This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
ACTA destroyes the web as we know it.
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
273605
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
366971
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
296147
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
160546
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
273605
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
leonheart87
And if you are even accused of downloading/uploading copyright material three times, your internet will be CUT OFF permanently; no questions, no appeal, $%^& you customer.
Isn't that already the case?
I know it has been in the ToS of every ISP I've been with. They usually state that any illegal activities (they find out about) will get your internet cut off.
Post by
kattib
Leonheart, there is a difference, it is just a cancellation of service, you could just go pay a different ISP for internet access. The ACTA would ban you from the interwebs forever, you can never get a new ISP, you cant ever use the net again
Post by
buzz3070
Leonheart, there is a difference, it is just a cancellation of service, you could just go pay a different ISP for internet access. The ACTA would ban you from the interwebs forever, you can never get a new ISP, you cant ever use the net again
Then a good amount of people would be banned from the internet and the amount of people who download music from p2p sites would be enough to make a serious dent in the profit margins of isps. So that in itself could cause a repeal of this due to other company's losing serious money.
Rofl my captcha was torrens the. I think wowhead is trying to tell me something.
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
124027
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Skreeran
I sent a letter to my Senator about it, and he actually replied with something to the effect of "No, actually it's good and I'm going to vote in favor of it."
Guess who I'm not voting for next election.
Post by
pezz
I sent a letter to my Senator about it, and he actually replied with something to the effect of "No, actually it's good and I'm going to vote in favor of it."
Guess who I'm not voting for next election.
It's sad that I can say this, but you at least have to give him credit for not lying to you in a personal letter about what he's going to do in order to get your vote. He's marginally better than a lot of politicians, in that regard.
Post by
703505
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
181961
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
Hasn't this been brought up before in a separate thread?
Oh wait, it has.
At least you're being less doomsday about it than Hyper was.
Tl;dr: The Attourney General of the United States will have the power to shut down (nearly) any website regardless of what country the website is hosted.
Not true. It has the power to require ISPs to suspend access to the site, not to shut it down. That is a very big difference.
Furthermore, my point below still stands:
Regarding the legislation, sections (b)(i)-(b)(iii) do not make reference to individuals. Therefore, the legislation only applies to institutions. So although I misinterpreted it, my original point still stands - an individual who can't access a site through their current ISP cannot be charged for viewing the site through alternate means such as a proxy server. The legislation can only penalise service providers and content owners.
The legislation itself is fine, coming from the perspective that censorship is required for any number of purposes. The real question is over the issue of censorship in general.
Post by
138638
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Monday
I really think that this should pass. There is too much freedom in the world, in the internet especially.
Freedom leads to things like 4chan, FaceBook, Twitter, the general people on the internet and all. None of that is good, this bill might be what saves this world from complete anarchy. Now, if only we could put the whole planet under military regime, I think my life would be more than complete.
Facebook Twitter and 4chan have a correlation to anarchy?
I hate Farmville as much as the next guy but I don't see it leading to a chaotic anarchy.
What your talking about is on a completely other level, the way I understood it this law is to hinder the internet pirates or at least that seems to be the purpose, which I'm against and opposed to.
Your talking about hindering freedom of speech and the sharing of ideas on a completely different level
It's sarcasm. Notice the end part about having the planet under a military regime?
Post by
Squishalot
There's been a lot of sarcasm missed, recently, hasn't there....
Or maybe I'm just taking too much out of two events.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.