Submitting a review for consideration is easy; please first read Slashdot's book review guidelines. Updated: 2008114 by samzenpus
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.
It's fairer than suing people left and right. (Score:2, Redundant)
Which is why it's caught on. Sharing someone else's copyrighted material is still not legal, and this approach, while stupid, does give people a fair chance to stop.
(Although I can't see it working here in Finland, where people _need_ the net to do stuff like banking.)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
You think depriving people of access to the Internet == which is quickly becoming an essential resource to many -- is more fair than suing people left and right?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Make 'em use text-only browsers :D
"Look mum, i'm watching Lord of The Rings in ASCII art!"
The Ralph Bakshi version, right?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Everyone that has tried this has been abused. No ifs, ands or buts; everyone that has tried going the open route has been anally raped with no lubricant, and no kiss afterwards. It's worked like this:
Company 1: *drm*
Consumer: "u fagget i pirate u"
Company 2: "That's not right... here, just pay a reasonable fee, and I wo
Re:It's fairer than suing people left and right. (Score:4, Insightful)
Meh. People are gonna pirate regardless, and no matter what DRM is invented, it will be cracked. There will always be content pirates. The best you can do is treat your LEGITIMATE customers well enough that they buy from you again and again and compensate for whatever losses you might take from pirates.
Parent
Re:It's fairer than suing people left and right. (Score:4, Informative)
A real solution, of course, would be the content holders to get off their collective asses and make way for a global and non DRM:d way to access content at a reasonable fee.
Everyone that has tried this has been abused. No ifs, ands or buts;
Yup, which is exactly why the Amazon MP3 store went under and iTunes is still selling just DRM tracks.
Oh wait...
Parent
Re:It's fairer than suing people left and right. (Score:5, Insightful)
And, like a lot of people, you missed the point: there is no need in any of these provisions to prove that you were indeed file sharing. All it takes is an infringement allegation by someone stating that they represent a copyright holder. That's it. And I can tell you that the vast majority of ISPs will log the allegation, tally up the current count, and cut off the Internet if the tally reaches three. If you're lucky, they send out form mails stating that they received an infringement notice, and how many there are now.
You got DHCP? You're pretty much guaranteed to get someone else's notice. And as you pointed out, a lot of stuff gets done over the internet. Including my job. The Recording associations are essentially killing off the ability of anyone but large corporations to use the internet. Of course they're happy with that. The questions is - are you? Can you be?
Parent
Re:It's fairer than suing people left and right. (Score:5, Insightful)
Seems to me that what is needed is a large number of people abusing this law and lodging false complaints with the aim to deny service to random/ non-random people before the legislators will be able to understand what a stupid law this is. Once enough of their (voting) constituents are adversely affected they'll either rescind it or be voted out of office.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why random people?
Let the law pass, then use the law to deny service to the very same lawmakers who voted it in. Shouldn't take long to piss them off.
Why hurt the common man unless we have to when it's the legislators that are being stupid.
I also recommend using the law to hit big corporations in a variety of ways.
Re:It's fairer than suing people left and right. (Score:5, Interesting)
Lawmakers aren't subject to the laws. That's why they pass stupid laws in the first place: they know that any complaint made against them will be investigated and, unless done by a large enough company, ignored.
The common man is the only one you can hurt. Legislators are quite safe in their ivory fortress.
If politicians are untouchable, then corporations are Demon Gods capable of smiting you with lawsuit and then dragging you through all kinds of legal Hells. Don't even think of going up against them.
You know that old joke? "Cthulhu for president - why vote for the lesser evil?" The sad thing is that, as far as powers that be go, Cthulhu is the lesser evil.
Parent
Re:It's fairer than suing people left and right. (Score:4, Insightful)
The RIAA's whole approach is a house of cards, and I believe that in the end they will irreversibly damage the credibility of genuine computer forensics.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't understand the conspiracy theory here. It just doesn't make sense.
It's in the RIAA's best interest to provide accurate time stamps because they gain nothing by having the wrong people's connection cut. If the real offender is still uploading then the RIAA has just wasted time and money and achieved nothing.
It's in the ISP's best interest to keep accurate time stamps so they can cut the right person's connection because each customer they turn off is $60 a month they stop making - that adds up
Re:It's fairer than suing people left and right. (Score:4, Insightful)
It's in the RIAA's best interest to provide accurate time stamps because they gain nothing by having the wrong people's connection cut. If the real offender is still uploading then the RIAA has just wasted time and money and achieved nothing.
Wrong. Utterly and completely wrong.
In the mind of the RIAA, EVERYBODY is guilty of "stealing" their product. Even if they didn't "catch" you downloading something, you're guilty of downloading something, even if it's not theirs. And if it's not theirs, it's even better, because it spreads fear that downloading *anything* will get you sued.
Make no mistake - the RIAA's litigation campaign isn't actually designed to catch people who are copying their music, it's designed to scare everybody into going back to buying overpriced shiny discs.
Parent
Re:It's fairer than suing people left and right. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not fairer. "3 strikes" implicitly assumes that you are guilty. It's typically used in sentencing proceedings in some criminal courts.
In applying it to filesharing, the laws conveniently (for the accuser) leave out the proof-of-guilt phase. It is really just "3 times accused and you're out". At least with a lawsuit the accused has a chance to put forth their side of the story to an impartial court of law. The new laws do not.
Parent
Re:It's fairer than suing people left and right. (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, that's a BS example, and wouldn't stand up in court. But it doesn't need to. All you need is three allegations, and you're done.
Parent
Re:It's fairer than suing people left and right. (Score:4, Insightful)
Who are you going to email your legal arguments to once your internet is shut off?
Parent
Re:It's fairer than suing people left and right. (Score:4, Insightful)
So anyone who doesnt agree with you and might think that infringing copyright is a bad thing MUST be 'astroturfing'. What a closed-minded view.
First, WOOSH!
To explain...the point is that the "astroturfer" is as guilty of actually astroturfing as the "file sharer" is of actually sharing copyrighted material in a manner that is not permitted. At this point, both are just accusations, but at least here on /. there is a way to allow the accused to prove the accusation is false.
Most of these "three strikes" copyright laws aren't even "guilty until proven innocent". They are "guilty if any large corporation that holds copyrights says you are".
Since there are no provisions in these laws for false accusations, the correct solution is to find the IP addresses of any of the people in power who passed these laws and accuse them of sharing your copyrighted content.
Parent
Stop it from spreading? (Score:5, Interesting)
Simple. Accuse prominent law-makers of copyright violations.
Three times.
Except for the french president, he only needs two more [techdirt.com].
There probably needs to be made a ruckus for each law-maker that needs to be disconnected, but after a few successful stories in the media, they'll either write exceptions for themselves into law (and that can easily be used against them next elections) or the law is dropped.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. In addition to the abuses this leaves ready for use, what good is it when people find another way to share files that can't be detected by the ISP?
The **AA et al need to get a new business model, a real one, and stop messing around and abusing the laws.
Re:Stop it from spreading? (Score:5, Interesting)
Don't forget big corporations. They are legally people, after all, so after three violations they too can be disconnected.
Parent
Prosecution without legal recourse (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Prosecution without legal recourse (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Prosecution without legal recourse (Score:4, Informative)
Well in the UK (and I'm fairly sure it became like this to harmonise with the rest of Europe), your water supplier can't cut you off for non-payment of bills, even with a court order (or, rather, they can't get an order allowing them to cut you off).
Parent
Re:Prosecution without legal recourse (Score:4, Interesting)
Essential services are extremely difficult to turn off because of the lethal consequences. Here in Manitoba, they started putting current limiting devices on homes whose power bill is unpaid. This has already resulted in people dying of hypothermia.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
you saw the photos too, huh?
want to stop it? (Score:2, Insightful)
If you want to stop it, just stop downloading.
Are you honestly telling me that you have downloaded music or movies e.t.c. and actually believe you deserve it because it's there?
If you really do, I think you need a slap.
TPB and stuff are great and it is funny... but how many people really think deep down that they are correct?
I agree that one download does not mean one lost sale e.t.c. and that half of the stuff these companies say is crap, but it does not mean I deserve to download anything I see.
Re:want to stop it? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
ke ke ke (Score:2)
So in other words, we are being Zerg-rushed with 3-strike laws?
Why does baseball get to set policy? (Score:2, Insightful)
Really, three strikes and you are out is straight from a game someone sat down and created out of thin air one day. Now people are basing laws on the concept? WTF?
No more, no less (Score:5, Funny)
For example:
-Book of Armaments, Chapter 9 (excerpt)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Indeed. It should be based on bowling: with 10 strikes you get two more.
Or use the rules of Brockian Ultra Cricket. The setting is already set up for apologizing at a distance.
How to stop it... (Score:2)
You might be able to fight this by Slipping provisions in privacy legislation to prevent record keeping beyond 3 months for this sort of thing. This catches the most egregious offenders, but works no "corruption of blood"
3 strikes (Score:5, Interesting)
3 strikes is more appropriate for a cultural struggle, which is what this is. Many of us firmly believe that intellectual property law is invalid, and that there is no duty to society to follow it. Both we and industries built on IP are trying to convince the public towards our perspective, and the "3 strikes" law gives some limited protection to people who have only heard our side and don't know the legal risks.
In the end, what we hope is that instead of simply "learning and accepting" the concept of intellectual property, people will just be more careful not to get caught, and that eventually we can remove copyright and patent protections entirely from our legal system. In the meantime, it's nice not to have people have their lives ruined in this cultural/legal struggle.
By analogy to other struggles over notions of human dignity and autonomy, if people who were part of the Underground Railroad had a 3-strikes rule, it would've afforded them some protection without requiring a complete victory .. yet.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Indeed, it gives the music industry enormous leverage. The next time they go to an ISP or University, and say: "Give us the names behind these IP addresses" and the ISP or University balks, they can just say: "In that case, we will just issue a strike against your entire address space, since from our point of view any of your customers/students may be infringing and you are not cooperating with us." Two more times, they are out of business. It's an atom bomb. Of course, they will just buckle and give them t
1 botnet, 1 angry geek (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
A surveillance society to keep copyrights in place (Score:5, Insightful)
A surveillance society to keep copyrights in place is not acceptable.
If there has to be a choice between surveillance on all civilian communications and ceasing the copyright regime, I choose ceasing copyrights.
Become anonymous (Score:4, Informative)
There are other programs and if you do not want others knowing what "traffic" you carry then you would be wise to use them.
Re: (Score:2)
nah, they get 3 strokes !
Re:What are you fighting for? (Score:5, Insightful)
What exactly is the problem? You break the law, you are punished. Hating on PITA DRM is one thing, but arguing against punishment when you are plainly violating copyright is just stupid.
I don't like your attitude. One sec while I fire off some copyright violations to your isp.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
mod this guy up - he makes a good point.
Re:What are you fighting for? (Score:5, Insightful)
A situation where you can be punished on the strength of a mere accusation, without any legal standards of evidence or proof, is an absolute travesty.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What are you fighting for? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:What are you fighting for? (Score:4, Insightful)
I hereby accuse you of terrorism. Would you like to face the punishment now, or do you think that due process is important now?
He can't hear you. He unmisteriously disappeared.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Your argument contradicts reality.
Let me explain...
Don't break the law and you aren't in trouble.
This is exceptionally unlikely for nearly everyone to do.
First off, if you are not a lawyer by profession, you already lost at that game. All of us reading this have broken probably around a hundred laws just today in our normal daily lives. You included.
Most of those laws aren't even known, occasionally even by the police! They are still public record and 'on the books', thus are law.
Did you know in the stat
Re:What are you fighting for? (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Three reasons why this is bad (Score:5, Insightful)
Three, copyright law has gone way off the rails to the point where it is significantly impairing free speech, innovation, and creativity. Century-long copyright terms, takedown notices to block speech one disagrees with, DRM that seizes control of communications technology, and a tremendous concentration of cultural ownership in the hands of a few companies are bad enough. Strengthening the enforcement of illegitimate and unjust laws only increases the injustice.
I concur. The copyright law is a bright example of laws not serving the people but lobbyists. And, it's going to get worse and worse and worse, until *we, the people* wake up and make a shift in governance which puts the legislative, judicial and executive branches of the government in their place, serving the people.
Serving you and me, listening to our needs, proactively finding ways to support us and make our lives easier, cheaper, healthier and happier.
Currently, *money* is the most important thing to the government. And, government has found ways to collect its money from us, without accountability from our side. We have no control about giving our money or where our money goes. Lobbyists do have that control and they use it to steer the government.
When a shift happens that makes *us, the people, and our well-being* the most important thing for our government, then we will see policies that serve our interests.
This shift will not happen in the government before it happens for most individuals.
What we are seeing is the government acting as a greedy, insecure, vengeful child-king. Our last president was a wonderful illustration of that.
Our own insecurity, greed and separation manifest on a large scale.
Our laws naturally become more and more oppressive until we can't take it anymore and then get eased just enough to avoid violent response. After a while this is the new norm and a more oppressive version gets pushed again, and again and again. We are cornered and the walls are closing in, all the time.
This is how you boil a frog, this is how you enslave people under the illusion of freedom.
And, of course, there's always the power... http://www.george-orwell.org/1984/19.html [george-orwell.org]
Parent
Re:Three Strikes = BS (Score:5, Interesting)
Such legislation would cause more economic loss than the actual infringement (businesses included).
Which is why the ISPs will challenge the law in court when and if the MAFIAA attempts to bring suit for failure to "cut off" a customer(s). If you were a business and some third party, who is not a paying customer, came to your place of business waving some piece of paper in your face and told you to "cut off" certain customers and never serve them again (resulting in a loss for your business) would you just do it? Certainly not, and neither will the ISPs. The negative PR from their customer base and the prospect of losing tens of thousands of dollars a month in subscription fees will put ISPs in a fighting mood, lawsuits be damned. A lawsuit might take years to work its way through the courts and in the meantime the ISP is losing tens of thousands of dollars per month in subscriber fees from customers that it has been forced to "cut off". The MAFIAA will be put in its place when it starts costing the large ISPs such as AT&T, Verizon, and Sprint/Nextel real money. It will be like when SCO foolishly attempted to sue IBM and Novell, the MAFIAA will be swiftly crushed by the much larger telecom industry and their lobbyists/attorneys.
Parent