Slashdot Mirror
Testing ISP Censorship
ryants writes "As part of a research project, Christian Ahlert ran an interesting experiment. He posted John Stuart Mill's On Liberty, which is clearly in the public domain, on different ISPs. He then sent the ISPs phony copyright violation notices. The results are troubling, with ISPs "acting as judge, jury and private investigator at the same time.""
While the fact that a UK ISP folded immediately, without further investigation, is somewhat troubling (mostly for customers of that provider), the size of the sample does not justify any sort of conclusion. I'd be really interested to know which ISPs have NTD policies, and which do not. The US ISP responded in precisely the manner that I would want my hosting service to employ. Exactly how widespread is the problem?
Of course, if we want this kind of behavior on the part to ISPs to stop, then they have to have some kind of legal shield from copyright damages while they investigate claims of copyright infringement. Normally, I would say that a reasonable approach would serve everyone well, but the legal system seems anything but reasonable these days, particularly in regard to intellectual property. So it would seem (if there is not such a shield already available) that there ought to be some kind of law or ruling that explicitly specifies the duty and liability of ISPs in the event that a copyright violation is alleged. Meaning, of course, that I draw pretty much the same conclusion as Ahlert does. I would prefer that he had documented the problem a little more thoroughly, however.
I remember your eyes, on the twelfth of July...
I am waiting for the day when people start sending(read: abusing) these kind of take down notices in order to shut down a site they don't like, or even worse, competition. Granted, he tested only 2 Internet Providers, but this could become a new form of DoS if providers just started shutting down sites without doing some research. The provider should follow up as the US provider did, give the site owner a chance to defend his/her work.
"The US ISP followed up on the dubious complaint, made on behalf of the chairman of the non-existent John Stuart Mill Heritage Foundation, with detailed questions. But the UK ISP took the site down almost immediately, effectively censoring legal content without investigation."
...It actually mentions a lot about doing just that and how easy it would be. Oh wait.. this is /. ... sorry.
Hmmm.
Considering you're using the ISP's resources, is it really censorship? Nobody's stopping you from copying that text and handing it out to people using your own money and resources; but when you're technically using THEIR bandwidth, don't they have the right to say what you can and can't do with it?
Let's see... So, he posted it to two, yes that's right--only two, ISPs. One of them took it down without looking into it, and the other actually researched it. So what's his answer to this "problem"? Government regulation, of course! Hmm... Does anyone else see a problem with both his experiment and his conclusion?
You probably shouldn't click this.
I totally agree, with your first point, and these scare tactics are done because of over zealous lawyers, that will milk you for everything you have. It is much easier to take the information down and deal with one person than a team of lawyers.
/. had a better bogus story/content filter (notice I didn't say censor, because /. is not part of the government, so they are unable to censor anything :) ).
I also on a side note the writter of this story doesn't really under stand the meaning of censorship. Only a government can censor a person, a private company does not have this ability. Even though they allow their servers to be used with public access doesn't mean the servers are public domain. The servers belong to the company, and the company can do what ever they want with them, including deleting files at will. Granted companies don't do this because it is bad PR, but it is totally with in their rights.
So when he wrote, "For symbolic reasons, the material uploaded was chapter two of On Liberty, in which Mill discussed the freedom of the press and the dangers of censorship." I just about lost it because it shows how little this guy actually knows about the issues he is addressing. Also as a side note you cannot censor published content, you can restrict it, but the litteral word of censor is not possible to do on published content. So the government can never censor published content.
I summary, this writer is a moron, and just lobbing un founded accusations out there and hope one hits the wall and sticks. I think both the US and UK ISP did the right thing and it was probably with in their corporate policies.
I really wish
As the aleged copyright infringement was textual, the US ISP investigated. But put a piece of music or some open source software on a website and try your experiment again, this time citing the DMCA. I'll wager 10 out of 10 fold before you have time to check your email again.
That might also be a good way to demonstrate how fraglantly wrong the law is. I wonder how many sites I could get taken off, for no reason whatsoever, inside of a week.
Of course, I couldn't withstand the legal implications of that sort of abuse, so it won't happen, but it might display how serious the problem is.
Also, I hate to give ideas to Satan, but SCO should try sending these to tons of Linux websites. It'd be a step up from the logic of most their other plans.
This whole article is effectively a Barbara Walters style rant and rave about how wrong something is but offers very little in the way of a solution or even a call to action for fair laws.
Can you really blame an ISP for quickly acting to minimize its legal exposure? How much would it cost to get sued (even falsely) for allowing a copyright infringement to continue? Last time I checked, lawyers were damn expensive. If the (allegedly) infringing website operator wants to fight it, let him. It's his web site, not the ISP's. Really, the ISP should be the last course of action for someone to remove copyrighted content. If the owner of the site is unresponsive, then the owner should show a court order or some other similarly authorized documentation claiming copyright infringement.
I'm sure there are a million holes in any idea posted here though, and they will be thoroughly discussed later. We're going to need rational laws eventually, it's just a question of whose side they're on.
The real problem is that ISPs don't want to be bothered. They don't want to get sued and have to pay a bunch of money to lawyers because of the actions of a couple of customers. So, when they receive a copyright infringement claim, there is very little chance they will actually investigate it, and even less chance they will fight the demand that the material be taken down. Instead, they will almost always automatically take down the "offending" material, no questions asked.
People seem to think that "experiments" like this are a cheap way to come to conclusions. But its only because they are stealing from the companies that they are experimenting on. I see no indication that the author paid for the time that he cost those companies. There was no indication that the letter he received from the US ISP was a generic one. A thought out letter, especially if a legal consult was made, can be very expensive. Even an hour of a senior employee's time would be significantly more than one would pay for a hosting service. This is not a no-harm no-foul situation.
Before encouraging the individual to actually perform a wider "study" and rip off more companies by criticizing the size of their "study", encourage them to be considerate and responsible and not only offer all involved ISPs payment for the unnecessary work he caused, but also state that the companies were at least offered reimbursement to encourage good citizenship of others that might attempt the same type of "low cost" study.
Exactly how widespread is the problem?
I doubt its very widespread, nor is it a "problem". ISPs are a dime a dozen. You can find them to pump your spam, serve your porn, email, whatever. If you don't agree to the terms of use for any reason, simply go to another one.
The slashdot crowd is so wierd about copyright infringements. If I owned an ISP and someone reported that there was a problem with copyrighted material on my equipment, I would take the stuff down too. How much time should I spend seeing if the stuff is a problem. I guestimate 0. If the material is that important and really is OK to redistribute, then a counter from the original person suplying the material will prove to me that its OK to put back up, and I would do it. However, aside from this sample size of 2 "research" experiment, I would guestimate that close to 0.0% of all complaints to and ISP about copyright violations are not copyright violations. I would imagine that most every ISP has a zero tolerance policy (aside from the sleezy ones that will host anything for a price) regarding copyrights, and don't care to spend any time figuring it out.
if their TOS says they have the right to remove content or cancel accounts solely at their discretion.. we shouldnt make laws to stop that. they pay the money for the bandwidth, and then offer their services.. if you dont like their policy, look for another provider (or become one yourself).. don't legistlate them into compliance with your beliefs. (*THIS IS ALL JUST MY STUPID OPINION.. MAY BE RIGHT, MAY BE WRONG)
I'd be careful about calling people idiots if I were you. This is the age where corporate contracts (where you violate a EULA or somesuch) are gaining parity with laws. Might as well call a violation of a EULA a corporate crime or a corporate offense. And who really runs the government? Do you really believe members of Congress or the President get elected just by the goodwill of the people? No, its the funding from companies. In the future censoring by companies will be as bad as censoring by the government.
But why private governance should be less intrusive than government regulation is something I have never quite understood. State censorship, while clearly problematic, is at least open to questioning and accountability. Notice and takedown is censorship without debate.
There are three differences:
1) Choice. Although you can question and debate state censorship, you have no options beyond that questioning and debate. If your government doesn't want you reading Mill's "On Liberty", your only real options are to defect or revolt. But for a private ISP, newspaper, radio station, etc, you have a choice. You have more than one ISP. You have more than one newspaper.
2) Guns. State censorship is backed up by guns, police, armies and navies. If they don't want you to publish a political screed, you're going to be in a world of hurt of you do. Private ISPs can't do anything but cancel your account. The MOST they can do is tell the state that you publishing a political screed, in which case this is an instance of state censorship anyway.
3) Ownership. Who owns the speech that should be free? In the case of state censorship, the state restricts your property of free speech. It has to leave its domain and intrude upon yours. But the situation is the opposite with private ISPs. The website is hosted on the ISPs property. It's their harddrive. They aren't intruding upon your property, but looking after their own. They never have to leave their private domain in order to restrict how their property is being used.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
I have two issues with this article.
First, the sample size is pathetic. Let's sample two ISPs, one in the UK and one in the US, and then draw overly broad conclusions based on those two results. Sounds good to me! (Or perhaps it sounds like a quick, insufficient study trying to support a premise rather than gathering evidence for one.)
Second, the article pays lip service to the issue as seen from the ISPs' point of view. (Granted I'm speaking entirely from the US side of things as I am unfamiliar with UK law in this regard.) ISPs have to deal with the DMCA. Okay, the author mentions this in passing. The author also, again in passing, mentions that ISPs carry liability for the information they host. Put the two together and what do you get? Take down first, look at it later.
However, the point is not that internet self-regulation is a bad form of regulation in itself. Instead, it is that the power an ISP has over content on the internet necessitates a clarification of the legal and governance framework. There ought to be rules about process. In other areas of governance it matters who governs and under what terms - this is also the case in borderless cyberspace.
There are rules and there is a process. It just happens that the author doesn't want to confront them dead-on. "ISPs have too much power, watch what happens when I threaten one!" just isn't a valid tactic in today's litigious society. That's akin to saying "Look at this! If I file a phoney report with the Police about my neighbor being a homicidal murderer, sometimes they come arrest him when they catch him holding a knife!" Flakey at best.
- Take it down. If it really is copywritten material, then you won't hear from the user. If not, then the user will contact you and offer facts and their personal attribution that it's legal. (Think due dillgence.) Cost to ISP: $0.
- Leave it up. If it's copywritten, you'll probably be spending thousands of dollars on lawyers in the near future. Cost to ISP: $Lots.
Considering that the cost of any legal action would probably scale with a company's size (bigger company == claim for more damages), even a "major ISP" is would have strong motivation to take the first option.mod parent -1 hairsplitting...
So if you had, say, your masters' thesis, on that UK ISP and I wanted to cause you some trouble, I could sent them a bogus C&D letter and they'd yank your thesis offline without contacting you, or attempting to verify the legitimacy of my C&D letter, and you'd think that's a good thing for them to do?
Please THINK.
In a way, I have to disagree with what the ISP's did in removing/blocking the content. I realize that the ISP's own the network as you've pointed out, but what would stop someone from makng claims about numerous sites over copyrighted material and having those sites shut down. The author doesn't do a very good job explaining the exact setup of the site or the details of the actions by the ISP, so I can't say with certainty that they acted improperly. If the ISP's just pulled the connection based on a bogus claim, imagine the havoc someone could play on web sites.
Picture the ISP for a local politicians website getting a notice that www.somepolitician.org was displaying copyrighted work. Picture that claim coming from www.running-against.org. Without some level of validation, claims could affect legitimate sites.
One would hope that ISP's would require some level of proof indicating the copyright infringement followed by a contacting the website operator to inquire if they can show rights to the use the content. I don't know if this would put too much burden on the ISP though. Maybe not the ideal solution, but seems better than just pulling the connection.
Let me try to explain this to you. It is impossible for companies to censor anything. Period. And you want to know something the company as an entity can only donate the max of $2000 in the US. Now that is not to say there are kooke frindge organizations like MoveOn.org that raise money and then put ads out on the networks.
/.
To answer you questions:
And who really runs the government?
Elected officials. They may cator to donors.
Do you really believe members of Congress or the President get elected just by the goodwill of the people?
In the end that is what it comes down to, because when you enter the booth, it is just you and a lever. So to use an over used quote to demonstrate, "A Person is smart, the people are stupid". Also many polls show that 50% of the people don't really decide who they are going to vote for until they get into the polling both. So I still beleive in democracy, but maybe that is just because I am conservative and beleive the peolpe still have the power.
No it's funding from companies.
I know you are going to hate me using this as an example. George Bush raised 150 million+ for the campaign this year, you want to know the average donation? It's around 200 dollars. So I really doubt companies are funding politices with BIG MONEY.
In the future censoring by companies will be as bad as censoring by the government.
And agains only the government to censor, because a company cannot throw you in jail for talking bad about it. A company cannot lock you away. A company cannot do anything, because they don't have that kind of power. The worst they can do is sue you, and most of those suites are thrown out or not even attembed because of how bad it looks for the company. Remember what happened with the kid from MikeRowSoft.com and when the lawyers went after him. Remember the cry out on
Just one more time so you will remember COMPANIES DON'T HAVE THE POWER TO CENSOR ANYTHING.
Indeed: The key point the US ISP insisted on was the assertion under penalty of perjury. That is the essential accountability measure under the US DMCA; it seems that the EU directive and UK law do not have that kind of provision, so the only possible countering torts would be commercial in nature.
ISP's are private companys like ebay, ebay's policy is that they remove the an auction item if the IP of an item is questioned in any way (by anyone). No questions asked, no appeal. have your auctions questioned twice and they kick you off. Private company's are in it for the buck not to protect your rights, the real problem is the legal system that instills this level of fear in people and companys.
"It's so convenient to have a system where everyone is a criminal" - A. Hitler
ISPs this, ISPs that. The writer tested TWO ISPs and only ONE responded in an immediately censoring manner. The other provided a detailed questionaire for more information. I'm not suggesting the author doesn't raise a valid freedom of speach concern, but I wouldn't call a "secret shopper" experiement of TWO ISPs statistically useful.
If you're going to do secret investigation hidden camera secret shopper style journalism, you need to select a larger group than TWO ISPs.
This one gang kept wanting me to join cause I'm pretty good with a bo staff.
Quite aside from the fact that the "liberty of the press" has much more to do with media control concentration than with ISP "censorship", there are lots of problems with this article.
To begin with, ISPs are commercial entities with no legal obligation to allow you to post whatever content you please. If you don't want to use an ISP that is going to capitulate to the first takedown notice it gets, be selective when you choose your ISP.
When I went looking for my last service provider, I looked carefully looked at each of their privacy policies and acceptable use policies. If they said that they would remove any content based on any old complaint, I refused to do business with them.
The other problem is derived from the fact that the author doesn't seem to fully understand the problem. Because he doesn't understand the problem, he doesn't have any solutions to recommend other than some vague notion that ISPs should have some sort of immunity.
Of course, at least he is starting to think about these important issues, which is always a good thing.
Ok, I know the /. crowd just loves to wear tinfoil hats and believe the government (doesn't matter which one, just The Government) and Big Evil Corporations are out to get them, but this is a non-story.
As others have already pointed out, this isn't censorship because censorship is prior restraint. When you need to submit your blog to the censors and get it preapproved before posting about the cute thing your kitty just did, THEN you can yell about censorship while I'm locking and loading my 'sporting goods.'
But this asshat calling for more government regulation to solve a perceived lack of freedom is so dumb boggles the mind. Find me a government that isn't out to expand its powers at your expense? If you have a problem with your ISP you can get another in a few minutes and be totally switched over in a day or two. Changing governments requires moving.... and then only while they still allow that.
Democrat delenda est
Christian Ahlert perjured himself then? Most copyright notices declare that the sender of the claimed infringement notice owns the copyright or is authorized by the copyright owner to act on his/her behalf, and has the authority to claim infringement and has verified that the site in question does in fact infringe, all this usually declared under penalty of perjury. If the work was in the public domain, Christian could be guilty of perjury or fraud for deliberately making false statements to the ISP in the notice.
Bah! Don't try to confuse me with the truth ;)
I disagree with your view on government, but so what. Censorship is censorship. Just because you define it to only apply to government (and so does the law) doesn't mean its not as dangerous. There is no coincidence that megacompanies are buying up media outlets (like MSNBC) to minimize their negative appearances. With all of these megacompanies merging and merging, its going to become pretty difficult to put out the word when they violate the laws that are meant to protect us. I guess we could use the Internet (oops, I just read the article--I guess not). Maybe the only way to combat them is to get a loudspeaker and go to a public square (oops, they don't exist anymore only corporate malls and corporate football stadiums, etc). Hmm... Well I guess since the government didn't define corporate censorship in the 1700s its not dangerous, so I might as well give in. I mean, the important tenents of government never change, right? Right?
The UK ISP is almost certainly Wanadoo (note the poorly redacted URL in the UK ISP's letter).
The US ISP is Lycos (they forgot to blank one instance out in the PDF).
Oops.
Become a FSF associate member before the low #s are used
When my wife and I started our own message board, a competing board tried to get us to stop perfectly legal activities through extortion; i.e., they threatened to contact our ISP and accuse us of spamming if we didn't do what they wanted.
We didn't do it. They contacted our ISP. I had contacted our ISP in advance with a copy of the extortion email, and it was dealt with appropriately. We never went offline.
Now, that's with a good ISP, that I was in open communication with, and that I warned in advance about the contact, and everything was fine. However, if they had contacted our ISP without first tipping me off to their plans, and had claimed that we were hosting child pornography or infringing someone's copyright, things might have been different.
Chances are it would have taken a couple of days to get it all worked out and back online, but what if the site were politically oriented, and the persons who had it taken down had access to the media?
Imagine this scenario:
1. I post legal, factual information that I feel people should know about before voting for big, powerful mogul;
2. Powerful mogul tells my ISP that I'm doing something illegal (that I'm not doing), and the ISP takes my site down without review;
3. Powerful mogul "leaks" to the news that this site was taken down because of illegal material (let's say child pornography);
4. Most news agencies try to contact me, but a few don't, and run the story as-is;
5. My site is still down, so in the crucial 48 hours after the news story runs, I have no web site to post any kind of rebuttal;
6. Three days later, my site goes back up and my ISP says "it was all nonsense", but it's old news by now. My credibility is shot, and my message is rendered ineffective.
The point of all this, I think, isn't that illegitimate takedown requests can be corrected in a few days, but that illegitimate takedown requests can silence your voice for a crucial period of time that a shrewd, powerful manipulator can leverage for maximum advantage (as in my theoretical example above).
"Censorship is censorship. Just because you define it to only apply to government (and so does the law) doesn't mean its not as dangerous."
loose definitions and liberal word usage are just as dangerous
ISP takes down material NO MATTER WHAT (thus immediately preventing possible further infringements). It's then up to the site owner to prove they own the right to post the material.
Ahh, yes, the classic 'guilty until proven innocent' clause guaranteed by the constitution..
Oh, wait...
...which is yet another black hole in his methodology. (See the full report for details of the methodology.)
Quote from the article:
The UK ISP took Mill down almost immediately (in huge letters, as a heading, followed by:)
The US ISP followed up on the dubious complaint, made on behalf of the chairman of the non-existent John Stuart Mill Heritage Foundation, with detailed questions. But the UK ISP took the site down almost immediately, effectively censoring legal content without investigation.
In the full report, he details how the US ISP refused to take down the content *unless he explicitly perjured himself in writing*, acknowledging in writing the phrase "under penalty of perjury". Unsurprisingly he was unwilling to do this and terminated the project - so the US ISP left the content there, and did exactly the right thing - a fact he completely skips over in the summary article.
The reason it did do this was that the DCMA provides a framework for such complaints. While ultimately his point in the article is that government regulation may be preferable to private corporate censorship, he doesn't want to explicitly draw the logical conclusion that in this case the DCMA is working exactly as intended, protecting the alleged infringer against specious claims. Rather he decides to reference "anecdotal evidence" that the DCMA has chilling effects.
Now I believe the DCMA to be one of the most wrong-headed laws ever signed, and I agree with this guy's conclusions, but the report reads obviously that he has started with these conclusions and moulded his data to fit them. His methodology is completely out the window. And that's a problem, because anyone can come up with a "research report"; that proves whatever they want, including the bad guys - and from a methodology perspective this guy could get a job with them.
That is a general meaning. Basically, a colloquialism.
HOWEVER, when we are talking about *LEGAL MATTERS*, all words have a *VERY* *SPECIFIC* *MEANING*. Webster's has zero relevance in legal matters.
These servers are owned by private businesses. They can do whatever the hell they want to them, legally, since it's their property. There is no censorship involved if J. Random ISP doesn't want to publish your anti-corporate screed because it hurts their interests. None. You are not being forced to use their service, and you can find another one. Don't say you can't. Likewise, you have no authority to force them to publish your content. It works both ways, pal, and not in the ways you want it to.
I dunno about the big ISPs he tested this on, but the ISP I work at would probably have taken it down as well.
He posted content written by someone over 120 years ago, and then complained to the ISP that it violated copyright. The part that's not in the Slashdot story is that he complained as a member of the fictional "John Stuart Mill Heritage Foundation." If I saw content posted and then received a complaint from someone who claimed to own the content I would most likely take it down.
I would however keep a copy of the content AND contact the customer as to the alleged violation. It's not up to me to prove or disprove whether or not a customer has legitimate access to publish content, it's up to the customer. We don't have time to research every complaint that comes in.
If we have to take down content and the customer can prove they have legitimate rights to post that content I'd be happy to hear it, and ultimately I'd copy the files back personally. It shouldn't be the ISP's job to police their network dolling out justice as they see fit.
We are happy to work with any customer about an issue like this, but we don't have the resources to investigate each incident.
Just because most people couldn't be attacked like this, doesn't make it OK.
"Do not drill any holes in your cat - it will not like it."
-- Nick Davies
You seem to have a pretty active imagination, then. Yes, a complaint is a sign that someone is particularly bothered by the material being available; that in no way implies that their complaint is valid. (Consider the attempts to silence critics of Scientology.)
People get bothered about other people's speech very easily, and will often make invalid complaints to silence those they disagree with.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
So... you're saying guilty until proven innocent? What if you take down someone's business on the maliscious copyright infringement claims of a competitor. Sounds like to me that you are setting yourself up to be sued by the person whose business you willingly (and with no actual cause) disrupted.
The DMCA has no effect on a British company.
Actually I went and checked my own ISP's Acceptable Use Policy. Here is the pertinant quote:
"Comcast reserves the right, but not the obligation, to refuse to transmit or post and to remove or block any information or materials, in whole or in part, that it, in its sole discretion, deems to be offensive, indecent, or otherwise inappropriate, regardless of whether this material or its dissemination is unlawful. "
I would be amazed if your ISP does less. Face it, when you are posting your ISP's network, it is your ISP's network. It is not yours! You are not in control. If you want to be able to act freely, pay for Web Hosting or a Leased Server. Internet service is not some God given, govenment guaranteed right. It is a service, provided by a for profit business, subject to the terms of the contract which you and your ISP negotiated. As long is your ISP is acting within the bounds of that contract don't come whining to me.
Insert Generic Sig Here:
Exactly. This is how it should work...ISP takes down material NO MATTER WHAT (thus immediately preventing possible further infringements). It's then up to the site owner to prove they own the right to post the material.
This removes the ISP from the role of judge or jury. They are merely the executioner, doing what the law says in either direction. And in turn, they're playing fair with both the content owner and the so-called infringer. What's not to like?
While there is no guarantee that the notice isn't lying, there is ALSO no guarantee that the counter-notice isn't lying.
If you put, let's say, Celine Dion's latest album on your website (which is a hanging offense by any standard, really), and you claim in your counter-notice that Celine's record company is full of shit when they take you down, the ISP will put your page back ASAP.
This is designed mainly to let ISPs off the hook for their user's intentional behavior, whilst also giving "good faith" copyright holders the ability to smack down on casual (i.e. non-counter-notice claiming) infringers without resorting to Federal court at the very first whiff of trouble.
And they can't send a DMCA-notice twice, they MUST put up (go to court) or shut up. At which point they can find out your identity only by a court-ordered subpoena to your ISP (although court oversight of subpoenas isn't that much of a big deal these days).
BTW, if you ever contributed stuff to a GPL'ed program that you notice is being distributed by some company without providing source code -- guess what the cheapest legal option you have is?
It's not perfect (what if you're on a trip around the world and the ISP can't contact you?) but it's a good effort.
This is actually about the only good part in the DMCA, and an example that the UK should follow.
All the rest of the DMCA, now there's the real trouble..
SCO employee? Check out the bounty
Just one more time so you will remember COMPANIES DON'T HAVE THE POWER TO CENSOR ANYTHING.
I dunno. They do appear to have the ability to have information they disagree with removed from a website, simply by making a bogus complaint to the ISP.
You are corrct that they don't have the power to throw you in jail. This is not the only means of censorship. They can have stuff removed simply by hinting that they may sue the ISP. They want stuff removed, it gets removed. Damn well looks like censorship to me!
Yep... about as logical as a wAr3z site having a motd saying something like "Private FTP server, everything on here is copyright someone else, ftp software copyright Us" and that'd make it alright to download....
-- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
Very true. A better analogy...
A better analogy would be to stop it with all the analogies.
Look at it on its own merits. Something that is true for a similar situation may not be true for another situation even though it appears similar. The concepts here are not hard to understand. No analogy is needed. Is it censorship if an individual can have content he disagrees with removed at will? Simple question. Keep to the point.
Sure, I'll speak to this.
Brigitte Bardot is apparently an ignorant bigot.
Ignorant bigots have a right to spout their ignorant bigotry, just as I have a right to tell them they sound like ignorant bigots.
I can't speak for all of them, but this member of "the MoveOn Crowd" would be opposed to this fine if it occurred in the US. MoveOn is not an international organization, however. Call Amnesty International.
(I will, however, take issue with you calling a relatively small fine a "human rights abuse." I don't recall any jail time, torture, or loss of liberty being mentioned in the article.)
This would be cause for a lawsuit for libel, slander, defamation of character, or something along those lines. Regardless of ISP policies, it is illegal to conduct a smear campaign against someone by spreading untrue information to the public.
This is actually about the only good part in the DMCA, and an example that the UK should follow.
I disagree. The good intentions are there, but it doesn't seem to work in practice. This is probably because it was designed by lawyers, and most organisations do not have the legal knowledge to implement it correctly.
Small ISPs often have a staff count in single figures. They certainly can't afford to have a department set up to handle DMCA violations.
Larger ISPs tend to be less concerned about losing single customers, and they'll just delete without appeal. The cost of losing customers is probably less than the potential hassle of dealing with a dispute, and the big copyright holders are usually happy with this response. The big ISPs will continue this policy until somebody sues.
In practice, there are some things that are very probably infringing copyright (Complete songs, PDFs of recent books), and some things that may or may not be (e.g. screengrabs from games, and fan fiction), and some things that clearly are not (e.g original fiction, personal photos). Ideally an ISP would should respond immediately to the first of these, take down the second pending review, and ignore complaints about the third.
If silencing of perfectly legal speech was widespread it wouldn't be a problem; everyone would know, people would get angry, things would be changed or an illegal communications channel would pop up to replace it.
The problem is that it's relatively infrequent. It doesn't seem like a serious problem, so the small number of people getting screwed tend to be ignored.
Great, if I want free speech online I get to share an ISP with porn sites and spammers. Which, of course, will get me blacklisted in other ways.
The reality is that DMCA is quite clear; when given a properly formed DMCA takedown request the content must be removed. Failure to do so exposes the ISP to liability. End result: very, very few ISPs will stand up for you. Worse, almost no ISP will tell you up front about their policy. When I arranged my current provider they seemed positively confused when I asked about their DMCA takedown policy. Given that they run tens of thousands of web sites I know they see DMCA takedowns. Because of the relatively infrequency of DMCA takedowns and the even smaller number of takedowns that are wrong there aren't enough data points to form a review web site to find out which ISPs are badly behaved.
My point exactly. I get sleazy, blacklisted sites, or I get a near-zero tolerance policy. Even a day of having a page taken down can be a serious problem. The DMCA mandated 10 days is downright crippling. Just ask Fat Wallet, which was issued DMCA takedown requests that effectively destroyed their ability to compare post-Thanksgiving specials. By the time the content was back up, the day was past. Cost to Wal-mart? One nasty-gram from a lawyer.
Search 2010 Gen Con events
It's funny /. runs so many "Your Rights Online:" articles with its moderation scheme.
The scheme is utter and total bullshit that does nothing more than stifle and dilute expression and the exchange of ideas.
What a paradox.
And you want to know something the company as an entity can only donate the max of $2000 in the US.
sure, in direct cash. But come on, isn't there a term for less direct ways? "Pork Barrel".
If Intel is considering a new US$1B chip fab in your state, they don't have more influence on a topic than say a local bowling alley? Sure, but may have reasons to donate 2,000 max... but which one is more likely to get you re-elected / political favors / friends get great jobs / friends get dinner / friend in real estate cashes in.
Just because it is difficult to regulate the internet, this is no reason to resort to badly crafted forms of regulation, which move the entire burden on to unaccountable actors. Drink driving is also difficult to police, but we wouldn't shift responsibility for this on to private companies, would we?
He obviously has never been to Texas. In Texas it is the responsibility of the person who sold the person the drink. Such as the bar at which the person drank. This is what I call the religious sect's outlook of "I am my brother's keeper". It is a great sentiment but goes against the foundation of the Constitution. (Which is basically that each person is responsible for their own actions.)
The main problem with ISPs being judge, jury, and executioner - is that: 1)There is no common sense being applied in many cases, 2)There are no clear cut laws with regards to this issue, 3)In some cases you are guilty until proven innocent rather than the other way around (and thus sites are pulled before even hearing from the defendants), and 4)Once gone it is very hard, in some cases, to get the ISP to put the site back up without legal intervention.
What should be happening is that there should be a governing body (such as ICANN) where grievances can be heard via IRC or e-mail which lists the problems someone has with a website. The autoresponder should both respond to the plaintiff as well as to contact the defendant and the defendant's ISP. (In case the e-mail for the defendant bounces.) The defendant should be given a reasonable number of days to respond to the complaint and then the case should be tried on the merits of both the plaintiff as well as the defendant. In effect, a virtual system similar to our modern day jury system should be put into place which allows people to help decide what is going on on the internet just as we do in real life.
One of the reasons our judicial system moves so slowly is because sometimes it takes a while to find out the truth about something. By putting the brakes on the immediate gratification process currently in place with ISPs; we could reduce and eliminate many of the problems currently plaguing whether or not a site is a valid site or if it should be taken down. And yes, this could mean an increase in the use of lawyers. But it doesn't necessarily mean that would happen. For instance, it could be decided that common English (and not legal speak) is the only language accepted in the proceedings thus removing the need to hire a lawyer. (But somehow I doubt that would actually happen.)
Still, a trial by a jury of your peers would require a system set up where people are picked, at random, to aid in determining if a website should or should not be removed. I know - many people are going to cry "It can't be done!" or "That would be impossible to set up". The answer is - no it would not be impossible to set up and yes it can be done. It would just be another server which ISPs would be required to have up and running. The server keeps the user's ids and e-mails private. The server can be a secure server. The server would only accept incoming connections from one location on the net (such as ICANN). It selects users at random and requests that they click on link X to participate in the trial and things proceed from there. The ISPs can maintain their lists in private. People who are excluded for whatever reason are kept in a separate list. People who have participated once already are not asked to help again until the entire list has been run through, etc....
It is not "can it be done" but more like "do we want to do it"? Most people (myself included) are lazy and would much rather be doing something enjoyable rather than trying to determine if someone has a website that is infringing on someone else's patent which the USPTO has just given to them without really checking out whether or not that item was patented over a hundred years ago or not. Or if the copyright claim really originated in the late 1500s. Or even if "f
Someone put a black hole in my pocket and now I'm broke.
> Brigitte Bardot is apparently an ignorant bigot.
;)
Without doubt.
> Ignorant bigots have a right to spout their ignorant bigotry, just as
> I have a right to tell them they sound like ignorant bigots.
Exactly, the correct response to an idiot isn't to fine them, but to call them an idiot. Something starting off with "Brigitte, you ignorant slut..." would be appropriate.
> (I will, however, take issue with you calling a relatively small fine
> a "human rights abuse." I don't recall any jail time, torture, or loss
> of liberty being mentioned in the article.)
Basic human rights include not just the right to live a life free of torture and prison. The include the right to speak and worship as one pleases. The 1st Amendment isn't just for Americans, it is a statement of one of those "inalienable rights" the Founding Fathers were always going on about.
Buty mostlyu I was hoping to tweak a few of the overly sanctimonious Europeans who have been spending the last year or so explaining how morally superior they are. We would never dream of doing anything as horrible as what the French seem to do as a normal matter of course. Of course there ARE some Americans who wouldn't mind adopting a more "European" view of Free Speech, with PC speech codes and "Hate Speech" laws of our own.
Democrat delenda est
Notice and takedown procedures are infrastructure provided by the government for the express purpose of rapidly blocking public access to information (look here) without making any provision for rapidly restoring access to information erroneously or mischeivously objected to.
It is highly disturbing to me that the government should be building legislation that provides exceptional protection for copyright holders without providing equal protection for legitimate users of public domain information. One should not be surprised that people with deep pockets get better protection under the law than the rest of us, but we should definitely be making a fuss about it!
"Cursed is he who rises early in the morning..." Isiah 5:11
I don't have to justify it to myself. Nor does anybody. The constitution grants that a party shall be considered innocent until proven guilty...in a court of law. Justice is blind; law enforcement and the private sector are not required to shut their eyes nor will they be admonished for acting as such. It is the auspice of the rest of government to be a little suspicious.
Anyhow, guilt has nothing to do with it. As has been mentioned, the purpose of the DMCA's regulations on the disconnection of suspect material is to prevent further piracy while investigations are ongoing. This disconnection has NOTHING to do with guilt. It will have no effect on the outcome, or even the existance, of future trials. It's merely a protocol for copyright holders to get people to stop bitin' their shit...and for webmasters to avoid unscrupulous manipulations of said rule.
I don't have a problem with it, and I run an ISP AND a website that's held a copyrighted work here and there. For example, I am a distributor for WEFUNK sets...WEFUNK is a radio show out of Canada which plays mostly obscure funk music but mixes it with some popular hip-hop as well. There is no doubt in my mind that some of the 200+ two to four hour sets contain copyrighted material which I shouldn't be hosting in the US. I don't think I'll ever have to worry about it, but it's nice to know if Electra records ever does get its panties in a bunch about thirty people downloading a remix of Del tha Funkee Homosapien, they'll contact my ISP (me) who will then, by law, have to give me a chance to redeem myself.
Considering that before the DMCA it was the ISP's ass on the line and they would drop you like bad habit if you used a popular lyric in your title tags, I'd say our rights have vastly improved.
Hey freaks: now you're ju
"They can have stuff removed simply by hinting that they may sue the ISP"
Well that is not censorship, because the ISP can do what ever it wants with the information on their servers. It doesn't belong to you no matter how much you would like it to. I mean they could go through and delete every 4th file if they wanted to. Also they remove it to protect the company, they don't give a rats you know what about you or your content. So you can always move to another site to host the content or just host it your self.
Also if the information can be displayed on another site, such as your own, that is not censorship because you are not restricted from posting the content. Just because the ISP wants nothing to do with you or your content doesn't mean they are censoring you.
I want nothing to do with Britney Spears Music, but it doesn't mean I am censoring her. It just means she has to find other people willing to put up with the Music.
Well, you know, in the bipartisan republic we're in, I think options are limited when you want to oppose the status quo. The status quo in question would be the Bush dynasty.
I don't want to get into a debate on the pros and con of George W., but I do NOT feel like he is representing my interests and goals. I feel that corporations, Dick Cheney's big oil business, and rich people are getting more favorable treatment from George W. than I am. This is just my opinion. My parents have lost their 25-year business and can't find jobs at their age. During the Clinton years, being a college student was great. Again, just my opinion.
So what are my options? Well, voting for Clark didn't help. So now I have to consider Kerry. On one hand we have Bush who I don't like. However, he has powerful friends and get his agenda done no problem. The problem is, do I like his agenda. On the other hand is Kerry. Here's a guy who is not Bush, is Democratic (whatever that means nowadays) but what is his agenda? Does he know? He votes for the Patriot Act but now apposes it. Or does he just oppose Bush.
Sorry for the rambling, but if the founders of MoveOn want Bush out of office, picking apart Bush is fine with me. I like to watch what they print, not that I agree with all of it. But hey... it's not like I'm going to get anything but propaganda from Bush, either.
I like to think of MoveOn.org like a childish version of the NPR radio station. If you haven't noticed, they're very tilted against Bush. But I wouldn't consider them fringe either.
I don't think MoveOn is extremist. Newsletters pointing out Bush's fuckups and not-really-fuckups-but-lets-propaganda-it-anyway is no worse than Bush's ads trying to make Kerry look like a military weakling. LOL. I disagree about you saying MoveOn isn't changing people's minds. I don't think that's their goal at all. Personally, I think they're just trying to motivate people into action. (Who are probably already on the anti-Bush side of the fence already) Considering we're about 40-60 kerry/Bush, I'd say it's a useful approach.
Why are there only 19 people folding@home for slashdot?