Hell I did not even know he had a documentary.
1. Not knowing about it I would never buy it.
2. I hate the dip shit so I would never buy it anyways.
I think I will have to download it delete it and download it again just so I can take twice the money out of his pocket.
Wait remind me again what money would he have gotten from me?
Hmm Seems weird that the CEO of a bank gets caught and plead guilty to money laundering but yet they did not close the bank or even its site down why?
Probably because it would have effected all the people that used the bank but wait never mind this shut down effected the world not just the U.S. Damn where is the logic?
I don't care how much infringement was there and how much was not the point is they took down the way that Many use to distribute their own Cad files, Software, Music, Videos, and pictures. All before court this is not the same as a drug dealer losing his car that affects him and only those close to him this effected the world.
I was lucky My stuff is on Rapidshare using Directdownloads so I am ok for now but
It just cost me 3000 dollars to buy and put in the servers extra line I need and my clients still can't download at a reasonable speed If it is going to cost more than about another 1000 to get a tolerable speed I am shutting the doors on the section of my life as its not worth it.
Ok so I was reading it right that had been bugging me and I had wanted to make sure I was not mistaken before using as talking points. I am not a lawyer, they use so much double talk its a pain to make out what they are talking about.
I have said from the first time I saw it that it was written so badly and broadly that nothing is immune from it no matter what they try to say. If it is not written clear and concise with no room for misinterpretation then it will be abused.
Scrap them and focus on the counterfeiting with clear and concise language, as that is something that has potential to harm U.S. citizens.
Innovate to cut back on infringement you will never remove it, so make it so easy, reasonably priced, and able to use when and where your customers want it legally that its point less to hunt down the infringing content.
I must be reading this all wrong here lets take the section you just posted
(23) U.S.-DIRECTED SITE- The term `U.S.-directed site' means an Internet site or portion thereof that is used to conduct business directed to residents of the United States, or that otherwise demonstrates the existence of minimum contacts sufficient for the exercise of personal jurisdiction over the owner or operator of the Internet site consistent with the Constitution of the United States, based on relevant evidence that may include whether--
(D) any prices for goods and services are indicated or billed in the currency of the United States.
Then follow it up with
SEC. 102. ACTION BY ATTORNEY GENERAL TO PROTECT U.S. CUSTOMERS AND PREVENT U.S. SUPPORT OF FOREIGN INFRINGING SITES.
(a) Definition- For purposes of this section, a foreign Internet site or portion thereof is a `foreign infringing site' if--
(1) the Internet site or portion thereof is a U.S.-directed site and is used by users in the United States;
Does that not break down to all sites that conduct business directed to residents of the United States a U.S.-directed site and there for a foreign Internet site. In which case any infringement for on it then becomes a `foreign infringing site' making any site able to have SOPA applied to it foreign or domestic?
Please someone school me in this that's my reading but I am not great on following all jargon. And we was told it only would affect Foreign Sites then we are being told it would not apply to any site.
He is free to say whatever he wants.
As long as he is in congress he has a duty to represent the people in his district.
Apparently he felt that supporting the bill in their name was not the best choice.
Does not mean that he personally feels one way or the other.
Hmm weird he mentioned the Happy birthday song it was created based off the good morning song written in 1896 and uses the same melody. Infringe much? Anyway the first remembered in print of the happy birthday song was in 1912 and it was not till 1935 a company (not the creators) copyrighted it. It is debatable on who really wrote it. Copyright on Happy Birthday is not up in the US till 2030 that's 95 years from the copyright and 123 years since it first appeared in print Now since it was released without notice of copyright under the Copyright Act of 1909 should the 1935 registration be not invalid? Some guy two or three times removed from the creators is making the royalties. How does this help the creator or their families?
Hmm and they wonder why people tend think this copyright system is in desperate need to be fixed.
Now on to TPB and the Netherlands umm ok he can't really say it dropped off that much but even he could support that and the traffic show that TPB recieved 80% less from there that might be because hey people decided to use proxies and vnc's and where the traffic came from or is going is hidden. TPB would have to report an 80% decrease in traffic on there end. But I guess if I was TPB I would say oh no it dropped 80% so the Netherlands would think they solved their problem and shut up.
I think that is more of the TECH side came out and made it clear to the upper management that its not possible. So the right hand was finally "heard" what the left hand was saying.
I added the "" around heard because as with kids the upper management is told but they don't hear till its in their face.