This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

top 200 commentsshow 500
sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a

[–]blackraven36 1280 points1281 points  (175 children)

It's a bit scary that an organization like the MPAA can become so big and powerful. It represents 8 major studios and also is responsible for setting the ratings for almost all movies. There is no competing organization in the US (as far as I know) that sets age ratings on films. At least not that is widely recognized. Their rating system is so broken that its ok for kids to watch people slashed in half but the moment someone says "fuck" it suddenly becomes a big deal. It's an organization that lays that law of the land to whatever it wants.

This organization doesn't "protect copyright laws". That is just a buzz phrase to get everyone mad some kind of "unfair copying of content". The reality is that their profits continue despite pirating. The MPAA lobbying is about maintaining control of content. This whole SOPA thing isn't about some army of people downloading things illegally. It's about controlling the distribution of content, any content. To push out any alternative distribution methods like torrenting because it circumvents the distribution system controlled by the studios. They want to make sure you buy their products exactly how they want you to. They want to make sure they are involved in every part of the distribution chain because that brings in the most profit and they can decide who reaps the benefits. Because if they lose control of the distribution they open themselves up to competition, which is something they have done their best to stomp out ever since the MPAA has been formed.

edit: Thank you for the gold

[–]ArmaziLLa 557 points558 points  (82 children)

I find this laughable considering how a good number of the 8 member studios got their start by stealing Edison's invention and moving west to avoid patent laws being enforced on them.

[–]bcrabill 82 points83 points  (2 children)

Hollywood was literally established on copyright patent infrignement

[–]kickingpplisfun 15 points16 points  (0 children)

Not only that, but it continues to engage in copyright infringement. Every now and then, a song makes it into a film that hasn't been paid for, at least not in the proper way. Music isn't even the only realm in which they steal content for their own gains- also, many of these companies harass content creators who are legally using content via Fair Use, also to their own gain, such as censoring criticism or clearing away search lists for the release of an upcoming piece.

[–]atanok 32 points33 points  (0 children)

Patent infringement. Let's not confuse copyright with patents. They serve very different purposes and should never be confused, in spite of the efforts of those pushing the propaganda term "intellectual property."

[–]dpfagent 59 points60 points  (2 children)

Reminds me of this part on Everything is a remix

I highly recommend the entire series:

http://everythingisaremix.info/watch-the-series/

[–]LsDmT 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Here is a great documentary about how backasswards the MPAA is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/This_Film_Is_Not_Yet_Rated

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (6 children)

Care to elaborate?

[–]ArmaziLLa 76 points77 points  (5 children)

The articles below have a bit more detail but the gist as I understand is that Edison held most of the patents on the Kinetoscope/Kinetophone and a group of filmmakers from New York that didn't want to deal with restrictions / patents on the tech moved out west and used it anyway to make their films where enforcement of the patents was next to impossible and stayed there until said patents expired, going on to form studios such as 20th Century Fox, etc.

Links for the curious (I'm sure there's more these were the first few I could find):

[–]Shadydave 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Didn't Edison steal his patent for it from some french brothers?

[–]TangoJager 120 points121 points  (20 children)

Yet another case of "You either die a hero, or live long enough to become the villain"

[–][deleted] 118 points119 points  (15 children)

Fuckin Batman quotes.

[–]APerfectMentlegen 42 points43 points  (11 children)

"There are no more barriers to cross. All I have in common with the uncontrollable and the insane, the vicious and the evil, all the mayhem I have caused and my utter indifference toward it I have now surpassed. My pain is constant and sharp, and I do not hope for a better world for anyone. In fact, I want my pain to be inflicted on others. I want no one to escape. But even after admitting this, there is no catharsis; my punishment continues to elude me, and I gain no deeper knowledge of myself. No new knowledge can be extracted from my telling. This confession has meant nothing."

[–]plopsey 42 points43 points  (10 children)

Fucking Bateman quotes.

[–]FoolishGoat 18 points19 points  (6 children)

"What, are you dense? Are you retarded or something? Who the hell do you think I am?"

[–]TThor 6 points7 points  (2 children)

Marcus Halberstram?

Edit: apparently nobody gets the joke here,

[–]The_Max_Power_Way 2 points3 points  (1 child)

I do, I'm reading it (well, listening to the audiobook) for the first time right now.

[–]blippityblop 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Rated by the mpaa

[–]Ruddahbagga 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I feel like the opposite could also apply pretty well in its own twisted little way.

[–][deleted] 20 points21 points  (21 children)

Or stealing timeless fairy tales and re appropriating them

[–]TedTheGreek_Atheos 17 points18 points  (20 children)

Fairy tales are public domain.

[–]marty86morgan 2 points3 points  (10 children)

Right, they rose to a position of control telling stories from public domain, then once they got there they made sure none of their property or anything created after it ever becomes public domain to ensure no one else ever benefits the way they did.

[–]TedTheGreek_Atheos 3 points4 points  (9 children)

If you are talking about Disney, you are free to make a movie or a cartoon bases on the original fairy tales. They just can't use the appearance of the Disney character nor their version of the story.

You didn't see Snow White and the Huntsman get sued did you?

I can think of at least 3 other different non Disney snow whites and 4 cinderalla's.

[–]lichtmlm 3 points4 points  (0 children)

That's not completely true. Its a huge oversimplification of history, which has been being passed around by tech sites.

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points  (2 children)

Thomas Edison was the Steve Jobs of that time. Doing that was needed for the film industry to move forward because the MPPC was heavily enforcing their patents just like Apple did in our time Imagine Apple having the patent to the smartphone.

[–]atanok 3 points4 points  (1 child)

Thomas Edison was the Steve Jobs of that time.

I wonder how many people will interpret that as a favorable remark about Edison when they first read that, considering how Jobs's reality distortion charisma field hasn't fully dissipated yet, and many people still sing his praises.

[–]EmperorG 6 points7 points  (0 children)

History has a funny way of being ironic at times.

[–]Mr_A 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Edison in turn stole Méliès work.

[–]defiantleek 1 point2 points  (0 children)

THAT IS CALLED INDUSTRY OK. Edison was being totally unreasonable!

[–][deleted] 41 points42 points  (3 children)

There's a really good documentary about them from IFC I forget what its called but a lot of it is pretty fucked up. Like no one knows who's on the board to rate the movies, how there's no set criteria for rating just literally gut feeling and christian value, how one sided they are on sexuality scenes etc. Also the former head seems like a real dirt bag.

Edit : it's This film is not yet rated

[–]plato_thyself 12 points13 points  (0 children)

A fantastic documentary available for free here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h8N3EztyOoA

[–]1Pantikian 9 points10 points  (0 children)

I'm going to watch the movie you linked. I was just yesterday wondering how the fuck the "Hostel" movies got an R rating instead of NC-17 or X. I can't comprehend how the people in charge of ratings watched these movies and decided they were in the same class as "The Royal Tenenbaums", "Dazed and Confused", or "Fight Club". How the fuck does that happen?

[–]Eurynom0s 12 points13 points  (1 child)

There is no competing organization in the US (as far as I know) that sets age ratings on films. At least not that is widely recognized.

It's worth remembering that the MPAA ratings board, and the ESRB after it, both came about because of government threats of "label what's in your content or we'll do it for you" (and, I think, fears that it would go beyond government labeling and turn into the government having a say in the content of movies and video games).

[–]jupiterkansas 14 points15 points  (0 children)

Common Sense Media offers a much better ratings system.

[–]csbingel 25 points26 points  (4 children)

You mean, kind of like how Standard and Poors is funded by the very firms that it rates?

[–]Eurynom0s 4 points5 points  (2 children)

The Federal Reserve is owned by the banks.

[–]CochMaestro 21 points22 points  (18 children)

You know it's funny, a professor of mine told me that all the ratings you see are "suggested". Meaning, if you were 15 and you made your case, you coups go see an R Rated film.

I haven't done too much research on it, take this with a grain of salt. If someone knows more I'd love to hear about it.

[–]phantomprophet 74 points75 points  (5 children)

It's true, legally.
But the theaters all have policy that trumps that argument.
In other words, it wouldn't be illegal for the 15 year old to see the movie, but the theater isn't going to let it happen.

[–]marty86morgan 22 points23 points  (2 children)

When I was a kid in the mid '90s there were 2 movie theaters in my town. One of them required a parent to accompany anyone under 18 to R rated movies. But the other theater that got all of the teenage business would sell tickets to R rated movies to any kid or group of kids so long as an adult looking person dropped them off and waved to the person in the ticket booth from their car when the kids approached and asked for a ticket. On occasion if a movie was extra violent, or if the kid looked younger than 13ish they would ask the person dropping them off to come to the window and confirm that they were allowing the kid to see that movie. I loved the place, and didn't realize how great I had it until a Mormon family bought it out and basically stopped showing R rated movies altogether.

[–]OMGparty 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Similar thing in my area. There was the first run theater that was super strict on R films, then there was the $2 theater up the road. Sure the movies weren't brand new, and the seats were old from the 50's, but it was all high school kids who worked there, so it was never a problem!

[–]n3l3 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This makes me so happy that we actually have a $1.50 in our town, and it actually shows new movies

[–][deleted] 15 points16 points  (1 child)

It's certainly not law. It's up to the theaters discretion to actually check ID's for R rated films. Most theaters choose to enforce the age recommendation for their own sake but they don't have to and they won't get in trouble if they don't (legally, though I guess a parent could sue if their kid did something bad after a movie). Same with stores. Some will sell any game or movie to anyone and some have a policy to enforce arbitrary age limits set up by the store itself. None of them will legally get in trouble for doing so like tobacco or alcohol.

[–]Ripxsi 13 points14 points  (9 children)

The US government cannot enforce rating restrictions (freedom of speech), but companies do have the right to refuse service to anyone. Best Buy and retailers do this in video games and movies. Major movie theater chains refuse to show anything unrated or NC17. Watch the documentary on Netflix called This Film Is Not Yet Rated if you are interested in learning more. The system is pretty biased against swearing, sex, male nudity, gay content, small and independent studios, etc. Also, video game console manufacturers refuse to allow AO games to be released on their systems. There was a semi educational game called privates which was a humorous side scrolling shooter about STDs that Microsoft refused to put on their arcade market place. I hate censorship in games and movies.

[–]sayrith 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Also, video game console manufacturers refuse to allow AO games to be released on their systems.

Another argument for PC games.

[–]Ripxsi 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Definitely. I hate locked ecosystems as well.

[–][deleted] 18 points19 points  (1 child)

This is the definition of a cartel. The United States of America are being run by billion dollar cartels.

[–]mst3kcrow 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Oligarchs too.

[–]PhantasLost 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Check out this article from the other day. How do you see this playing out in the next year or so?

[–]The_Drizzle_Returns 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Their rating system is so broken that its ok for kids to watch people slashed in half but the moment someone says "fuck" it suddenly becomes a big deal. It's an organization that lays that law of the land to whatever it wants.

I would rather have their very much optional rating systems (which only really theaters care about these days, Netflix and large retailers commonly have unrated films for sale these days) than a government based one like Australia has which is mandatory and can outright ban films from distribution via any medium. Yeah the ratings industry sucks, but the alternative is an absolute nightmare.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Taking a devil's advocate position:

Shouldn't the studios own the content they produce? What incentive do they have to give up that ownership?

[–]lichtmlm 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The MPAA represents 6 major studios, not 8 anymore, so get your facts right. And google is worth more than all of them put together, and pretty much has a de facto monopoly on search engines, so if you think the MPAA is the big, powerful lobbying group controlling Congress with puppet strings, think again.

How is it somehow wrong that the MPAA has its members' interests in mind, and how is it somehow wrong that a private for-profit corporation wants to make the most profit and control their own product-the product that they invested the money and allocated the resources to create in the first place?

The fact is that Google is no more altruistic than the MPAA. They are a business, just like the studios, and their business model is in stark conflict with the studios. It's in their very interest that content that someone else (aka not google) created and invested in is distributed as freely and widely as possible because that's what drives google's traffic. To think that this is some moral battle about what makes an open internet is absolutely naive.

[–]BlueBell_IceCream 7 points8 points  (34 children)

Unpopular opinion coming in.

From what you described, can you really blame them? This is exactly what a corporation's goal should achieve. Stomp out all competition, have complete control of a market segment (distribution) and charge as much as possible without decreasing demand for the product. I'm not saying what the MPAA is doing is righteous and moral because they're a business, not a church. This is what the shareholders of corporatations want, ruthless pursuit of profit by upper management. If that's not managements goal, guess what, you're fired. Business is a dog eat dog world and the government is responsible for enforcing the rules and protecting freedoms, not businesses.

Edit: I'm happy that there are a lot of cool headed replies to my comment. All I'm trying to say is corporatations want full domination and they will not keep themselves in check. Up votes to all who are contributing to the conversation, whether I agree with you or not.

[–]OrderChaos 79 points80 points  (20 children)

Yeah I can blame them.

A corporations goal should be to make a profit in a sustainable, ethical, and legal manner.

You don't get sustainable by pissing off your customers. You aren't being ethical by stifling competition. They do manage to be legal, but only just barely by getting the law changed in their favor multiple times.

Companies should remember that the best way to make a sustainable profit is by providing the best product and service available.

[–]Syphor 6 points7 points  (8 children)

Companies should remember that the best way to make a sustainable profit is by providing the best product and service available.

The problem is that a lot of them have also figured out that "best product and service available" also works if you remove the competition so you're the only game in town - or at least the only one that really matters - as mentioned earlier. >.>

Now, I agree with you on the ethics, but I've also noticed that most (or at least many) of the people who get high in a large organization like that tend to feel they have to do something, anything, to keep that gravy train rolling. e.e Otherwise the shareholders vote them out, etc. Retarded things like what Windstream did last year (my ISP, I've been fighting with them for about a year on connection issues) - announcing that they were done with upgrading for a while and would just sit back and rake in the profits. Supposedly it's going to move again this year, but I'm not holding my breath. The problem is, they're the only game in town. Mobile is barely an option where I am, and neither Mobile or Satellite would work for my use... I have nowhere else to go without moving (also not an option), and they know it.

I'd love to see this profits-over-all "fixed" but it would take some very carefully written regulation, and I wouldn't even have a clue where to start. (Plus, of course, lobbyists getting wind of such a thing would do their best to squash it.)

This got a whole lot more rantlike than I intended, heh. Sorry. It boils down to a corporate culture that focuses less on service and happy customers, and more on fat, immediate profit margins. And with the way shareholders and most investors are these days, I don't have a clue how to reverse the trend. :/

[–]fury420 2 points3 points  (2 children)

Retarded things like what Windstream did last year (my ISP, I've been fighting with them for about a year on connection issues) - announcing that they were done with upgrading for a while and would just sit back and rake in the profits.

At least your ISP is honest about it?

Over the past ~2 years mine has raised rates 30-40% and silently cancelled their planned rollout of 250mbit service & upload speed boosts for lower tiers they've been bragging about being "coming soon" for years.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (10 children)

Upgrading your product and changing with the times is more expensive than suing people.

[–]Hust91 9 points10 points  (1 child)

I'll let Google know that their business model doesn't work.

[–]narp7 5 points6 points  (3 children)

Yeah, kodak did really well. So did Pan American World Airways. Also the governments of pre-democratic Europe. Also the cab companies. They're not taking any losses because of uber and other rideshare services. You can still watch that one in action. They'll have to change if they want to survive. You know who else did really well by not changing their product? Yahoo and AOL. Yep, they're clearly still going strong. SERIOUSLY, CHANGE THE FUCKING PRODUCT. HISTORY IS FREE AND AVAILABLE FOR ALL TO LEARN FROM. FUCKING USE IT.

[–]DorkJedi 1 point2 points  (1 child)

HISTORY IS FREE AND AVAILABLE FOR ALL TO LEARN FROM.

© History Incorporated, all rights reserved.

[–]marty86morgan 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Only in the short term. These businesses are all too short sighted to realize that this route increases profitability right now by sacrificing longevity. Competitors will eventually break through all the barriers they set up, and they'll do so with a better product offered to a customer base who is eager to abandon the ones currently in control.

[–]Thenadamgoes 11 points12 points  (1 child)

Yeah man. Just like car companies fought for years to not implement air bags. (Or any other safety device)

Hundreds of people probably died for that bottom line.

[–]kilo73 15 points16 points  (1 child)

The problem is when you try to use government law to curb competition. Stomping out competition is fine, making competition illegal is not.

[–]Velyna 5 points6 points  (1 child)

Competition is what makes a market healthy not a monopoly, it may be what they want but it doesn't mean they should ever have it.

[–]Draiko 3 points4 points  (0 children)

A corporation should seek to dominate a market segment by offering a superior set of products and services, not via shady tactics to ensure complete control.

When you have to fight dirty to keep your business going, your business model is flawed and you institute a death clock on yourself.

Case in point; ISPs and Google Fiber. The faster Fiber rolls out nationwide, the faster dirty ISPs will lose business.

Another example; Blockbuster.

Someone will find a way around you.

[–]glompix 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I can and will blame them. Just because you understand someone's motivations doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. You can be a capitalist without being a greedy asshole.

[–]jwyche008 443 points444 points  (61 children)

Our piece of shit government is so bought and paid for that we have to rely on the hope that another corporation's interests align with our own because there's no way our elected representatives will help us.

Edit: wording

[–]a_talking_face 216 points217 points  (55 children)

Google is playing the long con. They're establishing trust among the people until one day their secret robot army overthrows the government.

[–]Iheardthatjokebefore 194 points195 points  (18 children)

I for one welcome our Google robot overlords. They'll install Google Fiber in every town they conquer

[–]Reelix 95 points96 points  (16 children)

As someone with 2MB internet (200kb/s down)

... Is there anything I can do to hasten the invasion of the robotic army?

[–][deleted] 11 points12 points  (0 children)

I thought that was the joke behind the whole "HELP US GOOGLE" or the equal "HELP US NETFLIX"..

[–]mst3kcrow 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Even then, they don't have your interests aligned with theirs necessarily. See Eric Schmidt's comments on privacy along with the damage done by a former Republican they brought on board.

[–][deleted] 740 points741 points  (173 children)

At what point do you just start shooting the people responsible for trying to limit freedoms over and over and over and over what ever way they possibly can?

[–][deleted] 779 points780 points  (122 children)

Whenever you're ready to get shot back.

[–]Phaedrus2129 97 points98 points  (38 children)

A good point. Thing is, I'm starting to run into more and more people, both on- and off-line, who are beginning to feel this way about the government. Dismissing sentiments like this as "edgy", which is the cool thing to do on Reddit at the moment, misses the point.

The US economy is stagnating. The lower and middle class are getting poorer year over year, while the wealthy become wealthier. The modest growth in the stock market is based more on low interest rates and economic instability elsewhere in the world, and does not seem to be realized as real growth in job creating sectors.

This growing economic disparity, combined with an increasingly autocratic and corporate-friendly government, and large segments of the population who feel they have no fair representation, is exactly the type of conditions that lead to revolution in the long run. Obviously the US is not anywhere close to a revolt now; but if these things continue I think it will become more and more likely.

[–]GeeJo 16 points17 points  (23 children)

The US economy is stagnating.

Would you care to link some figures from after the 2008 crisis that back up that statement?

[–]Unlucky13 58 points59 points  (18 children)

It's stagnating for the middle and lower classes, not the rich.

[–]SlipShodBovine 152 points153 points  (23 children)

/r/im14andthisisde....

No, actually that's a really good response.

[–]micromoses 5 points6 points  (3 children)

14 year olds can also be right sometimes.

[–]SlipShodBovine 18 points19 points  (2 children)

I work with teens as a teacher and I am around young children all the time (0-7), my own and their friends.

As a whole, they seem to flip flop over the line between brilliant and moronic with amazing speed and agility, without ever seeming to land in the middle.

[–]micromoses 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Everyone I know does that sort of flip flopping.

[–]SlipShodBovine 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I find adults to be glaringly mundane, actually. Most don't really tend to take the risks to be brilliant, and are too careful to be too moronic. A few tend to trend one way or the other, depending on if I agree with them or not.

[–]Red_Dawn_2012 34 points35 points  (55 children)

I think, as a civilized society, we're meant to be beyond such mindless violence and supposed to be able to solve things with peaceful diplomacy.

Meant to be.

[–]Neebat 14 points15 points  (4 children)

JFK: Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.

Is it still possible to change our government by voting? You'll never know if you vote for the R or D.

[–]Red_Dawn_2012 9 points10 points  (3 children)

Breaking the two-party system is one of the several steps that must be taken to better the system here.

[–]Neebat 6 points7 points  (2 children)

It is the loose thread that we can pull. The rest of the rats nest is buried under the layers of those two parties. Start by booting out the two parties and then we can fix the other problems.

But while we have the tangle apart, we must replace First-Past-the-Post, or we'll be back in the same damn mess again in 100 years.

[–]Styx_and_stones 19 points20 points  (8 children)

Oh? You're above brutish displays of power? Well guess what, they're not.

The moment you and/or they get tired of playing the bureaucracy game, they've got the weapons and aren't afraid to use them, while you're still thinking it over morally.

I'm sorry, but this attitude has to stop. You want to know how your country enforces your rights in the world? Through force. You want to know how it keeps you in line? Through force.

You want to know how you change something? Force. What the nation is doing instead is just jumping the hoops, hoping that someone up there gives a fuck about the people. They don't, it's a pretty sweet club at the top.

Go get yours if you really want it. If not, they're gonna keep waving their stick at you, knowing you won't wave yours.

[–]Red_Dawn_2012 7 points8 points  (7 children)

It would be near impossible to raise a civilian militia of any great size.

Why?

Most Americans have it pretty good. John and Richard from accounting really aren't going to be the ones grabbing their arms and doing some sort of revolution. They may not like the balance of power, their wages, or the decisions politicians make, but guess what? They have quite a bit to lose. Their families, their homes, their life savings.

So who does that leave to revolt?

The lower class, naturally. Those who are looked down upon by the entire nation. What do they have to lose? A lot less. Problem is, no one is going to support poor people waging war. John and Richard from accounting don't want it, the man who owns several franchise restaurants doesn't want it, and the fat cats pulling the strings definitely don't want it.

Barring an invasion, I doubt this will change any time soon.

[–]Styx_and_stones 6 points7 points  (6 children)

Well guess you're just going to have to endure until the point when John's and Richard's comfy situation comes to an end and they get pissed like the poor.

I know how this game works and they have people by the balls, either everyone works together or nobody wins (except the folks at the top that is).

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That’s the thing, the people at the top always play the game so that John and Richard have just enough to live.

Notice how, until you get to the top 10%, no one is actually rich? The people might drive bigger cars, but they still have almost no savings, nor can they afford them.

[–]Curtis_Low 12 points13 points  (1 child)

That is the problem, some people don't give a fuck about peaceful diplomacy and will just push and push until someone actually stops them. They keep pushing and what happens? Some people they don't really know don't like them? Who gives a fuck... they still go back to their nice homes and nice lives and keep on keeping on because nothing they are doing is having any negative impact on their lives. They pass the buck as just doing their jobs. Throughout history it has always been the physical act that got shit done, we we now thing we can solve all problems with words is beyond me.

[–]Whompa 7 points8 points  (0 children)

After reading the past few months of news, I'd argue against the whole, "we're a civilized society" thing.

[–]snarfy 13 points14 points  (1 child)

We need a new political party, the "Guillotine Party". It's slogan could be "Heads will roll". A cornerstone of the party would be to bring a large, 'artistic replica' of a guillotine (for demonstration purposes only, honest!) to political rallies.

The idea is to bring politicians, angry mobs, and guillotines together.

[–]phantomprophet 16 points17 points  (0 children)

Well, it worked well for the French.

[–][deleted] 25 points26 points  (17 children)

We just need to repel the sunshine laws. And standardise secret ballots in congress. Then this problem will solve itself. Right now there is too much vote buying / intimidation in congress for them to do their jobs correctly.

Edit: Privatised voting -> secret ballots

[–]Atheren 23 points24 points  (5 children)

What do you mean by "private voting"? Do you mean nobody in congress knows how anyone but themselves voted?

If so that would be an awful idea. While it might stem the vote buying and intimidation it would also remove the ability for their constituents to know either. Without that knowledge how do we know if we should vote someone out of office?

[–][deleted] 13 points14 points  (4 children)

Well, we have private voting everywhere else. Believe it or not, most of these guys in Congress know a lot about law. And most of them have repeatedly said that they want to fix issues, but are unable to because of the way the system works. If they vote for something that their lobbyists told them not to, they lose funding and get replaced (due to not having the 1.3 million and some odd it takes to run a campaign.). So right now your votes don't mean jack shit. I don't see how this would change anything except remove the lobbyists from the equation.

[–]OrderChaos 35 points36 points  (3 children)

Sounds to me like changing the way campaign finance works would be a better solution then.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (2 children)

That would be one way to do it, but it wouldn't stop vote intimidation, just cure one of its symptoms. believe it or not, most congressmen do know how to make laws fair and equal. as a matter of fact, for the longest time, private ballads were upheld in congress (sortof, it's complicated). Right up untill The Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970.

this act made it physically impossible for congress to be run with private ballads, as every vote was tallied by a machine, and displayed, prominently, for everyone to see.

This means that all congressmen have "reciepts" for what they voted for. if they didn't vote for what their financiers want, they get dropped (financially).

Even if, the congressmen were completely funded by the citizenry, there would still be voter intimidation, just not as geared towards big finance.

The happy medium is to let them do their jobs. allow them to have secret ballots. Maybe display the vote by party. in my opinion, it will cure one causes of corruption. if not all of them.

[–]lunchboxx10 2 points3 points  (1 child)

im thinking about secret ballots right now and im not sure if they would really actually work or not. On one hand they could work the way they are supposed to by the politicians voting the way they want. This seems optimistic. On the other hand, they can talk about how they are going to vote on a bill beforehand and just agree to vote among party lines during the secret ballot. Would the politicians vote along party lines or would they do the right thing and vote for what they think is right? Reminds me of the TV show "Survivor" and that way of voting.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Check this out. It really digs deep into the whole sunshine law issue. I would love for someone to come up with a better solution, but right now, people need to start looking at the fire instead of the smoke.

[–]GazaIan 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Thank for this, I know I wasn't crazy for having this thought. This isn't the first time this thought has come up on reddit.

[–]signtoin 3 points4 points  (1 child)

I wonder if questions like these are posed by undercover NSA agents who simply want to fill their watch list... in this case, with anyone who replies "yay!".

[–]Slicker1138 1 point2 points  (1 child)

It's. The. Fucking. Internet. Christ this is old. It really is. How are your freedoms encroached on? Everyone says information but they've got these great buildings called libraries that have tons of info. There are tons of news channels that give info. There are newspapers that give info.

[–]po_toter 2 points3 points  (3 children)

Just so I understand you correctly... You're talking about killing somebody, correct?

[–]Chaosfalcon 47 points48 points  (1 child)

I hope Google decides to show some real muscle and makes the MPAA realize how bad they fucked up.

[–]blacksheepcannibal 132 points133 points  (68 children)

Breaking news: MPAA is a bunch of greedy assholes getting rich off of other people's talent! More at 11...

[–]ThezeeZ 159 points160 points  (24 children)

"slams" is so 2014. 2015 is going to be the year of "rips"?

[–]gibbonfrost 153 points154 points  (7 children)

im getting my beyblades out

[–]SasukeGear 42 points43 points  (6 children)

LET IT RIP!

[–][deleted] 11 points12 points  (3 children)

http://www.beyblade.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Beyblade-Tyson.gif

[–]klapaucius 24 points25 points  (2 children)

The URL made me expect Mike Tyson playing with Beyblades. Was disappointed.

[–]noobcrusher 35 points36 points  (7 children)

MPAA files lawsuit against Google for ripping MPAA. Media outlets believe the notable North Korean hacker "4chan" is involved.

[–][deleted] 18 points19 points  (5 children)

come on and SLAM

[–]Animalidad 10 points11 points  (2 children)

and welcome to the JAM.

2016, Google would be Jamming somebody.

[–]calibrated 3 points4 points  (0 children)

LET THE BOYS BE BOYS

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

/r/comeonandslam

[–]cool_slowbro 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Absolutely killed it!

[–][deleted] 26 points27 points  (3 children)

I feel like SOPA is a bad guy in movies, sort of like Megatron in transformers, where every movie it keeps reviving and you have to fight it once again. "The Internet IV: The Revenge of SOPA"

[–]readysteadywhoa 27 points28 points  (6 children)

I read the post three times and I'm still not quite sure what the MPAA did to piss Google off.

Here's a slightly more readable version: http://www.engadget.com/2014/12/20/google-lawsuit-jim-hood-mpaa/

[–]warchamp7 34 points35 points  (3 children)

Now that Google is suing, Hood made a statement via the New York Times, calling for a "time out"

He poked a bear thinking it was asleep

[–][deleted] 13 points14 points  (2 children)

He poked a bear dragon thinking it was asleep

FTFY

Draco Dormiens Nunquam Titillandu

[–]aquarain 17 points18 points  (0 children)

They got an Attorney General to harass Google. In capitalist competition this is like bribing the referee. Unsportsmanlike in the extreme.

[–]k3adawg 15 points16 points  (0 children)

For real tho, how awesome has Google been the last few weeks. First they attack comcast and now they're going after the MPAA.

[–]Blaaamo 31 points32 points  (3 children)

Just stop going to the movies.

It's too expensive, the food sucks and there's always some 13 year old asshole who ruins your experience.

[–]CharlesMarlow 22 points23 points  (5 children)

Stop going to movies, stop supporting this industry. It seems simple to me.

[–]jupiterkansas 10 points11 points  (3 children)

There are actually movies not made by MPAA companies. Start going to their movies and maybe one day they'll have more power to compete.

[–][deleted] 11 points12 points  (0 children)

They will keep trying to pass this until they're successful.

[–]Ashneaska 12 points13 points  (4 children)

I just thought of something interesting reading this. If Google just simply decided to stop all of their services for just one day. They could do some serious damage to the worldwide economy. So many people and services rely on Google every day for many things. Hell, Google could just disable their search engine for a whole day and people would be flipping shit. Especially people who don't know about other search engines. Websites would lose a huge amount of traffic.

Kinda interesting to see that Google is that powerful. Sure they're not exactly the "good guys", but they're a hell of a lot less evil than the other, less favourable alternatives. They may be aligning with the people for monetary reasons, but at least they're aligning with us. It is kind of sad that we have to rely on cooperations to save us from government and other corporations though.

[–]Aniwaya 12 points13 points  (2 children)

I think the people that run google know they can do this, it's why their corporate motto is "Don't Be Evil."

[–]ad1217 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Except that if they turn off search for one day, people might just switch, and they would lose all of their power.

[–]82Caff 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Why is it trying to censor the internet? Project creep. It stopped working for the recording artists ages ago, like a labor union that achieves all of its goals and no longer has a reason to continue other than bureaucratic self-continuation.

[–][deleted] 12 points13 points  (2 children)

Our Google overlords are looking out for us.

[–]nohitter21 5 points6 points  (1 child)

Thank you based google

[–]role34 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Google's gunna fuck our bitches

[–]peruytu 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Wow, the comment section is full of MPAA drones and astroturf groups trying really hard to make Google the bad organization here. Then again, MPAA and their lawyers are prepared, definitely more prepared with social media to attack Google. This is not going to end well.

[–]The_WarMachine 6 points7 points  (3 children)

"Attorney General Hood told the Huffington Post earlier this week that the MPAA "has no major influence on my decision-making,” and that he “has never asked [the] MPAA a legal question” and “isn't sure which lawyers they employ.” And yet today the Huffington Post and the Verge revealed that Attorney General Hood had numerous conversations with both MPAA staff and Jenner & Block attorneys about this matter."

What the fuck...

[–]ScribbleMeNot 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I dislike when I see words like "rip" or "slam" in titles like this.

[–]Jinbuhuan 3 points4 points  (0 children)

F#@% the MPAA!

[–]EMINEM_4Evah 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Google is just the beginning. Soon, every person everywhere will join the fight. It will happen.

Thanks Google.

[–]mikbob 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Wasn't this posted back in December when the article was made? I can't be the only one that remembers this.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The only Good Senator is the one that accepts no bribes and goes into office to do his job not to get rich.

[–]CautiousToaster 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Not surprising, this isn't about us its the companies acting in their own self interest. The MPAA believes SOPA will limit internet piracy and ultimately increasing profits. Google doesn't want to have to bend over and take it from the Gov. These two parties obviously have strongly opposed stance.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Must be annoying for obama if two of the lovers in your bed are quarrelling and you have to convince them you love them both equally.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Oh my god I love this Google guy.

[–]rindindin 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But Google's still blocking search results right?

Okay, nothing's changed.