ISPs Will Now Be Copyright Cops

An anonymous reader writes "Wendy Seltzer, Fellow at Princeton University's Center for Information Technology Policy, talks about the new plan by ISPs and content providers to 'crack down on what users can do with their internet connections' using a 6-step warning system to curb online copyright infringement."

Comments

Please moderate your tone

[tepples]

Wikipedia says she's a lawyer who founded Chilling Effects and used to work for the EFF.

Re:Please moderate your tone

[Mashiki]

Doesn't mean that her idea is any less stupid than any other "system" that's been brought into existence, or in use, or tried to be thrown onto people. Until the media cartels are broken, this won't change though.

Re:Please moderate your tone

[slick7]

Wikipedia says she's a lawyer who founded Chilling Effects and used to work for the EFF.

The operative words; used to... Now she appears to be another bought dog of the Corporate states of Buy America.

6 Warnings

[ArchieBunker]

Alright 6 warnings! Now I know to cut it out after the 5th.

Re:6 Warnings

[Anonymous Coward]

Alright 6 warnings! Now I know to cut it out after the 5th.

Why? Don't you have one more warning?

Re:6 Warnings

[Anonymous Coward]

you're correct in that you'll be cut off after the 5th.

and it'll cost you $30 to appeal that cut off. completely non refundable.

Re:6 Warnings

[sgt scrub]

Did your keyboard break? You forgot, "so my neighbors don't loose their connections".

Re:6 Warnings

[Anonymous Coward]

I think their connections are already too loose.

Re:6 Warnings

[mcgrew]

If my neighbors loose their connections, it doesn't matter if I lose mine, I can use theirs.

Re:6 Warnings

[Anonymous Coward]

Igor... loose the connections... now !!!

Works are based on other works

[tepples]

As an artist, I'm dismayed that works that took years of effort and money just get pirated without any compensation at all.

All works of authorship are based in part on other works. Would you want to get your Internet access cut off for having inadvertently included too much of someone else's work in your own work?

Re:Works are based on other works

[dwywit]

That's probably true to some extent in all works of authorship, but it's not justification for dismissing income protection via copyright for someone who creates (for example) a new interpretation of one of Shakespeare's plays - let's use "Forbidden Planet" as an example. At least partly based on "The Tempest", does that mean "Forbidden Planet" is therefore automatically not entitled to copyright protection?
 
I wrote and produced a short film based on an ancient legend, and there are aspects of the "hero's journey" in the story, but I wrote the screenplay - all 9 minutes of it:) - funded and produced the film, all the way to a screening at a local film festival, where I also sold some copies. Am I justified in seeking redress for anyone who makes their own copy of this film and distributes that copy?
 
Action to cut someone's internet access for a single violation is excessive, but deliberate, repeated, warnings-ignored violations - that's different.

Re:Works are based on other works

[Gerzel]

How about holding that income protection for a term so that the artist who created it will be long dead before it expires?

How exactly does that encourage the artist or the artist's heirs to produce?

Re:Works are based on other works

[visualight]

When copyright terms are again 30 years or less with no exceptions, and the DMCA is completely repealed, I'll be with you, really with you. Until then, I will always choose the option that costs Hollywood the most money. If I think that the media lobby will benefit in any way then "no sale". For me there is no ethical dilemma with regard to copyright, it's black and white.

Re:Works are based on other works

[lostmongoose]

The problem with your example is this: I make a work based on a work that is currently copyright protected, I can be sued for infringement by the owner. If I make a work based on a work where the copyright is now Public Domain, my work is now private copyright protected even though it's a derivative. My point is, if a copyright owner can shut down and claim ownership of derivatives, then derivatives of Public Domain should also be Public Domain. Having it only work one way doesn't encourage anything but Disney-like shenanigans.

Re:Works are based on other works

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it would be slightly better if they presented a court with sufficient evidence that you were indeed the one that violated the copyright (good luck with that) and asked them if they could shut your internet connection off.

Re:Works are based on other works

[Oxford_Comma_Lover]

When copyright terms are again 30 years or less with no exceptions...

That would be better, but not ideal. Books should be longer, because they make so much less money. And any work that earns more than a certain profit should have its copyright term shortened, because the purpose of incentivizing production no longer exists after, for example, you have a 200% return.

Re:Works are based on other works

[lexsird]

I am wondering when someone is going to create a solution to this whole problem and cash in on it. Big problems call for solutions. And if you come up with one that everyone can like, you have a winning ticket.

Re:Works are based on other works

[Artifakt]

Personally, I'd respect your right to seek redress for actual monetary damages. I'm definitely OK with you having that right for the 28 years it ran prior to the 1970's. I'll go farther than what you had under pre 1976 law, and support a few additional legal priniciples:

1. I support you having a right to extend a suit to include triple actual damages where there are certain aggravating circumstances, such as commercial infringement for profit. I sort of support those same increased penalties for non-commercial infringement if the other party has done enough, i.e. ignored warnings, committed repeated torts, etc, but I want just how serious those additional factors have to be, spelled out better than my rough list, before the courts start applying the sort of law I'm just sketching out here.
2. I support a simple process for registering copyrighted works so as to get protection, with either all costs part of what my own taxes help pay for, or at most a very nominal fee for initial registration, just so we keep the overall period fair. By fair I include that it should be the same length for every creator, and not favor younger or longer lived people, over older or medically disadvantaged ones. You're welcome to debate just what else you think should be included in that admittedly loaded word, 'fair'.

There are some other things I think are desirable in this system you may not like, besides the shorter term itself:

1. If people insist on extending periods to more than 28 years total, I would favor making there be some real, significant fees involved for the extension. I don't really see a system where people have full blanket coverage for 50 years plus without bothering to register the work at all as even remotely workable - too many cases of trying to fudge publication date to get extended protection, saddling the court with a lot of having to settle claims that can't be documented.

2. I don't want any 'stretching' or 'blending 'of copyright to cover other IP issues, such as trade secrets, patents or trademarks. For example, assuming you can still patent software under this sort of copyright system, no patenting a work and then claiming copyright also applies after the patent expires in 20 years.

3. Actual damages are not statutory damages. You should be able to show at least some probable cause that you have actually lost money to win a lawsuit. Actual damages from other sorts of abuses, i.e. if the American Kid Fiddlers Party prints copies of your book and sells it, claiming you endorse their platform, may be actionable as slander or libel, but what the 'French style' or 'moral' copyright system is trying to protect authors from isn't appropriate to tie to US copyright law. Damage to your reputation may be actionable, but not by invoking copyright law.

Something I think authors and other creators ought to know: When copyright went from 28 years to about twice that long, costs of enforcement didn't just double, and when It went to life plus rules, costs did not just double again. Going back that far retroactively meant for many claims the lawyers had to include a lot of court records from the Great depression era, and those are tangled, convoluted, and are often the work of judges who were hastily disposing of mostly physical assets from bankrupt companies, and had no idea that the IP parts of those assets would ever be worth money again. The costs of doing a decent search on many older works didn't just double, they went up by a factor of 10 or so. Add just such factors as, for one example, the average rate that film stock decays at and how many older films have or will mold away in the vaults before release, and that the law did away with registration requirements that helped levy the cost of litigation, and you could make a good case that the overall costs to society of enforcing the Sonny Bono Act and subsequent legislation have been a forty or fifty-fold increase in costs to be born by the typical taxpayer. Yes, that sounds hyperbolic, but that film stock issue is mirrored by

Re:Works are based on other works

[Reziac]

For some reason your post inspired this new copyright scheme, in which you can choose to either have a short copyright and benefit today, or a long copyright and only your heirs will benefit:

You can set your copyright length as long as you wish. HOWEVER, all income (gross, not net) from that property goes into escrow for the duration, and you do *not* collect interest on the escrow funds (we could argue what to use them for, but reading-education programs sounds reasonable for a start.)

The incentive would therefore be to set copyright for the shortest possible period, during that first major market interest (which is when the majority of profit is made anyway) and only in rare cases would it be worthwhile to hold copyright through a secondary sales period.

A further alternative under this scheme is that you could choose to treat it as a work-for-hire for the public, with no copyright protection whatever, and collect all the money you can from day one (just like a regular job!) This might incentivize smaller publishers as well, since the competition would really be to get the product in front of the buying public, just like any other goods.

The tax code could also be structured to benefit those who choose a shorter or absent copyright period.

Re:Works are based on other works

[julesh]

let's use "Forbidden Planet" as an example. At least partly based on "The Tempest", does that mean "Forbidden Planet" is therefore automatically not entitled to copyright protection?

Let's use an example where the source material is still in copyright: The Wind Done Gone by Alice Randall, which is heavily based on Gone with the Wind.

In this case, I would not suggest that either work is not entitled to copyright protection. I would claim, however, that as issues concerning validity of the copyright claims are complicated (particularly as regards to transformative fair use), nobody other than a court of law should be asked to enforce that copyright.

I see no reason not to apply this principle universally.

Re:Works are based on other works

[Runaway1956]

Income protection? Just WHAT THE FUCK is that? Income protection. FFS, when do I get some kind of income protection?

Newsflash: When copyright was originally dreamed up, it only said that IF anyone is to make money off an idea, then the author should get SOME of that income. If there is no money to be made, the the author gets shit.

Further - I know that some people here have attempted to explain why an author, a songwriter, or scriptwriter should be guaranteed an income for life, after having done something that appeals to many people. I'm a bit stupid though. Do you think you could explain that concept again?

See, I'm one of the unwashed masses. After having built a house, and sold it, I no longer get an income from that house. Likewise, having repaired a car, I no longer get any income. In order for me to get a regular income, I must GO TO WORK every week.

Income protection. Want income protection? Apply for fucking WELFARE!

Re:Works are based on other works

[TheRaven64]

Books should be longer, because they make so much less money.

They also cost a lot less to produce. My publisher uses the three-year sales projections to decide whether a book will be popular enough to bother publishing. I think for fiction most use five years instead. That means that, by the end of five years, the publisher has made enough money to cover all of their costs (including the advance to the author, salaries of editors and proofreaders, printing, distribution, and advertising) and made a profit.

Most books have a curve with a sales peak around the second year after publication (when advertising has got the first set of people to read it and then word of mouth got a larger set), and then sales taper off. Irrespective of how successful the book is, about 90% of the profits are going to be made within the first 5 years. The main thing that authors gain from copyright terms longer than 5 years is reduced competition, not direct compensation.

Re:Works are based on other works

[dwywit]

Hmmm. Copyright. I have the right to control (sell, license, assign, transfer, etc) copies of my work.
 
When, in your opinion, does that right expire? Personally, as was suggested above, 28 years is OK by me. Should I not be permitted to sell as many copies as I can? Should I only be permitted income from one screening, or selling one copy?
 
I, too, go to work every week. I accumulate enough money to make a short film every few years. What is it about that that makes my works somehow not entitled to copyright protection?
 
And, income for life? Is there something about songs or films or books that means their value is automatically reduced as they age? I think their value is demonstrated by continuing sales. If "Casablanca" keeps selling, then it has a value.

Re:Works are based on other works

[EdgeCreeper]

I wish to subscribe to your newsletter NOW. I have not seen a copyright scheme as interesting as this one. A couple of questions though:

Do you think this would create an imbalance between entities with a lot of money compared to entites with little? Is the work-for-hire scheme an attempt to alleviate this? Is there any more specific details on the work-for-hire part (because I am not sure how it would be implemented)?

Re:Works are based on other works

[tepples]

I know of one solution (repeal the CTEA and significantly narrow the DMCA), but it'll never be implemented because big copyright controls Congressional primary elections.

Re:Works are based on other works

[Reziac]

I dunno, I just thought it up on the fly :)

But no, I don't think this would create an imbalance, at least not for long. Corporate entities need a steady income to keep functioning even more than individuals do -- an individual is more flexible and if necessary can take another job. Corporations have payrolls and dividends and various regulatory fees that they're required to pay no matter what, and they're usually not geared toward a change of direction. Corps may have more in the bank initially but when things aren't going well, corps bleed money a lot faster (relative to production) than an individual who need only support his immediate family.

I suspect what would happen is that corporate ownership of copyright would break down rather quickly (a matter of a few years) but individual output, now being more directly profitable (immediate income, no need to pry royalties out of the corporate marketing machine) would go up, and there would be a veritable spawn of much smaller companies marketing individual works and works by very small producers, so the individual creator doesn't have to become expert at that as well as at producing content.

Rather like the indie music business, and the new indie publishers like Smashwords. And a great deal more like how things were before corporations became massive conglomerates.

Re:Works are based on other works

[Runaway1956]

Like tepples observes - we might find some common ground between our views. 28 years seems somewhat excessive to me, 15 years being my "favorite" number when discussing copyright. I'm smart enough to know that I'll never get my magic number accepted by congress, or any other authoritative body.

But, I will never accept things like "in perpetuity", like RIAA and so many others seem to be demanding. Nor do I really accept "life plus 75 years" or any derivative.

The best scheme I've ever seen suggested, are renewable copyright licenses. Let's say that your license was established in 2000, if you wish to renew it, then it costs you a thousand dollars or so in 2015. Come 2030, a renewal is going to cost around ten thousand. 2045, renewal costs a hundred thousand. As you can see, it's a matter of diminishing returns. By 2060, it's highly unlikely that anyone is going to be willing to pay a million dollars for that copyright renewal! Only a very rare, very valuable, very very persistent work will be renewed yet again in 2075!

It reflects reality, of course. If you haven't made your millions in the first 15 years, you'll probably never make millions. By the end of 30 years, it's probably close to worthless, in a business sense. If you really want to keep your work out of the public domain, you may do so - as long as you can afford it.

I'll give you 15 years, free. I'll give you your 28, or even 30 years, cheap. Beyond that - pay through the nose, and we can all be happy.

Re:Works are based on other works

[dwywit]

Some might stretch that path of logic to this conclusion: your employer stops paying you once you've earned enough to pay off 200% of your student loan/s.

Re:Works are based on other works

[Oxford_Comma_Lover]

The work you produce continues to cost you time. The movie that was produced has its entire cost as a sunk cost.

Re:Works are based on other works

[Macgrrl]

It inspires the artist or their heirs to produce... ...more heirs to inherit the proceeds.

Re:Works are based on other works

[dwywit]

Yes, I was only joking. I've never thought "life + 70 years" or "mickey mouse perpetual" was fair, but there should be a reasonable time allowed for an author/songwriter/filmmaker to exploit their works. As I said, I'd be happy with 28 years.
 
There are ongoing costs with my last film - its cost eventually exceeded my budget, and it still hasn't been paid for. I'm not complaining, but authorship of any creative work isn't as simple as you think, financially speaking - excepting, of course Hollywood accounting, where no film ever makes a profit!

Re:I'm Glad For This

[Anonymous Coward]

lol

Re:Who the fuck is she?

[Anonymous Coward]

I mean, other than some stupid bitch?

Dude. Google. Your friend. Try it.

"Sits on the board of the TOR PROJECT."

I'm fairly certain the 'stupid bitch' is probably in the ISP's sights, as well.

TFA. Read it.

Re:I'm Glad For This

[drobety]

I will be glad to pay you directly for your work. The problem really is the greedy dinosaurs between you and me who try hard to stay relevant despite technological advances.

Just like the "war on drugs"

[scottbomb]

Haven't we been arguing this since the invention of the copy machine? As long as people want something bad enough, they will get it. The cat and mouse game will never end and the cat will never win. For every torrent site that gets shut down, 3 new ones appear. The genie technology has been let out of the bottle. People will find new ways to transport and hide/encrypt their files.

Re:Just like the "war on drugs"

[Anonymous Coward]

If the cat kills every mouse, the cat will die. The cat only needs to catch enough mice to sustain it's lifestyle. I think it is a very accurate analogy.

Re:Just like the "war on drugs"

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, but the age-old approach to social ills has not been to actually find a cure. Instead, people are satisfied with the sense that there is a cosmic balance between crime and punishment. So as long as there are victims to crucify, the war on drugs, piracy, terrorism, abortion, homosexuality etc can be considered a great success.

Those with a conservative mindset are even opposed to real solutions if they break the cosmic balance. Giving condoms to teens (no baby as a punishment). Removing poverty from functioning social democracies (the Scandinavian countries were admonished by Pope John Paul II for removing poverty and thus the possibility of Christians to practice charity).

Re:Just like the "war on drugs"

[countertrolling]

People will find new ways to transport and hide/encrypt their files.

Nobody cares about that. The whole idea here is to give new pretense to to spy on people and knock their doors down. Make everybody subject to arrest and their equipment subject to seizure. Yeah, just like the war on drugs, which is still proving to be very profitable, so don't expect much change there.

Re:Just like the "war on drugs"

[Anonymous Coward]

Try Freenet - it's good! highly encrypted, good security, invisible to ISP's (without the encryption keys

Re:Just like the "war on drugs"

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not so important that it's profitable.
With the dwindling war on terrorism, we must focus on the "cyber war". (cool name, huh?)
We have all these morons employed on this terrorism gig and if we don't have replacement jobs soon we'll be in trouble.

Re:Just like the "war on drugs"

[mustPushCart]

Which is why they are no longer going after the drug peddlers, instead they are going after those who are buying and warning them about buying

Re:Just like the "war on drugs"

[Anonymous Coward]

Cat and mouse game? MY barn cat wins the game. The mice keep coming, true, but that is no reason to get rid of the cat, she does her job well enough.

Re:Just like the "war on drugs"

[mapcan]

If the cat kills every mouse, the cat will die. The cat only needs to catch enough mice to sustain it's lifestyle. I think it is a very accurate analogy.

You nailed that one brother

Re:Just like the "war on drugs"

[Anonymous Coward]

Naw... if the cat kills every mouse, they'll look for other preys. Birds, for example, are still quite popular with certain cats.

Re:Just like the "war on drugs"

[StripedCow]

Yes, but it seems that as long as lawyers can make more money with something, we're stuck with the game.

Re:Just like the "war on drugs"

[mcgrew]

What's troubling to me is, if I think I'm downloading The Station's "Fingertips", I'm far more likely to download Stevie Wonder's completely different song with the same name, even if I may loathe Wonder's music.

Yet another of the RIAA's tools against lost revenue; revenue lost to their competition. TFA (either disingenuously, ignorantly, or stupidly) claims this is a loss to the economy, which is an unmitigated lie. The economy loses NOTHING when you download. When you download that copy of Photoshop that you could no way in hell afford, how has Adobe lost anything?

AND, Piracy generates revenue. As Doctorow says in the forward to one of his books (which I read for free), nobody ever lost money from piracy, but many artists have starved from obscurity. He credits his standing as a New York Times best seller to the fact that he gives his books away for free on boingboing.

I was at the library yesterday. I checked out Charles Portis' "True Grit" and Fred Pohl's "All The Lives He Led" (I thought Pohl was dead, but he's still writing, this is a new book), two DVDs and two CDs, and it cost me the price of gas to drive two miles. Did Portis and Pohl lose any money because I'm not paying to read their books?

I have dozens of books by Isaac Asimov. Without libraries, I'd never have bought a single one of them. I see no difference whatever between the internet and the library, especially since my library doesn't have to even own a book for me to check it out; there are interlibrary loans.

The RIAA and MPAA are the real pirates.

Re:Just like the "war on drugs"

[Anonymous Coward]

but scumbag trash like you will still feel entitled to take other peoples work for free?
go fuck yourself you pathetic self-justifying leeching cunt

Re:Just like the "war on drugs"

[tramp]

Sooner or later they will succeed in their attempt to lower substantly all illegal downloads. But it will backfire to them because many people will not have the means to discover new music and films other then those current massmedia shit on tv and radio. So in the end they will loose more then they do right now. Too bad that all our rights will have been revoked by then.

Re:Just like the "war on drugs"

[SuperTechnoNerd]

Then encryption and VPN's will be made illegal, like in India. They control the strings. They are the Puppet Masters.

Re:Just like the "war on drugs"

[Anonymous Coward]

Profitable. Yeah, that's what everyone's been saying lately about the wars USA is waging.

Re:Just like the "war on drugs"

[Sally Forth]

I think your problem can be summed up with one single phrase: "baby as punishment". Some of us treasure human beings, whether they were noted down in the Yearly Planner or not. By your own stated words, I personally don't deserve to live.

Beg to differ...

[Anonymous Coward]

ISPs are taking a path that will promote end to end encryption and obfuscation to prevent guessing at the content of encrypted baby videos being distributed to relatives.

Perhaps if the creators and providers of "content" were able to devise a workable business model, there'd be no need for ISPs to be coerced into inspecting customers private data?

Just a thought.

Re:Beg to differ...

[Dunbal]

ISPs are taking a path that will promote end to end encryption and obfuscation to prevent guessing at the content of encrypted baby videos being distributed to relatives.

Oh god - yes. Please! That's the way it should have been in the first place.

Re:Beg to differ...

[Opportunist]

You are aware that a lot of ISPs are also either subcompanies or at least somehow affiliated with copyright holders, yes?

Re:Beg to differ...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's the way it should have been in the first place, yes, but I fear it's too late now. If encryption becomes ubiquitous, it'll be blocked except to "known" sites like banks. Anything else will be seen as a sign that you have something to hide.

I've been trying to get people to use encryption for everything (email, IM, whatever) for many years, but people just don't care.

Re:Beg to differ...

[sconeu]

If encryption gets banned, there is an ally that the bought-and-paid-for Congresscritters *will* listen to.

Go to the NRA. Seriously. Strong crypto was classified as a munition, making crypto a Second Amendment issue. Congress doesn't give a shit about the ACLU or the EFF or any of those types, but they will listen to the NRA.

Re:Beg to differ...

[ColdWetDog]

If encryption gets banned, there is an ally that the bought-and-paid-for Congresscritters *will* listen to.

Go to the NRA. Seriously. Strong crypto was classified as a munition, making crypto a Second Amendment issue. Congress doesn't give a shit about the ACLU or the EFF or any of those types, but they will listen to the NRA.

Somehow the thought of Sarah Palin encrypting a moose just doesn't work for me.

Re:Beg to differ...

[n0tWorthy]

Try turning on the encryption just for your password to you ISP provided email account. Oops, now you can't log in any more. When they won't let us use even the most basic security for our accounts how are we supposed to be secure?

Re:Beg to differ...

[frdmfghtr]

ISPs are taking a path that will promote end to end encryption and obfuscation to prevent guessing at the content of encrypted baby videos being distributed to relatives.

Just to run through a mind experiment...perhaps that is the goal of the ISPs? "Hey, we can't police the traffic, it's encrypted, so we're not going to bother even trying anymore unless you, $big_name_copyright_holder, provide the dough to do so."

It just popped into my head? Dumb? I don't know, but it's a thought.

Re:Beg to differ...

[Artifakt]

Somehow the thought of Sarah Palin encrypting a moose just doesn't work for me.
(Emily Latella) I don't usually pay for porn with it all over the internet, but ... Oh, encrypting... Nevermind! (/Emily Latella)

Re:Beg to differ...

[the_B0fh]

That is not it. Ultimately what the ISPs want to do is to block all media files from outside their network so you can only "consume" media from them, turning you into yet another Cable Network subscriber (so only movies, tv shows, music, etc from their servers, at a premium, of course).

After all, is there any other better way of guaranteeing that they blocked piracy at all levels?

Re:Beg to differ...

[deets52]

I was testing some packet captures one day and I was getting my ID/Pass from Outlook no problem (I mean it is plaintext, after all). I could not seem to get my wifes from her PC - I already know her ID/Pass (as she does mine) so no, I was not spying on her. I found the packets however, I hate to admit, it took a few minutes to realize the problem. She uses Thunderbird and I was using Outlook. Thunderbird uses base64 encoding which obfuscates the information by default (will revert to plaintext if base 64 is not accepted) and Outlook defaults to plain text. While this is not secure by any means since it is only encoded and not encrypted, but it is a step in the right direction. The whole point to this rambling is that many, or some, times there are protections in place, however you're only secure as the weakest link (in this case the end users software). The other take away is that Mozilla is more secure than M$ - and no, I didn't say they were secure, just a little more than the other guy.
Having said that, yeah, I agree more ISP are not really that secure. They are stuck in the mentality of "the traffic never leaves our network" so they think it is safe. I guess they have never heard of bad employees.

Misleading?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is this already in the pipeline or is this hopeful blabbering by a fellow who's on the MAFIAA payroll? US only if it even happens aswell.

Re:Misleading?

[Opportunist]

Considering who she is (founder of Chilling Effects, board member of the TOR project, advocate for ICANN transparency and privacy protection, former staff attorney of the EFF for IP and free speech...) I'd guess she's not a MAFIAA shill and we should probably take that seriously.

Re:Misleading?

[Steauengeglase]

I hope you posted that through Tor.

Sigh

[Lanteran]

Anyone interested in resurrecting packet radio?

Re:Sigh

[Anonymous Coward]

Never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon full of microSD cards.

Re:Sigh

[Opportunist]

Resurrecting? Who declared it dead?

Packet radio is still in use. Plus with the advances in WiFi (802.11n looks pretty decent, speed-wise) and antennas becoming cheaper while we're talking, I guess we needn't even return to PR. WiFi will work just fine.

Re:Sigh

[compgenius3]

But think of the latency!

Re:Sigh

[couchslug]

"Anyone interested in resurrecting packet radio?"

That's gonna make for some slow torrents!

Re:Sigh

[Lanteran]

It's not dead, but hardly in common use anymore. Mesh networking would work great over short distances, but in anything larger than a subdivision, you're going to need a longer range link.

Re:Sigh

[cbiltcliffe]

But think of the latency!

I don't know...I can drive pretty fast...

Re:Sigh

[willy_me]

I don't know...I can drive pretty fast...

In a station wagon? I am impressed...

Re:Sigh

[Ironchew]

For non-commercial, unencrypted torrents, packet-radio is a (slow) solution. Encrypting and/or distributing commercial information is specifically banned by the FCC on the amateur spectrum.

Re:Sigh

[Lanteran]

True- though it makes me wonder why. With encryption hardwired into so many things now, why does the regulation still stand?

Re:Sigh

[TheRaven64]

Because encrypted connections are private, and the public spectrum is... public. It's also a shared resource. Using encryption in public spectrum is like deciding to have a party in the town square and employing people at all of the entrances to only let in people that you like. You're taking a public space and restricting access to it.

Re:Sigh

[GameboyRMH]

Who said wagons had to be slow?

http://www.leftlanenews.com/2008-bmw-m5-touring-revealed.html

Massive Respect for Wendy Seltzer

[Anonymous Coward]

She explicitly said that "study after study has shown that those who pirate the most frequently are also the ones who are willing to pay the most for legal access to that copyrighted material." And then she also pointed out that it's disturbing to see the conglomeration of media companies and service providers like NBC-Comcast.

I like this lady, and I hope she manages to make those points to others!

Re:Massive Respect for Wendy Seltzer

[Anonymous Coward]

I have to agree, my biggest issue with Sony is being a media and technology hardware company. I also pay for cable tv, and a netflix account I don't use so much.. torrents aare more convenient... if VOD had a single carrier (rooting for netflix and/or amazon here), I would be inclined to use them more.. i have an Amazon Prime Account, and Netflix streaming. I'd pay for hulu if they'd nuke the commercials. If the video is under 5 min (interview/short) 15 seconds is more than enough of a commercial, I also don't mind one before, in the middlle and end of a show but it's gotten f-ing ridiculous, and their desktop app doesn't support a standard MCE remote... Why MCE remotes aren't standard, ootb supported for any desktop media app is beyond me.

Re:Massive Respect for Wendy Seltzer

[unr3a1]

I decided to look for more info about her on Princeton's website, and she definitely deserves massive respect. You can read a bio about her here: http://wendy.seltzer.org/shortbio.html

She works in support of the internet users, even heading up a website that helps internet users understand their rights when they receive cease and desist threats. I like her too.

Re:Massive Respect for Wendy Seltzer

[jethr0211]

Wendy Seltzer is spot on about the slippery slope of degrading the line between content and carriage. The entertainment industry has always been years behind end users and tech innovation, neck and neck with Congress in most cases. Oh that we could only have more savvy folks like Miss Seltzer in senior roles in government.

Re:Massive Respect for Wendy Seltzer

[Idbar]

The problem doesn't stop there. This will be helpful for governments to track whistle-blowers, so I don't think the "tracking" feature will go away. And since the media industry is also feeding lawyers and the penitentiary system, everybody is happy.

Re:Massive Respect for Wendy Seltzer

[Anonymous Coward]

Wendy/Wendy's best friend/Colleagues, please, if you're going to blow your own trumpet, try to make it a little less obvious, okay? This is quite pathetic.

Re:Massive Respect for Wendy Seltzer

[Anonymous Coward]

So she fights for the users then.

16billion in loses?

[arbiter1]

That is numbers from movie and music companies, Sure we all remember story's in the past of these companies inflating their loses to make it look worse then it was.

Re:16billion in loses?

[Lanteran]

That's an understatement. They've made claims that are greater than the GDP of the entire world.

Re:16billion in loses?

[Anonymous Coward]

Every major studio has been pumping out movies that have huge losses. Therefore, we can only assume that they want to keep making losses or else they would have stopped making movies already. So, really, we're just helping them out do what they have always been doing.

Re:16billion in loses?

[Knightman]

You mean losses due to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting don't you??

Re:16billion in loses?

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember: A 52x speed CD drive is the same as 52 individual CD drives!

Re:16billion in loses?

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember when they sued Limewire for enough money to buy a carrier fleet larger than the US Navy? That would put a dent in piracy.

Re:16billion in loses?

[Jane Q. Public]

That $16 Billion figure has been around since at least 2001, and it has been debunked about 100 different times since then. It is a completely bogus number, and I don't believe I can trust anyone who throws figures like that around at the beginning of a "talk" on the subject.

As someone mentioned above studies have been done -- more than one, and one was completed just very recently -- and they have found that "downloaders" (not "pirates", there is a difference) are also their best customers. They buy more CDs and DVDs, and go to the theater more often than non-downloaders.

The fact is, pretty much all the actual evidence says that downloading brings in MORE money to the "content providers" than it loses.

And another study that was discussed on Slashdot here recently showed that the slump in CD sales is due to an obsolete business model, not downloading.

Re:16billion in loses?

[UnknownSoldier]

> 16billion in loses?
That's such a bullshit cop out.

WHY aren't those losses _officially_ listed on their financial books then. Oh that's right -- because they are TALKING OUT OF THEIR ASS.

Re:16billion in loses?

[Anonymous Coward]

No company would ever want to report a poorer performance than they actually had to the rest of the world. The harm they would inflict upon themselves would not be worth being spiteful to copiers. Potential investors and current shareholders would drop them without hesitation.

Re:16billion in loses?

[TheRaven64]

So? Share value is only important if you are compensating your employees with stock options or if you are intending to raise capital by selling shares. If you post a loss and people sell their shares, then management can buy them cheaply (as long as they don't get too close to insider trading), and then sell them later when their paper losses are off the books and they're back into making a profit.

That said, the $16bn figure is from RIAA numbers, not from SEC filings, which tell a very different story.

Re:16billion in loses?

[SuperTechnoNerd]

They are more than willing to spend $1000000 to get back the $20 they feel they lost.

Re:16billion in loses?

[SuperTechnoNerd]

If they project $30,000,000 profit at the end of the quarter and only make $15,000,000 did they make a profit? You and I would say yes. But, with their "new math" they will say they lost $15,000,000 and blame it on you and me. It's that simple.

Huh...

[PessimysticRaven]

(Insert random ./ death threats and anal rapings here, quoted from previous comments..)

So, I guess NO one reads/watches TFA.

Google. Try it, folks!

..."She sits on the board of the TOR PROJECT. (Enabling folks to 'anonymously' browse pr0n for some time.)

Really, though, six mailings/warnings followed by throttled bandwidth doesn't do much, that I can see, apart from the 'we're watching you' vibe. It'll just be a shot in the arm for the VPN market.

Re:Huh...

[Anonymous Coward]

Only if your VPN provider, or if you run your own server, then the datacenter you run out of, is not part of this coalition.

Most datacenters for collocation are owned by members of this coalition

Re:Huh...

[RobbieThe1st]

There are plenty of servers in plenty of countries that would be more than willing to host a VPN and or SSH-based proxy for a fee. Sure, it may require higher latency, but that's not too much of a problem.

Re:Huh...

[PessimysticRaven]

Sort of like the 'Off-shore gambling industry in legally gray territories and elsewhere.' And I think torrenters.. At least the smart ones.. Have been abusing international VPN's for awhile.

Only a problem where monopolies exist

[girlintraining]

This could really only be a problem in the United States because there is such little competition in the market. In any market where true competition exists, a company that attempted to restrict access in a way that did not have a clear economic benefit or cost would slowly lose customers. Restricting access to certain websites or data could never work in a competitive marketplace. The only reason the United States has bandwidth caps is because of a lack of competition as well... But at least there is an underlying economic reason for the ISPs to do so.

Good!

[Anonymous Coward]

Being able to read/say/watch whatever I wanted online was too much of a responsibility anyways. It's about time the internet start reflecting the world we actually live in.

Just like the Patriot Act

[alienzed]

Big brother just got a lot bigger (and hey he's in debt!)

Re:One thing is clear

[Lord Juan]

FFS, find out who she is before you call for her execution.

Re:I'm Glad For This

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless you happen to have sold out to a big enough publisher (of any kind) capable of bribing the ISPs, they will not care about your valuable content being "illegally" copied.

Re:I'm Glad For This

[Anonymous Coward]

I wouldn't. His work is crap.

Re:I'm Glad For This

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

It is really crazy how blatant and out of control copyright has become in our society. I'm all for just abandoning or totally revising the concept altogether.

As an academic, I'm dismayed that research up to 70 years old and paid for with public money money can just be locked off for no reason at all. And that the essential right of citizens to acess the public internet can be interdicted by private corporations. It's time governments do something about this.

Re:Just like the "war on illegal variable X"

[ae1294]

Haven't we been arguing this since the invention of the copy machine? As long as people want something bad enough, they will get it. The cat and mouse game will never end and the cat will never win. For every torrent site that gets shut down, 3 new ones appear. The genie technology has been let out of the bottle. People will find new ways to transport and hide/encrypt their files.

If you're of noble birth and choose to make most everything illegal, than you've made most everyone else your slave. Make knowledge illegal and their children and children's children become slaves. Make chiropractic schools illegal and you've made Dr. Bob your new court jester.

Re:Who the fuck is she?

[poena.dare]

I find your comment to be outside of any sane value system.

Re:I'm Glad For This

[ZorinLynx]

Especially in the US, we don't really manufacture much anymore. A good percentage of our GDP is intellectual property. So of course people are going to go overboard in protecting it.

Re:One thing is clear

[poetmatt]

Why her? She's just explaining what is going on. Are you anti free speech or something? If anyone should be executed, it's certainly not someone who's actually helping put more focus on the unethical behavior of the ISP's.

Re:I'm Glad For This

[Anonymous Coward]

You need to go to a chiropractor. With a simple adjustment in the vertebrae, you'll give off a set of pheromones so strong, nobody will ever want to download your work.
-In lieu of Dr.Bob

Re:One thing is clear

[Lanteran]

Well he's got troll in his username. Do the sarcasm tags need to be in caps, too?

Plan? It's already started

[Chewbacon]

My ISP (Cox) is already suspending accounts for privacy. A friend of mine called Cox to find his account had been suspended for pirating Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare. He doesn't play video games, but also doesn't know jack about Wifi security. After a little looking around for him, I saw someone had been squatting on his connection and then locked it up for him. Despite he explained someone apparently used his network without his permission and broke the law, Cox didn't give a rat's ass about it. It's much easier and cheaper for them to shoot now and ask questions later.

Re:One thing is clear

[poetmatt]

nah, but it's a bit extreme of a sarcastic joke even for a troll username. I didn't fail to see it, but I'm not exactly going to go through their post history to see if they post continual troll-posts.

Uh, SSL?

[Rodness]

So set your torrent client to require SSL connections to peers, and they can't prove you weren't downloading the latest Ubuntu.

Problem solved.

Re:Uh, SSL?

[Freddybear]

Encryption won't work. The MAFIAA gets your IP address from the tracker, or by joining the torrent swarms for files they considering to be infringing. Then they make the ISP correlate the IP address to your account.

You'd need a VPN proxy network to obscure your IP address from the tracker and the other members of the torrent swarm.

Re:Uh, SSL?

[DaMattster]

Encryption won't work. The MAFIAA gets your IP address from the tracker, or by joining the torrent swarms for files they considering to be infringing. Then they make the ISP correlate the IP address to your account.

You'd need a VPN proxy network to obscure your IP address from the tracker and the other members of the torrent swarm.

Simple enough. Find a provider that will give you some server space with shell access and install OpenVPN. Then use OpenVPN to obscure your IP address.

Re:Uh, SSL?

[vlueboy]

So set your torrent client to require SSL connections to peers, and they can't prove you weren't downloading the latest Ubuntu.

Problem solved.

I know you know this, but let me restate an important fact for everyone else who is new to your suggestion. For torrents of enough value, "unlawful infiltration" by you, the downloader / (lawsuit target) is just as simple as "lawful infiltration" by they, the copyright owners... since everyone can pose as a sharer in this SSL encrypted "anonymous" environment.

The internet is a little weird with this respect: we have the illusion that you don't know the sharers, and they don't know you... unless "they" happen to be an undercover owner with a honeypot, or just a passive watcher in someone else's implementation of the idea that "this property is free for all." Unlike the real world, in the digital world, it's very bullet free to crash illegal parties and take prisoners, or at least indebt them for life.

You're only faking out filenames and data to your passive ISP tools, but they can still see all your peer IPs, since they're the ones hand-delivering the bagged goods to you even if they don't know what's in the bag. All they need is to look at the recent URLs and then they can tell were you clicked. This is already simple enough to secretly automate to let your ISP auto-join all your password-free torrent sites that it makes little sense to have a human sit down and join your torrent by hand... all they need are filenames, and I've seen enough legit traffic-sniffer magic that I know this is doable.

Re:Uh, SSL?

[Baloroth]

Out of curiosity, do you happen to know of any such providers that are fairly inexpensive? I know of a couple of VPN services, but most (I believe) shut you down if they are informed of infringement.

Re:Uh, SSL?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just make a bittorrent system that has both a file tracker and a proxy tracker. The client will allow a user-definable number of 1Mb/s proxy connections. For every proxy of yours that you open, you get to bounce your DL through someone else's proxy. Open 10 , and you can have 10 proxy'd connections to 10 other people... or one connection that bounces through 10 other proxies.

Thus, even if the **AA's trace a connection back to your IP, they'd have to show 'beyond a reasonable doubt' (or in civil cases 'beyond a preponderance of the evidence') that it wasn't just a proxy connection. If you leave your proxies open all the time, and only DL sometime, then most of the cases will be proxy connections.

Re:Uh, SSL?

[Freddybear]

Make sure that provider is beyond the reach of a MAFIAA subpoena.

Re:Uh, SSL?

[Imrik]

They only have to show a preponderance of evidence if it goes to court, the ISPs are under no such obligation.

Re:Uh, SSL?

[Imrik]

While what you're talking about is doable, it is a lot of work for little benefit to the ISPs. A more probable workaround is for the copyright holder to pose as a peer, see what IPs they get connected to and report those to the ISPs.

Re:Uh, SSL?

[Anonymous Coward]

Peerblock... Nuff said..

Re:Uh, SSL?

[currently_awake]

The VPN has to go open at some point. If that point is within an american ISP or in a country that the USA can bully into compliance then you lose.

Re:Uh, SSL?

[Freddybear]

Peerblocking isn't really effective. Peers still get your IP from the tracker, even if you're blocking them. They just can't establish a connection.
Even with magnet links or trackerless torrents, your IP is still distributed to the swarm.

Re:Uh, SSL?

[Skal Tura]

or a seedbox

Re:Uh, SSL?

[Burz]

That is a very dumb suggestion as the RIAA/MPAA can get your subscriber info from the hosting provider (else the host risks being shut down).

Re:Uh, SSL?

[Anonymous Coward]

It would be a dumb connection if the MAFIAA cared about tracking you down and suing you.

But they don't -- suing people is too damn expensive for the money they get, it's only employed as an example-making tactic. They want to threaten as many people as possible with the least effort possible, which currently means sending infringement notices through consumer ISPs. When a significant chunk of downloaders are using VPNs, then they'll worry about them.

IOW -- yhou don't have to be cleverer than the MAFIAA, you just have to be cleverer than. say, four quintiles of pirates.

Re:Uh, SSL?

[Anonymous Coward]

The benefit is in no way "little" when money is the #1 reason for the whole copyright hunt. It is just the type of budget for the copyright holder to join a few people's torrents inefficiently. You can guess that as soon as these new cop agreements start getting approved, entire **AA groups will go out of their way to make agreements that the ISP's cannot refuse. Money will change bank accounts, and then we're back at the step where everyone but the users wins.

All those cases you have heard on the news for years show that they're perfectly happy paying people $X/hour to track filesharing so that lawyers can issue lawsuits to a small % of violators. All large companies seek cost-cutting and profit growth, so they can now R&D extensions to packet shaping/tracking systems to maximize the effectiveness of this process. They do it just once for the ISP, and give the ISPs a commission for the names of filesharers, all in the name of law enforcement --remember the Metallica days and how organizations had a hard time harboring law-breaking students on the outset of the whole Napster suits? Heck, the ISP's will benefit from taxing users with the pretext of implementation costs, so they don't really need to spend a cent acquiring torrent-tracking plugins because it's now the law to police us.

It's not complicated because with all the random stuff that packet control technology already filters and blocks, this is just one more layer of logic using layers already in place. With the knowledge of the large percentages of traffic that torrents make up, and how much performance they can gain by outlawing torrents like they did binary usenet you can as sure that this will happen as we were with outsourcing callcenter costs in the fortune 500 companies. Once computers can catch ALL sharers instead of just a few, then it's game over (for that technology). Something else will come along that is twice as paranoid prior to us watch and be watched while sharing, and we'll be back at the beginning.

Re:Uh, SSL?

[elrous0]

Simple enough. Find a provider that will give you some server space with shell access and install OpenVPN.

Oh yeah, because there are tons of providers out there who want to let you use their servers to download illegal movies, music, and kiddie porn. Why they're probably lining up already for the chance to have the FBI kicking *their* doors in instead of yours.

Re:Uh, SSL?

[deets52]

Usenet (news groups) that supports binaries with SSL. Several things about this. You are not sharing, just leeching. ISP can't see into the traffic and MAFIAA can't get you're IP address - unless they are running the Usenet. Thats the good. The bad - It's not free - not too expensive but still not free. Lots of viruses in exe files, however that can be mitigated.
The main advantage is that you are not sharing files. You just choose which ones you want to download. The *AA can't hit you for making them available (hence their bad accounting).

just plain absurd

[Blymie]

Private industry has absolutely NO place as judge, jury and executioner. NONE. Zero. Zilch.

If one is to be found guilty of anything, a court should be involved. Perhaps there should be changes to the law, to make small claim's court responsible for minor copyright infractions by users.

Regardless, in no way should one private company provide proof to another private company, which results in any sort of detrimental action being taken against a citizen of a free country! In fact, if that information is wrong, the copyright holder could be sued for slander/libel, along with the ISP being sued for various other things.

Re:just plain absurd

[Anonymous Coward]

Private industry has absolutely NO place as judge, jury and executioner. NONE. Zero. Zilch.

If one is to be found guilty of anything, a court should be involved. Perhaps there should be changes to the law, to make small claim's court responsible for minor copyright infractions by users.

Regardless, in no way should one private company provide proof to another private company, which results in any sort of detrimental action being taken against a citizen of a free country!

If it's a free country, shouldn't the private company be free to do what they want, barring any agreement with you that precludes them from doing otherwise?

Or is your "free country" just free for YOU?

In fact, if that information is wrong, the copyright holder could be sued for slander/libel, along with the ISP being sued for various other things.

Yep - but you probably signed away that right when you agreed to your ISPs TOS.

Yeah, it sucks if someone wants to pay ISPs to play copyright cop. But given who the MAFIAA has in their pocket (remember, you can't spell DMCA without tha big fat "D"....) I don't see any realistic way that's going to change any time soon.

Re:just plain absurd

[Anonymous Coward]

Protip: If it is possible to sign away your rights, they aren't really rights and your country isn't free.

Re:just plain absurd

[Anonymous Coward]

Private industry has absolutely NO place as judge, jury and executioner. NONE. Zero. Zilch.

And private industry has absolutely no responsibility to give you a luxury like Internet access if they don't feel like it. If you set up a warez site in the old days, they would shut you off. No DMCA required, just the fact that they pay for their upstream bandwidth by the megabyte and you're using 90%+ of it.

Re:just plain absurd

[Blymie]

Private industry has absolutely NO place as judge, jury and executioner. NONE. Zero. Zilch.

If one is to be found guilty of anything, a court should be involved. Perhaps there should be changes to the law, to make small claim's court responsible for minor copyright infractions by users.

Regardless, in no way should one private company provide proof to another private company, which results in any sort of detrimental action being taken against a citizen of a free country!

If it's a free country, shouldn't the private company be free to do what they want, barring any agreement with you that precludes them from doing otherwise?

Or is your "free country" just free for YOU?

No. They can't refuse service if I'm a minority. They can't discriminate against me. They can't take part in anti-competitive behaviour. They can't break about 100 other laws, either.

They certainly can't bar me from service, based upon insufficient proof either... that opens them to suit. In a free society, I have rights too, you see... not just mega-corp.

In fact, if that information is wrong, the copyright holder could be sued for slander/libel, along with the ISP being sued for various other things.

Yep - but you probably signed away that right when you agreed to your ISPs TOS.

Yeah, it sucks if someone wants to pay ISPs to play copyright cop. But given who the MAFIAA has in their pocket (remember, you can't spell DMCA without tha big fat "D"....) I don't see any realistic way that's going to change any time soon.

I've never, in my entire life, signed a contract with an ISP. TOS is *not* a contract, but 'terms of service'. It's one sided, and basically a document that tells you what the ISP expects, and says it will tolerate. It certainly is not binding for you, legally.

Further, if the TOS contains illegal elements (and they act on them), they can find themselves in legal trouble. Imagine a clause that said "If you have negro ancestry, and do not disclose it to us, your service is terminated".

Re:just plain absurd

[Blymie]

Private industry has absolutely NO place as judge, jury and executioner. NONE. Zero. Zilch.

And private industry has absolutely no responsibility to give you a luxury like Internet access if they don't feel like it. If you set up a warez site in the old days, they would shut you off. No DMCA required, just the fact that they pay for their upstream bandwidth by the megabyte and you're using 90%+ of it.

There are court cases that back up the concept of 'abuse of service'. One I recall has to do with the use of water, as it is not metered in many cities.

Regardless, this has no comparison with a stranger approaching my ISP, and saying I am stealing from them -- and my ISP cutting me off without required sufficient proof first.

Or, do you believe that the ISP is going to personally spend *hours* investigating every incident? Validating that it really is copyright infringement? Investigating your torrent traffic?

If they don't, they open themselves to legal issues. Further, if the person that slander/libeled you is wrong (the copyright holder), then they open themselves to lawsuit as well...

Re:just plain absurd

[sqrt(2)]

Internet access is no longer a luxury. It's a necessity to participate in modern life and culture. Just like not having a phone or permanent address will keep you from being able to get a job, not having net access will stop you from being able to do a lot of things that society just assumes you will be able to do.

Re:just plain absurd

[Blymie]

Private industry has absolutely NO place as judge, jury and executioner. NONE. Zero. Zilch.

If one is to be found guilty of anything, a court should be involved. Perhaps there should be changes to the law, to make small claim's court responsible for minor copyright infractions by users.

Regardless, in no way should one private company provide proof to another private company, which results in any sort of detrimental action being taken against a citizen of a free country!

If it's a free country, shouldn't the private company be free to do what they want, barring any agreement with you that precludes them from doing otherwise?

Or is your "free country" just free for YOU?

There are many things that my ISP can not do. They can not, for example, terminate my service because I am a minority. They can not engage in anti-competitive behaviour. They can not slander me, without repercussions. They can not lie about the services they offer. I could go on and on, about the things one person can not do to another person in a business capacity.

The problem with this system is... well, let's compare it.

You're in a restaurant. Someone approaches the restaurant owner, and informs them that you, and the person you are dining in, are currently breaking civil law. Without verifying that information, the restaurant owner then approaches you, and informs you that this is the 6th time someone has said such things about you, and therefore you are on longer allowed in the restaurant.

I assure you I can bring suit against people for such things. Just watch me.

In fact, if that information is wrong, the copyright holder could be sued for slander/libel, along with the ISP being sued for various other things.

Yep - but you probably signed away that right when you agreed to your ISPs TOS.

Yeah, it sucks if someone wants to pay ISPs to play copyright cop. But given who the MAFIAA has in their pocket (remember, you can't spell DMCA without tha big fat "D"....) I don't see any realistic way that's going to change any time soon.

A TOS is *not* a contract. Further, I've never once -- not once, signed anything to receive service from an ISP.

All a TOS says is "I'm giving you service, and if I see these things happening, I will cut you off". That's all fine and good, but many companies in the past have gotten in legal trouble over the wrong condition for their TOS.

Frankly, I'm not sure what country you live in, but it seems like a place where all the legal strength is on the side of corporations! The USA perhaps?

At least in Canada, the court system isn't that broken yet...

Re:just plain absurd

[Dog-Cow]

If you never signed a contract with your ISP, they can terminate your service because the CEO has gas and is in a bad mood. In other words, for any reason at all, or for no reason at all.

Sue all you like. Judges need a good laugh now and then.

Re:just plain absurd

[ArsonSmith]

Absolutely right, a bar tender should never be allowed to cut someone off when they've had too much without going through a court system.

Re:just plain absurd

[tycoex]

The alcoholics should be allowed to drink themselves to death. Evolution in action.

Re:just plain absurd

[Fnord666]

Absolutely right, a bar tender should never be allowed to cut someone off when they've had too much without going through a court system.

That is a poor analogy at best, since most states in the US have statutes requiring bartenders to "cut off" anyone who is obviously intoxicated. Employees can be held both criminally and civilly responsible for failing to do so. ISPs are in the opposite situation where they are immune from liability for content that just passes through their network.

Re:just plain absurd

[Lehk228]

If it's a free country, shouldn't the private company be free to do what they want, barring any agreement with you that precludes them from doing otherwise?

a corporation is not a person it is a legal construct created by a contract between the soverign and one or more investors.

there is no reason a corporation should have any rights at all

Re:just plain absurd

[Llian]

That is part of the catch though isn't it. They don't necessarily have to prove you guilty like they would in a court situation. Instead, now you have to take them to court and prove your innocence. And all so you can use what may be the only internet connection available to you. They couldn't win with their previous strategy, so they move onto plan B. And part of plan B is that a privately owned and run entity does not have to do business with you should they choose not to. See where this goes?

Re:just plain absurd

[Anonymous Coward]

You can choose between one private company and another. You can't choose between court systems, silly. Get your head out of your ass plz. Loljk I love you :)

Re:just plain absurd

[7-Vodka]

Perhaps there should be changes to the law, to make small claim's court responsible for minor copyright infractions by users.

Cool, tell your lobbyists to beat the lobbyists of the RIAA and then.... Oh shit, yeah you don't have any.

Re:just plain absurd

[Anonymous Coward]

Did watch the video yet, hate it when they have video only and no text... In any event, as a private business the ISP has the right to terminate service for any reason. Sounds like government is forcing this crap down ISP's throats at the whim of the RIAA and MPAA. Without government intervention ISP's at worst would typically throttle BT connections or after you exceed x amount of usage. That's entirely within their rights too.

What sucks is the lack of choice in many areas. Regardless, I'm simple. When I do play games it's old games. I haven't bought any music or movies in years, and have only been to see two movies in the past several years. It was at a drive-in and two movies for $6 so not too crazy on the price. With their practices though, I just don't need their crap. I'll listen to the radio or read a book, rahter than waste a small fortune supporting those crooks.

Re:just plain absurd

[AliasMarlowe]

The alcoholics should be allowed to drink themselves to death. Evolution in action.

If they manage to die before reproducing...

Re:just plain absurd

[Anonymous Coward]

You say that like there is no such thing as in illegal provision in a TOS or EULA.... derp.

Re:just plain absurd

[Travelsonic]

You're the fucking moron - there is case law to back up that while an ISP, or any company, has a wide array of rights, there are still things they can't do. Your analogy doesn't, IMO, make sense since - well, we're talking about something completely different, that is, the termination of service based on accusation alone.

Re:just plain absurd

[SuperTechnoNerd]

Wake up! Companies run this country! As stated before they have lobbyists, campaign supporters, and congressman's phone numbers on speed dial. Can you give millions to your representatives? I think not. Can you give thees companies tax breaks? No.
You and I are nothing.. "We The People" means nothing any more. Welcome to the United Greedy Companies of America, For the company, By the company, and screw the People. Justice has been bought.

Re:just plain absurd

[blinking_at]

If it's a free country, shouldn't the private company be free to do what they want, barring any agreement with you that precludes them from doing otherwise?

Or is your "free country" just free for YOU?

You are confusing "private company" with "private person". On of the principle problems with modern society is that corporations are being given many of the same rights as private persons. This is effectively creating a legally codified class structure with an enormous gap between the "upper class" (corporations) and the "lower class" (private persons). So, no. In my view a "private company" should *not* have the same rights as I, a private person, enjoy.

Re:just plain absurd

[robsku]

+1 to parent everyone :)

Re:One thing is clear

[Opportunist]

Shooting the messenger has always solved every problem. What I can't hear does not exist, lalalalala...

The ISPs have every reason to be aggressive

[Anonymous Coward]

With the coming of bandwidth caps, suspected piracy will be a new and probably well-used excuse to bounce those in the 99th percentile of bandwidth use.

Don't assume that ISPs will be lethargic about policing other peoples' content.

They will be enthusiastic to terminate expensive customers by invoking an illegal activities clause of the TOS.

RIAA hypocracy

[Anonymous Coward]

When radio stations contact the record industry and ask for music, the recording industry tells them to just download the mp3s off of bittorrent.

I suppose we should be grateful

[rastoboy29]

It does indeed appear that, finally, in 2011, after only a decade plus of sheer stupidity, the entertainment "industry" has figured out that they can't win this battle.

I just wish all the various tentacles involved could get with the program.

The latest research

[kawabago]

The media industry commissioned a 'real' study of file traders and their effect on sales. They found the file traders were also the best customers. They found that file trading is like radio was in previous decades. File traders download music and films to see if they like them, if they do, they buy them. I don't see anything wrong with that at all. The industry buried the report. Stopping file trading will lead to a complete collapse of the music industry, that is exactly what we need!

Re:The latest research

[Crypto Gnome]

FULL DISCLOSURE:

Just to be clear, *NOBODY* claims this behaviour is true of *ALL* P2P filesharers.

However all the studies (other thn marketing propaganda by The **AA) clearly show that *OVERWHELMINGLY* most filesharers end up actually *BUYING* significantly more music.

And by MORE I do mean

• more than before they were filesharing
• more than they "pirate"
• collectively MORE is being purchased than pirated, ie there is SALES GROWTH AS A DIRECT RESULT OF FILESHARING

Re:The latest research

[Anonymous Coward]

I just wonder, though, how they know that most file sharers buy more. How do they even know how many file sharers there are? That alone is difficult, if not impossible, to find out.

Re:The latest research

[f()rK()_Bomb]

They ask people just like a normal anonymous study for anything.

Re:The latest research

[SuperTechnoNerd]

This is sound logic and I believe it. However lets say your child has found something dangerous and is playing with it. You take it away for his/her own good and the child starts crying. All they see is that you have taken away their toy and does not understand the positive long term effects of your actions. Likewise thees companies cant see past today's profit reports.

Re:The latest research

[Anonymous Coward]

It sounds absurd, but I believe there is some truth to it. I started thinking about it, and I have hardly bought any DVDs since I stopped downloading stuff.

Legal options = less piracy!

[KreAture]

Basically, it's too late to stop downloading and streaming. Consumers are not passively accepting networks scheduling any more.
They must understand they are now selling content, not a continous shedule. People will pick what they want to watch and everything else is nicely filtered out by their PVR's or simply not downloaded.
Give users a proper option with easy subscriptions and a system that works for distribution and they will pay. That means no insane prices where a simple episode cost the same as a month of network tv, nor a 1-time watch deal where you only have access to your episode for 6 or 24 hours. A proper service that allows the user to be informed about new shows and series as well as keep track of what shows are ready to watch and what have already been watched.
It also means actually supplying a lot of content, not just a few select series that don't sell well on dvd anymore.

It is not hard, and the pirates have already laid down the groundwork. No ammount of legislation will force users back on old schedules again, it's time to step up and meet the demand.

Re:Who the fuck is she?

[Alex Belits]

Okay, not some stupid bitch. But it's still customary to describe a person's relation to the topic being discussed, and her position at Princeton means absolutely nothing in the context of this. Nor any explanation is given (by summary, interviewer or her) what kind of "plan" is this -- some kind of contract-backed policy decision, lobbying for a law that would make it mandatory, or two guys from AT&T and Comcast discussing it over beer.

Common carrier status

[Roogna]

The moment AT&T and the "major" ISP's do this, don't they loose any chance at ever claiming common carrier status? I'm not a lawyer, nor do I understand any of the telecom laws... but it seems to be as soon as they filter for copyright they can be held libel for anything they didn't filter for...

Re:Common carrier status

[erroneus]

That never has existed for ISPs and lately, the biggest ISPs have dreams and intent on being content providers as well. If they hope to get you to pay for streaming content, they need to limit your access to free materials in whatever forms. So they are not interested in common carrier status. This is precisely why we need network neutrality laws firmly in place... of course, if someone were to try to get it passed, there would be so many little tweaks in there it wouldn't even resemble the original intent. (Look what happened to Obama's healthcare reform... it might have been nice.)

Re:Common carrier status

[Anonymous Coward]

ISPs have been specifically exempted from common carrier designation.

Re:Common carrier status

[robot256]

So then they will start filtering for anything and everything, like kiddie porn. But if it makes them cut off botnet-infested users, then there could be a pellet of silver inside the cloud of shit.

Re:Common carrier status

[Imrik]

ISPs are in a special category where they are not responsible for the content as if they were a common carrier without the requirement that they not filter anything.

But why do ISPs care?

[rolfwind]

This will only cost them money to enforce. Wouldn't they also lose commoncarrier status? I have to ask why ISPs even care to do other people's leg work here and lose some customers in the process.

Re:But why do ISPs care?

[Anonymous Coward]

Most ISPs also are content providers so they see it as using their control over their internet connections to increase the revenue of their content. This is why content carriers and content producers should never be allowed to be the same people.

Re:But why do ISPs care?

[Imrik]

ISPs are not common carriers, they were granted some of the benefits that common carriers get but without the obligations.

Re:But why do ISPs care?

[shoehornjob]

When you have a big ISP becoming a quasi content provider. That's a very bit reason to care. As for the smaller ISP's I suppose they are getting some kind of payoff from the content providers (MAFIAA).

RTFS?

[curio_city]

talks about the new plan by ISPs and content providers

Not her plan, she's just talking about it.

Re:RTFS?

[Mashiki]

Again. Doesn't make it any less stupid, inane, or fucked up.

Re:RTFS?

[curio_city]

Agreed. But now you're actually talking about the idea itself, instead of following the OP's vein of misinformed personal attack.

Re:RTFS?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not her plan, she's just talking about it.

Again. Doesn't make it any less stupid, inane, or fucked up.

Again, you personally putting the blame of the media companies plan squarely and solely on this woman's shoulders, even after being directly told this fact, IS stupid inane and fucked up.

Pretty much negates any possible opinion you might have on that plan when you can't even comprehend it isn't her fault yet still blame her for it.

Go fuck yourself

Re:RTFS?

[flyneye]

But what the idea doesnt address is the very much more likely possibility that the concept of copyright has lost its original workable intent to greed over the years. The bottom line is that law that isnt respectable ,wont be respected and therefore not obeyed. People live in a world of innovation now. When innovation is hampered to them it becomes a matter of an inability to adapt to the innovation necessary world for survival. When law defies nature, nature always wins.
Apparently about 4 years is long enough for license to works before they should be turned loose. Kinda like patent.

              Another example of politics futile battle against mankind. Perhaps a prerequisite to legislative, judicial or executive political office should be a degree in engineering,science, business or something more useful than law before being allowed on a ballot. I believe it would theoretically end a lot of destructive shooting ourselves in the foot, if only it werent for our one party system.

          What about the even bigger possibility that people are just plain tired of music/content being distributed by a parasitic industry? Lets face it, the entertainment industry rips off the artists on one hand and the consumer on the other while actually creating nothing but unrest and distress. Wee evolving away from an undesirable business model. Hollywood is pretty high on most peoples shit list as well. Know anyone who isnt part of it who has any respect for it?
          Well now stupid politicos and law brains get to find where their intellect lacks. Perhaps some more in depth psych courses as well as business courses should be prerequisite for a law degree. What are they going to do when they find they are battling the world?

            Damn, well gosh what will happen now really? P2P programs will tunnel, blacklist, switch ports,encrypt, piggyback,disguise just like yesterday. It will be a coders race and my money isnt on the paid cubicle monkeys, its on the driven believers out there circumventing the ridiculous.

         

How....

[Roskolnikov]

I pay my ISP for a connection to the internet; essentially I will be paying for this 'service' to the RIAA and the MPAA, this is not what I consider customer service, I predict this will increase the use of encryption, which will in turn spawn legislation that deems secure encryption illegal. Pretty soon they will want 'virus and copyright compliance software' installed on all systems non-supported operating systems will not be allowed on public networks, etc... tin-foil hat folks don't have to be wrong, they just have to wait long enough to see their 'crazy' views realized.

Re:How....

[Imrik]

Encryption is irrelevant to the end points, which is where the copyright holders will be detecting infringement. The ISPs won't be looking for pirates, they will just be cracking down on anyone they're told is pirating.

Re:How....

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/twc/endtoendtrust/

Microsoft has been pushing that idea for years.

Re:How....

[wesleyjconnor]

Wasnt that the whole point of microsoft/intel's Trusted Computing?
Monitoring built right into the cpu
forgive me if i've got the companies wrong, it was a while ago

Re:How....

[SuperTechnoNerd]

Even worse, all systems will be required to have overseer hardware installed that you can't disable..

Re:One thing is clear

[alex67500]

I you watched the F video, you'd see that she's actually advocating net neutrality and warning against the ramifications of such a system.

This is a very large debate, but ISPs cutting/censoring/throttling your access is actually a massive deal, and goes against a lot of principles in modern coutries' Constitution.

Am I missing something?

[RapmasterT]

I admit I didnt' watch the video, because...well, I don't watch videos that I could have read a transcript from in 1/10th the time.

Regardless though, I just don't see any way for the ISP to filter/detect copyrighted content without actually intercepting and analyzing the traffic on the wire.

Something seems to be wrong here. We would all be shitting our respective pants if the phone company stated they would be listening to our phone calls, or if the post office said they would be reading our mail...but we're not worried that our ISP is analyzing our private data packets, we're only worried what they do with the info?

Re:Am I missing something?

[MrShaggy]

Since I live in Canada I am not certain.

However it is because it has to do with the fact that your phone company is a Common carrier. Which means that they can not listen in on your phones with out a warrent. You can sue if you relise they do.

However the company can not be Sued because you used its phone lines to order drugs, or to assassinate someone.

Same with the mail.

Since the isp said'no fucking way' to common carrier. I am not sure why they would.

Re:Am I missing something?

[misexistentialist]

They are probably targeting torrents. Instead of having to go to the legal expense to sue the individuals behind the IPs that their contractors have flagged, the RIAA and the MPAA are simply paying the ISPs to terminate the accounts.

Re:Am I missing something?

[Anonymous Coward]

They're not snooping your packets, they're waiting until you get spotted on a torrent by a mpaa seed, then they'll copy your address and go through the regular channels to find out the owner. If it's by one of those respective companies, they will issue the warnings. The ISP doesn't actually know if that 1.3 gb is a movie or a perfectly legal Linux iso, to them it's just packets.

no lord no snooping every packet in a download to see if it's a copyright file would take as much storage space as there is bandwidth, plus a program/persons to check every file? The logistics of that alone is like instant bankruptcy.

no, they're doing exactly what they did before, just they aren't suing and are instead punishing.

Re:Am I missing something?

[Froeschle]

Didn't you know, the US Constitution doesn't always apply when the issue involves computers as its framers intended for that to be the case.

Re:Am I missing something?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think a lot of us are worried. I recently switched to an ISP which guarantees no packet inspection, and no logs of user activity because of precisely this concern. I'm still concerned about the links which are run by BT so I encrypt the shit out of everything I can anyway.

Re:Am I missing something?

[Anonymous Coward]

What exactly makes you think that people don't listen to your phone calls and read your mail?
What is it that you think the NSA and GCHQ do?

Re:Am I missing something?

[SuperTechnoNerd]

"I just don't see any way for the ISP to filter/detect copyrighted content without actually intercepting and analyzing the traffic on the wire"
That's easy enough.. It's called deep packet inspection, and its happening already..

Re:Am I missing something?

[SuperTechnoNerd]

If im hanging out in a public park, I MUST be dealing drugs or looking to molest children.. Guilty before proven innocent..

Is it time for net neutrality yet?

[erroneus]

Without net neutrality firmly in place, we are going to see lots of things we can and cannot do with our internet connections. They should be a common carrier and indemnified for the content carried across them just like phone companies. Instead, we have content providers owning the internet links... we have an ugly future ahead if things doing get changed radically.

Re:Is it time for net neutrality yet?

[Anonymous Coward]

Please, WITH net neutrality in place, and a precedent set for the FCC to regulate the internet we will see this as well. OR do you think that the FRR isnt able to be bought? See: The memnber of the board that immediately after voting to al low the NBC Comcast merger that left for a job at comcast.

Re:Is it time for net neutrality yet?

[Anonymous Coward]

I wouldn't doubt if they make it so that indie productions are harder to find/get, just like they put choke holds on the radio industry.

3 of 6 half a dozen of the other

[wrencherd]

It doesn't seem like any of the "strikes" plans has any hope of working out.

ISP's have no police power and locking someone out from access to any given service--particularly if they've paid the statutory damages for whatever infringing they've been shown to have committed--requires police power. And it does not seem like even if they did have that power that it could be used to accomplish any of the "strikes" that are described in TFV.

Re:3 of 6 half a dozen of the other

[random_ID]

Police power? All they need are Terms Of Service. Copyright infringement = TOS violation = internet connection terminated. You'll need a lawyer to convince them to reinstate, assuming such is even possible.

There's a segment of the /. population that advocates open routers/TOR gateways/etc. as a means of legal protection ("Oh, no Your Honor, it wasn't me that done it!"). That may or may not protect you from RIAA et all, but you'll be internet-free long before you see the inside of a courtroom; your ISP doesn't require a judge's approval to cut you off.

Re:3 of 6 half a dozen of the other

[ikkonoishi]

They don't need police power. They just need to decide if your money is worth the trouble.

Re:3 of 6 half a dozen of the other

[wrencherd]

Police power? All they need are Terms Of Service. Copyright infringement = TOS violation = internet connection terminated. You'll need a lawyer to convince them to reinstate, assuming such is even possible.

That's what I mean: the "strikes" schemes won't survive any serious legal challenges.

I don't think that a group of commercial service providers can stop someone from contracting for their type of service based solely on the fact that the subscriber may have breached a contract for same at some time in the past. If the subscriber's options for that service are limited to just those providers then that would be an absolute bar to that person's access, something which that group of service providers does not have the power to enforce.

Rather, I think that what is probably sustainable is some kind of "copyright credit rating", which could be used to calculate how much to charge a subscriber based on their past history of infringing behavior. A person's rating would improve for time spent with access and no infringement; sort of like auto insurance rates vis a vis citations and accidents, or maybe /. karma points, eh.

Re:3 of 6 half a dozen of the other

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope. If an ISP puts it in the contract for the internet service that they can shut off their service due to infringement, they don't need "police power." You're just making shit up.

Re:3 of 6 half a dozen of the other

[Travelsonic]

Just because an ISP may add X provision[s] to the TOS doesn't make them legal.

Question

[MrShaggy]

Could you not sue you isp if they threw you off the connection?

Since it seems they would in fact be violating the DMCA? Since in a sense they are breaking the safe harbor rules?

As well as breaking the contract to provide service to you the customer.

Since the isp's were desperate not too have the 'common carrier' status that in a sense would protect you the user as well as the provider from any of these sorts of things.

Would this also not smack of the Riaa that is merely a disgruntled 3rd party. So why would you stop providing to your customers just to someone else happy.

Since the Riaa does not have court order to disconnect then why would the isp bother?

Re:Question

[Lehk228]

the legal action you would take would be a john doe lawsuit against whoever wrongfully reported you to your ISP the suit would be for tortuous interference and libel

Re:Question

[MrShaggy]

I that the issue is again that the whole process seems to be that you are guilty until proven otherwise. Since I am a Canadian, I am not sure where that plays out in your books, but I think it is the Bill of Rights?

Not too mention that neither the RIaa or the isp's an actual Legal body, with a government mandate.

So in this sense Had gone ahead with the common carrier, this sort of thing would not be happening.

So based on this alone could one argue those sort of points. Could one get an injunction too stop this? If not a full lawsuit.?

Who watches the Watchmen?

[Anonymous Coward]

So who slaps down the ISPs and "content providers" when they are wrong? What legal recourse do citizens have?

Re:Who watches the Watchmen?

[MadMaverick9]

What legal recourse do citizens have?

stop thinking "legal" ... for crying out loud. there are much better ways to get 'em.

simply stop buying movies and music. stop downloading movies and music. stop going to movies. just let 'em die.

i haven't bought (or downloaded) movies or music for more than ten years now.

Re:Who watches the Watchmen?

[SuperTechnoNerd]

That exactly what I have been doing.. However there is a sucker born every minute.

Return of the BBS?

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps we need to return to the BBS days for some inspiration?

I'm working on installing an "off the grid" wifi network at my house/neighborhood so that my neibors and myself can share data unrestricted by the internet gestapo. I suggest others start working on their own hotspots as well... maybe there will come a time when all of our hotspots can become connected (again) without the need for the gatekeepers to tell us what, when and how much we can share with each other.

Re:Just like the "war on illegal variable X"

[hairyfeet]

DAMN YOU....what kind of choice is that? Slavery...Dr Bob wearing the little hat and bells on his shoes and made to do tricks....slavery...bells and stupid tricks...ARGH I can't choose and its YOUR FAULT asshole!

As for TFA, sorry babe, but after 30+ years of a policy of " Give teh rich more MONIES nom nom nom" the wealth is too concentrated for them to give a fuck what YOU think. They own the MSM, so try protesting, nobody will see it, nor will they see the cops crack your head later. Vote? For whom? Thanks to Citizens United they don't even have to hide the bribes anymore!

Until we have our own Arab Spring, which I figure is coming, 5 or 6 years of depression should do the trick, you might as well give it up as you simply can't compete with the 1%ers. You have your little signs, they have congressmen on speed dial. You have your little forums, the have Fox, CBS, ABC, NBC, and a couple of dozen more. Not much of a fight really.

Re:Who the fuck is she?

[PopeRatzo]

Isn't this an interesting choice of story for the hijack trolls to decide to try to bury?

Re:One thing is clear

[KingMotley]

Yes, because thier constitution says "shalt not throttle thee internet tubes", or were you referring to the section that guarantees the right to steal other people's digital work and not to be questioned about it?

Freenet will be more popular

[Danathar]

Yes, it's slow but it gets better every year.

Re:Just like the "war on illegal variable X"

[ae1294]

Bread and circus my friend... There is a third option however... DEATH by Lawyer... I don't think you want that option, as it involves listening to readings of out of date law books for weeks on end while being cut 1000's of times by legal briefs filled in patent and trademark cases... among other things... works wonders at gitmo... woopps... I didn't say that....

Responsibility is an awesome thing

[Progman3K]

Does this mean we can hold ISP responsible for everything and sue them for spam or phishing and other things?

Which VPN (offshore) is best/recommended

[Anonymous Coward]

Would like to buy a VPN service (offshore) for this. Does anyone have one they would recommend?

Re:Which VPN (offshore) is best/recommended

[ixidor]

privacy.io

Re:Plan? It's already started

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't do much pirating with a slow connection, but you can surf the web.

So instead of cutting people off, they should consider cutting their speed to near-unusable speeds, like 128 kilobits per second. That's 16 kilobytes per second.

I don't know what a true solution is going to be. What's going to make copyright holders shut up? Would a special copyright tax on ISPs make them stop? Like maybe a few dollars per month under the sole agreement they cannot go after anyone who is using their ISP. It's not a solution, but I don't know what is.

But maybe the copyright holders should be going after those distributing the material, not downloading it.

Re:Who the fuck is she?

[Larryish]

The person "Wendy Seltzer" seriously needs some fiber in her diet.

Question

[Anonymous Coward]

Will they be requiring VPN providers to provide this information about anyone downloading through the VPN? If not, I may be employing one.

Fantastic.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yet another stunning innovation in screwing your average users while doing negative damage to the people who know how to get around it.

Why "negative?" Because the attempt will only push people harder resulting in a larger group more determined to get through, and ever fewer "average" users to hustle.

Good job nitwits.

Re:One thing is clear

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, I'll grant you the right to come off as an illiterate presumptuous ignoramus is protected. Try reading the arguments actually being made, you'll get a lot more out of it... for sanity's sake...

Darknets

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe this will increase interest in technologies like i2p and freenet - that could be a good thing.

I'm also glad I don't live in America.

Re:Darknets

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm also glad I don't live in America.

and you believe other countries are any better?

netherlands, india, saudi arabia, thailand, china, etc. the list is long.

keep dreaming ...

I doubt there is one country (i.e. goverment) left on this planet which does not control (i.e. censor) the internet.

Re:Who the fuck is she?

[Anonymous Coward]

Princeton University's Center for Information Technology Policy

The Board of Governors certainly could have came up with a better name with more gravitas like "The Institute for Advanced Information Technology Policy Studies".
Right now it just sounds like a make work project for carpetbaggers who can't code.

Re:Plan? It's already started

[Anonymous Coward]

Next, they will be requiring mandetory internet insurance to surf just in case we bump into one of these mpaa, riaa sites and cause some horn to go off or something.. or worst yet we put a dent in some fragile lawyer's ego. Wait, lawyers don't have fragile egos or is that a conscience, I forget..

Re:I'm Glad For This

[Anonymous Coward]

It's almost a given that whenever someone claims the US doesn't "manufacture much" doesn't fucking clue what he's talking about.

Here's a quick lesson boy. The US is largest manufacturer in the world, and it makes up a good percentage of its GDP.

Now that I've completely destroyed you, please shut the fuck up about things you know nothing about.

Re:Plan? It's already started

[Imrik]

Copyright holders won't shut up as long as they think there may be even one person they could get money from that they aren't. The only way around that is to get rid of copyright. (or I suppose, you could get rid of the copyright holders, but that gets messy)

Re:Who the fuck is she?

[retchdog]

slashdot mentions ed felten and his association with the same princeton organization a few times a month. some things are just taken for granted eventually.

Shakespeare v. MGM

[tepples]

At least partly based on "The Tempest", does that mean "Forbidden Planet" is therefore automatically not entitled to copyright protection?

If Shakespeare were still alive, or if national legislatures were to take extensions like the Bono Act to their natural conclusion, then to what extent should Shakespeare or his heirs be able to sue the screenwriter and studio behind Forbidden Planet?

Does this open up ISPs to legal liability?

[Bloodwine77]

I am not a lawyer, but if ISPs go this route then won't they lose common carrier status? Will they open themselves up to lawsuits if illegal content is found to be traversing their infrastructure? If a guy gets caught uploading or downloading child porn, then can family-focused or religious organizations sue his ISP for allowing child porn to be transmitted on their network? The ISPs will be monitoring traffic, so they can't play ignorant about what is being sent across it.

Re:Does this open up ISPs to legal liability?

[currently_awake]

If they filter, then they should be responsible for all the bad stuff that gets through. Specifically spam. If I have a bandwidth capped service then spam is costing me money, and I want that back.

How are we supposed to know?

[renegade600]

I just would like to know how the average user who streams or download movies knows whether or not it is legal. So many sites have both legal and illegal content including hulu and youtube. How are people supposed to know. It seems the studios and their representatives are preying on the ignorance of the online community to supplement their income. It is not right and it is most certainly not fair.

Re:One thing is clear

[Anonymous Coward]

Please use the correct terms. It's "copy," not "steal." It may or may not fit the situation at times, but it is confusing at they are two completely different scenarios.

And again, I don't think that this would be so bad if the ISPs had to take the accused to court (individually) and then provide sufficient evidence that it was indeed them that infringed upon the copyright (good luck with that). Difficult? Well, that's just too bad. Unless they provide some evidence, I don't think they should be able to do anything. Really, trying (and failing) to stop people who potentially cause a loss of someone else's potential profit isn't very high up on my list of priorities.

Re:Who the fuck is she?

[Galactic Dominator]

This is 2011, and it's customary to do one of two things when you find a reference to something you aren't familiar with:

1. Bitch, piss and moan about it.
2. Google it.

Re:Plan? It's already started

[Anonymous Coward]

"Despite he explained someone apparently used his network without his permission and broke the law, Cox didn't give a rat's ass about it. It's much easier and cheaper for them to shoot now and ask questions later."

Based on what you said, it's more accurate to just say "It's much easier to shoot now and do nothing later."

DMCA was passed by unanimous consent

[tepples]

you can't spell DMCA without tha big fat "D"

The D is for digital. If you mean Democrats, remember that the DMCA made it through both houses of the U.S. Congress by unanimous consent procedures. This means both Republicans and Democrats were for it. I think I know why that is: nobody gets elected without MAFIAA help.

you have a few typos...

[Lead Butthead]

It is really crazy how blatant and out of control big contents and their lawyers have become in our society. I'm all for summary execution of those people.
As a consumer, I'm dismayed that self proclaimed artists and authors expects works that took years of effort and money should benefit them in perpetuality, while everyone else has to work and produce daily. It's time these lazy bums get off their fat ass and do some hard work instead of leeching off the society.

Re:Plan? It's already started

[SeaFox]

After a little looking around for him, I saw someone had been squatting on his connection and then locked it up for him. Despite he explained someone apparently used his network without his permission and broke the law, Cox didn't give a rat's ass about it. It's much easier and cheaper for them to shoot now and ask questions later.

He was in violation of Cox's Acceptable Use Policy:
http://ww2.cox.com/aboutus/lasvegas/policies.cox
(these policies are the same for all Cox service areas generally)

First, from the intro:
"Violation of any term of this AUP may result in the immediate suspension or termination of either your access to the Service and/or your Cox account."

See section 6 (Misuse of service),
"You may be held responsible for any misuse of the Service that occurs through your account or IP address, even if the misuse was inadvertent. You must therefore take precautions to ensure that others do not gain unauthorized access to the Service or misuse the Service, including conduct in violation of this AUP."

and section 8 (Security)
"Any wireless network installed by the customer or a Cox representative that is unsecured or 'open' and connected to the Cox network is prohibited."

What does ISP get out of this?

[Epell]

Somebody fill me up on this matter. I can see how RIAA and MPAA get out of this crackdown, but what does ISP get from this deal? Do they get paid?

Re:What does ISP get out of this?

[Osgeld]

the ISP is most likely the cable TV provider and in the case of comcast and time warner they both produce content its all the same blob

Re:What does ISP get out of this?

[The Second Horseman]

And even the non-content producing cable-operating ISPs (Cablevision, Verizon, etc) have to worry about the networks and studios and what sort of terms are negotiated and fees are paid as contracts come up for renewal. And there's the looking threat of Congress passing additional regulations that could be more expensive to implement.

It is stupid.

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone, who would ever want to get any material, that is under these "laws", will simply purchase 9 dollar VPN to any country what is no under control of US.
And that will give unlimited possibilities to download anything under this "strict" control being protected by the same laws.
That is war against humanity nature.

Princeton University to be held responsible

[Anonymous Coward]

for turning out assholes.

Hey Princeton Alumnis. Maybe DON'T cut your alma matter a check this year. Tell them they violated your one strike policy about meddling assholes with god complexes.

How is Princeton's Ox getting gored by alleged piracy? How is food being taken off Wendy Seltzer's table by piracy? What business is it of Princeton or Wendy?

Quick, name the last major block buster that Princeton put out.

What? The big brains at Princeton got the debt crisis solved?

Re:Princeton University to be held responsible

[Nos9]

Actually I see it the other way, the various industrial entities would love to go after you after a single report or even suggestion of piracy. A 6 strike policy allows you plenty of time to find a new carrier, or find a new way of doing things that are not detectable with current standards.

  Although I wonder... the torrent system is covered under copyright/patents right? Could (should they so desire) the holders of said IP make it a caveat of the use of their method that it not be used to entrap users? Maybe it's just me, but turning around and accusing the industries of illegal pirating would be quite satisfying.

Re:Plan? It's already started

[Ltap]

I don't want to seem to defend ignorance, but it can generally be said that everyone has violated some AUP or EULA at some point. Cox's looks mild and laissez-faire compared to many. All I am saying is that it doesn't entirely justify Cox's actions and this highlights the very real issue of setups (like the "download child porn onto someone else's computer" scenario that has been reported several times now) and impersonation. What constitutes a reasonable level of security? Assuming that the connection from the modem to the ISP is always coming from the customer isn't necessarily a good policy, since the more draconian measures like this get the more people will have to gain from impersonation.

Re:Plan? It's already started

[XorNand]

I've gotten several notices from Charter regarding my supposed sharing of stuff using the eDonkey network. The notice in part looks like this:

Dear Charter Communications:

The Entertainment Software Association ("ESA") is a U.S. trade association that represents the intellectual property interests of numerous companies that publish interactive games for video game consoles, personal computers, handheld devices and the Internet (hereinafter collectively referred to as "ESA members"). ESA is authorized to act on behalf of ESA members whose copyright and other intellectual property rights it believes to be infringed as described herein.

ESA is providing this notice pursuant to the Section 512 of Title 17 of the U.S. Code (as enacted by the 'Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act') to make Charter Communications aware that the IP Address identified below is using the services and systems of Charter Communications to infringe the exclusive copyright and other rights of one or more ESA members. This notice is addressed to you as the agent designated by Charter Communications to receive notifications of claimed infringement.

Based on the information at its disposal on 24 Feb 2009 08:13:42 GMT, ESA has a good faith belief that the subscriber using the IP address 66.XXX.XXX.XXX is infringing the copyright rights of one or more ESA members by copying and distributing unauthorized copies of game products (through peer-to-peer or similar software/services), in violation of applicable copyright laws, through internet access that Charter Communications provides directly to the 66.XXX.XXX.XXX or through a downstream provider that purchases this access for 66.XXX.XXX.XXX. The copyrighted works that have been infringed include but are not limited to:

Title: WWE Smackdown! vs. RAW
Notice ID: 825XXXXX
Infringement Source: eDonkey
Infringement Timestamp: 24 Feb 2009 04:16:42 GMT
Infringement Last Documented: 24 Feb 2009 04:16:42 GMT
Infringer Username: 31765E8B8C0E5B88C60C1837A54XXXXX
Infringing Filename: WWE Smackdown VS Raw 2009.cso
Infringing Filesize: 974144108
Infringer IP Address: 66.XXX.XXX.XXX
Infringer DNS Name: XX-XXX-XXX-XXX.dhcp.bycy.mi.charter.com
Infringer Port ID: 35986
Infringer URL: ed2k://|file|WWE Smackdown VS Raw 2009.cso|974144108|6D85B916A468073D52EC11168C7XXXXX|/

The only thing I've ever used eDonkey for was acquiring pr0n. I've never transferred or shared any type of executable. And my wifi network is secured with WPA2 with a strong, 10 character preshared-key. I've gotten two or three of these types of notices so obviously there's something really wrong with how they're determining who the "bad guys" are.

Re:Plan? It's already started

[Nyder]

You can't do much pirating with a slow connection, ....

You are new to the pirate scene, aren't you?

not give up

[currently_awake]

If you think the poor will give up when faced with impossible odds you don't know human nature. When the law becomes unbearable they run and hide, or ignore the law. When people run and hide they take their money with them and this hurts the big men. Ignoring the law is does about the same. There is an optimum amount of jackboot thuggery before you get into the downslope of the bell curve, and I think we're on it now.

Re:not give up

[Anonymous Coward]

Take the money out of their banks.
That will hurt them.Anyways .. noone ever got rich putting their money in the bank.
Why leave it there ?

Re:not give up

[hairyfeet]

Better idea, take the money out of the big shitty banks and put it in your local small bank or co-op. With my little bank if some eTailer tries to double dip I can walk in and say "Hey Karen, guess what? Someone double dipped when I ordered a part online" and she'll say "ooohhh...don't you just HATE that? That happened to my husband a couple of weeks back! let me just punch in some stuff...is this it? Okay let me wipe that...here you go! It'll take about 5 minutes for the changes to filter through the system". Then I say thanks Karen and go on my merry way. I even use my debit online simply because my bank has me covered and never says boo when it comes to fixing mistakes.

So I'd say the better advice would be to take your money out of these "Walmart banks" where they wouldn't piss on you if they were on fire and instead stick with the small banks and co-ops. My little bank gave out loans to local businesses all through the "credit crisis" because they knew the folks they were lending to, and by doing so they didn't get hurt. They also didn't play on the stock market like it was Vegas with better suits and so while everyone else was tight on cash my little bank was bragging they had 300 million ready to be loaned to small businesses.

In some cases smaller simply is better and banking would be one of those.

Re:Just like the "war on illegal variable X"

[painandgreed]

Bread and circus my friend...

The reason for the Arab Spring is because they don't have any "bread". Literally.

DEATH by Lawyer...

A symptom of having a society that actually governed by rule of law. I suppose you would prefer wandering groups of militias, gangs, and other thugs? You'll know when people actually think the system and those lawyers don't work, because that's exactly what we'll have.

While I'm all for protecting our rights, changing the system to everybody is protected, and making sure our votes count, let's not kid ourselves, we're still just whining about our first world problems of not having enough luxuries. Even if unemployed these day, we still have it an order of magnitude better than our grandparents in the great depression, probably even if they had a job.

Re:Plan? It's already started

[Anonymous Coward]

How is it cheaper for cox exactly?

Re:Plan? It's already started

[Doctor_Jest]

I love the fact that yes, infringement exists, but there is a substantial part of their "audience" that is just plain tired of their crap and have abandoned them. They don't go to movies, they don't buy CDs (that aren't used old stuff), and they don't buy DVDs/Blu Rays... and there's nothing worth torrenting for them. :)

When that group becomes a majority, somehow, some way, these asspiles will figure out how to monetize the ability NOT to watch or otherwise consume their "content." I bet someone's already drawn up a plan, piled some cash into a vault, and put the red button behind a glass cover that says "break only in the event that people stop caring about our crap."

I have seen 1 movie this year in the theater, Thor. It sucked. So I avoided the rest of the movies. I just haven't given a shit for a long time, but now, I'm pretty much done wasting my time. I've got better things to do than to make these pricks richer. For those who continue to do so, I don't mind. I just won't do it. One day, though... you'll get tired of the same, rehashed shit and simply tune them out. I never thought I would, but then again, their efforts to stomp on my liberty hadn't gotten this bad yet.

Re:Who the fuck is she?

[retchdog]

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2329364&cid=36790694

and when you're done with that, please die in a fire.

Re:Plan? It's already started

[Chewbacon]

Need I mention how many tools are available for compromising wireless security?

starts off with "16 billion lost revenue"

[Anonymous Coward]

then says that's according to movie and music industry.

Which means the number is completely made the fuck up.

Re:Plan? It's already started

[Anonymous Coward]

Despite he explained someone apparently used his network without his permission and broke the law, Cox didn't give a rat's ass about it.

I'm pretty certain your subscriber agreement specifically says it's your job to secure your shit, and that you're responsible for any traffic that reaches the ISP via your network.

Or in other words, all those people who say "I don't care if somebody uses my open wireless" are starting to realize that yes, they do care.

Only way to truly escape ISP surveillance

[Burz]

is for people to connect within an anonymizing darknet like I2P. Tor with .onion-only connections would also work, but it is more easily attacked.

Offline File Trading

[Ralph Spoilsport]

This will only drive people to offline file trading. Back in the sneakernet days, the joke was "never underestimate the bandwidth of a stationwagon filled with floppy disks". Now, it's "never underestimate the bandwidth of a stationwagon filled with multi-terabyte hard drives.

In your face, BITCHES.

Where there's a will, there's a won't.

Download what you can, NOW. Form networks with friends and start LAN parties. Ethernet LAN parties were cool back in the day of 14.4 modems. Now with ISPs acting like a bunch of dickwads for the fascist entertainment overlords, we need to organise around and without the net. It is no longer the resilient rhizomatic object of freedom - it is now the arboretic albatross of commerce.

Re:Offline File Trading

[SuperTechnoNerd]

Hey is that 100 thumb drives in you pocket, or are you just happy to see me?

Re:Offline File Trading

[Anonymous Coward]

Something something, Tarkin, something something fingers.

With file trading, you picked only the stuff you wanted. With sneaker net copying, you take everything your friends have and sort it out later deleting the stuff that you don't like or already have.

Re:Offline File Trading

[twoHats]

Right on brother ... If they take the net away, they will find out they have taken it from everybody. This net is the people's net, not fcking verizon's. We built the web and we built Usenet and we built the torrents. If these brainless morons can't understand that they are useful tools, we will build them again and lock those pricks out. How many programmers would not work to bring these lying bastards down if their net was cut off. No net leaves a lot of free time on our hands... Just remember Abraham Lincoln didn't die in vein - He died in Washington DC.

Re:I'm Glad For This

[BlueStrat]

Unless you happen to have sold out to a big enough publisher (of any kind) capable of bribing the ISPs, they will not care about your valuable content being "illegally" copied.

Worse than that, I'm certain the big content cartels would prefer (and will float trying to enact) more of a "whitelist" type of system, wherein you'd start getting warnings and begin the progressive throttling/punishments/banishments journey for downloading any content that's NOT on their lists as "approved" with little recourse, or painfully difficult & impractical means and procedures for recourse, in the event that no infringement is actually occurring...like a small-time artist distributing their own music, video, etc.

The big content cartels are increasingly viewing independent artists bypassing the cartels' distribution networks by direct internet distribution as a serious threat to their business model. This would be an excellent vector for them to push back on this trend and limit their perceived losses and the threats to their lock on distribution.

With more and more consolidation of "big content" with ISPs, this is a threat that must be addressed.

Strat

Re:I'm Glad For This

[houghi]

For musicians there is bandcamp.com. Great selection of music and the pricing is clearly explained. 15% or 10% if you make more then 5.000USD a year.

Bands can even give away for free, if they so like. Also easy to embed the music on whatever site. So if you have fans with websites, they can spread the music as well.

Check it out if you make music or if you like music. Although the site is directed towards the music people, finding new music to listen to or download is possible as well.

take offensive than defensive.

[unity100]

this is the umpteenth plan to kill peoples' liberties for content providers' own profit. until the content providers sit pretty, there will be no end to this.

all 'new age' information, intellectual, social organizations, including internet corporations and users themselves, must take the offensive to kill and dismantle these content cartels. otherwise there will be no end to this in sight, and content providers may eventually kill what has done internet what it is.

noone has the right to profit. it is not a god given right. if, what you provide does not suit people, you cannot force your profit upon them. content providers are violating this basic principle, forcing their own will to the majority, 'the people', and therefore they are public enemies.

Write the fuckers!

[Anonymous Coward]

Dear friend,

The U.S. House of Representatives is currently considering H.R. 1981, a bill that would order all of our online service providers to keep new logs about our online activities, logs to help the government identify the web sites we visit and the content we post online. This sweeping new "mandatory data retention" proposal treats every Internet user like a potential criminal and represents a clear and present danger to the online free speech and privacy rights of millions of innocent Americans.

Please, contact your Representative today and ask them to oppose this dangerous bill: https://secure.eff.org/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=497

Re:Write the fuckers!

[MadMaverick9]

treats every Internet user like a potential criminal

and how is this different from what the tsa is doing at the airport?

we have let our govts go down this road way too far already.

Re:Write the fuckers!

[SuperTechnoNerd]

"Please, contact your Representative today and ask them to oppose this dangerous bill." Do you really think they give a shit anymore what the common man thinks?
This sounds very noble but I fear it's futile. After alI am not a multi-billion dollar company. If they cared we would not be here with things like the DCMA in the first place.

Re:Just like the "war on illegal variable X"

[Anonymous Coward]

> Make knowledge illegal...

This isn't knowledge we're discussing, it's movies and pop music. Things that don't contribute positively to human development.

If there are people so desperate to see Transformers VIII that they'll break laws to obtain it, then perhaps that is exactly the sort of people that we should be removing from society.

Re:Plan? It's already started

[Anonymous Coward]

I haven't tried this. And it's been years since I've seen a movie in a theatre. (I prefer to wait for TV premiere or DVD.) But, if the movie is awful, before the movie ends, go demand a refund from the manager. I don't know if it will work, but hold them accountable for showing a bad movie.

They get their money from snacks, right? If they refund the ticket price, it hurts the movie producers, right?

Re:I'm Glad For This

[Runaway1956]

It is really crazy how blatant and out of control copyright infringement at become in our society. I'm all for ISPs cracking down on such illicit and nefarious activitity.

As a fucking, whining, douchebag with an entitlement syndrome, I'm dismayed that works that took years of effort and money just get pirated without any compensation at all. It's time ISPs do something about this.

FTFY

Re:Who the fuck is she?

[Anonymous Coward]

I did read it.

You really should get some help. Such attention-seeking behaviour can be symptomatic of a number of adverse mental conditions.

Make region restrictions illegal

[Anonymous Coward]

The only reason I pirate, is because even if I actually do pay or intend to pay for content, I'm simply presented with messages like the following:

Failed to play the video
This video can only be viewed from the following regions:

Sorry, due to licensing limitations, videos are unavailable in your region.

etc...

Re:One thing is clear

[TheRaven64]

Well, the USA constitution does guarantee the right to due process and a fair trial, as do most modern countries' legal systems. Having ISPs act as vigilantes and enforce the law on behalf of another private entity does not sound like due process to me.

Re:Who the fuck is she?

[fritsd]

I haven't seen a GNAA pornographic story comment yet. Usually those only show up when it's about ODF vs MSOOXML.

Re:Just like the "war on illegal variable X"

[TheRaven64]

A symptom of having a society that actually governed by rule of law

The idea behind the rule of law is that the law is codified and impartial, as opposed to rule by individual humans who can make different decisions based on how they feel. Now, take a look at the current US legal system, where the outcome of a court case depends to a large degree on how much you can afford to spend on lawyers, whether you make a good impression on the judge, and which judge you happen to appear in front of. Does that really sound like the rule of law to you?

Re:Just like the "war on illegal variable X"

[TheRaven64]

This isn't knowledge we're discussing, it's movies and pop music

No, movies and pop music are the excuse. Once you give private entities the right to control what the public can read and watch, do you really think they will stop with movies and pop music?

Re:I'm Glad For This

[epyT-R]

get over it.. get a real job that actually produces something for the economy.. infinite profit hurts us all .. take your greed elsewhere.

Already exists in New Zealand

[wesleyjconnor]

I understand New Zealand government already implemented something along this lines, if they find evidence of you using torrenting software, an obscure protocol primary designed for pirating :P.
i believe its a 3 strikes and you're out

Re:I'm Glad For This

[improfane]

Yes, I can see this happening too.

It already happens in clubs and pubs in the UK that only play indie music or non-mainstream music, they get letters and threats legal action if they do not get a contract from media cartels to play live music to the public. Insane huh?

Re:I'm Glad For This

[BlueStrat]

It already happens in clubs and pubs in the UK that only play indie music or non-mainstream music, they get letters and threats legal action if they do not get a contract from media cartels to play live music to the public. Insane huh?

Insane, yes. Happens in the States here as well. Even had one of the suits in come into a club I was gigging at, and while he was waiting to speak to the owner, he tried to tell me and my band we had to pay for performance rights, even though we weren't a "cover" band, all our music was original songs written ourselves.

I'm a biker-looking leather-jacket type, a bit over 6-ft, and a fit & solid 185 lbs. I happened to still be wearing my Stratocaster, having just come off-stage between sets. I asked him, theoretically speaking of course, how much damage he thought a ~12 pound alder wood guitar could do to a human skull.

He suddenly found somewhere else he vitally needed to be. :)

Of course, he was actually in no danger. I would never soil my guitar that badly for such as him.

Strat

Freedom to Tinker

[tepples]

Now she appears to be another bought dog of the Corporate states of Buy America.

In what way? She's currently a fellow at Center of Information Technology Policy, which hosts Freedom to Tinker. And she still runs Chilling Effects.

A value to the public as well

[tepples]

Is there something about songs or films or books that means their value is automatically reduced as they age? I think their value is demonstrated by continuing sales. If "Casablanca" keeps selling, then it has a value.

It does. But why should all of said value be captured by the author or publisher instead of by the public? Should the Shakespeare estate still be making royalites on The Tempest? It appears you've started to recognize that this would be a bad idea with your preference for a 28-year copyright duration as under the Copyright Act of 1790.

Whoaaaaaah!

[justforgetme]

hey, this video was featured on the front page of /. and it has omly 880 views?!?!?!?!?!?!?

D@mn
I must be new here!

Re:Just like the "war on illegal variable X"

[mcgrew]

While I'm all for protecting our rights, changing the system to everybody is protected, and making sure our votes count, let's not kid ourselves, we're still just whining about our first world problems of not having enough luxuries. Even if unemployed these day, we still have it an order of magnitude better than our grandparents in the great depression, probably even if they had a job.

My dad grew up during the depression, born in 1931. Will Rogers famously said during the depression, "a recession is when your neighbor's out of work. A depression is when YOU'RE out of work." We have it better not because of the economy, but because of technology. I can remember when my mom's brother built a bathroom on my grandparents' house; grandpa still used the outhouse after the bathroom was installed!

My dad grew up without electricity and running water not because they couldn't afford the bill, but because it wasn't available. He still has no computer or cell phone -- "I lived 80 years without it, I don't need it now" (I hope I never get to be like that).

I don't miss what I never had, but get me dependant on it and you're going to have to fight me to take it away. I lived 45 years without internet or a cell phone, now I don't know how we did without it.

Anonymous Proxy Tunnels

[Doc Ruby]

Where's the HowTo for Linux for setting a LAN SSL proxy to a remote server, through one's ISP, that encrypts all traffic before dumping it at an Internet server that aggregates many tunnels before routing them to the actual endpoints? Which deletes the temporary lookups to the LANs, anonymizing them. One that requires zero reconfig of any clients on the LAN.

Vertical Monopoly

[Doc Ruby]

And right there is the interest conflict that these vertical monopolies hold. The corp creates content and so holds an unlimited monopoly on it through copyright. And the same corp distributes content to consumers, and holds an unlimited monopoly on distribution by being the only broadband ISP in that town. Together the absolute exclusion of choice totally controls the market.

The only exception was in places where there might be a second ISP corp which isn't the copyright holder, or where the content comes from a different creator/ISP corp that is supposed to compete with the local creator/ISP corp. But these laws require them to work as a cartel.

The noose is tight around the neck of the Info Age. Free speech/press and privacy lynched by corporate profiteers and the government they bought. Monopoly money in every sense of the words.

Re:Plan? It's already started

[shoehornjob]

I've gotten two or three of these types of notices so obviously there's something really wrong with how they're determining who the "bad guys" are.

They have no problem determining who the bad guys are. The problem is that they don't give a $hit if you are bad or good. It's that "kill em all and let god sort em out" mentality.

Re:Just like the "war on illegal variable X"

[whipnet]

Haven't we been arguing this since the invention of the copy machine? As long as people want something bad enough, they will get it. The cat and mouse game will never end and the cat will never win. For every torrent site that gets shut down, 3 new ones appear. The genie technology has been let out of the bottle. People will find new ways to transport and hide/encrypt their files.

If you're of noble birth and choose to make most everything illegal, than you've made most everyone else your slave. Make knowledge illegal and their children and children's children become slaves. Make chiropractic schools illegal and you've made Dr. Bob your new court jester.

So going by this, tell me again why God in Genesis (who kept the knowledge from man) was the good god and Satan (who wanted to give man knowledge) was the bad guy? Sounds like God was a slave master to me. *

Re:One thing is clear

[KingMotley]

That would be because you aren't a lawyer. The constitution rarely, if ever, dictates what a private corporation may/can/must do regarding their own customers. In addition, they aren't enforcing the law, they aren't billing you for your copyright infringement fine, or sending you to jail, they are just refusing to do business with you. Perhaps next you'll want to make it so that banks have to hire employees with multiple felony charges pending as well?

Probably Won't Work

[rally2xs]

...but I'm for anything that sticks it to a thief. I hate thieves...

They shouldn't have to sue these downloaders now, they should be throwing them in jail.

Re:Just like the "war on illegal variable X"

[Anonymous Coward]

DAY OF RAGE.

on the button

[helios17]

My neighborhood is rife with insecure routers or WEP encryption. The latter taking only a few minutes longer to connect to than the first. If I were an arse, I could daisy-chain them on a weekly basis and have a few left over for the next week. Wardriving without the driving....a movie a day at least... But I am not and I will not...my neighbors are good folks. But who's to say that there are not others in the neighborhood that are as decent. If anything, it might teach those without secure connections to make them so. But probably not...

Re:One thing is clear

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, funnily, there are restrictions on the way hiring practices can handle convictions [pending though I' not sure] - more to the point, the constitution itself may not dictate what a private corporation may/can/must do regarding their own customers, but other laws, and case law built from many legal conflicts, pretty much do that work anyways.

Common Carrier Status

[nurb432]

So, i guess that blows that. And they better be upfront that hey are monitoring and restricting your access against a set of rule THEY come up with.

Wifi mesh

[nurb432]

I tend to agree ( and point to point dial-up , uucp style ) but "Private mesh" could eventually solve this problem for people in more developed areas, and at better speeds. Get enough people linked together and they are their own backbone.

of course i would expect it to be outlawed before then.

No.

[Anonymous Coward]

- Offences could be caused by malware
- Downloading a copy of something you own the license to (for format shifting/other purposes) would probably count as an offence even though it shouldn't
- Who knows what else counts as an offence, and the burden of proof rests on you. You know how great those ISP call centers are, well, they're about to get a whole lot better.
- ISPs push users to pay their fees yearly for a discount
- ISPs will be able to kick off users after they already have their money, so they would be encouraged to do so in order to take your money and not have to provide the service

Fuck no.

miserable failure

[xilun]

This model is a (forecasted) miserable failure in France and now some morons want to do the same in other countries. Some humans make me sad.

Re:Just like the "war on illegal variable X"

[Dripdry]

Oh, lovely. A false dichotomy first: "You either have too many laws or none at all". This is wrong. Second, if we keep thinking "well, at least it's not THAT bad" we'll keep having our rights eroded. That thinking isn't what got us this nation. "Oh, the status quo is good enough"... What got us this nation in the first place was striving toward something better, not something perfect, but better. Giving in and saying,"well, at least they haven't taken everything I have away" is what plebs do, what serfs do, and when they finally come and smash your face (metaphorically or physically), in that moment you'll understand that you should have stood up with your fellow citizens (NOT CONSUMERS) and demanded better. Get some spine and stand up to the powers that be, I'm sick of this midwestern mentality of non-conflict.

Re:Plan? It's already started

[maelfius]

I don't really see this as a problem (violations of the AUP should be grounds for termination of service), HOWEVER (that is a *big* however), two things need to be in place before this should be reasonably enforceable (and some of these elements are pretty easy to do, and may be already done):

[These are in no particular order]

1. 1. ISP (COX in this case) with said AUP needs to give basic education to their customers on signup/setup for things like WiFi security - a simple "to let you know unsecured WiFi isn't allowed, this is what you need to do to get a secured WiFi . Alternatively, for $ we will make sure it is setup correctly for you" (LET ME STRESS: the "setup for you" should be optional, perhaps a waiver stating "I understand" if you don't have them set it up for you.)
2. 2. *** MOST IMPORTANT *** The ISP (COX) cannot be the EXCLUSIVE provider for the residence (Yes, I am looking at you, apartment complex I live in. I have NO option but COX, meaning that since I need Internet for my Job, I could be screwed if this happened. This typically isn't an issue for me, since I am relatively secure in my knowledge on how to setup networks/WiFi/etc).

3. There might need to be a couple other things, but, these two stood out to me as almost requirements at this point (with policies like COX has).

We should start new wireless networks

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's start new autonomous networks, uncontrolled.
No needing for trucks to free information, we'll use the air.
Super-encryption and f***-all!

Cheers B1tch3z! :-)

Re:Plan? It's already started

[toddestan]

You can't do much pirating with a slow connection, but you can surf the web. So instead of cutting people off, they should consider cutting their speed to near-unusable speeds, like 128 kilobits per second. That's 16 kilobytes per second.

What are.you talking about? I pirated gigabytes of music over dial-up back in the day, a connection that's a good 3-4 times slower than what you propose. And that's also using a connection that I had to disconnect anytime I wanted to use the phone. With some patience, you could get just about anything with a 24/7 128kpbs connection.

Yeah....

[Anonymous Coward]

We'll see just how long that lasts. I've about had it with the billing/service runaround I get with my ISP. Given how much "unique" content that's really out there and how I could spend my time more profitably, there isn't too much to make me drop kick my ISP, even at the cost of have no broadband at all.

Re:Just like the "war on illegal variable X"

[Anonymous Coward]

Corporate media tows the establishment agenda in exchange for feeding like vampires on CAFR and the people.

Re:One thing is clear

[KingMotley]

Well you might have a case if the ISP were going to hire you, but they aren't. You are their customer, and they have the right to refuse service to anyone for almost any reason that doesn't discriminate by race, sex, or religion.

Re:One thing is clear

[KingMotley]

I'll grant you the right to post by hiding behind the Anonymous Coward tag like the coward you are.

Re:Just like the "war on illegal variable X"

[Kjella]

Now, take a look at the current US legal system, where the outcome of a court case depends to a large degree on how much you can afford to spend on lawyers, whether you make a good impression on the judge, and which judge you happen to appear in front of. Does that really sound like the rule of law to you?

I'll give you the part about the money, but the last two sounds more like the fallacies of a human system. Sure there are minimums and maximums and sentencing guidelines, but whatever impression you make on the judge (or jury) obviously will have a big impact. But is there any way we could really take the human factor out of it? Is there any court system you could point to that really does better? They're all people and people get emotional, no matter how you organize the system.

Re:Plan? It's already started

[SeaFox]

What constitutes a reasonable level of security? Assuming that the connection from the modem to the ISP is always coming from the customer isn't necessarily a good policy...

Why not? The modem is owned by the customer. As the service is provided by Cox, the only way to access it is to have a physical connection to the Ethernet or USB ports on the modem. If the customer cannot secure the physical device in their own home, I'd say they have bigger problems than someone masquerading as them to their ISP.

If someone is not willing to take the responsibility to learn to administer the wired or wireless network they set up on their side, perhaps this person shouldn't be running one to start with.

Re:Who the fuck is she?

[NoNonAlphaCharsHere]

So, your answer is "D", then.

Re:Plan? It's already started

[Anonymous Coward]

So why doesn't he sue Cox for slander? After all, they are claiming, and admitting publicly, that they suspended him for piracy. if he didn't do it, then he should force them to retract their statement publicly also. Otherwise, they can cough up some dough. Eventually, they'll start requiring court documents before heading down that road again, which is the way it SHOULD be.

Re:Plan? It's already started

[Anonymous Coward]

It's much easier and cheaper for them to shoot now and ask questions later.

Or just not ask questions at all.

Re:Plan? It's already started

[TangoMargarine]

More like shoot now and then ignore you when you answer the questions later.

Re:Just like the "war on illegal variable X"

[vuffi_raa]

While I'm all for protecting our rights, changing the system to everybody is protected, and making sure our votes count, let's not kid ourselves, we're still just whining about our first world problems of not having enough luxuries.

actually we are complaining that people with money are "whining about our first world problems of not having enough luxuries" and pushing laws and regulations to crack down on the populace for not giving them an unending supply.

If you weren't using a VPN before...

[perstephone]

... even more reason to do so now.

Re:Plan? It's already started

[Ltap]

Yes, and it's "reasonable" to assume that child porn on your work PC or drugs in your desk were put there by you. Simply because it's your area at work or your home doesn't entirely eliminate the possibility of frame-up jobs. As I said before, the more we assume this, the more people will want to create situations like this because it means an easy way to get rid of someone.

Re:Plan? It's already started

[SeaFox]

Yes, and it's "reasonable" to assume that child porn on your work PC or drugs in your desk were put there by you. Simply because it's your area at work or your home doesn't entirely eliminate the possibility of frame-up jobs.

A workplace computer/desk is accessible by any number of people besides the employee -- maintenance people, supervisors, other co-workers depending on the location, not to mention the PC is on a company LAN administered by another department that has the power to change or add files on the workstation machine remotely.

The customer's cable modem/DSL router is a device within the user's legal domain. He is the owner and maintainer of the equipment. He alone decides who can plug into it. Physical access is a requirement for tempering outside of the ISPs own staff.

This is a very poor comparison you're choosing.

None of this really matters in the long run, anyway. The customer agreed to be responsible for all activity that occurred on the service, whether by him or otherwise. He was already in violation of the agreement for running an unsecured wireless network. It was his decision to run this network this way. There's a boatful or reason not to do this that have nothing to do with the TOS with his ISP. He could have appealed to a friend/family member for help, or called the vendor tech support he undoubtedly had during the router's warranty period for assistance. There is even another option; Cox offers professional installation of home networking in many areas. You can purchase your router from Cox, have it covered by a one-year warranty through Cox, and for an additional fee have a technician come out and set up the router and your wireless computers, including a secured wireless network.

At what point do we really make people responsible for their own (in)actions?

Re:Plan? It's already started

[Ltap]

The point I was trying to make is about establishing a reasonable level of security. Sure, it's somewhat reasonable to require encryption, but even then the user should not be automatically responsible for the content of the network; they should have the opportunity to find proof that someone else was. I think my comparison of a home network to a work PC is a good one because, fundamentally, both are potentially accessible by many people and if any of those many people are malicious, the primary user is held responsible most of the time.

Re:Plan? It's already started

[SeaFox]

Sure, it's somewhat reasonable to require encryption, but even then the user should not be automatically responsible for the content of the network; they should have the opportunity to find proof that someone else was.

And what then? Whoever it is the person is in a house somewhere around him, he doesn't know where. Or might a wardriver that camps out on his street often and they're miles away. Movies were pirated, child prons were shared, terrorist plots were discussed etc, -- someone has to be held responsible. Which is why he, as the owner of the connection, is.

Without a clause like that in the terms of service you end up with people creating themselves an out.

1) Leave wireless network open.
2) Do what you want.
3) Play dumb and say it must be someone else you didn't authorize.
4) Avoid legal repercussions.

Re:Just like the "war on illegal variable X"

[Sally Forth]

Ah... are you suggesting that you *want* an Arab Spring? Personally, I couldn't think of any situation that couldn't be made worse by adding the likes of the Muslim Brotherhood and/or Al Qaeda to it.

Before: You can lose your internet for downloading copyrighted material.

After: You can lose your virginity by walking down the street with an inch of flesh showing.

For those who are not going to 'get' my comment, let me be blunt: The "Arab Spring" in most countries has been leading to a particularly virulent form of extremism that makes people think that all Muslims are incurably violent. Muslim women who used to be allowed to have careers under Muslim leadership are beginning to find that they are now not even allowed to leave the house.

Now if you are talking about what the mainstream media claims the 'Arab Spring' is, then I might be able to agree with you.

Re:Just like the "war on illegal variable X"

[Sally Forth]

False dichotomy. You may as well say that parents are child abusers if they don't tell their five-year-olds how to engage in oral-anal sex. God gave man a great deal of knowledge and even let him name all the creatures he'd be caring for. Satan wasn't out to "give man knowledge". If he was, then he would've given them at least a hint that what they were about to learn was going to destroy the lives of countless descendents through war and tyranny. He was just out to give us enough rope to hang ourselves.

Re:Plan? It's already started

[Ltap]

someone has to be held responsible

Yes, the person who actually did it. What I am advocating is a degree of investigation. To view it in a legal framework, the primary user is being found guilty automatically, without any chance to prove his case. You seem to be advocating finding someone responsible for the sake of finding someone responsible, which is exactly how scapegoats are created and how problems are not solved in any way.

Re:Plan? It's already started

[Anonymous Coward]

A bandwidth cap probably would be a "better" idea then.