#infoAnarchy Chump Archives for 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007RSS

last updated at 2007-04-27 23:38


Pessimal Algorithms and Simplexity Analysis



Oliver: "COOL! the autographed Saddam Hussein wood-chipper arrived safely!"
Oliver: Seller has got some awesome feedback!

European Parliament approves new, stricter anti-piracy directive

seti: the institution of thoughtcrime.
miketv: erm welcome back to the machine again

What you'll be driving in 10 years

Oliver: Oh noes, more MGs!!

<Get-fucked-over.gov.au> Not now James, we're busy!

miketv: aka Cooper v Universal Music Australia Pty Ltd [2006]
miketv: the ISP employee was let off on appeal .. the ISP and it's director and the guy running the bbs were all found culpable for URLs posted by random net junkies
miketv: and now, a walk in the Black Forest
miketv: the loudspeaker spoke up and said INFORMATION IS STUPID. CENSORSHIP IS GOOD.
miketv: if ISPs are held accountable for people's use of the internet, we may as well turn it off.
miketv: or should we sue the broadcaster of a tv program recorded by a Judge, since recording tv to VHS is ILLEGAL in Australia too?
miketv: Welcome to the machine.
miketv: Oh. Sorry, it's broken today. No more internet. Ciao.
miketv: don't argue!
miketv: <some judge> The following hypothetical situation may be considered. One person has a vial which contains active and highly infectious micro-organisms which are ordinarily passed from human to human by the coughing of an infected person.
miketv: <some judge> He or she authorizes another person to break the vial in a crowded room
miketv: was that before or after opening the series of pipes leading to the internet?
miketv: this is a "considered opinion" sounds a little like a hysterical panic to me.
miketv: of course these people's view on what constitutes "authorising someone to do something" is inherently lenient (cf all their other ideas though!) .. since their own self-assumed "authority" rests on an assumption called The Theory of Consent hahaha
miketv: you say consent theory, I say implied permission to download. haha fucking ha. biatch.
miketv: <some judge> the relevant power which the University had to prevent the copyright infringement must be understood to have been, or at least to have included, the power not to allow a coin-operated photocopier in the library.
miketv: BWAHAHAHAHAHA when did you fucking study law, apemoron?
miketv: dude, students have been known to riot for less
miketv: "The evidence leads to the inexorable inference that it was the deliberate choice of Mr Cooper to establish and maintain his website in a form which did not give him the power immediately to prevent, or immediately to restrict"
miketv: this is now a crime. if you allow comments on your blog, prepare your lawyers.
miketv: or screen every single comment
miketv: see site at archive.org
miketv: ISP guilty of providing "free web-hosting from Comcen in return for the display on his website of the Comcen logo with a hyperlink to the Comcen website" and having some knowledge that the site had received some allegations of copyright infiringement
miketv: this is now a crime. prepare your lawyers.
miketv: why not charge the telcos too, for providing the exchanges and phone lines?
miketv: in fact, if you're even reading this, you're guilty.
miketv: The judge at least does point to the apparent intent of the owner of the site being transparently to profit from people's use for piracy .. but it doesn't seem to form a crucial part of the finding
miketv: I would take the view that had the defendent had the opposite regard -- even if he wanted to prevent abuse -- he couldn't have, if his concern was to provide a forum for sharing of material that was appropriately licensed .. so what does intent matter? people are entitled to communicate, people are entitled to provide communication services. deal.
miketv: <judge> people are entitled to enforce fines. deal.
miketv: :P
miketv: in other words there would be outrage if the same ruling had been made about a general purpose forum being abused .. and nothing in the law seems to prevent that from occuring .. but in this case it was a fairly likely transparent piracy site .. so ...
miketv: holding the isp liable still seems outrageous, because it puts a blanket on free speech if isps are going to monitor and censor every site based on their inadequate understandings of the law.
miketv: .. but in this case it was a fairly likely transparent piracy site .. so ...
miketv: in this case it was their inadequate understanding of the law that got them in trouble: "relied on an alleged assurance from Mr Cooper that there was no problem with the website because no music files were actually stored on it" .. should they instead rely on the assurance of person X that the links constitute copyright infringement? I know which sounds more probable to me ..
miketv: either choice could get you on the end of a law suit, afaics .. good luck with that one, mr isp
miketv: a discussion of the case; recent cases in Australia
miketv: another scary aspect of this case is there seems to be no discussion whatsoever establishing how and to what extent the linked files were copyright infringements
miketv: even the discussion by K Weatherall linked ( :o OMG!) above starts out talking about "infringing files". Files can't infringe a law. People infringe. Not files. Who were the people, and in what manner did they infringe?
miketv: following from that lack of discussion (unless it's dealt with in part1 of the case and somehow not re-iterated in the appeal) seems that "authorising infringment" in Australia is a crime even if nobody actually infringed. Follow that to its scary conclusion.
miketv: presumably not evaluated yet, "4 The matters to be determined on the hearing relate to liability only. The issue of the quantum of damages or compensation is left for determination at a later stage."
miketv: sometime after the companies decide whether its economically viable to track down the presumed "offenders". :o
miketv: please mr judge sir, I'd like a blank cheque too pls

allofmp3.com FAQ

miketv: seems the russian system works on "default allow" instead of "default deny"
miketv: and this has fuxored the recording companies .. who didn't know that digital would occur, say back in the 70s .. so don't have contracts with the artist .. so are now a little upset .. since they can't collect on the royalties .. because the artist is still the owner of the digital rights
miketv: but of course they don't want to draw attention to this, so are just blustering about OH DEAR IT"S SOOO ILLEGAL
miketv: Sydney Morning Herald article
miketv: Russia chaning laws in June at behest of US
miketv: some recent legal cases including against allofmp3
miketv: so much for allofmp3's boasts of russian sovereignty
miketv: welcome to the Free West, guys.
miketv: looks like they've been locked out by the credit card companies "Unfortunately credit card payment is not available at the moment. Please come back later or try another method of payment"
miketv: I guess the credit card companies are just afraid of being found guilty of "authorising infringement", right ;) hahaha yeah right.
miketv: how ironic is that. actually want to pay for tunes, can't.

Run by the Daily Chump bot.