American Censorship: Round 2
- Thread starter celebi23
- Start date
- Status
Smith's job today seems to a) just say 'no' b) believe the original bill is fine and c) oversee the show today.
nope.
nope.
texasairhead101
Member
no just shooting down amendments to the proposed amendment
Nope.
Zoramon089
Banned
No one there knows what this bill or the proposed amendments actually do, do they?
The lady speaking right now seems to know what is actually is what.
What about that one that the chair (I think) said he would vote yes on?
DiscoJer
Member
Hey, it worked for Obamacare
"We have to pass this bill in order to find out what's in it" to paraphrase Pelosi.
It's what happens with Lobbyists write legislation for them.
Zoramon089
Banned
Ugh, this guy is so full of shit
No, that's not actually what she said. It was a quote taken out of context about how the American public has been mislead about the bill by the media and the Republicans.
Would President Obama not vetoing this bill not be a flagrant reversal of his previous position, which is to preserve net neutrality at all costs?
I mean, I know he's going to be busy next year, but you'd think he wouldn't overlook something like this, which seems to be an easy attack vector for his Republican opponents.
Anyway, I'm not American, but I still severely doubt the bill's constitutionality.
From another site:
I seriously believe (and hope) that the above is factually correct.
I mean, I know he's going to be busy next year, but you'd think he wouldn't overlook something like this, which seems to be an easy attack vector for his Republican opponents.
Anyway, I'm not American, but I still severely doubt the bill's constitutionality.
From another site:
I seriously believe (and hope) that the above is factually correct.
Zoramon089
Banned
Chairman put on the spot and he has no real answer. This dude is so corrupt it's ridiculous
I don't think it'll pass. I still think that piracy is an issue that must be dealt with, though. In some other way. Not this.
Zoramon089
Banned
DID HE SERIOUSLY SAY THE NO'S HAVE IT?!
texasairhead101
Member
wish there was a bar at the bottom of whose speaking. all i hear is "gentleman" or women from California when they address each other
Even if it does pass, as the lady noted this bill will be stuck down in the courts on first amendment guidelines.
What'd he say?!
Guys, it's become patently clear that this "debate" is a complete waste of time, a mere talking shop staged for the appearance of democracy in action, and I don't want to listen to these ignorant assholes anymore. It's giving me earache.
lol @ American Democracy should this pass to the House without amendment, btw.
lol @ American Democracy should this pass to the House without amendment, btw.
Zoramon089
Banned
This guy...he has no idea what he wants to say...
And no one cares. I turned off this crap. I'm just tried of this crap when it always results in the majority saying no because big business is paying their salary.
Zoramon089
Banned
Chairman just called no before the no's even spoke!
Yup. Our current court is extremely sympathetic towards first amendment rights, even if they do think that corporations are people.
Zoramon089
Banned
Hahaha, ohhh, why am I laughing at this. It's terrible
Mr. Enigma
Member
I quit following this shit as soon as it started when the one old guy said, "I don't know much about the Internet, but I know this bill needs to pass."
Not worth my blood pressure. No one in DC gives a fuck about regular people anymore anyways.
Not worth my blood pressure. No one in DC gives a fuck about regular people anymore anyways.
texasairhead101
Member
That's usually what our reps are - clueless.
This is making me sick. Are they really about to let complete immunity to everyone involved when shutting down a website? I fucking hope not.
Edit: looks like they just shot it down. So now a competitor of a company can attack another companies website, orders the hosters and ad servers to shut them down without a court order, and if they do so are immune, but if they dont, can face legal penalty.
So many corrupt fucks in office.
Edit: looks like they just shot it down. So now a competitor of a company can attack another companies website, orders the hosters and ad servers to shut them down without a court order, and if they do so are immune, but if they dont, can face legal penalty.
So many corrupt fucks in office.
ChoklitReign
Member
I think they voted no on an amendment; was it the worst one?
They have been voting no on most amendments. This amendment and most others are designed to make the bill less monstrous.
You mean Record Executives and videogame Publishers, right? Let's not get it twisted. This isn't to protect the recording artist and videogame programmer, it's to protect the 1%ers who owns the distribution means for these products.
The big problem i am finding while watching this is apparently there are a bunch of loopholes in the bill which allows for near total control by any corporation to simply shut down a website with very little repercussion.
The idea is to quickly kill income of the target and therefore they cant afford the court fees to fight back and before you know it their business is dead.
This isnt just pirated shit, this is more subtle user generated content sites, streaming sites, a whole bunch of shit that actually encourages the hoster to shut them down to avoid legal penalty.
The problem is that while executives will always make money because they have the resources to get/sign/hold onto talent, creative people often suffer because there are no other outlets for them besides the system they have in place. No one gives a shit if everyone pirates your material and no one buys it - no one's going to want to work with you.
EDIT: To clarify, I meant piracy in general. This bill will do little to block pirated material and sets a dangerous precedent.
You know how everyone hates the new Xbox dashboard? Well the internet could look exactly like that if this thing passes. Content controlled by the IP holders, everyone else left to twiddle their thumbs or post really innocuous shit that won't ruffle corporate feathers.
The fact that I'm reading a thread on a gaming site where some posters are actually defending this legislation is, well, terrifying.
The fact that I'm reading a thread on a gaming site where some posters are actually defending this legislation is, well, terrifying.
Link? Are they defended the broadness of this specific legislation or the thought that piracy must be curbed somehow?
I dont like your fucking Avatar. Gaf hosts avatars right? Im gonna write up a 2 page legal letter clearly showing copyright infringement. Shut down gaf.
*Hoster of GAF gets letter, realizes they are legally protected if they shut it down. Does so in 5 minutes. Evilore CRIES
Keep in mind no courts were involved at all cause i am a savvy legal person with lots of money!
Yeah. Message boards are fucking toast if this becomes law.
So a bill passed earlier where US citizens could be locked away indefinitely for a meagre suspicion of terrorism (a vague thing in itself) without trial or jury. And now this SOPA thing? The US is starting to sound more like a tyrannical or Corporatocratic state every day.
If I lived there, I'd be making preparations to move right about now. That or hitting the streets to protests at every given opportunity, and hounding local Senators and politicians to voice concerns as often as I could.
If I lived there, I'd be making preparations to move right about now. That or hitting the streets to protests at every given opportunity, and hounding local Senators and politicians to voice concerns as often as I could.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
I stopped watching the debate a couple of hours ago. Has there been any indication, in text or in speech, that this would somehow lead to distributors shutting down message boards over avatars? Because honestly, that sounds ridiculously alarmist.
They dont go into minute detail like that but you can bet your ass that you will only need the one instance someone gets ticked the wrong way and the law would fully support them. I mean the law is structured to allow the action to be so immediate and without consequence other than to destroy every lifeline a website has that companies are probably gonna create whole new legal departments to take care of business.
It wouldn't even be that tough. Just file an anonymous complaint alleging that GAF harbors piracy. No proof of anything would be needed.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
The bill still stipulates that they need to get a court order, right? There's still a process to that, right?
Lol, in thinking the whole damn internet is gonna turn into some gang turf war. Segments will be placed under the umbrella of powerful corporations that provide security while at the same time allowing total control over them. Fucking ISPs like Comcast are going to town.
Whats really discouraging is that there seem to be a few people in opposition of the bill that make very logical and good points and they are shut down by blanket 'NO!' from whiny bitch politicians complaining they want to go home cause its late.
No there is no court order. They were discussing that amendment when i left and apparently it goes to vote tommorow or something.
Whats really discouraging is that there seem to be a few people in opposition of the bill that make very logical and good points and they are shut down by blanket 'NO!' from whiny bitch politicians complaining they want to go home cause its late.
No there is no court order. They were discussing that amendment when i left and apparently it goes to vote tommorow or something.
Elfforkusu
Member
So I have to hire a lawyer to keep my site on the internet just because you say it shouldn't be there?
To go back to the GAF analogy (since I think it hits home), EviLore has to keep a lawyer on staff (lol) just to handle spurious lawsuits?
There is no grey area with this bill. It is an atrocious attempt by rich assholes to control the internet.
It's not gonna be a lawsuit. lawsuits have discovery. This is just writing a letter to the ISP. It's gonna be a C&D or a DMCA takedown or another claim of copyright infringement.
Elfforkusu
Member
No, they can do that already. This is a "please remove this site from the US internet, I don't like it" "ok *poof*" sort of thing. There is no due process. There is no logic or reason. Just greed and idiocy.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
So would you be alright with a bill like this if it was narrowed to only apply to say...streaming content?
- Status