Internet Providers To Begin Warning Customers Who Pirate Content

beltsbear writes "Welcome to the future that you warned us about. Starting soon, Verizon, Comcast and others will work with the Center for Copyright Information to reduce piracy. Customers thought to be pirating will receive alerts. 'The progressive series of alerts is designed to make consumers aware of activity that has occurred using their Internet accounts, educate them on how they can prevent such activity from happening again,' If a customer feels they are being wrongly accused, they can ask for a review, which will cost them $35, according to the Verge."

Comments

I should not have to pay $35

[Skapare]

... if I didn't do anything wrong. THEY should first prove I did.

Re:I should not have to pay $35

[Penguinisto]

C'mon - Verizon and Comcast likely wrote that provision themselves. After all, why treat it as a procedure when you can treat it as a profit center?

Just wait until they feel that profits aren't high enough...

Re:I should not have to pay $35

[girlintraining]

C'mon - Verizon and Comcast likely wrote that provision themselves. After all, why treat it as a procedure when you can treat it as a profit center?

I've received about a dozen of these alerts. You know what I do with them? right-click... delete. Go ahead, tell me I'm pirating. Go ahead, threaten me. They once sent me a very intimidating "final notice" saying they were going to cut off my internet. It was the only one I replied to -- via a certified letter. All it had in it was a print out of the e-mail and the following word: "Nuts."

It's been four months and several terabytes of pirated material. I haven't heard a peep from them. Here's the truth guys: Ignore, ignore, ignore. They're trying to use fear to motivate people because they know the "problem" is so widespread that it would take tens of millions of lawyers working around the clock and an equal number of judges, experts, juries, etc., at a cost of many billions of dollars to go after everyone legally. Ignore your ISPs until they actually turn off your internet. Then... complain to your public utilities commissioner and legislators and explain how they're engaging in vigilante justice, it's unamerican, etc. Be creative, but above all, be loud, and send your complaints on something with a stamp on it, not an e-mail. Or use a fax machine. That shit gets read, unlike e-mails. We are legion. Don't forget that: Hundreds of millions of us. A few dozen of them. Even if they have machine guns and tanks, they're still fucked.

Re:I should not have to pay $35

[Jane Q. Public]

Bravo.

For once, a post I can agree with 100%.

The contract I signed with them has no provision for "punishment" based on some 3rd-party's say-so. If they tried to throttle me or cut me off, that is fraud or at least breach of contract.

They can threaten all they like, but I'd bet you a lot their lawyers told them they'd damned well better stop short of actually taking any action.

Re:I should not have to pay $35

[girlintraining]

If they have to start giving up customers, you damn well better believe the ISPs are going to start fighting, kicking and screaming.

Not exactly. I have yet to see very many companies not roll over and play dead at the threat of legal action. The only time they ever do is when complying with the demand costs them more money than the retainer's fee. Someone sat down in some meeting room and decided with a few other people to go ahead and do this. That someone is very high up in the company, and it would take them hemmoraging cash before they swallowed their pride. Techies always think about the system, never about the people in it. No, they'll lose customers left and right, bleeding them out, until the shareholders ask why earnings are down. Then, and only at that point, will Pridey McPrides-a-lot reconsider.

And here's the thing: If all the other ISPs in your area decide to do the same thing (collusion!), they're going to figure there's not much incentive. You may switch to a competitor, but you'll still have the same problem there, and so on and so on, until you're out of the market. All these ISPs have been told nobody will go without internet -- and all internet providers have to "be in it together". But, if people do start dropping off, and not buying internet at all, the entire industry will convulse and retaliate then.

Not that I expect that to happen. I do, however, expect and ask that anyone who gets their internet shut off file lawsuits against the company. It does not matter if it's justified. It does not matter if you think you can win or not. File one. Everybody, file a lawsuit. File many lawsuits if you can. Keep them busy, keep them in court, and most importantly: Cost them money. And cost the courts time. Because they're overloaded, it takes months to get in on a civil action -- and lawmakers and judges will sit up and take notice when their dockets start filling up with the same thing over and over again. You hammer them, over and over, force them to spend money defending themselves. And at the same time -- make sure your assets are safe. Ask your family to take the title to the car, etc., once you file the lawsuit. Make sure you have nothing they can take away from you.

Kick those fuckers in the balls so hard their kids are born dizzy. That's how you win. And trust me: It works. If even 1% of the population contested their speeding tickets, the court system would implode just on that. I mean, as in, smoking crater of ruin. I'm not asking everyone who gets a letter to do something: I'm asking 1% of you to. If you can, if you're in a position to put up a fight... do it. Stand up for something.

This is how you fight authority... and win.

Re:I should not have to pay $35

[rgbrenner]

Fair use used to be legal. I could share music and videos with you freely -- even copies, even copies of copies, or copies of copies of copies. The operative word is of course 'free'. I can't charge you for it, and you can't make a profit off it. But as long as you stayed within those boundaries, it was all good.

You do NOT get to make shit up. You obviously have no idea what you are talking about.

Look, I get it... you're pirating material.. and you're telling yourself all day long, it's ok... this *used* to be legal.

But it's NOT true. If you want to have a reasonable discussion about copyright law.. then YOU NEED TO STICK TO THE FACTS.

The first copyright law was the The Statute of Anne in 1709 in Britain. It did not apply to the colonies. The first copyright act in the US was the US Copyright Act of 1790.. it was similar to the Statute of Anne. http://www.copyright.gov/history/1790act.pdf

That from and after the passing of this act, the author and
authors of any map, chart, book or books already printed ... shall have the sole right and
liberty of printing, reprinting, publishing and vending such map, chart, book or books, for the
term of fourteen years ...

And be it further enacted, That if any other person or persons, from and after the
recording the title of any map, chart, book or books, and publishing the same as aforesaid, and
within the times limited and granted by this act, shall print, reprint, publish, or import, or cause
to be printed, reprinted, published, or imported from any foreign Kingdom or State, any copy or
copies of such map, chart, book or books, without the consent of the author or proprietor thereof,
first had and obtained in writing, signed in the presence of two or more credible witnesses; or
knowing the same to be so printed, reprinted, or imported, shall publish, sell, or expose to sale,
or cause to be published, sold or exposed to sale, any copy of such map, chart, book or books,
without such consent first had and obtained in writing as aforesaid, then such offender or
offenders shall forfeit all and every sheet and sheets, being part of the same, or either of them, to
the author or proprietor of such map, chart, book or books, who shall forthwith destroy the same:
And every such offender and offenders shall also forfeit and pay the sum of fifty cents for every
sheet which shall be found in his or their possession, either printed or printing, published,
imported or exposed to sale,

Re:I should not have to pay $35

[Concerned Onlooker]

Yep. 99 percent of corporations give the rest a bad name.

Re:cost them $35?

[Skapare]

A Slashdot story about how they are bad.

Google Fiber

[moniker127]

Hey does anyone in Kansas City have a REALLY long ethernet cord?

Re:I didn't know, RLY

[game kid]

In your case they'd probably just add the $35 charge to your next bill plus $15 for the interpreter they'd hired to read that. :)

Fairness

[Anonymous Coward]

If a customer feels they are being wrongly accused, they can ask for a review, which will cost them $35, according to the Verge.

My initial reaction was the typical knee-jerk thought that "innocent until proven guilty" has clearly been thrown out the window, but after further reflection I changed my mind. If you are accused of a crime in court you will end up having to pay legal fees. This is not that different. Reviewing the case requires manpower and the review is not working for free.

To be fair, the fee for the review should only be charged if the customer is found guilty. If the customer is innocent, then the accuser should be charged a fee. In addition to the amount for the review, the accuser should be forced to pay for at least one month of service for the customer, to compensate him for the inconvenience.

There must be deterrents against false accusations and none against proving one's innocence, otherwise this will be abused like DMCA takedowns.

Of course, I don't expect such a reasonable system to be put in place. The telcos just want to make money. They're only doing this to relieve the pressure from the content mafia. They know that even if it makes customers unhappy, relatively few will let them know about it and fewer still can actually do anything.

Re:Innovative solution

[causality]

How about not overspeed in the first place?

How about not punishing people for such a ridiculous thing in the first place? Expecting people to be perfect is ludicrous and destroys respect for both the law and police officers.

That bird flew away from the nest a long time ago.

Ever since about 1980 there was a movement in law enforcement called "proactive policing". Prior to that, police were much less aggressive in terms of actively trying to find violations themselves. Other than regular patrols, they tended to come only when called. They try much harder now to look for trouble, to nail you for every little technical violation they can write up.

Believe it or not, a couple of generations ago the general attitude was "the police officer is your friend, if you have a problem go find a cop and he will help you". People believed in it, expected it, and it worked. The relationship now is much more adversarial because the police don't see us anymore as a community they are serving, like they once did (believe it or not). They see us as potential tickets and arrests to pad out their performance records. That's what proactive policing has done.

Incidentally, a lot of license plate scanners, GPS trackers, infrared scanners, and other surveillance tools local police are implementing are actually being funded with federal money. Most of the 1984 bullshit is coming from the federal government, not your local elected sheriff. Of course for their part, the local cops are only too happy to get all the new toys...