Posts by robbery
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
So now people that create laws are now exempt from doing so in a reasonable manner.
no they're not, we are agreed on that.
the code of practice or how those laws are implemented is the point of debate at the moment is it not.s92 makes a nonesense of implementation regardless of whether or not you support the aims. It's quite a unifying force.
well the code of practice may or may not make nonsense of that. those points have been raised and ant healey said he acknowledged and agreed they were valid and pledged to work to address them. yet we still have screaming and wailing.
it makes me wonder if the point is to make a fair system for legitimate users maintain the free for all media infringement conditions we have now.
I haven't seen you arguing the "for media owners who don't want their stuff floating free" case much so I'm still left wondering. -
I can't see an answer.
?? what's the question you're looking for an answer to?
the last paragraph of the linked post answered you would I be happy question. was there another question you wanted attention to? -
What is a 'tolerable level'? I remember the days of cassette tapes when the music industry tried (semi successfully) that the sale of blank cassettes was intolerable. Plus ca change, eh.
apparently personal connection was considered a tolerable level, I'm sure they would have prefered everyone bought a copy, but then no one that i know of got charged for copying an album for their mate so maybe you could see that as a sign of good faith from 'the industry'.
I think isps should contribute some of their income to be distributed amongst content owners too, how that could viably be done without being hijacked is another matter but in theory i think the concept is fair....along with sharing, community and working together.
a street gang stripping an un attended car while its owner is in a movie is a good example of sharing, community and working together.
its also illegal and has a very ugly side to it. would you like isp's to assist in that process, the equivalent of surveillance camera operators in the area turning a blind eye? -
Change the subject all you want, but you haven't answered the question Rob.
I did answer the question jon. at the bottom of this here
the answer as far as impressing me in protest was yes I would be more impressed with something requiring more conviction than colouring your picture black, even if it did disrupt my life. I may not like suicide bombers and their actions (perhaps a pet peeve) but you have to acknowledge their conviction to the cause.
now you justify your line of thinking as applies to 'services' we provide as a society to other minority sections of our community. protection of law should not be bought and paid for. that sounds like corruption to me.
-
What? Your copying good, other copying bad?
our copying don, you were the one who said your kids should be able to do what you did, home taping is skill in music and all that.
but essentially my point was one of tolerable levels.
one of those scenarios relates to personal community and one relates to completely aimless copyright infringement between strangers.
isn't it an acknowledged parenting rule that you should teach your kids to be wary of strangers (along with respecting others and their property)but just to be clear are you arguing for full rights to copy and share as one sees fit of any content? maybe we're arguing at cross purposes?
is your objection purely on how it is policed?And now it is measurable the recording industry sees an opportunity to charge for it.
well your 'profit opportunity' is another mans fair right to protect their property. they already have the opportunity to charge for it, and that is backed by a law, a law not being respected or enforced.
these *changes* to the law are unnecessary, unfair and backward.
although this clause is in the copyright act it is really is a code of practice for the isp industry.
it should relate to how they act regarding all matters of law.
I'm sure you don't object to them acting to restrict everyone's rights as relates to a fore mentioned illegal objectionable material,if everyone else in society is required to act in a responsible manner I don't see why that shouldn't apply to isp's.
-
The psychologist in me can't get over what a great exercise in conformity the black box thing is
I also liked how in the other thread the great brains of our internet community spent the first few pages trying to figure out how to make it work. oh the irony.
-
but don't want to pay for protection
you're going to have to re think that jon. you sound like the mafia.
do you want to apply that thinking to wheelchair access? I don't think so. -
so if the protest against s92 included a simultaneous reboot or shutdown of servers and computers by concerned geeks & citizens, you might feel a bit happier Rob?
jon, I thought we were mates?
firstly you're assuming that all people in positions of internet control see 92a in simplistic black and white terms, or more specifically the one point being used to derail the whole affair, ie guilty up on accusation means the whole initiative is evil. That point is uncool but not unprecedented in our present society (I've identified a few similar proceedings up thread), and not something that can't be adjusted. would 92a's detractors be happy with the bill if that point was fixed. would they be happy if all cases go to court and you get a criminal record? would that be better?
I think a fix would be after 3 notices (and a phone call) you can take your dispute to court. that would take that point off the menu, so what would be next in line to derail the bill?from a society level of sharing responsibility ISPs should be open to playing a part in a safer more legal internet. They already do that in some areas. I remember reading in 96 about newsgroups in the uk being unfiltered in the interests of freedom of expression and information. the abuse of that system was suspect individuals setting up kiddie porn newsgroups. thankfully those sites are filtered now so apparently isps can come to the aid of the law if they want to.
92a says isps should be open to playing a roll in making internet traffic lines safer and in compliance with present laws. is that really so objectionable?sure you can get all 1984 on it but instead of tearing down the initiative as the black boxed community seems to be opting for you could push for stronger measures on those policing the net waves to respect rights of legitimate users.
these people seem to be under some delusion that the net is still the un controllable wild frontier and that notion does have a romantic appeal, but its simply not like that any more (filtering, data management etc etc) and increasingly won't stay that way. just like the west was tamed.
It doesn't have to be tamed in a sad way, and expecting people to respect each others property on it isn't an offensive concept.as for the make me happy comment, I would respect it if people really believed in what they were doing if they got off their arse built a sign and stood outside a politicians office to make their point.
sharing graphics amongst yourselves doesn't have the same ring. it has the smell of non committal to it. -
and a huge cost for society.
society could turn that all around by reverting to older times when artists were kept and paid for by society, (kings queens and other rich pricks) but we had to go all capitalist and fuck with that winning formula.
I'd happily get a livable wage to do what I do for society, but I'm not holding my breath. oil barons and property magnets seem to complain about this caring sharing thing. maybe you should take it up with them. -
and re the black squares protest. sheesh, what happened to getting off one's expanding ass and making a real life protest. I remember standing in line to be battoned for a principle,
maybe Mr Pooles suggestion to not buy into cd or film for a month (and tv and internet too) was a good idea. we've all become soft. switch off the screen and actually change your world if you don't like it. changing your online icon to black seems kinda token.