Corporate supporters of Senate 968 (PIPA) and HR 3261 (SOPA) demand the ability to take down any web site (including craigslist, Wikipedia, or Google) that hurts their profits -- without prior judicial oversight or due process -- in the name of combating "online piracy."

Paul from what I understand, this law is to powerful. Someone can file a complaint, and get a site taken down. This would be done without any legal courts or verrification.
Sure, the person filing the complaint can get in trouble, but what about all the days of missed revenue when the site was down.
Go read what Craigs List has to say about Monster Cables.

Don't believe it? Monster Cable has labeled craigslist a "rogue site," earmarked for blacklisting and full-takedown under PIPA -- resale of stereo cables by CL users reduces Monster 's new cable sales

Look out garage sales -- I have cables for sale.

1) there is no due process
2) it breaks DNS
3) it opens the door for the government to turn off access to any sites it sees fit
4) it is, as the oatmeal says, using a flamethrower to kill some kittens
5) it won't work, see the satellite internet scheme
6) it is MPAA and RIAA lobbyists trying to turn back time
7) it will not make the blindest bit of difference to revenue
9) what happened to 8)?
8) ah here it is

HTH

Love

Damian

I hope someone can put you and I right on this point. I read the act and this is a paste and copy of what part of it says. Regarding taking down sites. I put my reading of it in red.

So Monster Cables, doesn't like CS legally reselling second hand cables and attacks it. That breaks so many US corporate laws the court case will be a dandy.

I read so many scare stories, most of them untrue, that when I go read the law, I wonder how they figured it out. Probably copied it from Torrent Freak.

Yes the law needs to be carefully examined in the process of getting it passed. Safeguards need to be put in. IMO it should not exclude US owned sites. They should be as subject to their own laws as others are. At present Manwin are in the clear, as is CL I believe. I'm sure there are other piracy sites owned by US companies. That might be the loop hole, open a US corp and it's plain sailing. Until a US company sues.

As the CEO of Wikipedia said follow the money. Make a CC processing site liable to damages and funding takes a hit. Go after advertisers and it could be a fatal blow for most of them.

Piracy used to be a cottage industry, not it's major business. It will be stopped.

you need to brush up on the law. the dns provision has been dropped.

That they have he is right

If you think sensibly and ask yourself "Should the Internet be censored?" There really is only one answer. Yes.

It's something that allows anyone to put up anything on. Not just information but libel, incitement to violence, hate, prejudice and lies, kids can beat tramps and sell membership to the content, or beat up fellow kids and pt it on Youtube. And this is just part of it. 15 year old's can have sex and put it online, one adult can put a movie online he secretly took of a lover, not touching the pictures of underage kids nude or unsuspecting adults seeing their pictures they they thought were private come into the public domain.

And if I need to repeat all the illegal stuff that could be flooding the Internet with no censorship, I would be hear all night.

Just a very tiny proportion of this type of content that some want legalised, gets into offline publications and the publishers get found and hit hard usually. A non censored Internet is a crazy idea. If you think sensibly.

He should read this first.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/...3swVEz:e29080:

It hits the money. Can you see sites with no processors, no advertising, able to survive.

If you take down that and the file lockers, what's left? Piracy goes back to being a cottage industry.

Sorry guys another thought hit me about an uncensored Internet.

How many Muslim terrorists cut off the heads of hostages so they could get it aired online?

Horrible thought. However if the Internet is "uncensored" as some wish. Think of child rape, adult rape, snuff movies, etc, just to get it online. Self regulation in a world like today where some will do anything to make a fast buck?

That's a little bit too much trust to put into the hands of anyone who can put up a site and upload a video. So all we have is the Government, who do you trust more, people who would do anything to get their 5 minutes of fame, make a fast buck, depraved, psychotic or the Government?

It's horrible even thinking about an "uncensored Internet" if you think a little about it.

Paul, this is utter fucking ridiculousness. There is a reason libraries / little old librarians fight tooth and nail against censorship and it is a good one. Restricting the flow of information and ideas is absolute horse shit. What idiot kids upload to YouTube has fuck all to do with censorship being ok. In fact, by uploading it they bring it the attention that is needed.

Reality should never be censored, good bad or fucking ugly.

:disgust

So you agree to the reality of a child being raped and the film going online. OK I get where you're coming from.

Yes the kids upload it to get attention. We agree on this. Problem is it gets the attention of another bunch of kids who want their 5 minutes of fame. Where does it stop ST?

And the little old librarians don't fight against censorship. They fight about where the line is drawn. They have more sense than to want a world with no censorship.

well the companies who support sopa thought vcr was to american movie industry what the boston strangler was to a women alone at home

yet 5 years after that statement home viewing market was worth more than all other distributions COMBINED

i wouldn't brag about that level of stupidity.

when nasty dollars hired an under age girl because she faked the id necessary

how many of the webmaster who published those pictures went to jail.

want an example of accidentally infringing

john steele honey pot bullshit, where he put gay porn under the names of popular tv shows, and music.

same basic situation getting tricked into committing the crime

you guys spread kiddie porn across the net and didn't get any liablity for it

...

then you should have any problem risking your copyright based on that accusation.
timeshifting has been validated to the cloud, it possible other fair uses will also be validated.



again if that what you believe you should have no problem risking your copyright on that complaint.

If the laws are good enough to prevent it, no judge will rubber stamp an order, you have nothing to worry about.

There are to many examples where that kind of shit has happened under the DMCA. So i don't have your "faith" it won't happen again.

actually it was promised to be dropped

it however hasn't been dropped yet

Just because they were not prosecuted doesn't mean they couldn't of been. I was in the business during the Traci Lords episode. A lot of shop owners were scared of ending up in prison. For accidentally selling child porn. Go read the law.

read the case law the producers and distributors were aquitted of the crime because they were fooled by fake ids.

the "pirates" who were honeypotted into infringing paid up.

If the law was balanced the lack of mental intent would have voided the transaction at the discovery phase.

And we say we do not live in propaganda... This reader wrote this & is correct :2 cents:

Propaganda can create a world of difference :upsidedow

http://www.ala.org/Template.cfm?Sect...ontentID=11699

Burn the books, there's bad stuff in em!

Paul Markhams posts should be bundled to a book.

it would be like the bible: Too long and outdated. :1orglaugh

Top of the best sellers list. :thumbsup

ST23 you don't have an intelligent answer do you?

I asked those anti censorship people if they think some things should be censored or not?

Will post their reply.

Your problem is, you're clutching straws that keep breaking. :1orglaugh