Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room
Should Illegal Downloaders Be Cut Off From the Internet?
Gothi[c]:
All it would take are two separate but related actions to make things very clear:
* Virtually everyone stops buying music and movies
* Virtually everyone stops "sharing" music and movies
If everybody is as opposed to the antics of the music and movie industry as some claim, it should be a relatively simple matter to organize a near total boycott of all major-label movies and music. Three to six months with ZERO purchases of CDs, DVDs, and tickets to live shows - combined with ZERO "file sharing" - should be more than enough to let them know they need their public more than their public needs them.
--- End quote ---
That would work, if it wasn't for the fact that the majority of the people are immensely STUPID.
And even the smarter ones are so numbed by tv and having a comfortable enough life, that they never take any action of any sort.
This is the one main thing the elite money grabbing goons have figured out. You don't enslave people by putting them in camps, or by keeping everyone starving. As long as people have enough food and get a daily dose of propaganda, you can get away with anything. Control the media, and you can get away with murder. If TV says it didn't happen, it never did.
No, I'm afraid people are either too stupid or passive for these kind of things to ever be realistic. I'm afraid it's up to the small percentage of people that actually do give a shit.
It does if it puts them out of business.
Why tilt at dragons? Much more efficient to starve them to death.
No revenue = no money for bribes 'campaign' contributions
No revenue = no money to hire attorneys
No revenue = out of business Wink
--- End quote ---
If only it were that simple. The only thing you need to make money, is lots of money. Not customers.
40hz:
If only it were that simple. The only thing you need to make money, is lots of money. Not customers.
-Gothi[c] (December 03, 2009, 11:05 PM)
--- End quote ---
Lots of money and no customers?
If only it were that simple. ;D
nudone:
got to agree with Gothi[c].
CWuestefeld:
I know very little about British law, so I can't address that. But in America, any unbiased hearing would have to throw out such a penalty.
Contra other claims in this thread, network access is not a human right. That is, you cannot force me to pay for your network connection through taxes. However, indirectly, network access is a necessary enabler to exercise many recognized human rights. For example, much of our interaction with government agencies is now done primarily through the web, so cutting access would have a significant negative impact on ones ability to participate in the democratic process.
The fact that the penalty is overly broad would also come into play. Penalizing a person who happens to live with me, who everyone agrees is innocent, for my personal transgressions, is a problem.
The lack of due process is probably where the rubber would hit the road. Certainly the Courts recognize the State's power to execute some punishments without due process. For example, the Emerson case upheld the "Lautenberg Amendment", which forever takes away a person's 2nd Amendment rights if he or she has ever been the subject of a restraining order due to domestic violence -- which can occur without any legal finding of guilt. But considering the other factors I mentioned -- its necessity for participation in the democratic process, and the effect on ones family -- I have to think that it would be struck down. However, courts aren't always honest: consider the recent Kelo decision, or google for "a switch in time saves nine".
People with lots of money are warping laws so they can get more, just plain old capitalism really.
-Eóin (December 02, 2009, 05:35 PM)
--- End quote ---
I hate to be political here, but one thing I hate much more is the kind of idea that this represents. I don't claim that what Eóin is observing isn't happening -- it certainly is. But one cannot indict capitalism from it, because it is most certainly contradictory to capitalism. What we see in society today, where the political powers ally with corporate powers, is more properly called Corporatism or Corporate Fascism.
If one participant is coerced into a deal that he would not want to make (due to regulation, threats, violence, etc.), then the market isn't free and it's not Capitalist. Because so much of our political system has been captured by corporate interests for the purpose of rent seeking, it's clear that they are in alliance against the people.
In a real capitalist system, a transaction would only be executed if both sides agree to the terms. If your concern is, for example, that the entertainment industry is able to add unconscionable terms to their sales agreements (after the fact, in this case!), then the logical way to fix the problem is to throw out the Corporatist system and go back to real Capitalism. It's nonsensical to give additional regulatory powers to the government when the Corporatist system thrives precisely because of all the regulatory powers we've ceded to the State.
I find it incredibly frustrating that so many condemn capitalism as the problem, when in fact we do not now have a capitalist system -- and if we did, we probably wouldn't have the problem!
40hz:
I find it incredibly frustrating that so many condemn capitalism as the problem, when in fact we do not now have a capitalist system
-CWuestefeld (December 04, 2009, 10:00 AM)
--- End quote ---
Exactly right! :Thmbsup:
We don't. And we never really did, despite those many people who have though and said otherwise.
8)
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version