U.S. Congress Shelves SOPA

[Sizzle Montyjing]

Yet again, you avoid the question.
So... if we were all lied to, what would SOPA do?
Because, y'know, i'm pretty fine about it not being enacted even if i believed you."

Read the bill.
It is very clear in its powers and you are going on rumours over truth.
And having an unsubstantiated argument in which you are unwilling to part from is far closer to trolling.

That question wasn't directed at you, and if it was, then you're ban-jumping (well suspension jumping)
And i have to say you have the same arguments and points as cool kid, i.e ignore legitimate points, tell them to read the bill.

And besides, the 'lying' was on the point of misrepresentation of SOPA, i was going along with this to see what points were given.

Also, i have tried and failed at reading the bill, it's whole layout it's- hang on, I've already said this.

Although, i'm still not clear on what magic and rainbows this bill would have given to the world if passed.

 

[Adventurer2626]

Thank you,thank you,thank you,thank you,thank you,thank you,thank you,thank you,thank you,thank you,thank you,thank you,thank you,thank you,thank you, thank you!!!! I'm glad the administration actually understands the nuances more than "Piracy bad, censorship gud!" Ending piracy (read: minimizing it) is important to the maturation of the internet but not at the cost of that monstrosity of a bill. It would be like trying to end gun violence by making all guns illegal. See Prohibition Amendment. This won't be the last battle, but I'm glad it was something of a victory. It showed that support can still be rallied to protect the internet. That people actually care (I know, right?). Hopefully this will scare of the more radical proposals.

 

[alandavidson]

Even though the store had the work available at full price (or even on sale) all year, all of those people went to the store on "free day" instead, so it's a far more certain conclusion that they never would have bought it at all.

The main difference between the example "free day", and a pirate torrent is that stores actually purchase products from the distributor upfront. They pay a price per unit that is set by the distributor, and that's counted as the DVD sale that I get my residual from. After that, it's up to the store owners as to what they do with it. If they want to sell the DVD for $100 they can legally do that and keep all of the profits. If they want to give it away, it doesn't hurt the distributor, or me because the DVD has already been purchased by the store and we already have our respective paychecks.

When a DVD is up for illegal download, there is no purchase from the distributor, and there is no paycheck for anyone. There's no way of knowing whether or not the 1 million people who torrented the DVD in the last example I gave would have purchased the DVD to begin with, but it's a pretty fair bet to say that if a store was giving away a DVD they would pick up a copy (I know I would). But them picking up a free DVD at the store doesn't hurt anyone because the DVD, at some point, has been paid for. A torrent is never paid for. And that does cost studios in sales, and hurts people from the top down.

And this is where I reiterate that I think that studios should offer more for free. More clips, old movies for free streaming, even giveaways of new stuff. There are some that are doing this with sites dedicated to free streaming, and networks were doing it until the Writer's Guild made them stop so that they could renegotiate their contracts to include "new media". Fortunately SAG and AFTRA (the film and television unions, respectively) stepped in and helped sort it out, and we're seeing more and more streaming again.

I agree that more for free is a great thing, but there has to be a purchase or ad revenue somewhere along the line, or smaller guys like me will eventually be forced to give it up and find something else to do. And that sucks.

 

[Jimbo1212]

Yet again, you avoid the question.
So... if we were all lied to, what would SOPA do?
Because, y'know, i'm pretty fine about it not being enacted even if i believed you."

Read the bill.
It is very clear in its powers and you are going on rumours over truth.
And having an unsubstantiated argument in which you are unwilling to part from is far closer to trolling.

That question wasn't directed at you, and if it was, then you're ban-jumping (well suspension jumping)
And i have to say you have the same arguments and points as cool kid, i.e ignore legitimate points, tell them to read the bill.

And besides, the 'lying' was on the point of misrepresentation of SOPA, i was going along with this to see what points were given.

Also, i have tried and failed at reading the bill, it's whole layout it's- hang on, I've already said this.

Although, i'm still not clear on what magic and rainbows this bill would have given to the world if passed.

Woah woah woah, hold on.

You have read the bill yet don't understand it?
Well then what in gods name makes you think that your opinion on this topic has any weight or is even correct? If your opinion was right, it would be through sheer fucking luck.
You are arguing about something you don't understand, so this is the point when you should stop arguing and listen to those who do understand it.

Thank you,thank you,thank you,thank you,thank you,thank you,thank you,thank you,thank you,thank you,thank you,thank you,thank you,thank you,thank you, thank you!!!! I'm glad the administration actually understands the nuances more than "Piracy bad, censorship gud!" Ending piracy (read: minimizing it) is important to the maturation of the internet but not at the cost of that monstrosity of a bill. It would be like trying to end gun violence by making all guns illegal. See Prohibition Amendment. This won't be the last battle, but I'm glad it was something of a victory. It showed that support can still be rallied to protect the internet. That people actually care (I know, right?). Hopefully this will scare of the more radical proposals.

How was this is victory?
Corporations that make much of the entertainment that the world enjoys will now keep losing money?
That is not what you wan tin a recession now is it....?

 

[Sizzle Montyjing]

-snip-

Lucky people do, eh?
And they say it's bad news.

But guess they're all wrong because you say so.
Also, answer the question.
What will SOPA do then?

 

[Jimbo1212]

-snip-

Lucky people do, eh?
And they say it's bad news.

But guess they're all wrong because you say so.
Also, answer the question.
What will SOPA do then?

Erm, I don't think you understood my point.
99% of people don't understand the bill, hence why so many people are misguided about it, including yourself.
if they understood it, then they would not say it is bad news.

How can I explain what SOPA would do if you don't understand it? The most simple way to put it would be to say that it would give a injunction similar to a cease-and-desist through an utterly fair trial in which (for once) money would not be the driving force, but evidence.

 

[remnant_phoenix]

"...we will not support legislation that reduces freedom of expression, increases cybersecurity risk, or undermines the dynamic, innovative global Internet," it said.

Consider some of my faith in Washington restored.

 

[Sizzle Montyjing]

-snip-

I'm honestly getting quite bored of this...

99% of people don't understand the bill.
Where did this figure come from?

Also, i can't read the bill due to it's wording and layout, i will however be able to understand it if given in an unbiased and easy to read form.

Oh, and this bill is about piracy, of course it's about money.

 

[Jimbo1212]

-snip-

I'm honestly getting quite bored of this...

99% of people don't understand the bill.
Where did this figure come from?

Also, i can't read the bill due to it's wording and layout, i will however be able to understand it if given in an unbiased and easy to read form.

Oh, and this bill is about piracy, of course it's about money.

Which pages don't you understand? I will clarify it for you, but in all honesty, why do you not understand it? It is piss easy because many Congressmen and Senators who aren't that smart also have to read it. I think you simply have not read it and are trying to stall.

As for the 99% of people not understanding, take this forum for example.
How many people here had actually read the bill?
2 other people last time I checked.
Everyone is basing their opinion on speculation and rumour fuelled by tin hat wearing youtube personalities.

 

[praus]

<youtube=S0jROYDKwXM>
I don't think I've ever been so glad our government can't get anything done.

?That is not dead which can eternal lie,
And with strange aeons even death may die.?

SOPA only rests. It will return.

Don't worry I hear they have top men working on it,

Top... Men

By "Top Men" do you mean big burly guys who are gonna F*ck us in the A**? ?politically speaking of course.

 

[Sizzle Montyjing]

Which pages don't you understand? I will clarify it for you, but in all honesty, why do you not understand it? It is piss easy because many Congressmen and Senators who aren't that smart also have to read it. I think you simply have not read it and are trying to stall.

As for the 99% of people not understanding, take this forum for example.
How many people here had actually read the bill?
2 other people last time I checked.
Everyone is basing their opinion on speculation and rumour fuelled by tin hat wearing youtube personalities.

That's a rough guess, and really not accurate.
I'm reading the bill now, and after getting through the tedious and confusing first bit i still find that the bill is not good news.

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?

Plus in the case of foreign sites, they're taken down with no warning given, essentially isolating America's internet to only the 'approved' sites and because of different laws, that's tricky.

I'm only about 2/ 10ths of the way through and already i know that it's not the right step.

 

[marcooos]

In other news; Dyslexic people everywhere are wondering what the big deal is about Soap.

I mean we need it to get clean don't we? Why does the internet hate Soap so much and why is congress supporting it? Now the white-house opposes soap?

My dear man that is possibly the funniest comment on the forums, well done

 

[Gazisultima]

And the crowd rejoices!

 

[Jfswift]

In other news; Dyslexic people everywhere are wondering what the big deal is about Soap.

I mean we need it to get clean don't we? Why does the internet hate Soap so much and why is congress supporting it? Now the white-house opposes soap?

My dear man that is possibly the funniest comment on the forums, well done

Haha!

 

[Jimbo1212]

Which pages don't you understand? I will clarify it for you, but in all honesty, why do you not understand it? It is piss easy because many Congressmen and Senators who aren't that smart also have to read it. I think you simply have not read it and are trying to stall.

As for the 99% of people not understanding, take this forum for example.
How many people here had actually read the bill?
2 other people last time I checked.
Everyone is basing their opinion on speculation and rumour fuelled by tin hat wearing youtube personalities.

That's a rough guess, and really not accurate.
I'm reading the bill now, and after getting through the tedious and confusing first bit i still find that the bill is not good news.

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?

Plus in the case of foreign sites, they're taken down with no warning given, essentially isolating America's internet to only the 'approved' sites and because of different laws, that's tricky.

I'm only about 2/ 10ths of the way through and already i know that it's not the right step.

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.

This is worrysome though.

Piracy is not something that can be stopped without killing a major part of the internet.

...and that would be bad because? Besides entertainment companies actually being paid for producing work (I know, a crazy concept), nothing good comes from SOPA being binned.

 

[Sizzle Montyjing]

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.

 

[Citizen Box]

Sorry to say fellows but, SOPA is back in action. Again.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith just announced that the SOPA markup is expected to continue next month.

"To enact legislation that protects consumers, businesses and jobs from foreign thieves who steal America's intellectual property, we will continue to bring together industry representatives and Members to find ways to combat online piracy," Chairman Smith said.

"Due to the Republican and Democratic retreats taking place over the next two weeks, markup of the Stop Online Piracy Act is expected to resume in February.

"I am committed to continuing to work with my colleagues in the House and Senate to send a bipartisan bill to the White House that saves American jobs and protects intellectual property."

Source: Torrentfreak

Big surprise there. Like they would shelve a bill for an extended period of time when they are lining their pockets with the music and movie's (also probably in some cases the gaming industry) money.

 

[Jimbo1212]

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.

So what if I'm making a generalisation, my point remains.

If you have read it then you would know that all the problems with SOPA are incorrect.
I have merely called your bluff and you have still not read it.
If so, point out the lines in which the bill calls for evidence.

 

[Sizzle Montyjing]

If you have read it then you would know that all the problems with SOPA are incorrect.
I have merely called your bluff and you have still not read it.
If so, point out the lines in which the bill calls for evidence.

You're point doesn't remain because that generalization made it wrong.

Don't like it that someone else has read it?
Or will you just claim that i haven't until i agree with you.

Because i honestly just can't be arsed with this shit.
It was about 2/ 10ths of the way in i say this because i haven't fucking memorized the bill.
Nor could i give a toss anymore.

I have better things to be doing with my life.

(ps, you ignored all my legitimate points and focused on the ones in which you thought you could get the upper hand, troll harder.)

 

[Jimbo1212]

If you have read it then you would know that all the problems with SOPA are incorrect.
I have merely called your bluff and you have still not read it.
If so, point out the lines in which the bill calls for evidence.

You're point doesn't remain because that generalization made it wrong.

Don't like it that someone else has read it?
Or will you just claim that i haven't until i agree with you.

Because i honestly just can't be arsed with this shit.
It was about 2/ 10ths of the way in i say this because i haven't fucking memorized the bill.
Nor could i give a toss anymore.

I have better things to be doing with my life.

(ps, you ignored all my legitimate points and focused on the ones in which you thought you could get the upper hand, troll harder.)

Ha, my point remains because I implied that the vast majority of people have not read the bill.
This is true.

And I love how you lied about reading the bill in hope that I too had not.
Well sadly for you I have, hence why I shot down all of your comments and criticisms about it as they were simply wrong. They are not legitimate, just wrong and I have said previously why.

Next time only join a debate if :
a) you know what it is about
b) you are willing to admit to being ill informed
...otherwise what is the point in posting? To get some nice circular logic going fuelled by misinformation?