Z_Photo wrote:
wait.  so you say "every group that represets artists" should be against strong copyright and remedies for violations?  that artists should be upset with stronger protection for their work? that's just goofy

No, I didn't.  Read the statement in context.  I challenged the premise that "if big business is for it, it must be bad".   Big business has pushed a lot of legislation that has been beneficial to artists and the groups that represent them.

I'm saying that anyone who uses the "anything big business does is bad" line of reasoning had better have been opposed to everything big business has done in this area.  If not, those people are nothing but hypocrites.

In this entire thread, I've seen 1 person (besides myself) who has even claimed to have read this bill.   I haven't seen anyone put up any actual reasoned arguments against this law other than "Big business is for it" and "Some organization told me it's really bad".

I'll fully admit that I've used the words of others to back up my viewpoints rather than walk through the law step-by-step and explain my understandings, interpretations, and expectations.  I've found the words I've posted to be adequate and well-spoken representations of my own viewpoints.  The act of writing out my views in my own words will take a few hours, and I haven't had the energy to spend that much time focusing on this topic.   As I said in a previous reply, perhaps this weekend I'll have the time and energy to do just that.

I'm fully willing to be convinced that I'm wrong in how I interpret what's written. I'm not a lawyer, nor a judge.  But the convincing will need to come as a result of reasoned arguments, specific wording, and logical conclusions.  "Everyone else says you're wrong" or "Time Warner wants it, so it must be evil" aren't valid arguments in my book.