More Copyright Bull****

[MetalRenard]

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/...ooks-like/

*Vomits*

For us in the UK it won't do anything (yet...) but for you guys in the US you should know that your internet privacy and security is HEAVILY compromised because of this.

[RosyPosy]

This is dis-heartening.

[Kirito]

I'm just glad that my ISP did not participate in this.

[Python Blue]

I've known about this ever since shortly after it came into effect.....

[Taylor]

What are you all whining about. Here in NZ we've had "Three Strikes" for a while, and no one complained.

and by that i mean no one complained loud enough to stop it. >:[

[Python Blue]

What are you all whining about. Here in NZ we've had "Three Strikes" for a while, and no one complained.

and by that i mean no one complained loud enough to stop it. >:[

I really hope that's sarcasm, Taylor. Sure, the basis is to prevent piracy, but even if it didn't involve being overly intrusive into what one does on the Internet, it will likely lead to some false accusations, at least insofar as knowing what one was doing.

Sorry to hear about New Zealand, by the way.

[MetalRenard]

What am I whining about? O.o
I too, hope that is sarcasm.

A) It's a completely biased system in favour of large IP (Intellectual Property) owners and corporations which allows them to completely abuse of their new grasp over the Internet. There are reasons it was shot down EVERY TIME it came up in political discussions (SOPA, PIPA, ACTA yadda yadda yadda).
This bias is shown in several aspects: 1) To make an appeal you must pay $35 - this should be FREE for it to be fair. 2) It is stated that educational materials would be provided but this is only half true since the warnings never truly educate the user about what they're actually doing, they only inform them of a transgression and refer to the law PLUS the user is not told exactly what it was they did, what the file was, where it was taken from etc. How is one to know what they are being punished for in these circumstances?
b) The system allows private entities to control who has a voice and who doesn't. This is poor business practice, goes against agreements about how our financial system is run and has very adverse affects on freedom of speech including totally blocking the legal "fair use" of copyrighted materials (which covers parody, education, review... etc).

There's more but I think that's enough to justify my position.

[Taylor]

I'm being sarcastic in that I'm observing a lot of fighting back against this, and we've got something harsher and no one seemed to complain at all, so we're stuck with it. Uh, to put it another way where was our backlash two years back...? :<

On the other hand this is the US. It's probably a lot easier for the IP "owners" (read: publishers, not the actual creators) to report suspicions than go after us way down here (because US property must be protected above respecting international laws)... and other countries will begin to adopt this law...

[MetalRenard]

As far as I know the laws are not in place in Europe or the US so "2 years ago" probably only applies to NZ, sorry.

Also now many more people are becoming aware of this phenomenon and events such as the political use (freedom of speech) of the internet are becoming much more recognised. Just look at what's still happening in the Middle East. Sure, right now it's not driven by social media, but for some of the countries it was.

Besides, why should you having something harsher stop us from fighting it on our side? Why, even today, are you letting it happen in your country?

[hanetzer]

And so the idiocy spreads...