Britain's new internet law. Fanflippingtastic.

Originally Posted by LeHah

Haha, people are getting emo that they have to pay for shit again when some of us working schlubs have been doing it all along.

Nice to see entitlement take one on the chin.

This is not about entitlement—I see things available without cost and seize the opportunity, legally dubious or not. Being pissed off about such avenues of freedom being legislated against is human nature. It turns out your straw man was made of bricks and it has broken both of your legs and eaten them.

I don't give a toss about most popular music (which is likely what this legislation will apply to if it becomes law); most of the bands I listen to either encourage filesharing or don't give a toss about it. Nonetheless, I shall be writing to my MP.

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by LeHah

"I obey the law when it suits my needs"

Cute.

Originally Posted by LeHah

Without knowing anything about British politics

Originally Posted by LeHah

without knowing anything about the politics over on the other side of the pond

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Denicalis

Okay? My point still stands. They'd just have to move to hosting it on their website instead. They're welcome to give away their music, you aren't. This isn't complex.

What if they were adamant about distributing their own files over protocols other than HTTP, Deni? What then?

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by LeHah

I think you can "what if" this until we're all blue in the face - but can you give me an example of a name artist who has done that? (I am honestly at a loss)

Machinae Supremacy
Nine Inch Nails
Anamanaguchi
Radiohead
Devin Townsend
A buddy of mine named David
Every artist who has ever licensed their material under creative commons

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by Denicalis

Well it's no longer an option. The choice isn't there. I'd like to smoke weed before I get on a job site, but that isn't an option I have now, is it? If I do it, and get caught, I get punished.

So they have to upload it to a webspace. They'll get over it.

So people who choose to drink beer have to grab a Sprite. They'll get over it.

So people who want to listen to hip-hop have to listen to trance. They'll get over it.

So people who enjoy playing first-person shooters will have to play platformers. They'll get over it.

So people who want to watch Youtube videos on their telecoms plan will have to pay an extra fifty bucks a month to access certain websites. They'll get over it.

So people who enjoy privacy when they're making a phone call will have to put up with the government listening in on their conversations. They'll get over it.

So people who want to get a job at a country club will have to apply somewhere where they don't only hire whites. They'll get over it.

So people who want to criticise the way their country is being run will face laws against distribution of anti-establishment propaganda. They'll get over it.

So people who want chemotherapy have to get radiotherapy. They'll get over it.

So people who want to marry people of their own gender have to turn heterosexual. They'll get over it.

So people who choose to digitally distribute their artwork in one particular bit order will have to rearrange those individual ones and zeroes and arbitrarily compromise their efficiency. They'll get over it.

Originally Posted by LeHah

That said though, were they P2P? I'm talking like Napster or Kazaa or whatever it is you kids use these days.

Why should such services be treated any differently to protocols like BitTorrent?

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by LeHah

I'm sure you'll feign offense when I call you an idiot because you don't see that coming. And I suppose I should dance around your time-appropriate delicate sensibilities because I hold a more logical, more law abiding and forthright sense of morals? Because you blame the goddamned train that hits you when you refuse to step off the tracks and out of its way, huh?

>implication that morality is inherently and inextricably linked to obedience of laws founded on circular reasoning

Originally Posted by Denicalis

Wow, do you really suck that bad at logic? The correct corollary would be to say if you want a sprite, you have to buy it from a vendor, not from the back of a truck after someone stole it. But, you know, okay. Go ahead and be wrong in a bunch of lines if it makes you feel better. Next you can tell me how this is one step removed from nazis and lose all arguments on the internet simultaneously.

>suck at logic
>you can't have a blue car because it's illegal; have a green car instead because i say such things are justifiably and objectively good
>equating legitimate acquisition of deliberately distributed works over a certain protocol with theft
>godwin's law



How ya doing, buddy?

Originally Posted by Denicalis

I'm not arguing anything outside of the fact that bands can still give away their music for free if they want to, they just can't use filesharing.

"They can share files if they so choose, but only if they don't share files"

okay

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by Denicalis

They can host it on a website. They can make it free on iTunes. They can stick it on an ftp and link it all over every chat room they want.

Have you always been this dense?

"They can host it as an HTTP download, they can put it on an FTP server, they can share it through a proprietary rules-and-regs-bound music store service, they can distribute it through IRC, but MY GOD IF THEY EVER USE BITTORRENT OR ANY OTHER SIMILAR OPEN-SOURCE PROTOCOL, I WILL SHIT ON THEIR GRANDPARENTS' GRAVES, TAKE THE INCOME FROM THEIR DAY JOBS AND USE IT TO FUND WASTRELS LIVING IN COUNCIL FLATS"

okay

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by Denicalis

No, your government would do that. You can stop acting like I support this law at any time, and you can also stop acting like they said they were going to stomp on babies for fun. When someone asks what options artists who want to share their music have, don't get mad when someone gives them a list of viable options.

Rational thinking is just something that exists for other people in your universe, huh Krel?

>continued lack of any rational justification for a position
>denial of support for a law despite continued support for the position it puts forth
>thousands of straw men
>un-ironic ad-hominem retorts



How ya doing, buddy?

Originally Posted by Denicalis

You flipped out.

Originally Posted by Denicalis

Wow, do you really suck that bad at logic?

Originally Posted by Denicalis

You flipped out.

Originally Posted by Denicalis

Use that retarded picture all you want, Krel.

Originally Posted by Denicalis

You flipped out.

Originally Posted by Denicalis

It doesn't make you any less waving your dick in the air with no takers around.

Originally Posted by Denicalis

You flipped out.

Originally Posted by Denicalis

Try arguing against yet another premise I haven't discussed. Maybe you can outwit bizarro me in an argument I never had. It's your last, best hope.

Originally Posted by Denicalis

You flipped out.

Originally Posted by Denicalis

Have you always been this dense?

Originally Posted by Denicalis

You flipped out.

Originally Posted by Denicalis

Rational thinking is just something that exists for other people in your universe, huh Krel?

Originally Posted by Denicalis

You flipped out.

Originally Posted by Denicalis

I'd link some idiotic image, but I still have slightly more dignity than you do. Continue your dick flapping as you would, sir.

Originally Posted by Denicalis

You flipped out.

Originally Posted by Denicalis

I await with great glee your attempts to convince the world you're right in an argument no one is having.

>an argument no one is having
>denicalis accounting for nearly 20 percent of posts in an inherently argumentative thread
>implication that an argument does not exist despite repeatedly deigning to reply to stupid reaction-image posts
>implication that holding an untenable position and arguing with a picture of dr cox are the actions of a dignified man



Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by Denicalis

I notice you are unable to prove one instance of me supporting this law, or doing anything beyond providing answers to the question of: "What does an artist do if they want to share files under this new law?"

You need to get much better at trolling if you expect me to pay attention to you.

>reversion to previous (still as-yet unjustified) line of reasoning in lieu of addressing current topic of conversation
>immediate contravention of previous statement of non-participation in argument
>implication that you are not paying any attention to me
>seven quote-replies to my posts



This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by Denicalis

Yeah, we're done here. Congratulations on undermining any point you may have tried to make earlier. If this was gameFAQs, you might have had a chance of some small group not noticing how insubstantial your reasoning is, but I'm afraid here, among a group of largely adult human beings, you're sort of hooped. You're a child, Krel. Enjoy your sandbox.

>inability to provide adequate retorts to criticisms of a defense more perforated than a slice of swiss cheese
>more straw-men
>implication of insubstantial reasoning backed itself by insubstantial reasoning
>implication of childishness



I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by LeHah

2.) If you're struggling to make ends meet because you payed amount X to get into college Y, maybe you shouldn't be in college and should be out working instead?

Originally Posted by LeHah

I mean, thats kinda DUH to me but I have a couple years on you.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by Shin

nyway, the stuff about a new ratings system is pretty good news. Currently, most games are sent voluntarily to the BBFC for rating and selling an 18 rated game to a minor is as much of an offence as selling them an 18 rated DVD. Because the current system is voluntary however, there are still grounds for idiots to try and ban games and game content. By introducing a compulsary system (That'll be indistinguishable from the BBFC ratings as I understand, not the US ones you get on game boxes at present), there will be no more games getting banned, as they'll get slapped with an 18 rating and released.

Contrary to popular opinion, almost nothing gets banned in films over here these days. You've got to go a long way out of your way to even get a film an 18 rating under current guidelines so by formalising a ratings system, we're guaranteed no more calls for bans and no cut content.

Great points. I couldn't agree more with the introduction of a new rating system. The whole "video nasties" debacle took place before I was even conceived, but it still makes me fume thinking about it. That the exact same scapegoating is going on today with videogames is slightly unsettling, but nowadays we see far more brutal shit get released into cinemas nationwide than the handful of horror flicks that struggled to get VHS releases in the eighties. Given that people got the fuck over it and/or came to accept that gore flicks were somewhere between works of art and harmless fun, I reckon it's safe to assume that violent games will become a complete non-issue with politicians in a couple of years.

Might be a bit of a pipe dream, but I'd like to think an entirely new NGO dedicated to game classification wouldn't go amiss in changing attitudes and dispelling misconceptions.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?