Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 24th Mar 2012 16:43 UTC
Internet & Networking "The Pirate Bay is not only the most visited BitTorrent site on the Internet, but arguably the most censored too. Many ISPs have been ordered to block their customers’ access to the website, and recently Microsoft joined in on the action by stopping people sharing its location with others. Microsoft's Windows Live Messenger now refuses to pass on links to The Pirate Bay website, claiming they are unsafe." They refuse links to The Pirate Bay. In that light, here are a bunch of completely and utterly useless links to The Pirate Bay. And some more. And then some. Update: We have some more links to The Pirate Bay.
Thread beginning with comment 511840
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Link ?
by chripun on Sun 25th Mar 2012 17:57 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Link ?"
chripun
Member since:
2008-08-25

"Whenever we buy empty audio cds, we already pay a special tax because everyone is supposedly using those cds to illegally copy music.
there's something like that in italy, too - here it's called "equo compenso" (fair compensation or something like that)

I am not saying that piracy is ok or that piracy should be tolerated, but... either piracy is forbidden, but then we shouldn't be paying a tax every month on our tv or internet subscription, or either they insist on the extra tax, but then they cannot claim it is forbidden, since we already have to pay for it. Or is the idea that everyone sticks to the rules, but has to pay for the neighbour that is illegally downloading stuff?
look at it this way: if you commit a criminal act - eg a robbery - causing a damage to someone, it's no more just "between you and the law"
your crime shall be punished on its own (and you get likely sentenced to jail)
but otoh, the ones you've damaged also deserve to be compensated / refunded (and afaik you often lose or have to sell your belongings to repay them)

in the same perspective, taxes on internet connections and blank media serves to repay (in a forfait, by making everyone pay - not that i agree with draconian methods and this presumption of guilt... - with the side intention btw of turning the honest against the pirates, as someone once admitted) those (allegedly or actually) damaged by piracy
they're monetary compensation, not punishment, thus they dont make you less liable in front of the law for the civil (or penal, in some cases) violation...
"

This analogy is false. The robber is sentenced after the fact whereas you pay this so called "tax" regardless of your actual usage of the blank media.

This is crazy! People in the US argue against public health-care and object to paying for somebody else's health costs (even though it likely will save lives) yet it makes perfect sense to pay the rich producers of Hollywood? I'm truly amazed by the logic here.

This reminds me how MS charged PC manufactures license fees per chip even if the PC wasn't even sold with Windows. This is clearly an act of a monopoly and should be tightly regulated as such by the government.
The EU forced MS to un-bundle windows from other software and in the same vein it should force restrictions on the copyright organizations.

It's unthinkable to me that these organizations want to force payment on libraries for public reading of books to children by volunteers (My mom is a librarian and I'm personally offended by this notion). The government's job here, its purpose, is to protect the citizens by preventing this nonsense.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[4]: Link ?
by silix on Sun 25th Mar 2012 21:26 in reply to "RE[3]: Link ?"
silix Member since:
2006-03-01

This analogy is false.

ignore the analogy, i was just pointing out a distinction between punishment (for the guilty) and compensation (for the damaged) - can you really say this distinction does not apply?

The robber is sentenced after the fact whereas you pay this so called "tax" regardless of your actual usage of the blank media.

but the problem is, piracy was already ongoing for a long time when the tax was applied - in fact it was applied because content and sw makers were already being damaged by it, to the point they could ask and be granted idemnification by law
the only difference being that unless all pirates were tracked down, damage from piracy coudnt be blamed on just "one" or even "specific" individuals, so everyone was deemed as potentially guilty thus potentially corresponsible for that damage thus subject to pay a part of that refund

This is crazy! People in the US argue against public health-care and object to paying for somebody else's health costs (even though it likely will save lives) yet it makes perfect sense to pay the rich producers of Hollywood? I'm truly amazed by the logic here.

i live in a country where the healthcare system is funded by tax money in order to give to every taxpayer citizen (who is granted the right to live healthily, by constitution - at least formally) so for me the opposite makes perfect sense...
especially since sw is not a "right" nor a government erogated service, but something made by individuals (who may then distribute it free of charge, but it's their choice) - if i take for myself and use something whose author didnt want me to take and use without his consent, it means that i have extorted its fruition outside the intended scope and terms
thus, i have to accept i'm liable to repay somehow

Reply Parent Score: 2