Monday, November 2. 2009Widespread Theft And The Impact On SocietyJohn Linton The current law suit against iinet (for which you can read all http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125673511227012955.html There is no doubt whatsoever that all EU countries will proceed to introduce similar laws (as Ireland has already) to prevent the wholesale looting of entertainment companies 'warehouses' by predominantly 14 year old males from families that have non fit for use parents and who attend schools where teaching conventional morality or the rationale of societal imperatives is an alien concept - or their ethics retarded older equivalents. Presumably the 'live by' motto above the lintel of these children's residences is: I Can Steal And Not Suffer The Consequences - Therefore I Do Amid the vacuity and just sheer total 'take your breath away' lying stupidity of the defence being offered by iinet is the loss of any understanding that condoning the stealing of other people's property, of whatever type, leads to the destruction of any form of civilised society. iinet's "not my problem mate" defence is as cynical and just plain wrong as any defence could be. Ignoring the fact that theft destroys society and therefore seriously harms every inhabitant of that society is ridiculous. Trying to pretend theft is not taking place or trying to pretend it is someone else's problem is so stupid that it beggars the imagination. To also try and pretend that you are unaware that your facilities (which you totally control) are not being used for theft makes you a lying poltroon. So - should anyone wish to defend the theft of other entities property - why would the governments of three sensibly governed countries take a completely opposing view? There can be no reason other than a country's government is responsible for the maintenance, among many other things, of the protection of its citizen's property and the putting in place of the protections that ensure that happens. Australia isn't too far behind better governed countries around the world and there is NO doubt that similar laws will be eventually promulgated here and the effective policing of the protection of copyright material will become a reality. Despite the lying statements by iinet's defence (put up as obfuscation in conjunction with the IIA - and we all know who that means) that the detecting and preventing the downloading of illegally obtained material is 'onerous to the point of impracticality' the moment such a law is passed it will be seen that it is neither onerous nor impractical....it is trivial and totally practical. So when this court case finishes and any subsequent appeal is heard and ruled on the fact will be that iinet will lose and the Federal Government of the day will enact legislation that formalises the court ruling very quickly by toughening one or two clauses in the Australian Telecommunications Act - but I can't remember the exact references nor can I bother to look them up for the purpose of this blog. The only thing that is in any way remarkable about the current law suit is that it has to happen at all. It is a commentary on business ethics in Australia today (clearly individual Australian's ethics are a totally lost cause) that any company with even a passing regard for doing the right thing would be needed to be taken to court to be made to understand that stealing other people's property is wrong and that they have an obligation to the society in which they carry out their commercial activities to play a part , where they are able, to maintain that society's moral and ethical obligations. Is it really a case of the ISPs who are members of the IIA condoning illegal downloads so they can profit by charging for the traffic carried in those activities? Is iinet really spending more than a million dollars of its shareholder's money trying to defend theft as a way of doing business? Does anyone really believe that a 14 year old that learns that stealing someone else's property has no 'punishment' doesn't transfer that view into other criminal activities?
Trackbacks
Trackback specific URI for this entry
No Trackbacks
Comments
Display comments as
(Linear | Threaded)
I agree with you in principle. However, it's worth pointing out that MI5 and the UK police are AGAINST the proposed laws. The country's law enforcement agencies recognise that these laws will do NOTHING to stop/slow electronic copyright infringement, but rather push the thing further underground and simply ramp up the use of encrypted filesharing protocols - making their job of catching REAL criminals like peddlers of child porn and terrorists HARDER to prosecute.
When the experts in the field, people who spend their day trying to keep our families safe from nutters (i.e. NOT 14 year old boys sharing movies and music), say that a law is a bad idea, then it's a bad idea. Comments (5)
Sorry Stanley, but it is not alright to steal (or commit any other crime) just because it is considered to be a lesser crime than another.
Both types of crime need to be stopped, all of our citizens need to be protected from criminals. How would you like it if you had your house burgled (at huge loss to yourself)and the police said they were not going to investigate it because they needed to have all their resources looking for murderers, or as in your example, the "peddlers of child porn and terrorists ". The argument does not stand up. Comment (1)
You're misrepresenting me. As I said in my post, I agree with John in principle. Making illegal copies of other people's work is wrong (and illegal). No argument.
However, ignoring the fact that comparing electronic copyright infringement to my house being physically burgled is patently ridiculous, not to mention a poor debating technique, my point was that it's the actual law enforcement agencies themselves that DON'T WANT THIS LAW because it won't work and just make their job harder. Look, Exetel already do everything necessary for an ISP to do... suspend the service after an ALLEGATION is received, give the account holder a chance to deny the allegation, resume service and then leave it up to the courts to decide. That's far enough. Comments (5)
Not wanting a law because it makes your job harder??? Now that is probably the most ridiculous excuse I've heard...
As far as I know laws aren't made by the law enforcers. Or are we going to have to ask police officers if it would suit them to breathalyze drivers? Comments (3)
So if your boss was going to make some changes at work, and your expert advice was that it will not only make your existing duties harder to complete, but possibly send the company broke, and your boss went ahead and made the changes anyway, what does that say about their management ability?
"Or are we going to have to ask police officers if it would suit them to breathalyze drivers?" Ummm... YES! And you know what, I reckon they're OK with it. In fact they probably suggested it. Comments (5)
My expert advise would not be based on how hard it makes my job. I tend to provide solutions not problems. Any "expert" who's only excuse is that a change would make his/her job harder but would not provide any alternative solution would not be highly regarded in any of the companies I've worked for.
Comments (3)
Edwin,
Nothing to do with this topic, but I looked at your web page and noticed that there is a subliminal of spam as your pages formats. Inspecting the source code of your web pages, I can see a massive block of spam links buried in the middle of each page. What is going on there ? e.g. ... Zantac-Sale-amazing.html Zantac Sale ... Glucotrol-XL-Sale-amazing.html Glucotrol XL Sale ... Paxil-Online-amazing.html Paxil Online ... I think that your web pages are infected. Comment (1)
Thank you Brad. You're correct.
Had the site taken offline, and will have it investigated. Comments (3)
Stanley,
"making their job of catching REAL criminals like peddlers of child porn and terrorists HARDER to prosecute." You already lost what little clout your argument had the moment you inscribed this statement in your post. Whether what the MI5 disagree with the based laws based on execution is an entirely different matter. Lawrie's example was spot on and I fail to see what misrepresentation could have been interpreted from your post other than it summed up to something along the lines of 'In principle it's wrong but the are other things more wrong that should be looked at' Comment (1)
"I fail to see what misrepresentation could have been interpreted from your post"
It's mis-representative because it's not my argument, it's the argument of MI5 and the UK police. You know... the professionals in the field tasked to actually clean up this mess. THEY are the ones saying that the laws should not be passed. THEY are the ones saying that these new laws would make THEIR job HARDER. THEY are the ones saying that in passing these laws you could actually make society WORSE and put people at more RISK. We're going disregard the advice of these experts at our own peril. But look, if you want to trivialise my view as "in principle it's wrong but the are other things more wrong that should be looked at" then go right ahead, I have no problem with that. I acknowledge that we live in the real world where real resources have to be allocated accordingly. Yes, some crimes ARE more wrong than others. Go ahead and quote me. I would have thought it was obvious. Good heavens, nobody wants a child pornographer to slip through the cracks because the cops were too busy chasing down a 14 year old file sharer. Comments (5)
John,
you are becoming too radical on the subject of copyright theft.. One question that I do not understand -- - I feel Foxtel is promoting priracy by allowing and promototing customers to use their IQ SYSTEM AND HARDWARE - to record programs -- yes make a copy -- and then allow people to watch or do whatever, with this recorded copy as they choose.. Im sure that even you John, has exceeded the speed limit whilst driving -- did you turn yourself into the nearest police station - if not why not -- surely you must have felt that you did something wrong. -- Im not perfect -- and anyone that claims such things - is a less perfect than most.. Humans always test the limits on everything, just to determin where the real limits are. John you are just adopting the cranky old guys oppion of life -- why ... because you feel its costing you money.. - ive put on my flak helmet - so fire away. cheers bill Comment (1)
Bill,
It's simple. Thieves destroy society. If you don't understand that then - OK. Comments (7)
John,
It's simple. Drivers who speed kill children. If you don't understand that then - OK. Comment (1)
Foxtel IQ allows you to record programs to watch later (time shifting for personal use is completely legal) they do not allow you to do whatever you please with your recordings, not sure where you got that idea from
Their recently announced download service is a time limited, DRM protected service for subscribers which is for time shift purposes and also within the law Comment (1)
Civilised society's access to various forms of media has changed dramatically with technology.
Let's say I want to read a book. I can: a) Buy the book. Cost: ~$25. b) Go to a library and borrow the book. Cost: $0, minor travel involved. With technology: a) Download the book, support the author by buying it as DRM text, audio-book (or physical book). Cost: $0->$6, available anywhere with Internet access. Now what if I want to watch TV? a) Sit in front of a TV and endure endless "free-to-air" ad breaks - Most people finding a great use for the mute button on their remote control. These ad breaks are often in breach of the code of practise for how long advertising content can be run, not to mention completely ludicrous ads - especially the political party claims - and just out right disgusting ads - for those of us with physical aversions to medical references, apparently such content is allowed in ad breaks without any warning whatsoever. Cost: $0. b) Watch Pay-TV with "less ads". Cost: $42+/month - more expensive than an Internet connection with IPTV and/or speed/quota capable of media streaming. c) Stream the content online with no ads. These include ABC iView, Channel 10 and any forward-looking channel/content provider (example: Hulu in the US). Channel 7's streams are unusable without ad-blocking software because the intermittent ad servers are often at full capacity and don't respond to the requests. Cost: $0 (Internet plan and possibly high-speed connection required). d) Record the content, share the recording. How many people still actually have a VCR connected? The ease of technology allows us to wait for others to record the programs we usually watch, and download/stream them on-demand. And finally, the main form of media which the "1.8 billion dollar media industry" makes a fuss about - "Movies" aka. copyright infringement: These points can also be applied to music albums, but who purchases a whole album these days, when we can pay for all our mp3's for Comments (4)
Thank Christ your views are those of a child who no-one takes any notice of.
Stop stealing - it isn't your property you stupid child. Comments (7)
I attempted to maintain a neutral view and as such I'm intrigued that you called me a thief when my comments are on perfectly legal media access. Or are you just assuming every Internet user steals?
The remainder of my post was clipped because I used a non-escaped "less than" symbol. The rest of my post, ending in jest, follows: These points can also be applied to music albums, but who purchases a whole album these days, when we can pay for all our mp3's for less than $1 each, or stream online/free-to-air radio, or simply download the tracks from the artists (websites) themselves and give them our support directly? a) Pay for a ticket to the cinema (but only if it's a film we deem worthwhile seeing, thanks to peer reviews). Example: District 9. Cost: $10+. b) Rent/borrow the DVD when it's released, from a municipal library/video store/vending machine/online. Cost: $0 to USD$1/dvd, AUD$3/dvd. c) Purchase the local region DVD. Many months after cinematic release. One would only purchase a DVD if they could: 1) afford it -or- 2) deemed it to be of value to oneself or to the artist/director. Cost: $30+. And the 1.8 billion dollar media industry is refusing to sell DVDs to various rental agencies (such as Redbox in the US) until at least 28 days after they arrive in stores. Thus reversing points c. & d. in the attempt to gain even more profit for the copyright holders. - http://news.google.com/news/search?q=dvd+rental+machine d) Borrow/share the dvd (possibly digitally) from/to a friend. Cost: $0. And thus, technology and "civilised society" result in this being deemed "theft". One wouldn't steal a car, but one would share a good movie or song with a mate. Comments (4)
Theft is theft - your views of how you would redefine the laws of any country are immaterial....it's the society in which you live that defines the laws - not children.
Children should grow up before expressing their childish/totally stupid opinions in public. Comments (7)
I agree with you, theft is theft - I wouldn't steal a pack of gum, I wouldn't steal a film. I pay for my cinema tickets (when I can afford them) and while thoroughly enjoying films such as District 9, I (and many other consumers) not interested in paying $30 to own a dvd copy.
As for my views on how I would redefine the laws of any country? I have none, I'm a "child" as you say, or more correctly, a student. My views I express here are simply that the media industry is (in general) price-gouging consumers and believe piracy is the cause of their "lost revenue". When the media industry can't defend their copyright, they attack DVD rentals companies and ISPs, perfectly legitimate businesses, providing services to customers. Perhaps if the media industry invested some money into surveys, marketing, consumer buying decisions, they'd see that (those of us not on six-figure wages) are interested owning movies, but are more interested in legal electronic copies (preferably non-DRM protected, so we can view them in any device we've purchased, or at the very least, software allowing us to view them on any platform), than in a physical product which will eventually be unusable. There's no legal way to own an electronic copy of a film. In contrast, there are many legal ways, a few of which I commented on, to own/view other copyright-protected media such as books, TV shows and music. Finally, as for my opinion? I'm just as entitled to mine as you are to yours. Thank you for approving my blog comments. Comments (4)
Media companies invest money to make products and then set a price for them.
People, like you, are not in any way entitled to then say you disagree with their pricing - other than not paying it. Acquiring other people's property without paying their stipulated price is theft. You can't pay - you don't get. When/if you ever grow up you will understand that you can't just take something because you want it. Blame your parents and your schools for not teaching you that. Comments (7)
Assuming your (latter) comments are in direct response to me and not at people (or "children") in general:
-- People, like you, are not in any way entitled to then say you disagree with their pricing - other than not paying it. True, I pay for media in order to support the author/artist. I "voice" my opinion by not purchasing (and not stealing) $30 dvds. -- Acquiring other people's property without paying their stipulated price is theft. Indeed. DVD rental companies also prove these prices are very flexible. -- You can't pay - you don't get. True, I'm not entitled to a dvd/cd of a film/album which I haven't paid for. TV content is a little different/"grey" as it's free and made legally available via both airwaves and IPTV. -- When/if you ever grow up you will understand that you can't just take something because you want it. I do understand. -- Blame your parents and your schools for not teaching you that. I've been taught that well throughout my life. Comments (4)
Lukian said:
There's no legal way to own an electronic copy of a film. In contrast, there are many legal ways, a few of which I commented on, to own/view other copyright-protected media such as books, TV shows and music. However... Quite a lot of Blu-Ray discs are coming out with digital copies. All the Harry Potter movies, the new Star Trek movie etc. All have a digital copy for you to own.... eg. http://www.ezydvd.com.au/item.zml/808448 T. Comments (2)
Stanley,
Seems to me you're trying to have your cake and eat it too. I am well aware of a finite number of resources for an infinite number of problems. How a 14 year old stealing property countless men and women devoted their time and efforts not being a 'real' crime is exactly why people have this torrid misapprehension that they can get away with it. Resource management and execution is a totally different topic and debate. They are mutually exclusive. However, don't try and clump together this with the 'principle' of what crime is to justify in any way, shape or form what copyright infringement is - Theft Period. To disolve the two and constitute some quasy code of conduct is a mistake that will lead to ethical decay on this planet. Comment (1)
Copyright infringement IS a real crime. That point I'm not arguing. The proposed measures (specifically a "three strikes" policy), on the best advice available of experts in the field, will not work; will make their job of law enforcement more difficult; and expose society to whole new, even worse potential risks.
The cure could very well be worse than the disease. Exetel have shown real leadership here. At the risk of their business they've done the right thing by all concerned in passing on allegations, respecting a denial if it's received but ultimately leaving it up to the current judicial process to determine guilt. Their current approach is the best approach. Nothing more is needed. Comments (5)
Totally off-topic, but any winners to back for tomorrow yet? I seem to recall copying your picks in the past and coming out ahead....
Cheers, One-a-year-horse-race-punter. Comments (2)
I;m glad you're ahead.
I'll post my picks tomorrow after we see how much rain is going to fall. Comments (7)
Seems MM got quite the grilling today. Appears he reversed the existing Westnet policy of issuing infringement notices. If thats proven you would imagine its a slippery slope to the high court to try to get the inevitable reversed.
Comment (1)
When that came out in the discovery process his goose was cooked - not only in terms of this case but as an executive of a public company.
Comments (7)
|
Calendar
QuicksearchArchivesCategoriesBlog AdministrationExternal PHP Application |