Not if there was a p2p version of the github cloud that stored files in such a way that makes a takedown attempt highly impractical. Potentially applicable: https://code.google.com/p/gittorrent/ && https://freenetproject.org/

What other tools can you think of that can replace github and make censorship impossible?

Gitchain: https://github.com/gitchain/gitchain

How about Gitlab hosted on Tor?

By censorship, you mean facilitate crime and remove money from people who generate content?

Feel free to send me all of the proprietary data at your workplace since you care nothing about copyright. Or just post it all to Pastebin.

Sure. I dislike the company i work for, and would love to disseminate their proprietary software. I appreciate you wanting to be complicit in the crime we are about to commit. What email address should I send it to?

Web browsers facilitate crime and piracy. There is no objective line between criminal software and software that can be used for criminal purposes.

If it's removing money, they need to get a better bank.

There's a difference between not sharing a secret and sharing a secret but requiring the person you shared it with to not share it. The first requires only self discipline, the second requires a club.

> I think software devs need to get used ...

Correction: we should never get used to it.. what they are doing is wrong.. the transport have nothing to do with the thing being transported.. is like to destroying a road just because some truck with drugs was found using the road.. despite the road can be use to transport families in vacations.. can be, and was created with good uses in mind

Its a complete non-sense

And its only "usual", because governments are in bed with corporations.. we should never get used to this sort of situation.. it hurts our civil liberties foundations to the core.. just because some greed people want to burn the world to get the last drop of profits

If they want to fight the free distribution of the material they create.. fine.. we cant argue against that.. the law should protect their interests (puting somebody in prison for it.. definetely not)

But destroy projects that can serve for a lot of good purposes(education, indie movies, a decentralized youtube), its just madness to let them do this, and just "get used to it"

Edit: This is one of those times that you understand that governements dont work for their people best interests, but for the corporations best interest against the greater good.. this goes against all the reasons democratic institutions were created for

> it hurts our civil liberties foundations to the core.. just because some greed people want to burn the world to get the last drop of profits

This rhetoric is a bit silly. Companies spending hundreds of millions of dollars making a movie, and wanting to protect their investment by not allowing free copies on the internet is not "greedy people wanting to burn the world."

Then its just a matter to fight the movies being distributed.. not a generic p2p software that can serve to transmit videos..

You can use a knife to make food, or to kill somebody.. its the same as forbidden knifes because somebody use it with bad intentions..

Its just fight the pirated movies to be copied for free.. not the tool.. thats my main argument

Im not against their rights.. im against that they have rights to take my rights

Would you say the same thing about the bittorrent protocol? Bitcoin?

Bittorrent is a generic protocol. This software is designed from the ground up to watch pirated movies.

What if I want to watch movies that are released by the creators for free? Who says it has to nnly be for copyrighted material?

The screenshots of the applications clearly showed copyrighted works being pirated. Just because free works are available doesn't mean that's its primary purpose.

> The screenshots of the applications clearly showed copyrighted works being pirated.

I could take a screenshot of VLC clearly showing me watching a pirated movie. What's your point?

It's wrong to steal.

Seriously, listen to yourself.

Here is a little fact; you are not that clever and the rest of the world is not that stupid. Save your strawman arguments. If movies are released by content creators for free they will release them via channels you can access.

if you can't access them; tough. No one said you had a right to content.

Or, they could release them via BT, and then people using this service can watch them ala Netflix. This is, currently, a channel we can access--indeed, one perhaps preferable to one of the "official" mechanisms.

Then again, who would help the poor, embattled movie publishing houses? I hear they're barely getting by these days.

Especially when hosted by a company residing in a G8 nation.

G7

Voting you back up for being correct. Why I am not surprised the juveniles here voted you down [eyeroll].

I don't get what their problem is...

They should just admit that they like piracy, nothing wrong with that.

It has nothing to do with what the program is used for. It is the idea that simply hosting code that could be used to do something illegal with is itself illegal. This isn't a piracy or copyright debate, it's a freedom of speech debate.

Nope it's a piracy debate. Zero Freedom of Speech applicability. FoS is also not absolute.

I didn't say FoS was absolute. That's why it's an interesting debate. But the piracy part of it is fairly irrelevant when it comes to the question, "Is it illegal to host code that can be used for illegal purposes"?

Exactly.