Bad Movie Logo
"A website to the detriment of good film"
Custom Search
HOMEB-MOVIE REVIEWSREADER REVIEWSFORUMINTERVIEWSUPDATESABOUT
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
October 24, 2014, 01:21:09 PM
536203 Posts in 40569 Topics by 5098 Members
Latest Member: AqueousStar
Badmovies.org Forum  |  Other Topics  |  Off Topic Discussion  |  SOPA likely to Pass « previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3]
Author Topic: SOPA likely to Pass  (Read 1668 times)
The Gravekeeper
addicted to the macabre
Bad Movie Lover
***

Karma: 85
Posts: 759



« Reply #30 on: January 18, 2012, 07:22:44 PM »

If this does ultimately pass and is as harmful to the net as it seems, I say screw 'em. Start supporting 100% user-created content (there really is some great stuff online) and stop going to the theatre. If they don't want there to be a free and open discourse, as well as to make life much more difficult for anyone who wants to break into any sort of creative business (stuff like YouTube and tumblr is great for this since your work is up there and potentially millions of people are looking at it and telling all their friends and followers), then I for one don't want to give them my money.
Logged
ulthar
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 324
Posts: 3832


I AM serious, and stop calling me Shirley


WWW
« Reply #31 on: January 18, 2012, 07:45:54 PM »

An interesting development. I just went to Wikipedia, which is blacked out at the time of this posting, and was met with the following message:

Imagine a World
Without Free Knowledge

For over a decade, we have spent millions of hours building the largest encyclopedia in human history. Right now, the U.S. Congress is considering legislation that could fatally damage the free and open Internet. For 24 hours, to raise awareness, we are blacking out Wikipedia. Learn more.


Clicking on the "learn more" link talks about SOPA and PIPA, the latter being the Senate bill that is apparently still alive. I still don't know enough about either to make an intelligent comment, but it seems clear enough that Wikipedia is concerned.

Well, I think a world without wikipedia would be an improvement....a rather large improvement.  They might think they've amassed the largest encyclopedia in human history...but it's mostly crap, so so what?  Arrogant.

Okay, let's say the US Congress did pass this law.  Would that stop wiipedia from being hosted in Liberia or Surinam?

The US does not regulate the Internet...they can only regulate the sites that are hosted (and maybe seen?) in the US.

Get real, wikipedia...

(Sorry, I guess that's really OT)
Logged

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Professor Hathaway:  I noticed you stopped stuttering.
Bodie:      I've been giving myself shock treatments.
Professor Hathaway: Up the voltage.

--Real Genius
Allhallowsday
B-Movie Kraken
*****

Karma: 1544
Posts: 10845


Either he's dead or my watch has stopped!


« Reply #32 on: January 18, 2012, 09:10:47 PM »

Hmm. theoatmeal.com is doing the same thing. I wonder how widespread the blackouts are.
Go to Google which has a symbolic "blackout" today. 

An interesting development. I just went to Wikipedia, which is blacked out at the time of this posting, and was met with the following message:
Imagine a World
Without Free Knowledge
For over a decade, we have spent millions of hours building the largest encyclopedia in human history. Right now, the U.S. Congress is considering legislation that could fatally damage the free and open Internet. For 24 hours, to raise awareness, we are blacking out Wikipedia. Learn more.

Clicking on the "learn more" link talks about SOPA and PIPA, the latter being the Senate bill that is apparently still alive. I still don't know enough about either to make an intelligent comment, but it seems clear enough that Wikipedia is concerned.
Well, I think a world without wikipedia would be an improvement....a rather large improvement.  They might think they've amassed the largest encyclopedia in human history...but it's mostly crap, so so what?  Arrogant.
Okay, let's say the US Congress did pass this law.  Would that stop wiipedia from being hosted in Liberia or Surinam?
The US does not regulate the Internet...they can only regulate the sites that are hosted (and maybe seen?) in the US.
Get real, wikipedia...
(Sorry, I guess that's really OT)
You guess...?  Wikipedia has its shortcomings, however, those are more expressly about their contributors than the site's intent.  I won't disagree with arrogant, but... yeh.  You're over the top. 
Logged

If you want to view paradise . . . simply look around and view it!
Rev. Powell
Global Moderator
B-Movie Kraken
****

Karma: 1797
Posts: 14542


Click on that globe for 366 Weird Movies


WWW
« Reply #33 on: January 18, 2012, 10:03:03 PM »

This video explains perfectly why this is completely horrible. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzqMoOk9NWc&feature=g-u&context=G292e6e4FUAAAAAAAAAA


Well, I wouldn't support the bill that guy's talking about.  However, I don't think his reading of the bill is logical, and he glosses over some important points.

First off, that text he's commenting on is obsolete---SOPA is dead, and we're now dealing with PIPA.  Here's a readable text of PIPA: http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-s968/text.  If you follow the link I think you'll find that the definition in section 2 (7) removes some of the ambiguous language that was causing him an issue with the definition of a "site dedicated to the theft of US property."

Second, at about 3:20 he talks about the bill as if it created a presumption of guilt.  He neglected to mention that to get the ball rolling on this a plaintiff would have to go to a judge and get a preliminary injunction after a hearing in which both sides would be allowed to present arguments.  That's no different than the procedure in any other civil action. (This is civil law, not criminal law). 

Third, his reading of the text is not very thorough.  He focuses on the last five words---"engages in, enables, or facilitates"---out of context with the remainder of the phrase.  He then argues that a site like YouTube could be construed to unwittingly "enable or facilitate" copyright infringement and thus be taken down.  But the entire phrase reads "offering goods and services in a manner that engages in, enables, or facilitates" a violation.  While YouTube might inadvertently enable or facilitate copyright infringement, it's a much tougher case to argue they are involved in "offering goods and services in a manner" that facilitates illegal activity.  The entire phrase implies intent, which is consistent with the other definitions which all imply a high degree of intent. 

However, the text is extremely poorly written and far too vague, and I'm very glad that it is no longer in there.  PIPA clarifies that the site must be used "primarily as a means for engaging in, enabling, or facilitating" copyright infringement, exempting the legitimate sites he's worried about getting accidentally caught in the act's net.

It seems obvious to me the Attorney General would never bring a case on his own to shut down YouTube, and I am surprised that anyone finds it plausible that a judge would sign an order to take down YouTube. There may be problems with the bill that no one has mentioned, but the "it'll take down YouTube!" bit strikes me as a red herring. 
Logged

"The best parts are watching Sly go through the full range of emotions: deadpan, deadpan with raised eyebrow, deadpan with quivering lip. There's also a great sequence where Sly drives his VW Beetle down the interstate for about 20 minutes, staring dramatically through the windshield.."-Joe Bob on A MAN CALLED RAMBO
ulthar
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 324
Posts: 3832


I AM serious, and stop calling me Shirley


WWW
« Reply #34 on: January 18, 2012, 10:06:30 PM »


 There may be problems with the bill that no one has mentioned, but the "it'll take down YouTube!" bit strikes me as a red herring. 


Never, EVER, let logic and rational thought get in the way of a good knee-jerk response to something...

Rev, you should know better.   Twirling
Logged

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Professor Hathaway:  I noticed you stopped stuttering.
Bodie:      I've been giving myself shock treatments.
Professor Hathaway: Up the voltage.

--Real Genius
Rev. Powell
Global Moderator
B-Movie Kraken
****

Karma: 1797
Posts: 14542


Click on that globe for 366 Weird Movies


WWW
« Reply #35 on: January 19, 2012, 09:54:42 AM »


 There may be problems with the bill that no one has mentioned, but the "it'll take down YouTube!" bit strikes me as a red herring. 


Never, EVER, let logic and rational thought get in the way of a good knee-jerk response to something...

Rev, you should know better.   Twirling

I've been very critical of the overreaction to SOPA because of my contrarian nature.  Whenever I see 99% of people lining up on one side I naturally want to take the other side.  That's where I'm needed.

However, I DO want to say that there was a lot of value in the public criticism of SOPA.  The text was badly written and I see how people would be concerned that it could be used in ways other than intended.  I think if the public causes legislators to rewrite the legislation to address fears, then it has been a very good thing.  The system is actually working.
Logged

"The best parts are watching Sly go through the full range of emotions: deadpan, deadpan with raised eyebrow, deadpan with quivering lip. There's also a great sequence where Sly drives his VW Beetle down the interstate for about 20 minutes, staring dramatically through the windshield.."-Joe Bob on A MAN CALLED RAMBO
ulthar
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 324
Posts: 3832


I AM serious, and stop calling me Shirley


WWW
« Reply #36 on: January 19, 2012, 10:20:46 AM »


  I think if the public causes legislators to rewrite the legislation to address fears, then it has been a very good thing.  The system is actually working.



True, with one caveat that tends to bug me in situations like this.

If the public is taking action because they've read and understood the legislation then I agree...a VERY good thing.

But, if they are reacting only to what they heard so-and-so say, and especially if so-and-so did NOT know what he/she was talking about at all, there's a problem.  The premise is a well informed electorate, after all.

This happened last year (or whenever it was) with Arizona Immigration Bill.  There as a WHOLE LOT said about the powers that that bill granted that simply were not there.  I'm not lawyer, but I used to be in Law Enforcement and had to apply laws, so I was trained by lawyers to apply such laws in practice in the field.

I'm not getting into whether that law was good or bad, right or wrong, blah blah blah...but what was said about it was simply made up tripe.  I even quoted the salient sections of the law and pointed out what it ACTUALLY SAID, and folks would still say, "yeah, but it COULD be used for x."

This SOPA/PIPA stuff is similar - not perhaps in detail but in the fact that many people commenting on it have neither read nor TRIED to actually understand it.  Like most bills, true enough.  But rather, folks are content to get that info from bloggers (who also have neither read nor tried to understand it)....

It only takes one 'industry insider' with a halfway decent following and at least made-up credibility to misinterpret one line in such a bill and the races are off...kneejerking all the way down the track.

As a side note, this is what made groklaw such an invaluable aid oh about a decade ago.  The SCO vs IBM thing was so big, and rather important in tech circles, yet everyone blathering about it did not understand what they were even talking about...until PJ essentially dedicated her life to providing GOOD information with well reasoned, well worded commentary for the non-lawyerish.

Here's what she has to say today on this topic:

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120118113455360
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120119090455147

It's interesting that she references that Khan Academy video as "very helpful" that you criticized as being illogical and superficial (my words based on what you posted).  She posted that TODAY...after that bill was killed.

So, my question is...how are we lay folks supposed to determine which is the better analysis?  That's not a 'challenge;' it's an honest question.
Logged

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Professor Hathaway:  I noticed you stopped stuttering.
Bodie:      I've been giving myself shock treatments.
Professor Hathaway: Up the voltage.

--Real Genius
Rev. Powell
Global Moderator
B-Movie Kraken
****

Karma: 1797
Posts: 14542


Click on that globe for 366 Weird Movies


WWW
« Reply #37 on: January 19, 2012, 10:47:25 AM »


This SOPA/PIPA stuff is similar - not perhaps in detail but in the fact that many people commenting on it have neither read nor TRIED to actually understand it.  Like most bills, true enough.  But rather, folks are content to get that info from bloggers (who also have neither read nor tried to understand it)....

It only takes one 'industry insider' with a halfway decent following and at least made-up credibility to misinterpret one line in such a bill and the races are off...kneejerking all the way down the track.



Yeah, this is what "grinds my gears," so to speak.  The same thing happens in science, medicine and any technical field.  The primary source is difficult for a layman to understand.  So, an expert, usually with an agenda, summarizes it.  The most sensationalized summary gets picked up and passed around the blogosphere.  Then people start passionately arguing about it without ever checking the primary source.  People are too quick to put their faith in experts without doing the research themselves.

 

As a side note, this is what made groklaw such an invaluable aid oh about a decade ago.  The SCO vs IBM thing was so big, and rather important in tech circles, yet everyone blathering about it did not understand what they were even talking about...until PJ essentially dedicated her life to providing GOOD information with well reasoned, well worded commentary for the non-lawyerish.

Here's what she has to say today on this topic:

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120118113455360
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120119090455147

It's interesting that she references that Khan Academy video as "very helpful" that you criticized as being illogical and superficial (my words based on what you posted).  She posted that TODAY...after that bill was killed.

So, my question is...how are we lay folks supposed to determine which is the better analysis?  That's not a 'challenge;' it's an honest question.


The Khan Academy video is, actually, pretty good, particularly as in introduction for laymen.  That's why I honored it by talking it as a serious challenge.  However like any advocate he did omit things that don't support his conclusion, which I felt a need to point out.  The person who posted the link doesn't go into detail about what she liked about it.  She obviously doesn't favor the legislation, which is fine.

The Khan Academy video pointed out a possible interpretation of the bill that I think is ultimately implausible.  However, what it does show is that the section they focus on is drafted terribly.  I had to read it over and over several times to figure out what it was trying to say.  It's one of those awful legalese run-on sentences with nested "or" clauses that create ambiguity.  That sentence was terrible and I do agree that the legislation shouldn't have been passed unless it was rewritten.  The language in PIPA is much clearer about the law being intended to apply only to piracy sites.
Logged

"The best parts are watching Sly go through the full range of emotions: deadpan, deadpan with raised eyebrow, deadpan with quivering lip. There's also a great sequence where Sly drives his VW Beetle down the interstate for about 20 minutes, staring dramatically through the windshield.."-Joe Bob on A MAN CALLED RAMBO
ulthar
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 324
Posts: 3832


I AM serious, and stop calling me Shirley


WWW
« Reply #38 on: January 19, 2012, 12:01:11 PM »



The Khan Academy video is, actually, pretty good, particularly as in introduction for laymen.  That's why I honored it by talking it as a serious challenge.  However like any advocate he did omit things that don't support his conclusion, which I felt a need to point out.  The person who posted the link doesn't go into detail about what she liked about it.  She obviously doesn't favor the legislation, which is fine.

The Khan Academy video pointed out a possible interpretation of the bill that I think is ultimately implausible.  However, what it does show is that the section they focus on is drafted terribly.  I had to read it over and over several times to figure out what it was trying to say.  It's one of those awful legalese run-on sentences with nested "or" clauses that create ambiguity.  That sentence was terrible and I do agree that the legislation shouldn't have been passed unless it was rewritten.  The language in PIPA is much clearer about the law being intended to apply only to piracy sites.


Ah, okay.  Cool.  Thanks for the clarification.  I think misinterpreted your post earlier.

On PJ:  When she first started groklaw, she pretty much ONLY posted analysis of the SCO decisions, ruling, arguments, etc.  It was very focused, and her posts were very "tight."  She's a paralegal, but got input from attorneys as well.  The focus made it outstanding.

Since the SCO v IBM settled down (and a few other less well known but related cases), I quit reading her site.  Today was the first time I've checked it in years, and was saddened to see that tight focus (one issue studied and presented very well) was gone.

I guess part of this is the whole "where do I get my news" debate on a smaller scale, but it's my issue with the "blogosphere" as well.  I just don't trust "bloggers" because there's absolutely NO vetting of any information.  And, it seems to have become one giant 'popularity' contest....pithy writers get popular and with that popularity, they get credibility.

If you had trouble with discernment on SOPA, I'm glad I did not try to read it.  My head hurts enough these days... Wink

Thanks for the input on this thread, by the way.   Thumbup
Logged

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Professor Hathaway:  I noticed you stopped stuttering.
Bodie:      I've been giving myself shock treatments.
Professor Hathaway: Up the voltage.

--Real Genius
RCMerchant
Bela
B-Movie Kraken
*****

Karma: 0
Posts: 10923


"Charlie,we're in HELL!"-"yeah,ain't it groovy?!"


WWW
« Reply #39 on: January 24, 2012, 07:52:00 PM »

Logged

\"Supernatural?...perhaps. Baloney?...Perhaps not!\" Bela Lugosi-the BLACK CAT (1934)


Interviewer-"Does Dracula ever end for you?"
Lugosi-"No. Dracula-never ends."





http://www.tumblr.com/dashboard
http://www.tumblr.com/dashboard
http://rcmerchant.tumblr.com/
Rev. Powell
Global Moderator
B-Movie Kraken
****

Karma: 1797
Posts: 14542


Click on that globe for 366 Weird Movies


WWW
« Reply #40 on: January 24, 2012, 09:35:54 PM »




The best part of that gif is where it says "look it up" and "educate yourself." 

That should mean reading the actual text of the bill, not a summary posted by a blogger who probably has no expertise and doesn't know what he's talking about.

I just don't understand how anyone could read the text of PIPA and believe it could be used to shut down a domestic site hosting an animated gif.  The law wouldn't even apply to the makers of the gif, theoatmeal.com, since they are a domestically registered site and don't fall under the bill's purview [sec 3(a)(1)].  They would be covered by the DMCA like any other domestically registered site.  And how do they think that hosting gif could possibly turn their site into an "Internet site dedicated to infringing activities" as defined in Sec 2 (7)?

How can that gif claim Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure [sec 3 (b)(1)] does not constitute "due process"?  Why dedicate so much text detailing all the steps to take necessary to serve process [sec 3(c)] if there's no due process?

And why am I arguing with a gif? 

Don't worry, the bill's not going to pass, thanks to public outrage.  I should let it go.  But as someone who's actually read the text, it gets to me that that public outrage isn't based on anything that's actually in the legislation. 
Logged

"The best parts are watching Sly go through the full range of emotions: deadpan, deadpan with raised eyebrow, deadpan with quivering lip. There's also a great sequence where Sly drives his VW Beetle down the interstate for about 20 minutes, staring dramatically through the windshield.."-Joe Bob on A MAN CALLED RAMBO
RCMerchant
Bela
B-Movie Kraken
*****

Karma: 0
Posts: 10923


"Charlie,we're in HELL!"-"yeah,ain't it groovy?!"


WWW
« Reply #41 on: January 25, 2012, 05:29:43 AM »

The reason I posted the gif is because I thought the animation was funny.
Personally-I'm not worried about SOPA.

That's why I didn't make a comment in this thread-but it was a funny cartoon-and this seemed like an appropriate place to post it.
I found it on TUMBLR-if your not famliar with it,it's basically an image sharing site.
I noticed that a lot of the folks over there are very paranoid about this SOPA thing.
Me-nah!
Logged

\"Supernatural?...perhaps. Baloney?...Perhaps not!\" Bela Lugosi-the BLACK CAT (1934)


Interviewer-"Does Dracula ever end for you?"
Lugosi-"No. Dracula-never ends."





http://www.tumblr.com/dashboard
http://www.tumblr.com/dashboard
http://rcmerchant.tumblr.com/
Rev. Powell
Global Moderator
B-Movie Kraken
****

Karma: 1797
Posts: 14542


Click on that globe for 366 Weird Movies


WWW
« Reply #42 on: January 25, 2012, 09:55:21 AM »

Hey RC- I don't blame you!  That's why I wrote


why am I arguing with a gif? 

Logged

"The best parts are watching Sly go through the full range of emotions: deadpan, deadpan with raised eyebrow, deadpan with quivering lip. There's also a great sequence where Sly drives his VW Beetle down the interstate for about 20 minutes, staring dramatically through the windshield.."-Joe Bob on A MAN CALLED RAMBO
ulthar
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 324
Posts: 3832


I AM serious, and stop calling me Shirley


WWW
« Reply #43 on: January 25, 2012, 10:07:38 AM »


And why am I arguing with a gif? 


Because you CAN?
Logged

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Professor Hathaway:  I noticed you stopped stuttering.
Bodie:      I've been giving myself shock treatments.
Professor Hathaway: Up the voltage.

--Real Genius
Chainsaw midget
Just Another Guy
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 256
Posts: 1872



« Reply #44 on: January 25, 2012, 01:21:00 PM »

An interesting development. I just went to Wikipedia, which is blacked out at the time of this posting, and was met with the following message:

Imagine a World
Without Free Knowledge

For over a decade, we have spent millions of hours building the largest encyclopedia in human history. Right now, the U.S. Congress is considering legislation that could fatally damage the free and open Internet. For 24 hours, to raise awareness, we are blacking out Wikipedia. Learn more.


Clicking on the "learn more" link talks about SOPA and PIPA, the latter being the Senate bill that is apparently still alive. I still don't know enough about either to make an intelligent comment, but it seems clear enough that Wikipedia is concerned.
If that was actually on wikipedia, there would have been over a dozen people asking for sources for it and another half dozen saying that it's "original research" and isn't allowed.  ... and it would have had a banner uptop asking for more money.
Logged

Terms & Conditions:  By reading this signature, you, the reader willfully acknowledge that you owe me a dollar.
Pages: 1 2 [3]
Badmovies.org Forum  |  Other Topics  |  Off Topic Discussion  |  SOPA likely to Pass « previous next »
    Jump to:  


    RSS Feed Subscribe Subscribe by RSS
    Email Subscribe Subscribe by Email


    Popular Articles
    How To Find A Bad Movie

    The Champions of Justice

    Plan 9 from Outer Space

    Manos, The Hands of Fate

    Podcast: Todd the Convenience Store Clerk

    Faster, Pussycat! Kill! Kill!

    Dragonball: The Magic Begins

    Cool As Ice

    The Educational Archives: Driver's Ed

    Godzilla vs. Monster Zero

    Do you have a zombie plan?

    FROM THE BADMOVIES.ORG ARCHIVES
    ImageThe Giant Claw - Slime drop

    Earth is visited by a GIANT ANTIMATTER SPACE BUZZARD! Gawk at the amazingly bad bird puppet, or chuckle over the silly dialog. This is one of the greatest b-movies ever made.

    Lesson Learned:
    • Osmosis: os·mo·sis (oz-mo'sis, os-) n., 1. When a bird eats something.

    Subscribe to Badmovies.org and get updates by email:

    HOME B-Movie Reviews Reader Reviews Forum Interviews TV Shows Advertising Information Sideshows Links Contact

    Badmovies.org is owned and operated by Andrew Borntreger. All original content is © 1998 - 2014 by its respective author(s). Image, video, and audio files are used in accordance with the Fair Use Law, and are property of the film copyright holders. You may freely link to any page (.html or .php) on this website, but reproduction in any other form must be authorized by the copyright holder.