101–110 of 269 posts
"Stealin' is stealin' and thieves are people we oughtta deal with!" "If I had my way I'd lock all three of ya in a room and don't come out until you agree." "As a consumer I can't tell who's a thief and who's not a thief. What can Google offer this bill that would allow Google to sign on to this bill?" How is "Google signing on" the key issue here? Is Google the gatekeeper to basic constitutionality in legislation no…
All I can see is politicians saying "this SOPA breaking the Internet is nonsense". And yet, they didn't even invite engineers there to testify for that.
he searched for some obscure song and found it free illegally but not on iTunes. if it was available then he would have bought it.
Fair enough question. When the money is all interior to some foreign country, and doesn't touch typical payment hubs (e.g. Visa), how does "follow the money" address the problem effectively?
Well, because putting DNS in the hands of any single government or financial interest is a terrible remedy.
"Service providers do not have the technical means to do what this bill requires."
^^^^^^^^ more like that. Update: that was Zoe Lofgren again.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That requires someone to bring a relevant legal case to an appropriately positioned judicial body, which requires a great deal of money, and two sides willing to take it that far.
Doesn't that just mean YouTube v. Viacom redux?
"The #1 way to decrease piracy is to increase the number and quality of legitimate content services on the internet." Preach it, sister.
Zoe Lofgren's statements were really good, and her criticisms of the way the hearing was structured (5 for, 1 against, no engineers) were compelling. Her question of, "How many sites would you want to see taken down?" and the dodging is telling, too. And Darrell Issa did a phenomenal job calling into question the need for the legislation because of the function of the ITC & usefulness of administrative law solutions…
That's refreshing; I'm not always a fan of this guy's work, but I fully agree that this is unnecessary regulation intended to violate the rights of individuals to boost the pockets of the corporate state.
Cohmert just proved the point of piracy he searched for some obscure song and found it free illegally but not on iTunes. if it was available then he would have bought it.