Hey! That's MY Excuse, RIAA

[Saniflush]

No more arguing about the recording industry unless you are just full homo. Got it?

Thought your intent was to stop them from talking about it?

[RWS]

And regarding that article, you're probably right.

Every one of the most popular internet destinations from Amazon to Google to Facebook to Wikipedia to YouTube to eBay to AOL, etc. are probably just being babies. They probably just want to literally black out the entire internet, losing tons of profits, just to be drama queens. They probably don't understand quite like you do when they say things like "these bills so fundamentally change the way the Internet works." Just a bunch of ruffiant thugs trying to destroy the livelihoods of these poor copyright owners. The cofounder of Google's probably just talking out his ass when he says "While I support their goal of reducing copyright infringement (which I don't believe these acts would accomplish), I am shocked that our lawmakers would contemplate such measures that would put us on a par with the most oppressive nations in the world."

How much more obtuse can you possibly be? I'm sure I'll find out.

At the end of the day, they're pissed because the new bill could potentially cost them money. Way more money than blacking out for a day. Is that just a totally crazy concept? Do you think it is even possible that maybe, even a teeny weeny bit, that might be why they don't support it? At all?

[RWS]

Thought your intent was to stop them from talking about it?

Well, now I'm just all kinds of confused.....

[Vandy Vol]

Seriously, though. We are now discussing LEDs, Football and having sex with Denise Milani and her delicious jugs. No more arguing about the recording industry unless you are just full homo. Got it?

I'd fuck Denise Milani under the exquisite glow of LED lighting while James Franklin recorded the whole thing.

[AUChizad]

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111230/10300517237/lamar-smith-out-touch-with-internet-still-thinks-its-just-google-that-opposes-sopa.shtml?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

[RWS]

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111230/10300517237/lamar-smith-out-touch-with-internet-still-thinks-its-just-google-that-opposes-sopa.shtml?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

I don't really know much about that guy, his research, or anything like that. But I will say that if he is falsifying research or anything just to make people support his point, I don't agree with it any more than I agree with the other side scare mongering. Something in that article that did jump out at me, though.....

The government telling internet sites that they have to block access to other websites is -- undeniably -- censorship

Correct me if I'm wrong, but does the government not already tell sites to block access to sites, such as those that host child pornography, by going to court and obtaining an order to do so? Under the broad statement made in that article, isn't the example I just gave considered censorship? I don't see these guys complaining about that. I mean, defeating censorship IS what the opposition to the bill is all about, right? So, is some censorship OK, while other is bad?

[AUChizad]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but does the government not already tell sites to block access to sites, such as those that host child pornography, by going to court and obtaining an order to do so? Under the broad statement made in that article, isn't the example I just gave considered censorship? I don't see these guys complaining about that. I mean, defeating censorship IS what the opposition to the bill is all about, right? So, is some censorship OK, while other is bad?

You're wrong.

There is no government mandate to block links to child pornography. Google and such just does so on their own volition. Because I think it's a pretty uncontroversial stance that child pornography is a bad thing.

But yeah, I totally see your point that a potential copyright violation = child pornography.

[RWS]

You're wrong.

There is no government mandate to block links to child pornography. Google and such just does so on their own volition. Because I think it's a pretty uncontroversial stance that child pornography is a bad thing.

I'm pretty sure that the government gets a court order and actually goes a step further by not simply blocking a link, but having the hosting provider shut the site down completely (Vandy Vol, or other lawyer types, might be able to answer this definitively). I understand that everybody agrees that child pornography is a bad thing. But that's my point. That article says that government censorship is bad. So you're saying censorship is OK as long as everybody agrees with it, but not OK if certain people disagree? We're going to pick and choose which crimes should be censored, and which ones shouldn't be? And it's only not OK when certain corporations, bloggers, etc disagree with the censorship? I mean, where does that line get drawn?

But yeah, I totally see your point that a potential copyright violation = child pornography.

You're totally missing the point.

[Vandy Vol]

I'm pretty sure that the government gets a court order and actually goes a step further by not simply blocking a link, but having the hosting provider shut the site down completely (Vandy Vol, or other lawyer types, might be able to answer this definitively).

The government can and does shut down websites in the United States which host child pornography.  Google does not legally have to block links to child porn.  This is because, as a search engine, they sort of get an exemption; they're just reporting what's out there on the internet by maintaining a cache database of sites.

If Google were just a random website, and they specifically placed a link on their site to a child pornography site, then they could likely be charged with distributing child porn, and thus their site would have to be taken down (or at least have the link removed).  But because Google or any other search engine simply links to websites based upon user input in the form of a search, it's not like they're actively promoting a child porn site with a static link.

Essentially, my understanding is that Google (rightfully) gets an exemption due to the nature of its website, but that any other website located in the U.S. hosting and/or linking to child porn will have its owners prosecuted criminally and the site itself will be shut down.

[DnATL]

Seriously, though. We are now discussing LEDs, Football and having sex with Denise Milani and her delicious jugs. No more arguing about the recording industry unless you are just full homo. Got it?

Thought your intent was to stop them from talking about it?

Is it time for the AWK/VV are fags and Snaggle lost his balls jokes, or do we first need several movie quotes, including a couple out of order or incorrect?  Can Kaos get out his face paint and distract them with some mimng?

[GarMan]

The government can and does shut down websites in the United States which host child pornography.  Google does not legally have to block links to child porn.  This is because, as a search engine, they sort of get ... 

^^^This guy knows...

[GarMan]

I don't think that requiring a plaintiff to pay X amount of money in order to simply bring a suit is the correct solution.  Access to the judicial system is already costly enough, and this deters many people from being able to bring suits when they have the right to do so; adding additional costs to bring a suit is just going to make it worse.

A "loser pays" system seems like a good solution...

[GarMan]

Is it time for the AWK/VV [and AUJIZZAD] are fags... jokes?

Who is joking?

[Saniflush]

A "loser pays" system seems like a good solution...

Not sure since there are so many losers.

[Snaggletiger]

Well, if the government is dead set on forcing us to use LED....wait, this isn't the light bulb thread?  6 pages in I just thought....

[GarMan]

Well, if the government is dead set on forcing us to use LED....wait, this isn't the light bulb thread?  6 pages in I just thought.... 

Congress has temporarily overturned the ban on incandescent bulbs...  So, to hell with all of the tree-huggers and ignorant twirps!!!

[Vandy Vol]

A "loser pays" system seems like a good solution...

They pretty much have that now, it's just that it's easier for a successful plaintiff to get their fees reimbursed than it is for a successful defendant.

I can see why the defendant is saddled with the burden of proving that the claim was frivolous; why punish a plaintiff who had a legitimate claim which needed to be decided by a court?  Then again, I can also see the other side of the coin.

I'm not really opposed to a pure "loser pays" system in which it's just as easy for the prevailing defendant to have their fees reimbursed by the losing plaintiff, but I can see the reasons for the current system as well.

[AUChizad]

Tim Berners-Lee (the actual inventor of the web, sorry Al) probably doesn't know shit about this subject.

https://twitter.com/#!/timberners_lee/status/156391382938951681

Pls RT: @senatorreid @chuckschumer @mcconnellpress We need u to stand w the Internet and kill #PIPA http://act.demandprogress.org/act/pipa_tweet/?referring_akid=.194196.pE4I30&source=typ-tw via @demandprogress

MC Hammer, once the most popular musician in the world, who famously lost it all and filed for bankruptcy, certainly would be opposed to something that would steal from artists' pockets, right?
https://twitter.com/#!/MCHammer/status/156681982389133314

Join me & change your profile picture to protest SOPA: http://www.BlackoutSOPA.org/ #BlackoutSOPA

https://twitter.com/#!/MCHammer/status/156781813363245057

Terrible bill for writers, vloggers, artists, and musicians! #BlackoutSOPA

[AUChizad]

Those dumbass whiny punks at Wikipedia will be taking the site offline on Wednesday.

http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/English_Wikipedia_anti-SOPA_blackout

English Wikipedia anti-SOPA blackout

To: English Wikipedia Readers and Community
From: Sue Gardner, Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director
Date: January 16, 2012

Today, the Wikipedia community announced its decision to black out the English-language Wikipedia for 24 hours, worldwide, beginning at 05:00 UTC on Wednesday, January 18 (you can read the statement from the Wikimedia Foundation here). The blackout is a protest against proposed legislation in the United States—the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) in the U.S. House of Representatives, and the PROTECTIP Act (PIPA) in the U.S. Senate—that, if passed, would seriously damage the free and open Internet, including Wikipedia.

This will be the first time the English Wikipedia has ever staged a public protest of this nature, and it’s a decision that wasn’t lightly made. Here’s how it’s been described by the three Wikipedia administrators who formally facilitated the community’s discussion. From the public statement, signed by User:NuclearWarfare, User:Risker and User:Billinghurst:

        It is the opinion of the English Wikipedia community that both of these bills, if passed, would be devastating to the free and open web.

        Over the course of the past 72 hours, over 1800 Wikipedians have joined together to discuss proposed actions that the community might wish to take against SOPA and PIPA. This is by far the largest level of participation in a community discussion ever seen on Wikipedia, which illustrates the level of concern that Wikipedians feel about this proposed legislation. The overwhelming majority of participants support community action to encourage greater public action in response to these two bills. Of the proposals considered by Wikipedians, those that would result in a “blackout” of the English Wikipedia, in concert with similar blackouts on other websites opposed to SOPA and PIPA, received the strongest support.

        On careful review of this discussion, the closing administrators note the broad-based support for action from Wikipedians around the world, not just from within the United States. The primary objection to a global blackout came from those who preferred that the blackout be limited to readers from the United States, with the rest of the world seeing a simple banner notice instead. We also noted that roughly 55% of those supporting a blackout preferred that it be a global one, with many pointing to concerns about similar legislation in other nations.

In making this decision, Wikipedians will be criticized for seeming to abandon neutrality to take a political position. That’s a real, legitimate issue. We want people to trust Wikipedia, not worry that it is trying to propagandize them.

But although Wikipedia’s articles are neutral, its existence is not. As Wikimedia Foundation board member Kat Walsh wrote on one of our mailing lists recently,

        We depend on a legal infrastructure that makes it possible for us to operate. And we depend on a legal infrastructure that also allows other sites to host user-contributed material, both information and expression. For the most part, Wikimedia projects are organizing and summarizing and collecting the world’s knowledge. We’re putting it in context, and showing people how to make to sense of it.

        But that knowledge has to be published somewhere for anyone to find and use it. Where it can be censored without due process, it hurts the speaker, the public, and Wikimedia. Where you can only speak if you have sufficient resources to fight legal challenges, or, if your views are pre-approved by someone who does, the same narrow set of ideas already popular will continue to be all anyone has meaningful access to.

The decision to shut down the English Wikipedia wasn’t made by me; it was made by editors, through a consensus decision-making process. But I support it.

Like Kat and the rest of the Wikimedia Foundation Board, I have increasingly begun to think of Wikipedia’s public voice, and the goodwill people have for Wikipedia, as a resource that wants to be used for the benefit of the public. Readers trust Wikipedia because they know that despite its faults, Wikipedia’s heart is in the right place. It’s not aiming to monetize their eyeballs or make them believe some particular thing, or sell them a product. Wikipedia has no hidden agenda: it just wants to be helpful.

That’s less true of other sites. Most are commercially motivated: their purpose is to make money. That doesn’t mean they don’t have a desire to make the world a better place—many do!—but it does mean that their positions and actions need to be understood in the context of conflicting interests.

My hope is that when Wikipedia shuts down on January 18, people will understand that we’re doing it for our readers. We support everyone’s right to freedom of thought and freedom of expression. We think everyone should have access to educational material on a wide range of subjects, even if they can’t pay for it. We believe in a free and open Internet where information can be shared without impediment. We believe that new proposed laws like SOPA –and PIPA, and other similar laws under discussion inside and outside the United States– don’t advance the interests of the general public. You can read a very good list of reasons to oppose SOPA and PIPA here, from the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

Why is this a global action, rather than US-only? And why now, if some American legislators appear to be in tactical retreat on SOPA?

The reality is that we don’t think SOPA is going away, and PIPA is still quite active. Moreover, SOPA and PIPA are just indicators of a much broader problem. All around the world, we’re seeing the development of legislation seeking to regulate the Internet in other ways while hurting our online freedoms. Our concern extends beyond SOPA and PIPA: they are just part of the problem. We want the Internet to remain free and open, everywhere, for everyone.

On January 18, we hope you’ll agree with us, and will do what you can to make your own voice heard.

Sue Gardner,
Executive Director, Wikimedia Foundation

[Saniflush]

You don't see Encyclopedia Britannica doing this cause they are a source.