New Bill Would Require U.S. ISPs to Block Pirate Sites

[Catswold]

Under General Welfare covers everybody and corporation.
More Government more control is also worry some to me but I don't know how else it can be done. If some one has a better way of stopping these thieves from using the internet to steal let us all know. Its the Federal Governments duty to protect our borders; which could very easily mean crossing our borders with the internets illegal products.
I'm not reaching any more than lawyers do in front of courts all the time. The abortion debate was used under the Commerce Clause 10 amendment. Many things have been done that way for over a 100 years. What the heck the Commerce Clause has to do with that subject I'm not sure.
We are saying the same thing. There has got to be laws on the books that can stop these thieves without creating new laws. That's what I am trying to show with all those examples. New laws not needed, new directions with the laws we already have.

no it does not. those laws were put in place to protect the people, and only the people.

Now I have to take issue with you on that statement. Corporations are treated like people under the Constitution. Corporations are nothing but legal agreements between individuals and as such enjoy the same protections that the individual enjoys.

 

[bobtran]

Under General Welfare covers everybody and corporation.
More Government more control is also worry some to me but I don't know how else it can be done. If some one has a better way of stopping these thieves from using the internet to steal let us all know. Its the Federal Governments duty to protect our borders; which could very easily mean crossing our borders with the internets illegal products.
I'm not reaching any more than lawyers do in front of courts all the time. The abortion debate was used under the Commerce Clause 10 amendment. Many things have been done that way for over a 100 years. What the heck the Commerce Clause has to do with that subject I'm not sure.
We are saying the same thing. There has got to be laws on the books that can stop these thieves without creating new laws. That's what I am trying to show with all those examples. New laws not needed, new directions with the laws we already have.

no it does not. those laws were put in place to protect the people, and only the people.

Now I have to take issue with you on that statement. Corporations are treated like people under the Constitution. Corporations are nothing but legal agreements between individuals and as such enjoy the same protections that the individual enjoys.

But pay far LESS in taxes....If corps want the privileges then they should pay taxes like any other individual and accept the responsibilities that go with being an individual including legal liability instead of Corp. immunity.

 

[Layback Bear]

Corporations consist of people, management, employees, share holders. Corporations that own copyrights also have rights. Because that copyright is owned by a corporation does not give anybody a right to steal it. Microsoft is a corporation and no you don't have a right to steal Windows 7 just because a corporation owns the patent and I have no problem with gathering things off the internet as long as it is legal. When you steal from a corporation you are stealing from the people withing that corporation also. Its called commission checks, bonus, benifits and pay raises that come from profits. There is no profit from products stolen from a corporation. I say again, If some one knows a way of stopping this stealing without using the government please tell us all. If you don't care weather the stealing continues or not tell us that also.
Thank you Catswold. You made me feel good. You are the only person besides me that has read the Federalist papers that I know of. It took my library four weeks to get a copy for me to check out. Thanks again for that good feeling.

 

[Layback Bear]

Everybody should pay less taxes. Raise the taxes on a corporation or small business only raises the price of there products and services that we all buy. What else happens is layoffs as we see right now. The government gets the money and I think it falls into a black hole. A person sitting in front a computer does not have the right to steal from anybody or corporation.

 

[Catswold]

no it does not. those laws were put in place to protect the people, and only the people.

Now I have to take issue with you on that statement. Corporations are treated like people under the Constitution. Corporations are nothing but legal agreements between individuals and as such enjoy the same protections that the individual enjoys.

But pay far LESS in taxes....If corps want the privileges then they should pay taxes like any other individual and accept the responsibilities that go with being an individual including legal liability instead of Corp. immunity.

Corporations cannot pay taxes, only their customers pay taxes. That's one thing people need to understand. You can't force corporations to pay taxes, precisely because they are legal agreements. Any taxes placed on a corporation invariably get added to the cost of doing business and are automatically passed on to the consumer as an additional tax.

Charge Exxon or BP a "corporate tax," the unit price of gasoline rises commensurately to cover that tax. Any "corporate tax" is a tax on the people. Raise taxes on corporations, you automatically raise taxes on everyone who uses their product.

Obama promised not to raise taxes on those earning under $250,000/year, but by raising corporate taxes, he automatically violates that pledge.

I have repeated what I said in a couple of ways, because this is a fundamental fact that needs to be understood by everyone. Corporations don't pay taxes, only customers pay taxes.

 

[Catswold]

Thank you Catswold. You made me feel good. You are the only person besides me that has read the Federalist papers that I know of. It took my library four weeks to get a copy for me to check out. Thanks again for that good feeling.

You have hit upon one of the most distressing fact about American society. We, the American people know almost nothing of our founding documents and their true intent and meaning.

My copy of the Federalist Papers is copyrighted 1961 and it was my parents before I "stole" it in the early 80's. I believe it is third after the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution as the most important publications necessary for understanding our rights and liberties and what our Founding Fathers intended in creating our Constitution and our nation.

 

[BCXtreme]

"Contraband" refers to an item that is inherently illegal to possess. If you steal three candy bars, those candy bars are then stolen goods, but they are not contraband.

"General welfare" does not mean that the gov't can do whatever they please as long as it's perceived as beneficial to the people. The government is supposed to ensure that conditions in the United States are generally favorable toward the people.

The Constitution does protect corporations because, as others have said, corporations are comprised of people (despite how they are often portrayed). And yes, it is the government's duty to safeguard the intellectual property of corporations. However, the way to accomplish this is NOT by passing a bill that allows the government to censor anything they wish simply by classifying it under a certain title.

You want a better option? I'll give you one. Crack down on the people who are actually pirating. Just as the police might put surveillance on a street where there is suspected illegal activity, have the government watch connections to sites that are known to deal in piracy. If they see enough data going to a given IP address ("enough" being greater than the amount an accidental click on a Google link would trigger), track the IP address and send the person a warning from the FBI. If activity continues, prosecute. That way you are fighting piracy without taking away the freedoms of law-abiding citizens, and without increasing the government's authority.

 

[Catswold]

"Contraband" refers to an item that is inherently illegal to possess. If you steal three candy bars, those candy bars are then stolen goods, but they are not contraband.

"General welfare" does not mean that the gov't can do whatever they please as long as it's perceived as beneficial to the people. The government is supposed to ensure that conditions in the United States are generally favorable toward the people.

The Constitution does protect corporations because, as others have said, corporations are comprised of people (despite how they are often portrayed). And yes, it is the government's duty to safeguard the intellectual property of corporations. However, the way to accomplish this is NOT by passing a bill that allows the government to censor anything they wish simply by classifying it under a certain title.

You want a better option? I'll give you one. Crack down on the people who are actually pirating. Just as the police might put surveillance on a street where there is suspected illegal activity, have the government watch connections to sites that are known to deal in piracy. If they see enough data going to a given IP address ("enough" being greater than the amount an accidental click on a Google link would trigger), track the IP address and send the person a warning from the FBI. If activity continues, prosecute. That way you are fighting piracy without taking away the freedoms of law-abiding citizens, and without increasing the government's authority.

ONly problem is, I don't want a government that "watches connections."

I suppose it is arguable no different from a wiretap, so as long as those "watchers" have a warrant for their traffic watching, it would be okay, but freedom is what has made the internet the great equalizer in the availability and free flow of information and ideas. It is a very slippery slope when we begin talking about granting any government entity the authority to do so. Safeguards should be plentiful and rigorously enforced.

Any trespass on that free flow needs to be carefull watched and controlled. Big Brother is not some impossible fantasy, it is an increasingly achievable possibility and there are many within our government that would relish such power.

 

[BCXtreme]

"Contraband" refers to an item that is inherently illegal to possess. If you steal three candy bars, those candy bars are then stolen goods, but they are not contraband.

"General welfare" does not mean that the gov't can do whatever they please as long as it's perceived as beneficial to the people. The government is supposed to ensure that conditions in the United States are generally favorable toward the people.

The Constitution does protect corporations because, as others have said, corporations are comprised of people (despite how they are often portrayed). And yes, it is the government's duty to safeguard the intellectual property of corporations. However, the way to accomplish this is NOT by passing a bill that allows the government to censor anything they wish simply by classifying it under a certain title.

You want a better option? I'll give you one. Crack down on the people who are actually pirating. Just as the police might put surveillance on a street where there is suspected illegal activity, have the government watch connections to sites that are known to deal in piracy. If they see enough data going to a given IP address ("enough" being greater than the amount an accidental click on a Google link would trigger), track the IP address and send the person a warning from the FBI. If activity continues, prosecute. That way you are fighting piracy without taking away the freedoms of law-abiding citizens, and without increasing the government's authority.

ONly problem is, I don't want a government that "watches connections."

I suppose it is arguable no different from a wiretap, so as long as those "watchers" have a warrant for their traffic watching, it would be okay, but freedom is what has made the internet the great equalizer in the availability and free flow of information and ideas. It is a very slippery slope when we begin talking about granting any government entity the authority to do so. Safeguards should be plentiful and rigorously enforced.

Any trespass on that free flow needs to be carefull watched and controlled. Big Brother is not some impossible fantasy, it is an increasingly achievable possibility and there are many within our government that would relish such power.

I agree with your concerns, but the connection watching would be based on the particular website. For example, ONLY traffic coming and going to that specific site could be monitored. They would monitor the domain of a particular site to catch the IPs of people that visit it. I believe the FBI already has this capability, they just aren't using it to this end. I wouldn't even let them follow suspicious IPs to other sites.

Like I said, it's really no different than putting a given street or area of a city under surveillance due to suspected illegal activity. Ordinary citizens that are unaware of the situation (someone clicks a link on Google without realizing what it is actually is, then backs out when they see they've come to a pirate site) can pass through the area without even encountering the police. However, if someone comes to the area, lingers, and engages in suspicious activity, the police get that person's identity and essentially "tag" them as a suspect.

It could even be set up so that a court warrant would need to be obtained to "watch" any given site. That way the FBI or whoever wouldn't be able to just watch any site they please without cause.

 

[bobtran]

Now I have to take issue with you on that statement. Corporations are treated like people under the Constitution. Corporations are nothing but legal agreements between individuals and as such enjoy the same protections that the individual enjoys.

But pay far LESS in taxes....If corps want the privileges then they should pay taxes like any other individual and accept the responsibilities that go with being an individual including legal liability instead of Corp. immunity.

Corporations cannot pay taxes, only their customers pay taxes. That's one thing people need to understand. You can't force corporations to pay taxes, precisely because they are legal agreements. Any taxes placed on a corporation invariably get added to the cost of doing business and are automatically passed on to the consumer as an additional tax.

Charge Exxon or BP a "corporate tax," the unit price of gasoline rises commensurately to cover that tax. Any "corporate tax" is a tax on the people. Raise taxes on corporations, you automatically raise taxes on everyone who uses their product.

Obama promised not to raise taxes on those earning under $250,000/year, but by raising corporate taxes, he automatically violates that pledge.

I have repeated what I said in a couple of ways, because this is a fundamental fact that needs to be understood by everyone. Corporations don't pay taxes, only customers pay taxes.

You are correct which is why no corporation should ever be granted personhood under the law (and no I am not arguing both sides of issue, I am stating my opinion related to the granting of privileges without the responsibilities inherent in the concept of personhood).

 

[madtownidiot]

The only way to truly lower taxes is to make the government smaller, as if that will ever happen

 

[Catswold]

But pay far LESS in taxes....If corps want the privileges then they should pay taxes like any other individual and accept the responsibilities that go with being an individual including legal liability instead of Corp. immunity.

Corporations cannot pay taxes, only their customers pay taxes. That's one thing people need to understand. You can't force corporations to pay taxes, precisely because they are legal agreements. Any taxes placed on a corporation invariably get added to the cost of doing business and are automatically passed on to the consumer as an additional tax.

Charge Exxon or BP a "corporate tax," the unit price of gasoline rises commensurately to cover that tax. Any "corporate tax" is a tax on the people. Raise taxes on corporations, you automatically raise taxes on everyone who uses their product.

Obama promised not to raise taxes on those earning under $250,000/year, but by raising corporate taxes, he automatically violates that pledge.

I have repeated what I said in a couple of ways, because this is a fundamental fact that needs to be understood by everyone. Corporations don't pay taxes, only customers pay taxes.

You are correct which is why no corporation should ever be granted personhood under the law (and no I am not arguing both sides of issue, I am stating my opinion related to the granting of privileges without the responsibilities inherent in the concept of personhood).

YOur argument is a non-sequitur. Many people don't pay taxes, are they thus not to be granted "personhood?" Is paying taxes one of the defining characteristics of being a person? Also, though the entity doesn't pay taxes, the owners all pay taxes from their share of profits derived from the corporation doing business.

Laws do not grant "personhood" to corporations, it is part of their definition. Corporations have been in existence since Roman times at least. The reason they are treated as a person is because they are an association of individuals. Corporation, from the Latin word "corpus" meaning "body" as in a "body of people."

If you remove "personhood" from a corporation, then you remove some of their responsibilities as well. A corporation can be sued, just as can an individual.

From Wiki:

In the late eighteenth century, Stewart Kyd, the author of the first treatise on corporate law in English, defined a corporation as,

a collection of many individuals united into one body, under a special denomination, having perpetual succession under an artificial form, and vested, by policy of the law, with the capacity of acting, in several respects, as an individual, particularly of taking and granting property, of contracting obligations, and of suing and being sued, of enjoying privileges and immunities in common, and of exercising a variety of political rights, more or less extensive, according to the design of its institution, or the powers conferred upon it, either at the time of its creation, or at any subsequent period of its existence.
​

Corporations are one of the most essential cogs which drives the engine of our economies. Don't dis' the corporation.​

 

[Tepid]

Here.. lets just put all the side arguments that might be speculated on to rest and post the Actual Bill....

QUOTE - "While this bill has the noble-sounding goal of preventing online piracy, handing the federal government authority over the Internet would set a troubling precedent that would imperil Internet freedom in America and across the world."

"Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act" or S.3804.IS

Side Article about this whole thing

Please be very sure that you do not miss this little line...

"To combat online infringement, and for other purposes."

If that is not your red flag, I do not know what is.

 

[bobtran]

Corporations cannot pay taxes, only their customers pay taxes. That's one thing people need to understand. You can't force corporations to pay taxes, precisely because they are legal agreements. Any taxes placed on a corporation invariably get added to the cost of doing business and are automatically passed on to the consumer as an additional tax.

Charge Exxon or BP a "corporate tax," the unit price of gasoline rises commensurately to cover that tax. Any "corporate tax" is a tax on the people. Raise taxes on corporations, you automatically raise taxes on everyone who uses their product.

Obama promised not to raise taxes on those earning under $250,000/year, but by raising corporate taxes, he automatically violates that pledge.

I have repeated what I said in a couple of ways, because this is a fundamental fact that needs to be understood by everyone. Corporations don't pay taxes, only customers pay taxes.

You are correct which is why no corporation should ever be granted personhood under the law (and no I am not arguing both sides of issue, I am stating my opinion related to the granting of privileges without the responsibilities inherent in the concept of personhood).

YOur argument is a non-sequitur. Many people don't pay taxes, are they thus not to be granted "personhood?" Is paying taxes one of the defining characteristics of being a person? Also, though the entity doesn't pay taxes, the owners all pay taxes from their share of profits derived from the corporation doing business.

Laws do not grant "personhood" to corporations, it is part of their definition. Corporations have been in existence since Roman times at least. The reason they are treated as a person is because they are an association of individuals. Corporation, from the Latin word "corpus" meaning "body" as in a "body of people."

If you remove "personhood" from a corporation, then you remove some of their responsibilities as well. A corporation can be sued, just as can an individual.

From Wiki:

In the late eighteenth century, Stewart Kyd, the author of the first treatise on corporate law in English, defined a corporation as,

a collection of many individuals united into one body, under a special denomination, having perpetual succession under an artificial form, and vested, by policy of the law, with the capacity of acting, in several respects, as an individual, particularly of taking and granting property, of contracting obligations, and of suing and being sued, of enjoying privileges and immunities in common, and of exercising a variety of political rights, more or less extensive, according to the design of its institution, or the powers conferred upon it, either at the time of its creation, or at any subsequent period of its existence.
​

Corporations are one of the most essential cogs which drives the engine of our economies. Don't dis' the corporation.​

I made an error posting a personal feeling about the direction that politics are going in this country and the way in which corps are treated to the detriment of the legitimate citizens in this country.

This is WAY off topic and does not belong on SevenForums where we talk about IT and it's ramifications to our society.

 

[lorddenis]

Here.. lets just put all the side arguments that might be speculated on to rest and post the Actual Bill....

QUOTE - "While this bill has the noble-sounding goal of preventing online piracy, handing the federal government authority over the Internet would set a troubling precedent that would imperil Internet freedom in America and across the world."

"Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act"

Side Article about this whole thing

Please be very sure that you do not miss this little line...

"To combat online infringement, and for other purposes."

If that is not your red flag, I do not know what is.

noble ? dont make me laught. they just want too fill their pockets!

 

[fseal]

Combatting internet piracy is a noble cause. Most bills are wrapped up in noble causes in order to get them passed. It's the hidden text that virtually no one knows is there (except those that wrote the bill) that is the real trouble.

Freqently bills (such as this possibly) are created JUST to give a "noble cause" to a real hidden adgenda which, in this case, really does look like the government wants filter taps on all ISPs runnning all the time for live filtering and surveilance /in the name of combatting piracy/ but of course if passed, to be used "for other purposes" as they see fit.

 

[madtownidiot]

I'm sure it will be just as effective on combating piracy as the "War on Drugs" has been on combating the drug trade ...and I mean that with the utmost sarcasm

 

[lorddenis]

Combatting internet piracy is a noble cause. Most bills are wrapped up in noble causes in order to get them passed. It's the hidden text that virtually no one knows is there (except those that wrote the bill) that is the real trouble.

Freqently bills (such as this possibly) are created JUST to give a "noble cause" to a real hidden adgenda which, in this case, really does look like the government wants filter taps on all ISPs runnning all the time for live filtering and surveilance /in the name of combatting piracy/ but of course if passed, to be used "for other purposes" as they see fit.

today nothing is noble its all about the money.

 

[Bootz]

The only way to truly lower taxes is to make the government smaller, as if that will ever happen

For sure not with the current people in power anyway..........................

 

[Bootz]

I'm sure it will be just as effective on combating piracy as the "War on Drugs" has been on combating the drug trade ...and I mean that with the utmost sarcasm

The war on drugs could be won very easily if they wanted, it brings in way to much money to the law inforcment system and communities for them to want to stop drugs comming into the country.