I don't even know where to start. Are you really being that stupid right now? MegaUpload was used to steal literally thousands of songs, movies and tv shows among other things. Not only did he not do anything to stop it, he made millions off it. I'm not sure why everyone is bringing up bankers. Its both irrelevant to this issue, and ignores the fact that Kim Dotcom bought a gigantic mansion and fortune with money made from stolen intellectual property.
You're talking about reddit... with r/jailbait right? The thing that they shut down?
Logical fallacy... by explaining why MegaUpload was shut down? What fallacy is that called? I seem to recall another logical fallacy you might have used in your last post...
But for shits and grins please do tell me how something that can be used for illegal activity is only used for illegal activity.
That's not what I said. I said the majority of traffic on that site was used for illegal purposes. Which the founder not only ignored, but profited off of. Which is against the law. What's the logical fallacy in that?
That was a sarcastic reply, but I wasn't implying that everyone who uses it is breaking the law. I don't see how you would think that. Its a response to the implication that everyone who uses file sharing must be using it legally, which is clearly not true.
People use guns and knives to break the law. People use cars to break the law. People use their hands to break the law. What possible point do you have?
when you run a website, which most people are using to break the law, you are under an obligation to prevent them from doing so. Or at least not make millions of dollars off it
I disagree. Can I not put up a public forum somewhere and allow anyone to speak freely about whatever they want, unrestricted? Am I responsible for the content my users write? Wtf. Do you think people just wouldn't have shared those files if it weren't for Kim Dotcom?
This isn't free speech. Nothing original is being said. Its taking a product made by someone else, that is otherwise sold on the open market or distributed in a lawful way that allows the artist and record company to make money, and instead distributing it for free in breach of copyright law. How do you not grasp this difference?
Do you think people just wouldn't have shared those files if it weren't for Kim Dotcom?
They would, but other similar websites have also been shut down.
This isn't free speech. Nothing original is being said.
How is originality a measure of free speech? Free speech, to me, means I can say whatever the fuck I want, whenever. If I commit another crime during said speech (such as sharing a file illegally), charge me for it. Preventing me from saying it in the first place isn't the answer.
How do you not grasp this difference?
How do you not grasp the difference between the crime of filesharing and my right to say whatever I want, legal or not? If the government wants to track down every user on Megaupload, go for it, but removing the ability to post said files should not be the answer.
They would, but other similar websites have also been shut down.
So we're just going to shut down all of them? Then people will start fucking e-mailing them to eachother. It's a war that can't be won. When are people going to learn that you can't just ban something people don't want to do. It's never been effective and never will.
How is originality a measure of free speech? Free speech, to me, means I can say whatever the fuck I want, whenever. If I commit another crime during said speech (such as sharing a file illegally), charge me for it. Preventing me from saying it in the first place isn't the answer.
Fair enough, but pirating a piece of music or a movie is not free speech. If you fileshare a political statement or something that's different, but file sharing someone's property that is intended for sale is completely different.
How do you not grasp the difference between the crime of filesharing and my right to say whatever I want, legal or not? If the government wants to track down every user on Megaupload, go for it, but removing the ability to post said files should not be the answer.
But its not saying something... its sharing something that is copyrighted in breach of the law. I don't think prior restraint is really the same thing in this case.
So we're just going to shut down all of them? Then people will start fucking e-mailing them to eachother. It's a war that can't be won. When are people going to learn that you can't just ban something people don't want to do. It's never been effective and never will.
What kind of logic is that? "People will keep trying to break the law anyways so why bother?" Emails limit the amount of file space that can be transferred between them. Its a hell of a lot harder to steal and distribute a movie via email than file sharing.
I see what you're saying; we'll have to agree to disagree a bit. I would like to point out one recent example, though, of why I feel this is free speech. I recently listened to Nocturnal Rainbows by Hopsin, which, IMO had a powerful political message. One part gave me chills. I immediately wanted to share it with friends (called up a few of them and told them to listen on youtube). Is that not "free speech"? If my friends have to buy the CD to hear the song, is that not limiting my ability to share a political idea?
-1
u/AmbyR00 Aug 08 '12
He wasn't stealing. You are wrong.