John... wow.. +1 on the find
Honestly.. its every old monolyths' position to try to survive it's
changing environment because it just cant adapt fast enough... But it'll
fail like the dinosaurs did.
The internet ain't going nowhere fast.
Unless a big comet hits the One Wilshire Building o_O
At 11/17/2011 11:00 PM, Butch Evans wrote:
On Thu, 2011-11-17 at 20:01 -0500, Fred Goldstein wrote:
Well, I'm on record as disliking IPv6 and telling my clients to not
adopt it, so this is one more reason... ;-)
Really? Hiding a customer identity behind a NAT in order to make it
harder for
As an individual I think it is way out of line. Near as I can tell it
circumvents due process. I doubt it will stand up in court, but if it
passes someone is going to have to challenge it first. Basically it
takes all those lovely copyright violation emails you get and turns them
in to
To: wireless@wispa.org
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Internet Censorship
As an individual I think it is way out of line. Near as I can tell it
circumvents due process. I doubt it will stand up in court, but if it
passes someone is going to have to challenge it first. Basically it takes
all those lovely
On Wed, 2011-11-16 at 21:08 -0800, John Thomas wrote:
What is everyone's take on this?
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/technology/2011/11/sopa-internet-piracy-bill-criticized-as-internet-censorship/
My take is that piracy should be punishable by jail time. We have laws
against such things already.
So some people go to jail for downloading Cars 2 illegally for 15
years where a week before a rapist went to prison for 90 days. That's
so insanely ridiculous.
Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 5:12 PM, Butch
On Thu, 2011-11-17 at 17:14 -0500, Josh Luthman wrote:
So some people go to jail for downloading Cars 2 illegally for 15
years where a week before a rapist went to prison for 90 days. That's
so insanely ridiculous.
I agree that it is ridiculous. It doesn't change my opinion of what
SHOULD
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 16:12, Butch Evans but...@butchevans.com wrote:
My take is that piracy should be punishable by jail time.
Yikes. I think we'll have to agree-to-disagree here (biting tongue so hard
it's bleeding).
David Smith
MVN.net
At 11/17/2011 05:12 PM, Butch Evans wrote:
On Wed, 2011-11-16 at 21:08 -0800, John Thomas wrote:
What is everyone's take on this?
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/technology/2011/11/sopa-internet-piracy-bill-criticized-as-internet-censorship/
My take is that piracy should be punishable by jail
I have no issue with prosecuting theft, and as you state, there are
plenty of laws on the books, and mechanisms in place to be able to
handle it.
I disagree on your statement about censorship. If someone posts a fair
use clip on a website parodying the MPAA or the RIAA for instance, all
they
On Thu, 2011-11-17 at 16:51 -0600, Sam Tetherow wrote:
I disagree on your statement about censorship. If someone posts a fair
use clip on a website parodying the MPAA or the RIAA for instance, all
they need to do is file a complaint to paypal/CC processors and that
site's ability to
On Thu, 2011-11-17 at 17:41 -0500, Fred Goldstein wrote:
Some of these proposals create a presumption of guilt, the burden of
proof to prove one's innocence. And some put more onus on the ISP
than before, no small issue. The copyright lobby does not like the
Internet at all. It breaks
The authors are paid either way. Doesn't matter if 1 or a million copies
are sold. Can't feel bad for them as they aren't directly effected. That
is publicized falsely.
Stealing a car by comparison is different...the original owner still has it
and completely without change.
Do I think it is
On 11/17/2011 06:10 PM, Butch Evans wrote:
On Thu, 2011-11-17 at 17:41 -0500, Fred Goldstein wrote:
Some of these proposals create a presumption of guilt, the burden of
proof to prove one's innocence. And some put more onus on the ISP
than before, no small issue. The copyright lobby does not
At 11/17/2011 07:10 PM, Butch Evans wrote:
On Thu, 2011-11-17 at 17:41 -0500, Fred Goldstein wrote:
Some of these proposals create a presumption of guilt, the burden of
proof to prove one's innocence. And some put more onus on the ISP
than before, no small issue. The copyright lobby does
On Thu, 2011-11-17 at 20:01 -0500, Fred Goldstein wrote:
Well, I'm on record as disliking IPv6 and telling my clients to not
adopt it, so this is one more reason... ;-)
Really? Hiding a customer identity behind a NAT in order to make it
harder for law enforcement is your argument against
On Thu, 2011-11-17 at 19:17 -0500, Josh Luthman wrote:
The authors are paid either way. Doesn't matter if 1 or a million
copies are sold. Can't feel bad for them as they aren't directly
effected. That is publicized falsely.
This is not entirely true, or is misleading at best. Musicians are
What is everyone's take on this?
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/technology/2011/11/sopa-internet-piracy-bill-criticized-as-internet-censorship/
WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/11/20/1437259/Oregon-Senator-Stops-Internet-Censorship-Bill
I'm really surprised a Democrat was the killer of this bill I thought
the lawyers, movie, and music industry owned them...
Maybe they missed a payment?
(no flames required both sides are
19 matches
Mail list logo
