Glory Days;1056795 wrote:yawn, just another day.

The Google "shut down" is not even close to being such. Lame.

WebFire;1056842 wrote:The Google "shut down" is not even close to being such. Lame.

Guess they were all talk.

I think recently they've taken some of the teeth out of the bill and that's why you've seen the big dogs not ante up and shut down for a day... I think if they honestly thought the bill would pass how it was a few weeks ago they would have been on board.

didnt obama say he would veto this bill anyway?

Gblock;1057171 wrote:didnt obama say he would veto this bill anyway?

He said the same thing about NDAA and then well, signed it.

Glory Days;1056795 wrote:yawn, just another day.

Have you ever been against any form of enforcement?

I Wear Pants;1057297 wrote:He said the same thing about NDAA and then well, signed it.

Lies from Obama. Shocking.

majorspark;1057318 wrote:Lies from Obama. Shocking.

True, but both that and these bills have bipartisan support. Shocking, I know, that bills which are the focus of lots of lobbying dollars get support from both sides.

man fuck a pipa and a sopa...

I Wear Pants;1057300 wrote:Have you ever been against any form of enforcement?

you ever thought the sky wasnt falling?

Glory Days;1057697 wrote:No, I am for anything that is done to "protect" citizens

FIFY

But seriously, you don't need to think the sky is falling to know that a lot of bills and policies make it easy for the government to abuse them. Which the government usually does. So we say they're shitty.

And on bills like SOPA and PIPA which threaten the internet that gets us a bit scared because for many people/most people my age we consider the internet a very important economic and cultural machine. You may not.

I Wear Pants;1058410 wrote:FIFY

But seriously, you don't need to think the sky is falling to know that a lot of bills and policies make it easy for the government to abuse them. Which the government usually does. So we say they're ****ty.

And on bills like SOPA and PIPA which threaten the internet that gets us a bit scared because for many people/most people my age we consider the internet a very important economic and cultural machine. You may not.

Because of such belief in it's importance you would think there would be more reverence towards obeying they law when it comes to copyrights and intellectual property.

Con_Alma;1058444 wrote:Because of such belief in it's importance you would think there would be more reverence towards obeying they law when it comes to copyrights and intellectual property.

they have never created anything though. they wouldnt know what its like to spend your life devoted to something only to have it ripped off and cheapened by someone else.

I Wear Pants;1058410 wrote:FIFY

But seriously, you don't need to think the sky is falling to know that a lot of bills and policies make it easy for the government to abuse them. Which the government usually does. So we say they're shitty.

but the government rarely abuses them. even if this bill would pass, they'd be kept in check by people like you.

There are already laws against copy right infringement. Why do we need the feds to censor the web? Im sorry I enjoy freedom and the lack of a nanny state. Apparently you do not

Glory Days;1058448 wrote:but the government rarely abuses them. even if this bill would pass, they'd be kept in check by people like you.

Lol. The government often abuses them, even if it isn't always malicious.

And you say they'd be kept in check by people like me in the same thread that you've put down people like me for being crazy since we speak out and get upset about things like this. So are we chicken little or people necessarily saying "hey, hold on a second that's not going to do what you think it's going to do"? Can't be both.

This bill is nothing but garbage. It does not address piracy concerns, doesn't change our current copyright laws which already make piracy illegal in most cases, and has the very real chance of stifling one of the few thriving industries we have.

It'd be like allowing a group opposed to illegal immigrants from Mexico to shoot any person they believed to be an illegal immigrant. It's a solution that wouldn't solve the problem and causes a ton more.

The problem with things like this is that by and large congress is made up of old people who mostly don't understand at all about how the internet actually functions and why. That's why you get shitty bills all the time because a company comes and says "these people are stealing our product and killing our bottom line, look how many copies of x were illegally downloaded and they sell for $50 retail! That's $xxxxx!". Congressperson then thinks they're doing a great job making some bill like that when they don't realize things like, not every illegal download can be counted as a lost sale a la a stolen physical product (and probably the vast majority of them cannot) and also since they don't understand how and why the internet works they cannot foresee the problems inherent with the wording and policies of said legislation.

Which is why we have to throw a shit fit and make them realize the worst possible scenarios that could happen because of them. Luckily on this particular case we had the help of at least a few very large companies or institutions (Google, Reddit, Bungie, Wikipedia, etc, etc).

I Wear Pants;1059123 wrote:Lol. The government often abuses them, even if it isn't always malicious.

And you say they'd be kept in check by people like me in the same thread that you've put down people like me for being crazy since we speak out and get upset about things like this. So are we chicken little or people necessarily saying "hey, hold on a second that's not going to do what you think it's going to do"? Can't be both.

This bill is nothing but garbage. It does not address piracy concerns, doesn't change our current copyright laws which already make piracy illegal in most cases, and has the very real chance of stifling one of the few thriving industries we have.

It'd be like allowing a group opposed to illegal immigrants from Mexico to shoot any person they believed to be an illegal immigrant. It's a solution that wouldn't solve the problem and causes a ton more.

The problem with things like this is that by and large congress is made up of old people who mostly don't understand at all about how the internet actually functions and why. That's why you get shitty bills all the time because a company comes and says "these people are stealing our product and killing our bottom line, look how many copies of x were illegally downloaded and they sell for $50 retail! That's $xxxxx!". Congressperson then thinks they're doing a great job making some bill like that when they don't realize things like, not every illegal download can be counted as a lost sale a la a stolen physical product (and probably the vast majority of them cannot) and also since they don't understand how and why the internet works they cannot foresee the problems inherent with the wording and policies of said legislation.

Which is why we have to throw a shit fit and make them realize the worst possible scenarios that could happen because of them. Luckily on this particular case we had the help of at least a few very large companies or institutions (Google, Reddit, Bungie, Wikipedia, etc, etc).

haha no, very rarely is anything the worst case scenario. and it can be both. the problem is people like you wont even consider the bill and assume its the first step to a dictatorship or something.

i find it funny that you complain about old people in congress. yet someone who hasnt run a business or experienced much of anything in life can tell them what is right etc. which brings me to my next point, if google, wikipedia etc were having their product copyrights etc infringed on the internet, they would throw a shit fit and have every lawyer they had working to shut it down, book it.

haha how the internet works? give me a break. thats like when you complain about lame excuses like TSA screeners protecting your safety.

Glory Days;1059320 wrote: if google, wikipedia etc were having their product copyrights etc infringed on the internet, they would throw a shit fit and have every lawyer they had working to shut it down, book it.

Those sites aren't against the idea of cracking down on piracy or copyright infringement. But they all agree this is not the way to do it. Like you said, they would have lawyers who would have to prove it first.

it's like Glory has stock in NewsCorp or something

They actually asked a question about this at the debate tonight. Romney and Gingrich hemmed and hawed about how the bill is flawed, which means if they were able to get their hands on that lobby money they would sign it in a heartbeat. Santorum lectured them about how people can't do what they want on the internet and the federal government should police it. Paul pointed out that he was the first Republican, along with several Democrats, to oppose the bill. This country is so fucked if Ron isn't president.

Glory Days;1059320 wrote:haha no, very rarely is anything the worst case scenario. and it can be both. the problem is people like you wont even consider the bill and assume its the first step to a dictatorship or something.

i find it funny that you complain about old people in congress. yet someone who hasnt run a business or experienced much of anything in life can tell them what is right etc. which brings me to my next point, if google, wikipedia etc were having their product copyrights etc infringed on the internet, they would throw a shit fit and have every lawyer they had working to shut it down, book it.

haha how the internet works? give me a break. thats like when you complain about lame excuses like TSA screeners protecting your safety.

Yes they would...with the current copyright laws that we have. They wouldn't pay $93 million dollars or whatever it was to get a bill that allows them to shut down any website without due process and cut off their advertising money. You simply won't see that happening.

As for considering the bill, why would anyone consider this bill with all the terrible parts of it? There was nothing good about it. At all.

What is your problem with me stating that most of congress has no idea how the internet works? (Cue the "not a dump truck, series of tubes" soundbite) It's simply fact.

There are more free media and informational outlets at the fingertips of the common man than all of history combined. The feds can try and paint it as a copyright issue. We have laws. Enforce them. Yes there are lobbying interests. Don't be fooled by that line though. If you want to get down to brass tax its all about power and keeping the masses ignorant.

Think about it. Information is instant on the internet. Instantly at the hands of the common man. This free access of knowledge to the common man is anathema to those who seek to control the masses. Only the elite are able to process this knowledge and explain it to the masses. Knowledge is power. Only the elite fear others possessing it.

Besides what do they need SOPA for anyway? They already shut down sites without any notice or process. Happened today to MegaUpload.

These despicable pigs aren't going to give up. If you thought SOPA and PIPA were bad, look at ACTA, which just cedes authority over our internet to an unelected international bureaucracy that can in turn enforce SOPA or whatever they want without so much as a vote.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Anti-Counterfeiting-Trade-by-Michael-Rose-120123-260.html

That article is gone.