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."

30 of 292 comments (clear)

  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 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.

  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 DarthBling · · Score: 4, Informative

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

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

      And Verizon (at least) already has implemented it.

    4. 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.........
    5. 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
    6. 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.
    7. 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.

  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 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
    2. 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.

    3. 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
    4. 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
  5. 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.

  6. 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 . . .

  7. 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! --
  8. 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.

  9. 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.

  10. 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.

  11. 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.