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."
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?
At least our e-voting software is safe.
Some people die at 25 and aren't buried until 75. -Benjamin Franklin
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
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? /., but I never hear about anyone actually DO anything. And no, a strongly worded facebook post is not doing something.
I see a LOT of folks complaining on
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.
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.
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.
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)
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.
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! --
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
"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.