It's not a question of censoring the internet. It's a question of whether piracy (copyright infringement) is illegal and unethical. The fact that we can't stop murder except by draconian measures (outlawing picking up a rock even...) doesn't somehow mean we shouldn't be opposed to murder.
" The fact that we can't stop murder except by draconian measures (outlawing picking up a rock even...) doesn't somehow mean we shouldn't be opposed to murder."
Murder is in no way comparable to copyright infringement, which is a civil offense.
No, it's not. But the measures that would be necessary to actually stop it are identical, as they are for just about anything: completely draconian laws.
"It's a question of whether piracy (copyright infringement) is illegal and unethical."
Those are two completely different questions, and have a wide variety of answers depending on local laws. What's illegal for you might not be illegal for me. What's not ethical for you might be perfectly ethical for me. You suggest that murder is something we shouldn't oppose, but murder, or the killing of someone, is validated every day, whether it be through execution or self-defense.
I love paying for software I use. I love supporting the artists and people behind the artists for the music they create. I buy movies, and enjoy them. That doesn't mean I don't use TPB to obtain material. It's much easier for me to watch a movie on my Netbook by downloading the movie via TPB rather than rip it from my DVD, move it onto my Netbook, and watch it there.
I realize this. Hence the clarification. However, you tried to link copyright infringement together as both illegal and unethical, which you can't do. Downloading copyrighted material isn't always illegal, and even if it is, isn't always unethical. There are perfectly valid and ethical reasons to download copyrighted material, even if it might be illegal.
Indeed, I could go so far as to suggest that in some cases, it's the only way to exercise ones rights with respect to the copyrighted material.
