Speaker: ACTA: Don't sell us down the river
526 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 18 19 20 21 22 Newer→ Last
-
Interesting opinion piece from ComputerWorld on ACTA, including why it's such an affront to the sovereignty of national legislative processes.
-
Simon, that is simply staggering.
Except that, sadly, it's really not. One can't help but suspect that the Americans are so busy trying to get the rest of the world to toe their line that they don't have time to figure out that, actually, there are other ways of doing things and that those things, scarily enough, are good for players beyond the realm of big content.
I guess that's what happens when big content are the entire sum of audible voices in the discussions about the form that measures will take. -
One of the problems with the "can't make money selling movies on the internet" line is that is seems to assume that the internet is the only way to sell movies
Pretty sure no one ever claimed anything of the sort.
In which case I've drawn a wrong inference. Sorry. It was the only way that I could make sense of the "impending doom" suggestion that has been attached to the internet and movies. If other ways of making money haven't gone away, then the doom is in no way impending and there's actually time to make an orderly transition. Take the time to figure out things that work, etc.
And before you say that nobody's said "impending doom" or similar, consider the hasty action that is being urged, both in this thread and out there in the real world. Those of us who're saying "We don't have anywhere near enough data on this" are being called any manner of things. -
It's of interest that the US, where mindboggling and ludicrous settlements have been sought by the industry and awarded against small offenders by the courts, is the one nation whose recording industry is still struggling revenue wise (Warner Music posted yet another loss today).
An interesting part of those settlements is that the artist who is infringed is lucky to see any of it:
None of the estimated $400 million that the RIAA received in settlements with Napster, KaZaA, and Bolt over allegations of copyright infringement has gone to the artists whose copyrights were allegedly infringed.
-
Simon, that is simply staggering.
There is so much more, the controlled composition clause in US recording contracts, for example, which effectively says that if the record company owns does not own the publishing then the amount paid out in the US on sales is reduced by 25%.
This is, in NZ terms, utterly illegal (I've always wondered that since recording contracts between NZ acts and multinational recording companies always contain this, but are stated to be subject to the laws of NZ, whether it's enforceable..no-one has tried that I'm aware of).
But, yeah, radio play revenues are not subject to a performer royalty in the US for American or foreign acts. The dollar value of this revenue stream, denied to copyright creators, over the years is also simply staggering. It's piracy on the part of the US media conglomerates, who, throughout most of the last century owned the record labels and the radio (CBS, NBC etc) and are now (Clear etc) immensely powerful.
And we are being dictated to from what moral high ground?
And Cameron, yes, although there has, after legal action on the part of acts, been some small reluctant movement on this, but nowhere near the amount likely due which is arguably a 50/50 artist / label split on miscellaneous income pursuant to most contracts.
-
Those of us who're saying "We don't have anywhere near enough data on this" are being called any manner of things.
Fair enough, there are some tough comments floating about (particularly on the other threads), but for what it's worth, the worst thing I'd ever accuse you of being would be 'wrong'.
If other ways of making money haven't gone away, then the doom is in no way impending and there's actually time to make an orderly transition.
Wait, what? Sure, they haven't gone away completely but that doesn't mean that those markets being damaged isn't going to have a very negative effect on film makers. I mean, you're suggesting that we have to have certainty of the complete doom of film-making before we take any action?
Look, by the the same token, even the worst of the most 'tyranical' attacks on internet freedom in the name of IP protection are not going to make the internet 'go away'. Just to put the show on the other foot, how would you feel if my argument was: 'if ACTA goes ahead, the internet isn't going to stop, it's only going to be damaged to a degree we can't be sure of until we get the proper data, so quite moaning and we'll see what happens, and if it turns out bad, then adapt or die.'
Sounds nice, doesn't it?
But look, all hyperbole aside: you don't feel as if there's enough solid evidence to justify some form of reasonably balanced intervention, and I do. That's cool, we can agree to disagree.
-
Just to put the show on the other foot, how would you feel if my argument was: 'if ACTA goes ahead, the internet isn't going to stop, it's only going to be damaged to a degree we can't be sure of until we get the proper data, so quite moaning and we'll see what happens, and if it turns out bad, then adapt or die.'
Sounds nice, doesn't it?Peter, you've actually described the status quo.
That's why people are up in arms - if nothing is changed, that is exactly what will happen, with New Zealand citizens having no input at all.
We do however have a more than tentative idea of the likely damage. And many of us support finding a way to fix things now that works for creators as well as consumers.
-
-
Pub 'fined £8k' for Wi-Fi copyright infringement
"the likely damage"
To be honest if I were running an open WiFi spot for my patrons I would block Download sites, it can't be that hard and who would really object to that? I would consider it outside reasonable use of a complementary service. -
I would block Download sites
Which ones Steve? All of blogger and wordpress? Maybe Yousendit or Soundcloud. YouTube? Google? Or Mediafire, or, since many thousands of normal .com or .co.uk host grey files, all the net?
-
That's a start. ;-)
-
it can't be that hard
I think that kind of blithe assumption is one of the factors in the intense heat generated in these debates.
Steve, blocking any category of thing in a reliable and fair way is very, very difficult.
Whitelisting (only allowing things on a list) and blacklisting (disallowing things on a list) are problematic: who looks after the list, how is it kept up to date, what if the list is wrong, what are the criteria for the list, how accurate is it? What happens when a site appears on a list and just moves somewhere else? What about network resources that host a mixture of things -- shall we block them all and lose the good with the bad?
Matthew Poole has already pointed out that real-time inspection of traffic is extremely resource intensive and generally unreliable.
Example: something as apparently easy as reliable spam blocking is damned hard. Spam messages still get through filters, legitimate messages still get caught in them (and the amount spent by IPSs on filtering is huge).
Blocking "objectionable" content is impossible. You can be sure that blocking "download sites" (whatever they are -- it's not a term in my vocabulary) is not a goer.
-
Steve, blocking any category of thing in a reliable and fair way is very, very difficult.
FFS. We are talking about an open WiFi connection in a Pub, it is a courtesy for their customers, to allow them to brows the "net" check their eMails, not a commercial connection. Sure to lock it down totally is nigh on impossible but to put obstacles in place to discourage nefarious activities should be enough to prove that the "Illegal" downloads were not sanctioned by the owner.
-
Quite the opposite, I would say. I really don't know what you envisage by "put obstacles in place", but I can't think of anything effective that wouldn't be annoying to everyone. That could be my lack of imagination though.
Also, supposing for the moment that one could selectively allow some kinds of activity and not others, that might actually have the opposite effect to the one you suggest -- an ill-willed person might argue that if you (inadvertantly) allow access to some copyrighted material, you meant to do so as a matter of policy (you know, common carrier vs editorial control kind of thing).
If you could actually be a bit more precise about what you have in mind that would help the discussion.
-
Sure to lock it down totally is nigh on impossible but to put obstacles in place to discourage nefarious activities should be enough to prove that the "Illegal" downloads were not sanctioned by the owner.
So, just to clarify, we are talking about blocking that list I mentioned above? Plus the raft of social networking sites that allow people to share files?
Many of the Wifi places I frequent when travelling, I do so to access fairly large files, graphic and a/v media..all legit. I'd imagine a large percentage of those at, say, Changi Airport or a cafe or bar in a business district of just about any city in the world would be doing just that. I'm guessing you want that stopped, because unless you slam anything like that, the rules and barriers you suggest are completely unworkable.
It's easy to look at it from an NZ POV, where free wi-fi is still largely unknown, but in much of the world it's not only common but very much an access point used as a matter of habit day to day by millions for all sorts of activities, legit and otherwise.
In this part of the world pretty much every mall, airport, cafe, bar, modern commercial building and CBD precinct offers it as a public and a business service.
How do you plan to police that?
-
I know you guys are defending the rights of those that steal copyrighted material </joke> but if I were the publican in question I would have considered closing all ports other than;
Port 80 for http traffic
Port 110, 25, 995, 465 for eMail
and so on, I'm sure you could add to that list but I think you get my drift. I emphasise that we are not taking about a commercial ISP here. And as for a NZ POV we pay for bandwidth here and I wouldn't want to be paying for someone to come into my pub, get a glass of water and download 20 gig a day.So, just to clarify, we are talking about blocking that list I mentioned above?
No, I thought you were joking.
-
And as for a NZ POV we pay for bandwidth here and I wouldn't want to be paying for someone to come into my pub, get a glass of water and download 20 gig a day.
As I say, NZ POV..this was in the UK. Here, and in large parts of the world there are no data caps. And closing the ports simply isn't practical when wi-fi is used for so much by so many. Where was this pub? City of London maybe...your port solution is not an option. And so on...
-
...your port solution is not an option. And so on...
resistance is futile... All your port are belong to US.
Anyway, it's Saturday and I'm buggered if I am going to spend the evening arguing with you lot. have fun. -
Thanks for spelling that out. I understand what you're suggesting now.
I think it's unfair to expect a lay person to configure a consumer level device that way.
But granting that for the moment, I also think restricting particular kinds of packets or particular ports because of the perceived likely payload:
a) is unfair
b) does not in fact solve the ostensible problem (distribution of copyright material without permission of the owner) and
c) can only work until it becomes widespread enough for people to start putting their dodgy payloads into packet/port combinations that look legit (and indeed that has already started happening).
d) if it becomes widespread, forces novel applications like, say, Skype, to do stupid things in a technical sense: collateral damage if you like.... so I oppose telling people do that anyway, even if they are capable.
-
you don't feel as if there's enough solid evidence to justify some form of reasonably balanced intervention, and I do. That's cool, we can agree to disagree.
I already said way, way back that we were going to have to agree to disagree. For one thing, we can't even agree on what constitutes "reasonably balanced."
My objections are not just to the "We must do something now" position, where I feel there's insufficient evidence to justify anything other than the copyright reforms that many in this thread agree are necessary, but also the position that says that "something" must involve traffic monitoring and extra-judicial responses to whatever that monitoring may find.It's not that I fear the internet "going away", because the internet's design makes that pretty much impossible, but that I fear ham-fisted, poorly-considered "solutions" that impinge on the internet experience of all consumers as well as potentially damaging future innovation. YouTube would never have happened in the world envisioned by big media. FaceBook and most other forms of social media would never have got off the ground either, because they would be too risky.
Excessive control does not foster innovation, but rather stifles it. The internet doesn't need to go away to become a place where ideas cannot thrive. -
closing all ports other than;
Port 80 for http traffic
Port 110, 25, 995, 465 for eMailSo you've already blocked all HTTPS traffic, meaning people cannot use web banking, or make purchases online. Strike one, in that you, the advocate of this system, missed out one of the fundamental "legitimate" ports. How much harder for Joe "Clue-bie" Public to get it right?
Strike two: you can pass pretty much all P2P systems over TCP:80 and/or TCP:443. Unless you're doing some very fancy inspection, using equipment that costs considerably more than the local pub will be prepared to spend, you have no way of knowing what's inside that packet. You just have to trust users not to pass traffic over non-standard ports. Toss in the encryption wildcard, and suddenly even deep-packet inspection loses the game of trying to determine if what you're sending over TCP:443 is HTTPS or encrypted P2P.Still think that "it can't be that hard"?
-
Sigh
So you've already blocked all HTTPS traffic, meaning people cannot use web banking, or make purchases online. Strike one, in that you, the advocate of this system, missed out one of the fundamental "legitimate" ports.
Cough
Port 110, 25, 995, 465 for eMail
and so on, I'm sure you could add to that listHow much harder for Joe "Clue-bie" Public to get it right?
But Joe (insert denigrating Noun here) Public, is a dedicated Hacker?
You just have to trust users not to pass traffic over non-standard ports. Toss in the encryption wildcard, and suddenly even deep-packet inspection loses the game of trying to determine if what you're sending over TCP:443 is HTTPS or encrypted P2P.
Apparently. You...
think that "it can't be that hard
I guess you're that guy that walks into the pub and eats all the free peanuts.
YouTube would never have happened in the world envisioned by big media. FaceBook and most other forms of social media would never have got off the ground either, because they would be too risky.
Yeah. Cos like all those things were done by some guy sitting in the pub using the Landlords WiFi.
AND eating all the Peanuts.An attempt to understand what people are saying, before shoving your "credenitals" down their throats, would be appreciated.
:-) -
But Joe (insert denigrating Noun here) Public, is a dedicated Hacker?
They don't need to be. They just need to use software written by people who are.
Maybe you could try understand what Matthew and I are saying: you can't make undesirable activity difficult without making kosher activity difficult too. We don't keep pointing out problems for fun or to be annoying, but because we think about this stuff as well.
-
They don't need to be. They just need to use software written by people who are.
Which would be a good reason for the Landlord to be absolved of liability.
Alternativly you could attach one of These to your network to warn of impending doom. -
I think... I think I agree with that!
Post your response…
This topic is closed.