WHITEHOUSE REJECTS SOPA Rupert Murdoch SNAPS

White House Rejects Online Anti-Piracy Bills, Which Throws Rupert Murdoch Into a Twitter Tizzy

I immediately did a search and found nothing here pertaining to this news . Not sure if this is the right forum for it but it does relate to civil and social unrest in my humble opinion. So if im in the wrong place with old news please move thread mods. So here it is, if true this is a HUGE VICTORY in the war on constitution and way of life by these elite parasite control freaks. Perhaps Obummer is back peddling? This surely would be political suicide for him and his sinking ship if going forward with it. Maybe Obummer is changing tune yet again or this may just be a temporary political ploy? Rupert Murdoch throwing a tantrum makes me feel warm and fuzzy inside

nymag.com...

Rupert Murdoch exploded last night after news that the Obama White House was coming out against two online anti-piracy bills near and dear to the hearts and financial interests of major media companies like News Corp. "Obama has thrown in his lot with Silicon Valley paymasters who threaten all software creators with piracy," Murdoch declared. The White House's top technology officers sort of agree with Rupert, saying that "online piracy is a real problem that harms the American economy, threatens jobs for significant numbers of middle class workers and hurts some of our nation's most creative and innovative companies and entrepreneurs." But many opponents of SOPA and PIPA claim that the bills would limit the freedom of expression. Google and Twitter have even reminded lawmakers that the bills take the same approach used by the China and Iran to censor their citizens' Internet access. The White House agrees: Proposed laws must not tamper with the technical architecture of the Internet through manipulation of the Domain Name System (DNS), a foundation of Internet security. [...] We must avoid legislation that drives users to dangerous, unreliable DNS servers and puts next-generation security policies, such as the deployment of DNSSEC, at risk. Already, the House bill's two co-sponsors have agreed to withdraw the DNS-blocking provision from SOPA, while several of the Senate bill's sponsors have asked Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell to delay a floor vote scheduled in less than two weeks, citing the barrage of calls and e-mails they've been getting from "a large number of constituents and other stakeholders with vocal concerns about possible unintended consequences of the proposed legislation." But not all supporters of the bills are taking these setbacks lying down. After the White House came out against the legislation, Murdoch took to Twitter (his favorite new toy, it seems) yesterday with a series of exasperated messages. 5:54 p.m. ET: Piracy leader is Google who streams movies free, sells advts around them. No wonder pouring millions into lobbying. 5:57 p.m. ET: Film making risky as hell. This has to lead to less, hurting writers, actors, all concerned. 10:25 p.m. ET: Just been to google search for mission impossible. Wow, several sites offering free links. I rest my case. Then again, Twitter may not have been the most sensible outlet for such sentiments, considering on which side of this fight the site and likely many of its users find themselves. Among the public responses Murdoch received were several with choice phrases like "walking embodiment of the old world" and "three words: make better films" and "searching google turned up no such links for me ... "

reply to post by Unknown Soldier


i'll beive it when i see it.
i've got 10 bucks say they pass with signing statements attached.

Poor poor him, I guess money cant buy everything. And i love how he vented on twitter to the 99 percent who opposed this bill. He gets no sympathy from me or anyone else for that matter.

Originally posted by rubbertramp
reply to post by Unknown Soldier

 

i'll beive it when i see it.
i've got 10 bucks say they pass with signing statements attached.

This is true, I too am skeptical but if that old scrooge is raging then he and his elite golf buddies must feel threatened. Yes we shal see if it does expect a backlash when people realise they are bound and no longer have a voice. It probably does not take much to push that lunatics buttons.

Originally posted by Immune
Poor poor him, I guess money cant buy everything. And i love how he vented on twitter to the 99 percent who opposed this bill. He gets no sympathy from me or anyone else for that matter.

Ahah yes indeed he is too stupid to realise he is using the very platform to spew his anti-internet facist rants. Ignorance is bliss.

So the White house has rejected it by stating DNS manipulation is a step too far.. but what they say and what they do are two different things. Has the congress has rejected SOPA too? I don't really know how this stuff works since I'm not from America. The story seems legit though. I hope SOPA has been completely rejected, then all we'll have to deal with is the Pied PIPA.

reply to post by Unknown Soldier


Here you go


www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by ChaoticOrder


Good point, i really have no idea how the process works either. I just cant imagine this bill being realistically feasible after all it makes corporatocracy official. Then again these criminals managed to pass the patriot act and nobody made much noise about it. Unlike then people really are raising hell over SOPA. Maybe Obummer is actually reading all his mail and realizing he dun goofed.

Originally posted by Hellas
reply to post by Unknown Soldier

 

Here you go


www.abovetopsecret.com...

OK thanks for that i guess the wording did not work for me in the search

reply to post by Unknown Soldier


I think i went there too..lol..

www.abovetopsecret.com...

so let's keep it up so no one misses it..

this is important news...

reply to post by Unknown Soldier

I read some of his other tweets. They come across as being the demented ramblings of a man not rich enough.

reply to post by Unknown Soldier


i cannot post my reply about this murdock fella,it would probly get me banned

If you read the twitter comments, you'll see when were "Rupert" says:

"Just been to google search for mission impossible. Wow, several sites offering free links. I rest my case."

First of all, how does he know they are legit links? Did he click on them to see? No.

Does he understand anything about online scams or phising. They guy is illiterate when it comes to technology, and just trusts the links he see's to be authentic.

It's on the internet, so it's must be real!

I love how he whines about making movies being risky.

Who's making the guy make movies? Obviously he's done something right in today's business world.

Don't want to make movies anymore? FINE. GTFO then.

People take risks doing what they love every day. Only difference is that this guy already made it, and feels he can rant about this crap to the people still TRYING to make it in their rigged game.

Sickening.

Originally posted by AkumaStreak
I love how he whines about making movies being risky.

Who's making the guy make movies? Obviously he's done something right in today's business world.

Don't want to make movies anymore? FINE. GTFO then.

People take risks doing what they love every day. Only difference is that this guy already made it, and feels he can rant about this crap to the people still TRYING to make it in their rigged game.

Sickening.

Making movies is risky because....

Movies these days SUCK. Because the industry is corrupted just like everything else, and they're trying to make online "pirates" the scapegoats. The truth is no one wants to see the garbage your company is claiming to be a movie!

Seriously everything is a remake or just generally terrible idea. Let the real writers and creative artists back into town so they can make good films... otherwise you need scapegoats!

After the back peddle on NDAA I believe nothing when it comes to SOPA. That being said that state of piracy represents a paradigm shift in the consumption of media the old guard refuse to cooperate with. The reality is many individuals who pirate would have never purchased said media in the first place due to financial burdens or just not caring enough.

Such things do not equate lost sales, the other end of the spectra is the greed of the old guard, if a fair share went to the artist and they did not extort so much money and offered it at a competitive levels in an online environment sales would explode. One only has to look at Itunes, when it comes to software and games if the industry would adopt a try before you buy approach that was honest in scope you would see a marked increase in consumption as well.

The level of people who pirate just to pirate is marginal at best, and they wont go away no matter the level of draconian measure.

reply to post by Unknown Soldier

Jan. 15 (Bloomberg) -- The Obama administration won’t back legislation to combat online piracy if it encourages censorship, undermines cybersecurity or disrupts the structure of the Internet, three White House technology officials said.

Their statement, posted yesterday on the White House website, was a response to online petitions on legislative proposals to combat online piracy. The movie and music industries support such measures as a means of cracking down on theft. “While we believe that online piracy by foreign websites is a serious problem that requires a serious legislative response, we will not support legislation that reduces freedom of expression, increases cybersecurity risk or undermines the dynamic, innovative global Internet,” Aneesh Chopra, Victoria Espinel and Howard Schmidt wrote in a blog post.

White House Won’t Back Internet Censorship in Anti-Piracy Bills


Lets see if Obama does whats right.

Murdoch throwing tantrums?

AWWWW.........




S&F

Piracy threatens the film industry?? Right, but the SOPA proponents are typically those who have a number of skeletons in their closet that would make piracy look like ... I don't even know. I don't consider digital piracy to be egregious in the first place. The film industry is more prosperous than ever, especially for mainstream Hollywood; actors, actresses, production crew, get paid substantially before piracy ever "dampens" sales. Millions infact.

Piracy estimates losses of hundreds of millions, but that's only if they can prove the people watching copies would've purchased their film otherwise. Which for the most part is not the case. As for the music industry, piracy may actually help in a way due to a person being able to listen to the full album before making a choice to buy. If they really like it, support the artist. Those complaining are massive labels, raking in millions, & then propose legislation like SOPA --- that would more or less ruin the internet.

Maybe for these rich ASSHOLES. Of course they would try pulling something like this because buying every song, movie, or piece of software is like going to the corner shop & buying an assortment of candy. But for the average human being, the internet is not only a source of entertainment & bastion of ideas/free speech; but it's a platform for becoming the next innovators & visionaries. The real culprits for damaging of the industry are the oligarchs & psychopaths lobbying for such draconian nonsense.

WOW, I cant believe he vented so openly on twitter.
If that is indeed his account, im shocked.

I hope he reads the comments coming back.

old world indeed!

reply to post by Raelsatu


Agreed. People who "pirate" movies online basically did not plan to pay to see it, and for the most part would not pay for it otherwise. I would say 1% of their figures are close to correct. Maybe a few hundred thousands of dollars were lost, max.

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
So the White house has rejected it by stating DNS manipulation is a step too far.. but what they say and what they do are two different things. Has the congress has rejected SOPA too? I don't really know how this stuff works since I'm not from America. The story seems legit though. I hope SOPA has been completely rejected, then all we'll have to deal with is the Pied PIPA.

The problem comes if the bill has strong support in Congress they can overide a Presidents veto and pass the bill anyway. Thats what happened with the NDAA. The White House was against it but when it became clear a veto be beaten by Congess, Obama caved because once that happens as President your dead in the water. In reality the President has very limited powers, most of it rests with Congress and the courts.