Friday, January 30. 2009Real Signs Of The End Of P2P Piracy?John Linton As the local teens brought up by parents bereft of any moral or ethical values continue to attempt to justify their theft of other people's properties and the lunatic Krudd and his stalking horse Stupid Stephen continue to try and find a way of appeasing religious loonies with their net censorship proposals (and not forgetting the "NBN" proposals) its hard to think that there would be an alleged government anywhere else on the planet with even less of a clue about the future of communications technology than Australia's. But wait...there are other Labor parties around the globe that rival Australia's in technical ineptitude if not in sheer stupidity and among their technically laughable plans there are now the signs of very, very real crackdowns on internet piracy. So have a read of this (get over the concept of 2 mbps broadband) and read on to the Irish and UK net piracy initiatives which are actually very real and simply the next step along the way to processes that were being enacted while I was in the UK last August: http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/media/article5611425.ece Doubtless iinet are into their third $A100,000 of legal 'advice' by now in their law suit to deny they overtly encouraged copy right theft and will spend over $A1 million before the case is settled one way or another but it seems that both the parliaments of the UK and Ireland (and it is a safe assumption that these actions will be duplicated around the EU) are making the iinet lawsuit redundant by legislating way past the 'burden of proof' assumptions of Australia's larcenous down loaders. "....hours after the British announcement, Ireland’s Eircom announced that it would disconnect users who download music illegally from the Web in a settlement that is believed to be the first of its kind in the world. It said it would isolate people who continued to download illegally after receiving two warnings." Now this isn't a "proposal" - this has been passed in to law and it has been done because it specifically accepts that copyright theft is endemic and must be stopped. None of this "day in court and only if found guilty before a jury of your peers" nonsense - two allegations (in the legislated form) and "no internet for you any more you thief". That's the " hop and the step" and its now only a "jump" away from a "National Register Of Thieves Names/Addresses/Phone Numbers/Driving Licenses/Whatever" that will ensure the designated thieves will never be eligible to get internet again!?? ....and the UK, and the rest of the EU, may well go exactly the same way ........and Australia?......well....who knows? So while iinet is "flying the flag" for (and one would assume with the full 'moral' - what a laugh - and financial support of the other ethically bankrupt drones in the AIA it associates with) in its own personal, law suit it may well be the case that any result that may be achieved has already been 'short circuited' before any court determination is reached in Australia. Now, this is not the BS that continues to surround the issue of copyright theft in the Australia media and chatter sites. This is legislation in a democracy and, as I said over a year ago, because so much money is being stolen the copyright owners will find (and may well now have found) the way of preventing the thefts. No nonsense about "my legal rights to steal whatever I like" - the legal rights of the copyright owners have been enshrined in law (just as every other person or entity's rights are protected by legislation) and the methodology for protecting those rights is spelled out. No 'blurring' - no doubt - no whining about TV scheduling - no 'bush lawyer advice' - just a democracy stating the bleeding obvious via legislation for the benefit of people who have no moral or ethical basis for their lives - "you will be punished for taking goods without paying for them". Perhaps the copyright owners (including Microsoft) have finally found the right approach to protecting their property? They have directly gone to the governments of law abiding countries and said words to the effect of: "Either legislate against copyright thieves or we pull out our investments in your country which should be a 'big help' to you in the recession (Microsoft is huge in Ireland) and ban the import of our products - see how you like operating your government and businesses without Windows, Word and Excel and watch a television with no US content." (the above is pure conjecture on my part as I have absolutely no knowledge of how it actually came about). It will be interesting to see what transpires here. Trackbacks
Trackback specific URI for this entry
No Trackbacks
Comments
Display comments as
(Linear | Threaded)
The most practical way to combat piracy is for more ISPs to introduce PAYU plans. Only when every single bit uploaded and downloaded is accountable to the end user in real dollar terms will people stop to think about their downloading habits. The present system of fixed cost/fixed quota tends to encourage aberrant behaviour, imo. People get to the end of their billing cycle, look at any unused quota, and go on a downloading binge just so they can "get what they paid for". Gigabytes and gigabytes of crap they don't even want or need or will ever view/listen to.
Comment (1)
Australia has such a poor TV, music and film industry its a wonder we don't do more to protect whats left of our cultural identity.
Comment (1)
I would have thought that the Irish legislation, if enacted in Australia, would provide the same protection to Australian copyright owners as it would for US copyright owners.
Comments (4)
"... just a democracy stating the obvious via legislation for the people who have no moral or ethical basis for their lives ..."
"Either legislate against copyright thieves or we pull out our investments in your country ..." These two statements seem at odds to me. If the goverment is doing this because they're being threatened (morally rightly or wrongly) by the copyright holders, then that has nothing to do with democracy! In fact, it seems decidedly UNdemocratic to me, for the government to be legislating based on the influence of a handful of large corporations, rather than the 'will of the people'. Other than this seemingly misguided overture to democracy, though, I agree with you. It'll be interesting to see what happens next, both in the U.K. and here. The IINET case has gone rather quiet in the media.... Oh, and your first paragraph made my day! Great stuff. Comment (1)
Not really.
Microsoft employs thousands of Irish citizens to manufacture products that the Irish government then allows its other citizens to steal. Microsoft (and this is pure conjecture on my part) then points this out to the Irish government and suggests they make their legislation clearer concerning property theft. The Irish government then protects the jobs of its honest citizens (and the contribution to the Irish economy that benefits all Irish citizens) by simply putting in to legislation what should already have been there. Seems eminently democratic to me. Protecting honest citizens from the actions of dishonest citizens. Comments (4)
"Perhaps the copyright owners (including Microsoft) have finally found the right approach to protecting their property?"
Yes and no. In my mind it depends on how it is determined that they are actually legit claims of copyright infringement. If anything, I believe the RIAA bungles have shown that it is not always easy to determine actual guilt, sending claims to people who have later been proven innocent. Such a system that puts IP holders rights above the rights of the general public is asking for trouble. Remember, these same companies would love to stop us being able to record on VCR's etc, and giving them one leg in the door by telling them THEIR rights (and $$) mean more than ours is asking for long term trouble. Perhaps if these companies were to invest some time, effort and $$ into legit ways to get the content for people, piracy would shrink somewhat. I do not think it will ever go away as the pirates are usually ahead of the curve of content providers in distribution. Comment (1)
"by legislating way past the 'burden of proof' assumptions of Australia's larcenous down loaders."
Not just the burden, but the standard of proof. Under the UK legislation, there is no standard -- A simple allegation results in conviction. Perhaps we should bring this attitude to all areas of civil law? One of your employees could accuse you of sexual harassment or workplace bullying. You'd be convicted on the spot by your Insurance company, a settlement paid to the accuser, and you'd be fired and escorted out of the building by security. You would have no opportunity to respond to the allegation, and if you were accused at your next two employers, you would have your right to work in Australia terminated, consigning you to the dole queue for the rest of your adult life. Comment (1)
I would have thought that before enacting legislation the applicability of the 'proof' would have been clearly set out.
I very much doubt that "a simple allegation" would be the basis for any action. As I haven't looked at the legislation I can't, of course, be sure - just a supposition based on a scant knowledge of how legislation is scrutinised and enacted in the past. Comments (4)
|
Calendar
QuicksearchArchivesCategoriesBlog AdministrationExternal PHP Application |