dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
7625
share rss forum feed


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

Re: Comcast CAS has to be stopped!

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:12
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:12
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:
·Comcast Business..
·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:
·Comcast Business..
·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:
·Comcast Business..
·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:12
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


THZNDUP
Deorum Offensa Diis Curae
Premium
join:2003-09-18
Lard
kudos:2
reply to BronsCon
A minor point, the $35 arbitration fee is only available for strikes 5 and 6, not for all of them. So in effect you have 4 charges with no program defined recourse to dispute their validity. And a $70 exposure under that program.

I believe the $35 fee is also refundable 'IF' you are successful in your challenge.
--
one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything


PeteC2
Got Mouse?
Premium,MVM
join:2002-01-20
Bristol, CT
kudos:6
Reviews:
·Comcast
reply to BronsCon
said by BronsCon:

Perhaps you're projecting your reasons for being pissed onto others here? Personally, I used to pirate a large amount of software, back before I could afford it, while saving up to eventually buy it. I now own all of the software I use. My CDs are all ripped to MP3 and hidden in shoeboxes of shame (shame for the industry I supported by buying them) and the few DVDs and Blu Ray discs I have are kept in drawers, so I'm not showing my guests that I've spent my own money to support such a horrid industry. From the outside, I look like a huge pirate, but the opposite could not be more true. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that you've got a fair bit of questionably-obtained content, yourself, however, given that you immediately jump to "anyone who doesn't like this is a dirty pirate".

Oh, because you couldn't afford software, you pirated it, while saving up to one day buy it. Same old song. As I've often contended, the reason folks steal digital data is because it is easy, and the chances of being caught are slim...nothing more, nothing less. Using your logic, I should "pirate" a new car if I can't afford one now...saving up to one day purchase it.

However, I'm not really pissed at anyone...true, I have little use for data/media pirates because for all their nattering on about the unfair world of business, their acts do raise the cost and ease of access of media to those who would legally purchase/rent it. But after all, data pirates are no different than shoplifters; the world's full of 'em and I lose no sleep over them.

Now, if you could find any "questionably-obtained" content at my house, that would be a nifty trick...because I have none. If I want something,I either buy it...or do without until such time as I can.

Ummm, by the way, I do not recall ever calling anybody a "dirty pirate"... strangely enough, I never considered whether or not data pirates bathe or not...
--
Deeds, not words


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
said by PeteC2:

As I've often contended, the reason folks steal ...


quote:
... 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.

Even SCOTUS agrees that infringement is not, "theft" ("stealing").
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum


BronsCon

join:2003-10-24
Walnut Creek, CA
Reviews:
·Comcast Business..
·SONIC.NET
reply to PeteC2
said by PeteC2:

said by BronsCon:

Perhaps you're projecting your reasons for being pissed onto others here? Personally, I used to pirate a large amount of software, back before I could afford it, while saving up to eventually buy it. I now own all of the software I use. My CDs are all ripped to MP3 and hidden in shoeboxes of shame (shame for the industry I supported by buying them) and the few DVDs and Blu Ray discs I have are kept in drawers, so I'm not showing my guests that I've spent my own money to support such a horrid industry. From the outside, I look like a huge pirate, but the opposite could not be more true. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that you've got a fair bit of questionably-obtained content, yourself, however, given that you immediately jump to "anyone who doesn't like this is a dirty pirate".

Oh, because you couldn't afford software, you pirated it, while saving up to one day buy it. Same old song. As I've often contended, the reason folks steal digital data is because it is easy, and the chances of being caught are slim...nothing more, nothing less. Using your logic, I should "pirate" a new car if I can't afford one now...saving up to one day purchase it.

However, I'm not really pissed at anyone...true, I have little use for data/media pirates because for all their nattering on about the unfair world of business, their acts do raise the cost and ease of access of media to those who would legally purchase/rent it. But after all, data pirates are no different than shoplifters; the world's full of 'em and I lose no sleep over them.

Now, if you could find any "questionably-obtained" content at my house, that would be a nifty trick...because I have none. If I want something,I either buy it...or do without until such time as I can.

Ummm, by the way, I do not recall ever calling anybody a "dirty pirate"... strangely enough, I never considered whether or not data pirates bathe or not...

Pirated it because I couldn't afford it, needed it for a job, and was *already* saving to buy it. then bought it with the money from that job. Yes. Problem? I'm a software developer, copyright is what puts food on my table, and I have no problem with this arrangement, nor do most of the developers and artists I know, and that is a large number. Most people who actually have a dog in the race would prefer to see someone pirate their product to make a buck in order to pay for their product rather than have them not pay for their product at all. This applies to music, as well; the RIAA doesn't care if media that is streamed has been paid for, so long as the streaming royalties are paid; BMI could care less whether a DJ spins purchased tracks or pirated tracks, so long as they get their royalties. That's the way of the copyright industry, given to you by an insider. Take it, soak it in, and realize that your views as a consumer may wildly differ from the views of those who actually profit from your consumption.

That, of course, doesn't work with a car (or any other physical object), because while you've got the car, the person (or dealership) you stole it from does not. This is the difference between copyright infringement and theft. It is also why a good deal of infringement goes unpunished even after the offender is positively identified; unless they are selling copies (commercial infringement, an actual criminal offense), there are no provable damages, and there's at least a modicum of chance that the offender may also be a paying customer, so why risk it?


dslcreature
Premium
join:2010-07-10
Seattle, WA
reply to Krisnatharok
said by Krisnatharok:

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).

I reject CAS because I believe it represents vigilante justice.

I do not reject it for the reason stated above. I was pointing out under US law private companies have no such ability to shield criminals from prosecution. It is not because I think Comcast would shield criminals from prosecution that I dislike CAS ... This issue has nothing whatsoever to do with my opinion of CAS.

I think you are trying to have it both ways by asserting downloading is a criminal offense while simultaneously implying it should not be prosecuted as such.