Here, let me make it very simple for you. I don't think having access to the internet is a basic human right. You do. We disagree.

Having internet access is no more a basic human right than having access to a cell phone or access to a car or a video camera or a roadside billboard. They are all forms of communication. You can use them to express yourself, but if you abuse them, then they can be taken away.

So which is it? You post one link to a story that says the law is dead that a that it has been declared unconstitutional. Now you are posting links that it is actually happening and they got hacked.

Which is it? Is this law happening and active or is torrentfreak trolling?

seriously very little of what your calling piracy is actual piracy

53% of all torrent traffic is TV shows

that timeshifting

all the bullshit complaints (no commercials / no sharing etc ) were the exact same complaints made against the betamax when it was establishing the right.

actually read the transcript of MPAA testimony to congress JV actually pointed out that his son made commercial free personal copies of the movies on cassette tapes.




fair use was also private
but the network effect has benefits

it total bullshit to argue that you should have a right to the benefits of the network effect
but my legal fair use (ie Timeshifting) should not.

i don't give a fuck about piracy, sue them into oblivion, take their house, garnish their wages forever

just leave my fair use rights alone

don't rehash the old arguements you already lost when the fair use was first established




i very much doubt it

like i said i am not defending piracy in any way shape or form
i am defending fair use

and in many cases the fair use rights that the courts have already given me over your old objections

repeating an objection your side already made and lost shouldn't win.

and that exactly what such a limit on personal freedoms would be

everyone losing their personal freedoms so that copyright holders can reverse the last lost fight is not going to happen

no politician can survive that issue no matter how much money the copyright lobbist give them.

Nice! I'll tell my ISP I won't pay for Internet access anymore and they can't do nothing! na-na-na-na-naaaah-naaah!

really name one law that takes away your right to have phone service from every carrier in a country


nothing, even your licience being taken way for drunk driving when you kill someone, is that abusive.

you can still ride with a friend, you can ask a friend to drive you around, you can take public transportation

the medium of transportation is not taken away completely.

idiot there is a huge difference between a cost of a service and a right to that service

you can slander someone with your free speech that has the cost of getting you sued.

they don't chop of your tongue so you can never speak again if you slander someone.

it a legal treadmill

they introduce the law
it get passed
it get struck down by the courts
they modify it slightly leaving the problematic denial of free speech intacts
repeat

this is the 3rd time the three strikes law has been passed, it fundamentally flawed because of the fact that denies access after three strikes.

yet they keep trying to get it by the courts anyway

(hell the first one didn't even have an appeal process if you got reported so it was really bad)

You are correct. If you get your licenses taken away from DUI you can still take a bus or you can have a friend drive you.

By the same token, if you get your internet access taken away you can still go over to a friend's house and have them use their access on your behalf. You could meet a friend who has a laptop somewhere that has wifi and you can watch as they use it and connect to whatever you need connecting to. There are still ways for you to get access, they are just no longer convenient.

If having internet access is a basic human right then why doesn't everyone have it? There are tens of millions world wide that don't have internet access. If suddenly you are such an advocate for human rights maybe you should do something about getting them access and worry less about who is downloading stuff from torrent sites.

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? :(

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:

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.

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.

Anyway, you freedom hero, nice to see where you stand up: protect thieves and kill ALL real human rights :thumbsup

Fair enough. that is how the system works. Lawmakers pass laws that tend to try to encompass everything, they get challenged in court, get changed and we play the game of round and round. Eventually a law will be passed, the question is what will it entail and will it be fair.

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.

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.


none of the rights you quoted justify protecting the copyright monopoly


copyright law takes away property rights and replaces them with licience rights

.

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.

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.


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.

violating intellectual property rights law is a crime.
It has to be punished

no you can't all those actions would represent an actionable violation of the law

the isp would still be granting a suspended user access to the internet

that represents 10K + in fines if the copyright holder complains.

it would be a pretty useless blacklist if i could simple use the internet access of another legal entity (acting as a proxy)

i could just register a business for $35 and repeat forever.



there is a huge difference between being entitled to something with no cost
and being protected from having that right taken way from you when your willing to pay for it

the blacklisting laws are the latter

that all the rights i care for people to have, i have never said anyone is entitled to internet at no cost

and trying to argue that you should be allowed to TAKE AWAY THE RIGHT just because i don't want to give it to everyone for free is an absolutely insane position to take

you can't be that stupid, so i assume that just a deliberate straw man arguement because your arguement is that weak.

what exactly about do you not understand


i have never said piracy shouldn't be punished

a law that denies free speech (all the other uses of the internet beside the piracy) is just way too much.

It is pretty simple. Here is the statement from the UN

19. Everyone has the right to say what they think and to give and receive information.

Nowhere there does is say what form that give or take of information must take. Freedom of speech should be protected, but that doesn't mean that a person is entitled to have access to every form of communication out there especially if someone is abusing that form of technology. If a person is going to abuse the freedom given to them they should have it reined in.

A person who walks across the street and has a conversation with their neighbor is exercising their freedom of speech exactly like someone who gets online and posts a twitter posts or a blog.


also
20. Everyone has the right to take part in meetings and to join associations in a peaceful way.

Again, it says nothing about how or where these meetings should take place.

A person who drives to their local library and meets with a group to discuss topics is expressing their freedom in the same way that a person participating in an online chat session. If the group gets out of control they can be removed from the library.

Let me ask you this: If there were a clear cut law where a person who was accused of copyright violation had a fair trial where they could defend themselves just like any other person accused of any other crime and they were found guilty a number of times of copyright violation would you then support them losing their access to the internet? Or do you believe a person should be allowed access no matter how much they abuse it?

1) I made no comment on the article 19 because I knew you would step in, that's how predictable you are. After all, I was expecting you would say the exact word-for-word motto of all the pirates.... and you didn't fail at it. But of course, "you're against piracy" :1orglaugh

2) That same article says, and I quote:

it doesn't say ANYWHERE what you're defending, which translates to the following:

And your RedHat example is laughable (like everything you said in this thread). So you mean that if I work for free I'll be rich? Or do you mean that YOU and OTHER PIRATES will dictate how should I work and earn my living so you can profit on my effort? Please elaborate, this is getting really funny

3) Copyright BY DEFINITION isn't monopoly. BY DEFINITION.

When there are MILLIONS of people holding copyright for their creations, speaking of monopoly crosses the line beyond retardness to enter a whole new universe of stupidity and non-sense.

But even then, I have the option to use different rights attributions (GPL, copyleft, etc). IF I CHOOSE TO DO SO. NOT BECAUSE A CRIMINAL DICTATED THAT I'M OBLIGATED TO DO IT. This is the FREEDOM OF CHOICE, not your proposed economic slavery

4) One thing is defending FREEDOM OF SPEECH. What you're defending is PIRACY. I don't know of ANY site that was seized because of opinions, not even wiki leaks. The only sites you're crying for are the ones pirating content. 100% of them. So, please explain me oh freedom fighter how this is not defending piracy and thieves.

5) Sorry if I don't accept that you and people like you controls my life and my family's for your own profit. I live in a country where slavery doesn't exist since 1813. Period.

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.

Hahaha ... the crazy murdering, raping, shit throwing, one shower a week animals at Stateville prison need the internet. Man would we have some trolls then.

30. No one has the right to take away any of the rights in this declaration

the 30th rule says you have no right to take away any of the rights

Again i ask you the question before

how exactly are you going to respond to my post if your internet is cut off

your arguing for a clear form of censorship

what if the religious right said you can only sell porn in this little block in one spot in the city

no selling anything online at all

by your definition that not violating your free speech rights at all since your still have the ability to express your self in that very limited way.

guess what that would violate 30th rule.

seriously what about the statement that

53% of all torrent traffic is tv shows

do you not understand.

a majority of the traffic your complaining about is people using the torrents like a vcr.

add in all the backup and recovery

add in all the filesharing that authorized by piracy taxes (canada, sweden, etc)

and that number only goes up



bullshit, i teach people how to deal with piracy by being fair use friendly

i only object to things that are clearly an attempt to destroy fair use and in turn the free speech that it designed to protect.

i have repeatedly said if you support fair use you never have a problem with piracy.

Tell it to the Judge.....

Personal Timeshifting OK......

Uploading copyrighted movies enabling mass distribution = thieving.

your not talking about just stopping piracy your talking about stopping all the communication of the person because of 3 accusations of piracy

if you stopped the 3 piracy and left the other communications alone, i would have no problem with what your were doing

your talking about preventing the person from every posting a blog, ever responding to a post

That the free speech i am talking about you preventing

and you ignored the one rule that clearly proves those preventions are a violation

well duh of course i was going to mention that rule

i would be a world class moron if i didn't.





nope never said that either

re read it again

i will say it again for you (slightly differently)

none of the human rights are violated by piracy. PERIOD

that doesn't means that your right were not violated

that doesn't mean that your rights should be allowed to be violated

it does mean you don't have a right to violate human rights in response

do anything else, just don't violate the human rights (right #19 in this case).




it not my definition it the supreme court of the united states definition

your doing the same thing that kane has repeatedly done

trying to argue that the legal definition of the highest court in the land is wrong BECAUSE YOU SAY SO.

read the transcript of the betamax case, copyright was DEFINED AS A MONOPOLY MULTIPE TIMES.


seriously what about the statement

i am not forcing you to do anything
i am simply saying that your attempt to claim that copyrights are basic human right is bullshit

not that they are no rights at all

I never said take away their right to freedom of speech. Here's a news flash. People had freedom of speech before the internet existed. Having the freedom of speech and having access to exercise it on a grand scale are two different things. A person with no internet access can still exercise their freedom of speech, they just have to do it in a different way.

I am simply saying if you commit a crime using the internet it is not unfair to then take away their access.

If I had not internet, I would not be in this thread to begin with, but being able to respond to you is not a basic human right.

I asked and you ignored so I will ask again. If a person gets a fair trial, has access to a legal defense and is convicted of copyright violation multiple times do you still think they should have access to it?

Kane; stop arguing with this idiot. He/she/it will argue and troll every point you make. All he/she/it cares about is FREE access to content. Period.

True. It doesn't matter what you say or what you point out, he will not be happy until he gets it for free.

wow so your dodging my question again

answer mine and i will answer yours

if the government outlawed online sales of porn

requiring that you only sell porn in face to face transactions to absolutely prevent children from gaining access to porn (even stealing daddy credit card won't get you access)

let say they required you to take pictures of every person buying porn and post it in a registry so they could absolutely confirm that it wasn't a child with all their drivers licience and id info publically available

would you support those restrictions.


btw what exaxtly do you mean by it, are you saying it is the internet as a whole, or are your saying it is the copyright material they are pirating

my answer is different depending on what you mean by it in your question.

OK, I understand you're getting your ass hurt. And badly. Hence why you're either a)playing dumb, OR b) in fact you're a complete retard.

So let me answer your question, which was already answered above oh you freedom fighter:


I CAN MOVE WITH MY LAPTOP TO ANOTHER WI FI SPOT. OR GET ANOTHER ISP SERVICE. OR GO TO AN INTERNET CAFE.

do you get it now?

Now explain me why fighting piracy still guarantees freedom of speech to any reasonable degree, yet you defend taking away MANY of the rights in the Declaration of Human Rights. Bah, don't bother, as we have saw in this thread you're a fucking retard.

And "oh the monopoly of copyright" (funny how you avoided it when I shown your unlimited display of nonsense): since when information is copyrighted? What you're talking about when you cry about those mean copyright holders is PIRACY. But you're so full of bullshit that you don't even have the balls to stand fro what you believe and take turns and leaps.

Finally, I've never, EVER said anything about you and your support of piracy (yeah, sorry I didn't buy your "fair use" song, I'm a grown up). But Human Rights were, are and will always be used by politicians and criminals around the world to justify acts based on the extremely free interpretation of a fair justice spirit. It hurts Human Rights as a whole, and the people working on (or for) Human Rights organizations around the world. Like... ME. Hence, I take offense in every single lie you said in this thread. Watch your mouth before tainting the fight and struggle of hundreds of thousands of men and women for a better world that NEVER, EVER will consider slavery, poverty, domination or crime as goals. All those beautiful things you're defending and couldn't deny because you already shown you have 0 (ZERO, NADA) arguments.

Or at least have the balls to stand up for what you REALLY believe. But like all thieves, you're a fucking chicken

as long as the copyright holder lose their copyright completely if they are wrong X times (where x is the number of strikes an infringer has before being disconnected) i have no problem with such a restriction

without such a balance, copyright holders can abuse the law with repeated bogus complaints, force people to spend ungodly time effort and money defending themselves against all the bogus complaints.

If the united states government banned the online sale of porn and forced it back to the brick and mortar days, while I would not be happy about it, I would accept it. Why? Because selling porn is not a basic human right. There are a lot of ways I can make a living so I would either move to a different country where I could keep selling porn online or do something else.

So there you have it. It would likely never happen because porn is protected free speech and there have been cases ruled on by the supreme court allowing it to be online. however, since it is a community standard kind of thing that doesn't mean that there can't be individual cases where people are breaking the law and banned from selling porn online. Still, that is not a violation of their human rights.

With my question I wonder: If a person is afforded a fair trial, legal defense and a jury like any other crime and they are found guilty of copyright violation multiple times (at least three). Do you think it is fair that their access to the internet is taken away? If not, how many online crimes do they need to commit before they are denied access?

seriously what about
do you not understand

the new wifi spot would be breaking the law by granting you access to the internet

the new isp would be breaking the law by granting you access.

the internet cafe would be breaking the law by granting you access.

That what a ban on internet access means



seriously the guy who claimed that referencing the open source model is forced slavery is talking down to me about misrepresenting human right violations

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

denying you the prevent people from competing with you is slavery

as a visible minority, who's ansestors were slaves i can tell you that rich.

a law that would make porn illegal on the internet would never happen because porn is free speech

but all 99.5% (everything but the 3 infringing acts) of the speech that the convicted pirate makes is not free speech

seriously do you know how stupid you sound when you say shit like that.

if

what exactly about this statement did you not understand

Nevermind my point. I've never argued that an entire technology or type of speech across the board should be banned just those who break the law.

As for your answer, I didn't see it because you posted at the same time I replied. Your dream will never come true. A copyright holder will simply never give up their copyright because they lost a few court cases.

but I have a follow up question. What I am using the internet for phishing scams, stealing identities and banging credit cards? If I am arrested and convicted of that should I be banned from using the internet?

One other thing to mention here. You are not using a comparable situation. You are talking about banning an entire industry and shutting down an entire business model by banning porn online. I am simply talking about denying a criminal who is found to be guilty of the crime they committed access to the tool they used to commit that crime.

Without actually having any proof that an individual committed a crime.

How would you feel if someone just 'said' you had murdered someone. Offered no proof aside from hearsay.

?

In a previous post I stated to Gideon that for my example this person would be accused of the crime, allowed to mount a defense, given access to legal resources and have a trial by jury just like anyone else who is accused of a crime. I then asked if a person faced that type of evidence and was found guilty by a jury multiple times (in this case we were talkig about 3 times) did he feel it was okay that they lose access to the internet because they are using the internet to commit their crime.

Gideon would only agree that they should lose access to the internet if the copyright holders lost control of their copyright if they wrong three times. He didn't expound. Does this mean just wrongly accusing people or does this mean that they lose the case in court? He didn't say.

for me wrong 3 time would fall into 4 catagories

1. going forward with a case when all you proof that an ip address was responsible and we find out it (by the beyond a reasonable doubt standards) i could have been hacked/soneone else could be the actual infringer (in other words going forward before you ACTUALLY have proof a person is guilty)

2. my actions were authorized because you licienced (even by a mistake in the wording of your licience)

3. your backpeddling on an established fair use (it not fair use, because you cut out the commercials arguement you made, even though JV clearly documented that his son could have commercial free copy under the original timeshifting right)

4. new establishing or extending of existing fair uses, like access shifting although for this case i think they should be allowed to buy back the strike for a price of 3 times the total cost to establish it (standard monopoly abuse prices - since the supreme court legally defined copyright a monopoly )

the first three represent deliberate and reasonably preventable abuse the last represents a potential mistake that should have a punishable consequence.

sure they are the industry is guilty of selling/giving access to porn to minor every day

little bobby is stealing his dad credit card and using it to get access to porn all the time.

15 /16 year olds hack into porn sites because the security is not perfect

the entire industry being shut down from the internet because that the "only way" to stop the infringement from every happening again

is just as legitimate as saying that the "only way" to stop someone who infringes 3 times in their life from every infringing again is to take way their internet.


taking away the internet (medium of communication) should be the last resort

Sadly, that isn't how it works. The three strikes and out law being proposed for the US, that is already live in France, needs no evidence whatsoever. This is the issue. And, think about it, what 'evidence' are you suggesting would nail someone? Beyond reasonable doubt? Their hard drive with the file on? How you gonna get that? I've probably got 15 hard drives in this house. You gonna take the lot? You gonna "prove" a certain file is on that drive?n How do you get past the encryption on it? Or what if the criminal chose cloud storage for his downloads?


He wouldn't say, cos he is a bit of a mentalist. :)

actually i did say you just missed it. :winkwink:

the first one agrees with your objection

the remain three you missed

This thread is about individuals who are convicted of a crime losing their individual internet access. If were talking about entire industries then it would be like me saying "Joe Bob downloaded a movie illegally, got caught and got convicted. He used a torrent site to do this so we are shutting off access to all torrent sites and taking away the internet access to anyone who has ever visited a torrent site."

I have never advocated this, I simply said those who commit a crime by using the internet.

Still, I have an unanswered question. What if I use the internet to run a phishing scheme, steal people's ID's and credit card info and then use that to buy stuff that I then sell to make money? I get caught and I get convicted. Should I lose access to the internet because that is the tool which I used to commit my crimes?

So would you suggest those who one copyrights just surrender and give up the fight? They just have to accept that once their movie is released there is going to be a certain level of piracy which no doubt will increase greatly once it is made public that they have no intention of going after downloaders and they just live with it as a cost of doing business?

ok so let say we criminalize the distribution to porn to anyone under the age of 18 with a permenent ban for every selling any content at all forever

you let one kid signup with a stolen credit card you no longer have a right to sell any content every again

you can't register domains
you can sell it on dvd.

you sell to one store that sells to kids you gone

that would match up exactly with what you are talking about

would you advocate that system as agressively as you are advocating a 3 strikes law.

if you actually understood fair use you would never says something this stupid

that being said

if the choice is live with it vs take away rights from innocent people

yeah choose to live with it.

btw this is a strawman arguement

it basically if we can't convict based on shoddy information we should just give up

you ignore the real choice do a legitimate level of investigation, to have a valid proveable case before you attempt to get a conviction.

Again, this is not a fair comparison. The reason is this. There is no technology in place that will allow this type of security. In theory you could potentially put something in place that would do this, but it would require a person to surrender so much personal information about themselves that it would be ruled unconstitutional. Also, you want porn sellers to gone after one incident, while my example still allows for a person to accumulate 3 strikes before being banned.

But for the sake of the argument, if there were a legal technology in place that allowed us to be sure that person who was signing up for the site was 18 then I wouldn't have a problem with it so long as there was a reasonable system in place for challenging and enforcing this I would deal with it. If I choose to still stay in the business I would do so knowing full well what the potential consequences might be.

The point is the laws are evolving now. Laws are always lagging behind technology. They are trying things now some of which are being ruled for and against. As we get more legal precedence set the laws will get more and more defined and eventually we will have something in place that is more clear cut.

BTW, you still haven't answered my questions. If I used the internet to run a phishing scheme and I get convicted of stealing people's ID and credit card info so I can make money off of it is it fair that I be banned from using the internet?

I'm just trying to gauge what you level of acceptable crime use is.

Show me some innocent people who have had their rights taken away by movie studios and music labels who are suing them.

now who is going off topic

we are talking about the laws being changed to take away rights

right like the presumption of innocents (with the changes to the law to try and make you liable if your ip address infringes)

or in this case human right #19


trying to exclude all those lobbying to pretend it not trying to take away rights is bullshit and you know it

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.

still no internet access in jail. :1orglaugh