3 ms·

I will raise holy hell for any ISP that blocks my transmission of avatar.MP4 across their ISP to my own device. If I own Avatar.mp4, the ISP's need to understa

by maeon3 15y ago

I will raise holy hell for any ISP that blocks my transmission of avatar.MP4 across their ISP to my own device. If I own Avatar.mp4, the ISP's need to understand that I am sending it to my own device, or a device of someone who has "pair bought" avatar with me (we both split half the money to buy it). If they get one thing wrong which they will, I'm going to piss and moan about it to no end. On the plus side, net neutrality will be gone, and ownership of the internet secured by the United States congress. I suppose it's better than falling into the hands of some other country, which will also lay claim to it. Let the Internet be divided into a million pieces with import duties for every bit and byte transmitted across an infinite number of versions of the internet. This is how evolution works, a good idea grows too big, then it compartmentalizes and specializes. Most will suck, but some will be better, and the better ones will be on the receiving end of the goods and services of the enlightened masses. If we can promote freedom to choose which internet to live under, we should be ok to Stamp out the subnets that are used for enslavement of man in favor of the "more free" versions.

freehunter 15y ago
>I will raise holy hell for any ISP that blocks my transmission of avatar.MP4 across their ISP to my own device. If I own Avatar.mp4, the ISP's need to understand that I am sending it to my own device, or a device of someone who has "pair bought" avatar with me (we both split half the money to buy it). Like it or not, you can still be sued for that. You bought a license to watch the movie, not to copy the movie to another device. I'm not sure if there's a legal concept of joint ownership of the license to watch a movie. It's not the ISPs that need to change. This is like raging to the states who voted to lower their max driving speed to 55 in the 70s. Yes, it was their decision, but they were heavily coerced by the federal government with stiff penalties if they didn't. I highly doubt the ISPs signed on to lose customers just because they believe in IP that much.
- stcredzero 15y ago
  they were heavily coerced by the federal government with stiff penalties Perhaps this should become a campaign issue?
  - freehunter 15y ago
    If I remember correctly, it was in 1979 (during the oil crisis, when the national speed limit was reduced to 55). While the speed limit was not the main focus, the oil crisis (and resulting economic crisis) was a huge political scandal. The price controls put on oil imports by Richard Nixon indirectly led to Jimmy Carter not being elected for a second term. Ronald Reagan campaigned partially on the platform of removing the "windfall tax" that Carter had implemented to prevent the oil distributors from artificially raising the price of gas at the pumps. Reagan said "A recession is when your neighbor loses his job. A depression is when you lose yours. And recovery is when Jimmy Carter loses his." Reagan won. How does this relate to today? "No one" is losing their job or their house or their property because of the RIAA/MPAA. I put "no one" in quotes because obviously people are, just not the voting block at large. Should it be a campaign issue like oil was in 1973-1979? I think so. But we'd never see that until the largest voting group in the country decided it should be, and since the Internet generation still has 40 years to go until they reach senior citizen status, we're a long way out from that day.
batista 15y ago
I will raise holy hell for any ISP that blocks my transmission of avatar.MP4 across their ISP to my own device. If I own Avatar.mp4, the ISP's need to understand that I am sending it to my own device, or a device of someone who has "pair bought" avatar with me (we both split half the money to buy it). Sure, that's how it's commonly played...
AgentConundrum 15y ago
> a device of someone who has "pair bought" avatar with me (we both split half the money to buy it) Is this actually allowed though, or would the MPAA say you're breaking copyright despite the fact that this other person spent his or her money on it. My understanding is that the license to view/use the file belongs to the account of the person who actually bought the thing, regardless of who else supplied cash for the undertaking. That could mean that while it seems obvious to you that the two of you share the ability to use the file, the reality might be much more gray (or you could just be outright wrong). This is exactly the issue that keeps me from buying digital movies (other than DRM issues), and it's why I don't own a kindle. From a legal perspective, it seems like things that are easily and legally shareable with physical items, such as DVDs and dead tree books, aren't easily or legally shareable at all. I can't download a book from Amazon to my Kindle and then, if she decides she also wants to read it, simply transfer the file it to my girlfriends Kindle as well. At least not strictly legally. We could share accounts, sure, but people break up, and even for married couples there is still a pretty high divorce rate. If we split, one of the two of us (legally) loses everything we've bought for ourselves on the shared account. I wish that there were an easy way to manage multiple accounts on your devices, so that each person could have a shared, yet separate, account to maintain their own libraries. This is hard to do, I know, and it would require some form of DRM, which is unacceptable for well documented reasons, but we need to find some analog for the first sale doctrine and easy lending. Even iTunes, with it's lack of DRM, bothers me. I could buy DRM-less music and load it onto both mine and my girlfriends MP3 players, but iTunes still adds a watermark of some kind to the file. That means that if something were to happen to the file, and it got shared, it's traceable back to me. That's fine, but I have no way to ensure that - if we were to break up - the traceable-to-me file gets destroyed from her device. It's a severely paranoid worst case scenario, and the odds against a negative result from a loose file like that are astronomical, but they're not zero, and that bothers me. I'm a reasonably techie guy. I'm a programmer, I hang out on Hacker News, I keep up (more or less) with the latest trends, but the implementation details of digital media are so counter-intuitive to me that I still buy DVDs and dead tree books.
- rabidsnail 15y ago
  > Is this actually allowed though, or would the MPAA say you're breaking copyright despite the fact that this other person spent his or her money on it. Yes, it looks like it is actually allowed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartoon_Network,_LP_v._CSC_Holdings,_Inc.
notJim 15y ago
I'll preface this by saying I don't quite understand your comment. I'm not sure if it's a joke or what. > I will raise holy hell for any ISP that blocks my transmission… Raise holy hell in what sense? You'll switch ISPs? The other ISP has probably agreed to this, too, and that's if you even have a choice of ISP (I know I don't.) So what's your next option? A lawsuit? What they're doing is perfectly legal. Fine, so let's change the legal system… ahhh, you have two candidates to vote for, a democrat and republican. Which of them is the one that's going to do something about this, again?

by maeon3 15y ago

freehunter 15y ago

>I will raise holy hell for any ISP that blocks my transmission of avatar.MP4 across their ISP to my own device. If I own Avatar.mp4, the ISP's need to understand that I am sending it to my own device, or a device of someone who has "pair bought" avatar with me (we both split half the money to buy it). Like it or not, you can still be sued for that. You bought a license to watch the movie, not to copy the movie to another device. I'm not sure if there's a legal concept of joint ownership of the license to watch a movie. It's not the ISPs that need to change. This is like raging to the states who voted to lower their max driving speed to 55 in the 70s. Yes, it was their decision, but they were heavily coerced by the federal government with stiff penalties if they didn't. I highly doubt the ISPs signed on to lose customers just because they believe in IP that much.

stcredzero 15y ago
they were heavily coerced by the federal government with stiff penalties Perhaps this should become a campaign issue?
- freehunter 15y ago
  If I remember correctly, it was in 1979 (during the oil crisis, when the national speed limit was reduced to 55). While the speed limit was not the main focus, the oil crisis (and resulting economic crisis) was a huge political scandal. The price controls put on oil imports by Richard Nixon indirectly led to Jimmy Carter not being elected for a second term. Ronald Reagan campaigned partially on the platform of removing the "windfall tax" that Carter had implemented to prevent the oil distributors from artificially raising the price of gas at the pumps. Reagan said "A recession is when your neighbor loses his job. A depression is when you lose yours. And recovery is when Jimmy Carter loses his." Reagan won. How does this relate to today? "No one" is losing their job or their house or their property because of the RIAA/MPAA. I put "no one" in quotes because obviously people are, just not the voting block at large. Should it be a campaign issue like oil was in 1973-1979? I think so. But we'd never see that until the largest voting group in the country decided it should be, and since the Internet generation still has 40 years to go until they reach senior citizen status, we're a long way out from that day.

batista 15y ago

AgentConundrum 15y ago

> a device of someone who has "pair bought" avatar with me (we both split half the money to buy it) Is this actually allowed though, or would the MPAA say you're breaking copyright despite the fact that this other person spent his or her money on it. My understanding is that the license to view/use the file belongs to the account of the person who actually bought the thing, regardless of who else supplied cash for the undertaking. That could mean that while it seems obvious to you that the two of you share the ability to use the file, the reality might be much more gray (or you could just be outright wrong). This is exactly the issue that keeps me from buying digital movies (other than DRM issues), and it's why I don't own a kindle. From a legal perspective, it seems like things that are easily and legally shareable with physical items, such as DVDs and dead tree books, aren't easily or legally shareable at all. I can't download a book from Amazon to my Kindle and then, if she decides she also wants to read it, simply transfer the file it to my girlfriends Kindle as well. At least not strictly legally. We could share accounts, sure, but people break up, and even for married couples there is still a pretty high divorce rate. If we split, one of the two of us (legally) loses everything we've bought for ourselves on the shared account. I wish that there were an easy way to manage multiple accounts on your devices, so that each person could have a shared, yet separate, account to maintain their own libraries. This is hard to do, I know, and it would require some form of DRM, which is unacceptable for well documented reasons, but we need to find some analog for the first sale doctrine and easy lending. Even iTunes, with it's lack of DRM, bothers me. I could buy DRM-less music and load it onto both mine and my girlfriends MP3 players, but iTunes still adds a watermark of some kind to the file. That means that if something were to happen to the file, and it got shared, it's traceable back to me. That's fine, but I have no way to ensure that - if we were to break up - the traceable-to-me file gets destroyed from her device. It's a severely paranoid worst case scenario, and the odds against a negative result from a loose file like that are astronomical, but they're not zero, and that bothers me. I'm a reasonably techie guy. I'm a programmer, I hang out on Hacker News, I keep up (more or less) with the latest trends, but the implementation details of digital media are so counter-intuitive to me that I still buy DVDs and dead tree books.

rabidsnail 15y ago
> Is this actually allowed though, or would the MPAA say you're breaking copyright despite the fact that this other person spent his or her money on it. Yes, it looks like it is actually allowed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartoon_Network,_LP_v._CSC_Holdings,_Inc.

notJim 15y ago

I'll preface this by saying I don't quite understand your comment. I'm not sure if it's a joke or what. > I will raise holy hell for any ISP that blocks my transmission… Raise holy hell in what sense? You'll switch ISPs? The other ISP has probably agreed to this, too, and that's if you even have a choice of ISP (I know I don't.) So what's your next option? A lawsuit? What they're doing is perfectly legal. Fine, so let's change the legal system… ahhh, you have two candidates to vote for, a democrat and republican. Which of them is the one that's going to do something about this, again?