No. Unlike you, I draw no conclusions about the morality of a course of action just because China does or doesn't do it. China is a red herring.

In reply to a post by camieabz:

In reply to a post by Guest_Again:

Some people have money to pay for a film,
and there are some people that don't.
There are others that spend all their time on a load,
but most of us could but won't.

There are criminals out there, and angels in here
doing lots for a buck (or naught),
but if you steal from the gov, for food, greed or love,
in the end you're bound to be caught.

© The last two lines to me.

Breach the copyright and I sue.

CLASS (action] (sneakily done) - Whenever there's a claim ~> I'm game!

Please read the following - it has been missed out from my original piece, and has completely RUINED my work, my thought processssessssesss and my spealing has been adverslyley affected - oh-NO!!

*On phone to Ambulance-Chasers-R-Uz* who just said that I FULLY displayed any caveats et ergo thou art est gettin' a sueing - and all I need to do is merely reiterate the bit[s] that objected to complete. Shamefull!!

"<COMPLETE THIS FOR TBB FAME!>

*Yet ANOTHER from Guestys "All My oWN wuRK" series.

Signed: The FC Bard-[ish].".

S.Y.I.C,M8TY!

*YAWN.

In reply to a post by AEP:

You could equally argue that, in my corrected form of your analogy, the motorcycle manufacturer has not been negatively affected in any way. They may be upset that you have obtained a perfect replica of one of their motorcycles for free, but you would argue that you weren't going to buy one in the first place.

So, can I ask again - in the corrected form of your analogy, do you think that would be fair to the motorcycle manufacturers?

Any analogy can have holes picked in it as no two situations are every 100% the same. For example, creating a duplicate motorbike is not free and is not without effort. If someone were to build a replica bike, I do not believe Kawasaki would care, unless they were selling those copies. In the same way as people build race replica motorcycles without drawing the ire of the manufacturers.

But back to the actual topic of the thread. The BBC news story isn't about piracy being right or wrong, it is about censorship. It is the censorship I disagree with.

You might disagree with Piracy, and I would hope you disagree with child exploitation, but closing the door on these things and pretending they don't happen (as we all know blocking http access to one nzb aggregation site will not hamper piracy when there are other sites, and VPNs) is not a solution.

First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

In reply to a post by nemeth782:

The key difference I am trying to get across is that if a person views a film for free, weather by borrowing a DVD from a mate, downloading it from the internet, streaming it online, or looking through the window of the theatre, the publisher has not lost anything, or been negatively affected in any way.

If I had a mate who was always wanting to borrow my DVD's and didn't buy any of his own, he wouldn't get to borrow them. I don't have any selfish [censored] for mates though. Equally, you'll be very hard pressed to find a cinema, theatre or footie ground with windows. I wonder why? If you have an original idea and someone rips it off, depriving you of a comfortable lifestyle for the rest of your days, will you happily accept that it's being duplicated or copied and not stolen?

In reply to a post by nemeth782:

First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

That's a flgrant misuse of that quote. Again there's the piracy argument hiding behind censorship laws. There would be no threat of censorship laws if piracy didn't get corporations bothered. Equally, if folk just didn't buy the produce the makers would have to reduce their prices.

It's a hypothetical situation. Just suppose (I know it's impossible but suspend your belief for a moment and just suppose) that it was possible to duplicate a motorcycle for free. Would it be fair on the motorcycle manufacturers? Why are you so reluctant to answer this simple question?

The BBC news story isn't about piracy being right or wrong, it is about censorship.

No it is not. There is no attempt to stop people from viewing these movies, just to stop them stealing them.

Yeah. It should be:

First they didn't come for me
and I was happy.
Then they didn't come for the copyright pirates,
and I was very happy.
Then they didn't come for the thieves,
and I was reasonably happy.
Then they didn't come for the rapists,
and....

In reply to a post by AEP:

It's a hypothetical situation. Just suppose (I know it's impossible but suspend your belief for a moment and just suppose) that it was possible to duplicate a motorcycle for free. Would it be fair on the motorcycle manufacturers? Why are you so reluctant to answer this simple question?

The BBC news story isn't about piracy being right or wrong, it is about censorship.

No it is not. There is no attempt to stop people from viewing these movies, just to stop them stealing them.

If your hypothetical situation were true, and people were able to instantly duplicate motorcycles for free, then the fact of Kawasaki not liking it would not change the fact that they may as well not like the sun and ask it not to rise, and they would quickly find that their then outdated business model would die. Fairness would not even be a factor.

You still refuse to answer the question. Understandable.

In such an event Kawaski would do all they could to make access to such a machine impossible. Do not be surprised that copyright holders do the same.

As a matter of interest, what business model would you suggest that Kawaski should follow if such a case existed?

There are millions of duff coins floating around and they're essentially legitimate because people are using them quite happily. If you have more than a couple of pound coins in your wallet there's a decent chance one of them is dodgy.

Notes are a different kettle of fish.