# Stop the Internet Blacklist



## 1Kurgan1 (Nov 15, 2010)

I just heard about this and I can't believe what I am seeing here, I'll be signing the petition myself, I hope the rest of you do as well, this is unreal!

------------------------------------------------------------

The Senate Judiciary Committee has scheduled a markup Nov. 18 on S. 3804, Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act.

Remember to contact your representatives to let them know your opinion on the proposed bill. To find out who are the senators on your state and their contact information, you can visit the U.S. Senate website, by clicking here

In the United States, a new law proposal called The Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act (COICA) was introduced last week, and there will be a hearing in front of the Judiciary Committee this Thursday.

If passed, this law will allow the government, under the command of the media companies, to censor the internet as they see fit, like China and Iran do, with the difference that the sites they decide to censor will be completely removed from the internet and not just in the US.

http://demandprogress.org/blacklist/

edit by w1zzard: bill text is here: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s111-3804 
PLEASE read it. it's short


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Nov 15, 2010)

I already did...
 New US internet blacklist bill introduced (COICA)


----------



## digibucc (Nov 15, 2010)

1Kurgan1 said:


> with the difference that the sites they decide to censor will be completely removed from the internet and not just in the US.



us sites makes sense, but how could they "delete" international sites?


----------



## Munki (Nov 15, 2010)

digibucc said:


> us sites makes sense, but how could they "delete" international sites?



I think its technically because the US has complete control over the internet. I guess?


----------



## digibucc (Nov 15, 2010)

Munki said:


> I think its technically because the US has complete control over the internet. I guess?



how did i not know that?  i would assume us has the MOST control over the internet, but i can't possibly believe they have COMPLETE control.  I don't see how that is even possible, the internet is a technology, not an entity.  even if they did control the entity of what we know as "the internet" (which they don't) , the fact that it is a technology understood technically by many many people across the world - means i don't see how they can really control it, just the current implementation.

that's like saying goodyear controls all tires in the world.  yeah maybe they are the biggest, and have the most resources to continue - but they don't control the technology, they are just the most prolific.


----------



## Frick (Nov 15, 2010)

Munki said:


> I think its technically because the US has complete control over the internet. I guess?



They don't. What about sites that are hosted in other nations?


----------



## KainXS (Nov 15, 2010)

damn this is gonna seriously suck

wheres TPU's servers?


----------



## W1zzard (Nov 15, 2010)

doesnt the bill specifically say "dedicated to illegal file sharing" ? if yes then those sites are already illegal in the us and will be taken down by ANY hosting provider in the us already

dmca complaints work really well unless you get some hosting at special isps that dont care about them - and those isps are outside of the us anyway


----------



## Reefer86 (Nov 15, 2010)

its refering to deleting US websites, ie stopping there providers, which would of cause stop other countries seeing them if they don't exist, its just worded for those that no nothing about the internet, tech or that servers actually host websites. 

basicly the internet is not governed or owned by anyone. but if the hosting is in that country then the government of that country can take them to court to remove it.


----------



## KainXS (Nov 15, 2010)

you know I cannot seriously see this happening only for file sharing wiz I call BS on that, I know how my country works and i can see the BS coming


----------



## Munki (Nov 15, 2010)

digibucc said:


> how did i not know that?  i would assume us has the MOST control over the internet, but i can't possibly believe they have COMPLETE control.  I don't see how that is even possible, the internet is a technology, not an entity.  even if they did control the entity of what we know as "the internet" (which they don't) , the fact that it is a technology understood technically by many many people across the world - means i don't see how they can really control it, just the current implementation.
> 
> that's like saying goodyear controls all tires in the world.  yeah maybe they are the biggest, and have the most resources to continue - but they don't control the technology, they are just the most prolific.





Frick said:


> They don't. What about sites that are hosted in other nations?



I'll just back down to my comment cause I can't remember enough to hold a intelligent argument.


----------



## W1zzard (Nov 15, 2010)

where is the text of this bill ?


----------



## KainXS (Nov 15, 2010)

If I had to guess I would say the IANA controls the internet and it has ties to the US Government

its been a problem for a long time that should be fixed before they step into this pile of horsesh*t


----------



## REDDLINE (Nov 15, 2010)

What the US will be doing is exactly like the internet censorship in the People's Republic of China, They not only block access to a website but monitor many things the People are currently browsing. 

These are technically the rules of the internet that China has in place:

No unit or individual may use the Internet to create, replicate, retrieve, or transmit the following kinds of information:
Inciting to resist or breaking the Constitution or laws or the implementation of administrative regulations;
Inciting to overthrow the government or the socialist system;
Inciting division of the country, harming national unification;
Inciting hatred or discrimination among nationalities or harming the unity of the nationalities;
Making falsehoods or distorting the truth, spreading rumors, destroying the order of society;
Promoting feudal superstitions, sexually suggestive material, gambling, violence, murder;
Terrorism or inciting others to criminal activity; openly insulting other people or distorting the truth to slander people;
Injuring the reputation of state organizations;
Other activities against the Constitution, laws or administrative regulations.

Which includes anything related to those topics, so many things about other countries too.

If it does happen, many things will change.


----------



## REDDLINE (Nov 15, 2010)

So really, they arent shutting down websites, they are just making it inaccessible within the country.


----------



## digibucc (Nov 15, 2010)

Munki said:


> I'll just back down to my comment cause I can't remember enough to hold a intelligent argument.



most people would argue unintelligibly regardless, i would do as you.


----------



## W1zzard (Nov 15, 2010)

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s111-3804

full text of the bill


----------



## Batou1986 (Nov 15, 2010)

Basically if this passes they will have the power to restrict access to anything some stupid government agency decided is not fit for us to see.

The stupid ass ppl in Hollywood trying to wrestle more money from our pockets only see this as a way to stop piracy, they never stop to think what would happen when the government has free reign over the web past the scope of there interests.

I think i'll be writing to my congressman soon and i encourage everyone else here in the future USSA to do so as well.

Didnt Obama recently position someone as the Internet czar ?


----------



## W1zzard (Nov 15, 2010)

guys PLEASE READ THE TEXT OF THE BILL


----------



## digibucc (Nov 15, 2010)

W1zzard said:


> guys PLEASE READ THE TEXT OF THE BILL



really. it's very specific and very short.


----------



## W1zzard (Nov 15, 2010)

the only new thing is that they may modify DNS records for evil websites.

so when going to www.thepiratebay.org you end up where the forum link takes you instead of the intended site. using an ip address would still work

even when in effect the bill would not do anything it intends to achieve. it will stop people who cant google "how to bypass COICA"  from downloading illegal music, everyone else will still be fine


----------



## Batou1986 (Nov 15, 2010)

There are limitations in this bill, but what you guys who are saying well it don't say anything about censoring the internet don't realize is how every time they pass something like this it always seems to deviate into a big issue like the Patriot Act for example.

As for the piracy problems there are better ways to deal with that.
Secondly there's a lot of stuff shared p2p that's legal content which would be swept under the rug with all the illegal stuff because of this.

This solution is about as smart as buying a new car because you got a flat tire.


----------



## REDDLINE (Nov 15, 2010)

W1zzard said:


> it will stop people like your grandma from downloading illegal music, everyone else will still be fine



Hah, made me lol.


----------



## W1zzard (Nov 15, 2010)

Batou1986 said:


> Secondly there's a lot of stuff shared p2p that's legal content which would be swept under the rug with all the illegal stuff because of this.



from the bill:

Internet sites dedicated to infringing activities

[...] an Internet site is ‘dedicated to infringing activities’ if such site--

[...]
‘(A) primarily designed, has no demonstrable, commercially significant purpose or use *other than*, or is marketed by its operator, [...]


----------



## Wile E (Nov 15, 2010)

I'm against it. I'm pretty much just against the govt censoring anything. The govt likes to twist things, so how long before this censorship bleeds over into other types of websites?

That said, it's not that huge of a deal, as it will likely be easily bypassed.


----------



## stevednmc (Nov 15, 2010)

Its also stupid and redundant. Fact of the matter, we have laws already in place against counterfeits and etc..there is no reason for an internet specific law. They already tried to run the internet, it got smacked down by the courts, so the FCC says they are gonna do it anyway. (there's your Czar) ,and looking on the names on this bill, they would be the ones complicit with the FCC, who want it controlled. So this is piecemeal legislation, designed to put together, over time the full legislation under the radar. This is what they have been doing for 100 years now, slowly turning the USA into the USSA. This is not necessary..the laws are already there, again this is just internet specific. Similar to our new texting while driving laws. We already have laws against distracted or impaired driving, but they made up laws specific to texting when the law in place should be sufficient.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Nov 15, 2010)

Hmmm the way the bill reads the Attorney General alone can pretty much do what he/she pleases with the Internet. He/she can deem what is acceptable and what isn't under trade laws established in 1946 and such. 

This isn't as simple as it sounds W1zz. This is a power grab.



W1zzard said:


> from the bill:
> 
> Internet sites dedicated to infringing activities
> 
> ...



And the only person who would deem that would be the Attorney General. Not a court. See where this is going?


----------



## stevednmc (Nov 15, 2010)

sure is, its not because they care!


----------



## Wile E (Nov 15, 2010)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Hmmm the way the bill reads the Attorney General alone can pretty much do what he/she pleases with the Internet. He/she can deem what is acceptable and what isn't under trade laws established in 1946 and such.
> 
> This isn't as simple as it sounds W1zz. This is a power grab.
> 
> ...


And that's exactly why I'm against it.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Nov 15, 2010)

You guys in Europe are used to this shit. For Americans this is a BIG DEAL. Its an infringement on our Liberty. This is centralization of power. Thats a BIG no, no here in the states.


----------



## Frick (Nov 15, 2010)

TheMailMan78 said:


> You guys in Europe are used to this shit. For Americans this is a BIG DEAL. Its an infringement on our Liberty. This is centralization of power. Thats a BIG no, no here in the states.



Erm.. Why are we used to it in europe?


----------



## Taz100420 (Nov 15, 2010)

I love my country but I hate the ppl that run it. This isnt a Democracy, its a Hipocracy. Congress needs to wake up and see that we have WAY more important issues that need dealt with than censoring the damn Internet. If anyone is to blame, blame Al Gore. He claims he created the Internet


----------



## Frick (Nov 15, 2010)

Also:

- primarily designed, *has no demonstrable*, commercially significant purpose or use other than, or is marketed by its operator, or by a person acting in concert with the operator, to offer--


Doesn't that mean the Attorney General has some limitation?


----------



## Wile E (Nov 15, 2010)

Frick said:


> Also:
> 
> - primarily designed, *has no demonstrable*, commercially significant purpose or use other than, or is marketed by its operator, or by a person acting in concert with the operator, to offer--
> 
> ...



Who's gonna stop him?


----------



## Frick (Nov 15, 2010)

Wile E said:


> Who's gonna stop him?



Anyone who can demonstrate how the site is not all that stuff under A)?


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Nov 15, 2010)

Frick said:


> Anyone who can demonstrate how the site is not all that stuff under A)?



 Good luck with that. It would take a state to go up against him. Even then it would be fail.


----------



## Wile E (Nov 15, 2010)

Frick said:


> Anyone who can demonstrate how the site is not all that stuff under A)?



So, the same people he's buddies with?

I'd rather just not risk it at all. Govts are full of corruption, and I'd rather not hand them even more power.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Nov 15, 2010)

Frick said:


> Erm.. Why are we used to it in europe?



Well its pretty simple man. Most European countries work with a system thats centralized. The government has final say over pretty much everything. While there is nothing wrong with this for "you" or of any said nation its not how the U.S. was setup to work.

See a lot of European nations are now even willing to give up their sovereignty just to be more centralized (ie. The European Union). While this may look great on paper as you can see in execution its failing. When you centralize you are only as strong as your weakest link.

This was the power of the US and Europe. Competition between states and nations. Everyone was trying to better themselves to beat their neighbor. Now they spend most of their time maintaining the status quo and keeping to the "less empowered" instead of self improvement.

Get what I'm saying?


----------



## digibucc (Nov 15, 2010)

TheMailMan78 said:


> You guys in Europe are used to this shit. For Americans this is a BIG DEAL. Its an infringement on our Liberty. This is centralization of power. Thats a BIG no, no here in the states.





Frick said:


> Erm.. Why are we used to it in europe?



seriously though, most of europe is much "freer" than the united states.  sure we have some semblance of an input into our government - but as far as real life day to day , most other developed countries live much "freer" lives than Us.  less debt, less worry, less work, less intrusion, less religion, less corporate control.  

the underlying system of government only can do so much. when you have another system on top of it consisting of corporations (including media), the wealthy, and those already in power.  Americans suffer from that more than most other developed countries.

this is just another example of corporate interests being prioritized over individuals, the stuff America is made of.

to clarify, obviously our system of government is meant and was set up to keep us free.  that's simply not how it played out.  our day to day lives do not match the ideals our country was founded on.



Frick said:


> And @ this freedom thing and government control and whatnot: I just live here.


which really goes to my point - most people don't really care about the intricacies of their government, they care how it affects their life day to day.  knowing nothing about system of government- but knowing of lifestyle in different countries, most people objectively would consider the US to be among the least free developed countries.


----------



## Frick (Nov 15, 2010)

Wile E said:


> So, the same people he's buddies with?
> 
> I'd rather just not risk it at all. Govts are full of corruption, and I'd rather not hand them even more power.



Well, when I read it I got this picture in my head: This guy sends out a letter saying "yo be infringin' yo", and the site admin or whatever says "No." and comes up with an explanation for the site. Like torrent sites, or upload sites or whatever. There's tons of legal things there too. But I might've gotten wrong picture.

And @ this freedom thing and government control and whatnot: I just live here.


----------



## Steevo (Nov 15, 2010)

I'm almost for it, the number of idiot users who go on and download crap that makes their computer into zombies would make it worth it.


----------



## stevednmc (Nov 15, 2010)

Seems we may have gotten a bit off topic. So in that spirit i just wanna say, Mailman, you are my new best friend! lol.

Yes our government has gotten far far away from the way it was setup. And it needs to get back to its roots, so much i could say about that. But liberty doesnt mean freedom from work, religion and the like. Freedom is not having everything thought of and fulfilled for you. Freedom takes work. Hard work. But at the end of the day, you busted your but, but are beholden to no one. Thats the way it used to be. Freedom to choose your job, your religion, SPEECH, all of it. Not having to work is NOT freedom, its dependancy on others.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Nov 15, 2010)

stevednmc said:


> Seems we may have gotten a bit off topic. So in that spirit i just wanna say, Mailman, you are my new best friend! lol.


 I have that effect on people. I'm kinda like the Charlie Manson of TPU. I start all kinds of crap but never get my hands dirty.


----------



## digibucc (Nov 15, 2010)

stevednmc said:


> Not having to work is NOT freedom, its dependancy on others.



um , i believe you may have misunderstood.

it's not about not having to work.  it's not about dependency on others.  

it's about not being born into a corporate slave state that requires a substantial debt to even have the opportunity for success.  you can live, well, on your own merits, for less money and therefore less work, in most other developed countries.

We are beholden to banks, credit card companies, etc.  that is the system on top of the system i was referring to. we feel rich because we have stuff.  but we don't actually own the stuff.  I haven't even paid the bill in entirety for the computer i type this on - but i feel it's mine so i must be making some progress, right?  i recognize and am working to fix this for myself, but most people never look that far.

I agree it is off topic though, and will leave it at that.



TheMailMan78 said:


> I have that effect on people. I'm kinda like the Charlie Manson of TPU. I start all kinds of crap but never get my hands dirty.



not trying to further the crap, seriously.  and i do like mailman, he is a good guy.  but to me that simply means you have the luxury of making ridiculous comments and not having to back them up by , getting your hands dirty.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Nov 15, 2010)

digibucc said:


> um , i believe you may have misunderstood.
> 
> it's not about not having to work.  it's not about dependency on others.
> 
> ...



You are only in the debt YOU produce. Thats the American way. Forcing debt via high taxes is slavery. That is where YOU are mistaken. When robbing Peter to pay Paul you can always count on Pauls vote.


----------



## digibucc (Nov 15, 2010)

TheMailMan78 said:


> You are only in the debt YOU produce. Thats the American way. Forcing debt via high taxes is slavery. That is where YOU are mistaken. When robbing Peter to pay Paul you can always count on Pauls vote.



so instead of taxes you just pay more for everything, to a company that will make it as cheaply as it possibly can, damned be the risks? force debt via necessity instead?


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Nov 15, 2010)

digibucc said:


> so instead of taxes you just pay more for everything, to a company that will make it as cheaply as it possibly can, damned be the risks?



I pay market worth. Not a market worth screwed up due to government interference in the market. IE. stupid regulations meant to crush small business or stupid ass enviromental mumbo jumbo and such.


----------



## stevednmc (Nov 15, 2010)

Digi, i stand corrected, i misread that. I for one do not own anything i have without paying outright. The only exception would be a car (which i usually pay in full for ) or a home. ( I rent). While i agree that many corps. do evil things, i believe that our lack of producing anything anymore is why we have become a consumer society. Used to be a business with bad business practices would FAIL on its own, because competition was such that it wouldnt allow a business like that to survive .


----------



## stevednmc (Nov 15, 2010)

themailman78 said:


> i pay market worth. Not a market worth screwed up due to government interference in the market. Ie. Stupid regulations meant to crush small business or stupid ass enviromental mumbo jumbo and such.



yesssss!!


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Nov 15, 2010)

stevednmc said:


> Digi, i stand corrected, i misread that. I for one do not own anything i have without paying outright. The only exception would be a car (which i usually pay in full for ) or a home. ( I rent). While i agree that many corps. do evil things, i believe that our lack of producing anything anymore is why we have become a consumer society. Used to be a business with bad business practices would FAIL on its own, because competition was such that it wouldnt allow a business like that to survive .



And that is why goverment needs to stay out of the market. Let the weak fail and someone better will rise.


----------



## digibucc (Nov 15, 2010)

stevednmc said:


> i believe that our lack of producing anything anymore is why we have become a consumer society. Used to be a business with bad business practices would FAIL on its own, because competition was such that it wouldnt allow a business like that to survive .



agreed, only those business own our government and therefore are FORCED to survive, with feeding tubes coming all the way from our pockets.

we are a service economy, and even that is cheaper elsewhere.  we have spent all the money we could have been improving our infrastructure with on unnecessary wars, and now we are stuck in a downward spiral with no visible way out. *(don't mean just war, but unnecessary spending) and our defense budget is bigger than any other regular spending, and unnecessary.*



TheMailMan78 said:


> I pay market worth. Not a market worth screwed up due to government interference in the market. IE. stupid regulations meant to crush small business or stupid ass enviromental mumbo jumbo and such.



a market determined by the people you are buying from - because we can trust them to set a fair value.

market worth is not determined by actual worth.  supply and demand is but a small part in the machine.  you only have so many choices - if not coke than pepsi, if not chase than bank of america.  you will buy their crap one way or the other, so they just give it time and own you that way.

mailman, i don't disagree that big government is not a good thing, but big corporation is even worse.


----------



## stevednmc (Nov 15, 2010)

Thats why lobbyists need to go away, The wars are not the cuase of our financial problems...not even close, the bailouts cost way more than the wars, of course if we fought to win it would be cheaper, and nation building should also not be done, that costs!

On topic: no to internet regulation!


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Nov 15, 2010)

digibucc said:


> agreed, only those business own our government and therefore are FORCED to survive, with feeding tubes coming all the way from our pockets.
> 
> we are a service economy, and even that is cheaper elsewhere.  we have spent all the money we could have been improving our infrastructure with on unnecessary wars, and now we are stuck in a downward spiral with no visible way out.
> 
> ...



See the reason why your choices are limited is due to WAY to much regulation. Regulation that is designed to kill the small guy and enrich the government. FYI Big business and government are one in the same. Again you want choice? You want freedom? Tell the government to leave you the hell alone.

Example: Al Gore made a movie about the environment. Now everyone wants to be "green" Well Al Gore has investments. In guess what......GREEN COMPANIES. So The Feds regulate for the "good of the planet" and that forces people to buy from companies that can afford the new "green" standard. Who pays for this? First you pay it in taxes. Then you pay for it in retail.

Small guys who offer a better product cannot compete due to the new "green" standard (which is BS to begin with) enforced by the feds. So you can only buy from "Pepsi or coke"

Thats not a market. Thats a slave whip.

NOW do you understand? Also hows that for getting my hands dirty


----------



## digibucc (Nov 15, 2010)

which just shows how much control corporations have over our government, they own al gore and everyone else , that's my point.

where are we disagreeing now?  i don't even see it anymore 

it's not the government choosing to do these things, it's corporations deciding and buying these decisions that rule us, for their own good.  if our government worked like it's ideal, it could be huge and still do much more good than harm.  but when it is run by money from corporations , than that just can never happen.

plenty dirty, ty


----------



## stevednmc (Nov 15, 2010)

Its actually the reverse. Politicians own all or parts of companies, and thats Why they regulate the way they do, to benefit themselves, on the taxpayer dime, thats where the disagreement lies i believe


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Nov 15, 2010)

digibucc said:


> which just shows how much control corporations have over our government, they own al gore and everyone else , that's my point.
> 
> where are we disagreeing now?  i don't even see it anymore.
> 
> it's not the government choosing to do these things, it's corporations deciding and buying these decisions that rule us, for their own good.



Well Al Gore was just an example. They all do this.

My point was Europe is in the same boat. The companies names are just different. THIS IS WHY CENTRALIZATION OF POWER IS EVIL.



stevednmc said:


> Its actually the reverse. Politicians own all or parts of companies, and thats Why they regulate the way they do, to benefit themselves, on the taxpayer dime, thats where the disagreement lies i believe



Exactly. Thats why I said they are one in the same. Decentralize the governments and watch mankind blossom.


----------



## stevednmc (Nov 15, 2010)

When things get down to a local level, thats where freedom lies, regulation, business choice, all of it. The closer to the bone the sweeter the meat.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Nov 15, 2010)

stevednmc said:


> When things get down to a local level, thats where freedom lies, regulation, business choice, all of it. The closer to the bone the sweeter the meat.



You must be a tea party member.


----------



## digibucc (Nov 15, 2010)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Well Al Gore was just an example. They all do this.
> 
> My point was Europe is in the same boat. The companies names are just different. THIS IS WHY CENTRALIZATION OF POWER IS EVIL.



ah hah... agreed.  and steven i see that as semantics.  if corporations didn't have the freedom and prestige they do in this country their leaders wouldn't make it in politics, to perpetuate the cycle.

it's considered a good thing to have ties to multi billion dollar corporations when running for office, how's that for crazy?  as though that really makes them uniquely suited to do what's right for US.



TheMailMan78 said:


> You must be a tea party member.



maybe in it's infancy, where it wasn't insane.  but that's nothing like it sounds now.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Nov 15, 2010)

digibucc said:


> ah hah... agreed.  and steven i see that as semantics.  if corporations didn't have the freedom and prestige they do in this country their leaders wouldn't make it in politics, to perpetuate the cycle.
> 
> it's considered a good thing to have ties to multi billion dollar corporations when running for office, how's that for crazy?  as though that really makes them uniquely suited to do what's right for US.
> 
> ...



No thats exactly what we stand for. Don't let the media fool you. We have been deemed nuts because they are afraid. They are afraid we will take their power away and restore it to the people.


----------



## AphexDreamer (Nov 15, 2010)

Signed this a while back. 

I really hope people don't let this happen, censorship is really a sad thing. I think people know what they want to see, read, play, do and don't need to be told what they can't. In terms of doing illegal things, the criminals will still do illegal things regardless of what sites they censor thats why they are criminals.


----------



## Kreij (Nov 15, 2010)

TheMailMan78 said:


> And that is why goverment needs to stay out of the market.* Let the weak fail and someone better will rise.*



That is what our government fears the most. Especially when looking in the mirror.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Nov 15, 2010)

Kreij said:


> That is what our government fears the most. Especially when looking in the mirror.



As they should. The goverment should fear its people. Not the other way around.


----------



## stevednmc (Nov 15, 2010)

digibucc said:


> it's considered a good thing to have ties to multi billion dollar corporations when running for office, how's that for crazy? as though that really makes them uniquely suited to do what's right for US.



Thats my point, it has BECOME the chicken and the egg. 


Yep, im a tea partier!! And its not crazy as people make it out to be. Its simple really, like i said, the closer to the bone, the sweeter the meat. Perhaps we should have that mantra for 2012?!

It used to be common ppl that held the office, not any more


----------



## W1zzard (Nov 15, 2010)

TheMailMan78 said:


> And that is why goverment needs to stay out of the market. Let the weak fail and someone better will rise.



your government did great with the banks


----------



## digibucc (Nov 15, 2010)

TheMailMan78 said:


> No thats exactly what we stand for. Don't let the media fool you. We have been deemed nuts because they are afraid. They are afraid we will take their power away and restore it to the people.



when it was picked up by Fox and use by Beck and Limbaugh for their own gain, that's what changed it.  all media is afraid, in this country it's all infotainment and completely useless - but I think it's a valid point that it was the conservative christian right, who once again highjacked a sensible economic ideal.

they did it with the republican party, the conservative movement, and now the tea party.  they redefine an economic and government statement to match their religious views, and make homosexuality and abortion the main topics.  that's what killed the tea party movement (in the eyes of the mainstream)



stevednmc said:


> It used to be common ppl that held the office, not any more



if you mean common like bush pretended to be, count me out.  i don't want a buddy i can drink beer with.  i want someone who can understand the problems and work out solutions, without being beholden to corporations.


----------



## stevednmc (Nov 15, 2010)

W1zzard said:


> your government did great with the banks




Sarcasm? lol yeah, im thrilled about it! Not.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Nov 15, 2010)

W1zzard said:


> your government did great with the banks



 The amount of shame I have for that is unprecedented. Probably how you felt having to bail out Spain and Italy. 



digibucc said:


> if you mean common like bush pretended to be, count me out.  i don't want a buddy i can drink beer with.  i want someone who can understand the problems and work out solutions, without being beholden to corporations.



Hes talking about local control and states rights man. Not that establishment crap Bush and Obama represent. All I can say to you man is turn off the news and follow your brain.


----------



## stevednmc (Nov 15, 2010)

I meant doctors and lawyers, farmers, small business owners, like that. Bush is just as big a progressive as the rest. And no, it hasnt been coopted by fox, and rush limbaugh, though they support it. And it hasnt at all been about homosexuality or abortion either.


----------



## digibucc (Nov 15, 2010)

Kreij said:


> That is what our government fears the most. Especially when looking in the mirror.





TheMailMan78 said:


> As they should. The goverment should fear its people. Not the other way around.



i would agree if i thought that less government meant the people would take control and smack down the corporations in place of regulation - but that is not the case , as i see it.

they never would have gained control if we, the people, were willing to do what is necessary to run our country.  it is US, who are afraid of life without the false comfort that "America the Great" gives us.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Nov 15, 2010)

stevednmc said:


> I meant doctors and lawyers, farmers, small business owners, like that. Bush is just as big a progressive as the rest. And no, it hasnt been coopted by fox, and rush limbaugh, though they support it. And it hasnt at all been about homosexuality or abortion either.



I have yet to be in a rally that even talked about those subjects.



digibucc said:


> i would agree if i thought that less government meant the people would take control and smack down the corporations in place of regulation - but that is not the case , as i see it.
> 
> they never would have gained control if we, the people, were willing to do what is necessary to run our country.  it is US, who are afraid of life without the false comfort that "America the Great" gives us.



Yeah? Step back and watch.


----------



## digibucc (Nov 15, 2010)

stevednmc said:


> And no, it hasnt been coopted by fox, and rush limbaugh, though they support it.



they don't support it though, that's the point.  if it actually succeeded they would be out of business!



TheMailMan78 said:


> Yeah? Step back and watch.



I have been, for a looong time.  so has the rest of the world.  think it's about time to step in.


----------



## stevednmc (Nov 15, 2010)

TheMailMan78 said:


> I have yet to be in a rally that even talked about those subjects.



Me either, its all about fiscal responsibility. Besides, i think all but the most right wing christiandom would agree those should be punted back down to state level as well.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Nov 15, 2010)

digibucc said:


> they don't support it though, that's the point.  if it actually succeeded they would be out of business!



Naaaa idiots will always have a job.


----------



## W1zzard (Nov 15, 2010)

Frick said:


> Well, when I read it I got this picture in my head: This guy sends out a letter saying "yo be infringin' yo", and the site admin or whatever says "No." and comes up with an explanation for the site. Like torrent sites, or upload sites or whatever. There's tons of legal things there too. But I might've gotten wrong picture.



that's basically how the dmca complaint process works *today*.

someone tells me that site x is stealing our content. i look up which provider they use and send the provider a dmca notification email basically saying "yo be infringin yo". they contact their customer and tell them "w1zzard says yo be infringin yo. respond within 24 hours or we shut down your account". at this point usually the site owner removes the content. if the site owner thinks everything is ok he can respond back to me and if needed the whole thing could be taken to court.
if the owner ignores the dmca complaint the isp shuts them down. if the isp doesn't shut them down i send a notice to the upstream provider of the isp (the isp's isp) and they send the "yo be infringin yo" to their customer and threaten to turn off their pipe.

all this happens in less than 24-48 hours. i typically have to do this 3-4 times a month. it is a very fast and efficient process and most non-us isps respond to dmca notices even though they have no obligation to do so. why? because it makes everyone's life easier.

again, all this can be done today and applies to piracy sites. 

now the problem is that there are isps in some countries that make a lot of money by hosting us-illegal sites. what this new bill will add is a way to "turn off" the dns servers of said site, effectively blocking access to the site when the hostname is used. without the bill and all involved party outside us jurisdiction there would be no way to do anything against the site.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Nov 15, 2010)

Our friends over the pond must be reading this and be thinking "WTF are these yanks talking about!"


----------



## stevednmc (Nov 15, 2010)

digibucc said:


> they don't support it though, that's the point. if it actually succeeded they would be out of business!



I can't speak for either one really, but id say Glenn Beck would be happy to be out of business. Probably Rush as well. They have not wavered on what the believe, and the fact of the matter is, there is no way anyone could be out of business when politics still exists. There will be always someone to disagree with!


----------



## W1zzard (Nov 15, 2010)

TheMailMan78 said:


> The amount of shame I have for that is unprecedented. Probably how you felt having to bail out Spain and Italy.



no bailouts for spain and italy. only greece got some. should have given the bank money to the schools  no offense, no personal attack


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Nov 15, 2010)

W1zzard said:


> that's basically how the dmca complaint process works *today*.
> 
> someone tells me that site x is stealing our content. i look up which provider they use and send the provider a dmca notification email basically saying "yo be infringin yo". they contact their customer and tell them "w1zzard says yo be infringin yo. respond within 24 hours or we shut down your account". at this point usually the site owner removes the content. if the site owner thinks everything is ok he can respond back to me and if needed the whole thing could be taken to court.
> if the owner ignores the dmca complaint the isp shuts them down. if the isp doesn't shut them down i send a notice to the upstream provider of the isp (the isp's isp) and they send the "yo be infringin yo" to their customer and threaten to turn off their pipe.
> ...



If a court would decide I would be ok with that. Not an unelected official.



W1zzard said:


> no bailouts for spain and italy. only greece got some. should have given the bank money to the schools  no offense, no personal attack



I wont argue there.


----------



## Kreij (Nov 15, 2010)

I vote for W1zzard as world leader.
Things may not get any better, but I would be comforted in the fact that the world leader knew how to write good code.


----------



## stevednmc (Nov 15, 2010)

TheMailMan78 said:


> If a court would decide I would be ok with that. Not an unelected official.



Agreed, should go to the courts. Laws exist for theft and piracy already, that should extend to the internet by proxy.


----------



## digibucc (Nov 15, 2010)

stevednmc said:


> I can speak for either one really, but id say Glenn Beck would be happy to be out of business. Probably Rush as well. They have not wavered on what the believe, and the fact of the matter is, there is no way anyone could be out of business when politics still exists. There will be always someone to disagree with!



no, you're right - they haven't wavered in their unending belief of ... MONEY!
they use their followers to make money off their trust.  unethically, if that wasn't clear.

believing they would be happy to have no one listen to them and give them so much money every day is , imo, naive.  they thrive off their power, and would never do anything to jeopardize that.  anything "controversial" they do or say is a ploy to get their followers even more entrenched, at how much they stand by their "principles", conflicting though they are.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Nov 15, 2010)

digibucc said:


> no, you're right - they haven't wavered in their unending belief of ... MONEY!
> they use their followers to make money off their trust.  unethically, if that wasn't clear.
> 
> believing they would be happy to have no one listen to them and give them so much money every day is , imo, naive.  they thrive off their power, and would never do anything to jeopardize that.  anything "controversial" they do or say is a ploy to get their followers even more entrenched, at how much they stand by their "principles", conflicting though they are.



I agree. They are fear pimps.


----------



## W1zzard (Nov 15, 2010)

TheMailMan78 said:


> If a court would decide I would be ok with that. Not an unelected official.



i'm not a legal expert enough to understand the bill's wording there. someone please help.

as far as i read it says that the attorney general sends the request to a court to make a decision and then acts executing whatever the court decides ?


----------



## stevednmc (Nov 15, 2010)

digibucc said:


> no, you're right - they haven't wavered in their unending belief of ... MONEY!
> they use their followers to make money off their trust.  unethically, if that wasn't clear.
> 
> believing they would be happy to have no one listen to them and give them so much money every day is , imo, naive.  they thrive off their power, and would never do anything to jeopardize that.  anything "controversial" they do or say is a ploy to get their followers even more entrenched, at how much they stand by their "principles", conflicting though they are.




Im simply going to flat out disagree with that one. Except to say thst, yep, money talks. That is in fact the way of the world. Now maybe if we lived in the land of Star Trek, things would be different...wait i dont want one world government either..hmmm


----------



## Easy Rhino (Nov 15, 2010)

so they can "take down" a site without due process of law?


----------



## KainXS (Nov 15, 2010)

what do you expect

bailout here bailout there 

the rich get richer and everyone else gets screwed, The United States of America, run by companies for the companies

now china's learnin our way


----------



## slyfox2151 (Nov 15, 2010)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Our friends over the pond must be reading this and be thinking "WTF are these yanks talking about!"



Nope,


here in australia we are having our own problems with internet censorship. they want to inpliment a mandatory internet filter, with the new NBN (natinal braudband network)


----------



## W1zzard (Nov 15, 2010)

Easy Rhino said:


> so they can "take down" a site without due process of law?



my interpretation is that the AG has to ask a court for a court order to block access to the site (for US customers)


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Nov 15, 2010)

W1zzard said:


> i'm not a legal expert enough to understand the bill's wording there. someone please help.
> 
> as far as i read it says that the attorney general sends the request to a court to make a decision and then acts executing whatever the court decides ?



My question is who contacts the attorney general first? Then which federal judge is going to go against the attorney general?


----------



## Easy Rhino (Nov 15, 2010)

W1zzard said:


> my interpretation is that the AG has to ask a court for a court order to block access to the site (for US customers)



apparently they keep a list of suspected sites and if they have enough evidence the attorney general can get a judge to grant him the authority to take down the site. i guess this is a lot like when they bust a drug laundering business. the shop is closed by law while the investigation and trial happens.


----------



## stevednmc (Nov 15, 2010)

TheMailMan78 said:


> My question is who contacts the attorney general first? Then which federal judge is going to go against the attorney general?




None will thats the point. The laws already exist. If the person being infringed upon has the copyright, trade mark or whaterver, they can take the owner of a thieving domain to court already. This is unnecessary regulation, regulation for regulations sake. Some more words that that they can take, down the road, fit it with some other regulation like a puzzle piece and bastardize the whole thing.


----------



## W1zzard (Nov 15, 2010)

Easy Rhino said:


> apparently they keep a list of suspected sites and if they have enough evidence the attorney general can get a judge to grant him the authority to take down the site. i guess this is a lot like when they bust a drug laundering business. the shop is closed by law while the investigation and trial happens.



its more like when the drug laundering business goes into the yellow pages they can remove the yellow pages entry


----------



## 1Kurgan1 (Nov 15, 2010)

TheMailMan78 said:


> My question is who contacts the attorney general first? Then which federal judge is going to go against the attorney general?



Thats the way I see it, by all the attention videogames get, I just don't feel most government figures are going to be holding the amount of education in this field to actually make a decent decision here.


----------



## digibucc (Nov 15, 2010)

stevednmc said:


> None will thats the point. The laws already exist. If the person being infringed upon has the copyright, trade mark or whaterver, they can take the owner of a thieving domain to court already. This is unnecessary regulation, regulation for regulations sake. Some more words that that they can take, down the road, fit it with some other regulation like a puzzle piece and bastardize the whole thing.



except this is NOT government regulating corporations, but corporations lobbying government to regulate it's citizens. big difference imo. much worse.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Nov 15, 2010)

W1zzard said:


> its more like when the drug laundering business goes into the yellow pages they can remove the yellow pages entry



well i get your meaning, but it is more than that. because taking down the domain name is removing access to the site which renders it useless.


----------



## digibucc (Nov 15, 2010)

Easy Rhino said:


> well i get your meaning, but it is more than that. because taking down the domain name is removing access to the site which renders it useless.



ip addresses, just like the phone number would still exist the site does, just US DNS servers won't point to it anymore.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Nov 15, 2010)

digibucc said:


> ip addresses, just like the phone number would still exist the site does, just US DNS servers won't point to it anymore.




(B) REQUIRED ACTIONS- Upon receipt of a court order issued pursuant to this section--

‘(i) a service provider, as that term is defined in section 512(k)(1) of title 17, United States Code, or other operator of a domain name system server shall take reasonable steps that will prevent a domain name from resolving to that domain name’s Internet protocol address;

yup they still allow IP. hrm...


----------



## stevednmc (Nov 15, 2010)

digibucc said:


> except this is NOT government regulating corporations, but corporations lobbying government to regulate it's citizens. big difference imo. much worse.



So if M$ copyrights something they dont still own it, just because they are a corporation?


Again laws are already there, this is redundant


----------



## digibucc (Nov 15, 2010)

stevednmc said:


> So if M$ copyrights something they dont still own it, just because they are a corporation?
> 
> 
> Again laws are already there, this is redundant



so the existing laws are by corporations to regulate citizen's freedom, redundant or not I think it "more OK" to regulate large corporations than individuals, as the harm they can cause is much greater.

granted it would be better if neither were or had to be regulated, but experience shows many people just simply do unethical things when they have power, and the majority of our citizens don't care enough to do anything about it.


----------



## W1zzard (Nov 15, 2010)

Easy Rhino said:


> well i get your meaning, but it is more than that. because taking down the domain name is removing access to the site which renders it useless.





digibucc said:


> ip addresses, just like the phone number would still exist the site does, just US DNS servers won't point to it anymore.



that. dns is a just a convenience system because primates are notoriously bad at remembering meaningless number combinations


----------



## Easy Rhino (Nov 15, 2010)

i am not too worried about this bill because of this section...

‘(1) IN GENERAL- The Attorney General shall maintain a public listing of domain names that, upon information and reasonable belief, the Department of Justice determines are dedicated to infringing activities but for which the Attorney General has not filed an action under this section.

so at least you can check the public listing if you run one of those sites and if their is a misunderstanding you can contact them before any action is taken. 

this bill is designed to make it easier for the US govt to protect intellectual property rights by removing a site's domain name. taken on its own this is fairly harmless, however i see it as a brick in a foundation that the US govt has been slowly building to censor the net. very dangerous.


----------



## stevednmc (Nov 15, 2010)

copyright laws are copyright laws. A trademark is a trademark, no matter who has registered it the same laws apply. If M$ stole from me i sure as hell would go after it. Corporations and citizens should have the same applicable laws. No special treatment. Either way, this law is not necessary and opens doors that do not need to be opened.


----------



## digibucc (Nov 15, 2010)

Easy Rhino said:


> this bill is designed to make it easier for the US govt to protect intellectual property rights by removing a site's domain name. taken on its own this is fairly harmless, however i see it as a brick in a foundation that the US govt has been slowly building to censor the net. very dangerous.



too true.  if they do it slowly enough 90% of people never notice.



stevednmc said:


> copyright laws are copyright laws. A trademark is a trademark, no matter who has registered it the same laws apply. If M$ stole from me i sure as hell would go after it. Corporations and citizens should have the same applicable laws. No special treatment. Either way, this law is not necessary and opens doors that do not need to be opened.



I don't entirely disagree, but a corporation is not an individual person, and should not be awarded the right and freedoms of one.  it is a conglomerate with many parties involved vying for control and profit, NOT progress and improvement.  When there are that many people with similar goals and that much money, they together are more willing to do things they would have considered unethical if evaluating the idea individually.  that is actually anthropologically factual.


----------



## W1zzard (Nov 15, 2010)

Easy Rhino said:


> however i see it as a brick in a foundation that the US govt has been slowly building to censor the net. very dangerous.



agreed, but then you could say that about pretty much any action or legislation


----------



## stevednmc (Nov 15, 2010)

Easy Rhino said:


> i am not too worried about this bill because of this section...
> 
> ‘(1) IN GENERAL- The Attorney General shall maintain a public listing of domain names that, upon information and reasonable belief, the Department of Justice determines are dedicated to infringing activities but for which the Attorney General has not filed an action under this section.
> 
> ...



Agreed!


----------



## stevednmc (Nov 15, 2010)

W1zzard said:


> agreed, but then you could say that about pretty much any action or legislation



Thats about true too anymore. Its all a "New Framework"


----------



## OneMoar (Nov 15, 2010)

I already use opendns so I don't care


----------



## Easy Rhino (Nov 15, 2010)

OneMoar said:


> I already use opendns so I don't care



what DNS server you use as a client does not matter. the registrar of the site is legally obligated to remove the DNS entry for its master list.


----------



## Wile E (Nov 15, 2010)

Easy Rhino said:


> what DNS server you use as a client does not matter. the registrar of the site is legally obligated to remove the DNS entry for its master list.



AKA: If the DNS host's servers are in the US, this bill still applies.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Nov 15, 2010)

W1zzard said:


> agreed, but then you could say that about pretty much any action or legislation



Thats my point W1zz. If the laws are already there WHY do we need more laws stating the same thing in a different way? Brick by brick. Liberty by liberty we are building our own prison.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Nov 15, 2010)

i guess we better start writing down the IP addresses of our favorite sites 

me  us govt


----------



## digibucc (Nov 15, 2010)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Thats my point W1zz. If the laws are already there WHY do we need more laws stating the same thing in a different way? Brick by brick. Liberty by liberty we are building our own prison.



no disagreement here, i just say the prison is the dream child of corporations AND government, not either/or.  so intertwined they can almost be considered one entity.  to just remove one side of that will not fix anything, as the other will just find a way to fill the gap.


----------



## OneMoar (Nov 15, 2010)

opendns has servers all over the world 
doesn't really matter government has there pockets so full of big contents cash I could't be payed to care about some bill
the internet as you know it is already dead and gone I am just waiting for Interpip3z


----------



## Wile E (Nov 15, 2010)

OneMoar said:


> opendns has servers all over the world
> doesn't really matter government has there pockets so full of big contents cash I could't be payed to care about some bill



Right, but the ones physically in the US still have to comply. Do you really want to run thru a foreign DNS?


----------



## W1zzard (Nov 15, 2010)

OneMoar said:


> doesn't really matter government has there pockets so full of big contents cash I could't be payed to care about some bill
> the internet as you know it is already dead and gone I am just waiting for Interpip3z



compare what is proposed to what the great chinese firewall does and you'll see that you're still better off than other places


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Nov 15, 2010)

In the words of Rage against the Machine. "They don't have to burn the books. They just remove them."


----------



## Steevo (Nov 15, 2010)

Just point at another countries or independent DNS server, and I suppose those who want to can still crawl the web, or search the web for links and or have others ping it for the resolved address.


It is much like yellow pages. Or like white pages, name, address and number by name. 


What happens to non compliant hosts?


I use Open DNS at work to help regulate users, none of them know how to migrate around it, so they get cut off. It is actually kind of funny when I block something, one guy told me I would never be able to block his internet radio. That lasted about three days before a truce was declared by him.



TheMailMan78 said:


> In the words of Rage against the Machine. "They don't have to burn the books. They just remove them."



Removing pirate sites is not akin to removing books. removing sites that don't agree with the current political agenda and or power that be, a telling of history rewritten.


----------



## Kreij (Nov 15, 2010)

There is no need for this law. The laws already exist.
This just gives unlimited power to anyone who wants to twist the words of the law to fit their needs because it is vague and overreaching.

... and they will.


----------



## OneMoar (Nov 15, 2010)

if worse comes to worse I can always type the ip
I am a robot remembering a few hundred  ip's is not a issue
or someone will setup there own ip/domain master server ( not a dns server ) a searchable database of domains and there corresponding addresses


----------



## AphexDreamer (Nov 15, 2010)

OneMoar said:


> if worse comes to worse I can always type the ip
> I am a robot remembering a few hundred  ip's is not a issue
> or someone will setup there own ip/domain master server ( not a dns server ) a searchable database of domains and there corresponding addresses



But we shouldn't have to come to that. Things should just remain the way they are no need for BS like that.


----------



## OneMoar (Nov 15, 2010)

ill tell you this 
by the end of my life time there will be some shooting in this god forsaken crap pile that calls its self the once proud USA 
the revolution is imminent

/me dons his tinfoil hat and cardboard sign and spreads "the word"


----------



## W1zzard (Nov 15, 2010)

OneMoar said:


> by the end of my life time there will be some shooting in this god forsaken crap pile that calls its self the once proud USA
> the revolution is imminent



make sure you stack up on toilet paper. it will be worth more than its weight in gold when the system breaks down


----------



## AphexDreamer (Nov 15, 2010)

The internet is one of the most freest if not the absolute freest media form in existence and now the government slowly wants to take control of the most freest form of content.

I say no.

The world is turning just fine with no government intervention on the the World Wide Web.


----------



## Wile E (Nov 15, 2010)

W1zzard said:


> make sure you stack up on toilet paper. it will be worth more than its weight in gold when the system breaks down



And shampoo.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Nov 15, 2010)

Wile E said:


> And shampoo.



did you see "Book of Eli?"


----------



## Kreij (Nov 15, 2010)

Toilet paper and shampoo will be virtually worthless. Stock up on non-perishable food if you want to rake in the cash.


----------



## Wile E (Nov 15, 2010)

Easy Rhino said:


> did you see "Book of Eli?"



lol. Yeah, that's what made me think of it.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Nov 15, 2010)

Steevo said:


> Just point at another countries or independent DNS server, and I suppose those who want to can still crawl the web, or search the web for links and or have others ping it for the resolved address.
> 
> 
> It is much like yellow pages. Or like white pages, name, address and number by name.
> ...



You and I both know it won't be exclusive to "pirate" sites.



Kreij said:


> Toilet paper and shampoo will be virtually worthless. Stock up on non-perishable food if you want to rake in the cash.



Meh Ill raise you non-perishable foods to ammunition. THAT will be gold.


----------



## 1Kurgan1 (Nov 15, 2010)

TheMailMan78 said:


> You and I both know it won't be exclusive to "pirate" sites



Yeah, I know thats what it's pointed at, but it isn't specifically there for that, and with it being vague, it could reach over many other things.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Nov 15, 2010)

On a side note you can tell this is a geek website. One word of limiting the Internet and we start handing out ammo and rationing toilet paper.


----------



## WhiteLotus (Nov 15, 2010)

TheMailMan78 said:


> On a side note you can tell this is a geek website. One word of limiting the Internet and we start handing out ammo and rationing toilet paper.



oh and bottle caps!


----------



## stevednmc (Nov 15, 2010)

TheMailMan78 said:


> On a side note you can tell this is a geek website. One word of limiting the Internet and we start handing out ammo and rationing toilet paper.



That was Effin Hailarious! I lol'd. Good to see that more sane ppl took my place in my absence!


----------



## OneMoar (Nov 15, 2010)

and Mtn Dew and pizza pockets


----------



## stevednmc (Nov 15, 2010)

esp mtn dew


----------



## Kreij (Nov 15, 2010)

Crazy One said:
			
		

> Meh Ill raise you non-perishable foods to ammunition. THAT will be gold.



Shell casing are tasty but a little hard on the teeth and pretty low in nutrition.
That being said, I am staring at hundreds of rounds next to me in boxes in my computer room. :/


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Nov 15, 2010)

Kreij said:


> Shell casing are tasty but a little hard on the teeth and pretty low in nutrition.
> That being said, I am staring at hundreds of rounds next to me in boxes in my computer room. :/



I've got one hellava loading bench


----------



## Hybrid_theory (Nov 16, 2010)

It is lame when a government mentions censoring the internet. More or less there are some things that arent bad to censor. Hate groups, sites that promote violence etc. But if sites deemed inappropriate or anti-government(non-violent) get banned then we have a problem.


----------



## streetfighter 2 (Nov 16, 2010)

Censorship of the Internet Takes Center Stage in "Online Infringement" Bill







FordGT90Concept said:


> I already did...
> New US internet blacklist bill introduced (COICA)



It's like déjà vu all over again! 



TheMailMan78 said:


> You guys in Europe are used to this shit. For Americans this is a BIG DEAL. Its an infringement on our Liberty. This is centralization of power. Thats a BIG no, no here in the states.



Dude, your avatar is Charles Manson. :shadedshu


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Nov 16, 2010)

streetfighter 2 said:


> Dude, your avatar is Charles Manson. :shadedshu



Is it? I didn't notice.


----------



## Muhad (Nov 22, 2010)

Every day we loose another freedom. 

The big 'G' is just another negative force in the Universe.


----------



## digibucc (Nov 23, 2010)

Muhad said:


> Every day we loose another freedom.
> 
> The big 'G' is just another negative force in the Universe.



it's not the government, it's the people.  if it weren't government, or corporations, or religions, it would just be some other group of the same like minded people asserting control over the same group of apathetic individuals.   

not enough people care, those that don't mostly care about themselves, and those who pass that test are rarely in a position to make a difference.

the older i get, the more i see us as doomed.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Nov 27, 2010)

and it begins...

http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-v...3-homeland-security-dept-seizes-domain-names-


----------



## streetfighter 2 (Nov 27, 2010)

Easy Rhino said:


> and it begins...
> 
> http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-v...3-homeland-security-dept-seizes-domain-names-



But that isn't even COICA...

This message brought to you by:
*Homeland Security*
PROTECTING YOU FROM YOURSELF​


----------



## Easy Rhino (Nov 27, 2010)

exactly. this does not make any sense. i am thinking perhaps this is a test run because i ran a few dns history checks to get the IPs of the seized sites and only a few were known. then entering the IP would return with a timeout. some of the sites have been created very recently. like within the past few days...

for instance two of the sites that do return an IP are right next to eachother...

174.137.50.26 boxsetseries.com
174.137.50.28 dvdsetsonline.com

so i don't know...

edit: popular torrent site rapgodfathers was seized. its IP is 208.87.91.18 which does not bring up the site. so this goes beyond seizing domain names. are they wiping records?


----------



## Thatguy (Nov 28, 2010)

Since the death of vinyl they haven't been able to stop piracy. nor will they unless they ban blank CD's and CD burning drives. Next thing you know they will ban sites like dvd43free etc etc etc. 

  Folks this is unaccpetable.call your congressmen/comgresswoman and tell them not to pull the trigger on this bullshit.


----------



## Batou1986 (Nov 28, 2010)

Coming Soon.....                 thankfully Canada isn't far away, time for my old sig to come back as well


----------



## Wile E (Nov 28, 2010)

Are those US based sites? I can think of a lot more obvious and popular sites to ban, but they are overseas, and as of yet, still kicking.


----------



## Wile E (Nov 28, 2010)

Easy Rhino said:


> exactly. this does not make any sense. i am thinking perhaps this is a test run because i ran a few dns history checks to get the IPs of the seized sites and only a few were known. then entering the IP would return with a timeout. some of the sites have been created very recently. like within the past few days...
> 
> for instance two of the sites that do return an IP are right next to eachother...
> 
> ...



Well, at least RGF was physically based in the US, so was physically taken offline. Can't comment on the others.

http://torrentfreak.com/music-linking-site-raided-by-dept-of-homeland-security-ice-101125/


----------



## entropy13 (Nov 28, 2010)

List of those seized:
http://torrentfreak.com/u-s-government-seizes-bittorrent-search-engine-domain-and-more-101126/


----------



## wahdangun (Nov 28, 2010)

wow you US was full of it, why you all let this happen? ever day i see you freedom being rapped by goverment take example of full body scanner and pat down, its even worst than china     and now this thing ?


----------

