Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg
None of these people sound to me like corporate shills. As for bill sponsors being corporate sock puppets, what corporation is that? And where is your evidence?
And what about bill opponents? The organization, Village Voice Media, which is suing to stop the bill from being implemented, is transparently organized as business corporation. I don't have to invoke a conspiracy theory about sock puppets there.
|
You aren't looking for companies directly; you're looking for super-PACs that act as a front for corporations and groups of them. Like the one that practically wrote the legislation that's the center of the Trayvon Martin flap. The big businesses have banks of lawyers who write bills, and then pass them up to legislators who received lots of campaign money from them. The bill's origin was all over the news; you should be able to find it easily enough.
Quote:
P.S. What business interest would be served by the bill? I suppose that if a man is with a prostitute, underage or otherwise, he isn't reading a big six book or watching CBS. Is that consistent with your thinking?
__________________
* As far as I can tell by googling, the Washington House did not hold a hearing. But if anyone can find a witness list for that, please post it.
|
Big business has more to gain from abuse of something like this, than to lose from it. How many websites with non-criminal content could be taken down by malicious reports, to be replaced by a Big Business-controlled alternative? How many prosecutions would result from those malicious reports, based on how few there have from the DMCA?
You also failed to address what happens when someone turns a botnet computer into a child porn repository. From what I remember, there have been convictions (although last time I heard anything those convictions were being appealed) even though the owner of the computer had no knowledge that his computer was being used that way, and wouldn't have consented.