European Court of Justice cements legal basis for censorship

AugustusMasonicus
reply to post by stargatetravels

 

You can equate it any way you choose. If you feel you should be entitled to steal other people's work so be it,

Ah ok I see, you have no argument and do not actually know what you are talking about, so you keep repeating your completely irrelevant and untrue point as a way of sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "na na na na na"
Congrats

stargatetravels
Ah ok I see, you have no argument...

My argument is quite simple, so simple I am surprised you cannot seem to grasp it. If someone does not give you something for free you have no right to demand that you should get it for free. Is that making sense to you?

greencmp

april1

 

in germany the "constitution" prohibits any kind of censorship.

Isn't it illegal to talk about Hitler in Germany?

Also illegal to show the hakencruitz (swastika)

AugustusMasonicus

stargatetravels
Ah ok I see, you have no argument...

My argument is quite simple, so simple I am surprised you cannot seem to grasp it. If someone does not give you something for free you have no right to demand that you should get it for free. Is that making sense to you?

well, its less about wether this or that question, problem or idea is making sense or not. the bottom line is, that its just not a good idea if anyone on this planet has a tv, a car, a cellphone, a computer, etc. etc.. look at the pollution we already have that enabled us all the luxury we're enjoying now - like talking on ats. it all comes at a cost. but our planet and our societies cannot afford this cost any longer, which this nasa study has basically shown: www.theguardian.com...

and that is why the capitalist approach of simply maximizing profit is not working any more - actually it never truly worked. it worked for the ones profiting from it only. and its not about stealing someones property. like the article from torrentfreak says, google stated that we're simply using the wrong business models. if governments and banks can spend millions on bull# and cash in millions of tax money, why do they hesitate to pay a national or global tax for example so that everyone can enjoy free dvds, books, etc. online? but its not about entertainment or the spread of information in an advanced global society, its simply about maximizing profit and criminalizing people and - in this case especially - like we have seen in turkey to manipulate information and freedom of speech.

april1
well, its less about wether this or that question, problem or idea is making sense or not. the bottom line is, that its just not a good idea if anyone on this planet has a tv, a car, a cellphone, a computer, etc. etc.. look at the pollution we already have that enabled us all the luxury we're enjoying now - like talking on ats. it all comes at a cost. but our planet and our societies cannot afford this cost any longer, which this nasa study has basically shown: www.theguardian.com...

Huh? Are you bitching about having a computer while typing on a computer? What does this have to do with the Original Post? If you are that concerned about how this type of action affects the planet then start with yourself and go live in a mud hut somewhere, I personally like modern conveniences and do not mind paying for it.

...and its not about stealing someones property. like the article from torrentfreak says, google stated that we're simply using the wrong business models.

I am not referring to them and made that clear twice already. Are you just being obtuse? If they want to give it away fine. I am talking about the crooks who get all pissy when they cannot download someone else's work for free when they should be paying for it.

if governments and banks can spend millions on bull# and cash in millions of tax money, why do they hesitate to pay a national or global tax for example so that everyone can enjoy free dvds, books, etc. online?

Wait, you just complained that taxes are too high now you want another one so people can watch movies? What if I do not want to pay a tax or watch movies? How about we just pay for what we want and not what you want?

...but its not about entertainment or the spread of information in an advanced global society, its simply about maximizing profit and criminalizing people and - in this case especially - like we have seen in turkey to manipulate information and freedom of speech.

I am not talking about suppressing free speech. Stealing people's work is not free speech, it is stealing and until people like yourself can wrap your head around that concept other groups will keep pushing to prevent you from stealing. If you steal from someone else, guess what? You are a criminal, whether it is music or a car or a pair of jeans.

Huh? Are you bitching about having a computer while typing on a computer?

nope. im not bitching. im talking. nonetheless there are a lot of things to bitch about i already mentioned previously.

What does this have to do with the Original Post?

a lot.

If you are that concerned about how this type of action affects the planet then start with yourself and go live in a mud hut somewhere, I personally like modern conveniences and do not mind paying for it.

your fantasy is interesting, but i know i dont have to live in a mud hut to make the world a better place - if at all. im ok with paying for things, too. but i believe that excessive spending of money on bull# and a corrupt financial system are not so smart ideas.

Wait, you just complained that taxes are too high now you want another one so people can watch movies?

nope. i did not complain taxes are too high. i said they are not used in an adequate manner.

What if I do not want to pay a tax or watch movies?

seems legit. others could pay it for you. thats what makes a national tax system. what if i told you i dont want to pay taxes on random bull#?

How about we just pay for what we want and not what you want?

great idea and i am thinking the same. we should totally restrict our tax payment to the national state and demand use for adequate purposes.

Stealing people's work is not free speech, it is stealing and until people like yourself can wrap your head around that concept other groups will keep pushing to prevent you from stealing. If you steal from someone else, guess what? You are a criminal, whether it is music or a car or a pair of jeans.

well, if you studied history like you allege, you would be aware the the nation state for example is the biggest criminal of all when it comes to taking things from people or the nature without paying for it at all or taking them even by an act of violence. if you could 'wrap your head' around that, it would be great, too.

april1
nope. im not bitching. im talking. nonetheless there are a lot of things to bitch about i already mentioned previously.

Your personal take on geo-socio economics has nothing to do with the Original Post.

a lot.

See above.

your fantasy is interesting, but i know i dont have to live in a mud hut to make the world a better place - if at all. im ok with paying for things, too. but i believe that excessive spending of money on bull# and a corrupt financial system are not so smart ideas.

No body makes you spend anything on anything.

nope. i did not complain taxes are too high. i said they are not used in an adequate manner.

And using them to pay your utopian 'movie/music' tax is a good idea?

seems legit. others could pay it for you. thats what makes a national tax system. what if i told you i dont want to pay taxes on random bull#?

Your idea is random and it is bulls***.

great idea and i am thinking the same. we should totally restrict our tax payment to the national state and demand use for adequate purposes.

Personally I would like to see it become more localized as the 'national state' is about as inept as it gets and I have more oversight and direct input on the local level.

well, if you studied history like you allege, you would be aware the the nation state for example is the biggest criminal of all when it comes to taking things from people or the nature without paying for it at all or taking them even by an act of violence. if you could 'wrap your head' around that, it would be great, too.

You are just making lame excuses, 'because someone/something else steals it is A-Okay for me to steal too'.

What some seemed to have missed is that this is just the legal basis for nation states to act in accordance with their own laws. Compared to the rest of the world, the US included, Europe is quite open and liberal - very few things are "banned". Blocking illegal torrent sites and child porn is within the law, as possessing or obtaining such content is already illegal. I have no issue with that and think it should have been done years ago - we already censor films, music, games and TV so why is the internet any different?

I am not concerned about anything here in the UK in terms of censorship as we have some of the most liberal regimes going - UK TV will happily show content that would have Americans up in arms and worrying about "their children/god/jeebus/their flag/insert crappy reason here". For example, Janet Jackson's nip slip caused a massive furore in the States, but here we have full on boob shots in a national newspaper, daily!

On the subject of torrent sites, they're not as "blocked" as some would have you believe. It is tricky to get to them, I am on Virgin myself, but not impossible.

I agree with the poster who said it is stealing, however and I have made a concious effort to only download TV shows which, for whatever reason, are not screening in the UK. I don't (any more) download films or games - I would much rather pay for them for several reasons, not least the fact if I didn't pay for my games and everyone else did the same, then the games industry would die and I would shoot myself in the foot.

Google is right though about it being an "availability/business model" issue though - we live in a connected world, where we can most of what we want pretty much instantly, but when TV networks wait months to release a show that is available in another country now, or not carry the show at all, then that is a problem with their model. They need to get out the 20th century and move with the times.

reply to post by AugustusMasonicus


thanks for your opinion. have a nice day.

stumason
...but here we have full on boob shots in a national newspaper, daily!

Liar. Pics or it did not happen.

reply to post by AugustusMasonicus


Hahaha, just look up The Sun or the Daily Star- I'm not putting booby pics here, as much as I would love too

stumason
reply to post by AugustusMasonicus

 

Hahaha, just look up The Sun or the Daily Star- I'm not putting booby pics here, as much as I would love too

Ah, yes, the page 2 girls! They still do that? I haven't been to the UK in several years. I'm surprised the feminists haven't killed that.

reply to post by AugustusMasonicus


The argument is that the block would not apply solely to images of an unhealthy nature regarding children, but would extend beyond that banner headline, into other, much less shady areas. If something needs doing, it needs doing on its own, not with a thousand other little things.

Blocking child pornography? Great idea. Blocking anything else on the same ticket? No. No that does not fly.

AugustusMasonicus

stargatetravels
I was reading recently how torrent sites, music sharing, movie streaming and all kinds of similar sites have been banned by Virgin Media and other ISPs.

I am always astounded by this mentality.

Next time you head out of the house stop by and gas up your car and not pay.

Next head to the grocery store and pick up your week's requirements, I bet they would be happy to give that away too.

You can then head on over to the department store and grab some free clothing.

Why the hell should anyone get stuff for free that someone else worked to make be it music, movies, food, etc.?

I hope they stop people from stealing music, movies etc. Because eventually no one will bother doing it since they could not make a living with all the crooks who feel entitled to take their effort for free.

The only time you should not have to pay is if that is what the artist(s) intended.

edit on 28-3-2014 by AugustusMasonicus because: networkdude has no beer

I just produced a digital copy of your IP.

How were you harmed by this?

AugustusMasonicus
reply to post by april1

 

In 2009, Ursula von der Leyen, the minister for family affairs at the time, suggested blocking online access to child pornography. Internet activists protested heavily against the measures...

Huh? Protesting against blocking child porn? Am I missing something here?

It's a manipulation currently only applied on Germany, so Germans are very concerned about this topic. Child porn as reason for anything.

greencmp

april1

 

in germany the "constitution" prohibits any kind of censorship.

Isn't it illegal to talk about Hitler in Germany?

It's illegal in Germany to doubt the media version that says millions of jews were burned and tortured for hate against foreigners and that the whole Hitler war was done for madness and caused by Hitler. Because what people think is altered they will interpret you if talking about things that happened back then as pro Hitler and thereby doubting the holocaust and being a "Nazi" and foreigner hater.

I know many websites that received warnings or were blocked in Germany, saying they break that law or one saying in other words that you are against the state. Whole wiki web portals with only one line about Hitler somewhere... or any site talking bad about media claims or talking bad about the state with proof included.
According to an article showing a Facebook handout given to lowly paid workers, Facebook had already censored and punished posts about "Holocaust denial" and things related to it world wide, as well as other topics around the world. However non Germans won't see everything as this.

Most Germans are blind to related information or get angry if you talk about it. Old people might even call the police.You will rarely hear these words from a German, as they are either consumed by false pro or anti Hitler claims with a massive force of hatred.
@Germans: It's neither pro nor con, look from above and don't suspect the other to be on one of the sides.

TrueBrit
Blocking child pornography? Great idea. Blocking anything else on the same ticket? No. No that does not fly.

Agreed. I have no problem with that philosophy.

Aazadan
I just produced a digital copy of your IP.

How were you harmed by this?

Relevance to the Original Post?

Rhetorical question, the answer is 'nothing'.

reply to post by april1


I actually think it is a good thing in principle but in practice will be open to abuse as once the mechanism is there it will not only be abuse site's but political or other sites and you can guarantee the corporations will immediately lobby for any number of sites to be banned which offer content they claim to own, I do not agree in principle with piracy but sometimes the matter is more grey than black and white but whom will the court's favor.
I do want to see pornography blocked at ISP level though so as to at least block the abuse or revenge sites, it would also help the mental health of a lot of people out there if there mind's were given more constructive outlet's to sitting in dingy dark room's on there own looking at some one else intimate behaviour.
Of course I am opinionated on this.

AugustusMasonicus

stargatetravels
Ah ok I see, you have no argument...

My argument is quite simple, so simple I am surprised you cannot seem to grasp it. If someone does not give you something for free you have no right to demand that you should get it for free. Is that making sense to you?

Remember when in the 80s people would record the songs on the radio? It was broadcast over public airwaves correct? Now did you see the RIAA busting down peoples doors back then? No you didnt. The bands even got even more popular because it was free advertising.

Now in these lean years you see the record companies,movie companies cracking down because their profits are down. Not in large part to illegal downloading(although CHINA steals way more than anyone else and no one says a thing to them)

If the Record companies are so concerned with protecting their artist property why dont they stop taking almost all their money and let them keep more? The reason is record company execs hardly have to do any work and love easy money.

I am all for paying someone for their work,but to do so keep supporting the big labels. The artist rarely see any of th eprofits from those songs. Most of them make their money from touring. Touring! not from the songs.

Heres a situation. You buy a movie correct? You paid your part for it. Say you want to make some back ups of it incase it gets damaged. Are you breaking the law? If you are NOT making money off of it its not illegal to make back ups. Giving a copy to your friend for personal use should not be illegal either if they too do not use it to make money.

Most of the time the music/movies/programs that is downloadable was paid for already by someone originally AND distributed Freely and with no charge for it either I am sure there are plenty of people who have gotten something and liked it and decided to go get the official copies of the thing they liked.

yuppa
If the Record companies are so concerned with protecting their artist property why dont they stop taking almost all their money and let them keep more? The reason is record company execs hardly have to do any work and love easy money.

I am all for paying someone for their work,but to do so keep supporting the big labels. The artist rarely see any of th eprofits from those songs. Most of them make their money from touring. Touring! not from the songs.

I am not concerned about reforming the recording industry (or any other industry). When something does not work it goes away, that is supply and demand, unless of course the government steps in with the bailout bucks.

Recording artists do not have to sign with a major label, there are numerous instances where someone hit it big without being with a major. However signing with them also has its benefits and if they have a fee structure that is prearranged then there really is no room to complain how unfair it happens to be.

Heres a situation. You buy a movie correct? You paid your part for it. Say you want to make some back ups of it incase it gets damaged. Are you breaking the law? If you are NOT making money off of it its not illegal to make back ups. Giving a copy to your friend for personal use should not be illegal either if they too do not use it to make money.

Most of the time the music/movies/programs that is downloadable was paid for already by someone originally AND distributed Freely and with no charge for it either I am sure there are plenty of people who have gotten something and liked it and decided to go get the official copies of the thing they liked.

The laws vary by country so it is hard to comment specifically on the instances you proposed without knowing where this took place.