|reply to BronsCon |
Re: SOPA Protest/Awareness Event
said by BronsCon:
This doesn't just specifically target websites intent on piracy. This targets even the smallest "innocent" infringement;
No it doesn't. As I alluded to earlier about "the money", I would bet the Attorney General is not going to act much on anything unless he's alerted to a problem. And he's not going to be alerted to any problem unless someone feels they are losing money and lots of it. MGM won't complain about someone showing a 10-second clip from one of their movies cause it might promote the film but will raise holy hell about someone making the whole film available online. The same thing for Bayer if someone was promoting a knock off of their aspirin.
Speaking of which, a good side affect of this in medicine would be that you are less likely to get a bottle of compressed flour or arsenic if such rogues had no site to list on.
First of all, talk to someone on the YouTube team at Google. I know a few of them personally. Yes, MGM will complain about that 10 second clip. They do so dozens of times daily, and the DMCA already requires that those clips be taken down when there is a complaint. SOPA would require that YouTube be taken down if there was a complaint.
Second, to someone with a condition that requires they take a drug to survive, if they can't afford to buy from the US supplier, it's worth risking their life to save their life. Flour would be like no pill at all, they die. Arsenic would be like no pill at all, they die. The right pill, that saves their life. All things being equal, that's a 33% chance of getting the drug they need to survive. Do you really believe that it's ok to take that away from them in the name of protecting a corporation's profits, when we already have laws in place which do that quite effectively?