Putting up barriers to a free and open internet

MagicSean

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

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

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

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

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

k_mac wrote: »

Like the mobile phone?

Um, no.

CiaranC

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

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

wes

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

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

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.

ei.sdraob

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.

Jesus ****ign christ

arghghghgh! :mad:

---

ok calmed down

The internet is a valuable business and communication tool, you might think its just mobile technology PLUS, but its much more than that

My own Irish business can be considered and called an Internet Service Provider (no we dont do last mile connections in the classical ISP sense)

We actually regularly receive few dozen abuse/DMCA emails each week from that DtecNet crowd who were mentioned in that ars article

guess what half of them are wrong! the other half are dealt with within 10 minutes during office hours


I am currently considering closing that arm of the business (the most profitable one) and moving it to a company in either Cyprus, Switzerland, BVI or Seychelles, and only leaving a shell of a company in Ireland

The last thing i now need is to be dragged thru ****ing courts now that a judge with no grasp of what the internet is has made a ruling which set precedent

This judge ruling will cost the country jobs and business, just wait until likes of Google and Microsoft are sued, both of whom have giant datacenters in Ireland. I would bet that some of the data stored on their servers here in Dublin (think Youtube, Microsoft Skydrive) can be considered "copyrighted" by someone

As an ISP with servers, networks and millions of daily users, i do not have the capacity to filter and monitor everything, 30 Terrabytes of data flows thru our network/servers daily :eek: and we are only small fish

the current procedure is simple you receive a take-down request from copyright owners and then you act on it quickly

Now this ruling means we might end-up being dragged thru courts

no ****ing thanks :mad:

BluePlanet

It's a quagmire.
I read an article about 6months ago, which detailed how some companies are falsely claming copyright on non-copyrighted /public domain material.

Is the ISP supposed to wade through this stuff to find out if said material is actually copyrighted?

http://www.publicdomainsherpa.com/false-copyright-claims.html

ei.sdraob

I just greped the abuse inbox

1584 emails from DtecNet since 8/10/08

Whats worse is that they are all automated, and in many cases wrong,
I dont like the whole concept of guilty until proven innocent that this ruling and now ACTA are leading to

Hell this very site probably receives its share of abuse emails, would you like boards.ie to be closed to :cool:?

Heres a sample DMCA (an American law btw :rolleyes:) email:

DATE: 06 April 2010

URL: <snip>


Re: Infringing Website:<snip> - Notice of Infringement

Dear Sir or Madam:

I am writing on behalf of Lionsgate. Lionsgate owns certain rights under copyright law in "From Paris with Love
". There are links on <snip> that allow for the transmission and/or downloading of "LionsGate - From Paris with Love
", in violation of Lionsgate’s rights under copyright law.

The unauthorized distribution or public performance of copyrighted works constitutes copyright infringement under the Copyright Act, Title 17 U.S Code Section 106(3)-(4). This conduct may also violate the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, The Universal Copyright Convention as well as bilateral treaties with other countries that allow for protection of our copyrighted works even beyond U.S borders.

I, the undersigned, swear under penalty of perjury that the information in this Notice is accurate and that I am the owner or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner of certain intellectual property rights. I have a good faith belief that the items or materials identified in the addendum attached hereto are not authorized by above IP Owner, its agent, or the law and therefore infringe the IP Owner’s rights. Please act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the materials or items claims to be infringing.

For your convenience, I have included the links to the infringing content as follows:

<snip>
<snip>


I can be contacted at:
Bob <snip>
Executive Vice President
Lionsgate
2700 Colorado Blvd.
Santa Monica, CA 90404
310-449-9200

Truthfully,

Bob <snip>

If you have some issues please reply to snip@ dtecnet.com, reply to snip@ dtecnet.com will be ignored.

Notice how they are not the copyright owner but an "agent"

these companies scour the internet for content and then invoice the real copyright owners for XYZ content identified and removed, yes real $$$



in fact of any of you want a business plan, then:

1. setup on "copyright agency" lets call it Company A (like above crowd) arm it with few lawyers and some crawler bots

2. and setup another business to host various "works", call it Company B

3. then send notices from A to B

4. contact copyright owners and aks your company A to represent you

5. profit!


now run along and apply for that Enterprise Ireland grant :P only took me 5 minutes to come up with an "evil" business plan :P :pac:

CiaranC

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.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

The Internet has the potential to, and to a large extent already does, contain all information produced by the human race - all arts, all science, all education, all literature, every single idea ever thought, and make it available to every other human being everywhere, instantaneously, for virtually no cost. It is the single greatest advance any of us are ever likely to see.

Yet it is being legislated against by people like you, who think its like a mobile phone, and people like the media conglomerates, who want it torn apart because its makes their obnoxious business models obsolete.

MagicSean

CiaranC wrote: »

You have no idea what you are talking about.

The Internet has the potential to, and to a large extent already does, contain all information produced by the human race - all arts, all science, all education, all literature, every single idea ever thought, and make it available to every other human being everywhere, instantaneously, for virtually no cost. It is the single greatest advance any of us are ever likely to see.

Yet it is being legislated against by people like you, who think its like a mobile phone, and people like the media conglomerates, who want it torn apart because its makes their obnoxious business models obsolete.

Does the internet have that info or is it on a physical computer somewhere and the internet allows you to communicate with it?

thebman

Another great resource on past abuses by the media industry is available for free download as an ebook from:
http://www.free-culture.cc/freecontent/

So many really good facts in this book that it should be read just to get an idea of how the goalposts have been moved in relation to Copyright in the past 50 years and why this is bad for our culture.

We are more and more being locked down to being a read-only society by lobbying by content publishers to get ever lasting copyrights and trying to stop works entering the public domain.

wes

k_mac wrote: »

Does the internet have that info or is it on a physical computer somewhere and the internet allows you to communicate with it?

The Internet is a "network of networks". It allows you to access machines that contain that information. Otherwise, you would have to physically access this information. The Internet, allows a unprecedented access to information.

ei.sdraob

Like the judge, several posters here have no idea how the internet operates
and yet have formed strong opinions on it :rolleyes:

so here is a car analogy to illustrate how retardedly stupid the position of the judge and ACTA and media companies is:

The internet is a giant packet switched network (phones btw use circuit switching which is very different)

Anyways an analogy would be cars on the national road network, each car is a "packet" carrying information (the passenger and or goods) via roundabouts/junctions (the routers) and roads/motorways (the connections)

* Internet filtering then is analogus county council preventing cars of black color (because only dodgy people drive black cars ) with tinted windows from driving up a road

* Three strikes is analogous to a giant boulder being put in your driveway preventing your from accessing the road network, simply because someone doesnt like the idea of black cars parking in your driveway three times :rolleyes:

* ACTA and media companies want to make the road network operator responsible for the dodgy cars on its roads



What happens when a drug dealer uses the road network? is it the country councils fault?? can they and the gardai/customs stop and check every car in the country all the time??? no? of course not
thats why ISPs have currently a "safe harbour" provision, they can not monitor the network, their job is to build and maintain the (road) network and carparks and roundabouts etc
of the ISP is notified of a dodgy cars on its road network they try to remove the abusing cars, or ask the authorities for help

once again it is not their fault the network can be used for "wrongdoing"


hope people understand my cars + road network analogy its very similar to how internet works


edit: i was discussing this with my friends, we are now considering setting up a VPN business to provide people with cheap and secure encrypted connections, its definitely a "growth" area with alot of money to be made it seems based on initial research were doing, to continue my analogy thats like providing a service to paint black cars yellow or having private tunnels so they can travel on the road netowrk

MagicSean

wes wrote: »

The Internet is a "network of networks". It allows you to access machines that contain that information. Otherwise, you would have to physically access this information. The Internet, allows a unprecedented access to information.

So its a communication tool.

MagicSean

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Like the judge, several posters here have no idea how the internet operates
and yet have formed strong opinions on it :rolleyes:

so here is a car analogy to illustrate how retardedly stupid the position of the judge and ACTA and media companies is:

The internet is a giant packet switched network (phones btw use circuit switching which is very different)

Anyways an analogy would be cars on the national road network, each car is a "packet" carrying information (the passenger and or goods) via roundabouts/junctions (the routers) and roads/motorways (the connections)

* Internet filtering then is analogus county council preventing cars of black color (because only dodgy people drive black cars ) with tinted windows from driving up a road

* Three strikes is analogous to a giant boulder being put in your driveway preventing your from accessing the road network, simply because someone doesnt like the idea of black cars parking in your driveway three times :rolleyes:

* ACTA and media companies want to make the road network operator responsible for the dodgy cars on its roads



What happens when a drug dealer uses the road network? is it the country councils fault?? can they and the gardai/customs stop and check every car in the country all the time??? no? of course not
thats why ISPs have currently a "safe harbour" provision, they can not monitor the network, their job is to build and maintain the (road) network and carparks and roundabouts etc
of the ISP is notified of a dodgy cars on its road network they try to remove the abusing cars, or ask the authorities for help

once again it is not their fault the network can be used for "wrongdoing"


hope people understand my cars + road network analogy its very similar to how internet works


edit: i was discussing this with my friends, we are now considering setting up a VPN business to provide people with cheap and secure encrypted connections, its definitely a "growth" area with alot of money to be made it seems based on initial research were doing, to continue my analogy thats like providing a service to paint black cars yellow or having private tunnels so they can travel on the road netowrk

If you want to use that analogy it's more like three strikes loses you your licence. If a drug dealer uses a car to transport drugs and someone complains to the Gardaí they stop him and charge him. He then loses his drivers licence and is no longer allowed to drive.

ei.sdraob

k_mac wrote: »

So its a communication tool.

See my example above and road networks

ei.sdraob

k_mac wrote: »

If you want to use that analogy it's more like three strikes loses you your licence. If a drug dealer uses a car to transport drugs and someone complains to the Gardaí they stop him and charge him. He then loses his drivers licence and is no longer allowed to drive.

But there lies the problem

you are guilty until proven innocent

which is very wrong

The ISP (road operator) has to assume and act on a "tip-off" that the car belongs to a drug dealer and not just a normal black tinted car belonging to your friend

wes

k_mac wrote: »

So its a communication tool.

Yes, and by using it, now you can be accused of something, and found guilty based on that accusation, and lose access to this tool, which is only way to apply for jobs, for kids to do there home work, and you also lose access to other things, all due to an accusation.

IMHO, access to the Internet should be considered a Human Right, it is nearly impossible to function in todays world with out it.

eoin5

k_mac wrote: »

So its a communication tool.

You are a bunch of atoms, ireland is mostly dirt and stone, theres bigger pictures here.

thebman

k_mac wrote: »

So its a communication tool.

Do you ring your mobile operator to find out the capital of Australia? :pac:

Its a communication too, its an entertainment tool, its a knowledge tool.

Its a library, its a service provider, its a service finder, its a communication tool too.

Take off your blinkers. You've lost the argument several times over already.

MagicSean

ei.sdraob wrote: »

But there lies the problem

you are guilty until proven innocent

which is very wrong

The ISP (road operator) has to assume and act on a "tip-off" that the car belongs to a drug dealer and not just a normal black tinted car belonging to your friend

So much like your car being removed from you for driving with no tax?

wes wrote: »

Yes, and by using it, now you can be accused of something, and found guilty based on that accusation, and lose access to this tool, which is only way to apply for jobs, for kids to do there home work, and you also lose access to other things, all due to an accusation.

IMHO, access to the Internet should be considered a Human Right, it is nearly impossible to function in todays world with out it.

Thats ridiculous. Of course you can live without it. You know you can apply for a job using a thing called a letter. And you can do your homework using a device known as a book.

thebman wrote: »

Do you ring your mobile operator to find out the capital of Australia? :pac:

Its a communication too, its an entertainment tool, its a knowledge tool.

Its a library, its a service provider, its a service finder, its a communication tool too.

Take off your blinkers. You've lost the argument several times over already.

Do you ask your isp for the capital of australia? No you use their service to contact another computer or user. Much like I can use my phone to call an embassy or a geography teacher.

I'm not saying it isn't much more useful. I just can't understand how people don't see it for what it is. An advanced form of communication. Much the same as sattelite communication once was. In time the internet will probably be replaced by something even more advanced.

ei.sdraob

k_mac wrote: »

So much like your car being removed from you for driving with no tax?

eh no

like the car being removed from you without trial because someone down the street says you are dodgy

wes

k_mac wrote: »

Thats ridiculous. Of course you can live without it. You know you can apply for a job using a thing called a letter. And you can do your homework using a device known as a book.

Plenty of jobs can only be found via the Internet, and can only be applied to via the Internet. It also make it a lot easier to apply for jobs.

Also, you can certainly go to the library, and get a book, but if they don't have a copy, then you are out of luck, or have to buy an expensive copy. Much easier to look at sources via the Internet, or buy a digital copy via it, or even a hard copy, if your local book store or library is missing it.

Also, it is not a ridiculous to assert that Internet access is a Human Rights. It is an essential tool in modern life, and to take it away from someone is imho wrong. I am not allone in this btw:

From BBC.co.uk/news
Internet access is 'a fundamental right'

Almost four in five people around the world believe that access to the internet is a fundamental right, a poll for the BBC World Service suggests.

The survey - of more than 27,000 adults across 26 countries - found strong support for net access on both sides of the digital divide.

Countries such as Finland and Estonia have already ruled that access is a human right for their citizens.

International bodies such as the UN are also pushing for universal net access.

Click here for the full article

I think Ireland needs to follow Finland and Estonia, and rule net access as a Human Right for Irish citizens, to stop the media companies, campaign to have innocent people Internet cut off, soley due to accuastion on there part.

MagicSean

wes wrote: »

Also, it is not a ridiculous to assert that Internet access is a Human Rights. It is an essential tool in modern life, and to take it away from someone is imho wrong. I am not allone in this btw:




I think Ireland needs to follow Finland and Estonia, and rule net access as a Human Right for Irish citizens, to stop the media companies, campaign to have innocent people Internet cut off, soley due to accuastion on there part.

Did you know that one in five of the world population dont even have electricity? And 15% don't have enough food to eat. So according to that poll everyone who has electricity thinks the internet is a fundamental right. Surely you see the error in that.

I moved house last year and was without the internet for 6 weeks. Did I die? No. Did I starve? No. Admittedly it was inconvenient having to walk to the bank and drive to easons and HMV to do my shopping but I got over it.

I would agree that a person shouldn't have their internet cut off solely on the basis of an accusation. I would expect that the isp would investigate and the user would have a chance to defend themself(which they do after the third strike before the conncection is cut). But I would see it more as an issue of contract law than human rights. It's hardly the same as being starved, tortured or locked up. I dont think theres any point losing your head about it before you see how the process is implemented by eircom.

wes

k_mac wrote: »

Did you know that one in five of the world population dont even have electricity? And 15% don't have enough food to eat. So according to that poll everyone who has electricity thinks the internet is a fundamental right. Surely you see the error in that.

I am well aware of those figures. Now just imagine having you electricity cut off, due to some corporate tossers, saying you did something wrong 3 times, and thats it, you lose you electrcity.

k_mac wrote: »

I moved house last year and was without the internet for 6 weeks. Did I die? No. Did I starve? No. Admittedly it was inconvenient having to walk to the bank and drive to easons and HMV to do my shopping but I got over it.

You had no Internet due to a move, and not due to some corporate tool making accusations against you.

k_mac wrote: »

I would agree that a person shouldn't have their internet cut off solely on the basis of an accusation. I would expect that the isp would investigate and the user would have a chance to defend themself(which they do after the third strike before the conncection is cut). But I would see it more as an issue of contract law than human rights. It's hardly the same as being starved, tortured or locked up. I dont think theres any point losing your head about it before you see how the process is implemented by eircom.

Oh please, I already know the implementation. The media companies have been trying to get this into law for ages. So, I am well aware of the system they want Eircom to implement. This crap needs to be opposed right now in no uncertain terms, and needs to legislated against. I think making the Internet a Human Right would be fine way to do this, and its about time that the government did something that benefited the average person, as opposed to big businesses.