*NO* general ISP has put it in place. I know, I work with several of them, and filled in the papers for my own employer (who does filtering for schools which is why I don't have a problem their).
you work for schools? think you should go back there too
In that case you are right... what I am trying to explain (unsuccessfully I see) is that IF a watermark exists, that has someone elses details, then that is evidence that you have committed a crime. Yes the evidence can be destroyed (by re-encoding or removing the watermark) but until you do destroy the said evidence you are at risk.
Its not so much that the evidence says that you didn't pay for it... it says that someone else, a third party, paid for it and that you have, most likely, obtained it through illegal channels. (Note: 1 file on its own would unlikely be a cause of concern, but 20-30GB of music, each with different watermarks... yeah, there's your reasonable doubt)
Of course the simple solution would be to just remove the watermark from all of the music in your library, thus destroying all evidence.
Think again of the receipt analogy in the shop. You keep the receipt when you leave the shop, but once you're in the street (reasonably far from the shop etc) you don't need the receipt any more. You can destroy it. If somebody comes up to you and claims you stole their Blu-ray, it's up to *them* to show proof.
Now with the exact same analogy, there would be an RFID installed in the Blu-ray player (just the same as the watermark, you don't even know its there until someone points it out) which they can use to prove that the player was in their shop, and has not been paid for (serial numbers, tricky things them)
But back to what I am trying to tell you. The watermark, if it exists, tells you who purchased the music and therefore can be used as evidence in a piracy case, especially if it was purchased by someone other than yourself. The obvious solution to this is just to remove the watermarks when you purchase/download/whatever music from the internet. Therefore there is no proof of piracy.
they don't need to routinely enter houses to check for illegal music. Think about it for a minute. Seriously. RIAA's goons track offender down who is "making available." Which is not illegal (this is where they will start their investigation) However, during the course of their investigations, they uncover music that does not belong to you. Music that you cannot prove is yours. And while you can go on about "innocent until proven guilty" there is proof, right there, that they have (by the watermark clearly stating that someone else is the rightful owner) that you have infringed on the copyright. They can prove GUILT. Not of "making available" but of downloading music illegally.
To try to make it easier for you to understand, because I can see that it is just not getting through to you, I will run through two very simple scenarios, side by side.
1. I shoot you. (I download music from someone) 2. I stand there holding the gun. (I then make the music available for others to download from me) 3. There are witnesses who saw me do it. (There is a watermark in the file saying that I am not the owner of the music)
Now what we have here is quite simple and clear cut. 1 - we have the infraction 2 - we have the witnesses/discovery of the identity of the perpetrator 3 - we have the evidence
NOTE: I am NOT saying that murder is the same as copyright infringement people. I am just using it as a simple demonstration of how guilt is proven.
I don't think so. They would have a solid case against Person C however, because there is proof of not only making available (by both persons A and C) but of copying by person C.
Basically the only person I see getting royally screwed in that situation is person C, who is not the legal owner of the file.
You are driving a car. You are randomly stopped by a police officer (you were speeding, tail light is out, you slept with his wife... who knows why you were stopped) He asks you for your license and registration.
Now, stop for a second. WHY does he ask for license and registration? Oh, that's right! It is to determine whether the car does actually belong to you (or whether it has been reported as stolen)
It is a proof of purchase. Was there an innocent until proven guilty in that situation? No. You had to prove your ownership of the vehicle.
It probably helps a lot if you think of this "watermarking" as a proof of purchase. It exonerates you as the lawful owner of the music, in much the same way that the receipt from a retailer is proof that you have purchased the coffee maker you are carrying out their front door.
Also, you are innocent until proven guilty there... I dare you to go and purchase (or steal, it's your call) a Bluray player (or anything else for that matter) throw away the receipt (if you actually bought it that is) and try to walk out the front door passed their security. You may be innocent, but without proof of purchase you are going to have a very tough time convincing the police when they come.
While I agree with you, here is the problem I have with it:
Person A is the target Person B is the attacker RIAA is the litigious groups of assholes
Person B decides to harm Person A. Person B knows Person A's email address. Person B modifies a bunch of MP3s to contain Person A's email address and then posts them to every torrent site imaginable. RIAA is famous for ignoring what "reasonable doubt" might suggest or imply and immediate goes into litigation. Even if it is later revealed that Person A was a victim in this scenario and is completely innocent of wrong doing, Person A just spend a LOT of money in the process. (It can be reasonably assumed that Person A spent a lot of money because without having spent money, a defendant most likely will lose.)
That scenario still comes under "making available," and we all know that that argument has been thrown out of court, and there are now precedents set in place.
Now, if Person B had access to Person A's computer and changed the email addresses of all/some of his music to that of other people, it can now be reasonably assumed that Person A has been illegally downloading music.
Essentially think of the watermark as a receipt. It is proof of purchase, and is tied to a person's email address. If the email address is not yours, you don't have a receipt and therefore cannot prove that you have purchased the said item.
I fill mine with concrete and drop them in the ocean. Stuffed inside an informant, of course. Nobody will be getting more information from either one. I am intrigued by the clever use of a hammer in the video, I may have to modify my method slightly.
One man has even begun making orgone generators, which use crystals, semi-precious stones and gold to purportedly put out positive energy to combat the negative vibes flooding the town from the Wi-Fi base stations.
I am just sitting here wondering how long it is going to take someone to just pinch them all... surely there would have to be at least a few bucks in gold there. If not, it'd still be fun to pinch them and place them all around the town in people's gardens, on shop roofs, etc.
Firstly, I am not an American, so please forgive me for any mistakes that I am about to make here.
From the outside looking in, at least to myself, it appeared to be more a case of who could amass, and consequently spend, the greater amount of political donations.
I could be wrong here, and I am perfectly willing to accept that, but that is how it appeared to be to me.
Political donations, or more accurately "bribes," (because that is what they are, regardless of what your government tells you) are used during the campaign to pay for speech writers, spin doctors, and also to pay off the media so that they are cast in a favourable light.
Then once the vote has been carried out, and the winner decided, all of those people who have donated substantial amounts of money to the campaign, then start demanding their dues. After all it was they who ensured victory, therefore they should be rewarded for their assistance.
$712M (Banking on becoming President) dollars was spent on the Obama campaign, and you can rest assured that very very VERY little of that was given by your average citizen. So once again, the corporations have elected a president, and now they want something in return.
I know that democracy is "government for the people, by the people," and I believe that that is what the intention was. However in recent times it has wavered from that ideal, and we are all having our freedoms stripped by our governments on the behest of the corporations (lobbyists, etc) who financially support the campaigns of the political parties.
I've often wondered what the point in people writing these acronyms and then explaining them immediately after and then never reusing it again. IANAL is another common culprit.
it's I ANAL - you missed a space... it means goatse
Slashdot Mirror
I am just trying to work this out. How is a New Zealand citizen able to commit treason against the US?
treason: (noun) the crime of betraying one's country
hey! how did you know my password?
crap - now I have to go change it...
very VERY carefully...
haha, note to self - don't drink and post
What trial? It hasn't happened.
*NO* general ISP has put it in place. I know, I work with several of them, and filled in the papers for my own employer (who does filtering for schools which is why I don't have a problem their).
you work for schools? think you should go back there too
perhaps he means "septic tank" but why anyone would want to brew bear inside an American is beyond me
NOTE: Septic tank is also rhyming slang for "Yank" probably shouldn't have told you that...
I like a different magpie, but mine uses a different "Port", same code but also with chips and source..
sorry it's weak, but I cannot believe a collingwood supporter reads slashdot !
I can't believe a Collingwood supporter can READ!
Actually I think I now know where we have gotten our wires crossed. We are seeing this from two slightly different angles (I think)
You are thinking: No watermark, no proof
Whereas
I am thinking: Someone elses watermark, you're screwed
Just so you know, I don't disagree with your stance. I am just trying to get across that the watermark can be used as evidence.
The watermark is evidence in this case that the music is not yours. It is the proof that you are guilty.
In that case you are right... what I am trying to explain (unsuccessfully I see) is that IF a watermark exists, that has someone elses details, then that is evidence that you have committed a crime. Yes the evidence can be destroyed (by re-encoding or removing the watermark) but until you do destroy the said evidence you are at risk.
Its not so much that the evidence says that you didn't pay for it... it says that someone else, a third party, paid for it and that you have, most likely, obtained it through illegal channels. (Note: 1 file on its own would unlikely be a cause of concern, but 20-30GB of music, each with different watermarks... yeah, there's your reasonable doubt)
Of course the simple solution would be to just remove the watermark from all of the music in your library, thus destroying all evidence.
Think again of the receipt analogy in the shop. You keep the receipt
when you leave the shop, but once you're in the street (reasonably far
from the shop etc) you don't need the receipt any more. You can destroy it.
If somebody comes up to you and claims you stole their Blu-ray, it's up
to *them* to show proof.
Now with the exact same analogy, there would be an RFID installed in the Blu-ray player (just the same as the watermark, you don't even know its there until someone points it out) which they can use to prove that the player was in their shop, and has not been paid for (serial numbers, tricky things them)
But back to what I am trying to tell you. The watermark, if it exists, tells you who purchased the music and therefore can be used as evidence in a piracy case, especially if it was purchased by someone other than yourself. The obvious solution to this is just to remove the watermarks when you purchase/download/whatever music from the internet. Therefore there is no proof of piracy.
they don't need to routinely enter houses to check for illegal music. Think about it for a minute.
Seriously.
RIAA's goons track offender down who is "making available." Which is not illegal (this is where they will start their investigation)
However, during the course of their investigations, they uncover music that does not belong to you. Music that you cannot prove is yours. And while you can go on about "innocent until proven guilty" there is proof, right there, that they have (by the watermark clearly stating that someone else is the rightful owner) that you have infringed on the copyright. They can prove GUILT. Not of "making available" but of downloading music illegally.
To try to make it easier for you to understand, because I can see that it is just not getting through to you, I will run through two very simple scenarios, side by side.
1. I shoot you. (I download music from someone)
2. I stand there holding the gun. (I then make the music available for others to download from me)
3. There are witnesses who saw me do it. (There is a watermark in the file saying that I am not the owner of the music)
Now what we have here is quite simple and clear cut.
1 - we have the infraction
2 - we have the witnesses/discovery of the identity of the perpetrator
3 - we have the evidence
NOTE: I am NOT saying that murder is the same as copyright infringement people. I am just using it as a simple demonstration of how guilt is proven.
I don't think so. They would have a solid case against Person C however, because there is proof of not only making available (by both persons A and C) but of copying by person C.
Basically the only person I see getting royally screwed in that situation is person C, who is not the legal owner of the file.
To summarize:
Making available != Illegal
Copying == Illegal
Person A is fine, Person C is screwed
So, just to do the typical car analogy.
You are driving a car.
You are randomly stopped by a police officer (you were speeding, tail light is out, you slept with his wife... who knows why you were stopped)
He asks you for your license and registration.
Now, stop for a second. WHY does he ask for license and registration? Oh, that's right! It is to determine whether the car does actually belong to you (or whether it has been reported as stolen)
It is a proof of purchase. Was there an innocent until proven guilty in that situation? No. You had to prove your ownership of the vehicle.
It probably helps a lot if you think of this "watermarking" as a proof of purchase. It exonerates you as the lawful owner of the music, in much the same way that the receipt from a retailer is proof that you have purchased the coffee maker you are carrying out their front door.
Also, you are innocent until proven guilty there... I dare you to go and purchase (or steal, it's your call) a Bluray player (or anything else for that matter) throw away the receipt (if you actually bought it that is) and try to walk out the front door passed their security. You may be innocent, but without proof of purchase you are going to have a very tough time convincing the police when they come.
While I agree with you, here is the problem I have with it:
Person A is the target
Person B is the attacker
RIAA is the litigious groups of assholes
Person B decides to harm Person A. Person B knows Person A's email address. Person B modifies a bunch of MP3s to contain Person A's email address and then posts them to every torrent site imaginable. RIAA is famous for ignoring what "reasonable doubt" might suggest or imply and immediate goes into litigation. Even if it is later revealed that Person A was a victim in this scenario and is completely innocent of wrong doing, Person A just spend a LOT of money in the process. (It can be reasonably assumed that Person A spent a lot of money because without having spent money, a defendant most likely will lose.)
That scenario still comes under "making available," and we all know that that argument has been thrown out of court, and there are now precedents set in place.
Now, if Person B had access to Person A's computer and changed the email addresses of all/some of his music to that of other people, it can now be reasonably assumed that Person A has been illegally downloading music.
Essentially think of the watermark as a receipt. It is proof of purchase, and is tied to a person's email address. If the email address is not yours, you don't have a receipt and therefore cannot prove that you have purchased the said item.
I fill mine with concrete and drop them in the ocean. Stuffed inside an informant, of course.
Nobody will be getting more information from either one.
I am intrigued by the clever use of a hammer in the video, I may have to modify my method slightly.
on the hard drive, or the informant?
RBFH - is that "Really Big F**king Hammer?"
what about using acid?
dude, that's like such an awesome idea... like I can see patterns on the disk man. Wow man, you have a wicked selection of porn
nah, I don't want to pinch them to wake them up... I want to give them a bloody good bitch slapping and tell them to get a job
FTFA:
One man has even begun making orgone generators, which use crystals, semi-precious stones and gold to purportedly put out positive energy to combat the negative vibes flooding the town from the Wi-Fi base stations.
I am just sitting here wondering how long it is going to take someone to just pinch them all... surely there would have to be at least a few bucks in gold there. If not, it'd still be fun to pinch them and place them all around the town in people's gardens, on shop roofs, etc.
it is an Australian site - it's been "Conroyed"
---
(I accidentally posted this in response to an incorrect article a minute ago - don't I feel stupid)
disregard - bloody page refreshed when I wasn't looking and clicked on the wrong article
it is an Australian site - it's been "Conroyed"
Firstly, I am not an American, so please forgive me for any mistakes that I am about to make here.
From the outside looking in, at least to myself, it appeared to be more a case of who could amass, and consequently spend, the greater amount of political donations.
I could be wrong here, and I am perfectly willing to accept that, but that is how it appeared to be to me.
Political donations, or more accurately "bribes," (because that is what they are, regardless of what your government tells you) are used during the campaign to pay for speech writers, spin doctors, and also to pay off the media so that they are cast in a favourable light.
Then once the vote has been carried out, and the winner decided, all of those people who have donated substantial amounts of money to the campaign, then start demanding their dues. After all it was they who ensured victory, therefore they should be rewarded for their assistance.
$712M (Banking on becoming President) dollars was spent on the Obama campaign, and you can rest assured that very very VERY little of that was given by your average citizen. So once again, the corporations have elected a president, and now they want something in return.
I know that democracy is "government for the people, by the people," and I believe that that is what the intention was. However in recent times it has wavered from that ideal, and we are all having our freedoms stripped by our governments on the behest of the corporations (lobbyists, etc) who financially support the campaigns of the political parties.
AFAIAC (As far as I am concerned)
I've often wondered what the point in people writing these acronyms and then explaining them immediately after and then never reusing it again. IANAL is another common culprit.
it's I ANAL - you missed a space... it means goatse
if you want a stable chair, you actually remove a leg and make it a 3 legged chair - they never rock