So "no Internet" == inhumane? That is just folly. There are people all over the world who live and exist without an Internet connection. They still eat, they still work, and they even have social lives. I may not agree with a permanent ban on access, but I can easily see that if your crime involves the Internet then a consequence of "no Internet" is quite logical. You won't die, but you may be severely inconvenienced.
As for the premise of this, I believe that Isaac Asimov wrote a short story about something similar. The idea was that someone tried to hack the system, controlled by computers, and (this being sci-fi) his punishment was that he was sentenced to never be able to use _anything_ computer-related. That included such basic things as swiping a card to get a meal or to get transportation somewhere. He was forced to get someone to do it for him. I wish I could remember the name of the story right now.
We aren't discussing anything nearly so drastic in this case. Being barred from the Internet is a punishment and it may mean that your lifestyle changes drastically, but it's not cruel and inhumane.
Now, in regards to the punishment fitting the crime, I don't think that cutting someone off from the Internet should be the result of them using P2P to download/share something. While still a crime (not theft, but illegal), it doesn't warrant taking away all net access. However, someone who uses the Internet to stalk people or to find people to abuse or worse; people who do attempt to hack essentials like the power grid - for those people I think removing them from the Internet is good for society and they should be forced to make some serious lifestyle changes.
Andrew
· 1 year ago
Stan, Congrats on getting through the whole post without resorting to jokes about the Edge's sidekick or about "pro Bono."
Lara, The Data Digger
· 1 year ago
The music and film industries are acting like spoiled children. If they cannot make a dollar off of you, they are going to punish you. "Momma! He stole my song!" Oh really? "Now, music industry, is it your song or the artist's song?"
Remember growing up? Momma said "Share with the others." If you were playing with a toy and lil SusieQ wanted it, Momma made you give it up. It was called "playing nicely." Supposedly Momma was training us to be "good" adults.
It would be mighty "adult" of the music and film industries if they learned how to "play nicely" and "share."
Cookiemouse
· 1 year ago
Access to the internet is a basic human right, a part of the freedom of information.
Tracy King
· 1 year ago
Good news, as TV and phones are already considered a human right for social inclusion.
However, I disagree with the fallacious argument you make about bread:
"If you're selling bread and suddenly bread starts raining from the sky, are you going to be able to keep selling bread? Hell no, because it will be free for all and your business model needs to change. You think you can tell people that it's illegal to pick the free bread from the street? You better start making better bread, buddy."
That's not anything like analogous to piracy because the 'bread from the sky' isn't related to the product made by the sellers of the bread, unlike illegal downloads. And making better bread won't help if the better bread then starts falling from the sky as well. People don't illegally download because the product is rubbish, they do it because they can get away with it. If you make an amazing album or movie, will the downloaders not download it? Unlikely.
In other words, if the makers of the bread go bankrupt and stop making and selling bread, then no more bread will fall from the sky either.
thepete
· 1 year ago
Yeah, I think this is a good thing. The main reason people let Bush have a second term is because Americans don't read enough. Getting out onto the 'net and reading what the rest of the world thinks of Bush, then reading some blogs from people in Iraq really gives you a different perspective.
Information is necessary for a democracy, which is why a handful of uber-powerful corporations having the ability to shut your connection to it is so scary.
I'm starting to think the EU is doing stuff maybe a little better than the US in the freedom-for-its-people department. At least in theory...
Chris
· 1 year ago
F*&% the copyright holders. Who cares about the people making the product if I want it I should be able to download it and access it for free. And no one should be able to tell me when I can use the internet even if its for purposes that are against other peoples rights (like those stupid musicians who want to sell their music how they want to sell it)I think that same thing goes for restaurants. If I want food and have no money who are they to tell me not to dine and dash. The EU rocks. I cant wait for socialism to prevail so all this money changing hands and free market BS can go out the window. Maybe if we are lucky we can get back to Soviet Russia style property rights and kick the burgeious right out into the street.
Also if I am thirsty i may not knock when I come into your house to get a glass of water, just a heads up.
thepete
· 1 year ago
All right, so no drinking ever again if you steal a single glass of water. No eating ever again because you pinched an orange from a storefront shelf.
Still think your black & white view of the world is the best to have?
And for the record, I don't think most people would mind if you stopped by for a glass of water or even a meal. Last time I had a friend stop by I *offered* them something to drink. Free of charge, even. Perhaps if the media companies could stop being so tight with their bank accounts we'd not feel like we were being raped every time we bought a $20 CD that cost them a few bucks to make (including artists' royalties). Here's a tip: if we ALL lighten up on the greed, we just might see a few problems go away.
Peter
· 1 year ago
Nathaneal, I actually work for a SaaS. Loss of Internet access would have a pretty measurable effect on my life. I would be forced to find a completely new line of work. However, I feel reasonably confident that I would be able to do so and would still be able to live. I don't feel that this would necessarily be cruel and unusual punishment.
However, I _am_ in agreement that this is overkill for a crime of P2P sharing. My idea of where this sort of punishment would fit the crime would be a crime that attempts to hack something that people need to survive (utilities, medical, etc) or that would cause extreme chaos (finance). This is a great example of where a person tried to use the Internet in a way that could actually do real harm. I would have very little problem pronouncing a sentence of "no Internet" on such a person.
I disagree that having Internet access is a "right". It's a privilege - a valuable privilege, but still a privilege. If you abuse it, it can be taken away. It will not cause direct harm to a person to not be able to surf the web. It's inconvenient, but there are outlets for everything. Sure you won't be in the latest social scene or have up-to-the-minute blog access, but radio and TV still exist for any news of "life and death" importance.
As for the argument that it's so embedded that it can't be taken away - I just disagree. It would hurt, you'd miss out on something that you consider important, but you wouldn't die just because you can't get online. I respect your opinion, but do not agree that Internet access is some form of inalienable right and denying it to people is cruel and unusual. Excessive for the crime discussed, yes. Something that we absolutely _need_ to live, no.
tit
· 1 year ago
First of all there is a lot of people who see the internet as a part of there lives ie people who have relatives living out of the country duh! dont dare say internet is not a part of social inclusion it is people who are house bound use there computers to help pass in there long dreary days contact online buddys and again FAMILY as for p2p there is no crime in filesharing you are NOT pysically stealing anything were as you walked into a shop lift a cd a run like a headcase out the door that is theft!and 1 final point the movie and music industry are nothing they dont own us they dont own our countrys we own them they will not bully us or our providers they will pay dearly for wot they have do to the kids and normal people of the world and the world is now wakening up to there nasty ways
All Comments
As for the premise of this, I believe that Isaac Asimov wrote a short story about something similar. The idea was that someone tried to hack the system, controlled by computers, and (this being sci-fi) his punishment was that he was sentenced to never be able to use _anything_ computer-related. That included such basic things as swiping a card to get a meal or to get transportation somewhere. He was forced to get someone to do it for him. I wish I could remember the name of the story right now.
We aren't discussing anything nearly so drastic in this case. Being barred from the Internet is a punishment and it may mean that your lifestyle changes drastically, but it's not cruel and inhumane.
Now, in regards to the punishment fitting the crime, I don't think that cutting someone off from the Internet should be the result of them using P2P to download/share something. While still a crime (not theft, but illegal), it doesn't warrant taking away all net access. However, someone who uses the Internet to stalk people or to find people to abuse or worse; people who do attempt to hack essentials like the power grid - for those people I think removing them from the Internet is good for society and they should be forced to make some serious lifestyle changes.
Congrats on getting through the whole post without resorting to jokes about the Edge's sidekick or about "pro Bono."
Remember growing up? Momma said "Share with the others." If you were playing with a toy and lil SusieQ wanted it, Momma made you give it up. It was called "playing nicely." Supposedly Momma was training us to be "good" adults.
It would be mighty "adult" of the music and film industries if they learned how to "play nicely" and "share."
However, I disagree with the fallacious argument you make about bread:
"If you're selling bread and suddenly bread starts raining from the sky, are you going to be able to keep selling bread? Hell no, because it will be free for all and your business model needs to change. You think you can tell people that it's illegal to pick the free bread from the street? You better start making better bread, buddy."
That's not anything like analogous to piracy because the 'bread from the sky' isn't related to the product made by the sellers of the bread, unlike illegal downloads. And making better bread won't help if the better bread then starts falling from the sky as well. People don't illegally download because the product is rubbish, they do it because they can get away with it. If you make an amazing album or movie, will the downloaders not download it? Unlikely.
In other words, if the makers of the bread go bankrupt and stop making and selling bread, then no more bread will fall from the sky either.
Information is necessary for a democracy, which is why a handful of uber-powerful corporations having the ability to shut your connection to it is so scary.
I'm starting to think the EU is doing stuff maybe a little better than the US in the freedom-for-its-people department. At least in theory...
Also if I am thirsty i may not knock when I come into your house to get a glass of water, just a heads up.
Still think your black & white view of the world is the best to have?
And for the record, I don't think most people would mind if you stopped by for a glass of water or even a meal. Last time I had a friend stop by I *offered* them something to drink. Free of charge, even. Perhaps if the media companies could stop being so tight with their bank accounts we'd not feel like we were being raped every time we bought a $20 CD that cost them a few bucks to make (including artists' royalties). Here's a tip: if we ALL lighten up on the greed, we just might see a few problems go away.
I actually work for a SaaS. Loss of Internet access would have a pretty measurable effect on my life. I would be forced to find a completely new line of work. However, I feel reasonably confident that I would be able to do so and would still be able to live. I don't feel that this would necessarily be cruel and unusual punishment.
However, I _am_ in agreement that this is overkill for a crime of P2P sharing. My idea of where this sort of punishment would fit the crime would be a crime that attempts to hack something that people need to survive (utilities, medical, etc) or that would cause extreme chaos (finance). This is a great example of where a person tried to use the Internet in a way that could actually do real harm. I would have very little problem pronouncing a sentence of "no Internet" on such a person.
I disagree that having Internet access is a "right". It's a privilege - a valuable privilege, but still a privilege. If you abuse it, it can be taken away. It will not cause direct harm to a person to not be able to surf the web. It's inconvenient, but there are outlets for everything. Sure you won't be in the latest social scene or have up-to-the-minute blog access, but radio and TV still exist for any news of "life and death" importance.
As for the argument that it's so embedded that it can't be taken away - I just disagree. It would hurt, you'd miss out on something that you consider important, but you wouldn't die just because you can't get online. I respect your opinion, but do not agree that Internet access is some form of inalienable right and denying it to people is cruel and unusual. Excessive for the crime discussed, yes. Something that we absolutely _need_ to live, no.