UN: Disconnecting File-Sharers Breaches Human Rights - Page 3 - GoFuckYourself.com

kane · 06-05-2011, 06:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gideongallery

fine make it 3 strikes

would you support it then

the same excuse can be used for copyright infringement

should downloaders get a free pass on the criminal act of piracy because the copyright holders haven't funded pvr technology that can do a perfect job of duplicating the timeshifting ability of the torrents.

Yes. Yes. A million fucking times yes. I will agree to any terms you want if it will just get you to answer the fucking question.

If a person uses the internet to carry out a phishing scam and steal peoples ID's for the sake of then stealing money from them and they are caught and convicted would you support as part of their sentence them being banned form using the internet in the future because that is the tool that they used to carry out their crimes.

Can you just answer that one question?

J. Falcon · 06-05-2011, 07:02 PM

Can they call air strikes on file sharers?

Redrob · 06-05-2011, 07:23 PM

Thieves are trying to redefine the arguments and I doubt any will ever clearly admit to what you are asking because it will justify the three strikes arguments.

A thief by any other name is still a thief.

bronco67 · 06-05-2011, 08:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kane

Gideon likes to say that he is defending the rights of these sites to exist because there are some people who use them for legitimate reason. He has never said what an acceptable rate of criminal activity is. To me it is like saying, "Sure, it is a crack house and they sell a hell of a lot of crack to people, but they also sell gum and a few people in the area might buy a package of gum from them so we should let it stay open because of that."

He claims to be against piracy yet seems to champion anything that makes combating piracy more difficult.

he also doesn't have a clear understanding of what constitutes "fair use" although he throws the term around constantly.

gideongallery · 06-05-2011, 09:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kane

Yes. Yes. A million fucking times yes. I will agree to any terms you want if it will just get you to answer the fucking question.

If a person uses the internet to carry out a phishing scam and steal peoples ID's for the sake of then stealing money from them and they are caught and convicted would you support as part of their sentence them being banned form using the internet in the future because that is the tool that they used to carry out their crimes.

Can you just answer that one question?

no

because there are some many other things you could do to prevent the abuse without taking away the free speach rights

you could monitor every transaction instead it might cost him some privacy rights

but in the trade off that a hell of a lot better a complete blockade.

if he doesn't like it he could voluntarily blacklist yourself, but at least the free speach choice would be yours.

kane · 06-05-2011, 10:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gideongallery

no

because there are some many other things you could do to prevent the abuse without taking away the free speach rights

you could monitor every transaction instead it might cost him some privacy rights

but in the trade off that a hell of a lot better a complete blockade.

if he doesn't like it he could voluntarily blacklist yourself, but at least the free speach choice would be yours.

Thank you.

I'll let your answer speak for itself.

gideongallery · 06-08-2011, 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kane

My car can be a medium and/or a form of communication. I can paint a message on it and drive around thus broadcasting my ideas. I can use it to deliver information or take me to a place where I can deliver communication. If I drive my car to a rally where I then speak in front of a crowd my car is no different than the internet, they are both tools used to to help me carry out my communication.

The right to bare arms is in the US constitution as is the right to vote, yet if you commit a felony both of those are stripped from you.

From my point of view having internet access is not a basic human right, it is a privilege.

ok one more time so you can see the difference

1. if you paint a message on the car, you don't need to drive it to have people see, that EXACT message get delivered whether you push it down the street or drive in it

2. deliver a EXACT message you can still do that by walking,

3. same is going to a location, that EXACT location can be gotten too by walking, taking the bus, getting a ride from a friend

however if your internet is cut off, and no other isp is allowed to let you on (3 strikes laws) then there are hundreds of locations you can't ever go to (online only boards) there are 100s of messages you can NEVER deliver

it doesn't matter that you have free speech substitutes, that EXACT message is being censored.

06-05-2011, 07:02 PM	#102
J. Falcon www.AdultCopywriters.com Industry Role: Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 31,570	Can they call air strikes on file sharers? __________________ Adult Copywriters SEO Content for Porn Sites sales at adultcopywriters dot com

06-05-2011, 07:23 PM	#103
Redrob Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: In a refrigerator box by the tracks. Posts: 4,790	Thieves are trying to redefine the arguments and I doubt any will ever clearly admit to what you are asking because it will justify the three strikes arguments. A thief by any other name is still a thief. Last edited by Redrob; 06-05-2011 at 07:24 PM..