Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

"Expert Body" To Decide Which Sites To Block For Copyright Infringement

samzenpus posted more than 3 years ago | from the council-approved dept.

Privacy 173

Barence writes "Rights holders in the UK are proposing to appoint a 'council' and an 'expert body' to decide which websites should be blocked by ISPs for infringing copyright. The controversial Digital Economy Act made provisions for sites accused of hosting copyrighted material to be blocked by British ISPs. 'The cost of the proposed scheme is not indicated, but is likely to be substantial, including the running cost of two non-judicial independent bodies and the cost to ISPs of permanently blocking websites,' Consumer Focus said."

cancel ×

173 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Piss Off (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36537612)

Who said you can block what I can see? This aint Egypt!

Re:Piss Off (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36537620)

No, but they might as well be. Americans tend to complain about how they are losing their freedoms but compared to the UK, America is a deserted island and the UK is "the island".

Re:Piss Off (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36537864)

And as always...England Prevails. ...and maybe some of the surrounding bits too.

Re:Piss Off (4, Insightful)

geckipede (1261408) | more than 3 years ago | (#36538538)

Don't be silly. This article is about an unimplemented proposal, that in the UK has got only as far as a few rights holding bodies writing a report describing the fantasy world they'd like to live in. Nothing has actually happened yet.

In the meantime, attempts at shutting down websites have actually been implemented in the US - http://yro.slashdot.org/story/11/06/13/218206/First-Challenge-To-US-Domain-Seizures-Filed [slashdot.org]

In destroying freedoms, the US leads and the UK just follows on behind.

Re:Piss Off (0)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 3 years ago | (#36538992)

Which means which should say something so allow me to say...thanks Brits! Thanks to you, for no matter how shitty and fascist we become here in the USA, no matter what, you ALWAYS trump us and make us feel better about ourselves! Thanks to you we can go "We at least we Ain't the UK!"

So thanks UK, for sucking even more corporate cock than our politicians here in the USA. Man I bet your MPs jaws are sore!

Re:Piss Off (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36539056)

Sorry to have to break this to you, but you have it exactly the wrong way round.

This expert body idea is just a deranged proposal from rights holders that will go nowhere because the digital economy bill is already unpopular. There's easy political capital to be made in toning it down, and the bill is starting to have questions asked about its legitimacy in parliament.

Meanwhile, as the post above says, the USA is already seizing domain names associated with piracy. The USA is actively implementing this anti-freedom insanity, while the good old UK is doing nothing but hesitantly discussing it.

The list starting with big sties (3, Insightful)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | more than 3 years ago | (#36537618)

google
bing
Yahoo
*torrent
torrent*
isohunt
youtube
megavideo
Megaupload
RapidShare

Re:The list starting with big sties (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36537732)

They want it? They should pay for it. Plus an extra 100% for false-filtering cases which should be done at zero to the defendee.

Re:The list starting with big sties (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36537852)

Yahoo?
Geocities and Briefcases have long been over guy

Re:The list starting with big sties (1)

ArsenneLupin (766289) | more than 3 years ago | (#36539032)

Yahoo?
Geocities and Briefcases have long been over guy

Yahoo, the search engine. Which does indeed print out links to Mafiaaware when given the right search terms (try iso the hangover)

Re:The list starting with big sties (1)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | more than 3 years ago | (#36538888)

http://www.vpnreviews.com/index.php?cat=4 [vpnreviews.com]

Forget the reviews; Just treat it as a list of VPN providers and take your pick.

Re:The list starting with big sties (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36538924)

google doesn't host copyrighted content... ... except for that that's on youtube... and blogger... .. .. and google music.... and google drive... and google groups... and google documents... and google cache... other than that.... nothing!

VPN (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36537622)

Problem solved. Yo-ho-ho, pass the rum! Patch me through to www.mp3.pirate!

recommended motto change (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36538094)

Slashdot. News for pirates. Stuff that's anti private property rights.

If this site is going to keep featuring stories that are only of interest to the Marxist thief contingency among us, then just go ahead and make it official already.

Re:recommended motto change (1)

JohnRoss1968 (574825) | more than 3 years ago | (#36538460)

Maybe if more people like yourself who are supposedly against it would stand up for what they believe in instead of hiding behind the AC Mask.....
The C is there for a reason!

Re:recommended motto change (3, Insightful)

1s44c (552956) | more than 3 years ago | (#36538786)

Slashdot. News for pirates. Stuff that's anti private property rights.

If this site is going to keep featuring stories that are only of interest to the Marxist thief contingency among us, then just go ahead and make it official already.

You are missing the real point.

1) They block the child porn. Few people will defend that.
2) They block 'copyright material'.
3) They block whatever they feel like, suppressing critical stories on themselves and allowing critical stories on their political enemies. After all they really do believe that they know what's best for the public and they desire power above all else.
4) The country is in the hands of a few corrupt people who will abuse the situation for all they can take out of it. - Massive profit!

They have setup their infrastructure at stage 1 and are now working on implementing stage 2.

Re:recommended motto change (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36538822)

The jump between 2 and 3 is so large your point becomes laughable.

Clue, meet Clueless (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36538900)

blah blah ... Marxist thief ... blah blah ...

Aren't you tired of getting your elbow wet when you try to take a crap?

Freenet (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36537638)

Freenetproject.org is one of interesting alternatives to information blocking. Still high-latency (sites opens in 10 seconds, bigger >1 MB files download in minutes) but probably most secure (more then TOR/i2p?) and definitely uncensorable.
Installation takes 5 minutes.
With 5 more you can get addons: Frost, FMS and Freetalk boards&sharing systems.
Btw #freenet on irc.freenode.org - we will gladly assist new users.

Bleh.. Who needs the 'web'? (0)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#36537640)

I share my files over samba

Re:Bleh.. Who needs the 'web'? (1)

kirbysuperstar (1198939) | more than 3 years ago | (#36537656)

I copy my files onto a mountain of 3.5" floppies. Try and stop THAT, government!

Re:Bleh.. Who needs the 'web'? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36537710)

They're way ahead of you:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=up863eQKGUI

Re:Bleh.. Who needs the 'web'? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36538612)

Not only that, they have already made a sequel!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUCyvw4w_yk

Noooooo.... (2)

inject_hotmail.com (843637) | more than 3 years ago | (#36537650)

No way I can imagine this will be abused:

There are no details of how the two panels would be made up, but the importance of the proposals mean they could have wide-ranging impacts on civil law

So, before it's ratified, no one (the general public) will have any idea that it's made of shills and stakeholders.

Wonderful...

They've lost it. (5, Insightful)

amiga3D (567632) | more than 3 years ago | (#36537670)

They're nuts. It's like pissing in the ocean, just what do they think they'll accomplish? Is there anyone in any government anywhere with a brain? I look around and see people out of work, rampant crime, war, and these asshole have time for this stupid shit?

Re:They've lost it. (4, Insightful)

herojig (1625143) | more than 3 years ago | (#36538002)

Well that's exactly right: they DO have the time for stupid endeavors, and this is by design. The warlords and crime bosses and bigC's of the world would not stand for government mucking about in their profit-gathering biz, so councils are appointed to keep public servants busy with make-work.

Re:They've lost it. (-1, Flamebait)

MichaelKristopeit404 (1978298) | more than 3 years ago | (#36538050)

rampant copyright violation =/= rampant crime not worth doing anything about? when was the last time a member of your family was murdered?

ignorant hypocrisy = highest level of insightfulness.

slashdot = stagnated.

Re:They've lost it. (2)

c0lo (1497653) | more than 3 years ago | (#36538264)

Is there anyone in any government anywhere with a brain? I look around and see people out of work, rampant crime, war, and these asshole have time for this stupid shit?

How else so many wars can be supported with so many people out of work and rampant crime? Someone need to foot the bill - why do you think ACTA is kicking?
Errr... you are not suggesting these wars need to stop, are you?

Re:They've lost it. (1)

Anne Thwacks (531696) | more than 3 years ago | (#36538688)

Is there anyone in any government anywhere with a brain

You must be new here!

Re:They've lost it. (2)

syousef (465911) | more than 3 years ago | (#36538452)

They're nuts. It's like pissing in the ocean, just what do they think they'll accomplish? Is there anyone in any government anywhere with a brain? I look around and see people out of work, rampant crime, war, and these asshole have time for this stupid shit?

They get a salary whether or not they do anything about those problems, but bribes only come if they pass laws large media companies want.

Re:They've lost it. (2)

1s44c (552956) | more than 3 years ago | (#36538796)

Is there anyone in any government anywhere with a brain?

Yes. Maybe their motivations are not what they claim they are.

There is, but... (3, Interesting)

Kupfernigk (1190345) | more than 3 years ago | (#36538842)

Ken Clarke is having all his sensible proposals stomped on by the Tory Right, who are increasingly resembling the Republican nutjobs. Nadine Dorries resembles Bachmann more and more every day (is that libellous?). Just like the US, the far right is actually a minority - but very vocal and supported by Murdoch.

Blocks for Copyright Infringement (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36537700)

This may be costly but well worth it.

How will the filtering even work? (4, Informative)

Necroman (61604) | more than 3 years ago | (#36537704)

So the techniques I'm aware of:

1) Deep packet inspect for gets to specific sites.
2) DNS hijacking.
3) IP address blocking of known sites.

1) All 3 of these have workarounds. Deep inspection of traffic can be overridden with the use of HTTPS.
2) DNS hijacking could be bypassed by using DNS servers from outside the country (or setting up your own). Of course, they could filter traffic on the DNS port outside of their network and force you to resolve everything through your ISP.
3) IP address blocking can only be worked around if you route through another IP. This means using a proxy or VPN.

I can tell you if my country did this, I would setup a VPS in another contry, install OpenVPN on it and use OpenVPN when I wanted to get access to more questionable sites.

There are workarounds to any type of blocking they do. Unless they completely lock down the internet for their customers (forced proxy servers or something), people will work around it.

Re:How will the filtering even work? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36537926)

1) Deep packet inspect for gets to specific sites.

I have an idea. To offset the 'substantial' costs lets sell the data we're collecting to 'trusted' associates. Welcome to Re-Phorm.

2) DNS hijacking.

More data to collect and sell. Analysis of the DNS & DPI data collected might be useful for evidence too.

3) IP address blocking of known sites.

They'll obviously have to block more than just web pages. Lets start with Tor & all the VPN sites.

Massive amounts of data to sort, index and store. It'll be cheaper and easier to just provide a list of sites you are allowed to access.

Re:How will the filtering even work? (5, Insightful)

bmo (77928) | more than 3 years ago | (#36537978)

It will guarantee a two-tiered Internet.

A. Internet for people who know what they're doing

B. Everyone else.

I am not sure if I am against this or not. Part of me rages about the censorship. The other part says "meh, it was better when it took actual skill to hook up a modem and set up a BBS"

--
BMO

Re:How will the filtering even work? (1)

24-bit Voxel (672674) | more than 3 years ago | (#36538288)

Skill was convincing the sysop to give you superuser access through any means necessary....

and avoiding $700/mo phone bills.

Re:How will the filtering even work? (1)

anotherzeb (837807) | more than 3 years ago | (#36538808)

It will guarantee a two-tiered Internet.

A. Internet for people who know what they're doing

B. Everyone else.

B. Everyone else - you mean we'll be going back to the AOL days?

Re:How will the filtering even work? (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 3 years ago | (#36538620)

And even if all of this came to pass, the most they'd manage is to turn back time to the Napster era when we know they didn't have P2P sharing problems... That's workaround #4, if they hit all centralized solutions then move to a decentralized one.

Re:How will the filtering even work? (1)

jimicus (737525) | more than 3 years ago | (#36538656)

There already is such a system in the UK, and it went through with so little fanfare that very few people know about it.

The organisation looking after it is the Internet Watch Foundation [iwf.org.uk] , and it deals mainly with child porn. The way the block works is that they manage a blacklist of pages on sites. When you try visiting a site on the blacklist, your browser session is invisibly proxied; when you try to download the offending file it's blocked.

What's particularly disingenuous is how the block appears to you as a customer. Most ISPs simply terminate the browser connection, leaving you assuming that there's something wrong with the site in question. There seems to be some means for ISPs choosing how the block appears, because at least one has the good manners to flash up a message explaining what's going on.

Re:How will the filtering even work? (1)

lordandmaker (960504) | more than 3 years ago | (#36538704)

The IWF isn't compulsory, though, it's just that ISPs can play the think-of-the-children card against each other. A&A, for example, don't use the IWF filter.

This plan, as I understand it, doesn't provide for such a choice.

Re:How will the filtering even work? (1)

badfish99 (826052) | more than 3 years ago | (#36538660)

It will work like this:
  • There is a blacklist of banned web pages. Each entry on the blacklist also specifies the IP address of that page.
  • The routing at the ISP is set up so that IP addresses on the blacklist go to a transparent proxy, and other IP addresses are unaffected.
  • The transparent proxy blocks the web pages on the blacklist, but allows access to all other web pages on the affected IP addresses.

How do I know? Because this is the system (called cleanfeed) that most ISPs in the UK have already installed to do the government-mandated web censoring that we've already got.

Re:How will the filtering even work? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36538784)

A friend of mine lives in the UAE. Which has nearly China-like filtering. It's normal for them to have VPNs over there. He has one in the UK, one in the US, one in Germany and one in Japan.
He even has P.O. boxes in all those countries, by a company that offers the service to forward everything going there to him in the UAE. (That way he can order at companies offering in-country delivery only.)

I guess he would be giving up his UK one. But really, as long as there is even a single free country left, whose IP is reachable from inside the country, the whole filter is void and useless.

Ultimately, if the Childrapemurderterrorliban (gotta ramp up on the associations with evil things ;) MAFIAA continues, it will come down to meshes of ISP-independent stealth WiMax hotspots under the roofs of houses, and a Stasi [wikipedia.org] -like system of denunciation and covert agents among your friends, listening in on everything, like in the GDR, and getting people in jails or shot.

Yeah, some people let others get way too far with their delusions.
But if there will be a civil war, I will be the first to put a bullet in some of those cocaine-snorting* bastards**!

* This is not an insult, but according to a friend of mine who worked in with music business executives for 20 years, expected on the management level.
** This IS a insult! ;)

Don't doubt the experts (4, Insightful)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | more than 3 years ago | (#36537724)

Don't doubt experts - they know more than you and are capable of making dispassionate, informed decisions and are morally capable of making unpopular judgments. Remember, citizen, opposition to the opinions of the educated is anti-intellectualism.

Re:Don't doubt the experts (4, Insightful)

blackraven14250 (902843) | more than 3 years ago | (#36537820)

Opposition to the opinions of the educated based solely on the ground that they are educated is anti-intellectualism.

Re:Don't doubt the experts (2)

Kjella (173770) | more than 3 years ago | (#36538680)

Sometimes I find the distinction between "because you are educated" and "because you've created a theoretical, ideological model that's clearly very far from the way real people and the real world acts" is hard to make in practical discussion. In both cases it's likely to be dismissed as ivory tower thinking. It would be like someone arguing to say the sky is green. I don't want to try picking apart your model trying to find the flaws, particularly as me not finding them will convince you further of the validity of the model when it's obvious to most people that the outcome you've reached is absurd. Of course you could say I'm just dismissing the results I don't like, but honestly I don't have time to tear apart every wrong theory there is. Sometimes you just have to say "Uh.... no." and move on, at least until there's some very obvious proof you should reconsider.

Re:Don't doubt the experts (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36537854)

Leave it to us. [youtube.com]

Re:Don't doubt the experts (1)

VAElynx (2001046) | more than 3 years ago | (#36537896)

Fine, then i am anti intellectual, as i value those who create values, not those who rake in money for nothing.

Re:Don't doubt the experts (1)

fyoder (857358) | more than 3 years ago | (#36537964)

Remember, citizen, opposition to the opinions of the educated is anti-intellectualism.

Oh! That's why the intellectuals are always first against the wall when the revolution comes. I learned something today.

Re:Don't doubt the experts (1)

JohnRoss1968 (574825) | more than 3 years ago | (#36538474)

If you learned something today doesn't that make you an "intellectual"
Up against the wall with you.

Re:Don't doubt the experts (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36538820)

I at least saw the sarcasm, double plus good effort citizen

Great effort (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36537736)

I applaud the UKs effort to bring up the costs for existing companies, create meaningless new government bodies and at the same time harshen the climate for new upstarts. This will continue to strengthen our Scandinavian dominance in this sector. Thank you both for this and the very affordable pound.

What's the problem? (4, Insightful)

pete6677 (681676) | more than 3 years ago | (#36537742)

A government agency in charge of deciding which sites to block. I can't imagine anything going wrong here, no way.

Re:What's the problem? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36538266)

I recommend it be made a secret organization, as well - just in case.

To Paraphrase Goering... (1)

Kittenman (971447) | more than 3 years ago | (#36537756)

When someone says "expert body", I reach for my gun

That's how you make an expert corpse (2)

VAElynx (2001046) | more than 3 years ago | (#36537990)

out of an expert body.

Re:To Paraphrase Goering... (1)

grahamm (8844) | more than 3 years ago | (#36538792)

Who will be allowed to challenge the expertise of the members of the 'expert body'?

Damn commies (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36537758)

Suddenly reminded of the great firewall of china...

So it begins... (1)

Foxhoundz (2015516) | more than 3 years ago | (#36537786)

Based on their logic, YouTube would be one of the first sites to be blocked, right? Right? Right? Right.

Cost externalization, typical corporate thinking (1)

c0lo (1497653) | more than 3 years ago | (#36537792)

'The cost of the proposed scheme is not indicated, but is likely to be substantial, including the running cost of two non-judicial independent bodies and the cost to ISPs of permanently blocking websites,' Consumer Focus said.

MAFIAA: austerity [businessinsider.com] my ass, we don't give a fuck about UK deficit (to surpass [guardian.co.uk] the Greece one), you just take care I still receive my money

Doing it wrong (5, Interesting)

Sparx139 (1460489) | more than 3 years ago | (#36537798)

You can't solve a social problem with a technical solution.

Mod parent up. (1)

noobermin (1950642) | more than 3 years ago | (#36538172)

What an insightful comment. People fail to see that piracy isn't as much a lack of technological protection but the social reality that information cannot be controlled.

Re:Mod parent up. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36538520)

But this isn't about "information" that is of any use to society; it is movies and music. Both of which are useful only for idling people's brains so that they don't have to think.

No great loss if it is blocked.

Social problem. Technical solution. (4, Informative)

neoshroom (324937) | more than 3 years ago | (#36538330)

That sounds good, but I don't think it is true. Let me give a short example (pasted from: http://www.fidnet.com/~dap1955/dickens/dickens_london.html [fidnet.com] ):

Until the second half of the 19th century London residents were still drinking water from the very same portions of the Thames that the open sewers were discharging into. Several outbreaks of Cholera in the mid 19th century, along with The Great Stink of 1858, when the stench of the Thames caused Parliament to recess, brought a cry for action. The link between drinking water tainted with sewage and the incidence of disease slowly dawned on the Victorians. Dr John Snow proved that all victims in a Soho area cholera outbreak drew water from the same Broad Street pump.

Sir Joseph Bazalgette, chief engineer of the new Metropolitan Board of Works (1855), put into effect a plan, completed in 1875, which finally provided adequate sewers to serve the city. In addition, laws were put in effect which prevented companies supplying drinking water from drawing water from the most heavily tainted parts of the Thames and required them to provide some type of filtration.

Social problem. Technical solution.

Re:Social problem. Technical solution. (3, Insightful)

MimeticLie (1866406) | more than 3 years ago | (#36538502)

That seems more like an environmental problem with a regulatory solution to me. A better analogy would be if the people really loved drinking out of the Thames and the government put up a fence to try and stop them.

Like the "solution to spam" checklist --- right on (1)

Mathinker (909784) | more than 3 years ago | (#36538366)

Your comment is right-on and reminds me of the now-put-to-rest checklist which was posted over and over again, replying to people who thought they had a technical solution to the problem of spam email.

We see now that all of these technical solutions, which dealt with technical details of how email worked, could never eliminate spam itself, which has now mutated and is a cancer infecting all the varied forms of digital communication which now exist. Why? Because it is a social problem (enough people are dumb enough to make it worthwhile), not an exploit of a particular technical weakness of how email works.

Re:Doing it wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36538450)

Perhaps you can't solve it completely, but you sure can make it a lot better.

Do you lock your door? Do you use https? Both are technical solutions of social problems.

Re:Doing it wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36538834)

But that is the US approach to everything - War on Drugs, War on Terror, War in 'IP Theft', War on Wardrobe Malfunctions etc

No way this can be corrupted... (3, Interesting)

seeker_1us (1203072) | more than 3 years ago | (#36537802)

This will be bought off by the copyright cartels before it even forms.

Re:No way this can be corrupted... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36537848)

Read it again. It will be RUN by the copyright cartels. That's what "Rights holders" means...

Re:No way this can be corrupted... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36538258)

Mod parent up.

Re:No way this can be corrupted... (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36538414)

At least they take out the corrupt middle-men ("politicians") out of the loop. Maybe more parts of the government could be improved in a similar way, like drug dealers being in charge of determining which drugs should be legal and illegal to sell.

It's worth it! (1)

kms_one (1272174) | more than 3 years ago | (#36537828)

Remember, The RIAA has damages in excess of the entire planet's GDP*. *According to the RIAA

Re:It's worth it! (1)

belthize (990217) | more than 3 years ago | (#36537922)

If we all gave them our money maybe they'll go away, it'd almost be worth it.

Prove or GTF Out (4, Insightful)

macraig (621737) | more than 3 years ago | (#36537912)

Perhaps it's time we demanded of these so-called rights holders - "rights" which We The People GRANTED to them - to conclusively prove to us that granting them these copyrights has actually done anything at all to encourage further creativity? If they can't prove that, then we should revoke their rights and let them scratch in the dirt for a living like the rest of us. We've been presuming for far too long that copyrights (and patents) actually function as intended.

Re:Prove or GTF Out (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36537938)

Yeah, there's been endless studies claiming that piracy is "stealing" billions from them, but where's even one study that proves copyright even does what it's supposed to do for the public trust?

Re:Prove or GTF Out (1)

VAElynx (2001046) | more than 3 years ago | (#36537998)

Well, where do you think all these creative "solutions" to "piracy" and even more creative damage figures are coming from?

Re:Prove or GTF Out (1)

macraig (621737) | more than 3 years ago | (#36538046)

Do we really need copyright to get that sorta creativity? I think I could get it just by bribing a few lawyers, accountants, and economists. All of them are already on the take to somebody already anyway.

Re:Prove or GTF Out (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36538392)

Please note that this story is from England, and while England may look a lot like the US, its present government is assuredly not chartered under a constitution starting with "We The People". Other than that, you're largely correct.

Copyright as we know it (a government-established, time-limited, monopoly to each printed work, held by the author) started with the Statute of Anne, as a reform of the previously existing unlimited monopoly on all printed works held by the "Worshipful Company of Stationers and Newspaper Makers" (i.e. the London printer's guild, the MAFIAA of their day).

Of course the publishers, anxious to regain their previous unlimited monopoly in fact, if not in law, fought the effect of the law on two fronts. They sought to have a common-law copyright (of infinite duration) recognized, with the Statute only codifying a co-existing fixed-term right. To support this, they went to great efforts to spread the notion that copyright was a natural right of the author, and existed for their just compensation -- despite the clear statement of the Statute that copyright was a grant of the government "for the Encouragement of Learned Men to Compose and Write useful Books"; thus shifting the question from one of effective policy to one of theft, piracy, and the author's presumed starving children. (Of course, the publishers, then as now, were the ones profiting, usually buying the rights to a book outright, rather than signing a contract with eventual payouts based on sales -- so the benefit to hungry children was and is quite unclear.)

Additionally, they sought statutory extensions to the fixed term when it was about to run out. To quote an anti-MAFIAA pamphlet of the time:

I see no reason for granting a further term now, which will not hold as well for granting it again and again, as often as the old ones expire... it will in effect be establishing a perpetual monopoly, a thing deservedly odious in the eye of the law; it will be a great cramp to trade, a discouragement to learning, no benefit to authors, but a general tax on the public; and all this only to increase the private gain of booksellers.

Unlike their counterparts in the 20th century, they were unsuccessful in getting that first extension at the time; since the USA, after it attained independence, enacted a near-perfect clone of the British copyright law of the time, it's quite reasonable to suppose the sanity and spine of Parliament at this time is wholly responsible for you having any public-domain works available.

Re:Prove or GTF Out (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36538778)

Because you have the right to consume the hard work of other people without paying for it you freetard cunt.

Tax Payers Foot the Bill (3, Interesting)

EEPROMS (889169) | more than 3 years ago | (#36537960)

The record and movie industry pundits must be laughing, instead of them having to protect their IP like every other industry the UK tax payer now has to fork of funds so some smack sniffing BMW M series driving record industry exec can screw the artists and the public.

Re:Tax Payers Foot the Bill (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36538928)

As opposed to some hipster techno-nerd who believes every artist in the world should provide him with free digital entertainment?

Decided to update this in relation to Copyright: (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36538228)

You/Your company/government advocates a

( ) technical (x) legislative ( ) market-based ( ) vigilante

approach to fighting piracy. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)

(x) Pirates can easily use it to discover new upload/download sources
(x) Creative Commons and other legitimate licenses would be affected
( ) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money
( ) It is defenseless against brute force attacks
( ) It will stop piracy for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with your broken system's overhead as you propose another system
( ) Customers will not put up with it
( ) Copyright lobby groups will not put up with it
( ) The police will not put up with it
( ) Requires too much cooperation from pirates
(x) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once
( ) Many internet users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers
(x) Pirates don't care about invalid peers in their lists
( ) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business

Specifically, your plan fails to account for

( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it
(x) Lack of centrally controlling authority for the internet
(x) Open proxies in foreign countries
(x) Ease of searching the tiny alphanumeric address space of all domain names
( ) Asshats
( ) Jurisdictional problems
( ) Unpopularity of weird new taxes
( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money
( ) Huge existing software investment in TCP/IP
( ) Susceptibility of protocols other than TCP/IP to attack
( ) Willingness of users to install OS patches from ad banners
( ) Armies of worm-riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes
( ) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches
( ) Extreme profitability of Copyright lobby groups
( ) Joe jobs and/or identity theft
( ) Technically illiterate politicians
( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with Copyright lobby groups
( ) Dishonesty on the part of the Copyright lobby groups themselves
( ) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering
( ) Windows XP

and the following philosophical objections may also apply:

(x) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever been shown practical
( ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable
( ) TCP/IP packets should not be the subject of legislation
(x) Blacklists suck
( ) Whitelists suck
( ) We should be able to talk about Bittorrent without being censored
( ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud
(x) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks
( ) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually
( ) Uploading/downloading data should be free
(x) Why should we have to trust you and your servers?
( ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses
(x) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem
( ) Temporary/one-time domain names are cumbersome
( ) I don't want the government monitoring my internet access
( ) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough

Furthermore, this is what I think about you:

( ) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work.
(x) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person/company/government for suggesting it.

Re:Decided to update this in relation to Copyright (1)

RobbieThe1st (1977364) | more than 3 years ago | (#36538292)

Awesome! That's honestly funny, and so true...
Mod parent up!

What bothers me about all of this is simple (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36538232)

Why are things like this always in the name of big business, instead of the little guy, "Joe Public"?

Imo @ least, the "powers that be" should be implementing DNSBL @ these levels (ISP/BSP) against malware purveying sites, spammers/phishers, known maliciously scripted sites, & botnet C&C servers also... not just for large industrial concerns!

(To prevent, for example, malware theft of folks' money if they use online commerce via credit cards & what-not instead... & other things that come along w/ that type of ride also)

* Plus, IF this is gov't. financed ESPECIALLY, because if it is? THEN THE PUBLIC OWNS IT, not corporations! The general public should get a benefit too then... imo @ least.

APK

P.S.=> See - I just KNOW that'd really help to "knock the snot" out of the malware/botnet/spam/phishing problem pretty well, as long as its kept up on judiciously in being updated etc.!

That simply because most folks that get them and continue to spread them are usually folks who aren't aware of securing their systems, or that downloading just anything + clicking on "OK" from a popup off the internet in say a browser, wouldn't "blunder into" spots like that online (because they're not the types that know how to bypass DNS &/or DNSBL (dns block lists for those unaware of it, probably not many here on this site I wager))

... apk

Re:What bothers me about all of this is simple (1)

Anne Thwacks (531696) | more than 3 years ago | (#36538710)

Why are things like this always in the name of big business, instead of the little guy, "Joe Public"?

Cos its big business that has big bucks!

hello webmaster (1)

formation (2241238) | more than 3 years ago | (#36538320)

I have read your post & enjoy this post. Check to see if your Company name is available http://bit.ly/m2IHF4 [bit.ly] ...

It is good to appoint a council... (1)

QuietLagoon (813062) | more than 3 years ago | (#36538336)

... as that allows the bribery money to be concentrated amongst just a few people, and makes it easier to buy the results needed.

Great! (4, Interesting)

Sasayaki (1096761) | more than 3 years ago | (#36538408)

The interesting thing is... if you treated copyright infringement much like we treat marijuana here in Australia, things would get a lot better.

A little bit of weed doesn't do a lot of damage and is kinda fun every now and then. A lot of weed is pretty bad, but as long as you're only using it yourself, eh... not a huge issue, but clearly you should cop a fine for it.

But deliberately growing warehouses full of weed, for the express purposes of selling it is pretty bad since it's usually tied to organized crime. Even worse, deliberately manufacturing *cocaine*, a much worse drug, is clearly bad and should be punished heavily.

So we understand that there are "less bad" and "more bad" scales on these things. But now, what if the cops (or vigilante groups with huge congressional power posing as cops) are mass-producing cocaine? Surely they should be fallen upon from a great height and made an example of, right?

http://gizmodo.com/329648/mpaas-university-toolkit-taken-down-for-violating-copyright [gizmodo.com]
http://torrentfreak.com/mpaa-steals-code-violates-linkware-license/ [torrentfreak.com]

That's just the top two results on a quick Google search. Other examples exist, I'm sure of it.

Now, the MPAA in both cases didn't just download an illegal copy of Photoshop. They stripped out the licencing and branding, rebranded it as their own, and then used it an profit making enterprise as though they themselves wrote it. THAT is the kind of copyright infringement that SHOULD be punished- it's literally taking someone else's work, pretending it's yours, then making money from it. They didn't just shoplift a copy of Photoshop from a store, they claimed they wrote it themselves.

And yes, they should be punished far worse than any individual. They pretend to be the ultimate authority on copyright enforcement, and treat it extremely gravely- Jamie was sued into bankruptcy for downloading mp3's for personal use. Surely their own actions, however, which are so much more malicious in nature, and so much more damaging to a society as a whole (and again given their position as de-facto "copyright cops") should be treated far more harshly. An individual who is busted for speeding gets a fine, a police officer who is busted for speeding can lose their job. And these particular police officers aren't even cops, more like shopping mall Rent-A-Cops arresting 13 year old kids for possessing a bit of weed while simultaneously running a commercial grade meth lab in their basement.

Yes, the MPAA's incidents are not nearly as numerous as the huge amount of copyright infringement that goes on everyday, but their actions are so much *worse* given their circumstances. They should be punished accordingly. If anyone should understand copyright infringement and copyright law, it should be the MPAA.

So, given this, I propose the MPAA and all its affiliatories, sister companies, shell companies, parent companies, CEOs (present, former and past) and anything to do with them should be purged utterly from the internet to make an example of them.

Re:Great! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36538770)

A lot of weed is pretty bad, but as long as you're only using it yourself, eh... not a huge issue, but clearly you should cop a fine for it.

Why? Is abusing a drug not punishment enough in itself?

But deliberately growing warehouses full of weed, for the express purposes of selling it is pretty bad since it's usually tied to organized crime.

This is because it's illegal. Make it legal, tax the bejesus out of it, and route some of the money into curing addicts. Works for alcohol, which is a drug about as abusable and unhealthy [wikimedia.org] as cocaine.

I agree with what I think is your basic idea: small-scale copyright infringement should be explicitly legit. But comparing this to legal and moral issues surrounding drugs (which you seem to misunderstand anyway) is missing the point entirely.

Raped thrice, ain't we? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36538642)

Records and films industries make money out of us so that they can use it to lobby for the laws that benefit only them.

The government taxes us so that they can fund the enforcement of this piece-of-crap legislation.

The ISPs will milk us dry even more to cover the cost of this "regulation".

The President appointed an RIAA lawyer... (1)

BenJCarter (902199) | more than 3 years ago | (#36538648)

...to generally solicit. What else do you expect from our leadership [wired.com] ?

Vote accordingly.

Raped thrice, ain't we? (1)

OKK77 (683209) | more than 3 years ago | (#36538670)

Music and film industries make money out of us to lobby for laws that are only beneficial to them. The government taxes us more to enforce this piece-of-crap legislation. The ISPs will milk us dry again to cover the cost of this extra "regulation". For Pete's sake, we should be born with KY jelly sprayed on our orifices.

Re:Raped thrice, ain't we? (1)

psychobudgie (1416459) | more than 3 years ago | (#36538720)

To be quite fair, very few of the ISP's, if any, are in favour of the bill and have fought hard to have it repealed or rewritten in some form. The people to blame here are the MP's and only the MP's as they wrote the bill, discussed it, ignored their constituents and voted for it. The Lib Dems even said during the last general election that they would actively seek to repeal the legislation that they now support. In short, don't believe MP's.

judiciary (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36538696)

Effectively industry is trying to establish an additonal authority with the power of judiciary, but entirely controlled by the "laws" of industry. That is the end of any democratic system.

a href="http://www.nikeleather.com/5a-quality-su (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36538814)

Good post.You did a good work,and offer more effective imformation for us!Thank you.

Is Blocking Websites even Practical? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36538874)

How exactly would "blocking websites" actually work without resorting to the tactics used in China? (which seems somewhat unlikely atm) Do government officials realize just how trivial it is to get around these things?

The Germans did it... the Germans did it... (1)

disi (1465053) | more than 3 years ago | (#36538876)

Ursula von der Leyen (Zensursula) tried to introduce this in Germany. The BKA (Bundeskriminalamt) was supposed to run lists of domains to be blocked by German ISPs. There was so much protest, that the CDU (probably biggest political party in Germany) had to put her down and put her into another position within the government (I am still not sure why that woman is still in politics, she should leave the country as our former minister of defence did.

That secret list, proposed by the CDU, was leaked at Wikileaks in Germany. That's when the BKA raided Wikileaks's offices in Germany in search for child porn and confiscated most of their machines and the domain (the site was down for ~1 month). Those were the methods they used to silent them...
This all happened beginning 2009 and the members of the Pirate-Party Germany increased by ~1000% in a couple of months, they are the 6th biggest party atm.

I am wondering if the British do/try the same now?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>