It's three years into Obama's term. Have you really not figured out he's not particularly "on your side" on this topic? He's pretty happy to lay down more regulations on almost any topic and either doesn't understand, doesn't care, or considers a feature that this further entrenches large, established interests who are the only ones who can meet the new, higher bars, based on the evidence. You really think he's going to regulate, regulate, regulate across the board, but wait, not those nice people on the Internet, we'll leave them be?
I suspect the government is no longer (if it ever really was) being run by temporary, rotating elected politicians but by the massive, entrenched, static bureaucracy. Along with huge donors as well. On anything that's not a wedge issue, there's little significant difference between the parties, Presidents, etc.
> Even funnier: Let's tell the President to stand in the way of the legal, sovereign bill writing by our duly elected Congress.
This is not actually that absurd. The threat of a veto is often enough to stop a bill from moving forward through Congress. Clearly there are political considerations with issuing such a threat, but it is fairly reasonable to assume that the President could greatly influence a bill while it was still in Congress.
I would also downvote, but this was my exact thoughts, and it has nothing to do with Obama. Any politician when pressured enough will make a promise to you. It's getting them to keep it that is the trick.
If anything, this will have the exact opposite effect than intended: instead of stopping SOPA-II, it'll just create a lot of talking points and rhetoric which will provide cover for the actual roll-out.
Best thing I've seen so far is punishing politicians that propose bills like this. That's the way prohibition got passed in the states: the movement just made sure that politicians were punished or rewarded based on their taking political action, not promises or speeches.
Hmm, torrentfreak, I don't think this is how the US legislative system works.
Luckily the actual source, <http://a.fightforthefuture.org/sign/obama-sopa/>; has a more reasonable request: Tell Obama to promise: "I will never advance legislation that blocks websites or disconnects Americans' internet access."
VP Biden is an enthusiastic supporter of the legacy entertainment industry incumbents; odds are Obama will sign a SOPA-style legislation while in office unless we raise hell like we did the 1st time around.
If I was the RIAA, it would be priority 1 objective to encourage downloading with busted business model, plea the government to fix it. Acquire rights to censor the web. Free downloads continue, but they get compensation for 2x and 3x (times overpriced markup) for every download through streamlined compensation processes through ISP's and streamlined lawsuits. End result: Move product at the speed of free, get paid ridiculous markup (times 3) for every download worldwide. AND become big brother. It is a Brilliant plan actually. Will they succeed? How much they succeed depends on what we do to stop them.
While I appreciate the need for a political fight I still wonder why the tech community has not been working hard on a technical solution that will make much of what SOPA is supposed to have done to take sites off the Internet impossible? Shouldn't that be part of "what we do to stop them"?
I will admit to not knowing enough to know if it is feasible/possible but I sure would like to hear from someone who does. We can't make tools that make a new, more decentralized, name system user friendly?
The only thing they can actually do is tell Obama to promise he will veto any SOPA-style bill. He can't actually stop a bill from being written, at least not yet.
Glad you added "at least not yet". We have seen him starting illegal wars, providing false documents to congress, approving shady deals in regards to government subsidies, shoving illegal and unlawful laws in our throats, and last but not least, trying to influence the highest court in US through news-media.
