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

[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

[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.

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

[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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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/

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.

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.

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.

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

[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

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

[jhoegl]

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