Someone ask the RIAA about all the money record labels owe to artists and how much of the money from RIAA lawsuits actually goes to the people who hold the copyrights.

Honest Bender: This is why I abstain from voting. The US political system is systemically flawed and I refuse to participate in it. When I tell people this I usually get a response along the lines of, "If you don't vote, the system will never change!" Or, "Voting is your only way to voice your opinion!"

My opinion doesn't matter. Neither does my vote. There's really no substantial difference between political parties. We're supposed to be a republic. Our politicians are supposed to be elected to represent our interests. But they don't. They mostly serve their own interests. Any action that actually benefits the common man was just posturing or pandering for votes. Period.

SOPA is just the latest example of this mindset. It's wildly unpopular. The constituency DOES NOT want this legislation. But our representatives are gearing up to shove it down our throats anyway. Because shut up, that's why.

Every single sentiment you've expressed is why this country is becoming so f*cked up. The more people who believe the kind of nonsense you just posted, the more the power ends up in the hands of lobbyists, corporations, and special interest groups. Your opinion DOES matter. Your vote DOES count. There IS a difference between political parties and if you doubt that, well then you're a shallow thinker and it's probably better that you don't vote, allowing my vote to count for that much more.

There's more to political activism than voting. Spend an hour to draft a letter to your mayor, governor, senator, congressional representative, or whomever whenever there is legislation proposed that you disagree with. Maybe once or twice a year go to a meeting and voice your dissatisfaction. Come up with better ideas and propose them. Convince your friends and peers and colleagues to do the same thing. Run for office, even a dinky one. Voting is just the bare minimum. But whatever you do, be informed. Spend a little time each day learning more about what's going on. It's depressing as all hell, but the more people who give up, the more they win.

SmackLT: No Ironic tag for this one?

Came here to say this.

Hey RIAA, television studios, etc. FIND A NEW BUSINESS MODEL.

If you make everything available online and make it reasonable to buy without insane restrictions, it will be bought legally by 99% of people. We pirate because you make content unavailable through legal means or make it so restrctive that it isnt worth the price. Maybe look in the mirror a bit here.

If the RIAA thinks it can hold the cards in this battle, it has another thing coming. If they fark up the Internet for the sake of covering their lack of foresight and inability to adapt their business model to modern technology, I personally would not have a problem with never buying music, again, ever. Hell, I've got decades worth of great music I love that I can listen to exclusively for the rest of my life and be content.

RIAA, the bands don't even need you anymore. So how about instead of you bullying us back into buying your overpriced product and giving our money to the people who deserve it the least, how about we just start buying the music directly from the bands, and cut you out of the process altogether?

More so.

Fark the RIAA, fark the MPAA, fark the ESA, and fark everyone else who supports SOPA.

They all represent dying business models, and people are getting sick of being controlled by them. You guys already have plenty of legal tools to go after the real pirates. Getting more will only continue to assrape the average citizen in the process, and the idea of it is pissing people off.

I stopped buying new CD's made by RIAA-represented labels back when Napster was shut down the first time. Their music starting to suck was just one of the reasons why I stopped caring about these assholes. Then Lars came out biatching that he supposedly was getting less money because of 12-year olds on Napster swapping Metallica songs (who probably weren't going to buy their CD's anyway), yet it didn't occur to him that his abilities could be easily replaced with a $100 drum machine.

I also think Nickelback was annoying, and then hearing about the lead singer biatching like Lars made me hate that piece of shiat band even more.

glassbottomboatcaptain: tenpoundsofcheese



You keep referring to piracy as 'stealing', when in many cases it is not. To clarify, when 'Piracy' is referring to the unauthorized sale of someone else's intellectual property, THAT is stealing.

However, the act of copying something for personal use, is not stealing.
Let's say I go over to your house, and admire an Ikea chair you have. Being somewhat of a handyman, I take pictures and measurements of your chair, go home, and make a replica of it. Or baring my own skills, I 'know a guy' who makes a good chair, and he's willing to do it for free, because he's a chair enthusiast.
The replica is not perfect, lacking in the quality craftmanship of the original, but it is functional.

Now, can you call the cops on me and have me arrested for stealing your chair? Nope. YOU still have your chair. There has been no loss of property. And here's the big question. Can Ikea have me charged for making my own personal copy of their chair and not paying them for it? The only thing they could argue, is that if I didn't have the ability to make my own chair, I would have had to pay them to get it. Yet they still can't charge me for that, because it is utterly impossible for them to know, or prove, that I actually liked the chair enough to pay for it.

Now why does this logic suddenly go out the window when we are discussing digital content? If I download an Xbox game, there is no demonstratable loss of income for the maker or distributer, because it is merely an assumption that I *would* have bought it if I hadn't the means to get it for free.

Despite this assumption of loss of sale being impossible to prove in a court of law, it is also untrue in many cases, and in such cases, there is no moral or ethical issue.

Ever see people who have cleaned out their garage or basement, and left a bunch of junk sitting at the end of their driveway with a sign saying 'free for the taking' or what not. If you come across this pile of junk, you might find a few ...

Actually the loss of sales is exactly provable in court. But beyond that, you are correct: infringement of intellectual property rights is not the tort of conversion (theft) - the depriving of others of the use and enjoyment of their property. It is its own thing, its own tort. It is really more of a bastard child of the tort of trespass (i.e. entering someone's land) and restitution (someone is unjustly enriched at your expense). We have given a monopoly right to creators as a way of spuring creation of new workd because intellectual property is a public good, making it almost impossible to internalize the external benefits. By copying the work without paying for it you are saying "if you wanted to make a living off of making IP, don't, because you cannot recoup the benefits you have put out into the world."

I know this will lead inevitably to the "George Lucas and Metallica are filthy rich - oh boo hoo" but they became so because of IP. Also its looking at the margins. You can also argue about the PR value of the big labels being constant sperm-turtles, encouraging infringement. You would likely be right - but all i am saying is that it is disingenuous to say that IP infringement isn't a tort because it isn't conversion. That's like saying Intentional infliction of emotional distress isn't a tort because it doesn't fit the elements of battery.

tenpoundsofcheese



You keep referring to piracy as 'stealing', when in many cases it is not. To clarify, when 'Piracy' is referring to the unauthorized sale of someone else's intellectual property, THAT is stealing.

However, the act of copying something for personal use, is not stealing.
Let's say I go over to your house, and admire an Ikea chair you have. Being somewhat of a handyman, I take pictures and measurements of your chair, go home, and make a replica of it. Or baring my own skills, I 'know a guy' who makes a good chair, and he's willing to do it for free, because he's a chair enthusiast.
The replica is not perfect, lacking in the quality craftmanship of the original, but it is functional.

Now, can you call the cops on me and have me arrested for stealing your chair? Nope. YOU still have your chair. There has been no loss of property. And here's the big question. Can Ikea have me charged for making my own personal copy of their chair and not paying them for it? The only thing they could argue, is that if I didn't have the ability to make my own chair, I would have had to pay them to get it. Yet they still can't charge me for that, because it is utterly impossible for them to know, or prove, that I actually liked the chair enough to pay for it.

Now why does this logic suddenly go out the window when we are discussing digital content? If I download an Xbox game, there is no demonstratable loss of income for the maker or distributer, because it is merely an assumption that I *would* have bought it if I hadn't the means to get it for free.

Despite this assumption of loss of sale being impossible to prove in a court of law, it is also untrue in many cases, and in such cases, there is no moral or ethical issue.

Ever see people who have cleaned out their garage or basement, and left a bunch of junk sitting at the end of their driveway with a sign saying 'free for the taking' or what not. If you come across this pile of junk, you might find a few things to take on a lark. Hmmm, a gaudy, holographic Jesus clock. It's weird, kitchsy, maybe I'll take it for a laugh, hang it in the rec room, or give it to my sister as a jokey, ironic housewarming present. Does this mean the company that made it now has a right to charge me $49.99? Because the notion that I would actually buy this tacky piece of crap is utterly ridiculous, and the fact that I was willing to take it home simply because it was free for the taking is in no way an indication of my willingess to purchase it.

Likewise with digital content. I may download 'Mega Shark Vs Giant Octopus' from a torrent site out of morbid curiousity, but I would never, in a million years, have shelled out $20 for the DVD, and I can take a polygraph to that effect.

The ethical dilema associated with file sharing is nebulous at best. If you've downloaded something you would have otherwise knowingly paid money for, then that is unethical, and you have stolen. If you would not have paid for it either way, then nothing unethical has transpired. No property has been lost, and no revenue has been lost.

Fark Challenge Difficulty: Reply without saying 'entitled'

HeartBurnKid: Summer Glau's Love Slave: If he really believed what he was saying, then he wouldn't even be here. If resistance is futile, as he claims, then what's the point of the argument?

I don't think he's trolling, to be honest. I've been in this argument IRL; there are some people who honestly somehow think that not voting is a way to change things.

I won't claim that not voting 'changes' things; but I will say I advocate 'not voting' to people who are uninformed/unqualified to have an opinion on things. I don't mean that as an insult, I include myself.

I didn't go to medical school. If the American Medical Association had a 'vote' where we decided whether 20mg of Y or 2mg of X should be the new standard treatment of Z - and they allowed everyone to vote....I wouldn't. Because I don't know anything about medicine. I'm not a doctor. I haven't given drugs. I don't know the side effects. I'm just as likely to vote for the worse thing as the better thing.

Politics are no different, IMHO.

What the heck do I know about economics? Hell, top economic-type professor people can't seem to agree on the very basics like 'Will X increase or decrease the number of jobs in our country'. And they've studied economics for decades. What hope do I have, as a guy who studied computer crap in school and has about a junior-high level understanding of economics, of voting for the politician who claims that economic policy X is better than economic policy Y. I'm woefully unqualified for that.

In most cases, everyone agrees on the outcome. Everyone wants lower crime. Everyone wants lower taxes. Everyone wants more social services available to them (but not at the cost of increased taxes). Everyone wants better school systems. Everyone wants higher employment. Almost everyone wants more freedom. Almost everyone wants more protection (nevermind that those two are contradictory).

But those things that everyone seems to want - all the politicians are selling them.

Every politician promises better times for everyone. Most of the time, they only differ in the implementation of getting there. I've heard people argue the merits of various tax systems and I'm sorry, I don't have the faintest idea of what is better. Sure, I can listen and formulate an opinion....but it's an UNSUBSTANTIATED opinion, based on nothing. You could have asked me to speculate on the shape of the Earth as a four year old and formulate an opinion based on whatever, but it would be absolutely unsubstantiated by anything.

For virtually every important issue - I have *no clue* how to reach the desired end goal. So I don't vote.

A lot of people tell me that's a bad way to do things. But I don't know what the alternative is.

tenpoundsofcheese: No you pirate content because you are an entitled idiot who believes that you should benefit from pirating without paying.

I'm an American living in Switzerland. Netflix isn't available here, nor is any similar service (i.e. streaming video on-demand). Before I moved here, I happily paid for Netflix service as it offered the content I wanted at a price I thought was reasonable.

Since I've moved here, my options are:

1. Don't watch movies. (Unless I want to watch them in German, which I don't.)
2. Continue to pay for Netflix, but connect to a US-based VPN service to get around their geographical restrictions. (That is, they don't offer the service here and actively restrict paying customers from using it.)
3. Pirate content.

I choose #2 even though it is technically against the Netflix terms of service (nonetheless, I am paying for the service and thus for the content). I know a few other expats here who also do the same, but occasionally pirate a particular movie as it's not available on Netflix for streaming (that is, they would happily pay for it, but it is not available legitimately where they are).

You're welcome to keep white knighting for the RIAA, but they don't really care.

Silverstaff: The RIAA is based on an obsolete business model: the idea that music artists require distributors and labels to ensure that their works are distributed to the public at large. The internet makes that obsolete, because now an artist could just sell their works directly to the people.

exactly. things can go viral now if they are good enough. without the millions in promotional advertising. this is simply entitlement legislation. these moguls think they should be entitled to a majority percentage of an artists' work. sorry but those days are gone. an artist can record in a home studio using a laptop and a couple hundred dollars in microphones and produce stuff just as good as the big studios can. they can self promote on the web and use word of mouth. and they can sell their stuff to the masses without the industry. the days of owning the airwaves and the product is over. and this is their last desperate effort to keep their grip on it.

Honest Bender: This is why I abstain from voting.

Then STFU. You've got no reason to complain; you got the government you deserve.

adamgreeney: We pirate because you make content unavailable through legal means or make it so restrctive that it isnt worth the price. Maybe look in the mirror a bit here.

No you pirate content because you are an entitled idiot who believes that you should benefit from pirating without paying.

GAT_00: It wasn't anything out of the ordinary. I don't like the double standard to only delete some trolls though.

Yeah I don't get it...

Smart guy who makes troll/satire posts and gets some fish on his hook: BALEETED.
Idiot who expresses the same opinions and genuinely believes them: A-OK

Free Mike, Free Mike, Free Mike!

It is everyone's moral imperative to ignore intellectual property laws and to never vote for those who support them.

There is no room for copyright in the future of human civilization.

HeartBurnKid: Honest Bender: This is why I abstain from voting.

Then STFU. You've got no reason to complain; you got the government you deserve.

You are so wrong because you have (in a 2 party system) only 3 ways to express your opinion

1, vote for guy 1 (who you disagree with)
2, vote for guy 2 (who you ALSO disagree with just as much as guy 1)
3, express dissatisfation with the whole process by refusing to endorse either guy that you disagree with.

You do not abdicate your power in the face of unacceptable alternatives, you transform it instead of creating a false endorsement for a wrong cadidate. Therefore "I didn`t vote" (I didn`t give them power) means you can legitimately complain about government policy MORE than someone who voted as neither guy would make policy you found acceptable and only a new candidate would get your approval.

candidate 1 "I want to kill all newborn boys"
candidate 2 "I want to kill 50% of all newborns"

Personally I wouldn`t vote for either and to suggest that my not voting somehow means I deserve to live in a world of either all newborn boys or just 50% of all newborns killed and have no right to complain about the system and say "this is wrong and I didn`t give my approval for this action by voting for it" is just insulting and you have no idea about decent politics.

WhyteRaven74: adamgreeney: What happens when your computer or iPod dies?

you can keep a copy on your iPod and your computer, you can burn the stuff to a CD if you want. Can copy it to a second hard drive.

tenpoundsofcheese: You can get redbox for $1.3 a day and don't need to worry about watching it in two days.

And you get a very limited choice of movies. How about the film studios putting everything online and charging $5 a month for watching all the movies you want at your leisure? They'd make money hand over fist doing that.

I suggested that in the other SOPA thread. Thousands of hours of tv shows, movies, and other video sit in their vaults, cabinets and wherever else the content people store sh*t. Regular tv programming started way back in 1928 with NTSC broadcasts starting in 1941 and broadcast videotape was introduced in 1956. Couple that with all the movies produced since the invention of film, and you have more media than any one person could ever watch in a dozen lifetimes. And since it's all bought and paid for reshowing it on demand would be pure profit.

A second season episode of "My Mother the Car"? Done.
The entire first season of "Gunsmoke"? Boom.
The entire run of "All In The Family"? Play it.
Every movie starring Betty White? Onscreen.

They media corporations have no idea what they are sitting on and letting go to waste. There are plenty of folks who would be willing to pay good money to see what they want, how they want at the time they want, and it would cost the corporations almost nothing. How many boomers would want an on-demand channel that showed nothing but cartoons from their childhood, Crusader Rabbit and Prince Planet and Wally Gator... or tv shows and movies from when they were teens like the Love Boat or Dance Fever or Automan?

They're not smart enough to do that... all they see is this quarter, this cycle, yesterday's stock price, and grabbing a quick buck by sh*tting out yet another "reality" show... and they wonder why torrenting and UseNet are so popular. I would rather chunk up $5 or $10 a month to sit on my couch and use the remote rather than downloading and unRARing and crap.

Sell us what we want, and we'll buy it. Just that simple.

moothemagiccow: Now I'm not innocent of anything, but consider that the goalposts have moved from "buying this is physically impossible for me" to "delivery methods don't meet my criteria."

I agree, the goalposts of have moved, and some access is easier. But I think it's unfair to evaluate that change in isolation, because there have been a lot of related changes along side it.

Consider that the playback goalposts have moved from "all commercial music plays on 1 of 2 common household devices and can be copied from those formats to others" to "a wide variety of playback devices are available, but DRM prevents moving among them, making it impossible to get the music I want on a playback device I own".

And that's to say nothing of the location issue -- there are lots of places where you cannot buy the content you not because it's out-of-print or anything like that, but simply because the marketing agreements for your locale prevent your access. Now add to those agreements technological enforcement (region codes, IP blocks, etc.) and it's actually harder than ever to legitimately obtain certain kinds of content.

vwarb: Then I weep because I realize it doesn't matter. He's still going to win. One of the most wildly unpopular bills to ever go to the floor is going to pass, despite the screams of every one of us. Why? Because Congress is filled with geriatric assholes who think every American citizen is a criminal anyway and should be caged.


In related news: The Pirate Bay just switched to 100% magnet links meaning that all the technical measures in the SOPA act are useless.

vwarb: Honest Bender:

How? Explain the process to me.

Okay.

307,006,550 people live in America. In the 2000 election, 107,390,107 people voted. You could all decide to vote for the Jedi party and it would win.

Source for Turnout Number (new window)
Source for U.S Population (new window)

No, you couldn't the US unlike countries with proportional representation don't really allow for this sort of thing.

In countries with proportional voting systems if 7 percent of the votes go to a party 7 percent of the seats in parliament will go to that party and the ideas the party stands for will influence the political system because everyone needs to compromise and form coalitions and stuff. This is why the Green Party managed to gain a foothold in much of Europe a few decades ago while coming out of nowhere and are now an institution. That is why movements such as the Pirate Party find serious traction in some places.

The way the system is set up it is either Democrats or Republicans and in many places there is very little any small or medium sized movement can do to influence which one. You are free to vote for whichever party you want and if you vote for either the Democrats or the Republicans and have the fortune of living in a place where the gap between the two is close you might actually achieve something.

If you see the two parties as one system than your ability to vote against the system is not unlike that of a an average soviet citizen during the communist rule.

I just paid $17.00 for my wife and I too see a movie.

This is where George Lucas lives.



The fact that ANYONE in government is seriously worried about a few people downloading pirated crap makes me very 'stabby'.

Keep raising the damn ticket prices and everyone will be pirating movies.

HeartBurnKid: Honest Bender: This is why I abstain from voting.

Then STFU. You've got no reason to complain; you got the government you deserve.

Whereas all the people that actually voted for the government have the right to complain, even though they were the ones that enabled it to do these things in the first place?

I think you have it backwards.

When it comes to movie piracy, for me getting it *free* isn't the issue at all. It's the simple availability, and ease of use.

If there existed a legal, easy to use means by which I could go to a site, get a list of just about every movie ever made, regardless of studio, and have it on my computer within the hour with no time constraint, for a reasonable fee, I would have no issue with paying for every single movie I download.

The problem of piracy doesn't stem from the desire to steal for most people. The problem stems from the fact that the film and music industry refuse to adapt to the needs of their customers in the face of a technology revolution. And it is their own quibbling and nickle and diming each other over rights agreements that is preventing them from creating online downloading resources which match those provided by the wooden legged parrot aficionados.

Here's the conversation in a nutshell:
Movie Studio A - Hey, would you like to join our conglomerate of movie studios to create an online catalog of downloadable movies, each purchased for a nominal fee?
Movie Studio B - No way! If people want to watch our movies we want them to have to go to our website, so they have to see our advertisements, sign up for an account so we can spam their emails with advertisements, force them to install our weird crappy codec and not notice the toolbar malware they're also installing, etc. Also the other crappy movie service that no one uses doesn't want us to let anyone else show our movies.
Guy Who Wants to Watch a Movie - Well fark you then. There, I've downloaded your movie and watched it anyway. Happy now?

adamgreeney: SmackLT: No Ironic tag for this one?

Came here to say this.

Hey RIAA, television studios, etc. FIND A NEW BUSINESS MODEL.

If you make everything available online and make it reasonable to buy without insane restrictions, it will be bought legally by 99% of people. We pirate because you make content unavailable through legal means or make it so restrctive that it isnt worth the price. Maybe look in the mirror a bit here.

Steam has said that, in effect, they expected to make x amount with thier first huge sales etc they did.

They made something insane like 3000% of x.

People want to buy content. They just need to trust the provider and it needs to be priced reasonably.

Otherwise they say f you and get it free or not at all.

I personally simply stopped trying to watch shows on not-Hulu because they all have some different format, want me to subscribe, don't publish episodes in a timely manner, or flat out don't work.

Honest Bender: HeartBurnKid: I get that you think the government sucks, but how does abdicating the one small measure of power you have to make them suck less do anything but make them suck more?

The only difference between you and me is that I don't buy into the illusion that we have that power.

We do, and if you and everybody else who says "I'm not voting because everybody sucks" exercised it, it might mean something.

adamgreeney: Hell, people were recording shows on their VCR's and sharing them and I don't remember anyone trying to ban VCR's from being plugged into TV's.

You don't?

tenpoundsofcheese: adamgreeney: We pirate because you make content unavailable through legal means or make it so restrctive that it isnt worth the price. Maybe look in the mirror a bit here.

No you pirate content because you are an entitled idiot who believes that you should benefit from pirating without paying.

Nope, actually it's the prior. The last game I bought forced me to immediately connect to an online server to prove I was a lawful user when I first installed it and continues trying to connect every time I play the game so it can scan to see if I've made any unallowed changes. When I've paid for an item, I don't need some company then telling me how and when I can use it.

What it comes down to is this: There are rich and influential entities on both sides of the issue, but...

The side opposing SOPA also has the majority of public opinion on its side, to say nothing of the 'most' money.

SOPA supporters have the weight of tradition and 'some' money, but that won't win the day.

At the end of the day, this 'will' be passed, but in a weak, neutered form that lacks any ability to do what it wants to do.

"It sure seems like the deck is stacked to ensure no meaningful or balanced debate occurs on an issue that is very important to American jobs and our economy"

Indeed. Now if you f*ckers would like to change that, maybe stop stacking the deck to ensure no meaningful or balanced debate occurs on an issue, you entitled little anti-technology cunny-wafts. Piracy is a problem, obviously, but the way around that is not to piss everyone off and make yourselves the bad guys. And that is all you are accomplishing whenever you open your fat stupid mouths. For a company that's entirely about selling an image of your products (i.e. musicians), you have no f*cking PR department for yourself, so you keep coming across as goddamn rigid old people who can't stand that the world is changing around them. Adapt or die, motherf*ckers, that's all you can do. Adapt or die. And you've consistently chosen the path that leads to your own downfall. At THAT point, you have no one left to blame but yourselves; the pirates just got the ball rolling.

Honest Bender: This is why I abstain from voting. The US political system is systemically flawed and I refuse to participate in it. When I tell people this I usually get a response along the lines of, "If you don't vote, the system will never change!" Or, "Voting is your only way to voice your opinion!"

My opinion doesn't matter. Neither does my vote. There's really no substantial difference between political parties. We're supposed to be a republic. Our politicians are supposed to be elected to represent our interests. But they don't. They mostly serve their own interests. Any action that actually benefits the common man was just posturing or pandering for votes. Period.

SOPA is just the latest example of this mindset. It's wildly unpopular. The constituency DOES NOT want this legislation. But our representatives are gearing up to shove it down our throats anyway. Because shut up, that's why.

Serious question: how do you propose we fix it, then?

RobSeace:
White House "will not support" SOPA as it stands

Obama said the same thing about the NDAA. We learned last time that the key is that little "as it stands" bit. They'll change some superfluous wording so he can say he did something. Then he'll sign the thing anyway.

/I voted for Obama
//Gary Johnson 2012

Snarfangel: Mike_LowELL: I have to agree with the RIAA on this. The only balance in this debate is the number of people seeding versus the number leeching. Anyone notice that liberals claim the country has been going downhill since the eighties? What took off in the eighties? Software piracy. Enough said. Look in the mirror, Obama. Maybe if you would stop pirating copies of "Raising Taxes for Dummies", the country wouldn't be in the shape it's in.

Your post contains several words that are protected by international copyright. I can't tell you which ones, because then I would be in non-compliance.

/Which reminds me, I need to renew my license fee to Webster'sTM.

Your post is a good example of how copy protection will never work, as soon as information (in this case a post which was removed) is in the public domain then people will find ways to spread it in spite of attempts to remove it from the public domain.

PATRIOT ACT,NDAA,SOPA,Citizens United,PIPA...


All in all they are all just Bricks in the Wall

Feel the fascist boot on your neck yet?

Whenever I hear things like this, I ask myself a question: Is this guy that much of a lying shiathead, or is the cognitive dissonance so strong that he truly believes what he is saying?

Then I weep because I realize it doesn't matter. He's still going to win. One of the most wildly unpopular bills to ever go to the floor is going to pass, despite the screams of every one of us. Why? Because Congress is filled with geriatric assholes who think every American citizen is a criminal anyway and should be caged.

I don't even know why they bother to keep working when they hate their country so much.

"It sure seems like the deck is stacked to ensure no meaningful or balanced debate occurs on an issue that is very important to American jobs and our economy"

Yeah, if the entire world is against a piece of legislation which hijacks society and the world's culture to benefit a hand full of corporations then yeah, it may appear to be more people to attack it instead of defending it.

zipperlip: The Stop Online Piracy Act only targets foreign websites that are primarily dedicated to illegal and infringing activity. It does not grant the Justice Department the authority to seek a court order to shut down any website operated in the U.S." He added SOPA only "extends enforcement of property rights protections that apply to domestic websites to those that operate abroad" and would not "censor the Internet."

Just the tip, baby. Honest injun!

":First they came for the X, and I did not complain for I was not an X" process in effect.

The Stop Online Piracy Act only targets foreign websites that are primarily dedicated to illegal and infringing activity. It does not grant the Justice Department the authority to seek a court order to shut down any website operated in the U.S." He added SOPA only "extends enforcement of property rights protections that apply to domestic websites to those that operate abroad" and would not "censor the Internet."

Just the tip, baby. Honest injun!

Google is pouring gigabucks into lobbying against SOPA - and Google makes more in a quarter than the entire movie industry does in a year.