Re: Well 3 stikes and you out and with No solid evidence of it.
Nik Coughlin
news:4fm4f599cnnoo01et...@4ax.com...
>
> Among other things, the ACTA draft calls for a global three-strikes policy
> to
> disconnect alleged file-sharers from the Internet, without solid evidence
> or a
> court order
>
>
> Seems that we will be in the same boat If Ozz is, plus the US free trade
> talks.
>
>
> http://torrentfreak.com/secret-anti-piracy-treaty-turns-isps-into-pirates-091104/
Also, makes non-commercial copyright infringement a criminal rather than a
civil offense. Nice.
Peter Hewett
> Among other things, the ACTA draft calls for a global three-strikes policy
> to disconnect alleged file-sharers from the Internet, without solid
> evidence or a court order
> Seems that we will be in the same boat If Ozz is, plus the US free trade
> talks.
> http://torrentfreak.com/secret-anti-piracy-treaty-turns-isps-into-
pirates-091104/
And - why is it being kept so secret?
What is there to hide?
http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/news/EEC8CEAFC9C54B90CC2576630080B002
"If correct, this is cause for alarm and shows a significant change in
ACTA's focus,” says InternetNZ spokesperson Jordan Carter.
“The New Zealand negotiators need to argue for ACTA to focus on the big
economic problems caused by commercial piracy. The government should clarify
this stance and should put more information about what exactly is under
discussion into the public domain - and the sooner the better," he says.
http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/news/76BBB732F7361984CC257663006C3E16
impossible
"Peter Hewett" <nospa...@yahoo.co.nz> wrote in message
news:hctsgp$mho$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Why "focus on the big economic problems caused by commercial piracy" and not
piracy itself? Are you suggesting that violation of copyright is ok so long
as you don't try to sell the goods you've pirated?
peterwn
> Mary Hanna wrote:
> > Among other things, the ACTA draft calls for a global three-strikes policy
> > to disconnect alleged file-sharers from the Internet, without solid
> > evidence or a court order
> > Seems that we will be in the same boat If Ozz is, plus the US free trade
> > talks.
> >http://torrentfreak.com/secret-anti-piracy-treaty-turns-isps-into-
>
> pirates-091104/
>
> And - why is it being kept so secret?
> What is there to hide?
To try and prevent popular debate on the matter before state parties
have initially signed the treaty. those promoting the treaty have so
far been able to do a lot of work on it without interference from
opponents, protestors, etc.
The fundamental issue state parties are being confronted with is what
is a practical and effective way of protecting property interests in
creative works in a similar manner that owners of real estate and
other property are protected by society.
It is very difficult to argue with the proposition that owners of
intellectual property would expect, in a civilised society, that the
state provides mechanisms to help protect their property rights.
The issue then becomes one of how to protect these interests without
indue effect on ordinary human rights.
peterwn
> Among other things, the ACTA draft calls for a global three-strikes policy to
> disconnect alleged file-sharers from the Internet, without solid evidence or a
> court order
>
> Seems that we will be in the same boat If Ozz is, plus the US free trade
> talks.
>
I have responded to a similar thread on nz.comp as (because it is an
important matter):
Nik Coughlin
news:k6b5f5t5eim3cdgqh...@4ax.com...
> On , , Thu, 5 Nov 2009 18:15:04 +1300, Re: Well 3 stikes and you out and
> with No
> What is so bloody difficult about that?
Yeah, that's grossly oversimplified.
I recently got an illegally duplicated copy of a book that I wanted to read
but is out of print, and has been for 20 years. It's a collector's item and
is hard to find, and if you do manage to find it goes for around US$8000 a
copy. I'm not a collector, I just wanted to read it, I own legitimate
copies of all of the author's other works, and it's the 2nd book in a
trilogy that I have book 1 & 3 of.
I guess I should have just stumped up the US$8000 or be prepared to do jail
time huh.
geoff
> Among other things, the ACTA draft calls for a global three-strikes
> policy to disconnect alleged file-sharers from the Internet, without
> solid evidence or a court order
>
>
> Seems that we will be in the same boat If Ozz is, plus the US free
> trade talks.
>
>
> http://torrentfreak.com/secret-anti-piracy-treaty-turns-isps-into-pirates-091104/
Is that a 'per user' or a 'per connection' basis ? Seems a bit contrary to
natural justice to punish a whole household or organisation for the actions
of maybe one member.
geoff
Roger_Nickel
The attempt to redefine copyright infringement (a civil offence) as
counterfeiting- (a criminal offence) is what disturbs me. No one has yet
explained to me exactly why why an Anti Counterfeiting Trade Agreement
should be addressing copyright infringement. TRIPS, Berne Convention etc.
already address copyright.
Nik Coughlin
> On , , Fri, 6 Nov 2009 09:21:50 +1300, Re: Well 3 stikes and you out and
> prepared to
> jail time."
> You acknowledge that you know that what you are doing is wrong where you
> say
> "illegally".
I don't believe that what I have done is wrong. Illegal, yes, wrong, no.
Not every law is moral, just and fair and I have no compunction breaking
those that I disagree with.
Taking the stance that breaking a law is an immoral act seems to me a very
rigid and authoritarian outlook on the world.
> No matter how you attempt to justify it to yourself and me, you know
> whatyou did
> was wrong.
I don't need to justify it, I have no moral qualms here. I think copyright
terms are too long and I also think that copyright should lapse after a
certain period of time if the copyright holder chooses to stop making that
work available.
> No matter how you attempt to justify it to yourself and me, you know
> whatyou did
> was wrong. It is still theft if you take an illegal copy.
Creators should be compensated for their work by those that make use of that
work but like everything else this needs to be balanced with the needs of
society.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/feb/21/intellectual.property
impossible
"Nik Coughlin" <nrkn...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:hcvc4s$l04$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Yes.
impossible
"peterwn" <pet...@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
news:d51f14c5-b3da-4e97...@b25g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
Piracy is theft of property. You will have a very difficult time justifying
that on grounds of "human rights".
impossible
"geoff" <ge...@nospam-paf.co.nz> wrote in message
news:usadnYXd2-bHqm7X...@giganews.com...
All internet connections require a contract between the ISP and the account
holder. The account holder then has a responsibility to ensure that all
users of that internet connection abide by the terms of use, which forbids
piracy.
Nik Coughlin
news:sSNIm.123094$la3.44800@attbi_s22...
Care to explain who exactly I am stealing from? Book dealers reselling this
book as a collector's item? I'm not stealing from the author because the
book is out of print, so he can't make money from it no matter what happens.
Besides which, I've legally bought *every* single one of his other books.
I suppose we should also throw all music pirates in jail right?
Norwegian study:
http://www.zeropaid.com/news/86009/study-pirates-buy-10-times-more-music-than-they-steal/
British study:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/illegal-downloaders-spend-the-most-on-music-says-poll-1812776.html
Canadian government study:
http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/ippd-dppi.nsf/eng/ip01457.html
impossible
The copyright holder.
> Book dealers reselling this book as a collector's item?
No. The copyright holder. You have no right to their property.
> I'm not stealing from the author because the book is out of print, so he
> can't make money from it no matter what happens.
Has the copyright expired? If not, you've infringed on copyright. Whether or
not the copyright holder can, or wants to, make money from their work is
completely beside the point. Without the permission of the copyright holder,
you have no right to a copy of their work.
> Besides which, I've legally bought *every* single one of his other books.
>
Don't be ridiculous! Just because you obey the law 364 days a year doesn't
entitle you to violate it on the 365th.
> I suppose we should also throw all music pirates in jail right?
>
Cutting off an internet pirate's internet connection seems sufficent in most
cases.
> Norwegian study:
> http://www.zeropaid.com/news/86009/study-pirates-buy-10-times-more-music-than-they-steal/
>
> British study:
> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/illegal-downloaders-spend-the-most-on-music-says-poll-1812776.html
>
> Canadian government study:
> http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/ippd-dppi.nsf/eng/ip01457.html
LOL. Exatly how many $8000 books have you purchased since stealing the one
you wanted.
Nik Coughlin
The Theft Act: "A person is guilty of theft, if he dishonestly appropriates
property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving
the other of it"
Oh dear, it appears that they no longer have their property as I have
permanently deprived them of it... oh, wait.
>> I'm not stealing from the author because the book is out of print, so he
>> can't make money from it no matter what happens.
>
> Has the copyright expired? If not, you've infringed on copyright. Whether
> or not the copyright holder can, or wants to, make money from their work
> is completely beside the point. Without the permission of the copyright
> holder, you have no right to a copy of their work.
Why not?
Because I did not purchase a physical copy of one of the extremely limited
print runs?
What if I borrowed the book from someone and read it, then gave it back to
the owner?
Please explain to me why that would be OK but printing a copy and reading it
isn't.
>> Besides which, I've legally bought *every* single one of his other books.
>>
>
> Don't be ridiculous! Just because you obey the law 364 days a year doesn't
> entitle you to violate it on the 365th.
I don't obey the law 365 days a year, I only obey laws that I think are fair
and just.
Non-commercial copyright is not currently a criminal offence and nor should
it become one.
Copyright is seriously broken.
We live in a world where the song Happy Birthday must be licensed to be
performed in public:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Birthday_to_You#Copyright_status
"The origins of "Happy Birthday To You" date back to the mid-nineteenth
century"
"The song is currently set to pass in to the public domain in 2030."
I do not obey laws that I consider unjust or ridiculous. Nor should anyone.
>> I suppose we should also throw all music pirates in jail right?
>>
>
> Cutting off an internet pirate's internet connection seems sufficent in
> most cases.
And that of their family and anybody else who they live with?
With no due process, merely an accusation being sufficient?
Coming from the industry that accuses laser printers of copyright
infringement?
http://www.boingboing.net/2008/06/05/entertainment-indust-1.html
But that's not the point, the point is that this new law, along with this
provision of internet disconnection, changes non-commerical copyright
infringement from being a civil matter to a criminal one.
>> Norwegian study:
>> http://www.zeropaid.com/news/86009/study-pirates-buy-10-times-more-music-than-they-steal/
>>
>> British study:
>> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/illegal-downloaders-spend-the-most-on-music-says-poll-1812776.html
>>
>> Canadian government study:
>> http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/ippd-dppi.nsf/eng/ip01457.html
>
> LOL. Exatly how many $8000 books have you purchased since stealing the
> one you wanted.
What does the price point have to do with anything?
Nothing, aside from it being an insurmountable obstacle for me to enjoy an
important work, which I have harmed nobody by doing, nor deprived anybody of
anything.
At the same time I bought two more books from the same author, the other two
in the trilogy, the first of which was bloody expensive as it was also out
of print, but thankfully not a collector's item as is the 2nd (which had a
smaller print run), which completed my collection of his works.
And damn right I'll buy a legitimate copy of the 2nd book if they ever
reprint it, you think I like having a print out of a PDF sitting in my book
shelf amongst all the other nice books?
Nik Coughlin
>
> "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor
> to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."
> Anatole France.
Have you read the Red Lily? That whole passage drips with sarcasm:
"For the poor it consists in sustaining and preserving the wealthy in their
power and their laziness. The poor must work for this, in presence of the
majestic quality of the law which prohibits the wealthy as well as the poor
from sleeping under the bridges, from begging in the streets, and from
stealing bread. That is one of the good effects of the Revolution. As this
Revolution was made by fools and idiots for the benefit of those who
acquired national lands, and resulted in nothing but making the fortune of
crafty peasants and financiering bourgeois, the Revolution only made
stronger, under the pretence of making all men equal, the empire of wealth.
It has betrayed France into the hands of the men of wealth. They are masters
and lords. The apparent government, composed of poor devils, is in the pay
of the financiers. For one hundred years, in this poisoned country, whoever
has loved the poor has been considered a traitor to society. A man is called
dangerous when he says that there are wretched people. There are laws
against indignation and pity, and what I say here could not go into print."
peterwn
>
> All internet connections require a contract between the ISP and the account
> holder. The account holder then has a responsibility to ensure that all
> users of that internet connection abide by the terms of use, which forbids
> piracy.
Thanks for advising us of Microsoft's stance on this matter, since you
seem to be their mouthpiece on ng's.
peterwn
>
> Pretty much like you being the National Parties mouthpiece on this group.
>
Wot? me?
Suppose it could be worse - I could be accused of being ACT's
mouthpiece.
impossible
Tell it to the judge.
>>> I'm not stealing from the author because the book is out of print, so he
>>> can't make money from it no matter what happens.
>>
>> Has the copyright expired?
Well, has it?
>> If not, you've infringed on copyright. Whether or not the copyright
>> holder can, or wants to, make money from their work is completely beside
>> the point. Without the permission of the copyright holder, you have no
>> right to a copy of their work.
>
> Why not?
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=copyright+violation
>
> Because I did not purchase a physical copy of one of the extremely limited
> print runs?
>
No, because you were too cheap to do that and instead acquired a knock-off
that was produced without the copyright holder's permiossion.
> What if I borrowed the book from someone and read it, then gave it back to
> the owner?
>
If you wdere borrowing a legal copy, there wouldsn't be an issue. Why not do
that?
> Please explain to me why that would be OK but printing a copy and reading
> it isn't.
>
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=copyright+violation
>>> Besides which, I've legally bought *every* single one of his other
>>> books.
>>>
>>
>> Don't be ridiculous! Just because you obey the law 364 days a year
>> doesn't entitle you to violate it on the 365th.
>
> I don't obey the law 365 days a year, I only obey laws that I think are
> fair and just.
>
Tell it to the judge. Case closed.
> Non-commercial copyright is not currently a criminal offence and nor
> should it become one.
>
> Copyright is seriously broken.
>
By pirates like yourself, yes.
> We live in a world where the song Happy Birthday must be licensed to be
> performed in public:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Birthday_to_You#Copyright_status
>
> "The origins of "Happy Birthday To You" date back to the mid-nineteenth
> century"
> "The song is currently set to pass in to the public domain in 2030."
>
And the difficulty this creates for society is what exactly?
> I do not obey laws that I consider unjust or ridiculous. Nor should
> anyone.
>
Fine. Tell it the judge.
>>> I suppose we should also throw all music pirates in jail right?
>>>
>>
>> Cutting off an internet pirate's internet connection seems sufficent in
>> most cases.
>
> And that of their family and anybody else who they live with?
>
The account holder is responsible for ensuring that anyone who uses their
account abides by the terms and conditons.
> With no due process, merely an accusation being sufficient?
>
It's a service contract termination, for heaven's sake, not a death
sentence. Read your terms and conditions -- there are many reasons the ISP
can shut you down.
> Coming from the industry that accuses laser printers of copyright
> infringement?
>
> http://www.boingboing.net/2008/06/05/entertainment-indust-1.html
>
> But that's not the point, the point is that this new law, along with this
> provision of internet disconnection, changes non-commerical copyright
> infringement from being a civil matter to a criminal one.
>
Property right violation are usually taken very seriously.
>>> Norwegian study:
>>> http://www.zeropaid.com/news/86009/study-pirates-buy-10-times-more-music-than-they-steal/
>>>
>>> British study:
>>> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/illegal-downloaders-spend-the-most-on-music-says-poll-1812776.html
>>>
>>> Canadian government study:
>>> http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/ippd-dppi.nsf/eng/ip01457.html
>>
>> LOL. Exatly how many $8000 books have you purchased since stealing the
>> one you wanted.
>
> What does the price point have to do with anything?
>
It's the price you won't pay for a legal copy of the book you want.
According to the logic of the studies you cite, a single act of piracy might
be justified on economic grounds if you could show that you subsequently
purchased many more works of equal value. Alas, that's sheer nonsense in
your case.
> Nothing, aside from it being an insurmountable obstacle for me to enjoy an
> important work, which I have harmed nobody by doing, nor deprived anybody
> of anything.
>
Poor you! It must be tough being a spoiled GenXer, eh?
> At the same time I bought two more books from the same author, the other
> two in the trilogy, the first of which was bloody expensive as it was also
> out of print, but thankfully not a collector's item as is the 2nd (which
> had a smaller print run), which completed my collection of his works.
>
> And damn right I'll buy a legitimate copy of the 2nd book if they ever
> reprint it, you think I like having a print out of a PDF sitting in my
> book shelf amongst all the other nice books?
Whatever.
WD
I think you have framed the issue well.
I think that people sometimes forget that intellectual property is not
the same as ordinary property. To copy information does not deprive
someone of the original copy. Laws against theft are designed to
protect possession of property whereas copyright laws are designed to
protect the ability of creative artists to profit from their work
thereby creating incentive for more works to be produced.
Thus, if we are to assess how big a problem file sharing is I think we
need to consider what it has done to the ability of artists to profit
from their work. While there are often big imaginative numbers on how
much the recording industry has lost due to file sharing these numbers
tend to be based on some false assumptions (e.g. that a download
necessarily equates with a loss in sales). Also, the frequency with
which a work is pirated I would argue is roughly proportional to its
popularity. Yet the big artists and the blockbuster hollywood movies
etc. appear to be as successful as ever they were before Napster.
So while it is hard to argue against protecting the interests of
creative artists, it's not immediately obvious that those interests
are under serious threat.
Weihana.
impossible
"WD" <tuar...@woosh.co.nz> wrote in message
news:732c567f-0385-480c...@h14g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
> I think that people sometimes forget that intellectual property is not
> the same as ordinary property. To copy information does not deprive
> someone of the original copy. Laws against theft are designed to
> protect possession of property whereas copyright laws are designed to
> protect the ability of creative artists to profit from their work
> thereby creating incentive for more works to be produced.
Nonsense. Copyright gives the author of original works exclusive property
rights. Only the copyright holder can determine the terms under which their
works are copied and distributed. Whether or not the copyright holder cares
to profit from their work is completelty beside the point.
Gordon
>
> "WD" <tuar...@woosh.co.nz> wrote in message
> news:732c567f-0385-480c...@h14g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
>
>> I think that people sometimes forget that intellectual property is not
>> the same as ordinary property. To copy information does not deprive
>> someone of the original copy. Laws against theft are designed to
>> protect possession of property whereas copyright laws are designed to
>> protect the ability of creative artists to profit from their work
>> thereby creating incentive for more works to be produced.
>
> Nonsense. Copyright gives the author of original works exclusive property
> rights. Only the copyright holder can determine the terms under which their
> works are copied and distributed.
Yes! The fact that some authors say, distrubte freely, and you shall make
attribute to me while making no profit from it is true.
http://creativecommons.org/about/licenses/comics1
http://creativecommons.org/about/licenses/how1
Gosh Creative Commons is powering up fast. Kiwiland has version.
http://www.creativecommons.org.nz/
> Whether or not the copyright holder cares
> to profit from their work is completelty beside the point.
Wrong, oh so wrong. This *is* the point. The copyright holder, the author,
has the control on the conditions under which their work is distributed.
Whether they care about receiving money from its use is beside the point.
People want recognition, ego feeding if you like.
Peter
> Among other things, the ACTA draft calls for a global three-strikes policy
> to disconnect alleged file-sharers from the Internet, without solid
> evidence or a court order
without permission, then the whole of MS should get cut off from the
internet?
http://www.withinwindows.com/2009/11/06/microsoft-lifts-gpl-code-uses-in-
microsoft-store-tool/
Remember, under ACTA (as leaked), only accusation is needed, not proof or a
conviction.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
a224-714...@2g2000prl.googlegroups.com>, peterwn wrote:
> It is very difficult to argue with the proposition that owners of
> intellectual property would expect, in a civilised society, that the
> state provides mechanisms to help protect their property rights.
Except that “intellectual property” does not really behave like property.
With normal property, you as the owner are expected to bear responsibility
for it. If you give/sell it to somebody else, then they become the owner and
they become resopnsible.
Whereas with “intellectual property” you have this weird thing of being able
to give it to others while still keeping it at the same time. That’s not how
normal property behaves.
victor
Yup, it makes as much sense as defining your relationships as "emotional
property".
impossible
"victor" <reda...@xxxx.xxx> wrote in message
news:hdarjd$8h1$2...@news.eternal-september.org...
I knew you were clueless about what property actually is. Property is not
some "thing" -- weird or otherwise. It's a bundle of rights that gives the
owner exclusive control over the disposition of whatever it is they have
legal title to. Pirates steal from intellectual property holders by denying
them exclusive control -- by copying and distributing protected works
without the property owner's permission. This is no different in principle
than what any thief does -- whether the theft involves land, cars, or hand
bags is really only relevant to the scale of punishment meted out for those
different crimes.
Hamish Campbell
> 2009-11-06 impossible <impossi...@nospam.net>:
>
>
>
> > Piracy is theft of property.
>
Interesting little Wikipedia note (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Copyright_infringement):
"The key distinction generally drawn [..] is that while copyright
infringement may (or may not) cause economic loss to the copyright
holder, as theft does, it does not appropriate a physical object, nor
deprive the copyright holder of the use of the copyright. That
information can be replicated without destroying an original is an old
observation, and a cornerstone of intellectual property law"
Of course, it hardly matters. The important issue is whether the
proposed enforcement methodology is appropriate or fair (no, IMHO),
and whether the process by which governments are now attempting to
sneak ACTA in 'through the back door' is satisfactory (again, no).
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
wrote:
>> Piracy is theft of property.
>
> That's just a load of bullshit, nothing else.
Property is exhaustible. Intellect is not exhaustible. Therefore intellect
cannot be property. QED.