baineschile
2600
Premium
join:2008-05-10
Sterling Heights, MI
 ·Comcast
 ·magicjack.com
 ·Verizon Wireless B..
1 edit | Up to ISPs?
If someone stays within the cap range, and pays their bill every month, why should an ISP care whats going over its pipes? When did it become the duty of the ISP to police content?
Not that I support them, but will ISPs start limiting the websites of the KKK? Will the government jump in and censor people that write about government reform? Where does the filter stop?
Anyone who has read any of my posts on here knows that i support ISPs enforcing caps, mainly because most people are piraters that download tons and tons of content and eat up bandwidth. But i never have advocated that the service provider should police it.
If the music and movie industry wouldnt have been so greedy the last 30 years and prices on those products wouldnt have been so outrageous, piracy wouldnt be as big of a problem today. But cmon, 300 bucks for a blu ray player, and then 30 for each dvd?!?!!? All of it going to line the pockets of already rich millionaires. |
|
maartena
Stacked.
Premium
join:2002-05-10
Orange, CA
·RoadRunner Cable
| said by baineschile  :When did it become the duty of the ISP to police content? Since they were forced to by the Patriot Act adopted in 2002. I believe ISP's had to have their monitoring equipment in place by either 2005 or 2006, and are not forced to allow access to records to officials that have a warrant to look at them.
Obviously, the INTENDED use is to track down terrorists, but legally speaking the system may be used by any law enforcement who sees reason enough to suspect someone of crimes, and that could include piracy. Of course a proper warrant is still required.
The point of this post is not that the police weren't able to issue warrants BEFORE the patriot act, because they were. But before the patriot act, an ISP could simply say "I am sorry, but our records only go back 2 weeks" or something that sounds technically reasonable, while with the Patriot Act they are legally forced to keep all records to user traffic for at least one year.
Of course, the Patriot Act is useless in the fight against terrorism, because any smart terrorist uses very high encryption to communicate, which is virtually uncrackable, at least not within a reasonable amount of time.
So in a nutshell: The ISP's are forced to keep all traffic records for a year, and the government can request access to those records under the Patriot Act if they suspect you for any type of crime, including those not even close to terrorism, such as torrenting the latest issue of Girls Gone Wild. |
|
BIGMIKE
Premium
join:2002-06-07
Westminster, CA
| reply to baineschile
Thank you RIAA. 
RIAA v. The People: Five Years Later
On September 8, 2003, the recording industry sued 261 American music fans for sharing songs on peer-to-peer (P2P) file sharing networks, kicking off an unprecedented legal campaign against the people that should be the recording industry’s best customers: music fans.1 Five years later, the recording industry has filed, settled, or threatened legal actions against at least 30,000 individuals.2 These individuals have included children, grandparents, unemployed single mothers, college professors�€”a random selection from the millions of Americans who have used P2P networks. And there’s no end in sight; new lawsuits are filed monthly, and now they are supplemented by a flood of "pre-litigation" settlement letters designed to extract settlements without any need to enter a courtroom.3
But suing music fans has proven to be an ineffective response to unauthorized P2P file-sharing. Downloading from P2P networks is more popular than ever, despite the widespread public awareness of lawsuits.4 And the lawsuit campaign has not resulted in any royalties to artists. One thing has become clear: suing music fans is no answer to the P2P dilemma. »www.eff.org/wp/riaa-v-people-years-later |
|
major marco
Res Firma Mitescere Nescit
Premium
join:2003-02-13
Stepford, CA
clubs:
2 edits | reply to baineschile
said by baineschile :[...] i support ISPs enforcing caps, mainly because most people are piraters that download tons and tons of content and eat up bandwidth. [...] People who use the words most people are clueless and/or full of shit. I support caps on clueless shit peddlers.  |
|
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| reply to baineschile
said by baineschile :If someone stays within the cap range, and pays their bill every month, why should an ISP care whats going over its pipes? When did it become the duty of the ISP to police content? That's like saying UPS or FedEx shouldn't care if customers are shipping illegal drugs or child pr0n as long as those customers paid them. |
|
bender
Bite my shiny metal ass
Premium
join:2005-03-19
Evanston, IL
clubs:
·T-Mobile US
·Vonage
 ·AT&T U-Verse
 ·AT&T Midwest
·Mediacom
| reply to maartena
said by maartena :said by baineschile :When did it become the duty of the ISP to police content? Since they were forced to by the Patriot Act adopted in 2002. you forget that the internet does not belong to the united states government nor is it confined within the borders of the united states.
i, personally, have always felt that the internet should be a sovereign entity and treated as such. |
|
