Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Don't Forget: "Six Strikes" Starts This Weekend

Posted by Unknown on from the if-you-can't-win-in-court dept.

Dr. Eggman writes "If you don't recall, then Broadband/DSL Reports is here to remind us that ISPs around the U.S. will begin adhering to the RIAA/MPAA-fueled 'Six Strikes' agreement on July 1st. Or is it July 12th? Comcast, AT&T, Verizon and Cablevision are all counted among the participants. They will each introduce 'mitigation measures' against suspected pirates, including: throttling down connection speeds and suspending Web access."

47 of 298 comments (clear)

  1. Don't Forget: "Six Strikes" Starts This Weekend by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It's the beginning of the end for the INTERNET.

    1. Re:Don't Forget: "Six Strikes" Starts This Weekend by EdIII · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Hardly.

      It's the beginning of mass amounts of hosted VPS/torrent solutions and SFTP traffic.

      Laws have never once curbed popular behavior without huge losses of life and civil war. So until there is the decapitation, or drawn-and-quartered rule, I sincerely doubt behavior modification will be the outcome.

      Trying to ban SFTP traffic is not going to work, and trying to play whack-a-mole with VPS/seedbox providers will be fruitless.

    2. Re:Don't Forget: "Six Strikes" Starts This Weekend by Chelloveck · · Score: 3, Funny

      It's the beginning of the end for the INTERNET.

      Film at 11. I'll post a torrent.

      --
      Chelloveck
      I give up on debugging. From now on, SIGSEGV is a feature.
    3. Re:Don't Forget: "Six Strikes" Starts This Weekend by HornyBastard · · Score: 4, Funny

      "So until there is the decapitation, or drawn-and-quartered rule"

      We're talking about pirates here.
      You have to keel-haul them.

      --
      Death has been proven to be 99% fatal in lab rats.
    4. Re:Don't Forget: "Six Strikes" Starts This Weekend by laederkeps · · Score: 3, Informative

      How about a response about the resulting organized crime [b]with the purpose of skirting the prohibition[/b]?
      It didn't so much change the alcohol culture as drive it underground.

  2. Freenet is still here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    I guess most people will probably still avoid it until their first strike, but Freenet's still alive and shuffling many TB of data between the nodes without the possibility of monitoring.

    https://freenetproject.org/

    1. Re:Freenet is still here by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 3, Insightful

      without the possibility of monitoring

      Hm...that's an interesting assertion...perhaps you meant "hard to monitor" or "I cannot see how this will be monitored," but unless you would like to point to a proof of hardness i.e. that either in an information theoretic sense or under some common cryptographic assumption it is hard to track Freenode transfers, I would not stake much on Freenode. It would not be beyond the RIAA or MPAA to hire some cryptanalysts to develop methods of attacking the security of Freenet, nor would it be beyond them to set up malicious Freenet nodes for that purpose.

      --
      Palm trees and 8
  3. a minority opinion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This graduated system actually sounds like a big improvement over their old policy where some college kid would be downloading and sharing 1000's of songs, and then get hit by a subpoena by the RIAA's lawyers.

    Now, they send out warnings and follow them up before taking further action. So the infringer gets feedback in time to change their behavior before they get served with a big lawsuit.

    1. Re:a minority opinion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I definitely agree. Now rather than just having no chance to perfect your strategy for getting away with torrenting, you get 5 before you're fucked.

    2. Re:a minority opinion by martin-boundary · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Except this "feedback" bypasses the courts, bringing posse justice to suspected "infringers".

      The old system of lawsuits is better for victims of the RIAA, as their rights are respected. The only reason this is being promoted as "positive" is because the vultures need to move onto a new strategy to keep ahead of the judges, as the courts are growing wise to the years of abuse of the law.

    3. Re:a minority opinion by Charliemopps · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You're foolishly misguided if you think the RIAA is going to stop suing people that have no way to defend themselves. If anything they will use these warnings against these people.

    4. Re:a minority opinion by Stiletto · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The legal system is stacked against the common person in these situations.

      This is the same justification proponents of "binding arbitration" use. Surprise! arbitration is also stacked against the common person, and so will this gentlemen's agreement between huge corporations. At least, in theory, you have a fighting chance in the legal system. In this system (and in arbitration), you're punished, period.

      Rule of Thumb: Any agreement or contract that you were not part of writing is designed to screw you.

    5. Re:a minority opinion by paleo2002 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I suspect most people will "change their behavior" after the warnings or speed throttling by switching ISP's.

      Perhaps once telecoms begin to lose customers as a result of being MAFIAA enforcers, they'll decide to side with their customers and more modern copyright laws.

  4. Where's the money? by amoeba1911 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The problem is that MPAA/RIAA somehow think they're going to get more money from what they think are "consumers". The overwhelming majority people they're going after have no plans on giving their money to media distributors because they either don't have any or know better. Yet, they continue to waste their resources going after these "pirates" - who aren't really pirates because they're not profiting from their activities in any way.

    The distributors are always complaining about how they're barely making ends meet.... perhaps if they didn't pay themselves millions of dollars they wouldn't have any problems? As I see it, they're just greedy assholes. They should do us all a favor and roll over and die. In a world where cost of distribution is very close to $0, there is no need for a digital media distribution company.

    1. Re:Where's the money? by mysidia · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually you still need people with money to finance new artists and bands

      People in any business need financing to get started with their business, if the costs are significant. The costs of starting a band are much lower today than they were in the past. But still, this is a service provided by banks; there isn't a market for dedicated companies just to finance bands.

      and make them known to the public.

      That is just marketing. You don't have to have a distributor or label to do that. Labels may be able to do that more cost effectively at scale; for example, they might have agreements in place with retailers, so the cost may be less for the band to get their content on store shelves and marketed.

      This is not debatable.

      Sure it's debatable. You have essentially downgraded the record labels' status to bank and marketing agency.

      I think that's not the reason any band goes to a label. Those services are easy to obtain through numerous competitors who would not demand such a high cut of the proceeds.

      I think they go to the labels as a one-stop shop, to totally run the business for them, because the Labels have experience at taking content and turning it to dollars, so they can concentrate on making music, and avoid doing any of that "business stuff" themselves, which if done wrong, could cause them to fail.

      The labels don't "finance them", the labels reduce their business risk.

  5. One word for ya: Streamripper by Teresita · · Score: 5, Informative

    1. Record innernets radio with streamripper, a free CLI app ported for Unix and Win32.
    2. See how streamripper lays all the songs in your folder nice and neat with all the MP3 tag information intact.
    3. Sort the folder on size in your favorite file manager and delete all the sub-megabyte commercials.
    4. See how RIAA doesn't have a clue what's going on because it's like taping your songs on a boom box.
    5. ????
    6. Profit!

    1. Re:One word for ya: Streamripper by Teresita · · Score: 5, Informative

      You know what they do to music these days? First of all, they use auto-tune to make it seem like Lindsey Lohan can actually stay on key, then they record the track so hot if you import it into Audacity it looks like a solid blob. All those square waves, that's clipping, but it makes the "artist" sound "edgy". When all the popular music is recorded like that, it doesn't matter if you get it at 64 kbps and listen with Dollar Store earbuds. So I go USENET for lossless, and to grab entire albums, including the cover art.

  6. Fuck Off RIAA/MPAA by RedHat+Rocky · · Score: 3, Insightful

    To: RIAA/MPAA assholes

    I've been less and less likely to go to movies, thanks dudes.

    Being specific: the idea that y'all think movies are a good way to strip cash from consumers to your pockets is annoying. The idea that you deserve to do so no matter what is plain offensive.

    --
    Anything is possible given time and money.
    1. Re:Fuck Off RIAA/MPAA by digitalaudiorock · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm a musician/song writer in addition to being a programmer. In the early days of Napster I was, to a large extent, on the side of copyright holders, but that's all changed radically over the years. It's sad in a way that things have pretty much reached the point where it's all but impossible to make money with music other than by touring or otherwise playing live...perhaps in a way that's a good thing. If the record industry didn't get hung up on bullshit like DRM and got out in front of this whole thing with DRM-free songs available much like on Amazon in, oh...I don't know...like 1999, it would be a very different world for the music industry right now.

      As many here have pointed out, it's clear that the RIAA will continue to lobby, or do whatever it takes to turn the Internet as we know it into the likes of pay television, where we're just spectators. The ONLY thing that will stop this is if the whole industry just plains goes belly up, and is replaced by one that actually lives in the 21st century. While I don't download music illegally myself, at this point if the public chooses to "pirate" them into the fucking stone age I couldn't be happier, and I couldn't be happier at the reality that, from a technical standpoint, they'll never be able to stop it. Assholes...all of them...

  7. Only other places need freedom by al3 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So I guess the government's position that access to the Internet is as important as freedom of speech only applies to communist countries http://articles.cnn.com/2011-02-15/politics/clinton.internet_1_internet-freedom-repression-expression?_s=PM:POLITICS

    1. Re:Only other places need freedom by al3 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Banning people from the Internet will take away "the freedoms of expression, assembly, and association online" in an overbroad and potentially inaccurate attempt to punish piracy.

  8. Re:Hacktivism at its finest by Deekin_Scalesinger · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Come on now, really? I'm a card carrying member of the EFF (truly) but that's a little much. That's like saying "let's plant some dope in his car and then call the cops because we don't like him!"

    Activisim is one thing, setting someone up for legal issues is another, in my book.

    --
    "As the intrepid kobold companion continues his journey, he begins to wonder... if priests raises dead, why anybody die?
  9. Glad I have RCN by Immerial · · Score: 3, Informative

    Sorry for all those folks that don't have any other option! This also the reason I keep turning down all those 'amazing' Comcast deals... look --> a whole year at $1/month. Yeah, great deal until RCN is out of business and I don't have another option.

  10. Streamripper + Grooveshark by Bananatree3 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Loadup your favorite songs with Grooveshark, queue Streamripper and voila. MP3s magically appear in your folders! No torrents required.

  11. please ignore the above comment by Bananatree3 · · Score: 4, Funny

    It doesn't exist. It's not accurate, and therefore completely invisible. The above pixels are blanked out and your eye does not read them. Nothing to see here, please move on.

  12. Re:Hacktivism at its finest by LordLucless · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Well, it depends. If the target was a person who'd been instrumental behind, say, mandatory sentencing for drug possession, I'd be all for it. It's basically a way of showing the people who make these decisions the practical ramifications of them - because they either cannot understand basic logic, or don't care because they don't think it will apply to them.

    Likewise, if this was targeting, say, a participating ISP's CEO, or the family of an RIAA exec, I'd be all for it. They're introducing a process that punishes people while circumventing due process. Let's see it bite them in the ass a few times, like it will everyone else.

    --
    Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
  13. That's what they want by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 5, Interesting

    They would rather deal with online services than P2P. That's what this has been about this the beginning of this ridiculous situation. The old media barons do not want to see a world in which people can be both consumers and distributors of entertainment or software, because that turns their whole business upside down. Peer to peer networks, and yes, that includes the Internet itself, are the targets; they want this to look more like cable TV systems, where consumers have consumption devices and where distributors have to negotiate deals and fight things out in courts.

    The RIAA and MPAA love playing whack-a-mole; they have decades of experience doing it, they have laws on their side, they have public sympathy on their side. Suing an service provider off the face of the Earth doesn't really get the public angry, and it can result in that service provider making a deal that rakes in cash. Suing some college kid, some working class parent, some old computer-illiterate grandmother -- those things get the public angry (which is only tolerable up to the point where they start voting for less industry friendly politicians), they have no chance of producing a profitable deal, and they involve a party that has little money to give.

    --
    Palm trees and 8
    1. Re:That's what they want by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 3, Insightful
      1. That is terrible -- the Internet is supposed to be for us, that is, for the computer users of the world. We are supposed to have a network where we can communicate freely, where there are no borders or region codes or deals to negotiate. If the copyright industry is allowed to hijack our system, the answer should be to make a new Internet.
      2. By the time the Internet looks like cable TV, living life without an Internet connection will be very difficult. Banking, shopping, communications (voice, video, text) will all basically involve the Internet. Most people want the superbowl and will not boycott the Internet if it becomes the only way to get their entertainment, even if they are losing the freedoms the Internet was supposed to provide (which most people have not really had to chance to enjoy, due to the generally poor understanding of computers).

        Let's put it this way: how many people will give up on Facebook in the Internet-as-cable-TV scenario?
      --
      Palm trees and 8
    2. Re:That's what they want by mysidia · · Score: 5, Interesting

      That is terrible -- the Internet is supposed to be for us, that is, for the computer users of the world. We are supposed to have a network where we can communicate freely

      It will be when someone develops a system kind of like FreeNet or ToR that actually works well for content distribution and consumption without revealing responsible IP addresses, doesn't require any advanced technical knowledge to publish and update content, is very fast, scales very well, and replaces BitTorrent and other protocols, which only provide file transfer, not content discovery and easy publication of media.

    3. Re:That's what they want by spire3661 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Blank media tax is not brilliant. It presumes a crime/civil infringement will absolutely occur. Should I have to pay copyright tax for taping my kids birthday? Its an evil foisted upon you by those that wish to farm your income.

      --
      Good-bye
    4. Re:That's what they want by rubycodez · · Score: 3, Interesting

      That is no longer true. We have government under control of wealthy elite, cartels. It is very much a disconnectd entity stealing from us, taking away our rights, turning our country into a fascist police state.

    5. Re:That's what they want by bzipitidoo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      it's okay for them to enforce laws

      No, not always. Laws are far from perfect. In doubtful cases, yes, enforce the law. But this case is not in doubt. These anti-piracy laws are far too extreme. Too easy to twist such power to spy on innocent citizens, silence dissent, push unrelated agendas such as a crusade against porn or drugs or terrorism, and leverage the even more extreme privileges the content cartels think they would like. These laws are bad. I don't think it's possible to have any anti-piracy law that doesn't trample upon other vital freedoms.

      And now, try to wrap your head around this idea: piracy is good. It is good in the sense that the public would benefit more if there was no such thing as a monopoly on copying. The public does not benefit as much from the current custom of trying to lock everything down, and the waste of millions on monopolistic gouging, clinging to outdated, grossly inefficient distribution systems such as CDs, and enforcement and court cases, DRM, lobbying, and even public campaigning. Capt. Copyright was ludicrous, and if anything, only served to undermine the message they were trying to push. All these anti-piracy efforts are predicated on the notion that piracy is bad, and that copyright is the only way or the only fair way artists can make a living. No. Not only are the anti-piracy bills too extreme, the very foundational ideas behind them all are wrong. Some think they are pushing bad means to achieve a good end, but the end they seek is not good. Does the end justify the means? If you have to go all fascist and use force to achieve some good end, you ought to reexamine that end and ask, is it really good? Odds are, it is not.

      serving the complaint to your ISP instead of suing you, they're saving you money

      Saving me money? Not at the price of due process and freedom! They should have no right to kick anyone off the Internet. That's like taking away the driver's license of someone accused-- accused, mind, not convicted-- of burglary, because logically they must have used a car to reach the target and haul away the goods. They don't need to convict anyone of anything, all they need do is make an accusation. So much for due process.

      --
      Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
    6. Re:That's what they want by SeaFox · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Blank media tax is not brilliant. It presumes a crime/civil infringement will absolutely occur. Should I have to pay copyright tax for taping my kids birthday?

      Well, the song "Happy Birthday to You" is copyrighted, so yes.

    7. Re:That's what they want by dwillden · · Score: 3, Informative

      Computers still have hard drives. It's not completely out of the question for the government to require consumers to report how much hard drive space is utilized for media storage, and charge a $/GB tax.

      Oh yes it is completely out of the question. In the US at least it's called the 4th amendment. The government has no right or need to know what I have on my computer. Further how should the delineate between my own personal videos shot with my camera and movie files. Or the music I create, the music I buy and download, the music I buy and platform shift, and the music I pirate.

      --
      I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
  14. The creative industry is being creative. by fufufang · · Score: 5, Insightful

    In the land of the free, the creative industry finds creative ways to restrict people's freedom. How ironic.

  15. Make your vote count DON'T BUY SONY by deanstyles · · Score: 5, Informative

    I stopped buying anything with the Sony label years ago when they won a $250,000 suit against a 14 year old girl and her single mother on a disability pension for downloading a few songs. Unfortunately I already used up my vote so I couldn't stop buying when Sony when they recently jacked up prices on Whitney Houston music to cash in on her death. Start with the worst offenders in the RIAA/MPAA...put them out of business...then pick off the next. What they win in lawsuits they'll lose in sales. Sony used to be an innovative company with brilliant engineers and reliable products...then they fired their engineers and replaced them with lawyers...they figured they could make more money being copyright trolls...tell them they were wrong...vote with what you buy.

  16. The money is in "services" by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The copyright lobbyists live in a world of services, a world where people are either consumers receiving service, or service providers who provide service. They love this world, because copyright fits very naturally into it -- the copyright holder can negotiate with the service providers, whose business interests compel them to enter into profitable deals. That is why they love the cable TV system -- the consumers are just leaf nodes, whose money can simply be siphoned upward to the businesses running the show.

    Compare this to the Internet, where peer to peer networking thrives (and which is a peer to peer network itself). Sure, there are service providers online, but the truth is that unlike the cable TV system, the Internet does not require service providers to distribute entertainment -- anyone with an Internet connection can be a participant in entertainment distribution. Suddenly, the consumers are not just passive receivers whose wallets can be raided; they are participants in the distribution of entertainment, and they are not all party to an explicit deal with the copyright industry. They might receive their entertainment without having to pay for it, they might distribute the entertainment before or after the industry would have preferred, they might make entertainment available that embarrasses the industry.

    The industry does not know how to rake in billions of dollars in profits in such a scenario. Thus they have simply resorted to attacking peer to peer itself. As long as people are only able to receive their entertainment from a distribution service, the industry is happy. They'll play that game, they'll sue and bargain with file sharing websites, because they understand the model and the websites have more to lose than some college kid. The endgame is for the Internet to become a fancy cable TV system, where there are channels, distribution regions, disputes between networks and copyright holders that leave consumers without entertainment, and most importantly, consumer systems will just be passive receivers.

    Six strikes? Just a way to scare people away from peer to peer models, until there are enough TPMs and DRM systems to ensure that peer to peer networking is no longer possible.

    --
    Palm trees and 8
    1. Re:The money is in "services" by The+Archon+V2.0 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Thus they have simply resorted to attacking peer to peer itself.

      It's worse than that. These could be the first salvos in a war on general-purpose computing.

  17. Re:Bittorrent by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 3, Insightful

    How much will this pointless crack down impact my legal and legitimate use of this service?

    You will receive a letter, and then you will call your ISP, demand that they reduce your strike count because you were just downloading those Debian disks. The ISP will insist that their system is perfect, until you speak to a manager who will reduce your strike count, but only in one of many databases that only synchronize increases in the count. Eventually you'll be in court, suing your ISP, only to be told that your service agreement says that you have no legal recourse.

    --
    Palm trees and 8
  18. Re:Much Ado About Nothing by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Nothing to hide, nothing to fear. Just like you have nothing to fear from the TSA or the Patriot Act! Those in power can never make mistakes or do anything wrong.

    --
    Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
  19. What about Legal Torrents? Can the ISP etc sort? by jvin248 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I have a bunch of Linux distros that I torrent continuously (debian, lubuntu, and ubuntu-studio at the moment). I don't code so I help out the Linux community as I can.

    Will the ISP systems be smart enough to figure out what's being torrented or just dumb and track if your line shows any torrent participation at all 'you must be a pirate'?

    I suspect they only look for the torrent header codes and cannot see inside so cue up all kinds of additional backlash for the ISPs/etc.

    . What is in the torrent transfer codes to show reliably what's in the included file?

  20. No More "Pirate" by trydk · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Can we please (pretty please!), once and for all stop using the term "pirate" instead of "copyright infringement" or maybe "illegal copying" (if you want to get a slightly harsher tone) — especially for headlines and story blurbs!?!?!

    I know you know, but still: Pirates are people that get what they want on the high seas, normally using violence or threats of violence. Let us not play into RIAA/MPAA/FACT/...'s hands by using their propaganda language.

    And you are right, "The Copyright Infringement Bay" has not got the same sound to it as "The Pirate Bay".

    1. Re:No More "Pirate" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Can we please (pretty please!), once and for all stop using the term "pirate" instead of "copyright infringement" or maybe "illegal copying" (if you want to get a slightly harsher tone) — especially for headlines and story blurbs!?!?!

      Yeah, and "computer" should only be used to describe people who manually do mathematical calculations as a profession. <rolls eyes> It's 2012, sperglord; wake up and smell the coffee. Software piracy has even made it into major dictionaries.

  21. Point of order, my friends by sgt_doom · · Score: 3, Informative
    Many people don't realize that AT&T, once broken up (at least on paper, never any data to support the actual owners financially divested), it has since reconstituted back into the original --- although "officially" Verizon is supposedly still a separate baby bell still --- on close examination, tracking all those threads of ownership through Vodafone and Racal, the majority ownership is still GE, which is indicative of the original ownership over a century ago!

    My, how little actually seems to have changed?

  22. Queer by istartedi · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Take over the pejorative and use it as a badge of honor. It's a proven technique. Hence, self described queers marching down the street, and The Pirate Party.

    --
    For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
  23. Re:What about Legal Torrents? Can the ISP etc sort by ukemike · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I have a bunch of Linux distros that I torrent continuously (debian, lubuntu, and ubuntu-studio at the moment). I don't code so I help out the Linux community as I can. Will the ISP systems be smart enough to figure out what's being torrented or just dumb and track if your line shows any torrent participation at all 'you must be a pirate'? I suspect they only look for the torrent header codes and cannot see inside so cue up all kinds of additional backlash for the ISPs/etc. What is in the torrent transfer codes to show reliably what's in the included file?

    The only worthwhile comment/question in the entire discussion... and no response. Everybody else is complaining that their freeloading and lawbreaking is going to get harder. Boo hoo. They sound like Goldman Sachs when congress was proposing to regulate financial markets.

    But here is the real relevant question, will legitimate uses of this legitimate technology be punished now that the due process has been removed?

    --
    -- QED
  24. Six Strikes lasted for six days by WaffleMonster · · Score: 3, Interesting

    When an ISP starts denying you access to service or curtailing service you are paying for based on having conducted their own investigations or making determinations of guilt the lawsuits will be filed, the plaintiffs will win and the ISPs will stop.

    Remember kids SOPA failing has consequences. The most salient amoung them with regards to this plan was the immunity grant to ISPs for playing judge jury and executioner against its paying customers.