|
|
[B]On January 19 2012 19:52 Hittomogasin wrote:[B]
Are you kidding me?
Why would I waste my time writing a essay with supporting facts to you when you have done no such thing as to support your point of views?
You could've just said, "I don't know which titles and sections I oppose arbitrationus, because I haven't read it and therefore dont know which portions of the bill I'm against". That would've been sufficient I think.
|
On January 19 2012 20:01 Flameberger wrote:
What cause with you? You yourself didnt include anything substantial to back up your point, and until you do you are just a person with a different opinion. Not sone obstacle that we need to deal with before we can continue to have our own opinions.
This literally makes no sense, whatsoever.
And in this jumble of non-nonsensical ranting I encountered from you, it seems as if you haven't posted a single section of the bill as evidence for your opposition. Still waiting.
|
On January 19 2012 20:29 arbitrationus wrote:
I support the entirety of the bill. There's no need for me to post specific titles and sections.
But to the three posters who took the time to foam at the mouth, and attempted to use said foaming as an excuse not to post titles and articles to support your position (an impossibility since clearly none of you read it), kudos. You remain a brainwashed drone.
LOL
Watch this its going to blow your mind.
"I do not support the entirety of the bill. There's no need for me to post specific titles and sections.
But to the arbitrationus poster who took the time to foam at the mouth, and attempted to use said foaming as an excuse not to post titles and articles to support your position (an impossibility since clearly none of you read it), kudos. You remain a brainwashed drone."
Funny how that works isn't it?
I don't usually reply to people like you but I read the other posts you made here on TL.
They are the same content less,self-opinionated posts that do nothing apart from show how much you "get life" and how for you,the things you write are the only truths just because it makes sense to your brain.
This is the last time I reply to you unless you come up with a Pro-sopa article and than we can discuss your points of view.
|
On January 19 2012 20:37 TheKefka wrote:
LOL
Watch this its going to blow your mind.
"I do not support the entirety of the bill. There's no need for me to post specific titles and sections".
Sure you do. Since you don't support it in it's entirety (while I do), you must list the specific sections of the bill you oppose and why. Since I COMPLETELY support the bill, I list the bill IN ITS ENTIRETY as my source.
Really didn't think Id have to hold your hand on that one.
|
On January 19 2012 20:41 arbitrationus wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2012 20:37 TheKefka wrote:
LOL
Watch this its going to blow your mind.
"I do not support the entirety of the bill. There's no need for me to post specific titles and sections".
Sure you do. Since you don't support it in it's entirety (while I do), you must list the specific sections of the bill you oppose and why. Since I COMPLETELY support the bill, I list the bill IN ITS ENTIRETY as my source. Really didn't think Id have to hold you hand on that one.
Wow.
|
[B]On January 19 2012 20:42 TheKefka wrote:
Wow.
Hmm. Is that after Sec. 103 (a) (1)? Or before the part where you said you would no longer reply to me in your last post?
Gimme a sec, Ill check it.
|
On January 19 2012 20:29 arbitrationus wrote:
I support the entirety of the bill. There's no need for me to post specific titles and sections.
But to the three posters who took the time to foam at the mouth, and attempted to use said foaming as an excuse not to post titles and articles to support your position (an impossibility since clearly none of you read it), kudos. You remain a brainwashed drone.
Ok, seriously, unamusing troll + offensive + not brining anything positive to the discution . 17 posts , obviously made account for this purpose, and since he is here to mock and offend, I see no reason why he shouldn't get a perma ip ban
|
|
|
[B]On January 19 2012 21:01 bOneSeven wrote:
Ok, seriously, unamusing troll + offensive + not brining anything positive to the discution . 17 posts , obviously made account for this purpose, and since he is here to mock and offend, I see no reason why he shouldn't get a perma ip ban
If you think calling me a troll and tossing personal insults my way excuses you from posting the reasons and sections of SOPA that you oppose and having a legitimate discussion, it doesn't. Give me a title, section, line, anything, instead of giving me the same nonsensical ranting that your peers have up until this point.
|
As long as their version is the same as the regular House version, I have Technics. Does that page list any direct criticisms of specific portions of the bill? If so, Ill give it a look.
Edit: Nice, a live markup of the bill. First time I've seen something like this, Ill DEFINETLY be digging into this one over the course of the day. Big props man.
However, would still be nice if some TL posters could bring up specific issues that they themselves have encountered with it. But maybe I'm expecting too much.
|
arbitrationus, please stop posting here, you are just making a fool out of yourself. Either you are a troll and you should be banned, or you are serious and you should be banned too(but well i guess we can't ban for stupidity).
|
On January 19 2012 21:15 Roggay wrote:
arbitrationus, please stop posting here, you are just making a fool out of yourself. Either you are a troll and you should be banned, or you are serious and you should be banned too(but well i guess we can't ban for stupidity).
I guess the mods are sleeping at this time. Your literally the fifth person to respond to my post with ZERO evidence, titles, sections, lines, or anything of the sort from sopa.
The only fool here is the poster who expects to oppose a piece of legislation as important as this without providing any specific evidence of why. And as your post reveals, your definitely included in this bunch.
So far, all the pro-Sopa TL members who have responded to me are able to do is 1) call people whom they disagree with trolls, 2) call those disagree with stupid, and 3) hide behind the aforementioned personal attacks in an effort to hide their inability to formulate a legitimate argument for their position.
Instead of attacking me without warrant, I would advise you dudes to read Sopa. You might have something to actually say if you did.
|
I can't believe I'm falling for this troll.
+ Show Spoiler +SEC. 103. MARKET-BASED SYSTEM TO PROTECT U.S. CUSTOMERS AND PREVENT U.S. FUNDING OF SITES DEDICATED TO THEFT OF U.S. PROPERTY.
(a) Definitions- In this section:
(1) DEDICATED TO THEFT OF U.S. PROPERTY- An `Internet site is dedicated to theft of U.S. property' if--
(A) it is an Internet site, or a portion thereof, that is a U.S.-directed site and is used by users within the United States; and
(B) either--
(i) the U.S.-directed site is primarily designed or operated for the purpose of, has only limited purpose or use other than, or is marketed by its operator or another acting in concert with that operator for use in, offering goods or services in a manner that engages in, enables, or facilitates--
(I) a violation of section 501 of title 17, United States Code;
(II) a violation of section 1201 of title 17, United States Code; or
(III) the sale, distribution, or promotion of goods, services, or materials bearing a counterfeit mark, as that term is defined in section 34(d) of the Lanham Act or section 2320 of title 18, United States Code; or
(ii) the operator of the U.S.-directed site--
(I) is taking, or has taken, deliberate actions to avoid confirming a high probability of the use of the U.S.-directed site to carry out acts that constitute a violation of section 501 or 1201 of title 17, United States Code; or
(II) operates the U.S.-directed site with the object of promoting, or has promoted, its use to carry out acts that constitute a violation of section 501 or 1201 of title 17, United States Code, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement.
(2) QUALIFYING PLAINTIFF- The term `qualifying plaintiff' means, with respect to a particular Internet site or portion thereof, a holder of an intellectual property right harmed by the activities described in paragraph (1) occurring on that Internet site or portion thereof.
(b) Denying U.S. Financial Support of Sites Dedicated to Theft of U.S. Property-
Sec.103.(a)(1)
Youtube,Facebook,twitter,uploadwhatever.......
They all are sites that can potentially be interpreted as "sites dedicated to theft of U.S. property".
You do not understand the amount of sheer effort that would have to be necessary to punish and prosecute each and every violation,not to mention the money it would take that the US doesn't have.Besides what are you going to do,put 100 million people into jail?
48 HOURS of video material are uploaded on you tube PER MINUTE.This is insane and its only one site.
These kind of sites,or any other sites that you are able to upload any kind of copyright content to would become paranoid to even host their domain in the US.
When I talked about SOPA I never argued about the piracy side of the bill.
Is piracy right?No,its not.It doesn't matter.
This bill is impossible to enforce in practice.The economic damage this bill would cause along the side is the real irony here.
This article explains the main points on why SOPA is a badly written bill http://mashable.com/2012/01/17/sopa-dangerous-opinion/
|
On January 19 2012 21:22 arbitrationus wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2012 21:15 Roggay wrote:
arbitrationus, please stop posting here, you are just making a fool out of yourself. Either you are a troll and you should be banned, or you are serious and you should be banned too(but well i guess we can't ban for stupidity). I guess the mods are sleeping at this time. Your literally the fifth person to respond to my post with ZERO evidence, titles, sections, lines, or anything of the sort from sopa. The only fool here is the poster who expects to oppose a piece of legislation as important as this without providing any specific evidence of why. And as your post reveals, your definitely included in this bunch. So far, all the pro-Sopa TL members who have responded to me are able to do is 1) call people whom they disagree with trolls, 2) call those disagree with stupid, and 3) hide behind the aforementioned personal attacks in an effort to hide their inability to formulate a legitimate argument for their position. Instead of attacking me without warrant, I would advise you dudes to read Sopa. You might have something to actually say if you did.
Do you think I need to read the entire piece of legislation to have a general idea of what it will actually do?
Do you think that almost EVERY other poster in this thread is wrong because they didnt read the entire thing and oppose SOPA?
Do you think I can't see truth in the opposition of this legislation when several important website / community are doing blackouts to protest?
Even the medias of my country are reporting on it as a very bad legislation, are they all wrong and unprofessionnal?
I can very well have an idea of what this legislation is about without reading it all, and without having to quote every piece of it to people like you.
|
On January 19 2012 21:11 arbitrationus wrote:As long as their version is the same as the regular House version, I have Technics. Does that page list any direct criticisms of specific portions of the bill? If so, Ill give it a look. Edit: Nice, a live markup of the bill. First time I've seen something like this, Ill DEFINETLY be digging into this one over the course of the day. Big props man. However, would still be nice if some TL posters could bring up specific issues that they themselves have encountered with it. But maybe I'm expecting too much.
Hm, that brings a few points to my head. If there's any, what's the difference between the regular House version and this one, in the website? If I read the one here - http://keepthewebopen.com/sopa, will I be in full knowledge of what is being proposed by the Lamar guy? As I am not a law scholar at all... will it be that hard for me to fully, or at least sufficiently, understand SOPA? I guess at least there will be many refferences to things i have no clue about ;D
Also did Lamar wrote all this stuff alone or has he got a team who did it together with him?
In the recent months I had to do some academic stuff, which involved reading thoroughly through the new 'Elections code' here in Bulgaria. Even though I am not a law scholar, I comprehend my own language pretty well and had no expectations to be troubled reading and understanding it, yet it was still not an easy task to do. What i'm trying to say is that i will probably give SOPA a try but I am not sure if i will make it so i can be satisfied :D
also, can i know some sufficient additional information for you, in order to trust the authenticity of the things you say?
|
Glad you finally came to your senses Kefka, and decided to FINALLY contribute to the discussion. About time.
Now, on to your points. After quoting the specific section I mentioned (and, noting here, that you provided none whatsoever for me to examine), I summarized your argument with the following quote:
On January 19 2012 21:25 TheKefka wrote:
This bill is impossible to enforce in practice.The economic damage this bill would cause is the real irony here.
Who says its impossible to enforce? Where does sopa say that EVERY SINGLE WEBSITE EVER will be policed, or can be policed?
These are not claims made by the legislators or the legislation, only those who wish to detract from the advantages and extended authority's the bill grants to the federal gov.
|
On January 19 2012 21:30 Roggay wrote:
I can very well have an idea of what this legislation is about without reading it all, and without having to quote every piece of it to people like you.
Wrong.
You can have a very good idea about what somebody else THINKS this legislation is about. You, yourself, as in Roggay the troll, wont KNOW what it's about until you confirm for yourself the purpose of said legislation through personal viewing.
As for your second point, look up, "Ad hominem". I never said you had, "to quote every piece of it" to me, as in the bill in it's entirety. I only asked that you reference the parts of the bill that you opposed.
If you need me to hold your hand any further, just give me another shout. Otherwise, Im still waiting for the pieces of sopa that you oppose you troll.
|
On January 19 2012 21:32 LRM)TechnicS wrote:Hm, that brings a few points to my head. If there's any, what's the difference between the regular House version and this one, in the website? If I read the one here - http://keepthewebopen.com/sopa, will I be in full knowledge of what is being proposed by the Lamar guy? As I am not a law scholar at all... will it be that hard for me to fully, or at least sufficiently, understand SOPA? I guess at least there will be many refferences to things i have no clue about ;D Also did Lamar wrote all this stuff alone or has he got a team who did it together with him? In the recent months I had to do some academic stuff, which involved reading thoroughly through the new 'Elections code' here in Bulgaria. Even though I am not a law scholar, I comprehend my own language pretty well and had no expectations to be troubled reading and understanding it, yet it was still not an easy task to do. What i'm trying to say is that i will probably give SOPA a try but I am not sure if i will make it so i can be satisfied :D also, can i know some sufficient additional information for you, in order to trust the authenticity of the things you say?
Looks about the same TechnicS. Read the bill on that site and you should be up to speed on sopa.
Its only a 75 page bill, which is tiny compared to most pieces of legislation. Give it a try, you wont regret it, and unlike most of the posters on this thread you'll actually be able to form your own opinion on the topic. Kudos to you : D
As far as my personal authenticity (strange way of putting it dude, lol), what would you like to know? <3
|
On January 19 2012 21:33 arbitrationus wrote:Glad you finally came to your senses Kefka, and decided to FINALLY contribute to the discussion. About time. Now, on to your points. After quoting the specific section I mentioned (and, noting here, that you provided none whatsoever for me to examine), I summarized your argument with the following quote: Show nested quote +On January 19 2012 21:25 TheKefka wrote:
This bill is impossible to enforce in practice.The economic damage this bill would cause is the real irony here.
Who says its impossible to enforce? Where does sopa say that EVERY SINGLE WEBSITE EVER will be policed, or can be policed?
It doesn't lol,that's the point.
It says MARKET-BASED SYSTEM TO PROTECT U.S. CUSTOMERS AND PREVENT U.S. FUNDING OF SITES DEDICATED TO THEFT OF U.S. PROPERTY.
Who's is going to decide what sites are and are not dedicated to theft of US property?
Because Facebook is not Napster,but it sure can be interpreted as a site like Napster if a site is able to
An `Internet site is dedicated to theft of U.S. property’ if [a portion of the site is US-directed] and is used by users within the United States and is primarily designed or operated for the purpose of offering services in a manner that enables or facilitates [copyright violation or circumvention of copyright protection measures].
The bill is vague for a reason.It gives a tool so the government can decide what and what not to prosecute and I sure as hell wouldn't be comfortable to have a law in place that can fine me for x amount of $ based or put me in jail on basis of vague interpretation.
|
On January 19 2012 21:30 Roggay wrote:
Do you think I can't see truth in the opposition of this legislation when several important website / community are doing blackouts to protest?
Your right. Why should I rely on my personal set of deductive tools and reasoning, when I can allow big websites and big business to do all of my thinking for me?
I mean, Google protested it, right? Scamming-American-pharmaceutical-companies-and-settling-out-of-court-on-every-crime-committed-to-pay-my-way-out-of-an-injunction Google, that Google right?
I was mistaken to question your sources good sir. I should have known that your unfailing trust in the beacon of light known as corporate America would guide your viewpoint much more credibly then researching a topic for yourself could ever hope to achieve.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
