Gaiz

I put up this thread because EVERYONE in my animation class was freaking the f*ck out over it.
Thanks for calming them down, gaiz.

To be honest, I'm kinda wondering if the government has any sense at all left at this point for even considering this.

 

Jeez, wouldn't you think that Disney should oppose this bill? I mean, doesn't the internet actually let people watch their shows and movies? And why the heck is MLB supporting this bill? What the heck are they concerned about? It seems like a ton of the people on the supporting list fit more on the opposing list, since so much of their stuff is found on so-call "infringing sites"

Not saying bills shouldn't be passed, I'm just saying they've dealt with this stuff for so long, and they finally decide to try and act on it. It's not going to pass, I'm just saying that now.

 

This: politicians spend probably a majority of their time fund-raising.

 

I think some users are misunderstanding.

My mom and I took a look, and it looks like it's just to block economic threats to the Internet, such as torrents, I believe.

 

Which they then use to fuel future campaigns.

I see now, thanks guys. xD

Though, it all just seems to be a moot point in the end for the people/companies who can't spend as much, since the other guys are, well, richer.

Which then leads into the gap between the Rich and the Poor and yeah.

@Kisala: It probably won't, but like Bueno said, different people in power have different opinions/morals on certain issues. A few years ago some people might not be as tiffed as they are, but the people who came into power in these companies now evidently are.

 

To your first point: uhh, that's the point? Unless I'm reading what you're saying wrong. I read it as "why are people who are having their material's copyright infringed supporting a bill that attacks copyright infringement? They should oppose it.

Fun fact: A good number of bills that are thrown on the table aren't exactly meant to pass. There's underlying motives that could exist (move attention away from something else, put an issue on the table for a later issue, bring in support to a specific politician/party from certain groups at certain times, etc.). Not saying this is one of those bills (I haven't followed it at all. Like you, I really doubt it would pass). But even if the bill is meant to pass, there could be any number of reasons why it is put up at certain times, which was my previous point, like a new person (or group) with similar beliefs get in office and replace people with other beliefs so now the new group has enough support to at least suggest the bill, it's a new issue or at least a recently hot issue that they can use to appeal to a certain group of voters (the fact that some people are supporting it is blatant proof that it does have support, regardless if it's minority or majority).

 

this is one reason why I consider politics a real pain. You get different people and you'll almost always end up with a time when you get people that have different views, and so your government basically takes a 180, or they try to change it "for the better", and it only ends up worse....almost like now. Not too mention, they pass bills for pointless things like this when there are so many other important things that deserve more attention

 

You also have to keep in mind the sites that host torrents and such.
Which is a fairly large part of the Internet.

 

Yes, but what do you call an "economic threat"? Under technicality almost all of our avatars and signatures use copyrighted material. I would think a company was insane if they decided that that was a point worth focusing on, but if they really wanted to then they could make a storm about avatars on various sites.

Failing to accurately define what is "dedicated to infringing activities" means that even if it were passed it being useful would be based on judicial precedent. This could be used for practically anything or make the bill completely useless, unfortunately anywhere in between is unlikely.

 

Ex-freakin- actly. I'm in a Poli-Sci class and we were talking about Meg Whitman who lost her campaign in...California, I believe. She spent $7 million running. There's a website that predicts how much money a politician will raise or spend on a specific campaign. Obama's predicted to raise (or was it spend? Well, if he raises, he'll probably spend it) 10 million next year. Boehner raised over 9 million even though there's a very low chance of him losing his position but that decreases the chances of someone trying to run against him since he raised so much more.
Funds support specific politicians and also bills. Supported bills support the politicians behind them.

#occupykhv.
I'm tired of the 1% having over half of the site's rep.

 

Government was designed to change. If we kept the same people in power, we'd be headed toward a single constant governing entity whose decisions we may hate, and cannot replace them at all. Although there will still be people whose decisions are bad, we can still vote them out/wait for their term to end.

Although change runs that risk, it wouldn't be a 100% chance of occuring like having a single group of the same people have power indefinitely.

 

Yep. The founding fathers wrote the Constitution with one thing standing above everything else: fear of tyranny. They wanted to make sure that someone can't stay in power or have absolute power.

 

Not that hard. Only 12% have rep at all and 1% have over a gem.

 

It's too bad that other countries aren't as fortunate to be able to rid their government ruler peacefully. Besides, there are very few bills that ever actually get signed into law. It sort of amazes me that we even have a few laws from bills now. The process is pretty brutal and extremely selective.

 

This. I think it's something like 80% of all Bills that get to the voting stage get shut down almost immediately when voting begins. I doubt this'll be any different.
Of course, I could be mis-remembering something there, since I live in England, and our law system is not America's law system.

 

I know that. I just find it stupid when it comes to a point like this. That, and people sometimes end up voting for stupid leaders, president or not, and we end up having to deal with their mistakes.

 

4chan counts as a tech giant?

@Aqua: Does history record any case in which the majority was right?

 

It won't pass. A law like that is far from constitutional (in the United States anyway)
And in the off chance that it does pass, it won't stay long. As a law student I can assure you that, since so many people are going to raise the fact that this breaches the first Amendment, being Freedom of Speech. Heck, if you guys got someone who burned the American Flag out of jail because it breaches said amendment then I'm sure you won't less this pass either.

 

Want to go into cases when you had tribes of people and they all thought the same thing and figured what they did was right?

 

Maybe not as much as Google or Facebook, but yes they are considered an internet giant.