View Single Post
Old 12-15-2011, 06:20 AM  
gideongallery
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 7,082
Quote:
Originally Posted by kane View Post
Okay, so I had a second while I was taking a shit and found this. This is from your twitter, or at least I assume it is yours because it has all the same crap that you post here on it.

You wrote "@MPAA would the mpaa still support the bill if the penalty for making a false rogue claim was the revocation of all the accusers copyrights"

To me that sounds like if a person wrongly sues someone who is innocent you would want them to lose all of their copyrights. Am I not reading it correctly?
Why would you believe that a statement that explictly says "would the mpaa still support the bill" have anything to do with any of the existing LAWS that allow you to sue for damages.


You can't tell the difference between suing someone (using the current existing laws) and making a claim that they are a rogue site worth of being DNS BLACKLISTED under the new bill.

like I said i only argue in favor of the loss of copyright for false accusations that CENSOR free speech (like a DNS blacklist because of a BOGUS rogue site declaration)
__________________

“When crimes occur through the mail, you don’t shut the post office down,” Steve Wozniak
gideongallery is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote