Are you seriously making a comparison between copyright infringement and sexual assault? Are you really seriously honestly saying copying a set of bits over the internet in violation of the laws of various nations is on the same level morally and criminally as violently sexually violating someone against their wishes?
The subtext of your statement is that you honestly believe that copyright infringement is so heinous that copyright infringers should be treated the same as those who sexually violate other people;
you're believe that rape is so insignificant and unworthy of attention that it sits on the same moral and criminal shelf as copyright infringement.
"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.