As Expected, SOPA Supporters Hate More Reasonable Alternative

from the of-course-they-do dept

Last week, we wrote about an interesting proposal from a bipartisan group of Senators and Representatives to deal with the supposed problem of "rogue sites" without the censorship and technical problems of SOPA/PIPA, by recognizing that this is an international trade issue. It still allows copyright and trademark holders to go after the worst of the worst -- which is exactly what the supporters of SOPA/PIPA claim they want. However, not surprisingly, the truth is coming out and they hate the new proposal.

Of course, this really proves the key point that many have been making. SOPA/PIPA have never been about taking down truly rogue sites. If so, supporters of those bills would embrace a proposal that really does focus on such sites. Instead, they're about very broad internet regulation that allows the entertainment industry to try to regain control over a market that they no longer control. The entertainment industry wants SOPA/PIPA because they don't know how -- or don't want to learn -- to innovate based on the internet today. So, instead, they're seeking regulations that basically let them attack anything they don't understand or don't control. When legislation comes along that narrowly focuses on the specific issue, it doesn't serve that purpose, so of course they hate it.

Still, it pretty much reveals their true views, to react so negatively to a plan that does what they claimed they wanted. It proves that's not what they wanted at all.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 6th, 2011 @ 12:45pm

    "recognizing that this is an international trade issue"

    It's opinion, not a fact. Piracy and counterfeit products are not "trade".

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    out_of_the_blue, Dec 6th, 2011 @ 12:47pm

    Yes, but you keep arguing that multi-party infringement

    isn't actually infringement. Your position is that is if Pirate P uploads to host H, then posts the links on site L, then it's NOT infringement!

    And you have the chutzpah to maintain that content owners wanting to stop the /evident/ piracy are unreasonable. Phooey.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Chris Rhodes (profile), Dec 6th, 2011 @ 12:55pm

      Wrong

      His position is that Pirate P is responsible.
      My position is that you're a lying, hypocritical, brainless twit.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Dec 6th, 2011 @ 12:57pm

      Re: Yes, but you keep arguing that multi-party infringement

      No one said that. P infringed, H didn't, and neither did L.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      DOlz (profile), Dec 6th, 2011 @ 1:01pm

      Re: Yes, but you keep arguing that multi-party infringement

      "isn't actually infringement. Your position is that is if Pirate P uploads to host H then posts the links on site L, then it's NOT infringement!"

      Pirate P - is infringing, but harder to whack a mole with.

      Host H & Site L (why not Site S, sorry that would require consistency) - are not infringing, but are big honking targets that a blind man could hit with a shotgun.

      Your use of chutzpah reminds me of that classic definition of the word. Chutzpah is when a man who has murdered his parents asks for leniency because he is an orphan.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Grae (profile), Dec 6th, 2011 @ 1:16pm

      Re: Yes, but you keep arguing that multi-party infringement

      Oh no! You mean "content owners" might actually have to work instead of freeloading off royalty welfare checks? Welcome to rest of the world's workforce, pal. You Hollywood hippies and your entitlement attitude make me sick.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Dec 6th, 2011 @ 1:18pm

      Re: Yes, but you keep arguing that multi-party infringement

      >>Your position is that is if Pirate P uploads to host H, then posts the links on site L, then it's NOT infringement!

      Where in all of the entire history of the internet has Mike *ever* said anything even remotely close to this?

      His position in your hypothetical situation has always been blatantly obvious:

      H is not infringing.
      L is not infringing.
      P is infringing, but good luck whacking that mole. You might be better served using your money and resources figuring out a better way to connect with your customers.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        MonkeyFracasJr (profile), Dec 6th, 2011 @ 2:34pm

        Re: Whacking that mole.

        Why is this point always ignored by rights holders?

        That if they would provide product X to H and L (via a source and price they are willing and able to accept), then P would be "out of business".

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Marcel de Jong (profile), Dec 6th, 2011 @ 4:28pm

          Re: Re: Whacking that mole.

          It doesn't fit in their narrative. They like to see control put back into their hands, so they lie and cheat the general public out of their rights and pervert copyright to such a degree that it's now become the antithesis of what it originally meant to be.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Dec 7th, 2011 @ 2:23am

            Re: Re: Re: Whacking that mole.

            pervert copyright to such a degree that it's now become the antithesis of what it originally meant to be.


            Actually, copyright was originally intended to regulate and control the output of printing presses and so control freedom of speech by requiring a license to print copy... obviously licenses were not often granted for dissident publications.

            Any concept of monopoly in exchange for public domain came much later, copyright was originally a law to prevent free speech.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, Dec 7th, 2011 @ 5:01am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Whacking that mole.

              What are you referring to as the 'original' copyright then because the Statue of Ann was implemented specifically to curtail perpetual monopolies on content reproduction in exchange for temporary monopolies in the form of copyright followed by the work becoming public domain.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                identicon
                Anonymous Coward, Dec 7th, 2011 @ 7:36pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Whacking that mole.

                The Statute of Ann was enacted in 1709. I'm referring to 1501 where the Pope issued a papal bull against the unlicensed printing of books.

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  icon
                  Richard (profile), Dec 8th, 2011 @ 8:02am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Whacking that mole.

                  You are correct. In fact, in England the stationer's copyright existed within an overall monopoly on printing which was largely motivated by the desire to suppress undesirable publications. When the stationers feared that they were about to lose their monopoly in the mid 1640s they argued for its retentionas follows: "[t]he main care is to appoint severe Examiners for the licensing of things profitable, and suppressing of things harmfull" See:

                  http://www.copyrighthistory.org/cgi-bin/kleioc/0010/exec/ausgabeCom/%22uk_1643%22

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Trails (profile), Dec 6th, 2011 @ 1:37pm

      Re: Yes, but you keep arguing that multi-party infringement

      Also, what Mike has said is that if Drunkard D drives Car C on Road R and kills someone, then no one is legally responsible!

      It is also true that if a Gopher G is next to an Orangutan O using a Fork F under an Umbrella U, along with Corkscrew C and Knife K to attack a Yurt Y without consent of the Orangutan O who takes the Umbrella U one should deliver a Soliloquy S on the Evils E of Larceny L of Foreign sites F.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Trails (profile), Dec 6th, 2011 @ 1:37pm

        Re: Re: Yes, but you keep arguing that multi-party infringement

        dammit, I forgot to mention the Rabbi R in there.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Lauriel (profile), Dec 6th, 2011 @ 10:47pm

          Re: Re: Re: Yes, but you keep arguing that multi-party infringement

          Never mind, Trails. You got enough of the relevant letters in for your message to be recieved!

          For my part, I suggest we be supportive of out_of_the_blue. After all, he's finally getting HLP to make an argument.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Dec 7th, 2011 @ 3:13am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes, but you keep arguing that multi-party infringement

            I support OOTB because I've always been a supporter of the mentally disadvantaged.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        JARED, Dec 7th, 2011 @ 3:01pm

        Re: Re: Yes, but you keep arguing that multi-party infringement

        NO, IF A PAYS FOR INTERNET AND SO DOES B AND C. THEN WHEN A UPLADS A MOVIE TO B AND C. LATER ON A CAN GET ANOTHER MOVIE FOM B AND C. ITS A COMMUNITY.

        BETTER YET IF MY BROTHER WANTS TO BORROW A MOVIE IS IT ILLEGAL TO LET HIM SEE IT WITHOUT HIM TRADEING ME FOR SOMETHING OF EQUAL VALUE. WHAT IF THE ONLY COPY I HAVE IS A LIMITED EDITION CASE. CAN I BURN A COPY FOR A FRIEND. IF I SEE A MOVIE IN THEATRES AND THEN GO HOME TO DOWNLOAD IT. DOES MY TICKET COVER THE OWNERSHIP OF THE CRAPPY VERSION OF THE FILM.(CAM). EXPLAIN "TRADE" IF NOT WE CAN USE BORROW. IF SOMEONE BOUGHT IT THEN ITS NOT STOLEN.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          JARED, Dec 7th, 2011 @ 3:25pm

          Re: Re: Re: Yes, but you keep arguing that multi-party infringement

          CONTINUED....

          TO ADD TO THAT LAST PART. IF A PERSON BUYS A MOVIE AND SHARES WITH A FRIEND. ITS OK. IF I A PERSON WANTS TO SHARE SOMETHING THAY BOUGHT WITH A TOATAL STARNGER, ITS STILL NOT STOLEN. NOW IF A PERSON CLAIMED THEY MADE IT AND SOLD IT. THEN YES IT WOULD BE COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT. BUT OTHERWISE WHAT WRONG WITH SHARING. IF IT PASSES YOU ALL KNOW MOVIE TICKETS WILL JUMP UP ANOTHER $10. REMEMBER THE OLD MY DOG ATE MY HOMEWORK SCHEME. NOW IT WILL BE SORRY MRS. BLAH MY INTERNET WOULD NOT ALLOW ME TO ACCESS GOOGLE. BECAUSE SOPA BLOCKED MY PAGE FROM LOADING ON GLOBAL ECONOMY.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            BearGriz72 (profile), Dec 8th, 2011 @ 10:03pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes, but you keep arguing that multi-party infringement

            u mad bro?

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              identicon
              JARED, Dec 12th, 2011 @ 1:28pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes, but you keep arguing that multi-party infringement

              NO, JUST CONCERNED WITH CHANGE. LAST TIME WE WERE PROMISED CHANGE IT DIDN'T HAPPEN. NOW EVERYONE WHO SEEMED TO VOTE FOR OBAMA ASK ME IF I HAVE A QUARTER ON MY SMOKE BREAK. WHAT, OBAMA DIDN'T GIVE YOU CHANGE? ALL JOKES ASIDE. THE LAST THING PEOPLE OF AMERICA NEED IS SOMETHING ELSE LIMITING JOBS,ECONOMY, AND TECHNOLOGY. I SEE ANOTHER DROP IN STOCK COMING. AND A BOYCOTT OF AMERICAN ENTERTAINMENT.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                identicon
                JARED, Dec 13th, 2011 @ 5:13pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes, but you keep arguing that multi-party infringement

                SO I GOT IT. I'M GETTING MYSELF COPYRIGHTED SO IF ANYONE TAKES MY PICTURE AND POSTS IT I CAN SUE THEIR ASS FO SHO. BECAUSE I MADE MYSELF WHO I AM TODAY. I JUST NEED MY MOM AND DAD TO SIGN OFF, AND PAY THAT $2500 AND ILL JUST GO WALK AROUND THE BEACH. IF I GET MY PICTURE TAKEN THEN ILL BREAK THEIR CAMERA AND THROW IT IN THE WATER. THEN BRAD PITT WILL GET IT AND BE LIKE SCREW YOU PAPPARAZZI. IM COPYRIGHTED AND TAKE THEIR CAMERA AND SHOVE IT UP THEIR ASS. THEN THE MEDIA WILL CRUMBLE. THE NEWS WILL BE CANCCELED AND THEY WON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO TALK ABOUT BUT HOW DAMN EXPENSIVE MOVIE TICKETS ARE AND HOW THE MOVIE MISSION IMPOSSIBLE 7 STARRING JEFF FOXWORTHY WASN'T AS GOOD AS THE PREVIOUS STARING DANE COOK. WHAT IS THE WORLD COMING TO.

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Pirate P (profile), Dec 6th, 2011 @ 4:12pm

      Re: Yes, but you keep arguing that multi-party infringement

      Dibs on Pirate P!!!

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Karl (profile), Dec 6th, 2011 @ 11:18pm

      Re: Yes, but you keep arguing that multi-party infringement

      Your position is that is if Pirate P uploads to host H, then posts the links on site L,

      1. If Pirate P uses some Preparation H, will you shrivel up and go away?

      2. You may be too young to remember Pirate P, the short-lived program on Nickelodeon. They were cancelled after they used, um, other liquids instead of green slime.

      3. Yeah, I saw Pirate P back in the old days, when they opened up for Piss Poor and the Bad Attitudes, with Diarrhea Handshake as guest stars. That was before they totally sold out. Nowadays, those Pirates are all about money. It used to be about the music, man!

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    jupiterkansas (profile), Dec 6th, 2011 @ 12:53pm

    So far the commenters on The Hill support SOPA. Hmm...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    fogbugzd (profile), Dec 6th, 2011 @ 12:53pm

    I expect a major tantrum

    The entertainment industry is like a three year old whose parents have given him everything he wanted. Now the indulgent parents are starting to wake up and see the monster that they have created. The three year old has been told "no" for the first time, and he doesn't like it. I expect a major tantrum.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Sean heeger, Dec 6th, 2011 @ 1:00pm

    Sopa

    Sopa supporters can blow us, for we are the borg!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 6th, 2011 @ 1:03pm

    In the past various monopolists and politicians have practically admit to not liking things like creative commons.

    http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100624/1640199954.shtml

    http://www.techdirt.com/ar ticles/20110509/02295314206/portuguese-politicians-want-to-make-creative-commons-illegal.shtml

    Th e list goes on but I don't have time right now.

    What these people want is to use the legal system to eliminate competition. Period.

    http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090811/0152565837.shtml

    They're not interested in merely stopping piracy, that's just the poster child for their true intents, to ban competition altogether.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 6th, 2011 @ 1:22pm

    I think they don't like the process

    My guess is that they don't mind the actual proposal so much. What they do mind is giving clout to legislation that was not written by them. These cowboy representatives who actually talk to people outside of the entertainment industry before writing a bill are an affront to how IP legislation has been done.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Killercool (profile), Dec 6th, 2011 @ 1:39pm

      Re: I think they don't like the process

      I think the term you meant instead of cowboy is "maverick." Not because there's any real difference, but because it's more negative.

      Like "pirate" instead of "infringer."

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous, Dec 6th, 2011 @ 2:03pm

    The reason they Don't like the alternative is because that wouldn't prevent free speech online. It's a cover.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 6th, 2011 @ 2:09pm

    To call an ITC process a more reasonable approach demonstrates a lack of familiarity with what the ITC process entails. Currently, the only remedial actions that may awarded by the ITC are an exclusion from import order and a cease and desist order.

    To turn over matters of the type SOPA and Protect-IP are directed to would require the employment on many additional investigators (attorneys) and administrative law judges. Moreover, the timeframe for an ITC investigation is measured over years, which is hardly suited for the subject matter associated with the pending bills.

    If those who are inclined to present an alternate approach are serious, then they should forego the ITC and look elsewhere.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Dec 6th, 2011 @ 2:17pm

      Re:

      This "alternate" bill is such a scam; the tech/pirate lobby is fully aware that the ITC moves at a glacial pace, and would thus make any legislation involving them ineffective.

      Sorry lawbreakers, this one isn't gonna cut it. DOA.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Dec 6th, 2011 @ 2:56pm

        Re: Re:

        the ITC moves at a glacial pace

        Compared to SOPA, sure - because it allows all parties to respond before cutting off a company's funding. Having some semblance of due process is a good thing.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Brendan (profile), Dec 6th, 2011 @ 7:56pm

      Re:

      I have a hard time finding sympathy for your position that real justice and due process are just too damn slow for you and your cronies.

      Tought. Shit. If you want the protection of laws at all, you take it at the pace the proper process offers. You don't get ExpressLaw customized just to your liking. That's not the way this works.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Prisoner 201, Dec 7th, 2011 @ 12:07am

        Re: Re:

        "You don't get ExpressLaw customized just to your liking. That's not the way this works."

        This is only true below a certain level of "campaign contributions". Once you get to the right level you get the ExpressLaw(tm) service membership.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          abc gum, Dec 7th, 2011 @ 4:28am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Two sets of rules.
          One set of rules for the rich, famous, powerful, etc
          A different set of rules for everyone else.
          And then there are the secret interpretations, but we can not talk about them - that can get you locked up indefinitely without due process.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 6th, 2011 @ 2:26pm

    It isn't the entertainment industry that is complaining about this. It was a "House Judiciary Committee aide". The complaint about the bill is that it places the burden of enforcement upon the International Trade Commision which had no experience in these matters. The complaint is that it would require hiring more staff, inflating the budget of the ITC which would require additional bills for appropriation of funds.

    Mike, your synopsis completely ignores the source stories and as always you are pointing your finger at the entertainment industry. Please try to keep your prejudices less transparent, a modicum of impartiality would certainly benefit you.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Dec 6th, 2011 @ 2:38pm

      Re:

      Who does have experience in these matters? This is new law, no one will have experience until after its passed. If its not the ITC that has to ramp up staff, it will be some other department.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Dec 6th, 2011 @ 2:51pm

      Re:

      It isn't the entertainment industry that is complaining about this. It was a "House Judiciary Committee aide".

      Has this aide worked closely with the entertainment industry in creating SOPA? Does this aide have a bright future as an entertainment industry lobbyist after he leaves his current employment?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 6th, 2011 @ 2:58pm

    Prosecution of EXISTING copyright law violation falls under the jurirsdiction of the Justice Department. The alternate bill is seeking to transfer that responsibility to the ITC which has no experience with prosecution in even remotely simliar cases. Why would the alternate bill sponsors choose to task the ITC with this?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Dec 6th, 2011 @ 3:10pm

      Re:

      Because the complaints are about sites and/or businesses outside of the US.
      All of which are outside the jurisdiction of the US Justice Department.

      The people pushing SOPA claim that it will not impact on people within the US at all, others say different, but if we take their word for it, the Justice department has absolutely no business being involved at all.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Dec 6th, 2011 @ 3:11pm

      Re:

      Because, for this bill to have any reason to exist, it has to be (at least partially) about counterfeiting, which is where ITC has experience.

      Why not split the bill into two, have the ITC deal with counterfeiting and try to pass a separate bill without being able to make claims about how it will save people from fake drugs.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Dec 6th, 2011 @ 3:19pm

      Re:

      Correction: Prosecutions of existing copyright law violations by Americans falls under the jurisdiction of the Justice dept.

      The whole point of SOPA/PIPA is that existing laws don't reach foreign companies. ITC may be more appropriate here. I'm not sure either way, yet. I'm waiting for the bill text before I decide how I feel about it.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Andrew D. Todd, Dec 6th, 2011 @ 4:04pm

    Piracy Will Cease to be About the Internet, and Become About Schoolyards.

    1. Large numbers of kids have smartphones, tablets, etc., which they carry around with them.

    2. these smartphones, etc., are increasingly fitted for WiFi, for more or less compelling reasons, to use cheap WiFi access when it is available, instead of expensive cellphone frequencies. The smartphones will have GPS as well.

    3. These smartphones can be "jailbroken," and fitted with software which causes them to automatically function as nodes in an acephalous mesh wireless network, together with whatever other similarly jailbroken smartphones may be in the vicinity. On top of the network software, there is file sharing software. The smartphones are not globally routeable, not do they possess permanently assigned registry names. The network is assembled on the fly, as people carrying individual phones come and go. For a locally unique identifier, the smartphones might use GPS coordinates plus the time at which those coordinates were recorded. Networks of this kind are not properly part of the internet, though they may become so by virtue of a gateway node.

    4. As I have previously noted,

    http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110124/17422712805/obama-nominates-former-top-riaa-lawy er-to-be-solicitor-general.shtml#c1069

    a schoolyard is likely to contain someone possessing a copy of almost any song or movie which the RIAA/MPAA is seriously attempting to defend against piracy. It is also likely to provide a critical density of jailbroken smartphones, where the average transmission range between nodes might be as little as ten feet, and the net data rate correspondingly high. Think of this as the "Craigslist" version of file sharing.

    What it comes down to is that piracy will no longer take place over the internet, but in schoolyards, and in similar "congregation points." Attempts to interdict piracy will no longer mean filing lawsuits against ISP's or trying to seize domains, or anything like that-- they will mean physically attacking people on the street. To be still more specific, it will mean strange men, often criminally posing as policemen, attacking little girls on the street.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    bigpicture, Dec 6th, 2011 @ 4:58pm

    The throes of change

    It is a subtle or maybe not so subtle change of global cultural norms. Previously it was about dominance and control, but all the dictatorships are being ousted, even the US has protests against the Bankster and Wall Street thieves. Politicians who vote controlling and dominating type policies will be replaced. The Bill of Rights will be re-established, and no more Government granted monopolies to be abused.

    The US will no longer be able to export that arrogant crap to the rest of the world especially to Asia and Europe.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Dec 6th, 2011 @ 5:31pm

      Re: The throes of change

      I would like to live in this fantasy world too!!!

      As long as the US has a $50 trillion dollar armed forces, it will be able to export policy.

      US dollars are backed up by trust in the fact the US still exists. That trust exists because we have the biggest, best military in the world. Therefore, US dollars and the policy that comes with it will continue to be a good investment for the foreseeable future.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Dec 6th, 2011 @ 9:18pm

        Re: Re: The throes of change

        No, military power can't sustain a high tech nation depending on foreign trade.

        Sure, the US could maybe and only maybe demolish all Russian and Chinese cities, but how would that leave the American market?

        IP economy can't in the long run exist in a state of civil or international unrest.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Dec 8th, 2011 @ 3:38am

          Re: Re: Re: The throes of change

          You missed the point.

          It is not that the US will, or wants to attack that makes it a good investment. It's that it can.

          No one wants a war. However, if you want a safe place to park your investment, the extremely high likelyhood that should anything go wrong, the US will still be standing at the end of it makes it a safe investment.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 6th, 2011 @ 6:16pm

    Maybe if the proponents actually put something on paper it could be evaluated. Right now they posing rhetoric, not solutions. Total waste of bandwidth to even discuss a fictional bill. And they'll never get it done by SOPA markup on the 15th unless they elect to toss out a real slapdash mess.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Mimi, Dec 16th, 2011 @ 5:08pm

    STOP SOPA

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This