Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 9th Mar 2010 16:58 UTC
Legal We have some very, very good news for Europeans (which happens to include myself): we have the European Parliament on our sides when it comes to battling ACTA. If you may recall, ACTA is basically an attempt by the US to impose upon the rest of the world draconian measures like three strikes laws and the DMCA. All parties within the European Parliament have together put forth a resolution that would effectively tackle ACTA.
Thread beginning with comment 412914
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Thom just wants legalized piracy
by nt_jerkface on Tue 9th Mar 2010 19:31 UTC
nt_jerkface
Member since:
2009-08-26


Draconian:
rigorous; unusually severe or cruel: Draconian forms of punishment.


How is three strikes Draconian? You're given two warnings before losing internet access. Is enforcing the law Draconian?

What exactly do you want Thom? Legalized piracy? Put millions of geeks out of work so consumers can spend more money on junk food?

It has been said before that geeks are the worst when it comes to undermining their own industry. Thom would put people who read this site out of work or into other industries just so he can feel better about torrenting movies.

Reply Score: -8

Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

It's not just about legalized piracy.

I've got a linux box. I play a DVD. Therefore, under US laws, I'm a pirate, because I pass through some content protection (and this ways avoid unskippable ads and multiple piracy warnings on a DVD that I have paid). Is that normal ?

I buy DRMized music on my computer. The company gets out of business, and I lose access to my music because my media player cannot connect to their down web server. Under US laws, this is legally f--king up customers, they can do nothing about it...

If there is a way to avoid piracy, it's not AACS, legal spywares (like in french Hadopi/Loppsi laws), and DRMs/Activations. Every system like that includes security holes at a fundamental level and may be bypassed. People who pirate things don't get them. So it's just about ruining the life of legit customers and convince some of them that piracy is actually the way to better content quality.

Edited 2010-03-09 20:01 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 8

boldingd Member since:
2009-02-19

Just to be an ass, I'll point out, if the company went under, there'd be nobody to file suit against you if you did crack your old media. Not that it should ever be a problem in the first place...

Reply Parent Score: 2

nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

I buy DRMized music on my computer. The company gets out of business, and I lose access to my music because my media player cannot connect to their down web server. Under US laws, this is legally f--king up customers, they can do nothing about it...


Most digital music is DRM free. I'm not even aware of any company that still tries to tie music to a player. Your DVD legal issues can be resolved by buying a $50 dvd player at Wal-mart. But if it makes you feel any better I think the patent time for media codecs should be shortened unless there is a clause for non-commercial use. However Thom's solution of legalizing piracy would kill off the R&D that funds innovative technologies like the MPEG codec. Allowing piracy eviscerates software economic models and replaces them with nothing. Most software that is developed depends on intellectual property protection laws. Software companies can't compete if it is legal to download a clone of their product. It isn't like other markets since the reproduction cost is $0 which is why we have laws that ensure the producers are compensated. Intellectual property laws make sense and the vast majority of economists support them.


If there is a way to avoid piracy, it's not AACS, legal spywares (like in french Hadopi/Loppsi laws), and DRMs/Activations. Every system like that includes security holes at a fundamental level and may be bypassed. People who pirate things don't get them. So it's just about ruining the life of legit customers and convince some of them that piracy is actually the way to better content quality.


Piracy is not a fixed rate. More people will pirate if they it is tacitly legal or culturally acceptable. We've already seen this in Asia where certain types of software can not be sold due to piracy making local markets untenable.

Though it can seem like some copyright laws are a burden the same can be said for many types of laws. Laws are not created for the sake of convenience. Following the law is often more difficult than breaking it.

Reply Parent Score: 2

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

No, I want laws to treat people fairly.

Copyright law in The Netherlands is exactly as it should be. Uploading is illegal, while downloading is not, giving law enforcement the handle to fight what I call professional piracy - you know, the kind of piracy that actually hurts the industry, as opposed to grandmother downloading a few songs off the internet.

But I guess you prefer the three strikes system, which means that all internet activity must be monitored by private organisations. I guess you prefer a system where private, non-government organisations have the same kind of power judges have, allowing them to punish people without due trial.

I guess you prefer a world in which the equipment you buy is not yours, and where using said in equipment can lead to jail time simply because the company selling you said equipment disapproves of it.

If that's a world you want to live in, then bugger off to the US, which is currently the paradise you seem to seek, where justice favours the large, rich companies, instead of ordinary individuals.

Reply Parent Score: 12

nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

No, I want laws to treat people fairly.

Copyright law in The Netherlands is exactly as it should be. Uploading is illegal, while downloading is not,


That amounts to legalized piracy. Even if it is enforced people from outside the country will provide the files.

Letting people download copyright material without permission from the owners is theft. You're letting people steal the work of others without compensation.


But I guess you prefer the three strikes system, which means that all internet activity must be monitored by private organisations. I guess you prefer a system where private, non-government organisations have the same kind of power judges have, allowing them to punish people without due trial.


Private companies don't have the same power the judges have. All ISPs can do is stop providing their own service.

Private companies refuse service for illegal activities all the time. It's a packet delivery service, you don't have a right to using it for illegal activity anymore than you do with other private delivery services.


If that's a world you want to live in, then bugger off to the US, which is currently the paradise you seem to seek, where justice favours the large, rich companies, instead of ordinary individuals.


You're clearly for laws that favor pirates over content producers. What you call "fair" amounts to letting people download all the copyrighted material they want. Just be intellectually honest at least and say you favor pirates over researchers, programmers, artists and musicians.

Reply Parent Score: 1

WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

How is three strikes Draconian? You're given two warnings before losing internet access. Is enforcing the law Draconian?

First of all, it'd mean ISPs were forced to monitor all data going in or out and maintain insanely huge lists of illegal material; that is really freaking costly and as such would bar any start-ups from ever becoming successful.

Secondly, it's pretty easy to spoof things and make it seem like someone is downloading illegal stuff and thus cause the said person to lose Internet access. A private person has no way of proving his or her innocence in such a case. And how about if you have friends over or something, and someone accidentally or intentionally downloads something and it happens to be illegal material? Yes, you'd get the blame.

Thirdly, Internet access is nowadays a must. There's so many things you just can't do anymore in any reasonable way without having access to Internet and, for whatever the reason, if you lost access to it you'd instantly become an outcast and would lose out on a large part of modern society.

Fourth, obtaining such material shouldn't be punishable. You don't get jailtime or fines for buying bootleg DVDs or CDs either, why should digital wares be different? It's the one selling that stuff or putting it up who's committing the illegal act. Also circumventing protections on material should be allowed so that you can use the material you've bought; there's many alternative OSes and applications out there available completely for free of charge and as such the developer(s) can't buy licenses for stuff, also in many cases DRM causes the material to be non-working or non-accessible after a certain time due to authentication servers going down permanently, bad coding, or one of the other billion reasons and in such cases you'll be locked out of your legally obtained material.

It has been said before that geeks are the worst when it comes to undermining their own industry. Thom would put people who read this site out of work or into other industries just so he can feel better about torrenting movies.

If you really believe this is just about people wanting to continue torrenting movies then you're so far away from the track that I'd need a warp drive and a year of time to be able to reach you.

EDIT: Fixed typo.

Edited 2010-03-09 20:51 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 8

nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26


First of all, it'd mean ISPs were forced to monitor all data going in or out and maintain insanely huge lists of illegal material; that is really freaking costly and as such would bar any start-ups from ever becoming successful.


No it would be quite easy. Repeat offenders would be reported to ISPs and they would lose service after being warned. It's that simple.


Secondly, it's pretty easy to spoof things and make it seem like someone is downloading illegal stuff and thus cause the said person to lose Internet access.


IP spoofing is not easy if you are targeting a specific range. Packets can be traced and network logs will show if a 7 GB movie actually went through your local hub or not.

A three-strikes law would involve a warning system which means a strike could be appealed and this type of a scenario could be handled properly.


Thirdly, Internet access is nowadays a must.

It isn't a right and there's always the public library. The only people that would have a problem with this are the ones who pirate media.


Fourth, obtaining such material shouldn't be punishable. You don't get jailtime or fines for buying bootleg DVDs or CDs either, why should digital wares be different? It's the one selling that stuff or putting it up who's committing the illegal act.


Because tacitly allowing digital piracy is harmful to the industries that create the digital products that people enjoy. Laws need to exist that encourage people to buy media from the people that made it. That doesn't need to involve jailtime.

Reply Parent Score: 2

boldingd Member since:
2009-02-19

Don't exaggerate, now. In most cases, the penalties for file sharing dramatically exceed the actual damages done to content producers and distributors -- and, never forget, a pirated song does not necessarily equal a lost sale, and therefore does not imply harm to the distributor. If we had short, reasonable copyright terms -- like, say, five or ten years, long enough to recoup production costs and make a tidy profit -- and if the penalties for content piracy where much more in line with the actual harms (i.e. maybe $100 per song, at the outside), then I think most people would be O.K. with things. It's the abuse and corruption of IP law, and its flight to extremes that I think most people have a problem with. Nobody's demanding the abolition of private property -- well, most of us aren't.

tldr; can you say "strawman"?

Reply Parent Score: 4

danieldk Member since:
2005-11-18

How is three strikes Draconian?


How about this: if the electricity company detects 'illegal activity' by snooping around in your house, you will be cut of electricity for the rest of your life.

Internet has become a basic service required to survive in the 21st century Western world. No one's packets should be inspected, and no one should be deprived of something that is fundamental for living.

Reply Parent Score: 2

nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

People that don't pirate won't lose their internet. Those that do after being warned can get internet at a public station or use a modem or cell service. There are friends, relatives, and other options.

Looking the other way when it comes to packets amounts to allowing piracy. You can't expect pirates to turn themselves in and focusing on uploaders just moves the contents out of the jurisdiction.

The way to do it is to only bust the major leechers as a way of encouraging the majority to follow the law. Don't expect to stamp out piracy 100% but don't allow it to be a national past-time either.

It isn't as if you would have to sniff all packets. They would get suspected IP addresses from torrent and p2p networks.

Reply Parent Score: 2

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Don't be such a gigantic tool.

Reply Parent Score: 1