[LINK] Fwd: SOPA Act (Anti-Piracy) Sponsors Received 4X As Much Money From Hollywood v. Silicon Valley

[Tom Koltai]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: link-bounces at mailman.anu.edu.au 
> [mailto:link-bounces at mailman.anu.edu.au] On Behalf Of Nick Ross
> Sent: Monday, 19 December 2011 5:04 PM
> To: link
> Subject: [LINK] Fwd: SOPA Act (Anti-Piracy) Sponsors Received 
> 4X As Much Money From Hollywood v. Silicon Valley
> 
> 
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Pamela Heisey, MapLight <pamela at maplight.org>
> Date: 19 December 2011 16:18
> Subject: SOPA Act (Anti-Piracy) Sponsors Received 4X As Much 
> Money From Hollywood v. Silicon Valley
> To: "nickrossabc at gmail.com" <nickrossabc at gmail.com>
> 
> 
>  If you're having trouble viewing this email, you may see it 
> online<http://e2ma.net/map/view:CampaignPublic/id:22498.739178
> 7275/rid=619063efd96e20ccda8390a5c0c39384>.
> 
> 
>   *SOPA Act (Anti-Piracy) Sponsors Received 4 Times As Much 
> Money in Campaign Contributions From Hollywood Than Silicon Valley*
><SNIP>


Sponsors: Persons that support the passing of bill through congress.
Sponsorship: The payment of fees to a third party to advertise a
companies product.

The reality is that it isn't Hollywood/Los Angeles paying the campaign
contributions.
It is the Leeching organisations that employ less than 200 people
worldwide.

RIAA,IFPI, the arch enemy of the people, elicit the funds from their
members (and other less legitimate activities - like the illegal sale of
CD's that fall off the back of trucks; the failure to pay royalty
payments to artists in a timely fashion, - sometimes witholding payments
for over a decade) so that they can continue to "fight the good fight".

Unfortunately, for those organisations, the good fight is self
preservation of their status quo. Lawyers need jobs even in a
depression, and most of the persons in the "save the content industry
business" are lawyers used to fat contract fees (resulting in payments
to artists being less than 2% of the retail price of packaged content).

The reality is that the content industry with revenues one thousandth of
the IT industry, employing 1/4000th of the employees that IT directly
employs has ignored all of the obvious economic indicators and convinced
the hill of the imperative of saving the content industry jobs.
[e.g.: Just the SMS market in 2009 was 5 times bigger than the film
industry globally.)

Consumers and smaller content creators are ignoring the big end of town
and submitting over 35 hours of video content per minute to Youtube,
Metacafe, Vimeo, Youtube etc compared to the combined content creations
of the "Industry" [inc. all Television and studio content but excluding
small independent film makers and documentary makers who distribute only
via the web, Amazon or P2P;] being only 7 minutes worth of final edit
quality video per minute by comparison.

Music artists are not lagging behind either with independent publishers
like (5 year old) CD-Baby receiving over 20 (album equivalent)
submissions daily for digital distribution via iTunes.

Governments who don't understand the economics of consumption versus
innovation will be swayed by political contributions and severely damage
the economy.
Whatever we might say about Mr.Rudd, he understood the economic benefit
of Silicon Valley versus Hollywood; and the same can be said for
Mr.Turnbull. For once, Australia has politicians on each side of the two
party preferred system that are knowledgeable about the real stakes of
content versus ITC.

I guess, Google, Apple, Amazon and Facebook are just going to have to
increase the stakes. After all at the end of the day, they can certainly
afford too. 

Alterntively to prevent an armegeddon escalation of the Dutch Auction
principle, we could just mandate that all commercial political donations
are made illegal, globally.

President Obama was the first politician in History that won an election
on the back of personal micro-payments.
Possibly President Obama could repay the favour and ban corporate
sponsorship of elected representatives. 
The open government initiatives have made it obvious that campaign
contributions are merely renamed bribes and I always thought that
Democracy frowned on bribes in Government. Especially when the bribes
which will surely force the downfall of the formerly largest and most
successful economy of the world only totals...

> Since the beginning of the 2010 election cycle, the 32 
> sponsors of the bill have received *almost 4 times as much* 
> in campaign contributions from the movie, music, and TV 
> entertainment industries ($1,983,596), which support the 
> bill, as they have received from the software and Internet 
> industries ($524,977), which believe the language goes too far.

1.9 million versus a 13 Trillion write down (Us Foreign Debt via US and
other associated bonds). I'm not sure the world can afford that
particular debt.

TomK









 












TomK