homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.234.228.64
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member
Visit PubCon.com
Home / Forums Index / Local / Foo
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: incrediBILL & lawman

Foo Forum

This 59 message thread spans 2 pages: 59 ( [1] 2 > >     
Europe adopts tough piracy stance
kaled




msg:4012171
 1:39 pm on Oct 23, 2009 (gmt 0)

[news.bbc.co.uk...]
The European Parliament has given the green light for member states to cut persistent file-sharers off from the net.

It has dropped an amendment to its Telcoms Package which would have made it hard for countries to cut off pirates without court authority.

Provided genuine copyright-breakers are cut off then I would say this is a good thing, but as with any system of punishment, there must be some sort of due process and right of appeal. These are probably not details that the EU should get involved in, it's a job for regulators.

QUESTION
If file sharing is the problem, surely the solution lies in restricting outbound traffic at the modem/ISP level. This would prevent legitimate posting of pictures and possibly game-play, but most internet services could be left unaffected.

Kaled.

 

J_RaD




msg:4012202
 2:55 pm on Oct 23, 2009 (gmt 0)

what about all the seeders for linux ISOs and open office etc etc...

now everyone has to act as if they are seeding the latest movie download?

kaled




msg:4012217
 3:14 pm on Oct 23, 2009 (gmt 0)

I've never downloaded any torrent, but I've always managed to download whatever I needed by way of software. Also, downloading software from disreputable sources is not to be recommended. Granted, code can be digitally signed, but not all of it is and most people wouldn't notice anyway.

Kaled.

sgietz




msg:4012319
 5:55 pm on Oct 23, 2009 (gmt 0)

So this argument always takes me back to the days my friends and I used to tape radio shows, swap 'em out, copy them, etc.

Piracy is an issue. I don't have all the answers, but I don't think this is the solution.

ronin




msg:4012334
 6:18 pm on Oct 23, 2009 (gmt 0)

Piracy is one issue, but I suspect it's not the issue that state administrations are really afraid of.

What they're REALLY afraid of is the rise of an era where every wired member of the public can freely associate with every other and exchange every type of information back and forth digitally at the speed of light through millions of simultaneous 'underground' torrent connections at which point... administrations lose massive control over 'their' civic populations and become largely impotent.

What happens when four million people in a country of six million simultaneously stand up and ALL say they refuse to pay a new government tax?

You think the Poll Tax riots were impressive because they brought down the Thatcher regime? Just wait until groups of hundreds of thousands of people can simultaneously hook up, associate, communicate, organise and act in unison at the speed of light... it's going to make events organised at present on Twitter and Facebook look painfully slow and antiquated.

incrediBILL




msg:4012352
 6:47 pm on Oct 23, 2009 (gmt 0)

administrations lose massive control over 'their' civic populations and become largely impotent.

Please don't get the tinfoil hat political conspiracy theories started because that's skewing way off topic into fantasy land.

I've seen what's on those P2P networks so please don't try to wrap piracy crackdowns in some big government cloak and dagger plots.

The problem is simple, the average person has no real use for high speed P2P file sharing unless they're stealing movies, music, software, etc.

If you take away the piracy aspects, how many people do you think would continue to run P2P?

Pretty much nobody because they'd have nothing to share just like they don't have anything to share today because it's not their intellectual property to share in the first place!

thor_swe




msg:4012381
 7:26 pm on Oct 23, 2009 (gmt 0)

*And incrediBILL takes this thread one step further into off topic land*

If we leave questions of morale and content of P2P networks behind for a moment, the amendment 138 is not a question if P2P networks should be allowed or the legal status of piracy.

Amendment 138: its not "ok" for the govs to punish people outside of the juridical system.

And i agree.

incrediBILL




msg:4012427
 9:26 pm on Oct 23, 2009 (gmt 0)

I didn't take it further into off topic land because P2P stands Pirates To Pirates network protocol ;)

I'm all for net neutrality, just not for net abuse, throttle them down to 14.4K, end of story.

swa66




msg:4012440
 10:26 pm on Oct 23, 2009 (gmt 0)

I think the subject of this thread isn't quite right. The EU is removing language in it's guidelines to member states to allow them to create legislation that is tougher against copyright violators.

The EU is by far not being tough on anything here.

The text that is being removed is in the BBC article:
"Any such measures liable to restrict those fundamental rights or freedoms may only be taken in exceptional circumstances...and shall be subject to adequate procedural safeguards in conformity with the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights.. including effective judicial protection and due process."

So you no longer get a "human right" to have an Internet connection. Not a big deal.

J_RaD




msg:4012485
 12:29 am on Oct 24, 2009 (gmt 0)


The problem is simple, the average person has no real use for high speed P2P file sharing unless they're stealing movies, music, software, etc.

hey I download plenty of non pirate torrents, even one of my favorite DJ's puts his music up for download every month via torrent.

incrediBILL




msg:4012514
 1:50 am on Oct 24, 2009 (gmt 0)

even one of my favorite DJ's puts his music up for download every month via torrent.

He's a DJ, not a musician, didn't help your case with that one.

J_RaD




msg:4012727
 2:58 pm on Oct 24, 2009 (gmt 0)

its legal, as legal as when they stamp it on a CD and sell it.

swa66




msg:4012741
 4:06 pm on Oct 24, 2009 (gmt 0)

A DJ makes -at best- a derivative work. The original authors and artists still have rights.

J_RaD




msg:4012861
 11:24 pm on Oct 24, 2009 (gmt 0)

yes that could be said about remixes. but not all DJs just sit around doing remixes.

at any rate what will come of the legal persistant file sharers?

swa66




msg:4012877
 12:19 am on Oct 25, 2009 (gmt 0)

yes that could be said about remixes. but not all DJs just sit around doing remixes

You'd be wrong about that: even DJs who just use samples have been in legal trouble.
Derivative art in the music industry mostly requires permission form the original rights owner (hence: a record label). You're not going to get it easily these days, and certainly not the right to redistribute over the Internet.

Read e.g. [nytimes.com...]

At best it's a gray area, not a clearly fully legal one.

There is very little legal use of P2P networks (aside of applications such as skype, or games such as WoW, who setup their own network).

Anyway, ISPs around the world get daily complaints filed by people representing the movie and music industry, These complaints contain all an ISP needs to identify and act against their customers. The reports point out IP address, infringed work, rights owner they are representing, a timestamp etc. (all one needs for in a standardized format (human readable text and the xml attachments -for easy parsing-).

ISP don't need to prevent all P2P traffic, they get the complaints and could enforce their AUP as a breach of contract by the customer.

greenleaves




msg:4012884
 1:13 am on Oct 25, 2009 (gmt 0)

So you no longer get a "human right" to have an Internet connection. Not a big deal.

Wrong. It is a big deal. Internet = Having a Voice to the world.

If government gets into who has a right to have a voice = not good. I would have loved to see the internet be a human right. Here I was thinking how advanced European society is for even considering it.

I didn't take it further into off topic land because P2P stands Pirates To Pirates network protocol ;)

I'm all for net neutrality, just not for net abuse, throttle them down to 14.4K, end of story.

So i should be throttled down for sharing via P2P a Grateful dead concert I recorded (which I am allowed to distribute freely)?

Stating that all P2P uses are for copyright infringement is about as much as much of a swooping generalization as saying anyone using a proxy is a spammer or all Americans are fat. I'm sorry, but I just can't agree.

incrediBILL




msg:4012898
 1:31 am on Oct 25, 2009 (gmt 0)

Wrong. It is a big deal. Internet = Having a Voice to the world.

Having the internet is not a human right, it's a technology, just like driving.

If you get a DUI you lose your license.

If you steal movies and music you lose your internet.

So i should be throttled down for sharing via P2P a Grateful dead concert I recorded (which I am allowed to distribute freely)?

If you're using some networks you should be booted off because the TOS for many don't allow you to operate a end node of a network from your residential service.

Upload the file to YouTube, problem solved.

Stating that all P2P uses are for copyright infringement is about as much as much of a swooping generalization

Not really.

I've never never met anyone using bit torrent yet that wasn't doing it to steal stuff and in that rare event that I ever do I have 'Ripley's Believe It Or Not' on speed dial so I can report the event.

caribguy




msg:4012904
 1:54 am on Oct 25, 2009 (gmt 0)

Thanks Kaled for the alert.

Very disappointing to see how the thread has degenerated in useless bickering about the legitimacy of P2P. I didn't expect WebmasterWorld moderators to a) steer the discussion away from concerns about personal freedom, and b) use strawman arguments to push their opinions.

re: a) An EU provision already exists that internet access is "critical for the practical exercise of a wide array of fundamental rights" - ergo, amendment 138 is fully in line with pre-existing legislation.

re: b) YouTube - ludicrous!

Surprised that nobody touched on this quote:
we are seeing around 20 different alternatives to peer-to-peer piracy

incrediBILL




msg:4012914
 2:34 am on Oct 25, 2009 (gmt 0)

I didn't expect WebmasterWorld moderators to a) steer the discussion away from concerns about personal freedom, and b) use strawman arguments to push their opinions.

Please don't insult my intelligence as I read the article linked to the post.

It follows pressure from countries keen to adopt tough anti-piracy laws.

What personal freedoms do you speak about? Piracy?

That is what the article is about, and stopping those that do it.

Sounds to me like the EU states themselves don't believe in the legitimacy of P2P

The OP said:
The European Parliament has given the green light for member states to cut persistent file-sharers off from the net.

And what kind of persistent file-sharers do you think they're talking about?

Yes, I'm sure it's those persistent grandmothers sharing photo albums of their grandchildren.

I don't see them cutting anyone off from blogs, forums or news sites, all where commentary can be made, voices can be heard.

If you can explain exactly what "rights" are being lost by persistent file sharers

Which would you rather have, a simple disconnection from the internet or being fined up to $2k/copy of each pirated file?

What the RIAA did was levy a bunch of massive fines which made some homeless trying to fight the fines.

I'd rather be slapped on the wrist with losing internet connections.

I didn't expect WebmasterWorld moderators

FYI, I'm not a moderator of this forum, I'm having a discussion and expressing my POV.

My POV on this topic is nothing new, you have yours, I have mine, they don't need to agree as we can agree to disagree and move on.

greenleaves




msg:4012923
 3:20 am on Oct 25, 2009 (gmt 0)

I've never never met anyone using bit torrent yet that wasn't doing it to steal stuff and in that rare event that I ever do I have 'Ripley's Believe It Or Not' on speed dial so I can report the event.

Are you for real? Have you even downloaded anything via P2P?

If you had, and weren't just talking about something you have never even done, then you would have seen plenty of non-pirated material (grateful dead, linux, free software, etc).

Of course, it is always just easier to close your ears, do no due research and repeat lies.

If you get a DUI you lose your license.

By driving drunk you put peoples life's in danger. The fact that you compare ALLEGED copy right infringement to people killing other people and being sentenced by a court really illustrates the mentality of people with your arguments.

I will remind you a of:


* No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

How can you find copyright infringement without violating this little rule... or do you feel this rule shouldn't exist?


Article 18.

* Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

If I belong to a religion that no one in my country practices, and the only way to practice is online, then what? Or is this rule also silly?

Article 19.

* Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Isn't permanently removing internet access from a person contrary to this?


Article 21.

* (1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
* (2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.

If internet is provided in a public building like the library, then forbidding someone to use it would also go against this little provision.

Article 27.

* (1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.

Wouldn't removing internet quality as denying this right?

incrediBILL




msg:4012949
 6:07 am on Oct 25, 2009 (gmt 0)

Seems you have no problem with any of that as long as you aren't a persistent file sharer.

graeme_p




msg:4012959
 6:45 am on Oct 25, 2009 (gmt 0)

Seems you have no problem with any of that as long as you aren't a persistent file sharer.

Except no one has to prove anything in court: you can be punished for a credible allegation.

Also, I do not see any justification for criminal sanctions for breach of copyright. Copyright holders already have the considerable privilege of a government mandated monopoly, let them defend it themselves in civil courts.

incrediBILL




msg:4012964
 7:17 am on Oct 25, 2009 (gmt 0)

I do not see any justification for criminal sanctions for breach of copyright

Well, there are people losing their jobs all over the place, technically every infringement denies little children working for media companies of food because mommy and daddy, or their bosses, aren't earning their royalties.

Before getting glib about the "big companies" there are lots of self-published these days and they get hurt even more.

When the big media companies don't collect all those royalties they just lay staff off, maybe someone you know, and those people lose their savings, homes, retirement, college funds, etc. for someone else's free enjoyment of material they don't own.

Sorry, when jobs and families are at stake, I'd say it's criminal.

People don't stop and think:
What if it were MY property being infringed, MY website!

Suddenly your earnings dry up and blow away, all that hard work for nothing.

Yup, it's all harmless until it happens to you.

So freedom rubs both ways, you want the personal freedom to pilfer from others then don't complain when someone else uses their personal freedom to pilfer from you! ;)

kaled




msg:4012994
 9:40 am on Oct 25, 2009 (gmt 0)

Greanleaves,

Have the Grateful Dead waived copyright - I'd like to read the news article.
Can you please name a few legit software titles that are available only as torrents (and, perhaps suggest why they cannot be downloaded by other means).

========

The human rights argument is nonsense - if you don't pay your bill you will be cut off - period. Human rights do no apply. The same is true for phone, gas and electricity in the UK (but not water).

The most significant points that has been exposed in this discussion so far are...
1) Some people have no understanding of copyright.
2) Some people have no interest in trying to understand copyright and prefer to make nonsensical posts rather than try to understand the subject they are discussing.

So, in brief...

  • If you create an original work you have exclusive rights with respect to publication and/or duplication of that work (unless you sign over those rights in a formal contract).
  • There is a concept (known as "fair use" in the USA) whereby snippets of written text can be reproduced without consent provided the snippets are brief and correctly attributed. Generally, for music and video, whilst permission may not always be required, some payment will be. In the UK, such payments are normally processed by the Performing Rights Society - they had a big dust-up with YouTube recently.
  • Generally, you cannot distribute derivative works without permission of the original copyright holder - so DJ remixes are definitely out. Recently, a case brought by J K Rowling against the author of a Harry Potter dictionary/encyclopedia was upheld so even a semi-original work can be deemed a breach of copyright if it draws too heavily on someone else's work.
  • Even if a work is distributed free, copyright still applies. e.g. if a music CD is given away with a magazine, you still cannot redistribute any part of it.

As a general rule, copyright infringements are not enforced against end-users such as someone who downloaded a music track but they are enforced against distributors - that includes all peer-to-peer file sharers. Naturally, if you own the copyright on a work, you may distribute it by any means you wish (unless your internet connection has been cut off!)

Kaled.

callivert




msg:4013005
 12:15 pm on Oct 25, 2009 (gmt 0)

I've never never met anyone using bit torrent yet that wasn't doing it to steal stuff

Okay, so can the outraged P2P'ers on this thread maybe tell us, hand on heart, that you've never used P2P to download copyright material?
Otherwise, there doesn't seem to be anything to argue about.

kapow




msg:4013009
 12:50 pm on Oct 25, 2009 (gmt 0)

Isn't the BBC's iPlayer a P2P sysytem? - Where the BBC daily invite the public to download and share BBC content? It's managed and controlled very well, I think it's an example of vere legitimate file shareing, and an indication of future trends - 'if allowed'.

J_RaD




msg:4013036
 2:39 pm on Oct 25, 2009 (gmt 0)

arguing P2P is like arguing gun laws

swa66




msg:4013041
 2:53 pm on Oct 25, 2009 (gmt 0)

@kapow:

iPlayer uses a DRM to protect the rights of the rightful owners and the BBC is in full control. It's got nothing in common with the likes of the torrent networks.

So you no longer get a "human right" to have an Internet connection. Not a big deal.

Wrong. It is a big deal. Internet = Having a Voice to the world.


A government also controls if you're allowed to drive a car, that would also limit your religious ambitions if taken away (or never granted). And no granting it nor taking away your driver's license is done in a court either.

Also remember that this isn't about freedom of speech, it's outside of the USA so that freedom isn't extended to the limits of where it becomes absurd: it's there but it is often -by law- inferior to you being allowed to breach other laws and do damage to others.

Also dropping the restriction at the EU level does not mean the member states *have* to adopt legislation to cut off file sharing "thieves", it at best allows them to do so.

I'm not a fan of the music and movie industry and the way they do business. By far not. But in a democracy a wrong law isn't changed by breaching it, it is changed by voting into power those that change the law. The more people abiding a bad law, the better chance we have of changing the law.

jbinbpt




msg:4013055
 3:38 pm on Oct 25, 2009 (gmt 0)

Here is a link to the Grateful Dead MP3 policy.

Grateful Dead Sanctions Free MP3 Music Format [wdirewolff.com]

During this last tour, you could purchase access to the tappers section and they were selling CD's of that nights concert immediately after the show.

caribguy




msg:4013105
 6:18 pm on Oct 25, 2009 (gmt 0)

The human rights argument is nonsense

Oh, really? Here's what Greens/EFA MEP Philippe Lamberts, a member of the EP Delegation to the Conciliation Committee, had to say about this:
The current discussion on Amendment 138 is an acid test of the European parliament's will to uphold citizens fundamental rights. The basic principle of 'innocent until proven guilty' must be guaranteed. Bowing to narrow national interests defended by the EU Council would be a betrayal of Parliament's role as a pan European institution.

Source: Greens/EFA Press Release 10/16/2009 [greens-efa.org]

What is this "telecom package" about anyway? - and why is it going through a conciliation committee [europa.eu] negotiations process?

The plenary approved the compromise at second reading in May but also restored one of Parliament's first-reading amendments, that Council had rejected, regarding Internet access. This amendment says "no restriction may be imposed on the fundamental rights and freedoms of end users, without a prior ruling by the judicial authorities (...) save when public security is threatened"..

Source: EP Press Service [europarl.europa.eu]

Sorry to disappoint those who were under the impression that this huge piece of legislation was simply and specifically related to copyright and piracy. The package includes the revision of the electronic communications framework, the citizens' rights directive and the establishment of a new European body of telecom regulators called BEREC. The only remaining issue: No restrictions on access to services without prior ruling by judicial authorities (see link below).

Parliament reinstated by 407 votes in favour with 57 votes against and 171 abstentions a first-reading amendment saying that "no restriction may be imposed on the fundamental rights and freedoms of end users, without a prior ruling by the judicial authorities (...) save when public security is threatened".

Council had rejected this amendment in first-reading.

Source and more background on the contents of the package: here [europarl.europa.eu].

This is about due process - and from the looks of it, a good number of representatives (MEP) still find that a worthy cause - even after the amendment had been struck down by the Council... Meanwhile, the BBC headline: The European Parliament has given the green light for member states to cut persistent file-sharers off from the net, is (ahem) simply a headline...

This 59 message thread spans 2 pages: 59 ( [1] 2 > >
Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Local / Foo
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Home ¦ Free Tools ¦ Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About ¦ Library ¦ Newsletter
WebmasterWorld is a Developer Shed Community owned by Jim Boykin.
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved