"perv", eh? It really speaks volumes about you that you'd take a joke about Mike posing nude in a GoDaddy ad and turn it into "I searched for naked men on the internet for you! Because you clearly like men!" I think someone's projecting here...
Setting aside your fallacies of trying to pass opinion and assumptions as fact, are you seriously supporting the position that the free citizens of the United States of America shouldn't have the right to express their Freedom of Speech in the form of a voluntary boycott?
Your anecdotal "evidence" that YouHaveDownloaded.com is "proven to be bogus" easily falls within the reasonable explanation that it logged a computer using the IP you have now in the location specified downloading the content specified.
Unless you've got some proof that your computer has had that IP address during the time specified then your argument comes off pretty weak. Can you back up your claim of "proven to be bogus" with solid data or citations of others with solid data?
Your argument fails because no one is being coerced against their will to stop spending money with GoDaddy. GoDaddy's customers are simply being given facts regarding the conduct of GoDaddy's executive staff and information about where they can go if they disagree with this conduct and wish to take their business elsewhere.
The bottom line is that no one is being forced to do anything. Lots of customers are getting factual information and making decisions based on that information, but that falls a long, long way short of "making everyone say the same thing, even if they don't believe it."
You seemed to be dancing awfully close to the entitlement attitude that you or your business has a "right to profit". Which is so backwards and asinine that I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you don't actually support such a notion.
"invisible source code" is not a technical term based on actual technology; therefore this is not "technology being used to crack down on piracy".
It's more like a dash of poor understanding and a bucket of desperation sweat mixed with a cup of web crawling search engine bots to make a "magic" potion that cures the poor, poor ailment all the IP welfare leeches are suffering from known as "being forced to adapt your business model to fit reality."
No one else in the world gets to sit around like a lazy piece of trash and perpetually make money off of work they did in the past. So make sure you keep the tear stains off your resume as you go out there and look for a real job.
If someone doesn't feel like they're being represented, they have a right speak up and complain about it, period. If that slows the process of passing legislation, that's a good thing and means the system is working as intended. The relative permanency and wide reaching effects of any given piece of legislation means that anything that does pass should be carefully crafted, analyzed, and all possible effects considered. The idea that congress should be unimpeded from just putting into law any steamer that comes out of their ass is a horrifying one.
If you disagree, I suggest you take up residence in China or Iran and write back (assuming you're even allowed) telling us all you like living without free speech.
"I am actually suspecting that SOPA will be the trigger for many more online co-op style sites, where artists who know each other work together, and where "user generated" content is evaluated and run only when it is shown to be legal."
"SOPA has nothing to do with shutting down user generated content"
You're naive or a liar if you think that a "only allowed if shown to be legal" bar won't effectively kill user generated content. It's equivalent to the police closing down your store and demolishing it because one of your customers happened to do something illegal while in your store.
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.
Re: Mike wants out-of-control piracy, upset by contrary claims.
Why don't you get back to work, you IP welfare leech? You know what I call a man who insists he should be perpetually paid a lifetime + 70 years for each piece of work he's done? Fired.
I don't go to work every day and support my family just so you IP owning leeches can sit on your ass and not contribute to society, while collecting your welfare royalty checks and crying that you don't get paid enough for doing nothing. You're the real thieves here.
Not that I really care about the back and forth you guys are having there, but I just wanted to address your "The defenders of womanhood, who never consider if they may be talking to a woman to begin with. (After all, how can you tell? I don't remember posting pictures of my genitalia)" comment: a woman can certainly buy into sexist stereotypes of women, man can buy into sexist stereotypes of men. Your gender is irrelevant to the concept of whether you are or are not sexist against a particular gender. If you don't understand how this is possible I'd be happy to provide some examples.
I actually agree with the idea here, perhaps not the details, but as corporations are currently immortal "people" with extra-legal rights that citizens do not enjoy, I do feel that after a certain point--whether it's time or better: company size--corporations should be broken up to prevent stagnant monoliths from growing in our economy.
I don't really find your perceptions of Mike to be relevant to the idea you put forth though, seems like you're always QUITE reactionary to many things Mike says. :P
PROTECT IP & SOPA will not stop counterfeit goods from entering the military's supply chain. The idea that enhanced sentencing will deter counterfeiters is a false hope. Stopping crime starts with looking at the problems that cause crime to become an incentive and addressing those things first. No criminal in the history of humanity has said "oh, the penalty for doing this crime is virtually nothing, so that's a reason to do it!"
It should be obvious that I'm not advocating for minimal or no penalties, but the existing penalties for counterfeiting are a fee up to $15,000,000 and/or up to 20 years imprisonment. It's can be life imprisonment if your counterfeit product causes another's death. At this point increasing the penalty for counterfeiting is a very poor return on investment. Criminal counterfeiters either don't know or don't care what the penalties are. If they are making money then they will continue to counterfeit goods. period.
The legislation that stops counterfeiting will be the legislation that destroys counterfeiters' ability to make money, end of story.
As I stated above: the first sign of a weak or faulty argument is name calling. It provides a literally negative value to the discussion as anyone who might have been on the fence and listened to what you had to say will now be deafened to your arguments. Knock it off, and leave your "FUDboy"s at home.
So, here's the sentencing guidelines that would be enhanced by SOPA. The penalties range from up to $2,000,000 and/or 10 years imprisonment to $15,000,000 and/or 20 years imprisonment just for being involved in counterfeiting goods. If you bring causing death into the equation, the penalties jump to a fine as stated above and life imprisonment.
I suppose that because there are no minimum penalties outlined a counterfeiter could in theory cause someone's death, get caught, and get away with a slap on the wrist. If you can provide some cases where this actually happened, I'd love to see them.
As it is, increasing the penalties for a crime is the weakest method of reducing crime. If there's already enough incentive to commit the crime of counterfeiting when you could be fined $15,000,000 and go to jail for 20 years then increasing these penalties is won't stop criminals from counterfeiting. The risk of getting caught is simply comes with the territory.
Anyone who is really genuinely interested in reducing harmful counterfeiting will be looking at ways that reduce the incentive to counterfeit in the first place, rather than dealing with the problem after it has already occurred as that's all a penalty increase will do.