It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

SOPA sponsors drop ‘break the Internet’ provision from bill

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 10:35 AM
link   
Well, this could be good news for us all..see here

Let's see how this plays out here,

I think the whole bill should be dropped myself..


The most controversial provision of the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) has now been pulled from both the House and Senate versions of the bill. The provision in question would have required internet service providers to block the domain names of overseas websites accused of hosting content that was in violation of copyright, even in the absence of any proof. Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, announced on Friday that “after consultation with industry groups across the country,” he would remove the provision from the legislation pending further study. This came a day after Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) said he would do the same for the Senate version, the Protect IP Act.


we still have this..




It is not clear, however, how far the modification of the bills will go towards satisfying their most severe critics. “These bills need to be killed altogether,” the Electronic Frontier Foundation’s intellectual property director, Corynne McSherry, told c|net. “Our view all along has been they are not fixable.”




posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 10:55 AM
link   
reply to post by baddmove
 


My question is this:

While the requirement for blocking foreign sites has been dropped, that doesn't mean the bill won't require the blocking of domestic sites.

Provided that was allowed for in the first place.



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 11:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by FTD Brat
reply to post by baddmove
 


My question is this:

While the requirement for blocking foreign sites has been dropped, that doesn't mean the bill won't require the blocking of domestic sites.

Provided that was allowed for in the first place.


Hmmm...

good question..

I am hoping to get more info on this..

when i do, i will post it unless an ATS'r beats me to it..



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 05:11 PM
link   
reply to post by baddmove
 


To me, that sort of language sounds no different than the crap in the NDAA that says claims American citizens can't be detained.

I'll be honest, I know that's total bullsnip.



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 06:05 PM
link   
reply to post by FTD Brat
 


yea..

It does have that same "poop" hitting the pan kinda ring to it..

we'll see where it goes here real soon..



new topics

top topics
 
2

log in

join