You'll Need Fifty Stimulus Checks To Pay The Damages You Might Get Hit With Under The CASE Act
from the so-stupid dept
It was only mid-day yesterday that it was confirmed that Congress has slipped in two controversial copyright provisions into the must-pass government funding bill. Last night, as everyone expected, that must-pass bill did indeed pass, and it will soon be law.
There are many, many reasons to be frustrated about this. First, just the way this was done is incredibly stupid. The government waited until the very last minute (with a couple of "extensions") to work out this agreement on a combination of the COVID relief bill (which is way too small and way too late for many, many people) and a bill to actually fund the government and avoid a shutdown. It's already ridiculous that we have to do this government funding bill each year, especially considering that Congress already approves a budget earlier in the year, and the appropriations bill is really just a fight over how to apportion what Congress has already agreed to spend. And then, because the appropriations bill is considered a "must pass" to keep large parts of the government funded, Congress lights it up like a Christmas tree with totally unrelated bills they couldn't get passed through normal process.
Incredibly, some politicians, like Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut, seem proud of this practice:
When a big bill like this comes together, your job as a lawmaker is to try to get as many of your legislative and funding priorities into the text as possible.
Throughout the day, I'm going to explain the provisions in the omnibus budget/COVID relief bill that I led.
— Chris Murphy (@ChrisMurphyCT) December 21, 2020
I get why he's proud of getting some things into the bill, and many of the things he may be proud of are good. But many of them do not belong in this bill and should not be in a 5,000 page bill that was revealed mid-day and voted on hours later.
Incredibly, while the bill does have 2,000 pages of actual appropriations details, the other 3,000 pages are totally unrelated bills that Congress couldn't pass through the rest of the year. Even if you like the bills, even if you are mad that Congress is gridlocked at other times, that's no excuse to support this awful undemocratic process. Everything about it is bad.
Now, lots of people are still combing through the bill to find all the awful landmines that it's too late to do anything about, but the two that we've been talking about here are the copyright provisions. I've already explained multiple times why the felony streaming bill and the CASE Act are extremely problematic, so I won't go over either again. I will note that neither final provision is as bad as they were in earlier versions. Both were somewhat limited from truly terrible provisions to what is today merely awful. But that's nothing to celebrate.
As I said yesterday with regards to both bills, copyright law is controversial for a wide variety of reasons, but the biggest one is this: small tweaks to copyright law can have a massive impact on expression. Few people are even willing to grapple with the fact that significant parts of copyright law raise 1st Amendment issues. And when you rush through both of these bills (the felony streaming bill received literally no discussion or debate), you impact speech in a massive way. The felony streaming bill, even with its restrictions to platforms, may scare off many platforms from being willing to host streaming content, despite it being a key way in which many people -- especially younger generations -- express themselves these days.
The CASE Act, similarly, threatens to unleash a new generation of copyright trolling, at a time when we already have too much copyright trolling, threatening and shaking down people for money over incidental and accidental infringement. On top of that, especially in the midst of a pandemic when so many people are stuck at home and communicating, living, and working virtually, doing perfectly normal things can and will be seen as infringing. Nearly 15 years ago, law professor John Tehranian wrote about how on a random day that he tracked, he realized he (a copyright law professor!) probably committed 83 acts of infringement.
As we wrote a few years back, the only reason that copyright doesn't destroy speech is that he world has recognized a concept of copyright toleration -- which is that, more or less, copyright holders have mostly looked the other way at incidental and accidental infringements that happen all the time. The entire point of the CASE Act is to slam the door shut on the entire idea of copyright toleration, and open the floodgates for copyright holders to shake down basically anyone for such incidental uses -- telling them they could owe up to $30,000 as assigned by a non-judicial tribunal housed in the Copyright Office itself.
Supporters of the CASE Act say it's no big deal because you can opt-out of the process if you don't like it. But the opt-out process is unclear and potentially confusing. And, of course, in doing so, you are poking the copyright holder, and potentially egging them on to file an even more disastrous federal copyright lawsuit against you. But, honestly, just the mere threat of facing $30,000 fines from this new tribunal will cause many to shut up. It will cause many to pull down speech or never make it at all, because who wants to deal with that threat?
And, as law professor Eric Goldman notes, we did all this to get a stimulus package that will give a mere $600 to individuals... but that $600 likely won't cover your CASE Act bill, and you'll need many more stimulus checks to deal with the fact that you promoted a song you liked. It's a complete travesty.
Just to put things in perspective, you're going to need 50 stimulus checks to cover the damages demanded by a copyright owner in your first CASE Act proceeding https://t.co/OjrvhmdGED
— Eric Goldman (@ericgoldman) December 22, 2020
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: 1st amendment, case act, chilling effects, copyright, covid, expression, felony streaming, speech, stimulus, tribunal
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
CASE Act unconstitutional right? Can groups like the EFF and FFTF take it down before the non-judicial tribunal is set up?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hopefully they do.
:shrug:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Tho its unlikely copyright toleration is going to change becasue its hard to see why most copyright holder would all of a sudden do this with it leading to a PR disaster.
The big fear is someone pretending to be the copyright holder and telling everyone they could owe up to $30,000
Eitherway hopefully the law is taken down fast before any true damage happens.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Same...
I doubt it would cause problems, but, same.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Unschmonstitutional
Amendment VII
“Why Summary Judgment is Unconstitutional”, by Suja A. Thomas, Virginia Law Review, 2007
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Unschmonstitutional
Really?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Unschmonstitutional
“The Unconstitutional Application of Summary Judgment in Factually Intensive Inquiries”, by Craig M. Reiser, Journal of Constitutional Law, 2009, p.11 in PDF:
(Footnotes omitted.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Unschmonstitutional
Ohh.
Being fair here, i kinda don't think it would change much, in my honest opinion.
But i see.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Unschmonstitutional
Perhaps you'd like to make a point? Throwing quotes around doesn't tell anyone what you're trying to say with them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Unschmonstitutional
I'm conversing with another commenter.
You sound like one of those Karens who oh-so strongly object to Spanish in Montana.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Unschmonstitutional
Some people don't get the message when usimg quotes on books is what he's getting at.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Unschmonstitutional
Some people just want to speak to the manager whenever they ovehear other people using a communication style that the complainer dislikes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Unschmonstitutional
You don't know what a Karen is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Unschmonstitutional
Karen is entitled to call 911 when she overhears people speaking in a style that she disapproves of.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Unschmonstitutional
Karen is a name thousands of people have that which means unless they are all villains it should not be villianized. What sort of no account low life would do that?
Can you imagine how little girls innocent of whatever crime you’re trying to convict them of feel being forced to grow up in this BS era of yours?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Unschmonstitutional
Karen, of course, cannot ever be expected to cope against stereotyping in her life.
After all, her name isn't Kashala —now that girl just has to deal. Or bleed out on grey, winter asphalt.
“The year of Karen…”, by Julia Carrie Wong, The Guardian, Dec 27, 2020
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Unschmonstitutional
There is literally nothing people named Karen can do. If they ask people to stop using their name as shorthand for a terrible person, they're "being a Karen." They must just put up with it until it goes out of fashion - not that that is the worst burden anyone is facing these days. I do feel for women of color named Karen, though, that must be especially grating.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's Constitutional.
I know for sure but won't elaborate. For a fee you can ask the question of any lawyer.
Big clue: Masnick should have explained the how long ago, but his corporatist agenda prevents it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
EASY to avoid! DO NOTHING!
First, this is yet again you fear that copyright will be enforced with practical measures, not left "a moral question" so that every Freetard and grifter can take and even "monetize" someone else's valuable products.
You do NOT "support copyright", Maz, NEVER DID. You pretended did for 20 years, now you and pirates have brought on a new "framework".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: EASY to avoid! DO NOTHING!
No reason to avoid it at all then. You can do nothing from a prison cell
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: EASY to avoid! DO NOTHING!
You mean like when that news outlet claimed ownership of a NASA feed & had it taken down?
You mean like when that record label claimed they owned a bird song, then doubled down that for sure a wild bird in a forest was their rock song?
Stupid people like to pretend that pirates are making money, they aren't.
Stupid people like to pretend that piracy is just because people are evil not because a fat lazy industry forgot they were in the business of providing content to paying customers.
Stupid people like to comment on TD and claim Mike is a pirate & loves pirates while ignoring that The Empire Strikes Back still hasn't made a penny.
If they tell us a hugely profitable film hasn't made a single cent, how can we take them seriously claiming that piracy is costing them billions and billions?
This is a gift to the copyright trolls, the number is no longer unimaginable to people accused, even less 'evidence' is required, & does nothing to solve the basic problem of charging us full price while demanding to control what we can do with what we purchased.
Also, you're whining grows boring, please find a new schtick & try to be interesting... that dead horse you keep beating is already dust.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: EASY to avoid! DO NOTHING!
NO, I mean like major motion pitchers STOLEN and illegally distributed soon as out on DVD, monetized by fat grifters like Kim Dotcom who got at least $175 million for merely hosting files that other people poured money and time into.
In other words, the daily millions of thefts YOU PIRATES are doing should be reduced.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
…people can pirate baseball players now? Huh. I guess we skipped the whole “downloading a car” step.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Damn you Stone, you stole my line. I'm going to sue you under the CASE act - you better have $30,000 ready for me!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It's in the public domain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Hey, I'm Disney. I OWN the public domain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Hahahahahaha.....HAHAHAHAHAHAHA....You Serious?
And I'm Suing You and Him
(Love these)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
(Oops, got into my Captain Capitals schitck)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"As we wrote a few years back, the only reason that copyright doesn't destroy speech is that he world has recognized a concept of copyright toleration"
It's more like the only reason copyright regime has survived at all is due to selective enforcement. This won't change. The regime can't survive if everyone suddenly gets sued for what they all know is normal behavior and realizes how bad it is, they need to pick and choose whatever best supports the agenda, this will just give them more tools to do it with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Yeah, copyright is only enforced against violators!
Listen, kid. Copyright has WIDE appeal among the populace world-wide. Everyone hopes to create and PROFIT from it. -- Copyright law is the mysterious "Step 2" (remember that site?) which Masnick puzzles on, the PRACTICAL way to reward creators.
Pirates are not to be rewarded. They're now to be haled into Administrative Court and summarily (but fairly) made to pay for what stole.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Yeah, copyright is only enforced against violators!
copyright is favoured by corporations, and in particular those belonging tos associations like the RIAA, MPAA etc. That is companies that profit by taking control over the creative works of others, and keeping as much of the Income as possible to themselves. Also, a few people think that copyright will allow the to write one song or book that will not only allow them to retire, but also keep their children in luxury for their lives.
However the Internet is home to a lot of self publishers in many fields, and these people make a living from their ability to create new works. Their creativity is what they sell, as in support me if you want me to create more works.
Consider that all musicians that have a lifetime career in music have done so via live performances, which are not dependent on copyright. That means spending a large part of their lives on the road, and performing night after night, which is hard work.
Apart from the likes J.K. Rowling of the world, the writers who have made writing a career have been prolific writers, like Arthur Clarke, or Isaac Asimov. They treated writing like a job, and that meant putting words on paper for their next check. Those with a lessor output have had to keep the day job.
Strong copyright protection only benefits corporations and lawyers, while harming real creative people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What, precisely, would someone who downloaded an NES ROM have “stolen” by doing so? (You can replace “NES ROM” with literally any other kind of digital file. The question remains the same.)
Also: How do you feel about corporations enforcing copyrights that those corporations own despite your assertion that they should have no legal rights and thus should have no right to legally enforce a property right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And one only suffers actual damage if the game corresponding to the NES ROM is available for purchase of a license at all.
Copyright law has gone far beyond providing a temporary monopoly to encourage a public good to being a permanent monopoly for private enterprise for the most part.
Good luck finding equipment or software that will play MP3s in 100 years.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No, they don’t. Downloading a ROM of Super Mario Bros. doesn’t prevent Nintendo from continuing to sell access to/copies of Super Mario Bros. to anyone. Downloading that ROM also doesn’t take money from Nintendo that they didn’t already have, since the downloader never guaranteed their money to Nintendo in any way.
Potential revenue is not actual revenue. Creating an unlawful copy of a thing is not theft. And downloading a ROM doesn’t cause any actual damage to Nintendo. Anyone who believes otherwise has been swayed by propaganda from copyright maximalists to believe even a single infringement is the same thing as stealing a car.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Well, if you magic fairy pretend that the NES ROM is somehow limited you could say they stole the NES ROM.. or if you magic fairy pretend that causing someone to lose profits is stealing you AND you magic fairy pretend that you knew profit loss was caused by the download you could say they stole the profits.
Back in reality they stole the NES rom the same way Brad Pitt stole my haircut.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It's like a Platonic NES ROM in the sky, Emanating from the One.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Yeah, copyright is only enforced against violators!
Right... yet somehow it's infringed incidentally or accidentally by a copyright lawyer 83 times per day and anyone who says they don't infringe is lying to themselves unless they don't have a phone or internet.
Universally infringed, selectively enforced. Won't change under case act.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You don't complain about MS-13 and $1800 to illegal immigrants.
Of course you don't. Inviting virus-laden furrin gang members / illegals in middle of a pandemic, importing H1B and other labor when tens of millions citizens have been needlessly forced from jobs, doesn't trouble an America-hating corporatist at all. You complain only about what supports an individual Right of citizens directly in body of the Constitution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is rather annoying to say the least, any chance that EFF and FFTF can get this CASE Act ruled unconstitutional? If not it needs to be brought to them ASAP!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I have had it up to here with this bullshit
The idea that Congress can sneak in anything unrelated to the omnibus bill without debate during a pandemic is inherently bullshit. What the yearly bill actually feels like a Trojan assault on freedom of anything online.
I am not mad about the CASE act passing. It’s still a bad idea, but the overwhelming consensus in the House proved that it’s path to law was somewhat inevitable. But I am more mad that this, the Tillis bill and that absolute territory porn ban were being passed without debate. This is becoming problematic and extremely shady. There needs to be a law that prevents bills that were not debated or not approved by judiciary bodies from being shoved into end-of-the-year legislation. It’s a pipe dream, but it would be a nice check on the Congress in rushing laws.
But the saddest thing is seeing my party, the Democratic Party, something that I’ve been apart of since registration at the end of my teenage years, not only didn’t raise an iota of a fuck in regards to these bad ideas, not only support these horrendous bills, but have the gull to make defecating on the first amendment bipartisan. Most of the Democrats in the Congress have became no better than their Republican counterparts. I’ve never felt so betrayed by my own party.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I have had it up to here with this bullshit
You've been HAD. This is the first of many betrayals. They (The Establishment that controls both parties and serves the Globalists) are going for all the marbles this time.
They say: Just shut up and take the vaccine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh good, you’ve outed yourself as an anti-Semitic anti-vaxxer.
Surprised you didn’t toss some anti-trans sentiment in there for a trifecta, Brainy. You’re losing your edge.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I have had it up to here with this bullshit
How?
You get that Congress is the body that passes laws, right?
Hint: it can repeal them, too. You can't meaningfully restrict Congress with a law that's passed by Congress. If Congress passed it, that means Congress can repeal it just as easily.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I have had it up to here with this bullshit
Exactly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I have had it up to here with this bullshit
Gee, "Thad", and others, sounds like what you want is some control over entrenched tyrants. While I don't agree on THIS topic, and especially not on the unmentioned $1800 grants to illegal immigrants which I bet you're for and most Americans are NOT, the only proven remedy to tyrants is Common Law. Learn it.
Your only hope is to stop The Rich from becoming literal Royalty again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I have had it up to here with this bullshit
Preventing a bill from becoming law isn’t what I had in mind. I’m just saying is that bills that have not gone through the lawmaking process or at least approved by a judiciary body should not be included into the omnibus bill. It’s impossible, but There has to be some level of check against that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I have had it up to here with this bullshit
Yes, it's impossible. Passing a law that will meaningfully restrict Congress is impossible, because Congress could just repeal any such law, because that's how lawmaking works.
The only way to pass a law restricting Congress that can't be repealed by Congress is through a constitutional amendment. Good luck with that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: I have had it up to here with this bullshit
The 27th Amendment:
Ratified 202 years, 7 months after submission, keep hope alive!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I have had it up to here with this bullshit
And that was just to prevent Congress from increasing its pay during the current term.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I have had it up to here with this bullshit
Can not find any info that the ban was added as a rider to the covid bill, I read that it not added.
It does not seem its being added.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I have had it up to here with this bullshit
It's not a covid bill, it's a government funding bill. The covid relief bill was also crammed into the omnibus spending bill - but then, it's about spending.
I am not sure how you are not seeing that it literally passed, never mind that it was shoved into the omnibus bill.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I have had it up to here with this bullshit
I know the copyright stuff was put in it but what about the Ban he was talking about?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: I have had it up to here with this bullshit
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/12/pornhub-squarely-targeted-in-bipartisan-bill-to-regulate -sex-work-online/
This article explains SISEA better than I could.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
'Blackmail'? Never heard of it, that some strange food?
I don't see what the problem with the bill is, I mean what could possibly go wrong by creating a single database full of the names of people who have been involved in pornographic content that needs to be easily accessible for any site to check content against, alongside multiple databases run by those sites filled with personally identifiable information regarding who's posting porn?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 'Blackmail'? Never heard of it, that some strange food?
Bruh.
Two words: Unintended Overreach. My problem with this bill is that it isn’t just against porn, but it’s an indirect attack on the freedom of expression and privacy. What happens when content that isn’t porn but has nudity or adult themes? That content could end up being swept into the deluge. The bill isn’t just asking for a database, but also upload filters to delete erotic videos, pictures, even fictional drawings, unless the actors taking part has written evidence of consent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 'Blackmail'? Never heard of it, that some strange food?
Oh it's a terrible bill top to bottom to be sure, put together by someone absolutely terrified of the naked body and/or pandering to those that are and who doesn't care what damage they might cause in the process.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 'Blackmail'? Never heard of it, that some strange food?
It part of the effort of the US government to out China China when it comes to deciding what is acceptable for public consumption. They are enabling censorship in the name of protecting copyright, the children, women or whatever else they can use as an excuse for more censorship.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I have had it up to here with this bullshit
https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/5054?r=4&s=3
So far, according to the website, SISEA has been introduced, read twice, and has been referred to a committee for analysis and have not been introduced in congress. Last action was Dec. 17th, six days ago. This could mean one of two possibilities:
The page hasn't been updated and the bill somehow was able to be sneak into the omnibus bill. Or:
I'd like to believe the second route because there could be a chance to stop SISEA in its tracks. Also after all the heavy news of the CASE act passing and the Copyright wet dream reform, I REALLY want to be optimistic about something.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
OOOH, getting FAST on the CENSORING!
Here it is again:
EASY to avoid! DO NOTHING!
First, this is yet again you fear that copyright will be enforced with practical measures, not left "a moral question" so that every Freetard and grifter can take and even "monetize" someone else's valuable products.
You do NOT "support copyright", Maz, NEVER DID. You pretended did for 20 years, now you and pirates have brought on a new "framework".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: OOOH, getting FAST on the CENSORING!
(Less than tive minutes, just made a couple comments in other topics, and found these censored! Way to go, "Free Speech" Techdirt! -- Your action mainly serves to keep reasonable people from commenting here.)
You don't complain about MS-13 and $1800 to illegal immigrants.
Of course you don't. Inviting virus-laden furrin gang members / illegals in middle of a pandemic, importing H1B and other labor when tens of millions citizens have been needlessly forced from jobs, doesn't trouble an America-hating corporatist at all. You complain only about what supports an individual Right of citizens directly in body of the Constitution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: OOOH, getting FAST on the CENSORING!
That's not even related to this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: OOOH, getting FAST on the CENSORING!
Questioned by AC who apparently doesn't know that's in the bill too, SO relevant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: OOOH, getting FAST on the CENSORING!
We're talking Tech, not MS-13.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: OOOH, getting FAST on the CENSORING!
Allowing in MS-13 gang members -- with some loony "liberal" notion of rescuing them -- and $1800 grants to illegal immigrants is IN the bill. You and Masnick aren't complaining of that because suits your agenda, even though passed the same horrible way. Period.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Grammar Correction
"You and Masnick aren't complaining of that because suits your agenda, even though passed the same horrible way. Period."
You forgot to put "it" in your sentence. So i fixed for ya.
"You and Masnick aren't complaining of that because it suits your agenda, even though passed the same horrible way. Period."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: OOOH, getting FAST on the CENSORING!
Also, you should take that topic to a different site.
This is Techdirt, not PoliticDirt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Please cite the exact part of the stimulus bill that contains this language. It must say what you say it does — that the bill will not only allow MS-13 gang members to legally immigrate into the United States, but also gives to illegal immigrants three times the amount of money being sent to legal citizens who qualify for the second stimulus check.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: OOOH, getting FAST on the CENSORING!
Quit your damn spamming.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: OOOH, getting FAST on the CENSORING!
First, my comments are on-topic and civil, NOT spam as you LIE.
Second, quit your damn censoring. Any idea that goes against the amazing piratey / leftist / corporatist agenda you kids parrot is automatically censored here, because your notions can't stand ANY dissent.
(Sounds like A. Stephen Stone, again too chicken to use account.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: OOOH, getting FAST on the CENSORING!
(Sounds like A. Stephen Stone, again too chicken to use account.)
I know they're on topic, but you keep spamming, there's a good reason why you get censored.
Secondly, I'm not stephen a stone. I'm just a random person.
Thirdly, maybe if you stopped S-P-A-M-M-I-N-G, maybe you wouldn't be C-E-N-S-O-R-E-D.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And no, i'm pretty sure Stephen would comment on this.
He's no chicken.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oh, so you know A. Stephen Stone personally?
Surely all you've seen of him is his keyboard commando spewing here, right? And from that you form a solid opinion of his bravery, while also certain that I'm just simply evil?
And while railing at spamming, YOU ARE OFF-TOPIC! Your comments here are indistinguishable from spam, then, ever think of that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Idiot.
:Eye Roll:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: OOOH, getting FAST on the CENSORING!
Well, at least you admit it's censoring! More honest than Maz and other fanboys, so THANKS!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm no fanboy.
I'm just a regular person.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Proving that "regular persons" find it CENSORING!
Again, THANKS for helping me. -- You might want to stop, and get on-topic...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If it's any consolation though.
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20201221/23140845932/youll-need-fifty-stimulus-checks-to-pay-damag es-you-might-get-hit-with-under-case-act.shtml#c336
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: OOOH, getting FAST on the CENSORING!
You know, when a house guest starts ranting at the dinner table and is told to leave, he isn't being censored, he's being shown that he's a jackass.
There's an analogy in that for you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: OOOH, getting FAST on the CENSORING!
Yup.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: OOOH, getting FAST on the CENSORING!
Indeed. His posts are only being hidden, which can be easily unhidden by anyone who wants to read his unhinged rantings.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: OOOH, getting FAST on the CENSOR
Which is good, because one sample is more than enough. There's already too much in the necessarily quoted material when people respond. Seems like win-win to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Or strip out and replace, like this
Now if only people would strip out the garbage comment headers in Woody's comments so those aren't being repeated constantly...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Or strip out and replace, like this
That works for me. I'll start doing so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: OOOH, getting FAST on the CENSORING!
Actually, he's being moderated, not censored. If he were being censored, he would be allowed to shitpost anywhere on the internet.
He's only being moderated here because he's an asshole, and TD readers have only a certain amount of tolerance for assholeness.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: OOOH, getting FAST on the CENSORING!
Oh.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You’ve admitted in the past that you submit your comments multiple times for the sake of getting at least one past the spamfilter. You’ve recently taken to spamming multiple replies to yourself after one comment gets through. The spamfilter catches your posts for a reason — and it’s not “viewpoint discrimination”.
You know, not commenting here won’t kill you. It might even help you get your obvious mental illness(es) under control. Let go of your hateful obsession, Brainy — if for no reason other than to heal yourself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Got that right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I kinda wish it did. Far less deserving people have passed in their sleep.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: OOOH, getting FAST on the CENSORING!
[Asserts facts never in evidence]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not just never in evidence but directly contradicted by the evidence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: OOOH, getting FAST on the CENSORING!
So, include 10 seconds of some work whose copyright is held by a corporation, and the creator gets landed with a large bill, or an even larger bill to prove fair use. Bills like this are destructive of creative expression by making publishing risky, especially in areas like music where similarity between works perfectly normal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is it possible for a human with excellent speed reading skills to read the entire bill within the allotted time before voting commences?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Some.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Five thousand pages in the course of a day? Not a chance, even if someone was fast enough to read everything there's no chance in hell it would be enough time to actually comprehend even a fraction of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Unless you are super intelligent or read it before.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Being fair here...
https://archive.is/Unele
"Under the CASE Act, respondents are made aware of their right to opt out and given numerous opportunities to do so. First, they are served notice, in compliance with the requirements under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. They are no more likely to ignore this notice then if the notice were for a federal court proceeding. In fact, they are less likely to ignore the notice because it will include a prominent statement about their right to opt out and the consequences of not opting out. In addition, the CASE Act also gives respondents about triple the amount of time to respond (60 days) than in federal court, and the Copyright Claims Board itself sends a follow up notification about the pending case and the consequences of not opting out."
https://archive.is/Y4del
"If you get a DMCA takedown, chances are you're not going to jail."
I kinda doubt it, but if you disagree, i respect your opinion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Being fair here...
*"As much as this sounds likly. YT & Twitch will suffer 0 ill effect from this bill. Alot of individuals WILL go under a bus for minor infractions as an example needs to be made. Make NO mistake Google and Amazon are behind this more than you know"
-BrightBulb Photography
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lEGcL8Y1vqg*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Being fair here...
At least the lawyers at Google, Amazon, Microsoft et al.
I was tweeting with a lawyer that was all happy for this law because it gives him a way to go after "infringers of IP" that use counter-notices. He wants a way to force YT and Twitter to ban these people as "bad actors". No way this is going to be abused by big companies and trolls.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Being fair here...
And Twitch.
But what about the others that aren't owned by the ones described?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
'Here's $600, and there's a lawsuit for $30,000...'
Because if one thing needed to be made easier when money is tight and some people are depending on government assistance to be able to eat and not be homeless it's being able to be sued for actions with no demonstrable harm, brilliant.
Nothing says 'I absolutely cannot defend this bill honestly' like slipping it into a completely unrelated must-pass bill, and every politician who made use of such a sleazy tactic deserves not praise but to be called out as the dishonest person they have shown themselves to be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 'Here's $600, and there's a lawsuit for $30,000...'
Fun Fact: Ron Wyden didn't know the case act was in the bill until he voted for it.
Shocking.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 'Here's $600, and there's a lawsuit for $30,000...'
In which case his guilt may not be as bad as those who slipped unrelated bills into the must-pass one but he still screwed up and deserves to be called on it. If you don't know what's in the bill before you then you have no business voting on it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: 'Here's $600, and there's a lawsuit for $30,000...'
When has that ever stopped Congress. They drop a 3000+ page bill on the congress-people's desk, often with hand-scrawled notes, give them a very short (purposefully too short) window for them to read it, and then they force the vote. Its strategic ass-hattery by those in power.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 'Here's $600, and there's a lawsuit for $30,000...'
https://twitter.com/i/events/1339940506109763586
Trump wants to amend it by raising the checks to $2000.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 'Here's $600, and there's a lawsuit for $30,000...'
I think he is tossing crap in the gears.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: 'Here's $600, and there's a lawsuit for $30,000...'
At least he's delaying it.
Double-edged sword, though, cause with people losing their homes and a shutdown coming, this may be a problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 'Here's $600, and there's a lawsuit for $30,000...'
Sounds like desperation to get some positive PR on his side for once, and given it's all other people's money it's free for him so win-win.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
CAN we?
decide how much to pay these idiots?
Its our money, we should know what we WANT to do with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
https://www.change.org/p/jeff-merkley-stop-sisea-stop-internet-exploitation-act-from-passing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]