Oh no, El Cid I was quite accurate.
Allow me to quote Ars Technica:
"The Supreme Court has ruled that the First Amendment prohibits prior
restraint—limiting access to speech before a court has provided due
process to the defendant. In particular, as a letter signed by dozens of
law professors pointed out, speakers are entitled to tell their own side of the story to the judge before
their content is taken down. And if a defendant loses, he is typically
given the opportunity to exhaust his appeals before his speech is
censored.
The sponsors of SOPA and PIPA appear to have ignored these concerns.
Both bills allow the attorney general (and, in some cases, private
parties—more on that later) to request a takedown of an overseas site
based on the legal fiction that the website, rather than its owner, is
the defendant. Because a website owner isn't technically a party to the
case, the judge can issue an injunction before he has even heard the
defendant's side of the case. And the attorney general can have the
target website cut off from access to search engines, advertising
networks, and credit card payments."
Start publishing on
DD Comics!
Advertise with us
Comic Talk and General Discussion *
Have YOU tried to save the internet today?
Umm… that was some good stuff and all, but what bearing did any of that have on what I was talking about? You made the following incorrect statements: That there is no burden of proof (false. Maybe not as much as you'd like there to be, but that doesn't mean "not any") and that there is no notification (also false. The offender has to be notified before an injunction is pursued). I've already linked directly to the full text of the actual bill and it's there for anyone to read.
What seems to be your (and a lot of people's) biggest point of contention is that the procedure for taking down offending content is no longer an adversarial process, where the defendant has his day in court, but instead it's basically up to the court to decide. Given the circumstances of online piracy, where the violators are usually overseas and less than cooperative, this has unfortunately become a necessary adaptation. It also better addresses the nature of IP theft by dealing with it as an ongoing offense. The more time you spend monkeying around with a pirate site, the more time they have to disseminate your content.
The points that hold for the anti-SOPA side are the following, which I feel I need to repeat, since in all the sites I have been there has been no argument able to refute it, except with feeble attempts to explain that we axiomatically 'shouldn't' be suspicious of corporate interests being channeled through governmental avenues:
From what I have read, the burden of proof lies with the accused in this case, not the accuser as is the general approach in legal differences. The point that has to be made in this case (and which I tried to make in my posts) is that while stopping piracy is important (and achievable), voting a law that is clearly NOT going to even curb it but instead is going to cause a million different abuses and aberrations is not even supportive of that goal. Instead there should be push for a law that actually warrants and validly reflects the name SOPA.
The principle of law making is to curb a criminal behavior, rather than cause havoc that will enhance it, as apparently SOPA is about to do.
And as an afterthought… by what sort of principle or law, does an American law stipulate indictment, punishment and penalties for offenders not on American soil and certainly NOT under the USA's jurisdiction?
Some could take this as a far more politically significant move (regarding imperialism/globalisation/despotism) with the US Congress as the means for the entire world, than a domestic affair for the Americans.
How would you feel if the EU voted a law that punished Americans for what was not illegal in America, while they were on American soil, unaware of even having broken some European law that decided to regulate their life for the interest of the European corporations feeling the average American citizen is harming their revenue?
That there is no burden of proof (false. Maybe not as much as you'd like there to be, but that doesn't mean "not any")
SOPA's burden of proof is like me using a piece of cardboard as a jacket. It's not warming me up as much as I'd like it to, but at least I have a jacket, right?
The burden in SOPA's case is mere suspicion and accusation. Those two aren't even enough to be probable cause; you know, what's needed for a search warrants and arrests. Probable cause is a reasonable, competently articulable suspicion that a crime is, will, or has occured. It's not mere suspicion or a "hunch." I invite you to read through SOPA and find language that looks like that. Here's a hint: you won't.
What seems to be your (and a lot of people's) biggest point of contention is that the procedure for taking down offending content is no longer an adversarial process, where the defendant has his day in court, but instead it's basically up to the court to decide. Given the circumstances of online piracy, where the violators are usually overseas and less than cooperative, this has unfortunately become a necessary adaptation.
Because SOPA is totally limited to being used against websites that are offshores, right? No, no it isn't. Like I said earlier, this bill gives copyright holders a lifetime supply of legislative nuclear bombs, and a license to use them. To think that only "the big bad foreign pirates" will get blown up by said bombs is a delusion.
Take this same bill and bring it offline, put it in the real world. SOPA would allow you to have your neighbor put in jail for merely accusing him of stealing your lawnmower. Does your neighbor get a day in court? A talk with his lawyer? A moment to defend himself? No. He's already in the slammer.
NickyP wrote:
…The burden in SOPA's case is mere suspicion and accusation. Those two aren't even enough to be probable cause; you know, what's needed for a search warrants and arrests. Probable cause is a reasonable, competently articulable suspicion that a crime is, will, or has occured. It's not mere suspicion or a "hunch." I invite you to read through SOPA and find language that looks like that. Here's a hint: you won't.
You won't find the words "suspicion" or "accusation" in the bill either. What constitutes a "foreign infinging site" is very clearly outlined in Section 102 of the bill and those criteria are not going to be applicable to too many sites that aren't dirty. The Attorney General does have to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the court that the site meets these criteria. It's not the same level of evidence required for a murder conviction, but then that would be an unreasonably burdensome standard.
NickyP wrote:
Because SOPA is totally limited to being used against websites that are offshores, right? No, no it isn't…
The bill does differentiate between domestic and foreign infringing sites, and it's clear from even a brief glimpse at the summary or secion headings that the bulk of the problematic provisions are specifically directed against foreign infringing sites. Specifically though, I'd point out these two lines:
(2) the owner or operator of such Internet site is committing or facilitating the commission of criminal violations punishable under section 2318, 2319, 2319A, 2319B, or 2320, or chapter 90, of title 18, United States Code; and
(3) the Internet site would, by reason of acts described in paragraph (1), be subject to seizure in the United States in an action brought by the Attorney General if such site were a domestic Internet site.
It's pretty clear that the primary intent is to go after sites that, were they domestic, would already be subject to legal action in the U.S.
NickyP wrote:
Take this same bill and bring it offline, put it in the real world…
I'll have to stop you right there, because you've already missed the point. This law IS online, and it was necessitated by the challenges presented by the Internet. The problem with our current legal framework is that it is outdated and does not address the unique challenges presented by our newly interconnected world. H.R. 3261 is not a "magic bullet" that is going to solve all the problems, but it is a clumsy first step in the right direction.
I'll just leave this here: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501465_162-57361906-501465/sopa-and-pipa-internet-blackout-aftermath-staggering-numbers/
Noble intentions aside it has become very clear to a lot of people that SOPA/PIPA are dangerous and should not come into law. It compromises too much, overeaches too far, and for the wrong reasons.
Try looking at the OPEN act for a more balanced approach.
I also agree with this as
Tantz Aerine wrote:Its greatly overlooked that the very idea of attacking foreign sites, the professed goal of the bill, has no legal ground to stand on and could be considered cyber warfare against a foreign nation. If you don't recognize that then you really don't understand the ramifcations of the technical provisions in the bills.
And
as an afterthought… by what sort of principle or law, does an
American law stipulate indictment, punishment and penalties for
offenders not on American soil and certainly NOT under the USA's
jurisdiction?
Some could take this as a far more politically
significant move (regarding imperialism/globalisation/despotism) with
the US Congress as the means for the entire world, than a domestic
affair for the Americans.
How would you feel if the EU voted a law
that punished Americans for what was not illegal in America, while they
were on American soil, unaware of even having broken some European law
that decided to regulate their life for the interest of the European
corporations feeling the average American citizen is harming their
revenue?
One basic problem is that the US does not own the internet anymore than it owns the moon. A bill of this nature has no business coming from one country. This should be an international treaty level agreement.
Our messing with the internet will affect the ability of numerous other countries' internet experience.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/apnewsbreak-workers-indicted-at-one-of-worlds-largest-file-sharing-sites-megauploadcom/2012/01/19/gIQAJPIRBQ_story.html
Fantastic, the feds shut down Megaupload.. Ironic that this happened a day after the big SOPA protest. It could potentially piss off more people against SOPA.
Why arrest the webmaster of a site for the content users uploaded? That's like arresting the owner of a Walmart where drug dealers sell crack in the parking lot. You're aiming at the wrong target.
EDIT: Oh, and how could I forget:
The bill does differentiate between domestic and foreign infringing sites, and it's clear from even a brief glimpse at the summary or secion headings that the bulk of the problematic provisions are specifically directed against foreign infringing sites. Specifically though, I'd point out these two lines:
I like how you quote 102(a)(2) and 102(a)(3), but completely skipped 102(a)(1). I wonder why? Let's read it and find out:
(a) Definition- For purposes of this section, a foreign Internet site or portion thereof is a ‘foreign infringing site’ if–
(1) the Internet site or portion thereof is a U.S.-directed site and is used by users in the United States;
So a website is considered a "foreign infringing site" if it's directed at the US and is used by people in the US? Wow, you mean every website, American or otherwise, can be a "foreign infringing site"? You're right, SOPA totally differentiates between foreign and domestic. Not.
NickyP wrote:You're right, SOPA totally differentiates between foreign and domestic. Not.
…I like how you quote 102(a)(2) and 102(a)(3), but completely skipped 102(a)(1). I wonder why? Let's read it and find out:
(a) Definition- For purposes of this section, a foreign Internet site or portion thereof is a ‘foreign infringing site’ if–
(1) the Internet site or portion thereof is a U.S.-directed site and is used by users in the United States;
So a website is considered a "foreign infringing site" if it's directed at the US and is used by people in the US? Wow, you mean every website, American or otherwise, can be a "foreign infringing site"?
*********(page break added because I can't get the stoopid quote thing to work!)
You walked right into that one. My suspicions have proven correct. You haven't read the bill. Section 102 begins as follows:
(a) Definition- For purposes of this section, a foreign Internet site or portion thereof is a foreign infringing site if–
In the definitions which precede Section 102 a foreign Internet site is clearly defined as "an Internet site that is not a domestic Internet site," and a domestic Internet site is further defined as "an Internet site for which the corresponding domain name or, if there is no domain name, the corresponding Internet Protocol address, is a domestic domain name or domestic Internet Protocol address," and further defines a domestic domain name as "a domain name that is registered or assigned by a domain name registrar, domain name registry, or other domain name registration authority, that is located within a judicial district of the United States." You either did not read the bill that you're here railing against, or you are a poor reader (not a good quality for someone who wants to be a lawyer!)
I'm not saying this to be a dick, but if you're going to go running around the internet trying to scare up opposition to this bill, you really do need to read it and understand it first. I would say the same to everyone else here, that you should get some firsthand and unbiased knowledge, and stop believing every alarmist rant you read on the blogosphere.
NickyP wrote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/apnewsbreak-workers-indicted-at-one-of-worlds-largest-file-sharing-sites-megauploadcom/2012/01/19/gIQAJPIRBQ_story.html
Fantastic, the feds shut down Megaupload.. Ironic that this happened a day after the big SOPA protest. It could potentially piss off more people against SOPA.
Why arrest the webmaster of a site for the content users uploaded? That's like arresting the owner of a Walmart where drug dealers sell crack in the parking lot. You're aiming at the wrong target.
I'm sorry, but Megaupload was neck deep in illegal shit and I'm glad they're being shut down. And you still don't get it about these analogies. They don't work, and that's the reason why our current laws don't work, because it's not analagous to the situations our legal system is currently set up for dealing with. It's still imperfect, but a closer analogy to what was going on at Megaupload would be a flea market where some of the vendors, instead of selling cheap knock-off jewelry, were selling heroin out in the open, and advertising it to the world, for seven years. I'm sorry, but the flea market owner doesn't get to look away and pretend he didn't know what was going on, and there should be ramifications for that level of complicity.
Loud_G wrote:
One basic problem is that the US does not own the internet anymore than it owns the moon. A bill of this nature has no business coming from one country…
Unless you have diplomatic immunity or somesuch, you are subject to the laws of the country you are in or doing business in. If your website victimizes people in another country, and facilitates the theft of their intellectual property, they should have some recourse. I agree with you that it'd be nice if every country could come together and agree on some uniform way to deal with these issues, and maybe we'll get there someday. But in the interim, we should still do what we can here.
I will respectfully concede that in a brief lapse of judgment, I've misread that particular portion of the bill. In addition, I will also concede that, to an extent, SOPA does differentiate between foreign and domestic websites. However, two key contentions still remain quite valid:
1. While SOPA differentiates definitionally between foreign and domestic websites, it is in no means limited to being applied towards foreign websites. The same abusive power that will allow the MPAA and RIAA to imprison foreign pirates, will also allow them to teens on youtube that upload videos of themselves singing karaoke. Shake your head and wag your finger all day, El Cid, copyright infringement is copyright infringement… and SOPA is designed to destroy copyright infringement, with little recourse and mercy.
I have said multiple times before, and others have repeated it; this bill gives way too much power to all the wrong people. If you truly believe the MPAA and RIAA won't abuse SOPA once enacted, you are naive. I invite you to read through the courts ruling in Viacom v. Youtube.
2. SOPA is yet another case of "Team America: World Police." Tantz Aerine has articulated this point well enough that I honestly don't think I have to repeat them.
And here's an interesting thought that occured to me yesterday. SOPA, in its pronounciation, is a greek word. It's the equivalent of "be quiet" or "close your mouth". Interesting, yes? And no, this isn't "blogosphere" nonsense, I'm greek. I've used and have heard that word many times.
That's good enough, Nicky. I think however that one has to find the line where prudence gives way to paranoia. I'm pretty sure I have stated before, and will repeat here, that I do NOT believe the law will never be abused. Again, every law can and will be abused. This is not an argument for or against anything.
For that matter, your concern seems strangely one-sided when it comes to this matter. Sites like Megaupload are commiting abuses on a massive scale right now. There is nothing hypothetical or speculative about that. I don't know how the story of this bill ended up being told as a David vs Goliath battle, between the Big Bad Entertainment Industry and the meek little upstart tech companies. In reality it's Goliath vs Goliath, a turf battle between Hollywood and Silicon Valley, with all of us caught in the crossfire. The tech companies want to maintain the status quo so that they can continue operating at artificially low cost while passing the costs of their lax practices on to others, and parasitically profiting at the expense of content creators. We've all gotten so used to this state of affairs that we've come to take it for granted and assume that's the way things should be. It shouldn't be that way. It's a perverse order and it won't be that way forever. Google, Megaupload, and all the rest need to be made to understand and accept that. This is a battle they will lose in the longer term, so they need to start cleaning up their act now.
There it is. There's the "paranoia" card again. Ha. Ha ha. You're right, we ARE all paranoid.
Because Sony never put rootkits in music CDs.
Because the RIAA never brought million dollar lawsuits against dead people, families who don't own a computer with internet access, and 12-year old children for allegedely pirating music.
Because DRM never locked the consumer out of the product they legally purchased (how dare I try to burn a CD using music I bought on iTunes? Shame on me!)
Because the MPAA never vehemently brought lawsuits against the makers of the VCR to suppress it from being sold for private use.
You're absolutely right, El Cid. If SOPA passes and grants the aforementioned companies the unquestioned ability to effortlessly put people in jail, domestic and otherwise, we'll have nothing to fear. Nothing to fear at all.
Oh by the way, we won.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2012/01/sopa-bill-sent-back-to-the-drawing-board-in-wake-of-internet-protests.html
For now, at least.
NickyP wrote:
2. SOPA is yet another case of "Team America: World Police." Tantz Aerine has articulated this point well enough that I honestly don't think I have to repeat them.
And here's an interesting thought that occured to me yesterday. SOPA, in its pronounciation, is a greek word. It's the equivalent of "be quiet" or "close your mouth". Interesting, yes? And no, this isn't "blogosphere" nonsense, I'm greek. I've used and have heard that word many times.
I concur, being Greek, that SOPA= "shut your mouth" in Greek. I was just telling that to Pit Face the other day. XD
And hurray for the 'back to formula' decision! If the Green Goblin won't raise its ugly head then maybe they will try to turn in a bill where ACTUAL PIRACY is stopped rather than just granting even more to the usual offenders the capacity to abuse the hell out of International Laws and Human Rights.
NickyP wrote:
Oh by the way, we won.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2012/01/sopa-bill-sent-back-to-the-drawing-board-in-wake-of-internet-protests.html
For now, at least.
I would echo the sentiments of Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy and Christopher Dodd mentioned in that article. This was a very unfortunate knee-jerk reaction, brought on by a hysterical mob reaction from people who for the most part didn't even know what they were protesting against. Unfortunate, but short-lived. They're going to go over the bill, maybe try to figure out some way of essentially doing the same thing without raising the antennae of the hyper-reactive aluminum foil hat crowd, and again it's going to meet with heavy protest way out of proportion to what's being offered. At that point, it will become obvious that the opposition is not to the bill itself, but to the very IDEA of the bill, and that the forces driving the protest are in fact against the idea of combating piracy, because they profit from it immensely. A temporary setback for the good guys, and the bad guys buy a little more time to go on raping artists and innovators without consequence. It's nothing to celebrate.
NickyP wrote:
There it is. There's the "paranoia" card again. Ha. Ha ha. You're right, we ARE all paranoid…
Well at least we agree on something! LoL! To be honest, none of those examples struck me as terribly egregious, but moreover it's extremely dishonest to present them as typical rather than anomolous. Again, every law gets abused, but no one seriously considers that an argument for abolishing all laws. I'm disappointed that you still seem unable to move beyond using cheap rhetoric to scare up support for your cause, especially when it's been made plainly obvious that you yourself don't even really understand what you're protesting against. This really is a sad day. Being loud and ignorant is apparently more important than being right.
1. Did I present those examples as typical events, or are you criticising them as such because you're scared I might actually be making a good point? Like it or not, the content industry has assaulted, on many occasions, the very entity that gave them their wealth to begin with; the consumer. You can shrug it off with every discussional tactic you've got, but that's fact. I'm sorry you don't like to hear that. I'm at a loss for words if you truly believe that Sony intentionally infecting their customers with malware, for playing purchased CD's on their private computer, isn't egregious. I really am.
2. Your constant, "potential for abuse isn't an argument against a proposed law," premise is amusing to me. It leads me to believe that you don't really understand legal theory at all. The potential for abuse, manipulation, and contradiction in general is why we have so many layers of decision making to begin with. It's why there's multiple levels of appellate courts. Sit through a lecture on US Constitutional Law, and ask your professor if he/she agrees with that idea of yours, El Cid. You'll be disappointed.
3. If your contention that I, and others, are over-sensationalizing this bill and acting in blind paranoia are true, then you're a hypocrite. If I'm guilty of thinking the big bad media companies are out to get me, then you're guilty of thinking the big bad internets are out to steal content. Who is loud, ignorant, and paranoid now? Here's a novel idea; maybe, just maybe, our concerns are valid.
4. You might think it's a good idea to burn down a neighborhood to catch a bankrobber, and you're certainly entitled to believe so. But don't act so surprised, and begin to employ increasingly blatant ad hominems, once people start disagreeing with you.
NickyP wrote:
1. Did I present those examples as typical events, or are you criticising them as such because you're scared I might actually be making a good point?
Oh, so you're saying they're NOT typical? Then to what earthly purpose did you post them? You just randomly picked those examples out of the air, because they match the curtains or something? Don't give us that, Nicky! It's insulting. You chose the examples you did because you think they paint a certain picture, and don't try to squirm your way out now and say "oh I didn't mean anything by it!" You took some bizarre, atypical examples and tried to pass them off as exemplary. Shame on you.
NickyP wrote:
Like it or not, the content industry has assaulted, on many occasions, the very entity that gave them their wealth to begin with; the consumer. You can shrug it off with every discussional tactic you've got, but that's fact…
I would like to hear you explain this to all of us, how the entertainment industry's business model is to intentionally victimize their customer base. Because that makes no sense, at least to any rational person. They make money by providing people a product. They would be more than happy not to have to sue anybody, for anything, ever, but unfortunately that's not the case. People steal their product, and many of them are also legitimate consumers as well, but that is a far cry from saying that they have it as a stated goal to go out and maliciously harm their customer base, which is nonsense.
NickyP wrote:
2. Your constant, "potential for abuse isn't an argument against a proposed law," premise is amusing to me.
You're way too easily amused, and it's too bad you don't get that, because it's a very basic rational truth. The idea in general that a given law has potential for abuse is not an argument against the law, because this is true for all laws. To say then that "this is a bad law because someone might abuse it" is not an argument. Please note, that is not to say that this is a bad argument; that's saying it is not an argument of any kind whatsoever. Now, if the law itself is innately abusive, that is a different matter altogether.
NickyP wrote:
3. If your contention that I, and others, are over-sensationalizing this bill and acting in blind paranoia are true, then you're a hypocrite. If I'm guilty of thinking the big bad media companies are out to get me, then you're guilty of thinking the big bad internets are out to steal content.
Making false comparisons between us doesn't make me a hypocrite; it makes you a shoddy thinker. I do believe your statements about the media companies are, frankly, very silly, and you do need to be a very paranoid individual to believe the picture you're trying to paint. As for whether Google, Megaupload, and other such sites are supporting content theft by hosting pirated files and leading people to illegal downloads, there's nothing even vaguely irrational about that statement, and if you're trying to suggest that this isn't happening, then I want you to say so explicitly. I will enjoy making you look very, very foolish.
NickyP wrote:
Who is loud, ignorant, and paranoid now?
Still you. I actually wasn't calling YOU loud and ignorant; that's my characterization of the opposition movement in general, because I get the impression that they're not all that well informed.
But while we're on the subject of ignorance, let's take a look at you, shall we? You posted this thread in mid December. Even pretending you weren't opposing the bill prior to that, that's at least a month that you were here raising a stink about the bill, and didn't even realize that it differentiates between foreign and domestic internet sites, until I had to point it out to you. That's not a small oversight, Nicky. And when it was pointed out to you, you didn't even miss a beat or reconsider your position. That speaks volumes. You don't even care what the facts are. Your opposition had nothing to do with the particulars of the bill, because you weren't even aware of the particulars of the bill. You didn't give a damn when someone in this thread made blatantly false statements about the bill, so long as they supported your side. You're all too typical of the mindless mob mentality that characterizes the opposition movement. And if I sound disgusted, that's because I am. Having an informed opinion is one thing, but these forums deserve better than cynical demagoguery.
NickyP wrote:
4. You might think it's a good idea to burn down a neighborhood to catch a bankrobber, and you're certainly entitled to believe so.
I don't think that's a good idea at all, but you apparently think it's a good idea to burn down straw men. Try again when you learn how to structure a proper argument.
Oh, so you're saying they're NOT typical?
No. I'm not saying either. I presented four examples of how the MPAA and RIAA have taken extreme measures, that harm the consumer, in the name of copyright protection. I believed it was pretty obvious to anyone who read that.
I would like to hear you explain this to all of us, how the entertainment industry's business model is to intentionally victimize their customer base.
1. I'd like to hear when I made such a claim, actually.
2. Read the response written prior to #1.
Now, if the law itself is innately abusive, that is a different matter altogether.
And there's your answer to that concern. Next!
Making false comparisons between us doesn't make me a hypocrite; it makes you a shoddy thinker. I do believe your statements about the media companies are, frankly, very silly, and you do need to be a very paranoid individual to believe the picture you're trying to paint.
"He's STILL disagreeing with me! Time to hit him with more ad hominems!"
But while we're on the subject of ignorance, let's take a look at you, shall we?
OH NO! I made an honest mistake that I immediately owned up to! How will I ever live with this eternal shame?? My credibility is forever tarnished!!! /sarcasm
I don't think that's a good idea at all,
Whatever you say, Mr. "let's-give-private-corporations-the-ability-to-imprison-people-from-all-over-the-globe-with-little-recourse."
In further response to the "false comparison" remark:
but I'm sure you're aware that Google is a big company as well. And unlike the entertainment companies in this case, they're actually profiting from criminal activity by serving as the middleman in millions of illegal transactions. That to me seems to be the crux of the problem: the search engines and file hosting sites are not policing themselves. And it's not a matter of them not being able to, either. The measures Google takes to keep child porn from popping up in their searches are extraordinary. They even have skin tone recognition software built in… and I have no idea how that works! To say that they can't prevent people from illegally downloading well-known movies from well-known hosting sites is a load of bull. They can, but they won't.
Sound familiar, guy? I invite you to explain to us how Google's business model is to intentionally victimize the entertainment industry?
Again. If I'm wearing a tin-foil hat to hide from the "big bad media industry," then you're wearing a tin-foil hat to hide from the "big bad internets." Or, maybe we both have valid concerns in both of our view points. Oh wait, no, you could never accept that. That's just silly.
and didn't even realize that it differentiates between foreign and domestic internet sites, until I had to point it out to you.
Except that it practically still doesn't. By definition it differentiates between foreign and domestic internet sites, but at no point in the bill does it limit it's immediate-remedy power to foreign sites. There's a difference between domestic and foreign, yes, but the bill still lets you shoot court orders at both. Exploit my oversight all you want, it won't hide you from that fact.
You yourself said it, "it just means that whatever websites are domestic are still applicable to domestic laws." Yeah, it does, and it also adds that domestic laws now apply to foreign websites.
I'm surprised you're still fighting me, though. Why? Because the fact that Megaupload was successfully shut down, and it's CEO's arrested, should demonstrate that we can fight piracy without SOPA. Fancy that, huh?
NickyP wrote:
…Sound familiar, guy? I invite you to explain to us how Google's business model is to intentionally victimize the entertainment industry?
Nicky, you're either the single dumbest person I've ever met, or you're just intentionally trying not to get the point. Does anyone other than Nicky, Tantz, or Pit not understand what I'm saying? Google's business model includes providing people with easy instant access to millions of illegal downloads. Google takes very effective measures to block other more insidious content from ever showing up on their search engine, but they do nothing like that to block obvious pirate sites, because that's too many users that they'll be sending to the other guys. If you can't understand that statement, Nicky, then I feel bad for you. But I get the impression you're just being dense on purpose at this point.
I don't have time to keep going back and forth with you on all of the nonsense you've been spewing lately, but I will say that your last statement was quite a whopper!
NickyP wrote:
…Because the fact that Megaupload was successfully shut down, and it's CEO's arrested, should demonstrate that we can fight piracy without SOPA. Fancy that, huh?
Of course it's not impossible under current laws to combat certain types of infringing by foreign sites, because we do have some laws like the Digital Milennium Copyright Act, which I've already mentioned here and which I'm sure you opposed just as vehemently, and when the local governments are cooperative. If you really want to hang your hat on a statement that we currently have effective laws for this type of threat, then I'm not going to argue with you, because from the endemic levels of ongoing piracy it's obvious to anyone with a brain that the tools we have available have not proven effective. Megaupload functioned for seven years out in the open, with 50 million visitors a day and raking in $175 million by dispensing pirated movies, music, and eBooks, among other things, before anyone could do anything.
No one honestly believes that our current laws are effective. Even your friends in this thread have stated that they may disagree with THIS particular law, but believe in other measures to improve things. So you've placed yourself in a very isolated position. But at least you're finally starting to show your true colors. It was obvious to me from the beginning that you were not being straightforward with us, and when you were exposed for not even understanding the most basic premise of what the bill is actually about, that pretty much laid bare the fact that you were opposing on principle and not on material. So now it's clear: You support the status quo. You want to keep conditions as they are, where piracy can thrive as it currently is. You're right Nicky, the current laws are ideal for people like you.
Advertise with us
DDComics is community owned.
The following patrons help keep the lights on. You can support DDComics on Patreon.
- Banes
- JustNoPoint
- RMccool
- Abt_Nihil
- Gunwallace
- cresc
- PaulEberhardt
- Emma_Clare
- FunctionCreep
- SinJinsoku
- Smkinoshita
- jerrie
- Chickfighter
- Andreas_Helixfinger
- Tantz_Aerine
- Genejoke
- Davey Do
- Gullas
- Roma
- NanoCritters
- Teh Andeh
- Peipei
- Digital_Genesis
- Hushicho
- Palouka
- Cheeko
- Paneltastic
- L.C.Stein
- Zombienomicon
- Dpat57
- Bravo1102
- TheJagged
- LoliGen
- OrcGirl
- Fallopiancrusader
- Arborcides
- ChipperChartreuse
- Mogtrost
- InkyMoondrop
- jgib99
- Call me tom
- OrGiveMeDeath_Ind
- Mks_monsters
- GregJ
- HawkandFloAdventures
- Soushiyo