New Bill Would Require U.S. ISPs to Block Pirate Sites

[OneSerious]

I also feel the need to point out that there is a difference between what is illegal and what is wrong. While illegal things are often wrong, and vice versa, this is not always true. Piracy is stealing, taking something that doesn't belong to you, and thus it is morally wrong. Lending someone a CD is not stealing, and while it may be illegal, it is not morally wrong. Personally, any law that says you are not allowed to lend/give your property to another is condoning extortion. If you loan a friend a CD, he can listen to it and if he likes it, he will/should buy his own copy. If you CAN'T loan him the CD, he has to buy it just to find out if he likes it. Or else he doesn't buy it at all and just forgets about it. Either way, by making loans illegal, you've turned a win/win situation into either a win/lose or a lose/lose situation.

So by that point of view you can have your cake and eat it? Like I said, I don't think you can have it both ways. If you choose to obey the rule then do so. Don't pick and choose the parts that suite you.

 

[24c]

Great thread - always interests me the way people think and then defend their thoughts.

BCXtreme - good going with the wrong/illegal concept, I hand't looked at it that way.

In the words of Harry Chapin:

sometimes words can serve you well
and sometimes words can go to hell

 

[pparks1]

I'm inclined to believe that when you buy something, it's yours to do whatever you want with it, but that in the case of digital media and software, people should buy their own copy if they want to use it.

but in the case of software, you don't "OWN" it....you have purchased a license granting you certain rights to "use" it.

 

[Bootz]

I'm inclined to believe that when you buy something, it's yours to do whatever you want with it, but that in the case of digital media and software, people should buy their own copy if they want to use it./quote] but in the case of software, you don't "OWN" it....you have purchased a license granting you certain rights to "use" it.

Exactly why pirating existes in the first place... being said that way, who wants to pay money TO HAVE THE RIGHT to listen to music they like.

I myself see an arguement for both sides though.

 

[BCXtreme]

I also feel the need to point out that there is a difference between what is illegal and what is wrong. While illegal things are often wrong, and vice versa, this is not always true. Piracy is stealing, taking something that doesn't belong to you, and thus it is morally wrong. Lending someone a CD is not stealing, and while it may be illegal, it is not morally wrong. Personally, any law that says you are not allowed to lend/give your property to another is condoning extortion. If you loan a friend a CD, he can listen to it and if he likes it, he will/should buy his own copy. If you CAN'T loan him the CD, he has to buy it just to find out if he likes it. Or else he doesn't buy it at all and just forgets about it. Either way, by making loans illegal, you've turned a win/win situation into either a win/lose or a lose/lose situation.

So by that point of view you can have your cake and eat it? Like I said, I don't think you can have it both ways. If you choose to obey the rule then do so. Don't pick and choose the parts that suite you.

It's not quite like that. It's not that I stand against piracy because my gov't has a law against it, and I'm just "obeying the rule". I stand against piracy because I believe it to be morally wrong, laws or not. I would stand against piracy even if the gov't legalized it. Lending media is not morally wrong, and therefore I do not stand against it.

In my opinion, the entire DMCA needs to be repealed and replaced with a system where intellectual property is handled just like physical property, without all of these additional complications. You shouldn't be able to restrict someone's legal use of a CD anymore that you can restrict someone's legal use of a stove, a cup, or anything else.

 

[OneSerious]

It's not quite like that. It's not that I stand against piracy because my gov't has a law against it, and I'm just "obeying the rule". I stand against piracy because I believe it to be morally wrong, laws or not. I would stand against piracy even if the gov't legalized it. Lending media is not morally wrong, and therefore I do not stand against it.

In my opinion, the entire DMCA needs to be repealed and replaced with a system where intellectual property is handled just like physical property, without all of these additional complications. You shouldn't be able to restrict someone's legal use of a CD anymore that you can restrict someone's legal use of a stove, a cup, or anything else.

I think put like that, it's a fair point. I can accept that.

 

[Colonel Travis]

In my opinion, the entire DMCA needs to be repealed and replaced with a system where intellectual property is handled just like physical property, without all of these additional complications. You shouldn't be able to restrict someone's legal use of a CD anymore that you can restrict someone's legal use of a stove, a cup, or anything else.

Agree with you except this last point. If you give someone a stove or a cup or anything else physical in that sense, unless you have a duplicate, it means you outright surrender your ownership of it to them. If you copy music and, say, place it online, you still have your copy while thousands or millions of others can get it, too. Not only that, but a stove is built to do one thing, which is to cook food. Yes, you have gas, electric, glass, ceramic, whatever. And you've got different manufacturers. But unlike, for example, a song, no one constructs a stove that is unlike any other stove ever created in human history. What is the gas range equivalent of Lady Gaga?

Publishing people, movie people, song people - most of them are still clueless about how to adapt to digital, or they are reluctant, or both. At the same time, I think there needs to be a distinction between what they produce and what non-DR people produce. I don't have the golden answer, but I don't think it takes a genius to see how customer behavior has changed in the past 10 years. It's the producers who, for the most part, still live in the stone age, not the buyers.

 

[pparks1]

Exactly why pirating existes in the first place... being said that way, who wants to pay money TO HAVE THE RIGHT to listen to music they like.

I said with software you get a license to use the software. You don't have a license to use the music you downloaded. You actually own the music file in that case. It's a little different.

Taking your example further, why would I ever want to buy Digital music files period. They come in a specific bitrate and in a specific format. Given a choice, I buy the physical CD every single time and rip it down however I want.

 

[madtownidiot]

I'm inclined to believe that when you buy something, it's yours to do whatever you want with it, but that in the case of digital media and software, people should buy their own copy if they want to use it.

but in the case of software, you don't "OWN" it....you have purchased a license granting you certain rights to "use" it.

Actually yes, I believe that any time someone makes a non refundable purchase of anything, including software, as opposed to a rental contract with a predetermined expiration date, that constitutes ownership, and thus give the owner the right to do whatever they want with it, regardless of what ridiculous terms one must agree to in order to install it. Am I making copies and distributing them, NO.. but regardless of whether mr money grubbin bill likes it or not, it's my godd*amn hardware and I will decide what runs or doesn't run on it. PERIOD, Is that illegal? possibly.. is it wrong? not a f'n chance. With everything else on the planet, a purchaser has a right to change or alter a product in anyway they see fit, including deciding not to use the entire package. In my mind, its no different from jailbreaking an iPhone, and we all know just how far Mr Jobs got trying to sue people for that....I'm not saying I have done so, but I really pisses me off that anyone has the gall try to tell me they have the right to determine exactly I use something after I paid several hundred dollars for it, especially when nobody gets harmed in the process.

 

[Colonel Travis]

I'm not saying I have done so, but I really pisses me off that anyone has the gall try to tell me they have the right to determine exactly I use something after I paid several hundred dollars for it, especially when nobody gets harmed in the process.

Do your "rights" always supersede anyone else's? Why is it even a "right" to begin with? Who grants you this right? Someone makes something, therefore that gives you automatic grace to copy, redistribute, alter, etc. no matter what? Does your right to do anything ever have any limits? Do I have the right to adopt the madtownidiot's persona from this site and go all over the internet claiming I'm you, saying things you'd never say, that I'm doing things you'd never do? We (presumably) don't know one another, so to me you're just a digital representation on an internet forum. Why can't I just take it over and go nuts? Or vice versa?

Seriously, we're pretty much on the same page. Just wondering if boundaries are ever necessary.

 

[SoLoR]

fairclough is right. sarcasm or not the comment was unwarranted.

I kinda tryed to imply on silly US internal politics. I actualy agree with him Lets make rich people even more rich since they are paying for our reelection instead of addressing real issues. But considering im not from US i dont care much, but thing what bugs me is, if this bill passes and its potentialy a success, something similar will sooner or later come to Europe as well. I mean visiting torrent sites ITS NOT illigal so why block it? Its almost like people that read some islamic magazines are considerd terrorists even if they didnt do anything illigal. Oh well... thing is illigal or not i simply cant do without torrents, because one reason and that is tv shows... you think i will wait a year+ that my favorite show comes on local tv? heh!

 

[DarkDavil]

Again, as many people stated on the first page, won't do anything. Hackers, and big-deal, The Pirate Bay is simply one of hundreds of thousands of sites out there. And what about all of those private sites?(Who will take those down...?)

 

[Tepid]

There should also be limits to those boundaries.

Freedom of Speech ain't free when you start allowing gov't to control it in any form.

Power Corrupts, Absolute Power may not always corrupt absolutely, but can be abused to great extents.

 

[BCXtreme]

In my opinion, the entire DMCA needs to be repealed and replaced with a system where intellectual property is handled just like physical property, without all of these additional complications. You shouldn't be able to restrict someone's legal use of a CD anymore that you can restrict someone's legal use of a stove, a cup, or anything else.

Agree with you except this last point. If you give someone a stove or a cup or anything else physical in that sense, unless you have a duplicate, it means you outright surrender your ownership of it to them. If you copy music and, say, place it online, you still have your copy while thousands or millions of others can get it, too. Not only that, but a stove is built to do one thing, which is to cook food. Yes, you have gas, electric, glass, ceramic, whatever. And you've got different manufacturers. But unlike, for example, a song, no one constructs a stove that is unlike any other stove ever created in human history. What is the gas range equivalent of Lady Gaga?

Publishing people, movie people, song people - most of them are still clueless about how to adapt to digital, or they are reluctant, or both. At the same time, I think there needs to be a distinction between what they produce and what non-DR people produce. I don't have the golden answer, but I don't think it takes a genius to see how customer behavior has changed in the past 10 years. It's the producers who, for the most part, still live in the stone age, not the buyers.

What I mean is simply that you should have unrestrained jurisdiction over what you do with the CD that you bought. And the analogy does hold water, because you can't make duplicates of a stove and starting selling/redistributing your own Kenmore stoves. So you shouldn't be able to do that with digital content either. However, you COULD loan your stove to a friend (though it would be physically difficult to do so), sell it, modify it, or do anything you wished for the purposes of personal use. I'm saying we should have the same jurisdiction over, not the music itself, but the copies of it that we bought.

There should also be limits to those boundaries.

Freedom of Speech ain't free when you start allowing gov't to control it in any form.

Power Corrupts, Absolute Power may not always corrupt absolutely, but can be abused to great extents.

No. Absolute power always corrupts absolutely. You cannot find a single instance in history where absolute power didn't absolutely corrupt its holder.

 

[madtownidiot]

Piracy is defined as
1) making copies of digital media explicitly for the purpose of distribution without compensating the copyright holder
2) possession of a copy of digital media the owner wasn't compensated for
3) robbery and murder at sea

Anyone here see the incongruity here?

 

[BCXtreme]

Piracy is defined as
1) making copies of digital media explicitly for the purpose of distribution without compensating the copyright holder
2) possession of a copy of digital media the owner wasn't compensated for
3) robbery and murder at sea

Anyone here see the incongruity here?

It is a very unusual term to use. I'm not sure why we ever called it that in the first place. Of course, it might just be reflective of the digital media industries' overreaction to unauthorized redistribution...

 

[Colonel Travis]

The word "piracy" has been a word used in conjunction with intellectual property for hundreds of years. The earliest example in the OED is from 1654. (Had to look that up, I ain't that anal.)

 

[BCXtreme]

The word "piracy" has been a word used in conjunction with intellectual property for hundreds of years. The earliest example in the OED is from 1654. (Had to look that up, I ain't that anal.)

It's still kinda weird. The two meanings of the word are vastly different in intensity.

 

[Tepid]

Piracy is defined as
1) making copies of digital media explicitly for the purpose of distribution without compensating the copyright holder
2) possession of a copy of digital media the owner wasn't compensated for
3) robbery and murder at sea

Anyone here see the incongruity here?

They need to add,,,,,

The corporate practice of artificially disabling or limiting hardware in order to ensure more profits by creating a monopoly on the software it can use is guaranteed to result in inferior products, making them more likely to fail. The idea that it is somehow wrong to modify your personal property to suit your own purpose ...ridiculous

You could call that a form of Piracy.
Can anyone say Apple? Oh, silly me,, Apple hardware doesn't much exist anymore.. Duh!

 

[Skulblaka]

OBJECTION!

People will seek measure to circumvent such action! I, among others, will be one to do so. This is ridiculous, what is next, limits on which doors you walk through and foods you eat?

Bloody hell...

Hm, perhaps a laptop could be of some use. Yes... excellent... excellent indeed... good... :devil: