Yes. If someone who owns content does not wish to sell it to a certain location for whatever reason, then that's their right. Again, just because something is digital does not mean you have an inherent right to access it.

That doesn't sound at all like discrimination or even racism to you?

Possibly (though not likely), but again, their content, their right to distribute as they see fit.

The thing you're missing is that it's morally right for people to be able to do what they want with their content and their products. For example if I own a restaurant it's true freedom for me to be able to decide who I let in to my establishment. Forcing me to allow everyone in is actually the opposite of freedom from that perspective.

I might not like someone who says "no droids in my bar" but he should be free to decide who goes into his property. Similarly if he rents the business from someone the true owner should have the freedom to call him an asshole and kick him out.

Put simply true freedom does not mean everyone gets access to everything they want.

Freedom seems paradoxical when applied to intellectual property. People should have the freedom to restrict other peoples freedoms? (Actually logically that makes sense to me, it just doesn't sound like freedom.)

If you do this by country of origin, its racism. I didn't title the last section of my paper "freedom". I titled it "equality".

Dividing the Internet promotes inequality.

Strange I was pretty sure that there was some anti-discrimination law in the US...

Where I live you say "your can't enter in my restaurant in swimsuit" because it applies to "everybody", but if you say "no stranger/woman/black in my restaurant" then you are 99% sure than in less than a week your restaurant is closed and that you will be fine or sent to jail.

That's a nice way of thinking but at the end of the day IP exists to protect people innovations and investments. Unless your anti-capitalist I can't really think of any reason to denounce that and if you are anti-capitalist then I wonder what your alternative is, because communism and anarchy both suck.

So if I invent something, be it a new kind of chair or a character people pay money to see/play, I should have control over it. If I make a game, which takes considerable work, time and investment, I should be able to decide who I sell it to. True freedom is doing what I want with my possessions and property. If I want to make a game and sell it only to White people over 35 who live in Missouri that should be my right.

Note I am not a corporate ass-kisser, I think the way IP and copyright can be exploited by corporations is disgusting. IP should belong to the actual creators, not corporations, and copyright should expire after a certain amount of time. I'm for refining copyright law, not junking it.

Freedom is a generic term... being free does not mean you have free access to any building does it? If someone owns a piece of property I do not have the freedom to access that property. Similarly online, if someone owns a website, forum, store or whatever else I am not entitled to access. The owners of those places have the freedom to decide who they offer services to, that's true freedom.

I think using the term "racism" in this kind of discussion very egregious and not at all factual. For one thing being from a certain country is not a race... Italian is not a race, Canadian is not a race, so it's just not accurate. Secondly racism implies a mean-spirited intent, which is not always the motivation in these matters. For example a lot of games do not go on sale in certain countries due to licensing issues, which has nothing to do with looking down on those countries.

I'm in NZ and I feel like most of the world has been cut off to me.

However, even though it gets a bit lonely I can understand why a country may not want hackers from another, tapping into them and that country not having legal tangible access to persecute or retaliate against them.

I don't recall talking about US law, I recall talking about my personal views on the subject. If someone owns a piece of property I believe they should be able to decide who accesses that property, even if it open to the public.

That said US law is a constantly evolving mish-mash and the right to refuse service is a complicated legal matter. You cannot outright discriminate based on a legally protected classes but you do have the right to refuse service in your establishment. Googling the issue should lead you to a ton of opinions on the matter and where the laws start and stop according to different people.

That's only about public buildings mind you. Your own personal property (i.e. a home, a warehouse, etc.) is different. You can tell someone they aren't allowed in your house because of their gender or race all day long if you want to.

People really really need to get this concept that the Internet is a democracy out of their heads; it isn't, never was and never will be. Can the internet be controlled by normal means (law enforcement) easily? Of course it can't, because of the way it evolved and the technology it was built on.

But to jump from that point to saying that the internet should be free is total crap.

You don't have the right to visit a website, any website (be it GOG.com, arstechnica.com etc.), you just have the privilege accorded to you by the owner/administrator of that website, just as you do with any building for example. At any point in time that access right can be revoked and no-one has to motivate it to you because it's like kicking someone out of your house; sure, they may lose business for example, and there are other downsides, but to say that that is illegal or wrong is silly.

The great thing about the internet is the fact that you own your content, and you have the full rights to do with it as you please, including restricting it to your own chosen variety of people.

Yet again, it's silly to compare the internet to the real world.

As for restricting sales to certain countries: why should I open sales to Nigeria for example, or any other high-cybercrime rate country when 99% of the sales would be illegitimate and would cause me, the shop owner problems? Why should I have to deal with stolen credit cards, lost goods and profit just because 1% of that population might be legit? I'm sorry but if you want to be treated as an equal citizen online you need to make sure that the rest of your co-horts behave the same. This is one of the few places where the internet behaves like the real world.

I'm sick and tired of all the politically correct bullshit and equal chances to all, because there isn't such a thing in nature, nor does it provide a good model to build upon in our own civilization.

Eh... race is part of the word racism, and nationality is not a race. I could meet you halfway and say bigotry. Still, I don't think that is the intent here.

I think everything should be open to all, definitely. I get into trouble on forums often for arguing things that are not actually my views, which might be the case here. I think a website or store owner should be allowed to restrict access, but I wish they wouldn't.

Similarly I hate smoking and cigarettes, they disgust me, but I protested the recent laws prohibiting smoking in all public buildings because I think a bar owner should be able to decide whether or not you can smoke in his/her establishment.

I know it's not a race but there is no such thing as a "race". It was a concept of the biology of old that got phased out in part because of racism.
I might as well correct you and say that when you use the word "logical", you mean "linguistic", since there is no way to separate "logical" from "logos", "the word".
Sure there is (a way). As long as we understand each other, let's discuss concepts and ideas, NOT the correct usage of words.

"Damnit, Jim, I'm a philosopher, not a linguist !" ;P.

And that was probably the (somewhat idealistic) intuition that made lightnica start this thread.

Oh, so do I, especially if the people with with views I support use arguments which don't make sense... or when the discussion is SO one-sided that someone has to take on the role of the devil's advocate.

I keep thinking about your "droids" example, which very vividly shows what's at stake here... But what if there are NO bars that serve droids ? The free-market thinking would lead a person to believe that the "invisible hand" will spot the niche and SOMEONE will cater to such a group... But that can be wishful thinking.
I have a faint notion of post-abolition intolerance in the USA... Didn't it work in a similar way or way it government-enforced (Nuremberg-style) ?

I think it's a bit like cell-phones in cinemas - as long as you don't annoy anyone else, I won't have a problem with it, but I would consider it valuable self-regulation to just turn the damn thing off JUST IN CASE. Other people's smoking is something I found very discomforting and, actually, a great intrusion of my private space (the privacy of my own lungs)... As such now, instead of avoiding such places like the plague or constantly holding my breath and trying to get out ASAP, I can simply enjoy my stay, while the smokers have a SEPARATE ROOM.

There is a huge difference between choosing who enter your private property (home/company) or not and who you want to sell stuff or not. Actually other here are even laws making "Refusal of Sale" illegal. If you enter my shop and want to buy something from it (something that is for sale of course) I can't refuse to sell it to you, no matter what, it's illegal and you can sue me if I do. Unless of course there is a "legit motive", like for example you are a minor and you try to buy alcohol. But the interpretation of "legit motive" is very strict and limited.

Copyright laws, despite what the media industry seems to think, is not about "total control", it's only about protecting you against unauthorized duplication and getting paid for authorized one. If you want total control over your work that's easy : don't sell/license it and keep it to yourself. Originally copyright laws were created to protect author from greedy publishers, not to give full control to the later.

I talked about that a lot in college and I'm open to that. I have no issue with the idea races are all a social construct.

I honestly don't think that's possible. Maybe that's being naive, but I think any market no matter how small will be catered to. Now what you might run into in the "droids" example is a situation where you're the only droid in town X and are therefore totally screwed. I think that's actually the root of a lot of self-segregation in the US.

So your challenge is a correct one, and the free-market ideology does lead to that possibility, but I tend to accept the risk.

It was certainly forced for the most part and took forever to happen. I would argue however it was inevitable either way, it was just done faster through force. Still you make a good point.

The whole "where government intervention is needed and when it is overpressed" debate is a great one I love having. Not sure if it applies to the free internet philosophy 1:1 though.

Well cinemas can ask you to leave if you talk on a cell phone. Bars and restaurants can decide if they want to cater to smokers or not. I guess the problem in the pre-2000's era was that every restaurant tried to cater to smokers and non-smokers alike, which if you ask me was a failure of marketing. Whether that would have continued on unabated without government intervention can be debated.

Again I guess it comes down to me accepting the risks involved in exchange for more freedom from government. Obviously the majority disagree :)


I'm sure many countries have those laws, I just don't agree with them. My post was a lot more nuanced than you are replying to.

I agree copyright is flawed as all hell right now. I do not agree that as long as you are not selling anything you should be free to ignore copyright.