Is that copyright indefinite? or is copyright simular to a patent where the owner has 20 years before the patent expires?

---

LETS BEGIN IN 2010

Well, now you're getting into the rub of it.

Historically, copyright was intended to be very similar to patents, with a limited term of exclusivity for the author or copyright holder. In fact, here in the US, copyright is explicitly prohibited from being perpetual in the Constitution. However, in the 20th Century the trend has been to tighten the restrictions and extend the term of copyright every time the one on Mickey Mouse is set to expire. In fact, the late Jack Valenti (the former president of the MPAA) testified before Congress that the term for copyright should be forever minus one day! So basically, that means that nothing has gone into the public domain here in the US since around 1938, unless the holder explicitly allowed it to at some point.

Some of the downsides are, as most critics point out, perpetual copyright would make it possible that artistic works might be lost to the world at some point, as well as restrict the development of the 'usful arts and sciences' by forever prohibiting derivative efforts from the original works. In the digital world under the DMCA with DRM lockdown, it also prohibits legal licensees from making archival and personal use copies in different formats of their media under fair use.

A practical example of this 'loss of culture', which music lovers are familiar with, is there are plently of LP's which never got released on CD (and most likely never will be) which are now essentially lost forever.

In any event, there is plenty of material available on the web about the history of copyright and the effects of it, pro and con.

Alinator

Historically, copyright was intended to be very similar to patents, with a limited term of exclusivity for the author or copyright holder. In fact, here in the US, copyright is explicitly prohibited from being perpetual in the Constitution. However, in the 20th Century the trend has been to tighten the restrictions and extend the term of copyright every time the one on Mickey Mouse is set to expire. In fact, the late Jack Valenti (the former president of the MPAA) testified before Congress that the term for copyright should be forever minus one day! So basically, that means that nothing has gone into the public domain here in the US since around 1938, unless the holder explicitly allowed it to at some point.

Remember too that when the U.S. signed the WIPO treaty, virtually all of the U.S. copyright law went out the window in favor of the more restrictive international rules.

For example, under U.S. Law, copyrighted works had to be published, not true under WIPO. Trade secrets were not copyrightable, now they are.

... so if you see a lawyer that is walking around with a confused look on his face, he probably practices copyright law.

---

Historically, copyright was intended to be very similar to patents, with a limited term of exclusivity for the author or copyright holder. In fact, here in the US, copyright is explicitly prohibited from being perpetual in the Constitution. However, in the 20th Century the trend has been to tighten the restrictions and extend the term of copyright every time the one on Mickey Mouse is set to expire. In fact, the late Jack Valenti (the former president of the MPAA) testified before Congress that the term for copyright should be forever minus one day! So basically, that means that nothing has gone into the public domain here in the US since around 1938, unless the holder explicitly allowed it to at some point.

Remember too that when the U.S. signed the WIPO treaty, virtually all of the U.S. copyright law went out the window in favor of the more restrictive international rules.

For example, under U.S. Law, copyrighted works had to be published, not true under WIPO. Trade secrets were not copyrightable, now they are.

... so if you see a lawyer that is walking around with a confused look on his face, he probably practices copyright law.

It seems from what has been shared the more time goes on the more intwined copyright as well as Patents become hard to un tangle.

---

LETS BEGIN IN 2010

For the typical cable provider, they usually put 10 to 20 megabytes of bandwidth to a "pedestal" which then feeds about 50 homes. One kid running "torrent" can starve the rest of the neighborhood -- which is why that is also a violation of the typical cable ISP's terms of service. You aren't supposed to use all of your provider's bandwidth all of the time and still pay $20/month.

What? Where did you hear that? The terms of service are usually "unlimited", so that's what we use: UNLIMITED...

Here is a good example:

From the basic design specifications of the typical Hybrid Fiber Cable system.

Using Cable terminology, there is a head-end somewhere that feeds the whole community. There is fiber running out to the various neighborhoods, and the speed of the cable is FINITE, it is not INFINITE. The pedestal hooks to the fiber, and converts data running on the fiber to data running on the coax that feeds the neighborhood, and that cable runs at a specific, fixed speed. It is FINITE.

Going the other direction, the cable company buys bandwidth from someone at some level -- a big cable company may peer, or they may buy bandwidth from a major backbone, but all of the interconnections to do that run at a FINITE speed.

So, "unlimited" can't be infinite.

Edit:

I realized after answering the other question that you are reacting to the fact that "unlimited" should be unlimited, and my technical answer addressed that.

What it didn't address is the moral/legal aspect.

Any ISP buys a fixed amount of bandwidth. Let's say Comcast has 10 gigabits/second into a given city. Let us also assume that they pay $50,000/month for that service.

Let us assume that they have 500 torrent users, each pushing nearly 20 megabits/second, 24/7.

If they charge $19.95/month for "unlimited" cable, then those torrent users are getting $50,000 worth of bandwidth and generating $10,000 worth of revenue.

How long can Comcast stay in business at those rates??

This is why some practices are prohibited in the Comcast Terms of Service.

... and it's the same with DSL and Wireless.

To reply to your post:

When the isp advertises unlimited in their usage agreement, I expect the following. My isp sells me 6 mbps unlimited connection. This means that I can download at 750 KB/s 24/7 for a month. This would come out to 750**3600*24*30=1944000000 KB or 1944 GB ~ 2TB.

If the isp can not provide this to me, they should not call it unlimited. They should advertise it as 6 mbps, limited to whatever they are willing to allow per month...

---

When the isp advertises unlimited in their usage agreement, I expect the following. My isp sells me 6 mbps unlimited connection. This means that I can download at 750 KB/s 24/7 for a month.

Nope. Small m prefix is milli and 6 millibits/sec for a month is around 128 KB. total :^)

                                               Joe

To reply to your post:

When the isp advertises unlimited in their usage agreement, I expect the following. My isp sells me 6 mbps unlimited connection. This means that I can download at 750 KB/s 24/7 for a month. This would come out to 750**3600*24*30=1944000000 KB or 1944 GB ~ 2TB.

If the isp can not provide this to me, they should not call it unlimited. They should advertise it as 6 mbps, limited to whatever they are willing to allow per month...

So, just what does unlimited mean, exactly?

Does it mean an unlimited right to use the 6 megabits in any way you please??

Does it mean you can spew forth spam at 6 megabits, 24 hours/day?

How about probing other networks?

Can you run a video on demand service on your 6 megabit connection while still paying consumer rates?

I'm guessing that no matter how unlimited things get, you will find that there are limits.

---

To reply to your post:

When the isp advertises unlimited in their usage agreement, I expect the following. My isp sells me 6 mbps unlimited connection. This means that I can download at 750 KB/s 24/7 for a month. This would come out to 750**3600*24*30=1944000000 KB or 1944 GB ~ 2TB.

If the isp can not provide this to me, they should not call it unlimited. They should advertise it as 6 mbps, limited to whatever they are willing to allow per month...

So, just what does unlimited mean, exactly?

Does it mean an unlimited right to use the 6 megabits in any way you please??

Does it mean you can spew forth spam at 6 megabits, 24 hours/day?

How about probing other networks?

Can you run a video on demand service on your 6 megabit connection while still paying consumer rates?

I'm guessing that no matter how unlimited things get, you will find that there are limits.

In my humble opinion, unlimited should refer to bandwidth, while net neutrality should refer to non interference with packets (nondiscrimination of one protocol vs another). Otherwise it is a slippery slope.

I would have much rather prefer that an ISP would advertise in the following way:
1) maximum bandwidth of some set amount
2) guaranteed minimum bandwidth(maybe during peak hours, whatever)
3) a clearly set traffic cap (maybe 100~150 GB per month).

Another cool thing would be to allow maybe 2 or 3 GB per day traffic limit at top speed, and then cap the speed to a lower limit after that. This would restrict most active file sharers. At home I run WRTBwlog on my linksys router. Usually I never exceed 1.5 GB of traffic per day...

---

To reply to your post:

When the isp advertises unlimited in their usage agreement, I expect the following. My isp sells me 6 mbps unlimited connection. This means that I can download at 750 KB/s 24/7 for a month. This would come out to 750**3600*24*30=1944000000 KB or 1944 GB ~ 2TB.

If the isp can not provide this to me, they should not call it unlimited. They should advertise it as 6 mbps, limited to whatever they are willing to allow per month...

So, just what does unlimited mean, exactly?

Does it mean an unlimited right to use the 6 megabits in any way you please??

Does it mean you can spew forth spam at 6 megabits, 24 hours/day?

How about probing other networks?

Can you run a video on demand service on your 6 megabit connection while still paying consumer rates?

I'm guessing that no matter how unlimited things get, you will find that there are limits.

In my humble opinion, unlimited should refer to bandwidth, while net neutrality should refer to non interference with packets (nondiscrimination of one protocol vs another). Otherwise it is a slippery slope.

I would have much rather prefer that an ISP would advertise in the following way:
1) maximum bandwidth of some set amount
2) guaranteed minimum bandwidth(maybe during peak hours, whatever)
3) a clearly set traffic cap (maybe 100~150 GB per month).

Another cool thing would be to allow maybe 2 or 3 GB per day traffic limit at top speed, and then cap the speed to a lower limit after that. This would restrict most active file sharers. At home I run WRTBwlog on my linksys router. Usually I never exceed 1.5 GB of traffic per day...

... and what we're talking about here is not bandwidth, but protocols.

Comcast does not appear (from any of what I've read) to be discriminating on bandwidth -- it's all you can eat as long as you refrain from running servers, and IMO, the various P2P applications often behave like servers.

The very mechanism used to make "torrent" really fast looks exactly like a distributed denial of service attack. It is virtually indistinguishable from an aggressive attack.

Guaranteed minimum bandwidth is a little stickier. It costs more money for them to provide that. The typical home connection is "provisioned casually" -- that means that you have a specific wire speed, but there are no guarantees of available bandwidth or uptime. That's what you get for $14.95/month. It's "best effort" with no guarantees. They buy enough bandwidth to cover the neighborhoods 95% of the time, and during peak times, they'll be some degradation.

I have a wire that is guaranteed 100% bandwidth and 100% uptime (although, there are some provisions dealing with outages and the ability to dispatch the local phone company -- the one with Darth Vader as their celebrity spokesperson).

I pay $450/month for that wire. I buy enough bandwidth that I'm rarely using all of it.

I have the right to run servers (and do) and I have a nice big block of address space. Even with the high price and few restrictions, I am not allowed to SPAM, and they will terminate service for hacking and spamming.

It's that simple.

---

To reply to your post:

When the isp advertises unlimited in their usage agreement, I expect the following. My isp sells me 6 mbps unlimited connection. This means that I can download at 750 KB/s 24/7 for a month. This would come out to 750**3600*24*30=1944000000 KB or 1944 GB ~ 2TB.

If the isp can not provide this to me, they should not call it unlimited. They should advertise it as 6 mbps, limited to whatever they are willing to allow per month...

So, just what does unlimited mean, exactly?

Does it mean an unlimited right to use the 6 megabits in any way you please??

Does it mean you can spew forth spam at 6 megabits, 24 hours/day?

How about probing other networks?

Can you run a video on demand service on your 6 megabit connection while still paying consumer rates?

I'm guessing that no matter how unlimited things get, you will find that there are limits.

In my humble opinion, unlimited should refer to bandwidth, while net neutrality should refer to non interference with packets (nondiscrimination of one protocol vs another). Otherwise it is a slippery slope.

I would have much rather prefer that an ISP would advertise in the following way:
1) maximum bandwidth of some set amount
2) guaranteed minimum bandwidth(maybe during peak hours, whatever)
3) a clearly set traffic cap (maybe 100~150 GB per month).

Another cool thing would be to allow maybe 2 or 3 GB per day traffic limit at top speed, and then cap the speed to a lower limit after that. This would restrict most active file sharers. At home I run WRTBwlog on my linksys router. Usually I never exceed 1.5 GB of traffic per day...

... and what we're talking about here is not bandwidth, but protocols.

Comcast does not appear (from any of what I've read) to be discriminating on bandwidth -- it's all you can eat as long as you refrain from running servers, and IMO, the various P2P applications often behave like servers.

The very mechanism used to make "torrent" really fast looks exactly like a distributed denial of service attack. It is virtually indistinguishable from an aggressive attack.

Guaranteed minimum bandwidth is a little stickier. It costs more money for them to provide that. The typical home connection is "provisioned casually" -- that means that you have a specific wire speed, but there are no guarantees of available bandwidth or uptime. That's what you get for $14.95/month. It's "best effort" with no guarantees. They buy enough bandwidth to cover the neighborhoods 95% of the time, and during peak times, they'll be some degradation.

I have a wire that is guaranteed 100% bandwidth and 100% uptime (although, there are some provisions dealing with outages and the ability to dispatch the local phone company -- the one with Darth Vader as their celebrity spokesperson).

I pay $450/month for that wire. I buy enough bandwidth that I'm rarely using all of it.

I have the right to run servers (and do) and I have a nice big block of address space. Even with the high price and few restrictions, I am not allowed to SPAM, and they will terminate service for hacking and spamming.

It's that simple.

Correct me if I am wrong. Do not Packets and band width go hand in hand?

---

LETS BEGIN IN 2010

Correct me if I am wrong. Do not Packets and band width go hand in hand?

On the Internet, packet size is variable.

                                                                  Joe

... and what we're talking about here is not bandwidth, but protocols.

Comcast does not appear (from any of what I've read) to be discriminating on bandwidth -- it's all you can eat as long as you refrain from running servers, and IMO, the various P2P applications often behave like servers.

The very mechanism used to make "torrent" really fast looks exactly like a distributed denial of service attack. It is virtually indistinguishable from an aggressive attack.

Guaranteed minimum bandwidth is a little stickier. It costs more money for them to provide that. The typical home connection is "provisioned casually" -- that means that you have a specific wire speed, but there are no guarantees of available bandwidth or uptime. That's what you get for $14.95/month. It's "best effort" with no guarantees. They buy enough bandwidth to cover the neighborhoods 95% of the time, and during peak times, they'll be some degradation.

I have a wire that is guaranteed 100% bandwidth and 100% uptime (although, there are some provisions dealing with outages and the ability to dispatch the local phone company -- the one with Darth Vader as their celebrity spokesperson).

I pay $450/month for that wire. I buy enough bandwidth that I'm rarely using all of it.

I have the right to run servers (and do) and I have a nice big block of address space. Even with the high price and few restrictions, I am not allowed to SPAM, and they will terminate service for hacking and spamming.

It's that simple.

Correct me if I am wrong. Do not Packets and band width go hand in hand?

I'm not sure I understand your question.

In a broad sense, yes, packets and bandwidth go hand in hand -- certainly zero packets equals zero bandwidth, and as Joe pointed out, packets are variable size so that's a factor as well.

ISPs like Comcast are offering a service to end-users. They expect normal usage patterns for a family or individual, and pricing for that. To make sure someone doesn't go into business (with a different usage pattern) they state what you may do with the circuit they provide.

If you run P2P file sharing, like Torrent, on a Comcast circuit, then you are in violation of your contract with them.

... and I don't see why the EFF doesn't get that.

---

f you run P2P file sharing, like Torrent, on a Comcast circuit, then you are in violation of your contract with them.

... and I don't see why the EFF doesn't get that.

I don’t see anything in the linked article that suggests the author doesn’t. AFAICT the objection is to Comcast’s methods of enforcing the contract, if that’s indeed what they’re trying to do. The small print in the TOS probably specifies the provider’s remedies in the event of a breach—but I’m sure that if they had just ‘pulled the plug’ on the violators, or billed them at the going rate for the excess bandwidth, this would be a non-issue.

---

f you run P2P file sharing, like Torrent, on a Comcast circuit, then you are in violation of your contract with them.

... and I don't see why the EFF doesn't get that.

I don’t see anything in the linked article that suggests the author doesn’t. AFAICT the objection is to Comcast’s methods of enforcing the contract, if that’s indeed what they’re trying to do. The small print in the TOS probably specifies the provider’s remedies in the event of a breach—but I’m sure that if they had just ‘pulled the plug’ on the violators, or billed them at the going rate for the excess bandwidth, this would be a non-issue.

I see the EFF article as talking about Comcast doing something "evil" -- the implication is that the customer should be allowed to run servers, and torrents, and all of that, and that "interfering" with communications is a violation of those rights.

... and as such, Comcast is doing something morally and ethically wrong.

I don't think it's wrong, I think it's stupid and ineffective.

---

IntroductionCertain Internet service providers have begun to interfere with their users' communications by injecting forged or spoofed packets - data that appears to come from the other end but was actually generated by an Internet service provider (ISP) in the middle. This spoofing is one means (although not the only means) of blocking, jamming, or degrading users' ability to use particular applications, services, or protocols. One important means of holding ISPs accountable for this interference is the ability of some subscribers to detect and document it reliably. We have to learn what ISPs are doing before we can try to do something about it. Internet users can often detect interference by comparing data sent at one end with data received at the other end of a connection.

Is anyone really surprised about this? I'm just surprised that they haven't tried doing this years ago.

Don't worry about their tack-teet (sic), P2P's will find new ways to flow.

Possibly having packets encrypted, CRC'd, but most of all pseudo-random. Think in terms of frequency hopping, but applied to computer network topology. P2P packets will be sent out pseudo-randomly across ports and even injected into "legit" transfers. I.e., a .JPG may have a few bytes worth of that verboted .MP3 you are receiving.

Yes this will cause a lot of overhead, but thats okay as more and more people get broadband. The only time I really use up my entire 7 mb/s is when I'm streaming a video while downloading an .ISO

f you run P2P file sharing, like Torrent, on a Comcast circuit, then you are in violation of your contract with them.

... and I don't see why the EFF doesn't get that.

I don’t see anything in the linked article that suggests the author doesn’t. AFAICT the objection is to Comcast’s methods of enforcing the contract, if that’s indeed what they’re trying to do. The small print in the TOS probably specifies the provider’s remedies in the event of a breach—but I’m sure that if they had just ‘pulled the plug’ on the violators, or billed them at the going rate for the excess bandwidth, this would be a non-issue.

I see the EFF article as talking about Comcast doing something "evil" -- the implication is that the customer should be allowed to run servers, and torrents, and all of that, and that "interfering" with communications is a violation of those rights.

... and as such, Comcast is doing something morally and ethically wrong.

I don't think it's wrong, I think it's stupid and ineffective.

But surely Comcast is wrong in manipulating Torrent files, because Torrent can and is used for legitimate purposes.

f you run P2P file sharing, like Torrent, on a Comcast circuit, then you are in violation of your contract with them.

... and I don't see why the EFF doesn't get that.

I don’t see anything in the linked article that suggests the author doesn’t. AFAICT the objection is to Comcast’s methods of enforcing the contract, if that’s indeed what they’re trying to do. The small print in the TOS probably specifies the provider’s remedies in the event of a breach—but I’m sure that if they had just ‘pulled the plug’ on the violators, or billed them at the going rate for the excess bandwidth, this would be a non-issue.

I see the EFF article as talking about Comcast doing something "evil" -- the implication is that the customer should be allowed to run servers, and torrents, and all of that, and that "interfering" with communications is a violation of those rights.

... and as such, Comcast is doing something morally and ethically wrong.

I don't think it's wrong, I think it's stupid and ineffective.

But surely Comcast is wrong in manipulating Torrent files, because Torrent can and is used for legitimate purposes.

They aren't manipulating files. They also aren't reacting to Torrent because most Torrent use is illegitimate.

The problem is the Torrent user that leaves his computer running, and running Torrent all the time, so that there are multiple connections in and out of that machine and using more bandwidth than a normal user who is just surfing.

... and if he has lots of cool files to download, he may be using more than 90% of the bandwidth through the cable provider's "head end" or through the DSL providers Central Office equipment.

---

October 20th, 2007
Comcast is also Jamming Gnutella (and Lotus Notes?)

Posted by Peter Eckersley


Yesterday, we posted about some experiments showing that Comcast is forging packets in order to interfere with its customers' use of BitTorrent. There have been reports of strange things happening with other protocols, and we've been running some tests on two other file transfers protocols in particular — HTTP (which is used by the World Wide Web) and Gnutella. Comcast has also been strenuous in telling us, "we don't target BitTorrent". Perhaps not. Perhaps what they're doing is even worse.

Link to the rest of the story

EFF

---

LETS BEGIN IN 2010

November 28th, 2007
EFF Releases Reports and Software to Spot Interference with Internet Traffic

Technology Rights Group Addresses the Comcast Controversy

San Francisco - In the wake of the detection and reporting of Comcast Corporation's controversial interference with Internet traffic, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) has published a comprehensive account of Comcast's packet-forging activities and has released software and documentation instructing Internet users on how to test for packet forgery or other forms of interference by their own ISPs.

Link

Internet Traffic

---

LETS BEGIN IN 2010

Ordinarily I support most of the positions EFF takes with regard to network issues, but I still they are offbase on this matter, at least for residential users.

As has been pointed out previously for this class of service, running the server component of BitTorrent is a violation of the TOS for most ISP's I'm familiar with period. As Ned pointed out, ISP's usually will turn a blind eye to running public servers on residential accounts as long as you stay below the 'complaint threshold' from other users on your drop or network segment.

EFF make it seem like Comcast has no right to interfere with any traffic from users under any circumstances, when the truth of the matter is they have every right to and can use any method they see fit to do it, and it's spelled out in the contract a customer agrees to when they sign up.

OTOH, if you're paying the big bucks for commercial grade service, then interfering with connections based on protocol or concerns other than exceeding you contracted for bandwith or definitively provable illegal activity would seem to be going too far, but IIRC they never specified what kind of service they were testing for packet injection.

Alinator