Slashdot Mirror
BayTSP Provides Automatic DMCA Notices
ruvreve sent in a pointer that BayTSP is promising to identify Bittorrent uploaders for the entertainment industry to file suit against. Slashdot has run numerous stories discussing what happens when you automate DMCA takedown notices - see also chillingeffects.org.
If you can use DMCA so force *GOOGLE* to remove a link to a *GPL* Firmware, it has to be seriously broken...
? NoticeID=1471
http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca512/notice.cgi
... that the cost of threatening legal action without any basis whatsoever is too low for these big corporations. The legal system has become a way for big corporations to push individuals and small companies around and basically create a parallel state were the punishment for any behavior big corporations doesn't like is litigation.
is that theres something wrong with society when society is breaking laws at such an extent that it requires an automated process to identify and punish those offenders
If anything it means that society doesn't like those laws.
But then again, why should it be costly for the 'victim' in these cases to bring offenders to justice?
Because otherwise the *AA can use scare tactics to simply file a John Doe lawsuit against anyone, forcing them to either pay ${X}000 dollars without a chance to defend themselves, or get sued into bankruptcy.
I think the problem here is that any normal person can see the greed of the RIAA and MPAA and thier so called piracy is beyond any form of reasonability.
They are like the 2 year olds screaming "mine, mine, mine" without any rhyme or reason.
Copyright Piracy IS when you take a movie or song, duplicate it on a media like a CD or DVD, and SELL it as if it was genuine.
Sharing a song with a friend so that friend can decide if it is really good enough to BUY, is not worng in my opinion.
What if the movie or song is just bad, rotten, trash? You cet to decide to be a "CUSTOMER" or not based on if you like the product. Having to pay these greedy folks just because you heard the horible song or watched even some of the lousy movie is not PIRACY by any rational thought process.
The RIAA and MPAA do not want customers where they have a choice, but CONSUMERS ready to be culled.
This whole thing gets too much press, and to many good people are being called thieves because of the greed of the RIAA, MPAA.
Cheers
* Carthago Delenda Est *
As someone else has pointed out, a lot of people speed. Should we get rid of speeding offences?
Not necessarily, but we should reconsider what the limits are set at. When 95% of people are driving faster than the limit, the general consensus would seem to be that the limit is too low.
Laws are meant to serve the people, not the other way around.
I bet if you put out a referandum to the population at large and asked what the speed limit on I-95 should be, they wouldn't come up with 55 mph.
A lot of people think breaking into peoples homes is fair game (Im not making the theft comparison), should we amend those laws to allow it?
If you define "a lot" as the 0.2% of any given local population which likes to steal stuff, then I guess you're right. Speeding is a mainstream practice. Breaking and entering is not.
Again, put out a poll and ask people whether people should be allowed to just walk into people's homes at night. Any reasonable person knows what the answer would be...
A lot of people think gays shouldnt be allowed in the armed forces, should we amend laws to disallow them?
Ah, a personal liberty / discrimination issue. I will concede that at times the majority of the US population has wanted things which were unjust, and that it was right to set the laws contrary to majority-rules. Regardless, if you took a poll, you'd find that this is a genuine disputed issue (although I'm guessing a majority would embrace the don't-ask-don't-tell compromise - I'm not stating my opinion of the right answer to this problem here, just my opinion as to what the majority would decide). There is consequently room for debate.
There are a lot of laws that a lot of people break, it doesnt mean the laws should be changed.
If the majority of the population breaks a law, the presumption should be that the law SHOULD be changed. Now, if there is a really good reason not to change the law (such as discrimination, etc.), then maybe it shouldn't be changed. However, the assumtion should not automatically be that the politicians know better than the people.
You brought up three scenarios. Two are really non-controversial issues in the eyes of the majority, and laws should be set accordingly. One is genuinely controversial, and the laws shouldn't be based on whether this year's referandum goes 49-51 or 51-49. There is room for leaders to be leaders.
I would still suggest that if you need automation to keep up with offenders, perhaps the laws shouldn't be enforced. When criminals can be hidden because the majority of the population gives them shelter, we should probably rethink whether they are actually criminals. The police are supposed to serve the community, not the other way around. When it starts going the other way around, it tends to lead to violence, as problems build and build until you get riots.
At first I thought you were saying something sensible. But it turns out you've got rectal-cranial inversion.
If society is breaking a law on a scale so massive that automated processes are required to file lawsuits against them all, then the proper attitude, at least in the U.S., is that the law is broken. The government and the marketplace must bend to the wishes of the people. It may take a few years for it to happen, but it will happen.
While I'm on a roll: I'm getting quite tired of law-worshipers like you. At one time it was illegal for women to vote. You would probably say it is therefore immoral for women to vote, because breaking the law is "wrong." Luckily, most people have more sense than that, and have a moral compass that goes beyond the way the government wants you to behave. Just because a law is on the books does not make it right. In fact it is nothing less than socially responsible to break bad laws.
Our intelligent designer has never created an animal that we couldn't improve by strapping a bomb to it.
Errrm.
Yes, automated processes catch innocents, especially as some on this page have suggested if they deliberately make themselves look guilty when they arent (if they carried around a white powder in a bag, they would expect to get arrested by the police if its discovered - wheres the difference?).
A few years ago when I was living in central Europe, I took some tie-dye chemicals back from the US to Slovakia to use at an art camp I was organizing.
For simplicity, I took all the chemicals out of the box they came in and packed them in my backpack. The 'activator' needed to make the dyes work (I cant remember exactly what chemical) was an unmarked plastic bag of white powder, about a kilogram of it.
Anyway, I was checked at the airport in Vienna, and the customs people were very curious about the bag.
I told them what it was, they opened it and figured out that it wasn't drugs, and let me go.
I was not much bothered by the whole process because the Austrian police were very polite and understanding, and the whole ordeal took less than 10 minutes.
In this case, the authorities did their jobs properly -- asking the right questions, listening to my answers, and never treating me as if I was guilty of anything. Afterwards, they even apologized for opening the bag. I told them I understood, and wished them a good day.
If this process had beeen automated the way this DMCA nonsense is, then I would have been tossed in jail until someone determined that the powder was not, in fact, illegal.
Remeber, I was not trying to make myself look guilty, nor did I expect to be arrested.
Contrast this with the situation of someone running into legal problems for sharing a perfectly legitimate file like X-Files1.21b.tar.gz.
They have to be able to download it from the bittorrent network first in order to ascertain that it actually IS their copyright material... more and more bittorrent networks are going "members only" where you have to actually join and log in to the server in order for your IP to be authorised for that torrent... Any sensible network runner will have several clauses in the joining procedure where the prospective new member will have to be reccomended by an existing member or else they'll have to declare that they are not acting for or as agents of RIAA/MPAA etc.
All they're gonna do is drive users with any sense underground... whilst only the newbies with no sense will get picked on...
Expect to see more closed torrent networks springing up... rather like speakeasies did back in the old "Prohibition" days... Prohibition didn't work very well now did it... all it did was make normal people lawbreakers and give an opportunity for organised crime to fill the void created by the lack of easily available drink.
In fact, all the RIAA and MPAA members have got to do is to actually take advantage of bittorrent, and create a perfectly legal means of people getting their hands on movies early in the distribution cycle by making them available on pay per torrent servers, where you actually pay for the privilege of getting the movie first, well before it hits the cinemas.
Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.