An excellent article and well worth the read - thank you for the link.Mi Amigo wrote:Indeed. It's a totally inept attempt to address a real issue, and would do nothing to solve the root cause of the problem. The big media players are trying to preserve their cozy, outdated 20th century model and don't care about the huge collateral damage that would result from this ludicrous legislation.
Someone once said that the US has the best Congress money can buy, which I think sums up the situation quite succinctly.
Here's the Stanford Law Review's take on this:
http://www.stanfordlawreview.org/online ... k-internet
The Americans aren't doing anything with your internet, but choosing to do something with their own websites ~ which are free by the way. Sheesh!Tigerslayer wrote:What are the Americans doing and why is it messing with my internets?!?!?
Mary Hatch Bailey wrote:The Americans aren't doing anything with your internet, but choosing to do something with their own websites ~ which are free by the way. Sheesh!Tigerslayer wrote:What are the Americans doing and why is it messing with my internets?!?!?
And... while we're on the subject ~ How many bought-in-Malaysia/China/Indonesia DVDs do you have in you collection??
LOL....The Americans aren't doing anything with your internet, but choosing to do something with their own websites ~ which are free by the way. Sheesh!
And... while we're on the subject ~ How many bought-in-Malaysia/China/Indonesia DVDs do you have in you collection??
Actually, you're completely mistaken. The law was specifically targeting foreign websites, and the controversy was due to the lack of due process and unfair burden on third party content providers.Mary Hatch Bailey wrote:The Americans aren't doing anything with your internet, but choosing to do something with their own websites ~ which are free by the way. Sheesh!Tigerslayer wrote:What are the Americans doing and why is it messing with my internets?!?!?
The problem is there's no penalty for fraudulent take down notices. These companies, therefore use a scorched-earth tactic o sending as many threatening letters as possible, hoping someone would settle or simply overwhelm their target. After all, there's no consequence to them for any collateral damage.Mi Amigo wrote:Here's an example of the arrogant, heavy-handed behaviour that's already taking place, even without the ridiculous powers envisaged by SOPA and PIPA:
http://thenextweb.com/insider/2012/01/2 ... one-wrong/
Yes, record companies, etc. have every right to protect their interests, but artists should also have their rights enforced and they should not be bullied by the large media conglomerates, who are basically only interested in maximising profit by any means.
I think you meant the other way round, correct?zzm9980 wrote:It is essentially innocent until proven guilty.
Yes; SOPA/PIPA (and apparently, now, ACTA) provisions basically say you're guilty until proven using boatloads of money that you're innocent.Mi Amigo wrote:I think you meant the other way round, correct?zzm9980 wrote:It is essentially innocent until proven guilty.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest