next »

[Shade Jackrabbit]

Personally, I'd not pirate if I would risk losing my internet access, even though I could still check my mail and stuff at the library.

You have to remember the axiom of societal studies: What one would do, or what seems "obvious" from intuition, is not necessarily true. That's why it's necessary to collect statistical data.

Just want to remind you that what may be true for you or intuitively true may actually not be. This may not work at all.

That being said, there's a good defense for it, which is the "driver's license" example that was previously mentioned. It's probably the closest we've had to a statistical count.

Still, some sort of test group should be used to determine whether it's a good deterrent.

[Paul Eres]

the difference i see between this and driver's licenses is that internet connection is part of free speech, which is a right, whereas driving a car is a privilege -- so there's a bit of a difference

[chrknudsen]

Definitely. Some data would be interesting. Or if some smaller country tried this out for a few months. But in lieu of that I'm basing my own stance on how I would react. And I really think it would deter me from pirating. Then again, I'm not much of a pirate, so it may not affect them at all (for technical reasons like 1up suggested, or purely risk taking). But I still think it would cut down on casual pirating.

[chrknudsen]

the difference i see between this and driver's licenses is that internet connection is part of free speech, which is a right, whereas driving a car is a privilege -- so there's a bit of a difference

But you can still use the internet at your local library, just like you said. You're not banned from the internet, you're just banned from using that particular ISP from your home. And the internet is not part of free speech. Internet access is not a right in the constitution. What you say on the internet is/should be protected under the rights of freedom of speech. But that's not affected by not having access from the comfort of your home.

[Shade Jackrabbit]

Bonus: Could reduct 'the need' for DRM, thus helping legitimate customers.

Course this is all theoretical.

You know, If this goes ahead, there will be someone doing tests during this time, which means we actually will get some sort of data. Whether it's the right step or the wrong, it could still turn out helpful.

Internet access is not a right in the constitution.

We got a Copyright Act because of the internet, and it may be about time for a Constitution Act as well.

[Paul Eres]

the difference i see between this and driver's licenses is that internet connection is part of free speech, which is a right, whereas driving a car is a privilege -- so there's a bit of a difference

But you can still use the internet at your local library, just like you said. You're not banned from the internet, you're just banned from using that particular ISP from your home. And the internet is not part of free speech. Internet access is not a right in the constitution. What you say on the internet is/should be protected under the rights of freedom of speech. But that's not affected by not having access from the comfort of your home.

yes, i was speaking hypothetically -- i think individual companies have the right to deny you access to the internet, but i don't believe the government has the right to deny a person the ability to buy internet from any company that wants to sell him access. i was also speaking of perfect enforcement: i.e. if the gov didn't let you use the internet in libraries either.

the difference can be thought of in this way: the government owns the public transport system: it owns the roads, and can decide who is allowed to drive on them. however, no government owns the internet. (technically the roads are often owned by state governments, rather than the federal, and it's state governments, not the federal, which can deny a person access to their driver's license; it's easy to forget that those of us in the US each have two governments)

[Craig Stern]

i don't see reducing crime as a good excuse for inhumane treatment to people, and blocking someone from the internet for a week can be inhumane in some circumstances

...

besides which, it's easily circumvented!

Not to nitpick, but if it's easily circumvented, don't you think it's going overboard to call it inhumane? Someone earlier in the thread called it an inconvenience. I think that's the better characterization.

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but the article I linked to in the OP gave me the impression that the internet cut-off punishment was the highest level of the graduated punishment regime, only to be used against serious pirates (i.e. not kids who occasionally download a game or two).

[Paul Eres]

it can be both. think about it this way: is taking away all of someone's food inhumane, even if they can get free food from poorhouses? it can be both inhumane and an annoyance, at once.

[bluescrn]

Perhaps paying 1 ¹/₂ times the price of the pirated product when caught? I dunno. I wouldn't be surprised if there was a peak in the relation. (IOW, After/Before a certain point, the price of punishment has less/no effect on pirates.) The key is to determine where this peak is.

Well, current law is up to something silly like 'pay 10,000x the value of the pirated product' and still increasing every few years...  so that system doesn't really work...

[Eric McQuiggan]

They aren't fining your for taking one copy, they are fining you for distributing hundreds or thousands of copies.

That's how it works in Canada, its not currently illegal to download a personal copy of music(I'm not sure about other media). But it's very illegal to redistribute it. Because you automatically pay a premium when you buy scribe-able media.

[Aquin]

Eric:

http://www.boingboing.net/2009/11/03/secret-copyright-tre.html

Kinda scary stuff going south of the border.  Here's the thing:  they're gonna try and force us to comply with it too.  I can only hope the minority government we have slows shit down so much that it never gets through.

[Shade Jackrabbit]

Whoa, shit this is freaky. It's similar to a short story I wrote a few days ago.

[rob]

Eric:

http://www.boingboing.net/2009/11/03/secret-copyright-tre.html

Kinda scary stuff going south of the border.  Here's the thing:  they're gonna try and force us to comply with it too.  I can only hope the minority government we have slows shit down so much that it never gets through.

1. This isn't necessarily real.
2. It could just be the first draft/crazy congressman wrote it ect. Obama's team has used the internet as a tool and I'm pretty sure they understand it.
3. If this is real and makes it into Congress there's really no way the Republicans will oppose this, they're too busy having their balls fondled by corporations.

[1up]

(...)no way Republicans will oppose this, they're too busy having their balls fondled by corporations.

they don't hold the majority any more though, so unless i'm mistaken

it doesn't matter if every republican in congress agrees with it or not as long as the democrats are opposed(which they should be because they're for the most part NOT stupid)

[Gorgoo]

http://www.boingboing.net/2009/11/03/secret-copyright-tre.html

Somehow I doubt this'll get passed, or at least not without major changes (assuming it is real). Unless its supporters just gloss over the internet section in favor of something else, it seems like it's an issue that would probably split the Democrats, at the very least. And if McCain's proposed "Internet Freedom Act" is any indication, the Republican pary, or at least a prominent member of it, is being backed by ISPs, who would likely be against this sort of thing.

At least, I hope it works out that way. That is a pretty scary proposal.