Stop Internet Censorship!

[Deleted1744345User]

What you are seeing is just one step in a world-wide takeover by the super corporations. Some of these super corporations make up the entertainment industry, and their ability to lobby Congress into doing anything they want is nothing less than frightening. Of course, that is a whole different story, and if you want background info, look up NWO. Anyway If this bill gets passed -and it probably will- anything could happen, ranging from rioting to economic collapse. I say that because people will not stand idly by and let what should be their human rights be taken away from them. Of course, the outcome is impossible to predict, but everyone must do their part in stopping this bill. Nothing good can come out of this.

 

 

Now if only people would pay for their stuff, then we probably wouldn't be having this discussion or worrying about this bill. :whistling:

[lukertin]

It probably isn't constitutional, since it makes sites guilty until proven innocent. The thing that nags me is that I have this feeling that if big moneyed companies like Google weren't opposing it, there would hardly be a debate and congress would fast-track it right into law and worry about all that bothersome free speech stuff later.

Of course it makes them "guilty until proven innocent", why on earth should the plaintiff have the burden to prove defendant is hosting copyrighted material when anyone can figure that out by going to their website? Pointless. Since the law doesn't create a new crime, its constitutionality is irrelevant.

 

Yea, free speech. I have a right to free speech which means I get to pirate whatever the f*** I want. Pro logic.

 

I say that because people will not stand idly by and let what should be their human rights be taken away from them. Of course, the outcome is impossible to predict, but everyone must do their part in stopping this bill. Nothing good can come out of this.

As opposed to say, people's natural rights to own the fruits of their labor? :hurr:

Edited November 19, 2011 by lukertin

[marharth]

If anyone can figure it out by going on their website it shouldn't be very hard to get evidence :facepalm:

 

Our entire legal system runs under the presumption of innocence. You have to prove in court that someone is committing a crime before taking action against them for doing said crime.

[lukertin]

If anyone can figure it out by going on their website it shouldn't be very hard to get evidence :facepalm:

No s***, sherlock. Because it's so easy the defendant immediately has the burden to prove it is not facilitating copyright infringement. This is what you call "guilty until proven innocent". Technically it's much more complicated than that, the evidence is freely obtainable so plaintiff has established a prima facie case just by opening IE9 or Firefox or Crome or whatever, the presumption is that the defendant is facilitating copyright infringement and the defendant has to prove it is not responsible.

 

Our entire legal system runs under the presumption of innocence. You have to prove in court that someone is committing a crime before taking action against them for doing said crime.

A wonderful idea, which I support. Too bad presumption of innocence is irrelevant because this bill doesn't create a criminal act. The distinction must be pretty hard to make.

 

No, it's actually very easy. Here's a hint: If a U.S. Attorney / District Attorney is bringing the action AND the remedy for the government is a substantial fine or a prison sentence, it is probably a crime. Otherwise, like here, if the sole remedy is an injunction, it is not a crime, in fact it is so far removed from a crime that the term 'court of law' doesn't even apply to such a case. Capisce?

Edited November 19, 2011 by lukertin

[marharth]

If anyone can figure it out by going on their website it shouldn't be very hard to get evidence :facepalm:

No s***, sherlock. Because it's so easy the defendant immediately has the burden to prove it is not facilitating copyright infringement. This is what you call "guilty until proven innocent". Technically it's much more complicated than that, the evidence is freely obtainable so plaintiff has established a prima facie case just by opening IE9 or Firefox or Crome or whatever, the presumption is that the defendant is facilitating copyright infringement and the defendant has to prove it is not responsible.

 

Our entire legal system runs under the presumption of innocence. You have to prove in court that someone is committing a crime before taking action against them for doing said crime.

A wonderful idea, which I support. Too bad presumption of innocence is irrelevant because this bill doesn't create a criminal act. The distinction must be pretty hard to make.

 

No, it's actually very easy. Here's a hint: If a U.S. Attorney / District Attorney is bringing the action AND the remedy for the government is a substantial fine or a prison sentence, it is probably a crime. Otherwise, like here, if the sole remedy is an injunction, it is not a crime, in fact it is so far removed from a crime that the term 'court of law' doesn't even apply to such a case. Capisce?

How exactly is the government taking legal action on me due to what I did not considered a crime?

 

I have no idea what I am saying right now to be honest since I have been up for around 48 hours, but I will try to make my point.

 

How would this work with fair use? This would make it much easier for copyright holders to win the disputes correct?

Edited November 19, 2011 by marharth

[Arthmoor]

BTW the Nexus is not a US company

One small little problem. Nexus does operate assets in the US, and THOSE would be subject to this law's jurisdiction.

[JimboUK]

How far has this thing got? Surely you have committees to ensure idiotic laws don't make it onto the books?

 

BTW the Nexus is not a US company

One small little problem. Nexus does operate assets in the US, and THOSE would be subject to this law's jurisdiction.

 

I guess if the worst happens they can be moved to Europe.

[McMuffin]

Yea, free speech. I have a right to free speech which means I get to pirate whatever the f*** I want. Pro logic.

No one here said or implied any such thing.

 

the defendant immediately has the burden to prove it is not facilitating copyright infringement. This is what you call "guilty until proven innocent". Technically it's much more complicated than that, the evidence is freely obtainable so plaintiff has established a prima facie case just by opening IE9 or Firefox or Crome or whatever, the presumption is that the defendant is facilitating copyright infringement and the defendant has to prove it is not responsible.

If we were talking about an individual case you might have a point. This is about banning a whole site and stopping its funding, for the independent actions of any one user, with the sites' owner having to prove their innocence after the fact. That, to my mind, deprives them of freedom and property without due process. Punish first, investigate later. That's doin' it wrong.

[ginnyfizz]

How far has this thing got? Surely you have committees to ensure idiotic laws don't make it onto the books?

 

BTW the Nexus is not a US company

One small little problem. Nexus does operate assets in the US, and THOSE would be subject to this law's jurisdiction.

 

I guess if the worst happens they can be moved to Europe.

 

Yes but you know what our Government are like for toadying to the current US Government, you'd have to put the servers in France where they would make unspeakably rude Gallic gestures at any attempts to impose a US Law on them.

[RZ1029]

All I can say is, if this passes, I can be reached at [email protected], I'll gladly give you detailed in instructions on how to bypass any sort of filters and blocks that they attempt to impose, including a crash-course in ethical(?) hacking.

 

That being said, I find it unlikely it will pass. It's just like the whole ban-streaming-bill that they had around for all of a week.

 

? being defined as whether or not it would be considered ethical depending upon your definition of ethical. It would be illegal, but if it's against a law that is unconstitutional in the first place, is it really illegal, or just rebellion, for which provisions are clearly laid out in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. The latter more than the first, but the first still contains some relevant information.

 

EDIT: @Ginnyfizz: I laughed hard at that, because I see an irate Frenchman cursing out some diplomatic whatever before hanging up on him. It doesn't have to make sense, I just saw it in my mind.

Edited November 19, 2011 by RZ1029