This is what I don't understand.

Google makes more revenue in a quarter than the entire recording industry makes in a year.

Why then, does the RIAA have so much sway in Washington? Because they know money buys influence, and they are willing to put up the cash.

It may be a damning indictment of our democratic process that this is true, but that doesn't change the fact that it is true. SOPA's going to be as hurtful to Google as anyone else, but talking about it on wonky tech blogs won't solve shit. Put up the cash, Google. Play the game.

I disagree. By "playing the game" you validate it. You throw good money after bad, and help subverting democracy even more by rewarding the corrupt.

The only way I see out of this is when enough people refuse to play the game. And reward politicians that don't play it with votes, not money.

The recording industry has been doing this for much longer, so their lobbyists' Rolodexes are much thicker than Rolodexes of Google's lobbyists. And the RIAA's have been sending Christmas cards to all the various Senators and Congresspeople for decades, while Google's only started last year.

They would need to do both! I appreciate that Brin et. al. are not hiding behind some shill movements and lobbyists but are speaking out personally. But without money it becomes just a farce that allows them to save face by saying afterwards "we warned you guys".

Maybe they write polarizing legislation like this knowing it won't pass, but that people will take up arms (and donate money) over it?

Maybe but that's attributing a very complex plot to something that is probably much simpler the movie and music industry spending tons of money on political donations. The whole thing is taking on the guise of a last stand by the copyright lobby.

The copyright lobby is certainly behind it, but I am sure that it runs much deeper. Copyright, in a way, is just an excuse, so that proponents can use reasoning that copyright creates jobs, incentives innovation, fights "immoral" stealing of property etc. The layman could hardly disagree... Try arguing for censorship in the same way.

Once in place, the laws can and will be used to repress criticism directed at government and corporations, and will be used to plug "inconvenient" leaks, put away whistle-blowers, and curb press freedom (just like in other oppressive nations). Even though that is obvious to outsiders, they cannot openly put that on their agenda.