SOPA/"Protect IP" Act

[Scheavo]

All these provisions ever do is inconvenience people who aren't doing anything illegal. There's always going to be a workaround for pirates.

Criminals are always going to get guns, it doesn't mean we should sell them on the street corner.

Honestly, one good way to get rid of a lot of pirating is to have search engines not give you torrent results. It wouldn't stop it completely, but it's a little ridiculous that you can simply google something, add an appropriate key word, and be stealing something in about 2 minutes.

[Implode]

Going along with your analogy, this bill is the equivalent to outlawing anyone owning a gun.

[Scheavo]

Going along with your analogy, this bill is the equivalent to outlawing anyone owning a gun.

And I've never supported this bill.

[ClairvoyantCat]

All these provisions ever do is inconvenience people who aren't doing anything illegal. There's always going to be a workaround for pirates.

Criminals are always going to get guns, it doesn't mean we should sell them on the street corner.

Honestly, one good way to get rid of a lot of pirating is to have search engines not give you torrent results. It wouldn't stop it completely, but it's a little ridiculous that you can simply google something, add an appropriate key word, and be stealing something in about 2 minutes.

So we mess with the functionality of a search engine?  That sounds exactly like the previously mentioned notion of treading on offenders and non-offenders alike. 

Also, I really doubt that anyone is going to stop pirating because they won't be able to look up torrents on Google.  Maybe a minor inconvenience for some, but a deterrent?  Nah.

[Scheavo]

All these provisions ever do is inconvenience people who aren't doing anything illegal. There's always going to be a workaround for pirates.

Criminals are always going to get guns, it doesn't mean we should sell them on the street corner.

Honestly, one good way to get rid of a lot of pirating is to have search engines not give you torrent results. It wouldn't stop it completely, but it's a little ridiculous that you can simply google something, add an appropriate key word, and be stealing something in about 2 minutes.

So we mess with the functionality of a search engine?  That sounds exactly like the previously mentioned notion of treading on offenders and non-offenders alike. 

Also, I really doubt that anyone is going to stop pirating because they won't be able to look up torrents on Google.  Maybe a minor inconvenience for some, but a deterrent?  Nah.

I'm sorry, but there isn't a real good reason to, say, Google certain keywords with .iso on the back of them (*edited so I didn't literally tell you how you can pirate.. well.. anything*)

And I'm gonna go ahead and just quote my quote you quoted:

It wouldn't stop it completely, but it's a little ridiculous that you can simply google something, add an appropriate key word, and be stealing something in about 2 minutes.

I don't expect it to do prevent all pirating, and maybe not even a terribly large amount; but being able to Google stuff to pirate is like buying a gun on the street corner.

[Fiery Winds]

Sure, but that's only one door.  For lack of a better word, the internet really is a "web", and trying to stifle one area invariably results in leaving wide open loopholes, or removing legitimate strands.  We're currently under the former, this bill is the latter, and I'm not so sure that there can be a comfortable medium.

[Progmetty]

Oh there's no doubt alternatives will come up but there will be a confusion period.

[Fiery Winds]

Which will probably be as effective as everyone not buying gas for a day. 

[Scheavo]

Sure, but that's only one door.  For lack of a better word, the internet really is a "web", and trying to stifle one area invariably results in leaving wide open loopholes, or removing legitimate strands.  We're currently under the former, this bill is the latter, and I'm not so sure that there can be a comfortable medium.

Like I said, it's like selling guns on the corner of the street. People will still find a way, just like people obviously can still buy guns if we don't sell em on the street corner, but there are obviously some simple things that could be done, which would have an effect. I think you'd be surprised how many people wouldn't pirate if it was just a little bit harder.

[Fiery Winds]

I'm not really arguing against you, I know they would have an effect.  I just think that the side effects are too great. 

Now that I think about it, music piracy would be much worse today not because of the Napster lawsuit (which made it more difficult for a time), but because of iTunes.  People didn't necessarily save money by buying online, and in fact they technically lost more than they gained (sound quality, liner notes, etc.) but it was a sudden paradigm shift that people latched onto it.  I wonder if we need another one of these paradigm shifts.

[BlobVanDam]

I'm sorry, but there isn't a real good reason to, say, Google certain keywords with .iso on the back of them (*edited so I didn't literally tell you how you can pirate.. well.. anything*)

This all amounts to censorship to me. There are plenty of 100% legitimate torrents (and even isos) used by sites so they don't use up their own bandwidth on giant downloads that they want to offer for free for their users (I know because I've used them myself).
The same applies to blocking any other avenues used by illegal downloads. And it is dead easy to work around. Then you'd simply just have search engines targeted towards that kind of material. Then where do we stop? Do we block all searches with the word "download"? Because that's what it would have to come to to stop anything.
Perhaps in the vast majority of cases these are illegal downloads, but the result is going to be the same as every other anti-piracy measure. You're inconveniencing the legitimate users a lot more than the pirates, because the pirates don't care about going against the rules to avoid the problem, whereas you're slowly limiting the options further for the legitimate users.

[kirksnosehair]

I'm pretty confident that in the next 5 to 10 years there will be a solution that will stem the tide of piracy.  I think it will be a combination of factors.   As far as music goes, one thing I think is absolutely necessary is for there to be some tangible "consumable" that you cannot upload or download that will bring an incentive back to get people to buy instead of downloading.  It could be a special kind of mix or content that goes on the CDs that cannot be digitized.   The other thing that I think will eventually happen is technology will be developed that will make it possible to identify stolen content from legitimate content on the internet.  Again, I think these innovations are many, many years in the future.  As mentioned above, there may also be another paradigm shift, or the ideas I have mentioned here may be part of that paradigm shift, who knows?  But one thing I don't see is the ongoing endless blatant outright theft of copyrighted material, at least, not at the current level we see now.

[Scheavo]

I'm sorry, but there isn't a real good reason to, say, Google certain keywords with .iso on the back of them (*edited so I didn't literally tell you how you can pirate.. well.. anything*)

This all amounts to censorship to me. There are plenty of 100% legitimate torrents (and even isos) used by sites so they don't use up their own bandwidth on giant downloads that they want to offer for free for their users (I know because I've used them myself).
The same applies to blocking any other avenues used by illegal downloads. And it is dead easy to work around. Then you'd simply just have search engines targeted towards that kind of material. Then where do we stop? Do we block all searches with the word "download"? Because that's what it would have to come to to stop anything.
Perhaps in the vast majority of cases these are illegal downloads, but the result is going to be the same as every other anti-piracy measure. You're inconveniencing the legitimate users a lot more than the pirates, because the pirates don't care about going against the rules to avoid the problem, whereas you're slowly limiting the options further for the legitimate users.

Hopefully this doesn't get me in trouble..

Tell me one good reason why someone would google, for example, "skyrim .iso" or "download skyrim .iso," or "skyrim .iso torrent" I never said that .iso should be gone after, rather that certain keywords are just obvious in their use. Very few people will rip their bought Skyrim dvd into an .iso, and those who do, are probably smart enough not to need to look it up; and there would still be ways for them to get the help they need (go to Skyrim forums, search around for help on what you need). I hardly see how this inconveniences the legitimate user much, especially considering the same is true of gun laws. If we sold guns on the street corner, it would be much easier for anyone to get a gun, including the ones that I have no problem with having a gun (and I'm not your average liberal on gun control, just fyi); by not selling guns on the street corner, I inconvenience the perfectly legal citizen buying a gun. Criminals still get guns, and pirates would still pirate, but that doesn't mean we should let it be insanely easy to pirate.

[7StringedBeast]

I agree with Blob.  Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.  Just because some use a technology for crime does not mean we should take it away from everyone.  This is another fucking example of no one having any personal responsibility so unnecessary blanket rules must be applied.

[Scheavo]

I hardly see how not letting you Google "skyrim .iso torrent" is not letting people use internet technology. It's not as if that's not letting you google .iso, or skyrim, or even torrent - that would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. You can target certain, specific, keywords rather easily - my best friend does it to try and target those keywords, to make websites, to get ad money - and you can get that specific without getting general.

[ClairvoyantCat]

I just think that giving our government (and more importantly, by extension, certain companies) the authority to fuck with the functionality of a search engine is a slippery slope.  As I believe Faermir posted examples of further back in this thread, the companies who are going to be deciding what is blocked from us as far as searching aren't exactly going to make it a priority to make sure that they don't block anything without full certainty that they'll only be affecting piraters.   And really, if things are unjustly blocked, what the fuck will we be able to do about it when it's at that point?   

It just seems like a prospect that could very easily turn rotten. 



I also like a good torrent now and then.  There's that. 

[7StringedBeast]

I hardly see how not letting you Google "skyrim .iso torrent" is not letting people use internet technology. It's not as if that's not letting you google .iso, or skyrim, or even torrent - that would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. You can target certain, specific, keywords rather easily - my best friend does it to try and target those keywords, to make websites, to get ad money - and you can get that specific without getting general.

How about the novel of idea of actually going after the people who upload this shit and make the punishment severe.  It seems like the gov just likes to make stupid laws controlling stuff they don't have to get into when there is a much more direct way of solving the problem.  Go after the people who commit the crimes.

[BlobVanDam]

I'm not going to quote the post since it seems to break the rules, but I didn't realize we meant blocking very specific Google results like that. The logistics of that would be insane, to have people constantly manually blocking specific search phrases like that for every copyrighted release, and they could only ever cover a fraction of the search terms and copyrighted materials possible. You could cover the major flavour of the week things, but it's only going to account for a small percentage of piracy in the long run.
To me that just sounds like trying to patch holes in a sinking ship. All you're doing is slightly slowing down the process, not stopping it at all.

[Scheavo]

I'm not going to quote the post since it seems to break the rules, but I didn't realize we meant blocking very specific Google results like that. The logistics of that would be insane, to have people constantly manually blocking specific search phrases like that for every copyrighted release, and they could only ever cover a fraction of the search terms and copyrighted materials possible. You could cover the major flavour of the week things, but it's only going to account for a small percentage of piracy in the long run.
To me that just sounds like trying to patch holes in a sinking ship. All you're doing is slightly slowing down the process, not stopping it at all.

There will always be rape, and our laws against it can at best mitigate the amount of rape, and punish rapists. There will always be murder, and our laws can at best mitigate the number of murders, and punish murders. There will always be theft, and our laws can at best mitigate the number of thefts, and punish thieves. If the ship is sinking, then we're no whee near the shore, so patching the holes is the best we can do.

People keep rebutting, "but it won't stop it!" But that isn't very much of a real argument. The only laws that actually prevent anything from happening are the physical laws of the universe, the rest are simply moral code and justification for judicial punishment. Nothing we do will ever stop all pirating of material on the internet, and due to the nature of software, will probably be less effective than non-virtual laws. That is a given, and it is not a reason why we should not do something that's rather easy to do.

Piracy will end when we stop socially accepting it; and we'll stop socially accepting it when we make every excuse in the book to not try and do something about it.

How about the novel of idea of actually going after the people who upload this shit and make the punishment severe.  It seems like the gov just likes to make stupid laws controlling stuff they don't have to get into when there is a much more direct way of solving the problem.  Go after the people who commit the crimes.

Haven't they tried that? It's probably harder to do this, than anything I'm suggesting.

[ehra]

I don't see how it would make sense from any perspective to mess with search engines to add inconvenience to one specific type of illegal activity and not any others. On one hand, if you're going to worry about people googling an easy way to download a game then you might as well look into people googling "how to best commit rape and not get caught" or any other crime under the sun. And it'd be absolutely silly to think that any legislation/movement towards restricting searches related to pirating would stop right there and wouldn't also extend towards attempting to prevent searches on other illegal things.

It's not and never will be just a case of "do we censor the internet to attempt to prevent piracy or not?" it's really "do we censor the internet to attempt to prevent illegal activities or not?" No attempt at preventing online piracy will ever stop just there, and it wouldn't even make any sense to stop there in the first place.

[kirksnosehair]

I don't think the search term restrictions are going to gain any traction.  I think most of you coming out against it have made pretty compelling arguments.  It's a slippery slope, and I don't think the comparisons to selling guns on the corner really map to cleanly to the torrent or .iso file indexing in, say, Google.

By the same token, I wouldn't have any sympathy for people who get busted for uploading pirated shit and thrown in jail.  I'm not sure how you enforce such a thing, but like I wrote in my previous post, I think it will be a moot point within a decade because surely there will come some kind of solution that is going to stem the tide of piracy -OR- there will be another paradigm change in media consumption that will render piracy irrelevant. 

[Scheavo]

By the same token, I wouldn't have any sympathy for people who get busted for uploading pirated shit and thrown in jail.  I'm not sure how you enforce such a thing, but like I wrote in my previous post, I think it will be a moot point within a decade because surely there will come some kind of solution that is going to stem the tide of piracy -OR- there will be another paradigm change in media consumption that will render piracy irrelevant.

Itunes didn't really stop much piracy, did it? Most people I know who use it are people who didn't know how to pirate, didn't want to pirate, or got a gift card.

And whether or not a solution comes up sorta ignores the moral problem. Piracy won't be bad for the economy, because people will spend that money elsewhere; but it's a moral issue of who is getting money, in compensation for what. With music, the field is going to change becuase artists can produce and record at home, and not need a big record label to give them studio time, and who then take the material as theirs. Artists who do this now sometimes upload it for free and ask for donations, but that's only because they know it'll be pirated and they'll see no money anyways. If there was some sane anti-piracy measures (and going after the distributors is not only hard, but sometimes impossible; especially if they're in a foreign country where your laws have no jurisdiction). Measures to go after distributors would probably be much more of a violation of privacy than simply "censoring" Google results - the kind of "censorship" we have no problem with in the real world (you couldn't run an advertisement buying the murder of an individual, or the selling of stolen goods, or many other things). Once again, people want to treat the internet differently, as if it's somehow separate from every other social norm and rule we have in society.

[kirksnosehair]

I've gotta be honest, there Scheavo, I'm really not even sure what your point is?

[Scheavo]

Waiting for a paradigm shift is fatalistic, and as silly to me as waiting for science to magically address over population, food shortages, and climate change.

Going after the distributors would likely require a more heavy monitoring of IP traffic, and thus more invasion of our privacy. Also that it's easy for them to not live in the US, therefor we have on legal jurisdiction, so it's a rather impotent way to go after piracy. "Censoring" search engine results is the best way to actual prevent some people from gaining access to torrents and other illegal material. Also that "censoring" google results is not something we dont 'accept in the non-virtual world, so why is it such a big deal when it's done on the internet?

[kirksnosehair]

Waiting for a paradigm shift is fatalistic, and as silly to me as waiting for science to magically address over population, food shortages, and climate change.

Going after the distributors would likely require a more heavy monitoring of IP traffic, and thus more invasion of our privacy. Also that it's easy for them to not live in the US, therefor we have on legal jurisdiction, so it's a rather impotent way to go after piracy. "Censoring" search engine results is the best way to actual prevent some people from gaining access to torrents and other illegal material. Also that "censoring" google results is not something we dont 'accept in the non-virtual world, so why is it such a big deal when it's done on the internet?

First off, I'm not "waiting for a paradigm shift" I was merely noting that by the time any solution is reached on this, one may occur anyway.  Going after distributors requires monitoring of specific kinds of IP traffic.  And as I've already stated many times here, the illusion of "privacy" on the internet is just that: an illusion.  We do a TON of forensic work in court cases here and you'd be astonished at how little privacy you really have on the internet.

I don't disagree that filtering search engine results might help, but I think you'd just end up playing a gigantic cyber game of wack-a-mole with torrent site owners simply coming up with new keywords to search on and where do you draw the line?  Let's put it this way:  It's never going to happen here in the states, so the idea is DOA.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with you in principle.  I want piracy stopped dead in its tracks.  But turning America's internet into China's internet ain't the solution, man.

[Scheavo]

But turning America's internet into China's internet ain't the solution, man.

That's just a red herring though. No one is suggesting real censorship of the internet. Censorship is getting thrown about in a way which really tells me people don't understand censorship. You can't yell fire in a theater, and that's not restricting your freedom of speech.

[kirksnosehair]

But turning America's internet into China's internet ain't the solution, man.

That's just a red herring though. No one is suggesting real censorship of the internet. Censorship is getting thrown about in a way which really tells me people don't understand censorship. You can't yell fire in a theater, and that's not restricting your freedom of speech.

I disagree that it's a red herring.  The potential for abuse is there.  Believe me, I understand what censorship is.  And I also understand that in the united states of america, where we have a very strong awareness of and affinity with the ideal of "freedom of speech" you're never going to see any form of censorship enacted on internet search engines.  It won't make it through our political system to become law.  Never happen.   

[El Barto]

But turning America's internet into China's internet ain't the solution, man.

That's just a red herring though. No one is suggesting real censorship of the internet. Censorship is getting thrown about in a way which really tells me people don't understand censorship. You can't yell fire in a theater, and that's not restricting your freedom of speech.

Censoring search results won't do anything about the problem.  Period.  What it will do is give the government another foot in the door towards censorship.  I agree that this isn't as severe as the Great Firewall,  but only to a point.  Much like the USAPATRIOT Act was designed to fight terrorists, but is actually used to go after all sorts of people,  this thing won't stop with piracy.  The DoJ takes a pretty hard line on what it considers pornography.  No reason to let search results for Back Door Sluts 9 go through,  since it violates the community standards in Oshkosh.  Selling a bong online isn't legal either.  No real need for head shops to promote their wares online.  Abortion is verboten in Oklahoma,  so lets make sure that women can't find out how to travel to Colorado to get themselves hoovered.  I realize all of these things are a bit of a stretch now,  but given that you distrust The Man as much as I do,  surely you recognize that handing him yet another means of fucking us,  and one that won't even effect the problem it's addressing,  is a very bad idea indeed.

As has been said over and over before,  the government doesn't cede power it's been given.  It expands it.

[Scheavo]

Ya'll never came off as anarchists to me, and that's the root conclusion of all your arguments. There are no rules for the internet now, so it's basic anarchy; when someone suggests anything to deal with crime and problems on the internet, it's a problem, and it's "a huge overstep" by the government. Unless we want anarchy, we're gonna have to accept some government intrusion.

but given that you distrust The Man as much as I do,  surely you recognize that handing him yet another means of fucking us,  and one that won't even effect the problem it's addressing,  is a very bad idea indeed.

I distrust the man, but I accept the man enough for me  to say there should be a police force, or any judicial system (*edit* got rid of the double negative). Both are those are ripe for abuse, but I've never heard you advocate we get rid of them outright. The fact that I distrust the man is one reason why I think simple redirecting of certain keywords on search engines is the best option; it doesn't require looking at individual actions, and it doesn't require actually taking down or blocking any website. It'd be rather easy to control what can and cannot be targeted, by simply putting that in the law - pirating and copyright infringement material only. There's no way to wiggle your way around that, no way to say that obscenity laws fall under copyright infringement, or how to get an abortion, etc.

[Progmetty]

Colbert mentioned the issue last night
https://fightforthefuture.org/colbert-sopa/

[El Barto]

Ya'll never came off as anarchists to me, and that's the root conclusion of all your arguments. There are no rules for the internet now, so it's basic anarchy; when someone suggests anything to deal with crime and problems on the internet, it's a problem, and it's "a huge overstep" by the government. Unless we want anarchy, we're gonna have to accept some government intrusion.

but given that you distrust The Man as much as I do,  surely you recognize that handing him yet another means of fucking us,  and one that won't even effect the problem it's addressing,  is a very bad idea indeed.

I distrust the man, but I accept the man enough for me  to say there should be a police force, or any judicial system (*edit* got rid of the double negative). Both are those are ripe for abuse, but I've never heard you advocate we get rid of them outright. The fact that I distrust the man is one reason why I think simple redirecting of certain keywords on search engines is the best option; it doesn't require looking at individual actions, and it doesn't require actually taking down or blocking any website. It'd be rather easy to control what can and cannot be targeted, by simply putting that in the law - pirating and copyright infringement material only. There's no way to wiggle your way around that, no way to say that obscenity laws fall under copyright infringement, or how to get an abortion, etc.

That's an interesting point, but here's where I differ.  It's not that I want anarchy.  What I want is the very smallest intrusion necessary.  My experience is that The Man will never go for the minimum option.  He goes for the maximum he can get away with. 

I don't recall too many discussions here about laws that don't go far enough. 

What causes asshole representatives to back off a little is objection from the opposite side.  They always manage to enact laws that they're hard for,  and eventually some anti-piracy provisions will pass.  I'm just hoping that the dissent is strong enough that when it happens,  it'll be something reasonable. 

[Fiery Winds]

I hate to use the slippery slope argument, but where does it stop?  Ok, we redirect search results so those sites aren't displayed front and center.  I would wager a guess that most people by now don't search for application.iso, but already have the torrent site bookmarked.  Once that happens, what else can we do other than pass bills like these?

[Scheavo]

I hate to use the slippery slope argument, but where does it stop? 

The slippery slope isn't an argument, it's a fallacy.

Ya'll never came off as anarchists to me, and that's the root conclusion of all your arguments. There are no rules for the internet now, so it's basic anarchy; when someone suggests anything to deal with crime and problems on the internet, it's a problem, and it's "a huge overstep" by the government. Unless we want anarchy, we're gonna have to accept some government intrusion.

but given that you distrust The Man as much as I do,  surely you recognize that handing him yet another means of fucking us,  and one that won't even effect the problem it's addressing,  is a very bad idea indeed.

I distrust the man, but I accept the man enough for me  to say there should be a police force, or any judicial system (*edit* got rid of the double negative). Both are those are ripe for abuse, but I've never heard you advocate we get rid of them outright. The fact that I distrust the man is one reason why I think simple redirecting of certain keywords on search engines is the best option; it doesn't require looking at individual actions, and it doesn't require actually taking down or blocking any website. It'd be rather easy to control what can and cannot be targeted, by simply putting that in the law - pirating and copyright infringement material only. There's no way to wiggle your way around that, no way to say that obscenity laws fall under copyright infringement, or how to get an abortion, etc.

That's an interesting point, but here's where I differ.  It's not that I want anarchy.  What I want is the very smallest intrusion necessary.  My experience is that The Man will never go for the minimum option.  He goes for the maximum he can get away with. 

And I'm all ears to know where that is on the internet. It really is a new field, and something I"m not entirely sure humans are made to be able to comprehend easily (we're made for face to face, bodily interactions, for starters).

[kirksnosehair]

I hate to use the slippery slope argument, but where does it stop? 

The slippery slope isn't an argument, it's a fallacy.

Ya'll never came off as anarchists to me, and that's the root conclusion of all your arguments. There are no rules for the internet now, so it's basic anarchy; when someone suggests anything to deal with crime and problems on the internet, it's a problem, and it's "a huge overstep" by the government. Unless we want anarchy, we're gonna have to accept some government intrusion.

but given that you distrust The Man as much as I do,  surely you recognize that handing him yet another means of fucking us,  and one that won't even effect the problem it's addressing,  is a very bad idea indeed.

I distrust the man, but I accept the man enough for me  to say there should be a police force, or any judicial system (*edit* got rid of the double negative). Both are those are ripe for abuse, but I've never heard you advocate we get rid of them outright. The fact that I distrust the man is one reason why I think simple redirecting of certain keywords on search engines is the best option; it doesn't require looking at individual actions, and it doesn't require actually taking down or blocking any website. It'd be rather easy to control what can and cannot be targeted, by simply putting that in the law - pirating and copyright infringement material only. There's no way to wiggle your way around that, no way to say that obscenity laws fall under copyright infringement, or how to get an abortion, etc.

That's an interesting point, but here's where I differ.  It's not that I want anarchy.  What I want is the very smallest intrusion necessary.  My experience is that The Man will never go for the minimum option.  He goes for the maximum he can get away with. 

And I'm all ears to know where that is on the internet. It really is a new field, and something I"m not entirely sure humans are made to be able to comprehend easily (we're made for face to face, bodily interactions, for starters).

With all due respect, just because you say the slippery slope argument is a fallacy does not make it so.

Whether or not there is a slippery slope here is 100% opinion, nothing more, nothing less.  And it is certainly worthy of consideration in matters of censorship

[Fiery Winds]

I hate to use the slippery slope argument, but where does it stop? 

The slippery slope isn't an argument, it's a fallacy.

It's a fallacy only if the premise for each step isn't given sufficient argument and jumps wildly to an end scenario without evidence.  Based on how quickly the internet works, and the savvy of those who pirate, the hit to piracy based on your keyword censoring would be minimal.  Yes, there is a "confusion" period, but not for long.  If the end goal is to stop piracy, then these actions need to be taken further to stop the majority of pirates who find their way around the censor.  Like I mentioned in my previous post, I wager that most folks wouldn't be affected by the censors since they already know the names of the sites they use.  Therefore, the ONLY option is to maintain the status quo or enact further restriction measures. 

Let me clarify that I don't think it's a bad thing to try and find a way to stem piracy.  But I don't think this bill or your solution are effective ways of removing access to piracy.