First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
ISP for consumers?
46382 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Sweden
Online
Posted 11/17/14 , edited 11/17/14
I don't think anyone haven't heard of how shitty US based ISP's are and the FCC thing with net neutrality... But that's not the point of this thread! :P

Anyhow, one of the biggest ISP's in Sweden got sued by a bunch of companies (including Microsoft, Sony, warner bros and a few others) reasently because they chose not to block access to Piritebay and a few other sites.

Hence my question for this thread. Do you think companies should be given the right to censor the internet? I personally don't think they shouldn't since the internet is one of the few places where peoples anonymity remains to some degree.
5906 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / 38.2500° N, 85.76...
Offline
Posted 11/17/14 , edited 11/17/14
In US companies can send Cease and Desist letters to websites for copyright infringement. Also they can pressure ISP to disturb the service to certain websites. US Federal Court can issue a Order that makes seizure of website legal including domain name and physical servers where website is hosted on. About the anonymity there is none on internet anymore. Between NSA, DSS, CSS, GSI, TFI, INR and many more alphabet agencies that are in charge on keeping tabs on cyberspace that anonymity is an illusion and those agancies have global reach so even if you are living outside US they are still watching you.
1012 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / M
Offline
Posted 11/17/14 , edited 11/17/14
No definitely not, they have no right to decide how does Sweden handle it's own country and the internet, I'm more worried why are they trying to protect Pirate bay, do they really gain an advantage from the people that pirate, or do they do market research from it? I really think there is more to this story! Thanks for sharing!
18638 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M / Montreal, Canada
Online
Posted 11/17/14 , edited 11/17/14

TheOmegaForce70941 wrote:

I don't think anyone haven't heard of how shitty US based ISP's are and the FCC thing with net neutrality... But that's not the point of this thread! :P

Anyhow, one of the biggest ISP's in Sweden got sued by a bunch of companies (including Microsoft, Sony, warner bros and a few others) reasently because they chose not to block access to Piritebay and a few other sites.

Hence my question for this thread. Do you think companies should be given the right to censor the internet? I personally don't think they shouldn't since the internet is one of the few places where peoples anonymity remains to some degree.


It depends: does Sweeden have a law that forces them to block access to piracy websites? If so then the ISP should have blocked it, if not, it's just US Corp trying to bully ISP into censoring the internet.

Note: I rather despise censorship laws because they are slipery slopes usually. They usually start with good intentions and usually are supported by "Think of the children" or "Think of the terrorists" or even "Think of the poor company" arguments yet they are then used to silence opposition to the regime in place.
28205 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / M / USA
Offline
Posted 11/17/14 , edited 11/17/14
We as consumers better pay attention to these laws being passed... several people don't think this has anything to do with them but if CR and netflix, etc start getting charged more for streaming rights (I'll add that they won't be faster streaming rights just promises to work) the other sites will be shutdown unless they pay money while the pay sites will cost double. This is so corrupt makes me wonder why we talk about other countries with their corrupt governments. We have the most corrupt government ... our leaders just found ways to hide it from us while others don't care to hide they have absolute power in their countries.
9200 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / M
Offline
Posted 11/17/14
I think it's a tricky problem.

It's kind of tied into a LOT of different areas.

Ideally the internet should be a hands off "free" zone.

Unfortunately, as we develop more and more technology to depend upon it, (some of which is needlessly so, like a gaming console that you need to connect to play 1 player games, or like a refrigerator that needs to be connected to the net... Which apparently exists because Google Analytics uses it and other household items in its tutorials on what you can use for GA tracking code with..), and our most basic services are integrated to it, we're slowly getting to a point where there is just way too many security holes and places where a little hacking or a little virus can cause EPIC REAL LIFE DAMAGE.

Because of that, (well, more pointedly, because everyone has this obsession with data collection and connectivity, even when things worked just fine without it 10 or even 5 years ago), there will need to be either a series of separate internets, or some VERY sophisticated policing of the net. (i'm kinda for the separate internets for TV and media, and for us to stop connecting every damned tiny widget we can to the thing).

If we start REALLY policing the internet, this will mean a worldwide set of laws, and a governing body that is able to enforce it. It also means that where as you might start out with just wanting to make sure nothing happens to say, black out the entire east coast, or turn a nuclear power station in the middle east into a new Chernobyl or Three Mile Island, you're going to start having other entities, (most notably corporations, as they're already trying to do) to enforce their desires and demands upon the internet and what can or cannot be done. (see also: "Why We Can't Have Nice Things")

In the end really want to see copyright laws dismantled. I think that taking the teeth out of what is and is not fair via copyright and patent is the first step to fixing some of these problems.
637 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
39 / M / Florida
Offline
Posted 11/17/14
Copyright laws are in place to protect companies from their intellectual properties from being stolen, even internationally.
Even if said IP is basically borrowed from some ancient story and has been rewritten numerous of times as an update to the story.
Still, you have crew and equipment to pay for, those at least are jobs for people, even if most of the equipment may come from overseas.
I could only imagine if actors got minimum wage for their roles. The movies would likely be better because they'd be fighting over roles instead of directors fighting over the actors.
46382 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Sweden
Online
Posted 11/17/14


It's legal to stream and download in Sweden, however it's illegal to download torrents.

And the companies wanted the ISP to take down all 3 and now they've sued them.
35055 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 11/17/14
ISPs shouldn't be blocking access to The Pirate Bay or any other site. It is not the responsibility of ISPs to police the activity of their consumers, and even if they want to it is unethical for them to act as private law enforcement institutions which are held accountable only to arbitration firms they have themselves contracted and which presume the consumer's guilt until their innocence is proven. The Swedish ISP in question was right to refuse to block access. It is the Swedish government's responsibility to enforce copyright law, and suits against suspected violators thereof belong in the Swedish judicial system.
46382 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Sweden
Online
Posted 11/17/14

Enflics wrote:

No definitely not, they have no right to decide how does Sweden handle it's own country and the internet, I'm more worried why are they trying to protect Pirate bay, do they really gain an advantage from the people that pirate, or do they do market research from it? I really think there is more to this story! Thanks for sharing!


The fact that they are protecting piratebay is simply because as of right now a bunch of Swedish ISP's are hosting thepiratebay's servers. And as such the owners of pireatebay are paying a fee to keep tje site running.

They probably choose to ignore the companies asking them to take down thepiratebay (among other services) because from their perspective they earn a profit on hosting the service plus it was a public stunt that will make it look like they stood up against the big companies.



According to Swedish law it's illegal to download torrents but not upload them or host them. Nor is it illegal to use non legit streaming services. Amd the companies wanted to take down both illegal streaming services and torrent sites like piratebay.
35055 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 11/17/14

TheOmegaForce70941 wrote:

According to Swedish law it's illegal to download torrents but not upload them or host them. Nor is it illegal to use non legit streaming services. Amd the companies wanted to take down both illegal streaming services and torrent sites like piratebay.


Given this I don't see how this suit will swing in favor of Sony and such. Especially given the underlined.
46382 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Sweden
Online
Posted 11/17/14

Allonan wrote:

We as consumers better pay attention to these laws being passed... several people don't think this has anything to do with them but if CR and netflix, etc start getting charged more for streaming rights (I'll add that they won't be faster streaming rights just promises to work) the other sites will be shutdown unless they pay money while the pay sites will cost double. This is so corrupt makes me wonder why we talk about other countries with their corrupt governments. We have the most corrupt government ... our leaders just found ways to hide it from us while others don't care to hide they have absolute power in their countries.


I think you missed the point of the thread!
46382 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Sweden
Online
Posted 11/17/14

BlueOni wrote:


TheOmegaForce70941 wrote:

According to Swedish law it's illegal to download torrents but not upload them or host them. Nor is it illegal to use non legit streaming services. Amd the companies wanted to take down both illegal streaming services and torrent sites like piratebay.


Given this I don't see how this suit will swing in favor of Sony and such. Especially given the underlined.


Hmm, maybe. I do see both pluses and minuses of the whole piracy thing.

I understand why a company like Sony and Microsoft would want to censor the internet. And it comes down to the simple fact that people can get paid products for free (like movies, music, software, games etc.). This ofc this leads to the companies loosing a massive portion of their money and profits... And as such they may not be avail to keep as many employees hired. And that's a horrible thing since this means that potentially tousends of people will lose their jobs.

However, there's also a gray/positive thing about piracy.

One, something may never have been so big that it is now if it wasn't for piracy. Just take anime for an example, would it have gotten this big in the west if there wasn't for piracy? Arguably the answer to that question is no.

Then we've also got smaller companies that couldn't afford advertisement on TV, trains and etc. Now they have a perfect place to advertise their products since it cost next to nothing to advertise on a website like piratebay. Thus meaning that a lot of smaller companies that have shown true innovation may never have gotten as big (or even started to exist in the first place) as they are now if it wasn't for the illegal sites that provided a next to free advertisement solution.

17203 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
(´◔౪◔)✂❤
Offline
Posted 11/17/14
Is shutting those pirate websites down out of the question? I think it's in everyone's self interest to prevent people from stealing their work, those who offer very little to the world probably wouldn't mind stealing some of those benefits.
9200 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / M
Offline
Posted 11/17/14

Frostbrand wrote:

Copyright laws are in place to protect companies from their intellectual properties from being stolen, even internationally.
Even if said IP is basically borrowed from some ancient story and has been rewritten numerous of times as an update to the story.
Still, you have crew and equipment to pay for, those at least are jobs for people, even if most of the equipment may come from overseas.
I could only imagine if actors got minimum wage for their roles. The movies would likely be better because they'd be fighting over roles instead of directors fighting over the actors.


I know that's what they're for. BUT...copyrights hinder creativity and are more often than not, ways to collect funds for things that just shouldn't be collected on.

For example. mp3's. Anyone who uses the mp3 format, for either development of a player, or for the software that renders into mp3 format, uses proprietary code which they pay for. I mean it's basically an industry standard. And you have to pay for something that has become basically an industry standard. To be a company that manufactures DVD's, you pay a licensing fee for the DVD technology etc. etc. as well, and have to conform to standards...

The layout of the apple ipod's keys? Copyrighted. in cases like this, the design is SOOOOOOOO close, but tweaked just enough to avoid the litigation. (and then that's copyrighted, and soon you're surrounded with a bajillion tiny variations on format, which lead to problems of NOT having a universal standard, as well as enough barriers around you that the inventive cannot easily enter the competition).(this isn't even going into the grey market, basically the same factories that make high end hand bags in china for gucci, turning around, creating the same exact item, and selling them for hundreds less... meaning basically you are paying for a name. or Design Within Reach - $300,000 chairs that can be made out of less than $100 worth of materials but are so damned expensive because they're "licensed".)

It cannot be copied a relatively decent standard. Copyright laws are also now being applied to genetics, as genetically modified crops are copyrighted. Why is that even possible!?!?!??!

Meanwhile, the artwork the music videos, the fan created "stuff" is copyright infringement that often doesn't get enforced, but nevertheless is frowned upon. If your stuff gets popular enough, or if it someone is not something the original copyright holder likes, they can and will sue.

When an artist or writer typically creates a work, they MAY get royalties, but in some cases are simply paid a flat fee for their work (I know this is the case for comic book artists in the US), while the company who pays them basically insures that they have all rights to work of art. They own it, they can do what they want with it. It really comes down to how good of a lawyer you have. Meanwhile, even with the copyright laws in place that are here, there's nothing stopping a company seeing your artwork or creative masterpiece, tweaking it enough to avoid copyright laws, and doing something that results in you getting nothing for your work.

All in all, I just find copyrights to tend to benefit large corporations and publishers, while doing very little for the individual artist. "Stealing" ideas and such from corporations tends to actually benefit them by proliferating the ideas and desiring the originals. Thus proven by HBO's encouragement of "sharing" accounts so people get hooked on their shows and desire them for own them themselves. Or how amazon and youtube and funimation ALLL put their content up online for free, because they know people will seek out purchasing and owning the material.

Now granted, if copyrights disappeared tomorrow (which even that I'm not huge on, as much as I am just really revising them so they aren't abused in the ways that they seem), then nothing would stop a large corporation from stealing your ideas and putting them to use in their own factories, but, the barrier to entry would still be far lesser, and I still feel it would be of greater benefit to the individual than the current system is.

I have nothing against trademarks, as they are like signatures for a company, and it would be similar to forgery in my mind. And quite frankly, I don't see many people trying to copy word for word a book, and songs sung by other bands (whether announced to be a cover or not) are rarely the same as the originals. Performances vary with theater and its related mediums. And to think, you could market your own variation on a doll or your harry potter inspired fiction, or an anime inspired line of cosmetics, and not worry about getting sued or having a hefty licensing fee to pay.

And to be honest, I'm a relatively creative person and I don't have that great of a fear of someone copying my stuff... That only means I have to get better, ensure my products are my own, That I have develop my techniques, and that I constantly am reinventing and being more creative. Besides, people really DON'T copy much, despite the fact that so many people use the excuse of copying to prevent themselves from being published, or their works being put forth to the public.

It's just something I don't grok. Ideas should be free.
First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.