Europe rules your ISP can't be forced to block pirate sites

[Cerpin Taxt]

Ah, to be young and naive like you.

What are you paying for when you buy the chair? You are paying for the labor, the cost of materials, and some profit for the worker.

You pay for their services when you pay someone for doing some service for you, like building a chair or recording a song or progamming a game.

This is patently ridiculous. Services are distinct from goods, and when I purchase a chair, I am not purchasing a service. If I hired a person to deliver the chair, then I am purchasing a service. Programs are not services, they are goods. If I need a specific stream of data to feed the program, a subscription to that feed would be a service, but the program remains a good.

Next time you have your car in the garage, look over the bill. You will see the cost of the new parts they put in AND labor...yes, they bill you for services renderend.

That's a lovely red herring.

It is a well known thing, and everyone who is out in the world on their own already knowns it. Only those who have yet to have to pay their own bills, have cars repaired, have a new furnace installed, etc., may not yet understand that you are paying for services every time you buy something.

You're completely full of shit.

 

[CPA]

Why do the conservatives in this thread (for the most part) think that government should force ISP's to limit and censor web content? I thought you guys were "small government" hands off types?

Guess not.....

Not all conservatives think government should force ISP limitations, but thanks for grouping us all together.

Just like government doesn't ban the public for buying Nike sneakers built is a foreign sweatshop (as was true in the 80's and 90's), they shouldn't ban the public from accessing websites of a foreign domain.

 

[Engineer]

Not all conservatives think government should force ISP limitations, but thanks for grouping us all together.

Just like government doesn't ban the public for buying Nike sneakers built is a foreign sweatshop (as was true in the 80's and 90's), they shouldn't ban the public from accessing websites of a foreign domain.

Not grouping you in there. At the time when I posted, the two conservatives in this thread were on that path. Anyone after that post of mine is "potentially" excluded.

And since you said thanks...you're welcome. :biggrin:

 

[Engineer]

The article is misleading, as it doesn't say what the judgement actually said:

The judgement was that arbitrary, global blocks, at the ISPs expense are illegal - i.e. an ISP cannot be ordered to block freemp3s.com indefinitely, for all its users, and at its own cost. (As happened in the BT / Newzbin case)

However, if the record company wants to go to an ISP and say, "Please block access to freemp3s.com for your customer Homer J Simpson pursuant to the enclosed court order, and invoice us for the cost of the block" - then that would be perfectly legal.

If that's true (court order and paid in full), great and no problem. That's the way it should be.

 

[akahoovy]

Hmm...

I agree with the ruling of the court, but I'm thinking about how it would play out if record companies followed the route offered to them.

I know there are a lot of ISPs out there, like I have my service through AT&T, but I have my email account with South Western Bell (I think, away from home atm) and I think that's how I establish my connection to the internet. Would the record companies pay AT&T to start policing this or SWB? How much is it worth to an ISP to block these sites?

Obviously based on the ruling a record company can't sue an ISP for not policing or blocking sites. I get the feeling that if record companies started paying out, they wouldn't see the makeup in revenue from sales because of the rate that new websites or portals could be opened. Consequently they would stop paying and the websites go back to sharing as usual.

 

[Fayd]

Edit: To clarify, the conservatives up to this point, not EVERY conservative in this thread.

Why do the conservatives in this thread (for the most part) think that government should force ISP's to limit and censor web content? I thought you guys were "small government" hands off types?

Guess not.....

the republican party has deep ties with RIAA and MPAA.

unfortunate, because i don't like internet censorship. even as a conservative, i find it hard to vote for those who vote for internet censorship.

 

[cybrsage]

This is patently ridiculous. Services are distinct from goods, and when I purchase a chair, I am not purchasing a service. If I hired a person to deliver the chair, then I am purchasing a service. Programs are not services, they are goods. If I need a specific stream of data to feed the program, a subscription to that feed would be a service, but the program remains a good.

Depends who you buy the chair from. If you buy it from the store, you are correct. The store already paid for the services rendered. If you buy it from the man who built it, you are paying for his services, his materials, and his profit.

That's a lovely red herring.

Ahh...I see how you play. Things which show you are wrong are red herrings. You are silly.

You're completely full of shit.

When you finally leave your mom's house and become an adult, you will start to understand.

 

[cybrsage]

both parties have deep ties with RIAA and MPAA.

Fixed it for you.

 

[badb0y]

And quite often it's the girl's fault. If she gave you what you wanted to begin with, you wouldnt have had to take it.

Exact same argument. You guys want to use free speech and censorship as an excuse to commit crimes. Nothing more to it.

No you twat it's more like, the girl wants you to anally assault her and destroy her with your penor but since she lives in another country you just settle for Skype sex.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

both parties have deep ties with RIAA and MPAA. has deep ties with RIAA and MPAA.

Fixed it for you.

No doubt, Hollywood has major ties with the MPAA and RIAA. Hollywood will pay whoever will help ensure that the MPAA and RIAA has protection.

 

[William Gaatjes]

Why should music have to be free. It belongs to the artist that created it and the rights of reproduction agreed to. They (ownership) have the choice of putting it out for public domain.

Are you along to give away everything of yours that is 25years old that someone may consider of value?

If you are over 45, why draw a paycheck. It is from a body /mind that apparently has no value due to age limits.

Why draw the line at 45. Southpark is less than 10. Nothing you have should by older that 10. Education should be returned after 10. Enter workforce. No paychecks for you after 10 years.
Value is something that is jointly determined by the provider and consumer. Without an agreement, the item should not be transferred. To take without permission is THEFT.

Slippery slope when you open your eyes on how it could apply to you directly.

You sure can provide strange arguments...

But i will give another example : patent rights.
Patent rights where granted once to give the inventor a chance to earn back the money that was put into research and also to have a reasonable amount of profit.

However, if patent rights would not have an expire date, then it was impossible for the market to advance. Impossible for a healthy amount of competitors to arise(Just people who think they can improve the original design) I know some patents have expire dates and some not but i do not know all details of patent legislation.

Why should it not be the same for music ? Inventing a song i can understand. And that rights can be given to a cover of an old song i can understand too. But it does not make sense that music rights should be for an indefinite amount of time. That is just plain wrong. It hinders progress. It is nothing more then pocket filling.

 

[William Gaatjes]

And quite often it's the girl's fault. If she gave you what you wanted to begin with, you wouldnt have had to take it.

Exact same argument. You guys want to use free speech and censorship as an excuse to commit crimes. Nothing more to it.

That is a nonsense argument. Broheim gives a valid example and arguments of what is wrong. There is a market(customers willing to pay), but it is deliberately not fulfilled. Ask yourself why ?

 

[William Gaatjes]

You have your rights as long as they do nog take away others.

Taking without permission is theft.

If a company can decide what you watch and listen to, is that not a bit strange. The company can then dictate what your rights are. That is not a power a company should have... Such power is only meant for a government. An entity that should not have any profit goals or personal goals. Only goals that benefit the entire country.

 

[Darwin333]

The comparison is faulty. There is nothing "lost". A copy is made. If someone would copy my harddrive I wouldn't mind. I'd still have my harddrive.

If someone would copy my time or my paycheck (assuming I can still cash mine) I wouldn't mind.

You can argue that if you download, you don't buy. I download and don't buy, but even if I didn't download, I still wouldn't buy. Not even a sales opportunity is lost here. Copying music or videos is not theft. It's not comparable to shoplifting. I spend my money on going to live events and cinema instead of buying horribly overpriced music albums and DVDs. I am arguing piracy is ok.

edit: point of the matter is that media corporations should not police the web.

You buying the song IS their paycheck. They spent time and money to make something in which to sell. It isn't much different than your boss not paying you for work performed.

You are arguing that industrial espionage is ok. That if I design something that generates electricity out of thin air it is perfectly ok for someone to copy the design and sell it for much cheaper than I could because they didn't have the R&D costs.

 

[Darwin333]

That is a nonsense argument. Broheim gives a valid example and arguments of what is wrong. There is a market(customers willing to pay), but it is deliberately not fulfilled. Ask yourself why ?

I completely agree. Back in the Napster days I said the RIAA was flat out retarded for not adopting that model of distribution and sales (purchase only the song you want and immediate download/delivery). It took them ages to finally get on the wagon with Itunes and longer still to remove the retarded restrictions.

They media giants should be doing what Netflix is and, for a price, stream whatever show/movie and/or purchase it via download. Their argument that it would just make piracy easier is flat out retarded because you can already get perfect quality pirated episodes within hours of them being aired.

I think one of the problems is that it will cut into the cable companies profits and the same cable companies provide internet to a very large portion of the country. If they start losing tons of cable TV subscribers they would start putting even worse caps then they are now. I don't see a way around this problem in the near future either.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Because the market is not fulfilling YOUR needs does not authorize you to take something that is not yours and is not paid for.

All it boils down to is people want to steal and/or take something because the feel they are right and that private property/rights do not matter.

But when such is turned against them; they flounder with all sorts of mis-direction.

If the demand is out there for such single items; then start a company; pay for the rights and offer up the downloads.

But you do not want to pay for the rights to a song/show; you want it available for free. Yet, you draw a paycheck

Hypocrits :thumbsdown:

 

[Engineer]

I still don't know what the fuck you're arguing about EK. We're (most of us anyway) not saying piracy is OK, we're saying the censorship is the problem. Not sure why you keep harping on the piracy when the censorship is the real issue.

Like I said, it's not up to the road crew to enforce highway laws....it shouldn't be up to the ISP to have to enforce copyright or any other laws unless court ordered shutdowns, etc.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Engineer.

Most seem to feel the need to justify piracy.
As you clearly stated, let the owners with a court order cover the costs of blocking.

However, why should one have to even go to court to get the pirate sites shut down/blocked. Those sites only exist because of people trying to justify theft.

 

[LiuKangBakinPie]

If your not happy with your ISP cause its blocking certain things then get a different ISP who does allow it. Simple.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Depends who you buy the chair from.

No, it doesn't.

If you buy it from the store, you are correct. The store already paid for the services rendered. If you buy it from the man who built it, you are paying for his services, his materials, and his profit.

If I purchase a chair, I am purchasing a good. Period. If a purchase it from the builder, I am still purchasing a good. The revenue from that purchase can compensate him for his labor, but I have not purchased a service. If I had a pile of wood, and I paid a carpenter to make a chair out of it, then I would have purchased a service.

Ahh...I see how you play. Things which show you are wrong are red herrings. You are silly.

It is no fault of mine that you are note astute enough to grasp the inadequacies of your arguments. In fact, it's quite expected. The fact is a mechanic has provided a service, as described on the invoice distinct from the parts which are goods. You do not see any line items for the "service" of the manufacturer assembling the part.

The point really is that vending a program or a piece of art is the sale of a good --it is a completed poduct -- and if that good is duplicated there is no theft of service. Any "service" component of the good was completed already and paid in full. There is certainly an argument to be made for, say, downloading updates to pirated software, however, since the supply of updates is a service.

In the case of music or movies, however, it simply cannot apply.

When you finally leave your mom's house and become an adult, you will start to understand.

I understand fully. Rather, it seems like you're trying to justify a special case -- likely because you belong to a group that you believe has been victimized by filesharing.

Oh, and you should try to come up with some new insults. It's rather drab to see you repeatedly suggest every person that disagrees with you is a minor that lives in his mom's basement -- a tired internet forum cliche if ever there was one.

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." ~ Ralph Waldo Emerson.

 

[cybrsage]

No, it doesn't.


If I purchase a chair, I am purchasing a good. Period. If a purchase it from the builder, I am still purchasing a good. The revenue from that purchase can compensate him for his labor, but I have not purchased a service. If I had a pile of wood, and I paid a carpenter to make a chair out of it, then I would have purchased a service.

Yes, it does matter. Do you think the chair makes itself? If you do not, then you must think the services of someone was used to make the chair.

The cost of the services is included in the price of the chair you bought.

The point really is that vending a program or a piece of art is the sale of a good --it is a completed poduct -- and if that good is duplicated there is no theft of service. Any "service" component of the good was completed already and paid in full. There is certainly an argument to be made for, say, downloading updates to pirated software, however, since the supply of updates is a service.

In the case of music or movies, however, it simply cannot apply.

The entire thing is a service. You do not buy the actual program, you pay for the use of the program. You do not buy the actual song, you pay for the use of the song. You are paying for their services in the creation of the song or software.

You obviously have never actually read the purchase agreements.

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." ~ Ralph Waldo Emerson.

I am not sure if an entire hobgoblin can fit into your little mind. Maybe just a foot.

I apologize for offending you when I mentioned that you still live with your mom. You should move out, she deserves better than to have you mooching off her.

 

[William Gaatjes]

Because the market is not fulfilling YOUR needs does not authorize you to take something that is not yours and is not paid for.

All it boils down to is people want to steal and/or take something because the feel they are right and that private property/rights do not matter.

But when such is turned against them; they flounder with all sorts of mis-direction.

If the demand is out there for such single items; then start a company; pay for the rights and offer up the downloads.

But you do not want to pay for the rights to a song/show; you want it available for free. Yet, you draw a paycheck

Hypocrits :thumbsdown:

I pay for cable tv now already. I have accepted the occasional commercial while watching a few youtube video's. I understand and accept that watching a movie that is being streamed, is more expensive when being a fresh title( streaming parallel with dvd sales and blue ray sales in shops).


And i do not need to start my own company. Here the tv/cable company advertises that it will be offering 120Mb(download) internet connections and will be providing sort of on demand video services next to the services it already provides. It is more expensive, but that is normal. Especially during the adoption/accepting phase. And that is just one of several ( i think about 5 nationally) companies.

The problem is that in the US some of the cable or internet companies just want to make money and do not want to provide ever improving of that service. And while other people perhaps see a market, the established cable/ internet companies will make it hard for them by lobbying and using political muscle.

If you provide the service people desire(of course within the borders of common sense & morally just) there will be always a small amount of pirates (the exceptions), but most people will just pay for the service and do not want to go through the trouble of pirating. This is just risk calculation. Of course a risk calculation like this can also be abused from different perspectives. But if one start assuming then one can start to distrust everything and everyone.

Teach people from infancy stage that it is good to be honest and a good person. If you teach people from infancy that being purely opportunistic and purely competitive is a good thing while claiming morally just is for losers, you increase the chance of piracy and any sort of hostile behavior...

Hypocrisy is a part of life. Just as long as the risk calculation results show that the amount of hypocrisy in people is within reasonable levels, it is acceptable and life will be good for everyone. It is all about balance, deviation and risk calculations. No sharp borders. Just fuzzy logic.

p.s.
The EU is not perfect at all and here as well, there are problems...


And i buy dvd movies on a regular basis. And more then once in the recent past, after looking at a pirated movie, i went out and bought the original(discounts at play.com). Because i liked the movie. I prefer however, the cinema.

 

[William Gaatjes]

You buying the song IS their paycheck. They spent time and money to make something in which to sell. It isn't much different than your boss not paying you for work performed.

You are arguing that industrial espionage is ok. That if I design something that generates electricity out of thin air it is perfectly ok for someone to copy the design and sell it for much cheaper than I could because they didn't have the R&D costs.

I agree with you.

Copying virtual material such as a high quality movie or high quality music is still stealing. There are pirates to be found between customers and between companies. Even though this material just exists as data bits, these data bits still represent information.

I am sure it has also happened that companies buy up competition in order to take out a competing service that was harming profits ?

 

[Double Trouble]

Engineer.

Most seem to feel the need to justify piracy.
As you clearly stated, let the owners with a court order cover the costs of blocking.

As I said, regardless of the argument about piracy itself, the concept of private entities being able to control and take down entire sites at a whim without effective controls in place is a terrible idea. We know for certain this power will be abused, and the consumer ends up being stuck with access only to the things the big corporations decide to allow.

Having an ISP be the cop also doesn't make sense, any more than having the telephone company monitor your conversations for inappropriate discussions. That should be up to law enforcement.

However, why should one have to even go to court to get the pirate sites shut down/blocked.

Because otherwise, who's to determine what constitutes a "pirate site" and what should be shut down? Without a court and proper legal process involved, what's to stop people from just getting other sites shut down with no real recourse for the victim?

No, it doesn't make sense to me to give a private party the power to police (in this case, shut down), any more than it makes sense to allow private citizens on the road the right to pull over and give other people speeding tickets.