First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
ISP for consumers?
38313 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 11/17/14 , edited 11/17/14

TheOmegaForce70941 wrote:

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.


Microsoft, Sony, Warner Brothers, and so on are all vendors which sell goods which are non-rivalrous, non-scarce, and increasingly non-excludable. That last point is the center of the whole thing, and they tried to address it by equipping their goods with DRM on their movie/music/game discs in an effort to make these goods more excludable again. They found that this wasn't very effective and just generally upset people.

Some of these companies got more desperate, and at least one of them decided to start attacking end users themselves. Sony BMG put malware and spyware in their products specifically designed to interfere with end users' computers' ability to copy CDs and monitor their listening habits, but ended up creating a bunch of security exploits as a side effect. It's worthy of note that installing the program without the end user's knowledge or consent was completely unethical and illegal, and so Sony BMG had completely forfeited the moral and/or legal high ground by implementing that monumentally stupid anti-piracy measure which only ended up punishing legitimate buyers.

Getting even more desperate, firms and organizations representing them (such as the MPAA and the RIAA) have decided that attacking ISPs themselves is the way to go. They want traffic to specific sites to be blocked without regard to any relevant legislation (such as the fact that ISPs aren't violating Swedish law by hosting traffic to and from The Pirate Bay whether or not the site itself is in violation). Given your description of Swedish law that seems to be what this lawsuit is really about: forcing the ISP in question to do something it neither desires to do nor is legally compelled to do by waving lawyers in the ISP's face and hoping they'll be frightened enough to back down. It's a standard tactic, though it doesn't always work. Here's hoping a Swedish judge sees it for what it is and gives Sony, Microsoft, and Warner Brothers a swift kick in the ass.

What they really ought to be doing is acknowledging the reality that the products they're making are non-excludable now and look for new ways to fund and distribute them instead of seeking progressively more Draconian measures which just end up inconveniencing, endangering, and upsetting legitimate buyers. That's what I am: an upset, inconvenienced, and endangered buyer who is getting tired of IP owners' nonsense. The star next to my name proves I'm not lying about being a legitimate buyer, so I have every right to say what I'm saying.



On a semi-related note, that thing I mentioned about presumed guilt upon accusation of violating copyrights, penalization without due process, and cumbersome appeals processes designed to discourage appeal of complaints while standardizing appellate challenges so as to make them easier to defeat? I wasn't kidding. They'll even charge you to appeal under the pretense of preventing frivolous appeals. Meanwhile IP owners will be allowed to continue to do what they've always done: saturation bomb people with accusations of violating their property rights in an environment which neither seriously investigates nor significantly punishes their own frivolity, only now they have a system which allows them to reach out and grab anyone, anywhere, anytime, and slow down or interrupt their internet service with near total impunity.
21652 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M
Offline
Posted 11/17/14 , edited 11/17/14
You live in a First world country, companies expects that copyright enforcement work as they must by the law.
38313 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 11/17/14 , edited 11/17/14

IngramIV wrote:

You live in a First world country, company expects that copyright enforcement work as they must by the law.


Except as far as the OP has told us there's no legal compulsion for the ISP to do what the complainants are wanting them to do. If that is in fact the case the companies suing the ISP would be filing a frivolous lawsuit, probably to scare the ISP into compliance.
21652 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M
Offline
Posted 11/17/14 , edited 11/17/14

BlueOni wrote:


IngramIV wrote:

You live in a First world country, company expects that copyright enforcement work as they must by the law.


Except as far as the OP has told us there's no legal compulsion for the ISP to do what the complainants are wanting them to do. If that is in fact the case the companies suing the ISP would be filing a frivolous lawsuit, probably to scare the ISP into compliance.


Wait? what? The legal compulsion for the ISP is the order made by the judges in matter of Enrichment by copyright infringement in this case they have a technical way of spreading the piracy.

This is not like South America where you have vendors selling Pirated DVD movies in the Traffic lights Lines in downtown they have whole servers with loots of sub masked address powered by advertising companies.
And that means just one thing: Organized Crime, the Companies can`t fight it alone (Well they can by De Facto but not by De Iure, example Microsoft DDOS any of those server the ISP would automatically defend the pirate server)

Copyright cease and desist copyright infringement then manual takedown by the ISP who is the local provider is not contemplate in the Sweden Law and it`s regulatory and successory jurisprudence which allows repetition without much paperwork?
47498 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Sweden
Online
Posted 11/17/14 , edited 11/17/14

IngramIV wrote:


BlueOni wrote:


IngramIV wrote:

You live in a First world country, company expects that copyright enforcement work as they must by the law.


Except as far as the OP has told us there's no legal compulsion for the ISP to do what the complainants are wanting them to do. If that is in fact the case the companies suing the ISP would be filing a frivolous lawsuit, probably to scare the ISP into compliance.


Wait? what? The legal compulsion for the ISP is the order made by the judges in matter of Enrichment by copyright infringement in this case they have a technical way of spreading the piracy.

This is not like South America where you have vendors selling Pirated DVD movies in the Traffic lights Lines in downtown they have whole servers with loots of sub masked address powered by advertising companies.
And that means just one thing: Organized Crime, the Companies can`t fight it alone (Well they can by De Facto but not by De Iure, example Microsoft DDOS any of those server the ISP would automatically defend the pirate server)

Copyright cease and desist copyright infringement then manual takedown by the ISP who is the local provider is not contemplate in the Sweden Law and it`s regulatory and successory jurisprudence which allows repetition without much paperwork?


As I said to a few others. In Sweden it's illegal legal to downloqd torrents but not to download them or host them. I don't know if I were clear or not with my original post. But what these companies tryed to do is force a ISP (bredbandsbolaget) to cut off servers (censor their customers from accessing the website) to thepiratebay and a few other websites like swefilmer. But then the ISP refused to comply with them because there's no written law in Sweden that makes it illegal to in their case host one of thepiratebay's servers. So, then the companies sued them.

If you don't feel that my information is trust worthy then feel free to check the swedish law book, it's name is "sverige riks lagen".

Anyhow, you can see similarities with thiscand other countries. There's next to no copyright laws in countries like Thailand, China and Russia.
21652 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M
Offline
Posted 11/17/14 , edited 11/18/14

If there is no law take it from granted that (regarding the now of download)
1 The corps. will lobby ton of money in order to pass it.
2 The main argument for the lawsuit would be Knowledge of Counterfeit data and not preventing and falling in conspiracy by omission.

Yet with no given law the lawsuit will be a flaw; hence a lose of time, or a background data for further lobby on the law?
637 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
40 / M / Florida
Offline
Posted 11/17/14 , edited 11/18/14


Never said you didn't know, never said they did or didn't hinder everything, never said that they were or weren't smart in their business decisions.
I did say that they were taken from something else, and it ends up being greed.
I also mentioned people get a fair or unfair wadge from some of the companies and if they just gave it away, nobody would get paid. You mention the streaming, but they include commercials to gain some revenue for their effort. Yet someone made ad-blocking programs, of course to not be hypocrites, they give it away for free, but still shake that tip jar.
I witnessed a paintball company sue other companies based on one little component being in a design because of patents, they blew all that money they got trying to sink and throw back the paintball industry by many years into an insanely expensive t-shirt printer that they only used for a couple months out of the year and didn't sell off enough gear to make money, let alone make a good product aside from brand image.
If I write a program, sure I'd like credit, no I'm not going to care if I don't make much/any money out of it, but once again people are greedy.
11316 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M
Offline
Posted 11/17/14 , edited 11/18/14

Frostbrand wrote:

Never said you didn't know, never said they did or didn't hinder everything, never said that they were or weren't smart in their business decisions.
I did say that they were taken from something else, and it ends up being greed.
I also mentioned people get a fair or unfair wadge from some of the companies and if they just gave it away, nobody would get paid. You mention the streaming, but they include commercials to gain some revenue for their effort. Yet someone made ad-blocking programs, of course to not be hypocrites, they give it away for free, but still shake that tip jar.
I witnessed a paintball company sue other companies based on one little component being in a design because of patents, they blew all that money they got trying to sink and throw back the paintball industry by many years into an insanely expensive t-shirt printer that they only used for a couple months out of the year and didn't sell off enough gear to make money, let alone make a good product aside from brand image.
If I write a program, sure I'd like credit, no I'm not going to care if I don't make much/any money out of it, but once again people are greedy.


I don't disagree about greed. I use adblock software. It's the only way I can browse the internet, with the pop ups, the pop unders, the videos that play. I go to a site and it asks me to sign up or sign in before I can even read or get to the information I googled, (and that isn't blocked) , I just close the tab. Otherwise, it never ends.

And that's what really gets me. It's like EVERY LITTLE THING is driven by money these days. There's somehow just not enough to go around, and somehow, by that thought, we have to monetize even more things... which seems to have the opposite effect of what was intended. I mean I don't know how old you are, but I'm sure you remember when all of this wasn't a huge concern, some things were in fact, free, and the internet wasn't just a giant commercial shopping mall. In fact, I remember learning that the internet was supposed to be the equivalent of a worldwide lending library, with all sorts of media free for your consumption. We've kinda run just the opposite from that.
38313 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 11/17/14 , edited 11/18/14

IngramIV wrote:

If there is no law take it from granted that (regarding the now of download)
1 The corps. will lobby ton of money in order to pass it.
2 The main argument for the lawsuit would be Knowledge of Counterfeit data and not preventing and falling in conspiracy by omission.

Yet with no given law the lawsuit will be a flaw; hence a lose of time, or a background data for further lobby on the law?


And so we return to the part of the conversation where I have said that ISPs and private IP advocacy organizations should not act as private police forces and that it is unethical for them to try to. I explained several of the problems with private sector actors attempting to do just this in an earlier post on this page. Intellectual property holders and their representatives have illegally installed malware and spyware on end users' machines indiscriminately, blanket filed frivolous copyright complaints without regard for fair use clauses, and filed frivolous lawsuits without regard to standing domestic laws in the hopes that their opponents will lack either the will or resources to fight back. They have further established an anti-piracy system which is a complete mockery of both criminal and civil justice from virtually every angle, from forcing the matter to be settled in private arbitration with a clear conflict of interest in favor of ISPs and IP owners, to a complete lack of due process for accused subscribers, to presumed guilt on the part of internet service subscribers, to requiring subscribers to adhere to standardized appellate counterarguments.

It is not, and should never be, the responsibility or right of ISPs or IP advocacy groups to police private citizens as though they were themselves endowed with the powers of the state.
1012 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M
Offline
Posted 11/18/14 , edited 11/18/14

TheOmegaForce70941 wrote:


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.


Thanks for clearing things out for me!
21474 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M / Montreal, Canada
Offline
Posted 11/18/14 , edited 11/18/14

The idea of copyright and it's initial goal was good. The problem is corporation corrupted the idea to become simply a cash machine. A good coryright term should only be 15 years maximum, not 70years after autor's death like it's currently the case in the US. The current copyright regime is toxic for society and for culture and causes no end of ridiculousness since it actually usually runs counter to innovation.

That said, I do not use the Pirate bay (unless I want to chuckle a bit due to their sometimes hilarious responses to take down notices) because why would I spend the time downloading stuff via BitTorrent when I barely have the time to consume content I already have access to. I do believe that people who creates stuff should be allowed to use their creation to gain some benefits but the current idiocy should stop.

As for censorship, I find that the Notice and Notice system in place in Canada is fine, the US's Notice and take down system needs some work (specially in the counter claim area when a DMCA take down request can be used to censor critics...) but an ISP themselves should never be forced to block websites. It's not their job.

That said, laws in various countries varies. In the UK for instance, ISPs must filter a lot of content because of the "think of the children" reasons (seriously, that should be a trope on tvtrope for the number of times politicians invoke that tactics). France is contemplating a law that would bar so called terrorist websites (good luck getting them all in your crappy blacklist) and certain idiots in Canada (*cough* Ontario Provincial Police *cough*) wants to put forth a license to use the internet because "think of the children" -_- (and actually on that note the Canadian version of the RIAA wanted to have a license in place to allow people to post stuff online).
36388 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / F / Connecticut
Offline
Posted 11/18/14 , edited 11/18/14
No, there should be only be ticketing for illegal action on the subscriber's behalf, and not censorship by the ISP. It is not the ISP's job to dictate what you can and cannot do online. We should furthermore have full net neutrality and home internet should be regulated as a utility. This is the ideal and where things are going no matter what the industry tries to do; well, unless Obama can't get it done or we elect a republican president after this (then we might be waiting another 4 years...sigh).
38313 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 11/18/14 , edited 11/18/14

Ceridan wrote:

The idea of copyright and it's initial goal was good. The problem is corporation corrupted the idea to become simply a cash machine. A good coryright term should only be 15 years maximum, not 70years after autor's death like it's currently the case in the US. The current copyright regime is toxic for society and for culture and causes no end of ridiculousness since it actually usually runs counter to innovation.


I agree that the terms have become grossly overlong and stifle creativity (I would add that the overlong period also cheats humanity of its cultural heritage), but I wonder why 15 years at most? Is it because firms have proven to be able to make back their investments and draw a comparable profit in less time than they needed when copyright laws were first being established?


That said, I do not use the Pirate bay (unless I want to chuckle a bit due to their sometimes hilarious responses to take down notices) because why would I spend the time downloading stuff via BitTorrent when I barely have the time to consume content I already have access to. I do believe that people who creates stuff should be allowed to use their creation to gain some benefits but the current idiocy should stop.

As for censorship, I find that the Notice and Notice system in place in Canada is fine, the US's Notice and take down system needs some work (specially in the counter claim area when a DMCA take down request can be used to censor critics...) but an ISP themselves should never be forced to block websites. It's not their job.


Yes to both.


That said, laws in various countries varies. In the UK for instance, ISPs must filter a lot of content because of the "think of the children" reasons (seriously, that should be a trope on tvtrope for the number of times politicians invoke that tactics).


Ask and ye shall receive: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MoralGuardians

The "Real Life" tab has all you need.
First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.