Slashdot Mirror
ISP 'Six Strikes' Plan Delayed
MrSeb sends this excerpt from DailyDot:
"Shortly, a new system in the U.S. will allow your ISP to give you gradually sterner warnings and possible punishment if you download copyrighted material. The Copyright Alerts System (CAS) — more commonly known as the 'six strikes' policy, after the number of warnings users receive — is coming. Soon. Any minute now. Really. But it's not here yet, even though several news outlets — including CNN — said the system would go online yesterday, Thursday. Speaking to the Daily Dot, a press contact for the six strikes system says: 'We do not intend to launch until we are confident that the program is consumer friendly. We expect our implementation to begin later this year, with each of the ISPs launching at potentially overlapping but different times.' ... The six strikes system is officially helmed by an industry coalition called the Center for Copyright Information (CCI), which was created by the MPAA and RIAA. It counts the U.S.'s five top ISPs under its umbrella: AT&T, Cablevision, Comcast, Time Warner Cable, and Verizon."
Sweet.
the 'six strikes' policy, after the number of warnings users receive â" is coming.
We do not intend to launch until we are confident that the program is consumer friendly.
Either you're going to eventually launch it, or not. It will never be 'consumer friendly' since it's a blatantly anti-consumer move intended to whore out to an unrepentantly anti-consumer organization.
Already switched to a local ISP -- the moment people realize some have it and others don't they will flock to non implementing parties. It's only those without a choice getting screwed.
It's good to know that this will be handled by an impartial organization...
We do not intend to launch until we are confident that the program is consumer friendly.
It is, inherently, not consumer friendly.
Comment has been edited to fit with Comcast's Anonymous-Posting Policy found in our ToS.
Thank you for using Comcast, anonymous poster!
It is a much much bigger problem and steals directly from Artists and Musicians as well as US Taxpayers. When does it get some attention?
usenet. Keep ports 119 and 563 out of their meddling hands and I'll remain a happy camper.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
spend the first sentence wondering why on earth they called this thing "Shortly"?
Too bad this violates the Data Treaties that the US signed with both the EU and Canada over Data Privacy and Copyright.
Canadian citizens have a stronger right to use material, as was ruled yesterday, and since the US Senate affirmed both International Treaties, it is bound to respect their rights, as treaties override any national laws or actions, as our US Constitution specifies.
But, hey, nice fake out, greed heads.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
What bothers me about measures like this is how broad and intimidating they can be to the average user.
I see measures like this as nothing more than an intimidation tactic to force users into corporate marketplaces for everything. "I'm not sure if this download is going to get me a strike, so I better go pay for it on Amazon/iTunes/Google." This line of thinking is just going to cost the industry more in the long run. You don't piss off the masses with overbearing rules. The "let them eat cake" mentality is ultimately very self destructive.
I hate having to explain to my friends and family why they should install and use TOR for all their internet activities. Shit, most of them have no idea about IP law at all and assume that if they can find it on the Internet it must be OK to download it.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Oh cool, I was beginning to view internet access as a commodity, with no real difference between ISPs... Now I have something to use as a discriminator when selecting a new provider.
So.... AT&T, Cablevision, Comcast, Time Warner Cable, and Verizon just managed to remove themselves from ever being considered by me again (and no, I don't ever knowingly download copyrighted material without paying for it).
Something tells me the mom&pop ISP down the road doesn't have the time/staff/inclination to bother with this kind of crap.
--
P.S.: Internet business idea #3,633,235: Privacy-focused ISP.
Six Strikes
There comes a time when baseball analogies cease to make sense.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Just pay for VPN service so not even your ISP knows what your transferring
Sloppy stuff from DailyDot : we would probably all blow through our six chances on the very first web page we visit, since just about everything that is downloaded has copyrights. The distinction between authorised and infringing use of copyrighted material, which appears to have whooshed the article author, is likely the reason this scheme is having trouble getting off the ground.
My next sig will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush
Maybe so, but do you think Joe user is going to sue the big boys for cutting off his service? And if Joe wins, what do you think the damages will be? Restoration of service and some lawyer's fees? And what IP lawyer do you think will take on such a case?
I'm not a lawyer, however, I believe this could a breach of contract law. If the ISPs are making an agreement with third parties for conditions to terminate an agreement with their users, that could be considered acting in bad faith towards the consumers.
Well, if you're on the Boston Red Sox, you get 5 strikes. That's close.
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
If I know any of those major ISPs, they'll be emailing you at the @comcast or @verizon email address that they assume you're monitoring, because they gave you that email address when they became your ISP.
They aren't going to assume that you've been using the same email address for decades, long before you signed up for their broadband, and that's the email address you monitor.
I can see it now, they shut you off claiming you haven't responded to any of their emails -- meanwhile you're unaware that a mailbox you've never checked in your life is where those emails are....
I very likely have a Verizon mailbox, but damn if I know what it is. Or how to access it. My email comes to me through a mom&pop ISP where I have my webserver, not through my broadband provider.
And I'm sure I'm not alone in this -- how many people have a Yahoo, Hotmail or Gmail account as their primary email address?
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
I'm surprised the MPAA and RIAA did not dress this up as "Consumer Relief Access Protection".
I wonder how much of this is bluffing. There's no way they can watch everyone all the time. Even if they could, it would cost too much to do it indefinitely and if it cuts into profits too much (especially for another company that is giving little or nothing to them) I'm guessing the ISPS will only make a half-assed attempt to carry this out.
Are they seriously going to monitor every single FTP transaction or every Torrent swarm that passes through their infrastructure? Many people just go in, leech, and get out of the swarm as soon as they have all the pieces which leaves only a small window of time to catch them.
"It is a denial of justice not to stretch out a helping hand to the fallen; that is the common right of humanity."
When every user on using your service has 5 strikes in a week... enforcement of this will drop off really fast.
I will certainly be wardrivetorrenting when this drops.
six strikes system says: 'We do not intend to launch until we are confident that the program is consumer friendly.
The only people I know of that would enjoy this are usually called, "Cutters."
no, that would be MSNBC, fox = right msnbc = left, cnn tries to be impartial compared to the other 2
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Why does every article say they're going to get you for "downloading" copyrighted material. Since when can they get you in the US for downloading copyrighted material? I thought the only issue was with distributing/seeding it.
Maybe so, but do you think Joe user is going to sue the big boys for cutting off his service? And if Joe wins, what do you think the damages will be? Restoration of service and some lawyer's fees? And what IP lawyer do you think will take on such a case?
A Canadian or EU one working pro bono, is my guess. Most likely a class action case.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Too bad this violates the Data Treaties that the US signed with both the EU and Canada over Data Privacy and Copyright.
This is interesting. Does anyone know the names of these treaties?
They're "The Worldwide Leader in ~News"
Too bad this violates the Data Treaties that the US signed with both the EU and Canada over Data Privacy and Copyright.
This is interesting. Does anyone know the names of these treaties?
I'll give you a hint. They have the word Data in them.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Doesn't really matter when they manufacture information and misdirect almost as much as the other two. IMHO, You'll easily notice it if you don't live in USA.
"Science can amuse and fascinate us all, but it is engineering that changes the world. " - Asimov.
How can any ISP determine whether or not I have received the rights to any given copyrighted item? What if the items I am downloading are fair use productions using copyrighted material? Nobody really knows what fair use is and is not (it is very subjective), how can you write an algorithm to detect it? I just don't understand how this is technologically possible.
Courts have already ruled that you can sue for DMCA requests that don't consider fair use. It doesn't seem a stretch to apply that to "strikes" as well (and strikes are probably easier to demonstrate harm). The ISP's are going to have to tread very carefully to avoid class action lawsuits.
for all their foibles (slow playing DOCSIS 3 in smaller markets; IPv6 will be as slow in arriving), they frequently are far less dickish than the other US ISPs. Not like I have an alternative even if they were, though (yay, monopoly and ~$160 monthly bills).
What if I have two strikes and then just keep fouling the ball? Does that mean you can just keep downloading pirated material?
DNA -- National Dyslexic Association
Too bad this violates the Data Treaties that the US signed with both the EU and Canada over Data Privacy and Copyright.
This is interesting. Does anyone know the names of these treaties?
I'll give you a hint. They have the word Data in them.
Yeah, data is kind of a common word on the Internet. :-) Do you know what year they were ratified or when the enabling legislation might have been passed? I'm just curious to read them.
CNN is just incompetent, not partisan.
DNA -- National Dyslexic Association
A woman sued Universal for issuing a DMCA takedown request to Youtube for a video of her baby dancing to Prince (see, Lenz v Universal). The EFF took on the case and she has won nearly every argument so far (The case started in 2007 and has a summary judgment hearing scheduled for October 2012). So, yes, I think someone will sue. The bigger question is could it be turned into a class action suit. If they win a test case, then lawyers will be salivating at the deep pockets involved.
I'll be feeling bad for my neighbors if this ever actually happens...
So that limits us to Project Gutenberg. Everything else is "copyrighted", and every time you "visit" A Web site you "download material".
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
I don't remember the full names. The short titles were something like the US/EU Data Privacy Treaty and the US/Canada Data Privacy Treaty, but they tend to have long and confusing names officially.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
CCI being the product of an agreement between the media cartels and major ISPs, under pressure from the Obama Administration (otherwise, why would ISPs agree to a plan that could cost them a bunch of customers). Unlike regulatory bodies established through real legislation, CCI is answerable to neither the courts nor the public. Even if the rules were "consumer friendly" today, who's to say they'll be fair tomorrow? Rather frightening when you think about it.
"In prison you just have to shut your eyes and take it. Here you have to shut your eyes and give it."
Those company symbols? That exist on corporate web sites that they say no duplication?
Well, our browser caches duplicate that, hell, even going to the site duplicates it upon your screen. How many people print pages of their web sites for reasons?
So everyone, unplug your internet. Once this thing passes, just going to a web site will break copyright law, by loose definition.
Someone needs to set fire to the RIAA and MPAA buildings.
Strange, it's almost as tho you're saying that as an AC when I'm saying the exact opposite while logged in.
Tell you what, let's flip a coin to figure out who gets to pretend to be a constitutional or international treaty scholar today, shall we?
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
... will allow your ISP to give you gradually sterner warnings and possible punishment if you download copyrighted material.
I'd wonder if this applies to my downloading of /. a couple of times per day. After all, as we're notified at the bottom of the main page, all the comments here are copyrighted by the posters. I certainly don't have signed licenses from every commenter in this or any other thread giving me permission to download their copyrighted material. So presumably I'm in violation of all sorts of copyright laws every time I download a discussion page here.
The obvious weaselly attempt to downplay this would be based on the idea that, if someone posts on a public forum like this, they have implicitly given everyone (or at least all "members" of the forum ;-) to download their copyrighted material.
But TFS doesn't include any such qualifications, and neither do any of the few other comments I've seen on the topic elsewhere. So, unless the editors are trying to mislead us, they really do mean if I "download copyrighted material", not if I "download copyrighted material from sites that don't want me to download anything".
One might get the idea that this "Internet" thing is merely a ruse to trick us all into violating copyright. Sorta like if a store put its goods out on the public walkways, with no price tags anywhere. Lots of tags saying how useful or fashionable or whatever the goods are, but nothing suggesting that they want any money in exchange for carrying something away. Then they turn around and cry "theft" when people pick things up and walk away with them.
Of course, this parallel isn't exact. On the Internet, if I see something I like and carry off a copy, the thing is still sitting there as before, available to everyone else who likes it, not to mention the sites' owners. Or maybe I want to post a comment about how awful something is. Whatever. Metaphors only go so far in discussions like this.
Anyway, are they really suggesting that my ISP should start warning me that when I download pages from slashdot.org, I'm in clear violations of stated copyrights? If so, will /. have to shut down to protect its reader?
(Interested slash-dummies want to know. ;-)
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
Don't be silly. ALL the network news stations are state-corporatist propaganda.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
you still have faith in this DOJ???
Parts of the DOJ are very highly respected. The SG's office (which I think is technically part of Justice) and the Civil Right's Division, for example. And even in the slightly less-highly-respected parts, there are some very highly respected and incredibly nice people.
There are also at least some assholes and even some incompetents, but the asshole bit is kind of a natural consequence of how the US criminal justice system works. The assholes generally mean well, but they are too quick to trample on the rights of an accused criminal. This is less of a problem on the federal level, however, than it is locally.
-- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
I keep hearing this, but it is clearly not the case.
From Article 6: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
National laws (the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof) have equal standing with treaties. Why so many have don't seem to read this.
(And, no, no other article or amendment deals with this issue in any way.) Perhaps some SCOTUS ruling I missed studying (IANAL) found some other way to interpret Article VI, but national laws are mentioned first, so I would expect a conflict to fall to laws over treaties.
Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer, Retired
No, you just bore me.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Read the section about treaties and the judicial rulings from SCOTUS and you'll see that later sections do, in fact, override other sections.
Think of it as a software program where the inherited classes get overwritten by methods. Some are child methods, some replace and supercede parent methods.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
will allow your ISP to give you gradually sterner warnings and possible punishment if you download copyrighted material
Yikes, that's awful.
Or maybe the submitter meant to say "copyright-infringing material".
GPL-licensed material is copyrighted. In fact, copyright is the mechanism used to enforce the provisions of the GPL license.
why can't I have a right to confront my accusers in a court of law before sentencing occurs?
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
What's stopping the credit reporting agencies from getting in to this as a business opportunity?
Say I get disconnected because of infringement from AT&T and sign up for service with Cox. How tould Cox know I was an infringer?
I can see it now... Order up a copy of your "infringement report" for $25 from Choicepoint, Experian, or Trans-union, and fly-by-night outfit offering to clear your record for an up-front fee.
Ah, the American way....
"... with each of the ISPs launching at potentially overlapping but different times."
Potentially overlapping? Does that mean some ISPs are only going to be running the system for a limited time, possibly ending it before others start? Or are the "launch windows" potentially overlapping? Or was that just spokes-babble?
by Cyphase ( 907627 )
If we play this right, we can get their pitch count over 100 by the bottom of the third.
Naw, you have it right - every not counting weasely TOS tricks, every post on the internet and *every graphic file* are copyrighted. So it really is a scary double standard that is going to get very dangerous very quick when someone with a big pocket makes precisely the point that you do and audits the **AA to find them in violation of the copyright on "small works" (such as these forum posts.)
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
It counts the U.S.'s five top ISPs under its umbrella: AT&T, Cablevision, Comcast, Time Warner Cable, and Verizon."
I knew there was a reason I'm still with Charter.