The Instigator
nephilim
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Puck
Con (against)
Winning
5 Points

Online prisons with sentences to program versus free download of information.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/4/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,550 times Debate No: 9411
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (12)
Votes (1)

 

nephilim

Pro

I shall commence this inquery by stating several viewpoints on modern infested by lobbyist attempt to claim internet.

Internet presumably appears to understood as frontier free to claim. However unlike the frontiers of west noone delegates
internet "land" apart from the right to own a server. Companies that distribute information are under the impression
they "own" internet. When infact information resolved in a privilege of information as a new form of trade. Is file-sharing
more democratic than buying a piece of information? A person downloads an mp3 file for instance without paying it's
proprietor accepts this download as a gift. The thing is record labels control internet distributor companies while
independant server distributors earn a foothold amongst users. For us that experienced the political independent times of
internet we remember slower distribution though migthier quality. In modern search-capitalist proscription of the access
to information results in a form of capitalist identity that neglects internet's original thought to distribute information
freely. In a while the distributor companies greed will eventually assume lower prices to fight piracy. I have to mention
their cynic approach with effect worldwide to diminish small independent radiostations by raising license payment.

Now to the aquiry of information most evidently relevant information. Most users mainstream find that competition amongst
a few extently large companies result in a less personal internet. I used to be a link surfer back in the days of a few
good pages and to a certain extent these days were most certainly more clever for an independent curious fellow like me.
Today a man has to search for a site in a search page which most of are funded by payment to advertise. However convenient
it infests internet with capitalist ideas of ownership that does serve large companies. For example one has bought a
computer and own this computer but cannot without a fee claim a part of internet. This is privilege for money folk and
divides the net into consumer and owner. Another fishy thing about the net this days is commercialist interests to
fund pages leading to an extent of irrelevant information. However evidently searching has not made it easier to surf
a link to link thread. The internet before used to be more personal than it is today. An interesting definition of
property must be that I own my computer and a modem and may therfore be a part of the internet. I believe different
forms of passes or identities and memberships of internet societies/clubs/lodges give access to a privilege of relevant
information. Maybe in the future we will see internet police/internet prisons and internet criminals getting arrested
online and rather declined privileged information or sentenced to program.

Another basic fact is that some parts of the market earns money on withhold of crucial information which is
time-consuming and totally meaningless.

A question here is also that certain nations does not prohibit freedom of information and are they as a result of this
gaining an advance on other nations by not stalling folk caring to contribute.

If I want to start a zine and don't have money why shouldn't I get to? Most folk certainly have the hardware to.

On copyright violation it must be said that if every little file copy-righted couldn't be accessed freely their prices
would fall immensely making it almost a laugh to pay.

For us that spend hours a day on the internet without money or abilities to aquire information that must be bought it
should be said that several benefactors should establish some sort of fundage to survey the net. Scholarships for
instance or competitions to find certain information or online information bureaus with the right to access all
information. Some companies sell copyright. I own my computer, therefor a part of the internet and should be allowed
to freely distribute information from my computer. Any computer basically can be used as a server.

Another question as well: Do you, my adversary, think private agents should control the internet by making laws stalling
it's evolution? My opinion is economic hypocracy denies users to do anything but spend money. Though some companies
allow users free space on their service as they are commercially funded why shouldn't any person owning a computer have
the simple right to freely distribute any information locally as world-wide. Surely the folk that need information
can and will find it eventually.

How about an internet pass/identity/license for a free internet membership included when you buy a computer. I now
mention the more than 10 years old idea of a super harddisk containing more information than a lifetime of reading.

Another issue is that folk wanting to reach large ammounts of people with news do this on a basis of their privilege
of knowing how to.

As you know an attempt to claim a person's part of the net (as any computer owner connected is) should not be on account
of political ideas nor economical inferiority.

Internet has become consume-net don't you think?

Now to internet prisons: As accessing copyrighted material freely is a question of a man's economic capacity these
violators should be sentenced to provide free information for the ammusement and entertainment of ordinary consumers.
How about a prison server with a game the violators has to play every day which folk may watch and even gamble on.
Surely they would get tired and have low morality after a while teaching them a lesson. The virus makers on the other
hand mostly having access to privileged OS information which probably some of are hired by companies should make these
games as they are good programmers.

Then, my adversary, is not owning parts of internet as a consumer defined by unpolitically motivated speculation
attempting to dominate information with economic tendencies surpressing the poor? The internet needs a Robin Hood or a
Sheriff of Nottingham?
Puck

Con

"I shall commence this inquery by stating several viewpoints on modern infested by lobbyist attempt to claim internet.

Is file-sharing more democratic than buying a piece of information?"

Democratic in this sense only points to more people wishing to violate copyright than there are creators of a particular piece of data.

"For us that experienced the political independent times of internet we remember slower distribution though migthier quality."

People became aware of the utility of downloading so created services to enable it, if you have an issue with quality, I hold no sympathy, stealing gold then complaining it is tarnished is likewise an empty complaint.

"In modern search-capitalist proscription of the access to information results in a form of capitalist identity that neglects interne's original thought to distribute information freely."

A weird appeal to tradition. Free access would be shouting it on the local street corner - the payoff for a larger distribution is the requirement of other people's minds, abilities and services they offer.

"Most users mainstream find that competition amongst a few extently large companies result in a less personal internet."

Wth is a personal internet?

"Today a man has to search for a site in a search page which most of are funded by payment to advertise."

The question then becomes, why should they bother to create a search engine? If you have the skills to create one, go for it, since I am assuming you don't, play by the rules of those that can. :)

"For example one has bought a computer and own this computer but cannot without a fee claim a part of internet. This is privilege for money folk and divides the net into consumer and owner."

As is most things - because humans are traders. Should a car entitle you to free petrol? A plate to free food? Demanded from whomever you choose?

"If I want to start a zine and don't have money why shouldn't I get to?"

Because ones need is not a valid claim on another's production. If you think your zine content will be marketable, find a backer, or a cheap photocopier.

"For us that spend hours a day on the internet without money or abilities to aquire information that must be bought..."

This is all rhetoric that one man's production entitles you to it somehow. The vast amount of time you spend on the internet could be likewise spent earning value for exchange, solving the issue. Instead you hold out your hand and demand from others what they produce, simply because you desire it, without considering what is needed to earn what you desire.

"I own my computer, therefor a part of the internet and should be allowed to freely distribute information from my computer. Any computer basically can be used as a server."

You own your computer; therefore you own your computer. That's it. An ISP is a *service* that most wish money in exchange for (excluding government tax funded access). There are already browser applications that allow you to treat your computer as a server and host your own content. The reason why it's unwieldy for most is that most home users generally can't handle the bandwidth required of heavy traffic. The option is still there however. :)

"Another question as well: Do you, my adversary, think private agents should control the internet by making laws stalling it's evolution?.."

The options are available, free, and it's derived from the very thing you seek to annul, market share with competition driving technology and services - browsers are a good example.

"How about an internet pass/identity/license for a free internet membership included when you buy a computer."

It's even cheaper than that, it's called a library card in most cases, where other people are paying so you can use it.

"Another issue is that folk wanting to reach large ammounts of people with news do this on a basis of their privilege of knowing how to."

Depends what sort of news you mean, major news broadcasters through funding, are able to send employers to locations where news worthy events occur, and broadcast them, where they can't they use what larger affiliate services they are a part of to the same effect - if you think you can compete at a state, national or global level for access to information, go for it, if your resources limit that, then just what news do you wish to spread - given your original content level will low? If you lack the necessary skills, and delivering news is something you seek..learn those necessary skills.

"As you know an attempt to claim a person's part of the net (as any computer owner connected is) should not be on account of political ideas nor economical inferiority."

This is part of what drives it to thrive, spread, expand - without much value created in using the internet; it would remain little more than a message board. It's the applications of the internet to those minds who are able to conceive opportunities from it, that drive the technology, the browser you use, the tools and services you can employ, that makes reaching a global audience possible.

"As accessing copyrighted material freely is a question of a man's economic capacity"

Not all information is copyrighted, that there is, is the property of the creator, and in some cases handled via a distributor. To wish otherwise, to demand that the works, effort, of any one person should be free to another removes the central pin of what drives that industry, and those in it, to continue to produce works. You would essentially create a level of production on par with hobbyists, with the quality of the products at that level. By condemning the value in what they produce by demanding it be free, you condemn the creation and drive of works of value. If there is something you value, work till you have enough to exchange for it. Nothing in a things creation entitles you to its access.

"How about a prison server with a game the violators has to play every day which folk may watch and even gamble on. Surely they would get tired and have low morality after a while teaching them a lesson."

One could not enforce it certainly, though it's no different than betting on the outcome of a horse race - and watching/betting on game play at a less than pro level seems counter intuitive to entertainment.

"The virus makers on the other hand mostly having access to privileged OS information which probably some of are hired by companies should make these"

If you have information that virus makers arise from Microsoft, please present it. Viruses/Trojans are now a form of illegal business, they target Microsoft OS because the majority of computer users employ it - it's about effort versus the return. Viruses do not target Linux and to a lesser extent Apple users, because the market share is so small as to not warrant the investment.

"Then, my adversary, is not owning parts of internet as a consumer defined by unpolitically motivated speculation attempting to dominate information with economic tendencies surpressing the poor?"

The poor are not suppressed; they have the same opportunity to gain value for exchange. There is nothing stopping them that doesn't exist for others, they are not a special target group.

"The internet needs a Robin Hood or a Sheriff of Nottingham?"

Neither. The Sheriff was an extortionist and a thief, Robin was just a hypocritical thief. Humans cannot create the sum total of their needs. We do not all possess the necessary skills, nor do we own the total materials we need for production. Humans to thrive, must trade value for value. It's this exchange of goods, worth, businesses of enterprise that make the internet the expansive experience it is. So no, we don't need more thieves, more people demanding and taking whatever they desire (intent is irrelevant, theft is theft) - we need, simply, more traders, more willing minds.
Debate Round No. 1
nephilim

Pro

nephilim forfeited this round.
Puck

Con

Forfeits do not make very good rebuttals. You should look into that.
Debate Round No. 2
nephilim

Pro

Sorry been away for some days.

First of all is there no argument in statement?

The scare of modernist net is a mainstream understanding of aquired information. Many scientists today
assume internet will be very personal in a while. Personal threads linking to relevant information.
However the issue in this case is weather someone attends information to control its relevancy? What
I've heard of China and other nations filtering and adjusting information to better serve the interest
of society. Currently our nation ratified a law concerning the internet where they claim rights to
confiscate domains sharing illicit information. My question then is where do deleted files go? In a part
of a democratic environment we shouldn't loose our modest ways regarding information treasureable?
The law might be an attempt to further value information. I would say commercialist acclaimed internet
is less considerate in relevancy and sincerity of information; in other words: How much of internet contains
reliable and trusted information? I consider certain market interests using political means in an internet
flooded by commercial brokers and bankers attempt to consider it some sort of land-ownery.

Further on. As no information may be considered trusted if not carrying weight of either reliability in source
or personal knowledge internet provides little or no such statement and is certainly not meant to be bound
by national, local or otherwise administered borders.

And it needs to be regulated in an attempt to better serve market interests.

Should we make this frontier an harbor for criminals spreading false and vicious information or a privilege
for an elite journalist fraction maintaining no political opinions?

My conclusion as follows: Some sort of state appointed governors of information may not succeed in an attempt
to confine folk for making speeches or potentially dangerous speculative information an interest of the public good
alone. Consider merging law into what is acceptable to say in any communicative domain? Law should not be the
proprietor of information.
Puck

Con

"First of all is there no argument in statement?"

If there was, the rest didn't follow through.

"The scare of modernist net is a mainstream understanding of aquired information. Many scientists today
assume internet will be very personal in a while."

'Many Scientists' indicates nothing of worth - and still goes nowhere to explaining what a personal internet is.

"Personal threads linking to relevant information."

About what? Themselves? These already exist in the form of Myspace etc.

"However the issue in this case is weather someone attends information to control its relevancy?"

How can one control its relevancy, relevancy being a property of those seeking, acquiring the information -
with relatedness only at an individual level?

"I've heard of China and other nations filtering and adjusting information to better serve the interest of society."

Society in that regards doesn't exist - being composed of individuals. Sounds like you are talking about censorship
in any event - 'adjusting' is another word for lying in this context. Arguments against the morality of the Chinese government are many; they also own the big guns.

"Currently our nation ratified a law concerning the internet where they claim rights to confiscate domains sharing illicit information. My question then is where do deleted files go? In a part of a democratic environment we shouldn't loose our modest ways regarding information treasureable? The law might be an attempt to further value information."

This doesn't even begin to make sense. Illicit in what regards? Child pornography? Music?

As for the content- seizure of the domain names will result in the content being removed - the perceived seriousness
of the infringement can lead to the seizure of hardware, the data of which is removed. Police usually sell seized goods
later at auction - reselling illegal content would be counter to the purpose of the initial seizure. Since we know such
sales exist, we can reasonably infer competent data wipes are performed prior to sale.

"I would say commercialist acclaimed internet is less considerate in relevancy and sincerity of information; in other words: How much of internet contains reliable and trusted information?"

Information by itself cannot be self checking, self assured of veracity. That is the role of those who consume
the information.

"I consider certain market interests using political means in an internet flooded by commercial brokers and bankers attempt to consider it some sort of land-ownery."

People buy domain names? Yes they do. Some try/tried to make a business out of it by reselling them later.

"Further on. As no information may be considered trusted if not carrying weight of either reliability in source or personal knowledge internet provides little or no such statement and is certainly not meant to be bound
by national, local or otherwise administered borders."

No information can by itself. Those that receive the information had best use the mental facilities available to
them in ascertaining its truth value. It's not a unique problem to the internet, it exists in all mediums where statements are made.

"And it needs to be regulated in an attempt to better serve market interests."

Contradiction. Regulation is not in any market interest unless you are in the market for dictatorships. In any event
regulating 'truth' content is absurdly unwieldy, especially the medium we are talking about. Which is why China restricts
*access* to other sources of information.

"Should we make this frontier an harbor for criminals spreading false and vicious information or a privilege for an elite journalist fraction maintaining no political opinions?"

False Dichotomy. There is clearly a willing market for falsity; seen in any number of places purporting to tell the truth
with high readership, hosting contradicting evidence to other statements with high readership. Not to mention those
who enjoy falsity for the amusement of its absurdity value - publications of big foot, UFO babies etc., are the classic
type of this information which also includes those who see truth in such absurdities; such as the Pope having a black magic practicing boyfriend.

In any event, it is the role of those consuming the information to rationalise its claims of truth - a prerequisite anyway
if you wanted to enforce it - an unnecessary hand holding. If the information is fraudulent, and used to commit fraud, that's different and laws already exist to that effect.

"My conclusion as follows: Some sort of state appointed governors of information may not succeed in an attempt
to confine folk for making speeches or potentially dangerous speculative information an interest of the public good
alone. Consider merging law into what is acceptable to say in any communicative domain? Law should not be the
proprietor of information."

There is no such thing as 'public good,' there is good for individuals. The law is there to protect rights of its
citizens. If information is used as fraud, then law has a purpose in the control of content. However it is up to
each individual consumer of information to ascertain any truth from statements accessed across the internet. Your profile indicates you are from Norway, I have no reason to suspect you are not; indeed your grammar indicates non-English native, I don't however take it as fact that you are Norwegian.
Debate Round No. 3
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by nephilim 7 years ago
nephilim
Sorry about the failed attempt to debate something as personal as information flow. Do you folk think we'll see some sort of hierarchy and class distinction not only defined by cash assets take form?
Posted by nephilim 7 years ago
nephilim
Yes I do believe I am from Norway. It is where they taught me English.
Posted by Puck 7 years ago
Puck
Thanks. I think I get your position. At the very least I won't be as bad as your last few opponents. ^^
Posted by nephilim 7 years ago
nephilim
I think all necessary software should be installed on a computer when it is bought instead of wasting time and resources on downloading or buying hard-copies. Should at least be an option. Freeware is a good thing indeed. I am a reformed copy-cat though I still believe vast controlled distribution of what to read, download and listen to results in an unfair disposal of money. The internet is fairly new and it has changed our ways of communication. We lack vocabulary and definition for the net. It's evolution I believe should be free also for the little man without having the privilige to buy all information. The key is really education. Not witholding information to create a wall of security for the priviliged companies developing as their interest mainly is earning money. How about granting software as scholarships in online "universities"? Open source programs are similar to that. Thing is however machines aren't yet politically programmed to personally inform each user what he demands to know. This results in a scary mainstream identity worldwide which didn't excist in the 90s. It's as if internet has become a public market where no haggling is possible. The pirate party's political cause to legalize file-sharing is interesting though they lost internationally. Remember there is plenty of unsigned artists music and bootleg around freely distributed. As file-sharing's orginal intention is to distribute private files such as photoes and information I think onlinejukeboxes could be a solution. Several radio sites have started a donation or membership solution to pay the costly license. Freeware and shareware also depends on donations. Why on earth can't I just start my own tv-station online? There are divided classes on internet defined by money and information which leads some idealists into political activism. Maybe a good idea would be an own net for these idealists? Use their creativity to a good cause. We are only in the beginning and there is no cyberlords.
Posted by Puck 7 years ago
Puck
Can you confirm if I am correct as to your position?
Posted by nephilim 7 years ago
nephilim
An online police trojan which can infiltrate notorious downloaders and deny them priviliges was my next argument in a police net.
Posted by Puck 7 years ago
Puck
"So which side are you on???"

The, I want lots of free stuff side.
Posted by Puck 7 years ago
Puck
Seems to be arguing owning a computer = a granted free privelege to any and all information accessible on the internet including the access itself.

If that's the case I may take this. ;)
Posted by ilovgoogle 7 years ago
ilovgoogle
nephilim this is debate.org not a google group. You clearly state the resolution and your contentions. You have some interesting things to say, but they're so convoluted it's impossible to debate.
Posted by Xer 7 years ago
Xer
what is this i don't even
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by patsox834 7 years ago
patsox834
nephilimPuckTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05