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?"

Comments

First strike

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sorry

Re: First strike

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re: First strike

[noh8rz10]

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?

Re: First strike

[AK Marc]

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.

Re: First strike

[hairyfeet]

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?

Re: First strike

[ganjadude]

serious question..., what happened when you called them out?

Re: First strike

[v1]

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.

Re: First strike

[ShaunC]

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.

Re: First strike

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re: First strike

[multimediavt]

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.

Re: First strike

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re: First strike

[Bootsy Collins]

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.

Re: First strike

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re: First strike

[Existential Wombat]

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.

Re: First strike

[Anonymous Coward]

Why bother reading it if you know they can change it at any time?

Re: First strike

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re: First strike

[Ravaldy]

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.

Re: First strike

[0111 1110]

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.

Re: First strike

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re: First strike

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re: First strike

[AK Marc]

So 6 strikes and it's over? Works better than 6-strikes and you are out. 12 strikes and you bowled a 300.

Re: First strike

[SirAudioMan]

Because there is absolutely nothing wrong or messed up with the Ontario Government!!!

Re: First strike

[fredprado]

But at least in this case the accuser has to pay too, and more.

Re: First strike

[amiga3D]

I wonder what they'll do when they kick 80 percent of their customers off?

Re: First strike

[Jewfro_Macabbi]

"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 .

Re: First strike

[redneckmother]

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."

Re: First strike

[hairyfeet]

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?

Re: First strike

[hairyfeet]

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.

Re: First strike

[hairyfeet]

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.

Re: First strike

[hairyfeet]

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.

Re: First strike

[Anonymous Coward]

"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

Re: First strike

[AmazingRuss]

We're talking about $35, Vork.

Re: First strike

[DigiShaman]

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.

Re: First strike

[Bryansix]

Sad that you didn't know about Trial by Written Declaration.

Re: First strike

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually this is exactly what they do in Monterey, Calfornia.

Re: First strike

[Anonymous Coward]

Just start a competing ISP. A nice place to sell would be right next to the douche ISP. "Got cut out? Come to us!"

Re: First strike

[sincewhen]

Don't forget that baseball has 3 strikes. A strike is when you don't hit the ball.

Re: First strike

[ThatsNotPudding]

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.

This is why they lost their empire.

Re: First strike

[gravis777]

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.

Re: First strike

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re: First strike

[rHBa]

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.

Re: First strike

[Anonymous Coward]

But then who's on second?

Re: First strike

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

I suspect this post was intended to be funny, but got modded "Informative".

That makes it even funnier.

Re: First strike

[Dripdry]

Me! and my girlfriend!

We've both contested multiple tickets via mail and won. Doesn't cost a dime.

Re: First strike

[hairyfeet]

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!

Re: First strike

[AlphaWolf_HK]

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.

Re: First strike

[v1]

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.

Re: First strike

[redlemming]

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.

Re: First strike

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re: First strike

[multimediavt]

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.

Re: First strike

[Nyder]

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!

Re: First strike

[Bryansix]

Well you should get your state legislature to fix that.

Good thing proxies can't be spoofed!

[Anonymous Coward]

This will end P2P piracy in a snap!

Re:Good thing proxies can't be spoofed!

[Anonymous Coward]

This will end P2P piracy in a snap!

Considering the number of american clients that are leeching from me I'd guess the 6 strike law makes no difference.

Re:Good thing proxies can't be spoofed!

[letherial]

No, it will be the rise of VPN's

Re:Good thing proxies can't be spoofed!

[Anonymous Coward]

To countries outside of the US, resulting in mediocre to terrible latency for all!

What an age we live in :(

Re:Good thing proxies can't be spoofed!

[SwampChicken]

Easy fix. ISP's then change their EULA to disallow VPNs accusing their users of being terrorists...

Re:Good thing proxies can't be spoofed!

[jalopezp]

I use several at work every day. Sometimes, when I've weekend work (rare enough, thankfully), I use them from home. VPNs are too useful to too many businesses to be disallowed. It's not like it's merely the public who find them useful! These are the clients ISPs actually care for.

Re:Good thing proxies can't be spoofed!

[dmacleod808]

This is why I run my VPN enabled connection in a VM, to use for things not to be monitored. My main connection is free for low latency.

All bark, no bite

[langelgjm]

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.

Re:All bark, no bite

[Hatta]

What actual monitoring is going to be happening? The ISP is going to sniff my packets? So what, my torrents are encrypted. The only way they're going to determine if I'm sharing copyrighted material is by connecting to the tracker and seeing my IP as a peer. But they've been able to do that for years, and have been doing that for years. What more can they actually do?

Re:All bark, no bite

[WillgasM]

What more can they actually do?

Redirect to crappy "educational" videos and throttle your connection. Haven't you been paying attention.

Re:All bark, no bite

[Beardo the Bearded]

Assume any encrpyted traffic is a copyright violation.

After all, if you didn't have anything to hide, you wouldn't be using TERRORIST TOOLS.

You fucking scumbag.

Re:All bark, no bite

[ohnocitizen]

More like bark and potential bite. Documentation of violations, which customers have to pay to dispute. I wonder if these notifications of violation might be used in court, or to inspire further action by other parties?

Re:All bark, no bite

[Anonymous Coward]

Copyright infringement? My God, that's worse than murder!

Re:All bark, no bite

[Anonymous Coward]

the five ISPs participating in the CAS would never voluntarily agree to give up the revenue associated with allegedly infringing subscribers.

but as as participant in this system, the providers ARE willing to give up (to the big-media representatives) personal information (name, contact info, etc) of their customers with no subpoena, no warrant, no court order, no conviction. and no customer recourse...

lawsuits WILL BE FILED against repeat offenders (or rather, people big-media thinks are repeat offenders). anyone telling you otherwise is full of shit... and YOU can't do anything to keep your provider from giving you up without a fight except SWITCH PROVIDERS to one that does not participate.

Re:All bark, no bite

[Anonymous Coward]

Lets see, who uses encryption the most? Governments. Encryption = Terrorist or child porn. So, either the governments are the main terrorist, or the main supplier of child porn. ;-)

Re:All bark, no bite

[Anonymous Coward]

but as as participant in this system, the providers ARE willing to give up (to the big-media representatives) personal information

citation needed. nowhere does any of the material state or claim that any ISP is providing any subscriber data to any outside entity.

lawsuits WILL BE FILED against repeat offenders (or rather, people big-media thinks are repeat offenders). anyone telling you otherwise is full of shi

funny how the whole DMCA takedown system results in almost no actual lawsuits. you know, the system which is already in place and will get your account shut down after only three strikes.

I realize people like to get worked up about stuff, but this is actually a far less onerous system than the DMCA process. Methinks most of the people bitching about it are the ones who have been torrenting material they don't have a license to and are worried about getting a letter or some throttling.

And just FYI, since once again the article completely ignores this fact, this has nothing to do with whether or not you personally are doing the downloading. Go read your TOS agreement- you are responsible for securing your network and liable for anything which happens on your connection.

Re:All bark, no bite

[mlts]

There is also the fact that if people's subscriptions are cut, it will get people to do what ISPs fear, and that is to hit the VPN services. What CAS appears to do go after the "casual" user. However, if their account is on the line, they will be joining the ranks who are using encrypted tunnels for virtually all their communications..

Once VPNs become a standard thing (just like antivirus programs), ISPs now lose all passive tools, and are forced to act in an active manner. I wouldn't be surprised to see some of the following as the next step:

1: VPNs throttled or randomly disconnected. Throttling can be undetectable and it becomes a word against word argument with a quite uphill battle against the subscriber.

2: Active prohibition of VPNs who don't log, with consequences to accounts due to TOS violations.

3: A ban of VPNs altogether (Pakistan is doing this.)

4: A requirement for subscriber machines to pass a "healthcheck" before being allowed on the Net. This "healthcheck" would require software that prohibits IP forwarding/masquerading/connections to VPN addresses.

5: Similar to #4, except with mandated "anti-pirate" software. Picture an antivirus scanner, except for detecting VPN software, cracks, patches, P2P apps, and proxy software, shutting the computer down and phoning home if it is found.

6: TPMs and trusted boot paths to make #4 and #5 work better, with automatic permanent blocking of the machine off the Net if tampered with.

7: Another round of DMCA laws to support #4-6, and to further keep #1 from being provably detected.

Re:All bark, no bite

[Anonymous Coward]

They don't care about that income. Many of those companies are also media companies. They think they will make more money in video sales by shutting down a few of the worst pirates than they lose in ISP revenue.

Not only that but all of them want to shut down their biggest bandwidth users because they oversell their networks. This is another tool they can use to do so which is unlikely to provoke the backlash that bandwidth caps have.

Re:All bark, no bite

[a_hanso]

It's not that bad, really.

or review educational materials about copyright law.

The court will just sentence you to take three weeks of "copyright re-education classes".

Re:All bark, no bite

[Anonymous Coward]

They'll probably be looking at the swarm data.

Re:All bark, no bite

[Anonymous Coward]

Where are you going to get your "Mint", or your copy of last july playboy. Both off torrents, once someone realizes you have these, because the next thing they will have is the right to see what is on your set, box or drive. Remember incremental, baby steps, and you end up with China at your back door. And your stay at a greybars with "don't drop the soap" willie is in all our futures.

Re:All bark, no bite

[Nefarious Wheel]

Hmm.... sounds about right. When your huddled masses must be placated with bread and circuses, it's best to not make the ticket to the circus too expensive, or bar entry too exclusively.

Re:All bark, no bite

[Nefarious Wheel]

That is disturbingly insightful and rather frightening.

Re:All bark, no bite

[Anonymous Coward]

And your stay at a greybars with "don't drop the soap" willie is in all our futures.

Really? Still with the scared straight prison rape bullshit? Does it happen? Yes. Is it anywhere near as common as you fearmongers say it is? Nope. Significantly rare.

Re:All bark, no bite

[Bryansix]

I took a class like that in college but it was about drinking. Drink more then ever now.

Re:All bark, no bite

[Anonymous Coward]

for point 5 , I suspect something like that in some free antivirus, i.e AVG Free does detect many working cracks like virus, also some hacking tools, prompting you to delete them, and not allowing them to work properly

Re:All bark, no bite

[Anonymous Coward]

Moded "funny"? You think this is a joke?

Re:All bark, no bite

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. Without being sarcastic and in my humble opinion, that was one of the funniest comments ever. Ever.

Re:All bark, no bite

[Anonymous Coward]

There is also the fact that if people's subscriptions are cut, it will get people to do what ISPs fear, and that is to hit the VPN services. What CAS appears to do go after the "casual" user. However, if their account is on the line, they will be joining the ranks who are using encrypted tunnels for virtually all their communications..

Once VPNs become a standard thing (just like antivirus programs), ISPs now lose all passive tools, and are forced to act in an active manner. I wouldn't be surprised to see some of the following as the next step:

1: VPNs throttled or randomly disconnected. Throttling can be undetectable and it becomes a word against word argument with a quite uphill battle against the subscriber.

2: Active prohibition of VPNs who don't log, with consequences to accounts due to TOS violations.

3: A ban of VPNs altogether (Pakistan is doing this.)

4: A requirement for subscriber machines to pass a "healthcheck" before being allowed on the Net. This "healthcheck" would require software that prohibits IP forwarding/masquerading/connections to VPN addresses.

5: Similar to #4, except with mandated "anti-pirate" software. Picture an antivirus scanner, except for detecting VPN software, cracks, patches, P2P apps, and proxy software, shutting the computer down and phoning home if it is found.

6: TPMs and trusted boot paths to make #4 and #5 work better, with automatic permanent blocking of the machine off the Net if tampered with.

7: Another round of DMCA laws to support #4-6, and to further keep #1 from being provably detected.

And doing this pretty much screws over telecommuting in general. By increasing the cost of business then less businesses will do business with you. And I sure Comcast does not want to lose Joe "Road Warrior" Sales person of ABC corp to another ISP because he can VPN from his work laptop back to the home office from home because Comcast is blocking VPN.

Re:All bark, no bite

[mlts]

What will happen is that "business" accounts won't be under those rules, just like business DSL and cable lines are not under the CAS.

Re:All bark, no bite

[Anonymous Coward]

Bother - there goes those pesky https connections

Re:All bark, no bite

[Anonymous Coward]

I predict people will start responding by launching attacks on the ISP itself. Maybe even their board members and officers.

Re:All bark, no bite

[Anonymous Coward]

Also it is a good idea to restrict your torrent client from uploading at all and run it through Tor. That's what I do and no, I don't give a shit about other people using Tor. My safety is number one.

Re:All bark, no bite

[camg188]

What actual monitoring is going to be happening?... The only way they're going to determine if I'm sharing copyrighted material is by connecting to the tracker and seeing my IP as a peer.

That is exactly what they are doing. According to the Center for Copyright Information the process is:
1. Companies that own music, tv shows, and movies join peer-to-peer networks and search for media that they own.
2. They confirm that the titles are indeed copyrighted content.
3. They collect the IP addresses making the content available.
4. They send the IP addresses to the participating ISP that the address is assigned to.
5. The ISP passes a Copyright Alert to the customer using the IP address.

A couple of ways to avoid the copyright alert system would be to:
- use a download method other than bittorrent.
- use an ISP that doesn't participate in the system. A list of participating ISPs is on wikipedia.

Re:All bark, no bite

[Applekid]

- use an ISP that doesn't participate in the system. A list of participating ISPs is on wikipedia.

Most places in the US have a duopoly of two companies from that list.

Re:All bark, no bite

[Anonymous Coward]

I took a class at university directed at teacher and the use of copyrighted material in the classroom. After posing some simple questions about possible uses and stumping the professor each time she simply said, "copyright is a grey area, you should know what you can and cannot use." She could not give us any clear direction on what was allowed and what was not.

TL:DR Even lawyers that specialize in copyright law cannot get the facts and laws straight on what could constitute as a copyright violation.

Re:All bark, no bite

[Anonymous Coward]

[Citation Needed]

Re:All bark, no bite

[Anonymous Coward]

That's heuristic analysis. Cracks behave just like a virus delivering a payload to an executable.

Re:All bark, no bite

[Anonymous Coward]

They don't have to prove anything when they're judge, prosecutor, jury, and executioner.

Re:All bark, no bite

[Anonymous Coward]

PLEASE! REACT! INTERNET NO!!!! Those are EXCUSES. I save all material I like and will IMPINGE IN MY MEMORY out of practice. MEMORY is the keyword. There is an ongoing attack against HUMAN MEMORY hidden as copyrights. If I save cat pics from different sources, who is LOSING? If I publish them as a site AND MAKE MONEY then some copyrights may follow, etc. I have original material I want to be CREDITED TO ME. Such rules ONLY ensure that if I lose my material support, I ll have to fight to FIND and BE cREDITED for my original material! If I had the time to output the math here... and write another book to explain... I think those guys are as shallow as any policeman in such deep matters that everything Human is at stake...

Re:All bark, no bite

[Anonymous Coward]

If I even get a warning I'll terminate my service myself by switching to another provider. Let's see how keen ISPs are to issue warnings if they know it will lead to giving their competition more business.

I hope they do.

[waspleg]

I hope the backlash from this makes SOPA look tame.

Re:I hope they do.

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't be silly. Wikipedia didn't tell anyone to be upset over this.

Lucky

[Anonymous Coward]

I live in China

Re:Lucky

[DigiShaman]

Ya you are. You can walk down to the nearest corner street and purchase from a whole loaded rickshaw filled with pirated media. Oh, and grab a bite to eat while you're at it. Oh, and that rootkit you got infected with?? A friendly bonus. No extra charge.

Re:Lucky

[Anonymous Coward]

Canada

Huh

[Anonymous Coward]

Finally time to start paying for U****t, I guess.

Re:Huh

[TheSpoom]

Welcome to the party, you're a few years late.

Re:Huh

[nthitz]

Usenet.. the biggest secret since Reddit!

Re:Huh

[Githaron]

Usenet is much older than Reddit.

Re:Huh

[nthitz]

http://bearsharkaxe.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/you-dont-say.jpg

Re:Huh

[fafaforza]

With all the nzb indexers being taken down every day, even that is being hit and becoming a bit of a pain to use.

Re:Huh

[Nefarious Wheel]

In a flash, a loud, doppler shifted turbine whine is detected passing rapidly overhead.

Re:Huh

[CimmerianX]

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.

Of course

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Of course

[Synerg1y]

why would you argue your case though with them though?

1. They aren't going to do anything, but mail you letters and eventually throttle you for a couple of days.
2. The only argument these "people" will listen to is the one that comes from behind a gavel.

Waste of $35 if there ever was one.

Re:Of course

[Anonymous Coward]

Because the strikes will be presented as evidence against you during a lawsuit by the MPAA/RIAA maybe.

Re:Of course

[mark-t]

It's not necessarily a waste of $35, since if they are unable to verify the alleged infringement, you get the $35 refunded, and the "strike" is removed.

Re:Of course

[Anonymous Coward]

And they'll verify it just like every single RIAA case is verified.

IP address of 243.158.48.54 downloaded file PopularArtist - OnlyGoodSong.mp3. Case closed, unless you can somehow magically prove to them that their tracker is wrong over the phone. It's not like they're going to take the effort to haul your computer in and do a deep scan of all files and deleted files to attempt to verify if that mp3 has ever resided on the hard drive.

Re:Of course

[Anonymous Coward]

Ill get $35 refunded and then charge them $100 for my time. I didnt sing a contract or opt in for this kind of bullshit.

Re:Of course

[nabsltd]

It's not necessarily a waste of $35, since if they are unable to verify the alleged infringement, you get the $35 refunded, and the "strike" is removed.

Just how many claims do you think will be overturned by a group of people that were picked by the same people who made the claim?

In particular, when the entire evidence of infringement for these claims consist of an IP address, a date and time, and the name of a torrent, exactly how are you going to prove that you didn't infringe? When the party making the claim of infringement doesn't even have to prove that the named torrent was their copyrighted content (much less any of the other things needed for infringement, like proving uploading), how can you possibly defend yourself? Even if you aren't running any bittorrent software at all, how can you prove that? And, if you are running bittorrent software, how can you prove that you were not part of that torrent at that time?

This is one of the many problems with "guilty until proven innocent"...often you have to prove a negative, and sometimes that can't be done.

Re:Of course

[dkleinsc]

Of course they're siding with the cartels...

... because, in at least some cases, they are the cartels. For example, Time Warner Cable is a subsidiary of AOL Time Warner, which owns numerous media companies.

Re:Of course

[l0ungeb0y]

This is one of the many problems with "guilty until proven innocent"...often you have to prove a negative, and sometimes that can't be done.

FYI: "Guilty till proven innocent" is a concept of Criminal Case Law and has no role in Civil Litigation, where you must only show "probable cause". And even then, this is not a Civil Action, this is a wholly private action by a Private Enterprise to terminate your service agrement with them for supposedly braking that service agreement.

And off hand, I can't think of any way to sue them in Civil Court, since they are the ones claiming "breach of contract" and unless you have a home business or can show other tangible loss, anyone shut down wrongly really has no legal recourse since exactly what damages are to be awarded? Sorry, but "nerd rage" does not constitute personal injury.

However, it's possible an actual lawyer might come up with something, but it would likely be a class action, and only serve to enrich themselves.

What we need is for the US Gov't to come down and declare that Internet Access is a fundamental necessity and prevent such terminations of service outside of the legal system. Good luck on that happening any time soon. It will happen, but not this decade.

Re:Of course

[sjames]

Verify to who's satisfaction, theirs? I'll give you my opinion. For $35 you can have me judge that opinion and tell you I was right all along.

Re:Of course

[Anonymous Coward]

And off hand, I can't think of any way to sue them in Civil Court, since they are the ones claiming "breach of contract" and unless you have a home business or can show other tangible loss, anyone shut down wrongly really has no legal recourse since exactly what damages are to be awarded? Sorry, but "nerd rage" does not constitute personal injury.

You could force them to refund any payments for services not rendered, and would negate any early termination fees, and that's about it.

Re:Of course

[Anonymous Coward]

And off hand, I can't think of any way to sue them in Civil Court, since they are the ones claiming "breach of contract"

yeah because them shutting off my internet for a supposed breach of contract precludes me from suing them? lol.

Re:Of course

[nabsltd]

FYI: "Guilty till proven innocent" is a concept of Criminal Case Law

Not in the US, it isn't.

and has no role in Civil Litigation, where you must only show "probable cause".

Civil lawsuit outcomes are based on "preponderance of evidence"...in layman's terms, who is "most right", not "probable cause". Regardless of how the determination of liability at the end of the trial is done, you can still sue anybody for anything with no real evidence that they did anything wrong. With far less than "probable cause", civil litigation can reach the discovery stage, at which point you better have deep pockets if you want to continue a defense.

The major difference in a lawsuit and this system is that evidence is not assumed to be valid in a lawsuit...it must be proven. For example, if the plaintiff claims to have evidence of infringement on a computer, the defendant would be able to get to see that computer (usually via a neutral third party) to verify that the alleged evidence does exist and was collected in a proper manner. This discovery might allow the defendant to show that the evidence is faulty in some way.

All this is absent from the "six strikes" system, which assumes that all evidence against the alleged infringer is valid with no possibility for a mistake. Because of this, the term "guilty until proven innocent" applies. Unfortunately, there is really no way to prove innocence once you start with the assumption that all evidence indicating guilt is valid and not subject to rebuttal.

Re:Of course

[The Wild Norseman]

FYI: "Guilty till proven innocent" is a concept of Criminal Case Law and has no role in Civil Litigation, where you must only show "probable cause". And even then, this is not a Civil Action, this is a wholly private action by a Private Enterprise to terminate your service agrement with them for supposedly braking that service agreement.

In the US, you don't "show probable cause [sic]". In civil court, it's called a 'preponderance of evidence' as opposed to criminal court which then the prosecution has to show 'beyond a reasonable doubt.'

Also, in the US, a private action is civil court; there is no distinction as you seem to be maintaining. What you might be thinking of is a break in the terms of service under which you say you'll abide by.

Finally, a breach of contract is exactly what a company (or individual) can go to a civil court and sue for, so again, I'm not sure why you're trying to differentiate between the two when there isn't any differentiation.

If I were wrongfully terminated from my contract, I might easily be able to show damages, if I lost out on a down payment for example or if I were hit with an early cancellation fee; no "nerd rage" need apply. Even then, I could theoretically sue Time Warner under a breach if they canceled my service with no prior notification; I don't think I'd win, but only because such stipulations are usually made in the blatantly one-sided nature of the contract before signing up.

Re:Of course

[Anonymous Coward]

A) IP is bullshit: The IP Address is a router's identification, not a person's identity. 253 people can be using the same IP at once, and if you subnet, shitloads more. I can be an ISP to an entire city block from one internet connection if I wanted to.
B) The date and time means nothing if you don't know WHO did it.
C) The name of the torrent means shit all. I can seed a torrent called anything I want. Lets say you were right next to me so you knew it was really me. What proof do you have that It's the same content as what you claim without pirating it yourself from a different computer? (illegal evidence gathering by committing a crime). And if you only downloaded a few bytes and changed your mind, you never saw a movie, nor copied it entirely. Was that really a copy? Is a partial copy theft if it's not usable?

I wish everyone would write that down so no one could get sued. Well except if you're in a university with a login for a proxy, you moron. But even then you could argue someone else used your credentials.

Re:Of course

[mark-t]

The only "magic" involved would be understanding how my IP address ever got associated with downloading infringing content in the first place. I don't practice it. My wife doesn't practice it. Our kids have all grown up and some have families of their own. I have a secured wifi, which keeps logs of every connection, and my router cannot be administered from outside of the wired lan, so nobody could erase logs of connecting to it from outside my apartment. If somebody did hack into my system, I would quite willingly give whatever logs I had to the police which might be useful to them in tracking down the person. The occasional time I use bittorrent is to either download a new release of slackware whenever one comes out, or else to download other multimedia content which is entirely freely distributable, and only being distributed via bittorrent to lower the load on the main server, so there's no real way that an accurate tracker could correctly associate my IP address with any infringing content. That is the proof I would quite happily offer to demonstrate that their information is mistaken, should their data ever happen to identify me.

Re:Of course

[Anonymous Coward]

It does not have to be the most right. Just the most percieved right. You are correct that lawyers decided that there is no regard for the truth to be setteled in this, but some justice may come out if one can get one of the first cases to be a trial lawyer with lots of time and moneies to waste. Especially if it slows down his network, or causes a case to be delayed. Even that is worth billions of bitcoins.

Re:Of course

[grantspassalan]

You don't have to prove your innocence, but they have to prove your guilt. At least that is how it used to be. Welcome to the new corporate dictatorship USA.

Re:Of course

[tsa]

They send you letters and throttle you. That costs money. So, indeed they are siding with the RIAA and the like.

Re:Of course

[Nefarious Wheel]

Check the most recent post from NYCL (New York Country Lawyer). There was a landmark judicial ruling quite recently that stated you cannot automatically connect an IP address to a person. This is hugely important.

Re:Of course

[Anonymous Coward]

but it can only go so far. once they realize that the majority of downloaders are also purchasers who stop purchasing, or doing it much less, because they have to pay up the ass to use some shitty hacked together underground wifi because they were kicked off all the legit isps. profits go down. many have already canceled their cable/sat subscriptions because of that gouging. then what?!

Re:Of course

[mark-t]

I can be an ISP to an entire city block from one internet connection if I wanted to.

Not without violating your ISP's terms of service, which would be grounds for suspending your account entirely, until you applied for a commercial internet connection.

*MY* point is that if a person hasn't downloaded any infringing content, and nobody's actually used that person's internet connection to download any infringing content, then they aren't likely to have any real basis on which to even make an allegation of infringement in the first place, let alone reject an appeal, whereupon criminal charges would then have to follow.

Re:Of course

[rtb61]

Especially not a waste if you purpose is to set up traps for the six strike system and not only get the $35 back but also go for damages for disruption of service due to negligence by the ISP and anyone reporting you. Could become quite profitable, take some years to generate a profit on the investment but could be a very good side line.

Re:Of course

[Legion303]

No need to worry, citizen--if you aren't doing anything illegal, you have nothing to fear! Now bend over so we can search you for bootleg DVDs.

Re:Of course

[MTEK]

However, it's possible an actual lawyer might come up with something, but it would likely be a class action, and only serve to enrich themselves.

If the lawyer or any of those he represents* can raise the issue in the national media then I don't care about his motivations.

* Just don't air some /.'er who feels entitled to Hollywood entertainment.

Re:Of course

[Anonymous Coward]

Ill get $35 refunded and then charge them $100 for my time. I didnt sign a contract or opt in for this kind of bullshit.

Oh but you may already have! This kind of thing would likely be hidden in the service agreement when you signed up for the service. And good luck getting them to pay you for your "bill"

Re:Of course

[Anonymous Coward]

Allow me to quote Mr. Kim Dotcom.

"The war for the internet has begun"

Re:Of course

[Anonymous Coward]

The US government would do that, but those people in those positions are not really part of the US government, they are part of the New World Order and their agenda is to turn our beautiful country into a fascist police state.

I don't think it's likely nonsense like this will stop until some person ends up going after those that propose, implement, and enforce these tyrannical acts, with extreme prejudice.

Re:Of course

[Anonymous Coward]

And even then, this is not a Civil Action, this is a wholly private action by a Private Enterprise to terminate your service agrement with them for supposedly braking that service agreement.

As in throttling?

But at any rate, fuck 'em, they're not the only ISP in town.

Re:Of course

[dmacleod808]

Don't know where you have been... but AOL hasn't been a part of Time Warner in over 3 years... In 2000, AOL and Time Warner merged under the name AOL Time Warner. The merger was not fruitful and on May 28, 2009, Time Warner announced that it would spin off AOL into a separate public company. The spinoff occurred on December 9, 2009,[11] ending the eight-year relationship between the two companies.

Re:Of course

[tech.kyle]

I work as tech support at a small ISP. We sometimes get copyright infringement notices and the most we do is forward them to our clients. It's rare when we get them and I don't think we have a policy for "repeat offenders".

RIAA needs to stop blaming the spoon for making them fat. As people have already mentioned, for many, piracy was simply the more convenient way to acquire media. The more copyright holders lock down legitimate goods and the more complicated it becomes to purchase and use these goods legitimately, the more appealing piracy becomes.

Re:Of course

[Synerg1y]

On the surface, the ISPs are saying that this system is to help inform the public of copyright violations, and better help secure their networks or some BS like that. That's ALL that matters, hold em to it, if you get taken to court and evidence is presented to you from this system, the first question I'd ask is how do you know this data resides on my computer? Since a person != an IP address then that suddenly becomes very difficult. They cannot hack you, that's illegal. All they can do is associate an IP address on a tracker.

Re:Of course

[wbr1]

Yeah, but for $35, I can get a local business license, get internet in that comapny's name with no strikes. Better yet, get a business account, open up my wifi and be exempt.

Re:Of course

[Sigg3.net]

We're just a breath away from: "Hmm.. you must be one of those _Internet Users_. TAKE HIM AWAY!"

Seriously though, when will homotized cable TV Internet bring the Internet back to the beginning, where only geeks and hackers knew what to do, and the rest surf the Accepted Sites with their touch remotes?

Finally!

[Anonymous Coward]

Finally an incentive I needed to get a seedbox and VPN in a country far, far away.

Re:Finally!

[rastos1]

I see you are looking for a free country, foreigner.

/waves hand

This is not the country you are looking for.

So the defendant has to pay to "appeal"?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:So the defendant has to pay to "appeal"?

[Anonymous Coward]

* If the appeal is successful, the $35 is refunded to the appellant (and you can bet the AAA will charge the respondent, since they want to cover their costs).
* The fee is also refunded if the Copyright Alert is withdrawn by the copyright owner.
* The $35 fee is waived if your income is less than 3 times the federal poverty level (that is, $33,510 for a family of 1, more for more people).

Re:So the defendant has to pay to "appeal"?

[Wesley Felter]

There are costs on both sides. The *AA are paying DtecNet to send the strikes in the first place, and if you appeal it will cost them more than $35 to put together the paperwork to argue with you.

Re:So the defendant has to pay to "appeal"?

[mark-t]

Not to mention that the $35 is refunded if the consumer's appeal is successful.

Re:So the defendant has to pay to "appeal"?

[nabsltd]

The *AA are paying DtecNet to send the strikes in the first place, and if you appeal it will cost them more than $35 to put together the paperwork to argue with you.

I sincerely doubt that printing out an IP address, date and time, and torrent name will cost $35. This is all the "evidence" they have, and it's unknown whether you will get to see it unless you ask for a review. The "alert" might be nothing more than "you've been a bad boy" with no details.

Re:So the defendant has to pay to "appeal"?

[rsborg]

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.

And thus the purpose. MAFIAA wants to poison the well. It helps that they can get others to be the poisoners.

Re:So the defendant has to pay to "appeal"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Will I also get refunded the time wasted to go through all the BS?

Re:So the defendant has to pay to "appeal"?

[Sechr Nibw]

So, it's okay for poor people to pirate MP3s, gotcha. Also, I looked up the federal poverty levels and got a laugh out of the line saying "Note: Pregnant women count as two people for the purpose of this chart." What if they're pregnant with twins or more?!

Re:So the defendant has to pay to "appeal"?

[mark-t]

No more than what anyone else gets refunded when they win a case against them without filing a countersuit.

Re:So the defendant has to pay to "appeal"?

[flimflammer]

You should at least get an extra $35 for having to waste your time defending these stupid cases if you actually happen to be wrongfully accused. You shouldn't merely get the money you already spent back.

Re:So the defendant has to pay to "appeal"?

[TranquilVoid]

Remember this is done by the ISP and so will carry more authority than third-party torrent tracking. The same software that the ISP uses to detect the violation will presumably collate the evidence. The evidence will include your account, IP, their DHCP logs showing you were in control of the IP at that time, and statistics on how much uploading and downloading of the torrent you performed. Perhaps they also keep segments or hashes of the transferred content.

The incremental cost of producing this evidence is certainly trivial, I imagine it's an admin fee for a human to look over the report and your denial.

Out of interest I wonder what sort of denial could possibly work. Given they're the ISP they know with certainty from where they are transferring and what. It would be simple to encrypt or hide your torrent activity but that's beside the point.

Re:So the defendant has to pay to "appeal"?

[nabsltd]

Remember this is done by the ISP and so will carry more authority than third-party torrent tracking.

No, it's not. It's being done using the same third party tracking:

CCI’s content partners join peer-to-peer networks in order to locate the music, movies or TV shows they own.

-- http://www.copyrightinformation.org/resources-faq/copyright-alert-system-faqs/

For several years, copyright owners have been using certain automated techniques to identify Internet users who they believe are engaged in possible infringing activity via P2P networks. When a copyright owner identifies an instance of possible infringement, it sends the user's ISP a notice that contains the name of the copyrighted work, the date and time of the alleged infringement and the Internet Protocol (IP) address of the computer that is alleged to be sharing copyrighted content. The ISP matches the IP address sent by the copyright owner to the specific customer to whom that IP address was assigned at that time, and then forwards the information provided by the content owner to that user without identifying the user to the copyright owner(s).

-- http://www22.verizon.com/Support/Residential/internet/highspeed/general+support/top+questions/questionsone/123247.htm

The evidence will include your account, IP, their DHCP logs showing you were in control of the IP at that time, and statistics on how much uploading and downloading of the torrent you performed.

No, it won't:

The Alerts, include the date, time, time zone and title of the copyrighted content

Re:So the defendant has to pay to "appeal"?

[TranquilVoid]

No, it's not. It's being done using the same third party tracking:

You're right, I came across some comments further down pointing this out.

The Alerts, include the date, time, time zone and title of the copyrighted content

The alerts yes, but the total evidence, that's unknown. Given that providing the alert requires cooperation between these third-parties and the DHCP logs of the ISP, why wouldn't they be part of the evidence? Really I see a lot of people complaining without providing an explanation of how you could be falsely accused. I'm sure there are plausible scenarios. Once they are presented we can discuss how, if at all, you could defend yourself. But it has the feeling of people whinging because they can't get away with an illegal activity anymore.

Oh boy.

[JustAnotherIdiot]

Who wants to take bets on how many days it is until we get the first false positive story?

Re:Oh boy.

[WillgasM]

I'm sure there are plenty out there trying to force a false positive right now.

Re:Oh boy.

[Anonymous Coward]

I have plenty of false positive letters in my lulz drawer. One of these days I'll get around to scanning them and removing personal identifying information. Just been waiting for a decent false positive website to appear to submit them to. That number on those letters your suppose to call to contest it, it was an automated service last I called with no option to talk to a person, never once got any sort of confirmation on any of them actually having something done about it either. Even tried taking them to the local Comcast office, no one there knew what to do about it, a few giggled/laughed about how obvious of a false positive it was.

Re:Oh boy.

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't wait until a virus is created which just torrents copyrighted works to /dev/null. Even if just at a trickle, it could create a DDOS at the ISP level by all the false positives causing the ISP to throttle or whatever they plan on doing.

Re:Oh boy.

[girlintraining]

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.

And yes, I do plan on suing the pants off my ISP if they flag the third -- and then getting a petition passed around my neighborhood asking our local representatives to demand the system be turned off, or the permits for our cable providers be yanked with immediate effect. And yes, I know the Public Utilities Commissioner is supposed to be in charge of such things, but the PUC will wipe their arse with any petition... this is going straight to the city and state representatives, with the words "We will vote your sorry ass to the curb if you allow this." It tends to get better results.

The petitions are already printed off and sitting next to me.

Re:Oh boy.

[sootman]

For the story to be posted on Slashdot? Could be a while. :-)

Re:Oh boy.

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, do keep us posted.

With training like this, maybe some day you'll be a real girl!

Re:Oh boy.

[UltraZelda64]

The virus would likely have to be written to download the torrents to \Device\Null on Microsoft operating systems for it to have much of an impact on the ISPs. /dev/null would probably affect either Android or Apple, depending on which one it was written for, and would attack cell phone carriers more than the traditional providers of cable/DSL home Internet services...

Re:Oh boy.

[the_arrow]

But then the same story would be posted three days in a row.

Re:Oh boy.

[strikethree]

I like your idea better than mine, which I am going to do anyways: Cancel my Comcast cable internet service. I do not have the cable TV service at all so that is an entire subscription gone.

Re:Oh boy.

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you for

Re:Oh boy.

[AmiMoJo]

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.

Being deliberately misleading could work against you. It might be better to create an album called something like "Buttlica - Metallica Black Album (parody)" and fill it with free parody CC metal music. Upload it to the Pirate Bay and see what happens. Also keep an eye on Google to see if they receive any de-listing requests for the URL at TPB (and your own site if you host it there), which would be an example of the RIAA trying to censor your free independent music off the internet.

Google currently has a 250,000 URL/day throttle on de-listing requests, which the RIAA wants lifted to 750,000. The scale of this assault is incredible.

Re:Oh boy.

[Anonymous Coward]

How old are you?

Honestly, the democratic process doesn't work any more. If you want a law changed, you have to pay top dollar.

In capitalism everything's for sale; some things are just very expensive.

Re:Oh boy.

[Anonymous Coward]

Excellent work! Please post the results of your experiment!

Re:Oh boy.

[SinisterEVIL]

Excellent work! Please post the results of your experiment!

Re:Oh boy.

[Dextrously]

You're awesome. You're a strong 3rd on my "Cool Guys" list.

Re:Oh boy.

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.ipetitions.com/

hope this can also help you

AAAAAAAAAND

[Anonymous Coward]

YOU'RE OUT

Hadopi

[Anonymous Coward]

Who have said that the French can't export (stupid) things to the US ?

EFF

[Threni]

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.

Re:EFF

[X0563511]

I suggest you join the Effector mailing list, and have a good strong look at Demand Progress.

I should also point out Move to Amend while I'm plugging these. This one's actually been introduced to congress.

Re:EFF

[bughunter]

Here's the EFF's take on the CAS notice up at the Center for Copyright Information, the industry group that's fronting for this abomination.

I encourage you to read the EFF's page, but the CAS page is the kind of stock-photo-laden polished turd that you'd expect from a group funded by the **AA and tasked with accusing people of piracy and stealing in order to prop up an industry unable to cope with modern information technology.

I also encourage you to send a few bucks the EFF's way, in hopes that they can declaw this, or better yet, defeat it entirely. See my sig.

First lawsuit?

[WaffleMonster]

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.

Re:First lawsuit?

[X0563511]

It's crap and all, but it's not that crap. Termination is not an end result.

Merely a temporary bandwidth throttle and a sternly worded letter. As well, "repeat offenders will not be perused as they are not the kind of people we can reach" (paraphrased from memory)

Re:First lawsuit?

[Wesley Felter]

Your ISP's TOS says they can do anything to you.

Re:First lawsuit?

[Anonymous Coward]

And changing the wording of the contract in the middle of it should allow me to either terminate it at no cost to me, or continue the current contract until it expires. Lets see if they can do otherwise.

Re:First lawsuit?

[Wesley Felter]

What good does terminating the contract do you? Then you have no Internet access. Also, the old version of the TOS from ten years ago probably still says they can do anything to you, so avoiding new versions of the TOS doesn't seem to help much either.

Re:First lawsuit?

[SuperTechnoNerd]

"ISPs being sued for playing judge, jury and executioner"

And they [isp's] will win.With the blessing and a handshake from our bought government. Remember large cartels that we are dealing with can do no wrong in the eyes of our government. They are untouchable.
And it will continue to get worse the more they see what they can get away with..
And the internet becomes a relic of it's former self.
And the little guy gets the shaft..
Again..

Re:First lawsuit?

[speederaser]

"repeat offenders will not be pursued as they are not the kind of people we can reach"

From http://blogs.computerworld.com/internet/21817/six-ways-pirates-can-get-around-coming-six-strikes
(my emphasis):

Later during the interview, when asked what happens if you get Strike 7, 8 or 9, Lesser said, "Once they've been mitigated, they've received several alerts, we're just not going to send them any more alerts. Because they are not the kind of customer that we're going to reach with this program."

I think "riding it out" as recommended in the blog is a Bad Idea. To me, the "with this program" caveat implies they have other plans for people who ignore them, probably involving the courts. By time you rack up six strikes they will have lots of evidence of infringement, and plenty of evidence that you ignored their warnings. Defending yourself in court against that kind of evidence is hard (read expensive).

If I had to guess

[PickyH3D]

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.

Re:If I had to guess

[CanHasDIY]

How many people can we expect to be burned by this before we have an online petition in Congress?

Lots, considering that Congress participates in no such program.

Love the idea, though.

Re:If I had to guess

[gstoddart]

And, of course, the expenses the ISP incurs to process this will get passed onto the consumers in their bills.

Which means the consumers will end up paying for the ISPs to police copyright on behalf of the *AAs.

What an awesome outcome for the *AAs.

Re:If I had to guess

[Bookwyrm]

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.

Maybe. If the $35 if refunded in the full amount to the end user, who is paying for the arbitration service? If the ISP's detection system erroneously flags a few thousand people, and each of the claims has to be considered, some one is going to be paying for the man-hours of the arbitration work. It's not clear who is bearing the risk of the costs of false claims.

Re:If I had to guess

[orthancstone]

the end user must pay $35 to challenge "strikes" against them

Any chance they'll find a way to refund the time wasted appealing this garbage too? Or am I asking too much?

Re:If I had to guess

[AK Marc]

It's called "email your representative". It exists today, and so few use it.

Re:If I had to guess

[Kjella]

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.

I'm more interested in what happens when you lose your challenge, to you have to just accept it or what happens if you take it to court? Defamation of character, harassment, false accusations, take your pick. Or is this one of those wonderful "binding arbitration" aka kangaroo courts that are binding and final?

Anyway, as long as you got choices I would suggest to not contest and simply cancel your subscription on first notice as long as you got choices. Even if you only have a couple to choose from the ISP and you're going to is another six-strike ISP they will still hate that much more than anything else.

Re:If I had to guess

[CanHasDIY]

It's called "email your representative". It exists today, and so few use it.

Ah, yes.

About as effective as the We The People petition site.

Source: I write my Congresscritters regularly, at least once per quarter. The boilerplate responses make great birdcage liner.

Re:If I had to guess

[PickyH3D]

That's a fair point, but I suspect that the service probably hopes to pay for itself with people getting caught trying to game the system. It's possible that you are right and that the ISPs might end up footing a significant bill--one that that they will surely pass onto normal user's monthly bills--by sending out too many false claims.

At the very least, your point provides some incentive for the ISPs to be accurate to minimize costs even if they plan on passing the buck.

Re:If I had to guess

[pitchpipe]

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.

So tell me genius, if a civil suit was filed against you and your roommate then denied that he infringed any copyright, how exactly you would prevent yourself from 'going down' for this? The burden of proof lies with you to prove that you didn't download it, 'cause it sure looks to them like you did. It's not like they're going to confiscate your computer to do a forensics investigation on it to prove you're guilty, they already have your IP address showing that you did it (not that that proves a fucking thing). And that is just one of many problems of this so called 'piracy' bullshit.

Re:If I had to guess

[mark-t]

A defendant in *ANY* sort of case or trial that does not have an accompanying countersuit assumes all risk, even if they know they are innocent. The disincentive for them to frivolously charge innocent people, however, is that when those people win their appeals and get their fee completely refunded, somebody's going to be coming after the ones who made those accusations to pay the bills for that appeal process. And it's going to be a lot more than $35.

Re:If I had to guess

[Wesley Felter]

The burden of proof lies with you to prove that you didn't download it, 'cause it sure looks to them like you did.

In the courts I think the burden of proof is on the plaintiff.

It's not like they're going to confiscate your computer to do a forensics investigation on it to prove you're guilty...

AFAIK that is exactly what they tend to do.

Re:If I had to guess

[Anonymous Coward]

Emailing or even hand-writing anything to a politician will accomplish nothing except maybe a hand cramp. Donate a 5 digit number to his campaign though, and he might listen to your case. Maybe. If your "donation" isn't out-bid by a competing source.

Re:If I had to guess

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Anyway, as long as you got choices I would suggest to not contest and simply cancel your subscription on first notice as long as you got choices. Even if you only have a couple to choose from the ISP and you're going to is another six-strike ISP they will still hate that much more than anything else.

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you don't live in the USA. The vast majority of customers here have only 2 choices - telco or cableco and the telco choice is usually butt-slow DSL.

Verizon has even colluded with comcast to stop building out any new fibre installs that would have competed with comcast's internet service business, and that's with the FCC's blessing.

Re:If I had to guess

[AK Marc]

They asked for something as effective as a petition, and it is. So I don't see the problem.

Re:If I had to guess

[Valhawk]

Hmmm.... I wonder if you got hit with a false positive whether you could go after the ISP and the RIAA surrogate for libel, slander, or defamation, since they're in effect claiming you've committed a criminal offense. It might be hard to hit the ISP due to mandatory arbitration clauses, though I'm not sure they'd cover a non-contractual tort, but it might be possible to try and drown the RIAA surrogate in a substantial number of small claims libel suits.

Re:If I had to guess

[TheGratefulNet]

some kinda sort have a 3rd choice. wireless.

I'm trying out a clear.com wimax dongle (yes, wimax is being EOL'd and lte is the future) but I did not have to call ma bell OR comcast to get my 5mbps download speed. I do have to be in a 4g wimax area and I have to point the antenna the right way, but so far, I removed the need to get cable or telco involved (after I just moved).

now, clear.com are a bunch of assholes; I wanted to change from a mobile 4g dongle to a 'home unit' with what I thought would be a better antenna system. they wanted to charge me $10 to 'upgrade' from mobile to home. same speeds, same everything. but they keep calling it an 'upgrade fee'. and of course, if you want to revert, its a 'downgrade fee', again, even if its going from 5meg to 5meg. so very annoying!

not to mention the clear.com spam on my cellphone; somehow they got my cell # (I did not give it to them!) and I've gotton calls at 2.30pm the past few days from their scumbag marketers.

but still, its a 3rd choice. some people can tether their cellphones, too. that's also a 3rd choice.

for the record, I don't recommend clearwire, but I'm using them for the time being, at least.

Re:If I had to guess

[grantspassalan]

The reason the copyright holders are doing this, is because the courts have been increasingly saying that an IP address and a time are insufficient evidence to show the person behind the IP did anything wrong. This is the same as saying that the person paying the phone bill is responsible for someone using that phone to plan or commit a crime. The **AA's are using the ISPs to do an end run around the courts, which have been getting increasingly skeptical and resistant to **AA's empty claims.

Re:If I had to guess

[shentino]

You're guilty because they're your provider and they said so.

Even if you're innocent all they have to do is cite your status as an "at will" consumer and they can exercise the right to have you piss off whenever they want, guilty or not.

No matter how hard you fight or how much you pay to defend yourself, all they have to do is say "get lost" and they can pull your plug whenever they want to anyway.

"Yeah you're innocent but you're kind of a pain in the ass so we're shutting you down anyway."

Re:If I had to guess

[CanHasDIY]

They asked for something as effective as a petition, and it is. So I don't see the problem.

Lol, well, you've got me there!

This whole situation would be a lot funnier, if it weren't so damn sad.

Re:If I had to guess

[PhxBlue]

About as effective as the We The People petition site.

Possibly less, depending on the Congressman.

Re:If I had to guess

[CanHasDIY]

About as effective as the We The People petition site.

Possibly less

I have my doubts that such a thing is even physically possible...

Re:If I had to guess

[PhxBlue]

I have my doubts that such a thing is even physically possible...

I live in Colorado's 5th District. I assure you, it's possible.

Re:If I had to guess

[AK Marc]

[non-donor response template]
Dear [insert constituent name here],

Thank you for your interest in [insert topic here], I assure we have well researched this issue and the current state is the best we can get in the current political climate. I will keep your comments under consideration during the next election phase, where I may choose to make empty promises to fix the issue, if enough similar letters come in.

Regards,
Your Congresscritter

Re:If I had to guess

[Anonymous Coward]

If you are passionate about something, e-mail is the wrong way to get hold of your state reps. a hand written letter using snail mail is the best way for these old folks to know you mean business. yes, handwriting a letter can suck, but it conveys a strong indication that people are truly against whatever they are writing about.

though a spam campaign of email and snail mail would be even better. every person emailing 5 times a day and sending in 1 snail mail a day would show your intent.

Re:If I had to guess

[CanHasDIY]

Save the last sentence, that's an uncanny representation of 99.99% of the responses I receive...

Regarding the last sentence, I only wish they'd be that honest, 'twould be refreshing.

Re:If I had to guess

[AK Marc]

I've gotten my share of "thanks for bringing up this issue that I'm happily ignoring" letters. It's funny how many on Slashdot claim to be politically interested but aren't politically active enough to have written even a single letter to a congressman.

Re:If I had to guess

[CanHasDIY]

It's funny how many on Slashdot claim to be politically interested but aren't politically active enough to have written even a single letter to a congressman.

Funny sad, as opposed to funny 'ha ha.'

Re:If I had to guess

[PickyH3D]

So tell me genius, if a civil suit was filed against you and your roommate then denied that he infringed any copyright, how exactly you would prevent yourself from 'going down' for this?

Fortunately, when you actually have friends, you can reason with them. I did not break down a legal argument to my friend. I simply made it clear that if I got any further notices, then things would get awkward and that it was unacceptable.

When you have friends, they are not usually out to screw you because, otherwise, they are not your friend. In a matter of law, he may have decided to point the finger back at me, but reasoning with him that I had no intention of sitting idly by while he pirated content effectively in my name was enough to make him stop.

As for your final statement:

And that is just one of many problems of this so called 'piracy' bullshit.

Based on this statement alone, I suspect that you took offense to me declaring myself against piracy.

The tactics used by the *AA and various other copyright magnates are outrageous and disturbing, but that does not change the fact that there is nothing "so called" about piracy. The fact that they cannot determine whether it was my roommate or me pirating something is a happy (privacy benefiting) shortcoming of technology. The belief that piracy is only an issue because the *AA make it out to be one is a fairy tale told to people too naive to understand reality. Clearly, the *AA is a consortium of corporate leaches, but that does not change the realities of piracy across all forms of media.

The BS of piracy is the fact that the *AA have so much power, and that they have convinced judges, many in Congress, and the President that their losses far exceed what they charge. Not to mention the idea that they deserve exceptional opportunities to create dragnets to catch only potentially non-innocent citizens. The very idea that a single person pirating a TV show magically costs its associated organization more than the cost of that show, or even a few multiples of that cost for punishment, is ludicrous even without going into the oft-claimed argument that many pirates try-before-buying. But, again, that does not change the sheer scale of piracy that does occur on a daily basis, which does rob the rights owners of their dues, whether or not we think them to be obscene.

They told me

[AntiBasic]

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.

Re:They told me

[CanHasDIY]

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.

Re:They told me

[RoknrolZombie]

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.

Re:They told me

[ganjadude]

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

Re:They told me

[Omestes]

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.

Re:They told me

[Anonymous Coward]

At least the ones that lie know that they're wrong. The ones being "honest" don't even realize how wrong they are.

Re:They told me

[SuperTechnoNerd]

"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."

Re:They told me

[Omestes]

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?

Re:They told me

[Grishnakh]

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.

Re:They told me

[sesshomaru]

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.

Re:They told me

[Omestes]

"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)?

Re:They told me

[shentino]

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.

Re:They told me

[SuperTechnoNerd]

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?]

Re:They told me

[Omestes]

(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

No real consequences imposed by the ISP

[Mr. Sketch]

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.

If you support Wikileaks watch out,ISP is watching

[elucido]

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.

Profit

[Dan East]

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/

Re:Profit

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, but look at the different media types available. and the choices we have. We no longer have to buy the full crappy album for those two songs we love. That in and of itself caused a huge increase. That and the price per song went down which increased the consumer buying power. The down side though is those 2 songs usually cost 3/4 the price of the album. But the RIAA and any regulation which focuses on incriminating children is wrong.

Re:Profit

[Anonymous Coward]

Great. Since you made money last year, it's cool if I sleep on your lawn, right?

your ISP is becoming a government asset.

[elucido]

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.

Re:your ISP is becoming a government asset.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is what the people voted for. We have a long history of government dickering in private matters but we had half the voting public eat it up when the abomination known as the Patriot act got passed. The other side shunned it and claimed that it was the downfall of freedom until their fuhrer got in office and expanded and extended the Patriot act. That was it, game over. Now both sides of the one party system are loving their shit sandwich. The alternative is to admit that their party is full of totalitarian bitches. That just won't play out. The average fucktard on the street defends their party even as they're smothering the nation in debt, schism and lies.
 
By the time these fucks realize what's going on it'll be too late. America is as good as gone.

Re:your ISP is becoming a government asset.

[CncRobot]

What I find amusing, as accurate as your rant is, is how much money has been printed/borrowed and stolen in the last 4 years. It is mind boggling what has been going on and every time its mentioned the person mentioning it is labeled a racist.

Everyone SHOULD know about the stimilus being a union hand out to fund the DNC elections. However the EPA has a "sue and settle" scam going on and they have recently gotten into trouble for using private emails to conduct EPA business to set these up.

Your rant about the Patriot act is exactly what they want. They could care less about that, but as long as you rant about the Patriot act you are missing the millions and billions they are outright stealing from the US taxpayer.

Re:your ISP is becoming a government asset.

[Anonymous Coward]

Just because I don't mention "the millions and billions" doesn't mean I don't know about it. In fact, that kind of thing is part of what I mean when I talk about smothering the citizens in debt.

Re:your ISP is becoming a government asset.

[Anonymous Coward]

...anything you do or say while on that ISP will be monitored....

Um.....hate to break it to you, but it is already being monitored.

Judge, Jury, and Executioner

[Anonymous Coward]

Sweet! Extrajudicial punishments! And I thought China was awesome!

Re:If you support Wikileaks watch out,ISP is watch

[Fallingcow]

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.

It's cyber intimidation

[elucido]

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.

Change internet providers every year

[tekrat]

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....

Re:Change internet providers every year

[Mr. Sketch]

As long as you have two internet providers to choose from. Rural areas still only have one choice, if any.

Re:Change internet providers every year

[loshwomp]

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...

How about not giving money to ISPs like that in the first place? Out here we have sonic.net, one of the last remaining great independent ISPs (especially since Speakeasy sold out). They treat their customers like adults, and on the rare occasion that I've needed technical support, a knowledgable real person answers the phone on the first ring.

(Disclaimer--no affiliation other than as satisfied customer, blah blah blah.)

Re:Change internet providers every year

[DragonDru]

The lack of options is frustrating, particularly when these issues come up.

Re:Change internet providers every year

[multimediavt]

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....

That was the first tactic that sprang to my mind, too. I am guessing that you could wipe out your options pretty fast as I am sure they do not clear you from the six strikes db when you get terminated from an ISP. Not suggesting a central db, but if you get kicked from Verizon for six strikes I would imagine you've burned that bridge and getting a new account with them would be impossible. I need to read the full text of the CAS to get an idea if this and other questions I have are answered therein.

Re:Change internet providers every year

[antdude]

After two small cities, I only had one decent broadband service (cable). No DSL and FIOS in both Verizon areas. Dial-up suck at 3 KB/sec. Frak satellite.

Re:Change internet providers every year

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't need to. After six strikes there are no penalties and they don't disconnected. This is more of an incentive to cancel on first strike or stick with the service after the sixth strike because there won't be any further penalties.

Re:Change internet providers every year

[sjames]

Then, both noticing that exact pattern offer their 'very special' six-striker's rate of $200/month.

Re:Change internet providers every year

[Anonymous Coward]

New customer != recent customer.

Re:Change internet providers every year

[flimflammer]

If we don't give them our money, then what can we do? Just not have the internet anymore? That's not really a valid solution. It's great you have this amazing independent ISP but I can assure you the vast majority of us in the states don't.

Re:Change internet providers every year

[gravis777]

Great idea, but even in the suburbs, this can be problimatic. Many appartment complexes require you to use their provider. I guess if you get cut, and are in a major metro area, you could always go with something like Clear for a year.

I have the choice of Time Warner or AT&T in my area. AT&T caps at 250gb a month, and according to Time Warner's bandwidth monitoring thingy, I average about 300 gigs of transfers a month between Vudu and Netflix and my surfing (yeah, I guess streaming services can add up).AT&T also caps in my area at 15Mbps and is higher than what Time Warner charges for 20Mbps. Before I moved, I had 30Mbps with Charter, at half of what Time Warner charges.

Worse, before I moved, I pretty much had the choice of Charter or AT&T DSL, which maxes at 6Mbps. Hmmm, so I can pay $50 a month to AT&T for 6Mbps (actually, it was more like 4.8Mbps) or $35 a month to Charter for 30 Mbps (actually, it was more like 37Mbps - yeah, it was HIGHER than advertised). Oh, or I could pay $80 a month to Hughes Net for around 5-6Mbps with high ping times.

Needless to say, I don't want to piss off my cable provider, because the alternative sucks.

Re:Change internet providers every year

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah that's true, but you'll have numerous neighbors who will have wireless. Backtrack is your friend. WPA is compromised. Perhaps when an entire rural area has been knocked offline for downloading this nonsense will stop. All it takes is a band of teenagers with nothing better to do. How many of those exist in a rural area?
Drive around on a saturday afternoon leaching movies from different endpoints. It wouldn't be long before 6 strikes were used up. When the ISP is no longer making money from an area that's much more expensive to provide service to they might reconsider their position.

$35?

[Revek]

As long as they understand I'm gonna charge them $75 for my trouble.

Re:If you support Wikileaks watch out,ISP is watch

[elucido]

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...

[xanadu113]

If I'm paying extra for a higher speed, how can they throttle my connection, based on an ALLEGED infringement..??

Re:If I'm paying extra for a higher speed...

[Bob9113]

If I'm paying extra for a higher speed, how can they throttle my connection, based on an ALLEGED infringement..??

Sit down, shut up, and be thankful They are giving you anything, consumer.

Re:If I'm paying extra for a higher speed...

[Anonymous Coward]

They can throttle you because they are in a bad mood that day. Read your TOS. They control your contract, not you.

Re:If I'm paying extra for a higher speed...

[Anonymous Coward]

Because other people "donated" more money than you. What you pay, your service with them, even your life is completely worthless in their eyes. Maybe donate a 6 digit number or more to them, and they might look the other way. Maybe.

Re:If I'm paying extra for a higher speed...

[multimediavt]

If I'm paying extra for a higher speed, how can they throttle my connection, based on an ALLEGED infringement..??

I am not sure why you think your provider can't throttle you because you "pay extra". Are you suggesting immunity because you're rich, or think you're somehow special? There are as many ways to throttle bandwidth as there are bandwidth options. I can change the port speed on a fiber ST connection as easily as on a copper CAT-5, or pump you through a throttling proxy on the ISP end and there you go at 200 baud if I so desire. What you pay and plug into on your end has nothing to do with the other end. Remember, your connection has two ends and either one can be moved or diverted to something slower.

Re:If I'm paying extra for a higher speed...

[misexistentialist]

Surely you can see the contractual problem with being billed for something that you don't receive. Customers should be downgraded to the lowest billing tier, certainly an ISP can't deny this request, though I'm not sure how ISPs can even compel payment for a product that they can deliberately alter at their discretion. This is like a car dealer getting you to sign something allowing them to substitute a bicycle for the Porsche you selected: it's just not kosher.

Re:If I'm paying extra for a higher speed...

[sjames]

No, he's simply stating that if they're not going to give you the full connection you shouldn't be paying the full price. That seems reasonable.

Re:If I'm paying extra for a higher speed...

[Anonymous Coward]

obviously its technically possible to take money for higher speed and throttle the user simultaneously, however the point is that its extremely wrong.

Re:If I'm paying extra for a higher speed...

[jolle]

If I'm paying extra for a higher speed, how can they throttle my connection, based on an ALLEGED infringement..??

Sit down, shut up, and be thankful They are giving you anything, stupid consumer.

FTFY

Re:If I'm paying extra for a higher speed...

[gravis777]

My understanding is that they won't throttle until at least the 4th notice. Plenty of time to sign up for a VPN service, and plenty of time to pay the $35 appeal. Also plenty of time to secure your wireless router.

Re:If I'm paying extra for a higher speed...

[Anonymous Coward]

Because they're the provider and you're the consumer. The two parts of the equation come together on equitable ground. If a proposal is so offensive the the consumer says "up yours I'm not paying for that" then the provider backs down a little bit until they can find common ground again that allows them to make a profit. If the consumer says "meh" they keep cranking the screws until the customer says "up yours" at which point they back off for a while until the customer says "meh" again.

Metrics should be easy to track

[bhlowe]

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...

Re:Metrics should be easy to track

[Omestes]

How many people just don't bother with the content anymore, and don't bother switching to a legal alternative either?

Thats what would happen in my household. When Hulu took a crap, my mainstream media consumption pretty much flatlined. I can live without TV, movies, or RIAA music. And if I really want it I'll get it second hand for a deep discount.

Re:Metrics should be easy to track

[Anonymous Coward]

yeah, that's a growing group that you represent (that I'm a part of as well). Don't worry though they're trying to make buying stuff second hand illegal too.

Re:Metrics should be easy to track

[Omestes]

Don't worry though they're trying to make buying stuff second hand illegal too.

Then screw 'em. I'm old enough where cultural relevance doesn't matter anymore, so I don't really need to see the newest big media. I've already completely given up on theaters, and live music in big arenas, since they are generally horrible experiences and cost way too much since you're pretty much locked in a venue, and forced to live at the whim of concessions (woo, $10 pissy beer! $6 for a handful of popcorn!). I've stopped watching TV, since the ad content pretty much ruins the experience. I don't watch most popular movies, because I can't stand them anymore (why is everything like a damn Michael Bay movie, too much damn action, and no reason to give a shit. Too much style and no substance whatsoever).

Content producers need me. I don't need them. People have lived happy lives for millennia without big media, and they can do so again.

Re:Metrics should be easy to track

[chakan2]

It's going to be interesting to watch how many people go to encrypted and VPN services. The (insert evil overlord) will then tout that as a success story as the successful ones will fall of these metrics.

Re:Metrics should be easy to track

[Reziac]

Same here. None of it matters that much to me anymore. And when I can't get "free samples", I don't even know the stuff exists to buy in the first place. So, yeah, my consumption would likewise flatline.

Re:Metrics should be easy to track

[Nyder]

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...

Smart bittorrent users, like me, go thru a proxy.

They only thing that is gaining money from this, from me, is a VPN provider.

It gives the RIAA/MPAA an excuse to monitor users

[elucido]

And once one group of corporations gains the ability it's only a matter of time before they want other excuses.

The big ISPs are all content distributors

[jonwil]

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.

Re:The big ISPs are all content distributors

[Anonymous Coward]

Except that Comcast is a Content creator. One of the bigger MPAA studios is Universal and Comcast owns that. They have both ends of the line.

Re:The big ISPs are all content distributors

[Anonymous Coward]

Right, the same damn content people get from torrets. How about they just setup ultra fast downloads for their customers, and fork over some money for the media companies?

just file a allegation ageist all IP's

[Joe_Dragon]

just file a allegation ageist all IP's and do it say 10 times and this will die.

Re:just file a allegation ageist all IP's

[WhatAreYouDoingHere]

Dear ISP,
I have found that an IP address coming from your network has illegally shared my copywritten work. Please terminate its connection. The address listed is: 127.0.0.1.

How do ISPs know what is legit or not?

[Anonymous Coward]

vodo.net legal torrents - do they get a pass or will they be counted within the six tries?

Power to the RIAA/MPAA.

[elucido]

It's as simple as that. CORP POWER.

Sweet!

[Anonymous Coward]

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!

Well ...

[DakotaSmith]

Guess I'll be looking for a VPN provider overseas.

Re:Well ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait, are you implying that you are planning on downloading copyrighted content over a P2P connection?

Land of the Free eh?

[Anonymous Coward]

Doesn't sound like it.

Re:Land of the Free eh?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh really?

Companies are free to implement this because there's no regulation blocking it. If there were, that would be a non-free country.

Free doesn't mean that everyone caters to what you want.

Re:Land of the Free eh?

[Anonymous Coward]

Kill yourself, idiot.

Re:Land of the Free eh?

[Anonymous Coward]

Feel free to point out the logical error I made, if you believe I made one.

Free = no regulation = companies can screw you every which way possible.

What you seem to want is regulation to prevent that, which is the exact opposite of what "free" would be. Or is that you want you and only you to be free? In that case, perhaps you should kill yourself, then you and only you will be free.

Re:If you support Wikileaks watch out,ISP is watch

[Fallingcow]

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.

ISPs not monitoring traffic

[NoKaOi]

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.

Re:ISPs not monitoring traffic

[Anonymous Coward]

So this is basically what they were doing before, only now, they're not suing people, they're complaining to your ISP and making them do something or other to you.

So peer blocking lists should still work? Check.

Re:ISPs not monitoring traffic

[Anonymous Coward]

They're planning to stop suing people? I must have missed that.

legit mp3s?

[Anonymous Coward]

How are they determining if music is legal or not? I get alot from bt.etree.org which is totally legit live music.

DMCA Safe-Harbor

[steamraven]

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

Re:If you support Wikileaks watch out,ISP is watch

[AK Marc]

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?

What. A. Load. Of. Shit.

[CanHasDIY]

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:

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.

No personal information about consumers is shared between the content owners and ISPs, and ISPs are not involved in the process of identifying copyrighted content.

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!

Re:What. A. Load. Of. Shit.

[nabsltd]

Once they see a title being made available on the peer-to-peer network, they confirm that it is, in fact, copyrighted content.

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.

Can you imagine how much bandwidth and disk space such a content checking system must have to "confirm copyrighted content"?

A search for "Game of Thrones" on Pirate Bay lists 5 pages (at 30 entries per page) before the torrent size is less than 5GB, and 22 pages before the size is less than 0.5GB. That's over 1TB they would need to download just to verify every torrent for a single title. If they don't download the entire torrent, they can't be sure that it's really is something they hold the copyright to.

With 5 million torrents on TPB, even if only half (likely too low a guess) are copyrighted by companies that belong to **AA, and if the average size is 250MB, that's 625TB of data.

Re:What. A. Load. Of. Shit.

[PrimaryConsult]

While it is worded badly, it essentially what they have been doing with colleges. The content owner would send a DMCA complaint with an XML file to the college IT department (or ISP the college contracted out to). The file contains the name of the infringing file and the P2P service it was found on, along with the IP address and UTC timestamp. The school is free to deal with the infringing student as they see fit (small fee, 30 day service suspension, etc). At no point is the identity of the student revealed to the content owner unless the student agrees to fight the claim in court (depending on circumstances giving this info out could be a FERPA violation).

However, in a college setting it's easy to have the student agree that they are responsible for all traffic over their IP address. Also, with some cleverness with DHCP, subnetting and packet shaping (along with disallowing personal wireless routers), you can prevent most of the ways someone could use an IP they didn't "sign out".

Re:What. A. Load. Of. Shit.

[Anonymous Coward]

A search for "Game of Thrones" on Pirate Bay lists 5 pages (at 30 entries per page) before the torrent size is less than 5GB, and 22 pages before the size is less than 0.5GB. That's over 1TB they would need to download just to verify every torrent for a single title. If they don't download the entire torrent, they can't be sure that it's really is something they hold the copyright to.

Nice try, but no. A couple minutes is enough to confirm there's some copyrighted content, no matter that the other 90% of the torrent might theoretically be something other than the rest of that GoT episode. Then you use a custom client that requests just those chunks known to contain copyrighted material. Every peer who hands you one of those chunks is sharing copyrighted content. Sure, you don't get everybody who's connected to the tracker, because some of them don't have those chunks yet, or have stopped seeding before you can request them, or isn't downloading those chunks at all (e.g. season packs where they're downloading only one episode), but you get enough of them -- you'll catch the rest next time.

Of course, this being the MAFIAA, they'll likely as not forgo verification altogether. If the torrent's named Game of Thrones, GoT, or GoT MiLk, they'll flag it. Doesn't cost them anything to be wrong, and the fraction of people willing to take time and pay cash to challenge them, multiplied by the fraction of torrents that aren't what they say on the tin, is too tiny to worry about even if it did.

Re:What. A. Load. Of. Shit.

[Reziac]

It would be useful to know which content owners do and don't subscribe to this scheme, so I know which to boycott and which to support.

I'm guessing some of the smaller labels derive much, perhaps most of their profit from P2P effectively being free advertising that drives secondary sales.

Re:What. A. Load. Of. Shit.

[nabsltd]

A couple minutes is enough to confirm there's some copyrighted content

Not for many formats, as there won't be anything usable unless you download a very large chunk.

no matter that the other 90% of the torrent might theoretically be something other than the rest of that GoT episode. Then you use a custom client that requests just those chunks known to contain copyrighted material.

If that's the method they use, then I can argue "fair use", and they won't be able to refute it since they never downloaded the entire torrent, nor will they know if I did.

Every peer who hands you one of those chunks is sharing copyrighted content.

Even better. If they accuse based on one chunk of a torrent, then then only have about 0.1% of the total, and that's certainly fair use, as it's only around 3 seconds of an hour long show.

The key here is that once somebody ponies up the $35 and raises these sorts of challenges ("show me the bits you downloaded from me, personally", etc.), if those challenges work, then it will be posted somewhere and everybody will use the same argument. The **AA won't be able to keep paying for the reviews, and will have to do some actual work to proves infringement. Either way, it will cost them more money. The more likely alternative is that all **AA "evidence" is assumed to be 100% valid regardless of method and the **AA will win all "reviews". Once this comes to light, then I suspect that class-action lawsuits will start.

Re:What. A. Load. Of. Shit.

[CanHasDIY]

It would be useful to know which content owners do and don't subscribe to this scheme, so I know which to boycott and which to support.

The only 2 I know of for sure are Fat Wreck Chords and Epitaph Records, though it seems Epitaph has been moving in the 'corporate whore' direction for a number of years (ironic, considering that the anti-establishment punk sensation Bad Religion is one of their top artists).

Is anyone really

[s0nicfreak]

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...

Re:Is anyone really

[Anonymous Coward]

I live in a country where we are a season behind on most everything, so yeah, I do, and will continue to do so. Also no Netflix and ppv is wallet rape.

Re:Is anyone really

[s0nicfreak]

The RIAA is the RECORDING Industry Association of America - music, not video.

Just MPAA/RIAA?

[PhxBlue]

So no one's bothering to monitor pirated software, right? Asking for a friend.

Re:Just MPAA/RIAA?

[Nyder]

So no one's bothering to monitor pirated software, right? Asking for a friend.

the ISP are not monitoring it, the Movie and Music industry are not monitoring it.

The truth is, the software industry isn't relying on an business model that is close to 100 years old. They know some people pirate their software, but they don't go all bat shit crazy and spend billions lobbying about it. They just accept it as part of business and enjoy the money they are making.

zz

[Anonymous Coward]

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!

I think people are failing to understand....

[mark-t]

.... that the $35 fee is refunded to consumers who pay it, and are not found to have actually committed any copyright infringement.

Re:I think people are failing to understand....

[L. J. Beauregard]

And if you'll -- buy -- that
I've got some ocean front property in A-ri-zo-na
From my front porch you can see the sea
I've got some ocean front property in A-ri-zo-na
If you'll buy that, I'll throw the Golden Gate in free.

Re:I think people are failing to understand....

[mark-t]

What's not to believe? That it will be refunded if the appeal is successful, or that appeals would ever be successful?

If the latter, what's the basis for believing that the appeal process wouldn't be successful, if neither the appellant nor anyone else using that person's internet connection ever did what was being alleged?

Re:I think people are failing to understand....

[nabsltd]

.... that the $35 fee is refunded to consumers who pay it, and are not found to have actually committed any copyright infringement.

OK, you've just gotten an "alert". Prove that it was not issued correctly. Remember that the monitoring software is assumed to never make mistakes, so if they have a list with your IP address, a date and time, and a torrent name, then it that is proof that that IP address downloaded and uploaded that torrent at that date and time. The ISP has furnished a DHCP log that shows your account was holding that IP address at that date and time.

Note that you, personally, are not being accused. Your account is being accused. So, now you have to provide proof that your account is not to blame for something that did happen (according to the "guilty until proven innocent" system in place). You can play the "open WiFi" card once. If you get another "alert" after using the "open WiFi" defense, you can't use it again.

So, prove your innocence.

Re:I think people are failing to understand....

[sjames]

Well, let's see, who does the arbitrator most want to like him, his repeat customer with the money bags or the little guy he'll never see again...

Re:I think people are failing to understand....

[Anonymous Coward]

That you are defending it, is so frighteningly sad.

(Ha, captcha was "futile")

Re:I think people are failing to understand....

[mark-t]

First of all, I don't have an open wifi... and secondly, I don't infringe on copyright, so how is it that you propose that software which allegedly doesn't make mistakes would link my IP to an infringement, exactly?

Re:I think people are failing to understand....

[nabsltd]

First of all, I don't have an open wifi... and secondly, I don't infringe on copyright, so how is it that you propose that software which allegedly doesn't make mistakes would link my IP to an infringement, exactly?

No, I said "the monitoring software is assumed to never make mistakes". In other words, everybody who is ruling on your guilt is under the assumption that if you got an alert, it's not a mistake. In your case, it's probably a mistake (although even non-open WiFi can be hacked, and if your account was used, then it is not a mistake by the definition of this program), but your ISP and the "independant review board" will assume that it is not.

So, prove it was a mistake.

Re:I think people are failing to understand....

[Anonymous Coward]

Because it's Guilty until Proven Innocent - which is PROVING A NEGATIVE.

i.e. Let me PROVE I did NOT download that file:
- I don't have it (re: you deleted it)
- I don't have a history of it on my machine (re: you cleaned your history)
- I don't have a bit-torrent client (re: you used to)
- I wasn't online that day (re: your IP address was)

No matter what you say, they will have a response, and neither your response or theirs is actually PROVABLE, therefore by default, they win... the strike stands.. AND you're out $35.

Re:I think people are failing to understand....

[mark-t]

All I could do to prove it was a mistake is all that anyone who is falsely accused of doing something wrong can do to prove their innocence, which is to tell the truth.

Simply put, if it was not a mistake then there would necessarily be some accompanying evidence that my wifi had been hacked into, since my router logs all connections to it. These logs cannot be manipulated without logging into the router as an administrator, which in turn cannot be done except by a direct wired connection to the router. If there is such a record in the log, then the software did not make a mistake, although I would still contest that I myself am innocent. If there wasn't such any such record, then it must follow that their process for identifying my IP, by whatever means they did so, has an error in it.

It is worth nothing that whether or not they believe this does not change its veracity; if they do not believe the truth, then there is nothing more anyone could do about that anyways... but that's still not a problem with the policy itself, that's a problem with the people and their perceptions.

As things stand, however, I'm confident enough that this would not actually ever impact me in any way. I don't pirate stuff in the first place, and I have complete confidence in the security of my home network to not be worried that somebody else might try to utilize it for such, so I'm not that concerned about it.... nor am I particularly worried that innocent people who don't casually share their private network connectivity with other people will be likely to be pinged by this system either.

Re:I think people are failing to understand....

[mark-t]

How about just the factual statement that I don't ever download infringing content in the first place? The only response they could allege to that is that I am lying. At which point it should become evident that such rebuttals are less about what actually happened or even trying to establish any proof, and more about what people might simply want to believe, irrespective of the evidence at hand.

But with respect to what you've said, it's worth pointing out that there are people that ignore evidence of evolution too... that doesn't actually mean that the evidence is invalid.

And while I do use Bittorrent on occasion, it is is *ALWAYS* to download completely legitimate content that is only being distributed via torrent to lower loads on the server. I don't ever download infringing content... ever, and I do not share my internet connection with anyone, so I would find it unlikely in the extreme that my IP address would ever get associated with such an activity in the first place, and I would dare say that people who follow similar practices should be equally unlikely to find themselves in the situation.

Re:I think people are failing to understand....

[nabsltd]

All I could do to prove it was a mistake is all that anyone who is falsely accused of doing something wrong can do to prove their innocence, which is to tell the truth.

Unfortunately, you're being too logical. Everything you say would work really well if you were allowed to somehow challenge the accuracy of the accusation. But, you aren't.

And, here's where it gets really fun. I was under the impression (as I think we all were) that you could ask for a review on any "alert". Not so with Verizon:

Our Copyright Alert Program allows you to seek review by an independent reviewer, the American Arbitration Association (AAA), of the alerts you have received. The opportunity to seek review is available once you have received a fifth or sixth copyright alert from us.

-- http://www22.verizon.com/Support/Residential/internet/highspeed/general+support/top+questions/questionsone/123247.htm

This means that if something flags your account (maybe the DHCP logs are wrong, maybe somebody is spoofing other IPs to the tracker just to get other people in trouble, etc.), you won't even be able to ask for a review until it's already at the point that they will be intercepting your browser requests to "educate" you.

Did Someone Just Install a Cam in my House?

[Press2ToContinue]

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)

Re:Did Someone Just Install a Cam in my House?

[multimediavt]

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)

Slippery slopes usually lead to falls. In this case we are all hoping that CAS and the colluding ISPs fall flat on their faces and fail miserably.

Re:Did Someone Just Install a Cam in my House?

[Obfuscant]

Isn't this like saying it's ok to put a webcam in my house in case I do something wrong?

No, it's more like you putting a webcam in your house with an open feed to the outside, and then being worried that someone you don' t like may look at it.

The determination of copyright infringement comes from an industry agent who has obtained material from a peer-to-peer server and determined that it is in violation of copyright. So, you'd have to not only copy a file from somewhere else but then turn around and act as a server for that file. If you don't do the latter, then the industry spies won't get anything from you and can't tell your ISP.

ISP's = Cable companies = Content providers

[sdo1]

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

Re:ISP's = Cable companies = Content providers

[rudy_wayne]

They're either the same companies (Time-Warner cable), or they're in cahoots (Verizon with their NFL deals, Comcast with their sports networks).

I'm surprised that it has taken so long for someone to mention this. This is not a case of ISPs "going along" or "being on the side of" the RIAA/MPAA. The 6 major ISPs who are pulling this crap ARE the RIAA/MPAA. Every one of them owns or is owned by movie studios, TV networks, record companies, etc.

The day I have to pay

[Jafafa Hots]

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.

Kindly

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck Off

Please STOP with the "strikes"!

[Dahamma]

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.

I'll be going back to IRC and FTP's instead.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

IPS Fail...

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Blacklist

[Anonymous Coward]

Last i heard was if you are terminated from one, they blacklist you and you cant go to another participating isp for 1 year.

Let me see if I understand correctly

[Anonymous Coward]

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).

Re:Let me see if I understand correctly

[Anonymous Coward]

Kill yourself.

Re:Let me see if I understand correctly

[letherial]

we could argue you about morality all day long, basically it comes down to this, your not any better of a person then anyone else and thinking otherwise is just ignorance; but i am not going to argue about the morality, i dont argue with people who think they are better then others, what i am going to argue is that this is a easily abused system with so many ways to make false positives it isnt even funny.

Give you a example, most modern routers include WPS that is turned on by default, this stupid idea is so unsecure it takes 2 to 10 hours to secretly get the WPA key, i have 6 around me currently all with a good enough signal to do this. This is going to get poor grandma wondering what the hell is going on. The very idea of this is so disgusting that i honestly dont care what you think about piracy, you are a American and should be offended by the very thought that your guilty untill proven innocent.

Rights are rights, they should not be taken away because others attempt to abuse them, your logic is utterly flawed and your thinking allows for things like this to happen

Re:Let me see if I understand correctly

[shentino]

In the criminal realm, this balance is achieved by something called a search warrant.

Take them to small claims court

[nickittynickname]

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.

XBMC

[ganjadude]

I see XBMC use going way up. Thats what I decided to do anyway.

So basically bit-torrent.

[zyamada]

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?

Re:If you support Wikileaks watch out,ISP is watch

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

VPN through an international boundry

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Wel then its time to back charge ISP for...

[3seas]

failure to provide the speed they promoted that got you to go with them.

Simple

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:simple

[sesshomaru]

" Anyone can buy OCP's stock and own a piece of our city. What could be more democratic than that?"

Ha!

[snspdaarf]

"Major internet service providers today will start monitoring the internet traffic to their customers' computers ..." And the amount of porn viewed zeros out.

Giving up $2k per customer per year?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

How Long?

[Zamphatta]

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.

Re:How Long?

[Existential Wombat]

In my case, if I lost my internet connection I would be unable to work. I work from home and it is essential. I would sue for loss of employment. Probably for loss of all earnings between now and when I would have retired.

Re:How Long?

[MouseTheLuckyDog]

Are you disabled? If so then you can probably sue under ADA for lose of wages. Then just watch everyone freak out at the ISP ( I have seen people who would not panic in one of the twin towers, panic at the suggestion of an ADA suit ).

Hypocrites

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Re:Hypocrites

[ganjadude]

lol bad troll is bad. I dont defend them for anything you mentioned

Re:Hypocrites

[Anonymous Coward]

Not you, specifically. The general tone of the posts here, all asshurt because the corporation has made a choice.

Sorry. Should have been more specific about being more general, if you catch my gist.

Re:Hypocrites

[cHALiTO]

I'm paying my ISP for a service. I'm not paying google for gmail or google+

Mission Accomplished

[Anonymous Coward]

"The long-term challenge here is getting users to change their attitudes and behaviors and views toward copyright infringement"

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 about Canadians or Europeans in US?

[Anonymous Coward]

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 appeal

[Anonymous Coward]

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???????

Re:It gives the RIAA/MPAA an excuse to monitor use

[Archangel Michael]

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?

So spying is ok...

[Press2ToContinue]

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?

Re:So spying is ok...

[Obfuscant]

as long as I don't do anything wrong.

Sentence fragment. As long as you don't download a piece of copyrighted material and then start distributing it yourself. Yes. The determination of copyright infringement requires someone actually obtaining from you a copy of something that is being distributed in violation of copyright. The key words are "obtaining from you". Just as you cannot determine who else is downloading what from the server you are getting your copies of movies from, neither can the *AA. They only know what you are serving.

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?

Of course not. Did you even read what I wrote? Or what the process involves? The guy with a camcorder recording you standing on your front porch saying "come get your free movies from me" is ok, both legally and ethically. That's what it will take to be identified for notice.

Comcast&others have right to Safe Harbor

[Anonymous Coward]

"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

[Anonymous Coward]

Can we have the litigation back rather than inspecting everyone's traffic?

Charter

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

so torrenting today makes a political statement

[0111 1110]

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.

$35 if you appeal...

[bratwiz]

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.

File an FCC privacy complaint

[SampleFish]

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.

Re:If you support Wikileaks watch out,ISP is watch

[AK Marc]

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.

VPN anyone?

[LiteWait]

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 ???

simple

[PopeRatzo]

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.]

Re:It gives the RIAA/MPAA an excuse to monitor use

[jhoegl]

Oh to be gullable again and believe in Capitalism fixing it.

Re:your ISP is becoming a RIAA/MPAA asset.

[naroom]

See subject line, FTFY.

The strikes

[russotto]

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.

Re:The strikes

[MouseTheLuckyDog]

How are they going to play a video on Linux? Are they going to embed it in an email? How are they going to make it redirect?

Hopefully you're seeing the big picture

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Underground railway anyone?

[mar.kolya]

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

[Anonymous Coward]

I do not consent to my traffic being sniffed/monitored. It is tantamount to eavesdropping/wiretapping.

$35?

[Jaysyn]

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.

1 terabyte a week

[Anonymous Coward]

I've downloaded a terabyte a week for the past year or so. No trouble here. All legitimate traffic on consumer class internet.

Lucky americains

[manu0601]

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

What you have produced is copywritten.

[Anonymous Coward]

So why not demand the gatekeepers add your material to their system and then sue when they do not?

Re:What you have produced is copywritten.

[ThomasBHardy]

Interesting thought you have there.
You could argue possible attack vector to the policy would be to create a file of your own IPs infringing your materials and demand representation with the ISPs. As more and more people demand the same services, it places additional load (cost) on the system and lowers reliability (as every submitter will have different levels of validity to their claims) resulting in more challenges and more increased costs.

I bet few will get their $35 back

[Beefpatrol]

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)"

So much for that...

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

In Soviet Russia...

[Thor Ablestar]

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.

Re:In Soviet Russia...

[Beefpatrol]

Do you think the government is smart enough to spread propaganda by making a file which, in a very subtle way, promotes whatever they want to promote, and then putting it on the prohibited list?

Re:In Soviet Russia...

[Thor Ablestar]

No, I don't. The files are prohibited by courts, not by government. And the government is basically in panic and instructs courts to prohibit everything suspicious. So, the list is quite ridiculous. And also, anything contained in the list should be immediately blocked, and they really try.

And BTW: Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. (Hanlon's Razor)

We should all start a 5 strike system

[Karem Lore]

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.

Re:We should all start a 5 strike system

[UltraZelda64]

And what if the customer's only available choices are, say, Time Warner (Cable) and AT&T (DSL)? Would that make it effectively "ten strikes and you're completely fucked" or something similar? Maybe some of the other companies providing service on behalf of the main two can bail your ass out for a little while (Road Runner and EarthLink both provide services through Time Warner around here), but assuming that were possible (i.e. that RR or EL gives the strikes not TW), you'll be out of choices fast. Aren't monopolies great? Strike 10 would effectively be giving up the Internet.

Libel? Slander?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Slander and Libel

[KoshClassic]

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.

Re:Slander and Libel

[Psyborgue]

One solid defense is that there is no case unless they disclose it to a third party, which they will not. If you did, then you would consent to the publication.

good luck with that

[Anonymous Coward]

the petitions will likely disappear afer an armed SWAT team invades your home and assaults you.

Your SSL knowledge is about 12 years out of date

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

If it's this widespread, who is liable?

[taj]

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?

Sample petition to cut-and-paste

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Fair is Fair

[taniwha]

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

Way to increase profit for the pirates!

[Anonymous Coward]

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!

Tunnels not needed

[Skapare]

IPsec transport mode is sufficient. Just do the proper security association with IKEv2.

Recommend a good VPN service?

[ShinSugoi]

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?

Re:Recommend a good VPN service?

[Anonymous Coward]

BTGuard, they offer Bit Torrent only and full VPN options for reasonable prices. Based in Canada, does not keep logs.

Speeds aren't awesome (3-500K/s), and as Ben Franklin once said, "Those who can give up the fastest internet speeds to obtain safety, rarely get prosecuted if at all...

Use Anonymous Networks !!!

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

you infringe my copyright (but I don't care)

[queBurro]

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?

WTF NOOB!

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:WTF NOOB!

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm pretty sure he's only using TOR to download the .torrent and for DHT, which isn't much traffic.

Re:WTF NOOB!

[dmacleod808]

Usenet is bad once the indexing sites dissapeared and a much higher percentage of the content does not end up being complete in the last 3 - 4 months.,

Your assignment

[ThatsNotPudding]

Once a day, download a Linux Live CD via BitTorrent. Leave it on to seed. Share your results.

Re:Your assignment

[Anonymous Coward]

You just wasted time, because that is not going to do a thing. If you read the article you will see they are getting peoples IP's from P2P programs that are seeding pirate movies. If all you torrent is legal software your IP isn't going to end up on that list.

 

Right there, that's the attack point

[ThomasBHardy]

"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

I got shut down once.

[Westwood0720]

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.

Some are more equal than others

[cpghost]

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)

I have zero strikes

[OwMyBrain]

And they are already slowing my Internet.

Protect yourselves.

[Anonymous Coward]

VPN your stuff, run DNScrypt and HTTPS everywhere, and use seedboxes and SFTP.

BULLSHIT

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:It gives the RIAA/MPAA an excuse to monitor use

[Archangel Michael]

Oh to be gullable again and believe that Government can fix everything!

Rethink strikes 7+

[Crispy Critters]

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.

Re:Rethink strikes 7+

[russotto]

It doesn't matter what the facts are if the RIAA takes me to court; it's Bambi vs. Godzilla, and my best option would be to take whatever deal they offer. I'm too quixotic to do so and would instead fight them with whatever I had, but I'm not stupid enough to think that would result in anything less than my bankruptcy.

Re:It gives the RIAA/MPAA an excuse to monitor use

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

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.

bull!@#$

[Anonymous Coward]

First step in the regulation of the internet.

Re:It gives the RIAA/MPAA an excuse to monitor use

[jhoegl]

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.

Get a warrant

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

am i still ok

[Anonymous Coward]

watching movies on movie2k?