SOPA IS BACK

[otto-san]

What do you mean GG'd? The government would say, "You have this piracy crap on your site, take it off or else. You have 5 days." Then you would delete the stuff from your page.

The law doesn't crack down on just any random site owner, just those who refuse to do anything about piracy. Badspot has a zero-tolerance policy for piracy, and he has almost zero problems with it. I think if every site owner had the same views, we wouldn't have a problem.

They don't GG them because the site does something about it. You're absolutely right. I'm not talking about the direct effects of the bill, I mean the means by which the site will need to approach avoiding violation of the new legislation. Right now, YouTube has to aggressively mute and remove videos because they have to avoid lawsuits because of copyright infringement, and the offer the means to appeal if the user is willing to take legal action. Similar policies would have to be made, perhaps even more aggressively depending, to avoid action by the government, and the appeal process for that would be a bit out of YouTube's hands.

The bill may not make the website owner automatically receive punishment, but it would mean that they would have to be much more careful about making sure no content is uploaded to their site, or no content remains on the site, that might cause an offense on their part. Again, the website is essentially punished ('punished' used more loosely since it's not direct) for 'having the means of piracy', and this is passed onto the users of that site.

[Ad Bot]

[Rabbot32]

I love how half this post is me getting rightfuly laughed at, and the other half is two guys arguing over how the government works.

[ResonKinetic]

I love how half this post is me getting rightfuly laughed at, and the other half is two guys arguing over how the government works.

Welcome to BLF, enjoy your stay.

[Doomonkey]

They don't GG them because the site does something about it. You're absolutely right. I'm not talking about the direct effects of the bill, I mean the means by which the site will need to approach avoiding violation of the new legislation. Right now, YouTube has to aggressively mute and remove videos because they have to avoid lawsuits because of copyright infringement, and the offer the means to appeal if the user is willing to take legal action. Similar policies would have to be made, perhaps even more aggressively depending, to avoid action by the government, and the appeal process for that would be a bit out of YouTube's hands.

The bill may not make the website owner automatically receive punishment, but it would mean that they would have to be much more careful about making sure no content is uploaded to their site, or no content remains on the site, that might cause an offense on their part. Again, the website is essentially punished ('punished' used more loosely since it's not direct) for 'having the means of piracy', and this is passed onto the users of that site.

I see where you are coming from, I suppose I just have a different opinion on the burden of removing piracy related things.

we wouldn't be allowed to post pictures that contained trademarked content

I didn't see that in the law, but it was just a brief glance.

These are the things that are being enforced. "2318, 2319, 2319A, 2319B, or 2320, or chapter 90, of title 18, United States Code" They can be found here: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I in chapters 90 (obviously) and 113

[Decepticon]

I love how half this post is me getting rightfuly laughed at, and the other half is two guys arguing over how the government works.

but srsly why do you care so much about being "spied on" over the internet by the government (if that is what you're talking about)

the government most likely won't care if you look up "banana" on google shopping or w/e and after a while will just go "eh this guy isn't interesting moving on"

if you're also talking about site deletion, i'm pretty sure the super-scary-government-agents wont go around deleting websites like the blockland forums or youtube videos just because they feel like it or because it shows a game on it.

[IkeTheGeneric]

And yes, I am a angsty teen, but atleast I'm a angsty teen who gives a forget about his internet.

If you cared about your internet rights, you would at least put more effort into doing your research before riding along with this kind of sensationalist bullstuff.

[otto-san]

but srsly why do you care so much about being "spied on" over the internet by the government (if that is what you're talking about)

the government most likely won't care if you look up "banana" on google shopping or w/e and after a while will just go "eh this guy isn't interesting moving on"

if you're also talking about site deletion, i'm pretty sure the super-scary-government-agents wont go around deleting websites like the blockland forums or youtube videos just because they feel like it or because it shows a game on it.

SOPA isn't internet surveillance. The latter is more fitting, but, as Doomonkey has said, would only happen if the site refused or failed to do anything about violations. Sites would have to avoid getting taken down, and the ways they would have to do that are what's worrying about the bill.

Piracy isn't good. I don't think anyone is making that argument. SOPA is just a very bad way to approach curbing it. Buy, hey! It's gone. It's been gone for awhile. We don't have to worry about SOPA, we just have to watch carefully for similar things.

[Blockzillahead]

And if it passes why is it a big deal? You can't pirate your favorite things anymore?
I am ignoring that "all your fanart will be delete :(" sob statement because they're covering up the fact that the only reason they want SOPA gone is because they don't like it that they can't take things for free anymore.

[Rabbot32]

And if it passes why is it a big deal? You can't pirate your favorite things anymore?
I am ignoring that "all your fanart will be delete :(" sob statement because they're covering up the fact that the only reason they want SOPA gone is because they don't like it that they can't take things for free anymore.

The second amendment states that the only real reason your allowed to own a gun is if you belong to the local Militia, as I interpret it. But if the Government tries to pull Firearm regulation stuff, you all start waving the ammendment around like its a hot potato. How is this different?
 

SOPA isn't internet surveillance. The latter is more fitting, but, as Doomonkey has said, would only happen if the site refused or failed to do anything about violations.

Danke.

If you cared about your internet rights, you would at least put more effort into doing your research before riding along with this kind of sensationalist bullstuff.

Agreed.

[Doomonkey]

The second amendment states that the only real reason your allowed to own a gun is if you belong to the local Militia, as I interpret it.

As it turns out, how you interpret amendments doesn't matter, only how the Supreme Court interprets them. The Supreme Court has ruled that the right to bear arms and  having a well-regulated militia are two different things.

Also, this bill specifically states that it is not allowed to violate the First amendment.

[Rabbot32]

As it turns out, how you interpret amendments doesn't matter, only how the Supreme Court interprets them. The Supreme Court has ruled that the right to bear arms and  having a well-regulated militia are two different things.

Correct me if I'm wrong, which I most certainly am, but isn't the supreme court elected? Made up of citizens who ran for office and succeeded? How the Citizen interprets this new Sopa could be exactly as you said it, a anti-piracy law. But someone else can easily abuse this to remove stuff.

[Doomonkey]

Correct me if I'm wrong, which I most certainly am, but isn't the supreme court elected? Made up of citizens who ran for office and succeeded? How the Citizen interprets this new Sopa could be exactly as you said it, a anti-piracy law. But someone else can easily abuse this to remove stuff.

The Supreme Court is not elected, they are appointed pretty much for life, and they typically stay in office until they die. It is pretty much a requirement for them to be experts in the Constitution. Also, you don't typically have the majority of them grossly misinterpret a law that is spelled out.

[otto-san]

Also, this bill specifically states that it is not allowed to violate the First amendment.

which i guess would also be open to supreme court interpretation ultimately

it's good that was stated, though. it would have given the supreme court a bit of a check on SOPA (which i suppose they have for any bill lol)

[IkeTheGeneric]

The second amendment states that the only real reason your allowed to own a gun is if you belong to the local Militia, as I interpret it.

What the second amendment means isn't up for interpretation. It's really not that confusing, to be honest:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

It's recognized in the amendment that a properly regulated militia is important, and states that regardless of the militia, the right to own and use firearms shall not be infringed.

You don't have to belong to a militia to have the right to own a firearm. Saying otherwise is misinterpreting the second amendment.

[Blockzillahead]

The second amendment states that the only real reason your allowed to own a gun is if you belong to the local Militia, as I interpret it. But if the Government tries to pull Firearm regulation stuff, you all start waving the ammendment around like its a hot potato. How is this different?

I don't live in the U.S. so I don't know how the amendment thing works and don't understand how it relates to what I said.