Korodic Posted January 29, 2012 Share Posted January 29, 2012 everyone seems to have valid points. :O I will surely be writing a paper on this for my intro to political science class ;D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeyYou Posted January 29, 2012 Share Posted January 29, 2012 If it goes before the US Supreme Court, it will be deemed unconstitutional. I am certain of it. And it might not even make it that far, a State Supreme Court might rule against it and then the government might not even pursue it further, knowing they would be wasting time and money pursuing it further. The file sharing sites would have no way to determine whether content being uploaded is copyrighted material or not, as long as the person uploading does it in a certain way. Even if they can scan the files, someone could encrypt them. Winrar and 7zip kinda already do that. Meaning think of a creative name that would let the people downloading know what they are getting without raising any red flags to whatever kind of automatic detection system these sites might have in place. And just because a few abuse file sharing for pirating, doesn't mean everyone that shares files that are legit should be punished for it. What if someone sends anthrax through the mail, does that mean the post office should be held liable for a terrorist act? I would rather the internet be a place for free exchange of information, even if a few abuse that for pirating copyrighted material. The pirates always win in the end, and will figure out ways around the new system, so only the people who use file sharing for legit reasons will reap the negative impacts of it. Filesonic was blocked for American users, but I could get access to it anyway if I wanted, by going through an onion router. I suppose the Nexus might be exempt if they get permission from the respective publishers to host this content. But then again, I don't even know how that would work. There are a ton of really crooked, back door deals going on to try and get this in the US. Arguably even more crooked than the pirates. This isn't just about pirates, its about the freedom to exchange information over the internet. I would appose any anti-gun rights legislation for the same reasons as I would appose this. Just because there are a few people who murder with guns, doesn't mean the people who use them responsibly should be punished. They could make a system where the dumb pirates will be caught, but the smart ones will still go undetected, and that would be the best they could do without infringing on everyone's rights. The US has already signed the treaty......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beriallord Posted January 29, 2012 Share Posted January 29, 2012 (edited) If it goes before the US Supreme Court, it will be deemed unconstitutional. I am certain of it. And it might not even make it that far, a State Supreme Court might rule against it and then the government might not even pursue it further, knowing they would be wasting time and money pursuing it further. The file sharing sites would have no way to determine whether content being uploaded is copyrighted material or not, as long as the person uploading does it in a certain way. Even if they can scan the files, someone could encrypt them. Winrar and 7zip kinda already do that. Meaning think of a creative name that would let the people downloading know what they are getting without raising any red flags to whatever kind of automatic detection system these sites might have in place. And just because a few abuse file sharing for pirating, doesn't mean everyone that shares files that are legit should be punished for it. What if someone sends anthrax through the mail, does that mean the post office should be held liable for a terrorist act? I would rather the internet be a place for free exchange of information, even if a few abuse that for pirating copyrighted material. The pirates always win in the end, and will figure out ways around the new system, so only the people who use file sharing for legit reasons will reap the negative impacts of it. Filesonic was blocked for American users, but I could get access to it anyway if I wanted, by going through an onion router. I suppose the Nexus might be exempt if they get permission from the respective publishers to host this content. But then again, I don't even know how that would work. There are a ton of really crooked, back door deals going on to try and get this in the US. Arguably even more crooked than the pirates. This isn't just about pirates, its about the freedom to exchange information over the internet. I would appose any anti-gun rights legislation for the same reasons as I would appose this. Just because there are a few people who murder with guns, doesn't mean the people who use them responsibly should be punished. They could make a system where the dumb pirates will be caught, but the smart ones will still go undetected, and that would be the best they could do without infringing on everyone's rights. The US has already signed the treaty......... Uh, something like that must pass congress, and is also subject to scrutiny from the Judicial system based on whether or not its constitutional. People just assume its said and done, and it isn't. It might work like that in some European countries, but it isn't like that in the US. International laws and agreements don't trump the US constitution. For example if the US signed an international gun ban treaty, it would be unconstitutional, and wouldn't fly. Support the ongoing court battles that will be coming up. None of the American media said a peep about any of this, not SOPA, or ACTA. There are some very shady dealings going on and they are trying to get this through while keeping a blanket over everyone's eyes. Why don't I trust the government? Because of crooked back door deals like ACTA. Their credibility is basically 0/100 with me. I can't believe a word they tell me. Edited January 29, 2012 by Beriallord Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeyYou Posted January 29, 2012 Share Posted January 29, 2012 If it goes before the US Supreme Court, it will be deemed unconstitutional. I am certain of it. And it might not even make it that far, a State Supreme Court might rule against it and then the government might not even pursue it further, knowing they would be wasting time and money pursuing it further. The file sharing sites would have no way to determine whether content being uploaded is copyrighted material or not, as long as the person uploading does it in a certain way. Even if they can scan the files, someone could encrypt them. Winrar and 7zip kinda already do that. Meaning think of a creative name that would let the people downloading know what they are getting without raising any red flags to whatever kind of automatic detection system these sites might have in place. And just because a few abuse file sharing for pirating, doesn't mean everyone that shares files that are legit should be punished for it. What if someone sends anthrax through the mail, does that mean the post office should be held liable for a terrorist act? I would rather the internet be a place for free exchange of information, even if a few abuse that for pirating copyrighted material. The pirates always win in the end, and will figure out ways around the new system, so only the people who use file sharing for legit reasons will reap the negative impacts of it. Filesonic was blocked for American users, but I could get access to it anyway if I wanted, by going through an onion router. I suppose the Nexus might be exempt if they get permission from the respective publishers to host this content. But then again, I don't even know how that would work. There are a ton of really crooked, back door deals going on to try and get this in the US. Arguably even more crooked than the pirates. This isn't just about pirates, its about the freedom to exchange information over the internet. I would appose any anti-gun rights legislation for the same reasons as I would appose this. Just because there are a few people who murder with guns, doesn't mean the people who use them responsibly should be punished. They could make a system where the dumb pirates will be caught, but the smart ones will still go undetected, and that would be the best they could do without infringing on everyone's rights. The US has already signed the treaty......... Uh, something like that must pass congress, and is also subject to scrutiny from the Judicial system based on whether or not its constitutional. People just assume its said and done, and it isn't. It might work like that in some European countries, but it isn't like that in the US. International laws and agreements don't trump the US constitution. For example if the US signed an international gun ban treaty, it would be unconstitutional, and wouldn't fly. Support the ongoing court battles that will be coming up. None of the American media said a peep about any of this, not SOPA, or ACTA. There are some very shady dealings going on and they are trying to get this through while keeping a blanket over everyone's eyes. Why don't I trust the government? Because of crooked back door deals like ACTA. Their credibility is basically 0/100 with me. I can't believe a word they tell me. From Wikipedia: It has been reported that the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative has stated they will use the Fast track negotiating authority (Trade Promotion Authority) to implement ACTA, but will actually use the form of a executive agreement. They are looking for ways to implement it without congress, or judicial review. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Korodic Posted January 29, 2012 Share Posted January 29, 2012 Obama reportedly signed it, it doesn't need to go through congress since it is not considered a treaty, but an executive agreement. funny, because obama promised "change" with complete transparency. Yet he was one of them who worked out ACTA in secrecy... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marharth Posted January 29, 2012 Share Posted January 29, 2012 Obama reportedly signed it, it doesn't need to go through congress since it is not considered a treaty, but an executive agreement. funny, because obama promised "change" with complete transparency. Yet he was one of them who worked out ACTA in secrecy...Its not the first time Obama completely f***ed over everyone and lied about "change." Lets not circumvent the language filter please. ~Lisnpuppy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimboUK Posted January 29, 2012 Share Posted January 29, 2012 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-16757142 It's not going down well with certain MEPs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthmoor Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 http://img46.imageshack.us/img46/4764/trustthegovernment.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now