7 ms·

I am a musician who would never deal with RIAA, instead we put both our albums on The Pirate Bay to download and spread for free. Now I cannot link to those al

by gitarr 14y ago

I am a musician who would never deal with RIAA, instead we put both our albums on The Pirate Bay to download and spread for free. Now I cannot link to those albums in Microsoft software because they censor all links? That my friend is as anti free speech as it gets, and this censorship really erodes society not the sharing and copying of files.

bostonvaulter2 14y ago
Can you link them here?
- gitarr 14y ago
  No, this nick is private and privacy is what i want to keep in this case.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - bostonvaulter2 14y ago
    Fair enough
javert 14y ago
I agree that it's a shame, but rather than blaming the RIAA, I blame it on the pirates. The widespread acceptance of piracy among users of BitTorrent is what is ruining BitTorrent, not people asserting their voluntarily-granted contractual rights (RIAA). That my friend is as anti free speech as it gets, and this censorship really erodes Actually, by flinging about these terms in an incorrect manner, you are damaging the ability of real defenders of free speech to actually defend free speech. You see, MS is just a company; they can make their software work as they want; that is their right to free speech being excercised. If you don't like it, use different software. Only the government (or, indirectly, entities that have achieved governmental capture) can actually infringe on free speech.
- gitarr 14y ago
  Until someone can prove a negative impact of piracy on the copyright holders all you say is rubbish and plain wrong. No company should be allowed to hinder my free speech. And no worries, I do not use any Microsoft products, but I can IM people who do use live messenger from Linux IM apps. I am guessing I will be censored anyway, which is just horrible and outrageous.
  - javert 14y ago
    No company should be allowed to hinder my free speech. We've already established why your use of the words "free speech" is invalid, and rather than addressing that, you're just making arbitrary assertions (which, because they are arbitrary, should be ignored). Until someone can prove a negative impact of piracy on the copyright holders It's been proven, and is also quite obvious, but again, you're just going on emotion and arbitrary assertion.
    - gitarr 14y ago
      http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/04/us-government-finally-admits-most-piracy-estimates-are-bogus.ars http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/04/us-governmen...
      - javert 14y ago
        Any claim that copyright infringement does not hurt copyright holders is dishonest, and people who make dishonest claims should not be admitted into serious discussions. I'm responding to gitarr here, not the link itself.
        danboarder 14y ago
        That is quite a blanket statement there, javert. Claims that are well researched with evidence to back them SHOULD be included in the conversation, why not?
simonbrown 14y ago
You could distribute them via something like ClearBits.
- Lockyy 14y ago
  Why should be he required to change distributor?

by gitarr 14y ago

bostonvaulter2 14y ago

Can you link them here?

gitarr 14y ago
No, this nick is private and privacy is what i want to keep in this case.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- bostonvaulter2 14y ago
  Fair enough

javert 14y ago

I agree that it's a shame, but rather than blaming the RIAA, I blame it on the pirates. The widespread acceptance of piracy among users of BitTorrent is what is ruining BitTorrent, not people asserting their voluntarily-granted contractual rights (RIAA). That my friend is as anti free speech as it gets, and this censorship really erodes Actually, by flinging about these terms in an incorrect manner, you are damaging the ability of real defenders of free speech to actually defend free speech. You see, MS is just a company; they can make their software work as they want; that is their right to free speech being excercised. If you don't like it, use different software. Only the government (or, indirectly, entities that have achieved governmental capture) can actually infringe on free speech.

gitarr 14y ago
Until someone can prove a negative impact of piracy on the copyright holders all you say is rubbish and plain wrong. No company should be allowed to hinder my free speech. And no worries, I do not use any Microsoft products, but I can IM people who do use live messenger from Linux IM apps. I am guessing I will be censored anyway, which is just horrible and outrageous.
- javert 14y ago
  No company should be allowed to hinder my free speech. We've already established why your use of the words "free speech" is invalid, and rather than addressing that, you're just making arbitrary assertions (which, because they are arbitrary, should be ignored). Until someone can prove a negative impact of piracy on the copyright holders It's been proven, and is also quite obvious, but again, you're just going on emotion and arbitrary assertion.
  - gitarr 14y ago
    http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/04/us-government-finally-admits-most-piracy-estimates-are-bogus.ars http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/04/us-governmen...
    - javert 14y ago
      Any claim that copyright infringement does not hurt copyright holders is dishonest, and people who make dishonest claims should not be admitted into serious discussions. I'm responding to gitarr here, not the link itself.
      - danboarder 14y ago
        That is quite a blanket statement there, javert. Claims that are well researched with evidence to back them SHOULD be included in the conversation, why not?

simonbrown 14y ago

You could distribute them via something like ClearBits.

Lockyy 14y ago
Why should be he required to change distributor?