Shouldn't The Infringement Tracking System Used In New Six Strikes Program Be Open To Scrutiny?
from the nope.-it's-hidden dept
With the entertainment industry and ISPs agreeing to a "voluntary" six strikes plan, which treats users as guilty until proven innocent and takes away completely valid defenses (for example: that file is in the public domain is not a valid defense!), you would think that the very least the public could ask for is that the system used to make the accusations is open to scrutiny.But, of course, there was no one representing the public at the negotiations, so instead, the monitoring system is shrouded in secrecy. No one will speak about it on the record. TorrentFreak has gotten off the record sources to confirm that it's going to be handled by DtecNet, which means we should expect some problems with the accusations. This is, after all, a company that didn't even understand how BitTorrent works, but put out a totally misleading report about it, which was so bad that the company eventually retracted it.
Doesn't it seem highly questionable that no one involved in this plan is willing to discuss the monitoring technology publicly? If they actually had faith that it worked, wouldn't they be showing it off? The problem is they know it's not good. They know it doesn't hold up to scrutiny. They know there will be people falsely accused. But they don't care. As long as they think that they're holding on to some tiny bit of a business model that is pretty much dead... they can pretend that they're doing something smart. And the public and our culture suffers as as result.
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, six strikes, tracking
Companies: dtecnet, mpaa, riaa
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Lobby to whom? This isn't any sort of government action - this is an agreement amongst a group of businesses who have given themselves the ability to do what the UN considers to be a human rights violation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
First rule Science: Results should be verifiable by anyone.
Second rule of law: Justice must be seen to be done.
If it's not in the open for anyone to review than by definition it isn't any good.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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: 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:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Exactly. That's why Windows is more secure than Linux.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"They've learned from their mistakes"
-- obviously this will never happen
"and now they have a solid product."
-- and neither will this
"Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it isn't solid."
-- stating the obvious
"It's no wonder that they keep regular freetards from seeing their system because you folks will just complain about it anyway."
-- use of the freetard tag
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Other business models
Let's see, there's the "nude" scanners, the "internet filters" (ha ha), the electronic voting machines, a certain newspaper's online paywall, a $1.2bn "security" network for a certain defense agency.
Honestly, I'm surprised there isn't news about somebody selling "air-free aerogel" to NASA for like $100bn or a "positive feedback only news network" to Congress for even more $$$$.
Yes, there ARE business models that don't need piracy to succeed--and as long as you're lying scum you can make tons of money of ignorant legislators and executives in a manner which isn't yet considered to be fraud.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'm sorry, I've seen that despite your clever attempts to sound like a regular TD reader, I can see that you're new here. Let me try and clarify a common misconception folks have in regard to Mike's views on business models.
Good models make money by knowing the true scarcities connected to their business, and uses open and postive connections with customers to buy products and services related to those scarcities (e.g merchandise, performances, etc.).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The truth is what people want, what people enjoy, what people will listen to over and over again in the music.
It's just too bad that Mike can't seem to understand that people will pay for what they want. Just ask the NYT.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just ask the NYT.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Just ask the NYT.
Congrats on not getting the point and failing basic business 101.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ... and now it's already earned back a fair bit of it's expenses.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Just ask the NYT.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I do believe that you are confusing "downloading" and "free" with "piracy". If somebody, say a musician, offers a free download of a song, the person downloading it is not a pirate. You do not need a legal degree nor a degree in mathematics to understand the difference between "free" and "piracy".
While I'm on my high horse or soap box, I would like to point out to people in general, no necesarilly just the Anonymous Coward that I am responding too, that "free" as part of a business model does not always mean everything must be free.
Take, for example, "Free Comic Book Day" held the first Saturday of every May. The publishers give away SAMPLES of their regular comic books, some containing no more than half a dozen pages from a two dozen page book, others containing a complete 22 page story. This is to attract people to try new titles, try comics full stop and even give a comic book fan a good excuse to go to their nearest comic book store. Now, you can't tell me those "free" comic books are "free" in the sense that the paper and ink costs money, plus distribution to stores. But it is a cost that comic companies bear in order to attract more customers.
Of course, there's bound to be somebody who poo-poo's the fact that I mention comic books, an industry that, big as it is, has been relatively struggling since the mid-1990's (if not longer). So let's try another example. YouTube: How many people watch videos of, say, TV shows for free on YouTube. If it is an official upload - and they DO exist - you are often given a link to where you can purchase the DVD's if you like the show. And so that is an example of "free" as part of a business model: You can watch the show for free online (bandwidth costs notwithstanding) and buy the DVD or download for more convenient viewing (often of higher quality) at a later time if you so choose to do so.
Remember, though, this does not work for everything. You can get a FREE sample of, say, food. Once those free samples are gone, you have to buy the product is you want to eat more. Or you can pay a smaller price for a "sample pack" in som cases, like a few years ago Kellogg's of Australia brought out some new cereals which they sold in 100g boxes (approx 1/4 pound) for $1 each for people to rty before they bought the big boxes at full retail price.
There are, of course, people who do want things for free and will not pay for them. They are not in your target market; they never were and never will be. Just pretend those people don't exist and the commercial world will be a lot better off. Maybe.
And just for the heck of it, I'd like to add that I do not drink Kool Aid, I have never seen any (does it come in a cup or bottle even?) and I'm pretty sure it's not available in Australia. Would green cordial suffice? =)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Samples and free are very different animals. Samples is using a small amount of your product to get people to buy more of the same product. Free is giving away your product hoping someone will do something else that makes you money. It's the "free peanuts to sell beer" mentality, except in the Techdirt world of stupidity, we are giving away the beer and charging $20 for peanuts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
$35
Having “competitors” within an industry get together to all agree to charge consumer $35 is not smart.
Horizontal price fixing is a per se violation of Sherman Act § 1.
[ 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 ]
Do they honestly think attorneys won't rabidly countersue?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If accused Then
guilt = presumed
Else
guilt = presumed
End If
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Your desperation today is hilarious. You're just completely making it up with this. Classic. Talk about FUD.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
How about, oh, I dunno, something meaningful to say? Or is this the Chewbacca attack?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chewbacca_defense
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No U
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Once he said he didn't have Netflix I knew there was something screwy going on. With the hatred the guy has for all entertainment companies, you know he can't stand the thought of giving them any money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Actually, I'm starting to think you are a very smart pirate. You know that few things make the IP maximalists look worse than their supporters trolling websites that want a fairer system and making the most inane and illogical statements possible. You've developed these trolls persona's to make the real IP maximalists look stupid. And in that respect, I applaud your efforts and wish I had the patience to be as consistent and dedicated as you are to coming up with pathetic attacks everyday.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You guys get so butt-hurt anytime someone points out the obvious about Masnick.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The problem is your false dichotomy approach to the issue. You believe, "if you're not with me, then you're against me."
You don't believe that someone could be staunchly against excessive and abusively maximized IP laws without also being deeply in favor of "piracy." So as far as you're concerned, anyone who isn't screaming for harsher IP laws and enforcement must be a pirate.
This simply isn't true, however.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
-- At least he has some facts to present, unlike yourself.
"and openly misrepresents things all the time."
-- Which, of course, you never do.
"No one is going to believe something he said just because he says it's true."
-- It would be astonishing if everyone used this approach to everything they read, heard, etc. Don't hold your breath.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
He's being accused by you of being a pirate and you're saying that he should prove that he's not.
By that logic, prove to me that you're not a terrorist.
Or better: provide real, hard evidence that Mike is a pirate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Whoops! You just realized how dumb your rebuttal was.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I forsee a severalfold rise in "injector" software that allows one to insert IP addresses into a BitTorrent swarm.
Maybe we could shut down 76.74.24.200 (riaa.com), 69.172.201.20 (mpaa.org), 184.51.36.110 (whitehouse.gov), 143.228.181.132 (house.gov), and more- the possibilities are endless!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Expect a knock on the door anytime now, we know where you are and nobody will be hearing from you soon...
We're from the government and we're hear to help (the industries who pay us the most)...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So, I doubt there is a need for any new software that injects an address.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Please!
There is no way that they have come up with a reliable and ACCURATE system to don what they claim it does. The proof is in the pudding and the simple fact that they dont want tp provide pudding to anyone speaks volumes.
If they truly had something they would be shouting it to the rooftops and demonstrating some sort of verifiable data to everyone they could in triumph!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Finally, We Can Troll Them
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Davenport -Lyons
Wasn't that enough to get the Davenport-Lyons Solicitors banned and fined?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Shouldn't The Infringement Tracking System Used In New Six Strikes Program Be Open To Scrutiny?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
one answer
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: one answer
I presume you mean a civil class action. Why is that the “one answer”?
The DoJ guidelines on horizontal price fixing state:
So why do you think a civil class action is the appropriate remedy here? Shouldn't Attorney-General Holder apply his department's guidelines?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
seriously
these get boned many times a month you just have to realize they gotz a rise of the apes gorilla guy there flipping the reset switch all day so to see it defaced you have to reload the browser often no really everyone should just try that for a month....."its not a dos i just wanted to show that the site gets defaced your honor"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
P.S.
thus not hacking
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]