Major ISPs to turn into copyright police by July says RIAA

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

That didn't stop any of the other similar companies who have started up since. It's a pretty big industry now, and generates a lot of income worldwide. That's real income too, not just made up "what if everyone bought it instead" income. If piracy was ever stopped completely it would put a lot of people out of work.

Is it still common in the UK?
After ACS: Law were taken apart in the courts, I think any similar scheme would fall pretty fast.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

Is it still common in the UK?
After ACS: Law were taken apart in the courts, I think any similar scheme would fall pretty fast.

The speculative invoicing seems to have died off in the UK, but is still big business in other countries. The trawling of IP addresses on behalf of corporations still goes on everywhere though. Those are the type of companies that will be handling the "evidence" gathering.

[speakingtohe]

An acquaintance told me that a lot of torrent sites were being voluntarily taken down.

Is this fear of retribution or are they cranky because they are not making the big bucks that some pirate sites supposedly are?

And why is no-one going after the advertisers on these sites? I hear rumors that some advertisers on torrent sites are legitimate businesses. Even game developers?

Who actually advertises on Torrent sites and are they possibly members of some of the associations opposing them?

Helen

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by sbroome

If you pay someone to provide you with a service then your actions under that service are not private.

Phone calls are private unless there's a warrant for a wiretap. Operators don't have the legal right to listen in to phone calls, and call the police when they suspect there's a crime.

Paying someone to deliver your mail doesn't give them the right to read it.

Your landlord doesn't have the right to videotape what goes on in your house, either.

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Phone calls are private unless there's a warrant for a wiretap. Operators don't have the legal right to listen in to phone calls, and call the police when they suspect there's a crime.

Paying someone to deliver your mail doesn't give them the right to read it.

Your landlord doesn't have the right to videotape what goes on in your house, either.

Records of phone calls made can be obtained and/or used.
Delivery of mail as a service connected to the mail seems a bit broad. Like saying the Pizza delivery guy can't eat your pizza or the grocery delivery people can't actually see the food in the box they are delivering.

Pretty sure real estate rental is not considered a service provided by the landlord even in a hotel. Some exceptions but in general not for renting personal living space.

And the mail delivery people need a court order to legally examine your packages in most cases while the customs people do not. If the mail people feel that dangerous/contraband goods are contained in your mail (letters or packages) they can get that court order pretty fast or in some cases legally proceed without one.

Helen

[anamardoll]

I'm astonished at the idea that some people in this thread seem to be taking that people who aren't rich enough to buy their own housing should submit to having their sexual relations with their spouse taped for the enjoyment of their landlord, and that if people aren't rich enough to buy their own internet service provider company, then they can't complain if their ISP records their social security number, credit card information, business records, and anything else they might occasionally have to send over the network.

The privilege in this thread is shocking. I guess poor people should just be grateful we don't pile them into Hunger Games-style death matches to die for our amusement?

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by anamardoll

I'm astonished at the idea that some people in this thread seem to be taking that people who aren't rich enough to buy their own housing should submit to having their sexual relations with their spouse taped for the enjoyment of their landlord, and that if people aren't rich enough to buy their own internet service provider company, then they can't complain if their ISP records their social security number, credit card information, business records, and anything else they might occasionally have to send over the network.

The privilege in this thread is shocking. I guess poor people should just be grateful we don't pile them into Hunger Games-style death matches to die for our amusement?

Who said that and how? Certainly wasn't me. I said that renting was not a service. So IMO no such rights as previously discussed apply. And nowhere did I read that anyone thought they should.

Helen

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

And why is no-one going after the advertisers on these sites?

That was one of the things SOPA was going to bring in, but I don't really see why they would need a new law to do that. Online advertising is controlled by a relatively small number of companies.

[anamardoll]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

Who said that and how? Certainly wasn't me. I said that renting was not a service. So IMO no such rights as previously discussed apply. And nowhere did I read that anyone thought they should.

Helen

I'm referencing multiple people, but if you want to talk about you, yes, your post leads me to understand that you, specifically, think AT&T should be able to record any conversations I have. Which could include "having their sexual relations with their spouse taped".

But I concur that would be for the enjoyment of the AT&T board of directors, not the landlord in the case of your apparent statement that phone calls can be legally monitored or recorded by the provider at their whim.

ETA: I'd also be interested to know why renting a house is not a "service" in your book, but renting a phone number or an IP address is a "service".

[sbroome]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Phone calls are private unless there's a warrant for a wiretap. Operators don't have the legal right to listen in to phone calls, and call the police when they suspect there's a crime.

Paying someone to deliver your mail doesn't give them the right to read it.

Your landlord doesn't have the right to videotape what goes on in your house, either.

Phone records are pulled en masse whenever the Feds want since 9/11. Mail packages that the Post Office finds suspicious are opened and resealed if nothing bothersome is found inside. Home videotaping is not analogous.

[anamardoll]

Originally Posted by sbroome

Phone records are pulled en masse whenever the Feds want since 9/11. Mail packages that the Post Office finds suspicious are opened and resealed if nothing bothersome is found inside. Home videotaping is not analogous.

But anything done by the Feds or the Post Office is done (a) by the government and (b) (theoretically) in accordance with the law.

Private services recording your internet traffic, phone calls, etc. is something else entirely.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

Records of phone calls made can be obtained and/or used.
Delivery of mail as a service connected to the mail seems a bit broad. Like saying the Pizza delivery guy can't eat your pizza or the grocery delivery people can't actually see the food in the box they are delivering.

I don't want my mail carrier reading my mail or inspecting my packages, and I don't want my email carrier reading my email or inspecting my data-packets. I don't see a lot of difference.

Pretty sure real estate rental is not considered a service provided by the landlord even in a hotel. Some exceptions but in general not for renting personal living space.

While it's not the same as hiring someone to do a specific task, it is hiring the use of someone else's resources, and that person has some rights to make sure their resources aren't misused. Why couldn't the same principle be applied to landlords who want to make sure their property isn't being damaged? They could claim that they only watch the recordings for purposes of checking for damage and don't care what people do with their personal lives.

And the mail delivery people need a court order to legally examine your packages in most cases while the customs people do not. If the mail people feel that dangerous/contraband goods are contained in your mail (letters or packages) they can get that court order pretty fast or in some cases legally proceed without one.

I don't have a problem with ISPs who suspect specific illegal activity seeking a warrant. However, this is requiring that they inspect individual usage without any suspicion (at some cost, and passing that along to the users), and curtail internet access based on the accusation of potential criminal activity, rather than anything that touches the courts.

Which is the main point--the RIAA and MPAA would like to avoid the necessity of filing charges; they want someone else to take on the expense of enforcing their rights--and enforcing rights they don't actually have. They are happy to cut into legal downloads and data-copying (for example, me uploading a file I receive at work into cloud storage, and downloading it when I'm home) in order to stop an activity they insist is costing them money, even though they can't produce any direct numbers for that.

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by anamardoll

I'm referencing multiple people, but if you want to talk about you, yes, your post leads me to understand that you, specifically, think AT&T should be able to record any conversations I have. Which could include "having their sexual relations with their spouse taped".

But I concur that would be for the enjoyment of the AT&T board of directors, not the landlord in the case of your apparent statement that phone calls can be legally monitored or recorded by the provider at their whim.

ETA: I'd also be interested to know why renting a house is not a "service" in your book, but renting a phone number or an IP address is a "service".

I said phone call records can be obtained, not that the call can or should be monitored legally. Quote if you will, the part where I said they should be able to do this. It is naive to assume that they can't do this legal or not. But saying they can is not the same as saying they should.

And 'in my book' renting a house is a one of kind of transaction. Many people can acquire a service from the same provider. A house rental is generally a one-of kind of thing. One person can rent many houses but they can only rent each one to one person at a time. There are rental services that show multiple people the same house, but the house cannot be rented to multiple users concurrently. And nowhere did I say or imply that anyone should be able to listen to or record your personal life, sexual or not. That anyone would even want to seems just wrong 'in my book' even though I am aware that it can happen.

Again I ask for a quote of the statement that I made saying that this should be allowed to happen. Perhaps I had a senior moment and am missing it in the rereading. Pretty sure I said that they could and did not say or imply they should.

Helen

[speakingtohe]

@elfwreak
I won't quote your post as it is long.
Mostly I agree with your sentiments, but not all.

Not sure about the US but in Canada there are regulations governing what can be seen as a service. For example

hiring someone to do a specific task

is not viewed as a service unless they are a company registered to provide the service and paying into Revenue Canada such things as employment insurance premiums, CPP, Tax witholding etc.. Rental at the landlord level rarely requires these things. I have been a landlord in the sense that I hired a service (realty agency) to rent my apartment while I was in another province. The realty agency provided a service to me and to the people who rented my apartment and were required to file taxes accordingly. I was not. I filed income tax on the rental. I rented the property and was not IMO opinion a service provider in that there were no services provided on my part.

To me it is like selling a loaf of bread. Someone made the bread but I am just selling it after purchasing it myself. I did not set up a contract to provide bread service. Still it could be broadly construed as providing a service between the bread baker and the bread buyer but seems unless you offer/sell this as a service to all it is just a transaction.

[anamardoll]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

I said phone call records can be obtained, not that the call can or should be monitored legally. Quote if you will, the part where I said they should be able to do this. It is naive to assume that they can't do this legal or not. But saying they can is not the same as saying they should.

Well then, quite frankly, I can't follow how you converse.

When Party A says "pay for a service, expect to be monitored" and Party B says "not with phone calls, why with internet" and Party C says "oh, sure, you can totes monitor phone calls" while quoting Party B as a response, it looks like Party C is (1) arguing with Party B and (2) implying that such a thing is legal and appropriate.

If that's not what you meant, why did you say what you said in response to Elfwreck and what were you trying to say? If you just wanted to say that someone has the physical ability to record phone calls, that was never in dispute -- Elfwreck was saying that phone companies cannot legally record phone calls, so ISP providers should not legally be able to record all internet traffic. (IIUC)

However, if I've misunderstood you, I apologize. Though since my initial post wasn't addressed to you so much as to someone else, I'm not sure how much to apologize for.