[quote name='Sporadic']You are not in the middle. There are already legal channels to get these sites down. What laws like these and other various blacklist systems do is bypass those channels for a more extreme, speedy and unchecked system. Instead of taking the various legal channels already in place, this allows them to just delete it.
Do you not comprehend how dangerous and ripe for abuse that is? [/quote]
I'm pretty sure - and correct me if I'm wrong - that if someone is neither for or against something, they're in the middle. I've read the text of the bill (check link #2), I've looked at its provisions - and I find that the slippery slope arguments you and camoor have made are not applicable based on the text of the law at best, and wholly erroneous (spontaneous website deletion) at worst. I'm not against your "side," I'm against an interpretation of the law that is inaccurate.
If you can maintain your side of the argument, and point to the language of the bill that explains how your concerns will logically take place, then please do. Until then, I remain convinced that you and camoor are merely reactionarily concerned that any government legislation that attempts to regulate crime on the internet will lead to the end of the slippery slope, and I remain convinced that neither of you have read the text of the bill, based on your understanding of it.
The text of the bill specifies two processes; one explains how courts would determine and deal with websites "dedicated to infringing activities." That word 'dedicated' is legally important, as it allows websites you cite below (YouTube/streaming sites) to avoid prosecution (because it's not deletion as you and camoor allege, it's prosecution) by explaining that they are not *dedicated* to infringing activities. It's a side effect, a small portion of the services they provide to the internet. It is not YouTube's purpose to give you all the copyright-protected programming you want, and they've taken some effort to remove content that copyright holders want taken down.
The second process is based on the Attorney General's list of sites that have not been formally prosecuted - they may be 'removed' (anything from blocked to deleted as you fear, I'd like to see this specified - but it's almost surely the former, as they'd have *zero* jurisdiction to delete sites whose host servers are not physically located on US soil). There is an appellate process for inclusion on the list, as well as following blockage.
So the idea that this is too much unchecked control is overblown. The first process involves courts, and therefore dedicated to due process. The second has appellate options at several steps along the way, so to say it's unchecked is incorrect.
I think the goal of the bill has merit, and the language of the bill mostly sound (again, specify "removal"). This can not go after YouTube; nor will it prohibit the creation of YouTube as you allege (an extraordinarily silly assertion, even you must admit).
The channels to get distributors of child pornography (and good job bringing that up, that's the wedge issue that allows any web censorship to get through because clearly, if you are against what they want to do, then you are a pedophile)
cool strawman bro. I was merely pointing out that we all agree on some modicum of regulation on the internet. It might have been tough to read between the lines when I said "I see the internet as something that deserves a modicum of regulation...we all agree on that."
and the people who infringe on copyright are already there.
Not content providers. You're an avowed pirate - think of how much material you possess that is unpaid for, that violates the DMCA, that is larcenous. Policies thus far have gone against individual downloaders - and you railed against that. Absurd penalties sought by record labels, anecdotes about grandma getting busted because junior downloaded Slayer on her Gateway, strongarming by corporate interests, etc.
So you don't want end-users to be pursued and prosecuted, and now legislation that goes after content providers is presented; now you don't want that, either. This is criminal activity; who do we go after: providers or thieves? Dealers or users, to borrow another vernacular?
I know the answer is that you don't want anyone prosecuted in this area. You don't want criminal activity to be controlled, prosecuted, or halted. That's the antithesis of moderate, and for someone with such an extreme and myopic perspective, anyone in the center must be difficult to see.
If it is too slow for their liking, too goddamn bad. They need to suck it up and deal with it. If they don't like it that Sweden doesn't agree 100% with our stance and that allows a site like The Pirate Bay to stay up...again, too goddamn bad.
Ehhhh. Forgive me if I don't find "too goddamned bad" to be a satisfying legal argument. The digital era has violated borders and laws. The US can't tell The Pirate Bay to shut down (no more than they can delete their content, you two), since they don't have geographical jurisdiction over their servers. There's historical precedent in nations suing websites for violating their domestic law because of their content, where content was censored - and this was backed up by US courts:
LICRA v. Yahoo! is the best example of this kind of legal application.
They have no right to put those sites on blacklists so Americans can't access them and delete the domain name (and any replacement name(s)) from the DNS.
The US Government has no right to enforce its laws and protect its (digital) borders? That's absolute nonsense.
