Quote:
Originally Posted by harvey
so you mean I wouldn't be able to grab my laptop and use wi-fi to secure my "human rights"? or go to an Internet cafe? Are you a thief or a retard? or a retarded thief?  |
did you even read the law, as it is written an open wifi that allows a person suspended access would/could be fined if a COPYRIGHT HOLDER complained.
the law would be useless without such a restriction
hell i could for 35 bucks register a business and signup for internet under the buiness name after i got banned.
rince and repeat forever and the law would be useless.
Quote:
and as we're at it, I never saw in the Declaration of Human Rights the "right to have Internet". But take a look at what rights REALLY exists:
|
19. Everyone has the right to say what they think and to give and receive information.
30. No one has the right to take away any of the rights in this declaration.
interesting how you completely ignored these two to come to no right to internet
so tell me how exactly would you respond to this post if your internet is completely taken away.
Quote:
|
oh my.... nothing about having internet in your home, yet quite a bunch said about the right to WORK, be PAID for your WORK, have RIGHTS to YOUR WORK, have the RIGHT to a LIVING without thieves stealing you.
|
none of the rights you quoted justify protecting the copyright monopoly
Quote:
|
17. Everyone has the right to own property and possessions.
|
copyright law takes away property rights and replaces them with licience rights
Quote:
23. Everyone has the right to work for a fair wage in a safe environment and to join a trade union.
25. Everyone has the right to an adequate standard of living
28. Everyone must respect the 'social order' that is necessary for all these rights to be available.
29. Everyone must respect the rights of others, the community and public property.
30. No one has the right to take away any of the rights in this declaration
|
.
you might want to ask red hat and any other open source developer how much money they make
copyright is not a protected human right
it not really covered by the rights you specified without an insane amount of stretching
and before you twist that statement to say i am anti copyright
just because it not a human right doesn't make it not a right at all
human rights should supercede other rights, sue them ,take their house, but don't totally blacklist them from a medium of communication.
Quote:
And don't come trying to pose as a freedom hero. I'm all for freedom of speech up to the last consequences. Now tell me how distributing other people's work and killing their income while taking profits off that is "freedom of speech" when even the most retarded HONEST (pay attention to the word) person can tell it's just thievery and piracy.
|
can you show me one single post i have ever made that defends that
i am talking about taking content you already paid for (timeshifting/backup/recovery/format shifting) using the new technology
when i talk about access shifting i am talking about income the copyright holder choose to cede by rejecting a medium completely.
none of those things deny a copyright holder any income they are actually entitled too.
honest people don't make up false arguements to justify their bogus position.
Quote:
Anyway, you freedom hero, nice to see where you stand up: protect thieves and kill ALL real human rights 
|
1. you completely misrepresenting the level of free speech that being censored by making up an access that doesn't exist
2. you ignored the right # 19
3 if every bit of your content was public domain, all your human rights would still exist because nothing would stop you from selling that content too.
4 your stretching the definition of those right to an insane level to try and pretend that they cover monopoly control of copyright.