COICA - The Internet Blacklist - Page 4

On October 06 2010 14:31 ragingfungus wrote:


Im willing to bet that 90% of the people that signed havent even read the bill. They probably just read something on the site about the government trying to censor the web and went omg. Personally I think the government would only shut down sites that realistically should be shut down, but your free to your own opinion. I just wish people would educate themselves on what the bill actually states.

On October 06 2010 14:31 ragingfungus wrote:


Im willing to bet that 90% of the people that signed havent even read the bill. They probably just read something on the site about the government trying to censor the web and went omg. Personally I think the government would only shut down sites that realistically should be shut down, but your free to your own opinion. I just wish people would educate themselves on what the bill actually states.

On October 06 2010 15:03 Seam wrote:


The issue is you 'think' they would restrain themselves.

But what if they don't?

On October 06 2010 15:39 Kakera wrote:
I love how blind some people are to consequences and the age old saying of shit rolls downhill (well that shit being something bad will just get worse, not that you will always get flak from upnups). The more laws the gov't can hide behind to justify their policing attitude the worse it is for us. Maybe some anti-gov't sites start up saying how bad the gov't is with actual evidence to back it up with and the gov't plants some code into their site and closes it down for "copyright infringement". It's the same thing as the drug laws, "dealing above a certain amount of drugs from your home will result in seizure of said home" through this they get more funding for the DEA by ceasing the homes of people they deem a threat,. plant some drugs and take what they want. If there is a way this can be used for ill-use and taken advantage of than it shouldn't be put through. It's going to be another Patriot Act fiasco and we'll see a new era of fear. I for one am not looking forward to the day civil liberties are forsaken for the benefit of the company. Some guy earlier said it very well, make your product worth buying and it won't be stolen.

On October 07 2010 02:17 FaZe wrote:
Honestly, the idea that they would even consider this bill is rediculous. They are giving the media / corporations even MORE control over the populace than they already have. It's a bill that's fueled by greed. Corporations want to continue the trend of the rich getting richer, and the poor getting poorer. The interests of the people are ignored, and the corporations continue to make unbelievable profits.

Do you really think companies like Universal Music or Warner need protection? Some media moguls are worth billions now. Billions. You can bet your ass that Joe Schmo in his basement producing his own records isn't going to be the one to profit from this. It's going to be the people who already have the money to bring these issues to court.

At this rate, capitalism will not longer be able to exist within the poor semblance of democracy that we currently live with. It will simply replace it.

is Senate website notes this response to a question from seventh grade students from Vermont's Thetford Academy who asked Leahy which Dead song was his favorite, he replied: "... my favorite is "Black Muddy River" but we always play "Truckin'" on election night at my headquarters."

On October 07 2010 03:30 Precipice wrote:
This is remarkable. There's a bill being passed to allow for the enforcement of copyright infringement, and the whole lot of you are throwing up arguments about "Freedom". This has relatively little to do with a loss of rights and a whole lot more to do with an enforcement of laws.

I also find it ironic that while this bill is, if it is any violation of liberty, a violation of what is known as the "negative" form of liberty; that is, liberty that exists as the absence of control (due to an increased measure of control). What is ironic is that the majority of people raging about this "violation of liberty" are raging about the application of "positive liberty" or the idea that liberty must be achieved internally and with the help of others or government. Basically, I find it insulting to see people rant about liberty without any realistic understanding of "what" freedom is. I find it dismally tragic that people are throwing around the term "liberty" like it's something with an easy, common, shared definition; as opposed to admitting the fact that if you've been using torrents you've been breaking the law.

Sure the bill can be abused, just about every damned bill can be abused. What is fundamental is that the bill's job is to enforce what is essentially already law. I doubt that it would be intelligent for the government to fail to make laws which stay up to date with growing technology.

Lastly, perhaps the greatest demonstration that this conversation lacks grounding knowledge is the fact that both liberals and conservatives are blaming the *other* group for this. Then again, in the 21st century, you're entitled to everything and shouldn't have to pay for products which come from the hard work of others.