Jimbo1212 said:
Woah, not accurate according to whom? The person who has not read or understood it?!
I'm sorry, but that is absurd.
"I mean, they expect search engines to remove EVERY single non-approved website?
And if they find one, then the search engine has only 5 days to remove it?"
a) The first point is wrong. They have to remove the website only if infringing on copyright laws AFTER being notified.
b) 5 days is plenty of time to simply add a few lines of code. Why do you think that is too short?
"Plus in the case of foreign sites, they're taken down with no warning given"
That is just wrong.
You are clearly quoting websites and not the bill. That is simply incorrect.
Not accurate according to maths.
The data you haven't even collected, it's just a guess!
Also, i'm done with this.
I've read the bill, understand it now after reflection, and have come to the conclusion that everything you've been saying is a lie, because nobody had read the bill you could say whatever.
But now i have.
It's backed up what these websites have to say.
And those weren't quotes from websites, that was me translating the bill.
You obviously don't understand the implications of this whole thing, and i'm done with it.
The bill is vague, needs work and is just plain wrong.
And if you say i've misinterpreted it, then the same can be said of you.
Just sayin'.
But i'm done now, i now know that we've truly dodged a bullet.