BF2S Forums Will SOPA pass?

AussieReaper wrote:

Pretty sure the US just passed indefinite military detention of American citizens without charge or trial.

If they will pass that, SOPA should be a forgone conclusion.

Only not so much:

 SUBTITLE D. SEC. 1021. (p. 655)

(e) AUTHORITIES.—Nothing in this section
    shall be construed to affect existing law or

    authorities relating to the detention of

    United States citizens, lawful resident aliens

    of the United States, or any other persons

    who are captured or arrested in the United

    States.

SUBTITLE D. SEC. 1022. (p. 657)

(b) APPLICABILITY TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS
    AND LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—

    (1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS.—The requirement

    to detain a person in military custody

    under this section does not extend to citizens

    of the United States.

Gaming giants withdraw support for SOPA bill

article wrote:

Sony, Nintendo and Electronic Arts are the latest companies to pull their support for a controversial anti-piracy bill, which could block Americans from viewing websites.

They haven't withdrawn their support as such, they've just removed their names from the list. It's a publicity thing. They don't have to deal with the backlash when their customers realise just how bad SOPA is. It doesn't make sense for EA, Sony or Nintendo to not support SOPA, it gives so much power to them and is overwhelmingly to their benefit at the expense of any entity that may be to their detriment, legitimate and non-legitimate, (i.e. pirates.) They're not so utilitarian as to actually want what's best for everyone here, they want SOPA so much I bet they have trouble suppressing giggles when they think about it.

If they actually came out against SOPA it would mean something. As it is they still support it, they're just trying to trick the public into thinking they're not.

This is a worthy watch whether you like Total Biscuit or not.

How is that related to copyright? It sounds like they don't want to lose the DVD revenue stream?

They should just charge a $/stream fee. That's poor business.

But what does copyright have to do with it? A company owning its content and deciding how it wants to sell it is stifling innovation through copyright how?

because theyre basically bullying using it.  having an entire industry leading company based off of using these movies/tv to get to consumers in an innovative and effective way, and now theyre basically killing any profit netflix is going to be able to get from new WB movies. 

if WB introduced their own streaming service or was subscribing to one of the other ones out there then i wouldnt have a huge problem with it, but theyre using their massive copyright influence to seriously inconvenience people and stifle the advancement of what really is a better way to get movies

Winston_Churchill wrote:

err, because they are no longer able to stream movies from them in a reasonable timeframe?

they dont want to lose the dvd revenue, but really who goes to a dvd store to rent things anymore? physical renting stores are dying left right and centre

It takes like a year for a movie to hit my Netflix streaming account anyway. What's another two months?

With a shift in focus over the last ten years towards online play, and software like Steam and Origin becoming more popular, game companies simply do not need anything like SOPA to protect their revenue.

Jay wrote:

It takes like a year for a movie to hit my Netflix streaming account anyway.

Err no.

I don't agree with him on a lot, but that's another point in Obama's favor, at least as far as I'm concerned. Still doesn't mean that I'm going to forget the government's ham-handed efforts at health care.

e: also - Where Do The Leading Republican Presidential Candidates Stand On SOPA? [UPDATED]

theres still PIPA though

im interested to see the outcry when wikipedia and reddit are down tomorrow

FEOS wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

Pretty sure the US just passed indefinite military detention of American citizens without charge or trial.

If they will pass that, SOPA should be a forgone conclusion.

Only not so much:

 SUBTITLE D. SEC. 1021. (p. 655)

(e) AUTHORITIES.—Nothing in this section
    shall be construed to affect existing law or

    authorities relating to the detention of

    United States citizens, lawful resident aliens

    of the United States, or any other persons

    who are captured or arrested in the United

    States.

SUBTITLE D. SEC. 1022. (p. 657)

(b) APPLICABILITY TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS
    AND LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—

    (1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS.—The requirement

    to detain a person in military custody

    under this section does not extend to citizens

    of the United States.

That would contradict what multiple other sources have been saying -- including the other thread.

It seems a bit odd for the ACLU and a multitude of news sources from various political leanings to suggest that the NDAA indefinite detention clause does apply to citizens.

It seems odder still that Carl Levin and John McCain, the two sponsors of the clause, would argue on the Senate floor in favor of the clause by defending its application to citizens.  Also, Levin has stated that the purpose behind the clause was to include citizens, since the White House requested it specifically after seeing that the first version didn't include citizens.