Believe whatever you lot want. Don't come crying to me when the great national firewall descends. Enjoy your ivory towers in the meantime.
Yes, because this is the same thing as the government installing national web filters.
You're just being silly right now. And yes, you're being called silly by someone who makes half his living by working in technology and web site creation.
If you don't want to get a warning for illegally downloading stuff, how about you don't illegally download stuff. Jesus Christ.
That's what I think Harthan is truly mad about. There is such a sense of entitlement from so many people these days (and now, I'm not necessarily speaking of Harthan, as he and I have discussed this issue before) that people actually believe it's their right to illegally download files. And they get mad when someone tells them no. It's simply absurd. All the rage about this news is completely manufactured and completely lacking in rationality.
Quite honestly, this is actually a GOOD thing for users. By putting into place this system, the big media companies don't actually get access to a subscriber's information. They are not asking for information to sue. The illegal downloader is not being turned over to the police. What the ISPs are doing is actually about as reasonable and rational as anybody could ever hope for.
1st Time: "Hey, we notice something bad is going on. Here's how you can help prevent it from happening again."
2nd Time: "Hey, we noticed you still are having some troubles. Here's some more information which may help."
3rd Time: "Just checking in with you again. Noticing some more problems, we really must ask you to fix this."
4th Time: "We notice that you're still downloading illegally. If this continues, we'll be forced to slap you on the wrist by slowing down your Internet connection so you cannot download illegally as fast as you have been."
5th Time: "Okay, mister, you asked for it! We're now turning down your Internet speed by half! We're not going to terminate your service, but each time we catch you, we're going to slow you down some more."
^ I mean, seriously, why the fuck are people complaining about that?
The problem is torrenting isn't illegal.
But torrenting copyrighted works is. Which is what this thread is all about.
By the definition those torrent sites are not violating any standing law, it is not the service but the files on it that are the issue.
And this action by the ISPs is not directed towards torrent link sites, but rather the individual users who are torrenting copyrighted works.
The Pirate Bay gets a lot of heat for illegal downloading, but the service isn't illegal nor is everything on it. Yes, some of the content is but like with MegaUpload not everything is.
Yes, and the digital scale I used to sell to the tatted up, high as a kite, junky can sometimes also weigh letters to determine postage. That doesn't mean the bulk of its use isn't for illegal use.
But again, what you just said has nothing to do with this topic.
Meaning, just because you download something from those places doesn't mean what you downloaded violated any copyright.
And if I'm downloading the latest version of OpenSUSE, neither Novell or any media company is going to complain.
But if I download The Hurt Locker, I might be getting a letter from my ISP. You do understand the difference, correct?
Nor does it mean you violated US copyright law which includes fair use.
Fair use only applies in a limited set of circumstances. Seeding a copy of The Hurt Locker is not fair use.
You have to understand the potential for abuse, violating free speech and companies punishing people that didn't violate any law.
And you have to understand what FUD means, and how you're actively engaging it.
I suggest you look up what Universal Music Group has done not only on downloading sites but YouTube as well. Corporations should not be allowed to take part in such manners.
I don't have to, I know abuse has taken place.
But the correct action is to correct the abuse, not willfully continue to break the law. As the adults in your life taught you when you were younger, "two wrongs don't make a right".
Net Neutrality? So why are you arguing in favor of limiting people's access to the internet? More so in favor of something that could be prone to abuse and doesn't factor in human error? You have to respect the potential for this.
I don't think you understand Net Neutrality.
Net Neutrality, at its core, is a principle which says no Internet traffic can in any way be blocked on its way to its destination. In other words, my ISP cannot prevent me from watching Netflix because it has a deal with Amazon. My ISP can't redirect my search to a Walmart website to a Best Buy website (or whatever). Net Neutrality does NOT, however, protect the rights of criminal actions. Net Neutrality will not stop you from committing criminal actions, but it does not protect you from the consequences of those actions.
What is happening here is in no way in violation of Net Neutrality. The ISP is not inspecting your packets. The ISP is taking completely a reactive stance, and not even a stance that is all that intimidating.
I'm sorry, but your position here is off.
. Thank you Google! I'll continue to live my "life of crime", LOL!