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

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

[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

[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

[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.

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

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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

Finally!

[Anonymous Coward]

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

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).

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.

[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.

[the_arrow]

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

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]

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.

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

[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

[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.

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/

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.)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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!

Just MPAA/RIAA?

[PhxBlue]

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

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.

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

[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:Good thing proxies can't be spoofed!

[letherial]

No, it will be the rise of VPN's

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

[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.

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.

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: 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.

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

[jhoegl]

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

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:simple

[sesshomaru]

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

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.

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)