“It’s a dangerous and troubling development when the platforms that serve as gateways to information intentionally skew the facts to incite their users in order to further their corporate interests.”
So says MPAA CEO Chris Dodd.
Really, this doesn’t strike you as the pot calling the kettle black, Mr. Dodd? I believe utilising the MPAA as a platform by which to further corporate interests in the Movie industry while sacrificing the freedoms and security of netizens is an ultimately fruitless and incredibly insulting thing to do. This course of action is made all the more insulting by the fact you or the people you represent cannot see past any short term “gain” to think of the very real damage you would be causing with such a bill.
I do not understand how Wikipedia shutting down for one day in a peaceful protest is a more dangerous development than a bill that will allow HOLLYWOOD to decide to turn off a site because of content that they do not agree with.
Why should Hollywood be Judge, Jury and Executioner? Why should content creators, small companies, blog hosts, journalists, video and picture sharing sites, and social media be afraid of people who are so out of touch with the reality of the situation, they really think potentially shutting down websites like Boing Boing or Livejournal could or would ever stop someone from accessing pirated material?
Why can’t somebody just get them to stop making horrible movies all the time??
to be fair, this has been a problem with the film industry since time immemorial.
I understand that piracy is a legitimate concern, but I do not wish to live in a world where decisions about content availability on the internet are dictated by the interests of Corporate America. I trust an open source of information like Wikipedia over the MPAA any day.
(image sourced from theoatmeal.com).
If The Oatmeal says it, it must be true!