Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Putting up barriers to a free and open internet

135

Comments

  • #62
    MagicSean
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,897 ✭✭✭MagicSean


    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.


  • #63
    IrishTonyO
    Registered Users Posts: 2,321 ✭✭✭IrishTonyO


    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?


  • #64
    Valmont
    Registered Users Posts: 5,856 ✭✭✭Valmont


    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.


  • #65
    MagicSean
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,897 ✭✭✭MagicSean


    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.


  • #66
    MagicSean
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,897 ✭✭✭MagicSean


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    SeanW
    Registered Users Posts: 8,719 ✭✭✭SeanW


    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/


  • #68
    thebman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,012 ✭✭✭✭thebman


    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.


  • #69
    sceptre
    Registered Users Posts: 19,608 ✭✭✭✭sceptre


    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.


  • #70
    CiaranC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,300 ✭✭✭CiaranC


    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.


  • #71
    eoin5
    Registered Users Posts: 2,141 ✭✭✭eoin5


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    ei.sdraob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    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 :D
    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


  • #73
    MagicSean
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,897 ✭✭✭MagicSean


    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.


  • #74
    moonpurple
    Closed Accounts Posts: 852 ✭✭✭moonpurple


    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:


  • #75
    eoin5
    Registered Users Posts: 2,141 ✭✭✭eoin5


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


  • #76
    MagicSean
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,897 ✭✭✭MagicSean


    eoin5 wrote: »
    The internet is just a communication tool, yet intellectual property can exist. Make up yer mind!

    They aren't mutually exclusive concepts.


  • #77
    thebman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,012 ✭✭✭✭thebman


    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.


  • #78
    eoin5
    Registered Users Posts: 2,141 ✭✭✭eoin5


    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 :D.


  • #79
    MagicSean
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,897 ✭✭✭MagicSean


    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.


  • #80
    MagicSean
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,897 ✭✭✭MagicSean


    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 :D.

    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.


  • #81
    thebman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,012 ✭✭✭✭thebman


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    eoin5
    Registered Users Posts: 2,141 ✭✭✭eoin5


    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 :D. 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.


  • #83
    CiaranC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,300 ✭✭✭CiaranC


    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.


  • #84
    thebman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,012 ✭✭✭✭thebman


    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.


  • #85
    ei.sdraob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    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)


  • #86
    wes
    Registered Users Posts: 11,747 ✭✭✭✭wes


    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.


  • #87
    MagicSean
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,897 ✭✭✭MagicSean


    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.


  • #88
    MagicSean
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,897 ✭✭✭MagicSean


    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?


  • #89
    wes
    Registered Users Posts: 11,747 ✭✭✭✭wes


    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.


  • #90
    MagicSean
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,897 ✭✭✭MagicSean


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • #91
    wes
    Registered Users Posts: 11,747 ✭✭✭✭wes


    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.


Advertisement