QFT

I don’t know what I need to avoid sharing because the cartels never publish a list such as they sent to Comcast. So who knows, and how can they blame anyone for sharing them?

This is certainly random censorship, as most Internet sites link to copyrighted material in some way, much of it being what its authors are offering, or linked pages contain links to other pages and so on. Every site thus would be required to be blocked. Stupidity at its finest.

The status quo at present would be that a certain amount of films are still sold in Sweden. These actions are intended not only to penalize “offenders” but also to force the public to buy all the products. If they collectively refused to do so, it would make the censorship worthless. Maybe that would create a big market for cheap pirated copies.

As long as artists still support the Big 4 music producers, the public will continue having trouble from them. Again, if artists would go independent online, or use other labels, most of these problems would disappear in time. Also if people stopped buying their product, artists would be forced to abandon them for other distribution methods or labels. Artists who contract with RIAA cronies do so either with blatant disregard for their fans welfare, or they are in agreement with the way they treat them and feel they do some good. These artists don’t deserve respect, and need to be taught a lesson through public sanctions.

It specifically says “to force the
telco. industry to block LINKS to any
INTERNET SITE” making copyright infringement possible !!!

So it HAS to be a link to be blocked,
and it only has to give the possibility of infringement to be a
candidate for the block list.

If this proposal passes .. well ..
speechless here

It specifically says “to force the
telco. industry to block LINKS to any
INTERNET SITE” making copyright infringement possible !!!

So it HAS to be a link to be blocked,
and it only has to give the possibility of infringement to be a
candidate for the block list.

If this proposal passes .. well ..
speechless here

Also us torrenters have come to rely too much on its tracker, and is too much of a central point of failure.

http://www.painfullback.com/

Yea, it’s a sad day…

In case anyone cares, I did a translation with (hopefully) necessary comments for it to be understandable to non-danes:

Proposal B 137 (as proposed): Proposal for parliament decision on the creation of a compliant tribunal for copyright on the internet.

Proposed the 8th of May 2008 by Hanne Agersnap (SF), Ole Hækkerup (S), Pernille Frahm (SF) og Ole Sohn (SF).
[ed: this is the left wing of the parliament: SF = Socialistic People Party ("Socialistisk Folkeparty"), S = Social Democracy ("Socialdemokraterne")]

Proposal for parliament decision
about the creation of a complaints tribunal for copyright on the internet

The parliament impose the government within the end of 2008, to create a compliant tribunal, who can judge possible violations of copyright on the internet, and eventually impose the telecommunications industry to block links to internet pages, that makes it possible to violate copyright.

The tribunal will continuously put significant rulings on a website and yearly submit a report, which goes through finished cases, to shed light on the state of the law on an array of significant copyright subareas.
The proposers would like to se, that the tribunals secretariat gets the option to quickly make guiding answers on cases, which is estimated to be handled safely by the secretariat, as such an administrative guide is deemed to ease the pressure on actual tribunal decisions, so the number and answer times are fair.

Notes for the suggestion:

There is currently unclear matters of law in this area. The proposers wishes, that a tribunal alike the Compliant tribunal for domain names. In such a tribunal, both the offended and the alleged offender shall be heard, and the issue must be decided by a judge.
In cases of violation of copyright on the internet, the offended has in many cases given up about going directly to the offender. They’ll instead contact the telecommunication companies and ask them to close the connection to the allegedly illegal internet sites. That means, that the enquiry does not come from an authority, but from the right holders – and that the other part is not heard. If the telecommunication companies does not do as follows, they’ll get sued in County Court. Here they’ll most often get ordered to block access to the internet pages, where the violations occur.
Alternatively it is possible for the telecommunication companies to choose to block for every single internet page, that the right owner wishes blocked. But it is not an advantage regarding the state of the justice security, as the possible offenders has neither been reviewed by an authority or a judge, and the opponents points of view has not been heard.
In other cases of atrocities on the internet, the telecommunication industry works with public authority regarding blocking illegalities. This regards child pornography, racially offensive remarks, and threats. Here the telecommunication companies get a list from the police with IP-addresses to block. It is respected by all companies, who block these addresses. It is the telecommunication companies, who judge the legality, but the police or PET wishes blocked [ed: The Danish Security and Intelligence Service ("Politiets Efterretningstjeneste")]. But also here could a tribunal eventually afterwards take out cases for review.
The proposers deem, that the proposal is expense neutral, in that there’ll be savings for the County Court, as some County Court-cases are moved to the proposed tribunal and it’s secretariat. If the proposed tribunals secretariat is joined physically and partially administratively with one or more of the already existing tribunal secretariats, the large-scale benefits will furthermore assure, that it is expense neutral.

Written statement
Hanne Agersnap (SF):
As spokesperson for the proposers I hereby propose:
Proposal B 137: Proposal for parliament decision on the creation of a compliant tribunal for copyright on the internet.

I refer by the way to the remarks, which accompany the proposal, and recommends it to the Partliament’s willful treatment.
————————————

Deep. Very deep. Thanks for the input.

SF would never get my vote – and with that new proposal, they can be sure that they’ll never ever change my mind.

I thought S was clearer in mind towards censorship and such, but I guess not.

It’s a good thing that S and SF aren’t the majority in the parliament.

I don’t know where Venstre and Dansk Folkeparti are regarding piracy and censorship, but I guess they’ve more ease in mind than the opposition.

Offcourse everyone has a right to be heard so blocking a site before the case comes to the court seems fishy…..

Isnt the legislature overstepping its boundaries by doing all this which is going to be against the natural rights of a person ? (expression / free speech etc.)

Someone enlighten me…

And theres always Mininova… well… as for the time being there is…

It starts with good intentions. Technology and infrastructure is put in place to block evil content such as vile porn, suicide sites and child exploitation.

Then it is used to unhold court rulings and to block lies that are published to injure and ridicule.

Then it is used to block extreme parties on the left and right.

Then it is used to block religious extremist.

Then the Messiah returns and it is used to block him and so on.

Who decides?

I am an adult it should be me who decides what media I consume.

http:www.Dargens.com

Make your DNS servers for your router/internet conenction equal:

208.67.222.222
208.67.220.220

There is a lot of help on the internet for you to find out how to change your DNS servers, use google (unless it is blocked for linking to copyrighted information – try “adobe serial”.)