ISPs Will Start Acting As Hollywood's Private Online Security Guards By July
from the time-to-find-a-better-ISP dept
Last July, we wrote about how the major ISPs had agreed to a "voluntary" "six strikes" plan (really five strikes, but everyone calls it six...) to start acting as Hollywood's private online security guards. And, by "voluntary" we mean without any input from the actual stake holders (customers) and with significant pressure being applied by the Obama administration. Since then, nothing has been heard, but the RIAA's Cary Sherman has now said that the ISPs involved will roll out their plans by July of this year, a year after the agreement went into place.Sherman says that the plan had always been to give them a year to deal with the technical aspects of setting up the plan:
"Each isp has to develop their infrastructure for automating the system," Sherman said. They need this "for establishing the database so they can keep track of repeat infringers, so they know that this is the first notice or the third notice. Every ISP has to do it differently depending on the architecture of its particular network. Some are nearing completion and others are a little further from completion."Funny how, now that the plan is in place, the RIAA has no problem admitting that it required significant infrastructure changes. Somehow I doubt the RIAA is paying for this... meaning that you and I are paying for it with higher fees.
Of course, the real question is what this means for the non-major ISPs who have not agreed to take part in this anti-consumer plan. Will the RIAA and MPAA now start assuming that this is a requirement, despite it not being in the law? That's what they've been doing with content filtering on user-generated content sites now. Multiple lawsuits have pointed out that because YouTube and others have installed upload filters, everyone should have to. I'd imagine it won't be long until they start making the argument that ISPs that don't implement such a plan are "inducing" infringement somehow.
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: cary sherman, copyright cops, five strikes, graduated response, six strikes
Companies: riaa
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Well, crap.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well, crap.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well, crap.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well, crap.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Well, crap.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Well, crap.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well, crap.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Because that will strike a huge blow to their bottom lines and they won't have any subscribers left. I think that this is going to turn into a major headache for ISPs when they start losing hundreds of subscribers. The problem is that these ISPs are not looking at the long term picture, which is the smoke and mirrors that the entertainment industry has clouded them with.
Just imagine every ISP losing a majority of their subscribers due to this agreement. I think it's going to be a wakeup call and force them to re-evaluate those agreements.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What if...
Those assholes demand I disconnect customers, then they will reimburse me the cost of my lost business.
Easy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What if...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What if...
(What, no one said it had to be fair for the MAFIAA ;) )
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Nobody is thinking long term. The current mentality is "Grab what you can now, who cares if everything burns down in the process." If they raise extra money now, they get their raises and bonuses, and 5 to 10 years from now when this bubble bursts and all their bullshit catches up with them, it'll be the problem of someone else.
The RIAA/MPAA does this.
The politicians do this.
Even the bankers did this.
Now lets look at the bankers. The banking industry managed to get the laws changed in their favor (by greasing the palms of the government), so they could rake in the cash. The sub-prime/mortgage bubble formed, burst, and took down the rest of the economy with it. Did those that caused all this get punished for it? No! The people that caused most of the damage all walked away with little to no penalties and huge golden parachutes. We REWARDED their behavior.
So here we have the RIAA/MPAA, they'll do everything they can to get the laws changed in their favor. They'll try to rake in all the cash they can for the next few years, then once they clog up the judicial system with lawsuits and finally manage to break the Internet, the guys that started all this will be on some Caribbean beach laughing at how they got away with it all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So they will never see a dime out of me.I can always be patiuent and wait to buy it used somewhere.No rush any longer for me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Can you? ...could you tell me how; I've always wondered. =)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: kenichi tanaka on Mar 14th, 2012 @ 3:15pm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Response to: kenichi tanaka on Mar 14th, 2012 @ 3:15pm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Time to switch
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Time to switch
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Time to switch
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Time to switch
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Time to switch
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Time to switch
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
leaving...thank god
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: TOR
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: TOR
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: TOR
my 2c
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: TOR
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: TOR
Did you guys know that you can reach download speeds of up to 500 kilobytes that is 4 megabits for the IT challenged.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: TOR
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: TOR
Or just pay for the content.
Which is what the vast amount of people will choose to do.
Because it's the easiest.
This blog is quickly becoming redundant and pointless.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: TOR
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: TOR
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: TOR
The way they track get evidence for a DMCA complaint about BitTorrenting is this.
Someone like SafeNet attempts to download the file using BitTorrent. While it is transferring, They collect all the IPs they are connected to along with the timestamp for the check. They then look all of them up. If these are ISPs, they then contact the ISP with the complaint about the connection at that time. However if they are TOR node IPs, They there isn't an ISP to contact, at least one that that is tied to the specific tranaction by a log entry. If they have an ISP check it's logs for TOR connections? What is the justification for that? Lot's of traffic could go through a connection to a TOR node? Where is any evidence that it was connected to a infringing transfer? You have an anonymous middleman that breaks the paper trail.
They would have to link the connection THRU the TOR node to the source of the content in order to make the linkage to infringement from looking at the logs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: TOR
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm sure there will no errors in reporting, no technical work arounds will be developed to by pass the monitoring and most importantly Hollywood will make even more money than they do now!
Best of all, it's a victory for the costumers who actually buy content. No longer will they be the only idiots actually paying for stuff!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: bob (spelled backwards) on Mar 14th, 2012 @ 3:28pm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Response to: bob (spelled backwards) on Mar 14th, 2012 @ 3:28pm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If they want to take actions based on mere accusations while taking peoples money, then they obviously do not need rights of way or easements. I think its time they start paying for every pole, and returning all public funds they used to expand their networks.
They are there to provide a service to the people paying them, not some lobbyist group with no actual legal standing in the contract between the customers or the municipalities.
As has been shown time and time again, this process of detecting infringement is flawed on a serious level. To take away a service that has been paid for without any legal basis seems like a slam dunk class action lawsuit against every ISP taking part in this. This would be akin to Ford/GM/Chrysler coming and taking away your car based on a neighbor calling in they saw a blue car speeding and you own a blue car.
The process which makes every attempt to look fair, limits the responses to these letters to a very select few choices, all of them leaving out the defenses offered legally and ignoring the best answer of misidentification. It is more of the corporations are always right and you must give into them.
I could see a court ending someones "right" to internet service, but this avoids the pesky hassle of the law being involved at all. This will lead to more things happening at the ISP level that the end customer will end up subsidizing to make work to keep the **AA's from suing, despite not having the standing to do so.
I look forward to the FCC explaining how this is all legal and correct, with much spin and feigning ignorance of what is happening.
IP Rights and Corporate Rights keep trumping the rights of the people. Its time to vote with our wallets, and with lawsuits. There needs to be a clear loud response like the antiSOPA/PIPA campaign that the balance has shifted to far and we are unwilling to accept it any more.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Y'know, cos I think you just made that up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
> the movie from a store.
The closest analogy to infringing is fare-evasion. Look at the penalties for fare-evasion to see how far out of line the law for infringing are.
[ 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:
Are you suggesting they are tapping the communications moving over their network without legal basis to do such?
Would you care to answer the legal problems with the **AA's using unlicensed "investigators" to provide "evidence" that can not stand up to a court case?
Would you care to answer questions about the glaring holes in this identification technology?
Would you care to answer the liability issues when the ISPs often provide unsecured WiFi routers to their customers, which would allow unknown parties to cause problems for the customer under this plan?
Copy - We both end up with something.
Steal - You no longer have it.
You seem to have a real problem dealing with reality, seek medication.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No.
The ISP itself won't be monitoring anything. The anti-piracy groups will be monitoring file sharing networks to see who is uploading copyrighted files. They may also go after the people who upload to cyberlocker sites. However, there is no legal method that can be used to monitor what a person downloads from cyberlockers, or newsgroups.
At most, the cyberlocker site might keep download logs (although many claim that they don't), and if they had access to them, they could see which IP addresses have downloaded which files. However, that's no cause for alarm. It's not practical to go after people who have only downloaded and not uploaded. With uploading, they can claim that an unknown number of copies were distributed, but with downloading, all they can prove is that one copy was made by you. They might possibly try to scare you into paying a settlement, but it wouldn't be cost-effective to actually sue you. It would probably cost them more in lawyers' fees than they would get from a win.
I doubt that any cyberlocker downloaders will ever get in trouble.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RIAA live in a dream world
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: RIAA live in a dream world
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well, we could just educate the masses
Then ipredator.se can educate those masses on how to setup such connections and download files.
Suddenly the ISP's are blind to what their Customers are doing and all that money spent on upgrading their Infrastructures become a waste.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well, we could just educate the masses
Because if they actively started monitoring what customers were doing with their connection they would be in a world of hurt. Its ok when the Feds do it, but not when random corporation does it... yet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Well, we could just educate the masses
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Well, we could just educate the masses
If they were found to be listening in on what customers were doing it would be a serious problem for them, until they staple an amendment to a law.
That is another problem with 6 strikes is it is clear as mud as to how the system works, who is providing what, and what it actually means.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well, we could just educate the masses
I2P, darknets and others on the other hand are more anonymous and secure than any VPN service will ever be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bring on the VPNs!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bring on the VPNs!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Crowdfund ads
N.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As many of them are granted monopoly access to many cities and areas this means people cut off will not have any other options... I expect lots of fun lawsuits.
[ 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 ]
Coercive Acts
Boston Port Act: Represented by all of the domain takedowns, including TVShack.net and megaupload. Also consider the DMCA's notice-and-takedown provision.
Massachusetts Government Act: Represented by this deal with the ISPs encouraged by the Obama administration.
Administration of Justice Act: Represented partly by SOPA, partly by the extradition of Richard O'Dwyer.
Quartering Act: Represented by the takedown tool that Hotfile gave to the MPAA and which WB abused, content filtering by YouTube being abused by Universal, etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But I guess since the entertainment industry thinks that only their content is worth anything, then everyone on the internet must be pirating their content, so everyone on the internet is a criminal.
[ 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 ]
Re:
The Cnet article linked above lists the players you would expect. If they are part of a "media conglomerate" they signed on.
[ 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:
Every company that existed prior to "the internet", is a "legacy" business, and probably a "gatekeeper."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why not?
Why should Hollywood, even for a second, expect these for free?
That's what this is all about, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Hotfile paid for and developed a tool to keep WB from suing.
Youtube developed and paid for Content ID to keep them from suing.
DMCA places the burden on service providers to jump when a content holder says jump... even when it is obvious they are wrong. There is no penalty for being wrong.
They get the police to sweep swap meets looking for counterfeit merchandise.
They get the FBI to arrest people for providing links in foriegn countries.
They have been after this for a while, and 6 strikes is just the fall back position. They have been paying Congresscritters and even at the state level for laws requiring ISPs to log every connection users make for YEARS... hiding behind won't you think of the children.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You mean section 512... 230 has nothing to do with copyright. 512 is the equivalent safe harbor for copyright (it's a part of the DMCA).
But, the DMCA does require you to have a plan to deal with repeat infringers, so he's (sorta) right on that though he exaggerates...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
That's not accurate. It *may* be illegal under 106, but that depends on many factors. Declaring it absolutely illegal is simply wrong.
Separately, $150,000 is the statutory maximum for *willful* infringement, which is a much higher bar and unlikely to be matched in mere downloading cases. It's misleading to use the $150,000 number.
If the ISP had knowledge of a repeat infringer and did not terminate them, the ISP is liable for the $150,000 per infringement.
You might want to brush up on the specifics of the law around secondary liability, because you're a bit confused. An ISP needs to have a policy to deal with repeat infringers -- but that's specific to infringers called out via DMCA takedowns.
None of that requires them to be Hollywood's personal copyright cops.
Also, when the copyright owner issues a subpoena to the ISP, the ISP must produce the name of the infringer or be held in contempt of court.
Again, you seem to have a somewhat questionable understanding of the law. There are certain situations under which they have to reveal names, and they already do so. But there are others where they can and do fight on behalf of their user's rights.
In America, the law sees little difference between downloading a movie on BitTorrent and stealing it from Walmart, its just harder to prove it.
Um. Actually that's not true *AT ALL*.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You Win!!!
You win the award for Most Uninformed Comment of the Week!!!
Yay! You can download your award at TPB.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The internet is not some simple commodity anymore. It is needed if you are to function in society.
Another really interesting question. What they hell they think will happen when they do this? You think if you take away my home connection you will keep me off the internet? If so you are a bigger idiot than I thought possible.
Go ahead and take my internet. I know where McDonnalds is as well as about 100 other hot spots and that is out here in middle of nowhere farming country. So what you going to shut them down too? Hell why not just pull the plug on the whole internet. That is the only way to stop it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
They can MAYBE prove someone reporting using an IP address (which can and will be faked or hacked into the WiFi signal) downloaded some material. The odds of them getting the "right" person by going after the name on the bill is actually really low.
They tried to pull the plug... SOPA/PIPA... and they are working on getting the entire US IP banned around the world from unique useful services because they fear the US sending in a heavily armed swat team to arrest them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Charter Communications
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Charter Communications
I would directly ask a Charter representative and make your taking service from them contingent on them not joining 6 strikes. The **AA's are not forthcoming with details, and questions asked when this program was initially pitched to the ISPs resulted in lots of nonanswers.
https://torrentfreak.com/u-s-anti-piracy-police-kept-secret-from-the-public-110811/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Something to consider
If you download and don't re-share, because the file is freely given, you are not actually in violation of any law.I could be wrong, but I am pretty sure I am not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Something to consider
The much bigger issue of concern is associated with uploads that enable what is in essence the worldwide distribution of a protected work, and perhaps even a public performance of that work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Something to consider
There are currently hundred of thousands of people who have been targeted in mass John Doe lawsuits for allegedly having downloaded via BitTorrent.
The porn version of this shakedown has targeted the blind and the elderly.
This is about stopping uploading and downloading, having access to everything you do online and making sure they approve of what your doing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Something to consider
Your understanding is incorrect. Copyright has separate rights -- including (among others) both a reproduction right and a distribution right. Downloading an unauthorized file may violate the reproduction right. Uploading may violate the distribution right.
The reason you are confused is that downloaders are rarely targeted by the industry -- mainly because it's harder to find them. Uploaders are easier to find because they're broadcasting their IP address and the file they're offering.
Of course, with the rise of BitTorrent swarms and such, there's been more of an effort to go after downloaders as well.
If you download and don't re-share, because the file is freely given, you are not actually in violation of any law.I could be wrong, but I am pretty sure I am not.
Yeah, that's almost entirely incorrect.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just say no to paying
1. I could timeshift it so I could download at night and play it the next day, or whenever - just like I do now!The stuttering you get with direct streaming is just too much pain to deal with, especially if your system is doing something on the internet, which in our case is not uncommon being that we are scientists and engineers and have a lot of network activities going on.
2. There was no DRM and it will play on Linux on my preferred video players, or streamed to my TV set.
3. The cost for unlimited streaming was under $20/month - I figure that's about how much of my high-speed DSL bandwidth I use now.
4. TV shows and movies would be available at the time of broadcast or theater display. None of this windowing crap. Like I said, we do go to theaters occasionally, but a lot of the time we want to watch in the comfort of our home, a glass of good Scotch in hand.
FWIW, we still buy DVD's - sometimes very expensive boxed sets of stuff we really like. BluRay? Fergeddaboudit! One, I am totally boycotting anything that Sony is associated with. Two, the DRM they use make it impossible to create a backup disc copy in any reasonable way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just say no to paying
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Just say no to paying
If it can be procured and acquired for nothing than it costs nothing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Just say no to paying
- Buying a CD after hearing the single on the radio and the rest of the album is sh!t.
- Buying a PC game and finding it doesn't work on your computer but there is no way to get a refund.
- Buying a movie on DVD only to have the "special edition" come out 6 months later with extras.
- Having to put up with ridiculous DRM that makes many games unplayable in certain situations, and the publisher doesn't care.
You think freetards just sprung into existence in a vacuum? It is years of abuse that created this backlash. Pull your head out of your ass.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The real effect...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why Does Techdirt Support Organized Crime?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why Does Techdirt Support Organized Crime?
I don't think you understand much of what you're speaking about.
Copyright is not required by the Constitution. The Constitution gives Congress the power -- *should it choose* -- to create copyright law *IF* it "promotes the progress of science." That's it.
There is no guarantee of copyright in the Constitution. Thinking that there is suggests you are ill-informed.
It would be incredibly easy for BitTorrent to maintain an opt-in list by hash that creators could register when they WANT their work distributed for free.
I don't think you understand what BitTorrent is. It's just a protocol.
The search engines, internet ad networks and ISPs make billions distributing content that they pay nothing for.
Okay. You don't understand the internet either.
So you don't understand copyright, you don't understand BitTorrent and you don't understand the internet. Might help to start with the basics before we get into a larger discussion on specifics.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Why Does Techdirt Support Organized Crime?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Why Does Techdirt Support Organized Crime?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Why Does Techdirt Support Organized Crime?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Why Does Techdirt Support Organized Crime?
The world must really suck for you now, Masnick. You bet on the wrong horse and will forever be spending your days complaining about it here.
I'd say sad, but you're a total douchebag that deserves all the horrible karma that's started to come your way. Karma that won't be ending.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Why Does Techdirt Support Organized Crime?
Your industry is getting - and will continue to get - a very hard lesson in that. You're beyond salvation at this point...I won't be satisfied with anything less than complete destruction.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Why Does Techdirt Support Organized Crime?
US recorded music sales started rising after Limewire was shuttered, and have continued to rise.
This summer's six strikes laws will move more people to legal options like itunes, spotify, etc.
The US government will continue it's crackdown on piracy.
The golden age for music pirates is over.
You just don't want to accept that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why Does Techdirt Support Organized Crime?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why Does Techdirt Support Organized Crime?
Funny, I don't remember those companies making money to the point that they give their CEOs $50 million dollar bonuses.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why Does Techdirt Support Organized Crime?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Another fuck you to the constitution by the very system thats suppose to uphold it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ya so it goes on.
'In the event you are found to be either uploading, downloading,streaming, any content that is copyrighted by a 3rd party we reserve the right to disconnect you from our service and report you to the appropriate authorities '
' We are under no obligation to ensure the content in question is actually infringing copyrights owned by a 3rd party '
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
VPN in Europe would be the ideal but there are many other options.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Automation
Yeah, because we all know how well automation works for this sort of thing! ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And then one day someone hacks the database.
And then one day someone hacks the database, and an ISP has to disconnect every single customer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is nothing to worry, it will backfire
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
For many of us - we don't download copy-written content that we know we shouldn't for free.
I know that downloading the latest Universal Pictures movie off of torrent is illegal.
However....
There are hours upon hours of free content on the web - that's 100% legit free. YouTube is an example, Hulu, Crackle, and many others.
But yes - $20.00 for a digital file is a outright rip off and I won't pay it - content or not.
I pay LESS than that per month for a Movie Channel on Cable - that movie channel offers me the ability to watch movies on-line or watch them on-demand. All I want, all month for $16.00 - why in God's name would I want to pay $20.00 for a single movie? LOL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Scary
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It is quite different I do agree. Stealing the movie from the store takes from the store - they bought the movie to re-sell it. Stealing the movie causes them provable financial loss.
Making a copy of a digital file that can be replicated infinitely is certainly different. While I will agree that in most cases it is in fact illegal - I must also add that copyright law is non-functional in it's current form for the digital age and I'll also add, it's an injustice to the public to keep copyrights in force for so many years.
It's also theft from the US taxpayer to bring up frivolous lawsuit after frivolous lawsuit as well. I would like to see someone take that to task as well - might be a good soapbox for a politician to run on even...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You think freetards just sprung into existence in a vacuum? It is years of abuse that created this backlash. Pull your head out of your ass.
I copied more music onto Cassette from the Radio in the 80's than I have digital music, LOL!
At least without owning it. Now I buy a used CD for a buck or less sometimes at the local pawn shop - rip to MP3 and put the CD in the closest.
Funny thing is really, unless you want the NEWEST stuff, you can find so much used stuff out there for dirt cheap - it's almost not worth illegally downloading it. And the 'best deals online' for media is quite misleading. Used CD shops, pawn shops, thrift stores, flea markets commonly have movies and CD's for a buck or two.
When it comes to movies - I figure I'll just run a year or two behind, pay my $16.00 a month for a movie channel + on-demand, and that's all I really need to pay. I do buy some DVD's - but knowing now how much of a rip-off they are at traditional prices - I buy few, and they are almost always gifts now.
If it wasn't for recording devices - Hollywood and the Music Industry wouldn't even exist now - would they?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Another fuck you to the constitution by the very system thats suppose to uphold it
Bingo.
If the government, corporations, and such don't have to follow the law - why does the public?
I do out of personal moral reasons that have nothing to do with government. But that's a personal choice.
In terms of the "rule of law" - Government doesn't follow it, so I don't see what obligates the public to follow it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm sure they haven't really thought this through very well...
This means they are culpable for things like child pornography, as well as copyright violations.
Anyone who is caught doing any of these things, their ISP (if one of the ones monitoring) is also legally responsible, because they allowed the traffic through.
Remember folks, if you're restricting or monitoring traffic for some things, you become responsible for EVERYTHING that happens on your network.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
money talks
The internet is a luxury just like cable TV...get a digital antennae for your TV, if you feel the need to watch TV, and disconnect your cable...boycott comcast and the others....just pay a few dollars and use telephone connections if you want to look at some blogs or whatever because the internet will be otherwise useless anyways...
You can't run any type of interent business with other isp businesses having access, automated or otherwise, to all of your business dealings, proprietary and otherwise....attorney-client privledge and doctor-patient privledge is destroyed...all your actions will be monitored by the CIA and predatory ISP companies
If the billion dollar entertainment industry is willing to destroy constitutional rights for greed, then boycott the entertainment industry..its only entertainment..and the artisitic quality and substance is at an all-time low...if they don't want you to have it unless they can extort whatever prices they deem appropriate..then you're better of without it
Go outside and get some freah air...and let the greedy companies go broke and rot in hell
It all sounds like more "operation garden plot" i.e suspension of constitutional rights, development of a socialistic police state
Its time for real americans to speak up for their freedoms and resist the corprorate culture of greed destroying this country...before its to late
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: money talks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We must act in response to the greased politicians and their corporate lobbying groups.
They (lawmakers and the Hollywood cartel lobby) have the majority votes in Congress..."ballot"
They have the federal (DMCA/PRO-IP) courts on their side..."jury"
The only thing that WE THE PEOPLE still have at this time is AMMO. Do not wait further until all things are in their favor - liberty ONLY exists when ALL people band together for a common greater cause! Hear our voice! Don't tread on us! May God forbid that we have to resort to ambush killings and roadside EFP's against these people upon our constitutional rights! These decrepit, unholy, and degenerate Hollywood scum can only go so far in destroying the lives of common folk by subjecting them to UNFAIR AND COSTLY lawsuits. Given time, the PEOPLE will say ENOUGH IS ENOUGH and they will RISE UP! You reap what you sow!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: We must act in response to the greased politicians and their corporate lobbying groups.
against these people WHO STEP UPON our constitutional rights!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: We must act in response to the greased politicians and their corporate lobbying groups.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: We must act in response to the greased politicians and their corporate lobbying groups.
1. ISP's are not distributing a thing, their customers may be, but they aren't
2. Labels are not paying the creators, refer to Kenny Rogers and other artists being cheated by the label
3. Google was built on providing search results, the ranking of said results determined by what people are actually selecting
So yes, facts are stubborn things.
And lest you bring up the decline in the Music industries profits, please read the following:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120210/11270617732/how-much-collapse-recorded-music-s ales-revenue-was-due-to-end-illegal-price-fixing.shtml
And realise that, yes, your revenue will drop once you are prevented from illegal price fixing. That and the fact that the labels are producing very little that is worth spending money on, so people will get from iTunes etc. the one or 2 tracks that they want.
If the Music industry wants to increase revenues:
start producing quality that people will pay for
start making it easier and more convenient for us to buy the music
stop treating your customers as thieves
stop treating the artists you rely on as serf's
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
unlawful and unwarranted search and seizure
Orwell was a fucking optimist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
July 4th Boycott
After a few weeks of silence, see what happens.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
money talks again
These same theives that are complaining about money are putting on shows like "celebrity house hunting" where, in this economy, they are debating lightly whether to buy the 6 million or 15 million dollar homes !!!
obviously the fans have taken good care of them financially because most of the "celebritys" that stoop to do this crap haven't done any serious work in years...but yet they still have enough to blow on extravagant mansions
Don't support them at all if the entertainment industry has such contempt for its fans so as to wage "cybwe-war" against its customers
instead support local artists who the industry ignores, local musical artists and theatrical artists actually trying to make someting good...
with today's technology ...the entertainment industry is becoming obsolete anyways... because you can produce high quality products with realtively cheap equipment that you can get at bestbuy.
remember...the whole point of this "isp surveillance proclomation initiative" is "operation garden plot"...control of your spirit and minds...suspension of constitutional rights in development of a police state...thats why 4 out of 5 tv shows made today are about about police investigations or military authority
what the military/industrial complex wants to do is have sole control over any media distributed...so they can eventually stop totally the distribution of any truly enlightening products, while charging high prices for racist, sexist mind numbing garbage...that turn free american citizens into subservient cowardly slaves
screw the greedy sellout artists and support the independents on the internet and eleswhere...afterall...independence is the founding concept of our great nation
lastly, always embrace free commerce..after doing research...if i had to have a high speed connection...there are many different isps that serve my area...patronize the up and comers who don't have alot of restrictions, but are happy just to be in business..and when they get to big..switch again
always remember that technology is here to serve us...to the extent it does that succesfully, then it is useful...when it becomes a burden ...then get rid of it
your money is the key so spend it wisely...let the hollywood greedy corrupt sellouts know who is really in control !
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I can't believe this. We pay them to provide a service not to police the internet. Screw them. We'll find a way to get around them like an un rooted hot spot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]