New
#60
it's not an opinion, it is a fact. the u.s. gov does nothing unless there is something it for them.
New Bill Would Require U.S. ISPs to Block Pirate Sites
-
-
New #61
-
New #62
That's almost correct.. The US government does nothing unless there's money in it for the people who pay for the election campaigns. Take a look at "health care reform".. that has never been about providing health care for people who can afford it. It was about guaranteeing more profits for insurance and pharmaceutical companies.. The DMCA has never been about protecting anything except the profits of large corporations. No money is truly lost to piracy.. it's impossible to lose something you didn't have in the first place. This isn't really about piracy. It's just the most convenient excuse to introduce a new measure of control over peoples' lives.. There is nothing in that bill that will serve the interests of the average person. If it were about protecting anything besides corporate profits, there would have been some mention of ip addresses that exist to serve malware or bogus software.. but there isn't because focusing on taking down those sites would reduce the profits of all the major security software companies.
-
New #63
That's how it used to be. But now I think the current gov't has realized that an easier, more effective way to sway the elections is simply to subtly gag the voices of opposition.
But oh no, the gov't is just a nice big brother that's always looking out for our best interests and would never dream of abusing any of the power we give it ... yeah, right.
madtownidiot is 100% correct. This is censorship, plain and simple, and as Colonel Travis (?) said, if this goes through they will in no way be restricted to just blocking pirate sites.
-
New #64
i'm the one who implied that it was nothing more than censorship in the first place. don't give credit where it isn't due.
-
New #65
I wasn't giving madtownidiot credit for the concept, there was a period there. I wasn't really giving anyone credit, as several people including myself have mentioned it. "madtownidiot is correct" and "this is censorship" were separate thoughts, related only by the fact the he was the one I quoted, and also was the most recent to mention it.
-
New #66
Things have changed. The old fashioned newspapers: Before the Internet, you had to wait until the next day to read all the "news". After the Internet, you read the news as they are happening. The same is happening to the music, to all the media. That's not piracy, that's a demand for zero-day availability.
Instead of improvements, bureaucracy people creates roadblocks. Are you guys sure these kind of people think on their citizens? Or have their pockets and wallets been renamed to "citizens"?
-
New #67
I don't agree with that. I recently purchased an HD camcorder and I tried the eval of Sony Vegas Movie Studio HD and I liked it...so I would like to get the full version. So, that gives me two choices. #1) I could just search for a copy of it on the net, download it and use it. #2) I could just buy the software and begin using it. So, I told my wife that I would like the software for my birthday in October and that is what she is going to buy me. Piracy (if I chose to do so), would have resulted in lost money. But in this case, they are making a sale. So....how can you say that if I would have pirated that software that no money would have been lost?
-
New #68
No point in arguing about it, we're all in agreement here (unless someone reading this has had their head in the mud for the past 9 years)... and as a matter of fact, the reason I started this thread was because I immediately saw the bill for what it is. As I posted in the other thread, throughout history the primary purpose of government has never been to protect the people, it's always been about protecting the rich from the people...
-
New #69
Do you honestly believe yourself?
A vast majority of people are basically honest, and have a conscience that prevents them from stealing the first place.
People who pirate software and music are not honest people. Many of them probably don't have the money to afford whatever it is they're pirating, and except for a small minority of borderline characters, the rest of them would probably never pay for some things under any circumstance.. so where's the loss?
I'm not advocating piracy by any means, but really, this proposed law only focuses on piracy because it's a good excuse to introduce a new measure of control to people's lives
Related Discussions