- Aug 27, 2011
- 223
- 5
- 91
Quote:
No kidding. C'mon.
No kidding. C'mon.
No No No No No No!!!!
- Thread starter TechnoCat
- Start date
Quote:
But it's morally wrong and beyond the scope of Congress's very strictly limited powers, thus, it must be killed.
The US governmet can't control the internet though, thats worldwide. Although I guess BYC is run from within the US.
But it's morally wrong and beyond the scope of Congress's very strictly limited powers, thus, it must be killed.
The US governmet can't control the internet though, thats worldwide. Although I guess BYC is run from within the US.
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #53
*sigh* I didn't want anyone fighting.
But Q9, and everyone else not agreeing, I guess you're right.
I overreacted. BYC is my LIFE so I'm just like "ROAR!"
But Q9, and everyone else not agreeing, I guess you're right.
I overreacted. BYC is my LIFE so I'm just like "ROAR!"
Last edited:
i hope you are reading these
wikipeida
The bill would authorize the U.S. Department of Justice to seek court orders against websites outside U.S. jurisdiction accused of infringing on copyrights, or of enabling or facilitating copyright infringement.[4] After delivering a court order, the U.S. Attorney-General could require US-directed Internet service providers, ad networks such as Google and payment processors such as PayPal or Visa to suspend doing business with sites found to infringe on federal criminal intellectual property laws and take "technically feasible and reasonable measures" to prevent access to the infringing site. The Attorney-General could also bar search engines from displaying links to the sites.[10]
The bill also establishes a two-step process for intellectual property rights holders to seek relief if they have been harmed by a site dedicated to infringement. The rights holder must first notify, in writing, related payment facilitators and ad networks of the identity of the website, who, in turn, must then forward that notification and suspend services to that identified website, unless that site provides a counter notification explaining how it is not in violation. The rights holder can then sue for limited injunctive relief against the site operator, if such a counter notification is provided, or if the payment or advertising services fail to suspend service in the absence of a counter notification.[10]
The bill provides immunity from liability to the ad and payment networks that comply with this Act or that take voluntary action to cut ties to such sites. Any copyright holder who knowingly misrepresents that a website is dedicated to infringement would be liable for damages.[4]
The second section increases the penalties for streaming video and for selling counterfeit drugs, military materials or consumer goods. The bill would make unauthorized streaming of copyrighted content a felony.[10]
wikipeida
The bill would authorize the U.S. Department of Justice to seek court orders against websites outside U.S. jurisdiction accused of infringing on copyrights, or of enabling or facilitating copyright infringement.[4] After delivering a court order, the U.S. Attorney-General could require US-directed Internet service providers, ad networks such as Google and payment processors such as PayPal or Visa to suspend doing business with sites found to infringe on federal criminal intellectual property laws and take "technically feasible and reasonable measures" to prevent access to the infringing site. The Attorney-General could also bar search engines from displaying links to the sites.[10]
The bill also establishes a two-step process for intellectual property rights holders to seek relief if they have been harmed by a site dedicated to infringement. The rights holder must first notify, in writing, related payment facilitators and ad networks of the identity of the website, who, in turn, must then forward that notification and suspend services to that identified website, unless that site provides a counter notification explaining how it is not in violation. The rights holder can then sue for limited injunctive relief against the site operator, if such a counter notification is provided, or if the payment or advertising services fail to suspend service in the absence of a counter notification.[10]
The bill provides immunity from liability to the ad and payment networks that comply with this Act or that take voluntary action to cut ties to such sites. Any copyright holder who knowingly misrepresents that a website is dedicated to infringement would be liable for damages.[4]
The second section increases the penalties for streaming video and for selling counterfeit drugs, military materials or consumer goods. The bill would make unauthorized streaming of copyrighted content a felony.[10]
really go here and read this about the bill for a better understanding
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Online_Piracy_Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Online_Piracy_Act
So its basically just inforcing a law thats been around for a while now already? Copyrights.
Quote:
And giving much more censoring power to the government. How much money is being lost to "copyright infringement" anyhow? Obviously not enough to hurt the companies. Remember - the Feds can and will twist the meaning of words. I fully expect heavy censorship of sites like Youtube.
And giving much more censoring power to the government. How much money is being lost to "copyright infringement" anyhow? Obviously not enough to hurt the companies. Remember - the Feds can and will twist the meaning of words. I fully expect heavy censorship of sites like Youtube.
Quote:
And giving much more censoring power to the government. How much money is being lost to "copyright infringement" anyhow? Obviously not enough to hurt the companies. Remember - the Feds can and will twist the meaning of words. I fully expect heavy censorship of sites like Youtube.
Youtube is already censored, maybe not as much as it will be if this bill passes, but some none the less.
And giving much more censoring power to the government. How much money is being lost to "copyright infringement" anyhow? Obviously not enough to hurt the companies. Remember - the Feds can and will twist the meaning of words. I fully expect heavy censorship of sites like Youtube.
Youtube is already censored, maybe not as much as it will be if this bill passes, but some none the less.
Quote:
And giving much more censoring power to the government. How much money is being lost to "copyright infringement" anyhow? Obviously not enough to hurt the companies. Remember - the Feds can and will twist the meaning of words. I fully expect heavy censorship of sites like Youtube.
Youtube is already censored, maybe not as much as it will be if this bill passes, but some none the less.
the only censoring i ever see on youtube is music that is just waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too bad, videos that just ain't for people under 18, and the occasional gory stuff (theres a video of a guy fighting in Iraq, he put the camera up to his sniper rifle scope and shot a terrorist on camera, but youtube censored it out. i don't blame them on that one)
And giving much more censoring power to the government. How much money is being lost to "copyright infringement" anyhow? Obviously not enough to hurt the companies. Remember - the Feds can and will twist the meaning of words. I fully expect heavy censorship of sites like Youtube.
Youtube is already censored, maybe not as much as it will be if this bill passes, but some none the less.
the only censoring i ever see on youtube is music that is just waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too bad, videos that just ain't for people under 18, and the occasional gory stuff (theres a video of a guy fighting in Iraq, he put the camera up to his sniper rifle scope and shot a terrorist on camera, but youtube censored it out. i don't blame them on that one)
Quote:
Youtube is already censored, maybe not as much as it will be if this bill passes, but some none the less.
the only censoring i ever see on youtube is music that is just waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too bad, videos that just ain't for people under 18, and the occasional gory stuff (theres a video of a guy fighting in Iraq, he put the camera up to his sniper rifle scope and shot a terrorist on camera, but youtube censored it out. i don't blame them on that one)
And movies
Youtube is already censored, maybe not as much as it will be if this bill passes, but some none the less.
the only censoring i ever see on youtube is music that is just waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too bad, videos that just ain't for people under 18, and the occasional gory stuff (theres a video of a guy fighting in Iraq, he put the camera up to his sniper rifle scope and shot a terrorist on camera, but youtube censored it out. i don't blame them on that one)
And movies
Similar threads
New posts New threads Active threads
-
Threads with more replies in the last 15 days
-
-
-
Countdown to the first egg *Just For Fun*- Started by jxp
- Replies: 63
-
Finally having my first proper hatch along! Astronomy theme 🪐✨- Started by Cheekychook12
- Replies: 60
-
-
