On Jan 18, 9:07*am, tnik wrote:
I don't normally post off topic, but I feel this is worth it. I also
apologize for not putting OT: in the header, I didn't want peoples
filters blocking this one.

Just browse over to wikipedia and you can find out all the information
you want about it.. But in a nut shell:

SOPA and PIPA represent two bills in the United States House of
Representatives and the United States Senate respectively. SOPA is short
for the "Stop Online Piracy Act," and PIPA is an acronym for the
"Protect IP Act." ("IP" stands for "intellectual property.") In short,
these bills are efforts to stop copyright infringement committed by
foreign web sites, but, in our opinion, they do so in a way that
actually infringes free expression while harming the Internet. Detailed
information about these bills can be found in the Stop Online Piracy Act
and PROTECT IP Act articles on Wikipedia, which are available during the
blackout. GovTrack lets you follow both bills through the legislative
process: SOPA on this page, and PIPA on this one. The Electronic
Frontier Foundation, a non-profit organization dedicated to advocating
for the public interest in the digital realm, has summarized why these
bills are simply unacceptable in a world that values an open, secure,
and free Internet.

FYI..the Power of the People.

TMT

INFLUENCE GAME: Online companies win piracy fight
By ALAN FRAM | AP



WASHINGTON (AP) — Outspent but hardly outgunned, online and high-tech
companies triggered an avalanche of Internet clicks to force Congress
to shelve legislation that would curb online piracy. They
outmaneuvered the entertainment industry and other old guard business
interests, leaving them bitter and befuddled.

Before Senate and House leaders set aside the legislation Friday, the
movie and music lobbies and other Washington fixtures, including the
U.S. Chamber of Commerce, had put in play their usually reliable
tactics to rally support for the bills.

There were email campaigns, television and print ads in important
states, a Times Square billboard, and uncounted phone calls and visits
to congressional offices in Washington and around the country. That
included about 20 trips to the Capitol by leaders of the National
Songwriters Association International, often accompanied by
songwriters who performed their hits for lawmakers and their staffs.

"We bring our guitars on our backs," said songwriter Steve Bogard, the
association's president.

Such campaigns are often music to the ears of lawmakers. This time,
however, it was smothered by an online outpouring against the
legislation that culminated Wednesday. According to organizers, at
least 75,000 websites temporarily went dark that day, including the
English-language online encyclopedia Wikipedia, joined by 25,000
blogs.

"The U.S. Congress is considering legislation that could fatally
damage the free and open Internet," said a message on Wikipedia's home
page, which was shrouded in shadows and provided links to help
visitors reach their members of Congress.

Thousands of other sites posted messages protesting the bills and
urging people to contact lawmakers. Protest leaders say that resulted
in 3 million emails.

Google, its logo hidden beneath a stark black rectangle, solicited 7
million signatures on a petition opposing the bills. Craigslist
counted 30,000 phone calls to lawmakers and there were 3.9 million
tweets on Twitter about the bills, according to NetCoalition, which
represents leading Internet and high tech companies.

"It's still something we're trying to comprehend," said Google
spokeswoman Samantha Smith. "We had such an overwhelming response to
our petition that it honestly far exceeded our expectations."

As co-sponsors of the bills peeled away, Senate Majority Leader Harry
Reid, D-Nev., on Friday postponed a vote that had been set for this
Tuesday on moving to the legislation. The vote seemed doomed well
beforehand. Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, chairman of the House Judiciary
Committee, also put off further work. "I have heard from the critics,"
he said.

Just weeks ago, the bills seemed headed toward quiet approval with
bipartisan backing that ranging from liberals such as Rep. Howard
Berman, D-Calif., to conservatives such as Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla.
The turnabout was so unexpected that some think the online world's
triumph signals a pivotal moment marking its arrival as Washington's
newest power broker.

"This does serve as a watershed moment," said Jennifer Stromer-Galley,
a communications professor at the State University of New York at
Albany who studies how political groups use high technology. "Certain
channels for communication that people routinely use have the power to
get their users to become political activists on their behalf."

Both bills are aimed at thwarting illegal downloads and sales of
thousands of American movies, songs and books, as well as counterfeit
pharmaceuticals, software and other copyrighted products. They would
do so by making it easier to stop American websites and search engines
from steering visitors to largely foreign websites that pirate the
items.

Supporters estimate that online piracy costs the U.S. at least $100
billion annually and thousands of jobs; even the bills' critics say
sales of pirated products must be stopped. But foes say the
legislation goes too far, threatening to curb Internet free speech,
stifle online innovation and burden online businesses with damaging
regulations.

"People love their Internet. They use it every day, they don't want it
to change and they don't want Washington messing with it," said Maura
Corbett, spokeswoman for NetCoalition.

Claims that "big brother" would oversee the Internet infuriate bill
supporters, who say their opponents employed fear-mongering and
distortion to foment an online frenzy.

"They've misidentified this issue as an issue about your Internet,
your Internet is being jeopardized," said Mike Nugent, executive
director of Creative America, a coalition of entertainment unions,
movie studios and television networks. "In fact their business model
is being asked to be subjected to regulation. They're misleading their
huge base."

Misleading or not, the online community had a huge impact on members
of Congress, with many saying they heard little from the entertainment
industry but plenty from Internet users.

"Everyone's online, and a lot of people online are very inclined to
complain about" new fees and other problems, said Rep. Gerald
Connolly, D-Va. "It's a culture of fairly quick mobilization."

The bills' champions said they purposely avoided hauling entertainment
celebrities to Washington, saying they preferred to focus on how the
measure would help the entire economy.

"If we brought in Hollywood stars, that would play into the other
side's narrative that this is all about Hollywood," said Steven Tepp,
who helped guide the campaign for the Chamber of Commerce. "We want to
keep the focus on the reality that this is much, much broader."

In the end, the outcome showed the lobbying world is changing, said
Kathy Garmezy, an official with the Directors Guild of America, which
supports the bills.

"Of course you say to yourself, 'What can you change?'" she said. "I
don't think we've come to conclusions or closure."

Participants say last week's online protests were spawned last fall,
as Congress was writing the bills and Internet users started chatting
and emailing about them.

The blogging service Tumblr called attention to the measures on its
website in November. Other efforts also garnered attention, including
a drive by owners to remove their domain names from GoDaddy.com, which
sells domain names and was a supporter of the anti-piracy legislation.

Among the first to publicly say they would darken their sites on
Wednesday were Reddit and Wikipedia.

"Like most things on the Internet, it was very unorganized and
chaotic," said Erik Martin, Reddit's general manager.

In terms of their Washington presence, online businesses are
adolescents compared to the well-established industries they are
battling.

According to Maplight, a nonpartisan group that analyzes money's role
in politics, current senators have received $14.4 million over the
past six years from entertainment interest groups supporting the
online piracy bills, seven times the $2 million they got from Internet
groups opposing the legislation.

The differences are also stark when it comes to lobbying.

Google, one of the Internet world's largest players in Washington,
spent $5.9 million lobbying on all issues during the first nine months
of 2011, according to data from the Center for Responsive Politics,
which tracks money in politics. The Chamber of Commerce spent $46
million, the most in town.

Even so, online businesses have been beefing up their representation
in Washington, the center's figures show.

Google's $5.9 million paid for 112 lobbyists last year, more than
double the $2.8 million it spent for 54 lobbyists in 2008. Facebook's
$910,000 for lobbying during the first three quarters of 2011 paid for
21 lobbyists, compared with two lobbyists and $351,000 it spent a year
earlier.

High tech companies are also learning the value of big names. One
Google lobbyist is former Missouri Rep. Richard Gephardt, a House
Democratic leader and presidential candidate. Last year, Facebook
hired Joe Lockhart, a press secretary for President Bill Clinton, as
vice president of global communications.

Bill supporters lost one advantage because former Democratic Sen.
Christopher Dodd, chairman of the Motion Picture Association of
America, could not personally lobby senators. The Capitol Hill veteran
retired from the Senate last year and is legally barred from lobbying
his former colleagues for two years.

___

Online:

Senate's Protect Intellectual Property Act: http://tinyurl.com/7lqbgzh

House's Stop Online Piracy Act: http://tinyurl.com/75vtcxg

NetCoalition: http://www.netcoalition.com

EDITOR'S NOTE _ An occasional look at how behind-the-scenes influence
is exercised in Washington.