That's only after law is passed. Any content before law becomes official is still legal. (or at least people can't be punished for it)

...What? My human brain can't comprehend such fallacious logic.

Also, cool. You actually found a game with a 1930s Germany-era ToS. Cool.

Dear Zaoshi

Why do you constantly cherry pick my posts? Do I not use English?

They said expressively in the damn bill they will scan your computers for content deemed pirated.

Do I need to translate that in a different language? Who the hell cares when it was downloaded if they find evidence you own "pirated" content?

Thank you,
MM

Moonlight Memento wrote:

Also another thing: BYOND, YouTube, every other video site, all image sites, all music sites, all blogging sites, etc, would have to shut down immediately after the bill passes

This is nothing but exaggeration. It would effectively require a take down notice, just like with the current system. Because it's still an intellectual property violation, the owners of the IP would have to go after BYOND specifically. Though the law is undoubtedly vile, there is nothing in it that requires what you say. Hyperbole and ridiculous, unsubstantiated claims never support an argument. Stop with them.

I know what a socialism is, and I said that it was getting there, not that it is a Socialism. It'll be several more years and several more excuses to take away more rights, but either a government reform is going to have to be made, or an act of god will have to cleanse Congress of its corrupt bribery state.

Fun Fact: Every US President who has declared that they want to revoke the Federal Bank Charter, has been assassinated. I'll let you mull that one over and procure your own opinion.

That's my spiel.

Moonlight Memento wrote:

So, how are they going to give you a take-down notice for hard-drive content?

In that case, they are going to go after individuals, if they become aware they are pirating. Your hyperbole only makes you, not the bill, sound ridiculous. The bill by itself is absurd. State it on what it is, not what you think it might be, and that will be enough to kill it.

Though, to be honest, by this point it probably won't pass.

The purpose of my posts are to point out that you are not mistaken, but wrong. It's pretty apparent I'm succeeding.

That's an opinion, so neither of us are really wrong or right. My opinion is that the US is possibly going to become mostly government controlled, yours says that everything is just fine and we're not going to stop being a free country. Those are our opinions, and the only thing you can do to "win" this debate, is to sway me to your thinking with logic. Seriously, winning an internet argument means nothing, so you don't have to keep acting like a child. If it means so much to you, fine, you can win, I don't care, just alleviate yourself of the unwarranted hostility.

I think the most interesting part is how liable it makes third-parties like advertisers, search engines, and payment services who work with websites that have been flagged.

According to the bill, any "qualifying plaintiff" ("a holder of an intellectual property right harmed" under the premise of the bill) may file an electronic notification, signed and backed a good faith belief that is true, with a payment provider or Internet advertising agency. That qualifying plaintiff may also file an "in rem" suit against the site itself or its domain name, if the operators cannot be found.

If the payment provider or advertiser fails to cut off funding, that company can be sued by the copyright holder, the bill states. In addition, the owner of the foreign site can be sued if he comes forward and objects to the copyright holders' notification.

- PC Mag: House Bill Would Allow Copyright Holders to Cut Off Pirate Sites

Interesting note there about foreign sites, too. Obviously American advertisers/search engines/services won't be able to work with foreign sites that have been flagged under this bill, but it looks like the site owner themselves can be sued if they stick their neck out and complain.

I saw this bit on the wikipedia article:
"however claims made in a good faith belief the the content infringed a copyright would be immune from prosecution."

But I haven't been able to find the source (if you have a wikipedia account, please tag it as citation needed...). That sounds like BS (moreso than the rest), if a company can effectively shut-down a website that turns out to be innocent and they aren't required to pay any damages for it. At the very least, it would lead to copyright holders not bothering to look into their own claims, and flooding the system with filings (if it's true).

Didn't see anything about scanning computers, don't see how that would be practical.

This is exactly what we need right now: another overpaid office dedicated to beckoning to the whims of big business.