Mr Khan said:
kitler53 said:
So basically they are worried that this will turn into a witch hunt while causally jumping over the "...if they can convince a judge..." that prevents copyright owner from "shooting first" as he said over and over.
also funny that he brings "youtube" in as an example as a perfectly legal site when it has had millions of copyright violations on it. youtube conceded to listening to copyright owners and finding a good balance between violations and doing business that everyone yelled and scream and cried about before than turned out to be a nothing issue.
i've said it before, i'll say it again. i'd take the anti-sopa proponents a yell of a lot more seriously if every single one of them that is telling me how worried i ought to be wasn't such a huge online pirate. |
Ah, but there are provisions in there that allow companies to make "good-faith" claims against a web site directly to ISPs without having to go to a judge, claims that the ISPs, often having interests in line with the media companies (Comcast, anyone?) are going to act upon. It essentially allows them to establish their independent court of corruption
Plus you presume that judges know anything about the internet, which the GeoHotz case demonstrated is not the case
|
How you don't recuse yourself from a case when someone has to explain to you why someone can't "retrieve email" I'll never know.
It'd of been interesting to see how that would have been ruled.
Too bad Sony realized that if they would of won it would of caused them to lose the Other OS lawsuit.
