Slashdot Mirror
Six-Strikes System Starts In U.S.
New submitter mynameiskhan writes "Major internet service providers today will start monitoring the internet traffic to their customers' computers and will warn them if they download copyrighted materials using peer to peer network. The article says, 'A person will be given up to six opportunities to stop before the Internet provider will take more drastic steps, such as temporarily slowing their connection, or redirecting Internet traffic until they acknowledge they received a notice or review educational materials about copyright law.' Furthermore, if you appeal the warning you will be required to pay $35 to state your case. Have the ISPs have had enough of RIAA pestering, or are they siding with RIAA?"
Termination of subscribers’ connections is specifically mentioned by the Center for Copyright Information as a penalty that will not be imposed under the Copyright Alert System. The strategic partnership between rights-holders and ISPs makes it obvious why the CAS does not—and in fact cannot—threaten to terminate Internet subscriptions as a penalty for alleged copyright infringement: the five ISPs participating in the CAS would never voluntarily agree to give up the revenue associated with allegedly infringing subscribers. In theory, rights-holders could perhaps convince ISPs to terminate allegedly infringing subscribers if rights-holders were willing to compensate ISPs for the associated loss in subscription revenue. In practice, however, the cost of such compensation for rights-holders would far outweigh the benefits to rights-holders of halting the average alleged infringer.
"Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
I hope the backlash from this makes SOPA look tame.
I live in China
Furthermore, if you appeal the warning you will be required to pay $35 to state your case. Have the ISPs have had enough of RIAA pestering, or are they siding with RIAA?"
What do you think, genius?
Of course they're siding with the cartels...and they've figured out a nice little side earner while they screw their customers.
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.
Who wants to take bets on how many days it is until we get the first false positive story?
What do I know, I'm just an idiot, right?
Are they getting involved? Perhaps share a copyright-free file, get people to download it, get reports raised against it, get complaint, ignore complaint, get to 6 strikes, then ask the ISP to take further steps against them. A few million people doing that at the same time should be fun.
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.
Just remember, the music industry saw growth and "profit" in 2012, the first time since 1999, before this copyright protection went in place.
http://www.theverge.com/2013/2/26/4031912/music-industry-grew-revenue-for-first-time-since-1999
http://247wallst.com/2013/02/26/music-industry-posts-first-profit-since-1999/
Better known as 318230.
Verizon offers a sweet deal for FIOS if you're a new customer, so you sign up for the Triple Play, pay $80 per month, and then cancel, because you've used up your six strikes...
Then sign up for Comcast, get a sweet deal because you're a new customer, pay $50 per month, and then cancel because you've used up your six strikes...
Wash rinse repeat....
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
If I'm paying extra for a higher speed, how can they throttle my connection, based on an ALLEGED infringement..??
-Myke
Whether this is "good" or "evil", it will be interesting to see how the metrics of illegal file sharing change.
How many thousands of BT users decided not to launch their torrent client today?
What will US traffic in bittorrent do over the coming weeks and months?
Will NetFlix see an influx in business?
Will the number of leaches and seeders of pirated content decrease?
Take-away lesson? Buy NFLX and CMCSK...
And once one group of corporations gains the ability it's only a matter of time before they want other excuses.
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!
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.
Shay-zus, there's no level so low these fucks won't stoop to it, is there?
Check this gem out, from the "How Do Content Owners Know About My Activity?" section:
Riiiight... 'cuz, we all know, ISPs and the MAFIAA are certainly trustworthy entities, who would never misuse people's personal information, or god forbid, lie to support their goals.
Best part: When you mouse-over the phrase "Internet Protocol (IP) address" in the second paragraph, this is what pops up:
A unique set of numbers associated with individual computers connected to the internet
Do they not realize that's a blatant lie? Or do they expect us to not realize it?
My favorite, however, was the "How do I find Movies and Music Legally" link - it takes you to a page with links to...
Wait for it...
RIAA, MPAA, and ISP websites!
Shazam!
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
So no one's bothering to monitor pirated software, right? Asking for a friend.
!#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
The REAL bullshit is you are guilty until you PAY to prove your innocence and there is ZERO protection or penalty for fraudulent claims, so pretty much anybody can say "infringed" and get you shut down with no penalty on their end or recourse on your end.
And before anybody says "The ISP don't want to lose customers" remember how they are overselling the hell out of their lines while not adding capacity? i have a feeling the ones given strikes won't have a damned thing to do with copyrights, it'll be the ones the ISPs want to toss for actually using what they PAID for. get close to the cap? well you must have infringed because our data says you shouldn't do that. I've already seen similar shit in my area where an ISP claims you have a "virus" and pulls your plug if you use more data than your average grandma. I finally walked in with my Xandros laptop and said "Show me a fucking virus or give me my money back" but there is no telling how many they pulled the same shit in for daring to use YouTube or watch netflix.
BTW you can kiss that "future is the cloud" bullshit buh bye, the ISPs are gonna make the net all but unusable so they can keep all the profits as CEO bonuses instead of laying lines. Capitalism, ain't it grand?
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Can someone explain to me how they can charge me to review the legality of my case? I realize they're offering to "give it back" if I win, but that's not relevant. I shouldn't have to pay for judicial oversight. Imagine if you got a speeding ticket and had to pay the court to hear your case where it clocked the car that just blew by you? Even if the court refunded your money if you won the appeal, that's still justice that you have to front money for, and it's wrong
Another good example would be public defenders. Imagine if you had to pay for a public defender, and you'd only get your money back if you were found innocent? You shouldn't have to front money to get access to justice.
I will be very surprised if this doesn't go to court real quick. "Guilty until PAID innocent" isn't going to hold up well in court.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
I've already seen similar shit in my area where an ISP claims you have a "virus" and pulls your plug if you use more data than your average grandma.
This is actually a soft warning tactic I've encountered in many corporate and education scenarios. They'll identify folks using a lot of transit, and send them a notice along the lines of "hey, we noticed you're using a lot of bandwidth... Maybe you've got a virus or something?" These notices work particularly well in cases where someone's been found to be downloading gigs of porn on the office computer, etc. The user realizes he's being watched, says "yeah! that must be it! I gotta virus!" and suddenly the behavior stops.
I'm not defending the ISP you mention, just saying this tactic is pretty common. It's their way of asking you to knock it off, without accusing you of anything.
Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
Imagine if you got a speeding ticket and had to pay the court to hear your case where it clocked the car that just blew by you?
[...]
Another good example would be public defenders. Imagine if you had to pay for a public defender, and you'd only get your money back if you were found innocent?
Umm, when was the last time you were in court, win or lose, and DIDN'T have to pay court fees? Especially for a crminal violation like a speeding ticket. I got out of the last ticket I received several years ago, but still had to pay $65 for the priviledge of doing so in the Pulaski County court house. And, last I knew public defenders didn't work for free. They're not free as in beer, they just get paid out of state/federal revenue, i.e., tax money. Trust me, you pay for them.
Can someone explain to me how they can charge me to review the legality of my case?
The "how" of it is pretty simple: they inserted clauses into their subscriber agreements that outline the process for this arbitration arrangement (which is not the same as judicial oversight, incidentally), and we all agreed to it by not cancelling our service and saying good-bye to our internet access. Some bargain, huh?
Arbitration is a corporatist/anti-individual scam, of course; the companies decide which arbiters to hire, and will hire and favour the ones that consistently rule on the side of the business. The only way out of this that I can see -- save for legitimate competition in the American ISP markets (now there's a chuckle!) -- is some kind of governmental or regulatory decision (such as via the FCC) that classes ISPs as common-carriers which could be prohibited from exercising this kind of surveillance over their customers.
No, it will be the rise of VPN's
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.
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.
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.
Oh to be gullable again and believe in Capitalism fixing it.
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.