Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 14th Jan 2012 20:57 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 503571
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Excuse me, but...
by umccullough on Sun 15th Jan 2012 20:07
in reply to "RE[2]: Excuse me, but..."
RE[3]: Excuse me, but...
by modmans2ndcoming on Sun 15th Jan 2012 23:58
in reply to "RE[2]: Excuse me, but..."
RE[4]: Excuse me, but...
by Thom_Holwerda on Mon 16th Jan 2012 00:11
in reply to "RE[3]: Excuse me, but..."
Thom.... it says what they are against in BOLD in the damn statement.
They do not have to say "we are against SOPA" since they are against all that is ACTUALLY BAD about SOPA and PIPA.
They do not have to say "we are against SOPA" since they are against all that is ACTUALLY BAD about SOPA and PIPA.
You fell for it.
The statement doesn't define anything. It doesn't have any 'hard' words in it. All it says is: "Any effort to combat online piracy must guard against the risk of online censorship of lawful activity and must not inhibit innovation by our dynamic businesses large and small."
Now go ask a SOPA-supporter if SOPA is about censorship or inhibiting innovation. They'll all claim it is not. See where this is going? Of course Obama is against censorship, but by not defining a hard line between "this is censorship" and "this is not censorship", he can sign SOPA into law without ever violating this statement. Obama has very close ties with the entertainment lobby (ask Biden), so he'll simply agree with Hollywood that SOPA is not about censorship, end of story.
If a political statement is released, look for 'hard' words, lines, definitions, etc. This statement has none. As such, it isn't even worth the bits it uses.
RE[3]: Excuse me, but...
by lucas_maximus on Mon 16th Jan 2012 04:24
in reply to "RE[2]: Excuse me, but..."
I did read it myself. However they explained it better than I, thus I quoted and gave the source.
It is normal believe it or not, to quote someone else when you think they can explain something better than yourself. I believe you have done it yourself as well.
I dunno, whenever I wrote a report at University, it wasn't frowned upon to give a quote with the actual reference material, preferably using Harvard Referencing System.
RE[3]: Excuse me, but...
by SterlingNorth on Thu 19th Jan 2012 11:12
in reply to "RE[2]: Excuse me, but..."
Given those 838 words were enough to piss off all of Obama's (now-ex) Hollywood donors, I pretty much think your analysis was absolutely wrong on this, Thom. Those 838 words seem to have said plenty enough.
http://www.deadline.com/2012/01/exclusive-hollywood-moguls-stopping...





Member since:
2005-06-29
Why don't you read the thing for yourself instead of relying on third parties?
Anybody with even a dime of undersanding about politics (and I have a very deep interest in the politics of my own country as well as that of the US, as I follow US politics closely) knows this is an empty statement. Nwhere does it say they are against anything. No stand is taken. No point is made. It's just meaningless jibber-jabber to appease everyone.
Incredible how people fall for this. In The Netherlands, you'd lose voters over non-statements like this.