I actually agree with the idea here, perhaps not the details, but as corporations are currently immortal "people" with extra-legal rights that citizens do not enjoy, I do feel that after a certain point--whether it's time or better: company size--corporations should be broken up to prevent stagnant monoliths from growing in our economy.
I don't really find your perceptions of Mike to be relevant to the idea you put forth though, seems like you're always QUITE reactionary to many things Mike says. :P
PROTECT IP & SOPA will not stop counterfeit goods from entering the military's supply chain. The idea that enhanced sentencing will deter counterfeiters is a false hope. Stopping crime starts with looking at the problems that cause crime to become an incentive and addressing those things first. No criminal in the history of humanity has said "oh, the penalty for doing this crime is virtually nothing, so that's a reason to do it!"
It should be obvious that I'm not advocating for minimal or no penalties, but the existing penalties for counterfeiting are a fee up to $15,000,000 and/or up to 20 years imprisonment. It's can be life imprisonment if your counterfeit product causes another's death. At this point increasing the penalty for counterfeiting is a very poor return on investment. Criminal counterfeiters either don't know or don't care what the penalties are. If they are making money then they will continue to counterfeit goods. period.
The legislation that stops counterfeiting will be the legislation that destroys counterfeiters' ability to make money, end of story.
As I stated above: the first sign of a weak or faulty argument is name calling. It provides a literally negative value to the discussion as anyone who might have been on the fence and listened to what you had to say will now be deafened to your arguments. Knock it off, and leave your "FUDboy"s at home.
So, here's the sentencing guidelines that would be enhanced by SOPA. The penalties range from up to $2,000,000 and/or 10 years imprisonment to $15,000,000 and/or 20 years imprisonment just for being involved in counterfeiting goods. If you bring causing death into the equation, the penalties jump to a fine as stated above and life imprisonment.
I suppose that because there are no minimum penalties outlined a counterfeiter could in theory cause someone's death, get caught, and get away with a slap on the wrist. If you can provide some cases where this actually happened, I'd love to see them.
As it is, increasing the penalties for a crime is the weakest method of reducing crime. If there's already enough incentive to commit the crime of counterfeiting when you could be fined $15,000,000 and go to jail for 20 years then increasing these penalties is won't stop criminals from counterfeiting. The risk of getting caught is simply comes with the territory.
Anyone who is really genuinely interested in reducing harmful counterfeiting will be looking at ways that reduce the incentive to counterfeit in the first place, rather than dealing with the problem after it has already occurred as that's all a penalty increase will do.
You know the number one indicator when someone has a weak or faulty argument? When gems like "douchenozzle" are thrown down onto the discussion floor. You're doing yourself a disservice by name calling.
Maybe I wasn't fully clear above. I'm not talking about military contractors who purposefully or intentionally sell counterfeit goods to the military. I'm talking about contractors who get counterfeit goods/components somewhere in their supply chain unwittingly--usually due to someone in the supply chain cutting corners by not verifying a supplier 100%--and unintentionally selling a product to the military that is in whole or in part counterfeit. I did read the section of the bill you referenced, but I'm not seeing how it would stop this scenario from occurring.
It's actually happened before. It's pertinent to this topic to note that counterfeit military equipment that has ended up in the hands of the U.S. military went through channels that would be utterly unaffected by SOPA.
The easiest way to explain it is that on occasion contractors working for the military cut corners, buy from unverified sources, and those counterfeit components/equipment ends up in the product that they deliver to the military as a part of their contract. The military isn't expecting a contractor they hired to act in such a way, so the problem can go undetected for awhile.
Just to repeat the earlier point, though: this problem has nothing to do with the online world and SOPA is useless to combat it.
Louisiana isn't that big; I imagine that goods with enough value will start flowing into neighboring states when citizens and criminals start realizing it's probably easier to just take a road trip to pawn off their valuables.
Maybe in their infinite wisdom the LA state legislature will ban vehicles going over the state border without a manifest of their contents cleared with law enforcement?
Those with a conspiratorial bent might think that this is a neat way for the major labels, like Universal Music to simply claim the rights to any indie artist's music. Just keep making the claim, and leave it to the artist to sort it out by working through SoundExchange's bureaucracy. I certainly doubt that's truly the case.
I agree that the problem is more likely Universal Music's monolithic bureaucracy, it's interesting to note that the "count on the average person to either be stymied or too confused by the bureaucracy to deal with claims against them, false or otherwise" tactic is common to many companies and scamming outfits.
I agree that it's essentially a non-starter for today's average computer user. What about the generations of kids who are growing up with computers?
I have a beef with this sentence: "Plus I have to wonder: If you are willing to give over your internet security to people you don't know just to be able to keep getting infringing content, what else would you do for it?"
This isn't about being able to get access to infringing content. Honestly seizing domain names to stop access to infringing content is about as effective as trying to put out a house fire with a toy water gun. This is about large corporate entities who support domain name seizure aiming their cross hairs on legitimate sites (Monster Cable claiming Sears, Costco, Ebay as 'rogue' sites? Universal Music listing 50 Cent's own site as a 'rogue' site?).
If you or anyone else wants to claim that this is all about limiting access to infringing content and ignore that these corporate giants are adding a dash of personal vendetta to their 'rogue' site lists (and you're living in fantasy if you think these lists are not going directly to the desks over at the DOJ) then you're not quite on the same wavelength that reality is on.
Here's the thing: chances are she probably doesn't even believe what she's saying or really gives a damn about whether the trailer accurately represents the contents of the movie. Ultimately it's all about the money.
If you haven't read the details of modern class action lawsuits here's the bottom line: some group of lawyers makes bank (several million), a single individual who "represents" the class gets some money (a few thousand to tens of thousands), and the class itself gets some BS that's not even worth real money (voucher for services worth less than $100 each).
Now I can only speak for myself here, but Mike looks a very far cry from "chubby". I wonder what your point of reference is. One might even consider your point of view "disgusting and scary". Food for thought, eh?
And guess how popular this show is going to get now that a lot more people are hearing about it? I'm betting the male audience for this format will likely rise.
Closer to home is the fact that this will contribute to the seemingly endless rise of healthcare costs in the US. It's really off base from all of Obama's promises on healthcare reform when he was running for President.
That's some honest to goodness conspiracy theorizin' right there.
So if I understand the website at that link correctly: all imagery of lit torches belongs to and is the work of the Illuminati, and all entities/places that use variants of the word "columbus" (Columbine, Columbia... Columbo?!) in their name are puppets of the Illuminati?
I... I think I'm gonna have to sit down.
(Damn it, Columbo, I trusted you!)
On the post: Cisco Calls Out HP For Suing Former Employees Who Leave HP To Work For Cisco
Re: oh Cisco the White Knight coming to save the day, BS
On the post: Cisco Calls Out HP For Suing Former Employees Who Leave HP To Work For Cisco
Re: Mystified Mike, doesn't actually know anything practical.
I don't really find your perceptions of Mike to be relevant to the idea you put forth though, seems like you're always QUITE reactionary to many things Mike says. :P
On the post: Senators Rand Paul, Jerry Moran And Maria Cantwell All Warn That PROTECT IP Will Kill Jobs
Re: "undermining our nation's national security"
It should be obvious that I'm not advocating for minimal or no penalties, but the existing penalties for counterfeiting are a fee up to $15,000,000 and/or up to 20 years imprisonment. It's can be life imprisonment if your counterfeit product causes another's death. At this point increasing the penalty for counterfeiting is a very poor return on investment. Criminal counterfeiters either don't know or don't care what the penalties are. If they are making money then they will continue to counterfeit goods. period.
The legislation that stops counterfeiting will be the legislation that destroys counterfeiters' ability to make money, end of story.
On the post: SOPA Sponsors: Pass SOPA To Protect The Troops; Everyone Else: WTF?
Re:
So, here's the sentencing guidelines that would be enhanced by SOPA. The penalties range from up to $2,000,000 and/or 10 years imprisonment to $15,000,000 and/or 20 years imprisonment just for being involved in counterfeiting goods. If you bring causing death into the equation, the penalties jump to a fine as stated above and life imprisonment.
I suppose that because there are no minimum penalties outlined a counterfeiter could in theory cause someone's death, get caught, and get away with a slap on the wrist. If you can provide some cases where this actually happened, I'd love to see them.
As it is, increasing the penalties for a crime is the weakest method of reducing crime. If there's already enough incentive to commit the crime of counterfeiting when you could be fined $15,000,000 and go to jail for 20 years then increasing these penalties is won't stop criminals from counterfeiting. The risk of getting caught is simply comes with the territory.
Anyone who is really genuinely interested in reducing harmful counterfeiting will be looking at ways that reduce the incentive to counterfeit in the first place, rather than dealing with the problem after it has already occurred as that's all a penalty increase will do.
On the post: SOPA Sponsors: Pass SOPA To Protect The Troops; Everyone Else: WTF?
Re: Re: Re:
Maybe I wasn't fully clear above. I'm not talking about military contractors who purposefully or intentionally sell counterfeit goods to the military. I'm talking about contractors who get counterfeit goods/components somewhere in their supply chain unwittingly--usually due to someone in the supply chain cutting corners by not verifying a supplier 100%--and unintentionally selling a product to the military that is in whole or in part counterfeit. I did read the section of the bill you referenced, but I'm not seeing how it would stop this scenario from occurring.
On the post: SOPA Sponsors: Pass SOPA To Protect The Troops; Everyone Else: WTF?
Re:
The easiest way to explain it is that on occasion contractors working for the military cut corners, buy from unverified sources, and those counterfeit components/equipment ends up in the product that they deliver to the military as a part of their contract. The military isn't expecting a contractor they hired to act in such a way, so the problem can go undetected for awhile.
Just to repeat the earlier point, though: this problem has nothing to do with the online world and SOPA is useless to combat it.
On the post: China: Great Firewall Isn't Censorship, It's Safeguarding The Public
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Louisiana Makes It Illegal To Use Cash For Secondhand Sales
Maybe in their infinite wisdom the LA state legislature will ban vehicles going over the state border without a manifest of their contents cleared with law enforcement?
On the post: Universal Music Keeps Trying To Claim Zoe Keating's Royalty Checks, Despite Having Nothing To Do With Her
I agree that the problem is more likely Universal Music's monolithic bureaucracy, it's interesting to note that the "count on the average person to either be stymied or too confused by the bureaucracy to deal with claims against them, false or otherwise" tactic is common to many companies and scamming outfits.
On the post: As Expected, Alternative DNS Systems Sprouting Up To Ignore US Censorship
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I have a beef with this sentence: "Plus I have to wonder: If you are willing to give over your internet security to people you don't know just to be able to keep getting infringing content, what else would you do for it?"
This isn't about being able to get access to infringing content. Honestly seizing domain names to stop access to infringing content is about as effective as trying to put out a house fire with a toy water gun. This is about large corporate entities who support domain name seizure aiming their cross hairs on legitimate sites (Monster Cable claiming Sears, Costco, Ebay as 'rogue' sites? Universal Music listing 50 Cent's own site as a 'rogue' site?).
If you or anyone else wants to claim that this is all about limiting access to infringing content and ignore that these corporate giants are adding a dash of personal vendetta to their 'rogue' site lists (and you're living in fantasy if you think these lists are not going directly to the desks over at the DOJ) then you're not quite on the same wavelength that reality is on.
On the post: Woman Sues Over Misleading Movie Trailer; Wants To Make It A Class Action
If you haven't read the details of modern class action lawsuits here's the bottom line: some group of lawyers makes bank (several million), a single individual who "represents" the class gets some money (a few thousand to tens of thousands), and the class itself gets some BS that's not even worth real money (voucher for services worth less than $100 each).
Guess who this lady is in that setup?
On the post: NYTimes Sues The Federal Government For Refusing To Reveal Its Secret Interpretation Of The PATRIOT Act
Re:
On the post: Phony Bologna: More Evidence Of Indiscriminate Pepper Spraying, As Police Defend Actions
Re:
For reference, here's a photo and video footage of Mr. Masnick.
Now I can only speak for myself here, but Mike looks a very far cry from "chubby". I wonder what your point of reference is. One might even consider your point of view "disgusting and scary". Food for thought, eh?
On the post: Bethesda Turns Down Quake Fight Over Scrolls Name; Takes Guaranteed Loss By Going To Court
Re: Re:
On the post: UK Guy Trademarks Famous Gov't Slogan, Goes After Others For Using It
Re: Re:
On the post: Size Doesn't Matter: The Question Is Whether Google Hurts Consumers
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Did you learn nothing from the Robber Baron era, Mike?
On the post: BBC Thinks Only It Can Have TV Shows About People Dancing; Sues Berlusconi For 'Porn' Version
On the post: Obama Administration Trying To Move Away From Allowing Countries To Ignore Patents To Save Lives
Not shocking, just disappointing.
On the post: Citizen Recording Of Police Proves Officer Lied About Arrest
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Criticize The Better Business Bureau... And They'll Pull Your Accreditation
Re: Part of the Club
So if I understand the website at that link correctly: all imagery of lit torches belongs to and is the work of the Illuminati, and all entities/places that use variants of the word "columbus" (Columbine, Columbia... Columbo?!) in their name are puppets of the Illuminati?
I... I think I'm gonna have to sit down.
(Damn it, Columbo, I trusted you!)
Next >>