Internet Censorship begins in America; 70 websites seized

[rjstew317]

Just own up to what you post and don't try be dismissive of what you type.

Read your very own post a look at yourself is all I'm saying.

No need for name calling.

i did, and i still don't see your issue

 

[rjstew317]

I have read every post in this thread and "somewhat" understand the OP's position... somewhat. BUT that dosen't change anything. As of NOW what these websites were engaged in is illegal. IMO all this God's law, Moral law, Man's law is irrelovent. One must live under the "law of the land"... mans's law I suppose.

The LAST thing we need to to bring "God" into it. Religion has screwed up more things, and more people than anything else in history. IMO

that's what I've been saying

 

[LEaSH]

that's what I've been saying

No. That's not what you've been saying. Go back and read your posts. Read 'em.

 

[Security122]

Back to the starting line,,,how is it morally wrong???

I believe it is morally wrong to take the fruits of another's labor without compensating them, and it is also illegal. I don't think it's immoral to make a rolling stop at a stop sign, but it is against the law.

YESSSSS!!!!!! Now were getting somewhere...
Stealing has always been against the law...even without manmade law...but driving without a seatbelt is only against the law lately...

Is IP law found in the natural law--therefore immoral for all times and offensive to God-- or is it found in the manmade law which means it can change and God might not care about it???...

Is "Thou shall not steal" natural law? IP is someone's property. How long would we have writers writing if they received no compensation for their work? Sure, there would be some, but we certainly would not have the selection we have today.

...And anyway,,,where is it right for the Department of Homeland Security to get involved with corporate websites????? These are no threat to our security!! Is DHS becoming the new KGB???? The new US Police weve all been worried would show up????

I almost forgot this was the premise that began this thread! I don't have an answer to this part of the discussion. I really don't see this being a DHS issue at all and I don't understand why they are involved. I will admit having songwriter friends and I don't like seeing them being ripped off. A lot of them write songs for their living and it doesn't always pay a lot anyway. It takes a LOT of air play or records sales at a few cents each to make a living at it.

 

[Arthur Dent]

how you every created something?

WTF?

 

[rjstew317]

WTF?

"have" excuse the typo

 

[Arthur Dent]

there are also groups that think it is perfectly ok to have sexual relationships with children, but that doesn't change the fact that it is morally wrong and against the law.

Sex with children was morally acceptable for centuries, btw. Even as late as the early 20th century. In some countries it still is acceptable.

 

[rjstew317]

No. That's not what you've been saying. Go back and read your posts. Read 'em.

i have read them, and my recurrent theme has been like it or not, it is stealing and it's against the law

 

[Arthur Dent]

"have" excuse the typo

I've created plenty in my time. Had those things sold and what became of them I haven't the foggiest. Don't really care, either. Someone paid for them and what they do with them is what they do with them.

 

[rjstew317]

Sex with children was morally acceptable for centuries, btw. Even as late as the early 20th century. In some countries it still is acceptable.

well not here pal, anyone comes near my kids and they will die a slow and excruciating death

 

[rjstew317]

I've created plenty in my time. Had those things sold and what became of them I haven't the foggiest. Don't really care, either. Someone paid for them and what they do with them is what they do with them.

i think you're missing the point

 

[Arthur Dent]

i think you're missing the point

Not at all. I understand your point completely. You feel that someone owns intellectual property, being the creator of it, and they continue to own it after they have sold it to someone else. I feel that once they sell it they are no longer the sole owner and any and all now co-owners are free to do with it as they please. If they don't want it out there they should keep it to themselves.

 

[rjstew317]

Not at all. I understand your point completely. You feel that someone owns intellectual property, being the creator of it, and they continue to own it after they have sold it to someone else. I feel that once they sell it they are no longer the sole owner and any and all now co-owners are free to do with it as they please. If they don't want it out there they should keep it to themselves.

not exactly, all i have been saying is that the law say's the creator (or company) owns their intellectual property and distributes it with terms and conditions enforced by law. the websites in question (as well as some individuals) have been found to have violate those terms.

 

[mrjarrell]

not exactly, all i have been saying is that the law say's the creator (or company) owns their intellectual property and distributes it with terms and conditions enforced by law. the websites in question (as well as some individuals) have been found to have violate those terms.

Not in a court of law, they haven't. At least the Pirate Bay and Napster and Limewire got a day in court before they were shut down. These places were just stolen and shut down by government thugs. If they had been brick and mortar businesses they would have had to go through a lengthy legal process to do what they did. I'm just surprised that there are people who support this type of thuggery. Not that it's done any good. Many of those stolen domains are already back up and running outside the USSA.

 

[LEaSH]

Government's next move? Block off-shore based file sharing sites maybe?

Gotta stop illegally leaked documents showing illegal government activity somehow.

That's what seizing 70 sites really symbolizes. Under whatever premise (protecting copyright), the juiciest documents have yet to be leaked.

DHS protecting the movie-music industry? Please.

 

[rjstew317]

Not in a court of law, they haven't. At least the Pirate Bay and Napster and Limewire got a day in court before they were shut down. These places were just stolen and shut down by government thugs. If they had been brick and mortar businesses they would have had to go through a lengthy legal process to do what they did. I'm just surprised that there are people who support this type of thuggery. Not that it's done any good. Many of those stolen domains are already back up and running outside the USSA.

so if i had a program that digitally transferred all the money from your bank account to mine would you want them to step in to shut it down or just wait to prove it was me and wait until the trial were over?

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

Not in a court of law, they haven't. At least the Pirate Bay and Napster and Limewire got a day in court before they were shut down. These places were just stolen and shut down by government thugs. If they had been brick and mortar businesses they would have had to go through a lengthy legal process to do what they did. I'm just surprised that there are people who support this type of thuggery. Not that it's done any good. Many of those stolen domains are already back up and running outside the USSA.

Bull . Evey one of those site had their day in court. Every one was shut down by court order.

Do you remotely understand the concept of a contract? I agree to do X, Y, and Z. If I fail to do them, I agree to A, B and C. I also agree that you can expedit the process to enforce your contract rights. Everyone agrees to the contract. No coersion.

Great. I don't do X. You enforce your contract rights, which call for A, B and C.

There are still avenues available to me to appeal.

It is all predicated on my failure to perform.

What is so #$%^@#$ difficult to understand about that?

 

[rjstew317]

i guess we all have to agree to disagree

 

[mrjarrell]

so if i had a program that digitally transferred all the money from your bank account to mine would you want them to step in to shut it down or just wait to prove it was me and wait until the trial were over?

The latter. You keep arguing for the law, but when the application of it goes against you, then suddenly you don't like it. Innocent until proven guilty means something to some of us. Guess not so much to you.

 

[rjstew317]

The latter. You keep arguing for the law, but when the application of it goes against you, then suddenly you don't like it. Innocent until proven guilty means something to some of us. Guess not so much to you.

and nobody's been prosecuted, they just had to take down the site until they can straighten it all out. if they are found to have not broken the law then they will be back in business.