Slashdot Mirror
AU Gov't Still Wants ISPs To Solve Illegal Downloads
bennyboy64 writes "Australia's Minister for Communications wants internet providers and the film industry to sit down and work out a solution to stop illegal movie downloads, despite a judge ruling in favor of an internet provider not being responsible for policing illegal downloads. The film studios first dragged internet provider iiNet into the Federal Court back in November 2008, arguing that the ISP infringed copyright by failing to take reasonable steps — including enforcing its own terms and conditions — to prevent customers from copying films and TV shows over its network."
Flood torrent trackers with episodes of Neighbors.
- NS
that the Australian Government and all the potential murderers and all the potential murder victims sit down and work out a solution to stop murder from ever taking place in Australia.
Let's make grocers responsible for planet-wide obesity.
Lets make foundrys responsible for gun related crime.
Sounds like Australia has a silly tit in office.
Like the old saying goes, and I believe it applies here in spite of its coarseness, "sh*t in one hand, and want in the other, then see which hand fills up first."
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
What part of a court ordered "Not My Problem" does the AU politicians not understand about policing illegal downloads?
I dunno, I think the ISPs could use this as leverage against the studios to really pay up. Almost to extortion, but legal.
Want us to police your content, we dont, but if you offer good enough incentive, we might make an effort to work with you, but we dont really have to.
Im a troll because I disagree with you.
It seems that law is not going to deter them from getting their way...
TPM/DRM at the board level and require special clients ( like netzero ) to be inserted into your IP stack. You cant have ANY file that isn't approved by the 'key server'. Even your lowly diary has to be approved, let alone music, books, movies, games, applications. Connect online without your trusty TPM enabled client, you get reported.
Great way to kill off free speech too, that old non DRM'd PDF of Mein Kampf you legally bought off Amazon years ago is no longer permitted, AND you get reported the next time you try to view it off your backup CDROM copy.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
But that very thing is slowly taking place, first in the fast food industry.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Doesn't Au have more pressing matters to address in its country? I think so. This is just another ploy to generate more lawyer jobs that bollocks up yet another world icon-www. GET a REAL LIFE au- Don't be so pitiful.
you're trying too hard, it's just obvious
You know where this will lead? The politicians will try to use 'child porn' as a root access password to the legal system.
Why not make the Internet itself illegal! Then they can slowly decriminalize individual ports and protocols with special identifications until they have complete control over everything.
Once that's done, nothing illegal will happen and all their citizens will be happy drones.
You seriously want to put people in jail for copyright infringement? So, someone downloads a 0.99$USD song illegally and you make a government waste thousands of dollars for this person?
It would be less trouble and cost exponentially less for the copyright holder to ask the local government for the retail price of each illegally downloaded copyrighted material than to jail them.
In other words, get real. Copyright infringement doesn't deserve jail nor does it deserve thousands and millions of dollars in damages.
There's also the fact that some things aren't even sold in some markets. So yes there is copyright infringement but no actual loss of sales. So how can there be any monetary damages in these cases?
That will make way to much e-waste and take a long time to roll out and may even need the gov to shell out big time funds to pay for it all.
It's not representational government when you blindly push your personal agenda against the objections of just about every stakeholder and expert in the system.
I wish Steven Conroy would hurry up and get caught looking at naughty pics of Miranda Kerr on the (uncensored) Internet during a newscast and fired, so the free world can stop giggling at all these Australian human rights violations and we can all get back to being the relaxed outback heroes people used to think of us as.
Since there is no need for a plastic disk, box, paper cover, physical transportation, guarding, air-conditioning, etc. the price of a movie via download should be really attractive.
But I cannot find a place to download movies and serials legally an conveniently. I saw some sites but they often say that this movie is not for a download in your country. Or a price is really expensive.
Would it have been possible to forbid cars on early 20th century? It seems that it wouldn't, but there are Amish people who still do not use cars in their villages and towns.
Maybe the Internet without movies and serials downloads is also possible. Sort of an Amish Internet.
we need Canadian tires and all stores like it responsible for all those hammers smacking people up the head.
OH wait maybe we need a few hammer sales around parliaments EVERYWHERE.
Why should the ISPs enter into talks when they've already won in court?
Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others.
...seems to be what saved this ISP in court.
For reasons other than network integrity, any surveillance or manipulation of users' data, such as port-blocking, DNS (or simply ToS) censorship, [cough]Phorm[/cough] or Deep Packet Inspection in general lead down a road to perdition, as courts will show little mercy with defendants who through their own actions have themselves conceded (even though inaccurately, as there are still e.g. VPNs) the feasibility of the plaintiffs' outlandish demands.
There's also the fact that some things aren't even sold in some markets. So yes there is copyright infringement but no actual loss of sales. So how can there be any monetary damages in these cases?
I thought we were here to politely discuss copyrights, and then you go and bring logic and facts and fairness into this. Clearly you've never negotiated with **AA's before.
By the same measure Australia should hold the various highway authorities responsible for all of the illegal traffic in drugs, bootleg CDs, and so on, that is carried on the roads.
So it'll happen, what, in the next 5 years or so; that's what you're saying?
Again the people in charge of the country show their complete ignorance of the Internet.
Short of pulling out the cable there is no possible technical solution to stop people copying files across the Internet because that's what it's for.
You might be able to defeat the current generation of P2P programs but it's 100% certain that the programs will adapt.
Here's a better idea: Force the movie/music industries to provide an attractive/convenient alternative at a realistic price. eg. You pay $2 to watch a movie on demand.
No sig today...
Not true, they have a disconnect policy for people who have used their network outside the TOS and infringing copyright is certainly on that list.
The problem is that they were never provided with a customer who had been found guilty of infringing copyright, only allegations that had not been proven in a court of law... so they did the only sensible thing, they forwarded the allegations of crime to the police and waited for the justice system to arrive at a verdict... none were forthcoming (AFAIK).
The content owners are trying to bypass the judiciary, effectively being judge jury and executioner and on top of that want the ISPs to play gamekeeper for them too... what cheek.
Even after court battles, public out-cry over censorship and business explaining how some of his ideas are not feasable this minister still pushes. Who is he actually working for ? (or hopes to work for after his political career tanks)
No, you got it wrong. By "copyright thieves", he meant those who use the corrupt law to ownership of divulged info. They are the real thieves, and should be hanged from the highest tree.
There's also the fact that some things aren't even sold in some markets. So yes there is copyright infringement but no actual loss of sales. So how can there be any monetary damages in these cases?
The value of an object is proportional to its scarcity, both natural and artificial. Copyright is an example of the artificial.
... before suing me for the price.
The Media Idiots don't get it - if the only choice for obtaining their product was to pay for it they'd end up selling less and not making the record-breaking profits they are now because their products would not get as much exposure as they do.
PIRACY GIVES PRODUCT EXPOSURE.
Call it 'Good Faith Advertising' - Media releases a product, it gets pirated - pirates like it - next product gets bought by those pirates who 1) have the money to do so and 2) can get the product at a FAIR price.
I think the biggest Media fear is that when they release crap products consumers will find out it's crap before purchasing it (through piracy) - since we're having more and more retailers saying 'once opened you can't return' WE would be screwed, but THEY would make Money.
PIRACY is therefore in the best interests of Both the consumer AND the producer SO LONG AS THE PRODUCER IS RELEASING A QUALITY PRODUCT ;)
The Slashdot crowd demonstrates once again woeful ignorance and a biased perspective that is just as bad as the one they berate the corporations from having.
See, even if the court ruled that the law says one thing, it doesn't mean that the result is just or immutable. Laws get changed. Laws sometimes need to be changed. Courts are conservative, they interpret and react, not set a new path. Legislatures are proactive, they set the pace, they change the tune when circumstances change.
So the corporations are lobbying the politicians. Go figure. Don't like it? Go do it yourself.
So, does he think they should lose their driver's license for buying pirated CDs?
The Amish are not forbidden from driving cars, they do not want to. Big difference.
And I am fairly certain that the movie industry does NOT want to follow the Amish example as the Amish do not watch movies either.
What amazes me is how clearly corrupt politicians are in this area. It is clear that the people do not want it, so why do they try so damned hard? You don't see them try nearly so hard in say restricting petrol usage. So what is the money eh I mean motivator?
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Hollywood just had its highest box office year EVER! Clearly piracy is taking a huge toll, and... ...uh... wait...
"Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
Here's what the movie, record industry and politicians don't get:
Safe harbor and peer to peer networking made the Internet possible.
-- $G
I love it when clueless amateurs try to solve an NP-hard problem like this. Actually, I hate it because they end up foisting their ignorance on our shoulders and out of our pocketbooks. I say, let the recording industry pay ALL of the costs for this activity if they are that convinced it can be done. As a software engineer and member of the IEEE with 30 years experience including the design and implementation of distributed large-scale high-reliability systems in use world-wide, publication in technical academic text books, given invited research papers at very high-brow technical conferences, and awarded US patents for adaptive systems, I think they are blowing smoke out of their you-know-wheres.
Either you can have illegal downloads and the Internet, or you can have neither. Your choice.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Piracy will stop, eventually. One way or another.
It might be a grand awakening in people all over the planet that taking stuff without paying is just somehow wrong. Unfortunately, we have been training an entire generation that taking whateve is laying around unguarded is the right thing to do. So I don't see this happening anytime soon.
It might be that worthwhile content is just not being created except in ways that make piracy impossible. The motivation to do this would come from the simple truth that people that pirate aren't going to pay, ever. And as Internet speeds increase and the breadth and depth of materials available steadily increase, more and more people will take advantage of the endless bounty that is available for free. Pirating Misha Reedy's performances probably isn't all that high on anyone's list - and besides, people like that want their materials to be distributed far and wide so everyone can appreciate their talent.
It is unlikely that the RIAA, MPAA and other organizations like them are going to be able to stamp out piracy no matter how many lawsuits they file.
However, the real possibility to look out for is government intervention. It is simple economics. Not only are there fewer sales due to piracy but even more so there are fewer taxes paid. You might be able to convince the government that less money for a record company is important and worth devoting the government's attention to through law enforcement and other means, but it is probably far more interesting to governments in general that their tax income is being reduced. Slightly, this is true, but the decrease is still there. In today's economic times do you really believe a government isn't interested in spending $10 to get $1 more in tax revenue?
So what people should be concerned about is that governments mandate ISPs and others to stamp out piracy - any way they can. With government-mandated accountability to show statistics to faceless government bureaucrats to prove that they are having an effect. This might actually accomplish the goal of eliminating piracy - along with a good portion of the so-called freedom to pirate that seems to be present with the Internet today.
Will the government do this? Quite possibly. Would it be a good thing? Hardly. But while your friends are grabbing all the free stuff they can it is something to think about.
Technical approaches do not solve social problems.
There is a trivial way to resolve illegal downloading.
Legalize it.
The premise of this argument is flawed.
If a government won't waste tax payer money jailing a $0.99 cent music theft offender, then will:
A. The goverment abuse tax money by putting a $0.99 cent offender in jail?
B. The goverment put a $0.99 offender in an outsourced prison system and take a kick back?
If you answer yes to A or B, the notion that governments don't waste tax payer money is demolished.
It's not so much conceding the feasibility, as it is that the courts tend to take a black and white view of any communications carrier's responsibilities. Either you're responsible for what goes over the communication channels or not. If you don't fool with any of your customer's communications, that's cool. You haven't taken responsibility for the content, and you can't be held accountable for it. But the minute you start censoring people's messages, then you've picked up that ball and it's yours now. You have to take responsibility for it, 100%.
1. It's not the ISP's responsibility to worry about what someone else is doing to their web site. If authorities have a problem, they should contact the site. Nevermind that it would be impossible to account for every deviance.
2. The ISP is just a conduit, they should not manipulate the traffic in any way, as this would compromise their function, which is to act as the last mile in an internet connection. They do not provide the content. Should I sue the city because their streets can lead me to illegal activities?
3. The users and the hosts of the content (not the ISP) should be charged based on their involvement.
Twinstiq, game news
They are doing it with Digital TV now, so don't discount it happening sooner then one would think.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
But I don't see a Digital TV box to make you old system work thing coming and will they have to replace all kinds of switch routers and other stuff as well?
How about mills and other systems that may still need pc's with ISA cards to run and other real old software that does not work with vista / 7 much less any new drm system?
Who will pay to real a office with 500 systems?
and unlike the tv thing few systems to day even come with this drm system build in.
...would like his check now.
Not him, but ACTA will do this. Interesting thing about ACTA is that the Kopyright Kartel Kompanies blame the secrecy on govermnents, and they blame one another. When kids start drawing prison terms for downloading 99-cent songs, the Kartel will claim they didn't want it and governments will claim they didn't want it, either. So kids will go to jail for 99-cent downloads ... because nobody wants it. From Michael Geist's summary of the October 2008 negotiations here
Ain't that grand? Nobody wants it, but it's coming. But its all a secret because nobody wants it to be secret either. Liars.
If you want your life to be different, live it differently.
It would be less trouble and cost exponentially less for the copyright holder to ask the local government for the retail price of each illegally downloaded copyrighted material than to jail them.
In other words, get real. Copyright infringement doesn't deserve jail nor does it deserve thousands and millions of dollars in damages.
Why should government do anything at all. Even if this really was a "lost sale" any actual losses would be lower than the retail price. People (including "corporate people") who are subject to thefts or frauds of much greater amounts can claim only from private insurers. Quite often government, in the personage of law enforcement, are uninterested in doing much actual investigation unless the amount of money involved is at least tens of thousands to millions of times greater than that involved here.
I'm certain that when ISPs begin enforcing network traffic they will gain many customers and many more movies and music will be purchased ... and pigs will fly.
Telephone companies know that some of their customers make obscene phone calls. What do they do about it? Nothing!
Telephone companies do not, and are not expected to, police their customers' phone calls in anyway. People would be outraged if the law required telephone companies to listen in on everyone's phone calls, just in case they were making an obscene phone call.
Why are ISPs treated differently? Why is it *not* OK to listen in on peoples phone calls (even though some of the phone calls might break the law), but it is OK to "listen in" on everyone`s internet connection?
In fact, with VOIP, the two go together. If your internet connection is being "listened in" on, then your phone calls are being listened in on too.
We already have a solution. It's called taking legal action against the alleged offenders.
Athy, athier, athiest.
If you don't fool with any of your customer's communications, that's cool. You haven't taken responsibility for the content, and you can't be held accountable for it. But the minute you start censoring people's messages, then you've picked up that ball and it's yours now. You have to take responsibility for it, 100%.
One might also say that other people's traffic is a can of worms best served closed. ;-)
The moment the messenger allows itself even a sneak peek into it, let alone tries to "improve" it in whatever way, it'll find out that curiosity kills not just cats, but also ISPs at lawyerpoint.
then I should sue my town for having the roads available that allowed the perp to get away.
-=[ place
I think the people who make the guns should talk to the people who make the bullets to prevent murders happening...
Perhaps the people who make cars should talk to the people who make roads to stop the transport of illegal and ill-gotten goods...
Perhaps the air/sea freight companies can talk to the people who make shipping pallets to prevent the transport of drugs across borders...
Maybe, if the owners of protected and copyrighted products have evidence of a crime they can forward it to the authorities like they are supposed to.
No, the owners of the transport systems are not and can not be held responsible for all the actions of their users and even in these cases, the studios have the flimsiest of evidence which is why they prefer to directly attack, with litigation, the individual who can't defend themselves.
A company is an individual, the accused is an individual, why then is the government leaning toward the larger one in these cases? Because they are right? Because they employ people? Or just because the larger entity has a greater sense of gravity?
Stand up for your people AU government and stop abusing us and ripping us off.
Lets compare a city to an ISP. A City has their network of streets and roads. An ISP has their network of wires and fiberoptics. I don't know AU's citizens right & laws, so I'll base it on the US's PROBLEM: City: If someone is selling or distributing bootleg copies of movies from their home, do you hold the city liable? ISP: If someone is selling or distributing bootleg copies of movies from their PC, do you hold the ISP liable? COUNTER_MEASURE: City: Create roadblocks at every entrance to the city with cops that will search every car that enters or exits for illegal movies. City gets in BIG trouble for violating fourth amendment. ISP: Implement expensive devices to Inspect all packets entering or exiting the ISP's network for illegal movies. Illegal wiretapping? Same laws & rights concerning data tranmission vs. voice transmission is still under debate. With VoIP on the rise, this will really stir up a storm. See my point?
On behalf of all Australians I apologize for the level of retardation in our government. Sadly, it seems that over 50% of the voting public here are dibbling idots that think a toilet is something you drink from. It is these people that vote their fellow retards into positions of power...
Conroy and Atkinson especially think we need nappies. Conroy accuses everyone who opposes his precious defective by design Internet censorship policy of being fans of child porn. Atkinson who once said he doesn't support a r18 rating for games to protect his kids when at the time I understand that his youngest son was around 22
Once again, I'm sorry on behalf of all those voters that don't understand these Internet thingies and I pray your government doesn't use ours as a shining example.
The courts have spoken several times now. What part of "no" don't you understand?
There are perfectly functional court systems in various countries. Use them and use copyright law the way its written.
If you want to stop illegal file sharers, go sue them in court. If you cant find out who they are, file a John Doe lawsuit (essentially you are suing the IP address), present evidence proving that X IP address at Y time was sharing the content in question and then subpoena the ISP to get the details of which customer that corresponds to.
Stop trying to make the ISPs into copyright cops just so you can save some money on enforcement.
Get cracking, internet service providers.
> Stephen Conroy: "The problem is at the moment in Australia there is no agreement, there is no discussion, there is no dialogue"
Sounds an awful lot like Stephen Conroy talking about himself on internet censorship.
Dealing with telephone companies is horrible so communications is a punishment post in government. We've had a succession of clowns under two governments in that role.
If readers are familiar with Telstra and the antics of Sol Trujillo this will make more sense. He's gone now but Telstra still acts as if they have a fundamental right to be a monopoly without actually doing anything to repair their fixed line network.
Ktorrent -> Preferences -> General Options -> Custom IP = www.minister.dbcde.gov.au 203.9.222.73
w0tz da d34L 0f uz1n d4 n3t 1f y4 c4nt d0 nutin' 1LL3g4l
Build your own energy sources from scratch. http://otherpower.com/
I thought we were here to politely discuss copyrights, and then you go and bring logic and facts and fairness into this. Clearly you've never negotiated with **AA's before.
Well, no, I haven't. I just try to follow the law or not as reasonably as I care for. Please share your experiences.
Build your own energy sources from scratch. http://otherpower.com/
the law recognises no positive obligation on any person to protect the copyright of another Sooooooo why would ISP's feel obliged to enter into any agreements(unless mutually beneficial) with these vultures?
think of the children! And by children i mean profit from movies, music, digital content, whatever. Here we have a situation where it's clear to every technologically minded person on the planet that the old business model of 'units' and 'profits' has been made obsolete, and yet the primary focus of politicians will be to try to preserve the old business models because this is where the donations come from for some time to come. Think of the profits! Oh, won't somebody please think of the profits!
We already have a "piracy code of conduct" it's called The Law. ISPs should not be conducting vigilante operations at the whim of private enterprises. If copyright holders wish to stop a user from file-sharing they must take that user to court and deal with them under the judicial oversight of the courts.
An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
Senator Conroy is a religious nutjob with an agenda.
He wants his net filter with a secret blacklist assembled by an organisation that is appointed by politicans and over which the public has no control whatsoever. Obtaining the blacklist would be a criminal issue.
He would go to bed with anyone who would further his vision of total control. Since that's the vision of the copyright industry as well, albeit from a profit motive rather than megalomania, they are natural allies for him.
Unfortunately, he's not the only one. In every party (with the possible exception of the Pirate Party of Australia) we have a healthy dose of these moral pillars of society, who want to dictate how and what we should see, hear and think - that's the nature of politicians.
The only time a politician is willing to let his/her power to slide is when the pitchfork is already in his/her chest. Which, in the case of a 'her' should be well bosomed, because according to our opposition leader, an other religious nutcase, small boobs encite paedophylia (well, in case of models anyway).
So, let's save the children, fight terrorism and most importantly, let's privatise legistlating, so that finally market forces would enter and bring efficiency to the so-far uncharted territory of law and order business.
"Stephen Conroy" != "The Australian Government"
Mr Conroy's politics are infamous in Australia. It is hard to believe that a minister for communications can have so little understanding of the realities of how the Internet operates.
It's not about Conroy. He's just a puppet. Every other available choice in our (Australian) politics is corrupted and driven by the same group. Pentecostal Assemblies of God, and all the other names that they use.
Not much different from the US actually.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
peoples eyes have been damaged because of pointy sticks now there is a pointy stick legislation in the wind and o yea on a serious note the prime minister wants to ban any porn images of small breasts his opinion is there probably under-age and that folks is serious
Technically they do have port blocking enabled on ports 25, 80, 135, 139, 443 & 445, but you can disable it by going to their website. Seems like a good way to protect users from botnets, etc. without limiting the ones who know what their doing.
Most human behaviour can be explained in terms of identity.
I agree completely, but there needs to be something done because it's just an unworkable situation currently.
If you relate copyright infingement with the next closest thing - say shoplifting (yes I know people will take issue with this example), you can see what I mean. With copyright infringement, there are million of poeple downloading in an isolated location (P2P networks), and you cant even find out who they (map IP address to user account) without a court order. By comparison, each shop only has to deal with a handful of people and they can both catch them in the act and have cameras for identification. When someone escapes the local TV station will put their mug on crimebusters.
Issuing infringement notices to the police/courts would just clog our entire justice system. There needs to be a better way.
You are kidding me aren't you ?
The only thing guaranteed is that the Liberals (the ONLY alternative government) will push exactly the same agenda with exactly the same results!
Have you forgotten Helen Coonan seeks to censor the Web and Senator Richard Alston: Australia's Internet killer? both Ministers for Communications under the previous Liberal government ?
Stephen Conroy is a mis-guided tool, there is no doubt, but please don't try to push the point that there is a credible alternative.... there isn't.
There is only one real solution to the problem of illegal downloads, and that is to make them legal.
The point, I think, is that there is no good analogy for the roles of the parties in this kind of "crime" because it's the result of a pretty much unprecedented set of circumstances related to advances in technology.
I kind of feel like this kind of debate has been beaten around on slashdot many times before. Every time someone does something someone doesn't like on the internet, legislators feel like they have to create some sort of new law to address this new kind of crime. But in reality, we already have laws in place to address these types of issues. Just because it's being done on the internet doesn't make it any different.
For decades kids have made copies of tapes, disks, CDs, mixed tapes for people they care about. They have shared them with their siblings, friends, classmates. In the US at least it has always been legal, or at least so impossible to police that no one ever could do anything about it. The part that scares the *IAAs is the scale and ease in which it is done. They feel it threatens their profitability... perhaps even causing them to lose control of how they control people's tastes.
Just because it's being done on the internet doesn't make it a whole new "crime".
Wouldn't it have been developed sometime since video tape was introduced...?
If nothing else, torrents can be mislabeled..like that never happens. Or encrypted to disuse the stream contents.
The easiest way is to provide the content, with ads, in low resolution in mass different torrent schemes--which would effectively advertise while disrupting the distribution efforts of high rez stuff.
Personally, like software piracy, the industry greatly overestimates their losses. I often download movies just in order to see if they're worth watching...many never hit theateres and, unlike a theater, where you can demand your money back with some success, ery few places will accept the return of a dvd--and many movies are simply not worth watching unless you're desperate to kill time. I see a lot of stuff this way I would NEVER have paid to see, and I've bought dvd's & gone to theaters because of seeing some of them. Wuith software, a lot of pirated stuff is not something that the person would have purchaseed unless the price wre much lower because the value isn't there for them--how many people would buy a copy of a $500 or 5,000 prohgram if they were only going to use it a couple times a year
If you can see it, you can copy it...cam copies of movies kinda prove the point.
The guy who stole the process of manufacturing the Pentium so he could give it to Cuba, did so despite being locked against downloading files by viewing them and video taping....
Heck, I've had W-M, who routinely accept the return of items they never carried tell me that they wouldn't accept return of a DVD which was full-screen rather than the labelled windowed version (a complaint to corporate got me the right to exchange the $5 DVD for ANY other DVD...)
I guess I'll start going to see films and demand my money back if it stinks.
Do you think maybe if there was jail time for it, people wouldn't do it as much, and it would overall cost less?
Or are you saying that pirates are so addicted to downloading material that apparently they don't even like, that even the threat of jail time won't stop them?
Successful troll is successful.
Yes, If everyone used the numbering system and start numbering with the 2nd person on the list then it could work!