 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospam com> wrote in message
news:4a07196f$1@news.povray.org...
> On Sat, 09 May 2009 22:37:51 -0600, somebody wrote:
> >> How about we also outlaw cars, since those are used to commit crimes.
> >
> > Did I ever mention outlawing internet or copiers? In any case, that's a
> > very silly slippery slope argument not worth countering.
> Not silly at all.
>
> You are proposing restricting a technology because it *may* be used for
> copying copyrighted content, IOW, it may be used to break the law.
Need I remind you of speed limits, radars, traffic lights, bus traps, even
remote disablers... etc? Motoring *is* aldready restricted.
> If that's the threshold that you think is reasonable, then we should
> apply it consistently across all aspects of our lives. Violating
> copyright is a crime, certainly, but compared to the deaths caused by
> illegal uses of automobiles, it seems reasonable (using your own logic)
> to say "hey, we can save lots of lives by outlawing cars" and making that
> happen, too.
Monitoring, regulating and policing is *not* outlawing. Motorways are
policed. Do you disagree? Do you think we would be better of without
regulating traffic? Well, I propose the same thing for internet. And whether
you or I like it or not, that's going to happen.
> Or guns, shall we apply this logic to guns?
Yes. Guns need to be even more tightly monitored and policed, for they have
no other redeeming use (unlike cars or internet). Private citizens should
not be able to carry assault weapons, for instance.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
somebody wrote:
> Monitoring, regulating and policing is *not* outlawing. Motorways are
> policed. Do you disagree? Do you think we would be better of without
> regulating traffic? Well, I propose the same thing for internet. And whether
I think we'd be better off if they regulate street traffic, and do
little regulation of Internet traffic. The two are not tied together.
One can result in loss of death - hence the need to regulate. The other
is far less tangible, and is to support something not many agree with.
One has consensus, the other doesn't. One can make an argument for
revamping copyright law without many caring. Revamping traffic laws to
reduce regulation is not going to go over well with the public.
--
DO NOT REMOVE THIS TAG (UNDER PENALTY OF LAW)
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
somebody wrote:
> Monitoring, regulating and policing is *not* outlawing. Motorways are
> policed. Do you disagree? Do you think we would be better of without
> regulating traffic? Well, I propose the same thing for internet. And whether
I should add that at least in the US, driving is a privilege provided
by the government, and not a right. Hence it's a lot easier to justify
their regulating street traffic (not to mention the fact that they built
and own most of the infrastructure).
--
DO NOT REMOVE THIS TAG (UNDER PENALTY OF LAW)
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> a écrit dans le message de
news:4a074309$1@news.povray.org...
> Of course it's not going to be complete protection. It's another layer of
> plausible deniability just like DHT is. The only good solution is a good
> distributed search algorithm. Bloom filters just make it possible to do a
> full-text search without any party knowing what you're searching in or
> what you're searching for.
Thanks for the detailed explanation. To be frank, I believe that right now
this is more a political issue (in the general sense) than a technical one.
No layer of obfuscation or deniability is going to stop litigation if the
copyright holders believe that it's in their best interest to sue and that
their copyright-based business model is sustainable. This will last for a
while, but the truth is that the whole copyright system, which made sense
when all goods were tied to physical objects, has been gutted by digital
technology and rendered useless. As a copyright holder, I've been writing or
reviewing contracts with IP clauses for a while now, and these clauses are
becoming more and more abstract and unenforceable while getting in the way
of actual business.
G.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gilles Tran wrote:
> Thanks for the detailed explanation. To be frank, I believe that right
> now this is more a political issue (in the general sense) than a
> technical one.
Agreed.
> This will last for a while, but the truth is that the whole
> copyright system, which made sense when all goods were tied to physical
> objects, has been gutted by digital technology and rendered useless.
Also agreed. I think that's the fundamental problem right there.
For example, you're probably technically violating copyright law by reading
this message. It's created copyrighted, and I haven't explicitly given you a
license to download a copy from the server. If I want google to not save a
copy of my web pages, I have to explicitly change what I write to include
instructions to google to tell them not to reproduce modified derivative
versions of my copyrighted works.
While I think artists should be paid for their work, suing search engines is
a hack. I'm also against things like regulating antihistamines because some
people make dangerous drugs from it. If you can't catch the actual
law-breaker, it's probably a bad law to punish the otherwise-legal precursors.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5/9/2009 7:09 PM, somebody wrote:
> "Jim Henderson"<nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
> news:4a063563$1@news.povray.org...
>> On Sat, 09 May 2009 19:47:35 -0600, somebody wrote:
>>
>>> That's why legitimate users need to support motions for ISP filtering,
>> Absolutely not. Once you get the ISPs in the business of deciding what
>> can and can't be viewed by the public, then you get into legislating
>> morality.
>
> Do you feel the same way about surveillence cameras in stores?
Surveillance cameras in stores are the equivalent of a company
monitoring downloads from their own website.
ISP filtering is more akin to surveillance cameras in your *home*,
making sure you don't have anything illegal there.
> You also need to make it hard for people to violate the law.
I don't think this is necessarily true.
--
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5/9/2009 9:37 PM, somebody wrote:
> Glad you brought it up, you are only helping my case. See, commercial
> copiers already have "active" filters in them, and will block and even lock
> up when trying to copy currency.
I've never seen a copier do this, and I have in fact copied currency.
Of course, nobody I know would be stupid enough to be fooled by a
photocopy of currency, but that's beside the point.
--
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5/10/2009 12:55 AM, somebody wrote:
> Fine, if you think the crime is not serious and that it doesn't affect
> society, pay the levies, fees and taxes that result.
A more accurate restating of Mueen's argument would be:
The crime is not serious and it doesn't affect society, therefore noone
should pay. Instead, the music industry (as a whole) should adopt a new
business model that allows them to continue making money.
--
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> Of course, nobody I know would be stupid enough to be fooled by a
> photocopy of currency, but that's beside the point.
>
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0367859/
--
DO NOT REMOVE THIS TAG (UNDER PENALTY OF LAW)
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 10 May 2009 16:46:45 -0600, somebody wrote:
> "Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
> news:4a07196f$1@news.povray.org...
>> On Sat, 09 May 2009 22:37:51 -0600, somebody wrote:
>
>> >> How about we also outlaw cars, since those are used to commit
>> >> crimes.
>> >
>> > Did I ever mention outlawing internet or copiers? In any case, that's
>> > a very silly slippery slope argument not worth countering.
>
>> Not silly at all.
>>
>> You are proposing restricting a technology because it *may* be used for
>> copying copyrighted content, IOW, it may be used to break the law.
>
> Need I remind you of speed limits, radars, traffic lights, bus traps,
> even remote disablers... etc? Motoring *is* aldready restricted.
It's not totally disabled, which is what you propose for p2p traffic.
> Monitoring, regulating and policing is *not* outlawing. Motorways are
> policed. Do you disagree? Do you think we would be better of without
> regulating traffic? Well, I propose the same thing for internet. And
> whether you or I like it or not, that's going to happen.
Again, you are proposing filtering certain file transfer technologies.
That is not monitoring, regulating, and policing, that is totally
eliminating - even for legitimate use.
If you can't see that distinction, then again there's no point in
discussing further.
>> Or guns, shall we apply this logic to guns?
>
> Yes. Guns need to be even more tightly monitored and policed, for they
> have no other redeeming use (unlike cars or internet). Private citizens
> should not be able to carry assault weapons, for instance.
Well, there's something we agree on, but I do understand the perspective
of people who want to limit the 2nd amendment.
There is a fundamental difference, though. Guns cause serious injuries
and death. p2p downloading doesn't.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
