Studios crushed: ISP can't be forced to play copyright

[stevieray]

The studios don't realize how much money they are losing because of their restrictions.

I would love to be able to download and watch a movie, but I won't until I can do it the same way I do it with music -- i.e. pay for a download, keep a copy on my p.c., burn an (unplayed) archive disk, and burn a second disk for use -- just like I do with all of the albums I buy off Amazon.

I have no desire to rent a movie... I'd rather pay a little more to own the thing; I won't buy it without a hard copy backup; and I don't like the one or two machine digital only license some movie sites have.

 

[raydabruce]

I agree with Omegatron. The Aussies have already had their right to private ownership of firearms taken away. Now they may face Internet censorship, like China. As a freedom-loving American, I find these changes and attitudes very disturbing. The Aussies need to rise up and vote out all politicians that support these repressive policies. And vote with your dollars, too. Cancel all subscriptions to any ISPs that are even considering a voluntary blocking of any websites.

 

[Lordbob75]

The Aussies have already had their right to private ownership of firearms taken away.

Owning firearms is not a right, it is a privileged. If it has been abused, it can and SHOULD be taken away.

That is not to say I don't support gun ownership or anything, just wanted that clarified.

~Lordbob

 

[dmex]

I agree with Omegatron. The Aussies have already had their right to private ownership of firearms taken away. Now they may face Internet censorship, like China. As a freedom-loving American, I find these changes and attitudes very disturbing. The Aussies need to rise up and vote out all politicians that support these repressive policies. And vote with your dollars, too. Cancel all subscriptions to any ISPs that are even considering a voluntary blocking of any websites.

Most support it because the Govt says its all about blocking Child-Porn (more like sweeping under the web) but the current proposed filtering laws say all RC (refused classification) content will be blocked, Not many know that anything over MA15+ is actually illegal in every state except NT and ACT and hence will be blocked by the filter.

When I tell people there are 65534 ways at minimum of bypassing the filter, they quickly start to realize its not about child-porn. Govt is only planning to filter port 80 so it leaves 65534 ports unfiltered and thats without counting p2p, vpns, encryption, Tor and lots of other ways.

What makes this whole thing even worse, the filtering hardware has a max speed of 8Mbit/s so our soon to be built National FTTH (Fiber to the home) network the Govt is building will be slower than our copper ADSL2 network wasting $44m and has side-effects like over-blocking and automatically denying access to unfiltered and legal sites.

Government ignores Enex warning on over-blocking - Hardware - Technology - News - iTnews.com.au

The Aussies have already had their right to private ownership of firearms taken away.

Owning firearms is not a right, it is a privileged. If it has been abused, it can and SHOULD be taken away.

That is not to say I don't support gun ownership or anything, just wanted that clarified.

~Lordbob

Firearms are a right in the US, here we don't even have the right to free-speech let alone guns or even a bbgun (there illegal too) If you think us Aussies have even basic rights of freedom then your terribly misinformed about our laws.

Here in my home state WA, they changed the law last month allowing Police to stop/search anyone or any premise without probable cause and since last year police can have your car confiscated for 28 days with a $1200-$2500 towing and 'storage' fee, if you cant pay or it gets confiscated three times your car gets crushed, even if your driving someone else's car. Recently a doctors Ferrari was confiscated for 28days after his mechanic went on a joyride after a routine service, the mechanic didn't suffer any fines or consequences but the doctor did.

I dont want to single out one group but the majority of politicians in state and federal government are Christians and many laws are now passed in WA/SA and NSW without consulting the public first, A good example was banning farmers from clearing their land for preventing 'global warming' and later without compensating them for the losses in income and land-devaluation and also South Australia now requiring all movies over MA15+ to have brown cases with only the movie name and also requiring all internet users to have their real name and address when commenting on sites like Facebook, Twitter, news sites and many others.

Need I explain more

 

[hubris]

Hello from AUS.

"Most of the "Aussies" I know usually don't take lightly to their Country's fine tradition of independence and freedom being tampered with." unquote.

dead right there Jimbo.
check this site/ thread out. Whirlpool even has ISP CEO's posting on it.

Conroy - the worst thing ever? - Broadband - Whirlpool Forums

cheers all.

 

[Colonel Travis]

Owning firearms is not a right, it is a privileged.
~Lordbob

As far as U.S. law goes, this is flat-out wrong.

 

[smarteyeball]

In a definitive defeat for film studios—and in a first case of its kind worldwide—Australia's Federal Court has ruled that ISPs have no obligation to act on copyright infringement notices or to disconnect subscribers after receiving multiple letters.

In your face MediaSentry and BayTSP

 

[hubris]

In ten years, I probably won't be able to even write a post like this.

there will always be a way to circumvent censorship, always has been. just have to know how.....

seems someone always finds a way and makes people like stephen conroy and co. look like the incompetent "IT" people they think they are. fools.....

 

[eXc450]

Aus can still own firearms, you just have to have them all registered and you sure can't just walk around with them. I have mates that have various guns and use them legitamtley and it's all good. There is no need to carry one here, and I sure want to keep it that way! I'd much prefer them to ban firearms than end up the way the USA has with regard to weapons.

 

[comicbookguy]

there shouldent even be a record button on a video player by rights or a dvd recorder player its the same .... copyright law weather you download music movies or record a show on tv to watch later as i keep telling my mum there is no difference in downloading a song or movie then you pressing record on your video player .....so all you mums and dads who ars so good and would never download a song or movie STOP pressing your record button i bet ya dont i'll bet you a million dollars that ya still press that rcord button

Press ENTER to look up in Wiktionary or CTRL+ENTER to look up in Wikipedia

 

[madtownidiot]

All based on the delusion that something which can be readily copied with no effort has any real value to begin with.

 

[Lordbob75]

Firearms are a right in the US

Owning firearms is not a right, it is a privileged.
~Lordbob

As far as U.S. law goes, this is flat-out wrong.

Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

So unless I am the only one that took a high school government class (or am taking), I am pretty sure that is intended to mean that you should own a gun as part of a regulated militia. A.k.a. The Nation Guard

Most people don't know the whole amendment, nor realize that.

~Lordbob

 

[Colonel Travis]

LB, your interpretation is one of three types since 2nd Amendment cases have been heard in courts. But there has never been a comprehensive, federal gun ban in the history of the country. A couple years ago, the SCOTUS put an end to the debate on the federal level, saying a private citizen indeed has a right to own a gun. Another major decision is coming this term deals with state and local laws.

By the way, what does any of this Australian ISP stuff has to do with US gun laws?

 

[Lee]

Thank you Colonel, I was hoping someone would bring this back to the main subject.

Again I posted this thread to get the feelings of what people were thinking when it came to some of the judicial decisions of late against the Movie and Music Media. Also, this is not just about one country; these decisions are in reality important to all countries because it allows those being sued by the entertainment community to use those decisions to backup their claim that what is happening, or what the entertainment people are saying is not always based in fact.

Also, it is to get a feeling as to how people look at the IP community, and their role in this never ending battle. The key is whether or not they should take an active role in stopping illegal downloads as part of their everyday activities.

 

[jimbo45]

Thank you Colonel, I was hoping someone would bring this back to the main subject.

Again I posted this thread to get the feelings of what people were thinking when it came to some of the judicial decisions of late against the Movie and Music Media. Also, this is not just about one country; these decisions are in reality important to all countries because it allows those being sued by the entertainment community to use those decisions to backup their claim that what is happening, or what the entertainment people are saying is not always based in fact.

Also, it is to get a feeling as to how people look at the IP community, and their role in this never ending battle. The key is whether or not they should take an active role in stopping illegal downloads as part of their everyday activities.

Hi Lee

Stopping (or attempting to stop) the activity isn't really the point here.

I think the main point the OP was making was questioning the METHODS used in attempting to stop the alleged illegal activity.

Of course "Intellectual Property" has rights belonging to the owners and they are allowed to attempt to protect their rights but using the Courts to try and get the FACILITATORS held responsible rather then the PREPETRATORS opens a really nasty can of worms --essentially giving carte blanche to "The End Justifies the Means".

The business models of these types of businesses in the digital age are currently highly flawed and using essentially "20th Century" legislation and methods to solve a 21st century problem won't result in a solution to this problem.

By embracing the digital age and not making it almost impossible for people to download and play content WHENEVER AND WHEREVER they wish would solve a HUGE amount of piracy -- of course not all -- and allow the businesses to concentrate on comabting large scale commercial piracy - the proceeds of which are used in funding a lot of other highly undesirable activities too.

Cheers
jimbo

 

[dmex]

I think the main point the OP was making was questioning the METHODS used in attempting to stop the alleged illegal activity.

I think its very questionable when Nintendo can follow the law and receive a good outcome but AFACT and the Music/Movie industry cannot and somehow think they can bypass the legal process.

Australian Nintendo pirate to pay $1.5m

 

[RST101]

The USA should not be forcing their laws onto other countries anyway. Oh wait a minute there is money involved, I'm surprised they haven't started sending tanks in to Sweden(watch out for friendly fire).

Bullies.

 

[thefabe]

I'm in no way advocating piracy. My problem is with the claims of revenu loss. Look at how much money Avatar gernerated and is continuing to and hasn't even gone to DVD yet. They could help eliminate a portion of piracy by selling the DVD at a reduced cost.They could achive this by not spending all the money they do on Lawyers, Copy Protetion ( which doesn't work anyway), Lobyists and Law enforcement singeling out a housewife from Ohio. I guess I'm just a person who wonders how much money is enough. And to target the average Joe verus the real pirates is ludicrist. They know where the majority of the hard copied products come from. I guess I'm just trying to say their has to be a better way, than to create more goverment involment in our lives. Fabe

 

[sergiogarcia9]

I agree Fabe

 

[jimbo45]

Hi Fabe
Yes of course you are correct -- and also people should be rewarded for their work ("Intellectual Property").

What we are questioning here is in the use of outdated and "dubious" use of "anti-terrorism" type legislation to enforce protection rather than trying to get the the companies concerned to adapt their business models to one more appropriate with the digital age.

Instead of hounding individual downloaders - they really need to concentrate on supressing Commercial Piracy which IS big business.

There is absolutely NO reason why they couldn't have made AVATAR for example immediately downloadable on release for a SMALL fee -- many many people do not have the time or inclination to see the movie in a Movie theater for all sorts of LEGITIMATE reasons but would certainly be willing to pay a sensible amount for a download (in full HD as well - not typical web quality that's not very good on a large HD TV set).

People won't stop going to movies -even if the downloads were legally available.

You have LIVE TV Premiership football in the UK and elsewhere -- plenty of people still go to the Stadia and I'm sure in the USA there weren't many empty seats at the Super Bowl even though the game was also televised live.

No amount of encryption or DRM is going to stop people downloading -- just find a LEGAL and FAIRLY PRICED way of allowing them to do it and concentrate on the COMMERCIAL Pirates who are a much worse problem.

Cheers
jimbo