The "What in the fuck kind of bill is this?" Thread

fapfapfap wrote:

Oh and this: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

FFFFFFUUUUU-

I've just been reading up about this... Is this seriously a real thing? Or is this another attempt by big businesses confusing/bribing foggy old men with no idea how big the internet is.

Yeah, it's a thing. Interesting graph that popped up on my tumblr dash not long ago:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

While having gone down (most of that missing money looks to be from the Chamber of Commerce), that's still a fuck of a lot of lobbying $ from the entertainment industry.

Also apparently, Obama has already said he's dead-set against this shit so if it passes, I think we can assume a veto would be in the works.

This has so much stupid around it that it boggles my mind. If it does go through, there's no way this is going to be implemented in a reasonable/realistic manner. It won't "save" jobs. A lot of advertising relies on social media and people sharing it. You cut that off and there's going to be a HUGE drop in revenue overall, not to mention not as many jobs since more independent start-ups won't have the money to get the word out as easily.

Gaahhh...

Raine wrote:

not to mention not as many jobs since more independent start-ups won't have the money to get the word out as easily.

Just that, the big guys want to keep their monopoly where all the entertainment anyone even knows about comes from them because they are the only ones with the ad dollars. As a bonus, if there is no uncontrolled way for people to sample their stuff it becomes easier to pass off a shoddy product (I am not talking about illegal dls here, more like review vlogs and stuff).

You see, people are still going to buy music, see movies, play games, etc, but without a tool like the internet to facilitate word-of-mouth advertising their decisions on what music, movies, games, etc. to partake of can be more completely controlled by, if you can forgive my use of the term, the 1%. This applies to politics and education and such as well, but the entertainment industry is a good start because ~copyright infringement~

Oh boy, and now this:

GOP declares pizza is a vegetable. Yes, we get it GOP. You want to kill off the lower classes as soon as you possibly can. You don't have to make it this obvious.

How terrible. The people of America should be allowed access to illegal downloads!

Wait, that was from the first page. Gah.

fapfapfap wrote:

Oh boy, and now this:

GOP declares pizza is a vegetable. Yes, we get it GOP. You want to kill off the lower classes as soon as you possibly can. You don't have to make it this obvious.

Then they'll turn around and say that it's unfair to have State-sponsored health care because some people choose to eat pizza every day for lunch instead of a nice green salad and why should the American taxpayer bootstraps bootstraps.

fapfapfap wrote:

Oh boy, and now this:

GOP declares pizza is a vegetable. Yes, we get it GOP. You want to kill off the lower classes as soon as you possibly can. You don't have to make it this obvious.

I... I have no words to describe this stupidity.

In another forum, I saw it described as: "Obama says kids too fat; GOP says kids not fat enough."

fapfapfap wrote:

Oh and this: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

FFFFFFUUUUU-

And, shocker, both Dems and Repubs agree on it. As if we needed more confirmation that both political parties are the lapdogs of wealthy corporate powers.

Quote :

It's the House bill that extends the draconian measures to domestic websites as well. It also sweeps in a separate bill, sponsored in the Senate by Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), to make it a felony to stream videos or mp3s of copyrighted films and songs.

It's really interesting, the only issue I've ever seen libertarians and radical progressives commonly agree on is internet freedom.

Owlish wrote:

fapfapfap wrote:

Oh and this: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

FFFFFFUUUUU-

And, shocker, both Dems and Repubs agree on it. As if we needed more confirmation that both political parties are the lapdogs of wealthy corporate powers.

A(nother) sad case of big business (in this case, the entertainment industry) using a one-two punch of throwing money around and exploiting lawmakers' ignorance of what they're actually making law about.

If this law spends a day in effect, I will be stunned. If Obama doesn't veto it, a court battle will.

Freezer wrote:

Owlish wrote:

fapfapfap wrote:

Oh and this: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

FFFFFFUUUUU-

And, shocker, both Dems and Repubs agree on it. As if we needed more confirmation that both political parties are the lapdogs of wealthy corporate powers.

A(nother) sad case of big business (in this case, the entertainment industry) using a one-two punch of throwing money around and exploiting lawmakers' ignorance of what they're actually making law about.

If this law spends a day in effect, I will be stunned. If Obama doesn't veto it, a court battle will.

Assuming this does become law, what kind of effect can we expect to see on fanfic and snarking sites like this one?

Lady Anne wrote:

Freezer wrote:

Owlish wrote:

fapfapfap wrote:

Oh and this: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

FFFFFFUUUUU-

And, shocker, both Dems and Repubs agree on it. As if we needed more confirmation that both political parties are the lapdogs of wealthy corporate powers.

A(nother) sad case of big business (in this case, the entertainment industry) using a one-two punch of throwing money around and exploiting lawmakers' ignorance of what they're actually making law about.

If this law spends a day in effect, I will be stunned. If Obama doesn't veto it, a court battle will.

Assuming this does become law, what kind of effect can we expect to see on fanfic and snarking sites like this one?

On fanfic, depending on how they enforce it, it could be potentially disastrous. As fanfic is generally considered a copyright infringement (correct me if I'm wrong on that one, Spotts), if people get nervous, they could pull or shut down sites.

Forums like ours, OTOH, would fall under 'review' sites, and the fair use for reviews would come into play here. So long as we did not reproduce the original work in its entirety, it should be fine.

This just blows my mind. What fucking money-hungry moron thought this to be a good idea? Hell, how about we just get rid of the internet altogether?

From what I've read up on this, this is Hollywood trying to make MONEY by making it legal to sue websites who are streaming music and movies or making them accessible to people who don't have the money to buy them. As if they don't make enough money from theater and DVD sales as it is.

Quote :

Assuming this does become law, what kind of effect can we expect to see on fanfic and snarking sites like this one?

In short, Lady, we're fucked.

Actually, yeah. I REALLY hate to agree with TheIan, but I just went and read the bill in question, and YEAH. NO. This is BAD. Just for quoting a line, places could potentially get sued and shut down. ><

This bill isn't about protecting copyright. It's about control. If a site can be sued and shut down over someone quoting a line, what's to keep some organization that wants a particular site shut down (especially social media) from going onto it and deliberately putting copyrighted material there in order to get it blocked/shut down/heavily censored? The Internet has become a powerful tool for protest and organization, and there are plenty of powerful people and groups who would like that stopped.

Lady Anne wrote:

This bill isn't about protecting copyright. It's about control. If a site can be sued and shut down over someone quoting a line, what's to keep some organization that wants a particular site shut down (especially social media) from going onto it and deliberately putting copyrighted material there in order to get it blocked/shut down/heavily censored? The Internet has become a powerful tool for protest and organization, and there are plenty of powerful people and groups who would like that stopped.

Guy I knew had similar happen to him. He downloaded a Uwe Boll movie, only to get sued over it because Boll uploaded it to the torrent site with the specific intention of catching people that downloaded it.

Whatever. The economy of the functional world is in the hands of criminals. It will not be functional much longer.

fapfapfap wrote:

Lady Anne wrote:

This bill isn't about protecting copyright. It's about control. If a site can be sued and shut down over someone quoting a line, what's to keep some organization that wants a particular site shut down (especially social media) from going onto it and deliberately putting copyrighted material there in order to get it blocked/shut down/heavily censored? The Internet has become a powerful tool for protest and organization, and there are plenty of powerful people and groups who would like that stopped.

Guy I knew had similar happen to him. He downloaded a Uwe Boll movie, only to get sued over it because Boll uploaded it to the torrent site with the specific intention of catching people that downloaded it.

That raises the question, who'd Torrent an Uwe Boll movie?

TheIan wrote:

fapfapfap wrote:

Lady Anne wrote:

This bill isn't about protecting copyright. It's about control. If a site can be sued and shut down over someone quoting a line, what's to keep some organization that wants a particular site shut down (especially social media) from going onto it and deliberately putting copyrighted material there in order to get it blocked/shut down/heavily censored? The Internet has become a powerful tool for protest and organization, and there are plenty of powerful people and groups who would like that stopped.

Guy I knew had similar happen to him. He downloaded a Uwe Boll movie, only to get sued over it because Boll uploaded it to the torrent site with the specific intention of catching people that downloaded it.

That raises the question, who'd Torrent an Uwe Boll movie?

I failed to mention that he's a complete fucking idiot as well.

fapfapfap wrote:

TheIan wrote:

fapfapfap wrote:

Lady Anne wrote:

This bill isn't about protecting copyright. It's about control. If a site can be sued and shut down over someone quoting a line, what's to keep some organization that wants a particular site shut down (especially social media) from going onto it and deliberately putting copyrighted material there in order to get it blocked/shut down/heavily censored? The Internet has become a powerful tool for protest and organization, and there are plenty of powerful people and groups who would like that stopped.

Guy I knew had similar happen to him. He downloaded a Uwe Boll movie, only to get sued over it because Boll uploaded it to the torrent site with the specific intention of catching people that downloaded it.

That raises the question, who'd Torrent an Uwe Boll movie?

I failed to mention that he's a complete fucking idiot as well.

Mystery solved.

Aaand now Mr. Pres is saying that he's not going to veto the NDAA "indefinite detention of american citizens" legislation: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Though apparently he was kind enough to get rid of the part that allowed for detention AFTER being acquitted.

Wow, 4chan is on the brink of meltdown like it's the end of the world or something because of SOPA. o___o

It's BAAAAA--AAK!

From Right Wing Watch

Quote :

Personhood USA has announced that [some Republican Presidential candidates have] signed the organization's pledge to support and promote both state and federal "personhood" laws

Three people, to be specific.

Can you guess who?

Oh fuck it. It's Gingrich, Santorum, and, of course, Bachmann.

Read the pledge here.

Quote :

I __________________ proclaim that every human being is created in the image and likeness of God, and is endowed by our Creator with the unalienable right to life.

I __________________ proclaim that FUCK SCIENCE! GOD ROCKS!

Quote :

I “support a human life amendment to the Constitution, and endorse legislation to make clear that the 14th Amendment protections apply to unborn children.”

I want to see a Personhood-flavoured anti-bigotry song, some what like Ebony and Ivory, but including Embryos, foetuses and zygotes.

Quote :

I recognize that in cases where a mother’s life is at risk, every effort should be made to save the baby’s life as well; leaving the death of an innocent child as an unintended tragedy rather than an intentional killing.

[...]

Abortion and the intentional killing of an innocent human being are always wrong and should be prohibited.

You see, now... Can you not admit that there is, at least the potential of, a WHACKING GREAT BIG GREY AREA RIGHT THERE!

Also: Rape victims: Fuck You.
Poor people: Fuck you.
Teenagers: Fuck you.

Hell...

Women in general: Fuck you.

Quote :

I will only appoint federal judges and relevant officials who will uphold and enforce state and federal laws recognizing that all human beings at every stage of development are persons with the unalienable right to life.

CONFORM!

We will abide no judges or federal officials who do not agree with us! That is how a free and independent democracy is maintained!

Here's yet another attempted abortion ban, as put forward by Florida Rep Van Zant (sounds like a villain name as it is):

Quote :

prohibits induced abortions; prohibits operation of facility for purpose of providing abortion services; ... requires statewide list of attorneys providing volunteer legal services for women with unwanted pregnancies who would have selected abortion, if lawful, rather than adoption...

And in the text of the bill itself:

Quote :

The Legislature finds that all human life comes from 168 the Creator, has an inherent value that cannot be quantified by man, and begins at conception.

Quote :

(4) TERMINATION OF PREGNANCY.—A termination of pregnancy may not be performed unless:
(a) Two physicians certify in writing to the fact that, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, the termination of pregnancy is necessary to prevent the death of the patient;

Something about this "two physicians" thing really rubs me the wrong way.

Quote :

Printed materials prepared and provided by the department have been provided to the patient, if she chooses to view these materials, including:
a. A description of the fetus.
b. A list of agencies that offer alternatives to terminating the pregnancy.
c. Detailed information on the availability of medical assistance benefits for prenatal care, childbirth, and neonatal care.

Quote :

(10) REFUSAL TO PARTICIPATE IN TERMINATION PROCEDURE.—
Nothing in this section shall require any hospital or any person to participate in the termination of a pregnancy, nor shall any hospital or any person be liable for such refusal. No person who is a member of, or associated with, the staff of a hospital, nor any employee of a hospital or physician in which or by whom the termination of a pregnancy has been authorized or performed, who states an objection to such procedure shall be required to participate in the procedure which will result in the termination of pregnancy. The refusal of any such person or employee to participate shall not form the basis for any disciplinary or other recriminatory action against such person.

"Sorry, hun, I'm gonna let you die because I disagree with saving your life on moral grounds."

Someone tell me how this isn't insanely fucked up.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]