RIAA's Backdoor Plan For Using 'Six Strikes' Plan To Cut Off Internet Access For People

from the sneaky-sneaky dept

Fri, Jul 27th 2012 1:05pm — Mike Masnick

Following Torrentfreak's publication of a slide from a confidential RIAA presentation, they've now released another damning slide, showing (among other things) that the RIAA did not think that SOPA/PIPA would be effective in stopping music infringement:

Of course, they also insist that the opposition was "activated by Google," which is flat out untrue, even though I know the RIAA folks believe it (I had a conversation with an RIAA person a few months ago, and nothing would shake his absolute conviction that the whole thing was a Google plot).

To be honest, this "confession" is not a huge surprise. While many people often lump the MPAA and RIAA together, SOPA/PIPA was almost entirely driven by the MPAA. The RIAA basically did the least amount required to officially show its support for the bill -- but all of the pushing for the bill was done by the MPAA. I had wondered if it was just a sign that the RIAA is simply running out of steam as its main members are dwindling, but now it seems clear that even they realized SOPA/PIPA was not an effective plan. Of course, when we explained why SOPA/PIPA wouldn't have been effective, supporters claimed we were behind a misinformation campaign. I guess the RIAA was a part of that campaign as well, huh?

But, perhaps even more interesting was another tidbit later in the TorrentFreak post, concerning how the RIAA views the six strikes plan. For some background, while various "three strikes" plans around the globe are focused on taking away internet connections after accumulating three "strikes" (based on accusations, not convictions), when the "voluntary" (with a big shove from the government) plan was put in place, part of the messaging was that disconnection was not an option.

However, according to the presentation, it appears that the RIAA has a backdoor plan to put in place a disconnection regime. Basically, they're noting (accurately) that the DMCA already requires that service providers who wish to retain safe harbors have a "termination policy" in place. That's true. But here's the sneaky part: the RIAA is ready to insist that a reasonable termination plan under the DMCA would require an ISP to terminate a user once they get to those six strikes. In other words, the plan doesn't require termination -- which was necessary from a PR standpoint -- but the RIAA is going to claim that the law already requires it. Sneaky, sneaky:

Some ISPs do indeed threaten to disconnect users for infringement based on a TOS violation. However, Sheckler says that the responsibilities of Internet companies go further and as carriers they are governed by legislation.

In order for ISPs to be eligible for safe harbor provision under the DMCA, she writes, they are required to have a “termination policy for repeat infringers” under “appropriate circumstances.”

So, although account disconnections aren’t specifically included in the list of “six strikes” mitigation measures agreed in the Memorandum of Understanding, the RIAA is clearly aware that if they’ve issued infringement notices against an account holder six times, then that user has a good chance of being viewed as a “repeat infringer” by their ISP – at least if prompted to do so by the RIAA.

This is the RIAA I'm used to. Using misdirection and sneaky language to get what it wants while claiming otherwise publicly.

For what it's worth, we've heard that some of the reasons for the delays in launching the six strikes plan has to do with the ISPs pushing back on RIAA/MPAA desire for disconnections to occur. I don't know how accurate that is, but it would fit with what's stated above -- and certainly suggests we haven't seen the last of this. If anything, it sounds like a lawsuit may eventually have to be filed to see if the RIAA can effectively force an ISP to terminate accounts over the six strikes plan...

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: disconnection, dmca, pipa, six strikes, sopa
Companies: riaa

78 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 27 Jul 2012 @ 1:12pm

"activated by Google,"

So these people really can't grasp the real world can they? Rather than deal with their problems they just want to fight boogeymen.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Jul 2012 @ 1:28pm

what does "repeat infringer" mean?

someone who has been accused more than once?

or someone who has been found guilty in a court of law more than once?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
MrWilson, 27 Jul 2012 @ 1:29pm

"In order for ISPs to be eligible for safe harbor provision under the DMCA, she writes, they are required to have a �termination policy for repeat infringers� under �appropriate circumstances.�"

That's a cute lawyeristic way to look at it and all but at what point does the six strikes plan involve criminal charges, fair trials, and convictions before the accused are actually determined to be "infringers?" Since infringement can't be determined merely by accusation, this supposed requirement for a termination policy wouldn't apply to the six strikes plan since no guilt is ever determined.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Jul 2012 @ 1:31pm

Is there any question at all, why anyone at this point should continue to buy from the major labels? Just when you think they can't get any lower in perversity, they open up new levels of despicable.

They can't go bankrupt soon enough for me. I give them credit for assuring that I never buy music again from the major labels.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Jul 2012 @ 1:32pm

also, what are "appropriate circumstances"?

is that when the "repeat infringer" has been found guilty in a court of law 6 times?

or just accused 6 times?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Justin (profile), 27 Jul 2012 @ 1:34pm

Hey RIAA, if you think this is such a good idea, you go first to show us it works.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
E. Zachary Knight (profile), 27 Jul 2012 @ 1:38pm

the RIAA is ready to insist that a reasonable termination plan under the DMCA would require an ISP to terminate a user once they get to those six strikes

Wait. what? Are the ISPs now required to hire assassins to kill off their own customers? That certainly seems like a sure fire way to go out of business.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DannyB (profile), 27 Jul 2012 @ 1:39pm

activated by Google
> "activated by Google,"

You're not going to convince crazy people otherwise. They live in their own unique reality.

These people still think that it should be a crime to copy music from YOUR disk to YOUR mp3 device, and that for this crime they should be able to ruin your future, and claim decades worth of your future income.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
gnudist, 27 Jul 2012 @ 1:39pm

Gotta love the tinfoil hatters that think google is part of some conspiracy to rape content producers and kittens.

Also, they themselves would likely fall afoul of six strikes.

It'd be funny if the RIAA's sites all got taken down for repeat infrigement.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lord Binky, 27 Jul 2012 @ 1:40pm

If they terminate my connection at which point I go down to the store and sign up again... I might just laugh at their effort. If not, I'm sure someone out there would be happy to spend some free time accusing RIAA employees of infringement.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Jul 2012 @ 1:46pm

so why was this not discussed and then clarified when the 'disconnection was not an option' part was included in the 6 strikes plan? am i to believe that the ISPs were stupid, or were too trusting of the RIAA etc (real bad move!!) or knew nothing of that part of the DMCA being ported over or were told it wouldn't be used? whichever, yet again, it will be the people who suffer. why cant government just read what the RIAA has released, all be it supposedly for private consumption only (too late now!) and tell them exactly what their fortune is, like 'you have made us look like prats, even though we helped, but you ain't gonna do it any more! now leave the people alone and adapt before you fuck things up even more!'
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Unanimous Cow Herd (profile), 27 Jul 2012 @ 1:49pm

So, if I copyright "RIAA" (Really Impressive Acronym Artist)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rikuo (profile), 27 Jul 2012 @ 1:52pm

How about I turn around and accuse the MPAA of defamation of character six times and then, once I've accused them, they lose (Insert Something Significant Here).
It just boggles the mind that they are actively supporting a system where you are punished upon accusation. Why is it they can't see that this will blow up in their faces?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
TheLoot (profile), 27 Jul 2012 @ 1:55pm

Re:
Logic would point towards the later, but we know how it goes.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
the defenestrator (profile), 27 Jul 2012 @ 1:56pm

This is something I've seen spouted more and more by copyright maximalists over the last few months...basically a variation of "ISPs need to follow the law and terminate repeat infringers!"

And of course, since they're not doing it - or so the maximalists believe - ISPs are also profiting from piracy.

I understand that the DMCA (sorry, don't know which part) requires that service providers have a repeat infringer policy, but is there something in the law that says that infringers MUST be disconnected? I mean its just a policy, right?

Also, could the RIAA take the ISP to court for not terminating somebody? Is this why so many ISPs agreed to this "voluntary" plan (Yes, Mr RIAA, don't sue us and we'll disconnect whoever you want. Sure, we'll lose them as a customer but we'll sure save on those legal bills!)?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dreddsnik, 27 Jul 2012 @ 1:58pm

Re:
I'm really surprised that it didn't say 'activated by The Google'.

Idiots.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Cory of PC (profile), 27 Jul 2012 @ 2:01pm

Re:
Now noticing that, I think they might send in some T-units in to exterminate them when they get their six strike, or maybe sooner if the user get something that might destroy the RIAA's business plans.

So instead of Apple or Google being SkyNet, the RIAA is. ... We're screwed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PRMan, 27 Jul 2012 @ 2:05pm

Re:
"Movie Makers Live in Fantasy World"

You say it like it's somehow surprising...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Jul 2012 @ 2:06pm

Step 1. Kick people off of the internet
Step 2.
Step 3. Profit!

2/3rds of the way there, RIAA, keep up the good work!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Zos (profile), 27 Jul 2012 @ 2:16pm

how is google the enemy, and yet reddit never even makes the list?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jonny, 27 Jul 2012 @ 2:19pm

Is it so hard for the MPAA/RIAA to understand to make money they need to

a. make something the public wants
b. don't treat your customers like shit.

I cry for them in their poverty...hows that Avengers money doing for ya, MPAA?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Jul 2012 @ 2:30pm

Re:
There's nothing "cute" about it. People have been allowed to skate on this forever, so they think infringing is ok, but the fact is that the 'repeat infringer' language is right there in the DMCA and it's the law. At some point this is going to make it's way through the courts and the law will finally be enforced as it's supposed to be.

Not if, but when.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 27 Jul 2012 @ 2:32pm

Re:
Google was behind the SOPA protest.

Their apologists can try to deny it all they want, but it's a secret to no one.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 27 Jul 2012 @ 2:35pm

Re:
a. they do make something people want. That's why so many people steal it. Duh.

b. people that steal things aren't "customers". They're thieving douchebags. Duh again.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Milton Freewater, 27 Jul 2012 @ 2:36pm

Considering that roughly 2/5ths of all DMCA takedown requests are bad ...
Considering that roughly 2/5ths of all DMCA takedown requests are bad according to Google ... this is very sobering news.

Considering that there is a whole cottage industry now of people profiting from inappropriate takedown requests, doubly so.

I don't know that the ISPs or any judge will buy this argument. However, the fact that the RIAA would like to make it reflects very poorly on them. They KNOW their bots get a lot of false positives. They just don't care who they hurt.

How does any of this sell more music? Who, caught in this scheme, will turn around and buy mp3s? Will their friends and family?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
gorehound (profile), 27 Jul 2012 @ 2:39pm

Re:
And make sure you also do not ever give your money to any of the Big Content Companies.That means to not ever go near Netflix,iTunes,Amazon,MPAA, ETC.
If you are serious like I am you never allow any of these guys a way into your Wallet.
Buy & Support Local Art and INDIE Art.
Do not Support Big Content Ever.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Someone Special, 27 Jul 2012 @ 2:43pm

Re: Re:
You seriously don't know what you are talking about. It's common knowledge (for anybody with a brain and the ability to make shit up) that the Gelgameks were responsible for the SOPA protests.

Please take your bullshit somewhere else. It's not fooling anyone.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Jul 2012 @ 2:49pm

Re: Re: Re:
Narwalls where responsible for the SOPA protests.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Jul 2012 @ 2:49pm

Re: Re:
You're adorable!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The eejit (profile), 27 Jul 2012 @ 2:50pm

Re: Re:
So if I steal your testicles that's okay then? But if I steal an idea, that's BADWRONG?

On what planet does that make sense?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
AG Wright (profile), 27 Jul 2012 @ 2:56pm

Re: Re:
Actually I heard about the whole SOPA, PIPA, ACTA thing here on Techdirt first and then people, people who aren't even pirates or techies started sharing it on Facebook.
I saw articles on CNet and such too and these are definitely not Google properties.
Of course we all know that everybody here but you is a pirate, or at least you keep accusing us of it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 27 Jul 2012 @ 2:58pm

Re: Re: Re:
Techdirt is funded by Google front groups.

Who the hell do you think pays for Mike Masnick to fly around and spread anti-IP propaganda? lol
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 27 Jul 2012 @ 3:00pm

Re: Re:
I noticed that you didn't answer the question.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 27 Jul 2012 @ 3:01pm

Re: Re:
Prove it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 27 Jul 2012 @ 3:04pm

Re:
Because google is rich, I think. Honestly, I'm not sure.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
gnudist, 27 Jul 2012 @ 3:06pm

Re: Re:
Hey if google was behind that they're heroes who deserve high praise for blocking that insane bill.

But all you have is derp to back up your statment. SO unless you have real proof why I should love google GTFO
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Baldaur Regis (profile), 27 Jul 2012 @ 3:08pm

Re:
Reddit is the internet mob, of more more account to the MAFIAA than 'customers'. Google is different, Google makes "fuck you money", gobs and gobs of it, and to their way of thinking, money is power. But Google does nothing with all that power except make kind of cool things and GIVE THEM AWAY FOR FREE....or something...I don't know why Google is the 'enemy'.

I wish "Big Search" boB would explain it, even though every time I hear one of his posts it's in Daffy Duck's voice.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 27 Jul 2012 @ 3:08pm

Re: Re:
they do make something people want.

Only halfway. People want the shows/music/whatever, sure, but the companies do their damndest to avoid providing it in the form that people want.

people that steal things aren't "customers".

They can be, of course. People who pirate tend to actually buy more of this stuff than people who don't.

But the commenter isn't talking about them, specifically. The MPAA/RIAA is treating all of their customers like shit, even those who never pirate a single thing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
gnudist, 27 Jul 2012 @ 3:09pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
And this is based on what exactly?

I'll bet you also believe the moon landing was faked, we have aliens in area 51 and bush planned 9/11.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Jul 2012 @ 3:09pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
full yet?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
gnudist, 27 Jul 2012 @ 3:11pm

Re: Re:
Reddit's an open source website doncha know.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
gnudist, 27 Jul 2012 @ 3:13pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Nah, he's still hungry.

Don't worry little trolls I'll feed you!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Jul 2012 @ 3:14pm

Re: Re:
We the interwebz anxiously await for that day, because that will be the day you will hear the thundering sound of a million dudes banging on your door.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Jul 2012 @ 3:14pm

Re: Re:
Do you need me to call you a wambulance little guy?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Jul 2012 @ 3:22pm

I wonder if MPAA/RIAA with their thug tactics and blaming of Google just make Google look like heroes. And guess what if google becomes an ISP people will flock over simply because they won't try this BS with their users. Not to mention in a previous techdirt story they are getting 1Gbps for $70 a month. Tons better than what Verizon is trying to sell me with what they shamefully call quantum.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Jul 2012 @ 3:22pm

Re: Re:
Don't worry Demonoid is all over it already.

As for your choice of words here is a patch to your text:

a. they do make something people want. That's why so many people try to find it by whatever means necessary. Duh.

b. people that steal things aren't "customers". They're thieving douchebags, but people who share that crap of yours are your best customers. Duh again.

When did you see somebody who didn't care buy anything from any artist ?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Julian Perez, 27 Jul 2012 @ 3:48pm

Re: Re:
Nah, Skynet looked state of the art and technologically savvy, which is not the RIAA's speed at all. They'd insist on using clockwork terminators that barely function, self-destruct if you try to examine their components, and are more likely to attack people on their own side.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 27 Jul 2012 @ 3:58pm

Re: Re: Re:
All the more reason to wonder why the fixation on Google. Reddit is clearly a bunch of freetards.

/sarc
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Milton Freewater, 27 Jul 2012 @ 4:12pm

False positives
David Lowery said the problem isn't stealing ... artists rose up to agree with him ... some on TechDirt called it a turning point.

And our noob troll agrees too: "the fact is that the 'repeat infringer' language is right there in the DMCA and it's the law. At some point this is going to make it's way through the courts ..."

The DMCA does not address taking property. 'Repeat infringement' is a distinct violation (of whatever nature) from any kind of stealing, and laws against stealing "made their way through the courts" hundreds of years ago.

Then, like Gollum, he starts to yammer at himself.

There is some question as to whether the repeat infringer language of the DMCA can be applied in this case because it would effectively deny due process. Your ISP can choose to terminate your account at any time, but can the government COMPEL them to do so? Remember, this system is going to generate a lot of false positives and you have to pay the ISP to even review them. Is this sufficient for a government-enforced sanction?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Franklin G Ryzzo (profile), 27 Jul 2012 @ 4:12pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
You're both wrong... the Daleks were responsible for the SOPA protests.

EXTERMINATE!!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Jul 2012 @ 5:23pm

Re: Re:
That search page is getting more intelligent every day... I hope it's Asimov-compliant...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
lucidrenegade (profile), 27 Jul 2012 @ 5:27pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
I think it's the Judean People's Front. ...or maybe the People's Front of Judea.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
gnudist, 27 Jul 2012 @ 5:32pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
MOAR DAKKA
[ link to this | view in thread ]
MrWilson, 27 Jul 2012 @ 6:11pm

Re: Re:
So you're saying that "repeat infringers" should be as easily identified as "infringing content" is, despite the fact that the copyright holders don't even know what is infringing or not (e.g. Viacom suing Google over content that Viacom itself uploaded to YouTube and the gov't taking down Dajaz1 at the say so of the RIAA though the RIAA could never bring evidence of infringement).

Without supporting due process and necessity of actual convictions to determine guilt, your "it's the law!" argument completely falls apart.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Groove Tiger (profile), 27 Jul 2012 @ 9:02pm

Re: Re:
Oh, no, it wasn't the Google. It was beauty killed the SOPA.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Jul 2012 @ 9:24pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don't need to be paid and even I can spread "anti-IP propaganda". Just ask anyone who received a rootkit from Sony.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Jul 2012 @ 9:30pm

Re: Re: Re:
It's not just bad or wrong, it's BADONG!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Jul 2012 @ 9:52pm

Copyright infringement can only be decided by a court of law. So the DMCA clause about "infringers" is a bunch of crap really.

I've noticed that copyright maximalists seem to hate due process. Justice is too "inefficient".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That One Guy (profile), 27 Jul 2012 @ 10:10pm

Re:
Under real world, sane logic, it would be someone who has been found guilty in a court of law.

Under 'entertainment' industry logic, since no one would ever makes a false accusation, simply being accused is more than good enough.

Take a wild guess which one they'd be wanting to go for.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That One Guy (profile), 27 Jul 2012 @ 10:13pm

Re: Re:
Also, if for whatever reason you want to pick up something put out by them, buy used. It's not only more environmentally friendly, it also drastically lowers, if not entirely cuts out, the cut of the purchase they otherwise would have gotten.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PaulT (profile), 28 Jul 2012 @ 12:03am

Re: Re:
"At some point this is going to make it's way through the courts and the law will finally be enforced as it's supposed to be."

...and if that was what was happening before people were threatened, extorted and the rest, you'd have far less objections. But, that's "too hard" and you'd rather attack without evidence.

Oh, and you want the DMCA to be enforced? Fine. Let's start with the perjury penalties for the lying corporations who shut down legitimate content based on lies.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Josef Anvil (profile), 28 Jul 2012 @ 1:58am

Well thought out...
I'm guessing that no one in the RIAA thought this through at all. I say let the terminations begin.

The younger generation is doing the bulk of all this infringing. Soooooo. Child infringes then household loses its service. This would, in effect, target the people in the household who are MOST likely to actually be paying for movies and music. Young adults are savvy enough to infringe on wifi/mifi (other people's connections,) so the target becomes hotspot owners, yet again people likely to pay.

The likely reaction to all those terminations will be another Google plot to force sensible legislation.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That Anonymous Coward (profile), 28 Jul 2012 @ 2:33am

Re: False positives
I can't get faster than a 1 MB connection in a metropolitan area, but they can afford to build a system to service an outside group, give them the right to used flawed tech to make allegations that can have my service terminated and pass the costs onto me? Well that is where it will get fun.

A user will sue the shit out of their former ISP, the PR firm, and their secret monitoring service.

The monitoring service will have to admit they can not prove any copyright infringement took place, and that the technology they use has been shown to be unreliable.

Then the court will address a deal between the cartels and ISPs to allow the cartels to have say over the users rights.

The ISPs are taking action outside of the legal system, based on pressure from a lobbying firm dressed up to be a real company.

I'm sure the monopoly status they enjoy in many areas of the country will not bite them in the ass at all.

I'm sure people won't demand we stop subsiding a system that wants to be the enforcement arm of allegations of questionable merit.

I'm sure the cartels are more than willing to give the ISPs money so they can purchase right of ways and easement rights as the rates for those should climb in response.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
techflaws (profile), 28 Jul 2012 @ 3:34am

Re: Re:
Not if, but when.

Which won't stop piracy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
techflaws (profile), 28 Jul 2012 @ 3:35am

Re: Re:
Keep dreaming, skintube.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
techflaws (profile), 28 Jul 2012 @ 3:36am

Re: Re:
Copying ain't stealing. Duh again.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Jul 2012 @ 7:06am

Re: Re: Re:
And even if it did you likely wouldn't get the jump in sales you were hoping for.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Jul 2012 @ 7:35am

Re: Re:
You cannot be truly considered guilty of infringement until you're found guilty by your peers in a court of law.

You're views are fucking pathetic and they're a insult. They attack the very foundation that this nation was based on.

Do you live in the USA? If so how can you call yourself an American? I guess you'd rather throw people in prison for murder without a trial as well..
[ link to this | view in thread ]
skilo, 28 Jul 2012 @ 8:04am

Re:
Welcome to the new America, Where corporations rule and everyone is guilty until proven innocent.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Christopher, 29 Jul 2012 @ 1:28am

did Google Fiber sign up for the *AA's 6-strike rule?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ninja (profile), 30 Jul 2012 @ 3:19am

Re:
Rather than deal with their problems they just want to fight boogeymen.

Much like the US Govt when it comes to terrorism. Like Nation (Father), like Company (Son)?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ninja (profile), 30 Jul 2012 @ 4:00am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
Marked as funny then noticed it's the same AC attacking Mike. Still, I lol'd hard. Good comedy dude, good comedy!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Jul 2012 @ 10:20am

Re: Re:
T-units are copyrighted so naturally it's perfectly fine if the RIAA or MPAA wants to use them but for mentioning them here without proper licensing you've earned strike one.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Jul 2012 @ 10:26am

Re: Re:
Daffy Duck? I always got Elmer FUD.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Jul 2012 @ 10:30am

Re: Re:
a. if i make milk and only offer it in 5,000 gallon jugs in what sense do I 'make something people want?' Duh.

b. even assuming that copying is stealing thieves are still potential customers. Duh again.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Jul 2012 @ 10:35am

Let's not forget to thank Vice-President Biden for all of his help with the six strikes plan this November!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Adrian Lopez, 2 Oct 2012 @ 3:10pm

Hosting vs connectivity
Does the DMCA's termination clause apply to cases in which an ISP isn't hosting the content in question, but is merely providing the conduit through which said content travels?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Dec 2012 @ 9:04pm

"While many people often lump the MPAA and RIAA together,"

Yup, when the two of them are lumped together they form MAFIAA (Music and Film Industry Association of America). They try to extort money from poor people and ruin their lives. Pretty much the same way the Italian Mafia used to operate back in the old days. They are the 21st centery MAFIAA v2.0
[ link to this | view in thread ]