Nothing good can come of internet censorship in any form.

The internet is the last effective tool for the public to use against the government. Look at the revolutions in the ME, the Arab Springs, the demand for change - all of it would not have been possible without social networking sites like facebook and twitter. For U.S. political purposes, right and left blog websites act in the same manner. Keeping people with like minded sentiments in communication is the greatest threat against a government's status-quo. It's no wonder the government is taking measures to mitigate such a scenario - the question I have to ask is what took them so long to figure out the true potential for world-wide instant communication.

If the government can gain control of the internet, they will have the most efficient propaganda tool of all time at their disposal.

Nothing good can come of internet censorship in any form.
#1 | POSTED BY MSGT

I used to believe that, but the freedom of child predators and child pornographers on the internet is very disturbing. Call it cognitive dissonance, but I suppose it's in the same boat as the freedom. We don't like to hear a lot of the hate out there, but we must put up with it in order to preserve such a freedom of speech. Should such a freedom be afforded to child pornographers? My immediate reaction is no, but my second and more libertarian based reaction questions my initial one.

This topic needs to be debated thoroughly.

This topic needs to be debated thoroughly.

#3 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2011-12-28 02:54 PM | Reply | Flag

LOL...what does one have to do with the other?

We have laws against child porn do we not. Enforce them, and that doesn't mean censor the public.

We have laws against child porn do we not.
#4 | POSTED BY MONEYWAR

Ones that are not effective enough. That is my point - I am for internet regulation in order to weed out the child pornographers who are currently skirting the current laws. But, in order to accomplish such a task, I am afraid the freedom of others' internet use would be at risk.

You actually believe current child pornography laws are at all effective? You're living in a fantasy land if you believe such a fallacy.

Marsha Marsha Marsha!

Who cares if the Internet is censored? The important thing is that the Big Media cartel doesn't lose any money.

#7 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN

So then you would be part of the: "I don't give a fuck about SOPA" group, yet you didn't vote....wtf?

The Internet is among the last places on Earth that are truely free. As was said in Easy Rider:

Of course, don't ever tell anybody that they're not free, 'cause then they're gonna get real busy killin' and maimin' to prove to you that they are. Oh, yeah, they're gonna talk to you, and talk to you, and talk to you about individual freedom. But they see a free individual, it's gonna scare 'em.

NFW would I want to vote for an asshole more concerned about government power than individual liberty. Live free or die! hmmm NH slogan could SOPA me on that. Well then fuck NH too. BTW, how do oath keepers define their "oath" to not involve assassinations of SOBs who advocate and pass leglislation for the 1% like SOPA?

Live free or die!

I used to believe that, but the freedom of child predators and child pornographers on the internet is very disturbing. Call it cognitive dissonance, but I suppose it's in the same boat as the freedom. We don't like to hear a lot of the hate out there, but we must put up with it in order to preserve such a freedom of speech. Should such a freedom be afforded to child pornographers? My immediate reaction is no, but my second and more libertarian based reaction questions my initial one.
This topic needs to be debated thoroughly.
#3 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2011-12-28 02:54 PM | Reply | Flag:

IDK about debated but I'll offer hyou an answer rusty...

Gen 3:11 "who told you you were naked"... (fill in the blanks, it was SATAN - who LIED telling humans they could "hide their nakedness" (of spirit) via clothes (physical)).

#11 link fix:

You actually believe current child pornography laws are at all effective?

What is in effective about them?

Could it be not enough manpower being assigned to capture the crime?

I know it is a touchy subject but at least in the scope of crimes out in our society, pic porn is not a high margin of importance when talking about murder and robbery.

I am for internet regulation in order to weed out the child pornographers

Fine. But don't bring that up in a thread about SOPA, which is not at all targeted toward child porn.

pic porn is not a high margin of importance when talking about murder and robbery.
POSTED BY MONEYWAR

Pic porn is one of the hardest crimes to police because of the anonymity afforded by the internet. This new SOPA bill would remove a lot of the internet's anonymity, thereby possibly infringing on people's freedom of speech. In other words, the current laws fighting against child porn are not nearly effective enough. And so goes the cognitive dissonance.

Apparently you'd be surprised how much man power goes into the investigations of child pornography in comparison to typical murder and robbery, considering most murder and robbery occurs in urban neighborhoods where the importance of a case's outcome is far less important. Plus you are not considering the global scope involved with child pornography and the internet. Outfits like INTERPOL head the majority of child porn investigations globally. They would like stiffer internet regulation and they know the most effective state to accomplish such a task would only be the U.S.

The debate continues.

This isn't about censorship, it's about the theft of work product, exports, and ultimately tax dollars.

#14 | POSTED BY JOE

Internet regulation encompasses child porn because of the effect it will have on internet's anonymity. SOPA may not be out to get child pornographers, but it will have an effect on policing child porn.

I bring it up because it is the most extreme and positive reason I can think of to regulate the internet - which is the government's current most important goal to protect itself from the American people, IMHO.

And who are you to tell me what to bring up on a thread that I created? You don't like the comment, ignore it. Suck it up, Joe.

I piss on your post for its anti-freedom sentiments, but I would die to protect the right for you to make it.

This isn't about censorship, it's about the theft of work product, exports, and ultimately tax dollars.

#16 | Posted by Danforth

Absolutely disgusting how Danforth licks the boots of his Hollywood masters. Clearly he's the front-runner for Drudge Corporate Hack of 2011.

This isn't about censorship, it's about the theft of work product, exports, and ultimately tax dollars.

#16 | Posted by Danforth at 2011-12-28 04:14 PM | Reply | Flag

No, it is about censorship so they can try an protect against work product, exports and tax dollars. It is still about censorship.

If business wants to protect their work, exports then don't put it on the net.

Before we had the net, we had newspapers, mags and TV and radio, if business's had something going they didn't put it in the media. Internet is no different, don't put it in the media.

The push to restrict and control the internet, as we have repeatedly warned for years, is being pursued by an elite few petrified at the fact that alternative and independent sources of information are now eclipsing corporate and government controlled outlets in terms of audience share, trust, and influence.

Regulation and censorship of the Internet would not only represent a massive assault on free speech, it would also create new roadblocks for e-commerce and as a consequence further devastate the economy. The move should be met with fierce opposition at every level and from across the political spectrum.

"Absolutely disgusting how Danforth licks the boots of his Hollywood masters."

Leave it to the thief to justify his stealing ways any way he can, including railing against folks who actually partner with the artists instead of completely ripping them off like Nullifidian does.

"Drudge Corporate Hack "

The corporations are a necessary evil. And you've never sent a penny to the artists you've ripped off, so any bleatings about how the evil of someone else who pays them more pretty much wins this year's award for Drudge's Most Laughably Self-Unaware Hypocrite.

"It is still about censorship."

Do arts creators have rights to their own creations, or not? THAT's what this is about: the theft of property, whether physical or intellectual, without the owner's consent. No one's trying to censor anything, unless you think theft equals free speech.

Regulation and censorship of the Internet would not only represent a massive assault on free speech, it would also create new roadblocks for e-commerce and as a consequence further devastate the economy. The move should be met with fierce opposition at every level and from across the political spectrum.

#20 | Posted by AuntieSocial

It should be, but it won't from Hollywood. Remember, these are the same greedy fucks that wanted to ban the VCR and claimed it would destroy Hollywood.

The corporations are a necessary evil.
#21 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

System of a Down would disagree with your statement. The subsequent album to their chart smashing Toxicity was entitled Steal this Album, with the whole front of the CD made out to look like a CD-RW, with the title's font written out in a sharpy marker. This was obviously a stand against the corporate status-quo in the music industry.

Internet regulation encompasses child porn because of the effect it will have on internet's anonymity. SOPA may not be out to get child pornographers, but it will have an effect on policing child porn.
... the government's current most important goal to protect itself from the American people, IMHO.
#17 | Posted by rstybeach11

~ the internet is NOT CURRENTLY anonymous ..
each use can be tracked back to a specific computer by those with the authority to do so ..

.. so .. what is the motive for your deceptive shinola?

Do arts creators have rights to their own creations, or not?

This has nothing to do with it, it is still wanting censorship. It is about censorship with a purpose but still it is about CENSORSHIP.

If you don't want it in the net don't make the medium in which your creation can be distributed on the net.

Simple.

The artist can't have it both ways, ease of data and then claim that ease is ripping him off.

I can see both sides to the story.

pirating or whatever you call it has reduced the income streams for hollywood etc resulting in the destruction of the middle cost movie, you either have blockbusters or tiny independant low cost movies. creativity and artistry are lost to meet the lowest common denominator. Movies are in and out of the theaters very quickly because of piracy, reducing the producers margins.

for news sources, newspapers and media outlets are reducing their investigative journalism, must less expensive to put our opinion pieces instead of real journalism.

This is because people no longer buy newspapers, they get their news for free on the internet. I do it, you do it. Fact of life. Picked up a paper yesterday it was pathetically small and 90% advertisements. But the fact is that much of this results from free access to others creative efforts. newspapers put their shit out there for free hoping for internet advertising to bring in some revenue, but it aint work.

it is all a tradeoff.

OTOH, i couldnt live without my free news, so I hope these bills die.

Do arts creators have rights to their own creations, or not?

This has nothing to do with it, it is still wanting censorship. It is about censorship with a purpose but still it is about CENSORSHIP.

If you don't want it in the net don't make the medium in which your creation can be distributed on the net.

Simple.

The artist can't have it both ways, ease of data and then claim that ease is ripping him off.

#26 | Posted by moneywar

I dont believe it is about censorship, except in so much as the censored material is pirated from someone else.

u r indoctrinated and can't be trusted
#25 | POSTED BY L_E_LIGHT

Because I have a healthy distrust for those in power and prefer the internet to remain unregulated for the masses to use as a stop gap against fascism and totalitarianism?

Don't you understand the internet's lack of regulation is the only thing keeping you free from Obama's socialist agenda?

You are right that the internet is not entirely anonymous, but it is quite difficult for the government to track down those individuals who know how to hide. SOPA would bring in the type of regulation that removes the obstacles currently in place. The government doesn't have the ability to track down millions of users perpetuating anti-government messages. It doesn't even have the ability to track down all of the members of Anonymous. But it would be able to do so if legislation like SOPA is passed.

If business wants to protect their work, exports then don't put it on the net.

Before we had the net, we had newspapers, mags and TV and radio, if business's had something going they didn't put it in the media. Internet is no different, don't put it in the media.

#19 | Posted by moneywar at

You think the big hollywood studios are putting the current movies on the internet? YOu think Fox or whoever produced MI4 put it on the net?

"System of a Down would disagree with your statement. "

They're free to go without.

"The subsequent album to their chart smashing Toxicity was entitled Steal this Album, with the whole front of the CD made out to look like a CD-RW, with the title's font written out in a sharpy marker. This was obviously a stand against the corporate status-quo in the music industry."

And...let me guess: they ended up with less money in their pocket on the second album.

Of all the music written and recorded since the dawn of time, and all the film shot and edited, and all the short stories, novelas, and tomes written, only a small percentage are copywritten. If you want any of the majority of artistic freeware, take it. But take the copywritten material against the owner's choice, and that's theft. Even if you get away with it.

"Don't you understand the internet's lack of regulation is the only thing keeping you free from Obama's socialist agenda?"

yet it hasnt cured your paranoia!

It is tantamount to computer programs selling in the store. They sell you a box and then tell you to go to the internet sight to download the program.

What the ?????

"If business wants to protect their work, exports then don't put it on the net."

It's not the business putting it on the net, it's, say, the first buyer of the DVD.

You don't really get how this works, do you?

"This has nothing to do with it, it is still wanting censorship. It is about censorship with a purpose but still it is about CENSORSHIP."

How is stopping you from stealing what doesn't belong to you censorship? Again, does theft = free speech?

This topic needs to be debated thoroughly.
#3 | Posted by rstybeach11

No it doesn’t. This may be the only thing you and I ever agree on but this law MUST NOT PASS. No debate needed, no partisan politics involved, this law will affect all of us.

You think the big hollywood studios are putting the current movies on the internet? YOu think Fox or whoever produced MI4 put it on the net?

#30 | Posted by truthhurts at 2011-12-28 04:49 PM | Reply | Flag

No, but they are putting it in a medium that allows it to be on the net, and for good reason, they get the free advertising by the movie being passed on.

If they don't want it on the net make it in a medium that doesn't work on the net. Simple.

#32 | POSTED BY TRUTHHURTS

That was a poke at Jak's paranoia. I should have made may intent at sarcasm a little more clear.

"They sell you a box and then tell you to go to the internet sight to download the program."

And why don't you just palm the box and walk out the front door?

Oh, right...that would be stealing, and you might actually have to face the consequences of your actions.

"If they don't want it on the net make it in a medium that doesn't work on the net. Simple."

You're kidding, right? A medium that doesn't work on the net?!? You're either joking or you're a joke.

"this law MUST NOT PASS."

What is it about the law you don't like? Specifically.

You think the big hollywood studios are putting the current movies on the internet? YOu think Fox or whoever produced MI4 put it on the net?

#30 | Posted by truthhurts at 2011-12-28 04:49 PM | Reply | Flag

No, but they are putting it in a medium that allows it to be on the net, and for good reason, they get the free advertising by the movie being passed on.

If they don't want it on the net make it in a medium that doesn't work on the net. Simple.

#37 | Posted by moneywar

This is some serious self justification going on here.

putting it in a medium that allows it to be on the net? Are you serious? You mean digital? And of course that doesnt account for the movies simply videotaped at the theater.
good reason-free advertising!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. yep, Im sure that hollywood is making a fortune from those who watch the movie on line, typically by themselves. That type of advertisement has to reap them billions.

How is stopping you from stealing what doesn't belong to you censorship? Again, does theft = free speech?

#35 | Posted by Danforth at 2011-12-28 04:52 PM | Reply | Flag

How about making the product in a code which doesn't allow the product to be on the net.

You just don't see the overall issue here, not surprising though as you do tend to get the horse blinders on when taking on issues.

It is censorship and there is nothing you can really say that refutes this. It doesn't matter the reason you want it, it is still censorship.

"How about making the product in a code which doesn't allow the product to be on the net."

You can't be that naive. You can film stuff on TV or in a movie house and pop it up on YouTube.

"You just don't see the overall issue here"

Where is the censorship? All I've seen is an attempt to shut down thieving websites.

"it is still censorship."

You're making up a definition. Yes or No, do you believe someone stopping you from stealing something they own is censorship?

If they don't want it on the net make it in a medium that doesn't work on the net. Simple.
#37 | POSTED BY MONEYWAR

That's tough to do when you consider the amount of movies that are pirated via video recordings in the movie theatre itself. Although, I tried watching Transformers like that once and it just gave me a headache. The video quality is so bad you can't see what's going on during any action sequences. Plus the vietnamese subtitles were annoying. I don't understand why anyone would consider watching a well made movie in such poor quality just so that you can see it for free. I saw War Horse last night and couldn't imagine enjoying it anywhere near as much as I did if I saw it in such poor quality as that offered on a pirated version. The cinematography was some of the best I have ever seen - period. The story line was very good and evoked much emotion, but nowhere near the emotion brought on by the beautifully tantalizing images on the screen.

I highly recommend everyone see it and most definitely see it on the big screen. For those with artistic sentiments, its like going to an art museum with a show specifying horses and WWI. Breathtaking.

"they are putting it in a medium that allows it to be on the net, and for good reason, they get the free advertising by the movie being passed on."

So the more people who steal the movie, the better for the studios due to the "free advertising"...?!?

Clueless.

Clue-fucking-less.

SOPA would bring in the type of regulation that removes the obstacles currently in place. The government doesn't have the ability to track down millions of users perpetuating anti-government messages. It doesn't even have the ability to track down all of the members of Anonymous. But it would be able to do so if legislation like SOPA is passed.

#29 | Posted by rstybeach11

pls name ONE restraint blocking gvt tracking that would be changed ..
& Anonymous is understood to be NOT in USA .. nothing would change there

#44 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

From the link and why it deems discussion (at least for those on the DR):

Some have asserted that the controversial measures would criminalize pages and blogs that link to foreign websites dedicated to online piracy. In particular, this has concerned search engines like Google, which could face massive liability if some form of the bill passes, some say.
"Of course, restrictions of results provided by Internet search engines amount to just that: prior restraint of their free expression of future results. Google and others, under SOPA, are told what they can or can't publish before they publish it.

#41 | Posted by Danforth

censorship

As for your support of this law I can only assume that you are bored and amusing yourself.

Anonymous is understood to be NOT in USA .. nothing would change there
#47 | POSTED BY L_E_LIGHT

pls name ONE restraint blocking gvt tracking that would be changed ..
#47 | POSTED BY L_E_LIGHT

The SOPA legislation is meant to combat Internet piracy, but online commentators have raised the specter of running afoul of the proposed law by being only casually connected to a website which engages in piracy. It was suggested that nothing more than a link to the site would place a blog in jeopardy of being guilty of piracy by association.

It's understandable when you hear from those who would be effected:

Google Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt suggested SOPA would do more than simply damage the Internet: "By criminalizing links, what these bills do is they force you to take content off the Internet," Schmidt said, calling it a form of censorship.

Has Al Gore weighed in on this?

"censorship"

FAIL.

Where in the bill is censorship, other than "censoring" your "right" to steal what doesn't belong to you?

"It was suggested that nothing more than a link to the site would place a blog in jeopardy of being guilty of piracy by association."

It was "suggested"...?

What a smokescreen. They aren't going to prosecute someone for ONE link, just like they're not going to knock on your door if you illegally download ONE song. This is to stop copywrite theft, nothing more. Any other pretense is the bleating of thieves afraid of being caught.

"and blogs that link to foreign websites dedicated to online piracy."

Oh...so if your "blog" is "Foreign Theft Sites R Us", it's time to worry. Everyone else...not so much.

I like how the conversation progressed since I last checked. SOPA = FUCK AMERICA! This comment was right-on too:

Internet regulation encompasses child porn because of the effect it will have on internet's anonymity. SOPA may not be out to get child pornographers, but it will have an effect on policing child porn.

I bring it up because it is the most extreme and positive reason I can think of to regulate the internet - which is the government's current most important goal to protect itself from the American people, IMHO.

And who are you to tell me what to bring up on a thread that I created? You don't like the comment, ignore it. Suck it up, Joe.

I piss on your post for its anti-freedom sentiments, but I would die to protect the right for you to make it.
#17 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2011-12-28 04:19 PM | Reply | Flag: Right on!

BTW, to "protect children" we're gonna scan your PC... and because we want a "child safe" zone on here - you'd fucking better not say cunt you dick shit bastard...

OMFG PC kills - both freedom and all those foreign torture victims who might have been saved if the USA's political discouerse weren't sensored via the fear of retaliation sooo many people live with. Like Germany...

When they came for the bloggers, artists, jews, spicks, niggers, sick, assholes, cunts, ..., ... nobody cared, and when they came for "me"... there was nobody left. Well I for one care - hope that helps.

Oh...so if your "blog" is "Foreign Theft Sites R Us", it's time to worry. Everyone else...not so much.

#55 | Posted by Danforth at 2011-12-28 05:40 PM | Reply | Flag

Yep, it is that easy. LOL!

Is the foreign theft sites R us like the no fly list?

Is the site like any other terrorist law, more than likely.

And who determines which site is legit and which isn't?

If you don't like the theft, spend the money and the program to code the product so it can't be dupped.

Kind of amazing the program companies are able to do it but not the artistic industry.

It is censorship and there is nothing you can really say that refutes this. It doesn't matter the reason you want it, it is still censorship.

#43 | Posted by moneywar

No --it's copywrite protections--and there are oodles of attorneys who have amassed fortunes writing copywrite laws and then enforcing them.

It is not censorship to put out Your own writings, songs, music, etc.

If it is someone else's work--they may have a copywrite and it is protected and you are no allowed to print, copy, or place it on youtube without the owners' permission.

Youtube takes off music and videos all the time. They put up that disclaimer that says the material is protected and can't be published.

Rcade gets into trouble--along with other sites over linking AP stories.

This law--and I don't believe it will pass either bill--wants the foreign --overseas copywrite infringement to stop--namely China.

This doesn't make too much sense in the scheme of things.

It seems that the internet checks itself.

When I say youtube I am also including the internet.

Any other pretense is the bleating of thieves afraid of being caught.
#54 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

Now you're projecting. You had a sound argument until you trotted out this little snippet of fallacy.

"This doesn't make too much sense in the scheme of things."

Only if you're willing to surrender in the theft war.

"Now you're projecting. "

What else are they afraid of? They don't really believe the nasty net cops are going to come after them for linking to one site, do they? This is for aggregate theft sites. Forgive me if it seems they merely want continued access to the golden treasure trove.

I agree that piracy is wrong Dan--I believe I am agreeing with you on that premise.

But the internet police's itself by and large.

They stopped the music downloading. They had to go to court--but the system worked itself--without congress phucking things up with a bill(s) that muddy up the internet.

Now we have sites that have paid the royalties and people pay to download music.

They have the same thing for movies.

There are sites that are breaking laws that are already on the books--why another bill or two that appears to be poorly written to have all these other groups complaining about them?

"And who determines which site is legit and which isn't?"

Probably experts who click thru, and see if there are any copywritten materials being offered for theft. In our case, it's representatives who've been authorized by the rights owners.

"But the internet police's itself by and large."

Nonsense. Over 90% of downloaded copywritten music is stolen.

DANFORTH -

Interesting you invoke the moral relativeness involved in murder and robbery when in comparison to child porn. Shouldn't such relativeness be considered in congress when they produce a bill that goes after intellectual property crimes instead of focusing on a more prudent crime, such as child pornography (which is directly related to child sex crimes)?

"why another bill or two that appears to be poorly written"

You haven't read it. WTF are you talking about, an opinion from someone else who hasn't read it?

"Interesting you invoke the moral relativeness involved in murder and robbery when in comparison to child porn."

All due respect, WTF are you babbling about?

DANFORTH -

In an effort to cut expenses and increase profits, since 2001 the music industry has continually reduced the amount of music released each year. However, they have continued to increase their legal expenses; the practice of filing lawsuits against average citizens continues unabated. Perhaps the music industry should spend more money developing talent and less on suing the consumers whose business it covets. These lawsuits are not a successful business model for increasing their lagging profits. In fact they are very cost intensive and bring very little return. According to Jonathan Lamy, RIAA senior vice president of communications, they identify the individual consumers that they sue as follows: "We can identify the IP addresses associated with the user engaging in the illegal activity," he says. The Internet service provider "is able to match a specific IP address with the account holder." This is a flawed method of targeting violators. An IP address is very similar to your home address. It is a number of digits that are assigned to you by your Internet Service Provider when you sign up for internet services. However, most IP addresses assigned by your ISP are dynamic, meaning they change. A certain IP address may be assigned to your account one day and a few days or weeks later a completely different one is assigned.

#69 | POSTED BY RSTYBEACH11
Link to quote:

Danforth being gang raped and I guess I should report it but it think he's enjoying it.

#68 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

My mistake, that was intended for Moneywar.

"Danforth being gang raped"

How do you figure that? You still haven't shown the first bit of "censorship", other than you can spell the word.

#69

The quote is a self-serving opinion, nothing more. We see the hard numbers.

"giving the government the ability to locate and identify anyone perpetuating a message it doesn't condone "

Oh, please, go dry your panties. Do you think they can't do that now???

Disastrous IP Legislation Is Back And It's Worse than Ever

We've reported here often on efforts to ram through Congress legislation that would authorize massive interference with the Internet, all in the name of a fruitless quest to stamp out all infringement online. Today Representative Lamar Smith upped the ante, introducing legislation, called the Stop Online Piracy Act, or "SOPA," that would not only sabotage the domain name system but would also threaten to effectively eliminate the DMCA safe harbors that, while imperfect, have spurred much economic growth and online creativity.

Do you think they can't do that now???
#74 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

Not as effectively as they could with SOPA in place. What? You think the government has no interest in regulating the exact medium of communication used in the Arab Spring? Please. Now I know you are just pushing buttons. This is further infringement upon people's privacy, just like the Patriot Act (data mining).

SOPA: Hollywood Finally Gets A Chance to Break the Internet

As promised, here's the first installment of our closer review of the massive piece of job-killing Internet regulation that is the Stop Online Piracy Act. We'll start with how it could impact Twitter, Tumblr, and the next innovative social network, cloud computing, or web hosting service that some smart kid is designing in her garage right now.

Let's make one thing clear from the get-go: despite all the talk about this bill being directed only toward rogue foreign sites, there is no question that it targets US companies as well. The bill sets up a system to punish sites allegedly dedicated to the theft of US property. How do you get that label? Doesn't take much: Some portion of your site (even a single page)...

The quote is a self-serving opinion, nothing more. We see the hard numbers.
#74 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

Funny you didn't say the same thing when I presented a quote from a google executive.

Ironic jeffin is banned right when he would have the most fun

Hollywood's New War on Software Freedom and Internet Innovation

This is the third in our series (Part 1, Part 2) breaking down the potential effects of the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), an outrageous and grievously misguided bill now working its way through the House of Representatives. This post discusses dangerous software censorship provisions that are new in this bill, as well as the DNS censorship provisions it inherited from the Senate's COICA and PIPA bills. Please help us fight this misguided legislation by contacting Congress today.

#79 | POSTED BY KANREI

What he get banned for?

"What he get banned for?"

Litterin' ...

... and creatin' a nuisance.

Hollywood's New War on Software Freedom and Internet Innovation #80 | Posted by nullifidian

Hollywood spend good money on Barry's 2009 campaign and it time for a payback.

Hollywood spend good money on Barry's 2009 campaign and it time for a payback.

#83 | Posted by paneocon

Has Obama stated whether he would sign or veto this bill?

Danforth being gang raped and I guess I should report it but it think he's enjoying it.

#71 | Posted by paneocon at 2011-12-28 06:35 PM | Reply

Again?

"Again?"

I can't seem to find any evidence of the first.

"the massive piece of job-killing Internet regulation"

Bullshit opinionated claim without any backing evidence.

"We'll start with how it could impact Twitter, Tumblr, and the next innovative social network"

STUPID opinionated claim without any backing evidence.

"The bill sets up a system to punish sites allegedly dedicated to the theft of US property. "

Ahhh, NOW we see what people are against: the government stopping theft.

"Hollywood's New War on Software Freedom and Internet Innovation"

Great. Even more hyperbolic bullshit, from the people who believe they should be "free" to create methods to steal the artistic works of others.

Great. Even more hyperbolic bullshit, from the people who believe they should be "free" to create methods to steal the artistic works of others.

#88 | Posted by Danforth

Let's see. Who should I believe? An anonymous blogger who is a small-time Hollywood actor and tax accountant to the non-stars, or the Electronic Frontier Foundation, with a proven track record of defending the freedom of the Internet?

Let's see. Who should I believe? An anonymous blogger who is a small-time thief, and folks who want to steal just like him, or the actual people I work alongside?

"with a proven track record of defending thieves on the Internet?"

FTFY.

SOPA Is “Unconstitutional”, Would “Criminalize” the Internet … Modeled On China

~~~
Harvard Law School professor Laurence Tribe is one of the top constitutional experts in the country, and wrote one of the main treatises on the subject. Tribe wrote a letter to Congress last week stating that SOPA (the Stop Online Piracy Act) is unconstitutional.

Laurence Tribe, a constitutional law expert at Harvard Law School, argues [SOPA] violates the First Amendment in a memo sent to members of Congress on Thursday.

The bill would empower the Justice Department and copyright holders to demand that search engines, Internet providers and payment processors cut ties with websites “dedicated” to copyright infringement.

Tribe argues the bill amounts to illegal “prior restraint” because it would suppress speech without a judicial hearing.

Additionally, the law’s definition of a rogue website is unconstitutionally vague, Tribe writes.

“Conceivably, an entire website containing tens of thousands of pages could be targeted if only a single page were accused of infringement,” Tribe writes. “Such an approach would create severe practical problems for sites with substantial user-generated content, such as Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube, and for blogs that allow users to post videos, photos, and other materials.”

"The bill would empower the Justice Department and copyright holders to demand that search engines, Internet providers and payment processors cut ties with websites "dedicated" to copyright infringement."

In related news, holding the flashlight so others can loot is also against the law.

"Who to believe?"

Who to believe? The folks I work alongside, or a self-serving thief bent on stealing from them?

"or a Hollywood actor who earns more money doing tax returns than acting?""

Taxes have been my highest annual source of income exactly once. But I guess if you've got nothing else, might as well make up a lie, eh thief?

"If you're wondering why lawyers and Hollywood folks would get behind legislation to censor the Internet, you only need to listen to former Senator Chris Dodd [the same guy who killed any chance of financial reform - see this, this, this and this], now the head of the MPAA, who last week explained to Variety that the lobby is only asking for the same kind of power to censor the Internet as the government has in the People's Republic of China:

When the Chinese told Google that they had to block sites or they couldn't do [business] in their country, they managed to figure out how to block sites.

"Who to believe? The folks I work alongside,"

Yeah, sure, Goatman. LOL.

"In other words, Danforth is a communist."

IOW, Nullifidian is a thief trying to find any and every possible reason to seem anything but a raging hypocrite.

Gee, someone who steals other people's work is upset that stealing other people's work won't be as easy. Anyone surprised?

Now watch, Nullithiefian will counter with how awful the media cartels are, and how the artists only get 5 cents on the dollar.

What he won't tell you though, it that's 5 cents more than he's willing to give them. And for all his bleating about the "artists", he's never directly sent them a penny. The only thing he pays them is lip service, while bitching about people who offer the artists infinitely more.

Yeah, sure, Goatman. LOL.

#96 | Posted by nullifidian

I'm still under your skin big time, I see dull. I've not even posted on this thread but you still can't help but to bring my name up. LOL

You got me bad, don't you?

"Yeah, sure"

Well then, you're clueless, as well as a thief.

If you don't believe me, here's a way to make some easy cash. How about a little Mittsey bet?

(Up front, of course. Your words are clearly worthless.)

#98 | Posted by goatman

Hey Goatman, tell us what your coworkers say on this subject. I'm sure that will be as important as what Hollyforth's coworkers say. LOL.

Hey Goatman, tell us what your coworkers say on this subject.

If I think about it, I'll ask some. But it's not high on my list of priorities, so don't hold your breath, dull one.

Why do you care what they think about it, anyway?

Tough argument there Danforth.

Why you so concerned with your wallet when people's constitutional rights are at stake? Maybe not yours, but other people and companies. Hurt economy, no?

"Why you so concerned with your wallet when people's constitutional rights are at stake?"

You're eating up the "sky is falling" malarky; no one's constitutional rights are at stake. This is targeted at thief sites, nothing more. Billions of dollars in American workers' products are being stolen, and we either fight back, or let the thieves take what doesn't belong to them, losing honest paychecks and tax dollars. It's ultimately all about whether there should be copyright law in the digital age. What do you think: should someone be able to buy one DVD, and then let everyone else download it for free? Should the first person who buys Stephen King's next novel be able to open a competing website and sell a download online, or should Mr. King and other creators retain the rights to what they create?

"I'm sure that will be as important as what Hollyforth's coworkers say. LOL."

This guy is stealing from other people, and then laughing at them.

Kinda scummy.

Kinda scummy.

#104 | Posted by Danforth at 2011-12-28 09:46 PM |

What's scummy is being a corporate whore for people who would destroy the Internet if they could get away with it.

What's scummy is being a corporate whore for people who would destroy the Internet if they could get away with it.

Quit whining, dull. There's no bogeyman hiding around the corner to take your internet away from you.

"; no one's constitutional rights are at stake. This is targeted at thief sites, nothing more. "
#103 | Posted by Danforth

Listen to this naive, ignorant Hollywood hacktor who actually thinks this law will only be used against piracy. You would think this fool, HollyHack, had never heard of "mission creep". Hasn't heard about the Department of Fatherland Security getting involved in the drug war, copyright enforcement, etc.

"What's scummy is being a corporate whore for people who would destroy the Internet if they could get away with it."

What a dipshit: I sit across the table from the corporate folks, not on the same side.

And we offer the artists contracts, residual collections, contract enforcement, pensions, and health care, along with a host of other benefits and a network of support groups.

By contrast, you offer them...the opportunity to be ripped off.

"Hasn't heard about the Department of Fatherland Security"

Godwin is a genius.

"Hasn't heard about the Department of Fatherland Security"

Godwin is a genius.

#109 | Posted by Danforth

And now you're a fan of DHS, eh, HollyHack? Bet you love TSA, hack.

This is targeted at thief sites, nothing more.

And if you believe this you are one naive sumbitch!

This is about censorship and control, nothing more, entered under the mask of the poor millionaire artists trying to get a few more pennies.

"entered under the mask of the poor millionaire artists trying to get a few more pennies."

Good God, you're stupid. If people found a legal way to transfer money from your bank account to their bank account, you'd be screaming bloody murder.

I voted for search for Bigfoot.

Don't believe in online piracy.

But SOPA is not a good bill.

The potential for abuse and censorship contained within should be enough to give anyone on any side of the political aisle pause here.

Various political blog sites like Reddit and BMG have already said that if SOPA passes they will not be able to operate as before. the ease at which both this and the NDAA have passed at a time of historic obstructionism should prove a valuable object lesson to any who would observe it.

Government is becoming increasingly pro-corporate and anti-people.

And that influence grows daily.

[donotwant.jpg]

Be Well.

"Various political blog sites like Reddit and BMG have already said that if SOPA passes they will not be able to operate as before."

They're fearmongering. The feds aren't interested in censorship, this is targeted at sites dedicated to helping people steal copywritten material and the theft of American exports.

How SOPA Will Affect You

"As CNET reported in December, Smith, a self-described former ranch manager whose congressional district encompasses the cropland and grazing land stretching between Austin and San Antonio, Texas, has become Hollywood's favorite Republican. The TV, movie, and music industries are the top donors to his 2012 campaign committee, and he's been feted by music and movie industry lobbyists at dinners and concerts. "

What a surprise! Bought and paid for by hypocritical Hollywood liberals who otherwise would have contempt for a conservative Texan Republican.

Rated 0% by the HRC, indicating an anti-gay-rights stance.
Rated 7% by the ACLU, indicating an anti-civil rights voting record.

The government will try anything to get control of the Internet. They have used child porn, piracy, free Wifi, etc. All done in the guise of service, but really about control.

Yes, even free WiFi is about control as the FCC can't claim the internet until it is mostly wireless AKA transmitted through the public airwaves. So long as it is mostly through phone lines, the FCC can't touch it.

Voted NO on prohibiting job discrimination based on sexual orientation.
Voted YES on Constitutionally defining marriage as one-man-one-woman.
Voted YES on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage.
Voted YES on "protecting" the Pledge of Allegiance.
Voted YES on constitutional amendment prohibiting flag desecration.
Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC.
Voted YES on making the PATRIOT Act permanent.

But as long as he brings home the bacon for Hollywood corporations, what do Hollywood liberals care? Lamar Smith for President!

120 comments and Danforth + Goat are the only ones supporting this bill. Oh, and LE Light too. I cant tell if they are serious or not. Dan made a good point, but refused to acknowledge opposing points. I wonder why?

120 comments and Danforth + Goat are the only ones supporting this bill.

And you are the only one here who doesn't comprehend English very well. Care to show me the post where I supported the bill?

Thanks

#122 | POSTED BY GOATMAN
My apologies. I took your back and forth with Null, in combination with the following, as an indication of support. My mistake:

There's no bogeyman hiding around the corner to take your internet away from you.
#106 | POSTED BY GOATMAN

#123 no harm, no foul. I will state, that I am against music and movie piracy. But since that is not the gist of this bill, only an extrapolated (wrongly so, IMO) subset, I can't say I am either for or against it. Take the implied piracy out and I am against it.

"but refused to acknowledge opposing points. I wonder why?'

Because the people crying "censorship" are either idiots or thieves.

Because the people crying "censorship" are either idiots or thieves.
#125 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

And you include constitutional scholars from Harvard as part of that group? Interesting.

And you include constitutional scholars from Harvard as part of that group? Interesting.

#126 | Posted by rstybeach11

Hey, Hollyforth skipped the 4th grade or something. He's obviously smarter than some dummy like Laurence Tribe.

They're fearmongering.

What interest of Reddit does fearmongering serve?

How about Google? Why do they care?

"And you include constitutional scholars from Harvard as part of that group?"

I think we've learned there are experts on the side of everything. As in this case, they're usually on the outside, talking in.

I sit on a Union board which represents royalty artists. We've tried to help craft portions of this law due to the rampant theft brought on by digitalization and the internet. Silly us, we believe Stephen King should have rights to his next book beyond the first copy sold. And if read closely, you'll see this is to fight sites "dedicated" (you know what that word means, right?) to theft of an honest work product.

If this makes the casual linker more aware of theft, good. The person holding the flashlight during the looting is just as guilty.

Union board
Danforth
Stephen King
Danforth helped craft portions of this law

I'm sold, law sucks!

I'm sold, law sucks!

#130 | Posted by paneocon at 2011-12-29 10:31

What do you know? Did you skip the 4th grade like HackForth?

"Danforth helped craft portions of this law "

No wonder it sucks. Every civil libertarian in the country agrees.

"Danforth helped craft portions of this law "
"Danforth helped craft portions of this law "

Good God, you're all in second grade.

And you still haven't found censorship.

Good God, you're all in second grade.

And you still haven't found censorship.

#133 | Posted by Danforth

You skipped that grade as well, eh, Hollyforth?

"You skipped that grade as well, eh, Hollyforth?"

Aw...isn't that cute? Nullifidian wishes he were the creator instead of the leech.

Danforth you are scum for supporting this garbage. You know it will be misused to shutdown competitors. Big corps will claim the little guy has stolen some ip. The little guy will be shutdown while the investigation occurs if it does at all. This si horrible. You are a corporate whore. Oh and guess what you can't stop the net. People will find ways to circumvent the law. I dont want to live in China even if you do.

Danforth you are scum for supporting this garbage. You know it will be misused to shutdown competitors. Big corps will claim the little guy has stolen some ip. The little guy will be shutdown while the investigation occurs if it does at all. This si horrible. You are a corporate whore. Oh and guess what you can't stop the net. People will find ways to circumvent the law. I dont want to live in China even if you do.

Danforth you are scum for supporting this garbage. You know it will be misused to shutdown competitors. Big corps will claim the little guy has stolen some ip. The little guy will be shutdown while the investigation occurs if it does at all. This si horrible. You are a corporate whore. Oh and guess what you can't stop the net. People will find ways to circumvent the law. I dont want to live in China even if you do.

sorry for triple post comp locked up.

"Big corps will claim the little guy has stolen some ip. The little guy will be shutdown while the investigation occurs if it does at all."

Bullshit. No proof, just wild pretense. This is targeted at sites which are "dedicated" to helping folks steal copywritten materials.

Do you understand what the word "dedicated" means?

"You are a corporate whore."

I represent the artists, you raging dumbshit.

"Oh and guess what you can't stop the net. People will find ways to circumvent the law."

Thanks for admitting you know you're breaking the law.

"I dont want to live in China even if you do."

You must be happy Special Ed posts on the DR; that way you're only the second-dumbest idiot here.

Don't you just love a union guy cat fight.