  Romney2012Defeat Obama 2012-Chg we can believe inPremium
join:2002-03-03
USA
kudos:4 |  RIAA represents content providers & ....
Besides, like I said in an earlier thread today, content provision may be moving overseas and they see their profit disappearing on an internet addicted to FREE everything.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
| |
|
 | | | Re: RIAA represents content providers & .... Yes, we already know that in your mind FREE = EVIL. | |
|
| | openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:2 | Re: RIAA represents content providers & .... Free doesn't equal evil, but it does tend to equal unsustainable. | |
|
| | | | | Re: RIAA represents content providers & .... said by openbox9:Free doesn't equal evil, but it does tend to equal unsustainable. Sure... Tell that to Google. | |
|
| | | | openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:2 | Re: RIAA represents content providers & .... What's free from Google? You pay a cost with advertising and sharing a portion of your personal information. Furthermore, Google does offer select paid services. | |
|
| KearnstdElf WizardPremium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | filters are not neutral though. they are plagued with false positives and are 100% ineffective against those who are serious.
for proof of false positives, it is not uncommon in libraries for a Bio student to be unable to lookup anything related the reproductive system because the filters only know that such requests automatically=porn. anti piracy filters would do the same damn thing. also legit uses of the P2P format could get nailed.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
|
| |  FBGuyyippee ki yayPremium
join:2005-03-19
 ·Comcast
 ·T-Mobile US
 ·AT&T U-Verse
| Re: RIAA represents content providers & .... said by Kearnstd:also legit uses of the P2P format could would get nailed. fixed it for ya. | |
|
| | | The RIAA are evil and they will never get my support.When will this organization finally die the death it deserves. | |
|
| | backwards thinking. What makes America great is freedom. Freedom to innovate away from the tyrany of the oppressive rulling class.
Why should the internet be any different? Innocent until proven guilty I say! Stick with what works. | |
|
|
|  funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | Re: What about false positives? Hi Matt,
Your point about false positives and other problems with 'net filtering are covered in a paper that I worked on with others at Public Knowledge: Forcing the Net Through a Sieve: Why Copyright Filtering is Not a Viable Solution for U.S. ISPs
»www.publicknowledge.org/node/2568
Thanks
Robb
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- District of Columbia -- KJ7RL
Test your Broadband connection today! -- »measurementlab.net/ | |
|
 NOVA_GuyObamaCare Kills AmericansPremium
join:2002-03-05 | Sickening Wow, hey, I've got a great idea... Let's create content filters that will block any and every fun little thing that someone might want to do on the Internet because it could be related to something that could be construed as piracy. 
It just goes to show how our government can take an otherwise decent sounding idea and turn it into something that's intrusive, invasive, and disgusting.
Now, for those legal experts out there I've got one question: if the government is in charge of setting up, running, or monitoring these piracy filters how does this mesh with our fourth amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure? I'd call piracy filters that somehow monitor all traffic an "unreasonable search" of my data packets. Perhaps this is how such disgusting provisions of an otherwise decent sounding idea could be stricken down?
--
To all liberals: I am NOT one of your parents, so get the heck out of my wallet. It's time for you to grow up and take some personal responsibility for taking care of yourselves, which means not relying on the government to give it all to you. | |
|
| openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:2 | Re: Sickening I don't believe you'll see the government "setup, run, or monitor" piracy filters. If anything, the RIAA will have to work that through the ISPs, which as I'm sure you can imagine, will freak out all of the net neutrality evangelists. | |
|
|  VanPremium
join:2009-07-08
New Orleans, LA | said by NOVA_Guy:Now, for those legal experts out there I've got one question: if the government is in charge of setting up, running, or monitoring these piracy filters how does this mesh with our fourth amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure? I'd call piracy filters that somehow monitor all traffic an "unreasonable search" of my data packets. Perhaps this is how such disgusting provisions of an otherwise decent sounding idea could be stricken down? Well, for starters....more information would be needed to specifically answer a question like this....such as what he was downloading, WHERE he was downloading, etc.....
The Fourth Amendment protects people, not places. Although it is often true that “for most people, their computers are their most private spaces,” the validity of that expectation depends entirely on its context. A criminal defendant may invoke the protections of the Fourth Amendment only if he can show that he had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the place searched or the item seized. This expectation is established where the claimant can show: (1) a subjective expectation of privacy; and (2) an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy. It is the defendant's burden to prove both elements - »www.cybertelecom.org/security/privacy.htm | |
|
|  swhx7Premium
join:2006-07-23
Elbonia | said by NOVA_Guy:Now, for those legal experts out there I've got one question: if the government is in charge of setting up, running, or monitoring these piracy filters how does this mesh with our fourth amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure?
I don't think the idea is to mandate wholesale government snooping. Rather, it's just to legalize private snooping.
Then the ISPs would be exempted from any action against them for filtering or monitoring traffic, as long as it's for anti-piracy (or on a pretext of anti-piracy). In the worst case, a law might authorize suits against them if they don't filter. This is what the copyright freaks would like. It would shift costs of enforcing their copyrights onto an innocent party, while avoiding the 4th amendment violation of direct government involvement.
The positive here is that there's no such thing as a copyright infringement filter, nor could there be. To have a comprehensive infringement filter, the ISP would have to have in a database:
* File hashes or other means of identifying every copyrighted work - many billions of files, as almost every creative work, even including text on web pages, is copyrighted for up to 150 years.
* Complete records of all permissions from all copyright holders to all possible users, to be able to tell whether a transmission of a copyrighted work is authorized or not.
Obviously no such arrangement could ever exist. At best, the copyright cartel could insist on filtering of certain titles they specify, or hashes of known infringing files. But changing a single bit changes the hash, titles can be changed freely, and encryption prevents the filters from working at all. And even then, the ISPs would demand compensation for the high cost of implementing all this.
So the only realistic scenario is that the copyright holders continue their longstanding best tactic of participating in p2p systems to detect particular transfers and then suing about the other participants , relying on IP addresses. | |
|
| KearnstdElf WizardPremium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | will this lag my gaming? because having low latency is far far far more important then preventing internet piracy. and not just games(though games are a major selling point of broadband), but VOIP and legal video sources.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
|
 R4M0NBrazilian Soccer Ownz Joo
join:2000-10-04
Glen Allen, VA
3 edits | We have to be careful with our support of Net Neutrality Too many players with too many different definitions of Net Neutrality are pushing for their version of it to become law and the majority of those definitions are no good.
I'm all for the Net Neutrality meaning traffic should not be discriminated based on content or origin (not including clearly illegal content), but some definitions of net neutrality that I've read from industry groups and even the government give me a sinking feeling in my stomach. | |
|
DesdinovaPremium
join:2003-01-26
Gaithersburg, MD | Hmmm... I love how the RIAA is looking forward to "working with the FCC to evaluate and determine appropriate ways to preserve the highest-quality Internet experience possible while maximizing the ability of the legitimate online entertainment marketplace to achieve its full potential."
So what exactly qualifies an intellectual property lobbying group to advise anyone on filter development, application and deployment? Does this mean the FCC can now work with the RIAA in developing new artists and marketing strategies? Or any of the ISPs for that matter if the RIAA wants to "advise" them also?
In matters that are best served by oversight from a neutral agency that needs to balance the wants and needs of a disparate group (such as internet users and providers) I just don't see the logic in giving the group with the personal agenda any say or authority over the area they have an interest in protecting.
Sorry, but it's the FCC's job to focus on the technology, with some minimal overlap into restricting content based on the actual "morality" of that content, NOT whether or not legal content is being distributed in a questionable manner. That role falls to law enforcement and the courts. | |
|
| openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:2 | Re: Hmmm... said by Desdinova:So what exactly qualifies an intellectual property lobbying group to advise anyone on filter development, application and deployment? How about the fact that they control the intellectual rights and know the property, which may give them better insight into developing filtering capabilities. | |
|
| | R4M0NBrazilian Soccer Ownz Joo
join:2000-10-04
Glen Allen, VA
2 edits | Re: Hmmm... This, ladies and gentlemen, is what the industry calls an "Useful Idiot"...
 | |
|
| | | openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:2 | Re: Hmmm... How, might I ask, can you possibly link my statement to the definition of useful idiot? I'm not ignorant of the RIAA or its practices. I don't support the RIAA, nor do I necessarily agree with some of its tactics. What I did do is provide a potential answer to Desdinova  's question. Perhaps you would like to answer the question. | |
|
| | DesdinovaPremium
join:2003-01-26
Gaithersburg, MD | "How about the fact that they control the intellectual rights and know the property, which may give them better insight into developing filtering capabilities."
I still don't see how that qualifies them to have an opinion on the filters themselves. As I mentioned in my original post, they are a lobbying group that represents content creators with no qualifications to develop filtering technology to monitor that content. The RIAA participating in such a program is the equivalent of asking Beyonce how to develop better broadcasting technology because her songs are played on the radio. | |
|
| | | openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:2 | Re: Hmmm... Opinions would be just that, opinions. If you're asking about what might qualify the RIAA to feed into a filtering mechanism, they obviously know their intellectual property and might be considered a subject matter expert feeding into the design of filtering rules for their property. I'm not suggesting that the RIAA have any direct control or design responsibility of any filtering mechanism. | |
|
| | | | said by openbox9:How about the fact that they control the intellectual rights and know the property, which may give them better insight into developing filtering capabilities. You are not clear on the concept. A neutral internet, by definition, is one without filters. We should not be having this discussion.
"When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators."
P. J. O'Rourke | |
|
| | | openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:2 | Re: Hmmm... Perhaps you missed the distinction made by the FCC about neutrality for legal activities. That distinction is exactly why the RIAA came on board to throw support behind manipulating net neutrality definitions and why we're having this discussion. | |
|
| | | | DesdinovaPremium
join:2003-01-26
Gaithersburg, MD | Re: Hmmm... But this still raises way too many questions, such as:
1.) There are probably more tiny independent distributors out there than RIAA member labels. Should each of them participate in the filtering development also?
2.) Given the RIAA's amazingly sleazy history in blocking airplay and distribution of non-RIAA product, how can they be trusted to "develop" filters that won't "accidentally" flag non-RIAA content as illegal?
3.) What about indy artists who are non-RIAA but have recorded and released covers of songs originally released by RIAA artists? Will Windows To Sky's version of "Comfortably Numb" suddenly be flagged as illegal or a bootleg and have difficulty being distributed?
I don't know, but the more I consider the RIAA (or any content creator) participating in decisions and processes that are easily twisted to suit their needs at the expense of others, the more I think it's a bad mix.
And yes, I understand that your primary argument was not that the RIAA should help develop the filters themselves but rather they could help in identifying the legitimacy of that material as it crosses through the filters. Unfortunately, for the reasons I listed above (and probably many more), I still see way too much potential for abuse at the hands of a lobbying group that has consistently demonstrated a penchant for abusing. | |
|
| | | | | openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:2 | Re: Hmmm... said by Desdinova:1.) There are probably more tiny independent distributors out there than RIAA member labels. Should each of them participate in the filtering development also? If they desire to prevent unauthorized distribution of their property via the Internet, then they may have a vested interest in participating.said by Desdinova:2.) Given the RIAA's amazingly sleazy history in blocking airplay and distribution of non-RIAA product, how can they be trusted to "develop" filters that won't "accidentally" flag non-RIAA content as illegal? I agree that the RIAA has a questionable track record. If the decision were made to allow the RIAA to participate in filter development (BTW, I don't expect that we'll get to the point of developing a top-level, widespread filtering mechanism), I would expect many watchful eyes to keep them in check.said by Desdinova:3.) What about indy artists who are non-RIAA but have recorded and released covers of songs originally released by RIAA artists? Will Windows To Sky's version of "Comfortably Numb" suddenly be flagged as illegal or a bootleg and have difficulty being distributed? Since it should only be considered unauthorized if the artist/property owner doesn't grant the redistribution rights, it shouldn't. But realistically, this question places the cart way in front of the horse at this time.said by Desdinova:I still see way too much potential for abuse at the hands of a lobbying group that has consistently demonstrated a penchant for abusing. I believe that argument can be made about anyone with the authority and power to impose restrictions on anything. That's why checks and balances exist. | |
|
| | piracy and your product in that type of economy called capitalism there are two forces that work.
Supply and demand.
If you make something that ( supply ) people want ( demand )
they are supposed to compensate you for that. However if you shorten supply OR make your prices to high, a strange thing happens. People look for ways to get this item/service cheaper.
GO figure. The ultimate price is zero. You could argue you can be paid to use something but that is unsustainable and not part of this discussion.
When you over price or make something rare or hard to use ( example is DRM or in 2005 at futureshop that 30$ cdr of music ) people get inventive and try to help those NOT charging your cost but then another strange thing happens. Someone says i have it here you can have it too. This is the friendly neighbor syndrome. Where in times past you would ask neighbors to help build that barn and it came often with FREE food and the making of a community. You see what hollywood is really fighting isn't piracy its communities. When they go years not lowering prices and years increasing DRM abilities people went to neighbors and friends and its gone on so long now that even free or close to it won't get the money back to them.
A classic example is the linux operating system. FREE and open source software. The fact is that what they fight is to make sure that this model does not become the norm for hollywood.
Imagine if you will FREE and open source hollywood.
The money YOU WOULD save, and if you want to act or sing do it cause you love to not because you expect to be rich.
Culture and entertainment yearn to be free and they will be despite these greedy people. IT IS FREE NOW.
"YOU HAVE TO FIGHT FOR YOUR RIGHT TO PARTY"
The other problem here is that all OUR media except a few isolated places are controlled by there friends and people know this. In there arrogance they thought they could control thought and they have failed, and pass your laws do what you can for we the people will in time undo it and you can't put everyone in jail( um think tax bases ).
if the riaa wants net neutrality then it must also adhere to all premises of it including open and free access unfettered from filtration, after all hackers and crackers are never inconvenienced to these things and we do not repeat do not nor will not be hindered ever. ALL you do is rise that cost and further alienate people from any revenues you might get.
Suing people was the biggest mistake they made and it like SCO is proof the business model is dying if not dead. | |
|
| | 3rd world wages; how about 3rd world taxes too? The only way I could see this new economy of 'free' everything working is if taxes became free too. For many of us, we need to earn a good living specifically to pay for the cost of our bloated, invasive, rights-violating, imperialist government. The encroaching 3rd world economy will ensure that America goes bankrupt, unless taxes come down to 3rd world levels too. | |
|
| | No Exceptions Net neutrality ≡ Freedom of speech.
Either you have it, or you do not. If you filter content, then it is not neutral. Like efforts to criminalize hate speech, it is a slippery slope.
Next thing there will be a government body created to make the determination on what can be filtered. Immediately following that will be intense lobbying and corporate manipulation, leading to the usual unintended consequences. | |
|
| | opensource works for software why not for movies and tv and other things ......
ya see if we free up capital in one area we will still have that capital and thus will have to spend it on somehting and that means the loss of so called wealth the 2nd guy above talks about is null.
YOU will just spend money on other things like food and housing and the hardware to view and see this equipment. AND when acting and musicians return to the time of "we do it cause we like it" you might see better quality in the end, what we have now is 99.999999999% garbage. Ironic that this principal of fre eis adopted by the obama and crew riaa foools yet they can't see it for the riaa and mpaa.
YOUTUBE could be a starting for all this yet they try and lock down cap and throttle cause to not do so in time you will begin to see FREE and OPEN SOURCE movies and tv shows that have quality.....
that is one more thing they fear. | |
|
|
|
·
What about false positives?
What happens when a piracy filter creates a false positive and blocks downloading of a legitimate file? Who do you call to fix the problem the piracy police? Try to download a legitimate file, find it blocked then spend countless hours trying to get the problem corrected.