UN: disconnecting file sharers violates human rights

[Guest]

oh what vain mumblings from this fickle organization ?

Food and a roof over your head - that is a human right.

Thievery - no way !

Next they'll be telling us that 9/11 was one big oopsie and Bin Laden had some twisted "right" to do whatever heinous crime blah blah blah.

The world needs to grow a pair . . . which is unlikely to happen as we descend unto the abyss of anarchy (all in the name of human rights).

 

[captaincranky]

::
From the article:
“The Special Rapporteur considers cutting off users from Internet access, regardless of the justification provided, including on the grounds of violating intellectual property rights law, to be disproportionate and thus a violation of article 19, paragraph 3, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.”

Now there's a "dignitary" that truly enjoys the sound of his own voice.

"In addition to calling on governments to maintain Internet access “during times of political unrest,”

At least that makes a bit of sense. However, why would you expect any oppressive regime to give a rat's a** what this guy thinks? I mean really, I more envision them sending him an invitation to come join one of their civil liberties demonstrations. Don't you?

the report goes on to urge States to change copyright laws, not in favor of the music and movie industries as has been the recent trend, but in keeping with citizens’ rights."

Think about this for as moment. Without any controls in place to foster intellectual property rights, then all that remains is to designate a sucker to buy the first copy of anything, and let the internet take over from there.

And about the usual file sharing explanation, "I just downloaded it to see if I liked, it so I could buy a copy", doggerel; I think whomever spouts that, is full of s***.

 

[PanicX]

Think about this for as moment. Without any controls in place to foster intellectual property rights, then all that remains is to designate a sucker to buy the first copy of anything, and let the internet take over from there.

There's no mention of the UN requesting full exoneration of all copyright violators. I think they're doing the smart thing and looking forward. As technology progresses and we become even more dependent on the internet, it makes sense to stipulate now that full disconnection is not a proper punishment for copyright violation. Particularly as it's a reasonable knee jerk reaction for copyright holders to request. Without criminal proceedings, its like losing your right to vote because you didn't pay your cable bill.

 

[Leeky]

Hmmm my rights got denied last week from my isp. They turned off my net for using bittorrent. They said it takes up to much bandwidth and if I use it again they will drop me. If I wasn't getting internet for free from a relatives work then I would switch isp's.

Really???

My ISP know how much I download, and what I'm doing and don't even batter an eyelid at what I'm doing. I was quite shocked recently when the operator on the phone was able to tell me so much information about my activities in regards to downloads, and how much data had been downloaded on my IPs.

According to my last discussion a few days ago with my ISP, they said I was averaging over 250GB (In May I downloaded over 300GB!) a month.... Maybe its a UK thing, but mine just don't seem even remotely bothered, and I sure do abuse it!

 

[captaincranky]

Really???

My ISP know how much I download, and what I'm doing and don't even batter an eyelid at what I'm doing. I was quite shocked recently when the operator on the phone was able to tell me so much information about my activities in regards to downloads, and how much data had been downloaded on my IPs.

According to my last discussion a few days ago with my ISP, they said I was averaging over 250GB (In May I downloaded over 300GB!) a month.... Maybe its a UK thing, but mine just don't seem even remotely bothered, and I sure do abuse it!

Somehow, I believe you've missed the point completely.

Not having a data cap, is a far different issue from a third party asking to have you cut off from the WWW. The issue at hand is how much information an ISP is willing to fork over to 3rd parties, such as the RIAA, and how much, if push came to shove they'd defend youu.

Perhaps the reason you haven't been, is because nobody has approached your ISP with a valid complaint.

The DMCA certainly is legislation recognized by the UK, and just ask, "LightningUK" how he was dealt with regarding "DVD Decryptor".

 

[Leeky]

Maybe...

My point was more that I found it shocking that someone would be cut off, especially given a persons ISP knowing exactly what your up to most of the time anyway. Its not like my ISP know less than the OP's for example.

Maybe that is the reason, but I'm not shy with downloading, so I fail to see thats the issue when so many others have been caught.

Maybe my ISP aren't bothered.

 

[captaincranky]

Well, a line from the old Eagles song, "Desperado", may shed light on a situation such as this. "If you're fast, and if you're lucky, you may never see that hanging tree". Good stuff, early Eagles.

 

[Leeky]

Luck is not something I would associate with my current situation (personally). So I doubt its much to do with that, but thanks for going easy on me today! :haha:

I'm very delicate these days Sir!

 

[captaincranky]

Its not like my ISP know less than the OP's for example.

Singular subject, needs, needs singular verb; "my ISP know(s) less than the OP's".

Maybe my ISP aren't bothered.

Unless you have multiple ISPs, I'd want to go with "isn't" as the verb.

For God's sake man, show us uppity colonists how it's done!

(Sorry, I know I can be such a **** Chaney in these matters).

On the other hand, you were right about the Intel "K" CPU issues. The unlocked multiplier models do carry a different VGA designation. (3000 as opposed to 2000).

 

[Leeky]

On the other hand, you were right about the Intel "K" CPU issues. The unlocked multiplier models do carry a different VGA designation. (3000 as opposed to 2000).

I got something right then? :haha:

P.S. I find it easier to make mistakes and therefore blend in, than correct one's English.

 

[captaincranky]

P.S. I find it easier to make mistakes and therefore blend in, than correct one's English.

Unfortunately, (as I'm sure you're aware), blending has never been my strongest suit, or a motivating desire...

 

[Leeky]

Unfortunately, (as I'm sure you're aware), blending has never been my strongest suit, or a motivating desire...

Nope, your about as subtle as a howitzer at an anti-firearm's convention.....

 

[DelJo63]

wow

the signal-to-noise ratio on this topic is just amazing - - like 1/100 imo.

it would appear that the constitution's bill of rights were at stake.

Looks like the right bait was thrown into the water - - just look what it caught :grin:

 

[captaincranky]

the signal-to-noise ratio on this topic is just amazing - - like 1/100 imo.

it would appear that the constitution's bill of rights were at stake.

Looks like the right bate was thrown into the water - - just look what it caught :grin:

You mean "bait", as in "b-a-i-t"? Yep, I just heard the splash, at about post # 38... Or did you mean that, the constitution's bill of rights were."at steak"...?

For a more familiar look to the S/N ratio, I'd suggest stating is as "noise to signal" ratio.