"And how, precisely, does your ISP know which files are copyrighted? "
According to the video the ISPs are not the ones doing the monitoring. Instead, it is the copyright holder that is monitoring P2P networks for people sharing files that the copyright holder knows is infringing.
But I have a problem understanding how doing that can be considered infringing:
First, if the copyright holder is "listening" for requests for the copyrighted file then how is that actually infringement if no content of the copyrighted file is actually transferred? In this case the alleged infringer is simply asking for the file. If the copyright holder does not respond with actual content of the file then the copyright holder is essentially saying "no" to the "request" and no infringement has occurred.
Second, if the copyright holder does transfer any content of the copyrighted file to the requester isn't doing so an implied consent of the copyright holder allowing this, which therefore makes that particular transfer non-infringing since it was the copyright holder providing the copy?
The only way that I can see this working for the copyright holder is to identify files that are being seeded by others for which they own the copyright and then request that file from anyone and everyone seeding it.
Don't the operators of these types of events either prohibit customers from taking and/or sharing photos and/or videos or require the customer to sign over their copyright of all photos & videos the customer takes at the event exactly for these cases?
From what I can tell, the poster only states the street that they live in and warns the police to be careful in that area because these two people have a tendency to portray the police's actions in a negative way.
Doesn't AT&T lease their rights from the government the radio spectrum they use for providing mobile communications? If so then the government should demand that AT&T provide the data they are requesting for free as part of the conditions for enjoying a government sponsored monopoly. So, instead of profiting from all these requests AT&T will have to start pushing back or else be consumed by the costs.
I'm contracting with AT&T to provide me with best-effort mobile communications service and compensate them handsomely for it. So yes, I do expect them to vigorously protect my privacy from everyone including themselves. They are not giving me a heavily discounted or free service such as those provided by Google and others - so yes, I do expect them to protect my data and not relinquish it to anyone, including law enforcement, without a legitimate warrant. Otherwise it's no different from indiscriminate searches, which we are protected against by the U.S. constitution.
Memory cards and sticks can be used for any number of reasons, not just for piracy. So, with this line of reasoning, why not also tax the use of electrons since without electrons piracy would not be possible on the alleged scale that it is now - it would reduce to whatever people could hand-copy themselves.
I completely agree with your assessment about the economic differences. Its called arbitrage - where the same product is obtained for different prices. In this case, the price of the product is the highest in the highest income economies and correspondingly lower in economies where the average income is lower. Firms want to maximize their profit so they charge the highest price possible in each economy. If they were to make the product available in all economies at the same time then arbitrage would force down the price to that of the economy with the lowest income, which means the firms would not be able to maximize their profit anymore.
I am an AT&T mobile phone customer with the grandfathered unlimited data plan. The contract that I agreed to and signed expressly prohibits tethering unless I also have purchased the additional tethering plan for an exhorbinent price. I confirmed my agreement by signing the contract. Therefore, if I choose to tether my phone against the agreement in the contract then I am in violation of the contract. This is independent of whether or not AT&T is in violation of throttling my data when I exceed some periodic limit. I haven't looked recently but I would imagine that the contract contains wording that allows them to do that too.
The thing that annoys me is that these limitations are in all of the mobile phone carriers' contract, which means I can't get away from it by changing carriers.
I think the problem has to do with how HBO and other content producers, in addition to cable providers only provide access to content in bundles instead of a-la-carte where the true value of the content would be exposed. The ratio of low value filler content compared to the high-value content is so high that the high price demanded by the content providers is not equitable and thereby driving consumers to infringe.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by rukidding.
Re: Re: Re: Bittorrent Week
According to the video the ISPs are not the ones doing the monitoring. Instead, it is the copyright holder that is monitoring P2P networks for people sharing files that the copyright holder knows is infringing.
But I have a problem understanding how doing that can be considered infringing:
First, if the copyright holder is "listening" for requests for the copyrighted file then how is that actually infringement if no content of the copyrighted file is actually transferred? In this case the alleged infringer is simply asking for the file. If the copyright holder does not respond with actual content of the file then the copyright holder is essentially saying "no" to the "request" and no infringement has occurred.
Second, if the copyright holder does transfer any content of the copyrighted file to the requester isn't doing so an implied consent of the copyright holder allowing this, which therefore makes that particular transfer non-infringing since it was the copyright holder providing the copy?
The only way that I can see this working for the copyright holder is to identify files that are being seeded by others for which they own the copyright and then request that file from anyone and everyone seeding it.
Terms of entry
Re:
Isn't AT&T Wireless a govt sponsored monopoly?
I'm contracting with AT&T to provide me with best-effort mobile communications service and compensate them handsomely for it. So yes, I do expect them to vigorously protect my privacy from everyone including themselves. They are not giving me a heavily discounted or free service such as those provided by Google and others - so yes, I do expect them to protect my data and not relinquish it to anyone, including law enforcement, without a legitimate warrant. Otherwise it's no different from indiscriminate searches, which we are protected against by the U.S. constitution.
Why not tax the use of electrons too
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Re: I'm confused
The thing that annoys me is that these limitations are in all of the mobile phone carriers' contract, which means I can't get away from it by changing carriers.
(untitled comment)
Re: Re: HBO overcharges for everything
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by rukidding.
Submit a story now.
Tools & Services
TwitterFacebook
RSS
Podcast
Research & Reports
Company
About UsAdvertising Policies
Privacy
Contact
Help & FeedbackMedia Kit
Sponsor/Advertise
Submit a Story
More
Copia InstituteInsider Shop
Support Techdirt