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.

6 Warnings

[ArchieBunker]

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

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.

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

[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When copyright terms are again 30 years or less with no exceptions, and the DMCA is completely repealed, I'll be with you, really with you.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

[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

[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: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"

[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.

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...

[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...

[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.

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

[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

[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.

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?

[Knightman]

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

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.

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.

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: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.

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.

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]

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

Re:One thing is clear

[Opportunist]

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

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: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.

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: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.

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.

RTFS?

[curio_city]

talks about the new plan by ISPs and content providers

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

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.

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: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: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.

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: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.)

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: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:Sigh

[cbiltcliffe]

But think of the latency!

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

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:Uh, SSL?

[Imrik]

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

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.

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."

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: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.

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: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:Sigh

[Lanteran]

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

Re:Which VPN (offshore) is best/recommended

[ixidor]

privacy.io

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: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: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: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.