Internet Freedom/Privacy Under Attack

[Malpercio]

So, they'll control nothing?
okay.

Read again. They'll control internet users, which is essentially the same as controlling the internet.

Would you keep using the internet if you couldn't do what you wanted to do? If youtube was shut down, how many people would leave then? 4chan? reddit?

[Zhs2]

Big surprise, ISPs are siding WITH the government.

Aside from the fact that you linked an article about Canadian government, of COURSE ISPs want to buddy-buddy with the government. It makes it easier for them to use the money to lobby the congressmen into writing the laws, because the ISPs don't write the laws. If they did, you'd see them disagreeing with the government all the time. Honestly, some people.

Read again. They'll control internet users, which is essentially the same as controlling the internet.

How many people do you know are "controlled" by companies to "buy merchandise"? It's the same argument with piracy here: good luck controlling people. Where there is a will, there is a way. And you said that Maddox was preaching futility!

[MATHGODpi]

Would you keep using the internet if you couldn't do what you wanted to do? If youtube was shut down, how many people would leave then? 4chan? reddit?

That's relevant exactly how? The issue here is that... crying wolf about file sharing, and using that as an excuse to pass restrictive laws, force ISPs to spy on internet users at all times, and bring lawsuits and criminal charges upon those who share files... is an abominable thing to do, and would be/is a catastrophic blow to the internet as we know it. Whether or not there is still a watered-down, surveilled version of internet to be used after all is said and done... doesn't bring me any comfort or consolation. Would people still use the internet? Probably. But it would feel disgusting knowing that absolutely everything that anyone does is being tracked by the government... so they can find any little excuse to utilize their bs laws. To me, this all goes back to the for-profit prison industry. More inmates = more profits. For all we know, the RIAA/MPAA may be working together with the CCA and other corporations to try and increase prison populations.

[spoiler=for-profit prisons]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uesJNzjT418[/spoiler]

Aside from the fact that you linked an article about Canadian government, of COURSE ISPs want to buddy-buddy with the government. It makes it easier for them to use the money to lobby the congressmen into writing the laws, because the ISPs don't write the laws. If they did, you'd see them disagreeing with the government all the time. Honestly, some people.

Then I'm not getting what you said earlier about ISPs not being controlled by the government? What am I missing here?

How many people do you know are "controlled" by companies to "buy merchandise"? It's the same argument with piracy here: good luck controlling people. Where there is a will, there is a way. And you said that Maddox was preaching futility!

Oh yeah, where there's a will there's a way... like the distribution of pot... people find ways of buying/selling pot despite the laws... but along the way, hundreds of thousands of people get thrown in jail for their involvement in the drug trade. The same thing will play out for those involved in copyright infringement if the RIAA/MPAA have their way.

A person exercising their first amendment rights is not nearly as dangerous as breaking the law (even if the law is bogus)... and hence, is much more practical due to its legality... vs... the risk of getting caught doing something the govt forbids you from doing.

Oh and one other thing... here in Canada, the government is using tax money to purchase/integrate the spying technologies. Likely it's the same thing going on in the US.

[Zhs2]

ISPs are not controlled by the government. To say that ISPs control the government would be an understatement, because ANY organization with money to throw at politicians effectively controls (a portion of) the government through lobbying and money. This is what is called capitalism, my friend.

Oh yeah, where there's a will there's a way... like the distribution of pot... people find ways of buying/selling pot despite the laws... but along the way, hundreds of thousands of people get thrown in jail for their involvement in the drug trade. The same thing will play out for those involved in copyright infringement if the RIAA/MPAA have their way.

It's pretty much happened already, all the lawsuits over people pirating music and all that. This hasn't dissuaded people very much from piracy.

[passarbye]

at any rate, i think our "government" is fucking stupid.  :stern:
i don't need a bigger brother to tell me how to live my life and what's good for me.
if i want to do drugs, then let me ruin my life doing so.
it's my choice, regardless of what anyone thinks is best for me.

isn't that what's called "free-will"? or do we even have that anymore?

i can understand having laws that prohibit selling drugs and committing REAL crimes like robbing a bank, but really it's grown quite ridiculous.
so what if i copy your idea and make my own twisted little version of it? (dolan comics is an example) it's not like i'm stealing it and saying it's mine.
as long as i don't sell it or gain any profit from it, why would you care?

money hungry bastards...  :shocking:
/rant

[ProjectXVIII]

Because if you overdose on drugs, they are no longer getting taxes from you, which is less money for them. Same reason suicide is illegal.

[passarbye]

Because if you overdose on drugs, they are no longer getting taxes from you, which is less money for them. Same reason suicide is illegal.

>implying i pay taxes
:lol:

[Zhs2]

Yet! (Typically, I believe that your parents pay taxes for you until you become a dependent.)

[MATHGODpi]

ISPs are not controlled by the government. To say that ISPs control the government would be an understatement, because ANY organization with money to throw at politicians effectively controls (a portion of) the government through lobbying and money. This is what is called capitalism, my friend.

So you're saying it's the ISPs themselves pushing for all the new spying legislation?? Why would they?

My suspicion is that the government is actually pushing for it, and are forcing ISPs to do it. Obama said it in his state of the union speech... that he will take steps to combat "cyber threats"... aka continue to push the bogus war on copyright infringement, just like they push the bogus war on drugs.

It's pretty much happened already, all the lawsuits over people pirating music and all that. This hasn't dissuaded people very much from piracy.

Well exactly, and it's an absolute travesty. Whether or not file sharing will go on is one thing... whether or not a person can share files safely, is another...

[Crashtour99]

ISPs are not controlled by the government. To say that ISPs control the government would be an understatement, because ANY organization with money to throw at politicians effectively controls (a portion of) the government through lobbying and money. This is what is called capitalism, my friend.

So you're saying it's the ISPs themselves pushing for all the new spying legislation?? Why would they?

Basically the way it works (in the US at least) is that lobbies (comprised of lawyers and politicians, funded by corporations) write the legislation and then look for backers in government (usually by buying or bribing those in congress).  Most likely the copywrite infringement and spying legislation is a collaboration between the entertainment industry (MPAA, RIAA, etc.) and security companies (because the government contracts a lot of that stuff out to the private sector, just like it does with weapons manufacturing).

ISPs, being part of the service sector of the economy, have nothing to gain from imposing unreasonable legal restrictions on you that aren't covered in your contract.  While they are gaining some power in Washington they don't have the political pull of the entertainment industry.

Basically the very idea of "intellectual property" is a farce, and the more technology advances it is revealed as such.  It's really not that different from when VHS and cassette tape technology made recording video and music easier (and they fought that tooth and nail as well back in the 80's).  Same song and dance really, and even a lot of the same people scared of loosing their monopoly and income.  And they're willing to impose ever more draconian measures to keep you from getting "their stuff" without what they consider fair compensation.

[FullOfFail]

Crash is right, on all accounts. It is the same song and dance. The entertainment companies never know how to handle issues on the net that doesn't consist of brute force. Even in the Napster days, instead of creating what we now know as iTunes, they just started suing people left and right. The film industry is much the same. Netflix & iTunes proves you can still make profit, even with free alternatives. People are willing to pay for stuff they enjoy. You just have to give them a reasonable option, at a reasonable price. Piracy/Boot-legging will always exist, on or off the net.

[snarfblam]

ANY organization with money to throw at politicians effectively controls (a portion of) the government through lobbying and money. This is what is called capitalism, my friend.

Apparently, this is what people think capitalism means. I guess this is why people hate capitalism. People with power can and will influence government. Even if we tried to create magic socialist hippie land, it would still happen one way or another.

More on topic, just as illegal music downloading thrives when there is no practical legal alternative (think Napster), if absurd laws are passed that choke internet freedom, I would imagine that illegal underground internet activity would inflate (think tor).

[Zhs2]

Well, I suppose I am trying to sound a bit pessimistic about the whole deal just to screw with the kid who became a rebel leader after reading a few articles on the internet... :>_>:

[Crashtour99]

Well, I suppose I am trying to sound a bit pessimistic about the whole deal just to screw with the kid who became a rebel leader after reading a few articles on the internet... :>_>:

Well, it definitely takes more than reading a few propaganda scare articles to build a decent picture of the current political landscape.  There's over 100 years of corruption and politics that got us to the point we're at now.   :heheh:

[MATHGODpi]

Here's some good reading for anyone interested.

[spoiler=links]http://onecandleinthedark.blogspot.ca/2011/05/limewire.html

http://onecandleinthedark.blogspot.ca/2011/05/cnet-fueled-piracy-phenomenon-before.html

http://onecandleinthedark.blogspot.ca/2011/05/damning-evidence.html[/spoiler]

[spoiler=Video taken just before LimeWire was shut down]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j08pAguK4ZY[/spoiler]

[spoiler=another good video on cispa]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j6BKU9mCnn0[/spoiler]

[Malpercio]

oh my god limewire hosted things on some site run by some corporation who the fuck cares.
This guy sounds rather uninformed re: peer-to-peer. (But then again, how many people with legislative power aren't?)
He highlights the fact that copyrighted songs are visible in a list, but the directories listed indicate that they're songs that were possibly already there
Also, it doesn't matter how many downloads of the software there are; downloads of a peer-to-peer client are not in and of themselves acts of copyright infringement or piracy or any illegal action. It doesn't become piracy until someone uses their Limewire client to download a copyrighted song they have not purchased from someone else.
Furthermore, Peer-to-peer transfers don't have a central server distributing files to everyone else; you're downloading from other people. Attack a particular client for enabling people to share files is retarded; the popularity of Limewire would've made it simply too hard a task to stop any piracy from occurring at all using their service, but this doesn't make they themselves guilty of the act.

tl;dr Your video is bad and you should feel bad, now please, stfu.

[MATHGODpi]

oh my god limewire hosted things on some site run by some corporation who the fuck cares.
This guy sounds rather uninformed re: peer-to-peer. (But then again, how many people with legislative power aren't?)
He highlights the fact that copyrighted songs are visible in a list, but the directories listed indicate that they're songs that were possibly already there
Also, it doesn't matter how many downloads of the software there are; downloads of a peer-to-peer client are not in and of themselves acts of copyright infringement or piracy or any illegal action. It doesn't become piracy until someone uses their Limewire client to download a copyrighted song they have not purchased from someone else.
Furthermore, Peer-to-peer transfers don't have a central server distributing files to everyone else; you're downloading from other people. Attack a particular client for enabling people to share files is retarded; the popularity of Limewire would've made it simply too hard a task to stop any piracy from occurring at all using their service, but this doesn't make they themselves guilty of the act.

tl;dr Your video is bad and you should feel bad, now please, stfu.

^ Typical RIAA drivel... completely missing the point.

I'm not here to discuss what the law IS, so much as I'm here to discuss what the law SHOULD BE... and the fact that everything is headed in the wrong direction.

But if you do believe that copying is a crime, then shouldn't ASSISTING others to commit that crime... also be considered a crime? Especially when it involved writing articles which showed people how appealing it is to participate in committing the crime? In other words being an accessory to the crime?

It's not so much about whether copyright laws do not technically outlaw the distribution of file sharing software... it's about discerning right from wrong and calling out bs when a person sees it. If the people who used file sharing software should be sued... then so should the companies which distributed the software.

[ProjectXVIII]

But if you do believe that copying is a crime, then shouldn't ASSISTING others to commit that crime... also be considered a crime? Especially when it involved writing articles which showed people how appealing it is to participate in committing the crime? In other words being an accessory to the crime?

Passively assisting somebody in a crime is such a stupid concept anyway, though. If somebody is speeding in a car, and you move out of the way so as to not be hit in the ass, are you assisting them in the crime of speeding?

[Katelyn]

But if you do believe that copying is a crime, then shouldn't ASSISTING others to commit that crime... also be considered a crime? Especially when it involved writing articles which showed people how appealing it is to participate in committing the crime? In other words being an accessory to the crime?

Passively assisting somebody in a crime is such a stupid concept anyway, though. If somebody is speeding in a car, and you move out of the way so as to not be hit in the ass, are you assisting them in the crime of speeding?

Yes, the police will be paying you a visit in a few minutes.

[Digital_Mantra]

The IT Crowd - Series 2 - Episode 3: Piracy warning

[Qactis]

Yet! (Typically, I believe that your parents pay taxes for you until you become a dependent.)

Until you become an independent. I still don't pay taxes, they pay me. Your income is what decides who pays who

[Malpercio]

But if you do believe that copying is a crime, then shouldn't ASSISTING others to commit that crime... also be considered a crime? Especially when it involved writing articles which showed people how appealing it is to participate in committing the crime? In other words being an accessory to the crime?

It's not so much about whether copyright laws do not technically outlaw the distribution of file sharing software... it's about discerning right from wrong and calling out bs when a person sees it. If the people who used file sharing software should be sued... then so should the companies which distributed the software.

aaahahahaha you think I think piracy is a legitimate crime.

Anyway, numerous TV shows depict the characters performing actions that are illegal for one reason or another, but do we sue them if someone watches the show, and then go does that thing? If I write an article about how to commit piracy, that's not illegal, that's freedom of speech. If someone uses my article as a guide and goes and pirates something, they've committed piracy, but I still haven't done anything except publish the guide he used.

Alright. Let's say I make a simple little file sharing application that lets two people connect to eachother and trade files, and I mean it as an easy way to share photos and things with family and friends, or to transfer files from one of your computers to another. Some random "leet" hacker cracks my program and uses it to steal files from anyone anywhere, to disseminate viruses to other computers. Am I guilty of hacking into other people's computers? No, I just made the software that was used. The creators of a program should not be considered at fault for illegal activity committed using their program, UNLESS they're blatantly ignoring claims about, or actively encouraging, that usage

[MATHGODpi]

aaahahahaha you think I think piracy is a legitimate crime.

Anyway, numerous TV shows depict the characters performing actions that are illegal for one reason or another, but do we sue them if someone watches the show, and then go does that thing? If I write an article about how to commit piracy, that's not illegal, that's freedom of speech. If someone uses my article as a guide and goes and pirates something, they've committed piracy, but I still haven't done anything except publish the guide he used.

Alright. Let's say I make a simple little file sharing application that lets two people connect to eachother and trade files, and I mean it as an easy way to share photos and things with family and friends, or to transfer files from one of your computers to another. Some random "leet" hacker cracks my program and uses it to steal files from anyone anywhere, to disseminate viruses to other computers. Am I guilty of hacking into other people's computers? No, I just made the software that was used. The creators of a program should not be considered at fault for illegal activity committed using their program, UNLESS they're blatantly ignoring claims about, or actively encouraging, that usage

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_United_States

There are exceptions to these general protections, including the Miller test for obscenity, child pornography laws, speech that incites imminent lawless action, and regulation of commercial speech such as advertising.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MGM_Studios,_Inc._v._Grokster,_Ltd.

"We hold that one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties."

No alteration or "cracking" was needed for their programs to be used for sharing copyrighted material. And they made mountains of cash distributing the software... it wasn't benign, and they knew what they were doing.

[spoiler=If you have a spare 15 minutes]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJIuYgIvKsc[/spoiler]

Bottom line, I don't believe anyone should be punished for file sharing, until first CNET and all their cobranded partners are hit with major lawsuits.

If you want an idea of just how deep the hypocrisy runs, consider the case of Richard O'Dwyer...

[spoiler]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUDTlol12b4[/spoiler]

[Malpercio]

aaahahahaha you think I think piracy is a legitimate crime.

Anyway, numerous TV shows depict the characters performing actions that are illegal for one reason or another, but do we sue them if someone watches the show, and then go does that thing? If I write an article about how to commit piracy, that's not illegal, that's freedom of speech. If someone uses my article as a guide and goes and pirates something, they've committed piracy, but I still haven't done anything except publish the guide he used.

Alright. Let's say I make a simple little file sharing application that lets two people connect to eachother and trade files, and I mean it as an easy way to share photos and things with family and friends, or to transfer files from one of your computers to another. Some random "leet" hacker cracks my program and uses it to steal files from anyone anywhere, to disseminate viruses to other computers. Am I guilty of hacking into other people's computers? No, I just made the software that was used. The creators of a program should not be considered at fault for illegal activity committed using their program, UNLESS they're blatantly ignoring claims about, or actively encouraging, that usage

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_United_States

There are exceptions to these general protections, including the Miller test for obscenity, child pornography laws, speech that incites imminent lawless action, and regulation of commercial speech such as advertising.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MGM_Studios,_Inc._v._Grokster,_Ltd.

"We hold that one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties."

No alteration or "cracking" was needed for their programs to be used for sharing copyrighted material. And they made mountains of cash distributing the software... it wasn't benign, and they knew what they were doing.

Protip: Less is more. Use bold.
Also, both of your quotes are exactly what I was saying; you just missed the point. Just because the software did not need modification to be used for illegal transfers of files does not mean that those transfers were the intended use of the program, nor why the company was selling it.

[MATHGODpi]

Not buying it. Sorry.

http://onecandleinthedark.blogspot.ca/2011/05/pages-encouraging-copyright.html