Stop Internet Censorship!

[greywaste]

The only reason that attempts at internet policing like these even appear is because we as end users are so corrupt and p*ss poor at policing ourselves.

[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.

 

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.

 

You're not wrong there, in fact this government are worse than the last one when it comes to the internet.

[Nintii]

Where there's money involved there's bound to be someone wanting to plant their flag ... the thing is this, they will never be able to successfully police the web ... and could you please explain how they are going to drag tens of millions of people into court ?

They don't have the resources or manpower to do it ... this will not happen now ... later definitely, but not now ... no system has been put into place yet ... population control is still too soon.

[Shantih]

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.

 

I'm French and I wish what you've posted was true.

 

Nowadays it seems rather unlikely that any French government would take a stand against the US on anything. That being said we are an unruly lot and we hang on to what's left of our sovereignty so there's always a possibility.

 

That being said whether it's in the UK or on the continent European legislation would probably take precedence and prevent the worst from happening.

[brokenergy]

Something in my gut tells me that this isn't going to pass into law, let alone congress. The entertainment industry are fighting a losing battle. I can see their ships sinking right now.

[Farlo]

Something in my gut tells me that this isn't going to pass into law, let alone congress. The entertainment industry are fighting a losing battle. I can see their ships sinking right now.

 

Dude, I seriously hope so... According to a couple articles I read, all the hearings consisted of bashing the Google reps. that were there and calling them piracy advocates.

[brokenergy]

Something in my gut tells me that this isn't going to pass into law, let alone congress. The entertainment industry are fighting a losing battle. I can see their ships sinking right now.

 

Dude, I seriously hope so... According to a couple articles I read, all the hearings consisted of bashing the Google reps. that were there and calling them piracy advocates.

 

First off I'm a lady as dude is a male term. Second, America has some of the most laxest laws of free speach etc. If they pass this law then they are breaking their own laws. While I understand why some companies are trying to protect their brands overall they are fighting a losing battle, they can't win.

[lukertin]

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.

If you're against this bill or its related progeny, then yes, this is exactly what you are saying or implying. If it isn't what you're saying then you're an ignorant fool who can't be bothered to read the bills in question before forming an opinion on them, preferring instead to blindly accept as truth what some semi-radicalized, partisan interest group is telling you in the interests of sensationalism.

 

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.

Wrong. Maybe you should read the bill, and then learn how, you know, the law actually works? The Attorney General or a private party must file suit in federal court. Then serve process on the site owner. Then the site owner appears in court to defend himself. If he fails to convince the judge, the court issues a court order banning the infringing material on the site.

 

If they pass this law then they are breaking their own laws. While I understand why some companies are trying to protect their brands overall they are fighting a losing battle, they can't win.

No they aren't. I guarantee you, if the Supreme Court ruled on the law today they would say it doesn't even implicate the right to free speech, and even if it did, the state interest in protecting private property trumps whatever minimal free speech exists in making available copyrighted works for unauthorized download.

Edited November 21, 2011 by lukertin

[brokenergy]

No they aren't. I guarantee you, if the Supreme Court ruled on the law today they would say it doesn't even implicate the right to free speech, and even if it did, the state interest in protecting private property trumps whatever minimal free speech exists in making available copyrighted works for unauthorized download.

 

Yes they are because it impedes on people using the creative licence of a brand and create their own fan fics for recreational use. It effectively causes anything that may be detrimental to a brand to be removed permanently. That means if you have a parody of some random show, it can be removed because it is hurting that brand. The bill in it's current form has wider implications than you can realise and I hope you understand that it isn't about stopping :pirate: . It's a losing battle and there are other ways to stop these things without going at it heavy handed.

[lukertin]

No they aren't. I guarantee you, if the Supreme Court ruled on the law today they would say it doesn't even implicate the right to free speech, and even if it did, the state interest in protecting private property trumps whatever minimal free speech exists in making available copyrighted works for unauthorized download.

 

Yes they are because it impedes on people using the creative licence of a brand and create their own fan fics for recreational use. It effectively causes anything that may be detrimental to a brand to be removed permanently. That means if you have a parody of some random show, it can be removed because it is hurting that brand. The bill in it's current form has wider implications than you can realise and I hope you understand that it isn't about stopping :pirate: . It's a losing battle and there are other ways to stop these things without going at it heavy handed.

Wrong. Please show me in the bill where it modifies the meanings of noninfringing uses in copyright law. It doesn't change existing law at all. They couldn't do anything before about the parade of evils you mention, and they won't be able to do anything after.

Edited November 22, 2011 by lukertin