Putting up barriers to a free and open internet

MagicSean · 17-04-2010 6:54pm

johnnyjb wrote: »

Im not saying use children as bait im saying the government should be lookin for these criminals anyway and not using some see through lie to justify their means

But to prevent them committing the crime in the first place is surely better.

SeanW · 17-04-2010 7:11pm

k_mac wrote: »

But to prevent them committing the crime in the first place is surely better.

No. For a number of reasons:

Firstly, anyone could bypass the filter by using a proxy, as presumably all CP traffic is http protocol controlled by web browsers and web servers.

It would be easier to circumvent the censor for child porn than copyright infringment, since this uses custom protocols not so easily proxied.

Secondly, in a free society where the natural rights of the citizens are respected, we punish wrongdoing, i.e. if you shoot someone, you go to jail.
In a Statist society, which you seem to have no problem with, we let big government dictate everything and infringe our natural rights in the name of some statist goal, e.g. you might shoot someone so we'll ban weapons (and give the goverment and organised crime a monopoly on force), you might be a racist so we'll make it illegal to own a copy of Mein Kampf. We'll ban cannibis because (what harm might that do?) You might be intersted in "child porn" (remember this only the talking point, not the real objective) so we'll censor the Internet.

In short, the natural rights of a person to live in freedom so long as they respect the rights of others, is infringed, as the government grows in power, gets to the point where they say "hey little person, here's a little box that we and our vested interest friends will let you play in."

It's a simple choice between the above kind of society and a free society, and we have been moving perilously in the direction of the former.

MagicSean · 17-04-2010 7:19pm

So you believe that punishing someone for a crime is better than preventing it and I believe preventing a crime is better then punishing someone for it afterwards.

In your ideal free state there is no protection for the vulnerable, there is only retribution. I would be happy to give up minor rights if it meant better protection of human rights of the vulnerable.

In an ideal world of course a free state would be better but people have not evolved to a point were this is possible yet. There is still too much evil and greed in the world. Too many people eager to take advantage.

SeanW · 17-04-2010 7:41pm

k_mac wrote: »

So you believe that punishing someone for a crime is better than preventing it and I believe preventing a crime is better then punishing someone for it afterwards.

Yes. You are happy to have a (very fallible) big government "preempting" crime. I am not.

In your ideal free state there is no protection for the vulnerable, there is only retribution. I would be happy to give up minor rights if it meant better protection of human rights of the vulnerable.

In a free state there is far more protection for the vulnerable, as a bigger government often has an inverse relationship with protection for the vulnerable. One example, in the United States, they had a Prohbition of alcohol in the 1920s. The big nanny statists who thought this was a great idea probably had wolly visions of no more drunken behaviour and a more religious nation, or other great societal utopia. It was quite the opposite. The national murder rate soared every year between 1919 and the early 1930s when it was repealed.
Arguably among the most damaging criminal figures in human history was Al Capone. His main business: selling alcohol.
The same thing is happening with certain drugs today such as cannibis. It's a plant, natural, from the Earth, that is inherently incapable of doing large scale damage. Yet, there's open warfare by criminal gangs in Northern Mexico to the point where their society is on the verge of collapse, and the drug warriors want us to believe that a little plant is solely responsible for all of it and we just have to fight harder and give the state more power to fight the war on drugs.
Same thing with gun bans: if you wanted to go into the mugging, extortion, home invasion or hitman business tomorrow, you'd be laughing because your targets, law abiding citizens, would be by definition, totally helpless and unable to fight back.

This is what a strong state making arbitrary laws does - it makes the weak, weaker. Given the human nature you allude to, it tends to protect the strong, often at the expense of the weak. It's why freedom works and statism doesn't. Your state only provides retribution when someone commits a crime against a person, for example. A free society provides some prevention by limiting the scope of black markets and also preemption as an extension of a potential victims' natural rights.

Too many people eager to take advantage.

Which is exactly what happens with Big Goverment. Too many busybodies and special interests equally "eager to take advantage" and use government force in a way that hurts almost everyone.

thebman · 17-04-2010 8:08pm

k_mac wrote: »

You aren't really getting my point. You are hanging on to the big-brother fear. Would you be more comfortable if there was a published list of the banned domains and websites?

Preventing the demand for the crime is a very good way of preventing crime. If noone bought stolen property then thefts and burglaries would go down. If noone could view child porn then the number of websites would go down. Catching them afterwards is all very good but it doesn't help the child.

No I understand your point completely, I don't think you get mine. I've thanked the posts that probably explain it better.

MagicSean · 17-04-2010 8:09pm

SeanW wrote: »

Yes. You are happy to have a (very fallible) big government "preempting" crime. I am not.

In a free state there is far more protection for the vulnerable, as a bigger government often has an inverse relationship with protection for the vulnerable. One example, in the United States, they had a Prohbition of alcohol in the 1920s. The big nanny statists who thought this was a great idea probably had wolly visions of no more drunken behaviour and a more religious nation, or other great societal utopia. It was quite the opposite. The national murder rate soared every year between 1919 and the early 1930s when it was repealed.
Arguably among the most damaging criminal figures in human history was Al Capone. His main business: selling alcohol.
The same thing is happening with certain drugs today such as cannibis. It's a plant, natural, from the Earth, that is inherently incapable of doing large scale damage. Yet, there's open warfare by criminal gangs in Northern Mexico to the point where their society is on the verge of collapse, and the drug warriors want us to believe that a little plant is solely responsible for all of it and we just have to fight harder and give the state more power to fight the war on drugs.
Same thing with gun bans: if you wanted to go into the mugging, extortion or hitman business tomorrow, you'd be laughing because your targets, law abiding citizens, would be by definition, totally helpless and unable to fight back.

This is what a strong state making arbitrary laws does - it makes the weak, weaker. Given the human nature you allude to, it tends to protect the strong, often at the expense of the weak. It's why freedom works and statism doesn't.

Which is exactly what happens with Big Goverment. Too many busybodies and special interests equally "eager to take advantage" and use government force in a way that hurts almost everyone.

I would much rather the government pre-empt me from being murdered than punish the person who murders me yes.

I'm not going to dignify your whole "cannabis does no harm" stuff with a response. You've shown yourself as someone who can't see past their own selfishness to the suffering of others. I have no real interest in arguing with an anarchists(which I assume you are) values to be honest. I generally find them to be disconnected with the real world. I think this is proven by your point about banning firearms. If you think the ban makes murder easy I would ask you to look at what the "Freedom to bare arms" does for the U.S. Saying that people could protect themselves if they could have a gun shows a complete lack of awareness of reality.

thebman · 17-04-2010 8:24pm

k_mac wrote: »

I would much rather the government pre-empt me from being murdered than punish the person who murders me yes.

I'm not going to dignify your whole "cannabis does no harm" stuff with a response. You've shown yourself as someone who can't see past their own selfishness to the suffering of others. I have no real interest in arguing with an anarchists(which I assume you are) values to be honest. I generally find them to be disconnected with the real world. I think this is proven by your point about banning firearms. If you think the ban makes murder easy I would ask you to look at what the "Freedom to bare arms" does for the U.S. Saying that people could protect themselves if they could have a gun shows a complete lack of awareness of reality.

Big government is corrupt government and is just as bad as complete anarchy.

Its dancing a fine line trying to decide what to let government control.

SeanW · 17-04-2010 8:42pm

First of all, I am not an anarchist. Liberty is a happy medium between anarchy and statism. I consider myself a left-libertarian.

With anarchy, you basically have no goverment, no police force, no government services. With liberty, you have a government that protects your country and your natural rights. E.g. a "Night Watchman" State. That is what I favour in terms of social issues and personal freedom.

I noticed you haven't addressed my point about the U.S. Prohibtion era? Did I miss something? Was it the alcohol that singly to blame for all that criminal madness in the 1920s?

I would much rather the government pre-empt me from being murdered than punish the person who murders me yes.

Government cannot "pre-empt" you from being murdered. Criminals can have all the weapons they want because they're criminals and theres a thriving black market for weapons. Lunatics, ditto, nothing to stop them from using whatever means they have to do evil deeds.

Bad things happen to good people, all the time, in all countries and in all circumstances. It has always happened, it always will. And quite frankly, if you're some blind statist who thinks big nanny government can protect you from all of lifes evils and always has the best interest of the little person at heart, then I have no real interest in arguing with you either, because you're farther away in cloud cookoo land than anyone could ever accuse me of.

MagicSean · 18-04-2010 1:11pm

SeanW wrote: »

First of all, I am not an anarchist. Liberty is a happy medium between anarchy and statism. I consider myself a left-libertarian.

With anarchy, you basically have no goverment, no police force, no government services. With liberty, you have a government that protects your country and your natural rights. E.g. a "Night Watchman" State. That is what I favour in terms of social issues and personal freedom.

I noticed you haven't addressed my point about the U.S. Prohibtion era? Did I miss something? Was it the alcohol that singly to blame for all that criminal madness in the 1920s?

Government cannot "pre-empt" you from being murdered. Criminals can have all the weapons they want because they're criminals and theres a thriving black market for weapons. Lunatics, ditto, nothing to stop them from using whatever means they have to do evil deeds.

Bad things happen to good people, all the time, in all countries and in all circumstances. It has always happened, it always will. And quite frankly, if you're some blind statist who thinks big nanny government can protect you from all of lifes evils and always has the best interest of the little person at heart, then I have no real interest in arguing with you either, because you're farther away in cloud cookoo land than anyone could ever accuse me of.

You have said it yourself. Alcohol was banned and became an illegal substance. The demand for alcohol was so great that the illegal supply of it became very profitable and made many criminals rich. This in turn led to increase in violence which you refer to. So yes alcohol was responsable. If there had been no demand for alcohol there would have been no money for these criminals to make and no violence.

You think someone should protect your natural rights. This is what happens. Your right to life is protected by banning harmful weapons and substances. While your political ideal is admirable i don't think it is realistic in todays society.

SeanW · 18-04-2010 2:18pm

k_mac wrote: »

So yes alcohol was responsable.

And prohibition was totally blameless? If so, I'm very thankful people like you weren't policymakers in the 1930s because the U.S. and probably the world would still be fighting a "War on Alcohol" today, with all of its attendant problems.

You think someone should protect your natural rights. This is what happens.

No. your natural rights are your right to life, your right to freedom of expression, your right to make some personal decisions for your self (such as where to live, what jobs to seek, what to smoke, drink, eat, who to associate with, the right to defend yourself against evil etc). Big government usually infringes on these rights, either directly or indirectly through attendant social problems.

While your political ideal is admirable i don't think it is realistic in todays society.

Ditto. I find this doe-eyed blind faith in big government of yours to be rather unsettling. The idea that government is primarily concerned with "protecting the vulnerable" as you earlier put it, is while likewise admirable, largely unrealistic in all circumstances where government is composed of people with the normal human frailties.

Big Media for example, who for example are companies that have lots of money, obscene profits and multi-billion dollar "lobbying" (i.e. soft corruption) budgets, who want to take control of the Internet are - by your definition - "vulnerable," and even more so (as you earlier said you'd be happy if censorship just went after file sharing and left CP alone) than abused children in CP websites.

pooch90 · 18-04-2010 3:32pm

How can you really stop any of this? Surely if you are downloading compressed or encoded files you cannot easily tell whats in them?

Would you not be aswell to ban wireless networks because, if i lived in an appartment block, I could just crack the key for my neighbours web (minutes is all it takes - with eircom anyway as Its easy) and download using his connection. If I need to pay with credit card, i would pay with someone elses credit card details (doubt its hard to get someone elses credit card details, if your that way inclined). He gets the blame, I walk away and we're left with another ineffective law which will be used later on to pursue political agenda.

MagicSean · 19-04-2010 2:07pm

SeanW wrote: »

And prohibition was totally blameless? If so, I'm very thankful people like you weren't policymakers in the 1930s because the U.S. and probably the world would still be fighting a "War on Alcohol" today, with all of its attendant problems.

So if something is hard to legislate against and enforce it shouldn't be done? I would be a very happy person if alcohol was still banned. Nicotine too. Alcohol is a contributory factor in a lot of crime in Ireland. It destroys people and their families. It's nothing but poison thats addictive.

SeanW wrote: »

No. your natural rights are your right to life, your right to freedom of expression, your right to make some personal decisions for your self (such as where to live, what jobs to seek, what to smoke, drink, eat, who to associate with, the right to defend yourself against evil etc). Big government usually infringes on these rights, either directly or indirectly through attendant social problems.

Your right to life is protected by banning people from carrying weapons that they could use to hurt you. Your right to freedom of expression is recognised as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others. How would you proprose to protect a persons right to life if not to ban weapons being carried by everyone. If people were allowed carry knives the only people who would would be criminals and people who think they can protect themselves. Most likely these people would have their knives used against them anyway. Another way your right to life is protected is by the control of drugs. Many people would not be smart enough to know the damage drugs can do or would think it somehow won't affect them. Sometimes people need to be protected from themselves as well you know.

SeanW wrote: »

Ditto. I find this doe-eyed blind faith in big government of yours to be rather unsettling. The idea that government is primarily concerned with "protecting the vulnerable" as you earlier put it, is while likewise admirable, largely unrealistic in all circumstances where government is composed of people with the normal human frailties.

You misunderstand me. I don't have faith in the government. I have faith in the rule of law.

SeanW wrote: »

Big Media for example, who for example are companies that have lots of money, obscene profits and multi-billion dollar "lobbying" (i.e. soft corruption) budgets, who want to take control of the Internet are - by your definition - "vulnerable," and even more so (as you earlier said you'd be happy if censorship just went after file sharing and left CP alone) than abused children in CP websites.

I didn't say I'd be happy if they left CP alone. Or that copyright is more important to stop than child porn. That's a blatant misrepresentation. You seem to think that just because someone is rich or powerful their rights shouldn't be the same. If you wrote a song and a media company stole it and published it you'd be quite pissed. They have the same rights. You are not entitled to more rights just because they are very rich. If they want to charge €100 for a single its up to them. I said I have no problem with something being done to enforce the law as it is. If you have a problem with a law you don't break it. You get it changed. The only rights you seem to want to uphold are your own.

IrishTonyO · 19-04-2010 2:10pm

At least UPC is still fighting this, thank God.

http://www.siliconrepublic.com/news/article/15906/comms/upc-to-continue-to-fight-music-giants-over-three-strikes-policy

MagicSean · 19-04-2010 2:22pm

IrishTonyO wrote: »

At least UPC is still fighting this, thank God.

http://www.siliconrepublic.com/news/article/15906/comms/upc-to-continue-to-fight-music-giants-over-three-strikes-policy

UPC are fighting the opposite. Some people think that web domains and web sites should be blocked. Others think that internet users should be monitored and punished for breaking the law online and using these sites. UPC are arguing against monitoring web users as it is an invasion of privacy. This would indicate they see the blocking of these sites as the way to go. I doubt this is from a moral standpoint though. It is more likely the cheaper option and places less responsability on them.

IrishTonyO · 19-04-2010 2:25pm

k_mac wrote: »

UPC are fighting the opposite. Some people think that web domains and web sites should be blocked. Others think that internet users should be monitored and punished for breaking the law online and using these sites. UPC are arguing against monitoring web users as it is an invasion of privacy. This would indicate they see the blocking of these sites as the way to go. I doubt this is from a moral standpoint though. It is more likely the cheaper option and places less responsability on them.

I don't see how you can infer that they see blocking of sites the way to go because they are fighting against the 3 strike thing. That is a major suppositional leap to make

SeanW · 19-04-2010 2:35pm

k_mac wrote: »

So if something is hard to legislate against and enforce it shouldn't be done?

No. Choosing to fight a war on something, will always have attendant consequences. Sometimes it's worth it because that something is always wrong. Child Porn is one example, always wrong, always worth whatever cost it takes to fight them.

Other Big Government bans are NOT worth their costs because it's just meddling at best. Alcohol prohibtion, tobacco taxes (where smuggling increases at a proportional rate to tax increases), some drugs etc.

Your right to life is protected by banning people from carrying weapons that they could use to hurt you.

Has no effect on criminals and others sufficiently determined. Johnny Scumbag with a long rap sheet and plenty of scumbag contacts, can buy all the weapons he wants

Many people would not be smart enough to know the damage drugs can do or would think it somehow won't affect them. Sometimes people need to be protected from themselves as well you know.

Most people clearly understand that using substances such as tobacco, alcohol, cannibis etc, carry risks. If find this argument to be logically insolvent.

I didn't say I'd be happy if they left CP alone. Or that copyright is more important to stop than child porn. That's a blatant misrepresentation.

You did, in Post 30:

kmac wrote:

Even if the ban was only introduced to prevent file to file sharing it wouldn't bother me.

Emmm ...

I said I have no problem with something being done to enforce the law as it is. If you have a problem with a law you don't break it. You get it changed. The only rights you seem to want to uphold are your own.

For the record, I do not drink, have no personal interest in cannibis for example, don't particularly feel the need to hold a weapon (though if I lived in somewhere like Moyross or Finglas it might be a different story), and am not looking to "protect my right to download movies" or anything like that. I am only looking to protect our citizens basic rights.

Two things in particular concern me about Big Medias recent moves.

One of the things Big Media wants is a Three Strikes policy - i.e. you are accused of piracy three times, and are disconnected. That generally means that a civil punishment (disconnection from the Internet) can be exacted without proof, i.e. solely on the basis of a private accusation. That should concern anyone who doesn't want to live in a banana republic.
Censorship: once the genie gets out of the bottle, censorship could be arbitrary, for example supposing I want to distribute something I have the right to, i.e. a personal work (which I have done, and plan to continue), on a file sharing site like MediaFire, will this be banned? I.E. not just sites like The Pirate Bay. Will any site, even with substantial non-infringing & legitimate use, be subject to censorship, simply because some powerful megacorporation spends a few billion on lobbying to demand it?
Additionally, how can we be sure that even infringement, terrorism and child porn will be limits of the rationale for censorship?

Would you even complain if censorship became even more political, i.e. censoring opposition or non-mainstream parties, arbitrarily chosen NGOs and private news publications?

I have seen nothing in any of your posts that you recognise a sensible boundary on government power.

Permabear · 19-04-2010 2:48pm

This post has been deleted.

MagicSean · 19-04-2010 4:04pm

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

That's the equivalent of saying "If you cant beat them, join them". The same argument could be made for legalising heroin.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Because he probably wont be able to use the weapon to defend himself or will use it in such a way that it will hurt an innocent bystander. It is not his life that is protected it is everyone elses. The only people who should carry weapons are those trained in their use. Life isn't like movie. The reality is that by the time a regular person takes out their weapon and tries to use it they will probably be dead.

And I know that a ban has an effect. I've seen it. And I see people in prison for carrying weapons who would have used them to kill or injure someone if they had not been caught.

MagicSean · 19-04-2010 4:26pm

SeanW wrote: »

No. Choosing to fight a war on something, will always have attendant consequences. Sometimes it's worth it because that something is always wrong. Child Porn is one example, always wrong, always worth whatever cost it takes to fight them.

Other Big Government bans are NOT worth their costs because it's just meddling at best. Alcohol prohibtion, tobacco taxes (where smuggling increases at a proportional rate to tax increases), some drugs etc.

I think you underestimate the damage these drugs do to people.

SeanW wrote: »

Has no effect on criminals and others sufficiently determined. Johnny Scumbag with a long rap sheet and plenty of scumbag contacts, can buy all the weapons he wants

Yes it does. And I've seen it work.

SeanW wrote: »

Most people clearly understand that using substances such as tobacco, alcohol, cannibis etc, carry risks. If find this argument to be logically insolvent.

You are overestimating peoples intellignece and reasoning. Most people don't understand how bad these substances are and see them only as a bit of fun. But lets say they do understand. Are they in the right state of mind to make the decision to use these substances? Take the example of a suicidal person. If a friend of yours told you he was going to overdose on pills because he wanted to die. Would you let him? Would you respect his right to make that decision?

SeanW wrote: »

You did, in Post 30:
Emmm ...

I said I wouldn't mind a ban on only copyright material. I did not say that it would be more important than stopping child porn.

SeanW wrote: »

For the record, I do not drink, have no personal interest in cannibis for example, don't particularly feel the need to hold a weapon (though if I lived in somewhere like Moyross or Finglas it might be a different story), and am not looking to "protect my right to download movies" or anything like that. I am only looking to protect our citizens basic rights.

As am I. We just have different views on how that should be done.

SeanW wrote: »

Two things in particular concern me about Big Medias recent moves.
One of the things Big Media wants is a Three Strikes policy - i.e. you are accused of piracy three times, and are disconnected. That generally means that a civil punishment (disconnection from the Internet) can be exacted without proof, i.e. solely on the basis of a private accusation. That should concern anyone who doesn't want to live in a banana republic.

Censorship: once the genie gets out of the bottle, censorship could be arbitrary, for example supposing I want to distribute something I have the right to, i.e. a personal work (which I have done, and plan to continue), on a file sharing site like MediaFire, will this be banned? I.E. not just sites like The Pirate Bay. Will any site, even with substantial non-infringing & legitimate use, be subject to censorship, simply because some powerful megacorporation spends a few billion on lobbying to demand it?
Additionally, how can we be sure that even infringement, terrorism and child porn will be limits of the rationale for censorship?

Would you even complain if censorship became even more political, i.e. censoring opposition or non-mainstream parties, arbitrarily chosen NGOs and private news publications?

I have seen nothing in any of your posts that you recognise a sensible boundary on government power.

Probably because you only see what you want. First of all civil proof is already much lower than criminal proof. Always has been. It's done on a probability basis and the burden of proof is usually reversed. This is nothing new. Big Media (whoever they are supposed to be) did not introduce it.

Secondly I have said in previous posts that any ban should be completely transparent. A list should be published of every site or domain that has been banned and the reason for the ban. And a ban should be allowed to be challenged in a court by the site owners. Don't try to paint me as some facist.

MagicSean · 19-04-2010 4:30pm

IrishTonyO wrote: »

I don't see how you can infer that they see blocking of sites the way to go because they are fighting against the 3 strike thing. That is a major suppositional leap to make

Not really. They are arguing that it shouldn't be up to them to police or monitor the copyright infringements. Which means it is up to the government to legislate against the sources of the infringement.

ei.sdraob · 19-04-2010 5:01pm

After singing the praises of the internet Charleton notes that it is, "thickly populated by fraudsters, pornographers of the worst kind and cranks.

"Among younger people, so much has the habit grown up of downloading copyright material from the internet that a claim of entitlement seems to have arisen to have what is not theirs for free."

Everyone won from this, he noted, "except for the creators of original copyright material who are utterly disregarded."

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/04/19/charleton_eircom_emi/

read and cry, read and cry

Good luck building a "knowledge" economy when the judges of this country have no understanding of the internet and have some rather silly opinions

thats a week after this
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/04/16/1211212/Ireland-May-Be-Next-To-Censor-the-Internet

bleh!!!

SeanW · 19-04-2010 5:09pm

k_mac wrote: »

I think you underestimate the damage these drugs do to people.

No, I'm under no illusions that drugs, both legal and illegal can kill (for example), but I think you underestimate the degree to which these people do these things (tobacco, alcohol etc) voluntarily, are fully aware of the potential consequences, and thusly, accept them in advance.

Yes it does. And I've seen it work.

I'm not so sure about that. Care to expand? Even if it has some limited impact, clearly we still have lots of gun crime, and the inability of law abiding citizens to defend themselves is clearly something you have not factored in.

But lets say they do understand. Are they in the right state of mind to make the decision to use these substances? Take the example of a suicidal person. If a friend of yours told you he was going to overdose on pills because he wanted to die. Would you let him? Would you respect his right to make that decision?

Huh?

How is someone choosing a calculated health risk for a pleasurable feeling (drunkenness, high etc) fully sober and aware comparable to somebody in a desperate state saying they're about to kill themselves?

I said I wouldn't mind a ban on only copyright material. I did not say that it would be more important than stopping child porn.

You clearly said you wouldn't care if they just went after file sharing.

File sharing =/= copyright infringement. Consider the following possibilities:

I create a map for a Train simulator game (perfectly legal with products like Auran Trainz) and choose to share it with something like MediaFire.
A development group creates a modification for a PC game (again perfectly legally, many games provide a Software Development Kit for this purpose), they chose to host it on a file sharing site. I choose to download it.
I decide to try out a version of Linux on my machine. I require a file sharing client such as Azureus, uTorrent etc, and a BitTorrent tracker which mananges the sharing of the latest distribution, as these are popular ways to distribute Linux versions as they're straightforward and take much of the bandwidth strain off the creators.

Microsoft might be threatened by that ... more blurred lines, more chances for big government to become big pandering/corruption.

If you decide to "ban filesharing" by the back door, my right to conduct all of this legal and morally upright activity is threatened.

I become vulnerable and I need to be protected, against government, big corporations, as well as people like you!

First of all civil proof is already much lower than criminal proof. Always has been. It's done on a probability basis and the burden of proof is usually reversed.

I am only aware of this in cases of slander and libel, i.e. if you defame someone and they sue you, you must then prove what what you said is true, in the capacity of a defendent.

I am not aware of any cases where someone can just accuse you something with no supporting facts and you have to prove your innocence, and if there is, it clearly requires reform.

Don't try to paint me as some facist.

You're not doing much to paint yourself as anything else. All of your posts have been about near blind calls for more authoritarianism and damn anyone who gets hurt as a result.

ardmacha · 19-04-2010 5:16pm

thickly populated by fraudsters, pornographers of the worst kind and cranks.

Pornography is an important Internet application and this board is sufficient evidence of the the population of cranks.

Among younger people, so much has the habit grown up of downloading copyright material from the internet that a claim of entitlement seems to have arisen to have what is not theirs for free

This is perfectly true, no doubt those that oppose the entitlement culture will agree.

Call Me Jimmy · 19-04-2010 5:21pm

Nobody in their right mind thinks child porn is acceptable.

But I have a very simple question to ask anyone who wants to give their government more power over its people:

do you trust the political establishment right now or have you ever in your life trusted it?

ei.sdraob · 19-04-2010 5:24pm

my problem is with his backward view of the internet

he is obviously not versed enough in the internet as can be seen from his comment to be making a sane judgement

the internet is powerful communication tool for people and companies, remarks like his and any steps towards censorship would make ireland to be seen on par with places like saudi arabia or belarus or china where internet censorship is the order of day

Blobby George · 19-04-2010 5:38pm

The only backwards view is yours. There is nothing wrong in the judges comments. Perhaps you are naive.

MagicSean · 19-04-2010 5:39pm

SeanW wrote: »

No, I'm under no illusions that drugs, both legal and illegal can kill (for example), but I think you underestimate the degree to which these people do these things (tobacco, alcohol etc) voluntarily, are fully aware of the potential consequences, and thusly, accept them in advance.

But due to the nature of the addictive nature of the substance there comes a point where it is no longer voluntary.

SeanW wrote: »

I'm not so sure about that. Care to expand? Even if it has some limited impact, clearly we still have lots of gun crime, and the inability of law abiding citizens to defend themselves is clearly something you have not factored in.

We actually have very little gun crime in this country. A gun or knife in the hands of someone who isn't trained in defending themselves is completely useless and more a liability to them and innocent people around them if they try and use it.

Huh?

SeanW wrote: »

How is someone choosing a calculated health risk for a pleasurable feeling (drunkenness, high etc) fully sober and aware comparable to somebody in a desperate state saying they're about to kill themselves?

Bit of a contradiction there. If they are drinking and doing drugs how are they sober and aware and able to calculate a risk? Maybe at first but as they go under the influence their ability to make sound decisions is pretty much non-existant. Much the same as somebody at the heigh of depression who sees no way out.

SeanW wrote: »

You clearly said you wouldn't care if they just went after file sharing.

File sharing =/= copyright infringement. Consider the following possibilities:
I create a map for a Train simulator game (perfectly legal with products like Auran Trainz) and choose to share it with something like MediaFire.

A development group creates a modification for a PC game (again perfectly legally, many games provide a Software Development Kit for this purpose), they chose to host it on a file sharing site. I choose to download it.

I decide to try out a version of Linux on my machine. I require a file sharing client such as Azureus, uTorrent etc, and a BitTorrent tracker which mananges the sharing of the latest distribution, as these are popular ways to distribute Linux versions as they're straightforward and take much of the bandwidth strain off the creators.

Microsoft might be threatened by that ... more blurred lines, more chances for big government to become big pandering/corruption.

If you decide to "ban filesharing" by the back door, my right to conduct all of this legal and morally upright activity is threatened.

I become vulnerable and I need to be protected, against government, big corporations, as well as people like you!

I was using the term file sharing in the context of copyright infringement only. I would expect that genuine file sharing sites would not be banned unless they continued to allow copyright infringement.

SeanW wrote: »

I am only aware of this in cases of slander and libel, i.e. if you defame someone and they sue you, you must then prove what what you said is true, in the capacity of a defendent.

I am not aware of any cases where someone can just accuse you something with no supporting facts and you have to prove your innocence, and if there is, it clearly requires reform.

I didn't say it would be without supporting facts or proof. Just a much lower level of proof required than would be needed for criminal courts.

SeanW wrote: »

You're not doing much to paint yourself as anything else. All of your posts have been about near blind calls for more authoritarianism and damn anyone who gets hurt as a result.

I would disagree. All my posts have been focused on protecting rights and enforcing laws set by democratically elected representatives. Hardly facist dogma.

Nehaxak · 19-04-2010 5:50pm

Don't know why people keep moaning about this, simple solution, stop buying music or related from any "artist" or their publishers/company who are involved in pushing through these stupid laws onto everyone else using the internets and don't vote for FF next time and these stupid backward judges who were placed there (Hihi jobs for the boys) by our government will no longer exist, hopefully.

SeanW · 19-04-2010 6:09pm

k_mac wrote: »

But due to the nature of the addictive nature of the substance there comes a point where it is no longer voluntary.

Meh ...

A gun or knife in the hands of someone who isn't trained in defending themselves is completely useless and more a liability to them and innocent people around them if they try and use it.

Which is why countries with liberal gun laws have gun ranges and weapons instructors. Sometimes the use of these is mandatory. Even where the holder is not trained, the gun can be useful in situations with forewarning, such as where you hear a window being broken in the night time.

Bit of a contradiction there. If they are drinking and doing drugs how are they sober and aware and able to calculate a risk? Maybe at first

You said it yourself, the person decides in advance whether to "go drinking" (for example) or not. The rest is accepted as a consequence.

Much the same as somebody at the heigh of depression who sees no way out.

Apples and oranges ... like I said in your example, I would intervene because I wouldn't want my friend to kill himself, and no other reason. If my friend calls me at home and says "Hey bro, I scored some good weed, wanna join me getting high?" I have no reason to intervene because it's none of my business, he's not going to commit suicide from the depths of depression so I have no reason to intervene.

I was using the term file sharing in the context of copyright infringement only. I would expect that genuine file sharing sites would not be banned unless they continued to allow copyright infringement.

That's a lot of "in a perfect world ..." stuff.

I didn't say it would be without supporting facts or proof. Just a much lower level of proof required than would be needed for criminal courts.

First of all civil proof is already much lower than criminal proof. Always has been. It's done on a probability basis and the burden of proof is usually reversed.

The standard in criminal law is for the prosecutor to provide proof beyond reasonable doubt. You said "the burden of proof is usually reversed which sounds like you mean the accused must prove his/her innocence, which is true only of slaner/libel.

But that's beside the point: there is no due process with "Three Strikes" i.e. sanction is applied independent of the courts and there is no question, no burden of proof because the media companies want a system whereby their accusations are all that is required.

I would disagree. All my posts have been focused on protecting rights and enforcing laws set by democratically elected representatives. Hardly facist dogma.

Your posts speak for themselves ...

sceptre · 19-04-2010 6:16pm

People contributing to this thread, please take careful note that this is the Politics forum and there are rules/guidelines on personalising the discussion and/or insulting other forum members. As a hint, these things aren't allowed. I can only assume from some posts in this thread that some of you are not entirely aware of that.

The forum charter is stickied at the top of the main forum. It's easy to find.

/mod

Putting up barriers to a free and open internet

Comments