So they would be able to block URL's but not IP addresses. I see a future (if it passes and somehow stands up in court) in IP address sharing sites or lists.
Yeah, blocking the URL's will stop the mass piraters (word?) - not.
1
2
-
Nov. 16, 2011 3:10 p.m. fastEddie SuperDork
-
Nov. 16, 2011 5:20 p.m. N Sperlo SuperDork
fastEddie wrote:
So they would be able to block URL's but not IP addresses. I see a future (if it passes and somehow stands up in court) in IP address sharing sites or lists.
Yeah, blocking the URL's will stop the mass piraters (word?) - not.
Basically what I was getting at when I said:
N Sperlo wrote:
Proxy
There is always a way around.
-
Nov. 16, 2011 5:52 p.m. ransom Dork
So it makes it could make it difficult to get at legitimate things that one ought to be able to browse to in addition to being ineffectual at what it's supposed to do.
I'm not worried about whether or not there are ways around it (well, I am, but that's secondary). I want my friends, family, and neighbors who have no idea what a proxy is to be able to look up anything they want or need to on the Internet.
-
Nov. 16, 2011 5:58 p.m. mad_machine SuperDork
Our only hope is that the Supreme court finds it illegal.
What I want to know is why so little attention was paid to it in the media... I guess Occupy Wallstreet is better ratings?
-
Nov. 16, 2011 6:07 p.m. JoeyM SuperDork
-
Nov. 16, 2011 6:27 p.m. fritzsch Reader
They pretty much shoved this through before any opposition could build up. put on the fast track
-
Nov. 16, 2011 6:58 p.m. mad_machine SuperDork
well.. hopefully the SC will fast track the "Nay"
-
Nov. 17, 2011 4:41 a.m. The0retical New Reader
N Sperlo wrote:
Just because it passes doesn't mean the supreme court wouldn't knock it on its ass. I have faith this would be the result. You cannot censor what is considered free speech even if it allows illegal activity to take place, similarly to any other constitutional law can effect other laws.
After the Kelo v. City of New London are you sure about that? There seems to be a growing number of decisions made which violate the spirit of the constitution. Yes it was intentionally vague but the papers written by Adams and Jefferson, even with differing political opinions, on interpretations of the constitution seem to be radically different than the views expressed by the current Supreme Court who are the experts on constitutional law.
Though Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and John Roberts were not involved in the decision, the "lifetime insulation from disbarment due to politics" of the judges seems to make them more out of touch in the internet age.
On a side note: Congress and the Supreme Court were initially setup with the idea in mind that members would have to travel to a central location to make those decisions, not be in session the majority of the year. With advances in transport and large city living conditions it seems we've managed to legislate ourselves into a mess.
-
Nov. 17, 2011 10:14 a.m. N Sperlo SuperDork
In reply to The0retical:
In response to, "are you sure?"
Of course not. But I'm not worried about it necessarily. If it were to pass, the backlash would be so substantial that ignoring it would not be an option. We could go look at websites supporting the KKK, but we can't read Justin Bieber's tweet. It's one thing to deal with Occupy, but a bunch of horny/angry teenage girls who want to read Justin's tweet? I'm not berkeleying with them. Just give them what they want.
It's all just too silly to make me worry.
-
Nov. 17, 2011 4:27 p.m. Giant Purple Snorklewacker SuperDork
-
Nov. 18, 2011 2:37 a.m. The0retical New Reader
In reply to N Sperlo:
Kelo v. New London has been ignored and is still ignored. Several states have implemented measures to counteract it but due to the ruling and the way that the majority opinion was written any of those road blocks put up by the states would not stand up under the scrutiny of the higher courts. Susette Kelo still lost her land and it now sits as a vacant lot.
Back on subject, using strong arm tactics like what is being proposed always carries the possibility of fracturing the internet. That is really no good for anyone. Combating piracy is going to end up being the next drug war. Extraordinarily expensive for no reason other than a moral objection.
-
Nov. 18, 2011 4:33 p.m. mad_machine SuperDork
I am seeing this pop up on a lot of sites now. A lot of sites are worried they will wind up being banned.
Personally, if it goes through and sites get banned.. I hope EVERYONE one of the congress people and senators that voted for it get their favourite sites banned because of it
-
Nov. 18, 2011 6:35 p.m. T.J. SuperDork
Another issue where I really like Ron Paul's stance. It's a bit scary to me when Ron Paul and Nancy Pelosi agree on an issue, since in general, I tend to not agree with Pelosi too much.
-
Nov. 18, 2011 6:37 p.m. T.J. SuperDork
The media is in the bag. The internet is the only way we can quickly talk and form opinions on our own in mass numbers. The powers that be would like it much better if we could only see the news that they approve of and control.
