"
Great job, it's really refreshing to hear this sort of interview :) Thanks for doing it.
One thing to remember when arguing about SOPA in a forum that encompasses a broader audience than Hacker News or Reddit is that not everyone is involved in the internet industry or even primarily a knowledge worker.
Think about how to appeal to someone who is retried or involved in managing a bakery or who runs a flower shop. We don't want to come off as a bunch of elitist nerds. We want them to understand that we're concerned about the future of innovation in this country and the preservation of free speech. We should focus on explaining how SOPA wildly oversteps the bounds of reasonable measures to prevent piracy and causes an enormous amount of collateral damage to the rest of the economy and innovation.
The store analogy was a pretty good start, IMHO.
Think about how to appeal to someone who is retried or involved in managing a bakery or who runs a flower shop. We don't want to come off as a bunch of elitist nerds. We want them to understand that we're concerned about the future of innovation in this country and the preservation of free speech. We should focus on explaining how SOPA wildly oversteps the bounds of reasonable measures to prevent piracy and causes an enormous amount of collateral damage to the rest of the economy and innovation.
The store analogy was a pretty good start, IMHO.
Yes, I think we're cooking up the perfect analogy in this thread. It needs to be as honest as it is relatable as it is succinct :)
Great job with the Louis CK example, highlighting the solution being innovation not castration. Might be good to add how hysterical the music industry was with piracy a few years ago and how the problem was solved legitametly by the innovation provided by Apple's iTunes store.
Well, actually iTunes is not such a great example for the music industry because iTunes got them by their balls with Apple having significant leverage when it comes to negotiating with music labels. Not only that, but the music industry lost significant control over what hits to promote - because the iTunes chart is now an important validator of hits.
But the music industry is to be blamed for this - for a long time all the music you could buy from iTunes was DRM-enabled. This worked in Apple's favor, contributing to the popularity of iTunes, because once hooked, the millions of iPod customers couldn't switch to something else easily without losing the music they've bought.
So who pushed DRM on (honest) customers, punishing them for not pirating? They made their own bed, now they are bitching about it.
But the music industry is to be blamed for this - for a long time all the music you could buy from iTunes was DRM-enabled. This worked in Apple's favor, contributing to the popularity of iTunes, because once hooked, the millions of iPod customers couldn't switch to something else easily without losing the music they've bought.
So who pushed DRM on (honest) customers, punishing them for not pirating? They made their own bed, now they are bitching about it.
The argument that a company might not have started if this law were in effect isn't a valid one, as the fact that a company exists in no way has an impact on whether or not something is good or bad.
Otherwise, I like how you mentioned PIPA at the beginning as well - too many people are forgetting what else is going on behind SOPA.
Otherwise, I like how you mentioned PIPA at the beginning as well - too many people are forgetting what else is going on behind SOPA.
From my point of view, the 3 important points on SOPA, and your grade on them:
1) This will kill innovation in the US, hurting job growth.
1) This will kill innovation in the US, hurting job growth.
Mentioned
Not mentioned at all
Not mentioned at all.I should have stressed #2 but deliberately left out #3 because my audience was Bloomberg. I'm really keen on finding a great, honest analogy that we can tie this all together with.
0) The utter destruction of due process and freedom of speech (most of the bill of rights) with respect to the internet, which is rapidly becoming the dominant means of political and private discourse and business in the 21st century.
I really like your comment about more money being spent on legislation than innovation. I really wish this could be emphasized because this models the real cost of this bill. Should web companies invest more in technology or lawyers? A better service or stricter laws?
It was really strong! However, since that's not the most constructive line, I'll try to point out a few things :)
1) Some would recommend not saying "I think" or "I feel" in interview situations. You're the expert -- what you say is fact and the truth. It simply is, not what "you think." I know this is a belligerent, but his is a big issue, so don't forget to pull out the rhetorical stops. However, "we think" may work in these instances. It's congenial, yet conveys that you have the backing of many (and you do, quite frankly), and that you are a thought leader.
2) You need to begin to build some sort of presence in Washington. You're well positioned to do so, and it's the most likely way to stop SOPA/PIPA. Get meetings with as many elected official there as you can, and educate them. It's what Big Media does, and its how they wrote SOPA/PIPA. If you don't think our policymakers know enough about the internet, teach them -- they're smart people, all in all. IIRC you had some success with individual meetings during the first SOPA/PIPA hearings, so you know what I mean. Bloomberg interviews, boycotts, and blackouts are incredibly valuable, but they all pale in comparison to meetings with people who vote on the policy.
Point 2 will of course prompt the question "How the heck is Alexis supposed to meet with these guys, cmon?" My answer: you're an entrepreneur. Hustle. Do what it takes :)
1) Some would recommend not saying "I think" or "I feel" in interview situations. You're the expert -- what you say is fact and the truth. It simply is, not what "you think." I know this is a belligerent, but his is a big issue, so don't forget to pull out the rhetorical stops. However, "we think" may work in these instances. It's congenial, yet conveys that you have the backing of many (and you do, quite frankly), and that you are a thought leader.
2) You need to begin to build some sort of presence in Washington. You're well positioned to do so, and it's the most likely way to stop SOPA/PIPA. Get meetings with as many elected official there as you can, and educate them. It's what Big Media does, and its how they wrote SOPA/PIPA. If you don't think our policymakers know enough about the internet, teach them -- they're smart people, all in all. IIRC you had some success with individual meetings during the first SOPA/PIPA hearings, so you know what I mean. Bloomberg interviews, boycotts, and blackouts are incredibly valuable, but they all pale in comparison to meetings with people who vote on the policy.
Point 2 will of course prompt the question "How the heck is Alexis supposed to meet with these guys, cmon?" My answer: you're an entrepreneur. Hustle. Do what it takes :)
Thanks! I prefer the constructive stuff.
1) Yes, you're absolutely right - it matters and I've gotta break the habit.
2) I actually had a really productive set of meetings with a bunch of reps, sens, and their staffs back in Nov. One of whom, Chaffetz [R-Utah], has been a good voice of reason in House Judiciary Committee Meetings: https://plus.google.com/113164038788726940319/posts/ab9eFgmo... I'm doing everything I can to go back - and early signs are looking promising.
1) Yes, you're absolutely right - it matters and I've gotta break the habit.
2) I actually had a really productive set of meetings with a bunch of reps, sens, and their staffs back in Nov. One of whom, Chaffetz [R-Utah], has been a good voice of reason in House Judiciary Committee Meetings: https://plus.google.com/113164038788726940319/posts/ab9eFgmo... I'm doing everything I can to go back - and early signs are looking promising.
Ha ha, you had to wear a tie for the exchange floor.
Also, wadsworth constant applies.
Also, wadsworth constant applies.
"We have been spending our money innovating instead of lobbying." I'm happy you got this in there. Even though it's mildly elitist it's very true.
You did great. And you looked sharp. Good job. For the next interview it would be great if you could paint a picture of post SOPA internet. Try to say, "if it passes we will HAVE to shut down reddit and most likely facebook, twitter and youtube will be gone as well".
Great job, and much thanks for representing the collective!
The most influential single line in the entire interview -- "...we simply have been spend our money innovating instead of lobbying."
The most influential single line in the entire interview -- "...we simply have been spend our money innovating instead of lobbying."
Very nice job. I like the 'no need for more government' tack. This is the language that catches people's ears. If I don't understand the issue, my first impression in "Looks like the government is keeping these smart tech kids down."
I think one or two more simple 'take-aways' would help. I also think people want to know why a company Facebook would be against SOPA. If they understood that in the form of a simple example, that would go a long way. Everyone uses Facebook.
Really great job. Very articulate. I would have added 50 ums. :/
I think one or two more simple 'take-aways' would help. I also think people want to know why a company Facebook would be against SOPA. If they understood that in the form of a simple example, that would go a long way. Everyone uses Facebook.
Really great job. Very articulate. I would have added 50 ums. :/
I've been keeping my mother updated with the whole SOPA thing and sent her this video too. She's 'very impressed that people so young can be so eloquent and steadfast'.
I think you did great and stood ground with poise, confidence and intelligent arguments. Well done.
Yay! I love moms. Thank her for me. We need to help more people like her realize how awful this legislation is.
I thought you did little to address the real issue, which is the lack of judicial oversight or input to the process of taking down a website, and the economic effect that it has on the owners. Lack of recourse or due process is already hurting the US, look at Russia's new law bannning using foriegn websites. There should be a way to adjudicate these matters, and the government should have to take responsibility for first amendment concerns by taking down website by decree not by actions of parties that have more at stake than the copyright or other issues.
I see a lot of discussion about analogies to help explain to everyday people the problems SOPA (and PIPA) would cause. Let's get some PSA style analogy videos and pictures up for everyone to distribute to their friends and family via (fill in social network here). I'm sure the Reddit community can get the ball rolling with their meme prowess. It's very simple, but it could be very effective.
Some criticisms on style:
- You said "you know" reflexively while she asked questions.
- You look young. The cool hair (which I like, personally) makes you look even younger.
- You bob your head.
- You mentioned PIPA without defining it. Most people you need to convince won't know what you're talking about.
- Emphasizing "One Million Dollars!" doesn't sound too huge compared with how often we hear "Billion" and "Trillion" thrown around in the news. LouisCK was great, and it's a good point, but I think it doesn't make the point you want to the people who don't already understand.
Some suggestions on content:
Play up "government intervention is bad" even more. The conservative electorate might be tough on crime, but they're also pro-business. Paint SOPA as a government-subsidized bailout intervention evil that is anti-business and taking away our constitutional rights.
People respect Google, and at least go "those people are smart!" even if they don't get the internet. A lot of conservatives got traction against Obamacare by saying "Doctors hate it, and we trust doctors." Play that up: Smart, innovative businesses like Google oppose this government intervention in the free market. We trust Google, etc. etc.
If I had one sentence to suggest it would be:
"SOPA lets the government intervene to take away the right to free speech from trusted businesses like Google that are the future of our economy, just to bail out the movie industry."
That's one hell of an oversimplification, but I think it's enough to perk up ears. This isn't defense spending - conservatives don't necessarily have any love for "Hollywood liberal PETA supporters" (as my mother puts it). In Hollywood versus Google, Google at least has "pro-business" points. The thing to remember is that if they don't get the internet, the won't get your explanation of any nuances.
- You said "you know" reflexively while she asked questions.
- You look young. The cool hair (which I like, personally) makes you look even younger.
- You bob your head.
- You mentioned PIPA without defining it. Most people you need to convince won't know what you're talking about.
- Emphasizing "One Million Dollars!" doesn't sound too huge compared with how often we hear "Billion" and "Trillion" thrown around in the news. LouisCK was great, and it's a good point, but I think it doesn't make the point you want to the people who don't already understand.
Some suggestions on content:
Play up "government intervention is bad" even more. The conservative electorate might be tough on crime, but they're also pro-business. Paint SOPA as a government-subsidized bailout intervention evil that is anti-business and taking away our constitutional rights.
People respect Google, and at least go "those people are smart!" even if they don't get the internet. A lot of conservatives got traction against Obamacare by saying "Doctors hate it, and we trust doctors." Play that up: Smart, innovative businesses like Google oppose this government intervention in the free market. We trust Google, etc. etc.
If I had one sentence to suggest it would be:
"SOPA lets the government intervene to take away the right to free speech from trusted businesses like Google that are the future of our economy, just to bail out the movie industry."
That's one hell of an oversimplification, but I think it's enough to perk up ears. This isn't defense spending - conservatives don't necessarily have any love for "Hollywood liberal PETA supporters" (as my mother puts it). In Hollywood versus Google, Google at least has "pro-business" points. The thing to remember is that if they don't get the internet, the won't get your explanation of any nuances.
"SOPA lets the government intervene [...] just to bail out the movie industry"
The implication here is that he movie industry is in trouble, and needs bailing out. And no-one wants to see the movie industry go under.
Does Hollywood really need a bail-out?
The implication here is that he movie industry is in trouble, and needs bailing out. And no-one wants to see the movie industry go under.
Does Hollywood really need a bail-out?
Fantastic job. I have three suggestions on how to be even more fantastic next time. These are all about presentation; I'm not suggesting any changes on position.
1. At 3.27 she asks, "..where's the compromise in-between, is there one?", and you reply "Unfortunately, the way this technology works....", so three seconds into your answer, applying a binary filter, your answer is "no". Assuming your objective is to move the 'swing voters' towards your position, that's probably not ideal. A more politic thing would be to say "Yes, there is.. <details...>". Even if those details don't pertain to legislation at all, you can still present it as a compromise in the sense that it gets the other party the thing they ultimately want.
2. Distance yourself further from the real bad guys and the prime targets of this legislation (some extreme example like counterfeit manufacturers of safety equipment). You did this once or twice, but I think this point needs hammering. Most people don't know that Reddit isn't some sketchy movie sharing site. Do this in a way that demonstrates empathy for the other side. I want to help solve their problem, but this isn't the way
3. While I love what Louis CK did, and it is a good example of the type of innovation big media should be trying, I don't think it's a great example to bring into this debate - it's just too complicated for most people to understand.
1. At 3.27 she asks, "..where's the compromise in-between, is there one?", and you reply "Unfortunately, the way this technology works....", so three seconds into your answer, applying a binary filter, your answer is "no". Assuming your objective is to move the 'swing voters' towards your position, that's probably not ideal. A more politic thing would be to say "Yes, there is.. <details...>". Even if those details don't pertain to legislation at all, you can still present it as a compromise in the sense that it gets the other party the thing they ultimately want.
2. Distance yourself further from the real bad guys and the prime targets of this legislation (some extreme example like counterfeit manufacturers of safety equipment). You did this once or twice, but I think this point needs hammering. Most people don't know that Reddit isn't some sketchy movie sharing site. Do this in a way that demonstrates empathy for the other side. I want to help solve their problem, but this isn't the way
3. While I love what Louis CK did, and it is a good example of the type of innovation big media should be trying, I don't think it's a great example to bring into this debate - it's just too complicated for most people to understand.
1) Gah, yes, I'm no politician, but there are better ways to pitch compromise.
2) I need to stress that this is well-intentioned legislation that is a problem I want to help solve, just not this way.
3) Sigh. Yeah. I didn't expect that question and through out the first example from recent history that came to mind.
Thanks! I hope there'll be a round 2.
2) I need to stress that this is well-intentioned legislation that is a problem I want to help solve, just not this way.
3) Sigh. Yeah. I didn't expect that question and through out the first example from recent history that came to mind.
Thanks! I hope there'll be a round 2.
Good Job!
Does anyone have a transcript for those that are unable to parse video content?
Alexis, did you talk about Internet Freedom? How anyone in the world can use Internet to read about controversial topics, to share memories, etc. However, certain industries can not compete in controlling topics, memories, etc, so they are bringing the laws in, making website owners at the mercy of aging industries?
Did you know that SOPA is just one of the many bills? I highly recommend adopting Internet Freedom movement that seeks to clearly say any SOPA-related restrictions are unacceptable. Otherwise, how do would you explain a bill titled "Stop Online Child Pornography Act"?
Quite a mouthful, though.
I'd say SOPA is giving corporations the power to control Free Speech on the Internet because it's illegal for the government to do so. If you don't want the government or big companies to read what you type online, then demand Internet Freedom.
Alexis, did you talk about Internet Freedom? How anyone in the world can use Internet to read about controversial topics, to share memories, etc. However, certain industries can not compete in controlling topics, memories, etc, so they are bringing the laws in, making website owners at the mercy of aging industries?
Did you know that SOPA is just one of the many bills? I highly recommend adopting Internet Freedom movement that seeks to clearly say any SOPA-related restrictions are unacceptable. Otherwise, how do would you explain a bill titled "Stop Online Child Pornography Act"?
Quite a mouthful, though.
I'd say SOPA is giving corporations the power to control Free Speech on the Internet because it's illegal for the government to do so. If you don't want the government or big companies to read what you type online, then demand Internet Freedom.
wow she needs to learn how to use her words...
I really do agree with a lot of the points you made. The one thing I think you failed to mention was that the in the past, these same companies that are backing SOPA/PIPA fought previous technologies, such as public radio, VCRs/DVD Burners, and DVR/TiVo. Ultimately, those channels did not hinder or kill the industries they are fighting to protect, but rather provide them new methods of distribution and new sources of revenue. They can choose to spend that money on technological improve rather than on lobbying/litigation/drafting legislation. We already see companies embracing the new technology and making great improvements (Apple with iTunes, Pandora, Spotify, etc.), but the other companies aren't keeping up with or using the technology to remain in the game and/or relevant until they have no other choice.
Another point a coworker made is that we are squeezing the inefficiency out of these systems. Models of business that worked well 10-50 years ago don't work nearly as well or at all now because there is technology in place that eliminates the need for some or all of the distribution methods in place that they are trying to protect.
Another point a coworker made is that we are squeezing the inefficiency out of these systems. Models of business that worked well 10-50 years ago don't work nearly as well or at all now because there is technology in place that eliminates the need for some or all of the distribution methods in place that they are trying to protect.
Maybe the general-laymen catchphrase can be: shutting down internet freedom
[deleted]
Excellent work. My only feedback would be to look at the camera more, that way you're talking to the audience, not just to the interviewer.
Is denying the entertainment industry crisis out of the table?
You could mention the recent study from the swiss government: https://www.ige.ch/fileadmin/user_upload/Juristische_Infos/e...
Interesting quotes: - "in spite of numerous media reports and public awareness campaigns, a majority of internet users still do not know which offers are legal and which are not." - "The percentage of available income spent in this area by consumers remains constant. However, shifts can be seen within this budget. For example, money saved by consumers at exchange platforms is still being spent in the entertainment sector. However, that available amount is now being put towards concerts, going to the cinema and merchandising instead of music or film recordings."
You could mention the recent study from the swiss government: https://www.ige.ch/fileadmin/user_upload/Juristische_Infos/e...
Interesting quotes: - "in spite of numerous media reports and public awareness campaigns, a majority of internet users still do not know which offers are legal and which are not." - "The percentage of available income spent in this area by consumers remains constant. However, shifts can be seen within this budget. For example, money saved by consumers at exchange platforms is still being spent in the entertainment sector. However, that available amount is now being put towards concerts, going to the cinema and merchandising instead of music or film recordings."
I feel you were lacking in the number of iPads you were carrying (compared to her).
Really appreciate what you are doing and you did good. I don't know if other people noticed but I would have preferred you to not smile much( or at all) while listening to her or answering her questions.This could be just my personal preference.Smiling while talking about such a serious issue kind of undermines the seriousness of it a bit.
How about a 'stripped book' analogy?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stripped_book
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stripped_book
[deleted]
Why is copyright infringement a crime? It seems to me we should be asking Congress to recategorize copyright as a civil matter; companies and individuals would be able to sue for damages, but we should get the precious resources of our police force and justice department out of this dispute.
When someone makes a copy, they do not deprive anyone of their own copy - so it is unlike stealing a physical good. It may cause some harm to the copyright holder, but only incidentally, and with difficult to calculate damages. Rather than have blanket, one-size-fits-all criminal penalties, we should require parties prove the damages in court in order to receive compensation.
Doing so would put MPAA and RIAA back in their place; let THEM bear the cost of fighting infringers of their copyrights - I don't want them sucking up the resource of my government just to benefit them.
When someone makes a copy, they do not deprive anyone of their own copy - so it is unlike stealing a physical good. It may cause some harm to the copyright holder, but only incidentally, and with difficult to calculate damages. Rather than have blanket, one-size-fits-all criminal penalties, we should require parties prove the damages in court in order to receive compensation.
Doing so would put MPAA and RIAA back in their place; let THEM bear the cost of fighting infringers of their copyrights - I don't want them sucking up the resource of my government just to benefit them.
I know I'm late to the party, and I know you're looking for a sound bite, but here is how I would put things. It might be a mouthful, but it is an actual explanation (more or less) that relates to censorship in a concrete sense. I think a lot of smart but less technically inclined people might appreciate that.
Computers are like people that can talk incredibly fast. Two computers can now exchange the contents of an entire book in the time it takes a person to speak a single word. "Piracy" on the internet is the equivalent of declaring it illegal to say certain combinations of words without permission.
A website is like a building where a very large number of visitors can talk to each other using their computers. This is what makes the internet great. SOPA will make it possible to shut down such a building if a single visitor says one of the forbidden word combinations. If SOPA passes, such websites will be forced to either forbid talking entirely, or attempt to prevent a huge number of people from saying the forbidden word combinations, which would be incredibly expensive and essentially impossible to do.
Thus, SOPA would make it legally possible to shut down virtually any website that permits talking, effectively destroying the thing that made the internet great in the first place.
Even with SOPA, people could still speak the forbidden words to one another in the streets or in private buildings, so what was the point of SOPA again?
Computers are like people that can talk incredibly fast. Two computers can now exchange the contents of an entire book in the time it takes a person to speak a single word. "Piracy" on the internet is the equivalent of declaring it illegal to say certain combinations of words without permission.
A website is like a building where a very large number of visitors can talk to each other using their computers. This is what makes the internet great. SOPA will make it possible to shut down such a building if a single visitor says one of the forbidden word combinations. If SOPA passes, such websites will be forced to either forbid talking entirely, or attempt to prevent a huge number of people from saying the forbidden word combinations, which would be incredibly expensive and essentially impossible to do.
Thus, SOPA would make it legally possible to shut down virtually any website that permits talking, effectively destroying the thing that made the internet great in the first place.
Even with SOPA, people could still speak the forbidden words to one another in the streets or in private buildings, so what was the point of SOPA again?
But here is the problem I see with this whole SOPA debate...
I didn't see anything that would help my Uncle Art understand what this is all about in his language and why he should care.
This is what he sees:
There is another comment in this thread by squeee which is the first one I read that my Uncle Art would understand, something like, "If someone shoplifts in your store, this bill allows the government to shut down your store." I could just picture my uncle raising holy hell if that ever happened.
I read the comments in this thread before I watched the video (like I usually do), so I was waiting for Alexis to say something like squeee said. Something that would get the great mass of those who don't understand the argument to take notice and take action.
Alexis, keep up the good fight. And find a way to get our aunts, uncles, and grandparents to "get it". I believe that will be the turning point of the battle.