Michael Geist posted an alternative interpretation, and I think he's right. The fee referred to is not a fee paid by ISP customers to the ISP for provision of services, but a fee paid by the infringement *claimant* to the ISP for forwarding the notice and retaining the data.
Hopefully, this means that an ISP does not have an obligation to retain any customer data BEFORE the claimant sends the notice and pays the fee. The fee is currently at nil, but the government can set the fee later (this is, presumably, a defense against an potential epidemic of bogus claims). So this means (I hope) that one can provide anonymous net access, whether for fee or not, without running afoul of the law, so long as you *never* collect identifying info.
Now that the bill has been posted, The question is a little clearer.
From the bill:
40.2 (1) A person described in paragraph 40.1(1)(a) or (b) [ie, an ISP] who receives a notice of claimed infringement that complies with subsection 40.1(2) has an obligation, on being paid any fee that the person has lawfully charged for the performance of that obligation,
So, the upshot, if I interpret this correctly, is that if you provide Internet access or proxy services or hosting free of charge, you're not obligated to forward an infringement claim notice or keep identification records....That's a little better. So projects like or Dijjer are not required to keep tabs on everyone that uses the network.
Internet service providers have also done very well. They obtain clear provisions that they are not liable for caching or other hosting of third party content. Further, there is the notice and notice system, which obligates ISPs to send a notice if there is a claim of copyright infringement and retain "records that will allow the identity of the person to whom the electronic location belongs to be determined" but they are permitted to charge for the service (the government will set the maximum fee). ISPs that fail to abide by these provisions face only statutory damages of either $5,000 or $10,000.
So if access providers (ISP's) are required by law to reatin identifying info, what happens to your local wifi Internet cafe? Are they not allowed to offer access without ID? No more anonymous dialup paid in cash?
I suppose who constitutes an ISP under the law will require some more scrutiny...
By this reckoning, Government should shut down police forces because we have private security firms we can all hire....or they should be prohibited from offering free municipal wireless services because there are existing ISPs that can charge to do it.
When did government begin existing at the behest of profiteers?
Very small man made things have been around much longer than the term "nanotech". Before that, it was called "chemistry". It still is.
"The term Nanotechnology was created by Tokyo Science University professor Norio Taniguchi in 1974 to describe the precision manufacture of materials with nanometre tolerances. "
Drexler further popularized the term to describe very small *manufacturing*. It has since been hijacked by media and scientists alike in order to attract grant money, most notably from the National Nanotechnology Initiative, which ignores molecular manufacturing entirely in favor of buzzword-compliant "nanomaterials" research.
Sure, if you accept that popular usage is what defines a term, then Nanotech has supplanted chemistry. That's not where it came from, though.
More info on this confusion, and the Eddie Bauer "nude-ins" here.
Appdirs tend to make more sense for closed source apps - they tend not to be so concerned with dependencies, because a dependency is that much less code you don't own. Open source methodology instead, practically guarantees dependencies - that's the point! Stand on the shoulders of giants, because, well, you're allowed!
Imagine trying to take the Debian repository and convert it into dependency-free frameworks, bundles, appdirs, and statically compiled binaries. That would be insane!
Appdirs simply seem to trade usability for efficiency, and it's directly affected by the licensing style of the programs.
More and more, I'm seeing that licensing is not separate from software engineering, and this is another example of how the licensing affects the engineering.
As to the larger issue of Macs "threatening" GNU/Linux, I don't see it happening. A competitive marketplace could mean fewer GNU/Linux desktops "sold" or installed, sure. But share-alike software isn't a business. As such, i don't see how a closed-source OS (or, in this case, a desktop environment/API) can compete. Licensing is a feature. I got tired of having to pirate and crack all my apps a long time ago. Apple doesn't "threaten" GNU/Linux any more than Windows does. no matter what, I get to keep it, use it, improve on it here and there, and miraculaously watch a nice mature community make it better.
I realize there's a certain amount of user base necessary to spur a critical mass of quality development, but I just don't see Mac OS X or Windows having the muscle to reduce GNU/Linux developers to abandon the platform in sufficient numbers to "threaten" its existence.
Total world-domination marketshare, sure, but I don't really give a rat's ass about how popular my OS of choice is - as long as it's enough to keep it flourishing. Apparently, the little bit GNU/Linux has is plenty.
All this means is that iTMS is the only *single* place left. All the real action is distributed throughout the Internet. The only reason most go to bittorrent.com is to download the software - not the content.
And with an open source kernel, how, exactly, do they plan to stop people from hacking OS X onto commodity PC hardware?
Trusted Computing/DRM? I don't see any other way then through some form of remote attestation. Given their track record with iPod DRM, i wouldn't put it past them, either.
Perhaps the Mac crowd will become the ultimate DRM apologists, claiming, with some credibility, that Mac couldn't survive if it didn't have TC/DRM involved.
A unique argument: We're using technology to preserve a monopoly - except that it isn't really a monopoly.
I think most people would be happy with ending the monopoly and its concomitant abuse. There's still a place for private software vendors - it just shouldn't be in single-handedly setting standards for software interoperatbility.
How many non-terrorists are involved in copyright infringement?
Now, how many non-copyright infringers are involved in terrorism?
Saying that copyright infringement is linked to terrorism is like saying breathing is linked to terrorism. Gee! Figure that one out. All terrorists breathe! That must be it!
Copyright infringment doesn't cause or support terrorism - it's just trendy.
"TV Industry Promises to Stop Broadcasting Altogether"
EXCELLENT! PLEASE DO!
What I don't understand is why broadcasters would cut themselves off from another advertising channel. an ad is anything that is used to promote the sale of a product or service, and, these days, that means the actual shows and movies themselves are ads, since you can go buy them on DVD, as well.
Am I really going to "suffer" from losing an advertising channel? Hell, I'd pay to get RID of it!
After reading the act originally, I always thought that by "can spam" they didn't meaning "can it", as in "knock it off", but rather "package it and put it on the shelf - it's safe, really!". As in "canned", like a commercial, or something. As noted earlier, CAN-SPAM didn't deter so much as it legalized it.
the tabs will be very "'basic' due to fears from Microsoft that tabbed browsing might scare off too many users. The feature is only being included because IE is slipping in the browser share market.
Scare them off - to what?
So what you're telling me is they're not adding tabs because they think they'll lose users if they did. But, instead, they're adding tabs - because they're afraid they'll lose users if they don't.
That's a good point - consumer electronics companies benefit from IP jsut as much as the copyright cartel. That's why they are ambivalent, at best.
I've been seeing the "market" for DRM-free content exploding recently. Our Media, dead-simple free blogs, and Wikimedia, Creative Commons is becoming downright trendy, and the library of share-alike content grows daily.
Currently, device makers are riding on the coattails of open (or at least unclosed) standards (mp3) in order to sell their DRM-encumbered alternatives (iTunes). No manufacturer is seriously going release a device that can only play closed-format content (Look at Sony)
As demand for unemcumbered content solidifies, demand for non-DRMed formats and players will likewise solidify. There's no way the market will buy a device that requires DRM, so long as there is enough popular content out there that doesn't need it.
So the solution is this: produce and release as much quality share-alike content as fast you possibly can.
The Constitutional mandate for copyright was NEVER intended as an economic policy. It's not there to prop up failed business models or "create jobs"; it's there to encourage innovation and creativity.
Except for that annoying "excuse" that I'm thrown in jail for not going into this debt to begin with.
Saying that using public services is violating a social contract is like saying that ad blocking is violating a social contract. There's no mutual consent.
OK, so you host a website. A popular website. So your host sends you a big bandwidth bill every month. How do you pay for that?
Interestingly enough, all your viewers have flat-rate broadband, and, individually, don't expend a whole lot of bandwidth on your site. They could use four or five times the bandwidth on it, and wouldn't notice the difference.
I have an idea - how about, instead of annoying us, you let us help you host your website and take some of that burden off of you?
The solutions are still taking shape (things like Dijjer), but soon there won't be much excuse for ads anymore as a way to pay the bandwidth bill.
But do you really think websites will take the ads down once distributed tech thins down your bandwidth bill?
How about we make a deal - you take off the ads, and we'll host your content. Now THERE's a real social contract.
So I guess you think you deserve you should get it for free.
Nope. Your supposed "service" that TV is supposedly doing is bullshit. It's does much more harm than good, to me, and to a lot of poeple. I'd like nothing more than to have it just go out of business, and go away. My roommates have two TVs in the house, and both of them are collecting dust.
Well, that takes care of that. That was an awfully long post for nothing, now wasn't it?
I just switched from Shaw in BC, but not to Telus. I switched to a medium-sized DSL ISP called Uniserve, and have had few problems.
I had them before, for the calendar year 2003, and was favorably disposed toward them. Their business accounts are the same price as their residential, they offer static IPs, and don't really pay attention to usage (and don't relly need to). The residential service is fairly heavily port-blocked, but the business service, at the same price, takes care of that for those who opt in - not a bad policy.
Yes, Telus does provide the pair, but Uniserve provides the important part - the network. Once I got hooked up, Telus never bothered me again.
And you don't have to put up with Telus' crappy DHCP-assigned DNS servers, routers or their transparent HTTP proxy redirection (which gives me the willies).
I had to go with Shaw after I moved because I was waiting for a DSL port to open up. Shaw was better than Telus, for certain, but not Uniserve.
This just reinforces my opinion that only smaller ISP's can actually provide net access worth squat. Thank God for regulation. I can't wait to see broadband wireless blow some fat chunks out of telecom monopolies.
Slashdot Mirror
http://www.michaelgeist.ca/home.php#418
Michael Geist posted an alternative interpretation, and I think he's right. The fee referred to is not a fee paid by ISP customers to the ISP for provision of services, but a fee paid by the infringement *claimant* to the ISP for forwarding the notice and retaining the data.
Hopefully, this means that an ISP does not have an obligation to retain any customer data BEFORE the claimant sends the notice and pays the fee. The fee is currently at nil, but the government can set the fee later (this is, presumably, a defense against an potential epidemic of bogus claims). So this means (I hope) that one can provide anonymous net access, whether for fee or not, without running afoul of the law, so long as you *never* collect identifying info.
Now that the bill has been posted, The question is a little clearer.
...That's a little better. So projects like or Dijjer are not required to keep tabs on everyone that uses the network.
From the bill:
40.2 (1) A person described in paragraph
40.1(1)(a) or (b) [ie, an ISP] who receives a notice of
claimed infringement that complies with subsection
40.1(2) has an obligation, on being paid
any fee that the person has lawfully charged for
the performance of that obligation,
So, the upshot, if I interpret this correctly, is that if you provide Internet access or proxy services or hosting free of charge, you're not obligated to forward an infringement claim notice or keep identification records.
Whew!
At least with notice-and-takedown, you could still remain anonymous...
From TFA:
Internet service providers have also done very well. They obtain clear provisions that they are not liable for caching or other hosting of third party content. Further, there is the notice and notice system, which obligates ISPs to send a notice if there is a claim of copyright infringement and retain "records that will allow the identity of the person to whom the electronic location belongs to be determined" but they are permitted to charge for the service (the government will set the maximum fee). ISPs that fail to abide by these provisions face only statutory damages of either $5,000 or $10,000.
So if access providers (ISP's) are required by law to reatin identifying info, what happens to your local wifi Internet cafe? Are they not allowed to offer access without ID? No more anonymous dialup paid in cash?
I suppose who constitutes an ISP under the law will require some more scrutiny...
http://www.downhillbattle.org/ is an extraordinary organization that does just that.
or Firefox's Keyword Bookmarks?
By this reckoning, Government should shut down police forces because we have private security firms we can all hire. ...or they should be prohibited from offering free municipal wireless services because there are existing ISPs that can charge to do it.
When did government begin existing at the behest of profiteers?
Very small man made things have been around much longer than the term "nanotech". Before that, it was called "chemistry". It still is.
"The term Nanotechnology was created by Tokyo Science University professor Norio Taniguchi in 1974 to describe the precision manufacture of materials with nanometre tolerances. "
Drexler further popularized the term to describe very small *manufacturing*. It has since been hijacked by media and scientists alike in order to attract grant money, most notably from the National Nanotechnology Initiative, which ignores molecular manufacturing entirely in favor of buzzword-compliant "nanomaterials" research.
Sure, if you accept that popular usage is what defines a term, then Nanotech has supplanted chemistry. That's not where it came from, though.
More info on this confusion, and the Eddie Bauer "nude-ins"
here.
Appdirs tend to make more sense for closed source apps - they tend not to be so concerned with dependencies, because a dependency is that much less code you don't own. Open source methodology instead, practically guarantees dependencies - that's the point! Stand on the shoulders of giants, because, well, you're allowed!
Imagine trying to take the Debian repository and convert it into dependency-free frameworks, bundles, appdirs, and statically compiled binaries. That would be insane!
Appdirs simply seem to trade usability for efficiency, and it's directly affected by the licensing style of the programs.
More and more, I'm seeing that licensing is not separate from software engineering, and this is another example of how the licensing affects the engineering.
As to the larger issue of Macs "threatening" GNU/Linux, I don't see it happening. A competitive marketplace could mean fewer GNU/Linux desktops "sold" or installed, sure. But share-alike software isn't a business. As such, i don't see how a closed-source OS (or, in this case, a desktop environment/API) can compete. Licensing is a feature. I got tired of having to pirate and crack all my apps a long time ago. Apple doesn't "threaten" GNU/Linux any more than Windows does. no matter what, I get to keep it, use it, improve on it here and there, and miraculaously watch a nice mature community make it better.
I realize there's a certain amount of user base necessary to spur a critical mass of quality development, but I just don't see Mac OS X or Windows having the muscle to reduce GNU/Linux developers to abandon the platform in sufficient numbers to "threaten" its existence.
Total world-domination marketshare, sure, but I don't really give a rat's ass about how popular my OS of choice is - as long as it's enough to keep it flourishing. Apparently, the little bit GNU/Linux has is plenty.
Marketshare is for businesses, not for users.
Centralizaiton is not a feature.
All this means is that iTMS is the only *single* place left. All the real action is distributed throughout the Internet. The only reason most go to bittorrent.com is to download the software - not the content.
So, what fraction of Internet traffic does iTMS pull?
most popular, my ass...
And with an open source kernel, how, exactly, do they plan to stop people from hacking OS X onto commodity PC hardware?
Trusted Computing/DRM? I don't see any other way then through some form of remote attestation. Given their track record with iPod DRM, i wouldn't put it past them, either.
Perhaps the Mac crowd will become the ultimate DRM apologists, claiming, with some credibility, that Mac couldn't survive if it didn't have TC/DRM involved.
A unique argument: We're using technology to preserve a monopoly - except that it isn't really a monopoly.
I think most people would be happy with ending the monopoly and its concomitant abuse. There's still a place for private software vendors - it just shouldn't be in single-handedly setting standards for software interoperatbility.
How many non-terrorists are involved in copyright infringement?
Now, how many non-copyright infringers are involved in terrorism?
Saying that copyright infringement is linked to terrorism is like saying breathing is linked to terrorism. Gee! Figure that one out. All terrorists breathe! That must be it!
Copyright infringment doesn't cause or support terrorism - it's just trendy.
"TV Industry Promises to Stop Broadcasting Altogether"
EXCELLENT! PLEASE DO!
What I don't understand is why broadcasters would cut themselves off from another advertising channel. an ad is anything that is used to promote the sale of a product or service, and, these days, that means the actual shows and movies themselves are ads, since you can go buy them on DVD, as well.
Am I really going to "suffer" from losing an advertising channel? Hell, I'd pay to get RID of it!
After reading the act originally, I always thought that by "can spam" they didn't meaning "can it", as in "knock it off", but rather "package it and put it on the shelf - it's safe, really!". As in "canned", like a commercial, or something. As noted earlier, CAN-SPAM didn't deter so much as it legalized it.
the tabs will be very "'basic' due to fears from Microsoft that tabbed browsing might scare off too many users. The feature is only being included because IE is slipping in the browser share market.
Scare them off - to what?
So what you're telling me is they're not adding tabs because they think they'll lose users if they did. But, instead, they're adding tabs - because they're afraid they'll lose users if they don't.
so... which is it?
SALT!
...and the fact the vendor is currently being sued into oblivion over their other product, Kazaa, in Australia.
Not to mention the protocol.
Nothing says stable technology like a wonderful closed-source product whose vendor might just soon evaporate.
Excellent!
When's the Windows port due for release?
Why are you laughing?
I can't remember the last time I made a choice of OS based solely on a one feature in my email client...
That's a good point - consumer electronics companies benefit from IP jsut as much as the copyright cartel. That's why they are ambivalent, at best.
I've been seeing the "market" for DRM-free content exploding recently. Our Media, dead-simple free blogs, and Wikimedia, Creative Commons is becoming downright trendy, and the library of share-alike content grows daily.
Currently, device makers are riding on the coattails of open (or at least unclosed) standards (mp3) in order to sell their DRM-encumbered alternatives (iTunes). No manufacturer is seriously going release a device that can only play closed-format content (Look at Sony)
As demand for unemcumbered content solidifies, demand for non-DRMed formats and players will likewise solidify. There's no way the market will buy a device that requires DRM, so long as there is enough popular content out there that doesn't need it.
So the solution is this: produce and release as much quality share-alike content as fast you possibly can.
The Constitutional mandate for copyright was NEVER intended as an economic policy. It's not there to prop up failed business models or "create jobs"; it's there to encourage innovation and creativity.
This debt is your debt
this debt is my debt
from preemptive warfare
to the housing projects
from the wealthy tax breaks
to the corp'rate favors
this debt was made by you and me!
The debt of your country is your debt.
Except for that annoying "excuse" that I'm thrown in jail for not going into this debt to begin with.
Saying that using public services is violating a social contract is like saying that ad blocking is violating a social contract. There's no mutual consent.
OK, so you host a website. A popular website. So your host sends you a big bandwidth bill every month. How do you pay for that?
Interestingly enough, all your viewers have flat-rate broadband, and, individually, don't expend a whole lot of bandwidth on your site. They could use four or five times the bandwidth on it, and wouldn't notice the difference.
I have an idea - how about, instead of annoying us, you let us help you host your website and take some of that burden off of you?
The solutions are still taking shape (things like Dijjer), but soon there won't be much excuse for ads anymore as a way to pay the bandwidth bill.
But do you really think websites will take the ads down once distributed tech thins down your bandwidth bill?
How about we make a deal - you take off the ads, and we'll host your content. Now THERE's a real social contract.
So I guess you think you deserve you should get it for free.
Nope. Your supposed "service" that TV is supposedly doing is bullshit. It's does much more harm than good, to me, and to a lot of poeple. I'd like nothing more than to have it just go out of business, and go away. My roommates have two TVs in the house, and both of them are collecting dust.
Well, that takes care of that. That was an awfully long post for nothing, now wasn't it?
I just switched from Shaw in BC, but not to Telus. I switched to a medium-sized DSL ISP called Uniserve, and have had few problems.
I had them before, for the calendar year 2003, and was favorably disposed toward them. Their business accounts are the same price as their residential, they offer static IPs, and don't really pay attention to usage (and don't relly need to). The residential service is fairly heavily port-blocked, but the business service, at the same price, takes care of that for those who opt in - not a bad policy.
Yes, Telus does provide the pair, but Uniserve provides the important part - the network. Once I got hooked up, Telus never bothered me again.
And you don't have to put up with Telus' crappy DHCP-assigned DNS servers, routers or their transparent HTTP proxy redirection (which gives me the willies).
I had to go with Shaw after I moved because I was waiting for a DSL port to open up. Shaw was better than Telus, for certain, but not Uniserve.
There are plenty of other Canadian ISPs out there, too. do your own research.
This just reinforces my opinion that only smaller ISP's can actually provide net access worth squat. Thank God for regulation. I can't wait to see broadband wireless blow some fat chunks out of telecom monopolies.