If that is true then they are not doing a very good job at all. $6000 fines for sharing 10 songs in a recent case iirc? You call that proper regulation to ensure that everything is done reasonably? Give me a break.
If that is true then they are not doing a very good job at all. $6000 fines for sharing 10 songs in a recent case iirc? You call that proper regulation to ensure that everything is done reasonably? Give me a break.
Because I already know they were common phrases used during the cold war. And the last one I made up on my own and is taken from a fascist idea being applied to current America.
I guess the question I have to ask you is. Why would you ask me to cite sources on quotes you know nothing about?
That very well may be. However like I said earlier. The ISP knows about this user well before the RIAA shows up. These leeches use an unfair amount of network resources. Driving up costs for everybody. The ISP getting rid of the headache isnt because of the RIAA. They will want them gone regardless.
Genx87, what is it exactly that you want? 100% full proof solutions preventing piracy? Fine. No one is arguing with you there. What we are arguing about is how to provide that solution. We are arguing about why it should not be permitted to allow private businesses and organizations to assume we are guilty before being proven innocent. Yes, I realize that this is not criminal law but that does not mean that lines shouldn't be drawn. Right now, there are too few laws concerning the details about these matters so those lines are not drawn properly.
You want a guarantee that piracy will go away so your tubes are not clogged amongst other reasons perhaps. I'm ok with that. All I ask is an additional guarantee that only those that actually pirate get punished and that those punishments are reasonable. Lowering speeds after a single offense without adequate proof is not reasonable. Fining a teenager or college student thousands of dollars for sharing a number of songs that do not even fill up an album sold at retail is not reasonable.
You want a guarantee that piracy will go away so your tubes are not clogged amongst other reasons perhaps. I'm ok with that. All I ask is an additional guarantee that only those that actually pirate get punished and that those punishments are reasonable. Lowering speeds after a single offense without adequate proof is not reasonable. Fining a teenager or college student thousands of dollars for sharing a number of songs that do not even fill up an album sold at retail is not reasonable.
I'd like to see the RIAA sue people for sharing their own work. That scenario is highly highly unlikely. The rest of the 99.9999999999999999999999999999999% of users out there sharing the next britney spears song represent far more likely scenario.
That said this is only targetting the biggest abusers. I really be surprised if your wife sharing her own work would approach the biggest abusers of the month club and attract the attention of anybody.
Nobody hits the limit with games. Games use kbps bandwidths. I could play WoW 24/7 356 a year and probably not hit a monthly 250GB limit Comcast is implementing.
Have you looked at IP law at all? Legally the music industry can sue for upwards of 100K an infraction. That is the govt regulation right there.
So your argument is that just because they can do something even more ridiculously unreasonable that this level of unreasonable action is acceptable? Sorry, I don't buy that.
So what about the scenario where someone gets caught downloading one movie (obviously not an abuser flooding the network) and the RIAA notifies the ISP? In this scenario, the ISP's best interest would be to ignore the RIAA since it is not worth risking losing that revenue by lowering the user's speed or booting them entirely. However, the RIAA will not have to stand for that because they can sue the ISP so now the ISP's best interest is to actually punish that user for downloading that one movie. Great...
I want people to get off the bandwagon that everything these people do is evil. I am not a fan of the RIAA and felt suing their own customers was a dumb and futile idea. They are finally realizing this as well. So they go to a new plan which is to work with ISP's to squash the biggest abusers by giving them 3 chances to knock it off and people are sitll up in arms? What do people want? The ability to freely steal IP all day, everyday? Move ot China if you want that kind of right.
Doing this was needed for a long time.
Secondly I am sick of the bitorrent leeches hiding behind this outrage while sucking up a networks resources and driving the costs up for me and everybody else on the network.
Originally posted by: Genx87
You basically agreed with my post but started off with "not true"?
I agreed that the bottom line is money. I did not agree that they have no interest in lowering the speeds of their users that eat a lot of bandwidth regardless of how.
frostedflakes
Diamond Member
- Mar 1, 2005
- 7,925
- 1
- 81
Yeah that's what I was thinking, it's ridiculous to think that RIAA would go after people for sharing IP that isn't owned by their clients.
Then again, SoundExchange did pull that compulsory license BS with internet radio where they are able to collect royalties even on songs from bands that are not RIAA members (and, of course, labels have to join the RIAA to collect those royalties), so who knows.
Cogman
Lifer
- Sep 19, 2000
- 10,286
- 145
- 106
Ok, honestly what other service do we have that you could break the law with it? Gas, water, electric?
If I electrocute small children with my home electricity people aren't going to say "Oh, we better cut off his electricity supply for life" They will say "Send that man to the chair!" Other then that, if I was just to shock random things (not kill) and got caught, they wouldn't take away my electricity, only fine me for each damage done to another person. Potentially, they will give me some jail time as well.
Same for gas, water, ect. Using any of these utilities in an illegal manner doesn't get you a ban for life, only a fine. Heck, even if you deal drugs over the phone you don't get banned from all telecommunications (and people don't call for that) instead you get jailed for drug dealing.
People have a right to bitch. You don't have to listen though so there is your solution for that one.
As far as the clogging the tubes stuff, I just told you that I don't have an issue with that as long as additional conditions are met. I have no idea why you would be against those conditions. It involves your rights too after all. Even if you don't care about your rights in this matter, there are many others that do and you should respect that because I am sure there are other rights which you value that others could care less about.
No that is not my argument. I responded to your question about the govt regulating this with how they are doing it. You want govt regulation, 100K an infraction is the law enacted by the govt.
But didnt this very article make the claim they are only going after the biggest abusers? Does one movie constitute the biggest abuser?
Either way in theory I dont see a problem with punishing a user for stealing property, even if it is a single instance, do you? What a weird arguemt, honestly. Are you telling me if somebody stole one item from you, you wouldnt want to be compensated? But if they stole 10 then you would?
Sure you have a right to bitch. But at least use your head when bitching. Yu are basically arguing the RIAA shouldnt have any power to enforce their copyrights. What is it with my generation and entitlement that we feel we deserve the fruits of others labor for free?
My right to low cost internet are being violated when I am forced to pay higher costs because dipshit torrent user is consuming 80% of the bandwidth on the network and forcing my ISP to expand capacity because of it.
And exactly what rights of mine are violated by the RIAA targetting the biggest abusers on an ISP's network, giving them 3 chances to cut it out, and then getting them banned?
...and my argument is that punishment is unreasonable and should be changed.
No, those details are not specified. There is only speculation and they did state that the big file sharers would still be charged with lawsuits but this new thing with the ISPs and the limits there of has not been specified. The details will be in the contracts which we will not see. I have no reason to believe that they will be reasonable about that either and only limit the punishments to the big abusers. 10 songs for $6000....
In regards to your property stealing comparison, I somewhat agree with you. I say "somewhat" because stealing property is clearly an act of one person taking something and the victim loses that thing which is not disputable. Piracy is different. Piracy involves someone copying something that they do not own and it cannot be proven that anyone else loses anything because there is no way to prove that the pirate would otherwise pay for what they copied if they chose not to commit piracy. I believe punishments should still exist, but the severity should be reduced by A LOT. Piracy is not the same as stealing since no one can prove that a the act of piracy results in the loss of anything. They can only speculate in a world where millions of other factors exist which throw endless logical fallacies into the mix.
What the hell? How did you conclude that?
I told you what I want. I want them to provide adequate proof and I want the punishments to be reasonable. How is that arguing that the RIAA should not have any power to enforce copyrights?
Geez...it is not wonder this argument is taking forever. You are not on the same page with me at all.
That is fine and I happen to agree. I think 100K an infraction is quite steep for the losses incurred. But my point again was you were complaining about the lack of govt regulation. The govt does regulate this to the tune of 100K a pop.
I dont see the ISP's bothering with small time offenders. Honestly.
That isnt how the law looks at piracy and quite frankly I couldnt disagree with you more. Just because somebody claims they wont purchase said song doesnt mean the person who had their work stolen doesnt suffer and or the rest of society. Why would anybody produce new works if they knew they couldnt make a profit at it? Anyways taking the work of another without proper comensation is stealing plain and simple, not matter how much you want to rationalize it.
You want proof of what lax IP law and enforcement does to a civilization? Look at China. They are the worlds low grade manufacturing because their IP law and enforcement is so terrible they dont have anybody producing anything new and instead are forced into selling cheap knockoff's of legitimate works. In the end China will have a hard time progressing as a nation once their manufacturing capacity hits critical mass. For some reason we believe a similar ideal wont lead us to a similar fate.
You havent defined adequate proof nor shown the RIAA or ISP's wont have that in hand when they ban a user after the third letter.
Also, another thing for you to consider is the combination of two factors.
1. It is REALLY hard for the RIAA to target and nail downloaders and expect to get anywhere with piracy so they don't. That is why they are only nailing those who are uploading. This means that one can pirate by downloading all day and night as long as they don't upload.
2. As you already hinted at, other countries pirate much more freely than we do. This means they upload much more freely too. It is well known that these other countries circulate the majority of pirated files on the internet. Therefore, why would targeting uploaders help your internet tubes in any way? These people will just stop uploading and download from those who do not have to worry about the RIAA.
1. It is REALLY hard for the RIAA to target and nail downloaders and expect to get anywhere with piracy so they don't. That is why they are only nailing those who are uploading. This means that one can pirate by downloading all day and night as long as they don't upload.
2. As you already hinted at, other countries pirate much more freely than we do. This means they upload much more freely too. It is well known that these other countries circulate the majority of pirated files on the internet. Therefore, why would targeting uploaders help your internet tubes in any way? These people will just stop uploading and download from those who do not have to worry about the RIAA.
DrPizza
Administrator Elite Member Goat Whisperer
Not the unlimited crap again. Of course, no one ever read the fine print to see what they meant by "unlimited" and think that they're now allowed to make up their own definitions based on what they think the ISP's meant. "Unlimited" *never* meant that you could download and upload at maximum bandwidth 24/7. Never. There has always been some language in the TOS about acceptable use, although the ISPs never nailed down a strict number on what was "acceptable."
Furthermore, about the "no evidence." Oh noes! The RIAA is suing someone who's dead. Wow, what a perfect story for the sensationalistic press to jump on, because obviously, these lawsuits are filed within 6 seconds of the piracy taking place, making it impossible that a guilty party could actually die while the case makes its way into the courts. (Actually, this has happened more than once.) In one of the cases, the deceased left behind two teen-aged children. Put on your critical thinking cap for a moment. "RIAA Sues Dead Mother!!" means "Children were pirating songs prior to their mother's death and are using the press to gain sympathy to get off the hook for piracy."
The nice thing about this: The RIAA simply needs to give the ISP the IP address where the offending files can be found. No name is needed, no address is needed, all those places where the mistakes can be made are eliminated. And, if someone has an open wireless router, that doesn't mean they shouldn't be throttled - if their account is being used for piracy, it's their account that gets throttled, regardless of which computer those files are being downloaded to.
Furthermore, about the "no evidence." Oh noes! The RIAA is suing someone who's dead. Wow, what a perfect story for the sensationalistic press to jump on, because obviously, these lawsuits are filed within 6 seconds of the piracy taking place, making it impossible that a guilty party could actually die while the case makes its way into the courts. (Actually, this has happened more than once.) In one of the cases, the deceased left behind two teen-aged children. Put on your critical thinking cap for a moment. "RIAA Sues Dead Mother!!" means "Children were pirating songs prior to their mother's death and are using the press to gain sympathy to get off the hook for piracy."
The nice thing about this: The RIAA simply needs to give the ISP the IP address where the offending files can be found. No name is needed, no address is needed, all those places where the mistakes can be made are eliminated. And, if someone has an open wireless router, that doesn't mean they shouldn't be throttled - if their account is being used for piracy, it's their account that gets throttled, regardless of which computer those files are being downloaded to.
Ok? Makes sense to me. Target the ones distributing the files. Probably a lot less of them anyways.
The RIAA probably doesnt have a whole lot of power in foreign countries. But they can work with the telco's to have certain networks banned from the united states if it gets bad enough.
And my network is segregated from your network. Meaning if I have an abuser in my network he doesnt affect you, but he does affect me. Getting him banned means my network no longer has the strain of that abuser. If the abuser moves to China at the very least I just got half his traffic erased from my network as only his uploads(downloads on my side of the network) will be straining the network.
You are correct. I have not defined adequate proof because I am not an expert in that area, but what I do know is that there are tons of exceptions where mistakes can be made and many of them have been stated already in this thread. There needs to be a lot less room for mistakes. I also cannot prove that the RIAA or ISP's will not have that in hand when they ban someone simply because I cannot predict the future. Likewise, you cannot predict the future either so there is no point in me asking you to prove to me that they will have such evidence in hand. Therefore, all we can do is speculate based on the histories of the RIAA and ISPs. Those histories really don't leave me with a lot of confidence...
If you have more confidence than I do then that is fine, but why are you fighting me with the rest of this stuff? It is not like I am trying to convince you that piracy should be legalized.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter