Slashdot Mirror
ISPs to Ban P2P With New European Telecom Package?
An anonymous reader writes "ZeroPaid is reporting that ISPs could be turned into the copyright police through European legislation that received a number of 'intellectual property' amendments. Many of these amendments can be found here. Judging by the amendments, ISPs could be mandated to block legitimate traffic in an effort to 'prevent' illegitimate traffic. To help stop this legislation, you can check out the action page. Additional coverage can be found on EDRI and Open Rights Group."
When WoW stops working because the updates are blocked the Hord and the Alliance might finally put their differences aside to fight a bigger foe!
P2P isn't just about illegal file sharing, it's bigger than that. The way we download linux distros, the way we download game updates, hell even Pure Pwnage distributes their videos using P2P methods. I really think they are missing the point of how this technology has made an impact on how we get our content from the internet. If this passes they might as well ban people from driving cars because they can be used to traffic illegal drugs.
Well I think half of them will shout - FOR THE ALLIANCE.
But other than that - you are probably correct!
Just saying it like it are.
So the ISP has ESP for P2P unless you're L33T enough to have L2TP or PPTP?
I've always thought that encrypted and suitably tunneled P2P traffic cannot be blocked without blocking the non-P2P traffic whose protocol is used as a channel. Do they want to shut down the Internet?
Wiki, website, books, TV.. the air. They are all just mediums in which information is shared. Why do you ( and others.. ) seem to think they one is more trustworthy than another?
The disappearing pencil trick. Let me show you it.
Jamendo uses it to distribute Creative Commons-licensed music, all of it with the explicit permission of its copyright holders.
BitTorrent is crucial to my musical aspirations, as distributing my music with it allows me to provide formats that would use a lot of bandwidth, such as FLAC, without incurring expensive bandwidth charges.
While musicians can host their music for free at places like MySpace, it's really best to for artists to have their own websites, and to host their own music. That way, growth in the popularity of their sites will enrich the artists, rather than the music hosting service.
But a hit song can bankrupt struggling musicians if they just supply regular HTTP downloads; p2p enables mass distribution at a very low cost.
It's very important to get the message through to lawmakers and the public that filesharing, while it can be abused, is inherently perfectly legitimate, and should be kept both legal and technically possible.
Request your free CD of my piano music.
This type of solution solves nothing (People will always find ways to share files illegally, just like people will always find ways to do illegal drugs), increases tension (Any regulatory legislation or law increases tension between those that create and enforce the laws and those the law is being enforced upon), and removes a useful service. (Peer to Peer is used for many purposes outside of illegal file sharing.)
Besides, the only people pushing for this type of legislation are large companies and their shareholders. As a regular Joe, I can say I can disagree strongly with this.
Sure, it might sound plausible when the RIAA/MPAA paints a picture of P2P = piracy and stack up all the "favorable facts" but there's no way something like that would pass. You don't hear much from other uses because they have no interest in political mudslinging, but they're there. While all the countries of the EU have their own laws, I know at least my own (which isn't part of EU but.. long story) has freedom of speech written into the constitution. Trying to block legitimate speech because it's not approved by the "authorities" would fall so flat on its face in court it'd be an embarrasment to any politician that passed it.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Most books, for example, aren't vulnerable to the kind of fly-by anonymous vandalism which many wikis allow.
> Why do you ( and others.. ) seem to think they one is
> more trustworthy than another?
Don't be hypocritical --- do you really trust me just as much as you trust your closest friend? Everyone estimates and prioritizes the reliability of the information sources they encounter.
And yes I'm well aware of the corrupting influence of campaign donations and lobbyists. If those lead to bad laws being passed, it's because the voters don't care about their own rights.
There are definitely more voters than corporations, so it's well-within our abilities to put those who pass bad laws out of a job.
Request your free CD of my piano music.
As P2P is just a TCP/IP connection between two points, wouldn't that ban all forms of connections as in the whole Internet?...
Citizens banned from cities streets in a move to prevent mugging.
And there will probably be at least one guy shouting "LEROY JENKINS!"
1. A lot of customers, especially home ones, use internet almost just for the P2P applications.
2. As they will close the P2P protocols, new ones will arise.
3. Investments for heavy throttling will never pay back as people will find new interesting ways to bypass it or to switch to a different ISP!
Maybe Computers will never be as intelligent as Humans.
For sure they won't ever become so stupid. [VR-1988]
The only feasible solution at this point to to encrypt streams between clients and servers. the obligatory reply about performance may be crossing your mind right now, but is there actually any other solution?
Globally, legislation is being forced through parliaments, to take away our rights. This legislation has come in many forms, but the result of it is that someone wants to access and read your streams of data for whatever reason.
The only way to render this closer to impossible is to stop them being able to read your private correspondence with a web information service provider. The cost for this privacy - faster servers - will be a small price to pay.
Decrypting private data is generally regarded as a serious offence in most countries, and while, only the USA security organisations have access to Verisign's root servers, they will not admit this in public, because it would take away their advantage.
Participatory Governance : The only feasible option for a real democracy, where everyone really does have a say.
I'm free for raid tonight at 8pm GMT. Bagsie not tanking Merkel.
If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
I really think they are missing the point of how this technology has made an impact on how we get our content from the internet.
No, they see the point perfectly clear. Their view is that people need to stop thinking that they can get free stuff from the internet. The last sentence of this BBC article sums up the industry's position pretty well:
"We don't believe that society can allow the free consumption of content to persist"
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
3. Investments for heavy throttling will never pay back as people will find new interesting ways to bypass it or to switch to a different ISP!
Except that ever increasing consolidation in the ISP market is rapidly reducing consumer choice, and will continue to do so. In five years time, I doubt that a typical USA or UK resident will have more than two or three broadband ISPs from whom they can obtain service.
Still the throttling investments need to pay back.
Maybe Computers will never be as intelligent as Humans.
For sure they won't ever become so stupid. [VR-1988]
Is Freenet ready? What do you mean they're still coding it in Java?
Sig
The proposed law, suggest that the state would pay for the ISP's losses, so it might even be profitable for ISP to cut a customer. This is not just about p2p anymore. This is about basic freedom/survival...
The P2P toothpaste is not only out of the tube, it is spread so far and wide that it can never be retrieved for repacking. Only dummies, and the desperate, would even think that legislation will achieve the impossible. Get a new business model or join the dinosaurs.
All our models for running a society and an economy use scarcity as a starting point; there is more demand for something than supply, and thus there must be a strong rule of law to make sure the resource is distributed properly (although I think its fair to say plenty of people disagree on the definition of 'properly')
Data is not scare though. In a P2P network, every person who demands also by definition supplies, thus demand can never outstrip supply.
They will lose this battle for mathematical rather than political reasons (the level of control they desire is impossible, and if they understood the technology they would know that) - but it interests me as a foreshadowing of a possible future.
Our society could well die from a resources shortage, but we might be able to save ourselves. Three technologies currently being researched, controlled nuclear fusion, autonomous robots, and universal fabrication, could conceivably bring the abundance we see in data to the majority of physical products and services. I listed them in order of the maturity of each field, but I believe that in my lifetime (I am 27 for reference) we could see them all reach a point where want can be effectively eliminated.
Of course, there are some people, the same people we are complaining about now, who don't want to see that. Desperate people are controllable people.
If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
Five bucks says he'll be the one with the bomb.
/sig
The Judean People's Front?
Is that I can live pretty well without them. Who knows, I may even get more work done.
"Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
Fuck off! We're the People's Front of Judea.
This comment is for entertainment purposes only. Any similarity to real insight or information is purely coincidental.
So far the internet has been seen as a necessary evil. Something that has some benefits (outsourcing, e-commerce) and some small disadvantages. Now we have a situation where a large pressure group (the media) want to change the order of things and are using their influence to put a halt to this unregulated area.
Governments like the idea of people paying for things. That way they get to tax them more and also put in place commercial frameworks where it is in the suppliers interests to toe the line. (For some reason they haven't managed this with the drugs trade - yet). It also allows them to regulate the content, by controlling the providers. So far, because of their general cluelessness in technical areas, governments haven't come up with an effective way to do this - while keeping the veneer of freedom/democracy that they like people to think they have. Just as soon as they can come up with a "think of the children" strategy that works, they'll implement it and the internet will become a top-down hierarchy with laws, penalties and controls.
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
And the thing is, dinosaurs didn't even use toothpaste. That's how far out of whack the laws are with the technology - toothpaste and dinosaurs don't even exist in the same world. How can a dinosaur even attempt to squeeze the toothpaste back in to the tube - the toothpaste is millions of years away in the future, being squeezed out more and more while the dinosaur is powerless to stop it. All it can do is waggle its little front legs and roar in frustration. For all it's mighty strength and razor-sharp teeth, it is impotent in the face of future toothpaste.
And even if it could get to the toothpaste it couldn't even brush its teeth because its tiny arms won't reach its terrible mouth. How the mighty fall - not through asteroid strike or an ice age, but through lack of toothpaste. We have all the toothpaste, here in the future. True, much is gone forever, washed down the plugholes of the past, but the lion's share of the toothpaste is still to come, and we shall spread it far out of the tube, beyond this horizon, beyond the reach of the dinosaurs of the past with their smelly breath and dirty teeth. Yes indeed, my friend - the toothpaste is, indeed, well and truly out of the tube, and the dummies and the desperate can only stand and quiver. Stand and quiver.
Instead of trampling over the rights of people (and this will effect the US also) everywhere by fucking up the communications, they should instead, be telling copyright holders, if you don't want your shit online, don't publish it.
And for people under the telco power, should be telling the telco to fuck off. Everyone globally should cancel, close out or let run out their accounts in protest. You don't need a fucking cell phone to survive, we didn't have that shit in the 70's!
Keep paying their bills and they will keep having the money to lobby your rights away. In the USA that's FISA, FISA will fuck up the 4th Amendment sure, but what people don't see is that it will also fuck up the 1ST Amendment. You can't have anonymous sources, if your being snooped on. IF you can't have anonymous sources, then you can't have freedom of speech. (Which is already fucked up by the fascist media anyway)
We should go back to hand delivery of everything.
Turn off the fucking networks.
Stop paying for CABLE, DSL, DIALUP or whatever the fuck you got.
Or else take it up the ass. And let them fuck you.
They are going to destroy the internet next. It's the last piece of the puzzle.
You can call me paranoid I don't give a shit what you think of me, just do the right thing for yourself.
I hear brutallis has been giving horde and alliance a pretty big problem
It costs about a buck a gig these days for reliable transfer from my hosting company. Seventeen cents if you use an ounce of planning and get an account with Amazon S3.
A hit song is what, 4 MB? So 1 GB supports 250 users. One *million* users is, cranks the math, $680. If a million people are listening to your music, you laugh in the general direction of $680 worth of hosting bills. (Which is, in any case, far cheaper than your gear, recording studio time, software, and PC for uploading the stuff was.)
BitTorrent solves two problems really well: flash crowds (not something you have to worry about as a niche artist, and getting less of a problem by the day thanks to utility computing -- what is your flash crowd gonig to do, crash Amazon?) and continuous, sustained transfer of enormous binary files. In practice, that means either Linux distributions or pirated things. And the pirated things are far and away more popular than the Linux distributions.
Help poke pirates in the eyepatch, arr.
this worries me the most :
"Free Software is not compatible with standards used to try to restrict the run of a  lawful application  : Free Software can be studied and modified by the user himself to check the security of the software or to create a new lawful application as Free Soffware authors grant the right to do so to every user. And technologies used to check if an application is lawful consider user modified software as unlawful. So beside pushing dangerous technologies for privacy, this amendment mays create by itself a barrier in the internal market even if an ISO standard of treacherous computing emerges like the following (http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=50970)."
Famous last words:"but...."
how long is it gonna be till ppl decide to say fuck off isp's
peaceand go for mesh networking
i mean in spots it would be bad but easyly
by shear volume u could connect together
atleast intercontinentally
and i mean then what are they gonna do?
start blocking radio waves
if we want to have the internet remain what it has been in the past we'll have to do this
because its not like our government
will stand up for our rights or at all repersent what the people want
doesnt matter how many times the **AA keeps at it and it gets swated down the government still wont get that we dont want these sort of laws...
need to completely take the control out of anyones hands
and make the internet a wireless version of what it was designed to be
with all the inherited redundancy that comes with that
If they can't get what they want, they can trot on down to the library and use the Internet there or buy a laptop and use the free WiFi around at a coffeehouse or other place of business. We are at the point where using free sources of Internet connectivity make sense if all of your ISP choices suck.
ISPs need to be more aware of this. Sure, they can implement Sandvine all they want and try to tier their bandwidth for maximum theoretical profit instead of maximum return on investment and maximum customer satisfaction. I can also tell them to pound sand and walk down to the corner coffee shop, buy a $1 cup of coffee, and check my email.
How long will it be before ISPs end up becoming WSPs (Web service providers)?
It is becoming downright pathetic.
Even more so are the people who are caving to such a desperate industry.
Either get with the fucking times, or stop producing, period.
In other news, isn't there some site (torrent relay or something) that allows torrenting through a web browser?
Would a system created solely for doing this be able to defeat them?
Obviously this would require several servers from people willing to pay for bandwidth, maybe people could even help by running a web server, it would be similar to Tor in a sense.
Books, music, and movies are multi-billion dollar industries. Did everyone just expect to be able to steal them blind and continue to get away with it?
Further, only dummies, and the desperate, would think that the continuous downloading and uploading of gigabytes of data from a home DSL or cable connection to hundreds of other connections doing the same exact thing is a pattern that can't be spotted, tracked, and dealt with.
You can attempt to encrypt it, change ports, or do whatever, but the fact is that to be effective a P2P program MUST send gigabytes of data upstream. All one has to do is count bytes...
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
let's go out on a limb, and say the "internet police" can do this (as it is incredibly daunting): we are going to go out and define every node of the internet as "client" and "server". that's a leap of faith, and resources, but lets just go and say that someone can do this
the "client" can only consume, and never serve traffic. ok. so you can never make a form request. you can never upload a youtube video. you can never send an email. you can't chat
oh, ok, ok, you can serve some things... certain ports, certain packet headers are ok... we'll just filter out any unauthorized served content
wtf?
so let's make a second huge leap and say the "internet police" can (with whatever magical resources) identify all nodes as client/ server AND police all traffic formats as allowed/ not allowed. and these are two huge suspensions of disbelief, that anyone can have the willpower and the mandate and the resources to do these two things
now you STILL have issues like:
1. obfuscation. why can't i encrypt my copy of "iron man" as a bunch of supposed form requests. i can't label p2p traffic with a bogus packet header? i can't encrypt it? i can't send it down an "authorized" port?
2. gateways. rogue servers that merely reflect data to another client. perhaps taken over. perhaps just tricked into using "allowed" modes of communication to communicate "iron man"
3. spoofing. trick the watchdogs into thinking p2p traffic is actually legit server to client traffic (ip spoofing but one example, there are a dozen more spoofs)
4. etc., etc. smarter people than me can think up a myriad more ways
it's a game of whack-a-mole. it's a pointless, endless, arms race: every technical effort to kill p2p merely results in the creation of hardier versions of p2p. furthermore, on one side you have a bunch of disorganized, passively interested, technically astute, and most importantly, POOR teenagers. millions of them. on the other side, you have a bunch of expensive hired guns, funded by a pool of money that is, get this, being siphoned off by the unorganized teenager's efforts. take a wild guess where i place my bet on who is going to win this contest
morons: the ONLY way to kill p2p is to pervert the nature of the internet to the point that anything compelling and useful about the internet is not also destroyed. if the information flow is not also free, and only one way, you stifle the creation of new services, and bureaucratically choke any existing useful ones. the internet becomes stagnant, passive, just a form television delivered over tcp/ip. the internet is killed
so how about another option for you: p2p isn't going away, and fucking get used to it! reality accept it, don't fight it, you stupid twits
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Only if the protocol are locked down to a few and known. And it only works if no jitter is intentionally added for non time critical applications.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Splitters!
Caesar si viveret, ad remum dareris.
Caldari might make peace with Gallente too ... ... they'll ruin all the game stories with that law ... how are we going to set up gatecamps in Maila (security status 0.4) after gatecamping together in Bruxelles (sec. status 0.0 around the railway station after 9PM)?
If a musician is to run their own website at all, all but a few would need managed hosting, where the bandwidth is much more expensive.
I know this very well, because I'm designing the website for a musician who wasn't capable of downloading and installing Adobe Reader on her own computer - and she was completely flummoxed when I sent her a link to my MP3s.
This is not an unintelligent woman; she is a virtuoso pianist, and has a Master's degree from a top conservatory.
Request your free CD of my piano music.
I bet you like abusing your mod points. I bet your one of the US Cyber-warfare fucks.
Good luck with that. I've lost all hope here.
-- An Italian.
You're a silly sausage.
Glad you agree.
This shit is going to escalate until it's too late. Telcos make money anyway through landline and cellphones rates, cable TV and stuff, so I wouldn't expect them to fear losing customers. People should consider getting the necessary equipment to set up a pirate radio station like they did in the 60s and 70s, but this time by using common Wi-Fi equipment. I wish every home recycled an old PC with wireless card setting up a minimum file server, a dynamic routing daemon (OLSR, b.a.t.m.a.n., etc) and a p2p client.
Considering that many ISPs want to close P2P as well, because they do not actually want traffic on their lines, I do not see it as a problem for the ISP.
What the ISP want is to sell you X amount of traffic and each MB another Y amount of money, while they themselves do not need to pass on that money. Less traffic is GOOD for the ISP
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
... I actually checked to see if those were real systems.
You mad
Fuck off! We're the Judean People's Front.
G4 Hackintosh
How are they gonna stop private (wireless) networks ? These days whole cities are covered by wireless networks in which you can literally peer-2-peer. It is unstoppable..
Soyou'll end up with a slow controlled link to the internet and a (semi) fast P2P network for the rest...
I would be "that guy"... but I won't do it now. But I will suggest your spelling is off.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leeroy_Jenkins
Great to see all these technical and social objections to the Telecoms Package but, unfortunately, i don't think many MEPs read Slashdot so make sure you express these concerns in writing to your rep in Brussels. And this is a matter of urgency, because the amendments will be voted on this Monday 7 July. Get to writing everyone!
Bruxelles is very real. It's in Belgium system, in EU controlled territory. EU is a real life alliance of real life corporations.
The common theme within some of the comments here seems to be "let's build an open network". Although this is somewhat idealistic, it's not outside the realms of possibility. Cities are already smothered with open wireless networks, whether intentionally or not, and there's no way you can regulate the traffic among them. And P2P, although used on the "International Network", is essentially a local service... a closed group of people, usually from countries that speak the same language, sharing files with each other internally without a *requirement* for international transit.
P2P moving to such networks is an obvious possibility. Again, by heavy-handed and back-handed approaches (suing people without evidence, slipping clauses/laws into other laws by political maneouvering, etc.), the media industries are forcing people to use more and more ingenious solutions to sensibly meet their requirements (i.e. they'd like some sensibly-priced music that they can use, please). And as each solution's flaws are found, new solutions (without those flaws) present themselves. Regulation of traffic flowing over regulated internet channels? Remove the regulation by using *other* channels.
We seem to have come full circle - from the initial Internet, where private, unregulated networks joined up to decrease costs and increase connectivity, to a world where everyone has their own private network behind an ISP's public network, to (hopefully) a place where all the private networks peer with each other *without the intervention of an ISP*, except this time via radios. The only problem is international transit (Joe Bloggs can't exactly run a fibre over the English Channel), but the chances are that programs like Tor, etc. as well as the odd rogue network that connects to someone's actual ISP connection will solve that.
Maybe when 802.11n or its successor grows in popularity, we will see home networks that, even with enormous interference, crowded channels, limited range, primitive routing etc. are quite capable of peering with a number of geographical neighbours and passing traffic intelligently at a reasonable speed. You don't even have to take account of "ISP T&C's" because you don't NEED to pass the traffic to the Internet at every possible point, only to be able to pass it on to someone else.
I had a quick look and all of the community wifi projects I can find in my country are very small and localised, or don't exist any more. If there was one operating near me, I'd gladly hook up an old Linksys and an enormous antenna and let it freely pass traffic - everything would have to be encrypted, anyway, because an open network is an open network but if all it needs is to be "plugged in", and not actually connected to anything else physically, or to the Internet, there's no reason we can't each have a little cube in our homes that costs about £10 and lets us connect to every house in the street and pass traffic. If there was the possibility of such a "darknet" running over it (free VoIP calls, free music, free movies, no Internet charges, etc.) I'm sure every student would have one.
Then, not only do the music industry etc. run into the problem of *detecting* the traffic in the first place (no black boxes on a private net, a physical presence required in every locality, and being able to defeat the encryption), but that if done properly, traffic's transit route, origin, etc. are impossible to determine. They may try to close the system down, of course, but then you have a much larger problem - you're effectively trying to shut down the entire Internet. Except all the "nodes" are private individuals, without contracts, without liability, without regulation, and, if they are cheap enough, rogue solar-powered blackboxes stuck in hidden locations around towns and cities and replaced whenever they are discovered. Just how do you shut that down without bringing a country into riots?
The real Internet2 isn't going to be an academic project aimed at pushing Gb/s over international fibre, it's going to be a nationwide collection of cheap Gumstix with a solar panel and wifi, sold at cost price, one per home, that let's people escape most of the communication regulation foisted upon them.
This will just push technology backwards. If people can't distribute via P2P, and the internet is turned into the one-way "TV over IP" service that the megacorps want, we will find other networks to do the job: Local wireless meshes that don't even touch the ISP. Perhaps direct-dialup bulletin boards will make a comeback. Hell, I'd like to see them legislate against the sneakernet.
They can't win, all they can do is make everyone poorer. Fuck them.
I hate to break it to you, but the legislation as proposed accounts for that. It suggests that countries would have to make it a legal requirement that terminals allowed to connect to the Internet had the technical means to ensure that they don't do anything illegal.
In other words, it legislates for mandatory Trusted Computing (the infamous "Palladium" chip).
In five years time, I doubt that a typical USA or UK resident will have more than two or three broadband ISPs from whom they can obtain service
Two or three? We should all be that "lucky". Most people around here only have one they can choose from. The lucky few live close enough to the central offices to get DSL -- most are stuck with cable as their sole option.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
And you are going to replace them with.....who? If you are given the choice of "rich old money corporate ass kisser A" or "rich old money corporate ass kisser B" how is your vote going to make a difference? The cartels figured out a LONG time ago that the way you win is to make sure you own all the contestants. Then no matter who wins you still get your draconian laws passed and can laugh all the way to the bank. How is your vote going to change that?
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Fuck off! We're the Front of Judea's People.
What has the EU done for us anyway...
May contain traces of nut.
Made from the freshest electrons.
My reading of the proposed amendment is the exact opposite - (my emphasis added):
It seems to me that this directive prohibits making it a legal requirement that equipment contains DRM or other control mechanisms. Manufacturers can put that stuff in their products if they want but it seems to me that this amendment says you can't stop manufacturers leaving it out and if they do you can't stop them shipping their products between member states.
I know it is probably too much to ask on Slashdot but could someone else read the proposed amendments carefully, think about them and if they think I have got it wrong explain exactly how and why they interpret the words in that way.
I will probably be modded troll here. But I have got a beginning to a solution. Here at Slashdot we all get hard-ons for how much influence we have as a community. Well here is my 2 cents, don't use P2P to download anything that you do not have permission to possess. Look down and scorn all your peers, coworkers, friends, spouses and children when they mention that they ripped the latest Iron Man movie. Tell everyone you know that ripping shit off is not ok, no matter how you rationalize it. If you want the freedom to do what you want with a technology, don't exploit it. Use it for good, not ripping shit off. This will be a good start.
Are the weasle words at the end? "which could impede the placing of equipment on the market and the free circulation of such equipment in and between Member States"
Does a DRM chip impede in this manner? No? Well, OK then.
I have mod points. The reign of terror begins now.
And the thing is, dinosaurs didn't even use toothpaste. That's how far out of whack the laws are with the technology - toothpaste and dinosaurs don't even exist in the same world. How can a dinosaur even attempt to squeeze the toothpaste back in to the tube - the toothpaste is millions of years away in the future, being squeezed out more and more while the dinosaur is powerless to stop it. All it can do is waggle its little front legs and roar in frustration. For all it's mighty strength and razor-sharp teeth, it is impotent in the face of future toothpaste.
So are you saying that we must acquit? Please do it before someone's head explodes.
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
I know it is probably too much to ask on Slashdot but could someone else read the proposed amendments carefully, think about them and if they think I have got it wrong explain exactly how and why they interpret the words in that way.
This is something I was unclear about. The paragraph immediately below that directly contradicted it - whether or not those amendments are proposed or they've been written into the legislation I don't know.
One thing I would point out - legislated TPM or not, if every ISP in the country is legally obliged to do everything in their power to prevent customer copyright infringement and TPM offers this promise, how long before the ISP makes "you must have a TPM-enabled PC" a condition of service, at least for domestic connections?
I wonder if there is a large overlap of the people who want "net neutrality" and the people who want to get rid of copyright. Why do they want more government in one area (NN) and less in another (IP)? That is inconsistent. If you have government manipulating the internet the chance of them controling the content in ways which you don't approve of increases. This is a perfect example of a previous government intervention creating more problems down the road. Of course, the same people then call for more government intervention, continuing the self-perpetuating cycle. For those people who think government is the awnswer to any social ill, please get some imagination, go and do something for yourself for once rather than just irrationally relying on government. You reap what you sow, unfortunately some other people who didn't think government intervention in the first place was a good idea reap what you sow as well, so perhaps if you could try and be a little less selfish that would be a good starter.
Oh, come on. You should have said something more along the lines of, "I disagree completely with whatever the first post says". Remember, Insightful is better for your karma than Funny!
So that's what the Members of the European Parliament have been doing while being paid 14'000 euro (22'200$) per month.
The system works!
The thing that concerns me is that in the end, regardless of how loud we bitch and moan, the plug is in their hands. Let's discuss a hypothetical scenario. You wake up one cold autumn weekend day, sit in front of your PC and see that the internet you've known - the anarchistic, free and open virtual world is now gone. What would you do? [ "Browse the pr0n I had already downloaded instead" is not an option ]
For years ISP's have been delivering content to me while ratting me out to the authorities and while I pay them to do that. Now THEY have some skin in the game. Sue me, sue them, sue everyone.
Right? Right.
What about a 100 guilty? A 1000? Does it stop anywhere?.. Are we willing to risk 1 innocent over any number of the guilty?
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
While some might like to prohibit the sale of equipment containing DRM I don't think that is going to happen. Permitting the sale of DRM-crippled systems does not prohibit the sale of non-DRM systems.
Reading the original directive is quite informative. It seems to me that the amendment just makes it clear that concern for enforcing copyright does not override the prohibition on requiring specific technical features.
I think all the ISPs should choose a date and time and then shut the internet down for a period of several hours in protest to this.
If they show that they have the power the governemts will have to back down. I would support them 100% dispite the annoyance that it would cause me..
Don't you get it? If you die in Belgium, YOU DIE IN REAL LIFE.
Everything clever I considered putting here I got from other slashdot sigs.
... people simply don't care about P2P blocking. It's faster to buy a CD for US$ 3, or a DVD for US$ 6, in any corner through any city.
-=-=-=-=
I know life isn't fair, but why can't it ever be un-fair in MY favor!?
a national regulatory authority may issue guidelines setting minimum quality of service requirements
. Nothing strange about it, it might even allow regulatory agencies to mandate ISPs to advertise more truthfully.
if appropriate, take other measures, in order to prevent degradation of services and slowing of traffic over networks,
Traffic shaping is not necessarily bad. Why should I have to wait 5+ seconds for a webpage to load just because the guy next door is downloading 24/7?
and to ensure that the ability of users to access or distribute lawful content or to run lawful applications and services of their choice is not unreasonably restricted.
This is where there can be disagreement on what this amendment is trying to accomplish. On the one hand, it might be used to restrict P2P sharing. This is La Quadrature's interpretation. On the other hand, however, this passage can also be construed as protecting our right to use our internet connection as we see fit, provided we are not engaging in illegal activities. For instance, should ISPs block or throttle all P2P traffic, a user might file a complaint with the regulatory authorities, which could judge that, since it unreasonably restricts the ability of users to access lawful content, such a measure is illegal.
Their analysis of Article 21 (4a) is not much more accurate. What is says is that, "when appropriate", ISPs may be forced to send "public interest information" to subscribers. The inclusions of
(c) means of protection against risks to personal security, privacy and personal data in using electronic communications services
argues against La Quadrature's (confused and barely understandable) analysis that this article refers to mandatory takedown notices. A more charitable -- and plain -- reading suggests that ISPs would be required to send a brochure to their customers to tell them that copyright infrigement in really bad. This is why both existing and new subscribers (who, obviously, haven't downloaded anything illegal yet), are mentioned. In all likelihood, the only thing this amendment will accomplish is that all subscribers will get a leaflet that explains why they should install a firewall and an anti-virus program.
It's FUD, pure and simple. Most of the arguments on La Quadrature's pages are either non sequiturs or slippery slope arguments ("may" does not equal "shall").
how long before the ISP makes "you must have a TPM-enabled PC"
Sure, I'll connect with a TPM PC ... that's a router for my non-TPM PC.
If you are trying to check TPM after the fact you have something similar to the analog hole, except it doesn't have to be analog. For example, while TPM may prevent me from ripping a CD on a computer with TPM, it can't prevent me from ripping the CD on a computer without TPM then sending that data to the TPM PC and sending that data over the Internet from the TPM PC.
In democratic countries at least, the government serves at the pleasure of the people, not the corporations.
No, sorry, that's a tad wrong. Hookers serve at the pleasure of the people. In a typical democracy elected officiers do (kinda) whatever they want, as they're not forced to do things for the "(pleasure|good|future|survival) of the (people|nation|children)".
no matter ... if it will be for defeating this dumb law, probably CCP will keep my account running and training until the end of the universe :-P
.
Caldari might make peace with Gallente too...
don't drag EVE into this, their updates aren't distributed by BitTorrent.
Stop Computers/Cars Analogies on S
Singularity: a belief in the "God" idea with the "demiurge" relation inverted.
Perhaps media companies should engineer a retrovirus which introduces blindness into the collective human genome. That way there's less chance of someone viewing 'illegal content'.
Ho ho ho - I cannot wait until these greedy corporate motherfuckers take it in the ass when the revolution comes (more "ho ho ho"'ing trailing off insanely....)
Requiem for the American Dream
This is what will happen. The ISP is perpetuating an arms race against a community of very intelligent individuals who don't take kindly to someone telling them what they can or cannot do.
The ISP's biggest problem is that the cost of maintaining the race isn't equal. Hell, it isn't even close. Most p2p software is an update away from a completely new protocol, whereas the ISP has to get very fast (and very expensive) hardware to identify the ever-evolving characteristics of the p2p connection.
In short, they can have my p2p when they pry it from my cold, dead, heavily encrypted and obfuscated hands. Because they day that I stop using a piece of software due to some idiot's decision that the piece of software in question is somehow 'bad', is the day that I turn in my nerd badge and go live in a monastery.
the updated client is, in case your upgrades don't go smoothly.
if any two computers can no longer talk to each other, can we still call it "the internet?"
One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
They've spent years telling people they need bandwidth to download music, etc.
Are they now going to tell us we don't need it any more, that a much cheaper line will suffice?
No sig today...
Given the population imbalance about three quarters of them would likely be shouting "FOR THE ALLIANCE!!" :)
Though really, I think the whole Horde/Alliance thing is more of an issue for Horde players. I guess largely because Horde has traditionally been a little more PvP oriented and Alliance more PvE. Half the time (as Alliance) I forget that there's even another faction out there. Then again, my lifetime HK count on a toon that I've played for about 2 and a half years is sitting at a whopping 33. I think that came from my stepping into WSG once to see what it was like.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
Or something like that.
If Dinos can't use toothpaste, you must dismiss the case!
Write whichever politician represents you and say that you do NOT want them to support the efforts by the copyright cartels to shut down legitimate content distribution in the name of fighting piracy. Tell them that you do NOT support piracy and the illegal copying of other peoples content without permission but that the law and court system should be used to find the people who violate copyright law and that ISPs should NOT be force to block
Tell them that if they support legislation that blocks legitimate uses of the internet in the name of fighting piracy, you will vote for someone else who does not support such legislation.
The interviewer asked if she meant all kind of sharing, like if he had a document he had written him self on his computer and wanted to share it, would it be illegal? And the great lawmaker answered: "We are talking about files here, not documents and stuff like that."
Just rename all of your "files" from "myfavoritesong.mp3" to "myfavoritesong.doc". P2P "problem" solved.
You insensitive clod! (this is supposed to be a joke, if it hadn't happen to be true. Corporations have almost the same rights as people, yet they can't be jailed if they infringe upon the law. As I recall another /. comment, someday we'll see Coca-Cola and MS competing for the President ticket)
Where is that guy who'd die defending what I had to say when I need him?
Not if I know in advance that I cannot really use the X amount of traffic they are promising. A real life example:
I have a DSL 2000 kbit/s connection at home, and most download servers of commercial vendors don't give me the data as fast as I could pull them (funnily enough, Ubuntu updates usually manage to saturate my connection).
So unless I want to engage in massive filesharing I don't have much reason to buy faster access. Bad for the ISP who won't sell more than the cheapest package (DSL 2000 w/"flatrate" is pretty much the entry level offer these days).
C - the footgun of programming languages
Does the E.U. really think it can bully the rest of the world into obeying it's laws? More to the point, does it think that it can in effect annex the U.S., forcing it to conform to it's laws? I think they're completely out of their minds.
I have mod points at the moment but I have already commented so I can't use one here.
The original Directive 2002/58/EC is all about "processing of personal data and the protection of privacy". The original Article 14 paragraph 1 is:
The amendment just makes it explicit that DRM is included in the equipment that must not be required by law. I am assuming that La Quadrature has reported the amendment correctly, I can't find a link to the original.
Lawyer 1: When we reach the parliament, I will use Intimidating Shout to kinda scatter them.
Lawyer 2: We're gonna need Divine Intervention on our attorneys... I'm coming up with 32.33, repeating of course, percentage of survival.
Lawyer 3: All right chums, let's do this! LEEROOOOOY JEEEEENKINS!
Lawyer 1: Oh, my God, he just ran in!
Having read the original Directive 2002/58/EC and the various documents that La Quadrature say are the proposed amendments I do not see a contradiction. I am afraid that "The paragraph immediately below that" is not a sufficiently specific reference for me to understand your point. The only thing to which 'that' might refer seems to be "the proposed amendments" and that just does not make sense to me.
Neither the Directive nor any of the amendments require ISPs "to do everything in their power to prevent customer copyright infringement" as far as I can see. If you think that they do can you please be specific about which part of which document you think says that.
ZOMG!! Quick download the internet before they take it away from us!!1! http://ojk007.googlepages.com/downloadwww.gif
The Roads.
I'll be shouting "for COWBOYNEAL" (damn caps restriction)
MEPs do not read Slashdot, they read the original Directives and proposed amendments and perhaps analysis by people who have read the originals. If you are going to write to your MEP it would be a good idea to be at least as well informed as they are if you do not want to do more harm than good by giving the impression of being a ranting idiot. My reading of such originals as I can find suggests that ZeroPaid, La Quadrature and EDRI are just completely wrong about what the proposed amendments say. There may be stuff I have not seen on which they are basing their opinions but the sections they have quoted just do not support their arguments.
Please do not give your MEP the impression that those who are opposed to having the net controlled by content cartels are a bunch of clueless ranting idiots.
Somebody please mod this guy insightful. Thanks,
I don't have a microwave. I do, however, have a clock that occasionally cooks shit.
It doesn't sound all that likely that this will become actively enforced in a hell of a lot of places. In the UK, for example, the BBC's online download service, the iPlayer, uses P2P technology to serve up the programs you've paid for with your TV license.
I can't see UK government, ridiculously inept as they are, shutting down the iPlayer. Why? Because they use it as an excuse to charge you for a TV license when you've only got a computer.
And if there's one thing the UK government like, it's badly disguised taxes.
EU = EUSSR
Take Nobody's Word For It.
That's in a free society. We've been a slow march to "Better 1000 innocent be punished than one guilty man goes free."
Cynical Idealist
All government serve some citizens at the expense of others. You simply object to the fact that you're on the losing end in this case.
(No, I'm not calling corporations "citizens". The politicians are working for the owners of said corporations, who are indeed citizens, and not for the corporations themselves. The latter would be meaningless, as an abstract concept like a corporation doesn't have a will of its own to serve.)
"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
I thought we were the Popular Front?
The should fix their action page so that the list of all MEP's is not just in french.
We are a free society — perhaps, the freest in today's world, even if may be hard to believe for someone, who has only ever experienced the American lifestyle.
But let's not change the subject to "what we are". The question was, what do people consider acceptable. How about you? How many guilty are you willing to leave unpunished to avoid accidentally hurting 1 innocent? 100? 1000? Infinite?
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Ban on P2P (War on Information) : EU :: War on Drugs : US
In other words, many people will be victimized and punished but the end result will still be that P2P thrives.
In even shorter words, facepalm.
The Roads.
Ok, granted, but apart from the roads, the education, the water, the open borders, the peace, and the standardised banana sizes, what has the EU *really* done for us ?
May contain traces of nut.
Made from the freshest electrons.
There is no number set in stone. The idea isn't to be paranoid and avoid prosecution because it might result in harming an innocent person. The idea is to set up a system with enough checks and balances to ensure that no one is punished unless they're pretty damn sure (supposedly "beyond reasonable doubt" in the American system), and to have a system in place so that if someone innocent gets punished, they get a chance to have that discovered and corrected.
The biggest problem right now is that it's no longer a justice system, it is a legal system. And the legal system is based on who can pay the most.
Cynical Idealist
Just convert P2P traffic into Spam, and hijack the same IP addresses where it is being sent from. Every upload would be a reply-to an advertisement to "grow this" and "shrink that."
Because, apparently, this SPAM doesn't seem to have any priority for the Internet police because it hurts consumers, so if P2P networks could look like trojans, viruses, advertisements and late fee notices, it would be completely legitimate.
Just change that video name to "You will be amazed in just 15 days" and there is no possibility that anyone will be staying awake to view it.
Of course, then you would have another server that explained what all the spam headers were pointing to, but you could always claim; "Hey, I was just responding to get a free Vacation -- it's my right to spend $3000 on a FREE vacation with an undisclosed third-party isn't it?"
>>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
having lost 75% of my family and 100% of our assets in a certain european government's zealous actions to "purge the guilty" from the population, I say infinite + 1.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
Brought peace?
The list of amendments in the summary has a better interpretation by people more versed in the laws in question.
The grievances are legitimate, and amount to exactly what the summary states.
The examples used in the other few links are not particularly good ones for the discussion however. I think the other sites linked to are doing a disservice by not providing the more damning full amendment texts present in the "list of amendments" linked in our summary.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
There is — or ought to be — a threshold in everybody's mind. All societies try to avoid punishing the innocent, but different ones are willing to go to different lengths to do so. Ancient Romans, for example, had some legal mechanisms for citizens inside the City (and 1.5 miles outside of it), but any further an executive's power was absolute — it was deemed acceptable to occasionally have an innocent suffer the executive's injustice so as not to burden the executive's power. Modern developed societies are nearly opposite — the executive's power was just trimmed even over non-citizens captured (very) far away.
It is all about balancing the swiftness and efficiency of just prosecution against the dangers of punishing the innocent. And it all boils down to the original question (asked centuries ago): Is it better that ten guilty persons go free than that one innocent person be convicted?.
The answer today is almost universally "yes". But what if the stakes are different — not 10:1, but 100:1?..
This is a meaningless answer. All of the "checks and balances" impede prosecution. We still need them exactly for the reasons you state: to protect against accidentally punishing an innocent. And every time someone like O.J. Simpson is acquitted, we start thinking, whether there are too many impediments to prosecution — and too many guilty ones end up free.
So, what's your threshold?
Yada-yada, yackity-yack. I asked to avoid changing the subject to "what we are"... Can't resist?
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
In your family's case, if I understand it right, the problem was not that they were innocent (they weren't!), but that their guilt (belonging to a certain race) was absurd.
Well, that means nobody can ever be punished, because there is always a chance, that they are innocent. Always...
Are you suggesting, we abolish all penal institutions? Because if you don't, your view is self-inconsistent and thus automatically wrong...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
In your family's case, if I understand it right, the problem was not that they were innocent (they weren't!), but that their guilt (belonging to a certain race) was absurd.
Ah, and allowing mass proliferation of the VCR, blank tapes, and dual cassette decks with "high speed dubbing", then making the same type of copying over silicon and wires illegal is not absurd? (and don't you dare come back with that "millions of people" crap, how many millions of VCR's and Dual Cassette decks have been sold again?)
Well, that means nobody can ever be punished, because there is always a chance, that they are innocent. Always...
not true at all. Have you never watched an episode of forensic files? Modern forensics can provide a solid chain of evidence tying someone to a crime.
Are you suggesting, we abolish all penal institutions? Because if you don't, your view is self-inconsistent and thus automatically wrong...
clearly not.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
Well, this is another argument from you towards complete abolition of punishment — for anything...
Well, a) such evidence is not always available; and b) even when it is, there may be doubts. O.J. Simpson is free, in part, because his lawyers persuaded the jury with simple Math: this evidence links our client to the crime with 99.8 percent certainty (not sure about the exact figure). Well, that means, there are about twenty thousand people (in the 10 million Los Angeles), who could've been the real perpetrators!
And then, of course, there is always the real threat to justices — dishonest prosecutors and incompetent forensic "experts". So, no, there is no way to be absolutely sure, a convict is guilty (and this, BTW, is the only rational argument against an irreversible punishment like death penalty). Your "infinity + 1" remains a lunacy.
Try again...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
... run the government. In democratic countries at least, the government serves at the pleasure of the people, not the corporations.
And yes I'm well aware of the corrupting influence of campaign donations and lobbyists. If those lead to bad laws being passed, it's because the voters don't care about their own rights.
or they don't have one of these mythical "public good" politicians to vote for, especially on copyright, because the main-stream mass media is corporate controlled. (Don't believe corporates can control public opinion? look what's happened to the USA since Fox News was launched!)
There are definitely more voters than corporations, so it's well-within our abilities to put those who pass bad laws out of a job.
The soap box, ballot box, and jury box have been proven ineffective, and the people are too cowardly to use the last remaining box, assuming their particular nation even allows them access to that one.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
And what are -you- doing about it?
Karma is for whores
Wikis in their purest form are editable and defaceable at random.
Wikis in the current majority of cases have a moderated front page and an unmoderated "discussion section" as well as a separate "potential controversy" section.
Let's compare this "definition by debate" to Fox News.
Wikis are very good at eliminating bias.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
You need to get into therapy to re-center your thoughts if you think calling copyright law absurd is calling for "complete abolition of punishment â" for anything..."
did it ever occur to you they may be innocent?
When you watch law and order, and see them say "oh we could put you under a microscope if you don't tell us what we want you to say", you may feel 'vindicated'. Me, I'm disturbed whenever I see this, because it's a demonstration of exactly the type of tyranny our forefathers tried so hard to prevent.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
I'd like to add something to my point about forensics because I don't think i was clear enough on this.
Good forensic evidence doesn't leave the type of wiggle room you talk about
It ties you, conclusively, to a crime.
Almost everything made today has lot numbers, and even the most consistently made product has statistically significant variation between lot numbers, but extreme consistency within those lots. This is why fiber evidence can be utterly damning.
Blood spatter analysis, again, does not lie. Velocity and direction can be proven via established fluid dynamics.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
And there probably is. But I'm going to tell you a secret: the moment that they or someone they know and love gets falsely imprisoned, that threshold disappears like lightning. But to answer your question...right now, I'd say my threshold is very high. In the range of, oh say, 1e6 guilty men to go free. But, if the laws were relaxed with respect to certain things, such as drug use, and tightened with respect to others, such as murder, my number would go down by an order of magnitude or so.
As for changing to subject, I was just pointing out something that was on my mind that completely supersedes that issue of how many guilty men should walk.
Cynical Idealist
This proposal comes as additional proof of the very basic lies that we were proposed when joining the union: It was said that crimes should never be covered by european legislation, now they are!!! They said europe was to be democratic: only a few countries had a referendum on it and the outcome was NO. And regardless they keep trying to impose the same costitution over and over again!!!!
It comes as no wonder that when properly informed about the lisbon treaty the Irish voted "NO".
It should be clear by a long time that Europe is really going against the people. More and more europeans are realizing that this project it's being made and carried on by politicians in need of a uberstate where selfappointed people are not accountable for their actions.
From where I write It is comonplace that crimes are to be investigated by the police and warrants be issued only by judges. But of course when you put corrupted eurocrats in the mixture a costitution becomes a treaty, a no becomes a "next time" and most importantly you have to remember that THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CORPORATIONS. For the same reason that if a corruption scandal erupts in my country the responsible gets a good chance not to be elected... but if a corruption scandal happens in brussel what happens? Here is one answer http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/3057
(Forget the contents of this message ASAP or else you can be marked as (Choose what applies best): FASCIST - RACIST - ISLAMOFOBIC - EUROSCEPTIC - NAZIST - EXTREMIST - TERRORIST)
Bingo. I'd like to see an analysis of these amendments written by somebody who does understand them in terms of all their implications, but the linked analysis is blatantly wrong in many aspects. One that stood out to me:
This is interpreted by La Quadrature as mandating TPM. As I read it, it actually does the opposite: it states that member states are not allowed to require such measures: "Member States shall ensure ... that no mandatory requirements ... are imposed on terminal equipment [etc]". The directive as it stands without this amendment could be interpreted as requiring TPM.
ISPs could be turned into the copyright police through European legislation
Does Europe still have legislation? I thought bureaucrats in Brussels just issued orders to the former national governments.
That would screw with them - just try blocking email.
Wait. You mean content creators somehow expect or desire that their creations at some point be seen, heard, felt, touched, or Be otherwise exchanged to others? Inconceivable! A Moment of Silence, if you Please, while I Gather the Operation Rousseau Society Will Thoughts of My Pets, er Peers.
"From DNA to P2P, we are all Copycats now. Go Go Copycat Power! Copycat Powers activate! Form of, a Copycat." --monxrtr
Radio / wifi is one way to hook up such a city-wide personal network. Light is another: point-to-point connections using light signals. Yeah, much harder to do than radio (which is omnidirectional) but also much harder to regulate. Not just regulating spectrum, we're now talking about the government regulating visible light. "Sorry, you can't use green or red in this area, and blue can only be used under joint licensing from IBM and Sony."
Don't forget your Mod Sponsor ...
"Brought to you by the Society to End the Abuse of Mod Points Association of America" (SEA MPAA)
"'Cause Bought Mod Points Taste Better!"
"From DNA to P2P, we are all Copycats now. Go Go Copycat Power! Copycat Powers activate! Form of, a Copycat." --monxrtr
I'm afraid you might be right ...
and the paragraph 2 requires the member states to only inform the Commission , while the paragraph 3 says:
It seems that the amendments are aimed at preventing abuses resulting from attempts to block copyright infringement, and that DRM devices should not be mandatory, and if there are DRM devices/software, it should not interfere with somebody's personal data or use that personal data ... though my Legalese could be defective and I might misread
It is also true that the texts quoted by laquadrature.net do not forbid DRM.
It certainly did. That's the point.
There is still a need for "good" forensic experts to perform experiments and testify. Those people aren't gods — they can be manipulated, lie, or just make an honest mistake. It happened before, and it will happen again — these people almost always either work directly for the (Executive) government — together with the prosecutors — or count the government as major clients.
Their testimony is important, but it can not be taken as absolute proof. Otherwise, why bother with judge and jury — a forensic expert knows it all, does not he?
Also, perhaps, you've watched a bit too much "Law and Order", if you think, "good forensic evidence" is all, that's needed for all convictions. There are plenty of crimes, where forensic evidence will be inconclusive (even assuming, that the expert is above all suspicions — a big stretch).
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
i'm suddenly reminded of the opening scene of ridley scott's gladiator:
Quintus: People should know when they are conquered.
Maximus: Would you, Quintus? Would I?
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0172495/quotes
some enemies you simply have to burn off the face of the earth. they don't understand defeat. the only way to truly defeat them is to utterly destroy them. they are too proud to accept defeat, no matter how wrong they are
the war is on
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
wow you like to blow a lot of smoke.
Forensics testing is done by sending pieces of the same sample to independent labs and experts, un-named, for independent analysis.
at least 2 different labs in different regions is the standard for DNA testing on capital cases.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
No. You are Wrong. DRM will solely exist at the ISP monopoly/duopoly backbone level, the sole Judge, Jury, and Executable of "legitimate" traffic. Fine, if you want to build your subsidy not included multi-billion dollar network without DRM "trusted" monitoring, go ahead ... otherwise you are a "pirate" if you don't conform to the network and broadband standards of the official network, corporately owned and subsidized by politician votes.
What kind of routers and cisco nodes do you think the corporate backbone ISP's are going to demand? Who gives a fuck what you want at the household level ...
"From DNA to P2P, we are all Copycats now. Go Go Copycat Power! Copycat Powers activate! Form of, a Copycat." --monxrtr
Vote for me for Emperor, by Deed or Action. I will with the utmost of exquisite balance and benign benevolence relieve you of such burdens. Plus if you vote for me, mi is first up against the wall. Et tu, Mob?
"From DNA to P2P, we are all Copycats now. Go Go Copycat Power! Copycat Powers activate! Form of, a Copycat." --monxrtr
content creaters need to wake up and embrace the world they live in like using p2p to there advantage. not go down in flames trying to fight something that will never die. they still make billions selling media to the masses p2p as i said has been around for a very long time even befor the pc era. the problem is many content creaters have gotten full so full of them selfs and greddy/cruppted that there trying to live in the past. when the worlds going to hell in a handbasket and the ecnomys all but gone into a full depression pofits guess what fall regradless of p2p or piracy.
While I wrote that several years ago, the page has gotten about five million hits.
I have more such essays in the works - I'll make sure that my many Slashdot friends are the first to know when they are published.
Request your free CD of my piano music.
I can't find any 'official' (ie. published on an EU Parliamentary site) version of this proposal. That said I'm no expert in traversing the EU official sites.
Does somebody have a real link to the actual source? I am starting to suspect that this is hot air...
No they don't, if the law mandates that such throttling/blocking must be implemented. Then it just becomes a cost of doing business, like all the other regulatory crap they have to deal with, and they'll pass the costs on to their customers. Hell, CALEA cost the Telcos and IPSs a good chunk of change, but once the law was passed they had to be compliant (they could have fought it in Congress and the courts, but it was easier to just roll over and take it.)
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
anybody with a silicon etching machine and sparetime?
I know full well that tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack
They have declared carrot to be a fruit. We have been thus enlightened.
The moon is not fully subjugated. I demand a second assault wave preceded by a massive nuclear bombardment.
Psst: it's actually already happened. Just saying. http://www.wowwiki.com/Cenarion_Circle