Quote:
Originally Posted by gideongallery
no you can't all those actions would represent an actionable violation of the law
the isp would still be granting a suspended user access to the internet
that represents 10K + in fines if the copyright holder complains.
it would be a pretty useless blacklist if i could simple use the internet access of another legal entity (acting as a proxy)
i could just register a business for $35 and repeat forever.
there is a huge difference between being entitled to something with no cost
and being protected from having that right taken way from you when your willing to pay for it
the blacklisting laws are the latter
that all the rights i care for people to have, i have never said anyone is entitled to internet at no cost
and trying to argue that you should be allowed to TAKE AWAY THE RIGHT just because i don't want to give it to everyone for free is an absolutely insane position to take
you can't be that stupid, so i assume that just a deliberate straw man arguement because your arguement is that weak.
|
It is pretty simple. Here is the statement from the UN
19. Everyone has the right to say what they think and to give and receive information.
Nowhere there does is say what form that give or take of information must take. Freedom of speech should be protected, but that doesn't mean that a person is entitled to have access to every form of communication out there especially if someone is abusing that form of technology. If a person is going to abuse the freedom given to them they should have it reined in.
A person who walks across the street and has a conversation with their neighbor is exercising their freedom of speech exactly like someone who gets online and posts a twitter posts or a blog.
also
20. Everyone has the right to take part in meetings and to join associations in a peaceful way.
Again, it says nothing about how or where these meetings should take place.
A person who drives to their local library and meets with a group to discuss topics is expressing their freedom in the same way that a person participating in an online chat session. If the group gets out of control they can be removed from the library.
Let me ask you this: If there were a clear cut law where a person who was accused of copyright violation had a fair trial where they could defend themselves just like any other person accused of any other crime and they were found guilty a number of times of copyright violation would you then support them losing their access to the internet? Or do you believe a person should be allowed access no matter how much they abuse it?