|
|
|
|
|
| Airport scans for illegal downloads on iPods, mobile phones and laptops
Posted: 7/16/2008 11:46:35 AM | Hmmmm...well I've already thought of a way around this but that aside, this is unenforcable and I doubt it would survive any legal challenge in most of the developed world.
It's true that you have to surrender certain "rights" when boarding a plane. The reason for this is so that nobody sneaks a bomb on board a plane thanks to a technicality. That's reasonable to me. Of course, it's also convenient and logical to place a certain priority on policing what goes in and out of a country and using airports to do this makes sense.
Now, with that in mind, how does owning a copy of Frampton Comes Alive and having it stored on your iPod change the fact that the internet doesn't have to also pass through airport security ? What's more, who can prove that you didn't simply upload the album from your own personal collection ? There is no law against that is there ? After all, if you bought the album, doesn't that mean you have an inherent right to listen to it using whatever device you choose ?
In short, there's no way that this is actually going to change anything. Airport security has enough to worry about that it won't waste time holding mini-inquiries to ascertain whether you own an illegal copy of anything unrelated to airport safety or national sovereignty. This is simply a bone thrown at the music industry lobby by politicians. | |
|
Grotty
|
Joined: 10/14/2006
Msg: 27 | |
| Airport scans for illegal downloads on iPods, mobile phones and laptops
Posted: 7/16/2008 3:46:42 PM | Just re-read the original post; this isnt about airport security scanning your gadgets - the plan would seem to be for Customs to do it.
These are the guys who stand around the exits, and pick out random suspects to search ( legally, in UK, they *must* be random - but I'm sure they pick the most likely ones anyway)
UK Customs officials have seizure powers, so dont try to argue with them.
You dont normally have trouble queuing to go through the red/green channels, so they arnt going to cause havoc if they actually tried to enforce this.
Their remit is illegal imports, so that would cover illegal tracks being imported on a gadget.
The onus is on you to prove any goods being imported are yours, that appropriate duty has been paid on them.
After enough laptops and ipods and phones and other mp3 players get confiscated, people would be very wary of travelling with their music.
If you appeal against the seizure decision, and win, you may get your gadget back - in a matter of months.
Thinking of it in these terms, while they arnt going to pull over everyone, this plan is actually scarily feasible. | |
|
| Airport scans for illegal downloads on iPods, mobile phones and laptops
Posted: 7/16/2008 7:58:16 PM | Here's a slightly different take on the "search and seizure" of iPods, cited here:
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080602-the-real-acta-threat-its-not-ipod-scanning-border-guards.html
According to this article, the search and seizure of electronic devices is somewhat of a red herring; the real issue is that ACTA looks more like a way to tighten up IP rights, then push the entire caboodle on every other country, forcing them through trade agreements to adopt US-style IP policy. That's a bit more insidious than searching electronic devices.....
Here's an excerpt:
What is interesting about ACTA is a different set of provisions. The first is one that would allow countries to bring criminal penalties against those who commit "willful infringements without motivation for financial gain to an extent as to prejudicially affect the copyright owner (e.g., Internet piracy)."
This provision, unlikely to be deployed against individual file-swappers and those who rip movies from their own DVDs, seems clearly targeted at sites like The Pirate Bay and other major hubs, which don't always operate to make money. While the US government has yet to go after file-swappers, the ability to bring criminal charges against the big hubs might bring the feds into the fight.
The second key provision here is the creation of a legal regime that would "encourage ISPs to cooperate with right holders in the removal of infringing material" by giving them safe harbor from certain legal threats. The US DMCA already provides this sort of thing via its "takedown notice" provisions, but in countries like Canada, this could be seen as a way of sneaking DMCA-type rules in through the back door.
The document has lead Canadian legal scholar Michael Geist to write this week, "The effect of these reforms will dramatically reshape Canadian law with Prentice and Prime Minister Stephen Harper rolling out the red carpet for President George Bush's demands and leaving Canadians wondering how their consumer, property, and privacy rights suddenly disappeared." (Geist had earlier submitted comments on ACTA to the Canadian government before many details were available.)
Possibly most worrying to US residents, due to its novelty here, is the discussion about a system to give rights holders a way to "expeditiously obtain information identifying the alleged infringer" of someone's intellectual property. Companies can do this now, of course, under judicial oversight through the subpoena process, but that can be slow and expensive.
It's not clear what ACTA negotiators have in mind, but if this is a way to bypass judicial oversight, it seems ripe for abuse. It would be especially thorny if it applied across borders, especially in Europe, where judges at the highest levels (and the European Parliament) have basically said that file-sharing is too petty a crime for this information to be turned over. ACTA could be an attempt around those decisions. | |
|
| Airport scans for illegal downloads on iPods, mobile phones and laptops
Posted: 7/17/2008 1:33:59 AM | Honestly, it'll likely never some to pass, much to the dismay of the RIAA and MPAA.
I agree that property holders do have a right to protect their property, either intellectual or material. However, I do not agree with the simi-police state mentality that this proposed policy/law would bring about. Three examples...
Some several months ago in the lower mainland of Britich Columbia, Canada (where I live), the police had gone to a fellows house (along with a technician from the electric company), insiting that the home owner had a Marijuana grow-op running due to his large electric bill. Well, the police didn't have a warrant, and the home owner told them that his heated in-door swimming pool did consume a lot of juice. Regardless, the police still insisted that the home owner let them inside (with out a warrant) to check and see. The home owner in question politly refused the police, but allowed the electrical company technician inside to see. Yes, there was an heated indoor swimming pool, and some simple math based upon the temature of the water, volume of water, and watts of energy consumed to heat said water, quickly proved that his large electrical bill was due in fact to the heating requirements of his swimming pool. Well, the police got dragged into court for this and the presiding judge all but threw the book at them, citing that a high electrical bill is not sufficient proof to warrant a Marijuana grow-op investigation. With that said, does the ownership and or possession of a computer and or portable music device (iPod or the like) imply copyright infringement of illegally downloaded music? If it does, then shouldn't owning a car and being of legal age to purchase alcohol instantly qualify someone as a drunk driver?
I heard a story recently (perhaps read in the paper) of how a customs security guard at an airport had slipped a couple grams of Marijuana into an unsuspecting passengers coat pocket. It was a random test to see if the sniffer dog could find the offending substance. Well, I guess the dog had a cold that day because he/she missed it and the passenger waltzed off, totally unaware that someone had slipped a couple grams of weed on to their person. Even more odd, the customs officials are appealing for the passenger in question to return the weed to them. I know, it sounds stupid, but so does random checks of iPods and laptops for potentially pirated music. Customs and airport security should be looking for guns and knives and bombs and those other illicit materials such as fruit/vegetable products and the like. If this goes though, the wait times at airports are certain to rise and the courts are certain to be overwhelmed by the onslaught of music piracy cases before them, many of which actually cost more in lawyers fees and court costs than is rewarded back to the copyright holder.
And finally, about a year ago, there was a company in California who was working on some security measures for digital music downloads. In their infinite wisdom/stupidity they had left a honey pot open for some potential music downloaders. It was basicly a web page that held some Bittorrent seeds for a few songs. Well, these seeds were picked up by some torrent trackers and many people did download these songs. It took the digital sleuthing of a few geeks to discover that this company in question was actually working for the RIAA and some major record labels. Now, by leaving this web page of songs open with no security and no encryption, this company willingly commited copyright infringement by seeding these songs through Bittorrent. Oddly enough though, the RIAA and record labels didn't care, despite that company activly working for them and being under contract. So I guess the RIAA, record labels and subsiduaies can pirate music without being subject to the same laws that we are?
Socialism - a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
Socialism is the first step before Communism. In a Socialist society, music would be free and society as a whole would pay for it. And perhaps that's what's needed, a copyright tax. Canada does have a levy upon recordable media and music players, and that levy does get redistributed to the recording companies who should pay it back to their musicians. Perhaps a greater tax is in order to collect and allocate more monies to those copyright holders who may, may not have, or possibly could loose revenue to to piracy. But there's also the movie industry, the television industry, software industry, gaming industry and the book/publishing industry. Or maybe the record labels should cut their CD prices in half as that would certainly motivate people to purchase music. Same with software and games and movies. The demand is there but the price is too high. Cut prices and you'll attract more customers and have fewer downloaders. | |
|
| Airport scans for illegal downloads on iPods, mobile phones and laptops
Posted: 7/17/2008 3:07:42 AM | The recording industry used to have a product we wanted, and they were the only source. When CDs first came out in the early 80s, they were expensive to make, and thus the price in the store reflected a product that was near twice the price of magnetic tape recording. However, with technology, the price to manufacture a CD is several cents now. The recording industry did not reduce the price, only increase profits. Now, the technology is on our side, and they cry like the pathetic babies they are.
I would pay $2.50 for a CD, and $0.10 per song by download; any more is too much in my opinion. Unless the recording industry learns to compete and offer a unique and valuable service, they will not get my money. Make something unique - a CD with a projectable hologram or something else new and novel.
Hopefully in the future new artists will make better use of the web to market their music directly, and not make the recording industy their rich "pimp." Possibly some can gain popularity by making their music available for free online, and collecting the real money at concerts. The RIAA has made it clear that all they want to bite that hands that could and did feed them. Not a smart move. | |
|
| Airport scans for illegal downloads on iPods, mobile phones and laptops
Posted: 7/17/2008 3:29:36 AM | I'm with Draskinn; it's near impossible to keep up the laws and regulations flooding onto the books. Just recently, for World Youth Day, the local government made it illegal to annoy pilgrims. Without any notice, any debate, or any input from the voters. It's all about control; when they say "we need more powers (over you)", I hear "you need less powers over us". Often they don't say anything, and only the Hansard readers know about these new regulations that they're supposed to observe.
May I remind people that everything Hitler did was legal. Maybe the people who think they've done nothing wrong would be OK with a few years in Guantanamo Bay while "the authorities" establish the truth. It's a creeping police state; thank heavens it's coming unstuck due to overpopulation, resource depletion, and record-breaking stupidity. | |
|
Grotty
|
Joined: 10/14/2006
Msg: 32 | |
| Airport scans for illegal downloads on iPods, mobile phones and laptops
Posted: 7/17/2008 4:04:22 AM | jmicahgisjustme :
Customs and airport security should be looking for guns and knives and bombs and those other illicit materials such as fruit/vegetable products and the like. If this goes though, the wait times at airports are certain to rise...
Airport security should and is looking for weapons; Dept of Ag is looking for fruit/vegetable etc;
Customs however are looking for illicit materials... which could include your music tracks... and there arnt usually big queues at the Customs stations, so wait times would not rise.
IF they were to say, prove the tracks are yours, either by drm or physical cds, we'd all be up the creek... coz you can legitimately download tracks from sources without drm - do you keep all your receipts ? | |
|
| Airport scans for illegal downloads on iPods, mobile phones and laptops
Posted: 7/17/2008 5:08:44 PM | People who are against this are usually those who have participated in piracy, and should be scared anyway. They know what they did was wrong, so why let them get away with it? Those who are bringing illegally downloaded materials into other nations are just as bad as criminals who sneak drugs and prohibited items into a country. Although, if the airports started scanning for illegal material, it could also mean that all pirated CDs and DVDs brought in from countries like China would have to be banned.
As for the amount of time it'll take to scan through the ipods, phones etc, you're forgetting that technology is advancing at a much greater rate than it was 20 or even 10 years ago. A new device could be developed to quickly scan through the items in a matter of seconds, who knows? Its a very possible idea. | |
|
| Airport scans for illegal downloads on iPods, mobile phones and laptops
Posted: 7/17/2008 9:52:48 PM |
People who are against this are usually those who have participated in piracy, and should be scared anyway
Many countries have already declared MP3 "file sharing" to be too petty a crime to be concerned with. Instead, a much bigger problem is the lost revenues from pirated software apps. In countries such as China and Pakistan, some well-known software apps may garner 90% of the market share, yet sales are virtually negligible due to the widespread acceptance of software piracy. This is clearly quite different from the average Joe who has to prove to a Customs agent that the tunes on his iPod were copied from his own CDs, and hence have no embedded DRM.
Illegally copied music files on an iPod are of negligible importance IMHO. Most everyone has imported music from an audio file that someone has given them. Do these folks deserve to be locked up in an internment camp as a result? IPods have far more potential interest to Customs as devices to steal and conceal software apps, since they can operate as an external drive, booting up a machine and running applications.
It's a shame iPods are being used for such a purpose.......When I get on a plane, I really don't care whether the person sitting next to me has a pirated Hannah Montana playlist on their iPod. I'd expect them to be carrying proper ID, and be screened for kerosene, turpentine, and pocket knives instead.
Be well...... | |
|
| Airport scans for illegal downloads on iPods, mobile phones and laptops
Posted: 7/18/2008 4:50:32 AM | Here's a good question...
Would you walk into a store and steal some product from the shelf without thinking of the repercussions; lost revenue to the store, it's employees, the producers of that product and the subsidized cost of theft that is passed onto other consumers?
Likely not.
Then why do people who would never shoplift feel that downloading songs, movies and TV shows via P2P and Bittorrent is somehow different? Granted, you're not physically standing in a store and slipping a physical product into your pocket, but the repercussions to those affected are the same; lost revenue to the manufacturer, the store that could have sold it and the employees it would have staffed.
The big difference is that digital merchandise doesn't feel real enough. There's a big difference between a physical CD or DVD with cover art and a case when pitted against a string of ones and zeros. And that is likely where the difference lies, in the materialism of the product.
Honestly, I've always been ticked at the price of say Micro$oft Windoze, around $135 Canadian for an OEM CD/DVD with a lisence key number (a small portion of the reason why I don't use Windoze anymore, that and its stability issues, security issues and so forth). But though that disc seems like a rather paltry exchange for my heard earned dollars, there's a long and expensive lineage that justifies that cost. There's a huge building in Redmond that has to be staffed and powered, a heard of programmers tasked with programming each their own little portion of what's on that disc, the thousands of computers they use, the wages of the people who ship those millions of discs, and the pittance paid to the good folks in India who will coach users through their Vista woes with a flaky and forced North American accent (they actually have training centers to help call center employees in India loose their accents). So there is a great lineage to the final cost of a Widoze CD/DVD.
And there's one to music and movies and games and television shows too. So perhaps there needs to e less finger wagging and more education. If people learn that there are people who work very hard to produce these works that others steal, then perhaps some sense of morality will kick in.
But I still don't like the inference or suspicion of guilt over innocence issue put forth. That would suggest that because I have hands, I must use them to steal, therefore, I'm a thief. Thieves commonly put stolen goods in their pockets, there's pockets on my pants, on all of them in fact, therefore the police have sufficient cause to search me without proof of theft. And just because I own a laptop it doesn't mean I pirate and steal digital media, I don't. | |
|
| |
Grotty
|
Joined: 10/14/2006
Msg: 37 | |
| Airport scans for illegal downloads on iPods, mobile phones and laptops
Posted: 7/18/2008 6:24:06 AM | Not condoning the theft at all here, but
Micro$oft Windoze, around $135 Canadian for an OEM CD/DVD with a lisence key
the retail cost of Windows XP on CD in UK is around £180 sterling (approx $350 Canadian), or basic Vista for £130 (approx $210), so there is considerable markup going on. Same happened with CDs, where the price across the pond was less than half it is here. And downloading film/TV shows? why not have global distribution - why show them earlier in one country than another? People wouldnt object to downloading embedded adverts - BBCiPlayer, 4Catchup etc do that.
This is all off-topic, sorry.
Technically, Customs looking for illegal imports is feasable and viable; whether societies want smalltime crooks caught is another. Whether backups count as illegal copies is yet another question. | |
|
| Airport scans for illegal downloads on iPods, mobile phones and laptops
Posted: 7/18/2008 7:42:48 AM |
why do people who would never shoplift feel that downloading songs, movies and TV shows via P2P and Bittorrent is somehow different?
Technically it isn't any different. Outside of the thousands of CDs that I've bought over the years and iTunes, I've only ever purchased songs from mp3fiesta.com, which is a legal site, although not in Canada. These sites do need to take some responsibility to ensure that IP addies from countries in which they are not legal, are blocked. Furthermore, the scenario with MP3 sharing could have been minimized if the recording industry did not cling to CDs as the "technology" of preference, while remaining wary of electronic distribution means, seeking instead to take downloaders to court.
I have maybe a half dozen CDs worth of music that has been given to me by other people, and I actually fully own all of the software apps on my PC. From those audio CDs I've been given, I went on to legally purchase many other albums by these same artists. So I'm not losing any sleep over what's on my iPod, and certainly not what's loaded on my PC.
Namaste........ | |
|
| Airport scans for illegal downloads on iPods, mobile phones and laptops
Posted: 7/18/2008 8:21:24 AM | good fµkkin luck getting in my notebook, mobile phone, or even my heavily lockdown iPod!!! and they cannot force you to let them in without a warrant on THAT particular device. Only fools that LET the airport officials view their personal files are going to let this fly.
NO ONE CAN FORCE YOU TO LET THEM VIEW THE PERSONAL CONTENTS OF YOUR DIGITAL DEVICES, NO ONE! in the case of PC's, it is upto software manufacturers to deal with their own piracy when it comes to a single personal device which MAY contain a pirate copy of their software. as for iPods, there is absolutely NO WAY to tell if the music is pirated or if you bought it from a site, or copied it from a CD of which you purchased, and, by law within the digital copyright act, you may posess and retain a copy of the music in your iPod device. and as for phones, well, just don't keep copies of anythign that they will KNOW is pirated. and again, good luck verifying its legitimacy. if you handle all your digital devices properly, theres no way for the pirate software to be detected by these half-rate, wanna be cops. Blanket seizure abilities still won't get them into my devices. 3 failed attempts at the access codes, and the drives are forever dead to anyone, no data left in-tact, with a suprise fro anyone that swaps one into their own machines, adn even worse if its put into a networked machine. If my device is seized, I'll just get a new one without so much as an hours delay, adn all my data is WELL backed up, so no loss to me adn no gain by gov't officials. thats what insurance is for. Europe tries to get away with all kinds of things that wouldn't last 1 day here in North America. | |
|
| Airport scans for illegal downloads on iPods, mobile phones and laptops
Posted: 8/1/2008 11:17:21 PM | 'They coincide with plans by the European Parliament for Internet Service Providers to be held liable if their users download illegal content'
don't know where they came up with that bs but by law ISPs are specifically exempt from responsibility for any illegal use of their service by a customer. its a clause included in ALL terms of service contracts that all ISP subscribers agree to when they get the service and is intended to cover their ass.
and overall it won't happen. its not practical and would end up with large numbers of people suing for illegal seizure, harrasment, etc.. | |
|
| Airport scans for illegal downloads on iPods, mobile phones and laptops
Posted: 8/2/2008 5:05:47 PM |
I would be pretty annoyed to think that tax dollars were being used to delay people at airports to scan their iPods.
Guess what Cheshire, the USA is going to be doing it to. Not only that, they can keep your iPod, your laptop and any other digital storage device WITH ZERO SUSPICION for months or as long as it takes to examine you date. How about them apples.
Read the whole story here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/content/article/2008/08/01/laptops.html
Travelers' Laptops May Be Detained At Border
No Suspicion Required Under DHS Policies
By Ellen Nakashima
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, August 1, 2008; Page A01
Federal agents may take a traveler's laptop or other electronic device to an off-site location for an unspecified period of time without any suspicion of wrongdoing, as part of border search policies the Department of Homeland Security recently disclosed.
Also, officials may share copies of the laptop's contents with other agencies and private entities for language translation, data decryption or other reasons, according to the policies, dated July 16 and issued by two DHS agencies, U.S. Customs and Border Protection and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Guess what folks. Big brother and 1984 are here NOW. We'd better start screaming about this now otherwise, big trouble.
I don't see how somthing like this could be acomplished in a reasonable amount of time.
It can't. Read the article. They can keep your digital "stuff" for as long as they want.
Where's the probable cause?
There is NOT REQUIREMENT for probably cause. This administration has done away with the 4th amendment...or hadn't you noticed.
Boggles the mind that people can see this as a minor inconvenience, and not another one of our rights to privacy being eroded.
You can say that again.
his is the natural spread of socialism.
More like fascism if you ask me.
I have to back up my computer every so often, put the data onto CD/DVD, and delete it from the hard drive. So all I would do is do that before I fly. Same for an iPod if I had one. Same for the music on my mobile phone, if I had downloaded any music onto it. So it won't affect me all that much.
Better think again about that one. You can manually delete all day long and that material can still be recovered unless you write data to those erased sectors. To wipe data so that it can't be recovered requires specialized software. Ever see those ads in the paper or online for people who recover lost data? How do you suppose they do that even though you THOUGHT you deleted it? Yes indeed. Think again.
Now, with that in mind, how does owning a copy of Frampton Comes Alive and having it stored on your iPod change the fact that the internet doesn't have to also pass through airport security ?
It has NOTHING to do with security. It has to do with the fact that the RIAA (recording industry) has an amazing amount of clout in Washington. So the pitch would be "pssst, while you're looking for jihadist material, could 'ya also check for pirated software and music. Thanks bud. Most appreciated".
It that isn't fascism and totalitarianism, what is?
People who are against this are usually those who have participated in piracy,
In a word: BULLSHIT. Anyone with even a half a brain is against it because it's an unwarranted invasion of privacy. I'm a lawyer and I keep confidential client information on my PC and on my laptop. You think I'm going to let some airport yahoo look through my computer. Not going to happen unless they will guarantee me IN WRITING that they will pay any monetary damages I might incur for divulging confidential information to airport security and/or anyone else. It's just going to happen. I'll take a train instead. And if it's overseas, I'll take a ship or not go.
A new device could be developed to quickly scan through the items in a matter of seconds, who knows? Its a very possible idea.
What utter rubbish. You obviously know nothing about computer technology and even less about the constitution. What a shame.
good fµkkin luck getting in my notebook, mobile phone, or even my heavily lockdown iPod!!! and they cannot force you to let them in without a warrant on THAT particular device. Only fools that LET the airport officials view their personal files are going to let this fly.
Amen brother. Amen. | |
|
|
|
Home
login 
