But, the thing is, that's not the only example that has come to the fore in recent years and months. There's been SOPA, ACTA, CISPA and a variety of other pieces of legislation in different countries that seem to reflect a worrying trend - that being the control, filtering and censorship of the internet by the West. Now, as a collective, we've always been against the so-called 'Great Firewall of China' and the other forms of censoring that Eastern nations have used... yet now we seem to be employing them ourselves.
What are your views on such attempts to control the internet? Are they overt assassinations of citizens freedom or merely a tool to help save and protect the industries which are being brutally stolen from by pirates?
What are your views on such attempts to control the internet?
They are just more reasons for me to dislike the various governments doing this. Also it seems to me to just be more proof that large companies are controlling the government, none of these acts are for the benefit of the people.
Are they overt assassinations of citizens freedom or merely a tool to help save and protect the industries which are being brutally stolen from by pirates?
Definitely the first one. I'll agree that piracy is a problem, but it has been a problem for a long time. The solution to the problem is not taking away rights or freedom from a countries citizens. Honestly the best solution might be to do nothing, since in the past attempts to stop piracy has only led to increased piracy.
I can see why they're doing this, but it's a really, really fine line. At one hand, internet piracy is driving sales down of media (music, movies, etc,) but no one organization or government body owns the internet. The internet is often referred to as the cloud, because that's exactly what it is. Just this mass of information, we can't measure it, it's almost another universe imo.
Hmm... too lazy for a super detailed analysis. But, one thing:
It's "Internet." The Internet. Not internet. Internet is a proper noun in the context of the Internet. It's an important distinction, I think. The reason I bring it up is not grammatical: I don't care about grammar on the Internet. It's about people's thoughts, i.e. whether or not you think of the Internet as a proper noun.
To the issue at hand: to my understanding, thepiratebay is not a site that offers legitimate services that are abused, but rather a site that operates in blatant disregard of international law. So denying it traffic seems like a reasonable course of action. Much like denying trade to nations that violate international law.
people didn't take away the right to use ships because of pirates did they. I didn't think so.
But this is a special ship that can only be used for piracy. That's not quite true -- I've used it to download things I own or otherwise have the right to use. But for the most part, thepiratebay is for just that -- piracy. Piracy is, of course, morally and legally wrong. Yes, even if it's more convenient for you.
but rather a site that operates in blatant disregard of international law.
It doesn't though. All thepiratebay does is create peer-to-peer networks, which is totally legal. What the people on those networks do is not any concern of thepiratebay.
Piracy is, of course, morally and legally wrong.
In many cases its hard to say that its morally wrong. There are multiple forms of drm that make it so some games can't be legally purchased in some countries, making piracy morally right.
I do think that some things should be censored but censorship is just a imperial answer to people not being responsible and that goes for those using the net and creating things on it for the users. I mean kids sites should be fully kid friendly but they aren't commercials and ads can be inappropriate for children. There's also the fact that Facebook and Twitter try to stop people from posting inappropriate material but they only look into something if people complain. If they aren't complaining then there could be whole pages filled with things you don't want to stumble upon. It's a tough question and it can only be answered and controlled by individual people when they stop caring about others and only about themselves then thats when the freedom is slowly removed from them.
In many cases its hard to say that its morally wrong. There are multiple forms of drm that make it so some games can't be legally purchased in some countries, making piracy morally right.
"Stealing" things that can not be legally bought in your country is morally right? So logically, stealing marijuana is morally right, since it is illegal to buy in most countries?
I can see why they're doing this, but it's a really, really fine line. At one hand, internet piracy is driving sales down of media (music, movies, etc,) but no one organization or government body owns the internet. The internet is often referred to as the cloud, because that's exactly what it is. Just this mass of information, we can't measure it, it's almost another universe imo.
Could you please show me the statistics that link piracy with media sails being brought down? I would expect some correlation with the rise of the internet and media getting less money, that is mostly do to the fact that we are going into a rescission, and recessions include the media business. It would have to have lost an amazing amount for this to be shown.
"Stealing" things that can not be legally bought in your country is morally right? So logically, stealing marijuana is morally right, since it is illegal to buy in most countries?
Its not the same, its not that games are illegal, its that the games DRM is limited to certain countries. Basically its a game company denying people the game they made for no reason. Its like having a company that only sells to certain clients, even if others would buy your product.
Its not the same, its not that games are illegal, its that the games DRM is limited to certain countries. Basically its a game company denying people the game they made for no reason. Its like having a company that only sells to certain clients, even if others would buy your product.
So if you go into a bar, and order a drink, but the bartender refuses, it is then OK to steal a drink for yourself?
It is the companies game, isn't it their choice who they sell it to? It would be bad business to not sell to other countries, unless of course they would not make a profit. I am pretty sure they do what they do for a reason. Or they hate money, and if that is correct then you would be doing them a favor by stealing their drink.
@314d1 This isnt a discussion about game companies and how you view someones comment then pick it apart, this is a serious issue about internet freedom!
I want people to know that The Pirate Bay has actually got many more domain names and here are two:
http://tpb.pirateparty.org.uk/ and depiraatbaai.be.nyud.net/
Here is where I find out how much AG appreciates freedom of speech.
I'm not quite sure that you can justify likening this to countries like China... and here is my reasoning behind that. You can't just equate censorship to censorship. China supposedly censors those who speak out against China. Most of the legislation people are trying to put in place in the "western world" as you call it are to keep people from distributing products to millions of other people.
I'm pretty sure it's legal to pass a cd around from friend to friend, but it isn't legal to upload it to a site and then let hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people get free copies. It's more like peer to world at that point.
Reducing the significance of the products in question down to "but it's just information" undercuts the true meaning and value of what the product really is. I may be failing to give a proper explanation. I'm not that good with words. All squares are rectangles, but all rectangles are not squares. (
Could you please show me the statistics that link piracy with media sails being brought down?
I don't need stats to prove anything... it's common sense. There's a balance of supply and demand. The more demand for a particular album, or song, the more supplies need to be made. Of course now for music, there is iTunes, which gives an unlimited supply, but it's from the label directly and it still costs money. If there is another supply of the same thing but at a lower cost, (in this case, free,) most people are going to go to that other supplier. Of course, there are still people who buy the original (if there's an album I want and like, I get my lazy @$$ up to best buy and buy it.) I download music, I download tv shows, I download movies. I'm not saying not to do it. I'm just saying what the facts are, the facts that a 12 year old kid with downs could figure out. downloading copyrighted, for- profit material always generates lost revenue for the company.
don't know how that submitted... I didn't tell it to do so...
(I think that was right)... Simply reducing the phenomena down to the ambiguous term of everything's a rectangle does not tell you much about the actual product, especially since rectangles and squares can be significantly different. Just because you can reduce it down to a rectangle doesn't mean you can justify comparing it to the other entity and say rectangles = rectangles therefore we should treat them the same.
Appealing to Freedom of speech and freedom of expression as a justification for uploading something like music to a file sharing site is somewhat erroneous logic... at least according to what I know concepts to mean. You can seek and say anything that you want as long as it isn't slander/libel. I'm not sure it means you don't have to pay to own a product. A lot of these software contracts where we just skip to the "I agree" at the bottom say things like "you agree not to do ______ with this software." If it says that you're not allowed to upload to a cyber hub so that a million others may download it for free, then does your freedom of expression trump your contractual agreement?
Again, China's censorship is most often known for censoring anti-China sentiment so that something like Egypt's recent revolution won't happen there. Most of you may not think so, but there's a huge difference in saying you have to buy a product and saying you can't say "I hate the United States/China/England." You are free to seek information... and then buy it.
Plus, the First Amendment is not all encompassing. You can't say and do whatever you please whenever you please.
Lets imagine a playground where two people want to take their dogs and let them interact with the children there. One is a friendly chihuahua and the other is a a rather large pit bull that has been known to have been used in dog fights. The pb owner wonders why his dog isn't allowed to play with the children like the chihuahua is. Dogs are dogs, amirite? It's discrimination to say that one animal is allowed to do something that another isn't... right? WRONG. It is erroneous to justify what one dog can do based off of what another can do by simply equating them on the basis of them being dogs. You can't equate a dog to a dog in this instance, and you can't justify equating all of what these proposed legislations to China's policies by reducing both sides down to censorship. I don't agree with all of the laws that have been proposed recently, but I disagree with the notion of not paying for a product on the grounds of "it's just information."
What if these product sellers started selling the right to use individual dvds and software instead of the ownership of said products? It's a somewhat different notion. They own it, and they let you use it for a one time fee. It's still theirs, mind you. ...so, would you then still have the right to copy a product you don't own and give it to someone else on grounds of the first ammendment?
The tier of product most certainly comes out of the tier of information in this instance, but it is a tier above and I think it should be looked at differently than just being information.
There are questions regarding regional censorship that I don't have answers to right now, but I know most of that problem can be remedied by buying the product on ebay and having it shipped to you. (Unless you live in China!)
