|
|
On December 16 2011 10:43 ManaFortress wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2011 10:34 hmunkey wrote:On December 16 2011 10:31 Ben... wrote:On December 16 2011 10:29 Zalithian wrote: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. 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.
I was just explaining why Issa knows what he's talking about and why he's taking the side against SOPA. If Viacom was based in his district he'd be doing the exact opposite, which would be fine. That's the entire point of representatives.
|
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/fiREN.jpg)
User was warned for this post
|
On December 16 2011 10:47 Razith wrote:
That chick did seem high.
|
On December 16 2011 10:48 Zalithian wrote:
That chick did seem high.
Thats why she's got the blunt.
|
Smith disappointing me again. I give up on him.
|
Canada5565 Posts
Just got back from an exam. What did I miss? Did Mr. Watt finally yield??
|
On December 16 2011 10:54 Xxio wrote:
Just got back from an exam. What did I miss? Did Mr. Watt finally yield??
Basically Watt, Berman, and Smith are shutting down all reasonable amendments despite every valid point made by Issa, Lofgren, Polis, Scott, Jackson-Lee. It's quite shameful.
|
United States5162 Posts
Why is this guy still railing about immunity? All they want is some oversight before taking down a website.
|
On December 16 2011 10:56 Myles wrote:
Why is this guy still railing about immunity? All they want is some oversight before taking down a website.
Cause he got paid to do so, I'd venture.
|
this is like a drama that you know there will be no good ending but you keep on watching because of the occasionally comedy in it.... so sad...
|
On December 16 2011 10:53 Zalithian wrote:
Smith disappointing me again. I give up on him. He must be getting a fairly nice cheque.
This Berman guy needs to stop talking. He does not seem to be even arguing about nothing. All the other dude wanted to have added was a court order.
I need to stop watching this. It's frustrating me too much and I need to focus on studying.
This Scott guy is also not horrible it seems.
|
btw, quoting sanchez (credit to /r/sopa)
Instead of closing down and arresting everyone in a crackhouse, it's like changing all the streetsigns and roads so that it's a lot more difficult to find the crackhouse. But it's still there, and if you try hard enough, you can find it. It also messes everyone else up, making places much hard to find for other folks.
edit: oh this is him, not sanchez http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jared_Polis
|
On December 16 2011 11:00 NB wrote:btw, quoting sanchez (credit to /r/sopa) Show nested quote +Instead of closing down and arresting everyone in a crackhouse, it's like changing all the streetsigns and roads so that it's a lot more difficult to find the crackhouse. But it's still there, and if you try hard enough, you can find it. It also messes everyone else up, making places much hard to find for other folks.
but...but at least we made it harder for pirates and that's all that matters! None of them will ever think of what happens to people not pirating anything. It's sad because those should be the people you think most about, not pirates.
|
Can someone explain how this argument resolves into "we shouldn't pass the amendment"?
Person 1: Need court oversight to make sure companies don't just take down anything with a sham notice because there is no provision for courts in bill.
Person 2: That's in the bill I think.
Person 1: Well pass amendment to make it explicit b/c it is not right now.
|
On December 16 2011 11:05 Shaetan wrote:
Can someone explain how this argument resolves into "we shouldn't pass the amendment"?
Person 1: Need court oversight to make sure companies don't just take down anything with a sham notice because there is no provision for courts in bill.
Person 2: That's in the bill I think.
Person 1: Well pass amendment to make it explicit b/c it is not right now.
Elaborate? I wasn't listening to the stream.
|
Oh snap, this guy is using jobs to support this amendment. Now the dumb people will listen.
Edit: this is different than DMCA AAARRRRGGHHHHHH
Illegal Rogue Websites: A huge threat
This guy has no fricken clue what he's talking about.
|
On December 16 2011 11:05 Shaetan wrote:
Can someone explain how this argument resolves into "we shouldn't pass the amendment"?
Person 1: Need court oversight to make sure companies don't just take down anything with a sham notice because there is no provision for courts in bill.
Person 2: That's in the bill I think.
Person 1: Well pass amendment to make it explicit b/c it is not right now.
These people are just retarded. P.S. FUCK YOU GOODLATTE OMG.
|
On December 16 2011 11:06 hmunkey wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2011 11:05 Shaetan wrote:
Can someone explain how this argument resolves into "we shouldn't pass the amendment"?
Person 1: Need court oversight to make sure companies don't just take down anything with a sham notice because there is no provision for courts in bill.
Person 2: That's in the bill I think.
Person 1: Well pass amendment to make it explicit b/c it is not right now. Elaborate? I wasn't listening to the stream.
The current discussion (I believe) is that the bill does not have a provision requiring a court to sign off on website shutdown. Otherwise (the argument is) that anyone can send a notice to a host requesting a shutdown of a site and they will comply because they will be immune to prosecution if they do the shutdown and will not want to face legal repercussions if they do not shut down the site. Thus the amendment is to require court oversight/court order to shutdown sites.
Argument against it (at least one of them) is that someone thinks that there is a requirement for court oversight.
Amendment author says that it is not explicit so should pass it to make it explicit.
|
On December 16 2011 11:09 Shaetan wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2011 11:06 hmunkey wrote:On December 16 2011 11:05 Shaetan wrote:
Can someone explain how this argument resolves into "we shouldn't pass the amendment"?
Person 1: Need court oversight to make sure companies don't just take down anything with a sham notice because there is no provision for courts in bill.
Person 2: That's in the bill I think.
Person 1: Well pass amendment to make it explicit b/c it is not right now. Elaborate? I wasn't listening to the stream. The current discussion (I believe) is that the bill does not have a provision requiring a court to sign off on website shutdown. Otherwise (the argument is) that anyone can send a notice to a host requesting a shutdown of a site and they will comply because they will be immune to prosecution if they do the shutdown and will not want to face legal repercussions if they do not shut down the site. Thus the amendment is to require court oversight/court order to shutdown sites. Argument against it (at least one of them) is that someone thinks that there is a requirement for court oversight. Amendment author says that it is not explicit so should pass it to make it explicit.
No I get that. What did you mean with your question though? Did the author acquiesce?
|
On December 16 2011 11:05 Shaetan wrote:
Can someone explain how this argument resolves into "we shouldn't pass the amendment"?
Person 1: Need court oversight to make sure companies don't just take down anything with a sham notice because there is no provision for courts in bill.
Person 2: That's in the bill I think.
Person 1: Well pass amendment to make it explicit b/c it is not right now.
they agreed that court involve is correct but court action is stated in the section before 1.2.c(fix me if im wrong) in 1.2.1(again i dont rmb) as a prereq to 1.2.c (which is what they were fighting for.
More over the court order is not necessary(in their opinion) because the action would be limited under the user agreement of the firms and copy rights atc etc...
basicly they are bs-ing so they could create a small loop hole for big corp to run around.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
