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 ...
The law holds FR faultless in the commission of any liberal postings. That doesn't obligate FR to allow them.
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.
Correction -as others have pointed out - it was 14 years after creation, not 20.
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?
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).
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.
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.
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.
Sure you can. Don't log anything. If you have no logs, they have nothing to search.
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.
Hmmm if I am illegally kicked out of my house I can easily find a place to stay for the night (friends house, relative's house a church or mission a hotel etc.)
But If I am running my internet business that sells "The Recording Industry of America is a known Criminal Enterprise" T-shirts and my ISP cuts off my Internet access because they "claim" I have illegally Downloaded Copyrighted Media. I am dead in the water for days, weeks maybe even months especially if I live in an area that only has one service provider. Cutting off my ability to sell product and pay my bills.
Not only does it rise to such a level it surpasses it.
The RIAA and MPAA could via this new policing authority crush any business they feel is a threat to their business model whether such businesses were doing something illegal or not Destroying the livelihood of multitudes of people by destroying the business they work for.
In the 21st Century he who controls the Internet controls the world. You may wish to cede control of it to a bunch of Corporate Criminals but not I and nor anyone who professes to believe that Due Process and the Constitution is the law of the land!
Books by Burroughs on Project Gutenberg AU (Rest of them)
That's nothing new - as I showed, my contract allows them to do that to me already, and I bet the same is true for that T-shirt company. And yet it hasn't happened.
You do realize they don't start this madness till July of this year right.
So why would it have happened already since they haven't started yet?
hahahahah
You do realize Internet service contracts allow them to start yesterday, right?
Not without due process or they suffer consequences in court.
Now however they can pull access and make it stick because someone supposedly downloaded illegal media.
A Free program downloaded from the web allows anyone with a intermediate amount of computer knowledge to hack a wireless network router (provided by the ISP) and gain access to the wireless network. Now all is needed is to log onto a file sharing site and download some copyrighted media. Bingo the RIAA has cause to shut down that customers internet connection and said customer didn't break a single law.
However, a customer cannot prove without a doubt He didn't download anything. Such an issue can be exploited to the max. The RIAA could initiate such things against groups and individuals they wish to discredit. And if you think they are above such things check this out:
"In 1999, Mitch Glazier, a Congressional staff attorney, inserted, without public notice or comment, substantive language into the final markup of a "technical corrections" section of copyright legislation, classifying many music recordings as "works made for hire," thereby stripping artists of their copyright interests and transferring those interests to their record labels. Shortly afterwards, Glazier was hired as Senior Vice President of Government Relations and Legislative Counsel for the RIAA, which vigorously defended the change when it came to light"
The RIAA is one of the most underhanded dirty lowdown organizations ever to sully the business world. They will use any means they think they can get away with to line their pockets and Thug tactics like denying people internet access is their modus operandi. They sued a woman who supposedly downloaded around 20 songs for over 2 million bucks. More Copyright Math hahahah.
Bottom line if you condone this situation you are not even close to being a Conservative. We believe in due process and that you are innocent till proved guilty.
Obama helped make this censorship possible. And it also further censoring the Internet with ACTA. This is just the beginning. They found a way to censor the Internet with ISPs and they will just keep adding censorship ,all justified by some noble sounding reason.
Not without due process or they suffer consequences in court.
So you're claiming that the following portion of my contract can't be enforced as written? Can you support that claim?
"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."
See the KEY word in that bit of legalize you posted is the word "YOU" as in if "YOU" violate the terms then suspension happens.
However, if someone hacks you then "YOU" have not violated the terms. As it stands right now Comcast or Time Warner can be hammered financially for shutting down access. without "due process".
What SOPA and ACTA was supposed to do was place the rights of the RIAA and the MPAA above the rights of the ISP consumer by doing sway with the need for "Due Process" and allowing those associations to go straight to punishment without ever needing to prove their case in court. Mainly because when they did so they got hammered hard in the public relations scheme of things even though they won verdicts in most of the trials.
The deal the Washington D.C. Thugs made is basically to look the other way and let the RIAA and MPAA be the Police of the internet and allowing them latitude to punish anyone they feel is violating copyright terms by stripping them of access to the web. SOPA and ACTA were defeated legislatively for now but only in legislative form. The RIAA and MPAA still are gonna get their control and probably will get SOPA and ACTA passed by a little slight of hand having Congress Critters call for taking the Police power away from them and placed into the Gub'Ment which will be exactly the same thing being MPAA and RIAA paid for the legislation in the first place.
See you still believe this an issue about rights of a business to deal with customers the wish. That works for a Car Wash or Restaurant. But when you are talking about the gateway to the Internet its a whole different Ball of Wax.
Today if you aren't connected to the Internet you are miles behind and can never catch up. And YOU are advocating giving control to people who wish to censor information and lock down the news cycle so they control the message.
"Copyright Violations" are just the Trojan Horse they wish to use to get pass the gates of the uncontrolled Internet.
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.