Login / Register
 
New Zealand anti-piracy law passes in a landslide
Subscribe
#91
7th June 2011
Old 7th June 2011
  #91
Lives for gear
 
Joined: May 2010
Location: Wellington NZ
Posts: 1,375

Don Hills is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Eppstein View Post
That picture of Mr. McInroe is the very face of evil. Jules would not like3 me to elucidate the feelings that article inspires in me.
Why? "Big Tech" is not evil. "Big Tech" is not infringing your copyright. If it was, you could sue it. It's like any other enabling technology - it's not the technology, it's what people use it for. Would you accept shutting down the Internet as the price for eliminating copyright infringement? So while you may feel anger, you should realise that it is misdirected.

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Eppstein View Post
Concerning the previous post about Mr Darby - it was a very courageous and admirable thing for him to make that video. It's sad that he doesn't appear to really have the strength of his convictions and is attempting to backpedal after a few thieves and anarchists express displeasure. ...
You mean this?

Darby in anti-piracy ad backlash | Stuff.co.nz

He's not against copyright enforcement. He's against the law as it was drafted and passed. It's a flawed law, passed in a manner which offended the sense of fairness of the average NZer. The US influence is becoming clearer too, which "we" have a long history of resenting.
#92
7th June 2011
Old 7th June 2011
  #92
Gear Guru
 
John Eppstein's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2009
Location: San Francisco, CA.
Posts: 14,464

John Eppstein is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Hills View Post
Why? "Big Tech" is not evil. "Big Tech" is not infringing your copyright. If it was, you could sue it. It's like any other enabling technology - it's not the technology, it's what people use it for. Would you accept shutting down the Internet as the price for eliminating copyright infringement? So while you may feel anger, you should realise that it is misdirected.
Big tech is using the work of artists as a loss-leader commodity to sell their services without proper compensation. In fact they're doing everything possible to avoid paying artists their fair share. Why should they make millions off our work but only toss us a few pennies?

I'd like to wipe that smirk right off his face......

And yes, "Big Tech" is evil. They may not be infringing "my" copyright but they are damn sure profiting from the infringement. Kind of like arms dealers feeding off of bush wars. "Oh, no, WE'RE not killing any people"....... crap.
__________________
All opinions expressed in my posts are solely my own: I do not represent any other forums (of which I may or may not be a member), groups, or individuals although at times my views may resemble those of other entities.

************************************
Inside every old man is a young man wondering WTF happened.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Ohlsson
The appropriate role for science is the study of observed phenomena to gain an understanding. It is not dictating what people ought or ought not to be observing.
#93
7th June 2011
Old 7th June 2011
  #93
Lives for gear
 
Joined: May 2010
Location: Wellington NZ
Posts: 1,375

Don Hills is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Eppstein View Post
Big tech is using the work of artists as a loss-leader commodity to sell their services without proper compensation. In fact they're doing everything possible to avoid paying artists their fair share. Why should they make millions off our work but only toss us a few pennies?

I'd like to wipe that smirk right off his face......

And yes, "Big Tech" is evil. They may not be infringing "my" copyright but they are damn sure profiting from the infringement. Kind of like arms dealers feeding off of bush wars. "Oh, no, WE'RE not killing any people"....... crap.
If the only use of the Internet was to infringe copyright, or if it was specifically designed to enable copyright infringement, you might have a point. But it's not. In this country at least, it would actually help if copyright infringement traffic went away - the problem is too much traffic , not too little. Apart from the bandwidth, carrying illegal traffic is a threat to business rather than a boost - illegal activity means trouble and expense, even if the ISP is not liable. The new law is a good example - the ISPs are currently having to spend a lot of money on lawyers and consultants to thrash out the details of the regulations for the law. They'll have to expand their systems to handle the requests for customer details, and even if they receive adequate compensation there will still be added costs and unreliability due to the added complications.

So I can't help you, John. If you can no longer see the reality of the situation, I recommend professional help.
#94
8th June 2011
Old 8th June 2011
  #94
Lives for gear
 
Joined: May 2010
Location: Wellington NZ
Posts: 1,375

Don Hills is offline
John, on re-reading the recent posts I'd like to clarify a point. When I say "Big Tech", I'm talking about Internet technology - Everything between your wall socket and the site / user you want to connect to. I do not include companies or people using the Internet for their own purposes. I should use more precise language - maybe "Internet Provider" (Everyone who connects all the wall sockets together). So I agree that a company knowingly serving copyright infringing files is evil by your definition, but I do not agree that the "Internet Providers" are.

Do you accept the distinction, or do you wish to tar everyone with the same brush?
#95
8th June 2011
Old 8th June 2011
  #95
Lives for gear
 
Joined: May 2010
Location: Wellington NZ
Posts: 1,375

Don Hills is offline
More news: NZ Govt gets its back up over the law, refuses to accept that its baby is ugly. It'll be interesting to see if it becomes an election issue. A new political party has been formed to campaign on the topic. It'll keep the spotlight on the law even if they don't achieve seats in the House.

Copyright law 'will not change' | Stuff.co.nz
#96
8th June 2011
Old 8th June 2011
  #96
Gear Guru
 
John Eppstein's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2009
Location: San Francisco, CA.
Posts: 14,464

John Eppstein is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Hills View Post
John, on re-reading the recent posts I'd like to clarify a point. When I say "Big Tech", I'm talking about Internet technology - Everything between your wall socket and the site / user you want to connect to. I do not include companies or people using the Internet for their own purposes. I should use more precise language - maybe "Internet Provider" (Everyone who connects all the wall sockets together). So I agree that a company knowingly serving copyright infringing files is evil by your definition, but I do not agree that the "Internet Providers" are.

Do you accept the distinction, or do you wish to tar everyone with the same brush?
I have no desire to "tar everyone with the same brush". However I also feel that ISPs should take responsibility for their share of the problem instead of trying to stick the victims with all the responsibility.

[sarcasm]And I do feel so sorry for the poor companies with more business than they can handle. That's just terrible. I'm SO glad that I'm underemployed and don't have that problem.[/sarcasm]
#97
8th June 2011
Old 8th June 2011
  #97
Gear Guru
 
John Eppstein's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2009
Location: San Francisco, CA.
Posts: 14,464

John Eppstein is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Hills View Post
More news: NZ Govt gets its back up over the law, refuses to accept that its baby is ugly. It'll be interesting to see if it becomes an election issue. A new political party has been formed to campaign on the topic. It'll keep the spotlight on the law even if they don't achieve seats in the House.

Copyright law 'will not change' | Stuff.co.nz
Good for them.

Internet is a "human right? PTOOIHGBO! And what the hell is a "UN special rapporteur", anyway? Sounds like BS to me.

You know, freedom is a human right. But in every civilized country if you break the law against various crimes you lose your freedom. Are these bozos trying to tell us the internet access is a more exalted right than freedom? Who are they trying to kid?

I have a better idea. Let 'em keep their internet access. Instead let's just pitch 'em in the slammer for a few months. Sound better?
#98
8th June 2011
Old 8th June 2011
  #98
Lives for gear
 
Joined: May 2010
Location: Wellington NZ
Posts: 1,375

Don Hills is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Eppstein View Post
I have no desire to "tar everyone with the same brush". However I also feel that ISPs should take responsibility for their share of the problem instead of trying to stick the victims with all the responsibility.

[sarcasm]And I do feel so sorry for the poor companies with more business than they can handle. That's just terrible. I'm SO glad that I'm underemployed and don't have that problem.[/sarcasm]
I don't agree with your feelings about ISPs, but I won't argue the point. I've already given my opinion.

If you're underemployed, maybe you're in the wrong business? Back in the 1970s, I left my job with the (then) NZ Post Office and took a job for half the pay with IBM. At the time, about the time the only way to be fired from the (Govt Department) Post Office was to commit a crime. My depression-era father thought I was crazy, leaving a cushy "job for life" for the uncertainty (at the time) of private enterprise. Some years later, the Govt privatised the PO (the part I had worked for became Telecom NZ), and there were massive redundancies... no more "job for life".

And you needn't say that music is what you really want to do so why should you have to do something else? I've been told often that the American philosophy is "No-one owes you a living. If what you're doing isn't working, do something else." At the time I moved to IBM, I had the choice of a job at EMI or a job at IBM. I really wanted the job at EMI, but even in those days IT paid more, and I had to live. This thwarted ambition is probably why I ended up at GS...
#99
8th June 2011
Old 8th June 2011
  #99
Gear Guru
 
John Eppstein's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2009
Location: San Francisco, CA.
Posts: 14,464

John Eppstein is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Hills View Post
I don't agree with your feelings about ISPs, but I won't argue the point. I've already given my opinion.

If you're underemployed, maybe you're in the wrong business? Back in the 1970s, I left my job with the (then) NZ Post Office and took a job for half the pay with IBM. At the time, about the time the only way to be fired from the (Govt Department) Post Office was to commit a crime. My depression-era father thought I was crazy, leaving a cushy "job for life" for the uncertainty (at the time) of private enterprise. Some years later, the Govt privatised the PO (the part I had worked for became Telecom NZ), and there were massive redundancies... no more "job for life".

And you needn't say that music is what you really want to do so why should you have to do something else? I've been told often that the American philosophy is "No-one owes you a living. If what you're doing isn't working, do something else." At the time I moved to IBM, I had the choice of a job at EMI or a job at IBM. I really wanted the job at EMI, but even in those days IT paid more, and I had to live. This thwarted ambition is probably why I ended up at GS...
I'm 61 years old - even if I were able to "retrain" who would hire me?

That attitude is pure BS - especially since my job is being impacted by rampant criminal activity. When the payroll train gets robbed do you tell all the people who are missing their wages to "retrain"?

No. You go catch the robbers. And you augment the government lawmen with private railroad detectives because it's the railroad's responsibility and their business that's the conduit. Unless, of course, the railroad is actually backing the robbers and taking a cut of the loot.

Wild west problems require wild west solutions.
#100
8th June 2011
Old 8th June 2011
  #100
Lives for gear
 
Joined: May 2010
Location: Wellington NZ
Posts: 1,375

Don Hills is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Eppstein View Post
I'm 61 years old - even if I were able to "retrain" who would hire me? ...
I feel that pain. One of my US friends was a senior sales support person at (then) Lucent Technologies, with a jet-setting lifestyle. When Lucent hit hard times (was later bought by Alcatel), he was made redundant. He opted for a lifestyle change and ended up driving a UPS truck.

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Eppstein View Post
... Wild west problems require wild west solutions.
The Wild West problem was that it was wild. It needed to be tamed, and it was. Copyright infringers need to be reined in by due process. Less viscerally satisfying than a lynching, but those days are gone.
#101
8th June 2011
Old 8th June 2011
  #101
Lives for gear
 
AlexDaCat's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2011
Location: Cardiff
Posts: 684

AlexDaCat is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Hills View Post
I feel that pain. One of my US friends was a senior sales support person at (then) Lucent Technologies, with a jet-setting lifestyle. When Lucent hit hard times (was later bought by Alcatel), he was made redundant. He opted for a lifestyle change and ended up driving a UPS truck.



The Wild West problem was that it was wild. It needed to be tamed, and it was. Copyright infringers need to be reined in by due process. Less viscerally satisfying than a lynching, but those days are gone.
Lynching is pure sick. Besides it may be they enjoyed the killing of someone rather than adhering to the concept of law. Remember the dangers of Salem Witch Trials.
__________________
All The World Is Indeed a STAGE!!!!!
#102
8th June 2011
Old 8th June 2011
  #102
Gear Guru
 
John Eppstein's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2009
Location: San Francisco, CA.
Posts: 14,464

John Eppstein is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Hills View Post
I feel that pain. One of my US friends was a senior sales support person at (then) Lucent Technologies, with a jet-setting lifestyle. When Lucent hit hard times (was later bought by Alcatel), he was made redundant. He opted for a lifestyle change and ended up driving a UPS truck.



The Wild West problem was that it was wild. It needed to be tamed, and it was. Copyright infringers need to be reined in by due process. Less viscerally satisfying than a lynching, but those days are gone.
I was thinking more along the lines of a posse of marshals and Pinkertons.....
#103
8th June 2011
Old 8th June 2011
  #103
Gear Guru
 
joelpatterson's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2005
Location: Albany, New York
Posts: 11,356

joelpatterson is offline
No, a whole series of replicated James Bond clones!
#104
8th June 2011
Old 8th June 2011
  #104
Gear Guru
 
Joined: Mar 2008
Location: the big rack
Posts: 11,248

rack gear is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Hills View Post
Why? "Big Tech" is not evil. "Big Tech" is not infringing your copyright. If it was, you could sue it. It's like any other enabling technology - it's not the technology, it's what people use it for. Would you accept shutting down the Internet as the price for eliminating copyright infringement? So while you may feel anger, you should realise that it is misdirected.
it's not misdirected at all, unfortunately.

Who's Really Destroying Music? Take a Closer Look...

Dirty Money. Who Profits from Piracy?

Filesonic & Vobile & Youku–Partnering in poison profits? | Pop Up Pirates

PopUp Pirates: Who Profits from Piracy?

Who's Really Destroying Music? Take a Closer Look... - Digital Music News
#105
8th June 2011
Old 8th June 2011
  #105
Lives for gear
 
Joined: May 2010
Location: Wellington NZ
Posts: 1,375

Don Hills is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by rack gear View Post
it's not misdirected at all, unfortunately. ...
Actually, it is. If you actually read those stories, they may mention ISPs. But all of the actual perpetrators discussed are on the "outside" of the customer network termination. I later clarified my statement that you quoted:

Quote:
John, on re-reading the recent posts I'd like to clarify a point. When I say "Big Tech", I'm talking about Internet technology - Everything between your wall socket and the site / user you want to connect to. I do not include companies or people using the Internet for their own purposes. I should use more precise language - maybe "Internet Provider" (Everyone who connects all the wall sockets together). So I agree that a company knowingly serving copyright infringing files is evil by your definition, but I do not agree that the "Internet Providers" are.
In short, attempting to lay responsibility on the ISPs and infrastructure providers is like blaming the telcos for not blocking people from using their telephones to plan / commit crimes.
#106
9th June 2011
Old 9th June 2011
  #106
Gear Guru
 
John Eppstein's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2009
Location: San Francisco, CA.
Posts: 14,464

John Eppstein is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Hills View Post
Actually, it is. If you actually read those stories, they may mention ISPs. But all of the actual perpetrators discussed are on the "outside" of the customer network termination. I later clarified my statement that you quoted:



In short, attempting to lay responsibility on the ISPs and infrastructure providers is like blaming the telcos for not blocking people from using their telephones to plan / commit crimes.
It's not at all the same thing.

The telcos are not directly profiting from greatly increased traffic that is specific to criminal use of the phone system. The ISPs, however, ARE directly profiting from the demand for higher bandwidth connections and greater data caps (where applicable) that are the direct result of piracy. That makes the ISPs accessories, whereas the telcos are not.
#107
9th June 2011
Old 9th June 2011
  #107
Lives for gear
 
Joined: May 2010
Location: Wellington NZ
Posts: 1,375

Don Hills is offline
Sorry John, there is no difference between the voice traffic and data traffic scenarios, either morally or legally. The amount of illegal traffic compared to legal traffic is irrelevant. Also, it's not "one law for telcos, another law for ISPs." It's the same for both. These days both voice and data traffic increasingly passes over the same core networks anyway. You wouldn't accept your telco monitoring all your calls listening for possible criminal activity (unless requested to by police). Likewise, you wouldn't want your ISP monitoring all your traffic just in case you try to use it for copyright infringement or criminal purposes. Yet you want ISPs to take some responsibility for copyright infringement? Well, you can dream...

(PS) If you do want them to take some sort of responsibility, what you you think they should do?
#108
9th June 2011
Old 9th June 2011
  #108
Gear addict
 
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 366

Ianb007 is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Hills View Post
Sorry John, there is no difference between the voice traffic and data traffic scenarios, either morally or legally. The amount of illegal traffic compared to legal traffic is irrelevant. Also, it's not "one law for telcos, another law for ISPs." It's the same for both. These days both voice and data traffic increasingly passes over the same core networks anyway. You wouldn't accept your telco monitoring all your calls listening for possible criminal activity (unless requested to by police). Likewise, you wouldn't want your ISP monitoring all your traffic just in case you try to use it for copyright infringement or criminal purposes. Yet you want ISPs to take some responsibility for copyright infringement? Well, you can dream...

(PS) If you do want them to take some sort of responsibility, what you you think they should do?
Ummm, the act of talking about a possible crime on a telephone line is not the same as actually committing a crime. That's a false analogy.

A more appropriate analogy is a traffic stop for drinking and driving or a customs search at the border.

ISP's should be responsible for at least assisting in the enforcement of copyright protection. I think they should limit or block mass peer to peer protocols. 99.9% of it is pure piracy and illegal.
#109
9th June 2011
Old 9th June 2011
  #109
Gear Guru
 
John Eppstein's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2009
Location: San Francisco, CA.
Posts: 14,464

John Eppstein is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Hills View Post
Sorry John, there is no difference between the voice traffic and data traffic scenarios, either morally or legally. The amount of illegal traffic compared to legal traffic is irrelevant. Also, it's not "one law for telcos, another law for ISPs." It's the same for both. These days both voice and data traffic increasingly passes over the same core networks anyway. You wouldn't accept your telco monitoring all your calls listening for possible criminal activity (unless requested to by police). Likewise, you wouldn't want your ISP monitoring all your traffic just in case you try to use it for copyright infringement or criminal purposes. Yet you want ISPs to take some responsibility for copyright infringement? Well, you can dream...

(PS) If you do want them to take some sort of responsibility, what you you think they should do?
Don, please stop shifting the goalposts.

Nobody said anything about ISPs tapping communications or data transfers - we've pretty much agreed that's impossible to do on a practical level anyway, at least in real time and with fewer resources than the NSA.

What we're talking about is the ISPs footing their fair share of the bill for delivering notices to offenders after detection has already occurred - mainly by monitoring traffic at pirate sites.

Given that the victims ALREADY must bear the expense of detection it is only fair that the ISPs be required to foot the bills for sending notices to their own customers - and implementing other measures as per the law.
#110
9th June 2011
Old 9th June 2011
  #110
Gear Guru
 
John Eppstein's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2009
Location: San Francisco, CA.
Posts: 14,464

John Eppstein is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ianb007 View Post

ISP's should be responsible for at least assisting in the enforcement of copyright protection. I think they should limit or block mass peer to peer protocols. 99.9% of it is pure piracy and illegal.
Can't do that. There's too much P2P, specifically bittorrent, involved in legit business such as facebook, game distribution, and software development.

Certain protocols, yes. Gnutella should be blocked. But not all forms of P2P. And that wouldn't touch the cyberlockers, which are not P2P and are FTP based.
#111
9th June 2011
Old 9th June 2011
  #111
Gear Guru
 
Joined: Mar 2008
Location: the big rack
Posts: 11,248

rack gear is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Hills View Post
Actually, it is. If you actually read those stories, they may mention ISPs. But all of the actual perpetrators discussed are on the "outside" of the customer network termination. I later clarified my statement that you quoted:

In short, attempting to lay responsibility on the ISPs and infrastructure providers is like blaming the telcos for not blocking people from using their telephones to plan / commit crimes.
google is not an ISP, YouTube is not an ISP, Grooveshark is not an ISP, Rapidshare is not an ISP, etc, etc, etc - please refer to the links provided, particularly popuppirates...
#112
9th June 2011
Old 9th June 2011
  #112
Lives for gear
 
Joined: May 2010
Location: Wellington NZ
Posts: 1,375

Don Hills is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Eppstein View Post
Don, please stop shifting the goalposts.
...
Given that the victims ALREADY must bear the expense of detection it is only fair that the ISPs be required to foot the bills for sending notices to their own customers - and implementing other measures as per the law.
Fair to who? The ISP's first duty is to be responsible to their shareholders and paying customers. If an ISP pays for assisting a non-customer to pursue action against a customer, they are failing in their duty to their shareholders and customers. The money has to come from somewhere, either from shareholders' dividends or customers' pockets. That really would not be fair. That's why it's a well established principle in civil cases that the complainant pays for the enforcement action and later claims costs from the defendant if found guilty.

We can argue back and forth all you want, but in the NZ case at least I think it will be more instructive to wait and see how the payment process is defined in the regulations. We won't have to wait more than a couple of months.
#113
9th June 2011
Old 9th June 2011
  #113
Lives for gear
 
Joined: May 2010
Location: Wellington NZ
Posts: 1,375

Don Hills is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by rack gear View Post
google is not an ISP, YouTube is not an ISP, Grooveshark is not an ISP, Rapidshare is not an ISP, etc, etc, etc ...
That's correct. Your point is...?
#114
9th June 2011
Old 9th June 2011
  #114
Gear Guru
 
John Eppstein's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2009
Location: San Francisco, CA.
Posts: 14,464

John Eppstein is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Hills View Post
Fair to who? The ISP's first duty is to be responsible to their shareholders and paying customers. If an ISP pays for assisting a non-customer to pursue action against a customer, they are failing in their duty to their shareholders and customers. The money has to come from somewhere, either from shareholders' dividends or customers' pockets. That really would not be fair. That's why it's a well established principle in civil cases that the complainant pays for the enforcement action and later claims costs from the defendant if found guilty.

We can argue back and forth all you want, but in the NZ case at least I think it will be more instructive to wait and see how the payment process is defined in the regulations. We won't have to wait more than a couple of months.
FAIR TO THE VICTIMS, DAMN IT!!!!

You don't need to be fair to the perps (who you call "customers") or the accessories (The ISPs and their shareholders.)

The shareholders are making money off the crimes - they need to be held accountable for their share of enforcement AT AN ABSOLUTE MINIMUM.

And this isn't a "civil case". This is criminal. It needs to be recognized and treated as such.

You know, you're starting to remind me of Nixon's most famous line, "I am not a crook!"
#115
9th June 2011
Old 9th June 2011
  #115
Lives for gear
 
Joined: May 2010
Location: Wellington NZ
Posts: 1,375

Don Hills is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Eppstein View Post
...
And this isn't a "civil case". This is criminal. It needs to be recognized and treated as such.
You should have no difficulty in providing a link to the relevant legislation, then. The one that makes it a criminal offence to download a copyright infringing file.

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Eppstein View Post
... You know, you're starting to remind me of Nixon's most famous line, "I am not a crook!"
Are you sure enough of that to face a defamation suit?
#116
9th June 2011
Old 9th June 2011
  #116
Gear addict
 
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 366

Ianb007 is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Eppstein View Post
Can't do that. There's too much P2P, specifically bittorrent, involved in legit business such as facebook, game distribution, and software development.

Certain protocols, yes. Gnutella should be blocked. But not all forms of P2P. And that wouldn't touch the cyberlockers, which are not P2P and are FTP based.
This was the protocols I was referring to when I types mass P2P protocols.

Thanks for helping clarify that.
#117
9th June 2011
Old 9th June 2011
  #117
Gear Guru
 
Joined: Mar 2008
Location: the big rack
Posts: 11,248

rack gear is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Hills View Post
That's correct. Your point is...?
ahh...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Hills
Why? "Big Tech" is not evil. "Big Tech" is not infringing your copyright. If it was, you could sue it. It's like any other enabling technology - it's not the technology, it's what people use it for. Would you accept shutting down the Internet as the price for eliminating copyright infringement? So while you may feel anger, you should realise that it is misdirected.
it's not misdirected at all, unfortunately.

Who's Really Destroying Music? Take a Closer Look...

Dirty Money. Who Profits from Piracy?

Filesonic & Vobile & Youku–Partnering in poison profits? | Pop Up Pirates

PopUp Pirates: Who Profits from Piracy?

Who's Really Destroying Music? Take a Closer Look... - Digital Music News
#118
9th June 2011
Old 9th June 2011
  #118
Lives for gear
 
Joined: May 2010
Location: Wellington NZ
Posts: 1,375

Don Hills is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Eppstein View Post
...
You don't need to be fair to the perps (who you call "customers") or the accessories (The ISPs and their shareholders.)

The shareholders are making money off the crimes - they need to be held accountable for their share of enforcement AT AN ABSOLUTE MINIMUM.
...
In what way is it unfair to the "victim" to have to pay the enforcement costs? If you win, you aren't out of pocket - you get costs and damages. If you can't afford the initial enforcement costs, find an investor who will loan you the money in exchange for a share in the profits (damages).

Now let's talk "accessories to the crime" and fairness. You act as if the only parties involved are the infringer, the ISP, and the content supplier. It's not that simple.

There's the telco who provided the connection to the exchange.
There's the network provider(s) who passed the data to the exchange nearest the ISP.
There's the (different) telco who provided the connection from the exchange to the ISP.
There's the actual ISP.
There's the network provider(s) who passed the data from the ISP to the ISP of the site providing the infringing content.
And so on... each business a customer of the next.

They all profit from the copyright infringement. Should they all bear the responsibility? I know you think so, but there are laws specifically written to indemnify them from responsibility. Those laws were written because it has long been recognised that holding them responsible for the actions of their subscribers is unfair.
#119
9th June 2011
Old 9th June 2011
  #119
Lives for gear
 
Joined: May 2010
Location: Wellington NZ
Posts: 1,375

Don Hills is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ianb007 View Post
Ummm, the act of talking about a possible crime on a telephone line is not the same as actually committing a crime. That's a false analogy.
You can indeed commit a crime over a telephone line. Ever heard of wire fraud?
#120
9th June 2011
Old 9th June 2011
  #120
Gear Guru
 
chrisso's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2002
Location: Oz
Posts: 23,831

chrisso is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Hills View Post
If you're underemployed, maybe you're in the wrong business? Back in the 1970s, I left my job with the (then) NZ Post Office and took a job for half the pay with IBM. At the time, about the time the only way to be fired from the (Govt Department) Post Office was to commit a crime. My depression-era father thought I was crazy
And you needn't say that music is what you really want to do so why should you have to do something else? I've been told often that the American philosophy is "No-one owes you a living. If what you're doing isn't working, do something else."
Most musicians are taking bigger career risks on a daily basis. That's the irony.
And it's entirely wrong to characterize the debate here on Gearslutz as a selfish one. I can handle my own finances and career direction.
No, most here are just passionate about music. I know John and I are certainly past the age of signing a new record deal and becoming the next Moby or Bono.
We want this generation and the next few at least to enjoy the financial support and legal security we enjoyed.
The only way we're thinking selfishly is we want talented, creative people to stay in the industry and be rewarded for doing so. As music lovers we don't want to see young people follow your advice and find an alternative career.
I know I feel music consumers are playing a short term gain game.
They're enjoying free music right now, while reducing the chances of enjoying so much good music in the future.
__________________
Chris Whitten
Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook  Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter  Submit Thread to LinkedIn LinkedIn  Submit Thread to Google+ Google+ 
 
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
foldback / Geekslutz forum
8

Forum Jump

SEO by vBSEO ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.