|
|
On December 16 2011 10:16 LorDo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2011 10:14 Manit0u wrote: Let us pause for a moment here: Does this concern only people located in the US?
If so: I belive that the fuck I wanted to give went that way!
There's a meme for this but TL.net disaproves. If this passes in the US, it's likely to jump on the next boat over the atlantic. It's not likely because,as they mentioned many times during the argument,the EU with our laws is heading in the complete opposite direction comparison to this bill.
|
On December 16 2011 10:14 Manit0u wrote: Let us pause for a moment here: Does this concern only people located in the US?
If so: I belive that the fuck I wanted to give went that way!
There's a meme for this but TL.net disaproves. its affect all DNS ISP in US which is one of the biggest service provider in the world. Half of the internet in the world will be censored unless the owner move their website out of US. Not even counting all the complicated law suits you could file abusing the law(currently bill) itself internationally.
|
On December 16 2011 10:16 LorDo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2011 10:14 Manit0u wrote: Let us pause for a moment here: Does this concern only people located in the US?
If so: I belive that the fuck I wanted to give went that way!
There's a meme for this but TL.net disaproves. If this passes in the US, it's likely to jump on the next boat over the atlantic. Nah, Europe has already takes its stnd, and is going in the other direction.
However if this is passed alot of trouble with servers in the states will occur and dipolomatic relations between US, and EU/Russia/China will diterioate.
On December 16 2011 10:18 NB wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2011 10:14 Manit0u wrote: Let us pause for a moment here: Does this concern only people located in the US?
If so: I belive that the fuck I wanted to give went that way!
There's a meme for this but TL.net disaproves. its affect all DNS ISP in US which is one of the biggest service provider in the world. Half of the internet in the world will be censored unless the owner move their website out of US. Not even counting all the complicated law suits you could file abusing the law(currently bill) itself internationally.
No, since US national law doesn't apply to other countries.
|
On December 16 2011 10:17 Kazeyonoma wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2011 10:15 LorDo wrote:On December 16 2011 10:13 Zalithian wrote:On December 16 2011 10:12 LorDo wrote:On December 16 2011 10:10 Zalithian wrote:On December 16 2011 10:08 LorDo wrote: Could someone explain all this to someone who isn't that into US Law. They just voted no on one amendment by Mr.Shaiffer or something. Now Mr. Issa is up. What are they doing exactly? Do they all have different versions of the law or they want to change the original bill? Or have they not voted on that yet? It's a bit confusing for me. People are proposing amendments to change SOPA. Most of them are being shot down. Someone proposes an amendment after it is read by the clerk, the person explains it, then they discuss it, then they "vote." So when are they voting on the bill? Or is that already a yes, but they may change it for the better (or even worse)? Why wouldn't they add a loser pays thing, with all the bullying that will incur? They won't be voting on the bill for a while. These are just proposed changes before they vote on the bill to try and make it more acceptable or likely to pass. Unfortunately they don't want loser pays because they don't give a shit about due process and are bought out by the entertainment industry. for a while, a few hours or for a while, some months? thanks for clarifying. weeks/months this is jsut to amend the current bill, after however many ammendments are voted on, it'll end up being finally voted upon to see if it gets passed, if ti does from the council then it'll move up to the house of reps, where it'll be voted, and if passed, will go up to the senate, voted, and if passed, go to obama, and obama will veto it, it'll go back to the house, where it'll need 2/3rd vote to pass, which then goes to senate and requires another 2/3rd vote to pass, FINALLY to become law, in which case, someone can plead that this violates their constitutional rights, take it to the supreme court, and THERE a precedence will be set and cannot be suaded by lobbyist.
How do you know Obama will veto it? If your vision is correct it sounds really good.
|
On December 16 2011 10:18 ManaFortress wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2011 10:16 LorDo wrote:On December 16 2011 10:14 Manit0u wrote: Let us pause for a moment here: Does this concern only people located in the US?
If so: I belive that the fuck I wanted to give went that way!
There's a meme for this but TL.net disaproves. If this passes in the US, it's likely to jump on the next boat over the atlantic. Nah, Europe has already takes its stnd, and is going in the pther direction. However if this is passed alot of trouble with servers in the states will occur and dipolomatic relations between US, and EU/Russia/China will diterioate. Show nested quote +On December 16 2011 10:18 NB wrote:On December 16 2011 10:14 Manit0u wrote: Let us pause for a moment here: Does this concern only people located in the US?
If so: I belive that the fuck I wanted to give went that way!
There's a meme for this but TL.net disaproves. its affect all DNS ISP in US which is one of the biggest service provider in the world. Half of the internet in the world will be censored unless the owner move their website out of US. Not even counting all the complicated law suits you could file abusing the law(currently bill) itself internationally. No, since US national law doesn't apply to other countries. Yes, but the US government can shut down the US websites. ofc it said websites move out of the US then w/e
|
On December 16 2011 10:08 LorDo wrote: Could someone explain all this to someone who isn't that into US Law. They just voted no on one amendment by Mr.Shaiffer or something. Now Mr. Issa is up. What are they doing exactly? Do they all have different versions of the law or they want to change the original bill? Or have they not voted on that yet? It's a bit confusing for me. So right now the bill is in a committee in the lower house of Congress (the House of Representative). A committee is just a small bipartisan group tasked with figuring the initial draft out. They've been debating for weeks and making their own proposals, and today was going to be the day they planned on voting. However, they've been going back and forth trying to have their own ideas added and others' ideas removed so they haven't voted yet.
Anyway, once they pass the bill in the committee, it then goes to the floor of the full House where every Representative votes. Here everyone will probably argue over the bill for a few days, and the bill will likely be substantially revised. If it eventually passes by a simple majority after a vote, it moves to the Senate where they basically do the same thing and vote. By the time Senate votes, the bill is going to be pretty different than what it used to be. Regardless, they will vote, it will pass or fail and it goes to the president. He can either sign it into law or veto it. If he signs it, it becomes a law and the Supreme Court can (and will in this case) review it to determine it's constitutionality. If Obama vetos it, it will go all the way back to the House and start over, but this time they will need a 2/3rd vote to pass it (so the bill will change even more and more). The Senate will also need a 2/3rd vote to override the veto. If this happens, it becomes law and the Supreme Court will review it.
No matter what, the final bill will be drastically different from what it is now, and it will take months to pass if it even does. And even after it passes (which is highly unlikely), it then still won't really go into effect for probably a year or so.
|
@ How do you know Obama will veto it? If your vision is correct it sounds really good.
Obama (or his aide) have already said that he will veto it.
However it can still pass even if he veto it, but then the court will need more then 2/3 of the total votes.
|
On December 16 2011 10:20 LorDo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2011 10:17 Kazeyonoma wrote:On December 16 2011 10:15 LorDo wrote:On December 16 2011 10:13 Zalithian wrote:On December 16 2011 10:12 LorDo wrote:On December 16 2011 10:10 Zalithian wrote:On December 16 2011 10:08 LorDo wrote: Could someone explain all this to someone who isn't that into US Law. They just voted no on one amendment by Mr.Shaiffer or something. Now Mr. Issa is up. What are they doing exactly? Do they all have different versions of the law or they want to change the original bill? Or have they not voted on that yet? It's a bit confusing for me. People are proposing amendments to change SOPA. Most of them are being shot down. Someone proposes an amendment after it is read by the clerk, the person explains it, then they discuss it, then they "vote." So when are they voting on the bill? Or is that already a yes, but they may change it for the better (or even worse)? Why wouldn't they add a loser pays thing, with all the bullying that will incur? They won't be voting on the bill for a while. These are just proposed changes before they vote on the bill to try and make it more acceptable or likely to pass. Unfortunately they don't want loser pays because they don't give a shit about due process and are bought out by the entertainment industry. for a while, a few hours or for a while, some months? thanks for clarifying. weeks/months this is jsut to amend the current bill, after however many ammendments are voted on, it'll end up being finally voted upon to see if it gets passed, if ti does from the council then it'll move up to the house of reps, where it'll be voted, and if passed, will go up to the senate, voted, and if passed, go to obama, and obama will veto it, it'll go back to the house, where it'll need 2/3rd vote to pass, which then goes to senate and requires another 2/3rd vote to pass, FINALLY to become law, in which case, someone can plead that this violates their constitutional rights, take it to the supreme court, and THERE a precedence will be set and cannot be suaded by lobbyist. How do you know Obama will veto it? If your vision is correct it sounds really good. He's threatened to veto similar net neutrality bills in the past, effectively ending their debate in Congress since the Democrats won't really go against him and the Republicans don't have 2/3rds of the houses nor do all the Republicans support the bill.
|
On December 16 2011 10:14 Manit0u wrote: Let us pause for a moment here: Does this concern only people located in the US?
If so: I belive that the fuck I wanted to give went that way!
There's a meme for this but TL.net disaproves.
Great attitude. "Well, this might not directly impact me, so sucks for you."
Also, it does. If you visit US based websites, if you know of any blogs you visit which can heavy web traffic from the US, this DIRECTLY effects them and you. Want to start a website that is relevant to SOPA? Say goodbye to your visitors from the US.
Oh, and let's not forget this could a scary precedent worldwide. Don't you think governments from other nations have their eyes on this, some of them thinking, "Well, the US is taking a major step in this. It would be easy to follow in their footsteps."
This isn't a matter that effects only Americans. If you can't think of a reason to care about your fellow netizens because they aren't countrymen, you'll get no sympathy when it happens to you.
|
On December 16 2011 10:18 ManaFortress wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2011 10:18 NB wrote:On December 16 2011 10:14 Manit0u wrote: Let us pause for a moment here: Does this concern only people located in the US?
If so: I belive that the fuck I wanted to give went that way!
There's a meme for this but TL.net disaproves. its affect all DNS ISP in US which is one of the biggest service provider in the world. Half of the internet in the world will be censored unless the owner move their website out of US. Not even counting all the complicated law suits you could file abusing the law(currently bill) itself internationally. No, since US national law doesn't apply to other countries. the problem is majority of internet digital company is located in US: Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, Facebook, twitter... The sever that iss hosting Youtube, for example, will simply shut 90% of facebook contain down. You wont be able to post a picture on facebook if somebody copyrighted it under US law...
|
This old geezer. Oh man. He doesn't even make any sense.
|
i think its time we all rebel, the NDAA and SOPA too unconstitutional and powerful pushing for a big govt. This is a government for the people and by the people. These bills are not negotiable from the start. NDAA violates the 4th, 6th directly and possibly more amendments. SOPA directly violates the 1st in free speech and media/press. We the people are the bosses of the government and these government slaves work for us. let's not let them misunderstand this relationship. If we dont like it, we change it, by force if we have too. Our freedoms are not negotiable and can't be vote upon.
|
On December 16 2011 10:24 Zalithian wrote: This old geezer. Oh man. He doesn't even make any sense. he is the one who wrote the bill =))
|
On December 16 2011 10:25 NB wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2011 10:24 Zalithian wrote: This old geezer. Oh man. He doesn't even make any sense. he is the one who wrote the bill =))
I thought it was Smith?
|
On December 16 2011 10:22 NB wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2011 10:18 ManaFortress wrote:On December 16 2011 10:18 NB wrote:On December 16 2011 10:14 Manit0u wrote: Let us pause for a moment here: Does this concern only people located in the US?
If so: I belive that the fuck I wanted to give went that way!
There's a meme for this but TL.net disaproves. its affect all DNS ISP in US which is one of the biggest service provider in the world. Half of the internet in the world will be censored unless the owner move their website out of US. Not even counting all the complicated law suits you could file abusing the law(currently bill) itself internationally. No, since US national law doesn't apply to other countries. the problem is majority of internet digital company is located in US: Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, Facebook, twitter... The sever that iss hosting Youtube, for example, will simply shut 90% of facebook contain down. You wont be able to post a picture on facebook if somebody copyrighted it under US law... Exactly. And on top of that, many sites and services that aren't in the US still receive a majority of their traffic from Americans, so cutting the US off from them would still destroy their income.
US page views are worth a lot of money comparatively.
|
Haha. Jackson owning King, who was in congress and tweeted how bored he was because of her. So sad.
|
What the hell is this guy saying? I'm actually tuning in now. You guys aren't kidding, these people are crazy. Why is he talking about credit card companies?
|
On December 16 2011 10:28 Ben... wrote: What the hell is this guy saying? I'm actually tuning in now. You guys aren't kidding, these people are crazy. Why is he talking about credit card companies?
He is basically saying that the companies need immunity or they will support rogues sites forever because they could be sued for shutting down service, which is of course WRONG.
|
On December 16 2011 10:25 jchan wrote: i think its time we all rebel, the NDAA and SOPA too unconstitutional and powerful pushing for a big govt. This is a government for the people and by the people. These bills are not negotiable from the start. NDAA violates the 4th, 6th directly and possibly more amendments. SOPA directly violates the 1st in free speech and media/press. We the people are the bosses of the government and these government slaves work for us. let's not let them misunderstand this relationship. If we dont like it, we change it, by force if we have too. Our freedoms are not negotiable and can't be vote upon.
Amen!
|
On December 16 2011 10:29 Zalithian wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2011 10:28 Ben... wrote: What the hell is this guy saying? I'm actually tuning in now. You guys aren't kidding, these people are crazy. Why is he talking about credit card companies? He is basically saying that the companies need immunity or they will support rogues sites forever because they could be sued for shutting down service, which is of course WRONG. Okay thanks, he was kinda incomprehensible.
This Issa guy seems to know his stuff. I wish they would let him talk more than the crazy people.
|
|
|
|