One thing I don't understand: why is the (relatively small) entertainment industry still so much more effective at lobbying than the (relatively large) tech industry? Google, Facebook, ISPs and others would seem to have a strong incentive to not want excessive regulation of their industry. So why aren't they stepping up to the plate and countering the entertainment business' lobbying efforts with serious bucks?
Google has been stepping up. (Google it.) Facebook has been hiring a lot of "Washington insiders" for awhile now. Etc.
While pg talks about HN as a community of (historically) "apolitical nerds" as a positive thing[1], but being apolitical will catch up with you eventually if you have anything worth losing. If members of congress don't have programmers in their mind as future frothing voters, or people who would ever support them, that's probably a bad thing.
[1]I do agree a lot of the political 'discussions' on HN aren't worth having here, and create a lot of noise, but I know way too many apolitical tech savvy individuals. At least make it known to whoever is in office that they do not want you against them, and be willing to pick a side.
The 'relatively small' entertainment industry is part of the hugely influential media business, upon which our 'representatives' are especially dependent.
I'm sorry, where does relatively small come in here? We are talking about companies like Fox (I'm sorry, what was the parent company?) and the entire music/film industry. Google/Facebook pale in comparison.
The dying industries are the middle-men. They are fighting back.
Computer and tech sector workers get paid more on average per hour as well. That said, the entertainment industry is probably a bigger exporter relative to its size (how many foreign movies do we watch?) and is also REALLY good at creative accounting. Maybe it's actually making a lot more money than the figures say.
I think you can lump a whole pile of extra industry sectors in with entertainment and still not get close to the tech sector.
So it's definitely a case of disproportionate lobbying.
Sadly, the entertainment industry is much larger and has a lot more money than the tech industry. And yes, Google, Facebook and other large companies are stepping up - they're the reason most people are even aware of the issues...
The traditional entertainment industry (movies, tv, and music) is very small. But put 'broadcasting', which is part of the 'information' industry, and it is comparable to the tech industry. Add in the fact that media companies are vital to politicians, and the result is an industry that punches orders of magnitude above its weight.
In addition to direct support, there are several other things you can do. If you're going to buy from Amazon, you can use their affiliate link. Or if you're going to buy a book from No Starch Press, they have a coupon code to use: ISUPPORTEFF (side note: they also read HN).
In general in the US, if a petition gets enough signatures, then a representative takes it up as a topic. But there is no guarantee that a petition will have its hearing.
Are you saying that in AU there is a guarantee? How many signatures are required?
When do we start calling it the "Great Firewall of the US of A." ?
Just a joke with some attitude. I love how moral gets dictated by those with money in the US. Not that that isn't the case in most of the world. I just love how terrible a job they do of hiding it in the US.
Interesting; it has anti-circumvention provisions. These provisions would appear (to my not-legally-trained reading; this is not legal advice) to apply to software such as BIND. After all, anyone can run their own instance of BIND, and thereby "resolve to that domain name’s Internet protocol address notwithstanding the measures taken by a service provider under paragraph (2) to prevent such reso lution".
This seems like a bad consequence, what with BIND and its equivalents being absolutely vital pieces of Internet infrastructure software.
