dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
282
share rss forum feed

silbaco
Premium
join:2009-08-03
USA

Oh well.

I use Rhapsody for my music and I use Hulu or buy the TV shows I want. My wifi is locked down with a lengthy WPA2 key. Never gotten a copyright notice, highly doubt I ever will. My ISP is not participating in six strikes and is unlikely to ever. But even if they were, it wouldn't affect me.


elefante72

join:2010-12-03
East Amherst, NY

1 recommendation

It doesn't effect you until it does. Even if you don't get a copyright notice, that extra $3 a month they will tag onto your bill for compliance will. You ISP will be sued or legislated into compliance. Do you think the cost of all this regulation and compliance are free? Do you think they will stop at just passive monitoring?

So the unlocking your phone, million dollar fine and jail time are cool, eh? You could be a mid-level drug distributor and get off easier. Am I the only one who think the G is off their rocker?

Notice how laws keep popping up, not going away. I was talking to a guy at my kids hockey game who was distressed because the RIAA was suing his daughter (18 freshmen in college) for $100k for downloading 300 songs (full value maybe $400. Now of course this is ridiculousness that these fines are even possible, but he said attorney fees had gone north of $10k already and it was having a devastating effect on the family.

Did she do something "wrong", yes. But the resulting punishment is SO out of whack it doesn't make common sense.

It used to be treble damages were limited to 3x the ACTUAL damage, but since IP "value" is total bs, they can place some mysterious "value" on it--say $100k and shove it down everyone's throats. It's going to get worse, and in the meantime China blossoms and we wither to s**t under a patent and copyright system 40 years behind the times.

The government is creating laws that criminalize "normal" activities or civil matters, which is just the effect of a monster that has gotten out of control.


Mr Matt

join:2008-01-29
Eustis, FL
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Millenicom
·Embarq Now Centu..
·Comcast
·CenturyLink
reply to silbaco

Unless of course a guest uses your broadband connection and without your knowledge and they are seeding infringing material. Or your thirteen year old nephew while visiting downloaded copyrighted material and then you are held responsible for their infringement. The problem with all of these schemes to punish those persons distributing copyrighted material is that the perpetrator is not the person held responsible. There are more trolling schemes being created that unconstitutional but are not addressed by corrupt politicians. Here in Florida citations are being issued to owners of vehicles that run red lights without identifying who is driving. Pay off the politicians and those trolling will be allowed to engage in their fraudulent schemes without restriction.


silbaco
Premium
join:2009-08-03
USA
reply to elefante72

I don't disagree with you. I hate the current laws and the RIAA. But if you follow the music industry blogs and comments, the point of 6 strikes isn't to sue people. It is to educate users. The fact remains that most people think they have the legal right to download as much music as they want as long as they don't upload or sell it. That is completely untrue and 6 strikes is meant to squash that. It costs the RIAA lots of money to sue people, and many of them don't pay. By agreeing to not suing for at least the first 6 strikes versus the first, we could actually see a substantial decrease in lawsuits.


Mr Matt

join:2008-01-29
Eustis, FL
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Millenicom
·Embarq Now Centu..
·Comcast
·CenturyLink
reply to elefante72

The way special interest groups are being allow to abuse citizens is nothing new. Utilities have already had special outrageous fines and punishments authorized by government for any activity that appears to be taking service without paying. The utility companies on the other hand are not required to reimburse customers for damages due to their billing errors if the customer discovers the error to late. Many utilities have liability limited if the error is not reported within six months.


CXM_Splicer
Looking at the bigger picture
Premium
join:2011-08-11
NYC
kudos:2
reply to elefante72

I was talking to a guy at my kids hockey game who was distressed because the RIAA was suing his daughter (18 freshmen in college) for $100k for downloading 300 songs (full value maybe $400. Now of course this is ridiculousness that these fines are even possible, but he said attorney fees had gone north of $10k already and it was having a devastating effect on the family.

That is their MO... it is blackmail by any interpretation. Generally they sue for an amount that is not economically feasible to hire an attorney for... so even if you are innocent, it is cheaper to pay the ransom then to prove your innocence. They are probably stringing this guy's daughter along, letting them rack up attorney's fees, then they will offer to settle for $10-15k. Their atty will recommend they settle. It will probably never see a court room unless she has made statements of her guilt.


anon anon

@charter.com
reply to elefante72

said by elefante72:

It doesn't effect you until it does. Even if you don't get a copyright notice, that extra $3 a month they will tag onto your bill for compliance will. You ISP will be sued or legislated into compliance. Do you think the cost of all this regulation and compliance are free? Do you think they will stop at just passive monitoring?

How much of your local taxes goes towards paying the local police? If there wasn't any crime you wouldn't need police so your higher taxes are the fault of the criminals that necessitate a local police force and jail not the cops themselves. So the fault of this $3 fee is that of the people that pirate not the ISP. That is who you indignation should be focused on.

elefante72

join:2010-12-03
East Amherst, NY

2 recommendations

The fault of the $3 is the government calling it "illegal" and the transfer of cost from the copyright holders to the masses. Also these should be civil, not criminal manners however that genie has been let out of the bottle.

In a perfect market economy the cost of compliance "loss factor" should be built into the price of the good, not forcefully transferred to the end user if they are a user of that good or not. That is exactly what they are asking the ISP's to do. Grandma doesn't download itunes, but now gets an ISP compliance tax. Great...Problem not solved.

This functions reasonably well in a vast majority of instances. Take the mall (aka the ISP in this example)

You go to JCPenney. They have security, loss prevention, etc. They build into the price of the product a margin for "loss factor". When they catch the person, they make an economic decision as to whether to bring it to the authorities. They know what typical loss is, and they price that into the good.

You walk across to the Pretzel factory. Since the rate of loss at the Pretzel factory is much smaller than at JCP, the cost of the pretzel is lower than if say they were stolen at a much higher rate.

What I am suggesting, is that the ISP (aka mall) will now charge you $3 to step inside the mall, even if you don't buy anything, and this $3 goes to the mall, not even the stores inside because now they have to have some centralized, layered security that is arbitrarily administered. So JCP still has to maintain it's fraud department, and nothing has changed except now you have to pay $3 to step foot in the mall and the extra $2 to buy a shirt for the loss factor.

Remarkably with IP (music) there is NO DIRECT ECONOMIC LOSS, as the good is virtual and the actual cost may be millicents or less (the cost to transfer the data). There is a mythical opportunity cost as it is known in economic standards. That is why JCP can MEASURE the loss of goods (they were physically stolen/damaged,etc), whereas the music industry says, I'm loosing (theoretically) $6 billion, when is fact they are talking about opportunity cost, not direct loss. One can download a song and never listen to it. No actual loss there. One would have never downloaded the song in the first place if the tools weren't there. One actually buys the song after they hear it, like it, and determine its worth buying, whereas before they don't take the risk. This is actually a GAIN, but even that can't be measured.
Why can I return my TV to the store if I don't like it? I certainly can't do that for a s**tty song.

Music industry:

1. You get a sample of the song, in low quality 30 second clip.
2. You take a risk a buy it.
3. You don't like it, too bad you paid me.
4. You like it. Great, actual value. But now my kid can't listen to it, or if I have 5 friends over an put it on, I have to send a check to ASCAP.

I have lots of family in the music bus, and I hear it every day. Most got out and got day jobs because it is so messed up.

There are lots of artists out there that want to share their work and people appreciate it, and yes get paid for it. Does that means the usher at the door (the music company) HAS to be there taking $6 to put you in the seat to see the show.


CXM_Splicer
Looking at the bigger picture
Premium
join:2011-08-11
NYC
kudos:2
reply to anon anon

said by anon anon :

How much of your local taxes goes towards paying the local police? If there wasn't any crime you wouldn't need police so your higher taxes are the fault of the criminals that necessitate a local police force and jail not the cops themselves. So the fault of this $3 fee is that of the people that pirate not the ISP. That is who you indignation should be focused on.

Except that there is a very big difference between police investigating/prosecuting crime and a corporate entity not wanting to pay for its own security measures. What you are saying is: since people keep walking on your lawn, the whole community should pay for your fence. Sorry but if you want a fence... go buy one. If the music/movie industries want ISPs to engage in policing, they should be footing the bill. If they want to pass that expense off to their customers through the price of their product then so be it. The indignation should be focused squarely on the RIAA/MPAA and should be amplified to disgust, IMO.


mtnarea

@mycingular.net
reply to anon anon

said by anon anon :

said by elefante72:

It doesn't effect you until it does. Even if you don't get a copyright notice, that extra $3 a month they will tag onto your bill for compliance will. You ISP will be sued or legislated into compliance. Do you think the cost of all this regulation and compliance are free? Do you think they will stop at just passive monitoring?

How much of your local taxes goes towards paying the local police? If there wasn't any crime you wouldn't need police so your higher taxes are the fault of the criminals that necessitate a local police force and jail not the cops themselves. So the fault of this $3 fee is that of the people that pirate not the ISP. That is who you indignation should be focused on.

BF69 you're fooling no one.

TechnoGeek

join:2013-01-07
reply to elefante72

Bravo! Well-written and very easy to understand.

Agree with you nearly 100%. One nitpick is that a mall is free and internet service is not. However, this is easily rectified by saying that the mall charges for parking. The parking is now $3 more for additional mall security services.

Have you ever considered writing a piece like this for the average joe (dunno what venue)? You could really make even non-tech savvy people understand the issues that most people are overlooking today.

I know this sounds cheesy, but I am bookmarking this post for later reference any time I need to educate someone on this matter.


Kearnstd
Space Elf
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
kudos:1
reply to silbaco

in the US an additional fee on all broadband monthly bills might take them down a path they do not want. Someone could pirate and then with the right lawyer and right jury win a piracy trial. Simply because they could turn around and state they thought that fee authorized them to download music and movies. "I am paying for it" would effectively become a valid excuse.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports


NOVA_UAV_Guy
Premium
join:2012-12-14
Purcellville, VA
Reviews:
·Comcast
reply to silbaco

said by silbaco:

The fact remains that most people think they have the legal right to download as much music as they want as long as they don't upload or sell it.

Well, considering that most lawsuits I'm aware are suing users for sharing music rather than simply downloading it and keeping it for themselves, I can see how most people could rationally come to the conclusion quoted above.

There is also the old "educational use" argument that could be made for just downloading music and listening to it which does indeed muddy the waters a bit. Of course, that's only plausible if one downloads, listens, and then immediately deletes before going off to make a purchase. I don't know that I've ever heard of anyone doing that, as there are far easier methods of just previewing a song.

NOVA_UAV_Guy
Premium
join:2012-12-14
Purcellville, VA
Reviews:
·Comcast
reply to Kearnstd

said by Kearnstd:

in the US an additional fee on all broadband monthly bills might take them down a path they do not want. Someone could pirate and then with the right lawyer and right jury win a piracy trial.

If we're talking about a criminal trial and I'm on the jury, it doesn't even have to be the right lawyer or right other 11 jurors. I will guarantee a hung jury, at the least.

That is what disgust and disdain for the RIAA and MPAA get them from me. I don't pirate media, but sure as heck don't appreciate non governmental entities acting as though they have the right to enforce laws and impose fines.


anon anon

@charter.com
reply to elefante72

said by elefante72:

Remarkably with IP (music) there is NO DIRECT ECONOMIC LOSS, as the good is virtual and the actual cost may be millicents or less (the cost to transfer the data). There is a mythical opportunity cost as it is known in economic standards.

Actually the potential of a lost sale if of little consequence to me. Only the copyright holders and the pirates seem to push this issue though they are on different sides of it.

My issue is that if I am required to pay ( and I do so beause I know it's what you are supposed to do to) then YOU pay. PERIOD. The whole "I wasn't going to pay anyway" excuse is bull. Since when has the desire to NOT pay ever entitled anyone to something free? Once again it does not matter if the copyright holder is not losing a dime. As I said not my concern. MY point is I'm not cool with paying and then see you get away with not paying just because you feel like not paying. No way that flies with me. I pay, YOU pay. PERIOD

CXM_Splicer
Looking at the bigger picture
Premium
join:2011-08-11
NYC
kudos:2

quote:
My issue is that if I am required to pay ( and I do so beause I know it's what you are supposed to do to) then YOU pay. PERIOD.

Childish foot stomping.

You are not required to pay... you choose to pay, by your own admission, because you think it is what you are suppose to do. This may be breaking news to you, but the world does not abide by what YOU think we are suppose to do. In other words, I have no problem pirating so YOU have no problem with me pirating. PERIOD.


cork1958
Cork
Premium
join:2000-02-26
reply to mtnarea

said by mtnarea :

said by anon anon :

said by elefante72:

It doesn't effect you until it does. Even if you don't get a copyright notice, that extra $3 a month they will tag onto your bill for compliance will. You ISP will be sued or legislated into compliance. Do you think the cost of all this regulation and compliance are free? Do you think they will stop at just passive monitoring?

How much of your local taxes goes towards paying the local police? If there wasn't any crime you wouldn't need police so your higher taxes are the fault of the criminals that necessitate a local police force and jail not the cops themselves. So the fault of this $3 fee is that of the people that pirate not the ISP. That is who you indignation should be focused on.

BF69 you're fooling no one.

No, he sure doesn't, does he?!

Sure am glad I don't live any where near his ridiculousness. It might could be contagious!!

The RIAA is just dumb. They've have now had years to get with the times and realize what century this is, yet they still use neanderthal tactics and intelligence!
--
The Firefox alternative.
»www.mozilla.org/projects/seamonkey/


laserman

@comcastbusiness.net
reply to silbaco

Well what about the old recording people use to do with cassette recorders from radio stations, illegal? I don't think so, they get paid for their music and actually pay radio stations to play it, so why not record it? The world has changed to a more modern developed society, if the artist or actors don't want their stuff recorded then take it off the radio or tv, I bet then they have no sales.



joetaxpayer
I'M Here Till Thursday

join:2001-09-07
Sudbury, MA

said by laserman :

Well what about the old recording people use to do with cassette recorders from radio stations, illegal?

The recording wasn't illegal. Selling mixtapes recorded from one's record collection was where the issue started. It's the ability to share perfect digital copies that is driving this.
When I was younger, a 300baud modem would take hours to download anything. A bit older, and the 170MB (yes, megabyte) drive cost $300, so the idea of downloading a song and storing it made no sense. Now, a song is a fraction of a second to download. And the storage cost is zero. (about 1/40 cent per song. that's zero to me.)