At 1/19/12 09:25 PM, Camarohusky wrote:
At 1/19/12 03:07 PM, Malachy wrote:
Consider this a warning.It's hard to argue alone against so much people. Now I know why Cellar and Musician were the way they were...
It's a road hard travel'd, admittedly. I empathize, as a person who takes less popular stances on most issues. Save for this one, and since you're starting where we left (which was because of MAG, I admit) then I'll just continue as it was.
Actually, there are numerous pieces of due process that work exactly like this. We haven't seen a flood of arrests and search warrants, have we? Just because due process occurs after the fact in some cases, does not automatically equall massive abuse of the system.
The clause that people are pretty unambiguously arguing for is this one "... nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law[.]". Taking down a website prior to informing the owner is not currently an allowed practice, and so is retrospectively a violation. Technically if this were to pass, then it would actually be proper due process to take a site down without warning because it's now written into law. However, that is only correct after the fact (that is, if the people allow this to become law), and is therefore moot, for now.
In a way, I agree with you... but now it's simply a matter of the fact that people don't want that to be written into law, in the first place. I guess the more accurate way of putting this is that people don't want due process to be a case where they can't confront the opposing party until after the assumption of guilt is applied.
Where in the Bill does it say that the sites that are shut down are eradicated?
It doesn't need to say it in the bill. What do you think happens when Tom can't pay for a server to hold his information? The bill cuts funding, and without funding Tom can't keep the servers running, and they remove the material so they can support the next paying customer. It's not explicitly in the bill - I'm running a number crunch with logic and coming to this conclusion myself (and if you want to verify this, ask Tom if this would be the case - if he says otherwise then I'll retract my statement).
First off, you don't go to jail for copyright infringement unless it's egregious. And guess what? That has ZERO to do with this bill. if someone believed he was commiting flagrant and wanton piracy as such to trigger already existing stautes they could arrest him. We don't need SOPA or PIPA to do what you fear here. Also, this is a perfect example of after the fact due process.
Jail and/or paying the companies back. It was an inclusive 'or' function - he might not go to jail, but he does become liable for all possible damages from uploaders on his site. I get this conclusion when the bill states that the target is...
(Sec. 102. b. 1. B) an owner or operator of a foreign infringing site.
That makes him personally liable, and since action is taken before due process, that means he's going to be suffering the consequences before he has the chance to act. Also, because the action is 'In Personam', that means that whatever action is taken, it's not only against the site (that is, material being taken down), but also against the person (the offender in question is to pay restitution according to what the law requires - that's not specific to this bill, so I cannot say specifically what that entails; assumingly restitution for damages at least, though).
The only way to be thrown in jail during any civil proceeding is to commit contempt of court.
Jail is jumping to conclusions. I HEARD that it'd be on the level of felony, but I haven't found that yet so I'm not going to assume. If someone could kindly point out where in the bill it states that it would be appreciated.
I retract that statement.
First, I am pretty damn sure Tom has enough money to afford attorneys.
I disagree with that, outright - in a war of attrition (which is what court cases - and especially civil cases - are about), Tom doesn't have nearly the resources that the companies he'd be counter suing would have :/
Again, due process isn't as static as you think it is. The shutting down of a site with a hearing after the fact is well within the definition of due process.
Read above - in short, it's not within the current mindset of due process, as it stands, though if it passes then it technically will be.
By asking for an up front due process you are essentially claiming that the liberty to operate a website is more important that the liberty of movement (not being incarcerated).
I'm claiming that property (and possibly liberty, if the claims that it'll be a felony hold out to be true) shouldn't be taken away until proven guilty in court. Which isn't possible for some foreign websites... and yeah, that is objectively a problem with the current system. I don't think most anti-SOPA/PIPA people deny that, though - they just think that this isn't the answer.
Seriously, when is the last time you have seen a law that was abused so much?
When my former sister-in-law buttfucked my brother in court through perjury, fraud and parental kidnapping (I'm not kidding) and hid behind an emotional performance to evade the regular enforcement of the law. The legal system ignored her felonies (of which she has committed a few) because there is no money to pursue them.
Well, you asked.
above that, when was the last time you have seen a law that so directly could harm a fundamental Constitutional right that has been abused?
NDAA, if people are correct on it. Though I haven't investigated it myself, so it may or may not be a valid concern. A debate for another time.
I argue this position more out of a distate for how the other side is run (just like my opposition to OWS) than out of support for it.
Eh, I feel you - personally I wasn't much for that movement myself for similar reasons. I did, however, agree with many points that they made and wish they approached the whole thing a little differently.
...When only 3-6% of your group can make a cogent argument to support their side, the group really needs to rethink itself.
Arguing that a position is wrong because most of the people are stupid is an ad hominum. If only 1% could make a coherent argument and everyone else followed, if that argument was absolutely perfect then I don't think that the position would need to rethink anything.