Copyright Is Becoming Guilt By Accusation
from the guilty-until-proven-otherwise dept
TorrentFreak has a good post about how copyright holders have been effective in moving copyright into a modern form of "witch trials" in which you are guilty based on accusations, and then have to go through a long, arduous and often biased-against-you process of proving your innocence. The article points out two examples of this. First, the Kafka-esque process that Jonathan McIntosh went through to keep his mashup video (one cited by the Library of Congress as a quintessential example of fair use) from being taken off YouTube. Of course, it actually was off for quite some time, because YouTube's ContentID system is also based on a "guilt by accusation" system -- after which you have to convince everyone (including, initially, your accuser) that you're really innocent.The second is the new "six strikes" plans from US broadband players. One of our main complaints with all of the "strikes" plans is that they all are based on accusations, rather than any conviction. While there's an "appeals" process, it's quite limited and the rules have it so that the deck is completely stacked against those who appeal.
What both of these examples have in common, obviously, is that they're so-called "voluntary" solutions, put in place by companies, often due to arm twisting by the entertainment industry, combined with threats of government regulation if such "voluntary" actions don't happen. While it may seem that voluntary agreements are to be encouraged, when they create a situation like this, in which users are being declared guilty merely upon accusation, with little real recourse in many cases, something seems wrong. We run a very real risk of discouraging important services and innovations when we start taking away core concepts like "innocent until proven guilty" -- even if it's just in civil issues between private companies. It's a trend that's quite worrisome and can lead to many innocent people getting punished.
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: accusation, conviction, copyright, jonathan mcintosh, six strikes
Reader Comments
The First Word
“And I know for a fact that a lot of people out there reason, "If I'm going to be treated like a thief regardless of what I do, I might as well be a thief so that at least I'll be suffering for a good reason".
Just saying... treating your paying customers like dirt on the assumption that they MIGHT be copyright infringers isn't the best idea to do good business. In fact, it may be what drives people to piracy in the first place. Remember the Assassin's Creed II debacle on PC, where legit copies didn't work at all for days because the server was down and the game had always-online DRM that refused to boot the thing up unless you were connected? Yeah, lots of people pirated that game simply to PLAY it since their LEGIT copy was basically an useless coaster.
I'll have more respect for copyright holders' side of things when they stop doing stupid shit like this. And while we're at it, drop prices, too. I end up buying games secondhand because they are so grotesquely overcharged nowadays that I'd need to have Bill Gates's bank account to afford this hobby. That's not cool, broseph. Why do you think people buy tons and tons from Steam and Good Old Games? Because they are cheap and affordable, offer good consumer service and don't force invasive DRM down your throat like you're a cheap porn actress in a Rocco movie.
Nuff said.
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Suddenly, an idea...
"Burn the witch! She turned me into a frog! ...I got better."
So, is the modern equivalent...
"Burn the computer! It stole my money! ...I made more later."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Suddenly, an idea...
Burn the Internet! It's all full of evil piracy!
Burn blank paper! Burn blank media and mp3 playing devices because it will release the vile smelling fumes of semiconductors and polycarbonate plastics trapped within the devil's piracy devices!
Let the magistrate declare that the accused pirate be tried by the trial of statutory copyright infringement judgement! If you are truly guilty, then you will have made recompense by paying $150,000 per infringement. If you are bankrupted, cannot pay and your life destroyed, then you are truly innocent and will receive a verbal apology.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Suddenly, an idea...
The time that infringement ran rampant from the global democracy we call the internet?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Suddenly, an idea...
The time that infringement ran rampant from the global democracy we call the internet?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Suddenly, an idea...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Suddenly, an idea...
"Copyright which hunts indeed."
Suddenly gave me a mental image of a copyright symbol stalking the land, hunting for prey :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Suddenly, an idea...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Suddenly, an idea...
What do witches do?
...burn!
What else burns?
...(small rocks) wood!
And we all know that wood floats right?
Therefore....
Throw her in the Lake.
If she floats, she's a witch!
Right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Suddenly, an idea...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Suddenly, an idea...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Suddenly, an idea...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Using the usual trolls' argument, we must have invasive measures in place because the crime is so widespread.
The crime is usually conducted in private.
The crime is victimless the same was as DVR'ing a TV show or ripping a DVD to be watched at a time, place or on a device not approved by the supreme moral authorities that know what is best for us.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
We aren't talking about pirates. We are talking about innocent people. Nice try.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Businesses are trying to maximize profits? Agreed.
"Businesses have no choice"? Bullshit.
Since when has business profits every come before people's rights? Innocent until proven guilty until it dips into business profits!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
There is a problem with copyright violations on the internet. That's still a business' choice to exercise (selling on the internet), not their right to take away an average person's constitutional rights.
Don't get me wrong, violators are people who are guilty. I'd even argue most violators don't realize they are breaking the law. Still, the punishment should fit the crime and you shouldn't be a violator until a legal (not commercial or personal) system finds you guilty!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'd change this to "There is a perceived problem with copyright violations on the internet." The biggest problem is people and businesses seeing it as a problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I still think you have to admit that the internet allows people a means to violate copyright and that some people take advantage of it. Same was true for VHS and CD/DVDs back in the day. Anything that can transfer and move data is essentially a means to violate copyright. If people do it, legally that's a problem. Typically we focus on the economic viewpoints here, so you're right, if it's a small percentage that doesn't really effect the economics, it's not really a "problem" but rather a "perceived problem".
I've just been trying to give AJ the benefit of the doubt in pointing out that the real problem: human rights violations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Or when people deliberately abuse the laws they wrote in order to extort people.
[ 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:
When companies like UMG or Warner claim copyrights that don't belong to them, and use it to deprive the rightful owners of it, that is copyright THEFT.
Lots of examples, see Edwyn Collins and his myspace troubles a few years ago (and I use that one because his name is easy to google). In fact, the torrentfreak article has two examples of copyright theft at the start as well (as I well know, as one of them is my own experiences)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I'm stealing your copyright rights and claiming them as my own, the MPAA and RIAA do this all the time. (Look at all the times they claim to own the rights and actually don't, or over represent their rights.)This is the only way copyright theft can happen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Innocent until proven guilty is a duty owed by the government to a citizen in a criminal matter. There's no such duty of a corporation to a customer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Actaully, when that corporation is the de-facto beneficiary of a government created monopoly then such a duty should exist - because the market mechanisms that would remove the need for it are ineffective.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
After all the primary reason for the lack of competition for the government is the high cost of entry...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
To paraphrase, the Boston Tea Party was a protest against the tax policy of the Brittish Government and the East India Company that controlled the tea imported into the colonies.
Hmm. Government acting hand in hand with monopolistic corporations to violate people's rights... Seem at all familiar?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'd love to see a movement to make co-ops of all Telcos. That would be awesome. Try bullying a customer owned co-op into doing things the customers don't want.
Pfft.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And the rest of the world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Right. And it will be fun to watch all those pirates at the DOJ, Parliaments, Record Labels and more getting accused and banished from the net.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Pirates are not the issue. Abuse of the legal system in order to maximize profits through creation of artificial scarcities is the issue.
You provide services that are not obviously grossly overpriced, and I would be all over them. I love music and movies, like everyone else. I just refuse to be extorted by lying traitors to the cause of decency, fairness, justice and even self government.
I still remember Aaron. I don't think this pro-copyright nonsense is cute. I am frankly sick of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I first must point out that there is no such thing as copyright theft. There is however, copyright infringement.
That point not withstanding, as I understand what you are saying I would also point out that the decision of guilt, and the punishment is a function of the courts NOT the corporations. Seems I read that somewhere, where could that be found?
Oh yeah, now I remember, the U.S. Constitution!
So the rule of law is no longer a function of the courts, is that what you are saying. If so, then there will be no problem with me applying my own brand of justice when I feel I am wronged without any real proof. Is that correct?
So if someone cuts me off on the freeway I will be justified in wrecking their car?
Oh, we are talking about theft, so if someone steals a penny off the floor in my office I will be fully justified in cutting off their hand. No need to actually prove that it was my penny, no need to have a court decide the innocence or guilt of the person, or the correct punishment, I will just cut off their hand. Hey if they bleed to death that isn't my problem, they broke the law, they brought it on themselves.
Right?
I can't quite put my finger on it, but there seems to be a flaw in your thought process.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It is illegal to know without paying, and those who have the information keep upping the prices.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
For those who don't know, Trumbo was one of the "Hollywood Ten" who were blacklisted when they refused to answer questions about their alleged involvement with the Communist party during McCarthyist witch hunts. Many of them were questioned because of accusations and innuendo rather than any actual evidence of wrongdoing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Dig a pit, throw a bunch of cats into it, let them starve, then tie the accused up with fish sausage and throw them in. If the cats seriously maul the person, they're innocent. If not, then they're guilty and must be put down.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Every other crime is treated the same way
Sorry, but lots of talking and arguing are the price of having a justice system.
And in all of the most horrible cases, the copyright holders have usually been willing to settle for pennies on the dollar and move on. Yet this site's heros are the people who willingly spend years and years on litigation only to discover that-- surprise surprise-- making a copy of someone's work is wrong. Big deal.
The fact is that the evidence in these copyright crimes is much, much better than what we use to put away murderers, rapists and other thieves. If you get caught with stolen goods, there's a good chance you're going to jail even if no one saw you steal them and you really did buy them from some legit store. Guilt by association is just an unfortunate feature of having a justice system. Get used to it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Every other crime is treated the same way
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Every other crime is treated the same way
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Every other crime is treated the same way
Jammie-Thomas, Tenenbaum anyone?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Every other crime is treated the same way
S'funny they didn't see the $750 MINIMUM they pushed long and hard for to be that fair to artists....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Every other crime is treated the same way
"You get accused of something and then you have to defend yourself."
Yes, and you are presumed innocent until proven guilty, and then punishment is not meted out until the guilty verdict is passed by a judge or jury.
If these were also true of the strikes rules and whatever else you support, others here would support them. Guess what...
I won't bother addressing any of your other "points" since you go straight down Drooling Moron Lane with your murder analogy immediately afterwards.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Every other crime is treated the same way
That's what's going on here with these copyright laws, bob, they're ass backwards.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Every other crime is treated the same way
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Every other crime is treated the same way
Unlike you, I know what's going on. Been working with some lawyers defending these cases. Funny thing, when asked to prove their accusations in court, they shy away.
There's ZERO evidential basis.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Every other crime is treated the same way
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Every other crime is treated the same way
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Every other crime is treated the same way
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Every other crime is treated the same way
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Every other crime is treated the same way
Translation: roll over on the inequitable way things are.
The world must have broken your spirit long ago, which explains your propensity to lash out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Every other crime is treated the same way
Why should I?
Innocent until proven guilty with the burden of proof being on the prosecution, not the defense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Every other crime is treated the same way
Correction: they send out notices based on an observation from a 3rd party on what's happening with an IP address that's was supposedly assigned to the account at one time. ISPs have misidentified account holders in the past, IP addresses can easily be spoofed and traffic can easily be passed through an account without the account holder's knowledge. Ignoring any of these facts is to ignore very serious problems with the entire process.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Every other crime is treated the same way
When looking for murderers, rapists and thieves, detectives look at CCTV footage, they look at fingerprints, they look at DNA, they look at signs of forced entry, they examine the murder weapon.
With copyright, all one needs is an IP address and they can very easily be spoofed or faked.
So go on, I double-dog dare you to find an actual police detective and ask him point blank whether an IP address is better evidence than everything I listed above.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Every other crime is treated the same way
No it FUCKING isn't! God, man. Sometimes you're so stupid it makes my brain hurt.
The evidence in these "copyright crimes" is MUCH, MUCH less and worse than that found anywhere else or used in any other illegal act.
IP addresses. That's the "evidence" used. Which, many people, somewhat more technically inclined than you could ever hope to be, have already pointed out, a ridiculous number of times, can be spoofed/cloned/changed/etc. To the point that an IP address is basically nothing, insofar as valid legal evidence.
"If you get caught with stolen goods, there's a good chance you're going to jail even if no one saw you steal them and you really did buy them from some legit store."
Actually no. Your own sentence is so far fetched and as far from reality based as possible as to be unbelievable that you would write such a thing.
If you get caught with what is later determined to be stolen goods but you can prove that you legally and legitimately purchased them from a legit store then you will NOT go to jail. You will have said goods confiscated from you, and of course you'll be out whatever you paid for them. BUT YOU WILL NOT GO TO JAIL!
"Guilt by association is just an unfortunate feature of having a justice system."
WHAT?! Man, I... I don't even know how to respond to this stupidity. Someone else feel free to put bob in his moronic place for this gem, cause I seriously can't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Every other crime is treated the same way
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Every other crime is treated the same way
Please provide any evidence that the six-strikes plan uses the justice system in the way that you describe.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Every other crime is treated the same way
Just because their are flaws in the justice system does not mean we have to accept them. We have every right to complain when innocent people are punished. THAT IS NOT JUSTICE, and if it is happening then our JUSTICE system is broken and needs fixing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Every other crime is treated the same way
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Every other crime is treated the same way
I agree. That is fact. Why? Because.
The fact also is that I am the Grand High Marshall Twinklepenny Sexopants vonOttombottom the 12th, Supreme ruler of Gormenghast and Lord of the Army of the Twilight Marauders. Also I can fly.
Wow these unsupported assertions are fun...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Every other crime is treated the same way
Sadly, I have not the power...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Every other crime is treated the same way
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Every other crime is treated the same way
the burden of proof is on the accuser, to show to a jury of your peers, beyond a reasonable doubt, that you violated the law. you can sit there quietly, and if the accuser can't prove their case against you, you are found not guilty.
the only way action can be taken against you is if you are found to be guilty by a jury.
In the six strikes case, you can be found guilty without any trial whatsoever and consequences levied against you.
it would then be your responsibility to go to the people accusing you, and explain why they might be wrong, and if the article is to be believed, the methods and procedures you would have to go through are difficult to navigate and are unlikely to produce a favorable or even fair result.
The actual justice system, as broken as it is, still imposes many limitations on the accuser for how they might convince a jury of your guilt.
so, no, 2 different things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Every other crime is treated the same way
I know you're not the "real" bob, but...that is the problem. This NEVER goes to a jury. NEVER goes to a trial. You end with the arbitrator, not the court system.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Every other crime is treated the same way
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Every other crime is treated the same way
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Every other crime is treated the same way
Right. But you know something bob, even those accused of murder can claim something akin to "fair use". It's called "self-defense" or "stand your ground".
Why is the fair use defense missing from the six-stike plans?
Also, six-strikes is completly outside of our justice system and is being run entirely by those with vested interests in the copyright industry. Don't know about you, but that really doesn't give me that much of a warm & fuzzy feeling.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Every other crime is treated the same way
This sentence doesn't make any sense.
But I'll try to address what you've written. If you feel you were mistakenly given a strike you can appeal. A fair use defense is a defense used when contesting copyright infringement. I'd suggest a thorough knowledge of fair use first.
The system will be looking at BT traffic. Due to the inherent nature of BT being used to transmit extremely large files, the alleged infringement in question is likely to be of such a voluminous nature that fair use is not going to be a valid defense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Every other crime is treated the same way
Bob can accuse Alice of infringing World of Warcraft, says he's a representative of Blizzard, when she shares copies of the game through P2P whenever she updates. The ISP will take him at his word and give Alice a strike. The size of the file being transferred has NOTHING to do with anything.
Oh, and look up a dictionary sometime. You used the word "alleged" without knowing what it means. Alleged is all these are, nothing is proven, but yet the accused is expected to suffer anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Every other crime is treated the same way
I'm sorry. You are not making sense to me.
If I obtain copyrighted material (regardless of method) to comment upon or to use in a way consistent with any of the other definitions of fair use, then I can assert a fair use defense against infringement. The method I used to get the material is irrelevant. Just because it's Bittorent, doesn't mean jack shit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Every other crime is treated the same way
No, I'm sorry, it isn't.
If you wish to "comment upon or to use in a way consistent with any of the other definitions of fair use" an example of copyrighted material, and you obtained an unauthorized version, a fair use defense would not be valid in defense of your method of obtaining it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Every other crime is treated the same way
I don't *need* authorization to use something in a fair use situation. The ONLY exception I know is the tricky little part in the DMCA which says I can't circumvent the DRM on DVD to do it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Every other crime is treated the same way
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Every other crime is treated the same way
Wrong. If I take a copyrighted show and do a voiced-over review over the show, I am availing of Fair Use, in that I have provided commentary. If I then upload that to Youtube, I am still legally in the clear. The person watching the video is still getting it, so yes, I am trafficking in it, but I am allowed do it, because of Fair Use.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Every other crime is treated the same way
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Every other crime is treated the same way
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Every other crime is treated the same way
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Every other crime is treated the same way
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Every other crime is treated the same way
If you are commenting upon or critiquing a copyrighted work -- for instance, writing a book review -- fair use principles allow you to reproduce some of the work to achieve your purposes. Some examples of commentary and criticism include:
quoting a few lines from a Bob Dylan song in a music review
summarizing and quoting from a medical article on prostate cancer in a news report
copying a few paragraphs from a news article for use by a teacher or student in a lesson, or
copying a portion of a Sports Illustrated magazine article for use in a related court case."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Every other crime is treated the same way
Maybe you will go far as a attorney, though Pretenda might not be hiring for much longer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Every other crime is treated the same way
http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/9-a.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Every other crime is treated the same way
Unfortunately, while what you cited gives examples of what can be considered fair use commentary, you are using that to say you can't use a whole work, even though Rikuo showed you two court cases where the amount of work used (even all of it) does not bar a fair use case.
You lose this one. Better luck on some of your other threads.
Gentlemen, you are dismissed. Case closed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Every other crime is treated the same way
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Every other crime is treated the same way
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Every other crime is treated the same way
Post the link when you're done.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Every other crime is treated the same way
And that is exactly what this case addresses........
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Every other crime is treated the same way
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Every other crime is treated the same way
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Every other crime is treated the same way
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Every other crime is treated the same way
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DO love!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Every other crime is treated the same way
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Every other crime is treated the same way
Ok. Maybe I have a bit.
But I still am a bit hazy on your statement of obtaining an "unauthorized version" when fair use doesn't require authorization. Isn't there a conflict there? If I wish to use something for fair use and the right's holder refuses to provide an "authorized" version to me, what is my recourse and what good is having fair use in the first place?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Every other crime is treated the same way
Trafficking in entire works is the subject the ISPs are tackling, which is why fair use is not likely to be a valid defense. This is why I mentioned the file size and BT; we are referring to entire works.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Every other crime is treated the same way
If they know that I may blast them with a scathing review or am using their version to point out some stupid programming flaws on their part or whatever. Many reasons why. That is the entire reason fair use doesn't require authorization.
Trafficking in entire works is the subject the ISPs are tackling, which is why fair use is not likely to be a valid defense. This is why I mentioned the file size and BT; we are referring to entire works.
File size still makes no difference. Downloading just a "part" of an electronic file is simply pointless. You need the entire file in order to open it in any program. It's not like you're faxing a couple pages of a from book, the file NEEDS to be complete or it's useless. Also, you know that files can be fragmented, transmitted and then reassembled at the destination, don't you? Not real hard to break a movie up into pieces named "FILE01.txt", "FILE02.txt", etc.
Bittorrent is not an indication of anything, it's only a file transfer protocol. Does this mean when I grab the latest update off of the swarm of a game I have complete permission to use will get flagged - just because it's bittorent? That's silly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Every other crime is treated the same way
Should be "faxing a couple pages from a book".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Every other crime is treated the same way
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Every other crime is treated the same way
Heh, I just realized a bit of disconnect on your part in that statement.
What would I be getting a "strike" for, if not for copyright infringement?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Every other crime is treated the same way
Sort of, with your hands tied behind your back. The appeal process is almost meaningless.
But it is specifically excluded as a defense if you are appealing a strike.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Every other crime is treated the same way
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Every other crime is treated the same way
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Every other crime is treated the same way
Large files != illegal files.
But, we all know that facts are something you're allergic to since they expose your lies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Every other crime is treated the same way
I am a little disconcerted though that this post got enough votes to end up being hidden. I'm glad the link is available to see what caused all the uproar.
To "the community" -
Pro Tip - when attempting to censor someone, shouting and pointing at them does not help to keep attention off of their words. =)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Every other crime is treated the same way
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Every other crime is treated the same way
"Reporting" a post with no particularly offensive text in it is a rather clear attempt at getting rid of it though. The funny thing is that when he begins to resort to personal attacks and foul language, THOSE posts go unreported.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Every other crime is treated the same way
Then where, pray tell, is your mountain of convicted copyright infringers? The untold legal victories and lucrative, life ruining judgements in favor of copyright holders? Infringement is no longer an issue because it's so easy to convict copyright infringers, right? I mean there must be boatloads of these cases if it's as cut-and-dry as convicting someone of murder, right? Well?
Why do rights owners not recognize individual accountability and sue everyone they catch in the act of infringement? I'm all for wrongdoers being held responsible for their actions, but you need to prove that it is so. Guilty by accusation doesn't even come close to this standard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Every other crime is treated the same way
Rights owners are attempting to illegalize technologies, or specific uses of technology, or bully ISP's into doing it, all because the law is now hopelessly unenforceable. Technology created the perceived need for copyright, and now it has created the perceived threat of copyright to other, more cherished values.
My fear is they may win the battle for public perception in no small part because they still dominate the most convenient ways people have of collecting information or entertaining themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Every other crime is treated the same way
1) innocent until proven guilty - no one faces any penalties until there is enough evidence against them to be held in jail, taken to trial, convicted, and sent to jail. In copyright, the moment you are accused you are held completely accountable and all penatires are forced on you immediately.
2) burden of proof - in a murder, the cops/prosecution is responsible for finding and gathering evidence which a court weighs in to decide if you are guilty or not. With copyright, someone claims you are wrong and then a business strips away your rights (otherwise they are potentially liable) immediately. Your choice is to either give up the rights that were stripped away or try via submitting enough proof to the accuser (not the business that stripped your rights) that you are innocent. The accuser decides if they wish to allow the business to reinstate your rights.
3) bail/temporarily granted rights during hearing - in a murder/trial you may get some temporary rights (rather than being locked up all the time). With copyright, during any form of hearing you have no rights as they have all been stripped away and are held by the accuser until they decide to return them.
shall I continue or is this good enough?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I've Said It Before
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Association? Try Guilty by Guilt
Copyright and patent law actually serve one real purpose, and that is to give elite groups a legal foundation for "owning" ideas and thoughts. It is more or less the foundation for slavery. U.S. bankers' message to you -
"You cannot do anything unless I say so. You must accept pay in these fake little credits I give. Coincidentally, I only give fake little credits to people who do my bidding.
And nothing - NOTHING - that you ever do or say cannot be owned. Not even your very thoughts and ideas. And I run the money supply. Eventually, everything returns to me.
Everything."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Association? Try Guilty by Guilt
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Association? Try Guilty by Guilt
Accusation... not Association. NEVERMIND!
Still, I feel better after my little rant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Association? Try Guilty by Guilt
"Failure to achieve anything positive at any time" sounds awfully synonymous with "unadulterated evil" to me. If it has never done good, and the examples of its damage are plentiful, how else would you define evil?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Association? Try Guilty by Guilt
This all gets very esoteric very quickly....
Anyhow, it would appear we are on the same general side of this issue, so unless you just WANT to get into the metaphysics of morality, I'm going to let it go. =)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Association? Try Guilty by Guilt
I think you are right in that we agree. I think rewarding creators so as to encourage creation is good and noble. But, I contend that the idea of "intellectual property" as a means to this end is evil, and I cite its track record as evidence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Association? Try Guilty by Guilt
In the most fundamental sense, IP is evil because it is dishonest. There is no such thing as intellectual property, and therefore to speak of it once that fact is established represents an attempt to mislead.
You're right... and it is important to be specific and accurate about this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I am completely over you and you have no place in my home.I can live without needing to ever see or listen or read your MAFIAA Releases.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No matter if you dont like the man
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fIhDvrPkAYQ
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
-Yes, problem number one. Most internet accounts are used for the whole household, and there is absolutely no way to determine which machine (most families have several) let alone which person, was responsible.
"Your due process is your TOS. If you don't like it, there are alternatives- like satellite."
Re-read that, jackass. A TOS has absolutely no part in due process. In fact, there IS NO DUE PROCESS. AT ALL. Alice accuses Bob six times, and magically, he is punished. Only after the fact can he even attempt to fight it, and even then, the list of valid defences he can use is actually smaller than what the LAW allows. The TOS is not a magical document that can sidestep law everywhere, so stop spewing that verbal diarrhoea.
Also, satellite isn't available everywhere, and where it is, it is far INFERIOR to other services, both in terms of speed, access and price.
" If you are infringing; stop. If someone is using your account to infringe; take measures to prevent it." What measures? There is literally NOTHING I can do to prevent this, because Six Strikes begins and ends with the accusation. A US Citizen can be the most law-abiding citizen in the world, with a computer and a net connection that they literally only ever use to check their e-mail and yet, there is nothing to prevent other people from accusing them and hence getting them punished.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
-Yes, problem number one. Most internet accounts are used for the whole household, and there is absolutely no way to determine which machine (most families have several) let alone which person, was responsible.
That is why action is taken against the account. Like it or not, there's a duty of the account holder to assure all users abide by the TOS and the law. The fact that the account holder chose to allow others to access the account doesn't give him a pass if the account is misused.
"Your due process is your TOS. If you don't like it, there are alternatives- like satellite."
Re-read that, jackass. A TOS has absolutely no part in due process. In fact, there IS NO DUE PROCESS. AT ALL. Alice accuses Bob six times, and magically, he is punished. Only after the fact can he even attempt to fight it, and even then, the list of valid defences he can use is actually smaller than what the LAW allows. The TOS is not a magical document that can sidestep law everywhere, so stop spewing that verbal diarrhoea.
Perhaps it is you that has comprehension issues. A COMPANY HAS NO "DUE PROCESS" OBLIGATION TO A CUSTOMER. That is an obligation of a government to citizens, not companies to customers. The TOS takes the functional place of due process and procedures.
Also, satellite isn't available everywhere, and where it is, it is far INFERIOR to other services, both in terms of speed, access and price.
I'll bet it's available anywhere you can subscribe to a service using six strikes. And too fucking bad it's not as cheap or efficient. If you want cheaper and better, six strikes is part of the package. If not, there are alternatives.
" If you are infringing; stop. If someone is using your account to infringe; take measures to prevent it."
What measures? There is literally NOTHING I can do to prevent this, because Six Strikes begins and ends with the accusation. A US Citizen can be the most law-abiding citizen in the world, with a computer and a net connection that they literally only ever use to check their e-mail and yet, there is nothing to prevent other people from accusing them and hence getting them punished.
The chances of someone unknown to you repeatedly accessing your properly-secured connection are awfully low. The ISP's have security departments that can be helpful. And the ISP's aren't going to randomly generate strikes and send them out. Strikes are based on what is happening with your account.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
What do the TOS's say? You shall not use the connection to violate copyright. Which is a law. In order for that to work, they have to be willing to work within the legal process, which includes due process of law. A TOS cannot absolve a company of any and all responsibilities they have to uphold the law. If they're going to accuse US Citizen Alice of violating the law, they have to allow her a fair chance to defend herself, and not punish her before that.
A TOS cannot give the powers and responsibilities of the courts to private parties.
"The chances of someone unknown to you repeatedly accessing your properly-secured connection are awfully low. The ISP's have security departments that can be helpful. And the ISP's aren't going to randomly generate strikes and send them out. Strikes are based on what is happening with your account."
And there's where you didn't read what I wrote. You can have the MOST LAW ABIDING CITIZEN, and she can still get hammered with accusations. What about security departments? The Six Strikes agreements don't allow you to even begin to contest the charges until at least your fourth or fifth accusation. All the ISP will tell you is "Fuck off, and wait until Bob accuses you for a fifth time Alice". And no, it doesn't need anyone accessing Alice's router. All it needs is someone filling in a form and saying to the ISP "J'accuse!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Well, then, perhaps we should fix that.
> And the ISP's aren't going to randomly generate strikes and send them out. Strikes are based on what is happening with your account.
The allegations leading to the strikes will come from the purported holders of the copyrights. They can allege anything they choose, with no apparent recourse or penalty for false accusation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Yes, because no one in your apartment block would ever think of trying to piggyback off your wifi.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm at home right now, on my desktop, as I write this. My desktop is connected wirelessly to the router, which is in the other room, which is itself connected to the phone line for net access.
I then turn around and go to my laptop, which is itself connected via Wi-fi to the internet and use that to, say, check my e-mail.
Both machines are mine, but the ISP doesn't know that. They don't care (otherwise, they wouldn't have GIVEN me the free router, which most ISPs do, to facilitate multiple devices connecting to the internet at once).
Now let's say Charlie from next door cracks my router's password and as such gets for himself a free net connection. How does the ISP know this? There is no way. To them, they now see three devices and must assume that all three devices are mine, or at least, I allow on the network.
And yet, Six Strikes is still a valid procedure to go through? I can still be punished for what Charlie does? Even though, short of going through my router's logs (which 99% of internet subscribers don't know how to do), I won't know its happening?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Call up the DOJ and have him charged under the CFAA. He's a hacker terrorist!!!1
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I would agree though that, if you had an issue like this, the ISP should be forced to consider evidence in your defense and take back the strike if you can show you are being hacked.
All of which is beside the point to me. The bottom line is that technology has made copyright obsolete at best, and that all such efforts to interfere with technology, other businesses, etc, in order to maintain the current copyright regulatory environment are wrong without any need to reference inconveniences or unfair prosecutions.
If the law is wrong, whether or not you are fairly convicted is moot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The password itself can be 500 characters long, but if technically clueless Alice uses WEP to encrypt it? She might as well then have not put in a password at all, as WEP is infamous for being simple to crack.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I didn't think that the accusations originated with the ISP. It was my impression that they would coming from a third party entity on the payroll of the content right's holders based solely on IP addresses. So not sure how one's actual account activity plays into this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Also you state "Perhaps it is you that has comprehension issues. A COMPANY HAS NO "DUE PROCESS" OBLIGATION TO A CUSTOMER. That is an obligation of a government to citizens, not companies to customers."
Yet my tax money went to "Help" the telcos with their build out, and my tax money goes to enforce their edicts with the power of the law and gun. So being a logical human being (at least i am, you seem to be of the lawyer or entertainment tribe, which puts you some where below a snot rag on logic), it would be easy to deduce that for the Right of their Monopoly, Right of their protection, and Right to money for infastructure they must insure certian protections for the end user or else forteit the "other" rights they been given... the obvious logical conclusion would be the "six-strikes" based on on-sided accusations would put these into jeopardy. Especially as most of the protections and rights come at a a local level, and therefore people have much more power to influence the representives to pull said rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
If this is true, that is interesting to me. Is it detectable? It seems to me that it would be, and the ISP should be forced to put the monitoring in place to deal with this so people are not getting struck when it is not their fault.
Breaking the encryption I presume allows you to snoop the password? Because just breaking the encryption and listening in is not going to be seen by anyone other than a similarly armed super-snoop, and thus is not going to end up counting as a strike.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Fun stuff: they can also change their MAC address to the same as yours, so that if you were to look at logs later, it would appear to be going to your own machine.
All of this goes to show that these strikes plans are stupid. IP addresses are not even people, let alone the owner of the account.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ 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: Re:
[ 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:
And let's not forget that this has to be some nefarious thing. Cracking the wireless encryption is one reason why infringement might happen on your router even though you didn't do it. Also, letting a friend attach his laptop who may very well forget that he set utorrent to start automatically. Sure he started it on his own network, but now he's doing the rest on yours and completely unwittingly.
[ 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: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Because if he's caught he's still on the line for his usage and risks getting his XBox Live access affected. If he uses your account, even if the infringement is somehow caught, you're the one who gets the punishment.
Plus, you don't need a high level of technical knowledge to do that stuff. there's idiot guides out there that any 12 year old can follow.
[ 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: Re: Re: Re:
Wrong. Anyone can still accuse you, and say that this IP address they have was used by your router. You don't even have to have a compromised router. Plus, I love the tone of what you're writing. So...if I get accused several times, I should go pure wired and forgo wireless access for my many wireless devices (like say tablets, most of whom don't have the option of a wired connection).
Yes, WPA/WPA2 is hard to crack...but not impossible. You can still bruteforce it in a matter of hours. Which is trivial if I'm doing the hacking and my target is next door. Even then, 99% of ISP subscribers will NOT know how to set up WPA/WPA2 encryption and will not even know OF it.
It doesn't matter how secure Alice's home network is. All it takes is for someone to accuse her, and she still gets the strike. All it takes is for someone to accuse her five or six times...and she still gets punished.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
At least one article I read suggested that using a passcode of 25-64 characters using numbers, lower and upper case letters and symbols would pretty much make any bruteforce attacks impractical.
How hard is it to set up such encryption? My takeaway was that it was not particularly difficult. And it also seems that cracking it would take way more time and trouble that just infringing from one's own account.
Also, if I had concerns, why wouldn't I simply turn off my router when I wasn't using it? It seems like someone using my account would be pretty well thwarted if my router when on and off with my personal use.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Hypothetically true I suppose, but remote at best..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
For the last fucking time...the ISPs are going to take the accuser's word as gospel. They're not going to do any investigating. There is no investigating. The accuser is just going to sign the form saying IP address XYZ was used to download, and the ISP will issue a strike against Alice, all without letting her contest the charge.
"I'm still having a hard time believing that an infringer would bother with cracking a well-protected system than simply using simpler measure to infringe from his own account."
Then you don't understand at all the mindset of a hacker. It is trivially simple to crack even WPA/WPA2 encryption on a wireless router, it just takes a few hours at best. What if the guy hacking doesn't have his own net connection? Then, he has a motive of wanting to hack into my router, and thus, getting net access that way.
I want you to answer this question. Why is it you are so intentionally blind to everything I and the others say? Six Strikes WILL be abused beyond measure. The DMCA is already abused beyond measure, and there is still nothing in copyright law to punish false accusations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
For the last fucking time...the ISPs are going to take the accuser's word as gospel. They're not going to do any investigating. There is no investigating. The accuser is just going to sign the form saying IP address XYZ was used to download, and the ISP will issue a strike against Alice, all without letting her contest the charge.
For the last fucking time, the ISP gets reports from its contractor analyzes them and decides whether to issue a notification. And there is an appeals process before anything negative happens.
"I'm still having a hard time believing that an infringer would bother with cracking a well-protected system than simply using simpler measure to infringe from his own account."
Then you don't understand at all the mindset of a hacker. It is trivially simple to crack even WPA/WPA2 encryption on a wireless router, it just takes a few hours at best. What if the guy hacking doesn't have his own net connection? Then, he has a motive of wanting to hack into my router, and thus, getting net access that way.
Seems like a weak threat. Time will tell. A hacker without a net connection? I wonder how he learned to be a hacker.
I want you to answer this question. Why is it you are so intentionally blind to everything I and the others say? Six Strikes WILL be abused beyond measure. The DMCA is already abused beyond measure, and there is still nothing in copyright law to punish false accusations.
Infringement is rampant. You trot out this laughable parade of horribles that is simply designed to further erode accountability for people who continue to take from others without compensating them.
If your credit card company claims you paid late and you later prove your payment was on time, what punishment for that false accusation do you exact? Don't bother answering. The bottom line is that six strikes is here. I know it chaps your ass. Too bad. If people respected the intellectual property of others there'd be no need for it. The freeloaders brought this on- blame them, or yourself, if the shoe fits.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I actually thought it was a contractor paid for by trade organizations like MPAA and RIAA.
If it's as you say, why are the ISP's footing the bill for this crap and not the rights holders then? When are the rights holder going to pay for all this enforcement that they keep expecting others to do for them?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I tried to get him to talk about why copyright, fundamentally, is a good thing, and in the end he just punted with the comment, "You know nothing about how jobs work in the entertainment industry," or something to that effect.
As if the entertainment industry didn't fawn all over itself constantly, showing every imaginable detail of how it works. How the entertainment and media industry works is probably the single most documented method of any industry, seeing as how narcissistic entertainment industry people obsess constantly with making movies about making movies, music, and other purported art like "reality" tv.
Sorry, just had to vent. I just think it is a waste of time trying to get anything productive from the dude. It's kind of hard to write him off, because he starts out sounding lucid, but then just sort of peters out and talks in circles.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Incorrect. The way it works is that IP addresses are identified, and the ISP identifies the account that it's assigned to at that time. Mistakes have been made in the past, both in terms of misidentifying the account holder and in terms of identifying perfectly legal content as infringing. Strikes are issued based on the claims of a copyright holder, and are usually not investigated beyond that claim.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Which ignores the existing appeals process within the TOS as well as legal remedies thereafter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, it doesn't. What you just described is what happens when someone complains about the action taken and tries to have it reversed. That isn't the same as investigation/validation before the strike is issued.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, but you would also lose functionality that the wireless provides (e.g. Netflix streaming on an iPad).
"Or I assume that there are similar idiot's guides to protect the integrity of my woreless router, correct?"
The general rule of thumb is that the only way to guarantee that your router is protected from attacks is to turn it off. You can make it more difficult but if the attacker is determined, there's no other way to stop them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://www.wi-fi.org/discover-and-learn/security.
It appears that using WPA2 and a strong 25-64 character password and renaming your default name to something totally random would save you from just about anyone but the NSA.
Seems like a reasonable way to go.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I read a few articles like this:
http://lifehacker.com/5873407/how-to-crack-a-wi+fi-networks-wpa-password-with-reaver
Sad ly, your assertion is not correct. If your router supports WPS, it's very crackable, even if you hide your SSID.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Seriously though, I've demonstrated that it's easy to crack even the most secure router passwords. Whether you accept that people will do this or not, the fact remains that a determined infringer can easily get an innocent party identified as a pirate. That's one of the major issues with this whole procedure - and the tighter people try to turn the screws on people identified as infringers, the more likely it is that a person will use someone else's account to avoid detection. Why risk your own account being cut off when you can leave a password cracker running overnight and use someone else's account for your illegal activity?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
BTW, to the best of my knowledge you can only be throttled to 256 not cut off. But that could change
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Really? I don't quite get why that would be - no infringement's being stopped here, just attempts at passing blame on to an innocent 3rd party. Why would infringement be reduced?
"BTW, to the best of my knowledge you can only be throttled to 256 not cut off. But that could change"
Well, in that case it's even more useless. Throttling back to speeds that Napster users still merrily infringed with doesn't sound like something that will stop infringement at all. It might take a bit longer, but it can still be done perfectly well at those speeds.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I guess that they stop at 256 so as not to interfere with VOIP. I expect that multiple offenders will eventually have the evidence of their misdeeds put in the hands of the rights holders. At that point, they will get the due process that so many seem to be seeking.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Erm, I think you misunderstand the point. There's no extremes involved here, just leave a program running overnight and it's hacked when you get up. In other words, as long as you know enough to enter the commands in an idiot guide, there's no more technical knowledge than downloading a torrent - and easier to use tools will almost certainly be available once demand is there to avoid detection.
"I guess that they stop at 256 so as not to interfere with VOIP."
Which makes it useless at stopping infringement, so what's the point of this again? The services that got the music industry shitting themselves over a decade ago were mostly using speeds at 1/4 of that.
"I expect that multiple offenders will eventually have the evidence of their misdeeds put in the hands of the rights holders"
You seem to be assuming they are guilty and that there are misdeeds or reliable evidence to look at. Big mistake, but then you don't seem to have actually been taking any of my points on board.
"At that point, they will get the due process that so many seem to be seeking."
At that point, after they already have their connection throttled and multiple accusations placed against them then they finally get the chance to prove their innocence? Well, excuse me for not bowing down to their generosity as surely due process comes *before* punishment?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well, if the cartels are going to the extreme of bypassing the law, that implies they know it is hopeless to stop.
[ 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: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 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:
I can't say whether that particular figure is accurate, but as proof of concept for my job I showed how to hack several wireless connections to get the point across about how easy it was. WEP took 90 seconds to crack, WPA2 took about 3 hours.
"Is it detectable?"
If you have a decent router that logs correctly and you have the technical knowledge to look. Guess what most domestic internet users lack?
"the ISP should be forced to put the monitoring in place to deal with this so people are not getting struck when it is not their fault."
Why would that make any difference, given that there's so many users out there that don't even know how to use the damn PC they have connected in the first place? In fact, how can the account holder prove that he's not the one downloading the content?
"Because just breaking the encryption and listening in is not going to be seen by anyone other than a similarly armed super-snoop, and thus is not going to end up counting as a strike."
I think you misunderstand the point. Once you've cracked the password, you can connect to the router at will and use it to get whatever you want. Crack the password, set up your torrenting overnight while the owner doesn't use his connection and he won't know why he's had his connection shut off while you get whatever infringing content you want...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"A COMPANY HAS NO "DUE PROCESS" OBLIGATION TO A CUSTOMER."
And yet...
You said...
"Also, this contrived outrage over lack of "due process" is bullshit. Your due process is your TOS."
So, which is it? Is the TOS Due Process? Or is it not Due Process?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Got it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Companies ARE trying to do this by putting little statements to the affect of "by agreeing to this TOS you also agree to resolve differences through binding arbitration". And of course since the arbitrators wish to continue working (and it's the big companies bringing them business, not the little guy) they find in favor of the companies somewhere in the neighborhood of 96% of the time.
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110427/11434514058/supreme-court-says-business-favorabl e-arbitration-clauses-can-block-class-action-lawsuits.shtml
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So... If that's the case, AJ...
WHY THE FUCK WOULD YOU SAY THIS?!
"Also, this contrived outrage over lack of "due process" is bullshit. Your due process is your TOS."
So, by your own words, by your OWN admission...
You ADMIT that there's no Due Process!
And since there's no Due Process with this, don't you THINK that people have a right to be upset?
There ARE rights to those who are accused of committing crimes, you know.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don't just ADMIT it, I fucking SHOUTED it out load from my first post, all the way through.
And since there's no Due Process with this, don't you THINK that people have a right to be upset?
No. You agreed to it. Just like you agreed if you make a payment late your credit card rate jumps from 12% to 24.99% and you get socked with a $35 late fee.
There ARE rights to those who are accused of committing crimes, you know.
Under six strikes you are accused of a TOS violation, not a crime. Most people with a high school education know ONLY the government can charge you with a crime.
I used to think Marcus was the dumbest motherfucker on this site until you came along to wrest away the title. Congrats on a convincing win, though you should keep you eye on Rikuo who is giving you a real challenge of late.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
BULLSHIT!
AJ, FUCKING SHUT UP!!
Listen, right now!
If there is a problem on my credit card, banking agreement, ETC...
I CAN FUCKING TAKE THEM TO COURT OVER IT AND HAVE DUE PROCESS ON IT!!
I... WOW! You call ME an idiot?
You are the dumbest moron around...
And I thought bob was stupid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So yes you still are an embarrassing idiot without a rudimentary grasp of the facts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You have no fucking idea what a credit card, a phone or an ATM had to do with the internet.
THAT'S embarrassing, idiot.
But the Due Process for the Six Strikes...
35 dollars for each time you are accused of committing a crime... And YOU have to pay, even if you're found innocent, you're still out of money and time.
Here's a little something for you, AJ, that maybe you don't seem to grasp at all.
Maybe, just MAYBE this will get through your thick skull.
We all use the internet, we need the internet.
Hell, just the other day, I got information on the amount that I had paid for student loans over the last year in my email.
So, I'm supposed to use dial up for a PDF of that size?
And, unlike the OTHER contracts, so long as you're caught up on your house payments, you don't get kicked out of your house while resolving an issue, you don't lose your utilities when resolving issues, you don't lose your car, your credit card, your bank accounts, etc when resolving issues...
HOWEVER!!
You DO lose internet access (and speed is access, you dumbass) when resolving issues with this six strikes.
So, yes, YOU are the idiot around here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
35 dollars for each time you are accused of committing a crime... And YOU have to pay, even if you're found innocent, you're still out of money and time.
1. You have to pay to appeal, no fee is assessed for receiving a strike.
2. You are not being accused of committing a crime, but a TOS violation.
And, unlike the OTHER contracts, so long as you're caught up on your house payments, you don't get kicked out of your house while resolving an issue, you don't lose your utilities when resolving issues, you don't lose your car, your credit card, your bank accounts, etc when resolving issues...
Get caught growing pot indoors under lights and find out what the power company can do to you. They can cancel your account straight away.
Make a late cc payment, or maybe it wasn't late- the company posted it late. Watch your rate jump and get hit with a late fee. Keep a pit bull in your apartment where such dogs are prohibited and watch how fast you and/or your dog are packing up and moving.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You're being accused of copyright infringment, last time I checked, that was STILL a LAW... Even if it really makes no sense at times.
"Get caught growing pot indoors under lights and find out what the power company can do to you. They can cancel your account straight away.
Make a late cc payment, or maybe it wasn't late- the company posted it late. Watch your rate jump and get hit with a late fee. Keep a pit bull in your apartment where such dogs are prohibited and watch how fast you and/or your dog are packing up and moving."
yes, but in all of those instances, there is PROOF that stuff was going on, not just ACCUSATIONS.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
2. Our meter reader walked into your utility room and found it full of HID lights and growing marijuana.
3. Our records reflect your payment posted on May 2, not May 1. Accordingly, your new APR is 24.99% and we've added a late fee. BTW, we have recorded this with Experian which will affect your credit score. Have a nice day!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"1. Ok, watermarks show that your account downloaded episode #5 of "Game of Thrones"
3. Our records reflect your payment posted on May 2, not May 1. Accordingly, your new APR is 24.99% and we've added a late fee. BTW, we have recorded this with Experian which will affect your credit score. Have a nice day!!"
1: I can disprove that by showing you my computer and showing you that I have not downloaded anything of Game of Thrones easily, but yet I still get hit with a "strike" on my account.
3: Receipts are wonderful things, are they not?
And now, I am leaving because your stupidity is so strong that I need to hang out with a rocket scientist just so my I.Q. doesn't start dropping.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Call me Derpsley? Piss off.
"Ummm, some people mail payments"
Oh, have you EVER thought that a check and/or money order is a form of receipt? Of course not, because you're a FUCKING MORON who can barely rub two brain cells together!
"And according to the TOS you agreed to, our detection of copyrighted content is all that matters."
I didn't agree to FUCKING ANYTHING like that!
"You forgot #2."
Police still need a warrant, you dumbass.
Maybe instead of trolling, you should go to school and get an education.
Lord knows that morons like you need all the help they can get.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Ummm, some people mail payments"
Oh, have you EVER thought that a check and/or money order is a form of receipt? Of course not, because you're a FUCKING MORON who can barely rub two brain cells together!
The issue was the timing of the payment. How does my cancelled check reveal the date of arrival? Herp.
"And according to the TOS you agreed to, our detection of copyrighted content is all that matters."
I didn't agree to FUCKING ANYTHING like that!
If you didn't/haven't opted out, your covered. Derp.
"You forgot #2."
Police still need a warrant, you dumbass.
The conversation was about the power company suspending service, not about the police arresting you. Herpaderp.
I knight thee: Lord Herpsley of Derpington. Long may ye reign as our village's idiot. May our fair community enjoy you as a buffoon and figure of fun for many years to come. Rise; Lord Herpsley and go forth to create more merriment at your own expense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You really are such a fucking moron, aren't you?
Gah, it's like talking to a 3 year old.
the conversation was about the LAW, fuckface.
AJ, just, just go away, go away right now.
I am so pissed off right now that I'm afraid of what I might do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yikes!! Nerdrage!! Seriously dude, if being on the losing end of some verbal back-and-forth infuriates you so, maybe you should look at that. Seriously.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Calm down, Princess. If you can't handle a verbal beatdown without falling to pieces, maybe you should take a break. Why keep coming back for more?
You've already been revealed to be:
1. An idiot.
2. A copyright hypocrite.
3. An hysterical, emotional basketcase.
Seriously, leave the for awhile basement, go upstairs and ask Mom for a hot cup of cocoa.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I live on my own, have since I was 16. Got a roof over my head, food in my fridge and a job.
And...
"Why keep coming back for more?"
Didn't you call me a coward for leaving?
Oh, would you look at that?
"Pathetic fucking coward."
You did.
"You've already been revealed to be..."
Whatever, douchebag, I'm not an idiot, I'm not a hypocrite, and I'll admit to losing my temper.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I think I started the day defending you, or someone much like you at least. Understand that whatever victory you feel you had came at the expense of the respect of pretty much everyone who watched you.
Now I have been in situations where the respect of people watching mattered little to me, but it is odd that an issue like copyright elicits this sort of vitriol from you.
The very worst thing that could possibly happen if copyright were to fall apart would be that the quality of entertainment might drop.
Personally, reading about reality tv these days, I sincerely doubt we are in any danger of that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So copyright is NOT a law then? Because that's what Alice will be accused of violating under Six Strikes. Not an in-house rule at the ISP that only that ISP has, but a law.
The TOS merely outlines when the ISP can cut off your service and under what circumstances. If I drive under the influence of alcohol, that's a crime, that's between me and the government, but since its not in the TOS, the ISP can't degrade or cut off my service. However, they do say that once I am accused of violating copyright LAW, that's when they'll take action.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yeah, but you should look at the agreement you have with your auto insurer. You'll be dropped or have your premiums doubled.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This is true. However the ISP is acting on its own; the government plays no role here. The ISP is making a judgement on whether or not you broke the law and meting out punishment as it deems fit.
Your TOS covers their liability in this regard.
You have the right to appeal. If it turns out that some people feel the appeal process is unfair, then the next step would be a class-action suit comprised of a large enough group of people that can prove they were unfairly punished.
Those are the alternatives for protesting. In their entirety.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Re-read that. At what time does the ISP have the authority to make a judgement on whether or not Alice broke the law? I thought that what happened was that they would accuse Alice, report it to the police, who would then proceed with an investigation. You're basically saying that a private party here has the power of judge, jury and executioner, and that you're fine with that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Those are the simple facts of the matter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Right at the point she agreed to it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not so with Six Strikes. Here we have the ISP accusing (or to be more precise, passing on the accusations) me of breaking a LAW. I have a contract with my landlord. He can't come in, charge me or allow someone else to charge me with murdering someone in my bathroom (yes I'll use the murder analogy since that's what you yourself have used in the past AJ) and sentence me to being kicked out and have to pay fines/damages. I'm a tenant and have certain rights that cannot be sidestepped. If the landlord/ISP wants to accuse me of murdering someone/violating copyright, then they have the duty to let the properly deputized authorities ie. the police, handle it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Thing is...millions of US citizens DIDN'T agree to Six Strikes. What about those who signed up in December on a 12 month contract that doesn't contain any of this Six Strikes language?
Even if the landlord walks in one day and finds a pit-bull, as a tenant I have the right to challenge his accusation that its mine in a court of law. Otherwise, the landlord will just say "You better agree to pay an extra 500 bucks on your rent or I'm gonna say you had a pitbull here, and you're out on your ass".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Most rental agreements around here give you 30 days to clear out for violating their vicious dog rules. Doesn't make a difference if you own it or not. In fact, if your neighbors report it, you're in the same boat. If there's a monetary penalty, they'll deduct it from your security deposit. If you don't move, they'll evict you which you can fight in court.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Oh so now I can involve the court system over a contract dispute? Why there and not with Six Strikes?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If you'd ever bother to read the other TOS that exist in your life, you'd understand that is largely true of every consumer agreement that you have.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I want my ISP as far from enforcing IP laws as is possible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Listen to yourself AJ. You keep arguing for corporations to have the ability to sidestep the law with a magic piece of paper.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The poster says, "Your ToS is your due process." That, for someone who has an understanding of the law - and it is clear that the poster does in my opinion - is meant to be a bit of a hyperbolic metaphor. A ToS obviously has nothing at all to do with due process, as it is not a law. It is the agreement between yourself and a service provider. If you wish to sue a service provider over ToS, you can. In fact, some time not too long ago there was an article right here on Tech Dirt mocking a business for suing Twitter, I think it was, because they had a contract and Twitter changed the nature of their feed, thus in the opinion of their business partner violating their contract.
Most people here howled and mocked the plaintiff for suing, but that is precisely the kind of due process you have if you sign a ToS - to have the provider held to the terms to which they agreed.
That's really all he is saying, in a nutshell. Not all that scary.
[ 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: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well, if you're fairly new to this site, and you must be if you are only just finding out about the infamous AJ and thinking he's not much of a troll, then I must say this is nothing.
A bit rude is all he's being. And a bit wishy washy stating one thing one moment and another the next. It's due process. It's not due process cause they don't need it. Blah blah blah.
But this is nothing. You missed out where every day for at least two weeks he went into each and every single thread and launched nothing but ad hom comments aimed at Mike and others here. He also, every other comment wrote "WHY WON'T YOU DEBATE ME?!?! RAWR!!!" (The "rawr" I'm adding, but that's essentially what he was coming off as saying.)
He's actually been relatively behaved lately. But wait, we're due for the inevitable AJ blowup/flip out any day now. Just look at how he's talking on here. He's gone off into dismissing anyone who questions him, he's ignoring comments that try and question his comments, he's already insulting people and he's already throwing "FUCK" out here and there. This is but a taste of AJ the troll/madman who seriously needs some kind of mental help.
[ 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: Re: Re: Re:
Wait a minute...looks at topic of article...people now being expected to prove themselves innocent instead of their accuser proving them guilty?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Nah, don't do that. Personally, I appreciate opposing viewpoints and a mostly well-mannered, rousing debate. I have learned tons of new things this way. I am pretty sure I have engaged with you from time to time. I have even been known to enjoy a good debate with AJ, once he gets past the usual Mike-bashing phase and isn't too fixated on trying to pin Mike down on some sort of "when did you stop beating your wife" question.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Nah, don't do that. Personally, I appreciate opposing viewpoints and a mostly well-mannered, rousing debate. I have learned tons of new things this way. I am pretty sure I have engaged with you from time to time. I have even been known to enjoy a good debate with AJ, once he gets past the usual Mike-bashing phase and isn't too fixated on trying to pin Mike down on some sort of "when did you stop beating your wife" question.
Yes, you and I have frequently locked horns. Nice to know you are not some thin-skinned Nancyboy like silverscarcat. I too enjoy a spirited debate and have learned much. I take none of this personally and respect the reasoned position of most, however hopelessly misguided they may be. Thank you for your comments and I will certainly return to further enlighten you on why most of your thinking is wrong. See you Monday. Bring your A game.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
...
...
...
I have had like 25 different things run through my head before I finally responded...
The only thing I can think of is that you're nothing more than a douchebag who takes potshots at people that can't get back at you.
Good play, sir, good play.
You successfully trolled me today.
So, trolling attempt was quite successful.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Our communication runs in both directions. I have no advantage over you. Fire away, I promise not to descend into rage or break down into tears. And aside from a few gratuitous swipes at your questionable character, you got beat on the merits. You weren't trolled, your arguments were shredded.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
*Snerk*
So says the person who can't figure out what an ATM, a Credit Card or a phone have to do with the internet.
No, you trolled me, you got me all riled up and pissed me off, so, yes, you trolled me. Good play, I admit, good play.
Beat on the merits? Of what? You're the one who said, first thing "the ToS is your Due Process" and then when you were called out on it, you said "there's no Due Process".
So, if anything, you managed to troll me and in your mind, you think you won.
Well, you did win by trolling me, good job.
Before you say you didn't troll me...
"aside from a few gratuitous swipes at your character"
That's pretty much the definition of trolling.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Everyone but you managed to understand this dichotomy. Personally, I don't think you're that stupid. You simply couldn't be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Even in the one paragraph, you're constantly flip-flopping. So due process is a governmental process...but then we introduce the corporate element of the TOS?
What I'm arguing against is everything you say, where the corporate is handed the powers of the court, simply because I'm their customer. The landlord cannot charge me with damages to his house and pronounce me guilty, then say I owe him 10,000 euro. He has to go to a court, and get the court to declare that I owe him 10,000 euro. The court is the neutral third party there, non-biased towards either the tenant or the landlord.
Now we come to the ISP. Who want arbitration. The arbitrator wants to be hired to resolve disputes. If the arbitrator is seen to resolve in favour of the customer, then the ISP will stop hiring him: thus, the arbitrator is no longer neutral. He has a vested interest in siding with the ISP. The ISP has allowed a third party, the accuser, to come between me and the ISP, and allowed the accuser to declare that my service must be degraded, all on their word. The accuser won't allow me to defend myself until the fifth strike at the earliest. The accuser won't allow me to use certain defences that the law clearly says I should use. The ISP takes the accuser's word as legitimate and gospel, yet does not do the same for me. Not only that, but the ISP will give the accuser my personal details, to facilitate their efforts at launching a lawsuit against me. No other business in the world does this, no other business takes my money then says to me "When a Random Tom comes up to me and accuses you of violating the law, and of harming him, I'm actually not going to defend you at all, in fact, I'm going to do everything I can to make his job easier and your life worse. Oh? Lest I forget, this has nothing to do with the police or the courts, where you would at least have a fair chance of defending yourself".
These ISPs have colluded with each other, all these major players, who between them service most of the country. Now, I can opt out of being a customer, but where does that leave me? I can no longer call my friends and family half-way around the world, at least, not without racking up an enormous phone bill. I cannot do online banking (with banking, the number one rule is you NEVER do it on a computer you yourself don't control. So to say to do it at a net cafe is a no no) With pretty much all banks now offering very limited face to face customer service, now its going to be damned near impossible to control my finances. I can't use my credit card online, so I can't purchase things and have them delivered, especially items that wouldn't be in mail-order catalogues, which is to say most of the items I would want. My speech with my friends is now very limited: my friends and family are now spread all over the world. I could always call them on my mobile phone (I don't have a landline), but what if it breaks and I get a new one? How would I communicate the new phone number without the internet? What about the coffee shop I run? Most of my customers like to use Wi-fi while having coffee, and hate going to coffee shops that don't offer that. So, once I'm accused six times, I lose the service (or cancel it beforehand) and thus I lose customers.
This is what I am arguing against. A world where I either lose all the benefits and advances that Web 2.0 offers, or I keep the service, but have literally no protection against being accused and thus of having the service degraded to the point of unuseability.
In previous comments, I have already explained this. I have already explained why the corporate, the ISP, should not be judge, jury and executioner all in one, only for you to respond with basically "Well, they are, the TOS says so, tough shit".
I am the customer. I am a citizen. That is not enough. I do not accept "Tough shit". I demand to be recognized as a citizen with the right to due process of law. Not for corporates to hide behind an unconscionable piece of paper and to pass the buck. If the accuser wants to accuse me, and to say my service with the ISP has to be degraded, he is welcome to go to court, present his evidence and attempt to convince the court to declare it so. To say otherwise is to hand over the power of the government over to the whim of the corporate, who will doubtlessly forgo protecting the rights of the citizens if it results in a better quarterly profit statement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WHOAH!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Your landlord (in this country) can and will deduct damages from your security deposit. And you'll be the one taking him to court, not vice-versa. The credit card company, mortgage company, auto finance company, university, bank, utility provider and every other business like this will add late fees and penalties if they believe that you didn't meet you obligation or were late in meeting it. They don't have to take you to court.
Your parade of horribles is still patently false. Your connection gets throttled. It will take you a day to continue to download big movie files. You can still bank, call using VOIP (Magic Jack requires 128 KB/s) the throttled speed is double that. You can shop online using your credit card. Virtually your entire essential internet experience stays the same. It is utterly bizarre to me that you seemingly accept the exact same relationship in every other aspect of your life, but this. Maybe you should look at why the potential of having your bandwidth throttled after 5 episodes of supposed infringement is so out of line. And I infer that you don't even live in the US, so I really don't understand your obsession with what we do here.
Sorry you don't like the system. But if I'm right, you are not a customer, not a citizen and have no rights of due process or anything else under US law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"And you'll be the one taking him to court, not vice-versa." So yes, you agree with me, the courts are involved then? No need to go to arbitration which is obviously heavily stacked in his favour?
" The credit card company, mortgage company, auto finance company, university, bank, utility provider and every other business like this will add late fees and penalties if they believe that you didn't meet you obligation or were late in meeting it." Because when I don't meet my payments, I'm not breaking the law. I'm breaking a contract. Not so with Six Strikes. There, I'm accused of breaking a law, of harming a third party, yet the ISP is going to deal between me and him? If I invoke the landlord again, it would be like if Charlie from the next town over, who doesn't know exactly where I lived but knew my landlord, told him I punched him (Charlie) in the face, and the landlord takes the doctor's fees out of my deposit. Oh, and gave Charlie my address and phone number, so he can sue me. And none of that was in my original contract with the landlord.
As for your second paragraph - so even though I'm paying for a high speed connection, and have not been convicted by a court, I should just get used to an extremely slow connection? Having 256kbps or lower is crap. I've had those speeds before, and you simply could not get anything done. I've tried Skype at those speeds and less, didn't work (mainly because I don't have that 256kbps available to me, a significant portion is always tied up in signal overhead). Many sites use Java or other script that results in a non-functioning website if you time-out, or don't have enough bandwidth, as I and others have stated before. Right now, as I type these words, I'm downloading games (paid for games, btw, not that you care or should), which I would not be able to do in a timely manner (its over 40GB for this batch, and over Xmas I got 226GB of Steam games). If I were a victim of Six Strikes, at 256kbps 24/7, I would be unable to download them, I'm looking at 100 Days 23 Hours 22 Minutes 32.32 Seconds, best estimate, according to http://www.t1shopper.com/tools/calculate/downloadcalculator.php
In other words, it would take me a month and a half to download those games. I'm to be massively inconvenienced just...because? I'm not to get the benefit of the internet package because some jackass has to accuse me and ruin my day?
"And I infer that you don't even live in the US, so I really don't understand your obsession with what we do here. " No, as I've stated dozens of times on this site, I have never been to the US, and more than likely never will, not as long as its a police state. But this isn't about me. This is about the ordinary person in the US, who stands in for me in this debate. Who will be left naked to those who want to accuse. I have friends in the US, who will be affected by this, so I'm being outraged for them.
"Sorry you don't like the system. But if I'm right, you are not a customer, not a citizen and have no rights of due process or anything else under US law." What do you say then to the other commentators on this site, who are US citizens? They're entitled to due process. Should they get it?
Even if I am wrong, and it turns out an ISP can be judge jury and executioner in one...you have still not explained how and why the third party can accuse me and expect for me to be punished with the accusation alone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That they should direct their anger to those that brought upon the reason for this in the first place: the people that take things without permission.
Are you intellectually honest enough to address piracy?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So yes, you agree with me, the courts are involved then?
Well, if you agreed in your lease to arbitration, there'd be that step too
" The credit card company, mortgage company, auto finance company, university, bank, utility provider and every other business like this will add late fees and penalties if they believe that you didn't meet you obligation or were late in meeting it."
Because when I don't meet my payments, I'm not breaking the law. I'm breaking a contract. Not so with Six Strikes. There, I'm accused of breaking a law, of harming a third party, yet the ISP is going to deal between me and him?
The fundamental flaw in your argument is that you conflate being accused of a crime with a violation of the TOS. The ISP is accusing of violating its TOS, based on information supplied it by a third party.
As for your second paragraph - so even though I'm paying for a high speed connection, and have not been convicted by a court, I should just get used to an extremely slow connection? Having 256kbps or lower is crap. I've had those speeds before, and you simply could not get anything done. I've tried Skype at those speeds and less, didn't work (mainly because I don't have that 256kbps available to me, a significant portion is always tied up in signal overhead). Many sites use Java or other script that results in a non-functioning website if you time-out, or don't have enough bandwidth, as I and others have stated before. Right now, as I type these words, I'm downloading games (paid for games, btw, not that you care or should), which I would not be able to do in a timely manner (its over 40GB for this batch, and over Xmas I got 226GB of Steam games). If I were a victim of Six Strikes, at 256kbps 24/7, I would be unable to download them, I'm looking at 100 Days 23 Hours 22 Minutes 32.32 Seconds, best estimate, according to http://www.t1shopper.com/tools/calculate/downloadcalculator.php
In other words, it would take me a month and a half to download those games. I'm to be massively inconvenienced just...because? I'm not to get the benefit of the internet package because some jackass has to accuse me and ruin my day?
In your last post you claimed you'd be unable to bank, shop online or use VOIP. It's nice to see you admit none of that was true. That infringers are inconvenienced in their game play or Skype doesn't work well is hardly the harsh consequence you claimed before.
"And I infer that you don't even live in the US, so I really don't understand your obsession with what we do here. "
No, as I've stated dozens of times on this site, I have never been to the US, and more than likely never will, not as long as its a police state. But this isn't about me. This is about the ordinary person in the US, who stands in for me in this debate. Who will be left naked to those who want to accuse. I have friends in the US, who will be affected by this, so I'm being outraged for them.
Just setting the record straight. You appeared to be wrapped in a US flag as you were speaking from your soapbox.
"Sorry you don't like the system. But if I'm right, you are not a customer, not a citizen and have no rights of due process or anything else under US law."
What do you say then to the other commentators on this site, who are US citizens? They're entitled to due process. Should they get it?
For the reasons described above, they get what they agreed to in their contract.
Even if I am wrong, and it turns out an ISP can be judge jury and executioner in one...you have still not explained how and why the third party can accuse me and expect for me to be punished with the accusation alone.
If one is so paranoid, don't connect with a wireless router. Use a network cable. Don't engage in infringing activity. If you maintain the integrity of your system I doubt you'll get a single strike. If you do, you should have a ready explanation for the appeal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm not going to wade into the rest of this discussion because I really don't have the time this weekend, but I do believe this bit of your comment to be marginally untrue.
The sole purpose of the Constitution is to grant and limit the powers of the US government itself. The wording of the Constitution uses "people" and isn't limited to only to "US citizens" whatsoever that I can tell. Therefore, the Constitution applies to anybody with dealings with the US government, regardless of citizenship.
I'm not saying that it would be applicable in a situation where there is no involvement with the US government, such as dispute between a user and an ISP in a different country, just that as a general statement it's not quite true.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Copyright infringement *IS* dealing with a law.
Therefore, since a ToS is NOT a law, corporations should not be allowed to settle stuff like that.
Due Process lets me face my accuser in court. ToS does not.
Maybe you should study the law a bit more before you spout your mouth off.
Really, it's pretty bad, AJ, but you managed to make the one person who was defending you wish they hadn't. Even I haven't been able to do that at my worst.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
When you are assessed a strike, you are NOT being accused of breaking a law. You are being deemed to have violated your TOS.
IT IS NOT A LEGAL MATTER, IT IS A CONTRACTUAL ONE.
You talk in circles. First correctly acknowledging: ToS is a contract between a person and a corporation, NOT a law.
But then falsely asserting that because copyright infringement may have legal implications, that it cannot be addressed within the TOS or that it somehow can only be treated as a legal matter. That is simply untrue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Boy I'm so glad that you could point out that a violation of copyright law is a violation of ToS and we don't need courts anymore.
Sure showed me, huh?
/s
The only one talking in circles is you, AJ.
ToS is your Due Process
There is no Due Process
ToS is the corporate version of Due Process
This is not a legal matter, it's a contractual one.
copyright infringement may have legal implications
So, which is it? It is one or the other, AJ, it can't be both.
And, you know what? Copyright law is that, a law, NOT a ToS. Copyright violations fall into LAW, NOT contracts.
here's the thing, AJ.
You're being accused of violating copyright, that's something that should be dealt with using the law. However, by doing what you're saying, turning it into a ToS agreement, then you REMOVE the law aspect and thus copyright no longer can be applied with the law, and, if that's the case, why does a third party get to decide if I'm violating my ToS? That's between me and my ISP. My ToS doesn't include the MPAA or RIAA.
So, which is it? Does this fall under ToS, in which case, I should only have to deal with my ISP and my ISP should only have to deal with myself or polie. Or does it fall under the law? In which case I would get Due Process.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The six strikes program is exclusively between the ISP's and their customers. Whether the ISP's contract out the detection function or perform it in-house is immaterial. In fact it makes more sense for all of the ISP's to use one company for uniformity's sake.
So to recap: the so-called third party is an entity contracted by the ISP's that provide it with information related to evidence of infringement. The ISP's in turn, take that information and if it meets their criteria issue a notification. The third party supplies only information. It makes no accusations itself. The ISP's do.
So it is entirely within the realm of your TOS. Any "due process" you are entitled to is derived exclusively from your TOS. Purely legal concepts of due process are inapplicable.
I presume that you will again deliberately misunderstand this too. Though I honestly don't know how I could explain it any more simply.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Just, fuck it.
I'm tired of arguing with you.
Your deliberate misinterpretation of the facts just makes me want to drink until I have liver failure.
Think what you want, but you really have no idea about anything, do you?
I'm done, I'm done commenting on this article, done replying, done everything with this article.
Call me a douchebag, a coward, or anything you want, I don't fucking care.
I don't know you personally, you don't know me, so, let's just leave it at that, I'm tired of dealing with you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
In the meantime, due process as the rest of the commentators here understand it is not just a legal concept, and instead is the process of natural justice (you understand it as fair procedure) that allows one the right to confront their accusers with equal footing, and to have an unbiased hearing. Whereas you are pedantically trying to conflate this with the Due Process Clause (which actually both came from the same Magna Cart reference) and only applies to governmental agencies (and criminal proceedings) instead of how the average laypersons sees it, and which is actually more correct than your interpretation. Especially under the doctrine of Fair procedure in where the ISP's are absolutely obligated to provide a rudimentary form of due process.
In fact you seem to be fallaciously trying to state that there is no avenue for the accused customers to go through due to the TOS. No court in the world allows this, the TOS being only an instrument of a contract and a part of the terms of that contract.
A court, if a contractual term is in dispute, is the ONLY place a contract dispute (or full forfeiture) can be decided. Especially when the contract itself is in question.
Even more so you are in the case of a third party allowing a third line forcing situation where the customer can only take the word of their ISP based on a third, unknown and conflicted party. Undue influence is just the tip of the iceberg there. Vicarious liability would also be a major concern of the third party.
Any "due process" you are entitled to is derived exclusively from your TOS
When you look at due process from a consideration and unconscionable aspect (not to mention the Fair procedure doctrine) Contract laws over the last centuries state differently.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Should it ever go to court, I imagine the judge would allow that in discovery. Though, I'd like to meet the guy who was the victim of 5-6 "errors". By going to court his account history would be under scrutiny from all sides and if he had, indeed, engaged in any infringing there will be a long line of plaintiff attorneys at the hearing with copies of civil actions to hand him at the break.
In the meantime, due process as the rest of the commentators here understand it is not just a legal concept, and instead is the process of natural justice (you understand it as fair procedure) that allows one the right to confront their accusers with equal footing, and to have an unbiased hearing. Whereas you are pedantically trying to conflate this with the Due Process Clause (which actually both came from the same Magna Cart reference) and only applies to governmental agencies (and criminal proceedings) instead of how the average laypersons sees it, and which is actually more correct than your interpretation. Especially under the doctrine of Fair procedure in where the ISP's are absolutely obligated to provide a rudimentary form of due process.
They have, it's codified under the article in the TOS entitled: "Appeals". BTW, no provider of any TOS that I am party to affords me the right to a hearing. Since we are talking about enforcing infringement policy, not infringement laws; you get what you have agreed to when you signed up.
In fact you seem to be fallaciously trying to state that there is no avenue for the accused customers to go through due to the TOS. No court in the world allows this, the TOS being only an instrument of a contract and a part of the terms of that contract.
A court, if a contractual term is in dispute, is the ONLY place a contract dispute (or full forfeiture) can be decided. Especially when the contract itself is in question.
Go back and read up. I said that a court would first require you to exhaust other available remedies (i.e. the appeals process in the TOS).
Even more so you are in the case of a third party allowing a third line forcing situation where the customer can only take the word of their ISP based on a third, unknown and conflicted party. Undue influence is just the tip of the iceberg there. Vicarious liability would also be a major concern of the third party.
Why conflicted? What liability would the third party have? They're only matching traffic to a database and reporting the information.
"Any "due process" you are entitled to is derived exclusively from your TOS"
When you look at due process from a consideration and unconscionable aspect (not to mention the Fair procedure doctrine) Contract laws over the last centuries state differently.
The process of appeal from an adverse strike from an ISP to a customer is codified in the TOS. As long as you are operating within the bounds of that voluntary relationship, that's all you get. If you exhaust this and go to court a new process applies. What will be interesting to see is what the court will allow. My sense is that they'd only rule on the fairness of the process, not the merits of an individual case. Given the wide latitude courts have given business to establish their own system of consumer appeals, I doubt this will get far. And as long as the ISP's continue to enforce their own copyright policy (not unlike universities) rather than copyright law itself, I think this is a losing prospect. It no coincidence that neither ACLU, nor EFF have been threatening lawsuits. I think they know something you don't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'd be going after the first strike.
Evidence or it is slanderous and libelous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
(I am going by my TOS since no one wanted to post an example of one we are referring to. Care to link us to the wording of one you want us to go by?)
There is a difference between "the accused" and "the guilty party?"
What happens when someone is accused of copyright infringement AND they are being charged ($) for going over their data cap? I'd say the ISP is benefiting from copyright infringement. According to the ISP.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No judgment is being made on whether the conduct was "illegal", only that it is violation of the TOS. It is that basic subtlety that the entire concept rests upon. That's why fair use is not an allowed defense. That's why a lawsuit will never prevail.
I understand that you don't like it. It is likely that the only time six strikes will veer into the legitimate jurisdiction of the court is if the ISP's start providing the names of people with multiple strikes to the right's holders, who will then name them in civil suits. I anticipate that will happen at some point. Probably by Comcast, as in owns NBC/U- one of the most aggressive players in the anti-piracy fight.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The six strikes program is exclusively between the ISP's and their customers. Whether the ISP's contract out the detection function or perform it in-house is immaterial. In fact it makes more sense for all of the ISP's to use one company for uniformity's sake.
So to recap: the so-called third party is an entity contracted by the ISP's that provide it with information related to evidence of infringement. The ISP's in turn, take that information and if it meets their criteria issue a notification. The third party supplies only information. It makes no accusations itself. The ISP's do.
So it is entirely within the realm of your TOS. Any "due process" you are entitled to is derived exclusively from your TOS. Purely legal concepts of due process are inapplicable.
I presume that you will again deliberately misunderstand this too. Though I honestly don't know how I could explain it any more simply."
I'm going against what I said earlier. THIS WILL BE MY FINAL POST...mainly because I must set the record straight.
What I quoted there...every single word, is absolute bullshit. It is false, it is unreal, it does not make sense. I will tear everything apart.
First - The ISP contracts with a company? As in, hires out an outside company to accuse its own customers? That sentence alone blew my mind. What business deliberately takes on a subscriber...and then pays another company (whether in cash or some other favour or perk) to accuse said subscribers of breaking the law.
Second "The six strikes program is exclusively between the ISP's and their customers. Whether the ISP's contract out the detection function or perform it in-house is immaterial. In fact it makes more sense for all of the ISP's to use one company for uniformity's sake. "
ISPs are not empowered to detect infringement. They ARE NOT THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS (unless its for their parent companies when looking for their own shows/movies). Verizon cannot accuse someone of violating the copyright of a show owned by NBC; it is up to NBC to look for infringement there and then to sue the Verizon subscriber.
"So to recap: the so-called third party is an entity contracted by the ISP's that provide it with information related to evidence of infringement."
So if there is no third party, then the ISP is doing false accusations on its own then. If a Verizon subscriber gets a strike for being accused of downloading Twin Peaks, that is an abuse of copyright law (Twin Peaks is a show owned by NBCUniversal, which is owned by Comcast and General Electric). So who is making the accusation in good faith? Is it the third party? Is NBCUniversal going to accuse the Verizon subscriber? Why is the third party given access to the Verizon subscriber's data? If they're just farming for evidence of infringement, then they themselves don't have copyrights...
"So it is entirely within the realm of your TOS. Any "due process" you are entitled to is derived exclusively from your TOS. Purely legal concepts of due process are inapplicable. "
You're writing about the ToS as if copyright LAW, L-A-W, did not exist before the dawn of the internet company. As if the ToS takes precedence over the law. As if a mere ToS allows for one party to supplant the authority and responsibilities of the police and the rest of the judicial system. The landlord is not allowed to charge me with damaging his property, to investigate the damage, to conclude that I alone am responsible and then to declare what if anything I am liable to pay. It doesn't matter if I sign a contract declaring him Master of the Universe: the law of the land states that such a contract is unconscionable and thus null and void. What you are arguing for is where one party, hiding behind a sheet of paper, is allowed ride roughshod over the other. Is Alice supposed to just take it in stride that even though she pays the ISP, the ISP (according to what you wrote in the article above) is ACTIVELY seeking to charge her with breaking the law?
No, do not bring anything else into it, such as banks must watch for fraud or anything like that. Banks aren't allowed to freeze my account willy nilly and leave it at that. If they suspect me of fraud (or if the ISP receives notice of me infringing), they must contact the proper authorities, which is NOT THEMSELVES. It is the police and the courts. Otherwise, you are handing far too much power to one party.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The outside contractor provider information to the ISP's based on what they have requested. The ISP's, in turn, interprets that information for the purposes of issuing strikes. At no time does a third party make accusations. It provides data only.
Second "The six strikes program is exclusively between the ISP's and their customers. Whether the ISP's contract out the detection function or perform it in-house is immaterial. In fact it makes more sense for all of the ISP's to use one company for uniformity's sake."
ISPs are not empowered to detect infringement. They ARE NOT THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS (unless its for their parent companies when looking for their own shows/movies). Verizon cannot accuse someone of violating the copyright of a show owned by NBC; it is up to NBC to look for infringement there and then to sue the Verizon subscriber.
That is simply untrue. The third party provided has a database that allows it, by use of watermarks and other means, identify content for which copyright is held. As long as Verizon has a good faith belief (check your TOS) then it is within its rights under the TOS.
"So to recap: the so-called third party is an entity contracted by the ISP's that provide it with information related to evidence of infringement."
So if there is no third party, then the ISP is doing false accusations on its own then. If a Verizon subscriber gets a strike for being accused of downloading Twin Peaks, that is an abuse of copyright law (Twin Peaks is a show owned by NBCUniversal, which is owned by Comcast and General Electric). So who is making the accusation in good faith? Is it the third party? Is NBCUniversal going to accuse the Verizon subscriber? Why is the third party given access to the Verizon subscriber's data? If they're just farming for evidence of infringement, then they themselves don't have copyrights...
I think this is answered above. The copyright owners provide information regarding its intellectual property to a database curated by the third party. The ISP contract with that third party to analyze its traffic and identify traffic that is included in that database, along with other markers. The third party provides the information to the ISP who review and determine whether to issue a notification.
"So it is entirely within the realm of your TOS. Any "due process" you are entitled to is derived exclusively from your TOS. Purely legal concepts of due process are inapplicable. "
You're writing about the ToS as if copyright LAW, L-A-W, did not exist before the dawn of the internet company. As if the ToS takes precedence over the law. As if a mere ToS allows for one party to supplant the authority and responsibilities of the police and the rest of the judicial system. The landlord is not allowed to charge me with damaging his property, to investigate the damage, to conclude that I alone am responsible and then to declare what if anything I am liable to pay. It doesn't matter if I sign a contract declaring him Master of the Universe: the law of the land states that such a contract is unconscionable and thus null and void. What you are arguing for is where one party, hiding behind a sheet of paper, is allowed ride roughshod over the other. Is Alice supposed to just take it in stride that even though she pays the ISP, the ISP (according to what you wrote in the article above) is ACTIVELY seeking to charge her with breaking the law?
Why to you refuse to believe that COPYRIGHT LAW is not implicated here in any legal sense? There is nothing unlawful about the ISP's conduct. They're not enforcing copyright law, they're enforcing their own copyright policy. It is both appropriate and legal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
2) I'd like an example of something not covered by copyright on the net. Please provide a link.
3) Are they going to guard my pics, documents and such as well? Or is this just for large corporations, not the actual creators themselves?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Check the TOS. Not necessarily illegal. No judgement made on legality. But if it is on the database of copyrighted content and you download, expect a notification.
2) I'd like an example of something not covered by copyright on the net. Please provide a link.
I'm pretty sure the website we are on asserts no copyright. That do?
3) Are they going to guard my pics, documents and such as well? Or is this just for large corporations, not the actual creators themselves?
I don't know. Maybe if you have a commercial song or movie that has demonstrated monetary value and has been subject to wrongful exploitation by freeloaders, it would be included in the database. If you're talking about your video of your LARP league award banquet, then no.
It would apply to the lawful owner of the copyright, whether the actual creator, his successor or assign.
Hope this helps!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm being forced to subsidize a corporation violating my civil rights.
Again, this is the kind of nonsense that led to the American Revolution. It wasn't JUST about the government. It was about the systematic corporate and governmental fleecing of the colonists. The East India Company was as much a target of the Tea Party as the crown.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This is enforcement, not taxation. Not everyone will have an issue. I'll bet very few will make it to the sixth strike. In any event, I look forward to finding out soon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That line alone is bullshit. What is Six Strikes about, if not copyright, which is a law? Alice is being accused OF BREAKING THE LAW. That's what Bob says happens when he says he caught her red handed downloading a copy of his music through a P2P program. The law says it is illegal for her to do that, Bob says he caught her breaking the law, so he contacts the ISP.
And if its NOT a law, then what the fuck is Bob doing then inserting himself between Alice and the ISP? If one of the terms of the contract between Alice and the ISP was that Alice fill the ISP's CEO's cup of coffee every morning, Bob has nothing to do with that. He can't walk up to the CEO, tell him to turn around and say there is no cup of coffee, that Alice hasn't lived up to her part of the bargain. He is NOT a party to the contract, and since its NOT a law according to you, has no say in it.
What if I were to go to your bank, and say to them you haven't made your mortgage payments in the past couple of months? I'd be told to fuck off. Whether or not you're living up to your contract with the bank has nothing to do with me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That line alone is bullshit. What is Six Strikes about, if not copyright, which is a law? Alice is being accused OF BREAKING THE LAW. That's what Bob says happens when he says he caught her red handed downloading a copy of his music through a P2P program. The law says it is illegal for her to do that, Bob says he caught her breaking the law, so he contacts the ISP.
That line is not bullshit. The ISP is making a good faith judgment that you were infringing based on its own standards. It makes no judgment about whether you are or are not breaking civil or criminal law. Why do you think fair use isn't a defense? Your Bob and Alice analogy doesn't work. ISP's have contracted with a company to supply them with information. They then use that information to deem whether you have violated the TOS related to their standards for infringement. Not your standard. Not a criminal standard. Not the civil standard. The ISP standard.
Is it really that hard for you to understand?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Why do you think fair use isn't a defense" and "Good Faith judgement" are pretty well mutually exclusive concepts there, big bro.
Weird. What is your fascination with performing the kowtow to global finance and megacorporate interests anyhow? I am not comprehending your motivations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Everyone and their pee purple puppy dong understands the ToS is not a law. What they are complaining about is that the ToS puts a corporation in charge of addressing a legal dispute. The media company is going to accuse someone of Copyright violation. That is a legal issue. Their recourse for that should be legal, not to simply work hand in glove with an ISP to circumvent due process.
Tada.
Ten thousand back and forth posts boiled down to a paragraph. "So, deal with it," seems to be your attitude.
That's what people are doing. By discussing ways of unloading a world of hurt on bullies that operate in the fashion you seem to think is so cute.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Where is the evidence this is exactly like what is done at colleges? What, if any, legal challenges have resulted from this policy at colleges?
Of course it's a legal dispute... Pfft. Even if it's contractual, there is still a legal aspect to it. You The ISP related part is not a criminal legal issue.
And finally, you've still done nothing but blow off the issue of monopolistic trade practices. Plus your continued characterization of copyright issues as if they are theft issues is flatly dishonest. U.S. jurisprudence makes a distinction that is quite clear. The question then as to why ISP's should be brought into the ongoing debate of what is good and right regarding copyright is a legitimate one. Enforceability is key. If copyright cannot be enforced without disregarding civil rights, then copyright law itself may end up unconstitutional. There is no good reason to be sacrificing the fist amendment to a very limited business interest.
This little end around to avoid due process is ridiculous on its face, and yet you seem determined to support it, and even seem to find some moral outrage despite the fact that technological development is obviously making copyright less and less viable in legal terms.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I never said nothing illegal is going on. I simply stated that there is no requirement for the ISP's to treat copyright from a legal standpoint; particularly when it can be dealt with as a matter of policy.
Where is the evidence this is exactly like what is done at colleges? What, if any, legal challenges have resulted from this policy at colleges?
Try Google. I don't have the time to do it for you.
Of course it's a legal dispute... Pfft. Even if it's contractual, there is still a legal aspect to it. You The ISP related part is not a criminal legal issue.
It can't be a legal dispute. The ISP's have no legal standing. That's why it is addressed as a policy matter under the TOS.
And finally, you've still done nothing but blow off the issue of monopolistic trade practices.
The fact that all of the major credit card providers (or ISP's) have almost identical TOS does not make for a monopoly. As long as DSL and satellite exist and most major cities have more than one broadband provider, there's no monopoly claim.
Plus your continued characterization of copyright issues as if they are theft issues is flatly dishonest. U.S. jurisprudence makes a distinction that is quite clear.
Perhaps you can quote me back, I am very careful in my distinction. For your edification, I view theft as a combination of depriving someone of the beneficial use of his property and the unjust enrichment of the thief. With infringement, it involves simply the unjust enrichment of the infringer. Similar to sneaking into a venue and watching a sporting event or play from an empty seat.
The question then as to why ISP's should be brought into the ongoing debate of what is good and right regarding copyright is a legitimate one. Enforceability is key. If copyright cannot be enforced without disregarding civil rights, then copyright law itself may end up unconstitutional. There is no good reason to be sacrificing the fist amendment to a very limited business interest.
A corporation has no duty to your first amendment rights. The ISP's are there because they make money distributing paid content. No one put a gun to their heads.
This little end around to avoid due process is ridiculous on its face, and yet you seem determined to support it, and even seem to find some moral outrage despite the fact that technological development is obviously making copyright less and less viable in legal terms.
Technology has made it easier and easier for people to wrongfully take the creative output of others without compensation. There is little consequence for those engaged in this behavior (including six strikes). This will deter many casual infringers. It will do nothing to deter hardcore freeloaders.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
blrg BAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! Ok.
The ToS as part of your contract is a legal issue, which will resolve itself as a legal dispute when ISP's try to harass their customers.
Your take on the monopoly issue is pretty simplistic. I think though until the American public begins to give a crap it is a moot point.
And finally, you admit this will not work. That's sort of odd. Why are we going to harass tons of perfectly decent customers then?
What is the moral basis of your claim that someone is taking something when copying? If I sneak into a venue, I am taking up a seat. What am I taking up if I make a copy?
Where is the moral foundation of copyright? And why are you so vehement about it, since you openly state it is not theft? As far as I have been able to find, there isn't even very good evidence that copying is hurting artists or even the major outlets at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
blrg BAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! Ok
You can search just as easily as I. And when I provide a citation, you'll perform your search to try to refute it anyway, so why do I need to play along?
The ToS as part of your contract is a legal issue, which will resolve itself as a legal dispute when ISP's try to harass their customers.
I'll bet fewer than 10% of all accounts get a notification. Fewer still will get more than one. Very few will end up throttled. We shall see soon enough. And why is it harassment?
Your take on the monopoly issue is pretty simplistic. I think though until the American public begins to give a crap it is a moot point.
Read up on what constitutes a monopoly. It's not at all complicated.
And finally, you admit this will not work. That's sort of odd. Why are we going to harass tons of perfectly decent customers then?
I didn't say that. I said it will not work to defeat the hardcore freeloaders. Most engaged in infringement are casual. They do it because it's easy and there are few consequences.
What is the moral basis of your claim that someone is taking something when copying? If I sneak into a venue, I am taking up a seat. What am I taking up if I make a copy?
They are obtaining a copy of something of value, offered by the rights holder for sale. Unlike a legitimate purchaser, they've paid nothing. At a venue, the seat is vacant. The owner hasn't "lost" anything by you sneaking in, but you have been enriched by enjoying an experience that is offered for the cost of a ticket. But you didn't pay.
Where is the moral foundation of copyright? And why are you so vehement about it, since you openly state it is not theft?
I believe in property rights and that creators have a human right to economically exploit their creative output. This is codified in a number of UN declarations on human rights.
As far as I have been able to find, there isn't even very good evidence that copying is hurting artists or even the major outlets at all
That is debatable. Music sales have plummeted, however much of the revenue loss has been made up with tours and t-shirt sales. Films can't tour. For the motion picture industry the problem is most dire for financing $1-10 million indy films. Formerly, bank lending with the film as collateral was a viable option. Now those bankers ask how is it the film won't be pirated and distributed all over the internet for free. They want to know how they get their money back, as generally this sized film doesn't have a theatrical distribution deal up front and in fact many are never released to the N. American box office.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Which apparently don't strike you as human rights issues....
You admit it is not theft, then turn right around and discuss RP as a property right. IP is not property in the classic sense of the word. You bring up the UN, then turn around and ignore developing values such as in Germany where internet access is being seen as a basic, fundamental need in modern society.
It would seem to me that as a human rights issue, having huge corporations and the government always hovering over people and threatening them with ridiculously high fines, jail time, and loss of essential services would trump the "need" such as it is for artists to have their endeavors made artificially more valuable by attaching a threat of legal sanction against people making copies of work they did long ago.
To me, a performing artist has a right to get paid, pretty much just like the rest of us, when they show up to work. That's it. Artists that work in trades that leave a physical object behind deserve to get paid when someone buys their physical object just like everyone else. I do not really agree with this concept that we are going to take something like an idea and attempt to treat it as if it were a physical thing, like property. I am disturbed by the lengths to with you and people who think like you will go to promote this concept.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Internet access is an important issue. But so is the protection of the valuable creative output of others from those who wrongfully acquire it without payment. Let's be clear, none of these so-called violations of a free and open internet would be necessary if people didn't start taking things they weren't entitled to. Try to remember how this battle began.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
How we got here is the systematic creation of laws to allow central control over what we see mass produced, starting with the earliest copyright manifesting itself as a way to control what is printed by the newly developed printing press.
Back in the 70's it was enough that there was a tax attached to all blank media that went straight to the media companies. Now even THAT sort of blanket largesse is not enough. Now they need to be able to control the entire planet's access even to the point of creating artificial scarcities for stuff that's decades old and that no one is even using. The link I showed you for the college kid downloading is tens of thousands of dollars per song. That's ludicrous.
That's how we got here. The system has always been questionable, and now the media people and the artists who have attached themselves to them are abusing the privilege. Time to take the privilege back, or at least reduce it substantially.
No one's mooching off these people. They need to either get wage paying jobs, sell their services per hour, or per product, or accept that the pay for singing, dancing, playing pretend and making playpretties is a competitive one that may not pay like they want it to. Most people do this kind of thing as a hobby. There's no reason to have such draconian laws to make it all this expensive and full of hassle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What, do the money fairies come and steal all the money you try to pay them, so you have to have like a jillion dollars to hire anyone?
Oh wait. Wait, everyone knows exactly how it works, and it's been a long standing complaint among many people throughout our culture that entertainers are overpaid...
Your inability to present your own beliefs and reputation as someone who resorts to personal attacks is once again secured.
I have no idea how Hollywood works... Like you're a big time film producer when you're not arguing cases before the Supreme Court in your primary role as a lawyer. If indeed you are even one of those...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'll admit to some moral myopia on some points but I live with it.
And even if Tos and legal matters don;t overlap, society must hold companies to the same standards as the government.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The example I was trying to link as being over prosecuted involving something to do with student downloads. Note it also appears to have little to do with college policy as you characterized.
Sorry for the dead link.
This page is getting too cluttered.... Site needs an actual forum. LOL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I wanted to address this specifically because it ties to all sorts of issues, not just copyright issues. People are getting more and more distressed that the government is outsourcing law enforcement issues to corporations, who then get to violate civil rights because they are not the government. This comes up in various issues such as urinalysis for jobs and whether or not information a corporation has on you requires a warrant for the police to search as long as the corporation is willing.
This sort of thing is not some sort of new thing under the sun. A huge part of what sparked the American Revolution was the cooperation of the government with corporations to exploit the colonists. The Boston Tea Party is the most glaring example. This ships? The ones with the Tea? Yeah, those were East India Company ships.
So your technical arguments, while having a fine basis in the law from a particular point of view, continually side step the issue that laws change due to the public's interest. The constant pressure to further and further push into people's private lives and place people in constant threat of violating laws or losing necessary services because of copyright is GOING to be addressed, sooner or later. Why not address it proactively now? Why the constant pounding on the consumer for the benefit of people who are making more money than they know what to do with anyhow?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Many companies insurers require drug testing to extend more favorable rates. I wouldn't want to be working next to a druggie on a construction crew or other dangerous job, nor would I want one driving around delivering packages.
Why the constant pounding on the consumer for the benefit of people who are making more money than they know what to do with anyhow?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yyyyup. I see it now. I guess everyone else but me just knew what was coming and went for the preemptive strike.
My apologies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Stop looking at Theory and start looking at actual cases and the way they have been handled in REAL life by courts worldwide (common law countries) also look at ADR and tribunal decisions and then look at the actual history of consideration and unconscionable practices (there I have given you a major hint)
And if you think due process is only about governmental structures then I feel sad for your clients who ever come to you for anything to do with contracts, wills, conveyancing, negligence, or any other torts dealing with... well anything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
We have laws in this country meant to address monopolies. They are not being used on the Telcos, specifically not on ISP's at the moment. By limiting our access to a handful of providers, and then threatening the providers, IP Maximalists are putting me in a position where I can lose money I paid for a service without demonstrating I did anything wrong.
That is basically a convoluted violation of civil rights.
I think it is the correct way of looking at the issue, but admittedly the idea that six strikes is the same as guilty until proven innocent is a little bit of a stretch.
Are you on sites that are pro IP attacking their extremism as well, I wonder? ARE there any pro IP sites that have comments? I should probably be over there studying my enemy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
That would be reason number (fuck I can't count that high) of why I'm a regular here at Techdirt and am against copyright. The copyright maximilists cannot convince me to support their cause when they publish articles with blatantly false information.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hrm "Creators Rights"
The easiest fix in the universe for this is to simply make it impossible for copyright licensing rights to be sold. The artist dictates terms under which their art can be sold, and anyone who wants to can pay them directly. Allowing corporations to own the licensing rights effectively destroys the argument that this is about creators.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
No worries, you're generally more lucid that most of the foaming-at-the-mouth piracy apologists that post here.
We have laws in this country meant to address monopolies. They are not being used on the Telcos, specifically not on ISP's at the moment.
Noted, but irrelevant.
By limiting our access to a handful of providers, and then threatening the providers, IP Maximalists are putting me in a position where I can lose money I paid for a service without demonstrating I did anything wrong.
First of all, you'd have to believe in the Easter bunny in order to swallow that. The ISP's know that there's big money to be made in paid-content distribution. Any appearance of arm-twisting is at best, theatrical. In subscribing, you agreed to the TOS. Your problem seems to be more that you object to the potential consequences of the TOS. If that's the case, you shouldn't have signed up.
That is basically a convoluted violation of civil rights.
I don't think you understand what constitutes a civil rights violation.
I think it is the correct way of looking at the issue, but admittedly the idea that six strikes is the same as guilty until proven innocent is a little bit of a stretch.
It is a huge stretch as a company has no innocent until proven guilty duty to a customer. That is a responsibility of a government to its citizens in criminal matters.
Are you on sites that are pro IP attacking their extremism as well, I wonder? ARE there any pro IP sites that have comments? I should probably be over there studying my enemy.
No. I have other ways of making my thoughts known to that community.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Yes, and Alice when she signed that agreement six months ago, noted it didn't contain anything about Six Strikes. So now the contract between her and the ISP has been changed, without her agreement.
[ 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: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
When multiple providers of a good or service in an area collude in such a way that the consumer either forgoes their services entirely or is forced to accept terms that are detrimental to them, that is wrong. Plain wrong, legally, morally and ethically.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
There is no six strikes for satellite or dial-up. So that explodes your first line of bullshit.
I don't here about the way credit card companies collude in such a way that the consumer either forgoes their services entirely or is forced to accept terms that are detrimental to them. That's because there are alternatives to them. Just like broadband. Not as convenient or cheap, but still viable. Wrong morally or ethically? I'd say less wrong than the wanton looting of digital content that takes place every day. Illegal? Not hardly, that's more wishful thinking on your part. If it is illegal where are the Google-funded professional apologists like EFF, CDT, PK, ACLU and others?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Replace that with barely fucking usable. So fuck off Alice, get satellite! What's that? Cloud cover, then tough shit, no net access for you.
So again, Alice is stuck between a rock and a hard place.
Her options are
A) Agree to these ridiculous terms and have no protection at all from being accused multiple times.
B) Forgo net access entirely, which means modern life is, to a lesser or greater extent, closed. Want to call your BFF in a foreign country but without racking up a huge phone bill? Tough shit!
C) Use a service that is barely adequate and overly expensive
Those are Alice's only options. People like you don't give her D) She pays a fair price for a high speed service, allowing her to enjoy the fruits of modern life, and she can contest any accusations in a court of law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Don't worry, citizen! Ignore the fact that we're trampling on your rights and have a nice day. Don't let us catch you doing something that we think is illegal though."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
In those same Terms of Service, it is now legal to prevent lawsuits with binding arbitration clauses in certain states of the US. So, if you're cut off and you know you haven't been downloading anything without permission, your only recourse is to meet with a binding arbitrator. And if the only evidence the accusers have is flimsier than my cock in front of Jay Leno, then even if you win, you lose. Because, now, you have a history of downloading and you've admitted it - after all, you even went to arbitration to sort this out!
And that, for me, is why these accusations are unethical and reprehensible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
TOS says @ no illegal activity. Show me the court records of my illegal activity.
Thomas-Rasset has one strike.
[ 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:
For example: you murder someone and you yourself know that you intentionally did so. You are guilty. At that point, a common law court declaring you guilty is nothing but a formality for you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You are also under the impression that TOS's are 100% legally binding contracts. They are not really signed legal contracts you know. Courts have determined that a "clickwrap" TOS (ones where the user acknowledges receipt and agrees) come closer, but even that doesn't mean every individual term within it will be found legally enforceable in a court of law anyways.
[ 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: Re:
[ 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:
That doesn't mean much coming from a copyright maximalist, then again you're just on the opposite side of the shit spectrum.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130118/15564321733/six-strikes-administrator-los s-open-wifi-access-cafes-is-acceptable-collateral-damage.shtml#c1614
Bring it on!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Man, that's good, making fun of yourself like that. Good job.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The way you parsed out my statements makes it clear to me you have no desire to address my thoughts. Thanks for clarifying the direction from which you're approaching the discussion though. Obviously, I vehemently disagree.
As monopolies, or near monopolies, corporations are de facto arms of the government. The receive government largesse in the form of limited liability, so the owners cannot be held accountable even financially, much less morally, and yet they have power to limit access to information. This argument that they are privately owned and therefore owe the community in which they operate nothing is self destructive at best.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The same could be said of your comments.
"The six strikes regime acts on infringement allegations of an account not an individual per se."
So this makes it okay, per se? It is still an allegation against an account, and one not based on anything in the way of evidence that would hold up in court (and shockingly hasn't, according to quite a few judges, mr lawyer in training, because you write as if we don't know who you are... just sign in already).
"Also, this contrived outrage over lack of "due process" is bullshit. Your due process is your TOS."
Actually, as a lawyer, you of all people should know that a TOS is NOT the same as due process under the law. A Terms of Service Agreement is just that, an agreement between two parties. However, most agreements, in court, would be considered null and void if one party just up and changes the agreement without fully informing the other.
Heck, courts have already ruled to this effect regarding cell phone contracts. If one party (cell phone companies) changes the agreement, without first discussing this with the other party (the customer), the customer can literally break the contract/agreement and not be penalized (through early termination fees).
In this case, it is copyright holders colluding with ISPs to penalize customers based on mere ALLEGATIONS. Nothing more. Allegations, after six of which, the account holder/household is punished. Which kind of does away with the whole "innocent until proven guilty" bit. You might argue this is fine, since an ISP is not a government authority and as such the same rules do not apply, but either way, you wanted to conflate TOS with due process. In which case the analogy must be thought through end to end. If a TOS is due process, then presumption of innocence must be the starting point.
"If you don't like it, there are alternatives- like satellite."
Satellite is NOT an alternative. This is known by anyone who has ever used satellite for an internet connection. It's slow to the point of unusable. Remember dial-up? Think that. But more annoying and at times worse.
Also, alternatives are greatly limited due to regional monopolies lobbied for by the ISPs. Which has resulted in many areas have solely once choice for internet service.
"You may not like the alternative, but too bad."
See, this is where your hypocrisy shows through. I could easily say, "Piracy is going to happen, as long as you don't offer your products with little to no restrictions globally and at reasonable prices. You don't like it, too bad." Which is tantamount to saying, "Hey, don't like it, go fuck yourself." It's very childish and is just a fallback for when you know you're in the wrong but aren't adult enough to admit it. Or when you're in the wrong, but you've got the legal authority/laws in place to do as you please regardless.
"If you are infringing; stop."
Infringement is in the eye of the copyright beholder. Lest I have to link to the recent fair use nonsense that was quite clearly fair use but resulted in multiple take downs of a video.
Not too mention that infringement is legal in quite a few places. Or better said, personal downloading of copyrighted content is legal in numerous countries. As much as some may hate it.
"If someone is using your account to infringe; take measures to prevent it."
Take what measures? Any that can be taken can be beat. Now, add to the fact that the vast majority of people with internet connections at home are NOT tech savvy. Meaning if it's anything more difficult than plug and play or "click Setup to Install" they can't do it.
"It seems obvious that the core complaint is that any measure that thwarts freeloading is attacked on every ground imaginable."
That's what it may seem like to you, but you're not the sharpest knife in the drawer. Not too mention the delusions you suffer regarding Mike's positions on numerous issues, which you claim are nonexistent and yet which are found easily and daily in the articles he writes. (Your comprehension, or lack thereof, not withstanding.)
But I digress, the core complaint is that 6 strikes flies in the face of due process, limits the number of reasonable defenses for any allegation of wrongdoing and then unjustly punishes people for something that may not be transpiring or that they may not reasonably be able to prevent.
Seriously, for someone who routinely trumpets the greatness of "the law is the law, deal with it", you do go out of your way (conveniently it seems) to ignore all the ways in which this 6-strikes plan is grossly unfit and which will do nothing to alleviate the perceived (because that's all it is) problem of piracy. NOTHING WHATSOEVER.
"The simple solution is not taking copyrighted material for which you have not paid."
The simple solution is providing copyrighted material at reasonable prices and in a timely fashion, free from restrictions (either digital or global) in a manner that is easy and convenient to your customers. Like they've been asking you to do for going on over a decade now.
Fuck you and the horse you rode in on. Just wanted to throw that in there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Actually, as a lawyer, you of all people should know that a TOS is NOT the same as due process under the law. A Terms of Service Agreement is just that, an agreement between two parties. However, most agreements, in court, would be considered null and void if one party just up and changes the agreement without fully informing the other.
My entire point is that there is NO due process obligation owed by a company to a customer. ZERO, ZIP, NADA!! Got that Derpsley? The TOS is the guiding document in the relationship. As to whether one party can make a unilateral change in the TOS, that would first be revealed in what the specific language of the TOS allows. At best, it would void the contract. That would mean you were free to leave the contractual relationship without penalty. What it does NOT mean is that any new terms are unenforceable. You want to opt out? There's the door. You want the service? Agree to the terms. It's really simple.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
And when I still want net acess, but all the ISPs that service my area have this ridiculous thing in their terms? What should I do then? Give up net access, which is now a crucial part of modern life as having a phone is?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So the only files that are large are infringing files? Okay then, say that to Gabe Newell. According to you, there's no need for high speed broadband except for illegal purposes, so that means he can just shut Valve down now. After all, the games he offers are huge, like Max Payne 3 (30GB), which I bought. No wait, I couldn't have according to you. Because its big, I must have infringed on it. Or the CEO of Netflix...
Plenty of legitimate web services NEED the high speed in order to work. What's that? Trying to access G-mail on dial-up, but it's constantly timing out on you?
So here you go showing your true colours. You want to retard technological progress, such that the only net access the little people can get is ones that are barely, if able, to access e-mail. No need for anything else that has found ways to thrive in the days of Web 2.0
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Is English not your first language? It's hard to believe a native speaker could be as slow as you appear to be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So you're of the opinion that Alice can just forgo a high speed broadband service. She can't get it from any ISP in her area because they're all doing Six Strikes, which is what she doesn't want. So now she can't use high speed services. She can't pay for Netflix, or Steam games, or Origin games. She can't watch Youtube videos, or participate in Skype calls. All of that must be sacrificed in order for her to be "safe" from the spectre of multiple baseless accusations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's smack dab in the middle of the blue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Um, not really, no.
Everyone uses the internet, AJ.
Used an ATM lately? Did any sort of credit or debit card transactions lately?
If so, you have used the internet.
The internet *IS* a necessity in life. And high speed internet is also needed.
The fact is, people assume you have internet, unless you're well over 40, live in a rural area where the fastest internet is dial-up, or are Amish.
Before you say anything, remember this...
Telephones used to be a luxury, cell phones used to be a luxury...
Look at where we are now...
Even my grandmother, who's in her 70s, has a cell phone, and she lives in an area where cell signals are so bad that you're lucky if you can talk to someone for more than three minutes before the line drops.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You really have NO clue about the internet, do you?
Let me fill in the gaps...
Internet is used for banking and business, you can't do that on a slow dial-up modem.
ATMs use the internet so that you can check your account balances and such.
Credit cards also use the internet to purchase stuff online at your house so you don't have to drive to the store and get it.
And, really, AJ? You don't know what cell phones do for the internet?
Wow, you're more out of the loop than I though.
And you call me a moron.
Really pathetic, aren't you, little man?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
All of them USE THE INTERNET. Yet, if a business is accused six times, they can have their service degraded. Credit cards are used online. Maybe Alice feels like paying 20 bucks to order a pizza with her credit card and wants to use her computer to do it (maybe she can't find her phone). Maybe Alice wants to connect her phone via Wi-fi and connect with people through Facebook, Twitter, Skype or watch Youtube videos or whatever. Maybe the business wants to get more customers and so the coffee shop knows it needs that internet connection in order to entice them, rather than have them going down the road to the shop that does have a connection.
[ 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: Re:
Nevermind.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The reality though is that a six strikes policy can be gamed by the corporations to get rid of the people they want rid of while maintaining a relatively open net. After all, they WANT the ability to let you buy things on impulse from your couch. They just want you to have to pay through the nose to do so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Probably won't happen as rich and powerful people pay for their content and have little sympathy for freeloaders using tortured legal theory to facilitate their misdeeds. Many rich people are owners of. and/or investors in intellectual property. Finally, rich people are generally older and have their opinions of IP formed long before the internet came into being.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yeah, freeloaders and the public, but of course all the shit they push for only affects the freeloaders, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ultimately, immoral standards exist because people in general - not just a few people in specific positions, but people in general - are not terribly concerned with justice and fair play, let alone truth. What folks want is convenience. If you could make drinking the blood of babies convenient, and attach it to something fun to experience, people would merrily drink the blood of babies.
I get the feeling most people who are trying to shake loose of IP law have absolutely, positively no idea just how deep the roots of power and influence go that led to this system.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
So a company can accuse me, or facilitate someone else accusing me, of violating the law, yet they have no obligation of due process? You want them to skip straight to the punishment, without giving you a chance to defend yourself?
Oh, and forget about switching net providers. All the other net providers in your area do the same thing. So kindly fuck off! That's what you're saying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Maybe you need to read up on the six strikes procedures so as not to continue to embarrass yourself with absurd statements like this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Why do you suggest that is wrong? Limited defense is enshrined in US jurisprudence. I know you read the TD article on the judge in the Bradley Manning case throwing out his whistleblower defense, because you commented on it. It happens all of the time and for good reason. Again, if you don't agree with the TOS, find an alternative or deal with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What? So US copyright law says Alice can't claim Fair Use if her case ever goes to trial?
Also, notice you didn't comment on the fact that her list of allowable defenses is lower than what the law allows. So...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm going to type slowly in the hope you can follow along.
Terms of service and the law are TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. The law often allows things prohibited under the terms of an agreement.
Either you are sitting in front of your computer doing bong hits all day or you have an IQ around room temperature. either way, stop wasting our time with your inability to understand basic concepts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I understand that part. The ISP (or the third party) isn't going to accuse Alice of breaking one of their own in house rules. They're going to say to Alice "You have been accused of violating THE LAW". Once that happens, the LAW comes into play, the part that has lawyers, defense council and court-rooms involved. You can't accuse someone of violating the law and yet say to them, they are not entitled to defend themselves like the law says they are allowed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It should almost be a given that someone can deny you service if you use it to break the law. The question then is, did you really break the law?
A six strikes policy against aggravating a third party WOULD be self destructive if not for the monopoly, but the policy combined with the monopoly leaves the ISP serving the role of government agent.
We see similar things all the time with drug testing, but I am not sure how the courts will roll on this. I know lawyers all over the place are scrambling to look for the legal angle on this though that will shut it down. The current establishment needs copyright badly, and I'm not talking just about Hollywood here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes. Get a lawyer(Not aj). Sue the bastards for disrupting your service for supposed illegal activity that you aren't aware of. If it is, according to them, illegal, they should have notified the proper authorities. By not doing so, they are saying "we don't think we or any proper authority can prove it."
[ 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: Re:
Thank you for recognizing me as #1. Let us know when you reach a point that we can write it down here without an exponent.
[ 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: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I have exactly no confidence that this would be effective.
You're assuming that he only way you could get a strike is if infringement has occurred in connection to your account. The history of infringement accusations clearly demonstrates that actual infringement is not a prerequisite to an accusation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
how can this SEEM WRONG? it most definitely IS WRONG!. we have to put the blame fairly and squarely at the doors of the politicians who have not only allowed this travesty of justice, but have openly encouraged it! this sort of thing will not stop either, until there is no way for politicians to be able to receive 'funding' of any sort from anyone, anywhere for anything! the whole of the democratic legal system is based on 'innocent unless proven to be guilty'. how and why has this been allowed to be reversed? and all over data in the forms of music and movies! it's is absolutely disgraceful and needs to be abolished immediately!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This is a little hyperbolic, but it touches on a concern I have that I do not think gets enough attention - the role of banking as it pertains to the use of IP law. I think much of the resistance we are seeing from the so called "legacy" players is that without IP, investment confidence breaks down. People do not want to fund either technological research or large scale artistic projects without knowing that they can reasonably expect the people they paid to be the ones making money off of the outcome, because that is necessary in order to get their investment back out of them.
Since money is fiat, and oligarchical if not entirely centralized, and finally is a finite resource, the synergies that allow human progress to amount to more than the sum of their parts do not come into play. We are talking about having human progress being forced to be a part of a zero sum game. There's only x amount of money. Whoever has it, wins. If your way of doing things cannot be shoehorned into that system, then that system's adherents are going to fight for their lives.
Any solution to IP has to come with a solution to the banking issue as well, I fear.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Good question. Big studio films don't need banks. And if they do, unlike indys, they have guaranteed NA theatrical distribution, which on average provides 25% of a film's revenue and is a major source of its marketability in other types of distribution. So the indy is told to piss off. No admittedly, some of this is offset by cheaper and better technology. Few
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
At which point you respond with "Well, I've thought up of a kick ass business plan that takes into account that happening and still results in a nice pay-day for us".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I get the feeling the big boys like being able to pay big bucks for the best artists, and need a way to be able to afford to pay them off not to make art that undermines their interests. Artists are notorious troublemakers. =)
Sort of like bloggers and internet commenters.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
6 strike
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 6 strike
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 6 strike
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Guilty
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Guilty
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Guilty
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Guilty
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Guilty
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Guilty
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Get them kicked off of Youtube every time they post a nwe song or music video by claiming the melodic line or visuals are too similar to your dancing baby video or some other bull.
It's just as legitimate as their tactics,
Anyone up for initiating "death by a thousand takedowns?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
guilty-until-proven-otherwise
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Shareholder Action?
At the very least it will have to be explicitly decided every year and obviously and apparently against the subscribers' wishes for all to see.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thanks Mike!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's the inquisition all over again, only instead of shouting "witch" or "heretic" they shout "infringer".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just what...
The industry has so many attorneys undercover at the DOJ it should be no surprise that citizen's rights are ignored in favor of copyright industry money. I wonder if the DOJ knows how many of their attorneys secretly collect money from the copyright people?
Or how many members of Congress are owned by the content industry?
Bribery can get you a LOT.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just what...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Just what...
Deep breaths and staying away might help... also if this is an indication of how angry you get just on an internet forum, maybe law is not the correct place for you where clients can be the stuff of stressful legends (and normally are)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just what...
Copyright is absurd on its face the more you really look at it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Just what...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Just what...
Ahahahaha, I'm so bloody rich!
And I only know four chords!"
Been a while, but I believe that is off of Cheech & Chongs wedding album.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Just what...
Maybe that's why they are called the Axis of Awesome. And yep seen em perform, pissed myself laughing so hard.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pidokakU4I
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"This site is copyright �2004-2006 Stephan Sokolow and Philip Weigel.
All fanfiction contained herein is copyright Philip Weigel. Neither of us claim any copyright either express or implied on any of the characters or other such intellectual property which has been borrowed from other authors' "
Way to walk the walk you big bad anti-copyright anarchist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"This site is copyright �2004-2006 Stephan Sokolow and Philip Weigel.
All fanfiction contained herein is copyright Philip Weigel. Neither of us claim any copyright either express or implied on any of the characters or other such intellectual property which has been borrowed from other authors' "
Way to walk the walk you big bad anti-copyright anarchist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"This site is copyright �2004-2006 Stephan Sokolow and Philip Weigel.
All fanfiction contained herein is copyright Philip Weigel. Neither of us claim any copyright either express or implied on any of the characters or other such intellectual property which has been borrowed from other authors' "
Way to walk the walk you big bad anti-copyright anarchist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"This site is copyright �2004-2006 Stephan Sokolow and Philip Weigel.
All fanfiction contained herein is copyright Philip Weigel. Neither of us claim any copyright either express or implied on any of the characters or other such intellectual property which has been borrowed from other authors' "
Way to walk the walk you big bad anti-copyright anarchist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I didn't make that website, someone asked me if he could host my stuff on his website and I saw no reason not to.
So, FUCK OFF!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"silverscarcat (profile), Jan 20th, 2013 @ 9:46am
Re: Re: Re: Re: Swartz's Girlfriend Explains
copytheft?!
Fuck you, copyright apologist.
Go outside and wait for the people with the white jackets to show up."
There are more. This douchenozzle explicitly embraces copyright protection for own work product while decrying others for exercising the same protections.
I have no problem with someone holding an opinion. I have a huge problem with sanctimonious, hypocritical as swipes like this.
I notice he's run away rather than explain why he feels like he's entitled to copyright protection but not everyone else. Pathetic fucking coward.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You wanna know something, asshat?
*I* didn't put that (copyright) up there.
Sheesh.
The guy contacted me about hosting my stuff on his website, so I allowed him to do so, he's the one who put it up there.
"There are more. This douchenozzle explicitly embraces copyright protection for own work product while decrying others for exercising the same protections.
I have no problem with someone holding an opinion. I have a huge problem with sanctimonious, hypocritical as swipes like this.
I notice he's run away rather than explain why he feels like he's entitled to copyright protection but not everyone else. Pathetic fucking coward."
1: That was years ago, and I've never CLAIMED ANYTHING, fuckface.
2: I'm here. I never stated I felt like I was entitled to copyright protection.
Yes, that copyright IS on that website, I haven't asked for that site to be updated in years. and I've never once gone ape-shit over people copying my stuff, the rest of the fandom will do that for me if they feel like it.
Oh, WHO'S the fucking coward, you fucking asshole! GET THE FUCK OUT!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sure. You had nothing to do with asserting your copyright. Nor did you have anything to do with renouncing it, or placing into Creative Commons.
Anyway, you've been outted as the hypocritical douchebag that you are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I have never ONCE asserted my copyright over ANYTHING!
"Anyway, you've been outted as the hypocritical douchebag that you are."
Oh please! First you call me a coward and now a hypocrite?
Who's the fucking moron that can barely rub 2 brain cells together!?
The only douchebag I see is you.
Anyway, I do NOT own that site.
BTW, your pissant friend forgot ONE KEY LINE AT THE BOTTOM!!
"Hosting and maintenance donated by deitarion/SSokolow."
I *DO* *NOT* *OWN* *THAT* *WEBSITE*!!!
SO PISS THE FUCK OFF!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You're pretty safe and among friends here. ;-) On this topic at least!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
2: I don't own that website, the guy asked if he could host my stuff on it.
3: If you notice, there's no claim to copyright on the characters or any intellectual property.
4: Again, I didn't create the site, I just allowed my stuff to be hosted there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I Don't See a Happy Ending
ISP's, Google, all these players - they are putting the content producing sector on notice that this time around they want their share of the pie to be BIGGER. Either the cost of this stuff is going way down (good as far as it goes, but still leaves big media controlling what we see the most of), or else the fraction of it that goes to the providers is going way up (BAD in every conceivable way). Either way, though, once the providers are on board then the laws will pile up and we'll be nowhere much better off in the end.
My two cents. FWIW.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I Don't See a Happy Ending
Are satellite's illegal to own without a license already? =)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The burden of proof should lie with the accuser, not the accused.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And I know for a fact that a lot of people out there reason, "If I'm going to be treated like a thief regardless of what I do, I might as well be a thief so that at least I'll be suffering for a good reason".
Just saying... treating your paying customers like dirt on the assumption that they MIGHT be copyright infringers isn't the best idea to do good business. In fact, it may be what drives people to piracy in the first place. Remember the Assassin's Creed II debacle on PC, where legit copies didn't work at all for days because the server was down and the game had always-online DRM that refused to boot the thing up unless you were connected? Yeah, lots of people pirated that game simply to PLAY it since their LEGIT copy was basically an useless coaster.
I'll have more respect for copyright holders' side of things when they stop doing stupid shit like this. And while we're at it, drop prices, too. I end up buying games secondhand because they are so grotesquely overcharged nowadays that I'd need to have Bill Gates's bank account to afford this hobby. That's not cool, broseph. Why do you think people buy tons and tons from Steam and Good Old Games? Because they are cheap and affordable, offer good consumer service and don't force invasive DRM down your throat like you're a cheap porn actress in a Rocco movie.
Nuff said.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Steam was even told "don't do business in Russia, you'll only lose money."
Well, guess what?
Russia turned out to be hugely profitable, simply because they did what the AC that I'm replying to said was the thing to do, remove invasive DRM, make it cheap and affordable and offered good customer service.
You know what? The comment I'm replying too is good enough for first word here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Where's the Hole?
People are constantly arguing that no law can stop the piracy because the internet just evolves around the law. What is the big, gaping hole that will leave 6 strikes powerless against the pirating public?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Where's the Hole?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Where's the Hole?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Last Word
“Even in the one paragraph, you're constantly flip-flopping. So due process is a governmental process...but then we introduce the corporate element of the TOS?
What I'm arguing against is everything you say, where the corporate is handed the powers of the court, simply because I'm their customer. The landlord cannot charge me with damages to his house and pronounce me guilty, then say I owe him 10,000 euro. He has to go to a court, and get the court to declare that I owe him 10,000 euro. The court is the neutral third party there, non-biased towards either the tenant or the landlord.
Now we come to the ISP. Who want arbitration. The arbitrator wants to be hired to resolve disputes. If the arbitrator is seen to resolve in favour of the customer, then the ISP will stop hiring him: thus, the arbitrator is no longer neutral. He has a vested interest in siding with the ISP. The ISP has allowed a third party, the accuser, to come between me and the ISP, and allowed the accuser to declare that my service must be degraded, all on their word. The accuser won't allow me to defend myself until the fifth strike at the earliest. The accuser won't allow me to use certain defences that the law clearly says I should use. The ISP takes the accuser's word as legitimate and gospel, yet does not do the same for me. Not only that, but the ISP will give the accuser my personal details, to facilitate their efforts at launching a lawsuit against me. No other business in the world does this, no other business takes my money then says to me "When a Random Tom comes up to me and accuses you of violating the law, and of harming him, I'm actually not going to defend you at all, in fact, I'm going to do everything I can to make his job easier and your life worse. Oh? Lest I forget, this has nothing to do with the police or the courts, where you would at least have a fair chance of defending yourself".
These ISPs have colluded with each other, all these major players, who between them service most of the country. Now, I can opt out of being a customer, but where does that leave me? I can no longer call my friends and family half-way around the world, at least, not without racking up an enormous phone bill. I cannot do online banking (with banking, the number one rule is you NEVER do it on a computer you yourself don't control. So to say to do it at a net cafe is a no no) With pretty much all banks now offering very limited face to face customer service, now its going to be damned near impossible to control my finances. I can't use my credit card online, so I can't purchase things and have them delivered, especially items that wouldn't be in mail-order catalogues, which is to say most of the items I would want. My speech with my friends is now very limited: my friends and family are now spread all over the world. I could always call them on my mobile phone (I don't have a landline), but what if it breaks and I get a new one? How would I communicate the new phone number without the internet? What about the coffee shop I run? Most of my customers like to use Wi-fi while having coffee, and hate going to coffee shops that don't offer that. So, once I'm accused six times, I lose the service (or cancel it beforehand) and thus I lose customers.
This is what I am arguing against. A world where I either lose all the benefits and advances that Web 2.0 offers, or I keep the service, but have literally no protection against being accused and thus of having the service degraded to the point of unuseability.
In previous comments, I have already explained this. I have already explained why the corporate, the ISP, should not be judge, jury and executioner all in one, only for you to respond with basically "Well, they are, the TOS says so, tough shit".
I am the customer. I am a citizen. That is not enough. I do not accept "Tough shit". I demand to be recognized as a citizen with the right to due process of law. Not for corporates to hide behind an unconscionable piece of paper and to pass the buck. If the accuser wants to accuse me, and to say my service with the ISP has to be degraded, he is welcome to go to court, present his evidence and attempt to convince the court to declare it so. To say otherwise is to hand over the power of the government over to the whim of the corporate, who will doubtlessly forgo protecting the rights of the citizens if it results in a better quarterly profit statement.