FREE TAPATALK APP

INRM · 25th September 2010, 01:01 PM

Title: Censorship of the Internet Takes Center Stage in "Online Infringement Bill"
Author: Richard Esguerra
URL: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/0...r-stage-online

Quote:

Senator Patrick Leahy yesterday introduced the "Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act" (COICA). This flawed bill would allow the Attorney General and the Department of Justice to break the Internet one domain at a time — by requiring domain registrars/registries, ISPs, DNS providers, and others to block Internet users from reaching certain websites. The bill would also create two Internet blacklists. The first is a list of all the websites hit with a censorship court order from the Attorney General. The second, more worrying, blacklist is a list of domain names that the Department of Justice determines — without judicial review — are "dedicated to infringing activities." The bill only requires blocking for domains in the first list, but strongly suggests that domains on the second list should be blocked as well by providing legal immunity for Internet intermediaries and DNS operators who decide to block domains on the second blacklist as well. (It's easy to predict that there will be tremendous pressure for Internet intermediaries of all stripes to block these "deemed infringing" sites on the second blacklist.)

COICA is a fairly short bill, but it could have a longstanding and dangerous impact on freedom of speech, current Internet architecture, copyright doctrine, foreign policy, and beyond. In 2010, if there's anything we've learned about efforts to re-write copyright law to target "piracy" online, it's that they are likely to have unintended consequences.

This is a censorship bill that runs roughshod over freedom of speech on the Internet. Free speech is vitally important to democracy, which is why the government is restricted from suppressing speech except in very specific, narrowly-tailored situations. But this bill is the polar opposite of narrow — not only in the broad way that it tries to define a site "dedicated to infringing activities," but also in the solution that it tries to impose — a block on a whole domain, and not just the infringing part of the site.

Opinions?

XBoxWarrior · 25th September 2010, 01:37 PM

Originally Posted by INRM

Opinions?

Yes.

INRM · 25th September 2010, 08:11 PM

XBox Warrior

Opinions, as in "Does anybody think this is right, or wrong?" "Does anybody agree, or disagree with it?"

quixotecoyote · 25th September 2010, 08:13 PM

I agree with XboxWarrior.

drkitten · 26th September 2010, 07:06 AM

Originally Posted by quixotecoyote

I agree with XboxWarrior.

I agree with quixotecoyote, but disagree with XboxWarrior.

Sword_Of_Truth · 26th September 2010, 07:18 AM

I like fudge.

elbe · 26th September 2010, 07:25 AM

Will they finally crack down on that "JREF" place? I hear that place is a hotbed of "infringement".

Ysidro · 26th September 2010, 07:40 AM

I think the OP is right or wrong. Or right or left. One of those.

Bob Klase · 26th September 2010, 08:25 AM

Originally Posted by drkitten

I agree with quixotecoyote, but disagree with XboxWarrior.

I disagree with disagreeing with anyone.

Thunder · 26th September 2010, 09:01 AM

Originally Posted by INRM

Opinions?

why

Thunder · 26th September 2010, 09:03 AM

Originally Posted by Sword_Of_Truth

I like fudge.

citation required.

KoihimeNakamura · 26th September 2010, 09:06 AM

I think I'll care more on Friday, after it's gone through Committee

Normal Dude · 26th September 2010, 09:12 AM

Originally Posted by Ysidro

I think the OP is right or wrong. Or right or left. One of those.

Your way of thinking is totally wrong! It's obviously up or down.

RPG Advocate · 26th September 2010, 09:21 AM

Originally Posted by XBoxWarrior

Yes.

Originally Posted by quixotecoyote

I agree with XboxWarrior.

Originally Posted by drkitten

I agree with quixotecoyote, but disagree with XboxWarrior.

Originally Posted by Sword_Of_Truth

I like fudge.

Originally Posted by Ysidro

I think the OP is right or wrong. Or right or left. One of those.

Originally Posted by Bob Klase

I disagree with disagreeing with anyone.

Originally Posted by Thunder

why

Originally Posted by Thunder

citation required.

Originally Posted by Rika

I think I'll care more on Friday, after it's gone through Committee

Originally Posted by Normal Dude

Your way of thinking is totally wrong! It's obviously up or down.

Not sure what's up in this thread. I thought it might be a sublte way of letting the OP know the story was a hoax, but other media outlets seem to corroborate it, so if it's a hoax, it's a damn good one.

Anyway, the only effect going after these sites at the domain registrar level will have is that instead of a fancy name, your favorite pirate sites will be known by their IP addresses. The problem, of course, is that this list could become like the no-fly list in that totally innocent sites may appear on it with few avenues for the affected parties to seek relief.

fuelair · 26th September 2010, 10:05 AM

As long as the blocked domains (etc.) are ones that assist piracy or libel/slander to operate, I have no problem with their blocking. If they start blocking ones that they just don't like, no.

INRM · 26th September 2010, 10:08 AM

I don't think the issue here is the nature of the article. The issue is the guy who posted it on this site.

Personally I think it's a serious issue regarding censorship and the fact that the government could block information, not necessarily that infringes on copyright, but simply to block information on the internet that it doesn't want the public to see.

It strikes me as a dangerous step in the wrong direction

Arus808 · 26th September 2010, 11:01 AM

last i looked, the internet is run by private ISP's on private servers. They can block or allow you access to any site on the net as per their contract with you to provide that service.

Dont like it? Then start your own isp, with a backbone and you can have access to any content you want.

NWO Sentryman · 26th September 2010, 12:22 PM

Originally Posted by Thunder

citation required.

no, no, no, you're doing it wrong.

It's [citation needed] /

INRM · 26th September 2010, 12:32 PM

Arus 808,

There's a difference between what you're saying and what this bill proposes. This bill does not entail giving a private ISP the right to block access; it gives the government to block people's access to ISP's.

Beerina · 26th September 2010, 12:36 PM

Originally Posted by fuelair

As long as the blocked domains (etc.) are ones that assist piracy or libel/slander to operate, I have no problem with their blocking. If they start blocking ones that they just don't like, no.

Hence the "slippery slope" idea -- best to not allow it to begin with.

For example, when expanding the government's power to investigate for the "war on terror" after 9/11, the government swore up and down they'd only use it for terrorism.

Almost immediately they started using it for illegal drugs. No, they didn't use the sophistry that selling illegal drugs "is terrorism". They just started doing it. When asked about their promise to reserve it to terrorist investigations, they stated, "The law doesn't actually specify it's limited to terrorists."

These are the sacks of dung we deal with in government. Lawyers. Liars. The power hungry. This is how they "run", to use the modern vernacular.

Thunder · 26th September 2010, 01:10 PM

Originally Posted by INRM

There's a difference between what you're saying and what this bill proposes. This bill does not entail giving a private ISP the right to block access; it gives the government to block people's access to ISP's.

why is this a bad thing?

KoihimeNakamura · 26th September 2010, 01:49 PM

The government should not be in the business of blocking websites.

Unless they can prove, to a judge, that they are breaking the law.

Ladewig · 26th September 2010, 02:07 PM

Originally Posted by INRM

Opinions?

I have an exceptionally strong opinion. My opinion is that before one worries about the content of a proposed law, one should actually read the text of the law.

http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/th...rfeitsAct1.pdf

Ladewig · 26th September 2010, 02:17 PM

Originally Posted by INRM

Title: Censorship of the Internet Takes Center Stage in "Online Infringement Bill"
Author: Richard Esguerra
URL: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/0...r-stage-online

Quote:

This flawed bill would allow the Attorney General and the Department of Justice to break the Internet one domain at a time — by requiring domain registrars/registries, ISPs, DNS providers, and others to block Internet users from reaching certain websites. The bill would also create two Internet blacklists. The first is a list of all the websites hit with a censorship court order from the Attorney General.

Opinions?

What is a "censorship court order"? I cannot find any reference to it outside of this (very repeated) story?

KoihimeNakamura · 26th September 2010, 02:28 PM

It is kinda broad.

Of course, we could stop using Congress to stop propping up RIAA. That might work better too.

quixotecoyote · 26th September 2010, 02:34 PM

Originally Posted by Rika

The government should not be in the business of blocking websites.

Unless they can prove, to a judge, that they are breaking the law.

Unsurprisingly, that's what the bill actually says. They have to prove to a judge that the site is either already in violation of civil forfeiture law or that it's main purpose is to distribute infringing or counterfeit materials.

pipelineaudio · 26th September 2010, 04:07 PM

Damn those evil RIAA people, trying to protect millions of jobs, congress damn them!

On issues like this, its best not to use sources like eff, wired or ars-technica for the facts of the case, but it is helpful to learn their opinions on these issues

drkitten · 26th September 2010, 04:17 PM

Originally Posted by RPG Advocate

Not sure what's up in this thread. I thought it might be a sublte way of letting the OP know the story was a hoax, but other media outlets seem to corroborate it, so if it's a hoax, it's a damn good one.

It's not that the story is a hoax. It's that the story is a non-story. The bill doesn't say what his paranoiac fantasies say that it does.

The poster, as he himself admits, has a track record of doing this. The weatherman will tell him "It will be not be as sunny tomorrow -- it will be windy and chill" and he'll instantly run for the nearest library and post "OMFG! The weatherman just told us that the sun is going out and we'll all freeze to death!"

Ausmerican · 26th September 2010, 06:48 PM

Originally Posted by INRM

Opinions?

You misspelled onions by a magnitutde of pi.

KoihimeNakamura · 26th September 2010, 06:56 PM

Originally Posted by quixotecoyote

Unsurprisingly, that's what the bill actually says. They have to prove to a judge that the site is either already in violation of civil forfeiture law or that it's main purpose is to distribute infringing or counterfeit materials.

Yeah, I read it once the pdf was actually linked. I'm not really happy about the 'links to' bit but whatever.

Originally Posted by pipelineaudio

Damn those evil RIAA people, trying to protect millions of jobs, congress damn them!

On issues like this, its best not to use sources like eff, wired or ars-technica for the facts of the case, but it is helpful to learn their opinions on these issues

Yeah, uh.. that's an opinion. I also doubt RIAA is millions of jobs, but whatever.

pipelineaudio · 26th September 2010, 10:23 PM

Originally Posted by Rika

Yeah, uh.. that's an opinion. I also doubt RIAA is millions of jobs, but whatever.

one of RIAA's jobs is to protect millions of jobs, but whatever

rustypouch · 27th September 2010, 12:30 AM

Originally Posted by NWO Sentryman

no, no, no, you're doing it wrong.

It's [citation needed] /

Evidences?

erlando · 27th September 2010, 12:55 AM

The recording industry in America is "millions of jobs"? Millions? Really?

Upchurch · 27th September 2010, 04:32 AM

Originally Posted by erlando

The recording industry in America is "millions of jobs"? Millions? Really?

How loosely are you willing to define "recording industry"? I bet we could find a way to make that work out.

pipelineaudio · 27th September 2010, 01:27 PM

Originally Posted by Upchurch

How loosely are you willing to define "recording industry"? I bet we could find a way to make that work out.

I wouldn't limit it to just the recording industry, whatever that may be. The guy who mops the floors at the local live venue, the bartenders, the sticker printers, the mechanics, bus drivers, cabbies, so many are affected past the "fat cats" (who really aren't affected much as their interests are now wall street) that most don't think of when it comes to IP theft

ktesibios · 27th September 2010, 03:44 PM

Don't forget the restaurant industry. You would be surprised at how much of a studio runner's time is spent going out to get the clients' food orders.

quixotecoyote · 27th September 2010, 04:04 PM

Which of course brings in the agriculture industry and the transportation to get it to the restaurants.

Dancing David · 27th September 2010, 04:08 PM

Originally Posted by INRM

I don't think the issue here is the nature of the article. The issue is the guy who posted it on this site.

Personally I think it's a serious issue regarding censorship and the fact that the government could block information, not necessarily that infringes on copyright, but simply to block information on the internet that it doesn't want the public to see.

Where does the legislation proposed or other wise say that?

Quote:

It strikes me as a dangerous step in the wrong direction

NWO Sentryman · 27th September 2010, 04:23 PM

Originally Posted by rustypouch

Evidences?

http://xkcd.com/285/

erlando · 28th September 2010, 12:43 AM

Originally Posted by pipelineaudio

I wouldn't limit it to just the recording industry, whatever that may be. The guy who mops the floors at the local live venue, the bartenders, the sticker printers, the mechanics, bus drivers, cabbies, so many are affected past the "fat cats" (who really aren't affected much as their interests are now wall street) that most don't think of when it comes to IP theft

Ah, those millions...

That's BS! Don't kid yourself, the RIAA is protecting exactly one category: The money, ie the "fat cats".

From http://www.riaa.org/whatwedo.php:

Quote:

The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) is the trade organization that supports and promotes the creative and financial vitality of the major music companies.

(bolding mine).

People won't stop going to concerts. So the bartenders, moppers, cabbies etc. are safe.

25th September 2010, 01:01 PM	#1
INRM Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 5,490	Censorship of the Internet Takes Center Stage in "Online Infringement Bill" Title: Censorship of the Internet Takes Center Stage in "Online Infringement Bill" Author: Richard Esguerra URL: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/0...r-stage-online Quote: Senator Patrick Leahy yesterday introduced the "Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act" (COICA). This flawed bill would allow the Attorney General and the Department of Justice to break the Internet one domain at a time — by requiring domain registrars/registries, ISPs, DNS providers, and others to block Internet users from reaching certain websites. The bill would also create two Internet blacklists. The first is a list of all the websites hit with a censorship court order from the Attorney General. The second, more worrying, blacklist is a list of domain names that the Department of Justice determines — without judicial review — are "dedicated to infringing activities." The bill only requires blocking for domains in the first list, but strongly suggests that domains on the second list should be blocked as well by providing legal immunity for Internet intermediaries and DNS operators who decide to block domains on the second blacklist as well. (It's easy to predict that there will be tremendous pressure for Internet intermediaries of all stripes to block these "deemed infringing" sites on the second blacklist.) COICA is a fairly short bill, but it could have a longstanding and dangerous impact on freedom of speech, current Internet architecture, copyright doctrine, foreign policy, and beyond. In 2010, if there's anything we've learned about efforts to re-write copyright law to target "piracy" online, it's that they are likely to have unintended consequences. This is a censorship bill that runs roughshod over freedom of speech on the Internet. Free speech is vitally important to democracy, which is why the government is restricted from suppressing speech except in very specific, narrowly-tailored situations. But this bill is the polar opposite of narrow — not only in the broad way that it tries to define a site "dedicated to infringing activities," but also in the solution that it tries to impose — a block on a whole domain, and not just the infringing part of the site. Opinions?
INRM Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 5,490

25th September 2010, 08:11 PM	#3
INRM Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 5,490	XBox Warrior Opinions, as in "Does anybody think this is right, or wrong?" "Does anybody agree, or disagree with it?"
INRM Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 5,490

25th September 2010, 08:13 PM	#4
quixotecoyote Howling to glory I go Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 9,621	I agree with XboxWarrior.
	__________________ If people needed video games to live, a national single payer plan to fund those purchases would be a great idea.

26th September 2010, 07:25 AM	#7
elbe Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: near a man named leroy brown Posts: 3,742	Will they finally crack down on that "JREF" place? I hear that place is a hotbed of "infringement".
	__________________ "If ever I stray from the path I follow take me down to the english channel, throw me in where the water is shallow, and then drag me on back to shore." realityisnotadditive... blog... thingy...

26th September 2010, 07:40 AM	#8
Ysidro I'm watching you Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 5,334	I think the OP is right or wrong. Or right or left. One of those.
Ysidro I'm watching you Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 5,334	__________________ This is a sig file. Does anyone even read this stuff?

25th September 2010, 01:37 PM	#2
XBoxWarrior Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Down in the Treme... Posts: 1,232	Originally Posted by INRM Opinions? Yes.

26th September 2010, 07:06 AM	#5
drkitten Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Wits' End Posts: 21,647	Originally Posted by quixotecoyote I agree with XboxWarrior. I agree with quixotecoyote, but disagree with XboxWarrior.

26th September 2010, 07:18 AM	#6
Sword_Of_Truth Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 11,497	I like fudge.

26th September 2010, 08:25 AM	#9
Bob Klase Master Poster Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Largo, FL Posts: 2,833	Originally Posted by drkitten I agree with quixotecoyote, but disagree with XboxWarrior. I disagree with disagreeing with anyone.

26th September 2010, 09:01 AM	#10
Thunder Banned Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Queens Posts: 34,947	Originally Posted by INRM Opinions? why

26th September 2010, 09:03 AM	#11
Thunder Banned Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Queens Posts: 34,947	Originally Posted by Sword_Of_Truth I like fudge. citation required.

26th September 2010, 09:06 AM	#12
KoihimeNakamura Creativity Murderer Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Graham, WA Posts: 6,922	I think I'll care more on Friday, after it's gone through Committee
	__________________ Don't mind me.

26th September 2010, 09:12 AM	#13
Normal Dude Space Shuttle Door Gunner Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: W/ The Evil Council Posts: 3,959	Originally Posted by Ysidro I think the OP is right or wrong. Or right or left. One of those. Your way of thinking is totally wrong! It's obviously up or down.
	__________________ "At some point, you just get past the horror of someone having these beliefs, and begin to enjoy the sheer comedy of it all." Complexity And I dont care if your name is Norm or Jack, Or Dick. I dont see why you have to post your name everytime you make a comment./ its IRRELIVANT -Rwalsh

26th September 2010, 09:21 AM	#14
RPG Advocate Critical Thinker Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 279	Originally Posted by XBoxWarrior Yes. Originally Posted by quixotecoyote I agree with XboxWarrior. Originally Posted by drkitten I agree with quixotecoyote, but disagree with XboxWarrior. Originally Posted by Sword_Of_Truth I like fudge. Originally Posted by Ysidro I think the OP is right or wrong. Or right or left. One of those. Originally Posted by Bob Klase I disagree with disagreeing with anyone. Originally Posted by Thunder why Originally Posted by Thunder citation required. Originally Posted by Rika I think I'll care more on Friday, after it's gone through Committee Originally Posted by Normal Dude Your way of thinking is totally wrong! It's obviously up or down. Not sure what's up in this thread. I thought it might be a sublte way of letting the OP know the story was a hoax, but other media outlets seem to corroborate it, so if it's a hoax, it's a damn good one. Anyway, the only effect going after these sites at the domain registrar level will have is that instead of a fancy name, your favorite pirate sites will be known by their IP addresses. The problem, of course, is that this list could become like the no-fly list in that totally innocent sites may appear on it with few avenues for the affected parties to seek relief.

26th September 2010, 10:05 AM	#15
fuelair Cythraul Enfys Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 29,307	As long as the blocked domains (etc.) are ones that assist piracy or libel/slander to operate, I have no problem with their blocking. If they start blocking ones that they just don't like, no.
fuelair Cythraul Enfys Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 29,307	__________________ There is no problem so great that it cannot be fixed by small explosives carefully placed. Wash this space! We fight for the Lady Babylon!!!

26th September 2010, 10:08 AM	#16
INRM Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 5,490	I don't think the issue here is the nature of the article. The issue is the guy who posted it on this site. Personally I think it's a serious issue regarding censorship and the fact that the government could block information, not necessarily that infringes on copyright, but simply to block information on the internet that it doesn't want the public to see. It strikes me as a dangerous step in the wrong direction
INRM Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 5,490

26th September 2010, 11:01 AM	#17
Arus808 Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 6,202	last i looked, the internet is run by private ISP's on private servers. They can block or allow you access to any site on the net as per their contract with you to provide that service. Dont like it? Then start your own isp, with a backbone and you can have access to any content you want.
Arus808 Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 6,202	__________________ Back home with a new sunburn...I look like a tomato. “Life may begin at 30, but it doesn’t get real interesting until about 150.” “Most motorcycle problems are caused by the nut that connects the handlebars to the saddle.”

26th September 2010, 12:22 PM	#18
NWO Sentryman Proud NWO Gatekeeper Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Quantum Gate to the NWO Posts: 3,872	Originally Posted by Thunder citation required. no, no, no, you're doing it wrong. It's [citation needed] /
	__________________ If I now say "dominoes", you won't think "pizza". Will you? - FireGarden on the Middle East Last edited by NWO Sentryman; 26th September 2010 at 12:26 PM.

26th September 2010, 12:32 PM	#19
INRM Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 5,490	Arus 808, There's a difference between what you're saying and what this bill proposes. This bill does not entail giving a private ISP the right to block access; it gives the government to block people's access to ISP's.
INRM Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 5,490

26th September 2010, 12:36 PM	#20
Beerina Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: A floating island above the clouds Posts: 23,835	Originally Posted by fuelair As long as the blocked domains (etc.) are ones that assist piracy or libel/slander to operate, I have no problem with their blocking. If they start blocking ones that they just don't like, no. Hence the "slippery slope" idea -- best to not allow it to begin with. For example, when expanding the government's power to investigate for the "war on terror" after 9/11, the government swore up and down they'd only use it for terrorism. Almost immediately they started using it for illegal drugs. No, they didn't use the sophistry that selling illegal drugs "is terrorism". They just started doing it. When asked about their promise to reserve it to terrorist investigations, they stated, "The law doesn't actually specify it's limited to terrorists." These are the sacks of dung we deal with in government. Lawyers. Liars. The power hungry. This is how they "run", to use the modern vernacular.
	__________________ "Great innovations should not be forced [by way of] slender majorities." - Thomas Jefferson The government should nationalize it! Socialized, single-payer video game development and sales *now!* More, cheaper, better games, right? Right?

26th September 2010, 01:10 PM	#21
Thunder Banned Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Queens Posts: 34,947	Originally Posted by INRM There's a difference between what you're saying and what this bill proposes. This bill does not entail giving a private ISP the right to block access; it gives the government to block people's access to ISP's. why is this a bad thing?

26th September 2010, 01:49 PM	#22
KoihimeNakamura Creativity Murderer Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Graham, WA Posts: 6,922	The government should not be in the business of blocking websites. Unless they can prove, to a judge, that they are breaking the law.
	__________________ Don't mind me.

26th September 2010, 02:07 PM	#23
Ladewig Hipster alien Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: not measurable Posts: 16,936	Originally Posted by INRM Opinions? I have an exceptionally strong opinion. My opinion is that before one worries about the content of a proposed law, one should actually read the text of the law. http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/th...rfeitsAct1.pdf
	__________________ Is the JREF message board training wheels for people who hope to one day troll other message boards? It is not that hard to get us to believe you. We are not the major leagues or even the minor leagues. We are Pee-Wee baseball. If you love striking out 10-year-olds, then you'll love trolling our board.

26th September 2010, 02:17 PM	#24
Ladewig Hipster alien Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: not measurable Posts: 16,936	Originally Posted by INRM Title: Censorship of the Internet Takes Center Stage in "Online Infringement Bill" Author: Richard Esguerra URL: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/0...r-stage-online Quote: This flawed bill would allow the Attorney General and the Department of Justice to break the Internet one domain at a time — by requiring domain registrars/registries, ISPs, DNS providers, and others to block Internet users from reaching certain websites. The bill would also create two Internet blacklists. The first is a list of all the websites hit with a censorship court order from the Attorney General. Opinions? What is a "censorship court order"? I cannot find any reference to it outside of this (very repeated) story?
	__________________ Is the JREF message board training wheels for people who hope to one day troll other message boards? It is not that hard to get us to believe you. We are not the major leagues or even the minor leagues. We are Pee-Wee baseball. If you love striking out 10-year-olds, then you'll love trolling our board.

26th September 2010, 02:28 PM	#25
KoihimeNakamura Creativity Murderer Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Graham, WA Posts: 6,922	It is kinda broad. Of course, we could stop using Congress to stop propping up RIAA. That might work better too.
	__________________ Don't mind me.

26th September 2010, 02:34 PM	#26
quixotecoyote Howling to glory I go Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 9,621	Originally Posted by Rika The government should not be in the business of blocking websites. Unless they can prove, to a judge, that they are breaking the law. Unsurprisingly, that's what the bill actually says. They have to prove to a judge that the site is either already in violation of civil forfeiture law or that it's main purpose is to distribute infringing or counterfeit materials.
	__________________ If people needed video games to live, a national single payer plan to fund those purchases would be a great idea.

26th September 2010, 04:07 PM	#27
pipelineaudio Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Wickenburg, AZ Posts: 3,674	Damn those evil RIAA people, trying to protect millions of jobs, congress damn them! On issues like this, its best not to use sources like eff, wired or ars-technica for the facts of the case, but it is helpful to learn their opinions on these issues
	__________________ Can someone give me a better name for SLAG FAIRY?

26th September 2010, 04:17 PM	#28
drkitten Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Wits' End Posts: 21,647	Originally Posted by RPG Advocate Not sure what's up in this thread. I thought it might be a sublte way of letting the OP know the story was a hoax, but other media outlets seem to corroborate it, so if it's a hoax, it's a damn good one. It's not that the story is a hoax. It's that the story is a non-story. The bill doesn't say what his paranoiac fantasies say that it does. The poster, as he himself admits, has a track record of doing this. The weatherman will tell him "It will be not be as sunny tomorrow -- it will be windy and chill" and he'll instantly run for the nearest library and post "OMFG! The weatherman just told us that the sun is going out and we'll all freeze to death!"

26th September 2010, 06:48 PM	#29
Ausmerican Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 3,416	Originally Posted by INRM Opinions? You misspelled onions by a magnitutde of pi.
Ausmerican Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 3,416	__________________ Everyone must believe in something. I believe I'll go canoeing. Henry David Thoreau

26th September 2010, 06:56 PM	#30
KoihimeNakamura Creativity Murderer Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Graham, WA Posts: 6,922	Originally Posted by quixotecoyote Unsurprisingly, that's what the bill actually says. They have to prove to a judge that the site is either already in violation of civil forfeiture law or that it's main purpose is to distribute infringing or counterfeit materials. Yeah, I read it once the pdf was actually linked. I'm not really happy about the 'links to' bit but whatever. Originally Posted by pipelineaudio Damn those evil RIAA people, trying to protect millions of jobs, congress damn them! On issues like this, its best not to use sources like eff, wired or ars-technica for the facts of the case, but it is helpful to learn their opinions on these issues Yeah, uh.. that's an opinion. I also doubt RIAA is millions of jobs, but whatever.
	__________________ Don't mind me.

26th September 2010, 10:23 PM	#31
pipelineaudio Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Wickenburg, AZ Posts: 3,674	Originally Posted by Rika Yeah, uh.. that's an opinion. I also doubt RIAA is millions of jobs, but whatever. one of RIAA's jobs is to protect millions of jobs, but whatever
	__________________ Can someone give me a better name for SLAG FAIRY?

27th September 2010, 12:30 AM	#32
rustypouch Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Belfort Posts: 5,182	Originally Posted by NWO Sentryman no, no, no, you're doing it wrong. It's [citation needed] / Evidences?

27th September 2010, 12:55 AM	#33
erlando Graduate Poster Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Denmark Posts: 1,016	The recording industry in America is "millions of jobs"? Millions? Really?
	__________________ "If it can grow, it can evolve" - Eugenie Scott, Ph.D Creationism disproved? Evolution IS a blind watchmaker

27th September 2010, 04:32 AM	#34
Upchurch Papa Funkosophy Join Date: May 2002 Location: Funky Town (STL, MO) Posts: 23,473	Originally Posted by erlando The recording industry in America is "millions of jobs"? Millions? Really? How loosely are you willing to define "recording industry"? I bet we could find a way to make that work out.

27th September 2010, 01:27 PM	#35
pipelineaudio Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Wickenburg, AZ Posts: 3,674	Originally Posted by Upchurch How loosely are you willing to define "recording industry"? I bet we could find a way to make that work out. I wouldn't limit it to just the recording industry, whatever that may be. The guy who mops the floors at the local live venue, the bartenders, the sticker printers, the mechanics, bus drivers, cabbies, so many are affected past the "fat cats" (who really aren't affected much as their interests are now wall street) that most don't think of when it comes to IP theft
	__________________ Can someone give me a better name for SLAG FAIRY?