Hollywood Star Rosario Dawson Speaks Out Against Hollywood's 'Six Strikes' Plan
from the speak-out dept
To hear the MPAA and RIAA tell the story, they represent "the entertainment world." They like to pretend that they represent all of the actual content creators, but more and more people are realizing the truth: they represent the legacy gatekeepers, who have often done more to screw over the actual artists than to help them. So, as we get closer and closer to the silly "six strikes" plan that the MPAA and RIAA worked out with ISPs, it's good to see that some of those they pretend to represent are speaking out against the plan. Actress Rosario Dawson has taken to Twitter to speak out against the plan:ISPs caving to copyright holders- could shut off your Internet if you're accused of piracy...! bit.ly/VRNLFa via @demandprogress
— Rosario Dawson (@rosariodawson) October 11, 2012
ISPs caving to copyright holders- could shut off your Internet if you're accused of piracy...!And then it links to DemandProgress' petition to the ISPs telling them not to support the six strikes plans or subscribers will take their business elsewhere. Of course, for too many customers, "elsewhere" isn't an option, thanks to a lack of a truly competitive market. Either way, as we saw with the SOPA fight, more and more artists -- musicians, actors, writers, etc. -- are making it clear that the RIAA & MPAA don't represent them, and they know part of these crazy plans that are being pushed in their names. Kudos to Dawson for speaking up.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: hollywood, isps, rosario dawson, six strikes
Companies: mpaa, riaa
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
What I want to know is where are the artists that do support the MPAA and RIAA?
Or defend the 'AA's actions when they do something and claim it is in the interest of the artists they represent?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What I want to know is where are the artists that do support the MPAA and RIAA?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What I want to know is where are the artists that do support the MPAA and RIAA?
If you don't like it, move to Somalia where there are no laws. How many great films or bands have you seen come from there lately?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: What I want to know is where are the artists that do support the MPAA and RIAA?
Actually bob, if people don't like it they'll invest in VPNs. Then the RIAA/MPAA can spend the next decade trying to make those illegal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: What I want to know is where are the artists that do support the MPAA and RIAA?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: What I want to know is where are the artists that do support the MPAA and RIAA?
You seem to believe that your activity is more easily hidden than it actually is.
People will just get throttled down to 56kbs until they can learn to not break the law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What I want to know is where are the artists that do support the MPAA and RIAA?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What I want to know is where are the artists that do support the MPAA and RIAA?
you have no idea what you're dealing with.
One of my best friends is a systems tech for one of the major ISPs that is participating in this program.
The things they are able to do to exactly monitor usage blow away your silly proxies and VPNs.
He just spent the last month helping the gov monitor possible ter**rists.
I was amazed by what I learned is possible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What I want to know is where are the artists that do support the MPAA and RIAA?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What I want to know is where are the artists that do support the MPAA and RIAA?
Encrypted transfers will prevent the differentiation of "fingerprints" between a download of a movie and the download of a Linux distro. Both being the size of a DVD.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What I want to know is where are the artists that do support the MPAA and RIAA?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What I want to know is where are the artists that do support the MPAA and RIAA?
Anyway, even if you are correct this place - http://www.surfbouncer.com/personal_vpn_faq.htm - says that the process requires "...a lot of money and resources," which I doubt any of the major ISPs would expend to actually catch pirates, besides media content isn't their business.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What I want to know is where are the artists that do support the MPAA and RIAA?
Here's mine. You'd have no idea if the people your friend would be monitoring were people actually planning terror attacks or if they were just routinely outspoken against the government or certain industries whose giants Washington favors. You'd also have no idea if the government would actually want these people thoroughly investigated and tried even in a military tribunal (because we know they'll rarely ever try these guys in civilian court, as doing so more often would reveal that terrorists are not a ton scarier than the usual crooks and killers) or just kept an eye on so that when it's decided their presence is inconvenient, troops can be deployed to put them away under lock and key ala NDAA.
So, keep spinning your tall tales about your friend and all the marvelous inescapable Big Brother technologies that he gets to regale in every day during his treason of the American people. If he even exists, I hope he can sleep at night knowing that he is little more than a paid mass cyberstalker working for a corrupt capitol that hates its constituents both local and national. Either way, I say thank you. Thank you, because your story serves as a perfect reminder what certain officials, executives, shills, and trolls are willing to do (or endorse the doing of) to their fellow man for power, money, and control.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What I want to know is where are the artists that do support the MPAA and RIAA?
Imaginary friends don't count.
They can't even spell my name right on the fucking bill.
Since most of the TERRORIST plots have been generated by the FBI, he's been spying on the FBI?
How's living in fear working out for you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What I want to know is where are the artists that do support the MPAA and RIAA?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What I want to know is where are the artists that do support the MPAA and RIAA?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What I want to know is where are the artists that do support the MPAA and RIAA?
What's with the asterisks? Do you think that's a naughty word or something?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What I want to know is where are the artists that do support the MPAA and RIAA?
> learn to not break the law.
That's the whole point of a VPN. No one can tell what's being sent over it, therefore there's no evidence of law breaking.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The only people represented by MPAA/RIAA are the corporate bean counters, they do not give a crap about the artists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No there aren't. There are random examples.
There are hundreds of thousands of musicians and actors that do not want their work taken without permission.
You never talk about that majority though.
You only laud those that support your pro-piracy agenda.
You are truly a sociopath.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
According to Hollywood, there are about 3 billion musicians and actors in the US alone. Also, according to Hollywood, at least 5 billion (that's around 92% of them, according to their math) support the six strikes plan.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
From the vantage point of the executives, it is Kilar who is the demanding and overbearing partner. Upon realizing that NBC and Fox were not going to allot him enough new episodes to create a meaningful warehouse of content, Kilar made a wish list of back episodes. When the networks told him that many of those programs either hadn't been digitized or had digital rights that were still frozen, Kilar continued to press. "There were some very uncomfortable phone calls," says one former Fox executive. "There was a lot of 'Jason, that's just not reasonable.'"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Copyright is the friend of the 3 billion+ artists out there-- if they choose to use their talents. If the big corporations want to take their art, they have to sign a contract and buy the rights. (I will admit that the contracts are often less than equal, but artists can always ignore the big labels when they come calling. They can always turn down the money.)
The couch potatoes who don't choose to use their talent are the ones who hate copyright. They think all of the blather around here sounds good to them because it rationalizes taking for free.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
FTFY
They think all of the blather around here sounds good to them because it rationalizes taking for free.
100% correct.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You're not seriously suggesting that almost half of the global human population are artists?
Are you so fucking high that you're even willing to lie about statistics THIS obvious?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
... has little to do with agreeing to the means pushed by the RIAA & MPAA who do not represent artists but the main industry contenders living off their work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You can think that the actions of RIAA & MPAA are harmful and also not want your work taken without permission at the same time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Duh.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If you have nothing, then say it. If you do, then say so. It's up to the others to decide whether or not to call you a liar or telling the truth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
lol
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So... personally I don't care if people look at my stuff. I love it if they do! They can make as many copies as they like. I'm cool with it. As for you, get off my back! I don't need the likes of you "representing" me and say that I'm against this sort of thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
There are hundreds of thousands of musicians and actors that do not want their work taken without permission.
You never talk about that majority though.
You only laud those that support your pro-piracy agenda.
You are truly a sociopath.
Amen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Only on Techdirt.
Here is what Joe said:
"No there aren't. There are random examples.
There are hundreds of thousands of musicians and actors that do not want their work taken without permission.
You never talk about that majority though.
You only laud those that support your pro-piracy agenda.
You are truly a sociopath.
Amen."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Actually that's what Joe copied, not what he said.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Who's got all of our backs? Why copyright and the organizations that defend it like the RIAA and the MPAA. They're the ones that are fighting to keep artists in control.
Copyright protects all of us when we use our talents.
(Now I will admit that some corporations push unbalanced contracts on people but that's not a reason to get rid of the system. All of the new, hip and cool labels still rely on copyright to be able to pay royalties to artists. The solution is to start a new label and offer better terms, not sit on the couch and download like a fiend.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
That's funny bob. They don't give two shits about the artists. They want to keep control, they want money, they give/let the artist keep as little money/control as possible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No there aren't. There are random examples.
There are hundreds of thousands of musicians and actors that do not want their work taken without permission.
You never talk about that majority though.
You only laud those that support your pro-piracy agenda.
Repost because I hate censorship.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I'll help you out, if you can still see the original comment, it's not censorship. It's merely been reported. That last line about pro-piracy, THAT is what got that comment reported. I can all but guarantee it.
Truth be told though, people like you love censorship. How else could you silence those with the nerve to point out the flaws in your arguments, or spread facts for others to look up and so on and so forth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I wonder how whoever is supposed to be in charge of them will respond to them blocking paying customers use of the net based on allegations made by a firm that failed BT 101.
https://torrentfreak.com/att-starts-six-strikes-anti-piracy-plan-next-month-will-block-websi tes-121012/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Let's see. If it once took you an hour to download an infringing movie and your bandwidth is necked down to the size of a straw taking 12 hours to download the same movie, I'd say that would make it more difficult.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Wait, wait, wait. So they're only going to be throttling people who are actually engaging in copyright violations? When did they change that?
My understanding was that they were going to be throttling people who were accused of copyright violations. That's a pretty huge difference, considering that false accusations are common.
Also, how are they going to know who's engaging in copyright violations? Is somebody actually going to investigate these things? When are they going to start this new practice?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Except, again, RIAA is already planning to claim that disconnection is required by law: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120727/08520119856/riaas-backdoor-plan-using-six-strikes-plan-to- cut-off-internet-access-people.shtml
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Face it. If the music/movie/etc sucks and doesn't fit your needs, don't steal it. Just move on and grab the music of one of those really cool bands that gives all of their music away for free. Let me know when you find one. All of the ones I know give away a taste, but charge for the full album. And they usually charge for the shows too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A thought...
If people start getting the boot from the ISP's, look around for a replacement only to realize they have no replacement they can go to, it might get the public at large to finally realize, and start talking about, how few choices there actually are, due to how few companies there are in the ISP market.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A thought...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: A thought...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: A thought...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A thought...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: A thought...
"After the fifth alert, the content owner may pursue legal action against the customer, and may seek a court order requiring AT&T to turn over personal information to assist the litigation."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: A thought...
Piracy takes money away from the artists; QED.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: A thought...
If it is such a horrible waste of money to go after pirates, why not do something to turn the pirates into customers instead of ruining their future? Thus not EOF yet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: A thought...
See how easy that was?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: A thought...
But it's not. Breaking the law isn't what triggers these actions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A thought...
Yes it is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A thought...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A thought...
Oh, I see, you're here for the Argument Clinic.
Will that be for 5 minutes, or the whole hour?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A thought...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A thought...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A thought...
Copyright infringement is against the law.
The only reason all this piracy bs has continued at the rate it has was because the law wasn't being enforced.
The law is finally being enforced.
Break the law, you'll suffer a punishment.
That's a concept a six-year old can grasp.
Mike Masnick loves piracy, and knows enforcement is the enemy of piracy. That's why he complains about enforcement constantly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A thought...
It's the rest of us law-abiding citizens who have a problem with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A thought...
"The only reason all this piracy bs has continued at the rate it has was because the law wasn't being enforced."
Is that really the only reason piracy is still around? Boy, you ARE blind.
"The law is finally being enforced."
Yes... through poorly-written laws unsuited for today's expanding digital universe and thought up by those totally unfamiliar with it. I can definitely see that these successful laws are doing their darn-good job at arresting innocent people caught in an unknown war. /last-sentence sarcasm
And keep dreaming with your "Pirate Mike" dream, buddy. Unless you provide something to prove Mike really is a pirate (and the rumored Pirate King), then all your claims are nothing but dreams.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A thought...
"Copyright infringement is as equal to jaywalking, littering, and not wearing your seatbelt."
spot on
EVEN IF we concede their laws in this area, it is the draconian enforcement and ruining of many lives over what is equivalent to jaywalking, for activity that has near ZERO 'harm' to society...
(in fact, it would be easier to argue the opposite case: that the draconian enforcement of antiquated copyright laws causes immeasurable harm to society for little/no gain...)
it is ONLY through the backroom machinations of the extortionist gatekeepers that their artificial monopoly on these industries remains in place...
these laws, trade agreements, etc have NOTHING to do with 'the greater good for the greatest number', and EVERYTHING to do with perpetuating a Mafia-style business 'model' for a small group of extortionists...
FOAD MAFIAA ! ! !
art guerrilla
aka ann archy
eof
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A thought...
Yes, it is!
It is not!
Yes, it is!
Is not!
It is!
NOT!
IS!"
Brought to you by the School of Trolling for Argumentative Sociopaths.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A thought...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: A thought...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A thought...
You have access to content legally via dozens of aggregators in the US.
itunes, spotify, amazon, pandora, MOG, netflix, and on and on and on and on...
It looks like today is "Freetards Play More Stupid Than Usual On Techdirt " day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A thought...
itunes, spotify, amazon, pandora, MOG, netflix, and on and on and on and on..."
So, in essence, use only the services which the RIAA & MPAA approve of in order to access content, correct? Now suppose I don't want their products? What about all of the content which has nothing to do with them? Will they attack those too?
More to the point, since when did the internet become the property of the RIAA & MPAA?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A thought...
uh, then don't consume them?
duh.
yet again.
We all know that isn't the case of course, tho...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A thought...
Tell me, how's business for ya?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A thought...
And this is how we know you're not in any position of responsibility at a company that provides goods or services to customers, because that is about the stupidest response you could ever give to a potential customer who's money you want.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A thought...
The truth is that every option you've named sucks a fat one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A thought...
The format you choose to convert them to when playing them is immaterial to this discussion.
Short version: specious comeback. 0/10
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A thought...
I've been done with plastic discs for 10 years. I've been done with converting formats for almost as long.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A thought...
See how that works?
You're just another silly entitlement-monkey.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A thought...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A thought...
See how that works?
You're just another silly entitlement-monkey."
If converting a movie or music file is what you consider to be 'entitlement,' what do you call it when greedy middlemen cook the books, withhold royalties and intentionally spend huge wads of cash on artists they know will fail so that at the end of the year they can do a tax write-off?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A thought...
wow, you have serious reading comprehension issues.
He's an entitlement monkey because he expects everything to be done for him, i.e. converting files to whatever format his personal player uses.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A thought...
There is obviously a market for different file formats so why aren't they available through legitimate channels at a reasonable price? Not providing them means other services will fill the void, such as TPB.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A thought...
ZING!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A thought...
See how that works?"
Yes, I do see how digital content works completely differently to physical goods. Judging by yet another failed analogy, you clearly don't. Slap some name-calling on the end and it's just like listening to a whining, ignorant teenager.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A thought...
Song of the South, bitch. Unavailable in any format. Disney refuses to release it despite a sizeable consumer interest and historical significance.
If it wasn't for the "piracy" that you revile so much, this infamous (some would say notorious) movie would never be seen again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A thought...
Thanks, that makes total sense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A thought...
... Wow, you are really grasping for something.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A thought...
Why the hell would want it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A thought...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: A thought...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: A thought...
See how easy that was?
Then if you have a credit card, you're a downloader of child pornography, because in your world: Accused equals GUILTY.
Oh, wait...
Operation Ore flawed by fraud
Duncan Campbell
The Guardian, Wednesday 18 April 2007
The high-profile crackdown on internet child porn has claimed lives and destroyed reputations. But fresh evidence says the police got it wrong, says Duncan Campbell
Operation Ore has become embedded in public consciousness as the landmark police operation that tracked down people - almost always men - who allegedly paid to access child pornography via computer. In all, 7,272 British residents were on its target lists, more than 2,000 of whom have never been investigated; and 39 men have killed themselves under the pressure of the investigations. Ore has dragged big names into the spotlight - such as the musicians Pete Townshend, the Who guitarist, and Robert del Naja of Massive Attack, both falsely accused of accessing child pornography.
New evidence I have gathered for my work as an expert witness in defence cases shows that thousands of cases under Operation Ore have been built on the shakiest of foundations - the use of credit card details to sign up for pornography websites. In many cases, the card details were stolen; the sites contained nothing or legal material only; and the people who allegedly signed up to visit the sites never went there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_ore
I'm sure the MPAA & RIAA will be more consciousness about this situation, right about the time when Hell freezes over.
But don't do anything illegal and you will be OK. I bet that is what the Nazis told the Jews, right before sending them to the gas chambers.
Yea, that's right, I went there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: A thought...
Then how about I accuse you of murder without providing any evidence?
What's that? I can't?
Then how come people can get their internet cut off (a vital thing in this day and age) based on mere ACCUSATIONS? Has nothing to do with the law, now does it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A thought...
They will indeed be flagging users based on evidence.
You appear to know absolutely nothing about what you're whining about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A thought...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A thought...
They will? How do you know? It certainly isn't required by the plan, unless by "evidence" you mean "companies pinky-swearing that it's true".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A thought...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A thought...
Bamboozled: Red-light camera error leads to road of exasperation in Edison
http://www.nj.com/business/index.ssf/2012/10/bamboozled_red_light_camera_er.html
But, in the end, I guess it really doesn't matter. If you are accused of something you didn't do, you can still pay the fine and wash your hands of it. Just don't get caught doing again what you didn't do before in the first place, or they may not be so lenient the next time. Might even take away your driving privileges for something you had nothing to do with. How dare you not do it and think you can get away with it!
So, don't do something you didn't do, be automatically judged guilty of that same thing you didn't do, unless you can prove to someone else that you didn't do what you didn't do.
Let that be a lesson to you, and don't you ever forget it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A thought...
Examples of a mistake occurring could be found if you looked at any law.
Society doesn't throw away laws just because there are examples of mistakes. The world would have no laws if that was the case.
Mike Masnick knows this, but ignores it, because he is intellectually dishonest.
He is not committed to the truth, he is committed to lobbying for the destruction of the rights creators possess.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A thought...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A thought...
Examples of a ripping off the public and the artists occurring can be found if you look at any (anti-public, pro-corporation) copyright extension law and company created (to benefit the company, not the artist) boiler plate contract.
Society will not accept "laws" just because some corporation wants to make it so. The world would have no one outside of prison that wasn't working on a chain gang if that was the case.
The MPAA & RIAA know this, but ignore it, because they are intellectually dishonest and morally bankrupt. They are Not doing anything for the artists, they are doing it for Themselves.
They are not committed to the truth, they are committed to lobbying, buying and bullying their way into the destruction of the rights people possess."
FTFY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A thought...
No, you tool, that's why we build quaint little concepts like due process into the system, so that when mistakes happen, they can be caught, and the innocent are not unjustly punished.
This 'strikes' system turns the concept of due process on its ear.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A thought...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A thought...
> the judicial system
> we're talking about.
Too bad you apparently only believe people are entitled to fairness and protection from unjust punishment in court.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A thought...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: A thought...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: A thought...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: A thought...
Funny, then, that the RIAA claims that this can lead to disconnects under the DMCA...
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120727/08520119856/riaas-backdoor-plan-using-six-strik es-plan-to-cut-off-internet-access-people.shtml
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: A thought...
That is a bit different than the claim that six strikes itself will compel disconnection. And at this point it is but a theory being advanced by the RIAA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Working Together to Stop Internet Piracy
That's Barack Obama's administration, coming at you from The White House Blog.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Obama Administration Cozy With Hollywood
Don't forget to vote!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Obama Administration Cozy With Hollywood
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Obama Administration Cozy With Hollywood
Yeah, how about instead of pointing fingers, you tell your paymasters to actually shape up and become decent human beings? Maybe they could start by giving money to charity instead of paying people like you to deface websites with spam comments.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Obama Administration Cozy With Hollywood
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Infringement is illegal. They could cut you loose right then and there if they felt like it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
So is horizontal price fixing.
Competitors agreeing to fix prices for consumers at $35 is a pe se violation of Sherman Act � 1.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It isn't price-fixing, Einstein.
The sale price of a product isn't being fixed.
This is like you complaining that 6 different towns all have $25 parking tickets.
"but, but... price-fixing!!!"
lol
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Agreement among competitors.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I know what the Sherman Act is, Sparkles.
You ignored the part where I informed you that the $35 wasn't for a product being sold, and thus has zero to do with trade law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And you didn't read the link.
(Emphasis added.)
Read the cases. This agreement is as illegal as an agreement to knock over a liquor store. Except that under � 1, there is not any need to prove an overt act.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://torrentfreak.com/three-strikes-anti-piracy-budget-too-expensive-to-justify-says- minister-120603/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Masnick can't even admit that he's a pirate, even though he's devoted his life to defending the practice of ripping off people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You can't even admit that you like to eat poop, even though you've devoted your life to eating poop. What? You don't eat poop? No, I don't have to prove that you do. You have to disprove my claims! Why haven't you answered my insistent questions about poop eating?!? What have you got to hide?
I see why you like making wild, unproven accusations with a self-reinforcing delusion to back them up. It's so much fun just making shit up about other people without having to prove anything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But pretending that isn't precisely what he does just makes you look more foolish than you normally do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And the MPAA & RIAA & others complicit in their dying business models and perpetual extension of copyrights, are responsible for digging their own graves faster. They can't be bothered by silly things like paradigm shifts, and will only survive when their heads can be dragged (yes, kicking and screaming) out of their own buttcheeks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Got it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I love torrentfreak. They are honest about their beliefs. Thanks for the link.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
read this:
http://torrentfreak.com/anti-piracy-agency-sends-1-15-million-warnings-in-2-years-takes-0-001 2-to-court-120906/
then this:
http://torrentfreak.com/french-3-strikes-court-fines-first-file-sharer-even-though-hes-innoce nt-120813/
then try to tell me the article you link to is a true account of what Hadopi has done!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
They merged with something else but its the same idiots the RIAA had last time.
https://torrentfreak.com/riaa-anti-piracy-partner-clueless-about-bittorrent-091028/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
It already has. You and your fellow AC trolls won't stfu already. I see also you've already started the usual high-fiving for lame comments.
"You know the zealots will be salivating for any story they can prance on that discredits the program."
Change that last word to "author" and you've got your usual MO. "Pirate Mike" blah blah blah.
Lord knows that the actions of the ISPs being done at the behest of studios/labels can't possibly be considered wrong and excessive, even by those that aren't pirates. /s
"Any and every single sliver of a story will be blown up to ridiculous proportions."
Again, sounds like you and yours usual modus operandi. Quite some time after the judge made Google list anyone who may have written about them we still have certain AC's claiming Mike is a Google shill.
"There won't be any fairness or balance in the "reporting.""
Oh, so you weren't aware that this isn't a news site ala CNN or ABC? Well, it isn't. it's a site with a handful of writers presenting news along with their opinions on it.
But again, the MO reeks of something you and yours would do. Lest we forget the secret-ish reports which have basically said, "All the money in the world? Yeah, not enough to equal all the losses due to piracy." Yeah, real fair and balanced "reporting" there. Definitely not made up nonsense to try and sway idiots/politicians. /s
"Mike's already chomping at the bit."
And you're already chomping at the opportunity to piss and moan about Mike.
Either grow the fuck up or stop visiting the site. Repeating your whining comments over and over isn't going to change what gets talked about on this site by Mike or anyone else. Nor will it sway anyone to start thinking like you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, Mike will even bitch and moan when YOU get disconnected from the internet. But then, if you don't do anything illegal, you'll have nothing to worry about... right? Right???
You are so predictable, and that is what really makes this site sad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
There aren't enough pots in the world for this kettle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's why I made you this Mike MAsnick Tiger Beat poster:
http://i45.tinypic.com/2chq906.png
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Still struggling with the definition of an opinion blog I see. I know you're a simple, black-and-white kinda guy, so the concept may confuse you, but every time you make a snide comment about "reporting" you just make yourself look a little stupider.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You ignore the appeals process. If you are cited and lose six appeals, I'd say you probably deserve what comes next.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
So, what you're really saying is:
"If someone ties you up and puts a single round into a 6 shot revolver to play russian roulette on your forehead, I'd say you probably deserve what comes next."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Attorney Decodes Numbers On Redlight Camera Photo To Prove That The Light Was Green
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100506/1052499324.shtml
Bamboozled: Red-light camera error leads to road of exasperation in Edison
http://www.nj.com/business/index.ssf/2012/10/bamboozled_red_light_camera_er.html
http:/ /redlightrobber.com/
The Problem is the International Standards
1)Misapplied Physics in the International Standards that Set Yellow Light Durations Forces Drivers to Run Red Lights
http://redlightrobber.com/red/links_pdf/Misapplied-Physics-Red-Light-Cameras.pdf
2)Short Yellows and Turns
http://redlightrobber.com/red/links_pdf/Short-Yellow.pdf
These two papers are sufficient to bring down the red light cameras in every city in the world.
We are currently using them in Cary, North Carolina. We are suing Cary over enforcing legislation which opposes the laws of Nature. The legislation is the red light camera legislation which enforces a federal traffic engineering standard called the ITE Yellow Change Formula. The Formula has a physics mistake in it. The formula prohibits drivers from obeying Newton's Laws of Motion--a physical impossibility which causes drivers to run red lights in common situations.
Paul Ridgeway, a Wake County Superior Court judge, granted class certification in June 2012. Because of liability issues, the Town of Cary turned off its red light cameras in August and terminated its contract with Redflex. We take Cary to trial in January 2013.
So, this new "six strikes" plan is just as "accurate" as the red light cameras are. On that, I agree.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
In other words, it's nearly as good as no appeals process at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Fork over $35 to arbitrate each accusation. Or you're guilty.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I might have to sell my hair to a wig shop, but I' rather do that than wake up in a roadside ditch wearing an eyepatch.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Infringement is illegal. They could cut you loose right then and there if they felt like it."
Infringement is often perfectly legal, but yes, they can fairly cut you loose for all kinds of reasons, including a false or incorrect accusation.
If this creates a demand for competition in broadband services, it will have improved all of our lives. These little monopolies need to be broken for several reasons.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
No it isn't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Belay that rubbish, Mate!
Also, isn't Fair Use an affirmative defense, in that the defendant admits infringement before Fair Use can kick in?
So infringement can easily be legal, as the courts see it. Am I supposed to "consult an attorney" now, as Attorney are Authoritative on these matters?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
>:D
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
However the fact remains that there are hardly any artists that put their work up for sale and then turn around and go "nah, just go ahead and take it illegally".
DUH.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
No wait, don't answer that. I already know it and it hurts my brain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
That's YOU.
You get to CHOOSE what YOU want to do with YOUR work, just the same as others get to CHOOSE what THEY want to do with THEIR work.
Why are you trying to restrict artists rights? Why are you anti-choice?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes what I said is how I view things, not for everyone else. However, I was saying that I was not one of the people that will flip-flop on whether to decide to give their product away or sell it. I am giving the options to those who find my works to either download for free or give me some money, not restricting them to one and only one option (the latter option, at a high price).
I don't speak for everyone, just for myself. If people like my options, then they can come and look at my stuff. If there's someone that is doing what I'm doing and offering something better, I'm not stopping them from a better product. I'll let people make their choices, much like you're making a choice to call me out on my comment, and I'm making my choice of replying to your thoughts. I'm not anti-choice and far from it. Troll all you like; you're not going to sway me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Explain to the class how any artists rights are being restricted? Explain how any artists choices are being taken away? If you're going to make silly claims, at least explain your reasoning behind them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
That really makes no sense. Logically if you were selling a product, why would you then turn to offer it for free?
Ohhhhh, wait I get it...you're creating an argument based on exaggerated information to make an ad hom attack on Masnick.
How very classy of you ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It worked so well for the false DMCA claims.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Didn't think it was possible...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Didn't think it was possible...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Figures you fail to mention her FUD-laced lie that could shut off your Internet if you're accused of piracy
You know it's a lie but as it serves your own purpose (deliberately spreading FUD) you ignore it. Another slip down the slimy slope.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
And how will they be able to discern illegitimate traffic if everything is encrypted?
This is doomed to be an ineffectual waste of everyone's time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's paranoia but it's not technically a lie - they COULD, and they want us to believe they might. The point is to scare people away from torrenting with the threat of unnamed consequences.
This FUD is bring spread by rightsholders for the purposes of the rightsholders.
In fact, maybe Dawson is in on it! I doubt it, but just saying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Again, the RIAA is already saying that it is required by law.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120727/08520119856/riaas-backdoor-plan-using-six-strikes-plan -to-cut-off-internet-access-people.shtml
And you know that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Disconnection was then downplayed in the press releases where they pushed back the start date for the 2nd or 3rd time.
The AT&T hardline of your responsible for what happens on your connection is amazing considering the crappy 2Wire units they gave to customers that are a cinch to hack.
After seeing some sort of magical tests done in secret they accepted *insert new company name here* that acquired dtecnet (sp) but its still dtecnets flawed system and flawed staff doing the detection.
Then there was the admission to TF that after 6 strikes they just drop you from the program, but maintain records of every notice from then on so they can turn the file over to CCI of the people to try and sue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In summary, multi-billion dollar industries' right to exploit the internet for profit supercedes your right to access it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Before then you have a choice of like 5 responses to respond, and they refuse to admit anything made since 1923 could possibly be in the public domain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Before then you have a choice of like 5 responses to respond, and they refuse to admit anything made since 1923 could possibly be in the public domain."
Oh, well gee, that's nice to know. :/
This 'plan' is just another power play from the major corps seeking absolute control over the internet, much like TV and radio. To their way of thinking, if they're not dominating a service or platform, something is wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
This is 2 industries scratching each others backs fully supported by the Government who is charged with stopping monopolies and antitrust actions, but only for the "bad people" who might disrupt the status quo.
It would be nice if the people charged with protecting the public just fired up the lawsuits now. If the ISPs want to play copyright cop, they don't need the benefit of public money and subsidies. They do not need protected monopolies in areas, and lets open the wires up to competition. Isn't that how capitalism works? Competition makes things better, rather than laws to block it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Piracy largely exists because they do not exploit it. They see it as competition and wish to control or destroy it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
This movie didn't do well on DVD, its not because it was an Uwe Boll film it was because of piracy.
We can't pay you little people more because piracy, not because I needed a new condo for my mistress.
We haven't adapted to the market and we are losing money because of that... but its piracys fault.
We need more laws!!! because piracy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I believe that the RIAA & MPAA's real grudge lies with the fact that the internet is an open platform which allows the user to actively participate in culture, including monetize it without their approval. So they try to purchase bad laws and regulations in order to strangulate the free market and shared culture which the internet makes possible. (And when I say "shared culture," I'm not referring to torrenting Rocky, obviously.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Bingo!
This is what some studio heads have said outright. That their concern is not piracy -- piracy doesn't really hurt them that much -- but rather the loss of monopolistic control over the distribution channel.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This is what some studio heads have said outright. That their concern is not piracy -- piracy doesn't really hurt them that much -- but rather the loss of monopolistic control over the distribution channel."
Yes, I think everybody understands this. The push for draconian regulatory capture and bad laws is an attempt to hijack the internet so that the major content industries can dominate it. Heck, even cable providers and telcos are trying to get in on the action. The last thing we need is for the internet to become one big glorified advertisement and shopping mall for the major content industries.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Nice to see you guys have resorted to just outright lying now.
lol
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If that's the case then explain how come Hollywood broke all previous records last year? And even if their profits dip sometime in the future (what goes up must come down...), they cannot prove that copyright infringement is to blame because it would've already had an impact. The major label music has been of piss-poor quality for well over a decade now and as a direct consequence their sales plummeted. They've got nobody that can make music on the same level as the classic artists, so they must resort to hawking their back catalogs ad nausea and shoving crap like Lady Gaga down our throats.
Ever new regulation that the content industries want to impose upon internet users is rooted in gaining a monopoly over it. To them, this is all just a game, much like Wall Street gambles with our jobs and our money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Except Average Joe, he actually does his research,.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
However, I'm right. Here's a reference to the most recent example of this that I know of: http://www.techradar.com/us/news/internet/miramax-digital-platforms-are-the-problem-not-piracy-10313 93
Mr. Lang is not alone, either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
And if there is a chance for them to make even a tenth of a cent from you doing that they have to be there demanding a dime.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If anyone wants to steal my petition letter...
"I oppose the "Six Strikes" proposal and the monitoring of users and interference with their Internet connection which it entails. We urge you not to implement it -- and will make a point of purchasing service from ISPs that don't.
Internet access is beginning to be recognized as a basic right. It is shown again and again that any individual is at a severe disadvantage in all facets of their life if they do not have Internet access.
Proving what person is actually behind the computer in cases of copyright infringement has been (and likely always will be) extremely difficult. It will be unfair to other users of a given connection if a single bad actor can get this invoked.
In addition, the RIAA/MPAA have recently been shown to be deliberately engaging in "shotgun" legislation in an effort to shake down those it *thinks* are infringers. When they can also wield a weapon to cut off all access, these types of frivolous John Doe lawsuits will only increase.
Consider the "coffee shop" scenario: Any business that operates an open (or even password protected) WiFi for customers could rack up "six strikes" in a matter of hours.
This is a bad policy that will punish innocent users for the actions of a very few.
If you allow a single industry to dictate the terms of Internet access for all, how long will it be before other industries follow suit and start the pressure? Will the fashion industry decide that searching for knock-offs should violate six strikes? How about inflammatory political speech?
This is an extremely slippery slope that ends in no privacy or free speech for anyone.
Please do not enact this policy. Please advocate for impartial and open access to Internet."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: If anyone wants to steal my petition letter...
No it isn't.
Having a phone isn't a basic right. It's a utility. And far more important than an internet connection.
Even something that can affect a person's health and well-being, like air-conditioning, isn't considered a "basic right". It's a utility.
You people are hilarious.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: If anyone wants to steal my petition letter...
baby want a rattle?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: If anyone wants to steal my petition letter...
Look at all the protests around the world in the past year that wouldn't have been as effective without internet.
Governments are starting to speak out about oppressive regimes that limit or cut off internet from their citizens.
This is a much bigger issue than some perceived loss of revenue for one industry. Piracy is just a drop in the bucket when you consider what else is at stake here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: If anyone wants to steal my petition letter...
Punishing weasel pirates for breaking the law will have zero negative effect on the internet itself.
Zero.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: If anyone wants to steal my petition letter...
True, but the mechanisms they want to put into place to do so certainly will.
Also they seem to have a lot of difficulty accurately determining who is a pirate as who isn't. You and a coupe of other regular commenters here demonstrate this every day (practically every post) when you falsely call everyone here pirates.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: If anyone wants to steal my petition letter...
The vast majority of pro-piracy people here are pirates. It's hilarious that you would ignore Occam's and all other semblance of logic to claim otherwise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: If anyone wants to steal my petition letter...
So you keep saying. It simply and obviously isn't true, though, no matter how many times you say it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: If anyone wants to steal my petition letter...
/missedthepoint
(To be fair, I really wanted to say that!)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: If anyone wants to steal my petition letter...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: If anyone wants to steal my petition letter...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: If anyone wants to steal my petition letter...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: If anyone wants to steal my petition letter...
How could you possibly know that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: If anyone wants to steal my petition letter...
Punishing pirates for breaking the law will have zero negative effect on piracy. FTFY.
But you seem completely blind to the fact that your attempts to punish pirates comes at the cost of important human rights like privacy and justice, and all at the behest of a bunch of corporations who massively over-value their place in society.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: If anyone wants to steal my petition letter...
No it isn't.
Yes it is.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_Internet_access
And it will become even more recognized as more basic functions move to internet only, like paying bills, banking, applying for employment, paying taxes, etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: If anyone wants to steal my petition letter...
Having a phone isn't a basic right. It's a utility. And far more important than an internet connection."
You're right in that access to the internet isn't an inherent right, but regardless, who are the RIAA & MPAA to determine whether or not citizens may access it? When the content industries can get away with bribing government officials into enforcing regulatory capture on the internet, the end result is corporate facism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: If anyone wants to steal my petition letter...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It could be that even more people who were unaware before will be aware of your BS and hopefully will join an active Boycott against all Big Content.
I am Censoring you from my wallet for the rest of my life.You will never see a dime from me and I mean ever.What money I got will be spent on Art from Artists who would never resort to the low life standards of the MAFIAA.
You really think you can Fuck with the Citizens of this Nation you bunch of greedy-ass whining babies.
MAFIAA as your Web draws in the innocent the Citizens may just wake up a bit to your two faced lying BS.
I am a MAFIAA HATER !
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Considering you already steal instead of pay.... big whoop.
Nobody cares.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
THAT is why I and everyone else here on Techdirt oppose you and everything the copyright cartels do. You actively work to destroy due process in a court of law. You accuse and assume we're guilty of a crime, and call for harsh punishments all without letting us little people have our fair day in the courtroom.
Yes, I admit it. I do infringe on copyrights. Guess what I also do. I ALSO BUY! Right now, I'm looking at my Steam library and I see no less than EIGHTY ONE titles, the vast majority of which were obtained by paying for them. I'm looking over beside my TV and see my PS3. I only ever buy games new (mainly because my local Gamestop never stocks the anime-themed games I'm interested in). I look around my bedroom and see quite a few blu-rays. A few in particular catch my eye: Lord of the Rings and Battlestar Galactica. What's so special about them? Before purchasing them (just to make it clear, all three LOTR movies and the entire BG series) I had already downloaded them and watched them. In fact, I had bought the LOTR movies twice on DVD!
To sum up, I am an infringer AND a customer, willing to pay cash.
Now since I pay, and since everyone else on Techdirt does, are we allowed to have our voices heard. Or can you SHUT THE FUCK UP and FUCK OFF!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Exactly, why bother with people who aren't going to pay? That's just stupid. Imagine if all the time and energy wasted on trying to hold back the piracy tide was instead spent developing the services that people clearly want to pay for?
"Nobody cares."
If nobody cares, then why do you need six-strikes?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's hilarious. The amount of FUD/nonsense spread by those two (along with others) is almost always directly proportional to the article in question. Artists speaking out = more FUD by a few trolls. Bad law being called out as such with facts = more FUD by a few trolls. And so on and so forth.
Well done Mike. This one has struck a chord/hit a nerve.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
For all the whining that the trolls do about maturity, they're a complete and thorough joke.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Let's end this argument right now, once and for all
The 1976 Copyright Act gave AUTOMATIC copyright to ANYTHING created at the moment of creation. There was no longer any need (though there are some additional benefits) to register a copyright to qualify for coverage.
Therefore, the content of EVERY SINGLE SITE on the internet is de facto copyright automatically, the moment its created/written/uploaded/whatever.
The internet, by its very nature and the technology that makes it function at all, is built upon moving (some would say, sharing) information and data across its network from one place to another. ANY computer data system must be able to move specific information from one place to another to perform the essential function it was built for.
Since ALL of this information is de facto copyright from the moment it's created, EVERY SINGLE PERSON using the internet is a de facto infringer, and ALL activity on the internet is de facto infringement.
To criminalize ALL activity of every person using the internet means the copyright system is broken and no longer serves the purpose it was created for, or the benefits it purports to bestow upon either society or creators.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Let's end this argument right now, once and for all
read the TOS of this site.
You most certainly don't understand copyright law.
BTW, how about opening your wallet and paying for things that have a pricetag when you consume them, you greedy, selfish douche.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Let's end this argument right now, once and for all
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Let's end this argument right now, once and for all
Assume much?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Let's end this argument right now, once and for all
I think the modern term is douchenozzle, but I may be wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Let's end this argument right now, once and for all
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Let's end this argument right now, once and for all
Visting any website now makes me a greedy selfish douche? REALLY?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It all boils down to who you trust
You chose.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It all boils down to who you trust
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
People will leave after seeing that the ISPs are mistreating them more than they already are, and soon their money will fall down the drain. If that happens, I think it's only fair they go and force the MAFIAA to pay up for their lost money, since it was their idea in the first place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
First public figure to acknowledge this unconstitutional act
Why doesn't the Electronic Frontier Foundation fight this with more energy? Everyone was fighting SOPA but somehow they all forgot to pay attention to this program.
The complete lack of media exposure on this is intentional and there IS a conspiracy at work here and its the Hollywood entertainment media companies from Comcast to Turner and the major broadband providers of the United States.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]