Well, If Firefighters Support E-PARASITE Law... Then You Know It Must Make Sense

from the who-are-they-kidding? dept

Tue, Nov 1st 2011 3:47pm — Mike Masnick

Want to know just how desperate the folks at the MPAA are getting in their attempt to turn back the clock and outlaw all sorts of innovation? They're reaching the absolute bottom of the barrel, touting the fact that firefighers have come out in favor of PROTECT IP/E-PARASITE. What the hell do firefighters have to do with understanding detailed concepts like free speech, censorship, prior restraint, third party internet liability, and related topics? If you said absolutely, positively, nothing at all, you'd be correct. So, why are firefighters suddenly in favor of the censorship of the internet in America? It's not hard to guess, given how DC lobbying works these days:

"You go down the Latino people, the deaf people, the farmers, and choose them.... You say, 'I can't use this one--I already used them last time...' We had their letterhead. We'd just write the letter. We'd fax it to them and tell them, 'You're in favor of this.'"

Yup. What are the chances that the International Association of Fire Fighters has received large checks from those associated with the movie business? But, more seriously, who does the MPAA actually think it's fooling? Is Congress so stupid that it can't figure out for itself that firefighters have no clue what this debate is about? Otherwise, why would they be supporting censorship in America? Read the letter below, and wager a guess how much was actually written by a firefighter, rather than a lobbyist for Hollywood?

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: e-parasite, firefighters, lobbying, protect ip, sopa
Companies: mpaa

173 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

rw (profile), 1 Nov 2011 @ 2:55pm

Faith in Congress
I have very high faith in Congress. I KNOW Congress is so stupid that it can't figure out for itself that firefighters have no clue what this debate is about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- ChurchHatesTucker (profile), 1 Nov 2011 @ 4:16pm
  
  Re: Faith in Congress
  Congress is probably unaware that there's a debate, never mind what it's about.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - ltlw0lf (profile), 1 Nov 2011 @ 4:30pm
    
    Re: Re: Faith in Congress
    Congress is probably unaware that there's a debate, never mind what it's about.
    
    Hi Mr Senator...I am a lobbyist, calling about this upcoming bill that we want you to vote yes on. There is no debate, as Mr. Benjamin and his twenty brothers we sent you will attest to. If you find out that your constituents don't like it, we can send over a briefcase containing 600 Benjamins to help you with your decision. Thanks, have a nice day. Take the Benjamins we sent out for a night of hookers and blow on us and relax a little.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Christopher (profile), 1 Nov 2011 @ 5:19pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Faith in Congress
      Shit like that should be watched for and if a politician is found taking a bribe like that? Arrested and automatically banned from holding another public position ever, conviction or not.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - The eejit (profile), 2 Nov 2011 @ 1:13am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Faith in Congress
        But...BUT...THIS IS AMERICA, YOU COMMIE NAZI FRENCH-CANADIAN JEW!
        
        (and yes, this is hyperbolic bullshit that I've actually heard in response to reasoned debate on the US political system.)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - The Incoherent One (profile), 1 Nov 2011 @ 8:48pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Faith in Congress
      You need to think much larger. Try Andrew Jackson and 10,000 of his identical clones.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Prisoner 201, 2 Nov 2011 @ 12:57am
  
  Re: Faith in Congress
  If the opposite of PRO, is CON...
  
  Then the opposite of progress is congress?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 Nov 2011 @ 6:38am
  
  Re: Faith in Congress
  I have no faith in our Corrupt Government and I want to see it ended.These losers take away our Internt Freedom and I hope there is such a large outcry it will be the stone that crushes the life out of this Corrupt Broken Asshole System we have to live in.
  Welcome to 1984
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Marcus Carab (profile), 1 Nov 2011 @ 3:56pm

MPAA & Firefighters
Actually I think I get it. They are both trying to stop the spread of things that can copy themselves near-infinitely. Firefighters are basically how MPAA folk think of themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 1 Nov 2011 @ 3:57pm
  
  Re: MPAA & Firefighters
  THEM STEALERS ARE DESTROYING OUR FIRE-FIGHTING INDUSTRY!!!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 1 Nov 2011 @ 5:06pm
  
  Re: MPAA & Firefighters
  You wouldn't download a fire hose.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- hmm (profile), 2 Nov 2011 @ 5:22am
  
  Re: MPAA & Firefighters
  Fire-sharers are destroying the home arson business!!!!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Nov 2011 @ 3:56pm

C'mon it is obvious why the firefighters are involved. To extinguish the flames of due process and free speech that burns in every heart.

What that was not good? let me try again.

C'mon it is obvious why the firefighters are involved they are tired of putting out the flames that keep sparking out of the whole debate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
crade (profile), 1 Nov 2011 @ 4:04pm

They usually try to be a little more subtle with their corruption. They really have a low opinion of people. I hope they are wrong about that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jeff (profile), 1 Nov 2011 @ 4:40pm
  
  Re:
  That's ok - we have a low opinion of them also...
  
  http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/congressional_fav orability_ratings
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - crade (profile), 2 Nov 2011 @ 7:48am
    
    Re: Re:
    I meant the lobbyists making the laws. Who cares what set of stooges they have in at the moment?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Matthew Krum, 1 Nov 2011 @ 4:05pm

Police Support
I saw through the link that the Fraternal Order of Police support it as well. Perhaps they want to use these laws to take down police brutality videos more easily?
But really, who knows about the fire fighters.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- hmm (profile), 2 Nov 2011 @ 5:25am
  
  Re: Police Support
  Everytime someone posts a video of a police officer kicking a pregnant woman in the stomach its a lost sale for "America's Funniest Police Brutality"
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Nov 2011 @ 4:12pm

Arrogant Blockheads
While it clearly suits your purposes to suggest that these bills are only about pirating music and film, that's but a (small) portion of what will be impacted. Ever hear that smoke and carbon monoxide detectors and other consumer electronics are being counterfeited? Complete down to the fake UL seal? You think firefighters might have an interest in making sure crap like that gets removed from the homes they protect?

Your pathological focus on the film and music industry is telling. There's no lie, no exaggeration, no accusation that you won't make in your desperation to stop the tightening of the screws on counterfeiters, infringers and those who illegally exploit the internet for their own gain at the expense of others. This is why you are laughed at Masnick. Sitting at a computer in California with your tinfoil hat cranking out unbelievable FUD based on some paranoid conspiracy theory. There are medications that can help you. Please look in to it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- MrWilson, 1 Nov 2011 @ 4:23pm
  
  Re: Arrogant Blockheads
  "This is why you are laughed at Masnick."
  
  Welcome to the internet. Everyone is being laughed at by someone else here. Right now, we're laughing at you and the absurd things you spout. I'm pretty sure Mike isn't concerned about you laughing at him.
  
  Also, you seem to be projecting. You seem to have a pathological focus on Mike and there doesn't seem to be a lie, exaggeration, or accusation that you won't make in your desperation to discredit him.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 1 Nov 2011 @ 4:33pm
    
    Re: Re: Arrogant Blockheads
    "This is why you are laughed at Masnick."
    
    Welcome to the internet. Everyone is being laughed at by someone else here. Right now, we're laughing at you and the absurd things you spout. I'm pretty sure Mike isn't concerned about you laughing at him.
    
    Also, you seem to be projecting. You seem to have a pathological focus on Mike and there doesn't seem to be a lie, exaggeration, or accusation that you won't make in your desperation to discredit him.
    
    Way to avoid the issue. Masnick ridicules the position of the firefighters who have a vested interest in getting phony smoke and carbon monoxide detectors off the market along with bogus, unsafe consumer electronics. And in his fulminations accuses an honorable group of people of being a bunch of stooges. That's bullshit, he know it but continue on in his fantastic delusion about the MPAA "shadow government" controlling everyone and everything. It's kind of creepy how detached from reality he's become and totally lost he is in his delusions.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - JMT (profile), 1 Nov 2011 @ 5:04pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Arrogant Blockheads
      "Masnick ridicules the position of the firefighters who have a vested interest in getting phony smoke and carbon monoxide detectors off the market along with bogus, unsafe consumer electronics."
      
      Do you or the IAFF have any actual evidence of "phoney smoke and carbon monoxide detectors" and "unsafe consumer electronics" being problems of a magnitude that require these new laws? Or is this just a faith-based issue?
      
      Also note that there are undoubtedly both legitimate consumer electronics that are unsafe and counterfeit consumer electronics that are perfectly safe. The bills' targets are supposed to be counterfeit products, not unsafe ones.
      
      "And in his fulminations accuses an honorable group of people of being a bunch of stooges."
      
      I read it as an accusation against the IAFF, not fire fighters in general, as any sensible person should. And yes, they certainly do come across and bought-and-paid-for stooges, because the connection between the fire fighting profession and the proposed bills seems very weak.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 1 Nov 2011 @ 5:22pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Arrogant Blockheads
        "Masnick ridicules the position of the firefighters who have a vested interest in getting phony smoke and carbon monoxide detectors off the market along with bogus, unsafe consumer electronics."
        
        Do you or the IAFF have any actual evidence of "phoney smoke and carbon monoxide detectors" and "unsafe consumer electronics" being problems of a magnitude that require these new laws? Or is this just a faith-based issue?
        
        How about 18,500 smoke detectors distributed to low income families in Atlanta by the AFD? Honestly, you should Google your own questions.
        
        http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11232.html
        
        Also note that there are undoubtedly both legitimate consumer electronics that are unsafe and counterfeit consumer electronics that are perfectly safe. The bills' targets are supposed to be counterfeit products, not unsafe ones.
        
        Consumer electronics are required (I believe) to meet UL standards in this country. That is the gold standard for safety. Rest assured that counterfeit electronics are not so certified. While some may be safe, others certainly are not.
        
        "And in his fulminations accuses an honorable group of people of being a bunch of stooges."
        
        I read it as an accusation against the IAFF, not fire fighters in general, as any sensible person should. And yes, they certainly do come across and bought-and-paid-for stooges, because the connection between the fire fighting profession and the proposed bills seems very weak.
        
        Then you too are in denial like Masnick. The fact that you refuse to see the vested interest that firefighters have in eliminating faulty electronics and defective smoke detectors is simply breathtaking. It also speaks volumes to the utter desperation of the opponents to this bill. The only good news here is that Masnicks unwarranted assault and the echo chamber that supports it will end up on the desks of every undecided legislator as an illustration of how extremist and unreasonable the opponents to this bill are.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 1 Nov 2011 @ 5:26pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Arrogant Blockheads
        "Masnick ridicules the position of the firefighters who have a vested interest in getting phony smoke and carbon monoxide detectors off the market along with bogus, unsafe consumer electronics."
        
        Do you or the IAFF have any actual evidence of "phoney smoke and carbon monoxide detectors" and "unsafe consumer electronics" being problems of a magnitude that require these new laws? Or is this just a faith-based issue?
        
        How about 18,500 smoke detectors distributed to low income families in Atlanta by the AFD? Honestly, you should Google your own questions.
        
        http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11232.html
        
        Also note that there are undoubtedly both legitimate consumer electronics that are unsafe and counterfeit consumer electronics that are perfectly safe. The bills' targets are supposed to be counterfeit products, not unsafe ones.
        
        Consumer electronics are required (I believe) to meet UL standards in this country. That is the gold standard for safety. Rest assured that counterfeit electronics are not so certified. While some may be safe, others certainly are not.
        
        "And in his fulminations accuses an honorable group of people of being a bunch of stooges."
        
        I read it as an accusation against the IAFF, not fire fighters in general, as any sensible person should. And yes, they certainly do come across and bought-and-paid-for stooges, because the connection between the fire fighting profession and the proposed bills seems very weak.
        
        Then you too are in denial like Masnick. The fact that you refuse to see the vested interest that firefighters have in eliminating faulty electronics and defective smoke detectors is simply breathtaking. It also speaks volumes to the utter desperation of the opponents to this bill. The only good news here is that Masnicks unwarranted assault and the echo chamber that supports it will end up on the desks of every undecided legislator as an illustration of how extremist and unreasonable the opponents to this bill are.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 1 Nov 2011 @ 5:38pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Arrogant Blockheads
        Not surprisingly, my earlier comment was "held for moderation" by Masnick's censors. In part, it included a link to this:
        
        CPSC Alert: Counterfeit Smoke Alarms Distributed in Atlanta
        
        WASHINGTON, D.C. - The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) is urging consumers in the Atlanta area to check their homes for counterfeit smoke alarms. About 18,500 counterfeit photoelectric smoke alarms were distributed for free in the Atlanta area between 2006 through May 2011 as part of the Atlanta Smoke Alarm Program. The smoke alarms can fail to alert consumers in the event of a fire.
        
        The Atlanta Fire Rescue Department, which distributed the free smoke alarms as part of a fire safety campaign, is recalling the smoke alarms and is working to provide free smoke alarm inspections and replacement units. Consumers who received these alarms should immediately contact the Atlanta Smoke Alarm Recall Hotline at (404) 546-2733.
        
        The counterfeit alarms can be identified by a silver Underwriters Laboratories' UL label on the back and three sets of vented slots on the front. The UL label is counterfeit. The alarms do not have a model number or brand name printed on them. "Important: Refer to Manual for Operating Instruction and Safety" and "Do Not Paint" are stamped into the plastic on the front of the alarm in both English and German. The package states, "This Smoke Alarm save [sic] life and property by early warning!" Claims that smoke alarms can "save property" are not typical claims for smoke alarms. The packaging states, "10 YEAR LIFE LITHIUM BATTERY," but the battery included with the smoke alarm is a carbon zinc, industrial, heavy duty battery, which will power the alarm for only one year.
        
        CPSC's independent testing of the smoke alarms determined that the alarms pose a life safety hazard to the occupants in the event of a fire. The alarms perform poorly and inconsistently and do not meet voluntary standards requirements in Underwriters Laboratories' (UL) 217, Single and Multiple Station Smoke Alarms and the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 72, Fire Alarm and Signaling Code. The smoke alarms' sensitivity settings varied greatly between the alarms tested. Some alarms did not respond within an adequate time for life safety and other alarms did not respond at all.
        
        CPSC has worked with the voluntary standards organizations to improve smoke alarm performance and reliability. Counterfeit alarms can put lives at risk. Working smoke alarms that meet the voluntary standards are proven to save lives. CPSC urges consumers to install smoke alarms on every level of the home, outside sleeping areas and inside bedrooms. Replace batteries at least once every year and test the alarms once a month.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 1 Nov 2011 @ 5:48pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Arrogant Blockheads
        They should make a law to deal with that, and only that.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2011 @ 9:59am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Arrogant Blockheads
        I see what they are doing here...trying to tie physical goods in with virtual goods....
        
        Apples and oranges.
        
        *hands firefighters some smelling salts*
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 1 Nov 2011 @ 5:50pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Arrogant Blockheads
        None of this stuff matters to Masnick at this point.
        
        If there is any effort to curtail piracy, that's all that matters. In his world, any enforcement attempts must be stopped.
        
        And yes, as has been rather obvious this week, he has gone off the deep end. Piracy is integral to his personal life and business model.
        
        Tough for him.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        surfer (profile), 1 Nov 2011 @ 6:18pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Arrogant Blockheads
        you really are pathological in your view of reality. I have been profiling people online for many years, and every AC posting on techdirt can all be traced back to you. You are obviously working to promote the bullshit agenda of the MAFIAA. you know, contrary to your own self idealistic worth, there ARE people in the world that see reality, and are actually smarter than you. you are obviously paid to discount, discredit, defame, detract, obfuscate and/or derail any discussion designed to detail the definitive non delusional detailed reality that is the world. you like the onomatopoetic use of the letter d?
        
        if you must puke your propaganda, please proceed to post somewhere that people actually pretending to placate your profuse pandering and possibly, JUST possibly, people placating your pretentiousness, perhaps might post.
        
        further more, for fuck's sake, fuck the fuck off.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 1 Nov 2011 @ 6:34pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Arrogant Blockheads
        you really are pathological in your view of reality. I have been profiling people online for many years, and every AC posting on techdirt can all be traced back to you. You are obviously working to promote the bullshit agenda of the MAFIAA. you know, contrary to your own self idealistic worth, there ARE people in the world that see reality, and are actually smarter than you. you are obviously paid to discount, discredit, defame, detract, obfuscate and/or derail any discussion designed to detail the definitive non delusional detailed reality that is the world. you like the onomatopoetic use of the letter d?
        
        if you must puke your propaganda, please proceed to post somewhere that people actually pretending to placate your profuse pandering and possibly, JUST possibly, people placating your pretentiousness, perhaps might post.
        
        further more, for fuck's sake, fuck the fuck off.
        
        My somebody's impressed with himself. Remind me to send you a box of hankies when the bill passes. You and your fellow apologists can all have a good cry together.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 1 Nov 2011 @ 7:31pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Arrogant Blockheads
        Thanks in return I promise to send you a copy of the latests blockbusters and songs by email.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        techflaws.org (profile), 1 Nov 2011 @ 11:54pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Arrogant Blockheads
        Remind me to send you a box of hankies when the bill passes.
        
        Will do. We'll also send you a box of hankies when after the bill has been passed, piracy will continue unabated.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Nov 2011 @ 12:36am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Arrogant Blockheads
        Then you don't have to worry about the law, do you?!?!
        
        Oh happy days are here again!!!!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Nov 2011 @ 1:26am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Arrogant Blockheads
        Why, if he is not a pirate and still gets affected by that stupid law why would he not be worried about it?
        
        You too should be worried, as a content owner you should be held responsible for what people related to you do it is your duty to watch everybody you do business with isn't it?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2011 @ 9:33am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Arrogant Blockheads
        see, now this is your problem. He's not a pirate, nor is this blog. I am however. And personally, me and all the other pirates don't give a shit. We rarely comment here, and when we do it isn't to post against any of your pathetic laws.
        But yeah, you go on believing pirates actually give a shit what you and the mafiaa have to say. Meanwhile we're laughing at you and you don't even know it
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        techflaws.org (profile), 4 Nov 2011 @ 12:32am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Arrogant Blockheads
        Then you don't have to worry about the law, do you?!?!
        
        Because it's not broad enough to also affect the wider public? Alright, I forgot you shills also tell yourself that this bill of yours will stop piracy.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        surfer (profile), 2 Nov 2011 @ 3:54pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Arrogant Blockheads
        pass this bill and a zillion more, I haven't had to change my style of file sharing in 9 years, like the energizer� bunny, I just keep going and going and going and going and going..
        
        oh, look, Killer Elite in 720p, oh, look, Apollo 18 in R5.. laters...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        out_of_the_blue, 1 Nov 2011 @ 6:59pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Arrogant Blockheads
        @surfer (profile), Nov 1st, 2011 @ 6:18pm
        
        "I have been profiling people online for many years, and every AC posting on techdirt can all be traced back to you."
        
        EVERY AC, eh? -- Master AC, the All Controller, whoever you are, PLEASE instruct your minions to stop appearing as if some support Mike. It's just confusing me.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        surfer (profile), 2 Nov 2011 @ 2:46am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Arrogant Blockheads
        well, the AC that shits propganda on EVERY post here, the shill, the troll, the asshat who thinks technology can be slowed by legislation..
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Nov 2011 @ 7:27am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Arrogant Blockheads
        If only you realized there was anywhere between 5 and 15 currently active ACs on here... your profiling skills absolutely, totally suck.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        surfer (profile), 2 Nov 2011 @ 3:52pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Arrogant Blockheads
        actually, they don't, see I pegged you as an asshat.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 1 Nov 2011 @ 7:33pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Arrogant Blockheads
        Piracy is not so bad is people sharing things with each other on the other hand you and your pals want to get a monopoly and new laws that harm the market and the people.
        
        Between the two I say Mike is a saint.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 1 Nov 2011 @ 7:34pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Arrogant Blockheads
        If sharing is a crime Jesus Christ is a felon.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 1 Nov 2011 @ 8:26pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Arrogant Blockheads
        Except Jesus didn't share other people's things without asking them first.
        
        Got any other moronic analogies?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The Incoherent One (profile), 1 Nov 2011 @ 8:52pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Arrogant Blockheads
        His words (like news) was spread freely from person to person bringing them enlightenment and faith.
        
        Or something like that. Im not that into Jesus.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The Incoherent One (profile), 1 Nov 2011 @ 8:53pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Arrogant Blockheads
        Enlightening the public to the crimes of government, and bring them faith that their government has no idea what its doing.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Jay (profile), 1 Nov 2011 @ 10:00pm
        
        Jesus the Pirate.
        No, Jesus was a felon. I can't believe you didn't know that. He singlehandedly killed the bread industry with his piracy.
        
        He violated the Miracle Millennium Anti-Replication Act (MMAA) when he replicated wine at a wedding feast in Cana of Galilee.
        
        Then the medical industry complained about how he practiced medicine without a license. But his healing rate was near 100%. Theirs was much lower without lime soap being invented.
        
        And those pirates on the Red Sea were real pissed when he was walking on the water right next to him.
        
        The morticians wanted his resurrection to be a criminal offense. They lost revenue when they couldn't exhume the body.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Nov 2011 @ 12:34am
        
        Re: Jesus the Pirate.
        You guys need to click this as funny and insightful.
        
        Because it is indeed funny, and since it ignores the point raised, it is most certainly insightful by Techdirt's standards.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Nov 2011 @ 1:24am
        
        Re: Re: Jesus the Pirate.
        Just because you little mind is blocked it doesn't mean it ignored the point.
        
        Just didn't only just share, he produced his own whenever he felt like it and shared that.
        
        In a way every pirate out there do the same thing the multiply things and share it, and if they are criminals so is Jesus.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Nov 2011 @ 1:42am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Jesus the Pirate.
        Totally into the "born again" trip yer on tonite brah, and I wish you all the luck in the world with that believe me, hi-ever, you're still ignoring that good ole JC still wouldn't share something created by someone else without their permission first.
        
        Keep trying tho!! This is fun!!!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 3 Nov 2011 @ 5:14am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Jesus the Pirate.
        you're still ignoring that good ole JC still wouldn't share something created by someone else without their permission first.
        
        Well I'm not a bible expert but google serves. Here you go:
        
        As evening approached, the disciples came to him and said, �This is a remote place, and it�s already getting late. Send the crowds away, so they can go to the villages and buy themselves some food.� 16 Jesus replied, �They do not need to go away. You give them something to eat.� 17 �We have here only five loaves of bread and two fish,� they answered.
        
        18 �Bring them here to me,� he said. 19 And he directed the people to sit down on the grass. Taking the five loaves and the two fish and looking up to heaven, he gave thanks and broke the loaves. Then he gave them to the people. 20 They all ate and were satisfied, and the disciples picked up twelve basketfuls of broken pieces that were left over.
        21 The number of those who ate was about five thousand men, besides women and children
        
        With reference to the text can you explain where Jesus asks for permission to copy and distribute what he is given in response to his demand? Or are you perhaps just making an assumption based on his PR?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Nov 2011 @ 1:14am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Arrogant Blockheads
        Oh but he did, he got one fish that he didn't owned and multiplied thus depriving the owner of the fish of a market for it.
        
        Jokes aside if you find that Jesus being a felon is just ridiculous that is how I see copyright law, just ridiculous.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Nov 2011 @ 1:37am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Arrogant Blockheads
        Really?
        
        He took someone else's fish rather than just some random one from the water?
        
        Please enlighten us, you newly christened biblical scholar, you :)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Nov 2011 @ 1:18am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Arrogant Blockheads
        Further if you morons want to place liability onto others for what unrelated people did, maybe you guys should lead by example and make studios liable for what actors under their payroll do, you know if some actor say anti-semitic things the studio should pay, if some actor kills someone the studio should pay, if some singer, dancer or whatever kills someone the label should pay, if some book writer gets in trouble the publisher should pay, because they should be watching those people it is their problem if they didn't know or were unable to do so isn't it?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Nov 2011 @ 1:20am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Arrogant Blockheads
        The next time Lindsay Lohan gets arrested studios that hired her should all be liable for the things she did, sure you as a protector of stupid laws should understand the need to place liability on third parties so they will be responsible for watching what others do right?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Nov 2011 @ 1:22am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Arrogant Blockheads
        How would Palenti feel about having to keep an eye on every rapper that is under a contract to them?
        
        Will he be willing to take responsibility for the people he do business with? There is no law that allows others to let people commit crimes right?
        
        So studios, labels and publishers should be held accountable for their crimes.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The Groove Tiger (profile), 2 Nov 2011 @ 1:41am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Arrogant Blockheads
        Yes, he did. He illegally copied the breads and fishes that had been purchased from other people, and deprived them from the income of the lost sales.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Nov 2011 @ 6:36am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Arrogant Blockheads
        Yes, he did. He illegally copied the breads and fishes that had been purchased from other people, and deprived them from the income of the lost sales.
        
        How much did he make on it?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The Groove Tiger (profile), 3 Nov 2011 @ 7:06am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Arrogant Blockheads
        Tons. Now has got one of the wealthiest organizations on Earth.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The Groove Tiger (profile), 3 Nov 2011 @ 7:11am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Arrogant Blockheads
        And that's not even counting the copyright infringements on WAG (Winemakers Association of Galilee).
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 1 Nov 2011 @ 6:09pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Arrogant Blockheads
        About 18,500 counterfeit photoelectric smoke alarms were distributed for free in the Atlanta area between 2006 through May 2011 as part of the Atlanta Smoke Alarm Program.
        
        And this has exactly what to do with censoring internet websites?
        
        http://www.huliq.com/10473/fbi-investigating-detectors-distributed-atlanta-smoke-alarm- program
        "More than 18,000 of the apparently uncertified units were purchased in 2005 and 2006 from a company in California."
        
        http://news.consumerreports.org/home/2011/05/atlanta-recalls-counterfeit-smoke-alarm s.html
        "The problem dates back five years to when the Atlanta Fire Rescue Department bought the alarms from a vendor in Calabasas, California."
        "While the Atlanta firemen work to replace the alarms, the Federal Bureau of Investigation is looking into the vendor, Silver Sails Corp. The City of Atlanta is �currently examining all available legal options� to recover the $100,000 spent on the counterfeit alarms, according to the fire department."
        
        http://www.made-in-china.com/traderoom/silversails
        "We are an industrial supplier to local, state and federal agencies..."
        
        http://www.atlantaga.gov/media/nr_afrdrecall_051211.aspx
        "Purchase History:
        Bids were submitted to AFRD, according to City of Atlanta Department of Procurement policies and procedures, with specifications for the detector purchase to include: new ionization type; Federal and State of Georgia Occupational Safety and Health Act compliancy; UL compliancy; continuous alarm duration; alarm sound level of 85 dB@ 10 feet; low battery indicator; hush button; test button; twist off mounting bracket; and long life 10 year lithium battery
        Three bids were submitted from the following vendors: Englewood Electrical Supply (June 7, 2005), Silver Sails Inc. (June 7, 2005), and Cintas (July 8, 2005)
        July 29, 2005- Silver Sails Inc. was awarded the procurement bid (8337-BA)"
        
        You can't even play the "sold on a rogue site" card on this one. A government program got duped into buying them and distributed to people.
        
        Just FYI, it helps to follow up on web links and find out key details when you're grasping as straws to try to support a completely untenable position. Just Googling "counterfeit + smoke detector + firefighter" and cut and pasting the first thing you see ends up making you look like an idiot.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 1 Nov 2011 @ 6:25pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Arrogant Blockheads
        So you're saying that there are no websites that sell bogus smoke detectors and that people such as this would never engage in online sales? I wouldn't want to bet my family's safety on it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 1 Nov 2011 @ 6:43pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Arrogant Blockheads
        I'm saying two things:
        
        Your "shining example" of why firefighters are in support of this travesty of a bill is complete bullshit.
        
        We learned from Viacom vs. Youtube, where Viacom had no idea of which uploads were legitimately authorized by their own employees, that not even a copyright holder can be sure if something on the internet is authorized or not. And now you actually pointed to a situation where a government agency that should have known better and had the resources to be able to tell a fake physical product took 5 years to realize a mistake was made and they had counterfeits. Yet these are the people you want in charge of preemptively blocking entire websites with no adversarial hearing.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 1 Nov 2011 @ 6:54pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Arrogant Blockheads
        Yet these are the people you want in charge of preemptively blocking entire websites with no adversarial hearing.
        
        Holy shit! The Atlanta Fire and Rescue Department will be in charge of blocking websites?
        
        BTW, read the bill. A company automatically gets an adversarial hearing simply by filing a counter-notice. Nice try though FUDboy.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 1 Nov 2011 @ 7:11pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Arrogant Blockheads
        A company automatically gets an adversarial hearing simply by filing a counter-notice.
        
        I have read it.
        
        You have ignored a key word: preemptively. Two questions:
        
        1) Yes or No: this bill requires an ISP to block a site within 5 days of receiving a notice?
        
        2) Yes or No: the adversarial hearing must occur before the site is blocked?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 1 Nov 2011 @ 8:30pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Arrogant Blockheads
        Still waiting for answers...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 1 Nov 2011 @ 7:17pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Arrogant Blockheads
        "The Atlanta Fire and Rescue Department will be in charge of blocking websites?"
        
        Stop taking people's words out of context. He's referring to government in general. How do you expect people to take you seriously when you can't have a conversation without being willfully stupid.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 1 Nov 2011 @ 7:22pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Arrogant Blockheads
        "The Atlanta Fire and Rescue Department will be in charge of blocking websites?"
        
        Stop taking people's words out of context. He's referring to government in general. How do you expect people to take you seriously when you can't have a conversation without being willfully stupid.
        
        Who the fuck is being willfully stupid? It's laughable to suggest that the AFRD has the same resources, sophistication and wherewithal as the Federal government.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 1 Nov 2011 @ 7:38pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Arrogant Blockheads
        "It's laughable to suggest that the AFRD has the same resources, sophistication and wherewithal as the Federal government."
        
        Like the federal government never makes careless mistakes. What is the federal government composed of, infallible gods? No, they're composed of fallible individuals, just like any other government or corporation or group of people.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 1 Nov 2011 @ 7:50pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Arrogant Blockheads
        You are being willfully stupid. He was referring to government in general and you twisted his words to mean that specific government. That's willful stupidity, I don't believe you're that stupid. Now you're twisting the argument into another argument that holds little water.
        
        Adversarial hearings exist for good reason. Because governments would otherwise do things they shouldn't be allowed to and would abuse the system if the system lacks safeguards against abuse. Governments are imperfect entities composed of imperfect people. While due process itself may not be perfect, because it's also composed of imperfect people, at least it adds safeguards against allowing a single authoritative entity to make one-sided decisions at will without any sort of resistance to bad behavior. It allows another authoritative entity the opportunity to review and stop potentially bad behavior.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 1 Nov 2011 @ 8:20pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Arrogant Blockheads
        Adversarial hearings exist for good reason. Because governments would otherwise do things they shouldn't be allowed to and would abuse the system if the system lacks safeguards against abuse. Governments are imperfect entities composed of imperfect people. While due process itself may not be perfect, because it's also composed of imperfect people, at least it adds safeguards against allowing a single authoritative entity to make one-sided decisions at will without any sort of resistance to bad behavior. It allows another authoritative entity the opportunity to review and stop potentially bad behavior.
        
        If you want an adversarial hearing, file a counter-notice. The opportunity is there in black-and-white. The problem is that most of the accused don't want a hearing because they know they're guilty of infringement. And you desperately hanging on to the contention that a local fire department operates with the same level of sophistication as a federal agency is absurd.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 1 Nov 2011 @ 9:21pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Arrogant Blockheads
        No, the problem is that the site is removed in the mean time and if the person turns out to be innocent then they got their site taken down for a period of time for no reason. People shouldn't be punished until it is determined that they did something wrong, imposing an injunction on a potentially innocent site is punishing a potentially innocent victim. Not to mention, you assume that everyone is willing to fight an expensive lawsuit.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 1 Nov 2011 @ 9:31pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Arrogant Blockheads
        "And you desperately hanging on to the contention that a local fire department operates with the same level of sophistication as a federal agency is absurd."
        
        No, the use of this story as an example of how this bill could help fix this is absurd. The contention that this bill would have caused the federal government (or the state government) to prevent this when it's the state government that was operating everything is absurd. The contention that the federal government is somehow composed of people who are somehow far less likely to make mistakes because they are somehow more special than everyone else is absurd.
        
        The error that was made here isn't an error due to a lack of resources or manpower. It was a human error that the state government has far more than enough resources to catch if it weren't for complete incompetence. To suggest that the federal government is somehow less likely to make such an error because it has more resources is silly. The state government has plenty of resources, if it can't catch a silly little mistake like this one, then a lack of resources is likely not the reason why it wasn't caught.
        
        "The counterfeit alarms can be identified by a silver Underwriters Laboratories' UL label on the back and three sets of vented slots on the front. The UL label is counterfeit. The alarms do not have a model number or brand name printed on them."
        
        http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11232.html
        
        Again, this was a human error by an entity with relatively plenty of resources to catch it. It failed not due to a lack of resources, but due to a lack of competence. To say otherwise is absurd.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 1 Nov 2011 @ 9:31pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Arrogant Blockheads
        "And you desperately hanging on to the contention that a local fire department operates with the same level of sophistication as a federal agency is absurd."
        
        No, the use of this story as an example of how this bill could help fix this is absurd. The contention that this bill would have caused the federal government (or the state government) to prevent this when it's the state government that was operating everything is absurd. The contention that the federal government is somehow composed of people who are somehow far less likely to make mistakes because they are somehow more special than everyone else is absurd.
        
        The error that was made here isn't an error due to a lack of resources or manpower. It was a human error that the state government has far more than enough resources to catch if it weren't for complete incompetence. To suggest that the federal government is somehow less likely to make such an error because it has more resources is silly. The state government has plenty of resources, if it can't catch a silly little mistake like this one, then a lack of resources is likely not the reason why it wasn't caught.
        
        "The counterfeit alarms can be identified by a silver Underwriters Laboratories' UL label on the back and three sets of vented slots on the front. The UL label is counterfeit. The alarms do not have a model number or brand name printed on them."
        
        http:// www. cpsc.gov /cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11232.html
        
        Again, this was a human error by an entity with relatively plenty of resources to catch it. It failed not due to a lack of resources, but due to a lack of competence. To say otherwise is absurd.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        BearGriz72 (profile), 1 Nov 2011 @ 11:30pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Arrogant Blockheads
        I have four words for you, "Innocent until PROVEN guilty", have you heard of it?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Ben (profile), 2 Nov 2011 @ 2:41am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Arrogant Blockheads
        "It's laughable to suggest that the AFRD has the same resources, sophistication and wherewithal as the Federal government"
        
        So why the fuck should we trust their judgement?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        surfer (profile), 2 Nov 2011 @ 2:50am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Arrogant Blockheads
        this AC, above, this is the asshat I was referring to when I mentioned 'EVERY AC Posting', this is the fucknut right here. I could point out all his postings in this thread, but I would be here for like, a week.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Nov 2011 @ 11:03am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Arrogant Blockheads
        Me?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Nov 2011 @ 12:48pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Arrogant Blockheads
        U mad?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 1 Nov 2011 @ 7:40pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Arrogant Blockheads
        Adversarial hearing?
        Yah right.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        techflaws.org (profile), 2 Nov 2011 @ 12:00am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Arrogant Blockheads
        Holy shit! The Atlanta Fire and Rescue Department will be in charge of blocking websites?
        
        Holy shit! They will go against fake smoke detectors so with real ones people wake up soon enough to put out the fire which leads to the firefighters being out of a job?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 1 Nov 2011 @ 7:30pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Arrogant Blockheads
        That is what word of mouth is for, that is why we let people decide and not the government what is good for us.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        out_of_the_blue, 1 Nov 2011 @ 6:46pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Arrogant Blockheads
        @ "Josh in CharlotteNC": had /you/ actually read, you'd find that SOPA will supposedly prevent counterfeit smoke detectors from getting in. That's a valid and highly important firefighter connection. Firefighters already got tricked into distributing phony ones, are no doubt hot on this.
        
        Repeat: Preventing counterfeiting supposedly IN SOPA.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 1 Nov 2011 @ 6:51pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Arrogant Blockheads
        Repeat: Preventing counterfeiting supposedly IN SOPA.
        
        Since you said "supposedly" I'm guessing you're the one that hasn't read the bill.
        
        Please point out to me the text from the bill that supports your position. And explain how it would stop a US based company from importing cheap fire detectors from China, putting a counterfeit UL seal on them, then bidding on a government contract to supply them to a fire department.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        out_of_the_blue, 1 Nov 2011 @ 7:08pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Arrogant Blockheads
        @Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), Nov 1st, 2011 @ 6:51pm
        
        Repeat: Preventing counterfeiting supposedly IN SOPA.
        
        Since you said "supposedly" I'm guessing you're the one that hasn't read the bill.
        
        ----------------------
        
        I wrote "supposedly" to be accurate. It's a work in progress. Whether it will or not is irrelevant at this point: it's perhaps only a hook to hang firefighter support on. Stopping counterfeit products appears not only plausible to me, but desirable. -- Doesn't mean I'm for SOPA, even.
        
        Try to be fair with you guys, and you just want to assign homework.
        
        My position is that Mike didn't do his homework, just went off on an ad hom attack on firefighters. Annoys me, isn't honest, isn't weighty, and it appears a refuted take.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 1 Nov 2011 @ 7:36pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Arrogant Blockheads
        My position is that Mike didn't do his homework, just went off on an ad hom attack on firefighters.
        
        So you go off on an ad hominem attack on me for pointing out an anonymous poster didn't do his homework?
        
        You accuse me of not reading the bill when you haven't?
        
        Here, I'll do it for you:
        http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/pdf/112%20HR%203261.pdf
        Start at page 60:
        SEC. 202. TRAFFICKING IN INHERENTLY DANGEROUS GOODS OR SERVICES.
        Section 2320 of title 18, United States Code, is amended as follows:
        blahblah
        
        That would seem to support your position...
        
        However, go compare it to what Section 2320 already is:
        
        http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2320.html
        "(a) Offense.�
        (1) In general.� Whoever; [1] intentionally traffics or attempts to traffic in goods or services and knowingly uses a counterfeit mark on or in connection with such goods or services, or intentionally traffics or attempts to traffic in labels,"
        
        You'll see that in the case we're talking about, whoever imported these fire detectors already broke the law, and SOPA would not have the slightest impact. It's already illegal to traffic in goods with a counterfeit mark.
        
        So do your homework. Support your position with facts, and cite your sources.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 1 Nov 2011 @ 7:38pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Arrogant Blockheads
        Desirable?
        Why is desirable to have firefighters in a favour of a bill they understand nothing about it?
        
        Further lets go ask them what they think about enforcement of IP laws and see if they really care.
        
        What seems plausible is that this is astroturfing.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 1 Nov 2011 @ 7:13pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Arrogant Blockheads
        So The Atlanta Fire Rescue Department distributes a bunch of free counterfeit smoke alarms and, all of a sudden, we need a new unrelated bill? No, what we need is competent government that knows how to obey and enforce laws and catch illegal activities.
        
        We already have anti-counterfeit and anti-fraud laws. Do you honestly think E-Parasite would have likely prevented this? Adding more laws to make illegal behavior even more illegal does little to curtail illegal behavior. Someone illegally possessing a firearm isn't going to avoid possessing one just because of a new law that says he's breaking another law by possessing that firearm. He's already broken several laws, adding a new law doesn't stop criminals from breaking laws. What we need is competent government that enforces existing laws.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 1 Nov 2011 @ 7:21pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Arrogant Blockheads
        and that's the problem with government. They think new legislature is the solution to any problem. When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Forget the hard work necessary to enforce existing laws and stop crime, simply passing a new bill adding new laws will magically solve all of our problems all by itself. Then no one would ever have to do anything to solve problems anymore, the new laws will solve those problems all by themselves with little additional input from law enforcement or anyone else. It's like magic. and when it fails, the solution? EVEN MORE LAWS!!!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        JMT (profile), 1 Nov 2011 @ 8:57pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Arrogant Blockheads
        "Not surprisingly, my earlier comment was "held for moderation" by Masnick's censors. In part, it included a link to this:
        
        CPSC Alert: Counterfeit Smoke Alarms Distributed in Atlanta"
        
        Sorry, I should've been clearer in my request, but I thought it was obvious I was asking for evidence of problems that this bill would fix. Were these 18,500 counterfeit smoke alarms bought from a website known to sell counterfeit goods? I certainly hope not. So thanks for a useless example that does not strengthen your argument one bit.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 1 Nov 2011 @ 5:11pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Arrogant Blockheads
      It's kind of creepy how detached from reality he's become and totally lost he is in his delusions.
      
      Mike has really gone off the deep end since the text to SOPA came out. It's sad and funny all at the same time.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 1 Nov 2011 @ 5:40pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Arrogant Blockheads
        Mike has really gone off the deep end since the text to SOPA came out. It's sad and funny all at the same time.
        
        I should have guessed from the self-inflicted haircut and the shirt from the second-hand store he was wearing in the video.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 1 Nov 2011 @ 9:39pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Arrogant Blockheads
        Stop using Tor to talk to yourself.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 1 Nov 2011 @ 9:49pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Arrogant Blockheads
        Stop being a delusional freetard, dweeb boy.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Nov 2011 @ 1:31am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Arrogant Blockheads
        Why?
        You won't.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - lucidrenegade (profile), 1 Nov 2011 @ 6:27pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Arrogant Blockheads
      Ooooo, I think we have the word of the month for November...
      
      Fulminations
      
      "The freetards fulminated against the MPAA"
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 1 Nov 2011 @ 6:47pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Arrogant Blockheads
      Masnick ridicules the position of the firefighters who have a vested interest in getting phony smoke and carbon monoxide detectors off the market along with bogus, unsafe consumer electronics.
      
      Oh my god!! :D This is f***ing hilarious!
      
      You don't *really* think there is even one single person on either side of this issue that actually believes that for a single second?
      
      ROLFMAO!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 1 Nov 2011 @ 7:02pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Arrogant Blockheads
        "Masnick ridicules the position of the firefighters who have a vested interest in getting phony smoke and carbon monoxide detectors off the market along with bogus, unsafe consumer electronics."
        
        Oh my god!! :D This is f***ing hilarious!
        
        You don't *really* think there is even one single person on either side of this issue that actually believes that for a single second?
        
        ROLFMAO!
        
        Laugh it up Bozo. I'd guess the author of the letter believes it and more importantly, when a respected and politically active union like IAFF says it, politicians listen. Hope you're still laughing when the bill passes. I know I will be.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        BearGriz72 (profile), 1 Nov 2011 @ 11:37pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Arrogant Blockheads
        Yet again, whoever sold those fire detectors already broke the law, and SOPA/PIPA would not have helped at all. It's already illegal to traffic in counterfeit goods or in products with a fake UL mark.
        
        Why do we need a new law again?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        techflaws.org (profile), 2 Nov 2011 @ 12:03am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Arrogant Blockheads
        Hope you're still laughing when the bill passes. I know I will be.
        
        You bet. Cause when piracy continues unabated you'll come back here with your usual whining.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Nov 2011 @ 6:44am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Arrogant Blockheads
        "Hope you're still laughing when the bill passes. I know I will be."
        
        You bet. Cause when piracy continues unabated you'll come back here with your usual whining.
        
        You only need to look at what happened to Wikileaks after it lost access to US payment processors. A 95% drop in revenue. Add to that loss of advertising and delisting from search engines and you will see a significant impact on pirate sites. This bill is no magic bullet, but it will be a kick in the balls.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Another AC, 2 Nov 2011 @ 7:09am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Arrogant Blockheads
        "You only need to look at what happened to Wikileaks after it lost access to US payment processors. A 95% drop in revenue. Add to that loss of advertising and delisting from search engines and you will see a significant impact on pirate sites. This bill is no magic bullet, but it will be a kick in the balls."
        
        This bill is NO magic bullet. And it will be a kick in the balls alright. To pretty much the entire internet, freedom of speech, due process, etc.
        
        But ignore all the damage it can cause (and more than likely will cause). Just so long as it annoys/stops a few people. Then it's all okay.
        
        There's apparently a drug dealer on my street. The cops (sheriffs, state troopers, DEA, etc.) have gone by multiple times to raid this person's home (who coincidentally never happens to be there at these times) and then leave when they realize that. By the reasoning and logic of this bill, it'd be okay to seize the homes of everyone on my street and lock them up for some time. Just so long as we get that one drug dealer. The collateral damage (seizure of innocent people's homes and placing everyone in each home in prison) is acceptable and justified.
        
        The phrase "better to let 100 guilty men go free than convict 1 innocent man" is not a phrase you're familiar with is it?
        
        The people defending this bill always seem to try and take a moral high ground, you'd think there moral "superiority" would make them realize the problems with this bill. And at least acknowledge them. Rather than ignore the facts and just focus on the one specific "positive" thing they do care about.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The eejit (profile), 2 Nov 2011 @ 1:20am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Arrogant Blockheads
        Um, that's already covered by current law. Why should SOPA exist, if it's about streaming video, and not about counterfeiting?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - hmm (profile), 2 Nov 2011 @ 5:27am
    
    Re: Re: Arrogant Blockheads
    You're wrong im sure Mike commits suicide every single time someone claims he's wrong or laughs at him(I know I do!) ....We both have robot butlers complete with defibrillator for just such occasions.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 1 Nov 2011 @ 7:43pm
  
  Re: Arrogant Blockheads
  Unlike your pathological need to criminalize the innocent right?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 2 Nov 2011 @ 3:46am
  
  Re: Arrogant Blockheads
  Ever hear that smoke and carbon monoxide detectors and other consumer electronics are being counterfeited? Complete down to the fake UL seal? You think firefighters might have an interest in making sure crap like that gets removed from the homes they protect?
  
  If the law narrowly focused on that, they'd have a point. Instead, it doesn't focus on that at all. Which is why they don't.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 2 Nov 2011 @ 4:21am
    
    Re: Re: Arrogant Blockheads
    Yes, because it's very important that the law "narrowly focus" on that !!!
    
    Narrowly focus, bitches!!!
    
    Artists: it's definitely most important that laws do not focus on you!!! Get it now?!?!
    
    At least from Mike Masnick's point of view.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - hmm (profile), 2 Nov 2011 @ 5:29am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Arrogant Blockheads
      Narrow focused law: if you murder someone you will be executed if found guilty IN A COURT OF LAW.
      
      widely focussed law: If its POSSIBLE you have killed someone we will execute you.
      
      See the difference? If you can't then I worry for you and your families.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 2 Nov 2011 @ 7:06am
    
    Re: Re: Arrogant Blockheads
    What, should they make a narrow law that identifies a single device, and set parameters for what is considered illegal for that device, and then try to enforce it?
    
    Then they can sit down and pass a law for each and every item in your household, one item at a time, to assure that it is narrow enough to suit you.
    
    There is a widespread problem Mike, so a wide ranging law is the most expedient and more conclusive way to address the issue. They can more narrowly focus on areas that need improving over time. This is a positive first step towards addressing the large scale issue of fake public safety equipment, and I can see exactly why the fire fighters support it. If you can't see that, well... your blinders are on too tight.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 2 Nov 2011 @ 2:05pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Arrogant Blockheads
      There is a widespread problem Mike, so a wide ranging law is the most expedient and more conclusive way to address the issue.
      
      Please define and provide evidence for this "widespread problem."
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 2 Nov 2011 @ 7:22am
  
  Re: Arrogant Blockheads
  Ever hear that smoke and carbon monoxide detectors and other consumer electronics are being counterfeited? Complete down to the fake UL seal? You think firefighters might have an interest in making sure crap like that gets removed from the homes they protect?
  
  Not to pour fuel on the fire (see what I did there?) when you're all trolled-up, but aren't there already a number of laws against that kind of thing specifically? I'm pretty sure faking a standards seal is already illegal in the US, no? I hear trademark infringement is also considered naughty already. What is it that makes you think yet another law will work better this time?
  
  The rest was just the usual bile-filled rant so I'll ignore that bit. Probably should have ignored the lot but hey-ho.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 2 Nov 2011 @ 10:37am
    
    Re: Re: Arrogant Blockheads
    Not to pour fuel on the fire (see what I did there?) when you're all trolled-up, but aren't there already a number of laws against that kind of thing specifically? I'm pretty sure faking a standards seal is already illegal in the US, no? I hear trademark infringement is also considered naughty already. What is it that makes you think yet another law will work better this time?
    
    Yes. But US laws are insufficient to stop foreign based websites offering counterfeit and/or infringing merchandise to the American public. Current US law can deal with violations in the US or websites registered in the US.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Sandman, 2 Nov 2011 @ 11:09am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Arrogant Blockheads
      So tell me why part of the SOPA is stated to target "US-oriented sites" and not specifically "foreign US-oriented" sites?
      
      And what reason do we have for calling something which may be perfectly legal in other countries (e.g, Spain, with a long list of court cases to back it up) illegal and illicit in our country? Should we have the right to block legal discourse and content in another country from being available in our own? How is that not censorship and restriction on freedom of speech and expression? Tell me how that is not comparable to the Great Firewall of China.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 2 Nov 2011 @ 2:53pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Arrogant Blockheads
      Yes. But US laws are insufficient to stop foreign based websites offering counterfeit and/or infringing merchandise to the American public. Current US law can deal with violations in the US or websites registered in the US.
      
      Short of the US invading every country on the planet and enforcing their idea of law with an iron hand in each one, I don't see any law is going to stop that and even the British Empire wasn't stupid enough to try that one despite owning about 1/3 of the planet. So again, what makes you think this law is suddenly the magic bullet? How exactly do you imagine this is going to affect websites that are by their very definition not subject to US law?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Nov 2011 @ 4:24pm

So some firefighter executive agreed to advocate something that he probably didn't even understand and now this reflects badly on all firefighters. Firefighters are (generally) good people. Don't judge firefighters for the decision of some ignorant firefighter executive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- hmm (profile), 2 Nov 2011 @ 5:31am
  
  Re:
  What would be ironic and kinda funny would be if firefighters themselves objected to the signature and BURNED copies of the bill on the steps of Congress!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 Nov 2011 @ 6:51am
  
  Re:
  Well, except that I imagine firefighter union execs are actually voted in by the union members. Similar to other countries being mad at the US for the actions of it's president. If the firefighters are actually offended by their execs bowing to lobbyists, then they should vote in other execs, no? I'm sure this will erupt in accusations about my being anti-firefighter. Nothing farther from the truth.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Nov 2011 @ 4:28pm

Mike,

You should have linked to the actual article, and not the general MPAA blog: http://blog.mpaa.org/BlogOS/post/2011/10/31/Public-Safety-Community-Overwhelmingly-Supports-Rogue-Si tes-Legislation.aspx

In the article, some of the firefighters' concerns are highlighted. Pretending like you don't know what their arguments are is just more stupidity and sliminess from you.

God, you're an insufferable idiot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 1 Nov 2011 @ 4:34pm
  
  Re:
  He probably meant to and it was a mistake on his part.
  
  What you could do is politely correct him instead of making a huge deal out of a minor error. Then IP maximists complain that Mike makes a big deal out of nothing.
  
  Though, judging from your use of the word 'sliminess' I sense possible sarcasm in your post.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 1 Nov 2011 @ 4:36pm
    
    Re: Re:
    I also find it interesting that the MPAA doesn't allow comments on its blog. I wonder why? Could it be that they don't want people criticizing their position since it doesn't stand up to scrutiny?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 1 Nov 2011 @ 5:07pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Ask the EFF why they don't allow comments on their blog while you're out asking questions.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 1 Nov 2011 @ 5:29pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Ask the EFF why they don't allow comments on their blog while you're out asking questions.
        
        Perhaps it's a condition of the $1 million per year they get from Google for pimping for them.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 1 Nov 2011 @ 5:55pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Pretty much. Google's money is behind most of these shenanigans; they're vampires, there's no doubt about it, and their ad business makes TONS off piracy via pirate sites, blogs, search traffic, etc.
        
        They're just greedy bastards looking out for their bottom line.
        
        If they can't make their money in an honest manner, fuck them.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 1 Nov 2011 @ 6:17pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        and IP maximists want this E-Parasite Bill to pass?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 1 Nov 2011 @ 6:19pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        and what ever happened to looking at the site as a whole? Or is that only a one sided statement?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Nov 2011 @ 1:36am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So what labels, studios and publishers finance drug cartels, thieves, prostitution and a lot of other crimes.
        
        Do actors not break the law, do rappers not kill each other, or traffic drugs or promote dog fightings?
        
        Labels finance them and so they are responsible for those things too right?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Nov 2011 @ 1:37am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Just wait until the Christian church goers get a hold of what they can do with that kind of reasoning and you people will be in hot waters too in no time since they are the majority of voters in the USA.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        hmm (profile), 2 Nov 2011 @ 5:33am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You seem to hate google with a deep deep passion.
        
        You don't happen to work for VIACOM do you? hehehehe
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        crade (profile), 2 Nov 2011 @ 7:50am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Yeah, sure google, apple, microsoft, heck anyone who has actually done anything useful in the past 20 years is bad bad bad.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 1 Nov 2011 @ 8:41pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You can add Public Knowledge to the list of civil societies that blog without comments enabled.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 1 Nov 2011 @ 10:34pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So where is the list of pro-IP entities that allow comments and IP criticisms to continue? Certainly not the pro-IP government established mainstream media, they would never allow MM or IP critics to criticize IP on their government established media outlets. They know that their position is indefensible.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 1 Nov 2011 @ 10:35pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        (yet they are more than glad to promote IP laws).
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- abc gum, 1 Nov 2011 @ 5:37pm
  
  Re:
  FTFL:
  "National President for the FOP, Chuck Canterbury, exclaimed, �The preparedness and safety of our members depend on sound, reliable equipment. Counterfeit batteries, gloves, brake pads, and other equipment put us and the public at risk. Counterfeit pharmaceuticals, tooth paste, and footwear put our seniors and our children at risk. Organized gangs use these profits from counterfeit DVDs to fund other criminal enterprises and fuel violent crime in our communities here at home.� "
  
  Here's an idea - don't go to Walmart. Seriously, if one is spending tax dollars there is a responsibility to spend it wisely - this includes not purchasing crap that will end up costing more in the long run. Do your homework like everyone else and stop whining about it already.
  
  Counterfeit DVDs funding terrorism is not even funny anymore, maybe you could find some new material for your standup routine.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 2 Nov 2011 @ 1:40am
    
    Re: Re:
    What really put people at risk is a government telling their own people what they can and cannot do, say or hear that is far more damaging to society than any counterfeit product could be, which people have their ow
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 Nov 2011 @ 1:34am
  
  Re:
  So it is legal to sell counterfeits right now right?
  
  No, why a new law that does the same thing?
  
  Because it is not about counterfeits is it?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Nov 2011 @ 4:39pm

Pathetic. Can we just ask Anonymous to destroy the *AA's?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- lucidrenegade (profile), 1 Nov 2011 @ 6:30pm
  
  Re:
  Because Anonymous can't destroy anything. I'd rather see them get inside dirt on corps and pols and not waste their time taking websites offline. Provided they actually have the talent to do that.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 1 Nov 2011 @ 6:39pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Because Anonymous can't destroy anything. I'd rather see them get inside dirt on corps and pols and not waste their time taking websites offline. Provided they actually have the talent to do that.
    
    Hey! maybe Wikileaks can hop on it.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dave Miller (profile), 1 Nov 2011 @ 4:40pm

Toothpaste?
Where do I buy this counterfeit toothpaste? Surely it must be cheaper than the stuff I'm paying $2 for at Walmart.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 1 Nov 2011 @ 4:48pm
  
  Re: Toothpaste?
  Counterfeit toothpaste only cleans counterfeit plaque.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 1 Nov 2011 @ 4:49pm
    
    Re: Re: Toothpaste?
    and counterfeit disinfectant soap only kills counterfeit germs.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - DogBreath, 1 Nov 2011 @ 6:49pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Toothpaste?
      And counterfeit money is only paid to bribe counterfeit politicians... no, wait... the counterfeit politicians are still being bribed with real money... at least until "OCP" has no use for them any longer.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
bob, 1 Nov 2011 @ 4:50pm

Supporting the artists is not censorship
Are you saying that firemen are stupid? That they can't write or sing or dance or do any of the things protected by copyright? How about the firemen who write books like this one:

http://www.amazon.com/New-Firefighters-Cookbook-John-Sineno/dp/0684818590

I think all of these firemen and their buddies understand the value of hard work. And so they're willing to support the creators.

Making it easy for people to steal a creator's work is much more likely to censor an artist than preventing some lame cheap couchpotato from using bittorrent.

Keeping people from using bittorrent or the other tools is not censorship because these people aren't expressing any opinions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- techflaws.org (profile), 2 Nov 2011 @ 12:06am
  
  Re: Supporting the artists is not censorship
  Hey, you forgot to throw your usual "Big Something" into this. What's wrong with you?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 Nov 2011 @ 1:42am
  
  Re: Supporting the artists is not censorship
  Are you not going to say "Big Firemen" are people too?
  
  LoL
  
  You like big things don't ya?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Nov 2011 @ 5:00pm

I guess only people who agree with you are relevant
What the hell do firefighters have to do with understanding detailed concepts like free speech, censorship, prior restraint, third party internet liability, and related topics?

About as much as Justin Bieber? http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111028/12580416553/justin-bieber-senator-klobuchar-should-be-lock ed-up-felony-streaming-bill.shtml
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 1 Nov 2011 @ 6:21pm
  
  Re: I guess only people who agree with you are relevant
  I agree that Mike went overboard with that question. Most firefighters are good people and it wasn't good for Mike to slam firefighters in general because of the decision of a firefighter executive.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 1 Nov 2011 @ 8:32pm
    
    Re: Re: I guess only people who agree with you are relevant
    It's pretty obvious at this point that anybody that has any connection with curtailing his precious piracy is open for his smears.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - techflaws.org (profile), 2 Nov 2011 @ 12:07am
      
      Re: Re: Re: I guess only people who agree with you are relevant
      Boring troll is boring.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - The eejit (profile), 2 Nov 2011 @ 1:26am
      
      Re: Re: Re: I guess only people who agree with you are relevant
      Here's the difference: Bieber, as much as I dislike his music, actually works in the industry this is supposed to "protect". Firefighter, for all their hard work and the risks that they take, most likely don't.
      
      If you cannot see how one is more relevant than the other, then perhaps you should take off those tinted glasses.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 2 Nov 2011 @ 1:44am
      
      Re: Re: Re: I guess only people who agree with you are relevant
      Anyone that supports their government deciding and telling others what to do, say or watch should be vilified.
      
      Further anyone stupid enough to be in favour of a monopoly that is life + 95 years should be vilified and smeared.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 2 Nov 2011 @ 2:23am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: I guess only people who agree with you are relevant
        The government definitely needs to stop telling firefighters to put out fires when someone's house is burning down.
        
        Fer sure. Free speech, prior restraint, due process, adversarial hearings; all that stuff needs to be addressed first.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The eejit (profile), 2 Nov 2011 @ 3:25am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I guess only people who agree with you are relevant
        OH, goody. I'll come and torch your house next week. :p
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 2 Nov 2011 @ 3:47am
      
      Re: Re: Re: I guess only people who agree with you are relevant
      Anyone who disagrees with such policies is labelled anti-IP anyway, regardless of their supposed relevance to the industry. We've been open to your smears since forever; why not you to ours?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Steve R. (profile), 1 Nov 2011 @ 5:03pm

First Responder Spectrum Allocation
There was a move afoot, were some lobbyists were able to get some clueless Congress people to allocate a portion of the radio spectrum for the benefit of First Responders. The premise was that our public servants in the fire/police/medics needed this spectrum for interoperability.

Well, someone put together a film clip of various first responders saying that if they did not receive this spectrum allocation that they couldn't do their job and that children and old woman would die. Pure FUD.

Without going into a lot of detail, interoperability is a management problem, not a spectrum problem. What I suspect, no proof, was that this was being proposed by the communications industry to "force" public safety department to buy PROPRIETARY radio equipment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
anonymous, 1 Nov 2011 @ 5:30pm

i'm curious as to whether all 300,000 firefighters and paramedics were asked if they wanted Mr. Schaitberger to vote for this bill for them en bloc? how many were in favor? how many against? how many abstentions? did they even know the letter was sent?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Nov 2011 @ 5:33pm

I'm curious as to whether all 300,000 firefighters and paramedics were asked if they wanted Mr. Schaitberger to vote for this bill for them en bloc?

Ummm..... Schaitberger doesn't have a vote. And I doubt they hold a vote of 300,000 every time he sends a letter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Nov 2011 @ 5:34pm

This is likely some sort of labor solidarity thing, not the IAFF being paid off by the MAFIAA. All major labor unions have likely been asked by the AFL-CIO or the movie industry unions to support PIPA/SOPA, and this is them doing so.

It's unfortunate the movie industry has such a disproportionate share of organized labor (in comparison to other industries, like the consumer electronics/computer hardware/software/Internet industry which is almost completely unorganized) because that allows them to get blind solidarity from other unions who don't know anything about the issues but will follow their brothers and sisters in a lock-step knee-jerk fashion to the end of the world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Adrian Lopez, 1 Nov 2011 @ 5:42pm

Firemen and Free Speech
Book paper catches fire and burns at 451 degrees Fahrenheit:

"It was a special pleasure to burn. It was a special pleasure to see things eaten, to see things blackened and changed."

From Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451, describing the feelings of those men whose job it was to burn books: Firemen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Machin Shin, 2 Nov 2011 @ 6:23am
  
  Re: Firemen and Free Speech
  I was wondering when someone would mention Fahrenheit 451. I mean how can anyone who read that book resist making a comment about this story.
  
  Obviously the firemen are for this law! Then can't wait for the day that it is their job to burn the offending books and other materials!
  
  Seriously though, Dragging firefighters into this debate is kind of stupid. I can understand the argument that something needs to be done about fake safty products like smoke alarms. The problem is that this bill does so much damage and offers so little. Yes there will be some good that could come of this bill BUT the bad side effects are much much worse.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
out_of_the_blue, 1 Nov 2011 @ 6:40pm

One thing Ivy League Mike is consistently against: Labor.
"What the hell do firefighters have to do with understanding detailed concepts like free speech, censorship, prior restraint, third party internet liability, and related topics?"

First, questioning ability of firefighters at "understanding detailed concepts" clearly shows Mike's abiding contempt for working people. I've pointed it out in the recent Huffington Post pieces. It's a consistent trait. From doubting the "claims" of a barista at Starbucks, through jeering at Huffpost free bloggers for wanting to be paid after Huffington cashes in for $310M, to now sneering at one of our last bunches of respectable public servants.

Mike hammers his contempt, holding that firefighters are both stupid and corrupt:
"What are the chances that the International Association of Fire Fighters has received large checks from those associated with the movie business? ...firefighters have no clue what this debate is about? Otherwise, why would they be supporting censorship in America? Read the letter below, and wager a guess how much was actually written by a firefighter, rather than a lobbyist for Hollywood?"

So, Mike, you try to peel off and dismiss firefighters, but a little actual information provided by AC about counterfeit smoke detectors fully explains a valid concern firefighters would have that'd bring them in. You're just making a wild baseless ad hom attack.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Nov 2011 @ 6:44pm

I wonder if e-parasite won't drive business away from American payment services, to payment services in other countries?

An will it encourage a more distributed structure of the internet (e.g. competing DNS, like China was talking about at one stage)?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 1 Nov 2011 @ 7:06pm
  
  Re:
  I wonder if e-parasite won't drive business away from American payment services, to payment services in other countries?
  
  Payment services such as?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 2 Nov 2011 @ 9:05pm
    
    Re: Re:
    No idea (payment services aren't something I deal with regularly), but obviously payment services do exist outside the US ;)
    
    This bill may provide the catalyst needed to see more, larger services outside the US. I'm not prophesying, just wondering...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Nov 2011 @ 11:05pm

This whole post is another example of Mike being in such a rush to condemn anyone supporting PROTECT-IP that he can't even thing straight.

WTG Mike - that's two notches down today!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- abc gum, 2 Nov 2011 @ 4:26am
  
  Re:
  "he can't even thing straight"
  
  I hate it when I'm not thinging straight.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
abc gum, 2 Nov 2011 @ 4:48am

Bad product design can, and has, lead to malfunction resulting in severe consequences for the user(s) and innocent bystanders. This has nothing to do with the authenticity of the product or the status of any imaginary property rights. In fact, it is possible that a non authorized product could be of better design than the so called authentic version.

The rationalization attempt here simply does not hold water. Support of a draconian bill because it may stop counterfeit goods is one thing - but to imply that lives will be saved is deceitful. For example, there will be authentically inferior smoke detectors out there and they will malfunction. Passing some poor excuse for legislation will not stop this inevitability from occurring.

Why not just come out and state what you want done in your proposed legislation? You want complete control of all media including but not limited to the internet. That was easy huh. I agree that it will be a hard sell and usually there is a sugar coating, but what you are using contains no sugar and was obtained from the rear end of a bovine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hmm (profile), 2 Nov 2011 @ 5:38am

Ever noticed
How when any government tries to pass nasty vicious legislation designed to hurt the public and only enrich themselves and their friends (and screw the public we can get rich before the next election) there's always a massive section of the public thats up for it?

Its weird, but there are vast numbers of people who WANT the government to hurt them just to give them something to moan about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
btrussell (profile), 2 Nov 2011 @ 5:43am

Why wouldn't firefighters want a giant firewall around their country? No more fires!

Although, there goes 300 000+ jobs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Teddy, 2 Nov 2011 @ 7:41am

Dangerous goods
Harold A. Schaitberger, General President stated [..] "...will stem the flow of dangerous counterfeit goods..."

While I can understand that the Firefighters' spokesman would advocate curtailing the flow of shoddy counterfeit equipment, those are physical goods that should be limited by other government agencies (port authorities, tariffs on substandard parts and so on). If people are stupid enough to buy cheap goods simply because the price is low then they deserve what they get. It would be fine for the Firefighters to advocate the creation of a list of illicit vendors' IP addresses and offer their block list to Adblock (and others). The key point is it being optional, not strong-armed such that it tramples freedom. We don't need to be reminded that the US is becoming a fascist police state.

There is a HUGE difference between stemming the tide of knock-off goods sold as proper retail items and SHARING digital copies. The rhetoric that jobs or sales are lost due to sharing has yet to be proven with cold hard numbers that can be verified and scrutinized.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Nov 2011 @ 9:43am

but but... Firefighters!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Berenerd (profile), 2 Nov 2011 @ 12:48pm

I have worked on computers at many fire department stations...yeah they are free-tards as many ACs would call them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 Nov 2011 @ 9:09pm
  
  Re:
  People lumping all the ACs together is a little annoying, especially when they seem only to make assumptions about ACs that don't apply to me.
  
  I'm an AC, and I agree with about 95% of what Mike says (including his opinions on e-parasite).
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]