Emphasis mine:

Leo Hindery, a major Democratic donor whose New York media private equity firm owns cable channels, said Obama might have reason to worry about his entertainment industry fundraising base.

“[The bill] is an issue that has no business being decided politically – by anybody on one side or the other – and the fact that it might be becoming a political issue is unfair to the content producers,” said Hindery, who’s contributed more than $3 million to Democratic candidates and groups.

Its unfair that your opinion is considered. This is a private conversation between millionaires. It doesn't concern you little people.

“Of course the entertainment industry has never been able to match kind of the grassroots support of the tech industry, not because people don’t love the products, but because the industry has never been able to use its customers and consumers the way the tech industry does.”

See, when you express your outrage about an American Internet censorship infrastructure you are simply being used by the tech industry. Only the opinions of millionaires are real. The little people are just pawns. They're just following orders.

SOPA: Obama could pay for decision in lost Hollywood cash - Robin Bravender and Kenneth P. Vogel - POLITICO.com

Several moguls, in response, ”sent back word saying ‘Fuck You’ basically,” one insider tells me, expressing how they feel used and abused by the President despite their campaign contributions...

One insider told me, “Jim explained that this notion that the Hollywood community will continue giving regardless of its business interests has to be taken into consideration. The message was, ‘Don’t expect Hollywood to show up and say ‘Who do I write the check to’ anymore.”

Hollywood's Obama Donors On President's Piracy Stand: Not Give A Dime Anymore

SOPA and PIPA were apparently written by policy analysts at The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation. I'm linking a paper they published which was circulated on Capital Hill by the MPAA and seems to be the source for a lot of the statements SOPA supporters have been making about those who oppose this legislation.

It should be obvious to anyone with even a modicum of political savvy that this rant is not a reasonable and objective point of view.This paper is a ridiculous diatribe that oversimplifies the arguments made by opponents while sneering at "ideologically driven advocates" who "populate internet standards bodies." Senators should not be pulling quotes from it.

The Architects of SOPA

A blackout scheduled for Wednesday to protest against proposed legislation on online piracy has failed to get the support of the biggest Internet players.

Despite calls for the participation of sites such as Facebook, Twitter and other big names, the biggest participants are the online dictionary Wikipedia and the social-news website Reddit.

Either Google and Wikipedia aren't some of the biggest Internet players, or Reuters is involved in blatant pro-sopa propaganda.

Still think you have a free press?

Reuters publishes inaccurate anti-protest propaganda piece

“It is ironic that a website dedicated to providing information is spreading misinformation about the Stop Online Piracy Act," Smith said in a statement on Tuesday. "The bill will not harm Wikipedia, domestic blogs or social networking sites. This publicity stunt does a disservice to its users by promoting fear instead of facts. Perhaps during the blackout, Internet users can look elsewhere for an accurate definition of online piracy."

When I read this I could almost see the forked tongue coming out of this guy's mouth.

Lamar Smith attacks Wikipedia

Patrick Leahy says he has no idea why tens of thousands of people are so upset about SOPA that they are protesting tomorrow!

Tomorrow, some U.S.-based websites that will not be affected by the PROTECT IP Act have announced that they will self-censor their content...

We should have an open debate on the PROTECT IP Act. Hiding behind the black box of self-censorship does not resolve the problem that is plaguing American business and hurting American consumers.

“Much of what has been claimed about the Senate’s PROTECT IP Act is flatly wrong and seems intended more to stoke fear and concern than to shed light or foster workable solutions. The PROTECT IP Act will not affect Wikipedia, will not affect Reddit, and will not affect any website that has any legitimate use. A foreign rogue website is clearly defined as one that has no real purpose other than infringement. Theft and fraud on this scale undermines consumer trust in online transactions. Perhaps if these companies would participate constructively, they could point to what in the actual legislation they contend threatens their websites, and then we could dispel their misunderstandings. That is what debate on legislation is intended to do, to fine-tune the bill to confront the problem of stealing while protecting against unintended consequences.

It has been explained, over, and over, and over again what the problems are with these bills. Perhaps if the sponsors of these bills would actually start addressing the detailed concerns that have been raised by opponents instead of sticking their fingers in their ears and pretending they have no idea what people are angry about, we could, in fact, make some progress.

Leahy needs to go.

Patrick Leahy's despicable statement on the SOPA blackout

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas) today said that he expects the Committee to continue its markup of the Stop Online Piracy Act in February.

Next month they are going to be right back at it.

Stop Online Piracy Act Markup to Resume in February

For the past few months we have tried and tried to explain to the MPAA and their fellow SOPA supporters that there are serious, legitimate, First Amendment concerns associated with the policies they are pushing.

The message is not getting through.

Only days after the White House and chief sponsors of the legislation responded to the major concern expressed by opponents and then called for all parties to work cooperatively together, some technology business interests are resorting to stunts that punish their users or turn them into their corporate pawns, rather than coming to the table to find solutions to a problem that all now seem to agree is very real and damaging.

It is an irresponsible response and a disservice to people who rely on them for information and use their services. It is also an abuse of power given the freedoms these companies enjoy in the marketplace today. 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.

A so-called “blackout” is yet another gimmick, albeit a dangerous one, designed to punish elected and administration officials who are working diligently to protect American jobs from foreign criminals. It is our hope that the White House and the Congress will call on those who intend to stage this “blackout” to stop the hyperbole and PR stunts and engage in meaningful efforts to combat piracy.

Get a clue Chris.

I've followed Internet policy issues closely since the early 1990's. I participated in the first web blackout in 1996. That was not a gimmick, and neither is this.

There were over 1,800 people involved in the discussion regarding the Wikipedia blackout. There are some 7,000 plus websites participating tomorrow. Over 30,000 people have changed their twitter Avatars to StopSopa. Over 50,000 people signed anti-Sopa petitions on the Whitehouse website.

All of these people are very angry with you.

We're not stupid. We're not misinformed, and surely you don't really think that sites like Wikipedia and MemeStreams are "in it for the money."

This is not about money. This is about right and wrong.

We know what these bills will do and we are taking a stand.

Chris Dodd's despicable statement on the SOPA Blackout

"Despite all of my best efforts, the past year has been dominated by really a bitter war between Silicon Valley and the content industry," Paul Brigner said. "And it’s a shame, because a lot of it has been fueled, I think, by misinformation and exaggeration about what the MPAA and others were trying to accomplish with this legislation."

"We need more than just following the money, and addressing the search results," he later added. "There needs to be some indication that when you try to go to these rogue sites, you shouldn't be there."

The danger of dismissing your opponent's concerns as "misinformation and exaggeration" is that you might start to believe it yourself. If you believe it yourself, you're likely to continue to press your agenda without regard to the objections that are being raised.

On some level you'd think they would clue into the fact that resistance to this has grown, not shrunk, with every single concession that they've made. Their lack of respect for our legitimate concerns leads them to believe that if they just make one more concession everything will be fine, when in fact the very idea that they thought we'd have accepted the previous version is, in and of itself, extremely provocative.

"What we're left with is a very narrow, carefully tailored, narrowly targeted bill that addresses the worst of the worst online thieves, whether it's the Senate or the House bill."

We don't believe anything that you say. Circulate a draft.

On SOPA and PIPA, MPAA and Chamber strike conciliatory note - Tony Romm - POLITICO.com

Google will joining the SOPA/PIPA protest.

I suspect that Google was late to the party in order to make it clear that this is a grass roots effort and not something that they are driving.

Google will protest SOPA using popular home page | Media Maverick - CNET News