redjoker
2008-12-17, 12:49
http://torrentfreak.com/movie-studios-spied-on-isps-bittorrent-users-081216/
I find this to be some very interesting news. I especially found the catch 22 situation the Movie Studios are in because of their agent sharing videos via bitTorrent. So what do you guys think about the situation? I would like to hear some serious discussion on copyright infringement, copyleft, intellectual property, sharing information, etc.
I think the ISP should clearly win the case based on the information I gathered from the article. This whole case reeks of entrapment. I guess the million dollar question is: Does iiNet 'authorize' copyright infringement? Since the article says they have a policy in place that forbids using their network for copyright infringement I would have to say no. Having a policy and enforcing the policy are two different things. Just because you don't do anything doesn't mean you authorize it. The best way that I could think of clearing this up is to use phone companies in place of ISPs and prank callers in place of customers who pirate films. The Movie Studios will be Joe Schmoe, the average joe. Let's also say that prank calling is a misdemeanor that costs the offender about $10,000 every time they do it. Should a phone company hand over confidential customer data to Joe Schmoe and disconnect a paying customer's service without a court order, chance for appeal, or meaningful evidence for free and without contacting the customer? I think a heard a really big 'fuck no' outside my window. Should Joe Schmoe be allowed to sue the phone company for authorizing someone to prank call him when there were no formal complaints and a police investigation into the prank call? I think I heard it again, the 'fuck no' noise. How about when the prank caller is actually an employee paid to prank call Joe Schmoe? Yes my neighbor is definitely yelling 'fuck no' to someone outside. This seems like a case where the Movie Studios are sick of ISPs getting in their way. To the Movie Studios and others like them there is a huge field of out there called the Internet. On this field are millions of people bent over and ready to be raped by lawyers. The only thing standing in the way of this mass pwnage are ISPs and their backwards ways. How dare they keep private customer information out of the hands of 3rd parties. There are allegations for Christ's sake.
I would also like to mention that I am a copyleft kind of guy. I like sharing information and I think the more people know the better things are. I think that if good information is free and readily available the better the world would be. I think if good entertainment is free then a lot more people will be happier. I also think that there is no way in hell anyone is going to stop copyright infringement.
I find this to be some very interesting news. I especially found the catch 22 situation the Movie Studios are in because of their agent sharing videos via bitTorrent. So what do you guys think about the situation? I would like to hear some serious discussion on copyright infringement, copyleft, intellectual property, sharing information, etc.
I think the ISP should clearly win the case based on the information I gathered from the article. This whole case reeks of entrapment. I guess the million dollar question is: Does iiNet 'authorize' copyright infringement? Since the article says they have a policy in place that forbids using their network for copyright infringement I would have to say no. Having a policy and enforcing the policy are two different things. Just because you don't do anything doesn't mean you authorize it. The best way that I could think of clearing this up is to use phone companies in place of ISPs and prank callers in place of customers who pirate films. The Movie Studios will be Joe Schmoe, the average joe. Let's also say that prank calling is a misdemeanor that costs the offender about $10,000 every time they do it. Should a phone company hand over confidential customer data to Joe Schmoe and disconnect a paying customer's service without a court order, chance for appeal, or meaningful evidence for free and without contacting the customer? I think a heard a really big 'fuck no' outside my window. Should Joe Schmoe be allowed to sue the phone company for authorizing someone to prank call him when there were no formal complaints and a police investigation into the prank call? I think I heard it again, the 'fuck no' noise. How about when the prank caller is actually an employee paid to prank call Joe Schmoe? Yes my neighbor is definitely yelling 'fuck no' to someone outside. This seems like a case where the Movie Studios are sick of ISPs getting in their way. To the Movie Studios and others like them there is a huge field of out there called the Internet. On this field are millions of people bent over and ready to be raped by lawyers. The only thing standing in the way of this mass pwnage are ISPs and their backwards ways. How dare they keep private customer information out of the hands of 3rd parties. There are allegations for Christ's sake.
I would also like to mention that I am a copyleft kind of guy. I like sharing information and I think the more people know the better things are. I think that if good information is free and readily available the better the world would be. I think if good entertainment is free then a lot more people will be happier. I also think that there is no way in hell anyone is going to stop copyright infringement.