 JohnInSJPremium
join:2003-09-22
San Jose, CA
 ·PHONE POWER
 ·Comcast
| reply to NormanS
Re: Comcast CAS has to be stopped! said by NormanS:You would report theft to an ISP? Why? No ISP has either police power, or judicial authority to act against criminals! That is why we have AGs and DAs!
Because they enabled the crime, yeah. Cut the criminals off at the source.
--
My place : »www.schettino.us |
|
 KrisnatharokCaveat EmptorPremium
join:2009-02-11
Earth Orbit
kudos:7 | reply to NormanS
I hear a lot of justification for theft. Pretending an IPR violation is not theft is changing the definition of the word to assuage a guilty conscience. And that's a feeble attempt at justifying actions you believe are immoral or illegal.
--
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. |
|
 NormanSPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:9
 ·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| reply to tshirt
said by tshirt:Part of maintaining/retaining copyrights and/or patents REQUIRES the rights owner, or their agent/agency to ' vigorously' defend and peruse all known violators.
If the violator were Oda Kaori, I would certainly be willing to 'peruse' her!
But copyright violations don't require "vigorous" defense for maintenance. However, to the extend that copyright violations can cause damage to the holder's revenue stream, it may be worth pursuit in the civil courts. The issue with that is proving that Jack Sparrow actually inflicted the harm.
And, since the ISP has no judicial authority under law, they can't adjudicate a tort.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum |
|
NormanSPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:9 Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| reply to JohnInSJ
said by JohnInSJ:said by NormanS:You would report theft to an ISP? Why? No ISP has either police power, or judicial authority to act against criminals! That is why we have AGs and DAs!
Because they enabled the crime, yeah. Cut the criminals off at the source. You are assuming a crime has been committed.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum |
|
NormanSPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:9 Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
3 edits | reply to Krisnatharok
said by Krisnatharok:I hear a lot of justification for theft. Pretending an IPR violation is not theft is changing the definition of the word to assuage a guilty conscience. And that's a feeble attempt at justifying actions you believe are immoral or illegal.
Strictly speaking, "theft" refers to depriving the rightful owner of tangible property of there possession of said property.
"Intellectual" property can't be stolen, as such. Calling piracy, "theft" is hyperbole, which only works because of the presumption that illegally distributed IP deprives the IPR holder of revenue. I can stretch that hyperbolic analogy to cover property damage: Putting a dent in the fender of my car is "theft" because I am deprived of the money I will spend on the repair.
Or, we can treat copyright for what it is, a civil tort.
Whether it is a crime, or a civil tort, we have a judicial process in place to review the claims. CAS, "Six Strikes", bypasses that process.
P.S. A little judicious searching came up with: "DOWLING v. UNITED STATES, 473 U.S. 207 (1985).
A Wikipedia article summarizes the out come thus:
quote:
... "interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud.
I know a certain ICE/FBI website equates copyright infringement with theft, but I am reasonably certain that SCOTUS trumps DHS/DoJ.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum |
|
KrisnatharokCaveat EmptorPremium
join:2009-02-11
Earth Orbit
kudos:7 | More strenuous verbal acrobatics.
--
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. |
|
|
|
NormanSPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:9 Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| said by Krisnatharok:Oh wow! I never knew you could only steal physical goods, and there is no such thing as online theft or piracy!!!
Talk about deluded.
Theft, fraud, and piracy are not interchangeable words for the same, identical concept.
And you are calling me, "delusional" for pointing that out?
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum |
|
KrisnatharokCaveat EmptorPremium
join:2009-02-11
Earth Orbit
kudos:7 | said by NormanS:said by Krisnatharok:Oh wow! I never knew you could only steal physical goods, and there is no such thing as online theft or piracy!!!
Talk about deluded.
Theft, fraud, and piracy are not interchangeable words for the same, identical concept. And you are calling me, "delusional" for pointing that out? I edited my post to tone down the sarcasm.
You were just now trying to twist words' meaning to escape the legal ramifications of the behavior you either take part in or are simply defending.
Call it what you will, it is illegal behavior.
--
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. |
|
JohnInSJPremium
join:2003-09-22
San Jose, CA Reviews:
·PHONE POWER
·Comcast
| reply to NormanS
said by NormanS:said by JohnInSJ:said by NormanS:You would report theft to an ISP? Why? No ISP has either police power, or judicial authority to act against criminals! That is why we have AGs and DAs!
Because they enabled the crime, yeah. Cut the criminals off at the source. You are assuming a crime has been committed. I'm not assuming anything. The ISPs agreed to do this in exchange for not getting sued for aiding in a crime.
After 6 warnings, the ISP agrees to get the attention of the ALLEGED criminal (by putting them in a walled garden, for example.) Said ALLEGED criminal will then need to do something to assure the ISP that the repeated infringements will stop.
--
My place : »www.schettino.us |
|
 tshirtPremium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:3
·Comcast
| reply to NormanS
said by NormanS: "Intellectual" property can't be stolen, as such. Calling piracy, "theft" is hyperbole, ... The FBI has a different opinion
»www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate···/ipr/ipr |
|
NormanSPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:9 Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| reply to Krisnatharok
said by Krisnatharok:I edited my post to tone down the sarcasm.
Sorry, I didn't catch that in time.
You were just now trying to twist words' meaning to escape the legal ramifications of the behavior you either take part in or are simply defending.
Call it what you will, it is illegal behavior.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum |
|
NormanSPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:9 Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| reply to JohnInSJ
said by JohnInSJ:I'm not assuming anything. The ISPs agreed to do this in exchange for not getting sued for aiding in a crime.
So all of the ISPs not on board with CAS are going to be sued? Even if they are compliant with DMCA?
After 6 warnings, the ISP agrees to get the attention of the ALLEGED criminal (by putting them in a walled garden, for example.) Said ALLEGED criminal will then need to do something to assure the ISP that the repeated infringements will stop.
"Alleged criminal" is the wrong term, unless a criminal complaint is filed. In the absence of a criminal complaint, the accused is just a "putative infringer".
CAS/Strikes is just "non-judicial punishment".
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum |
|
NormanSPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:9 Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
1 edit | reply to tshirt
Then let the MAFIAA refer infringers to the FBI, and leave the ISPs out of it.
BTW, SCOTUS trumps FBI:
»caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/g···207.html
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum |
|
KrisnatharokCaveat EmptorPremium
join:2009-02-11
Earth Orbit
kudos:7 | said by NormanS:Then let the MAFIAA refer infringers to the FBI, and leave the ISPs out of it. So you would rather justify a massive increase in public funding so the FBI can beef up it's cyber division to the point that it has the bandwidth required to open criminal cases on Americans (with all the requisite wire taps and warantless searches) for every IPR referral they get (you read that right, they would open a criminal case on you), than let the ISPs self-police their own customer base? At least Comcast cares about keeping you on because you give them money. The government would probably have the propensity to overconvict and then overhype its conviction rates for the appearance of being "tough on crime."
Seriously think about the ramifications here. This has got to be one of the only times I've heard a case from your intellectual viewpoint that you would rather have the federal government (who recently created for itself the power to strip you of American citizenship or even kill you outright should you ever leave the country) investigating you than let your ISP send out rather harmless violation warnings.
Talk about picking the greater of two evils.
--
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. |
|
JohnInSJPremium
join:2003-09-22
San Jose, CA Reviews:
·PHONE POWER
·Comcast
| reply to NormanS
said by NormanS:said by JohnInSJ:I'm not assuming anything. The ISPs agreed to do this in exchange for not getting sued for aiding in a crime.
So all of the ISPs not on board with CAS are going to be sued? Even if they are compliant with DMCA? After 6 warnings, the ISP agrees to get the attention of the ALLEGED criminal (by putting them in a walled garden, for example.) Said ALLEGED criminal will then need to do something to assure the ISP that the repeated infringements will stop.
As I understand CAS, that isn't quite accurate. The first strike is an attempt to get the attention of the putative infringer. The fifth strike is the lowering of the hammer on the putative infringer. But after strike six, then what? Five different ISPs five different responses. Non as severe as one none-CAS-participating ISP, which bans putative infringers for life after the third DMCA notice. "Alleged criminal" is the wrong term, unless a criminal complaint is filed. In the absence of a criminal complaint, the accused is just a "putative infringer". CAS/Strikes is just "non-judicial punishment". No idea if they are going to be sued or not, just that those that do participate in CAS aren't.
It's clear we're not making any headway on changing any opinions on either side. Which is where these discussions always end up.
Let me know if you see any warnings, and if so how it turns out.
--
My place : »www.schettino.us |
|
NormanSPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:9 Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
1 edit | reply to Krisnatharok
said by Krisnatharok:So you would rather justify a massive increase in public funding so the FBI can beef up it's cyber division to the point that it has the bandwidth required to open criminal cases on Americans (with all the requisite wire taps and warantless searches) for every IPR referral they get (you read that right, they would open a criminal case on you), than let the ISPs self-police their own customer base?
No, but neither do I like the idea that the ISPs will have to raise their prices to their customers for much the same reasons you don't want the FBI involved.
Our legal system can handle things just fine if the injured parties bring suit in court. The fact that the MAFIAA doesn't want redress of tort on their dime is telling. But somebody has to pay for enforcement; and if you want to call it a crime, then prosecute it as a crime. Otherwise call it what it is: Copyright infringement.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum |
|
NormanSPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:9 Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| reply to JohnInSJ
said by JohnInSJ:It's clear we're not making any headway on changing any opinions on either side. Which is where these discussions always end up.
Let me know if you see any warnings, and if so how it turns out.
I know how it will turn out; I will be hammering MAFIAA nads. I don't pirate useless MAFIAA crap. I don't even buy it; though I did years ago. Hmmm, imagine that! I am causing a decline in MAFIAA revenue without committing piracy!
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum |
|
JohnInSJPremium
join:2003-09-22
San Jose, CA Reviews:
·PHONE POWER
·Comcast
| said by NormanS:said by JohnInSJ:It's clear we're not making any headway on changing any opinions on either side. Which is where these discussions always end up.
Let me know if you see any warnings, and if so how it turns out.
I know how it will turn out; I will be hammering MAFIAA nads. I don't pirate useless MAFIAA crap. I don't even buy it; though I did years ago. Hmmm, imagine that! I am causing a decline in MAFIAA revenue without committing piracy! So do let me know if you get any notices, since you're not pirating. I would be surprised (and interested to know) if you did.
--
My place : »www.schettino.us |
|
KrisnatharokCaveat EmptorPremium
join:2009-02-11
Earth Orbit
kudos:7 | reply to NormanS
said by NormanS:No, but neither do I like the idea that the ISPs will have to raise their prices to their customers for much the same reasons you don't want the FBI involved.
Well who would have thought that the illegal actions of the few might mean higher prices for anyone!?!? And here you're trying to get across the point that no one is hurt by this non-criminal copyright theftpiracyfraudcivilmatter.
--
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. |
|
| reply to Krisnatharok
said by Krisnatharok:So you would rather justify a massive increase in public funding so the FBI can beef up it's cyber division to the point that it has the
There is not much more corrosive to the legitimacy of the state than unenforceable laws. *If* downloading copyrighted material is a federal criminal offense then yes either LEA should have sufficient resources to pursuit any and all infringers or the law should be changed.
said by Krisnatharok:bandwidth required to open criminal cases on Americans (with all the requisite wire taps and warantless searches) for every IPR referral they get (you read that right, they would open a criminal case on you), than let the ISPs self-police their own customer base? At least Comcast cares about keeping you on because you give them money. The government would probably have the propensity to overconvict and then overhype its conviction rates for the appearance of being "tough on crime."
Since when did private companies get the ability to shield criminals from culpability for criminal acts? |
|
