Что такое торренты и кому они помешали?

Работу торрента обеспечивают специальные сайты — трекеры и специальные программы — торренты. На сайте хранятся списки файлов, доступных для скачивания (видео, музыка, книги, программы, игры), и данные, позволяющие найти эти файлы на компьютерах участников сети. 

Таким образом, сам сервис не хранит никаких фильмов, игрушек, книг и прочее, это дает ему сильную позицию в спорах с правообладателями: мы не можем нарушать чьи-то права, потому что ничего не храним и не раздаем, контент нахо дится на компьютерах пользователей — к ним и обращайтесь. Правда, в последние годы многие торрент-трекеры стали уступать правообладателям и блокировать раздачи, если доказано, что те нарушают авторское или смежное право.

Торрент-трекеры бесплатны для пользователей, владельцы таких площадок зарабатывают на показах рекламы. Rutracker.org, созданный в 2004 году, — самый популярный в Рунете торрент-трекер. По статистике самого Rutracker.org, на сайте в декабре было зарегистрировано более 14,5 млн пользователей, число раздач контента превышало 1,6 млн, а их суммарный размер — около 3 петабайт (более 3 млн гигабайт). Так что неудивительно, что правообладатели после вступления в силу расширенной версии антипиратского закона ополчились именно против Rutracker.org.

По какому праву власти заблокировали Rutracker?

Возможность устанавливать вечную блокировку на интернет-ресурсы, где размещен нелегальный контент, появилась у правообладателей с 1 мая 2015 года, когда в силу вступили поправки в закон «Об информации, информационных технологиях и защите информации». Согласно поправкам, если один и тот же правообладатель дважды выиграет в суде дело о защите авторских прав, сайт-нарушитель, признанный пиратским, будет заблокирован.

В прошлом году с требованием пожизненной блокировки Rutracker.org в суд обращались, например, музыкальные правообладатели, в частности, ЗАО «СБА Продакшн». А издательство «Эксмо» подало в 2015 году сразу три иска против Rutracker.org — по ним были положительные решения в июле, октябре и декабре.

Решение о пожизненной блокировке ресурса вступило в законную силу 22 января; с понедельника, 25 января, провайдеры по уведомлению Роскомнадзора приступили к его исполнению. 

Теперь Rutracker перестанет работать?

Не перестанет, но может потерять часть аудитории, потому что доступ к нему будет затруднен.

Что будет тем, кто обходит блокировку?

Похоже, что ничего. На ресурсе dostup-rutracker.org, где описаны способы обхода блокировки и выложены необходимые для этого плагины (дополнительные программки для браузеров Mozilla FireFox, Google Chrome и др.), указано, что использование этих способов законно, так как закон «предписывает блокирование доступа провайдерам, а не пользователям».

Советник президента России по развитию интернета Герман Клименко в интервью «Газете.Ru» в среду заявил, что вечная блокировка сайтов «не работает и позорит власть». 

Чего же в итоге добились правообладатели?

Это сложный вопрос. С одной стороны, угроза блокировки заставляет пиратов идти на компромиссы. С другой — когда блокировка применена, она пиратам уже не страшна (дальше Сибири не сошлют). Поэтому Rutracker.org, например, пошел на ответные меры: лишил правообладателей возможности закрывать раздачи принадлежащего им контента. «Наш трекер в течение многих лет сотрудничал с правообладателями, в связи с чем на сайте были зарегистрированы многие их представители. Они свободно могли закрывать все раздачи, на которые имели свое «авторское» право. В связи с этим многие релизы на отдельные платформы были либо запрещены, либо не рекомендованы к раздаче», — говорилось в сообщении Rutracker.org. Модераторы уточнили, что с 25 января эти соглашения больше недействительны, и призвали пользователей «смело делиться» любым контентом (от последних релизов кинематографа до новейшего ПО).

Кстати, поскольку портал Rutracker.org запрещен в России, правообладатели больше не смогут подавать к нему иски — такой площадки юридически теперь не существует. Где находится администрация Rutracker.org и где располагаются сервера компании, неизвестно. 

LESSON 4. ETHICAL ASPECTS OF LAW

Discussion

Define the word “euthanasia “. Have you heard anything about a law regulating this action (in this country or abroad)?

Reading and speaking

Text 1

1. Read the text writing down vocabulary pertaining to law.

EUTHANASIA AND THE LAW

What is the law on deliberate euthanasia in Britain and other Europeanstates?

Apart from in The Netherlands, euthanasia is against the law, and classed as a criminal act.

Euthanasia is popularly taken to mean the practice of helping severely-ill people die, either at their request or by taking the decision to withdraw life support. The definition under Dutch law is narrower - it means the termination of life by a doctor at the express and voluntary wish of a patient. Since the Dutch Supreme Court declared in 1984 that voluntary euthanasia is acceptable, the law allows a standard defence from doctors if they have adhered to ten clearly defined official guidelines and conditions.

Intentions

These hinge on the intentions of the person wanting to die, on the request and whether or not the suffering is relievable. It is not a condition that the patient is terminally ill or that the suffering is physical. Citizens from other countries are not eligible for euthanasia in Holland.

Other European countries do not allow euthanasia even if a patient wants to die - as a matter of public policy, the victim's consent does not provide a defence in the UK. Deliberate euthanasia would normally leave anyone assisting liable for murder, though liability can be reduced to manslaughter on the basis of diminished responsibility. Within English law, a difference is made between acting and refraining to act.

Withdrawing care

Passive euthanasia is when treatment to which the patient has not consented is ended. A landmark ruling came in the 1993 Bland case. Anthony Bland was a 17-year-old left severely brain damaged after the 1989 Hillsborough Football Stadium disaster. His parents and the hospital authority concerned sought permission from the High Court to withdraw the artificial nutrition and hydration that was keeping him alive. The High Court and the House of Lords agreed.

Active euthanasia occurs when treatment is administered with the intention of ending the patient's life. In a 1985 trial known as Dr Arthur's Case, a Down's syndrome baby, John Pearson, was rejected by the mother soon after birth. Dr Arthur, a highly respected paediatrician, prescribed a sedative designed to stop the child seeking sustenance. The child was given water but no food, and died just over two days after birth. Dr Arthur said in a statement that the purpose of the drug was to reduce suffering.

Murder charge

The case revolved around whether the doctor should let the severely-ill baby die of natural causes, in this case an ill-formed intestine, or allow him to die painlessly.

Initially, Dr Arthur was charged with murder by poisoning - later the charge was reduced to attempted murder. The prosecution argued that though there was no intentional murder, the doctor had declined to operate to save the child's life and the child should have been left to die of natural causes. Instead, the doctor had administered a drug which had caused the eventual death of the child.

Professor Campbell, an expert witness at the trial, argued: "There is an important difference between allowing a child to die and taking action to kill it."

Dr Arthur was acquitted by the jury at Leicester Crown Court. It was decided that he had not committed the act of 'positive euthanasia', he had merely prescribed a drug, which had resulted in the peaceful death of the child.

There have been so far only a few court cases revolving around the question of euthanasia. The true extent of how many people are helped to die is far from clear.

2. Agree or disagree:

1) Euthanasia takes place only when a patient expresses a voluntary wish to die.

2) Euthanasia is legal in many European countries.

3) The law in Holland doesn’t allow euthanasia for citizens from other countries.

4) A doctor’s acting and refraining to act are considered to be one and the same crime within English law.

5) There haven’t been any cases when a doctor charged with deliberate killing of his patient was acquitted.

6)  Passive euthanasia takes place when a doctor puts an end to treatment to which the patient has not consented.

3. Find out your groupmates’ attitude to euthanasia (make distinction between different types of euthanasia) through interviewing and write an article on the problem.

4. Act out the trial of Dr Arthur’s case mentioned in the article.

Text 2

1.Translate the following terms:

inalienable rights, privacy, gain statutory/case support, surveillance, killer app, harassment litigation, transgression.

2. Read the text noting down the following points:

- the reasons for workplace surveillance;

- the ways of workplace surveillance;

- objections to the spread of workplace surveillance.

EYE SPY

In the digital workplace, can employees ever have a reasonable expectation of privacy?
    There’s never a shortage of good oxymorons: Jumbo shrimp. Computer security. Military intelligence. Compassionate conservatism. World Series Champion Boston Red Sox. And now, to that list can be added: Workplace Privacy.

From a legal perspective, “privacy” in general is a fairly recent discovery. In the list of inalienable rights privacy is conspicuously absent. Although privacy has gained both statutory and case support, it is a “right” that is easily trumped by judicial process. More importantly, it is a “right” that we treat shabbily: we regularly trade private information for a twenty-five-cent coupon at the grocery store, or publicly discuss private matters on our cell phones.

Admittedly, the concept of privacy has never gained much traction in the workplace. There are very few successful or even surviving businesses where the owner or manager doesn’t have some idea of what his or her employees are doing and how they’re doing it. The question that we need to ask, however, is at what point employer surveillance is excessive or simply unnecessary. Unfortunately for employees seeking greater privacy, the boundary between legitimate employee supervision and invasive scrutiny will never be brightly lit. Every business has serious and reasonable justifications for a certain amount of surveillance, including productivity, prevention of theft and sabotage, prevention of harassment and discrimination, prevention of violence, and prevention of terrorism.

Thanks to a confluence of technological innovations, economic challenges, and social trends, the capabilities and rationalizations for workplace surveillance have accelerated dramatically in recent years. At the core of the nascent debate is now a central question: As surveillance technology grows smaller, faster, and more powerful, can an employee ever have a reasonable expectation of privacy in any corner of the digital workplace? The window for a rational discussion of that question is rapidly closing.

It is important to realize that the implications of this debate extend well past the employee parking lot. At a philosophical level, one concern is that the rise in workplace surveillance is slowly inuring us to surveillance in general. Across the nation, for instance, police departments are installing video cameras in public areas to look for potentially criminal activity.

If there is one technology that is encouraging employers to expand workplace surveillance, it is the World Wide Web. The “killer app,” of course, was email.

Michael Smyth, an employee of the Pillsbury Company in Philadelphia received some emails from a supervisor. Apparently upset by the emails, he sent his own electronic messages across the company system. Among other things, Smyth harshly criticized Pillsbury sales management. After a Pillsbury executive saw a copy of one of the messages in a company printer, Pillsbury promptly fired him for sending “inappropriate and unprofessional comments.”

Not surprisingly, Smyth sued to get his job back, but the US district court upheld Smyth’s termination. The district court ruled that “the company’s interest in preventing inappropriate and unprofessional comments over its email system outweighs any privacy interest.” It didn’t take long for electronic offensiveness to become a factor in harassment litigation.

The privacy balance is slightly more blurry when it comes to electronic files. While employers generally have broad rights to search offices and even desks, courts take care to scrutinize the circumstances leading to the inception of the search. Judges also look at whether the search was reasonably tailored to the alleged transgression.

Still largely unresolved is the question of how far an employer’s right to search extends into the home. If an employee is given a computer by the employer to use at home, does that give the employer license to look at even the most personal files that might be stored on that computer? To the delight of plaintiffs’ attorneys, the average computer can contain a treasure trove of electronic evidence. To the delight of computer geeks, most attorneys have absolutely no idea how to access those materials.

One of the main reasons for the phenomenon is the bewildering array of devices available on which to store data. As many bookstores and newsstands are discovering, the theft of text and images is no farther away than an inexpensive digital camera and a quiet corner of the store. Even relatively inexpensive cell phones are coming pre-equipped with simple but functional digital cameras. In addition to posing a general privacy threat (many locker rooms, gyms, and health clubs now ban camera-equipped devices), the increased risk to trade secrets and confidential information gives employers yet another rationalization for surveillance.

The tension between employee privacy and workplace surveillance grows stronger as employees move farther from the workplace itself. The Global Positioning System (GPS) is capable of reporting where a vehicle has gone, how fast it has traveled, how long it has stopped, and even the vehicle’s changes in altitude. The owners of service companies praise the increases in efficiency that have resulted from GPS installations, but employees are wary of a system that so closely monitors where they go and what they do. Workplace surveillance is no longer a 9 to 5 concern.

On the very near horizon are technologies that raise concerns about far more serious intrusions into worker privacy. Infrared technology is being incorporated into a wide variety of applications, the most common of which is the employee identification badge. Although most infrared sensor systems do not monitor bathroom use, some are aimed specifically at it. In the restaurant industry, at least one company has linked infrared badges to bathroom devices to  monitor employee hygiene habits. The company’s software tracks the steps employees take to wash their hands and records whether they do so for a sufficient period of time. At a gut level, perhaps, but restaurant owners can justify such intrusions by pointing to the economic and personal costs of a single bacterial outbreak.

There are some federal and state statutory protections for employees, but they are scattershot at best. Absent some type of Employee Bill of Rights, there is unlikely to be significant improvement in the area of workplace privacy.

As surveillance technology grows more pervasive, the leading consequence will be to make a reasonable expectation of privacy in the workplace nonexistent, if not laughable. That alone would be reason for pause, but if such surveillance is in reality numbing us to the idea of being constantly watched, or is effectively being done for government agents who could not do it themselves, then we really must consider whether “workplace privacy” is merely the canary for our “right to privacy” in general.

3. Explain the following:

-is easily trumped by;

-treat shabbily;

-invasive scrutiny;

-a confluence;

-the nascent debate;

-inuring;

-uphold termination;

-blurry;

-tailored to;

-a treasure trove;

-computer geek;

-at a gut level;

-scattershot;

-numbing us to the idea.

4. 1) What is an oxymoron? Explain each of the oxymorons mentioned in the first paragraph.

2) Explain the following word combinations and phrases. Identify the stylistic devices. What additional information is conveyed by each SD?

- “gained much traction”;

- “the window for a rational discussion of that question is rapidly closing”;

- “workplace privacy” is merely the canary for our “right to privacy”.

5. Speak about the problem of workplace surveillance using your notes from exercise 2.

6. “As surveillance technology grows more pervasive, the leading consequence will be to make a reasonable expectation of privacy in the workplace nonexistent, if not laughable.” Do you think this will happen? How would you feel working under such conditions?

Text 3

1. Read the text, define its main idea. How would you answer the question in the title?

2. Provide definitions of the underlined words and word-combinations and translate them into Russian.