PDA

View Full Version : Should we take a tougher stance to combat online copyright? [ENDS 05/02/2012]



Grig
23-01-2012, 12:26 AM
Should we take a tougher stance to combat online copyright?
Ends: 05/02/2012

Online copyright has always been a thorny issue. There has been recent backlash over a proposed congress bill to tackle online piracy and copyright. People were stating that it intrudes on personal freedom and liberty that should not be meddled in. Whilst the recent closing of Megaupload due to the amount of copyrighted material available for users to freely download. Many were also unhappy on how radically bills such as SOPA were proposed, covering almost everything from movies to even the most simple images and pictures. This they say could have a devastating effect on the net as a whole, particularly well established picture sharing sites such as Flickr and social networking ones such as Facebook.

However, those in the entertainment industry were said to loosing millions in revenue due to people simply not paying for movies and songs, in which artists loose out too and all this lost revenue is affecting them. Furthermore, search engines sometimes even promote such websites.


Here's a basic video on how this battle has progressed in quite simply, yet interesting terms:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-LEb_D2SD3k&feature=g-u-u

So the question posed here is whether we should take a tougher stand on other such sites that distribute copyrighted material such as www.thepiratebay.org and what not. Or whether we should lax these rules even further and simply not intrude with individual liberty. Or should we continue to maintain mediation between the two sides of cracking down on the worst culprits? Or is it ever possible to moderate such a large worldwide market, seeing as laws vary from place to place?

Happy Debating!

Logandyer45
23-01-2012, 01:32 AM
I think these kind of sites should stay. 3 reasons.

1) They are not hurting the internet nor are they breaking any laws.
2) Should they go? Why?
3) What is really breaking a law on the internet?

Sites that SHOULD be removed should include...

1) Child Porn
2) Porn it'self
3) Site with false information
4) Hate sites
5) Sites that really have no traffic

Now the sites above contain eaither, illegeal content to 17 years of age or younger, false information such as sites that say someone died when they are still alive. Hate sites. Now Hate sites would be considered as you broke up with your girlfriend and you have naked pics of her. I have seen many of these. They need to be stopped ASAP. Site's with no traffic... Now, Bebo, Myspace and sites that are dead have no traffic whatsoever. Now weather they have traffic or not, if they don't meet the standers that admin want's they should shut it down. Now, Facebook, Twitter and Tubmlr have all the traffic right now. If you compare most of these Social Networking sites, then you will see that half of them are dead nor do they have any life left. Say for instance the members of Habbox stopped coming on. Habbox would probably close down. Sites have been known to close after they have no traffic for awhile. As you can see, I am strongly against SOPA, PIPPA, ATCT and all that.

GirlNextDoor15
23-01-2012, 08:09 AM
Ok. This whole SOPA and PIPA thing got me really confused but hey! What's the actual motive of SOPA and PIPA? For some reason, I think it's related to government or politics although I don't know the whole story. And whoever proposed the idea of shutting down Megaupload imo is an utter idiot. Shutting it down due to amount of copyrighted material available is just not convincing enough to make us understand what is online copyright. Of course the meaning of online copyright varies according to different people but the whole thing should be done in order to educate the public about the concerns of over enjoying personal freedom. Sites such as Megaupload, Google and Facebook should be controlled as those sites have their own advantages and disadvantages. Other than that, controlling those sites is also one step further of not abusing online copyrights. And immediate actions should not be taken as I do think shutting down of certain sites and proposal of SOPA and PIPA are just OVER THE TOP. IT'S LIKE CHINA BANNING GOOGLE OR LADY GAGA BECAUSE THEY ARE CONTROVERSIAL AND ****! OH AND MALAYSIA BANNED MEGAUPLOAD BEFORE ALL THIS HAS HAPPENED! They should be controlled, not stopped or banned. So, my answer is NO. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH.

Samantha
23-01-2012, 09:20 AM
I think it depends on the actual person as near enough you'll always get a different answer with a whole load of different reasons to go with it. We usually talk about copyright and such in my Media lessons and my Media teacher often asks us questions such as 'who has ever downloaded an album off the internet' everyone in my class put their hand up except me, I don't see the point of downloading online. I have downloaded a couple of songs before but used a youtube converter, I am very weary when using the internet and it's one of the main reasons I do not download much; I don't want to infect my computer and as I said I see no point.

I still buy CD from the shops and the last I bought was just before Christmas, I'd rather buy because I know some songs on it and not worry about if the rest are a complete waste of time, DVD's I do not buy often and I would buy them more as a gift because again I bear the same question, what's the point in buying when I could watch them on Sky legally.

Some people try music online before buying it but really, what would they have done before they got the internet? Wait for someone else to have it? Or look for other means to get it or use the old fashioned way of just buying the CD?

If people want to distribute illegally then so be it, I don't think you can cap what's on the internet as it's such a big thing, also I do not agree with [@]@Logandyer45[/@] about the removal of porn, I myself do not watch it but it brings joy to some people? Now, if you remove it some people could easily obtain it again and it would be a circle, they would find ways to put it back on the internet but then it gets removed, then back on again. Why should we get rid of someones happiness yet let others have happiness on other sites? It should be some what equal on the internet and have something for everyone to enjoy, sorry if you disagree but I don't think removal of porn is one of the more important concerns here.

Also with sites that have illegal content on, what happened with Facebook a couple of months ago? It was spammed with porn so just because that happened would you remove it? I wouldn't as they can handle it after a few hours.

GirlNextDoor15
23-01-2012, 10:35 AM
I think it depends on the actual person as near enough you'll always get a different answer with a whole load of different reasons to go with it. We usually talk about copyright and such in my Media lessons and my Media teacher often asks us questions such as 'who has ever downloaded an album off the internet' everyone in my class put their hand up except me, I don't see the point of downloading online. I have downloaded a couple of songs before but used a youtube converter, I am very weary when using the internet and it's one of the main reasons I do not download much; I don't want to infect my computer and as I said I see no point.

I still buy CD from the shops and the last I bought was just before Christmas, I'd rather buy because I know some songs on it and not worry about if the rest are a complete waste of time, DVD's I do not buy often and I would buy them more as a gift because again I bear the same question, what's the point in buying when I could watch them on Sky legally.

Some people try music online before buying it but really, what would they have done before they got the internet? Wait for someone else to have it? Or look for other means to get it or use the old fashioned way of just buying the CD?

If people want to distribute illegally then so be it, I don't think you can cap what's on the internet as it's such a big thing, also I do not agree with [@]@Logandyer45[/@] about the removal of porn, I myself do not watch it but it brings joy to some people? Now, if you remove it some people could easily obtain it again and it would be a circle, they would find ways to put it back on the internet but then it gets removed, then back on again. Why should we get rid of someones happiness yet let others have happiness on other sites? It should be some what equal on the internet and have something for everyone to enjoy, sorry if you disagree but I don't think removal of porn is one of the more important concerns here.

Also with sites that have illegal content on, what happened with Facebook a couple of months ago? It was spammed with porn so just because that happened would you remove it? I wouldn't as they can handle it after a few hours.

Child porn should be removed though and if there are more people like you, there wouldn't be such a big fuss after all. But then again, not many think like you and that is when online copyrights are being abused. So, that may result in SOPA and PIPA.

GommeInc
23-01-2012, 01:53 PM
I think these kind of sites should stay. 3 reasons.

1) They are not hurting the internet nor are they breaking any laws.
2) Should they go? Why?
3) What is really breaking a law on the internet?
One of those is a reason, two are just questions :P

PIPA and SOPA are two examples of legislation which aren't solving the problem to the best of the US Government's abilities. They are merely making copyright an issue, they are not going to solve copyright problems because the internet is too vast for any legislation to cover, without literally changing the way the internet is monitored at the same time. Should this be how copyright is tackled? Perhaps, but this arguably goes against the American constitution which allows the freedom of speech and expression, and in other countries that uphold Human Rights.

What needs to be addessed is why people are sharing copyrighted material, and what harm it is doing. By this, the US Government and the film, music and media industries need to look internally at the problem and externally at the people who are committing these offenses, to understnad why they are doing it. Some argue the film, music and even gaming industries have become too money focused, with products that do not justify their costs in terms of money per song/album/film/game, and the quality of the game - even discussions about the origins of either of these industries is even brought to question, seeing as they too strive through the freedoms the American Constitution and Worldly Rights have given them to produce such material and now that they've become too big for their boots that they have in themselves become authoritative.

What is the damage? Well, as Grig has stated - the industries in question are losing millions in revenue. There are a few questions resulting from this claim - is it actually damaging the industries and those who work in them? Some argue artists aren't getting a good deal in the first place from the media companies who "support" them. The media industries are so large and powerful that perhaps millions isn't as damaging as they claim, afterall, infringing copyright doesn't appear to be doing any noticeable damage to the main media giants e.g. Sony, WMG etc in the past decade which has seen illegal downloads rise and fall.

What's also a problem is how music (and films/games) are shared. If a friend is interested, you lend them the CD like you would a toy if you were a child, but because of the format music works, it's easy to copy that music but that's the nature of such a medium - CDs/DVDs are storage items at their core, and computers will recognise this and RIP tracks without even asking if you want it to - of course, DVDs do not unless you have a DVD ripper, and you have to give permission.

In short, it's how music is stored and listened to which is the problem. I could RIP a NOW album an infinite number of times on an infinite number of PCs. Is this wrong? No, because I own the CD and could argue that the computers I am copying the files to are mine or have my permission to - as an act of storing the songs. It's how and why people share these which should be asked, not act without asking in the first place. There could be easy fixes - changing the pricing strategies to make songs more affordable. In this day and age, songs come and go quickly and the price may not be justifiable for some.

Something has to be done, but I wouldn't point the finger at the consumer - the Governments and the industries are also in need of questioning. Also, these file sharing sites sort of had it coming. They should only have it so the person who uploaded the file can only download it.

Samantha
23-01-2012, 02:14 PM
[@]@Girlnextdoor15[/@] I do agree with Child Porn being removed as I don't see the benefit (if there is one) whatsoever, it's wrong and abusive to say the least.

Also, [@]@gommeinc[/@] proves a very good point as to why people are doing this, again I have just come home from college and again we spoke of SOPA and PIPA and the new one trying to come in too and the question my teacher always asks is why? Some say because they want a 'try before you buy technique' but surely just use Youtube to listen to the songs instead of downloading it illegally. However, another reason why they bought the CD after listening was because of the quality they got with it [the CD] but at the end of the day they may still be downloading music illegally in the first place.

Also, my teacher informed us that in someways music wasn't downloaded illegally unless you were distributing it, therefore some people do not break any laws when downloading off the likes of piratebay, youtube etc. but should it be illegal? It's still obtaining an item for free where some people who do not have the internet would have to pay for and isn't giving an equal chance for each consumer.

I spoke about the music a lot but it can be spread over many items such as DVD's and Games just like gomme informed us. I think there was a Sheffield Hallam University boy (can't remember the name at current) who had a website of links where they could retrieve and watch free things, was that illegal? He wasn't distributing the actual movies and such so should he be to blame? I don't think he should be taken over to America for this crime. However, a valid point could be that many downloads are only in small quantities therefore are they as easy to catch? The Student in this case had a website which got a lot of hits per day, easier to catch in larger quantities?

Overall, if you are downloading for your personal use and no one elses then in this case I do not see a problem, but as I said earlier I am weary of who and where I download off of therefore that's why I only use trusted sites, but who is to blame for the overall thing really?

dbgtz
23-01-2012, 03:56 PM
I think these kind of sites should stay. 3 reasons.

1) They are not hurting the internet nor are they breaking any laws.
2) Should they go? Why?
3) What is really breaking a law on the internet?

Sites that SHOULD be removed should include...

1) Child Porn
2) Porn it'self
3) Site with false information
4) Hate sites
5) Sites that really have no traffic

Now the sites above contain eaither, illegeal content to 17 years of age or younger, false information such as sites that say someone died when they are still alive. Hate sites. Now Hate sites would be considered as you broke up with your girlfriend and you have naked pics of her. I have seen many of these. They need to be stopped ASAP. Site's with no traffic... Now, Bebo, Myspace and sites that are dead have no traffic whatsoever. Now weather they have traffic or not, if they don't meet the standers that admin want's they should shut it down. Now, Facebook, Twitter and Tubmlr have all the traffic right now. If you compare most of these Social Networking sites, then you will see that half of them are dead nor do they have any life left. Say for instance the members of Habbox stopped coming on. Habbox would probably close down. Sites have been known to close after they have no traffic for awhile. As you can see, I am strongly against SOPA, PIPPA, ATCT and all that.


At number 3, that's a bit stupid as by that logic, wikipedia should be shut down.

Also I'm guessing from my scanning of the page, child porn is a big issue here. Personally I think there should be no law on the internet itself, it should be free as it is far too hard to monitor. However, for illegal activities to be posted on the internet should be ruled by existing legislation. So basically, while it's legal to post it on the internet, it's illegal to create the thing itself (and if anyone else actually sees it, then it can be classed as distributing it). The government practically control our lives completely, people pay tax, follow law etc. They should then be allowed to use the internet to do as they wish, covering songs and posting it on youtube etc. They should not be penalised for what would basically be free advertising. And on a final note, there would be a larger uproar if any action took place and it would take away the last bit of freedom we may have.

Logandyer45
24-01-2012, 04:40 AM
At number 3, that's a bit stupid as by that logic, wikipedia should be shut down.

Also I'm guessing from my scanning of the page, child porn is a big issue here. Personally I think there should be no law on the internet itself, it should be free as it is far too hard to monitor. However, for illegal activities to be posted on the internet should be ruled by existing legislation. So basically, while it's legal to post it on the internet, it's illegal to create the thing itself (and if anyone else actually sees it, then it can be classed as distributing it). The government practically control our lives completely, people pay tax, follow law etc. They should then be allowed to use the internet to do as they wish, covering songs and posting it on youtube etc. They should not be penalised for what would basically be free advertising. And on a final note, there would be a larger uproar if any action took place and it would take away the last bit of freedom we may have.

If your going against Child Porn then you must be sadly mistaken. Again, like I said, Child Porn should be taken off.

3 reasons (Yes these will all be legit reasons)

1) Child Porn is getting too many people in trouble.
2) Child Porn is getting searched more and more everyday. (News statistics)
3) Child Porn is growing everyday. (News statistics)

Now, that's my reason's. I stated my fact. Thanks. :D

Samantha
24-01-2012, 07:43 AM
[@]@Logandyer45[/@]

Where's the proof of these new statistics? If people are getting in trouble for it then so they should, if they choose to watch it, it's their own fault so why shouldn't they be punished?

GirlNextDoor15
24-01-2012, 08:10 AM
[@]@Samanfa[/@] yes I do agree with what you said. However, the problem is not them watching it. It's the producers' fault for uploading child porn on internet. They should be punished. Not those who watch them. You can't blame them. People would watch porn. So, why wouldn't they watch child porn?

Eoin247
24-01-2012, 01:37 PM
I think these kind of sites should stay. 3 reasons.

1) They are not hurting the internet nor are they breaking any laws.
2) Should they go? Why?
3) What is really breaking a law on the internet?

Sites that SHOULD be removed should include...

1) Child Porn
2) Porn it'self
3) Site with false information
4) Hate sites
5) Sites that really have no traffic

Now the sites above contain eaither, illegeal content to 17 years of age or younger, false information such as sites that say someone died when they are still alive. Hate sites. Now Hate sites would be considered as you broke up with your girlfriend and you have naked pics of her. I have seen many of these. They need to be stopped ASAP. Site's with no traffic... Now, Bebo, Myspace and sites that are dead have no traffic whatsoever. Now weather they have traffic or not, if they don't meet the standers that admin want's they should shut it down. Now, Facebook, Twitter and Tubmlr have all the traffic right now. If you compare most of these Social Networking sites, then you will see that half of them are dead nor do they have any life left. Say for instance the members of Habbox stopped coming on. Habbox would probably close down. Sites have been known to close after they have no traffic for awhile. As you can see, I am strongly against SOPA, PIPPA, ATCT and all that.

What's wrong with normal porn? It gives people jobs, it's consensual and it harms nobody. Also i disagree with sites that have little traffic should be closed down. If a person wants to make a site for a few specific people, then what's wrong with that?

dbgtz
24-01-2012, 06:13 PM
If your going against Child Porn then you must be sadly mistaken. Again, like I said, Child Porn should be taken off.

3 reasons (Yes these will all be legit reasons)

1) Child Porn is getting too many people in trouble.
2) Child Porn is getting searched more and more everyday. (News statistics)
3) Child Porn is growing everyday. (News statistics)

Now, that's my reason's. I stated my fact. Thanks. :D

They're not really legit reasons without any backing, but I'm not sure if you understood my point correctly. Basically I'm saying it's stupid to put laws on the internet as it is too vast. Also my next point sort of explains what I'm on about.


What's wrong with normal porn? It gives people jobs, it's consensual and it harms nobody. Also i disagree with sites that have little traffic should be closed down. If a person wants to make a site for a few specific people, then what's wrong with that?

I agree with this about the porn bit. It's not about porn specifically, but if one thing starts to get restricted then it will most likely be the cause of a "slippery slope". Porn should only be removed if the content is illegal, however the actual posting or viewing of the video would not be illegal.

Samantha
25-01-2012, 07:47 AM
[@]@GirlNextDoor15[/@] ah I see what i mean and you are perfectly right, of course they wouldn't watch it if no one put it on in the first place. I also agree with [@]@eoin247[/@] that porn isn't a bad thing and people should be allowed to watch it, although there would (probably) never be a filter of porn and child porn so I don't think the 'internet bosses?' could manage it.

I'd say more but I have two exams to go to.

FlyingJesus
25-01-2012, 02:13 PM
If your going against Child Porn then you must be sadly mistaken. Again, like I said, Child Porn should be taken off.

3 reasons (Yes these will all be legit reasons)

1) Child Porn is getting too many people in trouble.
2) Child Porn is getting searched more and more everyday. (News statistics)
3) Child Porn is growing everyday. (News statistics)

Now, that's my reason's. I stated my fact. Thanks. :D

Pretty sure child porn is already highly illegal just about everywhere in the world, not sure what your point here is. Do you believe that currently no-one wants to shut down distributors of such material? Also it has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of copyright as obviously you cannot copyright something that's not made legally in the first place.

GommeInc
25-01-2012, 06:15 PM
Pretty sure child porn is already highly illegal just about everywhere in the world, not sure what your point here is. Do you believe that currently no-one wants to shut down distributors of such material? Also it has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of copyright as obviously you cannot copyright something that's not made legally in the first place.
You can, it's just not wise to brag about it :P UK copyright laws cover anything you make and they do not need to be seen in public, because as long as you have proof of when you made it, you're covered - legal or not. It's like a 10 year old painting being revealed for the first time on its 10th birthday - it existed, there is proof therefore the rights to the painting belong to the painter.

Many paintings that were banned and considered illegal years ago were made publically available, and the copyright still remains with the creators of the material. The difference is child pornography doesn't look as though it will be legalised in the coming months :P

It's relevant to copyright, but it's a boring discussion talking about child pornography because it isn't legal in a majority of countries. We should be discussing typical copyrighted material, like games, music and video - things that can be shared and are legal to watch but illegal to reproduce, share etc.

JeffDunham-1
27-01-2012, 02:19 AM
Well SOPA Should kick in. I have 3 albums out and hundreads of free music sites screwed me over the money I deserve to keep on rockin' and paying my manager. At the same time I disagree because its communism. Overall, I believe our rights should be protected and I say screw online copyright because you remove those sites then its communism and we don't live like that...we are FREE....FREE PEOPLE.....A FREE NATION!

HotelUser
27-01-2012, 03:53 AM
Should we be more aggressive prosecuting those guilty of copyright infringement and other related crimes on the internet? Of course. Will we? Hopefully not. I like my internet situated like the wild west :P

Chippiewill
28-01-2012, 03:02 PM
This has been debated many times in the past and the industry experts without a vested interest all tend to come to the same conclusion.

The problem with piracy is incredibly short term, the movie industry and others aren't actually all that bothered by the pirates, they're bothered because it's opening doors for their business model to be screwed over. Put simply they're current business model has a massive profit margin, and what they don't want to do is head in to online streaming or similar because it doesn't make them as much money.

For instance, cable networks in the US make a ton of money on subscriptions and a ton of money on advertising, however if they shift to online streaming then the studios which make their shows

Enter in the solely internet based companies launching products like Spotify, Hulu and Netflix suddenly the problem is solved but a whole lot of people aren't making as much money because you can't mark-up for just streaming and the services don't get to sell popcorn for all their overhead. At start-up these services struggle to pay royalties and tend not to make a profit, the big companies (Publishers, labels and cable networks) use this opportunity to kill this service before they're business model is threatened (Due to demand from customers they're forced to get onto these services).

The solution to piracy has never been legislation it's been innovation we've already seen how services like iTunes stepped right in to replace Napster, it's just a matter of time before we get the same Movies and Shows as on TV and in the cinema on release. Services like Steam already show how well this curbs piracy and developers on steam also don't lose money due to second-hand sales.

What you'll find is that the Artists, Developers and Studios all love the opportunities from the internet and the prospect of direct profits because they don't lose their share to labels, printing companies and brickandmortar stores
but all of these middle men suddenly lose their share which is why piracy gets labelled as the reason for shutting all this down.

Catchy
29-01-2012, 03:15 AM
The child porn thing interested me how people are saying it should be removed. Yeah it shouldbe for obvious reasons but at the end of the day peeps it's the internet and as long as people have access to it nobody can really control what's published online and people will always find a way. Same goes for the piracy, people will always find some sort of way.

-:Undertaker:-
29-01-2012, 02:32 PM
Let me get this straight, everyone on here agrees that internet meddling by the government is unacceptable but..

Government can feel you up at the airport in the name of security, which is a sham.
Government can hold your fingerprints even when you haven't been found guilty of any crime.
Government can hold you for weeks without charge under the guise of terrorism.
Government can introduce ID cards whilst people defend it under the guise of 'if your not guilty you have nothing to hide'
Government can tell you whether to allow smoking in a building that you own, fining you if you do not follow this draconian law.
Government can force you as a small business owner to install lifts, fire exists and other costly planning regulations on a building that you own.
Government can compulsory purchase the land you own against your wishes, suggesting you didn't own it in the first place (see High Speed Rail).
Government [namely the EU] can cart you off to a country like Greece or Romania without evidence being provided under the EAW.

Where were all the people in this thread when all our other civil liberties were being destroyed? either they didn't care or they went out of their way to defend the actions of the government.

..what goes around comes around people - if you defended one of the above at any time then you deserve to have your internet freedoms taken away, just as you supported doing to others.

Recursion
29-01-2012, 07:34 PM
Let me get this straight, everyone on here agrees that internet meddling by the government is unacceptable but..

Government can feel you up at the airport in the name of security, which is a sham.
Government can hold your fingerprints even when you haven't been found guilty of any crime.
Government can hold you for weeks without charge under the guise of terrorism.
Government can introduce ID cards whilst people defend it under the guise of 'if your not guilty you have nothing to hide'
Government can tell you whether to allow smoking in a building that you own, fining you if you do not follow this draconian law.
Government can force you as a small business owner to install lifts, fire exists and other costly planning regulations on a building that you own.
Government can compulsory purchase the land you own against your wishes, suggesting you didn't own it in the first place (see High Speed Rail).
Government [namely the EU] can cart you off to a country like Greece or Romania without evidence being provided under the EAW.

Where were all the people in this thread when all our other civil liberties were being destroyed? either they didn't care or they went out of their way to defend the actions of the government.

..what goes around comes around people - if you defended one of the above at any time then you deserve to have your internet freedoms taken away, just as you supported doing to others.

I don't think you quite understand the ramifications of governments messing with the internet, both from a technical standpoint and a freedom one.

Would you also drop the bollocks about smoking in public places? It's perfectly acceptable to expect to be able to walk into a bar without having to walk back out with your chance of getting lung cancer significantly increased.

-:Undertaker:-
29-01-2012, 08:53 PM
I don't think you quite understand the ramifications of governments messing with the internet, both from a technical standpoint and a freedom one.

I don't support internet regulation in the slightest, I just love making the internet warriors squirm when I point out that they do not care in the slightest about freedom, which brings me onto...


Would you also drop the bollocks about smoking in public places? It's perfectly acceptable to expect to be able to walk into a bar without having to walk back out with your chance of getting lung cancer significantly increased.

Its not reasonable to 'expect' anything from a bar or club building that you do not own, if you dont like it then do not go there - freedom, as you say above but don't really mean.

Freedom isn't a term you can simply use to back up your own arguments but then drop on other issues which you may not like.

-:Undertaker:-
29-01-2012, 09:22 PM
I'd also just like to add this quickly, which I didn't do justice on..


don't think you quite understand the ramifications of governments messing with the internet

On the contrary, I am the one on this forum who argues most and who argues consistently about the ramifications of government removing freedoms in the name of security and safety whereas people such as yourself, for example, only do so when an issue you care about is under threat. The government is only using the same arguments on internet regulation as you lot use to justify stripping others of their freedoms.

Want to hide these adverts? Register an account for free!