Destino Posted October 27, 2011 Share Posted October 27, 2011 Why do you think only "Big Business" would be helped?I can think of a multitude of ways in which small companies and individuals would benefit from strengthening copyright infringement laws. I can think of more ways small businesses and individuals would be harmed by "private right of action" included in this bill than aided by it. It allows companies that feel their being infringed upon to threaten domain registers and registrars with liability and grants no clear recourse for the accused to restore their previous status even after a court battle. A web business can literally be taken down and bullied off of DNS and search engines before these businesses have a chance to defend themselves in court. Such a position clearly benefits organizations and individuals with powerful legal teams more than resources more than others. It does not force the hand of google and DNS servers but states that they are encouraged to cooperate because doing so makes them immune to liability (and thereby implying the opposite). Give me a reason to support something that causes irreparable damage to businesses before anything has been proven? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWFLSkins Posted October 27, 2011 Share Posted October 27, 2011 Is the government trying to head off civil unrest by restricting freedom of speech? ---------- Post added October-27th-2011 at 06:00 PM ---------- If the US wants a ton of people to join the Occupy movement, this is a good move. Ban porn, too, while you're at it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teller Posted October 27, 2011 Share Posted October 27, 2011 And I understand why you stay in the GOP, since you refuse to see the connection between these two (and the others that are supporting the bill in Congress) and all the other wack-jobs on the Right. If I refused to see time after time after time the elected officials and the party leadership proves themselves to be hypocritical morons who want to pander to the least common denominator through fear and through sheer ignorance then I would have probably stayed too. So you agree with everything every democrat does? And accept it as being assigned to you? Fair enough. You have to be deliberately ignorant to have missed my criticisms of GOP politicians. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destructis Posted October 27, 2011 Share Posted October 27, 2011 Hey look at the bright side, doesn't Snyder own ES? :ols::ols: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted October 27, 2011 Share Posted October 27, 2011 that's awesome. often we pronounce it as "Gub-Mint" tho. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted October 27, 2011 Share Posted October 27, 2011 So you agree with everything every democrat does? And accept it as being assigned to you? Fair enough. Ok, where in my criticism of the GOP did you read where I wrote that the Democrats weren't idiots too? BTW, and I know I've said this soooo many times it makes me sick, but I am NOT A DEMOCRAT. You have to be deliberately ignorant to have missed my criticisms of GOP politicians. And yet you make an argument that these two (and the others who support this piece of trash) aren't representative of the whole GOP. BTW, if you want a real look at GOP insiders and strategists check out the Daily Show thread with last night's show. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FanboyOf91 Posted October 27, 2011 Share Posted October 27, 2011 It appears Congress is concerned that their 12% approval ratings are too high. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted October 27, 2011 Share Posted October 27, 2011 I can think of more ways small businesses and individuals would be harmed by "private right of action" included in this bill than aided by it. It allows companies that feel their being infringed upon to threaten domain registers and registrars with liability and grants no clear recourse for the accused to restore their previous status even after a court battle. A web business can literally be taken down and bullied off of DNS and search engines before these businesses have a chance to defend themselves in court. Such a position clearly benefits organizations and individuals with powerful legal teams more than resources more than others. It does not force the hand of google and DNS servers but states that they are encouraged to cooperate because doing so makes them immune to liability (and thereby implying the opposite). Give me a reason to support something that causes irreparable damage to businesses before anything has been proven? You may have missed it in my other post, but I already said the act is poorly written and would never see the light of day as law unless it's watered down a great deal...in which case it will simply be a sightly stronger version of what we have going now. Basically the sites that this act desires to target will already have plans ready to find alternative ways to hide their illegal activities if they should suddenly be shut down...and the legitimately unknowing site owners aren't given anything remotely close to guidelines in this act to help them avoid lawsuits and unforeseen legal issues concerning copyrighted material. Further, it seems to avoid adequately dealing with 3rd party sites and their role in the proceedings altogether. In short, the reason the act stinks is NOT because of possible abuse of it by powerful individuals and companies that can shut down legitimate sites simply because they mistakenly featured a copyrighted song on their site playing in the background...there ARE standards that have to be met before any site gets "blacklisted" and removed from being online, and those standards include showing that the site is solely in the business of selling or transmitting copyrighted materials. No, the reason the acts sucks is because it's poorly written and too vague. My earlier point was that copyright infringement on the internet is something that needs to be addressed and the laws protecting from it strengthened. Legislatively speaking, we're years behind where the internet is today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted October 27, 2011 Share Posted October 27, 2011 It appears Congress is concerned that their 12% approval ratings are too high. Posts like these makes me yearn for a +1 button ---------- Post added October-27th-2011 at 06:57 PM ---------- I am NOT A DEMOCRAT. But you did stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night:evilg: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teller Posted October 28, 2011 Share Posted October 28, 2011 Ok, where in my criticism of the GOP did you read where I wrote that the Democrats weren't idiots too? BTW, and I know I've said this soooo many times it makes me sick, but I am NOT A DEMOCRAT. OK, liberal then. Which is cool. Cause now I can include Bernie Sanders. And yet you make an argument that these two (and the others who support this piece of trash) aren't representative of the whole GOP. BTW, if you want a real look at GOP insiders and strategists check out the Daily Show thread with last night's show. They're not. Plain and simple. They're not even representative of all GOP politicians. In fact, let's keep track of this. If the majority of republicans in either house vote in favor of this, I'll drive down there and buy you lunch. (Even though you said "whole," I'll give you "majority." It's my way of "redistributing" your chances of winning.) If the majority vote against, you drive up here, and we eat on your dime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted October 28, 2011 Share Posted October 28, 2011 OK, liberal then. Which is cool. Cause now I can include Bernie Sanders. Liberals want forced redistribution...that's not what I want, I want companies to grow a fricking conscience so they do the right thing without being forced through legislation. That my friend is not a Liberal idea. They're not. Plain and simple.They're not even representative of all GOP politicians. In fact, let's keep track of this. If the majority of republicans in either house vote in favor of this, I'll drive down there and buy you lunch. (Even though you said "whole," I'll give you "majority." It's my way of "redistributing" your chances of winning.) If the majority vote against, you drive up here, and we eat on your dime. No way to prove it, you can only show what the majority are willing to publically vote for, as such looks like we're going dutch in West Virginia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popeman38 Posted October 28, 2011 Share Posted October 28, 2011 Give me a reason to support something that causes irreparable damage to businesses before anything has been proven?You support the internet. And an angry customer can ruin a business' reputation by posting bad reviews in such a way that the review is always returned in the top 5 search engine results. hose businesses have no recourse to remedy that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ixcuincle Posted October 28, 2011 Share Posted October 28, 2011 If they shut down Twitter how will I be able to post hilarious jokes and breaking news!? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#98QBKiller Posted October 28, 2011 Author Share Posted October 28, 2011 You support the internet. And an angry customer can ruin a business' reputation by posting bad reviews in such a way that the review is always returned in the top 5 search engine results. hose businesses have no recourse to remedy that. Writing a bad review of a business isn't even in the same ballpark as allowing accusations of copyright infringement to enable the shutting down of a business' website and having every trace of it removed from the internet before that business has had a chance to prove their innocence in court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madison Redskin Posted October 28, 2011 Share Posted October 28, 2011 I don't know if I support the bill, since I haven't even read it. However, I will say that everyone blaming the government needs to think about the purported purpose of the bill. The bill appears to be intended to reduce copyright-infringement. Why? Because so many people, presumably including many of the people blaming the government, are infringing on others' copyrighted works. So, if ya like Youtube, Twitter, etc., QUIT STEALING OTHER PEOPLE'S *****. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted October 28, 2011 Share Posted October 28, 2011 An angry customer is the free market in action, is it not? If the company feels slandered, they have the right to sue. I do agree with copyright infringement being a problem, but it seems to me that a site like youtube has measures built in to prevent it, and to remove it if it sneaks through. I really don't think the government should be stepping in unless a site knowingly uses infringed material, and disregards the usual cease and desist orders. But then, copyright infringement is already illegal, and the government already has the power to enforce the law. Just not summarily. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popeman38 Posted October 28, 2011 Share Posted October 28, 2011 You support the internet. And an angry customer can ruin a business' reputation by posting bad reviews in such a way that the review is always returned in the top 5 search engine results. hose businesses have no recourse to remedy that. An angry customer is the free market in action, is it not?If the company feels slandered, they have the right to sue. I do agree with copyright infringement being a problem, but it seems to me that a site like youtube has measures built in to prevent it, and to remove it if it sneaks through. I really don't think the government should be stepping in unless a site knowingly uses infringed material, and disregards the usual cease and desist orders. But then, copyright infringement is already illegal, and the government already has the power to enforce the law. Just not summarily. ~Bang And if a company tried to sue a customer for bashing them online, what would the immediate reaction be on the internet? And on here? It would be much like the reaction of Dan Snyder trying to sue WCP. Cries of infringing on Free Speech would go up EVERYWHERE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madison Redskin Posted October 28, 2011 Share Posted October 28, 2011 An angry customer is the free market in action, is it not?If the company feels slandered, they have the right to sue. I do agree with copyright infringement being a problem, but it seems to me that a site like youtube has measures built in to prevent it, and to remove it if it sneaks through. I really don't think the government should be stepping in unless a site knowingly uses infringed material, and disregards the usual cease and desist orders. But then, copyright infringement is already illegal, and the government already has the power to enforce the law. Just not summarily. ~Bang For those whose copyrighted works are being "misappropriated" (i.e., stolen), the mere existence of those measures isn't good enough. They care about the efficacy of those measures and, IMO, their measures are rather ineffective. I can find dozens of examples of copyright infringement on Youtube in a matter of seconds. This smells like an attempt to force Youtube and other sites to develop more effective measures, not to shut down those sites. Again, I don't know if the bill is a good idea or not, but I'm not going to bash it as utterly ridiculous. I understand why the government cares that Youtube and other sites are profiting from copyright infringement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCranon21 Posted October 28, 2011 Share Posted October 28, 2011 It appears Congress is concerned that their 12% approval ratings are too high. 12% try 9% now...I wonder who those 9% approve of Congress. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#98QBKiller Posted October 28, 2011 Author Share Posted October 28, 2011 12% try 9% now...I wonder who those 9% approve of Congress. The family and friends of Congress? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.