Comments on: Study Maps the Emerging Ethics of File Sharing and Copyright Enforcement

By: Donsan

Donsan — Fri, 01 Mar 2013 10:51:00 +0000

I find it horrendous that people who file share are having a bad conscious for doing so -The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml) article 19 states – and I quote:
“Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”
Whereas the keywords for file sharers are: seek, receive and impart information – which is exactly what file sharers do

My conclusion is that file sharers only conduct their human right and in fact copyright is violating the publics human rights as is expressed in article 19

By: 7th_Guest

7th_Guest — Sat, 19 Jan 2013 21:51:00 +0000

@Gene Pool: The distinction between a crime and a civil offense is pretty simple. The former is treated as an act perpetrated against more than just another person on principle (i.e. against society itself and its operation), is covered by a Land’s criminal law and usually will involve a permanent entry into the adult guilty party’s criminal record, statutory fines and/or a prison sentence (or worse, if you live in a country where the death penalty still exists). You can often find the State itself being the plaintiff when crimes are tried and the criteria for admissible evidence is substantially high (“beyond reasonable doubt”). The latter merely involves interpersonal disputes, regardless of whether those persons/entities are natural or legal, is covered by civil law and is mostly about estimating the magnitude of tort done to the plaintiff and the damages that should be awarded for it. The evidential criteria here is lower, to the tune of “preponderance of evidence” that will tend to put the defendant in a position where they’ll have to disprove an allegation instead of the opposite. Losing a civil case will only ever set you back some cash, or perhaps strap you with some restraining terms if business actions (say, contracts) entered the feud.

By: rmstallman

rmstallman — Sat, 19 Jan 2013 19:05:00 +0000

Nobody “consumes” digital music. One of the virtues of digital media
formats is that using a work does not consume it. So what is this
nonsense about “consuming music”? Is that meant to symbolize
endorsement of the narrow-minded economistic outlook on the subject?

Karaganis said, â€œThe study suggests that most people in the US and
Germany recognize the constitutive dilemma of copyright as a set
of tradeoffs between rightsholders and the public…

This is widely repeated, but it is a mistake. See
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/misinterpreting-copyright.html.

By: Michael

Michael — Thu, 17 Jan 2013 14:34:00 +0000

@Ophelia Millais

(there’s a big difference in Internet usage patterns between these groups. I would like to see the study split up the age groups a little better.)

So would I,but I am aware there are a lot of my age group out there,but they are not as vocal as the younger groups,and tend to slide under the radar.

By: Gene Poole

Gene Poole — Thu, 17 Jan 2013 10:54:00 +0000

Okay, can you seriously do me a favour and clear that up for me?? I’m stymied on this.

What exactly is the difference between a crime and unlawful behaviour?

By: Gene Poole

Gene Poole — Thu, 17 Jan 2013 10:46:00 +0000

Especially that whole “going to the bathroom behind a closed door” bullshit. Guy could be building a bomb in there!

By: Scary_Devil_Monastery

Scary_Devil_Monastery — Thu, 17 Jan 2013 10:41:00 +0000

Good point. We begin, I think, by abolishing the various kinds of “media levies” and “culture taxation” which means we as taxpayers have to spend through our noses in the generation of that crap.

After that, we can start talking.

By: Scary_Devil_Monastery

Scary_Devil_Monastery — Thu, 17 Jan 2013 10:38:00 +0000

Strange that the explosive surge of VPN’s coincided with the FRA law then, and NOT with the spate of actual arrests and the media circus surrounding filesharing.

“We can’t accept a growing number of people committing crimes under disguise.”

As in “no person may walk without identifying himself at every corner because he may commit a crime”. We’ve seen your argument before. It ended with you tacitly saying that civil rights were a luxury society could not afford.

And despite having been corrected for the last four years you are still unable to discern the difference between a “crime” and “unlawful behavior”. Even jaywalking trumps filesharing in that regard. By your argument that means we should not allow people to have free use of their legs.

I’d say that’s about par on the course for your typical rhetoric.

By: Scary_Devil_Monastery

Scary_Devil_Monastery — Thu, 17 Jan 2013 10:34:00 +0000

@bobmail

“Rick twists things so hard, it’s surprising he didn’t end up in traction. He’s very good at scare mongering, that is for sure.”

Actually most of what he says can be lifted from books on social science and were keywords of everyone objecting against the totalitarian rule of the Sovjet Union and the DDR.

But fair enough, you agree with China’s position on this and call it “scare mongering” when the need for common privacy is defended. Duly noted.

By: Scary_Devil_Monastery

Scary_Devil_Monastery — Thu, 17 Jan 2013 10:17:00 +0000

“The only thing that jackoff did was quote my words, and then add his own meaning to them. Basically, he made it all up. Please point me to where I said HTTP would be blocked. I didn’t.”

You made a wild claim, to which I responded with the logical extension of what your words would actually by necessity mean.

The sad part is simply that you do not have a frigging clue as to what you are actually saying because it’s obvious you don’t know the most basic facts about how the internet works. You would be to networking technology what a badly concussed caveman would be to astrophysics.

Now let’s get back to where you suddenly decided to lose it and start pulling the “set-upon martyr act” because you got caught trying to bluff people with no cards.

To me that just means that every argument of yours countered with facts, you were left with nothing else in your bag of tricks but name-calling in the hopes it’ll stick.

Let’s take that one further shall we?

“That is what some other paranoid git decided to add to the discussion, trying to paint my opinion as a bizarre absolute. “

Nothing of the sort. You made a wild claim about piracy-associated protocols being blocked. Since you are a complete ignoramus at internet technology you failed to see what you were saying. I lifted one specific example and could add more.

At which point you get your knickers in a twist and start mumbling abouit traffic analysis – which is similar nonsense.

At the end of THAT particular debate, you are looking like a prize-winning village idiot and are left with the one and only way out to point an irate finger and call some names in the hope that people conveniently forget that you’ve been making a total ass out of yourself in most of the posts around.

Even that failing you try to recover credibility by claiming long long association with the internet and dropping a name you lifted off Google. By which time you’ve dropped so far off the point of absurdity you make even Anon look like a sane man.

In the other forums I visit we call that “making a Nejtillpirater”.

“You can chew his demented ass out now. He’s the one scare mongering.”

Given that your initial ill-conceived comment was about how pirates are so easily discerned and caught in the prevailing legal paradigm, “scare mongering” isn’t even a slur you are in a position to make about anyone else.

Neither is “demented” after the flaming logical wrecks of your other commentaries.