Details Of Various Six Strikes Plans Revealed; May Create Serious Problems For Free WiFi
from the the-death-of-free-wifi dept
Ah, unintended consequences. TorrentFreak has been doing a fantastic job sussing out the details of how various ISPs are going to implement the infamous "six strikes" plan. Earlier, it had found that AT&T's plan was to block access to frequently visited websites, while the fourth strike will include redirections to "educational material."
All of the ISPs, of course, will say that they're not "cutting people off" from the internet, though they are making connections barely usable. Especially troubling is that, as TorrentFreak reveals in the latest post on this, at least Verizon's responses will apply to businesses as well. So that cafe down the street that has free WiFi... may quickly be throttled down to 256kbps. That will likely mean a lot less free WiFi out there, which is a significant and worrisome consequence of this program.
All of these programs seem focused on driving people to "educational content" about copyright infringement. It will be quite fascinating to see what kind of educational content is provided. We've seen in the past that most such attempts are really bad and one-sided. Even YouTube's "copyright school" is ridiculously one-sided and perpetuates myths about copyright, and suggests that fair use is too complex for you to even bother trying to understand.
Also, as the strikes get higher, there are two things to be aware of: ISPs are then more likely to hand over info to the copyright holders, meaning that it could still lead to copyright holders directly suing. That is, the "mitigation" factors are not, in any way, the sum total of the possible consequences for those accused. On top of that, we still fully expect that at least some copyright holders are planning to insist that ISPs who are aware of subscribers with multiple "strikes" are required under law to terminate their accounts. At least the RIAA has indicated that this is its interpretation of the DMCA's clause that requires service providers to have a "termination policy" for "repeat infringers." So it's quite likely that even if the ISPs have no official plan to kick people off the internet entirely under the plan, some copyright holders will still push for exactly that kind of end result.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: copyright, education, five strikes, isps, six strikes, throttling
Companies: at&t, time warner cable, verizon
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
These industries won't learn to adapt until they are literally staring death in the face.
You can't turn back the clock folks. Adapt or die.
[ 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 ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Fucking Die Already MAFIAA !!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Here's Hoping the Traitor Greedy MAFIAA Boot Lickers go down !
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
To All
This is only an assumtption, however, I am afriaid that I am correct; unlike most greedy self centered folk around today, I actually have these long forgotten set of "morals", "eithics" and"values", pretty sure a lot of you should look these words up, and actually understand what they mean, and if you're not too far lost into self-centricity you may actually understand WHY people who put their hard work and time into their JOBS only to be dicked (intentionally or as it seems to me, mostly unintentionally) out of their EARNED Income.
This is, after all, how Celebrities make a living. Yes, they may be Famous and Rich (although there will be some point where even THEY can not afford to live, because at some time, if this continues unabated, IMO anyway, essentially at they will ALL just become Volunteers!
I absolutely do agree with the fact that Copywite Laws as written, due soley to the advent of Technology, are Archaic and nearly impossible to uniformly apply; they were written more to prevent Plagirism rather than monetary THEFT; these Laws should NOT be changed, but, in fact added to, at the very least to end the confusion and to once again protect the rights of Artists, and I use this term Boldly; as a Software Developer is today just as much of an Artist as a Writer is/was when these Laws were written.
As stated in the article; it is almsot impossible to determine if you are violating Copywrite Law, even with reaearch, for the reasons stated quite well in the above Article.
Add to the confusion, the wordings of the current Laws and the fact the again, IMO, most of the Isers of these services are more than likekely, unaware infact; that while using a Torrent Client is not Illegal, the content available through said Client may infact be "Protected" by Law.
Torrents sites also have much to do with the confsusion; as the Author nicely explained, by "buying a premium subscription" it is almost, while not(YOU have to read all the words in the Agreement not just the ones you are looking for!)implying that by doing so, infact you are, as everyone keeps saying "protected", which I am sure most everyone assumes to mean: that by paying for the "Service", this translates into "giving the Artists their owed payment for their WORK"; but, like explained againg perfectly by the Author, are in reality, only funding the Torrent Client's functionabillity and lining some Web Debelopers Pockets.
I will however, add: the matter is further distored by the fact that at the bottom of some/most(if not all at this point; (has been awhile since I have checked, and will be never until I can verify), as I refuse to support these site even by providing them with AD Funding by creating a "hit" on said Websites, which in turn triggers a small payment to the Devloper of the Website for "Product Promotion Services"(if you are reading this for the correct reasons, keep that in mind as well)"Torrent Search Engines" actually show at the bottom of your Query(search results list) that "X ammount of content was removed due to MPAA
Violations (insert statute # here)", which only means that someone caught them distributing THEIR work.
Hence the removal. In fact that statement, if interpreted correctly, means in reality "hey we got caught illegally providing Media to you and had stop until we can figure out how to not get caught again". While the way it is worded and presented to users makes this an almost impossible interpretaion to reach without Legal Knowladge or Research, large ammounts it seems(which is how I found this Article).
Add to that: Laws are generally Vaguly written, intentionally(to allow JUDGES and JURRIES to independently and onjectively interpret the meaning of said law; therefore providing PROTECTION against Directed Legislation and in keeping with our Constitution (USA) The word of Law/Satutes as such is intended to be a form of a type of "Check/Balance" to prevent Laws from becoming one sided, biased or infact even "Illegal"(unconstitutional) in nature! NOT for the reason that I am assuming these "removals" are posted; false reassurenent ans feed, providing false "proof" that their service actually follows and endoforces CW Laws.
Why would they? They would lose "hits" and therefore Money...you get the picture thus far I am sure of this.
The fact that ISPs are giving their Users "Strikes", in reality shows that yes, CW laws are very hard to interpert, but, that they should be evaluated by the User="YOU"; again, proof of this is actually in the Documents everyone is pissed about!
Anyone every heard the old phrase "Three Strikes, Your Out"? It actually refers to the Law, not Baseball. As in, you are allowed to commit Two non-major, non-violent and in most cases this principal may be applied(ie: each diffrent TYPE of fellony you can commit twice, in most cases) and walk away with basically a slap on the wirst in comparision to the actual severity of the Crime.
This was done for Two reasons; First and foremost, as a chance for decent people who simply made a mistake, have a mental issue, or are willing to, to NOT do "it" again, the fact that you get TWO chances, at least, before they throw your ass in jail is honestly a gift; as one "Strike" should be enough to get the point across!
Fact of the matter is, you already get your "Three Stikes" from your ISPs, plus, they have gone ABOVE and BEYOND on the Fourth infration(aka Violation of The Law)by providing ACTUAL Education as to CW Laws and what exactly they are, mean, cover, were created for, and how to Violate and NOT Violate said laws, again remember this the Fourth time you have gotten caught breaking the law...ONLY because they and the judicial system undstand that, due to the fact that CW Laws ARE out of date AND confusing, even to Lawmakers at this point, I feel is the rationale behind their idea! Add to that the fact you get Two MORE chances after you have been correctly informed of the Law(s) and CONTINUE to break them, even then, they only allow themselves the OPTION of reporting you; not to the Authorities(depending on WTF you download anyway)but, rather than to the actual OWNERS of the products you have stollen, and even then, IT IS UP TO THE OWNERS of the work if you end up in court for Violations reported.
Peronally, I think if you are on this site reading this, unless you actually are moral and understand that there are REAL PEOPLE in this world besides yourself, or are just curious or unsure about the Laws, YOU ALREADY know what you are doing is wrong at the very least, and based on the amount of posts regarding how to "hide" using VPNs, so on so forth, coupled with the FACT that if you have already recieved a warning(mind you a warning is a warning), you not only already KNOW it's wrong, but you already KNOW IT'S ILLEGAL!!!!
Add on to the fact that not only are you KNOWINGLY(as evidenced by this thread itself) breaking the law you "don't understand", you are ACTUALLY trying to "get away with it" and in reality all you are doing is adding to the list of possible Civil Actions that could be taken against you, and NOW you are actually commiting "real" crimes, yeah, ones with out the confusion of CW Laws: Conspiricy to commit Larsony(Grand Larsony, depending on what/how much you are at this point KNOWINGLY stealing), electronic theft, ID theft(by using Onion or such, because you are in reality actually only being routed through OTHER's Servers, you are "stealing/paying some else to steal for you" the ID of the User of that server, Electronic Fraud(because you are trying to convince your ISP or whoever you think can't figure out who or where you really are(WRONG in your assumption again and a good thing for many reasons), Interfering with a Civil/Criminal investigation you got your warnings, right?), and even the possiblility of some off the wall, but yet enforcable charges, depending on what is on the server/terminal you are "hiding though" therfore claiming to own(content included) even though you have no way of knowing what is on said server(however, still your responsiblity because you, after being made aware of the fact the "they know" you STILL continue to use!!!! How about STOP and don't worry about it!!!! Seems like the right course of action to follow if you, like myself and many others have, once they finally figure out that it IS illegal; or/and in my case anyway, put youself in the Artists shoes.
For the record I am a Musician and would gladly and have GIVEN my work to people, because in my case, it's not a JOB!!!! For most Artists however, their WORK(s) are their income...ever wonder why so many Celebrities are having to file for Bankrupcy or having to downgrade their EARNED lifestyle?!
I was told by someone, who I refuse to name(due to the fact that they are someone who has been in the Production/Preformance of the Recodered Arts for over 20 years and I'm sure would not appriciate a bunch hate mail from those they have watched DESTROY the Music Industry) when trying to starting a Recording Studio, "Before you waste your time, just remember, now a days, this is an act of love, not a career or way to support your family."
-This is why i didn't: I don't need to eat out of a trash can, as well as my Artists after busting our asses to provide everyone with apparently Free HARD WORK and TIME and not to mention the money alone it takes to record, mix, produce, master. render. re-master, brand/promote and release an album, even for a well established Artist.
Just incase anyone is unaware; Musicians DO NOT make a living, or even close to, through Album sales and haven't since Napster, it is all done through touring, which takes even Harder work and even more Time and can/has ruin their Relationships with their Families and caused Artist Suicides!!!!
Good thing is, no one has been able to figure out how to en-mass STEAL concert tickets or Authorized Merch yet(ok yeah, everyone knows how to steal a T-Shirt, but, Psychologically speaking, the vast majority WILL NOT steal Merch while at an Event for that Aritist. Reason being; a little thing called GUILT(also, the reason this thread is up; people looking for a justification to ROB Artists of their hard EARNED wages.).
Since it seems like everyone has become so self-entitled and so closed minded I have to drive my point home on an actual One to One Level(meaning if it doesn't directly effect YOU, you/we don't care or try to)...here goes, best I can do based on my profiling of almost everyone's post(mind you I don't or most likely don't know you, if this is incorrect as applied to YOU(one, an individual, not the mass of posters; I am sorry if you are offended by my comments.) However if you are not offended my comments, you don't fall into that group, so please, don't try to convince yourself that you are offended if you really arn't...what you would be doing is, again Psychologically Speaking, called "Deflection" this happens alot when people know they are wrong and when confronted with the fact that they are, the response is always either (false)offense to statements, anger at person making them, extreme defensivness, denial, and assumpton that the person making the statement is wrong; how do you think your parents knew you were lying as a kid?
Best way to One to One this on the internent is, and this applies to ALL of us, myself included: Imagine one day, YOU come up with amazing idea for a product/idea and have no idea how to create/market it. So, you enlist the help of an "Invention Submission Company", without having your idea Copywritten as Intellectual Property first...Two, Three months go by and you hear nothing about your submission, assume it was not that good of an idea, brush it off and eventually stop thinking about it; jump ahead One Year; bored, broke and wondering how you are going to make it until whatever type of Check you are waiting for arrives, and you just happen to see YOUR INVENTION on TV for sale at $20 a unit, you absolutely are going to be pissed and immediatly try to figure out how to sue wherever your submitted your idea to...problem is, you can't or atleast not so and win, because in reality, YOU(because the idea was never Capywritten as your, you gave it to the Company, and most likely paid to do so, YOU, IN THIS CASE ANYWAY have no right to ANY compensation for your idea, beacuse, YOU GAVE IT TO THEM!!!!
Now, HERE IS THE IMPORTAINT PART: take same feelings you have about not getting paid for "YOUR" theoretical idea, which in reality stopped being yours once you sent it some where w/o it being copywritten, apply those feelings to Artists; who do, have and will continue to Copywite their work("ideas")to make sure this doesn't happen to them, hence the reason for their anger, you ARE robbing them!!!!
Just be thankful, most Artists are also the type of people who for the most part wouldn't even mind if you downloaded their Work, except for the fact that they put THEIR time, effort and money into creating that FOR YOU. I think it would be appropriate to Pay them for their Work just as you Pay the Chef at a nice place to eat, by simply paying the Bill your Server leaves you.
I am right along aside everyone in the fact that, no, I don't own a CD player, and yes, electronic storage or enjoyment of Music IS the new way of things, however this does NOT make it free or OK to steal it.
Personally, I hate iTunes and refuse to use that service to PAY for the music I listen to and enjoy on a daily basis, not because of the Price, but because of limited content. I chose to use Spotify Premium to PAY the Artists and Discover more to either PAY by listening to their Tracks(this is done automatically w/no extra charge) or to figure out I'm not so into(keep in mind, that Artist still was paid royalties for me listening to their track even though I didn't do anything other than listen) I can stream and sync music to mulitiple devices, I can, as long as I continue to pay the $10 a month for the Premium service, use the service Offline also!!!! If Sportify,
if not your taste,
pick one there are many other providers like them and all only cost around $10 a month for UNLIMITED service, assured quality, all while PAYING THE ARTISTS ROYALTIES THEY ARE OWED...how muc do those VPN and Hide me this and cover my ass Services cost a month? Most likely more than $10!
They even have the same Services for Movies, TV Shows, Games and anything elae you could, before now, justify to yourself to STEAL, it just takes more effort than clicking the "Steal", sorry "Magnet" link on a Torrent site, but, I'm pretty sure you all can handle it...remember everyone there was a point in time when Technology didn't exist and humans had to put forth thought and effort into problem sovling, I have faith we can ALL handle it again!
Remember: Creating any type of Art(music, images, movies. books, media of anytype infact; takes SKILL, which is why YOU are not an Artist, just a common criminal, depriving Hard working Artists of their livelyhood, that's all, no biggie...right? I'm sure you would be fine if you went to Work for Two Weeks and your Paycheck never came, wouldn't bother you, you would just let it go AND rightnback to work the next day, then knowing, you may never get paid for what you are doing, I know damn well I would NOT be OK with that, and if you think/claim you would, I won't call Bullshit, but, I will ask you to try this: take the next Check you get and BURN IT! Now, if you are OK with doing that, by all means Download away, as you are onveously a liar(but, yet still a theif.) If you are NOT OK with that concept, get away from your Computer, remove head from Ass,
and re-evaluate your way if thinking, because in that case you are not only a theif, but also, a hippocrate and a liar to boot!
****PS: If you still it's OK, legal or "cool", or worse yet; that you "arn't hurting anyone so even it's Illegal, I don't care"; just ponder this, the day Paul Walker passed away, his Studio Announced the release of a F+F6 Special Edition of which most, if not all of the proceeds(money people spent to BUY the Movie)would go to either Paul's Family or to his many Charities, right...yes! OK, here is the one thing, if any, from what I have said you taken in...just think about this for a Second then ask; how many people downloaded that "Special Edition"?
Yes, unfortunatly Paul Walker is gone, someone who I'm sure you claimed to like and were sooooo saddened by his passing. But, how many of you actually supported his family and charity work (by BUYING the Film)something he was more passionate about than Acting or even Cars(which is saying a lot, unless you knew the REAL Man he was)and how many of you just decided to Download the "Special",
and I only quote the word Special here because it was and is...For once a Production Studio has found it in their hearts to Donate their Time, Efforts and Money(porential imcome earned from LEGITIMATE sales), did you?
I admit, I had never seen the film and of course my buddy downloaded it right away, again blown away by Bro's (Paul's) preformance...but, only because I knew I was going to AND DID(most importaint part)go out the day the Film was officially released and bought Two copies on Blu-Ray, and one on DVD, however, I actually waited to watch it!
Just for the record; I HAD NO JOB AT THE TIME, and have yet to own and most likely will not ever own a Blu-Ray Player, and NO, I did NOT return them, infact I have never even opened them! (Obveously I opened the DVD, just can't see spending the $ on a Blu-Ray player when I'm half blind anyway). Anyone else consider doing that FOR PAUL, or to contiunue his Legacy of caring and generosity?
I would assume maybe One or Two of you, now out of those Two(me not included), who didn't Sell/Return(or attempt to)their Copies of the Film????
This statement has nothing to do with me thinking that I was/am better in anyway than anyone else for doing that, as we ARE ALL the same!
However, I really would beg of you to think about my words FIRST, before you hit the "Rob This Artist" button ever again.
Thank you for your valuable time,
-eK'14
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Expect to see...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Expect to see...
They're finally implementing one how many years after the DMCA became law?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Expect to see...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Expect to see...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Expect to see...
Good show!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Expect to see...
If anything, the ISPs should be grateful they weren't fined or penalized sooner.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Expect to see...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Expect to see...
I also know that you're delusionally grasping at straws.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Expect to see...
"There has never been a period where copyright infringement has been allowed to go completely unpunished."
and
"It's been the law for over a decade. Deal with it."
The we have ISP's all of a sudden putting together a process of punishment after having slept (or showed slackness) all this time by NOT doing something that in your opinion the law required them to do.
And, the ISP's have totally changed their contracts (unilaterally I might add) leaving the other party in a precarious (worse) position.
And laches don't come into it?
okaaaaaaaayyyyyyy then...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Expect to see...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
For a more neutral perspective though, this quote from Paul Tassi, a Forbes contributor, seems to sum up the situation well:
"Piracy is not raiding and plundering Best Buys and FYEs, smashing the windows and running out with the loot. It’s like being placed in a store full of every DVD in existence. There are no employees, no security guards, and when you take a copy of a movie, another one materializes in its place, so you’re not actually taking anything. If you were in such a store, you’d only have your base moral convictions to keep you from cloning every movie in sight. And anyone who knows how to get to this store isn’t going to let their conscience stop them, especially when there is no tangible “loss” to even feel bad about."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Expect to see...
That's rich coming from the moron who actually believes punishment will stop piracy. LOL!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Expect to see...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Expect to see...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Expect to see...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Expect to see...
People will just continue to ignore it and you will never stop it from happening.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Expect to see...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Expect to see...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Expect to see...
Actually that's not out on a limb at all...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Expect to see...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Expect to see...
http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/4596/135/
300 000 songs they were profiting off of. MASSIVE.
Do you know anyone or have you heard of anyone downloading 300 000 songs? And selling them?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Expect to see...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Expect to see...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Expect to see...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Expect to see...
Now, if I could only remember what it was...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Expect to see...
If you had bothered to read the iTunes terms of service (I know, I know, that's WORK, a concept with which you are clearly unfamiliar) you would know that any song that you buy is licensed to you in perpetuity, and that although the iTunes music store's terms of service can change, any song which you buy from them under one set of terms is always considered to be licensed under exactly those terms, unless the newer terms are more permissive.
So, for example, if iTunes changed from allowing you to have your songs on three devices to allowing you to have your songs on five devices, then your entire back library is changed to those newer, more permissive terms. But if they were to change the other way, then according to their own terms of service they would be required to implement a solution whereby the music purchased before the terms changed would sync to five devices, and that purchased after would sync to only three.
I was worried about the same thing you are worried about. That's why I read the ToS and informed myself. And that's what makes me an informed user, and you a git.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Expect to see...
You can read the full details here: http://www.zeropaid.com/news/92034/canadian-record-labels-pay-45-million-to-settle-piracy-claims/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Expect to see...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Expect to see...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Expect to see...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Expect to see...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Expect to see...
And the results are likely to be exactly the same as well.
You want to pretend that infringement isn't happening on a mass scale? And that the vast majority of those cited will indeed have been infringing?
Good luck with that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Expect to see...
This on-the-spot fine also needs to be able to be disputed using all due process (the reasons why you have traffic courts, etc in the USA) and procedural rules.
This process on the other hand is even worse than tribunals where hearsay is allowed since the accused is unable to appeal has the full onus on them to prove that the hearsay (and that is EXACTLY what it is) is correct under any bar of reasoning or proof and that if they arbitrarily have to be punished (emotionally, financially and otherwise) before the fact that anything has been even slightly allowed to go up against an authoritative unbiased party that has a checks and balance procedure in place.
You are basically letting a thrid part civil entity make another third party civil entity police a civil action with no ability for the respondent to equitably confront their accusers.
The rest of the world refers to these things as "star chambers", and the ways of a despot/authoritarian nation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Expect to see...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Expect to see...
None of the court cases anywhere in the world have ever been allowed to get to the stage where the so called 'evidence' could be challenged, or if it has gotten to the stage where the plaintiff know it is about to be called on it in discovery they have instead immediately dismissed the case. Copyright holder do NOT in any way want this procedure to be analysed forensically since it would show their methods to be unauthenticated unreliable fallacious opinionated crud. ie: hearsay (and third party hearsay at times too).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Expect to see...
When it comes to their service, they can do whatever they want to. They can cut you off for whatever reason they feel like and there truthfully isn't anything you can do about it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Expect to see...
However, there are concerns here that are valid and do have legal merit.
One is collusion, which essentially constitutes a conspiracy against the public and attempts to create a punitive legal process that is independent of, and intentionally circumvents, the established civil and criminal legal systems in the US. This is generally not permitted. Antitrust law may come into play here.
Legal rights of customers include protection from defamation. if AT&T hands over the personal details of their customers to a third party absent a court order and without the consent of the customer, along with the assertion that that customer has engaged in unlawful activity, then that could constitute libel. This is especially so in the absence of any evidence specifically linking the individual name associated with the account and any alleged illegal activity.
So while they can cut you off, they are not able to simply do whatever they want, nor does language in their terms of service necessarily indemnify them from wrongdoing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Expect to see...
The law requires them to implement a repeat infringer policy if they want to maintain safe harbor. They're not colluding, they're trying to not get sued or put out of business.
As for the libel aspect, I'd once again refer you to TOS that you agree to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Expect to see...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Expect to see...
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120907/15424120313/barnes-nobles-web-terms-service-not-enfor ceable-without-evidence-that-they-were-seen.shtml
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Expect to see...
No such scenario occurs with ISP TOS; you either click (or sign your name), or you don't get internet service.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Expect to see...
Not the last time I moved and changed packages. @9 months ago.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Expect to see...
Packages?
You wouldn't see a new TOS when you change service plans.
If you got a new ISP you would. And then you either signed or clicked 'agree' when you did.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Expect to see...
My packages are different. Different data caps. Different charge for going over said cap. Requires a new contract as the terms have changed. It is not the same as what I had previously agreed to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Expect to see...
You wouldn't see a new TOS when you change service plans. If you got a new ISP you would.
And if you got a new ISP, that new TOS would still say you could be permanently axed from said ISP for infringement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Expect to see...
Don't believe me? Too fucking bad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Expect to see...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Expect to see...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Expect to see...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Expect to see...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Expect to see...
With the emphasis being on a SIGNED contract, that has not been unilaterally changed, is not unconscionable and is not unlawful.
These "fines" are NOT lawful - there is no statute or civil law that allows these fines. They are not only pecuniary either but have other psychological, social, and emotional penalties attached to them.
Oh and as for your private college contract, don't believe everything that is written in a contract is correct. A prime example would be the underage drinking. That's a criminal matter and for the college to fine and NOT call the police is basically a form of misprison and therefore absolutely voidable on its face. For the college to call the police but also to fine with or without conviction is a form of double jeopardy and again a voidable term on its face.
And illegal parking comes under trespass rules and to call it illegal again means that police needs to be involved. Though you might find that the college has a contract with the local government (council or similar) where they can fine cars under the auspices of the local government.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Expect to see...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Expect to see...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Expect to see...
Not only that but liability is a matter of who has the better lawyer, and in some rare cases whoever has the law on their side. It's also entirely arbitrary, based on whoever happens to be on a powertrip that day.
"OMG you stole a blue-ray i would normally sell for $40! I'm going to sue you for $150 000"
Sounds completely ridiculous, and yet because they pay enough lawyers... they get away with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Expect to see...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Expect to see...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Expect to see...
Er, what? No, that's complete crap. As anyone with any knowledge of law should know, double jeopardy only applies to the government doing things. If you, my neighbor, broke my garden gnome in a drunken rampage, and were arrested for trespassing and malicious mischief, that would not stop me from suing you to recover the cost of the gnome. Nor would it stop your landlord from evicting you for being a dick.
It boggles my mind that you are willing to speak with such authority on a matter which you clearly know nothing whatever about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Expect to see...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Expect to see...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Expect to see...
Who's pretending? It's quite well known. Can you think of any other laws being broken on such a scale? Have you wondered why only copyright is abused on such a scale? Are you intellectually honest enough with yourself to consider maybe it's a problem with the laws? There's a long history of laws that are not followed by the public because of a widespread lack of respect for them. Laws that are not respected are practically unenforceable, and need a serious rethink.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Expect to see...
Yes, speed limits.
"Have you wondered why only copyright is abused on such a scale?"
Because people believe they can get away it.
Just like when people speed.
Studies show that when laws like this are strictly enforced- like speed traps for instance, people follow the law and obey the speed limit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Expect to see...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Expect to see...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Expect to see...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Expect to see...
Might have to consult Darwin on that one, though...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Expect to see...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Expect to see...
It's good example because speeding is another case where there is serious public doubt that that stated aim (increasing safety) is actually as important to officialdom as the considerable side-benfit (huge revenues).
But it's a bad example because most "speeders" are only exceeding the speed limit by a nominal amount because they understand the risks of grossly excessive speed, whereas copyright laws are simply ignored by many, many people. It's not a stretch to say that speed limits have considerably more respect that copyright laws.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Expect to see...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Expect to see...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Expect to see...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Expect to see...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Expect to see...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Expect to see...
Where is the mandate that there's actually a check made that it isn't automagically infringing? There is no 100% foolproof way for even the MAFIAA to guarantee that.
Moreover,t he "six strikes" was not implemented in the DMCA, nor was it actually written in to the law, unless you can give a cite that says otherwise.
Moreover, why should the ISPs be forced to make expenditures on what is a civil matter in, like, 99% of all infringement cases? That cost should be borne by those making the assertions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Expect to see...
It was a simple statement: The DMCA- as in, the law, requires ISPs to implement a repeat infringer policy. Go read Title 17, Section 512. It's there. The ISPs decided to make their policy a 6 strikes plan.
End of story.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Expect to see...
they don't have to, 99.9% of everything copyright mongers say are lies. what isn't lies is when they say things like "i'm not that witty" (or whatever OOTB said that one time)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Expect to see...
"The limitations on liability established by this section shall apply to a service provider only if the service provider—
(A) has adopted and reasonably implemented, and informs subscribers and account holders of the service provider’s system or network of, a policy that provides for the termination in appropriate circumstances of subscribers and account holders of the service provider’s system or network who are repeat infringers;"
Well, first off, they aren't actually required to do any of this, (it's civil law, not criminal, and they aren't automatically liable if they ignore it,) but they will, because they want the safe harbor.
I do think the main problem is declaring someone to be a repeat infringer without anything being proven. The way I understand things, someone merely accuses you multiple times of copyright infringement, (and not even in court - just in a note to your ISP) and you can either put up your own money to appeal to a private arbitration company of your ISP's choice, or get your connection throttled. Shouldn't the burden be on the other side to prove the infringement FIRST?
I just had another random thought. If infringing content is being passed from one large network to another, are those large networks going to be forced to disconnect from each other? "Someone on the AT&T network infringed 6 times! We have to disconnect AT&T or lose our safe harbor!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Expect to see...
And they have to have safe harbor- otherwise, considering the amount of infringement taking place over their pipes every hour, they'd be shut down overnight by a court for copyright infringement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Expect to see...
Maybe you can tell us what data is being sent over the internet that isn't copyrighted? Also, how much infringement is taking place over their pipes every hour?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Expect to see...
Because ISPs have repeatedly been found liable for copyright infringement of their users in US courts...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Expect to see...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Expect to see...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Expect to see...
Therefore after mutliple civil infringements having been proven the ISP has an obligation to enact something. It doesn't say what that it.
However under contract law a contract cannot be changed unilaterally without the consent of both parties.
Even more so since the ISP's will claim, "oh the DMCA says we have to" (erroneously - see my point above) the DMCA has been in effect for years and they haven't enacted it previously so the doctrine of laches will come into effect too.
The ISP's are basically screwed.
This is another reason why ISP's in places like Australia are refusing these egregious and unlawful practices of "strikes" which are basically when boiled down a form of "fine" and ONLY a government's can fine after full and proper due process and procedural fairness.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Expect to see...
Ah yes, as I've pointed out so many, many, many times in the past: you people made a horrible misjudgment when you assumed lack of enforcement meant the pirates had won the war.
You were wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Expect to see...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Expect to see...
I've never heard anyone claim that once, let alone "many, many, many times". When have you claimed this? When has anyone else assumed this? Why do you make this shit up?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Expect to see...
This very long thread has nothing to do with "piracy."
Anti-piracy laws are enforced all the time, were enforced before the Internet, and will be enforced in the future.
Six strikes is not enforcement. It's an attempt to modify the behavior of people who HAVEN'T been found to be lawbreakers and didn't intend to break any reasonable law. It is not directed by its implementers at "pirates."
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/11/how-isps-will-do-six-strikes-throttled-spee ds-blocked-sites/
"CCI head Jill Lesser responded that the goal isn't to stop "serial pirates" trying to avoid IP laws. Rather, it's to educate "the vast majority of the people for whom trading in copyrighted material has become a social norm, over many years."
Both the content company participants and the ISPs emphasized that "education" is the goal, rather than lawsuits. "This is not about suing users at all," said Ron Wheeler, a senior VP at Fox Broadcasting who was on the panel. "This system is not designed to produce lawsuits—it's designed to produce education.""
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Expect to see...
We certainly made a horrible misjudgment when we assumed lack of an enforceable law meant that rightsholders would abide by that lack of law.
You make several horrible misjudgments when you assume that we care about "pirates" trying to "win a war."
Never has a troll or shill looked more out of place than they do in a six strikes discussion. All the old baits and buzzwords look retarded, like you posted on the wrong thread.
"Pirates" are no longer the issue - "six strikes" does not address legally defined piracy in any of its steps. The word "distribution" does not appear once.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Expect to see...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Expect to see...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Expect to see...
See this is corporate law, not actual law. While they quote the DMCA they have managed to avoid those pesky parts that might require proof and actual law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Expect to see...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Expect to see...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Expect to see...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Expect to see...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Expect to see...
A bunch of class action lawsuits against the ISPs over this. When you pay for a service (especially under contract) and the company fails to provide that service they breach the contract.
They will make sure this stuff is in the contract. They may not be good at internet service, but I think they're pretty good at contract law. After all, that's a more important part of their business as long as they don't have competition.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Expect to see...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Expect to see...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This will either go the way of HADOPI and take three years to sue the wrong person, or create a new legion of Tanya Andersens.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And what is a drug selling neighborhood exactly? Many places drugs may be sold also have homes and businesses that are doing nothing illegal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: MrWilson on Jan 11th, 2013 @ 7:12pm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Good luck with that debate approach.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
He's also a cunning linguist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
For example, if the government decided to outlaw wearing denim tomorrow, it would be petty much impossible to enforce... We're not just talking about the denim revolutionaries either, we're talking about millions of people who wouldn't even realise there's a new law in force!
So very bad laws get ignored, because its just not possible to enforce laws against things people take for granted. Therefore, in order to ensure people respect the whole of the law, its important to make sure that cancerous laws don't spread and cause people to question obeying any law at all.
But that was probably not the point you intended to make.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
it didn't work back in medieval france where their method of enforcement was death
what makes you think it will work now?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
This is all a system based on ACCUSATIONS. Nowhere in the Six Strikes is there talk of taking actions based upon convictions. All anyone has to do is accuse their next door neighbour five or six times and boom...punishment imposed.
It doesn't matter that this has to do with the internet. It is a horrible thing for corporations to unilaterally roll out a policy of punishing their customers with accusations alone, forget any talk of evidence. What if cell phone companies suddenly have Six Strikes, and all anyone has to do is accuse you of making harassing calls to them six times, with no need for evidence or a conviction for the cell phone company to limit or block your service?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You sound like a total asshole when you talk like that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hmm.. Not really.
I don't like 6 strikes more than anyone else. But this is not a valid excuse for complaining about 6 strikes. Companies seem to think they have a right to use residential connections for business purposes. They will have to suffer the consequences.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hmm.. Not really.
Especially troubling is that, as TorrentFreak reveals in the latest post on this, at least Verizon's responses will apply to businesses as well.
And from the TorrentFreak article itself:
Finally, TorrentFreak also confirmed that the alerts outlined above will also apply to business customers.
In other words, for Verizon customers, it won't matter if you have a residential or business account. 4-5 ACCUSATIONS (whether true or false) and poof - no more viable Internet connection.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hmm.. Not really.
And before anyone says anything of the sort, do you honestly believe that in a building full of thousands of people that 5 people downloading 5 songs will never and can never possibly happen? It's almost a guarantee.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Hmm.. Not really.
Regardless of whether it was the act of an individual or a group, and regardless of their affliation or status within said organisation, it's only fair that for each work they get a strike.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Hmm.. Not really.
Otherwise the whole agreement would fall apart in a few days when every other company in the US turns on the **AAs and the ISPs for screwing up their internet commerce and communications practices.
No, only the 99% will feel the brunt of this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Hmm.. Not really.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hmm.. Not really.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Hmm.. Not really.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Hmm.. Not really.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hmm.. Not really.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hmm.. Not really.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Thanks for the laugh. So how many days have you lived in America now? 2? 3?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hmm.. Not really.
To be fair, he didn't say that we actually have justice in the US.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Hmm.. Not really.
Any business? 1 employee? 500+ employees?
Anyone can register a business and have an internet connection for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Hmm.. Not really.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hmm.. Not really.
Unless the business is paying 10 times what the individual is, the telecoms don't know where their money is coming from.
I can't see all small business paying between $6-700/mo for a connection.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Hmm.. Not really.
So in other words TF talked to somebody while you've talked to Jack Squat.
They have sources, you have "little doubt."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Hmm.. Not really.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hmm.. Not really.
Sure Bob will be fired, but if the business it internet based, they'll be screwed for 2-3 days.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Hmm.. Not really.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hmm.. Not really.
That a US company has the audacity to place an unenforceable term like that in a contract, or That US customers are gullible enough to believe they can.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hmm.. Not really.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Hmm.. Not really.
*shakes head in wonder*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Hmm.. Not really.
You just showed your true colors, snake. The providers can consider it whatever they like ... the courts and the law do not consider it in any way to be stealing.
If they did we wouldn't need six strikes, dumbass. You don't get to shoplift six times.
In fact, the obtaining of anything is irrelevant to this discussion. Bittorrent can be targeted because it involves distribution.
You are only here to lie and to bully people. Fuck off.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hmm.. Not really.
on a side note, types of low cost dispute resolution sevices have been implimented in the democracies around the world but only in the US has the system been made so slanted in favour of big rich companies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You must be kidding
They have the other end of the connection. They can turn it off whenever they want. At that point, you have two options: go find another provider, or sue them.
Oops, no, wait. You can't sue them. There is a binding arbitration clause in their end user agreement. So you have two options: go find another provider, or send some money to a company whose business model is taking money from users, taking more money from the telco in question, and then ruling for the telco in all cases, often with less than an hour of 'consideration'.
Mandatory binding arbitration is legal in all 50 states. The only way around it is to not agree to it, and since it is a prerequisite for service with these companies, that is not an option either.
In short, the enforcement is built in, and there is no recourse whatever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hmm.. Not really.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hmm.. Not really.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hmm.. Not really.
Make sure you read the ToS, AUP, Network Management Policy, etc. Most ISPs have multiple.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Hmm.. Not really.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Hmm.. Not really.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hmm.. Not really.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hmm.. Not really.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Hmm.. Not really.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hmm.. Not really.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hmm.. Not really.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hmm.. Not really.
lol
Uh, no. Not even remotely close.
You really need to get outside more.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hmm.. Not really.
In the case of free WiFi - why should the provider have the right to say that I can't have open wifi in my home? That I acknowledge that other people will use it, and I'm okay with that?
So then the argument is that I'm liable for the illegal things that they do. That doesn't seem quite right though - if a drug deal happens in a grocery store parking lot, I don't think that the store (or otherwise owner of the lot) is liable. Liability tends to focus on things like injury/negligence - someone got injured because the property was unsafe. The analogy there would be that you offered a free connection but then recorded their requests to grab their access tokens.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hmm.. Not really.
I'm with you on companies trying to use cheap residential accounts for their free wifi. I don't like that, BUT the article states business accounts are affected too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hmm.. Not really.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hmm.. Not really.
If you bought a house and the agent (not even the builder, the agent) tried to tell you that you couldn't sublet a room in it, would you accept that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hmm.. Not really.
How would we tell them they're not allowed to use it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hmm.. Not really.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hmm.. Not really.
Basically, broadband is so ubiquitous, it is not reasonably possible to corral it from any use that the ISP doesn't like, but is not under the subscribers control.
Die, Dinosaurs, die.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hmm.. Not really.
"Especially troubling is that, as TorrentFreak reveals in the latest post on this, at least Verizon's responses will apply to businesses as well. So that cafe down the street that has free WiFi... may quickly be throttled down to 256kbps. That will likely mean a lot less free WiFi out there, which is a significant and worrisome consequence of this program."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This should be interesting
All the same, it'll be interesting to see if this plan is implemented on time, or delayed again.
As the Zen Master says, "We'll see."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This should be interesting
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This should be interesting
And for you to state unilaterally there will be no lawsuits is silly since there have been major rumblings from a lot of legal sources over last few months (years) that that is exactly what will be happening as soon as these draconian policies of 'civil policing via third parties' are enacted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: This should be interesting
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This should be interesting
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This should be interesting
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This should be interesting
What bugs me even more is that the rules of evidence in an arbitration court are much more relaxed than in a normal court. Which means that in a worst-case scenario, it can come down to what the copyright holder says versus what the accused says. I'm not exactly a fan of that concept.
The bigger question is this: When is the plan being rolled out? I've seen "late January" on multiple sites, but no actual launch date.
As the Zen Master says, "We'll see."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This should be interesting
The accused might not be named publicly, by the way, but they can be identified to the copyright holder by the ISP if said ISP is ordered by a court, and we don't know what conditions might provide for that order.
As for the inconveniences, it may be so that the user ticked a box somewhere agreeing to voluminous terms dictated by the provider; however the user has paid cash money for the service and I find it legally flimsy that the ISP's could ever impinge upon the customer's purchase without offering a refund or partial refund. ISP isn't government at this point; it is a company selling a product to a customer and once paid for, no matter what the agreement was, that service should either be provided or payment refunded.
I don't think there is a flaw in my logic re: refund. This idea should have been, and should be always, looming over the heads of ISP execs everywhere and if that happens I do believe they will realign themselves a bit more with their customer base.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This should be interesting
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sadly, like webhosting companies, finding a good source of information on the internet is about as effective as a Google search when looking for generic terms that always seem to point users to stores.
*sigh*
I suppose this will be a trying year.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
https://torrentfreak.com/which-vpn-providers-really-take-anonymity-seriously-111007/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fucking love added value.
BRB.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fucking love added value.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Fucking love added value.
*calling the ASPCA - hoping for reward.. or PETA.. bwahahahahaha*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Fucking love added value.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Fucking love added value.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fucking love added value.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Internet-Playground-Irreverent-Correspondences/dp/1585428817/ ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1357981996&sr=8-1&keywords=internet+is+a+playground
or
http://t inyurl.com/bpajwqo
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Fucking love added value.
And the irony that he could have paid off his debt at the bank by charging whatever price he wanted for his image... since copyright allowed him to do that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fucking love added value.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fucking love added value.
I see plenty of problems with the six stile plan, but there's even more problems doing nothing. Unless you're a lowlife thief, of course, stealing music, books, artwork, programs, and movies. Then the status quo is just fine.
After all, why pay someone for something they've worked their butt off to create?
That's just silly, isn't it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Fucking love added value.
Well I and many others disagree with that, but then I haven't seen anybody suggesting the do nothing plan.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Actually, I'm grateful and lucky to live somewhere with three options for high speed internet, and soon a fourth - two of whom will not be participating in this pointless garbage.
But as for most of the country... we need competition and we need it bad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No problem. Just word the termination policy so the alleged infringer has to repeat the infringement over a period of life plus 70 years before termination kicks in. It's still technically a "limited time", right?
But this part is bizarre.
"After the fifth alert, the content owner may pursue legal action against the customer,"
Oh man, they are going to get in SO much legal trouble over this. They're basically implying that the content owner can't go after them before the fifth alert. I can see it now: A customer relies on this, gets sued without getting a fifth alert, and then goes after AT&T for misleading them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The Luls will be huge
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Anonymous Coward on Jan 11th, 2013 @ 9:43pm
http://m.theaustralian.com.au/australian-it/iinet-wins-landmark-copyright-case/story-e6f rgakx-1226334090530
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hmmm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hmmm
Once again this is one of those things that will only be used against "Bad People (tm)". Its a system that detects bad people, and only punishes bad people. Just like the TSA only nude scans pretty women, and feels up kids.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Simple solution
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The accusations made have no tested legal basis.
Terms of Service and Acceptable Use Polices are being used to bind consumers to terms with no benefit for them, making them liable to protect a 3rd party they have no duty to.
I am entertained to see the RIAA/MPAA, which are giant parasites actively harming the industry they claim to represent for their own benefit, are being fed on by another parasite. No one has done much indepth looking at the history of Dtecnet, Markmonitor and now Reuters Thompson. They are collecting money claiming their magic system will end piracy forever, at every step along the way people with ties to the RIAA/MPAA have been lining their pockets with cash, using the mantle of piracy to get rich.
Google puts links to Google products on search results and get investigations... The copyright cartels make secret deals about using a secret system to benefit themselves in some way at the expense of consumers, and not a blip.
Dtecnet uploaded copyrighted work to the internet to collect IP addresses, to prove how bad piracy is. This is in the court records in Oz - AFACT vs iiNET.
If a drug enforcement agency put more drugs on the streets to prove how bad drugs were we'd arrest them for dealing drugs.
For much less than this secret plan is going to cost, they could have created a system that actually met consumer demand and stopped piracy by giving up on the mantra of but this is what we always make.
I look forward to the lawsuits, sadly they will be driven by customers. The AG's seem to be to busy trying to sue Craigslist rather than be curious how monopoly players are abusing consumers for profit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Every computer I have purchased since 2005 has had no ports to connect an external modem, and no PCI slot for an internal modem. So, for me, it is broadband or nothing, since none of my computers can use dial up
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes, I understand this is morbid.
Seriously we all have wifi connecting cellphones. Throttle one of those when someone is dialing 911 over wifi and dying and what is your defense? Murder by Disney.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Yes, I understand this is morbid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes, I understand this is morbid.
Seriously we all have wifi connecting cellphones. Throttle one of those when someone is dialing 911 over wifi and dying and what is your defense? Murder by Disney.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
aejkld9j3mxjdkx95k890543kkdajxcnmvjfyqyuir869cxz6fdsj283nhjx78 la dee da la dee dee!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They promised an independent review of Stroz's methodology in October, one would think it should be done by now.
Well unless of course someone refused to allow it to be released.
I wonder if 256k is fast enough to support Voip.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
They tried sneaking Stroz past because no one was paying attention... they thought. And I think the RIAA blindsided everyone with that one.
I want to see them scramble to do what they promised, or add another tick mark to the column proving its still a secret system mean to be corporate law forced on consumers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I imagine it's plenty fast as long as the latency is low. Phone lines are only capable of 56K after all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Won't kick people off.
ISP's won't kick people off. They don't make money doing that. They will continue to charge them top dollar and give them poor service. You know, the same as they do with people who have not been accused of infringement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Won't kick people off.
The problem is the government on every level has handed these ISPs monopolies. The government is supporting this private corporate law making, where they should be raising red flags and standing up for the public.
Given the massive failures in the RIAA sue everyone plan, and the recent revelations in the porn copyright trolling operations, one can only hope this secret magical system will be viewed more skeptically.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Won't kick people off.
Now that's funny! (not that I disagree, just the idea of the government standing up for the public against corporations sounds laughable these days)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
1) As proxy servers, until it gets throttled.
2) Scare ware, pay us or we will trip the six strikes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DNS?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: DNS?
I have no idea what they're planning, but I would think they could easily redirect at the IP address level, rendering any DNS workaround moot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Break them up!
The cable providers? They are utilities and should be treated as such. Cable lines were run on public land with public subsides but the profits are kept by insiders. All natural monopolies should be co-ops.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This law will have the reverse effect.
I'm not just saying this for no reason. This idea has been implemented before. Have you ever set foot on one of those draconian college campuses that cuts students off from pirate websites? Their torrents stopped working. That didn't stop them. They brought piracy inside their networks and created massive, well documented libraries of pretty much everything you could ever want.
That is the way it should be. No censorship, period! If that interferes with established business models, then change those!
The game changed. The only thing stopping piracy from exploding are these weak chains that the masses don't realize they can break. Tighten them up, piss off the elephant, then get trampled by the irony of trying to stop something that could and should be helping your businesses.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This law will have the reverse effect.
This agreement is NOT law. It is a private agreement between corporations forcing a private monitoring and punishment system onto consumers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This law will have the reverse effect.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: This law will have the reverse effect.
They talk about the DMCA, copyright law, etc. but its anything but
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hmm.. Not really.
There is quite literally NOT ONE SINGLE customer of any ISP in this country that WANTS this six strikes bullshit!!!
NOTE TO ISP's that actually compete in some areas of the country:
IF YOU OFFER SERVICE THAT PROMISES TO _NOT_ FOLLOW THE SIX STRIKES RULE YOU WILL END UP ONWING THE MARKET YOUR ARE COMPETING IN!!!
This is akin to what would happen if a brick and mortar store strip searched all the customers leaving their store. All that a competitor would have to do to take away every customer would be to promise not to strip search you as you left the store.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Hmm.. Not really.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Hmm.. Not really.
There are no legal or otherwise reasons (and for those trolls the DMCA does NOT require this and it's not a legal notice anyway) for ISP's to implement these measures other than to kowtow to the huge hammer of "we have enough money to sink you into bankruptcy using the US court system". Most countries and criminal investigative organisations call this extortion and/or duress.
In fact if they tried to do this the Content holders are liable to have a counter suit for Tortuous Interference placed upon them by not just the ISP's but also the customers of said ISP's. In fact this might already be in the works as a class action against the actual ISP's who ARE implementing this.
There are major problems when you either mess unilaterally, or try to, with enough contracts and people en mass get the shits especially when they have no other recourse visa vis a competitor. Anti-trust problems too. but I digress
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hmm.. Not really.
That's not true. It's in section 512 of the DMCA. The relevant section is quoted somewhere in the comments above.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hmm.. Not really.
That's not true. It's in section 512 of the DMCA. The relevant section is quoted somewhere in the comments above.
You keep saying this like it is the Gospel truth, when it's not quite that clear.
If I was a lawyer arguing for someone who's account has been affected by this I would challenge that DMCA notifications alone would be enough to pass the bar of "actual knowledge".
DMCA notifications are not a ruling of copyright infringement by a court of law nor are they any sort of confession of guilt by the accused. Until one those happens, they remain accusations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hmm.. Not really.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hmm.. Not really.
DMCA requires that a service provider have a policy to deal with repeat offenders that the service provider has "actual knowledge" of.
I'm saying I would argue a DMCA notification (or even many DMCA notifications) wouldn't be enough to qualify as "actual knowledge". DMCA notifications are only accusations and would not meet the legal definition of "actual knowledge". Only a conviction or admission of guilt would do that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hmm.. Not really.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hmm.. Not really.
I can get people disconnected by convincing them to torrent my pictures I put up in a torrent.
Screenshots and pictures of IP address' should suffice as evidence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hmm.. Not really.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hmm.. Not really.
The labels windowing/regional system says otherwise, for one.
There is no telling how much income I am being deprived of over the next 500 years.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hmm.. Not really.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hmm.. Not really.
It is called extortion, but I will be doing it legally.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hmm.. Not really.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hmm.. Not really.
I'm going to carrion and steele.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hmm.. Not really.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hmm.. Not really.
It sure as hell isn't a shitty piece of paper that says, "I am the owner of this content, and I can confirm 100% that that is an infringing copy because of XYZ hidden watermarks in the digital imprint." That would state a reason for their notice. There is no such claim made tot he ISP account holder.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hmm.. Not really.
It's pretty simple.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hmm.. Not really.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hmm.. Not really.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hmm.. Not really.
Well, I'm not so sure how binding a unsigned TOS really is.
I was responding to how valid the statement "that ISP's have to implement repeat infringer policies" is.
I should have said I would argue the above if I was counsel for the ISP, not the accused infringer.
Although, if we are talking about a case where someone is suing the ISP for "wrongful disconnection" or something like that, it might be a valid retort to the ISP claiming they have to per law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hmm.. Not really.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hmm.. Not really.
* exclusion rules (law students love these questions about tickets in reference to Parker.. HA),
* prior negotiation (or lack thereof)
* reasonable notice of onerous terms
* Terms to be in plain language
* Undue Influence (quite a big problem here)
* Non est factum - ie: mistake (don't you love latin terms)
* Electronic signature (is it actually the party to the contract who physically clicked on it or someone else without capacity)
You then have the major problem of any browsewrap agreement (what this is) in that you have no constructive (or actual) notice of contractual terms prior to acceptance.
Though the big one (in this example you have given) is that the TOS states supposedly that if you "infringe" (which means you in actuality have to be found to of infringed.. not by allegation) they can REMOVE THE SERVICE!
It does not state on the product you originally signed up for anything else. Therefore terms have been changed without consent, and silence does not consent give in contracts other than in very specific circumstances- and these are not it
So No it isn't 'pretty simple' in fact its a veritable nightmare of legalities under multiple areas of tort law for the ISP's and the third parties (content holders).
Luckily I live in a country where consumer law is paramount, procedural fairness is bound in law, ISP's don't kowtow to egotistic corporations and where we can look on in wonder at the "Land of the Free" destroying itself more so than it tried to do in the 1920's.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hmm.. Not really.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hmm.. Not really.
When it comes down to it a contract is a promise to do something for something else, It isn't a "you do this and we will do this because you have no choice nor say in the matter" That's called extortion
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hmm.. Not really.
No, not that simple.
"Clickwraps" and "brwosewraps" are really not good enough to create legally binding contracts. Courts have more or less decided that clickwraps come much closer though. Even if a court finds these to constitute a valid contract, it still does not mean every individual term within it will be found legally enforceable.
https://www.eff.org/wp/clicks-bind-ways-users-agree-online-terms-service
Also, most courts have rejected the idea that the act of violating terms of service in of itself constitutes any sort of criminal activity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hmm.. Not really.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hmm.. Not really.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hmm.. Not really.
Kind of gives lie to their claim their business is being destroyed by piracy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In a similar vein, it has also been established as precedent by US law that an IP address is not a person, and that the association of an IP address with an unauthorized torrent is not sufficient grounds to disclose information about the account holder associated with that IP address.
This six-strikes plan represents, in essence, a conspiracy against the public in order to circumvent established legal decisions. Furthermore, it is a possible violation of anti-trust laws, since all of these ISPs have colluded together, at the strong urging of content providers...and that this collusion's effective result is detrimental to the consumer and the public at large.
There will be lawsuits. And I think the reason for the delay of this program is that they KNOW there will be lawsuits.
Especially since any attempt to force this would have to unilaterally force the consumer to either wave their established right to sue in favor of arbitration that is not answerable to legal precedent, nor the typical appeals and judicial review measures present within the constitutionally-established criminal justice system.
This makes ATT's assertion that an account holder is responsible for all activity on their internet connection dishonest. They have no legal authority to overturn established legal precedent by writing it away in their own terms of service. Readily giving the personal details of their customers to those who stand to gain financially from these customers through abuse of the legal system, without a subpoena, court order or search warrant, constitutes a violation of that consumer's civil rights and their right to due process, and may be actionable in civil court under anti-defamation laws.
Legal arguments aside, the ISPs have a fiduciary duty to only two groups of people: their shareholders and their customers, not the MPAA and RIAA. They should not, and by some accounts may not, do the dirty work of the supply-side of that industry, to the detriment of your own. Such actions are contrary to this trust.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Once you click 'agree', it means, well, it means you're agreeing to it.
There won't be any successful lawsuits against the ISPs over this plan, if any at all are indeed filed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Not true, especially if the terms break existing law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I am agreeing to any term in it and any term you add or change at any future time?
That sounds like a standard contract.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You should now change your ISP's contract to state that for every 1Gb you transmit/receive that they will send you one [insert whatever legal substance/product you require].
Under all these legal assertions by the AC's who are absolutely major legal scholars /sarc in all things contractual on here the ISP would be at fault if they didn't.
My product of choice this month shall be beer!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Been thinking about alerting Comcast that I will now be invoicing them for every time they do something that makes me yell: This is why people pirate!
They might owe ME money by now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
They've now decided to use a 6 strikes plan. That's it. Nothing illegal or litigatble here, sorry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Please desist from ever talking about contract law again since you are doing a disservice to yourself and making everyone else's IQ's slowly deteriorate due to your ignorance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"AT&T may immediately terminate or suspend your Member Account and Sub Accounts, and all or a portion of your Service without notice if: (a) your payment is more than 30 days overdue; (b) you provide false or inaccurate information to AT&T; (c) you (or a Sub Account associated with your Member ID) violate this Agreement or the AT&T Acceptable Use Policy; (d) you (or a Sub Account associated with your Member ID) engage in conduct that is a violation of any law, regulation or tariff (including, without limitation, copyright and intellectual property laws)
So, please desist from ever talking about contract law again since you are doing a disservice to yourself and making everyone else's IQ's slowly deteriorate due to your ignorance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
As well the new & changed conditions with their corresponding punitive actions (up to and including the pecuniary 'fine' of $35 that places onus on accused) are not part of any statute law, governmental regulation, nor tariff - and if they were we wouldn't be having this conversation in this vein.
Also looking at those AT&T terms the violation means by any reasonable stretch a proven violation of stated rules etc. Though the bracketed "without limitation" could be construed as highly ambiguous and unenforceable on it's face and you know that.
Oh and for your education I have taught 1st yrs ( currently lecturing 3rd years on IT Law & Ethics), and many aren't nearly as illogical - though I have seen a few sadly lately - as what I have come to expect from the AC's in here who deny change of terms is not just voidable on those terms but can also result in complete forfeiture of that contract.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Now then:
You're avoiding my question. Specify what the "change of terms" are.
And why are you calling a $35 administrative fee, "a fine"?
You're aware that when someone goes to court there are costs the defendant is responsible for regardless of whether they are found guilty or innocent, correct? And that if you wish to recoup such costs an entirely separate court decision is required?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This by any usage of the English language is a change. To change terms without allowing any reasonable negotiation with the parties to those terms (Both sides) is absolute grounds for termination of that contract with any and all remedies available to the aggrieved and damaged party (in this case the customer).
as for the $35 lets call it a Fee to prove innocence in a secret chamber, without due process, with no appeal ability outside of itself, with no ability to evidentially confront your accusers using an unbiased arbitrator using arbitrary rules, with NO transparency or checck and balances set down by a higher authority.
Yes of course it's exactly the same as going to court. *eyeroll*
The $35 is basically being treated like a supersedeas bond when in fact it's a "pay us to prove your innocence after an unfounded allegation that might or might not meet the bar of preponderance"
Maybe if the payment of an upfront 'bond' (and yes I will give you the benefit it isn't a fine per say ) was with the condition that a 'win' for the respondent would not only receive payment back of the 'bond' but also recoup other reasonable costs then that would be equitable. Otherwise it's a great way to generate a new and profitable income stream for the ISP, though I'm not suggesting it would be one - the ability for it to be abused is high.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Because you have no clue whatsoever what you are talking about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
But lets not common sense and legal doctrine get in the way of your absolute belief that any term or otherwise ever put on any contract and then agreed to no matter how is then absolutely legal in every way shape or form.
In fact I think every solicitor/attorney who practices contract law should now basically give up because you have stated there is no point in it any more. It's all absolutely black and white.
Good show.. You have just wiped out centuries of common law precedence.
I bow down to your awesomeness. Now.. can you do the same for Mondays?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
aaannnd here comes the willful ignorance...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
WHAT LAW?
The only wilful ignorance is on the part of customers who are being misled by the ISP's and content holders (and by inaction the FTC) and haven't been given the correct information to allow them to equitably negotiate these new terms.
But lets not let things like unfair practices, anti-trust or unconscionable conduct get in the way of a making some corporations feel warm and fuzzy about there egregious business practices.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Copyright infringement is illegal, Einstein.
And it's spelled THERE. If you made that spelling error in a brief, you'd be fired. Just ask your TA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You might learn the difference between illegal and unlawful. One is criminal, the other is civil/administrative.
I will leave it up to you to educate yourself onto which one is which.
TA? I'm going to go out on a limb and assume you mean some form of Tuition Adviser??? not sure though - different countries, different acronym terms, and attainment of my LLB was over a decade ago.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
WHAT LAW?
The only wilful ignorance is on the part of customers who are being misled by the ISP's and content holders (and by inaction the FTC) and haven't been given the correct information to allow them to equitably negotiate these new terms.
But lets not let things like unfair practices, anti-trust or unconscionable conduct get in the way of a making some corporations feel warm and fuzzy about there egregious business practices.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
We are talking about the United States of America aren't we?
As far as successful, no one wants to post a link to a TOS, so I am going by mine.
Where is this proof that I was engaging in illegal activity? I would like to know what my fine/jail term was and what court I attended. Kangaroo court doesn't count.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
They've colluded WITH content providers. NBC Comcast Universal is one company.
If this system ever goes live, expect a serious discussion about the Sherman Act with regard to content providers owning service providers ...
... Especially in light of the smoking gun in the Verizon plan that after strike one, Verizon will encourage you to uninstall file-sharing software instead of educating you about avoiding unauthorized distribution. That's rock solid evidence that this plan is intended to stamp out competition, not address illegal piracy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We will block YOU!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: We will block YOU!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: We will block YOU!
My provider was also my tv provider. They wouldn't play ball regarding tv services. It was $X or $0 per month*. They chose $0. Two weeks later they called and asked how I liked satellite tv. I asked them why they couldn't understand why I didn't need their services, nor any others, like I had already fully explained to them.
*See fine print.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: We will block YOU!
This plan is intended to maximize value, not profit. Its intent is to destroy Bittorrent's customer base by any means necessary. You won't be able to avoid it by not pirating, and that's by design. Content providers want advertisers to see Bittorrent user numbers shrink and their colluders will sacrifice their own customer base to help. It's textbook antitrust to me, but I'm not a judge.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Excellent
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
6 strikes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 6 strikes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 6 strikes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 6 strikes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: 6 strikes
Got a reference for that or is it completely made up?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: 6 strikes
Right. They switched to VPN's and proxies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 6 strikes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wireless_ad-hoc_network
Play with network topologies before you implement one :)
http://code.google.com/p/psimulator/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nope.
See, this is why I doubt you're even in school, much less licensed to practice law.
If you read the ATT TOS posted above you should know that implementing a 6 strikes policy is in no way inconsistent with the language they used in regard to how they can deal with infringement.
Get lost.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Just because I call you an asshole 6 times, it doesn't mean you are an asshole, just that I think you are one.
If you wish to explain that you aren't an asshole, purchase 3 items from the techdirt store and you will be allowed to post again. If you don't purchase at least three items, then I have proved you are an asshole.
G Thompson will be our impartial arbitrator to decide whether or not you are in fact, an asshole.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If so.. I deem him to be a only half an arse, though he has promise to be a fully (w)hole one soon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Exactly right. But who determines whether infringement has occurred? These cases aren't going to court so none of them are LEGALLY infringement.
We see how well YouTube handles the determination process when infringement is claimed. Now, apply that to the general public. Imagine getting a strike for sharing the Twilight-Buffy mashup, for example.
If strikes were handed out only for court-determined infringements, that would be fine. But six strikes does not use the legal definition of infringement. It uses one made up by colluders with an agenda. They're CLAIMING that's the same thing and they're lying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lets see shall we:
Under the Memorandum of Understanding dated July 6, 2011, between the Copyright Owners and the ISP's (via the CCI)
http://www.copyrightinformation.org/sites/default/files/Momorandum%20of%20Understanding.pdf (yeah it's mispelt.. why no idea.. annoying though) at 7
[Note: Section G, especially the subsections i-vii show specifically what needs to be part of the CAS that changes each IPS's specific TOS/AUP ]
Therefore this by the legal language of the actual agreement means that the party ISP's associated with the Copyright Alert System (CAS) are required absolutely to amend their terms of service or acceptable use policies to incorporate the CAS.
ie: CHANGE THEM!
But don't let the actual agreement signed by the ISP's make you change your theory that they have not changed the terms, we wouldn't want that.
Also I have never stated that I am licensed to practice law in any part of the USA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Each Participating ISP agrees to communicate the following principles in its Acceptable Use Policies (“AUP”) or Terms of Service (“TOS”)"
They ALREADY communicate those principles.
There is nothing being "amended" here; explaining how a previously stated term of service will be executed is not changing the terms of the contract, you dolt.
You're a charlatan.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
All of a sudden they state that The Speed limit is what they set, not the government and a valid license is one where you have to now pass their medical and criminal check.
Under your logic they have not changed the terms.. Just the conditionals of those terms.. therefore lawful, even though they are now totally NOT what you signed up for. Do you not see the problem? Even anti-trust problems too?
And I'm glad you used the term charlatan, since you must realise it means someone who misleads, practices quackery, or some similar confidence social engineering trick in order to obtain money or other form of advantage via some form of pretence or deception.
In other words the ISP's and content holders are being very charlatanistic towards there customers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ah the joy. If this will serve as a catalyst to revolution so be it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
*cue Marie Antoinette with the voice of GlaDOS*
Give em... nah stuff em all... There is no CAKE!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
six strikes
and like the traffic cameras the owner is responsible
pay the quota or mordida and stay in lane (0.99 cent songs for all my devices ect ect )
now if i get cut off i am going to get billed for the rest of the contract? even though i do not get the service anymore ??? will they sue me for it, and report to credit companies ???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
6 Strikes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Verizon
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Anonymous Coward"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Learn to be anonymous
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Password Protect
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
this thing here
instead of getting 900 million they only got 898 million
my god i find it quite disgusting that they even bitch about it. maybe one of us can make that much in 500 years they can do it in a month. they are not hurting their just greedy and if this is allowed.
how will this impact home businesses?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fail
Case and point: I just signed up for torguard vpn service
http://torguard.net/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]