Well I'm not a troll so maybe I'm a bit ignorant.
However I do think there is some merit in the idea, I'll do some more research and create a new thread at a later date
BT ordered to block pirate links
- Thread starter stockhausen
- Start date
Well I'm not a troll so maybe I'm a bit ignorant.
However I do think there is some merit in the idea, I'll do some more research and create a new thread at a later date
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 16,024
- Location
- 9th Inner Circle
Whilst the debate between AcidHell, Dolphin and Kylew has been amusing it is missing what I think is the major problem here. Web censorship.
That's what should be debated. This ruling by an uniformed Judge sets a very dangerous precedent. One where the very web we take for granted is in danger.
That's what should be debated. This ruling by an uniformed Judge sets a very dangerous precedent. One where the very web we take for granted is in danger.
In danger of what exactly ? The web is not in danger. only the people that access it are. The internet can't be controlled but access to it or certain parts of it can. However unless the UK go to town like China I don't think we are in danger of anything.
I'd say we are more likely to be in danger of heavy handed censorship in the UK, and if that happens I am sure there will be a riot that will make the student riots look like a picnic.
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 16,024
- Location
- 9th Inner Circle
It's beginning. ISPs in America want to charge for traffic that comes across their networks because they also mostly tend to own Cable TV, America also is taking down website access from websites it deems to be breaking th law no matter where in the world they are hosted, Australia wants to restrict access to all material deemed not suitable for children unless it is behind an age verification scheme. Now here in the UK we have the blocking of a website that despite being on dubious moral and legal grounds does not actually host any material that violates copyright.
If the Government are sly you will get "protecting the children" and "protecting companies rights" used as the stick to beat us. Any protests against that would probably be used by the media to show "Disgusting protesters rally for access to kiddy porn or something"
It's a worse case scenario that's for sure but if you don't think Governments want control of the 'net you are mistaken.
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 16,024
- Location
- 9th Inner Circle
You mean like if you have anything encrypted you must pass the decryption keys over when asked by the Police/Government or go to jail for considerable time. Something in law right now.
Encryption is not the panacea people think it is. The solution is for people to stand up and openly protest against such censorship.
The one thing Governments cannot hide from, the one truly liberating thing the Internet brings is disintermediation. The Government cannot contain and curtail it's citizens if it cannot control the flow of information - information is power.
However we get involved in petty squabbles about copyright infringement and end up with page upon page of three posters bickering. That's not the point - it's a red herring.
No, that's completely inapplicable to public key encryption where keys are used for a session and then destroyed.
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2006
- Posts
- 12,130
The judge is not there to 'regulate the internet', he is there to interpret the law. Do you think that judges understand every last detail of every case they hear?
Associate
- Joined
- 7 Feb 2009
- Posts
- 2,128
This whole thing reeks of 1984 and the NWO !
It reals of broken legislation, trying to be patched up. Rather than changing the law to protect public and right holders.
People are com paling to much about rights being taken away. When what they mean. Is it's harder for them to get illegal files.
If the legislation was changed, it is unlikely we would need such firewalls.
People are com paling to much about rights being taken away. When what they mean. Is it's harder for them to get illegal files.
If the legislation was changed, it is unlikely we would need such firewalls.
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 16,024
- Location
- 9th Inner Circle
I know. I was pointing out that crying "we'll just use VPN" is not an answer to this problem. It's a sticking plaster on a leg hanging off.
The judge is not there to 'regulate the internet', he is there to interpret the law. Do you think that judges understand every last detail of every case they hear?
No but Governments think it is there job to 'regulate' the Internet. Funny how you bash the Conservatives in every thread you make yet sound just like one in this thread!
It's a red herring. 'Copyright infringement' is being used as the thin edge of the web. I don't support this censorship of the Internet. That does not make me a, so called, pirate. The two are not automatically connected. However you have raised on of my concerns and that is they are using the same legislation used to block "child pornography" and so are playing the best card they have. If you don't support this block you support child pornography because "insert line from piracy to kiddie porn" or whatever crap they come out with.
Just look at how the Internet in Australia is going if you don't believe me.
Associate
- Joined
- 7 Feb 2009
- Posts
- 2,128
Exactly.
I remember when all of the shops would charge at least £15 for a CD album even if it was still in the charts.
Complete ripoff !
When are people going to wake up and realise they have. Music industry has totally updated and has far more features and access than pirates model.
Same as book industry.
Movie industry and tv industry are behind but they are remodelling.
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Apr 2003
- Posts
- 8,086
I am all for internet censorship. if you cant get ready access to material in shops etc then take it out. this includes illegal file sharing of copywrited material and the mechanism to do this, greater restrictions on adult content etc etc
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 16,024
- Location
- 9th Inner Circle
Not sure if serious. Are you? What about concepts that aren't available in shops?
The judge is not there to 'regulate the internet', he is there to interpret the law. Do you think that judges understand every last detail of every case they hear?
Not taking into account what he is there for, he has just done a very good job of regulating the internet. I would say his role was made quite a difference to the internet being regulated, wouldn't you?
Whether he understood the details of what he was doing is irrelevant, he did know he was regulating the internet.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 9 Aug 2008
- Posts
- 35,711
Good on them, I hope piracy comes to a stand still. Can't wait for this to come into action.
You don't even need to look at Australia, here we have had people arrested for Tony the tiger porn. The police force and cps are so morally corrupt.