Stop Online Piracy Act

Whats the deal

Pedophiles are angry that their websites will be shut down.
You have nothing to worry about.

>Pedophiles
The secret cheatcode to fascism.

Jews want to prevent you from breathing air without paying to them stuff. As a protest you can take a gun and shoot a few jews in the head, or, preferably, their filthy offsprings.

make social websites like YouTube, Tumblr and Facebook, that host user content responsible for ensuring that their users do not post infringing material.

The bill would allow the court to order Internet service providers, “payment network providers,” search engines, and advertising services to take “technically feasible and reasonable measures” to cut off these illegal foreign infringing sites in their respective fields. Internet service providers would be required to modify their DNS look-up servers to return an empty response for these sites, making them virtually inaccessible, while search engines would need to filter results linking to such sites.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Online_Piracy_Act

It's a good idea to start killing spree from jews like this:
http://www.notablebiographies.com/newsmakers2/2005-La-Pr/Probst-Larry.html

everyone hates EA anyway.

Please don't use the term `piracy' because it suggests the idea that unauthorized sharing is similar to killing people and taking hostages for money.

>>7
Jews arent people.

Still the right word would be "antisemitism", because 95% of copyright owners are jewish.

Here we are
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Online_Piracy_Act
>...co-sponsored by Howard Berman
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Berman
>"Even before I was a Democrat, I was a Zionist."

http://www.scribd.com/doc/72807693/Law-Profs-Letter-Against-SOPA-PROTECT-IP
Yochai Benkler is an Israeli-American professor of Law and author.

>>11
Who cares about protesters? They have no legal power.

And Benkler should be ashamed, because jews like Berman donate to Israel (most of Israel income comes from donations).

Enjoy your freedom, americunts.

I hope the bill passes (I don't live in the US).

>>14
Why? It's a pure junk law. Or do you hope it will lead to people taking alternate DNS roots/DNS-like systems, bitcoin and other digital currencies and darknets more seriously? Because if it's enforced, all that people will have to do is move to technology they can't control. The only way they can prevent any of this is to shut down the Internet globally or isolate the US from the rest of the world.

>>15
I hope the latter happens, it'd be great.

>>16
u jelly? :)

>>15
They can forbid p2p connections, making internet static, when you have a few state-approved newspaper websites, like Soviet Union. Then can restrict consumer's hardware, requiring every single CPU to execute only DRM signed code, like video game consoles do.

>>18
It's too late to do that, and too easily circumvented. It would also cause major civil unrest if seriously enforced (It's not N. Korea).

>>19
too easily circumvented.
Will you illegaly construct your own CPU? This'll get you jailed, just like illegaly constructing firearms.

It would also cause major civil unrest if seriously enforced
Modern millitary is well prepared to deal even with million sized ritos.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_Denial_System

>>19
It's not N. Korea
what makes you think so?

>>20
I don't live in the US, so the question doesn't matter, but if I did, I would indeed construct any hardware that I want as long as I don't find the act immoral. Preventing me from constructing a CPU would be an immoral act, so I would have no problem defying such immoral laws. Not that the world isn't filled with generic hardware. The cost of recycling or destroying all that hardware would be immense. Not to mention what it would do the semiconductor, electronics, EE, ... and software industries. Your proposal is just not feasible in the modern world. What one stands to gain by implementing such a system is insignificant compared to what one stands to lose.

>>22
I don't live in the US
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globalization

The cost of recycling or destroying all that hardware would be immense.
They'll just forbid future manufacturing of unrestricted devices. For example, IPhone and Android dont allow execution of user's code and users dont even notice that, while all phones before were able to run any code you want.

What one stands to gain by implementing such a system is..
he gains http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trusted_Computing
it's awesome concept. just imagine, nobody takes a step without paying for permission!

it's awesome concept. just imagine, nobody takes a step without paying for permission!
And technological progress slows to a crawl, humanity dies in 50-100 years because they didn't solve any of the important problems and instead reverted to the world as was in the '50's or earlier. Huge gain right?
If I had to make a choice: I would very much live in the current modern world as a poor (but not broke) person, than live as a medieval king. What one stands to gain by continued technological progress is a quality-of-life change of that order of magnitude. The risk for doing nothing is at worst an existential risk that ends with the demise of human civilization with low hopes of rising up again.
Whatever short-term benefit one might have from being 'a king in hell' is certainly not worth the long-term benefit of being a 'servant commoner in heaven'.
Maybe some nasty personality types would prefer to be the king, merely on the virtue of dominating others, while still living much worse than he would if he would have chosen to cooperate with everyone else.

>>24
Dont see why. Government gets less resistance, publishing industry gets more money, user gets rights to play a beatles song three times a day for $2.99 month - everybody is happy.

>>25
You're not seeing the effects in the long run.

>>26
Government gets godlike power, publishing industry gets incredibly rich, user gets incredibly poor, everyone but user is happy.

>>27
User is almost everyone. Government is still made of users mostly, same with large cogs in the publishing industry. It just increases the gulf between the rich and the poor more, however what might not be obvious is that it also greatly stiffles innovation/scientific research/technological progress, which will lead to much lower quality of life, even for the obscenely rich. Avoid doing this crap and given the same time (let's say 50 years), the rich stand to get a much higher quality of life in the long run if progress is maintained at current rate. Progress tends to be a positive-sum game where most players are rewarded. Viewing life as a zero-sum game is a dangerous and counterproductive attitude.
See my previous 'king in hell' vs 'commoner in heaven' comparison.
Of course, if you don't see exactly how the world could turn out in 50 years if idiots like that don't create potential existential risks or put up barriers to limit progress, then I can see why you would favor such stupid legal approaches.

>>28
which will lead to much lower quality of life, even for the obscenely rich
bullshit. But I agree with the rest.

>>29
Are you claiming that the exact same technological advances would be made in a heavily censored world? Or even the same commercial products would be created?
An example of a major improvement that could happen given current progress would be increasing lifespans for much longer (this is just an example, but you can pick others which you find more probable - I can think of quite a few more). Now imagine a heavily censored world where progress is much slower, thus it may be imaginable that the world is troubled by other problems and they didn't develop that particular technology or make some particular scientific discovery that would have happened in a more open world (if not this particular example, consider all the stepping stones that are needed for greater results/development, those would take a lot longer to reach).
In the open world, the rich guy has a chance to live much longer than in the closed world.

>>30
The obscenely rich would get perfect quality of life regardless of the underlying system.

>>9
JIDF DETECTED

>>31
You probably have better quality of life than medieval kings.

>>33
They could sleep with any girl in their kingdom.  Last time I got laid was null.

>>34
They had bad teeth, and you got enough money to... But don't do that.