> Stealing intellectual property is entirely different from censorship, and I'm disappointed to see these two things being lumped together here.
The Pirate Bay is entirely different from stealing intellectual property, and I'm disappointed to see these two things being lumped together here.
Also, I'd be careful throwing the word "censorship" around. What Roskomnadzor is doing here isn't terribly different from DMCA takedown notices or governments "censoring" documented child abuse.
Why be careful? It's clearly censorship by any reasonable definition.
The fact that you feel censorship is always bad but can also think of a few examples where you agree with censorship and are experiencing cognitive dissonance is your problem.
It certainly doesn't help anyone to engage in doublespeak where you define different words for censorship you agree with and censorship you don't agree with. Well, it helps in political discourse immensely but it doesn't help anyone here.
Compare The Pirate Bay to YouTube. An argument can be made that YouTube is the biggest distributor of pirated content, though you'd never make YouTube responsible for that. YouTube is a platform and so is TPB. Nobody would ever suggest blocking YouTube as a whole just because people use the platform to share copyrighted material — yet quite a lot of people think doing the very same thing to TPB is completely reasonable. I don't get that.
Whilst I'd agree that TPB is just a tool, the argument has some validity. It's called the PIRATE bay; they're heavily implying what this tool can be used for, and this matches its main use. YouTube often take action to block IP/Copyright infringement; TPB say they provide the tools and leave users to do with it as they will; i.e. they don't cooperate in preventing illegal usage.
I agree that the tool itself shouldn't be banned, but the idea of pushing for compromise (e.g. giving recognised authorities access to view users' details in cases where illegal material's being shared) doesn't seem unfair.
This way the authorities have options other than banning the tools, legitimate users don't suffer, and offending users are identified; all's good - unless you're using the tool illegally; which is fine (or at least, a different debate).
> Nobody would ever suggest blocking YouTube as a whole
Some studios have suggested that, and were campaigning for restrictions for Youtube. Hence YouTube's content filtering which recognizes and removes certain content automatically.
Roskomnadzor had a story with YouTube, had them blocked for several hours (mostly went unnoticed as IIRC they had banned only a single IPv4 address, and most ISPs hadn't even pulled the registry before the block was lifted), and had made them block a copy "Dumb Ways to Die" video in Russia.
So now it's on The Pirate Bay you no longer have access to that IP?
That's wrong of course, hence it's completely different to stealing. Just becaue copyright infringement and stealing both have potential financial impact doesn't make them coterminous.
That doesn't make it right. There have been something like 6 Kinder egg related deaths in the last 20 years [1], versus 1.5 BILLION of them sold every year [2]. Meanwhile, thousands of people die each year from choking on normal food that doesn't contain plastic objects.
I am not arguing this is right. I am just pointing out this is entirely possible. In fact I would tend to agree with you. Tobacco is a proven bad drug, and it hasn't been made illegal. There are obviously other parameters to take into account but still.
Almost no one gets stabbed on planes (far less than in dark alleys), yet try to take a knife in your hand luggage and security get very upset... did these people not study statistics? ;)
The Pirate Bay is entirely different from stealing intellectual property, and I'm disappointed to see these two things being lumped together here.
Also, I'd be careful throwing the word "censorship" around. What Roskomnadzor is doing here isn't terribly different from DMCA takedown notices or governments "censoring" documented child abuse.