Um, pretty much every nation on earth has laws protecting intellectual property.
Bolivia doesn't. It's doing pretty damn well for itself. Also, the rest of your argument hinges on a misnomer. People have been trying for a while to change the law.
If you want to change the law, then by all means work to that end.
It's rather hard to change a law that no one respects. Case in point, the DMCA exceptions is done every year and the EFF can't change the most egregious examples.
Until then, just accept that yours is the minority view.
Wow, Nixon has risen from the dead to talk for the silent majority. You can look at all of the evidence of people opposed to SOPA and say, with a straight face, that they are a minority?
You claim to speak for film makers, publishers, gamers or the other groups where their "minority" view is that they all oppose this attack on the internet?
But you won't see me whining about them and breaking them like I'm above it all.
No, you just throw out ad hominem attacks at people when you don't agree. What else is new?
My "beef" is in your ignorance hiding in indoctrination. I'm to believe that a corporation has more rights than the people it's supposed to represent? The only "rights holders" complaining about piracy in the negative are those that want control of the internet. The ones using technology for advancing the arts, by speaking up about a movie, by showing a song on a blog, by communicating and showing a game on youtube are doing far more through fair use than enforcement will ever do. Maybe one day, you could actually see the problems of copyright law. However, it remains evident that so long as your career hinges on benefitting from bad (hint: censorship) laws, you'll ignore this detail.
Joe, I may disagree with your position. I might not like someone who supports copyright law to abuse it for monetary gain. But when you sit here to say that procedures are more important than certain inalienable rights, that is where I draw the line.
You have no idea what piracy represents. You haven't a clue why people might pirate. You have nothing in regards to a clue about how sopa is damaging to freedoms that people hold dear. You are a morally bankrupt person looking to use copyright as a get rich quick scheme.
That is the most deplorable thing anyone could advocate. Chris Dodd does it for a million a year. Yet, you do it for free. What is your excuse, other than a statutory right, in advocating censorship and going against the Constitution you swore to uphold?
I sincerely hope your reading comprehension improves when Chris Dodd first protected Google for making a principled statement about censorship in China, then criticizes them for not blocking four years later.
I think it does. When you look at all of the support against the bills, it is all negative. Look at opencongress, popvox, or Creative America vs Americancensorship.org mailing lists. No, the survey by itself doesn't say much. But given all of the outright disdain for the bills, it's pretty telling in how no one supports it but a select few.
Small note, George Ou is heavy on rhetorical writing. Less so on details. He doesn't explain how this is not fracturing the internet, mainly that he disagrees with the 83 other engineers who say this will break the internet.
I'd like both parties to have a fair trial. It's rather difficult to do so when they are to defend a domain seizure from another country. Somehow believing a site outside the US is costing a company money is rather misleading as well. But that's another argument for another time.
Those inside the US are already bullied by the ICE seizure process which is erroneous and woefully ineffective.
Now you have SOPA to contend with as an outside "rogue website" which makes no sense.
Judging from my own experiences in reading up on the process, there have been a number of problems with copyright enforcement and government intervention. It's quite difficult to support a process that does not allow the accused equal attention under the law.
Business week has a good take on this. While AT&T thought this would be business as usual, the fact is they raise a lot of alarm bells.
AT&T used the jobs line.
AT&T used blurred math to support the merger.
AT&T used lobbying companies from every part of the US, who didn't see a point in supporting AT&T except for dollar signs.
Wow, because a one sided hearing that the defendant doesn't know anything about is really going through the court system.
(2) IN REM- If through due diligence the Attorney General is unable to find a person described in subparagraphs (A) or (B) of paragraph (1), or no such person found has an address within a judicial district of the United States, the Attorney General may commence an in rem action against a nondomestic domain name used by an Internet site dedicated to infringing activities.
So if they can't find someone they follow Rule 65 for an injunction. What's amazing is how one sided the rule is:
(1) Issuing Without Notice. The court may issue a temporary restraining order without written or oral notice to the adverse party or its attorney only if:
(A) specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint clearly show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant before the adverse party can be heard in opposition; and
(B) the movant's attorney certifies in writing any efforts made to give notice and the reasons why it should not be required.
(2) Contents; Expiration. Every temporary restraining order issued without notice must state the date and hour it was issued; describe the injury and state why it is irreparable; state why the order was issued without notice; and be promptly filed in the clerk's office and entered in the record. The order expires at the time after entry—not to exceed 14 days—that the court sets, unless before that time the court, for good cause, extends it for a like period or the adverse party consents to a longer extension. The reasons for an extension must be entered in the record.
But if you want to try to challenge when this occurs:
(4) Motion to Dissolve. On 2 days’ notice to the party who obtained the order without notice—or on shorter notice set by the court—the adverse party may appear and move to dissolve or modify the order. The court must then hear and decide the motion as promptly as justice requires.
And here are the problems with the AG using the notice:
1) There is no verification of receiving a notice for the adverse party. Does the AG use email? Snail mail? Do they do a press release (as ICE does now) to show the time of the court hearing?
2) The dajaz1 issue exposes the problem with this procedure. You can file all information about a quick dissolution, but the government can stall with secret court orders.
3) In no way is this proportionate to the defendant. As evidenced elsewhere, the problem of not being heard in one sided hearings can cause a problem with of harming innocent people.
------------------------------------------
For the most part, there is limited contact with the judiciary court. They seem to be there to rubber stamp the process without a clear indication of what's actually going on. I have to wonder how much forum shopping occurs for the AG to find a court favorable to their process.
Why have our congress critters not realized how much this bill will blow up in their faces? When the s___ hits the fan, the least you could do is move out the way, not put the fan on maximum and drag everyone in front of it.
On the post: Top Photographer On Why He Doesn't Care If His Stuff Is Pirated
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Top Photographer On Why He Doesn't Care If His Stuff Is Pirated
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Bolivia doesn't. It's doing pretty damn well for itself. Also, the rest of your argument hinges on a misnomer. People have been trying for a while to change the law.
If you want to change the law, then by all means work to that end.
It's rather hard to change a law that no one respects. Case in point, the DMCA exceptions is done every year and the EFF can't change the most egregious examples.
Until then, just accept that yours is the minority view.
Wow, Nixon has risen from the dead to talk for the silent majority. You can look at all of the evidence of people opposed to SOPA and say, with a straight face, that they are a minority?
You claim to speak for film makers, publishers, gamers or the other groups where their "minority" view is that they all oppose this attack on the internet?
But you won't see me whining about them and breaking them like I'm above it all.
No, you just throw out ad hominem attacks at people when you don't agree. What else is new?
On the post: SOPA Is So Bad, Political Cartoonist Comes Out Of Retirement To Create New Comics Warning About It
New Year's Resolution
On the post: SOPA Is So Bad, Political Cartoonist Comes Out Of Retirement To Create New Comics Warning About It
New Year's Resolution
On the post: The List Of Internet Censoring Countries The MPAA Thinks Provide A Good Example For The US
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: The List Of Internet Censoring Countries The MPAA Thinks Provide A Good Example For The US
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You have no idea what piracy represents. You haven't a clue why people might pirate. You have nothing in regards to a clue about how sopa is damaging to freedoms that people hold dear. You are a morally bankrupt person looking to use copyright as a get rich quick scheme.
That is the most deplorable thing anyone could advocate. Chris Dodd does it for a million a year. Yet, you do it for free. What is your excuse, other than a statutory right, in advocating censorship and going against the Constitution you swore to uphold?
On the post: The List Of Internet Censoring Countries The MPAA Thinks Provide A Good Example For The US
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Poll Suggests Americans Of All Ages, Political Positions, Locations... All Hate SOPA
Re:
On the post: Senator Harry Reid Moves To Approve PROTECT IP And Begin Censoring The Internet
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: letter to Reps
On the post: Senator Harry Reid Moves To Approve PROTECT IP And Begin Censoring The Internet
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: letter to Reps
Decisions, decisions...
On the post: Surprise! AT&T Admits Defeat, Withdraws T-Mobile Takeover Attempt, Pays $4 Billion Breakup Fee
Re: Someone is Getting Rich
On the post: Cable News Finally Realizing That SOPA And PROTECT IP Are Bad News
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Those inside the US are already bullied by the ICE seizure process which is erroneous and woefully ineffective.
Now you have SOPA to contend with as an outside "rogue website" which makes no sense.
Judging from my own experiences in reading up on the process, there have been a number of problems with copyright enforcement and government intervention. It's quite difficult to support a process that does not allow the accused equal attention under the law.
On the post: Surprise! AT&T Admits Defeat, Withdraws T-Mobile Takeover Attempt, Pays $4 Billion Breakup Fee
Another view
AT&T used the jobs line.
AT&T used blurred math to support the merger.
AT&T used lobbying companies from every part of the US, who didn't see a point in supporting AT&T except for dollar signs.
Let's face it, AT&T was their own worst enemy.
On the post: Cable News Finally Realizing That SOPA And PROTECT IP Are Bad News
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
(2) IN REM- If through due diligence the Attorney General is unable to find a person described in subparagraphs (A) or (B) of paragraph (1), or no such person found has an address within a judicial district of the United States, the Attorney General may commence an in rem action against a nondomestic domain name used by an Internet site dedicated to infringing activities.
So if they can't find someone they follow Rule 65 for an injunction. What's amazing is how one sided the rule is:
(1) Issuing Without Notice. The court may issue a temporary restraining order without written or oral notice to the adverse party or its attorney only if:
(A) specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint clearly show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant before the adverse party can be heard in opposition; and
(B) the movant's attorney certifies in writing any efforts made to give notice and the reasons why it should not be required.
(2) Contents; Expiration. Every temporary restraining order issued without notice must state the date and hour it was issued; describe the injury and state why it is irreparable; state why the order was issued without notice; and be promptly filed in the clerk's office and entered in the record. The order expires at the time after entry—not to exceed 14 days—that the court sets, unless before that time the court, for good cause, extends it for a like period or the adverse party consents to a longer extension. The reasons for an extension must be entered in the record.
But if you want to try to challenge when this occurs:
(4) Motion to Dissolve. On 2 days’ notice to the party who obtained the order without notice—or on shorter notice set by the court—the adverse party may appear and move to dissolve or modify the order. The court must then hear and decide the motion as promptly as justice requires.
And here are the problems with the AG using the notice:
1) There is no verification of receiving a notice for the adverse party. Does the AG use email? Snail mail? Do they do a press release (as ICE does now) to show the time of the court hearing?
2) The dajaz1 issue exposes the problem with this procedure. You can file all information about a quick dissolution, but the government can stall with secret court orders.
3) In no way is this proportionate to the defendant. As evidenced elsewhere, the problem of not being heard in one sided hearings can cause a problem with of harming innocent people.
------------------------------------------
For the most part, there is limited contact with the judiciary court. They seem to be there to rubber stamp the process without a clear indication of what's actually going on. I have to wonder how much forum shopping occurs for the AG to find a court favorable to their process.
On the post: Poll Suggests Americans Of All Ages, Political Positions, Locations... All Hate SOPA
Re: Re:
On the post: Poll Suggests Americans Of All Ages, Political Positions, Locations... All Hate SOPA
Re: Re:
On the post: Poll Suggests Americans Of All Ages, Political Positions, Locations... All Hate SOPA
Amazing...
On the post: Cable News Finally Realizing That SOPA And PROTECT IP Are Bad News
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Senator Harry Reid Moves To Approve PROTECT IP And Begin Censoring The Internet
Re:
On the post: Senator Harry Reid Moves To Approve PROTECT IP And Begin Censoring The Internet
Re: ...
Next >>