When you can't do it yourself...

get someone else to do it ...

Now this is not exactly new...it's been in the works for a few years now and it was rediculous then and it's rediculous now. The point that comes up again and again is that these recording and entertainment industry companies are not law enforcement. To somehow try to get ISP's to be "internet police" is insane. Who is going to decide what sites are "illegal' under such agreements? Worse is this idea to cut off bandwith people PAY for if it looks "suspecious" due to excessive use. PC gamers alone use massive amounts of bandwith downloading mods that now on average number 500 megs or more.Getting ISP's to give up personal info is also ont he table which seems a bit well...evil...with not judicial process for that they could pretty much get anyones personal info for whatever reason.

Who needs to fear big brother when you have these vile "associations" coming up with freedom killing ideas like this. It may sound all a bit tech heavy and only worrying to computer freaks but given how easily such a system could be abused ( a vast database of private info is at stake after all) it's simply not a door to be swung open without a fight. If an entertainment company can get away with breaking laws the FBI and CIA cannot without a senate oversight committe wanting to nail em to a cross...can you imagine what would follow?

The above article is a small lil peice of a bigger battle that's been raging since the internet started to take off in terms of it's "piracy" possibilities but it's becoming more and more secretive as the years pass. It's as though they want to sneak another DMCA under us all...

corporate greed hard at work but i doubt it would happen in America and if it does people will just start new ISPs

I'd rather they keep the contentious sites up (those promoting certain vile acts). This way, the light of day can be shone on those who partake in such activities.

OEC

I think shutting down a site that has been proven to be trading in 'liberated' intelectual property is totally justifiable and that is pretty much covered by the DMCA. However, I would agree that a connection or bandwidth provider should not act as some sort of monitor. A site must exist on some sort of host, and I do think the host is somewhat responsible if it is brought to their attention that they are hosting illegal content, but a connection provider should not be responsible for how their customer uses their connection. That would be like filing suit against Exxon for the fuel they allowed bank robbers to put in their getaway car.

And yeah, p2p messes everything up and makes it more nesesary for the bandwidth providers to have to monitor activity. That is the freedom we will lose because people want to abuse the system.

To be more clear, I want to express that the term ISP is used to cover a number of different Internet Services being Provided. A site host should be responsible for reacting promptly to the illegal activity on their servers as soon as it is brought to their attention. A connection provider should not be responsible for monitoring the use of their connections accept in rare cases. These rare cases should be treated similar to wiretap laws and would need judicial approval and significant justification.

everyone wants to abuse the system, that's where innovation comes from.

that's the way I always saw it, if somone cheats at the game, it's only because they were smart enough to figure out how to do it, and you weren't smart enough to create a system that couldn't be cheated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Morning Glory

everyone wants to abuse the system, that's where innovation comes from.

---

The telephone was not invented to save money on stamps. It doesn't abuse the postal system, it just provides a more advanced form of communication. The crowbar was not invented to justify breaking into stores. Innovation does not have to violate the rights of owners or creators. There is an ethical difference between figuring out how to do things a better way and figuring out how to steal things a better way.

you say that because your primary mode of communication probbily isn't the postal system, so you can seperate it as a tool for shipping, but you couldn't say the same thing in 1860. I think ethics themselves have to be a flexible thing that Should be questioned on it's relevence to the times, just like anything else. I'm not neccesarily saying that is the case with copy right infringement, but i'm definatly saying just because some people can't cope with changing social norms and technology growth, it doesn't justify keeping everyone in the dark ages.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Morning Glory

you say that because your primary mode of communication probbily isn't the postal system, so you can seperate it as a tool for shipping, but you couldn't say the same thing in 1860. I think ethics themselves have to be a flexible thing that Should be questioned on it's relevence to the times, just like anything else. I'm not neccesarily saying that is the case with copy right infringement, but i'm definatly saying just because some people can't cope with changing social norms and technology growth, it doesn't justify keeping everyone in the dark ages.

---

I'm not sure I follow your 1860 analogy. Can you explain that to me a bit more clearly?

I'm just saying that you can't give people a free pass to infringe on other's rights in the name of some sort of 'innovation'. If the vast majority of people use a tool for wrong, I think it becomes necessary to at least keep an eye on them when they are using it. The last thing I want is more supervision, but when people use campus networks to illegally redistribute thousands of movies and millions of songs, it shouldn't come as a shock when the authorities start to put things in place to hold them accountable.

If someone comes up with a way to benefit research through their innovations in say distributed processing power, allowing volunteers to attach their computers to a network that crunches numbers during local processing downtime for example, that is indeed rightious innovation in networking. The innovation required to create a network to get away with the theft of intelectual property is not justification enough to allow people to ignore the law. And, the more they do it, the more the law will have to get up close and personal in it's investigation and enforcement, which I'm fairly certain is objectionable.

Greedy file sharing thieves are bringing this problem on us all and I think it's shockingly irresponsible.

well I meant in 1860 when the phone was invented the primary way that people communicated was through mail, and the phone companies probibly hurt that.

as for your last comment, I completely agree. I think that many technologies are used irresponsibley, and so groups like this want to put a stop to that, but I think they are going about it in a way that hurts progress and legitmate technological advances which have always been brought forth by bright new aspiring people, not big companies and watch dog groups that want to hold onto thier old ways.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Morning Glory

well I meant in 1860 when the phone was invented the primary way that people communicated was through mail, and the phone companies probably hurt that.

---

Business competition through the advancement of technology is different though. Legitimate song downloading sites potentially hurt record stores in the mall. That is fair competition. Nobody is stealing. The phone was a great form of communication and the mail is another great form of communication. Sure, the marketplace changes, but I don't think people's rights were being violated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Morning Glory

as for your last comment, I completely agree. I think that many technologies are used irresponsibley, and so groups like this want to put a stop to that, but I think they are going about it in a way that hurts progress and legitimate technological advances which have always been brought forth by bright new aspiring people, not big companies and watch dog groups that want to hold onto their old ways.

---

Sometimes the law comes in with a heavy hand, particularly if they feel there is some sort of emergency that they must respond to. I think that the smug college students that broke the law and violated the artists rights on an unparalleled level are doing so at the peril of every day people. They are making all our lives more difficult through their greed.

I'm all for finding new ways to do things, but I know it can be difficult when some people have already spoiled things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ForrestBlack

I think shutting down a site that has been proven to be trading in 'liberated' intelectual property is totally justifiable and that is pretty much covered by the DMCA. However, I would agree that a connection or bandwidth provider should not act as some sort of monitor. A site must exist on some sort of host, and I do think the host is somewhat responsible if it is brought to their attention that they are hosting illegal content, but a connection provider should not be responsible for how their customer uses their connection. That would be like filing suit against Exxon for the fuel they allowed bank robbers to put in their getaway car.

And yeah, p2p messes everything up and makes it more nesesary for the bandwidth providers to have to monitor activity. That is the freedom we will lose because people want to abuse the system.

---

I want to "abuse your system".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ellis

I want to "abuse your system".

---

It is not Forrest's system in any way, shape, or form.

Personally I pity the poor guy who gets busted by his wife for looking at naughty videos online and having his ISP clamp down. And, you know that is going to happen if this invasion of all of our privacy gets implemented.