dooooooom.blogspot.com — "The entertainment industry has proposed that ISPs should be forced by law to monitor all customers' communications for copyright infringement, charging for anything that might be a copyrighted work."
Sep 15, 2006 View in Crawl 4
memewarriorSep 15, 2006
More corporate sponsored fascism, yay!/sarcasm
pumacubSep 15, 2006
Yea, this will go over like a President who hijacks a country and takes it to war for personal reasons and profit...Oh wait.Most Americans would voluntarily shove a splintered stick up their ass if they thought it would protect them from terrorists.
altotusSep 15, 2006
Dumb. First, ISPs are not qualified to determine if something is infringing, nor is it technically possible. If someone downloads a song, did they pay for it? Did the copyright holder authorize it? Does the person have a compulsory license? Is whatever the person doing fair use? How the hell can the ISP know -- heck, how can they tell if something is public domain, who the copyright holder might be, etc.?Hmmm... If I follow a link from digg to a page with copyrighted content on it, who is infringing? The person that made the page, the person that linked to it, or me for accessing it? What if it was a kid's book report with an illustration from the book? It's fair use for them to use it, even to post it online, but is it for me to download it? What if I stumble across it? Hmmm....If I e-mail Universal to tell them they suck, can I get their ISP to bill them for it? After all, my letter is copyrighted, and unless it goes straight to the board of directors right away I'm sure it's being copied by someone (or something) I didn't want to.What if the data is encrypted? Sure, some paedophiles might use the technology, but I'm willing to bet more than a couple of people use VPNs, SSL, TLS -- I'm pretty sure most people ordering stuff online with credit cards or doing online banking are using encryption.The idea is stupid at many levels. Perhaps most importantly that technically whatever you do with a work is not infringing until so adjudicated by a court.
phyltreSep 15, 2006
You're right, we should probably just kill you and everyone you've ever known/been in contact with. Really nip that whole "possible criminal" thing in the bud. Just out of curiousity, what are your lat/long coordinates?
Closed AccountSep 15, 2006
Well the industry is clearly pissed off that the *demand* is clearly there in a very big way, yet they have no distribution infrastructure, business plan, or clue about how to monetize that in a uniform fashion. Basically it's a situation where they can't play the game, and don't want the game to continue unless they are in. The other problem is this DRM crap... as it's been seen, it doesn't even work AS INTENDED in many cases. People just aren't going to buy a downloadable movie online unless they can watch it on their TV, iPod, phone whatever... as many times as they friggin want for the one time purchase... and until the industry understands that, and quits being the collective whiny bitch they are, they're going to continue losing out. How many of us here would bother downloading something if a high quality download was available for $5-$10 that we could use on multiple devices and have license to watch forever... I wouldn't bother downloading... at that point it's less costly in time just to shell out the $5-$10...
hurricaneSep 16, 2006
I am afraid that if by some f%$* up miracle this happened I would probably just have to bail on this crazy fad called "The Internet", I would NOT stand for it at all!!!!
sabinSep 16, 2006
"What we Americans CAN do is vote abusers out of office."Or you can re-elect them, your choice.