Lamar Smith Author of Sopa - busted!

Indeed he should - but he's a politician. 'nuff said.

Well, no. They can just ban his IP permanently. :p

That should really help his campaign contributions.

I didn't love mine at half past three this morning when she was chasing a mouse round the bedroom. She finished up shut in the kitchen. Goodness knows where the mouse is! (I live in a converted barn - a variety of creatures believe they have prior claim.)

Would not surprise me one bit if this turns out to be true.

Nothing better then the prospect of his own bill causing his own site to be blacked out to all of America. Never underestimate the resourcefulness of users on the interwebz! lol

Of course, it's also really sad to realize these people are supposed to be in charge.

Read about this yesterday and couldn't believe it. This things seem so typical of politicians anymore.

How shocking - and how little of the truth is given.

The site in question is not online - it was found in the Wayback Machine (which goes back to 1996). Odd the "revealing of this site" does bother to say WHEN the site was online. Inconvenient fact - so ignored?

The shouting of "censorship" is what motivated people against SOPA.

Isn't it just as bad to present only the facts that "prove" your point of view - and ignore the remaining factually relevant information?

I saw one article saying the photographer (Schulte) said....

And another saying the photographer (Schultz) said....

Before agreeing with "shocking info" like the OP in this thread - might be a good idea to check the accuracy.

just sayin....

kay


Edit: I just realized how rude my post sounded and I didn't really mean it that way.

The person who "released" this info tried to find a violation on Smith's current site. She couldn't find a violation so she went to the wayback machine. She was digging - and the moment she found something in an older version of the site....she ran with it because it fit her purpose. But does it really prove anything - except there may have been a violation for an unspecified length of time in an unspecified year and a site changed for an unspecified reason?

The photographer says it "doesn't appear to give credit" - but could the credit have been on a different page or included with other site info? He doesn't know - and neither do we. The politics of personal attacks doesn't require accurate info - only innuendo and partial facts.

Personally, I think it's unlikely there wasn't credit given somewhere on the site - because Smith has been proposing copyright protection legislation for several years.

For those that do not speak the language:


Even if it is not true, it is well conceived.

Right, jokes aside, is the owner going to take action?

I know if it was my work, I'd be fighting tooth and nail regardless of who he is.

I don't agree. Assuming there might have been a credit given is no different than assuming there wasn't credit given. It's all guessing and assumption until we see the entire site in question.

The terms of the photo (according to the photographer) were that anyone could use it as long as the source was credited. How could that be an infringement if credit was given?

Really Ken - and you didn't get the answers to your questions in the official SOPA thread yet? I have read the bill. It is you that seems to be misunderstanding something. And the bill was put on hold but it is not dead, although it's not getting much support since the blackout protest. Now a lot of people tried to explain this whole thing to you. Go back and read everything.

I'm really sorry that you don't understand precedent, progression or anything else much other than MSM claptrap, but stop coming into threads and telling everyone else they are stupid or foolish. IF you look around you will find there is a good reason that people are opposing you on every post you make. Good grief.

Really Ken - and you didn't get the answers to your questions in the official SOPA thread yet? I have read the bill. Paul Myers has read the bill - several others read the bill. It is you that seems to be misunderstanding something. And the bill was put on hold but it is not dead, although it's not getting much support since the blackout protest. Now a lot of people tried to explain this whole thing to you. Go back and read everything. Also look up the difference between putting a bill on hold and killing it. Tell us truthfully - you were one of the people hammering others for worrying about the NDAA going through after O promised to veto it right? Apparently you learned nothing from that one.

I'm really sorry that you don't understand precedent, progression or anything else much other than MSM claptrap, but stop coming into threads and telling everyone else they are stupid or foolish. IF you look around you will find there is a good reason that people are opposing you on every post you make. Good grief.

If nothing else will get you to stop and understand the issues -- maybe the fact that a large numbers of very intelligent business owners, and even some representatives went through a lot of trouble to issue warnings should give you at least a slight clue that something more is going on than you apparently seem to be able or willing to grasp.