Major ISPs agree to "six strikes" copyright enforcement plan

[lhorwinkle]

What's all the fuss about? The article says you'll be notified ... again and again and again. So what?

Anyway, it's not as though you're being caught for doing something legal. You're being "alerted" that you're violating IP rights. If you're stealing something, it's silly (and hypocritical) to complain that the owner wants to stop the theft.

 

[Sub Styler]

I hope they are certain of copyright theft before accusing anyone who uses the p2p protocol. Although not as popular as the illegal uses there are still many legal uses for p2p.

 

[Schroff87]

I hope they are certain of copyright theft before accusing anyone who uses the p2p protocol. Although not as popular as the illegal uses there are still many legal uses for p2p.

Their evidence is always weak, the only times they have proved anything are when the accused has confessed.

 

[toetag]

i dont think this will stop anyone because there is a way around everything, its just a matter of finding it.

 

[Skulblaka]

Also, P2P is not the only way to obtain "content", there are various file-hosting services available.

Also, $250,000 fines? Really? Might be a sinister scheme to get money instead of sincere complaints about P2P.

 

[lhorwinkle]

The preliminary ruling referenced in an earlier post targets a specific news host (Newzbin), proven to be hosting copyrighted material without authorization, and showing that 70%+ of its content belongs to the plaintiffs. But the ruling makes no attempt to block any other hosts. So what's the beef?

 

[toetag]

Piratebay host more than enough copyrighted material, they even got into trouble for it, so what happend? a change from .com to .org

am i wrong?

 

[seth500]

I hope they are certain of copyright theft before accusing anyone who uses the p2p protocol. Although not as popular as the illegal uses there are still many legal uses for p2p.

I agree completely many distros for linux are downloaded that way and I would rather use the torrent method rather than the http for the reason if the download gets interrupted I can start right back up again without any loss...I don't understand why people just don't leave well enough alone, people are going to do illegal things no matter what, they aren't going to be able to deter it or anything it all about making money and that is the bottom line..

 

[z3r010]

The preliminary ruling referenced in an earlier post targets a specific news host (Newzbin), proven to be hosting copyrighted material without authorization, and showing that 70%+ of its content belongs to the plaintiffs. But the ruling makes no attempt to block any other hosts. So what's the beef?

Except that it hosts absolutely no copyright content what so ever, the problem with all these rulings is that the people that are left to interpret the law are getting it completely wrong; although these type of service point you in the right direction of pirate material they do not host or provide any and are really covered under the same safe harbor protection as google and other search engines.

I'm not defending pirate indexing sites like newzbin or piratebay in any way but the law that have been used to prosecute them have been completely misinterpreted by people that do not understand.

 

[Sub Styler]

Yeah the whole scaring money out of pirates has been tried here by lawers in the UK, ACS:Law tracked the IP addresses of clients connecting to certain torrents (which i believe they floated anyway) then got the isp's to release over 4000 names and address' and then mass mailed them threatening legal action which they could make go away for £500. Then after coming under investigation they sold all that personal data to another company who again mass mailed everyone asking for a slightly reduced ammount and included with the letter a news report from the BBC about a sucessful claim (not by them) against some woman a few years ago. This BBC report was ripped directly from the website and BBC which is copyright theft as the BBC do not allow its content to be used for such comercial puposes without their prior written consent (which they didnt have and likely wouldnt get) so the lawyers became the law breakers, haha

 

[toetag]

Yeah the whole scaring money out of pirates has been tried here by lawers in the UK, ACS:Law tracked the IP addresses of clients connecting to certain torrents (which i believe they floated anyway) then got the isp's to release over 4000 names and address' and then mass mailed them threatening legal action which they could make go away for £500. Then after coming under investigation they sold all that personal data to another company who again mass mailed everyone asking for a slightly reduced ammount and included with the letter a news report from the BBC about a sucessful claim (not by them) against some woman a few years ago. This BBC report was ripped directly from the website and BBC which is copyright theft as the BBC do not allow its content to be used for such comercial puposes without their prior written consent (which they didnt have and likely wouldnt get) so the lawyers became the law breakers, haha

love it lol

 

[lehnerus2000]

How much ...

How much money do the actual content producers get from these lawsuits?

I'm betting the money goes straight into the CEO's yearly bonuses.

 

[Layback Bear]

I'm glad to see a crackdown on copyright infringement and the like. Hopefully this will cover stuff like operating systems and other software, rather than just music and videos. A torrent found OS is just asking for trouble.

Agree 100% with you LiquidSnak.
Let me see if I get this correct. Some people are upset because it's going to be more difficult to take things from others without paying for it or getting their permission. To me stealing from a large company is no different than stealing from you neighbor.

 

[Skulblaka]

I'm glad to see a crackdown on copyright infringement and the like. Hopefully this will cover stuff like operating systems and other software, rather than just music and videos. A torrent found OS is just asking for trouble.

Agree 100% with you LiquidSnak.
Let me see if I get this correct. Some people are upset because it's going to be more difficult to take things from others without paying for it or getting their permission. To me stealing from a large company is no different than stealing from you neighbor.

Charging over $250,000 for 12 songs based on "damages"?

 

[seekermeister]

It seems to me, that those that feel that this kind of behavior on behalf of the ISPs is good are missing the point. By this method of action, a person is guilty until proven innocent, and worse than that, the ISPs don't need any real proof that a person may be guilty...only a charge brought by an paranoid, greedy organization, whose only interests are their own. It has nothing to do with what is either legal or right. As far as the idea of other software manufacturers following suit, I sure hope that they are wiser than that.

 

[lehnerus2000]

Guilty Unless Proven Innocent

Notice how more and more "crimes" now fall into that category.

If a speed camera photographs your car speeding, you are sent a fine and threat in the mail!
My State Government has also changed the law, so that if you challenge the Police in court and win, you still have to pay court costs.

This is just a Mafia-style protection racket.
"Pay us $1000 and we won't cause any trouble."

I'd have fewer objections, if the money went to the actual artists (not the corporations).

If these "content producers" want ETERNAL copyright, they should have to provide the content to the public, ETERNALLY.
It should be readily accessible (i.e. at your local supermarket) and at a sane price.

If "software producers" want to "hop on the bandwagon", then it should apply to them too (i.e. if I want a Windows 98 CD, then I should be able to buy it at my local PC store/supermarket).

If the "producers" can't provide the content, then the product should become "Public Domain".

 

[lhorwinkle]

Except that it hosts absolutely no copyright content what so ever.

The court said otherwise, didn't it?

 

[lhorwinkle]

If a speed camera photographs your car speeding, you are sent a fine and threat in the mail!

And, so? You commit a (minor) crime, you get caught, you pay the price! So what?

This is just a Mafia-style protection racket. "Pay us $1000 and we won't cause any trouble."

Nope.
MAFIA EXTORTION: We will commit a crime unless you pay us.
COPYRIGHT ISSUE: You commit a theft, and (maybe) the law catches up to you.

I'd have fewer objections, if the money went to the actual artists (not the corporations).

We don't own the property, so we have no say-so about the proceeds.

If these "content producers" want ETERNAL copyright, they should have to provide the content to the public, ETERNALLY.

We don't own the property. The sale and availability of the property is decided by the owners, not by the buyers.

I have no doubt that you're sincere about your wishes. But keep in mind that you don't govern things that you don't own.

 

[lehnerus2000]

They don't have to prove that YOU committed the crime.

If a speed camera photographs your car speeding, you are sent a fine and threat in the mail!

And, so? You commit a (minor) crime, you get caught, you pay the price! So what?

So what?!!!
They don't have to prove that YOU committed the crime.

Example1:
I "borrow" your car (without your knowledge or approval).
I speed around the city.
I return your car.
You receive 1000s of dollars of fines in the mail.
You have to prove you weren't driving and pay the court costs!

Example 2:
I hack your computer.
When you're not using it, I download copyrighted (or illegal) material.
I transfer the data elsewhere.
I delete the evidence of my hack.

RIAA:
"We represent a group of multi-million dollar corporations and we'll take you to court and make your life a living hell for multiple years. On the other hand you can pay us $1000 and we'll go away."
You:
"But I didn't do anything!"
RIAA:
"See you in court."
​

An investigation of your hardware, shows that the material was on your computer.
An investigation of your ISP records, shows that you downloaded the material (it also shows that you transferred it).
You get to pay $250,000 (per mp3) plus court costs.

If I used your computer to distribute child porn, you'd get to go to gaol.
Even if you are exonerated (and how long would that take) the public will only remember that you are a pervert.

COPYRIGHT ISSUE: You commit a theft, and (maybe) the law catches up to you.

They don't have to prove that YOU committed the crime.
According to these corporations, you don't own anything you paid for (except when it suits them).

Example 3:
I purchase an e-book from some legal online provider.
The copyright owner decides to remove it from distribution.
The online provider deletes it from my device (without my permission).

These groups are the new Mafia:

• They buy politicians (just like the Mafia did).
• They have laws changed to suit themselves (just like the Mafia did).
• They use standover tactics against ordinary people (just like the Mafia did).
• They basically do whatever they like (just like the Mafia did).

I have no doubt that you're sincere about your wishes. But keep in mind that you don't govern things that you don't own.

You don't necessarily "govern" what you "own" either (even in the US).

Two or three years ago Fox News shock was ranting about corporations forcing people off of their properties (backed by local government) because they wanted to build there.
The owners received nominal compensation.

In Australia, mining companies are allowed to mine on your land, because you are only allowed to own the surface, the Government owns everything else (airspace and minerals).
The companies can choose the level of compensation you receive.

Currently there is a big stink about Coal Seam Gas mining.
The land owners receive $5000/year per well (from one company).

 

[Trucidation]

Except that it hosts absolutely no copyright content what so ever.

The court said otherwise, didn't it?

The court can rule whatever it likes, but how torrents work tells me it's pretty much impossible that piratebay actually hosted the material. Where is this proof that it was?