Slashdot Mirror

The complainers are asking that first, the appropriate entities be addressed (i.e. those distributing the files rather than those obtaining them)

I am under the impression that this system does go after people who 'share', rather than those who download.
http://www.copyrightinformation.org/the-copyright-alert-system/what-is-a-copyright-alert/

Mind you, there's plenty of verbiage on the site along the lines of "If you have been downloading or sharing content illegally" (where said downloading may or may not be illegal depending on jurisdiction), but afaik not in the actual process outline.

Yes, I'm sure that it could be extended to downloads in the future, and yes I know that there's a case to be made that IP address != individual. I'm merely addressing the whole distributing vs obtaining bit here.

First of all, the appeal reviews are done by the American Arbitration Association (AAA), not the recording industry. You might argue that the AAA is in the latter's pockets, but at the very least, this is not what is alleged to be the case. We'll have to see how things go.

Secondly, you get the $35 back if the appeal is successful.

However, because the nature of the alert does not contain any information about what work was supposedly infringed upon, I'm uncertain how an accused person who might not have had *ANY* infringing content being downloaded through their IP can sensibly respond.

According to the grounds for appeal, most of the reasons aren't even applicable unless the person who is accused actually knows what the alleged infringing content that was downloaded and in turn identified their IP as infringing on copyright. where it was downloaded from, when, etc, Absolutely none of the alerts that the consumer receives contain any of that information.

Remember this is done by the ISP and so will carry more authority than third-party torrent tracking.

No, it's not. It's being done using the same third party tracking:

CCI’s content partners join peer-to-peer networks in order to locate the music, movies or TV shows they own.

-- http://www.copyrightinformation.org/resources-faq/copyright-alert-system-faqs/

For several years, copyright owners have been using certain automated techniques to identify Internet users who they believe are engaged in possible infringing activity via P2P networks. When a copyright owner identifies an instance of possible infringement, it sends the user's ISP a notice that contains the name of the copyrighted work, the date and time of the alleged infringement and the Internet Protocol (IP) address of the computer that is alleged to be sharing copyrighted content. The ISP matches the IP address sent by the copyright owner to the specific customer to whom that IP address was assigned at that time, and then forwards the information provided by the content owner to that user without identifying the user to the copyright owner(s).

-- http://www22.verizon.com/Support/Residential/internet/highspeed/general+support/top+questions/questionsone/123247.htm

The evidence will include your account, IP, their DHCP logs showing you were in control of the IP at that time, and statistics on how much uploading and downloading of the torrent you performed.

No, it won't:

The Alerts, include the date, time, time zone and title of the copyrighted content

What actual monitoring is going to be happening?... The only way they're going to determine if I'm sharing copyrighted material is by connecting to the tracker and seeing my IP as a peer.

That is exactly what they are doing. According to the Center for Copyright Information the process is:
1. Companies that own music, tv shows, and movies join peer-to-peer networks and search for media that they own.
2. They confirm that the titles are indeed copyrighted content.
3. They collect the IP addresses making the content available.
4. They send the IP addresses to the participating ISP that the address is assigned to.
5. The ISP passes a Copyright Alert to the customer using the IP address.

A couple of ways to avoid the copyright alert system would be to:
- use a download method other than bittorrent.
- use an ISP that doesn't participate in the system. A list of participating ISPs is on wikipedia.

Here's the EFF's take on the CAS notice up at the Center for Copyright Information, the industry group that's fronting for this abomination.

I encourage you to read the EFF's page, but the CAS page is the kind of stock-photo-laden polished turd that you'd expect from a group funded by the **AA and tasked with accusing people of piracy and stealing in order to prop up an industry unable to cope with modern information technology.

I also encourage you to send a few bucks the EFF's way, in hopes that they can declaw this, or better yet, defeat it entirely. See my sig.

http://www.copyrightinformation.org/

Anyone track down a physical location for these weasels or where they might be connecting from?

"An agreement is yet to be signed." is in the OP's link and that gives us an idea that in the future there MAY be an agreement.

That article is from June 23, 2011. A final agreement called the Momorandum of Understanding (PDF) was written on July 6, 2011. It's an agreement between MPAA, RIAA, AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, Cablevision, and Time Warner Cable. I don't know if it was actually signed on the lines, and I haven't heard of anyone leaving or entering the agreement.

According to FAQ #4 "How does the system work?", the process begins when a copyright owner reports your IP address and date to an ISP. To determine how much your service would be affected, I first need to know what copyright owner would report you. Or did you expect it to be something mickey-mouse like The Tetris Company complaining about the inclusion of Quadrapassel or tetris.el in a Linux distro?

From the Center For Copyright Information page, the News Feed link Center for Copyright Information Announces Three Major Steps Towards Implementation has this paragraph:

In addition to these appointments, CCI announced the retention of the American Arbitration Association (“AAA”), a global leader in conflict management. AAA will be the independent entity that manages the program’s independent review process, including the training of neutral reviewers for situations where a subscriber has received multiple alerts but believes a mitigation measure should not be imposed.

The usual procedure for this organization in other activities is to require substantial up front payment just to get things started. How this would play out in the case of this program is not specified. But it is likely to require the accused alleged infringer to initiate the process through AAA which could cost hundreds of dollars paid in advance, thus leaving a huge portion of the population out, assuming this process is fair (which in the financial services sector has been a dismal failure).

I'd be curious how they would try to force use of arbitration. Maybe as part of the contracts people sign with their internet providers? Better read your contracts. But if no such clause is present and stated to apply to outside parties, and anything is wrong in accusations made, I'd recommend taking the matter to court against the CFCI or whoever is providing the erroneous accusations.

The following were found on this page and stated to be facts which simply are not true:

More than 373,000 Jobs

Lie #1 ... as people shift spending from media companies to other things, 373,000 jobs shift to other things. Follow the money!

Some $16 Billion in Lost Wages

Lie #2 (pretty much a rephrase of Lie #1) ... some $16 billion in gained wages in other job sectors where people are spending their money usually more effectively.

$2.6 Billion in Lost Taxes

Lie #3 (still much the same) ... the taxes will be paid through sales of other things.

I most certainly am NOT a supporter of copyright theft. However, lies used to promote programs to fight copyright theft are no better than these thefts themselves.

These are the same kinds of lies and fraud often perpetrated by big corporations and Republican presidential candidates to fool people into believing that they can pull free jobs out of their arses, if only you will just give them complete unlimited control of things.

I guess they mean "friendly" as in "those two were getting friendly last night" or "that movie exec thought copyright infringement was "content theft" and also had an annoying boner, so he got friendly with everyone's internet traffic in the hopes he could catch one of his films' sex scenes".