Oppose the Internet Blacklist Bill

bump for answer.....

first of all if the fair use of commentary is legitimately extended to "this is the coolest dance routine i have every seen



a lot of shit your pretending to be stolen isn't really stolen it just fair use

see above 99% of all dmca are actually against fair use

again depends on what your scrapping, if the source your scrapping is 99% fair use then your 99% fair use too.


and you don't need a new law to handle this, if you have PROOF that is what they are doing the safe harbor provision doesn't apply anyway so you can sue them into oblivion

so this argument is total utter bullshit and you know it.

If the new law required this level of proof before a site could be taken down, then it would be totally useless, because the current laws allow you to not only take the domain but all the assets of the company too.






you just made my point for me
if the 2257 does properly vet "every image on their sites" then the guys who downloaded and hosted the gallery of the under-age girl HAD to have know it was kiddie porn when they sent hits.

of course you know that not true, a fake id, trust in the sponsor all created a situation that allowed kiddie porn to be promoted by thousands of "innocent" web masters

the same is true with copyright infringement, in this case, trust in the uploaders, fake declarations of ownership/authorization allows copyright infringement to occur.

That where your inconsistency comes into play, you want you and your friends to be let off if they "unknowingly" promote kiddie porn, but you want to ignore who the same situation exists for all the "pirate" sites out there too.

?The bill still defines a site as ?dedicated to infringing activities,? if it is designed or marketed as ?enabling or facilitating? actions that are found to be infringing,? he said. ?In other words, even if the site isn?t itself infringing copyright, if its actions ?enable or facilitate? someone else?s infringement, the government can tell ISPs to blacklist your site, and copyright holders can sue to cut your funding.?


the definition of "dedicated" to copyright infringement includes "enabling or facilitating actions" too that insanely broad.

Just giving instructions on how to use Bit torrent without mentioning WHAT content you can get is enough to qualify for "dedicated" definition.

and the 25 other countries of the world which have a piracy tax (like Canada) which significantly extends the fair use rights of those citizens regardless where they happen to be surfing the internet from (you don't have a right to take away my piracy tax granted rights just because i am doing a contract in the states)

right based on a bogus definition of "Dedicated to copyright infringement" that over rides the solutions of other countries with the US definition of fair use.

it not like that is going to get abused at all

Like i said would you support the bill if the penalty for abusing it (being wrong) was the complete loss of your copyright protection.

Without such a penalty their is no consequence for just bald face misrepresenting any fair use competition as "piracy"

Fucking thieves trying to redefine the arguments.

Stealing content, reposting the identical content, and enabling mass distribution of the stolen content is piracy. This is not "fair use."

Your argument has more holes than a screen door.

this cock will pass the bill

Sounds like a good idea

really want to name one

why should me free speech rights to make the commentary "this is the coolest dance routine i have ever seen" be censored

Scary shit.

It's always some tiny little angle that is seized upon before the big take over occurs.

Fuck censorship in any way, shape, or form.

Apparently the sites don't even have to be "proven" to be illegal, all they have to do is point the finger and shut it down. No thanks.

I'm with Gideon on this one.