Slashdot Mirror
Japanese ISPs To Cut Net Access For File Sharers
modemac writes "Four major Japanese telecom organizations, which represent 'about 1,000 major and smaller' domestic ISPs, have agreed to forcibly cut the Internet connection of filesharers. They're specifically targeting users of the 'Winny' program, trading copied gaming software and music. The article states that a new set of ISP guidelines will be drawn up on how to cut off users who 'leak illegally copied material onto the Net.'"
This is pretty much what companies in the U.S. do too. People that seed a bunch of copyrighted files often get cease and desists from their ISPs and if it keeps happening the ISP will sometimes (not always, as it's beneficial for the ISP to keep them around) cut their service off. TFA seems to claim that the majority of this is going to focus on "leakers" of copyrighted material: this means mass-seeders and probably scene groups. It's doubtful that the ISPs are going to end up cutting off many _downloaders_ of the material, but mostly focus on the _distributors_: which is pretty much precedent for ISPs at least in the U.S. and I would assume globally.
Now according to Wiki, Winny is intrinsically anonymous, and the only way the police were able to track those sharing the files was by them boasting on the Winny forums of their upload. So we probably would have heard about this earlier had Winny not been built to be as anonymous as it is now - it seems that the issue has been prompting arrests and controversy for five years or more.
Also, expect 2ch to go bananas over this in the next couple of weeks.
Some ISPs in Eastern Europe solve this problem by setting up a DC++ server for their subscribers. When subscribers can share music and films with people from their own city, there's less burden on the connection to the wider Internet.
Um, yeah. You haven't lived here in Japan have you? People don't push back. They let companies plow them over and say nothing. There are no consumer rights in Japan. If they really do this and I lose my net access, that's it. I just lost my net access.
I'm already really throttled. I DL US TV slower now that I have FTTH than I did on ADSL. I have 83Mbit, but it only seems to work when I downloading something from a website or something.
This is going to do nothing to subscription rates. People get the fast service because it isn't much more expensive than the slow, and because the guys from SMAP are in the commercials. It has nothing to do with the speed, because, honestly, most Japanese people can barely even type.
This is not a good development for me...
Also, aside question: how can a copy be illegal? I get that it can be illegal to create and to posses, but how can the copy itself be illegal? If it's made on a USB stick and then thrown out (ownership of the copy has ceased), the copy by virtue of not having changed is still illegal. Who do you sue, the USB stick?
(I figure they mean illegally possessed copies, but imprecise language like this bugs me a bit.) Two years ago, a major Internet provider tried to introduce a measure to disconnect users from the Internet whenever the company detected the use of Winny or other file-sharing software.
However, the provider abandoned the idea after receiving a warning from the Internal Affairs and Communications Ministry that such an approach was regarded as Internet snooping and might violate the right to privacy in communications.
According to the new agreement, copyright organizations would notify providers of Internet protocol addresses used by those who repeatedly make copies illegally, using special detection software. I can't imagine how "special detection software" might reliable determine whether copyright infringement is going on without looking at the transmitted data. Isn't it then obvious that the copyright organizations are doing "Internet snooping and might violate the right to privacy in communications"?
Unfortunately that is par for the course here. That's why people making commercial software, games, media, movies, don't aim them at the slashdot / digg generation any more. Who wants to entertain people who are whining, thieving pains in the ass?
I work in the media. We long since gave up giving a shit what teenagers want from TV. The marketplace is the 30+ viewer who isn't scared of buying the DVD.
It's not that the media doesn't understand the youth. its that the youth get what they pay for, ie: fuck all.
What a fucking shock. The person who actually creates something is modded as a troll, and the person who's whining about how it's his god-given right to copy anything he possibly can gets called insightful.
I didn't say it was my god given right. I said it was my legal right, and it is.
Personally I question how someone can be an artist, and yet know so little correct information about the laws that protect your trade.
Either way however, yes, your post is a troll. You were being spiteful, mean, insulting, and injecting no useful information into the conversation, and your statements are factually incorrect (possibly lies, depending)
Where as MY info however is reflected in US law, and also quite insightful as some of these 'artists' clearly are trying to 'steal' from me (DRM serves no other purpose.)
[* Steal used in the same sense you were using the word, not in the legal, moral, or dictionary sense of the word.]
I admit, my 'get a job' comment, while true, was a tad of a flame. But that was about it.
Finally, it is Quite hard to form a perfectly insightful non-flame non-troll reply to someone who is being irrational in their posts. I seriously would love to debate the issue, but I want my words to not fall on deaf ears, and by the tone of your post I don't believe you even care to discuss this rationally, only to push your agenda. If I come off as a troll at all, it is out of my frustration at that fact.
But I will try anyway. Please read this before blowing it off as BS, or hitting reply.
If you still after reading it through disagree with me, then I will leave you to it...
The only reason you or any artist is granted copyright, is NOT just for profit. Profit is a side benefit.
Copyright in its first forms was 100% a control method used by kings and rulers to silence those that would say bad things against them. I'm not claiming you are, but if you were to try to argue for that style of copyright again, you will have no friends here, or in any first world nation for that matter.
Afterwards, copyright became a tool to better man kind with science and art. This was the last version of it before now.
That is to say, if your work of art could not benefit man kind at all, there is no point in offering you a copyright at all. I also highly doubt you are arguing for that, as then you would have no recourse what so ever, nor anything to complain about anyway.
So, clearly, the only reason you get a copyright on your work at all is to benefit man kind. This used to be a deal struck between the people and the artists. The people give up some rights so the artist can gain, and at the same time, the artist loses some rights so the people can gain. This deal was, the people lose for a few years the right to copy that work, so the artist gains a monopoly on distribution to recoup their costs. In exchange, the artist loses the right to 'own' that work for ever, and the people gain the right to do with that work as they please.
Yes, that second part comes after the first, thus the 'limited time' part of copyright.
The problem here is, artists are not paying their end of the deal. They are NOT giving up the full rights to their work to better man kind. When I say 'they' I don't mean ALL of them of course. But they tend to use things like DRM which is effectively (assuming it would work at all) a lock that keeps it from the public once you stop caring about it. It's a little like writing a bad check, post-dated, but knowing it won't be good at that time.
So the reaction happens. Similarly, once you write a person bad checks enough, they will simply stop accepting them. If you try to pay with credit that never gets repaid, they start demanding their stuff back (repo.)
What we are doing now is not accepting your bad check type payments any longer, thus not honoring your copyright.
Granted, there are artists that have NOT screwed the public at all, and yes they are being harmed by the actions of