SilverSurfer
join:2007-08-19
| The Battle Has Just Begun
the line in the sand has been drawn. Now more than ever, anyone with a BB connection needs to get involved in this fight because we all know that our coin-operated "leaders" in Congre$$ prefer money over having to actually represent the constituencies that elected them.
GET INVOLVED TODAY! or the tools will take over permanently. |
|
dpmasterx
@verizon.com | so if they start terminating accounts
What are they going to do when they have no customers? |
|
ja2007123
join:2007-10-06 | that can't happen ever!!!
Just think again! |
|
DMNTD
join:2002-10-19
usa
 ·AT&T DSL Service
| reply to SilverSurfer
Re: The Battle Has Just Begun
said by SilverSurfer  :the line in the sand has been drawn. Now more than ever, anyone with a BB connection needs to get involved in this fight because we all know that our coin-operated "leaders" in Congre$$ prefer money over having to actually represent the constituencies that elected them. GET INVOLVED TODAY! or the tools will take over permanently. I agree we need to fight back but involving the government won't change anything..in fact, whats so hard to understand that they BELIEVE in each other? No this is going to get worse before it gets better and the only choice your going to have is either bow down or cut your broadband off...I will cut it off. I will use my free will. |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
 ·Comcast
| reply to SilverSurfer
said by SilverSurfer :the line in the sand has been drawn. Now more than ever, anyone with a BB connection needs to get involved in this fight .... and support the requirement for ISP's to throw the music & movie thieves off of their networks. And while we are at it, throw off those people whose systems have been botted and turned in to spam machines.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page |
|
SilverSurfer
join:2007-08-19
| reply to DMNTD
said by DMNTD :[...]involving the government won't change anything.. I bet you think voting doesn't change anything either.  |
|
SilverSurfer
join:2007-08-19
1 edit | reply to TKJunkMail
said by TKJunkMail :and support the requirement for ISP's to throw the music & movie thieves off of their networks. Sure, let's just be OK with giving ISPs carte blanche to do what they want. Because anyone who downloads is a thief by default. Because you personally don't use beyond X gigs per month. |
|
DMNTD
join:2002-10-19
usa | reply to SilverSurfer
You are correct. But its nothing I "think" its what I see. |
|
IM1811
join:2001-08-20
Haverstraw, NY
 ·Verizon FIOS
| What Nonsense!
Could you imagine, in the State of New York? 'Three strikes'for piracy? Shit, they can't even do a 'three strikes' law for murder. The moment they turn me off and I can't do business, I'll sue 'em, and sue 'em, and sue 'em...
read more
»bartgordon.net/ |
|
Corydon
Cultivant son jardin
Premium
join:2008-02-18
Denver, CO
clubs:
·Comcast
| reply to dpmasterx
Re: so if they start terminating accounts
said by dpmasterx :
What are they going to do when they have no customers? Your logic has several flaws:
1) It assumes that everyone is pirating. I'd submit that that is very far from being true.
2) It assumes that everyone who actually is pirating stuff can be caught. Another massive assumption that I think is not borne out by the facts.
3) One of the big attractions of piracy is that it is widely perceived as being free of consequences. Let's assume that the ISPs and the **AAs can actually overcome the second problem. Right now, in most cases, all you get is an official-looking letter in the mail asking you to stop. That's not a consequence.
The shift in policy wants to turn the other household members into the cops here. If Mr. Smith loses the internet connection he relies on to work from home because Billy Smith is downloading movies, that creates a massive incentive for him to monitor what his son is up to. Billy's actions no longer have no impact on the other family members.
As was mentioned in Karl's article last week, the benefit to the ISPs is the ability to boot high consumption users without any repercussions—it's kind of hard to complain about getting booted from your ISP when they have proof you've been using the connection to break the law.
Well, not hard to complain...there's plenty of that going on all the time...but hard to get anyone in a position to do anything about it to give you any sympathy.
--
My opinions are my own. No-one else would want them! |
|
Rick
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-06
Waterbury, CT
clubs: 
1 edit | I think the editorial above misses a key point
as to why Isp's may want to do this and that boils down to
liability.
Sooner or later, I think that if they don't do something to cooperate..the recording industry is going to convince some judge that they should have. And, because they didn't..(assuming they don't)..they are liable for facilitating..enabling..or whatever you want to call it..
the ones who did it.
There is well established laws on the books in all industries and across the country that allow for these kinds of suits to proceed. And that plaintiffs win.
Go to a bar..get too drunk..and the bartender keeps feeding you more..KNOWING you are drunk..and PROFITING off of it..
and that bartender can be held liable if you are in an accident.
Has Comcast..time warner..Verizon..AT&T and whomever else KNOWN that their networks are continually being used for this? Absolutely. For years on end now.
And, have they been profiting off of it? It depends on the customer and whether they're using their connection for but clearly, for those who are downloading illegal music..they wouldn't be able to have done it had it not been for that connection facilitating the transfer.
Pure speculation on my part of course..but I think therein is the real answer as to why this is now happening.
Nothing else has worked for the RIAA and it's doubtful they'd ever go down without a fight like this.
Could they win it? IMHO..they'd have a pretty good shot particularly if an ISP had done nothing at all to try to help the situation. |
|
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
 ·Skype
| Most of Us Wouldn't Make Very Good Pirates.
A pirate is someone who not only obtains property for himself, but at the same time deprives others of it, usually violently, usually for material gain.
Does this describe 16-year-old Johnny, who uses Limewire Pro because it's "legal?" -- "I paid for it," he says.
Or what about Francy, she knows better but still downloads songs more often than she buys them. "I can't afford that!" she says.
C'mon! PEOPLE! Can we get the heat out of the conversation and look at some facts? Francy and Johnny aren't right but they're not pirates.
The question we have to ask ourselves is whether Johnny and Francy (and all of their friends) make or break whether or not an artist will turn to a life of science and industry or of one of art and creativity.
After all, that's WHY we have copyright.
If it's really so mentally and physically easy to copy that the realities that made copyright law possible are now made moot, then the correct thing to do is to change with the times. No, that does NOT mean "free" music, but it could.
But it does mean that society needs to sit down and decide how to encourage artists to do their art. We've done that before -- the copyright law is a weirdo -- we take an expression (non-property) and call it property for a while. We invented copyright to encourage artists to stay in the "business" of art by giving them an exclusive market for a while. That's possibly broken beyond repair, now.
Let's replace it. The goal is the same as before.
Thoughts and ideas?
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
HTTP is the new Bandwidth Hog...
|
|
i1me2ao
Premium
join:2001-03-03
TEXAS | what next
charging car companies because of drunk drivers? rapist that were condoms, charge condom maker??
--
»www.thereligionofpeace.com/ |
|
i1me2ao
Premium
join:2001-03-03
TEXAS | charging car companies because of drunk drivers??
--
»www.thereligionofpeace.com/ |
|
Jehu
Premium
join:2002-09-13
MA
| E-Z
The future = converged services = getting cozy with Entertainment content providers = making sure your customers can't bypass paying you for that "on demand" content.
--
Your reasoning is excellent -- it's only your basic assumptions that are wrong. |
|
DMNTD
join:2002-10-19
usa | reply to funchords
Re: Most of Us Wouldn't Make Very Good Pirates.
»www.questioncopyright.org/ --- this is my only response. |
|
a333
A hot cup of integrals please
join:2007-06-12
Rego Park, NY
·Cingular Wireless
·Verizon Online DSL
1 edit | reply to Rick
Re: I think the editorial above misses a key point
so let the **AA's pay for the placement of appropriate equipment (PROVIDED THAT IT'S RELIABLE). THE **AA's argument is akin to blaming a car manufacturer for speeding and road rage, or blaming the wine companies for drunk driving. This logic just doesn't stand. I'm all for enforcing DMCA, I just don't think ISP's should be forced to bear, and pass on, the extra costs of setting up and administering the new equipment. THAT is the government's job. We have the laws, we just don't enforce them. (And no, enforcing the DMCA doesn't require a new clandestine White House position to be set up, that further wastes taxpayer money.
Another matter of concern is that, as you add more filtering rules to core/end routers, doesn't that drastically increase the # of false positives (users getting flagged falsely), and spike latencies on the network? It also requires routers with massively larger processing brunt. Also, encryption can quite easily bypass such filters. (My point is, they want to stop 'illegal' p2p, not ALL p2p, so how's that going to happen without the above taking place?)
As to liability, I personally think that tampering/touching/doing ANYTHING other than passing user data from pt A to pt. B, has the potential to get itself into some deep $hit. |
|
Jehu
Premium
join:2002-09-13
MA
| reply to funchords
Re: Most of Us Wouldn't Make Very Good Pirates.
said by funchords :Thoughts and ideas? Yes, one of each.
Thought: Free always wins.
Idea: Make not free an undesireabe option by terminating internet service
--
Your reasoning is excellent -- it's only your basic assumptions that are wrong. |
|
Gogo1
join:2004-05-27
Brooklyn, NY
| I know why Karl is worried
Nooo, not because he will lose his net connection (well that too), but because if this policy gets going there will only be about two members of DSLR left with net access to read his daily commie "news" rants! LOL.
I mean there wont be any front page comments sections anymore what with karlmarx, krk, silversurfer etc etc all of them gone...
I guess it will just be Karl and hctjunkmail left to argue between themselves. |
|
itsbry
join:2001-02-22
Fernandina Beach, FL | reply to Rick
Re: I think the editorial above misses a key point
Good point, Rick. The ISPs don't want to be found liable for anything at all, I'm sure.
The other reason may well be that they can push the situation towards capping and it's future profits...
Kind of a win win deal for them. |
|
