Danish ISP Doesn't Understand Why It's Supposed To Block Pirate Bay

from the fighting-it dept

Earlier this week, we noted that a Danish court had told ISP Tele2 that it needed to start blocking access to the Pirate Bay. Last year, a court had also ordered Tele2 to block access to AllofMp3.com. Tele2 complied with that first order, though apparently it was quite easy to get around the block (no surprise there). However, apparently sensing the outrage being felt concerning these blocks, Tele2 is considering fighting back against the order (with support from other ISPs). The company claims that it needs "clarification" on the ruling, though doesn't seem to provide much more detail than that at this point.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    identicon
    Rose M. Welch, Feb 6th, 2008 @ 11:12pm

    I'm confused because...

    I don't know about Danish law, but if I rented a car, I don't think they'd expect the rental company to keep me from speeding, driving under the influence, or any other infraction I could commit with the car that I pay them for the use of. So wouldn't be up to law enforcement to enforce the law?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    identicon
    The Swiss Cheese Monster, Feb 7th, 2008 @ 12:08am

    If I was a Danish, I would have a hard time understanding anything at all.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    identicon
    vinod, Feb 7th, 2008 @ 2:11am

    it's happening in the states too...

    Well - it's happening here too.
    AT&T and others said they would be willing to filter individual connections so that pirated material would not be available on their network.

    I think this is just ridiculous. There will always be a way to get around these types of things...it just costs everybody more money down in the long run, and it eventually gets trickled down to the consumers.

    If they industries started focusing on giving us better content and better prices instead of focusing on pirated material we'd all be better off.

    I'd be happy, and they would be even richer.
    Stupid is as stupid does.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    identicon
    EH, Feb 7th, 2008 @ 3:39am

    Danish?

    If I was a Danish I would be delicious.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    identicon
    Krazy Kar Guy, Feb 7th, 2008 @ 3:55am

    Re: I'm confused because...

    Don't you think that the rental company, once they'd learned that you're a reckless, careless, thoughtless driver who's putting their property (and reputation) at risk, would yank your privileges, take the car back, and block you from additional rentals?

    ISPs have an ethical responsibility to to avoid knowingly aiding and abetting a law breaker.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 7th, 2008 @ 4:42am

    Re: Re: I'm confused because...

    Then by your logic they are also liable for child pornography, suicide pacts and terrorism.

    Let's ban the internet to prevent terrorism shall we?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  
    identicon
    Osama bin Laden, Feb 7th, 2008 @ 5:48am

    Lets's block everything!!!!

    Yes ... let's block the internet from terrorism, and we all know that it is the American corporate greedy pigs who are the real terrorists in the world, at least that what at least half the world thinks, especially in the middle east.

    Who are the real terrorists I wonder ... who is right??? Guess it depends on where one lives and their point of view. "Ethical responsibility"??? It's only one view of what some people think is correct and "ethical". Their law applies and other views don't

    As to the real issue ... let's block telephones while we are at it, they can also use a dial up modem to copy as well.

    This is just pure b*llsh*t. An ISP is just a pipeline carrier.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 7th, 2008 @ 5:50am

    Re: Re: Re: I'm confused because...

    Ummm...yes they are responsible for trying to keep illegal activities from occuring. But they are also responsible for our privacy so when a whole sector of illegal activities can be blocked without harming anyone's privacy then why wouldn't they do it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9.  
    identicon
    the buy and bye!, Feb 7th, 2008 @ 5:52am

    Re: Re: I'm confused because...

    >> ISPs have an ethical responsibility to to avoid knowingly aiding and abetting a law breaker.

    Yeah, ok ... but the real question is do they have the responsibility of identifying the lawbreakers or "policing" the use of the service they provide?

    I say no, not with something like connectivity. There is no easy (let alone accurate) way for them to do that... Let the police and the courts do their own freaking job! :-)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10.  
    identicon
    DanC, Feb 7th, 2008 @ 5:56am

    Re: Re: I'm confused because...

    "ISPs have an ethical responsibility to to avoid knowingly aiding and abetting a law breaker."

    ISPs have a responsibility to provide internet access to their customers. They are not responsible for babysitting you and making sure you don't misbehave. If you want to experience that kind of censorship, check out China.

    "once they'd learned that you're a reckless, careless, thoughtless driver who's putting their property (and reputation) at risk, would yank your privileges, take the car back, and block you from additional rentals?"

    Sure they would. But then again, this argument is flawed. The person in question has already broken the law, and the revocation of renting privileges comes after the fact. This would be the rough equivalent of some of the sentences that hackers have received, where their computer privileges have been revoked. The situation is completely different and has no basis for a comparison to ISP filtering.

    Here's the problem: filters don't work. They have never worked properly, despite years of development, and they never will. They block things that shouldn't be, and leave things that they were intended to block accessible. Additionally, the question of what is infringing material is hardly black and white, which is why copyright issues are handled on a case-by-case basis. There is no hard and fast rule to determine what is and what is not infringement.

    Finally, ISPs are protected from the actions of their users via the safe-harbor provisions. They will not be protected from the lawsuits that will emerge from filtering. It boils down to the fact that filtering is the exact same thing as censorship. By applying filters to the internet, the ISPs will by necessity violate the first amendment rights of some of its customers.

    ISPs are not, nor should they be, the law enforcement branch of the internet.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 7th, 2008 @ 6:17am

    Re: Re: Re: I'm confused because...

    DanC, you are an idiot. Slippery slope is a fallacy. Look it up.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 7th, 2008 @ 6:19am

    Re: I'm confused because...

    You should familiarlize yourself with the rental agreement.

    In some places it's become a standard part of the rental agreement, buried deep in the legalese, that you pay hefty additional fees if you speed. This is applied every time you exceed the speeding threshold specified in the contract. I'd say this is some form of attempting to keep you from speeding.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13.  
    identicon
    Homer, Feb 7th, 2008 @ 6:21am

    DoH

    Is Tele2 the only isp in Denmark?
    If not, then why are they being singled out?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  14.  
    icon
    PaulT (profile), Feb 7th, 2008 @ 6:27am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: I'm confused because...

    "DanC, you are an idiot. Slippery slope is a fallacy. Look it up."

    OK, AC could you tell me where Dan mentioned anything about a slippery slope? All I see is an argument about how this is a dangerous and unworkable idea, that shouldn't be the mandate of ISPs to begin with.

    What he said is true - there is absolutely no way to correctly filter internet access. If you try you'll end up blocking a lot of things that should be available, and never, ever block 100% of the things that shouldn't (China being an example).

    If you have evidence to the contrary, please provide it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  15.  
    identicon
    DanC, Feb 7th, 2008 @ 6:36am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: I'm confused because...

    DanC, you are an idiot. Slippery slope is a fallacy. Look it up."

    I fail to see the slippery slope fallacy in what I posted, unless you intentionally misread it. I did not say that we would turn in to China, I merely stated that China essentially babysits its population to ensure that material the government finds offensive is unavailable. I don't see how filtering the internet for potentially infringing material is all that different.

    Everything else in my comment was simple cause and effect. At the very least I would expect a lawsuit raised by the EFF when something non-infringing is blocked by ineffective filters.

    You are apparently the one that needs to look up the fallacy, since you seem to have a fairly limited idea of what it is. For one, a "slippery slope" is not always a fallacy, and for another, I have given reasons for the cause and effects I listed.

    Please have a better understanding of what you are talking about before resorting to pathetic insults.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  16.  
    identicon
    Alimas, Feb 7th, 2008 @ 6:48am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: I'm confused because...

    Actually, hes completely in the right.
    According to your argument of forcing ISPs to censor the internet, we should also be be requiring that Craftsman not produce axes. For years people have been killing folks with axes! Craftsman and other such tool manufacturers have been getting away with profiteering on these senseless crimes! Oh, but wait, Craftsman just makes them, they don't sell them, so they're not who you mean.
    Sears!
    Sears and other unethical retail outlets have been offering them up to just buy and hack! And then cutting deals with Craftsman for the money off those killings. Surely they have a responsibility to stop selling these murderous devices! Wait, they just put them in the store and let people by them, we're talking about people actually getting to them, so thats not quite the same either.
    Oh! The ROADS! We get to the store, to buy the axes, to go kill people! The roads provide access to where the axes are! And cars help us get there faster! Thats it! By your logic, car manufacturers and the government have an ethical responsibility to make sure their services don't allow people to get to the store to buy the axes made by Craftsman to kill people!
    It all makes sense! We'll have a police officer at the entry to the parking lots waving people off saying "Nothing to see here" - that'll stop it!

    Idiot.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  17.  
    identicon
    Chronno S. Trigger, Feb 7th, 2008 @ 6:50am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: I'm confused because...

    How are they blocking anything illegal?

    How will blocking a perfectly legitimate search engine help any one?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  18.  
    identicon
    Joe, Feb 7th, 2008 @ 7:33am

    Well, it makes sense... as long as you can block all the music companies ip addresses for illegally pinging and downloading content from the site to check if it is copywrited... most likely the people that search for this stuff also downloads a lot of stuff they don't own as well.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  19.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 7th, 2008 @ 7:45am

    Re: Re: Re: I'm confused because...

    I'm unfamiliar with US (or Danish) law regarding ISPs. However, I know that our company is required (by law) to put forth a "good faith" effort to prevent illegal activity at any of our publicly available WiFi access points.

    It doesn't mean we have to analize every packet on the network, however it does mean that we need to take basic measures to prevent illegal activity.

    For example, we aren't liable for someone getting instructions for a bomb on Google or Wiki, but we are responsible for someone sharing copyrighted material using our IP range.

    Internet use and liability is still a very grey topic. this is another example of someone who isn't familiar with technology setting rules for those that are.

    "The internet is a series of tubes."

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  20.  
    identicon
    Programming Junkie, Feb 7th, 2008 @ 7:54am

    Blocking is Bad

    The real issue is...
    The does blocking one site really help? I think not. This will not prevent people from getting the content, but it will block the freedom that we should have on the web. If we start with this when does it end?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  21.  
    identicon
    compassion, Feb 7th, 2008 @ 7:55am

    GET OVER IT

    Of course ISPs should help stop child abuse, piracy, or other things the local society asks of any of its citizens. If a person or a company can help stop a crime or better yet improve the lives of others then of course they should try to do what they can. When it involved little difficulty to oneself (person or company), then of course people should try and make things better. Don't try and mask your desire to steal content from others with the guise that someone elses good deed is a bad thing.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  22.  
    identicon
    HurricaneRick, Feb 7th, 2008 @ 8:08am

    Targeting Tele2 and requiring that they ban all access to the Pirate Bay web site is like hitting a thumbtack with sledge hammer. The same goes for targeting Pirate Bay and requiring that they shut down their servers.

    Many people think that shutting down sites like the Pirate Bay and services like Gnuetella and Napster will have a dramatic effect on software and music piracy. The truth is that it has almost no affect at all! The past few years have taught us that the illegal content distribution community will find another way to share content illegally. This is one of the three reasons I'm against the idea of asking a site or a service provider to filter content. DanC nailed my first objection right on the head!

    My third objection is this. Many up-and-coming artists are now distributing their own copyrighted materials over file sharing networks like BitTorrent. I’ve even downloaded a hand full of open source applications using BitTorrent clients. Without these avenues to freely distribute their materials, new artists and open source developers would find it more difficult to get their products in front of people that may actually pay for their works in the future.

    If you want to stop illegal file sharing you need to target the people sharing the files, not a site or service that can provide a legitimate service to its users.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  23.  
    identicon
    sonofdot, Feb 7th, 2008 @ 8:12am

    Re: GET OVER IT

    What are you, yet another MAFIAA shill? I don't steal content, and never have, yet I'm against any kind of filtering by any ISP. And I don't recall seeing anywhere that CITIZENS are asking ISPs to help stop anything, as you claim ("Of course ISPs should help stop child abuse, piracy, or other things the local society asks of any of its citizens"). This is something that AT&T has taken upon themselves, no doubt with some monetary prodding from the recording industry.

    And clearly, you're not even remotely familiar with how business works. Businesses by definition are amoral entities, and the only thing they do is try to make more money (for public companies, it's called "increasing shareholder value"). Your completely misinformed statement "if a person or a company can help stop a crime or better yet improve the lives of others then of course they should try to do what they can" proves your lack of knowledge. That's not the business of businesses.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  24.  
    identicon
    DanC, Feb 7th, 2008 @ 8:22am

    Re: GET OVER IT

    "Don't try and mask your desire to steal content from others with the guise that someone elses good deed is a bad thing."

    You don't actually bother to read the comments, do you? Every time someone criticizes patents or copyrights, someone always feels the need to pull out the "you just want to steal stuff" argument. It doesn't hold any water and is not supported by the comments posted here. Yet people that are unable to come up with valid points to support their claims keep repeating this over and over, as if that will make it true. Grow up.

    "When it involved little difficulty to oneself (person or company), then of course people should try and make things better."

    Little difficulty? In that case, will you please provide an absolute definition of what is and what is not infringing material, and a foolproof method for testing against it?

    "Of course ISPs should help stop child abuse, piracy, or other things the local society asks of any of its citizens."

    Local society isn't asking for it. The RIAA and the MPAA are lobbying for it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  25.  
    identicon
    amused, Feb 7th, 2008 @ 8:23am

    RE: sonofdot

    Your funny. Who do you think companies, governments, MAFIAA, Pirate Bay are besides citizens, i.e. your neighbors - admitedly some live further down the street/country than others.

    I chuckle when folks try and seperate business from humanity. Different people act differently - don't try and blame a "company" for behavior in others you don't like - address them as people so we can move on.

    Compassion - fight the good fight.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  26.  
    identicon
    Rekrul, Feb 7th, 2008 @ 8:43am

    If you think that ISPs censoring the net to try and prevent copyright infringement is a good idea, do you also support the post office opening all your mail to make sure that you're not sending or receiving anything illegal?

    As for slippery slopes, you can see examples of this in action all over the place.

    TV - In the 1970s, an hour of TV contained about 50 minutes of program and about 10 minutes of commercials. There were no logos, or banner ads and each program had full credits and ending music. Today, an hour of TV contains at most 40 minutes of programming and 20 minutes of commercials. Station logos are visible in the corner of the screen all the time (except during commercials), there are animated banners that pop up across the bottom of the image to advertise other things, shows no longer have ending music and the credits are squashed so small you usually can't read them. Did this happen all at once? Nope, it started with little things here and there and just picked up speed. Is it likely to stop where it is now? Not a chance!

    DRM - Prior to the 1980s, there was really no DRM on music or movies (records, tapes, film). Then came video cassettes and Macrovision. Then encrypted DVDs with region codes. Now you have HD equipment that enforces DRM every step of the way, driving up the cost of compliant equipment, preventing you from using older equipment and generally preventing honest consumers from using legally bought content while doing nothing to prevent organized piracy. Will it end here? Hardly, they're already working on the next level of DRM...

    Technology - In the past, electronics manufacturers created great new devices meant to benefit the consumer. The content industry has opposed virtually every new device capable of making audio or video copies. Since they didn't have any luck getting things like the VCR banned, they campaigned for laws like the DMCA, which make it illegal to bypass any form of copy protection. Then they locked down all the content, making some legal uses impossible without violating the law. Today, the electronics companies have to get permission from the content industry before creating anything new. Of course the content industry sees that any new devices are suitably locked down and crippled. "Broadcast Flags" will eventually do in practice what Hollywood failed to do by law; Ban the VCR. Will that be the end of it?

    Copyright infringement - In the past, copyright infringement was seen as a company's problem. Now, according to them, it's the most important issue facing the world today. Think I'm joking? NBC's Rick Cotton actually said that the DOJ spends too much time investigating things like bank robbery and indentity fraud when it should be going after copyright infringement. Filming a movie in a theater was already illegal, but the MPAA pushed for tougher laws. The result? Regal Cinemas pressured the authorities to make an example out of Jhannet Sejas for recording *20* seconds of the movie Transformers on her camera phone to show her little brother! Right now there are laws before Congress that would make copyright infringement a criminal offense, meaning that the government would use YOUR tax money to file charges against non-violent file sharers. Let's not forget the provision where cases of copyright infringement would qualify for asset seizure and forfeiture, which has never required a conviction before the authorities can take your computer, or even your home. Nope, nothing slippery there...

    Without clear limits on things, the people in control will go as far as they are able to.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  27.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 7th, 2008 @ 8:44am

    Yikes - take a nap

    DanC - I'm hoping you are just having a bad day and aren't really feeling personally attacked or involved in these posts.

    Compassion - not everyone gets content from pirate sites they don't own - sometimes just a handy download site, but that doesn't mean we still shouldn't have a cop watching the bank vault for the bad guy who is looking to steal so still some merit there.

    EH - Nice One!!!



    ummmm ------ danish --------- ummmmm

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  28.  
    identicon
    DanC, Feb 7th, 2008 @ 8:58am

    Re: Yikes - take a nap

    "DanC, you are an idiot."

    That would be an example of a personal attack from someone who has established that they don't know what they're talking about.

    As for the rest, my day is going just fine. I just find it funny that some people choose to support ISP filtering based on faulty logic and a misplaced sense of righteousness.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  29.  
    identicon
    Lyinggod, Feb 7th, 2008 @ 9:14am

    Re: Re: GET OVER IT

    Asking a provider of a service to help with maintaining the legal (or safe) use of their service does not make one a "shill" to anyone. If a person uses an object to do a crime, such as stealing or killing, it is unreasonable to blame to the maker of the service/product. Unless, of course, 95% of the known use of the product is for criminal activity. In such a case, a foolish person could could point to the 5% and say "look, it has legitimate use". A service that is 95% used for illegal purposes *must* be shut down.

    Lets be realistic. Regardless of the potential of legitimate use, a service/product used in this way should be removed. If 95% of p2p software (limewire, emule) or torrents are of stolen material then these need to be shut down. This has nothing to do with the cost of music or software. Saying "I downloaded Photoshop because it expensive and therefore ok" is the same as saying "I stole this expensive Mercedes Benz". Its stealing plain and simple.

    I am not self deluded. I am guilty doing these things. I also know the purpose of why people make software or music. Its a business. Is no different then opening a store in your town. You do it to sell product and make money. You would not approve of someone not paying for your merchandise because its too expensive. Or perhaps you would, "You can't afford my products? Please take all you can carry. I will just buy more for you take next time you come in."

    SonOfDot, your missive oozes so much ignorance, its amazing. Most of the other posts here try to hide support of theft behind a moral or ethical defense. Yours is an entirely unsupported and unfounded rant.

    If anyone arguing in favor of p2p or torrents is downloading "non-free" items, then admit you are a thief. Don't hide behind arguments of "there are some 1-2 legitimate uses" or "its not the ISPs responsibility to stop illegal use of their services". Step up and proudly say "I am steal!".

    Personally, I don't drive a Mercedes. Not because there aren't any around. I believe that they are too expensive for me. Or maybe I should steal one. Then I could test drive it. If I like it, then I can justify buying one of my own. Thats fair, right? This needs some further pondering.....

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  30.  
    identicon
    Jason Still, Feb 7th, 2008 @ 9:59am

    Re: Re: Re: GET OVER IT

    Asking a provider of a service to help with maintaining the legal (or safe) use of their service does not make one a "shill" to anyone. If a person uses an object to do a crime, such as stealing or killing, it is unreasonable to blame to the maker of the service/product. Unless, of course, 95% of the known use of the product is for criminal activity. In such a case, a foolish person could could point to the 5% and say "look, it has legitimate use". A service that is 95% used for illegal purposes *must* be shut down.


    89.53% of statistics are made up on the spot. That said, what if only 90% of the service is used for "illegal" purposes? 75%? What's the magic cutoff where it suddenly becomes ok, and who gets to decide that? And by whose laws? In some places the law doesn't prohibit copyright infringement (or at least not in the same ways we do in the US)

    Lets be realistic. Regardless of the potential of legitimate use, a service/product used in this way should be removed. If 95% of p2p software (limewire, emule) or torrents are of stolen material then these need to be shut down. This has nothing to do with the cost of music or software. Saying "I downloaded Photoshop because it expensive and therefore ok" is the same as saying "I stole this expensive Mercedes Benz". Its stealing plain and simple.


    If I owned a benz and someone came up, made a second one magically appear right beside it, and drove off in the copy, I'd be happy for them. PHYSICAL PROPERTY IS NOT THE SAME AS DIGITAL PROPERTY! Saying it is just perpetuates ignorance and misunderstanding of the real issues. If you steal my car, you are depriving me of said car. If you copy my car, I've lost nothing, so I don't really care. The manufacturer probably does care because they want to be paid for each car made, but now that their car is infinitely and freely copyable it might be wiser for them to find a non-litigious way to make money off the copies (service, perhaps?). Also, 9 million+ people use torrents quite regularly for a perfectly legitimate use. This is a provable fact insofar as one trusts the subscriber numbers put forth.

    I am not self deluded. I am guilty doing these things. I also know the purpose of why people make software or music. Its a business. Is no different then opening a store in your town. You do it to sell product and make money. You would not approve of someone not paying for your merchandise because its too expensive. Or perhaps you would, "You can't afford my products? Please take all you can carry. I will just buy more for you take next time you come in."


    Again, physical and digital property are very different and we'll never solve the very real issues regarding infringement if people keep pretending otherwise.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  31.  
    identicon
    Pete, Feb 7th, 2008 @ 10:16am

    Re: Re: Re: GET OVER IT

    I would greatly appreciate it if you could show me an actual law that states that copying a file is stealing, a link or a quote with a source, and I would also like to see where you come up with this " A service that is 95% used for illegal purposes *must* be shut down. ". Now I realize that using a high number like 95% sounds impressive but I would like to see where you dug this number. It really saddens me to see people always throw around neat catch words like "steal" and "theft" but without hard evidence it is all just a bunch of hogwash in my book.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  32.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 7th, 2008 @ 10:32am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: GET OVER IT

    You're right about the 95%, but copying a file? There's no laws against it, unless of course that file contains copyrighted material.

    Do a quick search on Google, time after time courts have imposed the same copyright laws on digital content as they have on other media (hard copy, analog, etc...)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  33.  
    identicon
    DanC, Feb 7th, 2008 @ 10:33am

    Re: Re: Re: GET OVER IT

    "Most of the other posts here try to hide support of theft behind a moral or ethical defense."

    "Don't hide behind arguments of 'there are some 1-2 legitimate uses' or 'its not the ISPs responsibility to stop illegal use of their services'."

    Maybe I'm misreading your statements here, but it sounds like you're trying to equate the opposition to ISP filtering with supporting theft. As stated before, saying the same thing over and over does not make it true. Please stop it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  34.  
    identicon
    Ron, Feb 7th, 2008 @ 10:57am

    Semantics

    Both sides of this issue make comments and use examples that can in some way be attacked and torn down. Why focus on how people say something? The real issue here is why is it OK to remove the rights of some or many for the tresspasses of others. We have lots of examples, at least in the U.S. Seatbelt laws. We have them so people don't become a burden on taxpayers if they get in an accident and can't pay the medical expenses. Why is that a solution? Why not fix the system that says I have to pay anyone else's medical expenses when they are harmed by their own choices? Guns. How many of those are used for illegal purposes? The immediate need to protect our liberty is certainly low/non-existant for now but the right to own them was very specifically included in the Constitution to prevent our freedom from being taken away ever again. Do we just not want to be responsible for ourselves? Do we want to keep giving away our choices to the government? What difference does it make if it stops here or slides to the bottom of a "slippery slope"? Why do I have to give up ANY of my freedom just because any or all of the rest of you can't or won't behave? We keep focusing on ridiculous things rather than try to even determine the actual issue much less solve it. Back to guns (not sure why I keep picking that one, don't even own or even really like them). Want to ban guns because there is so much crime? Why not figure out why there is so much crime? It seems pretty obvious to me, we don't really care about those people and we really don't care whether or not they get a *fair* chance. We'd rather spend all our money punishing them (granted quite a lot of them do actually do things worth puninshing) and keep punishing them and never taking responsibility to get to the real issues like maybe their being hungry, or afraid to walk outside their house, or disenchanted with a broken educational system. I'm not claiming these are all the answers or even the right ones, but just as an example, why can't we try to be constructive? Perhaps there is something wrong with the distribution system/method/pricing/business model of the media in question. If it bothers you that much that people protest it by downloading it then put all your effort into figuring out what's broken and actually fixing it. Until then, keep your mitts off my freedom.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  35.  
    identicon
    Alimas, Feb 7th, 2008 @ 11:25am

    Re: Semantics

    Amen to that.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  36.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 7th, 2008 @ 11:26am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I'm confused because...

    Dont forget the mothers who make the babies that grow up to work as machinists in the axe factory....gonna have to something about them too!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  37.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 7th, 2008 @ 11:57am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: I'm confused because...

    I'm unfamiliar with US (or Danish) law regarding ISPs. However, I know that our company is required (by law) to put forth a "good faith" effort to prevent illegal activity at any of our publicly available WiFi access points.

    I notice how you conveniently left out just exactly which country you are supposedly talking about. Afraid of being contradicted?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  38.  
    identicon
    Lyinggod, Feb 7th, 2008 @ 1:03pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: GET OVER IT

    Jason Still Said "Again, physical and digital property are very different"

    These are tangibly different but their purpose is the same. If I sell physical widgets, I am trying to make money. If I (legally) sell songs or software, I am trying to make money. If someone steals my widgets or my songs and gives them away, then I have a diminished capacity to make money.

    It really is this simple. There is a lot of discussion about statistics who's responsibility lies where.

    *All* responsibility lies in the hands of the one doing the theft and no one else. its not rocket science, only denial or acceptance of how your actions are helping or hurting others.

    It really is that simple....

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  39.  
    identicon
    Jason Still, Feb 7th, 2008 @ 1:21pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: GET OVER IT

    These are tangibly different but their purpose is the same. If I sell physical widgets, I am trying to make money. If I (legally) sell songs or software, I am trying to make money. If someone steals my widgets or my songs and gives them away, then I have a diminished capacity to make money.


    If you have 100 of Widget A and someone steals 1, you can now only sell 99 of Widget A. If you have 1 copy of song B and someone makes a copy of it, you still have your 1 copy, so what have you lost and how many copies can you still sell?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  40.  
    identicon
    DanC, Feb 7th, 2008 @ 1:33pm

    "If someone steals my widgets or my songs and gives them away, then I have a diminished capacity to make money."

    If someone steals your widgets, you have lost a tangible object. If someone steals a copy of your music or software, you have lost nothing tangible, you have only lost potential sales. Either way, it constitutes theft, and is wrong. Just to be clear, I am NOT justifying theft.

    However, with the above example, you have no way of quantifying the damage, if any, done to your sales of music or software. You can compare actual sales to expected, track a downward or upward trend in sales, but you cannot definitively state a number that would indicate how much was lost to piracy. Perhaps some of the pirates would never have purchased it. Perhaps they pirated it, liked it, and bought it (I have done this before). And I'm sure some loss can be directly attributed to lost sales. But there is no way of telling what the percentages are.

    Where this becomes an issue is when dealing with organizations such as the RIAA and the MPAA, because they use fabricated numbers to convince lawmakers that there is a global piracy epidemic. It's already been discussed how they themselves have admitted that some *cough* of their numbers are complete fabrications.

    Using their bogus numbers, they are attempting to influence governments worldwide to institute filtering technology that has no hope of succeeding, and will invariable infringe on the fair use rights of consumers. I will say that the RIAA currently does not want to mandate filters (although it does advocate them). The president of the RIAA has actually presented an even worse idea: copyright filtering on users' pcs.

    "*All* responsibility lies in the hands of the one doing the theft and no one else."

    Exactly right. Since the responsibility is in the hands of the individual, there is no reason why the ISPs should be implementing filters. It isn't their responsibility to allow or deny what you do with their service.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  41.  
    identicon
    Bearclaw, Feb 7th, 2008 @ 1:50pm

    Re: Danish?

    Win

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  42.  
    identicon
    Ron, Feb 7th, 2008 @ 2:09pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: GET OVER IT

    I like this, let's take it further. Let's say I have a special machine. This machine can take a picture of the widget you are selling and when the picture develops it solidifies into a workable replica of the original. Not perfect but close enough. Did I steal your widget? Are you now unable to sell your widget? I'm interested to see how far this concept could go. Maybe your widget wasn't as valuable as you thought it was. What if the technology existed where you could send a widget over TV or Radio. It automatically disintegrates after one use so if I like it I have to buy it but I use my camera machine to copy it before I use it once. Did I steal what you gave me? *Can* you steal what someone gave you? Not sure I know the answers to these questions, plus it's still not that great an analogy. Basically aren't they selling an experience? Sound waves or visuals with sound waves that produce a pleasant feeling in my brain. Maybe people are protesting the overpricing of these experiences. Maybe we are all criminals. Maybe some people hate change and refuse to admit that their delivery method for experiences are out of date and need to be fixed. Plus maybe the experience:price-for-experience ratio is out of whack and the populace is protesting. What if the experience they are selling isn't as great as they think it is?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  43.  
    identicon
    Rose M. Welch, Feb 8th, 2008 @ 7:01am

    I would love to see tax money spent to pay for the guard we keep at our jewelery store to stop people who might have designs on steaing our products, just like all of this copyright crap is paid for by the taxpayer. Plus, I want one watching my computer and bank account to make sure that someone is not trying to get my personal info for identity theft, whcih seems like a much bigger problem for me than a copyright issue. Can I have all that? I don't think so.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  44.  
    identicon
    Elle, Feb 8th, 2008 @ 7:34am

    Re: HurricaneRick's Third Objection

    "My third objection is this. Many up-and-coming artists are now distributing their own copyrighted materials over file sharing networks like BitTorrent. I’ve even downloaded a hand full of open source applications using BitTorrent clients. Without these avenues to freely distribute their materials, new artists and open source developers would find it more difficult to get their products in front of people that may actually pay for their works in the future."

    Not that I want to sound like a conspiracy theorist/nut, but perhaps this is what the RIAA and record and entertainment industries want to happen: remove alternative routes for independant artists to distribute their work, and they will come back to the RIAA/record/entertainment fold when they are desperate. IIRC, I'm sure that it irked the RIAA no end when Trent Reznor released single tracks from his Year Zero album on PirateBay without bending over for RIAA's permission first, even though he had the ok from his record company. Now that TR is completely independant, he doesn't have to get permission from anyone to distribute his music the way he wants to. TR, and other artists like him are going to figure out a way to profit from new methods of distribution that don't include record companies and RIAA bs, and RIAA and Co. can hear the Cheney/Stokes death-rattle not too far behind them. So, of course they want to get ISPs on board to prop up their failing business model.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  45.  
    identicon
    Elle, Feb 8th, 2008 @ 7:40am

    Re: RE: sonofdot

    While from one point of view, I agree with your statement that corporate/government entities are made up of individuals, from a different point of view, I would point out that groups of people have been known to act differently as a group than they would act each as an individual. It's called herd or mob mentality. Unfortunately, such groups usually follow the loudest or most forceful person in that group and do what they say, and the loudest and/or most forceful person isn't usually the most ethical. Just a thought.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This