US ISPs Refuse To Disconnect Persistent Pirates (torrentfreak.com)

An anonymous reader writes: The U.S. broadband association USTelecom, a trade association representing many ISPs, is taking a stand against abusive takedown notices and a recent push to terminate the accounts of repeat infringers. They argue that ISPs are not required to pass on takedown notices and stress that their subscribers shouldn't lose Internet access based solely on copyright holder complaints. ustelecoSigned into law nearly two decades ago, the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) aimed to ready copyright law for the digital age. The law introduced a safe harbor for Internet providers, meaning that they can't be held liable for their pirating users as long as they 'deal' with repeat infringers.

Comments

Uhhh

[Anonymous Coward]

... the Digital Millenium (sic) Copyright Act (DMCA) aimed to ready copyright law for the digital age.

Uh huh, yeah, that's what their intent was. Sure.

Re:Uhhh

[Opportunist]

Yes it was. Copyright law was very efficient at being a tool to violate any and all consumer rights in the physical world, the DMCA brought this property to the digital realm.

Re:Uhhh

[Jane Q. Public]

It still bothers me when I see articles like this which label copyers or downloaders as "pirates".

Copyright "piracy" was defined more than 100 years ago. It's a legal term, and it relates to those who copy and reproduce copyrighted works for profit.

The vast majority of file-sharers are not "pirates". Copyright holders started using that term around 2000 to deliberately muddy the waters surrounding file sharing.

Just in case there is someone who doesn't yet know: copyright "piracy" is a crime. File sharing, if not done for profit, is not. Uploading could make you the subject of a civil suit, but not a criminal charge. Unless you're doing it for meaningful personal gain.

Re:Uhhh

[pixelpusher220]

Agreed in principle. However, the law unfortunately disagrees. We need to vote in more reps to change these laws.

That 'civil' charge carries $150K 'per instance' fine. It's absurd and why we need to get these laws changed.

Re:Uhhh

[jnork]

And even "piracy" as originally applied to copyright violations is a deliberately provocative term. I'm pretty sure illicitly copying content doesn't involve capturing ships at sea, raping, pillaging, or killing large numbers of people.

Usually. I suppose everybody needs a hobby.

Re:Uhhh

[Anonymous Coward]

Language changes.

It's the hackers vs crackers situation all over again. Everyone knows that "piracy" on the Internet means, what it means to download pirated material. Getting fixated on the semantics of the word just distracts from the real issues, mainly the issue of companies trying to prevent people getting access to content they didn't not purchase.

Re:Uhhh

[spauldo]

It's still a better term than "thieves," which even people around here use, which is just as inaccurate.

A lot of people who do not-for-profit copyright infringement call themselves pirates. I'd say the definition has changed.

Re:Uhhh

[Anonymous Coward]

The vast majority of file-sharers are not "pirates".

Correct.

Those who are truly "pirates" have absolutely no interest in giving their content away for free. They would consider that to be an idiotic idea.

Conversely, the vast majority of file-sharers have no interest in charging money for their content. They would consider that to be very unwise, because it would increase the risk of exposing their identity.

However, file-sharers often do participate in an informal (and sometimes poorly-coordinated) "barter" economy. You can see evidence of this barter economy when you encounter the enforcement of sharing ratios, and the requirement to upload simultaneously while downloading.

You correctly pointed out that the word "piracy" applies only to those who make a profit. However, it is possible to achieve an informal "profit" of sorts when participating in a bartering economy -- for example, starting with only one movie, I could repeatedly barter it to receive hundreds of movies in return. Because of this, some people feel justified in applying the word "piracy" to those who benefit from this so-called "profit" in the P2P bartering economy.

Re:Uhhh

[Scroatzilla]

>> Copyright "piracy" was defined more than 100 years ago. It's a legal term, and it relates to those who copy and reproduce copyrighted works for profit.
1. Those running piracy sites collect advertising dollars--> profit.
2. Those who download illegal files started with nothing before the download, and end up with a digital file--> profit.
I do believe that the definition of "friend" in the context of "p2p sharing" is ambiguous, though. Probably there should be some kind of standard in the law with regard to file sharing that allows for "virtual gathering sharing" or something (e.g. the equivalent of playing a movie or music for a private gathering of people). However, I don't think making copies of copyrighted material available for millions of downloaders would meet that standard.

Re:Uhhh

[Anonymous Coward]

Because the term 'pirate' has a rebellious, freedom seeking, and anti-status quo sort of reputation... it has been used by non-pirates to describe themselves. Think pirate bay, or the social term 'to pirate'. It's almost a status symbol. If those characters had not titled themselves so readily ...

Re:Uhhh

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed that it's absurd, but that doesn't change the (ruinous) civil fine into a criminal complaint.

Re:Uhhh

[Anonymous Coward]

2. Those who download illegal files started with nothing before the download, and end up with a digital file--> profit.

I would disagree, and so would many researchers..
"profit" should only be used if all the below was true.
- Person actually views the content.
- Person did not buy the content at a later time.
- Person would have bought the content if he was not able to download it.

The closest term i can come up with is "Forced, unapproved, advertisement without inflicting cost for the adverter".

Re:Uhhh

[mgcarley]

File duplicators is probably the best/most accurate term I could think of.

File cloners... File copiers... File artefactors... doesn't quite have the same ring to it and are sort of madey-uppey words. File distributors would be too one-sided, as would file downloaders or file uploaders.

Re:Uhhh

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Meme hosts seems like the most accurate description. They appear to serve the purpose of a reproduction substrate for immaterial entities quite well.

Re: Uhhh

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually yes. Yes it does.

Re:Uhhh

[Anonymous Coward]

As a young'n, I learned the word "Piracy" from playing PC games loaded via 3.5" floppy. They would often have a warning stating "Piracy is a crime!" or some such. The term was around in respect to digital copyright at least from the early 90s, but it didn't really proliferate until more people started getting solid internet access circa 2000, as you said.

The irony is that the games from which I learned this were, of course, pirated copies.

The customer losses would be too big.

[SeaFox]

They would never agree to willingly lose busieness. It would also highlight the fact there is no competition for broadband in many areas when those customers realized there was no one else to go to for service after being kicked out.

Re:The customer losses would be too big.

[Caesar Tjalbo]

Yeah, I reckon those "persistent pirates" pay for the best plans.

Re:The customer losses would be too big.

[JustNiz]

I think the ISPs are just rightly trying to avoid the movie/music industry pushing them into becoming the de-facto "internet police" (along with the associated responsibilities and liabilities) instead of the media industry doing their own dirty work at their own cost.

Re:The customer losses would be too big.

[NatasRevol]

This is a good idea in theory.

But then the ISPs get bought by the media conglomerates who also own the movie/music companies.
I'm not sure where that all ends up, but probably some ugly meetings.

Re:The customer losses would be too big.

[Anonymous Coward]

As someone who used to partake in the darker side of content acquisition, I always paid for the fastest package I could find.

Re:The customer losses would be too big.

[Anonymous Coward]

In Comcast's case, they did the buying. They didn't get bought. Of course Time-Warner did the buying in that case.

Re: The customer losses would be too big.

[Anonymous Coward]

You clearly know nothing about pirating.

Re:The customer losses would be too big.

[SeaFox]

They probably pay for better than average, but when it's so easy to set up a 24/7 torrent device (a Raspberry PI would be plenty), there's no reason to buy top-tier, you can just let things run in their sweet time and download while you're asleep/away from home. Anything 20 mbps or above will be able to support play-as-you-download if your client is downloading in consecutive piece order.

But I think that piracy is so widespread that if ISPs actually did shut people off the providers would be losing a significant portion of their customer base, and in todays Wall-Street driven "endless growth" bullshit economy losing even a few people is unforgivable -- this is demonstrated in how companies are so doormat when it comes to enforcing billing policies when a customer threatens to leave, regardless of if they are right.

Re:The customer losses would be too big.

[Anonymous Coward]

I have 100 mbps, but it has a 750Gb limit, went over by 35Gb last month. Not because of pirating, but because I had to re-download my entire Steam game library after a hard drive failed. Yeah... that's what happened, and I'm sticking to that story. If that one doesn't work, I'll just use the "I left my guest network open" excuse.

Re:The customer losses would be too big.

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, what a vacuous post.

Re:The customer losses would be too big.

[Wootery]

I had to re-download my entire Steam game library after a hard drive failed

Wouldn't it make more sense to re-download the games only as you play them, rather than downloading them all at once?

Re:The customer losses would be too big.

[Hylandr]

The correct way to provide constructive criticism:

Make a statement to the contrary, provide supporting evidence. eg:

You are incorrect as to who bought whom. Comcast bought Time-Warner

In 2014:
http://money.cnn.com/2014/02/1...

In 2015:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/...

Wiki:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Name calling is not constructive and suggests the name caller may be lacking in maturity, or blood sugar.

Re:The customer losses would be too big.

[Holi]

Well if they did disconnect their users, and then got sued by said user, they would have an interesting time in court explaining how they have punished a user based on hearsay. Corporations do not get to work outside the law. If you have a dispute it should be handled by the courts, not by some third party with a grudge.

Re:The customer losses would be too big.

[crunchygranola]

Whoosh?

Re:The customer losses would be too big.

[Anonymous Coward]

Can't even read between the lines.

Re:The customer losses would be too big.

[AthanasiusKircher]

You are incorrect as to who bought whom. Comcast bought Time-Warner

I'm really confused about why this post was modded up. (1) Comcast didn't actually buy Time Warner CABLE, as your links note. Charter is trying to buy Time Warner Cable, but the deal still needs approval. (2) This discussion seems to be about whether media companies buy cable companies or the reverse or whatever... except this purchase is only about Time Warner CABLE. Neither Comcast nor Charter has been buying Time Warner MEDIA, which has been a completely separate corporate entity from Time Warner CABLE since 2009.

Re:The customer losses would be too big.

[jedidiah]

It's a good enough story. My Linux Steam catalog is over 200G. I can only imaging how big an old legacy Windows account with tons of AAA games is.

Re:The customer losses would be too big.

[NatasRevol]

Who bought whom doesn't really matter in terms of where they are, now does it?

Re:The customer losses would be too big.

[sumdumass]

Private entities generally have the right to refuse service to anyone as long as it isn't some legally protected reason. Cutting internet off for copyright infringement is about on par with because I don't like your socks in this case. Itwould not be the same as criminal or civil penalties.

But there may be other problems concerning their franchise agreements. If they cut people off arguments might be made that they aren't serving the public and could be forced to allow competition in possibly using their own equipment too.

Re:The customer losses would be too big.

[Hylandr]

Neither Comcast nor Charter has been buying Time Warner MEDIA, which has been a completely separate corporate entity from Time Warner CABLE since 2009.

You are Correct. However I never mentioned anything about Time Warner Media. Since they don't provide a service within the context of this discussion I mentally blocked the media branch from my mind and may have neglected to mention the distinction assuming everyone else would ignore them also.

My Bad? :)

Re:The customer losses would be too big.

[jfengel]

But surely those customers are going to want some kind of Internet service. It seems unlikely that they're going to say, "Well, if I can't torrent Orphan Black, I don't need to get email."

They might even let them sign up for the same company. A few days lack of service, plus a reconnect fee, might convince them to cut out illegal downloads (or at least, try harder to hide it).

It might end up with all of the downloaders at the one ISP in town who tolerates them. But I suspect that the other ISPs might have ways of putting pressure on them. Especially if they're also the backbone provider, such as in Verizon's case. Even if not, they may be able to tell the backbone provider, "Look, we're losing customers because they're not playing fair, and we'll complain to your peers if you don't tell them to knock it off."

Re:The customer losses would be too big.

[ganjadude]

ummm....comcast did not buy time warner, the sale never happened. it was talked about, but it didnt happen, currently time warner is in the process of being bought by charter communications

disclosure - i work for time warner

Re:The customer losses would be too big.

[ganjadude]

and i realize i replied to the wrong poster. apologies

Re:The customer losses would be too big.

[Hylandr]

My point had more to do with the quality of the call out than the data anyways. :)

Re:The customer losses would be too big.

[KGIII]

The ISPs are not harassing their customers over stupid crap! Oh, the huge manatee!

I'm actually not sure why this is being presented as a bad thing. Yeah, some people are jerks. The ISP shouldn't be accountable. Send 'em a letter. Take 'em to court. Scream loudly. Do what you want but leave the ISP out of it.

I will add that I'm a staunch supporter of copyright and other IP protections/rights. (I'm not in favor of the current system.) Leave the ISP out of it. Chances are, the person paying the bill isn't even the accountable party. I'd point out that my wireless is open and has a guest network all set up but that's silly. I don't actually have neighbors and only have a crowd of people there twice a year. It's not like I'm risking much or have great bravado for doing so. Moose and deer do not, as of yet, use the 'net.

Re:The customer losses would be too big.

[Lost Race]

I think the ISPs holding out for some way to make money on the copyright extortion racket. As soon as they figure out how to get paid for punishing their customers, they'll be all over it.

Re:The customer losses would be too big.

[Obfuscant]

Cutting internet off for copyright infringement is about on par with because I don't like your socks in this case.

Only if the ISPs TOS specified what color socks you were allowed to wear. Most of them prohibit illegal use of the service. Since the ISP is not a police agency, they don't have to follow the "presumed innocent" concept -- not that many police agencies do that anymore.

If they cut people off arguments might be made that they aren't serving the public and could be forced to allow competition in possibly using their own equipment too.

I doubt that any of them are worried about that. "Obeying federal law" is a pretty good counter-argument to "you aren't serving the public". And, of course, since all it would take to be "forced" to allow competition is for a competitor to enter into a franchise agreement with the locality, what "force" would the locality have to start with? They cannot force a competitor to come into town, the competition has to want to be there.

Re: The customer losses would be too big.

[Wootery]

Woops, I should read to the end of the comment next time :P

Re:The customer losses would be too big.

[KGIII]

It does when the person responding is just one of those asses who blames their behavior on Aspergers. The site seems populated with 'em at times. I don't think they really have it, by the way. I think they're just assholes who have social issues and blame it on something other than their ability to consider others before they consider themselves. Hell, or consider them at the same time. :/

Re:The customer losses would be too big.

[sumdumass]

The TOS does not need to specify anything in most areas. That is what the right to refuse service actually covers. If you are unfamiliar with that concept then look it up.

As for the franchise agreement, they very often carry exclusivity clauses for the purpose of infrastructure improvements. As I said, it isn't just competition but having to enable it through the use of said infrastructure. In the case of areas with a single isp for high speed internet, That would likely be access to the cable.

Re:The customer losses would be too big.

[Rockoon]

The correct way to provide constructive criticism:

Why would I want to "constructively criticize" someone that is actually being a dishonest fuck?

We should not be tolerant of these fucks that destructively rush to get their guesses in while making sure never to reveal that they are fucking guessing.

You want people to help this fuck when the effect he has on discussions is to actively try to ruin them? Fuck you too then.

Re:The customer losses would be too big.

[Rockoon]

You are incorrect as to who bought whom. Comcast bought Time-Warner

Comcast did not buy time-warner you lying fuck.

Re:The customer losses would be too big.

[Rockoon]

My point had more to do with the quality of the call out than the data anyways. :)

We know you dont care about the quality of data. You declared as a fact that Comcast purchased Time Warner when in fact Comcast did no such thing.

Obviously you don't care about the veracity of data. All you seem to care about is that people be nice to lying fucks.

Re:The customer losses would be too big.

[Rockoon]

Who bought whom doesn't really matter in terms of where they are, now does it?

When the lying fuck claims that the RIAA/MPAA could buy Comcast, it does fucking matter.

Not only can't the RIAA/MPAA afford to buy Comcast, Comcast could in fact afford to buy all of the RIAA and MPAA companies combined. Its not even close.

You people are idiots. The market cap of the RIAA/MPAA companies is tiny in comparison to the market cap of telecom companies. You fucks hate the MPAA/RIAA so much that you dont give a shit that what you say they can do, they actually can't? Fuck you then. You are worthless. You offer nothing but wrong.

Re:The customer losses would be too big.

[Rockoon]

Yeah I know you...

You know what I have never done? Blamed my behavior on something, but there you are claiming I have. That makes you a lying fuck, again.

I don't "blame" my behavior on anything because I am *proud* of my behavior. I have no tolerance for dishonest lying fucks like you.

You are destructive to discourse and I will not cower just because you switched to lying about me instead of lying about other shit.

When you pretend to know something that you do not know, thats called lying. Dishonest fuck.

Re:The customer losses would be too big.

[Hylandr]

Why would I want to "constructively criticize" someone that is actually being a dishonest fuck?

Never attribute to malice what may be attributable to ignorance

We should not be tolerant of these fucks that destructively rush to get their guesses in while making sure never to reveal that they are fucking guessing.

Guessing seems to work pretty good for Science. It's given us all these cool things to do and play with. Granted some people are more educated than others *cough*

You want people to help this fuck when the effect he has on discussions is to actively try to ruin them?

Discussions are ruined when negative people run into the 'room' making accusations and calling people names while loudly declaring their evident superiority for having the intelligence to rush in and tell everyone how stupid they are.

Society and all it's benefits is *built* upon by kind helpful cooperation. Your destructive attitude builds nothing but animosity.

Big tip:
People that know less than asshole experts will be hired before an asshole expert is ever considered. People that know less are also more inclined to be in a position and willing to learn. I am not saying you're an asshole, but I hope this has helped you too. :)

Re:The customer losses would be too big.

[Hylandr]

I may have been *incorrect, however lying would have meant intent to deceive. What would that have benefited anyone?

Re:The customer losses would be too big.

[davester666]

And that is probably why you had to "partake in the darker side of content acquisition"...couldn't afford to buy anything else...

Re:The customer losses would be too big.

[Rockoon]

I may have been *incorrect, however lying would have meant intent to deceive.

You didnt say "I think.." ... or ask "Isn't it true that..." ... you just declared something to be a fact, that wasn't. Surely you knew that you didnt know, since you could not have known something to be a fact that actually isnt.

Funny how knowledge works. People know when they are guessing. People know when they are theorizing. People also know if they know something to be a fact or not. This isnt about you being wrong. This is about the manner in which you were wrong. The manner in which you were wrong was dishonesty, you lying fuck.

At best, you intended to appear more knowledgeable than you were, and that is fucking dishonest.

Also, since you intended to deceive after all, that makes you again a lying fuck when you decided to declare that you didnt have such intent. You intended for us to think that you were more knowledgeable that you knew yourself to be. You knew you didnt know, but pretended otherwise. Lying fuck.

Re:The customer losses would be too big.

[Rockoon]

Never attribute to malice what may be attributable to ignorance

People know when they don't know. It can't be ignorance when they actively pretend otherwise. It can only be dishonesty.

Re:The customer losses would be too big.

[Hylandr]

I read the headline and a few supporting paragraphs and came to my conclusion. Whether or not the sale finally went through I haven't fully read. For all I know it could have gone through and I am just feeding a troll.

Beyond that, what do you care that some random person on the internet was incorrect, was deceptive or *just read bad data*. you are making a lot of assumptions about people you have no context to pretend to judge.

For that matter I don't really care what you think as you appear hell bent to take joy in calling people liars.

I really do wish you the best of luck in life. From my perspective it looks like it's going to be full of challenges.

Good Day.

Re:The customer losses would be too big.

[Hylandr]

Are you calling CNN Liars then?

http://money.cnn.com/2014/02/1...

Or USA Today that mentions Charter a year later.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/...

Interesting lists of acquisitions and mergers in that second one.

You tell me oh wise one, learn me the truth, preach to me the error of my ways and set my foot right apon the digital path.

Re: The customer losses would be too big.

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you kidding me right now? Give it up man. You lied, got caught, deal with it.

It's all public record. You can't dance around it. You lied.

Re:The customer losses would be too big.

[JazzLad]

My (mostly Windows) Steam account is 947.3 GB per mysteamgauge.com & that sounds about right. Probably have 1/5 of that installed, though. Ugh, says I have averaged nearly 66 minutes a day (or just over 82 days) in the past 5 years playing ... sigh. I shouldn't be surprised, I have 756 hours in the Fallout franchise alone.

Re:The customer losses would be too big.

[Anonymous Coward]

They way you are lashing out, are you lonely? Maybe you and this guy can become friends.

Re:The customer losses would be too big.

[KGIII]

It's your story aspie-boy.

Re:The customer losses would be too big.

[Anonymous Coward]

Surprisingly many are willing to loose business, even larger business accounts.

Even spending thousands of euros each month with a company, in europe, registered in europe, does not always guarantee that company would not be willing to disconnect you even for a single DMCA notice (case in point: Hetzner). Single copyright notice is sufficient.

It's funny that how some european companies thinks DMCA > European law. One company (swiftway) even claimed it's a blanket tool, anything with DMCA notice must be taken down, no matter what. They STFU at the point when i asked "Ok, how about i submit a DMCA notice for your company logo?", but servers still got shutdown. They tried to charge for the said servers still after the fact tho.
We were spending probably 2k € a month with them at the time, and out of all 2 or 3 servers had received a couple lousy DMCA notices. Not even dozens, just a few.

Re:The customer losses would be too big.

[stoatwblr]

"Not only can't the RIAA/MPAA afford to buy Comcast, Comcast could in fact afford to buy all of the RIAA and MPAA companies combined."

This has struck me on several occasions.

Should the RIAA/MPAA prove to be too much of a nuisance to large ISPs, the best defence might well be to start buying up companies and sacking people, quickly.

It's utterly mind-boggling that an industry with such a tiny market cap is able to dictate terms to governments and in trade deals in a way that is wildly disproportionate to their economic clout.

Of course the risk is that having bought up various *AA members, it might turn out to be a poison pill in a similar way to what has happened to Google since it bought Doubleclick - instead of Google stopping the bad practices, it has (eventually) become a larger version of Doubleclick (hence the comment about sacking people asap)

Re:The customer losses would be too big.

[stoatwblr]

"Private entities generally have the right to refuse service to anyone"

Most broadband providers in the USA are legislated local monopolies.

This gives them the power to abuse the market, as is seen pretty much everywhere in the USA but it also prevents them refusing service for all but the most serious issues.

Re:The customer losses would be too big.

[stoatwblr]

It's more likely that ISPs disconnecting customers without a court order would result in them paying shitloads of damages and legal fees.

When you're a monopoly provider the choices about who you _can't_ sell to are highly restricted.

In addition ISPs have been getting mightily sick of the porn trolls and they're taking the opportunities afforded by judges losing patience with said troglodytes to push back against uncompensated discovery demands.

Define Pirates

[WillAffleckUW]

DCMA is a violation of my privacy and publishing rights as a Canadian citizen in the US under the US/Canada Data Treaty, which is subject to the Canadian Bill of Rights (which was adopted in the 1980s so it has greater rights than Americans do).

What DCMA calls a pirate is a treaty violation. DCMA is subject to treaty rights, not the other way around.

You can't steal my rights by calling them piracy.

Re:Define Pirates

[TWX]

What does the Defense Contract Management Agency have to do with it? You making weapons or ammunition that you're refusing to let be inspected?

Re:Define Pirates

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh, what treaty? Not to say it doesn't exist just because google doesn't think it exists, but, well... maybe that's exactly what I'm saying.

Re:Define Pirates

[WillAffleckUW]

Look, I know Americans don't get it, but you signed two treaties: one with Canada, which grants Canadian citizens in the US the same rights of privacy and data access they have in Canada, stronger rights than Americans.

And another one with the EU, which does the same thing.

Re:Define Pirates

[Anonymous Coward]

And the name of the treaty is what?

Because the only remotely relevant result on Google for "US/Canada Data Treaty" is a Slashdot comment from you almost two years ago - https://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=5278369&cid=47233135

This isn't an "Americans don't get it" situation - you are calling out the names of things that nobody can verify actually exist.

So what specifically are you talking about?

Re:Define Pirates

[LWATCDR]

You are in the US so you are subject to US laws. It would only be a violation of the Canadian Bill of Rights if you are in Canada.

Re:Define Pirates

[Anonymous Coward]

Can you provide at least the name of this treaty? Even better if you can provide a link to its full text. This is important because treaty law is the second highest level of law in the US (behind constitutional) and if this treaty exists it would immediately kill a lot of US laws.

But my expectation is that these treaties don't actually exist, or at least they're not as all encompassing as you make them out to be.

Re:Define Pirates

[WillAffleckUW]

It was news in Canada.

I'm sorry you don't read "international" news, but it's been a major topic for many years now.

Just like Free Trade and NAFTA were.

Re:Define Pirates

[WillAffleckUW]

Wrong. Don't sign treaties if you don't understand what they mean.

Re:Define Pirates

[WillAffleckUW]

Not my job. Try looking at the Canadian government web site.

Again, not my problem if you don't understand the consequences of the existence of treaties you sign.

Re:Define Pirates

[sexconker]

Name.
The.
Treaty.

Also show us that it was signed and ratified.

Re:Define Pirates

[Anonymous Coward]

You are a bigoted, nationalist asshole. Are you sure you are Canadian?

Re:Define Pirates

[Anonymous Coward]

Canadian: A TREATY WAS SIGNED!
Slashdot users: oh? can you tell us more about it
Canadian: DON'T SIGN SOMETHING YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND
Slashdot users: no one here, obviously, signed such a document. Can you provide a link or even give us the name of the treaty?
Canadian: NOT MUH PROBLEM!

Canadians are nice folk, are they also this thick?

Re:Define Pirates

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sorry you don't read "international" news, but it's been a major topic for many years now.

Wow. So you really don't have any clue, but want to keeping being wrong and digging in with the insults.

Re:Define Pirates

[Anonymous Coward]

Admit it: you're just making shit up. If such a treaty actually existed, and you cared about it, you'd know it's name (or initials, anyhow).

Re:Define Pirates

[WillAffleckUW]

It has many names. It actually has had different parts ratified by both countries over many years.

"Under the Treaty, information will not be shared on Canadian or U.S. citizens or permanent residents. Any information shared on travellers and asylum seekers will be handled responsibly and, as with other information sharing agreements, exchanged in accordance with relevant Canadian laws including the Privacy Act to ensure individuals’ privacy rights are considered and protected."

full information on certain aspects at the usual Canadian Government websites. The fact that you're so clueless you have no ideas you signed away your rights to be pervy to Canadians and EU citizens while they are in the US is not my problem. Try paying attention sometime.

Re:Define Pirates

[WillAffleckUW]

You are a bigoted, nationalist asshole. Are you sure you are Canadian?

I'm also an American and from Texas.

Unlike Cruz.

Re:Define Pirates

[BronsCon]

Google certainly "reads" international news. If Google doesn't know of it... well... got a link?

Re:Define Pirates

[Eloking]

DCMA is a violation of my privacy and publishing rights as a Canadian citizen in the US under the US/Canada Data Treaty, which is subject to the Canadian Bill of Rights (which was adopted in the 1980s so it has greater rights than Americans do).

What DCMA calls a pirate is a treaty violation. DCMA is subject to treaty rights, not the other way around.

You can't steal my rights by calling them piracy.

Cool post, but I'm not sure it'll hold up.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if turn breaking bad and start making Meth in my house, I'm pretty sure the police can get a warrant and burst my door open and arrest me (which is a violation of a lot of civil right ASAIK). As soon a you become recognized as a criminal, you kinda lose your civil right.

Re:Define Pirates

[Anonymous Coward]

GP AC here. Here's the thing, if what you're claiming were true, it would mean massive miscarriage of the US legal system as all federal laws in the US that went against these treaties you claim exist would immediately be rendered null and void. Now, can you understand why with such wide spread consequences for a treaty, yet our laws are the way they are, I'm hesitant to believe some guy on the internet who says this treaty exists, yet can't supply so much as the name of it? A treaty like that would upend US law, so I tend to think the US would be hesitant to sign it. I'm not saying that they didn't, I'd just like literally any evidence this treaty exists. I tried googling "Data protection treaty between US and Canada that Slashdot user WillAffleckUW said exists" but didn't get any hits. I tried leaving off the slashdot user portion and only got marginally better results. Seriously, I'm legitimately interested in this as it would void several laws I'm none to fond of, but alas, before I go writing my congressman, I'd like to verify it actually exists to keep myself looking the fool.

Re:Define Pirates

[Anonymous Coward]

It has many names, and you can't seem to come up with a single one. Full of shit.

Re:Define Pirates

[Anonymous Coward]

An overriding principle of US law is the law is public. Begone.

Re:Define Pirates

[syzler]

Not my job. Try looking at the Canadian government web site.

Again, not my problem if you don't understand the consequences of the existence of treaties you sign.

It is not my job to explain the binding force of treaties on US law, however I'll do it anyway so you'll see that treaties may be be as cut and dry in the US as they are in Canada. As a side note, I would be surprised if your diplomats did not understand the binding force of different treaties with the US on US law.

Although under international law, a US Treaty, a US congressional-executive agreement, and a sole-executive agreement are all the same, within the United States they have significant legal differences.

A constitutional treaty is capable of extending beyond the term of the president which negotiated the treaty and the senators who ratified it. A constitutional treaty also has the ability to legislate in areas which are constitutionally within the sole authority of the individual states. A constitutional treaty is relatively rare in the United States.

A congressional-executive agreement only requires a simple majority of congress and the agreement of the president. These agreements are the same as any other legislation passed by congress and are likewise limited in scope to the authority vested in both the legislative and executive branches of the government.

A sole-executive agreement is entirely within the president's discretion. However this agreement is limited in power to only the authority vested in the president and cannot extend beyond the president's term in office without the authorization of the president's successor.

In summary, a constitutional treaty can ban capital punishment on foreign nationals tried within the states even though Congress does not have the power to outright ban capital punishment. A congressional-executive agreement can impose tariffs and other taxes upon imported good since taxation is within the authority of congress, however a congressional-executive agreement cannot ban capital punishment. An sole-executive agreement can lift sanctions the president enforces (he controls the military), but he cannot impose tariffs, taxes, or guarantee monetary compensation since these authorities belong to Congress and not the president. Additionally, the president cannot make an agreement which violates US law.

Since I've taken the time to explain how treaties affect US law, maybe you can throw us a bone and tell us the name of this supposed treaty which grants Canadians within US borders exemptions from the DMCA.

Re:Define Pirates

[malditaenvidia]

You brought it up, burden of proof seems to fall squarely on you.

Re:Define Pirates

[Anonymous Coward]

Using the phrase you provided, I found the following:

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/department/media/backgrounders/2012/2012-12-13.asp
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2012/12/202065.htm

This appears to be what you're referring to, but without the actual text of the agreement, I'm not sure that applies here as it refers to information sharing regarding immigration and visas.

Re:Define Pirates

[crunchygranola]

Not my job. Try looking at the Canadian government web site.

Actually it is. You made the claim the treaty existed, but give no evidence whatsoever that it does. This is called upholding the burden of proof.

Making a false claim and then saying that those requesting proof should "look it up" (impossible since it does not exist) is one of the laziest techniques of debate trolling.

Currently you are looking like a lazy troll. If you are not, just name the treaty and this appearance will be instantly dispelled. Up to you.

Re:Define Pirates

[Anonymous Coward]

Holy hell, dude. You are doubling down on the full retard and going for that Special Olympics win.

Re:Define Pirates

[sumdumass]

What about the wct and wppt? The dmca is directly born from those treaties which is why dmca style laws pop up all over the world and get defeated repeatedly.

Those are two treaties that can actually be named and Canada is part of. Perhaps you could ask your mom for help supporting your claims?

Re:Define Pirates

[sumdumass]

Try doing a search for "data transfer pact".

It isn't a treaty as of yet but an agreement and from my limited investigation it might only be a framework for some future agreement that might or might not become a treaty.

Re:Define Pirates

[Anonymous Coward]

He mentions elsewhere that he is from Texas, but we probably all knew that.

Re:Define Pirates

[ganjadude]

it was in the news it should be easy to tell us the name of the bill/treaty

Re:Define Pirates

[budgenator]

What the rest of the World doesn't get is just because the POTUS signs a treaty, and there is a big televised signing ceremony and all of the big-wigs stand around smiling and shaking each others hands in front of the cameras for the news; it don't mean jack unless the Senate ratifies it.

I also suspect that a treaty that " grants Canadian citizens in the US the same rights of privacy and data access they have in Canada, stronger rights than Americans." would be unconstitutional in the US under the 14th amendment that grants equal protection of the law. That is also the reason the US isn't a signatory to, but follows several of the Geneva Conventions.

Re:Define Pirates

[Anonymous Coward]

I guarantee you that we did not.

We may have signed a treaty that says we'll deport you instead of tossing you in a US jail, but there's no way the US government signed a treaty that says they can spy on foreign nationals less than they can on their own citizens.

Re:Define Pirates

[ganjadude]

are you really this retarded? you can quote something (that only quotes it as "this treaty") and direct people to "Canadian government websites"

well.... you quoted something, where is the link??? no wonder people dont take canada seriously, you are a spitting image of a southpark canadian

Re:Define Pirates

[maharvey]

The treaties WE sign? You think we actually approve of what our overlords do, ostensibly in our name? You think we can do anything to stop it? The ass has the bit in its teeth, it does what it wants and serves only itself.

The overlords don't read their own laws before signing, so why should we read them? That is assuming we manage to find out about the laws (which they are often trying to hide) and manage to get our hands on the text (which they often refuse to allow). And even if we do read it, the words don't really mean what they seem to mean, they are just putty for the lawyers to play with. And then they have secret courts to top it off.

The naivete of your statement would be laughable if it weren't so tragic.

Re:Define Pirates

[KGIII]

A couple of things...

This is abut *US* ISPs and not Canadian ISPs.

As someone who's mostly First Nations (Amerindian for your USians), I can only say welcome to the club? The US doesn't exactly have a stellar history of adhering to treaties. Then again, the Canadians aren't that great either - both have improved, significantly, over time.

Re: Define Pirates

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not your buddy, Pal...

Re:Define Pirates

[guardian-ct]

Thank you for the research, OP is indeed full of "it".

Repeat infingers

[silas_moeckel]

I have no issue with them disconnecting people who lose multiple lawsuits for copyright infringement. I think at this point the MPAA etc has blanket sent notices to every subscriber in the US multiple times so thats far to low of a bar to use.

Re:Repeat infingers

[Anonymous Coward]

I haven'r received one, but then I don't pirate.

Re:Repeat infingers

[blackomegax]

Neither have I, but I use VPN's

Re:Repeat infingers

[NatasRevol]

illegal notices (no valid proof of claim) are ... illegal.

Re:Repeat infingers

[Tailhook]

has blanket sent notices to every subscriber in the US multiple times so

Never seen one here. I don't pirate. If you think they're blanketing everyone you're wrong. Former comcast, centurylink subscriber and current charter subscriber.

I'm no fan of IP holders but making stuff up is bullshit. I know people that pirate nearly everything they watch/listen to; some have been noticed and others haven't. So my anecdotal evidence is that they're being conservative.

Re:Repeat infingers

[silas_moeckel]

I've had multiple relatives and friends get notices for infringement who I know are not do not have kids who might etc. Most of these were obvious scams, with we could make you pay 100k or more send us 1k now and we will settle BS. I'm pretty sure my 90+ year old grandparents were not torrenting considering the only things in the house was some roku's and streaming radio's. So yea I feel pretty safe to say there are many fraudulent notices being sent.

In any event only lost trials should count anything else is not enough.

Re:Repeat infingers

[Anonymous Coward]

I think at this point the MPAA etc has blanket sent notices to every subscriber in the US multiple times so thats far to low of a bar to use.

Definitely.

It's a bridge to far.

Re:Repeat infingers

[Anonymous Coward]

Except they aren't, only claims to hold the copyright when you do not are illegal. Claims that a work infringes when it does not, are not.

Re:Repeat infingers

[KGIII]

I am pretty sure it's worse than that. Only the person (usually a lawyer - and not the rights holder themselves but a representative of them) must believe that they are filing on behalf of the people who own the rights. This is why they get away with making false claims. The rights holder can actually *lie* to the rep/lawyer, the lawyer file (believing it true), and the thing is not illegal.

Yes, yes I have read the damned thing. I did skim some of it but I kind of had to read it.

Re:Repeat infingers

[KGIII]

I might be lazy and pirate. It's odd 'cause I only watch documentaries and they all show up eventually but sometimes I want the whole series and to play it in order. So, I pirate. At the same time, I've Netflix and Hulu+ - except I don't remember when I last logged into either one. It hasn't been in the past six months, at least. I also have a separate, disparate, connection that does nothing but seed. It seeds Linux distros and that's my story and I'm sticking to it. (Well, I always share anything to a 12:1 average, minimal. Some are at 700+:1. It's a dedicated line.) That's on the same ISP. All three different connections are on the same ISP.

Alas, I feel left out. If I got a notice, I'd giggle. I really would. I'd probably scan it and forward it to my friends and family. I'd post it online - like a trophy. 'Cause I've certainly earned one. I've earned HUNDREDS of them - though I don't really pirate the "good stuff." I watch documentaries. Yeah, i suck, I know... But, I'd be stoked to get one. If my ISP doesn't like it then I've got a dozen more who will have me back in service immediately. By the time the Fairpoint disconnect happens, I'll have GWI set up. If that then I've Wind's DSL service. There's another two in-town Farmington. There are two more in Oxford County. There's another in Somerset. Then, there are 13 other counties, 49 States, and 193 countries. Any one of them can provide my service if they want and it's cheap for them to do so.

I've got DSL and many people don't realize that DSL is on copper and thus gets some neat protections added to it - depending on the State you live in. If I don't like my ISP, I kick 'em to the curb. I have before and I'll do it again. So, Fairpoint actually treats me really well. It also helps that there are few of us on the line. The line was bought and paid for - to extend way out to my home, and that needed a payment to buy a new CO along the way. I happen to be the "Computer Guy." I've never tried it but I bet I can get 90% of the folks down in the village to change and 100% of the six of us up here would all change - just 'cause I asked. I'd change for them. We're a small, tight-knit, community. I could probably get 99% of the people in the village to change (that includes the resorts and B&Bs and businesses) if I offer to help walk them through it.

When they don't have a monopoly, the ISP is a VERY different creature. I swear to dog, the difference between an ISP with a monopoly and one without is the difference between light and day. And no, Fairpoint's not moving out. They're gonna be here for a while. They wanted to buy the service and the State said they could but that it came with some caveats. See, Maine has INSANE consumer protection laws and really does have an active PUC. I really did look into these things prior to retiring here. Damned right, if I'm building a house 24 miles from a village and about 45 miles from there to a real town - I want to know what my broadband is going to look like - and narrowband was not an option. I almost ran cable but cable doesn't afford the same protections as DSL. DSL is phone lines. They *must* make best effort repairs and maintain things or they will be fined.

Hell, Maine has something called an Implied Merchantability law. Basically means, even if you say I have no warranty, I do. That warranty lasts as long as a reasonable person would expect to use the device and what a reasonable person would expect for functionality. Yup...

It's a horrible place. Don't move to Maine. The natives are stupid, rednecks, individual, liberty-loving, drinking, smoking, fat, poor, uneducated, and mean! The taxes are high, the weather is unacceptable, and the infrastructure is crumbling. So, you don't want to move to Maine. Ever... If you want to visit, stick to the coast. There are people there waiting for you and they'll entertain you all you want to pay for. Just make sure to spend money, thanks. But no... It's terrible and I'd never recommend anyone from here move there.

Re: Repeat infingers

[Anonymous Coward]

Im moving to Maine next month Dave ;).

Your gleaming recommendation was all I needed. Sounds like a lovely place to pirate ^H^H^H^H^H^H Errr I mean raise a family.

Re: Repeat infingers

[KGIII]

I'll be back in Maine by then. Hopefully... Depends on if the State Department finally gets my application approved. Give me a yell, I'll show you around. It's a terrible, terrible place! ;-)

Re:Repeat infingers

[Anonymous Coward]

Worse than that: They have adopted a spam policy.

We've seen single item getting DMCA notice up to 700 times in a single day. The normal operating procedure of Rightscorp is to send multiple notices each day, at a minimum rate of 1 per day.

Albums are even worse, each song in a album gets it's own DMCA notice, now multiply that with say 40 or so ...

Makes sense

[twistedcubic]

They are refusing to forward extortion notices to subscribers ("Pay me $8000 or I will sue") because 1) many times these fools either don't have standing to sue for copyright infringement, or don't provide sufficient proof they have standing to sue, 2) the "copyright holder" could easily be an impostor, and no ISP wants to facilitate fraud or fishing, or 3) the copyright holder might be complaining about fair use, which big media companies refuse to acknowledge even exists. I agree, there should be court judgments before an ISP is forced to act.

Re:Makes sense

[Anonymous Coward]

I could see forwarding a properly worded (court approved) message to alleged offenders. Then after 'x' number of notices the media company could then take the alleged offender to court and say, see we sent 'x' number of notices and here is also other PROOF of infringement. Then if the court rules in their favor a court order for ISP disconnect.

Re:Makes sense

[Tenebrousedge]

No, they are refusing to forward extortion notices because they have no legal requirement to. Whether or not the entity issuing the takedown request is the rightsholder or is authorized to act on the their part is covered by the DMCA request. The issuer has to affirm under penalty of perjury that they have the right to issue the notice, and it's no skin off the IPS's nose if it's not true -- all things being equal, they would prefer invalid claims.

The reason that they don't want to forward claims is because [a] it costs money, [b] people who infringe often tend to be more willing to pay for faster connections (or even better, excess bandwidth charges), and [c] they are legally obligated to terminate the services of repeat infringers (17 USC 512 (i)(1)(A), see also[pdf]). Currently, there is no actual legal definition of what constitutes a 'repeat infringer', nor what kind of disconnection policy meets the DMCA guidelines. As noted in TFA, the media industry has been pushing heavily for "three strikes" laws and policies: this is a direct response. It's something of a game of chicken, the ISPs are saying that if the media companies want to play hardball, the ISPs will stop forwarding notices, and then presumably cross their fingers and hope that Congress doesn't want to 'clarify' the law. It should be interesting to see how it plays out: I suspect whoever bought the best Congresscritters will win.

Re:Makes sense

[KGIII]

I've been pondering this for a VERY long time. I don't know how old you are but it might be since before you were born. Your user ID indicates that it'd be silly of me to assume that to be the case. So, for now, a very long time indeed.

We need something FUNCTIONAL that sits below the courts. And no, it's not the bullshit they call arbitration. Findings need to be able to be appealed. It needs to have oversight. Things like IP need to be dealt with in those systems before even seeing a court of law. It needs to ban lawyers and have a limited expense imposed on ALL parties. Everything probably needs to be in front of a panel, perhaps juried, and it needs to be observed and monitored by a third party who has no ties to the industry but (and this might be hard) have demonstrated an understanding of the industry.

The list goes on but that is something I've been thinking about for a long time now. I was literally thinking of this when I was just 18 and spent that summer trying to be a band - before going in the Marines, almost a year, to the day, after the journey began. *sighs* My hair!!! Ah well, it was a VERY good choice.

The important things are is that it must be cheap, fair, and allow access to anyone - YOU should be able to call in Sony if they've violated your rights. That *does* happen.

What is coming up ahead...

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

If criminals repeatedly use FedEX or UPS to ship/receive stolen merchandise the parcel delivery companies must delist them and stop delivering to their addresses. USPS also should stop delivering letters and packages. If pot growers use electric lights to grow weed, then the electric utility must cut off electricity to the whole building or the apartment complex. Why take half measures, no electricity to the entire zip code. That will teach them.

Re:What is coming up ahead...

[sims 2]

I don't think that's remotely the shipping companies job unless via court order but I've never heard of that happening.

AFAIK I can get any size transformer and meter installed at my house as I am willing to pay for without being questioned on why I need a 250KVA transformer.

They tend to be much more concerned with people stealing power than they are with people using obnoxious amounts and paying their bill on time.

If someone was caught growing pot http://sparkreport.net/2009/03...

I doubt the electric company would disconnect power unless the bill wasn't paid.

And the last part that's like the school teachers that punish the whole class because the same @hole that always talks through the whole class wouldn't be quiet again.

Its supposed to have one of two outcomes.
1. Shame the person into behaving in class.
Or more likely.
2. After a few times get the other 74 people in the class mad enough from being wrongfully punished that they beat the unruly student to death during lunch break.

Sure it might be effective some of the time but I don't think it should be legal.

Re:What is coming up ahead...

[Anonymous Coward]

whoooooosh

Re:What is coming up ahead...

[xorbe]

rip that one farm in Kansas

Re:What is coming up ahead...

[Kjella]

If pot growers use electric lights to grow weed, then the electric utility must cut off electricity to the whole building or the apartment complex. Why take half measures, no electricity to the entire zip code. That will teach them.

Electric lights? I hear there's pot growers using sunlight, it's time to shut it all down. <godmode>*click*</godmode> Eight minutes to go, time to find your nearest pub and a friend from a small planet somewhere in the vicinity of Betelgeuse.

Re:What is coming up ahead...

[blindseer]

Just nuke them from orbit, just to be sure.

Re:What is coming up ahead...

[Anonymous Coward]

> Why take half measures, no electricity to the entire zip code. That will teach them.

Aren't they planning to do this to North Carolina?

No Problem, but it should work both ways.

[Anonymous Coward]

Its fine to disconnect customers after 3 violation notices, as long as:
they also stop accepting violation notices from any "rights holder" who sents 3 incorrect ones.

Re:No Problem, but it should work both ways.

[Opportunist]

Disconnect infringers from the web for 3 violations and "disconnect" any rights holder from filing after three clearly fraudulent notices in bad faith.

If rights weren't so easily shifted into shell companies, I'd agree. Unfortunately changing my name is far more complicated than opening another shell corporation.

Re:No Problem, but it should work both ways.

[KGIII]

Your changing your name is not more complicated than they changing to another shell corporation. What gave you that idea? It's not even remotely more complicated, it's much less complicated. Sure, it's more annoying for you but it's less complicated. You've got very little paperwork to file and only one person to help you - but that doesn't mean it's more complicated.

Not at all. It's less complicated to change your name. It's easy to do the follow ups with banks, DMV, all that - than it is to pop up a new shell company and transfer the assets to it. It's just not necessarily something you've done before but it's really not hard. People do it all the time. It's not even expensive.

Re:No Problem, but it should work both ways.

[Opportunist]

In your country maybe.

Re:No Problem, but it should work both ways.

[Anonymous Coward]

Your sig seems to suggest you're American, but your posts often suggest otherwise - where are you (if you don't mind an AC asking)?

Re:No Problem, but it should work both ways.

[KGIII]

I thought you lived in the US? If you live in the US, it's pretty simple. I've known many who have done it. You don't even really have to have a good excuse, you just can't be an idiot about it. It's like $50 at the courthouse.

Re:No Problem, but it should work both ways.

[JazzLad]

I'm not going to do it (I actually rather like my real name :)), but how hard is it to track you through a name change? I mean, it would stop someone like me, I bet, but I wouldn't expect it to stop the govt. if they were trying to look, but where is it in the middle? Does your old name show up as an AKA every time law enforcement runs a check?

Re:No Problem, but it should work both ways.

[KGIII]

Anyone smart will notice that a person's history began at the age of something like 25 and will then realize that they'd changed their name. They'll then trawl through the records (or search on your new name - in areas where your name first showed up) and have that information pretty quickly. For a few personal reasons, I seriously considered changing my name at one point. Except, I'm rather fond of my name.

The *AA organizations

[Anonymous Coward]

Personally I'm amazed at how goddamn lazy the RIAA and MPAA have gotten. Do they even do anything to earn their money these days or just go around demanding that everyone else to do their job for them? I wish I had a few billion dollars so I could whine to congress about how hard my job is and everyone else should do it for me for free.

Re:The *AA organizations

[Rockoon]

Personally I'm amazed at how goddamn lazy the RIAA and MPAA have gotten. Do they even do anything to earn their money these days or just go around demanding that everyone else to do their job for them?

In the grand scheme of things, we arent actually talking about a lot of money.

Last I checked the telecom industry handles about $5 trillion annually, while the movie industry only about $35 billion.

To put this in perspective

78,000,000,000,000 - Gross world product
5,000,000,000,000 - Telecom industry (6.4102% of GWP)
35,000,000,000 - Movie industry (0.0449% of GWP)
21,000,000,000 - Music industry (0.0269% of GWP)

This is why the RIAA/MPAA have failed so miserably is getting what they want. Its like two half-lings trying to fight stone-giants.

Re:The *AA organizations

[Opportunist]

Who talks about "earning" any money? They just want to get it, "earn it"... that sounds like they'd have to do some kind of honest work for it.

Re:The *AA organizations

[Opportunist]

What makes content so incredibly powerful as an export good is that you can literally export thin air. You export ... well, essentially nothing. You export something that is trivially easy to multiply at zero cost. That is some powerful export asset.

To make matters worse, rather than looking at the annual GWP, look at the perceived value of those assets. And realize that this value drops to ZERO if everyone can multiply it at will.

Re:The *AA organizations

[Rockoon]

What makes content so incredibly powerful as an export good is that you can literally export thin air. You export ... well, essentially nothing. You export something that is trivially easy to multiply at zero cost. That is some powerful export asset.

I think you are missing the real fundamental issue here.

The customers of the RIAA/MPAA are not you and me. The customers of the RIAA/MPAA are their distributors, which includes the telecom industry.

The distributors are in control be it exports, imports, or domestic sales.

Whats going to happen is that the RIAA/MPAA will be bought up by the distributors unless they figure out that they need to become their own distributors before it happens.

Its already happened in the food industry, where the only surviving self-owned food producers own their own trucks. The ones that didnt get into shipping got purchased by the shipping companies long ago.

Maybeee

[Etherwalk]

They would never agree to willingly lose busieness. It would also highlight the fact there is no competition for broadband in many areas when those customers realized there was no one else to go to for service after being kicked out.

Or maybe even Comcast is unwilling to deal with their own customer service.

Safe harbor and repeat infringers

[Nutria]

Must the electric company cut power to a bookie joint that pays it's bills just because it's a bookie joint?

Re:Safe harbor and repeat infringers

[Anonymous Coward]

Must the felon not have access to firearms? Even in Texas?

Must Mitnick not have access to a computer?

Must the priest not have access to the boys' lockers?

Must Reiser be locked away from all that is *NIXy for murdering Nina?

Must the repeat-DUIer be kept from driving?

Must the Stones tour?

Re:Safe harbor and repeat infringers

[Opportunist]

"Must the content industry exist?"

At least ask one relevant question.

Re:Safe harbor and repeat infringers

[jedidiah]

You mean that people should have their rights stripped on a whim?

This is something that both sides of the political spectrum seem far too eager to do. It seems like a handy way to deprive your political enemies of any sort of voice.

DON'T COPY THAT FLOPPY!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yours,
The Ghost of Nancy Reagan

Re:DON'T COPY THAT FLOPPY!

[Opportunist]

Shut up, bitch, at least after death stop telling everyone your opinion without anyone ever asking for it.

Obligatory Village People

[Anonymous Coward]

Pirate, there's no need to feel down.
I said, Pirate, download the latest sound.
I said, Pirate, 'cause you're in a new town
There's no need to be unhappy.

Pirate, there's a site you can go.
I said, Pirate, when you're short on your dough.
You can click there, and I'm sure you will find
Many warez to download in time.

It's fun to violate the D.M.C.A.
It's fun to violate the D.M.C.A.

4th amendment

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm pretty sure you are innocent until proven guilty. Forcing the ISP to suspend your internet service, a service which increasingly is used for the purpose of expression of free speech, is likely a Constitutional landmine.

Re:4th amendment

[Opportunist]

Constiwhatnow? Does that thing even still exist? Dude, get with the times, that's so pre-Millennium.

Re:4th amendment

[Anonymous Coward]

>innocent until proven guilty
Ha ha oh man, please. In a courtroom maybe, but allegations are plenty weaponized enough, you can shotgun them by the dozen. You don't need proof, you don't need evidence, you don't need jack shit. The content racketeers know it, the SJWs know it, the LEOs know it - hell, the newspapers have known it since before we were born.

Can you imagine if the media were required to have one of these?

[_] Suspected
[_] Under investigation
[_] Arrested
[X] Convicted
[_] Pardoned
[_] Serving sentence
[_] Debt repaid to society

Teenagers are usually stupid, but even they know how easy it is. The grown-up version has to be more salacious if your person of interest is too connected, but you can simply use drugs/childporn/terrorism otherwise.

Re:Lol

[wile_e_wonka]

Every ISP I've dealt with has required a physical address. And it has to be real. Whenever I give a fake address for my internet service, I end up getting no service at my real address. Also, every ISP I've dealt with has required real payment. Whenever I give the ISP fake payment information, the ISP doesn't get paid and then cuts off my service.

Here is what you can do:

1) Set up a Nevada LLC and use nominee management and registered agent services and get the "physical address in NV" service, which gets you a mailbox with a physical address in NV.
2) Set up an online bank account for the LLC in which you deposit $100,000 in various increments under $10,000 over time.
3) Have the Nevada LLC purchase a house someplace that it can rent for a profit.
4) Using only typed letters and/or an anonymous free email address, get the house rented.
5) Have the LLC set up another LLC, which second LLC will also open a bank account. Rent profits from the first LLC will be depsosited into the account of the second LLC.
6) The second LLC will, using only typed letters and anonymous emails, will rent an apartment adjacent to yours (did I mention you have to live in an apartment complex with an empty apartment next door?). Leave the door unlocked and throw away the keys. Furnish the apartment so it looks legit if searched--you don't want the police to search the apartment and find it furnished solely with a wireless router. Maybe even let a squater liver there for a few days.
7) Have the second LLC order internet for the apartment.
8) Set up a strong wireless router in the apartment with open access. Use that for all your illigitimate stuff. Dont ever use personally identifying information when hooked in to that signal.
9) Also make sure you have your own internet service that you use for the legitimate stuff.
10) When ISP kicks you off for doing illigitimate stuff, have your first LLC set up another largely hidden LLC and bank account, transfer the lease to the new LLC (via letters and emails). Set up new internet service.

The main problem I see with this is the bank accounts. You'll probably need a tax ID number, so you'll need a real SS# for the IRS. And the bank will need a signatory on the account. I don't think of a good way to set this up truly anonymously.

TFA

[Scarred Intellect]

A more reputable source for the article. Not to say that TorrentFreak isn't reputable, but.... http://www.ustelecom.org/blog/making-progress-copyright-enforcement

Information Sharing Treaty

[Etherwalk]

It was news in Canada.

I'm sorry you don't read "international" news, but it's been a major topic for many years now.

Just like Free Trade and NAFTA were.

1. I believe you, but you are also not knowing the name of the thing you are talking about, and he can't find it on Google, so there's no evidence that it exists except for your memory of a news report of a couple of years ago. While Canadian news is often better (and is certainly funnier) than American news, that's like remembering the time a chimpanzee told you that your dog was up to something. Maybe you're right, but between the flying poop and the time that's passed chances are information got lost.

2. The closest treaty google pops up info about is this information sharing treaty, related to immigration and databases of people who come from neither country. http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/d...

3. International treaties are not necessarily (as a practical or legal matter) subject to the Canadian charter of rights and freedoms when being interpreted or implemented in the United States. In addition, in non self-executing treaties, domestic implementing law may differ from international treaty, and US courts tend to be hesitant to bring in international law, even though it is technically part of the law of the United States under something called the Charming Betsy doctrine.

Re:Information Sharing Treaty

[WillAffleckUW]

The Canadian Supreme Court ruled that all treaties may not sign away and rights in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Which exist no matter where you reside, in or out of Canada.

Re:Information Sharing Treaty

[Anonymous Coward]

And you've had multiple opportunities to provide the name of this treaty, but you haven't. Put up or shut up.

Re:Information Sharing Treaty

[Etherwalk]

The Canadian Supreme Court ruled that all treaties may not sign away and rights in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Which exist no matter where you reside, in or out of Canada.

The Canadian Supreme Court has no jurisdiction over activities by the United States government in the United States. At the most it is a persuasive authority under International Law and principles of comity; it has no binding authority. If Canada failed to attach reservations to the treaty, then Canada's international law obligations can even be in conflict with its own Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Re:Information Sharing Treaty

[FlyHelicopters]

The Canadian Supreme Court ruled that all treaties may not sign away and rights in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Which exist no matter where you reside, in or out of Canada.

Perhaps, but the Canadian Supreme Court has no jurisdiction in the US, so their opinions don't count for much.

This might be "a thing", but the challenge is going to get it enforced without spending a lot of money.

Re:Information Sharing Treaty

[budgenator]

Nobody is suggesting the Canadian Government violate the rights of Canadians in the US, but that is not the same as the US Government giving Canadians more rights than Americans have in the US.

Rare pleasure

[sjames]

I hardly ever get to say this, but I agree with the ISPs whole heatedly. It's not their problem. It's not their job or their legal obligation to do anything about those notices the *IAA and other "reputable organizations" like Prenda send out every time a bird chirps. Especially now that the FCC has made them title ii.

They don't get to sentence people to digital exile on their whim.

Re:Rare pleasure

[mark-t]

The ISP's should probably change their terms of service then... since they usually explicitly prohibit using their connection to do things that are illegal. I mean, if they aren't going to enforce it, what's the point of mentioning it?

This is of course, assuming that sufficient evidence of illegal activity exists in the first place.

Re:Rare pleasure

[AthanasiusKircher]

I mean, if they aren't going to enforce it, what's the point of mentioning it?

Well... because most "terms of service" are "cover-your-ass" legalese, rather than something companies actively care about.

Seriously -- is this that hard to understand why a company wants to have a disclaimer like this in their terms? (e.g., By accepting the contract for our services, you agree not to use our services for illegal acts.) If you don't include that disclaimer, some idiot could come after you and say, "You facilitated the illegal actions of person X. Therefore you are partly responsible," either criminally or just in a civil lawsuit.

If you have this disclaimer, you can say, "Well, we told them this was not acceptable." This could be particularly important in cases with much higher stakes than copyright claims, e.g., child pornography cases, cases where an internet connection is used to coordinate violent crime or even terrorist attacks, etc.

This is of course, assuming that sufficient evidence of illegal activity exists in the first place.

Well, the issue isn't just "evidence of illegal activity," it's intent of the subscriber. That's why a lot of these copyright cases have ended up failing in courts. Was the subscriber to the service actually responsible for the copyright infringement, or did they have an open wifi (or one that was hacked), so the infringement was done by someone else?

And in any case, the terms of service usually don't state a mandatory response. They usually aren't, "If you do X, we will terminate your service." Instead they say something like, "X is prohibited and may be grounds for suspension or complete termination of service."

Whatever. The point is that internet service may not be a "right," but denial should be for a serious cause, say, coming out of a court declaration. Not just some vague accusation. Otherwise, we should start arguing that the local pizza joint should lose its phone service because of a rumor that some mobsters used the phone to coordinate a "hit."

Re:Rare pleasure

[sjames]

Why should they? That clause gives THEM the right to terminate the connection for illegal activity, at their discretion. It confers no obligation upon them. Basically it's so that if they see clearly illegal activity (probably as a result of the inevitable backlash), they can dump you quick and easy.

For the rest, that's a HUUUUUUGE assumption. As I indicated, the various notices are a combination of complaints that birds were chirping something like their song in the background, out and out fraud, incorrect identifications, and possibly a few legitimate complaints, all generally made without even bothering to double check automated tools. They have all the legal weight of gossip. None of it is proof that the actions actually happened or that the alleged actions were actually illegal. The correct place to turn accusations and evidence into a finding of fact is a courtroom, not tech support.

Re:Lol

[Hylandr]

The main problem I see with this is the bank accounts.

Or the Time and PITA that would be to do.

It's also illegal to make micro-deposits with the aim to undermine the 10k limit. Like that's going to stop anyone from doing it.

Re:Lol

[Iamthecheese]

Or you could just pay for a non-logging VPN, set up an anonymous server for washed bitcoin, and do your stuff through that server.

Erroneous title.

[Cyberpunk Reality]

Shouldn't it be: "ISPs refuse to disconnect their customers whenever shady legal firms demand it"?

Re:Erroneous title.

[Opportunist]

How about "ISPs fail to fall for flam"?

Newspaper love alliterations in their headlines. Any native speaker find a good F-word for ISP.

No, not THAT one, one that can be printed.

Re:Erroneous title.

[KGIII]

I'm thinking that any F word at all will do - so long as it's talking about the copyright cartels but as this is the ISP (oddly the good ones in this story) then maybe Flimflam. (It's even a legitimate word and, with some mental gymnastics might most suit.)

Or, Fairpoint is the name of my ISP. Find a few more that start with F.

Fairpoint, F-co, F-c, flimflam, fail to fall for flam.

Sadly, I've been doing alliteration way too often in my posts for the past two weeks or so. I don't mean it. It just happens. :/

Re:Lol

[duke_cheetah2003]

Or you could just use one of the many VPN services around these days to mask your identity.

If the MPAA/RIAA/whatever other IP Nazis

[waspleg]

were willing to pay the ISPs to do this per instance and the fee was substantial enough I suspect the ISPs would change their tune.

Many people are locked in to local ISP monopolies. If they were serious they'd put the money up and people would have no alternative but to either stop/get more sophisticated/or get fleeced for the overpriced media laden with ads and threats...

Re:If the MPAA/RIAA/whatever other IP Nazis

[hguorbray]

I think that when/if TPP is ever implemented (hoping not) there will be pretty severe punishments for ISPs who do not implement anti-piracy enforcement (even if it's non-infringing, non piracy unfortunately)

-I'm just sayin'

Re:Lol

[Anonymous Coward]

non-logging VPN

Hahahahahah

Just add the content fee to the bill

[edtice1559]

With ISP and media-companies buying each other, it's a matter of time before the ISPs recognize that you are pirating content and just add the full retail price of it to your monthly bill. But at least this is proportional.

I agree with the ISPs on this one

[kheldan]

The only entity that should be able to compel them to disconnect any paying user, is a Judge, issuing a court order to do so, following a conviction for violating copyright law, or as part of a settlement after the end user is sued successfully in civil court -- which would still be a court order. Otherwise it just amounts to hearsay.

Re:Lol

[Anonymous Coward]

2) Set up an online bank account for the LLC in which you deposit $100,000 in various increments under $10,000 over time.

3) Go to jail for structuring.

Like other commentators have said, probably better to use a good VPN.

Re:Lol

[Anonymous Coward]

Or just point my wifi antenna at the mcdonalds down the road and use theirs.

This all ignores RIAA v Verizon and the text of th

[Anonymous Coward]

The media industry has warped the wording and meaning of the DMCA and make the safe harbor provision something it isn't.
The safe harbor provision was applied if the ISP took action to disconnect offenders using servers under their control. This means the server space the ISP provides you, NOT the server you're running on your connection.
Being able to disconnect service to someone does NOT mean you are in control of that server.
The RIAA v Verizon case correctly ruled that an ISP can not be liable for transitory data. The text of the DMCA backs up this ruling.
This would be the equivalent of holding the phone company responsible for someone using a phone to plan/commit a crime (which happens every day). But we don't hold the phone company responsible because they haven't done anything wrong.
''(a) TRANSITORY DIGITAL NETWORK COMMUNICATIONS.-A service provider shall not be liable for monetary relief, or, except as provided in subsection (j), for injunctive or other equitable relief, for infringement of copyright by reason of the provider's transmitting, routing, or providing connections for, material through a system or network controlled or operated by or for the service provider, or by reason of the intermediate and transient storage of that material in the course of such transmitting, routing, or providing connections, if-

''(1) the transmission of the material was initiated by or at the direction of a person other than the service provider;

Re:Lol

[Anonymous Coward]

Or rent a seedbox that's located in a locale where file-sharing is legal.

let them use the courts for their civil lawsuit

[Revek]

They say piracy but really its civil. I get these notices to deliver their crap letters to our customers. They want us to roll a truck to deliver them for free. Not one has ever subpoenaed us through the courts. When asked to pay for the truck roll they hang up and refuse. They wan't us as a process server for free. We don't live in the land of the free we live in the land of them fee.

Re:Lol

[pixelpusher220]

and be subject to the CFAA and YEARS of jail time.

Re:Pirates are Entitled Losers

[Falos]

You sound like one of those "non-practicing entities".

Which is funny because that's almost the same wording normal humans say about you.

Tortious interference

[Anonymous Coward]

... push to terminate the accounts of repeat infringers.

Since ISPs aren't allowed to be morals police, terminating accounts would be tortious interference by Hollywood. The ISPs would also lose customers so maybe they should start invoicing Hollywood for lost revenue and a generous 'breach of contract' compensation for the so-called pirate.

Re:Lol

[Cytotoxic]

Making repeated small deposits under the 10k threshold is called structuring, and is a serious crime in and of itself. You can be convicted of structuring even if there is no underlying crime. People have lost their businesses to asset forfeiture because they made regular deposits under $10k - even though they had fully documented every penny. It seems that earning 7-9k per week is enough to have your business seized. Next time you should be smart and earn more than 10k per week, I guess.

  Former Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert reported an extortion plot against him and is being prosecuted for withdrawing payoffs for the extortionist in sub-$10k increments. (in his case they are likely going after him because the extortion plot involved allegations that he molested teenage boys..... and/or being an icky Republican.)

Re:Lol

[Anonymous Coward]

The main problem I see with this is the bank accounts.

Use cash, no bank account. An extra hassle, but anonymous. Send payments by courier or mail or somehting.

Re:Lol

[Hylandr]

This would imply that making the nightly deposit of your daily proceeds can land you in jail.

What about Credit card sales through a payment gateway if done in batches sub 10k?

Are vendor / business accounts exempt ?

Re: Pirates are Entitled Losers

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think you know the definition of stealing. I can steal a car, I can steal money, I can't steal music/movies/print. You still retain your copy.
Nobody is taking anything from you.

Besides, 99% of the shit I have I wouldn't have paid for anyway, the other 1% I happily pay for.

Re:Lol

[wile_e_wonka]

I think "cash only" could work for LLC #2, but not for LLC number 1. It's the one that has to earn the money to pay LLC #2's rent and internet and electricity. Under my proposal, you've got to have LLC #1 do something to get money from the outside--like renting someplace. Perhaps it can set up a hot dog stand instead of a rental place so it can plausibly be cash only. You'll have to run the hot dog stand (including hiring someone to man it) via anonymous letters and email. And pay the person manning it by having him keep a cut of the money and mailing the rest to an the Nevada PO Box. But then, that money has to be forwarded someplace.

I now thinking the VPN is the best idea too. The problem there appears to be finding one that is and remains non-logging. From what I can gather on the internet, you need to keep your eye on your VPN--sometimes they get sued and start logging, in which case you need to go find a different VPN.

Re:Lol

[torkus]

The $10k threshold only applies to cash.

Checks, credit, wires, and anything with a digital trail is exempt since the funds can be traced.

The underlying intent is to prevent money laundering/fraud...but it's from 1970 where $10k was significantly more money (about $60k 2016 $'s). Inflation has quietly make this law much more restrictive to the point where 'normal' people doing 'normal' things can and do trip it up and give big brother an excuse to stick their nose in.

Re:Lol

[torkus]

I'd just hack someone's wifi from a clean/anonymous laptop and call it a day.

There's some analogy to getting strong encryption passwords with a wrench here I think :)

Re:Lol

[Hylandr]

This is good to know and explains much. Thank You for the info.

+1 informative. :)

Re:Lol

[mgcarley]

There are ways around the issues you've identified.

1. LLCs/INCs get their own tax ID number (EIN), as can several other types of entity, including foreign entities - for example I have a US bank account for a US branch of one of my NZ companies and all I needed was a passport - personally, I'm not eligible for an SSN but I am eligible for an ITIN - and depending on how legal you want to keep it would depend on what you might want to do next as far as opening a US account went.
2. On the other hand, you could maintain some privacy by using a nominee for your LLC, open the bank account in the US, if you decided to open a bank account at all, but it may not even be entirely necessary, as there are plenty of prepaid and/or virtual options you could use both in and outside of the US...

From what I understand there are a lot of poorer people who don't even have bank accounts in the US, so I guess one would need to get familiar with how they are able to move their money around, but the first thing that comes to my mind is those prepaid cards bearing the Visa/MC logo. Since they seem to be able to be purchased anonymously and I'm guessing you can use it for almost any kind of domestic transaction (like if your ISP allows you to pay by card online just by logging in to their billing portal - I know some do but I can't speak for all) - all you need to do is have enough money on the card and presto, bill is paid on behalf of XYZ LLC.

At the end of the day you'd probably just have to watch out for the law firm accidentally having a data breach/leak and your anonymous involvement in XYZ LLC becomes exposed. Hopefully though by then the statute of limitations will have passed.