EPTSTOP "PROTECT IP (S. 968)/SOPA (HR. 3261)" - Page 51
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Badboyrune
Sweden2247 Posts
| ||
|
TheKK
Canada164 Posts
| ||
Myles
United States5162 Posts
On December 16 2011 10:29 Zalithian wrote: 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. It's a pretty fair statement imo. Companies are pretty weary about suites in the US. However, his logic that if the process was carried out in bad faith that a suite will be successful is flawed because if you shut down the website you effectively remove their income and ability to successfully sue. Because of the severity of action, there needs to be oversight before the action takes place. | ||
|
Chargelot
2275 Posts
| ||
|
ManaFortress
Sweden23 Posts
On December 16 2011 10:31 Ben... wrote: 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. Issa, Lofgren and Polis are the only sensable people in the room, and probably 3 of the few people not being bribed. | ||
|
nohbrows
United States653 Posts
On December 16 2011 10:31 Ben... wrote: 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. I agree. Issa, the other rep from California and Ms. Jackson is a nice breath of rationality in the room. Although i jumped into the middle of the stream, and oh god, I am so removed from context I'm having some trouble. | ||
|
hmunkey
United Kingdom1973 Posts
On December 16 2011 10:31 Ben... wrote: 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. Issa is the representative from the district that includes several tech companies and he's "in the pocket" of Google, Apple, etc. He also founded a somewhat large tech company before he was involved in politics. Basically representatives specifically represent their districts, so Issa is representing the largest employers and their employees in Callifornia's 49th district. Naturally he gets a lot of his support and information from people who are actively against SOPA. On December 16 2011 10:33 ManaFortress wrote: Issa, Lofgren and Polis are the only sensable people in the room, and probably 3 of the few people not being bribed. I highly doubt any of them are being bribed, but if you're going to imply they are Issa is most certainly in that group. You realize the district he's from includes Google and other anti-SOPA companies, right? It just so happens that in this case we all agree with what he's saying. | ||
|
NB
Netherlands12045 Posts
| ||
|
Zalithian
520 Posts
On December 16 2011 10:32 Myles wrote: It's a pretty fair statement imo. Companies are pretty weary about suites in the US. However, his logic that if the process was carried out in bad faith that a suite will be successful is flawed because if you shut down the website you effectively remove their income and ability to successfully sue. Because of the severity of action, there needs to be oversight before the action takes place. The problem is that the amendment discourages people actually having evidence before shutting down a site. There is no penalty, yes? So if you want to take a site down you can do it, and even if it wasn't warranted there is no punishment. If companies do things properly there is no liability, as Mr. Scott said. Certainly unconstitutional. | ||
|
nohbrows
United States653 Posts
On December 16 2011 10:34 hmunkey wrote: Issa is the representative from the district that includes several tech companies and he's "in the pocket" of Google, Apple, etc. He also founded a somewhat large tech company before he was involved in politics. Basically representatives specifically represent their districts, so Issa is representing the largest employers and their employees in Callifornia's 49th district. Naturally he gets a lot of his support and information from people who are actively against SOPA. The fact that if whatever he is saying is just a result of him being a mouth piece for tech companies, its sure a lot more logical sounding than the other people in the room. What does that say about the bill itself, and those who support it. | ||
|
hmunkey
United Kingdom1973 Posts
On December 16 2011 10:36 nohbrows wrote: The fact that if whatever he is saying is just a result of him being a mouth piece for tech companies, its sure a lot more logical sounding than the other people in the room. What does that say about the bill itself, and those who support it. Oh yeah of course. I'm not saying he's wrong, just pointing out the facts. That's the whole point of representatives though -- they're the mouthpieces of their constituents. Reps from evangelical areas are anti-gay, and those from liberal places like San Francisco are pro-gay, etc. Issa is from a tech-heavy area so naturally he supports their interests. | ||
|
Myles
United States5162 Posts
On December 16 2011 10:34 Zalithian wrote: The problem is that the amendment discourages people actually having evidence before shutting down a site. There is no penalty, yes? So if you want to take a site down you can do it, and even if it wasn't warranted there is no punishment. If companies do things properly there is no liability, as Mr. Scott said. Certainly unconstitutional. The logic is that the punishment is being sued for acting in bad faith. But as I said, because they have already taken down the site it severely limits their ability to sue. Whether there is immunity for acting in good faith is given or not, there needs to be oversight before action is taken. | ||
|
Zalithian
520 Posts
On December 16 2011 10:40 Myles wrote: The logic is that the punishment is being sued for acting in bad faith. But as I said, because they have already taken down the site it severely limits their ability to sue. Whether there is immunity for acting in good faith is given or not, there needs to be oversight before action is taken. Agreed. Recorded votes are good though, more time to see the clerk. | ||
|
Ben...
Canada3485 Posts
| ||
|
ManaFortress
Sweden23 Posts
On December 16 2011 10:34 hmunkey wrote: Issa is the representative from the district that includes several tech companies and he's "in the pocket" of Google, Apple, etc. He also founded a somewhat large tech company before he was involved in politics. Basically representatives specifically represent their districts, so Issa is representing the largest employers and their employees in Callifornia's 49th district. Naturally he gets a lot of his support and information from people who are actively against SOPA. Your point? This only shows that he is one of the few in the room tha actually knows anything about internet and the tech behind it. You should have heard what most of the others said earlier, -"I am not a nerd, but i dont think that such a thing is needed" - -"but several experts in the subject says thats how it is" -"I dont belive that" And yes they used the actuall word "nerd" instead of educated expert. | ||
|
Serpico
4285 Posts
On December 16 2011 10:43 Ben... wrote: "What are we voting". What a joke. All the people who didn't talk are just blind-voting no. Did they really have to ask what the vote was about? | ||
|
jchan
40 Posts
| ||
|
nohbrows
United States653 Posts
On December 16 2011 10:38 hmunkey wrote: Oh yeah of course. I'm not saying he's wrong, just pointing out the facts. That's the whole point of representatives though -- they're the mouthpieces of their constituents. Reps from evangelical areas are anti-gay, and those from liberal places like San Francisco are pro-gay, etc. Issa is from a tech-heavy area so naturally he supports their interests. never was disagreeing with yah!  Just realized that I pretty much repeated what you just said in that quoted post. Whoops. | ||
|
Serpico
4285 Posts
. | ||
|
Zalithian
520 Posts
On December 16 2011 10:45 Serpico wrote: It's weird, the votes are almost all the same both ways on every amendment, almost like no one has come into the meeting with an open mind .I'm sure they got their money to stay "no" :D | ||
| ||
