Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Film Consortium Urges ISPs To Dump Ineffective "Six Strikes" Policy For Pirates

Posted by samzenpus on from the pluggin-the-sieve dept.

An anonymous reader writes: The Internet Security Task Force, a group of businesses working to protect content creators and consumers from the negative effects of piracy, has called for an end to the Copyright Alert System, saying the anti-piracy initiative is not only ineffective but actually makes things worse. The group suggest that it be replaced with a new system based on Canada's Copyright Modernization Act. Mark Gill, ISTF chairman and President of member company Millennium films, says "We've always known the Copyright Alert System was ineffective, as it allows people to steal six movies from us before they get an educational leaflet. But now we have the data to prove that it's a sham." The Copyright Alert System (CAS) is set to expire early July.

28 of 186 comments (clear)

  1. Wait, what? by xevioso · · Score: 5, Interesting

    From the article:

    "The incendiary acts behind the move appears to be the wide-spread pirating of 2014 action blockbuster The Expendables 3, about which Mark Gill comments that it “has been illegally viewed more than 60 million times, the CAS only allowed 0.3% of our infringement notices through to their customers. The other 99.7% of the time, the notices went in the trash"

    And how the hell would they know this? It's not like snail mail letters have GPS attached to them so the sender will know you have opened them. How do they have any idea at all in any way shape or form how often these letters were received, opened, read or followed? I smell a rat...

    1. Re:Wait, what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm more concerned with the claim that The Expendables 3 has been viewed more than 60M times. Viewing crap movies like that causes far more damage to the public than any possible money lost by the studios.

    2. Re:Wait, what? by g0bshiTe · · Score: 4, Informative
      Also of note is this tidbit

      However, on "Expendables 3,"in the period of September through November 2014, per data collected by CEG-TEK International, an internet security firm: 0.3% percent of thieves on these five ISPs received a notice. By contrast, Charter Communications and Cox Communications (who are not part of the CAS) do forward notices to customers who infringe. The difference in results is substantial. On "Expendables 3" in the period of November 2014 through January 2015, per data collected by CEG-TEK : Cox and Charter ISPs posted a 25.47% decrease in infringements Copyright Alert System ISPs abetted a 4.54% increase in infringements.

      So really it's not about the number of notices it's the fact the ISP's that composed the CAS aren't forwarding the letters.

      Citation: http://www.prnewswire.com/news...

      --
      I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
    3. Re:Wait, what? by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 3, Interesting

      From the article:

      "The incendiary acts behind the move appears to be the wide-spread pirating of 2014 action blockbuster The Expendables 3, about which Mark Gill comments that it “has been illegally viewed more than 60 million times, the CAS only allowed 0.3% of our infringement notices through to their customers. The other 99.7% of the time, the notices went in the trash"

      And how the hell would they know this? It's not like snail mail letters have GPS attached to them so the sender will know you have opened them. How do they have any idea at all in any way shape or form how often these letters were received, opened, read or followed? I smell a rat...

      They use polls and extrapolate. After the notices were sent, they then "follow up" with a percentage of the notices sent out, to see if the intended recipient actually got/read them. The notice itself may also include a step the target is supposed to take that signals to someone that it was read and acted on.

      Either way, it's not going to be very accurate.

    4. Re:Wait, what? by avandesande · · Score: 2

      I think they are claiming that only 0.3% of their notices(to the isp) made the 6 strikes CAS cutoff and actually materialized as a mailing to the customer.

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    5. Re:Wait, what? by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It's free, so why not. (or so current wisdom suggests)

      Unfortunately, this is why crap movies continue to get produced.
      [scene, studio boardroom] "Ex 3 was viewed 60+ million times. Yeah, most of them were illegal, but so what. Eyeballs !! Obviously, we need to make Ex 4!"

  2. Sounds like 6 strikes is terrible by flopsquad · · Score: 5, Informative

    What kind of crazy, Wild West law allows anyone to legally break into a movie studio and abscond with the film masters for up to 6 movies?!!

    Ohh, they were doing that thing with the word "steal" again, where they accidentally used it instead of "make a copy in violation of copyright law."

    --
    Nothing posted to /. has ever been legal advice, including this.
    1. Re:Sounds like 6 strikes is terrible by reve_etrange · · Score: 4, Insightful

      taken without permission. The last 3 words in the previous sentence define theft.

      No, they don't. Theft is taking scarce good without permission. You can keep using their newspeak if you want though.

      --
      .: Semper Absurda :.
    2. Re:Sounds like 6 strikes is terrible by jaa101 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Since "good" refers to something physical, I see you've decided to respond with the predicted "it's not tangible, so therefore it doesn't count" excuse.

      This completely ignores the fact that things do not have to be tangible to be considered to have a measurable value. Your time, for example, is worth money both to yourself and your employer.

      Nobody is saying that there's no value in copyright violations. What they are saying is that it is not theft. I like the car analogy for this one:

      • Theft: Somebody come and steals your car parked outside your house. Now they have a car and you don't.
      • Copyright Violation: Somebody comes and makes a copy of your car parked outside your house. Now they have a car and so do you.

      See the difference? And remember that it was you who said it makes no difference as to whether the things are tangible or not.

    3. Re:Sounds like 6 strikes is terrible by jaa101 · · Score: 2

      You appear to be stuck on the notion that if copyright violation on a movie, for example, were theft, that it is the movie itself that was being allegedly stolen

      Never said anything like that. All I'm saying is that if I download a movie (or other IP) in violation of copyright laws then that is not theft. If you want a catchy, single-word term, use "piracy" (though, in my view, that devalues the original crime of that name which is still going on) but use of the word "theft" in this context by big content et al. is wrong.

    4. Re:Sounds like 6 strikes is terrible by jaa101 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So yes... it is theft. Suggesting that it isn't is just a specious rationalization used by people who don't want to feel guilty about it.

      And by judges preventing improper inflaming of juries.

    5. Re:Sounds like 6 strikes is terrible by flopsquad · · Score: 2

      I don't argue that intangible property doesn't matter, or is fundamentally not worth anything, because I don't believe that.

      Rather, I argue that language has meaning and entrenched rightsholders like this ISTF are abusing language for their own gain. Theft already has both a legal and commonsense definition that requires the victim be deprived of the stolen thing.

      Coopting words like theft and piracy is an attempt to take the very real negative emotions that go along with being robbed and deprived of a physical possession, and associate these emotions with the unauthorized duplication of bits. Copying isn't stealing. Breaking into a house to take pictures of a sculpture so you can 3D print it later isn't stealing. Stealing is stealing.

      I'm not even arguing theft must always be of a tangible physical object; you can steal a trade secret because the value is in the secrecy, and appropriating that knowledge effectively deprives the victim of its entire value.

      But if you download the latest Taylor Swift single, you're at most depriving her (label) of a single potential sale, to you. Nothing is stopping her from selling or licensing that song to anyone else. Nothing is stopping her or anyone else from enjoying their own copy. It's infringement, and it's still wrong. But it isn't theft.

      --
      Nothing posted to /. has ever been legal advice, including this.
    6. Re:Sounds like 6 strikes is terrible by Pentium100 · · Score: 2

      The difference between real theft and copyright infringement is that if you steal a physical item (say a DVD of a movie), the legit owner of the item no longer has it. He is then out the money he paid for it (paid money, no item). I steal a DVD from you, you can no longer play that DVD.

      Copyright infringement is different in that here no item is lost - the studio still has as many copies of the movie as they had before I downloaded it. What the studio considers a loss is the potential profit they would have had if I bought the movie instead, however, that assumes:
      1) That I would have bought the movie new for the full price (and not buy used or wait for the price to drop).
      2) That the movie is available for sale at all in the store (how do I get the Star Wars Holiday Special legally?)

      Remember - if I buy a movie used, the studio gets zero dollars from me.

    7. Re:Sounds like 6 strikes is terrible by Pentium100 · · Score: 2

      And yet, there is a difference - even the law recognizes it. The "no item is lost" is not because it's intangible, but also because making a copy does not destroy the original. Compare these two events:

      1. I copy a CD borrowed from a friend. The studio still has as many copies of the album as they had before.
      2. I break into the studio, grab the master tape, leave a blank tape (the same type) (or copy the tape then erase it) and run away. The studio no longer has the album, but I only stole the music - they did not lose the physical tape.

      To me, only the second event would be stealing while leaving all tangible items are in place.

      And you cannot steal a "right" - the studio still has the right to copy the album, I cannot take it away from them without getting a new law passed, since the right is just how the law sees it. I can however, infringe on the right, or rather, the exclusivity of it by making my own illegal copies.

      And if the cable company did not disconnect the cable after I cancelled the service, then I sure can watch TV without paying.

  3. Steal? by mwvdlee · · Score: 3, Insightful

    as it allows people to steal six movies from us

    Holy crap, you mean all this time the pirates could have actually been stealing movies and thus kept the rest of the world from ever seeing them? I guess we're lucky they only made copies.

    --
    Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
  4. Leaflet? by sahuxley · · Score: 2, Insightful

    What does the leaflet say? Our profit is more important than your freedom to communicate?

  5. a new system based on Canada's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Oh, that system that they are abusing by sending threatening letters in direct opposition of the purpose of the system and the courts here in Canada? I'm sure they'd love to have that system elsewhere so that they can abuse it all over the place.

  6. Negative by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    a group of businesses working to protect content creators and consumers from the negative effects of piracy

    These guys must be doing a great job - I've never suffered any negative effects from piracy.

    1. Re:Negative by Githyanki · · Score: 2

      You suffer the negative effects every time you purchase a movie ticket at a theatre. If there was no piracy, tickets would be 3$ each, popcorn would be $1.50 and that soda would be 2$.

    2. Re:Negative by Thiez · · Score: 3, Insightful

      High speed internet is a relatively new thing. I think it's safe to say that there was barely any online movie piracy twenty or thirty years ago. Were movie tickets $3 back then (or really $1.95 / $1.38, when we adjust for inflation)?

  7. Double Standards of Course... by jythie · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Every time I see calls for harsh anti-piracy initiatives, I picture what would happen if equally harsh rules were put in place for some of the dirty IP tricks or outright theft MPAA members engage in. "Oh, your studio got caught taking a copyrighted screenplay submission, rejecting it, then handing it over to one of your own people again? Sorry, your access to distribution has been cut off and you will not be able to produce movies anymore"

  8. Crappy Research by duke_cheetah2003 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    From TFA:

    Under CCMA there is no limit on the number of notifications that must legally be forwarded to ‘offending’ ISP customers, which has led to a 69.6% reduction in infringements at Bell Canada, with Rogers, TekSavvy, Telus and Shaw all reporting notable reductions in piracy (or, theoretically, greater uptake of VPNs).

    I'm willing to bet after the first notification, people just move to a VPN service to hide behind... Fix the inaccessibility issues involving movie and show availability, and I think you'll see piracy drop a lot faster than trying to punish people. People really just don't care, they just want their movie or show, so make it accessible and affordable. Market is just waiting on you guys to fix the issues IMHO.

    Some people also don't want to go to a theater with a bunch of other people and pay astronomical prices for a bag of popcorn. On the other hand, some people really like that theater experience. So offer us both, simultaneously, an online release and theater release, so the shy people can enjoy the movie with the need to wait 6 months or steal it.

  9. a group of businesses working to protect content by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 4, Insightful

    stopped reading there.

    look, don't lie to me that you are helping ME, a consumer.

    you look stupid when you lie. and you guys do such a really bad job of lying, too.

    --

    --
    "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
  10. No. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    File sharing can't drive those prices up. If piracy results in fewer people going to theaters, the reduction in demand will force prices down. If movie watching suddenly became more popular, prices would not go down, they would go up, especially when theaters are routinely sold out. That's how commerce actually works.

    The greatest harm file sharing could do is: reduce the expected ROI on major movies, which in turn results in fewer movies produced, and less money spent on the movies being made (which might reduce their quality). At the moment, the market is awash with more movies than anyone can watch, and the amount of money spent on some of them is ridiculous. So, I don't see that harmful consequence happening at all.

    1. Re:No. by reve_etrange · · Score: 2

      +1 Contains economics.

      --
      .: Semper Absurda :.
  11. 60 million times? by Chibi+Merrow · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Wait, is this guy claiming 20% of the US population pirated Expendables 3?

    And we're supposed to take anything else he says seriously?

    --
    Maxim: People cannot follow directions.
    Increases in truth directly with the length of time spent explaining them
    1. Re:60 million times? by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      Your implication that someone could sit through this train wreck more than once is even more outlandish than the original claim.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  12. Orwell by Livius · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'm not a fan of the new trend of naming legislation by the opposite of its purpose.

    E.g. Copyright Modernization Act which is about implementing feudalism.