Responding to my comments, Chris Castle wants to make three points:
First, I’d probably pay more attention to you, whoever you are, if you would sign a real name to just one of your various posts.
Second, you take the point out of context–the parasitic behavior is the trading of illegal copies. I’ve never had a problem with the technology, just the behavior. If what you’re doing is legal, then you can explain yourself to your ISP and you should be able to continue using your account although you may have to pay a higher rate for bandwidth. If you don’t like paying for your bandwidth usage, I’m sure there will be some ISPs in the short run who will cater to those being shut off. In the long run, if you don’t like paying for bandwidth, thank the millions of people who are ripping off the creative community. I–for one–will not shed a single tear for you. Fortunately for you, our society is taking a very long time to impose the negative externalities of illegal file bartering in the places they belong.
Third, I don’t debate with cowards, just those who stand behind their own names and take responsibility for what they say.
First, you may or may pay attention to me, after all I have generally ignored you–except for a couple of times when IP Central has published links to your rants. As of yet, I will decide when or not to post anonymously. But I am in pretty good company with everyone else who has chosen to use a pen name, e.g. Mark Twain and George Orwell.
Second, I am not taking any point out of context–it is you who are trying to conflate illegal file sharing with using P2P technology. Someone can use IM infrastructure to trade illegal copies, or just a plain old website, too. Comcast broke a protocol, not illegal file sharing. They also committed fraud, because they told their companies that they could use bit torrent. And exactly why should I have to pay a higher rate for bandwidth, rather than the same rate everyone else pays?
Third, see my response to your First comment.
-
Recent Comments
No Comments Yet