Quote:
Originally Posted by Tony1988
For what?? Not wanting a workable anti piracy bill?? The link provided shows me the current bills need to be written with a little less power for the corporations of media(which I agree with, the two bills in question wont work) and some extreme paranoia over pulling some youtube video of a little girl singing. Hardly examples of peoples creative license being taken away from them.
Piracy still runs rampant on the net. New laws imo new to be put in place. AGAIN regardless if the big corporations have abused their power in the past, there needs to be something more in place. YES the corporations will have to be checked and balanced as we discussed back in the thread.
All I am seeing here is a bunch of double talk and how peoples creative rights arent worth stopping a "few" illegal mp3 downloads. AGAIN no ones creative rights will be hindered by the big bad corporations. I have not see one example that will halt that right for people on-line. Yes there are a couple of extreme example the last couple years where the Recording industry went a bit to far...but guess it didnt go to far for them. I think a little inconvenience for would be "creative" people online is worth it for the protection of propeties that someone truely creative spent many hours on.
|
By a little too far you mean issuing takedowns for things they did not have any legal right to?
That little inconvenience? The one where if a big company makes a complaint my stuff goes offline? You don't see why maybe just maybe I'd rather a few mp3s get downloaded than I myself get censored or the perfectly legal something I want to view gets censored?
And who the hell are you to decide who someone truly creative is? Are we adding the no true Scotsman fallacy into your mix of unbaked claims and non answers? Sticking your fingers in your ears and saying la la la la piracy bad, is not an argument in favor of anything.
You have not explained what is so bad about infringement. You probably have a general consensus against it but that doesn't absolve you from justifying the position.
If it is bad you still haven't explain why it is worse than censorship. I and other have shown how the current laws have been abused. You haven't shown how it is any of our interest to have even more laws that will (given past performance) be abused.
You haven't shown how this new law would do anything to even stop infringement.
Honestly all you've said over and over is anything to stop piracy which is bad, really! I'm saying no. There's a price to freedom. That price is sometimes people will abuse it. We as a society have in the past accepted this. We require things like warrants and trials and showing some cause for a prior restraint.
Would you support simply shutting down the internet to make sure no more files get traded online? If you don't then what exactly is your problem with understanding why so many of the rest of us think that this attempt goes too far.