Anti Piracy Measure

[Ron Attwood 3,465]

Start with just one brick and then put just one more brick on top of it. Pretty soon you have a wall. At the end of the day, governments, of any hue, don't want you to have freedom.

2c

[RedSpinnaker 35]

i'm content to give up my right to visit child porn sites, if that would save even one child from abuse - and it would save many.

 

And when the government asks you to give up your right to view CNN.com or nytimes.com because they don't agree with it's content, what then? Or how about AVSIM.net because the government is afraid that all this aviation knowledge is dangerous in the hands of people who wish to do harm?

 

You deal with these issues via enforcement, not censorship or limiting access. Very slippery slope, one that is entirely irrelevant (such as you trying to link SOPA/PIPA to child porn).

 

If someone can't see the larger, over-arching privacy issue, regardless of ethics or morality, then I truly pity them.

 

How about next time you go to buy an FSX addon you need to show ID, a pilot's licence, and submit to a background check to show you're not going to use it to practice flying into a building? Or next time you want to go buy a video game, show ID, submit to a background check and psychological evaluation so you won't use it the same way Anders Breivik did?

[out 769]

you obviously have no clue what you're talking about

Anyone with half a brain can see both how ineffective this type of censorship is

 

Can't discussions be had without insults?

[MrBenevolent 0]

Regardless of the legal and moral debate over media piracy and file sharing, this UK ruling sets a dangerous precedent.

 

The Pirate Bay does not host or distribute material - it is a search engine in the same way that google is a search engine. Its existence breaks no criminal or civil laws and this ruling was carried out on the recommendation of the British Phonographic Society with no option for legal recourse or due process for those representing the site.

 

The principles of this ruling could be applied on the same basis to Google, YouTube or any number of other legitimate websites that index copyrighted material without direct permission from the holder of that copyright.

 

The fact that the British High court can and will unilaterally introduce new edicts such as this one based on the lobbying of large corporations without any real consideration of the law is something we should all be worried by.

 

 

...and of course, from a technical perspective, such blocks are ultimately ineffectual - to quote Serenity "You can't stop the signal..."

[RedSpinnaker 35]

Can't discussions be had without insults?

 

If you insist, since it's offends you, I'd edited my post. Happy?

[MrBenevolent 0]

If the government blocked me from connecting to AVSIM, I would either cry or go mad or maybe even go to the streets (which I usually never do).

If they block some stinking thief portals, I couldn't care less.

 

It is a matter of degrees. The fact that the UK high court can block a 'stinking thief portal" at the behest of a large corporation without any firm legal backing brings them one step closer to blocking something you do care about.

 

It is not what they are hitting, but the tools they are using to hit it with that should be causing concern.

[out 769]

since it's offends you, I'd edited my post. Happy?

 

I don't really think one post edition in a simulation forum will make me happy, but it is appreciated and thank you for your action.

I believe it is a sign of respect to people thinking different when we don't fuel our own arguments calling the others half-brainers and unaware what they are talking about.

So thanks again and I hope this level of this discussion will remain high.

[Reason 20]

Developers/artists support their wives and children and perhaps their parents as well, they're working men, just like some (many?) of us.

 

Pirates steal their intellectual properties. It doesn't take a Harvard graduate to comprehend this simple logic. Keep your "smart" arguments but the truth is as clear as daylight. Thieves are thieves, and yes "Robin Hood" is a thief, no doubt, whatever the reason is.

 

However, TPB can also be a good ad, at least that's what Coelho thinks. He supports TPB and offers himself to make a speech supporting TPB. In this very rare case, one's not considered stealing when s/he gets permission to use the products for free from the author. Coelho is a famous author, of course, by famous means a huge number of people do buy his books

 

 

Regards

[mgh 89]

It is a matter of degrees. The fact that the UK high court can block a 'stinking thief portal" at the behest of a large corporation without any firm legal backing brings them one step closer to blocking something you do care about.

 

Let's introduce some reality.

 

The BPI (the UK record industry body) asked TPB in July 2011 to remove infringing material. TPB ignored that.

 

BPI went to court in December 2011 to seek on order requiring ISPs to block access. The ISP's opposed this.

 

In January 2012 he judge initially ruled that TPB “actively encourages it [copyright infringement] it and treat any attempts to prevent it (judicial or otherwise) with contempt.” Note those words because Google, YouTube, AVSIM etc don't actively encourage copyright infringement.

 

Last month the court granted the order.

 

UK ISP's opposed making the order and TPB could have opposed it too but didn't.

 

What more "legal backing" is required?

[ZachLW 37]

I won't defend Pirate Bay. I have much more valuable ideas to fight for in case I believe they are in danger.

 

Please don't insinuate that anyone is defending TPB. The valuable ideas worth fighting for are mentioned in every post if mine before yours. Read them some time :P

 

 

Let's introduce some reality.

 

The BPI (the UK record industry body) asked TPB in July 2011 to remove infringing material. TPB ignored that.

 

BPI went to court in December 2011 to seek on order requiring ISPs to block access. The ISP's opposed this.

 

In January 2012 he judge initially ruled that TPB “actively encourages it [copyright infringement] it and treat any attempts to prevent it (judicial or otherwise) with contempt.” Note those words because Google, YouTube, AVSIM etc don't actively encourage copyright infringement.

 

Last month the court granted the order.

 

UK ISP's opposed making the order and TPB could have opposed it too but didn't.

 

What more "legal backing" is required?

 

But censorship instead of enforcement? Seems like a bad trend to start...

[Kosta 122]

I agree with Zach. It's like with many other things out there. First start in small steps, like censorship and monitoring, and what is stop them taking bigger steps, especially with something legal or what you like. Let's say they start blocking political sites for the crowd control? How do you feel about that?

[Ben Cap 89]

Let's say they start blocking political sites for the crowd control?

 

This is exactly my mentality.

[VeryBumpy 272]

Tricky subject for sure. Society has to have laws or the world would be complete chaos. It's VERY important how we handle, manage and control the internet since it is and will be the hub of everything from now on.

[Cessnaflyer 56]

I support TPB and use them regularly to save copies of tv programming I couldn't save otherwise. I've also used them as well for doing large file transfers for school projects. I hope it never gets blocked in the US but if it does there are always proxies around it.

[VeryBumpy 272]

Megaupload is a good example. I'm sure there were lots of pirated things there but there were also TONS of files that were legally shared. I used that site often to get textures, mods and other game or program related files. Instead of properly taking out the bad they just shut off the whole site.