Re:But how will authorities regulate illegal conte
on
Wireless Freenets
·
· Score: 1
As they said in Lord of the flys,
Shut up piggy!
What I mean is this, content really shouldn't be so regulated. Regulations requires regulators. Whose going to regulate this material? Not people looking out for the good of humanity, not ever people filled with moral rightousness.
The regulaters will be people who have a vested intrest in denying people information. Why deny information? Becuase the want you to have to pay for it. Now this in it self isn't a bad idea, it cost money for content and information to become avalible. The providers deserve compensation so they can provide more content. The problem is when the providers spend their energy thinking of ways to get consumers to pay for the same content multipule times.
Look at music, you buy a cd and it breaks. Do they gvie you another cd? Of course not. You bought it you broke it. You bought a cd, not the right to the song for the end of time right? Now take that cd and copy it, and give it to your sister. You can't do that, your own the cd lisence, not your sister. According to the provider you own the cd, but can't do just anything with it. On top of all that, they made cds so weak unless you treat it like a removed kidney it'll become scratched up withen a year, causing you to buy another copy.
Providers of content have become concered with making you pay as much as possible for content and give you the least about of freedom and flexiblilty. Thats why if a new freenet is construted its should be designed to make is as hard to as possible to regulate and monitor. The only restrain is that a user should be able to screen out content his or she doesn't want.
Slashdot Mirror
As they said in Lord of the flys,
Shut up piggy!
What I mean is this, content really shouldn't be so regulated. Regulations requires regulators. Whose going to regulate this material? Not people looking out for the good of humanity, not ever people filled with moral rightousness.
The regulaters will be people who have a vested intrest in denying people information. Why deny information? Becuase the want you to have to pay for it. Now this in it self isn't a bad idea, it cost money for content and information to become avalible. The providers deserve compensation so they can provide more content. The problem is when the providers spend their energy thinking of ways to get consumers to pay for the same content multipule times.
Look at music, you buy a cd and it breaks. Do they gvie you another cd? Of course not. You bought it you broke it. You bought a cd, not the right to the song for the end of time right? Now take that cd and copy it, and give it to your sister. You can't do that, your own the cd lisence, not your sister. According to the provider you own the cd, but can't do just anything with it. On top of all that, they made cds so weak unless you treat it like a removed kidney it'll become scratched up withen a year, causing you to buy another copy.
Providers of content have become concered with making you pay as much as possible for content and give you the least about of freedom and flexiblilty. Thats why if a new freenet is construted its should be designed to make is as hard to as possible to regulate and monitor. The only restrain is that a user should be able to screen out content his or she doesn't want.