(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({}); Here in the UK ISPs have been ordered to block ThePirateBay, and there are discussions on-going to introduce an opt-in scheme for accessing adult material i.e. pornography. Across the pond there was the whole SOPA fiasco, and bills like that seem to keep cropping up at the hands of the entertainment industry.

So NGU, how do you feel about this? Is it justified and responsible or is it a slippery slope towards censorship?

Opinions welcome.

As do we citizens have a right to be assumed innocent until proven guilty, something these corporations quite clearly want rid of.

So I'll ask you, between freedom and copyright in this instance, which do you think should win? Not to mention how integral freedom is to what's great about the internet. Take that away and it'd become as worthless as a point & click government-controlled ad-centre.

And as a side note, the publishers are as immoral as it gets. We need something like Kickstarter for getting money directly to artists.

---------- Post added at 09:08 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:03 AM ----------



No, it isn't. Not only are you a) working under the assumption that the downloaders would have bought the stuff had the free option not been available, which is often way off the mark but b) your definition of "stealing" is also way off. This is copying, and where the issue comes into play is copyright/trademark infringement. It isn't theft by definition. Heck, one could even argue the case that there's nothing immoral about it, because once you take the word "steal" and all of its negative connotations out of the field of play things become a lot more complex. I've argued this point before and I'd be happy to do so again.

In what way would you say you have been judged guilty?



You can't compare one wrongdoing to another and you cannot leave one unpunished simply because you consider it a 'lesser evil'. In the same instance, would you leave a man unpunished for stealing in order to convict someone for murder? Should he be allowed to walk free simply because it is not as bad as the other crime?

It was either SOPA or PIPA that had something along the lines of 3 accusations equals having your internet cut off. Accusations. And just for copyright. It's archaic.



If you get given the choice between the two as convicting both is unrealistic, then yes, the one who stole should be allowed to go free. It's about priorities.

Given how corrupt the government are and how freedom is at the very heart of the internet I'm of the opinion that absolutely any form of "filtering" is on a slippery slope to censorship. They block what copyright holders don't like and before long they'll be blocking political blogs and forums for having dissenting views. You're incredibly naive if you think the government can be trusted to monitor the internet responsibly.

I'm not sure I see where this is restricting freedom. If you were told, by your government (which you are), that you cannot visit a brothel - would you consider that a violation of your freedom of choice?

Actually, yes I would, or rather yes I do. As long as nobody is directly harmed by something then I don't typically see the point in outlawing it, prostitution is a fine example. As long as they chose that "career path" for themselves then fine.

Besides, this whole blocking TPB thing... it's like closing a public road because gangs or mobs or whoever use it a lot. It's nonsensical, solves nothing and is indeed on a slippery path to censorship. Heck, as far as I'm concerned, it already is censorship.

I think Jim summed it up really, its just another example of how capitalism is dominant over everything.

Slippery slope
I don't like it.......right now it who has the most money as to what the policy is.

Copyright issues are a business model problem not rules , times have changed content makers have not. Things like CP i can understand.

The definition of stealing: You must login or register to view this content.

You could say that by copying you are actually stealing because it is data in which is actually owned by the companies giving the right to use to the consumer who made a purchase of that item. By then copying such item, you are depriving the company of a sale or their legal property without their permission.

Theft: Heck, one could even argue the case that there's nothing immoral about it, because once you take the word "steal" and all of its negative connotations out of the field of play things become a lot more complex. I've argued this point before and I'd be happy to do so again.[/QUOTE]

Stealing, Larceny, Depriving they all have negative connotations, the subject itself is complex.

----------
I never assumed they would buy it if the option was gone, I simply stated the downloaders would be more willing to purchase rather than illegally download.

If you had the option of buying a pack of gum (10 count) for 10 bucks, you would likely say no. If you were then given the option to buy a pack of gum (10 count) for 10 cents, you would be more likely to say yes.

You see where I am going. There is a lot of software that I like to use but can't afford because the price is so high, 300 bucks for this, 100 for that and yet if they reduced the cost, I would be more apt to instead pay that 60 bucks and get the installation disk and actually own the software rather than having it illegally.

I know a ton of people who feel the same, especially about music. The cost of music is outrageous, if it was less, I know a lot of us would start buying the albums.

This isn't stealing as the original stays exactly where it is; This is where the complexity comes in. This is copyright/trademark infringement, intellectual properly infringement, whatever the correct term is, you know what I mean.

There are 4 types of pirates in my eyes.
1) These guys are the ones who actively sell the stuff they download on. This is both illegal and immoral without question however people who do this are rare, at least here in the UK.
2) People who would buy the music/whatever else as it is now but don't solely because they can download it for free. This is immoral.
3) People who wouldn't buy the stuff as it is now for the price and will pirate until a price-drop happens and/or simply can't afford it. If you truly (c/w)ouldn't have bought the item(s) in question, then there's nothing wrong with this at all.
4) The guys who find a moral problem with supporting the media industry in its current form, such as myself, and thus refuse to buy things from certain publishers.

I fit into both #3 & #4, and without a doubt me pirating hasn't got a negative effect on industry at all. The publishers still make a killing, and the artists still get whatever scraps the publishers choose to give them. On-top of that, my feedback is passed on to friends etc, so if something is good, it gets free recommendations to people who will buy it.