dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
7447
share rss forum feed


JohnInSJ
Premium
join:2003-09-22
Aptos, CA
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


Krisnatharok
Caveat Emptor
Premium
join:2009-02-11
Earth Orbit
kudos:12
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.



NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:11
Reviews:
·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


NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:11
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


NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:11
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


Krisnatharok
Caveat Emptor
Premium
join:2009-02-11
Earth Orbit
kudos:12

More strenuous verbal acrobatics.
--
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.



NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:11
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


Krisnatharok
Caveat Emptor
Premium
join:2009-02-11
Earth Orbit
kudos:12

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.


JohnInSJ
Premium
join:2003-09-22
Aptos, CA
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


tshirt
Premium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:4
Reviews:
·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


NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:11
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.

I am not defending piracy. I am just suggesting that one type of illegal activity has different legal ramifications than another type.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum


NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:11
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.

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".
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum


NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:11
Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC

1 edit
reply to tshirt

said by tshirt:

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

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


Krisnatharok
Caveat Emptor
Premium
join:2009-02-11
Earth Orbit
kudos:12

said by NormanS:

said by tshirt:

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

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.


JohnInSJ
Premium
join:2003-09-22
Aptos, CA
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


NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:11
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


NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:11
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


JohnInSJ
Premium
join:2003-09-22
Aptos, CA

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


Krisnatharok
Caveat Emptor
Premium
join:2009-02-11
Earth Orbit
kudos:12
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.


dslcreature
Premium
join:2010-07-10
Seattle, WA
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?


Krisnatharok
Caveat Emptor
Premium
join:2009-02-11
Earth Orbit
kudos:12

said by dslcreature:

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?

Well, that's progress I guess. We've moved from claiming that pirating is not illegal to disagreeing with the way our society handles IPR enforcement.
--
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.


NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:11
Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC

1 recommendation

reply to Krisnatharok

said by Krisnatharok:

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.

Let's see the choices:

A: Taxpayer funding for enforcement of criminal sanctions against piracy (along with criminal standards of proof of wrongdoing); resulting in higher taxes for all citizens.

B: ISP funding for enforcement of non-judicial sanctions against putative wrongdoers (with no standard of proof of wrongdoing); resulting in higher ISP rates for all subscribers.

C: MAFIAA funding for civil sanctions against piracy (with civil standards of proof of wrongdoing); resulting in higher prices for media.

Oh, hell. I am cursed by my intelligence, and ability to see nuances.

Basically, the MAFIAA doesn't care who pays, as long as it isn't them. Nor do they care whom they steamroller with their high-minded, Holy Hyperbole, as long as they find some way to preserve a dying business model.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum


Krisnatharok
Caveat Emptor
Premium
join:2009-02-11
Earth Orbit
kudos:12

said by NormanS:

Nor do they care whom they steamroller with their high-minded, Holy Hyperbole, as long as they find some way to preserve a dying business model.

Hmmmm... there's a bit of irony in that statement.
--
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.


NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:11
Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC

1 recommendation

reply to Krisnatharok

said by Krisnatharok:

Well, that's progress I guess. We've moved from claiming that pirating is not illegal to disagreeing with the way our society handles IPR enforcement.

"Are you taking the crack" (Baber Siddiqui line from "Little Mosque on the Prairie")? I never said piracy wasn't illegal. All I said is that it wasn't theft. Murder isn't theft, either; but it damned well is illegal!

And, WRT copyright infringement, use of non-judicial punishment is just a smokescreen. I hope it backfires on the MAFIAA. I hope that when they haul repeated infringers before the judges with these CAS/Six Strikes "confessions" (educational acquiescence) they are seen as made under duress, and thus inadmissable.

The MAFIAA is just engaged in cost shifting, and not willing to bear the cost of proving that putative infringer is actually a pirate.

And if the MAFIAA really does give up as infringers continue beyond the sixth strike, what did they gain?
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum


BronsCon

join:2003-10-24
Walnut Creek, CA
Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
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.

You're thinking of trademarks here.Try again.


BronsCon

join:2003-10-24
Walnut Creek, CA
Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
reply to Krisnatharok

said by Krisnatharok:

Call it what you will, it is illegal behavior.

Theft is an illegal act, aka a crime, punishable by prison time. Copyright infringement is a civil matter; it only becomes a crime when infringing products are sold or distributed for profit. There is a difference and failure to recognize that is a slippery slope I will not let people like you drag me down.


Krisnatharok
Caveat Emptor
Premium
join:2009-02-11
Earth Orbit
kudos:12
reply to NormanS

How is piracy NOT theft? You're twisting definitions again. Piracy is either theft or criminal violence, committed on land, in the air, online, or in other major bodies of water or on a shore.
--
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.



Krisnatharok
Caveat Emptor
Premium
join:2009-02-11
Earth Orbit
kudos:12
reply to BronsCon

said by BronsCon:

said by Krisnatharok:

Call it what you will, it is illegal behavior.

Theft is an illegal act, aka a crime, punishable by prison time. Copyright infringement is a civil matter; it only becomes a crime when infringing products are sold or distributed for profit. There is a difference and failure to recognize that is a slippery slope I will not let people like you drag me down.

So if it's a civil matter, what's wrong with an internal policy like six strikes? People arguing here want it both ways, then reject either form of enforcement because they always claim opposite (i.e. CAS is inappropriate because Comcast is now shielding criminals for culpability).
--
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.


BronsCon

join:2003-10-24
Walnut Creek, CA
Reviews:
·SONIC.NET

said by Krisnatharok:

said by BronsCon:

said by Krisnatharok:

Call it what you will, it is illegal behavior.

Theft is an illegal act, aka a crime, punishable by prison time. Copyright infringement is a civil matter; it only becomes a crime when infringing products are sold or distributed for profit. There is a difference and failure to recognize that is a slippery slope I will not let people like you drag me down.

So if it's a civil matter, what's wrong with an internal policy like six strikes? People arguing here want it both ways, then reject either form of enforcement because they always claim opposite (i.e. CAS is inappropriate because Comcast is now shielding criminals for culpability).

It is a civil matter that carries punishment in the form of punitive damages which are way overblown in comparison to the actual damage caused ($25,000 for a $0.99 song that the label only sees $0.67 of). Under CAS, you have to pay $35 to clear your name if wrongfully accused, and if you are sued after 6 fraudulent CAS notices, wherein not paying the $35 is akin to admitting guilt, and haven't paid the $35 "protection" money, there's not a judge out there who isn't going to look you square in the eye in court and say "You admitted guilt six times, why are we even here? The court finds in favor of the plaintiff."

You don't see a problem with that? BMI accuses you of copyright infringement 6 times and your only choices are to admit guilt or pay a grand total of $210 so you might have a chance to defend yourself if it ever goes to court, to avoid paying $25,000 per song that they claim you downloaded, whether you did or not. That is extortion plain and simple, and here you are not seeing anything wrong with it. Christ, open your eyes.

This is a matter which should go to court, where the accused party can defend themselves on a level playing field (well, moreso than CAS, at least) the *first* time. All CAS does is ensure that, when it finally does go to court, innocent or not, the ruling will not be in favor of the defendant.


NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:11
Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC

2 edits
reply to Krisnatharok

said by Krisnatharok:

How is piracy NOT theft? You're twisting definitions again. Piracy is either theft or criminal violence, committed on land, in the air, online, or in other major bodies of water or on a shore.

OIC. Common usage does not law make. I wonder why we call copyright infringement, "piracy"? There was a time when copyright infringers were counterfeiters, in the literal sense of the term. It is still enough of a problem that a convention I work on staff has a staff expert who makes random checks of merchandise in the dealer's room.

It appears I am fighting against contemporary English language usage; as contrasted with actual legal usage.

In re: "How is piracy not theft?"

DOWLING v. UNITED STATES, 473 U.S. 207 (1985).

quote:
(a) The language of 2314 does not "plainly and unmistakably" cover such conduct. The phonorecords in question were not "stolen, converted or taken by fraud" for purposes of 2314. The section's language clearly contemplates a physical identity between the items unlawfully obtained and those eventually transported, and hence some prior physical taking of the subject goods. Since the statutorily defined property rights of a copyright holder have a character distinct from the possessory interest of the owner of simple "goods, wares, [or] merchandise," interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The infringer of a copyright does not assume physical control over the copyright nor wholly deprive its owner of its use. Infringement implicates a more complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion, or fraud. Pp. 214-218.

--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum