Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryT
They aren't "so-called" pirate sites. They ARE pirate sites. The question of whether or not she "has" to resort to them is what this thread is about. There is no compulsion on her to do so - it's entirely her choice to do so. Nobody "has" to watch a particular TV show.
|
We have sensor pads in North America for some traffic lights that detect if a car is stopped at the light. Occasionally I come across one of these on my motorcycle that won't trigger and the light doesn't change. If I utilize your logic then:
1) I agreed to abide by the highway traffic act when I accepted my drivers license so I can't violate the traffic light.
2) I need to determine if it's necessary for me to violate the traffic light. Is it compulsory for me to get back to the hotel in the next two hours or should I wait for a car to come along and trigger it for me?
After waiting 5 minutes and if the road is deserted and there is clearly no traffic coming I will just go. The technology put in place didn't consider every real world situation and failed. There are not absolutes. If I sat there a police officer would likely come along and laugh at me then tell me to move it.
I'll repeat again, the blog post was not about if it was necessary or compulsory to access a web site that violates copyright. It was about the MPAA counting every access to the "pirate site" as lost revenue when sometimes it's clearly not. She admitted accessing the "pirate site" to access content that she had already paid for accessing and she wasn't going to pay again. The technology measures put it place were blocking her access so she went around them.