Animus and Reptl,

the discussion of any legislation regarding piracy has a certain amount of politics which is unavoidable. In that sense we try to navigate as best we can without arguing the point- there are other places than here for that.

Jules has been very clear in his rules as to the exclusion of politically centered comments - those are not welcome here. They will be reported and in all likelihood Jules will be compelled to lock the doors due the sheer nuisance of it.


Reptl- I am sorry about the issue you have with John- it wasnt right. Hopefully it can be resolved to everyones satisfaction.

Certainly unders†andable. But the very nature of this is political. It's "legislation" they are talking about here, having wide-ranging ramifications, not just dependent on some self-righteous dudes chasing phantom paychecks in a economy in the complete shitter.

Its political because its a law Animus- there is bipartisan posturing on both sides of the issue - and there are other things further clouding it-

What we are focusing on here I think is what it ACTUALLY IS, and how it will impact piracy. The other things all need to graze in other fields....

Oh, might want to amend your thread title then. "SOPA and Politics-" Maybe to "SOPA and Policy"?


heh

That's just it. This Bill is PROTECTING my Constitutional rights.

Comparing this Bill to the Patriot Act is nonesense.

Here, i implore EVERYONE that hasn't read it yet, to read this unbiased account of the bill. Then we can discuss actual issues that you may or may not have (after reading..)

http://www.itif.org/files/2011-pipa-...nd-critics.pdf

Please (and i'm not just asking you Animus, everyone here) read this and tell me your thoughts.

Thanks.
Yes, it's just a factor of the forum that politics is a no go, and this topic can get political in a hurry.
We're talking around it not so badly though I think.

What Constitutional rights would that be?


I will read your link.

Animus, content producers and owners have the right to be protected by the law.

The Bill Rights defines what cant be taken away- not what is granted.

Animus, content producers and owners have the right to be protected by the law.

The Bill Rights defines what cant be taken away- not what is granted. If we wanted to get wonky, which we can explore elsewhere, one could argue it is a 14th Amendment issue. One of equal protection. I will not go further than that though.

Care to qualify that nonsense? Phantom paychecks are the result of Piracy which is why this conversation is happening. Self-Righteous or not, people deserve to be paid and not live in fear of theft.

Have you actually read the bill? It includes more than adequate checks and balances to prevent abuse, despite the big tech and pro-piracy claims to the contrary. There is nothing in this bill that impinges on anyone's rights unless you view "the right to steal" as being somehow a constitutionally guaranteed freedom.

This is not the place to discuss The Patriot Act, FISA, or anything similar - it's specifically forbidden by GS rules. If you wish to discuss such things, PM me. You might be surprised to find that we're not so far apart as you might think.

My view on the "net neutrality" debate is that from what I see there are at least two different camps that mean diametrically opposed things when they say they're for "net neutrality", so I try to avoid the phrase like the plague. It's a buzz word (phrase) that people use to hide their meaning.

Workers do have a right to trade, and not have their right to trade impinged by the illegal activities of others.
This is what is so funny about this upside down debate.
The internet isn't a right. No one cared about the internet 15 years ago.
There are laws that protect workers rights to trade in a fair market. Also, my freedom of speech is harmed when people take my work without paying for it, thereby shutting me down.
I enjoy the internet too, and enjoy living in a society that allows a free exchange of views, but with music piracy in particular I think we've lost the right balance.

The right to be paid for the fruits of ones labors - slavery was abolished 150 years ago by Constitutional amendment. To take a musician's work without paying for it is tantamount to forcing him to work for free. That's de facto slavery.

We've been through this before, but here it is again.

Nobody is claiming entitlement. Nobody says that musicians should be paid if nobody uses their work.

You don't want to use my work? Fine, don't use it.

You do want to use (listen to) my work? Great, then pay me for it. I have a right to be paid for work that I do for other people unless I decide to give it away, which is also my right.

You don't want to pay me for something I'm not giving away? That's OK with me - DON'T USE IT!

You want to use my work (which I'm not giving away) without paying? That's stealing. It's immoral, illegal, and violates my Constitutional right to receive fair compensation for my labor.

Is that sufficiently clear?