Major US ISPs Agree To Five Strikes Plan, Rather Than Three
from the how-unfortunate dept
Well, this is hardly a surprise, given the leaks about this last month, but most of the major US ISPs have agreed to a "voluntary graduated response" plan at the urging of the RIAA and the MPAA (with some shoving from the US government).In our original discussion, we noted that ISPs would have the option to kick people off the web entirely, and in our comments we were attacked by an anonymous person involved in the negotiations, saying we made that up. And yet, the agreement today confirms that kicking users off the web entirely is a possible measure for these ISPs. Of course, the folks behind the plan were careful to try to talk their way around this. They say that it's only the web that gets blocked. Email (um, not if you use web-based email), VoIP "or any security or health service (such as home security or medical monitoring)" will still be allowed to go through. Also the agreement explicitly says that they're not talking about killing anyone's account. This is disingenuous, of course. For most people, having their web access blocked is as good as losing your account entirely. Access to the web is pretty much the whole point of an internet access account these days.
Participating ISPs include AT&T, Cablevision, Comcast, Verizon and Time Warner Cable -- also known as pretty much the only choices the vast majority of Americans have for serious broadband connections. The basics of the plan are a "five strike" plan, rather than the traditional "three." After the fifth strike (and by strike, we mean accusation, not conviction), the ISPs can resort to "mitigation measures":
If, after these educational and acknowledgment alerts, the subscriber�s account still appears to be engaged in content theft, the ISP will send yet another alert. At this time, the ISP may take one of several steps, referred to as �Mitigation Measures� reasonably calculated to stop future content theft. These Mitigation Measures may include, for example: temporary reductions of Internet speeds, redirection to a landing page until the subscriber contacts the ISP to discuss the matter or reviews and responds to some educational information about copyright, or other measures (as specified in published policies) that the ISP may deem necessary to help resolve the matter.Now, the interesting question: will any of this get people to actually buy music and movies again? That seems doubtful. And, of course, it's worth noting that even with this in place, the MPAA and RIAA are insisting that PROTECT IP is necessary. Funny, I thought that the problem was solved once graduated response was in place.
Those behind the plan bend over backwards to claim this is just an "educational" plan. But education plans don't mean people can no longer access the web. Words mean something. On top of that you can pretty much bet that the "education materials" that will be provided will be typically one-sided and misleading.
The other problem with the plan is that it's still based on accusations, rather than convictions, and if the DMCA has taught us anything, it's that people make false claims of infringement all the time. And if you get an alert that you think is wrong? Well, you have to pay to have it reviewed. Now suddenly this can become a "profit center" for ISPs.
Is this plan as bad as three strikes plans found in Europe and Asia? No. But it's still a bad plan. Anything that involves crippling your internet access based on accusations is ripe for serious abuse. Furthermore, there is little to no evidence that this will actually help the RIAA or MPAA and their associated companies. This is yet another case where the industry is so focused on "piracy" they forgot that they have to actually give people reasons to buy. The problem isn't piracy. The problem is their inability to adapt to a changing market.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: copyright, entertainment industry, graduated response, isps
Companies: at&t, cablevision, comcast, mpaa, riaa, time warner cable, verizon
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Whew!
So, bittorrent is still go?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Only the web!
a real shame if your medical or home-security system uses a web service...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Only the web!
Or if you are lazy and get your web locked down you can always download the torrents at open wireless connections in the bus and download at home using the medical service ports. Bingo.
This is fail in so many levels that I truly find it amusing.
MAFIAA is fail in so many lvls that makes me feel ashamed to be human just like their employees are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Only the web!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No problem: Port randomization + encryption
No way to tell what sort of data is being passed, could be VPN, could be http, could be email, who knows.
Or you could just switch to a sane ISP like sonic.net
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No problem: Port randomization + encryption
ISP's have strangle holds of areas and the MAFIAA knew that when they designed this stupid 'law'...it's supposed to make it that much easier to ranch on the supposed perpetrators.
And even if they do this crap, it's not going to have them making profits...if anything, it's going to make it WORSE...which is what I'm wishing for. Nothing like watching a company/group that lives off of other people's artistic work for a living going to the shitter...and THAT is a show I'm willing to pay for. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Only the web!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Only the web!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Only the web!
You can run. You can't hide.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Only the web!
People doing video or graphics work for a Swedish-based company.
It's funny how many lawyers and accountants think that 'reasonable use' is about what lawyers and/or accountants need to do their job.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Only the web!
Not even getting into the reasons you could use that much traffic legitimately, where is the level for suspicion?
If I only download/stream a few movies a month will 20gb on a vpn a month get me flagged?
Or are we just going to label everyone on VPN a criminal? Im sure that will go over well for about a day.
i dont need to run or hide, you and your kind are way to stupid to scare me
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Only the web!
My sentiments exactly.
When I heard about three strikes, I thought "that's two more than I need". Because the first warning will tell me what I did wrong, and I'll fix it so they won't notice (assuming they notice in the first place ;) ).
Now I have four (or five) more warnings than I need.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Only the web!
You don't actually know how torrents work, do you? That explains a lot. (hint: even if you downloaded the torrent file from The Pirate Bay, you're incredibly unlikely to be downloading the file itself from anywhere near them).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Only the web!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Only the web!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Only the web!
Baaah! Wrong.
Most part of the world uses VPNs connected through SSH tunnels to transfer data in a secure and reliable way. If you mess with that, the entire corporate world + open source project + random assorted people who use SSH will fall on you will a ton of bricks.
If there is one thing you DO NOT want to mess with is the SSH protocol.
And besides, traffic is encrypted. What kind of "further checking" will you do? Especially if pirates get creative and connect 20 VPNs located in every corner of the world together and hop the traffic around? Can you imagine the nightmare it is to sort that out from an investigation point of view?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Only the web!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Only the web!
A couple of things.
All weblockers need to do is move from http to https and there is no way to monitor what you are downloading. We are already moving in that direction.
I use VPN for work and often download and upload 50+ gigabyte datasets. Any corporation with the slightest sense uses VPN also. Accusing someone based on use of VPN or volume of dta transfered is a non starter. The corporate lawyers will come out in force and sue the pant off the ISP's. The $35 USD fee will not cover the legal costs.
The implementaton of this law will lead to new software for infringment. An interesting historical note is the majority of the software for infringement has come from the US.
bittorrent CA, USA
LimeWire NY, USA
just to name a few
Ask yourself, what is going to happen when I poke the hornets nest?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Only the web!
How nice!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Only the web!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Only the web!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Only the web!
They also require payment "up-front" which means that the only publicly available information from your account is your username, no personal information is saved.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Whew!
In technical terms, does loss of web access mean simply blocking port 80?
If so, I think I could deal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think you really need to understand that the Wild West stage of the internet is going away. Not tomorrow, but every day it gets a little more tamed, a little more under control.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I think you really need to understand that the "wild west" stage of the internet never happened.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
At least it's going away...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
What's going away is freedom.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Anonymous Coward
It's not?
You're an idiot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Anonymous Coward
Do you feel lucky, punk?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Anonymous Coward
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Anonymous Coward
Thanks... thanks a lot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Anonymous Coward
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Anonymous Coward
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Yee haw.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No it isn't. It's just moving to darknets.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Don't you feel special?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Shutdown like Sony?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Criminal scum, the lot of them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yup, criminal scum, the lot of them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not to mention all those Jews during the holocaust! Why do they get a free pass from so many people? The logic is ironclad!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Cause you know, its practically impossible to LIVE without breaking a law. And I'm not talking about smuggling, murder, drug dealing, or even copyright infringement.
I will be the first to admit: I jaywalk just about every single damn day. Guess I'm a hardened fucking criminal, eh?
I also run a particular red light almost every day.
Wow. I am super scum.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
People like you are the reason we need cameras in everyones bedrooms. ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well if they will do anything to hide from the law I hope the people in charge of doing the accusing can hire some good bodyguards.
Well I guess any bodyguards will do, nerd assassins are not that hardcore.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And as we all know, all the profits gained from copyright infringement go to killing kittens and oppressing the poor
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I was under the impression that the MPAA and RIAA profits went to that ... I am so confused!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I just think it's mildly amusing that you (and the industry who pushed this kind of policy) think this will impact piracy in any way.
:smirk:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I mean, that's where they are heading.
Their attitude is that YOUR wallet is THEIR piggy bank. Soon, it will be mandatory to pay them whenever they choose to release the next Justin Britney Bieber Boy/Girl Pop CD they chose.*
*They'll bill you, but if you actually want the CD, you'll have to pay extra at the store.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I think your helmet is on too tight.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You forgot child porn producers. You're not sleeping on the job, are you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I don't think those moves are having the desired effect, apparently is making people get more bold and attack any internet asset copytards have.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
> laws, fighting application of existing laws, and fighting
> against any new laws, you shouldn't be surprised that there
> is pressure in all directions.
Maybe you should ask why these laws are being fought?
They are being fought because they affect innocent people who are not engaged in any copyright infringement. I know you say that targeting such people is not your intent. Maybe I even believe you. But then why are not current copyright laws enough? Go directly after a copyright infringer, with proof, go to court, and win.
Another reason some of your new laws are fought is because they make it everyone else's responsibility for you to do your job -- with liabilities attached that can apply to anyone. It's not anyone else's job to find copyright infringers.
Another reason your laws are fought is because they attach liability to the wrong people. Go get the infringer. Get only the infringer. And get them good. Stop attacking everyone else who did nothing wrong. For example, if someone posts a link to infringing content on a blog, who should you go after?
A) The blog
B) The ISP who hosted the blog
C) The blog owner
D) The site linked to that hosts the infringing content
E) The electric utility company that provided power to any of the above
Try D. If you get the linked to infringing content, the link instantly becomes worthless. Furthermore a hundred other links that you might not know about are instantly equally worthless.
Use the links to find the source of the problem instead of treating the links as the problem. That way an innocent blog, or Google or God knows who else isn't a victim.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
There, fixed that for you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
> more under control
And every day the control freaks who can't stand that there's any human activity that isn't locked down and regulated get a little more of a chubby.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Nobody is fighting against new laws, per se.
We just don't want new laws that turn customers into criminals just because of a single accusation, protect a dying business model, and prevent new forms of content delivery from coming into existence.
The gatekeepers' time has come. They know it, and yet, they don't want to know it. They believe that the longer they can keep trying to put off the future and the present from catching up with them -- and that's not too terribly hard most of the time, thanks to all the lobbyists and lawyers and politicians they've paid off -- the longer they can force people to pay exorbitant prices for movies, music, TV shows, etc. in the way that the gatekeepers want people to see them.
The gatekeepers don't want people to have a choice about how they experience culture; they want people to pay fifty times for the same culture.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Pressure is only coming from one direction; the entertainment industry. That's the problem. They get to decide how long copyright should be. They often get to decide (through lawsuits) what new technology is allowed. They get to decide what people are allowed to do on the Internet. Why do they get all the power? There are billions of people in the world, while the entertainment industry is run by a few thousand at best. Note that I said "run by", not "employs". Why does such a tiny percentage of the world's population get to dictate laws in favor of themselves to the detriment of everyone else?
I think you really need to understand that the Wild West stage of the internet is going away. Not tomorrow, but every day it gets a little more tamed, a little more under control.
Funny, but in all the history I've read about the "wild west", I don't recall hearing anything about the saloon owner telling the sheriff what laws to pass, or dictating what other businesses can and can't do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I'm pretty sure the guys with the most money have been making the laws for a loooooong time
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The only people who don't want enforcement are those who profit from it. In modern terms, it's called "snitches get stitches".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
this means people who tell on people get beat up....also I wouldn't really say its a very modern phrase
Really I have reread that post like 20 times and have no idea what you think "snitches get stitches" means or what it has do with profiting from illegal activity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's also the code of any darknet. Once someone discloses where the darknet is, it is no longer dark, and easily lit up like a christmas tree. Trying to keep a darknet secret is exactly at odds with file sharing, which requires lots of input and lots of nodes to work effeciently. So when you share the secret with so many people, someone is sure to talk.
Those that talk will get a virtual beatdown. If people start ending up going to jail or paying huge fines or judgements, don't be shocked if things go "real world".
You have to remember also that beyond piracy for the sake of piracy, there are a significant number of people who do piracy for profit. The Pirate Bay guys all deny up and down, but their website was packed full of high priced ads at their peak ($50,000 US a month was a price one company I know was paying). There is a whole lot of money kicking around, and much of it is going to mafia style organizations in east block countries.
It's not all so simple and pretty as it's made out to be here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
please dont run away
did you think snitches = criminals
and stitches = money
or something even more retarded?
Now I know why you post as AC though, so you can run away from the pure inane babble that falls out of your mouth
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
...and then the sheriff gets shot...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
SO really all your going to do is have people like me with money to setup an ISP saying hmmm the big boys are doing this... Now i will offer a new service that will not join you, offering a big pipe at a decent price with no strike plan, and no cap... I WIN again... and make even more money...
THANK YOU RIAA for making my day, I get more money and you will get even less and hamstring my competition... LOL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Keep repeating your mantra and maybe it will come true. /sarc
Do us all a favor and hold your breath until it is tamed.
kthxbye.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Another absurd meme propagated by rights holders to equate the zero marginal cost with "lawlessness". Your outdated notions will fail just like they did with the introduction of home video taping.
I think you need to understand what it means to be a buggy whip producer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Come on, it's such a useless metaphor. "Wild West?" The Wild West was a land populated by a variety of (more) indigenous peoples, whom we dispossessed and/or slaughtered in order to settle, cultivate, and mine precious resources. The initial settlers had a bad reputation because they might be mauled by bears or raided by indians at any time. I've never been mauled by a bear on the internet.
The West was "tamed" as more and more people moved out into the territories, invested time, money and effort, and demanded equal representation and protection under the law.
The MPAA and RIAA aren't doing that; they're trying to double-charge (services and customers) for the same content pushed over other people's pipes and demanding unequal protection far out of proportion to their population or economic stature (remember, if Google's founders could liquidate their assets without losses, they're worth more than the member corporations of the RIAA put together), and not at the expense of the "wild men" who built it, but the modern settlers.
You're talking about an industry using regulatory capture and government lobbying to criminalize the unwanted behaviors of its own customers, that doesn't fit anything I've ever heard or read about the Wild West. It's a lot more like British Colonial Mercantilism, altho' I suppose you'd rather be Wyatt Earp than Robert Clive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
chatroulette.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And it still won't make a dent in piracy. Tough luck.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
When can we start submitting accusations
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: When can we start submitting accusations
Nothing like watching the roaches scurry as the light is turned on. This post is so enjoyable!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: When can we start submitting accusations
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: When can we start submitting accusations
We pay a TON of money for our service. We've been regular customers for MANY years, and they know it (we make them know it when we complain). We simply won't tolerate them treating us, as regular customers, worse than they treat their new customers.
These agreements aside, ISP's don't want to lose business. As customers, we need to make stricter demands. We must demand more. Especially as regular customers. Let our ISP's know that they can't treat us worse than new customers. They can't provide us with worse service at a higher price than new customers (ie: they provide new customers with these better, cheaper promotional services, something that is unheard of in other countries). Let your ISP's know that their government imposed monopoly abuse of the market will not be tolerated by you the customer and they'll listen. Your money is important to them. When it comes down to it, ISP's will not forgo the enormous amounts of money that they make from customers just to please the Maffia.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: When can we start submitting accusations
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: When can we start submitting accusations
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: When can we start submitting accusations
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: When can we start submitting accusations
By the way, what's you IP address? Or better, do you have a wireless router?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: When can we start submitting accusations
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: When can we start submitting accusations
Educate yourself. They are in trouble everywhere for not paying artists, for tax evasion, copyright law abuse. Browsing techdirt might enlighten you. Checking TorrentFreak may also help a bit.
Ultimately, doing some serious Google research on the topic and not being some myopic copyright zealot might show you that they [MAFIAA and merry friends] are completely rotten and have no moral grounds to accuse anyone.
I will still download whatever I want. WHATEVER. And I'll still buy whatever I like and my earnings allow me, having downloaded it or not. I will still go to the cinemas to have the social experience, to kiss my gf while we wait, to have a good times with friends, EVEN IF I HAVE ALREADY SEEN A CRAPPY TELESYNC OR SOME EARLY QUALITY LEAK.
So, in summary, MAFIAA and all the ISPs can go fuck themselves. And I'm a fucking idiot that supports the same morons that will come after me at some point because I won't bother to hide anything. If they miraculously prevent me from downloading everything I'll save money, I won't be buying things that I could have known about through downloads. Simple as that.
On a side note, I haven't bought a PS3 because it can't be unlocked. At the same time, I already have an Xbox for 3 years, unlocked and with a few dozens of downloaded games. Surprisingly I've also bought 12 of the games I downloaded. Criminal I am.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: When can we start submitting accusations
And as such are the lowest scum of the earth. At least trolls can be entertaining
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: When can we start submitting accusations
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: When can we start submitting accusations
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: When can we start submitting accusations
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: When can we start submitting accusations
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: When can we start submitting accusations
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: When can we start submitting accusations
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: When can we start submitting accusations
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: When can we start submitting accusations
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: When can we start submitting accusations
"At this time, the ISP may take one of several steps... These Mitigation Measures may include,...
or other measures (as specified in published policies) that the ISP may deem necessary to help resolve the matter. [emphasis added]
Get the picture?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: When can we start submitting accusations
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: When can we start submitting accusations
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101216/01430612298/record-labels-angry-that-hadopi-is nt-kicking-people-off-internet-fast-enough.shtml
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: When can we start submitting accusations
This is only an assumtption, however, I am afriaid that I am correct; unlike most greedy self centered folk around today, I actually have these long forgotten set of "morals", "eithics" and"values", pretty sure a lot of you should look these words up, and actually understand what they mean, and if you're not too far lost into self-centricity you may actually understand WHY people who put their hard work and time into their JOBS only to be dicked (intentionally or as it seems to me, mostly unintentionally) out of their EARNED Income.
This is, after all, how Celebrities make a living. Yes, they may be Famous and Rich (although there will be some point where even THEY can not afford to live, because at some time, if this continues unabated, IMO anyway, essentially at they will ALL just become Volunteers!
I absolutely do agree with the fact that Copywite Laws as written, due soley to the advent of Technology, are Archaic and nearly impossible to uniformly apply; they were written more to prevent Plagirism rather than monetary THEFT; these Laws should NOT be changed, but, in fact added to, at the very least to end the confusion and to once again protect the rights of Artists, and I use this term Boldly; as a Software Developer is today just as much of an Artist as a Writer is/was when these Laws were written.
As stated in the article; it is almsot impossible to determine if you are violating Copywrite Law, even with reaearch, for the reasons stated quite well in the above Article.
Add to the confusion, the wordings of the current Laws and the fact the again, IMO, most of the Isers of these services are more than likekely, unaware infact; that while using a Torrent Client is not Illegal, the content available through said Client may infact be "Protected" by Law.
Torrents sites also have much to do with the confsusion; as the Author nicely explained, by "buying a premium subscription" it is almost, while not(YOU have to read all the words in the Agreement not just the ones you are looking for!)implying that by doing so, infact you are, as everyone keeps saying "protected", which I am sure most everyone assumes to mean: that by paying for the "Service", this translates into "giving the Artists their owed payment for their WORK"; but, like explained againg perfectly by the Author, are in reality, only funding the Torrent Client's functionabillity and lining some Web Debelopers Pockets.
I will however, add: the matter is further distored by the fact that at the bottom of some/most(if not all at this point; (has been awhile since I have checked, and will be never until I can verify), as I refuse to support these site even by providing them with AD Funding by creating a "hit" on said Websites, which in turn triggers a small payment to the Devloper of the Website for "Product Promotion Services"(if you are reading this for the correct reasons, keep that in mind as well)"Torrent Search Engines" actually show at the bottom of your Query(search results list) that "X ammount of content was removed due to MPAA
Violations (insert statute # here)", which only means that someone caught them distributing THEIR work.
Hence the removal. In fact that statement, if interpreted correctly, means in reality "hey we got caught illegally providing Media to you and had stop until we can figure out how to not get caught again". While the way it is worded and presented to users makes this an almost impossible interpretaion to reach without Legal Knowladge or Research, large ammounts it seems(which is how I found this Article).
Add to that: Laws are generally Vaguly written, intentionally(to allow JUDGES and JURRIES to independently and onjectively interpret the meaning of said law; therefore providing PROTECTION against Directed Legislation and in keeping with our Constitution (USA) The word of Law/Satutes as such is intended to be a form of a type of "Check/Balance" to prevent Laws from becoming one sided, biased or infact even "Illegal"(unconstitutional) in nature! NOT for the reason that I am assuming these "removals" are posted; false reassurenent ans feed, providing false "proof" that their service actually follows and endoforces CW Laws.
Why would they? They would lose "hits" and therefore Money...you get the picture thus far I am sure of this.
The fact that ISPs are giving their Users "Strikes", in reality shows that yes, CW laws are very hard to interpert, but, that they should be evaluated by the User="YOU"; again, proof of this is actually in the Documents everyone is pissed about!
Anyone every heard the old phrase "Three Strikes, Your Out"? It actually refers to the Law, not Baseball. As in, you are allowed to commit Two non-major, non-violent and in most cases this principal may be applied(ie: each diffrent TYPE of fellony you can commit twice, in most cases) and walk away with basically a slap on the wirst in comparision to the actual severity of the Crime.
This was done for Two reasons; First and foremost, as a chance for decent people who simply made a mistake, have a mental issue, or are willing to, to NOT do "it" again, the fact that you get TWO chances, at least, before they throw your ass in jail is honestly a gift; as one "Strike" should be enough to get the point across!
Fact of the matter is, you already get your "Three Stikes" from your ISPs, plus, they have gone ABOVE and BEYOND on the Fourth infration(aka Violation of The Law)by providing ACTUAL Education as to CW Laws and what exactly they are, mean, cover, were created for, and how to Violate and NOT Violate said laws, again remember this the Fourth time you have gotten caught breaking the law...ONLY because they and the judicial system undstand that, due to the fact that CW Laws ARE out of date AND confusing, even to Lawmakers at this point, I feel is the rationale behind their idea! Add to that the fact you get Two MORE chances after you have been correctly informed of the Law(s) and CONTINUE to break them, even then, they only allow themselves the OPTION of reporting you; not to the Authorities(depending on WTF you download anyway)but, rather than to the actual OWNERS of the products you have stollen, and even then, IT IS UP TO THE OWNERS of the work if you end up in court for Violations reported.
Peronally, I think if you are on this site reading this, unless you actually are moral and understand that there are REAL PEOPLE in this world besides yourself, or are just curious or unsure about the Laws, YOU ALREADY know what you are doing is wrong at the very least, and based on the amount of posts regarding how to "hide" using VPNs, so on so forth, coupled with the FACT that if you have already recieved a warning(mind you a warning is a warning), you not only already KNOW it's wrong, but you already KNOW IT'S ILLEGAL!!!!
Add on to the fact that not only are you KNOWINGLY(as evidenced by this thread itself) breaking the law you "don't understand", you are ACTUALLY trying to "get away with it" and in reality all you are doing is adding to the list of possible Civil Actions that could be taken against you, and NOW you are actually commiting "real" crimes, yeah, ones with out the confusion of CW Laws: Conspiricy to commit Larsony(Grand Larsony, depending on what/how much you are at this point KNOWINGLY stealing), electronic theft, ID theft(by using Onion or such, because you are in reality actually only being routed through OTHER's Servers, you are "stealing/paying some else to steal for you" the ID of the User of that server, Electronic Fraud(because you are trying to convince your ISP or whoever you think can't figure out who or where you really are(WRONG in your assumption again and a good thing for many reasons), Interfering with a Civil/Criminal investigation you got your warnings, right?), and even the possiblility of some off the wall, but yet enforcable charges, depending on what is on the server/terminal you are "hiding though" therfore claiming to own(content included) even though you have no way of knowing what is on said server(however, still your responsiblity because you, after being made aware of the fact the "they know" you STILL continue to use!!!! How about STOP and don't worry about it!!!! Seems like the right course of action to follow if you, like myself and many others have, once they finally figure out that it IS illegal; or/and in my case anyway, put youself in the Artists shoes.
For the record I am a Musician and would gladly and have GIVEN my work to people, because in my case, it's not a JOB!!!! For most Artists however, their WORK(s) are their income...ever wonder why so many Celebrities are having to file for Bankrupcy or having to downgrade their EARNED lifestyle?!
I was told by someone, who I refuse to name(due to the fact that they are someone who has been in the Production/Preformance of the Recodered Arts for over 20 years and I'm sure would not appriciate a bunch hate mail from those they have watched DESTROY the Music Industry) when trying to starting a Recording Studio, "Before you waste your time, just remember, now a days, this is an act of love, not a career or way to support your family."
-This is why i didn't: I don't need to eat out of a trash can, as well as my Artists after busting our asses to provide everyone with apparently Free HARD WORK and TIME and not to mention the money alone it takes to record, mix, produce, master. render. re-master, brand/promote and release an album, even for a well established Artist.
Just incase anyone is unaware; Musicians DO NOT make a living, or even close to, through Album sales and haven't since Napster, it is all done through touring, which takes even Harder work and even more Time and can/has ruin their Relationships with their Families and caused Artist Suicides!!!!
Good thing is, no one has been able to figure out how to en-mass STEAL concert tickets or Authorized Merch yet(ok yeah, everyone knows how to steal a T-Shirt, but, Psychologically speaking, the vast majority WILL NOT steal Merch while at an Event for that Aritist. Reason being; a little thing called GUILT(also, the reason this thread is up; people looking for a justification to ROB Artists of their hard EARNED wages.).
Since it seems like everyone has become so self-entitled and so closed minded I have to drive my point home on an actual One to One Level(meaning if it doesn't directly effect YOU, you/we don't care or try to)...here goes, best I can do based on my profiling of almost everyone's post(mind you I don't or most likely don't know you, if this is incorrect as applied to YOU(one, an individual, not the mass of posters; I am sorry if you are offended by my comments.) However if you are not offended my comments, you don't fall into that group, so please, don't try to convince yourself that you are offended if you really arn't...what you would be doing is, again Psychologically Speaking, called "Deflection" this happens alot when people know they are wrong and when confronted with the fact that they are, the response is always either (false)offense to statements, anger at person making them, extreme defensivness, denial, and assumpton that the person making the statement is wrong; how do you think your parents knew you were lying as a kid?
Best way to One to One this on the internent is, and this applies to ALL of us, myself included: Imagine one day, YOU come up with amazing idea for a product/idea and have no idea how to create/market it. So, you enlist the help of an "Invention Submission Company", without having your idea Copywritten as Intellectual Property first...Two, Three months go by and you hear nothing about your submission, assume it was not that good of an idea, brush it off and eventually stop thinking about it; jump ahead One Year; bored, broke and wondering how you are going to make it until whatever type of Check you are waiting for arrives, and you just happen to see YOUR INVENTION on TV for sale at $20 a unit, you absolutely are going to be pissed and immediatly try to figure out how to sue wherever your submitted your idea to...problem is, you can't or atleast not so and win, because in reality, YOU(because the idea was never Capywritten as your, you gave it to the Company, and most likely paid to do so, YOU, IN THIS CASE ANYWAY have no right to ANY compensation for your idea, beacuse, YOU GAVE IT TO THEM!!!!
Now, HERE IS THE IMPORTAINT PART: take same feelings you have about not getting paid for "YOUR" theoretical idea, which in reality stopped being yours once you sent it some where w/o it being copywritten, apply those feelings to Artists; who do, have and will continue to Copywite their work("ideas")to make sure this doesn't happen to them, hence the reason for their anger, you ARE robbing them!!!!
Just be thankful, most Artists are also the type of people who for the most part wouldn't even mind if you downloaded their Work, except for the fact that they put THEIR time, effort and money into creating that FOR YOU. I think it would be appropriate to Pay them for their Work just as you Pay the Chef at a nice place to eat, by simply paying the Bill your Server leaves you.
I am right along aside everyone in the fact that, no, I don't own a CD player, and yes, electronic storage or enjoyment of Music IS the new way of things, however this does NOT make it free or OK to steal it.
Personally, I hate iTunes and refuse to use that service to PAY for the music I listen to and enjoy on a daily basis, not because of the Price, but because of limited content. I chose to use Spotify Premium to PAY the Artists and Discover more to either PAY by listening to their Tracks(this is done automatically w/no extra charge) or to figure out I'm not so into(keep in mind, that Artist still was paid royalties for me listening to their track even though I didn't do anything other than listen) I can stream and sync music to mulitiple devices, I can, as long as I continue to pay the $10 a month for the Premium service, use the service Offline also!!!! If Sportify,
if not your taste,
pick one there are many other providers like them and all only cost around $10 a month for UNLIMITED service, assured quality, all while PAYING THE ARTISTS ROYALTIES THEY ARE OWED...how muc do those VPN and Hide me this and cover my ass Services cost a month? Most likely more than $10!
They even have the same Services for Movies, TV Shows, Games and anything elae you could, before now, justify to yourself to STEAL, it just takes more effort than clicking the "Steal", sorry "Magnet" link on a Torrent site, but, I'm pretty sure you all can handle it...remember everyone there was a point in time when Technology didn't exist and humans had to put forth thought and effort into problem sovling, I have faith we can ALL handle it again!
Remember: Creating any type of Art(music, images, movies. books, media of anytype infact; takes SKILL, which is why YOU are not an Artist, just a common criminal, depriving Hard working Artists of their livelyhood, that's all, no biggie...right? I'm sure you would be fine if you went to Work for Two Weeks and your Paycheck never came, wouldn't bother you, you would just let it go AND rightnback to work the next day, then knowing, you may never get paid for what you are doing, I know damn well I would NOT be OK with that, and if you think/claim you would, I won't call Bullshit, but, I will ask you to try this: take the next Check you get and BURN IT! Now, if you are OK with doing that, by all means Download away, as you are onveously a liar(but, yet still a theif.) If you are NOT OK with that concept, get away from your Computer, remove head from Ass,
and re-evaluate your way if thinking, because in that case you are not only a theif, but also, a hippocrate and a liar to boot!
****PS: If you still it's OK, legal or "cool", or worse yet; that you "arn't hurting anyone so even it's Illegal, I don't care"; just ponder this, the day Paul Walker passed away, his Studio Announced the release of a F+F6 Special Edition of which most, if not all of the proceeds(money people spent to BUY the Movie)would go to either Paul's Family or to his many Charities, right...yes! OK, here is the one thing, if any, from what I have said you taken in...just think about this for a Second then ask; how many people downloaded that "Special Edition"?
Yes, unfortunatly Paul Walker is gone, someone who I'm sure you claimed to like and were sooooo saddened by his passing. But, how many of you actually supported his family and charity work (by BUYING the Film)something he was more passionate about than Acting or even Cars(which is saying a lot, unless you knew the REAL Man he was)and how many of you just decided to Download the "Special",
and I only quote the word Special here because it was and is...For once a Production Studio has found it in their hearts to Donate their Time, Efforts and Money(porential imcome earned from LEGITIMATE sales), did you?
I admit, I had never seen the film and if course my buddy downloaded it right away, again blown away by Bro's preformance...but, only because I knew I was going to AND DID(most importaint part)go out the day the Film was officially released and bought Two copies on Blu-Ray, and one on DVD, however I did actually watch it with him.
Just for the record; I HAD NO JOB AT THE TIME, and have yet to own and most likely will not ever own a Blu-Ray player, and NO! I did NOT return them, infact I have never even opened them! Anyone else consider doing that FOR PAUL, or to contiunue his Legacy of caring and generosity?
I would assume maybe One or Two of you, now out of those Two(me not included), who didn't Sell/Return(or attempt to)their Copies of the Film????
This statement has nothing to do with me thinking that I was/am better in anyway than anyone else for doing that, as we ARE ALL the same!
However, I really would beg of you to think about my words FIRST,
before you hit the "Rob This Artist" button ever again.
Thank you for your valuable time,
-eK'14
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Education, noun
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The thing is Mike, they never stopped buying at all.
But after this, I think they may change their minds
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And in related news...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And in related news...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Usenet is full of SPAM and malware these days, but I still find what I want on there and work around it. It could be cleaned back up a bit and brought back to life. There are more than one way to skin a cat and the ISPs would have to constantly figure out ways at detecting us doing anything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
When you're searching for something specific, an NZB search site is the easiest way to find what you want. Binsearch is probably the best.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
https://www.mysterbin.com/
https://www.nzbindex.com/
https://www.newsbin.com/
HF
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
https://www.newsbin.com/
Pay sites...
https://www.mysterbin.com/
Doesn't show you all the results, makes you click an additional link to display all the results from the same poster. Doesn't let you use Shift-click to select a range of files. Doesn't index nearly as many groups as Binsearch.
https://www.nzbindex.com/
Doesn't let you use Shift-click to select a range of files. Doesn't index nearly as many groups as Binsearch. Doesn't go back as far as Binsearch.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
While cutting and pasting, I mistakenly said that nzbindex doesn't let you use Shift-click to select a range of files. Actually, they do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Five Strikes and you're dead?
Until they get court orders to do it, with the accompanying 'evidence' of wrong doing, they should just stop this crap.
Isn't it enough that they're capping everyone's bandwidth and so they'll get more money for fewer people? Oh, right-they're going to educate us all on illegal downloading with materials provided by MPAA and RIAA.
Speaking of those two organizations-what they get out of it? Money is a good bet. How? I have no idea but I'm sure there's a quid pro quo tucked in there somewhere, unless I'm missing a clue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That's a problem, people constantly accuse people of stuff all the time. IP trolls have falsely accused Mike Masnick of being a pirate multiple times.
I think part of the reasoning behind this bill is to make it more difficult for independents to provide free content. Doing so could get them accused of infringement which could eventually threaten their Internet connection.
It's just the U.S. governments attempts to establish monopolies on everything all over again, just like they wrongfully did to everything outside the Internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't get it
if I were "accused", would I then be able to sue for having my gmail blocked (web access only)?
ahh the unintended consequences, how they entertain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
5 strikes
I think the ISPs will drag their feet as far as implementation. There is nothing in it for them but lost customers. And talk about disingenuous, what does Verizon think folks use those 30 mbps connections are for?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 5 strikes
Legal porn?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It costs you to appeal and get a review
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is so you still have to pay for your entire account, and probably an extra fee since they have to use a few minutes of labor to put the blockade in place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lose Lose Lose
MPAA will never be satisfied. They'll obviously experience no increase in sales due to this measure, and will complain it's because the regulations aren't tight enough.
Customers will be pissed off on a regular basis after Grandma gets kicked off the net because her pesky grandkids wanted to hear some Lady Minaj
I'm sure ISP's aren't thrilled about having a bunch of extra work to do to handle these requests. While it is pointed out they could make some money from challenges, I doubt it will equal what they spend to keep the report/alert/challenge process running.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Internet just isn't fun anymore.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Internet just isn't fun anymore.
Great thought!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Are they really going to keep records forever?
Does this mean when I'm on 5 strikes, I no longer turn my wireless on or allow people to borrow my network?
I just don't see how this can expand through x years of ISP use.
It also seems like it's a complete burden on the ISP to deal with customers that may not look at their e-mail accounts registered with the ISP (I never have.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
They can keep shitting on people forever because 16 year olds on itunes will keep pumping in money at $1.29 a song.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This "law" will effectively shut me down if it is implemented and executed upon. Within a month they'll accuse me well over their 5 strikes and every one will be a false claim. The fact that I would then have to pay to have it investigated effectively means that I have to pass that cost along so in the long run I end up pricing myself out of the market. Just a minor stumbling block I immediately see... regardless of the other issues.
Hmmm, if their "law" literally shuts down my COMPLETELY LEGAL career I wonder if I could sue them? ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's the way of the U.S., where the government establishes monopolies on almost everything. No free market capitalism exists in this country. It's all corporate socialism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
WTF are you talking about? Are you saying if he shells out for a comcast business connection he won't get accused anymore? If thats the case what is to stop every habitual pirate from switching to a business connection? A lot of pirates already use them because they don't have a handicapped upload rate.
sweet he only has to pay 2-3 times as much for internet to keep doing his job
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Here we go again with the half-truths. Currently, and as before; the ISP's have the ability to kick people off of the web entirely. That fact did not change by virtue of this Memorandum of Understanding. What is also true is that the specific mitigation measures in the MOU do not include kicking people off of the web.
These Mitigation Measures may include, for example: temporary reductions of Internet speeds, redirection to a landing page until the subscriber contacts the ISP to discuss the matter or reviews and responds to some educational information about copyright, or other measures (as specified in published policies) that the ISP may deem necessary to help resolve the matter.
The only veiled reference to being kicked off is in the last sentence, or other measures (as specified in published policies) that the ISP may deem necessary to help resolve the matter. That sentence clearly refers to ISP policies that pre-exist the MOU.
You also fail to mention that the appeals process becomes available before any mitigation measures are implemented. That means that you've already received 3-4 notices and failed to address the problem. Furthermore, the cost is $35 and you can petition to have it waived.
So your suggestion that existence of this MOU now allows a user to be kicked off of the internet is an outright, self-serving deception. One only needs to read the current terms of service with their provider to see that this has always been a possibility.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I do love that fact that you're making a continues run of assumptions in your "explanation". I would really like to know which ISP exactly you work for that makes you such an expert.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Note that this is per incident, not a general situation. If you deal with RAW files, zipped or tarred bundles, corporate videos / virtually any non-MPAA / RIAA media file, you're still talking about file sizes that will immediately create that red flag regardless. Having to contact them a few times a week will take TIME and if even a small fraction of them require that $35 then its an additional cost. If you can petition to have it waived then it simply means it takes additional time and paperwork.
This will negatively impact a huge number of individuals (home videos being sent to relatives, enthusiast photographers sharing pics, etc.) as well as small, medium, and large businesses that rely on transferring files to mention only a few obvious instances. The lack of foresight on any of the officials involved in this, regardless of company, shows their complete and utter ignorance of the very infrastructure that we have in place and how it is used today by virtually everyone.
Not only does it affect the end user in an invasive and disruptive manner across the board but it also puts the provider into a policing position. This forces them to implement a completely new process / expense within their business model. The cost may be $35 per incident now but what about the increase in taxes or fees that will happen due to the overall increase in operating expenses? Who monitors the provider to ensure that they're doing what they are now required to do? The media companies? The feds? Who pays for that expense? What tax gets added to cover that cost?
It will do one thing well; put the United States further behind other countries in multiple ways. I chalk this one up as another complete failure to handle a situation properly and punish the consumer. The good news, it brings the system that much closer to collapse. The bad news, they faceplanted another opportunity to start fixing things with one small change.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
It's worth noting that traffic from Netflix currently outpaces torrent traffic by a significant margin - at least in the US where you're allowed to access it (note the different between US and European torrent traffic, then consider that most Europeans don't have a Netflix equivalent). Torrent traffic drops in significance when legal options become more attractive, who knew?
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/05/25/netflix_bittorrent_traffic_share/
These rules are being attempted by those delusional enough to not see that the old models will not work in today's society, and those who stand to lose the most when their Canute act fails. Your home business and access to legal content is irrelevant to them as long as they *think* they're making more money like this. They're wrong, of course, but sadly they wield the power. For now at least.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Second example, "redirection to a landing page until the subscriber contacts the ISP to discuss the matter or reviews and responds to some educational information about copyright"
Ok, so "Technically" they aren't being kicking people off the internet, they are restricting people to ONE page of the internet..... so that makes it all OKAY right.
Since they aren't really kicking people off, just restricting them to one 'landing' page (that will probably be filled with ads and propaganda about 'morality' and 'equity' or similar examples of their cognitive dissonance... do as we say, not as we do).
I checked my ISP terms of service, and nowhere does it say if a third party doesn't like me, my ISP can kick me off the internet....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wait a minute.......
"It specifically says ..."including on the grounds of violating intellectual property rights law, to be disproportionate and thus a violation of article 19, paragraph 3, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights."
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/06/internet-a-human-right/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wait a minute.......
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Discount?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Discount?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Discount?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Eventually there will be free internet everywhere and all these greedy ISP's will fail in grand style.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The punishment doesn't fit the crime.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The punishment doesn't fit the crime.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The punishment doesn't fit the crime.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The punishment doesn't fit the crime.
not mentioning the years we don't vote for a president but some other kind of devil; you forgot 96, 92, 88, 84, 80, 76, 72, 68, 64, 60 ...1789
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
New underground service market?
Ah, is this then actually a plot to reallocate some of the general populace's cash to those that are more computer savvy? Weeeeeee!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I know in the USA that not so easy as in the UK where we have hundreds of ISPs. but how many would need to be cut off and cancel their account before the ISPs start to think maybe not such a good idea. Then off course their are those who would boycott that ISP for just thinking about this and I hate to mention anonymous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
pay to protest
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lets give them a taste of their own medicine
I think I can accuse them of stealing my copyright on my walking gait or maybe the songs I create and sing in the shower. We are all intelligent people, we can get very creative with it. This could be a fun way to punish these guys.
Ok, so this probably won't work, but it would be awesome if it did.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Lets give them a taste of their own medicine
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Can't Wait
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Can't Wait
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Can't Wait
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Can't Wait
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Can't Wait
That doesnt matter. What matters is you would have THOUSANDS of people (or hopefully will) protesting/suing/arbitrating getting cut off within a fairly short time. That should get some attention of the people who run these ISP's, when they suddenly have to go to even arbitration a few thousand times.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Am not!"
"Are too!"
"Am not!"
"Are too!"
"Am not!"
"Are too!"
"Am not!"
"Are too!"
<Connection Lost - Disconnected by ISP>
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gross amusement
I will be grossly amused at how "N strikes" policies will be reconciled with policies which have Internet access as a basic needed utility. A person can be evicted from a domicile for not having electricity or running water. Could they be evicted for not having internet access? What then?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Gross amusement
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Gross amusement
1. the french government already enacted a policy similar to the one you support so much so maybe you should go join them, unfortunately we cant get rid of you that easily because like anything the french government tries to do its already floundering ( I wonder if American's will get the policy frozen faster and if that would make us more or less 'Merican in your eyes)
2. the policies he mentions, required utilities to homes, is an longstanding and fantastic American policy and being such a 'Merican you should be proud of it, unless you think getting rid of it may be a another "good" way to save on the budget without raising the taxes of the top 5%
3. making the internet a public entity would bring it under governmental regulation and seeing as how that is controlled by business interests I would think you would support it
4. required basic need technologies are still run by private companies so I don't see why having them has anything to do with socialism, unless Com-Ed is a non-for-profit and I never noticed
5-so many. other things not worth typing out that revolve around you being racist and/or ignorant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Serious Question...
My question is, if I go pay $15 to see a movie at a theatre, can I legally download a copy of the movie since I have already paid to view it? Can I legally do it after renting a DVD and watching it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Serious Question...
If everything goes correctly for the MPAA (which I'm going to doubt severely), the second question is up to fair use and the First Sale Doctrine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Serious Question...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Serious Question...
My question is why should you consider this at all? It is legal to buy and sell used copyrighted works but the industry considers this as bad as infringement. There are other examples of legal acts that the software/music/movie companies would stop if they could. Why handicap yourself? Why not just use your own judgment about what is right and wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How will they tell?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Doesn't bother me
RIAA, MPAA, give it up. You're outnumbered, and we've got you surrounded. Come out peacefully with your hands up, and slowly put down your music licences in the public domain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You wanna be a Pirate, then do it right. The real criminals are always undetectable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The people with the unsecured wireless networks need an ISP, for one thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Implementation date?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]