Britain hates freedom, filters internet of unchristian content (bans porn)!
- Thread starter AiR
- Start date
Only need 10,919 pirates to move to the Western Isles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Na_h-Eileanan_an_Iar_%28UK_Parliament_constituency%29 Smallest constituency in the UK
You are kidding right?
The Pirate Party's philosophy of "I don't want to have to pay for things other people have created, even though I create nothing myself" is a stupid one. The idea that the internet has somehow re-written the basic concept of creative ownership is a wet dream invented by spotty teenagers who've warezd too much porn.
The only reason this (or the net neutrality) movement exists is because Google likes the idea of not having to pay for all the copyrighted stuff it scrapes off the net (or the delivery of that material) and so funds the whole endeavor as some sort of ideological exercise. Somehow it's cool to be lobbied and manipulated by Google.
The Pirate Party's philosophy of "I don't want to have to pay for things other people have created, even though I create nothing myself" is a stupid one. The idea that the internet has somehow re-written the basic concept of creative ownership is a wet dream invented by spotty teenagers who've warezd too much porn.
The only reason this (or the net neutrality) movement exists is because Google likes the idea of not having to pay for all the copyrighted stuff it scrapes off the net (or the delivery of that material) and so funds the whole endeavor as some sort of ideological exercise. Somehow it's cool to be lobbied and manipulated by Google.
nomix
True Viking
- Joined
- May 26, 2005
- Messages
- 7,293
- Location
- Norway
- Car(s)
- Tend do walk the 40 meters from my bed to lecture.
That's not really true. The Pirate Parties generally frown on current copyright legislation because they feel it doesn't really fit the digital world.
While there are people who just download, there are studies, actual studies, not just theorising, that show clear as day that pirates aren't just good customers of the record business, when the study was done (back in 2005, I think, done by the Canadian equivalent of the RIAA), it showed that if someone pirated music, they spent TWICE as much on legal music as someone who didn't.
So despite taking something for nothing, the very same people were the best bloody customers the record industry had. I have to call that a significant piece of the puzzle.
Another part of it is that pirate parties does fight for stuff like net neutrality, against government censorship, blocking sites of all kinds. While their motives for fighting for these things might be in question, the validity of these policies is beyond dispute, unless you don't think the net should be neutral or you think governments should be able to block sites willy-nilly. For that matter, they're not big fans of private companies getting police powers of search (like the customer information of thousands of potentially innocent individuals), and I think that's just as great a cause as any else.
While there are people who just download, there are studies, actual studies, not just theorising, that show clear as day that pirates aren't just good customers of the record business, when the study was done (back in 2005, I think, done by the Canadian equivalent of the RIAA), it showed that if someone pirated music, they spent TWICE as much on legal music as someone who didn't.
So despite taking something for nothing, the very same people were the best bloody customers the record industry had. I have to call that a significant piece of the puzzle.
Another part of it is that pirate parties does fight for stuff like net neutrality, against government censorship, blocking sites of all kinds. While their motives for fighting for these things might be in question, the validity of these policies is beyond dispute, unless you don't think the net should be neutral or you think governments should be able to block sites willy-nilly. For that matter, they're not big fans of private companies getting police powers of search (like the customer information of thousands of potentially innocent individuals), and I think that's just as great a cause as any else.
Interrobang
Forum Addict
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2007
- Messages
- 8,150
source?
While some pirate parties in different countries might differ in their goals and opinions (I can?t be botherd to check all the agendas of 40 local Pirate-parties, sry), Germanys Pirate Party favours a Alternative compensation system, not a "don't want to have to pay for things other people have created" - System. They call it a "cultural flatrate" ... and that does involve payment to copyright owners.
Last edited:
Lets take a look right back at how the movement started
Thats right folks, the Pirate Party is full of, surprise surprise, the pirates who were annoyed that their digital media free for all was being curtailed. Now obviously since then the representatives of the Pirate Party have been laughed out of so many discussions on digital copyright that they've had to support things like the "cultural flatrate" to gain any sort of respect, but fundamentally their ideology is barely more advanced than a 'down with this sort of thing' poster.
There was a study that showed there was a demographic (28-40 male of certain income IIRC) who were willing to pay for music they were obtaining illegally if the paid for service could beat the illegal service for convenience (in effect what iTunes has done), and that they were happy to spend more once they found media they wanted. This was not true of every demographic and certainly not the typical Pirate Party member, hence they weren't the very same people.
Love it, there is no worse debating style than to simply state something is 'beyond dispute'... so lets look at the policies.
Unless you don't think the net should be neutral
Net neutrality is the greatest crock of shit of the 'Web2.0' era. It is a 'discussion' between lobby groups, none of whom have any understanding of network architecture, all supported by businesses trying to protect their own best interest. Two examples:
- The Comcast debacle: Bit Torrenting is a hugely promiscuous protocol designed to absorb all network resources available, clogging backhaul connections. This destroys the ability of services like VoIP to operate on the same network. Comcast had the sheer audacity to attempt to manage usage on their network so that the heaviest users wouldn't destroy the connectivity of everyone else. Admittedly the method they used (TCP RST) was a bit sneaky, but never the less companies all over the world had been doing it for a decade. And yet in this instance it becomes a massive media event.
- CDNs: This was more of a UK thing, the BBC was planning to install local caches of iPlayer content within the backhaul networks of various ISPs, reducing the cost both to the BBC and the ISPs as well as providing better customer streams. This of course meant that the BBC were technically getting preferential treatment. Once again, brix shat, teeth gnashed and everyone misses out.
you think governments should be able to block sites willy-nilly
I understand that you seem unable to distinguish beyond 'the man' and 'the people', but lets look at just a few of the people actively filtering URLs today in the UK.
- ISPs - They have their own block lists (usually by IP) to mass block toxic parts of the net.
- IWF - Universal across all ISPs, for child porn but have wiped out /b/ twice as well as a Wikipedia page
- Spamhaus - Provide an e-mail blacklist. They'll block whole hosts.
- Nominet - Domain registrar, will revoke domains unless correct registration details are provided (one of the strictest in the world).
- Google - Google brand URLs as potentially hosting 'badware' and strongly dissuade customers from visiting them, chronic misdiagnoses from this one.
We have RIPA and the DPA, so that would be illegal. Hell RIPA even restricts for what purpose different authorities can use searches.
nomix
True Viking
- Joined
- May 26, 2005
- Messages
- 7,293
- Location
- Norway
- Car(s)
- Tend do walk the 40 meters from my bed to lecture.
Yeah, but you're not telling the story like it deserves to be told. The raid was in itself completely illegal (utilizing what one might call Minister Rule, which is as fucking illegal in Sweden as it is in Norway), coming after real pressure on the Swedish government from that perfect of foreign cousins, the US fucking State Department. They pushed Sweden to break her own bloody laws, and yeah, that is part of the result.
My uncle's Swedish. He's a publisher of books. He's never pirated anything in his life. And even he was a appalled! I was appalled all the way over in Norway, and I never even use the site!
Stop patronicing people you simply do not know enought about.
Not the study I read, but as it often is, I've done more than one format c since 2005 (or whenever it was), so I can't find the bookmark. Pity.
There are lots worse, take my word, I've met most of them. Is democracy beyond dispute in a normal discussion of how to run your country? If we look at some other nations, and take it from their perspective, that might be different. But it's still hard to imagine democracy not being beyond dispute. Freedom of speech, which we are talking about, is also beyond dispute. Well, it isn't. But I suppose you can't have democracy without it. It's quite important at the very least.
No, that's not really what it is about. When we got television, there was a physical and practical limit to how many channels could be sent over the air. So most governments either monopolised it or gave a few number of channels the right to broadcast. The airways were public.
I really do not see why the web shouldn't be as public, in that manner of speaking.
Well, sweet chilly, I didn't know a single piece of the information so kindly lain in front of my ignorant eyes. Thank you were much.
They can subpeana out user details from ISPs. And to do that, they make huge registers of suspect IPs. It's surveilance without a warrant. And they're not the law. Leave it to the police, it's their job.
If the raid was illegal then perhaps the Pirate Party should be working towards the enforcement of existing laws rather than the creation of new ones?
These proposals were put forward by the democratically elected representatives of the people, now that doesn't make them a good idea, but it's hardly putting democracy in dispute.
But you've already identified what makes TV different, the finite broadcast space which requires co-ordination between competitors. Thanks to LLU the ISPs are no longer directly tied to the infrastructure over which their service is provided. They can create whatever package they want and manage it however they want without having an impact on anyone other than their customers. Why does that need to be state run?
Ah ok, so what we're actually talking about is not 'police powers of search' but the ACS:Law's of this world. ISPs will hand that information over to lawyers for the purposes of putting together a legal case, however even that puts them on [ur=http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/08/03/lawyers_fined_file_sharing/]iffy legal ground[/url].
NoNeedForAChestWig
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2010
- Messages
- 3,030
That doesn't exclude it also being "full" of people outraged about the raid for other reasons than that they might want to "illegaly" download stuff. Quite aside from this, sites like PB also serve people in countries where downloading is legal.
RIPA governs public bodies, not private ones.
The DPA is like Ken Dodd in bed with the Diddymen: a fucking joke. For example, personal information is not allowed to be sent outside the EEA unless the subject consents - and all companies do is send it, bury the condition in the small print, and if you don't like it then they simply won't provide you with the service. That's not "consent" when there is no competitor offering similar products or services without that very same condition. Oh, and they can also do it without your consent if "adequate protection" is in place. "Adequate"? Well that's entirely up to the company concerned. As long as they use an approved contract, it's all just fine and dandy.
Don't forget artists like Machinae Supremacy who started their careers by putting their music on torrent sites.
awdrifter
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2004
- Messages
- 3,449
I would support the Pirate Party if they ever run for office in the US. The current patent and copyright system is getting abused by big corporations, sooner or later it'll need to be changed. As for the filter, if I live in UK, I would just get a VPN that's based in another country.