just like the movie jurasic park:
i would say life (the users) wil find a way to get around this

This is just one of the many stories on it out there, from last years attempt,

“News of the shutdowns has some observers wondering whether the US really needs COICA, the anti-counterfeiting bill that passed through a Senate committee with unanimous approval last week. That bill would allow the federal government to block access to Web sites that attorneys general deem to have infringed on copyright.”

“ However, COICA would allow the government to block access to Web sites located anywhere in the world, while Homeland Security’s take-downs are limited to servers inside the United States. Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon said he would place a hold on COICA, effectively killing the bill at least until the new congressional session next year.”

Read and learn while you still can….

Behave please…

How is SOPA different from DMCA in terms of what counts as copyright infringement? People are mostly crying foul about what shouldn’t be illegal, but SOPA doesn’t really make anything that was legal automatically illegal.

The only thing I think it really affects is safe harbor for websites and ISPs. The shutting down of websites and junk. But I’ve been reading DMCA and SOPA, and at least as far as individual websites, I think the same restrictions and protections still apply.

SOPA grants immunity to sites who combat copyright infringement and piracy, right? And ONLY those sites. DMCA is the same. It provides immunity to sites who

“adopt and reasonably implement a policy for the termination in appropriate circumstances of the accounts of subscribers of the provider service who are repeat online infringers of copyright.”

Just like SOPA. Both acts say “If you help us combat piracy, we’ll leave you alone. Otherwise, we’ll shut you down.” I don’t think anything really changes.

Several points- First off, instead of fining people who have illegally uploaded songs or movies without the parent company’s permission, use sites like YouTube for free advertising. Every time that a media source comes across as being part of a third party’s property, it will send a link to a site where you can buy the song or movie, like iTunes or Amazon. $.99 × 3,000,000+ hits to send a viewer to a place where they can buy your copyrighted work? That doesn’t sound too bad. Funimation uses YouTube to advertise their products, and companies like Warner Brothers charge $5 for viewing a movie like “The Hangover” on YouTube. All that free revenue would be gone if SOPA is passed.

Also, being able to blacklist a foreign sight on suspicions that it might infringe on copyright laws? Isn’t that discrimination, and isn’t discrimination against U.S. policy and law?

Finally, instead of attacking sites under suspicion of copyright infringements, attack the bitTorrents and P2P’s.

Whoops! hey “Where” am I?? Lol =D

I ask all viewers here to make your voices heard over here also.

I am a little dismayed by the fact that the site was “supposedly” Libertarian, being related to the Cato institute somewhat… but as you can see from the comment section…?

Anyways…it is an additional platform to be heard from.

http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/112_HR_3261.html

Be sure to read this too all you viewers here.

Join the Public Mark-up of SOPA

http://www.opencongress.org/articles/view/2431-Join-the-Public-Mark-up-of-SOPA

I would just like you to know that you are very ill in the head. Furthermore, you have no idea what you’re talking about. Censorship affects EVERYBODY, not just this weird demographic of porn-addicted activists that you seem to have made up in your spare time. This is especially true when the bill serving as the basis for this censorship is so broadly worded. Imagine clicking on a youtube link thinking it’s legitimate and then BAM! felony charge. That’s very possible given the wording SOPA is currently using. Personally, I don’t give a flying fig newton about your porn collection, but I would like to feel safe browsing the internet without having to mull over for three days as t whether reading somebody else’s facebook post will put me in jail.

Part of me wants to say troll. But if you really think like that, what the hell is wrong with you? How can you SUPPORT this? It’s not about “porn” or “nude pictures”. It’s about our RIGHTS. There is MUCH more about the internet than porn.

Bro, I don’t give a flying blue fart about your nude photos. I have about as much use for your nude photos as a fish would have for a toaster. However, I am in school to become an IT professional. This bill threatens everything I’ve worked my entire life for, and I’m not going to take it lying down. Have you considered using a password to protect your files? Just saying, that would cut down on people accessing them without your

1% Users Support Bill

We elect people to the United States government to represent the wants and need of the American people, not the wants and needs of these elected representatives or the wants and needs of the people with the most money. With only 1% of the people who view this bill actually supporting it, and with all of the opposition that we the people have made to show that this is NOT what we want and NOT what we need, why is it even being considered?
There are bigger problems they could and should be focusing on, but instead they delay and turn toward frivolous issues such as this. Leave our constitutional rights alone and focus on the important things. Like, oh I don’t know, unemployment and education.

WE.DONT.CARE.ABOUT.YOUR.PORN. I can drive down the road and pick up an illegal hooker once a week for less than the cost of an internet subscription, why would I care about ‘unlawfully’ looking at the pictures you have taken?

Aside from the obvious point that most of the internet traffic worldwide is sattelite coordinated, not to mention the plethora of wireless networks world-wide, and I see wireless communication occuring. Radio is also wireless.

Censorship of US TV and Radio is also unconstitutional. The concept that this would balance our budget is laughable. Our budget is, in all honesty, completely fraudulent, balanced by a $2 trillion influx of drug money (thank you, drug addicts), and even if the budget was solved every year, until the end of time, it fails to address the serious debt restructure we need to endure on every level of government.

“Thinker-politicians like Jefferson, Adams and Madison were just as
familiar as we are with the metaphor that likens created work to
physical property, especially to a landed estate. But they thought of
that landed estate in a new way – as the basis of a republic. An
American’s land was his own – he owed allegiance to no sovereign – but
his ownership imposed on him an almost sacred moral requirement to
contribute to the public good. According to Hyde, this ethic of “civic
republicanism” was the ideological engine that drove the founders’
conception of intellectual property, and to his mind, it undercuts the
ethic of “commercial republicanism” that dominates our current
conception of it. Our right to property is not absolute; our possessions
are held in trust, as it were. Seen through the prism of early civic
Republicanism, Hyde asks, what might the creative self look like? Do we
imagine that self as “solitary and self-made”? Or as “collective, common
and interdependent”?

We need to get people out of office that even THINK this is ok, rid us of the few rule the majority attitude they have now..