Ah, no better source of information out there than an angry blog.

Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRO-IP_Act

An angry blog whose domain was seized for over a year with no trial, because of that law. I think they know a thing about it.

And yes, I read the law. One piece of it is expanding the goverment's abilities in seizure and forfeiture when dealing with IP enforcement. If this doesn't allow the government to take down websites with no trial, maybe you should show me which law does, because they seem to think they have that power.

Oh, dandy, we're going to get into a dickwaving semantics contest now? Lovely. Lovely.

So, basically, any law that can abuse loopholes is SOPA, now? SOPA enacts new rules and measures for taking down websites, new restrictions, etc. PRO-IP simply builds on pre-existing copyright laws.

Evidently, so does the PRO-IP Act. It says so vaguely, so it could be used to seize other stuff too, but I don't see how that's any better.


SOPA is also built on existing copyright law. It was designed to improve copyright law enforcement. PRO-IP does that too.

They have differences, yes, but both could be (or already have been, in PRO-IP's case) used to censor legal speech. To me, that's a pretty important similarity.

Can't we be civil about this and not be rude to eachother?

We would, but TK needs to prove something.

All Pro-IP does, in a nutshell, is allow the federal government to sue on behalf of a copyright holder, and establishes a new branch of gov't to handle that. Not a fan of the government playing company lawyer, myself, but it's not SOPA.

But hey, whatever, if you need me to be wrong about this so bad, fine. Have it. I'm not in the moot to play semantic bathtub-swordfighting with you all damn day. Now if you'll excuse me, I'll be heading into the censored internet to check all my torrent sites and download some pirated music. Because we're already on lockdown!

All the people who protest these laws by boycotting the internet are doing it wrong. Wouldn't the better alternative be for everyone to pirate like crazy?

It also let's the government seize domain names if a site is accused of copyright infringement. I know this because THEY FUCKING SEIZED DOMAIN NAMES. And that last paragraph was probably the funniest strawman I've seen in a while! Great job, man!

Also, I never said it was SOPA, just that it had similarities, which was to prove a bigger point that the government has and could have passed laws like it, such as SOPA. Sure, they have a number differences, but I think they were close enough to justify my fears that SOPA might have passed when it was first talked about. If you don't accept that, fine. We'll just agree to disagree there.

That would have just proven Lamar Smith right, I think.

This doesn't bode well...

This can't be serious. They can't go through with it, they just can't.

I'm sure that it will get delayed.

Who cares? It's nigh-unenforceable and laughably easy to get around. Shit, just use a proxy and this all amounts to nothing. They're wasting time and money to prosecute little old ladies and dumb kids all over again. 'Cause that worked so well the first time.

The RIAA needs to just shut up forever.

One of the keywords there is "voluntarily."

As in no one HAS to do this.

As in a ISP will have to consider if participating in this whole thing is worth it.

As in answering the question as to whether this the extra time, work, and money is worth it to give RIAA and the MPAA what they want.

As in answering the question as to whether doing the exact same thing that SOPA and other proposed legislation tried to do despite having a wealth of arguments against it with the added oversight of NOT BEING REQUIRED to uphold is worth it.

As in, "its not worth it."