3 ms·

The evidence speaks: it was clearly an extreme and urgent problem to some parties, hence the act is under serious consideration. Shoplifting is not only illega

by tgrass 15y ago

The evidence speaks: it was clearly an extreme and urgent problem to some parties, hence the act is under serious consideration. Shoplifting is not only illegal, but much is dedicated to minimizing it. To claim that SOPA is similar to a death sentence for shoplifting is excessive hyperbole. We have drivers licenses and stop signs for our once 'open roads'. Clearly as a civilization we are capable of allowing oversight. Should it be as severe as removing due process? Absolutely not. Should the world of the web gotten out in front of this with an elegant solution? Yes. It didn't and hasn't. The reality is similar bills will be pushed until the problem is resolved.

chc 15y ago
> The evidence speaks: it was clearly an extreme and urgent problem to some parties, hence the act is under serious consideration. This is a non sequitur. The fact that something is under consideration does not mean it addresses an "extreme and urgent problem". For example, the Gravina Island Highway (the "road to nowhere") was not only under serious consideration, but was actually built despite the fact that it did nobody any good. And we've all heard about silly laws, like how it's illegal to tease skunks in Minnesota. Do you think skunk-teasing is an extreme and urgent problem? The fact that an industry group is pushing a bill that would give it massive power does not indicate that there is actually an urgent problem that needs solving, much less that the bill is what's necessary to solve their problem. I mean, if somebody offered me a million dollars, I'd absolutely take it, but you would be wrong to infer that I'm a million dollars in debt. In this particular case, many of the numbers the industry associations have thrown out to show a need have been proven to be outright fabrications, and most of the others have been shown to be heavily skewed. So not only have they not shown a legitimate need, but they've demonstrated that their motive has nothing to do with need. Now, don't get me wrong: I'm not saying that piracy isn't a problem — just that I don't see a need for drastic measures. > Shoplifting is not only illegal, but much is dedicated to minimizing it. The maximum sentence for shoplifting in most places is one year in jail. We're hardly taking SOPA-level countermeasures against it. > To claim that SOPA is similar to a death sentence for shoplifting is excessive hyperbole. I don't think so. Jailing people for song covers on YouTube is about as disproportionate, and SOPA essentially implements the death penalty for websites that don't have the resources to police user-generated content with 100% efficacy. But at any rate, the point of the comparison is that it is a drastic solution to a vexing but not-so-drastic problem.

by tgrass 15y ago

chc 15y ago

> The evidence speaks: it was clearly an extreme and urgent problem to some parties, hence the act is under serious consideration. This is a non sequitur. The fact that something is under consideration does not mean it addresses an "extreme and urgent problem". For example, the Gravina Island Highway (the "road to nowhere") was not only under serious consideration, but was actually built despite the fact that it did nobody any good. And we've all heard about silly laws, like how it's illegal to tease skunks in Minnesota. Do you think skunk-teasing is an extreme and urgent problem? The fact that an industry group is pushing a bill that would give it massive power does not indicate that there is actually an urgent problem that needs solving, much less that the bill is what's necessary to solve their problem. I mean, if somebody offered me a million dollars, I'd absolutely take it, but you would be wrong to infer that I'm a million dollars in debt. In this particular case, many of the numbers the industry associations have thrown out to show a need have been proven to be outright fabrications, and most of the others have been shown to be heavily skewed. So not only have they not shown a legitimate need, but they've demonstrated that their motive has nothing to do with need. Now, don't get me wrong: I'm not saying that piracy isn't a problem — just that I don't see a need for drastic measures. > Shoplifting is not only illegal, but much is dedicated to minimizing it. The maximum sentence for shoplifting in most places is one year in jail. We're hardly taking SOPA-level countermeasures against it. > To claim that SOPA is similar to a death sentence for shoplifting is excessive hyperbole. I don't think so. Jailing people for song covers on YouTube is about as disproportionate, and SOPA essentially implements the death penalty for websites that don't have the resources to police user-generated content with 100% efficacy. But at any rate, the point of the comparison is that it is a drastic solution to a vexing but not-so-drastic problem.