If the networks are outide the US, they aren't addressed directly, only their address will disappear... and the big search engines will be made responsible to do that.

If it means getting rid of illegal activities, YES!

And that is how it starts - with thunderous applause at the nobleness of the loss of freedom and liberty.  It is not until the nag is sent to the glue factory that some begin to see where the slippery slope started.  Anyone can see the bottom.

The Pirate bay is able to generate advertising and merchandise revenues from its website. These revenues wouldn't exist without the distribution of intellectual property they don't own. Take away the content and the site doesn't have any value of its own.  How is it right that they can profit off another's labor without compensation?

Setting aside any arguments of "who would or wouldn't have bought" it seems reasonable that mass distributions would financially devalue the product. Some may call this 'theft', but at the very least its fair to call it harmful and I can't support it.

What part of the legislation says that only unmoderated sites would be affected? In fact, no such qualifier is part of the proposed legislation. While moderation does have positive effects on some community sites, it has negative effects as well. In the case of forums, moderation is definitely a necessity, though only to manage spam and enforce forum rules. In all honesty, moderation does not prevent theft, copyright infringement or illegal activity, but merely masks it in the same way other self regulation schemes have done. Returning to the OP for a moment, if someone posts an image or some other form of copyrighted material without any form of watermark or other such protection scheme, it seems incredible to be surprised that someone would then rip and reuse those completely unprotected images.

As for your several comments about Stardock, I find it hard to believe that Brad feels that such draconian measures are necessary to fight and prevent such theft of IP. Looking at the fact that most Stardock games have declined the use of harsh DRM software which overly penalizes normal users, it would seem illogical that normal websites which have community features should also be asked to perform significant moderation simply to avoid summary blacklisting.

Having a system in place where Warez is actively PROHIBITED from even MOMENTARY posting means Upload moderation DOES work.

This isn't about spam moderation on forums...it is about active pre-emptive vetting of what is HOSTED by Stardock's sites...and rest assured Brad is ENTIRELY happy with that mechanism being in place.

Perhaps, as you are posting from 'Elemental's site/forum you overlook the reality that Stardock is a SOFTWARE developer whose programs are distributed as warez just as any other Developer's is.

The REALITY of site Moderation is that IN NO WAY are Stardock's sites used as mechanisms of software theft.  Stardock has a zero tolerance for warez and the Sites' Moderators and Admins actively police that.   There are plenty of people IP-banned from any interaction with the Stardock community for that very reason.

The Issue with any site which allows 'uploads' of content WITHOUT such moderation is that BECAUSE they have no pre-emptive checks in place they will 'unwittingly' be engines of warez distribution....until such time as they are made aware of it.  And that is typically TOO LATE.

The horse has bolted.

It's not a matter of whether moderated sites are included or not...but that by definition moderated sites won't be exposed AT ALL.

Note that here 'moderated sites' means more than someone checking whether 'poo' and 'bum', etc is being used 'gratuitously'.

We're talking about how unmoderated content means you may as well call your site 'Piratebay part deux' and be done with it...as that's what they will be allowed to become if unsupervised.

I don't think I've been called reticent in decades.  I wanted to cut off their balls, grind them up, and feed them the bloody mess.  I still wouldn't want security measures put into place to prevent such thefts.

After all the internet has been properly moderated to make sure no one ever commits a crime, how much use do you figure you'll still get out of it in the areas currently dominated by low moderation mediums?  WC is a business, running sales.  It can afford to have employees checking the content out because the content is of commercial value.  Every schmucks stupid crap picture on DA doesn't.  The more regulatory nonsense a site has to go through to stay in operation, the fewer sites there will be, it's a simple numbers game.  If you want to shrink the WWW, then crap like this bill is a great idea.  Beyond that it's just a triviality, they will always be one step behind the criminal element, and getting TPB blacklisted from Google isn't going to change that.  Personally, I wont miss any of this shit, but content hosting is going to change big time from this stupidity if they actually use it to anything effectual.

Screwing yourself into the ground to prevent a little crime is never a good thing.  It results in varying degrees if disastrous consequences when the stupid masses pick a little more security over a little more freedom.

Edit:  The first thing that would happen is the US search engines would become vaporware as everyone switched to unfiltered results.

Clearly you live in an alternate universe to the rest of us mere mortals...hint....Fringe is  fantasy....

So, the solution is not to do anything. Ever. Because it might go wrong?

In the meantime, the criminals have a field day.

That might work for you, but not for me. Let's try to stop them, and keep an eye on those in power. 

I choked on my coffee reading this.

Corporate America think themselves gods amongst men. If you can scrape another dime a day at the cost of humanity, so be it.

This is typical Corporate bullshit thinking. Fuck humanity as long as I get a bigger piece of the pie.

How does SD manage to grow enough to almost take that whole building over with pirates waving there swords around. How does Impulse get to big for its britches with pirates intruding everyones homes. Oh my, thats not enough, lets censor the WWW and to hell with what everyone else thinks. I NEED MORE.

Put it to a national vote and see what mere mortals think if this bullshit bill.

Which mere mortals...the ones who create or the ones who take?

Really? The best response you can come up with is to put users of the WWW into 2 groups, creators and I assume you are calling everyone else thieves? Can you say GOD COMPLEX?

A god complex is a non-clinical term generally used to describe an individual who consistently believes he or she can accomplish more than is humanly possible or that their opinion is automatically above those with whom he or she may disagree.^[1] The individual may believe he or she is above the rules of society and should be given special consideration or privileges.

As far as the bill is concerned...there are two groups...those whose interests/property is to be protected and those who, for whatever noble argument they choose to pontificate this bill will endanger their well-being.

In actuality the only people likely to feel impact are those who speed-dial warez-R-us.

I can come up with far better responses than your input even warrants.

Try me some time.

10 years of actively insulating 'our' end of the internet from bottom-feeders is not being 'God'...it is being responsible.

Jafo said no such thing, and I think you're being unnecessarily inflammatory, especially with the indented paragraph.

Jafo was referring to two groups, but did not say anything vaguely resembling "those are the ONLY two groups on the Internet". They are simply the two most germane to this discussion.

Using extremes to justify bad law is no justification at all.

For indeed, NO LAW is better than BAD LAW any day of the week.