Slashdot Mirror
How Verizon's 'Six Strikes' Plan Works
An anonymous reader writes "With the 'six-strikes' anti-piracy plan set to begin in the U.S. soon, TorrentFreak has gotten its hands on a document showing how Verizon in particular will be dealing with copyright-infringing users. For your first and second strike, Verizon will email you and leave you a voicemail informing you that your account is involved in copyright infringement. For your third and fourth strikes, the ISP will automatically redirect your browser to a page that requires you to acknowledge receiving the alerts. They'll also play a video about the dangers of infringement. For your fifth and sixth strikes, they give you three options: massively throttle your connection for a few days, wait two weeks and then throttle your connection, or file an appeal with an arbitration service for $35. TorrentFreak points out that the MPAA and RIAA can obtain the connection information of repeat infringers, with which they can then take legal action."
If everyone runs their WIFI AP's open.
Can I place copyright infringements with Verizon to get people blocked? We all know that the MPAA and RIAA use their internet connections for infringement, so it should be no problem for us to throttle their access.
Somehow I bet that only a select anointed few will be allowed to make these evidence-free complaints against the rest of us.
Is a strike an accusation of copyright infringement? Or does it need to be proven?
why you would use torrent freak when there is Amazon, Netflix, Youtube, Hulu, and dozens of other ways to get video online.
unless you are trying to find some hard to find video -- (like Aleksandr Ptushko's 1972 Russian fantasy film, Ruslan and Ludmila?.. oh wait, thats on fucking youtube for free) -- what is the point of "avoiding paying for" transformers 3 or harry potter? I mean can you not afford the massive 4 dollar price or whatever that they charge you to watch this stuff online? Is 5 bucks going to break you?
Deep packet inspection, volume of data, targets and returned IP addresses... will a securely tunneled and encrypted connection to a proxy service thwart this monitoring - or will they simply use such as indirect evidence of torrenting, since the standards of such evidence are set by the MPAA/RIAA?
As for commercial proxies - how probable is it that such services are more-or-less instantly compromised - as in a visit from FBI agents conscripted to work for movie companies ? Whom do you trust to manage connections?
How does one pay for such connections, if the act of using a credit card automatically locks down your identity? Does the use of pre-paid money cards such as Vanilla work (if you buy them from someone who doesn't care much about taking your real name down)? I understand that many say they do not, but other posters have mentioned that one merely has to provide Vanilla a zip code on the registration page to make them usable to pay online services.
I'd do all the above just to watch Netflix. I'm that much of a bastard. We managed to use the postal system and phones for over a hundred years without a spy system reading our every word and listening to every call, and I don't see why we need to start now. Especially now that ATT is about to shut off the old phone system and go completely IP, which means the old laws mean nothing.
And for the generation who never knew privacy, I preemptively say: yes, it matters. It is sad you may never care or even understand why it does. Your are happy goldfish, exhibits in a zoo. Think about who is outside your bowl, watching. You've spent your lives being told to be afraid of strange adults and white vans - yet you let actual, secret versions of those kinds of people follow your every move and listen to your lives? Think about it. The creeps you've been told to fear your entire lives aren't really real, for the most part. The creeps who are locking down human existence, building the last and only secret police the world will ever need - they are real and they are here and you need to fight them.
Little weasels...
I noticed that there is no mention of a complete disconnection--leaving the door open for continued billing even though you have an almost useless connection for two weeks. Me thinks Verizon is afraid they will start losing customers permanently if they disconnect them, even for a short time. There is no discussion of a 7th strike, or an 8th...what happens then? You get another two weeks of shit connection. Will they charge you less? Doubtful.
Make their fears a reality.
The solution is to drop them the moment they throttle you...and never come back...and NEVER COME BACK. Trust me--when they start seeing ANY loss of revenue, they will rethink this. Verizon is obligated, by law, to act in the best interest of their shareholders--how long do you think shareholders will put up with lost revenue?
My experience is that it's damn hard to find an open Wi-Fi router these days. That tells me that in fact, most people DO know how to do it (or at least get someone else who knows how to)
If you need web hosting, you could do worse than here
I agree. Because this would require them to provide evidence and a sworn statement under penalty of perjury.
As it stands, any unsubstantiated claim by anybody or any automated process seems to convict you in Verizon's eyes, and even to contest the claim costs you money.
Question: Do those making such claims have to put up money up-front?
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
Yeah, because Verizon would never setup their FIOS routers with an easy to crack password by default that many people may leave in place. Never.
The current one. And the next one.
Schools are basically jails, and train kids to accept prison conditions - look at it objectively. Tracking devices in the phones. Recorded calls, recorded messages, emails. Soon, tracking built into the computers in cars, unkillable. Ebooks recorded, times, dates. Anything that flows in packets, recorded. Your movements, recorded, even if you ditch a phone and a car, 'cause cameras will watch you - and listen, too. The cameras and trackers and mics are shrinking, and with zero societal will to stop it, will be everywhere.
Yes, this generation. It starts in the schools, the acceptance of strip searches, phone tracking, drug searches, notebooks with cameras that watch the student... come on, the new crop of adults have been in jail since they were born, figuratively, and have been trained to accept it.
The next generation? Just keep exponentially increasing the surveillance, and the acceptance. Police states are not, historically speaking, unwelcome. People trade freedom for safety all the time, always have, if they are scared properly. The few who become bullied and targeted by the people behind the cameras and trackers are not interesting to people. "They" are by definition criminals, anyway.
I ain't afraid of evil bastards half as much as I am afraid of a population that doesn't understand what freedom actually means, and what they give up to be "safe". They has been zero effective backpush against this era, and it will get worse.
This does mean they're giving up their common carrer status and are now legally liable for any criminal activities their network is used for, right? Right?
Sunwalker Dezco for Warchief in 2016
Aren't there only 3 strikes in baseball?
You can get 12 in bowling...
You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
Do they even make DVDs of talk shows like Real Time with Bill Maher?
Question: Do those making such claims have to put up money up-front?
Almost certainly not, and that's where the trouble is.
If, say, anyone claiming a video I uploaded to YouTube had to deposit $10 which gets sent to, say, me as a "sorry for the trouble" if it turns out that his claim is bullshit, I'm very sure the number of copyright notices on YouTube would drop dramatically - but the serious claims would still be made.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Where did you get the idea that one would have to do something illegal to be abused by this policy? One need only be accused, and that without any objective, public standard of evidence or significant opportunity to rebut, and no penalty for reckless or even deliberately false accusations.
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Where the hell do you live? Back woods of Kentucky or some place?
I use a War Driving app (WiGLE WIFI) on my android on my rides and walks around my area, and open WIFI is a rarity in residential areas.
I mean like one house in a hundred. In my subdivision of 75 houses there isn't even one unencrypted router. Not one.
(There are several routers with Guest accounts, but even these require a password after you get an IP).
There are some facts an figures about this gleaned from users of this app posted here: https://wigle.net/gps/gps/main/stats/
Unencrypted wifi is on a steady downward trend, now down to about 18% over all areas that WiGLE users visit.
When you allow for those that are open on purpose (coffee shops restaurants, libraries) you are probably down to 12% of residential
users leave their wifi open.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
since when is sharing stealing
Everyone on Slashdot seems hung up on this idea that because it's not a physical good, redistribution means nothing. That's just not true.
Let me try a different analogy...let's say my job is doing really awesome SAT (or whatever) training courses. I have spent a long time developing the course so I can deliver you a two-hour course that will help you ace your upcoming exam, and as a benefit I record it so that you can watch it again after I leave. You think it's a great course. You turn around and, because you think other people will want it, you send the video I gave you to all your friends in high school.
Did I lose any physical goods as a result of your "sharing?" Nope. Can I still give my course? Yep. Were some of your friends never going to sign up for my course? Absolutely! But were there some of your friends who might have taken my course if you told them it was great, but didn't send it to them for free? Yeah, probably. And that's where "sharing" becomes "theft" - if I wanted my training to be free, I would have made it free. It's my training and I should be able to say what it costs, whether it's a physical good or not.
"95% of all Slashdot
You were doing fine till the Yeah, probably part. You just assumed that people will not sign up because they saw the video. Completely ignoring the fact that the opposite will also be as probable.
Some people will join your course because they saw your video.
The huge question is if there are more or less people that will subscribe after seeing the video? No matter what the outcome, now that your video is out and you know others will get out as well, you must adapt your business plan.
Instead of looking it as lost revenue, look at it as a profit center and even free advertisement.
You just concentrate on the few who will not take up your course because they saw the movie. Why not concentrate on the many who previously never heard of you and are now interested.
Sure, if your video shows how you keep kicking people in the groin to motivate them and that is the reason they do not want to join, then perhaps it is GOOD they were warned.
What if it is not a practical but a theoretical course in say perl or C++. I come to your course and take my own notes and you learn me everything you know. I now start my own course with YOUR knowledge. Would that be ok? What if I memorize your course and give it word by word? What if I videotape it? What if you videotape it?
At what point does it become theft?
It is very had to argue and no matter where you draw the line, it will be discussable. The reason is that it is not really theft. It is copyright infringement and because it is different, it is treated different.
Just like there is a difference between murder and manslaughter, there is a difference between theft and copyright infringement.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
The problem is you are trying to limit the distribution of knowledge. It is the 21st century, and information is now free
No, people who create knowledge and entertainment are trying to create it and maximize distribution. Pirates limit it, by not doing their part. To seek out great talent, hire the best sound engineers, produce a hit song, and popularize it so you know about it costs about $3 million. Your share of that cost as a listener is $1. One measly dollar. By refusing to pay your $1 share, it's you breaking the system and reducing production.
I spent $80,000 creating some cool software. At least 34,000 people downloaded it. I wanted more people to download it, I want to increase distribution, not limit it. Problem is, exactly ONE person paid their share of the cost, $5. Software is NOT free in the 21st century, it cost me $80,000 to produce. Since you guys refuse to pay your $5 share of the cost, I can't create cool new software anymore. Now I have to create stuff for Homeland Security instead in order to eat. I'm just one more programmer no longer making cool shit for you because you won't do your part, pay the $1 or $5 or whatever your share is. Software isn't free, and I can't pay the $80,000 to make you more, so no new software for you leaches. Now DHS gets the software I write.
Ps - I'm also a Linux kernel contributor, and an Apache contributor. The private sector and OSS lost a pretty decent programer by refusing to pay the $3 and $5 share so I wouldn't have had to go work for the government.