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

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?

Can they call air strikes on file sharers?

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. :thumbsup

A thief by any other name is still a thief.

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

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.

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.