Slashdot Mirror
Criticism Of Copyright Alert System Mounts
Dangerous_Minds writes "This last week, the Copyright Alert System was rolled out. Now that everyone is getting a better idea of what the alert system looks like, criticisms are building against the system. Freezenet says that the mere fact that ISPs are using a browser pop-up window opens the floodgates for fraudsters to hijack the system and scam users out of money. The EFF criticized the system because the educational material contains numerous flaws. Meanwhile, Web Pro News said that this system will also hurt small business and consumers."
It seems to me that the content of an IP packet should be protected under wiretapping laws. What gives the ISPs the right to monitor my traffic. If they do have this right, do they also have the right to break or somehow spoof encrypted traffic as well?
The ISP has the right to monitor your traffic because you signed an agreement that says they are allowed to, and are allowed to take action.
They aren't breaking encrypted traffic; the endpoints are the endpoints whether the traffic is encrypted or not. If one of those endpoints is a "MarkMonitor" entity, they are perfectly within their right to receive any information they do.
Now, if only a totally encrypted environment existed with no palatable way to identify users..... Oh, wait, Freenet does exist. It's just so damned slow that using it is, well.. feasible, but not something fast-paced people (read: most) are going to accept. However, it is an option.
Aren't they protected from liability as long as they act as "dumb pipes"? Doesn't his mean they are opening themselves up for liability? Yeah, I understand the ones that own media companies but what about the rest? Seems like a way to lose customers is all.
Everyone should draw a crappy picture in paint, host it on something free like google sites, and spread links that bring people to a second page that says "You don't have permission to click this link" with a link to the picture itself. Then bring copyright complaints to all the ISPs of all the people who inevitably click that and hence download your copyrighted crap without permission. Flood the fuckers.
They aren't going to be losing customers because in MOST markets there is no competition for a customer to choose. With very little risk to their market share they don't have a lot to lose.
Technically, your ISP isn't spying on you. They will only send you a notice if they are alerted by a content provider.
What a obviously stupid thing to say. The U.S. exported over $2 trillion worth of goods and services last year.
Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
The fact that the content industry has no problems with having the ISP industry monitoring their CUSTOMERS use of the Internet makes me sick.
Some rights are more important than others. My right to not be spied on by a company I (not the content industry) am doing business with is much more important than the content industries desire to make sure they're paid every dime they think they deserve.
The ISPs should have fought like hell to achieve a common carrier status which would have allowed them to tell big content to pound sand. Oh and as for the content industry owning many ISPs our government should have never allowed that.
I'll say it again. If your business model requires a police state to be viable, you need to fucking go out of business.
Most of the largest ISPs are owned by content providers (Time-Warner) or own content providers (Comcast) or have business interests working with content providers (all cable internet providers)
Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
for the last week, so far no emails, letters or pop up's from comcast. Ive wanting to see how much downloading does it take before I get flagged. Then once I know the triggers, I can switch to an anonymous vpn and try it again.