you`re quite right r29k, if only we could get people to take this road, then the whole lobby from the copyright boys would stand empty-handed. if only...
I know they are not going to get another $ out of me for movies, but I will support some music artists it's not their fault they are working for clowns. Games need support, a lot of the industry was against SOPA but EA won't get anything long live piracy.
it is just like gorski said, a creative artist should make a living, just like a baker or a blacksmith. and with my blessing.. but if they can do it on the www, without having to lick the dust from the soles of the industrial shoes, so much the better.. the industry just sticks to a century-old business model, and then blames the whole world-wide web when they find it no longer works that way..
Shoe on the other foot: RIAA wants to scrap anti-piracy OPEN Act Source They should do a rush job on this one
Here are some of the advantages and possible downsides of the same tool: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16801382 What say you?
hi Gorski. quote Here are some of the advantages and possible downsides of the same tool: unquote. i may be thickheaded, but i seem to miss the point.. sure some people use the www for illegal purposes, you can use anything for that, from a crowbar to a hacktool.. but the fact that a burglar uses a crowbar does not mean we need legislation to ban crowbars alltogether i think.. regards, nodnar
This is the question of the power of internet, impacting upon our lives and the life of a community as a whole, indeed the world as such. Just like science, as some philosophers have seen this a long time ago. Suddenly scientists can do all sorts of monstrosities, which can be used in whole manner of purposes, including warfare - can you really say it doesn't need legislation and extra controls? As in legislature bringing new laws, parliamentary committees overseeing the work of researches, judiciary and lawyers must be trained and educated, police, too etc. etc. This is other than scientific community itself scrutinising its work, just like the military ought to be in the civilian hands, for instance? Imagine a typical military mind being left to do whatever they deem "necessary" or "fit for a situation".... Brrrr... Similarly with scientists and medical profession, for instance. Dr. Mengele comes to mind, for instance... It would be silly, I think, to pretend that nothing changed with internet, just as we can't pretend nothing changed with the ever more powerful science and technology we have today. For instance, paedophiles lurking on the net. Coppers have to follow those, just like rogue scientists, arms dealers and so forth. In this case, one can order guns and whatnot - completely anonymously - and this changes a few things, doesn't it?
point taken, and thanks for your clear explanation.. you are absolutely right in the instances you mention of course. what put me off track is that i think such changes are gradual, and that any tool is neither good or bad, it is only the way that user employs it that is..
Yes but these novelties (in science, technology, medicine etc.) are novelties because new possibilities are present - and those have to be thought through carefully... Suddenly, the potential for destruction is incredible and these things must be assessed and managed properly. We are their creators and we better get a grip of what we have created, the implications etc. If we are not going to be in control, like some philosophers are alleging -then what?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/nov/26/dark-side-internet-freenet http://freenetproject.org/download.html
Hi Gorski, Impressive piece of information. From the freenet faq; I don't want my node to be used to harbor child porn, offensive content or terrorism. What can I do? The true test of someone who claims to believe in Freedom of Speech is whether they tolerate speech which they disagree with, or even find disgusting. If this is not acceptable to you, you should not run a Freenet node. Well, I guess they are right. I always thought I wanted freedom of speech at any price. These devil`s advocates have almost changed my mind.. [You`ll have me defending that damned legislation, if I`m not carefull.!] Regards, nodnar
Should be freedom within reason, if they continue with that line of thinking you may end up having murders where the culprit claims freedom of expression. free·dom/ˈfrēdəm/ Noun: 1. The power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint. 2. Absence of subjection to foreign domination or despotic government.
When I wrote my post I didn't see yours I started before you posted. In any case the real issue is this. You have the US with the retarded Hollywood mobsters trying to say you are stealing their products etc. Ok fine but they fully well know that this stealing only applies to countries that have anti piracy laws. A lot of countries don't have those laws so it isn't piracy, it's a perfectly fine download. So they are trying to use their despot hands to impose their crap on everyone. Apparently calling you a thief and suing Ip addresses and what not isn't working so they have to develop a communist agenda to do the job. Which to me defines definition 2 of the meaning of Freedom as posted above. The solution is simple, move your downloads out of US jurisdiction and carry on as normal and if your government gets strong armed by the US into changing laws then open your mouth about it. People have the power not governments.
Yes, we need to put things into context, so we know what we are talking about. We need to carefully analyse various issues in this complex thing. As I said, there are no universal, single, silver-bullet answers! Moreover, on the level of the system as a whole, the liberal model has an in-built "little" problem: can we tolerate the intolerant? The model can not rationally defend the forces working on its own demise, using it in order to abolish it. Think about it a little. Say, FIS in Algeria... Nazis in Germany... Taliban in Iraq now... etc. etc. We do not have a ready-made answer to various problems in this regard...
From the Freenet FAQ; Let me clarify some of the issues here: this is NOT about mealy-mouthed, cosy one-liberal-to-another-fully-committed-liberal "verbal disagreement" or "disgust" (with one's taste in women or clothes), as badly worded [and not really thought-through] as it is in the FAQ (for they are not "mentioning" that words are merely precursors for action, for those characters who use it for seriously nefarious purposes!!!) but this is about whether - for instance - Freenet would be allowed to exist after some guys on it came to power, using Freenet in the process? What if those guys want to abolish the idea of tolerance itself, with everything that it entails? We are talking democracy, multi-party system, parliament, division of power, mutual controls, freedom of expression, internet with Freenet etc. etc. - they would all be gone, if - for arguments sake - Taliban used the Freenet tool to win power and after that pulled the plug, not just on the internet but all of the above, plus abolished the right to be educated for girls, no more music and dance, no arts with human images, no.................... Indulge yourselves here, dear fluffy, fuzzy, pinky and cuddly Liberals and Libertarians... (Can you tolerate this joke? Because it's no joke! It's darn real!!!) The FAQ is semi-honest, as to what the real issues are. It is semi-cooked, in terms of what is at stake in there. If one adheres fully to the Freenet idea and runs his PC with Freenet on it active, all the time, what is one really doing? Because if anyone's child gets abducted and tortured etc. - can you have it on your conscience? Can you really say that it has nothing to do with you, if you aided and abetted those sociopaths?!? What if murders are committed, using your PC? Biological/chemical warfare being waged? How far would you go before...?!? Just how far?!?
The point is that there are plenty of people who do not understand that their freedom is limited by other people's freedom... Some people want power over other people more than life itself...
i guess i am going to stick right by what i said before.. this faq of theirs has got some pretty shocking implications, as i believe we both pointed out. so i still believe in freedom of speech. so i don`t believe in abusing it for wicked things. so i believe they went a bridge or two too far. so there are folks about on the www prepared to go to such lenghts. so they will find me squarely on their way if they do that. so you won`t find me running freenet on my machine. all of this, however, is no reason to stand idly by while the copyright lobby tries to f*** up democracy and force legislation down our throats.. and that was the original issue...
It's not possible to police it if it is heavily encrypted (some ways of encryption - keys to decrypt - are not shared with US etc. authorities) or way too enormous... But that is not the issue - it's about who is legally able and has a duty [when suspected threats to lives etc. are on the cards] to get into somebody's website or email etc. Under which conditions is that legal and how it is controlled/monitored, which body/bodies are in charge of it all and can stop any such activity etc. Legitimacy of those actions/processes/procedures/organisations is, however, down to all of us to assess...