TOPDAWG
Premium
join:2005-04-27
Midland, ON
 ·TekSavvy Solutions..
| reply to packetscan
Re: Bandwith throttling poor way to deal with P2P
The same could be said for a car too. Without the car I could never have done that drive by last week. Not the program markers doing what people use the software for.
You may as well blame high speed internet. BT and the like can be used for many legel things. |
|
TOPDAWG
Premium
join:2005-04-27
Midland, ON
·TekSavvy Solutions..
| reply to packetscan
So by what your saying M$ should be in jail being as I use IE to surf the net and without surfing the net I could never find the torrent downloads I need to get a file.
Also rogers needs to sue themselves cause without the internet I get from them I could never download music and movies.
Hell I blame computer makers damn it without PC's this would never even be an issue. Them bastards down with them I say. |
|
envoid
join:2002-12-21
Duluth, GA | reply to packetscan
lol |
|
packetscan
Premium
join:2004-10-19
Bridgeport, CT
clubs: | reply to envoid
blah blah blah |
|
envoid
join:2002-12-21
Duluth, GA
1 edit | reply to packetscan
said by packetscan  :people keep telling me that: "Support your statements" Why not try to prove me wrong? Because you can not. Damn Trolls. So, are you liable if you created a service that technically allowed copyrighted materials to be shared despite you doing everything possible to keep it from happening? This can't be too hard of a question.
Ok, to prove your mental incompetence, using your logic of making the devs liable for what others do, I hold you liable for posting on here and making me (and possibly others) irate and causing emotional distress. I'll have my attorney write up the papers and present them to you Monday so you can sign your assets over. Also, holding car mfrs liable for reckless drivers works to disprove you as well.
And before calling people Trolls you should check how long they've actually been around. I've been on DSLR 2yrs before you (2002), you only joined last year. And I'm only asking valid questions. You not wanting to answer them and making snide remarks makes you the troll. I guess you only know what you are, huh? 
PS, if you really want to know what an "attack" is here's a good example: "I would love for you to come down here and proceed to tell me that to me face so I can put a bullet between your eyes as you "force" your way into my home." (**This is only an example of an "attack" (aka personal attack) and is in no way meant nor provided as a threat or otherwise.) Now, the person you accused of attacking you came nowhere close to this. Are you really that paranoid? |
|
TheMadSwede
Premium
join:2001-01-30
Holland, MI | reply to packetscan
said by packetscan :Damn Trolls. Common tactic. |
|
packetscan
Premium
join:2004-10-19
Bridgeport, CT
clubs:
1 edit | reply to envoid
people keep telling me that:
"Support your statements"
Why not try to prove me wrong?
Because you can not.
Damn Trolls. |
|
envoid
join:2002-12-21
Duluth, GA
1 edit | reply to packetscan
said by packetscan :What's the problem i have more common sense than others? Well that's obvious isn't it.. Not really. You don't support your statements with anything at all and refuse to elaborate on them. Honestly, you sound like a bigot with what you wrote.
But let me see if I can understand you... If you created some software that had all these bells and whistles to share anything and everything except copyrighted works AND later was found to be able to transfer copyrighted works, even after doing everything possible to keep it from happening, you should be held liable?? NOT the people illegally sharing and copying the copyrighted works?? |
|
jp10558
Premium
join:2005-06-24
Willseyville, NY
| reply to TKJunkMail
I wonder how this will work WRT BT though. BT is one of the more legitimate P2P apps, in fact it is used or will be used by several large commercial entities - Blizzard is one for it's WoW patches.
Being known for degrading the performance of parts of one of the most popular MMORPG's is not really a good selling point for an ISP.
Not to mention, more software distributors are following the Linux distros, Opera for instance is working on going Bittorrent for updates from v9 IIRC.
And we've seen various DRMed Movie rental services planning on using Bittorrent for their services.
Overall, I think you can shape Guntella, Edonky, Fasttrack, whatever, but trying to shape Bittorrent is getting near shapeing FTP or HTTP file transfers which will be pretty sticky soon if not already for even the most legit users.
Not to mention, there is already filesharing that uses SSL HTTP file transfers - shaping that would likely impact *LOTS* of legitimate uses... |
|
gg5
join:2005-10-09
1 edit | reply to packetscan
Nothing personal intended! I was addressing the argument, not the person. I would not say you lack common sense or any other quality, only that your analysis of one issue was mistaken. I have been wrong on many occasions too.
Even in Grokster v. MGM, the Supreme Court decision was based on the conduct of the network operators, not merely the nature of the software. |
|
packetscan
Premium
join:2004-10-19
Bridgeport, CT
clubs:
 ·Optimum Online
| reply to TheMadSwede
What's the problem i have more common sense than others?
Well that's obvious isn't it..
Would i address gg5's questions? No
His questions are Baseless assumptions in an attack format.
--
Who do you want to pay off today? |
|
TheMadSwede
Premium
join:2001-01-30
Holland, MI
·Charter Pipeline
| reply to packetscan
said by packetscan :It's common sense for me.. And that's the problem.
First of all, it could be argued that based on the content of your posts, you lack common sense. I say this not because I think you're a bad person or anything, but because you've failed to address gg5's points, and ended the argument with a point that says, for all practical purposes, "I'm right, but I cannot or don't need to explain why I'm right".
Secondly, common sense is knowing something without requiring any specialized knowledge to know it. This in turn reduces every decision made in the world to extreme opposites. But (good) decisions need to be based on very specialized knowledge.
For example, you could, using common sense, scoff at large truck owners and curse their evil machines for drinking up too much fuel and destroying the environment and praise the sweet, pleasant Ford Escape Hybrid owner for selecting a hybrid vehicle that is good for the environment. But if you had specialized knowledge, you may realize that the larger truck has a diesel engine, which in general, offers around 30% better fuel economy than a gasoline engine. You could then, further using specialized knowledge, point out that although the diesel engine has better fuel economy, the hybrid and the diesel are being used for completely different applications, making it an apples to oranges comparison. Suddenly, a simple, black and white, common sense situation is far from simple.
For every 2-bit reporter or [disgust]blogger[/disgust] that says we need to make more of our decisions based on common sense, I say, "Get real". I say we need to make our decisions LESS on common sense and MORE on specialized knowledge.
The reason we have problems, whether they be at a national level or a commercial enterprise level, is that ignorant people are using common sense to make decisions that require specialized knowledge. Although their results are sometimes wacky and clunky, I still prefer the smartest people making them. |
|
Random Radical
@151.143.x.x | reply to packetscan
Common sense is remarkably uncommon in these litigious times. |
|
packetscan
Premium
join:2004-10-19
Bridgeport, CT
clubs: | reply to gg5
It's common sense for me.. |
|
microserf
@cgocable.net
| reply to maartena
said by maartena :An ISP has the right to set the terms of the service as they see fit. To a point. You can't have your blanket legal indemnity and OCD too.
said by maartena :...an ISP has the right to do whatever they please with their service... Within the law. Privacy is onerous and regulation an unforgiving matron. |
|
gg5
join:2005-10-09
| reply to packetscan
You seem to think there is a bright-line division between software that "facilitates theft" and software that doesn't. My answer - to restate it in different terms - was that in regard to copyright infringement, there is no difference in principle between the various network programs that enable copyright infringement.
In regard to copyright infringement, the difference between Kazaa, bittorrent and FTP, for example, is only a matter or degree, not of prinicple. One happens to be used more for infringement, and another is used less for infringement. But the uses that are made of it once it leaves the author's computer are beyond his control. If legal liability were to be decided by a quantitative analysis of user behavior, then it is completely arbitrary in its effects on the authors, and no one would be safe writing any network-enabled software.
Your position is like saying that gun makers should be liable for illegal shootings, car makers for car homicides, etc.. Obviously only the actual actor should be held responsible, unless the item has no legal purpose at all. |
|
packetscan
Premium
join:2004-10-19
Bridgeport, CT
clubs:
1 edit | reply to gg5
Your going out of the scope..
Your assumptions are Completely wrong.
Please re-read what i wrote.
edit:
What would be a program that would facilitate theft?
Kazaa, morpheus, etc... |
|
gg5
join:2005-10-09
| reply to packetscan
said by packetscan :Someone creates a software product that facilitates the Theft of digital media they should be held accountable!
First, I assume that by "theft" you mean copyright infringement.
So, according to you, makers of FTP clients and servers, web browsers and servers, even email and message applications should be "held accountable"? All of this software "facilitates the Theft [sic.] of digital media", in addition to facilitating huge volumes of legitimate activity.
Of course the same is true of all p2p software. Are you proposing that action should be taken if a certain percentage of use is for illegal activity? If so, what percentage? And is there any way the software developers can verify, at the time of writing, that it will never reach that percentage? And if not, how could anyone ever create any network software for any purpose without being subject to liability?
Clearly the common-sense rule is that the software and its developers are innocent and only the illegal activity should be subject to legal action.
And it is not the ISP's role to consider whether any particular transmission is legal or infringing. They should only respond to complaints about particular actions. |
|
maartena
Stacked.
Premium
join:2002-05-10
Orange, CA
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to microserf
said by microserf :said by tkjunkmail :
While Rogers has the right and duty to block illegal P2P activity on its system... Bullshit. An ISP has the right to set the terms of the service as they see fit. Whether they have the "duty" is whole other discussion, I believe that if you give internet accesss, you should give full access and not just partial.
Nevertheless, an ISP has the right to do whatever they please with their service, and if you don't agree with their terms, they probably won't mind at all if you move to a different ISP.
--
George W. Bush on Clinton going into Kosovo, 1999: “I think it’s also important for the president to lay out a timetable as to how long they will be involved and when they will be withdrawn.”
Right. We're still waiting for that Mr. Bush.... |
|
microserf
@cgocable.net
| reply to TKJunkMail
said by tkjunkmail :
That way they don't have to get involved in proving copyright issues and what users are downloading. They're not involved now, nor will they be in the future (if their lobby groups and current legal position are maintained).
Do you really want to start splitting hairs on what constitutes a server? |
|
