Microsoft Censors Pirate Bay Links in Windows Live Messenger

Post by uxp » Sat, Mar 24, 2012, 7:27 PM UTC

ugh wrote: post #80

apawloski wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This pretty surprising. Given the industry standard with mining similar communications I'm surprised that Apple gave up a gigantic pool of user information like that.

Follow the money. Collecting user information is (in most cases) a distraction for Apple that could blow up in their face and lead to a serious PR fallout. See locationgate. See Path's address book shenanigans. It's in their best interest not only not to secretly collect user information, they also want to show that they care about stuff like that (because then they can point their finger at others). Apple cares abou…

Post by Travis » Sat, Mar 24, 2012, 7:30 PM UTC

javert wrote: post #49

mrebus wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just because you use the word property doesn't make intellectual monopolies property.

If you don't like the words, good, go look at the moral foundation that underlies the idea. It is a fact of reality that it is morally right to give people ownership rights for things they produce (besides, again, being the basis of society). And why not? Paying for something rather than stealing it (or changing the law so it's not officially "stealing" anymore), just isn't that big of a deal.

Post by gitarr » Sat, Mar 24, 2012, 7:36 PM UTC

javert wrote: post #108

gitarr wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Until someone can prove a negative impact of piracy on the copyright holders all you say is rubbish and plain wrong. No company should be allowed to hinder my free speech. And no worries, I do not use any Microsoft products, but I can IM people who do use live messenger from Linux IM apps. I am guessing I will be censored anyway, which is just horrible and outrageous.

No company should be allowed to hinder my free speech. We've already established why your use of the words "free speech" is invalid, and rather than addressing that, you're just making arbitrary assertions (which, because they are arbitrary, should be ignored). Until someone can prove a negative impact of piracy on the copyright holders It's been proven, and is also quite obvious, but again, you're just going on emot…

Post by javert » Sat, Mar 24, 2012, 7:44 PM UTC

Splenivore wrote: post #62

javert wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, because I just can't stand to pay an enormous amount like $10 or $20 for that book or album I really have to have. I think it's unreasonable to expect people who make things to be able to profit from them for more than 5 years. Hell, why don't we make all property expire after 5 or 10 years? Please don't take the sarcasm personally; it was just the best way to illustrate my point.

Most property has value without artificial legal limitations. I agree that 5-10 years is probably too short of a period for intellectual property to be protected. Honestly, putting an arbitrary span of time on the duration is a suboptimal way of accomplishing the goals of copyright law. Why not protect an artist’s creation as long as he or she is alive, and then release it into the public domain upon his or her death…

Post by javert » Sat, Mar 24, 2012, 7:45 PM UTC

burgerbrain wrote: post #68

javert wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm disappointed to see the destruction of property rights (intellectual or otherwise) being lauded on HN. The RIAA and MPAA make deals with artists to distribute their music, and you want to interfere and just steal it instead. It's dishonest, it's juvenile, and it's eroding at the basis of society (equality under the law, property rights, basic respect and goodwill towards others, etc.).

Has it occurred to you that to many people the issue may not be piracy? I don't use the pirate bay, nor do I endorse copyright infringement, but this development nevertheless greatly concerns me. No, I suspect it has not.