View Single Post
Old 11-21-2009, 07:04 PM  
gideongallery
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 7,082
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrkMStanz View Post
many many ways for apps - simple 'call home' technology on application launch - to see if more than 1 copy is 'calling home' from different locations. If you are on a laptop connecting from many locations the call home technology can ask you some 'prove who you are' questions.

As for 'data' - I clearly said that 'If you are found to still be in posession of...' - didn't say anything about actively hunting down the little fishes - just saying that if you are the object of an investigation anyways - your computers can be seized by a court order - and your 'perfect crime privacy rights' go straight out the window.

The object of this treaty is not to send every citizen to jail - but to take down the major offenders - the trickle down effect on the little fish will be huge






again, you show your desperation to grasp at any straw that justifies your fantasy - as per the license agreement between 3m and MS - business will remain exactly as it is now - two corporations, 1 the client, 1 the provider, will set the license up so that no infractions of treaty or law will happen - NO change to exactly what is happening now. NO extra business costs - NO changes to backup or distribution - NO liabilities (as long as both parties honor the terms of the agreement.




more desperate straw-grasping on your part. If it is hacked then the ISP gives up the information on the 'hacker' and the 'hacker' is liable - what exactly would the corporation be liable for anyways???? public distribution of their own property???? you aren't even trying anymore...

their stuff got hacked - they patch the hole - the hacker gets pursued by the law - only one liable here is the theif.




they would be protected just as much as they are now - nothing changes - guy in basement makes a parody - posts it - copyright owner complains - court decides if it is taken down or not - NOTHING changes.





weakest link you have given to-date

writing them a check is not the same thing as 'throwing their corporate support' behind them - its a PR trick used to make them look like they want to be 'fair to all parties'. But I don't blame the weak minded from drawing the inference that you have.



AGAIN - this is not about going after every surfer in their basements - this is about going after the mass providers - get a grip on the big picture - take out the rapidshares, take out the websites that steal content to sell, the hosts that host them - take out the people that continually post stolen digital product (no one said you will be disconnected for 1 infraction - but that you will be if you continually do it) - and the little fish will go back to small scale 'sharing with actual friends', not their merry band of 2 million 'internet friends'.



and life will be good.

.
yeah well we will see
i am betting this bill will never pass in the form that it is leaked

it will at worst be a milder form of the DMCA (without the anti circumvention statutes-- or wrapped in fair use like the original act)

there are groups who are actually counter arguing that any new rules should have a 3 times damage penalty codifed with any new power so since if those new powers were never intended to squash fair use, no copyright holder would fear such penalties.

i signed my name to one such petition (that where i got the 3x damages idea from we talked about in another thread).
__________________

“When crimes occur through the mail, you don’t shut the post office down,” Steve Wozniak
gideongallery is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote