ISP bans for illegal downloads
AlanC
wrote on 2/12/2008, 1:38 AM
Comments
farss
wrote on 2/12/2008, 2:12 AM
That's not the half of it.
Now the RIAA and their stooges overseas are effectively trying to shut down anything that could possibly be used for file sharing. It's all kind of funny in a pathetic way. The RIAA are too stupid to workout that it's dead easy to cloak anything so that the ISP could never detect what's in the traffic passing their portals. Maybe we should be grateful for their stupidity, if and when they work that out they'll be holding the world to ransom demanding the internet be dismantled.
It's surprising they don't want Vegas banned, according to them the very act of copying a CD onto a hard drive is illegal.
Bob.
Now the RIAA and their stooges overseas are effectively trying to shut down anything that could possibly be used for file sharing. It's all kind of funny in a pathetic way. The RIAA are too stupid to workout that it's dead easy to cloak anything so that the ISP could never detect what's in the traffic passing their portals. Maybe we should be grateful for their stupidity, if and when they work that out they'll be holding the world to ransom demanding the internet be dismantled.
It's surprising they don't want Vegas banned, according to them the very act of copying a CD onto a hard drive is illegal.
Bob.
DJPadre
wrote on 2/12/2008, 4:12 AM
ok, once this happens, and sadly it looks like it will in one form or another....
Does that then mean that a pedestrain, who was hit with a ford, can sue the dealership for selling the car to a dud driver who may not have been licensed?
Or can i sue a farmer who supplied meat to mcdonalds simply because i got food poisoning from their Big Mac?
These examples are no different to what is happening.
I just wish theyd leave users alone.
Dont they reaalise that the more they fight against them, the harder the pirates will fight back? Dont they realise that its futile>
They tried it with Games and consoles, they tried it with music, and theyre trying it now with movies.
Dont they realise that all theyr edoing is trying to justify their existance and gettin no results from it?
If someone wants something, they will find a way to get it, be it throgh download or disc trade.
We dealt with this many years ago when PS1's first got chipped and sales of the consolles rocketed BUT sales of the software dived.
It all comes down to cost and availability.
Offer a good product at a reasonable price, and people will pay for it. Sony worked that out with their platinum series games, but I would not be surprised if piracy increases simply because of format limitations/contracts (ie HD DVD exlcusive titles being reformated for other playback devices)
As it stands, there are many ways this can be done and if the pirates can reverse engineer a format and provide goods due to demand, then people will always go toward what teh pirate offers, not becuase its cheap or free, but because they can watch the movie of their choice in the format they choose.
Now moving onto price, I do not unerstnd how a BlueRay movie rereleasd 6yrs after an original DVD can be justfied asst some o the prices were seeing today.
DVD's can be found for 8bux off te shelf and im happy to pay that, but that same movie on BD, is going for $45
THis is one thing i honestly do not understand.
If they want their format to be a "standard" then they should have regulated standard prices reflecting original costs.
Another thing, if your watching a BD movie and choose to watch it in SD here in aus, your only given the option of 480p.
Now here in Pal land, we use 576p
This difference is resolution is made even more obvious with higher end 1080p capable panels.
The point is that if somethign is not done to accomodate each indiividual region and their respective resolutions and fram rates, then there wil be someone in the deep dark world of the net who will.
Theyre only shooting themselves in the foot if theyre focus is quashing piracy.
Maybe they should worry about providing good quality content at a decent price, at least that way people will not be inclined to break the law
Does that then mean that a pedestrain, who was hit with a ford, can sue the dealership for selling the car to a dud driver who may not have been licensed?
Or can i sue a farmer who supplied meat to mcdonalds simply because i got food poisoning from their Big Mac?
These examples are no different to what is happening.
I just wish theyd leave users alone.
Dont they reaalise that the more they fight against them, the harder the pirates will fight back? Dont they realise that its futile>
They tried it with Games and consoles, they tried it with music, and theyre trying it now with movies.
Dont they realise that all theyr edoing is trying to justify their existance and gettin no results from it?
If someone wants something, they will find a way to get it, be it throgh download or disc trade.
We dealt with this many years ago when PS1's first got chipped and sales of the consolles rocketed BUT sales of the software dived.
It all comes down to cost and availability.
Offer a good product at a reasonable price, and people will pay for it. Sony worked that out with their platinum series games, but I would not be surprised if piracy increases simply because of format limitations/contracts (ie HD DVD exlcusive titles being reformated for other playback devices)
As it stands, there are many ways this can be done and if the pirates can reverse engineer a format and provide goods due to demand, then people will always go toward what teh pirate offers, not becuase its cheap or free, but because they can watch the movie of their choice in the format they choose.
Now moving onto price, I do not unerstnd how a BlueRay movie rereleasd 6yrs after an original DVD can be justfied asst some o the prices were seeing today.
DVD's can be found for 8bux off te shelf and im happy to pay that, but that same movie on BD, is going for $45
THis is one thing i honestly do not understand.
If they want their format to be a "standard" then they should have regulated standard prices reflecting original costs.
Another thing, if your watching a BD movie and choose to watch it in SD here in aus, your only given the option of 480p.
Now here in Pal land, we use 576p
This difference is resolution is made even more obvious with higher end 1080p capable panels.
The point is that if somethign is not done to accomodate each indiividual region and their respective resolutions and fram rates, then there wil be someone in the deep dark world of the net who will.
Theyre only shooting themselves in the foot if theyre focus is quashing piracy.
Maybe they should worry about providing good quality content at a decent price, at least that way people will not be inclined to break the law
TheHappyFriar
wrote on 2/12/2008, 4:37 AM
so how does one consider something "illegal"?
Is this something that the govt says "only stuff people steal from media companies will get you banned because they've got more clout" or if someone steals my CC info they can get banned from all 'net access too? Doubtful. :/
sounds more like the govt playing fav's with media companies vs real $$ losses on the 'net. Good fluff legislation.
Is this something that the govt says "only stuff people steal from media companies will get you banned because they've got more clout" or if someone steals my CC info they can get banned from all 'net access too? Doubtful. :/
sounds more like the govt playing fav's with media companies vs real $$ losses on the 'net. Good fluff legislation.
DJPadre
wrote on 2/12/2008, 4:50 AM
Thats nothing.. wait till i expain how our new format shifting and "song sharing" laws work..
Lets say I have an ipod and im listening to a song i purchased in one ear and my brother is listening in the other ear. This is ok..
If however i walk away to go take a piss, hes not allowed to listen to it.
If my brother takes my ipod for at rain trip to work, he is breaking the law. The music is "mine" not his.
If i have a fight with my brother and i decide to lock myself in my room and crank my hardcore gabba doof doof mucis, this is ok, BUT if i dont want him to listen to it, then he is breaking the law... even though he has no choice in the matter considering the ambient noise levels of my listening.
Moving on..
I have abig kick ass sound system in my car... Im driving down brighton le sands like a typical hoon and crank my tunes so everyone can hear it... I WANT them to hear it.
This is not illegal.
If however I dont wnat them to hear my obscure choices in music, but the ambience is audible, then THEY are breaking the law
format shifting...
I really CBF going into this, but you can see how stupid these laws are. foramt shift laws are just as stupid.
legislation written by "yes men" who more than likely take afew payouts here and there with sympathisers promising the world for their votes
Lets say I have an ipod and im listening to a song i purchased in one ear and my brother is listening in the other ear. This is ok..
If however i walk away to go take a piss, hes not allowed to listen to it.
If my brother takes my ipod for at rain trip to work, he is breaking the law. The music is "mine" not his.
If i have a fight with my brother and i decide to lock myself in my room and crank my hardcore gabba doof doof mucis, this is ok, BUT if i dont want him to listen to it, then he is breaking the law... even though he has no choice in the matter considering the ambient noise levels of my listening.
Moving on..
I have abig kick ass sound system in my car... Im driving down brighton le sands like a typical hoon and crank my tunes so everyone can hear it... I WANT them to hear it.
This is not illegal.
If however I dont wnat them to hear my obscure choices in music, but the ambience is audible, then THEY are breaking the law
format shifting...
I really CBF going into this, but you can see how stupid these laws are. foramt shift laws are just as stupid.
legislation written by "yes men" who more than likely take afew payouts here and there with sympathisers promising the world for their votes
Coursedesign
wrote on 2/12/2008, 8:24 AM
Does that then mean that a pedestrain, who was hit with a ford, can sue the dealership for selling the car to a dud driver who may not have been licensed?
That is called "vicarious liability" and exists in some jurisdictions.
The same Ford that costs $50/day at Hertz in New Jersey, costs $100/day at the nearest Hertz in New York City because of this kind of vicarious liability law.
Hertz once rented a car to a clean-shaven guy with a clean traffic record, and he got drunk and hit a pedestrian. The local court said Hertz shouldn't have rented a car to somebody who was going to get drunk, and they were hit with a huge payout, which they have been forced to recover at a rate of $50 per day per renter in NYC.
In California, we had a remotely similar case a long time ago. A guy was driving totally sloshed at very high speed and clobbered a peddie in a phone booth. Who got to pay a huge amount of money?
Why, the phone company of course. They had put the phone booth only 10 feet (3m) from the highway, so it was considered that they had contributed 0.1% liability, because in an ideal world they should have put it 20 feet or 30 feet from the highway (not that there was any reasonable way to put it that far away). But the 99.9% liable driver was broke, and the phone company obviously had lots of money, so they got to pay the $50M or whatever it was. This judgment went all the way to the California Supreme Court, where it was confirmed by Chief Justice Rose Bird (Byrd?).
The people's revenge was swift in the form of a recall of that Justice who became a symbol of everything that was wrong with the "deep pockets" doctrine (which really meant "it's other people's money, so why should anyone care?").
That is called "vicarious liability" and exists in some jurisdictions.
The same Ford that costs $50/day at Hertz in New Jersey, costs $100/day at the nearest Hertz in New York City because of this kind of vicarious liability law.
Hertz once rented a car to a clean-shaven guy with a clean traffic record, and he got drunk and hit a pedestrian. The local court said Hertz shouldn't have rented a car to somebody who was going to get drunk, and they were hit with a huge payout, which they have been forced to recover at a rate of $50 per day per renter in NYC.
In California, we had a remotely similar case a long time ago. A guy was driving totally sloshed at very high speed and clobbered a peddie in a phone booth. Who got to pay a huge amount of money?
Why, the phone company of course. They had put the phone booth only 10 feet (3m) from the highway, so it was considered that they had contributed 0.1% liability, because in an ideal world they should have put it 20 feet or 30 feet from the highway (not that there was any reasonable way to put it that far away). But the 99.9% liable driver was broke, and the phone company obviously had lots of money, so they got to pay the $50M or whatever it was. This judgment went all the way to the California Supreme Court, where it was confirmed by Chief Justice Rose Bird (Byrd?).
The people's revenge was swift in the form of a recall of that Justice who became a symbol of everything that was wrong with the "deep pockets" doctrine (which really meant "it's other people's money, so why should anyone care?").
Spot|DSE
wrote on 2/12/2008, 8:31 AM
Wow Bjorn, I had no idea this was part of the rental story (sorry for taking this further OT). The difference in rates (I thought) was entirely based on market demand and costs of doing business (ie; a rental car garage in Manhattan has got to be killer costly vs a parking lot at LAX).
baysidebas
wrote on 2/12/2008, 8:42 AM
Why, a few years ago the leasing of a car in NYC was almost done away with by such a vicarious liability law that would make the company leasing you the car responsible for damages you committed with it.
BradlyMusic
wrote on 2/12/2008, 10:30 AM
One day the people who make these dumb laws might realize that laws like this only open the doors for pirates to make money.
Think about it. When Napster was the talk of the town, they shut down the Napter servers. So the Pirates made software that didn't require a centrally located server. Then they went after the companies who made the software and targeted those companies that had legislation in their particular country of operation. The solution.....shareware flurished or the company relocated to a country that didn't have the legislation of copyright laws.
So now they're going to target the ISP providers to ultimately slap the hands of their customers who they make their money from. Solution: A new ISP company opens which finds another loop hole to operate around the law. They flourish, because they don't have to operate with the same guidelines and limits as all the other ISPs.
So thank the legislators for making a pirate operated ISP organization wealthy in the future.
Think about it. When Napster was the talk of the town, they shut down the Napter servers. So the Pirates made software that didn't require a centrally located server. Then they went after the companies who made the software and targeted those companies that had legislation in their particular country of operation. The solution.....shareware flurished or the company relocated to a country that didn't have the legislation of copyright laws.
So now they're going to target the ISP providers to ultimately slap the hands of their customers who they make their money from. Solution: A new ISP company opens which finds another loop hole to operate around the law. They flourish, because they don't have to operate with the same guidelines and limits as all the other ISPs.
So thank the legislators for making a pirate operated ISP organization wealthy in the future.