- Joined
- Jan 20, 2014
- Messages
- 50,875
- Reaction score
- 14,002
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
The Supreme Court says right.
And that is an activist ruling. I can see nothing in the constitution guaranteeing right to internet access.
The Supreme Court says right.
Hmm... simply because a criminal last used a Colt gun bought from Academy Sports to commit a crime that should not bar them from later buying a Ruger gun from Cabela's? I see no harm in a convicted criminal being denied rights as part of a sentence and/or law - that is what due process is all about. I do tend to agree that a lifetime rights ban for a single non-violent offense goes too far - generally, after one serves their sentence including any probation or parole period then all of their rights should be restored.
From Torrent Freak:
I think it is incredibly stupid to take away someone's access to the internet, something you need to function fully in society these days, solely because they allegedly pirated something. I would not even support if convicted of piracy. It is even more stupid to hold the ISP responsible for it. According to Sony BMG alleged pirates are not deserving of the same rights as pedophiles. Not only is this idea incredibly stupid, it seems unconstitutional as well.
These media companies constantly overstep their boundaries and try to make piracy seem like the worst crime someone can commit, and politicians and judges who do not understand technology only help them.
Who do you think is in the right here BMG or Cox?
Cox is correct. BMG knows it's industry is dying, it's been dead since 2007 the day the iPhone came out! Maybe even before that when Napster came out. Artists are now signing directly with Spotify, because they know they can get a better deal from an internet company than a record label. Cox knows it.
People dont even pirate music in a way that is detectable anymore since you can just rip the audio off youtube from the official music video
And that is an activist ruling. I can see nothing in the constitution guaranteeing right to internet access.
As someone who made a living off of my copyrighted work, I can't in good conscience vote no. People who plagiarized, illegally uploaded my work, sold stripped books (that had been returned for credit, depriving the authors of royalties), had a significant effect on my income. They stole my intellectual property; is as much theft as if they'd put their hand in my pocket and taken cash from my wallet.
From Torrent Freak:
I think it is incredibly stupid to take away someone's access to the internet, something you need to function fully in society these days, solely because they allegedly pirated something. I would not even support if convicted of piracy. It is even more stupid to hold the ISP responsible for it. According to Sony BMG alleged pirates are not deserving of the same rights as pedophiles. Not only is this idea incredibly stupid, it seems unconstitutional as well.
These media companies constantly overstep their boundaries and try to make piracy seem like the worst crime someone can commit, and politicians and judges who do not understand technology only help them.
Who do you think is in the right here BMG or Cox?
As someone who made a living off of my copyrighted work, I can't in good conscience vote no. People who plagiarized, illegally uploaded my work, sold stripped books (that had been returned for credit, depriving the authors of royalties), had a significant effect on my income. They stole my intellectual property; is as much theft as if they'd put their hand in my pocket and taken cash from my wallet.
As a practical matter, I doubt it will ever happen. Technologically, it would be nearly impossible, and today's society has an irreversible sense of entitlement to put anything they wish on the internet and remove anything they wish at will, without sparing a second thought for who may be damaged, economically and otherwise, in the process.
But that's my take on the matter, and no, I don't plan to respond to all the reasons why it's not wrong to violate copyrights, etc., because I've heard it all before and it's just as wrong now as it's always been.
From Torrent Freak:
I think it is incredibly stupid to take away someone's access to the internet, something you need to function fully in society these days, solely because they allegedly pirated something. I would not even support if convicted of piracy. It is even more stupid to hold the ISP responsible for it. According to Sony BMG alleged pirates are not deserving of the same rights as pedophiles. Not only is this idea incredibly stupid, it seems unconstitutional as well.
These media companies constantly overstep their boundaries and try to make piracy seem like the worst crime someone can commit, and politicians and judges who do not understand technology only help them.
Who do you think is in the right here BMG or Cox?
From Torrent Freak:
I think it is incredibly stupid to take away someone's access to the internet, something you need to function fully in society these days, solely because they allegedly pirated something. I would not even support if convicted of piracy. It is even more stupid to hold the ISP responsible for it. According to Sony BMG alleged pirates are not deserving of the same rights as pedophiles. Not only is this idea incredibly stupid, it seems unconstitutional as well.
These media companies constantly overstep their boundaries and try to make piracy seem like the worst crime someone can commit, and politicians and judges who do not understand technology only help them.
Who do you think is in the right here BMG or Cox?
Take personal/private access away. WIFI, or any public access, can be designated as "No right to Privacy" access. They can use the library's computers for free. Internet is like a utility, more an essential service than a right. If you fail to pay or try to bypass a meter, you get cut off. It is called theft of services. If you abuse the service, they can cut you off. If you use any service or product to break the law, YOU should pay the price, not the service or product provider.
I'm just an old man, maybe someone can explain what is so important about seeing a pirated movie? It will be in the cheaper movie theaters in a year at the latest....
Pirates, like thieves, have no honor among them.
So much for consistency. Probaly need to work on that.
So if we don't treat someone who committed murder (or some other violent act) the same as someone who downloaded a song on the internet, we can't be consistent? Does pretending to live in an immaculate black and white world help you deal with reality?
Internet access is not a constitutional right.
Why should sexual offenders or internet pirates not be denied access?
Why not? We deny the right to own a fire arm to a bank robber. We don't allow pedos near schools. We don't allow drunks to drive. We don't spouses who batter access to spouses.Because there is no practical way to deny access. And just because it isn't a constitutional right doesn't mean it isn't needed to be a functional member of society in this day in age.
Why not? We deny the right to own a fire arm to a bank robber. We don't allow pedos near schools. We don't allow drunks to drive. We don't spouses who batter access to spouses.
So you opine. But it is a tool for pedos, etc., and should be forbidden.Firearms aren't necessary to be a functional member of society. Nor is going near a school. Driving is a little closer, but my point still stands. The internet however, is.
So you opine. But it is a tool for pedos, etc., and should be forbidden.
Should ex-cons be able to buy a gun?