Whether it gets as bad as China or not isn't the problem. Why should ANYTHING on the net be censored? It is absolutely unacceptable.
Pirating of digital media is problematic. Let the owners figure out a way to deal with it. Giving the government censorship power is not the way. It all starts by imposing on your rights for the greater good and evolves into a beast that eventually becomes to great to control.
The greatest issue I have with piracy is that there is no proof of how much companies are actually losing. How many people that pirate content would actually go out and pay for it? They have it because it's free. If it wasn't free, they wouldn't have it. Make content worth paying for, and people will pay. It's a pretty simple concept.
Absolutely, censorship is a bad idea and the government has no right to censor the net. However, one could argue that some things should be removed, like illegal software, music, movies, child porn, sites that promote or encourage the death of the president, and the like. To be clear, in the examples above it is not censorship; it is simply the government enforcing the law.
An example of censorship would be the government removing or demanding the removal of content that puts the president in a bad light. For example, punishing Limbaugh for his comments about Obama posted on his web site is one example. They have already tried to do something like this by the way, and nobody mentions Limbaugh's battles with Harry Reid and Congress.
Pirating is a huge problem and there are a few things site owners can do. For example, YouTube could scrub their servers of illegally posted material and cancel accounts after ONE warning, but that is costly to do.
Therefore, if they won't do it voluntarily so the only option is to force them to do so. Then we are back to complaining that the government is "censoring" the net.
Or perhaps in the case of music, some sort of DRM could be used that make copying music impossible. Then the public screams, and lots of people start fighting about the evils of DRM. Rather, they continue the fights that is ongoing.
Or the IP owners could sue you for stealing or hosting illegal IP, then they are the bad guys. Or your web host could delete your web site and/or cancel your email address. I agree, a terrible idea.
So let me ask you this: what would you suggest IP owners do that is fair and reasonable and guarantees those that create are paid for it and does not involve Uncle Sam's intervention?
If I write an article and post in on my web site, it might not have much monetary value, but if you copy and post it, you are breaking the law. I have several articles I wrote about using DR-DOS from Digital Research. The value is nil because the OS is long gone. The value has nothing to do with it; it is mine and until I give you written permission to use the material, you have no right to use it.
There are places to DL the entire Beatles library and many people are not paying for content that is unquestionably worth paying for. If they can get something they love for free, they will steal it.
Your last paragraph is tricky, so forgive me in advance, but I think you are part of the problem. Rather, your reasoning is part of the problem. I do not know how to determine the lost revenue. Not everyone with Metallica on their iPods would have bought their work but so what? That has nothing to do with the simple fact: they are stealing.
Does a hundred thousand illegal downloads mean Metallica lost the revenue that they would have earned from selling a hundred thousand additional CDs? Probably not.
We need to go after this kind of theft because it is just that, theft. It hurts everyone and perhaps it is time to start forcing corporations to actively search for and remove illegal content if site owners won't. But until the they are forced to do so, they won't because it is or can be bloody expensive.
Bob
.
