locallyunsceneFeeder of TrollsJoin Date: 2002-12-25Member: 11528Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1858176:date=Jul 5 2011, 02:50 PM:name=That_Annoying_Kid)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (That_Annoying_Kid @ Jul 5 2011, 02:50 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1858176"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->it looks like another terrible attempt to cowtow to the copyright lobbies whilst not really understanding how the internet works
however casual exemptions apply to most everyone unless you are actively trying to make money from someone elses copyright etc<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> That is illegal now anyway. There is no redeeming quality to this bill.
<!--quoteo(post=1858439:date=Jul 6 2011, 10:05 PM:name=SentrySteve)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SentrySteve @ Jul 6 2011, 10:05 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1858439"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->why blame the government for trying to make the internet safer? did you even read the bill?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually yes I did. It doesn't make the net safer. It doesn't "help artists". It's simply designed to maximize profits of a few.
As for the whole "safer net" thing... People would never even think about letting their kids walk on the highway, alone, at 3am - but they somehow expect the same thing to be perfectly reasonable on the internet.
<!--quoteo(post=1858528:date=Jul 7 2011, 04:23 AM:name=Toumal)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Toumal @ Jul 7 2011, 04:23 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1858528"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Actually yes I did. It doesn't make the net safer. It doesn't "help artists". It's simply designed to maximize profits of a few.
As for the whole "safer net" thing... People would never even think about letting their kids walk on the highway, alone, at 3am - but they somehow expect the same thing to be perfectly reasonable on the internet.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Show me an internet website where a child can be hit at 3am by a vehicle on the highway. If you can't then your analogy doesn't apply and if you can then it works in my favor because that's proof the internet needs to be made more safe. This bill is trying to help.
What does this bill have to do with safety? Nothing as far as I can tell. It's about criminalizing something that should at most be a misdemeanor. Because that worked <i>so very well</i> in the war on drugs.
<!--quoteo(post=1858663:date=Jul 8 2011, 02:17 AM:name=SentrySteve)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SentrySteve @ Jul 8 2011, 02:17 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1858663"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Show me an internet website where a child can be hit at 3am by a vehicle on the highway. If you can't then your analogy doesn't apply and if you can then it works in my favor because that's proof the internet needs to be made more safe. This bill is trying to help.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
SentrySteve, again, this bill is not about making the net "safer". And secondly, there's undoubtedly a lot of stuff on the internet that young kids should not be subjected to. My analogy was just that: An analogy. You miss (or ignore) my point is that net safety is the responsibility of parents, nobody else.
But yeah, this bill is not about making the net safer. Wrong topic.
Back on topic: If anyone wonders how such legislation comes to existence... Consider how many lobbyists are "taking care" of each and every congressman. It was simply inevitable, and I fully expect this to get worse. Long-accepted legal opinions, like the fact that a mere hyperlink does not constitute copyright infringement, are twisted and turned already. The lines between commercial copyright infringement (stuff that gets you into jail) and noncommercial copyright infringement are being blurred on purpose.
Comments
however casual exemptions apply to most everyone unless you are actively trying to make money from someone elses copyright etc
however casual exemptions apply to most everyone unless you are actively trying to make money from someone elses copyright etc<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That is illegal now anyway. There is no redeeming quality to this bill.
-> <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/jul/03/us-anti-piracy-extradition-prosecution" target="_blank">http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/...ion-prosecution</a>
The internet is not meant to be safe, its the free trade of information.
Actually yes I did. It doesn't make the net safer. It doesn't "help artists". It's simply designed to maximize profits of a few.
As for the whole "safer net" thing... People would never even think about letting their kids walk on the highway, alone, at 3am - but they somehow expect the same thing to be perfectly reasonable on the internet.
As for the whole "safer net" thing... People would never even think about letting their kids walk on the highway, alone, at 3am - but they somehow expect the same thing to be perfectly reasonable on the internet.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Show me an internet website where a child can be hit at 3am by a vehicle on the highway. If you can't then your analogy doesn't apply and if you can then it works in my favor because that's proof the internet needs to be made more safe. This bill is trying to help.
SentrySteve, again, this bill is not about making the net "safer".
And secondly, there's undoubtedly a lot of stuff on the internet that young kids should not be subjected to. My analogy was just that: An analogy. You miss (or ignore) my point is that net safety is the responsibility of parents, nobody else.
But yeah, this bill is not about making the net safer. Wrong topic.
Back on topic: If anyone wonders how such legislation comes to existence... Consider how many lobbyists are "taking care" of each and every congressman. It was simply inevitable, and I fully expect this to get worse. Long-accepted legal opinions, like the fact that a mere hyperlink does not constitute copyright infringement, are twisted and turned already. The lines between commercial copyright infringement (stuff that gets you into jail) and noncommercial copyright infringement are being blurred on purpose.