Coffeehouse Thread

8 posts

Forum Read Only

This forum has been made read only by the site admins. No new threads or comments can be added.

ACTA

Back to Forum: Coffeehouse
  • User profile image
    Maddus Mattus

    So it has some to this.

     

    The big movie studios and record labels are defending their old way of doing business, by passing out some law that will cut off your internets if you behave in a noughty way. And ofcourse what is noughty is up to them.

     

    I think there should be a new human right. The right to internet.

     

    Or maybe it's time to revise the copyright and patent system, like they do in the pharmacutical industry, patent and copyright dies after 5 years.

     

    But hey, even if this law gets passed, we can go back to those oldskool home copy movies and music parties!

     

    What do you think?

     

    ACTA, good or bad?

  • User profile image
    turrican

    The whole issue is not really about RIAA, MPAA. They just make it look like it. They need a "bad cop".

     

    This is a very highly political issue and I think very important for the "western world". Why? Because as all the industry moves out of it to Asia, the only "industry" which is left is content creation. They "MUST" protect the only "industry" left in the western world at all costs, otherwise the whole "western world" might go broke. ( They are very close to being broke right now. )

     

    What is wealth? It's not money. It's creation. Creating services and products, like farming or building stuff.

     

    So if you look at it in my point of view, the right of the individual will not matter in such cases. ( Not that I agree with it or anything )

     

    At the end of the day, it simply is all about money.

     

  • User profile image
    Maddus Mattus

    turrican said:

    The whole issue is not really about RIAA, MPAA. They just make it look like it. They need a "bad cop".

     

    This is a very highly political issue and I think very important for the "western world". Why? Because as all the industry moves out of it to Asia, the only "industry" which is left is content creation. They "MUST" protect the only "industry" left in the western world at all costs, otherwise the whole "western world" might go broke. ( They are very close to being broke right now. )

     

    What is wealth? It's not money. It's creation. Creating services and products, like farming or building stuff.

     

    So if you look at it in my point of view, the right of the individual will not matter in such cases. ( Not that I agree with it or anything )

     

    At the end of the day, it simply is all about money.

     

    Law isnt stopping them now.

     

    Law certainly is going to stop them in the future.

  • User profile image
    Maddus Mattus

    Maddus Mattus said:
    turrican said:
    *snip*

    Law isnt stopping them now.

     

    Law certainly is going to stop them in the future.

    Well, at least it's out in the open now;

     

    http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/10/437&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en

  • User profile image
    vesuvius

    The internet is becoming increasingly monitored by government and google. In fact the government here is trying to force a tax to upgrade broadband speed only so thay can negate any critism on them policing the internet.

     

    I can see up debating in 20 years saying "remember when the internet was free". It is the old argument that will win it - if you have nothing to hide, there is nothing to fear. sure some people will be voiceferous in their dissaprobation, but that is all it will ever be.

     

    Am I sounding defeatist, and cynical here?

  • User profile image
    W3bbo

    FWIW, many European courts are siding with the agreement that the right to access of the Internet should be a Human Right (with a capital 'H') on the basis that many essential government and local services are accessible only via the web.

     

    Whilst this means it will be impossible for someone to be barred from accessing the Internet, it isn't the same thing as denying a residential connection because there's nothing stopping you from popping down to your local library and using the free Internet access service provided there (indeed, many local council libraries are reinventing themselves as free Internet cafes).

  • User profile image
    Maddus Mattus

    vesuvius said:

    The internet is becoming increasingly monitored by government and google. In fact the government here is trying to force a tax to upgrade broadband speed only so thay can negate any critism on them policing the internet.

     

    I can see up debating in 20 years saying "remember when the internet was free". It is the old argument that will win it - if you have nothing to hide, there is nothing to fear. sure some people will be voiceferous in their dissaprobation, but that is all it will ever be.

     

    Am I sounding defeatist, and cynical here?

    Then atleast downloading will become exiting again!

     

    Like back in the days when we used to crack c-64 games Smiley

  • User profile image
    Blue Ink

    As far as I know, access to the internet should already be covered by freedom of speech, since it is usually understood to cover both the contents and the means.

    I'm not sure how this would help, though: aside of the usual consideration that freedom does not imply free of charge, even natural rights can be limited by governments when this is done to protect the civil or natural rights of others, or the more ephemeral public interest (which is how it is possible to have jails or - in some jurisdictions - the death penalty).

     

Conversation locked

This conversation has been locked by the site admins. No new comments can be made.