  N3OGHYo Soy Col. "Bat" GuanoPremium
join:2003-11-11
Philly burbs
kudos:1 | This is why former comedians don't belong in the Senate Al Franken should be plying his trade in front of a brick wall with a microphone in NYC, and not in the Senate.
TOTAL FACEPALM.....
--
Petty people are disproportionally corrupted by petty power | |
|
 |  morboComplete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000 | Re: This is why former comedians don't belong in the Senate Franken is usually pro-consumer, but he got lost on this issue. | |
|
| | | | Re: This is why former comedians don't belong in the Senate Stuart Smally lost, surely you gest! Maybe we could get Billy Ray Cyrus, Flava Flav, and Rob Schneider in congress to complete this circus
--
BF69~~~Please stop suffocating gerbils! | |
|
| | |
| | | | Franken was a script writer. Not surprising he'd side with Hollywood, on this or any other matter. | |
|
| | | What are the other eighteen's excuses then? | |
|
|  BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | said by N3OGH:Al Franken should be plying his trade in front of a brick wall with a microphone in NYC, and not in the Senate. TOTAL FACEPALM..... So what the excuse for the other 18 idiots then Einstien? | |
|
| | N3OGHYo Soy Col. "Bat" GuanoPremium
join:2003-11-11
Philly burbs
kudos:1 | Re: This is why former comedians don't belong in the Senate And when did I portray myself as an "Einstein"? I'm just another asshole on the Internet with an opinion. Never said I was anything more, anything less.
But you sure did a good job of making yourself look like a douche nozzle.
Have a nice day, Mr. Nozzle.....
--
Petty people are disproportionally corrupted by petty power | |
|
|  pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | Al Franken was funny? | |
|
| | N3OGHYo Soy Col. "Bat" GuanoPremium
join:2003-11-11
Philly burbs
kudos:1 | Re: This is why former comedians don't belong in the Senate Congratulations, sir. You just made me sick to my stomach.
And just how does a man who portrayed himself in such a fashion, in jest or otherwise, become a member of the upper house of the Representative branch of our Federal government?
Again, FACEPALM...
As a history buff, I have to say it's pretty GD interesting to be living through modern day version of the fall of the Roman Empire.
Glad I'm armed to the teeth, as a condition of my employment. 
--
Petty people are disproportionally corrupted by petty power | |
|
| | |  BabyBearKeep wise ...with Nite-Owl
join:2007-01-11 | Re: This is why former comedians don't belong in the Senate FYI: It's photoshopped. | |
|
| | | | pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | Re: This is why former comedians don't belong in the Senate said by BabyBear:FYI: It's photoshopped.
Quick let's censor it!
--
"Net Neutrality" zealots - the people you can thank for your capped Internet service. | |
|
| | | | | said by N3OGH:And just how does a man who portrayed himself in such a fashion, in jest or otherwise, become a member of the upper house of the Representative branch of our Federal government?
There's precedent.
 | |
|
| | | I reside in the state with these two monkeys. I can not wait for them to go. Franken never should have gotten in. Magically he pulled ballots out of his arss. | |
|
 jmn1207Premium
join:2000-07-19
Ashburn, VA
kudos:1 | #%@&!! I hate F#@&*! censorship. | |
|
| |
| PDXPLT
join:2003-12-04
Banks, OR | said by jmn1207:I hate F#@&*! censorship. Yea right. Shutting down a website that a court has determined exists for the purpose of breaking the law is censorship. | |
|
| |  EUSKill cancerPremium
join:2002-09-10
canada | Re: #%@&!! Guess you missed this: "...without Judicial review." | |
|
| | |  LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5
1 edit | Re: #%@&!! said by EUS:Guess you missed this: "...without Judicial review." That isn't in the law. It is an OPINION on how some think the law will be abused. | |
|
| | | | |
| | | | | LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5
3 edits | Re: #%@&!! The actual law says that the domain registrar has to be issued a court order to shut down a domain:
»www.govtrack.us/congress/billtex···111-3804
See section 2324, subsection e
e) Service of Court Order-
‘(1) DOMESTIC DOMAINS- In an in rem action to which subsection (d)(1) applies, the Attorney General shall serve any court order issued pursuant to this section on the domain name registrar or, if the domain name registrar is not located within the United States, upon the registry. Upon receipt of such order, the domain name registrar or domain name registry shall suspend operation of, and lock, the domain name. | |
|
| | | PDXPLT
join:2003-12-04
Banks, OR | said by EUS:Guess you missed this: "...without Judicial review." I didn't miss it. It's a lie. An injunction issued by a court is required to enforce this (go read the bill for yourself).
Courts have judges, and thus the "judicial" part. They review things; thus the "review" part. | |
|
| | jmn1207Premium
join:2000-07-19
Ashburn, VA
kudos:1 | I suppose the irony in my comment was missed due to the lack of an emoticon?  | |
|
| |  KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | What Court? Sounds like some RIAA stooge making his quota numbers can just add your site to the blacklist. | |
|
| KearnstdElf WizardPremium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | its crap like this that lets the government get its foot in the door though. First its protecting the owners of our government(the corporations) next it will be preventing people say congress sucks..
Fighting file sharing should be a civil issue, it is bad enough they abuse our court system by flooding it with lawsuits for people not even in the same district as they are. the MAFIAA does not deserve a Censor Button for the internet.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
|
LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5
4 edits |  The Summary of what the bill says
Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act - Amends the federal criminal code to authorize the Attorney General (AG) to commence an action for injunctive relief against a domain name used by an Internet site that is "dedicated to infringing activities," even where such a domain name is not located in the United States. Defines an Internet site that "dedicated to infringing activities" as a site that is: (1) subject to civil forfeiture; (2) designed primarily to offer goods or services in violation of federal copyright law; or (3) selling counterfeit goods. Requires the AG to maintain a public listing of domain names that the Department of Justice (DOJ) determines are dedicated to infringing activities but for which the AG has not filed an action. Allows parties to petition the AG to remove such a domain name from the list and obtain judicial review of the final determination in a civil action. The full bill can be read here:
»www.govtrack.us/congress/billtex···111-3804
And what is copyright infringement?:
»www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/us···00-.html
Since the vote was unanimous, all 19 members of the committee listed here voted for it:
»www.govtrack.us/congress/committ···?id=SSJU
Groups supporting bill:
Property Rights Alliance
Motion Picture Association of America
Coalition Against Domain Name Abuse
US Chamber of Commerce
Screen Actors Guild
Viacom
International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees, Moving Picture Technicians, Artists and Allied Crafts of the United States
Groups opposing legislation:
Center for Democracy & Technology
Electronic Frontier Foundation
Distributed Computing Industry Association
Where the lobbying money came from to the US Senators, shows both for & against:
For bill: $5,348,392 Against bill: $167,750
»maplight.org/us-congress/bill/11···ibutions | |
|
| | | Re: The Summary of what the bill says I am an artist and I do not support censorship.This bill is bullshit and I intend to do something about it.
1.boycott mafiaa
2.buy only used products
3.never buy theater tickets
4.never support any artists or labels involved with mafiaa
5.already wrote to my senators
6.not voting democrat or republican again
maybe bills like these will get us all moving in the right direction.away from a 2 party bs system many of us hate | |
|
| | LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5 | Re: The Summary of what the bill says said by gorehound:I am an artist and I do not support censorship. Seems some of your fellow artists don't agree:
Supporters of bill:
Screen Actors Guild
International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees, Moving Picture Technicians, Artists and Allied Crafts of the United States | |
|
| | | | | Re: The Summary of what the bill says His statement was without question not all inclusive to every artist and thus did not need your 2 cents. | |
|
| LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5
2 edits | A more extensive list of this bill's supporters:
»www.slyck.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=52810
1-800-PetMeds
Activision
Acushnet Golf
Association of American Publishers
Cable and Satellite Broadcasting Association of Asia (CASBAA)
Chanel
Church Music Publishers' Association
Copyright Alliance
Disney
EMI
Entertainment Software Association
Fashion Business Inc.
Fortune Brands
Guru Denim, Inc.
Imaging Supplies Coalition
Johnson and Johnson
LVMH Moet Hennessy Louis Vuitton
Major League Baseball
Merck
Motion Picture Association of America
NagraStar
Nagravision
National Music Publisher's Association
NBC Universal
Nervous Tattoo Inc., dba Ed Hardy
Newscorp
Nike
Oakley
OpSec Security
Premier League
Recording Industry Association of America
Sony Music Entertainment
Sports Rights Owners Coalition
STOP Streaming Group
Tiffany and Co.
Time Warner
True Religion Apparel, Inc.
Ultimate Fighting Championship
Underwriters Laboratory
Universal Music Group
U.S. Chamber of Commerce
Viacom
Warner Music Group
Xerox | |
|
| | BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | Re: The Summary of what the bill says said by Linklist:A more extensive list of this bill's supporters: » www.slyck.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=528101-800-PetMeds Activision Acushnet Golf Association of American Publishers Cable and Satellite Broadcasting Association of Asia (CASBAA) Chanel Church Music Publishers' Association Copyright Alliance Disney EMI Entertainment Software Association Fashion Business Inc. Fortune Brands Guru Denim, Inc. Imaging Supplies Coalition Johnson and Johnson LVMH Moet Hennessy Louis Vuitton Major League Baseball Merck Motion Picture Association of America NagraStar Nagravision National Music Publisher's Association NBC Universal Nervous Tattoo Inc., dba Ed Hardy Newscorp Nike Oakley OpSec Security Premier League Recording Industry Association of America Sony Music Entertainment Sports Rights Owners Coalition STOP Streaming Group Tiffany and Co. Time Warner True Religion Apparel, Inc. Ultimate Fighting Championship Underwriters Laboratory Universal Music Group U.S. Chamber of Commerce Viacom Warner Music Group Xerox What's ironic is that if the governemnt tried to ban certain music, video games, movies or books many of this group would oppose such laws on freedom of speech. | |
|
| | |  KylemaulLovin' My FirefoxPremium
join:2001-03-30
North Port, FL
 ·Verizon FiOS
| Re: The Summary of what the bill says said by BF69:What's ironic is that if the government tried to ban certain music, video games, movies or books many of this group would oppose such laws on freedom of speech. Hmmm.
A) This is the government trying to ban something.
B) 'many of this group' part is negated by their participation. As far as I'm concerned, they just turned in their own (and those they represent's) 'freedom of speech' cards. | |
|
| | DesdinovaPremium
join:2003-01-26
Gaithersburg, MD | "1-800-PetMeds
Activision
Acushnet Golf
Association of American Publishers
Cable and Satellite Broadcasting Association of Asia (CASBAA)
Chanel..."
And eugenics was supported by the American Medical association, Theodore Roosevelt, the National Academy of Sciences, and the National Research Council. The Supreme Court upheld the rights of states to involuntarily sterilize "undesirables" and by 1963, over 60,000 people had been sterilized, many for no other reason than homosexuality, feeble-mindedness or just social undesireablity.
"Eugenic breeders believed American society was not ready to implement an organized lethal solution. But many mental institutions and doctors practiced improvised medical lethality and passive euthanasia on their own. One institution in Lincoln, Illinois fed its incoming patients milk from tubercular cows believing a eugenically strong individual would be immune. Thirty to forty percent annual death rates resulted at Lincoln. Some doctors practiced passive eugenicide one newborn infant at a time. Others doctors at mental institutions engaged in lethal neglect.
Nonetheless, with eugenicide marginalized, the main solution for eugenicists was the rapid expansion of forced segregation and sterilization, as well as more marriage restrictions. California led the nation, performing nearly all sterilization procedures with little or no due process. In its first twenty-five years of eugenic legislation, California sterilized 9,782 individuals, mostly women. Many were classified as "bad girls," diagnosed as "passionate," "oversexed" or "sexually wayward." At Sonoma, some women were sterilized because of what was deemed an abnormally large clitoris or labia."
--quoted from »hnn.us/articles/1796.html
So just because a group of people attached to a cause support and like that cause, doesn't exclude the cause from being horrifically wrong and shortsighted. | |
|
| | KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | When money is involved ethics and principles go right out the window. I find it ironic that many of Hollywood support such a measure out of greed. Seems it really is true, those who do not study the past are doomed to repeat it.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
| |
|
| PDXPLT
join:2003-12-04
Banks, OR
1 edit | quote:
The bill would create a website blacklist and give the (entertainment industry lawyer stocked) Department of Justice the ability to censor or shut down certain websites deemed "dedicated to infringing activities" without Judicial review.
That's not true, if the contents of the bill are accurately described above:
quote:
Amends the federal criminal code to authorize the Attorney General (AG) to commence an action for injunctive relief ...
'Injunctive relief' must be granted by a court. So much for the 'no judicial review' falsehood.
It's no surprise to me that Franken would support this. He used to be an entertainer. He got paid for the copyrightable content he would create.
I had an entertainment industry insider recently sum up the industry to me in a few short sentences: first you have a bunch of creative types, that create stuff in order to be paid for doing so. That's one sde of the industry. They then hire the other side: an army of barracuda lawyers whose job is to negotiate deals, wring out every possible penny of revenue that can be obtained for that creative content, and to protect the value of said content as much as possible. Yea they have front groups like the RIAA/MPAA that take the public heat for being the 'evil empire', but make no mistake the objective for all involved is to make as much money from as many sources as possible. How else to pay for all that bling.
Yea it doesn't sit well with the internet population that thinks this should all be free, but what else is new.
EDIT: WIRED has a much more accurate and better-written article: »www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/1···liceman/ | |
|
| KearnstdElf WizardPremium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | SAG supporting a bill like this, now there is a shocker. their premier members just could not live with only one bentley this year.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
|
|
| BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | Re: Might As Well Before you blame just Democrats the following Senators that voted for this are REPUBLICAN. You know the party of LESS government intrusion?
•Jeff Sessions -- Alabama
•Orrin G. Hatch -- Utah
•Chuck Grassley -- Iowa
•Jon Kyl -- Arizona
•Lindsey Graham -- South Carolina
•John Cornyn -- Texas
•Tom Coburn -- Oklahoma
and of course Arlen Specter was a Republican for DECADES until he decided being a Democrat was an easier path to getting elected. | |
|
| | N3OGHYo Soy Col. "Bat" GuanoPremium
join:2003-11-11
Philly burbs
kudos:1 | Re: Might As Well Arlen Specter is a self concerned piece of shit. Always was, always will be.
Some time in the near future people will move beyond this "Republican Vs. Democrat" bullshit and realize all of them are a bunch of snakes.
It should be the people (of all political stripes) Vs. the politicians.
As long as we continue to fight party line vs. party line, they've got us......
--
Petty people are disproportionally corrupted by petty power | |
|
| |  LegoPower77AbecedarianPremium
join:2002-08-03
Midlothian, VA | said by BF69:and of course Arlen Specter was a Republican for DECADES until he decided being a Democrat was an easier path to getting elected. Not that it hurts your point, but specter started out his career as a democrat.
--
"It is a melancholy reflection that liberty should be equally exposed to danger whether the government have too much or too little power."—James Madison | |
|
| | |
grazed
join:2006-10-15
Havertown, PA | No way I don't think there's a chance in hell this would get passed as law. There's just no way, Especially during the current presidency term. If it gets vetoed (if it even gets that far), I don't think 2/3 of the house/senate will vote for it. I would be shocked. | |
|
| BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | Re: No way said by grazed:I don't think there's a chance in hell this would get passed as law. There's just no way, Especially during the current presidency term. If it gets vetoed (if it even gets that far), I don't think 2/3 of the house/senate will vote for it. I would be shocked. Did you not see the list of the groups that are for this. How does DC say no to all that money? It will be interesting to see how many teabaggers vote yes on this because they should all be voting no. | |
|
| |  elwoodbluesElwood BluesPremium
join:2006-08-30
HarperLand
 ·Cybersurf Intern..
| Re: No way said by BF69:said by grazed:I don't think there's a chance in hell this would get passed as law. There's just no way, Especially during the current presidency term. If it gets vetoed (if it even gets that far), I don't think 2/3 of the house/senate will vote for it. I would be shocked. Did you not see the list of the groups that are for this. How does DC say no to all that money? It will be interesting to see how many teabaggers vote yes on this because they should all be voting no. DING DING DING, give the man a cigar, they can't afford to give up all those "campaign contributions" .
--
Jake: "Four fried chickens, and a coke" Elwood: "And some dry white toast, please" | |
|
| | | WhatNowPremium
join:2009-05-06
Charlotte, NC | Re: No way These days if you play the game the crowd with money will run somebody that has no problem taking their money or spending their own millions. | |
|
 newviewEx .. Ex .. ExactlyPremium
join:2001-10-01
Parsonsburg, MD
kudos:1 | My email to Senator Benjamin L. Cardin of Maryland quote:
I just wanted to express how ashamed I am to be a Democrat and a resident from the State of Maryland to see that a Senator from our Great State would vote for S. 3804: Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act, a bill that effectively condones censorship and violations of the First Amendment.
This bill would create a website blacklist and give the entertainment industry disguised as the Department of Justice the ability to censor or shut down certain websites deemed "dedicated to infringing activities" without Judicial review. It has been criticized by legal scholars and consumer advocates alike for clear violations of the First Amendment.
This bill should have been recognized for what it is, a blatant attempt to censor the Internet, and stopped in it's tracks by the Senate Judiciary Committee, but was instead given it's blessing . . . by the same senators who profess to abhor internet censorship in other countries.
I see that I made a mistake back in 2006, but I will not make the same mistake in 2012. I would rather vote Republican than vote for someone who is so easily duped by proponents of Censorship.
| |
|
|
See 6 replies to this post |
|
elwoodbluesElwood BluesPremium
join:2006-08-30
HarperLand Reviews:
·Cybersurf Intern..
| Low Hanging Fruit The problem with this law is that it would shut down sites like NZBMatrix, or ISOHUNT. This site simply does what Google does, provide an index of what is available on Usenet. I'm not here to condem praise these sites but use them as an example.
I can understand that many organizations don't want links to their copyrighted products, so why not shut down Google and Bing and Yahoo, they provide the exact same links. Oh wait, that would be too expensive, cheaper to go after the low hanging fruit.
--
Jake: "Four fried chickens, and a coke" Elwood: "And some dry white toast, please" | |
|
| | | Re: Low Hanging Fruit Let's just start using Google. Take screenshots as proof that google can be used in copyright infringement, send them anonymously to your lawmakers as proof that this law is BS. | |
|
 hhawkmanPremium
join:2001-02-08
Port Hueneme, CA
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| Judicial Oversight Just like the MAFIAA used to get to sue people with little or no evidence other than circumstatial. All they needed was a "Rubber Stamp" judge, to issue the court orders. That's not Judicial Oversight. That's a mockery of the justice system and the constitution. | |
|
| PDXPLT
join:2003-12-04
Banks, OR | Re: Judicial Oversight No it's not the same thing. You don't need judicial approval to file a lawsuit - you just go ahead and file papers. This is something entirely different - the DoJ needs to convince a federal judge that that there's compelling evidence that a website is set up for the primary purpose of ripping off professional artists and other owners of intelletual property.
Don't let yourself be misled and lied to by erroneous and sloppy "journalism". | |
|
| | hhawkmanPremium
join:2001-02-08
Port Hueneme, CA | Re: Judicial Oversight I was talking about the court orders to the ISP for discovery of our information. They would get those court orders on the most circumstatial of evidence. You are right about the actual lawsuit though, I miscommunicated my thought. | |
|
| | Ya know WHAT take the domain name, just use the ip address ROFL
what a waste a cash | |
|
| | No teeth? This would be the 'hose AnyDVD' law, then. How does it prevent a direct connection by IP address? So is it more a 'make it harder' law i.e. relatively toothless? | |
|
 TamaraBQuestion The Current ParadigmPremium
join:2000-11-08
Da Bronx
·Optimum Online
 ·Clearwire Wireless
| Whack-A-Mole Legislation The bottom line is this is stupid legislation simply because it won't work.
Firstly, The US does not have International jurisdiction over all DNS. Secondly, a simple workaround, like the distribution of a "blacklisted hosts file" nullifies the effect of the law.
This will only create another useless and expensive government bureaucracy.
I don't see this as bad however. The more corporate interests attempt to censor the Internet, the more technical solutions will be developed to counter the censorship, making the Internet more immune to censorship itself.
I am finding this childish battle between control and freedom rather amusing. In the end, freedom and openness will win, as the genie is already out of the bottle and any attempt to stuff it back in will fail.
--
Would you ever go over to Czechoslovakia, and marry me daughter for me?" | |
|
| | Well, of course they voted for it. They're fully-funded members of the MPAA's de facto political party. What did you expect? | |
|
 kingdome74Emotionally UnavailablePremium
join:2002-03-27
Syracuse, NY
kudos:2
·Verizon FiOS
·RoadRunner Cable
| Does anybody really... ... believe that censorship won't be the norm instead of the exception in the very near future? Then I have a bridge to sell you. It's particularly galling that something like this is trying to be back-doored during a lame-duck session.
--
Fascists like free speech as long as it's approved free speech. Et tu, Brute?
| |
|
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
| It is amazing.. to see that the Department of Justice is becoming just a tool for the entertainment industry. Never mind such things as drug smugglers, terrorists, kidnappers, murders, or anything else; we have to save the entertainment industry model! Our government has become a plutocracy, with the politicians and agencies simply being paid under the table to do what the plutocrats want. | |
|
 ArkhmAsylmEvrythng I need isn't really what I want
join:2006-02-22
Saint Paul, MN | Franken & Klobuchar I, for one, will be writing my senators (Al & Amy) to ask...WTF??
--
*Tap, Tap, Tap* Is this thing on? | |
|
|
|
|
·
·
