Rabid Toilet said:
Okay, I've read the bill. I can safely tell you that I have no idea what exactly it will do.
There's some stuff about blocking foreign sites and preventing copyright infringement, but as to the exact details on what would happen if it were passed, I don't have a clue. The bill has so many references to other sections or to other bills, not to mention all of the confusing legal jargon, that getting real details as to what it all means is a pretty big task. Your average joe wouldn't have a clue what the bill was about.
That's why you need actual lawyers to go through these bills. Someone with an honest to goodness law degree would be able to tell you whether a section of the bill would actually do what it seems to say. That's why people are choosing to trust the word of software engineers and internet lawyers who say that this bill is bad news.
Focus on section 103 parts 4, 5 and 6. The other Bills are available on the net so it's just a quick bit of google-ing to solve those mysteries.
Please tell me what is confusing about:
(1) DEDICATED TO THEFT OF U.S. PROPERTY.?An Internet site is dedicated to theft of
3 U.S. property if-
the U.S.-directed site is primarily designed or operated for the purpose of, has only limited purpose or use other than, or is marketed by its operator or another acting in concert with that operator for use in, offering goods or services in a manner that engages in, enables, or facilitates- (I) a violation of section 501 of title 17, United States Code; (II) a violation of section 1201 of title 17, United States Code; or (III) the sale, distribution, or promotion of goods, services, or materials bearing a counterfeit mark, as that term is defined in section 34(d) of the Lanham Act or section 2320 of title 18, United States Code;
Seems straight forward. This Bill is very, very simple reading, so much so that if you tell me what parts, be specific, you don't understand, I'll explain them to you.
Sizzle Montyjing said:
Look, any credibility you had has just gone out the window.
First of all, you act like these corporations are 'victims' (which they aren't).
I mean, you say the internet is costing them-
No, it's not.
Piracy maybe, but they still make huge amounts of profit, but the internet? You've got to be joking.
Second point, if you don't have a law degree, then you can't really claim to know what it's talking about, you could easily misinterpret or not fully understand the implications.
Also, read Rabid Toilet's post about legal jargon, because that's what it is.
Third point- I'm seriously beginning to suspect that you've been hired or something, the way you defend these mega businesses, your undying hatred of piracy (i don't like it either, but people are free to make that choice) and your avoidance of questions.
Pirating resulted in the PC gaming industry to lose over $1 billion. How are you working out that that is not costing them money? Do you really believe that if pirating wasn't available, none of them would buy the games?
You don't need a law degree to understand law, or a Bill. Show the part you don't understand and I'll explain it. Or just use google and a dictionary. Law grads are humans with brains, like you, therefore you can do the same things as them, including understanding a straight forward Bill. Though as I understand it and you don't, isn't it ironic you are telling me I'm the one with no credibility and yet you are arguing against a bill that you don't understand?
I have rebutted the points you have made. You have refused to acknowledge their existance.
You have forfeited the argument, and your side is wrong by default.
Good day, sir.
Protip: Spamming a link to other posts you have made is not an argument.
However, you're pointing out PARTS of SOPA that do not actually address others' concerns. The fact is, it's the ENFORCEMENT aspects that people find wanting. It's not the fact that you need evidence that has people in a tizzy, it's the process by which such evidence is examined that people have problems with.
It's not the fact that you can enact legal proceedings against wrongful use of the law that people are worked up about, it's the fact that the plaintiff does NOT need to use the courts to enact the law in the first place.
Thus the burden of proof becomes on the defendant to prove legality, rather than on the plaintiff to show illegality, in the courts. It circumvents the courts and thus discussion of 'evidence' and such is nonsense--evidence is ONLY evidence when it is tested in the courts.
There's no -preponderance- of evidence, and thus, the law is flawed.
Do you not understand that?
If you do not understand what 'Preponderance of evidence' means, you, yourself, do not have the knowledge required to continue this debate.
So Section 103.4, 5 and 6 are nothing to do with SOPA enforcement. Right. I think you want to re-read the Bill and get back to me on that one as section 103.4 SPECIFICALLY STATES you do need evidence...