It's interesting as this block is far 'lighter' than the blocks in the UK we have for child pornography. The tech exists to blacklist TPB or any other sites the government want to. Currently the organisation that does that only deals with blocking child porn. The measures for blocking TPB and Newzbin have been purposely positioned outside of that, and are far more trivial to circumvent.Originally Posted by mickygor
It's a fair point to make, and strictly speaking from a legal perspective the blocking of a pirate website is fair game (if entirely ineffective). From a moral perspective though there are clearly two different schools of thought on piracy, which the "pro-litigation" side not exactly helped by the ridiculous actions of groups like the RIAA/MPAA.
I think the broader issue is that it sets a precedence. Here in Australia the Great Firewall project that the Australian Labor Party keep clinging to (for some reason) extends beyond illegal material and into other adult content which isn't illegal to view but might be considered offensive to... I dunno, puritans or something. The filter is sold to the public by wrapping it up as "child protection", either by blocking access to paedophile websites (wouldn't they all be underground on darknets though?) or by stopping kids accessing porn. The proposals though range from opt-out ("Please remove the adult filter so I can look at tits") to mandatory filtering. From that perspective I'm strongly opposed to filtering attempts because it's too easy to roll it into other 'illegal' areas, and as we all know something that's illegal isn't necessarily morally wrong. I'm afraid of governments taking it too far.
The other issue is that blocking is entirely ineffective. The most casual of pirates might be stopped (but I doubt they'd cause a significant loss anyway) but most will simply circumvent the block, achieving absolutely nothing. If they want to stop piracy, they're fighting a losing battle. Part of reducing the casual or moderate piracy sector would be to address the underlying issues. For example, people pirate TV shows in Australia because they take forever to air here (if they make it at all), and in the digital age the only reasons for not airing them at the same time are related to licensing (which really isn't valid).
A block is ineffective but sets a dangerous precedent. You can be opposed to filtering and opposed to illegal activities, though I doubt people would rank piracy up there with paedophilia or murder.
Remember the French HADOPI law? It did lower piracy, but it did fail to rise the sales of music and movies. Not only didn't the sales rise, but they decreased 10%. Companies often make the mistake of considering pirates their potential customers. That is false and most people wouldn't buy your product even if you offered it at ridiculously low prices. Some people pirate things because it is their only way of obtaining them.
I think I had moved beyond (il)legality as the basis of right and wrong by the time I was 8 years old...
I'm not using it from a moral standpoint, I'm using it as the government's justification for the action. People who argue for freedom from censorship fall flat on double standards if they do not argue for it in all cases. Government can defend their actions pointing to precedence with things that the opponents do not argue with.
mickygor, Battlefield 3
Otmer, League of Legends EUW
Bastiat, Planetside 2, Miller NC
I am struggling to understand where you are coming from. My opposition to this action does not necessarily rely upon the total rejection of government censorship insofar as it relates to the internet where there are numerous complicating issues such as national boundaries, interplay of public and private spheres, etc.
The example you have offered of child pornography does not apply: the government can legitimately intervene against child pornography not on the grounds that it is objectionable speech, but rather on the grounds that it infringes the child's privacy. Privacy is not an absolute right, but in the case of child pornography there are certainly no mitigating circumstances (such as it being in the overwhelming public interest) to be considered. In the case of 'virtual' child pornography such as drawings or CGI there is no child being harmed or having their privacy invaded and the government has no legitimate grounds for intervention. It is in those cases merely speech.
Last edited by Rii; 08-05-2012 at 11:05 PM.
Remember the French HADOPI law? It did lower piracy, but it did fail to rise the sales of music and movies. Not only didn't the sales rise, but they decreased 10%. Companies often make the mistake of considering pirates their potential customers. That is false and most people wouldn't buy your product even if you offered it at ridiculously low prices. Some people pirate things because it is their only way of obtaining them.
I would say pirating does the opposite, it helps sales, there are many an album, TV show, film or any other kind of media that I wouldn't of bought if I didn't pirate it first.
By and large though I doubt that's the case; most people were either going to buy it or not to begin with. I mean when a new Valve game comes out most people seem to move towards 'day one purchase', I doubt that pirating the game would have suddenly changed someone's mind that they should suddenly pay for it. That said the first Minecraft build I played was a pirated copy, which I played for about 20 minutes before rushing off to buy it.
But the original point about the HADOPI law rings true; a pirated copy is not necessarily a lost sale, particularly when you're talking about media (like TV shows) where the real issue is limited access. It's a similar sort of thing to the people who try to insist copyright is stealing; piracy doesn't literally cost anything because it's a copy, a duplicate, of the original media. The original copyright owner doesn't 'lose' anything by that copy being made versus that copy never being made and the person who used the copy never buying an original. The estimated loss figures assume that everyone bought that copy, which isn't realistic.
Sure there are some things in peoples minds that are purchasable no matter what but how did they get there? Its like what Neil Gaimen said, how many peoples favourite authors was because of being lent a book. Same thing applies to piracy.
On your last point god yes, for example i love Community and i would buy the whole seasons of it so many of my friends could find the brilliance of it but nope only the first season is avaliable and you have to pirate the rest to see it. Ergh it pisses me off.
More bad news, ISP's in India and The Netherlands have been ordered to block access to TPB. For some strange reason Vimeo has been also blocked in India.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
