Verizon Willing to Cut Off Those Accused of Copyright Infringement

17

Comments

+ Add a Comment
avatar

nadako

I think more people are PO at verizon looking into what sites we have been visiting its not like a small company doing this but one that effects millions of people. Its like are privacy is being taken away from us, and we cant defend are selves from it. Its not like some spyware, or maleware.

avatar

Atomike

You're confused - innocent until proven guilty is a function of the criminal legal system. It has nothing at all to do with business practice, or even civil litigation. People should really know this stuff by now.

Anyway, as everyone should know, busiensses have the legal right to refuse service for any reason they deem reasonable. There's nothing wrong with suspending a location that's using torrents. Torrents are almost exclusively used by thieves. There should be no service at all, by any provider anywhere, for anyone who uses torrents. They should be blocked forever from internet use. Theives get what thieves deserve. 

If you're worried about being falsely accused of using torrents, then you have nothing to worry about. Just don't leave your wireless unsecure. Problem solved. But seriously, put the theives in prison. If you use torrents, you're a scum bag, plain and simple. 

avatar

youshallneverdie

     What capitalist corporation do you work for? Nobody likes a kiss ass, so you need to keep your comments to yourself drone and remember that it's the paying customer that should have the power and not these fascists, money hungry, blood sucking leeches.
     For your information you have to understand that to view something online is not copyright infringement and to share a file isn't either (p2p) :cause there is no illegal activity going on if that file is being used for private usage. If a friend of mine offers me a drink of his newly purchased big gulp right in front of the establishment he purchased it from that isn't a crime, but the brilliant creators of the computer and web failed to calculate the ability to copy and past files or did they? could this just be another money making scheme conjured up by the elitists to suck more money from the uneducated masses? well, i can promise you that the people will not take this laying down any longer and the industry will bow to the consumer or face bankruptcy!
     There is a new frontier coming and the old capitalist machine will bow to a free super information highway--other than what we pay for broadband.
     And for the comment you made about all those that download torrents are thieves and need to be in prison I say:

Another Look At The 'Does File Sharing Equal Stealing?' Question from the more-than-just-a-semantic-argument dept

Jon Healy, whose writing for the LA Times I admire quite a bit, has written up a very balanced discussion concerning whether or not file sharing equals theft. He links to some of my writings on the subject, as well as pointing to the views of two Nobel Prize winning economists, F.A. Hayek and Milton Friedman, who both point out that copyright is not property, and treating it as such causes problems. He then presents the entertainment industry's view, which (of course) is that copyright is no different than traditional property. Then he brings in legal scholar Mark Lemley (of whose work I'm also a fan) who tries to bridge the gap by noting that copyright isn't property, but that infringing it "is wrong, and should be punished." However, Lemley also points out that most people recognize copyright isn't traditional property, and the entertainment industry's insistence that they're the same works against the industry, as most people recognize immediately that this argument is false, taking away credibility.

Healy comes out on the balanced side himself, suggesting that infringement is close enough to theft. He does so by comparing it to "theft of service" for cable companies, and noting that "you're still acquiring something of value without paying for it, and you're doing it without the seller's permission." This is a commonly used argument, and seems reasonable at a first pass, but I'd like to address why it's incorrect. Just because you acquire something of value for free (and without the original seller's permission) it doesn't automatically make it "theft." Let's run through some examples:

  • I go to the pizza shop and they offer me a free soda with two slices. The soda has value, but I just got it for free, and did so without Coca-Cola granting permission. I don't think anyone would claim this is stealing or even wrong or immoral.
  • My friend lets me borrow a book, which I read. The book has value. I got it for free, without the permission of the book author or publisher.
  • I get on a train and pick up the newspaper that a passenger left behind. The newspaper has value. I got it for free, without the newspaper company granting permission. I don't think anyone would claim that's stealing.
  • I go to the beach. The people sitting next to me are playing music on their stereo, that I can hear. The music has value, but I just got it for free, without the permission of the record label.
  • I go see "Shakespeare in the Park." I get to see something of great value for free, without permission of William Shakespeare.
  • Verizon sees that Sprint is going to announce an "all you can eat plan" and decides to introduce its own similar plan. Verizon got that idea for a bundle from Sprint for "free" and certainly without Sprint's permission. Yet, we call that competition, not stealing.

You can come up with your own examples. Now I'm sure people will start picking apart each of these examples. They'll say things like in the pizza/soda example, the pizza shop has implicit permission to resell the soda at any price they deem reasonable, since they paid for it in the first place. But, if that's the case, then we have another problem for those who claim that copyright is real property -- because the same thing isn't true with copyrighted material. Those who insist that copyright is the same as real property break their own rule by also insisting that they retain perpetual rights to the good, even after it's been sold. If copyright were like real property, after the creator sold it, the buyer could do whatever they want with it, including giving it out for free. Yet, it clearly is not like that. Coca-Cola sold soda to the pizza shop and the pizza shop can do whatever they want with it, including giving it out for free. So, if the entertainment industry wants to keep insisting that copyright is just like real property, and therefore infringement is theft, then they should also agree to let anyone who has bought their works do whatever they want with them, including give them away for free.

In fact, each "but, this is different because" explanation for the examples above can easily be turned around to prove the point that copyright is different than real property -- because it applies the same rules differently and deals with fundamentally different types of goods or services. What it really comes down to, yet again, is that this is a business model problem. For years, an industry that relied on artificial scarcity is discovering that it's hard to keep that artificial barrier in place. It can't pretend something is scarce when it's really infinite -- and trying to limit it will only backfire in the long run. What you need to do, instead, is figure out new business models that embrace the infinite nature of the goods, and focus on selling additional scarce goods, preferably additional scarce goods that are made even more valuable by freeing up the infinite good.

Can't have it both ways Kiss Ass!!!

avatar

Biceps

Haha, I thought no one had replied to my post, but then saw all this... so thought I would hop in and defend myself.

First of all, Atomike, I run 2 businesses that gross well over a million a year, so I just might have a clue as to what I am talking about.  Second of all, I understand the whole concept of who I can and cannot refuse service to, and, by extension, who Verizon can and cannot refuse service to.  With that in mind, READ MY POST AGAIN.

What I posted below was my personal opinion on how someone who values their customer's opinion should run their business.  For a company that has been spending millions on 'it's your map' ads in past weeks, Verizon should absolutely give a shit about what every individual customer thinks of Verizon.

There is a HUGE difference between what someone can legally do, and what makes good business sense.  If you are arguing that Verizon's actions DON'T make them look like butt-boys for the RIAA, then lets hear it.  In my opinion, they are bending over and lubing up with a giant smile on their face, and taking their customers with them.

The largest majority of p2p sharing is legal and legit. Verizon may actually be only cutting off those file sharers who are 'stealing', but without some sort of clear and transparent process, how are we to know that? Should we take Verizon's word for it? I don't think so, and I don't think many other people do, either. If we, as consumers, can't determine whether Verizon is using good judgement in their shutoffs, then why in the hell would we use them as an ISP when there are other options? 'Cause we could be next.

 

(World) Peace 

avatar

zepontiff

Everybody knows the name Atomike is synonymous with troll, plain and simple. Please don't feed it people.

avatar

Biceps

Fed it, watched it grow.

avatar

TheZomb

You should be put in jail for your ignorance. Seriously, at least read up on a topic before writing half witted responses. The majority of peer 2 peer content is legal. Many businesses rely in torrents to exist. It allows you to host files with out lots of bandwidth. A lot of organizations use peer 2 peer networks to distribute software updates. Blizzard uses torrents for all downloads from their site. People like you are the ones giving the RIAA and MPAA a voice and control of the internet. Educate yourself instead of looking like a fool.

 Sorry if I sound offensive, but I tend to get defensive when someone calls me, my friends and my family, "scumbags" who should be jailed, for doing nothing at all. You have probably used torrents without even knowing it.

avatar

nekollx

"There should be no service at all, by any provider anywhere, for anyone who uses torrents."

 

REALLY NOW?

So Star Trek Online is run by pirates and theives?

http://startrekonline.com/download

 

Cause you know, it's right there. On the page, not hidden or anything.

 

Download from Our Partners

You can download Star Trek Online Open Beta game client from any of our partners below. Please note that some of our partners host the client as one large zip file, which requires a third-party unzipper like WinRAR or 7-Zip to open. (Windows' unzip tool will corrupt the zip file.)

Download via BitTorrent

If you are familiar with BitTorrent downloads, we have created a torrent for you to download with your own BitTorrent downloader. 

 

------------------------------
Coming soon to Lulu.com --Tokusatsu Heroes--
Five teenagers, one alien ghost, a robot, and the fate of the world.

avatar

BAMT

Don't forget Blizzard. Most of the content on their site is available from official Torrents.

avatar

nekollx

 I just went to blizzard and can't even find their download section. Where as it's impossible to miss on Star Trek Online.

 

---------------

Coming soon to Lulu.com --Tokusatsu Heroes--
Five teenagers, one alien ghost, a robot, and the fate of the world.

avatar

Caboose

 Linux distros, heck even some of those systems similar to SETI use BitTorrent. THe "Electric Sheep" screensaver does! There are plenty of legal uses for Torrents. and cutting off the service if you use torrents is a little extreme and not throught through very much!

Thats like saying if you own a firearm (legally) you should be jailed and fined as most firearms are used in crimes! Or why not revoke your drivers license if you own a car, because drunk drivers and speeders perform illegal acts in cars!

 

-= I don't want to be dead, I want to be alive! Or... a cowboy! =-

avatar

nekollx

 The problem is people like him live in a Windows or Mac only world, they won't even reconize Linux as relevent.

 

But it's hard to call a triple A IP MMO created by a recognized company (Star Trek and Atari respectively) irrelevant. 

------------------------------
Coming soon to Lulu.com --Tokusatsu Heroes--
Five teenagers, one alien ghost, a robot, and the fate of the world.

avatar

Danthrax66

Peerblocker + forced encryption in utorrent.

avatar

nadako

after reading about this and the issues i am having with my roommates with their torrents and comcast cutting are internet down to dial up for an hour really suks. We are paying way to much for this and i found an internet site that people are using in washington called condointernet dont know how loyal they are but their lowest speed is 100mbps for $60 a month holy smackers verizon and comcast good luck competeing with them and i have yet to find something in their contract saying after a certain amount of months their going to jump up the price.

avatar

Biceps

Uhm... what happened to the whole innocent until proven guilty thing?  Look, 'reserving the right to _____' is for restaurants and bars who don't want to serve drunk customers who forgot to wear their shoes today.

I don't use torrent sites, and I agree that people who pirate are stealing (just because it is easy doesn't make it right, folks).  But what happened to due process?  If you are going to start cutting people off, you need to have a clearly outlined process and a system of checks and balances.  Make it clear to people how and why (and when) you are going to cut them off.  

Verizon, without instituting a clear and transparent process, you are defenseless against people arguing that you are cutting them off without justification (can't wait to see the conspiracy theories). It also makes you look like butt-boys for the RIAA, not like pioneers for copyright protection. Mark my words....

 

avatar

nadako

Qwest fiber is still way to high of a price compared to comcast since i dont torrent i would prefer to get 30Mbps for $60 a month then 20Mbps for $55 and after a year it jumps up to $70 way to much for that kind of service. And verizon im a good customer with my phone and all but i wonder if they ever heard of boycoting? And holy crap fios at 50Mbps for $144.99 comcast is like $50 cheaper. Verizon you fail at price competition. I would never pick yall. oh and i like how verizon compares fios with cable with verizon at 50Mbps and cable at 15Mbps another epic fail.

avatar

Techrocket9

Good by FiOS, hello Qwest fiber. This change wouldn't affect me, but I'm against it on principle.

 

 

_____________________________________________________ 

An army of pacifists can be defeated by one man with the will to fight.

Log in to MaximumPC directly or log in using Facebook

Forgot your username or password?
Click here for help.

Login with Facebook
Log in using Facebook to share comments and articles easily with your Facebook feed.