Personal Development for Smart People Forums - View Single Post

Spinoza · 12-13-2011, 01:46 PM

Google’s, Yahoo’, Microsoft’s, and IP(Internet Provider) companies resistance to this bill basically boils down to it will cost us money. We don’t want to have to go through the motions of having to blocking an IP address because it doesn’t make us any money.

So criticism really comes in two flavors.
It’s just too broad and it’s not specific enough. This can be a legitimate concern for any law but at some point a line has to be drawn and we have to let case law do its thing. You can not write a bill that details every situation. We litigate these matters in court and precedent is setup to more fully detail and incorporate new laws into our existing system. That’s the way our system works.

I want add that this is a legitimate concern about the bill and bills in general but the bill is still a work in progress and this is a know concern. Once the bill emerges from committee one would be able to take seriously if the bill is really too general.

The second criticism basically boils down to it only takes an allegation to stop PayPal support and get Google to block your site..etc. Come on really? First it’s false in the sense that all you have to do is make an accusation. The Attorney general has to pursue the matter through the court system. Our court system is not cheap and does not spin on a dime. There are already countries that have laws like this on the books; the results that happened afterward did not include widespread abuse of false accusations.

So the fear is everyone going to go litigation crazy after this bill passes. Its seems to me that most instances when this happens is when there is a chance for a huge monetary reward for the accusing side since lawyers then have the opportunity to take a portion of that settlement. There is no remedy like that in this bill. Nothing in it makes the potential copy right violator pay back the copy right holder at least not in this bill, so there is no great compulsion for lawyers to grab menial cases.

I would also add that I am still reading about [H.R.2839.IH][PDF] still willing to change my mind about it. Thanks to the previous poster for supplying the link.

12-13-2011, 01:46 PM	#44 (permalink)
Spinoza Member Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: Just west of Westerville Posts: 95	Google’s, Yahoo’, Microsoft’s, and IP(Internet Provider) companies resistance to this bill basically boils down to it will cost us money. We don’t want to have to go through the motions of having to blocking an IP address because it doesn’t make us any money. So criticism really comes in two flavors. It’s just too broad and it’s not specific enough. This can be a legitimate concern for any law but at some point a line has to be drawn and we have to let case law do its thing. You can not write a bill that details every situation. We litigate these matters in court and precedent is setup to more fully detail and incorporate new laws into our existing system. That’s the way our system works. I want add that this is a legitimate concern about the bill and bills in general but the bill is still a work in progress and this is a know concern. Once the bill emerges from committee one would be able to take seriously if the bill is really too general. The second criticism basically boils down to it only takes an allegation to stop PayPal support and get Google to block your site..etc. Come on really? First it’s false in the sense that all you have to do is make an accusation. The Attorney general has to pursue the matter through the court system. Our court system is not cheap and does not spin on a dime. There are already countries that have laws like this on the books; the results that happened afterward did not include widespread abuse of false accusations. So the fear is everyone going to go litigation crazy after this bill passes. Its seems to me that most instances when this happens is when there is a chance for a huge monetary reward for the accusing side since lawyers then have the opportunity to take a portion of that settlement. There is no remedy like that in this bill. Nothing in it makes the potential copy right violator pay back the copy right holder at least not in this bill, so there is no great compulsion for lawyers to grab menial cases. I would also add that I am still reading about [H.R.2839.IH][PDF] still willing to change my mind about it. Thanks to the previous poster for supplying the link.