Senate Bill Amounts to Death Penalty for Web Sites

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
I like the way this guy worded that headline except that he forgot to add the "without a trial" part.

The U.S. Department of Justice would receive the power to seek a court order against an allegedly infringing Web site, and then serve that order on search engines, certain Domain Name System providers, and Internet advertising firms--which would in turn be required to "expeditiously" make the target Web site invisible.
Click to expand...
 
Welcome to the United States of China...So much for freedom of speech and expression.
 
He didn't add "without a trial" because they have to "seek a court order against an allegedly infringing website." They still have to prove the infringement to the court.

As long as there is some notice requirement to the web site holder so they can fight the hearing on the order or take down any offending content before the site is seized, who cares. Don't run a warez site and don't host illegal shit.
 
Katalysis said:
He didn't add "without a trial" because they have to "seek a court order against an allegedly infringing website." They still have to prove the infringement to the court.

As long as there is some notice requirement to the web site holder so they can fight the hearing on the order or take down any offending content before the site is seized, who cares. Don't run a warez site and don't host illegal shit.
Click to expand...

Trial |= court order...The fact of the matter is that they will go to judges that lean their way and not have to prove much of anything. The problem is not the warez sites or other illegal shit as you call it but what will be deemed that way when they don't like what you're doing. Legislation like this leads down a slippery slope. I am actually surprised that they didn't put this gem with the other "gem" that is trying to give any President the ability to go to war without involving Congress. Any time legislation like either one of these gems is passed we as citizens have lost, because the checks and balances that are mandate by our Constitution are being circumvented.

Worldwide War Authority
 
More governmental controls (censorship)aren't what the Internet needs.

Sherwin Siy, deputy legal director at Public Knowledge, said: "I can appreciate that the drafters are trying to address some of the overbreadth issues, but I think that the core of the bill remains a problem." And the Computer and Communications Industry Association, which represents some Internet companies, called Protect IP an "Internet censorship bill" under a "new name."
 
First casualty? Alternative Websites that don't produce Govt. Propaganda pieces.

Try as I might I can't think of one area where the Govt. has control and hasn't Effed everything up either by accident or by design(usually it's by design).
 
I don't understand why they are even going after warez websites. It isn't really going to change anything for the music/movie/game industries. 7/10+ if people couldn't get the music/movie/game they downloaded for FREE anyways, they wouldn't purchase it. Stupiditiy, the internet is supposed to be a free ground, not yet another thing that can be controlled by the government for them to start fucking up just like they do everything else. Damn.
 
TheWeazmeister said:
Trial |= court order...The fact of the matter is that they will go to judges that lean their way and not have to prove much of anything. The problem is not the warez sites or other illegal shit as you call it but what will be deemed that way when they don't like what you're doing. Legislation like this leads down a slippery slope. I am actually surprised that they didn't put this gem with the other "gem" that is trying to give any President the ability to go to war without involving Congress. Any time legislation like either one of these gems is passed we as citizens have lost, because the checks and balances that are mandate by our Constitution are being circumvented.

Worldwide War Authority
Click to expand...

I know the difference between a trial and a court order--I'm an attorney.

People are acting like the government can just shut down websites. They still have to have a hearing. Of course, then comes the standard "the judge's are in the government's pocket" and "it's a slippery slope" arguments. What slippery slope are we going down? The one where people aren't allowed to steal someone else's work?

There won't be any "deeming." The web site is either violating a copyrighted work, or it isn't. They can't turn this into shutting down someone's personal blog. This isn't a violation of free speech. So long as someone has notice to present their case in the hearing for the court order, this is not a big deal. Even if it went to trial, the copyright holder will seek an injunction to shut down the site anyway while a trial is conducted.

I swear some people on here are birthers, 9/11 truthers, flouride conspiracists, and a whole bunch of other stuff all rolled into one when it comes to piracy.
 
TheWeazmeister said:
Trial |= court order...The fact of the matter is that they will go to judges that lean their way and not have to prove much of anything. The problem is not the warez sites or other illegal shit as you call it but what will be deemed that way when they don't like what you're doing. Legislation like this leads down a slippery slope. I am actually surprised that they didn't put this gem with the other "gem" that is trying to give any President the ability to go to war without involving Congress. Any time legislation like either one of these gems is passed we as citizens have lost, because the checks and balances that are mandate by our Constitution are being circumvented.

Worldwide War Authority
Click to expand...

+1
Glad to see that someone else is aware of where this will eventialy lead. Laws like this are intentially vage so the buracrats and write thier own rules.

Just like out here in California many years ago, when they passed the 1st seatbelt law. You could only get ticket for not wearing your seatbelt, if you where pulled over and ticketed for something else. They said at the time that you would NEVER be pulled over and ticketed just for not wearing a seatbelt.
Of course now, not only do they pull you over just for not wearing a seat belt, the ticket cost have climbed several fold. A few months ago they even run a crackdown (really a fund raiser), where they sent out extra staff to specifically target people not wearing seatbelts.
 
Katalysis said:
I know the difference between a trial and a court order--I'm an attorney.

People are acting like the government can just shut down websites. They still have to have a hearing. Of course, then comes the standard "the judge's are in the government's pocket" and "it's a slippery slope" arguments. What slippery slope are we going down? The one where people aren't allowed to steal someone else's work?

There won't be any "deeming." The web site is either violating a copyrighted work, or it isn't. They can't turn this into shutting down someone's personal blog. This isn't a violation of free speech. So long as someone has notice to present their case in the hearing for the court order, this is not a big deal. Even if it went to trial, the copyright holder will seek an injunction to shut down the site anyway while a trial is conducted.

I swear some people on here are birthers, 9/11 truthers, flouride conspiracists, and a whole bunch of other stuff all rolled into one when it comes to piracy.
Click to expand...

Here's a simple scenario: I run a webiste accused of copyright infringement. Regardless of whether infringement is actually happening or not I now have to show up in court to fight this action. Since I am not a lawyer I will have to hire one to represent me, but oh wait, I can't afford the 2 to 3 hundred an hour this will cost me. Guess I'll have to let them shut down my website without any practical means of representing myself. This is the same crap the RIAA and MPAA are pulling now. Abuse of the court system is definitely not the answer.
 
This isn't the first time in human history that something similar would be happening.

Introduction of printing: DEATH TO THE PRINTERS!!! THEY ARE DEPRIVING HANDWRITTEN BOOKMAKERS OF THEIR LIVELIHOOD!!!

Introduction of libraries: LIBRARIES WOULD DEPRIVE AUTHORS OF THEIR LIVELIHOOD!!! BURN THE LIBRARIES!!!

<suddenly remembered radio too, they play music for free so they should be destroyed too, but I can't think of any shouting slogan for that anymore.>

Introduction of floppy disks: DON'T COPY THAT FLOPPY LEST YOU WANT THE SOFTWARE COMPANIES TO GO BANKRUPT!!!

Introduction of CDs: YOU BURN CDs? YOU WILL BURN IN HELL FOR DEPRIVING ARTISTS OF THEIR MONEY!!!

File-sharing in the Internet: FILE-SHARING IS A CRIME AND SUPPORTS TERRORISTS!!! YOU DEPRIVE THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS OF THEIR MONEY!!!


Well actually the crux of the matter is that copywrong (well "copyright") as we know it today is outdated. It only truly applied in the 18th-19th century (especially since life expectancy isn't exactly that high yet at that time). It slowly but surely lost "relevance" (it's only source of relevance is the simple fact of its existence, not for its usefulness, effectiveness and efficiency in application) as time passed.

And that's what is essentially exploited though, its existence I mean. Most copyright holders are corporations. Many artists already gave the "copyright" to them.
 
Katalysis said:
I know the difference between a trial and a court order--I'm an attorney.

People are acting like the government can just shut down websites. They still have to have a hearing. Of course, then comes the standard "the judge's are in the government's pocket" and "it's a slippery slope" arguments. What slippery slope are we going down? The one where people aren't allowed to steal someone else's work?

There won't be any "deeming." The web site is either violating a copyrighted work, or it isn't. They can't turn this into shutting down someone's personal blog. This isn't a violation of free speech. So long as someone has notice to present their case in the hearing for the court order, this is not a big deal. Even if it went to trial, the copyright holder will seek an injunction to shut down the site anyway while a trial is conducted.

I swear some people on here are birthers, 9/11 truthers, flouride conspiracists, and a whole bunch of other stuff all rolled into one when it comes to piracy.
Click to expand...

Alleged piracy, alleged illegal file sharing.
 
Katalysis said:
I know the difference between a trial and a court order--I'm an attorney.

People are acting like the government can just shut down websites. They still have to have a hearing. Of course, then comes the standard "the judge's are in the government's pocket" and "it's a slippery slope" arguments. What slippery slope are we going down? The one where people aren't allowed to steal someone else's work?

There won't be any "deeming." The web site is either violating a copyrighted work, or it isn't. They can't turn this into shutting down someone's personal blog. This isn't a violation of free speech. So long as someone has notice to present their case in the hearing for the court order, this is not a big deal. Even if it went to trial, the copyright holder will seek an injunction to shut down the site anyway while a trial is conducted.

I swear some people on here are birthers, 9/11 truthers, flouride conspiracists, and a whole bunch of other stuff all rolled into one when it comes to piracy.
Click to expand...

You trust the government too much. They've changed their story on Osama over 3 times and you still believe them. Don't be part of the sheeple. Your rights are being removed one by one. The land of the free America most Americans envision in their brains has long been dead. If someone lies to you many times are you going to believe them. Better question whats going on or else face whats to come. Was there exactly any good change with Obama. Who believes politicians lol. Gotta do your own research and not rely on government/corporate filtered news. I don't wear a tinfoil hat but I know what you see on tv isn't the whole truth and some times biased lies. Btw, Flouride is in the water.

All these internet controls are there to shut down free speech and freedom. Stop blinding yourself ;). They'll shut off the internet when it comes time like they did in Israel.
 
Raffin said:
Here's a simple scenario: I run a webiste accused of copyright infringement. Regardless of whether infringement is actually happening or not I now have to show up in court to fight this action. Since I am not a lawyer I will have to hire one to represent me, but oh wait, I can't afford the 2 to 3 hundred an hour this will cost me. Guess I'll have to let them shut down my website without any practical means of representing myself. This is the same crap the RIAA and MPAA are pulling now. Abuse of the court system is definitely not the answer.
Click to expand...

How is that different from any other time you are accused of breaking the law?

Here's a simple scenario: you are accused of driving on a suspended license, regardless of whether you actually did or not. Since it doesn't carry a penalty of more than a year in prison, and because you are not totally broke, you do not qualify for the public defender's office. Guess you'll have to go to jail for a few months? Is that somehow an "abuse of the court system?"

I'd rather see these sites get shutdown than see them sue individual downloaders. That's a much more efficient way to police the copyright anyway. The people saying "but this isn't a TRIAL" seem to forget that the juries all whacked the hell out of the people accused of downloading music, and secondly most of these copyright infringement cases are probably going to be questions of law, meaning they do not even go to the jury.
 
Katalysis said:
People are acting like the government can just shut down websites. They still have to have a hearing. Of course, then comes the standard "the judge's are in the government's pocket" and "it's a slippery slope" arguments. What slippery slope are we going down? The one where people aren't allowed to steal someone else's work?
Click to expand...

1. This will be a great way for the big money poeple to shut down any opposition.

How many times will someone have to hire a lawyer to defend themselves at a hearing before they finally give up?

Anyone with deep pockets (or a supporter with deep pockets) could use this to shut down a blog or web site they disagree with by repeatally filing complaints, i.e that a picture/quote/etc is copyrighted (even if it's not or would be covered under fair use)

Again I'll use California as an example. They passed a law that allows a person to sue a business that is in violation of the ADA (american disability act). This was suppose to be a last resort to force a business into compliance with the law. Instead it has been used to harass businesses and a money maker for certain lawyers and activist.
These activist drive around and look for any technical violation, like the sink or mirror in the bathroom being a 1/4 inch to low/high, etc, Tthen they send a letter to the business demanding that it be fixed and a settlement of a few thousand dollars, or they will take it to court. Most businesses end up paying the $ because going to court would end up costing them much more.
 
nutzo said:
1. This will be a great way for the big money poeple to shut down any opposition.

How many times will someone have to hire a lawyer to defend themselves at a hearing before they finally give up?

Anyone with deep pockets (or a supporter with deep pockets) could use this to shut down a blog or web site they disagree with by repeatally filing complaints, i.e that a picture/quote/etc is copyrighted (even if it's not or would be covered under fair use)

Again I'll use California as an example. They passed a law that allows a person to sue a business that is in violation of the ADA (american disability act). This was suppose to be a last resort to force a business into compliance with the law. Instead it has been used to harass businesses and a money maker for certain lawyers and activist.
These activist drive around and look for any technical violation, like the sink or mirror in the bathroom being a 1/4 inch to low/high, etc, Tthen they send a letter to the business demanding that it be fixed and a settlement of a few thousand dollars, or they will take it to court. Most businesses end up paying the $ because going to court would end up costing them much more.
Click to expand...

Did you RTFA? There is no deep pocket--it's the Department of Justice. Your ADA example has no correlation to this at all.
 
Katalysis said:
How is that different from any other time you are accused of breaking the law?

Here's a simple scenario: you are accused of driving on a suspended license, regardless of whether you actually did or not. Since it doesn't carry a penalty of more than a year in prison, and because you are not totally broke, you do not qualify for the public defender's office. Guess you'll have to go to jail for a few months? Is that somehow an "abuse of the court system?"

I'd rather see these sites get shutdown than see them sue individual downloaders. That's a much more efficient way to police the copyright anyway. The people saying "but this isn't a TRIAL" seem to forget that the juries all whacked the hell out of the people accused of downloading music, and secondly most of these copyright infringement cases are probably going to be questions of law, meaning they do not even go to the jury.
Click to expand...

It's different because supposedly in your scenario the police must have probable cause to write me a ticket in the first place. The new legislation would appear to bypass this. Again the same thing the RIAA and MPAA are doing now - they just file a lawsuit against an alleged file sharer - there is no need for probable cause.
 
Raffin said:
It's different because supposedly in your scenario the police must have probable cause to write me a ticket in the first place. The new legislation would appear to bypass this. Again the same thing the RIAA and MPAA are doing now - they just file a lawsuit against an alleged file sharer - there is no need for probable cause.
Click to expand...

You don't understand what you are talking about. Civil law =/= criminal law. The new law doesn't bypass anything. There is no probable cause in civil cases: I can file suit against anyone I want so long as I pay the filing fee and have them served. If the suit is ridiculous, it will be thrown out and I could be held responsible for the other side's fees and costs in dealing with my bullshit.
 
Foreign ISP: "Yes?"
DOJ: "This is the United States of America calling!" foreign ISP: "...click..." "We would like you to...ummm....hello ? ....helloooo ???"
 
Raffin said:
Here's a simple scenario: I run a webiste accused of copyright infringement. Regardless of whether infringement is actually happening or not I now have to show up in court to fight this action. Since I am not a lawyer I will have to hire one to represent me, but oh wait, I can't afford the 2 to 3 hundred an hour this will cost me. Guess I'll have to let them shut down my website without any practical means of representing myself. This is the same crap the RIAA and MPAA are pulling now. Abuse of the court system is definitely not the answer.
Click to expand...

There's a company that is already doing this. They buy up the copyrights to images and then search the web to find web sites using them. They then demand large cash settlements or threaten to sue.

My company got a letter about a "infringing" picture we had on our web site. They demanded proof we had a license to use the image, or thousand dollars to give us a license for the image. Just removing the image was not good enough. The image in question was part of a banner on a few old web pages that where created years ago by a contractor. We had to take the time and money to go back and figure out who created the pages and contact them so we could "prove" we where legal. If we hadn't been able to figure out who or contact this person to prove we where legal, we would have been out thousands of $ to settle or even more in legal fees.
 
Katalysis said:
Did you RTFA? There is no deep pocket--it's the Department of Justice. Your ADA example has no correlation to this at all.
Click to expand...

And you don't think that outside people or politicians will have an influence on who the Justice Department single out? I'm sure they want this passed in time for the 2012 election cycle.
 
nutzo said:
And you don't think that outside people or politicians will have an influence on who the Justice Department single out? I'm sure they want this passed in time for the 2012 election cycle.
Click to expand...

And we have come full circle to the "our entire legal system is a farce and should be shut down" argument, just as predicted.
 
Katalysis said:
I know the difference between a trial and a court order--I'm an attorney.

People are acting like the government can just shut down websites. They still have to have a hearing. Of course, then comes the standard "the judge's are in the government's pocket" and "it's a slippery slope" arguments. What slippery slope are we going down? The one where people aren't allowed to steal someone else's work?

There won't be any "deeming." The web site is either violating a copyrighted work, or it isn't. They can't turn this into shutting down someone's personal blog. This isn't a violation of free speech. So long as someone has notice to present their case in the hearing for the court order, this is not a big deal. Even if it went to trial, the copyright holder will seek an injunction to shut down the site anyway while a trial is conducted.

I swear some people on here are birthers, 9/11 truthers, flouride conspiracists, and a whole bunch of other stuff all rolled into one when it comes to piracy.
Click to expand...

LOL, what slippery slope are we going down? Are you seriously that ignorant? We as a nation are participation in THREE wars at this moment with just one single declaration of war by congress, and you don't think that the same brainiacs that had no problem circumventing the Constitution of the United States would be trusted to be judge, jury, and executioner? I don't think so.

The fact of the matter is that civil liberties in this country are being usurped on a daily basis. This is nothing more than that. This ISN'T about piracy it's about DUE PROCESS. When you got your J.D. they did go over that part of the law, right? If you missed that part of law school, here's a refresher. "No person shall... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

I swear some people on here are <snip> bullshit bullshit bullshit </snip>...NEXT
 
Katalysis said:
I know the difference between a trial and a court order--I'm an attorney.

People are acting like the government can just shut down websites. They still have to have a hearing. Of course, then comes the standard "the judge's are in the government's pocket" and "it's a slippery slope" arguments. What slippery slope are we going down? The one where people aren't allowed to steal someone else's work?

There won't be any "deeming." The web site is either violating a copyrighted work, or it isn't. They can't turn this into shutting down someone's personal blog. This isn't a violation of free speech. So long as someone has notice to present their case in the hearing for the court order, this is not a big deal. Even if it went to trial, the copyright holder will seek an injunction to shut down the site anyway while a trial is conducted.

I swear some people on here are birthers, 9/11 truthers, flouride conspiracists, and a whole bunch of other stuff all rolled into one when it comes to piracy.
Click to expand...

People's lack of reading and listening skills leads them to a false state of reality.
There has been thousands of bills that passed and failed and I don't feel more or less oppressed during that time.

There has been millions of people who complained about bills for decades, but continue to vote the same people in that propose these types of bills.
Live in China, Cuba or any other country of oppression and they'll be running back to America, some you people never suffered in your lives and call America the next China.
Gimme a break.
 
TheWeazmeister said:
LOL, what slippery slope are we going down? Are you seriously that ignorant? We as a nation are participation in THREE wars at this moment with just one single declaration of war by congress, and you don't think that the same brainiacs that had no problem circumventing the Constitution of the United States would be trusted to be judge, jury, and executioner? I don't think so.

The fact of the matter is that civil liberties in this country are being usurped on a daily basis. This is nothing more than that. This ISN'T about piracy it's about DUE PROCESS. When you got your J.D. they did go over that part of the law, right? If you missed that part of law school, here's a refresher. "No person shall... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

I swear some people on here are <snip> bullshit bullshit bullshit </snip>...NEXT
Click to expand...

And here come the armchair constitutional scholars.

When you wikipedia'd "due process," did it let you know that a court hearing on whether or not you are hosting a download of the Expendables before they shut your site down counts as due process? They didn't just shut it down China stlye, give me a break.

Oh no, they've usurped my ability to steal someone else's shit by allowing the Department of Justice to shut down my website stealing someone else's shit! WHERE ARE MY FREEDUMS!? Guess what? The guy who wrote the book your are illegally hosting on your website? He is being deprived of his property by you, and he is using due process of law to shut you down.
 
Katalysis said:
And here come the armchair constitutional scholars.

When you wikipedia'd "due process," did it let you know that a court hearing on whether or not you are hosting a download of the Expendables before they shut your site down counts as due process? They didn't just shut it down China stlye, give me a break.

Oh no, they've usurped my ability to steal someone else's shit by allowing the Department of Justice to shut down my website stealing someone else's shit! WHERE ARE MY FREEDUMS!? Guess what? The guy who wrote the book your are illegally hosting on your website? He is being deprived of his property by you, and he is using due process of law to shut you down.
Click to expand...

LOL, hardly. Again, your broken record of piracy bad, mkay is not the point. I don't have any problems with sites getting shut down AFTER due process has been served and they have been found guilty of committing a crime. You did read the The fact of the matter, again, is that this is nothing more than civil liberties being usurped, that's what I have a problem with, and so should you.

From the article, "It's not entirely clear how broad the Protect IP Act's authority would be." I am so glad you are ok with this statement.

Here's the actual scary part, if after re-reading (as I hope you read the actual article before blindly making this about piracy) you still don't see why I am bitching and moaning, perhaps it's time to get a refund for that J.D.

The actual bill text, however, doesn't require that the piratical Web site sell anything--meaning, for example, if WikiLeaks were accused of primarily distributing copyrighted internal bank documents, access from the United States could be curbed.
 
TheWeazmeister said:
The actual bill text, however, doesn't require that the piratical Web site sell anything--meaning, for example, if WikiLeaks were accused of primarily distributing copyrighted internal bank documents, access from the United States could be curbed.
Click to expand...

I'm guessing those cables they keep publishing are copyright of the US government.

How far reaching are these 'blocks'? Would they just cover the US or would the DNS servers & search engines just take the easy way out and block it completely? It would add more load on the servers to check everyone's location first.
 
Tak Ne said:
I'm guessing those cables they keep publishing are copyright of the US government.

How far reaching are these 'blocks'? Would they just cover the US or would the DNS servers & search engines just take the easy way out and block it completely? It would add more load on the servers to check everyone's location first.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Under this law it would be safe to say that Philip Morris, and others could have just quashed any site that published the tobacco papers...
 
TheWeazmeister said:
LOL, hardly. Again, your broken record of piracy bad, mkay is not the point. I don't have any problems with sites getting shut down AFTER due process has been served and they have been found guilty of committing a crime. You did read the The fact of the matter, again, is that this is nothing more than civil liberties being usurped, that's what I have a problem with, and so should you.

From the article, "It's not entirely clear how broad the Protect IP Act's authority would be." I am so glad you are ok with this statement.

Here's the actual scary part, if after re-reading (as I hope you read the actual article before blindly making this about piracy) you still don't see why I am bitching and moaning, perhaps it's time to get a refund for that J.D.

The actual bill text, however, doesn't require that the piratical Web site sell anything--meaning, for example, if WikiLeaks were accused of primarily distributing copyrighted internal bank documents, access from the United States could be curbed.
Click to expand...

It's clear at this point you didn't read any of this shit. You realize the bill would only apply to websites "dedicated to infringing activity," right?

7) the term ‘‘Internet site dedicated to infring2
ing activities’’ means an Internet site that—
3 (A) has no significant use other than en4
gaging in, enabling, or facilitating the—
5 (i) reproduction, distribution, or pub6
lic performance of copyrighted works, in
7 complete or substantially complete form, in
8 a manner that constitutes copyright in9
fringement under section 501 of title 17,
10 United States Code;
11 (ii) violation of section 1201 of title
12 17, United States Code; or
13 (iii) sale, distribution, or promotion of
14 goods, services, or materials bearing a
15 counterfeit mark, as that term is defined
16 in section 34(d) of the Lanham Act; or
17 (B) is designed, operated, or marketed by
18 its operator or persons operating in concert
19 with the operator, and facts or circumstances
20 suggest is used, primarily as a means for en21
gaging in, enabling, or facilitating the activities
22 described under clauses (i), (ii), or (iii) of sub23
paragraph (A);
Click to expand...
 
Tak Ne said:
I'm guessing those cables they keep publishing are copyright of the US government.

How far reaching are these 'blocks'? Would they just cover the US or would the DNS servers & search engines just take the easy way out and block it completely? It would add more load on the servers to check everyone's location first.
Click to expand...

You're guessing 100% wrong. By law, anything created by the US Government is not copyrightable.

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#105
 
TheWeazmeister said:
Here's a pretty good write up on why this bill is asinine.

http://www.publicknowledge.org/RogueWebsites

Perhaps Katalysis can find some correlation between PK and birthers, truthers, or some other bullshit.
Click to expand...

They are talking abotu COICA, which was already killed once last year because it went to far. They are trying to tone it down with this bill, and they have done so in a number of different ways.

Maybe you can read this instead of pretending you know the law.
http://techliberation.com/2011/05/1...ating-rogue-websites-with-the-protect-ip-act/
 
Katalysis said:
They are talking abotu COICA, which was already killed once last year because it went to far. They are trying to tone it down with this bill, and they have done so in a number of different ways.

Maybe you can read this instead of pretending you know the law.
http://techliberation.com/2011/05/1...ating-rogue-websites-with-the-protect-ip-act/
Click to expand...

LOL, perhaps you should stick to ambulance chasing and let EFF, PK, and various others do the work they know best. And the article? An OP-ED piece from a person that dabbles into the law? Seriously?
 
Dude who wrote your article...Ryan Radia
http://cei.org/expert/ryan-radia

People that wrote the articles I quoted = people that have testified in front of Congress, have actually won cases related to our rights, actually have law degree unlike Ryan Radia.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top