EU Plots Pirate Bay Ban and Piracy Clampdown

[Aussie Rebel]

Interesting........

In a few weeks time, members of the European Parliament will vote on the Medina report, which proposes a wide range of anti-piracy measures and regulations. The report specifically mentions The Pirate Bay, and it approves actions by national courts against the popular BitTorrent tracker.

The proposals in the report, drafted by the 73 year old Spanish socialist Manuel Medina Ortega, show many similarities to the wish lists of the RIAA, IFPI and MPAA we published earlier. The report calls for more responsibility and liability for ISPs, while copyright infringing content has to be filtered from the Internet.

Even though the European Parliament has voted against so called ?three-strikes? proposals twice before, this is also suggested as a viable measure against piracy. It?s proposed that ISPs should disconnect subscribers who share copyrighted content, based on information provided by the entertainment industry.

In addition, national courts are encouraged to take action against BitTorrent sites such as The Pirate Bay. Apparently, the report deems BitTorrent sites to be illegal - which is a bold statement without any legal backup. Last year, Italy imposed a nation wide block on The Pirate Bay, but this was reversed in court due to a lack of jurisdiction; this might change if the new proposals are adopted.

In a draft of the report we read ?The activities of websites that are part of the peer-to-peer phenomenon and which allow downloading of protected works or services without the necessary authorisation are illegal, and no exception can be applied to them. So the activity of internet users who send files to their peers must be regarded as an illegal act of communication to the public without the possibility of exceptions being applied.?

ISPs are further encouraged to identify and filter copyright infringing content on their networks. As we?ve said before, this might work on networks such as FastTrack/Kazaa, but it remains unclear what methods the ISP will have to implement to distinguish between copyright infringing and legal content on more tricky networks, such as BitTorrent. That will be a tough job, if not impossible. In common with RIAA recommendations, the report suggests that ISPs should be held liable for the actions of their customers.

More details are available on La Quadrature, with Jérémie Zimmermann, co-founder of the site commenting, ?The Medina report is ridiculous and full of repressive measures. It is in total contradiction with what MEPs voted twice against ?graduated response? and with the realities of Internet. It only favors entertainment industries and doesn?t contain anything for culture, the artists, or their public.?

Of course, we encourage all of our European readers to write to their representatives in the European Parliament, as this is clearly not the right path to take.

Source: http://torrentfreak.com/eu-plots-pir...mpdown-090201/

[d-null]

this looks to be a huge step, we could see some big changes in the internet in the next couple years

[Aussie Rebel]

Originally Posted by d-null

this looks to be a huge step, we could see some big changes in the internet in the next couple years

I really hope so

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by d-null

this looks to be a huge step, we could see some big changes in the internet in the next couple years

Originally Posted by Aussie Rebel

I really hope so

as long as

1. timeshifted tv shows are a majority of bit torrent traffic
2. and even the us courts have recognized that timeshifting using a cloud is legal

this will be a dream.

[d-null]

Originally Posted by Aussie Rebel

I really hope so

think of how fast things could change overnight if torrents were shut down and rapidshare and megaupload were stopped?

the supply of warez and porn would change drastically overnight

[Voodoo]

What is going to stop people from anonymously seeding the p2p networks, and leaking their own works, just so they can go after people who share them?

[Barefootsies]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

as long as

1. timeshifted tv shows are a majority of bit torrent traffic
2. and even the us courts have recognized that timeshifting using a cloud is legal

this will be a dream.

You need to 'time shift' yourself to China.

There you will be with 'friends' with similar minds who think theft of copycatted material, patents, and technology is 'dandy'.

You do not pay for tv shows ass hat. The networks do via advertising. In reality, to keep up your end of the bargain. You need to watch the commercials. Cable or Satalite does not pay for your tv either. You are paying for the SERVICE of cable. Not unlimited use of shit on there. Same as a telephone, or other utility.

[tranza]

Hope internet could turn into something better in the next couple of years...

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by Barefootsies

You need to 'time shift' yourself to China.

There you will be with 'friends' with similar minds who think theft of copycatted material, patents, and technology is 'dandy'.

You do not pay for tv shows ass hat. The networks do via advertising. In reality, to keep up your end of the bargain. You need to watch the commercials. Cable or Satalite does not pay for your tv either. You are paying for the SERVICE of cable. Not unlimited use of shit on there. Same as a telephone, or other utility.

and the only way you can legitimately make that bullshit arguement is to demand the criminalization of tivo and pvr.

Of course if you (and robbie) keep making the arguement that those technologies are good, arguing that i shouldn't be allowed to do the exact same thing using a cloud
(especially when the courts recognized that right) is just plain stupidity.

[Barefootsies]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

and the only way you can legitimately make that bullshit arguement is to demand the criminalization of tivo and pvr.

Of course if you (and robbie) keep making the arguement that those technologies are good, arguing that i shouldn't be allowed to do the exact same thing using a cloud
(especially when the courts recognized that right) is just plain stupidity.

No asswipe. It is you who make that bullshit argument.

Paying for cable is a service. A subscription to receive a broadcast to be exact. Just because you pay to receive that service does not entitle you to copy everything, and make a profit off it. At not point do the media companies give you copyright permission of any kind.

Same with listening to the radio. Just because you receive the signal does not give you permission to record the latest songs, and then copy them, and rebroadcast or sell them.

Just because you paid to rent a movie at blockbuster does not give you the right to copy that DVD, and rebroadcast it, or make copies for others and profiteer from it.

Or even better one. I pay for a movie ticket, and I go into the theatre with a camera, and record the movie. I go home, digitize it, and rebroadcast it on torrents, tube sites, whatever because I am 'time shifting' my movie I bought for 8.95. Now I have the RIGHT to copy, and rebroadcast using youtube as my hard drive.

Your bullshit, fucked up logic goes something like this... I rent a movie from blockbuster. I then make a copy of it. I then show it at a movie theatre nightly for 300 people because I choose a movie theater as my time shifting, back up of the movie I rented.

That is how fucked up your argument is. Now, in reading that in words, any court of law would strike down your fucked up bullshit time shifting argument.

I can't wait until they do. Then you will have to find something else to do than troll message boards trying to get people worked up. While I admit I have not read all the threads on this board, I have yet to see a threat where a single people in this industry agrees with you or your argument.

[jimmycastor]

joke
and too late, torrents are loosing popularity anyway..


rapidshare is more popular for porn downloads and leeching in general = no waiting time for the download.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by Barefootsies

No asswipe. It is you who make that bullshit argument.

Paying for cable is a service. A subscription to receive a broadcast to be exact. Just because you pay to receive that service does not entitle you to copy everything, and make a profit off it. At not point do the media companies give you copyright permission of any kind.

Same with listening to the radio. Just because you receive the signal does not give you permission to record the latest songs, and then copy them, and rebroadcast or sell them.

Just because you paid to rent a movie at blockbuster does not give you the right to copy that DVD, and rebroadcast it, or make copies for others and profiteer from it.

Or even better one. I pay for a movie ticket, and I go into the theatre with a camera, and record the movie. I go home, digitize it, and rebroadcast it on torrents, tube sites, whatever because I am 'time shifting' my movie I bought for 8.95. Now I have the RIGHT to copy, and rebroadcast using youtube as my hard drive.

Your bullshit, fucked up logic goes something like this... I rent a movie from blockbuster. I then make a copy of it. I then show it at a movie theatre nightly for 300 people because I choose a movie theater as my time shifting, back up of the movie I rented.

so the only way you can dispute my arguement is to misrepresent it.
all your bullshit examples have one thing in common (which my timeshifting example does not) and that is that the people you are distributing to have NOT paid for the content also.

The person making the torrent file is not making money off the distribution period
just like the person recording the tv show with a vcr was not making money off the distribution. Sony made 1k from selling the devices (just like the torrent sites) but their actions were not a contributory infringement because of the fair use of time shifting.

It established quite clearly i don't need the fucking permission of the copyright holder because fair use falls outside the scope of the copyright holders' conditional monopoly.

That is how fucked up your argument is. Now, in reading that in words, any court of law would strike down your fucked up bullshit time shifting argument.

I can't wait until they do. Then you will have to find something else to do than troll message boards trying to get people worked up. While I admit I have not read all the threads on this board, I have yet to see a threat where a single people in this industry agrees with you or your argument.

you mean like

http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/08/victory-dvrs-cloud

where the appeals court recognized that you could timeshift using a cloud

http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?n.../01/20/1320242

or the ruling against one download = 1 lost sale.

i hate to tell you this (well actually i don't) but the courts are not your friends in arguement.
The politicians being bought and paid for by the RIAA is your only hope, and unfortunately for you
1. 2.2 trillion dollars of business is dependent on fair use right staying where they are
2. people are starting to realize that all the belly aching by the RIAA is an attempt to turn a conditional monopoly (as it was intended) into sherman anti-trust violating true monopoly.

which of course puts the entire arguement back into the courts hands (which are not your friends on this issue).

[Barefootsies]

As I said...

Then you will have to find something else to do than troll message boards trying to get people worked up. While I admit I have not read all the threads on this board, I have yet to see a threat where a single person in this industry agrees with you or your argument.

Troll on...

[Barefootsies]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

Of course if you (and robbie) keep making the arguement that those technologies are good, arguing that i shouldn't be allowed to do the exact same thing using a cloud
(especially when the courts recognized that right) is just plain stupidity.

Furthermore asswipe. How about you stick to the facts.

I have not commented on those technologies, good or bad. So the only 'misrepresentation' is you putting words in my mouth.

[d-null]

Originally Posted by jimmycastor

joke
and too late, torrents are loosing popularity anyway..


rapidshare is more popular for porn downloads and leeching in general = no waiting time for the download.

and easier to bring down, since they are the ones actually hosting the files

[Barefootsies]

Originally Posted by d-null

and easier to bring down, since they are the ones actually hosting the files

Exactly right.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by Barefootsies

Furthermore asswipe. How about you stick to the facts.

I have not commented on those technologies, good or bad. So the only 'misrepresentation' is you putting words in my mouth.

ever time you make your snide little "have you heard about .... it called tivo" comments that is exactly what ou are doing.

[cess]

I'm a bit surprised ISPs haven't been forced already to put a blocklist in for certain websites like TPB. That won't stop everyone but it would be a huge hit on their traffic and stop a large chunk of it. When joe blow finds it time consuming and hard to do he's likely to not bother doing it anymore.

I'm also surprised they haven't been removed from google. The people at google know they are linking to that shit too, they could block it if they wanted. I know there's special rules for search engines too... Funny what you can get away with when you have the cash for the best lawyers out there.

Someone will probably say you can't get in trouble for linking to sites with pirated content but that's not true. Well obviously for google it is. But I've seen more than a few court cases where people got busted for doing just that. Not long ago someone got in some serious crap for linking to family guy videos he wasn't hosting.

Originally Posted by d-null

and easier to bring down, since they are the ones actually hosting the files

They'll probably use the same defense google does for youtube. They didn't upload it, it's only a file hosting service, so it's not their fault. They'll claim they remove any pirated stuff that they find or that's reported and likely get away with it. The good thing about rapidshare is you have to pay if you want your files now. Most p2p users won't be so quick to pop out their CC when they were getting shit for free.

[LadyMischief]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

so the only way you can dispute my arguement is to misrepresent it.
all your bullshit examples have one thing in common (which my timeshifting example does not) and that is that the people you are distributing to have NOT paid for the content also.

The person making the torrent file is not making money off the distribution period
just like the person recording the tv show with a vcr was not making money off the distribution. Sony made 1k from selling the devices (just like the torrent sites) but their actions were not a contributory infringement because of the fair use of time shifting.

It established quite clearly i don't need the fucking permission of the copyright holder because fair use falls outside the scope of the copyright holders' conditional monopoly.








you mean like

http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/08/victory-dvrs-cloud

where the appeals court recognized that you could timeshift using a cloud

http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?n.../01/20/1320242

or the ruling against one download = 1 lost sale.

i hate to tell you this (well actually i don't) but the courts are not your friends in arguement.
The politicians being bought and paid for by the RIAA is your only hope, and unfortunately for you
1. 2.2 trillion dollars of business is dependent on fair use right staying where they are
2. people are starting to realize that all the belly aching by the RIAA is an attempt to turn a conditional monopoly (as it was intended) into sherman anti-trust violating true monopoly.

which of course puts the entire arguement back into the courts hands (which are not your friends on this issue).

You are really out of it. So here's what you're saying. I write a book. Someone goes and photocopies the whole book, and hands out free copies to everyone. What you're saying is that's NOT copyright infringement because the person is not making money off it? BS, because even if the person distributing the work is not making money, the person who CREATED the work is still LOSING money, therefore still able to sue.

I think you WISH things were the way you say it is, but perhaps you should ask a lawyer instead of assuming.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by LadyMischief

You are really out of it. So here's what you're saying. I write a book. Someone goes and photocopies the whole book, and hands out free copies to everyone. What you're saying is that's NOT copyright infringement because the person is not making money off it? BS, because even if the person distributing the work is not making money, the person who CREATED the work is still LOSING money, therefore still able to sue.

I think you WISH things were the way you say it is, but perhaps you should ask a lawyer instead of assuming.

no that is not what i am saying
i am simply pointing out that significant difference between my timeshifting example (timeshifting content that i paid for) and the barefooties bullshit misrepresentation of what i was waying (infringement that cause economic harm).

you are doing the same thing. however you are ignoring a different pre-condition to make your bullshit analogy (the fact that in my example i bought a right to the content).

It is significant because as it has been repeatedly proven timeshifting does cause economic harm too.

My own worst enemy got tivoed to death because none of those potential ad views are counted/paid for either.
It doesn't matter because it is paid for by the timeshifter and the contract/licience(cable bill) does not/can not explictly require the watching of commercials (without violating anti-trust law)

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by LadyMischief

You are really out of it. So here's what you're saying. I write a book. Someone goes and photocopies the whole book, and hands out free copies to everyone. What you're saying is that's NOT copyright infringement because the person is not making money off it? BS, because even if the person distributing the work is not making money, the person who CREATED the work is still LOSING money, therefore still able to sue.

I think you WISH things were the way you say it is, but perhaps you should ask a lawyer instead of assuming.

oh and btw you are only losing money if you are selling book to the infringers marketplace, if you are not selling in that region then there is no economic damage and you can't sue for it.

see the second ruling i pointed out.

[DamageX]

Way to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

[Barefootsies]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

ever time you make your snide little "have you heard about .... it called tivo" comments that is exactly what ou are doing.

Once again asshat.... I have never talked ABOUT tivo. I do not own one. Nor have ever. I do not know a lot in regards to that stuff since I am not a big TV watcher. I typically wait for my shows to come out on DVD, and buy the box set.

As I said, if you are going to reference me. Make sure it is something I have actually SAID bitch.

[Barefootsies]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

It doesn't matter because it is paid for by the timeshifter and the contract/licience(cable bill) does not/can not explictly require the watching of commercials (without violating anti-trust law)

Right.

Since you are not watching the commercials, then you essentially are not PAYING For anything you claim to pay for. That is how you, the TV watcher and consumer, fit into this puzzle. Your paying for cable is not giving you any copyright, or licensing you anything. You are paying for a membership essentially, or the signal, to receive cable channels. So the only bullshit here friend is you.

The rest of us just need to wear some waders when you are around.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by Barefootsies

Right.

Since you are not watching the commercials, then you essentially are not PAYING For anything you claim to pay for. That is how you, the TV watcher and consumer, fit into this puzzle. Your paying for cable is not giving you any copyright, or licensing you anything. You are paying for a membership essentially, or the signal, to receive cable channels. So the only bullshit here friend is you.

The rest of us just need to wear some waders when you are around.

so going to take a shit during the commercial break is a copyright violation now (since your not paying for that content)

and going to the kitchen to get food (same reason)

You are grasping at straws with that bullshit arguement

i suggest you re-read my post

It doesn't matter because it is paid for by the timeshifter and the contract/licience(cable bill) does not/can not explictly require the watching of commercials (without violating anti-trust law)

there is no way the copyrightholder can make such a demand without violating anti-trust laws.

There is no way the cable company can make such a demand without violating anti-trust laws.

each would be an attempt to extend copyright monopoly beyond the bounds of copyright licience.

The cable bill pays for the content
the timeshifting ruling allows me to skip the commercials if a want to.

The Betamax is also equipped with a pause button and a fast-forward control. The pause button, when depressed, deactivates the recorder until it is released, thus enabling a viewer to omit a commercial advertisement from the recording, provided, of course, that the viewer is present when the program is recorded. The fast-forward control enables the viewer of a previously recorded program to run the tape rapidly when a segment he or she does not desire to see is being played back on the television screen.

just because the technology has gotten better and doing those tasks does not take away the "fair use" rights granted by that court ruling.

[WarChild]

Originally Posted by LadyMischief

You are really out of it. So here's what you're saying. I write a book. Someone goes and photocopies the whole book, and hands out free copies to everyone. What you're saying is that's NOT copyright infringement because the person is not making money off it? BS, because even if the person distributing the work is not making money, the person who CREATED the work is still LOSING money, therefore still able to sue.

I think you WISH things were the way you say it is, but perhaps you should ask a lawyer instead of assuming.

No, here's what he's actually saying.

You write a book. I buy a copy of the book. My friend who lives next door buys a copy of your book. His copy of the book, that he paid for, is accidentally destroyed. I let him make a photocopy of my copy of the book.

How are you losing money?

[tony286]

Originally Posted by WarChild

No, here's what he's actually saying.

You write a book. I buy a copy of the book. My friend who lives next door buys a copy of your book. His copy of the book, that he paid for, is accidentally destroyed. I let him make a photocopy of my copy of the book.

How are you losing money?

because that person if they wanted the book after losing or destroying it would have to buy another copy.if you buy it once it doesnt give you rights for life. I lost a book I wasnt finished with ,I was pissed I went to amazon ordered another.

[WarChild]

Originally Posted by tony404

because that person if they wanted the book after losing or destroying it would have to buy another copy.if you buy it once it doesnt give you rights for life. I lost a book I wasnt finished with ,I was pissed I went to amazon ordered another.

Well the case of a book is silly anyway, because nobody is going to copy an entire book, it's just not worth the time. I actually replied in the wrong thread, because I'm reading one about backups at the same time.

You mean to tell me that I'm not allowed, for instance, to make a backup of software I buy? If I lose my XP CD, I have to buy a brand new XP? I'm pretty sure that the law _specifically_ allows for me to make and recover from backup.

[cykoe6]

I use torrents to get US television shows (mostly HBO) which are not available where I live. I would have no problem with some commercials if the shows were available in some format. I think they could solve the problem by streaming the shows themselves online and profiting from some advertising (like South Park is doing). I would much rather watch an official version with some commercials then deal with the torrents.

[Barefootsies]

Originally Posted by tony404

because that person if they wanted the book after losing or destroying it would have to buy another copy.if you buy it once it doesnt give you rights for life.

Which is essentially gideon's ridiculous argument.

If someone buys a 1 month membership to your site. They copy everything. Then cancel. They have eternal rights to that content they bought for $24.95. As if they 'own' it (i.e. copyright).

It would be nice to see this board restricted to those actually IN the adult BUSINESS. Gideon's sole occupation is trolling a message board with the same old daily shtick.

One can dream.

[WarChild]

Originally Posted by Barefootsies

Which is essentially gideon's ridiculous argument.

If someone buys a 1 month membership to your site. They copy everything. Then cancel. They have eternal rights to that content they bought for $24.95. As if they 'own' it (i.e. copyright).

It would be nice to see this board restricted to those actually IN the adult BUSINESS. Gideon's sole occupation is trolling a message board with the same old daily shtick.

One can dream.

If I buy a one month membership to your site, and you allow and offer content for me to download to my hard drive, then don't I have a right to backup and recover files to and from my hard drive?

Under your scenario if my computer crashes after my membership to your site expires, I can restore everything from a ghost image _EXCEPT_ your content? Ridiculous.

[tony286]

Originally Posted by WarChild

Well the case of a book is silly anyway, because nobody is going to copy an entire book, it's just not worth the time. I actually replied in the wrong thread, because I'm reading one about backups at the same time.

You mean to tell me that I'm not allowed, for instance, to make a backup of software I buy? If I lose my XP CD, I have to buy a brand new XP? I'm pretty sure that the law _specifically_ allows for me to make and recover from backup.

you know as well as I do. Thats not the case with torrents.You make a back up its just for you not 1 million of your friends.

[Barefootsies]

Originally Posted by WarChild

If I buy a one month membership to your site, and you allow and offer content for me to download to my hard drive, then don't I have a right to backup and recover files to and from my hard drive?

Under your scenario if my computer crashes after my membership to your site expires, I can restore everything from a ghost image _EXCEPT_ your content? Ridiculous.

Nice try. I did not make that argument. Gideon did.

Stick to the facts champ.

[Barefootsies]

Originally Posted by tony404

you know as well as I do. Thats not the case with torrents.You make a back up its just for you not 1 million of your friends.

Exactly right.

[WarChild]

Originally Posted by tony404

you know as well as I do. Thats not the case with torrents.You make a back up its just for you not 1 million of your friends.

Look I'm not trying to defend copy right theft through torrents. But Barefoot sissies is being ridiculous. The moment you sell me content that I'm allowed to download and presumably keep forever, I have certain rights to it. One of those is to restore from backup. If I get that copy from a torrent to so be it, and guess what, you have no standing what-so-ever for a copyright infringment claim against me.

[tony286]

Originally Posted by WarChild

Look I'm not trying to defend copy right theft through torrents. But Barefoot sissies is being ridiculous. The moment you sell me content that I'm allowed to download and presumably keep forever, I have certain rights to it. One of those is to restore from backup. If I get that copy from a torrent to so be it, and guess what, you have no standing what-so-ever for a copyright infringment claim against me.

But lets be honest how often does that actually happen?

[Barefootsies]

Originally Posted by WarChild

Look I'm not trying to defend copy right theft through torrents. But Barefoot sissies is being ridiculous. The moment you sell me content that I'm allowed to download and presumably keep forever, I have certain rights to it. One of those is to restore from backup. If I get that copy from a torrent to so be it, and guess what, you have no standing what-so-ever for a copyright infringment claim against me.

I think you are busy drinking the Kool Aid. I never said you do not have the rights to back it up. It is the WAY in which you back it up. Hard drive versus torrent, youtube, etc. Something that allows others access to it, basically providing distribution.

What is ridiculous is your inability to actually read what I type, and secondly to try and put words in my mouth I did not say, imply, or infer.

My argument is, and has always been, the technology you use to 'back up', and that some of them allow access to other users, meaning you are distributing it. So your hard drive comment holds no water.

[WarChild]

Originally Posted by Barefootsies

Nice try. I did not make that argument. Gideon did.

Stick to the facts champ.

He didn't say you you own content (copyright) when you download it. He said that when you sell it to me I get certain rights that you can not take away from me. One of those is to restore lost files. If I do that from CD, DVD, Tape or Torrent, it's none of your business and there's nothing you can do about that.

Now obviously piratesbay and other torrent trackers don't have this sort of purpose. Their intent is clearly illegal, IMHO. I'm simply saying there are some legitimate purposes for Torrents and thus it might not be so black and white as you seem to think it is.

[Barefootsies]

Originally Posted by WarChild

I'm simply saying there are some legitimate purposes for Torrents and thus it might not be so black and white as you seem to think it is.

... and where exactly did I talk at length on my opinion on torrents, and their uses?

Stick to the facts sport. Stop taking 'liberties' on your interpretation of what I am saying.

If your method of back up allows illegal copies to get to others, than yes, it would be ANY content producers business. Once more, it does not hold water. Yourself, like a HD is fine. A torrent that allows anyone to copy it, different argument.

[WarChild]

Originally Posted by Barefootsies

... and where exactly did I talk at length on my opinion on torrents, and their uses?

Stick to the facts sport. Stop taking 'liberties' on your interpretation of what I am saying.

So basically you've got nothing to say and you're just saying it too loud? Got it. Thanks for the update, paluka.

[Barefootsies]

Originally Posted by WarChild

So basically you've got nothing to say and you're just saying it too loud?

Reading is a beautiful thing.

If your method of back up allows illegal copies to get to others, than yes, it would be ANY content producers business. Once more, it does not hold water. Yourself, like a HD is fine. A torrent that allows anyone to copy it, different argument.

[MetaMan]

The proposals in the report, drafted by the 73 year old Spanish socialist Manuel Medina Ortega, show many similarities to the wish lists of the RIAA, IFPI and MPAA we published earlier. The report calls for more responsibility and liability for ISPs, while copyright infringing content has to be filtered from the Internet.

ISPs are further encouraged to identify and filter copyright infringing content on their networks. As we’ve said before, this might work on networks such as FastTrack/Kazaa, but it remains unclear what methods the ISP will have to implement to distinguish between copyright infringing and legal content on more tricky networks, such as BitTorrent. That will be a tough job, if not impossible. In common with RIAA recommendations, the report suggests that ISPs should be held liable for the actions of their customers.

you people are fucking idiots if you think this is a good idea.

govt control of ANYTHING is not always a good idea, ESPECIALLY if it involves filtering content. you people are so one track minded.

when has the govt filtering anything turned out good?

the internet is one of the last places on earth to get REAL info and the govts should never have a hand in filtering it or you know what is next? soon you will only get news THEY want you to hear. and the only opinion allowed unfiltered is the "POPULAR" or "ROGHT" one.

it is up to companies themselves to stop infringement, you are crazy to actually want a govt to have a hand in filtering anything around you.

this is why the world is going to shit, you stupid sheep cannot see the big picture and how people in the world our out to control the minds of the average population for their gain. lately it feels like we are globally moving backwards on social issues rather than forward.

[CrkMStanz]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

and the only way you can legitimately make that bullshit arguement is to demand the criminalization of tivo and pvr.

Of course if you (and robbie) keep making the arguement that those technologies are good, arguing that i shouldn't be allowed to do the exact same thing using a cloud
(especially when the courts recognized that right) is just plain stupidity.

Gideon

for such an apparently educated person - you are not seeming very smart

tivo and pvr are devices used to allow a person to 'timeshift' their viewing rights in their own home - privatly (and don't give me the bullshit about inviting friends over to watch - thats no different then letting them come over and watch the actual brodcast) That was the intent of the current laws.

rapidshare, p2p, clouds, and torrents are all publically available - globally.

they are not even remotely the same thing (other than in principal)

content ripped off of private websites that do not offer DVD or brodcast on public airwaves should NOT be available for public 'timeshifting'

The governments are starting to realize that there needs to be a distinction made. And they are going to rule against the public distribution methods or copyrighted content. They will not rule against tivo pvr VCR DVD etc... used by a private person for private use

They will rule against mass public distribution of copyrighted works. Free distribution to people that don't own the 'timeshifting rights' to the work.

your 'timeshifting' arguement falls flat as soon as you use a globally publically available 'storeage' method.

I know you don't like it - but there it is.

[Barefootsies]

Originally Posted by MetaMan

you people are fucking idiots if you think this is a good idea.

govt control of ANYTHING is not always a good idea, ESPECIALLY if it involves filtering content. you people are so one track minded.

For once, I completely agree with you.

I do not want those old fucks on Capitol Hill, who can probably barely use e-mail, making laws that govern the many uses of online business. Adult, or otherwise.

[CrkMStanz]

Originally Posted by WarChild

Well the case of a book is silly anyway, because nobody is going to copy an entire book, it's just not worth the time. I actually replied in the wrong thread, because I'm reading one about backups at the same time.

You mean to tell me that I'm not allowed, for instance, to make a backup of software I buy? If I lose my XP CD, I have to buy a brand new XP? I'm pretty sure that the law _specifically_ allows for me to make and recover from backup.

the law provides that you can make a backup FOR YOUR OWN USE not allowing for distribution of said backup

clouds torrents and all the others allow for theft and distribution

can you not actually see the difference????

[Barefootsies]

Originally Posted by CrkMStanz

your 'timeshifting' arguement falls flat as soon as you use a globally publically available 'storeage' method.

I know you don't like it - but there it is.

You said it more simply than I did, bravo!! That is exactly what I was trying to get to, or say.

It is the WAY, or the technology used that is the deciding factor. Not the back up. One is private use. The other allows mass access. Which is essentially distribution regardless of how it is painted otherwise.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by Barefootsies

Right.

Since you are not watching the commercials, then you essentially are not PAYING For anything you claim to pay for. That is how you, the TV watcher and consumer, fit into this puzzle. Your paying for cable is not giving you any copyright, or licensing you anything. You are paying for a membership essentially, or the signal, to receive cable channels. So the only bullshit here friend is you.

The rest of us just need to wear some waders when you are around.

Originally Posted by CrkMStanz

Gideon

for such an apparently educated person - you are not seeming very smart

tivo and pvr are devices used to allow a person to 'timeshift' their viewing rights in their own home - privatly (and don't give me the bullshit about inviting friends over to watch - thats no different then letting them come over and watch the actual brodcast) That was the intent of the current laws.

that what the original district court believed too
the appeals court ruled it was the act not the location that defined it legality because
in a conflict between the two it the act that takes precedent quite simply because for the scope of that ACT the copyright holders exclusive rights DO NOT EXIST.


http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/08/victory-dvrs-cloud

rapidshare, p2p, clouds, and torrents are all publically available - globally.

they are not even remotely the same thing (other than in principal)

the act of timeshifting the viewing rights that were bought and delivered on monday to tuesday is the same no matter what medium you use to do it. No if and or but about it.
That is exactly the point

content ripped off of private websites that do not offer DVD or brodcast on public airwaves should NOT be available for public 'timeshifting'

total bullshit
the fair use right does not have to be re-established with each technology change, if it did tivo would have had to go to supreme court BEFORE they started selling their device.
Once a legal right has been established it apply to every person equally. My right to timeshift content from your website delivered on monday to friday is just as valid as my right to timeshift using a vcr in 1975. If i cancelled my membership between those two dates does not take away that right, just like the act of cancelling my cable between those two dates did not invalidate that right in 1975.

The governments are starting to realize that there needs to be a distinction made. And they are going to rule against the public distribution methods or copyrighted content. They will not rule against tivo pvr VCR DVD etc... used by a private person for private use

They will rule against mass public distribution of copyrighted works. Free distribution to people that don't own the 'timeshifting rights' to the work.

and that is exactly they type of thinking that the sherman anti trust laws were designed to prevent. The destruction/prevention of a disruptive but superior distribution methodology. Which will result in going to the courts even if it is established by the government. There the courts will decide if that extension of the copyright act remains true to the intent of the original authors (giving enough monopoly powers to insentise copyright production without granting the full powers of a monopoly). I am pretty sure they court will rule against such a law because that is exactly what you are talking about doing.

your 'timeshifting' arguement falls flat as soon as you use a globally publically available 'storeage' method.

I know you don't like it - but there it is.

only if it is equal in redundancy (x points of redundancy where x is the number of available seeds in the swarm) at the same cost (free). IF it is any way shape or form inferior either costing more or not providing the same level of redundancy the act of using the limited monopoly of copyright to force the adoption of the inferior technology would be and will always be a violation of sherman anti trust law. (which is s the point i was making about the courts who are not your friends deciding).

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by Barefootsies

You said it more simply than I did, bravo!! That is exactly what I was trying to get to, or say.

It is the WAY, or the technology used that is the deciding factor. Not the back up. One is private use. The other allows mass access. Which is essentially distribution regardless of how it is painted otherwise.

100% totally wrong

daisy chain enough vcrs together and you commit mass distribution. Put the copied tapes in video store, and you can commit mass distribution.

The fact that the technology CAN be used infringe does not make the technology infringing. if it did the VCR would be illegal

The VCR is legal because the timeshifting act is fair use, and therefore outside the scope copyright holders exclusive rights. IT is a legitimizing use of the technlogy, which prevents the whole scale elimination/blockage of the technology.

an ISP level blockade would represent similar such blockage of the technology, and would therefore face anti-trust/fair use legal challenges.

[Barefootsies]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

100% totally wrong

daisy chain enough vcrs together and you commit mass distribution. Put the copied tapes in video store, and you can commit mass distribution.

The fact that the technology CAN be used infringe does not make the technology infringing. if it did the VCR would be illegal

The VCR is legal because the timeshifting act is fair use, and therefore outside the scope copyright holders exclusive rights. IT is a legitimizing use of the technlogy, which prevents the whole scale elimination/blockage of the technology.

an ISP level blockade would represent similar such blockage of the technology, and would therefore face anti-trust/fair use legal challenges.

Nice try sport.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by Barefootsies

Nice try sport.

so we are going back to the i am right because i say so arguement again (even though there is not one court case that supports my POV)