3 ms·

You're right, but I think the better tl;dr would be: 1. Free communication, not filtered. You shouldn't need permission, of any kind, from anybody, to get on

You're right, but I think the better tl;dr would be: 1. Free communication, not filtered. You shouldn't need permission, of any kind, from anybody, to get on the Internet. No one should have license to kick you off. Translation of a domain name to a dotted quad is free speech activity. 2. Don't create liability by association. You cannot justify encroachment of my rights by preventing the abuses of others. If I make reasonable efforts to enforce your copyright, why shouldn't I have safe harbor against further liability? Why is it my job to do your policing for you? 3. Don't make your problem my problem. Copyright violation is a problem, but that doesn't justify adding costs and risks and complications to millions of people who have nothing to do with the problems of the MPAA. 4. Copyright does not justify compromised rights. Copyright is important, but not so important that we should compromise a person's right to speak. A business model built on compromised rights is not ultimately beneficial to society, no matter what the short or medium term costs may be.

untog 15y ago
Why is it my job to do your policing for you? [...] Don't make your problem my problem. I'd be wary of using that kind of argument because why does Mr. Average Joe care who polices piracy online? Maybe I'm too cynical about people but I think that they respond better when you angle it to how it'll affect them personally. The fact that the MPAA's problem has become our problem is of little consequence to the end user. If I make reasonable efforts to enforce your copyright, why shouldn't I have safe harbor against further liability? Again, maybe my cynicism, but I think this is already too complicated (i.e. not soundbite-y). "We don't want the government in control of what you can look at on the internet" is definitely vaguer, but it's more memorable.
gwright 15y ago
> Translation of a domain name to a dotted quad is free speech activity. Really? It isn't necessary to force every square peg of an objection into the round hole of 1st amendment free speech rights. Even more generally, bad public policy can still be constitutional. Objections should be organized around the unsoundness of the policy in addition to any Constitutional objections. Defense in depth, so to speak.

untog 15y ago

Why is it my job to do your policing for you? [...] Don't make your problem my problem. I'd be wary of using that kind of argument because why does Mr. Average Joe care who polices piracy online? Maybe I'm too cynical about people but I think that they respond better when you angle it to how it'll affect them personally. The fact that the MPAA's problem has become our problem is of little consequence to the end user. If I make reasonable efforts to enforce your copyright, why shouldn't I have safe harbor against further liability? Again, maybe my cynicism, but I think this is already too complicated (i.e. not soundbite-y). "We don't want the government in control of what you can look at on the internet" is definitely vaguer, but it's more memorable.

gwright 15y ago

> Translation of a domain name to a dotted quad is free speech activity. Really? It isn't necessary to force every square peg of an objection into the round hole of 1st amendment free speech rights. Even more generally, bad public policy can still be constitutional. Objections should be organized around the unsoundness of the policy in addition to any Constitutional objections. Defense in depth, so to speak.