Quote:
Originally Posted by CrkMStanz
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).