Internet Censorship Bill - Fantasy Baseball Cafe 2014 Fantasy Baseball Cafe
100% Deposit Bonus for Cafe Members!

Return to General Talk

Internet Censorship Bill

Moderator: Baseball Moderators

Re: Internet Censorship Bill

Postby Urban Cohorts » Mon Jan 23, 2012 10:21 am

John Kramer wrote:
Urban Cohorts wrote:People steal and commit all sorts of "immoral" acts. These things are highly situational and subjective. I could site a hundred examples from each socioeconomic group of doing such things, but it would all end up being the same- people do things that aren't "right" for the benefit of themselves all the time.


So again, because lots of people break a law (or any other "immoral" act), that makes it ok? I remember hearing the "if everyone else jumped off a bridge....." talk when I was a wee little tyke. Are we not teaching that anymore? Now the mob mentality dictates right and wrong, legal and illegal?


The short answer is yes. If enough people do said thing, then it is okay. Or if the people doing said thing have enough power/wealth/fame to defend what they are doing, then that is also okay.

I wouldn't say mob mentality dictates what is right or wrong. The people who control what the mob thinks are the people who dictate right and wrong. Have enough power, wealth, fame, etc. to get enough people to believe you and you can control what is perceived as right and wrong. If I wake up tomorrow with supernatural powers, then I can dictate what is right and what is wrong because no one can stop me. But I don't foresee that happening..
Image
Urban Cohorts
Major League Manager
Major League Manager

User avatar
Cafe WriterMock(ing) Drafter
Posts: 1717
Joined: 2 Jan 2009
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Rome in all of its glory...

Re: Internet Censorship Bill

Postby John Kramer » Mon Jan 23, 2012 10:53 am

The Artful Dodger wrote:The unnerving thing is the MPAA and the SOPA proponents will try to rebrand the bill and make it more subtle to avoid wide scale public uproar with similar implications attached for the Internet as a whole. Even if it does, the MPAA and their financial clout in Congress will keep rebuffing their efforts to the point people will be exhausted to keep protesting.

Like Tavish said, a piracy/IP bill is unnecessary when the DOJ can shut down and indict the infringing site owners, like in the case of Megaupload.


Took years to shut down Megaupload. The laws are antiquated and need to be updated. And yes, the people will grow tired of the fight and laws will be passed regardless of if they like them or not.

I'm not convinced piracy is as costly to the entertainment industry as you may perceive it to be or the industry folks might lead others to believe. Piracy has been a problem for decades now, just through different mediums comparing now and then. In the 80's, the conduits were the VCR, tape recorder, and bootlegged CCTV. Over the last decade-plus, it has been the Internet and it just so happens to be a more dynamic, convenient distribution medium.

There are more factors at play to explain declining box office returns now than say 15 years ago and perhaps has more to do with changing consumer habits. People are more likely to go to the movies for must-see big-budget films best experienced in the theater (i.e. Avatar) but would probably wait until a relatively low-key, highly acclaimed film is released on an on-demand basis. Perhaps it has to do with a growing dissatisfaction with the quality of mainstream music and films. Perhaps the entertainment industry has milked the most out of its traditional business model and could potentially go the way of the newspapers, who knows.

Also, the "little people" such as production assistants generally aren't that well paid to begin with and/or are hired on a temp/contract basis. On top of that, the Writers Guild has a history of participating in union strikes against the studios over the residuals of video cassettes, and more recently, DVD's and new media. The mentality in Hollywood is online piracy is the main culprit to all this (and in fact the film industry launched an annoying ad campaign about this a few years ago) and such a mindset has been ingrained since to an unhealthy extent.


How bad it is doesn't really matter. I personally have no clue exactly how much the entertainment industry loses to piracy and I don't care. The fact is that copyright infringement runs rampant on the internet and the laws need to be updated to combat that illegal action.

Urban Cohorts wrote:The short answer is yes. If enough people do said thing, then it is okay. Or if the people doing said thing have enough power/wealth/fame to defend what they are doing, then that is also okay.

I wouldn't say mob mentality dictates what is right or wrong. The people who control what the mob thinks are the people who dictate right and wrong. Have enough power, wealth, fame, etc. to get enough people to believe you and you can control what is perceived as right and wrong. If I wake up tomorrow with supernatural powers, then I can dictate what is right and what is wrong because no one can stop me. But I don't foresee that happening..


Interesting answer, I'll give you that, but no mob or group of people will ever convince me of what is right and wrong. If 99% of the world became pedophiles (better odds than you waking up as Superman - haha), I still wouldn't believe that raping children is ok. The lemmings might follow along and it may become a generally accepted practice, but it will never be "right", it will always be wrong.
I want to play a game. The rules are simple. All you have to do is sit here and talk to me. Listen to me. We haven't been properly introduced. My name is John.

Live or die. Make your choice.
John Kramer
Softball Supervisor
Softball Supervisor

User avatar

Posts: 56
Joined: 14 Oct 2011
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: I am everywhere.

Re: Internet Censorship Bill

Postby Tavish » Mon Jan 23, 2012 11:25 am

John Kramer wrote:If the current punishments and measures don't work well enough to prevent the law from being broken, don't things have to move forward with tougher punishments and more ways to catch the criminals and/or prevent the damage done by them? Every other facet of law works that way, why not this one?

It always depends on what furthering the laws will affect. Just about every law could be expanded to help enforcement but simply are not.

You are trying to twist my argument into something that is completely different than what I stated. I have never argued for the right to commit copyright infringement. The collaborators in this case are companies that are perfectly legitimate businesses that create vastly more revenue and jobs than the entertainment industry can even begin to touch. The collaborators that you are talking about are not Megaupload or RapidShare or even some of the other less popular and less obvious file-sharing networks like DropBox or even AWS. These types of measures could destroy companies like Facebook, Youtube, Twitter, Google, Tumblr, and Flicker along with the companies that depend upon these services for their own well-being.


I have no need to twist your words, none at all. You mentioned "freedoms", and I couldn't help but laugh since we're talking about the internet, not the United States of America. Even then, any and all "rights" you (or I, or anyone) think you have are conditional. Seriously. Really think about that. All rights, every single one of them, can be forfeited and/or taken away.
I mentioned a very specific freedom. Due process. It is a founding principal of our nation and is a part of the Constitution the same as the basic tenants of copyrights. You won't find me ever claiming that piracy is a right, in fact it is the exact opposite (try a search for copyright threads that I have taken part in over the past). I may not agree with the tactics used to stop infringers or the scope to which they try and apply their powers but that is in no way me claiming piracy is ok. The freedoms I have been very specific in talking about are the ones that apply to the legitimate businesses that are in being put in danger in order to help increase the entertainment industry's profits.

Anyway, to get back on topic, don't these "legitimate sites" have a responsibility to make sure they and their website aren't breaking the law? In other words, shouldn't Megaupload have done everything in their power to ensure there was no copyright infringement happening on their site? I mean they own and operate it, aren't they responsible? And shouldn't the wronged have a faster way to put an end to their illegal activity, since every second counts and adds more money into the "loss" column?

Many of the sites you listed were built on copyright infringement, their "legitimate" use is a tiny fraction of their business. So honestly I could care less if they get shut down. A legitimately run replacement site will emerge to fill the need (if there is one) after their demise.

You believe that Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc are built on copyright infringement and have only a fraction of legitimate business? Again, you are twisting the argument into this somehow being about protecting Megaupload, Pirate Bay, Limewire, the original Napster, etc. This isn't and never has been about keeping laws off the books in order to keep them in business. It is about protecting the legitimate businesses that would become collateral damage in the effort to stop the infringers. There methods are already in place as shown by the federal takedown of Megaupload or the recent sentencing of the owners and contributors of NinjaVideo.net.

No I don't leave my front door unlocked, but I also don't shoot my neighbor just in case he might break into my home.

If you came home and someone was burglarizing your house, would you shoot them in the act? That is more accurate, as Megaupload was shut down in the act of sharing copyrighted information. I don't like the language of SOPA, it needs to be re-written, but that's all they are gearing at. Being able to shut them down faster, and while I don't approve of the current bill, I do support legislation to enable the government to act faster against criminals.

This type of legislation isn't shooting the intruder. These bills don't do much at all that helps the copyright holders or government to directly go after infringing sites. These bills are targeted at legitimate businesses, they shoot the neighbor because he didn't do enough to stop your house from being robbed.
Image

Bury me a Royal.
Tavish
Mod in Retirement
Mod in Retirement

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeCafe SpotterWeb Supporter
Posts: 11070
(Past Year: 26)
Joined: 3 May 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball

Re: Internet Censorship Bill

Postby John Kramer » Mon Jan 23, 2012 12:19 pm

Tavish wrote:It always depends on what furthering the laws will affect. Just about every law could be expanded to help enforcement but simply are not.


I agree. I am simply stating that new laws need to be made. The internet wasn't a fathomable idea when laws/rights/etc, were written up, and new laws need to be made to combat the dark side of the internet and protect IP.

You believe that Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc are built on copyright infringement and have only a fraction of legitimate business? Again, you are twisting the argument into this somehow being about protecting Megaupload, Pirate Bay, Limewire, the original Napster, etc. This isn't and never has been about keeping laws off the books in order to keep them in business. It is about protecting the legitimate businesses that would become collateral damage in the effort to stop the infringers. There methods are already in place as shown by the federal takedown of Megaupload or the recent sentencing of the owners and contributors of NinjaVideo.net.


You listed the following: Facebook, Youtube, Twitter, Google, Tumblr, and Flicker. Half of those (3 of the 6 - Youtube, Tumblr, Flicker) run because of copyright infringement. How much of Youtube are original works where the copyright is owned by the uploader? Less than half, and by a longshot. Same for Tumblr and Flicker. So yeah, those companies could easily go by the wayside since they don't bother to protect IP. Youtube tries, I'll give them that, but they still do a very poor job of it.

It took far too long for the government to act against Megaupload. The number of barriers and obstacles that prevent quick ends to illegal activity need to be reduced. Not entirely and not granting uncontrolled power to the government (which is why I oppose the current language of the bill), but things do need to happen faster. It shouldn't take years to take down a known piracy site.

This type of legislation isn't shooting the intruder. These bills don't do much at all that helps the copyright holders or government to directly go after infringing sites. These bills are targeted at legitimate businesses, they shoot the neighbor because he didn't do enough to stop your house from being robbed.


I have to disagree here. The bill clearly allows the government to go after the infringing sites, which does help the copyright holders. I see your side, I really do, which is why I don't support the current bill. There needs to be some oversight and some proof needs to be submitted before the government can just go after a site, but that isn't how the bill is written. However, at present, there are far too many barriers preventing the law from doing its job to protect copyright holders. Taking years to shut down Megaupload proves that the process needs to be streamlined in order to be more efficient.
I want to play a game. The rules are simple. All you have to do is sit here and talk to me. Listen to me. We haven't been properly introduced. My name is John.

Live or die. Make your choice.
John Kramer
Softball Supervisor
Softball Supervisor

User avatar

Posts: 56
Joined: 14 Oct 2011
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: I am everywhere.

Re: Internet Censorship Bill

Postby The Artful Dodger » Mon Jan 23, 2012 2:00 pm

John Kramer wrote:Took years to shut down Megaupload. The laws are antiquated and need to be updated. And yes, the people will grow tired of the fight and laws will be passed regardless of if they like them or not.


It's difficult to indict a foreign-based site swiftly, especially in countries that don't hold similar protections to copyright as the US does. Megaupload was based in China, IIRC.

Also, it's a farce if big-money, fear mongering lobbyists such as the MPAA eventually have their way in the interest of protecting their bottom lines at the expense of the greater good. The MPAA don't just want infringing sites indicted but also those businesses indirectly involved with them if they don't comply in what is in their view, a timely manner.

How bad it is doesn't really matter. I personally have no clue exactly how much the entertainment industry loses to piracy and I don't care. The fact is that copyright infringement runs rampant on the internet and the laws need to be updated to combat that illegal action.


No doubt copyright infringement is illegal, but like I said before, the entertainment industry exaggerates how much they lose in profit margins to piracy when they're probably overlooking that the causes of said losses are attributed to causes within their control. The entertainment industry then reacts with a sweeping offensive to implicate those sites who have little to do with the infringing sites.

You listed the following: Facebook, Youtube, Twitter, Google, Tumblr, and Flicker. Half of those (3 of the 6 - Youtube, Tumblr, Flicker) run because of copyright infringement. How much of Youtube are original works where the copyright is owned by the uploader? Less than half, and by a longshot. Same for Tumblr and Flicker. So yeah, those companies could easily go by the wayside since they don't bother to protect IP. Youtube tries, I'll give them that, but they still do a very poor job of it.


Except that Youtube, Tumblr, and Flickr is full of user-generated content that 1) either the uploader owns the full copyright to or 2) has fair use of copyrighted content in such a way that the content is transformative and original (i.e. 300 This is Sparta music video mashup). An overzealous anti-piracy bill would likely implicate owners of UGC who have fair use to use copyrighted content, on a shoot first, think later basis.

It's also worth noting that Youtube is a fine example of the entertainment industry seeing the value in video sharing. The likes of CBS wanted to sue Youtube for copyright infringement, but currently have their short-form content hosted on Youtube and make decent ad revenues off the site.
Image

It's kinda like the Old Cafe - http://fbc2.freeforums.net
The Artful Dodger
Chief Wikitect
Chief Wikitect

User avatar
CafeholicResponse TeamFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyePick 3 Weekly WinnerMatchup Meltdown SurvivorLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 21946
(Past Year: 674)
Joined: 3 Feb 2006
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Downloading rice

Re: Internet Censorship Bill

Postby Tavish » Mon Jan 23, 2012 2:10 pm

John Kramer wrote:
You believe that Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc are built on copyright infringement and have only a fraction of legitimate business? Again, you are twisting the argument into this somehow being about protecting Megaupload, Pirate Bay, Limewire, the original Napster, etc. This isn't and never has been about keeping laws off the books in order to keep them in business. It is about protecting the legitimate businesses that would become collateral damage in the effort to stop the infringers. There methods are already in place as shown by the federal takedown of Megaupload or the recent sentencing of the owners and contributors of NinjaVideo.net.


You listed the following: Facebook, Youtube, Twitter, Google, Tumblr, and Flicker. Half of those (3 of the 6 - Youtube, Tumblr, Flicker) run because of copyright infringement. How much of Youtube are original works where the copyright is owned by the uploader? Less than half, and by a longshot. Same for Tumblr and Flicker. So yeah, those companies could easily go by the wayside since they don't bother to protect IP. Youtube tries, I'll give them that, but they still do a very poor job of it.

To say that those three run because of copyright infringement is making an extremely big leap in logic. Strictly dealing with YouTube, how many of the non-original videos are actual copyright infringement? Non-original does not automatically make it illegal. Not owning the copyright does not automatically make it illegal. For videos that are violating copyrights the content owners have options to remedy the violation immediately whether it be to remove the video completely or to allow it to remain and make money off ads ran every time it is viewed.
Any site that relies on user generated content has the potential for abuse (or any system that relies on a good faith type approach in general whether it be uploading content or making an insurance claim or seeing a psychiatrist or on and on). Simply because a system can be, has been, and will be abused doesn't mean the system needs to be shut down.

There needs to be some oversight and some proof needs to be submitted before the government can just go after a site, but that isn't how the bill is written.
So in other words you think that there needs to be due process granted to the sites being accused? I'm tickled.
Image

Bury me a Royal.
Tavish
Mod in Retirement
Mod in Retirement

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeCafe SpotterWeb Supporter
Posts: 11070
(Past Year: 26)
Joined: 3 May 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball

Re: Internet Censorship Bill

Postby John Kramer » Mon Jan 23, 2012 4:20 pm

The Artful Dodger wrote:It's difficult to indict a foreign-based site swiftly, especially in countries that don't hold similar protections to copyright as the US does. Megaupload was based in China, IIRC.

Also, it's a farce if big-money, fear mongering lobbyists such as the MPAA eventually have their way in the interest of protecting their bottom lines at the expense of the greater good. The MPAA don't just want infringing sites indicted but also those businesses indirectly involved with them if they don't comply in what is in their view, a timely manner.


I'm aware that Megaupload wasn't U.S. based, but there have been no problems shutting down or shutting out places like Neteller and poker sites, which are fully legal sites, so why it took so long to take down a site with so much illegal content is disturbing.

Sure the MPAA wants to take it too far, so I would oppose putting them in charge.

No doubt copyright infringement is illegal, but like I said before, the entertainment industry exaggerates how much they lose in profit margins to piracy when they're probably overlooking that the causes of said losses are attributed to causes within their control. The entertainment industry then reacts with a sweeping offensive to implicate those sites who have little to do with the infringing sites.


Doesn't matter if it is one cent, illegal is illegal.

Except that Youtube, Tumblr, and Flickr is full of user-generated content that 1) either the uploader owns the full copyright to or 2) has fair use of copyrighted content in such a way that the content is transformative and original (i.e. 300 This is Sparta music video mashup). An overzealous anti-piracy bill would likely implicate owners of UGC who have fair use to use copyrighted content, on a shoot first, think later basis.

It's also worth noting that Youtube is a fine example of the entertainment industry seeing the value in video sharing. The likes of CBS wanted to sue Youtube for copyright infringement, but currently have their short-form content hosted on Youtube and make decent ad revenues off the site.


Full? I disagree there. Youtube has made strides to improve the ratio of legal vs. illegal and are succeeding in that regard, so I'll give them that, but they've still got a long way to go before the majority of what's on there is copyright law complaint.

Tavish wrote:To say that those three run because of copyright infringement is making an extremely big leap in logic. Strictly dealing with YouTube, how many of the non-original videos are actual copyright infringement? Non-original does not automatically make it illegal. Not owning the copyright does not automatically make it illegal. For videos that are violating copyrights the content owners have options to remedy the violation immediately whether it be to remove the video completely or to allow it to remain and make money off ads ran every time it is viewed.
Any site that relies on user generated content has the potential for abuse (or any system that relies on a good faith type approach in general whether it be uploading content or making an insurance claim or seeing a psychiatrist or on and on). Simply because a system can be, has been, and will be abused doesn't mean the system needs to be shut down.


Different viewpoint I guess, since I would say it's an equally big leap in logic to say Youtube is where it is without copyright infringement.

Yes, Youtube is working to remove illegal stuff faster, but their system is still broken. They don't have enough employees to verify everything that comes in, which is their fault. It isn't hard to hire some additional people to watch videos all day.

Standards need to be in place to avoid sites being shut down. Increase the punishments and swiftness of enforcing copyright law, and websites will have no choice but to monitor their sites accordingly in order to not get shut down.

So in other words you think that there needs to be due process granted to the sites being accused? I'm tickled.


Of course. If I didn't agree with some sort of "due process" (since you love that phrase), then I'd support SOPA in its current form, and I've said many times that I don't support it in its current form. However, a similar bill with the proper structure would have my full support.
I want to play a game. The rules are simple. All you have to do is sit here and talk to me. Listen to me. We haven't been properly introduced. My name is John.

Live or die. Make your choice.
John Kramer
Softball Supervisor
Softball Supervisor

User avatar

Posts: 56
Joined: 14 Oct 2011
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: I am everywhere.

Re: Internet Censorship Bill

Postby The Artful Dodger » Mon Jan 23, 2012 4:55 pm

John Kramer wrote:Full? I disagree there. Youtube has made strides to improve the ratio of legal vs. illegal and are succeeding in that regard, so I'll give them that, but they've still got a long way to go before the majority of what's on there is copyright law complaint.


Yes, full of original and/or fair use content. It's fathomable that YouTube stores billions of videos, a significant portion of which constitutes fair use and/or had consent of the content owner to be hosted there.

Yes, Youtube is working to remove illegal stuff faster, but their system is still broken. They don't have enough employees to verify everything that comes in, which is their fault. It isn't hard to hire some additional people to watch videos all day.


YouTube has sophisticated digital fingerprinting technology to ensure copyrighted content without the owner's consent is taken down in no more than a few days. They likely have human editors on call to respond to DMCA takedown requests by the instant as well. There are ways to work around the fingerprinting during the uploading process, like mirroring the videos, but eventually, the mirrored videos get taken down as well. Also, years ago, you could find movies segmented in 10-15 minute parts, but those are becoming less commonplace.

Having worked in a viral video startup that competed against YouTube head on, it takes extensive, often times exhausting time to who owns the copyrights, where it was copyrighted, and so on. It becomes more difficult when the content library grows rapidly and meet resources to scale. YouTube's system surely is far from broken.
Image

It's kinda like the Old Cafe - http://fbc2.freeforums.net
The Artful Dodger
Chief Wikitect
Chief Wikitect

User avatar
CafeholicResponse TeamFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyePick 3 Weekly WinnerMatchup Meltdown SurvivorLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 21946
(Past Year: 674)
Joined: 3 Feb 2006
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Downloading rice

Re: Internet Censorship Bill

Postby Tavish » Mon Jan 23, 2012 5:28 pm

John Kramer wrote:Different viewpoint I guess, since I would say it's an equally big leap in logic to say Youtube is where it is without copyright infringement.

Yes, Youtube is working to remove illegal stuff faster, but their system is still broken. They don't have enough employees to verify everything that comes in, which is their fault. It isn't hard to hire some additional people to watch videos all day.

Standards need to be in place to avoid sites being shut down. Increase the punishments and swiftness of enforcing copyright law, and websites will have no choice but to monitor their sites accordingly in order to not get shut down.

It isn't their fault that every video isn't verified. It is how they have to operate to remain in compliance of the law. If they were to be forced to verify every video that was uploaded (the last count I saw was something in the neighborhood of 60 HRs of video being uploaded every minute), the company would be out of business not to mention it would put every ISP out of business if they had to verify every piece of data that was being used in their service (which would mean basically every website in existence would be out of business). The DMCA had the safe habor protection in place for a very good reason.
Image

Bury me a Royal.
Tavish
Mod in Retirement
Mod in Retirement

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeCafe SpotterWeb Supporter
Posts: 11070
(Past Year: 26)
Joined: 3 May 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball

Re: Internet Censorship Bill

Postby John Kramer » Mon Jan 23, 2012 5:53 pm

The Artful Dodger wrote:Yes, full of original and/or fair use content. It's fathomable that YouTube stores billions of videos, a significant portion of which constitutes fair use and/or had consent of the content owner to be hosted there.


Guess it depends on your definition of "significant" and what you believe them to actually have. I'd venture a guess we're quite far apart on both.

YouTube has sophisticated digital fingerprinting technology to ensure copyrighted content without the owner's consent is taken down in no more than a few days. They likely have human editors on call to respond to DMCA takedown requests by the instant as well. There are ways to work around the fingerprinting during the uploading process, like mirroring the videos, but eventually, the mirrored videos get taken down as well. Also, years ago, you could find movies segmented in 10-15 minute parts, but those are becoming less commonplace.

Having worked in a viral video startup that competed against YouTube head on, it takes extensive, often times exhausting time to who owns the copyrights, where it was copyrighted, and so on. It becomes more difficult when the content library grows rapidly and meet resources to scale. YouTube's system surely is far from broken.


As I said, they are improving, but they've still got a long way to go.

Tavish wrote:It isn't their fault that every video isn't verified. It is how they have to operate to remain in compliance of the law. If they were to be forced to verify every video that was uploaded (the last count I saw was something in the neighborhood of 60 HRs of video being uploaded every minute), the company would be out of business not to mention it would put every ISP out of business if they had to verify every piece of data that was being used in their service (which would mean basically every website in existence would be out of business). The DMCA had the safe habor protection in place for a very good reason.


It is certainly their fault they've got copyrighted content on their site. They own it, they operate it, and they control every single aspect of their site. Here we go with the "blame someone else game", yet again. Absolutely ridiculous.

No, Youtube wouldn't be out of business, they just wouldn't have grown as fast and they'd have had to find a way to be profitable from the very beginning.
I want to play a game. The rules are simple. All you have to do is sit here and talk to me. Listen to me. We haven't been properly introduced. My name is John.

Live or die. Make your choice.
John Kramer
Softball Supervisor
Softball Supervisor

User avatar

Posts: 56
Joined: 14 Oct 2011
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: I am everywhere.

PreviousNext

Return to General Talk

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: assiquate, Laicekl and 6 guests

Forums Articles & Tips Sleepers Rankings Leagues


Today's Games
Wednesday, Oct. 1
(All times are EST, weather icons show forecast for game time)

San Francisco at Pittsburgh
(8:07 pm)

  • Fantasy Baseball
  • Article Submissions
  • Privacy Statement
  • Site Survey 
  • Contact