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
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Yet another secret treaty, Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP))

2»

Comments

  • #52
    Skylinehead
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,690 ✭✭✭✭Skylinehead


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    Nope. For a very long time now governments have done very little to protect intellectual property rights from the development of the internet. This is a step in the right direction.
    It's incredibly expensive to pay for the sort of filtering/blocking that would be necessary. Who pays for this? The consumer, at the end of day.

    And of course, on top of the expense, it won't work. Filtering and blocking never works.


  • #53
    gobsh!te
    Registered Users Posts: 333 ✭✭gobsh!te


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    Nope. For a very long time now governments have done very little to protect intellectual property rights from the development of the internet. This is a step in the right direction.

    Are you serious. The internet being free of government interference is what makes it so great.

    In fact, some of the big internet companies would never had become companies if they went along with the rules and regulation sh!t from governments. Instead they were starting in garages and college campuses.

    When the fcuk has the government done a good job on anything?


  • #54
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    gobsh!te wrote: »
    Are you serious. The internet being free of government interference is what makes it so great.

    In fact, some of the big internet companies would never had become companies if they went along with the rules and regulation sh!t from governments. Instead they were starting in garages and college campuses.

    When the fcuk has the government done a good job on anything?

    The internet would never have been great if it weren't for the enforcement of property rights. Google may have started small but it would never have grown had we lived in a society that doesn't offer protection to intellectual property.

    The current situation where we ignore the rights of property holders is not sustainable.


  • #55
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,820 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    The current situation where we ignore the rights of property holders is not sustainable.

    Nobody's saying we should ignore the rights of property holders. We're saying that, if they feel their rights are being breached, they should do what everyone else has to do when their rights are breached and get a court order against the person doing the breaching.

    The IP holders don't want to do this. It's too difficult and expensive, they wail. We want to skip all that due process crap and impose the difficult and expensive burden on a third party who, prior to this, was a mere conduit for the alleged infringements.

    You claim the current situation is unsustainable, but you're not interested in even discussing whether the proposed situation is sustainable. That's pretty lopsided.


  • #56
    gobsh!te
    Registered Users Posts: 333 ✭✭gobsh!te


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    The internet would never have been great if it weren't for the enforcement of property rights. Google may have started small but it would never have grown had we lived in a society that doesn't offer protection to intellectual property.

    The current situation where we ignore the rights of property holders is not sustainable.

    Bull...it's pure free market...people stopped using Yahoo and went to Google...why? Google was better. It all started with their search algorithm......nothing to do with whatever stuff you are talking about.

    They make good products....that's why they do well.

    On the internet, you can set up a website and a business without the mafia coming in to get their cut(which makes it not worthwhile in many cases).

    Are you trolling or do you not understand the history of the internet?


  • #57
    johnnyskeleton
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 14,535 Mod ✭✭✭✭johnnyskeleton


    gobsh!te wrote: »
    Are you trolling or do you not understand the history of the internet?

    Mod note:

    Gobsh!te banned for a week for accusing another poster of trolling on thread.

    Please dont respond to any of his comments for the next week.


  • #58
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Nobody's saying we should ignore the rights of property holders. We're saying that, if they feel their rights are being breached, they should do what everyone else has to do when their rights are breached and get a court order against the person doing the breaching.

    The IP holders don't want to do this. It's too difficult and expensive, they wail. We want to skip all that due process crap and impose the difficult and expensive burden on a third party who, prior to this, was a mere conduit for the alleged infringements.

    You claim the current situation is unsustainable, but you're not interested in even discussing whether the proposed situation is sustainable. That's pretty lopsided.

    I understand what you're saying but given individually sueing lawbreakers is not practical how would you suggest we implement intrllectual property protection online?

    Blocking may not be perfect but it is a step in the right direction and the expense won't affect the ISP market since it will be applied to every ISP as a cost of doing business.


  • #59
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Nobody's saying we should ignore the rights of property holders. We're saying that, if they feel their rights are being breached, they should do what everyone else has to do when their rights are breached and get a court order against the person doing the breaching.

    The IP holders don't want to do this. It's too difficult and expensive, they wail. We want to skip all that due process crap and impose the difficult and expensive burden on a third party who, prior to this, was a mere conduit for the alleged infringements.

    You claim the current situation is unsustainable, but you're not interested in even discussing whether the proposed situation is sustainable. That's pretty lopsided.

    I understand what you're saying but given individually sueing lawbreakers is not practical how would you suggest we implement intrllectual property protection online?

    Blocking may not be perfect but it is a step in the right direction and the expense won't affect the ISP market since it will be applied to every ISP as a cost of doing business.


  • #60
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,820 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    I understand what you're saying but given individually sueing lawbreakers is not practical how would you suggest we implement intrllectual property protection online?
    I reject the premise that, because due process is hassle, it should be ignored and made someone else's problem.
    Blocking may not be perfect...
    Blocking. Doesn't. Work.
    ...but it is a step in the right direction...
    I've explained why it's not. If you're going to reiterate that it is, at least go to the effort of refuting my arguments instead of just pretending I haven't made them.
    ...and the expense won't affect the ISP market since it will be applied to every ISP as a cost of doing business.
    I can't think of a kind way of saying that that's a pretty stupid argument.

    Some ISPs have millions of customers. Some ISPs have hundreds. The cost of pointless blocking doesn't scale linearly with customer numbers; this measure would affect smaller ISPs so disproportionately as to almost certainly put many of them out of business.

    If you can explain to me how that "won't affect the ISP market", I'm all ears.

    If copyright holders don't want to use due process because it's "impractical", but want ISPs to implement blocking, maybe the copyright holders should pay for the blocking. They're the ones who want it, and they're the ones who believe they'll benefit from it. There are many things I want and believe I would benefit for; do you think the movie studios should pay for them?


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    I reject the premise that, because due process is hassle, it should be ignored and made someone else's problem. Blocking. Doesn't. Work. I've explained why it's not. If you're going to reiterate that it is, at least go to the effort of refuting my arguments instead of just pretending I haven't made them. I can't think of a kind way of saying that that's a pretty stupid argument.
    You've repeated your assertion that blocking doesn't work. I did read it the first time but if your only solution is forcing ip holders to individually sue every law breaker (without even providing them the information to do so) then clearly I can refute that your solution does not work either and further a combination of both deterrents is clearly better than one or the other unless you can provide an alternative that would make both of them redundant?
    Some ISPs have millions of customers. Some ISPs have hundreds. The cost of pointless blocking doesn't scale linearly with customer numbers; this measure would affect smaller ISPs so disproportionately as to almost certainly put many of them out of business.
    That's the case in a lot of markets. The cost of hardware is one example that doesn't scale linearly with the number of customers an ISP has. Once this becomes law it will simply be a cost of doing business that every ISP has to deal with.
    If you can explain to me how that "won't affect the ISP market", I'm all ears.

    If copyright holders don't want to use due process because it's "impractical", but want ISPs to implement blocking, maybe the copyright holders should pay for the blocking. They're the ones who want it, and they're the ones who believe they'll benefit from it. There are many things I want and believe I would benefit for; do you think the movie studios should pay for them?
    How exactly do you plan to have "IP holders" pay for the cost of ISPs blocking illegal sites? That sounds less practical than the current plan.

    Given that you don;t believe blocking will work and you agree individually sueing lawbreakers is impractical how would you approach this problem? I'm all ears.


  • #62
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,820 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    You've repeated your assertion that blocking doesn't work.
    Yes. That's because it doesn't work. No matter what technology an ISP uses to prevent one of its users from accessing content that someone else couldn't be bothered getting a court order to prove is illegal, that technology is trivial to circumvent.
    I did read it the first time but if your only solution is forcing ip holders to individually sue every law breaker...
    I'm not forcing anyone to do anything. If a copyright holder has a problem with someone's behaviour, they can use due process to deal with them. The idea that they are "forced to sue" is like claiming that police are "forced to arrest" criminals.
    ...(without even providing them the information to do so)...
    Nobody said anything about not providing information. If a court asks an ISP for information relating to a civil or criminal case, the ISP will provide it.
    ...then clearly I can refute that your solution does not work either and further a combination of both deterrents is clearly better than one or the other unless you can provide an alternative that would make both of them redundant?
    You're wilfully missing the point. Asking me to come up with a solution to the problem of people stealing copyrighted material - when I'm neither the owner nor the thief - is ignoring the fact that I'm not a party to the alleged infringement.

    Asking ISPs to put measures in place to prevent their networks being used for copyright infringement is like asking car manufacturers to implement countermeasures to prevent their products being used as getaway cars in bank robberies. The car manufacturer isn't a party to the robbery; the ISP isn't a party to the infringement.
    That's the case in a lot of markets. The cost of hardware is one example that doesn't scale linearly with the number of customers an ISP has. Once this becomes law it will simply be a cost of doing business that every ISP has to deal with.
    Imagine you were explaining to your local corner shop that they were going to have to invest several hundred thousand euros in a new security system. This security system won't benefit them in any way; it's designed solely to protect the products of one of their suppliers. Not only that, but it won't work anyway. You explain to this small retailer that it's perfectly fair to ask them to spend this huge sum, because Tesco will have to spend the same amount, so it's just a cost of doing business. When they complain, you demand that they come up with a better way of protecting their supplier's products.

    I'm not demanding that the movie studios fork out money to avoid my legal bills. I'm at a loss as to why I should have to fork out money so they can avoid theirs.
    How exactly do you plan to have "IP holders" pay for the cost of ISPs blocking illegal sites? That sounds less practical than the current plan.
    It's not my problem. It's theirs. They're trying to make it my problem, and you seem to think it's perfectly fair for them to do so.

    Maybe they should make it your problem instead of mine. Would that be fair?
    Given that you don;t believe blocking will work and you agree individually sueing lawbreakers is impractical how would you approach this problem? I'm all ears.
    I'd make PC manufacturers pay for it. After all, they're making the computers that are used to download illicit content.

    </sarcasm>


Advertisement