Hey! That's MY Excuse, RIAA

[GH2001]

Those dumbass, know-nothing hipster Harvard researchers?

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111223/03470117178/harvard-researchers-explain-that-sopa-supporters-are-misusing-their-research-to-support-sopa.shtml?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

Calm down son. Your BP is going to be off the charts.

[RWS]

You're a dumbass...

Look, you argued that the only people opposed to this legislation is me "and my hipster friends", which is fucking retarded.

Every single tech/web developer, blogger, magazine, enthusiast, agrees that this is basically breaking the internet. Sorry if the boys down at the station disagree. What great financial advantage is JoeSchmo tech blog losing if this passes? But I guess they're just hipsters. Make up your mind. So what you're saying is everyone who understands what is at stake is opposed to this legislation, from CEOs to dumb dirty hippie bloggers. And everything in between.

And why are you bemoaning the poor media giants like Virgin, Viacom, etc. losing a negligible percentage of profits from relatively rare online piracy, but in the same breath bitching about how Google, Wikipedia, etc. are just corporate fatcats afraid of having to lose a few bucks on completely reinventing how the internet works in order to be compliant to this shittacular legislation?

What personal financial interest Erik Ericson, prominant right wing blogger, have in this?
How can you claim to be a Republican and favor this Big Brother government takeover of the Internet because "Hollyweird" is afraid of losing some profits?

But back to your dumbass point you're trying to make. If new legislation was being crammed down everyone's throats that severely hampered the police force's ability to do their jobs, I'd value their opinions on the subject.

When it comes to SOPA/PIPA, I'm going to trust the people who own and operate the sites we use every day before some 60+ year olds in the Senate who literally think the Internet is a series of tubes.

Anyone with a remote understanding of the Internet realizes that this will do jack squat to reduce actual online piracy. Pirates will adapt. They always do. They can play whack-a-mole all they want, but they'll never stop it. This amounts to censorship and monetizing of the internet, plain and simple.

I said that "I think you and your hipster friends are freaking out about nothing, really". You're the one that came back with the point about Yahoo, Google, etc opposing the bill to prove your point, and how they know way more about it than me, thus implying your position must be right since these big corporations are against it. My point to that was that they have a vested financial interest in that bill not becoming law, and that is more than likely why they oppose it. I never said that you were the ONLY ones that didn't support the bill. I never said anything about protecting a media giant's profits or anything. I don't care if Hollywood wants it done to protect their profits or what. I really don't. It's just the principle of it. It's very basic. If something is your property, you should have control of it. No matter if it is a car, a dog, a house, land, boat, an invention, etc. If you have something and you want to sell it in a free market, or make it available to others for free in an open medium such as the internet, then that is your choice.

Like I said, I'm pretty sure that as long as you're not hosting a site with a shit ton of pirated music, movies, etc, or you aren't hosting some sort of P2P service that is serving up pirated content, then you will probably be OK. Do you really really believe that the point of the law is so they can hire a million people to scour every message board on the internet to find every moron poster in the world posting some funny graphic? No, I don't think so. They would go broke doing that and taking people to court over it. When you are dealing with the internet, you almost have to leave a law somewhat open ended due to the nature of the internet. If you made a super specific wording in the law, there would probably be thousands of ways to circumvent that law. You even admit as much in the last paragraph of your post.

[Saniflush]

Do you really really believe that the point of the law is so they can hire a million people to scour every message board on the internet to find every moron poster in the world posting some funny graphic?

[RWS]

The fucking Heritage Foundation is opposed to SOPA/PIPA.

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/12/online-piracy-and-sopa-beware-of-unintended-consequences

The Heritage Foundation typically supports the RIAA & MPAA at the drop of a hat.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-57346829-281/pro-copyright-group-takes-sopa-to-task/?tag=reddit

So just who the fuck's word are you going to take on this to realize it's a terrible fucking bill?

Just wondering, but did you actually read those two articles you posted? I mean seriously, read them from top to bottom? My next question is, do the points that those articles make accurately represent what you claim to be the end of the internet?

[GH2001]

Just wondering, but did you actually read those two articles you posted? I mean seriously, read them from top to bottom? My next question is, do the points that those articles make accurately represent what you claim to be the end of the internet?

Next thing you know, we'll be talking about LED's, microbrews and homos getting married again. You know, the important things that make the world go round.

[Saniflush]

Next thing you know, we'll be talking about LED's, microbrews and homos getting married again. You know, the important things that make the world go round.

Wait!....


Homos can get married?

[RWS]

Wait!....


Homos can get married?

You sound pretty excited about that....

[Snaggletiger]

Next thing you know, we'll be talking about LED's, microbrews and homos getting married again. You know, the important things that make the world go round.

Oh there you go.  That homo is about to drink a beer and go off on LED's again.

[Saniflush]

You sound pretty excited about that....

Well no but we are willing to learn.  Will they send us somewhere special for that?

[GH2001]

You sound pretty excited about that....

He's excited that and AWK can finally find true happiness.

[Snaggletiger]

Well no but we are willing to learn.  Will they send us somewhere special for that?

Black guys, help the white guys out.

[RWS]

Calm down son. Your BP is going to be off the charts.

Don't worry, I don't think he read that article either.

[AUChizad]

Just wondering, but did you actually read those two articles you posted? I mean seriously, read them from top to bottom? My next question is, do the points that those articles make accurately represent what you claim to be the end of the internet?

Yes, and yes.

And that's coming from people who would typically support extreme pro-copyright laws.

Did you?

I'll break it down in smaller, easier to digest segments for you.

Consider Legislation Carefully 

The federal government needs to protect intellectual property rights. But it should do so in a way that does not disrupt the growth of technology, does not weaken Internet security, respects free speech rights, and solves the problem of rogue sites. Congress should carefully consider the consequences of and alternatives to the legislation before moving forward.

"You don't have to be against copyright to be skeptical of SOPA," Berin Szoka, president of TechFreedom, told CNET today. "Even those who will defend copyright (believe that SOPA) would have sweeping unintended consequences. So it's perfectly consistent for conservatives to insist on both the need to enhance copyright enforcement and to be exceedingly careful about how we do so."

The most prominent group on the other side is probably the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which has become the most aggressive defender of SOPA, likely because it receives more money in membership dues from Hollywood than Silicon Valley. (Yahoo and Kapersky Lab have dropped out in protest, and Google is under pressure to do the same.) Concerned Women for America and the National Association of Manufacturers have also endorsed SOPA.

[AUChizad]

Don't worry, I don't think he read that article either.

You're a dumbass...

[RWS]

Yes, and yes.

And that's coming from people who would typically support extreme pro-copyright laws.

Did you?

I'll break it down in smaller, easier to digest segments for you.

So, the end of the internet as we know it is the government going to court and having a judge decide whether DNS resolution of a foreign or domestic pirating website should be prohibited, and outlawing tools used to circumvent the blocking of those sites? Having hosting providers shut those websites down? And by blocking those sites, it could possibly, theoretically, catch non-offending sites in that same net as well? That is a far cry from regimes such as in China and Iran, for example, that block damn near everything from the Western world and only allow access to like 5 different websites. I only use that example because apparently that is what this bill is being compared to by some.

I mean, theoretically, I could wake up with a full head of hair tomorrow. Snaggle could wake up with an actual penis tomorrow. You're drawing alot of theoretical, maybe, could happen lines out of alot of things. Like I said before, tracking down every Tom, Dick, and Harry across the globe that posts a funny picture of Stewie Griffin are not the targets of the bill, and it would not be feasible or cost effective to go after them. Do you realize how much manpower and money that would take? Even in the articles you posted, they don't seem to be worried about that aspect of the bill. The main worry seems to be the blocking of certain foreign or domestic sites that are serving up the illegal content, and that a few innocents might get caught in that dragnet. 

That's great that alot of corporations, bloggers, journalists, etc don't support the bill either. That's their right. I'm not necessarily saying the bill is the greatest thing EVAR, but I do think that some of the opposition is creating alot of hyperbole and using scare tactics to scare others into believing the USGOV is about to go all Tehran on the internet. Just because alot of people support, or don't support something, doesn't necessarily mean they are right or wrong. Doesn't mean I'm right either. For some reason we're becoming a culture of just going with the side that has the most supporters, instead of thinking for ourselves and being reasonable (see Occupy movement).

[Snaggletiger]

So, the end of the internet as we know it is the government going to court and having a judge decide whether DNS resolution of a foreign or domestic pirating website should be prohibited, and outlawing tools used to circumvent the blocking of those sites? Having hosting providers shut those websites down? And by blocking those sites, it could possibly, theoretically, catch non-offending sites in that same net as well? That is a far cry from regimes such as in China and Iran, for example, that block damn near everything from the Western world and only allow access to like 5 different websites. I only use that example because apparently that is what this bill is being compared to by some.

I mean, theoretically, I could wake up with a full head of hair tomorrow. Snaggle could wake up with an actual penis tomorrow. You're drawing alot of theoretical, maybe, could happen lines out of alot of things. Like I said before, tracking down every Tom, Dick, and Harry across the globe that posts a funny picture of Stewie Griffin are not the targets of the bill, and it would not be feasible or cost effective to go after them. Do you realize how much manpower and money that would take? Even in the articles you posted, they don't seem to be worried about that aspect of the bill. The main worry seems to be the blocking of certain foreign or domestic sites that are serving up the illegal content, and that a few innocents might get caught in that dragnet.

I'm from the Island of Misfit Toys

[Vandy Vol]

. . . relatively rare online piracy . . .

Did chinook already give you something to smoke?  Piracy on the internet is as rare as crime in Compton.

[Vandy Vol]

Oh, and for the record, I just finished with some steamy man sex.  You wouldn't believe how much sweat and sperm can glisten in the soft glow of LED lighting...

[Snaggletiger]

Oh, and for the record, I just finished with some steamy man sex.  You wouldn't believe how much sweat and sperm can glisten in the soft glow of LED lighting...

Were you drinking a nice microbrew afterwards?

[Vandy Vol]

Were you drinking a nice microbrew afterwards?

No, it was past noon.  I had to go with something that required coke product.