Anaiya Arnold Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 16 wrote: you're missing the point is two laws. DMCA and the existing criminal code. there is no inbetween. slap on the wrist or the bighammer people arent debating this. where is the debate to overhaul the existing code? thats what bills are for. you debate them and you change them and you keep debating and keep making changes until you get good law or you just campaign to get bills chucked out. thats actually way easier to do than try to make good law so anyways whats your solution? i know what your objections are now. or are you happy to leave things as they are? There is no point. Upping the ante on the heavy handedness is not a middle ground. It's just favouring one extreme over the other. "People arent' debating this" and "where is the debate" is just nonsense. Aside from being factually untrue, so what? Remember my example of a good goal and a really stupid law to achieve that very good goal? You agree that children being interferred with is awful and definately merits prevention? Well killing every child in the world would achieve that. Now what lack of discussion would ever make such a stupid solution ok or acceptable? Do you think any lack of debate would ever make such a stupid solution a good law? Can you now see why babbling on about the goal and about any lack of achieving that goal, or a lack of disccusion about what is wrong with how we currently seek to achieve that goal, is not an argument in favour of a bad law? Bad law is bad law no matter how few other solutions have been discussed (and it's actually not true that other solutions have not been discussed in this case any way). Bad law is bad law and PIPA and SOPPA are bad law. Where is the debate? Where have you looked for it? You could try google. Type in PIPA and I expect you should find the Wikipedia page pretty quickly. That alone will give you what you need to track down not only discussion but other solutions being proposed and lobbied for. I'm not convinced that the discussion you claim a lack of is obscure. I've certainly encountered information about such discussion (including direct mention and discussion of alternative solutioins being lobbied for) every single time I've done even the most cursory research on PIPA and SOPPA. I've no idea how you missed it all to be honest. TThe point you are missing is that these two bills cannot be reformed. They are as reform friendly as my PPCE (Pedo Protection through Child Extermination) bill. I notice you've not bothered to answer any of the questions put to you. Why do you think a judge must be involved before people are effectively alienated from their property rights, with the full blessing of the law, on the basis of actions taken by another private party? What is your reason for supporting this law, bearing in mind that if you support a law based on its goal rather than its content and implications, you'd have to be a supporter of my PPCE bill? As to solutions, it's actually not my problem to solve anymore than Walmart's stock shrinkage is. If Walmart want their staff to be allowed to conduct strip searches of anyone they find within 200 metres of one of their stores, I do not feel obliged to put up with such a measure being passed into law or come up with some other solution to Walmart's problem. All this is not missing the point so much as dodging about trying to pretend there is one. If the logical basis of something you are attempting to argue could be applied to prove that PPCE would be a good law, then it's a weasel, not an argument. For instance, if you have objections to the Pedo Protection through Child Elimination Bill, then what are your solutions, or are you happy to just leave the children to be fiddled with? Think of the children! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peggy Paperdoll Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 Reply to 16 - view message 02-20-201211:34 AM - last edited on 02-20-201211:37 AM 16 wrote:you're missing the point is two laws. DMCA and the existing criminal code. there is no inbetween. slap on the wrist or the bighammer people arent debating this. where is the debate to overhaul the existing code? thats what bills are for. you debate them and you change them and you keep debating and keep making changes until you get good law or you just campaign to get bills chucked out. thats actually way easier to do than try to make good law so anyways whats your solution? i know what your objections are now. or are you happy to leave things as they are? There is no point. Upping the ante on the heavy handedness is not a middle ground. It's just favouring one extreme over the other. "People arent' debating this" and "where is the debate" is just nonsense. Aside from being factually untrue, so what? Remember my example of a good goal and a really stupid law to achieve that very good goal? You agree that children being interferred with is awful and definately merits prevention? Well killing every child in the world would achieve that. Now what lack of discussion would ever make such a stupid solution ok or acceptable? Do you think any lack of debate would ever make such a stupid solution a good law? Can you now see why babbling on about the goal and about any lack of achieving that goal, or a lack of disccusion about what is wrong with how we currently seek to achieve that goal, is not an argument in favour of a bad law? Bad law is bad law no matter how few other solutions have been discussed (and it's actually not true that other solutions have not been discussed in this case any way). Bad law is bad law and PIPA and SOPPA are bad law. Where is the debate? Where have you looked for it? You could try google. Type in PIPA and I expect you should find the Wikipedia page pretty quickly. That alone will give you what you need to track down not only discussion but other solutions being proposed and lobbied for. I'm not convinced that the discussion you claim a lack of is obscure. I've certainly encountered information about such discussion (including direct mention and discussion of alternative solutioins being lobbied for) every single time I've done even the most cursory research on PIPA and SOPPA. I've no idea how you missed it all to be honest. TThe point you are missing is that these two bills cannot be reformed. They are as reform friendly as my PPCE (Pedo Protection through Child Extermination) bill. I notice you've not bothered to answer any of the questions put to you. Why do you think a judge must be involved before people are effectively alienated from their property rights, with the full blessing of the law, on the basis of actions taken by another private party? What is your reason for supporting this law, bearing in mind that if you support a law based on its goal rather than its content and implications, you'd have to be a supporter of my PPCE bill? As to solutions, it's actually not my problem to solve anymore than Walmart's stock shrinkage is. If Walmart want their staff to be allowed to conduct strip searches of anyone they find within 200 metres of one of their stores, I do not feel obliged to put up with such a measure being passed into law or come up with some other solution to Walmart's problem. All this is not missing the point so much as dodging about trying to pretend there is one. If the logical basis of something you are attempting to argue could be applied to prove that PPCE would be a good law, then it's a weasel, not an argument. For instance, if you have objections to the Pedo Protection through Child Elimination Bill, then what are your solutions, or are you happy to just leave the children to be fiddled with? Think of the children! ----------------------------------------------------------------- Pretty on taget about the bills and how badly written they are. But I don't want to exterminate the children so I have a little more realistic example. Something that actually is not far fetched and could take place should the bills be enacted as written. Microsoft is in favor the the passage of both SOPA and PIPA. They have a vested interest in their passage to prevent their intellectual property from being pirated. Microsoft is part of that lobby pressuring the US Congress to pass the bill into law. One of the special interests that will benefit (or so they believe) if the laws are passed. I recently wound up with another desktop computer (a friend gave it to me because about 2 years ago I custom built it for her and she decided a laptop is more for her than the desktop I built for her). I only have one monitor, keyboard, and mouse and no room to place another monitor, keyboard, or mouse on my desk. I wanted to use the computer (it's a perfectly good computer with plenty of power). The only "problem" is that the computer has no discrete video card.....only the old Intel GMA 945 chipset (her discrete card failed on her which is why she decided on a new computer.....that laptop she has now). I got a KVM switch so that I could run both this computer and the gift computer (there is enough room on my desk for two mid-towers). Okay I have two computers. Now I need an operating system for the gift computer. I had a choice to go with Linux, use an older Windows Vista that I have the disk for, or purchase a new Windows 7 license to match this OS. I've had Linux before and it's a good OS but I'm so much more familar with Windows that I really didn't want to go that route. I also don't relish the idea of spending another $200.00 USD for another Windows 7 copy. So I went with my older Vista x64 Windows. It works great and I'm happy. But, before I installed the Vista OS a thought ran through my mind. I know my Windows 7 license only allows a single computer. I was courious about how Microsoft would handle my installing my Windows 7 license on the gift computer. I mainly just wanted to know if when I went to activate the license would it immediately throw an error and fail or would it take some time for Microsoft to figure it out and de-activate one (or both) licenses. I didn't do it but I did think about it. Lets say I did try to install my Windows 7 on the second computer. And SOPA and/or PIPA are law in the United States. Windows is going to, sooner or later, figure out that a single use license is installed on two computers. It will look like I'm a theif........using a stolen copy of Windows 7. They call up my ISP and tell them that a thief (pirate) is one of their customers and give them the IP address that Windows's site stores when I activated the license (or attemtped to activate). Using the new law (SOPA or PIPA) Microsoft has every right to demand that my ISP remove access to the Internet for my account. The ISP has no choice but comply when Microsoft's demand......otherwise Microsoft calls up the feds and the ISP is in danger of having it's servers shut off from the Internet. A law that gives a company like Microsoft (or any company, it don't has to some giant.....just a company that claim IP rights are being violated) that much power without any proof of guilt is a bad law. It's worse than bad..........I can't think of a word to discribe how such a law should be defined. There is no provision that requires any court action before demanding my ISP remove my access to the Internet (their assertion is all that is necessary). The ISP has no real options.......the feds are standing behind Microsoft with huge hammers in hand to crush any protest from the ISP. There's not debating such a law, there's no compromising on such a law. It needs to be killed.......dead so that it never resurrects again. Make laws that protect everyone. Make laws that require a court to sign off on disciplinary action before that action is taken. If the law originates in the US (like SOPA and PIPA) make laws that adhere to the Constitution of the United States. If the law orginates in another country then don't sign on to the law if it violates our Constitution. It is actually better to have no law than a bad law.......but we have the DMCA to help us until some good law can be written. Then debate and compromise can take place to get an even better law. My mom used to tell me "You can't make a silk purse with a pig's ear". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
161488303349 Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 the SOPA bill original draft proposed that DOJ and copyright holders could apply to the court for an injunction that was debated the draft bill was then amended so that- - a copyright holder before seeking injunctive relief, must formally complain to a site that it was storing the copyright holders stuff without their permission - that the site could refute allegations made in the complaint - on refutation and non-acceptance, the copyright holder could then, and only then, apply for injunctive relief thats better than being able to go straight to court without the site even knowing that was happening + the payments companies made representation that if they had to act then they would prefer not to act until injunctive relief was given thats a sensible thing to do. so the committee took that on board and looked at how they might redraft the parts of the bill that deal with that + some hosting companies and others made representations that provisions of the draft bill might catch some usa sites so the committee accept and made changes, as the intent of the bill was to address foreign only sites + the interwebz backbone companies and other organisations then made representations on two main grounds- 1) that they were not sites and not hosts. they were carriers. that they were being treated differently to phone companies 2) that even were this addressed then some of the requirements of the bill would in their view impact on their ability to function as carriers from a technical pov and could impact on their ability to function at all as viable entities, either as companies or as oversight organisations the committee accepted these representations and agreed to look at this also + the sponsor of the bill then asked the usa president what he thought. the president issued a statement saying exactly what he thought should be in any bill. so did heaps of other people all throughout the whole time thats how debates of bills go. when they are debated then they change. like what was happening here. most acts hardly ever end up looking anything like the first draft bc of this process. the usa legislature been doing it this way forever the legislature decided to pause until after the november elections and turned their attention to other matters. the legislative debate will start again next year sometime + is ridiculous to compare this process, which was actually happening in a real world legislative debate, to some imaginary thing that somehow ends up killing every child in the world to save teh children bc in your opinion these bills sux. i dont even know why you tried to make this comparison. not just once but twice. was quite dramatic tho. so cool story bro + ps. i dont google on the interwebz for stuff like this. i follow the committee hearings Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anaiya Arnold Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 Your claims are again factually wrong. It's simply not true that the claimant is obliged to wait, possibly forever, for the respondant to respond formally with non-acceptance or refutation before they can take further action. Why on earth were domestic sites ever included, quite deliberately in a bill that was persistently claimed to be about and entirely aimed at foreign sites? Do you think that people are being honest and acting in good faith when they attempt to pass law they claim is aimed at foreign sites but which has been deliberately worded to include domestic sites? The fact remains that while you claim IP should have the same protections as any other property, you are advocating a law that ensures that it would not. Under SOPA and PIPA attempts to fully enjoy one's ownership of their IP property is subject to arbitary attack by third parties and obliges the responding party to be constantly vigilent in defending their property against such attacks, or risk being alienated from their undisturbed enjoyment of it. Does such a lack of protection of your property rights apply to your chairs? I'm sorry if simple use of analogy goes over your head. It's a very simple and easy to understand form of reasoning. You see logic is such that the subject matter is irrelevant to the quality of the reasoning being employed. You can plug anything in as subject matter and the quality of the logic remains entirely unchanged. If a line of logic when applied to one set of subject matter leads to one conclusion, then it equally applies to to other subject matter. So if "I do not see the debate", or "it's a good goal" is sufficient justification for a law, then its sufficient justification for any law. This allows us to examine the quality of reason presented in an argument by applying them to other subject matter to see if they lead to absurd conclusions that no one in their right mind would accept. If they do lead to such conclusions when applied to other subject matter, clearly the reasoning being employed is a load of bunkum. Try it for yourself. Think of a stupid law that would achieve a good goal and ask if a lack of debate about achieving that goal makes that stupid law suddenly not stupid. You should eventually get the hang of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bouttime Whybrow Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 paper, just out of curiosity, taking and extending your example, couldn't the tables be turned on microsoft? say you incorperate (if necessary) and claim some violation against MS, could you not get their sites shutdown just as spuriously? in other words what would protect these very same companies from being at the same mercy of the law? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peggy Paperdoll Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 I suppose that's possible. However, I would have to find some portion of a creation that I could use to make the complaint to whoever to get MS shut down. Say I create an operating system or some business application and MS decides they like it so they copy it (or develop a like application) that is close enough to mine that I can use that as my evidence to present to ISP Xyz.......they would be obligated to take MS's site down or block MS's access to the Internet. So, yeah, it's possible. I used Microsoft because they have an activation system that everyone who uses a Microsoft operating system has to go through in order to use the operating system.....if it doesn't get activated it just stops working (well, maybe not completely but enough of the system stops that it's effectively useless without activation). There, obviously, triggers that tell MS that the copy attempting activation, is fishy in some way. When I activated my copy of Windows 7 about a year and a half ago the activation code (that huge alpha numeramic number you have to enter) is directly tied to me. Microsoft knows who I am (or, at least who I was, at the time of the initial activation). And since I have accessed MS in some way or other every single day with Windows Update, there is a red flag that is going to go up. Here is another attempt at activation when there is already an activation for the same copy..............one is going to be illegal (I only have a single use license). I truly believe MS will do nothing immediately but in a day or two one license is going to be shut down (probably the first one which is this computer). But with a law like SOPA or PIPA MS could go one step further and completely shut my access down to the Internet because they have "reason to believe" that the copy I attempted to activate is already being used. It's a little far fetched, I know.........but not as far fetched as exterminating children to fix the pedophilia problem. Both are examples of how the law can be used to punish or otherwise infringe on others' rights. Bad law is bad law. If it can be used as a club or weapon to abuse other people's rights or punish them without the benefit of a court making the determination of guilt then it must not be enacted. The more likely thing would be the RAIA going after grandma because grandson downloaded a pirated copy of some Snoop Dog rap song...........the RAIA is at the forefront of sujpport for SOPA and they've already sued (and won) claims against grandma. Don't give this sledge hammer to special interests like that. Don't give this sledge hammer to anyone. Write a good law that protects and benefits everyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
161488303349 Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 my bad refutation [by the defendant] and non-acceptance [by the plaintiff]. not responding to a complaint is grounds for non-acceptance and relief can be sought on that basis + understanding. is not my understanding that is the problem. is my typing. i already had some messages like "cn u pls stp use ur puta leik a gdm fone ffs n cn u pls turn ur f spelchk on ty". so i am going to try to be better at that starting now. my grammar is still chit though seems like. i am up to 300 posts. when i get to like 3000 then i will be a gdm expert i hope (: + good faith. if we all acted in good faith then we would not need any laws at all yes + analogy. i got the point you were trying to make the first time. it is just that i started laughing and i let it go. when you came back with it the second time i went wut !!!. is plenty of other examples you could have used to make your point + advocacy. i advocate that people must respect the copyrights and licenses on other peoples stuff. i advocate that hosting sites are responsible for content stored on their servers when they make that content available to their users. further, the host must take reasonable precautions to prevent their users from uploading content intended for viewing or distribution to others where the uploading user is not permitted to do so by the license. when infringing content is found on their servers, by whatever means, then it must be removed as soon as is practically possible some people say making hosts do this is impractical. is not impractical for iTunes to do. is also not impractical for 100s of 1000s of other hosts to do because they are actually doing this now. if it is not impractical for them then on what basis is it impractical for anyone else? money? time? resources? i can't be bothered? the interwebz as we know it is doomed? none of these are good enough reasons to override the property rights of others i also advocate for a provision that specifically exempts certain types of critical activities from the definition of host. interwebz backbone and ISP services, oversight, domain and search engines, etc. companies and organisations are not exempt in themselves. only the hosting component of the exempted activities. example: google search is exempt. google ads is not. search is critical. ads are not + sopa. i support representative democracy and an independent judiciary. i have faith in the legislative processes that this entails. processes that have evolved from centuries of practice. is not a perfect system but like most people say, is better than all the others for changes to be made to the law then a bill is required. no bill - no change. what that bill may evolve into by the time it is voted on, if it is, is a product of these processes. if sopa is all that is on offer at the time then i will go with it, advocate for the provisions i believe should be in it, and trust in the representative democratic process + bad. the legislative committee process deals with badly-written bills. the legislature body determines what is legally good or bad in making law. the judiciary determines what is bad in law after it has been made. bad as in unconstitutional in the case of the USA. i am happy to accept the outcomes. if in my opinion the outcome is bad then i will continue to advocate for change + ps. i am not a USA citizen. however, what happens in the USA fundamentally affects the interwebz. it also impacts on secondlife. i have a vital interest in both Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anaiya Arnold Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 Bouttime Whybrow wrote: paper, just out of curiosity, taking and extending your example, couldn't the tables be turned on microsoft? say you incorperate (if necessary) and claim some violation against MS, could you not get their sites shutdown just as spuriously? in other words what would protect these very same companies from being at the same mercy of the law? Fear and favour, aka inequality before the law. Do you think anyone would extradite someone from NZ for stealing your SL or Zazzle content? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anaiya Arnold Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 Yes, a failure to respond because you are in hospital or on holiday can see you alienated from your property rights, just because it happens to be IP. Did you not claim that IP is entitled to the same protection as other property? What other property must you be constantly prepared to vigilently defend, dare nto leave unattended for a period of time, for fear of losing your rights to it legally? Not through theft, but to be deprived of undisturbed enjoyment of it with the full blessing of the law? The problem with good faith is that the lobbiests wanting these laws have already demonstrated bad faith and abuse of the processes already at their disposal. They cannot be trusted even with DMCA . The reason you find the PPCE bill to be so funny is because it is absurd that such a bill could be justifiable to conceive of seriously, but it's also a law that would be justified if we accepted your reasoning. So what you were laughing at was your own reasoning. Of course if you understand analogy as you claim, then you don't need me to explain to you who and what you were laughing at. As for what you now claim to advocate, that's what the DMCA already does... Meanwhile, oddly what you claim you don't want is exactly the difference between the current system and these bills. iTunes lets things slip through too. Just this week they've had to change the rules after it was found out that iTunes was allowing a glut of spyware to be peddled to unsuspecting users. If you think they've never had to remove illicitly distributed content after the fact, I think you'll find that's naivity on your part. Under current law, all providers are obliged to not deliberately publish infringing content, and to remove it when they become aware of it. If that's what you are advocating, then you do not need to advocate these other laws because you've already got what you claim to want. What you claim you are advocating is what we already have and I'm not aware of any particular, credible lobby group or advocates claiming that is too hard. Is this claim about claims of being too hard another of your inaccuracies? What is being cited by any industry insiders, such as Google, as being too much trouble, is preventing infringing content from being uploaded, and identifying any and all such content autonomously. This is because the most robust vetting simply cannot achieve this. There is no way for a website hosting third party content to know that user 9996432 is actually a teacher who is uploading the poems of her former primary school students from a decade ago. How can anyone but the copyright holders be expected to know that? Within the realm of what is technically possible, the most robust system of vetting would require real humans with a huge breadth of media content awareness, able to recognize even obscure indie bands for example, to go through every bit of content before it is published and even this cannot prevent infringing content from being uploaded but merely minimize it. Is it too much trouble to vet all content using human agents? Well it was when the boot was on the other foot. Mega-content corporate copy right holders/stake holders have interferred in the property rights of others on numerous ocassions, because it was too much trouble to have an actual human vet content before DMCA-ing it on the mere suspicion that it might be their content. So when it comes to other peoples' IP, what you want the whole world to be forced to do for the sake of this special interest group's IP rights, is more than they are prepared to do to protect their own rights or prevent themselves from attacking someone else's rights. Why on earth should anyone be prepared to go along with that? This talk about "over riding" property rights is just so much nonsense. Are we over riding property rights if we do not make a law that lets Wall Mart strip search anyone they find in their car park, on the spot, if Wall Mart happens to argue that not being allowed to do so prevents them from stopping shoplifting? According to the reasoning in your argument, not allowing Wall Mart the right to commit such arbitary and intrusive searches in their car parks, when this might help combat shop lifting, is overriding Wall Mart's property rights, and if you are laughing about this absurdity, once again it's your own reasoning you are laughing at. As to your claims about exemptions, if you are advocating for PIPA and SOPPA then you are not advocating for such exemptions but are in fact advocating for the absence of such exemptions. Google would be as vulnerable as SL, and you can be certain that SL would be on very very shaky ground and could be shut down at any moment if these bills were passed into law. The difference between these bills and the current situation is that Google is safe if it removes content when made aware of it, but would be persistently vulnerable for all content it linked to if the bills were passed into law. I honestly cannot understand your support. You give a list of what you want and that's what we currently have. The difference these bills will make is that suddenly, the backbone of the internet, like Google and domain name registration services would be vulnerable to take down and this is something you specifically claim to not want. So you want what we already have under current law and you do not want what these bills would introduce, and this is why you support them? Seriously?! I do not understand that. Your faith in the "judiciary" is extremely naive and dangerous and anit-democratic to be blunt. Representative democracy only works when the demos does its part to be vigilent, to act as a persistent check and balance, to limit the power of the government, and to essentially not blindly and gormlessly trust. That's lazy and negligent if you live in a representative democracy. Representative democracy is an aberration, very hard fought for, not to be taken for granted, and much more easily undermined than established and guarded. Your claim of trust demonstrates that you do not understand how rare and vulnerable representative democracy is, nor the role of the demos within such a system. In fact even with the best will in the world, the judiciary obviously gets it wrong often enough. Take the Dotcom bail application for instance. Just the other week, one judge ruled against his bail application, yet yesterday on the same set of facts it was granted by a peer of the same standing (a "district court judge). If the same set of facts can be ruled on contrarily by two different yet exactly equal and interchangible members of the judiciary, then trusting to this system for fair or even consistent results around iffy, bad or dubious law is naive to say the least. The fact is the judiciary and court system are far, far from perfect. In some circumstances they are better than nothing, but in many instances, their involvement results in outcomes no less arbitary and no less unjust than could have been achieved without them. To an extent, many legal cases are a lottery with a lot being determined by chance. How is chance something to put your faith in? As for better than all the others, what do you even mean by this? Your next lines of argument make no sense at all. For law to exist, we do not all need to kowtow to the absurd demands of a tiny minority special interest group. Neither of these bills are needed to make law in this area as can be proven by the fact that law existed in this area before either of these terrible bills were drafted and law can continue to be made in this area if they are both consigned to the trashbin of history. The judiciary does not determine what is "bad in law" but is bound to "follow" the law. Semantics aside, the fact is two members of the judiciary, equally empowered to give a ruling on a particular case, can and do arrive at contrary answers, and there is a large element of chance involved. You are essentially relying on "chance" to make bad law all work out ok. If you have a vital interest in SL then your support of these bills is even more difficult to understand. SL woud be a sitting duck under these laws and would be entirely at the mercy of the judicial lottery you have so much faith in if someone decided to target it. If these bills were law when that Serpintine chap sued LL, there's a strong chance SL would already not exist and even google which you claim to want an exemption for would be at risk if these bills became law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
161488303349 Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 Anaiya Arnold wrote: Yes, a failure to respond because you are in hospital or on holiday can see you alienated from your property rights, just because it happens to be IP. Did you not claim that IP is entitled to the same protection as other property? What other property must you be constantly prepared to vigilently defend, dare nto leave unattended for a period of time, for fear of losing your rights to it legally? Not through theft, but to be deprived of undisturbed enjoyment of it with the full blessing of the law? you dont seem to know much about lawmaking and the justice system given this assertion. am going to show you what i mean by this. am going to use logical reasoning to make it easier for you to understand me "what about the person who goes to hospital, is not able to respond to a claim, and on recovery finds that their site has been shut down because another person has claimed rights to content on their site. a claim which is fraudulent" this is the circumstance from which you have jumped to your conclusion that a time limit will deny this person justice and alienate them from their rights as an exercise in reasoning this is incomplete. as a formal logic exercise your conclusion is invalid by counter-example: "a person puts content, for which they do not have a license to distribute, on their site and makes it available to others. they then go to the same hospital for the same reason and are too not in a position to respond. the legal owner of the content delivers to the last known address a formal complaint. they wait for a response" what is the conclusion regarding a time limit in this circumstance? + so how do we reconcile them? first we understand that it is not a circumstance. it is a set of circumstances. had you recognised this then you would not have reached the conclusion you did knowing that it is a set of circumstances we apply natural justice. that is the convention. had you known this also, then again you would have not reached your conclusion. but you did reach your conclusion so you are either unaware of the convention or you do not know how to apply it in the first circumstance there is potential for harm. this circumstance may happen or it may not. for it to happen another person must make the fraudulent claim in the counter-example, the second circumstance, real and actual harm has already occurred. the infringing comtent is on the site in a natural justice system, which the USA is, real and actual harm has precedence over the potential for harm. so we apply a time limit so that justice is served to all circumstances in the set in the first circumstance if the potential for harm is realised then the site owner can prove that they are either the owner or a licensee of the content. they can then obtain remedial relief. rights are restored. justice is served in the second circumstance, rights are restored and justice is served when the time limit expires without a time limit then: justice is served to the first circumstance in the set the second circumstance is denied access to natural justice by law Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peggy Paperdoll Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 16, I believe you are the one who doesn't understand how laws in this country work. That's understandable since you said you were not a citizen of this country. Supporting a bad law just because it will "fix" something is actually worse than supporting no law (as I do in this case). The DMCA is a law that allows people to protect their intellectual property rights. The main issue that supporters of SOPA and PIPA seem to have with the DMCA is that it's entirely civil action..........no one is in danger of going to jail (unless, they deny the court in some way such as "comtempt"). SOPA and PIPA alllows what is a civil action to move into the criminal area of law. What's more it does not require a court to make the determination whether or not the IP violation is criminal or civil.......the accuser says it criminal then it goes from there. That is not how the laws in this country work (maybe you should use Google a little more and look up the Constitution of the Unites States.....it's really not a hard document to read (though with the later ammendments it does get a little legalize). All our laws have to pass the test of our Constitution.......if they don't then they should be defeated or removed. A couple of laws enacted recently in this country by the Congress (and supported by our President) are headed to the Supreme Court to determine if those laws are Constitutional..........if they are not then they are removed. That's the way our legal system works here. The best way to avoid laws being written and enacted then later removed is not to enact bad laws in the first place. If it does not meet the test against the Constitution then defeat it. SOPA and PIPA fail to meet the test. Just because intellectual property theft is a problem (which is really up in the air on just how much of a problem it is) and the laws in place don't work or are too difficult to use (such as the DMCA can be at times) does not mean "pass a law. Any law.......just fix the problem". If a law is going to be added to the legal system it must be a good law. I don't think anyone would object to a good law concerning IP rights.........I know I wouldn't. SOPA and PIPA are not good law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
161488303349 Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 Peggy Paperdoll wrote: SOPA and PIPA allows what is a civil action to move into the criminal area of law. What's more it does not require a court to make the determination whether or not the IP violation is criminal or civil.......the accuser says it criminal then it goes from there. That is not how the laws in this country work (maybe you should use Google a little more and look up the Constitution of the Unites States. the SOPA bill seeks to restore a right that has been extinguished in the USA. the natural justice and common law right of a citizen to criminally prosecute another citizen who has done them harm when the State decides not to do so the right was extinguished after a succession of US Court rulings that confirmed that the State could reserve to itself the right to prosecute a case in its own name. when this has been tested on constitutional grounds the Court has ruled that Congress has the sole authority to determine who can prosecute in the name of the State, and that the State has the sole authority to determine who it will criminally prosecute the US Constitution does not prevent a citizen from being criminally prosecuted by another citizen. the will of Congress does. private criminal prosecutions did used to happen in the USA before the State reserved this power to itself where i live we retain this right. should the State decide not to prosecute then we have the right to prosecute the matter ourselves in the courts. so justice is served to all. you are absolutely correct about one thing. i me myself get to decide if the harm done to me is criminal or not. no one else. i make that decision. if the State wont help me when i am being harmed then i will go an independent Judiciary and ask the Judge to help me, as is my right. the same right every other citizen where i live has and same every citizen who lives in countries that have a justice system inherited from english common law and natural justice in the USA, access to criminal justice is by State consent. you don't get to make that decision. the State makes it for you + please don't take this the wrong way but i find it quite strange that me, an avowed center-left democratic socialist, is defending this position quite often against avowed libertarians and others on the center-right. it used to be a core tenet of libertarianism and the center-right that every citizen must have the unfettered right to pursue Liberty, Freedom and Justice. is kinda surreal to find that this seems to no longer be the case Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ceka Cianci Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 Think about the LOLcats!!! \o/ we need tah git our anti pipa/sopaStock on PREEEEEE VU!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
161488303349 Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 i do realise that you like to post stuff to lighten the mood when things get a bit a heavy sometimes. and is ok that you do (: indirectly though you do raise a good point in doing this i wanted to think about these images for a few days. they are quite disturbing from an activists pov what are these people afraid of? why do they react in the way they do? can they not see that even a single determined penniless citizen can bring the most powerful corporation to its knees in a criminal court where justice cannot be bought at any price? why do they not seem to want this power returned to their own hands? why do they scream out against the power of the State and Big Money, the axis of the evil empire as they understand it, and simultaneously call on the State to decide the most important thing for them? why do they not see the implications of this bill not only for themselves but also for the evil empire or anyone else who does them harm? not only on the interwebz but in every other facet of society. is it that they just haven't thought about? or is it simply fear and they do not believe in themselves? i understand fear. its effects and the rage that can sometimes emanate from this. its core is the actual and perceived sense of powerlessness. it baffles me when people cower before it and not embrace something that truly empowers them and can actually help to put their fears behind them. while we continue to rely on the State to make fundamental decisions for us, at its own discretion, then we have little hope of ever creating a truly free society its ok to argue for the State to do this. there is nothing wrong or bad in doing so. just please do not equate this with Freedom. Protection, certainly. Freedom, no Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Facebook
Instagram
Twitter
YouTube
Flickr
Recommended Posts
Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now