Slashdot Mirror
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."
I mean, other than some stupid bitch?
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
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 an artist, 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.
Wikipedia says she's a lawyer who founded Chilling Effects and used to work for the EFF.
Alright 6 warnings! Now I know to cut it out after the 5th.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
The United States late Friday lost its triple-A debt rating from Standard & Poor’s for the first time in its history, with the rating agency saying the political system of the world’s top economy has become less stable and budget cutting announced earlier this week didn’t go far enough
This seltzer person must be executed to send a message and make an example. Her family should be taken out as well.
Geeks are so full of shit that "beating the crap out of them" takes a whole new meaning.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Anyone interested in resurrecting packet radio?
"People don't want to learn linux" hasn't been a valid excuse since '03.
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!
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.
(Insert random ./ death threats and anal rapings here, quoted from previous comments..)
..."She sits on the board of the TOR PROJECT. (Enabling folks to 'anonymously' browse pr0n for some time.)
So, I guess NO one reads/watches TFA.
Google. Try it, folks!
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.
Consistency is only a virtue if you're not a screw-up.
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.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
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.
Big brother just got a lot bigger (and hey he's in debt!)
Never say never. Ah!! I did it again!
Yum yum, a lovely tasty copypasta!!!
This tagline was transcoded to result in at least one smirk. If you experience failure to smirk, please consult your Gen
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.
That's great, Wendy. When can I expect your check for the part of my ISP's service you and your MAFIAA pimps would prefer I don't use?
Oh, there's no check? Then STFU, thundercunt.
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.
Chewbacon
The Bible is like Wikipedia: written by a bunch of people and verifiable by questionable sources.
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.
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.
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.
When radio stations contact the record industry and ask for music, the recording industry tells them to just download the mp3s off of bittorrent.
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.
expandfairuse.org
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!
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.
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...
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.
talks about the new plan by ISPs and content providers
Not her plan, she's just talking about it.
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.
Unix, an obscure operating system developed by bored researchers in an attempt to get a better game playing experience.
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?
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.
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.
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?
I have mod points and I am not afraid to use them.
So who slaps down the ISPs and "content providers" when they are wrong? What legal recourse do citizens have?
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.
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.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Yes, it's slow but it gets better every year.
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....
Does this mean we can hold ISP responsible for everything and sue them for spam or phishing and other things?
I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J
Would like to buy a VPN service (offshore) for this. Does anyone have one they would recommend?
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.
Will they be requiring VPN providers to provide this information about anyone downloading through the VPN? If not, I may be employing one.
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.
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.
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..
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)
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?
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.
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.
"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."
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.
ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
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."
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?
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.
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?
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.
Yet Another Tech Blog
(but so much more, including game and movie reviews)
http://yanteb.peasantoid.org
I've gotten several notices from Charter regarding my supposed sharing of stuff using the eDonkey network. The notice in part looks like this:
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.
Entrepreneur : (noun), French for "unemployed"
You can't do much pirating with a slow connection, ....
You are new to the pirate scene, aren't you?
Be seeing you...
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.
The reason for the Arab Spring is because they don't have any "bread". Literally.
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.
How is it cheaper for cox exactly?
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.
It's the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man.
Need I mention how many tools are available for compromising wireless security?
Chewbacon
The Bible is like Wikipedia: written by a bunch of people and verifiable by questionable sources.
then says that's according to movie and music industry.
Which means the number is completely made the fuck up.
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.
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.
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.
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
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.
Read radical news here
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
> 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.
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?
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...
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?
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
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?
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
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
http://www.awfullybigmoustache.com
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.
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.
hey, this video was featured on the front page of /. and it has omly 880 views?!?!?!?!?!?!?
D@mn
I must be new here!
-- no sig today
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.
Free Martian Whores!
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.
--
make install -not war
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.
--
make install -not war
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.
"We are just a war away from Amerikastan. When god vs god the undoing of man." Dave Mustaine
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. *
...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.
DAY OF RAGE.
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...
Windows assumes you are an idiot...Linux demands proof.
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.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
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.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
- 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.
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.
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.
-
[These are in no particular order]
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).
Information is not Knowledge.
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!
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.
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.
Corporate media tows the establishment agenda in exchange for feeding like vampires on CAFR and the people.
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.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
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.
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.
It's much easier and cheaper for them to shoot now and ask questions later.
Or just not ask questions at all.
More like shoot now and then ignore you when you answer the questions later.
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
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.
... even more reason to do so now.
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.
Yet Another Tech Blog
(but so much more, including game and movie reviews)
http://yanteb.peasantoid.org
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?
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.
Yet Another Tech Blog
(but so much more, including game and movie reviews)
http://yanteb.peasantoid.org
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.
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.
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.
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.
Yet Another Tech Blog
(but so much more, including game and movie reviews)
http://yanteb.peasantoid.org
A bandwidth cap probably would be a "better" idea then.