Big ISPs Expected To Start Six Strikes Program This Weekend [Updated]
from the just-what-we-need dept
Update: Dah. Got fooled on the date. Someone had sent that one anonymously, and we missed that the date was from back in March. Others are reporting the program won't go into effect until the fall.
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, hadopi, isp, six strikes
Companies: comcast, mpaa, riaa, time warner, verizon
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Over at torrentfreak they talked about the possibility that repeat offenders (those who violate the six strikes) can have their identification and data reports sent to the RIAA/MPAA for possible lawsuit action...from the back section.
http://torrentfreak.com/mpaa-riaa-ponder-suing-persistent-bittorrent-pirates-120618/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
LOL... what else don't you know that we do? Inquiring Minds want to know!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Well, yeah, but legal action was already possible. BT swarms are public data and anybody can pull IP addys off them. The problem is that there's no effective way to get a judgement in U.S. court against a Bittorrent user. (Some would say it's de facto legal.)
The strikes also "fall off your record" after a year of no notices, FYI. I always assumed that Comcast etc. would cancel subscribers after only a couple of notices, which is why I keep my nose clean on BT. I guess I was wrong, haha.
The one thing I wonder about is what torrents will be monitored by the third party doing the monitoring (it's not the ISPs, they're just counting notices and doling out the consequences) They're only supposed to monitor stuff released by the big media corps int eh partnership ... but those companies issue false claims all the time (false DMCA takedowns, for example). If they send out notices for stuff they have no right to say is infringing, watch out.
[ 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:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Time for Darknets now...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Time for Darknets now...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Time for Darknets now...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Time for Darknets now...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Time for Darknets now...
Or do something crazy like get a job and pay for the for-sale content you rip off...
God, you dorks are truly the ultimate losers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Time for Darknets now...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Time for Darknets now...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Time for Darknets now...
Even the most pious customer, according to this scheme, can still suffer because of repeated accusations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Time for Darknets now...
So I guess the 150 I spent last month on my entertainment in my disposable income means that I'm just ripping stuff off?
Maybe you shouldn't say stuff, because all you do is make yourself look stupid.
I'm just tired of being called a thief by the MPAA and RIAA, nevermind that I haven't watched any movies in Theaters or gone to any concerts, I don't pirate movies or music (I'll record off the radio for music or just buy a CD if it's good enough)
The only thing I "Pirate" are television series, and even THEN, I still end up purchasing most of them because they're good and I wish to share.
So... Wanna try to stop looking like a moron.
Oh, and BTW...
"Or do something crazy like get a job"
I work two jobs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Time for Darknets now...
You'll never stop us....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Time for Darknets now...
Just as soon as you and Hollywood show me where I can buy a legit copy of the 1978 Star Wars Holiday Special. Did it suck? Yes, it was pretty bad, but its the one piece of Star Wars I dont have for my collection because it has NEVER BEEN MADE AVAILABLE FOR SALE FROM THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER.
So, you can stuff your "for-sale content you rip off" right up your Shillhole.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Z= 5*(number of pirates)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't normally do this....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I don't normally do this....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I don't normally do this....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I don't normally do this....
For example, 2% of the US population is Six Million Two Hundred and Thirty One Thousand, Eight Hundred and Thirty Eight people.
It may only be 2% but it is also, Lots.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I don't normally do this....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I don't normally do this....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I don't normally do this....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I don't normally do this....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I don't normally do this....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I don't normally do this....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I don't normally do this....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I don't normally do this....
Buy & support INDIE Art
Buy & Support your local Artists
Go see a performer in your town
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
He is going to have a field day this morning. I am certain of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Google wants all IP to be free so they can continue to exploit it without paying. So they can continue to make billions.
You're an idiot foot soldier for their sick corporate greed.
At least Masnick gets paid to promote it.
Wake up and stop being such a gigantic loser.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I miss those days...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Super!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Super!
You'll notice if they carry through with the threat to throttle your connection based on allegations made with no real outside vetting of the software generating the notices.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Let's say that I access The Pirate Bay website (as in, I open it, and then close it). Will I get a "strike"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Then you'll explain to the nice man that you keep an open router, they'll tell you why that's a bad evil thing to do, and offer to help you set a password. then they'll turn your shit back on.
basically the rights company monitors the swarm, takes the low hanging unproxied IP's, and sends a notice to your ISP, who then forwards it on. Get BTGUARD, or another good proxy and you'll never have to worry about it again. At least that's how it's always worked up until now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If the former, tempted to continuously dl Linux or something akin and make them waste their time while I give them the finger.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Further, shouldn't uploading be the crime? If I find a bootleg CD on the ground, am I breaking the law, or is the bootlegger breaking the law?
All these X-strike programs will do is send a lot of people to VPNs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Who do I make my $35 check out to, Comcast or the RIAA?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Mayhaps you meant "didn't download anything that infringed copyright" but when the downloader and the copyright owner don't know whether something infringes, how is the deliveryman supposed to tell the difference?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No, you get a strike because you are using the internets. The strike can be over any perceived infringement, is based on accusation only, and you have virtually no recourse to contest it. They don't have to provide any proof. They don't have to allow you to defend yourself or protest the action.
This action against you will be taken at the accusers accusation at face-value, with ZERO substantiated proof required. It will happen simply by them saying "I accuse thee." ANY copyright holder can bring this action against anyone, whether it is true or not. There is no oversight whatsoever, of any kind, in any form, for ensuring or verifying that the accusations have ANY merit whatsoever.
They don't even have to prove that it was actually your actual connection that did the "crime," they only need an IP address. Whether that is your actual address, or was actually used for the "crime," or someone just spoofed your IP address or used your WiFi without your knowledge, does not matter.
The ONLY, single recourse you have is to pay, up front mind you, $35 PER incident to have the ISP "review" the strike. They will, in turn, go to the accuser, say "he protests," the accuser will confirm that the info they gave was Right and Good, and the ISP will deny your protest, pocket your $35, and the strike will stand.
This WILL happen in virtually ALL cases, bank on it.
Your rights as a consumer or human being mean not one thing to them for this process. You are, after all, the accused, and that is the same thing as guilty in their eyes.
Pray you never get accused, as it will be permanent and irrevocable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
This is that, implemented. They could even end up being "magnanimous" and not actually cut anyone off, but $35 per accusation provides a healthy margin.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The letter itself (from whatever studio it was) was the usual bluffing/scare tactics and threat of a possible lawsuit if I had downloaded said movie. The message from AT&T included separately was basically, "Hey, we got this letter. We have no proof you did or didn't do anything wrong, so we're not going to do anything to you. We're just forwarding this because we have to. However, if we get more letters we have to forward we are going to look into this and if you're doing something you shouldn't be we will disconnect your services. If this message is in error and you've done nothing wrong just feel free to ignore it."
The one thing that does suck is locally, there are tons of areas where you can only have one service provider of almost any kind. Satellite, cable, DSL, home phone service, etc. There are some overlapping areas naturally, but for the most part it's a choice of Verizon, Time Warner, or AT&T. So it's not much of a choice at all. Where I live, you want (or need as is the case with me for work) phone service or DSL you HAVE to go with AT&T. So it would majorly suck if they did disconnect my services.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I swear you people are so out to lunch you don't even realize what you're writing.
Maybe this is why Lowery touched such a chord: because he was right.
You blindly throw money at huge corporations like the telcos and Google and think absolutely nothing of the damage done to musicians by the loss of royalties that occurs when you rip off their music instead of paying.
I suspect you do know this though, and feel at least some guilt, as the idiot rants against record labels show- pretending that some instance of major label malfeasance represents a justification for ripping everything off.
And don't any of you sociopaths come back with some fucking fake indignation.
It's sick. Not one of the pirates on this silly blog is fooling anybody.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
If we're all dirty pirates breaking the law, report us to the police. If we're not fooling anyone, you must have evidence. Or maybe you're just convinced that anyone who doesn't like copyright or government granted monopolies or the way in which the music labels have been ripping off artists for decades despite claiming, as you do, that they care about artists, is a dirty freeloading pirate.
If you care so much about artists, I'd like to see your proposals for legislation outlawing Hollywood accounting practices that deprive the people who do the grunt work on movies from getting royalties from the movie studios because the movies never turn a profit on the books, by design.
If you care so much about artists, I'd like to see your proposal for getting label artists better contracts that don't involve charging the artists for all production and marketing done on their behalf from the small percentage they make from product sales before they see a dime.
How is it that the music is making millions of dollars, yet the artists are seeing very little from the studios, and the people who aren't paying the studios more money are the bad guys?
You talk about us blindly throwing money at huge corporations and then argue that we're violating copyrights and thus not blindly throwing enough money at huge corporations...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
What the hell are you rambling on about?
I pay my internet provider for providing me internet service. Period. This isn't a hard concept to understand.
As for Google, the only thing I have ever paid to them is eyes on ads and perhaps some of my surfing habit info. In exchange I get a pretty good search engine, maps, image search, Google docs, some pretty cool open source software, the Android OS, etc. etc. Pretty fair deal to me.
As for my personal music collection, 95% of that came from ripping me and my wife's extensive CD library. CD's that we already purchased.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Odd
Because of how cable companies have a near monopoly in their respective territories, it won't bother them so much. Verizon seems to be taking a huge chance though.
I mean I get that these providers want to move away from net neutrality, so it seems they are using the excuse that the reason they don't want net neutrality is so they can protect the content industry.
That's all I have as far as making this make sense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Odd
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Odd
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Odd
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Odd
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ISP Stormtroopers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Won't be long till the legacy types try and shut it down but luckily they just concentrate on unpopular link sites and the replicated nature of servers makes it very hard to police.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
To those big business types at the RIAA, etc, this is perfectly reasonable. But someone else in the government telling you what to do is a fundamental violation of every single freedom we hold.
Maybe we shouldn't be all that surprised with all the evidence of this kind of stupidity. After all, a poll released a few days found people HATE Obamacare, but if you describe EXACTLY what's in Obamacare and call it something else then support for it suddenly goes up 30 to 40 points! Why? Simply because too many people are stupid enough not to know what's in Obamacare, or because people were too stupid realize that Obama had endorsed that exact same approached when it was described to people, and they just hated Obamacare in the first place simply because they hate Obama, and if Obama endorsed it then it MUST be bad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Republicans demonize ObamaCare despite the fact it started out as RomneyCare!
And, when it was RomneyCare, Republicans backed it to the hilt!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
> perfectly reasonable. But someone else in the
> government telling you what to do is a fundamental
> violation of every single freedom we hold.
What about those of use who would prefer neither the government nor big business tell us what to do?
[ 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:
I'm going to go ahead and imagine many Americans would have a HUGE problem if their gas station started issuing speeding and seat belt citations, threatening to cut them off over incorrect or incidental infractions of laws that most people agree are worthwhile but not intractable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Don't believe me?
Hint hint: Prohibition.
Protip: War on Drugs!
Spoiler alert! Technology is always 3 steps ahead of the law.
I know that it must hurt your masters in the Content Cartels, but the truth is, you can't stop it.
Not unless they start treating people like customers rather than thieves.
[ 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: Re:
All those things you mentioned... All of them...
Result in the loss of something (life, property)
What sort of loss does infringement entail?
Note, I said "stupid laws".
Laws against murder, car theft, rape and shop lifting are not stupid laws, they are there to provide restitution for the wronged party.
Copyright Infringement doesn't wrong anyone, because there's nothing of value being lost.
If I copy a movie from one DVD to another and give it to a friend, nothing of value has been lost.
If I took a DVD from a store without paying and gave it to a friend, then something of value has been lost.
See the difference?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority
Please remit a new argument that is an actual argument, citizen....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Make an argument that supports the creation and continued support of the law.
Not the law itself.
Invoking a law as an argument in of itself does nothing to explain your position or provide any real discussion or insight to your position.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
YOU GUYS ARE SO STOOPID!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
LOL! GARGLE BARGLE SNARF SNARF! (or whatever language you speak....)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
As Hadopi has failure stamped all over its forehead so let's just try it here and without the open government backup it has in France! To me that looks like an enormous windmill though I could be wrong about that.
Then there's the minor detail that an IP address does not identify an individual human being, it identifies a connection in a given location which anyone can use. It's also easily spoofed which lessens its value as and identifier of any kind. Those infringing/pirating on a "commercial" scale are using/going to use fake IP addresses.
Enforcement, on a criminal or civil level, is only as good as the methods used to ID the baddies. Too many false positives will inevitably lead to an increase in dismissals. So much for your enforcement.
The other thing I wonder about is are these ISPs going to use deep packet inspection to discover whether or not the torrent in question is being used to distribute "pirated" material? Not all torrents do, you know. The majority are used for perfectly legitimate reasons.
I can see a few lawsuits coming from this from the falsely accused, who can afford it, and a large political backfire.
Care to debate that without resorting to logical fallacies?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This entire post is about a voluntary agreement that has nothing to do with the law. In fact, the law doesn't come into play at all, because it's based on accusations (not convictions) of infringement and ISPs taking voluntary actions based on accusations with no official review as to whether the law has actually been violated.
Look, as DH shows below, we know when backed in a corner you're going to revert to "but it's the law!@!@!@#" because you have no real argument, but if you could just stop and think for once, you might realize that some of us are discussing something serious that goes beyond the law.
[ 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: Re: Re:
[ 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: Re: Re:
Way to bring some quality to the discussion, as well as well thought-out points.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The 6 Strike Back
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The 6 Strike Back
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
pro-competition anti-monopoly benefits
Remember when there were a gazillion small ISPs out there? That was better for the health of the internet than the current situation. It'd be good to see those days come back.
(Me? I'm currently on speakeasy/megapath.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: pro-competition anti-monopoly benefits
cable with comcast/timewarner/heus/charter
DSL from quest/att/exct
dialup: why list dialup providers....dialup sucks
the problem is that in most markets all of your choices will be part of this.
you are very unlikely to get more then 1 cable and 1 dsl provider in your area, just so you know...
its sad. but its what the govt of the Incorporated States of America supports....we love our market monopolies...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"July 1" is old date and probably obsolete; how about "fall"?
The Center For Copyright Info's Twitter feed points to a June 26 story in Time, and that story gives a vague "fall" start date for the program.
This is the first Twitter item from the @copyrightinfo account since April, so we can see how active the copyright folks are in engaging with the Internet. :-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "July 1" is old date and probably obsolete; how about "fall"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Excuse me - who's in charge again? Oh, right. The people are.
Well no law (of nature or statute) says we have to keep these suicidal old degenerates alive in the 21st Century. The MAFIAA wants to die - let's help them reach that goal ASAP.
As for the ISP's, your actions will quickly alter your fates. Go ahead and fuck soon-dead old whores if you want, ISP's. Some of you look pretty close to the end, yourselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lulz all around if this happened.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Lulz all around if this happened.
[ 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 ]
Re: Re:
> about, you need to look around the net more
It seemed to me the Occupy folks in my city were mainly protesting good hygiene and the taboo against pooping outdoors.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Message to the sell-out ISP's:
"Never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon full of tapes hurtling down the highway."
Translation for those ISP's mentioned above and any other really, really dumb people:
The computer-world got along fine without you for decades before and we'll get along fine without you now.
And the computer-world is millions (if not billions) of times bigger now than it was then! And there is a reason that people have massive hard drives and its not to hold that drm shit.
Bwah Hah Hah Hah !!!!
***
We interrupt this message for a news-bulletin:
This just in: The MAFIAA is still dead. And in a related story, several formerly major ISP's are on their death beds following a massive drop in revenue.
We return you now to the message.
***
Go ahead, ISP's - I dare you.
Can someone out there say "enormous revenue opportunity?"
How much do you want to bet that Google (with its already massive revenue and massive dark fiber reserves) has been holding its breath for just a moment like that?
The ISP's lose. Game, set and match to the opponent.
***
What's next, dying MAFIAA - you get your errand-boys in the US government to outlaw the copy command and send in the drones?
Just admit it - you're through.
Bwah Hah Hah Hah !!!!
***
Why do the actions of the dying MAFIAA always remind me of the Monty Python skit with the knight with no arms or legs left and blood spurting out of every hole?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Message to the sell-out ISP's:
"Tis but a scratch!"
"Your arm is sliced off."
"No it's not."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Message to the sell-out ISP's:
It's yourself.
Pathetic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Message to the sell-out ISP's:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
US Post office is next
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Cartels have inserted themselves into your contractual agreement with your ISP.
Your ISP to take actions to your connection based on claims made by an outside party made outside of a court of law.
The Cartels are using a "secret" technology, that has been proven time and time again to generate false positives.
The Cartels lovingly provide you a chance to protest their findings, for a $35 fee. This fee is to make sure your serious... do they have to pay the ISP $35 for every notice they send?
You are expected to give an answer to the notice, but the options for response are limited and include the idea that nothing made after 1929 is not covered by copyright.
The Cartels are pushing the negligence angle, well your connection was used so we are asking for your service to be degraded until you lock it down.
This program is run by a PR company, not a technical company.
Oh if you get 6 strikes, they remove you from the program.
Oh and they won't need to get a court order like the copyright trolls do to get your name and contact information to try and sue you they get to compile all of this all along.
This program can't detect downloads from cyberlockers.
So I'm pretty sure its only going to take a few phone calls to some AG's to finally get someone to ask why an outside 3rd party can insert themselves into your contract with your ISP. They are making allegations with the notices that can not stand up in a court of law, and well an IP address does not point to an infringer, and there is no "duty" to protect your WiFi connection to keep the Cartels happy.
This is a PR stunt and not much more, the upside is several of the ISPs who signed up are monopolies in many areas, so they are using their monopoly status to benefit an outside group... That should look very tempting to anyone who wants to break that monopoly. They are misusing their control of the market to the detriment of the consumers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
BIG
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fight back?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fight back?
Although I would be tempted to join such a crusade... I just need it to happen when I go backpacking in Europe for a month.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
three Letters
Get yourself a VPN connection outside the country and they cant touch you. Pirate bay has one.. Ipredator.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
At least they gave us the answer
There will be no comcast, verizon or Time Warner in my house........ever!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: At least they gave us the answer
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Three Sad Truths
The Mafiaa and Riaa know that as long as people can see their favorite TV show or movies and get to their porn sites they have nothing to fear in terms of any public backlash or loss of business, so a boycott (or cord cutting) will do nothing to stop them.
The Second Sad Truth (for the entertainment business)is that the pirating of copyrighted material will not be stopped, or even slowed, one little bit!
The 3rd Sad Truth (and the saddest of all)is that the REAL PIRATES (the ones that are raping and pillaging your country and mine)will never be held accountable for their Criminal Acts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Three Sad Truths
I'd take a cutlass skewer over a battle axe to the face anyday.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Three Sad Truths
hahahahaha
what a poor, sad sap you are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The Three Sad Truths
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The Three Sad Truths
For that matter, bob has been here consistently complaining that the DMCA not only gave rightsholders too many damn hoops to jump through, but actually benefited "Big Search" (whatever the hell that means).
You're a poor, sadder, sappier sap.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
After all; a rule like this is just apt to have people go torrent at some free hot-spot instead of home.
In the end, this could create a new industry of 'hosts' that offer a VPN tunnel to block data from the ISP.... lol
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Joe, you're exactly right ... UNLESS the third party monitor and the rightsholders treat these like DMCA takedowns and issue a bunch of strikes for, say, mashups, remixes, parodies, documentaries that include copyrighted content such as "Los Angeles Plays Itself," etc. etc.
It has been too much trouble and little gain for rightsholders to do that before ... but now there's a system that, like the TSA, has to prove its worth. And private companies have no obligation to honor our First Amendment right to access speech.
[ 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 ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So, Does This Mean I Can Start Suing.....
One of the things we love to do is pick out a movie on iTunes, buy it (we take turns), get it downloaded, and then press the play button at the same time while we are in Mumble together.
It's almost like watching a movie together. Close enough for our case.
However, 90% of the time, we have to deal with "Error -35"
or "Error -50" or some other stupid "crap, pause it, I'm locked up" "hold up I need to reboot to get it going again".
Can I now start holding THEIR feet to the fire on charging as much for the download as they do the DVD, yet I am not receiving the experience I am being charged for.
Is this the only industry that can get away with still being in business when there are SO MANY CUSTOMER COMPLAINTS?
Gawd. Imagine if the content industry was a diner that got away with poisoning the customers, got complaints on a daily basis, and still was able to stay in business by passing a law that anyone that walked down the same street as the diner had to pay a fee just for being around. How do I get in an industry like that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Need confirmation
2. Is Mediacom involved in this?
3.Is this really only attacking torrents or am I screwed from doanloading from mediafire/depsotfiles/hotfile/rapidshare??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Need confirmation
2) I have no idea who Mediacom is.
3) The amount of FUD flying around on this is truly awesome. The Copyright Info program is specifically aimed at p2p file sharing (uploading) originating from residential customers. This would definitely include BitTorrent, and might include whatever else is left in the Gnutella world. This will not include file lockers such as MediaFire, Usenet, or any other pure downloading system.
The ISPs are not monitoring traffic. The ISPs have agreed to:
- accept IP address/date/time copyright complaints from the copyright holders, without question.
- match those reports to a customer, and forward warnings on. (There is no guarantee that the report or the match will be accurate, and the report is not to be challenged.)
- keep count, with vaguely escalating penalties.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Need confirmation
Mediacom is a cable/internet/phone service provider.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Need confirmation
- The Memorandum of Understanding between the content industry and the big ISPs is out there on the web. You can read it. I highly recommend reading it yourself; the document is poorly represented in all of the news coverage I have seen.
- The content industry is not engaging in any subterfuge in collecting allegations of copyright infringment. They are, acting like any other member of the public, joining public p2p networks (BitTorrent trackers, swarms, whatever, and whatever is left of older technologies like Gnutella), firing up (probably modified) user clients, and collecting what is essentially public information.
The big open question is: Will the Copyright Info system examine a download of a suspect file to get better evidence that the file is really what it says it is? Or, will the Copyright Info system opt to economize on time and just take directory listings, and string-search on those directory listings to create allegations of infringement?
The other big open question, for me, is what will be the error rate as the ISPs match copyright complaints to IP address log data? Accuracy is expensive; the Copyright Info system, as far as I can see, accepts a sacrifice of accuracy for cost effectiveness and waves away collateral damage.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Need confirmation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Need confirmation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Legal or not?
69.172.201.20
That's the DNS to the MPAA's website.
I would like to constitute that these policies violate certain privacy laws that ISP's must follow. I typically get video game music from OCRemix.org. It's a sight full of user made music from classic video games. They use BitTorrent to download sound track compilations. The point is, they will have access to your computers illegally, and the ISP's mentioned are accessories to said violation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]