Quote:
Originally Posted by Wario
those unaware, American free speech could be trifled with if the censorship of the internet is passed.
Im for stopping online piracy (not everything on megauplaod was pirated).
Im against taking down copywritten material so harshly. Youtube needs custom music videos, fan flics, and pop culture references.
|
I'm not sure that "American free speech" is under threat .. although that's not a matter of great portent to me. "Freedom of speech" is not, and imo should not, be absolute .. and where I live it isn't.
As far as piracy is concerned, personally I think it needs curtailing drastically; much of it is outright theft and it needs to be halted. Perhaps this will send a message to these sites that they need to put effort into monitoring what is "shared" rather than simply leave it as a free for all (with the onus being on artists to spend time trying to prevent their work being shared for theft), while they rake in the millions they get in advertising. Megauploads may well have had non-pirated stuff on their site .. but a vast amount was not legal. They have inherited a whirlwind they themselves have allowed to flourish.
I've seen many arguments in favour of live concert footage on YT. These are by definition bootlegs, and are not subject to any quality control. Some may well be marvellous and may encourage people to take an interest in the artist. Some are truly appalling and simply encourage negative comment. Again this is my view, but I think these should be subject to the artist's permission. It's his or her work, was shot in contravention of restrictions clearly printed on the tickets, and as such they are not legitimate. Any the artist isn't happy with have no place being on there imo; they have every right to have them removed, but the onus should not be on them to keep checking the huge sprawl that is YT ti identify what they are happy to have posted and what they are not at all happy with.
The internet needs more monitoring in my view. Currently it is far too free of any legal checks, or even those of common decency. It's wide open nature is abused daily by those with an axe to grind against people specifically or the world in general. It is what allowed the disgraceful Facebook campaign against Meat last year; it is what allows libellous comments to be posted and made visible around the world, with the onus always being on the individual being abused or attacked to struggle taking action against sites largely unconcerned at what they allow to flourish, and sometimes actively encourage. As long as there are people with no sense of decent behaviour, or who seek to foment hatred against groups or individuals, the law has to step in at times to put the brakes on.
As to freedom of speech, which this case was not about, there is NOT total freedom of speech in a civilised society, nor should there be. Preaching hatred against or inciting hate or violence towards people for their beliefs, lifestyle, colour or ethnic origin is not legal in most decent societies thank heavens. I'd like to see it enforced more comprehensively on the internet, just as it is in the press or in public speech. Nor should "freedom of speech" be used to bully or harass individuals or groups, as is regrettably not unusual on Facebook, Twitter etc. Responsible websites like this one has rules against that which are enforced, which is how it should be imo as long as people are unable to control their behaviour and their anger, and post with decency and respect for others themselves.
Caryl