On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 12:36 PM, Nagaev Boris <bnag...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think that modern copyright lays violate non aggression principle, > which includes free speech. As I agree, which is why I typically ignored such threats until my provider started enforcing said threats. > Rationale. Skip this paragraph if you already agree with the above > statement. When a person buys a hard drive they become an owner of it. > Of all its parts, including parts happen to be Fallout 4, The Elder > Scrolls V, Sweetbitter, and The Evil Within 2. Another person > establishes a private communication channel between their hard drive > and the first person's hard drive. The line between them is private, > hard drives are private property of these two people => any > intervention of force into this voluntarily interaction is an > aggression. > > If one agrees that copyright laws are incompatible with free speech > and are immoral, then he has to admit that all solutions including Tor > are technical, not fundamental. Thus the "quality" of a solution is > based not on morality but on technical properties (e.g. how much data > is transmitted, how many people can use it, etc). Free speech > considerations are not a measure at this point. If to continue > providing the service the node has to drop some connections is the > lesser evil to be accepted. You can compare it with treating an > incurable disease: you can not fix the problem in a right way but you > can reduce the suffering and increase life time of the patient. > Thank you for your very thoughtful answer. I just implemented the first choice in the ReducedExit policies in my exits to try to block the bittorrent threat from taking service away from everyone else. _______________________________________________ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
