I'm sure they'll probably put the appeals form in a nice easy online form... that you won't be able to access because you've been kicked off the internet. I wonder what the penalties for letting someone kicked off the internet for filesharing use your internet will be?
I'm glad this was such a short piece so I was able to re-read it several times quite quickly in shocked disbelief. I wonder if prisoners (you know, actual criminals, not copyright infringers) get some kind of internet access in prison? Seems to me you might be better off ACTUALLY stealing a physical DVD in the UK.
I for one support the MPAA in cracking down on the horrendous trade in camcorded movies. I wish them all the best at removing this blight from the world. And think of all the extra benefits that will come of it. No more will you download a movie, only to be disappointed that your "dvdrip" was really a "shonky cam".
Although this reminds me of an article I read last night about people recording live concerts. They spend the entire concert with their phone in the air, looking at the concert through the tiny screen. In one case, the girl spent the entire concert facing 90 degrees away from the performer, because she was recording the big screen. I just can't imagine that you're getting the "full experience" watching an event through your phone, or in this case, a camcorder. Does that mean that Joe Pirate then goes back and buys another ticket, just so he can actually watch the movie properly?
I'm confused here. As far as I knew, YouTube was free, as in, YouTube doesn't charge you for views or having your video up there, they make their money elsewhere. I thought this was the same even for commercial enterprises, but I am prepared to be wrong. I came to that assumption given that many companies want YouTube to PAY THEM for having their content online.
So here's where my confusion comes in. If YouTube is free, then what Common Craft want to happen here is for YouTube to pay for all the bandwidth related to showing the video, but Common Craft get paid for it?
This may come as a shock to some non-Australians in the audience here, but we are generally suspicious of elected officials. In general, we think they're all crooks.
Also, if Mr Atkinson gets his $20k for being called a crook, can every gamer in Australia get $20k off him for being compared, and found more dangerous, then outlaw bikie gangs?
Or can the political party Gamers4Croydon get $20k off him for being accused of resorting to dirty tricks and criminal activity for their political campaign against Mr Atkinson?
I'm not an American, so I can't really comment on what it is like in terms of economic climate post GFC over there, but I hear it's pretty bad still, although it is recovering. Therefore I think Dean's idea for USPS to sack nearly half its workforce (assuming that delivery persons make up the bulk of the workforce) would be a very bad idea. The idea to cut Saturday would have the effect of reducing their costs, but still employing the same number of people, assuming they aren't on fixed salary.
I also find erv's suggestion that medical supply companies (or more specifically, their customers) rely on the postal service, rather then registered couriers for urgent deliveries to be alarming. If something is urgent, then a postal service is not how it gets sent. I also disagree with his comment about Netflix. Netflix in terms of being a mail-order system has never been about having a movie right then to watch, it has always been about having the movie for as long as you want with no late fees. All a lack in Saturday deliveries would mean for Netflix customers would be they would have to organize their weekend viewing on Thursday rather then Friday (assuming 1 day delivery times), hardly a difficult task for most grown responsible adults.
I agree with your point Jake that the contribution to the economy of a cheap postal service is essential, but it is also really beside the point if it is not able to run because it can't afford to meet its costs.
Hyundai should clearly apologise, very publicly. I suggest massive ads in all major publications and a do-over of the ad. In this apology they should make if very clear that LV is not a luxury brand, as clearly that is the mistake they have made here.
Yet there is no question that despite our extensive and innovative offerings of legal content, the levels of online and physical theft around the world extract a profound toll.
The thing that stuck out to me in that sentence was the bit about physical theft. I wonder what the actual numbers are on "theft of CDs". I'm guessing it'd be down a bit from past years, what with the kids these days not having to 5-finger discount the CD from the store when they can download it.
I had heard the same thing Brendan, although now that I think about it, it's a very clever move by Atkinson... by saying he'll do it after the election, does that then make it an election issue, so therefore we can't have anonymous talk about it?
I also want to know if these conditions extend to politicians themselves, if they now have to post their home addresses every time they make a comment to the media?
I find it amusing that I've never heard of the musician White Zombie getting in trouble for his song "More Human Than Human" (also a quote from that book I believe) which features the line "I am the Nexus One, I want more life f%^*er I ain't done yet"
That is an even clearer "infringement" of Dick's work, or is it more of an homage, so it's ok?
In response, why doesn't ebay just block France from accessing their site. While they're at it, block Paypal too. If French users are going to cost you $63 million it would probably be financially better to simply not have French users.
Why do the telcos even need immunity? Surely they are simply the tool being used to perform the wiretaps. Gun manufacturers don't get into trouble when police shoot people with their guns, so why should telcos get into trouble when the govt wiretaps people with their systems?
My gut reaction to heirs getting royalties on creative content is to agree with most posters here that it is wrong. And then I started to think about how different that really is to normal in inheritance. If I make clever investments, such that they produce an income for myself and mine to live off and then pass this on to my children, then they have effectively done nothing to earn this "welfare" they are now being paid. I have no problem with this, and would love to be able to pass on just this kind of legacy to my children. So I began to think "maybe you're just a hypocrite". In my case I have invested money to provide an income for my children. In the case discussed here, Fitzgerald invested time and creativity to provide an income for his children.
I live in Australia. I have had access to what passes for broadband here for probably more then half of my relatively short life (I'm 26). That includes back in the good old days of 100MB (thats megabytes) of broadband access a month, with huge excess fees slapped onto that if you went over. Now, in those days broadband was cutting edge, most people were still on dialup, and the situation has improved greatly since then. These days, when I look at the usage figures for my month, theres rarely a day that is under 100MB, from just general web browsing of myself and my partner. I find the argument that someone using the speed/allotment they bought as being greedy a weird one. If I purchase the ability to download 40GB a month at 1500kbps (which I do) then I would expect to do that whenever I please. Thats not greedy. What would be greedy would be to imply that other peoples usage of the connection to my local exchange was leading me to not get the full speed from my connection. If an ISP is going to say "we will give you X speed" then they should be responsible to ensure that everyone connected should be able to get that speed at all times. If your internet speed drops at 6pm every night because thats when everyone in your neighbourhood gets home and checks their email, thats not everyone elses fault, thats your ISPs fault, and they should be brought to task for it. If you lost power at sundown every day because thats when everyone turned their lights on, you wouldn't be going around demanding that people stop turning their lights on, you'd be ringing the power company and screaming at them. (Recent weather in Melbourne doesn't count, sorry :) However all this talk about bandwidth speeds is really quite off topic, as thats not even what this article was about.
I'm not a fan of broadband caps, and even at one point paid for a hugely expensive unlimited plan, that unlike many "unlimited" plan truely had no limits placed on it, with the exception of the speed limit but that was a factor of the technology available in this country at the time to consumers. To label a cap on consumption "ethical" however is a stretch. If you're in a situation where you are rationing food to people in order to ensure everyones survival, thats an ethical cap on consumption. If you're a business who sets an arbitrary limit on what your customers can download based on your expenses to supply said downloads, thats completely within your rights, but it is by no means ethical. To cut someone off when they reach the limit stated in the contract, thats fair enough, but to then ALSO fine them, that smells of double dipping to me. To use the grape example above, thats like walking into the super market, paying for 1kg of grapes, being given a 2kg bag, being watched while you put grapes into the bag on a scale that you can't see and then being told once you went over 1kg that you were stealing. To give Larry 1gb (as per the contract) and then charge him extra for having the audacity to use that 1gb is just staggering.
Ugh enough ranting.
P.S. Pro-Tip: The hotel will have some form of proxy running that is keeping logs (and probably cutting people off and sending nasty emails) on which room is using what ammount of internet, and that proxy should be responsible for limiting bandwidth, when required, so that nobody is experiencing any worse internet then anyone else. I would guess that the hotel was using wired internet, as although wireless is less of a hassle and cheaper to install in terms of cabling an existing hotel, we here down under and our sheep shagging cousins get all the worst technology can offer.
On the post: UK Digital Economy Bill Concession Is To Allow In A Smidgen Of Due Process, After You've Been Declared Guilty
On the post: Just As It Tries To Kick People Offline, The British Gov't Wants To Move All Public Service Online
On the post: Hollywood Continues To Make Up Facts; AP Continues To Parrot Them
Although this reminds me of an article I read last night about people recording live concerts. They spend the entire concert with their phone in the air, looking at the concert through the tiny screen. In one case, the girl spent the entire concert facing 90 degrees away from the performer, because she was recording the big screen. I just can't imagine that you're getting the "full experience" watching an event through your phone, or in this case, a camcorder. Does that mean that Joe Pirate then goes back and buys another ticket, just so he can actually watch the movie properly?
On the post: Viral Video Producers Want To Charge You To Embed Their Videos
So here's where my confusion comes in. If YouTube is free, then what Common Craft want to happen here is for YouTube to pay for all the bandwidth related to showing the video, but Common Craft get paid for it?
On the post: South Australia Attorney General Demands $20,000 From Web Commenter Who Called Him A Crook
Also, if Mr Atkinson gets his $20k for being called a crook, can every gamer in Australia get $20k off him for being compared, and found more dangerous, then outlaw bikie gangs?
Or can the political party Gamers4Croydon get $20k off him for being accused of resorting to dirty tricks and criminal activity for their political campaign against Mr Atkinson?
On the post: South Australia Attorney General Demands $20,000 From Web Commenter Who Called Him A Crook
Re:
He's a cook? I don't think so, he strikes me as the "women stay at home in the kitchen" type.
On the post: Cutting Saturday Mail Delivery? Sure, If It Makes Good Business Sense.
I also find erv's suggestion that medical supply companies (or more specifically, their customers) rely on the postal service, rather then registered couriers for urgent deliveries to be alarming. If something is urgent, then a postal service is not how it gets sent. I also disagree with his comment about Netflix. Netflix in terms of being a mail-order system has never been about having a movie right then to watch, it has always been about having the movie for as long as you want with no late fees. All a lack in Saturday deliveries would mean for Netflix customers would be they would have to organize their weekend viewing on Thursday rather then Friday (assuming 1 day delivery times), hardly a difficult task for most grown responsible adults.
I agree with your point Jake that the contribution to the economy of a cheap postal service is essential, but it is also really beside the point if it is not able to run because it can't afford to meet its costs.
On the post: Louis Vuitton Sues Hyundai Over A Louis Vuitton Basketball
The only reasonable response from Hyundai is...
On the post: RIAA CEO Tries To Connect China Google Hack With Google's Attitude Towards Copyright
The thing that stuck out to me in that sentence was the bit about physical theft. I wonder what the actual numbers are on "theft of CDs". I'm guessing it'd be down a bit from past years, what with the kids these days not having to 5-finger discount the CD from the store when they can download it.
On the post: New South Australian Law Forbids Anonymous Political Commentary During Election Season
I also want to know if these conditions extend to politicians themselves, if they now have to post their home addresses every time they make a comment to the media?
On the post: Philip K. Dick Estate Sends Google Cease And Desist Over Nexus One Name
That is an even clearer "infringement" of Dick's work, or is it more of an homage, so it's ok?
On the post: French Courts Continue To Penalize eBay For Actions Of Users
On the post: Bush Administration Was Afraid It Would Have To Admit Telcos Helped With Warrantless Wiretaps To Get Immunity
On the post: F. Scott Fitzgerald Made $8,397 On Great Gatsby; His Daughter Gets $500,000 Per Year From It
On the post: Why Internet Companies And Content Companies Should Oppose Broadband Caps
Welcome to Internet in Australia/NZ
I'm not a fan of broadband caps, and even at one point paid for a hugely expensive unlimited plan, that unlike many "unlimited" plan truely had no limits placed on it, with the exception of the speed limit but that was a factor of the technology available in this country at the time to consumers. To label a cap on consumption "ethical" however is a stretch. If you're in a situation where you are rationing food to people in order to ensure everyones survival, thats an ethical cap on consumption. If you're a business who sets an arbitrary limit on what your customers can download based on your expenses to supply said downloads, thats completely within your rights, but it is by no means ethical. To cut someone off when they reach the limit stated in the contract, thats fair enough, but to then ALSO fine them, that smells of double dipping to me. To use the grape example above, thats like walking into the super market, paying for 1kg of grapes, being given a 2kg bag, being watched while you put grapes into the bag on a scale that you can't see and then being told once you went over 1kg that you were stealing. To give Larry 1gb (as per the contract) and then charge him extra for having the audacity to use that 1gb is just staggering.
Ugh enough ranting.
P.S. Pro-Tip: The hotel will have some form of proxy running that is keeping logs (and probably cutting people off and sending nasty emails) on which room is using what ammount of internet, and that proxy should be responsible for limiting bandwidth, when required, so that nobody is experiencing any worse internet then anyone else. I would guess that the hotel was using wired internet, as although wireless is less of a hassle and cheaper to install in terms of cabling an existing hotel, we here down under and our sheep shagging cousins get all the worst technology can offer.
Next >>