I agree that it's a shame, but rather than blaming the RIAA, I blame it on the pirates. The widespread acceptance of piracy among users of BitTorrent is what is ruining BitTorrent, not people asserting their voluntarily-granted contractual rights (RIAA).
That my friend is as anti free speech as it gets, and this censorship really erodes
Actually, by flinging about these terms in an incorrect manner, you are damaging the ability of real defenders of free speech to actually defend free speech. You see, MS is just a company; they can make their software work as they want; that is their right to free speech being excercised. If you don't like it, use different software. Only the government (or, indirectly, entities that have achieved governmental capture) can actually infringe on free speech.
Sure, Microsoft technically has the right to censor whatever they like, just like pg technically has the right to ban you from Hacker News for writing a comment he doesn't like.
Both are disturbing examples of legally infringing on free speech.
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 emotion and arbitrary assertion.
Any claim that copyright infringement does not hurt copyright holders is dishonest, and people who make dishonest claims should not be admitted into serious discussions.
I'm responding to gitarr here, not the link itself.
That is quite a blanket statement there, javert. Claims that are well researched with evidence to back them SHOULD be included in the conversation, why not?
So, you assert that any argument against you is inadmissable in the debate. So you're trying to argue that you yourself win this debate no matter what.
That really isn't how this works.
That my friend is as anti free speech as it gets, and this censorship really erodes
Actually, by flinging about these terms in an incorrect manner, you are damaging the ability of real defenders of free speech to actually defend free speech. You see, MS is just a company; they can make their software work as they want; that is their right to free speech being excercised. If you don't like it, use different software. Only the government (or, indirectly, entities that have achieved governmental capture) can actually infringe on free speech.