Sen. Michael Bennet [D, CO] $1,346,579
Sen. Barbara Boxer [D, CA] $402,425
Sen. Harry Reid [D, NV] $295,640
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand [D, NY] $284,849
Sen. Charles Schumer [D, NY] $254,975
Sen. Patty Murray [D, WA] $229,824
Sen. Chris Coons [D, DE] $209,400
Sen. Richard Blumenthal [D, CT] $176,399
Sen. Richard Shelby [R, AL] $159,550
Sen. Ron Wyden [D, OR] $127,450
Rep. William Owens [D, NY-23] $302,109
Rep. Chellie Pingree [D, ME-1] $204,150
Rep. Gary Peters [D, MI-9] $202,770
Rep. Niki Tsongas [D, MA-5] $141,100
Rep. James Himes [D, CT-4] $140,014
Rep. Kurt Schrader [D, OR-5] $106,500
Rep. Jerry McNerney [D, CA-11] $92,560
Rep. Gabrielle Giffords [D, AZ-8] $84,692
Rep. Barney Frank [D, MA-4] $82,100
Rep. Martin Heinrich [D, NM-1] $79,313
Rep. Anna Eshoo [D, CA-14] $74,909
Rep. Howard Berman [D, CA-28] $55,339
Rep. Zoe Lofgren [D, CA-16] $52,359
Rep. Eric Cantor [R, VA-7] $48,950
Rep. John Conyers [D, MI-14] $43,033
Rep. Jerry McNerney [D, CA-11] $42,700
Rep. Dave Reichert [R, WA-8] $42,200
Rep. Darrell Issa [R, CA-49] $33,524
Rep. James Clyburn [D, SC-6] $32,543
Rep. Robert Goodlatte [R, VA-6] $29,519
Sen. Patty Murray [D, WA] $144,673
Sen. Charles Schumer [D, NY] $132,934
Sen. Barbara Boxer [D, CA] $130,224
Sen. Harry Reid [D, NV] $115,245
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand [D, NY] $95,045
Sen. Patrick Leahy [D, VT] $78,670
Sen. Scott Brown [R, MA] $72,106
Sen. Ron Wyden [D, OR] $68,550
Sen. Michael Bennet [D, CO] $59,650
Sen. Robert Portman [R, OH] $48,150
But the big point is at no point should NBC, Disney, News Corp, Warner, UMG, or any other company be allowed to censor what sites I or anyone is allow to visit which what these bills are trying to allow without due process.
as in the example I have used before I use rapidshare.com to store and distribute mine and my clients software or documents due to the ease and space limits or file type restrictions on their web host. this is legal use of these type of site though there are many that use these for distributing infringing material. They try hard to remove any file that is proven to be illegal. But if Warner finds one file on rapidshare that MIGHT ( they don't have to prove it does) infringe have it blocked in which blocks my Legal use of the site. This would then hurt me and my clients and keep us from making our living off of our software or documents.
No they should not be allowed to censor a site they should go after the individual that broke the law.
I do understand what it is that you are saying here it is hard but not impossible with the passing SOPA or PROTECT-IP it will become even harder because you won't be able to reach any fans not within hear range of the actual performance all it takes it one of the big name media companies to find a single line or rhythm that they feel is infringing upon one of their copyrighted materials think about how many lines/rhythm's you will never be able to use, I am not against some form of protection for artist but these bill are all about BIG companies getting everything they can and censoring anyone that wants to compete against them.
Under these bills YouTube would have to filter out any video that contained any infringing material. What can constitute infringing material you ask? Well just type kid singing to (any artist you want) in the YouTube search-box and 90% have the song playing in the back ground that can be called infringing material.
Not that I am sure they would go this far but I would not want to find out later that they would. We already know they are willing to sue Kids and remove YouTube videos of kids dancing to music http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070725/224422.shtml
American Idle what how do most make it on there they are encouraged by fans on their Facebook or YouTube Chanel to even try out but wait on more than 80% of their channels its them singing to their favorite singer and now they can't post those so they don't get the extra encouragement and never try out.
I work with software and if i come up with a program that is similar to say adobe Illustrator and I have written the code from scratch and start putting it out there for say $50 adobe see this and THINKS (no due process or proof required in this bills just line the pockets of a magistrate judge) it infringes on their copyright they can shut me down by making ISP's block My sites IP address and if I was on a hosted service since its cheaper than a dedicated server and I want to give the product as low as I can and make money when they block the IP they end up blocking all the other users on the same IP woops Now I have to go to court and Prove I am Innocent( wait but I thought you had to be proven guilty not true with these bills) and probably go bankrupt before even making it in the courtroom since I had only sold 20 copies before adobe spotted me and shut me down.
I know your thinking yeah right they would not shutdown all users on the IP think again its already happened (see previous post)
There is a problem with piracy YES but censorship is NOT the answer.
BTW way i feel your pain I want to start a computer business myself but but have to choose am I willing to put my family though the hard times it would take to get it off the ground. At some point we all have to make these choices.
Mine computer stuff second family first. But that's MY choice not Dells or Best Buys because they don't like the fact I don't offer their computers or offer a better service. (Note I don't remember seeing either of them on the list that support the bill just use the companies as examples)
If we allow them to do DNS blocking not only will they stop that particular criminal but maybe a dozen other self respecting mom and pop stores just one instance of this was found out when ICE took down 84,000 site because of some bad apples on mooo.com and redirected them to a splash page saying their site was seized for child porn its outrageous it was allowed to happen in the first place but the fact they did not learn from it and still want to do dns blocking is utterly irresponsible and unconstitutional.
for the story http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/03/ars-interviews-rep-zoe-lofgren.ars
The whole point is simple The government/media companies/big business had no right to block anyone from getting what is rightfully theirs as this bill would allow. I store a bunch of files on sites such as rapidshare.com and fileserve.com these are all perfectly legal files and backups of my paid for music and videos plus I use them to distribute software that I or a friend have made ourselves. the passing of this law would allow them to block it from me just due to the fact some misuse the site.
How long before Microsoft hunts though OpenOffices source files and finds a line or two of code is the same as one in there Office 2010 and blocks them oh and since them and so many other open-sourced are hosted on http://sourceforge.net/ before they get blocked as stated in the article
"Similarly, Monster Cable, who has stated its support for PROTECT IP, has put together its own list of "rogue sites" and it, rather stunningly, includes sites like eBay, Craigslist, Costco and Sears. It even includes consumer rights groups like Which? in the UK, and various popular shopping search engines like PriceGrabber. "
"Even worse, it appears that Universal Music also included the personal website of one of its own top artists, 50Cent. The hiphop star has a personal website as well as a website owned by Universal Music. The personal website is much more popular... and it appeared on the infringement list. Suddenly, you can see how letting companies declare what sites are dedicated to infringement can lead to them looking to stifle speech and competition. "
This is 100% about the big companies getting more money and not about saving jobs or about the artist's.
I understand that piracy is a problem but censoring the general public is not the answer.
Beat those that pirate at their own game offer it to us faster and a a reasonable rate.
I as in probably many other people don't go to the movies because the last thing I want is to pay $13/person to sit with a bunch of strangers in unconformable seats where I can't go to the restroom or get some more popcorn without missing something. But hey give me a quality streamed video I can pause at home within a week or so and I would pay but no have to wait months.
I mean one big step they could make is just cutting down the time between theater and DVD release.
But I guess it better for the government to allow censorship than for the BIG companies to change their business model to fit the times.
I am over these politicians just caring about lining their pockets not the people. Then voting without even truly knowing what it is that they are voting on.