Britain's new internet law. Fanflippingtastic.

No, it's just that the rest of us should bear no fealty to your cause just because you're a goddamned martyr.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Krelian

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Bernard Black

Deni: what about hosting it on their site and on a P2P site, in full support of illegal downloading?

Well that would be a dick move on their part, since they wouldn't be the ones getting sued for millions of dollars, their fans would. So we're back to them having to use one of the myriad of completely legal methods of distribution. Like hosting it on a web site.

Are we going to go back and forth with you arguing like a butthurt teenager who got told she can't download shitty goth music all night, or are you eventually going to stop tilting at windmills, Don?

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

Guys

Deni and LeHah are agreeing with each other in support of a ridiculous premise

And you're all acting as though they're actually arguing in good faith

A man sticks his fist into the open air

and Gamingforce throws their faces at it

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

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 Pangalin

Guys

Deni and LeHah are agreeing with each other in support of a ridiculous premise

And you're all acting as though they're actually arguing in good faith

A man sticks his fist into the open air

and Gamingforce throws their faces at it

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.

I figured it went pretty unsaid that the rest of that crazy law from crazytown wherein you can get punished without proof or evidence was, you know, fucking crazy.

Originally Posted by Missing the Point Krelian

>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

That would be true if they made music illegal. What I'm saying is that the musicians still have plenty of ways of giving their music out for free if they want to. Use that retarded picture all you want, Krel. It doesn't make you any less waving your dick in the air with no takers around. 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.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by Krelian

You bring much to this discussion, in the form of being completely silent.

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by Devo

I once pirated something out of print. I feel like such an asshole.

You should

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

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

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Krelian

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

okay

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?

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by Krelian

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

You're purposely trying to perpetuate an argument by acting stupid. Stop that.

What Deni is saying is that the artists can get clearance to post for free whatever they'd like - Manowar did a goddamned Christmas song that they posted on their site for free, last year - but it was cleared by the label first. It has to be legal.

Sharing files can be legal, while file sharing by its very nature cannot be. Understand?

Originally Posted by Devo

K brb calling myself into the proper authorities.

Can we get Captain Video secret decoder rings and be BFFs?

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

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

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

Originally Posted by Krelian

"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 AND USE THE INCOME FROM THEIR DAY JOBS TO FUND WASTRELS LIVING IN COUNCIL FLATS"

okay

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?

I was speaking idiomatically.

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?

Lehah: Not really; the band in question had a label, and removed themselves from it. Deni makes a far more educated point.

I'll agree with your second point. I'm no lawyer either. But I have read the law in question. The article was one that had been passed around, and though its delivery is rather lacking, it still makes a valid point. But I feel you've defeated yourself by saying that "the vague details can be interpreted by your government on a case by case basis". There is plenty of room for biased judgement to be made.

Deni: You, as you may have guessed, have made a very valid point as far as I'm concerned. It's a political move, and one that can potentially implicate people who support it. It's the online version of a protest I suppose. It gives people a chance to make a stand. The band doesn't force people into making a possibly illegal decision. Hence giving them the option to download P2P or on the website.

And thank you for your opinion of me. I've already stated that I myself don't download music. So your personal low-blow at me doesn't really feel justified.

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by Krelian

>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

Okay, so you're clearly a retard and can't understand anything unless it's given to you in bullet points. Fine. I'll lower myself to your level of idiocy.

- BB asked what an artist who wants to share their files can do under these new laws.

- I listed options.

- You flipped out.

- I restated options.

- You flipped out with pictures.

- At no time did I endorse the law.

- In fact, at one point I condemned the law as being from Crazytown. A hilarious inference that the law is so crazy, it would have to be created by people in a township with the word crazy within it. This is how zany a concept it is.

- You continue to wave your dick around and act like everyone in the whole world is out to get you.

I'd link some idiotic image, but I still have slightly more dignity than you do. Continue your dick flapping as you would, sir. I await with great glee your attempts to convince the world you're right in an argument no one is having.

Your brother in Christ,
Denicalis.

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

Originally Posted by Bernard Black

Lehah: Not really; the band in question had a label, and removed themselves from it.

Did they take the rights with them? Does the label still own something? Do we know what money goes where since the split?

Originally Posted by Bernard Black

I'll agree with your second point. I'm no lawyer either. But I have read the law in question.

Oh, so you went to Parliament and sat in on this then. Please avail me of your knowledge.

Originally Posted by Bernard Black

There is plenty of room for biased judgement to be made.

"You're a very pretty girl, so I don't mind your ignorance"

Jam it back in, in the dark.

They take no rights, have abandoned them to the label they worked for. Their new work is the sole source of their income.

Okay, perhaps I've phrased that wrong. But there are enough reports on the specific points of the Digital Economy Bill to draw conclusions. In answer to earlier points, it does seem ridiculous to me that people who can only just afford an education can't have access to the internet. Most of the work we are set involves such a comprehensive view of the subject that a library wouldn't suffice. Mention of the homeless having internet is a pisspoor way to invite argument.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

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 Bernard Black

In answer to earlier points, it does seem ridiculous to me that people who can only just afford an education can't have access to the internet.

So you're *entitled* to luxuries now?

Nevermind things like health care or food or clean housing or public schooling - the INTERNET is now a god-given, national right!

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

Originally Posted by Krelian

>an argument no one is having
>denicalis accounting for nearly 20 percent of posts in an inherently argumentative thread
>implication that an argument is does not exist despite repeatedly deigning to reply to stupid reaction-image posts

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.

I was speaking idiomatically.

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



What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by Krelian

>reversion to previous 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

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.

P.S.

Devo, it'd be Louise Brooks. Not Bergman.

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by LeHah

So you're *entitled* to luxuries now?

Nevermind things like health care or food or clean housing or public schooling - the INTERNET is now a god-given, national right!

Not at all my sweet. My point being that people who require it for something they are paying for have limited access to it. You pay £1200 for a course and then say that, although pretty much required, the internet is a luxury.

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

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



Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Devo

Lehah would get a Gillian Anderson bot

Oh Devo, you could never win my heart <3<3<3

Originally Posted by Bernard Black

You pay £1200 for a course and then say that, although pretty much required, the internet is a luxury.

1.) How is the internet required? I have things called BOOKS which are much, much better than a Wikipedia or whatever it is you kids use these days.

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

There's nowhere I can't reach.