CBC reports on Brad Fox's appearance before the CRTC this week, when he described how Bell throttled an online fundraiser in November 2008 when it was mistaken for P2P traffic.
Update: Brad Fox provides further details on the couchathon and the traffic shaping.
Doctorow Calls for Corporate Three Strikes and You're Out Policy |
| Print | |
|
Wednesday July 02, 2008
|
|||||||||
|
Cory Doctorow calls for a three strikes and you're out policy for any company that sends out three erroneous copyright notices.
Comments (4)
cyber man
said:
|
|||||||||
|
internet connection is my livehood Internet connection is my live hood. I do everything through an internet connection: work, pay bills, pay taxes, entertainment, education, being informed, connecting with people (I'm foreign in a foreign country and sometime I need the comfort of who I left in my native country). Basically I should not be afraid of all this because Im not infringing any law in my everyday activities. What I'm afraid of are possible mistakes (errare umanum est) and since corporations could strike you without providing any proof my life is in danger. What would happen once my umbilical cord would be cut from internet? The aberration of death penalty is that innocent people could be executed because of mistakes. A civil society must protect itself from mistakes that would defeat the very notion of "civilization". |
|
Thanks to Cory and Michael I propose we take Cory and Michael out for drinks for all their efforts. If we can actually get our governments to listen to us at least as much as they listen to mega-corps and their campaign donations, most of the credit will belong to these two. |
|
Be careful what you wish for... I like the idea that Cory is proposing, but why not make it simpler. Rather than create a new law, use the law against them. Three people make accusations against them. I don't know if they will appreciate the irony of having their own tactics thrown back at them, however. I have no problem with a three convictions, so long as, as per our legal system, the burden of proof is on the accuser, rather than the defendant. However, three accusations is a bit much. I can see it going like this. Artist A, say Radiohead, decides to publish their new album on the internet, bypassing the labels. The labels get miffed that they aren't getting their tithes, and accuse them of copyright infringement for three of the songs on the album. Radiohead loses their connection in accordance with the law, forcing them to sell through the labels. |
|
... I think it's too soft on them. I think after they first strike they should lose the copyright they were claiming was infringing. That at least would force them to be sure before they actually accuse people. I think dl'd copyrighted material is wrong, but I think making it so the corporations don't even have to prove it was theirs is worse. |
Subscribe to this comment's feed