Slashdot Mirror
In Defense of Six Strikes
Deathspawner writes with a view on Six Strikes we don't normally see around here: "It's been well-established all over the Web that the just-implemented 'Six Strikes' system is bad... horrible, worthy of death to those who created it. But let's take a deep breath for a moment. Can Six Strikes actually be a good thing for consumers? While the scheme isn't perfect (far from it), one of the biggest benefits from this system is that it introduces a proxy, and any persecution you might have easily faced prior to Six Strikes is delayed under the new program. Wouldn't you rather receive a warning from your ISP than be sent a bill or legal threat by the RIAA/MPAA?"
A couple of days ago, someone sent Torrentfreak an actual alert they received from Comcast (the alert itself is a few screens down). Noteworthy is that there is zero mention of the appeals process.
The $35-for-an-appeal fee which they call a "due process" fee makes a mockery of the concept of due process and innocent-until-proven-guilty. Reverse that and it would be a tractably horrible idea, but it would be significantly less interesting to the people who are running it.
The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
Why do I have to choose between six strikes vs. RIAA/MPAA legal threat?
It's not about supporting arts. It's about supporting a dead business model that rewards little to the artists themselves, and which now has the right to spy on what you do online.
It only costs $35 to appeal, but it will cost your ISP more than that to go through the appeals process. If everyone appeals, the system will be unworkable, and therefore everyone should appeal.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
... and any persecution you might have easily faced prior to Six Strikes is delayed under the new program. Wouldn't you rather receive a warning from your ISP than be sent a bill or legal threat by the RIAA/MPAA?"
"Delayed." Very funny. You must be joking. Before, you got a legal threat, which you could pretty much ignore. An IP address != an individual. Now, "$moran" accuses you, and you have to pay to contest the accusation, or find another provider, and in the US, that's often not possible.
Six Strikes is evil incarnate. You pay for net access, and now who you're paying for that access is working for imbeciles against you. CAPITALISM!!!111
"Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit
No. It can, at best, be a marginally better than the alternative.
Wouldn't you rather receive a warning from your ISP than be sent a bill or legal threat by the RIAA/MPAA?"
Yes, but I would also rather have my kneecaps broken than shot in the face. It doesn't make either option actually palatable.
I sell you this dumb phone at $1000, and tell you that at retail is selling at 5000, would you buy it? Putting that your only choices are punishment and strong punishment means that you take out of your mind that you couldn't be doing anything wrong. So you have to accept the lesser evil because could be a worse one, instead of considering that should not be any or that are more alternatives.
But probably is ok in US, after all they choose Obama instead of Romney because the very same reasoning, so they explicitely wanted all that is coming after, including this.
rewards little to the artists themselves,
I'm sick of seeing this argument. If artists are willing to take on the risk that comes with launching their music on their own, then they're free to do so. I'm free to take my skill and try to launch a grand software project on my own. Sure, if I'm successful I'll make a lot more money than I do at work, but I don't think "my product was unsuccessful" will garner much sympathy from the folks that own my mortgage.
The RIAA/MPAA is doing an end run around the court system and attacking the ISPs. Let's just toss this on the stack of things this private industry is doing to ruin the lives of the people who would ordinarily want to pay them money:
They have copyright terms that last two centuries.
They have the incredibly overbearing Digital Millenium Copyright Act that ensures that anything you do to copyrighted material which you own is illegal.
They have the ability to take down any content on the internet they feel infringes on said copyright without having to prove they hold the copyright in question, that the infringing activity actually infringes, or that they have the right to make the claim under the DMCA. (Oh, and this process is completely automated in many cases, while appeals are not only grounds for lawsuits but must be evaluated by a human being on a case by case basis... Does anyone remember the mortgage foreclosure robosigning scandal? Because I sure do.)
They have been making great strides in persuading countries around the world to make copyright infringement a criminal, rather than civil offense so they can get the law enforcement agencies to do their dirty work. (Oh wait, the FBI raided Dotcom and ICE seizes websites at the behest of private industry without due process... nevermind.)
What really confuses me is that in the big picture the RIAA/MPAA is small potatoes compared to the other things that make money via digital distribution. They wield rather disproportionate influence over the activities of third parties that have nothing to do with them or those they claim to represent.
If I could pay $30 or even $50 per month to get access to every movie and TV show ever made on demand within minutes I would happily pay that. Even though my family would probably only spend 5-10 hours per month using it. But that's not available. And don't tell me Netflix or Hulu. Those services are great, and I am a Netflix subscriber, but it's not complete.
The industry needs to change it's business model...
Where there's an ocean of people claiming copyright infringement where it's completely false or obviously fair use? Not to mention the myriad of other ways an account holder may unknowingly having pirated material passing through his pipe. At a minimum everyone should have a problem with an ISP inspecting their traffic as long as it is not abusing their network.
There was an AC post in another /. article about this I liked. It said something like create a crappy copyrighted work (in paint, sndrec of you singing, whatever). Host it free somewhere. Now create another page that says you do not have permission to download this file, with a link to the hosted file. Spam out the link to the page that says DO NOT DOWNLOAD everywhere you can. Not just one or two places, but thousands. Hell, post it through 10,000 forum backlinks free scams.
Now collect the IPs of everyone who clicks the link and vies the file. Spam the six strike system with those IPs.
If they ignore legitimate notices from you and do not issue alerts, sue, as they are using what is supposed to be a fair arbitration system to only police for content/companies they deem worthy. Keep flooding them with -legitimate- requests until they cannot handle it.
Silence is a state of mime.
The same people that decided 6 strikes could change their mind depending on who gives them the most money or the most pain.
It's like a tax that starts at .5%. Sooner or later it gets increased to suit those with the most influence.
1. "Six Strikes" it NOT a _LAW_.
2. Not all copyright holders are participating and none are _bound_ to it.
Because of that, there is no guarantee that you will receive a "strike" before receiving a settlement demand for infringement or before being named in a federal copyright infringement lawsuit!
Example: Let's say you go download the latest LA porn producer's newest amateur flick via a public BitTorrent tracker. This producer is not participating in six strikes. The porn producer is monitoring the torrent, and logs your IP. They are teamed with a lawyer, and sue you as a John Doe in a lawsuit. You find out when the lawsuit reaches discovery.
What will your defense be? "I never got a first strike, let alone a sixth!" Yeah, tell _THAT_ to the judge. They won't care. You're still getting sued. Copyright trolls will continue extorting innocent victims.
What we really have here is a huge anti-trust lawsuit waiting to happen - a situation where the large record & movie companies have banded together to collectively negotiate away our privacy with all of the large ISP's, who themselves have banded together and negotiated it away. Its completely anti-competitive in that, if I had any sort of option to get high speed Internet Access where I live from a company who wouldn't wave the white flag and offer up my information based on an IP address at the first hint of displeasure from the copyright industry, and I'd dump Time Warner immediately, almost entirely without regard for the cost or other aspects of whatever the alternative company might be offering.
Any argument about supporting the artists crumbles in the face of studio accounting practices where no movie is ever profitable if the studios must share the profits, and where music artists basically never see a dime from the music that they record.
Understanding is a three edged sword. - Ambassador Kosh Naranek, Babylon 5
And the best way to not support that business model is to buy alternatives and boycott protected media. Stealing Argo doesn't make a statement, it's a way of justifying obtaining something you want enough to download but not enough to pay the asking price for.
May I recommend Libraries (many, including the one in my city are partnered with digital distributors offering free music and e-books) , NetFlix, Rdio, as new business model alternatives that aren't illegal.
Wouldn't you rather receive a warning from your ISP than be sent a bill or legal threat by the RIAA/MPAA?"
No.
This is a form of the prisoner's dilemma.
Individually, it makes sense for each of us to take the easy way out, but collectively, this is bad public policy.
Private accusations of crime, followed by private punishments, is odious to our system of justice.
More and more court cases are ending up like this one, where minimal evidence gets turned away as insufficient.
The real truth is that the copyright industry doesn't want to prosecute these cases, because lawyers and discovery and expert witnesses are expensive.
Even Hollywood can't afford 10,000 cases at a time.
I am not unsympathetic to their problem, but the solution needs to balance the due process rights of the people with the interests of big business.
That hasn't happened since the copyright owners discovered the scale of infringement couldn't be cheaply addressed by the existing legal system.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
That assumes that this is the end of the story, and not just the tip of the iceberg. Do you really think the fact that you received those six strikes is not getting recorded in preparation to be used as evidence against you in a future lawsuit? And correct me if I'm wrong, but are they really even right now supposedly stopping after the 6th strike? Or do you get the "6th strike" penalty for strike 7, 8, 9 and so on?
Understanding is a three edged sword. - Ambassador Kosh Naranek, Babylon 5
You don't. Don't worry, it's both. The "six strikes" are to build a case against the owner of the connection and after the owner "strikes out," they can expect a summons.
That's why they ask for confirmation: "Click the button below to confirm you received this Copyright Alert"
In court they'll say, "but your Honor, they acknowledge six times that copyright infringement was occurring and did nothing about it - exactly how many warnings do they need?!"
The program they're using has a ton of false positives. It was removing stuff from NASA's youtube channel that NASA uploaded because news programs decided to use the footage.
You realize these 'strikes' aren't for infringements, but for 'claims' of infringements, right? The RIAA has misidentified users before, and it will continue to do so. Not infringing is not a perfect solution.
I appreciate the time cube reference, and how you tied it into the story. Well done.
Exactly. If someone told the movie industry even at its height that they could collect $50 / month from most every family in America, they'd be doing triple back flips. The fact that they could, but they won't make it happen, and instead chose to alienate their customers / potential customers, is mind-boggling.
Understanding is a three edged sword. - Ambassador Kosh Naranek, Babylon 5
Its a legitimate counter-argument to the argument made by the large record companies that they're protecting the artists interests. It doesn't make piracy "right", but it utterly invalidates recording-industry argument #1.
Understanding is a three edged sword. - Ambassador Kosh Naranek, Babylon 5
Wouldn't you rather receive a warning from your ISP than be sent a bill or legal threat by the RIAA/MPAA?"
Yes, I absolutely would like to rather get a notice from the copyright holder. However, given the nature of the Internet connection, I cannot ever agree to my ISP giving out my details to any third party at their will. I also cannot assume any responsibility for some IP address that was leased to me by my ISP and was not spelled out as a part of my contract. That also means that when I have the internet connection, I should be able to share it to whomever I want to share and not have some artificial anti-competitive limitation that states that for some wacky reason I cannot share my connection. I'm also not an IP address, I'm a human being, unless RIIA has some specific evidence that I (and not some arbitrary technology) somehow infringed on it's precious rights, do not even bother me sending some notices.
There's no such thing as "illegal download"
I love the spin they are putting on it though. How do you make someone grateful for punching them in the face? Tell them the alternative is breaking their legs. I'd bet even money that this has been the long term plan for some time.
Could someone help me with this "would you rather" logic displayed in TFA.
There are NO changes in law. The only change is an agreement between vigilante conspirators.
MPAA/RIAA have to get a court order/subpeona to send you legal threats. They remain perfectly free do this regardless of the numbered strike you happen to be on today.
If anything CAS makes it worse. The lawyers will no doubt argue by clicking close on connection hijack delivered warnings or following subsequent instructions you have admitted to or failed to do something.
That's the whole problem, fracking with the constitution. If i am not innocent until proven guilty, and it is done by some funny, corporate one sided agreement, do we really have constitution any more? Or it is just a paper that we use, while in the restroom...
Can you tell that to the people who have been accused of copyright infringement, with no effective appeals process, when they have not copied anything, or what they have copied is public domain, out of copyright, or even their own work ...!
Puteulanus fenestra mortis
First, this system makes no sense whatsoever. ISP's should not be policing any content over their network. That defies the entire net neutrality argument. It is and always will be the plaintiffs responsibility to prove injustice. They do this through the legal system.
Second, the legal system is where the true flaw lies. If I download 10 songs illegally, which otherwise would cost $99\song on Itunes or Amazon, then that is ALL I should be liable for.
If I take those 10 songs and give them to 1000 people, the most I should be liable for is $10,000 plus court fees and small fine. NOT the $222,000 Jammie Thomas was ordered to pay. She downloaded 24 songs, and didn't even distribute them. She should have been liable for $24 plus court fee and small fine.
The legal system needs to be fixed. How the FCC allowed the 6 strike to fall into place is beyond me as it directly defies net neutrality.
I just have one question... did the RIAA pay for this submission or the MPAA?
The real Sig captains the Northwestern. This one captains
And good luck with that. ASCAP gets a fee from damn near every establishment where you might want to perform your music, just in case somebody uses something that is covered by the ASCAP license. Radio access is basically non-existent without a contract with a major label.
You do have the internet, but without tons of money for advertising it can be hard to get sufficient attention to build an audience.
And it's not about success, it's about the industry using their money to create success rather than advancing a better product. If they genuinely had better albums, that would be completely different. Instead we get crap.
That assumes that this is the end of the story, and not just the tip of the iceberg. Do you really think the fact that you received those six strikes is not getting recorded in preparation to be used as evidence against you in a future lawsuit? And correct me if I'm wrong, but are they really even right now supposedly stopping after the 6th strike? Or do you get the "6th strike" penalty for strike 7, 8, 9 and so on?
Furthermore, these will no doubt become part of the standard usage agreement for online services, allowing immediate termination (without refund). You know what costs more money than pirates? Bandwidth hogs! Providers would LOVE a free-and-clear excuse to kick off the top 1% of users that consume far far far more than 1% of the network resources (and just happen to almost all be bittorrenters), it would improve the service for the other 99% and allow even more over-subscription so they could run their infrastructure closer to the margin, saving them a TON of money. Ignoring this is really not a good idea, providers will eat it up.
I support the arts, in a large number of cases where I feel confident that any of the money I give to the supporting will actually go to the people creating the art in question. Live music, live drama, books, even recorded music from less mainstream musicians. But mainstream musicians signed to RIAA labels can suck it, and so can the whole broken tv-on-a-tv system.
There are reasons far and few between to applaud a cable/ISP co, but I noted that Cox Communications didn't sign on (at least, as of three or four days ago they hadn't). Two years ago or so, I forgot to get my VPN going prior to torrenting the first episode of Game of Thrones to see if it alone would be strong enough of a reason to subscribe to HBO, and HBO apparently was policing this closely. Cox sent me a letter telling me that HBO wanted to know who I was, and that they refused to reveal; they asked me to refrain from uploading copyrighted content, but did not include any legal language. Now, maybe if I was often on their "list" the wording would have been strong, but as it was, they *seem* to be more on the side of the customer than the industry.
For conscience is the wound, and there's naught to staunch it
But what about when there is no legal alternative to obtain the content you want? If a person cannot buy food without getting exploited by an unfair party, should they starve themselves as an act of defiance? In certain situations, stealing is the only alternative to force an unfair or incorrect system to adapt reasonably.
I don't think anybody can speak for 'everyone'. If you asked the ARRRRRR types, everybody in Hollywood would love to charge you per pixel * second of content watched with a minimum of $100/month and something about firstborns, while if you ask the weasely lawyer types in the employ of the record labels/studios, then every internet user by default is somebody who simply gets couchpotato to download All The Things into a folder that is shared across multiple P2P programs and a torrent client directly sources from as well.
I think you'll find the truth lays somewhere in the middle and most people in the comments so far simply believe that all copyright enforcement should be given up on since the companies still make plenty of money and if they wish to make more money they should just find a better business model. ( None of them have even the faintest idea of what this better business model would constitute, but then again it doesn't fall to them to figure that out. )
But in terms of the strikes model, very few are actually attacking that. Instead, they're either attacking the particulars of the implementation, or copyright enforcement in general (well, with some notable exceptions).
Which leads to a question- Would it be possible to set up a shell company, and claim infringement on every possible IP address? Then repeat 5 more times?
This is a lot of IP addresses, but it could probably be done. I haven't read the entire actual law but the Wikipedia page doesn't mention anything about punishments for false infringement claims.
Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
Three Strikes has it's flaws I'm sure this will have similar and analogous problems without the conviction of violence offenders to support it's continued existence
Just another second banana
And good luck with that. ASCAP gets a fee from damn near every establishment where you might want to perform your music, just in case somebody uses something that is covered by the ASCAP license. Radio access is basically non-existent without a contract with a major label.
THIS is the point. You can argue that artists are signing up with a label by choice, but really it's a choice between trying to support yourself with your craft and eating half of your instant ramen in the morning so you get to eat the rest that night.
The point behind RIAA and MPAA (MAFIAA) was to establish a distribution cartel, thereby creating a system where the only way to play is to play with them.
More Twoson than Cupertino
And the best way to not support that business model is to buy alternatives and boycott protected media.
I believe the slightly more effective way to do that is to give money to the EFF or other organizations which will lobby politicians to reverse such rules, while voting against politicians who support the MPAA/RIAA, and calling and bugging the ones you don't.
I'm deeply cynical about both, but I can't recall a consumer movement that did anything substantial. Threats of boycotts work if you want walmart to start saying "Happy Jesus' Birthday," but they don't seem to have driven any walmart locations to stop killing local retail, for example.
The people buying EA games, Ke$ha songs, and buying Argo on DVD aren't going to stop doing those things because ISPs are eroding their rights.
Problem is, it is not about the money, it never was. It is about power, personal power. On rises through the ranks of the industry by being perceived as someone who gets their way. It does not matter if that way actually helps the company or even matters, what is important is that the particular executive demonstrates that they get what they want in negotiations. That results in higher personal wealth and, at the end of the day, these people are in it for what it gets them personally, not some abstract 'my industry does better'. Part of the problem is that the personal rewards and industry benefits are out of sync.
I have watched contracts fall apart because someone wanted to ensure that they were perceived as the dominant party, preening for their own people. Looking weak or making concessions, even if it resulted in a lucrative contract, hurt people's personal status within their company.
If the other viewers aren't pulling their weight because they're sucking down a torrent stream, well I've got to pay more or the production quality drops. I don't like either choice.
So pull your weight.
(to give you an example on what's wrong with your argumentation)
No, I won't do it only because you want to watch movies cheap. And I tell you what: I won't pirate them either, I simply refuse to consume what your beloved Hollywood produces.
Now you'll have to pay a bit extra not because I pirated the movie, but because I chose not to play your game. Is it better for you? Will you sue me because of it?
Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
I'd love to support the artist. I am closing to my 40th birthday, but I still routinely go to concerts and shows of artists that I love.
It's been a while since I bought a CD, though. Mostly 'cause a friend of mine IS an artist and I know where that money goes to.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Hey, hey, you can't steal Argo. Didn't you see that they never really wanted to make that movie, it was all just a scam, so it's quite ok to copy that, after all it was never meant to be a blockbuster, it had a higher goal.
Or so I heard...
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
And they wonder why their business is failing?
Gee, in a free market they couldn't survive a month. Business IS all about finding a middle ground between the parties, if it is in a truly free market.
If you rip me off, I will lose money and will not want to do business with you again, and I'll do what I can to get out of this one.
If I rip you off, you will lose money and you will not want to do business with me again, and you'll do what you can to get out of this one.
Only if we BOTH get a good deal out of it the deal will hold and we'll go on doing business with each other.
We really need to try that "free market" thing if we get around to it.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
If you wrote a law, would you include a clause to punish yourself if YOU do something wrong?
The MAFIAA may be much, but they're not really THAT stupid.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
This whole thing sounds to me a lot like "Hey, sorry you got raped; look on the bright side, at least he used lube".
Your presumption of guilt is precisely why this new scheme intolerable.
The "be a good little sheep" option simply won't help you.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
For virtually every service USians now pay for, buried deep in the lawyerese is that you agree to waive the right to join class action lawsuits and acede to use third party arbitration*.
The wrinkle here is very similar to when families were charged by the Soviets for the bullets used to execute their loved ones.
* And if it wasn't in the original contract, it was in one of those letters in 1-point font announcing the Terms of Service had changed for this very addition.
No, "stealing music" isn't "sticking it to the man".
"Stealing music" is the ultimate end goal of copyright.
"Stealing music" is just taking what's rightfully yours.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
If artists are willing to take on the risk that comes with launching their music on their own, then they're free to do so.
Many do just that, and a fair number who do make enough to support themselves well enough or even do quite well for themselves performing live and selling CDs on their own. You've probably never heard of them unless they're local to you, though, because they get no radio airplay and basically no distribution. The media conglomerates enforce that with contracts (or in some cases overlapping ownership), so that any retailer that will carry, say, the latest Taylor Swift album will not be allowed to carry independent musician's albums.
Typically, the way the RIAA recording contracts work, the musician gets an advance that seems like a lot to a starving artist. The advance typically amounts to something like $30-50K per musician in the band, and thanks to Hollywood accounting, that's all that musician will typically see. After that point, the signed musician is basically a debt slave to their label.
If you want to support music and musicians financially, by far the best way to do that is to go to live shows in local venues and buy CDs or recordings directly from the bands.
I am officially gone from
You still have legal threats under the six strikes system.
Palm trees and 8
Anyone can still be sued for civil damages or prosecuted for criminal actions regardless of any other action on the part of the copyright owner or ISP. It might be easier to argue that the copyright owner acted in bad faith if they used a strike and a lawsuit at the same time but the point of the lawsuits is to overwhelm people with the legal system in the first place; most people just settle.
Its not the only way to play. Millions of people make money from music outside of the labels. THe entire system is rigged, if you have dreams of being a rock star, you know what you are getting into. I have no sympathy for morons who sign bad contracts while reaching for the brass ring.
Good-bye
And the best way to not support that business model is to buy alternatives and boycott protected media
The problem is that the alternatives have a substantial disadvantage in the market. If you want to try a market-based approach, you need to live in a world where the market is fair, not a world where some businesses enjoy a legally protected monopoly.
Stealing
We are not talking about stealing, we are talking about copyright infringement. These are completely different categories of law.
it's a way of justifying obtaining something you want enough to download but not enough to pay the asking price for.
Why is that a bad thing? I am not willing to pay for a horse-drawn carriage ride either, that's why I get in my car and drive it to my destination.
Palm trees and 8
One could argue that much of entertainment is art, and art is food for the brain, without which it will wither and die.
I say it would be impossible for me to educate my children without what some would consider entertainment. Books, at the very least, would be necessary for my children to become educated enough to function in the world, and those are copyrighted. They could survive without this education as long as I'm alive; but once I die, if I haven't read books to them, shared knowledge I learned from books, or left them books, they would literally die.
And personally, as a pirate, my logic is "I'm entitled to see exactly what I am spending my money on before I spend it." Videos of games, trailers of movies, summaries of books, etc. do not show me what I would be getting for my money; they show me an advertisement, which is tidbits of the game/movie/book dressed up in an attempt to entice me to buy them. Steam is doing things right in offering free weekends for games, Amazon is doing things right in offering the first percentage of books for free, Netflix and Crunchyroll are doing things right in offering me a plethora of movies/shows where I'm able to stop watching in the middle and move on to something else with no money lost. So when I try something good from Steam or Amazon, I pay for it, and I pay for Netflix and Crunchyroll monthly. My pirating has dropped drastically since those services came to their current maturity, and is now reserved only for companies that continue to subscribe to the "sell it to them unreturnably before they realize it sucks" mentality.
Admittedly, I do also pirate things which I know are good, but which are no longer available legally. If those things ever become available legally again, I purchase them.
He fell on his face with point #2.
The entire argument depends upon the above quotation being logically well-founded. Take the error probability, raise it to the sixth power, and you get a small enough fraction that you can blow it off. On the face of it, it's not stupid... until you realize that the system actually adds the fractions to each other, rather than multiplying them. Oy. We're off to a good start here, aren't we? And that's if we accept that the errors will really just be random noise, rather than possibly arise from systematic failures and patterns.
If you disagree with that founding assertion (and you will, if you have observed what has happened so far), then nothing else he says is going to make sense.
IMHO, nobody knows how Six Strikes works, or what its false positive rate is. If someone knew, they would have stepped forward by now. This is getting to become something like both the evidence which suggests Intelligent Design as a hypothesis, and the secret idea for an experiment to falsify it, together which would make it be a theory. At some point, when no one comes forth with either or them (let alone both), it starts to become reasonable to assume the theory probably doesn't yet exist.
Similarly, we have no reason to suspect Six Strikes' detection and identification tech is accurate. It might be, it's just that nothing leads us to that conclusion except faith. And it's not that it can't be done (within certain limitations); it's that we have past records (anyone remember the RIAA lawsuits?) of it being done by totally incompetent people, who went to work for the "MAFIAA" because that was the only job they could get. MAFIAA, show us your methodology, because your reputation is that you're crooks who just make shit up.
And because of the how-it-works problem, his last sentence
is exactly wrong. It will be taken less seriously, because when you get one of these notices, your first thought isn't going to be "who in the house shared the Megadeth song?" It's going to be "which now-dead neighbor, who DHCP leased my current address for a couple weeks back in 2006, downloaded a file named peace_time_economics_in_the_rust_belt.pdf which matched some Megadeth keywords?"
Oh, they might be taken seriously as threats, but seriously not as being related to anything which may have happened on your ISP connection.
If you have seen how the MPAA has DMCAed some Google results in recent times, you will know (it's not even speculative) that false positives are extremely common in this industry's robot's actions, right now. Once I saw one of these false positives happen to me, it became apparent how easy it would be to accrue six Google-censored-results in a year, just by having truly innocent web pages which say certain words on them. (Tip: use HBO's show names. Haven't tried Showtime yet.) We're supposed to believe that your Six Strikes p2p tech is vastly better than your web tech? Why? What's your excuse? Please. [sits back, opens popcorn] This'll be good.
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
If artists are willing to take on the risk that comes with launching their music on their own, then they're free to do so.
I wouldn't be so sure. A freedom to fail doesn't exactly imply justice. Your statement is a bit like saying to a homeless "Hey, asshole, why don't you just become an investment banker and make a lot of money?" The media industry has a de facto monopoly over the content. A single artist cannot successfully market himself and anyone who tries to set up an alternative distribution channel for a group of artists will either be forced into bancrupcy with all dirty tricks the modern financial world has to offer or sued into oblivion for patent violations, alleged copyright violations, and so on - most likely, both at the same time.
Heck, even artists who just put their own works on a web page or youtube can be happy if their page is not taken down for alleged infringement.
The Supremes have already opened that door. You now no longer have any rights. Any corporation can force them from you by contract as a condition for you doing business with anyone. It's all based on the fiction that you are in an equal negotiating position with any corporation.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Ever since Micky Mouse & Sonny Bono extended copyright terms to INFINITY... nobody has any respect for copyright.
They reneged on their side of the bargain, so we see no reason to uphold ours.
Well, first of all, you don't need to copy anything to get a notice. All it takes is a mixup in IP addresses and you get one, nobody bothers to check those claims against reality. But let's move on to your second part, how to efficiently "combat pirating".
The *AAs are no longer needed for distribution. That's a thing of the past, when they pretty much controlled the only way how you, artist, could get into a store. You couldn't run around and find a place to record, then someone to press it on a record or CD and then try to find stores that would sell them. That's where they came in. They were the ones with the distribution method. The internet made that all but obsolete. Nothing's easier today than getting music. Evidently, because that's the pickle they're in, I could probably easily, with a few searches in a search engine, come up with a few places that point me towards whatever I want to have.
But, and here is their market niche they fit in, how do I even know what I'm looking for? Their expertise, their place of excellence, is marketing. They have top notch ties with all the places that can make you known. They know how to present someone, they know how to make someone big. Unless you're one in a million viral YouTube hits, you can crank out thousands of music numbers and videos and once in a blue moon someone might stumble upon you and you actually get a viewer and maybe if it's your lucky day he might even think about buying something from you.
They on the other hand know how to reach millions easily. And this is where they can survive in today's market. For this, they'd first of all have to consider changing their business model. From the owner of music to the supporter for artists.
For this they'd first of all have to accept that they no longer own artists but are their partners. And since that won't ever happen, I guess they'll have to die.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Artists have no real choice in the matter at all, their only choice is between giving up art and flip burgers at McDonald's and signing the damn contract with the label. "pefer" in this context means about as much as in "Would you prefer to eat shit with strawberries or shit without strawberries?"
There's a tort called vexatious litigation. It's common law.
There is also a possible penalty under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 11, for signing your name to a legal declaration that you have not investigated and, thus, do not have good reason to believe that it is true. The judge, essentially, gets to make up any penalty they think is appropriate (within reason).
caritj.org
For a long time, everyone kept saying that the fines were too high. And they were right. So now the fines are reasonable and people are still complaining.
The fines are higher now, actually; the copyright holders didn't give up their right to sue. They don't even have to wait, they can do so at any time, if they've got enough reason to. The six strikes thing is not instead of litigation, it is in addition to litigation.
I like a functioning Hollywood where the actors, writers, directors and production crew are paid. That money has to come from me and the other viewers. If the other viewers aren't pulling their weight because they're sucking down a torrent stream, well I've got to pay more or the production quality drops.
I'd like a pony. Their business model is not my problem. I say let the production values drop. They can fall a long, long way before it's a problem.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Deathspawner,
Dude, listen to what you are saying. "Hey everybody! We're better off now because our right to due process is now in the hands of our corporate overlords." And you seriously think that is a good thing? Damn...
No, you idiot. If you don't like it, that's fine. I just get cheezed off by the torrent-lovers who want everything to be free. If they can afford $7 for a cup of coffee at Starbucks, they can afford to pay for a movie.
No, you idiot
Think! Think twice! Then watch you mouth, sonny. The quip I see at the bottom of the page fits:
Keep your mouth shut and people will think you stupid; Open it and you remove all doubt.
Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
Sure it does. What interests of the artists are the record companies protecting? Artists are generally making money off of concerts, not record sales. Yes, they're making (probably) more money off of concerts than they otherwise would due to the record companies promoting their albums. But record companies are not the only ones who can promote albums effectively. Keeping the record companies in business does not serve the artists.
Understanding is a three edged sword. - Ambassador Kosh Naranek, Babylon 5
This entire mess is a public policy problem that grew from several roots.
The main root is that technology changed the game. As has been mentioned before, part of the issue is a broken business model. Enforcement of copyright protection in a digital age of access to anything from anywhere is broken and the laws supporting the business model have been twisted to the point that they no longer work to protect the artist as much as they work to protect corporate control. And more control simply stifles creativity and encroaches on privacy. It's as if in the early 1900's, blacksmiths had passed legislation against car makers in order to protect horse based transportation.
The copyright thistle grew another root with the introduction of the DMCA legislation that for the first time placed a legal requirement on ISPs to assist a copyright holder in the enforcement of their copyright. It legally required an ISP to have a process in place to accept infringement notices (allegations), required the ISP to privately determine which customer was supposedly associated with an IP address collected by the copyright holder (with no consideration of all the flawed logic behind that assumption), and pass along the infringement allegation to the customer. If the copyright holder wished, they could get an administrative subpoena issued by a court clerk with no formal review or judicial oversight and the ISP was legally bound to identify the customer. An appeal required an individual to expose their identity and open themselves up to separate civil action. Then the copyright trolls/attorneys emerged and developed their extortion based revenue model. Public outrage and judicial opposition to clogging the court system with dubious cases pretty well ended any hope the copyright holders had that the DMCA approach would continue to be viable.
The roots branch and twist and intertwine as well. The situation is further complicated because the largest ISPs are also content producers and copyright holders. They have a vested interest on the enforcement side, but whether or not an ISP holds copyrights on content (most don't outside of the top 5), they are still - under current law - required to do something or they become legally liable for copyright infringement themselves. Basically, without some type of copyright policy and procedure in place, they can lose what's known as "safe harbor" or their status as a "simple conduit" provider of communication services with no associated liability for the type of content that traverses their networks. So legally, the ISPs are in a box (in part of their own making).
The point here - remember I'm just talking about existing causes - is that under existing US law, ISPs are forced into the role of assisting with copyright infringement enforcement efforts. Some of the largest ISPs had a hand in creating those laws, but there were many other powerful companies involved as well. So similar laws would have been put into place regardless.
The ISP industry could - in theory - fight back against legislation that forces them into the role of assisting with copyright enforcement. The incentive to do so would be to remove legal liability, reduce operational expense by eliminating notification programs, and avoid alienating their customers. But the biggest ISPs are also media content owners and providers. They need legal access to media content. Unrestricted access hits many of the largest ones on the cable TV, media sales and licensing side. They also face liability exposure from powerful copyright holders that are not in the ISP industry and they don't have unilateral control over lobbing efforts to introduce change. If they pushed hard for legal change, it would help, but the opposition would still be fierce. So they don't try.
The "6 Strikes" effort tries to gain a little improvement on both sides of the issue (from their perspective) by introducing this compromise(d) approach of information and education with no real intent to shut off services or take anyone to
I'd like a pony. Their business model is not my problem. I say let the production values drop. They can fall a long, long way before it's a problem.
They're not asking for a free pony, they're just asking that people respect their fences and not take their pony. They're perfectly happy if people make their own ponies, they just don't want people taking their pony.
Apparently it rewards them well enough that they prefer using it over distributing for themselves.
Well, as a balance to cynicism, it's worth keeping in mind that things HAVE changed in the past, when things were worse. The pendulum does swing back the other way. It's just that things would have to get worse for consumers to actually take up arms.
I mean, labor conditions had to get horrible for labor unions to form.
Completely agree about giving money to EFF. Some may remember the days when browsers with strong encryption were restricted (some for using within the US and some could not be exported). Yes, it was THE LAW and, OMG, people were doing something illegal by writing the strong encryption that the government could not break. Anyway, this issue ended up in court and EFF fought for consumer's right and the law was reverted based on the freedom of expression and now strong encryption is allowed. This has tremendously benefited many industries and the secure banking that we all enjoy need to say a big thanks to EFF. Please support them.
As an alternative measure to infringing copyright, I see buying used movies and sharing your copies as a great model. A boxed set of some show can be purchased used for $50, instead of $150 new, so buy that, watch it and resell it again for $50. Use Craigs List to buy/sell content. This way you can watch legally (under the current law) and not pay a dime to the copyright owners. Internet allows taking that sharing to the next level of efficiency. The law that fights the efficiency will not survive in the long run.
There's no such thing as "illegal download"
at hooker and blow parties can sway things their way.
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
I'm no lawyer but from what I've read, with certain types of accusations (aka de facto libel) you only need to prove that the libel was incurred - you do not need to prove specific damages to collect. And yes, false accusations of criminal conduct qualifies as de facto libel in most US states.
Understanding is a three edged sword. - Ambassador Kosh Naranek, Babylon 5
they're just asking that people respect their fences
And I don't care. I think that we ought to reassess where those fences are, exactly, regardless of whether they're keen on the idea or not.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
I'm always amazed at how many people think because they were successful in ripping off the music and movie business for so long, en masse, that somehow that's their moral imperative?
None here has made such a claim as near as I can tell but don't let this stand in your way.
This world is seriously jacked up, and that mentality is the most obvious face of it. Grow up,
You REALLY need to get out more and brush up on your history.
people. Stealing music isn't *sticking it to the man*, you just just it to yourself by severely limiting the amount of good music that's come out over the last two decades.
What amuses me most of all is songs I hear and like have been broadcast over the radio free of charge for as long as I have been alive. People have had technical means to record them and play them back for just as long. The old radio/tape combos came prewired to make this as easy as possible. In 43 years I have been alive courts have consistantly ruled recording over the air broadcasts is legal yet people including myself still shell out the cash for records/CDs, even broadcast TV series and they still go to the theatres even with the egregious pricing schemes.
Its rather absurd, I think, but the idea that agreements entered in to while under duress should be invalid got lost somewhere along the way. A good example of this is when employees are laid off by a corporation - usually the layoff is accompanied by a termination agreement, which is basically you agreeing to take some money from the company in exchange for you not suing them for laying you off, or for anything else. The idea that for most people, the layoff is going to proceed whether they like it or not, and that they'll soon find themselves out on the street without the money being offered long before they could ever get to court, and the fact that one party of the "agreement" (the company) has placed the other party (the employee) in the position where they basically have no choice to agree, doesn't seem to carry any legal weight, which is beyond unfair.
Understanding is a three edged sword. - Ambassador Kosh Naranek, Babylon 5
Mod up. Way up, please. I don't know exactly how much my extended family spends on streaming, media purchases and so forth, but it would probably buy you a decent second-hand automobile. Every year. Yet, we still end up illegally downloading stuff because it is simply not available otherwise. Madness.
The RIAA has nothing on the scum of ASCAP, though few even know what ASCAP is let alone how it works.
Food, water, medicine, clothing, shelter, I understand stealing all of those.
"Content", though, is not a life-or-death kind of thing. Sure, you might want to watch The Avengers, but if you can't afford to is your life really going to be ruined if you instead borrow A Day at the Races from your local library or stream Star Wreck: In the Pirkinning?
I'm no fan of the RIAA or MPAA, but you're making a lousy argument here.
I am officially gone from
Given that the cost to appeal this is $35, one can clearly show financial harm. If you have _not_ downloaded the file in question, cannot you take the accuser to court for a clear case of defamation?
It may look like I'm doing nothing, but I'm actively waiting for my problems to go away.
--Scott Adams
Deathspawner implicitly concedes the justification of the underlying premise (file-sharing is evil and deserving of serious punishment) and then compounds it with the fallacy of relative privation, claiming "it could always be worse". I don't know if he's depressingly ignorant or a corporate tool, but either way, he's wrong.
One could argue that much of entertainment is art, and art is food for the brain, without which it will wither and die.
There are thousands and thousands of public domain resources available -- reading the literary canon at Project Gutenberg is enough "artistic stimulation" for dozens of lifetimes, and I doubt you're going to miss some aspect of the human experience from thousands of years of writing that you'd get from the latest romance comedy or most of the othe crap put out in pop media and Hollywood.
Books, at the very least, would be necessary for my children to become educated enough to function in the world, and those are copyrighted.
Give us an example of information necessary to "function in the world" that can't generally be taught from a century-old textbook, of which there are thousands in the public domain. Unless your kids are cutting-edge researchers, they can probably learn the rest of stuff on the job as an apprentice rather than studying a book "to function in the world." Tech jobs are one area where old textbooks don't exist, but many tech people actively create free resources these days for learners.
I'm not at all defending the copyright system, which is incredibly broken at this time. But the idea that you'd "starve" your brain or that you couldn't educate your kids without copyrighted stuff is nonsense. You just WANT all that new crap.
"Skipping over the finer details of how this probably isn't a "false accusation of criminal conduct",..."
Well, its a given that an accusation of copyright infringement is an accusation of criminal conduct, being that copyright infringement is against the law.
As for the accusation being or not being false, its very possible that it is false, especially if the criteria is that the party making the accusation must have a good faith and reasonable belief that the accusation is true. Under this system, if my ISP accuses me of copyright infringement, all they are basing it on is the copyright holder providing them with an IP address that they don't like, that happens to be mine. The ISP itself has no other basis for believing me to have engaged in copyright infringement except the word of the copyright holder. The copyright holder isn't providing them with evidence - it isn't even outlining what the evidence is. Its just the copyright holder saying "hey, the guy with this IP address is infringing! Trust us!". That's not exactly proof, or evidence, is it?
As for it being libelous or slanderous - (I forget which, but one of those is written / published word, the other is just spoken word), it depends again. Nominally the warning would be private. After all, they're just displaying a warning to me when I try to use my internet connection, right? Ok, now suppose someone is at my house using my computer or watching me use my computer when this warning pops up. Now, in their eyes, I'm a criminal. Now my reputation is damaged with that person. They may even spread the word. So the accusation is not private and for purposes of a person's reputation, might as well be public. There simply should not be a reasonable expectation that everything that appears on my computer screen is private and will only be viewed by me.
Understanding is a three edged sword. - Ambassador Kosh Naranek, Babylon 5
"Wouldn't you rather receive a warning from your ISP than be sent a bill or legal threat by the RIAA/MPAA?"
A common defense or marketing ploy for Tasers is, "Now we can use nonlethal force and take down people who would otherwise get shot and killed". But that's not how they get used in practice. People are still getting shot by cops all the time when they appear to be really dangerous. When Tasers really get used are all kinds of new situations populace-suppression situations -- when someone is talking back, being uncooperative, not getting out of a car when you want them, hogging a mic at a public forum, asking for a lawyer, etc.
I don't know what the proper name is for this logical fallacy, but it's the same as the Six Strikes program. Giving my oppressors another tool with which to beat me down is not progress.
We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
it's a way of justifying obtaining something you want enough to download but not enough to pay the asking price for.
Why is that a bad thing? I am not willing to pay for a horse-drawn carriage ride either, that's why I get in my car and drive it to my destination.
First off, that's a terrible analogy. Your solution is to find a way to have what you want (a ride) by making use of your own equipment and resources. The equivalent scenario for a movie would be to say, "I don't want to pay for entertainment. I'll use my own movie-making software to create my own."
Regardless, what's "wrong" with obtaining something without being willing to pay the asking price? Let's put this is clearer terms: Suppose you hire a lawyer to draw up some documents for you (a will, or whatever). The lawyer has the requisite professional training to create a good document that will stand up in court.
But then suppose you meet with the lawyer after he has done his work, he shows you the documents and say, "That will be $250." And you say, "Oh, sorry, I don't know that I want to pay that much." Then, when the lawyer goes to the bathroom, you download the files for the document to a USB stick and leave.
Any reasonable interpretation of this scenario is that you "stole" this lawyer's work. Yes, that's what it's called when someone offers something for sale, and rather than paying, you just take it. It doesn't matter whether it's physical property or a service.
And artists are people too. They have skills. We have a system in place that is supposed to allow them to be rewarded for their efforts, just like the lawyer.
I fully admit that system is broken in a multitude of ways, unfairly favors corporate interests and ridiculous copyright terms, and doesn't generally reward those who produce the artistic content that much.
But that still doesn't mean it's just okay to take something that you're not willing to pay for. Or can you explain how my lawyer scenario is different? Aren't you just making a copy of information that wants to be "free" in that case??
To access Project Gutenberg or modern day free resources (free books are still copyrighted, by the way), one needs a job to pay for the internet and electricity (books that tell you how to make your own solar panels or etc. are within copyright). You're not going to be able to make money in the modern world (well, not in a first world country) by reading purely out-of-copyright stuff. Even factory work requires a diploma (and even a degree, at some), which even for homeschoolers requires reading at least some copyrighted material. And only being able to discuss out-of-copyright art is going to make it difficult to get a job on a personality level.
And without a job, what can't they do, other than access Project Gutenberg? They can't buy food, and the growing tips in out-of-copyright books are expecting soil much different than what is currently in our yard. They can't pay for heat nor air conditioning... last summer was literally fatal for people without air conditioning, and they wouldn't have survived the past month without heat; out-of-copyright books don't provide information on making your own air conditioning and heat that would work with our modern day home, and anyway many of our tools are electric, so if they can't pay for power nor new tools they're screwed. They can't use my cellphone to call for help - I'm pretty sure Project Gutenberg doesn't have Android For Dummies, and they can't charge it nor pay for more minutes anyway. They can't buy new batteries for the fire alarm so that they can tell if their makeshift heat source has set the house on fire while they sleep. Etc. etc. etc.
But that's just surviving - how can't they function in the world? If we think about it honestly, they would barely be able to have a conversation with, well, anyone. Think about the last conversation you had that revolved purely around out-of-copyright material. Any conversation like that deeper than "how are you today" from a cashier, I'll bet are rare if not nonexistant. And unless you met in a Project Gutenburg book club, I'll bet most of your friendships began by discussing copyrighted stuff. So there wouldn't even be the hope that they'd find a partner willing to pay for them to live.
I don't think it's reasonable to expect that they'll be confronted with fraudulent accounting practices if they're lucky enough to get to sign a deal with a major record label.
And personally, as a pirate, my logic is "I'm entitled to see exactly what I am spending my money on before I spend it."
yep, rationalization is a powerful tool for removing blame and guilt.
But what about when there is no legal alternative to obtain the content you want?
That's the point of a boycott, you go without to make a statement.
If a person cannot buy food without getting exploited by an unfair party,
This is music, not food. The difference is obvious.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Must be good for preventing it too, as I have never had it towards pirating.
If we want to move to a digital economy and rely even more on an economy built up on things that are easily duplicated then someone has to step up and protect those works.
"And personally, as a pirate, my logic is "I'm entitled to see exactly what I am spending my money on before I spend it."
Copyright laws last too long
Copyright infringement penalties are too high. The punishment does not fit the crime (what are we doing Sharia law, hand chopped off for stealing?)
Instead of paying $35 to file an appeal, or admitting guilt by clicking through...
If/when you get your first strike.... Go to your local courthouse and file a lawsuit against your ISP. (This will probably cost roughly the same as the $35.) Say that they have blocked your internet access that you paid them to provide.
State that they are accused you of an illegal action without allowing for due process. Make the valid points that are provided elsewhere in the comments, ... that they are assuming your guild, collusion with other monopolies, etc.
As people are fond of saying on Slashdot, I am not a lawyer, but, I doubt that the ISPs or the MAFIAA will want to see this case actually go to trial.
Looking for a job?
Want your resume written professionally?
DON'T USE TUNAREZ!!!
There's a reason why employers would much rather hire someone with even a couple years of experience for almost all careers, rather than a guy straight out of high school or college. Most practical infomation you need to succeed in a job is learned through experience, not by reading books.
And as for my friends, I can't think of anyone I'm close to now whom I became friends with because of their knowledge of pop culture. Actually, most of friends are people who similarly spend a lot of time discussing old stuff -- literature or classical music or whatever. I'm not claiming this is typical, but your assumptions are not always correct.
But that's irrelevant. Almost all of your supposed things you "couldn't" do without a copyrighted book are actually things that people usually learn from each other, not a book. Who the heck learns how to operate heating and air conditioning in their house from a book? You see your parents do it. Usually when you buy your first home, you call up your dad of stuff goes wrong, or you call in a professional who mostly knows how to fix things from real-world experience, not from reading a book. (Maybe they might consult a spec sheet or something that's hardly enforced by copyright.)
One more thing -- I think you grossly underestimate the amount of free educational materials available now, much of which has been created relatively recently. I was referring to century-old textbooks to learn basic info that's common to most primary and secondary curricula. But there's plenty of free stuff and free textbooks in lots of fields out there if you look. I'll again make my claim that unless you're in a research field that needs access to the latest published stuff, 99% of people can get all the educational stuff necessary to survive from a combination of old public domain stuff and new public domain stuff.
There's a tort called vexatious litigation. It's common law.
That's nice and might have baring were this a law of the land and not law of a company.
There is also a possible penalty under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 11, for signing your name to a legal declaration that you have not investigated and, thus, do not have good reason to believe that it is true. The judge, essentially, gets to make up any penalty they think is appropriate (within reason).
What judge? What Federal Rules? Those don't matter in the slightest here. This is about a private entity making up misguided rules when they should be dumb pipes.
Fair use is protected. Sharing an entire film or song probably is not. Therefore, share and download copyrighted materials a piece at a time. No infringement, no six strikes, no problem. Where is your god now RIAA/MPAA?
Just like there are no moral rights or moral responsibilities. Your terse statement is impetuous, repugnant and highly inflamnatory. God will punish you for this.
I think the real issue here is one of privacy. I use the internet for both telephone and written communications. Analyzing my IP traffic is both taping my phone line and opening my mail. There are legal protections for phone lines and there are legal protections for physical mail but a long time ago IP traffic was made exempt from privacy laws. This was before the internet was widely used for telephone and mail. Before paperless billing. Before Skype. The world has changed and we need our legal protections to catch up. It doesn't matter what you think about what they are doing or why they are doing it. Your IP traffic should be private. It should be impossible for the ISP to tell what you are using their service for. The service they provide is a "dumb pipe" that can contain any sort of private and personal information. There are FCC rules protecting CPNI (Customer Proprietary Network Infromation). There are normally large fines for any company that discloses CPNI to a 3rd party without written consent from the subscriber.
The solution is the use of encrypted channels. All traffic must be encrypted by default. The fact that your e-mail travels around the world in plain text should make you uncomfortable.
You know, not infringing on copyright in the first place.
Making a backup copy of something I paid good money for is infringing now.
A better alternative is avoid it. I won't buy your stuff. You won't get my money. Welcome to oblivion. I'll have a filet o' fish and curly fries with gravy, thanks.
"Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit
You're right. I thought GP was talking about lawsuits, for some reason.
caritj.org
The model IS failing. That's why it needs to be propped up by laws and regulations. Without, they'd have withered away into insignificance years ago.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
$35 will get you almost 6 months of torguard vpn
Do you have a point in copy/pasting that multiple times?