Study: Disconnection Not Fair Piracy Punishment Also: Filters Don't Work, Net Neutrality Essential Wednesday Jul 27 2011 11:18 EDT A few months ago a UN study concluded that disconnecting people from the Internet for copyright infringement (a preferred bludgeon of the entertainment industry) violated citizen civil and political rights. Now Ars Technica directs our attention to yet another study, this one by the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) which comes to similar conclusions -- finding broadband account termination for copyright infringement a "disproportionate" penalty. In fact, the study draws conclusions in stark contrast to many of the established positions of the organization's 56 member countries, opposing filters as detrimental to free speech, and network neutrality as an essential telecom cornerstone. The new U.S. RIAA/MPAA ISP plan for copyright infringers doesn't specifically require service termination, but it does include language encouraging ISPs support such measures if they want to keep safe harbor protections. |
 KearnstdSpace Elf
Premium Member
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
kudos:2 |
Kearnstd
Premium Member
2011-Jul-27 11:25 am
Another issue with disconnection...you need some great big database that all ISPs have to query before hookup which means more wasted time for a CAE on the phone whos just trying to make a sale and keep up with their required quota for sales.
Really if someone got kicked off DSL, they could run off to Bestbuy get a modem and be on Comcast in an hour or less. and unless the Comcast billing had to check for a "three strikes violation" before allowing the service to be added it would never work.
well thats why this disconnection three strikes thing will never work here in the US if they try it. | |
|  | | |
Re: Another issue with disconnection...So because I can go to a store and buy something with a bad check because they don't subscribe to "the great big database", that is a reason to not have any bad check laws? Because I CAN get around a law means there shouldn't be a law? Come on. Bad argument.
People, if your real underlying principle is that Internet access should not be regulated in any way, including no restrictions on piracy, then just say so. Don't make bogus arguments like "they can't really stop piracy 100%" or "piracy really doesn't hurt anyone". | |
| | | |
to Kearnstd
common sense is in the building again | |
| | | | |
Re: Another issue with disconnection...Really? It's "common sense" to assert that "because I can avoid being caught, there should be no law against it"? Wow.
You all are coming up with nothing real on this main topic. I'm getting bored. This is like shooting ducks on a pond. Can someone please put something real out there? | |
| | | | | |
Re: Another issue with disconnection...Simple solution, if you get in trouble for pirating, you get sued! No need to cut off internet access! I am sorry, but the RIAA and MPAA (last I checked) didn't own the "internets". That my friend is absurd. | |
| | | | | | |
Re: Another issue with disconnection...said by Chicago_DSL6:Simple solution, if you get in trouble for pirating, you get sued! No need to cut off internet access! I am sorry, but the RIAA and MPAA (last I checked) didn't own the "internets". That my friend is absurd.
Not a bad point. Personally I'd be in favor of an administrative/account management type solution rather than throwing things into something I do find completely absurd... the civil courts system. Just from a efficiency and effectiveness point of view, the civil courts system is about the worst way to manage a societal issue that I can imagine. Almost anything would be better. But I understand your opinion and respect it. | |
|
| | |
to Kearnstd
Well, if you have up to two choices for ISPs, I suppose that could expand you to "six strikes" before you're SOL... | |
|
Mr Matt
join:2008-01-29
Eustis, FL
kudos:2  ·Xfinity
 ·CenturyLink
 ·Millenicom
|
Mr Matt
Member
2011-Jul-27 12:04 pm
Same old crap, guilty unless you pay $35.00 for review!  Disconnecting an entire family because a guest or a child infringed is bull feces. Same new unethical scheme holding the registered owner responsible for another users actions. As I stated in a prior post the same theory is used as an excuse to fine the owner of a car that ran a red light without determining who was driving. The one thing I have not found is a router, wired or wireless that has an indicator LED that illuminates when a computer is connected to the internet through the router. When a customer is disconnected is the address blacklisted? What happens if a different family member applies for service? What happens when a blacklisted infringer moves out of a rental apartment and an new tenant moves in? I just purchased a Netgear Router that has more LED's than a pin ball machine, none of which indicates that a computer is connected through it to the internet. One LED flashes mindlessly indicating activity on the internet but not whose activity. If I noticed a connected indicator light flashing on and off on the router, I might investigate why. The new U.S. RIAA/MPAA ISP plan is just an indication that the fascists in our government are taking control and are out of control. | |
| | | |
Re: Same old crap, guilty unless you pay $35.00 for review!So if a guest in my house takes my gun which I've left out on the kitchen counter loaded, and uses it to rob a bank and shoots and kills someone, do I have no responsibility?
Yes you are responsible for ensuring that stuff you own and control is not used for illegal activity. The degree of responsibility is a matter of discussion, but there is absolutely no support for the assertion that you have no responsibility under any conditions.
Think about businesses who provide wifi access. Are they responsible if someone downloads child porn over their connection? Absolutely yes, and they can get disconnected, no question. Why do you think they make you accept terms and conditions, why they have passwords now that they change frequently, and why they monitor and block access to websites? Because of liability. | |
| | | | |
talz13
Member
2011-Jul-27 2:03 pm
Re: Same old crap, guilty unless you pay $35.00 for review!said by MyDogHsFleas:So if a guest in my house takes my gun which I've left out on the kitchen counter loaded, and uses it to rob a bank and shoots and kills someone, do I have no responsibility? I would say that you would have no responsibility, if you noticed the gun was missing and reported it stolen. | |
| | | | |
to MyDogHsFleas
how is letting a friend use wifi comparable to a loaded gun? | |
| | | | |
to MyDogHsFleas
how is a loaded gun that is out on the kitchen, the same as letting a friend use wifi while he is over at the house?
So if my friend borrows my copy of dusk till dawn, makes a copy and shares it online, I should be held responsible for my neglect???
also, as for the business, they WOULD NOT be responsible for an end users action just like your isp would not be responsible for yours (Safe harbor) | |
| | | | | |
Re: Same old crap, guilty unless you pay $35.00 for review!said by alwaysonjohn:also, as for the business, they WOULD NOT be responsible for an end users action just like your isp would not be responsible for yours (Safe harbor)
Absolutely untrue. Do some research. Google "business wifi legal reponsibility" and you'll see tons of references. For example this recent story: » www.lvrj.com/business/pr ··· 853.html | |
| | | | | MyDogHsFleas |
to alwaysonjohn
said by alwaysonjohn:how is a loaded gun that is out on the kitchen, the same as letting a friend use wifi while he is over at the house?
geez people it's an analogy. back to the mainline discussion. | |
|
| | | |
to MyDogHsFleas
Is a bartender responsible for a drunk driver if the bartender is the one who served him the alcohol?
Is the store who sold a man a gun responsible for the murder that same many commits days later even though the store owner did everything he was legally entitled to do?
Is the grocery store responsible if meat that was tainted at the factory is sold through their store, even if they were not the ones who tainted the meat?
Does the developer of a violent video game hold responsibility for "training" some jackass to go on a killing spree?
Shades of gray my friend, shades of gray.... | |
| | | | | |
Re: Same old crap, guilty unless you pay $35.00 for review!well, in many cases, the answers to your examples are "yes". At least plaintiffs' lawyers will keep pushing that envelope. | |
| | | | | | |
Re: Same old crap, guilty unless you pay $35.00 for review!Well there have been cases where a Bartender has been held accountable but only because he knew the patron was getting into a car and driving off.
The investigate a gun store owner to see if he followed the rules, but as long as he did, he's no longer responsible for selling the gun.
Grocery stores are the same thing, if they knew about the tainted meat ahead of time and sold it anyways then of course their responsible but they hold no liability otherwise.
And the supreme court just ruled that Violent videogames fall under freedom of speech and are like any other form of media and can not be held liable.
So ya, its about 90% NO actually. | |
|
| |
Piracy not a Real Issue» arstechnica.com/tech-pol ··· ogus.arsPiracy estimates are based on lies. Negative economic consequences are completely unproven. Then there's this recent study covered by techdirt: » www.techdirt.com/article ··· nt.shtmlEven a Google CIO mentioned how file-sharing has benefits, and a recent study found that the most prolific filesharers are also the most prolific consumers: » www.techdirt.com/article ··· ts.shtmlSo yeah. There's no real evidence of anything negative associated with piracy. This entire witchhunt is based on lies. | |
| | | |
Re: Piracy not a Real IssueSo, if I steal from an insurance company by insurance fraud, but "it's not causing them real economic harm", that makes it OK?
I mean come on. This is just a stupid argument. SO WHAT if piracy does not have "negative economic consequences" on some large scale? Is that the measure of legality of criminal conduct? "They really didn't suffer any harm" is not much of a defense. | |
| | | | |
Re: Piracy not a Real IssueIt would take some magic to defraud someone without causing harm. And yeah, saying that no one was harmed is a defense for any crime. When the person you are accused of murdering shows up at your trial prosecution cannot proceed. | |
| | | | | |
Re: Piracy not a Real Issuesaid by Wilsdom:It would take some magic to defraud someone without causing harm. And yeah, saying that no one was harmed is a defense for any crime. When the person you are accused of murdering shows up at your trial prosecution cannot proceed.
Yeah, um, what? a) Defrauding someone without causing harm is EXACTLY what pirates assert they do. "yeah, I took something that I should have paid for legally speaking, but it really didn't harm them, look at these statistics of their business" b) "no one was harmed" vs. "no crime was committed" are very different things. You are comparing apples to orangutans. | |
| | | | | | |
Re: Piracy not a Real IssueLaws are laws until their no longer laws... remember the USA has had some very asinine laws over the years and it took trailblazers to break those laws to force them into being changed.... the world isn't black and white. | |
| | | | | | | |
Re: Piracy not a Real Issuesaid by Trencher:Laws are laws until their no longer laws... remember the USA has had some very asinine laws over the years and it took trailblazers to break those laws to force them into being changed.... the world isn't black and white.
Absolutely correct. Things do change over time. But, Do you really see the tide of public opinion or the force of some influential person behind the notion that "information should be free" even if the creator of that information doesn't want it to be? Copyright law has a history of hundreds and hundreds of years, and I don't see a serious challenge to it. Even Stallman doesn't go to this level, he only asserts that software SHOULD be free, and people should NOT buy proprietary software. He does not go so far as to say it's OK to pirate it. In fact he uses copyright law as the foundation for the GPL. | |
|
| | | |
to MyDogHsFleas
said by MyDogHsFleas:So, if I steal from an insurance company by insurance fraud, but "it's not causing them real economic harm", that makes it OK?
I mean come on. This is just a stupid argument. SO WHAT if piracy does not have "negative economic consequences" on some large scale? Is that the measure of legality of criminal conduct? "They really didn't suffer any harm" is not much of a defense.
Uh... copyright infringement is not the same as "theft", neither legally nor academically. You're not harming anyone by downloading a game. More to the point, the people who download the most also BUY the most. We can easily analyze why this is, but the end result is the same. Furthermore corporations claiming harm to their sales based on torrents have no evidence indicating the truth of this. Purely "anecdotally" the DS and Wii were by far the heaviest pirated consoles, and yet sold the most units and games. When there is literally NO independent statistical evidence demonstrating harm of piracy, the insane legislative chains the various entertainment associations are trying to push through Congress is absolutely ridiculous. | |
| | | | | |
Re: Piracy not a Real Issuesaid by sonicmerlin:Uh... copyright infringement is not the same as "theft", neither legally nor academically. I never said the word "theft" because it just incites a whole side discussion by people who don't like being labeled as thieves, because they really think they are not taking something of value. Instead I use the word "pirated" because everyone seems to understand what that is. You're not harming anyone by downloading a game. More to the point, the people who download the most also BUY the most. We can easily analyze why this is, but the end result is the same. There's certainly something to be said for the argument that those who offer content for sale, and go after via copyright law those who take it and make it available for free, should relook at their business model and understand how they could satisfy the demand for and monetize the demand for pirated versions of their content. But that's a completely different point than the one you are making, that YOU the consumer can declare that piracy is OK, because YOU've made some economic argument that YOU think the owner is not being harmed. Nope. Not a defense for copyright infringement. | |
|
|  FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5 |
to sonicmerlin
Copyright infringement is what I would call a misdemeanor. Breaking of a law with small harm to others when taken by one person against one other. But when misdemeanors are committed by masses of people against others it results in a disdain for all laws and a harm to society in general.
NYC had a serious crime problem. They attacked that problem by enforcing the misdemeanors and not just felonies. That method resulted in less law breakers and even less felonies. The authorities showed that respect for the law must be for all laws and not just the big crimes.
So yes, Piracy is a real issue, because it does have harms when committed by large groups and it results in the acceptance of law breaking as no big thing. I think this attitude of piracy being acceptable results in more and more people thinking cracking/hacking or whatever you want to call it, is acceptable too. Hence we have groups like anonymous & others being accepted by many as legit, instead of the criminals they are. | |
| | | | |
Re: Piracy not a Real IssueGuess you consider Wikileaks criminals as well? | |
| | | | | |
Re: Piracy not a Real Issuesaid by Trencher:Guess you consider Wikileaks criminals as well?
Who, me? Well the people who leaked it in the first place and gave it to WikiLeaks have demonstrably broken laws. WikiLeaks themselves I think is debatable. They certainly haven't been charged at this point. | |
|
| |  El QuintronWe must pray to be eaten first.
Premium Member
join:2008-04-28
Momtario
kudos:4 |
to FFH5
said by FFH5:I think this attitude of piracy being acceptable results in more and more people thinking cracking/hacking or whatever you want to call it, is acceptable too. Hence we have groups like anonymous & others being accepted by many as legit, instead of the criminals they are.
The two aren't even remotely related. Piracy (or copyright infringement more specifically, piracy is what's going on off the coast of Somalia) is the act of making an unauthorized copy out of convenience, lack of access whatever. It's a misdemeanor that's conveniently accessible to a large percentage of the population. The attacks perpetrated by Anonymous and lulzsec were act of targeted civil disobedience that didn't have any financial gain intended, it also isn't accessible to most of the population as a lot of the skills required are not known to the general public. Seeing as these were proof of concept attacks and the public responded positively to Anonymous says more about the public's faith in the targeted entities than it does about lax enforcement of copyright infringement, leading to some type of perceived moral decay. | |
| | | | | |
Re: Piracy not a Real Issue"The public responded positively to Anonymous"? Proof?
You really think that the public, in general, approves of anonymous Internet attacks on services like PayPal, credit card companies, etc?
Where's the huge public outcry over the arrests of Anonymous members? And the leader of Lulzsec? Oh wait, there isn't one.
If anything, these arrests out the members as your average teen-plus-something little living-with-my-parents loser taking his frustrations out on the world because "it's a cause". No one in the greater public really sympathizes with them. | |
| | | | | El QuintronWe must pray to be eaten first.
Premium Member
join:2008-04-28
Momtario
kudos:4 |
Re: Piracy not a Real Issuesaid by MyDogHsFleas:"The public responded positively to Anonymous"? Proof?
Sure, first hit on google: » www.huffingtonpost.com/2 ··· 337.html» www.hurriyetdailynews.co ··· 11-06-15You can use a search engine though. said by MyDogHsFleas:If anything, these arrests out the members as your average teen-plus-something little living-with-my-parents loser taking his frustrations out on the world because "it's a cause". No one in the greater public really sympathizes with them.
Says you. You're free to hold whichever value judgement you want, about whoever you want, but it's an emotional observation about people doing something you disagree with nothing more. My point to TK originally was simply that copyright infringement doesn't lead to hacking and the statement that: said by FFH5:I think this attitude of piracy being acceptable results in more and more people thinking cracking/hacking or whatever you want to call it, is acceptable too. Hence we have groups like anonymous & others being accepted by many as legit, instead of the criminals they are.
(positive, or more specifically non-negative feelings towards Anon and lulzsec being his/her assertion not mine) Has more to do with poor public perception of the companies under attack than lulzsec or Anon itself... | |
| | | | | |
••••
| | |
"It's not fair"... because... ???I guess because quote:
Access to the Internet must be
recognized as a human right, and therefore “graduated response” mechanisms which could
restrict users’ access to the Internet should be avoided by the OSCE participating States.
This seems to me to be an extreme absolutist view. No matter what you do, no matter what laws you break, your Internet access must not be cut off? Even with a series of warnings and graduated responses? I struggle to find any parallel. Free speech? If I shout fire in a crowded theater... if I tell my followers to go lynch someone... if I perform someone's copyrighted song without permission... are we to overlook these because "Free speech is a human right"? Driving? If I drive drunk and kill someone, should my license not be revoked? After all "freedom to travel" is a human right, no? Publishing a book? If I knowingly publish false accusations against someone, or wholesale copy someone else's book without credit or permission, should that be overlooked because "publishing information is a human right"? I literally can't think of anything that is a "human right" that has no conditions. Can you? This is not a "study". It is simply an assertion of a very extreme position. | |
| |
•••••••••••• | Kamus
join:2011-01-27
El Paso, TX |
Kamus
Member
2011-Jul-27 3:51 pm
By letting them do this...By letting them do this we give them back control over the distribution facilities, not much different from how it used to be in the 60's to 80's where only people with production facilities could distribute content, and could charge the customer and the artist what ever they wanted.
It's a stupid idea, everyone has "production facilities" these days, any computer can make a perfect copy, that's just one of the things they are really good at. Add the internet and we make any old type of distribution facilities nothing but museum art.
We shouldn't give an inch, not for these scumbags, not for anyone.
What's next? religious groups seeking protection from unkind words, and let them censor anything they find offensive? | |
| |
••• | axus
join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC |
axus
Member
2011-Jul-27 4:48 pm
What's a good punishment for copyright infringementI'd imagine some sort of restraining order. That's kind of like saying "don't do it again", right? What do we do when people violate a restraining order? That's a more severe crime.
I'd certainly feel that my freedom of speech were being limited by removing my ability to say it on the internet.
A jail sentence is even stricter. It used to be you could write a letter from jail or order a magazine, sadly those days have passed. If internet communication is a requirement for free speech, we should be providing inmates access to the internet. Seriously! | |
| | | |
Re: What's a good punishment for copyright infringementThere have been many prisoner lawsuits over internet access and many prisoners are given Internet access. Google "prisoner internet access" and you'll see. | |
| | |  pianotechPianotech
Premium Member
join:2002-12-30
New Castle, PA |
Re: What's a good punishment for copyright infringementLOL the UN. Same people who said trees have rights. | |
|
| |
iknow
Anon
2011-Jul-29 11:39 pm
FAIR USEdo they check to see if it's used in a "Fair use, a limitation and exception to the exclusive right granted by copyright law to the author of a creative work, is a doctrine in United States copyright law that allows limited use of copyrighted material without acquiring permission from the rights holders. Examples of fair use include commentary, criticism, news reporting, research, teaching, library archiving and scholarship. It provides for the legal, non-licensed citation or incorporation of copyrighted material in another author's work under a four-factor balancing test. The term fair use originated in the United States. A similar principle, fair dealing, exists in some other common law jurisdictions. Civil law jurisdictions have other limitations and exceptions to copyright." i'll bet NOT! » en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use | |
|
| |
|
How about .. |
·
·
·
Disconnecting an entire family because a guest or a child infringed is bull feces. Same new unethical scheme holding the registered owner responsible for another users actions. As I stated in a prior post the same theory is used as an excuse to fine the owner of a car that ran a red light without determining who was driving. The one thing I have not found is a router, wired or wireless that has an indicator LED that illuminates when a computer is connected to the internet through the router.
