Wow that was an absolutely disgusting read. I don't like piracy, but the make the logical leap from piracy (which they see as a problem of enforcement of laws rather than a matter of distribution) to a loss of jobs that is particularly bizarre.<p>Also I have no idea what they mean when they say they are innovative. This is a mish mash of 'jobs' and 'thieves' and
'innovation' all over the place, tastelessly.<p>I guess I just get annoyed when institutions or industries make arguments for their relevance through legislation. They mention the status quo, but entertainment wants to hold onto a status quo where entertainment is a highly profitable industry, and they're willing to try and do it by creating legislation. Good artists are always going to prevail, but shitty business models don't need to be protected.
<i>protecting American jobs is important too, particularly in these difficult economic times for our nation</i><p>Bullshit. The film industry is boasting record profits, piracy has had a negligible effect on American jobs.<p><a href="http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/02/piracy-once-again-fails-to-get-in-way-of-record-box-office.ars?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=rss" rel="nofollow">http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/02/piracy-once-...</a>
Show me the profits being impacted by piracy. Show me the number of jobs lost to piracy.<p>I get that it takes a lot of people across the production chain to get media developed and delivered to the end consumer, but I have yet to be shown how piracy impacts those people.<p>I'm not naive, people steal content. They do it all the time, in fact. Hell, I download show off of BT every so often. But how much of that revenue did you actually lose? Just tell me, I want to know.<p>Why are legitimate movie downloads (that are locked with DRM) as expensive as DVDs? Why is it that when I purchase digital content I'm simply renting it, I don't actually own any of it?<p>The MPAA serves the interests of studios executives, plain and simple. They don't serve their own ecosystems; if they did, they would innovate more and attempt to actually create more value for their own employees (and related businesses).
"The American businesses that are victimized on a daily basis by global Internet thieves are among the most innovative industries in this nation and we welcome the Administration's support of these American businesses."<p>Right... the film and music industries are among the least innovative industries, as Fred Wilson reminds us <a href="http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2012/01/scarcity-is-a-shitty-business-model.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2012/01/scarcity-is-a-shitty-busines...</a>
<i>working to enact common-sense legislation</i><p>That's one of my pet peeves, right there. The phrase "common-sense legislation" seems to be a code for either "we can't come up with a rational argument", or "you're not worth the trouble of proving this". Either way, the party saying this is hoping that we'll simply accept it at face value, and <i>not</i> think about it more deeply.<p>It's common sense that the sun revolves around the earth, and the idea of Evolution is completely offensive to common sense. The fact that something is appealing to our intuition is really only loosely related to its veracity.
"Senator" Chris Dodd is no longer a Senator. Use of the honorific highlights what is most wrong with the U.S. political system: the revolving door between the legislature and corporations seeking to influence the legislature. In this instance, his rhetoric is so inflammatory, I believe he should be henceforth referred to as Lobbyist Chris Dodd.
<i>On behalf of the 2.2 million Americans whose jobs depend on the film and television industries</i><p>Really? In spite of that grossly inflated figure, how many jobs depend on a fully-functional and uncensored internet?
<i>"Misinformation simply can't be allowed to replace honest debate, and derail the critically important fight..."</i><p>Passing SOPA is critical compared to what?<p>Repairing our economy? Bringing home the troops? Let me say it again: piracy has not had a material affect on the entertainment industry; on the contrary, they're having record years of gross profit.<p>This is honest debate?<p><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111114/23145216770/house-judiciary-committee-sopa-hearings-stacked-5-to-1-favor-censoring-internet.shtml" rel="nofollow">http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111114/23145216770/house-...</a><p>So, Senator, who is guilty of "misinformation"?
"...neither of these bills implicate free expression but focus solely on illegal conduct, which is not free speech."<p>So basically, they support free speech, as long as they approve of it?
It's interesting that a domestic law should stop "foreign-based thieves". It's for the first time that I see it repeated so often - according to the MPAA the law is meant only to attack the pirates abroad and save domestic jobs.<p>This should be the last straw for all countries to wring the control over DNS and generic domains away from USA. The soon-to-be international copyright and patent troll is dangerous to hold the keys.
If the MPAA was really concerned about jobs, the corporate officers of its members would forego their personal bonuses so more low wage earners could continue to be employed. But no; just like every other corporate officer in America, their goal is only to enrich themselves in the days of a modern depression.
At the rate MPAA/RIAA claims to be losing money due to piracy since Napster peeked its head in 1999, why isn't the music and movie industry out of money?