Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

SOPA died in 2012, but Obama administration wants to revive part of it

m.washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 57 posts

Re: SOPA died in 2012, but Obama administration wants to revive part of it

#31

Post by jbooth »

hga wrote: post #30
jbooth wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm pretty sure the castle doctrine applies in most states? Hell, 'stand your ground' applies in a decent plurality of states these days.

Weak Castle Doctrine, no duty to retreat in your home, exists in 46 states according to Wikipedia, which sounds about right. E.g. assume you have to retreat from your home in Massachusetts, no matter the current law, case law or circumstances. Stand Your Ground in 22 states. As in no duty to retreat any place you have a right to be, which prevents second guessing from the calm and comfort of a courtroom. Or as Oliver…

"E.g. assume you have to retreat from your home in Massachusetts, no matter the current law, case law or circumstances."

Why?

Re: SOPA died in 2012, but Obama administration wants to revive part of it

#32

Post by canadiancreed »

hondje wrote: post #29
canadiancreed wrote: post #24

This guy seems to be trying his damnest to piss away what good will he had at replacing an administration that was derided for pretty much the same actions.

This is the time when politicians pay back their masters, before the next election gears up. This gives time between pissing people off and then having to convince them to vote for more of the same.

Gives a good reason to remove term limits; keeps folks from proposing silly things like this, knowing that they won't be held accountable by the electorate as they can't run after their term is up.

Of course that takes an informed electorate, which...well that's another topic entirely.

Re: SOPA died in 2012, but Obama administration wants to revive part of it

#33

Post by greeneggs »

ap22213 wrote: post #16

This isn't a big surprise. The US really only has a few net-positive exports, and media products are one of the big ones (and military products, is another, iirc)

Source? This does not pass the smell test. (And why do you qualify "net-positive exports"?)

Re: SOPA died in 2012, but Obama administration wants to revive part of it

#34

Post by hga »

jbooth wrote: post #31
hga wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Weak Castle Doctrine, no duty to retreat in your home, exists in 46 states according to Wikipedia, which sounds about right. E.g. assume you have to retreat from your home in Massachusetts, no matter the current law, case law or circumstances. Stand Your Ground in 22 states. As in no duty to retreat any place you have a right to be, which prevents second guessing from the calm and comfort of a courtroom. Or as Oliver…

"E.g. assume you have to retreat from your home in Massachusetts, no matter the current law, case law or circumstances." Why?

Because that's what the courts want very badly, at least as of the '80s. Several rounds of the solidly Democratic legislature passing "this time we mean it!" laws and the courts judicially nullifying as much as they could.

In one case I "watched" by reading the Boston Globe as it was tried, a man was sent to prison because he wasn't willing to leave his sleep daughter to the tender mercies of an home invader.

Too many people wonder why Michael Dukakis won only 10 states in 1988; not those of us in the the state who were paying attention to e.g. these judges he elevated to the bench.

Re: SOPA died in 2012, but Obama administration wants to revive part of it

#35

Post by SmokyBorbon »

saosebastiao wrote: post #27

Why not get straight to the point and call every crime a terrorist act? Then we can have the America that Obama really wants...one where he can order anybody's murder or infinite detention at any time for any reason.

Exactly.

Re: SOPA died in 2012, but Obama administration wants to revive part of it

#36

Post by hga »

greeneggs wrote: post #33
ap22213 wrote: post #16

This isn't a big surprise. The US really only has a few net-positive exports, and media products are one of the big ones (and military products, is another, iirc)

Source? This does not pass the smell test. (And why do you qualify "net-positive exports"?)

Indeed. Off the top of my head, agricultural products, civilian airplanes, jet engines and avionics, heavy machinery (Caterpillar), I'd be really surprised to learn we didn't export a lot of farm machinery, high end CPUs....

Re: SOPA died in 2012, but Obama administration wants to revive part of it

#37

Post by jwaldrip »

Regulating SOPA will prove to be more cost prohibitive than actually solving the real problem. The real problem is that people want to be able to get content on demand, and the problem is that media companies are unwilling to adopt new ways of delivering that content. The music industry was plagued by this same thing a decade ago, but allowing the online purchase of content either via subscription or purchase has significantly reduced music piracy. Adopting the same principals for movies and television shows across the board will undoubtably have the same effect. The fact of the matter is that until studios are willing to be more flexible with their means of distribution rather than trying to have full control, then piracy will continue to be a problem.

Re: SOPA died in 2012, but Obama administration wants to revive part of it

#38

Post by Zoomla »

rayiner wrote: post #22
frank_boyd wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. It really can't get any more obvious than that. If we don't take money out of politics our country is going to go down for good.

You can blame the tech industry for this one. Criminalizing copyright infringement didn't get much traction until Microsoft, Oracle, etc, made a big deal about it in the context of large-scale piracy by the Chinese, etc.

Didn't that start with Disney?

Re: SOPA died in 2012, but Obama administration wants to revive part of it

#40

Post by jbooth »

hga wrote: post #34
jbooth wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"E.g. assume you have to retreat from your home in Massachusetts, no matter the current law, case law or circumstances." Why?

Because that's what the courts want very badly , at least as of the '80s. Several rounds of the solidly Democratic legislature passing "this time we mean it!" laws and the courts judicially nullifying as much as they could. In one case I "watched" by reading the Boston Globe as it was tried, a man was sent to prison because he wasn't willing to leave his sleep daughter to the tender mercies of an home invader. Too ma…

In the 80s? It's 2013, man, get with the times and start ripping on Chicago.

In this decade, I'd go to the anecdote from WI last year of the dude who, upon a high school party being broken up by the cops next door, shot a kid hiding from the cops on his porch and wasn't charged.

Post reply on HN