Trying to conserve your way to increased generation capacity won't work. Even if everyone in the US decided to be ultra-conservative with electric power, there isn't enough for everyone in a year or so.
We're skating around the issue by building massively inefficient "peaker plants" that run on natural gas. What is needed is more base load generating capacity and we aren't going to get it. Certainly not in time, and with the environmental movement, it is unlikely we will ever build another large generating plant.
So, the end result is that turning off the TV or unplugging the YV doesn't really make any difference. We're going to be out of electric power in the US in a short time and there is no amount of conserving that can save us. Why bother arguing with people over raindrops when there is a tidal wave? That is the magnitude of the problem we face.
You don't really understand the magnitude of the problem. We can't conserve our way out of growth and we can't conserve our way out of having exceeded generating capacity.
Absolutely, rationing is coming. Involuntary rationing, like "electric free Tuesdays" and the like. Don't like it? Look to California and the environmental movement - we haven't been building capacity at the rate the country has been importing people. The KWH available per capita has been dropping since the 1960's and it is beginning to catch up with us.
I do not see any possible way to build enough capacity by 2015 to keep running air conditioners in cities. Coal plants are the only way to keep the lights on and our new President says he won't allow any to be built. Nuclear? Too late and still, you don't see crowds chanting "Build a nuke" - too many protesters will prevent any nuclear deployment in places where we could use the power.
In the US for the foreseeable future, the problem is that base load generating capacity is maxed out. We are not going to build nuclear plants - too many protesters. We are not going to build new high-tension transmission lines - too many protestors. Without either of these a few wind farms aren't going to make much difference.
The only real solution is to build more coal-fired generating plats. And our new President says he isn't going to allow that.
We are currently trying to "conserve" our way out of having outgrown our generating capacity. It isn't going to work. Our only available alternative would be to put lots more CO2 into the atmosphere. The other option is for people to start planning for "electric free Tuesdays" and the like.
First off, either unplug your life from electric power or understand that that moving back to 1850 is going to be... well, impossible. In order to decrease the energy usage of the country we are going to have to really go back to 1850 - you can't "conserve" your way out of the current situation.
If we aren't going to build increased generation capacity, we are going to just have to start turning stuff off. Forever. And by all accounts, we aren't going to build generation capacity. We might replace some existing capacity with "greener" solutions, but there will be no new capacity.
Unplugging everything is the only reasonable solution. The other alternatives are things like Chicago gets electricity but LA doesn't and non-starters like that. Can you envision a planet where the rich have electricity and the poor do not? How about a US where the suburbs have power but the cities do not? This is the sort of future we can expect with half-measures of trying to make luxury appliances more "energy efficient" and trying to make up for our lack of capacity by trying and failing to conserve our way to more capacity.
Worrying about incandescent vs. CFL and whether the TV is really off or not is a smokescreen. It will take some pretty couragous people to unplug everything, but the alternative is where 90% of the people have no electricity and 10% do.
I'd say it is up to the card company. Under no circumstances is it the cardholder's problem, and never could be. Also, it is unlikely any merchant that takes reasonable care is really going to be taken.
OK, this means that many people will now have to cancel their credit card and get a new number. Wow. Maybe 10 minutes of time lost.
Will these people be charged anything? No. Will there be any monetary loss at all to these people? No.
Whom does this hurt the most? Merchants that deliver services over the web without any physical shipment and without adequate verification of the card before delivering to the thief. Anything that involves a physical shipment is likely to be stopped long before it makes it out the door.
But of course this will be talked about as "identity theft" and that it will cost people lots of time and money. Sadly, the FBI now records all credit card fraud as "identity theft" which just makes people like Todd Davis rich.
I'm not aware that the revenue lost or potential sales lost have any bearing whatsoever on the statutory fines for copyright infringement.
That means that if I self-publish the most awful unreadable novel ever and someone infringes the copyright they are subject to those statutory fines and possible punitive damages regardless of the "fact" that this piece of garbage might not ever sell a single copy.
Buy up pictures from teens for resale. Easy, electronic transactions that are nearly untracable and a virtually unlimited supply of pictures.
We all know there is a market, and nothing sells like porn. Time for some real home-grown kiddie porn from the US. I wonder what sort of domain name would work for this?
If a planet has a geological makeup like Earth but is 10x the size, then it will have 10x the mass have a surface gravity 10x that of Earth.
A gaseous planet 10x the size of Earth might well have a surface gravity (such as it is?) that of Earth as it might be about the same mass.
Either way, I wouldn't like to go there. A planet with a 10G gravitational constant wouldn't be my idea of a good time, although it might be fun to stand off a ways and see what was going on there. A long ways - I'm allergic to anything much over 1.5G. A mini-gas giant wouldn't be very interesting at all.
Unfortunately, patients are not trusted with medical records. Any possibility of alteration or forgery cannot be permitted, because this would invalidate the concept of those records being reliable.
Why would a patent alter their records? Malpractice for one. Insurance scams. Drug seeking parients. Basically anything you can imagine.
This is why you can have a copy and not the original of any records today in the US. And every provider is responsible for their own records.
Learning to live with piracy as "a fact of life" is sort of like living in the inner city and taking the attitude that gang violence is a "fact of life" and nothing can be done about it. Yes, it is pervasive and all that, but how could it be stopped?
Certainly the folks a Valve found a way to effectively stop piracy. You tie the game's value to a server that doesn't let pirates in. Surely others can follow this model, somehow?
The issue is most computers running Windows are single-user appliances. Badly written applications that require admin rights to operate normally are part of the problem. These applications were written long before Vista and didn't get upgraded, often by either the publisher or the customer. If you have such an application on Vista it is going to suck.
It will also suck on Windows 7. If I write an application that in order to read your email requires to be run from root on Linux, it would suck too.
Vista and everything moving forward is far less compatible with previous versions of Windows than most people realize. Attempting to run software written for Windows 98 on Vista will result in nothing but trouble. It was this point that Microsoft failed to make with (a) developers, (b) columnists and (c) customers. It couldn't be much more incompatible if they just switched to a different processor.
Product quality has nothing to do with it. I've never experienced any of the problems that people complain about on Slashdot about Vista.
It has everything to do with (a) customer experience and (b) hype. If the customer installs it and the driver for their 13-year-old printer doesn't exist then it is a failure in their eyes. If the customer installs it and more memory is required, it is a failure. If every single piece of software does not work flawlessly, it is a failure.
What is the difference between a failure for a single customer and a huge public denouncement of a product? Hype. Giving disgruntled people a forum from which to shout their dissatifaction. Oh, you mean like the Internet?
You are mostly correct, but misunderstand the situation the RIAA and all companies selling "recorded music" are in. The value of a song today isn't $0.99 on iTunes - it is zero on BearShare, LimeWire, Kazaa, Shareaza, and many, many other services. Just because iTunes can sell 1% of the downloaded music doesn't mean very much when the other 99% is freely distributed.
The RIAA's position is quite simple - stop downloading or die. They aren't going to stop free downloading which means there is no revenue in selling recorded music. Period. There is no "new business model" for them to adopt. The only possible business model is "give it all away for free" which really doesn't offer any revenue at all. Ad-supported downloads? I don't think so. Not when their "competition" is offering DRM-free, ad-free cost-free downloads.
Obviously, you don't belive in copyright law. I don't think it has much of a chance in the next 10 years of still existing. Which measn, if you stop and think about it, that the biggest distribution pipe wins. On the Internet this can mean anything from the "most bandwidth" to "highest ranking on Google". Brick and mortar are likely to continue but only as a very small niche, like the record stores still selling vinyl LPs today. It does mean that the neighorbood band, no matter how good, doesn't stand a chance again Sony and WalMart who can out-distribute them and out-mindshare them on the Internet.
It also means that compensation for "creativity" isn't going to happen much. I trust you aren't very creative and don't find this a problem. It does mean that WalMart and Sony will be selling copies of anything they can put their hands on and the original author, musician, etc. will just get swept under the rug like a hot dog stand next to a McDonalds.
This is the logical outcome of the current copyright battle. We are training every schoolchild in the Western Hemisphere that copyright is outmoded and pointless - take whatever you want. And most are absorbing the lesson quite well. So I really don't see any alternative.
You aren't stealing their property, you are stealing their money. If I take your wallet, empty it into my pocket and hand you your wallet back I've not stolen anything from you, right? You still have your wallet. This rather unclear concept in today's society of "money" is really quite abstract and you can't be prosecuted for stealing abstract things, now can you? Only physical property. So while your wallet is yours, the money in it is just an abstract concept and free for the taking.
The Internet is where people can interact anonymously. I can write someething that you can't trace back to me personally, so no matter what I say or do, it has no effect on the rest of my life.
I try to explain how incredibly dangerous this is to people. If you could drive a car and never, ever suffer any consequences of either personal injury or responsibility for damages you cause many people would drive recklessly and irreponsibly. Why not? Well, this is pretty much the situation on the Internet.
Everyone's "net friend" Lori Drew is likely to get off completely. Now did she directly reach out and kill someone? No, but partly because her obnoxious behavior happened on the Internet she is likely to receive no punishment, fine, saction or anything else. Most people that get "caught" doing evil on the Internet have no one but themselves to blame, because they bragged about it, often publicly. What about the folks that can keep quiet? Nothing ever happens to them.
So, if someone offered you $100 to stand in front of a movie theater telling people what a great movie you just saw when you hadn't seen the movie you probably wouldn't do it. However, offer someone $100 to write 10 reviews on the Internet about products they have never heard of and they often will. Because they have no personal connection with writing those reviews. Nothing at stake, so nothing to stop them.
Lots of people grew up with the idea that things "in print" are reliable. Basically, the Internet is "in print" and no part of it can be trusted at all. Think you are getting the real story anywhere at all> Why? Is it because you trust the person that wrote it? Why would you trust them? Why do you even believe the author is really the person identified with whatever it is you are reading? If you see something supposedly written by Barak Obama on the Internet why would you believe he wrote it? Were you there when he did it? Why couldn't it be anyone (me, for instance) just using his name? Why wouldn't anyone do that? Because it is wrong?
Anyone that really trusts a review, news article, diary, or anything else on the Internet needs to have some bad things happen to them so they wise up. Why do you think people are endlessly taken in on scams? Because they trusted something on the Internet.
An ISP log isn't going to be the final answer. Someone, somewhere is going to be looking at computer hard drives, CDs, DVDd, etc. If they do not find any infringing materials there is no evidence and the matter drops.
Now I would imagine if the ISP faked up some logs to provide material for the examination of cmoputers and a lot of it turned out to be bogus you would have the ISP getting sued by both ends of this. Because examining the computers (by a qualified forensic examiner) isn't cheap and because losing your computer for a couple of weeks isn't much fun either. So I would say there are substantial risks to faking logs and the end result is that it doesn't go anywhere. No settlements. Because there is no legal action and no possibility of legal action.
Now if someone wants to go from logs to making a settlement offer to the potential offender, that is just stupid. Because you just tipped your hand and the potential offender then can delete everything from their computer, without penalty, because there is no requirement to preserve evidence. So bypassing the "seize the computer" step nets you nothing in the long run.
The ISP also has a duty under the DMCA Safe Harbor provisions to assist in copyright enforcement. Their responsibility to their customers not to reveal their illegal activities is not so clearly documented.
This pretty much means that a case can be made that if the ISP doesn't assist in enforcement, perhaps even to this level, that they can lose their Safe Harbor provision and suddenly become a party to every enforcement action against their customers.
So I think you have it a little backwards. Now maybe the ISP can argue that their requirements for Safe Harbor do not include this plan. Sure, but this is going to be argued at a federal court level and cost millions of dollars to do so. Are their any ISPs that want to get into this that deep?
I think if they see a BitTorrent connection and the content is music or a movie it is pretty much a given that you don't have a license. Maybe you do, so you have a defense. But I'd say it is very much like being caught by the police with a crowbar and a TV after a store was broken into. Sure, you might be completely innocent and you will have plenty of opportunity to prove it. After they arrest you.
It's call Safe Harbor and it is part of the DMCA. Actually, if they do not cooperate in copyright enforcement they lose Safe Harbor status. The question is do they have to cooperate this much? I don't know and I suspect it will take a federal judge to make that level of a decision. This isn't going to be decided simply or cheaply. Because of that it might take a really long time before it got reviewed in court.
Because who in their right mind is going to want to defend law-breaking customers? And spend millions of dollars doing so.
I don't think you understand how ISPs have DMCA Safe Harbor. They have it because they are required to cooperate with enforcement. If they fail to cooperate, they lose. So assisting in enforcement doesn't hurt them.
Now it is indeed a good question how much cooperation is actually required under the provisions of the DMCA. Clearly, turning over customer information is required, which all ISPs do when properly served. But do they have to go the extra mile as this program does? If I was marketing this program I would certainly spin it that they can cooperate or they can face losing their Safe Harbor status and suddenly become a party to infringement actions brought on their customers.
The idea that the ISP can shield cusomters from legal action has never existed. Any suggetion that the ISP can afford not to cooperate is going to go out the window pretty soon, should this actually work out.
I'm sure it isaid elsewhere, but ISPs are information services and by that designation have no common carrier status whatsoever. What they do have is Safe Harbor, as defined by the DMCA.
Part of their Safe Harbon immunity requires them to actively respond to takedown request and to cooperate with copyright enforcement. You might be able to read that as requiring them to participate in this sort of program. I know if I was marketing such a program that that is indeed the spin I would put on it.
Then for the ISP they can decide if they want to defend law-breaking customers and their own actions or if they want to keep their Safe Harbor status. My guess is that there isn't an ISP around that really wants to go down that road unless they have a huge budget for on-staff counsel. Maybe Cox and Comcast and just about nobody else.
While iTunes is a really nice idea for those clueless enough to need some handholding to load their iPod with music, face it - iTunes barely breaks even with the costs between credit card transaction fees and what they are paying to the copyright owner. It isn't a model that anyone would want to emulate. Apple has to do it because otherwise the clueless wouldn't have any way at all to put digital music on their iPod, thus iPod sales would suffer.
I don't know anyone that actually would pay money for digital music. It is all free, free for the taking online - if you know how. And if you have some kind of broadband Internet connection.
For the folks that access the Internet at the library, well, they aren't going to let you download music there, are they? Similarly for people with dial-up. No music downloads there. There is also the over-30 crowd that doesn't understand the Internet, computers or how to program their VCR. So there are still lots of people that have to pay someone to help them get digital music.
Oh, and we can't forget the guilt-ridden. Yes, the RIAA is suing people that distribute music. They are not suing people that download and merely download without redistributing music. So if all you do is leech music downloads from the Internet you are perfectly safe from the rath of the RIAA. But there are plenty of people that will say "... but, but, but,... it is just wrong!" Yes, in today's climate it is wrong. No question about it.
The "wrongness" of downloading is soon to be moot. We are training (and have trained) an entire generation of people that believe it is not wrong. Anything that can be done on the Internet is OK and it is all there for free. Destroying people'e lives is OK, as long as it is on the Internet - our favorite MySpace scammer is getting another shot. Taking anything that isn't nailed down is OK too. So I see we are coming to a reckoning about copyright, distribution and the Internet.
Yes, I think it is probably a dark future for people that want to "create" as apposed to those that want to create "mixes" and "mashups". Creativity better be its own reward in the future, because anything else is going to be pretty slim in the "reward" or "compensation" category.
Slashdot Mirror
Trying to conserve your way to increased generation capacity won't work. Even if everyone in the US decided to be ultra-conservative with electric power, there isn't enough for everyone in a year or so.
We're skating around the issue by building massively inefficient "peaker plants" that run on natural gas. What is needed is more base load generating capacity and we aren't going to get it. Certainly not in time, and with the environmental movement, it is unlikely we will ever build another large generating plant.
So, the end result is that turning off the TV or unplugging the YV doesn't really make any difference. We're going to be out of electric power in the US in a short time and there is no amount of conserving that can save us. Why bother arguing with people over raindrops when there is a tidal wave? That is the magnitude of the problem we face.
You don't really understand the magnitude of the problem. We can't conserve our way out of growth and we can't conserve our way out of having exceeded generating capacity.
Absolutely, rationing is coming. Involuntary rationing, like "electric free Tuesdays" and the like. Don't like it? Look to California and the environmental movement - we haven't been building capacity at the rate the country has been importing people. The KWH available per capita has been dropping since the 1960's and it is beginning to catch up with us.
I do not see any possible way to build enough capacity by 2015 to keep running air conditioners in cities. Coal plants are the only way to keep the lights on and our new President says he won't allow any to be built. Nuclear? Too late and still, you don't see crowds chanting "Build a nuke" - too many protesters will prevent any nuclear deployment in places where we could use the power.
In the US for the foreseeable future, the problem is that base load generating capacity is maxed out. We are not going to build nuclear plants - too many protesters. We are not going to build new high-tension transmission lines - too many protestors. Without either of these a few wind farms aren't going to make much difference.
The only real solution is to build more coal-fired generating plats. And our new President says he isn't going to allow that.
We are currently trying to "conserve" our way out of having outgrown our generating capacity. It isn't going to work. Our only available alternative would be to put lots more CO2 into the atmosphere. The other option is for people to start planning for "electric free Tuesdays" and the like.
First off, either unplug your life from electric power or understand that that moving back to 1850 is going to be ... well, impossible. In order to decrease the energy usage of the country we are going to have to really go back to 1850 - you can't "conserve" your way out of the current situation.
If we aren't going to build increased generation capacity, we are going to just have to start turning stuff off. Forever. And by all accounts, we aren't going to build generation capacity. We might replace some existing capacity with "greener" solutions, but there will be no new capacity.
Unplugging everything is the only reasonable solution. The other alternatives are things like Chicago gets electricity but LA doesn't and non-starters like that. Can you envision a planet where the rich have electricity and the poor do not? How about a US where the suburbs have power but the cities do not? This is the sort of future we can expect with half-measures of trying to make luxury appliances more "energy efficient" and trying to make up for our lack of capacity by trying and failing to conserve our way to more capacity.
Worrying about incandescent vs. CFL and whether the TV is really off or not is a smokescreen. It will take some pretty couragous people to unplug everything, but the alternative is where 90% of the people have no electricity and 10% do.
I'd say it is up to the card company. Under no circumstances is it the cardholder's problem, and never could be. Also, it is unlikely any merchant that takes reasonable care is really going to be taken.
OK, this means that many people will now have to cancel their credit card and get a new number. Wow. Maybe 10 minutes of time lost.
Will these people be charged anything? No. Will there be any monetary loss at all to these people? No.
Whom does this hurt the most? Merchants that deliver services over the web without any physical shipment and without adequate verification of the card before delivering to the thief. Anything that involves a physical shipment is likely to be stopped long before it makes it out the door.
But of course this will be talked about as "identity theft" and that it will cost people lots of time and money. Sadly, the FBI now records all credit card fraud as "identity theft" which just makes people like Todd Davis rich.
I'm not aware that the revenue lost or potential sales lost have any bearing whatsoever on the statutory fines for copyright infringement.
That means that if I self-publish the most awful unreadable novel ever and someone infringes the copyright they are subject to those statutory fines and possible punitive damages regardless of the "fact" that this piece of garbage might not ever sell a single copy.
Buy up pictures from teens for resale. Easy, electronic transactions that are nearly untracable and a virtually unlimited supply of pictures.
We all know there is a market, and nothing sells like porn. Time for some real home-grown kiddie porn from the US. I wonder what sort of domain name would work for this?
You are missing something.
If a planet has a geological makeup like Earth but is 10x the size, then it will have 10x the mass have a surface gravity 10x that of Earth.
A gaseous planet 10x the size of Earth might well have a surface gravity (such as it is?) that of Earth as it might be about the same mass.
Either way, I wouldn't like to go there. A planet with a 10G gravitational constant wouldn't be my idea of a good time, although it might be fun to stand off a ways and see what was going on there. A long ways - I'm allergic to anything much over 1.5G. A mini-gas giant wouldn't be very interesting at all.
Unfortunately, patients are not trusted with medical records. Any possibility of alteration or forgery cannot be permitted, because this would invalidate the concept of those records being reliable.
Why would a patent alter their records? Malpractice for one. Insurance scams. Drug seeking parients. Basically anything you can imagine.
This is why you can have a copy and not the original of any records today in the US. And every provider is responsible for their own records.
Learning to live with piracy as "a fact of life" is sort of like living in the inner city and taking the attitude that gang violence is a "fact of life" and nothing can be done about it. Yes, it is pervasive and all that, but how could it be stopped?
Certainly the folks a Valve found a way to effectively stop piracy. You tie the game's value to a server that doesn't let pirates in. Surely others can follow this model, somehow?
The issue is most computers running Windows are single-user appliances. Badly written applications that require admin rights to operate normally are part of the problem. These applications were written long before Vista and didn't get upgraded, often by either the publisher or the customer. If you have such an application on Vista it is going to suck.
It will also suck on Windows 7. If I write an application that in order to read your email requires to be run from root on Linux, it would suck too.
Vista and everything moving forward is far less compatible with previous versions of Windows than most people realize. Attempting to run software written for Windows 98 on Vista will result in nothing but trouble. It was this point that Microsoft failed to make with (a) developers, (b) columnists and (c) customers. It couldn't be much more incompatible if they just switched to a different processor.
Product quality has nothing to do with it. I've never experienced any of the problems that people complain about on Slashdot about Vista.
It has everything to do with (a) customer experience and (b) hype. If the customer installs it and the driver for their 13-year-old printer doesn't exist then it is a failure in their eyes. If the customer installs it and more memory is required, it is a failure. If every single piece of software does not work flawlessly, it is a failure.
What is the difference between a failure for a single customer and a huge public denouncement of a product? Hype. Giving disgruntled people a forum from which to shout their dissatifaction. Oh, you mean like the Internet?
You are mostly correct, but misunderstand the situation the RIAA and all companies selling "recorded music" are in. The value of a song today isn't $0.99 on iTunes - it is zero on BearShare, LimeWire, Kazaa, Shareaza, and many, many other services. Just because iTunes can sell 1% of the downloaded music doesn't mean very much when the other 99% is freely distributed.
The RIAA's position is quite simple - stop downloading or die. They aren't going to stop free downloading which means there is no revenue in selling recorded music. Period. There is no "new business model" for them to adopt. The only possible business model is "give it all away for free" which really doesn't offer any revenue at all. Ad-supported downloads? I don't think so. Not when their "competition" is offering DRM-free, ad-free cost-free downloads.
Obviously, you don't belive in copyright law. I don't think it has much of a chance in the next 10 years of still existing. Which measn, if you stop and think about it, that the biggest distribution pipe wins. On the Internet this can mean anything from the "most bandwidth" to "highest ranking on Google". Brick and mortar are likely to continue but only as a very small niche, like the record stores still selling vinyl LPs today. It does mean that the neighorbood band, no matter how good, doesn't stand a chance again Sony and WalMart who can out-distribute them and out-mindshare them on the Internet.
It also means that compensation for "creativity" isn't going to happen much. I trust you aren't very creative and don't find this a problem. It does mean that WalMart and Sony will be selling copies of anything they can put their hands on and the original author, musician, etc. will just get swept under the rug like a hot dog stand next to a McDonalds.
This is the logical outcome of the current copyright battle. We are training every schoolchild in the Western Hemisphere that copyright is outmoded and pointless - take whatever you want. And most are absorbing the lesson quite well. So I really don't see any alternative.
You aren't stealing their property, you are stealing their money. If I take your wallet, empty it into my pocket and hand you your wallet back I've not stolen anything from you, right? You still have your wallet. This rather unclear concept in today's society of "money" is really quite abstract and you can't be prosecuted for stealing abstract things, now can you? Only physical property. So while your wallet is yours, the money in it is just an abstract concept and free for the taking.
The Internet is where people can interact anonymously. I can write someething that you can't trace back to me personally, so no matter what I say or do, it has no effect on the rest of my life.
I try to explain how incredibly dangerous this is to people. If you could drive a car and never, ever suffer any consequences of either personal injury or responsibility for damages you cause many people would drive recklessly and irreponsibly. Why not? Well, this is pretty much the situation on the Internet.
Everyone's "net friend" Lori Drew is likely to get off completely. Now did she directly reach out and kill someone? No, but partly because her obnoxious behavior happened on the Internet she is likely to receive no punishment, fine, saction or anything else. Most people that get "caught" doing evil on the Internet have no one but themselves to blame, because they bragged about it, often publicly. What about the folks that can keep quiet? Nothing ever happens to them.
So, if someone offered you $100 to stand in front of a movie theater telling people what a great movie you just saw when you hadn't seen the movie you probably wouldn't do it. However, offer someone $100 to write 10 reviews on the Internet about products they have never heard of and they often will. Because they have no personal connection with writing those reviews. Nothing at stake, so nothing to stop them.
Lots of people grew up with the idea that things "in print" are reliable. Basically, the Internet is "in print" and no part of it can be trusted at all. Think you are getting the real story anywhere at all> Why? Is it because you trust the person that wrote it? Why would you trust them? Why do you even believe the author is really the person identified with whatever it is you are reading? If you see something supposedly written by Barak Obama on the Internet why would you believe he wrote it? Were you there when he did it? Why couldn't it be anyone (me, for instance) just using his name? Why wouldn't anyone do that? Because it is wrong?
Anyone that really trusts a review, news article, diary, or anything else on the Internet needs to have some bad things happen to them so they wise up. Why do you think people are endlessly taken in on scams? Because they trusted something on the Internet.
An ISP log isn't going to be the final answer. Someone, somewhere is going to be looking at computer hard drives, CDs, DVDd, etc. If they do not find any infringing materials there is no evidence and the matter drops.
Now I would imagine if the ISP faked up some logs to provide material for the examination of cmoputers and a lot of it turned out to be bogus you would have the ISP getting sued by both ends of this. Because examining the computers (by a qualified forensic examiner) isn't cheap and because losing your computer for a couple of weeks isn't much fun either. So I would say there are substantial risks to faking logs and the end result is that it doesn't go anywhere. No settlements. Because there is no legal action and no possibility of legal action.
Now if someone wants to go from logs to making a settlement offer to the potential offender, that is just stupid. Because you just tipped your hand and the potential offender then can delete everything from their computer, without penalty, because there is no requirement to preserve evidence. So bypassing the "seize the computer" step nets you nothing in the long run.
The ISP also has a duty under the DMCA Safe Harbor provisions to assist in copyright enforcement. Their responsibility to their customers not to reveal their illegal activities is not so clearly documented.
This pretty much means that a case can be made that if the ISP doesn't assist in enforcement, perhaps even to this level, that they can lose their Safe Harbor provision and suddenly become a party to every enforcement action against their customers.
So I think you have it a little backwards. Now maybe the ISP can argue that their requirements for Safe Harbor do not include this plan. Sure, but this is going to be argued at a federal court level and cost millions of dollars to do so. Are their any ISPs that want to get into this that deep?
I think if they see a BitTorrent connection and the content is music or a movie it is pretty much a given that you don't have a license. Maybe you do, so you have a defense. But I'd say it is very much like being caught by the police with a crowbar and a TV after a store was broken into. Sure, you might be completely innocent and you will have plenty of opportunity to prove it. After they arrest you.
It's call Safe Harbor and it is part of the DMCA. Actually, if they do not cooperate in copyright enforcement they lose Safe Harbor status. The question is do they have to cooperate this much? I don't know and I suspect it will take a federal judge to make that level of a decision. This isn't going to be decided simply or cheaply. Because of that it might take a really long time before it got reviewed in court.
Because who in their right mind is going to want to defend law-breaking customers? And spend millions of dollars doing so.
I don't think you understand how ISPs have DMCA Safe Harbor. They have it because they are required to cooperate with enforcement. If they fail to cooperate, they lose. So assisting in enforcement doesn't hurt them.
Now it is indeed a good question how much cooperation is actually required under the provisions of the DMCA. Clearly, turning over customer information is required, which all ISPs do when properly served. But do they have to go the extra mile as this program does? If I was marketing this program I would certainly spin it that they can cooperate or they can face losing their Safe Harbor status and suddenly become a party to infringement actions brought on their customers.
The idea that the ISP can shield cusomters from legal action has never existed. Any suggetion that the ISP can afford not to cooperate is going to go out the window pretty soon, should this actually work out.
I'm sure it isaid elsewhere, but ISPs are information services and by that designation have no common carrier status whatsoever. What they do have is Safe Harbor, as defined by the DMCA.
Part of their Safe Harbon immunity requires them to actively respond to takedown request and to cooperate with copyright enforcement. You might be able to read that as requiring them to participate in this sort of program. I know if I was marketing such a program that that is indeed the spin I would put on it.
Then for the ISP they can decide if they want to defend law-breaking customers and their own actions or if they want to keep their Safe Harbor status. My guess is that there isn't an ISP around that really wants to go down that road unless they have a huge budget for on-staff counsel. Maybe Cox and Comcast and just about nobody else.
Right, having is the point. Once you have, well, you have it. It isn't like ice cream where you have for only a short while and then you need more.
I "have" lots of music. I don't buy music anymore because I "have" it.
Buy? Once you "have", you have all you need.
The value of recorded music is zero, and that's all anyone I know is paying.
While iTunes is a really nice idea for those clueless enough to need some handholding to load their iPod with music, face it - iTunes barely breaks even with the costs between credit card transaction fees and what they are paying to the copyright owner. It isn't a model that anyone would want to emulate. Apple has to do it because otherwise the clueless wouldn't have any way at all to put digital music on their iPod, thus iPod sales would suffer.
I don't know anyone that actually would pay money for digital music. It is all free, free for the taking online - if you know how. And if you have some kind of broadband Internet connection.
For the folks that access the Internet at the library, well, they aren't going to let you download music there, are they? Similarly for people with dial-up. No music downloads there. There is also the over-30 crowd that doesn't understand the Internet, computers or how to program their VCR. So there are still lots of people that have to pay someone to help them get digital music.
Oh, and we can't forget the guilt-ridden. Yes, the RIAA is suing people that distribute music. They are not suing people that download and merely download without redistributing music. So if all you do is leech music downloads from the Internet you are perfectly safe from the rath of the RIAA. But there are plenty of people that will say "... but, but, but, ... it is just wrong!" Yes, in today's climate it is wrong. No question about it.
The "wrongness" of downloading is soon to be moot. We are training (and have trained) an entire generation of people that believe it is not wrong. Anything that can be done on the Internet is OK and it is all there for free. Destroying people'e lives is OK, as long as it is on the Internet - our favorite MySpace scammer is getting another shot. Taking anything that isn't nailed down is OK too. So I see we are coming to a reckoning about copyright, distribution and the Internet.
Yes, I think it is probably a dark future for people that want to "create" as apposed to those that want to create "mixes" and "mashups". Creativity better be its own reward in the future, because anything else is going to be pretty slim in the "reward" or "compensation" category.