If The Internet Is Treated Just Like The Offline World, We'd Never Have Ridiculous Laws Like SOPA/PIPA

Predictions

from the just-saying dept

Thu, Feb 9th 2012 8:43am — Mike Masnick

One of the key talking points from the SOPA/PIPA supporters was this ridiculous claim that the internet shouldn't be "lawless." That was a laughable line, considering just how many laws have been passed already that directly impact the internet -- including many copyright laws specifically. For example the DMCA, the No Electronic Theft Act and the PRO-IP bills all directly were about regulating the internet concerning copyright laws. So to pretend that the internet is "lawless" is just ridiculous. A close second was to compare the internet to "the real world" (ignoring that the internet is pretty damn real), and to say that obviously we'd be fine with laws like SOPA in that "real world." Thankfully, the good folks over at Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal debunk that and other claims concerning online laws matching up with offline laws:

The simple fact is that the online world and offline worlds are not identical. Insisting that that these kinds of crazy laws are needed online because the same thing is done offline is simply preposterous.

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: internet, laws, pipa, privacy, sopa

81 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Jeff (profile), 9 Feb 2012 @ 8:20am

I can see it now...

...by entering the "internet" you are leaving the borders of the United States. Therefore, any actions you take while in the internet are the actions of a terrorist. When you leave the "internet" you are re-entering the borders of the United States, and therefore are subject to inspection, forfeiture, groping, probing, and mind flashing without right of redress. IF you don't like these terms you qualify for a free, extended stay at our luxurious Hotel Guantanamo... Have a nice day!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Feb 2012 @ 8:50am

An amusing cartoon that wildly overstates things, and missed the point on many.

First off, the "store next door thinks your stuff is similar" is pure bullshit at it's finest. Action like that would be the basis for a nasty counter lawsuit that would bankrupt the store next door. Sorry to disappoint you guys!

They aren't going to shut down questionable websites - they are going to shut down ones packed with pirated material. Sorry to disappoint you again!

As for child pr0n, all I can say is if you are downloading it online, don't be shocked if the feds are in knocking on your door soon enough. The net isn't THAT anonymous, sorry to disappoint you.

Are you guys suggesting that the internet shouldn't be subject to any laws?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chris Rhodes (profile), 9 Feb 2012 @ 9:00am

Re:
10/10. Fantastic imitation of a clueless TD troll.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
:Lobo Santo (profile), 9 Feb 2012 @ 9:01am

Re: Grade
9.5 of 10
Some of the finest trolling I've ever seen.
High points:
Opinion spoken as fact.
Addressed the topic at hand.
Good, subtle ad hom.

I expect to see a slew of responses. A gold star for you!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Cowardly Anon, 9 Feb 2012 @ 9:05am

Re:
Can't tell if trolling, or just plain stupid.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Steve R. (profile), 9 Feb 2012 @ 9:05am

Where are the Corporate Logos?
The laws being passed are granting corporations the investigative/judicial/punitive powers formerly reserved for the State. Instead of generic "police" the cartoon should have rent-a-cops dressed in corporate logos.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
silverscarcat (profile), 9 Feb 2012 @ 9:06am

Re:
"Honey! I'm goin' on dat dere internet agun. If dem feds show up before I git off, GIT MAH GUN!"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Feb 2012 @ 9:06am

Re:
Yes, exactly.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Feb 2012 @ 9:07am

Re:
Yes, exactly.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Feb 2012 @ 9:15am

Re: Re:
Rating yourself again?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rikuo (profile), 9 Feb 2012 @ 9:24am

Re:
"First off, the "store next door thinks your stuff is similar" is pure bullshit at it's finest. Action like that would be the basis for a nasty counter lawsuit that would bankrupt the store next door. Sorry to disappoint you guys!"

Ever hear of Dajaz1.com? Record labels purposefully sent them music tracks for marketing purposes, then later complained about the site to the police. The site was closed for an entire year, and the site's lawyer was not given any information whatsoever to try and move it to trial.

"They aren't going to shut down questionable websites - they are going to shut down ones packed with pirated material. Sorry to disappoint you again!"
Again, Dajaz1.com A site that was not a pirate site, yet was branded as one and shut down.

"As for child pr0n, all I can say is if you are downloading it online, don't be shocked if the feds are in knocking on your door soon enough. The net isn't THAT anonymous, sorry to disappoint you."
Accusing someone of distributing child porn is a very serious charge. Do you have evidence to back it up? Are you actually accusing us Techdirtians of being child pornographers? We're not. But the fact remains that politicians are ramming through these internet laws by simply crying "Child porn! Child porn!" when the bills will do little to nothing to stop child porn.

And no, we're not suggested that the Internet shouldn't be subject to laws. We're suggesting that laws that do impact it be well researched, well written and narrow in focus. Not scorched earth nuclear missile laws, that shut down entire sites with just a single accusation.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Feb 2012 @ 9:26am

Re: Re:
It was okay I guess, but I was hoping for protestations that we hadn't even read the laws, and pleas to show the language.

That part makes me cry.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Feb 2012 @ 9:28am

LMAO, Mike. I don't what's funnier, the fact that somebody made this ridiculously misleading and idiotic cartoon, or the fact that you posted it and obviously believe in it. ROFLMFAO!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Keroberos (profile), 9 Feb 2012 @ 9:33am

Re:
Action like that would be the basis for a nasty counter lawsuit that would bankrupt the store next door.
That's the point, in the real world you can counter-sue, under SOPA/PIPA there would be no real way to fight back--even under the DMCA it's very hard, look at what happened to Veoh.
They aren't going to shut down questionable websites - they are going to shut down ones packed with pirated material.
Again, even under existing laws legitimate sites have been taken down (Veoh bankrupted, and DeJaz1--blocked for a year with no adversarial hearing)
As for child pr0n, all I can say is if you are downloading it online, don't be shocked if the feds are in knocking on your door soon enough.
Okay, then you're fine with the government reading your mail and taping you phone lines? (You know, just in case, it's only to protect the children.)
Are you guys suggesting that the internet shouldn't be subject to any laws?
Did you even read the article? The internet is already subject to all the laws that aply in the real world plus more draconian and invasive laws then would be considered acceptable in the real world.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jeff (profile), 9 Feb 2012 @ 9:34am

Re:
satire much?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Vincent Clement (profile), 9 Feb 2012 @ 9:34am

Re: Re:
What's the difference?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Endtimer (profile), 9 Feb 2012 @ 9:34am

Wait...what?
The monitoring ones are kinda funny, but the first about copyright is kind of an over simplification. To make the simile work it'd have to be 'they claim you're giving away free samples of their products,' or something like that, and even that would be way to simple.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Marcus Carab (profile), 9 Feb 2012 @ 9:35am

Re:
You are a fine debater, sir! This comment reminds me of when Socrates famously convinced Agathon of his theory of the genaeology of love by employing the brilliant argument "OMG r u serious? ROFL!"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
antimatter3009 (profile), 9 Feb 2012 @ 9:35am

Re:
An amusing comment that wildly overstates things, and missed the point on many.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Feb 2012 @ 9:37am

Re:
LMAO AC. I don't know what is funnier, the fact that you are a corporate shill or that fact that you believe the made-up "facts" they tout. ROFLMAO!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Torg (profile), 9 Feb 2012 @ 9:40am

Re: Wait...what?
No matter what the cop's response was, shutting down one shop on the say-so of the shop next door is not something I think most people would be willing to accept.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Kevin H (profile), 9 Feb 2012 @ 9:40am

Re:
"First off, the "store next door thinks your stuff is similar" is pure bullshit at it's finest. Action like that would be the basis for a nasty counter lawsuit that would bankrupt the store next door. Sorry to disappoint you guys!"

- You are taking it at face value for what they say they are going to do. I think you are being naive to think that it will only be used on those sites, and what is one of those sites. Many bit torrents offer nothing but links to materials that they locate on the internet. They do not have copies of anything on their servers. How are the infringing? It would be like me linking to www.lowes.com and having my blog taken down for doing so. Look at the Patriot Act as a prime example. Warrant-less wiretaps with no probable cause, it was used to stop drug related crimes that had nothing to do with terrorism at about 1000 to 1. I am never worried about the intention of a new law. What I am worried about is how some lawyer is going to spin the phrasing of it in order to get what he wants. Giving the government and copyrights holders the tools needed to possible impinge on free speech is about as um-american as Communism was in the 1980s.

"As for child pr0n, all I can say is if you are downloading it online, don't be shocked if the feds are in knocking on your door soon enough. The net isn't THAT anonymous, sorry to disappoint you."

-That's actually where your wrong. It may seem cliche, but there are dark corners of the net where normal netizans like ourselves never travel. There are a number of services that can be used that allow for complete randomization of IPs and while they do require money its through a completely indirect means so that it cannot be directly traced back to someone. Not everything is as black and white as blocking super childpo rn.org. Going so hard against them is going to drive them further and further underground.

"Are you guys suggesting that the internet shouldn't be subject to any laws?"

- No one said that there cannot be laws, but the laws need to be a scalpel. Not a battle ax. These proposed laws SOPA/PIPA are all Battle Axes and are going to have far reaching (un)intended consequences that threaten what the internet has given people. A voice that can be seen and heard by millions of people in a matter of moments.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Feb 2012 @ 9:45am

Re: Re:
What's funnier ?

The fact that he had to make two more posts under alts to
support himself.

That's some funny shit.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Feb 2012 @ 9:45am

Re: Re: Re:
5/5 :)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Trails (profile), 9 Feb 2012 @ 9:47am

Re:
"First off, the "store next door thinks your stuff is similar" is pure bullshit at it's finest. Action like that would be the basis for a nasty counter lawsuit that would bankrupt the store next door. Sorry to disappoint you guys!"

The POINT, my intentionally obtuse friend, is that it shouldn't happen. This is not the same as "if it happens, you can sue". The attempt to shift the burden of establishing cause away from law enforcement is disingenuous and deceitful. Keep trying though.

"They aren't going to shut down questionable websites - they are going to shut down ones packed with pirated material. Sorry to disappoint you again!"
Just like Dajaz1.com? or Rojadireita? All packed with, um wait, not pirated materials, but links. Dreaded, evil, delicious links.

"As for child pr0n, all I can say is if you are downloading it online, don't be shocked if the feds are in knocking on your door soon enough. The net isn't THAT anonymous, sorry to disappoint you"

Obvious troll is obvious. If you'd care to comment on the comic go ahead, what you've spewed there was unrelated.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Keroberos (profile), 9 Feb 2012 @ 9:50am

Re:
How is it misleading? Many of the things depicted in the cartoons have already happened in real life on the internet (in fact the only one that I can't recall happening is the one about scanning your mail--although not for lack of trying).

Examples--for the first one take a look at what happened to Veoh. And in the last one there has been at least one case of the feds breaking down someones door and hauling him off thinking he was downloading child pornography (it was a neighbor using his wi-fi).

So, misleading--hardly, I don't think it goes far enough showing how bad it could get (it's already bad enough).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Feb 2012 @ 9:53am

Re: Re:
I think that was Garfield.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Feb 2012 @ 9:55am

Re: Re:
"That's the point, in the real world you can counter-sue, under SOPA/PIPA there would be no real way to fight back--even under the DMCA it's very hard, look at what happened to Veoh."

It's not hard. Walk into the court house, file the lawsuit. it's really not hard to do at all.

What is hard is that most online companies are NOT prepared to fight any sort of legal battle, nor are many of them really sure of their own rights.

DMCA has a false claim provision. How many lawsuits have been filed on this? Very few, yet there are huge amounts of "reported" false claims. Perhaps they aren't as false as all that, or perhaps too marginal to push the issue.

"Did you even read the article? The internet is already subject to all the laws that aply in the real world plus more draconian and invasive laws then would be considered acceptable in the real world."

The point is that when cars came along, the basic rules for walking or riding a horse were not enough, and as such, new laws were enacted. With the internet, the current laws are inadequate for dealing with all that the internet brings, especially when it comes to jurisdictional issues. New laws are being crafted to try to address the significant and large loopholes that the internet has opened in existing laws.

After all, you cannot take your hardware store and hide it offshore. You cannot move your radio station to Russia and still broadcast in the US legally. Yet you can do that with an online business in a flash - so the laws have to be changed to keep the level playing field, and to enforce the laws and values of the country involved.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Feb 2012 @ 9:56am

Re:
Mike is always funnier, because he is so earnest. Running stuff like this sort of makes him look like he is swimming in the kool aid, getting high on his own supply.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
MC, 9 Feb 2012 @ 9:57am

Shills
Hmm, the industry shilling sort of dried up here in the exuberance of the SOPA/PIPA defeat, but it seems to be back in force now.

Oh well, nice while it lasted.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Feb 2012 @ 9:57am

Re: Re: Wait...what?
"No matter what the cop's response was, shutting down one shop on the say-so of the shop next door is not something I think most people would be willing to accept."

Nor was it going to be something that happened. Someone who does not have at least an "on the face" valid claim would never get there.

Sorry to disappoint you... the cartoon is propaganda, nothing more.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
TtfnJohn (profile), 9 Feb 2012 @ 9:57am

Re:
It's not that much of what you say is true, perhaps and under some circumstances, but that you've entirely missed the point of the cartoon.

So to point it out to you it's that there is one set of laws in "the real world" and another for "the virtual world". The latter ones trample over people's rights while the former, largely, protect them.

Clear?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Feb 2012 @ 9:58am

Re: Re:
Marijuana is pseudo-legal in California, right? That actually might explain a lot...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Nick, 9 Feb 2012 @ 10:01am

Hmm..
If the Internet existed in the offline world, YouTube wouldn't get a broadcast license.
And Mark Zuckerberg would be bugging all our phone calls to sell ads on them.
Just saying.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
TtfnJohn (profile), 9 Feb 2012 @ 10:01am

Re: Shills
You'll notice that the quality hasn't improved any though. Same song sheet, same song.

Hmmmmm...nasty response to Techdirt posting macro 1 or macros 2 through 6. Which one do I use?

/s (maybe)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Feb 2012 @ 10:06am

Re:
Fine, I'll just have a constant always on connection to the "internet" so I never "leave" it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Baldaur Regis (profile), 9 Feb 2012 @ 10:07am

Re: Re: Grade
Fine trolling indeed. However, I would only give it 8/10 because:

Spelling and syntax are correct.
"child pr0n" indicates longtime familiarity with posting.

To get that authentic troll flavor, I would recommend a tighter tinfoil hat, or drinking a few more Dr Peppers before posting.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
MrWilson, 9 Feb 2012 @ 10:08am

Re: Re:
It's obvious that Socrates lost his final debate because the hemlock didn't agree with him in the end...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Feb 2012 @ 10:08am

Mike's kool aid is the law of the Constitution, your kool aid is the law of Monopoly power.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chosen Reject (profile), 9 Feb 2012 @ 10:17am

Re: Re: Re: Wait...what?
It already has happened. See dajaz1.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Feb 2012 @ 10:21am

Re: Re: Re: Wait...what?
But its not quite the same as the Germans dropping leaflets on the US troops in WWII, because, as already stated, the things in this cartoon are plausible, relevant, and clearly not too far out of reach of the ones fighting for laws against the internet.

You, however, sound just like the Germans in their leaflets.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rikuo (profile), 9 Feb 2012 @ 10:21am

Re: Re: Re:
"It's not hard. Walk into the court house, file the lawsuit. it's really not hard to do at all.

What is hard is that most online companies are NOT prepared to fight any sort of legal battle, nor are many of them really sure of their own rights.

DMCA has a false claim provision. How many lawsuits have been filed on this? Very few, yet there are huge amounts of "reported" false claims. Perhaps they aren't as false as all that, or perhaps too marginal to push the issue."

Dajaz1.com's lawyer found it impossible to move his case to trial. So no, its not as simple as walking into a court and filing for a counter-lawsuit.
And the point for the lack of counter-DMCA takedown lawsuits is that the DMCA has little to no punishments for those who issue DMCA takedowns in bad faith. So, economically, its not worth hiring a lawyer to fight it out.
Veoh tried and won in their court case, but were bankrupted because of it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Feb 2012 @ 10:22am

Re: Re: Re:
New laws are being crafted IN SECRETto try to address the significant and large loopholes that the internet has opened in existing laws.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
TDR, 9 Feb 2012 @ 10:23am

Perhaps it's time for an official, legally valid Internet Declaration of Independence to be enacted. That is, to recognize the internet as an independent, sovereign body like any other country. It would not be subject to the laws of any particular nation, but rather, laws concerning it must be drafted with input from all nations, to reflect the internet's global nature, and with full transparency and participation from all netizens who wish to do so.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Feb 2012 @ 10:25am

Re: Re: Re: Wait...what?
"All art is propaganda. It is universally and inescapably propaganda; sometimes unconsciously, but often deliberately, propaganda." - Upton Sinclair

Oh no! Not propaganda! The horror!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Machin Shin (profile), 9 Feb 2012 @ 10:38am

Re:
Is it just me that finds this entire "kool aid" thing really annoying? Where in the world did the even come from anyways? Not that it really matters where it came from.

I personally will be overjoyed when this is finally declared worn out and is no longer used.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
???, 9 Feb 2012 @ 10:38am

Re: Re:
you mean there is a difference between stupid and trolling?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Machin Shin (profile), 9 Feb 2012 @ 10:44am

Re:
Very nice and idealistic idea but sadly not possible. How often you see all the countries in the world agree on anything? If you got representatives from every country in the world you would not even be able to get them all to agree that the world is round. Someone would argue just because they want to be different.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jeff MacDougall, 9 Feb 2012 @ 10:49am

Re: An amusing cartoon...
"They aren't going to shut down questionable websites - they are going to shut down ones packed with pirated material. Sorry to disappoint you again!"

- And how would you pay for this counter law suit with all your revenue streams cut off?

"They aren't going to shut down questionable websites - they are going to shut down ones packed with pirated material. Sorry to disappoint you again!"

- Suuuuurre they will. It says so right there in the legislatio... oh wait, no it doesn't.

Get real. The major industry players are already abusing the laws they have.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jeff MacDougall, 9 Feb 2012 @ 10:55am

Re: Re:
Try googling Jim Jones and Kool Aid. And it matters.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
tracker1 (profile), 9 Feb 2012 @ 11:04am

Origin of "Drinking The Kool-Aid"
I'm pretty sure it was one of those suicide cults that took their poison in Kool-Aid. Essentially taking the meaning of blindly following someone else even if it's meant to kill you in the end.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DinosaurHunter (profile), 9 Feb 2012 @ 11:06am

Re: Re:
Wha...what? This graphic is a deadly realistic illustration of how ridiculously unacceptable the laws that intellectual monopoly maximalists want would be in the offline world. I guess you just really don't want the full lunacy to be illustrated so effectively so you just attack the messenger.
I like how you choose to belittle mike for being earnest. It's easy to be earnest when you know your cause is the one that benefits society. It's difficult when you know your message is a fine mesh of lies and half truths designed to promote the interests of a small handful.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
tracker1 (profile), 9 Feb 2012 @ 11:09am

Interesting...
A counter-point that is relevant and not entirely without merit.

I would say, though, that it YouTube wouldn't need a license because it would be a cable channel, not broadcast, and the Zuckerberg would have an interactive system on your TV (monitoring your activity) to sell you more ads, and all your personally recorded information to ad companies and marketers.

Wait, both of those things happen. Public Access (more or less), and your information gets sold/resold via your phone companies, cellular providers, credit card companies, banks and grocery stores.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Feb 2012 @ 11:22am

That politician in the comic looks like Lamar Smith with glasses and real hair.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
JaDe, 9 Feb 2012 @ 11:27am

Re: Re:
It's actually a pretty horrifying and tragic story. Most people just saw something in a movie or TV show where it was jokingly connected to occultism like at the end of the movie Road Trip. But that was referring to a real event that took place when the Heaven's Gate cult committed suicide by ingesting poison. However to get the actual Kool-Aid connection you need to go back even further to the Jonestown settlement. It was a group of American ex-pat socialists looking to form their own socialist commune. Long story short, their leader Jim Jones had them commit "revolutionary suicide" by drinking Kool-Aid mixed with arsenic. In total 909 people died this way including over 200 children who ostensibly didn't know what they were doing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Feb 2012 @ 12:13pm

Re:
"Are you guys suggesting that the internet shouldn't be subject to any laws?"

No, just laws that allow due process, like in the real world, boy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Feb 2012 @ 12:22pm

Re: Re: Re: Wait...what?
So are you completely ignorant of history or are you just hoping everyone reading what your write is completely ignorant.

TL:DR Can't tell if full of shit or just stupid.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
el_segfaulto (profile), 9 Feb 2012 @ 12:24pm

Re: Re:
I've seen Agathon on Battlestar Galactica, but I don't recall a fellow named Socrates. Must be in the deleted scenes.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Feb 2012 @ 12:24pm

Re: Re:
The beauty of the internet is that it is, itself, the means by which direct democracy could be made manifest on such a large scale.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Feb 2012 @ 12:31pm

Re: Re: Re: Wait...what?
Yah right because SOPA had a lot of safeguards right? right?

Oh wait there were none.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Feb 2012 @ 12:33pm

Re: Hmm..
You mean just like the US government?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Feb 2012 @ 12:38pm

Re: Re:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drinking_the_Kool-Aid

You can find everything if you just look for it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Feb 2012 @ 12:46pm

Re: Re: Re:
What do you think "sweet shops" means?

What do you think LLC's are for?

But all of that is mute because the real problem is the legal fiction that copyright represents and the absurds that derive from that legal fiction that is complete nonsense.

John Locke was right, you own the fruits of your labor and nobody should take those fruits from you but if you expect that others will do all the work for you to rip the benefits of it you sure are mistaken, you don't deserve a monopoly.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Kevin H (profile), 9 Feb 2012 @ 12:53pm

Re: Re: Re:
I would call it strolling, but there is already a definition for it in urban dictionary. We could call it Tropid? That one is free.

Tropid - That moment when an internet troll and a stupid person on the internet are indeed the same individual.

There are lots of tropids in r/circlejerk.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Torg (profile), 9 Feb 2012 @ 12:56pm

Re: Re: Re:
"The point is that when cars came along, the basic rules for walking or riding a horse were not enough, and as such, new laws were enacted."

Oh, I'm so glad you chose that example. You see, those new laws included the Red Flag Acts, which required that a person on foot carry a red flag 60 yards ahead of the car to warn people that a car was coming, and limited the cars to 2 miles per hour in towns and 4 in the country because it was claimed that having cars travelling at the high speeds of ten miles per hour would be disastrous for road quality. As someone who probably grew up with cars as a fact of life you should be able to see how ridiculous those laws sound. Just because new laws might be needed does not mean the laws chosen are reasonable.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Feb 2012 @ 1:24pm

Re: Re:
Try using that Internet thingy you dope...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drinking_the_Kool-Aid
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Cowardly Anon, 9 Feb 2012 @ 1:32pm

Re: Re: Re:
I guess that's a valid point.

In my experience, all trolls are not stupid, and not all stupid people are trolls.

Some people are too stupid to be trolls...and this AC is verging on that point. I just can't tell.....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Cowardly Anon, 9 Feb 2012 @ 1:36pm

Re: Re:
I'm sorry Chris, his execution is flawless, but he fails on the follow through.

There is no personal attack on Mike, no insulting the TD community. It doesn't even bring in totally unrelated topics to prove a nonexistent point!

I'm afraid I'm only going to be able to give a 7/10.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Gwiz (profile), 9 Feb 2012 @ 1:50pm

Re: Re: Re:
....but I don't recall a fellow named Socrates.

I remember him. He was in Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure. His name was pronounced [soh-kreyts] though.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
el_segfaulto (profile), 9 Feb 2012 @ 2:52pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
I always had a problem with that documentary. Their Khan didn't look at all like the one Kirk fought.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Moondoggie, 9 Feb 2012 @ 4:17pm

Re:
Are you guys suggesting that the internet shouldn't be subject to any laws?
Yes.

My turn to ask:
There is no law on the internet. U MAD BRO?
/trollface
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Feb 2012 @ 6:59pm

Re: Re: Shills
I dunno, the first troll was kinda funny, and got some pretty decent scores from those that grade that sort of thing, so at least one of them is passable.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
G Thompson (profile), 9 Feb 2012 @ 8:49pm

Re:
I think you really need to go do a class on Equity, also History of Law 101 explaining "no fear nor favour" would be a good idea too.

You really fail to grasp the concept of the whole cartoon in that it is showing how due process is not being given for so called "cyber" laws, whereas it is absolute for non-cyber laws.

No-one is suggesting the Internet should not be subject to laws, in fact everyone agrees that it ALREADY IS subject to laws. What people are absolutely against is that it is somehow subject to different and unequal laws.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That Anonymous Coward (profile), 9 Feb 2012 @ 10:02pm

Re:
Wow you guys are easy graders...
Have I been to hard on paywall bob all this time?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
kurisu7885, 10 Feb 2012 @ 3:00am

Re:
"They aren't going to shut down questionable websites - they are going to shut down ones packed with pirated material. Sorry to disappoint you again!"

Bull-CRAP.

Do you honestly think an organization that has no problem suing 11 year old kids is going to only use this against pirate sites?

Make a review on a site that the rights holder doesn't like? They can have you shut down by claiming any screenshots are copyrighted.

A band is making themselves a ton of money by distributing their content themselves? Not anymore. A record labels files a claim that, without even the possibility of an appeal process, gets shut down completely, and they send one of their slick talking managers to talk to them.

In the meantime, the material pirates continue to get material unscathed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
kurisu7885, 10 Feb 2012 @ 3:04am

Re: Where are the Corporate Logos?
No, not enough.

SWAT teams with RIAA and MPAA stenciled on their uniforms.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
kurisu7885, 10 Feb 2012 @ 3:09am

Re: Re: Re: Wait...what?
SO what does that makes the "Don't copy that floppy" and "you wouldn't steal a car" campaigns? Or is it only propaganda when your boss disagrees with it?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Meh, 10 Feb 2012 @ 8:08am

So there's no laws against botnets? COOL!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Moose, 10 Feb 2012 @ 6:10pm

Re:
Apparently you missed the point of this comic, to the extreme, thanks for playing though!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Niall (profile), 14 Feb 2012 @ 4:51am

Re: Re: Re:
I always thought it was a reference to the sheer artificial chemical stew that is Kool-Aid twisting your brain.

"Kool-Aid - Free Diabetes with every Dose!"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous, 9 Jun 2012 @ 6:58pm

Anonymous
We are Anonymous. Anonymous is legon. Anonymous never forgives. The internet is our world, created by the people, for the people, and has no government of its own. We can 'steal', 'kill', and 'raid' to our desires. We are not subject to the laws of earth or its many nations. We are subject to our own actions by the appointed moderators and officials of our sites, not by the constitution or by any law. Live free, Surf Free, and May the internet live on. Hail to Anonymous.
[ link to this | view in thread ]