- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
Using Ubuntu to Bust Movie Pirates: Fair or Not?
At the same time, the MPAA, the group that has utilized this Xubuntu to catch movie pirates, has made their stance clear: they are in no way violating anyone's privacy rights. I will do one better - if you do not use a Firewall and a VPN on what is largely considered a non-private network (coffee shop or college campus, for instance), you are basically inviting anyone to examine your network traffic closely. |
|
|
Comments (14)
What part of FSF Freedom 0 does the author not understand? In oder for software freedoms to be available to any one they must be available to every one.
Sam -
I think you read more into the article than is there. Though not a big Hartley fan, he repeatedly said that the MPAA wasn't doing anything wrong, just something he disapproved of.
Just as the MPAA is free to use the stuff, we are free not to like it. I would bet dollars to donuts that RMS doesn't approve some of the military uses of GPL'd software.
It's kind of like the old adage, "I disagree with what you say, but I'll fight to defend your right to say it."
I think you read more into the article than is there. Though not a big Hartley fan, he repeatedly said that the MPAA wasn't doing anything wrong, just something he disapproved of.
Just as the MPAA is free to use the stuff, we are free not to like it. I would bet dollars to donuts that RMS doesn't approve some of the military uses of GPL'd software.
It's kind of like the old adage, "I disagree with what you say, but I'll fight to defend your right to say it."
Oh you funny people, discussing a hartley article as though it had a point or made sense.
I believe MH is conflating the roles of the ISP, as a private corporation, and the MPAA, as the aggrieved party.
The ISP has legal latitude to enforce its TOS contract with its customers. Other than a few clearly-defined crimes (conspiracy, harassment, others), it is expected not to police the content and communications of its customers 24/7. Certain "common carrier" and "safe harbor" provisions protect the ISP from being held responsible after the fact for crimes facilitated by its services. Specific legal procedures are in place to aggrieved parties, which place limited responsibilities on the ISP after the fact to enforce copyrights.
The MPAA wants to use the ISP as a its own rent-a-cop, and the MPAA gets to define "crime" to mean whatever serves its purpose. Furthermore, using a very broad set of assumptions, the MPAA looks to criminalize a large set of ISP customers:
--anyone transferring large files, or gigabyte/terabyte monthly transfers --anyone transferring MP3's or MPEG's, QuickTime or OGG's --just about anyone transferring anything
The MPAA's prior assumptions are that all this content is copyrighted, and the copyright holders have not granted permission to share. Both these assumptions are false on their faces. Not all content is copyrighted, and not all copyright holders want their product restricted from distribution. The GNU licenses specifically reject attempts to restrict distribution, while still guarding the copyright and its holder.
The courts are waking up to this. The MPAA tries to argue that it should have carte blanche to enforce [its view of] copyright law, but judges and respondents are catching on to the MPAA's bullying tactics.
This has been hashed and re-hashed so many times, the ignorance of it would be laughable were it not capable of so much damage to lives and fortunes. So yes, TC, he's full of hot air as usual. But we must keep vigilant on this point, or the lie will become the truth, and the MPAA's bullying tactics will have won.
The ISP has legal latitude to enforce its TOS contract with its customers. Other than a few clearly-defined crimes (conspiracy, harassment, others), it is expected not to police the content and communications of its customers 24/7. Certain "common carrier" and "safe harbor" provisions protect the ISP from being held responsible after the fact for crimes facilitated by its services. Specific legal procedures are in place to aggrieved parties, which place limited responsibilities on the ISP after the fact to enforce copyrights.
The MPAA wants to use the ISP as a its own rent-a-cop, and the MPAA gets to define "crime" to mean whatever serves its purpose. Furthermore, using a very broad set of assumptions, the MPAA looks to criminalize a large set of ISP customers:
--anyone transferring large files, or gigabyte/terabyte monthly transfers --anyone transferring MP3's or MPEG's, QuickTime or OGG's --just about anyone transferring anything
The MPAA's prior assumptions are that all this content is copyrighted, and the copyright holders have not granted permission to share. Both these assumptions are false on their faces. Not all content is copyrighted, and not all copyright holders want their product restricted from distribution. The GNU licenses specifically reject attempts to restrict distribution, while still guarding the copyright and its holder.
The courts are waking up to this. The MPAA tries to argue that it should have carte blanche to enforce [its view of] copyright law, but judges and respondents are catching on to the MPAA's bullying tactics.
This has been hashed and re-hashed so many times, the ignorance of it would be laughable were it not capable of so much damage to lives and fortunes. So yes, TC, he's full of hot air as usual. But we must keep vigilant on this point, or the lie will become the truth, and the MPAA's bullying tactics will have won.
Yo Gus, did you read the right article?
THE MPAA is distributed an "anti-piracy" toolkit to universities that is a specialized version of Ubuntu. That's what he's talking about.
THE MPAA is distributed an "anti-piracy" toolkit to universities that is a specialized version of Ubuntu. That's what he's talking about.
I know about the kit. I wasn't talking about the kit itself; I was talking about MH's faulty take on it. And nowhere does he mention "university," although he does mention "college" one time, on par with "coffee shop."
>And nowhere does he mention "university,"
Ummm -- he doesn't mention ISPs, either.
He is talking about the MPAA using free software for its dirty work.
Nothing against a good rant, but yours had pretty much nothing to do with the article that spawned it.
Ummm -- he doesn't mention ISPs, either.
He is talking about the MPAA using free software for its dirty work.
Nothing against a good rant, but yours had pretty much nothing to do with the article that spawned it.
Am I the only one to see the amazing dose of irony that is delivered in all of this?
> Oh you funny people, discussing a hartley article as though it had a point or made sense.
Which is why I didn't bother reading it. :)
Which is why I didn't bother reading it. :)
>Am I the only one to see the amazing dose of irony that is delivered in all of this?
It's way over my head. Please share.
It's way over my head. Please share.
AHHH!!!
The were violating the GPL!!!
Now THAT is offensive -- especially from somebody trying to enforce their IP rights!!!
The were violating the GPL!!!
Now THAT is offensive -- especially from somebody trying to enforce their IP rights!!!
"The Toolkit is temporarily unavailable, but please check back soon for the latest version." :
http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=4286656&postcount=3
;-P
http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=4286656&postcount=3
;-P
Post a comment
A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.
Your message:Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help
Sign up and post (it is free) or Log in and post