US ISPs, Big Content Reaching Antipiracy Agreement

Chaonici writes "The word from CNet is that an antipiracy agreement between a number of ISPs (including Verizon, AT&T, and Comcast) and the RIAA & MPAA is nearing completion. Under the agreement, ISPs will step up their responses to copyright infringement complaints against subscribers. If a subscriber accumulates enough complaints, the ISP can throttle their bandwidth, limit their Web access to only the top 200 websites, and/or require participation in a 'copyright awareness' program that explains the rights of content creators. ISPs and rights holders will share the costs of the system. Ars Technica confirms the story with notes from an industry source, who mentions that the Obama administration is 'generally supportive' of the agreement."

Comments

What is this?

[GameboyRMH]

What is this, fascism week?

Re:What is this?

[jaymz666]

good luck finding one!

Re:What is this?

[urbanculturedispatj]

Surely all that this is going to achieve is more people jumping on the lulzsec/anonymous bandwagon??

Re:What is this?

[Doctor_Jest]

That would be great if there was actual market competition in the broadband arena. It's pretty simply a monopoly, and if you factor in the government sanction that provides the monopoly... then yes... it is fascism.

This is vastly more sinister than the government adopting this stance officially.. because we can vote the bastards out who passed it. With the current state of broadband in the US, the only voting out we can do is canceling service in protest, something I suspect the Great Unwashed is unwilling to do.

This has nothing to do with actual infringement. All you need is to piss off the right people and zing! you're throttled and limited. There is no due process. If you get "enough complaints"... your ISP is going to screw you over withholding service that YOU paid for. How equitable is that? How is that not illegal? The EFF needs to sue.

Without competition, we are, to put it bluntly... fucked. And this sort of nonsense has made it more and more clear that the *AA's don't want my money. That's fine. I'll keep it. If only 20% of the people in the US did that, we'd be able to force change. As it stands now, about all we can do is shake our fists and shout insults as the *AA's burn down the orphanage and assrape the kids escaping the fire.

Re:What is this?

[king neckbeard]

It's a good bit closer when both of those private businesses have government backed monopolies in their respective fields.

Re:What is this?

[urbanculturedispatj]

Maybe more the idea that they are advocating anonymous use of the internet which when all these blocks come into place is surely going to be a tempting option.

Re:What is this?

[JMJimmy]

I smell a lawsuit.

Great for businesses not in the top 200!

Re:What is this?

[GameboyRMH]

I'm just saying things have really been picking up speed over the last week. Just last week, Australians and Americans could access any website without government/corporate permission.

Re:What is this?

[Threni]

Isn't Pirate Bay in the top 200 sites?

Re:What is this?

[gstoddart]

It's a good bit closer when both of those private businesses have government backed monopolies in their respective fields.

And, when they tell the government what laws they need passed to be sure the deck is stacked in their favor.

America is so beholden to the content makers it's not funny ... and they've more or less started to make the rest of the world beholden to them with ACTA.

Re:What is this?

[morari]

Consumers have no power when there is exactly one ISP in the area.

Re:What is this?

[Cimexus]

Yeah - though at least in Australia there is (in most areas) a pretty wide choice of ISPs (and only two ISPs are doing this retarded voluntary filtering thing). But you'd be kinda screwed if you lived in an area (in whatever country) where you didn't have any other realistic choice of ISP ('desperate' options like relying solely on 3G and satellite notwithstanding)

Re:What is this?

[drinkypoo]

Screw that. Let's just use the technology that exists today, and start building out our own networks. Tired of paying high prices for substandard service.

THIS is the answer. We MUST begin building a community mesh-networked internet (the intermesh? nah, dumb name. Internet3?) This is absolutely the only thing that can possibly allow us to move into the future with anything like freedom of speech.

Re:What is this?

[houstonbofh]

That, or... Once there is real damage from these random letters, you can now take them directly to small claims court for slander. If everyone started doing that, it would make the entire thing cost prohibitive.

Re:What is this?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why? It's not like it's difficult to find another ISP.

I switched away from AT&T back in May when they instituted that ridiculous download cap and I couldn't be happier with my new ISP. They aren't a huge corporation, but they give me the bandwidth that I pay for, without caps, throttling, fake packet injection or kowtowing to the MAFIAA.

Re:What is this?

[nschubach]

I'm sure there's plenty of "hackable" wireless routers laying around to do it, but there needs to be a place to point people to. Set up the SSID as a web address, web page provides ROMs and details on the whole thing.

Re:What is this?

[houstonbofh]

Actually, it isn't fascism when two private businesses agree to do something incredibly unfriendly to the consumer.

But when all the business in a given market do the same, it is collusion and restraint of trade. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competition_law#United_States_antitrust Now if we can get the government to take our side...

Re:What is this?

[nschubach]

Car Analogy...

Isn't it like the oil companies blacklisting you in all but a list of auto dealerships they feel is the most popular based on the fact that you own a car that doesn't burn enough gas?

Re:What is this?

[Anonymus]

Lucky you for living in an area where that's possible. In huge areas of the USA, there is literally only one option for high-speed non-satellite internet. In most other areas, there are only two or three choices... the two or three choices that are now in agreement to do something anti-customer. If they weren't a colluding oligopoly, that wouldn't be possible.

Re:What is this?

[JMJimmy]

No.

Re:What is this?

[andydread]

I am a member of the EFF I donate. I by EFF gear hats etc. And every time they make news i donate. I urge every slashdot reader to donate to the EFF they do good work.

Re:What is this?

[squidflakes]

Ok, cool. We can make all the happy freedom loving LANs we want, but who are you going to get your internet pipe from? How much does a 100Mb metro ethernet line cost per month where you live? How many people would you need to get on-board paying for it before it becomes economically practical? Is that number of people going to saturate your link? Finally, what do you do when the **AA comes knocking on the door of your bandwidth provider (read: ISP) and starts making demands because Grandma wanted to watch last night's Glee and someone showed her how to use BT? Don't get me wrong here, I like the suggestion of a more distributed internet, but until we're able to break necessity of huge capital investment for for peering, we're sort of stuck.

Re:What is this?

[drinkypoo]

Ok, cool. We can make all the happy freedom loving LANs we want, but who are you going to get your internet pipe from?

That is a valid point, but I don't think it is insolvable. Also, a link to "the internet" is not my primary goal; keeping communications open is.

Re:What is this?

[Jane Q. Public]

I'm not sure if you meant the same thing, but I was wondering about the legality of this.

How can a company amend/break their contract with a customer based solely on the word of some third party? With no due process, or anything of the sort?

I'd have to wait for details, but I expect a shitstorm over this, if they actually try it.

Re:What is this?

[squidflakes]

I don't think it is insolvable either, just anathema to the current model of large scale networking. Who, in their right mind, would want a BGP peer that is a collection of wireless routers with no access controls? Of course, that's still me coming from the "you'll want to be internet connected" angle. Making small LANs that keep communication going for local groups is absolutely unaffected by the ISP. If we really wanted, a few bucks worth of used networking equipment could get us back to the old days of local BBS style networks.

Re:What is this?

[dch24]

Good analogy.

I'd like to try one that's a little more detailed. I'm using the following reasonable requirements for the proposed "mitigation": (must... not... godwin...)

1. To find "piracy" ISPs would have to use DPI (only good for unencrypted connections)
2. To find "piracy" ISPs would likely use a dragnet, catching my Fedora Core torrent as well
3. To find "piracy" Big Content would probably infiltrate P2P swarms to collect IPs
4. To block it, ISPs would likely hand over customer details without a warrant
5. To block it, ISPs would likely "shoot first, ask questions later"

So to the car analogy:

All news cars will have data recording baked into their chips and law enforcement will have easy access.
If you get pulled over, whatever the officer says is indisputable, even if you have your own GPS that contradicts their claims.
Cars will automatically report their identification and location over a satellite network, and the same network can be used to disable the car.

Re:What is this?

[maxwell demon]

I'm pretty sure he meant something else: Companies who are not in the top 200 (but possibly close) suing for unfair disadvantage because they don't get the business from those people, while the marginally larger competitors still get it, giving them a competitive advantage. After all, it's not the non-top 200 company who did anything wrong.

Re:What is this?

[QuantumLeaper]

Yes, I have the choice of Dial-up or Comcast, those are my ONLY choices current, no DSL. Comcast is my 3rd cable Internet company in 10 years or so. Started with @Home, then Insight Board Band took over and now finally Comcast. The first two were great but Comcast is horrid.

Re:What is this?

[Jane Q. Public]

That's a valid point. But this is still a matter of allowing private parties to judge the legality of someone's actions, based solely on the say-so of some other private party.

To say the legality of such an operation in this country is questionable is a bit of an understatement, methinks.

Re:What is this?

[Lord Dreamshaper]

How can a company amend/break their contract with a customer based solely on the word of some third party? With no due process, or anything of the sort?

Because they're not breaking their contract with you if they have some vaguely worded clause to the effect they can throttle you at their discretion for "better network management" or somesuch.

For the "greater good" of their network, all those greedy bandwidth hogs who have the nerve to make full use of the pipeline they paid for will be blacklisted; if that just "happens" to appease the MAFIAA for alleged IP violations, well isn't that a happy coincidence?

Re:What is this?

[HermMunster]

Whether you violate someone's copyright is not the issue here. It's that the company you are often forced to use (and as per the UN report having internet access is a human rights right) violates the rule of law in order to protect their private interests, and are supported by a government that knows that the rule of law is the most sacred.

What the Whitehouse thinks about this isn't relevant. It's about due process and if push comes to shove there are many people/organizations out there willing to push this out while bringing greater awareness to the general public that their ISP is acting illegally to protect it's interest with an administration willing to give it the go ahead.

Re:What is this?

[alexo]

What is this, fascism week?

You misspelled "century".

Re:What is this?

[jaymz666]

yes, dial up, comcast, at&t are the land based ISP choices here.

So yes, it IS difficult to find another ISP

Re:What is this?

[jaymz666]

And there are lots of people who are so fed up with Comcast and AT&T that they have looked, and found NOTHING else

Re:What is this?

[Jane Q. Public]

"Because they're not breaking their contract with you if they have some vaguely worded clause to the effect they can throttle you at their discretion for "better network management" or somesuch."

I'm not sure I agree... and again, the fact is that they would be taking someone else's word about violations. That is the part that bothers me most.

IANAL, but something about this doesn't smell right, legality-wise.

Re:What is this?

[SuricouRaven]

Difficult bordering on impossible. But, if you do want to investigate something like this, I see potential in a distributed cache in making it workable. Hard drives are cheap - it would be entirely practical to have a two-terabyte cache in every single node. With the right management, that means almost no retransmissions, ever. Cut files into blocks, store blocks by hash, identify files by a list of block hashes (or a hash of a list of block hashes)... doable. Hard, but doable. Then you'd need radio only for getting new block and dynamic content, which hugely reduces bandwidth demands.

Re:What is this?

[Peristaltic]

Thank you. I busted my tail in Houston trying to find an ISP other than AT&T and Comcast, but being more than 9000' from the CO, any DSL option was effectively out, and my only other viable option was Comcast.

Re:What is this?

[Lord Dreamshaper]

sure, but if you've signed a contract that has such vague terms in it (so that the judge doesn't summarily rule in your favour) that they *might* legally be able to cap you, turn you over to the MAFIAA, disconnected you, kill you with bogus surcharges, or whatever, then the burden will be on you to take them and possibly the MAFIAA on in court. Are you really going to spend that kinda money just to lose and switch to another carrier that will do exactly the same thing?

United we stand, divided we fall, etc, etc, but the little guys don't even get any real satisfaction if the actually manage to win a class action suit, only the lawyers do.

Re:What is this?

[Grishnakh]

Actually, in this case it can be traced back to fascism, because the ISPs are utilities, and are monopolies, and as such are supposed to be regulated by the government. In addition, the ISPs got giant subsidies from the government to build the infrastructure.

Re:What is this?

[Jane Q. Public]

Not really. (Disclaimer: IANAL, but I was top of my class in Business Law).

A contract that says, for example, "We reserve the right to change these terms at any time, without notice..." is not a real contract. And they are real enough; I have seen plenty of them, including from outfits like cable companies.

A contract is an agreement between two parties, based on mutual understanding. If you have no idea what the terms of the agreement might be a week from now, that piece of paper you signed is not a contract. At most, they could hold NEW customers to the new terms, but legally you should be bound only by terms that were in effect when you signed.

Further yet: a mass-produced form from a large company, that does not give you a reasonable chance to negotiate terms before you sign, may be a contract but it is a weak one, commonly known as a "contract of adhesion". In other words, one party has much more influence on the terms than the other. It is a "take it or leave it" proposition.

Courts tend to look somewhat askance at contracts of adhesion. If you get a judge in a bad mood he might hold you to the terms, on the other hand he might tell the ISP to stuff it.

Re:What is this?

[Lanteran]

Genius! Tell me where the ISP you speak of is! Where I live, I've got two choices and most people don't have that many.

Re:What is this?

[drinkypoo]

I will take a look, I glanced over their site and it is beyond light on technical details.

The wording scares me

[Combatso]

"complaints" and "suspected pirate". From what I can tell, to the MPAA and RIAA everyone is a "suspected" pirate..... I wonder if ThePirateBay is in the top 200 website list?

Re:The wording scares me

[jaymz666]

The wording is very scary, it certainly seems to imply that the powers that be only have to accuse you of piracy, with little or no means of proof and no appeal process.

Re:The wording scares me

[kelemvor4]

That was my thought as well. The setup sounds like it will totally circumvent due process.

Re:The wording scares me

[CapuchinSeven]

I wonder if ThePirateBay is in the top 200 website list?

I believe it is, along with a number of other sites they wouldn't want you going to.

Re:The wording scares me

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm 100% sure with the shoddy way ISPs handle their current networks, "suspected pirate" will be anyone with a high amount of torrent traffic or a high amount of requests to sites like rapidshare.
 
Welcome to your new "freedom."

Re:The wording scares me

[muuh-gnu]

The so called "due process" wasnt laid out for a case where basically millions and millions of people, i.e. the majority of a country's population, are guilty and have to be prosecuted by comparably a tiny number of prosecutors. Usually, something that the majority of people doesnt consider wrong and does on a daily basis isnt even illegal. But in the case of enforcing copyright, you basically have a small, very small minority trying to force the majority into not doing something very basic like information exchange against their will and against their intrinsic sense of right and wrong. If due process is required in every of all those "educational" lawsuits, the few prosecutors would never get enough of them to have the envisioned shock & awe educational effect on the majority. Since disproportionately harsh example punishments like decimation are politcally and legally not yet possible, getting all the filthy pirates _can_ only work if the assumption is made that every accusation is justified and the wrongdoing highly probable, and the process then fully automated according to this assumption.

Re:The wording scares me

[TheRaven64]

Sounds great. Get a list of all of your elected representatives and all of their staff. Every day, report one of them for suspected copyright infringement.

Re:The wording scares me

[houstonbofh]

Not totally true. A written communication accusing you of a criminal act leading to monetary damages is slander. Take each letter you can defend to small claims court.

Re:The wording scares me

[houstonbofh]

Yet hotels, that have torrent traffic 24/7 will be fine. God knows, Comcast will not want to drop that hotel with 3 business class cable modems and 24 phone lines.

Re:The wording scares me

[idontgno]

"There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power government has is the power to crack down on criminals. When there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws."

-- Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged

As much as I find undiluted Objectivism distasteful, it's hard to argue with what I see... If you can only control through intimidation, and your charter is to intimidate the "bad guy", you have to make everyone the "bad guy" in order to control everyone.

Re:The wording scares me

[hedwards]

Given that most ISPs in the US are part of a duopoly, I'm wondering how exactly this isn't an antitrust violation. Around here I've basically got Qwest and Comcast with the other ISPs being way too light weight to take seriously, and that includes Hughes and Clear.

This sounds an awful lot like abusing ones market position to ensure that one makes the "right" decision when it comes to purchasing music, and all without the pesky business of courts. Probably racketeering as well, as I doubt very much that the RIAA or MPAA will bother to use this for cases where they have the goods, because they'd make a lot more money on a ridiculous trial.

Re:The wording scares me

[jaymz666]

It is also another means to limiting bandwidth usage, remember, only pirates come close to the caps...

Re:The wording scares me

[maxwell demon]

Does it also work in reverse? It would be hilarious if the RIAA and MPAA were disconnected because too many people complained about them :-)

Re:The wording scares me

[Sparrow1492]

Going to The Pirate Bay is no problem. All they do is list a bunch of available torrents. Those distributed files are not found on the 200 sites though, so since you'll be theoretically blocked from establishing a connection to Billy or Johnny's BT client, you get nowhere.

Re:The wording scares me

[Burz]

Her 'innocent men' were industrialists and I'd say right now that they are the ones who are giving freedom a bad name, freely colluding against individual liberty and privacy.

Rand is still as distasteful as she ever was.

Re:The wording scares me

[idontgno]

Well, this just means that the principle works in both directions.

In her paranoid fantasy, the undeserving mob (proletariat?) was trampling the rights of the noble individual industrial innovator, whereas nowadays it's the stinking plutocrat pigopolist that's keeping down the overwhelming number of honest and free-thinking individual.

"Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite." -- John Galbraith (not Galt)

Re:The wording scares me

[hedwards]

I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with caps, provided the money raised from it is used to increase capacity and speed on the network.

Which is to say, that I'm completely opposed to American ISPs instituting caps on bandwidth.

Re:The wording scares me

[jaymz666]

considering comcast doesn't raise any money from caps, they just cut you off for 12 months...

Any lurking in a comcast related forum, like on DSL reports, you will find plenty of people towing the company line that 250GB is plenty for EVERYONE, only pirates use over 50GB a month.

Re:The wording scares me

[black soap]

Aren't phone companies restricted from doing this sort of thing? Why should ISPs be treated any differently?

Re:The wording scares me

[SuricouRaven]

I would assume that only consumer lines risk disconnection. Those who pay for business service will get a bit more leeway.

There was some fuss in the UK about a similar proposal - law, rather than industry agreement - shutting down free wifi, since anyone offering the service would be required to institute identity checks and usage monitoring that are completly impractical for small organisations with transient customers. I don't know how it turned out - the last I heard was the government promising that even though the law needs to ban them to be effective, it won't be enforcing that part.

Re:The wording scares me

[vux984]

250GB is plenty for EVERYONE

You do realize they have other tiers of service.

If you are an ultra-high bandwidth user, perhaps cheapest consumer class tier isn't the best fit for you.

The average user uses under 10GB of month on an average month. So you can use up to 25x times the average users usage for the same price, effectively subsidized by those other users. Seems like a pretty good deal for high bandwidth users. 250GB is quite a lot really.

Oh wait... you want to use 100x times more than the average user, but still pay the same. And its grossly unfair that you have to upgrade to a higher tier and pay more than the people using 1/100th the bandwidth you do?

Yeah, cry me a river.

Seriously. Lots of people... scratch that... some people need more than 250GB/mo and that's fine... but I don't see any reason you shouldn't pay for it.

Re:The wording scares me

[jaymz666]

No, Comcast does not have other tiers of service.

Re:The wording scares me

[Lanteran]

Just looked it up out of curiosity. The pirate bay has an alexa ranking of 87, so assuming they mean most popular, ironically yes.

Top 200 web sites?

[jd2112]

Good, I'll still be able to get to ThePirateBay

Re:Top 200 web sites?

[soodoo]

What's the reasoning behind only allowing the top 200 web sites anyway?
Why are websites with less traffic bad?

This is wrong on so many levels.

Re:Top 200 web sites?

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe they are referring to the top 200 sites the ISP/*AA would like you to visit.

Re:Top 200 web sites?

[Anonymous Coward]

Google is in the top 10 and has a cache.
What more do you need? :-)

Re:Top 200 web sites?

[JMJimmy]

Freedom.

Re:Top 200 web sites?

[Compaqt]

Corporate-esque thinking by a 'droid throwing together a Powerpoint.

The thinking must be that the pirate sites are in low-traffic, undesirable segments of the Internet.

Meanwhile, "mainstream" sites that "normal people" go to should be fine.

Re:Top 200 web sites?

[Intron]

What's the reasoning behind only allowing the top 200 web sites anyway?
Why are websites with less traffic bad?

This is wrong on so many levels.

Simple. The **AA want you kicked off the Internet, but your ISP still wants to collect their full monthly rate from you. So this way everybody is happy except you and you don't have a vote.

Re:Top 200 web sites?

[Ghostworks]

Google has wanted to know where every internet user goes for quite a while now. I suspect that if this goes through, gateway.google.com or some such service will be rolled out to let the accused infringers access other sites through Google. And why not? It's good for their "don't be evil" image, it lets them actually view every site visited, it's not an ISP, it will always be a top 200 website, any ISP that blocks it just shot itself in the head, and it could probably swallow the RIAA whole if it wished. Oh, and it could by made the default, one-button-press-to-use proxy in every new version of chrome to roll out. It's not such a sure thing that you could declare this entire RIAA/MPAA exercise pointless, but it makes enough sense that it's hard to think of a reason Google wouldn't do it, or to believe that the ISP agreement has any real hope of combating piracy.

Re:Top 200 web sites?

[SuricouRaven]

Websites that have enough money to pay lawyers to fight back will obviously be excluded. That's just common sense.

Re:Top 200 web sites?

[gl4ss]

it might finally give boost to popularity of mesh based p2p(that proxies through several nodes). and of course to vpn selling solutions.


and actually it gives the ability for sites not on their top 200 to SUE THE FUCK OUT OF THEM ALL.

Good...

[Jawnn]

It's about time that other corporate "citizens" (the telco's and ISP's) step up and do their part to help our government enforce the rights of corporate "citizens", like the RIAA and the MPAA, in their fight against the terrorist hordes who threaten their their very existence.
[/sarcasm]

oh, the irony

[orange47]

um, Pirate bay is probably in those "top 200 websites"

Re:Won't stop me from pirating

[Shikaku]

Cool goatse link bro

Re:Won't stop me from pirating

[Noughmad]

Goatse.

lawsuit

[AmiMoJo]

For unfair disconnection in 3... 2... 1...

Re:lawsuit

[sincewhen]

And yet not, as the terms of service will be revised and you will agree to them in order to have internet service at all.

Re:lawsuit

[houstonbofh]

But a written accusation of illegal activity with monetary consequences is still slander.

Re:lawsuit

[AmiMoJo]

You can sign away your legal rights? Your contracts system is more fucked up than I thought.

In the UK you can't give up your basic rights, such as the right to take legal action. Even if you sign a bit of paper saying you do it isn't legally binding.

Re:Won't stop me from pirating

[ciderbrew]

ALERT ! goatse
ya got me :(

subject

[Legion303]

"ISPs and rights holders will share the costs of the system."

Ha ha! But seriously, customers will share the costs with other customers. RIAA might jack up member fees, but they were probably going to do that anyway.

CONSUMERS will burden the costs of the system

[jDeepbeep]

ISPs and rights holders will share the costs of the system

Naturally, the ISP will pass on the costs to the consumer, and the rights holders will find a way to pad the product price with their piece of the cost, but we all knew that.

Re:CONSUMERS will burden the costs of the system

[hosecoat]

do the ISPs realize that if they throttle me and cut access to sites then I will stop paying them money.

Re:CONSUMERS will burden the costs of the system

[mounthood]

My guess would be that the ISPs assign "expense" to the system and the MAFIAA pays the bill. There isn't any reason for the ISPs to do this if they aren't getting paid.

Re:CONSUMERS will burden the costs of the system

[brainzach]

Do you realize that the ISP's think you are a bad customer?

Those who download copyrighted content use a greater amount of bandwidth compared to the average user. They would rather you go and clog up their competitors network.

Re:CONSUMERS will burden the costs of the system

[hosecoat]

Do you realize that the ISP's think you are a bad customer?

Those who download copyrighted content use a greater amount of bandwidth compared to the average user. They would rather you go and clog up their competitors network.

Maybe you're right, but I pay a premium for my bandwidth. Pro plan, plus bandwidth overage. When the early adopters leave, The "lite" plan isn't going to pay their bills

Re:CONSUMERS will burden the costs of the system

[TheSpoom]

If you think the RIAA will actually take on any part of the cost of this, you're insane. They're run by lawyers; the agreement will allow them to slip out of any required contribution.

Re:CONSUMERS will burden the costs of the system

[0111 1110]

Those who download copyrighted content use a greater amount of bandwidth compared to the average user.

Citation needed. This is complete bollocks. Most people use minimal bandwidth whether they download copyrighted material or not. How much bandwidth does a few songs use up? Not a lot. If they were concerned about bandwidth issues they could just start bandwidth capping or reduce the cap if they already have one. This agreement is definitely not in the financial interest of the ISPs themselves. And, frankly, if I were a shareholder I would consider suing. This agreement has no potential for profit and a huge potential for loss, which is why it took so many years to even reach this stage. These companies will be screwing over their own shareholders in the name of some political (fascist) ideal. Just brilliant.

Re:CONSUMERS will burden the costs of the system

[maczealot]

Annnnnnnnnnnd I just cancelled my account with Comcast. I hereby apologize to all of you and all of humanity for having ever given them a dime in the first place. At the time they were the fastest available option and I do have to have access at home for my job so I have been procrastinating making the switch to Qwest. Here in the Twin Cities I have that option, and I suggest all who are lucky enough to have such options take them immediately. Consequently when I select a new cellphone in the next month I will not choose Verizon or AT&T, not even T-Mobile unless they publicly state that they plan to fight any takeover attempt by the Death Star with every X-Wing available to them.

Again, I apologize for my tardiness in coming onto the right side in this fight and pledge to do my utmost for the rest of my IT career and life on this planet to oppose these scumbags and their broken business models. Long live liberty and justice.

Re:CONSUMERS will burden the costs of the system

[jaymz666]

I can easily go over 250GB downloading LEGAL content from Netflix, Steam, Amazon etc.

Indeed

[Anonymous Coward]

Aye, Alexa confirms it: the Pirate Bay has a global traffic rank of 89 and a US traffic rank of 97.

Slashdot, on the other hand, would be inaccessible at 1354 (globally) / 775 (US).

Re:Indeed

[houstonbofh]

Aye, Alexa confirms it: the Pirate Bay has a global traffic rank of 89 and a US traffic rank of 97.

Slashdot, on the other hand, would be inaccessible at 1354 (globally) / 775 (US).

riaa.org * Alexa Traffic Rank: 122,822
comcast.net * Alexa Traffic Rank: 217
att.net * Alexa Traffic Rank: 6,440
verizon.net * Alexa Traffic Rank: 2,911
Doh!

Re:Indeed

[QuantumLeaper]

I wonder if would a valid defense, telling AT&T, that I couldn't pay their bill because Comcast is blocking them?

Peer Block

[CPTreese]

I have recently heard rumors that the anti P2P servers have found a way around clients like Peer Block. Can anyone confirm or deny this rumor? If it is true, how is it done?

Re:Peer Block

[Anonymous Coward]

Peer Block is neigh pointless. All it does it prevent communication with an IP based off a list. This fails in 2 distinct ways. A. You have to have a trustworthy list that assumes they don't rotate their IP addresses and isn't poisoned by those same companies. B. The Trackers have a full list of IP addresses that are part of the swarm and also maintain statistics on upload/downloads. Preventing communication isnt the same as being hidden, dont trust peer block to do much for you.

Re:Peer Block

[GameboyRMH]

Peer Block was never a foolproof measure. It blocks the bogon ranges, which is the most important part, but basically any company using a non-static address (like a home connection) to monitor swarms will have no problem doing so.

Re:Peer Block

[Burz]

Peerblock was a stopgap that only seemed to work while ISPs weren't also content providers. Now that they are, they're gonna turn the Internet into an IP police state where everything is hyper-scrutinized and mere 'complaints' can be used to make your neighbors suffer greatly.

The only way around them is to use secure proxies (either for-pay ones that access the regular Internet, or the anonymized kind as referenced by my tagline).

Re:Peer Block

[SuricouRaven]

That's one way around. Another would be to go social. Get some pirate friends together and set up a little WASTE network - invite-only, encrypted, authenticated. Impossible to monitor. Someone will still have to go get the latest popular film off of bittorrent, but all the rest of the group can get it from him with no risk. I'm hopeing that pirate releases will also be spurred to spend more time in perfecting the art of compression, rather than just throwing bits at video to make it look perfect. Smaller files are less easily noticed, and very nice for those on caps.

Bullshit.

[Anonymous Coward]

If anything, this is going to push me into "pirating" more. Limit my freedom just because some asshole corporate fuck thinks it's "fair"? Fuck these mother fuckers. I'll advise EVERYONE I know to NEVER do business with Comcast, AT&T, or Verizon from here on out.

Just because of this, I refuse to buy a movie or song ever again. 100% piracy from now on.

It's seriously time for a pro-freedom ISP that encrypts everything, logs nothing, and is crazy fast. Anybody have access to some VC capital to make this happen?

Re:Bullshit.

[Duradin]

Why not power it with cold fusion while you're at it?

Re:Bullshit.

[Elbereth]

Your freedom to have an entitlement complex is being infringed? My God, call the waaaaaaambulance immediately! This is truly an emergency of epic proportions. What will you do if you can't gorge yourself on pop culture? That truly must be a life not worth living.

Re:Bullshit.

[Travelsonic]

Or how about the freedom to actually b able to go about your business under the presumption that any accusation is substantiated before proof, and accusation ALONE not enough to have you affected?

Re:Bullshit.

[IamTheRealMike]

People like you are the cause of this kind of action. Yes, you are. Do you really believe ISPs want to be thinking about this stuff? No, they'd rather be doing other things. But the huge number of people who rely on even the flimsiest justifications to pirate things mean it was kind of inevitable.

Here's a genius idea - how about you pay for what you use, and then if you are unfairly targeted you can kick up a huge storm and demand "pro freedom" ISPs? This isn't some kind of secret government prison we're talking about here. If you get whacked and you're not pirating things you'll easily be able to tell people about it. And if you were a pirate, shouldn't you be grateful that you're only being throttled instead of, you know, prosecuted?

Re:Bullshit.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll advise EVERYONE I know to NEVER do business with Comcast, AT&T, or Verizon from here on out.

And, what if Comcast is the only broadband ISP in your area? And when AT&T swallows T-Mobile (and Verizon buys Sprint to keep up) we have just two nationwide cell carriers? Are you going to not own a cell phone and use dial-up?

Re:Bullshit.

[Elbereth]

So, why is the OP resorting to piracy? Why not just boycott the content producers and ISPs who are engaging in this behavior? It reeks of an entitlement complex -- I deserve to have everything for free, damn it, and you have no right to tell me that I can't pirate to my heart's content!

Yes, there are other issues here, such as potentially losing your internet access because some minimum wage worker fingered your IP address, instead of the actual IP address of a pirate, but that's not what the OP was raging about -- or, at least, it was secondary to his justifications of his entitlement complex.

Re:Bullshit.

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Your freedom to have an entitlement complex is being infringed? My God, call the waaaaaaambulance immediately!

No, it's just freedom that's being infringed, no qualification needed. It's easy to make fun of other people complaining about the loss of their freedom, as long as it doesn't affect you personally; rest assured, the powers that be will get around to your freedom eventually. And they will rely on the support of people exactly like you (except that those people won't consider their own freedom to be in danger ... for the moment) to do so.

You may want to reconsider your user name.

Re:Bullshit.

[zero0ne]

Who supplies Time Warner Cable with backbone connectivity?

Re:Bullshit.

[elashish14]

I doubt there'll ever be an ISP that does that, but there are always VPNs. The creators of The Pirate Bay have one - I've been thinking about signing up for it for a long time, but haven't yet cause I haven't had time to pirate much lately... anyways: wiki and their website.

Re:Bullshit.

[Anonymous Coward]

One more has finally seen the light.

I don't consider myself pro-piracy. I believe that receiving the benefit from something without the owner's permission is unethical (even if the owner still gets to benefit from it). I am an artist myself, and thus have a vested interest in copyright law. I believe that a reasonable copyright system is worthwhile, and those who try to avoid recompensing artists and authors under such a system should be punished.

We do not have such a system. We have a system where a person can be punished on the mere accusation of wrongdoing (DMCA takedown notice); where the online equivalent of jaywalking is punishable by fines in the hundreds of thousands of dollars (Jammie Thomas); where so-called "limited-time" copyright keeps getting extended so that nothing will ever go public domain again; where companies can lock up their works so that even when they do go public domain they still can't be accessed (DRM); where the force of law backs this up so you're not allowed to bypass such locks even for legitimate use (DMCA); where copyright infringement is equated to terrorism by assigning it to the organization created specifically to go after terrorists (DHS); where anti-piracy international agreements are made in secret and all we get is a name that equates piracy with one of the most severe crimes of a civilized society (Anti-COUNTERFEITING Trade Agreement); where companies can get away with spamming letters threatening lawsuits without even a hint of accuracy checking so that even people who don't have a computer get threatened without any legal recourse; where giant companies can convince the government to do practically anything just by complaining about how much they're being harmed by piracy even when they're making record-breaking profits; where the whole idea of copyright, which was originally meant "to promote the progress of science and useful arts" now keeps every possible idea locked up so tightly that the law hinders the progress of science and the useful arts, all so that a handful of executives of big companies can each buy a third yacht.

I'm not pro-piracy. I'm anti-broken-copyright-system. It's gotten to the point where I consider it more unethical to give money to those who support such a system than to copy or share something that does not belong to me.

Don't blame me. I'm just a product of the system. The system has declared war on me, as it has on everyone who has ever read a book, watched a movie, or listened to a song and wanted a copy of it for ourselves, but not at the price nor in the format that is on the market. And when you declare war on that many people, don't be surprised if some of them fight back.

Re:Bullshit.

[countertrolling]

*sigh* such bullshit...

And just where do you think your little 'pro-freedom' ISP is going to find safe haven?

Re:Bullshit.

[gottabeme]

Silly AC, karma is for registered users!

Re:Bullshit.

[gottabeme]

...Yeah, let's wait until no freedom is left before we demand freedom...

The **AAs sure do have you on a short leash.

Re:Bullshit.

[gottabeme]

Yeah, because friends don't let friends use AT&T...

I'm glad you're not my "friend".

contracts?

[king neckbeard]

I don't recall the fine print of my TOS, but I would really wonder whether or not the contracts signed allowed for this bullshit, and whether or not such things would hold up in court.

Re:contracts?

[Registered Coward v2]

I don't recall the fine print of my TOS, but I would really wonder whether or not the contracts signed allowed for this bullshit, and whether or not such things would hold up in court.

You'll probably find a "we can alter the terms if we notify you" clause in the fine print. You're option would be to cancel the contract rather than accept the change.As a side note, that can be a way to get out of a contract with a termination fee without paying the fee.

Re:contracts?

[The Moof]

I'm sure it's there along the lines of "we can change these terms at any time without notification" or something similar. I'm 50/50 on testing this in court. If it goes their way, it opens a door no consumer wants to ever see.

I think a better attack against this is any non top-200 site to sue the ever loving hell out of them. It'd be easiest for small local ISPs since it's blatantly anti-competitive practice to block traffic to your competition. Other companies would have to show damages of being blocked by ISPs (simple enough if you sell anything online).

Re:contracts?

[Anonymous Coward]

Your ToS fine print allows them to change the ToS at any time, for any reason, without notifying you or needing you consent. So, yes, it allows for this sort of BS.

Re:contracts?

[chemicaldave]

There's always the "Verizon reserves the right to change this agreement at any time provided customers are notified in advance." I know it is with mine, and I'm able to terminate the agreement with no penalty if I do not agree to the terms. Then again, where the hell am I going to get Internet if not from Comcast, AT&T, or Verizon?

Re:contracts?

[TheSpoom]

Your ToS allows the company to do whatever it wants, whenever it wants. Guaranteed.

Internet Access Is a Basic Human Right

[ALeavitt]

The UN recently declared internet access to be a basic human right. I wonder what they would have to say about the government colluding with corporations to curtail the basic human rights of citizens of the United States.
Oh, who am I kidding. They probably won't have anything to say about it at all.

Re:Internet Access Is a Basic Human Right

[Shadow99_1]

If they did, they may soon find themselves without internet access....

Re:Internet Access Is a Basic Human Right

[drinkypoo]

The UN recently declared internet access to be a basic human right.

Who is "The UN"? The only nations you need to give a shit about are on the UNSC. Do you think China believes in basic human rights at all? Do you think that the USA believes internet access is a human right? The UN just announced that it's wrong to discriminate against people on the basis of their sexual orientation, and the delegate from the USA called it a historic event, but you must remember that sexual orientation is NOT protected in the USA, except by some states (like California.) Until every nation on the UNSC has genuinely signed on to something, you can (and should) ignore it.

Anybody surprised?

[MCSEBear]

This is the same administration that declared the details of the draconian ACTA treaty to be freaking State Secrets:

Plenty of folks are quite concerned about the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) negotiations are being negotiated in secret. This is a treaty that (from the documents that have leaked so far) is quite troubling. It likely will effectively require various countries, including the US, to update copyright laws in a draconian manner. Furthermore, the negotiators have met with entertainment industry representatives multiple times, and there are indications that those representatives have contributed language and ideas to the treaty. But, the public? The folks actually impacted by all of this? We've been kept in the dark, despite repeated requests for more information.

When the Obama administration took over, there was a public stance that this administration was going to be more transparent -- especially with regards to things like Freedom of Information Act requests. The nonprofit group Knowledge Ecology International took that to heart and filed an FOIA request to get more info on ACTA. The US Trade Representative's Office responded denying the request, saying that the information was "classified in the interest of national security pursuant to Executive Order 12958." This is a treaty about changing copyright law, not sending missiles somewhere. To claim that it's a national security matter is just downright scary. As KEI points out, the text of the documents requested have been available to tons of people, including more than 30 governments around the world and lobbyists from the entertainment industry, pharma industry and publishing industry.

But when the public asks for them, we're told they're state secrets?

What does it take to become an ISP?

[Cholten]

So someone will just rent a big pipe from a company that's not signed up to this, split it and sell it on (full encrypted) to downline customers. Sounds like a business model to me...

Another thought - do corporations realise that their 'net feeds will be deep packet sniffed to look for copyright infringing material? I wonder how much they will like the ISPs no longer being just a bunch of tubes...

Re:What does it take to become an ISP?

[hairyfeet]

Won't work sadly, as ALL of the backbone is owned by....dum dum dum...assholes like AT&T! I know because a friend had a business just outside the area where cable and DSL end (and good luck EVER getting them bastards to expand, in my area they haven't moved an inch in 20 years) so he paid a crazy amount of money to have a T-1 run out there and started his own ISP. All well and good, American capitalism right?

Nope, because AT&T got wind and cut off his backbone access, some bullshit excuse about "number of connections" or some shit, made a few phone calls and made sure nobody else would sell to him either. Their answer was a bald faced "try to sue us, we're fucking AT&T!" and his lawyer said "Sure you'll win, but it'll take anywhere from 10 to 15 YEARS and cost...ohhh...about 3 MILLION dollars in lawyers fees". So he closed up his business and moved away, and those people that had a decent Internet were forced back onto AT&Ts $75 a month dialup.

You see the problem isn't fascism, its corporatism. The corps OWN the courts, they OWN the congress, they OWN the lines, they OWN the media. So download all you can while you can friends, because until we have our own Arab Spring this country is gonna have its very own little dark age, with more and more draconian laws designed to royally fuck you in the ass, and there is nothing you can do about it. Vote? you tried that, how's that "Hope & Change" working out? Vote with your dollars? More than 70% last I checked of the population is under monopolies when it comes to the net and ALL are under the same backbone providers, which guess what? Are listed above.

So snatch every damned thing that ain't nailed down, slam the shit out of the ISPs. pretty much all the Internet will be in less than 3 years is the Home Shopping Network and that's the way big business/government wants it because it is easier to control the population if they can't organize, and easier to shut down any "troublemakers" if you make sure they can't be heard. That way they can control the "spin" and make anyone who doesn't go "America Fuck yeah!" into an evil socialist pedo/terrorist. Think I'm crazy? They already got Valenti's dream of "forever minus a single day" copyrights, and with the above they'll kill the net. The party is over folks, the dream is dying. Enjoy as much as you can while you can, because our kids are gonna look back from their dreary media controlled lives and consider this a mythical "golden age" where people could actually converse freely and share ideas. Those days are sadly about to end. Don't forget to hit the lights on your way out.

Re:What does it take to become an ISP?

[houstonbofh]

No. All of the last mile in a given area might be owned by ATT. But the backbone is Level3, Quest, Cogent, Verizon, and ATT. If your friend got a wireless link to Level3 he would still be in business. (Or bought some dark fiber, or hung some fiber, or anything to run his own last mile) You can get wireless that will do 100 meg for 20 miles for a few grand.

Re:What does it take to become an ISP?

[DavidTC]

You are entirely right, except:

You see the problem isn't fascism, its corporatism.

That's what 'fascism' is, dude. The corporations and the government, working together. The corporations do what the 'government isn't allow to' (Like find people guilty of crimes without due process), and the government makes sure the corporations stay well feed, and invulnerable to any sort of lawsuits or prosecutions.

Don't go around inventing another word. It already exists, it's 'fascism'.

I pointed this out back when the government asserted the right to immunize the telecoms for the telecoms' illegal spying at the government's request. In short, the government hired corporations to commit felonies, and then forgave those felonies, and classified their end of it so they couldn't be prosecuted either.

We're not in some hypothetical hysteria people making up stuff...we're in actual, literal, dictionary-definition fascism. Sadly, people seem to think fascism requires concentration camps or something....it doesn't, ask the Italians.

We are also, I feel I should point out, in a dictionary-definition police state. Because of Gitmo. The executive claiming the power to imprison and hold people without charging them with crimes is the definition of a police state.

Re:What does it take to become an ISP?

[BitZtream]

Yea, cause that won't cause any suspicions and will never get found out and you know, its not like the other end of their pipes can't be sniffed or anything.

Are you really that stupid? Do you also think people who run meth labs in their basements can't possibly get caught as well?

Re:What does it take to become an ISP?

[hairyfeet]

At least in traditional Italian 'fascism' which frankly is the ONLY fascism that has openly tried to work as a governmental philosophy, by and large the corporations do the will of the state. This is important because this brings in nationalism which by and large brings up the lives of many and not just a few at the top. There is a reason why they made jokes about how the trains always ran on time, and how there was little unemployment in those fascist states before they decided to take over the world.

While corporatism on the surface looks similar, it has one underlying difference that is a BIG fucking difference, in that the corporations control the state not the other way around. As a great man that helped found this country said "Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains." and that distinction makes all the difference in the world. It is why we actually have the government giving tax breaks to those that offshore all the jobs away, it is why we have companies declared "too big to fail" and why we have the lowest taxes on the top 1% while we are looking at a possible default.

So you see the big difference is a fascist state wants to keep the state strong as they wield the power of the state. That is why fascist states are typically VERY nationalistic to the point of xenophobia, because they don't control what is outside the state so the state is all. In corporatism the corporations ONLY care about making as much money as they possibly can, after which they can simply move on like locusts in search of bigger and better profits. A line from a great movie fits the current corporatist philosophy perfectly "It doesn't matter. It's all profit. And then finally, when there's nothing left, when you can't borrow another buck from the bank or buy another case of booze, you bust the joint out. You light a match." and that is what we have been seeing here in the USA. they are stripping out everything of value that ain't nailed down and when they can't wring another drop of profit they'll light a match and walk away. And THAT is the difference between fascism and corporatism my friend.

Sounds fair enough...

[jafo]

As long as their members are held to the same standards... If they abuse fair use, for example, they're required to pull their products, participate in "copyright awareness" programs, and they can only visit the top 200 websites.

Re:Sounds fair enough...

[Dog-Cow]

Fair Use is a defense, not a right that can be abused.

Re:VPN anyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

Bingo. What is going to happen, if people get banned from their ISP, throttled, or otherwise penalized without any due process... the ISPs and the *AA will win that round.

The war will take to a different front. There are a lot of anonymous VPN providers. Lots of them being offshore. Right now, the average college student slurping movies and MP3s doesn't bother. However, if the axe comes down, guess what? All that traffic goes dark and encrypted.

ISPs can start trying to block proxies, but all that means is that they are now actively affecting people's connections, which might bring lawsuits.

End result if the lines go dark with people using VPNs: Real traffic about child pornography, terrorism communication, and other stuff also will go dark. Police work against actual criminals will now become a lot harder.

So, in theory, the next terrorist attack on the US could not be detected because ISPs chase after issues that are not even crimes forcing all subscribers to use VPNs.

To sum it up: People are fat, dumb, and happy now. If they start getting kicked off or penalized for actions that are not even mandated by a court, even the average guy in middle America will be using a VPN, and watching websites of which VPNs will rat you out versus which ones actually keep mum of what you do.

I'll drop my subscription again

[andymadigan]

I've got the 'choice' between Frontier DSL and Time Warner. I will drop my $60/mo 30 Mbps down service if Time Warner starts doing this and Frontier doesn't. I've gone legit with Netflix, which I've had for a few years now, but that doesn't mean I'm going to let some corporate lobby like the RIAA decide whether I'm allowed on the net this week. I have absolutely no faith in their investigators, nor do I believe that they'll have any reason to tell the truth.

In fact, they'll probably have notices or even lockdowns sent out to random groups of people each week just to "remind" them that they're watching.

Piracy not cool anymore...

[mabhatter654]

Personally, I think we're on the downward side of piracy anyway. Of course the President would be on-board with this because the frivolous complaints against 10k people at a time are a misuse of the courts and a waste of time.

I think piracy is on the way out anyway. Things like iTunes, Netflix,& Hulu make it really easy to get almost anything legally. I don't think regular folk will like getting the first warning letter one bit... Having a warning system in place will get people warned their actions have consequences sooner... Just knowing somebody takes notice is enough to get many people to stop. I think most people have "grown up" and are sick of all the spyware, viruses, and hacks from torrent sites anyway.

Re:Piracy not cool anymore...

[Combatso]

Netflix and Hulu? The same ISPs wanna tap that revenue stream with transfer caps... I dont know what makes you think piracy is on the decline, personal experience maybe... My personal experience (as a Canadian staring down ridiculously low Xfer caps), Piracy has moved from the internet back to SneakerNet. People passing around USB Harddrives with movies to copy, DVD's of the latest downloads, Ripped DVDs, Ripped CD's. I dont see piracy declining, I see it growing... as many of the people who are getting these copied DVD's can barely use their computer... they just want to watch Showtime shows without paying for Showtime (or the overpriced bundled channels that come with it).

Times are tough all around, even regular Farmville players are upset with the Telco/Cable duopolies...

Re:Piracy not cool anymore...

[Kjella]

I think piracy is on the way out anyway. Things like iTunes, Netflix,& Hulu make it really easy to get almost anything legally.

All of which only exist because big media has been dragged kicking and screaming into online distribution. Spotify was too good so they turned their free version down to crap. Every year they come up with some more obnoxious crap to shut it down and should they ever succeed you can expect your service and prices go to hell.

Re:Piracy not cool anymore...

[glwtta]

I think most people have "grown up" and are sick of all the spyware, viruses, and hacks from torrent sites anyway.

What are you talking about?

How exactly are videos and music going to carry spyware or viruses? Or "hacks" for that matter - are there a lot of people who have been hacked by, what, I guess tracker operators?

The most you'll see on BT are those ridiculously lame "go to www.lulz.sk/~kodeks to download the proper codec for this movie" videos (where I assume you're invited to download 'rapemycomputer.exe'). That's right, BT viruses work on the honor system - you have to download them yourself.

It's not like they're hard to spot beforehand either, and anyone who falls for this type of "leet haxoring" wouldn't be able to figure out Hulu anyway.

Re:Piracy not cool anymore...

[houstonbofh]

I think most people have "grown up" and are sick of all the spyware, viruses, and hacks from torrent sites anyway.

As opposed to the spyware, viruses, and hacks from Sony, Microsoft, and many hardware vendors? (note that Sony has hacks and spyware, Micorsoft has spyware like WGA, and many companies have released viruses in the driver disks)

Re:Piracy not cool anymore...

[Jerry]

You think your safe?

"Common sense" is a common delusion. There is a gap of time, in the Windows ecosystem, between when a new virus is turned loose in the wild and when it is detected, analyzed and its vaccine appears in the latest DAT file. ASSUMING that you keep your AV subscription current, that gap can range from a few days to a few years. (Some holes Microsoft never fixes but requires you to upgrade to the latest version of Windows to receive the "fix") During that gap your box is susceptible to infection, and knowing how promiscuous ANY version of Windows is, the odds are likely that you are among the 95% of all Windows users whose box is infected. The most common infections are the keyboard logger, used by thieves to hijack your bank account and CC info, and zombie viruses used to make your Windows box a zombie member of a bot farm, so that people like LulzSec can make your box a part of a DDoS attack.

Also, have you ever heard of microcode? It's in CPUs, GPU, control chips, ROM, etc... and most of that stuff is manufactured in China. Have no doubt. Not only is the NSA backdoor keys in all versions of Windows, contrary to their denials, I would suspect the Chinese and Taiwanese have put back doors in microcode as well. All they need is your IP address. Use Tor? Sure. Just make sure you have enough jumps AND that your box isn't leaking DNS or other information outside the Tor link.

Re:Piracy not cool anymore...

[b4dc0d3r]

Videos and music do it the same way anything else does. A simple malformed data packet, buffer overflow, and you're compromised. Most players do a good job santiy-checking buffers, but the iPod was compromised.

http://bilb02.livejournal.com/373.html
http://www.dslreports.com/faq/823

Also, the old trick of having an executable with the filename "Bandname Songname.mp3.exe" and the icon set to WMP's MP3 icon would fool most folks. Drag-and-drop would give just an error message, but double-clicking would get you the UAC "Are you sure you want to run this?" to which people say yes (or turn it off) and it runs. That's more likely what GP was talking about. Download something that looks promising, and you can see it's suspicious so you delete it, annoyed and sick of it.

"Go download the codec is popular", as well as the WMA popups about needing to unlock the DRM, although I think WMA DRM hole has been fixed for a while.

BT viruses do work on the honor system - you download piles of stuff, make one mistake, and you have virus. But people continue to fall for it. There are viruses still circulating 5 years after being discovered. People have not updated their signatures, or disabled antivirus completely. These people can figure out hulu, the same way they get infected - click everything you can find and say OK.

Re:Piracy not cool anymore...

[glwtta]

I believe that first link is an attempt at satire (check the date).

It's a lot easier to protect against buffer overflow attacks in a media decoder since you're working with a well-defined format. I believe a JPEG renderer was compromised at one point (IE, I want to say?), but that's the only example that comes to mind.

I've never seen the multiple extension trick attempted on BT. Wouldn't work as well either, since you'll see the full name on the tracker site and in the BT client first, it's only Windows that hides the extension from you. Sure, some people will still get fooled, but it's just not the raging epidemic that the OP was implying.

Point is, for any moderately popular movie or TV show, the top-seeded torrent will always be a real, high-quality rip. That's the appeal of the whole thing - it's a lot easier to use and more reliable than any of the legitimate services.

Re:Piracy not cool anymore...

[gottabeme]

And how much are you being paid to say that?

Doesn't sound that bad

[barlevg]

As long as my ISP notifies me that I'm getting close to my "complaint limit" before I actually hit it, I don't really see a problem. I'd rather this than be indicted in a lawsuit. And, given the option, I'd sit through that "'copyright awareness' program" any day. It's bound to be amusing.

Re:Doesn't sound that bad

[Travelsonic]

I'd be more in agreement if they actually showed interest in fact checking, going on more evidence than just mere accusation, and showed a flying damn in at least a consumer-company level concept of due process - something that deals worked out with the likes of the RIAA, MPAA, usually lack.

Re:Doesn't sound that bad

[misexistentialist]

The lawsuits weren't working and were too expensive. Now you will be paying every month for your connection to be spied on and crippled. I also doubt you will be very amused having no internet for a month and then having to take a day off work to take the class, knowing that it is the final step before you are cut off the internet for the rest of your life.

Fighting back?

[CelticWhisper]

Okay, I'll ask the obvious question: How do we fight this? We know that there's little choice between ISPs in many rural (and even some sub/urban) areas, so threatening to switch isn't always practical. It's not a bill being proposed so we can't direct elected officials to vote against it - do we demand our legislators draft a bill to stop it? Is this FCC territory? FTC? Who do we talk to, who do we demand answers from, who do we petition, and how do we get the message across?

Re:Fighting back?

[Combatso]

You could petition Chuck Norris himself, sadly, aside from the government making the practice illegal, aint much gonna help... and why will the government step in? Telco/Cable and Showbiz are a powerhouse, especially together.. By the people for the people is a lost value... its now "Buy the Government, own the people"

Re:Fighting back?

[CDefense7]

It might not do much but here you can email the ISPs here: http://act.demandprogress.org/sign/three_strikes

Re:Fighting back?

[houstonbofh]

Sue for each baseless accusation as slander in small claims court.

Re:Fighting back?

[CelticWhisper]

Did that as soon as I heard they were fighting this as well. Is there anything else?

Re:Fighting back?

[the eric conspiracy]

The thing is that most of the time these accusations are not baseless.

Re:Fighting back?

[iamwahoo2]

Personally, I don't encourage piracy, but the telephone company also has no business sticking their nose into their customers business. If it is okay for them to do this, then it will just be expanded to rummaging through their customers web traffic, intercepting ads and replacing them with their own and endless other violations of their customers privacy and dignity. People should take to actions, and working through congress is not one of them because Congress is a bunch of corrupt and worthless turds.

1. Pirate as much crap over neighbors wireless connections as you can. Even if you just delete the stuff. Make sure as many customers as possible get their internet limited so that AT&T has a lot of POed customers.

2. Start realizing that these companies have bribed governments into giving them royalty free access to other peoples property, and as a result, most of their valued infrastructure is on other peoples property and it is extremely vulnerable to sabotage.

Re:Fighting back?

[gottabeme]

Do you have any examples of this actually working, or is it just hypothetical?

Re:Fighting back?

[gottabeme]

Seriously? That site will email the lobbyists who are pushing this policy and ask them to not do what they're being paid to do. Is that a joke?

Re:Good luck with that.

[kelemvor4]

Right, because everyone is going to stop using the internet ASAP! In the US at least there are few areas where you can choose broadband service from more than one provider. It's not like most people have an option to switch to another.

Isn't using a proxy and encryption one answer?

[TechForensics]

Is there anyone who thinks these ISP warnings can't be kept from triggering by judicious proxy use and encrypted traffic? Or is deep-packed inspection good enough to identify P2P traffic? Even if it could, it surely couldn't determine the copyright status of the stream.

I was going to remark that we would surely see services like Tor and FreeNet grow exponentially in response, but what's wrong with a good old simple non-US proxy service plus traffic encryption? At least when we're talking about cyber-locker repositories if not bittorrent.

Re:Isn't using a proxy and encryption one answer?

[Combatso]

up here (Canada) they (the Blue monopoly) throttle all encrypted traffic... cuz afterall, it might be a pirate... So when I connect to my company VPN, my speeds drop.

Re:Isn't using a proxy and encryption one answer?

[Arlet]

The next step is to block encrypted data, unless the server is on an approved white list (banks, big e-mail providers, etc)

Re:Isn't using a proxy and encryption one answer?

[Iphtashu Fitz]

In other words your ISP has simply decided to take the stance of harming their own legitimate customers while not doing anything truly effective to the hardcore infringers. Somebody who really wants to share copyrighted material will simply rent a seedbox in a country like China or India, use that for all their torrents, then copy the completed torrents to their home machine. And they simply won't care if it takes a full day or so to download an entire DVD over an encrypted connection.

Re:Isn't using a proxy and encryption one answer?

[hairyfeet]

There is a problem with FreeNet, in that their "plausible deniability" has never been tested in court and could cost you 30 plus years of your life.

you see the way I had it explained to me was this: With FreeNet you have that "encrypted store" which you HAVE NO CONTROL ON as far as content goes. Now lets say a cop gets on FreeNet and downloads CP and traces the line and part of the CP came from your IP address. Now there is nothing in the law that states you have to SEE the child porn to be busted for distribution, just that you had to have shared it. So all a cop would have to do is produce the CP he downloaded and a log showing it came from your IP address and that encryption won't mean shit, because you are still guilty of distribution.

So I would be more than a little leery about touting FreeNet as the cure to this, unless you are willing to spend a couple of years in jail before going to trial, and risk a good 30 years plus if you are found guilty.Not to mention that even if you are found innocent after rotting in jail for a couple of years your life will be ruined anyway, as nobody will want to deal with a "suspected child pronographer".

That is a hell of a big risk on something that has zero precedent in court, but maybe you want to be the first to try it out?

Re:Isn't using a proxy and encryption one answer?

[Combatso]

In other words your ISP has simply decided to take the stance of harming their own legitimate customers while not doing anything truly effective to the hardcore infringers. .

Yes, some of the big ISP's have even been caught throttling WoW players... they called it a glitch in their DPI software, and they are "working on a solution"... which to me reads "tough titty"

Re:Isn't using a proxy and encryption one answer?

[Chaonici]

> Now lets say a cop gets on FreeNet and downloads CP and traces the line and part of the CP came from your IP address.

I thought the latter action was impossible on FreeNet. It's been a while since I messed with it, but I remember strong anonymity being one of its selling points.

Re:Isn't using a proxy and encryption one answer?

[Slashdot Parent]

up here (Canada) they (the Blue monopoly) throttle all encrypted traffic... cuz afterall, it might be a pirate... So when I connect to my company VPN, my speeds drop.

Uhh, that could also be your shitty corporate firewall or inadequately spec'ed VPN server.

I mean, really. Which is more likely? An ISP throttling all encrypted traffic, including ordinary SSL, or an incompetent corporate IT dept?

Re:Behold, unbridled capitalism!

[king neckbeard]

I think arming an angry mob to beat the top execs for the involved companies to death would be more cost effective.

one more nail in their coffin

[AarghVark]

Between actions like this and things such as bandwidth caps it appears that the major ISP's are looking to alienate their customer base. In the mean time, figure it will be possible to DOS someone by placing some complaints against them? How about businesses placing complaints against their competitors? Maybe I should go apply for a business process patent on doing this....

Private Sector / Non-legal Solution

[rwv]

Is it possible that the private sector has realized it needs to stop leaning on the judicial branch of the government as a crutch? This proposal at least seems better than their response to extort settlements from people in courts, so that's a step in the right direction.

The "copyright awareness" program seems like a worthy response. If they assume that their customers are innocent when they decide to take action, a course about securing your wireless connection and teaching their kids about not downloading stuff would be useful. It doesn't seem that unreasonable to then throttle the Internet for customers who ignore the awareness program. However, there WILL be hell to pay if they start blocking everything but the top 200 websites.

In the end, it's there goddamn network and they can do whatever they want with it. If these "antipiracy" networks are unpopular, other "more expensive" options will form in niche markets. Customers will *probably* be happy to pay more to companies who provide the premium service of not being the Internet police for the RIAA/MPAA.

Full disclosure... I'm not a pirate. I'm a strong supporter of Creative Commons. I believe the real path to freeing our culture isn't going to be achieved by ignoring copyright infringement laws, but rather by ignoring artists who continue to release their work with restrictive copyrights.

Re:Private Sector / Non-legal Solution

[king neckbeard]

Is it possible that the private sector has realized it needs to stop leaning on the judicial branch of the government as a crutch? This proposal at least seems better than their response to extort settlements from people in courts, so that's a step in the right direction.

Both ISPs and big content are still relying on the government, and the settlement letter thing seems to be dying out due to judges with a sense of due process. Suing individuals wasn't going to be a profit stream or a deterrent.

In the end, it's there goddamn network and they can do whatever they want with it.

Not rightfully. Taxpayers have paid for more than the networks we have, and that's not even counting the rents made through blocking competition

Re:Private Sector / Non-legal Solution

[DavidTC]

In the end, it's there goddamn network and they can do whatever they want with it.

Other people have pointed out why this isn't true...but fuck that. They couldn't do whatever they wanted even if it was their network.

They are a fucking fictional creation of the government. They have no goddamn right to do anything whatsoever. They have no property ownership rights we didn't invent for them.

The people that own them arguably have some rights, but morally the government could walk into Comcast tomorrow and dissolve the entire fucking thing and sell every assets. As long as they then hand whatever cash remains to the stockholders. (You know, so it's not 'seizing' property.)

You can argue some sort of moral argument that lets human beings do whatever they want with their property. You can state it's some sort of natural law. Whatever, I'll go with that for now.

But corporations are imaginary. They are not human beings. They have no right to even exist if we, as society, don't want them to. We gave them permission to exist, and we can take that permission away if we want.

Re:Private Sector / Non-legal Solution

[the eric conspiracy]

You are thinking like corporations are entities that exist on their own, independent of their owners.

That is not the case.

When you muck around with corporations in the manner you are proposing you are interfering with the rights of the corporation's owners, and in the following ways.

1. Free speech
2, Right to assemble
3. Right to due process
4. Right to trial by jury in civil proceedings
5. Right to petition

Re:Private Sector / Non-legal Solution

[spidrw]

Don't forget easement payments made to local governments (paid for by the consumer of course). AT&T has a line buried right across the middle of my backyard and they are allowed carte' blanche access to my yard whenever they want it. I put a lock on the gate? Well they can knock once on my door, then jump my fence. Someday I'll be naked out back. Take that! The funniest part is that I don't even have AT&T service. Ripped all of the phone lines out of my house actually. So when I'm doing any digging near that line, I'm not remotely careful.

Re:Private Sector / Non-legal Solution

[DavidTC]

You are thinking like corporations are entities that exist on their own, independent of their owners.

They do, you twit. That's what a 'corporation' is.

If they want to use their rights as people, they can do that however they want.

What they cannot do is hide behind any sort of corporate shield, or legal fiction that allows people to not go after their personal assets with lawsuits.

And, perhaps more relevant here, they certainly wouldn't be able to spend the money to get any sort of legal telecom monopoly.

When you muck around with corporations in the manner you are proposing you are interfering with the rights of the corporation's owners, and in the following ways.

1. Free speech

No one has suggested stopping anyone's mouth from working, at all

2, Right to assemble

If they want to assemble and call themselves something, that's find. That doesn't mean they get magical limited liability, nor any sort of special joint ownership outside of normal contract law.

3. Right to due process

Corporations exist entirely at the will of the government, period. They have no 'rights' whatsoever.

4. Right to trial by jury in civil proceedings

Which might be reasonable if I was proposing seizing their assets. Which is why I explicitly said I didn't want that. Turn the assets over to the owners of the corporations, that's fine with me.

I was simply proposing undoing their incorporation. Allowing incorporation is an entirely voluntary act on the part of the government.

5. Right to petition

And that one doesn't even make sense.

What you have failed to grasp that corporation is a law. It is not any sort of 'right'. It is a specific law, that allows people to create specific legal entities.

Tomorrow that law, the entire fucking thing, could be repealed. No 'due process' concerns, no 'rights', no nothing at all. All assets would be turned back over the owners. Because the entire existence of every single corporation is something the government has invented.

And yet you stand there like an idiot and yammer that they have rights. No, entities that exist entirely due to government largess do not actually have any 'rights' the government cannot infringe.

The owners have rights themselves, but don't have any right to own an imaginary government-created entity, or to use an imaginary government-created entity that they own in a specific way. If the government wanted to demand that tomorrow AT&T was only allowed to sell pickles, it could. There is no damn constitutional issue, at least there would not be on in a society with a supreme court that wasn't owned by corporations.

At most the owners have some rights stopping the government from just seizing their assets out from under them, which is, again, why I said the government would have to give them pieces of their property back if it decides to take apart a corporation.

I'm not entirely certain it would have to, actually, but that's not worth arguing. In a sane society, that would be the constitutional question about 'corporate rights'...exactly how much the government has to reimburse the owners for blowing them up at will. Not how much fucking 'rights' they have.

Re:Private Sector / Non-legal Solution

[the eric conspiracy]

When you start out with a personal attack in your response you immediately identify yourself as an asshat.

The fact is that corporations cannot be totally independent from their owners by the simple fact that the corporations are the property of the owners. Yes it is that simple. Mucking with property rights requires due process under western law. The value of a corporation is often completely different from the value of it's assets as anyone who has any knowledge (obviously not you asshat) of corporations would understand. Valuation is the discounted future cash flow which can be MUCH larger than the assets. Many corporations are completely virtual, with no salable assets at all yet are quite valuable. Just dissolving them and returning assets which may be zero deprives their owners of future earnings that have real present value as the earning potential can be used to obtain assets. Heck that is true of many people to - they have a negative net worth and are sustained only by future earnings potential.

The corporate shield is not a legal fiction, it is a legal FACT. If you think it is a fiction your education is completely lacking. That shield provides protection against certain (not all) types of liabilities incurred by the corporation. It is common law going back thousands of years. A legal fiction is a fact assumed or created by courts which is then used in order to apply a legal rule which was not necessarily designed to be used in that way. That is clearly not the case here.

Incorporation is not a 'entirely voluntary' act of a government. Governments operate under a system of laws. If a group wishes to incorporate the government must allow it if the laws are followed. The government has no say in the matter at all. It's called due process, nitwit. If it isn't followed the rights of the proposed owners are being violated. Likewise with the dissolution. The owners are stakeholders in the corporation if it is dissolved without due process the rights of the the owners to due process have been violated.

Yes, you can propose that the laws that govern incorporation be repealed. That would generate some loud laughter and identify you as the wacko of the year. Since that isn't going to happen in any western country we don't have to worry about the consequences. Societies that do have governments that allow disincorporation by fiat are totalitarian (i.e. China) which is not where I am going to be living any time soon.

You can move to such a place though anytime you want.

Re:Private Sector / Non-legal Solution

[DavidTC]

The corporate shield is not a legal fiction, it is a legal FACT.

I didn't call the corporate shield a legal fiction, although I understand how you could have read it that way. That was unclear. I call the corporation itself a legal fiction.

I quote Ga law: Â 14-11-202: Each limited liability company formed in this state shall have the same powers as any person has to do all things necessary to carry out its purpose, business, and affairs.

That's pretty much a textbook 'legal fiction'...'instead of defining what a corporation can do, we're going to pretend that each corporation is a person, and let them do what people can do'.

Please note I am not complaining about this, it would be insane to have to pass every law twice, forbidding both people and corporations from murdering people, for example. I'm just pointing out it is a legal fiction.

It is common law going back thousands of years.

Corporate law has never been 'common law'. Ever. (And the US has no common law dating back thousands of years.)

At this point, there's surely some common law about corporations, but general, anyone-can-create-them corporations didn't even exist until 200 years ago at the earliest. Before then, all corporations were created by acts of legislature, and specific rules about them were carved out at that time.

The idea that in some jurisdiction without specific laws allowing incorporation, someone, when sued, said 'You can't sue me, I didn't do it, this imaginary thing I invented did, you have to sue it' and the courts let them get away with it to make some 'common law' is so insane I have to wonder if you know what 'common law' is.

Incorporation is not a 'entirely voluntary' act of a government.

And, once again, you don't seem to understand basic words, such as 'voluntary'. No one has a right to incorporation. Ergo, incorporation is something the government voluntarily allows.

Unlike, say, the right to say whatever they want, which the government is required to allow, at least in the US.

The government must be non-discriminatory in who it allows to create a corporation. Obviously the government couldn't allow some specific people to incorporate and other some not to, without some sort of due process to pick those people

It could, however, allow no one to do so. Or only allow certain types of corporations. Or whatever rules it wants as long as it wasn't trying to target specific people without due process.

The owners are stakeholders in the corporation if it is dissolved without due process the rights of the the owners to due process have been violated.

Yes, if the government proposed dissolving corporations that were harmful it would need to pass a law saying it could, and follow due process. And, of course, such laws are already on the books.

GA Â 14-2-1430. The superior court may dissolve a corporation: (1) In a proceeding by the Attorney General if it is established that: (A) The corporation obtained its articles of incorporation through fraud; or (B) The corporation has continued to exceed or abuse the authority conferred upon it by law;

Most state governments could already dissolve any specific corporations just because it found they 'abuses their authority', within due process. Of course, without due process, it could just undo the entire system of incorporation laws. Period.

The government cannot keep people out of a public park because it doesn't like them. It can't just pick someone and say 'Hey, you have to stay out'. It can, however, exclude people from the public park as part of a judicial decision, after a trial. Or it can bulldoze the damn park and keep everyone out, and, you know what? No one gets any restitution or 'due process' for that.

Due process only applies when someone specifically is targeted. It doesn't apply when the government simply stops offering something to everyone.

Cats out of the bag

[SmallFurryCreature]

Really, it is out. Look, it is there, sitting on the windowsill licking its... well, that is just rude... but it is out of the bag in any case. No you can't put it back in the back. Or the case.

Whenever now some new story breaks about the latest means of illegal filesharing and the industry moving against it, I am near instantly asked by non-techies how to do it themselves.

Educate them? What, that artists like Britney Spear would starve to death without your hard earned money? Yeah, I am sure most of the people I know, some of who have trouble making end meet month to month give a shit.

Content production has always relied on the artificial limitation of availability (we only print X amount) to keep the price up. With digital reproduction, this limit has gone. Worse, the cost of distribution is approaching trivial. I can share a movie for a couple of cents. How in the world are you going to persuade me to pay MORE for a SINGLE movie then I pay for my internet connection that can give me hundreds of them?

And yet, movie ticket sales are on the increase. Gaga earns millions. Clearly all this piracy isn't actually affecting anyone. Where are the starving artists, where are the movies that should have been made that are not made (no, the ones that should not have been made but were made do NOT count instead).

It reminds me of the anti-piracy messages in shows like Futurama. Yeah, you sold me, I felt very bad for downloading the entire series... oh wait, I didn't. The cost of purchasing series is just to high, i am not going to pay that much for a piece of plastic. As for watching it on TV, the commercials are just to long, not just the ones that make money, WHY one EARTH do TV stations struggling to keep viewers watching commercial breaks ADD to the length of the breaks by advertising their own station I am WATCHING?

Talk about oversell.

The content industry either re-invents itself or has to just accept the year after year profit increases they been suffering at the hands of pirates (oh, you thought they were making a loss? Nope, in fact investing in music back catalogs is now considered a risk free investment for pension funds).

Educating me? I am educated thank you very much, I know the costs of printing a plastic disc and the cost me of funding the superstar lifestyle of an artist versus the cost of me not funding it.

No more music? I could care less. If all the artists of the world want things to change, let them strike. Every single one of them against me not paying for their work. STRIKE. See if anyone gives a shit. Do you?

Re:Cats out of the bag

[Combatso]

Well put, id mod you up but I already made snarky d-bag comments...

Re:Cats out of the bag

[ebh]

What's worse is that it has little to do with the artists themselves. Notice there's no coalition of musicians and moviemakers screaming about this. The *AAs are the studios and record companies whose profits are endangered, but they DON'T make movies or music, they make deals.

Support your favorite artist by going to the shows. They get a lot more out of your ticket price than the $1 or so they get from the CD you bought.

Re:Cats out of the bag

[gottabeme]

"Look now, there ARE shit-TONS of starving artists. They make their music anyway, and they put it up on the net for nearly no distribution costs, and maybe their friends buy a copy. If they manage to connect with an audience, they may even sell a few thousand downloads or physical copies."

And for such artists, 'piracy' doesn't hurt them--it helps them. Take away the 'piracy' and they will be even more obscure. Any of them who think that eliminating 'piracy' will make them rich are fools. They think they're entitled to receiving money just because they made some noise and recorded it.

Well, maybe some of them do. Most of them probably are like 99% of all artists ever: they work hard practicing and performing and touring and eke out a meager living doing something they enjoy--and likely have other jobs at times, to make ends meet. They know that they aren't entitled to anything.

Re:VPN anyone?

[king neckbeard]

Who's saying they are entitled? If I can do something, there needs to be a justification in why I shouldn't do that. Big Content isn't inherently entitled to stop me. The only purpose that copyright laws can exist for is to benefit the public by fostering the creation of more creative works. Copyright has utterly failed in that respect, so copyright laws are unjust.

what i see is..

[vonshavingcream]

it looks like in the article is says they will throttle bandwidth and/or limit your web access until the file sharing stops. it also says that these would be for the most grievous offenders. I'm not siding with the agreement .. i really think is stinks, I'm just sayin. My biggest complaint is that my service cost is going to go up because of this.

Re:VPN anyone?

[JMJimmy]

We all know the *AA's are always 100% accurate with their accusations of copyright infringement. /s

Amazing new revenue source

[eL-gring0]

Since US ISP's apparently are too glad to turn over name and address information when confronted with an *IAA letter, perhaps they can take it a step further: hand over the billing details.

When this cozy integration goes through, since they're already operating on guesses and the whim of 'investigators' as to your pirating, perhaps they should take the liberty of automatically debiting or tacking on to your bill the cost of the IP they think you got for free.

May as well go for the DP if you're gonna rape customers' rights (is this a rthis hard.

Re:Amazing new revenue source

[eL-gring0]

I love typos. I was asking myself if this is a real rights issue, or whether it's just a contract we agree to bind ourselves with.

Not so bad.

[senorpoco]

http://www.seomanagement.com/index.php/Information/Top-200-Websites-by-Visitor-Count.html Top 200 websites still means you can get to adultfriendfinder, victoriassecret and Limewire.com

The End to Lawsuits?

[pwileyii]

Because of the "agreement," does this mean the RIAA and MPAA can no longer demand payment of damages for pirating? If so, or even if it assumed by consumers, this may have the impact of increasing the amount of pirating happening among the ISPs that enter into this agreement. As far as I can tell, it still isn't the job of the ISPs to police their networks and the penalties really don't seem that bad, especially if they provide me a warning. I'm also not sure why there is a cost associated with the agreement, unless it is for the hardware and staff required to carry it out. If any money is going to the RIAA and MPAA then it would seem like it even further legitimizes the download of music/movies as how could that be interpreted any other way then a license fee for the downloads?

Re:The End to Lawsuits?

[kyrio]

No. Want to know why? In Canada, we pay a fee on all blank media (SD, CD, DVD, etc, probably even floppy). Those morons are still trying to get laws passed that will make them more money (double dip. triple dip?).

Re:Good luck with that.

[0111 1110]

There's a difference between using the internet for just browsing web sites and actually downloading content. The only point of having "broadband" speeds at all is for the content. If the ISPs find a way to cut that off I won't be paying $100 a month anymore just to browse websites. Maybe I'll pay $20 a month for slow DSL or even $10 - $15 a month for dialup.

It will also become quite tempting for many techies to steal internet service from unprotected or WEP wireless routers. My friend has already been doing this for years. He downloads content all the time without paying a dime. The point is the ISPs will be really screwing themselves. If they are smart they will start seriously encouraging everyone to migrate to WPA2 protection for their routers and paying the price in offering the tech support for it because this would *seriously* encourage service theft for those living in densely populated areas.

The biggest likely outcome of this sort of thing is an explosion in anonymous VPN use. A significant percentage of the US and Australian internet will just hide behind an anon VPN and access TPB from there.

The ISPs will really be shooting themselves in the foot if they do this. That is the difference between something like this which only benefits the rights holders (although that is debatable) and something like bandwidth capping which clearly benefits the ISPs by either getting rid of or neutering their high use customers. Of course they are trying to avoid giving customers a choice by all agreeing to it (unlike the bandwidth caps and torrent throttling). But they are neglecting the basic fact that ISPs benefit more financially from piracy than almost anyone. If I were an ISP shareholder I would be seriously pissed off right now. There is no profit in this and a huge potential for loss.

How will this impact hardcore infringers?

[Iphtashu Fitz]

Answer: It won't.

Most people who are hardcore infringers are already using things like seedboxes for uploading & downloading torrents. How do these idiot lawyers expect these agreements to impact VPS's hosted in countries like India? Rent 100gig of disk space & bandwidth from another country for $20/month or so, run all your torrents there, then use rsync via ssh, scp, etc. to do an encrypted transfer to/from your home. Even with deep packet inspection the ISP couldn't possibly know that you're copying copyrighted material to/from your seedbox.

Re:How will this impact hardcore infringers?

[misexistentialist]

A transfer of lots of data from India is probably enough to warrant throttling your connection. From the ISP's perspective you are stealing food out of their multi-millionaire investors' mouths by doing that anyway; saying that they are stopping piracy means the government and legal systems have their back unconditionally.

Re:How will this impact hardcore infringers?

[BitZtream]

If you can't download them to home, what good are they?

Great, you've got a massive bunch of torrents stored on a box in India.

That was cool 20 years ago when I was 15 and warezing was something I did for fun, not to actually get software. If you want to actually GET the software, they're going to see it. So your solution only helps people who just warez for the fun of it, which is all 100-150 people on the planet.

Hint: once someone gets word that your little india box is a hub, it'll be blocked or intentionally throttled or the like, and you think they can't find your box, then you need to look at DNSBLs and the fact that they regularly catch botted machines sending only one or two messages a day.

You aren't nearly as cleaver as you think you are, what I listed above is the simplest ways you'd get caught if they were looking, they wouldn't even have to put effort into it. There are literally hundreds of slightly more difficult but far more effective ways to catch and stop you. You don't need DPI for traffic pattern recognition. Encryption might stop me from seeing the actual data, but I can infer what it is from your usage patterns.

Re:How will this impact hardcore infringers?

[TheSpoom]

Hint: The next step is outlawing encryption on home connections.

Re:How will this impact hardcore infringers?

[Iphtashu Fitz]

If you can't download them to home, what good are they?

Wow, you really aren't all that bright, are you?

Your ISP starts throttling bittorrent on you and doing deep packet inspection of those torrents to see what you're sharing. So you rent a seedbox at a different ISP and do all your bittorrent transfers there where your local ISP has no control. Once you've received the entire torrent at the seedbox then you simply download it to home over an encrypted connection. As I said in my original post you just use scp/ssh or something similar that's SSL encrypted (possibly even a VPN connection). Your ISP can't inspect it. You're not using bittorrent over your ISP's connection so they can't claim you're infringing by sharing.

And who is going to throttle/block the seedbox in India? Seedbox providers are explicitly providing services intended to allow bittorrent, so they won't block it. And who cares if your ISP or other ISP's do that since you're not using bittorrent through your ISP. That's the whole point of protocols like bittorrent. Let the ISP's block the idiots who are stupid enough to try downloading torrents of copyrighted movies while hundreds or thousands of others rent seedboxes and run bittorrent there. All the bittorrent peers on the seedboxes will continue to run unimpeded while the ISP's block a small percentage of people. You seem to think that only one or two people are using seedboxes which couldn't be further from the truth. If that was the case then it would be easy for ISP's to block those one or two. But with hundreds or thousands of people using seedboxes then any bittorrent throttling the ISP's can do only hurts those who haven't learned about seedboxes or decided to invest in one yet.

Here's how it works for people who are hardcore infringers: Somebody in the movie industry gets a hold of the latest & greatest Movie X. They upload it to their seedbox in India and fire up bittorrent. They let their friends & other people know about it. Those people fire up bittorrent on their seedboxes in other countries like China, Russia, Japan, etc. Pretty soon Movie X is being peered by dozens/hundreds of seedboxes all over the world. Each of those friends then scp or rsync the movie back from their own seedbox to their own homes over encrypted connections so that their ISP can't tell what it is. Eventually word of the movie gets out to the general public and the torrent files get uploaded to sites like The Pirate Bay. It's then that people try to download the movie over their cable connection at home. THAT is the only thing that your ISP would be able to throttle or block. All the transfers to/from the seedboxes and among the seedboxes are entirely out of the control of your ISP or even US Copyright law.

Re:How will this impact hardcore infringers?

[maxwell demon]

Hint: The next step is outlawing encryption on home connections.

No, they will not outlaw encryption. They will just restrict it to encryption which they can easily break.

Re:How will this impact hardcore infringers?

[ninthbit]

I pirate because I'm cheap... If my solution to allow me to pirate movies costs me an additional $20 a month, then I'll just lower my tier of bandwidth and use netflix and redbox. I don't care how I get my media, just so long as it's the cheapest possible way. Currently that's fast internet w/ uTorrent using RSS feeds for my TV shows and Piratebay for my movies. I only need crazy fast internet to make my torrents go faster. If my ISP discurrages that, then I'll bump down to the minimum required for streaming. Their loss, netflixes gain.

Re:How will this impact hardcore infringers?

[Burz]

Or maybe "deep VPS inspection" will be the next new thing after deep packet inspection. Also, don't underestimate Washington's ability to get foreign countries to do this snooping for them.

Re:How will this impact hardcore infringers?

[TheSpoom]

That would work, especially since an ISP could do a man-in-the-middle attack on SSL pretty easily; it would just require more resources since they'd have to be looking for the connection and handshake and recording the keys passed, then decrypting the stream on the fly. I think if they disallowed any encryption other than SSL, most people wouldn't complain because they'd still be able to access their website and email.

Re:How will this impact hardcore infringers?

[luther349]

this has been going on sence the figgen first home pc. and never going to end they knoe it. but they can use it as a hot buttion anytime there profits suck due to 1 crashing are ecnomy from sending all are jobs to china and india. 2.not makeing anything worth buying. 3. not keeping up with the rest of the world in terms of adaptoing new tec. they also push the pirats did it buttion when they wanna pass a stupid unenforcable laws or push isps around.

Re:How will this impact hardcore infringers?

[Iphtashu Fitz]

http://tinyurl.com/d3yup4

Re:How will this impact hardcore infringers?

[Iphtashu Fitz]

I think if they disallowed any encryption other than SSL, most people wouldn't complain because they'd still be able to access their website and email.

Wrong. Every corporation in the country that relies on VPN's for their employees would complain, as would every corporation in the country who has sysadmins who work remotely using tools like SSH to log into hosts. As would every single person/corporation who uses encryption like GPG to encrypt sensitive e-mails and other data.

And on top of that you could never trust on-line banking or anything else ever again. There are tools out there to help identify SSL man-in-the-middle attacks that more and more banks are starting to use. Either you'd no longer be able to use on-line banking or you couldn't trust your connection to your bank. Just think - all a black hat would have to do is hack into a major ISP and compromise their SSL-man-in-the-middle server(s) and they'd have full access to the bank accounts of all the ISP's customers who use online banking.

Oh yeah, and guess who would have to foot the bill for your ISP to set up these man-in-the-middle SSL snooper servers and to constantly monitor your traffic? It sure won't be them or the MPAA/RIAA.

The future is here!

[mmcuh]

Punishment without trial. Lovely.

Re:VPN anyone?

[mercnet]

I pay 16 euros for 3 months (~$22) for BlackVPN in the Netherlands. Plus I get free months when I search for referral codes or give my friends mine.

Re:VPN anyone?

[Elbereth]

If I can do something, there needs to be a justification in why I shouldn't do that.

My God. That's the biggest entitlement complex I've ever seen in my life. I'd nominate you for some kind of award, if it existed.

Re:Behold, unbridled capitalism!

[GameboyRMH]

Well thanks for the useful info, but what if something like this happens to me?

Re:Behold, unbridled capitalism!

[0111 1110]

Also, charge something like $0.30/GB overage - people wouldn't mind that

Are you serious? At that price you won't get any customers at all unless you are the only choice. No one in the US is going to pay those prices unless they live in the middle of nowhere and have no choice. In which case, congrats because they are only going to use a few GB per month and you will get all of $1.00 from them.

Re:Good luck with that.

[kyrio]

Uh, you can get dialup for $5 or even free, these days.

Re:VPN anyone?

[hairyfeet]

Well then are they gonna PAY ME when they fuck up my PC? No? Then bite me. I buy my games yet I play the downloaded version, why? Because I have found their shitastic DRM DOESN'T FUCKING WORK and in fact will fuck your shit up buddy! I've seen PCs that acted like they were infected, with crashes and slowdowns, fucking up all over the place, and it turned out to be just SecuROM and Safe disc having a nice little fight! Maybe you should watch this educational video and learn something.

And what about the shows I never would have bought if it weren't for P2P? I live in a valley so OTA is right out and frankly the cable shows so damned many commercials I can't stand to watch even 20 minutes of a show to find out if I like it because of the constant commercial bullshit. Right behind me as I speak, sitting on a nice shelf with collectors figures my late sis bought me for bookends, is the entire Joss Whedon collection, which set me back about....ohh I'd say a good $500 since I bought them at release. Since my area had NO WB I would have NEVER watched a single episode, nor would I have ever bought or rented it, because really the description sounded lame. I mean the guy from the Taster's choice commercials and a soap opera actress? WTF? But I downloaded a couple of episodes and loved the writing, so I went out and bought the entire series as they were released on DVD.

They THINK this will get people to buy the frankly God awful horseshit they've been shoveling lately, but they're wrong. Guys like me that try before you buy simply won't be buying much at all, and you certainly ain't gonna get those masses living from paycheck to paycheck to pay, they'll just do without. The dumbshits could have been finding ways to monetize these people, like the way games are going free to play with microtransactions, but instead they'll find out the hard way without the word of mouth brought by P2P their sales are gonna suck the big wet titty. I wonder what they'll blame when they can't blame piracy? Sadly they'll probably just have themselves declared "too big to fail" and take the money directly from our collective wallets with taxes, and give us the finger in return.

Meanwhile as the US empire gets the short bus to the information superhighway the rest of the world will simply route around and we can just accept the days of the USA being anything but another third world shithole are behind us. The future is information, and sadly most of America simply won't have access to it. We'll all be fat, lazy, stupid, and broke, with nothing to do but stare blankly at the idiot box. Eh I hope India and China enjoy this gift, and become better superpowers than we were, as with no tech they'll be no future tech jobs and we don't make shit here anymore. maybe they think we can all work in Hollywood?

So...

[trum4n]

I'm broke, can't afford to buy CD's. They are insanely rich, and want to be richer. When they pay off my car, i will give a shit about their "rights."

Re:Anti-Trust?

[trum4n]

Yep. Problem is they have more money than us.

consumer is powerless

[mschaffer]

When all of the business are in collusion, the consumer has no power.

Re:VPN anyone?

[Elbereth]

if you are spending an extra $20 a month just to let you secretly pirate stuff so that your ISP can't detect you, why not just buy the stuff legitimately?

First, you're talking about obsessive hoarders here. These are the kinds of people who download dozens of music tracks every day, with no intention of ever listening to them... just because they can. It's there, so they pirate it. If it weren't there, they probably wouldn't ever miss it.

Second, it's the principle of the matter. To them, paying for something that you can get for free is more than just stupid, it's morally wrong, regardless of the costs to society. Now, I'm not saying that there's something wrong with being cheap, but there's a difference between pestering your friend to provide free law advice and trying to find the cheapest lawyer.

Third, it's an entitlement complex of epic proportions, and they're not going to suddenly stop acting like the world owes them everything for free, when they've been able to easily pirate whatever they wanted, in the past. Once people get used to getting something for free, they'll riot if you try to sell it to them. It's human nature, really.

Fourth, it seems to be some kind of bizarre psychological trait that you'll commonly find in people. For example, an overclocking enthusiast will spend an extra $50 on CPU cooling, so they can overclock their CPU by 100 MHz, instead of just buying a CPU that's 100 MHz faster, for $25. People like feeling that they got something extra, for free, even if the reality of the situation is that they only cost themselves more money. Some people are more ideological than pragmatic.

Re:VPN anyone?

[0111 1110]

if you are spending an extra $20 a month just to let you secretly pirate stuff so that your ISP can't detect you, why not just buy the stuff legitimately?

Let me answer your question with a question. Why pay more than $20 a month for internet service if all you use it for is browsing/email/facebook? I remember paying $10 a month for reliable, always connected, dialup service and it worked okay for browsing. It just wasn't fast enough to download content. Face it. Piracy is what drove the internet to broadband speeds.

Besides, I think you are missing the point. This is about freedom. If someone puts shackles on your legs, you would be willing to either pay someone to remove them or buy a hack saw and do it yourself. Freedom isn't free. And in this case it also means 'as in beer'.

Re:VPN anyone?

[king neckbeard]

That's how freedom works. Where a reason is needed is not in doing something, but in stopping someone from doing something. Most everything that is rightfully illegal has a justification for not doing so. I can't legally kill someone because that causes their life to end. That is the justification of prohibiting murder. I can't drive 75 mph in a school zone because I'll endanger children. That is the justification for speed limits (along with some environmental concerns). I don't, however, need a justification to watch midget BDSM porn. I can do it because there's no good reason for me not to be able to do it.

Silencing Dissidents

[bedouin]

Have an opposing view? Let us dig through our proxy logs to see if you've downloaded any MP3s from Rapidshare or the like.

Re:VPN anyone?

[AlamedaStone]

I enjoyed your comment, but why on earth did you link to an embedded youtube video on metacafe?

Here's the actual link:

Re:VPN anyone?

[hldn]

$20/month for 10 years = $2,400
5,000 DVDs @ ~$15/each = $75,000

doesn't take a genius to see which is cheaper.

Re:VPN anyone?

[0111 1110]

Fourth, it seems to be some kind of bizarre psychological trait that you'll commonly find in people. For example, an overclocking enthusiast will spend an extra $50 on CPU cooling, so they can overclock their CPU by 100 MHz, instead of just buying a CPU that's 100 MHz faster, for $25. People like feeling that they got something extra, for free, even if the reality of the situation is that they only cost themselves more money. Some people are more ideological than pragmatic.

You do realize this is 2011, right? What you are describing is Pentium overclocking. As in Pentium 1. Ah yes. I remember my Pentium 166. I spent so much effort trying to get to 200 Mhz. Also some people would prefer to use proper cooling even if they were not overclocking. It makes even more sense now that clock speeds are no longer increasing. So it makes sense to keep your CPU for many years. Also, even then it cost more than $25 to buy that extra speed. Probably $300 would be more like it. And nowadays you can't buy the extra speed at any price.

Re:VPN anyone?

[king neckbeard]

How about the law saying it's illegal?

That's a horrible justification. The copyright system is explicitly bound by the constitution to exist ONLY for the purposes of a public benefit. If it doesn't provide a public benefit, than Congress is not entitled to pass such laws. Our current system doesn't (and there's not good evidence that any system we had ever did), but SCOTUS has given them a lot of leeway. Furthermore, copyright was not created to regulate individuals, so it's even more poorly suited for this situation. I don't respect unjust laws, and neither should you.

Yes I know you think the law has failed, but what if it was the law that failed at convicting a criminal that you're sure is guilty. Are you now allowed to go shoot them because the law "utterly failed in that respect"?

Murder and other criminal actions generally don't have the same kind of conditions attached to it as copyright law. As a general rule, killing is not okay, and things like self-defense are exceptions. However, uninhibited copying is normally okay, and copyright is the exception, which itself is only justified by a public benefit.

What, no due process? No rebuttal?

[mschaffer]

I should have been a lawyer. They have so much power. Apparently they can just write letters to companies to do their bidding regardless of anyone else's rights.
So, now we have a situation where, if there are enough copyright complaints, let alone valid ones, the ISPs must comply. No due process at all---it's all about the all-powerful squeaky hinge.

Trooper: This usage is covered under fair use.
Ben: The copyrights are for sale if you want them
Trooper: Let me see your writ.
Luke fumbles around looking for a signed writ.
Ben (in a controlled voice): There is no fair use
Trooper: There is no fair use
Ben: These aren't the rights you are looking for
Trooper: These aren't the rights you are looking for
Ben: We can stop his business
Trooper You can stop his business
Ben (to Luke): Move along.
Trooper: Move along. Move along.

-----
Welcome to the USA. Former jurisdiction of the US Constitution.

Re:VPN anyone?

[houstonbofh]

And, this could be the IPv6 killer app... It is almost a VPN, and it is a tunnel to another spot in most cases right now. Yes, I know that is not what it is intended for IPv6, but it is the way it is working in most places now.

Re:VPN anyone?

[houstonbofh]

Even cheaper than that: STOP WATCHING THEIR STUFF.

Really - just stop. You're not inherently entitled to it, they want to punish you for peeking at it; so why not just stop?

I would, but I can't get my damn printer to stop downloading porn! http://www.p2p-blog.com/?itemid=686

Re:Behold, unbridled capitalism!

[houstonbofh]

The US government would provide protection to them with our military.

That might not go well... http://torrentfreak.com/us-military-bittorrent-users-targeted-by-mpaariaa-100118/

Re:Behold, unbridled capitalism!

[houstonbofh]

He was buying backhaul from the company he was competing against? Seriously? That was the point of the link above. Go wireless for the backhaul if you can not get Quest, or Cogent, or Level3 out there. Yes, you may need to lease roof space every 15 miles, but it will be cheaper than AT&T (miss)Managed Internet Services.

Re:Behold, unbridled capitalism!

[houstonbofh]

A lot of the big ones are going to a 250 gig cap. At $0.30, that is $75 a month. How much do you pay for your Internet? Is it enough cheaper than $75 to deal with the BS? How about at $0.20 just for kicks, and $50 a month?

Re:VPN anyone?

[king neckbeard]

Copying something you didn't make yourself is generally classified as stealing unless the creator specifically says otherwise, and always has been, long before there was copyright law, regardless of whether the original continues to exist.

No, copying wasn't limited before copyright (I'm counting the European printer monopolies whose primary purpose was censorship here) and copyright infringement is not theft.

When the pricipal of your child's elementary school calls because your child is caught copying the test answers off the kid next to him in class, when the cops bring home your teenager who was caught trying to pass off $20 bills he scanned and printed with his laserjet, when your college kid is facing being kicked out of school because she downloaded essays off the internet, I'm sure you're going to pat all of them on the head and say "good kids! just like I taught you! copying is good!"

Those are all cases of fraud. The kid who copies answers is falsely claiming those answers as answers that they came up with on their own. The teenager who is falsely claiming the authenticity of those $20 bills. The college kid getting kicked out school is again making a false claim of authorship. If the children in these cases were honest about the situation (such as Jimmy writing clearly on the paper he turned in that it was copied from Susie's paper), they become more humorous than troubling.

Re:VPN anyone?

[Mordok-DestroyerOfWo]

I typically don't respond to AC's and I'm sure you've heard this before...but if I take a picture of a mountain, I can enjoy that picture at home and the mountain is still there. Downloading != stealing, it is copyright infringement and as the parent pointed out with the way that copyright law has been abused, it is a law that should be disobeyed. When I have kids I plan on teaching them that killing and stealing are wrong and have no plans of including copyright in my lesson plan other than the way it has been used to rob the consumer blind for the last 80 years.

Re:VPN anyone?

[voss]

"Copying something you didn't make yourself is generally classified as stealing unless the creator specifically says otherwise, and always has been, long before there was copyright law, regardless of whether the original continues to exist."

History test
1) What did christian monks typically do for some 1000 years until the invention of the printing press?
          answer: Copy books by hand
  2) What was the first book copied on the printing press?
          answer: the bible

Re:VPN anyone?

[Duradin]

1) What were bibles written during that period? Latin. Who had the books? The Church. Who could read the books? The clergy. Latin was DRM.

2) What version of the bible really cheesed off the (Catholic) church when it rolled off the press? The ones that weren't in Latin, ie, had the Catholic DRM removed.

Re:VPN anyone?

[king neckbeard]

The Catholic Church did have some similarities, but they don't bode well for Big Content. The Church engaged in repressive censorship that is directly contrary to the principles of modern democracies. Big Content acting like an ancient tyrant doesn't do much for justification.

Protest Through Action

[BJ_Covert_Action]

I'll switch over to satellite internet, or, hell, back to dial-up before I go through any retarded, "Copyright Awareness," program. I already have to sit through too much fucking compliance training at work. I'll gladly burn in Hell before I am tasked to sit through it at home.

Wait, didnt the recent FCC neutrality regulation..

[Tmack]

... expressly FORBID any ISP from mucking with traffic flowing through their tubez aside from normal routing/management activity? Wouldn't blocking all but the top 200 websites from consumers be a direct "ha Im shitting on your face!" violation? Those suing the FCC to block that regulation were promising nothing like this would happen, they were not that evil, yet here it is!

-tm

Re:Good luck with that.

[maxwell demon]

If the ISPs find a way to cut that off I won't be paying $100 a month anymore just to browse websites.

You seriously are paying $100 a month for broadband? If I had to pay that much for it, I'd still be on dial-up now.

Well...Let's See How It Goes

[Nukedoom]

Because it seems like everyone on Slashdot is trying to rationalize stealing. And while some of the posters make some good points about the unfair strategies of the entertainment industry, and most users (including myself) will continue to pirate, it's still stealing in some sense of the word.

Re:Well...Let's See How It Goes

[DamnStupidElf]

What about torrenting a parody video covered by fair use? The MPAA isn't required to take you to court to shut off your Internet connection so no more fair use for you because it's only an affirmative defense and not a "right". What about downloading "copyrighted" documents from Wikileaks?

And most importantly, can we get the MPAA cut off from the Internet for illegally redistributing "This Film is Not Yet Rated" to its members?

Maybe they can also block access to mp3.amazon.com

[DamnStupidElf]

and iTunes and Netflix and Youtube and of course any indie websites. Isn't that the real idea behind these measures? To force us to go back to the store for overpriced Content?

Piracy is not the cause of declining MPAA/RIAA importance.

MAUD, PAY RENT! OOP!

[Thud457]

How about a campaign to complain that the CEOs of these companies have been downloading illegal files?

I hope this goes directly to the top a Anonymous' / LulzSec's todo list if this crap is implemented. I strongly believe many lulz would ensue if they get bombarded with bogus takedown notices against the ISP CEOs. Also add every major **AA player to the list.

Anonymous web surfing is overdue anyhow

[Kazoo the Clown]

What we do with our net connections is not the isp's business, we should all be routinely using https and vpn connections anyhow. That we're not already is pure complacent laziness on developer's parts. Maybe this will light a fire under their asses.

This is much faster than a modem:

[Burz]

http://geti2p.net/

Re:Sad state of affairs

[luther349]

no the sad part is they think we rely on copyright when in fact we rely on makeing and selling goods. this is why are economy is on the way into a depression, and jobs are getting more and more scarce and unemployment is like at 25%. when they give you those fake 8% numbers that only people thats applyed for unemployment. they dont count those that returned to school to try to get any sort of job or those that simply gave up on goverment aid etc.

Where's the starving artist? Middle class

[snowwrestler]

And yet, movie ticket sales are on the increase. Gaga earns millions.

Lady Gaga and the giant companies behind her will be just fine. And, so will the brand new tiny band who needs exposure--piracy is free advertising to them.

The people who piracy really hurts are the middle-class artists, who are well-enough known within their genre to make a decent living, but not huge marketing forces like Lady Gaga. They will play audiences of several hundred to several thousand, relying on a combination of show gate, merch, and album sales to make a middle-class living as artists.

Piracy is truly hurting these kinds of bands right now. If you don't believe me, go to a show and talk to the band. They have no interest in suing anyone because they like their fans and do not want to alienate them. But if you ask if piracy is affecting their livelihood, the answer is clearly yes.

It's emotionally satisfying to hate on Lady Gaga and industry fat cats, but music and movies are just like any other industry--most people are not super rich, they are just regular folks trying to make a living at their chosen profession. Yes, real middle class people are getting hurt by piracy.

Re:Where's the starving artist? Middle class

[gottabeme]

Sorry, I don't buy it. Show me some numbers--and I mean real numbers, not imaginary, "If it weren't for 'piracy', we'd be making $x/month selling MP3s, I just know it".

Artists of that level of popularity have never made a "decent living" by selling recordings--they've worked hard at touring. They probably make more selling recordings at their concerts than in stores or online. The wise ones give their music away for free online, because it raises their awareness and popularity for free, increasing ticket sales and booking more concerts.

I'll buy that some of them think that 'piracy' is affecting their income (real 'piracy' is people copying and selling media, not just uploading and downloading it for free), but I don't buy that 'piracy' is actually affecting their income in a negative way--if anything, it's probably increasing it by increasing their popularity.

Re:Where's the starving artist? Middle class

[snowwrestler]

It's not like music is a new industry. The correlation between tour success and album sales is pretty well understood, and now it is changing. For instance, a label or band might see tour crowds go up year over year but album sales do not go up as fast as they used to (or at all). Conclusion: something is affecting the relationship.

You're making a common mistake which is to try to argue from first principles and common sense. But business, like science, is an exercise in inductive reasoning. Years of observation of sales are showing real changes in the business model recently. Any mid-size band or label can tell you that, if you'd ask them. Most people don't. Have you?

BTW my brother has been at this place in the music industry for well over a decade and my info comes from him.

Here's an example of the mindset I'm talking about from NOFX, a band that needs no further promotion in its genre (punk):

I was curious as to your opinion concerning mp3's and pirating cds. Has it hurt nofx or fat wreck chords??

Yeah it hurts nofx and fat, but whadya gonna do. I dont really care that much. it's like taping a record at a friends house. I'd like to think that a lot of our fans would buy the new cd to help support the band, but hey, if you don't got the dough who's gonna know.

Fat Mike

Source: http://www.nofxofficialwebsite.com/qa/qa_read.php3?page=7

They don't want to fight their fans, but there's no question that the business impact is real.

On a different note...

[Synerg1y]

Maybe this is exactly what we need, newbs need to depart the "deep web" in some way shape or form, technical loss of freedom is one way of doing it. Encrypted bittorent traffic + ipfilter.dat really shouldn't be an option in my opinion, and soon may not be especially if shit like this flies (thnx Lulz Sec for opening the door, though some may cry) So here's the plan gentlemen: 1. a law passes that allows the ISP to mess with your traffic 2. Those to whom its applicable buy a server outside the border, somewhere the internet laws are a little more non-existant (Russia? Japan?) find your own country rofl. 3. Self-explanatory profit. Look for a detailed guide upon law passing, until then keep speculating and feeding big brother your thoughts.

Re:VPN anyone?

[SuricouRaven]

Because reality sucks, and entertainment media lets us forget for a few hours how much we hate life and soak in blissful fantasy

Re:VPN anyone?

[SuricouRaven]

Piracy. And porn. And pirated porn. And probably some pirate porn too.

Copyright Awareness Program

[Malaak]

Copyright Awareness Program... Visit the "Max. your download speed" course! Seriously... Put a bunch of people who have been torrenting/downloading in a room, und guess what will happen... I am looking forward to see the results of these brainstormings!

Re:Top 200 sites .... myass.com is missing too.

[niftymitch]

I see it now... the top 200 sites
is now a tier in the plan.

Lets say that there are 130,825,969 domains
active and they want to limit you to 200.

Now the math:
          200/130,825,969=~0.0000015287
My current internet service is about $50 USD
so after they assign me to the 200 site tier
my monthly fee should be about $0.000076
That I might be able to live with .... even if
I am off by two orders of magnitude.

It's In Your TOS

[Slashdot Parent]

I don't recall the fine print of my TOS, but I would really wonder whether or not the contracts signed allowed for this bullshit, and whether or not such things would hold up in court.

Every internet service TOS I've ever read contained a clause prohibiting using the service to violate copyrights. In addition, most TOS contain a clause that allows them to drop you as a customer for any reason.

Check your TOS. I'm certain it will specifically call out copyright violations as unacceptable use.