Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

US ISPs become 'copyright cops' starting July 12
Foxnews.com ^ | March 17, 2012 | Zach Epstein

Posted on 03/20/2012 6:22:31 AM PDT by Mad Dawgg

Comcast, Cablevision, Verizon, Time Warner Cable and other Internet service providers (ISPs) in the United States will soon launch new programs to police their networks in an effort to catch digital pirates and stop illegal file-sharing.

Major ISPs announced last summer that they had agreed to take new measures in an effort to prevent subscribers from illegally downloading copyrighted material, but the specifics surrounding the imminent antipiracy measures were not made available. Now, RIAA chief executive Cary Sherman has said that ISPs are ready to begin their efforts to curtail illegal movie, music and software downloads on July 12.

(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Front Page News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: copyrightcops; internetproviders; isppolice; isps; mpaa; pipa; riaa; sopa; vpn
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-104 next last
So looks like the MPAA and the RIAA backdoored PIPA and SOPA anyhow.

Don't cha just love a country where you can buy any law you want and get it put on the books?

1 posted on 03/20/2012 6:22:39 AM PDT by Mad Dawgg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawgg
Sounds like a great business opportunity. I would, had I the money, found an ISP called NoneOfOurBiz, Ltd, and advertise that we don't monitor traffic.

Well, with the sole exception of a legal warrant, nothing you can do about those.

2 posted on 03/20/2012 6:26:59 AM PDT by Lazamataz (Shut up and drill.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JerseyHighlander
Pinging cuz I figure you may be interested. If not please excuse.
3 posted on 03/20/2012 6:27:51 AM PDT by Mad Dawgg (If you're going to deny my 1st Amendment rights then I must proceed to the 2nd one...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawgg

I am deeply disturbed by this news.


4 posted on 03/20/2012 6:30:43 AM PDT by IamCenny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
I got a feeling this will be used to crush opposition to the FedGov (both the R's and the D's)...

You can make all sorts of causes to shutdown Free Republic and like minded sites if you use the: "Well an Article On Free Republic Linked to a site that hosts Copyright infringed Media, we must shut them off and remove them from the net for their offenses!" argument.

This is gonna get real bad, real quick my friend.

I fear we are seeing the last days of this Republic.

5 posted on 03/20/2012 6:33:02 AM PDT by Mad Dawgg (If you're going to deny my 1st Amendment rights then I must proceed to the 2nd one...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawgg

Get a VPN.


6 posted on 03/20/2012 6:34:29 AM PDT by struggle (http://killthegovernment.wordpress.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ShadowAce
Not sure if you are aware of this Development but if not you might want to alert your Tech Ping list. If not sorry for the intrusion.
7 posted on 03/20/2012 6:36:04 AM PDT by Mad Dawgg (If you're going to deny my 1st Amendment rights then I must proceed to the 2nd one...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: struggle
"Get a VPN."

Sounds interesting , tell me more but could you translate your explanation into "Mad Dawgg Dummy Talk" sometimes my mind can become "Internet Tech" challenged.

8 posted on 03/20/2012 6:38:49 AM PDT by Mad Dawgg (If you're going to deny my 1st Amendment rights then I must proceed to the 2nd one...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawgg; Jim Robinson
We're already pretty well self policed because of those entities that do not allow us to do more than excerpt or link ... how can we be guiltified by this law?

Jim, I for one am pretty loose with linking via a = h r e f or posting a pic via i m g s r c ... Should we (or me/I) be given a refresher course ?

9 posted on 03/20/2012 6:39:46 AM PDT by knarf (I say things that are true ... I have no proof ... but they're true)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawgg

“I got a feeling this will be used to crush opposition to the FedGov (both the R’s and the D’s)..”

BINGO!!!!!


10 posted on 03/20/2012 6:42:57 AM PDT by mo (If you understand, no explanation is needed. If you don't understand, no explanation is possible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawgg

Oh well...guess I’ll stick to downloading public domain recipes from now on. Anyone have a good (non-copyrighted) tapioca pudding recipe?


11 posted on 03/20/2012 6:48:21 AM PDT by moovova (Poverty is a constitutional right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawgg

Tor (http://www.torproject.org) can be used to fight traffic analysis by ISPs.

Suppose you wanted to visit FreeRepublic discreetly. First, your web traffic gets encrypted. Then, it gets bounced around a worldwide network of Tor “nodes,” staying encrypted throughout, until it arrives at an “exit node” where it pops out. To Free Republic, it looks like your web traffic came from the exit node. To your ISP, you’re connected to the Tor network, but that’s the extent of what they can tell.

There’s a lot more to it than that, but that should be enough to get you started.


12 posted on 03/20/2012 7:05:39 AM PDT by Cato in PA (1/26/12: Bloody Thursday)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawgg

Just run it through several proxy servers, They will not be able to tell what kind of site your connected to except for the proxy!


13 posted on 03/20/2012 7:06:33 AM PDT by forbushalltheway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawgg
I am starting to create my own content. Perhaps we form a forum around that. My latest:


14 posted on 03/20/2012 7:12:51 AM PDT by Lazamataz (Shut up and drill.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawgg; All
Guys, I'm as concerned about potential government censorship of Free Republic and other websites as anyone else.

Let's make sure we fight the right battles here. The liberal advocates of censoring hate speech and unpopular opinions need to be blasted — correctly so — as modern-day censors who are unworthy of the liberal heritage of the ACLU. Go call them hypocrites for a change!

However, there's a big difference between censorship and enforcing copyright law. We as a conservatives need to stand up in defense of the Constitutional protection of the First Amendment as well as the Constitutional protection of private property rights.

The First Amendment to the Constitution was written in an environment where formal censorship of books and publications was standard or had only recently been eliminated in much of the Western world, both for political and moral reasons. Here's just one example of how the German liberal writer Heinrich Heine managed to evade censorship laws in Germany, but finally had to move to France to get his works printed, and his works were then put under bans in various German states once printed:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinrich_Heine#Julius_Campe_and_first_literary_successes

Here's how bad it can get: “(Publisher Julius) Campe was a liberal who published as many dissident authors as he could. He had developed various techniques for evading the authorities. The laws of the time stated that any book under 320 pages had to be submitted to censorship (the authorities thought long books would cause little trouble as they were unpopular). One way round censorship was to publish dissident works in large print to increase the number of pages beyond 320. The censorship in Hamburg was relatively lax but Campe had to worry about Prussia, the largest German state which had the largest market for books (it was estimated that one-third of the German readership was Prussian). Initially, any book which had passed the censor in a German state was able to be sold in any of the other states but in 1834 this loophole was closed. Campe was reluctant to publish uncensored books as he had bad experience of print runs being confiscated. Heine resisted all censorship. So this issue became a bone of contention between the two.”

While lots of conservatives like to attack abuses of the First Amendment, we sometimes forget what it was established to prevent. The United States created a political system in which anybody could say virtually anything about anyone in office or running for office, or advocate for or against virtually any political issue, so long as they owned a printing press or could pay for someone else to print things.

That is a good system, and it came close to being wrecked by the development of federal control over radio and television licensing rights. The Federal Communications Commission, with regulation of the airwaves, created serious threats to free speech. Go spend some time Googling Carl McIntyre, to my knowledge the only person who was ever successfully driven off the air by the Fairness Doctrine, and you'll see the potential threat of federal regulation. Rush Limbaugh, FOX News, and similar political advocates simply would not have been possible under the old rules intended to regulate the limited available broadcast spectrum for the benefit of the so-called public interest.

**HOWEVER** — and this is a big caveat — it has never been legal for people to print and distribute copyrighted material. The people downloading music and movies for free without consent of the copyright owners are committing crimes. That has been the case for the entire history of American copyright law, dating back two centuries.

The constitutional principle boils down to the truth that freedom of the press belongs to those who own a press. We can't force internet providers to allow their customers to access any particular websites, especially ones which are violating copyright law by illegally posting movies or songs.

I don't like SOPA law at all, and I agree with Newt Gingrich's longstanding concerns about government regulation of the internet. However, I'm a lot less uncomfortable with privately owned companies blocking access to websites that allow downloading of illegally pirated content than the government mandating it. That's especially true because people who still want to download pirated movies, music or other software will be able to find ISPs that allow such downloads, even if they have to access them through other countries, so all this will do is reduce illegal piracy rather than eliminate it.

15 posted on 03/20/2012 7:24:52 AM PDT by darrellmaurina
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rdb3; Calvinist_Dark_Lord; Salo; JosephW; Only1choice____Freedom; amigatec; stylin_geek; ...

16 posted on 03/20/2012 7:25:22 AM PDT by ShadowAce (Linux -- The Ultimate Windows Service Pack)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rdb3; Calvinist_Dark_Lord; Salo; JosephW; Only1choice____Freedom; amigatec; stylin_geek; ...

17 posted on 03/20/2012 7:26:06 AM PDT by ShadowAce (Linux -- The Ultimate Windows Service Pack)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: knarf; Mad Dawg; Jim Robinson
9 posted on Tuesday, March 20, 2012 8:39:46 AM by knarf: “Jim, I for one am pretty loose with linking via a = h r e f or posting a pic via i m g s r c ... Should we (or me/I) be given a refresher course ?”

Considering the problems inherent in the developing state of copyright law as it applies to the internet, a refresher course is always a good idea.

I have repeatedly had to deal with potential nightmares in my own business life and I've had conversations running many hours with the webmaster of my “sister operation,” a moderated discussion board, on these issues.

Lawsuits are not fun.

18 posted on 03/20/2012 7:30:22 AM PDT by darrellmaurina
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: struggle

As I understand it, a VPN would still have to ‘connect’ through an ISP, possibly at both ends of the connection.

It would be at that point where one’s local ISP would monitor, wouldn’t it?

Another question would be exactly what they are monitoring: file size? questionable source (such as Usenet, torrent traffic, megadownloadwebsites)? frequency of big downloads? etc.

Many ISPs dropped Usenet several years ago, but one can still connect to a Usenet provider — via the local ISP. Similarly, bit torrent data is transferred via individual connections, but the initial connections are with the local ISP.

==

I have a feeling this law will result in rampant ‘righthaven’ types of actions that will be overly aggressive at first. Then some major lawsuits. If the ISPs lose a few of those, they will lighten up.

This kind of stuff has been going on since the first tape and cassette and VCR recorders. It continued with advent of CD and DVD recorders.


19 posted on 03/20/2012 7:39:31 AM PDT by TomGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: darrellmaurina
"However, there's a big difference between censorship and enforcing copyright law."

Ahh Sorry but the RIAA and MPAA BOUGHT the latest copyright law that is in effect.

They are now trying to gain control of the Internet because someone MIGHT infringe a Law they bought and paid for.

This is the RIGHT BATTLE, once you give these associations the Right to control the flow of Internet Traffic then they own it!

20 posted on 03/20/2012 7:42:21 AM PDT by Mad Dawgg (If you're going to deny my 1st Amendment rights then I must proceed to the 2nd one...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
LOL!

Classic!

21 posted on 03/20/2012 7:47:15 AM PDT by Mad Dawgg (If you're going to deny my 1st Amendment rights then I must proceed to the 2nd one...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: darrellmaurina

You make some very good points. Certainly - Copyright violation is a crime - but a civil one! Certainly the fairness doctrine squelched free speech (though we had something closer to what we expect of journalists back then too!)

Let me point out some other sides to the issue. The first is that the original term for Copyright was something like 14 years! With the way things are going - those works in the Public Domain will be the last to enter it! The Copyright period keeps getting extended... Micky Mouse is still a copyrighted work! He was created in the 1930s!

Next - a very BAD piece of legislation, the DMCA had at least one redeeming feature. It treated ISPs as “common carriers” like the phone company and relieved them of responsibility for those things carried on their wires. It also gave a “safe haven” to Websites with the Take down notice mechanism. What you see here is ISPs taking on the role of police for copyright holders - exceeding the requirements of the DMCA. You see PRIVATE censorship rising it’s ugly head.

The most likely reason is companies like Comcast are not conglomerations of both media companies and ISPs...so their interests get mixed up.

I too fear the rise of private censorship, though ALSO despising the constant extension of Copyright protection beyond any reasonable period. BOTH need to be brought back under control!


22 posted on 03/20/2012 7:50:24 AM PDT by fremont_steve
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: darrellmaurina

You make some very good points. Certainly - Copyright violation is a crime - but a civil one! Certainly the fairness doctrine squelched free speech (though we had something closer to what we expect of journalists back then too!)

Let me point out some other sides to the issue. The first is that the original term for Copyright was something like 14 years! With the way things are going - those works in the Public Domain will be the last to enter it! The Copyright period keeps getting extended... Micky Mouse is still a copyrighted work! He was created in the 1930s!

Next - a very BAD piece of legislation, the DMCA had at least one redeeming feature. It treated ISPs as “common carriers” like the phone company and relieved them of responsibility for those things carried on their wires. It also gave a “safe haven” to Websites with the Take down notice mechanism. What you see here is ISPs taking on the role of police for copyright holders - exceeding the requirements of the DMCA. You see PRIVATE censorship rising it’s ugly head.

The most likely reason is companies like Comcast are now conglomerations of both media companies and ISPs...so their interests get mixed up.

I too fear the rise of private censorship, though ALSO despising the constant extension of Copyright protection beyond any reasonable period. BOTH need to be brought back under control! This isn’t a case of government censorship but private!


23 posted on 03/20/2012 7:51:13 AM PDT by fremont_steve
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: darrellmaurina
there's a big difference between censorship and enforcing copyright law

That is true, but...

Copyright and Fair Use have become murky -- especially with the advent of tape/CD/DVD recorders. What is allowed? What isn't? If I directly record from my TV to my DVR, how is that any different that recording my TV stream on my computer?

Technology continually speeds ahead of the legal establishment. The LE wants things as they were. Technology doesn't stand still for that.

Supposed agreement lines were reached for tape/VCR/cassette, CD/DVD/DVR capabilities. So, if I VCR a TV program, how is that any different that using the ISP's DVR service to record the same TV program? Or using my computer and a PCTV card via MS Windows Media Center to capture the broadcast stream?

Similar arguments can be made regarding Internet radio and recording.

==

The issue has been murky for decades, and it will remain so.

==

Making the issue even more murky, for most video or audio (including music) that one plays, such as youtube or similar, the data bits are stored on one's computer and reassembled by the player. With a little ingenuity, one can recover some of those. Is that legal? It's on my computer! Youtube (for example) put it there!
24 posted on 03/20/2012 7:55:35 AM PDT by TomGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: fremont_steve

The original copyright was intended to keep one from taking the work of another and selling it for profit or taking the work of another and claiming it as one’s own.

==

The same kind of furor erupted when Xerox made copiers.

Before that, someone invented carbon sheets to make copies of anything one typed.


25 posted on 03/20/2012 8:01:27 AM PDT by TomGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: darrellmaurina

Bring back copyright to its original 14 + 14 year term and I am 100% with you. The constitution distinguishes between physical property and “intellectual” property for a reason. Everything prior to the mid-80s should now be in the public domain.


26 posted on 03/20/2012 8:06:32 AM PDT by Notary Sojac (Mi tio esta enfermo, pero la carretera es verde!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: TomGuy
hahahah Copyright Math from the TED conference!
27 posted on 03/20/2012 8:06:49 AM PDT by Mad Dawgg (If you're going to deny my 1st Amendment rights then I must proceed to the 2nd one...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawgg; Lazamataz
I got a feeling you will get a kick out of: Copyright Math Enjoy!
28 posted on 03/20/2012 8:24:03 AM PDT by Mad Dawgg (If you're going to deny my 1st Amendment rights then I must proceed to the 2nd one...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Notary Sojac
"Bring back copyright to its original 14 + 14 year term and I am 100% with you."

EGGSactly Batman!

Few People understand that Copyright Law is a Compromise between the Producers and the Public. The Media Producers are supposed to get a "LIMITED" term to make money off the Media they produce and then that Media reverts to "PUBLIC DOMAIN" where as the people get to use that Media anyway they choose.

Over the years "BIG MEDIA" has continually lobbied Congress until they have got the "LIMITED" term expanded from the original 28 Years to nearly 100 years.

In essence "BIG MEDIA" has stolen 72 years plus worth of Media from the Public!

29 posted on 03/20/2012 8:31:33 AM PDT by Mad Dawgg (If you're going to deny my 1st Amendment rights then I must proceed to the 2nd one...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawgg

That was funny.


30 posted on 03/20/2012 8:33:27 AM PDT by avenir (I'm pessimistic about man, but I'm optimistic about GOD!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: darrellmaurina

“**HOWEVER** — and this is a big caveat — it has never been legal for people to print and distribute copyrighted material. The people downloading music and movies for free without consent of the copyright owners are committing crimes. That has been the case for the entire history of American copyright law, dating back two centuries.”

I think it would be helpful if we looked back at the full history of sharing & copyrights to see just how far we’ve fallen.

Copying started in the olden days with books. You’d read a book and make a copy of another if you so desired. It wasn’t very efficient, but there were generally no restrictions against it unless, say, a local ruler didn’t like what the book said.

The printing press was a huge advancement in technology. It made copying much more efficient by introducing an economy of scale via mass production. For the first few hundred years after its introduction, however, many copies were still made by hand. The rich had hand-written copies to show off their status, and poor people who couldn’t afford the literature made copies.

Copyright started in Italy in the 1500s: if you wrote a book, you could ask a prince to give you a monopoly on printing it. They enjoyed doing it to reward people who said nice things about them, or perhaps dedicated something to them. Niccolo Machiavelli dedicated “The Prince” to Lorenzo di Piero de Medici, a member of the ruling Florentine Medici family.

Copyright in England began as a system of censorship against the Church of England. In order to publish a book, you had to ask the state for permission.

After the Glorious Revolution, they replaced this system with a scheme that gave copyright to the author instead of a publisher, and only for 14 years. Copyright was seen as a way to encourage writing by giving authors a way to make more money from publishing. This is where we have our roots.

In short, copying laws in the age of the printing press were intended affected publishers. It didn’t impose any restrictions on what readers could do. It was easy to enforce and, more importantly, it was intended to BENEFIT the public.

Today, copyright has been distorted so much as to become unrecognizable when compared to where we got it from in England. Authors cede their rights to publishers. Copyright lengths have been extended from 14 years to more than a lifetime in some cases, which prevents works from going into the public domain.

Through digital technology, publishers have extended copyright restrictions to areas never intended to be affected when copyright was conceived. These restrictions attack the public’s freedom, and the costs and methods of enforcement are onerous.

Copyright law has been turned on its head. Sharing has been criminalized as taboo. You’ll never catch me advocating illegal activity, but I understand those who choose to exercise civil disobedience on these matters.


31 posted on 03/20/2012 8:36:03 AM PDT by Cato in PA (1/26/12: Bloody Thursday)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: TomGuy
"The same kind of furor erupted when Xerox made copiers."

heheh the same thing happened when a little known feller named Johannes Gutenberg developed a machine that could print books in day that before that literally took a year or more.

32 posted on 03/20/2012 8:38:57 AM PDT by Mad Dawgg (If you're going to deny my 1st Amendment rights then I must proceed to the 2nd one...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: fremont_steve
What you see here is ISPs taking on the role of police for copyright holders - exceeding the requirements of the DMCA. You see PRIVATE censorship rising it’s ugly head.

"Private censorship" is owners of network resources stating the terms of the services they're willing to sell - terms a customer can accept, or reject and withhold his patronage. You can't consistently support FR's right to ban liberals, but oppose an ISP's right to ban copyright violation.

33 posted on 03/20/2012 8:55:54 AM PDT by JustSayNoToNannies (A free society's default policy: it's none of government's business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies
"but oppose an ISP's right to ban copyright violation."

Copyright violation is a matter of law. The ISPs (Which BTW are also mostly owned by the very same Copyright holders A.K.A. BIG MEDIA) are now going to penalize anyone THEY say is violating a Copyright.

Further their is usually only one or two ISPs in most areas around our country. The INTERNET is in essence going to be policed by an industry that is dying because their business model does not acknowledge that it is a modern day equivalent of a Buggy Whip Manufacturer.

What BIG MEDIA wants is not "Digital Rights Management" which would allow Media purchasers to have ownership rights of media they buy (as in selling a DVD or CD they no longer want.)

BIG MEDIA wants instead "Digital NO RIGHTS Management" wherein the Media consumer has no rights whatsoever to media they purchase including "FAIR USE" which is granted under copyright law.

Big Media is always getting Youtube and other websites to pull media that is being used in "Parody" which is legal under fair use. Now they can punish anyone who parodies any media without using the courts.

Big Media has waaaaaaay to much power now and we are about to allow them full control of the Internet without an act of congress or the courts.

34 posted on 03/20/2012 10:05:10 AM PDT by Mad Dawgg (If you're going to deny my 1st Amendment rights then I must proceed to the 2nd one...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawgg

Intellectual property laws are archaic and serve no useful purpose except to prop up monopolistic practices that are fundamentally corrosive to free markets.

There will be no real information age until IP laws are done away with.


35 posted on 03/20/2012 10:29:29 AM PDT by Utmost Certainty (Our Enemy, the State | Gingrich 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawgg

But they can’t stop child porn. Huh.


36 posted on 03/20/2012 10:35:55 AM PDT by AppyPappy (If you really want to annoy someone, point out something obvious that they are trying hard to ignore)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: darrellmaurina

> We as a conservatives need to stand up in defense of the Constitutional protection of the First Amendment as well as the Constitutional protection of private property rights.

It will get abused.
Case in point. My favorite author, Edgar Rice Burroughs.
Copyright law was 50 years past the death of the author. He died in 1952. I should be able to download all his books in 2002. Wrong. They pushed the copyright out to 70 years past death. I’ll have to wait until 2022 to download, unless the publishing companies get a longer extension of time.

Another case in point. Old time Radio broadcasts of “The Shadow” were in public domain until Conde Nast (publishing) took out a trademark for the line spoken at the start of every show. Once they got their trademark, they seized control of the old broadcasts themselves. And you can’t listen to them now.

There will always be someone like MPAA or RIAA who wants a cash cow they didn’t participate in.


37 posted on 03/20/2012 10:41:15 AM PDT by BuffaloJack (End Obama's War On Freedom.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawgg
The ISPs (Which BTW are also mostly owned by the very same Copyright holders A.K.A. BIG MEDIA) are now going to penalize anyone THEY say is violating a Copyright.

And FR bans anyone it says is a liberal. Their equipment, their rules.

38 posted on 03/20/2012 11:08:44 AM PDT by JustSayNoToNannies (A free society's default policy: it's none of government's business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies

You completely missed the point of my post!

1) ISPs have become the copyright police even though the law gives them common carrier status, i.e. they are faultless in the commission of any copyright violation.

2) They maybe should loose the status as “common carriers” because they have entered the realm of copyright enforcement - often because they are now also content providers, i.e. copyright owners.

3) Copyright law itself needs a major overhaul to bring it back to the original intent by the founders! The law is unbalanced in favor of copyright owners right now.

Nothing in the above condones theft.


39 posted on 03/20/2012 11:45:54 AM PDT by fremont_steve
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: TomGuy

Yes - but your statement needs to be modified to “for a limited time!” Just as patents had a sunset provision, so did Copyright. After the expiration period - the work became public domain. The original period was 20 years after creation. That now is something like 70 years after the death of the author... The problem is that the “limited time” keeps on getting extended to infinity and beyond!


40 posted on 03/20/2012 11:49:49 AM PDT by fremont_steve
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: fremont_steve
1) ISPs have become the copyright police even though the law gives them common carrier status, i.e. they are faultless in the commission of any copyright violation.

The law holds FR faultless in the commission of any liberal postings. That doesn't obligate FR to allow them.

41 posted on 03/20/2012 11:57:20 AM PDT by JustSayNoToNannies (A free society's default policy: it's none of government's business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies
"And FR bans anyone it says is a liberal. Their equipment, their rules."

Sorry no. FR is a website.

ISPs are the gateway to the Internet which is a utility that is accessed via Federally Regulated Communications systems (Telephones, Cable and Sats.) We are allowing these private Corps who are granted licenses to provide these communications the power to be judge and jury on matters of law with no day in court for the accused. Further they have a definite CONFLICT OF INTEREST in these matters: Case in point Time Warner one of the Biggest ISPs is also one of the largest Media Corporations controlling billions of dollars worth of Copyrighted Media.

Its like granting Microsoft the power to enter any structure they wish and take a computer they CLAIM has pirated software on it without a warrant or approval of a judge. There are rules for such things.

Allowing an ISP to deny access to the Internet because they CLAIM to have evidence of Copyright Infringement is about as wrong as you can get if you believe in the Constitution and Due Process.

To give you an example I have a clause in all my Rental Property Contracts that state I can revoke your lease and evict you if you use the premises for illegal activities of any kind. Its my property and my rules BUT I still have to go through legal eviction proceedings and if it is contested we have to go to court. Such is so BOTH parties are protected. In this mess there is no protection for the consumer just whatever the ISP decides is law.

42 posted on 03/20/2012 12:07:24 PM PDT by Mad Dawgg (If you're going to deny my 1st Amendment rights then I must proceed to the 2nd one...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: fremont_steve

Correction -as others have pointed out - it was 14 years after creation, not 20.


43 posted on 03/20/2012 12:08:18 PM PDT by fremont_steve
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawgg
And FR bans anyone it says is a liberal. Their equipment, their rules.

Sorry no. FR is a website.

ISPs are the gateway to the Internet which is a utility that is accessed via Federally Regulated Communications systems (Telephones, Cable and Sats.)

FR is also accessed via Federally Regulated Communications systems.

We are allowing these private Corps who are granted licenses to provide these communications the power to be judge and jury on matters of law with no day in court for the accused.

So if they said, "We're suspending our service to you because we just plain don't like what you do with it," that would be OK - it's their tying their actions to laws that's the problem?

Further they have a definite CONFLICT OF INTEREST in these matters: Case in point Time Warner one of the Biggest ISPs is also one of the largest Media Corporations controlling billions of dollars worth of Copyrighted Media.

No conflict: as ISPs and as copyright holders they protect their own interests - it's called the free market.

Its like granting Microsoft the power to enter any structure they wish and take a computer they CLAIM has pirated software on it without a warrant or approval of a judge. There are rules for such things.

Allowing an ISP to deny access to the Internet because they CLAIM to have evidence of Copyright Infringement is about as wrong as you can get if you believe in the Constitution and Due Process.

Sorry no. Your computer belongs to you - your agreement with an ISP does not belong to you but is subject to revocation by them (or you).

To give you an example I have a clause in all my Rental Property Contracts that state I can revoke your lease and evict you if you use the premises for illegal activities of any kind. Its my property and my rules BUT I still have to go through legal eviction proceedings and if it is contested we have to go to court. Such is so BOTH parties are protected.

Apart from simple adherence to contract (which should always be enforced) "tenants' rights" are based on the idea that having housing is of vital importance. Such is not the case with Internet access.

In this mess there is no protection for the consumer just whatever the ISP decides is law.

And the consumer can drop their ISP for any reason they choose - where's the protection for the ISP?

44 posted on 03/20/2012 12:28:04 PM PDT by JustSayNoToNannies (A free society's default policy: it's none of government's business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawgg

One would think (wrongly, of course) that in these dismal economic times, those companies would be focused on more important things than people downloading freebie files. Namely, staying in business.

Guess not.

Hey....maybe Obamma will save the day and make a new campaign promise... freebie downloads for all! Stranger things have happened (already).


45 posted on 03/20/2012 12:29:12 PM PDT by XenaLee (The only good commie is a dead commie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BuffaloJack

http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=edgar%20rice%20burroughs%20AND%20mediatype%3Atexts

http://www.archive.org/details/TheShadow_29

Though copyright has become just as you say, your examples are not on point.


46 posted on 03/20/2012 12:33:19 PM PDT by mrsmith (Dumb sluts: Lifeblood of the Media, Backbone of the Democrat Party!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies
"Sorry no. Your computer belongs to you - your agreement with an ISP does not belong to you but is subject to revocation by them (or you). "

As provided via Contract. They are revoking services because they say you are doing something illegal. TO break a contract in such a way one needs to provide proof. They don't have to.

"Apart from simple adherence to contract (which should always be enforced)"

And thank you for proving my point. They are breaking the contract because they CLAIM you have done something illegal. And further the reason a rental agreement can't be terminated without due process or agreement by both parties is because such is the purpose of a contract.

"tenants' rights" are based on the idea that having housing is of vital importance. Such is not the case with Internet access.

Hahahah How quaint. Try to run a business today without benefit of the Internet. Virtually impossible in most sectors.

A bank cannot functions without the Internet in this day and age yet a Service Provider can shut them down because they CLAIM copyright infringement.

You are beyond ignorant of the scope of this you are willfully denying reality.

47 posted on 03/20/2012 12:45:42 PM PDT by Mad Dawgg (If you're going to deny my 1st Amendment rights then I must proceed to the 2nd one...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawgg
Sorry no. Your computer belongs to you - your agreement with an ISP does not belong to you but is subject to revocation by them (or you).

As provided via Contract.

And here's what my contract provides: "prohibited uses and activities include, but are not limited to, using the Service, Customer Equipment, or the Comcast Equipment, either individually or in combination with one another, to [...] undertake or accomplish any unlawful purpose. This includes, but is not limited to, posting, storing, transmitting or disseminating information, data or material which [...] infringes the intellectual property rights of any person or entity [...] Comcast reserves the right immediately to suspend or terminate your Service account and terminate the Subscriber Agreement if you violate the terms of this Policy or the Subscriber Agreement."

"tenants' rights" are based on the idea that having housing is of vital importance. Such is not the case with Internet access.

Hahahah How quaint. Try to run a business today without benefit of the Internet.

Still doesn't rise to the level of individuals' need for housing.

48 posted on 03/20/2012 1:21:19 PM PDT by JustSayNoToNannies (A free society's default policy: it's none of government's business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
Well, with the sole exception of a legal warrant, nothing you can do about those.

Sure you can. Don't log anything. If you have no logs, they have nothing to search.

49 posted on 03/20/2012 1:33:08 PM PDT by zeugma (Those of us who work for a living are outnumbered by those who vote for a living.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: darrellmaurina

When copyright terms return to something more reasonable, like 30 or so years, I’ll start giving a damn about internet downloads. Until then I couldn’t care less.


50 posted on 03/20/2012 1:35:52 PM PDT by zeugma (Those of us who work for a living are outnumbered by those who vote for a living.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-104 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson