Quote:
Originally Posted by Spinoza  1. ) This law doesn't compel foreign countries to do anything. If they didn't read our news they would be unaware anything is going on. There are no actions we are asking a foreign nation to do because of this law. |
Right, this law removes the choice for other countries to take or not take action by attempting to control the dns registrars.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spinoza 2. ) File sharing can be commercial copyright infringement. If it weren't we'd have plenty of torrent sites in this country, as far as I know none are hosted inside the US. The thing your picture ignores is the value of the created property to the owner. Piracy, stealing, file sharing all destroy the value of the created content for the owner that's why they are considered alike. |
The picture was intended to be humorous (apparently it wasn't). I can see if your "artist" was not being paid at all, this might be a valid point. If there wasn't value in the created content the files wouldn't be shared anyway. I'll also point out, they have the means to track, verify, and charge people who use these sites as identified by lawsuits published in the news. This is why I sense a rouse to pass these laws.
The majority of citizens choose to purchase these works of art legally, IMO.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spinoza 3. ) This whole it will never work and Hollywood is greedy are silly. If you think they're being to greedy don't watch or listen to their products. |
Wow, for real?
When it comes to subverting current laws and passing new legislation by means of lobbing to suit their needs at the expense of problematic schemes, it becomes greedy. But, as I stated before, I sense sinister motives that haven't been made clear. Not necessarily by Hollywood, but by government and this is a disguise to pass the law and introduce control of the internet.
Also, While our discussion has mostly been on copyright violations, we have not been discussing "controversial" topics, which could be included in their targeting of websites. For example, Alex Jones has been repeatedly blocked on time warners network, yet is accessible using a proxy. I've called them on it and suddenly I can view his site again. So the concern should extend beyond simple copyright issues and include opinions of what the government deems inappropriate. My issue in this whole proposed law is having the government telling me what's appropriate to be viewing.