Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 4th Jun 2011 19:52 UTC
Permalink for comment 476087
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 22:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 15:53 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 22:43 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 21:50 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:15 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:11 UTC, submitted by Drumhellar
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 7:37 UTC
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2006-03-01
This, on the other hand, is pure hypocrisy, doing so basically says that the media industry's pleasure is worth more than the people's freedom of speech. "
but P2P is not "speech", it's sharing coprighted material, denying the creator of that material his right to monetize it at his discretion (now, hate majors as much as you want, dont ever buy from them, but if one -whoever- wants to produce something AND sell it, that principle must hold)
those who do p2p cant invoke freedom of speech at their defense, because they abuse their freedom of speech rights, in order to deliberately go against the law - and it would be hypocritical of them to say they do it "to spread culture" (games, sw, britney spears music and blockbuster movies are hardly "culture"..)
OTOH, one could say that depriving one of internet access forever is an excessive measure, when the copright law already prescribes fees and penalties, and that would be agreeable...
Edited 2011-06-05 09:23 UTC