Maybe he didn't see the Sherlock Holmes movie you did.
I liked Google from their start, but I switched when DEC sold AltaVista.
Well, not just your browser. You also have to include USENET, FTP, IRC, and bittorrents, plus whatever I forgot.
The UK's top IP advisor has published recommendations on how Internet service providers should deal with online piracy. Among other things, it's suggested that Internet services should search for and filter infringing content proactively. According to the report ISPs have a moral obligation to do more against online piracy.
uk-flagMike Weatherley, a Conservative MP and Intellectual Property Adviser to UK Prime Minister David Cameron, has pushed various copyright related topics onto the political agenda since early last year.
Previously Weatherley suggested that search engines should blacklist pirate sites, kids should be educated on copyright ethics, and that persistent file-sharers should be thrown in jail.
In his latest proposal the UK MP targets information society service providers (ISSPs) including ISPs, who he believes could do more to fight piracy. The just-released 18-page report stresses that these companies have a moral obligation to tackle copyright infringement and can’t stand idly by.
The report (pdf) draws on input from various pro-copyright groups including the MPAA, BPI, and the Music Publishers Association. It offers various recommendations for the UK Government and the EU Commission to strengthen their anti-piracy policies.
One of the key points is to motivate Internet services and providers to filter content proactively. According to the report it’s feasible to “filter out infringing content” and to detect online piracy before it spreads.
The UK Government should review these systems and see what it can do to facilitate cooperation between copyright holders and Internet service providers.
“There should be an urgent review, by the UK Government, of the various applications and processes that could deliver a robust automated checking process regarding illegal activity being transmitted,” Weatherley advises.
In a related effort, Weatherley notes that Internet services should not just remove the content they’re asked to, but also police their systems to ensure that similar files are removed, permanently.
“ISSPs to be more proactive in taking down multiple copies of infringing works, not just the specific case they are notified of,” he recommends.
“This would mean ISSPs actively taking down multiple copies of the same work which are hosted on its services, not just the individual copy which is subject to the complaint. The MPA believe this principle could be extended further still to ensure that all copies of the infringing work are not just taken down,” Weatherley explains.
This type of filtering is already used by YouTube, which takes down content based on fingerprint matches. However, the report suggests that regular broadband providers could also filter infringing content.
Concluding, Weatherley admits that it’s all too easy to simply demand that ISPs take the role of policemen, but at the same time he stresses that they have a “moral responsibility” to do more.
The UK MP presents an analogy of a landlord whose property is used for illegal activities. The landlord cannot be held liable for these activities, but he may have to take action if a third-party reports it.
“If the landlord is told that the garage is being used for illegal activity, and that this information is from a totally reliable source, then does the landlord have a moral obligation to report it?”
“I would argue that it is the duty of every citizen or company to do what they can to stop illegal activity and therefore the answer is, yes, the landlord should report the activity,” Weatherley notes.
Weatherley also believes that protecting the rights of copyright holders has priority over a “no monitoring” principle that would ensure users’ privacy. That is, if the monitoring is done right.
“There is also the question as to whether society will want to have their private activities monitored (even if automatically and entirely confidentially) and whether the trade off to a safer, fairer internet is a price worth paying to clamp down on internet illegal activity. My ‘vote’ would be “yes” if via an independent body ”
Overall, the recommendations will be welcomed by the industry groups who provided input. The report is not expected to translate directly into legislation, but they will be carefully weighed by the UK Government and the EU Commission when taking future decisions.
Yea, it sounds good in theory, but only if you assume human nature is determinate. All it would take is a single incident or individual, a mutation perhaps, to totally derail any such prognosis. What are you going to do, hide a secret society of "psyco"-technicians among the populous to try and pull events back on course when the inevitable happens? Please, pull the other one.
The only Win boxes in my house are the Uverse set top boxes. They get sluggish, sometimes just hang, and require a reboot about once a month because of a "system has changed". The machine I am writing this on reboots when I have a power outage. Hell, I don't remember the last time I even had to log out of my account.
I like this concept. Choke them with their own words.
FWIW, they are not just collecting metadata, at least not under the common understanding of collect. Remember the Boston bomber? One week after his arrest they were discussing having just listened to his families calls to overseas. They had the calls recorded, collected to everyone else, but didn't listen to them till after the bombing. They are wanting the ability to retroactively listen to everyone this way. Later they will do it proactively, but baby steps. With this understanding, the warrant process is worthless.
It certainly is possible that one or the other represents a greater danger.
For myself, I have had one minor loss to crime in my life, I have had a number of thefts and a couple of kidnappings by government.
It always amazes me "Ignorance of the law is no excuse" but a lawyer has to study years just to understand small subset of them. There are even special courts and judges for specific legal areas.
Denial. Isn't that how we greet all major discoveries. FAIK, no alien life mentioned in the bible so obviously not possible.
And we know they are because VPN, duh.
You forgot to say "yet". Fences work both ways.
Per someone else:
To summarize, current releases with magnet links:
SPE_01 spe_01 torrent
SPE_02 spe_02 torrent
SPE_03 spe_03 torrent
SPE_04 spe_04 torrent
SPE_05 spe_05 torrent
SPE_06 spe_06 torrent
SPE_03 and SPE_04 are torrents to zip files of torrents, as the original zips have been pulled from every file host I checked.
>we also already have laws against that
Much like the safeguards of the 4th amendment and the international crime of torture. Thank dog we have laws to protect us.