I don't agree with trebor here but I have a problem with him being downvoted. He has clearly laid out an intelligent (albeit unpopular) opinion and you may disagree, but why downvote? Maybe if he was factually wrong (he isn't) or not contributing to the discussion (he is) or was in some way offensive (he isn't offending me at least)...
Back on topic: The US is already entrenched in foreign intervention through anti-terrorism, anti-genocide, anti-torture, maintaining cheap and sustainable oil prices (and other imported and exported goods), anti-drug-running, and even "spreading/encouraging democracy/freedom".
I admit that enforcing intellectual property doesn't appear too far off from these, but I think there is a crucial difference: these existing interferences benefit most people in America (spreading democracy and fighting druglords is debatable) while the intellectual property interferences benefit a single, dying, hated industry (and that benefit is also very debatable).
Most people are upset because the gains (to "Big Media") do not seem worth the cost of foreign entanglements and limitation of free speech (domestic and abroad).
> The US is already entrenched in foreign intervention through anti-terrorism, anti-genocide, anti-torture
Google "black sites". Apparently transporting people to bases in other countries in order to detain and or torture them is ok for the US side... Trying to extradite people who have never been to the US is considered fine too.
I don't care about what industry was affected here - US should have no such control over other countries and no such influence on their legal system.
You are exactly correct about the US's activity in foreign interventions. I would say that "we" are very active in that regard. And frankly, I think that we ought to get out of other people's sovereignty and be content with our own. Hence why I support Ron Paul as a candidate.
However, I disagree strongly on one point:
> Most people are upset because the gains (to "Big Media") do not seem worth the cost of foreign entanglements and limitation of free speech (domestic and abroad).
The takedown of TPB is not about freedom of speech. They could say whatever they want (and did) without getting taken down. But as soon as they assisted US citizens to commit crimes as defined by the US, the TPB became a target. Any country that has a foreign power aiding its citizens to commit what it perceives as a crime will either: pressure the other country to put a stop to it, or will take internal measures.
As I tried to lay out in my previous post, TPB is in the position of an accomplice, according to US law, and will be targeted by the means the US has at hand. Pressuring a power via the ambassador is rather above-board, compared with the "removal" of Osama bin Laden.
I find the definition of "intellectual property" to be too broadly defined and protected. But piracy is just theft, pure and simple...
I'd rather not debate over whether or not (digital content) piracy is theft, but surely the matter is not "pure and simple".
Free speech is absolutely an issue here (maybe not the main issue). TPB hosts torrent files. "A torrent is data about a target file, though it contains no information about the content of the file. The only data that the torrent holds is information about the location of different pieces of the target file" [1] This is would be like Joe telling someone how to do something illegal, like how to sneak into a movie theater without paying. You could claim that this would make Joe an accomplice to the person who successfully uses his advice, but others will also claim that Joe still has the right to say it. You may argue that it is what is, and under US law, it means Joe is an accomplice, but others sympathize with Joe. That's why people are defending TPB here. It may perfectly legal what the gov't are doing, but we still don't like it. Even if we agree that TPB is mainly devoted to assisting the infringement of copyrights, the cost/benefit ratio favors "Big Media" way more than anyone else (even combined) and the costs are too Orwellian.
The bigger issue to me though is that this interference is being pushed by companies (in fact, companies that I despise). Like Exxon pushing our gov't to push other countries to do things to maximize Exxon's profits. Or Halliburton. Or Monsanto, etc.
I blame the US (and Sweden) for being weak (and somewhat corruptible) but the real blame is on the MPAA and friends.
Back on topic: The US is already entrenched in foreign intervention through anti-terrorism, anti-genocide, anti-torture, maintaining cheap and sustainable oil prices (and other imported and exported goods), anti-drug-running, and even "spreading/encouraging democracy/freedom".
I admit that enforcing intellectual property doesn't appear too far off from these, but I think there is a crucial difference: these existing interferences benefit most people in America (spreading democracy and fighting druglords is debatable) while the intellectual property interferences benefit a single, dying, hated industry (and that benefit is also very debatable).
Most people are upset because the gains (to "Big Media") do not seem worth the cost of foreign entanglements and limitation of free speech (domestic and abroad).