Quote:
Originally Posted by mr ploppy
Once they've got rid of all the alleged "primary purpose" infringing sites do you really think they will stop there?
Anyway, without any way for the sites in question to defend themselves it will be whatever the claimant states that matters, not the truth.
|
Agreed. It's a slippery slope, guys. The fact that the alleged infringing and now blocked sites were not allowed to defend themselves is alarming. This is a case where the harm far out weighs any supposed benefits.
I don't agree with unauthorized downloading, but I don't want to live in a police state just because some morons, who wouldn't have paid anyway, downloaded some movies or TV shows.
I will always contend, until someone can actually prove otherwise, that the internet has been a net gain for content creators because the increased exposure and opportunity to peddle their wares more than offsets any freeloaders. Just look at the ever-increasing array of content being made available.
So since no one has been demonstrably harmed, there are no need for such kneejerk, draconian measures (even assuming such measures actually work, when there is no proof such actions as the one being discussed will actually decrease piracy).