QUOTE(Fusion @ Fri 29th June 2012, 11:12pm)
Is this an organisation of extreme Freikultur enthusiasts? Or is it a front for those who make much money from others' work and wish not to lose their golden goose?
Can someone help me refine an argument (or point my error) where I feel I'm on uncertain ground because geekery challenges me.
It seems to me there's a fundamental inconsistency in Wikipedia blocking proxy servers and VPN addresses (as it does, including the enire TOR network), while at the same Jimmy Wales is supporting the cause of Richard O'Dwyer whose site TVShack depends on users being able to use proxy servers or VPN addresses to avoid sanctions from their IPS, or even to access TVShack in the first place. Is that indeed so, or am I being wrongheaded here?
And can someone hazard for me please a reliable guess at what Jimmy Wales' position would be about downloading a film from Usenet someone else has uploaded onto Usenet. As I understand the only possibly illegal action here was to upload the film in the first place (thus making it available to all). Downloading it is arguably not illegal, so I have seen it claimed, nor is it illegal for a site to collect and publish NZB files allowing you to download these files, since they are not providing the content.
Is all that a defensible position? Is this what Jimmy Wales would claim? And crucially, if he claims it's legal to publish these NZBs and use them to download films for free, is he also then saying that it is morally
acceptable to do so, that this is the issue he is really campaigning on.
It seems to me that his defense of Richard O'Dwyer is necessarily predicated on these positionsThis post has been edited by FightingMac: Sun 1st July 2012, 7:30pm