Should the Internet be subject to the law?

No, the original question is retarded.

That question doesn't even make sense. Are you talking about existing laws?

Who cares.. you're entire hatred for online business and theory of it's demise can be beaten by another simple theory - if nudity weren't allowed on the internet without credit card verification then porn would sell like 1998, even you put up nude pictures on your site Paul. OMG FREE PORN! You are part of the problem also.

Only if you answered wrong. There is no other answer. It's either subject to laws or not, you can't pick and choose which laws and once you agree to laws, you have to agree that laws will be updated to keep up with changes. Thinking they don't have to change is retarded.

And if existing laws do not fit online or the world in 10 years time, they stay the same? That's a retarded position.

What a lot of BS. I love the Internet. It has made us a lot of money. And continues to. The last 3 years without working our income has been 90% from online. A completely retarded statement based on nothing. I hate the way some have taken it over with theft of other peoples property and some think it's right or should be allowed to continue.

Wanting to put a wrong right, doesn't mean you hate the place it's happening.

Retarded attitude.

Here are just a few examples why laws have to be applied and adjusted to online.

2257.
Never was a good law, yet for offline it worked because offline people were in fear of getting caught and getting sued by allowing something to be published that wasn't covered by full 2257 documentation.

Online it's clear it doesn't work. Exgf site popping up with "user uploads" get around it all the time. Who's to say if the models featured are over 18 or gave their consent to be published? Then companies stealing these images and using them on their sites. So a law designed to protect vulnerable, naive kids from themselves and pornographers clearly doesn't work. So it should be left as it is or changed?

DMCA
Again clearly not working. The clause to exempt hosting services and services attached to the online publisher are clearly not working. I don't have to explain where and why, we all know.

So leave them as they are or make people lie hosting, processing companies and advertisers who profit from an illegal piracy site immune, while the victims are left to chase the site owners around the world. Or bring in a change to make all those who profit liable to damages. So Microsoft or a film company can go after the advertisers to get recompense on the crime of stealing their property?

I can see how these laws might hurt little people who profit or benefit from piracy. Will it mean less people online, less money spent online or a weakening of the Internet. No it would have the opposite effect. The Wild West when it was run by gangsters and a few land barons, was largely deserted, it only sprung up as law and order was enforced allowing the ordinary people in. Who previously were the prey of thugs.

Yes Jake this might mean you have to work a little harder. The rewards will be huge for the law abiding. It will root out some of the thieves. People like those who advertise on piracy sites or sell advertising on piracy sites will suffer because they will have to change the way they do business. If you're one of those, it's a case of adapt or die.

The problem ultimately is some who benefit from the freedom want the freedom to remain. If it's a freedom to steal or benefit from others stealing, then is it a freedom that should be continued?

Also if a person makes a mistake by letting a friend take pictures of him/her in a compromising but legal act in private. Does this give others the right to abuse their privacy and others still to profit by abusing their privacy. In the case of that person being a minor. The law is very clear and the answer is no. So should a site, like Facebook, Youtube, or any other "user upload" site. Be given the freedom to do something that an offline publication doesn't have?

When we consider this and apply it to the Exgf niche we see clearly freedom has become a possibility to abuse for profit or benefit.

Speaking of law and law enforcement, reading just now that in Columbia the homeless are being killed by government supported militias. So having a law and police alone is not enough.

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/col...ial-cleansing/

It's not a menorah, Paul, it's a dreidel. You spin a dreidel. Troll as you must but do us all a favor and cool it with the anti-Semitic remarks.

This was my quote.

Where did you get yours from?

Do me a favor, cool it with the libel.

Hey, I'm a child of divorce. Give me a break.

doudt if yes voters thought once before what they voted for?

Hell no unless there's a fraud or an actual phisicle threat to an individual, actually even for those cases responsibility should be up to person in the first place.

You are the people who make money out of internet, stop acting like welfare parasites who no more than are voting machines to polititions.

if your video taypes are stolen and shared on boards blame Yourself not the pirates or nor ask for government regulation.

when it comes to computer technologies the limit is skye yet i wonder how You content producers can't protect your own shit

Maybe you can educate us all how content can be protected. With big companies like film, music, games, programers unable to do it. If you have the solution you'll be the richest man on the planet. Until everyone steals your formula.

It's really quite simple.

If you want your content to be 100% protected, don't sell your content.

If you run out of money, find something else to do for money.

Easy Peasy!

.................................................. .................

Thanks for the bump PJ.

I thought some might like to rethink their votes. No harm in doing it again. With the news of MU and other File Lockers getting nervous.

Jimmy, even people that didn't sell their content had it stolen.

Heheheheh.

i don't think so.