You don't think the mass of constituents writing in had anything to do with several Congressman backing down, Znath? God damn.
If something exists, certain people will assume it's inferior to themselves and complain about it.
Still, I can see his point. I mean, using multimedia to get the attention of a key demographic? Please, that isn't how you raise awareness for issues... You're supposed to make flippant offhand comments amongst half a dozen people and hope they mistake your smug air of superiority for logic and reasoning. Now THAT is getting things done!
Statistics: Posted by Eadwulf — January 21st, 2012, 2:47 am
]]>
Statistics: Posted by Snake1235 — January 21st, 2012, 12:52 am
]]>
I knew it from the start.
-just a bunch of saber rattling by companies to scare their fans into complaining
-it had no effect anyway it was doomed to fail anyway.
It's being opposed by plenty of congress AND the white house (shockingly).
The blackout today consisted of one moment where I kind of wondered
"... wait how many M22 tanks were made?, oh wikipedia's down" *goes to next page*
Statistics: Posted by Znath — January 19th, 2012, 12:03 am
]]>
http://en.wikipedia.org
http://www.humblebundle.com/
http://www.minecraft.net/
http://www.razerzone.com
http://www.reddit.com/
http://www.xkcd.com
http://www.wimp.com/
Are just a few sites shut down temporarily.
Statistics: Posted by J@nr0k — January 18th, 2012, 3:10 pm
]]>
]]>
Oh, and there won't be free porn anymore.
[youtube]YKss2uYpih8[/youtube]
Statistics: Posted by Jdude73 — January 18th, 2012, 2:19 pm
]]>
Statistics: Posted by Kikori — January 18th, 2012, 12:01 pm
]]>
It's kind of funny that anyone and everyone are making paper reasons that this act is 'bad', when all they really want is piracy to continue (relatively unhindered). And why shouldn't they? 49.999999% of the internet is based on piracy, 49.9999999% is based on porn (also involved in piracy) and the other .0000002% is normal stuff.
Just saying, people seem outrageously paranoid about this and are blowing it waaaay out of proportion. How in the world would a piracy act threaten free speech? How is it censorship? I don't get it. All I see is people saying "this bill is too vague. It will hurt x." Which is the case with most things congress does. Though the punishments do seem far too harsh for the crimes. But there seems to be a fix for that...DON'T PIRATE THINGS!
I can't illegally download because I use my university's network, which is SCARY good at catching people who pirate things and act accordingly. Regardless of that, I try my best to support bands/authors/creators of media I like in a legal way. Though I often sample things on Youtube or whatever then buy accordingly, I could just as easily turn on the radio or go to a bookstore.
I guess in the end I don't give a
either way. 
[youtube]5hfYJsQAhl0[/youtube]
It's threatening because it is very LOOSE. It's not very specific, so it could technically be used to shut down entire websites that post just one link to "copyrighted material" and be used for a number of things because it is way too broad of a concept of what they are trying to do.
Minecraft, Wikipedia, and Cynanide & Happiness are blacked out today but I know there are many I don't know of, like Reddit.
Statistics: Posted by Alpr — January 18th, 2012, 11:33 am
]]>
]]>
]]>
Also, reddit has decided it will shutdown from 8am to 8pm EST on January 18th in protest of PIPA/SOPA.
Statistics: Posted by Animal — January 10th, 2012, 6:50 pm
]]>
Oh, and there won't be free porn anymore.
[youtube]WWaLxFIVX1s[/youtube]
bartoron Statistics: Posted by bartoron — January 10th, 2012, 5:00 pm
]]>
Statistics: Posted by Riptide — January 10th, 2012, 4:04 pm
]]>
Oh, and there won't be free porn anymore.
For
's sake, why didn't the activists against this proposal emphasise that to begin with? This crap would've been shelved last year.Statistics: Posted by Eadwulf — January 10th, 2012, 3:34 pm
]]>
It's kind of funny that anyone and everyone are making paper reasons that this act is 'bad', when all they really want is piracy to continue (relatively unhindered). And why shouldn't they? 49.999999% of the internet is based on piracy, 49.9999999% is based on porn (also involved in piracy) and the other .0000002% is normal stuff.
Just saying, people seem outrageously paranoid about this and are blowing it waaaay out of proportion. How in the world would a piracy act threaten free speech? How is it censorship? I don't get it. All I see is people saying "this bill is too vague. It will hurt x." Which is the case with most things congress does. Though the punishments do seem far too harsh for the crimes. But there seems to be a fix for that...DON'T PIRATE THINGS!
I can't illegally download because I use my university's network, which is SCARY good at catching people who pirate things and act accordingly. Regardless of that, I try my best to support bands/authors/creators of media I like in a legal way. Though I often sample things on Youtube or whatever then buy accordingly, I could just as easily turn on the radio or go to a bookstore.
I guess in the end I don't give a
either way. There are provisions in the bill that give copyright holders the ability to shut down sites and for those site owners to be given jail time for even linking to copyrighted material. For instance, say I posted this link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sv4wM-hRxVo. Runevillage is now in violation of SOPA. There is clearly no intent of piracy, but because that video contains a copyrighted song, the entirety of RV is subject to takedown and Henner is subject to arrest.
Say someone wants to post a video on Facebook of their first dance after getting married. If the music they're dancing to can be heard in the background, then it's illegal to post.
Now, Runevillage could fairly easily monitor content to keep things like that from being posted. However, look at a bigger scale: I could find that video on Google. Google.com, for linking to that video (and Youtube for hosting it) is subject to takedown and fines. Repeat that for every other instance of Google linking to improperly hosted copyright material. It is impossible for a search engine to function. Wikipedia would no longer be able to function - they'd need a massive, massive team to not only check every page already, but to monitor every new submission or update for intellectual property. Facebook? Done. And so on.
While the intent of the legislation was to stop things like tv-links, thepiratebay, etc... from providing links to copyrighted material hosted off-site, the current wording of the bill allows for massive abuse that is not at all in the spirit of the bill.
Oh, and there won't be free porn anymore.
Statistics: Posted by Steely Mallon — January 10th, 2012, 3:11 pm
]]>
I get the feeling it's just a big show of force and chest beating.
All those companies stand to lose millions if they shut down for a day.
You know what I call a day without facebook, google, or whatever?..
Playing Civilization..
I'm rather unmoved and unimpressed by this kind of crap. If their response is to shut down for an hour or a day, I'll just find other things to do. As though we're not used to facebook outages?
It sounds more, like I said, like an idle threat to try to coax their userbase to complain about the SOPA thing. If they do go through with it... screw it I've got other things to do.
The point is to demonstrate what will actually happen.
Statistics: Posted by Snake1235 — January 10th, 2012, 2:10 am
]]>
All those companies stand to lose millions if they shut down for a day.
You know what I call a day without facebook, google, or whatever?..
Playing Civilization..
I'm rather unmoved and unimpressed by this kind of crap. If their response is to shut down for an hour or a day, I'll just find other things to do. As though we're not used to facebook outages?
It sounds more, like I said, like an idle threat to try to coax their userbase to complain about the SOPA thing. If they do go through with it... screw it I've got other things to do.
Statistics: Posted by Znath — January 9th, 2012, 10:45 pm
]]>
Snake1235 wrote:
They are not there to help you; they aim to control you.
I don't understand how checking if someone's a pirate equates to needing to know their bank IDs, passwords, account numbers, etc.
But hey, what do I know.
Bottom line is, I agree this bill is bogus but I think people are completely overreacting, as the quoted sentence above indicates.
Money is power, as is information in the wrong hands. Make no mistake: NEVER believe the stated, intended purpose of a bill is the only intended purpose. There are always other agendas. Additionally, why do they NEED to know my information if they're just checking for pirates?
Again, the government is not around to help. It is around to control.
Statistics: Posted by Snake1235 — January 7th, 2012, 12:46 am
]]>
Bottom line is, I agree this bill is bogus but I think people are completely overreacting, as the quoted sentence above indicates.
There is one thing valid about his post that makes me and a few others worry.
These are people who know nothing about the Internet and nothing about Internet Security trying to write bills that grant them permission to put their foot in the door on what they believe is right and wrong, what is and isn't linked to copyright infringement / illegal downloading, etc.
These are people who have shown willingness to simply say "This is how it is, you have these permissions and owe us this to enforce it and worse if you go against it" trying to play guardians online.
And these are people who are visibly corrupt with power who speak loudly, trying to wave a big stick around online.
Statistics: Posted by Kikori — January 6th, 2012, 10:37 pm
]]>
They are not there to help you; they aim to control you.
I don't understand how checking if someone's a pirate equates to needing to know their bank IDs, passwords, account numbers, etc.
But hey, what do I know.
Bottom line is, I agree this bill is bogus but I think people are completely overreacting, as the quoted sentence above indicates.
Statistics: Posted by Landerpurex — January 6th, 2012, 6:10 pm
]]>