Forum Moderators: open
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.
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 never mentioned killing anyone, it was just making the point that it's not an inalienable human right although driving is arguably more important to your survival (assuming you aren't DUI ;)) than the internet. You still need to be able to get to work, go to the store, etc. and in some areas you can still take the bus, train or cab. However, if you live out in the middle of nowhere and lose the ability to drive, your entire lifestyle must change such as moving somewhere with public transportation.
Likewise, when disconnected from the internet you can still get access via the local library or an internet cafe, or perhaps a new telecom provider.
In this day and age, losing one internet connection is hardly meaningful unless there's a court order restraining you from using any internet connection. Switch from cable to DSL or even mobile broadband and there are multiple providers in most major metropolitan areas.
If you behave badly and get booted off them all, who's to blame?
Personally, I'd rather see the telecoms have the right to police their networks than the judicial system because the judicial system can't keep up with the technology.
[edited by: lawman at 11:45 pm (utc) on Oct. 26, 2009]
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.
Just for giggles, amuse me and tell me how banning people from the internet can be done without infringing this basic human right?
Just for giggles, amuse me and tell me how banning people from the internet can be done without infringing this basic human right?
Telecom is not a human right, it's a technology.
If you can't pay your telecom bill, they disconnect it.
If you abuse it, they disconnect it.
It's not a matter of freedom of expression, it's a matter of playing within the rules.
Even freedom of speech doesn't give you the right to slander, there are limits.
If you can find me a USB port in a newborn baby that facilitates a P2P connection, THEN isn't a human right.
Of course by then we will be Borg and human rights will no longer apply.
Ofcourse you have to pay your bills. But the idea of human rights, is they can't be denied. So if you believe in human rights, then you believe I have a right to freedom of expression through any media, then if you take away internet from me, you are denying me a media. Why is this so hard to understand for you?
receive and impart information and ideas through any media
I have a right to freedom of expression through any media
Which is where the whole P2P argument falls flat, it's not a medium, it's a file sharing protocol on top of a medium.
So is FTP, another protocol on top of a medium, which anyone could use to create a large repository of files anywhere for FTP downloading by anyone and there are many legit repositories such as DOWNLOAD.COM
The problem with one large central repository is that it's easy for people to scrutinize the contents for illicit material which is why people don't do it, ergo P2P.
The "medium" wasn't even available until 1995 or so at a commercial scale for everyone to connect to so you're saying people's rights were being violated before the wide scale introduction of the internet?
It's a technology, one people pay for, and not a right.
Perhaps a visit should be paid to the local homeless shelter and see how many people staying there have this human right called the internet.
Perhaps a visit should be paid to the local homeless shelter and see how many people staying there have this human right called the internet.
If you agree that it is their human right, then what prevents you from stepping up to the plate and doing something about it?
[edited by: lawman at 11:47 pm (utc) on Oct. 26, 2009]
But the idea of human rights, is they can't be denied.
If you break the law, you forfeit certain rights. The only subject worthy of discussion is the legal process - arguing human rights is absurd. Moreover, in Europe, human rights are overseen by the European Court of Human Rights which is an entirely separate entity and is not part of the EU.
If you own a printer, photocopier or printing press, you have the right to publish your own material and nothing else (unless copyright has expired or been waived). Ownership of a DVD recorder does not grant you the human right to copy and distribute films, etc.
Kaled.
Ownership of a DVD recorder does not grant you the human right to copy and distribute films, etc.
Yes and when a private company catches you copying a DVD illegaly on your DVD recorder it contacts the manufacturer and they will send someone to collect the recorder. And then you will not be allowed to buy a new one for a year.
Oh no wait, thats not how it works. They will have to contact the police, the police will investigate, there will be a trial and if you are guilty you will be convicted. And if they want any money they will have to take you to a civil court too.
What is in discussion here means nothing short of this: You won't be able to use the internet for a year and your family won't be able to use the internet. If you earn a living through the internet - like most of us here do - bad luck, you will loose your means of income. You won't be able to support your family anymore.
And all this will not happen because this was decided by a judge after a fair trial - if some politicians have their way this will happen because a private company has sent a letter with an accusation - nothing more - to your internet provider. And this will not happen because YOU violated someones rights but anybody who used your internet connection violated someone elses rights. Your kid, your wife, a friend, your nephew who visited a few weeks ago. Or simply because someone made a mistake - switched a few numbers in the IP address.
In my eyes this is nothing short of establishing a system of vigilantism in the internet instead of the rule of law.
will happen because a private company has sent a letter with an accusation
Seems like a flaw in your logic.
If the Internet itself will have to wait for the slow justice system to catch up, we will be overrun by the unwanted elements long before there is anything left to claim a right on. Self policing by the ISPs works. What some countries with loads of smaller ISPs are trying to do is to stop unwanted elements from hopping over to the next ISP and starting again and again. That's a good thing in my book.
There is no need to waste resources on playing wack-a-mole with a persistent law breaker.
If you disagree: create your own political party with the agenda to reform copyright for the movie and music industry. You might even get me to vote for you if you smarten up.
If the Internet itself will have to wait for the slow justice system to catch up, we will be overrun by the unwanted elements long before there is anything left to claim a right on.
Yes, and in the meantime you let some highschool dropout that sits in a cubicle at BMG or Time Warner decide if you are entitled to an internet connection or not - instead of a court. I wonder if you really have thought that through.
If you disagree: Why not move to Cuba or North Korea. They sure don't care about human rights there.
Besides - you do not need to violate any copyrights yourself. To get your internet connection supended it's enough that someone breaks into your WLAN. Remember? No trial where you can present anything in your defense.
in a cubicle at BMG or Time Warner decide if you are entitled to an internet connection or no
First off these companies outsource finding the illegal file sharers, they do not do it themselves.
Secondly one instance, one complaint does not make you a persistent file sharer. How that persistent status is going to be determined is probably going to be member state dependent. iow. determined by *your* lawmakers.
You don't need to agree to what they do: opt for others next vote.
you disagree: Why not move to Cuba or North Korea.
I don't get where you guys get it to argue to be allowed to break the law without consequences.
Those consequences are going to be put in a law, instead of being left to the ISPs arbitrary decision (like it is already today): you breach your contract with your ISP if you engage in illegal activities: check their AUP (Acceptable Use Policy).
What the law is going to take away is the chance to start over at yet another ISP and cause trouble there too.
Now if a judge decides it or not: I'm not sure where you live, but judges out here are overworked. Not a good idea to try to have them do more.
In most EU countries if you exceed the speed limit too much your diver's license gets revoked on the spot. No judge involved until after the fact (he'll decide if and when you get it back and how high the fine is going to be); if you get caught as a foreigner: the fine is to be paid on the spot or your car gets impounded till you decide to pay, no judge involved at all.
If you get caught by a speed camera not too much over the limit: out here the fine is imposed by the post office (a company), not even a cop is involved. Unless you're silly enough to try to protest it: the judge will teach you not to waste his/her time and pay your fines on time (and the lesson will be a very harsh one).
There are plenty of other consequences to illegal activities that are enforced and punished without a judge being involved.
someone breaks into your WLAN
I don't get where you guys get it to argue to be allowed to break the law without consequences.
Who said that? I only see people here arguing they want to be convicted by a court when they are accused of something, not that you should let copyright infringers walk away.
In most EU countries if you exceed the speed limit too much your diver's license gets revoked on the spot. No judge involved until after the fact (he'll decide if and when you get it back and how high the fine is going to be); if you get caught as a foreigner: the fine is to be paid on the spot or your car gets impounded till you decide to pay, no judge involved at all.
Aha, and it works like this: A private individual spots someone speeding on his streets. After the third time he calls the car manufacturer and the car manufacturer tows the car away, regardless if the owner of the car was driving or someone else.
No - at least the police is involved. And present when they catch you - the driver, not the owner of the car. And where I live your driving license is not suspended on the spot but after the court has convicted you. And if its suspended for three month for example you can even choose the time when the suspension will begin.
someone breaks into your WLAN
They could do far worse things than run P2P over your WLAN.
Some activities a hacker might do could result in actual jail time for someone, such as phish spamming, hacking, up/download kiddie pics.
Just pray all they do is run P2P.
I only see people here arguing they want to be convicted by a court when they are accused of something, not that you should let copyright infringers walk away.
Ah so you want the heavy hammer of the law to hit you.
Courts are expensive.
Which means huge costs to the community for prosecuting individual file sharers. Ready to have your taxes increased (cause that's what's needed).
Ready to get a criminal record for being convicted for the crime of copyright infringement ?
And you probably don't want an ISP to shut you down based on a breached contract ?
Courts are slow (very slow out here)
Ready for your ISPs to crack down on you for breaching their AUP much more aggressively as they'll get lawsuits from the music industry if they allow you to continue to commit a crime after they've been told about it ?
Ready for your internet connection to become more expensive as the ISPs need to reserve money for the lawsuits they'll get if they don't act swiftly enough against you.
Ready for ISPs -within the limit of the law- building and sharing a blacklist of customers they will not connect anymore among themselves, much like banks and insurances have lists of fraudsters they share ?
Ready for ISPs to start to prevent P2P completely ? There have been ISPs convicted in court and forced by judges to do this - till now it's being resisted from executing, but take away other means and the pressure will mount here dramatically.
Ready for much worse effects than a ban from getting an account at an ISP ?
copyright infringements have serious consequences associated with them:
e.g. out here the fines on copyright crimes are:
- 550 till 550000 EUR fines
- 3 months to 2 years prison and the fine for repeat offenders (if you want to be persistent ... 2 years prison or a few month no Internet ?)
- your tools used to commit the crime can be impounded
And since it's a crime it goes onto your record. Good luck in finding a job needing a clean record.
For all clarity: INAL
Arguing to be allowed to break the law is an argument you cannot hope to win. The law always wins. The way to tackle it is to change the law first.
Arguing to be allowed to break the law is an argument you cannot hope to win. The law always wins. The way to tackle it is to change the law first.
I do not infringe any copryrights, so I am not afraid of any court. However what I am afraid is of private individuals deciding matters of such an importance they can ruin you if you are reliant on the internet. The rule of law exists to protect innocent people - like me.
And I am not ready to waive any of my rights just because some bloke believes he must illegaly download the latest album of Britney Spears on emule or bittorrent.
For what ? For not getting accused of something you don't do and hence will not get accused of at all, let alone have it done to you persistently ?
The movie and music industry pointing persistently their finger at you (they don't know you so they can't find you as you move about all that easy, they know an IP address and timestamp, what you were sharing and will confirm under perjury that it's infringing on their rights)
Your ISP pointing a finger at you persistently and correlating the evidence of the music industry not just from access logs proving you had been assigned the the complained about IP address at that time of the problem and have that persistently against you, but also that their netflows confirm you were having traffic patterns that are consistent with file sharing and have that persistenly matched to you ?
Present that to a judge who know what he's talking about and you get convicted of a crime no matter how loud you protest. Its like being caught stealing from stores not just once on a monitoring device, but in dozens of locations all over town and being not just cuaght on tape but aso recognized by the shopkeepers.
There's a reason most settle copyright cases: those accused have no case.
But why make them criminals, why take all the effort to build it when you can also get a lighter process that has less impact. And that makes it less of a lottery of getting caught vs. not getting caught.
Fixing your concerns is easy enough: have an appeals system where a judge can review it. And can put a stop to practices that lead to too many justified appeals.
The ISP could also put a very low GB cap on your monthly UPLOAD limits (not download) which could effectively kill file sharing because people down want to pay big fees to host the repository and most of the population would never notice.
For every one minute of the day, 10 hours of video is uploaded to youtube alone. People would notice if their upstream was throttled. We're heading for synchronous upload/download connections if anything. You're coming from a very old publisher/consumer model. Peer to peer IS the internet, and means a lot more than bittorrent and illegal file sharing.
if you exceed the speed limit too much your diver's license gets revoked on the spot. No judge involved until after the fact
This is the point in a nutshell. A COP has to be involved to take your license, pending court proceedings and the right of appeal.
[edited by: lawman at 4:35 pm (utc) on Oct. 27, 2009]
We're heading for synchronous upload/download connections if anything. You're coming from a very old publisher/consumer model. Peer to peer IS the internet, and means a lot more than bittorrent and illegal file sharing.
Let's explore the reality of the situation.
Comcast in the US recently put a 250GB/mo cap on bandwidth usage, used to be unlimited, aimed at capping the P2P bandwidth while maintaining net neutrality.
Rogers cable in Canada caps all accounts starting at 2GB/mo up to 175GB/mo ($149!) for the maximum account which is 3x the price of the my Comcast account.
Guess if you want to file share in Canada you pay through the nose.
The movie and music industry pointing persistently their finger at you (they don't know you so they can't find you as you move about all that easy, they know an IP address and timestamp, what you were sharing and will confirm under perjury that it's infringing on their rights)
[myce.com...]
Comcast in the US recently put a 250GB/mo cap on bandwidth usage, used to be unlimited, aimed at capping the P2P bandwidth while maintaining net neutrality.Rogers cable in Canada caps all accounts starting at 2GB/mo up to 175GB/mo ($149!) for the maximum account which is 3x the price of the my Comcast account.
Guess if you want to file share in Canada you pay through the nose.
That's just called a user-pays system. We've always had it that way in Australia too, unfortunately, long before bittorrent.
It's erroneous to base arguments on the assumption that illegal file sharers are the only bandwidth hogs. Legitimate, legal HD video streaming is becoming commonplace, for starters. Itunes, Netflix, Hulu, XBOX 360... 720p and 1080p video on demand is already the preferred delivery method for a lot of people and will certainly become the default format for the majority in the next 5-10 years, replacing cable, DVD, Blu-Ray. That is what Comcast is anticipating.
On topic, I see people throwing around analogies to the electricity and phone companies. That they will cut you off if you don't pay your bill. Fine, same with ISPs. What power and phone companies will not and cannot do, however, is cut off your service because another private company tells them you've been using the phone or electricity to do something illegal. It is not their place to make that judgement.
[webmasterworld.com...]
[webmasterworld.com...]
[webmasterworld.com...]
[webmasterworld.com...]
Incredibill, some of your arguments make so little sense:
The "medium" wasn't even available until 1995 or so at a commercial scale for everyone to connect to so you're saying people's rights were being violated before the wide scale introduction of the internet?
Common' now. The quoted text above makes no sense.
I agree, that it isn't a medium. But the internet is. By cutting off internet from 'persistent' P2P users (as defined by some faceless company), then you are denying them the right to use the internet.
And OBVIOUSLY people whom can't afford it can't get it. A right isn't that something will magically appear. A right is something you get if you fulfill your DUTIES. Like working. Working people can pay for internet. Unless some faceless company turns it off. Without trial. And there is no other company in town.
Then your right to a medium of communication is being denied.
The arguments being made by the people that are for private companies having the power to violate human rights without so much as giving them an appeal process are filled with logical fallacies. In fact, this whole topic reminds me why don't come here as often. The place appears now to be overrun by old people with inflexible ideas. Topics like this remind me of my conversations with a Scientology I know.
[edited by: lawman at 8:40 am (utc) on Oct. 28, 2009]
Incredibill, some of your arguments make so little sense:The "medium" wasn't even available until 1995 or so at a commercial scale for everyone to connect to so you're saying people's rights were being violated before the wide scale introduction of the internet?
Not understanding the irony of the comment doesn't mean it makes no sense.
If it was a 'human right' we would've always had it, like life, liberty, freedom of speech, etc.
The internet (as we know it) really didn't exist prior to 1995 and we still had freedom of speech.
That was the part I was pointing out that losing web access was losing "the freedom of speech", lame arguments at best because we had freedom of speech before the web, and even if you lose your web connection you still have freedom of speech.
What you're missing without the internet isn't the lack of freedom of speech, it's the lack of a cheap distribution method. You can send out 1 million letters via the post office if you can afford it, that's still freedom of speech.
[news.bbc.co.uk...]
Perhaps a new thread is required!
Kaled.
Those who have argued in favour of file-sharers should read my original post and then follow the link below.
But thats exactly the point. Nobody has argued in favour of file-shares. Bring them before a court and if they are found guilty, send them to jail, disconnect them from the internet.
People here are arguing for something I thought was a matter of course - the right to be tried before a court.
In this instance I lean toward law and order.
Law and order is only law and order when exercised by law enforcement authorities. Because if not, its not law and order but vigilantism. I mean whats next? I catch someone stealing and lock him away in my cellar and enforce the penalty myself or what?
