From what I understand you only have something to worry about if you are doing something you shouldn't.
Sure, it could be abused, and if it is then jump up and down and protest by all means... but wait and see how the law will be used first.
That's the problem. That's realistically not how US politics works any more. I mean, look at how long it took us to "solve the debt crisis." It was an artificial problem, and raising the debt ceiling is done quite frequently. Why was it such a big deal this time? GOP wants more seats, so they did what they do best and created a problem to make it look like they were going to solve it. Which brings me to:
That's why I believe the bill is poorly written (or rather using a bad strategy). Technically you can circumvent it with extreme ease by setting your DNS settings to something like OpenDNS.
That's why we're so screwed as a country. If the law is not precise, exact, and strictly written to its addressed purpose, all it takes is a local court to say "well, go ahead and take down youtube and google for all your users, ISP #1." Google appeals, and the ruling is granted in their favor due to the uncertainty in the law.
So Big Business (that paid for the bill) #1 decides to take it to state level. Google wins again. Then it's taken to a federal level. Then the Supreme court. Supreme court ruling invalidates all previous rulings, states that Big Business #1 was well within its rights to file, continues to roll downhill as congress "debates," when really, every politician in the States is far right of center, "liberals" here still blow-for-blow agree with everything conservatives do, but they have to make the ideas sound even worse - for the people!
you have a major flaw in your big business theory google is a big business facebook is a big business and why would a business want to shutdown the thousands of free plugs and advertising they receive on a daily basis from nonprofit sites or pay sites that link to the big business that would be robbing peter to pay paul no person or entity is going to cut off their nose to spite there face because it makes no business sense it sounds to me that someone has an issue with other people making money
From what I understand you only have something to worry about if you are doing something you shouldn't.
Sure, it could be abused, and if it is then jump up and down and protest by all means... but wait and see how the law will be used first.
That's the problem. That's realistically not how US politics works any more. I mean, look at how long it took us to "solve the debt crisis." It was an artificial problem, and raising the debt ceiling is done quite frequently. Why was it such a big deal this time? GOP wants more seats, so they did what they do best and created a problem to make it look like they were going to solve it. Which brings me to:
That's why I believe the bill is poorly written (or rather using a bad strategy). Technically you can circumvent it with extreme ease by setting your DNS settings to something like OpenDNS.
That's why we're so screwed as a country. If the law is not precise, exact, and strictly written to its addressed purpose, all it takes is a local court to say "well, go ahead and take down youtube and google for all your users, ISP #1." Google appeals, and the ruling is granted in their favor due to the uncertainty in the law.
So Big Business (that paid for the bill) #1 decides to take it to state level. Google wins again. Then it's taken to a federal level. Then the Supreme court. Supreme court ruling invalidates all previous rulings, states that Big Business #1 was well within its rights to file, continues to roll downhill as congress "debates," when really, every politician in the States is far right of center, "liberals" here still blow-for-blow agree with everything conservatives do, but they have to make the ideas sound even worse - for the people!
Then rather than complain about one silly law how about getting rid of your government if it's not working how it should.
From what I understand you only have something to worry about if you are doing something you shouldn't.
Sure, it could be abused, and if it is then jump up and down and protest by all means... but wait and see how the law will be used first.
That's the problem. That's realistically not how US politics works any more. I mean, look at how long it took us to "solve the debt crisis." It was an artificial problem, and raising the debt ceiling is done quite frequently. Why was it such a big deal this time? GOP wants more seats, so they did what they do best and created a problem to make it look like they were going to solve it. Which brings me to:
That's why I believe the bill is poorly written (or rather using a bad strategy). Technically you can circumvent it with extreme ease by setting your DNS settings to something like OpenDNS.
That's why we're so screwed as a country. If the law is not precise, exact, and strictly written to its addressed purpose, all it takes is a local court to say "well, go ahead and take down youtube and google for all your users, ISP #1." Google appeals, and the ruling is granted in their favor due to the uncertainty in the law.
So Big Business (that paid for the bill) #1 decides to take it to state level. Google wins again. Then it's taken to a federal level. Then the Supreme court. Supreme court ruling invalidates all previous rulings, states that Big Business #1 was well within its rights to file, continues to roll downhill as congress "debates," when really, every politician in the States is far right of center, "liberals" here still blow-for-blow agree with everything conservatives do, but they have to make the ideas sound even worse - for the people!
Then rather than complain about one silly law how about getting rid of your government if it's not working how it should.
Again, does not work like that. If I wanted to "get rid of my government," I could feasibly go about this two ways: armed revolt, or raise a billion dollars. I would need the latter to even attempt the former in most third-world countries, and pure political work: doesn't. Not advocating the former either, I'd rather have our current idiots nipping at each other playing at being the country's bossman than a government of people who'd actually offered up their own lives clawing at each other.
I'm actually rather tired of all this "conservative blah blah blah" and the "liberal blah blah blah". Government and the people should be working to solve problems, not shoving rhetoric down my throat. That's the one major complaint I have for both government and the so called "99%". Neither side is making any kind of effort other than "I want attention" to suggest or deploy any kind of action that would solve problems.
At the very least I can say that this bill is at least attempting to solve the piracy problem. I haven't heard any alternative plans from opponents other than "OMG UR PLAN SUXORZ AND SILENCE MEH"
That's what I'm trying to get at, more or less. We're just a country of rights who want more money and more power. Conservative and liberal mean the same thing here, they're just strawman buzzwords. And the simple fact is, it's difficult to go about policing piracy. Do you sue the organization/person hosting the site, the person downloading it, the company hosting the domain, or any combination of the three? Do you just remove the website? Do you sue for each pirated item, whether or not they're present on one party's harddrive? Do you have to contact each company affected, and have them decide whether or not to press charges, or have it all handled federally and then dispense proportionate compensation to each party? Equal compensation? What constitutes an "illegal download?"
If I'm asking all these questions, then you can be damn sure no US politicians are going to come up with a law that treats both the copyright owners (big and small) and the pirates (big and small) fairly.
Now, I was under the impression that democracy meant the people having a say and that the government was supposed to do things in the best interests of it's people. Generally, if so many oppose something then a decision to ignore those voices will only lead to outrage.
America is a "Federal presidential constitutional Republic." As a citizen, my entire involvement in any political decision is who I vote for. My father was a prominent police official in my state for some years, even met two governors, not to mention countless local officials. This was back in the 60s-80s. You know, "before" America got bad, when the Cold War was still the big thing. The only thing he ever heard from a politician, despite having secured the land for a state police station and three local, on matters of policing?
"I understand your concern, and I will take it under advisement." IE: "Oh, it's so sad that you've fed five kids on minimal government pay because it was a job that had to be done, now your wife's left you for a lawyer? I like lawyers! Yeah, your ideas on pension are stupid, because you're not that lawyer."
That. That is American politics.