[MartinBlank]

Not sure if this has been posted, but once again, our moronic politicians are debating a bill that is pretty fukking frightening if it were passed.

http://americancensorship.org/

[BetterBizness]

They can go fk themselves!

[FourLengthsClear]

So what are you, as Americans, going to do about it?

[goofyre]

Heres a great vid about it. http://vimeo.com/31100268

[big0mar]

I'm not sure how its considered censorship if we are talking about breaking the law???????? Someone please elaborate.

[goofyre]

Watch the video I posted, it explains it.

[cant call it]

Good find marty.
Eventually they will convince the american population that it must happen to protect their identities and children, and it will be accepted as a necessity to ensure daily survival. (some sarcasm applied)

Be prepared to be called a freedom hating american by william walters & other in 3...2...1... "why don't you move to bangladesh, etc" type comments

[big0mar]

Watch the video I posted, it explains it.

Do not see a real problem with that. Sites that assist the distribution of contraband should be shut down, and their owners/operators executed.

Basically, the only valid argument made is that Judges will make mistakes. I do not accept that argument.

[Bill Dozer]

Do not see a real problem with that. Sites that assist the distribution of contraband should be shut down, and their owners/operators executed.

Basically, the only valid argument made is that Judges will make mistakes. I do not accept that argument.

It starts with government selling us on why they need the power and later it's used for special interests. The Patriot act, sold to us to stop terrorists, is mostly used to monitor people domestically. A lot of people hear something like "child porn" especially older super religious people not big on the internets, and are willing to go nuclear on it.

[big0mar]

It starts with government selling us on why they need the power and later it's used for special interests. The Patriot act, sold to us to stop terrorists, is mostly used to monitor people domestically.

Do you really need to be sold on stopping illegal pirating???

Are you really using the argument that the Patriot Act was bad because its being used to stop drug dealers???

[Bill Dozer]

Do you really need to be sold on stopping illegal pirating???

Are you really using the argument that the Patriot Act was bad because its being used to stop drug dealers???

The Patriot act got support from people to help Jack Bauer save the Golden Gate Bridge not to catch you smoking weed in your basement while downloading a pirated copy of Transformers. If gov can reach when it wants we'll live in a nanny state.

[FourLengthsClear]

Do you really need to be sold on stopping illegal pirating???

Are you really using the argument that the Patriot Act was bad because its being used to stop drug dealers???

If you really think that this proposed legislation is about preventing piracy and illegal downloads/streaming, you are being naive.

[big0mar]

The Patriot act got support from people to help Jack Bauer save the Golden Gate Bridge not to catch you smoking weed in your basement while downloading a pirated copy of Transformers. If gov can reach when it wants we'll live in a nanny state.

Sounds like you are defending drug use and pirating.

Why shouldn't the Patriot Act be used to stop drug use and pirating?

[big0mar]

If you really think that this proposed legislation is about preventing piracy and illegal downloads/streaming, you are being naive.

What exactly are they trying to do? Stop me from ______????

[opie1988]

It starts with government selling us on why they need the power and later it's used for special interests. The Patriot act, sold to us to stop terrorists, is mostly used to monitor people domestically. A lot of people hear something like "child porn" especially older super religious people not big on the internets, and are willing to go
nuclear on it.

Nothing new here. Please. If you don't think the government is already tracking the movements of pinko commie sympathizers like Loshak when he ventures state side.....you're kidding yourself.

I sleep better simply knowing that Peter's whereabouts are constantly monitored by the right people!

[benjy]

Do you really need to be sold on stopping illegal pirating???

Are you really using the argument that the Patriot Act was bad because its being used to stop drug dealers???

Like you I trust my government to do everything for me. I'm happy they can monitor everything I, and everyone else, does. We need thought police too; people aren't just doing the wrong things, they are thinking them too!

A first small step would be to establish a Department of Truth. Thoughtcrime should be prosecuted!

And at the very least illegal pirating would move to other countries. And drug dealers would be stopped. Yay!

[big0mar]

Like you I trust my government to do everything for me. I'm happy they can monitor everything I, and everyone else, does. We need thought police too; people aren't just doing the wrong things, they are thinking them too!

A first small step would be to establish a Department of Truth. Thoughtcrime should be prosecuted!

And at the very least illegal pirating would move to other countries. And drug dealers would be stopped. Yay!

Seriously. I mean the government told us the PA was going to be used to stop terrorists, when in reality its being used to stop drug dealers! How can I trust these guys after how they've treated these criminals???

God forbid someone that stole your CC information and is using it to make $10K worth of purchases be monitored by the government! How can they be trusted?

[CarpeDime]

Nothing new here. Please. If you don't think the government is already tracking the movements of pinko commie sympathizers like Loshak when he ventures state side.....you're kidding yourself.

I sleep better simply knowing that Peter's whereabouts are constantly monitored by the right people!

the authorities have been after me for years, they cant touch me and never will

drugs, sex crimes, mp3 stealing, attending extreme left-wing events, they cant pin anything on me i do what i want i am a free man

yes sometimes i go to hippie festivals or yoga ahshrahms or whatever the fuk they are or i go to rights protests and yeah sometimes i bang spirtual artsy political chicks with SICK bodies with asses that are like POW!

these days im more about banging true believer lefty broads than about socialist subversion but yeah the feds for some reason still track me

i dont care

[FourLengthsClear]

What exactly are they trying to do? Stop me from ______????

It is not about preventing you (a potential customer) from doing anything, it is what it could prevent potential competitors from doing. If this legislation was in place 5 or 6 years ago and actively enforced - YouTube would probably not exist. Costs for sites/platforms that provide legal content to ensure that there is no illegal content would rise which in turn gives record companies and movie studios greater pricing power.

[benjy]

Seriously. I mean the government told us the PA was going to be used to stop terrorists, when in reality its being used to stop drug dealers! How can I trust these guys after how they've treated these criminals???

God forbid someone that stole your CC information and is using it to make $10K worth of purchases be monitored by the government! How can they be trusted?

You are a paragon of Newspeak!

[big0mar]

It is not about preventing you (a potential customer) from doing anything, it is what it could prevent potential competitors from doing. If this legislation was in place 5 or 6 years ago and actively enforced - YouTube would probably not exist. Costs for sites/platforms that provide legal content to ensure that there is no illegal content would rise which in turn gives record companies and movie studios greater pricing power.

If a site cannot prevent itself from being used as a marketplace for contraband, it shouldn't exist.

If people are selling crack in my living room, is it my responsibility to stop them?

The fact remains that YouTube is a haven for streaming copyrighted material. You just do not care because you are not the one being stolen from.

[big0mar]

You are a paragon of Newspeak!

Or the paragon of abiding the law. Take your pick I suppose.

[nosniboR11]

we as Americans must watch were loshak goes at all times

[benjy]

Or the paragon of abiding the law. Take your pick I suppose.

War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength

Long live Ingsoc and their spokesman BigOmar!

[FourLengthsClear]

If a site cannot prevent itself from being used as a marketplace for contraband, it shouldn't exist.

If people are selling crack in my living room, is it my responsibility to stop them?

The fact remains that YouTube is a haven for streaming copyrighted material. You just do not care because you are not the one being stolen from.

It is just as impossible for a site like YouTube to prevent illegal uploads as it is for media rights holders to prevent their material from being copied/ripped/decoded in the first place.

[big0mar]

It is just as impossible for a site like YouTube to prevent illegal uploads as it is for media rights holders to prevent their material from being copied/ripped/decoded in the first place.

No it is not impossible for YouTube to prevent illegal uploads. Many measures could be taken.

[FourLengthsClear]

No it is not impossible for YouTube to prevent illegal uploads. Many measures could be taken.

Many measures are taken. If a copyright holder requests/demands that a video is taken down, it is taken down.
For those videos not be uploaded (made available for viewing) in the first place would require every one to be reviewed which would add so much cost as to render the concept no longer viable.

That is the root of this legislation. To make as many alternatives as possible to traditional media distribution no longer viable.

This is a typical piece of flawed legislation which is not driven by the desire to protect IP, it is driven by 'special interests'.

[crjohnson32]

So often people are annoyed when I talk about personal liberty, saying, "well someone might use their personal liberty to practice a habit I can't endorse." Legalizing people to make freedom of choices, as long as it doesn't hurt other people is not an endorsement. If you study something, because of the first amendment, doesn't mean we endorse those things. If we can allow individuals to pick and choose their intellectual studies, and spiritual studies, why is we have gotten to a point that we are obsessed with regulating peoples personal habits? We have now accepted the notion that governments can protect us from ourselves. It's a careless attitude toward civil liberties.
-Ron Paul

[cant call it]

Or the paragon of abiding the law. Take your pick I suppose.

no way this guy is serious.

[big0mar]

Many measures are taken. If a copyright holder requests/demands that a video is taken down, it is taken down.
For those videos not be uploaded (made available for viewing) in the first place would require every one to be reviewed which would add so much cost as to render the concept no longer viable.

That is the root of this legislation. To make as many alternatives as possible to traditional media distribution no longer viable.

This is a typical piece of flawed legislation which is not driven by the desire to protect IP, it is driven by 'special interests'.

And when a user uploads copyrighted content to YouTube, and it is removed, what happens to that user?

You do not need to review every upload. Just let the users know they'll be held legally responsible for what they do upload. Those that make their identity available to YouTube would be able to instantly upload. Those that do not care to have their identity available would have to wait for their content to be approved.

I'm shocked so many here are promoting theft and distribution of contraband.

[big0mar]

So often people are annoyed when I talk about personal liberty, saying, "well someone might use their personal liberty to practice a habit I can't endorse." Legalizing people to make freedom of choices, as long as it doesn't hurt other people is not an endorsement. If you study something, because of the first amendment, doesn't mean we endorse those things. If we can allow individuals to pick and choose their intellectual studies, and spiritual studies, why is we have gotten to a point that we are obsessed with regulating peoples personal habits? We have now accepted the notion that governments can protect us from ourselves. It's a careless attitude toward civil liberties.
-Ron Paul

I have no problem with the government eliminating copyright and trademark laws.

[Nookx]

This is another horrible step for Americans and the world. Do everything you can do to not let this pass.

[opie1988]

I cannot endorse any "censorship" of the Internet. I think free speech must prevail.

Clearly, we must not allow any pro-homo or anti-American nonsense on there.....but I assume everyone already recognizes this.

[benjy]

And when a user uploads copyrighted content to YouTube, and it is removed, what happens to that user?

You do not need to review every upload. Just let the users know they'll be held legally responsible for what they do upload. Those that make their identity available to YouTube would be able to instantly upload. Those that do not care to have their identity available would have to wait for their content to be approved.

I'm shocked so many here are promoting theft and distribution of contraband.

Of course, if we disagree with this legislation we MUST be promoting intellectual property theft!

Little does it matter that this law will have other repercussions, it will be the law. As such, it must be supported. If it is proposed by our legislators not only must it be right, it must be perfect!

Your mastery of Newspeak is peerless.

[shari91]

Many measures are taken. If a copyright holder requests/demands that a video is taken down, it is taken down.
For those videos not be uploaded (made available for viewing) in the first place would require every one to be reviewed which would add so much cost as to render the concept no longer viable.

That is the root of this legislation. To make as many alternatives as possible to traditional media distribution no longer viable.

This is a typical piece of flawed legislation which is not driven by the desire to protect IP, it is driven by 'special interests'.

YouTube has no desire to censor what is shown other than the obvious no no's ie porn, abuse, etc or when someone complains. And neither do the majority of the entities who random people worry about protecting their copyrights. Susan Boyle = 300 million+ YouTube hits. Did 300 million people watch the UK version of X Factor? No. Did those people worldwide even have access to that show on their tv? No. Did many of those people see her audition on YouTube and then rush out and buy her CD when it came out so she could break all of these sales records worldwide? Yes. But I'm sure Sony and Susan are really pissed about that.

No one should kid themselves. These companies work together.