Imagine if they actually succeed with the argumentation that stronger IP protection is needed to protect the U.S. economic interests. The engagement to protect might actually end up actively crashing the economy instead. The irony would be immense.
According to copyright science, this would clearly indicate that the US Government is now directly paid by the entertainment industry, in order to make way for more strict IP legislation. Not in the rational, objective kind of way, of course. More in the "combining random incidents with random numbers to indicate whatever causality we see fit for our case and call it science" kind of way.
Well, without advocating violence, blowing up billboards on top of buildings would actually make sense in the Fight Club kind of way, I guess. At least it would be a powerful statement.
But blowing up some random bridge in a national park somewhere? Who even came up with that idea? "Now that'll teach them to... not... drive in national parks". Even from an anarchistic point of view, I have a hard time seeing how this makes any sense at all.
Perhaps it's just me, but isn't this kind of business suicide by Charter Communications? If all other ISPs usually fight back, why would anyone chose CC as their ISP after this? Around here, it's usually people's tech friends who advise people on which ISP to choose. I'm already telling everyone I know not to use a certain ISP here, because they use deep packet inspection for blocking, whereas everyone just put in a silly DNS filter.
When stuff like Ut°ya happens, people get scared and start calling for initiatives like this. They even mention Breivik in the article. Not that I agree this is a good idea but perhaps it can explain a bit why stuff like this is proposed.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by radiatorninjaen.