I am not pro SOPA but Tim O Reilly is saying some really stupid shit

This is the kind of shit that pisses me off.

Look, I realize that the beautiful people in Silicon Valley have taken up SOPA the way Hollywood (eventually) took up the cause of AIDS. And, you know, to prove how they're out on the pavement thinkin bout the government, leading the charge to stop this tyranny -- by those who just don't get it -- by doing things like...

• tweeting!
• placing a STOP SOPA avatar on our tweets!

Just like the starlets so proudly wore their AIDS ribbons back in the day.

Because, really, you can't be against something unless you have a ribbon or a braclet or an avatar...

Only, poseurs aren't the real problem here, it's the "thought leaders", folks like the venerated Tim O'Reilly, who are preaching, frankly, bullshit and nonsense regarding a real issue.

Again, because I realize the non-thinkers out there will not tolerate even the scent of a disagreement regarding a single point with respect to SOPA, understand: I am not pro SOPA.

But some of the shit coming from the mouths of supposedly smart people are pissing me off.

Here's O'Reilly:

Rather than the usual comments about the potential harm to the internet, I focused on the harm to the very content industry that has proposed the law. I focused on the harm to the very content industry that has proposed the law.

Well isn't that magnanimous of him:

I highlighted three issues:

Piracy is not the real problem. It's a symptom of market failure

What a fucking stupid statement. Piracy is real, piracy is a problem and while *some* pirates may steal, let's call this what it is, stealing, because they *perceive* a maker and/or owner of content has an unfair pricing advantage, well, fuck that.

Maybe Microsoft has an unfair pricing advantage. I can get OS X Lion for $30 but Windows 7 costs me, what, $200? Should I pirate that? Make my own copy? Make thousands of copies?

Right off the bat, O'Reilly is being either stupid, and he does not strike me as a stupid person, or, he's stridently dismissing an actual "real problem" that has real consequences for people who create.

And, no, I don't particularly give a shit if he doesn't particularly care if "market failure" leads to the piracy of his works. 

SOPA protects the wrong people. We need to encourage innovative businesses, not protect those who are unwilling to adapt to new technology

Confession: just as you have not ready any Obamacare laws, I have not read the actual SOPA bill. So, I can't honestly say who it is or is not protecting.

But once again, O'Reilly is full of shit. 

I am against piracy. I create content. I don't want it stolen. I don't want anyone's content stolen and -- and this may shock you -- I believe people and businesses have a fundamental right to price their content as they wish. ANd if you don't like it, tough shit. Find a replacement.

I am sure there are comanies -- companies with well-dressed, well-paid lobbyists -- that are hoping to use the law to protect their business, their market, their industry. Why do you think Google spends so much each year lobbying? 

However, that *does not* mean that those of us who are anti-piracy are "unwilling to adapt to new technology". You can get my novel on Kindle. There's no DRM but if I so chose that ought to be my right. And it would be wrong if someone broke the DRM and stole my work, even if I lost only a nickel.

I realize Mr O'Reilly believes he and those who believe everything he says are the "progressives", the "innovators" and those who don't agree with him are dinosaurs unable or unwilling to adapt.

I also realize that being closed minded cuts both ways, Mr O'Reilly. 

SOPA ignores history. Storied American publishers began as "pirates" in the eyes of the British, yet America grew up to be the largest copyright market in the world.

At this point, when I got to O'Reilly's third argument I honestly thought, 'fuck, does being pro-SOPA make you stupid?' I mean, this is like the dumb people who say America shouldn't protect its borders or have a comprehensive immigration policy because, well, what about all those Irish that came here in the late 1800s? 

Those are not related points! Guess what: I can be fully or partly pro-SOPA or anti-SOPA irregardless of what American businesses may or may not have done back when America was a fucking British colony.

Seriously. This is what passes as the pro-SOPA argument? SOPA is so terrible, apparently, and yet one of the top minds of the web can't even put together a single fucking legitimate reason why it's so bad?

Following his three, er, core arguments, O'Reilly expounds. He provides no empirical data on this following claim but I'll take his word for it:

Far from being hurt by piracy, internet distribution of DRM-free ebooks is the brightest spot in my business, a key driver of growth.

In other words, boys and girls, those who are being hurt by piracy, who are losing money because of piracy, are bad because they are anti-innovation and run to Congress.

Would Mr O'Reilly feel this way if he were losing money to piracy rather than making more? Isn't this a fair question to ask? He may wish for you to believe his is a values-based stance but he's not the one losing money here!

I have little doubt that big monied interests are paying big monied lobbyists to influence big money congressmen and, given the nature of that beast, any solution will be inherently non-market based, unwieldy and almost certainly crafted to favor those with the most lobbyists. Which is not good.

Or, worse, it could legitimately harm American innovation, ideas, creativity and the economy in general. 

And if so, smart people ought to be able to provide a legitimate argument against the bill in general, and sections of the bill in particular. Tut-tutting about pirates really not harming those they steal from and couching it within a you're-either-with-us-or-against-us-rationale likely does more harm than good.