Slashdot Mirror
Six-Strikes System Starts In U.S.
New submitter mynameiskhan writes "Major internet service providers today will start monitoring the internet traffic to their customers' computers and will warn them if they download copyrighted materials using peer to peer network. The article says, 'A person will be given up to six opportunities to stop before the Internet provider will take more drastic steps, such as temporarily slowing their connection, or redirecting Internet traffic until they acknowledge they received a notice or review educational materials about copyright law.' Furthermore, if you appeal the warning you will be required to pay $35 to state your case. Have the ISPs have had enough of RIAA pestering, or are they siding with RIAA?"
This will end P2P piracy in a snap!
Termination of subscribers’ connections is specifically mentioned by the Center for Copyright Information as a penalty that will not be imposed under the Copyright Alert System. The strategic partnership between rights-holders and ISPs makes it obvious why the CAS does not—and in fact cannot—threaten to terminate Internet subscriptions as a penalty for alleged copyright infringement: the five ISPs participating in the CAS would never voluntarily agree to give up the revenue associated with allegedly infringing subscribers. In theory, rights-holders could perhaps convince ISPs to terminate allegedly infringing subscribers if rights-holders were willing to compensate ISPs for the associated loss in subscription revenue. In practice, however, the cost of such compensation for rights-holders would far outweigh the benefits to rights-holders of halting the average alleged infringer.
"Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
First strike, but not first to be banned ;-) Let's race to see who can get six strikes first! I'm sure the winner's legal battle will be worth watching.
I hope the backlash from this makes SOPA look tame.
I live in China
Furthermore, if you appeal the warning you will be required to pay $35 to state your case. Have the ISPs have had enough of RIAA pestering, or are they siding with RIAA?"
What do you think, genius?
Of course they're siding with the cartels...and they've figured out a nice little side earner while they screw their customers.
Finally an incentive I needed to get a seedbox and VPN in a country far, far away.
If one side has to pay to participate in the "trial", and the other doesn't, then one side has an incentive to just suck it up, and the other side has no disincentives to stop.
Just like DMCA takedowns. If there is no penalty for filing, companies will just robo-spam.
Captcha: tedious, just like the appeals process will be.
Welcome to the party, you're a few years late.
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
Who wants to take bets on how many days it is until we get the first false positive story?
What do I know, I'm just an idiot, right?
Are they getting involved? Perhaps share a copyright-free file, get people to download it, get reports raised against it, get complaint, ignore complaint, get to 6 strikes, then ask the ISP to take further steps against them. A few million people doing that at the same time should be fun.
I don't normally eat popcorn but some good'ole fashioned jiffy pop made over the stovetop while reading tales of ISPs being sued for playing judge, jury and executioner is gonna be fun.
This is both the RIAA and the ISPs winning with users losing. The ISPs can point to this system to get the RIAA off of their backs. The RIAA can point to this system in courts to try to further pinpoint end users to sue.
However, as the summary points out, the end user must pay $35 to challenge "strikes" against them, and while they are refunded the full amount, if they win, there is nothing else won, nor is the ISP punished for false claims. In other words, the user assumes all risk even if they know that they are innocent.
While I imagine that this system might catch a few pirates out there, I suspect that the errors related to this system will lead to far more collateral damage than it even supposedly fixes. And I am strongly against pirating, but this system screams of looming problems to be faced by the innocent like myself. As someone that has been hit with a "gotcha" notice from a previous roommate's downloading, I know the problems that this will cause. In my case, my roommate was reasonable and he did not continue the practice after I showed it to him and explained that I would not "go down" for it.
How many people can we expect to be burned by this before we have an online petition in Congress? If we're lucky, then maybe this is the start of turning ISPs into dumb-pipe utilities. But we're not lucky.
After five or six "strikes," however, the person won't face any repercussions under the program and is likely to be ignored. It's unclear whether such repeat offenders would be more likely at that point to face an expensive lawsuit.
So, no termination of your account, or automatic penalties from your provider except maybe some bandwidth throttling. Seems like it's just an alert system for the RIAA/MPAA.
Things you think are in the Constitution, but are not.
And they know who has been naughty and nice. You get six strikes. Six chances. Deep packet inspection, and they know what sites you like to visit and probably what you say too.
Just remember, the music industry saw growth and "profit" in 2012, the first time since 1999, before this copyright protection went in place.
http://www.theverge.com/2013/2/26/4031912/music-industry-grew-revenue-for-first-time-since-1999
http://247wallst.com/2013/02/26/music-industry-posts-first-profit-since-1999/
Better known as 318230.
And once that happens anything you do or say while on that ISP will be monitored.It may be under the guise of copyright infringement but the result is you're being monitored at the deep packet level. So when you tweet about how much you love Julian Assange and how much you support Wikileaks and the EFF, and when you hit the donate button, not only can they cut off funding to these organizations but they can cut off your internet as well.
Six strikes? No clue if they will look at some people with more scrutiny than others.
Sweet! Extrajudicial punishments! And I thought China was awesome!
Deep packet inspection versus SSL, who wins?
Seems more likely they'll have machines sitting around on popular trackers grepping for IP addresses from blocks they own. At least if they want it to be even sort-of effective.
And it's up to the ISP to decide who to intimidate. There will be millions upon millions of people who break the 6 strikes rule. There will be certain people singled out and targeted.
Verizon offers a sweet deal for FIOS if you're a new customer, so you sign up for the Triple Play, pay $80 per month, and then cancel, because you've used up your six strikes...
Then sign up for Comcast, get a sweet deal because you're a new customer, pay $50 per month, and then cancel because you've used up your six strikes...
Wash rinse repeat....
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
As long as they understand I'm gonna charge them $75 for my trouble.
Deep packet inspection versus SSL, who wins?
Seems more likely they'll have machines sitting around on popular trackers grepping for IP addresses from blocks they own. At least if they want it to be even sort-of effective.
That depends on the quality of the certificate authority and the implementation of SSL. It also depends on what the ISP does. SSL doesn't protect anything port 443. What good is that going to be for other ports? The only way users can protect themselves is by using a VPN.
If I'm paying extra for a higher speed, how can they throttle my connection, based on an ALLEGED infringement..??
-Myke
They told me if I voted for Romney we'd see an administration, more beholden than the last to the interests of the RIAA & MPAA... and they were right.
Though I fully understand that the situation would likely be much the same, if not worse, under Romney, I still get a kick out of these.
At least Mitt, being a Republican, comes right out and let's you know you're gonna get corn-holed, instead of the Democrats who pretend to be your friends as they force you over the barrel.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Whether this is "good" or "evil", it will be interesting to see how the metrics of illegal file sharing change.
How many thousands of BT users decided not to launch their torrent client today?
What will US traffic in bittorrent do over the coming weeks and months?
Will NetFlix see an influx in business?
Will the number of leaches and seeders of pirated content decrease?
Take-away lesson? Buy NFLX and CMCSK...
And once one group of corporations gains the ability it's only a matter of time before they want other excuses.
All of the cable companies obviously rely heavily on the media companies for their content on the cable channels but so to do Verizon (with FiOS TV) and AT&T (with u-verse TV).
The ISPs need to do this to keep their friends in the content industry happy and providing them with the content they need for their TV setups.
just file a allegation ageist all IP's and do it say 10 times and this will die.
I already have five strikes :( what happens next?
btw the analogy is fucked. everybody knows, 3 strikes and you're out. Doesn't make any sense to have 6 strikes. what is this, cricket? 10 wickets, and you're out?
vodo.net legal torrents - do they get a pass or will they be counted within the six tries?
It's as simple as that. CORP POWER.
This is awesome! Up until now I've been paranoid about getting sued by the MPAA every time I torrent something. Now I'll get 5 warnings first? That's great!
Guess I'll be looking for a VPN provider overseas.
Microsoft leads to Bluescreen; Bluescreen leads to downtime; downtime leads to suffering.
Doesn't sound like it.
In cricket, one wicket and you are out. But the three outs and the inning is over works better for cricket, in that it's 10 wickets per inning, and some games are a single inning long, or something like that. All I know is ball, stick, hit, run.
Learn to love Alaska
SSL is used on non-443 ports all the time. It's not just for HTTPS.
I'd assumed that's what encrypted Bittorrent traffic uses, though looking in to it farther it appears they use something else. It is used for encrypted peer-to-tracker communication, though. Either way, telling what a user's downloading over encrypted BitTorrent protocol is non-trivial without a peer connected to the same tracker.
Major internet service providers today will start monitoring the internet traffic to their customers' computers
False. The ISPs will not be monitoring traffic. The *IAA will monitor bittorrent and report IPs to the ISPs. Not that this isn't still bad, but at least get your facts straight in the first sentence of the summary. Even TFA got it more or less right:
Under the new program, the industry will monitor "peer-to-peer" software services for evidence of copyrighted files being shared.
Industry, as in the *IAA, not the ISP.
How are they determining if music is legal or not? I get alot from bt.etree.org which is totally legit live music.
Usenet.. the biggest secret since Reddit!
Does this exclude ISP's from DMCA Safe-Harbor?
17 USC 512
(a) Transitory Digital Network Communications.
(2) the transmission, routing, provision of connections, or storage is carried out through an automatic technical process without selection of the material by the service provider
SSL doesn't hide the endpoint of a two-point conversation. So they'll know you went to Pirate Bay or whatever. And they are going after Peer-to-Peer, and I haven't seen a P2P application that uses SSL between peers, and even if it did, that might stop snooping, but wouldn't stop peering. How do you stop the ones that join the swarm, offer up pieces of the movie and download in return, then record anyone who offers them any of the movie?
Learn to love Alaska
Shay-zus, there's no level so low these fucks won't stoop to it, is there?
Check this gem out, from the "How Do Content Owners Know About My Activity?" section:
Riiiight... 'cuz, we all know, ISPs and the MAFIAA are certainly trustworthy entities, who would never misuse people's personal information, or god forbid, lie to support their goals.
Best part: When you mouse-over the phrase "Internet Protocol (IP) address" in the second paragraph, this is what pops up:
A unique set of numbers associated with individual computers connected to the internet
Do they not realize that's a blatant lie? Or do they expect us to not realize it?
My favorite, however, was the "How do I find Movies and Music Legally" link - it takes you to a page with links to...
Wait for it...
RIAA, MPAA, and ISP websites!
Shazam!
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
bothering to pirate stuff from the RIAA anymore? I mean, anyone actually old enough to have a job (and therefore, money)? I don't know anyone that does; the stuff the RIAA poops out is crap, and there's other legal sources for better music now...
So no one's bothering to monitor pirated software, right? Asking for a friend.
!#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
So, if I download a bunch of stuff illegally, I'll only have my internet throttled for 3 days? Time to schedule all of my downloading right before I leave on 3+ day vacations!
.... that the $35 fee is refunded to consumers who pay it, and are not found to have actually committed any copyright infringement.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Isn't this like saying it's ok to put a webcam in my house in case I do something wrong?
Just wondering where this slippery-slope leads... (shrug)
Sent from my ENIAC
At least Mitt, being a Republican, comes right out and let's you know you're gonna get corn-holed, instead of the Democrats who pretend to be your friends as they force you over the barrel.
Minor quibble: Mitt doesn't "come right out" and say a damned thing unless it's what he thinks you want to hear. Just because you already know he's a douchbag doesn't make him more honest...just worse at being deceptive.
They're either the same companies (Time-Warner cable), or they're in cahoots (Verizon with their NFL deals, Comcast with their sports networks).
At a minimum, they ask you to pay for things (HBO comes to mind) that you could, admittedly illegally, torrent. They make more off of your cable subscription than they would for just the raw bits for you to take what you want.
So it should come as no surprise that they're willing to sign up for this.
-S
--- What parts of "shall make no law", "shall not be infringed", and "shall not be violated" don't you understand?
The REAL bullshit is you are guilty until you PAY to prove your innocence and there is ZERO protection or penalty for fraudulent claims, so pretty much anybody can say "infringed" and get you shut down with no penalty on their end or recourse on your end.
And before anybody says "The ISP don't want to lose customers" remember how they are overselling the hell out of their lines while not adding capacity? i have a feeling the ones given strikes won't have a damned thing to do with copyrights, it'll be the ones the ISPs want to toss for actually using what they PAID for. get close to the cap? well you must have infringed because our data says you shouldn't do that. I've already seen similar shit in my area where an ISP claims you have a "virus" and pulls your plug if you use more data than your average grandma. I finally walked in with my Xandros laptop and said "Show me a fucking virus or give me my money back" but there is no telling how many they pulled the same shit in for daring to use YouTube or watch netflix.
BTW you can kiss that "future is the cloud" bullshit buh bye, the ISPs are gonna make the net all but unusable so they can keep all the profits as CEO bonuses instead of laying lines. Capitalism, ain't it grand?
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
money to a corporation to defend myself against allegations they make against me is the day I have the service removed, report my credit card lost, and tear up the last month's bill.
This space available.
Fuck Off
The "three strikes" baseball analogy was supposed to make it EASIER to understand. "Five or six strikes" has passed up strained and become just plain stupid.
serious question..., what happened when you called them out?
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Can someone explain to me how they can charge me to review the legality of my case? I realize they're offering to "give it back" if I win, but that's not relevant. I shouldn't have to pay for judicial oversight. Imagine if you got a speeding ticket and had to pay the court to hear your case where it clocked the car that just blew by you? Even if the court refunded your money if you won the appeal, that's still justice that you have to front money for, and it's wrong
Another good example would be public defenders. Imagine if you had to pay for a public defender, and you'd only get your money back if you were found innocent? You shouldn't have to front money to get access to justice.
I will be very surprised if this doesn't go to court real quick. "Guilty until PAID innocent" isn't going to hold up well in court.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
I'll be going back to IRC and FTP's instead. Also I bet the most pounced upon media will be popular modern crap. The new Beiber song, some stupid comedy. I do not see this affecting more cult classic/ avant garde stuff, which is needed to be downloaded as it is harder to find.
I have a micro instance at Amazon where I download all my content to and then I download it to my PC over IPSEC. It takes 15 minutes to spin up a new instance and a new gmail account.
no politician comes right out and tells you anything unless its what they think you want to hear. Sadly the ones who are straight shooters are laughed out of politics
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Last i heard was if you are terminated from one, they blacklist you and you cant go to another participating isp for 1 year.
A bunch of people insist on a "right" to privacy on the internet that they insist extends to not being monitored for downloading copyrighted material they haven't paid for. Their defense is "we buy more legal downloads than others" and "zomg my privacy is being violated". The wing-nuts then make claims of big brother, snooping, eavesdropping, police state, and privacy violations of all sorts all in an effort to continue to download copyrighted material they haven't paid for.
Actually I see the torrent folk a lot like a shoplifter screaming and protesting and rationalizing after they've been caught; but it's kinda late at that point to complain. It doesn't matter whose stuff you steal. It doesn't matter what else you do in your life. It doesn't matter what you think of the companies involved or what your opinion is about the situation. Stealing is stealing. Grow up.
The sad thing is everyone's rights get diminished because a few people insist on being thieves which results in laws and impositions for everyone. Thank you torrent folk ... your need to steal movies, music and TV episodes was certainly more important than everyone else's rights and conveniences (sarcasm).
Download a file that looks like pirated material but isn't. Maintain the proof. Get the fine. Take ISP to small claims court. Since they're a corporation they have to hire a lawyer and there out a lot of money.
I see XBMC use going way up. Thats what I decided to do anyway.
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
I've already seen similar shit in my area where an ISP claims you have a "virus" and pulls your plug if you use more data than your average grandma.
This is actually a soft warning tactic I've encountered in many corporate and education scenarios. They'll identify folks using a lot of transit, and send them a notice along the lines of "hey, we noticed you're using a lot of bandwidth... Maybe you've got a virus or something?" These notices work particularly well in cases where someone's been found to be downloading gigs of porn on the office computer, etc. The user realizes he's being watched, says "yeah! that must be it! I gotta virus!" and suddenly the behavior stops.
I'm not defending the ISP you mention, just saying this tactic is pretty common. It's their way of asking you to knock it off, without accusing you of anything.
Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
I think a problem here (among a hundred more) is that, are ISPs really going to be seeing if the material being downloaded over P2P networks are really copyrighted materials? Or does this just mean, you get six strikes of P2P traffic? If I use BT to download a Linux distro, or something similiar that is not under copyright, am I going to have to pay the $35 to defend myself? What about WoW patches? Those are distributed via P2P with a HTTP backend, no?
Even going to TPB doesn't prove you downloaded anything illegal. Even TPB has legal stuff all over it.
Not saying that there isn't some other way they can tell, and of course, visiting TPB sure makes a heck of a probable cause to intensify their focus on monitoring you to actually find something illicit.
Those who want to look at my traffic - can go fuck themselves.
Using the added overhead of international wiretap against snooping is mildly amusing anyway, and, in most sane countries, your privacy will be protected.
failure to provide the speed they promoted that got you to go with them.
Except that this, for once, has nothing to do with politics. Nothing to do with the dreaded Obama, or the potentially equally dreaded Romney, nothing in the slightest. It has nothing to do with socialism or fascism (or whatever meaningless term people assign to people who disagree with them). It is purely a deal between two businesses, which is perfectly fine and legal. The government has played no role.
Don't misconstrue this statement as me agreeing with this scheme. Construe this as me being absolutely sick of childish politics.
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
It's just a one line configuration change away. I bet they already created a nice GUI program to do it automagically at a click of an MBA's mouse. Or did you mean why you will still have to pay for the more expensive tier? Well there is that contract. If there isn't one and you don't comply, well they will just ruin your credit anyway and sell your 'debt' to creditors who will harass you for the next seven years.
This is all just a game of poker. You should never call a bluff of the guy that is allowed to use more cards.
When you consider what pushed them to do this, the bottom-feeding thieves who pirate IP, it was inevitable that publishers of such IP had to start taking steps. Most businesses (capitalism) would still prefer a completely open Internet.
I'm just worried, more than ever, about my WiFi getting hacked and then the blame being misplaced. I see a sudden emerging market for SOHO IDS appliances or newer wireless routers that contain basic IDS.
Imagine if you got a speeding ticket and had to pay the court to hear your case where it clocked the car that just blew by you?
[...]
Another good example would be public defenders. Imagine if you had to pay for a public defender, and you'd only get your money back if you were found innocent?
Umm, when was the last time you were in court, win or lose, and DIDN'T have to pay court fees? Especially for a crminal violation like a speeding ticket. I got out of the last ticket I received several years ago, but still had to pay $65 for the priviledge of doing so in the Pulaski County court house. And, last I knew public defenders didn't work for free. They're not free as in beer, they just get paid out of state/federal revenue, i.e., tax money. Trust me, you pay for them.
Can someone explain to me how they can charge me to review the legality of my case?
The "how" of it is pretty simple: they inserted clauses into their subscriber agreements that outline the process for this arbitration arrangement (which is not the same as judicial oversight, incidentally), and we all agreed to it by not cancelling our service and saying good-bye to our internet access. Some bargain, huh?
Arbitration is a corporatist/anti-individual scam, of course; the companies decide which arbiters to hire, and will hire and favour the ones that consistently rule on the side of the business. The only way out of this that I can see -- save for legitimate competition in the American ISP markets (now there's a chuckle!) -- is some kind of governmental or regulatory decision (such as via the FCC) that classes ISPs as common-carriers which could be prohibited from exercising this kind of surveillance over their customers.
"Major internet service providers today will start monitoring the internet traffic to their customers' computers ..."
And the amount of porn viewed zeros out.
Why, without your clothes, you're naked, Miss Dudley!
Can someone explain to me how they can charge me to review the legality of my case? I realize they're offering to "give it back" if I win, but that's not relevant.
Presumably, because you agreed to it in the contract between you and the ISP. You know, the clause that says that they're free to alter the terms of service you're required to obey, at any time -- it's in the contract you didn't read, because nobody ever does.
i have a feeling the ones given strikes won't have a damned thing to do with copyrights, it'll be the ones the ISPs want to toss for actually using what they PAID for.
In the real world, there's a really good overlap there.
I pay nearly 2k a year for Comcast to provide me with TV and Internet - lets see how long it takes them to change their minds when I move my business elsewhere.
I love this. I'm curious to see how long it'll be before some user who gets 6 strikes, actually sues their ISP for penalizing the customer without having signed a contract agreeing to this system. I'm just waiting for it. I'm sure there's other problems about it which customers could sue over, but the fact this is a huge change in service without customer's consent (thus changing the contract between the consumer & service provider), should be tested or addressed in court.
You know most of you are the first ones to defend faceplant and goggle-pus when they make up bogus rules and kick people off for nothing more than not wanting to give up their real name... how is it that the ISPs don't have the same right to toss customers if THEY don't like what you're doing?
Actually in cricket, one out and you're out, so you have to go in. 10 outs and the side is out...
You have two sides, one out in the field and one in.
Each man that's in the side that's in, goes out, and when he's out, he comes in and the next man goes in until he's out.
When they are all out the side that's out comes in and the side that's been in goes out and tries to get those coming in out.
Sometimes you get men still in and not out.
When both sides have been in and out including the not-outs, that's the end of the game.
I'd say the MPAA has been remarkably effective in successfully meeting that challenge over the last decade or so. In 2003, analog cable TV worked flawlessly with standard decoders, and I could secretly violate DMCA in the privacy of my own home, whenever I wanted to watch a DVD. Everything just worked, reliably. Comcast got their monthly payment and various stores, both local and online, got an occasional DVD purchase (and I could be confident that the DVD would play, even if illegally). I waved money in the industry's face and the industry took it, only slightly begrudgingly. (Not as healthy as their attitude ten year before that, but as late as 2003 I'd say that nearly all MPAA members still mostly maintained the appearance of trying to be real for-profit businesses.)
Today, the situation is completely different, with a very predictable and obvious outcome. Cable TV doesn't work with the industry's own standard tuners and TVs (QAM). And even if you successfully played a BluRay disc last week, the one you buy this week might not work, or it'll only work if you subscribe to some key-update service.
They did indeed change my attitude and behavior and view toward copyright infringement, so I'd say "Mission Accomplished." I might be a little dumb and slow, but if you shout "NO!" every time I wave my money in your face, eventually I'll get the message.
I think the next challenge should be to change peoples' attitudes about infringement again (which will be slightly harder but I think may still be possible). To do that, though, we'll have to change the MPAA's attitude about customers and the revenue they bring. This might require that the MPAA companies fire their communist-leaning CEOs and hire some greedy businessmen. I know, I know, Hollywood has long villified greedy businessman, "money is the root of all evil" and all that. It'll be a cultural shift. But please, think of the childen. Think of their games' low ping times due to incorrect QoS setup, combined with all the downloading of movies and TV shows.
What happens to citizens of the EU or US who live in the US, but by International Data Privacy Treaty do NOT have such laws apply to them?
Call off your data cops, ISPs!
Or you'll be in court!
Why would you appeal, just sue them for libel? Yes, you have to go to real court, which cost more, but you could easily get a few million if they loose, not your $35 back???????
Great for them ... and us! Eventually, we all will have lifetime bans on Hollywood crap and be forced to use alternatives that don't punish us for consuming. Let them cut us off, and help us get off the Teet of Big Hollywood. I wonder what would happen when they don't have any more customers, because nobody can get to their product.
Also, I wonder what will happen when Hollywood busts itself for all the piracy that happens inside it?
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Why bother reading it if you know they can change it at any time?
That's why using hacked connections is preferable and much more widespread than can be dealt with. As if they can deal with a bunch of P2P users in the first place.
At some point the providers will realize they are expending resources and since it is a business, a major corporate business, the RIAA will get to pay for monitoring.
Of course, right now the ISPs are "cooperating" , but a few lawyers and courtrooms away the picture changes to forced labor and RIAA piracy of corporate resources for free. Nothing is free in this world. P2P users pay for computers, storage media and internet. Musicians pay the RIAA with their lives and works and receive nothing but hollow promises and loopholes in return. Downloading music is a morally righteous way to eliminate the slave industry. It is a revolutionary concept that the world can sculpt the world they want by revolting from their network connection. Governments, industries, corporations all the way down to individuals are malleable via the internet. WE RUN THE WORLD no matter what those in assumed authority tell themselves to sleep better at night.
Handy tip, only share zipped files and d/l entire collections in zipped files. Don't share mp3s or movie files. Zip it up. Maybe it won't help all that much, but it couldn't hurt.
as long as I don't do anything wrong.
Gotcha.
Oh yeah. that reminds me. That guy down the street with the telescope and the parabolic dish-mounted microphones aimed into my windows with the 24x7 recorder, is that ok? Or should I question that?
Sent from my ENIAC
Usenet is much older than Reddit.
"The ISP must not have actual knowledge that it is hosting infringing material or be aware of facts or circumstances from which infringing activity is apparent."
Since they are actively watching their network and are aware of what is going on, does that not exempt them from the Safe Harbor and therefore subject to prosecution?
Think on that...
Can we have the litigation back rather than inspecting everyone's traffic?
Small claims court in Ontario works that way. The person filing has to pay $75 for proceed with legal action and the defendant has to fill a form which he has to pay $40 to submit his defence.
Approximately two years ago, Charter gave me a warning on a "first strike" when someone allegedly downloaded a single episode of an awful cooking show.
It came via a card in the mail, with a confirmation number to be entered on a website. When entered, a warning and accusation from Universal studios was delivered, citing said cooking show.
A week or so later we received a repeat warning in the mail. I ignored it.
What offended me more was the suggestion anyone in our house would ever watch that show.
Unless you are referring to wardriving there are typically only a limited number of suckers using WEP or really obvious WPA/WPA2 passwords nearby. When all of those sources have been banned from all of the local ISPs you are back to square one.
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
It is because this is not a court of law, and in this legal world you have to prove yourself innocent, rather then the copyright holder prove that you are guilty.
I've been meaning to download some stuff and haven't gotten around to it. Sounds like today would be a good day for it. I'd love to see what Verizon would do when 50% of their customers get first strikes on the first day. It's the first shot across the bow, but whose bow? When they ban me I'm going to make sure I still owe them at least a couple of hundred bucks. Let them pay doubly for their treachery. Let them feel the cold steel of my cutlass. Let's have at them! Let's make 'em walk the plank and see how they like the chilly shark infested waters of bankruptcy.
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
If you DON'T appeal and just change providers, it's free.
Vote with your wallets.
Remember WHO is doing this to you and don't BUY any more CRAP from them. (Don't know why anybody DID buy their CRAP in the first place, but that's a different conversation...)
Screw the RIAA and now the ISPs too.
When they stop making money, they'll get rid of all these bullshit policies.
There are a couple of problems with what they are doing here.
#1 Illegal wire tap:
I use my internet connection for both telephone and mail. That being the case deep packet inspection is both opening my mail and tapping my phone line. There are many federal laws broken here.
#2 Disclosure of CPNI:
There are FCC regulations and mandates about sharing customer proprietary network information without consent. Your ISP needs your consent to share network usage data with a 3rd party. I have received no communication or notice from my ISP.
Here is the form you can use to file an FCC privacy complaint:
https://esupport.fcc.gov/ccmsforms/form2000.action?form_type=2000B
If we get a large number of people making formal complaints against their ISPs for breech of privacy the FCC will be at the very least annoyed. They might even do something about it if we are lucky. This can be used as the groundwork for the upcoming court battles I envision.
At least the ones that lie know that they're wrong. The ones being "honest" don't even realize how wrong they are.
Imagine if you got a speeding ticket and had to pay the court to hear your case where it clocked the car that just blew by you?
You've never challenged a speeding ticket, have you?
Even if the court refunded your money if you won the appeal
...and no, you don't get your court fees back.
You don't need proof for these warnings. Like everything else, they steer you towards some form of contract that you won't do it, then get you for a contract violation later, much easier to prosecute.
Learn to love Alaska
"The government has played no role."
Exactly.
lets not care if the people who voted for us are upset by this.
Lets not look if any laws are possibly being violated - not to mention peoples privacy - and some sort of due process..
Lets not care it large corporations have the say on guilt or innocence of the people.
Because...
"The government has played no role."
So 6 strikes and it's over? Works better than 6-strikes and you are out. 12 strikes and you bowled a 300.
Learn to love Alaska
Correct me if I am wrong, but I've got an AWS micro instance for free that I am running OpenVPN on. In this case who gets flagged... me or Amazon ???
If the government did do something, people would complain. If it does nothing, people complain.
This is actually a bit better than blackmail lawsuits, at least. Its a shitty solution to a problem without any good solutions. How would you address online copyright infringement in a way that doesn't screw the people, or screw the rights holders?
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
The RIAA, and corporations generally, are the motherfucking government now.
It's not like anyone alive since 1980 couldn't have predicted all this was gonna happen. It's their world, and we just get to live in it as long as we let them have whatever they want.
In other news today, a Montana lawmaker has proposed a bill which would give corporations the right to vote, and the US Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision (guess who the 5 are*), has stated that no, US citizens do not have "standing" to challenge the US government's FISA domestic "dragnet" spying law.
[In case you've been asleep for the past decade, the 5 SCOTUS votes claiming that American citizens don't have the standing to bring a legal challenge against a law which allows warrantless domestic spying against American citizens, were Antonin "Fuck You" Scalia, Clarence "Suck My Black Dick" Thomas, Samuel "Kiss My Ass You Hippies" Alito, John "I Got Your Constitutional Rights Hanging Right Here" Roberts and some other guy in a black dress that should have died years ago.]
You are welcome on my lawn.
http://bearsharkaxe.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/you-dont-say.jpg
Oh to be gullable again and believe in Capitalism fixing it.
See subject line, FTFY.
With all the nzb indexers being taken down every day, even that is being hit and becoming a bit of a pain to use.
First strike: Nasty email
Second strike: nasty email requiring acknowledgement or call
Third and fourth strikes: redirect to boring video
Fifth and Sixth strikes: temporary throttling and/or another boring video.
Seventh and subsequent strikes: Absolutely nothing.
If I didn't have a business class connection (which I think is not subject to Six Strikes) I'd be tempted to start downloading all sorts of apparently-pirated material just to get through with the costly strikes.
Because there is absolutely nothing wrong or messed up with the Ontario Government!!!
But at least in this case the accuser has to pay too, and more.
I wonder what they'll do when they kick 80 percent of their customers off?
At least Mitt, being a Republican, comes right out and let's you know you're gonna get corn-holed, instead of the Democrats who pretend to be your friends as they force you over the barrel.
This is an excellent and highly accurate summarization of the difference between the Republican and Democrat parties.
This has nothing to do with copyrights. This is about control, domination, and another method of transfer of wealth. How many parents are going to have to shell out these extortion fees to private companies, without being charged or convicted by a court? You want Internet? Pay up... You quote a news article, copyright violation. You repost a picture, copyright violation. Sooner or later you'll be paying fines every month to keep the Internet on. All that "stuff" you've put on the Internet, guess what...you no longer have access to it. Want it back? Pay up or live in a public library.
I wonder how long before there'll be well organized 'underground railway' of hard drives with everything one might be interested in? History repeats itself, doesn't it?
I do not consent to my traffic being sniffed/monitored. It is tantamount to eavesdropping/wiretapping.
"Imagine if you had to pay for a public defender, and you'd only get your money back if you were found innocent". Actually, it's sort of like this. If you are found guilty, you will be charged for the services of your public defender as part of a probationary fine .
Why would you pay $35 to defend yourself on the off chance you got caught when you can pay just $40 / year for an encrypted anonymous VPN?
Not that I'm a dirty pirate or anything.
There is a war going on for your mind.
I've downloaded a terabyte a week for the past year or so. No trouble here. All legitimate traffic on consumer class internet.
Your entertainment lobby got 6 strikes for you, whereas it pushed 3 strikes in most of the world. I am not sure why they did this gift to you, but I guess you should feel lucky
So why not demand the gatekeepers add your material to their system and then sue when they do not?
Even if they find that someone who has filed an appeal hasn't transferred any copyrighted stuff, I bet people won't get their $35 back most of the time. It will happen the same way as mail-in rebates or perhaps other forms of corporate refund.
Maybe they will require $35 to refute each individual instance of supposed infringement and then only give you a refund as a credit on your bill, meaning that you will have to remain a (probably now throttled and therefore highly profitable) customer for a long time to get your multi-$35 fees back. Switch ISPs? Sorry, no refund. All the while of course, they will be getting interest on your fee money, while you won't be. You might even be paying interest on it if you had to borrow it.
Maybe the appeal phone number will be staffed from 9AM-3PM Bangalore time by a single elderly, asthmatic Indian woman with severe hearing loss.
$35 is about the same amount that banks charge for late fees on CCs, presumably because it is about the maximum they can charge before people start spending lots of both parties' time trying to get the money back.
This is all stuff sociopathic corporations have pulled before. As far as I know, it still isn't illegal. Nobody should give them a single sent in refutation fees.
I'm sure the MPAA/RIAA companies and the ISPs who also plug their own "on demand" services just love this. If you get throttled, not only can you not use the bandwidth you paid for, you can't realistically use any legit streaming services like Netflix or even watch YouTube either.
It just occurred to me that this might not even just be about torrents. Maybe they will throttle anyone that, say, watches a YouTube video that contains some copyrighted music in the background. Sure, they are robo-spamming Google with DMCA takedown notices about the video too. Or maybe they will stop that, since they haven't had a whole lot of success with stemming the flow of free content that way. It would be easier for them to just throttle essentially everyone who streams any content at all, thereby basically turning the internet off for their captive customers as a content distribution system.
Maybe this is just a prelude to new MPAA/RIAA sanctioned streaming services via the "on demand" ISPs. "Want to watch what you want when you want without being throttled for stealing movies? Join Cramcastic for only $49.99 / month and get as much guaranteed genuine content as you want! (fine print)(Up to your monthly cap.)(/fine print)"
Whoever thought shit like SOPA/CISPA/PIPA wouldn't come through... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.... HA... HA.
I find it funny beyond measure. If shit doesn't work out for the politicians/governments they cut it into smaller chunks not noticeable and start pushing it into society without you noticing it and ones it's in there it'll stay for good... then comes the next chunk, and the next, and the next and by the time you know it you'll be like the black folks from the hey-day saying "No sir" and "Thank you sir" and if you think you'll have freedom and a voice after that, well you will, only 6 feet under.
You are quite happy that all your troubles are just copyright infringement. In Russia, there is a list of prohibited information with more than 1000 items (1677 for now), and everybody that shares anything is obliged to check his files against this list under penalty of being extremist. Libraries are obliged to check their books and physically destroy everything prohibited (In Soviet Russia they were obliged only to HIDE them to so-called spetskhran). The popular method the anti-extremist service gets promotion is to request some rare book from a bookseller, then sue him for his efforts. It happens every day, sometimes 2-3 times a day when somebody is sued for sharing a prohibited file.
The only good side is that when the list is updated all Russia rushes to read new prohibited files.
Once upon a time, there was a family of skunks. The babies were named "In" and "Out". Usually when In was In, Out was Out. If Out was In, In was Out. One day, when In was out and Out was In, the momma skunk said, "Out, go find In and bring him here." In a matter of minutes, Out returned, herding In before him. Momma said, "Out, how did you find your brother so fast?" Out said, "Instinct."
Works something like this:
1) ISP Customer receives Strike 1 ...
2) ISP receives Strike 1
3)
4) ISP Customer receives Strike 5
5) ISP is "let go" and customer find other supplier of said Internet.
Any request from ISP for a review would entail a charge of not more than 6 months ISP service contract, refundable only if ISP can prove that they did not provide customer with a Strike.
When all is said and done, nothing changes...
This seems like the ISPs and copyright holders are setting themselves up for slander lawsuits. If my child or relatives come and visit and use my Internet connection and see some warning that I pirated stuff, the two parties have just falsely damaged my reputation while NEITHER party has the grounds to do so. The ISP would be accusing me with no evidence of my guilt save for supposed evidence provided by the copyright holder, while the copyright holder's evidence consists of nothing more than my ip addresses supposed participation in a swarm for a torrent whose name they don't like, and where the evidence is trivial to doctor, and those providing the evidence are under no obligation or oath to act truthfully.
Get ready to bust a fucking gut, they called their "tech" and the dumb fucker tried to install Norton AV for Windows onto my Linux laptop! No shit, I swear to God, the retard was trying to install Windows AV onto a Linux system. I finally got tired of their shit and told them they could hand me my money INCLUDING the installation fee or I would be seeing their asses in court, i got handed the cash and walked out.
But thanks to the cable/DSL duopoly here (which hasn't run a single foot of cable or fixed shit in over a decade, even though its a college town and more than a third bigger now than it was a decade ago) that WISP is still in business, still fucking folks I'm sure, because the duopoly won't run any lines which leaves them the only game in town if you don't live in a cherry picked area. My nephew ended up taking a one room apt in my building just so he could get away from them, THAT is how bad the service is. The guy was willing to pay $300 a month for a one room apt just to get the fuck away from the WISP because both the cable and DSL have made it clear they ain't running another foot. In fact AT&T (the DSL here and the ONLY DSL here) has made it clear if 3Mbps isn't fast enough? Tough shit, they ain't spending a dime and in fact the rumors are AT&T are gonna bail on landlines for their overpriced wireless data plans. If that happens less than a third of the town will have any high speed at all other than the WISP so they'll be able to do what they want. Capitalism, ain't it grand?
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
In a flash, a loud, doppler shifted turbine whine is detected passing rapidly overhead.
Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
Nice thought...except all I was doing was watching YouTube, and not even in HD. And remember I was paying nearly a c-note a month for my "supposed" 50Gb a month cap, yet I'm supposedly using so much bandwidth they have to give me shit...for watching videos in 240p?
Bullshit, the ISPs only want grandma checking her email but can't say "We only want old white people" so they have to come up with bullshit excuses to discriminate. You watch the first ones to get 6 strikes will NOT be the pirates, in fact most of the pirates i know are still watching DVD rips at less than 2GB per, nope it'll be those using netflix, buying games from Steam, using OnLive or any other LEGIT service that might actually allow them to use the net they paid for.
Now compare that to my cableco (I moved just to get away from the WISP, yes they sucked THAT hard) who when I used nearly double my usual bandwidth during the big Steam Xmas sale just said "Oh FYI we charged an extra $10 this month because you went waaaay over" and that was that. No bitching, no trying to shut me down, just an extra $10 and have a nice day. Now THAT is how it should be legally, not this horseshit that lets them cherry pick the customers.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Bullshit and corporate lies. Ever seen how much a triple A game takes up? I bought Borderlands with all the DLC for $7 on the Steam Xmas sale, size? 37GB. In fact just my games from the Xmas sale clocked in at over 100GB and I would point out that many caps are being sized DOWN and not up, so its REALLY not hard to use more than the cap. How about Netflix? Ever see what an HD movie streamed takes up? YouTube? OnLive? All of these are LEGITIMATE services that have ZERO infringement yet will cause you to go through bandwidth like shit through a goose.
so don't give me that "Its only the pirates using bandwidth" bullshit because I know better, many legit services use plenty too, or have you forgotten the "push to the cloud" that all the software companies have been making? They can kiss that shit goodbye, most will end up having to buy discs rather than get a strike for using what they paid for.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
The ISP's and the copyright holders are setting themselves up for slander and libel lawsuits. If they accuse me, and its false, they've slandered me. They may think that their notice to me is private, but what if I have a friend or family member over at my house, surfing the internet, and they try to go to a web site but instead up pops a page accusing me of pirating and copyright infringement? Now other people know they've accused me and they've harmed my reputation among those closest to me.
The only "evidence" that the copyright holder has is that they identified a torrent that they don't like (apparently with no evidence necessary that the torrent actually contains something they own the copyright for), and then claim my IP address was part of the swarm for this torrent. Only there's no real evidence of this. Its easy to take a log file and edit it and change the IP addresses. And its not like the people gathering this data for the copyright holders are in any way obligated to due so faithfully - its not like their sworn to tell the truth, to uphold the law, or anything of the sort (and, really, even if they were...) In any real trial in court, this would be torn to shreds if for no other reason that chain of custody issues alone, and for the simple fact that any "evidence" is trivial to tamper with.
So this hardly represents the copyright holders having a good faith belief to accuse anyone of anything.
And then we come to the ISP, who has even less basis to have a good-faith belief that I've done anything wrong. The ISP is not gathering its own evidence, it is relying entirely on the word of the copyright holder, which in legal terms is hearsay, and is even worse when the party they hear it from has no real evidence.
Understanding is a three edged sword. - Ambassador Kosh Naranek, Babylon 5
Jack the price on the 20% and live like fat rats? Hell why do you think with millions in the USA not being served very few if any ISPs are laying lines? Because they can make more by gouging than adding customers. I should know because my mom was a block away from the cable when she built her house 30 years ago....know how far she is from it now? a block, even though there are nearly 50 homes on that 1 mile stretch the cableco won't run a single foot. In fact talking to a lineman he says he can't even remember the last time they had him lay any lines anywhere, even though this city is a third bigger than when he started, because they just jack the price and rake in the cash.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
the petitions will likely disappear afer an armed SWAT team invades your home and assaults you.
"Can someone explain to me how they can charge me to review the legality of my case?"
I hope this leads to people not using the internet and going back to being real life social creatures like we're supposed to be, Having the internet has definitely made me more of a stay at home person and I find myself needing more real social interaction! I miss the old days when I used to go out with family and friends on a regular basis but instead I have a constant source of un-gratifying entertainment at the computer when I get home each day. Personal computers were awesome, I loved the Commodore 64 days and the early DOS and Windows 3.1 days but ever since the internet became a blood vein in my life and I realized it, it's a fucking curse.
I get lazy and rather go home and youtube or fuck around with games on the computer most times after work, when I used to have to call friends up just to talk to them for hours or go out and find real things to do even if it's Putt Putt Golf or something stupid that we all had a blast doing. Now everyone goes and facebooks their pseudo friends and hangs with very few people. (I don't speak for everyone, I know, but this has to be common for a lot of you, right?)
Captcha: torture
Obama Admin Backing New Six Strikes ISP Policy: The Obama Administration is reportedly behind a new "six strikes" policy conjured up by five major American ISPs.
"MIT betrayed all of its basic principles."
TLS is used on nearly every port. I would recommend you stop talking about SSL and start realizing that TLS has replaced SSL, and on nearly every port except HTTP/80 it is used (ala STARTTLS). even SMTP and NNTP are using TLS these days.
We're talking about $35, Vork.
Back in 2004 when I worked at Time Warner Cable of Austin, TX, we would often get customers calling in that their browser was being redirected to www.rrsecurity-abuse.com. As a TSR agent, my job was to ask a few questions and report to them our in-house ticket notes as to the 'why' of their account being blocked. In any case, I would fill out an unblock request which then gets approved by management and thus sent on to our "security dept". I like to call this the Wizard of OZ office. Because no one ever talks to the wizard. I sure as hell don't. And the consumer can't call them either.
If I had to guess, the security department was conducting a behavior analysis based an the amount of traffic used and over which ports. Even modern firewalls that scan all traffic for virus is still CPU intensive and limited to whatever your budget is at. It get's quite expensive as you scale up in operations and the technology because obsolete rather quickly. I doubt many ISPs are investing in that kind of hardware.
Life is not for the lazy.
Since this agreement transcends corporations, can a class action suite be filed when not if abuse of citizens legally using paid for services is exposed in this cabal?
Who is liable?
Sad that you didn't know about Trial by Written Declaration.
Actually this is exactly what they do in Monterey, Calfornia.
Pressure is pressure. Help bring some to bear:
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/
-----
This week the major cable companies are starting to implement a technology known as the Copyright Alert System - a technology that creates a dangerous precedent for the internet and our freedoms online. Private companies shouldn't have the power to monitor my data and restrict my activities online. In fact, nobody should. In a time where internet access is more akin to a public utility than a luxury item, something must be done to protect access for everyone.
I urge you to reaffirm your commitments to privacy and unfettered speech that underlined the wholesale rejection of the SOPA bill last year by speaking out against the Copyright Alert System.
"Reportedly" doesn't really mean that much. From your link:
The agreement between the five ISPs is supposedly the work of "several powerful players" led by the Obama administration including New York Governor Andrew Cuomo (D). The White House reportedly is also heavily leveraging the threat of legislation to coerce the ISPs into sticking to the policing scheme.
Which is pretty vague. Following that leads to a site which doesn't really appear very credible, and also doesn't provide any actually corroboration of its premise.
I'm not saying that it isn't true. It very well might be. But I'm going to remain skeptical until there is actual, substantive, proof. Just because something fits with my belief system doesn't make it true. Just because I want something to be true, doesn't make it so.
That said, I still find this scheme to be boneheaded. But... I really can't think of anything else. Both the sharers, and the copyright holders are in the wrong here. What the hell is the solution, that is fair to both parties (i.e. makes both equally miserable)?
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
OK - so if you in the US have to force your "3 strikes" baseball metaphors on the rest of the world it's only fair that we make you call this one "6 balls and it's over" using a similar cricket metaphor - despite the, um, unfortunate cultural double meaning of the expression in the US
When they started something similar to this in Sweden lots of people started useing VPN's to connect to the Internet (when doing P2P downloads). One of the biggest VPN providers are run by "The Piratebay". Now they get REAL money from having a pirate site, not just a few ad-dollars but 10EUR/month from every subscriber. Smart move from the anti-pirate guys, give the pirates an actual revenue stream from providing torrent sites!
Just start a competing ISP. A nice place to sell would be right next to the douche ISP. "Got cut out? Come to us!"
IPsec transport mode is sufficient. Just do the proper security association with IKEv2.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
Most of the content that I download is firmly in the legal realm, with a smidgeon of not-licensed-in-your-country television from Europe and Asia. I'm not honestly too concerned about running afoul of this outside of false positives, but I also don't want to take any chances either. Shame I don't have the option of switching to a different ISP.
So, any recommendations for good VPNs that are reasonably priced and don't keep logs?
Don't forget that baseball has 3 strikes. A strike is when you don't hit the ball.
-- Braden's law of data: All data spends some of its lifetime in an excel spreadsheet.
Why do you guys even bother with the clearnet? The little bit of speed you git has never been worth the potentially life crushing financial risk of a lawsuit.
Simply put... Use I2P, Tor, Phantom... and send a giant flying fuck you to the mafia once and for all.
what happens if I post one of my photos on t'net, you copy it and display it on your site, I claim copyright infringement (but I don't sue or anything because I don't care) - you get a strike, we repeat this with 5 other people, you get stuck out. Now you've got / we've all got 6 strikes but no one cares, what then?
sag
This is why they lost their empire.
Took the words right out of my mouth. This is why I hate redlight cameras. I got two tickets right now, and you can go in and review the videos, see I came to a complete stop, waited, and then made a right hand turn on red, which is perfectly legal. Now I have the choice of 1) paying the $75 a ticket 2) Paying $60 in court fees and missing a day of work to try to fight it (actually, that is two days - the first day you go in and plead guilty or not guilty, and if its not guilty then you are assigned a court date) or 3) chance them blocking my registration.
I've considered taking them to court to fight the legality of the red-light cameras, because in my state, the law clearly state that a witnissing officer has to be present to issue a ticket (an officer reviewing camera footage is NOT a physical presence), but I am sure a local judge on the city's payroll would probably just dismiss the case, and I would still have the court fees.
So what are you going to do? Pay the tickets, then start a petition to have those city council members voted out of their seats next election term. Because that is really the most you can do.
Oh, how about this - let's go something more serious. I have a friend who was thrown in prision, because someone who had a grudge against him accused him of abusing his kids. Trial was scheduled for a few months down the road, where he was found innocent, but during that time, he lost custady of his kids, was forced to attend parenting classes, and had to pay a $20,000 bail to get out of prision. He had to pay a lawyer to fight for him. Do you think he got any of tha tmoney back? What about psycological damages? Loss of income while he was in jail? Jail time on his background check? He is trying to get it removed from his record as he is wanting to go to the police academy.
The American justice system is broken, its a mockery, and should be completely overhauled. It only benefits those who have money - anyone who doesn't had better hope they never get accused of anything.
I'm sure there are plenty out there trying to force a false positive right now.
Hi. I've got three trials running right now:
One is downloading off The Pirate Bay's top 100 list, and then dumping the torrents on a scratch disk. No encryption, all in the clear.
The second is doing the same thing, but all encryption options are enabled, and torrents/DHT are pulled through Tor, so only the (encrypted) bittorrent traffic is being relayed through.
The third is to previously-uploaded torrents that have the naming convention of the same top-100s, and the same apparent contents (file sizes, etc., ) but are public domain video.
why the F are you using TOR to p2p. This is not what TOR is meant to be used for and youre slowing down the network. Usenet has been around since the 80s and is designed just for this.
Stop sucking.
Once a day, download a Linux Live CD via BitTorrent. Leave it on to seed. Share your results.
"CCI’s content partners – companies that own and develop music, movies and TV shows – join peer-to-peer networks and locate the music, movies or TV shows they have created and own. Once they see a title being made available on the peer-to-peer network, they confirm that it is, in fact, copyrighted content.
After confirming that a file appears to have been shared illegally, content owners identify the Internet Protocol (IP) address used by the computer making the file available. Each IP address belongs to an Internet Service Provider (ISP), so content owners notify the ISP to which the address is assigned and the ISP then passes a Copyright Alert on to its customer."
1) Create a perfectly legal download of free material about the size of the average pirate movie.
2) Name the file after a newly released, highly popular movie that younger audiences would want to download
3) Encrypt the file with a password, making verifiction of the content by **AA unlikely and they will flag it anyway
4) Have all of your friends download it and seed it back up
5) Get your infringement alert and file your $35 which you can easily win back with the proof that it is a legal file
6) Grab popcorn and watch their system get clogged up
Warning: Teh poster of this messaeg is lysdexic
Last year I didn't have PeerBlock running (this helps, right?) and I got shut down. The kid that I spoke to from my ISP said that it was for the UPLOADS, not the downloads. Been running PB and limited my upload speed and no issues yet.
Let's see: the US government pushed hard for the rest of the world to adopt a three strike regime, while US Citizens enjoy six strikes. Are some people more equal than others, as in: are citizens of the "Holy IP Empire" more privileged than the "barbarians" at its periphery? (Roman Empire analogy)
cpghost at Cordula's Web.
the last time my traffic violation (yes, for speeding) was dismissed, of course.
I walked out of the courtroom without paying a dime.
and we all pay our ISPs like we pay our taxes.
And they are already slowing my Internet.
Cricket 'strikes' is a terrible analogy to use in this case. Cricket differs from Baseball in that you can face many, many balls before you are out.
You are only out if one of these things happens:
1. The bowler ('pitcher' in BB) hits the stumps behind the batsman, this is called being 'bowled out'
2. The ball is caught directly from the batsman's strike ('caught out')
3. The fielders manage to hit the stumps with the ball before the batsman has finished his run ('run out')
4. The batsman blocks a ball that would have hit the stumps with his body instead of his bat (this is called LBW, Leg Before Wicket)
These are the most common ways to be out, there are other ways to be out, but to get back on topic: to compare the six strikes system to Cricket would seem to suggest that you are not 'out' until they have proved your guilt.
They're politicians, all of them competing in a gated community where only the elite's chosen few are even allowed on the playing field in the first place.
You cannot be a politician without selling your soul to the corporate sector.
You just need to pick an NZB indexer that is outside the US. Or bite the bullet, setup a few beefy hosts, and run your own.
VPN your stuff, run DNScrypt and HTTPS everywhere, and use seedboxes and SFTP.
Who the hell are they kidding?
Anybody that really believes they set all this up as a simple way of educating people is in idiot. No repercussions now, but that's only because they want everybody to just accept it and get use to it, because nobody would except the draconian crap if they added the penalties in now. That will come later, you mark my words.
This is simply another step for the New World Order to convert our beautiful country of freedom into a Fascist police state. Hopefully, somebody will take action to put an end to this crap.
Oh to be gullable again and believe that Government can fix everything!
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Absolutely nothing by the ISP. Did you protest to the ISP in writing that you were doing nothing illegal and there must be some mistake? If not, it is a tacit admission of guilt. Good luck if the *AA take you to court for copyright infringement.
But then who's on second?
I suspect this post was intended to be funny, but got modded "Informative".
That makes it even funnier.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
While corporate dystopias make good fodder for sci-fi movies and anime, almost all great evil is at the hands of government.
It's disturbing that government growth has adopted the meme that it is the solution, and that corporations are a historical-scale super-evil, them having, when you put away the memetic blather and get out the yardstick, brought more good to humanity than anything else save freedom itself, of which they are a subset.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
First step in the regulation of the internet.
At this time, the Government is controlled by the Corporations.
This is where you lack connection in your fervor of railing against "big government", which by the way is made small by Corporate actions.
First off the "Problem" as you put it - is blown waay out of proportion. (Good to see your buying into the propaganda though)
I have not seen any big media file for bankruptcy lately.
Thees days, all I have to do is fart in tune - record it - copyright it, and suddenly I am a member of this holier-than-thou elitist group of people that has power over the masses because I have a talented anus.
The people come first - the moms and pops and joe the plumbers - you don't treat people like criminals because they might be.And don't threaten people -after all that's what this is.
Don't buy into the hype.
If IP holders are so afraid of copying, than don't publish.
As you can see I have little regard for all this copyright bullshit - especially after seeing how the industry behaves like a bunch of rabid crack addicted babies with checks written to our congress critters. They can stick their shit where the sun don't shine.
The longer we allow this to continue the worse it will become. Until we are the little drones they want us to be, and the internet becomes another form of TV.(just for consumption)
"They assimilate entire worlds and we fall back. Not again. The line must be drawn here! This far, no further!"
Capt. Picard
[oops! was that copyrighted?]
(Good to see your buying into the propaganda though)
Did I? I said I don't like the RIAA, or their practices several times. I've even said it more than once in this very topic. They over-reach, and they have truly immoral, and unethical, business practices. I hate the fact that they have insinuated themselves into our government, and have forced some very ugly laws on us. Further, I agree, the problem is overblown, and often the actions they take to "fix' it bites off their own nose to spite their faces.
This propaganda that I've bought is some pretty self-defeating stuff, it seems. They should fire someone.
That said; yes the problem is blown out of proportion. This doesn't mean there isn't one, though. Also, the **AAs being borderline evil doesn't excuse the actions of lazy, entitled, pirates who would rather freely download than buy content. Two wrongs don't make a right. As my views have evolved; in college I thought piracy was my god-given right, and there wasn't even a slight ethical consideration to my actions, but now it has shrunk a fair bit. You don't have the right to media. There is no reason you would, just because it is available, doesn't make it an ethical thing. Media is completely optional, you don't need it to survive, it doesn't matter in the slightest, so why should you be obligated to get it for free, ignoring the costs required to actually produce it? If you "need" it, to the point of throwing out ethics or morality, you have deeper problems, and probably need some perspective.
That said, I do have a list of circumstances where I have no problem with piracy (and take issue with the government and **AAs having one). Sampling is one, even if it would prevent a sale with full experience of the product. Format or time switching is another. Copying things that were produced outside of what I consider a fair time span are okay (around 30 years, sounds good). Pirating things where the original creator gets nothing from my money, from either death or corporate wrangling, is fine. Pirating things that are no longer available for legitimate sale, is also fine.
All of these are criminal, and I think that that is wrong.
Thees days, all I have to do is fart in tune - record it - copyright it, and suddenly I am a member of this holier-than-thou elitist group of people that has power over the masses because I have a talented anus.
I'm guessing you don't do anything creative, then. Creativity takes work, money, and tons of time. Yes, you can fart in tune, but no one cares, no one wants it. If anyone can do it, by the way, then it isn't elitist. Its the opposite. I'm just an average joe, with a creative hobby (photography), and I'm sitting on a large pool of copyrights. I can monetize them if I wanted to, I can claim my rights. Perhaps I will someday. Then I guess I magically become the bad guy, because I don't want to give away something that took skills that took years to hone, took a very large investment of my money (no creative pursuit is cheap, or easy), and took a very pretty significant amount of effort to produce. Have you actually looked into the investment behind most forms of art?
Yes, we shouldn't sacrifice our rights to protect these people. But neither should we throw them under the bus. Oddly, creators are also considered "the people". We shouldn't throw artists under the bus to support a bunch of self-entitled, unethical, freeloaders, either.
Until we are the little drones they want us to be, and the internet becomes another form of TV.(just for consumption)
I really doubt this will happen. And any moves towards it should be fought. But if, in the end, it happens, I don't care. I can live without their content, I don't need it. I don't have the right to have it for free, but they also don't have the right to my money. The day the internet dies, is the day I spend all my recreational money at pubs, museums, and local
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
Me! and my girlfriend!
We've both contested multiple tickets via mail and won. Doesn't cost a dime.
-
We are talking $35 EACH TIME, and there is ZERO penalty for filing PLUS it costs YOU the time it takes to go in and fight it. We've seen this same bullshit with red light cameras that will often ding you for turning right on a red (perfectly legal) but it'll cost you MORE to fight it than it will to pay.
And since there is ZERO penalty and from what I've seen no real qualifier on what is an "IP Holder' how can you NOT see how this will be abused? Think about an activist, sounds like an easy way to get them STFU, just keep hitting them with infringement so they either spend all their time in arbitration or lose their net. After all it costs the one filing this NOTHING, zero penalty for filing fraudulent claims! hell even the shittiest backwater courts have fines for filing fraudulent claims, but this has NO PENALTY at all!
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Depends on your state and county, but the government often does worse than that. Where I live, if you get a speeding ticket you have the option of either fighting your ticket or going to traffic school. Traffic school is cheaper and doesn't put any points on your license, and at the same time it avoids letting your insurance company know so your rates don't go up.
If you fight the ticket though, you lose the option of going to traffic school even if you lose in court, and the judge can even order you to go to traffic school anyways and therefore also shoulder that cost on top of your ticket.
I don't think you'll get much sympathy from the courts over this issue given their currently existing practices, which the courts themselves want. Traffic tickets are civil issues, by the way. There is no "you vs the prosecution", as in the prosecution has to make its case to the court and you defend it. Instead, it's more or less you've been accused and so you're guilty until you prove yourself innocent.
In the case of this six strikes law, the punishment isn't all that bad. You just click a checkbox in a browser saying you won't do it again six times, and then it stops after that even if you keep on infringing. Maybe you'll get throttled a bit, but that stops after a while.
Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
the ISP here (mediacrap) has a "three strikes" rule. EVERY time they get an infringement letter they shut off your internet until you contact them, starting with the first accusation. They'll turn it back on again after you call them. They also mail you a letter, but unless you were out of town when they pulled the plug, you're likely to have already called and talked with them by the time you get the letter.
After the 2nd one, you have to return the letter signed to acknowledge you got it. After the 3rd notice, they take your service down for a week. There's no throttling involved at any point, just an itchy trigger finger on the kill switch.
The last notice I got from them was for torrenting an anime episode of a series that wasn't available for sale in the US at any price. I'd left it seeding and I think the day it got licensed I got tagged.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
It is not within the legal authority of the government to delegate to private agents things the government may not do on its own account. If it was within the authority of the government to do this, any right could be violated merely by delegating the violating action to a private organization (proof by contradiction).
As such private companies may not engage in this form of electronic search and surveillance, any more than the government may, without probable cause and a warrant, as they are effectively acting as an arm of the government (whether or not their actions have been specifically approved by the government or not is irrelevant to this conclusion: the mere existence of copyright law is sufficient to create a presumption that the private companies are acting on behalf of the government).
Fundamental human rights do not mysteriously vanish merely because private or quasi-private property is involved: any limitation of such rights, whether by government or private entities, is necessarily subject to extremely strict scrutiny. A parent would have the authority to do this kind of thing with respect to their children in their home, but that is as far as it goes.
The Bill of Rights was written to be an open ended document, by providing for the assertion of rights as needed under the 9th Amendment (rights retained by the people) and the 10th Amendment (rights reserved to the people).
This system is a clear violation of a number of rights that can be asserted under these Amendments.
Any legal professionals involved in the creation or enforcement of this system, or permitting their employers to participate in this system, are in violation of their oaths to uphold the Bill of Rights, which immediately and permanently disqualifies them from holding any position of public trust or responsibility, or from engaging in the practice of law. These legal professionals are also individually and personally liable to provide compensation for any time wasted of persons subject to this system.
Umm, when was the last time you were in court, win or lose, and DIDN'T have to pay court fees?
This seems likely to depend upon the policies in a particular jurisdiction, and possibly even upon the details of the case. Certainly I didn't have to pay anything the last time I was in court (admittedly quite a few years ago, so perhaps things have changed).
There may even be some serious ethics (and even legal) problems associated with government forcing people to pay money (and have their time wasted) when they haven't in fact done anything wrong. I would expect these kinds of policies would gradually go away over time if we as a society were to start paying more attention to ethics in government and law.
Your point about the ultimate cost of the law coming out of our taxes is a good one. I don't think most people would mind this cost if the legal system was perceived as being fair, reasonable, and rational. Unfortunately, it is probably more accurate to view the system as being badly broken, which may account for the attempt of private organizations to work around the system instead of through it.
in my state, the law clearly state that a witnessing officer has to be present to issue a ticket... I am sure a local judge on the city's payroll would probably just dismiss the case, and I would still have the court fees.
Judges swear oaths to uphold the law, as do all legal professionals. If more private citizens were willing to go after them when they acted contrary to these oaths (violating these oaths seems to happen a lot, every time a fundamental right is violated, and since the Bill of Rights was written to be an open-ended document there are more fundamental rights than just those explicitly listed), we might have a better legal system.
Unfortunately, doing this does take time and money. The glacially slow pace of the legal system makes fighting abusive or corrupt government particularly difficult, stressful, and frustrating.
The effectively open-ended nature of the authority granted to judges with respect to things like "contempt of court" or "disturbing the peace" makes fighting illegal judgements risky, as well.
Many people working in Government in the USA (and many folks in the legal profession) have not quite grasped the seemingly simple concepts that we know as the Nuremberg Precedent: don't enforce illegal laws, don't recognize precedents that violate fundamental rights, don't execute illegal orders, arrests, or other warrants. This failure vastly increases the ability of judges to uphold illegal laws or policies.
Legal professionals, as a class in society, are in a position of ethical conflict of interest with respect to the nature, scope, and form of the legal system, which in practice makes it particularly difficult to go after any particular member in that group except in extreme cases.
Having a glacially slow legal system, or one that penalizes people that engage in reasonable conduct, can reasonably be supposed to represent massive ethical conflict of interest on the part of legal professionals, as this sort of thing naturally creates a huge demand for the services of their profession as a class in society (provided that there are mechanisms within the system that allow them to get people off who can afford to pay their fees).
This in turn does not give one a good feeling about the integrity of the profession, which in turn makes it even more difficult, dangerous and stressful to go against one of them, even in a situation where any reasonable, rational person (not being led astray by conflict of interest or brainwashing) would conclude that fundamental rights are being violated.
After all, if all legal professionals are benefiting from ignoring aspects of the legal system that involve inconvenient ethical conflicts of interest, who among them would be willing to rock the boat they all share?
It is an ugly situation, and one that is not likely to get better anytime soon.
In many respects, I suspect people who are wronged by the government see the legal professionals and government officials involved as being no different from a horde of barbarians intent on rapine and pillage. It is difficult to fight a horde, and sometimes the wise man cuts his losses and runs away to fight another day, even in the face of evil.
Sad that you didn't know about Trial by Written Declaration.
I don't live in California, which is the only state where that seems to apply. Unfortunately, you are held to the laws of the state that you are in at the time of offense, not the one you live in; unless the two happen to be the same.
Actually in cricket, one out and you're out, so you have to go in. 10 outs and the side is out...
You have two sides, one out in the field and one in.
Each man that's in the side that's in, goes out, and when he's out, he comes in and the next man goes in until he's out.
When they are all out the side that's out comes in and the side that's been in goes out and tries to get those coming in out.
Sometimes you get men still in and not out.
When both sides have been in and out including the not-outs, that's the end of the game.
Wow, now I know Cricket sounds as boring as it looks!
Be seeing you...
watching movies on movie2k?
Well you should get your state legislature to fix that.