Not quite accurate. Copyright law isn’t about money, it’s about distribution rights. Copyright holders are free to toss their stuff online to share with the world. Or, they are free to charge $100 per song. Since nobody is forced to purchase their wares, there is nothing wrong with this. Since music and film are not in anyway utilities required for living, the government won’t step in and enforce price floors/ceilings or other limitations on the industry.

“And in your ignorance, arrogance or just plain fecklessness you think “the public won’t object”! ”

I actually think the public will support it in many cases. True anonymity will is (in the uneducated mind) going to be associated with hackers, child pornographers, terrorists, and thieves. Now we both know that isn’t what we are talking about here, but a well-presented argument will convince a lot of people that blocking VPNs will be good for the quality of their internet experience.

And when you get right down to it, the protected rights we have on the internet (at least in the US where all of these companies reside) have nothing to do with anonymity.

It really is the only solution in the long run: governments want to be able to deal with file-sharing, people increasingly run and hide behind VPNs. The lawmakers and copyright holders aren’t going to sit and say, “Oh they jumped behind a VPN! Ahaha YOU GOT US!!!”

Only a matter of time. People want to believe that the internet is somehow going to give utopian freedoms. The reality is that the internet runs on government-subsidized hardware, and it is run by giant corporations that become and stay giant by playing dirty within the laws.

“A law that makes it illegal for me to use my automobile as I like is a law that restricts the use of my property on roads that MY taxes pay for.”

My home and computer (my private property) are not public property by any stretch of the imagination, however a public road is public property. If I had a huge farm, I could use my car on it any way I liked without being subject to speeding laws. See what I did there? Your straw man is up in flames again.

“If pirates actually organized and engaged, they’d have lots of legal clout.”

Again you pretend that it’s only pirates being affected by this. Not true. Everyone’s freedoms are being limited and everyone’s privacy is being taken away.

“You have every right to privacy in your home until you use that privacy ONCE to mask unlawful behavior, just once, and I don’t care what that unlawful act is. On discovery they’ll storm right in your front door fully legally.”

Are you even paying attention? That’s precisely the problem. It’s not possible to discover what people are doing privately on their computers without strict surveillance. Enforcing your favourite law is impossible without violating everyone’s privacy, and we’re talking about an unprecedented level of surveillance.

““Inalienable” means intrinsic, sir, not able to be taken away for any reason or under any circumstance. That’s why I referenced jailtime.”

Ok, if an “intrinsic” right is taken away, that goes against nature. If a legal right is taken away, the law is changed. Get it?

Jailtime is the suspension of the rights of some exceptional cases, not the suspension of the rights of everyone without exception. Still with me?

“you honestly believe privacy will trump illegality (which is a real kneeslapper in an evolved society, when you think about it)”

In an evolved society, I would definitely expect the fundamental right of privacy to trump bad law. In our shitty “warts and everything” society, I’m somewhat apprehensive.

Try this.
“A law that makes it illegal for me to use my automobile as I like is a law that restricts the use of my property on roads that MY taxes pay for.”

See what I did there? What makes you think property ownership or privacy privilege will EVER trump illegal behavior?

This is a tough discussion because you don’t recognize that the legal playing field isn how these things sort out. If pirates actually organized and engaged, they’d have lots of legal clout. As it is, “pirate”, “principles” and “courage” are all mutually exclusive. Pirates hide, break the law and bitch on forums, and precious little else, so the people who are out in public debating and acting lawfully are the ones who will naturally gain the ground. (While you throw around “bribery”, of course.)

You have every right to privacy in your home until you use that privacy ONCE to mask unlawful behavior, just once, and I don’t care what that unlawful act is. On discovery they’ll storm right in your front door fully legally. And they do, everyday and so you, my friend, are going to have to adjust to reality that this set of legal principles will also be put into place on the network we share, in my view just as it should be, or you will waste your voice in a struggle against what civilization takes comfort in and what pirates hate because it gets harder and more complicated to infringe riskfree.

“Those are inalienable rights enjoyed by everyone, including criminal”

Demonstrably false, and here we go again. “Inalienable” means intrinsic, sir, not able to be taken away for any reason or under any circumstance. That’s why I referenced jailtime. If rights to privacy were truly inalienable, jail would be unconstitutional. I think we need to stop. You don’t know your history or your caselaw, you refuse to acknowledge the framework within which all this will be resolved, you honestly believe privacy will trump illegality (which is a real kneeslapper in an evolved society, when you think about it) and you just seem to like to complain. Gee, a pirate complaining. Imagine that.

Oh, so as a South African, I am not equel to you, an English citizen? Fuck you.

Democracy may not be perfect and open to corruption and abuse but it is the only system to put power into the hands of the public though elected officials. It had to be slowly won over many years from the power of the monarchy.

Communism may sound nice but fails then a dictatorship is a bit too brutal.

It’s still not a straw man at all. Here’s a straw man:

“freedom and copyright have coexisted for 300 years”

Which, of course, is not relevant at all since the internet has only existed for 20, and private copying technology for about 35ish. Historically, copyright only affected publishing companies, and only recently has it started to restrict the freedoms of individuals in increasingly dangerous ways.

A law that makes it illegal for me to use my computer as I like is a law that restricts the use of my property in my very own home. That law can only be properly enforced through surveillance of what I do with my computer, so it’s a law that invades my personal privacy in ways never seen before in a democracy.

It’s not unlike putting a video camera in every room of your house to make sure you don’t break any laws, like for example smoke weed or build a bomb. It goes against the very essence of personal privacy, and surely not something anyone would support for any reason other than short-lived personal gain.

“That’s a demonstrably false assumption and there’s a lot more lawlessness online than just simple copyright infringement. And ALL will come under surveillance. Moderating illegal behavior through surveillance, trial and incarceration comes next if it keeps up, no reasonable culture just bows down to lawlessness online or off.”

I can think of no online “crimes” that are harmful enough to our society to warrant the death of communications privacy, certainly none that weren’t also possible over the phone — including bank fraud.

Because complete internet surveillance is possible doesn’t mean it’s automatically a good thing.

“in any culture on the planet within the realm of unlawful behavior there is no “right” to privacy nor freedom. Never was, no right at all, and “you can’t stop us” was the dumbest negotiating position”

Those are inalienable rights enjoyed by everyone, including criminals, that our forebears died to put in place when western democracies were being founded. They are not privileges, unlike the privilege of copyright that was rather one-sidedly lobbied into law and is now coming at odds with such inalienable rights.

“That’s why you bring all this upon yourself and how you discredit your position, your philosophy, even your movement. If that doesn’t sound right to you, perhaps a man in jail can better explain it.”

Like I said before, you shouldn’t be blaming the people who react to a bad law, that’s unfair as they are victims too. Blame the people who put the bad law in place. Blame the people who are using the bad law to take your freedoms from you. Blame your elected representatives who are not protecting your freedoms. Blame the complacent public at large for not speaking up to defend their freedoms.

And most importantly, you should blame yourself for speaking in support of the bad law in question. If anyone here is discrediting their philosophy and movement it’s you — you are the one defending something as vile and totalitarian as complete internet surveillance. I cannot for the life of me fathom how anyone could rationalise that as a positive thing, at least not any sensible and conscientious citizen not blinded by money.