Phaethon,
thank you for the insightful nuances behind SOPA.
The internet is the last bastion of freedom in society. see all the grassroots causes bolstered by the internet
[quote]JEATON wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
Your best bet is to write your congressman or senator.
I wrote mine (there is an online messaging service for every member of congress)…I received a response from Rep. Rob Bishop two days later informing me that he will oppose both SOPA and PIPA (Theft of Intellectual Property Act).
He believes that SOPA is far to broad reaching…and that courts should regulate theft of property.
[/quote]
Contacted both my senators and congressman. Have not gotten their response yet. [/quote]
I’m sure mine was from a staffer signed by the congressman, but it felt good to at least get a response…and his official position on the bill.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]dk44 wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Wikipedia is engaging in NGO cyber-terrorism. Regardless of SOPA, google has been asked to comply with copyright/intellectual property law and has refused. SOPA wouldn’t be needed if they co-operated with authorities. Their excuse for why they can’t is nonsense because they already do co-operate in the same way regarding child pornography sites. They want to keep their Red Chinese and Russian customers happy otherwise they will lose some money. They’re worried about their sites being shut down so they shut wikipedia down in protest? It’s nonsense. It’s NGO cyber-terrorism.[/quote]
The government will fix it. For sure, the government will take care of this in a completely neutral manner, and will not make the internet less free and open. They do such wonderful work in all other aspects of my life. [/quote]
Who just shut down one of the largest sites on internet? The government? No, the NGO that is complaining about the potential of their sites being shut down. They have been obstructing government efforts to make them comply with copyright/intellectual property law for years. They should abide by the law and SOPA wouldn’t be necessary.[/quote]
So it’s terrorism to shut your own web page down in protest? Good grief SM, that’s some seriously retarded logic right there. Just tell everybody you were drunk when you posted that, you can always play the “I was drunk” card.
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
They have been obstructing government efforts to make them comply with copyright/intellectual property law for years. [/quote]
So it’s terrorism to shut your own web page down in protest? Good grief SM, that’s some seriously retarded logic right there.
[/quote]
Equally retarded is he is acting like Wikipedia is a torrent hosting site that deliberately ignores IP laws.
[quote]JEATON wrote:
[quote]Christine wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
For those who don’t understand the consequences of this bill read this: Upvoted | The Official Reddit Blog
If this bill, or PIPA, goes through it’s just another step towards total governmental control.
So many people on PWI who shout freedom! and harp about american values yet know nothing about this, or simply don’t care due to a lack of knowledge.
Wake up.[/quote]
The democrat/liberal posters here only care about freedom of speech when they agree with the speech.[/quote]
Fixed
[/quote]
The implication that the conservatives on this board are bastions of free speech is downright hilarious. Go back to your bridge, troll.
Actually, this video nicely explains the evil logic behind SOPA and PIPA. It has nothing to do with copyright infringement, but with controlling communication channels towards the mass market.
Let’s take music for example - before the internet, due to the unavailability of independent communication channels, people listened to music that was available to them - played on the radio, MTV, Top of the Pops, whatever…
Music choices and tastes were severely limited. Now using a (fairly) independent communication channel like YouTube an indie bend may get 10 million hits and turn into a major attraction. And they haven’t been signed by any of the major record labels and pushed onto a mass market. Independent communication channels mean potential competition.
And that’s just the less sinister part of those bills…
[quote]phaethon wrote:
It is not terrorism to shut your own site down. Don’t be retarded.
[/quote]
Emotive word but that’s what it is - ‘largescale disruption’ of the internet for political purposes.
That doesn’t really relate to what I’m talking about.
So are the conterfeit trading sites.
It’s not about determining ‘copyright ownership’ - that’s for the courts if it’s disputed. It’s about shutting down illegal sites.
Copyright infringement is a federal criminal offence.
Like copyright infringement being a civil matter?
Well, yes. That’s what I was posting about. See above.
No, not no. Yes.
[quote]
Wikipedia allows internet users to edit pages. Now what happens if someone edits an obscure page on wikipedia and puts up a copyrighted image that he didn’t have permission to use? SOPA says that the person who owns the copyrighted image can shut down all of wikipedia.
I’ll put it into a T-Nation context: If you, SexMachine, post a picture in this thread that you don’t own the copyrights to, and I, the creator of the picture find out about it I CAN SHUT DOWN ALL OF T-Nation. Bam. No more T-Nation.
For example your display picture. Did you ask the creator (RaggedShirts) of the image if you could make a copy or link to it? Did they put on their website that you were allowed to use it (e.g. creative commons licenced it)? If not then you are violating their copyright.
When someone copy-pastes a news article (and I can see it in quite a few T-Nation pwi threads) they are violating copyright unless the newspaper/writer gave them permission to copy the text. So based on these existing threads if SOPA passes then T-Nation could be shut down without any sort of due process. Because some idiots copied and pasted more than they are allowed to.[/quote]
Sorry, but do you really think I don’t know that? You think I just came here and made up my own reasons and that I’m not aware of the above? Why do you think I said I’m against SOPA? Although the federal government WOULDN’T do any of that and has no motive to do so I’m against setting such a precedent.
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
So it’s terrorism to shut your own web page down in protest?
[/quote]
Cyber-terrorism - largescale disruption of the internet/sites for political purposes? Is that not what happened?
If anyone decides to shut down their own page, that’s their own business SexMachine.
Just b/c it goes against the gov’t doesn’t make it terrorism, although I’m sure they’d love to play that card.
Maybe lock up Jimmy Wales with Assange. And with NDAA they could hold him indefinitely right??? Cuz of the cyberterrorism attacks. SMH
Here you go Suxmachine,
Yell upstairs to mom to put you in another pot pie, kick back, and tell us why Rick Santelli is an ass hat…
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
If anyone decides to shut down their own page, that’s their own business SexMachine.
Just b/c it goes against the gov’t doesn’t make it terrorism, although I’m sure they’d love to play that card.
[/quote]
It was aimed at ‘the people’ not the government. When people went to wikipedia they were told it was closed and urged to a petition page. Now I’ve already agreed that 'cyber-terrorism was perhaps an emotive word. But do you see what I’m getting at?
Ah, no. You miss the part where I said I’m against SOPA? I don’t know why you love these frigging NGO’s so much. They’re taking you for a ride sonny. Just like the government.
[quote]JEATON wrote:
Here you go Suxmachine,
Yell upstairs to mom to put you in another pot pie, kick back, and tell us why Rick Santelli is an ass hat…
http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000068068[/quote]
Did you miss the bit where you asked me to critique another video; I took the time to do so and asked you some questions? Debate is supposed to be a two-way process.
MPAA Chairman Chris Dodd describes the blackouts as “irresponsible” and calling their protest action “a disservice to people who rely on them for information” or use their services.
“It is also an abuse of power given the freedoms these companies enjoy in the marketplace today,” said Dodd in a statement. “It’s a dangerous and troubling development when the platforms that serve as gateways to information intentionally skew the facts to incite their users in order to further their corporate interests.”
“A so-called ‘blackout’ is yet another gimmick, albeit a dangerous one, designed to punish elected and administration officials who are working diligently to protect American jobs from foreign criminals,” continued Dodd. “It is our hope that the White House and the Congress will call on those who intend to stage this ‘blackout’ to stop the hyperbole and PR stunts and engage in meaningful efforts to combat piracy.”
“Only days after the White House and chief sponsors of the legislation responded to the major concern expressed by opponents and then called for all parties to work cooperatively together,” said Dodd, “some technology business interests are resorting to stunts that punish their users or turn them into their corporate pawns, rather than coming to the table to find solutions to a problem that all now seem to agree is very real and damaging.”
A House committee is expected to resume working on the SOPA bill on Jan. 24, looking at dozens of amendments that have been proposed.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]JEATON wrote:
Here you go Suxmachine,
Yell upstairs to mom to put you in another pot pie, kick back, and tell us why Rick Santelli is an ass hat…
http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000068068[/quote]
Did you miss the bit where you asked me to critique another video; I took the time to do so and asked you some questions? Debate is supposed to be a two-way process.
True, but I disregarded your post as it was a blatant example of misdirection. Was blank, blank, blank and blank an example of blank. Non of this was on topic. You then attempted to redefine the issue on your terms.
I have no interest in playing this game.
Also, unlike you, I work ten to twelve hours a day, raise a family and try to hit the gym occasionally. While I do hit my stride from time to time on this site, more often than not I do not have to time to battle back and forth for position, definition, semantics and so forth.
Here is something to ponder, for both you and me…
Several times over the years ThunderLips and I have debated the merits (or lack of) concerning the philosophy of Objectivism and Ayn Rand. I will not open that can again right now. What is important is that in most of these cases what I was battling is not what Rand actually said or what she believed. More often the opposing viewpoint was attributed to Rand yet had very little in common with what she actually said. Statements used out of context. Sentences twisted or even pulled from the characters in her books created to show the behaviors and beliefs she was fighting against. In other words, I spent most of my time trying to correct what the poster had read from other sources on Rand, rather than going to the source directly. There is valid criticism to be directed at Rand for some of her actual beliefs. No reason to waste time on fictions.
I find this same behavior repeated time and time again with Ron Paul. I started out assuming he was a nut job. Why? Because the lamestream media said he was. I decided to bone up so I could set some people that I know straight. As I got closer to the source, rather than others opinions of the source, I discovered that most of the conversation was warped, twisted and in some cases simply an out right lie.
As I have been at it since four a.m., I am starting to fade on you. Maybe we can pick this up tomorrow.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
MPAA Chairman Chris Dodd describes the blackouts as “irresponsible” and calling their protest action “a disservice to people who rely on them for information” or use their services.
“It is also an abuse of power given the freedoms these companies enjoy in the marketplace today,” said Dodd in a statement. “It’s a dangerous and troubling development when the platforms that serve as gateways to information intentionally skew the facts to incite their users in order to further their corporate interests.”
“A so-called ‘blackout’ is yet another gimmick, albeit a dangerous one, designed to punish elected and administration officials who are working diligently to protect American jobs from foreign criminals,” continued Dodd. “It is our hope that the White House and the Congress will call on those who intend to stage this ‘blackout’ to stop the hyperbole and PR stunts and engage in meaningful efforts to combat piracy.”
“Only days after the White House and chief sponsors of the legislation responded to the major concern expressed by opponents and then called for all parties to work cooperatively together,” said Dodd, “some technology business interests are resorting to stunts that punish their users or turn them into their corporate pawns, rather than coming to the table to find solutions to a problem that all now seem to agree is very real and damaging.”
A House committee is expected to resume working on the SOPA bill on Jan. 24, looking at dozens of amendments that have been proposed.[/quote]
Sorry, one more thing…
Google did not black out service. They merely drew attention to the topic and offered links so that users could send messages to their congressmen should they choose.
Wikipedia did black out for twenty four hours. As they are not a commercial endeavor and do not owe their users anything, but could be overly affected by the legislation, this was a valid way to draw attention to the potential abuse of said legislation.
[quote]JEATON wrote:
True, but I disregarded your post as it was a blatant example of misdirection. Was blank, blank, blank and blank an example of blank. Non of this was on topic.
[/quote]
It was on topic. You posted a diatribe that claimed Ron Paul is a conservative. I posed a series of questions directly related to Paul’s policy. He advocates unilateral disarmament - I ask if unilateral disarmament is a conservative principle.
Don’t you realise the irony? Paul took a dump on Reagan, left the Republican Party and ran as a Libertarian. Reagan was a conservative. Bush I and II were conservatives. Ron Paul is a paleolibertarian. You’re the one redefining ‘conservatism.’ What if someone tried to argue that Obama is a conservative and you just don’t understand conservatism? That’s basically what you’re doing. It’s a nonsense semantic game just like the isolationist/anti-interventionist semantic game.
That’s good. I’m sure you know all about my life and what I do and where I live so there’s no need for me to correct you there.
Me neither really.
Okay, you believe TB misrepresents Ayn Rand…and I’m doing the same with Ron Paul. Fair enough.
You decided to read about Ron Paul so you could convince his supporters that Ron Paul was crazy but along the way you became a true believer? Yes, I’m very familiar with the process.
A work I like and dislike for many reasons. Full of classical-style aphorisms which aren’t very meaningful overall but there’s a lot more to it than than. Helps understand any mass movement.
‘Closer to the source.’ Good choice of words. Conjures up the idea of a hidden truth that the movement reveals to the enlightened. Go on…
Absolutely. You need to distance yourself from people who don’t understand Paul’s positions - even family and close friends if necessary.
EDITED
Ron Paul Introduces Legislation to Overturn the NDAA
http://vizfact.com/ron-paul-introduces-legislation-to-overturn-the-ndaa/
This link was also posted in Ron Paul thread, however both threads are tied together.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[/quote]
Better source…
Look, the evil terrorist Wikipedia is back up!
and here…
[quote]JEATON wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[/quote]
Better source…
Look, the evil terrorist Wikipedia is back up!
and here…
[/quote]
I read Le Bon’s The Crowd when I was 15. You’ll want to check this out too:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]JEATON wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[/quote]
Better source…
Look, the evil terrorist Wikipedia is back up!
and here…
[/quote]
I read Le Bon’s The Crowd when I was 15. You’ll want to check this out too:
http://www.amazon.com/Crowd-History-Popular-Disturbances-1730-1848/dp/1897959478[/quote]
Or you could just read this, which ties it all together nicely…
Actually an astoundingly good book. It was my first Coulter and I was pleasantly surprised just how good it was.