How is this all FUD? Explain it in detail, and debunk it. Remember, FUD has 'and' in it, not 'or.' Fear, Uncertainty AND Doubt. We all Doubt that these laws do the general public the least bit of good. You should start there.
Just because you say it doesn't make it so. (Did I stoop to your age bracket enough to understand me?) Such continued allegations without any way to prove them in a succinct and irrefutable manner are childish at best.
Funny how Mike's detractors latch on to the minor points and completely miss the free speech and privacy issues that are the major points of the articles.
FUD abounds, but it isn't from this blog.
For the one hundredth time, the Protect IP Act is limited to foreign websites, current US law is sufficient to deal with domestic websites that infringe. Ebay and Youtube are still up, And no, it's also a federal judge under Protect IP.
No, no it is not. Read the damn thing, and stop your goddamn fear-mongering, you pathetic excuse for an individual. I've spend the last two hours reading all your garbage-spewing, FUD based commentary, and it's sickening. Go back to your masters and hide under the rock they have set aside just for you.
It seems like you don't get it. You certainly act like you never will. However, I think you DO get it, and it frightens you that so many around you get it, as well. Massive infringements against the peoples' free speech rights to try and protect the income of a few is going to have a major backlash.
Thanks for destroying the myth that the Protect IP Act will break the Internet. If these alternate DNS systems have been around for years, hard to see any damage will be done by their continued existence.
Alternate DNS systems are not the Internet. Nice try, though.
Let's put it another way: Always expect the worst from your government. Always. Just as those who need to be in physical control tend towards law enforcement, those with a powerful greed for power tend towards politics. It sounds like tin foil hat territory, but that's why there's an amendment to allow for revolution in the Constitution.
Yes. The closest they have is the comments on their blog. Maybe if they read them from time to time...
You'll have to charge him for it so he isn't some lowlife freetard.
But there is a story here. It calls directly to their authority and how much we believe them. They cannot, or will not, provide documentation that they licensed the video. Why? It's a simple matter of showing said document with the personally identifiable information redacted. Saying they don't have to shows us they have no respect for the public, and that needs to change.
Not the same thing. If you asked the right holder if they had given ICE permission to use the video, and they said "no" even though the answer was really "yes," then you'd have a parallel situation. But that's not the case here.
What if the answer really was 'no, but we don't control that content'? In which case it doesn't matter if the answer was yes or not, because they could not have provided the permissions necessary. It wasn't within their rights. So by calling those sites out as infringing have they not perjured themselves? Lying to a court is supposed to be punished.
Right now, it's regulars who are leaving or posting less.
Not buying it. Don't see it, and don't see how you could ever prove such a thing. There are more regulars posting more regularly than ever from my perspective.
Copytards should rejoice they are about to get a backdoor on one thing they wanted bad, criminal prosecution of anyone who breaks American law.
That has to be the most nonsensical thing I've heard all year. At least until I read the link. Still, I don't see the link between your so-called 'copytards' and this law?
Why is he off topic? Seems to me that the favorite's post is an open forum to discuss the topics brought up, and this certainly was brought up.
First you make up a stupid name for yourself. Then you launch a "singing" career that involves you making an ass out of yourself in public and having people laugh at you, and then you show up claiming you are a serious artist, while you are busy mostly sampling others and trying to act like you have a clue.
You've just described how many comedy artists? You tell Weird Al Yankovic that he's not a serious artists. Obvious it takes more talent than you think, but we're still figuring how much thought you actually posses.
By doing this, we're guaranteeing that other countries will do the same thing for U.S. works.
That's bullshit. This hasn't worked in the past, why do you think it will work now? Just because we do it does not guarantee that others will follow. If anything they will balk just to avoid being like us.
A tomato being a physical object? Yes. A tomato is sold as a single-use object. You use it, and it's gone. Not so with CDs, DVDs, etcetera. If their use is limited it needs to be said up front.
Ironic, you talking about anyone else's class.
Ahh, yes. It's negative to ME, so it doesn't qualify, but I'll use 'pirate' despite the negative and INCORRECT connotations because it supports my side. You can't have it both ways. If you must use 'soft' language, then you do it for both sides.
Re: Re:
Hint: Only a moron like you would think we truly believed this was blue posting.