how-to block ads
|
jc100
join:2002-04-10
| Re: Sounds fair to me Good intentioned law, with real consequences that aren't fair. First, let's look at this from the opposite angle. Should grandma lose her internet, because grandchildren do illegal activity on it? I mean, even the best parents, don't know everything their kids get into. Even if you punish them, kids are just that dumb to do it again. Second, let's say a person does it on a friends pc, the same can be said. Should they lose internet. The question then arises (and its not stated here), for how long? Is this like a blacklist where you can never obtain another isp permanently or is this like a shor term ban? If shorterm ban, is it just that ISP or all? Exactly how this works, is not clearly explained. Personally, I don't think this is a good law, minus the fact it doesn't sue people or punish them into financial ruin. | |
|  mogooder
join:2002-11-26
Washougal, WA | Re: Sounds fair to me jc100
Should Grandma lose her car because the Grandchildren wrecked it, she did. Children's actions have consequences for adults.
mogooder
--
"The Secret is in the RITHMATIC" Henry Hudson | |
| 
DotMac4
Shill H8r
Premium
join:2007-10-26
Huntington Beach, CA | I would say yes in that grandma should be supervising it's use.
And if she happens to slip up in that supervision she gets 2 warnings first. | |
| | jc100
join:2002-04-10
| Re: Sounds fair to me Well that's a different argument Dot. Grandma WOULD NOT be liable if said person who stole it was over 18. Criminal charges would be filed and her grandchild would be solely liable as that's Grand Theft. Now if you argue the fact the kid is a minor, then it's tricky. Yes, grandma shouldn't let their kids on the computer unsupervised. Yet, how many Kids know 100000000000x more about pcs than their parents. That's where the problem arises. The parents might be good intentioned and watching their kid. However, they lack the understanding to know everything or prevent certain activities. | |
| | | 
S_engineer
join:2007-05-16
Chicago, IL
 ·Comcast
| Re: Sounds fair to me said by jc100  : Yet, how many Kids know 100000000000x more about pcs than their parents. That's where the problem arises. The parents might be good intentioned and watching their kid. However, they lack the understanding to know everything or prevent certain activities. Excellent point. My problem is this "Under the agreement -- drawn up by a commission headed by the chief executive of FNAC, one of France's biggest music and film retailers -- service providers will issue warning messages to customers downloading files illegally.
If users ignore those messages, their accounts could be suspended or closed altogether"
Thats the equivalent of having the RIAA make our Internet use laws. That shouldn't happen. Not to mention the Artists that CHOOSE to give out free music. Will they be even further blackballed be their respective recording industry? | |
| | | |
DotMac4
Shill H8r
Premium
join:2007-10-26
Huntington Beach, CA
| Re: Sounds fair to me said by S_engineer :Thats the equivalent of having the RIAA make our Internet use laws. Sounds like the DMCA.
At least in France you'll get a few warnings before the extortion letter arrives. | |
| | | | | | |
DotMac4
Shill H8r
Premium
join:2007-10-26
Huntington Beach, CA
| This isn't about grand theft. This is an ISP after 2 warnings canceling service. It seems perfectly reasonable to me.
As it stands now in the US, the RIAA could simply file suit against grandma and they'd win (as we just saw a mom go down in court flames recently) no matter who "really" did it. | |
| | | 
Camelot One
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-21
Sarasota, FL
clubs:
| Re: Sounds fair to me I completely agree that people should be held responsible for their computers, even if the issue is caused by someone they allowed to use it. And with that in mind, I would want to see it expanded, to make people liable for their computers if infected with virus/spam bots as well, assuming it was due to their own inaction. (not running av software for example)
My concern with this law is, what happens with the false positives? Will people just ignore strike 1, knowing it's not true, because it has no immediate consequences? And will strike 2 then come easier, since the person has already been found "guilty" of strike 1? And so on.
--
Intel Quad Core QX6700 @3500Mhz/Asus P5N32-E SLI/4x 1024Mb Corsair/WD 74Gb Raptor/PNY 7800GTs SLI/Antec 550 True Control/Custom water cooler | |
| | | BosstonesOwn
join:2002-12-15
Everett, MA
clubs:
·Comcast
| Re: Sounds fair to me said by Camelot One :I completely agree that people should be held responsible for their computers, even if the issue is caused by someone they allowed to use it. And with that in mind, I would want to see it expanded, to make people liable for their computers if infected with virus/spam bots as well, assuming it was due to their own inaction. (not running av software for example) My concern with this law is, what happens with the false positives? Will people just ignore strike 1, knowing it's not true, because it has no immediate consequences? And will strike 2 then come easier, since the person has already been found "guilty" of strike 1? And so on. You would push computing back to the stone age with a law punishing people for the abuse via virus or spam bot.
I want to know what happens when they get a box that has been rooted and used for whoring warez ? If a trojan or infected website was used do they nullify the offense ? To much unanswered for this to be a good law. I have had boxes rooted that were fully patched behind a soft firewall and I left the box unattended for the week end when I went to work and came back to a drive full of warez. All be it , it was 6 years ago when I had a nice ds3 to my office. That could have got me kicked off the net from that provider.
--
"It's always funny until someone gets hurt......and then it's absolutely friggin' hysterical!" | |
| | | | 
OceanaJones
join:2004-10-18
Suffolk, VA
| Re: Sounds fair to me Even though the above reply is off subject concerning the virus and bot stuff, The point is... If you are informed on your first warning (remember, they give you three (3) warnings)that your computer is infected with a virus, bot, rootkit, or whatever, that should give you ample time to correct the problem with no loss of service. After the third strike, however, you should be counted out! Likewise, if you have been warned on three different occasions that your internet service has been used illegally, then it should be cut off, no matter who you want to blame for the illegal use. And another thing while I'm at it. The opinions of thieves don't matter much. | |
| | | | | diskdocx
join:2005-09-26
Burlington, ON
·Cogeco Cable
| Re: Sounds fair to me So, if one has their car stolen 3 times, they should be banned from being able to obtain insurance from any company for perpetuity. And, by proxy, banned from driving?
Maybe we could extend that to 3 car accidents (at fault or not), and then lifetime license suspension.
Makes sense to me. | |
| | | | | |
Camelot One
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-21
Sarasota, FL
clubs:
| Re: Sounds fair to me said by diskdocx :So, if one has their car stolen 3 times, they should be banned from being able to obtain insurance from any company for perpetuity. And, by proxy, banned from driving? Maybe we could extend that to 3 car accidents (at fault or not), and then lifetime license suspension. Makes sense to me. Thats just not an accurate comparison. It would be more like, if you knowingly loaned your car to a drunk, who repeatedly drove your car drunk, you would risk losing the car the THIRD time he was caught.
And I'd be fine with that too.
--
Intel Quad Core QX6700 @3500Mhz/Asus P5N32-E SLI/4x 1024Mb Corsair/WD 74Gb Raptor/PNY 7800GTs SLI/Antec 550 True Control/Custom water cooler | |
| | | | | | | diskdocx
join:2005-09-26
Burlington, ON
·Cogeco Cable
| Re: Sounds fair to me That's fine for the grandkid analogy, but I was referring specifically to the bot/virus issue.
No one is willingly offering that up, so the drunk driver analogy is moot, unless the drunk driver happened to steal your car.
I've been hacked, and ended up as a bot on mIRC. Granted that was a number of years ago, and my computer is far more secure now than it was then. But the bottom line is that these measures will mostly hit casual users and unfortunately a number of tech unsavvy folks. Not the hardcore pirates.
What I expect to see is a lot more hacking/IP theft/virus attacks so that the hardcore folks will get around these measures. | |
| | | | | 
captnhook
join:2001-02-20
NY
| A majority of PC users even when warned would be clueless that their boxes are owned on top of that no body has even addressed the issue of hackers accessing unsecured Wi-Fi IP connections.
This proposal is just another last gasp attempt of the international mega-corps to retain their death grip on consumers and artists. | |
| | | LowRider
join:2006-06-23
Dallas, GA | instead of people that have infection why not make the ISP'S responsible, makes more sense. It there system so they can stop it before it gets online not some person that doesn't know two shits about a computer. | |
| | | |
Camelot One
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-21
Sarasota, FL
clubs:
| Re: Sounds fair to me said by LowRider :instead of people that have infection why not make the ISP'S responsible, makes more sense. It there system so they can stop it before it gets online not some person that doesn't know two shits about a computer. Because then we are right back to ISPs monitoring what you do on the internet. Even with good intentions (in the case of stopping infection) the idea still won't fly.
--
Intel Quad Core QX6700 @3500Mhz/Asus P5N32-E SLI/4x 1024Mb Corsair/WD 74Gb Raptor/PNY 7800GTs SLI/Antec 550 True Control/Custom water cooler | |
| | | 
JoeOnSunset
Doublethink Is Doubleplus Ungood.
Premium
join:2002-11-25
Ormond Beach, FL
| That's rediculous. It's called "strict liability" and it's supposed to be saved for really huge things, and really small things. I think that people who support strict liability for EVERYTHING (as many people on here seem to) think that it could never be applied to them.
Look: your antivirus software isn't perfect. Your OS isn't perfect. And, in fact, the lock on your door isn't perfect. A fault with any of these could cause your computer to be infected with a virus and then, if the law specified strict liability, you'd be responsible for the actions of the guy who broke into your house, stole your computer, and later it got infected. After all: it's YOUR computer, why didn't you bolt it down? It's YOUR house, why didn't you secure it like Fort Knox?
Okay, yes, in your ideal liability law you added a caveat: "assuming it was due to their own inaction." What action would be the minimum needed? Installing ANY software labelled "antivirus"? What about updating it? What about keeping the OS updated so that flaws don't allow trojans to disable the a/v?
It's just not so simple. People think they like strict liability, but they never think of the million exceptions, places to draw lines, gradiations of responsibility that would have to be included to make it work like they're thinking in their heads.
Also, you mentioned false positives. Consider: Parking tickets are a great example of strict liability in law. Think of how often these are given out wrongfully. Surely you've gotten one when your car wasn't actually in the red, or when it hasn't really been an hour yet. But, because the barrier to issuing them is soooo low, it doesn' matter. They're handed out like candy. It hardly matters if you're not guilty: you just pay it half the time because it's so difficult to contest them.
Yeah, what we need is more areas of law to be like that system. | |
| | | |
JoeOnSunset
Doublethink Is Doubleplus Ungood.
Premium
join:2002-11-25
Ormond Beach, FL
| Re: Sounds fair to me said by Camelot One :I completely agree that people should be held responsible for their computers, even if the issue is caused by someone they allowed to use it. And with that in mind, I would want to see it expanded, to make people liable for their computers if infected with virus/spam bots as well, assuming it was due to their own inaction. (not running av software for example) My concern with this law is, what happens with the false positives? Will people just ignore strike 1, knowing it's not true, because it has no immediate consequences? And will strike 2 then come easier, since the person has already been found "guilty" of strike 1? And so on. That's rediculous. It's called "strict liability" and it's supposed to be saved for really huge things, and really small things. I think that people who support strict liability for EVERYTHING (as many people on here seem to) think that it could never be applied to them.
Look: your antivirus software isn't perfect. Your OS isn't perfect. And, in fact, the lock on your door isn't perfect. A fault with any of these could cause your computer to be infected with a virus and then, if the law specified strict liability, you'd be responsible for the actions of the guy who broke into your house, stole your computer, and later it got infected. After all: it's YOUR computer, why didn't you bolt it down? It's YOUR house, why didn't you secure it like Fort Knox?
Oh right, in your ideal liability law you added a caveat: "assuming it was due to their own inaction." What action would be the minimum needed? Installing ANY software labelled "antivirus"? What about updating it? What about keeping the OS updated so that flaws don't allow trojans to disable the a/v?
It's just not so simple. People think they like strict liability, but they never think of the million exceptions, places to draw lines, gradiations of responsibility that would have to be included to make it work like they're thinking in their heads.
Also, you mentioned false positives. Consider: Parking tickets are a great example of strict liability in law. Think of how often these are given out wrongfully. Surely you've gotten one when your car wasn't actually in the red, or when it hasn't really been an hour yet. But, because the barrier to issuing them is soooo low, it doesn' matter. They're handed out like candy. It hardly matters if you're not guilty: you just pay it half the time because it's so difficult to contest them.
Yeah, what we need is more areas of law to be like that system.
Edit: quoted. | |
| | jc100
join:2002-04-10
| Easier said than done. Read my reply to guy above. As I stated, technology is a more difficult thing. There's a huge generational gap. Parents today don't know much on computers, where as kids, do. Most parents are lucky to be able to turn one on. Hell, I didn't own a computer until about 8 years ago. I taught myself everything. Yet my mother, who is soon 57 had absolutely no clue about them. Only now is she "OK" on them since I've given her loads of lessons. Yes, I am older say a 12 yr old kid with a 35 year old parent, but the argument stands. Computers are a rather new tool, and most over 25+ never had them as a kid. So we were all left to learn them later on, where as children now are growing up with them. | |
| | | | | | |
Camelot One
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-21
Sarasota, FL
clubs:
| Re: Sounds fair to me said by Mactron :said by jc100 :Easier said than done. ... Yet my mother, who is soon 57 had absolutely no clue about them. Only now is she "OK" on them since I've given her loads of lessons. Being your Mothers "Age"  I learned, sometimes the hard way. She learned and they will too. If the first two times don't get the lesson across... The third time surely will.  Sorry, I don't Buy it. Obviously YMMV. I'd point out that ignorance is not a defense in ANY criminal action. And I don't think it should be with computers either. If you aren't smart enough to know how to use them, and if you aren't watchful enough to monitor what other people are doing on YOUR computer, you should not have one. ECommerce be damned.
--
Intel Quad Core QX6700 @3500Mhz/Asus P5N32-E SLI/4x 1024Mb Corsair/WD 74Gb Raptor/PNY 7800GTs SLI/Antec 550 True Control/Custom water cooler | |
| | 
hopeful_person
| What really is the problem? What is really being gone after?
Passing legislation illegalizing the possession of burnable media? Nope.
Passing legislation illegalizing the failure of WGA? Nope.
What's to prevent someone from copying a movie they get from the rental place?
Two friends copying each other's collections? How are you going to stop that? You can't - at least not without raising some serious privacy concerns and building a prison wall around your entire country.
"They" are "going after" the internet. Why? Because it's a distribution channel.
This has nothing to do with copyright. And the "rents" running our governments don't get it. They're not savvy enough. Once the older, non-computer-savvy generations are no longer running the government, those who are running the government will get it.
One solution is to simply provide for a non-commercial personal purposes fair use exemption. But what's more important, and much more doable, and much more likely to start happening -- as a matter of fact, it's already happening -- is if artists stop selling their copyrights. If artists simply retained their copyrights, this problem would go away forever. Follow this to the T, and more and more artists will get the major labels off their back. In fact, it's not inaccurate to say that for some artists, (or let's say for non-union artists), and even then... they guy who wrote the original script for "The Island", for instance, got maybe a few thousand dollars at best all together, while his producer walked away with a 7-digit settlement ... Why? Because he "sold" his copyright. Talk about heartbreaking disincentive... Anyway -- it's not entirely inaccurate to say that some of these major labels are existing "on the backs of" the artists. 4.5 cents per iTunes download. 7% of wholesale per CD... not a whole lot - it's practically giving it away after you add in the expenses.
They're not going after "pirates". They're going after distribution channels, using politicians to do it, and making it look like they're going after pirates. Meanwhile, you just make a copy of your friend's collection while s/he makes a copy of yours... lather, rinse and repeat millions of times all over the world. Same difference. It's a futile attempt no matter how you slice it. You can't stop it, it can't be stopped. If you're going to try to stop something, might as well go after the distribution channels.
The problem here is that it drives anything that's not "approved" by the majors underground... but realistically, they've lost the battle anyway. It's a brand new day - the only question is how quickly we rebuild, how quickly artists refuse to sell copyrights ever again - and how quickly an infrastructure can be built to provide a means to keep these artists fed, clothed, and housed so they don't have to sell their copyrights to make ends meet. These types of laws will eventually become pointless - once artists stop selling their copyrights.
They're going after the distribution channels. That's what this is all about. Hopefully artists will begin to realize that copyright should never be sold to anyone under any circumstances, that it is as precious as gold, and that our culture doesn't have enought respect for it.
I think we all need to respect copyright more than we do. | |
| | | |
|
·
·