"SOPA would have no effect whatsoever on such crazy ass claims."
Ha! SOPA is all about bending over for crazy ass claims. It was introduced to congress based almost entirely on crazy assed claims (and "donations")
Now, shut your sputtering gob, you tit. You scum sucking pig, you son of a motherless goat, warthog faced buffoon, English bed-wetting type. Your type really makes me puke, you vacuous, coffee nosed, malodorous pervert!
So you admit that JB could possibly be prosecuted criminally for his little YouTube videos, and your defense is that the judge possible might give him a light sentence? That might be the lamest argument I've read here all day. And I read *TWO* OotB posts!
Techdirt has already received many false DMCA claims. Right now, he has the power to reject them. The same cannot be said for SOPA where the decision to reject or defend is made by a 4th party who has a very real disincentive to reject it.
But you know this. Your goals are to spread disinformation, libel, and fud. You should be a spelunker. Your natural coat of slime would enable you to squeeze through some very tight places.
Perhaps I learned a different language from Pallante, but that's hardly "limited."
It is *very* limited. It includes no language that permits armed military response or tactical nukes. In fact if any content owner took those steps it would be frowned upon and and could possible (but not definately) have serious consequences like a fine or something.
These "businesses" need to adapt and stop relying on a bad business model
Hey, you can't just say 'you need to adapt' without explaining how to do that! :p
BTW, you are speaking about technology companies that have done nothing but adapt. And those that don't? They shrivel up and die. Even big ones.
And the media companies? They are still trying to shove shiny plastic discs down my throat, and can't comprehend why I'm not thrilled to be buying them. Must be the pirates fault! Pass some laws! Quick! It certainly can't be that physical media is dying. And the sooner the better.
I don't think this author is very progressive in his thinking. From the article: Amazon also offers a 70 percent royalty option for books over $2.99, but Crawford chose the lower royalty (35%) “because you can opt out of Kindle Lending"
This is a guy who would rather make half as much money on each sale rather than let someone who bought the book 'lend' it to someone else. I very much doubt he is going to see this as an opportunity or advertising.