3 ms·

Wasn't btjunkie used primarily to violate copyright? If so, it seems you are mistaken about the outrage regarding SOPA. The outrage was not defending our right

Wasn't btjunkie used primarily to violate copyright? If so, it seems you are mistaken about the outrage regarding SOPA. The outrage was not defending our right to free movies. When Megaupload got taken down I started seeing all these posts that seem to be under the impression that the Internet had rallied around the right to get everything digital for free/cheap against the creators' wishes, which is not the case.

fsniper 15y ago
So a knife is an arms. But it does not mean It's unlawful. If you are after copyright violators, go for them. Declaring knives outlaw is not the solution.
- furyofantares 15y ago
  In this analogy, somebody tried and failed to make knives illegal. Meanwhile, the government has gotten more serious about going after those who willingly supply knives primarily to those who will use them illegally. And one such supplier has ceased business volutnarily
  - fsniper 15y ago
    No it's not an exact analogy. For instance, knives can be made from any substance, and by anybody. This site, btjunkie is not a supplier of knives. It's a place where someone can find who builds and sells knives.
    - furyofantares 15y ago
      The point is, nobody has made file sharing in general illegal. But the government is going after sites that primarily enable illegal file sharing. And some sites that do this are shutting down voluntarily. Where's the injustice?
      - fsniper 15y ago
        Injustice is making people close sites and get out of business even if they are not doing anything illegal. For another analogy, this is like a pawn show deciding to close because some unrelated guys makes drug dealing inside. In this situation does governments go after pawn shops? or only after dealers? Better yet why not make drugs legal and receive taxes for this deals?
        furyofantares 15y ago
        > Injustice is making people close sites and get out of business even if they are not doing anything illegal. Is there any evidence that anyone made btjunkie shut down? It sounds voluntary. Presumably they know they are doing something illegal and have chosen to shut down. > For another analogy, this is like a pawn show deciding to close because some unrelated guys makes drug dealing inside. In this situation does governments go after pawn shops? or only after dealers? If it can be shown that the pawn show was designed primarily to facilitate illegal conduct inside, then it's not really "some unrelated guys". > Better yet why not make drugs legal and receive taxes for this deals? Why not make murder-for-hire legal and tax it? Let's not make analogies just so that we can appeal to whether some other activity should or should not be legal in the analogy. And I don't even know what your point about taxes would since btjunkie likely paid taxes on their ad revenue and donations. We can just discuss whether copyright should exist rather than resorting to silly analogies. I am not even close to happy with the current situation with copyright. My personal view is that copying for personal consumption should not be illegal. But copying or enabling copying for profit is much more nefarious to me. I gather you think copyright should be entirely abolished and it should be legal to profit from distributing content created by someone else against their wishes. I'll respect that opinion. But it has nothing to do with SOPA, and nothing to do with people engaged in entirely legal activities being pursued. If you believe the current laws are unjust, then please be clear that this is your stance rather than pretending that they aren't being broken. And please don't pretend that Wiki pedia and thousands of other sites blacked out for a day in support of illegal file sharing.
        fsniper 15y ago

fsniper 15y ago

So a knife is an arms. But it does not mean It's unlawful. If you are after copyright violators, go for them. Declaring knives outlaw is not the solution.

furyofantares 15y ago
In this analogy, somebody tried and failed to make knives illegal. Meanwhile, the government has gotten more serious about going after those who willingly supply knives primarily to those who will use them illegally. And one such supplier has ceased business volutnarily
- fsniper 15y ago
  No it's not an exact analogy. For instance, knives can be made from any substance, and by anybody. This site, btjunkie is not a supplier of knives. It's a place where someone can find who builds and sells knives.
  - furyofantares 15y ago
    The point is, nobody has made file sharing in general illegal. But the government is going after sites that primarily enable illegal file sharing. And some sites that do this are shutting down voluntarily. Where's the injustice?
    - fsniper 15y ago
      Injustice is making people close sites and get out of business even if they are not doing anything illegal. For another analogy, this is like a pawn show deciding to close because some unrelated guys makes drug dealing inside. In this situation does governments go after pawn shops? or only after dealers? Better yet why not make drugs legal and receive taxes for this deals?
      - furyofantares 15y ago
        > Injustice is making people close sites and get out of business even if they are not doing anything illegal. Is there any evidence that anyone made btjunkie shut down? It sounds voluntary. Presumably they know they are doing something illegal and have chosen to shut down. > For another analogy, this is like a pawn show deciding to close because some unrelated guys makes drug dealing inside. In this situation does governments go after pawn shops? or only after dealers? If it can be shown that the pawn show was designed primarily to facilitate illegal conduct inside, then it's not really "some unrelated guys". > Better yet why not make drugs legal and receive taxes for this deals? Why not make murder-for-hire legal and tax it? Let's not make analogies just so that we can appeal to whether some other activity should or should not be legal in the analogy. And I don't even know what your point about taxes would since btjunkie likely paid taxes on their ad revenue and donations. We can just discuss whether copyright should exist rather than resorting to silly analogies. I am not even close to happy with the current situation with copyright. My personal view is that copying for personal consumption should not be illegal. But copying or enabling copying for profit is much more nefarious to me. I gather you think copyright should be entirely abolished and it should be legal to profit from distributing content created by someone else against their wishes. I'll respect that opinion. But it has nothing to do with SOPA, and nothing to do with people engaged in entirely legal activities being pursued. If you believe the current laws are unjust, then please be clear that this is your stance rather than pretending that they aren't being broken. And please don't pretend that Wiki pedia and thousands of other sites blacked out for a day in support of illegal file sharing.
        fsniper 15y ago