Discussion in 'Everything Else' started by #1 Tah, Jan 19, 2012.
Negative. Draconian power grab by people far too interested in keeping hold of the old ways that has made them rich in the past, really, move with the times fellas.
My biggest worry is they know they are going to far, so the watered down version (that is still shit) passes through quietly.
This shows how bad it could be: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13772_3-57360499-52/mpaa-blasts-dangerous-anti-sopa-blackouts-as-stunts/
Loosely translates to "I object to their free site furthering their corporate interests in protest of me trying to further my corporate interests", or something like that.
Protect the corporations! Sue everyone!
Don't we already have an Internet filter in Australia?
No, hugely unpopular so they just stopped talking about it. No laws passed.
You need to watch this:
Only in America.
On US yes but in my country couldn't care less. The russians will always make the Internet free
Would you steal this car? No but I would download it if I could.
You guys do realise this bill allows them to persecute those outside of america. namely you and me
Yup the US governments been chasing me for years. I think it's because of my Swarthy complexion.
I'm a fence sitter on this one.
I believe that is their intention. Apparently the sponsors to the bill have already agreed to fine tune it to be more relevant.
Whilst I don't necessarily support their position, I can kind of see where they are coming from. From what I understand the bill is targetted at site publishers and hosts who intentionally publish pirated stuff for financial gain. So I don't see that it will affect G&GR if say a forum member posts a youtube link to rugby footage pinched from Foxtel because G&GR will not directly make money from it. Some would argue that if G&GR hosts google adds or rugby book adds for a fee and allows members to post pirate stuff it could be seen as revenue raising through increased site traffic. Don't quote me but I expect the onus will be on the copyright holder to prove a site knowingly intended to profit directly from hosting pirated stuff. The real target of the bill is to bust pay-for-view sites that charge users to access someone else's hardwork, and there are hundreds of these on the web that blatantly ask for subscription fees to watch pirated movies and TV. Worse case scenario, how would you like it if another site started charging viewers to access pirated versions of Scotty's game stats and analyses or Lance's fine prose?
It's an election year, the majority of Democrats don't like its wording and Congress will procrastinate over it for ages anyway so I wouldn't be holding my breath.
I've always wanted to be arrested in America.
How are the US law world law? My country have a constitution and it protects me. I like to see them try unless they do it with me what Nigeria and Israel tried to do with Umaro Dikko.
The I have to ask myself the following. Do I own a website? No Do I plan on creating one and load it full of illegal content or copy all sources ripped from others without siting the original? No So no not really bother bout it
If you post something on Facebook (or Google links to it), its copyright material in the US, as that is where there servers are located. Therefore, you are in violation of US law on US land and can be extradited.
So the US will spend tens of thousands of dollars to extradite me for putting silly Obama video's up. I don't think so.
But they could - if you made yourself unpopular.
Exactly. To be honest, I would rather the US not have the power to jail me for up to 5 years at all.
Actually - I wonder if they are targeting apple and itunes match. they'll get apples databases of the music that everyone owns.
Of course not! That's why they'd sue you for copyright infringement and make sure you pay their legal costs..
Separate names with a comma.