 Joe12345678
join:2003-07-22
Des Plaines, IL | There is the cheap way of just useing NAT as with out....... There is the cheap way of just useing NAT as with out forwarding P2P will be slowed down. | |
|
 | 
a333
A hot cup of integrals please
join:2007-06-12
Corona, NY
 ·Verizon Online DSL
1 edit | YAWN......... Can't the RIAA enforce copyright already? Why is it that they keep trying to get others to enforce copyright of their crappy product. To me, it seems they want to have their stupid laws enforced, but don't want to cough up the money to do so themselves. In any case, encryption on p2p is getting better eveyday, and since this is a bill to ban "illegal" filesharing, it'll be a dud to enfoce. There's no way colleges can afford to inspect the contents of EVERY packet that passes through their network. And they can't ban students just because they USE p2p, since ppl can easily say they were downloading a Linux ISO, or the latest NIN album/single release, or just getting WoW patches.
Pathetic..... | |
|
| | 
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| Re: YAWN......... "It also requires schools to make "reasonable" attempts to prevent copyright infringement on their networks"
REASONABLE is not defined and colleges could very well make a token effort and claim it's reasonable and the RIAA or state can't do jack about it since they never defined what REASONABLE means. | |
|
| Hobyboyz
join:2005-02-18
Wauchula, FL
1 edit | Re: There is the cheap way of just useing NAT as with out....... They just need to make sure they have in the bill that the RIAA has to pay these colleges for the upgrades to their servers and manpower. Colleges should not have to fork over the funds for this but RIAA since they are 1) a private company 2) pushing this bill forward. | |
|
| | 
knightmb
Everybody Lies
join:2003-12-01
Franklin, TN | Re: There is the cheap way of just useing NAT as with out....... Where can I see exactly who in Tennessee passed this? I try to keep up with the politics of my state, but have not heard anything about this yet?  | |
|
| 
53059959
Temp banned from BBR more then anyone
join:2002-10-02
PwnZone | howcome nobody stands up to these guys?
there should be picketers outside the riaa headquarters. | |
|
hairspring
join:2007-11-23
Oakville, ON | Odds are this will pass in most states Institutions of higher education represent deep pockets with very high risk profiles.
They will jump at the chance to put due diligence standards on this type of behavior. | |
|
| jc100
join:2002-04-10
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: Odds are this will pass in most states Which is absolutely wrong. Individuals should be held accountable instead of the whole. In this society, we always blame the entity versus the person doing the actions. If you get hurt in a store because an employee failed to mop up a broken container, you sue the store. You don;t sue the employee? Why? Well you say the employee was an agent of the store and we all know that store has deep pockets. The same crap here but in a much lesser degree. The RIAA is trying to claim these students are an agent of the school. It's the schools job to monitor them. I think that is complete B.S. here. Unlike a company paying an employee, the STUDENTS pay the school. It should fall on EACH STUDENT to face the music if he or she is caught, not the whole. O well, this is make believe land, and above we see reality. Reality is obviously bought, as our politicians are morons. | |
|
| | 
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southwest
| Re: Odds are this will pass in most states said by jc100  :Which is absolutely wrong. Individuals should be held accountable instead of the whole. Sounds good far...
If you get hurt in a store because an employee failed to mop up a broken container, you sue the store. You don;t sue the employee? Why? ... and here's where you go right off the deep end. With most jobs, the employees have a lot to do. They aren't standing around in the aisles waiting for someone to break something and then swoop in to clean it up. They have to be told about it, and then they get over there and clean it up as soon as possible.
My question to you: If there's a broken container on the floor, how come you didn't see it? Don't you watch where you are going? Don't you look where you put your feet? Where's the responsibility for your own actions? Why is it's the employee's fault that you can't pay attention to what you're doing? And.... then there is who broke the container.... Another customer.... so why not sue them? They knocked it down and broke it, it's more their fault then the store or the employee.... So the guilty parties are in descending order: 1) The person who walked into an obvious hazard; 2) The other person who created the hazard, and then a distant third MIGHT be the employees, and only if they were notified or aware of the hazard but failed to do anything about it and made no effort to begin to correct the hazard.
Slip and falls are such BS. Yes, it's raining. Yes the concrete is wet. Yes you are wearing flip-flops which are flat and slide on the wet concrete. Who's at fault? YOU, you're the one responsible.... Not the owner of the parking lot.... sheesh. Sue the employees. Are you an employee somewhere by chance?
The RIAA is trying to claim these students are an agent of the school. It's the schools job to monitor them. I think that is complete B.S. here. Unlike a company paying an employee, the STUDENTS pay the school. It should fall on EACH STUDENT to face the music if he or she is caught, not the whole. Now with this I'd have to agree... and notice that how your blaming the store employee for the individual's actions is exactly backwards to this.
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) | |
|
| | | jc100
join:2002-04-10
·RoadRunner Cable
1 edit | Re: Odds are this will pass in most states Krk,
I agree fully, however, the law is stupid. In terms of the law, you have to sue the store. The store hired the employee responsible for said section. The plantiff's lawyers in court will without a doubt argue he or she should have noticed and cleaned it up in a reasonable time frame. Obviously, there is a lot grey area here. Personally, I AGREE. Slip are falls are the CLASSIC B.S type lawsuits. People NEED TO AND SHOULD watch where they are going. Don't for one second believe i was defending this type of litigious crap. It's frivolous to the MAX. I was merely giving you an EXAMPLE of how the law seems to work. Obviously, this law sucks as will the law when it comes to suing over torrents. Instead of holding those responsible at fault, the law / entity always hits the one with the deep pockets. THAT, was my point. Sorry if it wasn't clear. | |
|
| | | |
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | Re: Odds are this will pass in most states Ok, I understand what you're saying. It seemed you were advocating the employees should be sued, not the store.
Not a chance. The person who was the most at fault was the individual themselves. | |
|
| | | | | jc100
join:2002-04-10
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: Odds are this will pass in most states Well in some ways I was IF and ONLY if it was pure negligence on the employees's part. If he saw the mess, walked by it, and did nothing and some idiot got hurt. It would be both the idiot and employees fault. However, the idiot won't sue the employee, he or she will sue the store with deep pockets. That is an isolated example. Most times, it goes back to the idiot not watching where he or she was going, and looking for a windfall. Then, ambulance chaser lawyer hits the store with a big lawsuit and the rest is history. | |
|
| | |
viperpa33s
Why Me?
Premium
join:2002-12-20
Bradenton, FL
·Bright House
| Only way to solves the problem The only way I see to solve the problem is for the colleges to block ANY site that has music, legal or not. This will cut down costs of using taxpayer money for any future litigation that the RIAA may bring up against a college. The colleges won't have to determine which is legal and which is not if they just block everything. If college students want to get music, they will have to go to a music store and buy a CD. | |
|
| jc100
join:2002-04-10 | Re: Only way to solves the problem Um... guess you forgot a LARGE MAJORITY of colleges are privately funded, ay? | |
|
| | |
| | | jc100
join:2002-04-10
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: Only way to solves the problem And the award for being wrong goes to... Noah. Private institutions DO NOT receive federal dollars. They are funded merely by students. While students might receive federal aids, the colleges themselves do not. It's the same concept as a private school. They don't receive help and therefore are free to run as they choose. | |
|
| | | | EPS
join:2008-02-13
Hingham, MA | Re: Only way to solves the problem Even private institutions receive a lot of research money, though. | |
|
| | | | | jc100
join:2002-04-10
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: Only way to solves the problem Research money and OPERATING costs are two different entities. It's one thing to be doing research. That doesn't keep the doors open. What keeps the doors open are the students who pay and fund a school. It's like anything else where different funds can't be touched for other projects. Hence, private colleges are RUN STRICTLY on student dollars. Research is its own best. | |
|
powerhog
Stinkin' up the joint
Premium
join:2000-12-14
Owasso, OK
 ·AtlasOK
| Not too surprising Given Nashville = Music = Money, it's not surprising that legislation like this would pass.
Sadly, it's easy to pass laws with impossible mandates when you aren't the one having to suffer the consequences for non-compliance. Would be much more interesting if the law-makers themselves were responsible for paying the fines incurred by public universities. | |
|
| 
NOCMan
Verizon Fios User
Premium
join:2004-09-30
Flower Mound, TX
| Re: Not too surprising This is why corporations should not have rights like an individual. A company swoops into a state and gets laws passed yet taxpayers are losing their homes to inflation and their lives to lack of adequate and affordable health care.
It is pathetic how quickly this law passed. The government of Tennessee represents the citizens of the state and yet a corporation gets a law passed without the majority of the taxpayers in the state asking for the law to be passed.
I would argue that the law is taxation without representation since obviously the RIAA not being headquartered in Tennessee pays no Taxes to the state of Tennessee and thus should have no rights. Taxpayer money will be squandered for services provided to the RIAA to enforce their views on the state and it's people which the legitimate taxpayers never asked for. | |
|
| mchambers3
join:2002-03-12
Stafford, TX
·EarthLink
·Comcast
| There's a simple legislative solution to this.
Pass RIAA's bill with a couple of implementation mandates:
1. RIAA must provide digital copy of everything it wants policed.
2. RIAA must pay the institutions a fee to cover the costs of the policing action.
Failing this, the states (and Congress) can (and should) pass legislation absolving ALL institutions from liability derived from copyright infringement that was not authorized by the institution. | |
|
|
|
mrchris
We don't miss you Bush
Premium
join:2002-10-01
North Babylon, NY | Two words Get bent! | |
|
pog
Premium
join:2004-06-03
Kihei, HI
·Hawaiian Telcom
| Wow... It also requires schools to make "reasonable" attempts to prevent copyright infringement on their networks if they receive 50 or more infringement notices during a preceding year, but it does not explicitly define what those steps are. Ambiguity re "reasonable" steps will certainly become an issue because it's guaranteed that every school will be receiving 50 or more notices.
IOW, it goes without saying that erroneous notices (sent in bad faith, I'm sure) still count towards that magic number 50.
--
My Site | |
|
|
a333
A hot cup of integrals please
join:2007-06-12
Corona, NY
1 edit | Re: Wow... how'll they check if the p2p packets are "illegal" or not, without increasing latencies to multiples of 1000-milliseconds? | |
|
|
Exothermicus
join:2007-05-24
Denton, TX
| Why more laws, The RIAA wants others to do their work. It is the Copyright holder's job to locate abuses of their copyrighted works. The law already on the books are to the point that any new laws break provisions in old laws, that open loopholes, preventing proper prosecution. Everything needs to be rolled back prior to the 1990's. Then the MafiAA's need to go about doing their part to bring cases to the attention of investigators and prosecutors, so that proper evidence procedures are followed.
The issue is no longer about piracy, but more about the fact that many artists are bypassing using the MafiAA's copyright cartel. The same is happening in new media. The ability of the average Joe to start a web site and scoop the big boys on a story has everything in an uproar. When it is all said and done, it is still up to the copyright holder to say who or what is not allowed, and unless they spell it out, how is a school or law enforcement agency going to differentiate what is or is not allowed unless called to investigate specific cases the copyright holders have become aware of?
Exo | |
|
Desdinova
join:2003-01-26
Gaithersburg, MD
| Turnabout Is Fair Play The RIAA's argument seems to be this: we've lost control of protected works and since control is being regained by unauthorized users on tools you provide, we feel that you're responsible for correcting that situation OR compensating us for lost "gains".
I suspect it would be amusing if a number of under-represented RIAA-represented musicians were to file suit against the RIAA for the same thing. To whit, by allowing works to be released that have not been properly protected, the RIAA is directly responsible for loss of client profits and the labels are responsible for replacing any lost "gains" to the musicians in question. And if the RIAA chooses to pull the content completely, then they're responsible for projected losses just like the RIAA attorney's dun folks for lost sales via lawsuits.
Okay, I can dream...  | |
|
|
|
|
RIAA Pursues State-Level Anti-Piracy Bills
·
Funny
Failure to produce a product that can be differentiate by the consumer. Most of the music produced by the record labels, by its nature does not degrade when copied using lossy codecs. There is no benefit to purchasing the music on CD or SACD quality media. In fact many record labels sell music based on the musicians appearance rather than their musical skills. Many years ago music lovers purchased music based on the musicians performance skills. I knew one classical music lover that claimed they could tell the name of a musician playing a violin solo on a classical recording even if it was not on the liner notes. They spent about $50,000.00 on a high end stereo system. Shortly after the Compact Disc was introduced many consumers replaced their vinyl collection. Those days are over. No longer can the record labels have crap fly off the record store shelves as soon as it is put on displayed. The record labels wrote their own epitaph when they failed to produce quality music where the customer can hear the difference between a low bit rate MP3 and an SCAD. The music industry needs to look at the automobile industry. The difference between a Toyota Camry and a Lexus ES350 is small but consumers will pay a lot more for a Lexus than a Toyota.