13 votes

Fox News: US ISPs become 'copyright cops' starting July 12

As Fox News reports, Cablevision, Comcast, Time Warner, and Verizon are about to start policing how their customers use their Internet connections. - http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/03/17/us-isps-become-cop...

Copyright and patent laws are a topic near and dear to me, as I think both are completely wrong. (I have no problem with trademarks, by the way.) With charges of massive fines and jail time, are movie and music downloads the next drug war? I say issue no more copyrights or patents, and let the ones out there expire. As for me and my servers, we'll be searching for another ISP before the June 12th date.

Update: Here's another link to an article from a source positioned on the other side of the argument. Thanks marno! http://torrentfreak.com/isps-to-begin-punishing-bittorrent-p...



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

AvtM

I remember Adam Kokesh made it clear on Adam vs the Man that intellectual property is a silly idea. I don't know how I would find that show. All I remember is him starting out by saying "Good news". (-:

Michael Nystrom's fists can punch through FUD.

I have a feeling this is what it will all come down to.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4_j4c7Bop0
Santorum and the porn. And all the talk of copyright infringement. Sopa and all the other talk of censorship. From both the Left (Socialists) and the Right (Fascists). I believe that Santorum and the establishment Republican Party are the Fascist Party. With Obama and the establishment Democratic Party are the Socialist to Communist Party. They want to stop any thought that is not aligned with there agenda. Tell me I'm wrong!

It's time! Rand Paul 2016!

"Truth, Justice, and the American Way!"

Thought Police

It's coming down to a moral thought police. In the 80's, my house was actually sent a letter from the state of Maryland, ordering us not to pray in our house, because it was a violation of our residential zoning. We were to pray only in a church, not around a dinner table.

We gave a copy to the news networks, and they said that it wasn't news, because it was too common.

Our media will be given to us in doses.

Michael Nystrom's fists can punch through FUD.

Here is another article on the subject.

ISPs To Begin Punishing BitTorrent Pirates This Summer

http://torrentfreak.com/isps-to-begin-punishing-bittorrent-p...

Does this mean

the ISPs will be practicing law without a license? Are they doing it voluntarily or are they being forced to practice law without a license?

RIAA

They say they're doing it voluntarily. It's supposedly something they promised to do for the RIAA. The only good side of that is that they will be sending multiple warnings to their customers, throttling their bandwidth, and -possibly- cutting them off. I guess they're trying to be the Schindler's of the RIAA's regime, though that's no excuse.

I'm pretty lucky, because the house I'm planning to close on in early June is one block away from my friend's ISP, one of the few ISP's with a direct backbone connection. I'll be spending more, getting less bandwidth, and getting less IP addresses, but it will mean freedom.

Michael Nystrom's fists can punch through FUD.

I'm a torrent whore I need

my UTorrent and PirateBay.

I totally agree with you.

Did you know you can get sued for using the suffix "-zilla" in your business?

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd...

Just like monetary policy, this is another one of those issues where special interests are fleecing the public because of a widespread lack of understanding. These copyright laws restrict creativity and slow progress, and the only people who benefit from them are the corporations that once EMPLOYED the creators, not the creators themselves.

Even if the creator holds the copyright, enforcing it still has a net negative effect on society, because it prevents people from creating. It profits by impoverishing others, and it destroys more value for others than it creates for the rights holder. It is a form of wealth destruction that makes the world a poorer place.

Monsanto already used copyright laws to take control of the agricultural industry. Now companies like Disney are trying to use it to control the internet. This is WORSE than the drug war, and it will be one of the major battlegrounds in taking our freedom back in the coming years.

Ideas

It's going to be difficult to change peoples' hearts and minds. Even in my own family it's hard to get people to see the problem with copyright and patent laws. One example I try to use is processor design. The processor companies are literally patenting and copyrighting math! They have taken the absolute simplest forms of transistors which are able to perform mathematical functions and have declared them to be their own.

You're absolutely right. It's a protectionist law. It was even created to help out the printing presses at first, and it was only to give them a short protected period so that they had time to print and make a profit before other printers started printing the same books. Now it's a worldwide monster.

It's relatively easy to convince people that patents shouldn't be forever. It's a little harder to convince them that the same should be true for copyrights. It's harder yet to convince them that software should be free. I go so far as to say that art should be free as well, and even famous open-source proponents like Richard Stallman don't see it the same way.

We here at Daily Paul are fortunate enough to have a legal view. We know that the government can't control our thoughts. If people see a smart way to do things, they're going to do it, even if it's patented.

Maybe the beginning of our argument should not be a philosophical one. Maybe we should start trying to convince the people that having a copyright and patent system enforced by bureaucracies on top is the wrong way to protect peoples' reputations and privacy. I think that's a little easier for people to swallow.

Michael Nystrom's fists can punch through FUD.

I dont download often....

But when I do, I prefer IPredator.

Check it out, they didnt think of that yet. Stupid people who cannot conceptualize VPNs and Bit torrent dont belong in the field of restricting it. IPredator is cheap, and you'll never be found.

How does a copyright deal with

news services using the copyrighted info as information? I consider all of us reporters for the Daily Paul News Service. Am I wrong in thinking this way? The Daily Paul is a liberty mind news service free to the general pubic. So any news worthy items that are posted on here from copyrighted sources. Should not be held under any violation. Yes? No?

It's time! Rand Paul 2016!

"Truth, Justice, and the American Way!"

Nobody can copyright facts,

Nobody can copyright facts, but they can copyright expression. In other words, there's nothing wrong with posting information in a word sequence you've devised by yourself. But posting an entire article without authorization would infringe copyright.

That's not a bad thing. As much as we all like to moan about the media, this country will be in really sorry shape if there's no professional press corps anymore, which is what would happen if they can't protect and monetize their content.

I mean, look what the powers-that-be already get away with -- now imagine what they could do if they weren't EVER being watched.

"this country will be in

"this country will be in really sorry shape if there's no professional press corps anymore," we've lost that a long time ago. Jeez you are right, just look at us now without a professional press corps.

Intellectual Property Rights is BS. For, intellectual property is in ones brain, once one manifests that which is in their brain to the tangible world the intellectual property becomes known as property; it drops the intellectual part because it is no longer found strictly within the confines of the creator's mind. Therefore, when one decides to sell this property which they created it become the property of the individual(s) which purchased it.

It could be protected in the situation where one develops property for their own use to increase productivity or for their own entertainment, but when one sells their creation on the open market, there is no way for one to be able to stop 7 billion people from re-manufacturing the product.

The problem is that people and major corporations don't want to have to compete with others over something they feel they have ownership over; but the truth is, they lost ownership the day they decided to sell it. Either one has ownership, and 'it' does whatever you created 'it' to do for you, or you sell it and you now have ownership over that which you got in exchange for that which you created. To expect to be able to keep ownership of that which one sells is ridiculous; you would then have ownership over the money which you got in exchange for the product, plus you would have ownership of the product itself -this is ridiculous to even think is possible, it in no way reflects natural law.

If one cannot find in natural law evidence, even one instance thereof, where a supposed law is shown to be true, then one cannot expect nor desire a judicial system based on natural law to uphold a supposed law as an actual law.

Copyrights don't protect creators nor improve content

I've seen such a fast expansion of free software, free art, and other free media that puts no restriction on reuse. More than that, it's profitable. Some of the companies that are supporting such projects are Wal-Mart, IBM, Siemens, Home Depot, and the US Department of Defense.

The copyright mechanism doesn't make the content any better. The good content brings the profit. The copyright system allows lawyers to siphon money from whomever they like, because it's almost impossible to not have repeated something someone else did or said.

One great example is SCO Caldera. It's a software company whose purpose for many years was to sue other software companies for copyright infringement. It even started suing users of software it claimed was infringing on its copyrights. It sent a lawsuit down to companies like AutoZone. SCO claimed, in fact, that it owned Linux.

Copyright law was created as a protectionist favor from congress, and it exists to feed greedy lawyers. Needless to say, there is plenty of propaganda and brainwashing around the concept, in order to keep us promoting the laws and the benevolent overlords in the RIAA and MPAA.

Michael Nystrom's fists can punch through FUD.

It appears photobucket is already starting

they sent me a copyright infringement for a picture of two lines from Robert Frost's "The Road Less Traveled". Granted this is a pic I snagged from somewhere years ago, not one of my own concocted quote-work. But two-lines? Robert Frost? I mean c'mon. Next I guess we won't be able to sing the National Anthem without paying to first.

At any rate, thank goodness they can't sue me for all the quotes I have memorized!!! Maybe that's next. :(

Freedom is not: doing everything you want to.
Freedom is: not having to do what you don't want to do.
~ Joyce Meyer

LOL

Memorization - that would be a "thought" crime...

Right sheesh I know

If a man empties his purse into his head, no one can take it from him.
- Benjamin Franklin

Freedom is not: doing everything you want to.
Freedom is: not having to do what you don't want to do.
~ Joyce Meyer