Re: [WISPA] Internet Censorship
John... wow.. +1 on the find Honestly.. its every old monolyths' position to try to survive it's changing environment because it just cant adapt fast enough... But it'll fail like the dinosaurs did. The internet ain't going nowhere fast. Unless a big comet hits the One Wilshire Building o_O Then we're all fkd. But NOT in a good way! On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 2:08 PM, John Thomas jtho...@quarnet.com wrote: What is everyone's take on this? -- Robert Q Kim Facebook Marketing Strategies and Business Consulting http://sparkah.com/2010/08/25/facebook-marketing-strategies-from-nyc-and-los-angeles-most-devious-minds-2/ 2611 S Coast Highway San Diego, CA 92007 310 598 1606 WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Internet Censorship
At 11/17/2011 11:00 PM, Butch Evans wrote: On Thu, 2011-11-17 at 20:01 -0500, Fred Goldstein wrote: Well, I'm on record as disliking IPv6 and telling my clients to not adopt it, so this is one more reason... ;-) Really? Hiding a customer identity behind a NAT in order to make it harder for law enforcement is your argument against IPv6? No, it's not the primary reason to avoid IPv6 (there are many), just one reason why users might like to avoid IPv6. And if law enforcement can make use of the info, so can, well, the other side. IPv6 is insecure by design. Of course not. An automobile is a rivalrous good. Using it lowers its value. Knowledge is a different type of good -- it sometime is worth more the more it's disseminated. I know that when another company took MY work (training materials) and attempted to sell THEIR training class, I certainly did not look on it as increasing the value of MY work. You can say it as many times as you want, but it doesn't make you right. That was unauthorized use of what I presume was your intellectual property. It probably constituted a civil tort, and you should have legal recourse. I never said that valid copyright should not be enforceable. I question the use of the criminal process for what is basically a civil matter. Civil penalties go straight to you. Criminal penalties go to the state -- you'd get the moral satisfaction of knowing that the other guy was punished, but it wouldn't compensate you. Which do you prefer? Downloading a whole movie is a borderline case. It's clearly a violation of copyright, so there's some loss to the seller. But it's not conversion of rivalrous property, or fraudulent substitution of counterfeit goods. So the download strikes me as a good example of a civil tort, actionable at law but not, when done on a small scale, in criminal law. For the record, I'm not a big fan of the use of criminal law when civil law is adequate. Just to give an example, Jewish Law (Halacha) is entirely civil. What the west calls criminal acts are viewed as civil torts against the society as a whole. I like that approach. Criminalizing civil disputes bothers me. Theft is theft is theft. While there is some support for this being a civil action, the reality is that the end user is taking something that was created for the purpose of making money (CD, movie, etc.) and doing so without compensating the seller of that product. To me, this is not grey...it IS black and white. I am not a lawyer and I don't know (or really care) exactly where the law sits here. I am simply expressing my own opinion of what I think SHOULD be. Besides, any way you slice it, whether civil OR criminal, there ARE ALREADY LAWS TO ADDRESS THIS. There is no reason to add more. You're welcome to your opinion, of course, though in practice, law get pretty complex, which is why we have so many lawyers. You are using a word theft pretty loosely, and by semantic extension, treating all uses of the word the same way. Kind of like levying sex-offender charges against someone selling canola oil. As I noted, if copyright violation harms one's interests, the violator should be held to account at civil bar. No, fair use is statutory. You should read up on it. Why? In case I ever decide to become a lawyer? No thanks. No, because it matters. The lawyer is there to tell the court. You should know what is and isn't legal. Especially if you are creating materials under copyright and concerned about violation, as seems to rightly be the case. I'm sometimes involved in things that may or may not be fair use, depending upon judgment. And I've written books. So I've had to learn about it. The point is that there is no clear bright line about what constitutes fair use, so a misjudgment here could lead to criminal charges, and allow a take-down of valid, fair-use content or loss of a domain without due process. That sort of guts fair use. So perhaps you are talking about something other than what I am. I am not talking about LEGAL use of materials. I am speaking about what is ILLEGAL. There IS a clear line there. Downloading of a movie, music or other IP without paying for it, when it is CLEARLY supposed to be for sale is theft. I am not trying to draw out an argument over what the law says or which law is what. I honestly don't care to get into a debate over the finer points of the law about fair use or anything else. If you want to be a lawyer, then go do that and leave the networking behind. So yes, some things are clearly illegal today, which is why we don't need new laws. The problem with the proposed new laws is that networks will become much more closely involved with the law than before. The law currently grants ISPs certain protections -- for instance, they're not responsible for what their customers do, but may have to respond to takedown notices. If those protections for ISPs are
Re: [WISPA] Internet Censorship
As an individual I think it is way out of line. Near as I can tell it circumvents due process. I doubt it will stand up in court, but if it passes someone is going to have to challenge it first. Basically it takes all those lovely copyright violation emails you get and turns them in to something with real teeth. It assumes everyone who has a complaint filed against them is guilty until proven otherwise, it crosses international borders (.com, .org and .net are not US only domains), and like most anti-terrorism, anti-piracy legislation it is next to worthless in stopping the problem, but still manages to curtail citizen rights. I wonder how long it will be before someone starts filing takedown notices on campaign sites that use copyrighted music in their ads... If they spent half as much time trying to find a real solution to the problem or actually prosecuting violators of the laws on the books... /rant On 11/16/11 11:08 PM, John Thomas wrote: What is everyone's take on this? http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/technology/2011/11/sopa-internet-piracy-bill-criticized-as-internet-censorship/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Internet Censorship
I personally agree. Without due process these laws are a total joke, sadly on the authority of the US law system. We have already seen some of the effects of such legislation through ICE and the take down of mooo.com. (http://www.techdirt.com/blog/?tag=mooo.com) IMHO, without the legal rigmarole, copyright holders and prosecutors have no justification to ensure that they are abiding the laws either. Sincerely, Eric -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Sam Tetherow Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2011 9:19 AM To: wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Internet Censorship As an individual I think it is way out of line. Near as I can tell it circumvents due process. I doubt it will stand up in court, but if it passes someone is going to have to challenge it first. Basically it takes all those lovely copyright violation emails you get and turns them in to something with real teeth. It assumes everyone who has a complaint filed against them is guilty until proven otherwise, it crosses international borders (.com, .org and .net are not US only domains), and like most anti-terrorism, anti-piracy legislation it is next to worthless in stopping the problem, but still manages to curtail citizen rights. I wonder how long it will be before someone starts filing takedown notices on campaign sites that use copyrighted music in their ads... If they spent half as much time trying to find a real solution to the problem or actually prosecuting violators of the laws on the books... /rant WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Internet Censorship
On Wed, 2011-11-16 at 21:08 -0800, John Thomas wrote: What is everyone's take on this? http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/technology/2011/11/sopa-internet-piracy-bill-criticized-as-internet-censorship/ My take is that piracy should be punishable by jail time. We have laws against such things already. The technology is there to detect the IP of the offending party, there are laws in place that permit law enforcement to request end user information from ISPs and there is no need for yet another law to do what is already in place. I think that if enough people go to jail for theft, it will grow MUCH less common. As for the censorship idea...I think people need to get a life. Theft is illegal and those crying censorship should focus on THAT. -- * Butch Evans* Professional Network Consultation * * http://www.butchevans.com/ * Network Engineering * * http://store.wispgear.net/ * Wired or Wireless Networks * * http://blog.butchevans.com/ * ImageStream, Mikrotik and MORE!* * NOTE THE NEW PHONE NUMBER: 702-537-0979 * WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Internet Censorship
So some people go to jail for downloading Cars 2 illegally for 15 years where a week before a rapist went to prison for 90 days. That's so insanely ridiculous. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 5:12 PM, Butch Evans but...@butchevans.com wrote: On Wed, 2011-11-16 at 21:08 -0800, John Thomas wrote: What is everyone's take on this? http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/technology/2011/11/sopa-internet-piracy-bill-criticized-as-internet-censorship/ My take is that piracy should be punishable by jail time. We have laws against such things already. The technology is there to detect the IP of the offending party, there are laws in place that permit law enforcement to request end user information from ISPs and there is no need for yet another law to do what is already in place. I think that if enough people go to jail for theft, it will grow MUCH less common. As for the censorship idea...I think people need to get a life. Theft is illegal and those crying censorship should focus on THAT. -- * Butch Evans * Professional Network Consultation * * http://www.butchevans.com/ * Network Engineering * * http://store.wispgear.net/ * Wired or Wireless Networks * * http://blog.butchevans.com/ * ImageStream, Mikrotik and MORE! * * NOTE THE NEW PHONE NUMBER: 702-537-0979 * WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Internet Censorship
On Thu, 2011-11-17 at 17:14 -0500, Josh Luthman wrote: So some people go to jail for downloading Cars 2 illegally for 15 years where a week before a rapist went to prison for 90 days. That's so insanely ridiculous. I agree that it is ridiculous. It doesn't change my opinion of what SHOULD happen. -- * Butch Evans* Professional Network Consultation * * http://www.butchevans.com/ * Network Engineering * * http://store.wispgear.net/ * Wired or Wireless Networks * * http://blog.butchevans.com/ * ImageStream, Mikrotik and MORE!* * NOTE THE NEW PHONE NUMBER: 702-537-0979 * WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Internet Censorship
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 16:12, Butch Evans but...@butchevans.com wrote: My take is that piracy should be punishable by jail time. Yikes. I think we'll have to agree-to-disagree here (biting tongue so hard it's bleeding). David Smith MVN.net WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Internet Censorship
At 11/17/2011 05:12 PM, Butch Evans wrote: On Wed, 2011-11-16 at 21:08 -0800, John Thomas wrote: What is everyone's take on this? http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/technology/2011/11/sopa-internet-piracy-bill-criticized-as-internet-censorship/ My take is that piracy should be punishable by jail time. We have laws against such things already. The technology is there to detect the IP of the offending party, there are laws in place that permit law enforcement to request end user information from ISPs and there is no need for yet another law to do what is already in place. I think that if enough people go to jail for theft, it will grow MUCH less common. As for the censorship idea...I think people need to get a life. Theft is illegal and those crying censorship should focus on THAT. Some of these proposals create a presumption of guilt, the burden of proof to prove one's innocence. And some put more onus on the ISP than before, no small issue. The copyright lobby does not like the Internet at all. It breaks their artifact-based business model. There's also a question of what constitutes theft, vs. other copyright violations. Literal theft refers to rivalrous goods: If I steal the dish off of your tower, I have the dish, you don't. So-called theft of so-called intellectual property -- more accurately, simply the violation of copyright -- does not deprive the legitimate owner of their property, it merely deprives the seller of the *opportunity cost* of the sale that was not made. Which in most cases, frankly, would not have been made. Interestingly, back in the Napster days, studies showed that people who used Napster (the real one, not the Roxio rebrand) were likely to purchase more CDs than others. Likewise, I listen to a fair amount of music on YouTube. It's how I find out about stuff. (My taste is not what Clear Channel finds profitable.) When I was a kid, I listened to the radio (and was a DJ, before that meant a nightclub d00d), and there was a wide variety of stuff played there. Radio today is crappier, much less variety and more payola. The Internet has taken its place as the way people learn about music. And who buys what they haven't tried? So there's a real spread between true piracy and some of the casual copyright violations that are being called piracy. True piracy is the crook who counterfeits a CD and sells it as real, or sells a counterfeit software DVD-ROM as the real thing. That's a major gangland activity in China and elsewhere. And bulk posting of movies or albums on the web is also genuinely harmful, as it really could substitute for legitimate sales (such as DVD rentals or paid cable PPV views). But some of these copyright extremists want to put you in jail for having the radio on in a YouTube home movie (they've issued takedowns to look at our toddler dance, isn't she cute videos). Just to give an example, my son just had a college class (TV production) assignment to make a music video. So he had to take a copyrighted record and use it. (Hey, I was the star! We filmed at Occupy Boston.) In class, it's no doubt Fair Use, though I suspect the RIAA wishes that weren't the case. Is he a pirate if he posts it on YouTube? I think not, but the RIAA probably does. But somehow I don't equate that to the guys selling fake CDs to record store owners. And I certainly don't want ISPs being forced to make that decision. How could they, after all? And if they have to police everything posted, then that would lead to censorship. There's already a court ruling that if a BBS-type web site edits posts, it's responsible for allegedly-libelous ones, but it isn't if they don't exercise any editorial control. In other words, intellectual property law is a confused mess already, and the proposals on the table just make it worse, and won't actualy help the industries they're trying to help. They're like ILECs, who harm ISPs because it's what they do, even if it costs them. The scorpion and the frog comes to mind. -- Fred Goldsteink1io fgoldstein at ionary.com ionary Consulting http://www.ionary.com/ +1 617 795 2701 WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Internet Censorship
I have no issue with prosecuting theft, and as you state, there are plenty of laws on the books, and mechanisms in place to be able to handle it. I disagree on your statement about censorship. If someone posts a fair use clip on a website parodying the MPAA or the RIAA for instance, all they need to do is file a complaint to paypal/CC processors and that site's ability to collect donations or conduct business online will be shut down until they can get a court order to have it turned back on, and if they find a sympathetic ear at the federal level the DNS for that site can be shut down. All without due process of actually finding the party guilty or any violation other than offending someone with on-staff lawyers willing to file the paperwork. There were plenty of cases on youtube where content creators had their content taken down because it was copyrighted (by them). While inconvenient there were also other places you could place your content in the mean time. But if they can reach into your own hosting and have payment processing and even DNS shut off indefinitely you are talking about giving someone the ability to put your business on financial hold without any real accountability. And you can potentially do it to people and corporations over which you have no legal right to due so. US IP laws are not global IP laws, yet it would be possible for someone to shutdown DNS to a non-US site operating legally within their own nation. If you think this is a good thing, turn it around, how would you like foreign IP laws to now apply to your corporation and intellectual property (say those of Sweden). And in the mean time all someone has to do is start posting IP addresses for thepiratebay.org and others to circumvent the DNS block and who have they really stopped? Payment processing? The online poker sites had circumvented that for years. With the rise of bitcoin there will be even less entry to barrier for those that want to operate on the grey/black market of IP. In my opinion all it really does is allow less than scrupulous companies to bully dissenting/alternative viewpoint companies and individuals with even less due process than before. On 11/17/11 4:12 PM, Butch Evans wrote: On Wed, 2011-11-16 at 21:08 -0800, John Thomas wrote: What is everyone's take on this? http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/technology/2011/11/sopa-internet-piracy-bill-criticized-as-internet-censorship/ My take is that piracy should be punishable by jail time. We have laws against such things already. The technology is there to detect the IP of the offending party, there are laws in place that permit law enforcement to request end user information from ISPs and there is no need for yet another law to do what is already in place. I think that if enough people go to jail for theft, it will grow MUCH less common. As for the censorship idea...I think people need to get a life. Theft is illegal and those crying censorship should focus on THAT. WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Internet Censorship
On Thu, 2011-11-17 at 16:51 -0600, Sam Tetherow wrote: I disagree on your statement about censorship. If someone posts a fair use clip on a website parodying the MPAA or the RIAA for instance, all they need to do is file a complaint to paypal/CC processors and that site's ability to collect donations or conduct business online will be shut down until they can get a court order to have it turned back on, and if they find a sympathetic ear at the federal level the DNS for that site can be shut down. All without due process of actually finding the party guilty or any violation other than offending someone with on-staff lawyers willing to file the paperwork. I have not read the proposed legislation. I am not saying that I support that legislation, as I don't know what is in it. I AM, however, saying that there is no need to create a NEW law that makes theft of IP illegal. There IS such a thing as censorship, but I don't think that it is the opposite of protecting IP. Does that clarify what I said? -- * Butch Evans* Professional Network Consultation * * http://www.butchevans.com/ * Network Engineering * * http://store.wispgear.net/ * Wired or Wireless Networks * * http://blog.butchevans.com/ * ImageStream, Mikrotik and MORE!* * NOTE THE NEW PHONE NUMBER: 702-537-0979 * WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Internet Censorship
On Thu, 2011-11-17 at 17:41 -0500, Fred Goldstein wrote: Some of these proposals create a presumption of guilt, the burden of proof to prove one's innocence. And some put more onus on the ISP than before, no small issue. The copyright lobby does not like the Internet at all. It breaks their artifact-based business model. This is, unfortunately, one of the costs for ISPs who NAT their customer traffic. When all users have a public IP (say, an IPv6 address), then the problem of identifying thieves would be much simpler and can be easily identified by the ISP AND law enforcement. There's also a question of what constitutes theft, vs. other copyright violations. Literal theft refers to rivalrous goods: If I steal the dish off of your tower, I have the dish, you don't. So-called theft of so-called intellectual property -- more accurately, simply the violation of copyright -- does not deprive the legitimate owner of their property, it merely deprives the seller of the *opportunity cost* of the sale that was not made. Which in most cases, frankly, would not have been made. SO, if you owned a Ford dealership and I came onto your lot and used one of your vehicles, it wouldn't be theft since I would never purchase that car anyway? What a stupid argument. So there's a real spread between true piracy and some of the casual copyright violations that are being called piracy. True piracy is the crook who counterfeits a CD and sells it as real, or sells a counterfeit software DVD-ROM as the real thing. So downloading a movie without paying the author/owner (who IS selling that movie) is not piracy? You really are as good as my first impression of you lead me to believe. But some of these copyright extremists want to put you in jail for having the radio on in a YouTube home movie (they've issued takedowns to look at our toddler dance, isn't she cute videos). Just to give an example, my son just had a college class (TV production) assignment to make a music video. So he had to take a copyrighted record and use it. (Hey, I was the star! We filmed at Occupy Boston.) In class, it's no doubt Fair Use, though I suspect the RIAA wishes that weren't the case. Is he a pirate if he posts it on YouTube? I think not, but the RIAA probably does. But somehow I don't equate that to the guys selling fake CDs to record store owners. Fair Use is defined by the owner of the content. Note that owner is NOT the person who purchased a CD. In other words, intellectual property law is a confused mess already, and the proposals on the table just make it worse, and won't actualy help the industries they're trying to help. They're like ILECs, who harm ISPs because it's what they do, even if it costs them. The scorpion and the frog comes to mind. Adding still more laws is that I said was a problem. Glad you had a place to rant, though. -- * Butch Evans* Professional Network Consultation * * http://www.butchevans.com/ * Network Engineering * * http://store.wispgear.net/ * Wired or Wireless Networks * * http://blog.butchevans.com/ * ImageStream, Mikrotik and MORE!* * NOTE THE NEW PHONE NUMBER: 702-537-0979 * WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Internet Censorship
The authors are paid either way. Doesn't matter if 1 or a million copies are sold. Can't feel bad for them as they aren't directly effected. That is publicized falsely. Stealing a car by comparison is different...the original owner still has it and completely without change. Do I think it is wrong to hurt the media companies? Yes. But that doesn't mean what they do is all peaches and cream. Terrible contracts with cable/satellite and Netflix drive consumers to go the easier way. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Nov 17, 2011 7:10 PM, Butch Evans but...@butchevans.com wrote: On Thu, 2011-11-17 at 17:41 -0500, Fred Goldstein wrote: Some of these proposals create a presumption of guilt, the burden of proof to prove one's innocence. And some put more onus on the ISP than before, no small issue. The copyright lobby does not like the Internet at all. It breaks their artifact-based business model. This is, unfortunately, one of the costs for ISPs who NAT their customer traffic. When all users have a public IP (say, an IPv6 address), then the problem of identifying thieves would be much simpler and can be easily identified by the ISP AND law enforcement. There's also a question of what constitutes theft, vs. other copyright violations. Literal theft refers to rivalrous goods: If I steal the dish off of your tower, I have the dish, you don't. So-called theft of so-called intellectual property -- more accurately, simply the violation of copyright -- does not deprive the legitimate owner of their property, it merely deprives the seller of the *opportunity cost* of the sale that was not made. Which in most cases, frankly, would not have been made. SO, if you owned a Ford dealership and I came onto your lot and used one of your vehicles, it wouldn't be theft since I would never purchase that car anyway? What a stupid argument. So there's a real spread between true piracy and some of the casual copyright violations that are being called piracy. True piracy is the crook who counterfeits a CD and sells it as real, or sells a counterfeit software DVD-ROM as the real thing. So downloading a movie without paying the author/owner (who IS selling that movie) is not piracy? You really are as good as my first impression of you lead me to believe. But some of these copyright extremists want to put you in jail for having the radio on in a YouTube home movie (they've issued takedowns to look at our toddler dance, isn't she cute videos). Just to give an example, my son just had a college class (TV production) assignment to make a music video. So he had to take a copyrighted record and use it. (Hey, I was the star! We filmed at Occupy Boston.) In class, it's no doubt Fair Use, though I suspect the RIAA wishes that weren't the case. Is he a pirate if he posts it on YouTube? I think not, but the RIAA probably does. But somehow I don't equate that to the guys selling fake CDs to record store owners. Fair Use is defined by the owner of the content. Note that owner is NOT the person who purchased a CD. In other words, intellectual property law is a confused mess already, and the proposals on the table just make it worse, and won't actualy help the industries they're trying to help. They're like ILECs, who harm ISPs because it's what they do, even if it costs them. The scorpion and the frog comes to mind. Adding still more laws is that I said was a problem. Glad you had a place to rant, though. -- * Butch Evans* Professional Network Consultation * * http://www.butchevans.com/ * Network Engineering * * http://store.wispgear.net/ * Wired or Wireless Networks * * http://blog.butchevans.com/ * ImageStream, Mikrotik and MORE!* * NOTE THE NEW PHONE NUMBER: 702-537-0979 * WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Internet Censorship
On 11/17/2011 06:10 PM, Butch Evans wrote: On Thu, 2011-11-17 at 17:41 -0500, Fred Goldstein wrote: Some of these proposals create a presumption of guilt, the burden of proof to prove one's innocence. And some put more onus on the ISP than before, no small issue. The copyright lobby does not like the Internet at all. It breaks their artifact-based business model. This is, unfortunately, one of the costs for ISPs who NAT their customer traffic. When all users have a public IP (say, an IPv6 address), then the problem of identifying thieves would be much simpler and can be easily identified by the ISP AND law enforcement. There's also a question of what constitutes theft, vs. other copyright violations. Literal theft refers to rivalrous goods: If I steal the dish off of your tower, I have the dish, you don't. So-called theft of so-called intellectual property -- more accurately, simply the violation of copyright -- does not deprive the legitimate owner of their property, it merely deprives the seller of the *opportunity cost* of the sale that was not made. Which in most cases, frankly, would not have been made. SO, if you owned a Ford dealership and I came onto your lot and used one of your vehicles, it wouldn't be theft since I would never purchase that car anyway? What a stupid argument. So there's a real spread between true piracy and some of the casual copyright violations that are being called piracy. True piracy is the crook who counterfeits a CD and sells it as real, or sells a counterfeit software DVD-ROM as the real thing. So downloading a movie without paying the author/owner (who IS selling that movie) is not piracy? You really are as good as my first impression of you lead me to believe. But some of these copyright extremists want to put you in jail for having the radio on in a YouTube home movie (they've issued takedowns to look at our toddler dance, isn't she cute videos). Just to give an example, my son just had a college class (TV production) assignment to make a music video. So he had to take a copyrighted record and use it. (Hey, I was the star! We filmed at Occupy Boston.) In class, it's no doubt Fair Use, though I suspect the RIAA wishes that weren't the case. Is he a pirate if he posts it on YouTube? I think not, but the RIAA probably does. But somehow I don't equate that to the guys selling fake CDs to record store owners. Fair Use is defined by the owner of the content. Note that owner is NOT the person who purchased a CD. Fair Use is defined by law. You are allowed to include excepts from a copyrighted work under fair use in a parody for example. You are also allowed to make copies of your analog purchased media under fair use and you are allowed to distribute them as you see fit as long as you don't charge for them under fair use. Despite common belief it is not clear black and white as to the rights on a CD. It is pretty well excepted that purchasing a CD and ripping it to MP3s and then posting them online for anyone to download is illegal, but there is grey area on me loaning you a CD and you making a copy of that CD for your personal use. Prior to DMCA it would have been legal, the DMCA which covers digital media however has vague wording when dealing with this case. A copyright holder can loosen their copyright as they see fit, but they cannot further restrict it. So for instance it would be possible for software writer to give their software away to certain people, but it would not be legal for them to further restrict software already sold. In other words, intellectual property law is a confused mess already, and the proposals on the table just make it worse, and won't actualy help the industries they're trying to help. They're like ILECs, who harm ISPs because it's what they do, even if it costs them. The scorpion and the frog comes to mind. Adding still more laws is that I said was a problem. Glad you had a place to rant, though. WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Internet Censorship
At 11/17/2011 07:10 PM, Butch Evans wrote: On Thu, 2011-11-17 at 17:41 -0500, Fred Goldstein wrote: Some of these proposals create a presumption of guilt, the burden of proof to prove one's innocence. And some put more onus on the ISP than before, no small issue. The copyright lobby does not like the Internet at all. It breaks their artifact-based business model. This is, unfortunately, one of the costs for ISPs who NAT their customer traffic. When all users have a public IP (say, an IPv6 address), then the problem of identifying thieves would be much simpler and can be easily identified by the ISP AND law enforcement. Well, I'm on record as disliking IPv6 and telling my clients to not adopt it, so this is one more reason... ;-) There's also a question of what constitutes theft, vs. other copyright violations. Literal theft refers to rivalrous goods: If I steal the dish off of your tower, I have the dish, you don't. So-called theft of so-called intellectual property -- more accurately, simply the violation of copyright -- does not deprive the legitimate owner of their property, it merely deprives the seller of the *opportunity cost* of the sale that was not made. Which in most cases, frankly, would not have been made. SO, if you owned a Ford dealership and I came onto your lot and used one of your vehicles, it wouldn't be theft since I would never purchase that car anyway? What a stupid argument. Of course not. An automobile is a rivalrous good. Using it lowers its value. Knowledge is a different type of good -- it sometime is worth more the more it's disseminated. So there's a real spread between true piracy and some of the casual copyright violations that are being called piracy. True piracy is the crook who counterfeits a CD and sells it as real, or sells a counterfeit software DVD-ROM as the real thing. So downloading a movie without paying the author/owner (who IS selling that movie) is not piracy? You really are as good as my first impression of you lead me to believe. Downloading a whole movie is a borderline case. It's clearly a violation of copyright, so there's some loss to the seller. But it's not conversion of rivalrous property, or fraudulent substitution of counterfeit goods. So the download strikes me as a good example of a civil tort, actionable at law but not, when done on a small scale, in criminal law. For the record, I'm not a big fan of the use of criminal law when civil law is adequate. Just to give an example, Jewish Law (Halacha) is entirely civil. What the west calls criminal acts are viewed as civil torts against the society as a whole. I like that approach. Criminalizing civil disputes bothers me. But some of these copyright extremists want to put you in jail for having the radio on in a YouTube home movie (they've issued takedowns to look at our toddler dance, isn't she cute videos). Just to give an example, my son just had a college class (TV production) assignment to make a music video. So he had to take a copyrighted record and use it. (Hey, I was the star! We filmed at Occupy Boston.) In class, it's no doubt Fair Use, though I suspect the RIAA wishes that weren't the case. Is he a pirate if he posts it on YouTube? I think not, but the RIAA probably does. But somehow I don't equate that to the guys selling fake CDs to record store owners. Fair Use is defined by the owner of the content. Note that owner is NOT the person who purchased a CD. No, fair use is statutory. You should read up on it. (I suggest reading the Supreme Court's ruling in Acuff v. Campbell, which addressed the role of parody as applying to one of the factors. Including the lyrics to the parody version of Pretty Woman.) US copyright law defines fair use by the balancing of four factors, not one bright line. As a general rule, copyright owners NEVER admit that ANYTHING is fair use, but they don't get that say. It's just a bargaining position. I have a really good musical comedy that my son wrote this year, with my help (as co-creator), that's stalled because while we are pretty sure it makes fair use of the tunes (not the lyrics or script, just the melodies, which are out-takes from a Broadway show's early drafts, used somewhat satirically), it's hard to get anyone to say it clearly enough to let us produce it (not for money, just for the glory, on YouTube). The point is that there is no clear bright line about what constitutes fair use, so a misjudgment here could lead to criminal charges, and allow a take-down of valid, fair-use content or loss of a domain without due process. That sort of guts fair use. In other words, intellectual property law is a confused mess already, and the proposals on the table just make it worse, and won't actualy help the industries they're trying to help. They're like ILECs, who harm ISPs because it's what they do, even if it costs them. The
Re: [WISPA] Internet Censorship
On Thu, 2011-11-17 at 20:01 -0500, Fred Goldstein wrote: Well, I'm on record as disliking IPv6 and telling my clients to not adopt it, so this is one more reason... ;-) Really? Hiding a customer identity behind a NAT in order to make it harder for law enforcement is your argument against IPv6? Of course not. An automobile is a rivalrous good. Using it lowers its value. Knowledge is a different type of good -- it sometime is worth more the more it's disseminated. I know that when another company took MY work (training materials) and attempted to sell THEIR training class, I certainly did not look on it as increasing the value of MY work. You can say it as many times as you want, but it doesn't make you right. Downloading a whole movie is a borderline case. It's clearly a violation of copyright, so there's some loss to the seller. But it's not conversion of rivalrous property, or fraudulent substitution of counterfeit goods. So the download strikes me as a good example of a civil tort, actionable at law but not, when done on a small scale, in criminal law. For the record, I'm not a big fan of the use of criminal law when civil law is adequate. Just to give an example, Jewish Law (Halacha) is entirely civil. What the west calls criminal acts are viewed as civil torts against the society as a whole. I like that approach. Criminalizing civil disputes bothers me. Theft is theft is theft. While there is some support for this being a civil action, the reality is that the end user is taking something that was created for the purpose of making money (CD, movie, etc.) and doing so without compensating the seller of that product. To me, this is not grey...it IS black and white. I am not a lawyer and I don't know (or really care) exactly where the law sits here. I am simply expressing my own opinion of what I think SHOULD be. Besides, any way you slice it, whether civil OR criminal, there ARE ALREADY LAWS TO ADDRESS THIS. There is no reason to add more. No, fair use is statutory. You should read up on it. Why? In case I ever decide to become a lawyer? No thanks. The point is that there is no clear bright line about what constitutes fair use, so a misjudgment here could lead to criminal charges, and allow a take-down of valid, fair-use content or loss of a domain without due process. That sort of guts fair use. So perhaps you are talking about something other than what I am. I am not talking about LEGAL use of materials. I am speaking about what is ILLEGAL. There IS a clear line there. Downloading of a movie, music or other IP without paying for it, when it is CLEARLY supposed to be for sale is theft. I am not trying to draw out an argument over what the law says or which law is what. I honestly don't care to get into a debate over the finer points of the law about fair use or anything else. If you want to be a lawyer, then go do that and leave the networking behind. -- * Butch Evans* Professional Network Consultation * * http://www.butchevans.com/ * Network Engineering * * http://store.wispgear.net/ * Wired or Wireless Networks * * http://blog.butchevans.com/ * ImageStream, Mikrotik and MORE!* * NOTE THE NEW PHONE NUMBER: 702-537-0979 * WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Internet Censorship
On Thu, 2011-11-17 at 19:17 -0500, Josh Luthman wrote: The authors are paid either way. Doesn't matter if 1 or a million copies are sold. Can't feel bad for them as they aren't directly effected. That is publicized falsely. This is not entirely true, or is misleading at best. Musicians are often paid percentages based on sales of CDs. Actors are often paid based on sales levels. Producers of both music and video entertainment are paid the same way. I am not speaking out of what I've heard. I have family that are in the music business and have been for a long time. Stealing a car by comparison is different...the original owner still has it and completely without change. I have no idea what this sentence means. However, the only difference between stealing a car and stealing music is that when you steal a car, you are taking something that has been paid for by the owner and is a chance for profit when it sells. With music, you are taking money from media companies AND all those who make their money as a percentage of the sales. Do I think it is wrong to hurt the media companies? Yes. But that doesn't mean what they do is all peaches and cream. Terrible contracts with cable/satellite and Netflix drive consumers to go the easier way. This is without a doubt true as well. However, making a bad decision in one area (or a series of bad decisions) doesn't mean that it's ok to steal from them or those they represent. I'm tired of this argument. You folks can believe whatever you want, but it is wrong to steal. It doesn't matter what pretty paper you wrap it up in, that's what it is. -- * Butch Evans* Professional Network Consultation * * http://www.butchevans.com/ * Network Engineering * * http://store.wispgear.net/ * Wired or Wireless Networks * * http://blog.butchevans.com/ * ImageStream, Mikrotik and MORE!* * NOTE THE NEW PHONE NUMBER: 702-537-0979 * WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
