chicago510;1057857 wrote:LOL








https://twitter.com/#!/herpderpedia

Haha thats awesome.

Raw Dawgin' it;1057706 wrote:See post 16

Saw that after I posted. A good explanation.

I Wear Pants;1057586 wrote:You killed them right? That's what they deserved.

with fire

2kool4skool;1057624 wrote:As awful as the bill is, the blackouts are just protesting for the sake of feeling like you did something important. There was and still is zero percent chance this thing passes. It's been put on the back burner by both houses and Obama. Which means it's all but dead.

If they were being honest, they would have simply worded the bill as following "our business model no longer works, HELP!!!!"

Untrue, it's been moved back a month. It has not been shelved and PIPA is just as bad as SOPA.

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/01/18/congressman-lamar-smith-author-of-sopa-breaks-copyright-law-on-campaign-website-image/

lulz if true

http://blog.reddit.com/2012/01/technical-examination-of-sopa-and.html

Fuck Steve Chabot.

I, as well as a few other people, commented on a post on his Facebook page (since he doesn't allow you to post on his wall) and asked him to vote no on SOPA. I checked tonight, and any anti-SOPA comment has been deleted.

I have now decided that I am going to bomb every post with some form of anti-SOPA sentiment.

Feel free to join me if you'd like.

http://www.facebook.com/ChabotForCongress

He has no posts since August. But I bombed that one.

ts1227;1058287 wrote:http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/01/18/congressman-lamar-smith-author-of-sopa-breaks-copyright-law-on-campaign-website-image/

lulz if true

It is true, the photographer licensed them under a Creative Commons license which allows for free use and distribution...as long as he is credited on it. Nowhere on that site was he credited.

Ya, I've bombed posts that go as far back as October of 2010.

sherm03;1058367 wrote:Ya, I've bombed posts that go as far back as October of 2010.

I don't see them.

I Wear Pants;1058368 wrote:I don't see them.

That's weird, because I don't see yours on the post from August.

sherm03;1058370 wrote:That's weird, because I don't see yours on the post from August.

Strange, it still shows mine as being there but I don't see any others.

I Wear Pants;1058372 wrote:Strange, it still shows mine as being there but I don't see any others.

Ya...I can see mine on all of the ones I've commented on. But I don't see anything after mine.

I have now posted it on 5 different posts: the top 3, as well as two dated back in October 2010. I told him he has to edit his post that mentions Redlegs because that's a copyright phrase and under the SOPA bill he's not allowed to use it.

Wiki is back up. Excerpt from their message.

The Wikipedia blackout is over — and you have spoken.


More than 162 million people saw our message asking if you could imagine a world without free knowledge. You said no. You shut down Congress’s switchboards. You melted their servers. Your voice was loud and strong. Millions of people have spoken in defense of a free and open Internet.

chicago510;1057857 wrote:LOL








https://twitter.com/#!/herpderpedia

I love all of the people asking why Wikipedia is blacked out? Apparently they can't ready anything over 140 characters long (like the brief explanation that was on the Wikipedia homepage).

I Wear Pants;1058259 wrote:Untrue, it's been moved back a month. It has not been shelved and PIPA is just as bad as SOPA.

I said "back burner" which is exactly true. Obama and both houses have backed off the thing, which in political speak means it's dead.

There is absolutely no chance it passes, book it.

I'm all for fucking with the politicians behind it, because it's awful legislation, but it strikes me as these sites taking the opportunity to "take a stand" on the least controversial issue ever.

2kool4skool;1058384 wrote:I said "back burner" which is exactly true. Obama and both houses have backed off the thing, which in political speak means it's dead.

There is absolutely no chance it passes, book it.

I'm all for fucking with the politicians behind it, because it's awful legislation, but it strikes me as these sites taking the opportunity to "take a stand" on the least controversial issue ever.

It was only put on the "back burner" because people began planning these blackouts which raised pubic awareness and public outcry. Had these sites not made the public aware of these bills, people never would have known about them and they would have passed. The news networks never would have said anything about them because they are owned by the same corporations that pay the lobbyists that got this bill written in the first place.

It wasn't on the backburner for sure until well after reddit had announced it would blackout and all the sites and organizations started speaking up about it.

sherm03;1058375 wrote:Ya...I can see mine on all of the ones I've commented on. But I don't see anything after mine.

I have now posted it on 5 different posts: the top 3, as well as two dated back in October 2010. I told him he has to edit his post that mentions Redlegs because that's a copyright phrase and under the SOPA bill he's not allowed to use it.

I see yours, but nothing after yours either.

why is the internet deemed more "free" than tv, radio, and print?

Glory Days;1058449 wrote:why is the internet deemed more "free" than tv, radio, and print?

I think the short answer is that they've grown to be different informational and interactive media. Because of barriers of cost and a finite number of available signals, it's not practical for a vast majority of people to broadcast using their own television or radio station (HAM withstanding). Printing on a large scale has cost barriers as well, although not as many as television or radio. The low- to no-cost internet (in the case of public computers, such as ones found in public libraries) we've created makes it inherently more accessible by more people, and therefore more collaborative and more user-driven.

Despite being extremely collaborative, the internet is, by design, incredibly personal. We've replaced our telephones and our letters with videoconferencing and email. It's an amazing conglomeration of personal and impersonal, interactive and nonreciprocal, hot and cool. So, why are telephones deemed more "free" than tv, radio, and print?

So, three things, it's personal, it's collaborative, and it has a low cost of entry. It's certainly possible you could regulate the internet as you do print media - or you could regulate internet with something like the FCC - but it would basically change what the internet is. If there are barriers to access, it becomes neither collaborative nor personal, and at that point becomes television with added print content. If you block collaboration, it is more like the US Postal Service, a medium for contacting and relaying point-to-point information, and not broadcasting necessarily, unless it's from a regulated source like a corporation.

And that doesn't mean it couldn't be regulated as such, it's just that I think many of us have grown to like the internet and what it is today, and feel it would be detrimental to information were it to fundamentally change.

So, that's my short answer at 7:20am. Feel free to poke holes in it, but IMO, that's why it's seen as more "free" than the other media you mentioned.

Glory Days;1058449 wrote:why is the internet deemed more "free" than tv, radio, and print?

The government actually owns the airwaves, and therefore has a level of control over the content. People who start a radio station or TV station have to file for a license with the FCC and must abide by FCC guidelines. Also, since those mediums require sizable amounts of capital to produce and distribute content, it can only be done by corporations with the help of advertisers (except for public TV, which relies on donations from viewers, and government assistance). With print media people could print and distribute their own content, however, without a great deal of capital behind it, distribution would be very low.

Anyone can purchase an Internet domain for under $20 and set up their own website that is searchable and viewable by anyone. Also, anyone can create and upload content to any number of sites for free (YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, ets.). Very early on the government decided to put very few restrictions on the Internet and allow it to be a place for free expression, instead of a heavily regulated media, like radion, TV, and print.

I've noticed people indicating this to be a free speech issue, isn't is really more a due process issue? If I write a book or post content of some value on my web site (I know, but let's just pretend ), currently I have the right to enforce my copyright in either medium, but would have to get either voluntary compliance, or would have to use the court system. Isn't that really what changes with this legislation?

I thought this was about banning soap all along...