Wikipedia blackout to protest SOPA

[Photonic]

Wow, so much for you hating big government.

No. Just so much for me buying your "sky is falling" chicken little bullshit.

Didn't read the bill, did you?

 

[Liability]

Wow, so much for you hating big government.

No. Just so much for me buying your "sky is falling" chicken little bullshit.

Didn't read the bill, did you?

It doesn't say what idiots like you imagine it says.

Big difference, you ignorant dork.

 

[del]

Marc Rubio has withdrawn his support from both bills. They are dead now. And a good thing. The blind support for this kind of corporate censorship by our resident 'Conservatives' simply demonstrates where they really stand on the First Amendment.

when did chris dodd become a conservative, numbnuts?

Scott Brown, Jim DeMint Speak Out Against SOPA And Protect IP (TWEETS)

If Chris Dodd supports this, then he should be replaced in the next primary in his state. Same goes for any other supporter of these bills irregardless of their ideology.

uh, chris dodd retired at least two years ago.

he's head of MPAA and pushing hard for this

 

[Photonic]

No. Just so much for me buying your "sky is falling" chicken little bullshit.

Didn't read the bill, did you?

It doesn't say what idiots like you imagine it says.

Big difference, you ignorant dork.

It says all Internet Service Providers must enforce...?

 

[Dr.Traveler]

IT IS ANTI-freedom and against the consitution! Impeachments and removals should be had if they pass this anti-freeom bill!

You are not free to steal what belongs to someone else.

That is quite a revolutionary concept!

You do realize that under SOPA your Avatar and Sig line would make USMB, and the other boards you've frequented, a target.

Most folks consider piracy a problem. Most folks want to support their favorite artists, authors, and directors, but something as poorly written and far reaching as SOPA is not the answer.... That is unless you like how the Internet works in China.

 

[Liability]

Didn't read the bill, did you?

It doesn't say what idiots like you imagine it says.

Big difference, you ignorant dork.

It says all Internet Service Providers must enforce...?

Oh nozies. Internet Service Providers are obliged by law (if the bill ever passes) to assist in the prevention of the dissemination of Child Pornography?

What IS this nation coming to?

 

[del]

It doesn't say what idiots like you imagine it says.

Big difference, you ignorant dork.

It says all Internet Service Providers must enforce...?

Oh nozies. Internet Service Providers are obliged by law (if the bill ever passes) to assist in the prevention of the dissemination of Child Pornography?

What IS this nation coming to?

"There is a principle which is a bar against all information,
which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail
to keep a man in everlasting ignorance—that principle is
contempt prior to investigation."

 

[Liability]

You are not free to steal what belongs to someone else.

That is quite a revolutionary concept!

You do realize that under SOPA your Avatar and Sig line would make USMB, and the other boards you've frequented, a target.

Most folks consider piracy a problem. Most folks want to support their favorite artists, authors, and directors, but something as poorly written and far reaching as SOPA is not the answer.... That is unless you like how the Internet works in China.

The use of the public image of a long-dead comic is reached by SOPA?

 

[The T]

Oh fucking nozies. IckyWiki has blacked itself out to pwotest!

Fight the man.

Fight the system.

Fight the powah!

Except, nobody gives a crap about this blackout.

Fuck Wiki.

*And Giggle* [Google]

 

[dilloduck]

Regarding your first point, I couldn't disagree with you more. Corporations already use laws designed to protect to protect intellectual property to stifle criticism or prevent fair use. See, for example, Wal-mart's attempt to use trademark law to prevent criticism of their stores (Court Rejects Wal-Mart's Bid to Silence Criticism Through Trademark Law | Citizen Media Law Project).

And Attorney Generals (I feel that you mischaracterize my view on Holder in particular) are not to be entrusted with too much power either. While we now tiptoe further into the realm of speculation, some people have suggested that an AG could use bogus or selective intellectual property complaints to block legitimate speech. Certainly, AGs have committed numerous violations of civil liberties in the past.

Regarding the felony charges relating to video streaming, my point in that thread wasn't that these were necessarily a bad thing. My point was to rebut someone's claim that the proposed legislation was entirely concerned with blocking websites and couldn't send anyone to jail (the full paragraph you quoted was "The suggestion that the bills could send people to jail is quite plausible. The House version makes streaming copyrighted material a felony.").

Regarding FF and video-snagging, no, I don't know what either of those are.

Trademark laws are quite different than Copyright laws.
I can say a company's name. I can't, however, steal that company's product.
I will say, after reading the link, that Wal-Mart felt they had a chance at winning and their opponent was a pretty good heavy-hitter. So it was beneficial for WallyWorld to try.
(glad they lost)

I was just agreeing that hefty fines or even jail time should be in order for repeat offenders.

FF was just short for FireFox's web browser.
They have an add-on that allows snagging of streaming videos.


And, yes, AGs are known to over-reach their authority.
The answer isn't to just do nothing, though.

Stealing is stealing and should be enforced as such.

I thought only judges and lawyers could decide what stealing is ( for a price of course ).

 

[Photonic]

It doesn't say what idiots like you imagine it says.

Big difference, you ignorant dork.

It says all Internet Service Providers must enforce...?

Oh nozies. Internet Service Providers are obliged by law (if the bill ever passes) to assist in the prevention of the dissemination of Child Pornography?

What IS this nation coming to?

Blind ignorance will be the death of this country.

What they are asking ISP's to do has literally nothing to do with Child Pornography.

It's basically saying, hey, if we kill everything, then no one can commit the crime!

 

[del]

That is quite a revolutionary concept!

You do realize that under SOPA your Avatar and Sig line would make USMB, and the other boards you've frequented, a target.

Most folks consider piracy a problem. Most folks want to support their favorite artists, authors, and directors, but something as poorly written and far reaching as SOPA is not the answer.... That is unless you like how the Internet works in China.

The use of the public image of a long-dead comic is reached by SOPA?

you're on the same side as that well known intellect and advocate for personal freedom, debbie wasserman shultz



Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz is among the most prominent supporters of the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), which drew massive protests from sites like Wikipedia and Google on Wednesday.

Wasserman Schultz (Fla.) is the highest-ranking Democrat among the bill's original sponsors in the House; the bill's supporters have been targeted by the growing grassroots backlash against the legislation from the technology community. Rep. John Larson (Conn.), a member of the House Democratic leadership, is also a co-sponsor.

DNC chief is backer of online piracy bill - The Hill's Hillicon Valley

 

[Liability]

It says all Internet Service Providers must enforce...?

Oh nozies. Internet Service Providers are obliged by law (if the bill ever passes) to assist in the prevention of the dissemination of Child Pornography?

What IS this nation coming to?

"There is a principle which is a bar against all information,
which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail
to keep a man in everlasting ignorance—that principle is
contempt prior to investigation."

I hold the expressed concern of photomoronic in contempt precisely because I have investigated.

The proposed legislation OF COURSE imposes a burden on Internet Service Providers. Photomoronic says this with deep alarm.

That kind of reaction is worthy only of contempt.

the ACTUAL proposed bill can be read, in its barely literate original form here: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr1981rh/pdf/BILLS-112hr1981rh.pdf

It can be summarized (and was rather well in the link provided, ironically, by Photomoronic): Bill Summary & Status - 112th Congress (2011 - 2012) - H.R.1981 - All Information - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

The Summary said (correctly) that the bill would do the following:

SUMMARY AS OF:
5/25/2011--Introduced.

Protecting Children From Internet Pornographers Act of 2011 - Amends the federal criminal code to prohibit knowingly conducting in interstate or foreign commerce a financial transaction that will facilitate access to, or the possession of, child pornography.

Adds as predicate offenses to the money laundering statute provisions regarding: (1) such financial facilitation of access to child pornography, (2) obscene visual representation of the abuse of children, and (3) a felony by a registered sex offender involving a minor.

Requires a provider of an electronic communication service or remote computing service to retain for at least 18 months the temporarily assigned network addresses the service assigns to each account unless that address is transmitted by radio communication. Bars any cause of action against a provider for retaining records as required. Makes a good faith reliance on the requirement to retain records a complete defense to a civil action. Expresses the sense of Congress that such records should be stored securely to protect customer privacy and prevent breaches of the records.

Allows the issuance of an administrative subpoena for the investigation of unregistered sex offenders by the United States Marshals Service.

Requires a U.S. district court to issue a protective order prohibiting harassment or intimidation of a minor victim or witness if the court finds evidence that the conduct at issue is reasonably likely to adversely affect the willingness of the minor witness or victim to testify or otherwise participate in a federal criminal case or investigation.

Directs the United States Sentencing Commission to review and amend the federal sentencing guidelines and policy statements to ensure that such guidelines provide an additional penalty for sex trafficking of children and other child abuse crimes.

Imposes a fine and/or prison term of up to 20 years for the possession of pornographic images of a child under the age of 12.

It is not clear what portion of those goals (or the manner in which the bill seeks to implement those goals) causes such alarm and concern in the mind of Photomoronic.

On its face, it seems pretty reasonable to me.

 

[Liability]

You do realize that under SOPA your Avatar and Sig line would make USMB, and the other boards you've frequented, a target.

Most folks consider piracy a problem. Most folks want to support their favorite artists, authors, and directors, but something as poorly written and far reaching as SOPA is not the answer.... That is unless you like how the Internet works in China.

The use of the public image of a long-dead comic is reached by SOPA?

you're on the same side as that well known intellect and advocate for personal freedom, debbie wasserman shultz



Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz is among the most prominent supporters of the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), which drew massive protests from sites like Wikipedia and Google on Wednesday.

Wasserman Schultz (Fla.) is the highest-ranking Democrat among the bill's original sponsors in the House; the bill's supporters have been targeted by the growing grassroots backlash against the legislation from the technology community. Rep. John Larson (Conn.), a member of the House Democratic leadership, is also a co-sponsor.

DNC chief is backer of online piracy bill - The Hill's Hillicon Valley

I know. I read the list of sponsors.

So what?

She's a fucking twit. (Is that a typo?)

But even a skelly jerkwad such as her can still be correct once in a while.

Instead of playing guilt by association, let's hear a little bit about exactly how and why the proposed legislation is so offensive.

EDIT:

I wonder if we are talking past each other. I am addressing the Photomoronic concern with the Child Pornography bill.

I have also touched upon the topic of the SOPA bill.

The alarmists will tell you that the SOPA bill will inflict massive governmental censorship on the internet. I don't see it. I DO see how it could be misused. But that's true of lots of laws and that's why we have courts. On its face, though, I see nothing wrong with protecting intellectual property rights.

 

[del]

The use of the public image of a long-dead comic is reached by SOPA?

you're on the same side as that well known intellect and advocate for personal freedom, debbie wasserman shultz



Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz is among the most prominent supporters of the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), which drew massive protests from sites like Wikipedia and Google on Wednesday.

Wasserman Schultz (Fla.) is the highest-ranking Democrat among the bill's original sponsors in the House; the bill's supporters have been targeted by the growing grassroots backlash against the legislation from the technology community. Rep. John Larson (Conn.), a member of the House Democratic leadership, is also a co-sponsor.

DNC chief is backer of online piracy bill - The Hill's Hillicon Valley

I know. I read the list of sponsors.

So what?

She's a fucking twit. (Is that a typo?)

But even a skelly jerkwad such as her can still be correct once in a while.

Instead of playing guilt by association, let's hear a little bit about exactly how and why the proposed legislation is so offensive.

EDIT:

I wonder if we are talking past each other. I am addressing the Photomoronic concern with the Child Pornography bill.

I have also touched upon the topic of the SOPA bill.

The alarmists will tell you that the SOPA bill will inflict massive governmental censorship on the internet. I don't see it. I DO see how it could be misused. But that's true of lots of laws and that's why we have courts. On its face, though, I see nothing wrong with protecting intellectual property rights.

we were
i see nothing wrong with protecting ip rights either, but this bill is terrible law and should not pass.

 

[Ringel05]

The use of the public image of a long-dead comic is reached by SOPA?

you're on the same side as that well known intellect and advocate for personal freedom, debbie wasserman shultz



Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz is among the most prominent supporters of the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), which drew massive protests from sites like Wikipedia and Google on Wednesday.

Wasserman Schultz (Fla.) is the highest-ranking Democrat among the bill's original sponsors in the House; the bill's supporters have been targeted by the growing grassroots backlash against the legislation from the technology community. Rep. John Larson (Conn.), a member of the House Democratic leadership, is also a co-sponsor.

DNC chief is backer of online piracy bill - The Hill's Hillicon Valley

I know. I read the list of sponsors.

So what?

She's a fucking twit. (Is that a typo?)

But even a skelly jerkwad such as her can still be correct once in a while.

Instead of playing guilt by association, let's hear a little bit about exactly how and why the proposed legislation is so offensive.

EDIT:

I wonder if we are talking past each other. I am addressing the Photomoronic concern with the Child Pornography bill.

I have also touched upon the topic of the SOPA bill.

The alarmists will tell you that the SOPA bill will inflict massive governmental censorship on the internet. I don't see it. I DO see how it could be misused. But that's true of lots of laws and that's why we have courts. On its face, though, I see nothing wrong with protecting intellectual property rights.

Where did I miss child pornography legislation being added to SOPA in this thread about SOPA??
As for the interpretation of the (SOPA) legislation, you and I must be reading two different versions.

 

[dilloduck]

The use of the public image of a long-dead comic is reached by SOPA?

you're on the same side as that well known intellect and advocate for personal freedom, debbie wasserman shultz



Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz is among the most prominent supporters of the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), which drew massive protests from sites like Wikipedia and Google on Wednesday.

Wasserman Schultz (Fla.) is the highest-ranking Democrat among the bill's original sponsors in the House; the bill's supporters have been targeted by the growing grassroots backlash against the legislation from the technology community. Rep. John Larson (Conn.), a member of the House Democratic leadership, is also a co-sponsor.

DNC chief is backer of online piracy bill - The Hill's Hillicon Valley

I know. I read the list of sponsors.

So what?

She's a fucking twit. (Is that a typo?)

But even a skelly jerkwad such as her can still be correct once in a while.

Instead of playing guilt by association, let's hear a little bit about exactly how and why the proposed legislation is so offensive.

EDIT:

I wonder if we are talking past each other. I am addressing the Photomoronic concern with the Child Pornography bill.

I have also touched upon the topic of the SOPA bill.

The alarmists will tell you that the SOPA bill will inflict massive governmental censorship on the internet. I don't see it. I DO see how it could be misused. But that's true of lots of laws and that's why we have courts. On its face, though, I see nothing wrong with protecting intellectual property rights.

Isn't the purpose of courts and lawyers to profit from vague laws ? May as well give them a new opportunity.

 

[Liability]

you're on the same side as that well known intellect and advocate for personal freedom, debbie wasserman shultz



Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz is among the most prominent supporters of the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), which drew massive protests from sites like Wikipedia and Google on Wednesday.

Wasserman Schultz (Fla.) is the highest-ranking Democrat among the bill's original sponsors in the House; the bill's supporters have been targeted by the growing grassroots backlash against the legislation from the technology community. Rep. John Larson (Conn.), a member of the House Democratic leadership, is also a co-sponsor.

DNC chief is backer of online piracy bill - The Hill's Hillicon Valley

I know. I read the list of sponsors.

So what?

She's a fucking twit. (Is that a typo?)

But even a skelly jerkwad such as her can still be correct once in a while.

Instead of playing guilt by association, let's hear a little bit about exactly how and why the proposed legislation is so offensive.

EDIT:

I wonder if we are talking past each other. I am addressing the Photomoronic concern with the Child Pornography bill.

I have also touched upon the topic of the SOPA bill.

The alarmists will tell you that the SOPA bill will inflict massive governmental censorship on the internet. I don't see it. I DO see how it could be misused. But that's true of lots of laws and that's why we have courts. On its face, though, I see nothing wrong with protecting intellectual property rights.

we were
i see nothing wrong with protecting ip rights either, but this bill is terrible law and should not pass.

Well, THAT is a different topic. Any law, no matter how rational it's purpose, can be written poorly.

And there's no reason to accept some hack job of written legislation that leaves too many valid concerns subject to the prospect of later manipulation.

If it's drafted badly, then it should be shit-canned in favor of a coherent literate version.

And in that case, your prior point makes more sense.

If Deb Schultzy likes it, it is automatically suspect!

 

[Liability]

you're on the same side as that well known intellect and advocate for personal freedom, debbie wasserman shultz



Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz is among the most prominent supporters of the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), which drew massive protests from sites like Wikipedia and Google on Wednesday.

Wasserman Schultz (Fla.) is the highest-ranking Democrat among the bill's original sponsors in the House; the bill's supporters have been targeted by the growing grassroots backlash against the legislation from the technology community. Rep. John Larson (Conn.), a member of the House Democratic leadership, is also a co-sponsor.

DNC chief is backer of online piracy bill - The Hill's Hillicon Valley

I know. I read the list of sponsors.

So what?

She's a fucking twit. (Is that a typo?)

But even a skelly jerkwad such as her can still be correct once in a while.

Instead of playing guilt by association, let's hear a little bit about exactly how and why the proposed legislation is so offensive.

EDIT:

I wonder if we are talking past each other. I am addressing the Photomoronic concern with the Child Pornography bill.

I have also touched upon the topic of the SOPA bill.

The alarmists will tell you that the SOPA bill will inflict massive governmental censorship on the internet. I don't see it. I DO see how it could be misused. But that's true of lots of laws and that's why we have courts. On its face, though, I see nothing wrong with protecting intellectual property rights.

Where did I miss child pornography legislation being added to SOPA in this thread about SOPA??
As for the interpretation of the (SOPA) legislation, you and I must be reading two different versions.

No no. Go back. My response to Photomoronic was specifically in reply to his link to the Child Pornography legislation.

THAT is NOT, in fact, related to the SOPA legislation.

A bit of crossed wires here. Sorry.

 

[MarcATL]

My content is no different your car. You car belongs to you - my content belongs to me. You have no right to take it without either paying or obtaining my permission. I'm sick of people wanting everything for free, frankly.

I agree entirely. I don't think anyone is suggesting that one doesn't own one's copyrights or that piracy of copyrighted material is either harmless or morally acceptable.

Well, for someone like me - not a 'major corporation'... I have to weigh up the cost of fighting them against the value of the material. But, if I allow it to stand, then they keep on doing it... and other people take it from them, and the list goes on. I've seen an article of mine on 15 fucking sites - not one of which has paid. 15! That's thousands of dollars that I've lost.

Frankly, this is not as simple as you seem to think. Yes, it is about massive corporations... but it's also about self employed writers like me who earn their living from copyrighted material. Think about it before you decide you disagree with it.

Don't get me wrong... I want a very tight law - one that does not give free rein to shut down free speech... but millions of people like me will get caught in the crossfire of this.

Happily, I no longer rely on that financial revenue stream now.... but my content is still mine. You cannot take it from me without paying.

Shut zem' zown!!! An zen...keel zem! Muahahahahahahaha!!!