UN: Disconnecting File-Sharers Breaches Human Rights
 

While I agree that the laws and regulations being put into place supposedly to fight filesharers are in fact intended to silence political opposition and protect large corporations from competition by startups etc, this whole Human Rights thing is BS.

the un really needs to get a life.

yeah how dare they care about such useless concepts as freedom of opinion and expression, it not like we need free speech

oh wait a second

they just talk about using that to fuck human rights

I say we should send all the filesharers HOME! With a GIANT CATAPULT!

when a man gobbles peckers for a living... he is a homosexual prostitute

you are a surfer, plain and simple. go hang out on torrent freak and leave us alone.

web access is not a right man, like driving car. when you go to jail, eventually, you will learn that.

Since when is theft a right?

As per normal Gideon is only posting the part of the story that suits his narrative.

Here is something from later in the story: ?This also includes legislation based on the concept of ?graduated response?, which imposes a series of penalties on copyright infringers that could lead to suspension of Internet service, such as the so-called ?three-strikes-law? in France and the Digital Economy Act 2010 of the United Kingdom,? notes the report.:"

So if passed it would be like a three strikes you are out law. So this doesn't mean some dude accidentally downloads one song or something and gets his internet connection taken away, he would have to have been guilty of copyright infringement multiple times.

This is no different than many laws. If you get a DUI, you lose your licenses. If you commit a robbery, you go to jail and when you get out of jail it is illegal for you to own a gun. If you are going to consistently use the internet as a tool to commit a crime, you are going to lose access to that tool.

what exactly about do you not understand
it doesn't matter if it 1 strike, 3 strikes or 10,000 strikes

the point is that because your action take away a medium of communication it violates the international covenant on civil and political rights and is therefore a human rights violation

your licience to drive a car is not nor will it ever be a medium of communication

your right to a weapon is not a medium of communication

they are completely different in this context.

no web in prison. try again.

btw you might want to read your own quote when trying to make an arguement

the UN already took ?graduated response? of the 3 strikes law into account when they condemed the action

and they take away your right after you get paroled or serve your sentence

oh wait.

acutally depending on your crime they might. If you are a felon you can't own a gun or vote. There have been a few different people who were found guilty of putting up obscene material online and as part of their probation they were not allowed to have access to the internet.

What kind of idiot thinks Internet access is a human right?

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.

Correct. The way I understand it, they read the three strikes law, didn't agree with and didn't want it to be in existence. But the way it sounds to me you have to commit this crime three different times before you lose your access.

You are always saying that you are against copyright violation and you don't commit copyright violation so what is the big deal? If a person has a legitimate and legal reason to be downloading something they have nothing to worry about. Only those who break the law consistently need worry.

I just wanted to say I really like the gif in your sig. :thumbsup

lol thanks. A friend of mine sent it to me.

The gif or the girl? If the gif, isn't that file sharing? :upsidedow

Fuck the UN. The majority of the countries are just like you, wanting something for free.

People have a right to the fruits of other people's labor.

~Karl Marx

I'm not impressed with these rationalizations in attempting to gain approval of piracy.

sadly he just sent me the gif. . . I guess that might be filesharing. Two more strikes and I lose my internet :)

But disconnecting electricity when people don't pay is not a human rights issue,
because file sharing computers run on batteries?

Yeah, I think I understand it now.

LOL!

That all he does here. Quoting the "good" news (propaganda) from torrentfreak, so he can spend hours trolling here. The rest of the articles, the 90% "bad" news, he skip posting here (like "Canadian fileshare admins face jailtime" etc.).

It's all about trolling here, nothing else.

:thumbsup :1orglaugh

and they got convicted of that crime with nothing more than a complaint to a government agency based only on the ip address info


your right it exactly the same


oh wait.

two things those stories are not done yet

that stories about people STARTING the process of trial (i post about when the conviction actually happens-- usually to bitch about how they screwed up and it won't survive appeal :winkwink::winkwink:)


other people already posted those "bad news" articles already so my comments in THEIR threads are enough i don't need to start a competing thread just to split off their views.

my point is that if communication IS basic human right then those are being served with a pencil and paper not web. use black ink though and that will get you in trouble :1orglaugh

because the three strikes law doesn't require a full trial with full access to free public defenders so you can defend yourself when the copyright holder misrepresents fair use as an infringement

the 3 strike law doesn't have a balancing penalty when the copyright holder misrepresents fair use as a copyright infringement.


if a false complaint (3 strikes and you lose the right to every register another copyright again) was in place i would have no problem with the law.

a one side law which has no penalty for bad accusations means a lot of innocent people are going to get caught in the drag net.

so you would support the same penalty for false complaints of infringement

make 3 false 3 strikes complaints (either fair use or mistakenly licienced) and all your copyright are forever null and void.

Everything you ever produced is public domain from that point on



you might want to read your constitution then because both those rights are conditionally provided

try getting a polling booth to county a non US /NON registered voter vote counted

try getting someone 6 year olds vote counted.

the right of free speech is an absolute so great that UN human right treat defines it as a basic human right

there is a huge difference between rights granted by a country to it citizens CONDITIONALLY and those rights defined to basic rights every person should have unconditionally.



obviously there no way you can claim the copyright monopoly is a basic human right either.

Dead thread. :clown

Too many excuses and rationalizations. :throwup

I'd rather see suggestions how P2P and Cyber lockers could come around and work with content holders on a mutually profitable business model where both benefit. Oh, FSC has already provided such a model with the APAP.:2 cents:

i still dont understand why everyone keeps arguing with Gideon...

seriously your actually trying to claim that this

http://www.fscapap.com/tube.html

fair use squashing solution is good solution

your copyright monopoly was granted conditionally on you respecting fair use


this solution would only be good if there was a X strikes auto takedown penalty that revoked the copyright holders monopoly to all the content

because they don't realize i am right :winkwink::winkwink:

Please post proof of this. I read nothing in that article that those falling under the 3 strikes law did not get a fair trail.