Slashdot Mirror


Software That Flagged HBO.com For Piracy Will Power U.S. 'Six Strikes' System

An anonymous reader writes "A copyright monitoring program called MarkMonitor mistakenly flagged HBO.com for pirating its own shows, and sent automatic DMCA takedown notices to the network. It's a funny story, until you realize that MarkMonitor is the same software that will power the U.S. Copyright Alerts System (a.k.a. "Six Strikes"), due to be rolled out by the five largest U.S. ISPs sometime in the next month."

292 comments

  1. Of course HBO are pirates by crazyjj · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That "Game of Thrones" show has been stealing blatantly from the "Song of Ice and Fire" book series for 2 years now.

    But if you're going to flag anyone, how about you get those thieves at Fox for pirating music from Jonathan Coulton? I think a fine of $22,500 for everyone who downloaded the Glee version sounds about right.

    --
    What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
    1. Re:Of course HBO are pirates by shentino · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Fox is a large corporation.

      It is therefore immune.

      Laws are only for poor peons don't you know?

    2. Re:Of course HBO are pirates by gstoddart · · Score: 5, Insightful

      a cover of a cover is not theft and never will be...

      The performance is still copyrighted.

      If his version was used in a TV show without licensing it, according to the copyright wonks, that's theft.

      They can't have it both ways.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    3. Re:Of course HBO are pirates by hlavac · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They can't have it both ways.

      Oh but they can! They always pick what is best for them, arbitrarily.

      Want to make a backup copy of your DVD? It's a license, you can't.

      You scratched your DVD? It's an item, you have to buy a new one for a full price!

    4. Re:Of course HBO are pirates by dougmc · · Score: 5, Insightful

      then fine Jonathan Coulton for stealing the lyrics from Sir Mix A Lot

      a cover of a cover is not theft and never will be...

      Sir Mix A Lot wrote the song, and Jonathan Coulton probably paid him writer's royalties. If so, that's no more stealing than getting a candy bar at the store and paying for it.

      a cover of a cover is not theft and never will be...

      Covering a cover could still be stealing from the original song author if they aren't paid, and I suspect that Glee paid Sir Mix A Lot. But Glee didn't just cover the song, they actually used Coulton's performance itself (i.e. actual music from his recording ended up on the show -- not just notes, but part of his recording) -- which could indeed be stealing. I don't know if it was simply sampling or it went beyond that -- but even if it was just sampling, in general royalties are paid for samples too nowadays.

      so cry more.

      You're not helping your case here.

    5. Re:Of course HBO are pirates by jythie · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Unfortunately, you are about right. If one looks at the various enforcement systems like youtube, the system is wired for who can harass who. Complaints against known entities will be deleted, while ones against small producers or individuals from companies are handled without question.

      You only gets much justice as you can threaten problems for whoever is handling it.

    6. Re:Of course HBO are pirates by bhcompy · · Score: 2

      Not sure why Insightful rather than Funny.

    7. Re:Of course HBO are pirates by Synerg1y · · Score: 2

      And still people vote to help them because their lobbyists cry wolf tears about how the artists aren't getting paid (they still won't) & how you wouldn't steal a car. But still consider this if it's any solace... all it would take to put out of business all the major ISPs is new technology, fiber could put comcast out of business where I live for example.

    8. Re:Of course HBO are pirates by kelemvor4 · · Score: 1

      then fine Jonathan Coulton for stealing the lyrics from Sir Mix A Lot

      a cover of a cover is not theft and never will be...

      so cry more.

      "my neckbeard, growin
      chinline dragging
      Songs don't work
      my right palm keeps naggin."

    9. Re:Of course HBO are pirates by Cito · · Score: 1

      You can always download Jonathan's entire discography

      http://kat.ph/jonathan-coulton-discography-t614690.html

      it's not like any of it matters

    10. Re:Of course HBO are pirates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But they didn't pirate music from Jonathan Coulton.

      He has no copyright claims on the "arrangement" of his cover of the song. Unless they stole the ACTUAL audio that he created for use in their tv show (and it's unlikely, though not impossible, that they did), he has no claim whatsoever.

      So, sure, go ahead and fine Fox $22.5k per violation. Their total bill will still be $0.

    11. Re:Of course HBO are pirates by DJ+Particle · · Score: 2

      That's just it... there is mounting evidence that Glee *did* use JoCo's actual backing track (JoCo sells karaoke tracks of all his music)

    12. Re:Of course HBO are pirates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That "Game of Thrones" show has been stealing blatantly from the "Song of Ice and Fire" book series for 2 years now.

      I know you're probably joking, but George R.R. Martin actively participates in the show's development, as written at _ :

      During completion of A Dance With Dragons and other projects, George R. R. Martin was also heavily involved in the production of a television series adaptation of the A Song of Ice and Fire books named after the first book, A Game of Thrones. Martin's involvement included the selection of a production team and participation in scriptwriting; he is listed in the opening credits as an executive producer of the series.

    13. Re:Of course HBO are pirates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      The Jonathan Coulton version isn't a cover of the song, it's a derivative work. Jonathan Coulton paid the appropriate licensing fees to the owner of Sir-Mix-a-Lot's original work. He made some modifications to the lyrics ("Johnny C's in trouble", instead of the original "Mix-a-Lot's in trouble", for example), and generally changed the entire song. Fox paid a similar licensing fee to the owner of Sir-Mix-a-Lot's original work. They then used Jonathan Coulton's version, with all his changes, including the different lyrics and tracks. Fox never even contacted Jonathan Coulton, let alone paid him.

    14. Re:Of course HBO are pirates by radaghast · · Score: 1

      Jonathan Coulton purchased a license from sir mix a lot to create the cover and sell it. So not only did he actually modify the original somehow, he paid the original artist. Fox modified nothing and gave no credit or money to one of the artists who was responsible for creating the song they used.

    15. Re:Of course HBO are pirates by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      No, HBO has not been stealing. The bought the TV rights from the author in 2007.

      http://gameofthrones.wikia.com/wiki/HBO

    16. Re:Of course HBO are pirates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know if it was simply sampling [wikipedia.org] or it went beyond that -- but even if it was just sampling, in general royalties are paid for samples too nowadays.

      There's no "Beyond that", accusing them of sampling means they used Jon's actual recording in the performance; unless I suppose they made him sing and then refused to pay, That isn't Glee's MO, they record versions with their own cast, using their own musicians. I suspect you meant they used his "arrangement", which you are arguing differed substantively enough to qualify as a copyrightable work. There's a big gulf between arrangements and samples, I'm not sure what the standard for "different enough to be copyrightable" is, and if similar performances could be found amid the myriad of covers & live performances to bridge the original to Jon's, he'd be in a bad spot.

       

    17. Re:Of course HBO are pirates by Anubis+IV · · Score: 2

      Two facts you seem to have missed:
      1) Coulton paid the appropriate licensing/royalty fees to cover Baby Got Back. He did not steal from Sir Mix-a-Lot. To quote what he said:

      Back when I released it, I bought the statutory license to distribute my version of this song through Harry Fox.

      2) While covering a cover may not be a violation of copyright (as he mentioned later in the link that I provided), his recording of the song is an original work of art that is protected under copyright law, meaning that it cannot be used without proper compensation and/or attribution. Fox and the producers of Glee never asked for permission to use his recording, yet it appears that they did exactly that, since elements that he added (e.g. the duck quack) were present in the Glee version.

      So, troll better next time.

    18. Re:Of course HBO are pirates by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

      The idiom is "crocodile tears", not wolf tears.

      But yeah, the internet's answer to that stupid anti-piracy ad was very well put. "You wouldn't download a car, would you/" "Fuck you, I would if I could." No kidding. Who wouldn't, if all you had to do was download it?

      Can't remember where I saw that...

    19. Re:Of course HBO are pirates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I've said it a hundred times on Slashdot before... we live in a caste system.

      Guess what, if you're reading this, you're in the lower caste.

      And yet still, people boggle and question why laws seem to work differently for individuals than they do for the 1% and corporations.

      CASTE SYSTEM PEOPLE! LOOK IT UP! If the smart people of Slashdot and elsewhere would actually acknowledge this and finally get around to fucking accepting it (because it's already here, and if you're in the lower caste... and you are... you CANNOT fight it. Get this through your heads), then maybe they can put their heads together and come up with a way to make working WITHIN the lower caste more comfortable.

      But just accept it already people. The fight against this has been lost YEARS ago. It's as bad as the USA thinking they didn't lose the war on terror.

    20. Re:Of course HBO are pirates by jbengt · · Score: 1

      The performance is still copyrighted

      No, in the US at least, performances cannot be copyrighted, only the physical recording (and the written music/words) can be.

    21. Re:Of course HBO are pirates by jbengt · · Score: 1

      Sir Mix A Lot wrote the song, and Jonathan Coulton probably paid him writer's royalties. If so, that's no more stealing than getting a candy bar at the store and paying for it.

      I heard him on the radio last weekend saying that he used a specific license available for covers (don't know the details). He believes that Glee may have used some of his audio directly in their version, but wasn't sure. That would be a clear violation of his copyright, whether or not Sir Mixalot was paid. They did use some of his words, where they were not the same as the original, and didn't make sense in the context of the TV show. If not deminimis, that might also be a copyright violation.

    22. Re:Of course HBO are pirates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It still isnt *theft*. But thanks for playing.

    23. Re:Of course HBO are pirates by tibman · · Score: 1
      --
      http://soylentnews.org/~tibman
    24. Re:Of course HBO are pirates by Zemran · · Score: 1
      --
      I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
    25. Re:Of course HBO are pirates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...you CANNOT fight it...

      Oh, I dunno. The French had a decent solution to the problem.

    26. Re:Of course HBO are pirates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you use DVDs lol

    27. Re:Of course HBO are pirates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You were confused by the moderatorum confusious spell blatantly ripped off from the pages of an unreleased Harry Potter novel.

    28. Re:Of course HBO are pirates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if you're reading this, you're in the lower caste.

      Speak for yourself, commoner. I'm just slumming it here for a while until daddy gets me into Harvard.

    29. Re:Of course HBO are pirates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That "Game of Thrones" show has been stealing blatantly from the "Song of Ice and Fire" book series for 2 years now.

      But if you're going to flag anyone, how about you get those thieves at Fox for pirating music from Jonathan Coulton? I think a fine of $22,500 for everyone who downloaded the Glee version sounds about right.

      /. needs a mod flag of "Applause"

      That was the best relevant and true thing I've read in ages.

    30. Re:Of course HBO are pirates by poofmeisterp · · Score: 2

      I've said it a hundred times on Slashdot before... we live in a caste system.

      Guess what, if you're reading this, you're in the lower caste.

      And yet still, people boggle and question why laws seem to work differently for individuals than they do for the 1% and corporations.

      CASTE SYSTEM PEOPLE! LOOK IT UP! If the smart people of Slashdot and elsewhere would actually acknowledge this and finally get around to fucking accepting it (because it's already here, and if you're in the lower caste... and you are... you CANNOT fight it. Get this through your heads), then maybe they can put their heads together and come up with a way to make working WITHIN the lower caste more comfortable.

      But just accept it already people. The fight against this has been lost YEARS ago. It's as bad as the USA thinking they didn't lose the war on terror.

      The fact that you mentioned War on Terror just gave the corporations bait. They will now buy gov't officials off to declare high bandwidth as a tool of terrorism. Thanks a lot. :->

    31. Re:Of course HBO are pirates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm pretty sure Fox is selling a recording of it. They're not sending someone over to your house to sing it live.

    32. Re:Of course HBO are pirates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      this is the way of the world. it has always been this way. it will always be this way. might makes right.

    33. Re:Of course HBO are pirates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the only thing that changes over time or varies from situation to situation is what makes might.

    34. Re:Of course HBO are pirates by cellocgw · · Score: 1

      WTF? A comment that's pure humor/satire is flagged as "insightful" ? I must be in the wrong alternate universe (again)

      --
      https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
    35. Re:Of course HBO are pirates by robcozzens · · Score: 1

      Jonathan Coulton pays Sir Mix A Lot a royalty.

    36. Re:Of course HBO are pirates by Holladon · · Score: 1

      Maybe the flags were also meant to be ironic. HOW META.

  2. Who cares by schneidafunk · · Score: 5, Funny

    At least our e-voting software is safe.

    --
    Some people die at 25 and aren't buried until 75. -Benjamin Franklin
  3. Which ISPs? by CanHasDIY · · Score: 5, Insightful

    due to be rolled out by the five largest U.S. ISPs

    Which ones? I'd like to know who doesn't want my money.

    --
    An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    1. Re:Which ISPs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Which ones? I'd like to know who doesn't want my money.

      AT&T, Cablevision, Comcast, Time Warner Cable, and Verizon. It's in the article. :)

    2. Re:Which ISPs? by neminem · · Score: 2

      Like you have a choice... (or, if you do, you're far luckier than I am. My choices are: do I want cable (which sucks), or would I prefer dsl (which also sucks)? I certainly don't have any choice of *providers* of either of those services.

      That said, I just wikipedia'd it, and amazingly enough, Charter is not (currently) on the list. I can't believe Charter is actually doing something better than Verizon. Too bad I went with verizon.

    3. Re:Which ISPs? by DarthBling · · Score: 4, Informative

      According to the article, it is:
      AT&T, Cablevision, Comcast, Time Warner Cable, and Verizon

    4. Re:Which ISPs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      And Verizon (at least) already has implemented it.

    5. Re:Which ISPs? by Synerg1y · · Score: 3, Interesting

      lol Verizon. I believe they pioneered anti-piracy tracking back on their 3g network and lost a class action for it. Never did it feel sweeter to get $50 in the mail than when they termed my service the year before for p2p and then lost a class action on the grounds that their technology wasn't good enough to accurately flag pirates. Round 2 anyone?

    6. Re:Which ISPs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All of them. Your choices between services that don't use this are sneaker net, carrier pigeon, or mesh networks.

    7. Re:Which ISPs? by cayenne8 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Which ones? I'd like to know who doesn't want my money.

      AT&T, Cablevision, Comcast, Time Warner Cable, and Verizon. It's in the article. :)

      Was this mandated by some law I've not heard was passed...or, are these companies all signing onto this one service voluntarily? If so...why, what is in the bargain for them, they have immunity anyway over what their users do on the networks...why even bother with this?

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    8. Re:Which ISPs? by UltraZelda64 · · Score: 1

      Yeah... the only service around here is cable (Time Warner) and DSL (AT&T). A selection between a garbage service and another garbage service. Cable vs. DSL. Both providers fucking suck. There is no way out of this fucked up, abusive, non-competitive mess.

    9. Re:Which ISPs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      At least in the case of Comcast, they are merged with NBC, so their participation in this scheme makes sense. I mean, not really, but it's at least understandable.

    10. Re:Which ISPs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, there goes my internet for the forseeable future.

    11. Re:Which ISPs? by sqrt(2) · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Many people have noticed the same thing you did. This doesn't make sense for the ISPs unless they are getting financial compensation from the content cartels equal to or greater than the amount of money they're going to lose from lost subscribers AND the cost of implementing the system itself, which is not going to be an insignificant amount of money. So the RIAA/MPAA is footing the bill for the system plus whatever extra the ISPs needed to sweeten the pot and make the whole burdensome hassle actually worthwhile. The other reason they might have for implementing it is that they are involved in both content creation and ISP businesses. This is true for Time Warner at least.You can think of it as a conflict of interest, another bullet point for stronger anti-trust laws.

      There will be a period of about a year when notices, "strikes", will be sent at a furious pace and then some other obfuscated, encrypted, file sharing system will replace bittorrent. Mega seems poised to fill that niche, but there's room for an encrypted, anonymous, p2p filesharing protocol. There are a few right now but there's never really been a need for them great enough to overcome BT's momentum. The six strikes plan will be that need.

      And once you push p2p filesharing that far underground there'll be no technological solution to stop copyright infringement over that protocol short of breaking the fundamental workings of the internet. File sharers will have won, and the content cartels, having shot their last bolt, will wish they had stopped when they were at least not completely powerless. This is a last desperate power grab of a dying business model. We are witnessing the death rattle of copyright as we know it.

      --
      If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
    12. Re:Which ISPs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Regardless....one strike from Comcast and I'll drop them like a load of bricks. CenturyLink and OTA here I come....

    13. Re:Which ISPs? by jythie · · Score: 1

      Ah, then I will use my power as a consumer to patronize a provider who's behavior is more inline with my expectations.

      Oh.. wait... that would require competition....

    14. Re:Which ISPs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Drop them now. Don't wait.

    15. Re:Which ISPs? by jythie · · Score: 1

      If it were a law you could challenge it.. but no, this is their own system so that content providers will not keep harassing them (or, in some cases, because of mergers).. and because there are no viable alternatives, not much we can do.

    16. Re:Which ISPs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      You know, that one ISP: AT&VeriCastVisionCable

    17. Re:Which ISPs? by jythie · · Score: 1

      Depending on how big of a sheep buffer we get, it is possible they will try to go the 'break the internet' route. As long as the new methods are difficult to use (or require personal vouching) and thus only small groups of people can utilize them, they will not care too much. If the new methods have a low barrier to entry then I would not put it above them to start pushing for 'net breaking changes.

    18. Re:Which ISPs? by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If so...why, what is in the bargain for them, they have immunity anyway over what their users do on the networks...why even bother with this?

      Did you notice how all of them are also cable tv providers? It is in their interest to kill any other forms of entertainment distribution, legal or not, so that they can herd customers to their own products.

      This is how the utterly stupid reclassification of ISPs as information services (from their previous classification as telecommunications services) has become self-fullfilling.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    19. Re:Which ISPs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      CenturyLink is dog-shit steam rolled and left out in the sun: http://www.consumeraffairs.com/cell_phones/centurylink.html .

    20. Re:Which ISPs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      pretty sad... it automatically puts charter cable and centurytel (qwest) in the top 5 for best internet providers (by default, but still.. ahead of these participating ones)

    21. Re:Which ISPs? by Synerg1y · · Score: 1

      You touch on a lot of good stuff that can come out of this, but first... ISPs are pretty much datacenters, datacenters handle bandwidth... on a large enough scale bandwidth = power. So they save money by throttling users by saving bandwidth... on a very large scale. They even tried to throttle netflix, but the DOJ told them where to shove it.

        They provide the service, not the experience. This whole situation in fact is a huge blow against net neutrality... but it had to happen, here's why:

        P2P has become so main stream, we've started losing content... less good movies, less good music, the computer game industry is hurting bad, and those are just the tip of that iceberg. P2P was great back when it came out cause very few people used it namely the geeks and the nerds. It's when Joe from warehousing heard about it and started using, and Janice from HR decided to download the latest boy band leaked album that things started getting out of control. Security through obscurity... gone, quality new content... gone, law enforcement gets involved... yep. A new technology is definitely in the need.

      Another part of me asks though... why did all this start? Over the $20 cd w 1 good song and $20 movie with a 30 second FBI warning. Netflix, itunes, amazon, & even spotify and pandora have stepped in to provide the bridge. Why should I download a movie now, when I can go to netflix and get it for $1. $5 for 5 movies is so much better than $100 and then they become glorified dust catchers. I hate to say it, but getting fined $700 doesn't help me lean towards p2p either. Maybe the cause is won and we don't need it anymore, but then again the RIAA & MPAA are still as lame and ruthless as ever. In conclusion, the artists need business degrees, problem solved.

    22. Re:Which ISPs? by jxander · · Score: 2

      It's in the article. :)

      Which perfectly explains why GP couldn't find it.

      --
      This signature is false.
    23. Re:Which ISPs? by dcherryholmes · · Score: 2

      All (or almost all) the ISP's also own content companies.

    24. Re:Which ISPs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      due to be rolled out by the five largest U.S. ISPs

      Which ones? I'd like to know who doesn't want my money.

      No one wants your money. Money wants to be free!

    25. Re:Which ISPs? by dissy · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Well, of the ISPs implementing this, Cablevision, Comcast, Time Warner, and Verizon are all either directly or owned by content creators.

      Only AT&T wireless (Previously called Cingular Communications) was/is a pure data network.
      Note that it was Cingular that purchased the AT&T Wireless name from AT&T, so AT&T (which is also a content creator) is not involved there.

      However you are correct in both of your first points. It is a huge conflict of interest, and they have all stated they are losing more money to piracy than they make in total on their ISP division.
      Granted, this is not anywhere close to true, but they all firmly believe so, and more importantly they have made that statement to our government and so now must stick by it.

      Think about it, their ISP divisions pull in what, 1-2 digit billions of dollars a year? Maybe 3 digit billions?
      That is nothing compared to the 2-4 digit trillions they state they are losing due to piracy.

      It's only the fact they are convinced 20% or less of their customer base are pirates, that keeps them from closing down the entire ISP side all together.

      There is also the bonus of no lost customers.
      Firstly, they will not be disconnecting anyone. Fines yes, many more fines sure, even apparently slowing down service and even blocking some things. But not disconnection.
      I mean they "earn" $50-$100 each time they accuse you of piracy, with no evidence required! Who would want to disconnect someone and get rid of all that extra money?

      Secondly, very few of the people hit by these strikes are willing to go without Internet service at all (Which is the only other option)
      There is no competition, quite literally. Any "resellers" you would switch to are both A) under this same system due to being the same network, and B) still funnel money back to the network owner itself. They still get paid no matter which reseller you go with. It's all the same network and thus the same rules apply.

      I believe you are also quite on mark with the future of file sharing. I've been saying the same for some time now, and in fact if anything am only amazed things are taking so long to get there.

      The ultimate end game will be two-fold:
      - High speed, anonymous, fully encrypted and functional darknets for file sharing.
      - ISPs seeing encryption + high speeds as automatically assumed piracy unless vouched for by a business on the safe-list (aka VPN users, which will need to be registered and vouched for)
      Anyone pulling encrypted data faster than your average webpage will have their traffic mucked about with, be it slowing down to 1kbps or less, or RST packets stormed to each end, to live-updated firewall blocks.

      The EFF will complain that users of their HTTPS anywhere plugin no longer can browse the Internet at all, and no one in charge will care. The content creators will of course exclude their own https servers, since they want you to buy their stuff, but anyone else - it's not like we have legal network neutrality so there's no reason what so ever to even allow https to the Internet, let alone at high speeds.
      There is a huge percent of our population too stupid to understand what network neutrality even means, and are strongly opposed to it. Even after these people can't shop at ebay any longer, they will still claim the benefits outweigh the risks, just so they don't have to admit to being wrong or making a mistake.

      It's going to get much messier before things get better I'm afraid.

    26. Re:Which ISPs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i thought money wanted you to roll it up and snort cocaine

    27. Re:Which ISPs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      due to be rolled out by the five largest U.S. ISPs

      Which ones? I'd like to know who doesn't want my money.

      Oh? You have other options for an ISP?

      In my city, like most, we only have 1 option. Ours happens to be Comcast. Good luck finding an alternative.

    28. Re:Which ISPs? by desdinova+216 · · Score: 1

      Think about it, their ISP divisions pull in what, 1-2 digit billions of dollars a year? Maybe 3 digit billions? That is nothing compared to the 2-4 digit trillions they state they are losing due to piracy.

      do you have a Non **AA affiliated source for that figure?

    29. Re:Which ISPs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      TWC?!? I HAVE TWC! Not for long... (rummages through box of old stuff looking for old broadband system...)

    30. Re:Which ISPs? by dissy · · Score: 1

      Think about it, their ISP divisions pull in what, 1-2 digit billions of dollars a year? Maybe 3 digit billions? That is nothing compared to the 2-4 digit trillions they state they are losing due to piracy.

      do you have a Non **AA affiliated source for that figure?

      Those figures are specifically from the **AA sources.
      I even said "they state they are losing", and who else would make such a statement from within if not the PR department or the RIAA/MPAA?

      The non **AA source I intended to cover with:

      Granted, this is not anywhere close to true, but they all firmly believe so, and more importantly they have made that statement to our government and so now must stick by it.

      Since in reality a pirated work is not a lost sale, the base figure for loses due to piracy is $0.

      One would then need to go to court records to show sales count figures of commercial copyright mass-infringers that had their operations shut down, possibly added to jury awards for losses (minus damages) for individual cases, in order to get something close to the real figure.

      Of course with things like the Jammie Thomas case, people will misconstrue that multiple-million dollar verdict as "losses" when that is clearly damages, as losses are only 24 songs at $1 each thus $24 total... So of course there will be confusion in that area.

    31. Re:Which ISPs? by desdinova+216 · · Score: 1

      the reason I was asking about a non **AA source is for accurate dollar values.

    32. Re:Which ISPs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      some other obfuscated, encrypted, file sharing system will replace bittorrent.

      What about running bit torrent over Tor? I don't know much about the underlying technologies for either of these, but would this be possible?

    33. Re:Which ISPs? by Cito · · Score: 1

      I use Windstream VDSL 24 megabit

      they usually oversale their areas but so far been lucky

      on dslreports they have posted they will not be following the 6 strike rule, and they never agreed with it's implementation.

      course I've been using Windstream since it was alltell dsl and ive never once got a letter of all my use from demonoid/kat.ph/piratebay/h33t/etc

      and windstream still offers free newsgroup access :)

    34. Re:Which ISPs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even after these people can't shop at ebay any longer, they will still claim the benefits outweigh the risks, just so they don't have to admit to being wrong or making a mistake

      I really do not agree with this piece, the content creating industry is tiny compared to the rest of the users of the internet such as e-commerce and retail plus a whole slew of other industries who would not stand for such non-sense. If RIAA/MPAA goons start messing with the big boys who have more lobbying money then their entire industry has revenue they will find themselves in a world of trouble.

    35. Re:Which ISPs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go to CenturyLink. They kicked ass when they were Qwest(Only telecom that told Bush to fuck off with his warrantless wiretaps) and are kicking ass as centurylink telling the MAFIAA to go fuck themselves.

      I pay $16 a month for a 20Mbps connection.

      Why wait?

    36. Re:Which ISPs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think there are less good movies or less good music. I use spotify and pandora and find good music all over the place. The desktop video game industry may be hurting, but the console gaming industry is making insane amounts of money. Just because the power has shifted doesn't mean that no one has that power anymore. I don' think you can blame it on P2P as much as outdated business models. People with better models are stepping in and getting all the money instead.

    37. Re:Which ISPs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most of those complaints scream "the customer is fucktarded". At any rate, any business when more than one customer is going to have pissed off customers.

      A year ago, I had phone service and internet(12Mbps) through centurylink it was ~$60 a month. I really don't need a landline so I called to cancel the phone and they did no problem. They also raised my Internet connection to 20Mbps, and dropped the price to $26 a month. Without me asking, they just did it. Two weeks ago, CenturyLink dropped it to $16 with a 5 minute call.

      Their DSL service kicks the shit out of Comcast. No throttling, no sharing with my neighbors, no expensive bill, no "six strikes" bullshit. I get my advertised speed 24/7. Hell, my modem went down around 6PM and I had a new modem in my hands at 8AM the next day and it was shipped across three time zones. Cost me $0.00

      They also have a history of standing up for its customers and telling the government and media cartels to go fuck themselves.

    38. Re:Which ISPs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because most are actually content providers too. Its a clear conflict of interest. The FCC should have stepped in long ago, before we got to this point.

    39. Re:Which ISPs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As many pointed out they are also content providers, but also, copyright infringement uses up significant bandwidth. Getting rid of the people who use far more than the median is a win for them. It also bears mentioning that in many places they constitute an oligopoly so they aren't likely to lose many non-infringers over this.

    40. Re:Which ISPs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your phone company doesn't have DSL service?

      You don't have access to satellite service?

    41. Re:Which ISPs? by usuallylost · · Score: 2

      Is it just me or does merging with a content company pretty much guarantee mediocrity in whatever product you used to sell before doing that?

    42. Re:Which ISPs? by poofmeisterp · · Score: 1

      Which ones? I'd like to know who doesn't want my money.

      AT&T, Cablevision, Comcast, Time Warner Cable, and Verizon. It's in the article. :)

      The only ones available in some peoples' areas.

    43. Re:Which ISPs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In conclusion, the artists need business degrees, problem solved.

      It has been well-proven that people will business degrees can do crack, coke, LSD, heroine, pot, the list goes on...

      Artists, as dumb or smart as they are, can definitely get a degree and still do the drugs. What's the loss? :)

    44. Re:Which ISPs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      However you are correct in both of your first points. It is a huge conflict of interest, and they have all stated they are losing more money to piracy than they make in total on their ISP division.

      That's a long comment. Wow.

      My response is a simple one that is a good overall summary: If you take away the ability to use the bandwidth to share information freely, people will just pay less for lower bandwidth because they won't need it anymore. If the companies raise the price due to shifted demand, there will be companies that come into existence that have lower pricing for lower bandwidth. There is no win.

      Sure, if you allow sharing of information you will have some people who buy and some who don't, but isn't that what radio and television are? Sure, it's limited in listening/viewing, but there is commercialized recording allowed through devices (DVR, for example). Take that away, you lose a percentage of people who can't stand stupid fucking commercials (can you tell I'm one?) If I'm forced to watch commercials, I just won't watch. I'll find something else to do with my time and it won't bring you any money. Oh, and I'll also have friends that lean toward doing things interactively with me rather than refusing and purchasing your content instead.

      Movies is a different ballpark, but there is a social edge on it. If one does not want to go out, they won't. If they have friends who do want to go out, they still do it. The day hasn't come when a teenager downloads a pirated movie copy and invites 10 friends over to watch the movie as if it's a theater.

      The bottom line is that evolution has removed the need for compulsory purchasing incites. Quality and uniqueness encourages spending in a down-turned economy. The industry refuses to admit that they are losers in this game of evolution and it comes down to a fight between man and man. The pussies (pardon my expression) use law enforcement to prove that they are still on top, but look how they keep it in balance... They don't sue 100s of people per day that make it to the news. The more they DO sue, the more people they piss off. People are consumers, remember? People are also inter-communicative. You piss off someone who would never have bought your content, good for you. What if that person is good friends with someone who would have otherwise purchased $2,000 worth of content from you but you have now lost that? You're also spending money on legal action. Are you getting tax breaks to offset those legal expenditures? If not, it's cutting into your profit. That means you'll raise the price on your products which will slice a percentage of buyers off the bottom who can't justify spending on you, and a smaller percentage off the top who are just plain cheapskates.

      Bottom line is no matter how you cook the books or information, the corporation will lose to the consumer unless they make them happy. Figure out a way to make them happy with an offering that isn't available anywhere else and just plain can't be.... Like huge presentation stadiums for awesome 3D movies or equipment that creates mind-blowing musical surround-sound experiences. I'm just pulling that out of my ass. Come on, they have people that can be more creative than that. EVOLVE.

    45. Re:Which ISPs? by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      If so...why, what is in the bargain for them, they have immunity anyway over what their users do on the networks...why even bother with this?

      Cui bono?

      The main outcome of 6-strikes will be to kill every open wifi access point, most notably at internet cafes, coffee shops, fast food restaurants, etc.

      This will force people into buying LTE data plans and/or getting high-speed Internet at home (if they can get it and afford it, but screw them if they can't on either account, they're not paying customers).

      Notice who the players are - some of them are cell providers, all of them sell ISP services, and in general this is something they can agree is "good for the industry".

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    46. Re:Which ISPs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was actually Southwestern Bell, recent (at that time) purchaser of BellSouth and Cingular, which purchased AT&T and renamed itself that.

      1984 - AT&T broken up by court order.
      1986 - McCaw Cellular buys MCI Communications cellular division.
      1987 - McCaw Cellular Communications licenses the AT&T name, brands itself AT&T Mobility, starts the cellular service AT&T Wireless (among other things.)
      1990 - McCaw starts Cellular One, introducing the concept of exorbitant roaming fees.
      1992 - AT&T (the real one) buys 1/3 of McCaw.
      1994 - AT&T purchases the rest of McCaw in the second largest merger in U.S. history up to then.
      2000 - Cingular is created, a joint venture between SBC (Southwestern Bell Corporation) and BellSouth
      2004 - Cingular purchases AT&T Mobility,
      2005/2006 - SBC purchases AT&T, renames self to AT&T
      2007 - Cingular (the wholly owned division of AT&T) renames itself back to AT&T.

      That's the /short/ and somewhat misleading version. The actual history is far more convoluted and has been the subject of textbooks in communications law.

      The best explanation I've come across has been, "If you really think you've got a handle on how that all happened, you just haven't finished reading yet."

  4. So, do something by pablo_max · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Well, you could always stand up and demand your leaders repeal this nonsense. Is that not one of the stipulations of the political system in the US, that one must participate?
    I see a LOT of folks complaining on /., but I never hear about anyone actually DO anything. And no, a strongly worded facebook post is not doing something.
    Say what you want about the French, but they have it right. Their leaders are scared shitless of the population. That is how it must be. When the leaders do the things the US politicians do each day, France burns.
    So, I would say, If you don't like it, "man up" and do something.

    1. Re:So, do something by pclminion · · Score: 3, Informative

      I see a LOT of folks complaining on /., but I never hear about anyone actually DO anything.

      People actually doing something about it don't have time to rant on Slashdot. How exactly do you expect to hear about it? Telepathy?

    2. Re:So, do something by drakaan · · Score: 4, Funny

      Wait...does this mean that if HBO gets flagged 5 more times they go to jail? Sweet! Self-correcting legislation is awesome!

      --
      "Murphy was an optimist" - O'Toole's commentary on Murphy's Law
    3. Re:So, do something by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yea, that's not how the U.S system works.

      If you want to get stuff like this repealed, you have to pay millions to congress in the form of donations. Then MAYBE they will repeal it.

    4. Re:So, do something by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      " Is that not one of the stipulations of the political system in the US, that one must participate?"

      Yes. You are absolutely correct. It is not one of the stipulations.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    5. Re:So, do something by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the french really "did" something when their politicians did something crazy, they would not have a 85% tax rate. Look up why Gepardieu became Russian, and you will see that the french does nothing.

      But then again, the french are mostly from Algeria these days... Islam is spreading across Europe

      Breivik was right

      France has the best quality of life bar none.
      They are doing something right.

    6. Re:So, do something by SuperTechnoNerd · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I had to read your comment several times - since you seem to have such a strong and fantastic suggestion - but alas, a lot of hot air and no suggestions on how to go about "DOING SOMETHING." Please inform us sheep what your doing to help, and how we can too - since you got it all figured out.

    7. Re:So, do something by Farmer+Pete · · Score: 2

      Do what? Write congress? I'm sure they'll get right on that. I've written many a note to my representatives. It's never seemed to make a difference. I think the only way we can get change is if we form a SuperPAC and get some good financial backing.

    8. Re:So, do something by ad1217 · · Score: 1

      The problem is that this is not a law; it is voluntary (for the ISP, not the user). Therefore, it cannot be repealed (by the government).

    9. Re:So, do something by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      the people that actually do something are over at reddit. even fucking 4chan beats you whiners.

    10. Re:So, do something by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      The US also had a top marginal tax rate like that. It was during the great economic boom of the 50s and 60s. Turns out that trickle-down, voodoo economics is and always will be bunk.

    11. Re:So, do something by labnet · · Score: 1

      You do realise all Senators and Officials will be on a white list, so will never see a notice, so why would they care.

      --
      46137
    12. Re:So, do something by Mordok-DestroyerOfWo · · Score: 2

      I ran for Congress last year, even won the primary election. But without the multi-million dollar GOP trust fund that my opponent had, I still came up tens of thousands of votes short. Change isn't easy...

      --
      "Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" - Salvor Hardin
    13. Re:So, do something by jythie · · Score: 1

      There is not much we CAN do about it. This is not a new law, it is a deal worked out between private entities.

    14. Re:So, do something by megamerican · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The US also had a top marginal tax rate like that. It was during the great economic boom of the 50s and 60s. Turns out that trickle-down, voodoo economics is and always will be bunk.

      And as it turns out, nobody paid it. The effective tax rate, i.e. the tax rate people actually paid was around 30-35% at that time.

      --
      If you have something that you dont want anyone to know, maybe you shouldnt be doing it in the first place -Eric Schmidt
    15. Re:So, do something by Sarten-X · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Turns out that trickle-down ... economics is and always will be bunk.

      ...But I think I am a good person, and I do good things with my money. Why would anyone not want good things to be done? Surely with more money I could do more good things, but that means I need to be sending less to the government. The government politicians just nickel-and-dime their way through the budget pulling money out of good investments for the future and into gift programs for the lazy.

      A note to the witless: I'm not being wholly serious, but I'm not trolling, either. Just illustrating a particular perspective.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    16. Re:So, do something by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 1

      Just so you know, the effective tax rate is not the same as the marginal tax rate. Marginal tax rate is what is paid on the highest level of taxable income. Effective tax rate is amount paid divided by income. So you and your linked post didn't really refute anything. Unless that blog post was trying yo refute someone who was confusing the two as well.

      The 85% rate quoted for the French in the GGP post is also a marginal rate not the effective rate.

    17. Re:So, do something by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I sure hope you're not fucking 4chan. Wear a rubber dude. Two rubbers.

    18. Re:So, do something by neonKow · · Score: 1

      The French passed their 3-strikes law in 2009: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HADOPI_law

      I'm not sure what you think the French are doing right, but it sure doesn't seem like the population is rising up against privacy and free speech rights violations the way you think they are.

    19. Re:So, do something by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      How about if these automated trolls incorrectly flag people six times, which is under penalty of perjury, they, i.e. their owners, go to jail?

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    20. Re:So, do something by gVibe · · Score: 2

      Um...The United States really isn't that glorified magical place they teach you about in school books. I've lived here since birth, and I can promise you that those who stand up and fight usually end up in jail or disappeared altogether. The leaders here are too stupid to be scared of the population, and a large majority of that population is even more stupid.

      I don't know where or how you get this crazy idea about how the people put fear in the government...not even in France. I would be willing to bet that if the French government truly wanted to shut the people up, they could, and would.

      Considering that the US 2nd Amendment -- you know, the amendment that everyone is misinterpreting right now -- was put in place so citizens could defend themselves from an attacking government (e.g. the British during the Revolutionary War). However, today, the argument is that people want the right to buy guns of the same size and magnitude the government has. Have you ever tried to take on a Drone armed with Hell Fire missile, using only a .22 Rifle? Doesn't work to good.

      Stand up and do something....that is just wishful thinking.

      --
      Keywords for the NSA overthrow oppressive regime true believers marathon Manhatten the financial district blueprints I
    21. Re:So, do something by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why didn't your party provide a multimillion dollar trust fund for you? You were their candidate.

    22. Re:So, do something by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well that's a great sentiment and all, but the culture of overzealous and violent enforcement is far too great for anything like that to work here.

      Yeah, I agree, things need to start burning around here because we're getting to very bad place very quickly. But who's going to start it? Who's going to follow them when government thugs beat, taze, and incarcerate us into submission? When will there be enough people willing to pry their eyes away from America's Most Talentless Lip Synching Twat and actually get angry enough to actually band together and do something about it?

    23. Re:So, do something by meglon · · Score: 4, Informative

      It turns out that the top marginal tax rate is never the tax rate actually paid, and it was intentionally designed that way. I'm often surprised that people who want to think they're "in the know" don't understand such a simple concept, nor give people basic credit for understanding such a simple concept; however, then i'm reminded of people like the dentist last year who (in an anti-tax interview) said they'd stop working right each year right before they made enough to be pushed into a higher tax bracket because they didn't want their rate going up and costing them a lot more money.... because they didn't understand difference either. As David Gerrold said: "common sense isn't."

      --
      Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
    24. Re:So, do something by Shagg · · Score: 1

      Well, you could always stand up and demand your leaders repeal this nonsense.

      You believe they'd actually listen?

      Is that not one of the stipulations of the political system in the US, that one must participate?

      Only on paper. In reality, participation is an illusion.

      --
      Unix is user friendly, it's just selective about who its friends are.
    25. Re:So, do something by gmuslera · · Score: 1

      Getting answers from overseas, maybe. At least for a while seem to be the best course of action, at least until troops go there to "free" the people of that country.

    26. Re:So, do something by cluedweasel · · Score: 1

      If the french really "did" something when their politicians did something crazy, they would not have a 85% tax rate. t

      The French, at most other western Europeans, really don't care if the top 1% (or whatever) are punitively taxed. That's a particularly American obsession.

    27. Re:So, do something by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      Which is about double what the effective tax rate is currently.

    28. Re:So, do something by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does becoming a minimalist and rejecting modern society count, as 'doing something' ?

    29. Re:So, do something by Mordok-DestroyerOfWo · · Score: 1

      My district has been heavily Republican since its inception, no Democrat has ever won it. They didn't want to throw good money after bad for an unknown (and young) candidate.

      --
      "Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" - Salvor Hardin
    30. Re:So, do something by camperdave · · Score: 1

      Have you ever tried to take on a Drone armed with Hell Fire missile, using only a .22 Rifle? Doesn't work to good.

      Depends... are you aiming at the drone, or at the pilot?

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    31. Re:So, do something by LordLucless · · Score: 2

      however, then i'm reminded of people like the dentist last year who (in an anti-tax interview) said they'd stop working right each year right before they made enough to be pushed into a higher tax bracket because they didn't want their rate going up and costing them a lot more money

      I didn't see the interview, so I can't comment on what was actually said, just on your report on it. But that seems entirely probably to me. Obviously, going into the next tax bracket doesn't cost you money overall (you will still have more money than you did before you went over it) but it will increase the cost-per-dollar earned. It's entirely feasible that it would push the cost-per-dollar up to a point where working more just isn't a good deal. Just think - if, at the start of the year, you were earning $300 a day (no tax), but by the end of the year you were earning only $150 for the same amount of work, wouldn't you be tempted to just call it quits and take a holiday?

      Personally, when I was a student, I used to work as an electoral official during election season. The job ran from 8:00am to whenever the votes where counted - usually between 10:00pm and midnight, and paid about $400. Now, because I'm earning more and this work would be taxed in my highest bracket, the same amount of work would earn me $250. Result? I'm working less to avoid tax. It's not that working more is going to cost me money, but taxation drops the reward for my time down to a point where it's not worth me doing it. In other words, I stop working because I'm in a high rate, and it would cost me a lot of money.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    32. Re:So, do something by meglon · · Score: 0

      Just think - if, at the start of the year, you were earning $300 a day (no tax), but by the end of the year you were earning only $150 for the same amount of work, wouldn't you be tempted to just call it quits and take a holiday?

      That's not a valid argument though. For that to be true, their marginal rate would have to be well in excess of 50%, and the person would have to be paying the full rate with no deductions. Top marginal rate is currently 39.6%, and anyone in that bracket (400K+) is going to have deductions decreasing their real tax liability.

      The dentist (and his wife) in question were complaining that because they would break that barrier, they'd loose lots of extra money, clearly believing that that 39.6% would be applied to all of their income, not just the additional amount over 400K. When corrected, they had nothing more to say about it. So the valid argument for their position would have been the difference between making $300 and making only $286. That's the increase they were kvetching about in reality. The problem was, they didn't have a clue how the tax code actually works, which should be obvious to anyone who actually looks at it.... which certainly should be anyone who's going to participate in an anti-tax interview.

      ...and yes, i really wish i could find my link to the article. Someday i'm going to have to clean out my bookmarks.

      --
      Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
    33. Re:So, do something by gVibe · · Score: 1

      Have you ever tried to take on a Drone armed with Hell Fire missile, using only a .22 Rifle? Doesn't work to good.

      Depends... are you aiming at the drone, or at the pilot?

      Do you have the authority to get on the military base where the pilot is hiding? Then it would be the pilot, but then you would be dead from all the bullets fired at you for not dropping your weapon.

      If you don't have authority to get on the base...then you only have one other choice. And I highly doubt a .22 round will disable a Hellfire missile. Unless you are extremely lucky, and had flawless intelligence of where that Drone is at.

      --
      Keywords for the NSA overthrow oppressive regime true believers marathon Manhatten the financial district blueprints I
    34. Re:So, do something by erdraug · · Score: 1

      Yes, the fact that French voters have repeatedly proven that they will abandon a political party that does not fulfill its electoral promises is probably unrelated.

    35. Re:So, do something by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course, when the tax rate was 91% they paid 30%, now that it's 30% they pay 1%...duh

    36. Re:So, do something by Jedi+Alec · · Score: 1

      Say what you want about the French, but they have it right. Their leaders are scared shitless of the population.

      Is that how Vivendi bought the 3 strikes package?

      --

      People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
    37. Re:So, do something by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And produce some fu..kick ass prison drama about the enterprising spirit of a man during hard but unchanging times.

    38. Re:So, do something by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The news maybe.
      Like you probably saw the riots in London, mess in Paris suburbs, arab spring etc. on your news show. We get some news from the U.S. to, a hefty demonstration would certainly get air time in Europe.

      Living in Belgium, I know of several large demonstrations that were held (I'm 29). I even participated in 1 of them.
      With large I mean >1% of the population participating.

    39. Re:So, do something by poofmeisterp · · Score: 1

      Well, you could always stand up and demand your leaders repeal this nonsense. Is that not one of the stipulations of the political system in the US, that one must participate?
      I see a LOT of folks complaining on /., but I never hear about anyone actually DO anything. And no, a strongly worded facebook post is not doing something.
      Say what you want about the French, but they have it right. Their leaders are scared shitless of the population. That is how it must be. When the leaders do the things the US politicians do each day, France burns.
      So, I would say, If you don't like it, "man up" and do something.

      If "leaders" weren't paid off by the industries in question, action would have been taken long ago because people SO speak, and DO write, and DO call them to action.

      It's stuff like this "stand up" message that's just a result of conditioning. TV ads came out encouraging people to take stands on things so now it's just simply as a way to express that one has an opinion.

      To make it clear that this isn't trolling material - people *DO* take action and are given response letters of "yes, I [we] care and will do something about it" from their representatives, but those same representatives vote in favor of the industry. Money talks.

    40. Re:So, do something by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This isn't a law that can be repealed. The companies agreed to this voluntarily amongst themselves.

  5. hey, how do we know if the software is paid for? by swschrad · · Score: 1

    I think it should be flagging all the ISPs to prove that all these instances of MarkMonitor are legit.

    is Darl McBride involved in this business?

    --
    if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
  6. Nope. Still funny. by Jmc23 · · Score: 3, Funny

    I'm sure even the USians will enjoy more and more copyright owners getting sued by themselves.

    --
    Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
  7. Good news by virgnarus · · Score: 1

    Enough false positives and the system will quickly fade into obscurity.

    1. Re:Good news by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      Are you willing to start seeding false positive files? I would, except the connection is a requirement for me and I cannot deal with the hassles of being disconnected.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    2. Re:Good news by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      I think it calls for a bit more civil disobedience than that. See how many open WiFi networks you can get strikes for. Obviously, don't do anything illegal - only share files that will cause a false positive... not actual copyrighted works, and don't break into anything.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    3. Re:Good news by gmuslera · · Score: 1

      How many people will fade into obscurity before it happens? What you would do if get 30 years of prison for files you didn't download?

    4. Re:Good news by poofmeisterp · · Score: 1

      I think it calls for a bit more civil disobedience than that. See how many open WiFi networks you can get strikes for. Obviously, don't do anything illegal - only share files that will cause a false positive... not actual copyrighted works, and don't break into anything.

      Aw, hell no! That will get rid of all of the free internet in the 'states over a few months. Have the malware do the work. :)

  8. What if... by Orphis · · Score: 1

    What if, in addition to the flagging software, they also had another software that answered to DMCA takedowns with a "No, it's not illegitimate".
    Would it create an infinite loop of takedowns and restores?

  9. Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If anything, this proves the system is doing it's job. It's unlikely I would be affected the same way, because I'm not big enough that their system is going to be looking for people putting out anything I would legitimately producing. They noticed and acted on someone distributing HBO content? Sounds to me like it's working the way it's supposed to.

  10. Why are ISPs in bed with big content? by mdmkolbe · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's puzzled me for some time that ISPs are so eager to help with these piracy measures. Can someone explain to my why they are so eager to please when there is no reasonable legal threat against them? (IIUC, the DMCA safe-harbor clauses immunize them.) The same goes for YouTube. Why is Google so eager to go above and beyond the DMCA(*)?

    (*) I am aware of Viacom v. Google, but my understanding is the appellate judgment in many ways reaffirms the DMCA safe-harbor provisions.

    1. Re:Why are ISPs in bed with big content? by Crayz9000 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's puzzled me for some time that ISPs are so eager to help with these piracy measures. Can someone explain to my why they are so eager to please when there is no reasonable legal threat against them? (IIUC, the DMCA safe-harbor clauses immunize them.) The same goes for YouTube. Why is Google so eager to go above and beyond the DMCA(*)?

      (*) I am aware of Viacom v. Google, but my understanding is the appellate judgment in many ways reaffirms the DMCA safe-harbor provisions.

      Easy: Two of the biggest ISPs are also content owners. Time Warner and Comcast.

    2. Re:Why are ISPs in bed with big content? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's puzzled me for some time that ISPs are so eager to help with these piracy measures. Can someone explain to my why they are so eager to please when there is no reasonable legal threat against them? (IIUC, the DMCA safe-harbor clauses immunize them.) The same goes for YouTube. Why is Google so eager to go above and beyond the DMCA(*)?

      (*) I am aware of Viacom v. Google, but my understanding is the appellate judgment in many ways reaffirms the DMCA safe-harbor provisions.

      A lot of these ISPs are also content owners. Take comcast for example. They own NBC.

    3. Re:Why are ISPs in bed with big content? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ISPs : They want excuses to choke down the bandwith of people who consume a lot of bandwith. Or plainly, they hate everyone who bittorrents, legal or not. False positives are the system working as intended for their goals - reduce consumption. The **AA just gives them an excuse to do it.

      Youtube: Mainly has to do with how they implemented monetization for videos. Proper rightsholders monetizing rather then shutting off videos makes google money. Shutting down illicit pirates helps them keep up this cash flow; that's what they're after, really. Also, the legal requirements are much higher when dealing with "Person put this up for free on our servers" then "Person put this up for free on our servers and is using our services to make money off of it"

    4. Re:Why are ISPs in bed with big content? by black3d · · Score: 1

      AT&T provides digital television services and is one of the largest cable providers, which they'd prefer people pay for rather than downloading content.

      Cablevision provides digital television services as above. They also own the Clearview cinema chain.

      Comcast is a major content producer of multiple television networks and owns 51% of NBC, also a major content producer.

      Time Warner is a major content producer, owning dozens of film and TV studios.

      Verizon provides the FiOS digital television service (500+ channels), which they'd prefer people pay for than downloading content.

      --
      "The true measure of a person is how they act when they know they won't get caught." - DSRilk
    5. Re:Why are ISPs in bed with big content? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Okay, so that can explain 2 of the 5. How about the other 3?

    6. Re:Why are ISPs in bed with big content? by Wesley+Felter · · Score: 2

      Time Warner Cable actually split from Time Warner recently, so they're not related.

    7. Re:Why are ISPs in bed with big content? by gl4ss · · Score: 2

      they also want to get into the content distribution racket and cut their traffic to to one tenth

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    8. Re:Why are ISPs in bed with big content? by Wesley+Felter · · Score: 1

      If ISPs refused to implement six strikes, the MPAA probably would have bought a new super-DMCA law that was even worse. Industries generally prefer self-regulation over government regulation because Congress is a bit of a wild card.

    9. Re:Why are ISPs in bed with big content? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Cablevision Optimum video on demand, ATT UVerse video on demand, Verizon FiOS TV video on demand.

      These are less valuable services if their internet users are pirates. Since the internet provides a wider library, at less hassle, with better UIs, and your computer probably doesn't cost you a monthly rental fee.

    10. Re:Why are ISPs in bed with big content? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Their usage costs are mostly based on pirates.

      When the pirates stop, and you only have users like grandma who check their emails and read the news on their 25Mbps connections, Comcast becomes very happy.

      That is why they are so eager. Their costs go down when they don't have to provide all of the services which they offer, sell, and install.

    11. Re:Why are ISPs in bed with big content? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Time Warner Cable actually split from Time Warner recently, so they're not related.

      As corporate entities when it comes to accounting, but should you bother to check who owns both, you'll see something else.

    12. Re:Why are ISPs in bed with big content? by dcherryholmes · · Score: 1

      Right, and nobody sits on both boards, or hold any financial interests in common.

    13. Re:Why are ISPs in bed with big content? by MHolmesIV · · Score: 2

      I would hazard a guess that the folks pirating movies on their networks are also the network's heaviest users. Dump those few people, and their infrastructure costs don't go up as fast. It's a win-win for the ISP. (A pirate pays the same monthly fee as a regular user, but they can support hundreds of regular users on a single pirate's monthly transfer)

    14. Re:Why are ISPs in bed with big content? by mcl630 · · Score: 1

      Not really true anymore... (legal) streaming video is replacing p2p as the biggest bandwidth consumer. It's been said that during evenings in the US, Netflix consumes 30% of downstream bandwidth.

    15. Re:Why are ISPs in bed with big content? by camperdave · · Score: 1

      It's called a responsibility firewall. Money flows through, but responsibility doesn't. It allows the owners to have their cake and eat it too.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    16. Re:Why are ISPs in bed with big content? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People who watch netflix 24/7 are the biggest bandwidth hogs.

      Netflix consists of the biggest chunk of internet traffic.

      Besides, if my ISP can't deal with constant downloading(mine can, CenturyLink rocks) they should not sell higher bandwidth.

      I get and pay for 20Mbps, that is 20mb*60*60*24*30 = 51,840,000 MB a month as far as I am concerned. As far as I can tell I don't get throttled or capped lower than my connection speed. I tested it out for a month last year, using an obscene amount of bandwidth. Running Netflix all day and evening on three machines and downloading tons of linux distros every day,streaming music and videos. Not one peep out of CenturyLink.

    17. Re:Why are ISPs in bed with big content? by poofmeisterp · · Score: 1

      Time Warner Cable actually split from Time Warner recently, so they're not related.

      Yeah, show us who has stock in one but not the other.

  11. Encrypted proxy? by goruka · · Score: 3, Informative

    I'm not from the US, but if you really wanted to pirate stuff, isn't just renting a proxy or doing ssh -D somewhere else outside the country enough?
    Or is it one of those measures trying to prevent John Doe from using bittorrent? (and expecting he won't learn how to use a proxy)

    1. Re:Encrypted proxy? by Nyder · · Score: 1

      I'm not from the US, but if you really wanted to pirate stuff, isn't just renting a proxy or doing ssh -D somewhere else outside the country enough?

      Or is it one of those measures trying to prevent John Doe from using bittorrent? (and expecting he won't learn how to use a proxy)

      it's to catch the people who aren't smart enough to protect themselves when copywronging.

      I myself am using a torrent proxy, BTguard, but it's too slow, thinking of switching to a VPN.

      I got me a cloaking device for when I am out on the interweb seas, raping, pillaging and copywronging. Arrr!

      --
      Be seeing you...
    2. Re:Encrypted proxy? by filthpickle · · Score: 1

      It is going after bittorrent. Most people who are downloading movies and TV shows aren't going to be able to find another way if they can kill the torrents. Well, until the next thing comes along.

      Those are the same people that are most likely scared away when they hear about this, or when they get caught the first time. My mother, who knows nothing about computers and does not care to learn, told me to "be careful downloading movies, because they are cracking down on that".

    3. Re:Encrypted proxy? by dj245 · · Score: 2

      I'm not from the US, but if you really wanted to pirate stuff, isn't just renting a proxy or doing ssh -D somewhere else outside the country enough?

      Or is it one of those measures trying to prevent John Doe from using bittorrent? (and expecting he won't learn how to use a proxy)

      it's to catch the people who aren't smart enough to protect themselves when copywronging.

      I myself am using a torrent proxy, BTguard, but it's too slow, thinking of switching to a VPN.

      I got me a cloaking device for when I am out on the interweb seas, raping, pillaging and copywronging. Arrr!

      I had BTguard proxy but let my service expire. Too slow and it had problems with UDP trackers. I've been evaluating Ipredator, which is actually a branch of the Pirate Bay. Speeds are much higher than BTguard. I nearly maxed out my 20mbit connection on a well-seeded torrent (a legal one of course). They might not be the best service out there, but they are good enough for me to stop looking around. Trial accounts are available. Only downside is that when you have a computer on their VPN, everything goes through Sweden and thus the latency is not great. Only way around it is to play with the routing table or have separate computers (which I might have to start doing).

      --
      Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
    4. Re:Encrypted proxy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Set up a virtual machine on your computer and just use the VM with the VPN.

    5. Re:Encrypted proxy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wonder how many WoW players are going to get caught up in this anti-torrent nonsense.

  12. Americans by pitchpipe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I wish we in the US would get as upset about corporations taking away our rights (through the purchase of laws) as we do about gun laws. This would not be an issue if that were to happen.

    --
    Look where all this talking got us, baby.
    1. Re:Americans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You in the U.S. has your gun laws exactly for cases like this. The original idea was, when government (or its minions) eventually gets too tyrannical . . .

    2. Re:Americans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      then the content industry just blames the uproar over damn dirty criminals who want to violate the laws they bought.

    3. Re:Americans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Corporations taking away your rights? In what possible way?

      If they're using crony influence to regulate, then the politicians are taking away your rights.

      If, on the other hand, they're creating and enforcing rules on the use of their property and you're signing a contract to do business with them... stop whining. That's not taking away your rights.

    4. Re:Americans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shoot your ISP?

    5. Re:Americans by arth1 · · Score: 0

      You in the U.S. has your gun laws exactly for cases like this. The original idea was, when government (or its minions) eventually gets too tyrannical

      No, the original idea was so they could form militia and defend themselves without having an expensive military. The military was explicitly not to be given funding for more than two years at a time precisely for this reason. It's all in the constitution.

      Look what happened: we ended up with the - by far - most expensive military in the world, and people buying guns for reasons the founders never intended.

    6. Re:Americans by bored · · Score: 1, Insightful

      No, the original idea was so they could form militia and defend themselves without having an expensive military.

      Against an oppressive government, with a world class military, DUH!

    7. Re:Americans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      You in the U.S. has your gun laws exactly for cases like this. The original idea was, when government (or its minions) eventually gets too tyrannical

      No, the original idea was so they could form militia and defend themselves without having an expensive military. The military was explicitly not to be given funding for more than two years at a time precisely for this reason. It's all in the constitution.

      Look what happened: we ended up with the - by far - most expensive military in the world, and people buying guns for reasons the founders never intended.

      I suggest you read the Federalist papers before spouting this nonsense. The GP had it right. The framers wanted guns in the hands of its citizens as a safeguard against tyranny. The militia aspect always was secondary to that. In their minds the militia was the whole of the populace able to bear arms and still is according to US Law (limited to certain age ranges of course). Even taking your claims at face value. In order for any militia to be effective (well-regulated in the parlance of the 1700's) it must have guns. The framers intended for the populace (albeit only males at their time) to have weapons equal to any standing army that might be raised. So what reasons did you think were not intended by the founders, hmm? Hunting - check, self-defense - check, defense against the government - also check.

      By all means enlighten us on these "reasons".

    8. Re:Americans by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

      Lets turn the tables.

      How many people reading this are software engineers or programmers? How would you like it if you worked for me and I didn't pay you? I am about to get hired at a major software company which gets hurt when someone pirates its software. How can I look in the mirror and pirate something else (even if I am never going to buy it) when my living is paid by people who purchase software?

      I occasionally have pirated software in which I later deleted. It is not right and there is no excuse to justify it if you earn a wage. I lost Office 2007 (actually it was stolen) and I used a pirated copy of Office 2010 and told myself I will pay for it later. I never did and just realized it a few weeks ago. I uninstalled it and hacked a Office 2007 trail (I did pay for that at least) and I feel much better.

      I needed VMWare to learn a product for a job interview. What did I do? I asked the sales team if I can have an evaluation version for 30 days to learn it before the interview under the condition that I wont install it in an enterprise environment. Sure enough they were happy to help. Many software companies have policies like this too and even MS will let you download Windows Server for 120 days for non production purposes to learn.

      If you need to crop a photo? Then support FOSS by using Paint.net and Gimp. Need to edit some PDFs? Get LibreOffice.

    9. Re:Americans by syzler · · Score: 2

      You in the U.S. has your gun laws exactly for cases like this. The original idea was, when government (or its minions) eventually gets too tyrannical

      No, the original idea was so they could form militia and defend themselves without having an expensive military. The military was explicitly not to be given funding for more than two years at a time precisely for this reason. It's all in the constitution.

      Look what happened: we ended up with the - by far - most expensive military in the world, and people buying guns for reasons the founders never intended.

      No, the grandparent post is correct. The founding fathers were very weary of a strong central government. This is why the first government based upon the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union was so weak it was unable to leavy taxes and fund an army to suppress the Shay's Rebellion and instead the rebellion was suppressed with a privately funded army.

      The second amendment is a compromise in choosing between a weak central government and strong federal government. To quote the second amendment:

      A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

      The active part of the second amendment is "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed,". The right is not imparted to the individual states, but to the people. The right to bear arms is part of the checks and balances between the rights of the People and the power voluntarily given to the government by the people.

    10. Re:Americans by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      I know this is Slashdot and so I probably won't get a satisfying answer to this question, but I have to ask...

      What right of yours, exactly, is being taken away?

      What law was purchased, exactly? This program is being implemented voluntarily by the ISPs involved, as far as I'm aware there's no legal framework backing it.

    11. Re:Americans by camperdave · · Score: 1
      You know, for a bunch of well educated lawyers, the founding fathers sure drafted a terribly ambiguous amendment. It could mean:
      1. Own a gun? We can draft you
      2. Only members of a Militia can own guns
      3. Own a gun? You must join a militia

      Actually, I think the last one should be the way it works: only people who receive proper, thorough, and repeated training in weapons handling should be allowed to have guns. It would cut down tremendously on gun accidents.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    12. Re:Americans by syzler · · Score: 2

      You know, for a bunch of well educated lawyers, the founding fathers sure drafted a terribly ambiguous amendment. It could mean:

      1. Own a gun? We can draft you
      2. Only members of a Militia can own guns
      3. Own a gun? You must join a militia

      Actually, I think the last one should be the way it works: only people who receive proper, thorough, and repeated training in weapons handling should be allowed to have guns. It would cut down tremendously on gun accidents.

      Hmm, let me enlighten you with the definition of a militia:

      1. a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency
      1. a body of citizens organized for military service
      3. the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service.

      Actually, since the militia during the time of the revolutionary war and the militia used in the suppression of Shay's Rebellion consisted of able-bodied male citizens whom were not professional soldiers or apart of a government military force, I think the last one is the definition intended by the founding fathers.

    13. Re:Americans by camperdave · · Score: 1

      Hey! How come my ordered list tags didn't work?

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    14. Re:Americans by camperdave · · Score: 1

      3. the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service.

      Actually, since the militia during the time of the revolutionary war and the militia used in the suppression of Shay's Rebellion consisted of able-bodied male citizens whom were not professional soldiers or apart of a government military force, I think the last one is the definition intended by the founding fathers.

      Ah! So it's If you own a gun, we can draft you... or rather, because we can draft you, we'll let you own a gun.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    15. Re:Americans by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      Lets turn the tables.

      You might as well have posted this in an article about SOPA. Does it not matter how they try to enforce copyright law? Does it not matter how many innocents get caught in the crossfire?

      It is not right and there is no excuse to justify it if you earn a wage.

      That's subjective.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    16. Re:Americans by poofmeisterp · · Score: 1

      Hunting - check, self-defense - check, defense against the government - also check.

      By all means enlighten us on these "reasons".

      a.) Corporate control of personal activities and
      b.) secondary, monetary, control of the government.

      Remember, 'b' feeds 'a' and 'a' feeds 'b'.

      Money talks. I'm not disagreeing with you by any means (in fact, I agree). The point is that we can't really show an example of where guns are free to be used to stop the flow of money unless it's a component of war.

    17. Re:Americans by cant_get_a_good_nick · · Score: 1

      There's some interesting theory that the second amendment wasn't the "oppose government when it steps on my freedom" but more to allow the slave patrol militias to keep operating.

      Im not sure how you'd prove the reasoning of people long since gone one way or the other, but the reference to militias (which the slave patrols were called) and the reference to State rather than Country is consistent with the theory.

      if so, it's not so much freedom, as much as freedom for whites to own others.

    18. Re:Americans by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

      I would never steal your money or not pay you if I hired you. It is theft.

      Does it mean that software companies and movies are not greedy bastards? Of course not, but that does not justify the right to take it. A CEO might feel you are a greedy bastard for not be willing to work the wage of a Chinese man or Indian doing the same job overseas? Does that give him a right to take your money away? No. He does have the right to lay you off and you in return have the right to refuse to work for that low.

      Same concept applies. More software besides photoshop would be available if people bought cheaper alternatives rather than pirate.

    19. Re:Americans by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      Which part art you replying to?

      Of course not, but that does not justify the right to take it.

      Subjective.

      A CEO might feel you are a greedy bastard for not be willing to work the wage of a Chinese man or Indian doing the same job overseas? Does that give him a right to take your money away?

      The CEO has wasted your time and made you put effort into a job. Copyright infringers do not waste the artists' time (they only reap the rewards of what is produced after it is made, but the time and effort the artist spent making the products cannot be return, and their choice had nothing to do with the copyright infringers).

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
  13. Lets break it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Exercise your civil duty as a citizen. Let's find a way to flood it's input queue with bogus information and make it effectively useless.

    The software will be crap. We know it will be crap because it's just a bullshit scheme cooked up and fed to some suits over a golf game. (Who else would greenlight garbage like this?) It won't be hard to bring it to it's knees.

    1. Re:Lets break it by hypergreatthing · · Score: 1

      A network torrent where all files are renamed to "metalica - (Insert bad song name here).mp3" and transferred unencrypted? Count me in. It needs to be run by a group of lawyers so they can sue the pants off big content providers who claim DMCA takedowns.

  14. But seriously by futhermocker · · Score: 1

    Just as the article mentions, what if this causes sites to be excluded from Google if they just mention the copyrighted names? On a forum, a blogpost, etc. Plus you can count on it people are going to try and game this system to get competitors excluded.

    --
    KERNEL PANIC -SIGFAULT AT ADDRESS #51A54D07
  15. Everything political is funny... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    ,,,until one remembers that all this nonsense is backed by guns.

    Imagine if all these goons were not taken seriously. Just imagine if these creepy and cranky old men had no courts, prisons, armies and police. Imagine if it were just a bunch of hysterical old grumps sitting around in a room complaining about things they didn't like. All of us in society would look at them no differently than we'd view an old bum muttering to himself.

    1. Re:Everything political is funny... by cfulton · · Score: 1

      Amen

      --
      No sigs in BETA. Beta SUCKS.
    2. Re:Everything political is funny... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmm, I don't see any point in this thought experiment except for derision for the sake of itself... or do I miss something?

      Of course if we didn't take those guys seriously, we'd take (by human nature) some other guys seriously. And guess what, it'd be some other small group of mainly old (=experienced, had enough time to accumulate influence) men (=historically more in charge than women).
      And while they are oftentimes cranky and certainly corrupt, which according to modern psychology comes inevitably with power, I don't see how they (e.g. congressmen) are particularly more creepy than your average guy.
      IMO we need more transparency and mechanisms to control their corruption... but not as in "lay them in chains", rather via cooperation (carry a big stick, but speak softly), since they are just humans too.

      So back to my introductory sentence... why the hate spreading?

  16. AT&T, Cablevision, Comcast, Time Warner Cable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    AT&T, Cablevision, Comcast, Time Warner Cable and Verizon. from the article

  17. This will affect Netflix subscribers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If this same software rolls out next month it will tag Netflix subscribers as "Pirates" and the content providing ISPs won't give a flying fuck. After all, why should they? They want their sheep to go through their on-demand library for 5$ a movie. This is why all ISPs that provide on-demand content should be sued under the Sherman anti-trust law since they are effectively monopolizing all content and the distribution of said content. This is what the free market drones get when their wish is fulfilled.

    1. Re:This will affect Netflix subscribers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seems unlikely it would tag Netflix subscribers, since it did not tag HBO.com subscribers. Though it may tag netflix.com.

  18. This is perfect by cfulton · · Score: 1

    If it is all F*#?ed up then pretty soon it will just be ignored.

    --
    No sigs in BETA. Beta SUCKS.
  19. Hmmm ... by gstoddart · · Score: 1

    A copyright monitoring program called MarkMonitor mistakenly flagged HBO.com for pirating its own shows, and sent automatic DMCA takedown notices to the network.

    Wouldn't that make these DMCA notices fraudulent?

    They're not the copyright holder, and I thought a DMCA notice was the equivalent of a sworn affidavit that you were the owner of it -- and Righthaven already established that if you don't have legal standing, you can get smacked down.

    I can't see how this automated service could have any legal standing to be issuing DMCA takedown notices.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    1. Re:Hmmm ... by Ksevio · · Score: 1

      But fortunately there's the loophole that it's only if you knowingly report that you own the copyright someone else has that it counts. Basically any large scale notice system can get around by saying it was just a mistake.

    2. Re:Hmmm ... by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      But fortunately there's the loophole that it's only if you knowingly report that you own the copyright someone else has that it counts. Basically any large scale notice system can get around by saying it was just a mistake.

      I'm no lawyer, but if the 3rd party monitoring agent doesn't own any of the copyrights to these things, they can't mistakenly believe they owned something there was no chance of them owning in the first place.

      I don't know if the individual companies are running their own servers, or if they've simply contracted a 3rd party to do the work for them. If it's the former, then sure ... if it's the latter, they never could have owned the copyrights in the first place.

      Of course, the fact that this is so heavily skewed to content owners and leaves little room for people to defend themselves makes this suck even more.

      We'll aggressively pursue you and demand huge sums of money, but if we don't bankrupt you in the process, we can just say it was a mistake. So there's no downside for companies to just do this recklessly.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  20. So... by lightknight · · Score: 1

    So, when someone from one of the media companies decides to pirate a show from another media company, and does so more than six times, what kind of fines are we looking at?

    --
    I am John Hurt.
    1. Re:So... by flimflammer · · Score: 1

      Nothing.

    2. Re:So... by chrismcb · · Score: 1

      None. Their ISP will just slow their internet connection

  21. This violates the rights of EU and Canadians by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The US is the signer of a data treaty with both Canada and the EU that this violates.

    As the holder of multiple copyrights in Canada, the US, Australia, and New Zealand, I do not accept this Six Strikes violation of my International Treaty rights, which are superior to any DCMA legislation in the US.

    Period.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    1. Re:This violates the rights of EU and Canadians by DarwinSurvivor · · Score: 1

      I'm actually quite interested in this situation, do you have any links to these treaties (particularly the parts the conflict with strikes)?

    2. Re:This violates the rights of EU and Canadians by gl4ss · · Score: 2

      US honoring their trade and privacy treaties? are you visiting Colorado and high as fuck??

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    3. Re:This violates the rights of EU and Canadians by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

      US honoring their trade and privacy treaties? are you visiting Colorado and high as fuck??

      No, I live in Seattle. The real Washington, strong and free. We legalized everything too. Have fun living in serfdom.

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    4. Re:This violates the rights of EU and Canadians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You assume that this is a law. It's not. It's a voluntary system that the biggest ISPs decided to collude on. The government has no official part in this.

    5. Re:This violates the rights of EU and Canadians by mdmkolbe · · Score: 1

      Since this is implemented voluntarily by the ISPs instead of being imposed by law, I don't see how this violates any treaty rights. (Though that doesn't change the fact that it's still stupid and wrong.)

    6. Re:This violates the rights of EU and Canadians by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

      But the government is permitting my Copyright and Privacy rights being violated by the DCMA.

      Which by international treaties affirmed by the US Senate and signed by the President, they are not allowed to do.

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    7. Re:This violates the rights of EU and Canadians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US is the signer of a data treaty with both Canada and the EU that this violates.

      As the holder of multiple copyrights in Canada, the US, Australia, and New Zealand, I do not accept this Six Strikes violation of my International Treaty rights, which are superior to any DCMA legislation in the US.

      Period.

      Good luck with that. Let me know how that works out for you. Or are you one of the 1% to which regular laws don't apply?

    8. Re:This violates the rights of EU and Canadians by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

      The US is the signer of a data treaty with both Canada and the EU that this violates.

      As the holder of multiple copyrights in Canada, the US, Australia, and New Zealand, I do not accept this Six Strikes violation of my International Treaty rights, which are superior to any DCMA legislation in the US.

      Period.

      Good luck with that. Let me know how that works out for you. Or are you one of the 1% to which regular laws don't apply?

      Again, you seem to misunderstand. International Treaties have a force of law below the US Constitution and above ordinary Federal Laws. It's described in the US Constitution, which you might want to read.

      Technically, I may be a millionaire, but that's my house and retirement accounts and my car and computers.

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    9. Re:This violates the rights of EU and Canadians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No it doesn't.

    10. Re:This violates the rights of EU and Canadians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You'll need to get the government to take on the ISPs, then, seeing as the government has nothing to do with this, the businesses are doing it for themselves.

  22. What can we do about this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    You probably already pay for internet service. For a little bit more money/month, you can get away with as much piracy as you want. If you don't understand all the terms/lingo I'm about to use, hit the google. Here's what you can do:

    Scenario 1: switch from bit torrent to usenet. Automate the downloading of your favorite shows with sickbeard + hellanzb/sabnzbd/your-favorite-nzb-grabber-here. Download movies with CouchPotato. I have this set up, but due to abuse of DMCA, a lot of the good nzb indexing sites (newzbin, nzbmatrix) are gone. Thinking about getting rid of a usenet provider alltogether because of this unfortunate turn of events.

    Scenario 2: get a VPN. I have a VPN thru my usenet provider. I run a Win7 virtual machine for bit-torrent piracy purposes (since the good nzb indexing sites have gotten taken down, i find myself resorting to bit torrent more often now). All torrent traffic goes thru the VPN. Slows it down, but not by much.

    Scenario 3: get a seedbox. Seedboxes are for fast bit-torrenting. The downloading/uploading happens on a server that you rent. Get one outside of the US. Since it's not your home connection that gets slammed, you can share more upload bandwidth with the community. When the download is done, transfer your file to your machine with a ssh/sftp client. with a good media player and a good connection, you can probably start watching a video file 10-15 seconds after you start the transfer.

    Scenario 4: get a VPS. Can't find many that are bit-torrent friendly. But they're basically little virtual OS instances (typically linux) that you get root on. You can roll your own VPN with a VPS (as opposed to buying a VPN service), so if you are comfortable with Linux, going the VPS route might be your best and cheapest bet (then you can do #2 for cheap). There are plenty that are hosted outside of the US.

    It's too bad that hollywood and the media content creation industries in general have been so blinded by greed that they've missed the boat on this whole internet thing. They could have made WAY more money, probably ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE MORE MONEY if they'd embraced the internet as a content delivery tool OVER A DECADE AGO, instead of using political pull to secure legislation that protects their backwards and antiquated business model.

    Seriously. There are METRIC FUCKLOADS of money to be made on online advertising. Google is proof positive of this.
    Of course, just giving away the content "for free" (in exchange for ad revenue) is such an anathema to the greedy fucks at the top of the totem-pole in the industry that the idea was probably never seriously on the table in the first place.

    Such a shame.

    I keep saying that I'd pay $100/month for a service that allowed me to watch or listen to whatever movie, tv show, or song I typed into the search box. Instead we have this bullshit like hulu and netflix, with arbitrary restrictions on what you can watch on your TV vs your computer, what you can watch via the net vs get as a disk in the mail, etc. It's bullshit and there's no technological reason for how bad this situation sucks. It sucks because of corporate greed, so I've made it my moral obligation to ensure that none of these fuckwits ever get any of my money.

    Go buy a VPN.

    1. Re:What can we do about this? by aztracker1 · · Score: 2

      Just had to ask.... What's the difference between a "metric fuckload" and an "imperial fuckload" of money?

      --
      Michael J. Ryan - tracker1.info
    2. Re:What can we do about this? by Dunge · · Score: 1

      So instead of paying to be legal, you tell us to pay to use a service (newsgroups/vpn/seedbox) that can still allow you to be flagged criminal? I though the main goal of piracy was not to pay at all. Honestly, I currently don't pay because for now no service can be as good as a bittorrent download, but if it was available I wouldn't mind to pay, and I would prefer to pay the content creator than some shady internet service.

    3. Re:What can we do about this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just had to ask.... What's the difference between a "metric fuckload" and an "imperial fuckload" of money?

      metric fuckloads are easier units to deal with in calculations.
      you can convert them into nanofuckloads or megafuckloads just by scaling the magnitude by factors of ten.

      imperial fuckloads, on the other hand, have all manner of confusing rules for converting between other units. get with the program!

    4. Re:What can we do about this? by Shagg · · Score: 1

      They could have made WAY more money, probably ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE MORE MONEY if they'd embraced the internet as a content delivery tool OVER A DECADE AGO

      If they'd done that, then they would very likely have lost their monopoly on content distribution by now. That monopoly is what drives their business model, and is the thing they're really trying to protect with the whole "anti-filesharing" FUD campaign. The last thing the industry wants is for artists and consumers to figure out that they don't need middlemen anymore.

      --
      Unix is user friendly, it's just selective about who its friends are.
    5. Re:What can we do about this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Double it and add 32.

    6. Re:What can we do about this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if hollywood had wanted, "movies.com" or something similar could have become "THE" way people watched movies at home. Like, the little guy pretty much has to put his movie up there and let them take a cut of the ad revenue if he wants anyone to see the movie. Kinda like Apple and their App Store, I guess.

      There's still a market for mass digital distribution. Yeah, bit torrent is great and everything, but it costs a lot of money for the resources to be able to stream a video to millions of subscribers simultaneously. Hollywood missed the boat, plain and simple.

    7. Re:What can we do about this? by phorm · · Score: 2

      In Canada, a buddy of mine noticed that as soon as he
      a) Started some torrents
      or
      b) Opened a VPN

      His carrier (Shaw) would route him through a different network segment and essentially throttle him into the ground. If VPN's become more popular in the U.S. I'd imagine more of the same.

    8. Re:What can we do about this? by P-niiice · · Score: 1

      scaneario 5 is use and old fashioned usenet client, download headers and profit. old school.

    9. Re:What can we do about this? by nmb3000 · · Score: 1

      So instead of paying to be legal, you tell us to pay to use a service (newsgroups/vpn/seedbox) that can still allow you to be flagged criminal? I though the main goal of piracy was not to pay at all.

      That's the problem with the widespread use of loaded terms like "piracy". The original word starts getting a vast number of additional meanings (primarily pejoratives pasted on by news and media conglomerates) with the intent to label others who apply the term correctly as malicious. See "hacker" for another good example.

      A "pirate" in the electronic sense is someone who violates copyright law. This is somewhat unfortunate, as I think there should be more distinction between those violating copyright for commercial gain versus those only doing so for personal use.

      As to your point about not paying for content, I think this is a widespread mistaken belief. I believe the vast majority of noncommercial copyright violators would be eagerly willing to pay for digital media content that can be used under their own terms and on all of their electronic devices. I certainly know I would be.

      Paying for Usenet access and/or a seedbox can run you $20/month or more (depends on provider, block accounts, indexer community support, etc). This is in addition to what most people already pay for cable/satellite TV access (say $80/mo). Add those together and you've got at least $100/mo that people are already willing to spend. If I could get high quality DRM-free TV episodes I would probably be willing to spend even more. Toss in perks such as MKVs that include closed-captioned subtitles and 0% chance of audio/video sync issues and you've got something better than most of what's out there now.

      Most "pirates" are willing to pay for content. The problem is that it isn't available by any "legal" means.

      I currently don't pay because for now no service can be as good as a bittorrent download

      That might change when you get a handful of copyright violation notices from your ISP. Suddenly the alternatives will look a lot better.

      --
      "What do you despise? By this are you truly known." --Princess Irulan, Manual of Muad'Dib
      /)
    10. Re:What can we do about this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The odd thing is, the old-fashioned content owners did and do use the advertising-supported revenue model. Over the air "free" television is supported by commercials. I wonder why they feel the Internet is so different.

    11. Re:What can we do about this? by Inda · · Score: 1

      Forget the NZB indexing sites. The majority of, I dunno, XVID movies are in a.b.movies.xvid.

      Subscribe. Automatically download those headers, every 10 minutes if need be. Bandwidth is cheap. Time is not important. Read Slashdot while that's happening.

      Use a release site like VCDQ, or go hardcore on IRC if you like a little more pain. They exist for music too, you know? Search for those folder names in your Usenet client and download. The uploader has probably created an NZB anyway.

      NZB indexing sites are for the laziest of the lazy and are against the whole spirit of things.

      --
      This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
    12. Re:What can we do about this? by jez9999 · · Score: 1

      So instead of paying to be legal, you tell us to pay to use a service (newsgroups/vpn/seedbox) that can still allow you to be flagged criminal? I though the main goal of piracy was not to pay at all

      Another reason is so that you can have DRM-free content that you won't be expected to keep paying for in perpetuity, or be forced to sit through ads beforehand/during to be allowed to watch.

    13. Re:What can we do about this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just had to ask.... What's the difference between a "metric fuckload" and an "imperial fuckload" of money?

      Approximately 10%.

    14. Re:What can we do about this? by chrismcb · · Score: 1

      You probably already pay for internet service. For a little bit more money/month, you can get away with as much piracy as you want. If you don't understand all the terms/lingo I'm about to use, hit the google. Here's what you can do:

      Here is a novel idea... PAY for your content!

    15. Re:What can we do about this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have a VPN and highly recommend it as well. What worries me is false positives. They just slap a strike on anyone and then you have to pay 40 bucks to prove it wasn't you. I didn't download Real Housewives of Antarctica but I used a VPN so now are they going to say that is proof? It's the worst fucking system.

    16. Re:What can we do about this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One's per day (normalised to 86400s), the other's per fortnight with an annual adjustment for phase of the moon.

  23. Shhh! by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

    We _want_ them to use defective by design, ineffectual, costly systems that will blow up in their faces! Didn't you get the memo?

    PS - The ISPs are kinda on our side here, as they'd rather not be wet nurses to trogoldytes and their business models.

  24. Thank you for pointing this out. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  25. Workarounds? by sdguero · · Score: 1

    Anyone know how this monitoring software works and if any workarounds exist?

    I'd guess that they grab tracker information and then gather IP addresses of those sharing but I have never heard of this company or their "product" until today.

    Thanks

    1. Re:Workarounds? by Eightbitgnosis · · Score: 1

      Buy a seedbox to do your torrenting

  26. This sounds like a job for Anonymous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Were I Anonymous (and I am most certainly not), I would see this as a great opportunity to engage our fine Congress into taking up action. Since I am NOT Anonymous thus clearly lacking the knowledge I am not sure this could even be done....yet....

    Would it not be thoughtful if something could be set up such that all sorts of protected files were downloaded and shared from a congressman's identifiable computer? Were it possible to acquire and spoof the MAC address, the IP address and set up a nice little honey pot for this wondrous program to sense and respond too. Six strikes you say, should happen quick and then we have our dear congress person getting dropped...oh wait you say, they are on the white list, but then Anonymous still does the job for now it can show the preferential treatment which certainly is news unto its self. Or, just bluw skying you know, take the old adage garbage in garbage out and just confuse the poor program. Help it to see everyone as a violator thus rendering its conclusions moot.

    Hacking websites is one thing, sticky congress people into a situation where they have to try and explain that (1) it was not them and (2) why they feel this is good for the country would make for more interesting news coverage. Vigilantes that use their power to shine a light on a wrong do more power then just acting out in anger (hacking websites). I don't have the power or the knowledge or the influence to effectively change the mind of greedy SOB in Congress, but maybe there are those that do,,,,I wonder.

    Funny, I posted AC because i started to ponder, what if when I get home I find some gentlemen in dark suits waiting for me, just to ask a few questions...Please, come with us.

    1. Re:This sounds like a job for Anonymous by Dwedit · · Score: 1

      You don't even need to frame anyone, I heard that staff members of congress are already pirating music and movies.

    2. Re:This sounds like a job for Anonymous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What makes you think that posting AC prevents them from finding you? There are Apache(or equivalent) logs you know....

      Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they aren't watching you!

    3. Re:This sounds like a job for Anonymous by todd_is_not · · Score: 1

      That's funny, your username says Anonymous.

    4. Re:This sounds like a job for Anonymous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Congress - meh.

      Hit the childern and grandchildern not to mention staffers of Congress.

      The grandkids odds are have economic arguments to their unlimited wants VS limited income.

    5. Re:This sounds like a job for Anonymous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are Anonymous, it says so right above your post :P

    6. Re:This sounds like a job for Anonymous by strikethree · · Score: 1

      Were I Anonymous (and I am most certainly not)

      Actually, you most certainly are part of Anonymous even if you are not intending to be. You are faceless (Anonymous Coward) and you are sharing information and ideas about resisting abusive power. You do NOT have to be a criminal mastermind, you do NOT have to be the one initiating action, you just have to be there and be faceless... which you are.

      Welcome to Anonymous.

      --
      "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
  27. Well shit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have a choice between AT&T or Comcast here. That's it.

    1. Re:Well shit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Move, seriously.

      You have other options if latency isn't important to you(ie satellite).

  28. This is all our fault. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Things like this keep happening becase we (by which I mean "YOU") allow this to happen.

    The media industry is getting very little push-back against their egregious affronts to personal liberty. Because we aren't pushing back.

    Every one of you sits there reading this news and posting about how terrible it is and doing nothing at all about it.

    Nobody else will fight your battles for you. So long as you remain on your ass, this will just keep getting worse.

    This is your fault.

    1. Re:This is all our fault. by fredprado · · Score: 2

      Actually it is not. People like the GP are the least at fault for that. They recognize that there is a problem and speak up against it. And vote against it within the possibilities. Everybody else that doesn't give a shit until they start to piss on their yard is, on the other hand.

    2. Re:This is all our fault. by log0n · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What are we supposed to be doing? Violently overthrow media conglomerates?

      I already vote with my dollars. I no longer buy nor subscribe to (or pirate) music, movies, etc. I stopped buying restrictive DRM games years ago. I've cut the cable cord. I prefer indie authors almost exclusively and get my text in print form whenever possible. These companies don't care, they've got more than enough $ already and the only one really being hurt is me (near zero access to pop culture).

      Get off your high horse and be useful. Enlighten me. How else can this battle be fought?

    3. Re:This is all our fault. by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Get off your high horse and be useful. Enlighten me. How else can this battle be fought?

      It can't be. As long as Joe Sixpack has to have his live sports package, as long as Jill Sixpack is fascinated by what moronic Celebrity ofthe Minute is doing today, they will have all the money they need to buy any law they like. You (and I) are forever marginalized. Get used to it. Cost of internet access will go continuously up, not down, as the media conglomerates that own the pipes rent-seek us all into oblivion. Internet access will follow exactly the cable pricing model, and for exactly the same reason—access is controlled by exactly the same people.

      And I've lost any hope of Google rolling out fiber any further than Kansas City. They will do it once, discover it's an expensive, thankless job, and stop. I expect tiered internet to be the norm in not less than 5 years, and it's all downhill from there.

    4. Re:This is all our fault. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      they care but rather then admit they are killing themselves they blame the economy and pirates..

    5. Re:This is all our fault. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > What are we supposed to be doing? Violently overthrow media conglomerates?

      Yes.

    6. Re:This is all our fault. by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      "They recognize that there is a problem and speak up against it. "

      And it's working. They've been going to implement this "real soon now" for the last year. It was "next month" at least 4 months ago.

      And they've barely begun to scratch the surface of potential legal hassles they'll have to fight in order to pull this "6 Strikes" BS. Trying to implement it here would be a blatant violation of my WRITTEN contract.

    7. Re:This is all our fault. by Aryden · · Score: 1

      You mean the one that says that they can modify the contract as they see fit anytime they wish?

    8. Re:This is all our fault. by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 2

      "You mean the one that says that they can modify the contract as they see fit anytime they wish?"

      No, I don't.

      If they can modify it any time they wish, then it isn't a contract! A contract can't be one-sided; it requires approval from all parties involved.

      My contract is for delivery of specific services for a certain amount of money. They can't modify that without my consent, or they break the contract... I don't owe them the money. If, for example, they throttled or cut off my service, then they would not be delivering the product they agreed to deliver for the money I was paying them.

      Some ISPs have also tried saying "by using this service you agree to the terms on page (http://blahblahblah) which may change at any time..." and in some cases might get away with that. But that isn't a contract, either... it's a TOS for month-to-month usage with no contract.

      Further, if it is a contract at all, any such clause makes it a contract of adhesion, meaning it is entirely one-sided and there is no opportunity for negotiation. Often courts will refuse to honor contracts of adhesion, because the whole concept of contract implies that both parties have equal power in the deal and that any agreement has been negotiated in good faith.

  29. If they can ever stop piracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The big winner is going to be netflix im gonna my movies somewhere

    1. Re:If they can ever stop piracy by Dunge · · Score: 1

      If Netflix ever allow for downloading I will gladly stop pirating to use it.

  30. It's not enough... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    $22,500 is insufficient. Rupert Murdoch should be required to drop his pants on Main Street and everyone take a whack at his morals.

  31. How does it works? by Dunge · · Score: 1

    How can they know if you pirate or not? Monitor your bandwidth? Isn't that the thing we wanted to prevent when we voted against SOPA in the first place?

    1. Re:How does it works? by P-niiice · · Score: 1

      they're probably inspecting packets.

    2. Re:How does it works? by Dunge · · Score: 1

      Yeah, isn't that really, really bad for the users? Why do Americans let this pass? They aren't inspecting phone lines or putting GPS on our cars.

  32. should be enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    to cast reasonable doubt as to the accuracy of ANY claim made by markmonitor.

    so fuck them.

  33. Where's the DOJ? by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Which ones? I'd like to know who doesn't want my money.

    AT&T, Cablevision, Comcast, Time Warner Cable, and Verizon. It's in the article. :)

    Was this mandated by some law I've not heard was passed...or, are these companies all signing onto this one service voluntarily? If so...why, what is in the bargain for them, they have immunity anyway over what their users do on the networks...why even bother with this?

    Collusion is illegal in the United States (and most other places). How come the five largest ISPs in the country all deciding to implement the same tracking system and enforcing the same restrictions on millions of subscribers who have no other alternative to their services is not being investigated by the DOJ?

    When the railroads did things like this, the DOJ was quick to step in. When the Unions did things like this the DOJ was quick to step in. Today when big businesses do things like this, the DOJ is nowhere to be found. The DOJ is supposed to protect the 100% of the people, not just 1%. But, that is the price we pay to have the best plutocracy on the planet.

    1. Re:Where's the DOJ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The DOJ high muckety-mucks have been heavily salted with former RIAA/MPAA lawyers. They're all in favor of this. They're spending more resources filing amicus briefs in favor of this kind of thing than they ever will spend fighting it.

    2. Re:Where's the DOJ? by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 2

      How come the five largest ISPs in the country all deciding to implement the same tracking system and enforcing the same restrictions on millions of subscribers who have no other alternative to their services is not being investigated by the DOJ?

      Because they are not competitors. Seriously. The vast majority of broadband customers have no more than 1 choice for high-speed service. Well, they could move to another town, but that's not really a choice in the way most people use the term.

      Thus, since they aren't competing they can't be colluding.

      As for why they aren't competing in the first place? Well, the DoJ has already given them a free pass on that bit of collusion.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    3. Re:Where's the DOJ? by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      There is not a blanket ban on "collusion," it is a ban on certain types of collusion, mostly price-fixing.

    4. Re:Where's the DOJ? by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 1

      There is not a blanket ban on "collusion," it is a ban on certain types of collusion, mostly price-fixing.

      Actually, that's not quite true. Price-fixing is a type of collusion that is prohibited, but any colluision that restricts competition or puts the buyer in a negative position (think railroads), is prohibited.

  34. Blessing in disguise? by Foresto · · Score: 1

    My optimistic side hopes this will eventually lead to a resurgence of independent ISPs.

    1. Re:Blessing in disguise? by Voyager529 · · Score: 2

      My optimistic side hopes this will eventually lead to a resurgence of independent ISPs.

      That's quite a hefty level of optimism you've got there. If you were going to start Forresto Online, and become an ISP, you'd have all kinds of state and local opposition as you tried to lay your fiber cables down or staple them to the poles...but let's hand wave that train wreck away. With the big guys already implementing the six strike rule, anyone new on the radar would be a very easy target - especially since your arrival was heralded by the metric ton of paperwork that had to be filled out to lay your fiber.

      From there, you have issues with both inertia, and the kind of people who have none. Let's face it: most people who sign up for cable/phone/internet bundles from Comcast are likely locked into annual contracts and are unlikely to move shortly after Forresto Online is available. A handful who are *that* disgusted with them will, but the majority will probably wait it out and see how bad it will get...typically that will be just long enough for Comcast to entice them with rates that are $5/month less than yours, $10/month less if they sign up for two years. The customers who won't fall for it are likely the ones who will be running uTorrent 24/7. Those who run it exclusively for Linux distros will simply be pounding your network, those who aren't, well, they'll be on the radar of the kinds of people who will try to sell you on adding the six strike policy to your list of services, lest they of course attempt to hold you liable for all the pirated content that's flowing through your pipes. You then decide between either listening to them, or going to bat for what you believe is right, but can't afford to do because your customers are relatively few compared to the titans against whom you're competing, and you've been spending most of your money trying to keep the packets flowing as the numbers continue to rise.

      I'm all for independent ISPs. I just think that this is the worst possible climate to do it in.

  35. boycott by P-niiice · · Score: 1

    If we could just organize an anti-sopa-like campaign but make it a boycott of internet service - as in "I'm turning off my service on the day this is implemented".

    I'd really be impressed if such a thing could be organized but who am I kidding, living without Internet is like holding your breath.

    1. Re:boycott by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So do the opposite, get a few million people into a swarm transferring a massive but perfectly legal file set back and forth perhaps even configure said file set so that it will spoof the system. If on the first day of operation the system sends notices to 85% of it's customers, the ISP will have a hard time justifying this entire program.

  36. The super awesome guide to never getting caught by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Super Awesome Guide to never getting caught using torrents and such Most people don't know how to protect themselves and don't understand how the Internet works. It isn't hard to cover up your tracks:

    1) Get some Bitcoins

    2) Find a seedbox provider in Europe that accepts Bitcoins

    3) Find a VPN provider in a different country (such as an African country) that accepts Bitcoins

    4) Find a VPS provider in yet another country that accepts Bitcoins

    5) Build a virtual machine on your system that only can use the VPN connection you've aquired

    6) Profit!

    1. Re:The super awesome guide to never getting caught by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Some notes:

      The dataflow of torrents should look like Seedbox > VPS > Local Virtual Machine.

      Use the VPS to access the seedbox, and the local virtual machine over the VPN to access the VPS. Never use your normal machine to connect to either the VPS or the seedbox.

      The virtual machine on your desktop should reside on an encrypted partition in case things go Tango Uniform.

      Use a Linux distro for your local virtual machine, it makes mounting SSH mount points on your VPS simple

      You can use HGFS on VMWare to mount your media drives on your desktop.

    2. Re:The super awesome guide to never getting caught by neminem · · Score: 1

      Or just use a private torrent site and be done with it. They're not watching private torrent sites, because that would require that someone gave them an account, which would be pretty monumentally stupid.

  37. Question by Holi · · Score: 1

    I am just wondering why we are calling a company software. MarkMonitor is not a piece of software it is a company specializing in brand protection.

    --
    Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
  38. because they all vend contet by YesIAmAScript · · Score: 1

    Every ISP who signed on is also a cable company. They vend content from Big Content. Big Content surely says "if you want to keep our content, you have to help us protect it". So they sign on in order to keep the ability to offer cable.

    ISPs who are not cable providers like sonic.net have no incentive to sign on. They'll just annoy their customers to no advantage.

    --
    http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
  39. All your datas are belong to us. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You touch on a lot of good stuff ()... ISPs are () datacenters, datacenters handle bandwidth... on a large enough scale bandwidth = power.

    And power = control, therefore bandwidth = control.

    Apparently the U.N. (World Summit on the Information Society) and the German courts believe that bandwidth has become fundamental to modern life.

    However, the U.S. still believes it has the option of doing pretty much as they please, so don't expect a corporation acting with its blessing to feel beholden to a set of ideals which may conflict with expediency in the exercise of governmental power or worse, revenue. After all, Constitutional War Powers, the Geneva Conventions of War, Habeas Corpus, Federal Information Surveillance Act, the reasonable search requirements of the Fourth Amendment, and the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (for persons, not artificial persons) have all been under duress from Congress and the president, for quite some time.

    Unequal Protection, for those of you who don't mind the intrigues of history, is a good read on the history of the corporate assault on the individual rights of persons, which the architects of the U.S. government attempted to protect from assault by that very same institution. Not that I mind the notion of self determination and fundamental freedoms or my ability to speak my mind, but the hypocrisies apparent in the distribution of power seem undeniable when the interests of corporations dominate the everyday life of individuals in health care, environmental protection, adjudication of legal priority in the contest between religious freedom and the institution of the Church.

    The economy is in chaos because the greedheads don't understand reasonable limits, and the weakness of men has unveiled the institutionalized classicism we inherited from our European predecessors and embedded beneath the facade of equality!

    It's feudal!

    1. Re:All your datas are belong to us. by Synerg1y · · Score: 1

      Hmmm... I meant electrical power, that's a fundamental cost at a datacenter :)

      The one thing I have to say to your post though is: remember corporations are made of people, so are countries, and unrelated to the previous statements: chaotic economies tend to be driven by consumer fear (still people). If you want somebody to blame for society's problems, make your way to the nearest mirror and take a look inside.

    2. Re:All your datas are belong to us. by KillDaBOB · · Score: 1

      You forget that, in the USA, corporations _are_ people. Therefore they aren't made up of people, because they are their own living and thinking entity.

    3. Re:All your datas are belong to us. by poofmeisterp · · Score: 1

      You forget that, in the USA, corporations _are_ people. Therefore they aren't made up of people, because they are their own living and thinking entity.

      Very true. Not to go off-topic, but think about the corporate entity and the personal entity. They both do the same thing - have times (or units) inside that break their own rules.

      Some people are religious but break the rules on a daily basis.

      I'd like to see the count of people that work for the music and movie corporations that don't copy media. If they don't, it's only because their own entity gives them free copies as a bonus for working there (read: discouragement).

  40. markmonitor sounds familiar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    dont they manage google domains?

  41. SO what? by tekrat · · Score: 1

    Seriously; what are they going to do? After six strikes they take away my internet access? And? I have Verizon FIOS. I live in an area where Comcast sends me junk mail every damn day to switch over to them instead.

    So, I get six strikes from Verizon... Oopps. So I cancel my account and then Comcast gets my money. Then I get six strikes from Comcast, and I cancel my account and by this time Verizon will be happy to take me back, in fact, I'll probably get a lower rate than I originally had.

    Or if not, there's other competing ISPs I can find. If you live in a big enough market, there's internet all over the place. "Six Strikes" isn't going to stop anyone unless you're talking about users in dial-up-ville Arkansas.
     

    --
    If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
  42. They helped broker the deal... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > How come the five largest ISPs in the country all deciding to implement the same tracking system and enforcing the same restrictions on millions of subscribers who have no other alternative to their services is not being investigated by the DOJ?

    I recall reading that it was arranged by the Copyright Czar and the DOJ that employs tons of ex-RIAA lawyers. They can't even seem to prosecute anyone for the financial meltdown, anyhow, so even if they were willing, I wouldn't get my hopes up.

  43. If they're like the others, they screen them out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Then you might also be interested in knowing that when those MediaDefender emails were leaked, they discussed things like NOT prosecuting the rich & famous, particularly politicians. In fact, they'd make sure you weren't someone like that beforehand to avoid trouble.

  44. id murder a few before you arrest me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    note to self make list of actors and muscians and there lawyers....
    copyright clause is coming to town

  45. Compulsory Licensing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Has anyone considered the possibility that FOX is paying him for the song, and he just doesn't know it?

    There's this fun little thing called "compulsory licensing" which applies to performances of a song, whether it is 'performed' by playing a recording, or by actually performing the song. It's why radio stations don't have to get approval to play songs, and why performers can play any song they like on their albums (as long as they aren't creating a derivative work, but instead, simply performing the song as it was originally written). They just play whatever they want, pay Sound Exchange the royalties, and Sound Exchange pays the original authors of the music.

    With Jonathan Coulton's version of the song, he made a lot of changes, which means it isn't a "cover" but is actually a derivative work. Because of this, he had to get permission from Sir Mix-a-Lot (and pay whatever he had to in order to get that permission) before releasing the song, as compulsory licensing doesn't apply.

    However, with FOX's version of Jonathan Coulton's song, it is beyond any doubt a "cover" because the only thing they changed was that they didn't perform the whole song. Therefore it isn't necessary that FOX get his permission for the performance, only that they pay the relevant compulsory licensing fees to Sound Exchange, which will eventually (assuming he registers with them) pay those fees to Jonathan Coulton.

    This also explains why FOX would make no changes whatsoever to the song, even obvious ones like using Sir Mix-a-Lot's lyrics, or speeding up the tempo so that it isn't so mind-numbingly slow and so that they wouldn't have to cut out the last verse. Obviously FOX must have told the musicians working for them that they weren't allowed to change it because they're not in the business of allowing artists to demand large sums of money or refuse to allow the use of their music at all, and instead prefer to go the route of compulsory licensing and simply pay what the law requires. As for why they didn't even inform him that they were using it, why should they? So he can potentially bring a lawsuit and halt production of the show? If they're following the law, and the law doesn't require that they inform him of anything, then doing so is at best harmless and at worst causes problems.

  46. get 'em by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    HBO has been overpricing their services for watching the same dam movies month after month for years.

    GET' EM

  47. bittorrent+tor = bad idea by KingAlanI · · Score: 1

    it's possible, but the technologies interact badly, so it runs especially slow or something. also, it seems like bad etiquette to clog up Tor nodes by torrenting garden-varity media instead of leaving Tor capacity available for important users like say whistleblowers.

    --
    I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
  48. No need for violence... by Tatarize · · Score: 1

    Just feed every IP into the six strike system six times.

    I'm not sure what that would do but the system is dumb enough to let you do it.

    --

    It is no longer uncommon to be uncommon.
  49. Off topic: ordered lists in slashcode by Zinho · · Score: 1

    Here's what I saw when looking at the code as delivered to my browser:

    <p>
                1. a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency
            <br></br>
                1. a body of citizens organized for military service
            <br></br>
                3. the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service.
    </p>

    If you put ordered list tags into the comment box then slashcode must have stripped them and replaced them (poorly). I'm not interested in slogging through slashcode, but I'm up for a quick test. I'll post a simple list and see if it gets munched.

    Raw HTML as entered:

    <p>
        <ol>
            <li>item 1</li>
            <li>item 2</li>
            <li>item 3</li>
        </ol>
    </p>

    slashcode output:

    1. item 1
    2. item 2
    3. item 3

    Lots of extra space, but numbered properly. List tags appear intact. Can't reproduce, works for me. I'm sorry, that's the worst response to hear on a bug report, but I don't think I can help you.

    --
    "Space Exploration is not endless circles in low earth orbit." -Buzz Aldrin
    1. Re:Off topic: ordered lists in slashcode by camperdave · · Score: 1

      I'm not interested in slogging through slashcode, but I'm up for a quick test. I'll post a simple list and see if it gets munched.

      Raw HTML as entered: <p> <ol> <li>item 1</li> <li>item 2</li> <li>item 3</li> </ol> </p> slashcode output:

      1. item 1
      2. item 2
      3. item 3

      Lots of extra space, but numbered properly. List tags appear intact. Can't reproduce, works for me. I'm sorry, that's the worst response to hear on a bug report, but I don't think I can help you.

      Mine was like yours, three indented lines with no numbering (the 1, 1, 3 wasn't my post). So you can reproduce it just fine.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    2. Re:Off topic: ordered lists in slashcode by Zinho · · Score: 1

      Yep, good catch! I thought I was responding to a different post (the 1. 1. 3. list), and didn't notice the missing list order marks. Boy, do I need sleep, that's two glaring mistakes in one post.

      I dug through the css for the page, and I think I've figured it out: in about 5 different places in the style markup there is a callout for list-style: none outside none; which, when turned off, re-enables the list markings. So someone deliberately and redundantly ensured that your (and my) numbering wouldn't show up on an ordered list. Unordered lists still get bullets, go figure.

      --
      "Space Exploration is not endless circles in low earth orbit." -Buzz Aldrin
    3. Re:Off topic: ordered lists in slashcode by camperdave · · Score: 1

      Thanks for looking into it. That was above and beyond. Sleep well, and sleep hard, my friend. In my books, you've earned it.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
  50. Six strikes is going to fail miserably by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The music / movie industry has been trying to fight piracy for years. Nothing they do will ever work. People will continue to use seedboxes and VPNs and proxies to hide their identity. Piracy will continue like it always has. The only thing that will stop piracy is these 4 steps:

    1. Make the content available in all regions instantly as soon as it becomes available. (The Internet is global! You can't set up arbitrary boundaries.)

    2. Sell the content that people want for a fair price. If you feel like ripping me off, I'm going to go pirate it instead.

    3. Release your entire back catalog. Don't sell one show, one episode or one season. Make the entire back catalog available for purchase and download.

    4. Don't implement any draconian DRM schemes. Allow people to download, move, copy, and do what they want with the file they purchase. The DRM schemes only end up punishing legitimate paying customers.