dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
11
share rss forum feed
This Is Funny... »
This is a sub-selection from I like this

thevorpal1

join:2007-11-16
Alexandria, VA

2 recommendations

reply to FFH5

Re: I like this

said by FFH5:

Then don't do business with them.
Except that these companies enjoy the benefit of limited monopolies via the agreements they have put together with the various local governments.

If they had no franchise agreements, or were not protected from competition I would agree with you. However by accepting that protection they have also assumed the responsibility of providing the service to the community.

Because they have limited the rights of the users to seek out a competing service (another cable company), they have assumed implied responsibilities even if those were not codified explicitly into the agreement.


FFH5
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5
said by thevorpal1:

said by FFH5:

Then don't do business with them.
Except that these companies enjoy the benefit of limited monopolies via the agreements they have put together with the various local governments.

If they had no franchise agreements, or were not protected from competition I would agree with you.
However by accepting that protection they have also assumed the responsibility of providing the service to the community.

Because they have limited the rights of the users to seek out a competing service (another cable company), they have assumed implied responsibilities even if those were not codified explicitly into the agreement.
Franchises became non-exclusive by law years ago. So no cable company is protected from competition.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
Ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk?


S_engineer
Premium
join:2007-05-16
Chicago, IL

1 recommendation

" Cox was among the first ISPs to use malware walled gardens to cordon infected users off from the Internet at large until they've cleaned their PC." .....is a scary premise. Who provides the list of malware?...and why wasn't AOL on that list?...and why didn't they protect users from downloading malware in the first place?

This is bad precedent!
--
The "Lifetime" channel is responsible for 83% of all divorces...Robert Ginty

thevorpal1

join:2007-11-16
Alexandria, VA
reply to FFH5
said by FFH5:

Franchises became non-exclusive by law years ago. So no cable company is protected from competition.
I will accept that for new builds. But you still run into the problem that since no one is ever dealing with a clean slate (Brand new commmunity, no infrastructure currently built) Due to the protections that existed, buildouts have been stopped. Even though the protections have been repealed, the effects remain.

However, I'll ignore that and cut directly to the issue.

I'll even assume that there are two identical internet providers in the area. Company A, and Company B. If Company A, and Company B both decide to implement a policy that would remove a person's ability to communicate on the internet for any reason that is not mandated by law, then it is in effect a direct infringement on the person's freedom of expression.

Because these companies can effectively enact policies that go beyond what is required by legislation in an effort to serve as a policing body, they are attempting to expand their jurisdiction in a manner that is hostile to the People of that community.

The basis by which policy must be evaluated is not 'what is this policy intended to do', but 'what would this policy do if abused'.

hottboiinnc
ME

join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH

1 edit
it is not a freedom of expression to steal. If you steal you should be punished. COX is doing that by kicking them off their network which they have every right not to do business with anyone just like you have the right not to do business with them.

And as always; if you don't like the way these companies do business you are free to call DSLExtreme's parent company and pay them $200 and become a DSL Reseller nationwide and you can compete and not have these polices but i'll give you 3 months if that long and you'd be putting those same policies into affect on your own network; especially if the RIAA or the MPAA come knocking on your door.

thevorpal1

join:2007-11-16
Alexandria, VA

1 recommendation

said by hottboiinnc:

it is not a freedom of expression to steal. If you steal you should be punished. COX is doing that by kicking them off their network which they have every right not to do business with anyone just like you have the right not to do business with them.

And as always; if you don't like the way these companies do business you are free to call DSLExtreme's parent company and pay them $200 and become a DSL Reseller nationwide and you can compete and not have these polices but i'll give you 3 months if that long and you'd be putting those same policies into affect on your own network; especially if the RIAA or the MPAA come knocking on your door.
I do run my own network, and I do not enforce such policies. I pass on DMCA notices as required by law, if I try to do more, then I tread into areas which may violate my status as a common carrier.

Should people who violate copyrights be punished? Yes.

Is COX an investigative body? No
Is COX a police force? No
Is COX the entity initiating the DMCA takedown request? No

Is COX altering their use policy to apply non legislated punishments and expanding the scope of copyright law?
Yes.


wifi4milez
Big Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace

join:2004-08-07
New York, NY

1 recommendation

reply to thevorpal1
said by thevorpal1:

Because these companies can effectively enact policies that go beyond what is required by legislation in an effort to serve as a policing body, they are attempting to expand their jurisdiction in a manner that is hostile to the People of that community.

Thats a bad example. Look at another way, millions of people ride buses/trains everyday. Almost every bus/train has rules that seek to reduce rowdy behavior. Customers that are really loud and cause problems for other riders will be kicked off the bus/train. There is certainly no law against being rowdy, however the rider agrees to abide by certain rules when he/she gets on the bus/train. The situation at hand is no different, by using their (Cox) service you agree to abide by their rules.
--
If history teaches us anything, it teaches that simple-minded appeasement or wishful thinking about our adversaries is folly.
-Ronald Reagan-

thevorpal1

join:2007-11-16
Alexandria, VA

1 recommendation

said by wifi4milez:

said by thevorpal1:

Because these companies can effectively enact policies that go beyond what is required by legislation in an effort to serve as a policing body, they are attempting to expand their jurisdiction in a manner that is hostile to the People of that community.

Thats a bad example. Look at another way, millions of people ride buses/trains everyday. Almost every bus/train has rules that seek to reduce rowdy behavior. Customers that are really loud and cause problems for other riders will be kicked off the bus/train. There is certainly no law against being rowdy, however the rider agrees to abide by certain rules when he/she gets on the bus/train. The situation at hand is no different, by using their (Cox) service you agree to abide by their rules.
It is a perfectly valid example because it is a description of the actual situation. You lose the context when you try to come up with automobile analogies.

And to top it off, your analogy explicitly fails.
There is certainly no law against being rowdy
There most certainly are such laws. »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disorderly_conduct

Which is my point. If such a thing is necessary, then it must be written into law if attempts are being made to enforce it as a law.

Because when you encode it into law, the people are protected by virtue of having representation to enact and repeal that law, as well as oversight and checks/balances.

If it is the right thing to do, then there is no reason why it shouldn't BE a law. But if it is not a law, then it should not be enforced as such.

willp1
Premium
join:2003-12-19
Las Cruces, NM
reply to FFH5
Next we have machine gun on each corner every one want to be the police. Another four years of another want to be Bush and this country will be police state.

fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3

1 recommendation

reply to thevorpal1
Good luck with your business, as long as it lasts. If you don't get eaten up by the xxAA, or the burden of legal fees, I don't know what will.

Not sure what kind of "network" you run, but I can guarantee you that you're not above being responsible for illegal practices taking place on your network and that when pointed out to you and you do nothing.. well.. that's your right to take that risk.

And, unless you are THE top of the food chain on this "network" you run, you still have to answer to the ones up the ladder from you.

-good luck!

thevorpal1

join:2007-11-16
Alexandria, VA
The legal fees are minimal, and were limited to guidance and a policy by which I will comply with local and federal laws. I comply with court orders, and the associated legal reporting requirements.

You seem to think that I'm encouraging any sort of illegal behavior. I am not. What I do is comply with the laws as written, and I act as a transparant middle man.

As for quoting 'network', though it isn't large, it is profitable enough to cover the costs for my post-graduate studies, which, unfortunately, are not inexpensive.


wifi4milez
Big Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace

join:2004-08-07
New York, NY
reply to thevorpal1
said by thevorpal1:

said by wifi4milez:

said by thevorpal1:

Because these companies can effectively enact policies that go beyond what is required by legislation in an effort to serve as a policing body, they are attempting to expand their jurisdiction in a manner that is hostile to the People of that community.

Thats a bad example. Look at another way, millions of people ride buses/trains everyday. Almost every bus/train has rules that seek to reduce rowdy behavior. Customers that are really loud and cause problems for other riders will be kicked off the bus/train. There is certainly no law against being rowdy, however the rider agrees to abide by certain rules when he/she gets on the bus/train. The situation at hand is no different, by using their (Cox) service you agree to abide by their rules.
It is a perfectly valid example because it is a description of the actual situation. You lose the context when you try to come up with automobile analogies.

And to top it off, your analogy explicitly fails.
There is certainly no law against being rowdy
There most certainly are such laws. »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disorderly_conduct
Another bad example on your behalf. You can/will get kicked off a bus/train for non-arrestable offences. For instance, in many cities eating and drinking on a bus will get you kicked off. That is certainly not disorderly conduct, and you will not be charged with anything; just asked to leave. The same applies to rowdy behavior. If what you are doing on the bus/train is interfering with the other passengers (playing music or talking loudly), you will be asked to leave. Again, in most cases you will not be subject to arrest for disorderly conduct as you have broken no law and have simply gone against the rules of the bus/train. Only if you refuse to disembark from the bus/train are you then subject to disorderly conduct, as THAT is an offence. Lets hope we are done here, as you arent going to win this one.
--
If history teaches us anything, it teaches that simple-minded appeasement or wishful thinking about our adversaries is folly.
-Ronald Reagan-

hottboiinnc
ME

join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH
reply to thevorpal1
if you weren't encouraging illegal behavior you would be doing the same thing as COX. you'd be shutting these people off. Instead you keep giving them service and allow them to do it.


RARPSL

join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY

1 recommendation

reply to FFH5
said by FFH5:

Franchises became non-exclusive by law years ago. So no cable company is protected from competition.
Even if Franchises are no longer exclusive, there is the problem that the cost of wiring an area that already has coverage makes the attempt not cost effective. The old company has the benefit of their having wired the area when they were exclusive and thus has a major advantage. The only possible solution is to make the "Last Mile" a separate company who sells access to ANY Cable Company who wants to service the area.

thevorpal1

join:2007-11-16
Alexandria, VA
reply to hottboiinnc
said by hottboiinnc:

if you weren't encouraging illegal behavior you would be doing the same thing as COX. you'd be shutting these people off. Instead you keep giving them service and allow them to do it.
I sincerely hope that you are being sarcastic with that comment.

thevorpal1

join:2007-11-16
Alexandria, VA
reply to wifi4milez
Actually if you look at your post, you have proved my point.

Again, in most cases you will not be subject to arrest for disorderly conduct as you have broken no law and have simply gone against the rules of the bus/train. Only if you refuse to disembark from the bus/train are you then subject to disorderly conduct, as THAT is an offence.
This is my point.

You eat on the bus, and someone complains (The copyright holder) to the conductor.

The conductor complies with the rules, asks you to stop eating, and calls the police when you become disorderly (Passing along the DMCA request)

The police arrive and cite you for disorderly conduct (The copyright holder presents evidence and sues you in civil court)

That is why this is a major issue, by COX acton on its own initiative, it cuts out the legal protections that were enacted because DMCA complaints in and of themselves do NOT carry any legal weight as evidence of wrongdoing.

hwy419

join:2008-10-01
Moody, AL
reply to thevorpal1
Permitting infringement on copyright through your network is not illegal. But you should at least treat others as you would have them treat you. Would you like it if others were facilitating infringement on your own copyrighted materials? How would you feel if someone diminished your network profits and livelihood? I believe network admins have an ethical duty to prevent such activity on their networks. Permitting infringement violates the spirit of anti-infringement laws.


wifi4milez
Big Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace

join:2004-08-07
New York, NY
reply to thevorpal1
said by thevorpal1:

Actually if you look at your post, you have proved my point.

Again, in most cases you will not be subject to arrest for disorderly conduct as you have broken no law and have simply gone against the rules of the bus/train. Only if you refuse to disembark from the bus/train are you then subject to disorderly conduct, as THAT is an offence.
This is my point.

You eat on the bus, and someone complains (The copyright holder) to the conductor.

The conductor complies with the rules, asks you to stop eating, and calls the police when you become disorderly (Passing along the DMCA request)

The police arrive and cite you for disorderly conduct (The copyright holder presents evidence and sues you in civil court)

That is why this is a major issue, by COX acton on its own initiative, it cuts out the legal protections that were enacted because DMCA complaints in and of themselves do NOT carry any legal weight as evidence of wrongdoing.
Yawn, you dont listen very well. You are going to try and twist this any way you can to support your point, even when its clear you are incorrect. I am done here.
--
If history teaches us anything, it teaches that simple-minded appeasement or wishful thinking about our adversaries is folly.
-Ronald Reagan-


NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:12
Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
reply to thevorpal1
But the DMCA does provide for you to contest the notice. And if you do contest the notice, I am reasonably sure that will force the **AA's hand; either put up (sue), or shut up. I should think that Cox would consider a response from their user challenging the DMCA notice as a "counterstrike". Well, they should consider it as such.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum

ReneM

join:2003-07-18
Cockeysville, MD
reply to hottboiinnc
Since when is copyright infringement a crime?


FFH5
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5
said by ReneM:

Since when is copyright infringement a crime?
Since the Congress made it so and when the President signed the bill.


heliox
Not at the table Carlos.
Premium
join:2000-11-28
Corona, CA
reply to thevorpal1
So do I.

A private organization alleging something to another private organization about my online behavior, is absurd.

If there is anything illegal going on, the ***a should get a subpoena for my usage records, and file suit with me.

The way I see it, COX doesn't like
1) hassle
2) bandwidth usage

It is so much easier to send a couple letters, and flip a switch.
--
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have" Thomas Jefferson


heliox
Not at the table Carlos.
Premium
join:2000-11-28
Corona, CA
reply to FFH5
Wrong...

It's always at least a civil matter (a tort). 17 U.S.C. 501(b) details
the mechanisms by which an owner of a copyright may file a civil suit,
and 28 U.S.C. 1338 expressly refers to civil actions arising under the
copyright act.

However, under certain circumstances, it may also be a federal crime. A
copyright infringement is subject to criminal prosecution if infringement
is willful and for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial
gain. 17 U.S.C. 506(a). If the offense consists of the reproduction or
distribution, during any 180-day period, of 10 or more copies having a
retail value of more than $2,500, the offense is a felony; otherwise, the
offense is a misdemeanor. 18 U.S.C. 2319.

www.stason.org
--
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have" Thomas Jefferson


NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:12
Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
reply to heliox
said by heliox:

A private organization alleging something to another private organization about my online behavior, is absurd.
It is not. It is the basis for spam complaints, and other abuse complaint; and the reason why Abuse Departments exist.
If there is anything illegal going on, the ***a should get a subpoena for my usage records, and file suit with me.
Indeed. If there is an allegation of illegal activity, the matter should be brought to the attention of legal authorities.

In the case that my ISP cut off my Internet over the allegation of committing an illegal act, I'd have my attorney in touch with their legal department: Assuming that I actually have "clean hands".
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum


funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:6
said by NormanS:

In the case that my ISP cut off my Internet over the allegation of committing an illegal act, I'd have my attorney in touch with their legal department: Assuming that I actually have "clean hands".
Assuming your ISP is also clean...
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon -- KJ7RL
What you do at Christmas does not matter so much; What counts are the Christmas things you do all year through.