Limited by duration as well as by things like fair use, first sale, etc.
DRM gets rid of those limitations, which is it's main purpose. The whole "piracy" thing is a red herring. DRM is lousy at preventing piracy, but it's great for taking away rights from customers.
The addresses that TPB is publishing are for filesharers who have requested that their addresses be published. That's very different from your examples.
I don't think you understand how "free speech" applies to this case.
TPB is not giving out Hollywood movies, so they are not saying that copyright infringement is free speech. What TPB does is tell you the address of someone else, who is giving out Hollywood movies. They're saying that telling you the address of someone who is committing copyright infringement, should be "free speech".
Imagine instead that the same content can be reached by an infinite (or almost infinite) number of links
That number of them doesn't change anything.
the copyright holder was supposed to be able to file a take-down notice about the file John put up for download
The take-down notice is about the unauthorized distribution (aka the public links), not the file itself.
can make strong arguments about how backups are fair use and none of a copyright owner's business
Of course you can make strong arguments about it. Are you saying that a backup for your own personal use violates copyright? Even the RIAA doesn't dispute that anymore.
Even their DMCA compliance system was a joke, focussing on links to content (where an infinite number of links pointed to the same file) rather than on content.
Focusing on the links is exactly how a DMCA compliance system is supposed to work.
Imagine two people upload the same content. One for legitimate reasons and keeps their link private, the other for illegitimate reasons and makes their link public. A DMCA complaint is filed against the public link. Which do you do... 1) Disable the public link. 2) Remove the content from both the legitimate and illegitimate user.
...create a crappy copyrighted work (in paint, sndrec of you singing, whatever). Host it free somewhere. Now create another page that says you do not have permission to download this file, with a link to the hosted file.
That's not copyright infringement.
If they ignore legitimate notices from you and do not issue alerts, sue
I would be shocked if they didn't ignore the notices from you. I assume the six strikes policy only accepts notices from the RIAA/MPAA/etc.
Everyone should draw a crappy picture in paint, host it on something free like google sites, and spread links that bring people to a second page that says "You don't have permission to click this link" with a link to the picture itself.
That's not copyright infringement.
Then bring copyright complaints to all the ISPs
What makes you think you or I can bring copyright complaints to the ISPs under the six strikes policy? I would assume they only accept complaints from the RIAA/MPAA/etc.
I'm sorry, you're absolutely correct. The corporations involved with this policy are well known for their honesty and integrity. If they promise that they will only ever accuse guilty people, that's good enough for me.
Slashdot Mirror
Limited by duration as well as by things like fair use, first sale, etc.
DRM gets rid of those limitations, which is it's main purpose. The whole "piracy" thing is a red herring. DRM is lousy at preventing piracy, but it's great for taking away rights from customers.
Didn't you know that in the new RIAA/MPAA dictionary "click" = "download" = "upload" = "unauthorized distribution" = "stealing".
Yes, they're deliberately confusing people.
Don't spread the MAFIAA's FUD for them. File sharing is already legal. "File sharing" and "copyright infringement" are not the same thing.
I'm pretty sure that a stopped vehicle, no matter how far over the line it is, will not set off a speed camera.
... which is a type of counterfeiting. By definition.
By what definition?
Copyright infringement and counterfeiting have nothing to do with each other.
Tell me how that works with a motion picture that is the collective work of over four hundred people.
None of which are the copyright holder.
Since when has TPB had anything to do with counterfeiting?
Right - it's not theft, because the original is still there, accessible by the owner.
Rather, it's counterfeiting - making a copy without legal authorization.
Wrong. It's not counterfeiting either... it's "copyright infringement".
kind of like saying, "well, if you don't want your car stolen, you shouldn't own a car!"
No, it's absolutely nothing like saying that.
The law doesn't simply concern itself with technicalities like you seem to believe it does.
There are lots of things that are considered illegal, where merely sharing/publishing information about them isn't.
but not to actually break copyright law.
They don't.
The addresses that TPB is publishing are for filesharers who have requested that their addresses be published. That's very different from your examples.
I don't think you understand how "free speech" applies to this case.
TPB is not giving out Hollywood movies, so they are not saying that copyright infringement is free speech. What TPB does is tell you the address of someone else, who is giving out Hollywood movies. They're saying that telling you the address of someone who is committing copyright infringement, should be "free speech".
Imagine instead that the same content can be reached by an infinite (or almost infinite) number of links
That number of them doesn't change anything.
the copyright holder was supposed to be able to file a take-down notice about the file John put up for download
The take-down notice is about the unauthorized distribution (aka the public links), not the file itself.
can make strong arguments about how backups are fair use and none of a copyright owner's business
Of course you can make strong arguments about it. Are you saying that a backup for your own personal use violates copyright? Even the RIAA doesn't dispute that anymore.
Even their DMCA compliance system was a joke, focussing on links to content (where an infinite number of links pointed to the same file) rather than on content.
Focusing on the links is exactly how a DMCA compliance system is supposed to work.
Imagine two people upload the same content. One for legitimate reasons and keeps their link private, the other for illegitimate reasons and makes their link public. A DMCA complaint is filed against the public link. Which do you do...
1) Disable the public link.
2) Remove the content from both the legitimate and illegitimate user.
...create a crappy copyrighted work (in paint, sndrec of you singing, whatever). Host it free somewhere. Now create another page that says you do not have permission to download this file, with a link to the hosted file.
That's not copyright infringement.
If they ignore legitimate notices from you and do not issue alerts, sue
I would be shocked if they didn't ignore the notices from you. I assume the six strikes policy only accepts notices from the RIAA/MPAA/etc.
They wouldn't be able to prove how many times it was downloaded, so that's the rate for ONE file shared.
Or zero. They can't prove that it was even shared at all.
Theoretically, the *AA can set up honeypots so they can determine who is downloading what
If the *AA sets up a honeypot, then there would be no copyright infringement. The copyright holder is an authorized distributor of their own content.
I refute your claim that I infringed on your copyright simply by reading your poem.
Yet in other posts, you have stated that downloading is copyright infringement. Which is it?
I would speculate that the ratio of people who download infringing content to people who never do is probably at least 3 to 1
I would speculate that the percentage of internet users who have downloaded infringing content is 100%.
I assume you meant "upload"?
Everyone should draw a crappy picture in paint, host it on something free like google sites, and spread links that bring people to a second page that says "You don't have permission to click this link" with a link to the picture itself.
That's not copyright infringement.
Then bring copyright complaints to all the ISPs
What makes you think you or I can bring copyright complaints to the ISPs under the six strikes policy? I would assume they only accept complaints from the RIAA/MPAA/etc.
the process they are evidently using to disover the IP addresses of infringers is actually pretty likely to produce valid results
If you take their word for it. Has there been any validation that it does what they say it does?
The method they claim they're using is nothing new, and false positives have been a problem for a long time.
Forget 300 baud, just cap them at 0 and keep sending them a bill. Technically, that's not "Account Termination" either.
The Service Providers are going along with the wishes of the Content Providers, because in many cases, they're one and the same.
How on earth is it offtopic?
file-sharing != copyright infringement
I'm sorry, you're absolutely correct. The corporations involved with this policy are well known for their honesty and integrity. If they promise that they will only ever accuse guilty people, that's good enough for me.