8bitmaster said:wait wait wait wait wait wait wait......... does that mean no more porn?
Oh shit he's right!!!
What about the porn people???
Won't someone please think of the porn!!!

8bitmaster said:wait wait wait wait wait wait wait......... does that mean no more porn?
Yes.8bitmaster said:wait wait wait wait wait wait wait......... does that mean no more porn?
Amen. to think, mr. orwel(or however you spell it) was only what, 26 years off? One can hope that such a horrific infringment of so many rights "protected" by the bill of rights could never pass, but the patriot act is worse, and passed twice!joemegson94 said:America, land of the free.
I keep trying to tell everyone that George Bush and Obama are aliens trying to control us through the medical industrial complex, but no one believes me.Doctor What said:Just when I think that the tea party is crazy when they talk about our freedoms being taken away, shit like this happens.
Ok I am going to spell this out and end it.Scout Tactical said:Your argument reinforces my own. Your article says essentially what I said, so I don't see why you should doubt MY reading prowess.Ribonuge said:You really think a condescending attitude actually helps someone to realise a mistake? No it just makes them annoyed and frustrated.Scout Tactical said:I'm pretty sure you failed to read your own post. The central activity of YouTube is not to post copyright infringing videos: in fact, YouTube does a good job of removing those videos on request (but not without request). This also means that they cannot shut down any site with any kind of infringement. Critical reading skills, please. The sites they will be targeting are places like ThePirateBay, probably.
Please read your own post before you hit the submission button.
Here you go, this is from the article I posted, if you had bothered to read it.
Basically the potential of what could come from this law is what worries people. You should read a little more into things before posting. Check that submission button, y'know?One example of what this means in practice: sites like YouTube could be censored in the US. Copyright holders like Viacom often argue copyrighted material is central to the activity of YouTube, but under current US law, YouTube is perfectly legal as long as they take down copyrighted material when they're informed about it -- which is why Viacom lost to YouTube in court.
That court case in particular shows that the United States (which is the only entity that in this case matters, not Viacom for instance) currently believes sites like YouTube are perfectly acceptable. Unless what you're getting at is that if this law is passed and a lot of Viacom employees are appointed to become Federal justices of the law we'll be in trouble, then I don't see your point.
Maybe you should have thought twice before you hit the submission button.
So then I posted this from the article, showing that Viacom argued copyrighted material is central to the activity of YouTube (Note:Argued).The central activity of YouTube is not to post copyright infringing videos: in fact, YouTube does a good job of removing those videos on request (but not without request). This also means that they cannot shut down any site with any kind of infringement.
You then said that the central activity of Youtube is not to post copyright infringing videos. Viacom argued that it was.One example of what this means in practice: sites like YouTube could be censored in the US. Copyright holders like Viacom often argue copyrighted material is central to the activity of YouTube, but under current US law, YouTube is perfectly legal as long as they take down copyrighted material when they're informed about it -- which is why Viacom lost to YouTube in court.
This is not current. This bill has not yet been passed, but it could be. If it is then the US may not believe sites like Youtube are acceptable anymore.That court case in particular shows that the United States currently believes sites like YouTube are perfectly acceptable.
This^mr_rubino said:I'm guessing this topic is/will be soon filled with Europeans going "Derp. What's the problem?"
Atmos Duality said:First ACTA and now this.
It's like a revolving door of Unconstitutional Acts these past few months.
... Well, ACTA has been on the table since, at least, '08. Its also an international treaty. It, on it's own, has no power to directly influence anything.Irridium said:Wow. Just... wow.
This is just sad.
Well, its official, the government doesn't give a shit about the constitution anymore. I just can't believe something like this would even be considered.
First ACTA, now this. If things keep going the way they are, the US will turn into the next China.