People use the internet to infringe copyright. This does not give the government the right to force ISPs to monitor all of my communication.
Much in the same way that they shouldn't be able to force BT to monitor my phone calls because crimes can be organised over the phone or force royal mail to read all of my letters and open all of my parcels.
Also, the government should not be cutting off households from an increasingly essential service because someone used there access point to infringe copyright. It is trivial for someone to use a wifi signal that is not theirs. If someone steals my car and crashes into a business premisses do I have to give up my driving licence?
There is also the argument against collective punishment as a whole. Can you justify cutting off entire families for the copyright infringement perpetrated by one member. There has already been an occurrence of a community internet portal being cut off because one of the hundreds of people who use it downloaded a movie.
In addition you have the fact that numerous false accusations about "digital theft". Once the accusation was made against a photocopier.
You want people who accuse office equipment of copyright infringement to have the power to punish people for a crime with no burden of proof. The accused having no right to trial or appeal.
Digital thieves can be compared to those scum watching football matches from their balconies in their high rise blocks of flats overlooking the stadium. Just because you can watch something without paying for it doesn't make it right. Society won't be able to progress until all bootleggers, pirates, forgers, counterfeiters and other freeloaders are locked up in jail, or at least confined to their homes, disconnected from the Internet, and banned from using any copying equipment until they've learnt to pay for stuff instead of stealing it.
No, no, no. If you steal something, it is gone. If you copy something, it is still there.
Copyright infringement is not theft. It is copyright infringement. They are called different things because they are different things.
I'm not in favour of copyright infringement. I don't illegally download music, films, etc. I use and develop open source software, which makes copyright very important to me and my income (open source licenses fundamentally depend on copyright law). Nonetheless, articles like this one are not helping to inform this debate – you're confusing the issue with glib but inaccurate phrases like 'digital theft' that any 14 year old can see are not true. If you gild your point with lies, nobody will care whether your point is valid or not.
I could not agree more. Moving on our hero Heidar Helgusons is in the thick of things again. Been a brilliant weekend. Not been to a game for about two years as I live in Scotland but me and two mates traveled down and thankfully were not disappointed (far from it). A 3-0 win against Scunthorp is no easy task but we made it look easy at times at Vicarage road. I could name 5 or 6 players who played out of there skin. The after party was even better. Stayed at one of the Village <a href="http://www.village-hotels.co.uk/Hotels/watford elstree/">hotels in elstree</a>. How we managed to find our way back to the hotel I have no idea. Hopefully be back down for a game after new-year.
There's also the stating of unsubstantiated claims: "the UK leads the world in illegal downloads of TV programmes, with up to 25 percent of all online TV piracy taking place here."
People use the internet to infringe copyright. This does not give the government the right to force ISPs to monitor all of my communication.
Much in the same way that they shouldn't be able to force BT to monitor my phone calls because crimes can be organised over the phone or force royal mail to read all of my letters and open all of my parcels.
Also, the government should not be cutting off households from an increasingly essential service because someone used there access point to infringe copyright. It is trivial for someone to use a wifi signal that is not theirs. If someone steals my car and crashes into a business premisses do I have to give up my driving licence?
There is also the argument against collective punishment as a whole. Can you justify cutting off entire families for the copyright infringement perpetrated by one member. There has already been an occurrence of a community internet portal being cut off because one of the hundreds of people who use it downloaded a movie.
In addition you have the fact that numerous false accusations about "digital theft". Once the accusation was made against a photocopier.
You want people who accuse office equipment of copyright infringement to have the power to punish people for a crime with no burden of proof. The accused having no right to trial or appeal.
This entire charade makes me sick.
"I prefer to call it by its real name – digital theft."
Bzzzt. Challenge!
It's real name is copyright infringement and it has about as much in common with theft or piracy as speeding has with tax evasion.
I stopped reading after this line as it reveals the author has no idea what he's talking about.
Digital thieves can be compared to those scum watching football matches from their balconies in their high rise blocks of flats overlooking the stadium. Just because you can watch something without paying for it doesn't make it right. Society won't be able to progress until all bootleggers, pirates, forgers, counterfeiters and other freeloaders are locked up in jail, or at least confined to their homes, disconnected from the Internet, and banned from using any copying equipment until they've learnt to pay for stuff instead of stealing it.
No, no, no. If you steal something, it is gone. If you copy something, it is still there.
Copyright infringement is not theft. It is copyright infringement. They are called different things because they are different things.
I'm not in favour of copyright infringement. I don't illegally download music, films, etc. I use and develop open source software, which makes copyright very important to me and my income (open source licenses fundamentally depend on copyright law). Nonetheless, articles like this one are not helping to inform this debate – you're confusing the issue with glib but inaccurate phrases like 'digital theft' that any 14 year old can see are not true. If you gild your point with lies, nobody will care whether your point is valid or not.
Chocking on the sarcasm from Mr Fitch.
I can almost hear the FACT dvd theme tune playing in the background.
I could not agree more. Moving on our hero Heidar Helgusons is in the thick of things again. Been a brilliant weekend. Not been to a game for about two years as I live in Scotland but me and two mates traveled down and thankfully were not disappointed (far from it). A 3-0 win against Scunthorp is no easy task but we made it look easy at times at Vicarage road. I could name 5 or 6 players who played out of there skin. The after party was even better. Stayed at one of the Village <a href="http://www.village-hotels.co.uk/Hotels/watford elstree/">hotels in elstree</a>. How we managed to find our way back to the hotel I have no idea. Hopefully be back down for a game after new-year.
There's also the stating of unsubstantiated claims: "the UK leads the world in illegal downloads of TV programmes, with up to 25 percent of all online TV piracy taking place here."
Where does this data come from?