Where do I report piracy?
mugen...@my-deja.com
something as a form of hobby.
I tell fansubbers which titles they have which have been commercially
released. The majority of them respond politely and update their
websites to show this. Then there are the pirates. *cough* Sakura Anime
*cough* http://sakuraanime.homepage.com/index2.html *cough* Who distro
titles that have been commercially released.
ADV has an e-mail address IIRC that is specifically set to deal with
these sorts of complaints. Do the other anime companies?
Peter Svensson: MugenHunter! <sun1...@hotmail.com>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Avatar
mugen...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> Okay, I have too much spare time on my hands (don't we all?) and I do
> something as a form of hobby.
>
> I tell fansubbers which titles they have which have been commercially
> released. The majority of them respond politely and update their
> websites to show this. Then there are the pirates. *cough* Sakura Anime
> *cough* http://sakuraanime.homepage.com/index2.html *cough* Who distro
> titles that have been commercially released.
>
> ADV has an e-mail address IIRC that is specifically set to deal with
> these sorts of complaints. Do the other anime companies?]
That address is nopi...@advfilms.com, in case anybody didn't know.
Thanks for pointing these guys out. Frankly, I'm surprised... I don't
know if there's a domestic company that -doesn't- own one of these or
more.
Avatar
Torajima
<E029562CE277E375.7BA7AFEC...@lp.airnews.net>,
Avatar <ak...@pdq.net> wrote:
> Thanks for pointing these guys out. Frankly, I'm surprised... I don't
> know if there's a domestic company that -doesn't- own one of these or
> more.
Well, I only see about 4 or 5 titles that need to be removed from their
distribution, but then that's 4 or 5 too many.
Still, calling them pirates is a bit much... they're only charging $8 a
tape. If that includes shipping, they ain't exactly making a profit.
Before we report them, perhaps someone should email them and ask them
why they haven't removed said titles? Perhaps they've removed them from
distribution, but have been too lazy to update their title list? It
certaintly wouldn't be the first time that's happened...
Torajima
Rob Kelk
>
> In article
> <E029562CE277E375.7BA7AFEC...@lp.airnews.net>,
> Avatar <ak...@pdq.net> wrote:
>
> > Thanks for pointing these guys out. Frankly, I'm surprised... I don't
> > know if there's a domestic company that -doesn't- own one of these or
> > more.
>
> Well, I only see about 4 or 5 titles that need to be removed from their
> distribution, but then that's 4 or 5 too many.
>
> Still, calling them pirates is a bit much... they're only charging $8 a
> tape. If that includes shipping, they ain't exactly making a profit.
At $8 a tape, those better be top-quality VHS blanks they're using! I
can get perfectly good "everyday" tapes for CDN$3 each, and that's
without shopping around - usually I can get them for closer to CDN$2 or
CDN$2.50... And there's no way shipping costs $5+ a tape (unless you're
using FedEx to ship the fansubs overnight ^_^)...
Thankfully, the fansubbers I've dealt with *do* use top-quality blanks,
or have let me send them my tapes rather than charging me any money at
all.
> Before we report them, perhaps someone should email them and ask them
> why they haven't removed said titles? Perhaps they've removed them from
> distribution, but have been too lazy to update their title list? It
> certaintly wouldn't be the first time that's happened...
The originator of this thread implied that he had, although he didn't
come right out and say so.
> Torajima
--
Rob Kelk http://members.tripod.com/~robkelk/ rob...@ottawa.com
"I'm _not_ a kid! Nyyyeaaah!" - Skuld (in "Oh My Goddess!" OAV #3)
"When I became a man, I put away childish things, including the fear of
childishness and the desire to be very grown-up." - C.S. Lewis, 1947
Avatar
Torajima wrote:
>
> In article
> <E029562CE277E375.7BA7AFEC...@lp.airnews.net>,
> Avatar <ak...@pdq.net> wrote:
>
> > Thanks for pointing these guys out. Frankly, I'm surprised... I don't
> > know if there's a domestic company that -doesn't- own one of these or
> > more.
>
> Well, I only see about 4 or 5 titles that need to be removed from their
> distribution, but then that's 4 or 5 too many.
Gawl, Lost Universe, Nadesico, Nadia, Neo Ranga, RK OAVs and movie,
Sakura Diaries, and Orphen. That's seven titles from just us. ^_^;;
> Still, calling them pirates is a bit much... they're only charging $8 a
> tape. If that includes shipping, they ain't exactly making a profit.
>
> Before we report them, perhaps someone should email them and ask them
> why they haven't removed said titles? Perhaps they've removed them from
> distribution, but have been too lazy to update their title list? It
> certaintly wouldn't be the first time that's happened...
<shrug> They did an update yesterday. ^_^;;;
Avatar
David Karlin
They are also the group that subbed WieB Kreuz, a show that will most
likely never see the light of day over here. Because of them, hundreds
maybe thousands and fans are getting to enjoy a series that is pretty
darn good IMO. If they have stuff they shouldn't, then bug them about
it. but don't go around calling them pirates for helping otaku's see
great shows.
--Bebpo
Malice
Avatar wrote:
>
> Torajima wrote:
> >
> > In article
> > <E029562CE277E375.7BA7AFEC...@lp.airnews.net>,
> > Avatar <ak...@pdq.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Thanks for pointing these guys out. Frankly, I'm surprised... I don't
> > > know if there's a domestic company that -doesn't- own one of these or
> > > more.
> >
> > Well, I only see about 4 or 5 titles that need to be removed from their
> > distribution, but then that's 4 or 5 too many.
>
> Gawl, Lost Universe, Nadesico, Nadia, Neo Ranga, RK OAVs and movie,
> Sakura Diaries, and Orphen. That's seven titles from just us. ^_^;;
does the smile represent genuine amusement or shock?
Rob Kelk
<snip>
> They are also the group that subbed WieB Kreuz, a show that will most
> likely never see the light of day over here. Because of them, hundreds
> maybe thousands and fans are getting to enjoy a series that is pretty
> darn good IMO. If they have stuff they shouldn't, then bug them about
> it. but don't go around calling them pirates for helping otaku's see
> great shows.
>
> --Bebpo
And Mussolini made the trains run on time. (If you find that comparison
distasteful, be glad I didn't go with my first thought...)
One big good thing doesn't cancel out a host of small not-good things.
Avatar
Malice wrote:
>
> Avatar wrote:
> >
> > Torajima wrote:
> > >
> > > In article
> > > <E029562CE277E375.7BA7AFEC...@lp.airnews.net>,
> > > Avatar <ak...@pdq.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Thanks for pointing these guys out. Frankly, I'm surprised... I don't
> > > > know if there's a domestic company that -doesn't- own one of these or
> > > > more.
> > >
> > > Well, I only see about 4 or 5 titles that need to be removed from their
> > > distribution, but then that's 4 or 5 too many.
> >
> > Gawl, Lost Universe, Nadesico, Nadia, Neo Ranga, RK OAVs and movie,
> > Sakura Diaries, and Orphen. That's seven titles from just us. ^_^;;
>
> does the smile represent genuine amusement or shock?
More like grim anticipation. Somebody tell Jerry that these guys
fansubbed Gundam, and... ;p
Avatar
Malice
hmm that's right ADV's the BORG of anime no humor for you. ^_^
i know it's not a funny subject but i couldn't resist.
>
> Avatar
terrence huey
> > > tape. If that includes shipping, they ain't exactly making a profit.
$8 a tape is totally making money. $5-6 a tape is "reasonable" but even
then you make money...
> They are also the group that subbed WieB Kreuz, a show that will most
> likely never see the light of day over here. Because of them, hundreds
> maybe thousands and fans are getting to enjoy a series that is pretty
> darn good IMO.
That's your opinion. It was the most bashed show that our anime club
showed, and with good reason. It was horrible in many ways... I happened
to enjoy it because I found it absolutely hilarious. But there were
many more who couldn't find any redeeming value in it whatsoever...
Anyway...
> If they have stuff they shouldn't, then bug them about
> it. but don't go around calling them pirates for helping otaku's see
> great shows.
Sorry, but it's people like you who give fansubbing a bad name. Just
because they sub one show you like, you're willing to disregard the ethics
involved in their other actions. I know fansubbers. Fansubbers that you
may not have heard of. Why? Because they don't "sell" their tapes. And
I've met a person who was a part of Hecto/Shinsen Gumi. He was telling us
how the people who "owned" Hecto/SS were the ones setting the prices and
duping the tapes (and receiving the money). The ones who were subbing
Rurouni Kenshin got NOTHING out of it. They honestly did it for the love
of the anime, for getting the subtitled products to you and to me. But
you know what happened? The "owners" were making TONS of money. They
went and *bought* a house and stopped Shinsen Gumi altogether.
Does this sound ridiculous to you? Does it sound wrong that corruption
was present and some people(not all of Hecto/SS) were making tons of
money? Off of a medium that is supposed to be "fans-for-fans"?! There
are many subbers who are in the game for money, period. And the worst
part about this is, the general people DON'T GIVE A FLYING @#%$ as long as
they get their cheap anime.
A friend of mine always criticized american fandom(of
anime) and really, having been observing what goes on in my anime club,
what goes on at AX, what goes on in reality, it's not hard to despise
"fandom".
The least people can do is follow fansub ethics, and if they don't, give
them hell.
-T
Blue Pulse
> > Thanks for pointing these guys out. Frankly, I'm surprised... I don't
> > know if there's a domestic company that -doesn't- own one of these or
> > more.
>
> Well, I only see about 4 or 5 titles that need to be removed from their
> distribution, but then that's 4 or 5 too many.
>
> tape. If that includes shipping, they ain't exactly making a profit.
I've worked this mathematics out before, and I won't mind doing so again:
Assume an average blank tape costs, oh, say $2.50 at your local drug
store. Not a Hi-Fi tape, mind you, just your typical Maxell HGX-Gold or
what have you. Now, for your typical three-tape fansub request, that
would come to $7.50 total, plus tax -- so let's round it up to $8.00
altogether. Add a bubble mailer, which can be had for about 80 cents at
your local Staples or Office Max. And to ship these three tapes plus the
bubble mailer anywhere in the United States using Priority Mail currently
costs $3.20. So:
$8.00 for tapes
$3.20 for shipping
+ $0.80 for the bubble mailer
-------
$12.00 total cost to the fansub distributor.
Now, say someone like Sakura Anime is distributing their tapes at $8.00 a
pop, with shipping included. $8.00 x three tapes = $24.00. So:
$24.00 to request these three tapes, and
-$12.00 is the total cost to the fansub distro, leaving
-------
$12.00 total profit.
You can try to claim, "Oh, but the distro has VCRs that need to be
maintained! And sometimes they can't get tapes for that cheap! And they
subtitle their own stuff, and that costs money." Well, frankly, who gives
a damn? Fansubbing is not supposed to be a business venture -- it is a
not-for-profit hobby. Ever see your tapes having a disclaimer on them,
"Not For Sale Or Rent"? When any profit is involved, any profit
whatsoever (even if it ends up going to the subtitler, that's still money
that will only benefit them), it becomes a sale and goes against the whole
idea of "fansub ethics" (don't laugh, there really are such things).
$8.00 a tape. You know, the last people that charged that much for tapes
were the old Hecto / Shinsen Gumi gang. Last I heard, the head subber of
that group bought himself a new house in upstate New York.
Take care,
- Blue Pulse.
NP: DJ Hell, "My Definition Of House Music".
--
-./`- Blue Pulse. Not quite vertical. Mail: blue_pulse -at- niceboots.com
--o- "You know life is all about expression. You only live once ...
-'\.- ... and you're not coming back. So express yourself -- yeah!"
CCatlore
>tape.
I do all my Sailormoon Fansubs for free.
Catlore.
Great Voting Booths:
http://www.freevote.com/booth/kimmenchan
http://www.freevote.com/booth/informitor
Avatar
Malice wrote:
>
> Avatar wrote:
> >
> > Malice wrote:
> > >
> > > Avatar wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Torajima wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > In article
> > > > > <E029562CE277E375.7BA7AFEC...@lp.airnews.net>,
> > > > > Avatar <ak...@pdq.net> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks for pointing these guys out. Frankly, I'm surprised... I don't
> > > > > > know if there's a domestic company that -doesn't- own one of these or
> > > > > > more.
> > > > >
> > > > > Well, I only see about 4 or 5 titles that need to be removed from their
> > > > > distribution, but then that's 4 or 5 too many.
> > > >
> > > > Gawl, Lost Universe, Nadesico, Nadia, Neo Ranga, RK OAVs and movie,
> > > > Sakura Diaries, and Orphen. That's seven titles from just us. ^_^;;
> > >
> > > does the smile represent genuine amusement or shock?
> >
> > More like grim anticipation. Somebody tell Jerry that these guys
> > fansubbed Gundam, and... ;p
>
> hmm that's right ADV's the BORG of anime no humor for you. ^_^
>
> i know it's not a funny subject but i couldn't resist.
Dwah? Gundam is Bandai. ^_^
Avatar
terrence huey
> even at the profit you were describing the subbers to be making, they
> would have to have distrubted ~40,000+ tapes of RK. which I have to say
> is highly unlikely.
I don't know how many tapes they distro'd but it's not a "joke" or even a
"story" as the other guy said. I actually know one of the people who
used to be part of Shinsen Gumi(not part of the profit-making
portion). Maybe it wasn't *only* Kenshin as Hecto/Shinsen Gumi were doing
subs of a number of series like Esca, SMJ and the like.
-T
David Karlin
terrence huey wrote:
> $8 a tape is totally making money. $5-6 a tape is "reasonable" but even
> then you make money...
$5-6 is incredibly good price, because everyone ships priority mail
pretty much:
1 tape = $1.50
priority shipping = $3.20
total = $4.70
difference = $.30-1.30 for 2 hours of thier time and thier equipment
(which is expensive and has to be replaced if parts break)
$8 is too much, but most fansubbers only charge a maximum of $6
Yeah, did you see the part where I said "Bug 'em"? I didn't say just
e-mail them, I said "Bug 'em" till they drop the titles. Most these
people aren't bad people. They're just busy trying to help fans.
Sakura Anime is definatley one of the worst set of fansubbers in the
fact that they charge too much and haven't dropped a lot of titles they
should. But people don't realize is that they get e-mails by people
that tell them to drop titles that ARENT licensed sometimes. They need
to research and make sure first, they aren't distributing Licensed anime
because they want to turn a profit. I doubt many of you would be happy
making $2 for every 2 hours worth of work. Working at McDonalds would
probally be a better job. Maybe I'm biased because I know several
subbers and have worked on subbing stuff myself, but everyone I've ever
met in this scene is doing it for the fans and like you said "the love
of the show". I don't know one person who makes a living of bootlegging
tapes. Get Sakura Anime to drop the licensed tapes. I am completely
for that, but the original poster basically implied that he wanted to
throw these people in jail, which is much to extreme.
--Bebpo
David Karlin
Blue Pulse wrote:
> $8.00 a tape. You know, the last people that charged that much for tapes
> were the old Hecto / Shinsen Gumi gang. Last I heard, the head subber of
> that group bought himself a new house in upstate New York.
>
the only comment I have on this is that I hope you were making a joke.
even at the profit you were describing the subbers to be making, they
would have to have distrubted ~40,000+ tapes of RK. which I have to say
is highly unlikely. If tapes were only $3-4 each we would never see a
fansub again. I worked with some subbers before and the cost to sub a
single episode from scratch on your own is $1000 and then around 30hours
work and $100-150 for each ep you want to sub. Sure it's "made by fans
for fans" but I don't see most people wanting to bankrupt themselves to
help others. The only way to really have fansubs be non-profit is if
people really donated to the sub groups to support shows people like.
> Take care,
> - Blue Pulse.
> NP: DJ Hell, "My Definition Of House Music".
>
> --
> -./`- Blue Pulse. Not quite vertical. Mail: blue_pulse -at- niceboots.com
> --o- "You know life is all about expression. You only live once ...
> -'\.- ... and you're not coming back. So express yourself -- yeah!"
Blue Pulse wrote:
>
> On Thu, 10 Aug 2000, Torajima wrote:
> > > Thanks for pointing these guys out. Frankly, I'm surprised... I don't
> > > know if there's a domestic company that -doesn't- own one of these or
> > > more.
> >
> > Well, I only see about 4 or 5 titles that need to be removed from their
> > distribution, but then that's 4 or 5 too many.
> >
Avatar
David Karlin wrote:
Don't be foolish. You -can't- get thrown in jail for copyright
violations, unless you get a huge-ass fine and can't pay. ;p
OTOH, it's not like I need to pressure them into dropping those titles
over a period of time - Legal can just send 'em a C&D letter and get
their ISP to drop their account like a hot potato. ^_^
Avatar
Torajima
<1B95283AA6B1B714.5AAA2657...@lp.airnews.net>,
Avatar <ak...@pdq.net> wrote:
> OTOH, it's not like I need to pressure them into dropping those titles
> over a period of time - Legal can just send 'em a C&D letter and get
> their ISP to drop their account like a hot potato. ^_^
Oh, I don't agree with this at all. As I've said before, I do NOT think
ISP's should be held accountable for what others keep on their sites.
Go after the individuals in question, not the ISPs.
Even if you terrorize the ISP into taking action, it will just result
in stricter TOS policies that will effect us all.
Torajima
Galen Musbach
He is in violation of the existing TOS, I should think,
so it shouldn't take anymore then having legal mentioning it
to them; no intimidation required unless they are idiots.
-Galen
>
> Torajima
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Torajima
<musb...@xtn.net> wrote:
> He is in violation of the existing TOS, I should think,
> so it shouldn't take anymore then having legal mentioning it
> to them; no intimidation required unless they are idiots.
Again, I don't think ISPs should be held accountable for what others
have on their sites... period. Strict TOS agreements will eventually
destroy all freedom of expression on the internet.
Punish the criminals, not the neighborhood they set up shop in.
Torajima
Avatar
You don't SUE the ISP. You just say "hey, give these guys an eviction
notice, 'kay?"
Now, if the ISP doesn't comply, then you sue. ;p
Avatar
Danger X
Avatar <ak...@pdq.net> wrote in message
news:C4D7CFF1C79FA513.C5B72157...@lp.airnews.net...
The criminal? Yeah! Otherwise, that's the same thing as "punishing the
neighborhood they set up shop in."
Laters,
Kyle
Jorge R. Frank
Not the neighborhood - a better analogy would be a hotel or apartment
complex that harbors illegal activity. The owners are not liable as
long as they don't know[1] about the illegal activity, but once they are
formally informed about it, they have an obligation to evict the
offenders. Lawsuits have been brought (and won) against hotels and
apartments for this very thing.
That's not punishing the neighborhood - it's punishing the offending
business, to *protect* the rest of the neighborhood.
--
[1] - AND can't reasonably be expected to know - willfully turning a
blind eye will NOT protect you from a lawsuit...
---
JRF
Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" and think one step ahead of IBM.
Danger X
Jorge R. Frank <jrf...@ibm-pc.org> wrote in message
news:3997203E...@ibm-pc.org...
> Danger X wrote:
> >
> > Avatar <ak...@pdq.net> wrote in message
> >
news:C4D7CFF1C79FA513.C5B72157...@lp.airnews.net...
> > >
> > >
> > > Torajima wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Punish the criminals, not the neighborhood they set up shop in.
> > >
> > > You don't SUE the ISP. You just say "hey, give these guys an eviction
> > > notice, 'kay?"
> > >
> > > Now, if the ISP doesn't comply, then you sue. ;p
> >
> > The criminal? Yeah! Otherwise, that's the same thing as "punishing the
> > neighborhood they set up shop in."
>
> Not the neighborhood - a better analogy would be a hotel or apartment
> complex that harbors illegal activity. The owners are not liable as
> long as they don't know[1] about the illegal activity, but once they are
> formally informed about it, they have an obligation to evict the
> offenders.
Not the same thing. A better analogy yet, would be a hotel or apartment
complex that harbors people using the the telephone line to 'communicate'
illegal activity.
> Lawsuits have been brought (and won) against hotels and
> apartments for this very thing.
When has the phone company been sued because drug lords have used the phone
system to order a 'hit' on a rival gang's member?
> That's not punishing the neighborhood - it's punishing the offending
> business, to *protect* the rest of the neighborhood.
The kind of protection that squashes free-speech is something we can all do
without.
Laters,
Kyle
David Johnston
> > Lawsuits have been brought (and won) against hotels and
> > apartments for this very thing.
>
> When has the phone company been sued because drug lords have used the phone
> system to order a 'hit' on a rival gang's member?
If phone systems worked in such a way that a switchboard operator had to
connect every phone call and listen to the conversation to tell when it was
over, and phones were used for that kind of purpose, the operator would be
liable for not reporting the crime to the authorities.
Avatar
Danger X wrote:
>
> Avatar <ak...@pdq.net> wrote in message
> news:C4D7CFF1C79FA513.C5B72157...@lp.airnews.net...
> >
> >
> > Torajima wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <3995FBC7...@xtn.net>, Galen Musbach
> > > <musb...@xtn.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > He is in violation of the existing TOS, I should think,
> > > > so it shouldn't take anymore then having legal mentioning it
> > > > to them; no intimidation required unless they are idiots.
> > >
> > > Again, I don't think ISPs should be held accountable for what others
> > > have on their sites... period. Strict TOS agreements will eventually
> > > destroy all freedom of expression on the internet.
> > >
> > > Punish the criminals, not the neighborhood they set up shop in.
> >
> > You don't SUE the ISP. You just say "hey, give these guys an eviction
> > notice, 'kay?"
> >
> > Now, if the ISP doesn't comply, then you sue. ;p
>
> The criminal? Yeah! Otherwise, that's the same thing as "punishing the
> neighborhood they set up shop in."
More like "landlord of the crack house".
The way that the law is set up, the ISP is automatically immune from
responsibility or liability of its users, SO LONG as it is unaware of
their specific actions. Once it becomes aware, however, they don't have
a choice - they can either comply with the request (to remove illegal
material) or they can refuse to comply with the request, which means
that they both know about and condone the activity. In that case, they
-are- liable, and rightly a target of litigation.
It's roughly equivalent to enforcing a self-policing policy. The ISP
keeps a very loose eye on its own stuff, but when it gets informed that
something's going on, it examines that something pretty carefully. If
the law is indeed being broken, it gets to invoke its own TOS and give
an administrative solution (usually, kicking off the offender). There's
appeals processes and such for cases where somebody's activities are
mistakenly identified (or maliciously misidentified) as illegal, so it's
not like the stormtroopers come marching in.
Avatar
Danger X
David Johnston <rgo...@telusplanet.net> wrote in message
news:399726...@telusplanet.net...
In this case... of course (but only if they understood the language spoken).
As a "Responsiblilty" to monitor to see if there are any 'shenanigans' going
on (BEFORE the fact)? No... Same way, apartment dwellers don't HAVE the
responsibility to go 'actively' peeking in their neighbour's apartment to
make sure there aren't any criminal activities going on in there.
Laters,
Kyle
Danger X
Still, what good does that do, if the offender then just goes to another ISP
and another and another? Why not just go after the offender him/herself and
get them for their wrong-doings once and for all, instead of just shuffling
the problem around and about? What constitutes awareness? When Joe Public
steps in for Company-X? Should (very important to this sentence - SHOULD)
the ISP HAVE to investigate every complaint received by Joe Public? That's
what law enforcement does.... So the question is do we really need more
police (than the police) in the world? Do we call Ma Bell and ask her to
stop harassing phone calls? (think of WKRP in Cincinatti... "Aaah the
phone-cops!" ^_^) Or do we call the cops?
Laters,
Kyle
Blue Pulse
[regarding Sakura Anime]
> They are also the group that subbed WieB Kreuz, a show that will most
> likely never see the light of day over here. Because of them, hundreds
> maybe thousands and fans are getting to enjoy a series that is pretty
> it. but don't go around calling them pirates for helping otaku's see
> great shows.
I don't --
I call them pirates for the fact that they are doing an illegal activity
and making an obscenely large profit from it.
Simple as that.
Take care,
- Blue Pulse.
NP: Guru Josh, "Hallelujah".
Louis Patterson
>
>
> Torajima wrote:
> >
> > In article <3995FBC7...@xtn.net>, Galen Musbach
> > <musb...@xtn.net> wrote:
> >
> > > He is in violation of the existing TOS, I should think,
> > > so it shouldn't take anymore then having legal mentioning it
> > > to them; no intimidation required unless they are idiots.
> >
> > Again, I don't think ISPs should be held accountable for what others
> > have on their sites... period. Strict TOS agreements will eventually
> > destroy all freedom of expression on the internet.
> >
> > Punish the criminals, not the neighborhood they set up shop in.
>
> You don't SUE the ISP. You just say "hey, give these guys an eviction
> notice, 'kay?"
>
> Now, if the ISP doesn't comply, then you sue. ;p
>
> Avatar
Why not just sue the people themselves?
Louis
--
Louis Patterson l.patt...@student.unimelb.edu.au
Kurt B. Pruenner
> On Sun, 13 Aug 2000, Avatar wrote:
> > You don't SUE the ISP. You just say "hey, give these guys an eviction
> > notice, 'kay?"
> >
> > Now, if the ISP doesn't comply, then you sue. ;p
>
Why not sue the people and have the ISP close their account, the people being
in violation of their TOS or AUP - where's the problem? All it comes down to
is a limitation of the damage that is done to the company that holds the
rights to whatever was being distributed illegaly; and it's not as if the ISP
would have a hard time doing this... they needn't delete everything, just deny
access to it - if for some reason it turns out that the account was disabled
in error, all they have to do is re-enable it, no big deal at all...
--
Kurt Pruenner - Haendelstrasse 17 - 4020 Linz - Austria
http://www.mp3.com/Leak - http://www.ssw.uni-linz.ac.at
np: Gas - Track 2 (Koenigsforst)
Avatar
Danger X wrote:
>
> Avatar <ak...@pdq.net> wrote in message
> news:298A030D1B5DCA4B.CFA0ABCA...@lp.airnews.net...
> >
> >
> > Danger X wrote:
> > >
> > > Avatar <ak...@pdq.net> wrote in message
> > >
> news:C4D7CFF1C79FA513.C5B72157...@lp.airnews.net...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Torajima wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > In article <3995FBC7...@xtn.net>, Galen Musbach
> > > > > <musb...@xtn.net> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > He is in violation of the existing TOS, I should think,
> > > > > > so it shouldn't take anymore then having legal mentioning it
> > > > > > to them; no intimidation required unless they are idiots.
> > > > >
> > > > > Again, I don't think ISPs should be held accountable for what others
> > > > > have on their sites... period. Strict TOS agreements will eventually
> > > > > destroy all freedom of expression on the internet.
> > > > >
> > > > > Punish the criminals, not the neighborhood they set up shop in.
> > > >
> > > > You don't SUE the ISP. You just say "hey, give these guys an eviction
> > > > notice, 'kay?"
> > > >
> > > > Now, if the ISP doesn't comply, then you sue. ;p
> > >
> > > The criminal? Yeah! Otherwise, that's the same thing as "punishing the
> > > neighborhood they set up shop in."
> >
> > More like "landlord of the crack house".
> >
> > The way that the law is set up, the ISP is automatically immune from
> > responsibility or liability of its users, SO LONG as it is unaware of
> > their specific actions. Once it becomes aware, however, they don't have
> > a choice - they can either comply with the request (to remove illegal
> > material) or they can refuse to comply with the request, which means
> > that they both know about and condone the activity. In that case, they
> > -are- liable, and rightly a target of litigation.
> >
> > It's roughly equivalent to enforcing a self-policing policy. The ISP
> > keeps a very loose eye on its own stuff, but when it gets informed that
> > something's going on, it examines that something pretty carefully. If
> > the law is indeed being broken, it gets to invoke its own TOS and give
> > an administrative solution (usually, kicking off the offender).
>
> Still, what good does that do, if the offender then just goes to another ISP
> and another and another? Why not just go after the offender him/herself and
> get them for their wrong-doings once and for all, instead of just shuffling
> the problem around and about? What constitutes awareness? When Joe Public
> steps in for Company-X? Should (very important to this sentence - SHOULD)
> the ISP HAVE to investigate every complaint received by Joe Public? That's
> what law enforcement does.... So the question is do we really need more
> police (than the police) in the world? Do we call Ma Bell and ask her to
> stop harassing phone calls? (think of WKRP in Cincinatti... "Aaah the
> phone-cops!" ^_^) Or do we call the cops?
What constitutes awareness? The law defines it pretty clearly... the
moment an employee of the ISP is alerted to the fact that (x) activity
being propogated over their servers by (y) user is illegal, the ISP is
considered aware. They've got a certain grace period to allow for
corporate reaction time, and so that they can actually verify what the
heck is going on.
The problem with what you suggest is that, lacking such accountability,
it would be trivial to set up a "data haven", where the owners condone
or even encourage illegal activity. The owners get complaints and ignore
them, and everybody goes merrily along their way. Of course, in the real
world, this would only hold until the first lawsuits hit, at which point
said ISP would go out of business from massive fines (which you will
agree would be more of an inconvenience to its users than the above. ;p)
And yes, if I want to stop a harassing phone caller, I -do- call the
phone company, and request that they get blocked from calling my number.
Administrative solution that saves me, the police, and the phone company
time and effort, neh? OTOH, it doesn't do much for the caller, but screw
him. ^_^
In the same way, getting a pirate site closed down is an administrative
solution. It prevents further infringement. The ISP doesn't get any guff
(and frankly, since every ISP out there says "thou shalt not break the
law with our service, it's got a perfect right to expect people not to
break the law with their service.) Nobody gets dragged into court and no
obscenely large fines are charged. It inconveniences the hell out of the
pirate, but... that's pretty much the point, and he's still better off
than if he gets sued. ;p
Avatar
Avatar
Louis Patterson wrote:
>
> On Sun, 13 Aug 2000, Avatar wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Torajima wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <3995FBC7...@xtn.net>, Galen Musbach
> > > <musb...@xtn.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > He is in violation of the existing TOS, I should think,
> > > > so it shouldn't take anymore then having legal mentioning it
> > > > to them; no intimidation required unless they are idiots.
> > >
> > > Again, I don't think ISPs should be held accountable for what others
> > > have on their sites... period. Strict TOS agreements will eventually
> > > destroy all freedom of expression on the internet.
> > >
> > > Punish the criminals, not the neighborhood they set up shop in.
> >
> > You don't SUE the ISP. You just say "hey, give these guys an eviction
> > notice, 'kay?"
> >
> > Now, if the ISP doesn't comply, then you sue. ;p
> >
> > Avatar
>
> Why not just sue the people themselves?
Them too. ^_^
Well, ideally, you don't sue anybody... and in fact, that's how it works
out. You tell 'em "quit it!" and tell their ISP "hey, you guys quit it
too!", and invariably people quit it.
Avatar
Danger X
>
>
> Danger X wrote:
> >
> > Avatar <ak...@pdq.net> wrote in message
> >
news:298A030D1B5DCA4B.CFA0ABCA...@lp.airnews.net...
> > >
> > >
> > > Danger X wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Avatar <ak...@pdq.net> wrote in message
> > > >
> >
news:C4D7CFF1C79FA513.C5B72157...@lp.airnews.net...
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In article <3995FBC7...@xtn.net>, Galen Musbach
> > > > > > <musb...@xtn.net> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > He is in violation of the existing TOS, I should think,
> > > > > > > so it shouldn't take anymore then having legal mentioning it
> > > > > > > to them; no intimidation required unless they are idiots.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Again, I don't think ISPs should be held accountable for what
others
> > > > > > have on their sites... period. Strict TOS agreements will
eventually
> > > > > > destroy all freedom of expression on the internet.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Punish the criminals, not the neighborhood they set up shop in.
> > > > >
> > > > > You don't SUE the ISP. You just say "hey, give these guys an
eviction
> > > > > notice, 'kay?"
> > > > >
> > > > > Now, if the ISP doesn't comply, then you sue. ;p
> > > >
> > > > neighborhood they set up shop in."
> > >
The definition could be faulty then. What if li'l Billy Haskell who's cried
'wolf' a thousand times past, (and the ISP gets used to ignoring him) gets
'one' right? This definition of awareness *FORCES* one to consider every
incoming mail as at least possibly-valid.
> They've got a certain grace period to allow for
> corporate reaction time, and so that they can actually verify what the
> heck is going on.
>
> The problem with what you suggest is that, lacking such accountability,
> it would be trivial to set up a "data haven", where the owners condone
> or even encourage illegal activity.
The problem here, is expecting the ISP to treat every complaint it receives
as being a viable complaint from the lawyer (or 'law-knowledged'). If they
figure they'll be hassled from every 'Fred Phelps' (yeah, I know I'm
exagerrating this point. ^_^) in the community, then what's to stop them to
immediately shut down every website that has 'objectionable' (Translated to
'criminal' in the minds of the complainer) material on it?
> The owners get complaints and ignore
> them, and everybody goes merrily along their way. Of course, in the real
> world, this would only hold until the first lawsuits hit, at which point
> said ISP would go out of business from massive fines (which you will
> agree would be more of an inconvenience to its users than the above. ;p)
>
> And yes, if I want to stop a harassing phone caller, I -do- call the
> phone company, and request that they get blocked from calling my number.
Block every pay-phone in the city?
> Administrative solution that saves me, the police, and the phone company
> time and effort, neh? OTOH, it doesn't do much for the caller, but screw
> him. ^_^
Besides what about the next victim that he decides to harass? Just shuffling
the problem around again.
> In the same way, getting a pirate site closed down is an administrative
> solution. It prevents further infringement. The ISP doesn't get any guff
> (and frankly, since every ISP out there says "thou shalt not break the
> law with our service, it's got a perfect right to expect people not to
> break the law with their service.)
But it shouldn't have the responsibility to have to investigate every site
(phone parallel-EVERY phone call - and who wants Bell doing that?) on the
grounds that somebody MIGHT be breaking a law. Nor should, they be expected
to be take on the role of parents to every complaint received, unless that
person is the victim him/herself or a valid lawyer. Otherwise it's...
"Geeeee! Mommy! Billy won't play fair!"-time!
I still maintain, the best way to fight *abuses* of free-speech is with
free-speech of your own. If there's criminal activity going on... Call a
lawyer if you're the victim. Or alert the victim to the site. I don't see
any reason for bothering the ISP, which IDEALLY (IMHO) should be an
INVISIBLE gateway (as the phone-system is) for anyone who wants to
communicate via the internet.
We need more on-ramps, NOT more gate-keepers...
> Nobody gets dragged into court and no
> obscenely large fines are charged. It inconveniences the hell out of the
> pirate, but... that's pretty much the point, and he's still better off
> than if he gets sued. ;p
He (the obscene caller example) hasn't learnt a thing if he just goes and
harasses another person anyways. So, I would disagree that he's better off
than if he were to get caught and ordered to get counseling for his
obsessive ways.
> Avatar
Laters,
Kyle
Torajima
<63D143A93FB5041B.1177F28F...@lp.airnews.net>,
Avatar <ak...@pdq.net> wrote:
> The problem with what you suggest is that, lacking such accountability,
> it would be trivial to set up a "data haven", where the owners condone
> or even encourage illegal activity.
Not all illegal activity is ethically wrong. And since the internet is
international in scope, exactly who has the final say on what's legal
and what's not?
> The owners get complaints and ignore
> them, and everybody goes merrily along their way.
And this is wrong because? This is the way the internet should be...
I'm not willing to give up my freedoms just because someone, somewhere,
might engage in illegal activity.
Torajima
r...@cls.usask.ca
>In article
><63D143A93FB5041B.1177F28F...@lp.airnews.net>,
>Avatar <ak...@pdq.net> wrote:
>> The problem with what you suggest is that, lacking such accountability,
>> it would be trivial to set up a "data haven", where the owners condone
>> or even encourage illegal activity.
>Not all illegal activity is ethically wrong. And since the internet is
>international in scope, exactly who has the final say on what's legal
>and what's not?
In the context of "intellectual property", which I believe is
the case here, the framework for what is considered illegal
has already been formed, most notably in the Berne convention.
And this is neither a recent or limited development. Both the
Universal Copyright Convention and the Berne Convention have
been around for decades (actually, more like a century), with so
many signing nations it would be much easier to list the nations
NOT signed on. A point of significance in these treaties is
that any work from a foreign signatory nation will be treated
as if a domesticly produced work, meaning that if a work from
a Japanese company is infringed upon in the US, the Japanese
company has the right to pursue the copyright complaint in
the US. Yes, even a Japanese company can successfully file a
suit against an American (individual or company) for copyright
infringement... it is not unusual. The details in how this
is done may differ from nation to nation, but the legality
(or illegality, in this case) of the activities concerned in
the international scope is already established. That is, the
"final say" has already been said, and said long ago.
ru
Avatar
Danger X wrote:
>
> Avatar <ak...@pdq.net> wrote in message
> news:63D143A93FB5041B.1177F28F...@lp.airnews.net...
> >
> >
> > What constitutes awareness? The law defines it pretty clearly... the
> > moment an employee of the ISP is alerted to the fact that (x) activity
> > being propogated over their servers by (y) user is illegal, the ISP is
> > considered aware.
>
> The definition could be faulty then. What if li'l Billy Haskell who's cried
> 'wolf' a thousand times past, (and the ISP gets used to ignoring him) gets
> 'one' right? This definition of awareness *FORCES* one to consider every
> incoming mail as at least possibly-valid.
An additional point - the notification has to come from a wronged party
(third party complaints are generally not considered to have the force
of law). I should have been more specific.
> > They've got a certain grace period to allow for
> > corporate reaction time, and so that they can actually verify what the
> > heck is going on.
> >
> > The problem with what you suggest is that, lacking such accountability,
> > it would be trivial to set up a "data haven", where the owners condone
> > or even encourage illegal activity.
>
> The problem here, is expecting the ISP to treat every complaint it receives
> as being a viable complaint from the lawyer (or 'law-knowledged'). If they
> figure they'll be hassled from every 'Fred Phelps' (yeah, I know I'm
> exagerrating this point. ^_^) in the community, then what's to stop them to
> immediately shut down every website that has 'objectionable' (Translated to
> 'criminal' in the minds of the complainer) material on it?
Mostly because the hearing process to get stuff reinstated is hella
complicated for the ISP. Actual pirates don't bother contesting these
things (c'mon, like they'd win), but a legitimate user whose site is
wrongfully removed can nail the ISP for a breach of contract. The
liability prevents them from going overboard.
> > The owners get complaints and ignore
> > them, and everybody goes merrily along their way. Of course, in the real
> > world, this would only hold until the first lawsuits hit, at which point
> > said ISP would go out of business from massive fines (which you will
> > agree would be more of an inconvenience to its users than the above. ;p)
> >
> > And yes, if I want to stop a harassing phone caller, I -do- call the
> > phone company, and request that they get blocked from calling my number.
>
> Block every pay-phone in the city?
<shrug> I haven't ever gotten a harassing phone caller that persistent,
y'know. ;p
Seriously, though, most people get the hint (mostly because they're
aware of the consequences if somebody actually gets pissed off enough to
pin them down!)
> > Administrative solution that saves me, the police, and the phone company
> > time and effort, neh? OTOH, it doesn't do much for the caller, but screw
> > him. ^_^
>
> Besides what about the next victim that he decides to harass? Just shuffling
> the problem around again.
Yeah, but we're talking about anime here. The other companies can take
care of themselves too. <g>
> > In the same way, getting a pirate site closed down is an administrative
> > solution. It prevents further infringement. The ISP doesn't get any guff
> > (and frankly, since every ISP out there says "thou shalt not break the
> > law with our service, it's got a perfect right to expect people not to
> > break the law with their service.)
>
> But it shouldn't have the responsibility to have to investigate every site
> (phone parallel-EVERY phone call - and who wants Bell doing that?) on the
> grounds that somebody MIGHT be breaking a law. Nor should, they be expected
> to be take on the role of parents to every complaint received, unless that
> person is the victim him/herself or a valid lawyer. Otherwise it's...
> "Geeeee! Mommy! Billy won't play fair!"-time!
You run a company for profit, you take responsibility for the actions
thereof. If I hired a bunch of people, I -do- have a responsibility to
keep them from sexually harassing each other, lying about their
immigration status, or manufacturing nuclear weapons on my premises. It
doesn't matter that I am not the one doing actual lying or building
nukes. This is called the "duty of care", and the extent to which I
fulfill it IS considered an important point in determining liability.
ISPs have a very small duty of care for the traffic that they generate,
but it does still exist, and they do still have to fulfill it. If they
don't feel like taking responsibility for what's hosted on their
servers, they probably should be more selective about that which they
host. ;p
> I still maintain, the best way to fight *abuses* of free-speech is with
> free-speech of your own. If there's criminal activity going on... Call a
> lawyer if you're the victim. Or alert the victim to the site. I don't see
> any reason for bothering the ISP, which IDEALLY (IMHO) should be an
> INVISIBLE gateway (as the phone-system is) for anyone who wants to
> communicate via the internet.
>
> We need more on-ramps, NOT more gate-keepers...
You'd be surprised. It's not like we have a shortage of ISPs, after all.
The vast majority of these infractions are hosted on "free" servers,
which get profit from advertisements that are viewed with their hosted
contents. As far as I'm concerned, if such a server is getting traffic
at the expense of my copyright, they are most definitely responsible for
that.
Fact is, the ISPs write their terms of service so that they can punt
people who use their service for illegal purposes like flaming bags of
dog waste. Most don't even report that they're terminating service, for
that matter. ;p
> > Nobody gets dragged into court and no
> > obscenely large fines are charged. It inconveniences the hell out of the
> > pirate, but... that's pretty much the point, and he's still better off
> > than if he gets sued. ;p
>
> He (the obscene caller example) hasn't learnt a thing if he just goes and
> harasses another person anyways. So, I would disagree that he's better off
> than if he were to get caught and ordered to get counseling for his
> obsessive ways.
But this is copyright infringement. If he gets caught, he'll get sued
for hundreds of thousands of dollars (if not millions). POW. That'll
screw anybody's finances.
Avatar
Avatar
Torajima wrote:
>
> In article
> <63D143A93FB5041B.1177F28F...@lp.airnews.net>,
> Avatar <ak...@pdq.net> wrote:
>
> > The problem with what you suggest is that, lacking such accountability,
> > it would be trivial to set up a "data haven", where the owners condone
> > or even encourage illegal activity.
>
> Not all illegal activity is ethically wrong. And since the internet is
> international in scope, exactly who has the final say on what's legal
> and what's not?
Well, you wanna take your server over the border, fine. ;p Actually,
that provides you with a hellacious amount of legal protection,
depending on where you plant the sucker. I know that there's at least
one microscopic independent nation that consists (basically) of an oil
rig that is doing exactly this.
> > The owners get complaints and ignore
> > them, and everybody goes merrily along their way.
>
> And this is wrong because? This is the way the internet should be...
>
> I'm not willing to give up my freedoms just because someone, somewhere,
> might engage in illegal activity.
Um... but you didn't give up your freedoms. This isn't a preventative
measure, but a remedial one - it doesn't inconvenience anybody but the
lawbreakers involved (and the ISP and complaining company, which eat it
as a cost of doing business).
Avatar
Danger X
<r...@cls.usask.ca> wrote in message news:8n9ug3$sap$1...@tribune.usask.ca...
> Torajima <seeb...@seebelow.com> wrote:
> >In article
> ><63D143A93FB5041B.1177F28F...@lp.airnews.net>,
> >Avatar <ak...@pdq.net> wrote:
>
> >> The problem with what you suggest is that, lacking such accountability,
> >> it would be trivial to set up a "data haven", where the owners condone
> >> or even encourage illegal activity.
>
> >Not all illegal activity is ethically wrong. And since the internet is
> >international in scope, exactly who has the final say on what's legal
> >and what's not?
>
> the case here, the framework for what is considered illegal
> has already been formed, most notably in the Berne convention.
> And this is neither a recent or limited development. Both the
> Universal Copyright Convention and the Berne Convention have
> been around for decades (actually, more like a century), with so
> many signing nations it would be much easier to list the nations
> NOT signed on. A point of significance in these treaties is
> that any work from a foreign signatory nation will be treated
> as if a domesticly produced work, meaning that if a work from
> a Japanese company is infringed upon in the US, the Japanese
> company has the right to pursue the copyright complaint in
> the US. Yes, even a Japanese company can successfully file a
> suit against an American (individual or company) for copyright
> infringement... it is not unusual. The details in how this
> is done may differ from nation to nation, but the legality
> (or illegality, in this case) of the activities concerned in
> the international scope is already established. That is, the
> "final say" has already been said, and said long ago.
The "final say"? Surely you're not suggesting mankind has reached the
pinnacle of ethics and morality that we'll never discover/invent/develop
newer ideas, systems, that'll require going back and re-working older laws
to reflect new understandings?
"Final say", as in decades? Sure, quite likely! "Final say", as in
centuries? Maybe. "Final say", as in millenia? (IMHO) That's stretching it.
Laters,
Kyle
Torajima
<E825060C502A3AD6.18B583C0...@lp.airnews.net>,
Avatar <ak...@pdq.net> wrote:
> Um... but you didn't give up your freedoms. This isn't a preventative
> measure, but a remedial one - it doesn't inconvenience anybody but the
> lawbreakers involved (and the ISP and complaining company, which eat it
> as a cost of doing business).
Holding the ISPs accountable for the actions of others just leads to
ultra strict TOS polices that puts limits on all our freedoms. ISPs are
so afraid of getting sued and/or shut down, that many will no longer
allow mp3s of any kind, even when they're in the public domain or are
original works *I* create myself. I can't post my original fanart,
because someone, somewhere might be offended by it (it contains partial
nudity, but it's tastefully done and is certaintly not "pornographic").
ISPs are even limiting free speech, by banning "hate speech", or
anything inflammatory. While I may disagree with what these groups say,
they have a constitutional right to say it. Then there are websites
that are being sued for posting info/pictures of upcoming "secret"
products, even though they never signed a non-disclosure agreement and
this leaked info is available everywhere.
Our freedoms are quickly being eroded, and as the 'net becomes more
commercialized, we'll lose even more. Unless all internet users take a
stand, here and now.
Torajima
Avatar
Worse than paranoid, here. There isn't a trend towards ultra-strict TOS
- those started that way. That's the entire idea of a "terms of service"
document, to justify the ISP in case it wants to yank its services from
you.
To address your examples... there are a multitude of servers, paid and
free, that would be more than happy to accept posting your work. This
isn't any different from a bookstore or a library not buying that
godawful Madonna photo book a while back. They (in this case, ISPs that
don't want pictures with nudity) are private organizations and don't
have to use their resources towards that which they don't want to mess
with.
If most ISPs are banning hate speech, they're doing a piss-poor job of
it. ;p Seriously, the ISP is -least- likely to crack down on offensive
speech, as that impinges most directly on the user's First Amendment
rights, and is generally not covered in a TOS agreement either. Mine
doesn't restrict what I say, after all.
Apple's lawsuits are doomed. You said it yourself... in the absence of
an agreement to hold information confidential, no party is obligated to
remain silent. Apple would have to literally demonstrate that the author
of the article (not his sources - the author himself [herself?]) broke a
NDA. The lawsuit is pure intimidation, of the type that large
corporations use on a regular basis. Take a look at Sony.
The .mp3 restrictions are not about the inherent legality of whatever
.mp3 is being downloaded, but instead are -technical- decisions. .mp3
content is large, taking up a lot of server space, and sucks up
bandwidth like a Hoover on steroids. An ISP that relies on advertising
revenue to keep its servers up needs people browsing web pages with ads,
not d/ling large files. Thus, no .mp3s on a lot of those servers. Note
that ISPs that you PAY for just don't have the same restriction, which
would be untrue if legality was the major issue.
So, few of your issues are even a problem, and those are a problem
regardless of whether the Internet is a hosting medium or not. <shrug>
I'd file them under "cost of doing business", myself.
Avatar
Rob Kelk
>
> In article <3995FBC7...@xtn.net>, Galen Musbach
> <musb...@xtn.net> wrote:
>
> > He is in violation of the existing TOS, I should think,
> > so it shouldn't take anymore then having legal mentioning it
> > to them; no intimidation required unless they are idiots.
>
> Again, I don't think ISPs should be held accountable for what others
> have on their sites... period. Strict TOS agreements will eventually
> destroy all freedom of expression on the internet.
>
> Punish the criminals, not the neighborhood they set up shop in.
Wrong analogy - the 'net is a medium, not a location. What you should
have said was "punish the criminals, not the people who print their
flyers."
However, if the publisher has been told that he's aiding and abetting a
criminal, and he refuses to stop, well...
> Torajima
--
Rob Kelk http://members.tripod.com/~robkelk/ rob...@ottawa.com
"I'm _not_ a kid! Nyyyeaaah!" - Skuld (in "Oh My Goddess!" OAV #3)
"When I became a man, I put away childish things, including the fear of
childishness and the desire to be very grown-up." - C.S. Lewis, 1947
Danger X
Rob Kelk <rob...@ottawa.com> wrote in message
news:39994B7D...@ottawa.com...
> Torajima <seeb...@seebelow.com> wrote:
> >
> > In article <3995FBC7...@xtn.net>, Galen Musbach
> > <musb...@xtn.net> wrote:
> >
> > > He is in violation of the existing TOS, I should think,
> > > so it shouldn't take anymore then having legal mentioning it
> > > to them; no intimidation required unless they are idiots.
> >
> > Again, I don't think ISPs should be held accountable for what others
> > have on their sites... period. Strict TOS agreements will eventually
> > destroy all freedom of expression on the internet.
> >
> > Punish the criminals, not the neighborhood they set up shop in.
>
> Wrong analogy - the 'net is a medium, not a location.
Regardless of what it is, or what government 'think-tanks' tell us it is. I
think it best if people treat it as they want it to be seen.
> What you should
> have said was "punish the criminals, not the people who print their
> flyers."
The ISP should "ideally" (as the best way to safe-guard the highest ideals
of free-speach) be seen as an invisible on-ramp to the information
superhighway.
> However, if the publisher has been told that he's aiding and abetting a
> criminal, and he refuses to stop, well...
The same-way road-workers should be held responsible for building the road
that a drive-by shooting occured on?
Laters,
Kyle
Rob Kelk
>
> Rob Kelk <rob...@ottawa.com> wrote in message
> news:39994B7D...@ottawa.com...
> > Torajima <seeb...@seebelow.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <3995FBC7...@xtn.net>, Galen Musbach
> > > <musb...@xtn.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > He is in violation of the existing TOS, I should think,
> > > > so it shouldn't take anymore then having legal mentioning it
> > > > to them; no intimidation required unless they are idiots.
> > >
> > > Again, I don't think ISPs should be held accountable for what others
> > > have on their sites... period. Strict TOS agreements will eventually
> > > destroy all freedom of expression on the internet.
> > >
> > > Punish the criminals, not the neighborhood they set up shop in.
> >
> > Wrong analogy - the 'net is a medium, not a location.
>
> Regardless of what it is, or what government 'think-tanks' tell us it is. I
> think it best if people treat it as they want it to be seen.
If people want the sky to be green, does that make it any less blue?
All the RFCs treat the 'net as a medium, so that's how it was built.
Calling it anything else doesn't change that fact.
> > What you should
> > have said was "punish the criminals, not the people who print their
> > flyers."
>
> The ISP should "ideally" (as the best way to safe-guard the highest ideals
> of free-speach) be seen as an invisible on-ramp to the information
> superhighway.
>
> > However, if the publisher has been told that he's aiding and abetting a
> > criminal, and he refuses to stop, well...
>
> The same-way road-workers should be held responsible for building the road
> that a drive-by shooting occured on?
Did they keep building the road after they were informed it would be
used for drive-by shootings? (That's the only way this would be
comprable.)
Danger X
> Danger X <gal...@efni.com> wrote:
> >
> > Rob Kelk <rob...@ottawa.com> wrote in message
> > news:39994B7D...@ottawa.com...
> > > Torajima <seeb...@seebelow.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > In article <3995FBC7...@xtn.net>, Galen Musbach
> > > > <musb...@xtn.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > He is in violation of the existing TOS, I should think,
> > > > > so it shouldn't take anymore then having legal mentioning it
> > > > > to them; no intimidation required unless they are idiots.
> > > >
> > > > Again, I don't think ISPs should be held accountable for what others
> > > > have on their sites... period. Strict TOS agreements will eventually
> > > > destroy all freedom of expression on the internet.
> > > >
> > > > Punish the criminals, not the neighborhood they set up shop in.
> > >
> > > Wrong analogy - the 'net is a medium, not a location.
> >
> > Regardless of what it is, or what government 'think-tanks' tell us it
is. I
> > think it best if people treat it as they want it to be seen.
>
> If people want the sky to be green, does that make it any less blue?
>
> All the RFCs treat the 'net as a medium, so that's how it was built.
> Calling it anything else doesn't change that fact.
It's a decision that we, as a society can make. NOT decided by the few who
feel they can TELL us what we should see it as. Or develop it as.
> > > What you should
> > > have said was "punish the criminals, not the people who print their
> > > flyers."
> >
> > The ISP should "ideally" (as the best way to safe-guard the highest
ideals
> > of free-speach) be seen as an invisible on-ramp to the information
> > superhighway.
> >
> > > However, if the publisher has been told that he's aiding and abetting
a
> > > criminal, and he refuses to stop, well...
> >
> > The same-way road-workers should be held responsible for building the
road
> > that a drive-by shooting occured on?
>
> Did they keep building the road after they were informed it would be
> used for drive-by shootings? (That's the only way this would be
> comprable.)
They keep building roads... yes.
Laters,
Kyle
S.t.A.n.L.e.E
>
> Rob Kelk <rob...@ottawa.com> wrote in message
> news:39995364...@ottawa.com...
> > Danger X <gal...@efni.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Rob Kelk <rob...@ottawa.com> wrote in message
> > > news:39994B7D...@ottawa.com...
> > >
> > > The ISP should "ideally" (as the best way to safe-guard the highest
> ideals
> > > of free-speach) be seen as an invisible on-ramp to the information
> > > superhighway.
> > >
> > > > However, if the publisher has been told that he's aiding and abetting
> a
> > > > criminal, and he refuses to stop, well...
> > >
> > > The same-way road-workers should be held responsible for building the
> road
> > > that a drive-by shooting occured on?
> >
> > Did they keep building the road after they were informed it would be
> > used for drive-by shootings? (That's the only way this would be
> > comprable.)
>
> They keep building roads... yes.
>
If they were clearly informed but kept building with full knowledge,
then they're liable.
If they were clearly informed but stopped building,
then they're not liable.
If they were never informed, no matter if they kept building or not,
then they're not liable.
So, only one circumstance can they be held liable.
Basically, ISPs can only held accountable if they have full knowledge
of the criminal act but still continued on harboring the criminal,
kinda like how someone knowing full well the criminal hiding under him
but kept on harboring the criminal can be charged as an accomplice
(so yeah, the US virtual-world law has a real-world equivalent).
However, what the ISP does not know cannot hurt it (not liable),
and it's up to the "wronged party" to prove a crime was committed.
Laters. =)
STan
----------
_______ ________ _______ ____ ___ ___ ______ ______
| __|__ __| _ | \ | | | | _____| _____|
|__ | | | | _ | |\ | |___| ____|| ____|
|_______| |__| |__| |__|___| \ ___|_______|______|______|
__| | ( )
/ _ | |/ Stanlee Dometita sta...@www.cif.rochester.edu
| ( _| | U of Rochester www.cif.rochester.edu/~stanlee
\ ______| _______ ____ ___
/ \ / \ | _ | \ | |
/ \/ \| _ | |\ |
/___/\/___ |__| |__|___| \ ___|
Danger X
S.t.A.n.L.e.E <sta...@roundtable.cif.rochester.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.BSO.4.10.100081...@roundtable.cif.rochester.edu.
..
> On Tue, 15 Aug 2000, Danger X wrote:
>
> >
> > Rob Kelk <rob...@ottawa.com> wrote in message
> > news:39995364...@ottawa.com...
> > > Danger X <gal...@efni.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Rob Kelk <rob...@ottawa.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:39994B7D...@ottawa.com...
> > > >
> > > > The ISP should "ideally" (as the best way to safe-guard the highest
> > ideals
> > > > of free-speach) be seen as an invisible on-ramp to the information
> > > > superhighway.
> > > >
> > > > > However, if the publisher has been told that he's aiding and
abetting
> > a
> > > > > criminal, and he refuses to stop, well...
> > > >
> > > > The same-way road-workers should be held responsible for building
the
> > road
> > > > that a drive-by shooting occured on?
> > >
> > > Did they keep building the road after they were informed it would be
> > > used for drive-by shootings? (That's the only way this would be
> > > comprable.)
> >
> > They keep building roads... yes.
> >
>
> If they were clearly informed but kept building with full knowledge,
> then they're liable.
That's the whole point right there. We don't expect road-builders to be
knowledgeable of the activities of everyone using the road. Nor do we expect
the phone company to monitor every phone call made by 'potential' villians.
Nor should we expect (nor want) ISPs to monitor traffic on 'their' routes.
> If they were clearly informed but stopped building,
> then they're not liable.
> If they were never informed, no matter if they kept building or not,
> then they're not liable.
> So, only one circumstance can they be held liable.
>
> Basically, ISPs can only held accountable if they have full knowledge
Do we want them to have full knowledge in the first place? I would suggest
no, and that we hold the criminal him/herself solely responsible for their
actions.
> of the criminal act but still continued on harboring the criminal,
> kinda like how someone knowing full well the criminal hiding under him
> but kept on harboring the criminal can be charged as an accomplice
> (so yeah, the US virtual-world law has a real-world equivalent).
The virtual-world scenario of harboring (in this example) would be if the
ISP allowed the web-page to exist but wouldn't allow anyone to see it.
> However, what the ISP does not know cannot hurt it (not liable),
> and it's up to the "wronged party" to prove a crime was committed.
My point is, it's up to the "wronged party" to go after the guilty party.
To use the road example: Not blame or hold accountable the roadworkers
because someone decided to build a road past your house.
The surest safeguard to the ideals of free-speech on the internet is to make
sure that ISPs become "invisible" gateways to the information superhighway.
Same way we don't want phone companies hovering over us should we decide to
use profanity or something in one of our phone calls.
Laters,
Kyle
r...@cls.usask.ca
>My point is, it's up to the "wronged party" to go after the guilty party.
>To use the road example: Not blame or hold accountable the roadworkers
>because someone decided to build a road past your house.
>The surest safeguard to the ideals of free-speech on the internet is to make
>sure that ISPs become "invisible" gateways to the information superhighway.
>Same way we don't want phone companies hovering over us should we decide to
>use profanity or something in one of our phone calls.
The problem I have with the road analogy is that ISP are not
simply gateways to the net, especially in the current context.
They are providers of information storage and access for the
user in question (who has copyright infinging material in that
stored information). The issue has nothing to do with the
user accessing information through the ISP; it is about
distributing information from the ISP. Sure it sounds unfair
that the ISP can get zapped for holding illegal material,
but the fact is it IS holding material for illegal distribution.
If it does so knowingly, it is going to be subject to legal
scrutiny. I think the term "harboring" applies here. Privacy
doesn't even enter this since the problem regards making
material public. If the situation regarded a user only using
an ISP to connect to the net to go to another server to access
information off site, then the issue of gateways and free usage
of the information highway would apply. But it isn't; it's
about what is being put on the user's ISP by the user. Between
existing internationality of copyright laws (anyone from another
country can file suit in this country), the public nature
of the infringement of said laws (on disk for anyone to access),
and the location of the infringing materials (on the ISP's
hard drives, not the user's), the ISP can't help but be held
responsible to some extent. Until the day the ISP's sole
purpose is to only act as a switchboard (ie. as long as they
store users' web pages, ftp files, etc for public access) that's
going to have to be the case.
ru
S.t.A.n.L.e.E
>
> S.t.A.n.L.e.E <sta...@roundtable.cif.rochester.edu> wrote in message
> news:Pine.BSO.4.10.100081...@roundtable.cif.rochester.edu.
> ..
> >
> > If they were clearly informed but kept building with full knowledge,
> > then they're liable.
>
> That's the whole point right there. We don't expect road-builders to be
> knowledgeable of the activities of everyone using the road. Nor do we expect
> the phone company to monitor every phone call made by 'potential' villians.
> Nor should we expect (nor want) ISPs to monitor traffic on 'their' routes.
No, no, ISPs don't monitor traffic on their routes.
It's about a "wronged party" informing the ISP.
Most ISPs don't do anything unless they are informed;
only then is when they act.
>
> > If they were clearly informed but stopped building,
> > then they're not liable.
> > If they were never informed, no matter if they kept building or not,
> > then they're not liable.
> > So, only one circumstance can they be held liable.
> >
> > Basically, ISPs can only held accountable if they have full knowledge
>
> Do we want them to have full knowledge in the first place? I would suggest
> no, and that we hold the criminal him/herself solely responsible for their
> actions.
No, no, you're missing the point.
The ISPs will have full knowledge _not_ by their own accord or monitoring
but because a "wronged party" has informed them.
Only once the "wronged party" has informed them
that the ISP will have full knowledge;
otherwise, the ISP usually don't do anything
because, by itself, it can't have full knowledge
and "judge" that a crime is indeed being committed.
(For ex: An ISP won't really be sure that using an AIC screencap
is illegal, unless AIC specifically tells them so;
thus, unless AIC steps in, the ISP just lets it be.)
>
> > of the criminal act but still continued on harboring the criminal,
> > kinda like how someone knowing full well the criminal hiding under him
> > but kept on harboring the criminal can be charged as an accomplice
> > (so yeah, the US virtual-world law has a real-world equivalent).
>
> The virtual-world scenario of harboring (in this example) would be if the
> ISP allowed the web-page to exist but wouldn't allow anyone to see it.
I don't really like using comparisons because the law is the law,
and that's how the law works in this case with the ISPs.
Actually, the law was created to protect the ISPs because
before the law, people were suing the ISPs for its subscribers' webpages.
Now, people can't sue the ISP, unless if the ISP purposely continued
showing the webpage after being informed by the wronged party
that a crime is indeed taking place thru that webpage
(after the 30-day grace period to give the ISP time to do something).
>
> > However, what the ISP does not know cannot hurt it (not liable),
> > and it's up to the "wronged party" to prove a crime was committed.
>
> My point is, it's up to the "wronged party" to go after the guilty party.
> To use the road example: Not blame or hold accountable the roadworkers
> because someone decided to build a road past your house.
Oh, the wronged party will go after the guilty party.
But in the meantime, the alleged wronged party are closing the gates
to the alleged offender's webpage by going thru the ISP.
If the alleged offender wants to fight the alleged wronged party in court,
he could do so, without holding the ISP liable.
Just remember, the law was indeed created to protect the ISP.
The ISP cannot be held liable unless it purposely disregarded the law.
>
> The surest safeguard to the ideals of free-speech on the internet is to make
> sure that ISPs become "invisible" gateways to the information superhighway.
> Same way we don't want phone companies hovering over us should we decide to
> use profanity or something in one of our phone calls.
As I said above, that's the whole reason the law was created.
The ISP can't be held liable (except in Germany, but that's another story)
unless it doesn't do anything after it knows full well there's a crime.
I guess you may just have to know the chronology of events and issues
that led to the law to really understand how much it protects the ISPs.
Laters. =)
Stan
Avatar
Danger X wrote:
>
> Rob Kelk <rob...@ottawa.com> wrote in message
> news:39994B7D...@ottawa.com...
> > Torajima <seeb...@seebelow.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <3995FBC7...@xtn.net>, Galen Musbach
> > > <musb...@xtn.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > He is in violation of the existing TOS, I should think,
> > > > so it shouldn't take anymore then having legal mentioning it
> > > > to them; no intimidation required unless they are idiots.
> > >
> > > Again, I don't think ISPs should be held accountable for what others
> > > have on their sites... period. Strict TOS agreements will eventually
> > > destroy all freedom of expression on the internet.
> > >
> > > Punish the criminals, not the neighborhood they set up shop in.
> >
> > Wrong analogy - the 'net is a medium, not a location.
>
> Regardless of what it is, or what government 'think-tanks' tell us it is. I
> think it best if people treat it as they want it to be seen.
And? The entire idea of "telepresence" is laughable at this point, after
all. You don't leave your chair, no matter what you're doing on the
'net. Medium, not location.
> > What you should
> > have said was "punish the criminals, not the people who print their
> > flyers."
>
> The ISP should "ideally" (as the best way to safe-guard the highest ideals
> of free-speach) be seen as an invisible on-ramp to the information
> superhighway.
Why? You haven't said why such safeguards are a bad thing (except "It's
a lot of work for the ISP to filter complaints correctly", which begs
the response "tough cookies".) I'll take a real world with legal bumpers
that run both ways, thank you very much, since I can't go live in an
"ideal" one. ;p
At any rate, how the hell did free speech get into the discussion? The
courts established ages ago that you do NOT have the freedom to
advertise criminal services, which is basically what is in question
here...
Avatar
Avatar
Danger X wrote:
>
> S.t.A.n.L.e.E <sta...@roundtable.cif.rochester.edu> wrote in message
> news:Pine.BSO.4.10.100081...@roundtable.cif.rochester.edu.
> ..
> > On Tue, 15 Aug 2000, Danger X wrote:
> >
> > If they were clearly informed but stopped building,
> > then they're not liable.
> > If they were never informed, no matter if they kept building or not,
> > then they're not liable.
> > So, only one circumstance can they be held liable.
> >
> > Basically, ISPs can only held accountable if they have full knowledge
>
> Do we want them to have full knowledge in the first place? I would suggest
> no, and that we hold the criminal him/herself solely responsible for their
> actions.
Okay, think about the unintended consequences for a second.
"Take the page down - it's got pirated stuff on it."
"How do I know that?"
"We've got these contracts proving it."
"'Kay, but you're gonna have to talk to the guy that runs the page.
We're just the utility."
"Sure. Who is he?"
At this point, you get two scenarios:
"He's <personal information here>. Go get 'im."
"Thanks."
This is not good for the poor pirate, because they've got him where he
lives, neh? ;p
Or, it could happen like this:
"He's Guybrush Threepwood, 404 Not Found Drive, Nowhere, Noplace 00000.
Go get 'im."
"'scuse me?"
"What?"
This results in the ISP getting its block sued off. ^_^
If you want full accountability to be placed solely with the person
originating a transmission, then there has to be a way to verify WHO
that person is. In other words, the anonymity of net.life has to go.
Now, which of these is a bigger potential threat to free speech? ;p
> > of the criminal act but still continued on harboring the criminal,
> > kinda like how someone knowing full well the criminal hiding under him
> > but kept on harboring the criminal can be charged as an accomplice
> > (so yeah, the US virtual-world law has a real-world equivalent).
>
> The virtual-world scenario of harboring (in this example) would be if the
> ISP allowed the web-page to exist but wouldn't allow anyone to see it.
They don't particularly match up, but the equivalent real-world
situation would be printing flyers for a criminal while the police were
outside the door. ;p
Avatar
Avatar
r...@cls.usask.ca wrote:
>
> Danger X <gal...@efni.com> wrote:
>
> >My point is, it's up to the "wronged party" to go after the guilty party.
> >To use the road example: Not blame or hold accountable the roadworkers
> >because someone decided to build a road past your house.
>
> >The surest safeguard to the ideals of free-speech on the internet is to make
> >sure that ISPs become "invisible" gateways to the information superhighway.
> >Same way we don't want phone companies hovering over us should we decide to
> >use profanity or something in one of our phone calls.
>
Correct. Technically, as well, ISPs are never liable for information
that is merely transmitted through their network at the request of a
user or a third party. Only if they store the information themselves do
they become liable.
Avatar
r...@cls.usask.ca
Nope. The previous poster's use of "final say" implied that because
the internet is borderless, laws have been slow to keep up... which
is true on some legal fronts. However, on the issue of copyrights
of audio visual works, which this is, there were already copyright
laws in place that could be applied readily in an international
scope. That is, the "final say" many folks are still looking for
in other legality issues which would allow some sort of cross border
prosecution is already in place for copyright infringements, and has
been for many decades now (eg. the US, a relative latecomer to
international copyright treaties signed onto the old Universal
Copyright Convention in 1955), and actually has wider scope laws
than the treaties require. A Japanese anime company can waltz
into the US and Canada and successfully sue (for injunctions, right
up to $100,000 fines and criminal record) anyone distributing videos,
CDs, images, wall scrolls, which hadn't been authorizated by the
company. Japanese companies have already done it in other media
in the US.
>"Final say", as in decades? Sure, quite likely! "Final say", as in
>centuries? Maybe. "Final say", as in millenia? (IMHO) That's stretching it.
Hee hee.
Seriously though. The international copyright treaties (which
require signing nations to use as part of their law) have been
around and used for decades, so "decades" is past likely. The
current base treaty, the Berne Convention, actually started in
1886, so the principles are already working towards the "centuries"
scale. Given that nearly every nation has signed on, and that
developing nations not signed on write laws to be compatible with
it, as long as there are nations, "centuries" is "quite likely".
Millenia? "Maybe."
ru
Matt Martin
Avatar <ak...@pdq.net> imparted the following wisdom unto us:
> Or, it could happen like this:
>
> "He's Guybrush Threepwood, 404 Not Found Drive, Nowhere, Noplace 00000.
> Go get 'im."
> "'scuse me?"
> "What?"
I think that you can find him. He's masquerading under the alias
"Hearty Beef and Potato Goodsoup" on Blood Island...
I hear he even faked his own death to collect on an insurance policy.
But he's just a wannabe pirate.
--
Matt Martin -=- b u f o r d @ n e k o m u s u m e . n e t
UR Japanese Anime Club -=- http://nekomusume.net/uranime/
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Anyone can do any amount of work provided it isn't the work he is supposed
to be doing at the moment.
-- Robert Benchley
Danger X
Y'know... I never figured you as one to be concerned about the 'poor'
pirate! ^_^
> Or, it could happen like this:
>
> "He's Guybrush Threepwood, 404 Not Found Drive, Nowhere, Noplace 00000.
> Go get 'im."
> "'scuse me?"
> "What?"
>
> This results in the ISP getting its block sued off. ^_^
>
> If you want full accountability to be placed solely with the person
> originating a transmission, then there has to be a way to verify WHO
> that person is. In other words, the anonymity of net.life has to go.
I would suggest that there merely has to be away around it, as there already
exists, only to be used in serious violations as opposed to the
casual-taking-offence at website-X (for example). As in the police ability
to trace phone-calls.
> Now, which of these is a bigger potential threat to free speech? ;p
Interesting...
Is privacy really necessary for free-speech to occur? I'll use my own life
as an example *AGAINST* my question... Yes, there are some areas(and things
I've said) rather not become public knowledge. So in that respect, I'd agree
that privacy is a necessity. But then I think, "Why should it be such a big
deal? We all have skeletons-in-the-closet, maybethe world would be a more
understanding place if we all opened up a little more." (Yeah - it's more of
my 'loony' idealism... I can't think of another way of expressing this. ^_^)
I would suggest that the ability to verify who a person is, is *NOT*
damaging to free-speech, as they STILL have the ability to say what they
want. It merely makes them more cautious (i.e. makes them take personal
responsibility for what they say) about where and whom they say it to.
Free-speech, if you don't feel free to acknowledge your identity, is an
illusion to the mouth uttering it.
Laters,
Kyle
btw (My posting handle has nothing to do with privacy or anything. I just
think it sounds cool! My last name? Tremblay! Glad to meetcha Avatar!)
Danger X
<r...@cls.usask.ca> wrote in message news:8ncoet$frq$1...@tribune.usask.ca...
<snip>
Oh, I know... I apologize for being picky. It's a habit of mine to pick
apart these sayings/'old wisdoms' to get at the hidden meanings that society
as a whole seems to take for granted at face value.
i.e. No two snowflakes are exactly alike
or Lightning never strikes twice
Sticks and stones...
The last straw!
etc...
No question must be left unasked...
No answers must be left unquestioned!
> >"Final say", as in decades? Sure, quite likely! "Final say", as in
> >centuries? Maybe. "Final say", as in millenia? (IMHO) That's stretching
it.
>
> Hee hee.
>
> Seriously though. The international copyright treaties (which
> require signing nations to use as part of their law) have been
> around and used for decades, so "decades" is past likely. The
> current base treaty, the Berne Convention, actually started in
> 1886, so the principles are already working towards the "centuries"
> scale. Given that nearly every nation has signed on, and that
> developing nations not signed on write laws to be compatible with
> it, as long as there are nations, "centuries" is "quite likely".
> Millenia? "Maybe."
Well... Given the constant accelerating pace of change we've experienced.
i.e. the population of the earth has doubled since I was born. That's quite
a prediction.
Chances are that we'll all look like monkeys typing on our primitive
keyboards obsessing over these things to future generations centuries from
now.
Laters,
Kyle
Danger X
>
>
> Danger X wrote:
> >
> > Rob Kelk <rob...@ottawa.com> wrote in message
> > news:39994B7D...@ottawa.com...
> > > >
> > > > In article <3995FBC7...@xtn.net>, Galen Musbach
> > > > <musb...@xtn.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > He is in violation of the existing TOS, I should think,
> > > > > so it shouldn't take anymore then having legal mentioning it
> > > > > to them; no intimidation required unless they are idiots.
> > > >
> > > > Again, I don't think ISPs should be held accountable for what others
> > > > have on their sites... period. Strict TOS agreements will eventually
> > > > destroy all freedom of expression on the internet.
> > > >
> > > > Punish the criminals, not the neighborhood they set up shop in.
> > >
> > > Wrong analogy - the 'net is a medium, not a location.
> >
> > Regardless of what it is, or what government 'think-tanks' tell us it
is. I
> > think it best if people treat it as they want it to be seen.
>
> And? The entire idea of "telepresence" is laughable at this point, after
> all. You don't leave your chair, no matter what you're doing on the
> 'net. Medium, not location.
That's what it is. Not what we want it to be. Imagine if you will...
We're in a car and we come to a fork in the road...The question is "Which
way do we go?", not, "Quick! Describe the chemical structure of the
ashphalt!"
> > > What you should
> > > have said was "punish the criminals, not the people who print their
> > > flyers."
> >
> > The ISP should "ideally" (as the best way to safe-guard the highest
ideals
> > of free-speach) be seen as an invisible on-ramp to the information
> > superhighway.
>
> Why? You haven't said why such safeguards are a bad thing (except "It's
> a lot of work for the ISP to filter complaints correctly", which begs
> the response "tough cookies".)
How about tossing those "tough cookies" to the 'poor' pirates?
> I'll take a real world with legal bumpers
> that run both ways, thank you very much, since I can't go live in an
> "ideal" one. ;p
Obviously we're not there yet, that doesn't mean we can't start the journey.
> At any rate, how the hell did free speech get into the discussion?
I put it there?
> The
> courts established ages ago that you do NOT have the freedom to
> advertise criminal services,
Agreed.
> which is basically what is in question
> here...
I was just wondering what we as a society should decide the role of ISPs
should be.
Laters,
Kyle
Danger X
S.t.A.n.L.e.E <sta...@roundtable.cif.rochester.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.BSO.4.10.100081...@roundtable.cif.rochester.edu.
..
> On Tue, 15 Aug 2000, Danger X wrote:
>
> >
> > S.t.A.n.L.e.E <sta...@roundtable.cif.rochester.edu> wrote in message
> >
news:Pine.BSO.4.10.100081...@roundtable.cif.rochester.edu.
> > ..
> > >
> > > then they're liable.
> >
> > That's the whole point right there. We don't expect road-builders to be
> > knowledgeable of the activities of everyone using the road. Nor do we
expect
> > the phone company to monitor every phone call made by 'potential'
villians.
> > Nor should we expect (nor want) ISPs to monitor traffic on 'their'
routes.
>
> No, no, ISPs don't monitor traffic on their routes.
> It's about a "wronged party" informing the ISP.
> Most ISPs don't do anything unless they are informed;
> only then is when they act.
>
> >
> > > then they're not liable.
> > > If they were never informed, no matter if they kept building or not,
> > > then they're not liable.
> > > So, only one circumstance can they be held liable.
> > >
> > > Basically, ISPs can only held accountable if they have full knowledge
> >
> > Do we want them to have full knowledge in the first place? I would
suggest
> > no, and that we hold the criminal him/herself solely responsible for
their
> > actions.
>
> The ISPs will have full knowledge _not_ by their own accord or monitoring
> but because a "wronged party" has informed them.
My point was, that to reach a state where the ISPs would act as everyone's
'invisible' gateway to the net, "wronged partys" start (as a tactic)
targetting the guilty individuals.
> Only once the "wronged party" has informed them
> that the ISP will have full knowledge;
This is how it exists now, and I accept that.
> I don't really like using comparisons because the law is the law,
> and that's how the law works in this case with the ISPs.
> Actually, the law was created to protect the ISPs because
> before the law, people were suing the ISPs for its subscribers' webpages.
If the ISP becomes the 'invisible' carrier of information, than all that's
left are the actual offenders to go after.
> Oh, the wronged party will go after the guilty party.
> But in the meantime, the alleged wronged party are closing the gates
> to the alleged offender's webpage by going thru the ISP.
> If the alleged offender wants to fight the alleged wronged party in court,
> he could do so, without holding the ISP liable.
> Just remember, the law was indeed created to protect the ISP.
If a system could be developed where the law was not needed to protect the
ISP...
> The ISP cannot be held liable unless it purposely disregarded the law.
>
> >
> > The surest safeguard to the ideals of free-speech on the internet is to
make
> > sure that ISPs become "invisible" gateways to the information
superhighway.
> > Same way we don't want phone companies hovering over us should we decide
to
> > use profanity or something in one of our phone calls.
>
> As I said above, that's the whole reason the law was created.
> The ISP can't be held liable (except in Germany, but that's another story)
> unless it doesn't do anything after it knows full well there's a crime.
> I guess you may just have to know the chronology of events and issues
> that led to the law to really understand how much it protects the ISPs.
Well I'm learning a bit... And I accept how it is now... I have a harder
time accepting lack of imagination and creativity that dares to think/dream
of a better world, nor the exclusion of such 'star-flung' thoughts/concepts
from the realm of 'serious' (which I would 'seriously' debate the definition
of) discussion. Especially in an anime' newsgroup! ^_^
Laters,
Kyle
r...@cls.usask.ca
><r...@cls.usask.ca> wrote in message news:8ncoet$frq$1...@tribune.usask.ca...
>> Seriously though. The international copyright treaties (which
>> require signing nations to use as part of their law) have been
>> around and used for decades, so "decades" is past likely. The
>> current base treaty, the Berne Convention, actually started in
>> 1886, so the principles are already working towards the "centuries"
>> scale. Given that nearly every nation has signed on, and that
>> developing nations not signed on write laws to be compatible with
>> it, as long as there are nations, "centuries" is "quite likely".
>> Millenia? "Maybe."
>Well... Given the constant accelerating pace of change we've experienced.
>i.e. the population of the earth has doubled since I was born. That's quite
>a prediction.
Ya, but the international copyright laws have been through big
changes in society already and survived, and in fact flourished.
I think I'm suggesting that the notion of copyright laws as a
means of protecting intellectual property rights has had time
to mature and has managed to do so in changing times. Remember
that when the Berne treaty was established most folks were
still riding on horses and in horse drawn carriages. It has
survived two world wars, the advent of radio, the advent of
television, the advent of portable media electronics, the
advent of home recording, the advent of commercial flights
across the oceans, the so called sexual revolution, the so
called "me generation", the cold war, and a whole host of moral,
economic, and technological changes. Anyway, a hundred years
isn't that long given how long the treaties have been around.
It's the millenia part where everything is up in the air; we
may become hairless monkeys poking at decrepit keyboards, which
would definitely make copyrights pointless.
>Chances are that we'll all look like monkeys typing on our primitive
>keyboards obsessing over these things to future generations centuries from
>now.
Heh. I suspect they'll actually have furthered implementations of
the principles of current international copyright conventions,
nonetheless. No one likes to see their works being misused.
ru
Cybersox13
>
>That's the whole point right there. We don't expect road-builders to be
>knowledgeable of the activities of everyone using the road. Nor do we expect
>the phone company to monitor every phone call made by 'potential' villians.
>Nor should we expect (nor want) ISPs to monitor traffic on 'their' routes.
>
Um... the builders of roads DO have an obligation to maintain them and keep
them clear of crime.... it's just that in most cases the builders of roads
happen to be government agencies. Thus are born such organizations as the
California Highway Patrol, the New York Transit Authority, etc., etc., dating
back past the Roman Centurion. Likewise the Postal Service is expected to
maintain a staff of Postal Inspectors to guard against mail fraud, local and
long distance phone service providers are required to keep records of phone
calls, etc., etc. Why should ISP providers get off free?
Cybersox13
>Or, it could happen like this:
>
>"He's Guybrush Threepwood, 404 Not Found Drive, Nowhere, Noplace 00000.
>Go get 'im."
>"'scuse me?"
>"What?"
>
>This results in the ISP getting its block sued off. ^_^
>
Don't be ridiculous. Everyone knows Guybrush Threepwood and his girl (the ex
gov) live by that old amusement park with all the monkeys.
Danger X
<r...@cls.usask.ca> wrote in message news:8ncvh1$h61$1...@tribune.usask.ca...
Fair enough!
> >Chances are that we'll all look like monkeys typing on our primitive
> >keyboards obsessing over these things to future generations centuries
from
> >now.
>
> Heh. I suspect they'll actually have furthered implementations of
> the principles of current international copyright conventions,
> nonetheless. No one likes to see their works being misused.
I was trying to get at -- Maybe they'll have also furthered the
effectiveness of education to the point where misuse becomes non-existant.
(nullifying the need for tons of lawbooks - well by that time they'd
probably fit all on one neutrion sized microchip) And...
No-one-likes-to-see-their-works-being-misused-consciousness transforms into
Everyone-enjoys-others-works-consciousness.
But you're right though... For now, the 'implementations' are a good idea. I
just like (I know-I should keep my mouth shut more often! ^_^), dealing in
the far-fetched and theoretical. I'm always hopeful that by doing so, a
useful nugget of information/wisdom falls out of the tree that we can make
use of in the present.
Cheers!
Kyle
Louis Patterson
> b)The actual criminal should be the one to pay.
Which I think is the point. People seem to be advocating going after the
ISP in lieu of actually tracking down the actual people involved in the
actual act of copyright breech.
And I think that's silly.
Louis
--
Louis Patterson l.patt...@student.unimelb.edu.au
Benjamin D. Hutchins
Cybersox13 <cyber...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>Um... the builders of roads DO have an obligation to maintain them and keep
>them clear of crime....
Er, no they haven't. When was the last time you got a speeding ticket
from an agent of your state highway commission?
--G.
--
_O_ Benjamin D. Hutchins, cofounder, Continuity Line Editor, webmaster
[. .] Eyrie Productions, Unlimited - An AnimeTech Limited Company -><-
- Cyberleader Darul says: "0 dB SPL is the lowest level of 1KHz tone
the average person can detect." WWW: http://www.eyrie-productions.com/
Danger X
Cybersox13 <cyber...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000816002246...@ng-ce1.aol.com...
> "Danger X" gal...@efni.com wrote:
>
> >
> >That's the whole point right there. We don't expect road-builders to be
> >knowledgeable of the activities of everyone using the road. Nor do we
expect
> >the phone company to monitor every phone call made by 'potential'
villians.
> >Nor should we expect (nor want) ISPs to monitor traffic on 'their'
routes.
> >
> Um... the builders of roads DO have an obligation to maintain them and
keep
> them clear of crime....
They don't do that by stopping people from using them, nor by monitoring you
wherever you drive on any given day.
> it's just that in most cases the builders of roads
> happen to be government agencies. Thus are born such organizations as the
> California Highway Patrol, the New York Transit Authority, etc., etc.,
dating
> back past the Roman Centurion. Likewise the Postal Service is expected to
> maintain a staff of Postal Inspectors to guard against mail fraud,
Upon receipt of a complaint-yes. Not by being arbitrarily being suspicious
beforehand.
> local and
> long distance phone service providers are required to keep records of
phone
> calls, etc., etc.
There's a difference between keeping a record of when a phone call was made
and what was said in the phone-call.
>Why should ISP providers get off free?
a)They have more in common with the phone companies. (They wouldn't exist
without the phone-lines)
b)The actual criminal should be the one to pay.
Laters,
Kyle
Blue Pulse
to read on:
On Tue, 15 Aug 2000, Avatar wrote:
> To address your examples... there are a multitude of servers, paid and
> free, that would be more than happy to accept posting your work. This
> isn't any different from a bookstore or a library not buying that
> godawful Madonna photo book a while back. They (in this case, ISPs that
> don't want pictures with nudity) are private organizations and don't
> have to use their resources towards that which they don't want to mess
> with.
>
> If most ISPs are banning hate speech, they're doing a piss-poor job of
> it. ;p Seriously, the ISP is -least- likely to crack down on offensive
> speech, as that impinges most directly on the user's First Amendment
> rights, and is generally not covered in a TOS agreement either. Mine
> doesn't restrict what I say, after all.
ISPs may not, but what about from other sources? Back when I was living
in Pennsylvania, I remember reading a story about a kid who went to Junior
High a few towns away from me. Apparently he didn't like this history
teacher he had very much, and so, to make fun of him, he put up a web page
-- on his own server, mind you, not one of the school's -- which asked for
monetary donations from people viewing the page, so that he "could hire a
hitman". This text was placed directly next to a photo of his history
teacher. I think it was obviously meant as a joke, but other people could
see different things.
Anyhow, word of this website gets back to the teacher. The teacher
informs his higher-ups, and the kid is expelled from school, under the
claim that the student had threatened the teacher.
ISPs may or may not restrict hate speech, as you call it, but then again
-- who's to define what that may be? One person's hate may be another's
joke, and vice versa. No wonder many ISPs are as lax as they are.
Take care,
- Blue Pulse.
NP: Hybrid, "Kill City" (and LOUD!)
--
-./`- Blue Pulse. Not quite vertical. Mail: blue_pulse -at- niceboots.com
--o- "You know life is all about expression. You only live once ...
-'\.- ... and you're not coming back. So express yourself -- yeah!"
Avatar
Ken Arromdee wrote:
>
> In article <ECD3AA6A353DD36C.13F0E567...@lp.airnews.net>,
> Avatar <ak...@pdq.net> wrote:
> >At this point, you get two scenarios:
> >"He's <personal information here>. Go get 'im."
> >"Thanks."
> >This is not good for the poor pirate, because they've got him where he
> >lives, neh? ;p
> >
> >Or, it could happen like this:
> >
> >"He's Guybrush Threepwood, 404 Not Found Drive, Nowhere, Noplace 00000.
> >Go get 'im."
> >"'scuse me?"
> >"What?"
> >
> >This results in the ISP getting its block sued off. ^_^
>
> There's a third possibility.
>
> "Sure, we know who he is. We'd be glad to tell you the information with a
> court order."
Such a court order is trivial to procure. ^_^ Additionally, though,
forcing people to go after court orders is not a good way to start up a
congenial relationship that doesn't involve lawsuits...
And, if the ISP is given a court order forcing them to reveal who is
responsible for a given page, and they -can't- (because they accepted
munged information in the first place, and let's be frank - most ISPs
will), then guess who is left to carry the bag? You got it. ;p
Avatar
Avatar
Danger X wrote:
>
> Cybersox13 <cyber...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20000816002246...@ng-ce1.aol.com...
> >Why should ISP providers get off free?
>
> a)They have more in common with the phone companies. (They wouldn't exist
> without the phone-lines)
>
> b)The actual criminal should be the one to pay.
You keep comparing ISPs to the phone company, but in this kind of
example, it isn't. We're talking about hosted material, not free
transfer of information. You're correct that an ISP should not be held
accountable for information that is given flow through its lines by the
request of its users, and in fact, it isn't. ;p
However, when it hosts something, it's not a phone company, it's a
landlord, with a lot of the attendant responsibilities.
Avatar
Torajima
<Pine.LNX.4.21.000816...@siren.vampiricus.com>, Blue
Pulse <blup...@niceboots.com> wrote:
> ISPs may not, but what about from other sources? Back when I was living
> in Pennsylvania, I remember reading a story about a kid who went to Junior
> High a few towns away from me. Apparently he didn't like this history
> teacher he had very much, and so, to make fun of him, he put up a web page
> -- on his own server, mind you, not one of the school's -- which asked for
> monetary donations from people viewing the page, so that he "could hire a
> hitman". This text was placed directly next to a photo of his history
> teacher. I think it was obviously meant as a joke, but other people could
> see different things.
>
> Anyhow, word of this website gets back to the teacher. The teacher
> informs his higher-ups, and the kid is expelled from school, under the
> claim that the student had threatened the teacher.
As I've already made quite clear, I support free speech, and don't
think ISPs should be held accountable for the actions of others, but...
This little "joke" is going to far. Even if the kid wasn't serious
about hiring a hitman, there are a lot of nuts out there today who
might decide to kill the teacher anyway.
Torajima
Danger X
>
>
> Danger X wrote:
> >
> > Cybersox13 <cyber...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > news:20000816002246...@ng-ce1.aol.com...
> >
> > a)They have more in common with the phone companies. (They wouldn't
exist
> > without the phone-lines)
> >
> > b)The actual criminal should be the one to pay.
>
> example, it isn't. We're talking about hosted material, not free
> transfer of information. You're correct that an ISP should not be held
> accountable for information that is given flow through its lines by the
> request of its users, and in fact, it isn't. ;p
>
> However, when it hosts something, it's not a phone company, it's a
> landlord, with a lot of the attendant responsibilities.
I'm well aware of the 'hosting' aspect, and I suspect as computers become
more powerful, people will become their own hosts, thus the ISP will be
comparable to the phone company.
As an alternative to the paragraph above. As computers become more powerful,
and memory becomes vast and unlimited, there is no reason at all why it
can't become 'public-land', with the land-lord powers (and responsibilities)
being stripped away completely. We can't seem to eliminate homelessness in
the real world, however there's no reason why we can't eliminate
'homelessness' in the cyber-world.
Laters,
Kyle
Robert Hutchinson
>
> This is so astoundingly off-topic that it's not even funny, but feel free
> to read on:
<snip>
> ISPs may not, but what about from other sources? Back when I was living
> in Pennsylvania, I remember reading a story about a kid who went to Junior
> High a few towns away from me. Apparently he didn't like this history
> teacher he had very much, and so, to make fun of him, he put up a web page
> -- on his own server, mind you, not one of the school's -- which asked for
> monetary donations from people viewing the page, so that he "could hire a
> hitman". This text was placed directly next to a photo of his history
> teacher. I think it was obviously meant as a joke, but other people could
> see different things.
>
> Anyhow, word of this website gets back to the teacher. The teacher
> informs his higher-ups, and the kid is expelled from school, under the
> claim that the student had threatened the teacher.
>
> ISPs may or may not restrict hate speech, as you call it, but then again
> -- who's to define what that may be? One person's hate may be another's
> joke, and vice versa. No wonder many ISPs are as lax as they are.
Threats are not hate speech. Fairly big difference between "I hate this person"
and "Help me kill this person." Even if it's a joke, it doesn't fall under
hate speech.
Robert Hutchinson
A joke? Like yelling "Fire" in a movie theater is a joke.
Avatar
Ken Arromdee wrote:
>
> In article <FA9A79D00DCD6E98.47CFE77B...@lp.airnews.net>,
> Avatar <ak...@pdq.net> wrote:
> >> There's a third possibility.
> >>
> >> "Sure, we know who he is. We'd be glad to tell you the information with a
> >> court order."
> >Such a court order is trivial to procure. ^_^ Additionally, though,
> >forcing people to go after court orders is not a good way to start up a
> >congenial relationship that doesn't involve lawsuits...
>
> Frivolous lawsuits, or legitimate ones?
>
> I suppose you can argue "ISPs should give out personal information to avoid
> frivolous lawsuits". But I'm not going to try to argue that.
Well, a precondition of our case is that it's a legitimate lawsuit. The
other side of the argument's position is that the ISP should not be in
the business of discriminating between frivolous and legitimate
lawsuits, in the first place.
So, if the ISP can't discriminate between frivolous and legitimate, then
they can either pass no information (and if I have to argue why this is
a bad thing, then I just bloody give up), or they can always pass
information (which isn't much better, as you've pointed out.) That's two
bloody good reasons to let the ISP make the call. ;p
Avatar
Avatar
Ken Arromdee wrote:
>
> In article <D1B1375A543D8628.F681198B...@lp.airnews.net>,
> Avatar <ak...@pdq.net> wrote:
> >> >> "Sure, we know who he is. We'd be glad to tell you the information with a
> >> >> court order."
> >> >Such a court order is trivial to procure. ^_^ Additionally, though,
> >> >forcing people to go after court orders is not a good way to start up a
> >> >congenial relationship that doesn't involve lawsuits...
> >> Frivolous lawsuits, or legitimate ones?
> >Well, a precondition of our case is that it's a legitimate lawsuit.
>
> It's a pretty huge precondition to say "an ISP can be legitimately sued for
> demanding a court order before providing information."
You miss the point (as usual). If the complaint is legitimate, then the
ISP is in the wrong for keeping the site up and has to release that
information on request. If the ISP refuses, the company has to take the
case to the court. Once it's there, it's likely to hang around,
naturally, especially if the ISP continues to be unfriendly.
Avatar
Avatar
Ken Arromdee wrote:
>
> In article <94C1D47943565C2D.1AB12ECC...@lp.airnews.net>,
> Avatar <ak...@pdq.net> wrote:
> >> It's a pretty huge precondition to say "an ISP can be legitimately sued for
> >> demanding a court order before providing information."
> >You miss the point (as usual).
>
> And you're taking cheap shots (as usual).
>
> >If the complaint is legitimate, then the
> >ISP is in the wrong for keeping the site up and has to release that
> >information on request. If the ISP refuses, the company has to take the
> >case to the court. Once it's there, it's likely to hang around,
> >naturally, especially if the ISP continues to be unfriendly.
>
> Saying "we need a court order before we release information" does not mean
> "we're not going to follow through on our obligation unless you force us to".
> It means "without a court order, we don't have an obligation in the first
> place".
This is, however, incorrect. The law does not maintain that an ISP must
be served with a court order before it is obligated to take action in
order to avoid liability. It has to act ON ITS OWN to avoid liability,
and by the time it gets to the courts, the ISP has basically made its
decision.
If the site is legitimate, and the ISP is protecting itself and its
users from unwarranted complaints, then everything is hunky-dory - no
foul, no damage. If the site is not legitimate, however, and the ISP has
taken the position that it is, then it -is- liable for the period
between the notification and the decision (and possibly retroactive to
the beginning of the infraction, but I dunno if it goes that far).
Like a lot of legal issues, everything hinges on a single point of law -
in this case, whether the complaint is warranted or not. If it's not
warranted, then nothing the ISP does can get it into any trouble with
the complainant. If it -is- warranted, then everything the ISP does to
hinder the complainant gets it into further trouble.
Avatar
Avatar
Louis Patterson wrote:
>
> On Wed, 16 Aug 2000, Avatar wrote:
>
> > And, if the ISP is given a court order forcing them to reveal who is
> > responsible for a given page, and they -can't- (because they accepted
> > munged information in the first place, and let's be frank - most ISPs
> > will), then guess who is left to carry the bag? You got it. ;p
>
> In which case, they're idiots, and deserve to die a flaming commercial
> death. But still, surely going after the actual perpetrators is a
> preferable option?
Only if you can make certain that the perpetrator can be identified. In
other words, this means the end of every multiple-account or anonymous
usage of any free web server anywhere (which they would have to strictly
enforce, to keep from having to hold the bag). That would be fairly
disruptive, neh?
Avatar
Louis Patterson
> And, if the ISP is given a court order forcing them to reveal who is
> responsible for a given page, and they -can't- (because they accepted
> munged information in the first place, and let's be frank - most ISPs
> will), then guess who is left to carry the bag? You got it. ;p
In which case, they're idiots, and deserve to die a flaming commercial
death. But still, surely going after the actual perpetrators is a
preferable option?
Louis
--
Louis Patterson l.patt...@student.unimelb.edu.au
SlayerNext
<Pine.OSF.4.10.100081...@cassius.its.unimelb.edu.au>, Louis
Patterson <lou...@student.unimelb.edu.au> writes:
>On Wed, 16 Aug 2000, Danger X wrote:
>
>> b)The actual criminal should be the one to pay.
>
>Which I think is the point. People seem to be advocating going after the
>ISP in lieu of actually tracking down the actual people involved in the
>actual act of copyright breech.
>
>And I think that's silly.
>
>Louis
Actually, no one is doing that. We're complaining to them that someone
renting e-space (is that a word yet?) from them is breaking the law. It's the
same as if I complained to my landlord that another tenent is playing their
music too loud (thus distrubing the peace). At this point, the ISP is in no
trouble. They have just received a complaint, same my landlord. Since they
don't know if the complaint is valid they usually (and should) invistigate.
This isn't complicated, one of their employees just surfs over to the web page
and looks. Just as most apartment dwellers and owners have a renters agreement
stipulating what is and isn't allowed, an ISP has a TOS. If a violation is
found, the ISP is free to select the most approporate responce, ranging from
politely requesting the offending material be removed to TOSsing the web site
into the bit bucket. Is the ISP in trouble yet? Nope. They received a
complaint, investigated, and responded approporately. The only way the ISP
gets in trouble is they receive a complaint, investigate, determine a crime is
taking place, and then do nothing. At that point they are aiding and abeting
the criminal in his/her operation and become criminals themselves.
What about the bootleggers if the site is TOSsed you ask? Aren't they
free to set up a new web site? Yes, they are. In a way they are getting off
scot free. They just have to load up a new copy of their web site on a new
ISPs server, update all the web pointers, and they're back in business.
Ideally the ISP should TOSs the website to the proper legal authorities along
with all the information the ISP collects for billing purposes (and they just
might, I can't tell from where I'm sitting). From this point on, it basicly
comes down to enforcement and level of acceptable loss. Have child
poronorgaphy on your web site and the FBI will be on you like stink on a skunk,
but copyright violation isn't a major crime. Without requests from the wronged
party (Gainax or, Kami-sama help me, ADV) the police won't bother going after
it. Japanese anime companies won't generally bother because America isn't
their target market. North American companies won't generally bother because
anime is still a niche market (although this is changing) and they would lose
more via bad press then they are to bootleggers, or at least fear they would.
Basicly the anime community is self-policing. If you see someone selling
bootlegs of anime that has been picked up in the NA market (or whereever you
live), or worse yet, bootlegs of commerical subs & dubs, report them. Report
them to the police, their ISP, the NA importer, and even the Japanese producer
if you want. Once they are informed, they can take what ever action they feel
is necessary and apporporate.
One more thing, a bit off topic. Never admit to owning fansubs in a
newsgroup, ever. As this is a public forum you have no legal expication to
privicy. If any FBI agent ever came arcoss a message stating you owned a
fansub, you could be arrested and prosectued at any time for possession of
stolen property. Granted, I have a better chance of being elected president
this fall then you do of being arrested for this, but there is such a thing as
a bad cop.
Slaye...@AwOL.com.jp
When I have a little money, I buy some anime. If I have any left over, I buy
food and clothes.
batt...@my-deja.com
100...@siren.vampiricus.com>,
Blue Pulse <blup...@niceboots.com> wrote:
> When any profit is involved, any profit
> whatsoever (even if it ends up going to the subtitler, that's still
money
> that will only benefit them), it becomes a sale and goes against the
whole
> idea of "fansub ethics" (don't laugh, there really are such things).
Yep, fansub ethics are great. And everyone has their own. However,
check your dictionary so at least you can enter into a reasonable
discussion of yours. Profit is defined as "the excess of returns over
expenditure in a transaction or a series of transactions". So, until
the monies going to the fansubber EXCEED the cost of creating/providing
the fansub (and that includes ALL costs), there is no profit involved.
So, you're not worried about some fansubber making a "profit", you just
want fansubbers to pay for all the costs of fansubbing so you can get
free anime. You're referred to as a "fansub parasite".
But the statement I really wanted to respond to was:
> $8.00 a tape. You know, the last people that charged that much for
tapes
> were the old Hecto / Shinsen Gumi gang. Last I heard, the head
subber of
> that group bought himself a new house in upstate New York.
Yes, he did move into a house. No, it's not in upstate New York. And
he's paying for it the same way most of us do: he and his wife have
real jobs in the real world. Perhaps if you spent a little more time
there, you too could get a job and then a home.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
batt...@my-deja.com
100...@sandman.ucdavis.edu>,
terrence huey <ez07...@mailbox.ucdavis.edu> wrote:
> I've met a person who was a part of Hecto/Shinsen Gumi. He was
telling us
> how the people who "owned" Hecto/SS were the ones setting the prices
and
> duping the tapes (and receiving the money). The ones who were subbing
> Rurouni Kenshin got NOTHING out of it. They honestly did it for the
love
> of the anime, for getting the subtitled products to you and to me.
But
> you know what happened? The "owners" were making TONS of money. They
> went and *bought* a house and stopped Shinsen Gumi altogether.
>
> Does this sound ridiculous to you?
Duh! Yes, because it is!
I'm not sure who your source is, but I was part of the Shinsen Gumi for
their brief life. I was editor for Maze TV, the Kenshin Movie, the City
Hunter Movie, Neo B't X, Birdy the Mighty, editor/timer/subber Shin KOR
Movie, and sometime editor for Kenshin LD edition. I also helped setup
the subbing system and software.
There was one key person who created both Hecto and the Shinsen Gumi.
He was the main translator and did most/all of the timing/subbing, tape
copying, and distribution. And so, yes, he did define how requests were
priced as he was the one doing that work. He shutdown Shinsen Gumi
because he was going back to school, changing jobs, and was tired of
spending so much of his "spare" time creating fansubs.
He did not make TONS of money. He and his wife both work and have for
many years. You do that and you can save money and buy a house just
like they did. It's called the "American Dream".
So please check your facts before you post. This kinda crap makes for
great stories, but when real people are involved, tread carefully.
Rob Kelk
>
> In article <Pine.LNX.4.21.0008111238480.27267-
> 100...@siren.vampiricus.com>,
> Blue Pulse <blup...@niceboots.com> wrote:
> > When any profit is involved, any profit
> > whatsoever (even if it ends up going to the subtitler, that's still
> money
> > that will only benefit them), it becomes a sale and goes against the
> whole
> > idea of "fansub ethics" (don't laugh, there really are such things).
>
> Yep, fansub ethics are great. And everyone has their own. However,
> check your dictionary so at least you can enter into a reasonable
> discussion of yours. Profit is defined as "the excess of returns over
> expenditure in a transaction or a series of transactions". So, until
> the monies going to the fansubber EXCEED the cost of creating/providing
> the fansub (and that includes ALL costs), there is no profit involved.
> So, you're not worried about some fansubber making a "profit", you just
> want fansubbers to pay for all the costs of fansubbing so you can get
> free anime. You're referred to as a "fansub parasite".
Which is why the only fair way to distribute fansubs is on the SASE
plan. Remember that? You'd learn about someone who has a fansub you
want, you'd send him a blank tape and a SASE, and he'd send the tape
back to you with the fansub on it. That's how Arctic Animation used to
do things.
As soon as you get into charging money, any amount at all, you're
leaving yourself open to questions of this nature. How can anyone
justify charging $X for a fansub when it costs $Y for a blank tape and
$Z to mail it, and X>Y+Z? Are you allowed to charge for gas to and from
the post office? How about for electricity to run the VCRs? The SASE
folks never did any of that... And if you're charging for depreciation
on your VCRs, then you've moved fully out of "fan activities" and into
the "business model" approach, and a lot of people will call you a
bootlegger even if you're taking a loss.
> But the statement I really wanted to respond to was:
>
> > $8.00 a tape. You know, the last people that charged that much for
> tapes
> > were the old Hecto / Shinsen Gumi gang. Last I heard, the head
> subber of
> > that group bought himself a new house in upstate New York.
>
> Yes, he did move into a house. No, it's not in upstate New York. And
> he's paying for it the same way most of us do: he and his wife have
> real jobs in the real world. Perhaps if you spent a little more time
> there, you too could get a job and then a home.
"Real world"? If money's involved, that's "real world" enough for me...
Can you honestly say *none* of that $8 per tape went to anyone or
anything other than the fansub operation? Have you seen the account
books? (I haven't, so I need to ask for this information.)
--
Rob Kelk http://members.tripod.com/~robkelk/ rob...@ottawa.com
"I'm _not_ a kid! Nyyyeaaah!" - Skuld (in "Oh My Goddess!" OAV #3)
"When I became a man, I put away childish things, including the fear of
childishness and the desire to be very grown-up." - C.S. Lewis, 1947
Chris Byler
wrote:
>In article
><Pine.LNX.4.21.000816...@siren.vampiricus.com>, Blue
>Pulse <blup...@niceboots.com> wrote:
>
>> ISPs may not, but what about from other sources? Back when I was living
>> in Pennsylvania, I remember reading a story about a kid who went to Junior
>> High a few towns away from me. Apparently he didn't like this history
>> teacher he had very much, and so, to make fun of him, he put up a web page
>> -- on his own server, mind you, not one of the school's -- which asked for
>> monetary donations from people viewing the page, so that he "could hire a
>> hitman". This text was placed directly next to a photo of his history
>> teacher. I think it was obviously meant as a joke, but other people could
>> see different things.
>>
>> Anyhow, word of this website gets back to the teacher. The teacher
>> informs his higher-ups, and the kid is expelled from school, under the
>> claim that the student had threatened the teacher.
Isn't this an urban legend? In any case, this is clearly a gross
overreaction. Even the people who did it probably realized it was
unreasonable, but were afraid of being sued if they did nothing and
then the kid actually did hire a hitman (as if he would know where to
find one, even if he actually wanted to).
Theories of liability that allow you to sue people for doing nothing
lead to bizarre, perverse, and generally harmful results. But it's
easier to point fingers at the people who did nothing than it is to
identify the truly responsible and pin it on them.
For example: if in the above scenario, the kid did actually hire a
hitman, the hitman should be prosecuted for attempted (or actual)
murder, the kid should be prosecuted for hiring the hitman - and
that's it. Suing the school board accomplishes nothing except to
spread hysterical fear and contribute to overreactions like this one.
Save responsibility for the people who are actually responsible.
Unfortunately this theory will probably never catch on because the kid
doesn't have any money, therefore is not worth suing.
>As I've already made quite clear, I support free speech, and don't
>think ISPs should be held accountable for the actions of others, but...
>
>This little "joke" is going to far. Even if the kid wasn't serious
>about hiring a hitman, there are a lot of nuts out there today who
>might decide to kill the teacher anyway.
>
>Torajima
So now you're blaming the kid for the _potential_ (not even actual!)
actions of the nuts?
Why?
I agree the kid's actions were in questionable taste - but then, so is
South Park. I don't think it should be banned as a result.
(For the record: the guy who yells "Fire!" in a crowded theater
doesn't, strictly speaking, do any damage. It's the stampeding idiots
that do the damage. And hearing one guy yell "Fire!" is _not_
sufficient reason to stampede, trample on people, etc. - you have no
reason to believe him.)
--
Chris Byler cby...@vt.edu
"I'm not a speed reader. I'm a speed understander."
-- Isaac Asimov
Chris Byler
>Ken Arromdee wrote:
>>
>> In article <94C1D47943565C2D.1AB12ECC...@lp.airnews.net>,
>> Avatar <ak...@pdq.net> wrote:
>> >> It's a pretty huge precondition to say "an ISP can be legitimately sued for
>> >> demanding a court order before providing information."
I think this was a misinterpretation. It looked to me like what he
was actually saying is "for purposes of this discussion, we're
assuming that this is a real pirate and suing the pirate is
legitimate", not "suing the ISP is legitimate". Two different
lawsuits.
>> >If the complaint is legitimate, then the
>> >ISP is in the wrong for keeping the site up and has to release that
>> >information on request. If the ISP refuses, the company has to take the
>> >case to the court. Once it's there, it's likely to hang around,
>> >naturally, especially if the ISP continues to be unfriendly.
>>
>> Saying "we need a court order before we release information" does not mean
>> "we're not going to follow through on our obligation unless you force us to".
>> It means "without a court order, we don't have an obligation in the first
>> place".
>
>This is, however, incorrect. The law does not maintain that an ISP must
>be served with a court order before it is obligated to take action in
>order to avoid liability. It has to act ON ITS OWN to avoid liability,
>and by the time it gets to the courts, the ISP has basically made its
>decision.
I think Ken's point was that the court order would act as verification
to the ISP that the complaint was indeed legitimate - without putting
the burden of examining each and every complaint for legitimacy on the
ISP. Let the complainer prove to a judge that the complaint is
legitimate and then have the court order as a credential. _Then_ the
ISP has a clear obligation to release the info, and does so.
ISPs are not competent to determine the legitimacy of piracy
complaints, nor should they be required to do so. Once a neutral,
competent authority has verified that the complaint is legitimate,
then (and only then) should the ISP be required to act.
>If the site is legitimate, and the ISP is protecting itself and its
>users from unwarranted complaints, then everything is hunky-dory - no
>foul, no damage. If the site is not legitimate, however, and the ISP has
>taken the position that it is, then it -is- liable for the period
>between the notification and the decision (and possibly retroactive to
>the beginning of the infraction, but I dunno if it goes that far).
>Like a lot of legal issues, everything hinges on a single point of law -
>in this case, whether the complaint is warranted or not. If it's not
>warranted, then nothing the ISP does can get it into any trouble with
>the complainant. If it -is- warranted, then everything the ISP does to
>hinder the complainant gets it into further trouble.
The point is, the ISP doesn't initially _know_ if the complaint is
warranted or not, and should not be burdened with having to
investigate all complaints to see which ones are warranted. That's
why the court order to serve as verification of the validity of the
complaint - so the issue is clear-cut for the ISP, having already been
decided by a (presumably) competent and disinterested authority.
Avatar
batt...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> In article <Pine.LNX.4.21.0008111238480.27267-
> 100...@siren.vampiricus.com>,
> Blue Pulse <blup...@niceboots.com> wrote:
> > When any profit is involved, any profit
> > whatsoever (even if it ends up going to the subtitler, that's still
> money
> > that will only benefit them), it becomes a sale and goes against the
> whole
> > idea of "fansub ethics" (don't laugh, there really are such things).
>
> Yep, fansub ethics are great. And everyone has their own. However,
> check your dictionary so at least you can enter into a reasonable
> discussion of yours. Profit is defined as "the excess of returns over
> expenditure in a transaction or a series of transactions". So, until
> the monies going to the fansubber EXCEED the cost of creating/providing
> the fansub (and that includes ALL costs), there is no profit involved.
> So, you're not worried about some fansubber making a "profit", you just
> want fansubbers to pay for all the costs of fansubbing so you can get
> free anime. You're referred to as a "fansub parasite".
Er... first time that I've seen that term used, and I think I can speak
with some authority. ;p
The key of the argument is "how narrowly can you define 'cost of
creating fansubs'"? The traditional answer is (cost of raw materials) +
(cost of postage). I've seen people try to justify adding everything
from (cost of VCR) to (cost of LDs) to (cost of obtaining a translation)
to (cost of gas to the post office) and even (cost of computer and
genlock), but generally all of these things are of use to the subber in
ways other than the production of fansubs.
As far as I'm concerned, if you want justification to make back
everything you've ever spent and a bit for your time, find some VC, buy
the license, and sell it for as much as your market will bear. It can
(and has) been done...
Avatar
Avatar
SlayerNext wrote:
>
> One more thing, a bit off topic. Never admit to owning fansubs in a
> newsgroup, ever. As this is a public forum you have no legal expication to
> privicy. If any FBI agent ever came arcoss a message stating you owned a
> fansub, you could be arrested and prosectued at any time for possession of
> stolen property. Granted, I have a better chance of being elected president
> this fall then you do of being arrested for this, but there is such a thing as
> a bad cop.
Not actually true, you know. Intellectual property violations are -not-
equal to theft under the eyes of the law, any moral argument aside, and
they are treated radically differently. You can't be arrested for IP
violations, nor will you go to jail unless and until you are found
guilty (and, even then, only in lieu of paying a fine you can't
afford... though those are some high fines, y'know.) About all the
police officer could do is seize the fansub, and only then if he had a
request to do so from the appropriate party.
Avatar
Avatar
Chris Byler wrote:
>
> On Thu, 17 Aug 2000 20:16:49 -0500, Avatar <ak...@pdq.net> wrote:
>
> >Ken Arromdee wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <94C1D47943565C2D.1AB12ECC...@lp.airnews.net>,
> >> Avatar <ak...@pdq.net> wrote:
> >> >> It's a pretty huge precondition to say "an ISP can be legitimately sued for
> >> >> demanding a court order before providing information."
>
> I think this was a misinterpretation. It looked to me like what he
> was actually saying is "for purposes of this discussion, we're
> assuming that this is a real pirate and suing the pirate is
> legitimate", not "suing the ISP is legitimate". Two different
> lawsuits.
>
> >> >If the complaint is legitimate, then the
> >> >ISP is in the wrong for keeping the site up and has to release that
> >> >information on request. If the ISP refuses, the company has to take the
> >> >case to the court. Once it's there, it's likely to hang around,
> >> >naturally, especially if the ISP continues to be unfriendly.
> >>
> >> Saying "we need a court order before we release information" does not mean
> >> "we're not going to follow through on our obligation unless you force us to".
> >> It means "without a court order, we don't have an obligation in the first
> >> place".
> >
> >This is, however, incorrect. The law does not maintain that an ISP must
> >be served with a court order before it is obligated to take action in
> >order to avoid liability. It has to act ON ITS OWN to avoid liability,
> >and by the time it gets to the courts, the ISP has basically made its
> >decision.
>
> I think Ken's point was that the court order would act as verification
> to the ISP that the complaint was indeed legitimate - without putting
> the burden of examining each and every complaint for legitimacy on the
> ISP. Let the complainer prove to a judge that the complaint is
> legitimate and then have the court order as a credential. _Then_ the
> ISP has a clear obligation to release the info, and does so.
>
> ISPs are not competent to determine the legitimacy of piracy
> complaints, nor should they be required to do so. Once a neutral,
> competent authority has verified that the complaint is legitimate,
> then (and only then) should the ISP be required to act.
<shrug> The law that shields ISPs from general liability has a fairly
detailed appeals process -built into- the body of the law. Essentially,
without reposting the whole 17 USC 1203 here, the ISP is generally
encouraged to assume complaints are legitimate, but not to do anything
irreversible until after the target of the complaint has a chance to
respond in kind. Complaints are to be directed to the ISP and not to the
courts; appeals are to be directed to the ISP and not to the courts.
Only when one party has exhausted the ISP's administrative process will
the courts even CONSIDER hearing a case - one of the basic legal
principles underneath which our courts operate is that no case shall be
tried until administrative options have been fully used and exhausted.
Now, if the lawmakers were intending to set up a system where the
determination of a legitimate complaint is intended to be made in court,
this is the WORST possible way to go around it. One must conclude, then,
that the intent of this system is to provide a fairly timely
non-judicial administrative solution, with the court there only in case
the ISP makes a clear error in judgement one way or the other. Saves
time and money, dontcha know, especially as a court case could drag on
for months or even years (with the infringing party merrily continuing
to infringe all the while.)
> >If the site is legitimate, and the ISP is protecting itself and its
> >users from unwarranted complaints, then everything is hunky-dory - no
> >foul, no damage. If the site is not legitimate, however, and the ISP has
> >taken the position that it is, then it -is- liable for the period
> >between the notification and the decision (and possibly retroactive to
> >the beginning of the infraction, but I dunno if it goes that far).
>
> >Like a lot of legal issues, everything hinges on a single point of law -
> >in this case, whether the complaint is warranted or not. If it's not
> >warranted, then nothing the ISP does can get it into any trouble with
> >the complainant. If it -is- warranted, then everything the ISP does to
> >hinder the complainant gets it into further trouble.
>
> The point is, the ISP doesn't initially _know_ if the complaint is
> warranted or not, and should not be burdened with having to
> investigate all complaints to see which ones are warranted. That's
> why the court order to serve as verification of the validity of the
> complaint - so the issue is clear-cut for the ISP, having already been
> decided by a (presumably) competent and disinterested authority.
You perhaps misunderstand the nature of a "complaint" in this sentence.
ISPs (and most other parties) are EXTREMELY biased against acting on
complaints issued by third parties. In this case, "complaints"
presumably come from parties that are competent to lodge them in court,
and the body of the complaint should contain the documentary evidence
thereof. (For example, if I'm shutting down a bootlegger, one would
include in the complaint to the ISP a copy of the license agreement to
the bootlegged material affected.)
Technically, a bootlegger could simply remove all of the items named in
the complaint and continue along his way. However, in many cases, the
ISP will look and say, "Hey, you know, the rest of this stuff is a TOS
violation too" and close down the site on their own authority, which
they are perfectly justified in so doing.
Fact is, the ISPs -are- obligated to make an honest attempt to make the
proper call themselves (and, to be honest, the courts will take evidence
of such an honest attempt into account when assigning liability,
probably eliminating any actual liability from the ISP). It's a cost of
that business, and none of the other alternatives are good.
Avatar
Travis Butler
"Danger X" <gal...@efni.com> wrote:
>Cybersox13 <cyber...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:20000816002246...@ng-ce1.aol.com...
>> "Danger X" gal...@efni.com wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >That's the whole point right there. We don't expect road-builders to be
>> >knowledgeable of the activities of everyone using the road. Nor do we
>expect
>> >the phone company to monitor every phone call made by 'potential'
>villians.
>> >Nor should we expect (nor want) ISPs to monitor traffic on 'their'
>routes.
>> >
>> Um... the builders of roads DO have an obligation to maintain them and
>keep
>> them clear of crime....
>
>They don't do that by stopping people from using them, nor by monitoring you
>wherever you drive on any given day.
Um... what do you call traffic cops and speed traps? o.o
>> it's just that in most cases the builders of roads
>> happen to be government agencies. Thus are born such organizations as the
>> California Highway Patrol, the New York Transit Authority, etc., etc.,
>dating
>> back past the Roman Centurion. Likewise the Postal Service is expected to
>> maintain a staff of Postal Inspectors to guard against mail fraud,
>
>Upon receipt of a complaint-yes. Not by being arbitrarily being suspicious
>beforehand.
And that is precisely the situation many people here have specified -- the
ISP is responsible for doing something upon notification of a problem.
In article <8nd6li$msa$1...@rei.nerv.gweep.net>,
gry...@rei.nerv.gweep.net (Benjamin D. Hutchins) wrote:
>In article <20000816002246...@ng-ce1.aol.com>,
>Cybersox13 <cyber...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>
>>Um... the builders of roads DO have an obligation to maintain them and keep
>>them clear of crime....
>
>Er, no they haven't. When was the last time you got a speeding ticket
>from an agent of your state highway commission?
Sheesh. That's like the difference (at a large enough ISP, granted) between
the hardware installation team and the sysadmin. Would you seriously try to
suggest that they weren't part of the same organization?
Travis Butler
Blue Pulse <blup...@niceboots.com> wrote:
>ISPs may not, but what about from other sources? Back when I was living
>in Pennsylvania, I remember reading a story about a kid who went to Junior
>High a few towns away from me. Apparently he didn't like this history
>teacher he had very much, and so, to make fun of him, he put up a web page
>-- on his own server, mind you, not one of the school's -- which asked for
>monetary donations from people viewing the page, so that he "could hire a
>hitman". This text was placed directly next to a photo of his history
>teacher. I think it was obviously meant as a joke, but other people could
>see different things.
Uh-huh. Great joke. Ever tried joking about a bomb in your luggage at an
airport?
Some things are just too sensitive to joke about, *particularly* given the
old chestnut about how hard it can be to tell when someone's joking on the
'net -- and anyone who tries is an idiot and deserves whatever he gets.
Hiring someone to throw a cream pie at the guy, sure, no problem. But a
hitman? Uh-uh.
Blue Pulse
> > When any profit is involved, any profit
> > whatsoever (even if it ends up going to the subtitler, that's still
> money
> > that will only benefit them), it becomes a sale and goes against the
> whole
> > idea of "fansub ethics" (don't laugh, there really are such things).
>
> Yep, fansub ethics are great. And everyone has their own.
Obviously. I just quote from the most general of them, which is "not for
sale or rent". And I feel that it's not much of a stretch to say that
from NFSOR follows that any transaction where profit is made from a fansub
counts as a sale or a rental.
> However, check your dictionary so at least you can enter into a
> reasonable discussion of yours. Profit is defined as "the excess of
> returns over expenditure in a transaction or a series of transactions".
> So, until the monies going to the fansubber EXCEED the cost of
> creating/providing the fansub (and that includes ALL costs), there is no
> profit involved.
Well, as long as we're playing the "look it up, it's in the
dictionary" game, allow me to refer you to www.dictionary.com, where your
definition is located. It also lists:
1) an advantageous gain or return; benefit
as well as
4) The amount received for a commodity or service in excess of the
original cost.
Both of those go along with what I've originally been saying.
> So, you're not worried about some fansubber making a "profit", you just
> want fansubbers to pay for all the costs of fansubbing so you can get
> free anime. You're referred to as a "fansub parasite".
Yes, I do want fansubbers to pay for all the costs of fansubbing. I won't
lie -- I'd love to see that. It'd be the honorable thing to do. I wish I
could do it myself at times, but I haven't in the past. I'm going to be
trying to again when I restart my own personal fansubbing outfit. But as
far as for your "just so you can get free anime" and "parasite" comments?
Trust me, if that was all I wanted, I wouldn't even be discussing this in
this public forum. But considering I shell out a large amount of money
for my anime addiction, in both domestic releases and imported LDs and
DVDs each month, that statement's pretty laughable. (Not to mention I
haven't had more than three new fansubs in the past six months that I
haven't subtitled using my own setup...)
No, I'd just rather see people doing things purely out of the love for the
series, instead of trying to find ways to squeeze a few bucks out of every
last sucker. We've got enough commercial companies here in the States to
do that for us -- we don't need any more.
> But the statement I really wanted to respond to was:
>
> Yes, he did move into a house. No, it's not in upstate New York. And
> he's paying for it the same way most of us do: he and his wife have
> real jobs in the real world. Perhaps if you spent a little more time
> there, you too could get a job and then a home.
Right, I forgot that he'd pay for it using money from a real job. I mean
-- if he bought it using all the money he made from fansubbing, the IRS
would start to get a little suspicious, huh?
Oh, and I do have a job already, thanks. Doubt I'll get a house, it's not
for me... but thanks for your concern! ;)
Take care,
- Blue Pulse.
NP: Geri Halliwell, "Bag It Up (Yomanda Remix)"
... who's wearing the trousers now?
Danger X
Travis Butler <tbu...@tfs.net> wrote in message
news:B5C4B2A7...@0.0.0.0...
> >news:20000816002246...@ng-ce1.aol.com...
> >> "Danger X" gal...@efni.com wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >That's the whole point right there. We don't expect road-builders to
be
> >> >knowledgeable of the activities of everyone using the road. Nor do we
> >expect
> >> >the phone company to monitor every phone call made by 'potential'
> >villians.
> >> >Nor should we expect (nor want) ISPs to monitor traffic on 'their'
> >routes.
> >> >
> >> Um... the builders of roads DO have an obligation to maintain them and
> >keep
> >> them clear of crime....
> >
> >They don't do that by stopping people from using them, nor by monitoring
you
> >wherever you drive on any given day.
>
Traffic cops...
NOT road-workers, which was what was stated...
Laters,
Kyle
Danger X
> In article
<Pine.LNX.4.21.000816...@siren.vampiricus.com>,
> Blue Pulse <blup...@niceboots.com> wrote:
>
> >ISPs may not, but what about from other sources? Back when I was living
> >in Pennsylvania, I remember reading a story about a kid who went to
Junior
> >High a few towns away from me. Apparently he didn't like this history
> >teacher he had very much, and so, to make fun of him, he put up a web
page
> >-- on his own server, mind you, not one of the school's -- which asked
for
> >monetary donations from people viewing the page, so that he "could hire a
> >hitman". This text was placed directly next to a photo of his history
> >teacher. I think it was obviously meant as a joke, but other people
could
> >see different things.
>
> Uh-huh. Great joke. Ever tried joking about a bomb in your luggage at an
> airport?
How about at your home?
How about in your car parked at the airport?
How about if you're one-inch off airport property?
How about if you're on airport property and you're 5years old?
How about if you're 6?
How about if you're 18, and emotionally stunted at the level of a 5year old?
Perceived threat is no reason to limit free-speach. There's a whole world of
'grey' out there, and using the extreme example of an airport doesn't etch
in the line any better.
> Some things are just too sensitive to joke about,
In airports, or North Korea about their president for example.
> *particularly* given the
> old chestnut about how hard it can be to tell when someone's joking on the
> 'net -- and anyone who tries is an idiot and deserves whatever he gets.
If all he gets is other people calling him an 'idiot' (i.e. other people
excersing their free-speech), then yeah, he got what he deserves. If he gets
hauled off to jail for wondering aloud "Gee, I wish **** was dead", then
no, others have either over-reacted, or prematurely reacted. You catch the
kid handing over the cash to the hitman, not for merely over-fantasizing.
> Hiring someone to throw a cream pie at the guy, sure, no problem. But a
> hitman? Uh-uh.
Considering, our PM in Canada got 'pied' a couple of days ago, you gotta
take those cream-pie threats seriously... OTOH, years ago, a panhandler in
Toronto, was jokingly asking people to contribute to the "Brian Mulroney
Assassination" fund. Nobody took him seriously... and then? Nothing
happened...
Laters,
Kyle
Jorge R. Frank
>
> Travis Butler <tbu...@tfs.net> wrote in message
> news:B5C4B2A7...@0.0.0.0...
> > In article <Gdpm5.66153$UO.1...@news22.bellglobal.com>,
> > "Danger X" <gal...@efni.com> wrote:
> >
> > >Cybersox13 <cyber...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > >news:20000816002246...@ng-ce1.aol.com...
> > >>
> > >keep
> > >> them clear of crime....
> > >
> > >They don't do that by stopping people from using them, nor by monitoring
> you
> > >wherever you drive on any given day.
> >
> > Um... what do you call traffic cops and speed traps? o.o
>
> Traffic cops...
>
> NOT road-workers, which was what was stated...
No, what was stated was "the builders of roads". Roads are built by the
state. The road workers and traffic cops are employees of the state.
--
JRF
Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" and think one step ahead of IBM.
Danger X
Jorge R. Frank <jrf...@ibm-pc.org> wrote in message
news:399F6BF3...@ibm-pc.org...
> Danger X wrote:
> >
> > Travis Butler <tbu...@tfs.net> wrote in message
> > news:B5C4B2A7...@0.0.0.0...
> > > In article <Gdpm5.66153$UO.1...@news22.bellglobal.com>,
> > > "Danger X" <gal...@efni.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >Cybersox13 <cyber...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > > >news:20000816002246...@ng-ce1.aol.com...
> > > >>
> > > >> Um... the builders of roads DO have an obligation to maintain them
and
> > > >keep
> > > >> them clear of crime....
> > > >
> > > >They don't do that by stopping people from using them, nor by
monitoring
> > you
> > > >wherever you drive on any given day.
> > >
> > > Um... what do you call traffic cops and speed traps? o.o
> >
> > Traffic cops...
> >
> > NOT road-workers, which was what was stated...
>
> No, what was stated was "the builders of roads". Roads are built by the
> state. The road workers and traffic cops are employees of the state.
Uhm no, what was stated was the road-workers (i.e. builders - construction
companys). NOT the guys who ordered the construction.
Laters,
Kyle
Avatar
Danger X wrote:
>
> Jorge R. Frank <jrf...@ibm-pc.org> wrote in message
> news:399F6BF3...@ibm-pc.org...
> > Danger X wrote:
> > >
> > > Travis Butler <tbu...@tfs.net> wrote in message
> > > news:B5C4B2A7...@0.0.0.0...
> > > > In article <Gdpm5.66153$UO.1...@news22.bellglobal.com>,
> > > > "Danger X" <gal...@efni.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >Cybersox13 <cyber...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > > > >news:20000816002246...@ng-ce1.aol.com...
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Um... the builders of roads DO have an obligation to maintain them
> and
> > > > >keep
> > > > >> them clear of crime....
> > > > >
> > > > >They don't do that by stopping people from using them, nor by
> monitoring
> > > you
> > > > >wherever you drive on any given day.
> > > >
> > > > Um... what do you call traffic cops and speed traps? o.o
> > >
> > > Traffic cops...
> > >
> > > NOT road-workers, which was what was stated...
> >
> > No, what was stated was "the builders of roads". Roads are built by the
> > state. The road workers and traffic cops are employees of the state.
>
> Uhm no, what was stated was the road-workers (i.e. builders - construction
> companys). NOT the guys who ordered the construction.
Criminy, folks, it's a bad analogy, give up on it already.
Avatar
Louis Patterson
>
>
> SlayerNext wrote:
> >
> > One more thing, a bit off topic. Never admit to owning fansubs in a
> > newsgroup, ever. As this is a public forum you have no legal expication to
> > privicy. If any FBI agent ever came arcoss a message stating you owned a
> > fansub, you could be arrested and prosectued at any time for possession of
> > stolen property. Granted, I have a better chance of being elected president
> > this fall then you do of being arrested for this, but there is such a thing as
> > a bad cop.
>
> Not actually true, you know. Intellectual property violations are -not-
> equal to theft under the eyes of the law, any moral argument aside, and
> they are treated radically differently. You can't be arrested for IP
> violations, nor will you go to jail unless and until you are found
> guilty (and, even then, only in lieu of paying a fine you can't
> afford... though those are some high fines, y'know.) About all the
> police officer could do is seize the fansub, and only then if he had a
> request to do so from the appropriate party.
Besides, fansubs are flat-out legal in a number of circumstances, and not
just when you own the original; if you're a bona fide student of anime
[not necc enroled in film-study courses, incidently], for example.
Avatar
Louis Patterson wrote:
>
> On Sat, 19 Aug 2000, Avatar wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > SlayerNext wrote:
> > >
> > > One more thing, a bit off topic. Never admit to owning fansubs in a
> > > newsgroup, ever. As this is a public forum you have no legal expication to
> > > privicy. If any FBI agent ever came arcoss a message stating you owned a
> > > fansub, you could be arrested and prosectued at any time for possession of
> > > stolen property. Granted, I have a better chance of being elected president
> > > this fall then you do of being arrested for this, but there is such a thing as
> > > a bad cop.
> >
> > Not actually true, you know. Intellectual property violations are -not-
> > equal to theft under the eyes of the law, any moral argument aside, and
> > they are treated radically differently. You can't be arrested for IP
> > violations, nor will you go to jail unless and until you are found
> > guilty (and, even then, only in lieu of paying a fine you can't
> > afford... though those are some high fines, y'know.) About all the
> > police officer could do is seize the fansub, and only then if he had a
> > request to do so from the appropriate party.
>
> Besides, fansubs are flat-out legal in a number of circumstances, and not
> just when you own the original; if you're a bona fide student of anime
> [not necc enroled in film-study courses, incidently], for example.
You can construct a scenario where this is possible, yes, but it's
highly unlikely that anybody here actually falls into that. The judge
gets to define fair use as narrowly or as broadly as he wants, and if he
thinks that you're defining your hobby as "study", then you're likely
screwed. ;p
Hell, even if you're a student in a course specifically studying
animation, you still might not get off. Many judges have held instances
where books copied for classes were not protected under fair use, from
time to time.
Avatar
Louis Patterson
> You can construct a scenario where this is possible, yes, but it's
> highly unlikely that anybody here actually falls into that. The judge
> gets to define fair use as narrowly or as broadly as he wants, and if he
> thinks that you're defining your hobby as "study", then you're likely
> screwed. ;p
It's not an impossible threashold, but if you're in that situation, you'd
*KNOW* it; simply watching anime is so vastly inadequete to pass that
words fail me.
> Hell, even if you're a student in a course specifically studying
> animation, you still might not get off. Many judges have held instances
> where books copied for classes were not protected under fair use, from
> time to time.
Well, there's those pesky requirements for impact on market value to be
taken into account, and a lot of books are only read by masochistic lit.
majors...