HoopSpread

May 26, 2011 at 7:00pm

 You f..g right I got copyrighted content 'hosted',on my machine. The layout of the Internet right now,is a somewhat suspended animation of copyrighted content. But it is not as traditional media would know as a 'one-to-many' medium - when it is utilized to the correct term. When the senate looks at a computer screen,it is not glued in one place to the coordinates of all known coordinates,that is 'APBd' to all goers on.

    The ideal of a one-to-many,and many-to-many is not beset on all sides of 'end users' that are takers to all comers. That said,if the engineering was a more focal,optional,or focused autonomous one-to-one 'Internet'(and it is if any would care to notice). That is yes,I have a machine with copyrighted content on it,and yes I intend to broadcast that material as a mention of a 'freedom of speech'. However this is a one-to-one coorospondence to 'no comers',and the 'hosting'of material on a localized machine is 'fair-use',and when considered to this manner protected by the Bill Of Rights.

    That is you knock,I dont know you you are not going to come in. When you are not somebody I know you are not going to run your fingers through my 'fair-use'object of storage afforded the micrcopia in the digital age.

     The engineering of this subject is simply software.

   While the glib of the utilization of the DNS as powered by the U.S. Senate /lawmakers..whatever may pertain to what they can do with it. In court they will not enter this subject w/o a warrant. They will not prevail to observe copyrighted objects 'in play' by illegal entry. Onto the ideal that 'one-to-many,or many-to-many is what a 'web site',site(s) or a 'public portrayal'in that 'fair-use' demeaner,endeaver with unopposed copyright material. Protected by the Bill Of Rights.

    If an when ISPs come around to this,we will have better security,privacy,and policy. This is conductive by the individual.

   The Senate does not know enough to engineer this. Then copyright law cannot preclude 'ownership'of copyrighted materials as 'personal documents'. These 'assets'do not pertain to copyright.

    If the Senate communicates this way. They will not prevail. I mean this is mortal wounds on the duality of many defined characteristics of everyday life. The glib carried on in the legal speak should not continue w/o rebuttal. Because it is serious self-destructive rhetoric with a real indifference to what constituents are actually composed of.

 

 

Belboz99

May 26, 2011 at 6:16pm

"this legislation will protect wages and benefits for the millions of middle-class workers who bring America’s creativity to life."

Who the frak are these "millions of middle class workers" that have IP being pirated??? 

Sediket

May 26, 2011 at 6:10pm

OMG!! pirating is bad?  I thought acquing the hard work of other individuals all the way up to large corporations for free was the way the bussiness world worked?

I don't know how they make money because there is no need to pay for their products but their famous or big companies soo they are just rich and I'm a schmuk who doesn't understand the basic concept that companies make money by SELLING their products.

So I hate it when anyone tries to stop me from downloading other entities products.

MarioJP

May 26, 2011 at 6:06pm

And then let's pass a bill that will ban internet radio, because FM radio has lost control over their listeners. This isn't about piracy. its about POWER AND CONTROL. Has history taught us something at all?? The rich gets richer and the poor gets even more screwed. Middle class? what middle class. WAKE UP YOU MORON! MIDDLE CLASS DOES NOT EXIST ANYMORE!. That's like saying. "I can't wait until i retire. My retirement money is waiting for me. WRONG there isn't any left. Be surprised if social security ceases to exists. I don't think this bill is going anywhere. Youtube is the best thing that ever happened in the computer world.

luke904

May 26, 2011 at 5:19pm

To all those who pirata media: IT. IS. WRONG.

sure, there are exceptions, like your disc breaks and you pirate whatever it was to get it back.

 

People just want to make excuses so they dont have to face the idea that they are stealing.

"I do not care if other people's media gets pirated. They should not have priced themselves out of the market in the first place."

-they made it, they set the price. why dont you make something? better yet, stop pirating, thats one of the reasons its "priced so high." if you cant afford it, then dont buy it.

 

I'm not saying I support this law, i dont know where i stand on it really. any time we give the government power, they tend to abuse it. But, taking down a legitimate piracy site is not abusing their power.

Roll Tide

May 26, 2011 at 5:18pm

bold prediction.... youtube gets shut down and remerges under government ownership to protect "you" and "us" and "them"

Neufeldt2002

May 26, 2011 at 2:53pm

I take great offense to this. What gives the US the right to determine which websites I visit when I don't live in, or am a citizen of the US. The Internet is GLOBAL, all the more reason to move ICANN, and their servers.

Jason Hopkins

May 26, 2011 at 2:46pm

Welcome to another step toward living in the USSR, United States Socialist Republic.

Jason Hopkins

May 26, 2011 at 2:44pm

Welcome to another step toward living in the USSR, United States Socialist Republic.

Noizemaker31

May 26, 2011 at 2:34pm

Much as I love free "everything," this is no surprise. It's stealing. Nerds of the world will innovate and I will follow...

aarcane

May 26, 2011 at 1:37pm

I'll just keep getting my movies from netflix and do without the music if it comes to that.

davidflory

May 26, 2011 at 1:26pm

Short term - All that will happen is that you will have to find torrent search engines via their IP address instead of their URL.  Most torrent users are advanced users who know how to do this already.  IP addresses will end up being advertised instead and normal search engines with webcrawlers will find them.

Midterm - Torrent search engines will produce apps that are advertised paid that will both torrent search and download torrents. (current most torrent apps only download the files from the torrent).

Long term - Supreme court will decide that this is a violation of free speech rights since websites and software are already been decided that they are covered under the first admendment.

crazitrain02

May 26, 2011 at 1:25pm

Is the government going to shut down youtube now?  Even youtube can't keep up with the amount of copyrighted material that is on there.  This is just one step closer to becoming like China and only let the public see what the government deems appropriate.

level1paladin

May 26, 2011 at 12:51pm

I gotta the get the hell out of this country.  It's going to shit faster and faster.

uc7

May 26, 2011 at 12:42pm

But you don't understand.  The MPAA pays so much while lobbying.  How can legislators possible consider not accepting what amounts to bribes from the cash stuffed Hollywood group?  it would be unthinkable.  Those lousy independant creative people aren't going to cough up that kind of cash.  :p

Holly Golightly

May 26, 2011 at 12:12pm

Meeeeeee too! I am with Eric Schmidt on this one.

Greedy people wont allow us to do whatever we feel like with our content. Again, the Justice Department puts big business before people. A new pirating website is made everyday. Lets not forget the greatness of file sharing torrents.

I do not care if other people's media gets pirated. They should not have priced themselves out of the market in the first place. This shows that even the Justice Department is behind the times. I would like to see them attempt to "strong arm" the Russian government and their companies. It wont happen, so this does not ban piracy forever.