Putting up barriers to a free and open internet

ei.sdraob · 19-04-2010 5:01pm

After singing the praises of the internet Charleton notes that it is, "thickly populated by fraudsters, pornographers of the worst kind and cranks.

"Among younger people, so much has the habit grown up of downloading copyright material from the internet that a claim of entitlement seems to have arisen to have what is not theirs for free."

Everyone won from this, he noted, "except for the creators of original copyright material who are utterly disregarded."

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/04/19/charleton_eircom_emi/

read and cry, read and cry

Good luck building a "knowledge" economy when the judges of this country have no understanding of the internet and have some rather silly opinions

thats a week after this
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/04/16/1211212/Ireland-May-Be-Next-To-Censor-the-Internet

bleh!!!

SeanW · 19-04-2010 5:09pm

k_mac wrote: »

I think you underestimate the damage these drugs do to people.

No, I'm under no illusions that drugs, both legal and illegal can kill (for example), but I think you underestimate the degree to which these people do these things (tobacco, alcohol etc) voluntarily, are fully aware of the potential consequences, and thusly, accept them in advance.

Yes it does. And I've seen it work.

I'm not so sure about that. Care to expand? Even if it has some limited impact, clearly we still have lots of gun crime, and the inability of law abiding citizens to defend themselves is clearly something you have not factored in.

But lets say they do understand. Are they in the right state of mind to make the decision to use these substances? Take the example of a suicidal person. If a friend of yours told you he was going to overdose on pills because he wanted to die. Would you let him? Would you respect his right to make that decision?

Huh?

How is someone choosing a calculated health risk for a pleasurable feeling (drunkenness, high etc) fully sober and aware comparable to somebody in a desperate state saying they're about to kill themselves?

I said I wouldn't mind a ban on only copyright material. I did not say that it would be more important than stopping child porn.

You clearly said you wouldn't care if they just went after file sharing.

File sharing =/= copyright infringement. Consider the following possibilities:

I create a map for a Train simulator game (perfectly legal with products like Auran Trainz) and choose to share it with something like MediaFire.
A development group creates a modification for a PC game (again perfectly legally, many games provide a Software Development Kit for this purpose), they chose to host it on a file sharing site. I choose to download it.
I decide to try out a version of Linux on my machine. I require a file sharing client such as Azureus, uTorrent etc, and a BitTorrent tracker which mananges the sharing of the latest distribution, as these are popular ways to distribute Linux versions as they're straightforward and take much of the bandwidth strain off the creators.

Microsoft might be threatened by that ... more blurred lines, more chances for big government to become big pandering/corruption.

If you decide to "ban filesharing" by the back door, my right to conduct all of this legal and morally upright activity is threatened.

I become vulnerable and I need to be protected, against government, big corporations, as well as people like you!

First of all civil proof is already much lower than criminal proof. Always has been. It's done on a probability basis and the burden of proof is usually reversed.

I am only aware of this in cases of slander and libel, i.e. if you defame someone and they sue you, you must then prove what what you said is true, in the capacity of a defendent.

I am not aware of any cases where someone can just accuse you something with no supporting facts and you have to prove your innocence, and if there is, it clearly requires reform.

Don't try to paint me as some facist.

You're not doing much to paint yourself as anything else. All of your posts have been about near blind calls for more authoritarianism and damn anyone who gets hurt as a result.

ardmacha · 19-04-2010 5:16pm

thickly populated by fraudsters, pornographers of the worst kind and cranks.

Pornography is an important Internet application and this board is sufficient evidence of the the population of cranks.

Among younger people, so much has the habit grown up of downloading copyright material from the internet that a claim of entitlement seems to have arisen to have what is not theirs for free

This is perfectly true, no doubt those that oppose the entitlement culture will agree.

Call Me Jimmy · 19-04-2010 5:21pm

Nobody in their right mind thinks child porn is acceptable.

But I have a very simple question to ask anyone who wants to give their government more power over its people:

do you trust the political establishment right now or have you ever in your life trusted it?

ei.sdraob · 19-04-2010 5:24pm

my problem is with his backward view of the internet

he is obviously not versed enough in the internet as can be seen from his comment to be making a sane judgement

the internet is powerful communication tool for people and companies, remarks like his and any steps towards censorship would make ireland to be seen on par with places like saudi arabia or belarus or china where internet censorship is the order of day

Blobby George · 19-04-2010 5:38pm

The only backwards view is yours. There is nothing wrong in the judges comments. Perhaps you are naive.

MagicSean · 19-04-2010 5:39pm

SeanW wrote: »

No, I'm under no illusions that drugs, both legal and illegal can kill (for example), but I think you underestimate the degree to which these people do these things (tobacco, alcohol etc) voluntarily, are fully aware of the potential consequences, and thusly, accept them in advance.

But due to the nature of the addictive nature of the substance there comes a point where it is no longer voluntary.

SeanW wrote: »

I'm not so sure about that. Care to expand? Even if it has some limited impact, clearly we still have lots of gun crime, and the inability of law abiding citizens to defend themselves is clearly something you have not factored in.

We actually have very little gun crime in this country. A gun or knife in the hands of someone who isn't trained in defending themselves is completely useless and more a liability to them and innocent people around them if they try and use it.

Huh?

SeanW wrote: »

How is someone choosing a calculated health risk for a pleasurable feeling (drunkenness, high etc) fully sober and aware comparable to somebody in a desperate state saying they're about to kill themselves?

Bit of a contradiction there. If they are drinking and doing drugs how are they sober and aware and able to calculate a risk? Maybe at first but as they go under the influence their ability to make sound decisions is pretty much non-existant. Much the same as somebody at the heigh of depression who sees no way out.

SeanW wrote: »

You clearly said you wouldn't care if they just went after file sharing.

File sharing =/= copyright infringement. Consider the following possibilities:
I create a map for a Train simulator game (perfectly legal with products like Auran Trainz) and choose to share it with something like MediaFire.

A development group creates a modification for a PC game (again perfectly legally, many games provide a Software Development Kit for this purpose), they chose to host it on a file sharing site. I choose to download it.

I decide to try out a version of Linux on my machine. I require a file sharing client such as Azureus, uTorrent etc, and a BitTorrent tracker which mananges the sharing of the latest distribution, as these are popular ways to distribute Linux versions as they're straightforward and take much of the bandwidth strain off the creators.

Microsoft might be threatened by that ... more blurred lines, more chances for big government to become big pandering/corruption.

If you decide to "ban filesharing" by the back door, my right to conduct all of this legal and morally upright activity is threatened.

I become vulnerable and I need to be protected, against government, big corporations, as well as people like you!

I was using the term file sharing in the context of copyright infringement only. I would expect that genuine file sharing sites would not be banned unless they continued to allow copyright infringement.

SeanW wrote: »

I am only aware of this in cases of slander and libel, i.e. if you defame someone and they sue you, you must then prove what what you said is true, in the capacity of a defendent.

I am not aware of any cases where someone can just accuse you something with no supporting facts and you have to prove your innocence, and if there is, it clearly requires reform.

I didn't say it would be without supporting facts or proof. Just a much lower level of proof required than would be needed for criminal courts.

SeanW wrote: »

You're not doing much to paint yourself as anything else. All of your posts have been about near blind calls for more authoritarianism and damn anyone who gets hurt as a result.

I would disagree. All my posts have been focused on protecting rights and enforcing laws set by democratically elected representatives. Hardly facist dogma.

Nehaxak · 19-04-2010 5:50pm

Don't know why people keep moaning about this, simple solution, stop buying music or related from any "artist" or their publishers/company who are involved in pushing through these stupid laws onto everyone else using the internets and don't vote for FF next time and these stupid backward judges who were placed there (Hihi jobs for the boys) by our government will no longer exist, hopefully.

SeanW · 19-04-2010 6:09pm

k_mac wrote: »

But due to the nature of the addictive nature of the substance there comes a point where it is no longer voluntary.

Meh ...

A gun or knife in the hands of someone who isn't trained in defending themselves is completely useless and more a liability to them and innocent people around them if they try and use it.

Which is why countries with liberal gun laws have gun ranges and weapons instructors. Sometimes the use of these is mandatory. Even where the holder is not trained, the gun can be useful in situations with forewarning, such as where you hear a window being broken in the night time.

Bit of a contradiction there. If they are drinking and doing drugs how are they sober and aware and able to calculate a risk? Maybe at first

You said it yourself, the person decides in advance whether to "go drinking" (for example) or not. The rest is accepted as a consequence.

Much the same as somebody at the heigh of depression who sees no way out.

Apples and oranges ... like I said in your example, I would intervene because I wouldn't want my friend to kill himself, and no other reason. If my friend calls me at home and says "Hey bro, I scored some good weed, wanna join me getting high?" I have no reason to intervene because it's none of my business, he's not going to commit suicide from the depths of depression so I have no reason to intervene.

I was using the term file sharing in the context of copyright infringement only. I would expect that genuine file sharing sites would not be banned unless they continued to allow copyright infringement.

That's a lot of "in a perfect world ..." stuff.

I didn't say it would be without supporting facts or proof. Just a much lower level of proof required than would be needed for criminal courts.

First of all civil proof is already much lower than criminal proof. Always has been. It's done on a probability basis and the burden of proof is usually reversed.

The standard in criminal law is for the prosecutor to provide proof beyond reasonable doubt. You said "the burden of proof is usually reversed which sounds like you mean the accused must prove his/her innocence, which is true only of slaner/libel.

But that's beside the point: there is no due process with "Three Strikes" i.e. sanction is applied independent of the courts and there is no question, no burden of proof because the media companies want a system whereby their accusations are all that is required.

I would disagree. All my posts have been focused on protecting rights and enforcing laws set by democratically elected representatives. Hardly facist dogma.

Your posts speak for themselves ...

sceptre · 19-04-2010 6:16pm

People contributing to this thread, please take careful note that this is the Politics forum and there are rules/guidelines on personalising the discussion and/or insulting other forum members. As a hint, these things aren't allowed. I can only assume from some posts in this thread that some of you are not entirely aware of that.

The forum charter is stickied at the top of the main forum. It's easy to find.

/mod

MagicSean · 19-04-2010 6:22pm

SeanW wrote: »

Which is why countries with liberal gun laws have gun ranges and weapons instructors. Sometimes the use of these is mandatory. Even where the holder is not trained, the gun can be useful in situations with forewarning, such as where you hear a window being broken in the night time.

Knowing how to shoot a paper target will be of no benefit to you in an adrenaline fueled situation where you feel you are in danger.

SeanW wrote: »

The standard in criminal law is for the prosecutor to provide proof beyond reasonable doubt. You said "the burden of proof is usually reversed which sounds like you mean the accused must prove his/her innocence, which is true only of slaner/libel.

You still need some proof to make the allegation, just not much. And then it is up to the defendant to prove you wrong. So there is a higher burden on the defendent than the applicant.

SeanW wrote: »

But that's beside the point: there is no due process with "Three Strikes" i.e. sanction is applied independent of the courts and there is no question, no burden of proof because the media companies want a system whereby their accusations are all that is required.

There accusations would have to be verified in some way by the isp. Its not simply a matter of providing an ip address and saying "ban this". The isp would have to ensure that the users web usage cooberated the accusation.

SeanW wrote: »

Your posts speak for themselves ...

That they do.

IrishTonyO · 19-04-2010 6:25pm

k_mac wrote: »

There accusations would have to be verified in some way by the isp. Its not simply a matter of providing an ip address and saying "ban this". The isp would have to ensure that the users web usage cooberated the accusation.

.

In response to the only part of your post that is on topic, where did you hear this? You just assuming this or is it in the details?

Valmont · 19-04-2010 6:28pm

I would utterly oppose any moves from the government to control what citizens look at on the internet.

I do however support any moves to prosecute individuals who steal reams of copyrighted material. It angers me to know that many people my age think they have a divine entitlement to free music and film. A symptom of the times, I suppose.

MagicSean · 19-04-2010 6:34pm

IrishTonyO wrote: »

In response to the only part of your post that is on topic, where did you hear this? You just assuming this or is it in the details?

Its an assumption based on common sense. No isp would give blind control over their subscription to a third party. They would be leaving themselves open to a civil suit if they cut service without proof of wrongdoing.

MagicSean · 19-04-2010 6:36pm

Valmont wrote: »

I would utterly oppose any moves from the government to control what citizens look at on the internet.

I do however support any moves to prosecute individuals who steal reams of copyrighted material. It sickens me to know that many people my age think they have a divine entitlement to free music and film. A symptom of the times, I suppose.

Personally I would prefer to be blocked from viewing a site than to know my privacy could be invaded so easily and my usage be monitored.

SeanW · 19-04-2010 8:14pm

k_mac wrote: »

Personally I would prefer to be blocked from viewing a site than to know my privacy could be invaded so easily and my usage be monitored.

We already have that - or we will shortly - with the Data Retention Directive.
http://www.digitalrights.ie/category/data-retention/

thebman · 19-04-2010 8:27pm

k_mac wrote: »

Personally I would prefer to be blocked from viewing a site than to know my privacy could be invaded so easily and my usage be monitored.

Why exactly, as long as you only view the site once, nobody could assume you were actively using it over went there by mistake.

If they block access, they must assume that since tried to go to the URL, you had intentions of navigating the site further but were blocked.

Blocking makes you look more in the wrong if you happen on a site by accident.

sceptre · 19-04-2010 11:09pm

k_mac wrote: »

Its an assumption based on common sense. No isp would give blind control over their subscription to a third party. They would be leaving themselves open to a civil suit if they cut service without proof of wrongdoing.

Ah, in the ideal world of common sense. That's essentially how the DMCA works in the US - a copyright claim under the act will generally lead to immediate withdrawal of service. That can be a domain, hosting or (less often I'll grant you) ISP service. For an innocent party who's affected by it and gets whatever service withdrawn, they can wait for their day in court if that ever arrives or file a counter-claim, thus get their service restored on an interim basis and hope that the people who complained pause and blink.

You and I may live in the world of common sense. The courts sometimes do. Sometimes they don't.

CiaranC · 19-04-2010 11:23pm

There is no method available to effectively block child pornography. Darknets, simple proxying, tor, ptp, freenet are all simple methods of bypassing such filters.

This is about control - political control and financial control of the internet. Somebody, somewhere is getting paid.

eoin5 · 20-04-2010 9:13am

Donno if anyone had posted this already but:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/04/19/charleton_eircom_emi/

The Register wrote:

An Irish Judge has upheld the right of a creator to protect his creations as a fundamental human right. In a scathing and occasionally lyrical ruling, Judge Peter Charleton also pointed out the internet is merely one communication tool of many, and not "an amorphous extraterrestrial body with an entitlement to norms that run counter to the fundamental principles of human rights"....

"Copyright is a universal entitlement to be identified with and to sell, and therefore to enjoy, the fruits of creative work... Were copyright not to exist, then the efforts of an artist could be both stolen and passed off as the talent of another."

The ruling gives the go ahead light for a 'three strikes' policy in Ireland - one rather speedier than anything discussed here, and which will be thrashed out in the months ahead (see A user's timetable to the Digital Economy Act).

After 28 days and two letters, the ISP may serve a 14-day disconnection notice during which time the user may appeal or promise to stop for good.

ei.sdraob · 20-04-2010 9:19am

eoin5 wrote: »

Donno if anyone had posted this already but:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/04/19/charleton_eircom_emi/

Yeh I posted that earlier

I have several names I would call him

but im gonna stay quiet since they have the libel etc legislation on their side

On bright side Im thinking of starting to provide VPN services, I can smell profit

with this whole Eircom and 3 strikes crap

MagicSean · 20-04-2010 10:58am

eoin5 wrote: »

Donno if anyone had posted this already but:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/04/19/charleton_eircom_emi/

So the user has the chance to appeal before the ban and not after. Sounds like common sense.

At the end of the day sharing copyright material is theft. I won't claim i've never done it but i wont go out of my way to do it if its blocked. The judge is right when he says that people have an attitude of entightlement. The fact is that it is someone else work and if they want to charge massive prices for it thats up to them. We have no right to it at all.

moonpurple · 20-04-2010 11:50am

in reply to OP I welcome the decision by Italian Courts to tell the private company Google that it is NEVER ok for a video of an intellectually vulnerable young citizen being bullied to be made available globally for the entertainment of its service users, in the overall project of google selling advertising space to business interests
with rights come responsibilities, and runaway capitalism is not as positive as it may have appeared 10 years ago
:cool:

eoin5 · 20-04-2010 1:36pm

The internet is just a communication tool, yet intellectual property can exist. Make up yer mind!

MagicSean · 20-04-2010 3:53pm

eoin5 wrote: »

The internet is just a communication tool, yet intellectual property can exist. Make up yer mind!

They aren't mutually exclusive concepts.

thebman · 20-04-2010 4:03pm

k_mac wrote: »

So the user has the chance to appeal before the ban and not after. Sounds like common sense.

At the end of the day sharing copyright material is theft. I won't claim i've never done it but i wont go out of my way to do it if its blocked. The judge is right when he says that people have an attitude of entightlement. The fact is that it is someone else work and if they want to charge massive prices for it thats up to them. We have no right to it at all.

Some of the reasons copyright theft (which is off topic to this discussion) is so rampant is because although things are moving to digital distribution, prices remain the same and people aren't willing to pay them. So users still the content. Its a case of two groups taking the p*** out of each other.

eoin5 · 20-04-2010 5:20pm

k_mac wrote: »

They aren't mutually exclusive concepts.

Hes not applying the same logic to both, its arbitrary reductionism. The internet means more to the world than a simple communication tool. Of course what would a group of atoms want with communication anyway

.

MagicSean · 20-04-2010 11:55pm

thebman wrote: »

Some of the reasons copyright theft (which is off topic to this discussion) is so rampant is because although things are moving to digital distribution, prices remain the same and people aren't willing to pay them. So users still the content. Its a case of two groups taking the p*** out of each other.

Just because you don't like the price of something doesn't mean you can steal it. You wouldn't do that in a shop would you.

MagicSean · 20-04-2010 11:56pm

eoin5 wrote: »

Hes not applying the same logic to both, its arbitrary reductionism. The internet means more to the world than a simple communication tool. Of course what would a group of atoms want with communication anyway .

Yes but it's not a different world or country. It doesn't have special laws. It's still restricted by the laws that are set for every other method of communication. TV was very special once too. And before that radio.

thebman · 21-04-2010 12:44am

k_mac wrote: »

Just because you don't like the price of something doesn't mean you can steal it. You wouldn't do that in a shop would you.

I never said I did or supported it. That was just an assumption on your part wrongly so and a personal attack to try to make me appear wrong/my point less valid by assuming I supported the position. I simply stated why people of a younger generation feel they are valid in doing so.

Feel free to apologise.

eoin5 · 21-04-2010 2:09am

k_mac wrote: »

Yes but it's not a different world or country. It doesn't have special laws. It's still restricted by the laws that are set for every other method of communication. TV was very special once too. And before that radio.

Yep, but there's plenty of laws that are not enforced for good reason. His comparison indicated to me that he was biased against the idea that the internet was more than just that. Hes got to see it as a medium that moves and shakes on its own unlike any other and that some people might very much like to have the ability to control as much of it as they can.

From Wikipedia: "Copyright is the set of exclusive rights granted to the author or creator of an original work, including the right to copy, distribute and adapt the work."

I don't like it but if that piece of work can be digitally represented and gets on the net there's not much stopping it. You can only curb it. Its like sticking a pole in the middle of a field and hoping people run into it, pis$ing against the wind, and other analogies

. Therefore you've got to be very skeptical about the reasons why someone might want legislation or a precedent in this area. The judge just displayed a total ignorance to that.

CiaranC · 21-04-2010 3:27am

k_mac wrote: »

Yes but it's not a different world or country. It doesn't have special laws. It's still restricted by the laws that are set for every other method of communication. TV was very special once too. And before that radio.

But it is a different world. Information is now tranmittable freely, instantly and for practically zero cost. It has removed the entire business model of industries based on controlling content distribution. Now they are trying to legislate that business model back into existance, and they will go to extraordinary lenghts to make this happen. Thats not the way things are supposed to work.

They no longer provide anything of value, and should be allowed die just like every other industry made extinct by techological advancement.

k_mac wrote: »

Just because you don't like the price of something doesn't mean you can steal it. You wouldn't do that in a shop would you.

Stealing in a shop implies that the shop loses whatever you take and no longer has that thing to sell. Its nothing like copyright infringement.

thebman · 21-04-2010 10:50am

k_mac wrote: »

Yes but it's not a different world or country. It doesn't have special laws. It's still restricted by the laws that are set for every other method of communication. TV was very special once too. And before that radio.

TV and radio didn't cause things like Open Source Software or Free Music Downloads Legal or Illegal.

The Internet has revolutionised our world and where it differs from TV and Radio is it does not have national boundaries so applying national laws to it has no effect.

ei.sdraob · 21-04-2010 11:08am

sigh

Just what we need, Ireland to be labelled and thought of as a backwards country with respect to the internet

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/04/major-labels-go-bragh-as-irish-judge-allows-3-strikes.ars

ffs, the proles can kiss good goodbye to their "smart economy" aspirations
now that a precedent is set they can go after large companies who are also technically ISPs, wait till the sue Microsoft or Google
maybe people will wake up when there are current jobs on the line (forget about any future ones now)

wes · 21-04-2010 11:18am

A shameful and idiotic decision, where someone is guilty upon accusation. I agree with ei.sdraob, that this will make us look backward. This idiocy needs to be legislated against asap, but our government are hardly up to the task.

Also, I could care less about the excuses being offered up, yes file sharing copy righted material is agianst the law, but this doesn't mean that people can have there internet cut off on the mere accusation of it. Doing something like that isn't any kind of justice, but rather letting a few companies act like a pack of despots.

The Judge seems to think that someone is guilty on the say so of some random company, despite the fact that there have been false positives with there accusations before.

The media companies are no better than the pirates, and quite frankly there disgusting actions, have led to me having little sympathy for them when it comes to piracy. They are quite frankly no better.

MagicSean · 21-04-2010 12:43pm

thebman wrote: »

I never said I did or supported it. That was just an assumption on your part wrongly so and a personal attack to try to make me appear wrong/my point less valid by assuming I supported the position. I simply stated why people of a younger generation feel they are valid in doing so.

Feel free to apologise.

I never made any personal attack. I wasn't actually referring to you personally. Would it make you feel better if I changed the word you to "one"?

wes wrote: »

A shameful and idiotic decision, where someone is guilty upon accusation. I agree with ei.sdraob, that this will make us look backward. This idiocy needs to be legislated against asap, but our government are hardly up to the task.

Also, I could care less about the excuses being offered up, yes file sharing copy righted material is agianst the law, but this doesn't mean that people can have there internet cut off on the mere accusation of it. Doing something like that isn't any kind of justice, but rather letting a few companies act like a pack of despots.

The Judge seems to think that someone is guilty on the say so of some random company, despite the fact that there have been false positives with there accusations before.

The media companies are no better than the pirates, and quite frankly there disgusting actions, have led to me having little sympathy for them when it comes to piracy. They are quite frankly no better.

The agreement gives the user the right to appeal following the third warning. So it is not just based on the accusation. You get a chance to defend yourself. And everyone is making assumptions on how the isp's will implement this. For all you know they could have their own investigation following an accusation by a media company and have to satisfy their own grounds of proof.

MagicSean · 21-04-2010 12:44pm

thebman wrote: »

TV and radio didn't cause things like Open Source Software or Free Music Downloads Legal or Illegal.

The Internet has revolutionised our world and where it differs from TV and Radio is it does not have national boundaries so applying national laws to it has no effect.

Like the mobile phone?

wes · 21-04-2010 1:05pm

k_mac wrote: »

The agreement gives the user the right to appeal following the third warning. So it is not just based on the accusation. You get a chance to defend yourself. And everyone is making assumptions on how the isp's will implement this. For all you know they could have their own investigation following an accusation by a media company and have to satisfy their own grounds of proof.

Oh please, an appeal after the 3rd accusation, still assumes guilt until you prove otherwise. This is the kind of system despots use, where you have to prove you innocence. It is up to the accuser to prove guilt and not for the accused to prove the innocence. The system is backwards, and absurd. It make the media companies, the judge and jury, with the ISP as executioner.

MagicSean · 21-04-2010 1:12pm

wes wrote: »

Oh please, an appeal after the 3rd accusation, still assumes guilt until you prove otherwise. This is the kind of system despots use, where you have to prove you innocence. It is up to the accuser to prove guilt and not for the accused to prove the innocence. The system is backwards, and absurd. It make the media companies, the judge and jury, with the ISP as executioner.

Once again your making assumptions on how the isp will opperate the system. If they implement a high burden of proof on the accuser in the first place it could be a fair system.

wes · 21-04-2010 1:15pm

k_mac wrote: »

Once again your making assumptions on how the isp will opperate the system. If they implement a high burden of proof on the accuser in the first place it could be a fair system.

No, it won't be. I know enough of the system to call it backward. Only being able to appeal after the 3rd accusation? That right there is ridiculous. The 3 strikes system is worthless pile of garbage, that will effect a bunch of innocent people, meanwhile any competent pirate, will either use a VPN, download via Rapid share etc, or hell use google to search for the file, or use freenet or other dark nets, to get around these morons trying to find them. It won't change a damn thing, and will just unduly victimize innocent people.

Also, an ISP should not have to act as police man for another industries failures.

MagicSean · 21-04-2010 1:31pm

wes wrote: »

No, it won't be. I know enough of the system to call it backward. Only being able to appeal after the 3rd accusation? That right there is ridiculous. The 3 strikes system is worthless pile of garbage, that will effect a bunch of innocent people, meanwhile any competent pirate, will either use a VPN, download via Rapid share etc, or hell use google to search for the file, or use freenet or other dark nets, to get around these morons trying to find them. It won't change a damn thing, and will just unduly victimize innocent people.

Also, an ISP should not have to act as police man for another industries failures.

How is it an industry failing?

You can't know that much about the system because it hasn't been brought in yet has it?

wes · 21-04-2010 1:36pm

k_mac wrote: »

How is it an industry failing?

Well, they seem to be claiming piracy is killing there industry, so either there liar or telling the truth.

k_mac wrote: »

You can't know that much about the system because it hasn't been brought in yet has it?

I know enough, and I know enough about those involved to know they are not to be trusted. They don't care about fairness, and could care less about trampling on innocent people. The Media companies have proven this time and time again, with there actions. They are not be trusted, and neither is a ISP, that so quickly bent over backwards to there ludicrous demands.

MagicSean · 21-04-2010 1:41pm

wes wrote: »

Well, they seem to be claiming piracy is killing there industry, so either there liar or telling the truth.

So you meant a failing industry?

wes wrote: »

I know enough, and I know enough about those involved to know they are not to be trusted. They don't care about fairness, and could care less about trampling on innocent people. The Media companies have proven this time and time again, with there actions. They are not be trusted, and neither is a ISP, that so quickly bent over backwards to there ludicrous demands.

Bent over backwards? I thought they challenged it in the courts. I think we should wait and see how they plan on implementing the system before we can criticise it too much.

wes · 21-04-2010 1:56pm

k_mac wrote: »

Bent over backwards? I thought they challenged it in the courts. I think we should wait and see how they plan on implementing the system before we can criticise it too much.

Eircom settled, so yeah bend over backwards is correct, and court case was over privacy issues.

Also, I think the system needs criticism now. The media companies are trying to bring in this sytem via the back door, as the attempts in other countries to do so via the law failed, due to the inherent unfairness of the system they propose. This needs to be opposed in no uncertain terms, and needs to be legislated against asap.

BluePlanet · 21-04-2010 4:09pm

Does the same 3 strikes thing exist regarding LAN (telephone) lines?
For example if you're using the phone for illegal activity (making prank calls or phishing scams), after 3 complaints are you cut off?

CiaranC · 21-04-2010 11:23pm

k_mac wrote: »

Like the mobile phone?

Um, no.

CiaranC · 22-04-2010 12:51am

The text of ACTA has been released. Ars has an overview:

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/04/acta-is-here.ars

wes · 22-04-2010 9:53am

CiaranC wrote: »

The text of ACTA has been released. Ars has an overview:

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/04/acta-is-here.ars

It nothing short of spectacular, that several so called "democracies", were involved with this treaty, and that it took this long for the text to be avaliable. Its amazing how long they kept this thing under wraps for.

MagicSean · 22-04-2010 10:00am

CiaranC wrote: »

Um, no.

Why not? Seems to be a lot of internet worship here. At the end of the day it's just a more advance communication method than a mobile phone.

thebman · 22-04-2010 10:27am

k_mac wrote: »

Why not? Seems to be a lot of internet worship here. At the end of the day it's just a more advance communication method than a mobile phone.

First of all, a modern Mobile Phone is an Internet ready device precisely because it offers so many more features and capabilities than a mobile phone that is just a phone and text messaging device.

If the Internet didn't exist, do you think 3G would exist or the wealth of extra services mobile providers now offer?

If the Internet didn't exist the extra features your phone has would be a camera and Solitaire game and if it had any problems, you'd have to go to the store to get it fixed so no they aren't the even in the same league of capabilities.

Putting up barriers to a free and open internet

Comments