SOPA and Politics-
charles maynes
Thread Starter
#121
13th December 2011
Old 13th December 2011
  #121
Gear Guru
 
charles maynes's Avatar
 

Thread Starter
Chris- now you know why I say its a perception issue.... and that the people who need to be informed about it are the ones who have actually the least contact with piracy-

the scary thing is that people on "our" side can be just as damaging as the most saavy google head....


we need to figure out how to portray the issue so that people think that kittens are getting killed when people pirate....
#122
13th December 2011
Old 13th December 2011
  #122
Gear Guru
 
chrisso's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by charles maynes View Post
Chris- now you know why I say its a perception issue....
Of course I know it's a perception issue.
The problem is you have people going on tv to represent 'the music industry' who say the music industry is "all about playing live" and that the main victims of piracy "are the superstar artists".
I can scream at my TV, but I can't stop these people being invited on to it.
I wrote an article a month ago (as I posted earlier) for this same show's forum. They finally emailed back saying they liked it and would publish it, but over a week later.... nothing. So I'll have to get back on to them tomorrow.
charles maynes
Thread Starter
#123
13th December 2011
Old 13th December 2011
  #123
Gear Guru
 
charles maynes's Avatar
 

Thread Starter
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
Of course I know it's a perception issue.
The problem is you have people going on tv to represent 'the music industry' who say the music industry is "all about playing live" and that the main victims of piracy "are the superstar artists".
I can scream at my TV, but I can't stop these people being invited on to it.
I wrote an article a month ago (as I posted earlier) for this same show's forum. They finally emailed back saying they liked it and would publish it, but over a week later.... nothing. So I'll have to get back on to them tomorrow.
keep at it Chris- its what we can do to make it a personal underdog issue.... and it affects every independent artist out there....
charles maynes
Thread Starter
#124
13th December 2011
Old 13th December 2011
  #124
Gear Guru
 
charles maynes's Avatar
 

Thread Starter
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reptil View Post
What a complete and utter rubbish. I respect your opinion on music and production, and a lot of other things very much, but SOPA has, like a whole lot of other things, the potential (which is not theoretical, but very real, and imminent) to be used against artists, by excluding any that do not confirm to the "party politics". If you've missed the ongoing seismic changes in law and society in the USA, I'd respectfully suggest you read up a bit.
For God's sake man, forever curtailing freedom of expression on the last medium that is not completely controlled by corporate interest wheighs A LOT more than a faulty, non-functioning directive, introduced with the promise of protecting revenue, by those (American Federal Government) that have no incentive to honor this promise, and are engaged in breaking the Rule of Law in their own favour (MF Global).


SOPA Is “Unconstitutional”, Would “Criminalize” the Internet … Modeled On China - Washington's Blog

http://www.net-coalition.com/wp-cont...-12-6-11-1.pdf

Really... read up, on the subject, please, I'm out of this thread. Thank you.
yes, you should read up on the subject, as it has been highly publicized. starting here would be your best bet.

Bill Text - 112th Congress (2011-2012) - THOMAS (Library of Congress)
#125
13th December 2011
Old 13th December 2011
  #125
Banned
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Reptil View Post
What a complete and utter rubbish. I respect your opinion on music and production, and a lot of other things very much, but SOPA has, like a whole lot of other things, the potential (which is not theoretical, but very real, and imminent) to be used against artists, by excluding any that do not confirm to the "party politics". If you've missed the ongoing seismic changes in law and society in the USA, I'd respectfully suggest you read up a bit.
For God's sake man, forever curtailing freedom of expression on the last medium that is not completely controlled by corporate interest wheighs A LOT more than a faulty, non-functioning directive, introduced with the promise of protecting revenue, by those (American Federal Government) that have no incentive to honor this promise, and are engaged in breaking the Rule of Law in their own favour (MF Global).


SOPA Is “Unconstitutional”, Would “Criminalize” the Internet … Modeled On China - Washington's Blog

http://www.net-coalition.com/wp-cont...-12-6-11-1.pdf

Really... read up, on the subject, please, I'm out of this thread. Thank you.
Yes you should, your entire post is just factually wrong and the result of big business propaganda from the likes of google. You should really get informed about the Facts of the Issue.
#126
13th December 2011
Old 13th December 2011
  #126
Gear Head
 

This bill is awful. It's vague, grants over-arching power to accusers on suspicions, removes due process, threatens free speech. It's dangerous at best, and truly damaging to the world at worst. Reptil and others have articulated my position better than I ever could; but I know that rushing laws in that pertain to digital has never the correct approach.
charles maynes
Thread Starter
#127
13th December 2011
Old 13th December 2011
  #127
Gear Guru
 
charles maynes's Avatar
 

Thread Starter
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reptil View Post
I did, of course, the thing is, when there is no more Rule of Law, as upheld by independent courts in the most powerful economy on the planet, any law curtailing the internet must also be met by a deeper examination of those that are granted the power to judge, regardless what's worded within the Bill itself.
I.o.w. there's a real danger that the US Justice Dept. will use this Bill, without recourse, without oversight of a neutral party (such as an independent Court), to further it's own agenda, and deal a severe blow to it's enemies.
Such is the reality of the world we live in, a Macchiavellian place, and far removed from the paper constructs, however right they may seem from the point of view of rightfully protecting intellectual property. I don't dispute that point of view, I'm just calling it unrealistic, and dangerous.
It WILL be used for political purposes.

My question to you, and the ones that support it, is: How do you safeguard it won't be?
Reptl-

the law as it sits is primarily directed at offshore sites which are presently outside the reach of prosecution-

The DMCA does allow for prosecution, even the shutdown of domestic- US based sites- there are no changes positive or negative on that front- I want that to be clear, because the law itself is quite clear on the matter-

The law grants no powers to the government beyond what are presently in use. The DOJ has no authority to shut down a foreign site.

on the IP front- which includes any commercial, or work intended for commercial sale-

what it does do is with a complaint, it can investigate an offshore site to determine if it is principally- and that means that most of its purpose is to provide illegal, under US law access to infringed material. If it is found to be correctly targeted, the DOJ can do the following-

It can block that site from ISP's serving US customers.

It can restrict monies the site might generate through membership or ad revenues coming from the US to be denied those monies.

It can notify the offshore sites host country of that sites infringements and request action. (this it can already do, but it is somewhat involved, and the host country has no obligation to comply)

It also has very specific coverage of false accusation- if a claim of infringement is judged to be frivolous or anti-competitive, it can demand that all legal fees in the case be shouldered by the accusing party. This is new, and is very good- as at present, it is not a boilerplate component of current law.

there are also protections for physical goods- namely pharmaceuticals which are marketed by countries outside the US selling goods that do not have US FDA approval for sale in the US- this also extends to goods which might be bootlegged and shipped into the country- which at present, would already be illegal.

As to protections in the immunity clauses-

there is no expectation for ISP's or search engines to self police. period. it is absolutely specified in the present language in the bill-

A freind of mine, who owns a real newspaper, was concerned that he could have his site shut down due to a posting of a link directing his readers to an illegal site under the act- here is what happens as far as the chain of reaction-

1- a person posts a link to a comment on his site-

his responsibilty beyond his present discretion- nothing. he has no responsibilty for that posting in the bill-

if a company files a takedown request- he can look at the claim and the evidence and do one of two things-

1- he can comply in a reasonable timeframe- if this occurs- he has no further liability.

2- he can not comply if he sees the charge as baseless- he files his appeal.
If he sees the charge as being frivilous he can report it to DOJ- and they will investigate and determine the outcome. If they rule that his site is compelled against the law to act, this basically moves to the realm of the DCMA's statutes. THose have been in effect since the Clinton Administration.

If DOJ agrees that the charges are frivilous or anti-competitive, they can request a court order for the accuser to be required to pay the costs he incurred in defending himself.

free speech is by its nature and intention not commercial. nor is political dissent, nor whistleblowing- which are covered by existing law with rich legal precident protecting them. There is certainly danger of corrupt government meddling here- but no more than they might be able without the act.

If he feels the government is not acting in good faith (which again, has little to do with the act since prtections against are already in place via other standing law, he can file suit against the government, and request injunctions against any actions the government might take- if the judge agrees with his defense, the government would be required to drop their case and may be required to pay damages as they do now without the act even existing.

Whats in it for the Search Engines?

they generate their income via advertisements- they do not have a requirement to vette these under any law- if they choose to allow say, Prison Planet to advertise on their sites, Alex Jones is free to claim whatever he might- which tends to be very anti-government and he enjoys full first amendment liberty to say what he see fit. However, if the advertiser benefits from illegal acts- then the Government may request any ad revenues the advertiser pays, or monies for site membership to an entity dedicated to distributing copyright infringiing products to be denied revenue from US based payment processors.

that is what its about.


As far as it being political? I am not sure how- Is it defending industries with spotty histories of breaking other laws- well. in some cases it may actually- But that is not its fault- if a company engages in anticompetitive behaviors it is nto in the realm of law SOPA impacts. Can the government misuse it? Yes, it might, but it already has laws it can misuse to greater effect.... so that argument is functionally baseless. there are abuses without SOPA, and that will likely not be changed- so again, it is an irrelevent point that is being hammered- and I mean propagandized by those who stand to lose the most.... the Search Engines. They are the one who will lose the most revenue, due to it affecting their advertising market.

Its a classic case of following the money. Those who stand to lose the most, tend to want to fight hardest. and the search engines stand to lose far more than the copyright holders.

I would also say you should view the video Chris posted regarding the pervasiveness of Google. They seem to be a much larger threat to civil liberties due to their own private sector filtering of data than any government on the face of the earth.
charles maynes
Thread Starter
#128
13th December 2011
Old 13th December 2011
  #128
Gear Guru
 
charles maynes's Avatar
 

Thread Starter
an update on my little civic actions-

I just received word back from the City Manager of Burbank who offered great support for an anti piracy declaration- and that they are closely working with Adam Schiff-

a nice way to start the day....
charles maynes
Thread Starter
#129
13th December 2011
Old 13th December 2011
  #129
Gear Guru
 
charles maynes's Avatar
 

Thread Starter
a little analogy on the whole prosecution side of this business-

a few years ago, LAPD got into a bunch of trouble when it was found that thosands of Rape kits- (which contain the physical evidence in rape investigations) were sitting untested, and unused by the Police.

do you think the community response was that the police should stop investigating rape?.........


http://articles.latimes.com/2011/apr...d-dna-20110427
#130
13th December 2011
Old 13th December 2011
  #130
Gear addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Reptil View Post
I did, of course, the thing is, when there is no more Rule of Law
There is no rule of law for creators online. SOPA and PROTECT IP don't create new liability for service providers, they create more effective remediees for existing liability. Ineffective remedies are no remedies at all for the average creator or small business who can't afford hiring teams of lawyers to go against commercial pirates -- and who are hurt the most by this type of piracy. The Justin Biebers and Steven Spielbergs of the world won't go out of business from piracy, amateurs and hobbyists aren't in business in the first place, but the vast middle class of creators definitely suffer -- and the public suffers as well, since this is where the next generation of Spielbergs comes from, where typically some of the most creative work comes from, and where diverse, non-mainstream, niche, and underrepresented voices are heard.

In the absence of the rule of law, you have situations like Grooveshark, which said, "We are achieving all this growth without paying a dime to any of the labels. In our case, we use the label's songs till we get a 100 (million) uniques, by which time we can tell the labels who is listening to their music, where, and then turn around and charge them for the very data we got from them, ensuring that what we pay them in total for streaming is less than what they pay us for data mining." That they can do this doesn't fit any principle of the rule of law, justice, fairness, morality, or ethics.

Quote:
I.o.w. there's a real danger that the US Justice Dept. will use this Bill, without recourse, without oversight of a neutral party (such as an independent Court), to further it's own agenda, and deal a severe blow to it's enemies.
You should read the bill. Everything goes through a court. No order is issued without court review or notice and hearing for the implicated web site.
#131
13th December 2011
Old 13th December 2011
  #131
Lives for gear
 
AwwDeOhh's Avatar
 

Thanks Terry.

It is amazing how much mis-information there is out there on this subject... (actually, when you think about it, it is not amazing... the big monied interests are working overtime to spread the misinformation...)
#132
13th December 2011
Old 13th December 2011
  #132
Gear Guru
 
chrisso's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Reptil View Post
What a complete and utter rubbish. I respect your opinion on music and production, and a lot of other things very much, but SOPA has, like a whole lot of other things, the potential (which is not theoretical, but very real, and imminent)
I'm very happy for you to put the opposing view, but the leap to 'police state' is utter alarmist bunkem.
If anti-SOPA Gearslutz have to raise a 'police state' as a likely outcome, then I suggest you must not have anything of substance to put up against the proposed law.
#133
14th December 2011
Old 14th December 2011
  #133
Gear Guru
 
chrisso's Avatar
 

I dunno, maybe you have to have lived in a 'police state' to really contrast the current living conditions in America and any impact from SOPA that would lead to a 'police state'.
Claims that America is close to or could be a 'police state' after SOPA rather diminish the true life struggles of people who actually do live in a such a society.

By the way, significant political content in piracy forum posts is verboten, and yet it's the moderation team doing it.
charles maynes
Thread Starter
#134
14th December 2011
Old 14th December 2011
  #134
Gear Guru
 
charles maynes's Avatar
 

Thread Starter
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reptil View Post

I do have a point of critique however:
The Prosecutor judges the complaint agains their own claim of illegality THEMSELVES. THAT'S A CLEAR DEPARTURE FROM THE COURTS BEING INDEPENDENT!?
No matter if this was already in effect under Clinton. (I'm not a poster boy for Clinton)
well that could be levied against any court action against the government- in actual practice, the government does lose a lot of court cases. Dont ask me why, but the preservation of trial by jury seems to be being preserved even today....

Quote:
Originally Posted by Reptil View Post
The difference being, that it is a new powerful tool to shut down pesky websites, again, and again, with the only recourse available to those that have their informative websites closed down, to try and protest this action, with the very same people that they were protesting against. You can tell me ALL claims will be reviewed in courts, but there's no checks if this will actually happen. There is no oversight. THAT is the reason a claim (of copyright infringement) in the current system is in a Court of Law BEFORE IT IS BEING SHUT DOWN.
Again- there is process and remediation in the law itself- one thing to note- SOPA doesnt shut websites down- as it deals only with interactions from foreign websites which are intouchable by existing law- This singlular point is the basis of a severe amount of disinformation on the law.

All that the law enables is these two penalties.

The blocking of the site to American Internet users (not touching the site insitu.)

Blocking payment delivery to offending sites from American payment processors.

In order to get to that point- the sites must be first found to be harboring copyright ingringing materials and be unwilling to take them down, AND to be proven to be a chronic offender of the same. That does go through the judicial process as well- and technically, these foreign sites are not entitled to the protections of US law, but the law of the country they might be located in- so even the due process argument is absurd.

lets recap- these are ONLY NON-US SITES.

US sites are already effectively prosecuted under existing law.

the other thing the act adds to the mix is the protection from false charges- if a charge against a site is found to be false, or anti-competitive, the legal defense costs of the defendent will be paid by the party making the complaint.

All the critiques of SOPA I have read have omitted significant parts of the bill which directly contravene the cover story being sold. and that is a fact.




Quote:
Originally Posted by Reptil View Post
From the Letter posted before:


Thank you. I repeat myself; since my point is simple; that's what Checks and Balances are for, in a FREE SOCIETY with a basis (Trias Politica) in INDEPENDENT COURTS.

No, that is not a valid argument you put forward. This Bill goes further, in that it removes Due Process, and places it legally AFTER any action that has been taken by the Dept. of Justice.

Some, yes. But if someone is say… for example… posting videos from Japan, using news broadcasts of NHK as material to prove a point (that it's all going to hell and that the japanese citizens are being lied to by their own government), there is no commercial incentive. There's just the claim of NHK of copyright infringement, and the position of the japanese government that it's all "baseless dangerous rumours". Because those rumours, according to the official UN nuclear watchdog are the reason that so many people fell ill after the nuclear accident of Chernobyl.

The right to quote for informative or scientific purposes is curiously absent from this bill! Or perhaps I missed it, so please point me towards it?
sure its right here- (or I should say it ISNT right here- as fair use is protected under other law).


evidence that may include whether—
(A) the Internet site is used to provide goods or services to users located in the United
States;
(B) there is evidence that the Internet site or portion thereof is intended to offer or pro- vide—or

(i) such goods and services,
(ii) access to such goods and services,
(iii) delivery of such goods and services, to users located in the United States;

(C) the Internet site or portion thereof does not contain reasonable measures to pre- vent such goods and services from being obtained in or delivered to the United States; and

(D) any prices for goods and services are indicated or billed in the currency of the United States.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Reptil View Post
I'm not a poster boy for Google. That they're protesting against this bill for their reasons does not affect my reasons to protest it.
You, of all people are falling for the "guilt by association" trap? C'mon Charles…
Reptl, I spend a good deal of time in activism- I was against this act on the same grounds you were until folks like John Eppstein, Terry, Rack Gear and Chris presented compelling evidence that revealed the truth for me. They are the bloodied ones and have taken all measure of shit for standing up for whats right and they certainly took a lot of it from me... I applaud them vigorously, (though John and I still mix it up a bit). I am proud to stand with them in this.

I am still very suspicious of the government, but at the same time no american artist, or consumer is going to see anything but benefit from what this brings to the table.
#135
14th December 2011
Old 14th December 2011
  #135
Gear Guru
 
chrisso's Avatar
 

The two of you are engaged in a political discussion. The content in 'Reptil's' recent posts are lite on music piracy and heavy on rather rad political opinion.
All I can add is I haven't stated a position on 1) SOPA, or 2) American political situation, despite 'Reptil' claiming numerous times I have.
Secondly, a video was removed and the statement was made (by a Gearslutz moderator) that I requested it be removed. I absolutely did not. I can't remember even commenting on the video.
Come on guys.... clean up your act. At least stop misrepresenting my posts. I take a dim view at being misrepresnted, especially by someone with 'moderator' after their screen-name.
#136
14th December 2011
Old 14th December 2011
  #136
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reptil View Post
What a complete and utter rubbish. I respect your opinion on music and production, and a lot of other things very much, but SOPA has, like a whole lot of other things, the potential (which is not theoretical, but very real, and imminent) to be used against artists, by excluding any that do not confirm to the "party politics". If you've missed the ongoing seismic changes in law and society in the USA, I'd respectfully suggest you read up a bit.
For God's sake man, forever curtailing freedom of expression on the last medium that is not completely controlled by corporate interest wheighs A LOT more than a faulty, non-functioning directive, introduced with the promise of protecting revenue, by those (American Federal Government) that have no incentive to honor this promise, and are engaged in breaking the Rule of Law in their own favour (MF Global).


SOPA Is “Unconstitutional”, Would “Criminalize” the Internet … Modeled On China - Washington's Blog

http://www.net-coalition.com/wp-cont...-12-6-11-1.pdf

Really... read up, on the subject, please, I'm out of this thread. Thank you.
Yes, Reptil, please read up on the subject - from people who are not pro-piracy and pro-big tech.

All the links you posted are the most scurrilous kind of lying propaganda.

As you would know if you had actually bothered to read the considerable debate we've had in this forum.

However, based on your previous activity here you're probably not going to do that since your primary interest is defending piracy any way you can.

BTW I see you're no longer using the portrait of Blackbeard the pirate as your avatar. I liked it the way it was. Fit your position better.
#137
14th December 2011
Old 14th December 2011
  #137
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kosko View Post
This bill is awful. It's vague, grants over-arching power to accusers on suspicions, removes due process, threatens free speech. It's dangerous at best, and truly damaging to the world at worst. Reptil and others have articulated my position better than I ever could; but I know that rushing laws in that pertain to digital has never the correct approach.
Have you actually read the bill?

The actual FACTS are that it does none of those things. What it DOES threaten to do is reduce Google's profit stream by a few percent by reducing their ability to profit from abetting pirate sites. Which is why Google is pumping the media full of lies about the effects of the bill.

<DELETED BY MODERATOR>
#138
14th December 2011
Old 14th December 2011
  #138
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reptil View Post
The difference being, that it is a new powerful tool to shut down pesky websites,
But it isn't. To begin with, DNS blocking doesn't actually shut the site down to people who are determined to reach it.

Furthermore, as I've already explained numerous times that I'm sure you have not botherede to read, the US government already has tools that are far more effective to actually shut down sites they want to suppress. This bill doesn't give them anything useful for the purposes you're concerned about. As things stand now if they want a site of page gone you get an Error 404.

Comparing this bill to what they already have is like comparing a squirt gun to a cannon.

Quote:
Oh I certainly agree with this, all true. Again I have no beef with the righteousness of the need to protect intellectual property. Since theft is theft.
You put that little disclaimer in every time you post in support of piracy or against any effective measures to reduce it. I'd think by now you'd realize that we're not fooled.
#139
14th December 2011
Old 14th December 2011
  #139
Lives for gear
 
Animus's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by rack gear View Post
I didn't say expert, I said informed.
You are informed only so far as your bias.
#140
14th December 2011
Old 14th December 2011
  #140
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reptil View Post
.....
OK, so which is it - the government will use this bill for censorship, blah, blah, woof-woof........ OR The government is running a media blackout?

Which would mean that they don't need this bill to censor.

Which is it?

The fact is that as a tool for censorship this is a very dull knife indeed.

The truth is that you oppose it because it might actually be effective in reducing piracy which, due to your political views, you regard as a reduction of freedom.

Otherwise you would not be attempting to revive the same arguments that Charles was making until it was demonstrated to him that they simply don't hold water.

The difference between Charles and you is that Charles was genuine in his concerns but with you they're just talking points to support your real agenda.

BTW, didn't you end your first post in this thread with the proclamation that you were leaving it there?
#141
14th December 2011
Old 14th December 2011
  #141
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reptil View Post
well, that's just your opinion man.
I just report the facts, which you have not adressed in your post, and voiced my concern over this particular bill, in regards to freedom of speech.
go ahead, prove me wrong, I dare you.
you have opinions and not facts, sorry...

many analysis have been done, and sans for the propaganda and fave talking point of big tech (and whomever shall follow) there is no threat to free speech, as noted by famed First Amendment Lawyer Floyd Abrams in this 14 page legal analysis, grab yer coffee...

http://www.mpaa.org/Resources/1227ef...4af768430c.pdf

oh and check this out:
Faux Free Speech Objections to PROTECT IP Act

maybe you should read a little bit first and educate yourself?
#142
14th December 2011
Old 14th December 2011
  #142
Quote:
Originally Posted by Animus View Post
You are informed only so far as your bias.
great, so read the books than... maybe you'll learn sumptin'
#143
14th December 2011
Old 14th December 2011
  #143
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reptil View Post
What a complete and utter rubbish. I respect your opinion on music and production, and a lot of other things very much, but SOPA has, like a whole lot of other things, the potential (which is not theoretical, but very real, and imminent) to be used against artists, by excluding any that do not confirm to the "party politics". If you've missed the ongoing seismic changes in law and society in the USA, I'd respectfully suggest you read up a bit.
For God's sake man, forever curtailing freedom of expression on the last medium that is not completely controlled by corporate interest wheighs A LOT more than a faulty, non-functioning directive, introduced with the promise of protecting revenue, by those (American Federal Government) that have no incentive to honor this promise, and are engaged in breaking the Rule of Law in their own favour (MF Global).
complete nonsense.

there is no right to steal.

theft is not a protection of free speech.

those against SOPA are those who profit from the theft of content, it's that simple. using "free speech" as an issue draws a lot more knee jerk responses (like yours) than the truth of the matter is that they are actually legitimately scared they may actually face financial ramifications...

as I see your big on links, read this report back:
Google Behind the Numbers Explains the KAFKA Amendment to PROTECT IP
#144
14th December 2011
Old 14th December 2011
  #144
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reptil View Post
That is nonsense. I've studied history and I know what makes up a "police state".


No, that's not my claim. My claim is that the Rule of Law is broken, since the government, whom YOU want to entrust judgement of internet content to, has been captured by 3-rd party interests. This is not a political statement, since I do not expose my position in this matter, just a presentation of the facts of the real world, which seem to have eluded you for some strange reason.



I've posted a number of verifiable facts, that illustrate there is something wrong with the Rule of Law, in the country that proposes this bill.
As for the video, displaying Tom Yorke and 3d talking about the absence of the Rule of Law, and that the banking system is somehow sacrosanct, on their occupy London x-mas party (in response to the UBS Christmas party), sure, I'll remove it. Thank you for reminding me.
Thank you also for reminding me where you, yourself seem to have positioned yourself.

You claim that's not political? Are you serious?

Dig it - none of the stuff you're ranting about is pertinent to the debate. If government is going to misuse a law they'll misuse whatever's handy. That's not an excuse for leaving artists unprotected. It just isn't. And if this law isn't passed and that's what their hidden motives are they'll just pass something else.

All you're doing is hurting artists by helping the pirates. But you knew that.
#145
14th December 2011
Old 14th December 2011
  #145
Gear Guru
 
Sqye's Avatar
 

Lightbulb

.

Gosh, these piracy discussions really get heated, don't they?

Holy moly.

Maybe we could try to discuss with one another without the insults?

Just a suggestion.

Cheers to all of you!


.
#146
14th December 2011
Old 14th December 2011
  #146
Gear Guru
 
chrisso's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sqye View Post
.

Gosh, these piracy discussions really get heated, don't they?


.
In recent months, not so much actually.
#147
14th December 2011
Old 14th December 2011
  #147
Lives for gear
 
Animus's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Eppstein View Post
OK, so which is it - the government will use this bill for censorship, blah, blah, woof-woof........ OR The government is running a media blackout?

Which would mean that they don't need this bill to censor.

Which is it?

The fact is that as a tool for censorship this is a very dull knife indeed.

The truth is that you oppose it because it might actually be effective in reducing piracy which, due to your political views, you regard as a reduction of freedom.

Otherwise you would not be attempting to revive the same arguments that Charles was making until it was demonstrated to him that they simply don't hold water.

The difference between Charles and you is that Charles was genuine in his concerns but with you they're just talking points to support your real agenda.

BTW, didn't you end your first post in this thread with the proclamation that you were leaving it there?
A dull knife can always be sharpened very easily. I can understand why people are apprehensive about this when viewed in tandem with other things such as the Patriot Acts and FISA. If you give away your freedoms slowly and bit by bit for the common good eventually you will find you have no freedom left.

I am curious what people's views on the net neutrality debate are too?
#148
14th December 2011
Old 14th December 2011
  #148
Gear Guru
 
chrisso's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Reptil View Post
I could have been wrong.
You were.

Quote:
It was the only political thing (IMHO) in that post.
Not IMO.
Thanks for the...... err.... apology.
#149
14th December 2011
Old 14th December 2011
  #149
Moderator
 
Reptil's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
You were.



Not IMO.
Thanks for the...... err.... apology.
I disagree with you there, and I'd be happy to discuss this is a civilised manner, in which I'll prove my POV has merit. I apologise for the misconception of your request, calling me out on posting something of a political nature. It has dawned on me the whole thing is political, and this "restriction" can be used to render someone's points pointless. Which I percieved wrongly of you doing. To clarify: What you percieve as political is essential for my POV of the discussion. I took your request for a trick, and therefore apologise.
So there's no real discussion possible here anyway.

I demand John Epstein removes and retracts his false accusation. It is baseless and I WILL PERSUE this, since I'm an honorable person.
#150
14th December 2011
Old 14th December 2011
  #150
Lives for gear
 
Animus's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Reptil View Post
It has dawned on me the whole thing is political, and this "restriction" can be used to render someone's points pointless.

Exactly right.
Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook  Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter  Submit Thread to LinkedIn LinkedIn  Submit Thread to Google+ Google+ 
 
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
joseph / Remote Possibilities in Acoustic Music & Location Recording
31
klaukholm / Remote Possibilities in Acoustic Music & Location Recording
19
coolcat / Electronic Music Instruments & Electronic Music Production
4
Jimbo / Remote Possibilities in Acoustic Music & Location Recording
11
Mike Jasper / Remote Possibilities in Acoustic Music & Location Recording
32

Forum Jump
 
Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

SEO by vBSEO ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.