Anonymous again

[Inazuma]

Once again, you aren't reading posts. I didn't say I didn't know what SOPA is. In fact, judging from your posts on the topic so far, I probably have more knowledge of it than you.

I asked where does it suggest that companies can plant links or files on a site like Racketboy and then report those sites? You were (I think) suggesting some kind of practice where, for example, if Activision doesn't like that we rag on Call of Duty or Nintendo doesn't like that there are NES carts in the BST, they post an illegal warez file somewhere and then report the site.

Common sense. If you want a site taken down, but it doesn't have anything linking to copyright infringement, all you need to do is post a link yourself and then it's easy. You seriously think no one will do this? Don't make me laugh.

[Michi]

Other than that, I'm very much against a federally mandated rating system. Why must the governments invent another way for parents to be lazy?

This.

[AppleQueso]

Doesn't SOPA state that in order for a site to be taken down, it has to be shown that the site has "little purpose other than" facilitating piracy?

I think Racketboy would be perfectly safe.

...that's not saying I'm okay with the bill, because I'm not. Besides all the dangers and potential for abuse it has, It doesn't do a damn thing to actually stop piracy.

[Inazuma]

Doesn't SOPA state that in order for a site to be taken down, it has to be shown that the site has "little purpose other than" facilitating piracy?

I think Racketboy would be perfectly safe.

...that's not saying I'm okay with the bill, because I'm not. Besides all the dangers and potential for abuse it has, It doesn't do a damn thing to actually stop piracy.

Nope. A site only needs to have one link to another site that has one piece of copyright infringement. It also doesn't matter if that link was posted by the site's owner or a random user.

Search engines wouldn't be able to exist. Sites with user comments wouldn't either. Even if you make sure to disable every form of user input and run your site by yourself, you would have to be careful about linking to another site, because you never know if that site will have copyright infringement.

This is exactly why SOPA is so bad. If it was strictly about sites dedicated to copyright infringement, that wouldn't be anywhere near as bad. But they are only using copyright infringement as an excuse to obtain the power to censor and hand out monopolies.

You ever watch TV? That's exactly what the internet would become if SOPA becomes law. A few big companies running the whole thing, controlling everything and using it to spread false information and sell you products.

[dsheinem]

Doesn't SOPA state that in order for a site to be taken down, it has to be shown that the site has "little purpose other than" facilitating piracy?

I think Racketboy would be perfectly safe.

...that's not saying I'm okay with the bill, because I'm not. Besides all the dangers and potential for abuse it has, It doesn't do a damn thing to actually stop piracy.

Nope. A site only needs to have one link to another site that has one piece of copyright infringement. It also doesn't matter if that link was posted by the site's owner or a random user.

Search engines wouldn't be able to exist. Sites with user comments wouldn't either. Even if you make sure to disable every form of user input and run your site by yourself, you would have to be careful about linking to another site, because you never know if that site will have copyright infringement.

This is exactly why SOPA is so bad. If it was strictly about sites dedicated to copyright infringement, that wouldn't be anywhere near as bad. But they are only using copyright infringement as an excuse to obtain the power to censor and hand out monopolies.

You ever watch TV? That's exactly what the internet would become if SOPA becomes law. A few big companies running the whole thing, controlling everything and using it to spread false information and sell you products.

paranoia paranoia paranoia

SOPA is bad for legitimate reasons, but your fearmongering obscures them.

[MrPopo]

Doesn't SOPA state that in order for a site to be taken down, it has to be shown that the site has "little purpose other than" facilitating piracy?

I think Racketboy would be perfectly safe.

...that's not saying I'm okay with the bill, because I'm not. Besides all the dangers and potential for abuse it has, It doesn't do a damn thing to actually stop piracy.

Nope. A site only needs to have one link to another site that has one piece of copyright infringement. It also doesn't matter if that link was posted by the site's owner or a random user.

Search engines wouldn't be able to exist. Sites with user comments wouldn't either. Even if you make sure to disable every form of user input and run your site by yourself, you would have to be careful about linking to another site, because you never know if that site will have copyright infringement.

This is exactly why SOPA is so bad. If it was strictly about sites dedicated to copyright infringement, that wouldn't be anywhere near as bad. But they are only using copyright infringement as an excuse to obtain the power to censor and hand out monopolies.

You ever watch TV? That's exactly what the internet would become if SOPA becomes law. A few big companies running the whole thing, controlling everything and using it to spread false information and sell you products.

paranoia paranoia paranoia

SOPA is bad for legitimate reasons, but your fearmongering obscures them.

Am I the only one wondering why Inuzuma hasn't just given up and moved into a cave somewhere so no one can get to him?

[alienjesus]

Am I the only one wondering why Inuzuma hasn't just given up and moved into a cave somewhere so no one can get to him?

Inazuma boycotted caves because they support bears and vampire bats and other things which the government uses to suppress people who like to sleep in caves.

[Hobie-wan]

Am I the only one wondering why Inuzuma hasn't just given up and moved into a cave somewhere so no one can get to him?

No. I wonder this all the time. I wish it occasionally too. For his own safety, of course.

[BurningDoom]

That can't be right. Talking about crime, isn't a crime.

Linking someone to illegally obtained copyrighted material would be a crime, though. Could you link someone to child porn? Of course not. For SOPA, it would fall under "facilitating copyright infringement", which is expressly forbidden.

However, there are some things that do need to happen. We should at least have some sort of rating system for websites the same way we have a rating system for games, music, and movies; this for the sake of children who really don't need to see a website like Backdoor Bonanza.

Porn sites are already regulated, and every site must by law warn that those under the age of 18 are not allowed to visit a site. Other than that, I'm very much against a federally mandated rating system. Why must the governments invent another way for parents to be lazy?

Yeah, that's great and all, but that's not a rating system. Something that's easily identifiable like movie ratings. Some parents may not care about something like graphic violence, while others do.

If it's done that way nothing is outlawed, but at the same time there's something there to protect the children. I in no way, shape, or form support outlawing such sites (or porn sites) completely.

[Inazuma]

Or you could just not visit websites that you don't like.