Neither I nor anybody else has said anything of the sort. Either you're making things up or you're not comprehending what is said.

They have stated their defiance of the law in public on a number of occasions. I'd suggest that you look into their official pronouncements during the Google Books mess as a starting point.

As usual, you're wrong. First, the likelihood of it getting tossed on Constitutional grounds is extremely small. Second, if it were to happen the constitutional issues would be narrowly and precisely defined and would present no obstacle to a new law designed with those objections in mind.


The problem with your way of thinking is that you're not willing to give anything with a good possibility of being effective a chance to prove itself. You don't know there would be constitutional issues. You have no reason (other than paranoia) to assume massive abuses.

You'll accept any cockamamie scare tactic the tech sector propaganda machine concocts without critical thought.

your words John- not mine.....


Prove and bring charges. Anything short of it is screaming in the wind.

And what might you base that on John? you dont know that, and the bill hasnt made it out of committee- something that you, and anybody else has ZERO control over- so this posturing of yours denies any understanding of the way laws are made. So please stop lecturing me about it.

well thats your opinion- and your entitled to it. It doesnt make a fact, or a "truth" in the universal sense. And you have no idea of my position- so please stop pretending to know.

The issue is huge- and extends WAY beyond this little part of the economy.

Exactly why they can't allow Google to bully the Bill into the ground.

Remember the How a Bill becomes Law cartoon?

Google is the crazy kid chasing 'Mr. Bill' with a blowtorch.
(in the revised version of the cartoon of course )


This isn't just about us muso's.

This is about Intellectual Property. A concept as old (actually Older) as our country.

so I assume that someone has already checked out the campaign contribution records for the members of the Judiciary Committee and the sponsors of the bill-

As I said earlier, Adam Schiff is my rep, and a co-sponser of the Bill- I also have a Yahoo Campus about 3 miles away.... I guess I will have to see if they are contributors of his....

All you need is for Google to reduce the search results linking to politicians who are pro copyright etc.......

no chris, I do disagree, and the facepalm thing is tiresome-


Case in point- If a politician is being supported by unions (as many ********* are) AND Google- where do you think the allegiance might fall? Thankfully, the campaign finance laws here are used by both parties to beat on each other, so they seem to have no real interest in limiting their data....

case in point-

Obama's top contributors-

University of California $1,648,685
Goldman Sachs $1,013,091
Harvard University $878,164
Microsoft Corp $852,167
Google Inc $814,540
JPMorgan Chase & Co $808,799
Citigroup Inc $736,771
Time Warner $624,618
Sidley Austin LLP $600,298
Stanford University $595,716
National Amusements Inc $563,798
WilmerHale LLP $550,668
Columbia University $547,852
Skadden, Arps et al $543,539
UBS AG $532,674
IBM Corp $532,372
General Electric $529,855
US Government $513,308
Morgan Stanley $512,232
Latham & Watkins $503,295

whiose interest do you think he might lean towards?

To be clear, I was saying campaign finances aside Google and Facebook (for example) wield extraordinary power that's almost impossible to detect - like limiting the search results linking to their rivals (aka pro-copyright politicians).
Have you been following the Murdoch enquiry in the UK?
Similar situation, just old technology instead of new.

The piracy forum can't become the political forum lite.
Some of the comments made in the last few posts are highly political and highly subjective.
In past months members have been banned for discussing similar.
It's unfair therefore to post in this manner and expect not to be challenged - by members with infractions and a history of being thrown out of the forum.

I'll stop lecturing when you stop spouting nonsense. Deal?

GARY, COOL IT WITH THE POLITICAL ATTACKS!!!

If it doesn't pertain directly to piracy it DOES NOT BELONG HERE.

If you keep it up the staff will step in and none of us want that.

OK, that's it, you're reported.

I'm sorry, we can't have that here. I actually sympathize with a lot of the things you're saying and we appreciate your support on SOPA, but you can't be discussing Wall Street bailouts, The War on Drugs, or any other specifically forbidden topics here or Jules will close the forum.

Well both of you are heavy on the blatant politicking.
It's kind of understandable when it comes to SOPA and music piracy, less so when it's just railing against politicians and politics.
In the past, before Charles actively posted in this forum, punishment was swift when any Gearslut posted a political comment, not dissimilar to the comments both of you have recently posted.

since your understanding of how legislation gets through Congress seems to be fanciful, I would say you have some issues with spouting nonsense as well. Pigs can fly, but only on the 6th Friday of the month in a leap year. In that regard, you are damaging your cause more than helping it. I could go into support via history, but it would be too political for the discussion.

this really does not belong here... this is a piracy forum, not a politics forum... admittedly piracy is political, but the discussion should be limited to policy about piracy legislation... broader politics and talk of specific politicians and partisan politics are a taboo here...

I'm out till the mods clean this up... there are at least three threads running amok with purely political posts...

So we can talk all day about how evil Google is and its too political to show that they have donated nearly a million dollars to the guy who may actually sign SOPA into law....

thats some powerful shit you are smoking there....

I am a Democrat by the way- and there was no partisan component to ANY of my comments- and it seems some of the folks here have lost some perspective.... actually it seems unless you are following the party line here you are considered a troll.....

well, I think some here are the trolls they keep complaining about. Perhaps Jules does need to take a look at the forum.... it certainly isnt one of discussion.

Google are arguably 'evil' in terms of their treatment of content creators.
It's OK I think to mention they wield a lot of power, either through donation or their online actions.
For example we recently discussed US government action on IP protection in light of Obama's Facebook town hall events and behind closed doors meetings with facebook personnel.
It is however completely unfair to dive straight into partisan politics, when several active posters have received infractions and some bannings, for doing less. Myself included!

Untrue and extremely unfair, given the way infractions have been handed out in the past.

The 'one side' would be the one introducing politics as a general subject.

this thread is on thin ice... I've been posting in this part of the board since before this sub-forum even existed.

there's a difference between discussing google, and listing one candidates campaign contributions. it makes no difference your personal affiliations, or not... the line has been crossed and all those engaged in OT politics apart from the specific legislation being contemplated would do well to get by on topic asap.

I'm just sharing some experience with ya'll... but please, do as thou wilt...

in the case of SOPA- or any law that is being proposed is that it IS POLITICS. PERIOD.... Politicians decide the matter, vote for it, and a Politican, the President signs or vetoes it. If we are to talk about the creation of law it is not separable from it.

General anti (or pro) governement issues ARE NOT a part of that conversation- at least as far as the rules Jules has established.

Piracy as a general topic isnt political. And I would agree with you entirely that bringing politics into THAT discussion has no place.

How so? My understanding of how bills go through Congress is quite clear. That's why I'm so vehement in supporting the ORIGINAL SOPA bill, as originally written, without amendments or "adjustments" which will only serve to water it down and destroy its effectiveness.

However, if they do to this bill what they've done to other recent socially responsible bills then the amended bill will be an emasculated piece of crap that might even be worse than nothing at all, a la DMCA.

I don't want to see what table scraps are left after all the "compromises" have chopped it to bits. I want it passed NOW, as written. And I don't support the compromise/adjustment/amendment process on this particular bill because anything they do is almost certain to make it less effective.

And the first ones to suffer are going to be the small indie labels and self-releasing musicians.

we have little control over what happens to the bill in committee John. Thats my point- we might want it to be left intact, but that simply is so unlikely that I would say its virtually impossible. What is possible is to try to steer the corrections so they dont impact the meat of our needs. That is possible.

Hence, my comment-

The problem is when people stray into uncontrolled rants about corruption, Wall Street, drug policy, racial discrimination, starving children in Africa, petro-economics, anarchist theory, the trilateral commission, the New World Order, blah, blah and woof-woof......

There's also a definite difference between politics and history that some people don't appear to understand.

Well we sure won't if we don't SPEAK THE HELL UP before they attack it with meat cleavers.

Fat chance. The carving and cutting process is all about benefiting the big corporations that can buy a seat at the table.

Right.

Sweet Jesus, you have no idea of how much I agree with you on both those points

Which is why its so unproductive to bicker amoungst ourselves when we want the same essential outcome- to stop the pirates sites, deny any sort of legitimacy to them and see them be prosecuted in whatever manner is possible under our laws. The energy needs to be spent not here, but in the faces of the sponsors of the bills and and in communications with the members of the Judiciary committee.

Our voice is most effective as constituents. Those deciding its fate have a legal obligation to hear our concerns as such, and I think those places are where the energy is best expended. Encouraging them to listen to people like Terry and Robert Levene who can speak the language of that forum better than we might be able to is a new priority, at least for me.

I am not sure if that was an agreement, but I hope it might have been.