In reply to a post by AEP:

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.

It IS about censorship. Blocking Newsbin doesn't affect me, I have never visited or used it, and my ISP does not use cleanfeed anyway.

What does affect me is the knock on affects of this. Publishers representing rights holders (even though they are guilty of infringement themselves - http://business.financialpost.com/2011/05/30/judge-a... ) can now get orders to block websites.

Next it will be sites like the pirate bay. Again, I don't use it, so I don't care. However, after that, it could be youtube.com. People often post copyright infringing items on there. Then Facebook. Plenty of my friends have posted event/wedding photos that the photographer held the copyright to. Then Google. Then all newsgroup providers.

Where do we draw the line? Do we now need a group of people to decide which sites are too illegal to be allowed?

I find censorship to be distasteful. And no amount of "please think of the children" will persuade me that it is justified. You would be as well to suggest mandate the use of ear defenders in case someone overhears the music from my iPod on the bus without paying for it.

Edited by nemeth782 (Thu 28-Jul-11 17:23:45)

In reply to a post by AEP:

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?

I would suggest that if this ever happens, Kawasaki are no longer needed, that people can duplicate their own motorcycles, and they should be allowed to fail.

I would say the same of the music industry, the film industry, and the banks. I wouldn't expect any of them them to go out without a fight, but I wouldn't support them either.

False scarcity and perceived value is no value at all, but these companies (and indeed us as workers) depend on it. http://www.cracked.com/article_18817_5-reasons-futur...

And who would make the original motorcycles for you to copy. Who will make the films?

In reply to a post by AEP:

And who would make the original motorcycles for you to copy. Who will make the films?

It will be the same as if Microsoft go under and Linux becomes the dominant operating system.

We will open source it.

Someone will copy one of the old pre-motorcycle-duplication Kawasakis and modify it. Improve it a bit. Someone will copy that and modify it some more.

People will make films as art or just for fun ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blair_Witch_Project ). When there is demand for new films and none being made, someone will come up with a new business model (maybe, sell an idea, donate to have it developed, etc).

I'm not saying that the sinking of the Titanic will be 100% good, 100% pain free, or that the replacement, initially liferafts and later other ships, will be as grand or as large, but that doesn't mean we should fire our guns pointlessly at the evil water trying to hold back the inevitable.

In reply to a post by nemeth782:

In reply to a post by AEP:

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.

It IS about censorship. Blocking Newsbin doesn't affect me, I have never visited or used it, and my ISP does not use cleanfeed anyway.

What does affect me is the knock on affects of this. Publishers representing rights holders (even though they are guilty of infringement themselves - http://business.financialpost.com/2011/05/30/judge-a... ) can now get orders to block websites.

Next it will be sites like the pirate bay. Again, I don't use it, so I don't care. However, after that, it could be youtube.com. People often post copyright infringing items on there. Then Facebook. Plenty of my friends have posted event/wedding photos that the photographer held the copyright to. Then Google. Then all newsgroup providers.

Where do we draw the line? Do we now need a group of people to decide which sites are too illegal to be allowed?

I find censorship to be distasteful. And no amount of "please think of the children" will persuade me that it is justified. You would be as well to suggest mandate the use of ear defenders in case someone overhears the music from my iPod on the bus without paying for it.

It's not about censorship at all, it's simply about a business getting it's rightful monies - two totally different things.

In reply to a post by Vorlon:

It's not about censorship at all

So it shouldn't be in the kiddie pron system.

In reply to a post by BatBoy:

In reply to a post by Vorlon:

It's not about censorship at all

So it shouldn't be in the kiddie pron system.

If a system and/or mechanism can serve more than one task, then what's the problem in using it?

In reply to a post by Vorlon:

It's not about censorship at all, it's simply about a business getting it's rightful monies - two totally different things.

Ummm no its about censorship. Censoring that website won't get the business their rightful monies. We are just letting some overseas muppets block a domain name over here. Once we start on that road its going to be a very nasty one. You can't censor the internet because the people that try don't understand how it works, it doesn't belong to government it belongs to the publc

You can't censor the internet because the people that try don't understand how it works, it doesn't belong to government it belongs to the publc

Try accessing some child pornography and see how long that argument holds water.

In reply to a post by GMAN98:

Ummm no its about censorship.

How is it censorship if the content that is being blocked from Newzbin is available elsewhere simply by paying the correct price?

Censorship is about content, not IP addresses.