dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
uniqs
10

NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
TP-Link TD-8616
Asus RT-AC66U B1
Netgear FR114P

3 edits

NormanS to Krisnatharok

MVM

to Krisnatharok

Re: Comcast CAS has to be stopped!

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.

Krisnatharok
PC Builder, Gamer
Premium Member
join:2009-02-11
Earth Orbit

Krisnatharok

Premium Member

More strenuous verbal acrobatics.

NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
TP-Link TD-8616
Asus RT-AC66U B1
Netgear FR114P

NormanS

MVM

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?

Krisnatharok
PC Builder, Gamer
Premium Member
join:2009-02-11
Earth Orbit

Krisnatharok

Premium Member

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.

tshirt
Premium Member
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA

tshirt to NormanS

Premium Member

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/inv ··· /ipr/ipr

NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
TP-Link TD-8616
Asus RT-AC66U B1
Netgear FR114P

NormanS to Krisnatharok

MVM

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.
NormanS

1 edit

NormanS to tshirt

MVM

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/inv ··· /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/s ··· 207.html

Krisnatharok
PC Builder, Gamer
Premium Member
join:2009-02-11
Earth Orbit

Krisnatharok

Premium Member

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/inv ··· /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.

NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
TP-Link TD-8616
Asus RT-AC66U B1
Netgear FR114P

1 edit

NormanS

MVM

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.

Krisnatharok
PC Builder, Gamer
Premium Member
join:2009-02-11
Earth Orbit

Krisnatharok

Premium Member

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.

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

dslcreature to Krisnatharok

Premium Member

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
PC Builder, Gamer
Premium Member
join:2009-02-11
Earth Orbit

Krisnatharok

Premium Member

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.

NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
TP-Link TD-8616
Asus RT-AC66U B1
Netgear FR114P

1 recommendation

NormanS to Krisnatharok

MVM

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.

Krisnatharok
PC Builder, Gamer
Premium Member
join:2009-02-11
Earth Orbit

Krisnatharok

Premium Member

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.

NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
TP-Link TD-8616
Asus RT-AC66U B1
Netgear FR114P

1 recommendation

NormanS to Krisnatharok

MVM

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?

BronsCon
join:2003-10-24
Fairfield, CA

BronsCon to Krisnatharok

Member

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
PC Builder, Gamer
Premium Member
join:2009-02-11
Earth Orbit

Krisnatharok to NormanS

Premium Member

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.
Krisnatharok

Krisnatharok to BronsCon

Premium Member

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).

BronsCon
join:2003-10-24
Fairfield, CA

BronsCon

Member

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
MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
TP-Link TD-8616
Asus RT-AC66U B1
Netgear FR114P

2 edits

NormanS to Krisnatharok

MVM

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.


THZNDUP
Deorum Offensa Diis Curae
Premium Member
join:2003-09-18
Lard

THZNDUP to BronsCon

Premium Member

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.

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

dslcreature to Krisnatharok

Premium Member

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.