Sign In
Register
Help
Post your comments for UK File Shares Could Lose Web Access here
Page 1 of 1
UK File Shares Could Lose Web Access
MultiQuote
#2
g4acre 
- Advanced Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 196
- Joined: 16-November 06
Posted 12 February 2008 - 12:30 PM
more govement sensorship is not what this world needs.sounds like the UK is getting to be as bad a goverment as is our own USA. spying on what people do while on the internet.next they willtap into there phone calls and more just like they do here in the USA.I hope the people in the Uk stand up for there rights and block this .
#3
mcbarker
- Expert
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 1,078
- Joined: 10-August 06
- Location:Connecticut, USA
Posted 12 February 2008 - 12:46 PM
Stopping piracy isn't censorship. If one buys the software, music or movies that they enjoy, then they won't have to worry about having their Internet cut off... or worse.
#5
Speeddymon
- Newbie
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 1
- Joined: 18-October 06
Posted 13 February 2008 - 12:32 AM
[]
I love how you say not to download software, music, or movies, but then your signature basically implies that it is ok to not pay someone back that you borrow money from (effectively stealing it). That is flat out classic! Not to mention that the issue being discussed is not that stopping piracy is censorship, the discussion is that government spying and disabling of internet access based on the contents of packets IS censorship. While it technically isn't censorship, it is definitely a heavy-handed tactic to block internet pirates. The bottom line is this. You cut off internet pirates, or the people downloading from them, and that still isn't going to make those people go out and pay for software. Companies cay say "we lost x amount of (insert currency here), last year due to piracy", when in reality, it isn't that they LOST that money, they just didn't make that money, because you can't assume that everyone who pirates would actually go out and pay for the software in the first place.. Some people just can't afford it. Sure they shouldnt have a computer if they can't afford it, but then they would just probably be a vagrant on the street and doing much worse, such as raping our wifes and killing our children.
Granted my opinions are extremist, but that doesn't mean they aren't potentially true.
mcbarker said:
Stopping piracy isn't censorship. If one buys the software, music or movies that they enjoy, then they won't have to worry about having their Internet cut off... or worse.
Always borrow money from pessimists... They don't expect to get their money back.
Always borrow money from pessimists... They don't expect to get their money back.
I love how you say not to download software, music, or movies, but then your signature basically implies that it is ok to not pay someone back that you borrow money from (effectively stealing it). That is flat out classic! Not to mention that the issue being discussed is not that stopping piracy is censorship, the discussion is that government spying and disabling of internet access based on the contents of packets IS censorship. While it technically isn't censorship, it is definitely a heavy-handed tactic to block internet pirates. The bottom line is this. You cut off internet pirates, or the people downloading from them, and that still isn't going to make those people go out and pay for software. Companies cay say "we lost x amount of (insert currency here), last year due to piracy", when in reality, it isn't that they LOST that money, they just didn't make that money, because you can't assume that everyone who pirates would actually go out and pay for the software in the first place.. Some people just can't afford it. Sure they shouldnt have a computer if they can't afford it, but then they would just probably be a vagrant on the street and doing much worse, such as raping our wifes and killing our children.
Granted my opinions are extremist, but that doesn't mean they aren't potentially true.
#6
Bankrobber
- Newbie
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 3
- Joined: 23-August 06
Posted 13 February 2008 - 02:26 AM
Even if pirates (non pro) are using the net to 'shuffle' files between friends, somebody is making money off of that somehow / somewhere.
#7
mcbarker
- Expert
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 1,078
- Joined: 10-August 06
- Location:Connecticut, USA
Posted 13 February 2008 - 04:29 AM
Speeddymon wrote:[]
mcbarker wrote:Stopping piracy isn't censorship. If one buys the software, music or movies that they enjoy, then they won't have to worry about having their Internet cut off... or worse.
Always borrow money from pessimists... They don't expect to get their money back. I love how you say not to download software, music, or movies, but then your signature basically implies that it is ok to not pay someone back that you borrow money from (effectively stealing it). That is flat out classic! Not to mention that the issue being discussed is not that stopping piracy is censorship, the discussion is that government spying and disabling of internet access based on the contents of packets IS censorship. While it technically isn't censorship, it is definitely a heavy-handed tactic to block internet pirates. The bottom line is this. You cut off internet pirates, or the people downloading from them, and that still isn't going to make those people go out and pay for software. Companies cay say "we lost x amount of (insert currency here), last year due to piracy", when in reality, it isn't that they LOST that money, they just didn't make that money, because you can't assume that everyone who pirates would actually go out and pay for the software in the first place.. Some people just can't afford it. Sure they shouldnt have a computer if they can't afford it, but then they would just probably be a vagrant on the street and doing much worse, such as raping our wifes and killing our children.
Granted my opinions are extremist, but that doesn't mean they aren't potentially true.
First off, the signature is a joke. It's meant to be funny, not serious advice to all who read it. Anyone who thinks otherwise needs to lighten up, and maybe pull the broom handle out of their butt.
You may not like the tactics that the government uses to catch file sharers, but then again, I don't suppose that burglars like the fact that some home owners have burglar alarms and surveillance equipment installed in their homes. The old arguement that software companies aren't really losing money, because those who steal their product probably wouldn't have bought it anyway, or couldn't afford to buy it, is just so much bull. Many of them are kids who think that the world owes them a living, because their parents never bothered, or were too lazy to teach them about integrity. Actually, the government isn't doing the packet sniffing... It's being done by the user's ISP, and if you don't think that your ISP is monitoring everything you do on their service, then you're very naive. The fact is, bottom line, piracy is theft, although it may not seem so to those who do it because they don't actually physically break into a building to steal, but the outcome is the same. Theft is theft, plain and simple. Profits are being stolen from software companies who spent months, or years, and millions of dollars developing programs. Same goes for movie studios creating films. Musicians are deprived of potential income when music is stolen. Maybe instead of fining those caught, they should be sentenced to working for one of the companies they pirated product from without pay for a year. Maybe then they would realize what piracy really is.
I can't quite grasp your arguement that people deprived of a computer, because they can't afford it, would somehow become vagrants who roam the streets raping and killing our wives and children. That may be logical in the mind of a psychopath, but not to any rational thinking person.
mcbarker wrote:Stopping piracy isn't censorship. If one buys the software, music or movies that they enjoy, then they won't have to worry about having their Internet cut off... or worse.
Always borrow money from pessimists... They don't expect to get their money back. I love how you say not to download software, music, or movies, but then your signature basically implies that it is ok to not pay someone back that you borrow money from (effectively stealing it). That is flat out classic! Not to mention that the issue being discussed is not that stopping piracy is censorship, the discussion is that government spying and disabling of internet access based on the contents of packets IS censorship. While it technically isn't censorship, it is definitely a heavy-handed tactic to block internet pirates. The bottom line is this. You cut off internet pirates, or the people downloading from them, and that still isn't going to make those people go out and pay for software. Companies cay say "we lost x amount of (insert currency here), last year due to piracy", when in reality, it isn't that they LOST that money, they just didn't make that money, because you can't assume that everyone who pirates would actually go out and pay for the software in the first place.. Some people just can't afford it. Sure they shouldnt have a computer if they can't afford it, but then they would just probably be a vagrant on the street and doing much worse, such as raping our wifes and killing our children.
Granted my opinions are extremist, but that doesn't mean they aren't potentially true.
First off, the signature is a joke. It's meant to be funny, not serious advice to all who read it. Anyone who thinks otherwise needs to lighten up, and maybe pull the broom handle out of their butt.
You may not like the tactics that the government uses to catch file sharers, but then again, I don't suppose that burglars like the fact that some home owners have burglar alarms and surveillance equipment installed in their homes. The old arguement that software companies aren't really losing money, because those who steal their product probably wouldn't have bought it anyway, or couldn't afford to buy it, is just so much bull. Many of them are kids who think that the world owes them a living, because their parents never bothered, or were too lazy to teach them about integrity. Actually, the government isn't doing the packet sniffing... It's being done by the user's ISP, and if you don't think that your ISP is monitoring everything you do on their service, then you're very naive. The fact is, bottom line, piracy is theft, although it may not seem so to those who do it because they don't actually physically break into a building to steal, but the outcome is the same. Theft is theft, plain and simple. Profits are being stolen from software companies who spent months, or years, and millions of dollars developing programs. Same goes for movie studios creating films. Musicians are deprived of potential income when music is stolen. Maybe instead of fining those caught, they should be sentenced to working for one of the companies they pirated product from without pay for a year. Maybe then they would realize what piracy really is.
I can't quite grasp your arguement that people deprived of a computer, because they can't afford it, would somehow become vagrants who roam the streets raping and killing our wives and children. That may be logical in the mind of a psychopath, but not to any rational thinking person.
#8
g4acre
- Advanced Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 196
- Joined: 16-November 06
Posted 13 February 2008 - 09:02 AM
To mcbarker , Now let me see if I have this right. file sharing is steeling and against the law, but for an ISP to sensor and monitor your every move is A-OK with you. as I see it they are both against the law and morally wrong. no matter what the reason (excuse) you try and use to describe your actions to do either. the bottom line is they are BOTH WRONG.
[quote name='mcbarker']Speeddymon wrote:[]
mcbarker wrote:Stopping piracy isn't censorship. If one buys the software, music or movies that they enjoy, then they won't have to worry about having their Internet cut off... or worse.
Always borrow money from pessimists... They don't expect to get their money back. I love how you say not to download software, music, or movies, but then your signature basically implies that it is ok to not pay someone back that you borrow money from (effectively stealing it). That is flat out classic! Not to mention that the issue being discussed is not that stopping piracy is censorship, the discussion is that government spying and disabling of internet access based on the contents of packets IS censorship. While it technically isn't censorship, it is definitely a heavy-handed tactic to block internet pirates. The bottom line is this. You cut off internet pirates, or the people downloading from them, and that still isn't going to make those people go out and pay for software. Companies cay say "we lost x amount of (insert currency here), last year due to piracy", when in reality, it isn't that they LOST that money, they just didn't make that money, because you can't assume that everyone who pirates would actually go out and pay for the software in the first place.. Some people just can't afford it. Sure they shouldnt have a computer if they can't afford it, but then they would just probably be a vagrant on the street and doing much worse, such as raping our wifes and killing our children.
Granted my opinions are extremist, but that doesn't mean they aren't potentially true.
First off, the signature is a joke. It's meant to be funny, not serious advice to all who read it. Anyone who thinks otherwise needs to lighten up, and maybe pull the broom handle out of their butt.
You may not like the tactics that the government uses to catch file sharers, but then again, I don't suppose that burglars like the fact that some home owners have burglar alarms and surveillance equipment installed in their homes. The old arguement that software companies aren't really losing money, because those who steal their product probably wouldn't have bought it anyway, or couldn't afford to buy it, is just so much bull. Many of them are kids who think that the world owes them a living, because their parents never bothered, or were too lazy to teach them about integrity. Actually, the government isn't doing the packet sniffing... It's being done by the user's ISP, and if you don't think that your ISP is monitoring everything you do on their service, then you're very naive. The fact is, bottom line, piracy is theft, although it may not seem so to those who do it because they don't actually physically break into a building to steal, but the outcome is the same. Theft is theft, plain and simple. Profits are being stolen from software companies who spent months, or years, and millions of dollars developing programs. Same goes for movie studios creating films. Musicians are deprived of potential income when music is stolen. Maybe instead of fining those caught, they should be sentenced to working for one of the companies they pirated product from without pay for a year. Maybe then they would realize what piracy really is.
I can't quite grasp your arguement that people deprived of a computer, because they can't afford it, would somehow become vagrants who roam the streets raping and killing our wives and children. That may be logical in the mind of a psychopath, but not to any rational thinking person.
[quote name='mcbarker']Speeddymon wrote:[]
mcbarker wrote:Stopping piracy isn't censorship. If one buys the software, music or movies that they enjoy, then they won't have to worry about having their Internet cut off... or worse.
Always borrow money from pessimists... They don't expect to get their money back. I love how you say not to download software, music, or movies, but then your signature basically implies that it is ok to not pay someone back that you borrow money from (effectively stealing it). That is flat out classic! Not to mention that the issue being discussed is not that stopping piracy is censorship, the discussion is that government spying and disabling of internet access based on the contents of packets IS censorship. While it technically isn't censorship, it is definitely a heavy-handed tactic to block internet pirates. The bottom line is this. You cut off internet pirates, or the people downloading from them, and that still isn't going to make those people go out and pay for software. Companies cay say "we lost x amount of (insert currency here), last year due to piracy", when in reality, it isn't that they LOST that money, they just didn't make that money, because you can't assume that everyone who pirates would actually go out and pay for the software in the first place.. Some people just can't afford it. Sure they shouldnt have a computer if they can't afford it, but then they would just probably be a vagrant on the street and doing much worse, such as raping our wifes and killing our children.
Granted my opinions are extremist, but that doesn't mean they aren't potentially true.
First off, the signature is a joke. It's meant to be funny, not serious advice to all who read it. Anyone who thinks otherwise needs to lighten up, and maybe pull the broom handle out of their butt.
You may not like the tactics that the government uses to catch file sharers, but then again, I don't suppose that burglars like the fact that some home owners have burglar alarms and surveillance equipment installed in their homes. The old arguement that software companies aren't really losing money, because those who steal their product probably wouldn't have bought it anyway, or couldn't afford to buy it, is just so much bull. Many of them are kids who think that the world owes them a living, because their parents never bothered, or were too lazy to teach them about integrity. Actually, the government isn't doing the packet sniffing... It's being done by the user's ISP, and if you don't think that your ISP is monitoring everything you do on their service, then you're very naive. The fact is, bottom line, piracy is theft, although it may not seem so to those who do it because they don't actually physically break into a building to steal, but the outcome is the same. Theft is theft, plain and simple. Profits are being stolen from software companies who spent months, or years, and millions of dollars developing programs. Same goes for movie studios creating films. Musicians are deprived of potential income when music is stolen. Maybe instead of fining those caught, they should be sentenced to working for one of the companies they pirated product from without pay for a year. Maybe then they would realize what piracy really is.
I can't quite grasp your arguement that people deprived of a computer, because they can't afford it, would somehow become vagrants who roam the streets raping and killing our wives and children. That may be logical in the mind of a psychopath, but not to any rational thinking person.
#9
mcbarker
- Expert
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 1,078
- Joined: 10-August 06
- Location:Connecticut, USA
Posted 13 February 2008 - 10:07 AM
Think about what you're saying before going off on me. You are using an ISP, which is a private company. The networking equipment belongs to them. It isn't owned by you or by the community. It is there to make money. In order to do that, they have to know who is using their service, and what those users are doing while connected through their network. They have to monitor this activity because of potential lawsuits from other companies. A case in point would be this PCW article. Users pirating software through their network could lead to a potential multi million dollar lawsuit against the ISP if they knowingly allow this behavior. Another example would be the recent news story of the girl who committed suicide because of nasty things posted on a website by a cyber bullying mother who was a neighbor of the girl. Without ISP monitoring, the mother would never have been identified. Using even more sinister examples, criminal organizations using ISPs to commit identity fraud, or terrorist or paramilitary organizations hacking into government systems to either disrupt defense systems, or steal military secrets.
I, and others like me, ran BBS's many years ago, before the days of Internet Explorer and broadband connections, and we always verified ID information, and monitored our systems to see what our users were doing. This was done, as stated before, for legal reasons, to cover our butts in case for example, user Little Johnny, who was 12 years old, lied about his age and used our systems to download porn (It happened frequently), then the outraged parents would threaten to sue the BBS operator, apparently not realizing that they were in part to blame for not monitoring what Little Johnny was doing while using the BBS at home on the family computer.
Again, bottom line... When you sign up as a customer of any ISP, you are bound by the stated regulations of that ISP, which you (or a parent) has to agree to by signing digitally before you can obtain online service. I don't know of any ISP which doesn't warn you in that agreement that your online activities will be monitored. Anyone who takes the time to actually read the conditions of service would know that, and consequently would not feel that he or she was taking the moral high ground when they state that ISP monitoring is morally wrong. An ISP is not a democracy... it's a business.
g4are wrote:To mcbarker , Now let me see if I have this right. file sharing is steeling and against the law, but for an ISP to sensor and monitor your every move is A-OK with you. as I see it they are both against the law and morally wrong. no matter what the reason (excuse) you try and use to describe your actions to do either. the bottom line is they are BOTH WRONG.
I, and others like me, ran BBS's many years ago, before the days of Internet Explorer and broadband connections, and we always verified ID information, and monitored our systems to see what our users were doing. This was done, as stated before, for legal reasons, to cover our butts in case for example, user Little Johnny, who was 12 years old, lied about his age and used our systems to download porn (It happened frequently), then the outraged parents would threaten to sue the BBS operator, apparently not realizing that they were in part to blame for not monitoring what Little Johnny was doing while using the BBS at home on the family computer.
Again, bottom line... When you sign up as a customer of any ISP, you are bound by the stated regulations of that ISP, which you (or a parent) has to agree to by signing digitally before you can obtain online service. I don't know of any ISP which doesn't warn you in that agreement that your online activities will be monitored. Anyone who takes the time to actually read the conditions of service would know that, and consequently would not feel that he or she was taking the moral high ground when they state that ISP monitoring is morally wrong. An ISP is not a democracy... it's a business.
g4are wrote:To mcbarker , Now let me see if I have this right. file sharing is steeling and against the law, but for an ISP to sensor and monitor your every move is A-OK with you. as I see it they are both against the law and morally wrong. no matter what the reason (excuse) you try and use to describe your actions to do either. the bottom line is they are BOTH WRONG.
#10
g4acre
- Advanced Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 196
- Joined: 16-November 06
Posted 13 February 2008 - 10:30 AM
To mcbarker, I was not going off on you.dont know how you think that.I was & am stating that it is wrong to sensor any thing with out proper warrants think we may be in differant country's we here in the USA have enough Illegal spying going on from our Goverment because of 9-11. we sure don't need a law such as the one your UK is trying to install.if the statment you made was true about ISP saying they monitor your usage upfront, then there would be no need for the law they are trying to shove down the troths of there citizens, as it would already be OK to do so.and as for the poor girl that took her life,I live 15 ,miles from where that took place. and only after this unfortunate missus of the internet accursed did they get the legal warrants to trace the account back to the user.FACT. Have a good day,& I am not going off on you. I am stating my beliefs as you have.G4acre
#11
Evildave
- Expert
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 1,549
- Joined: 24-January 08
Posted 14 February 2008 - 01:45 PM
Well, there's getting your internet service cut off or there's the 'humane' U.S./RIAA solution of letting record industry lawyers launch harrassment suits against parents of file sharers, threatening to sue them half past bankruptcy, then badgering and threatening them into settling out of court for only a slightly less ruinous amount. Basically legalized terrorism.
What about people who are 'borrowing' internet service through a coffee shop or open wireless router? Want to mess with a neighbor? Put up a file sharer that uses their internet account. It's pretty easy to crack ANY so-called 'secure' wireless protocol. Use a 'cantenna' if you need a little more plausible deniability.
Both 'solutions' simply beg for pirates to use malware 'bot nets' to share files. Then everybody's PC (or at least the PCs of everybody who runs a Windows OS and can easily be infected by one) will be the 'culprits'. Works great for spam, and distributed denial of service attacks, so it will probably work even better for people who WANT the content. When the UK is faced with the problem of cutting off internet access to EVERYONE, they'll have to give up.
The biggest pirate torrent servers already moved to distributed overseas systems. So here we have just another policy of attacking children and families while the ones who are responsible for the bulk of illegal copyright infringement are not even pursued.
What about people who are 'borrowing' internet service through a coffee shop or open wireless router? Want to mess with a neighbor? Put up a file sharer that uses their internet account. It's pretty easy to crack ANY so-called 'secure' wireless protocol. Use a 'cantenna' if you need a little more plausible deniability.
Both 'solutions' simply beg for pirates to use malware 'bot nets' to share files. Then everybody's PC (or at least the PCs of everybody who runs a Windows OS and can easily be infected by one) will be the 'culprits'. Works great for spam, and distributed denial of service attacks, so it will probably work even better for people who WANT the content. When the UK is faced with the problem of cutting off internet access to EVERYONE, they'll have to give up.
The biggest pirate torrent servers already moved to distributed overseas systems. So here we have just another policy of attacking children and families while the ones who are responsible for the bulk of illegal copyright infringement are not even pursued.
Page 1 of 1
