1. Did I present those examples as typical events, or are you criticising them as such because you're scared I might actually be making a good point?
Oh, so you're saying they're NOT typical? Then to what earthly purpose did you post them? You just randomly picked those examples out of the air, because they match the curtains or something? Don't give us that, Nicky! It's insulting. You chose the examples you did because you think they paint a certain picture, and don't try to squirm your way out now and say "oh I didn't mean anything by it!" You took some bizarre, atypical examples and tried to pass them off as exemplary. Shame on you.
Like it or not, the content industry has assaulted, on many occasions, the very entity that gave them their wealth to begin with; the consumer. You can shrug it off with every discussional tactic you've got, but that's fact...
I would like to hear you explain this to all of us, how the entertainment industry's business model is to intentionally victimize their customer base. Because that makes no sense, at least to any rational person. They make money by providing people a product. They would be more than happy not to have to sue anybody, for anything, ever, but unfortunately that's not the case. People steal their product, and many of them are also legitimate consumers as well, but that is a far cry from saying that they have it as a stated goal to go out and maliciously harm their customer base, which is nonsense.
2. Your constant, "potential for abuse isn't an argument against a proposed law," premise is amusing to me.
You're way too easily amused, and it's too bad you don't get that, because it's a very basic rational truth. The idea in general
that a given law has potential for abuse is not an argument against the law, because this is true for all
laws. To say then that "this is a bad law because someone might abuse it" is not an argument. Please note, that is not to say that this is a bad
argument; that's saying it is not an argument of any kind whatsoever
. Now, if the law itself is innately
abusive, that is a different matter altogether.
3. If your contention that I, and others, are over-sensationalizing this bill and acting in blind paranoia are true, then you're a hypocrite. If I'm guilty of thinking the big bad media companies are out to get me, then you're guilty of thinking the big bad internets are out to steal content.
Making false comparisons between us doesn't make me a hypocrite; it makes you a shoddy thinker. I do believe your statements about the media companies are, frankly, very silly, and you do need to be a very paranoid individual to believe the picture you're trying to paint. As for whether Google, Megaupload, and other such sites are supporting content theft by hosting pirated files and leading people to illegal downloads, there's nothing even vaguely irrational about that statement, and if you're trying to suggest that this isn't happening, then I want you to say so explicitly. I will enjoy making you look very, very foolish.
Who is loud, ignorant, and paranoid now?
Still you. I actually wasn't calling YOU loud and ignorant; that's my characterization of the opposition movement in general, because I get the impression that they're not all that well informed.
But while we're on the subject of ignorance, let's take a look at you, shall we? You posted this thread in mid December. Even pretending you weren't opposing the bill prior to that, that's at least a month that you were here raising a stink about the bill, and didn't even realize that it differentiates between foreign and domestic internet sites, until I had to point it out to you.
That's not a small oversight, Nicky. And when it was pointed out to you, you didn't even miss a beat or reconsider your position. That speaks volumes. You don't even care what the facts are. Your opposition had nothing to do with the particulars of the bill, because you weren't even aware of the particulars of the bill.
You didn't give a damn when someone in this thread made blatantly false statements about the bill, so long as they supported your side. You're all too typical of the mindless mob mentality that characterizes the opposition movement. And if I sound disgusted, that's because I am. Having an informed opinion is one thing, but these forums deserve better than cynical demagoguery.
4. You might think it's a good idea to burn down a neighborhood to catch a bankrobber, and you're certainly entitled to believe so.
I don't think that's a good idea at all, but you apparently think it's a good idea to burn down straw men. Try again when you learn how to structure a proper argument.