OceanaJones
join:2004-10-18
Suffolk, VA
2 edits | Sounds fair to me
This sounds like it gives the free loaders (thieves) ample opportunity to correct their downloading habits or lose their internet connection. Yet not be subject to unfair fines from the copyright holders the first time they infringe. The only thing that needs to be addressed is that copy protected works should be clearly stated and known, at the expense of the copyright holder, as to what is allowed with their works, and not to assume that everything created is automatically copyrighted.
edit: to change the word "free loaders" to "thieves" |
|
jc100
join:2002-04-10
| Good intentioned law, with real consequences that aren't fair. First, let's look at this from the opposite angle. Should grandma lose her internet, because grandchildren do illegal activity on it? I mean, even the best parents, don't know everything their kids get into. Even if you punish them, kids are just that dumb to do it again. Second, let's say a person does it on a friends pc, the same can be said. Should they lose internet. The question then arises (and its not stated here), for how long? Is this like a blacklist where you can never obtain another isp permanently or is this like a shor term ban? If shorterm ban, is it just that ISP or all? Exactly how this works, is not clearly explained. Personally, I don't think this is a good law, minus the fact it doesn't sue people or punish them into financial ruin. |
|
mogooder
join:2002-11-26
Washougal, WA | jc100
Should Grandma lose her car because the Grandchildren wrecked it, she did. Children's actions have consequences for adults.
mogooder
--
"The Secret is in the RITHMATIC" Henry Hudson |
|
DotMac4
Shill H8r
Premium
join:2007-10-26
Huntington Beach, CA | reply to jc100
I would say yes in that grandma should be supervising it's use.
And if she happens to slip up in that supervision she gets 2 warnings first. |
|
dks7
join:2004-05-31
| reply to OceanaJones
In all reality most of the sharing goes on with torrent right? Ok so their going to monitor your torrent traffic right? Simple solution, rent a cheap $50 dedicated server from a facility, remote in, leech your balls off torrents. Then download off that box with FTP + SSL. problem solved, in all fairness most people who are worried about p2p blocking at the ISP level just need to spend a few bucks to circumvent that. I am not advocating torrent or anything, just saying these tactics are just bandaids that can easily be undone. And by the time they find a way to filter crap so tight u cant move pirated content, most legit content wont come through either. What if an ISP is filtering your downloads and thinks a movie trailer from apple.com is a pirated movie. Its about that time most people at home that enjoy using the internet no longer have any desire to want to use it. Thus is goes away like a fad and the ISP's will have to get real jobs, got a shovel? |
|
Mactron
el camino Real
Premium
join:2001-12-16
CM94sv
1 edit | reply to jc100
said by jc100  :Good intentioned law, with real consequences that aren't fair. First, let's look at this from the opposite angle. Should grandma lose her internet, because grandchildren do illegal activity on it? I mean, even the best parents, don't know everything their kids get into. ... Yup ! GrandMa is responsible for her connection. Keep a better eye on them Granny.  Funny my parents always knew what I was up to. I was the same with my kids. An involved parenting style I guess...
While this doesn't seem an ideal solution the French have come up with. It does beat the hell out the assumption of guilt by so many ISP's. Their traffic-shaping practices, hidden Caps, and ETC. that penalize everyone.
I'll *Sign* to this one in trade for the current ISP assumptions and practices.. 
As always, YMMV
--
If only the Verizon CSRs worked this well. |
|
Camelot One
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-21
Sarasota, FL
clubs:
| I completely agree that people should be held responsible for their computers, even if the issue is caused by someone they allowed to use it. And with that in mind, I would want to see it expanded, to make people liable for their computers if infected with virus/spam bots as well, assuming it was due to their own inaction. (not running av software for example)
My concern with this law is, what happens with the false positives? Will people just ignore strike 1, knowing it's not true, because it has no immediate consequences? And will strike 2 then come easier, since the person has already been found "guilty" of strike 1? And so on.
--
Intel Quad Core QX6700 @3500Mhz/Asus P5N32-E SLI/4x 1024Mb Corsair/WD 74Gb Raptor/PNY 7800GTs SLI/Antec 550 True Control/Custom water cooler |
|
BosstonesOwn
join:2002-12-15
Everett, MA
clubs:
 ·Comcast
| said by Camelot One :I completely agree that people should be held responsible for their computers, even if the issue is caused by someone they allowed to use it. And with that in mind, I would want to see it expanded, to make people liable for their computers if infected with virus/spam bots as well, assuming it was due to their own inaction. (not running av software for example) My concern with this law is, what happens with the false positives? Will people just ignore strike 1, knowing it's not true, because it has no immediate consequences? And will strike 2 then come easier, since the person has already been found "guilty" of strike 1? And so on. You would push computing back to the stone age with a law punishing people for the abuse via virus or spam bot.
I want to know what happens when they get a box that has been rooted and used for whoring warez ? If a trojan or infected website was used do they nullify the offense ? To much unanswered for this to be a good law. I have had boxes rooted that were fully patched behind a soft firewall and I left the box unattended for the week end when I went to work and came back to a drive full of warez. All be it , it was 6 years ago when I had a nice ds3 to my office. That could have got me kicked off the net from that provider.
--
"It's always funny until someone gets hurt......and then it's absolutely friggin' hysterical!" |
|
jc100
join:2002-04-10
| reply to DotMac4
Well that's a different argument Dot. Grandma WOULD NOT be liable if said person who stole it was over 18. Criminal charges would be filed and her grandchild would be solely liable as that's Grand Theft. Now if you argue the fact the kid is a minor, then it's tricky. Yes, grandma shouldn't let their kids on the computer unsupervised. Yet, how many Kids know 100000000000x more about pcs than their parents. That's where the problem arises. The parents might be good intentioned and watching their kid. However, they lack the understanding to know everything or prevent certain activities. |
|
jc100
join:2002-04-10
| reply to Mactron
Easier said than done. Read my reply to guy above. As I stated, technology is a more difficult thing. There's a huge generational gap. Parents today don't know much on computers, where as kids, do. Most parents are lucky to be able to turn one on. Hell, I didn't own a computer until about 8 years ago. I taught myself everything. Yet my mother, who is soon 57 had absolutely no clue about them. Only now is she "OK" on them since I've given her loads of lessons. Yes, I am older say a 12 yr old kid with a 35 year old parent, but the argument stands. Computers are a rather new tool, and most over 25+ never had them as a kid. So we were all left to learn them later on, where as children now are growing up with them. |
|
OceanaJones
join:2004-10-18
Suffolk, VA
| reply to BosstonesOwn
Even though the above reply is off subject concerning the virus and bot stuff, The point is... If you are informed on your first warning (remember, they give you three (3) warnings)that your computer is infected with a virus, bot, rootkit, or whatever, that should give you ample time to correct the problem with no loss of service. After the third strike, however, you should be counted out! Likewise, if you have been warned on three different occasions that your internet service has been used illegally, then it should be cut off, no matter who you want to blame for the illegal use. And another thing while I'm at it. The opinions of thieves don't matter much. |
|
Mactron
el camino Real
Premium
join:2001-12-16
CM94sv
1 edit | reply to jc100
said by jc100 :Easier said than done. ... Yet my mother, who is soon 57 had absolutely no clue about them. Only now is she "OK" on them since I've given her loads of lessons. Being your Mothers "Age" I learned, sometimes the hard way. She learned and they will too. If the first two times don't get the lesson across... The third time surely will.
Sorry, I don't Buy it.
Obviously YMMV.
--
If only the Verizon CSRs worked this well. |
|
S_engineer
join:2007-05-16
Chicago, IL
·Comcast
| reply to jc100
said by jc100 : Yet, how many Kids know 100000000000x more about pcs than their parents. That's where the problem arises. The parents might be good intentioned and watching their kid. However, they lack the understanding to know everything or prevent certain activities. Excellent point. My problem is this "Under the agreement -- drawn up by a commission headed by the chief executive of FNAC, one of France's biggest music and film retailers -- service providers will issue warning messages to customers downloading files illegally.
If users ignore those messages, their accounts could be suspended or closed altogether"
Thats the equivalent of having the RIAA make our Internet use laws. That shouldn't happen. Not to mention the Artists that CHOOSE to give out free music. Will they be even further blackballed be their respective recording industry? |
|
Camelot One
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-21
Sarasota, FL
clubs:
| reply to Mactron
said by Mactron :said by jc100 :Easier said than done. ... Yet my mother, who is soon 57 had absolutely no clue about them. Only now is she "OK" on them since I've given her loads of lessons. Being your Mothers "Age" I learned, sometimes the hard way. She learned and they will too. If the first two times don't get the lesson across... The third time surely will. Sorry, I don't Buy it. Obviously YMMV. I'd point out that ignorance is not a defense in ANY criminal action. And I don't think it should be with computers either. If you aren't smart enough to know how to use them, and if you aren't watchful enough to monitor what other people are doing on YOUR computer, you should not have one. ECommerce be damned.
--
Intel Quad Core QX6700 @3500Mhz/Asus P5N32-E SLI/4x 1024Mb Corsair/WD 74Gb Raptor/PNY 7800GTs SLI/Antec 550 True Control/Custom water cooler |
|
CatchingSpy
join:2002-09-08
Atlanta, GA | reply to OceanaJones
OceanJones: Are you paid by the music industry to post stupid comments or are you naive? |
|
DotMac4
Shill H8r
Premium
join:2007-10-26
Huntington Beach, CA
| reply to jc100
This isn't about grand theft. This is an ISP after 2 warnings canceling service. It seems perfectly reasonable to me.
As it stands now in the US, the RIAA could simply file suit against grandma and they'd win (as we just saw a mom go down in court flames recently) no matter who "really" did it. |
|
DotMac4
Shill H8r
Premium
join:2007-10-26
Huntington Beach, CA
| reply to S_engineer
said by S_engineer :Thats the equivalent of having the RIAA make our Internet use laws. Sounds like the DMCA.
At least in France you'll get a few warnings before the extortion letter arrives. |
|
zachary1
you talkin' to me?
join:2004-03-07
right here | reply to CatchingSpy
he sounds like a paid shill
how about leaving the downloaders/uploaders alone and get on with life? |
|
diskdocx
join:2005-09-26
Burlington, ON
·Cogeco Cable
| reply to OceanaJones
So, if one has their car stolen 3 times, they should be banned from being able to obtain insurance from any company for perpetuity. And, by proxy, banned from driving?
Maybe we could extend that to 3 car accidents (at fault or not), and then lifetime license suspension.
Makes sense to me. |
|
captnhook
join:2001-02-20
NY
| reply to OceanaJones
A majority of PC users even when warned would be clueless that their boxes are owned on top of that no body has even addressed the issue of hackers accessing unsecured Wi-Fi IP connections.
This proposal is just another last gasp attempt of the international mega-corps to retain their death grip on consumers and artists. |
|
