SOPA Drama Creates ESA Rival, the League For Gamers

If they pass the bill, I hope there will be a clean sweep of the house next election.

That would be nice even if doesn't pass.

I'd like to see a clean sweep of any member who supported this legislation to begin with while also seeing it not pass. I know I looke dup my officials who signed on it and will be voting for thier replacment come november

Ummm. Why not just send the money to the EFF?

It continues to amaze me how all these "associations" completely ignore the wishes of their actual members in favor of their own agendas and yet still exist. This is EXACTLY what needs to happen, if you feel the association that's meant to protect you is failing then pull your support from it and form a new one. They have zero power without any voices backing them up. You do not exist to serve them, THEY exist to serve you.

This is not an issue that will be resolved with changes in Congress, even though it helps sometimes to remind them they ARE elected officials. This issue won't be resolved until groups like the RIAA, MPAA, and ESA are wiped out and replaced by groups that actually exist to support their members and not just their own gains or the gains of a few major players.

Need to start a clean sweep starting with the White House and work our way down. Regardless of this bogus bill.

Don't just limit it to the House. The House is created SOPA, while the Senate created PIPA.

So you should change your statement to "Re-elect No One!"

I admit it: I use to pirate a lot of the games I played. Since Steam has come along I have not pirated a single game. I have over 200 games on my steam account, mostly from independent developers.

I don't feel the need to pirate any more. I just wait for games to go on sale!

amusingly, the NRA might not be the best organization to model oneself after. there have been polls taken which shows that the NRA continues to argue against tighter firearm point-of-sale controls when a majority of its membership in fact supports tougher legislation

I'm tired of seeing all these "we need to vote out EVEYRONE in Congress;" we saw in 2010 what that mentality got us: the worst Congress ever. (which yes, was also the "freshest" Congress ever)

This needs to be clarified: simply vote out everyone who's corrupt enough to actually vote for and/or support SOPA/PIPA. That way we can keep some of the more reasonable members of Congress, and get rid of all the crazies who actually think Censorship of this scale is actually a good idea.

Though all told, I'd settle for even just an example made of SOPA & PIPA's main sponsors. This will be a bit of a hard sell: Texas Republican Lamar Smith, SOPA's main sponsor in the House, is a long-tenure Representative who's managed to hold on since the 1980s, back when Texas was actually a bastion of Democrats. Unfortunately, his district's been Gerrymandered three times since then, making it increasingly safe for him; his vote total has typically been in the 60-80% range.

Similarly, I recall that Vermont Democrat Patrick Leahy is the main sponsor of PIPA in the Senate. Likewise, he's in a very safe spot, so seeing him out would be hard; the state is all but an invincible fortress for the Democrats, contrary to neighboring New Hampshire, (in)famous for its swing-state nature.

They shouldn't even have gotten it this far. Obama should have flat out told them he'd Veto it and whipped his party into line behind him. But then that's the Obama advertised in his campaign, not the Obama we actually got. Please not another 4 years of Bush Lite.

Sadly, Obama waffled and took a VERY soft approach, merely letting some of his aides write a weak blog post suggesting people "work together;" while it noted that no law should restrict the freedom and privacy online, and especially notes problems with anything that'd tamper with DNSes like SOPA does, but stops short of condemning anything that includes it, or including any threat of veto.

As for anyone else... We've got Romney, a businessman worth $100,000,000US+, and flip-flops so much on any issue to whatever benefits big cartels like the MPAA, RIAA, and ESA, and Newt Gingrich, who caught a lot of controversy over his multi-million fees for his lobbying services; neither arch-extremist Rick Santorum or libertarian Ron Paul stand any chance of winning the nomination at this rate. We're pretty much screwed no matter what. I think it's better to try and make an example of the most vocal members of Congress, so that the President, whoever they are, would get the clue.

I am almost hoping SOPA/PIPA pass... if legislation as regressive and unconstitutional as these two bills actually come into effect, I can hardly imagine the kind of outrage that would ensue: perhaps that outrage would be so immense that current American politics will suffer a huge blow to its corporate and lobbyist foundations.

Maybe something as outrageous as SOPA is needed to spark sweeping changes to the American political system... just my two cents.

why don't anonymous group go after all the house reps and senators that are behind this, along with mpaa, riaa, and all the others. I would rather they target them then sony (not saying sony didn't deserve it) but these idiots need a real wake up call. And i can think of non better then their personal info on the web for all to see. What you guys think?

Apparently you missed the article where Obama did just that. He has already stated that he would veto the bill if it got to his desk. In fact, the Toms article covering it is filled with +1's and thumbs up for Obama.

You didn't get the memo apparently. Sadly this has happened a lot with Obama. He does a lot of great things but since people got their heads stuck up Fox new's ass they can't see anything he does. It's just the kind of guy Obama is, he's a compromising kind of person. He takes an issue and tries to find a good middle ground to be fair to both sides of the argument.

Is he perfect? No, but he's one of the best president's we've ever had in US history.

Would I prefer a more liberal President? Sure, I'd love a solid atheist, liberal, pro choice, middle class supporting guy to lead this country to a golden age of science and reason. Is that ever going to happen? I won't hold my breath.

Bottom line is to get your facts about Obama and his administration from non biased sources and make up your own mind if he's the right kind of president for you. Stop being a damn Fox news drone.

No, this isn't about Fox News, but simply the fact that Obama never threatened to veto SOPA/PIPA. He threatened to veto both the NDAA of 2012 (before it was modified to remove dangerous parts) as well as threatening a veto of any Congressional attempt to repeal the FCC's new Net Neutrality rules.

However, he never directly stated he'd attempt to veto SOPA or PIPA. As I noted above, the White House response was much weaker: not only was there no suggestion that his veto would be employed, it took a more conciliatory attitude, outright suggesting that SOPA's opponents were just as bad as its backers, but it wasn't even put out with Obama's name on it.



Being a compromising person is really not good for someone in Obama's place. He's running the risk of being recorded in history as "the President without any balls." His heart's in the right place, but he's not being aggressive enough. SOPA/PIPA is another strong case of this: rather than standing and denouncing it, he's hidden behind some of his aides who've written a blog post about the "need for both sides to work things out."

I'm betting that once things take their course, and assuming that SOPA/FIFA inevitably get defeated, Obama will come in and announce his opposition to the bills at the last minute, too late for it to have any impact, but in time to take some credit for it, when both he and America would be better off if he came out swinging right now: coupled with the attention from the blackouts, that would certainly be sufficient to permanently sink the bills.



Well, my money says that Obama's already an atheist; half of the top 1% of the socio-economic ladder, (the so-called "1%," of which yes, even Obama is part of) when interviewed, reveals themselves to be atheist or agnostic. Yet coincidentally, Congress (made up entirely of this segment of society) has yet to have a single admitted atheist over the past few decades, in spite of having had thousands of different members across that time span.

As for one of the "best presidents ever?" Even Obama's own description of his score still remains at "incomplete." And I'm sure even an ardent liberal such as yourself might be cautious in ranking Obama already among the likes of FDR, JFK, LBJ, and so forth.

@airborne11b I do look up a lot of non-biased news sources and still can't stand obama....he is far from one of the best presidents ever...his opposition to sopa is about the first thing he has done that I supported...I don't have a clue who I am voting for this year as honestly no one is worth voting for...I don't want to vote just because of one or two things someone supports or I would almost refuse to vote for anyone who supports abortion (and I am agnostic)...but I know I have to put my personal thoughts aside and try to find the person who can best run the country...

Bottom line is don't assume everyone who dislikes Obama is a fox news drone...I don't watch fox news, cnn, or any other televised news source.

The NRA believes that any form of gun control directly violates the 2nd amendment. Too bad they've never actually read the constitution...


The 2nd amendment was never intended to give every wack job in the country the right to own a gun, In fact, nowhere in the amendment does it give anyone the expressed right to own a gun. Based on the wording, the 2nd amendment simply supplies people the right to possess weapons for the purpose of maintaining an organized militia (state military - now the national guard). The NRA actually fought against banning the mentally ill from owning firearms....yep, they definitely have people's best interest in mind....

1) Obama waffled based upon the political winds like Clinton. He did nothing up front, like the captain of that sinking cruise ship off the small island of Italy.

2) Obama has compromised on NOTHING. Obamacare, Canada pipeline, jobs bill (rammed with Congressional Democrat crap), and the shareholders of the bailed out US auto companies.

3) Most of America is NOT atheist, and NOT liberal.

4) Take your MSNBC, CNN, New York Times, and Jon Stewart education elsewhere.

Thanks.

Even worse, the Supreme Court has already ruled, on numerous occasions, that certain types of "arms" my be banned [brass knuckles, etc]. So my question is a simple one: Why should one form of weaponry be banned, yet another untouchable?



Aside from the fastest job turnaround in US history:
January 2009: Jobs lost: -750,000
January 2011: Jobs gained: 285,000

Coincidentally, the minute Democrats lost the house, job gains tumbled back down below 100,000 thousand again.

Also note, the private sector ahs been in positive territory for 24 months and counting; its public sector job cuts that are driving unemployment. So all those Republicans who talk about shrinking government? They are the ones causing unemployment right now.

So take your political stuff elsewhere.

It saddens me to say that I don't have the faith in the average voter to do that. Most people don't pay attention to who voted on what or even what is up for vote unless it gains major media coverage. Funny how we are up in arms about the internet but much of the patriot act gets re-newed which violated American rights and few even discuss such.




True but it doesn't take being the majority to be right. Also we would never invade another nation because "god told me to" like good ol George Dubya Bush. Irrational beliefs cause irrational actions.

It's actually up to the US Supreme Court to rule what the actual meaning of the US Constitution is. And in 2008, in District of Columbia v. Heller, they did, in fact, rule exactly opposite of what you claimed: the Second Amendment DOES, in fact, grant individuals the right to own a firearm irrespective of their association with any given militia.



By the same token, you're every bit as off-center as airborne11b, AND managing to be far more offensive about it. To address some of your points here:

1. You're pretty correct on this part: Obama's shown a lack of resolve to be aggressive.

2. "Obamacare" is, in fact, very compromised. Conservatives such as yourself like to scream about how it spells doom and gloom, when, a couple years after enactment, it curiously hasn't done so... And why might that be? In part, it was watered-down beyond all recognition. It's toothless, (yes, that much-harped "mandate" clause is likewise toothless once you understand the language of it) and doesn't include any of the serious changes that were proposed to fundamentally change the health insurance industry. It didn't even included the mildest (and most free market) solution, an nationwide insurance exchange; it got removed because insurance companies saw it too much a threat to their regionalized monopolies, and lobbied Congress fervently.

3. There is no majority belief in America. The largest segment, Protestant Christians, only makes up some 40-50%. Once you split the (very different) evangelicals (primarily Southern Baptist and LDS) out, it becomes an even smaller plurality, compared to the 20-25% who are Catholic, and the 15-20% who are Atheist. Similarly, while a majority isn't liberal in America, a majority isn't conservative, either: you forget all us moderates here.

4. Was there even a point attempted here? Jon Stewart is a comedian, not a news source. And using the term "education" is rather snide in this context, as well as implying an extreme anti-intellectual bent.

to be honest, the mpaa and riaa both do what their benefactors want, its only the esa that isn't listening to who it represents. artists alone arent represented by the riaa, its the labels that are. is there any riaa label that doesn't support sopa or the protect ip? and if their are is their more than a 50% divide in the wealth between the labels?

you know, when companies post record profits, i want to know how piracy "hurts" them, apposed to it just being a known, borderline unavoidable factor.




because those regulations do nothing to deture people who will commit a crime and just effect, cause more of a hassle, cost more for the legit consumer. you think just because its illegal to get a gun and kill someone that it will stop people form getting a gun and killing someone.

lets take this in a less drastic way than sopa.

what if it got to the point that you had to register all your digital content to a single drm scheme, would you do it or want it?

lets say that drm scheme got cracked, and now you have to upgrade or switch at a cost to you, or its illegal.

lets say that they anticipate the crack on a 6month to yearly basis, and whether its been cracked or not, you have to pay a small (to them) 75$ fee for a new hardware drm modual and re register all your software every time, and if you dont one time, and skip a gen, you no longer have the rights to said software and have to re purchase it.

meanwhile anyone getting the software illegal, doesn't have to put up with that crap.

let me put it this way, a background check and a waiting period is what all gun people accept.

in the software world, that is like a cd key. except now we have to be online all the time, register that cd key for one account, cant transfer the game to another person without them having to to crack the game and they cant play online at all.

you have to appose every new legislation to the bitter end otherwise people become complacent and more outrageous things get passed later on. i believe the dmca to be to far reaching, and easily abused, taking away rights that we had before in favor of a tighter grip on copyright material. under the dmca its illegal to make a backup of media you purchase if a drm has to be cracked, prior to this, you could make a backup of whatever you wanted, for personal use.

and more to the point, dmca is abused on a daily basis at places like youtube where a clip in the background has a tv show, and the video isn't about it, but it gets a take down notice. this law would put people in prison for the same offense.

i got off on a bit of a tangent there.




there is a picture, i dont know how true it is, but i love the idea, elected officials have to ware stickers of who they get money from like NASCAR have stickers for sponsors. here i found the image

http://libertyposter.org/wp-conten [...] site41.png

like i said i dont know how true that image is, but i love the idea it has.




because we the people dont see them as evil in all cases, but the elected officials see them as terrorists on the internet that need to be... well... killed.




you dont get it, there is no true war going on that needs to be fought... terror isnt a war, its more of a reactive strike, and its a war that people waver over because its long, drawn out, and doesnt effect them at all, and cant see a ground work that is trying to be built. in times like these, our government plays a bigger dick contest with each other, where the republicans vote no on everything a democrat says and vice versa, for no real reason besides "they said it, so eff em"

that is how our crappy government works. i would prefer a democratic dictatorship if that could ever exist, where its one man, some advisers, everything gets done fast, not bureaucratically with the rules in one hand and... you know where im going with this. it would be nice if that could work and not elect someone corrupt, but that wont ever happen.

obama doesnt make concessions to make them happy, but to get though legislation that NEEDS to get though but they are being douches about passing any of it.




wow, never thought that i would see someone who actually gets confused by the commas in real life....

when that was signed they were fighting an over bearing government, and won, do you REALLY thing that they wrote that with the thoughts that only militias get guns? they knew a day would come when WE THE PEOPLE would have to fight for our rights and one of the bigger factors in laws that truly oppress us never get passed because WE THE PEOPLE have weapons.

and i said above, take one thing away at a time, i don't care how big or small it is, and you will get complacency




reactionary fear, thats all there is to it. people allow the bans because they believe that they are safer with them. take a switch blade, a ballistic knife, and so on, what real threat do they pose? but people are afraid of them, so they get the bans in place. some places even outlawed butterfly knives... they are KNIVES if i want to kill someone with a knife i have a full tang butcher knife in my kitchen i can use, and dump fairly easily, where as a butterfly knife, ballistic knife, or a switch blade, i would think twice before getting rid of them. realistically, more people keep those knives on them and wouldn't ditch them, making them easier to catch. but because those knife types are intimidating, they are against the law.





i dont watch it enough, but jon stewart takes a real issue, points out key flaws in a comedic way, but at the end of the day, is still more or less news, but condensed to what matters.

tell me how that isnt news with bullet points, at the very least it informs people better than fox news does.

Woah, walls of text. Gotta love political discussions

It's semi-accurate; the names that are too tiny on Ron Paul's lapel are much smaller than they should be. While not "seriously huge," they'd still be legible at that size. That, and it's quite possible that they'd be larger, as for a number of the candidates shown, the "companies" listed are done by aggregating the contributions of all known members of them. i.e, the money didn't come from the company or even its PACs so much as its employees. This would make an exact figure harder to pin down, for both, This is doubly so given that of the 7 candidates shown, Ron Paul had the LOWEST disclosure score at 84.9%. (with McCain at 87.2%, and the others all around 90%)

In terms of the nature of the source of contributions, very few of anyone's campaign money actually came from PACs; the bulk for everyone was individual conributions, along with Federal funds, (refused by Clinton, Guilianni, Obama, Paul, and Romney) and Romney's personal wealth funding a huge chunk of his campaign.

Naturally, as the poster was made by a blogger who very directly supports Ron Paul, some of that embellishment was to be expected.



I wasn't going to go there, but I am aware how Stewart's show tends to be more informative than most other "news," which makes it particularly sad given that it's a comedy. Much of the same goes for The Colbert Report.

they should get rid of all poloticians that believe in sopa


they always say ignorance isnt an excuse, if they dotn practise what they preach then they should **** ***

i dont know if they made the image, i just found it there, originally i saw it on 4chan, but thats beside the point, i just liked the idea of stickers on the candidates, because how many people are informed about who owns who? but how many would look that up if they saw it on them 24/7

Oh how I wish that would happen. Maybe some day, many decades from now, people will stop believing in imaginary friends and start embracing science/humanity.