5 ms·
It should be pointed out that he is referring to the UK. Just because UK (and EU) citizens have allowed their rights to be taken away from them doesn't mean th
by hvs 17y ago
It should be pointed out that he is referring to the UK. Just because UK (and EU) citizens have allowed their rights to be taken away from them doesn't mean that Americans should not be outraged at what this treaty forebodes. It is an affront to anyone that values the freedom of speech and due process.
- tdoggette 17y agoI agree; the "well, it's almost like that already, so what's a little more law" argument is unconvincing to my ears.
- dstorrs 17y agoTrue. But he's still right about the "don't panic" part. Until this actually shakes out into the real world, we don't know how much of an issue it will be. If it's one of those things that no one bothers to enforce, then who cares? If they do try to enforce it, then there will be class action suits and it will eventually go away. In short, I don't think we can prevent it, but I do think we can get rid of it if need be.
- JBiserkov 17y agoYou're not considering the worst-case scenario: "they" don't enforce it for a while, just so the public outcry wears out, then "they" start to threaten some ISPs...
- dstorrs 17y agoAt which point the lawsuits and such start up. I don't see the problem--the delay before enforcement is irrelevant, it's only the question of enforcement that matters.
- blueben 17y agoIt should also be pointed out that this person is a partner at an intellectual property law firm. Forgive me if I'm not persuaded by the placations of an IP lawyer on this particular matter.