Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Chimera_Calvin wrote:
Countries that value free speech will simply not allow their citizens to be tried under the US legal system or sued by US civil courts. The internet will migrate away from the US and the economic implications are staggering.

Unfortunately, you're wrong on that count.

The UK has an extradition treaty with the US... at any point in time, a UK citizen can be accused by America (without any sort of UK trial) and whisked away to be tried in an American court and serve their sentence in an American jail, and there is absolutely nothing that the UK can do about it.

In fact, just last week, a 23 year-old filesharer got deported to the US where he faces 5 years in jail over there. It happens.

EDIT: What Biccat is conveniently forgetting to mention, is that under SOPA, he is not required to notify the offending company; he can actually skip that step and just go after the advertisers and banking systems. At which point the offending company can agree to become subject to US law: and in doing so, can be asked if their site allows piracy. If the company answers 'no', then they have committed perjury because the broad definition of piracy-endorsing sites under SOPA includes anything with a message board and are then subject to criminal law.

I'm interested in your solution to the Russia and China problem, both of which pirate a massive amount of copyrighted material and sell it. This is well-known and currently nothing can be done about it, which is hurting the economy.

If SOPA is unfixable...then what is the solution? I hope its a bit more thought out than 'Nothing we can do' though.

In fact, just last week, a 23 year-old filesharer got deported to the US where he faces 5 years in jail over there

He deserved what he got.

Chimera_Calvin wrote:
On a side note, I, for one hope that the UK becomes the overall 'center' of the Internet when the USA's Internet presence becomes akin to a ghost town, because I do not feel like learning German (based on my understanding that aside from English, German is the 2nd most used European language.)

Well I think it is in fact the most used used language in Europe with app. 120 Mio+ native speakers... and official EU languages are: 1. French 2. German 3. English.
So learning german isn't the baddest decision

Mr Hyena wrote:
I'm interested in your solution to the Russia and China problem, both of which pirate a massive amount of copyrighted material and sell it. This is well-known and currently nothing can be done about it, which is hurting the economy.
If SOPA is unfixable...then what is the solution? I hope its a bit more thought out than 'Nothing we can do' though.

Is piracy by the Chinese really hurting the economy? Are the consumers in China (or the USA) who are viewing pirated material likely to buy that material if they can't get it for free? Some studies (which I don't have links to) suggest that in 80-90% of cases, no, they'll just do without.
The money that people aren't spending on movies and tv shows, they are still spending on other products in your country (the alternative is that all the pirates are just wandering around with wads of cash in their pockets).

SOPA is just another reaction by the content industry struggling to deal with new technologies. We came across the same thing when cassettes, vhs,dvd's were invented - these were to be the downfall of the movie industry. Maybe the movie industry will shrink whilst other areas of the economy grow. If the movie industry is smart, they'll adapt to the new ways that people are wanting to consume their data. If they're not smart, the correct answer is not to break the dynamic linking structure that underpins the modern internet.

SOPA is starting to sound so badly written that I'm starting to think that GW must have written it.

Mr Hyena wrote:

EDIT: What Biccat is conveniently forgetting to mention, is that under SOPA, he is not required to notify the offending company; he can actually skip that step and just go after the advertisers and banking systems. At which point the offending company can agree to become subject to US law: and in doing so, can be asked if their site allows piracy. If the company answers 'no', then they have committed perjury because the broad definition of piracy-endorsing sites under SOPA includes anything with a message board and are then subject to criminal law.

I'm interested in your solution to the Russia and China problem, both of which pirate a massive amount of copyrighted material and sell it. This is well-known and currently nothing can be done about it, which is hurting the economy.

If SOPA is unfixable...then what is the solution? I hope its a bit more thought out than 'Nothing we can do' though.

In fact, just last week, a 23 year-old filesharer got deported to the US where he faces 5 years in jail over there

He deserved what he got.

To answer your first statement, a gaming company Valve found that most people pirate not because they like stealing, but rather its because of service problems. Either the content isn't being offered in a period of time which is acceptable, the way the content was being provided is horrible or the costs are too prohibitive. Valve found by focusing on providing a better service than pirates, that piracy levels dropped drastically, with Russia becoming one of their top selling regions.

To your second statement, that's just shocking you think that. What he was doing was perfectly legal in the UK.
The response to that? He's getting extradited to a country to face charges for a crime that's only illegal there, which is just stupid. He definitely doesn't deserve what he got and to think so shows a stunning lack of knowledge on the issue.
Do you somehow think its fair to be charged in a foreign country under their laws, even if your not a resident? Despite what the US and its citizens might think, they are not the global authority on what is moral and legal.

ArbitorIan wrote:

azazel the cat wrote:EDIT: Oh, and Biccat, your fine print of "Well, sort of, but not really. But this is a good enough understanding for now" is a DANGEROUS position to take, because it shows that you have not considered the long-term repercussions of your current mindset. This is the attitude many people had when the USAPatriot Act was voted on, and now your government can bag your head during a rendition action and hold you without habeus corpus.

I believe biccat's 'fine print' was an asterisk linked to his point about how ISPs work, rather than a 'fine print' to his whole statement.

Yes, that's correct.

azazel the cat wrote:SOPA is created by sanctimonious turds-with-haircuts that believe the broken and corrupt US legal system should be forced upon the rest of the world. And I'm well aware that I'm editorializing quite a bit, however it is plain to see that the current US judicial system has some seriously flawed core mechanics to it. While those mechanics originally had good intentions, they have unfortunately become twisted in order to crush the 'little guy'.

What mechanics do you have a problem with in the US judicial system? We're talking about mechanics here, not substantive law.

focusedfire wrote:@biccat- Just because a law can be concieved of doesn't mean that it shoulb be enacted. The first rule of good law making is to write laws that the are realistically enforceable and the second is to enact only the laws that the people want/or benefit the nation as a whole......not just the gov., the corps., or the lawyers.

You're correct that the law doesn't have to be enacted. But I think that there are good parts to this law

focusedfire wrote:Question, "What do you think of the ndaa?

I haven't spent any time on it, so I really don't have an opinion. It's not really interesting subject matter to me.

Trasvi wrote:1) it has the potential to break the DNS system. This could quite easily break access to websites from other countries.
2) It becomes easier to issue 'takedown notices'
3) the accused party does not need to be notified of said takedown notice

#3 is incorrect, there is a notice requirement. Of course if you're hiding behind a secret registration or provided false information to your registrar you wouldn't be notified. But I'm not sure that's a problem.
#2 is debatable. The DMCA takedown system is pretty easy right now.
I'm not familiar enough with the system to see how the DNS system gets broken under #1.

Trasvi wrote:4) The use of the DMCA has shown that a large proportion (Google says over 50%) of notices are used to oppress opposing businesses.

You'd have to look a little closer at those numbers. If a competitor takes the instruction manual from my website and posts it as their own (yes, this happens), is a DMCA used "to oppress opposing businesses"? Probably. It's also a legitimate use of the DMCA.

Trasvi wrote:Look at the number of startups in various media-sharing technologies: Youtube, Netflix, Spotify, Grooveshark... None of them would exist if this law came into place, as companies who were supposedly wronged could get them shut down without notice or trial.

First, they couldn't get shut down without notice or trial. Second, DMCA allows for much harsher penalties and as far as I know all of those websites are (1) hosted in the US; and (2) created post-DMCA. If they weren't shut down under DMCA I don't see how they would be shut down under SOPA.

Trasvi wrote:5) It hampers the growth of the technology industry. Investors are going to be understandably reluctant to fund startups who can be shut down in a blink.

Keep in mind that this only hampers copyright-stealing websites. I think that's a big bullet point that needs to be remembered. And these companies have the same risk under DMCA (or copyright law) if they're US companies or hosted in the US.

Trasvi wrote:6) It won't stop piracy anyway. Piracy is a service problem more than a monetary one: people get better service from pirates than they do from legal options. The success of iTunes goes to show that users will pay money (and lots of it) if the service is comparable.

I don't disagree that piracy isn't always a monetary issue. And I don't disagree that copy protection tends to be terrible. Like you say, iTunes is a very good example of a positive anti-piracy move.

However, people are making money off of piracy. Subscription services and advertising are revenue sources for pirates and this bill is aimed at stopping those sources.

Trasvi wrote:7) It puts undue burden on website owners to police user uploaded content for links to infringing sites.

8) It sets up the legal framework for much wider censorship. Some countries in the world have experienced this already esp in government-imposed anti-porn filters.

I think those are both more hyperbole than substantive criticism. Plus, this post is already getting long.

Probably not, considering we have a pirated rulebook and some codex updates. But that depends if they are real or not. Soooo I'm gonna say Dakka go bye bye :(

It is good to see that most of us agree that SOPA and PIPA are terrible pieces of legislation. It certainly appears the bills were written at the behest of companies who not only want to stop counterfeiting, but also stifle legitimate competition.

This being said, counterfeiting and copyright violations are a real problem. It is my opinion that big names in the industry like Google break the law quite frequently. This in effect forces other businesses to follow suit or go out of business. If the government is serious about this then first thing that it should do is enforce the current laws equally. Unfortunately I doubt this will happen. The feds are in the habit of looking in the other direction while certain businesses profit, viz a viz the illegal alien fiasco.

You guys (and maybe gals) do know that SOPA has a very low chance of passing, right?

SOPA and PIPA, while pursuing good ends (protecting IPs), are incredibly flawed... I'm not an expert of US constitutional law but it seems to me that being able to bypass the site owner is a violation of the right to judicial protection, which is a common feature of western law. Still, even if the bill is changed, this kind of law will make users loss confidence.
-
The only possible outcome i see is initially a massive drop not only in IP violations, but also in overall internet traffic... then probably internet users will start to use European hosters, abandoning America. The potential damage for US economy is not indifferent IMHO...
-
Lobbies should start to think about ways to make money from the internet as it is now... Even in the current situation, it doesn't look like that music and movies producers are experiencing famine... The enforcement of such a policy in a global scale is absolutely impossible... For example, in europe is extremely difficult to have such a bill passed... the ECJ and the German Costitutional Court will crack it in a few seconds... And do not let me start talking about eastern europe, south america and possibly in the future, Africa...

Trasvi wrote:
Is piracy by the Chinese really hurting the economy? Are the consumers in China (or the USA) who are viewing pirated material likely to buy that material if they can't get it for free? Some studies (which I don't have links to) suggest that in 80-90% of cases, no, they'll just do without.
The money that people aren't spending on movies and tv shows, they are still spending on other products in your country (the alternative is that all the pirates are just wandering around with wads of cash in their pockets).

Microsoft estimates that only 10% of the Windows installs in China are legit. (Of course, that figure may be exaggerated a little). Doing without Windows means using what alternative?

As a software engineer, I can't stand pirating. Not because people pirate software I contribute to (I don't work on consumer software), but because it decreases the value of my work and effectively makes me less money. If companies make less money off the software they produce, they can't pay their engineers as much. Which has the net effect of placing downward pressure on salaries of all software engineers. It doesn't make a difference to me if people are still spending money on US goods -- that doesn't do any good for my industry.

At least for software there are ways we can try to combat piracy ("Cloud" services, pay-for-support, etc). For entertainment, there is no such way.

Kinda reminds me of the Family Guy episode where they try and sensor real life.

If this act gets through, then its one more step towards dudes in shades and trench-coats running up to us pissing in a toilet shouting, 'Sir! One shake only!'

Lol @ that thought

Is piracy by the Chinese really hurting the economy? Are the consumers in China (or the USA) who are viewing pirated material likely to buy that material if they can't get it for free? Some studies (which I don't have links to) suggest that in 80-90% of cases, no, they'll just do without.

Yes, it does. Its less sales regardless of buying it or not in the end. If they aren't going to buy it, they shouldnt have it because you need to pay to get a product (unless with the consent of the owning company).

At least for software there are ways we can try to combat piracy ("Cloud" services, pay-for-support, etc). For entertainment, there is no such way.

This is what terrifies me. I HATE HATE HATE 'Cloud' services and subscription-based gaming services. I don't want to have to subscribe to play a game I already bought. But the industry trend is leaning towards those kinds of games and platforms games are released on, because thats the only thing that defeats pirates. *sighs*.

I like the internet as it is. I gain nothing from SOPA and many sites I enjoy would be threatened.

I did have a "wtf...wikipedia is down"... moment. Very telling...

Fralethepalewhale wrote:Probably not, considering we have a pirated rulebook and some codex updates. But that depends if they are real or not. Soooo I'm gonna say Dakka go bye bye :(

Well if Dakka was taken down at least you'd know it was genuine.

biccat wrote:

focusedfire wrote:@biccat- Just because a law can be concieved of doesn't mean that it shoulb be enacted. The first rule of good law making is to write laws that the are realistically enforceable and the second is to enact only the laws that the people want/or benefit the nation as a whole......not just the gov., the corps., or the lawyers.

You're correct that the law doesn't have to be enacted. But I think that there are good parts to this law

focusedfire wrote:Question, "What do you think of the ndaa?

I haven't spent any time on it, so I really don't have an opinion. It's not really interesting subject matter to me.

A) There is a big difference between "doesn't have to be enacted" and "shouldn't be enacted*"(*paraphrased my quote)

As to there being good parts to this law......I will have to politely disagree.

This is because the fundamental base of this law calls for enforcement outside of U.S. juridiction. In essence the law assumes that the rest of the world is subject to U.S. law.
If the U.S. feels that this is such a problem and that they teally have the nacking of the majority of other soveriegn states then this should be put before the U.N. as a proposed resolution or as a treaty that nations can sign onto like NATO or the EU.

B)Your answer about the ndaa gives the impression that you have a myopic approach to your profession. This is somewhat normal in highly specialized carrer fields.
In essence what I am getting at is that your difficulty in understanding why most people are against this law is that you look at the law in parts, whereas the rest of us are looking at the whole.

Try stepping back and looking at the law from outside your proffession and at the larger whole(big picture).
If you do this you will see that this is a poorly concieved law that seeks to force other nations to operate under U.S. law.

There is a legal term for when one party forces another party to do something against their will when they have no legal right to do such. (Duress)

focusedfire wrote:A) There is a big difference between "doesn't have to be enacted" and "shouldn't be enacted*"(*paraphrased my quote)

Not really, but OK.

focusedfire wrote:As to there being good parts to this law......I will have to politely disagree.

OK.

focusedfire wrote:This is because the fundamental base of this law calls for enforcement outside of U.S. juridiction. In essence the law assumes that the rest of the world is subject to U.S. law.

No, actually it doesn't. The law only calls for enforcement of websites that are directed (and accessible) to US users. There's a long line of cases discussing personal jurisdiction and who is subject to that jurisdiction. This law is saying that anyone who reaches out and provides services to users in the US, knowing that those users are from the US, is subject to US jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is only over US companies and ISPs. If you're a Russian company pirating movies from a server hosted in Russia with advertisers located in Russia and your users are from Russian ISPs, then you have absolutely nothing to fear from this statute.

focusedfire wrote:If the U.S. feels that this is such a problem and that they teally have the nacking of the majority of other soveriegn states then this should be put before the U.N. as a proposed resolution or as a treaty that nations can sign onto like NATO or the EU.

Frankly, feth the UN. They have no authority over the US. Second, enforcement of our laws are not subject to NATO or EU approval. Third, we've already got agreements with the EU (Berne and TRIPs).

focusedfire wrote:B)Your answer about the ndaa gives the impression that you have a myopic approach to your profession. This is somewhat normal in highly specialized carrer fields.

Because I don't know about the NDAA means I don't have the capacity to comment on this law? What's your opinion on the AIA? How about Golan v. Holder? Marine Polymer v. Hemcon? Costco v. Omega?

focusedfire wrote:In essence what I am getting at is that your difficulty in understanding why most people are against this law is that you look at the law in parts, whereas the rest of us are looking at the whole.

If you're looking at the whole, I'm sure you can give me your opinion about that statute and three cases. They're all tremendously important topics in IP law.

But if you're just going to opine on the "major issues," perhaps you could give me your opinion on the Due Process implications of witness identification raised in Perry v. New Hampshire, probably one of the biggest criminal law cases to be considered this term at the Supreme Court.

focusedfire wrote:Try stepping back and looking at the law from outside your proffession and at the larger whole(big picture).
If you do this you will see that this is a poorly concieved law that seeks to force other nations to operate under U.S. law.

Are you really asserting a higher degree of knowledge about a statutory law based on the fact that I analyze statutory law on a daily basis as part of my job? That takes some audacity.

You should learn how to respectfully disagree with someone. Present your arguments in a clear manner, pointing out what parts of the law you think are a problem and why they're a problem. Don't simply assume that your opponent is acting in bad faith, or that they are uneducated (or, for whatever reason, overeducated).

Although I must admit to some admiration to your knowledge about this law beyond "ZOMG THERE GOING TO SHUT DOWN THE INTERWEBZ!!!" (see Wikipedia, et al.)

Chowderhead wrote:You guys (and maybe gals) do know that SOPA has a very low chance of passing, right?

It's a bill that rears its ugly head every single year, and gets closer and closer to passing every time. Such a cancer must be completely and utterly destroyed, and every individual corrupt and incompetent enough to allow it to come even close to letting it pass should never be allowed to work in the position of a governing official ever again.

Megaupload got shut down today.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/apnewsbreak-workers-indicted-at-one-of-worlds-largest-file-sharing-sites-megauploadcom/2012/01/19/gIQAJPIRBQ_story.html

@ Biccat: My problems with the mechanics of the US judicial system are as follows (though I may need to expand this to the entire criminal justice system, as some of these fall under the executive branch):

1. Circuit judges requiring election are subject to corruption as it forces them to politicize their decisions, and places them in a position where they must either A) afford massive expenditure to campaign for re-election, or B) join a political ticket, or C) both. Now, option B is obviously problematic, but I believe that A is the worst of these evils, as it allows for judges to be easily bought through political contributions.

2. Privatization of prisons. If a company makes money off of housing offenders, then it is in that company's best interests that there are always more offenders. Therefore, a focus on rehabilitation will take a back seat to incarceration, and the private sector's influence on judges creates an atrocity of the judicial system that fills me with rage. Additionally, some states now allow the parole boards to be employees of the private-sector prisons, in a clear conflict of interest. And third, conditions regarding food, safety, health and housing in privatized prisons are uniformly substandard and bordering on criminal themselves. This is a problem that will always be associated with the private sector, as their goal is not to safely house or rehabilitate offenders, but to make a profit. The US prison-industrial complex is the new slavery.

3. Some states require the original trial judge to also act as the appeals judge as well, another blatant conflict of interest.

I'll add some more later.



EDIT: oh, and "Are you really asserting a higher degree of knowledge about a statutory law based on the fact that I analyze statutory law on a daily basis as part of my job? That takes some audacity." doesn't really do much, because it assumes that people who do their job every day are also good at their job. This is not the case; it just means they repeat a task every day. There is no assumption that the task is performed well. I'm not necessarily saying this is the situation with you, I'm just saying that as a lawyer you ought to understand the semantics of that statement.

You should learn how to respectfully disagree with someone. Present your arguments in a clear manner, pointing out what parts of the law you think are a problem and why they're a problem. Don't simply assume that your opponent is acting in bad faith, or that they are uneducated (or, for whatever reason, overeducated).

Although I must admit to some admiration to your knowledge about this law beyond "ZOMG THERE GOING TO SHUT DOWN THE INTERWEBZ!!!" (see Wikipedia, et al.)

Classy!

This thread has been heating up for a while. Please take the time to reflect on the rules of our site, especially "Be Polite," as you discuss this topic.

Remember: attack the points, not the personalities.

elrabin wrote:

Trasvi wrote:
Is piracy by the Chinese really hurting the economy? Are the consumers in China (or the USA) who are viewing pirated material likely to buy that material if they can't get it for free? Some studies (which I don't have links to) suggest that in 80-90% of cases, no, they'll just do without.
The money that people aren't spending on movies and tv shows, they are still spending on other products in your country (the alternative is that all the pirates are just wandering around with wads of cash in their pockets).

Microsoft estimates that only 10% of the Windows installs in China are legit. (Of course, that figure may be exaggerated a little). Doing without Windows means using what alternative?

I've heard there are other operating systems in the world besides windows. As a software engineer, you may have heard of one called Linux? Which is completely free?

As a software engineer, I can't stand pirating. Not because people pirate software I contribute to (I don't work on consumer software), but because it decreases the value of my work and effectively makes me less money. If companies make less money off the software they produce, they can't pay their engineers as much. Which has the net effect of placing downward pressure on salaries of all software engineers. It doesn't make a difference to me if people are still spending money on US goods -- that doesn't do any good for my industry.
At least for software there are ways we can try to combat piracy ("Cloud" services, pay-for-support, etc). For entertainment, there is no such way.

Consumer facing software industry is devaluing itself without any assistance from pirates. The amount of open source / free software available to consumers is astounding. Why buy Microsoft Office if OpenOffice or GoogleDocs can do the same things for you? Thankfully, most software engineers work on enterprise software which, as you say, isn't affected nearly so much by piracy.

There are plenty of ways to offer good media services which combat piracy. Let people stream any TV show whenever they want, putting ads in the appropriate places: TV over IP. Or let them pay $1-$2 to avoid the ads. Same for movies. Streaming services, subscription services, the whole model is there.
It just might be that the 'BIG' record and movie labels have no place in the internet society. We shouldn't write draconian laws to support the labels' view of how the industry should be. They've attempted to pull this kind of stunt off before (with VHS, Cassette, printing presses...):

MPAA wrote:"...the VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone."
"This is more than a tidal wave. It is more than an avalanche. It is here. Now, that is where the problem is...We are going to bleed and bleed and hemorrhage, unless this Congress at least protects one industry that is able to retrieve a surplus balance of trade and whose total future depends on its protection from the savagery and the ravages of this machine."

They were wrong then, why should we believe them this time?

Howard A Treesong wrote:Megaupload got shut down today.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/apnewsbreak-workers-indicted-at-one-of-worlds-largest-file-sharing-sites-megauploadcom/2012/01/19/gIQAJPIRBQ_story.html

I like Megaupload...but why can't they get actual people to check and remove all the illegal movie, mp3 and video game downloads from it?. I mean...if they don't make a good effort then thats a problem.

There are plenty of ways to offer good media services which combat piracy. Let people stream any TV show whenever they want, putting ads in the appropriate places: TV over IP. Or let them pay $1-$2 to avoid the ads. Same for movies. Streaming services, subscription services, the whole model is there.

A lot of people hate subscriptions though. For video games, Free-to-Play models tends to make a game awful too.

For those wondering about Megaupload

"28-OCT-2011 - MegaUpload labelled a 'rogue' site by MPAA.
09-DEC-2011 - MegaUpload releases a music video with RIAA artists endorsing MegaUpload.
10-DEC-2011 - UMG doesn't like the video. Has it removed from YouTube.
12-DEC-2011 - MegaUpload files suit against UMG on the grounds that UMG cannot remove the content as MegaUpload holds the copyright, not UMG.
16-DEC-2011 - UMG says "So what? We can take down whatever we want!" and "You can't touch us. This isn't DMCA. We didn't take it down because of copyright. We took it down because we can."
21-DEC-2011 - MegaUpload labelled a "rogue" site by the USTR.
28-DEC-2011 - MegaUpload wants an explaination from UMG.
19-JAN-2012 - MegaUpload shut down by Feds
I might have missed some points, but this is a pretty full timeline. Feel free to add/correct anything I have here."

(stolen from Reddit)

Squidmanlolz wrote:The odds of these bills being passed in their current form are negligible, they are already being rejected by the Obama administration and a good deal of acting politicians. Don't get me wrong, these bills are monstrosities, but they're not getting passed as is, they will be edited before they can even have a chance.[/quote


I wouldn't count on that. So far, lets evaluate what his greatness has done.

1. Out spent all former presidents combined, and don't blame the two wars or Bush as the reason. There were plenty of wars with the other presidents that are included in their terms.
2. Ended don't ask don't tell. Trust me, makes life in the military more difficult than you would know if you are not in it. Not that I am anti gay, it just isn't needed in the military.
3. Declared himself the 4th best president of all time. WOW!, that guy is either full of delusions or has some balls. He puts himself behind George Washington (shoe in for #1), Lincoln (who really didn't want to end slavery, and, most famously got shot), and JFK (once again, got shot famously however did get America onto the moon).
4. Allowed sodomy and beastiality (yes, sexual intercouse with animals) legal in the military. Did we really need that? At least all the K-9 handlers are happy.

So, is there possibility he would let that happen, Yes. Don't doubt yourself. Internet is a area of unbridled free speech. If you care to voice your opinion (which I know I just did) with no chance of reprisal (which is the current state of the internet) you can do so now. It is a way the government is turning slowly into a socialistic society. This is just one way to for the bama to get his way and crack down. Come on, the dude bailed out businesses that can't make a dime with no one in charge of keeping accountability for the billions of dollars.

Well, just my rant. Obama is not the anti christ but damn, he is trying.

██████ ███ ████████ love ███████ ███ ██ █ ███ your █████████ █████ ███████ ███ ██ █ government ██████ obey ██ ████ ██ ███ your █████ leaders.

‎[This comment has been found in violation of H.R. 3261, S.O.P.A and has been edited for your safety.]]

Vampirate of Sartosa wrote:

scarletsquig wrote:Me, as a user, having a my little pony signature would be enough legal grounds to have dakka closed down by a copyright claim from hasbro, if they so desired.

Naw, that wouldn't happen. Hasbro loves the fandom.

Plus it's Pinkie Pie. The laws of physics cannot contain her so I doubt IP/copyright/whatever-it-is law has much hope.

ironhandstraken wrote:
██████ ███ ████████ love ███████ ███ ██ █ ███ your █████████ █████ ███████ ███ ██ █ government ██████ obey ██ ████ ██ ███ your █████ leaders.

‎[This comment has been found in violation of H.R. 3261, S.O.P.A and has been edited for your safety.]]

four legs good, two legs better. great quote from a great book that slowly explains how things evolve.