Slashdot Mirror
BBC: ISPs Should Assume VPN Users Are Pirates
An anonymous reader sends this news from TorrentFreak:
After cutting its teeth as a domestic broadcaster, the BBC is spreading its products all around the globe. Shows like Top Gear have done extremely well overseas and the trend of exploiting other shows in multiple territories is set to continue. As a result, the BBC is now getting involved in the copyright debates of other countries, notably Australia, where it operates four subscription channels. Following submissions from Hollywood interests and local ISPs, BBC Worldwide has now presented its own to the Federal Government. Its text shows that the corporation wants new anti-piracy measures to go further than ever before.
The BBC begins by indicating a preference for a co-operative scheme, one in which content owners and ISPs share responsibility to "reduce and eliminate" online copyright infringement. ... "Since the evolution of peer-to-peer software protocols to incorporate decentralized architectures, which has allowed users to download content from numerous host computers, the detection and prosecution of copyright violations has become a complex task. This situation is further amplified by the adoption of virtual private networks (VPNs) and proxy servers by some users, allowing them to circumvent geo-blocking technologies and further evade detection," the BBC explains.
The BBC begins by indicating a preference for a co-operative scheme, one in which content owners and ISPs share responsibility to "reduce and eliminate" online copyright infringement. ... "Since the evolution of peer-to-peer software protocols to incorporate decentralized architectures, which has allowed users to download content from numerous host computers, the detection and prosecution of copyright violations has become a complex task. This situation is further amplified by the adoption of virtual private networks (VPNs) and proxy servers by some users, allowing them to circumvent geo-blocking technologies and further evade detection," the BBC explains.
Intellectual property is ultimately public domain, in all legal systems so far.
The property part should entail the respect part to the creators, not the "price" abuse by powermongering intellectual property hogging firms.
I think they should maintain a DRM free, free to pirate as much as you want intellectual property world, and it should come down to everyone's matter of conscience, within their own financial means to sort of "donate', or "live up to the law", and pay for the copyright to the owners. If they are broke, they should not pay anything, especially if they could live in abstinence of such a thing - and then you can't claim the opportunity cost as an IP owner. Cash in on the guilt part if you're an intellectual property owner, but don't deny knowledge from people that cannot afford it.
I have donated $10 to the writer of Ace of Penguins, DJ Delorie, not because it's such great software, in fact it's not even that great, but because I respect him, even if he does not claim property rights over his creation. And the IP hogging management firms were completely absent from the transaction. I also paid ImageLine, the creators of Fruit Loops Studio, for version 5 of their software, some decent amount, not the outrageous prices they charge for their stuff though.
I also bought Windows 2000, Office 2000, Visual Studio 6, Windows XP, Office XP at my college book store, when I was in college over a decade ago, each for $10, so a total like $50. Microsoft was pimping their stuff like drugs to college kids, at a very low price or consideration, at an age when the engineering computer labs had a good mix of Sun Microsystems workstations, VAX computers, and Windows computers, with Linux really looming on the front, as a way to get and keep everyone addicted, and to exterminate the competition. I don't really feel guilty for buying that stuff so cheap, or even pirating their shit, when they already made trillions on it from everybody else, and it's not like the programmers get paid most of it, I mean they used to get paid decent, like $80,000 fresh out of college, then run the crap out of them to where they burn out in 2 years, and you go through them like underwear and none have a career with you. Those programmers should have been paid $500,000 each at least, for anything fair and Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer should have been satisfied and happy each amassing 1 billion instead of a couple tens of billion for themselves. But those days were the Microsoft heydays, when they did have actual competition, and they were forced to do good business, unlike the lazy fat pigs they turned into today, having exterminated all competition but some remnants here and there, and all the stuff they've come up with since - the bloatload and inefficiency of dotnet compared to the speed of Win32/VB Classic, bloat of Vista sux, Office 2007+ with that stupid ribbon and megamegabytes of disk space waste, etc - all suck compared to what we used to have with Win2000, Office 2000 and Visual Studio 6. I feel for them these days under the low priced competition from Arm, Chromebooks, and the like, at least 6 months ago so it seemed at Micro Center's laptop offerings, like the sky was falling on Microsoft, but I just checked, and things seem to be better, but even Micro Center is pimping Windows 7 things as opposed to Windows 8.1, as in more traditional Windows, not this new smart phone like world where everyone gets used to constant cellular antenna geolocation tracking, every mouseclick logged in an anti 5th amendment way, and keeping all their precious data on the cloud, ready to get blackmailed over access to it, and I go as far as removing even Windows 7 from this HP Mini 200 Intel Atom 7 Watt CPU+Chipset 9 hr Li battery thing, and installing Windows XP SP3 on it from an HP recovery disk, which flies circles around Win 7 in both speed and user experience, and can run old school software I'm used to, such as my favorite piece of software ever, the EULA-less American Heritage Talking Dictionary for Windows 95 from Softkey, where def
Some houses, such as that of Mark Twain, and old presidents, do enter public domain, sort of, like a museum item, but I think the inheritors get a fair purchase price for releasing it into public domain like private museum holder ship. Perhaps similar things could be applied to intellectual property that's really difficult to let go of, such as the looming Mickey Mouse entering into public domain in 2020, and Disney will lobby billions to yet again extend copyright law. I got this CD at Walmart, released by Disney, titled "Let it go", which I found really funny. It's like I was a zombie and led to it directly through mind control. So anyway, when it's time for Disney to let Mickey Mouse go, perhaps the people, the public, who become the next owners, could compensate Disney during such a difficult transaction, and pay them some decent sum from the tax funds to make such a transition easier, similar to how the Mark Twain house probably got a decent sum at the transaction from the inheritors into public display conservatorship.