Not a blackout, but still a protest of SOPA


  1. Qui Tam says:

    No good ever comes from denying free speech. When a politician tries to deny a person or people their right to free speech, said politician should immediately face criminal charges as any attempt to circumvent the US Constitution is not only malicious and illegal it is also harrassing to those who would then need to seek protection of their right(s).


  2. Dr. J says:

    I think overall companies like Google, Wikipedia, and Facebook made billions on other people for free, they do very little and rake in all the cash as parasites, while the people they use make nothing.  I do wonder what this law would do about it, but if Google, Wikipedia, and Facebook are against it, I think I am for it.

  3. bobdiven says:


    As a professional creative type, I have felt the earth shift beneath my feet as the internet offered us all what seemed to be an easy access to a global audience (albeit under the condition that we give our work away for free).  But as access increased, so did the volume of competition for the promised audience that is only very rarely there.  I sum it up this way: It used to be that an artist had the opportunity to be ignored in his or her own community.  The internet now allows that same artist to be ignored by the entire world.

    And yet a company such as Google can aggregate the vast content on the web and profit incredibly, but feels itself imposed upon when authors and artists want a piece of that profit.

    I’m afraid I mistrust the new legislation under discussion because I don’t trust the people behind it to make choices other than those that are best for the corporations that profit from creative work (and the government that wants to please those corporations).

    (Granted, those corporations actually do pay the creative souls that labor on their product, but not often “enough”).

    But I also mistrust the internet crusaders who wrap themselves in the banners of “free speech” and “innovation”, citing their new wealth as some sort of benediction from above that their hearts are in the right place.

    So what do we do?  Do we want to live in a world where artists, writers and performers are pushed even further down the socioeconomic ladder?

    Before the internet revolution began, art was already considered a luxury and a lark, not a serious career.  (I don’t expect that to change, really, as there is a reason we pay people more to do the jobs that few really enjoy doing.  And since art can be a very enjoyable vocation, we artists are willing to do it for less).  That is all well and good, but when someone else then profits from that which we do for almost nothing, where is the fairness in that?  Nowhere.  We find only exploitation in the name of the “economy”, “jobs” or “innovation”.

    The creative community is being economically raped and pillaged to make a handful of people billionaires.  But in that respect, we artists and writers are no different than the millions of other citizens being treated to the same fate by our cash-soaked, moribund model of governance and reckless corporate greed.

    Like most of the great issues facing us, to make this right will cost each and every citizen something, from the corporations that must act fairly at the expense of a bit of profit to the individual that has to pay a few cents to the artist that made the stuff they currently get for nothing.  Frankly, I don’t see that happening any time soon.

    Bob Diven
    Las Cruces