Six Strikes Administrator: Loss Of Open WiFi Access At Cafes Is Acceptable Collateral Damage
from the really-now? dept
We recently covered some of the details of various "six strikes" policies being implemented by most of the large broadband providers in the US, noting that with Verizon's, it appeared that small businesses that offered free and open WiFi could get in trouble for doing so. TorrentFreak has followed up with Jill Lesser, the executive director of the Center for Copyright Information (CCI), the organization coordinating these plans, and discovered that this impact on small businesses is not an error, and Lesser does not seem to see a problem with it, arguing that offering such open and free WiFi is a violation of the terms of service for most small businesses.“In addition, the terms of service on such accounts do not allow them to be used to provide free WiFi or ‘hotspots’ so the hypothetical cafe owner offering public WiFi will not be subject to the CAS if they are following their terms of service.”Similarly, she says that if it impacts small businesses or home-based businesses that use residential accounts, she doesn't see it as a problem, since those businesses shouldn't "allow" their employees to "engage in copyright theft." Of course, it's not theft, but infringement -- and it's frustrating that someone like Lesser would misrepresent these things.
That said, her cavalier attitude towards these very common scenarios, which will have real impacts on a variety of small businesses, is unfortunate and dangerous. The importance of a fully working broadband connection to small businesses todays cannot be overstated. To suggest that all of this is okay because they're not following an almost universally ignored term in the terms of service on such accounts seems to be dismissing things way too simply.
The end result of this is likely to be a lot less public and open WiFi at a time when we actually need much more open access. That may not matter to the RIAA and MPAA -- who still don't understand the importance and value of internet access -- but it matters an awful lot to the pubilc and a variety of small businesses.
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: jill lesser, open wifi, six strikes, small businesses
Companies: cci, verizon
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Point is having open wi-fi all around is good for the user and bad for the telcos. I felt no need of a mobile connection. I wonder if there are subtle interests in the widespread acceptance of such abusive system by the telcos...
In any case, the obvious outcome of this moronic program will be the extinction of open wireless access. The places that still provide internet access for free will be forced to keep expensive log systems and request their users ID just to play safe.
Once it goes public I hope EFF and whoever sticks a huge lawsuit up their arses and grabs an injunction (or whatever you call it) to prevent such madness from becoming reality. In fact they should do it preemptively.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.copyrightinformation.org/contact
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
FUCK YOU ISP'S ! Hope you go down bigtime over this !
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ISPs do not need to worry about customer backlash.
Oh yeah... that's right... the entire city is served by a single ISP.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ISPs do not need to worry about customer backlash.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Sadly, both ISPs in my town subscribe to this "give the users features they loath" copyright "strikes" strategy.
My rule: on the 1st strike, all my traffic will become encrypted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You shouldn't wait for that. I encourage everyone to start encrypting all traffic, as far as possible, right now -- for a whole host of reasons, with this being one of the less important ones.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Six Strikes is a system of Punishment Upon Accusation. Get that through your thick skulls. PUA is a disgusting thought because it completely sidesteps the judicial system and hands almost unheard of power to punish upon third parties. Nothing in Six Strikes allows for the possibility of false accusations or of punishing those who repeatedly make false accusations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
With this attitude, the copyright based industries will not be content until they destroy the Internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Now, you're getting it. They TRULY do want to destroy the internet, one of the greatest inventions of mankind to protect their profit.
The RIAA/MPAA are organizations of pure evil.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You want to point and say the pirates are ruining it and yet these copyright industries cant even keep their own networks clean. So they expect a small business to monitor and control their network when the big movie studios can't even control theirs?
Here is something else to think on. What about the company that does their best to secure their network and still gets these strikes? After all, a lot of us "filthy pirates" are only slightly annoyed by wireless security, it rarely will actually stop anyone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
It actually isn't that hard to do. It was amazing to me back in 2002 how many folks had network printers up on the internet without any sort of firewalls. The paper above is really old, and needs a re-write, but it was interesting at the time that most printers had hard drives in them, and quite a few had nasty backdoors that allowed instant and unauthenticated access to those hard drives (ahem...Xerox, xerox.htm.) We had all sorts of discussions back then about using printers to serve up porn or other stuff. Turns out, a couple years later, I'd find a company that had a problem with its users uploading music to their printers because the company prevented IPODs and they could listen to their music off of the printer (which wasn't being monitored or protected.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
They didn't. The folks dumped their music onto the printer's hard drive, and then played the music on their computer using Microsoft Media Player. They didn't have anywhere else to put it because the servers were monitored for the material, as were their computers, but the printer wasn't monitored, so they could store the music on the printer without being caught doing so. The company never removed the media player from their computers.
I thought it was pretty inventive, and didn't see it as an issue at the time, but the company was not so happy about it. I believe they ended up revisiting the rules about ipods, since it wasn't likely they would be sued by the RIAA if they allowed ipods at work, but would have if their printers continued serving music.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
VPN, IP spoofing etc etc etc. They'll just get youngstersthat just wanna get the last Lady Gaga hit and ruin their lives a la Jamie Thomas and Joel Tenebaum.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
2. Is there any proof that open wifi has been used to download illegal files on regular basis? I don't remember any of the few court cases that you people have actually fought with evidence having claimed that?
3. How will shutting down free wifi stop piracy, again?
[ 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:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Innocent until Proven Guilty
I agree the "accusers" are avoiding those discussions, and I agree these types of policies are rigged against the consumer, "the people." I'm also sorry I don't have a better suggestion than to stop doing business with companies that pursue these policies, but I see no other way to effect change than to show said companies that policies and related actions like these adversely affect the "bottom line."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Innocent until Proven Guilty
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Innocent until Proven Guilty
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Innocent until Proven Guilty
Yes, so?
In most of the country, not doing business with these companies means not having internet access at all.
I have a better suggestion: apply pressure to these companies in every way we can to get them to renounce or at least not enforce these policies. Which is what we're doing.
And, it's working. At least one major ISP has a fairly weakened six-strikes policy where once you get to your sixth strike, they give your info to the accusers and then leave you alone. That does mitigate at least the very worst aspects of six strikes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Innocent until Proven Guilty
"First Strike? Ok, can't use the westbound main route."
"Second Strike? Ok, can't use the northbound main route."
"Third Strike? Ok, can't use any major roads."
etc...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This is, as it has ever been, about a few obscenely wealthy conglomerates further increasing their profits while decreasing the amount of productive work they have to do, all at the expense of the general public.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Seriously, are you listening to your fucking tone of voice at all?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Copyright would be nice, but greedy corporations and copyright trolls abused the system and ruined it for the rest of us.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
But no, it's infringers that are the problem, and it's all THEIR fault. (/s)
The real issue is that economics hates monopolies through regulation. People keep saying how copyright actively promotes creation, when the truth is it promotes, stagnation. The last genuinely innovative film was probably Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind.
[ 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:
Are you serious? Her entire agency has no other purpose other than to push the agenda of the entertainment industry.
when are people, politicians and governments actually going to wake up and admit to the damage that is being done by this continual backing of the entertainment industries over every other industry on the planet?
The governments and politicians already know, they just don't care as long as the checks from the entertainment industry keep coming in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
she worked for AOL that one time.
Then she worked for a PR firm, the same PR firm being paid to run CCI.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Most open wi-fi places already throttle those that try to excessively download.
Not strong enough FUD there, Masnick. Try again.
Maybe try paying Wikipedia to go dark, and then tell everyone that 6 strikes will "break the internet" and shut down their Facebook. Worked last time, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Basically what's being pointed out here is that if it only takes 6 "accusations", and people can abuse accusations, then anyone can basically shut down any WIFI out there. Thus we're going to start limiting any open access available.
I sincerely suggest before you shrug this off as only affecting "pirates" you go look at the results of how well the "strike system" has been working where it has been implemented (people who haven't done anything getting taken to court, fined, and losing internet connection). In fact while I have seen multiple cases where the strike system didn't work, I'm still waiting to see a case where it did work on stopping a pirate....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
We'll see plenty of activities to scrap this too. He'll blame Mike and Google for it regardless.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I guarantee they are among those to take advantage of public wi-fi to check their e-mail in Starbucks. Talk about hypocrisy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So a huge step back in progress is acceptable to these people?
You boneheads want to go back to 1708 before the Statue of Anne.
So yeah, it's acceptable.
It's required by law anyway; go read section 512 of US Title 17.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
They might as well be, if a cafe's Wi-Fi is slowed down to 256kbps, shared amongst what? 40 or so customers? Internet access will slow down to an absolute crawl, completely unusable.
I want you to state in plain English: You WANT this system, of punishment upon accusation, to go forward?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
What he said.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Yes, I want your drivers license taken away if you get 6 tickets in a year.
And so does everybody else that follows the rules and wants to drive on the street.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not so with Six Strikes. Anyone can accuse anyone, and punishment is immediate.
The rules here are INSANE. How would you like it if you were accused six times, knowing all the while you did your best to stay within the rules, and hence got your connection slowed to a virtual crawl? Why is it such a thought never enters your skull?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes there is.
It's called a TOS. Try reading one sometime.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
A TOS IS NOT A LICENCE! Just because I break the TOS of an ISP doesn't mean I've broken a law and should be prosecuted for one.
AGAIN, for the last fucking time, this is all PUNISHMENT UPON ACCUSATION. Not by deputized police officers but by random third parties.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's exactly like a speeding ticket and a TOS is exactly like a license.
Grow up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
and all you can say is they're EXACTLY THE SAME? How? One is issued by a government body, the other by a private entity; one is issued to those who have passed training and proven themselves, the other just needs a click on "I Accept"...the list goes on. They are NOTHING alike.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Without discrepancy (used to emphasize the accuracy of a figure or description).
In exact terms; without vagueness.
Hrrrm, you do sound pretty vague, I mean you didn't really consider that speeding tickets cost money, and the strikes don't, which really isn't...you know, exact, but hey we all have our off moments.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You write and argue as if you actually were sleeping.
Great job at the worst analogies ever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Unless you consider all the ways in which it differs completely. I don't remember having taken a test to get an internet connection, and the TOS is not enforceable by any government agent, just to give 2 examples. Not to mention the fact that if I disconnect from one company for whatever reason (be that voluntarily or through breaking a TOS clause), I can go to another company and get the same service - that mere fact alone should clue any intelligent person in on the differences.
Yet again an AC troll latches on to some analogy that's completely stupid and won't even admit the problems with it that a 5 year old can see. Presumably, est it lead to actual discussion and the possibility that his preconceived assumptions might not be correct. Must be a day with a y in it again...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Cars are licenced for safety reasons. You can hardly compare having an internet connection with having a car. Not if you wish to be taken even remotely seriously.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Most of us has seen the failure in his argumentation. We know the license is required because vehicles need skill to be used safely as opposed to TOS that serve as means for the company to avoid lawsuits for 3rd party liability or to be able to terminate the service due to abuse. While file sharing may be seen to abuse they'd have to follow a judicial process to prove the infringement really came from a determined IP and they CANNOT hold a company that provides open, free wi-fi liable for what is done in their network (while they could ask for cooperation to get to the individuals engaged in such infringing activities but that's too obvious and right for them, right?).
Ignore and move on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
By reading this comment, you agree to immediately throw your computer out the nearest window.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's a bit hard to take you seriously when you equate piracy with something like speeding, which not only threatens lives but actually requires visible proof to issue the ticket.
I know the blood flow to your brain is restricted by the twist Masnick puts into your panties, but you may want to re-think your analogies before posting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not sure where you're from, but where I live they can't suspend your driver's license until you have x amount of convictions or admissions of guilt. You could have 50,000 accusations (tickets) of wrongdoing that you have successfully fought in court and still retain your license.
That's a huge difference, don't ya think?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I wish you the best of luck with that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I find it hilarious, however, that you mock people who discuss the merits of change in the law system.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If I ever get one, I most certainly will. Since I don't make conscious decisions to download content illegally, I would most assuredly be in the right on this.
I will gladly pay the $35 bucks for the chance. The one thing I won't do is limit myself to the the cheesy defenses they limit me to. If that's not acceptable to them, I will take it up in an actual court of law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
> strikes you can.
But they don't allow you to assert valid defenses like fair use.
Again, analogy fail.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Quit pretending you can't tell if torrents of entire brand new theatrical and music releases are fair use or infringement.
You look like a fucking idiot when try to play that con.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You look like a fucking idiot when try to play that con.
You can't tell. That's the point. Fair use doesn't hinge on what content was obtained, it hinges on the use of said content. But you know that already, don't you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
> of entire brand new theatrical and music
> releases are fair use or infringement.
Oh, so you're claiming that fair use *is* available as a defense for accusations of infringement involving anything other than torrents of entire brand new theatrical and music releases?
You might want to tell the RIAA and the MPAA that, as well as the ISPs they've beaten into submission because they don't seem to have gotten your memo, you dishonest douche.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Fair trial or GTFO.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
This six strikes is unjust and should be illegal. It assumes guilt without a shred of evidence. You're guilty, even if you're not. All it takes is an accusation and there's no burden of proof, no standard to meet in order to warrant action against someone. Any member can pluck a random IP address and a work they control, then claim that person pirated it. The accused would have no defense but to pay a $35 fee for the chance to dispute it but then they've made $35 off of the accused and they still would likely lose.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
This is like getting a unchallengeable ticket when the only evidence that you sped was that someone reported seeing someone speed who drove the same type of car as you.
Why would you support someone getting their license taken away when it's never confirmed that they actually deserved a ticket?
I hear you murdered someone. Report to jail immediately. We don't need to confirm it was you who did it. An accusation is proof enough. Death penalty FTW!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Let us know when that happens.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
> should sue them for eleventy bazillion dollars.
So basically you have no rational justification for your position. Why didn't you say so from the start and save everyone a lot of time?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"We'll just stonewall you like we're stonewalling Tanya Andersen by refusing to pay her attorney's fees after we knowingly wrongly sued her even though she was innocent."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The difference, of course, is that with tickets you get to plead your case in court. With six strikes, you get no such thing. A "strike" is a simple accusation, no proof or conviction required.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
> if you get 6 tickets in a year.
Another analogy fail. Maybe you haven't noticed, but when you get a ticket, you're not automatically convicted, nor is your license automatically suspended. You have the right to require the state to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt before any punishment can be assessed, each and every time, and the fact that you got two previous tickets is irrelevant regarding proof of guilt for the third ticket.
In other words, you can't lose your driver license based on mere accusation, yet you're advocating for exactly that regarding copyright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
And so does everybody else that follows the rules and wants to drive on the street."
No, we don't, you screwball. The police don't even want this. We'll take the revenue, thanks.
When someone speeds past me or runs a red light, I am concerned for my safety and his, not about "following the rules."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
re: 256kbps
Throttling people to 256kbps is going to hurt a lot more today than it would have 10 years ago, when web pages had lower expectations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: re: 256kbps
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
How do you figure that? Either a business can offer wifi to their customers, or they can't. If they offer it, they have very little control over what their customers use it for. Throttling won't stop someone from infringing copyright - if either the business does it, or their ISP throttles the whole connection.
If you had the slightest bit of technical knowledge, you would understand this. Let me give you a scenario of what happens.
Customer goes into Starbucks and orders their expensive coffee. They sit down and use their laptop to connect to the wifi. The laptop has a bit torrent client running, and when it sees that internet connection, it goes and announces itself to the swarm, and says its sharing some music or movie, and the IP address it is at - which is the coffee shop's IP.
Now, one of two things will happen, depending if the infringement detection is monumentally stupid, or just dumb. It it is monumentally stupid, as soon as it sees an IP in the swarm sharing something, it adds it to the strikes list. Or, if it just dumb, it starts downloading the content from the laptop. It may only get a few pieces if the connection is throttled, but a few pieces is all it needs to add the IP to the strikes list. Either way, the coffee shop IP is now on the list.
Repeat this 6 times. Coffee shop is either cut off completely by their ISP, or is forced to stop offering wifi to everyone - regardless if someone is checking their email or infringing copyright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Are you just plain stupid or really so ignorant, you are coming across as someone just as dumb as the person doing this. If wifi cannot be open for fear of accusations they will remove it. Therefore no wifi no email, simple as. Gees even reading a few of the comments in here should show you your comment is just plain stupid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It was all about Control
I do feel that those who control Data are the ones who will be in charge.
Newspapers and TV News do nothing to help out and have mostly sold out to their Big Content Masters.
I made this gallery as an example of the Newspaper here in Portland, Maine called "Portland Press Herald" .
http://imgur.com/a/PYEDd
I am hoping to see small businesses dump their ISP for one who refuses to take part in this fiasco.I am pretty sure that here in Portland you can go with a slower connection using "GWI" who as far as I know have sworn to not take part in the Six Strikes Shit.
For now I am using a Non-Logging VPN located in Malaysia and sometime this year I will probably opt to lose some speed by dumping Slime Warner and going with that slower GWI.
I really hate these fucking MAFIAA Assholes and I do totally Boycott their World.You hear that MAFIAA and your Shills: I DO NOT CARE WHAT YOU ARE PUTTING OUT !!! I ignore your whole Industry and am not interested in any products you do.You fucked with my world so I Censor you from my wallet.And I will be thrilled to see Millions more join up to Boycott your Greedy Corrupted Asshole Industry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It was all about Control
More rapist-like blaming of the victim.
The reason this is happening is because people bereft of morals couldn't keep their hand out of the cookie jar.
Fact: Pirates, and pirates alone, brought this on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It was all about Control
Wow, you just described MAFIAA perfectly.
You could also apply it to those who caused the global financial crisis.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: It was all about Control
Next thing we know, he'll say Eminem's producer and James Taylor are trying to steal from the artist through their current lawsuits against Warner Bros for unfair compensation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: It was all about Control
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It was all about Control
On a side-note, you must be the idiot who argued that ISPs can hack VPN encryption without providing any evidence for the claim.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It was all about Control
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It was all about Control
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: It was all about Control
It is difficult to take the whole morality argument seriously when people go onto a blog to condemn copying digital material from someone else's computer with their consent, otherwise known as using the Web.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It was all about Control
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It was all about Control
> brought this on.
You bounce back and forth like a superball with your idiotic rationalizations for this.
One minute it's "This isn't draconian, it's no different than a speeding ticket". (Which is nonsense on its face.)
The next, it's "Yes, this is draconian and ignores all the notions of due process and presumption of innocence that we value in America, but it's all you pirates' fault for being such a-holes, so suck it."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It was all about Control
I come for the articles. I stay for trolls comparing cafes with open wifi to rapists and their enormous, powerful service providers to rape victims.
Fact: Piracy has been revealed to be the "WMD" of six strikes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It was all about Control
Sony is sure running strong, Comcast and Time Warner sure aren't hurting for customers, and the list goes on...
Hell you talk about not buying anything Sony because they are strick about their copyrights, then when their latest gaming monitor goes on sale your right there in line buying it...
I welcome these types of plans, I welcome them not because I want to see ppl losing internet... I welcome them because so many of you blow hot air and these companies all know it so they simply ignore you
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It was all about Control
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Conspiracy Theory
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Conspiracy Theory
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sigh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sigh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Great...
And if they don't like their terms of service, they can switch to another broadband provider that...oh, wait, that would require actual competition...
And if they don't like their terms of service, they can move to South Korea.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Great...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Great...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Great...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Great...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Great...
http://business.comcast.com/smb/acceptable-use-policy
http://www.optimum.net/Terms/O OLBusiness/
http://www.twcbc.com/corporate/service_agreement.html
Verizon says “you are responsible for all use of your Service by others”: https://business.verizon.com/MyBusinessAccount/one.portal?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=gb_policy&pa ge_id=tos_fios_biz_bef_jan92006
Charter has similar wording: http://www.charter.com/footer/footerPage.jsp?tag=policies_comm_terms
I haven’t been able to easily find agreements for CenturyLink, Cox and Frontier. The only ISP I can verify doesn’t seem to have a policy regarding sharing or reselling their service (even for home users) is EarthLink cable (but possibly not DSL).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Great...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The future
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The future
The law requires they have a repeat infringer policy.
By the end of 2014 every ISP in the US will have this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The future
By the end of 2014 every ISP in the US will have this.
In other words, contrary to what everyone has claimed all along, the six strikes policy really IS a plan to kick infringers off the net. Thanks for finally admitting the true purpose of the effort.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The future
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: The future
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The future
And size of an ISP doesn't figure into the discussion anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The future
Small ISPs are notoriously independent. Size has a lot to do with it. The cost of implementing a system like this would be deemed prohibitive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The future
If their company can't survive without depending upon lawbreakers, then they have a blatantly flawed business model.
Not my problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The future
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The future
This isn't really about lawbreakers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The future
So why the hell do the entertainment industries get copyright extensions, year after year after year?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: The future
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The future
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The future
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The future
---
USC 17 Section 512
subsection H
(i) Conditions for Eligibility.— (1) Accommodation of technology.— 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; and
(B) accommodates and does not interfere with standard technical measures.
(2) Definition.— As used in this subsection, the term “standard technical measures” means technical measures that are used by copyright owners to identify or protect copyrighted works and—
(A) have been developed pursuant to a broad consensus of copyright owners and service providers in an open, fair, voluntary, multi-industry standards process;
(B) are available to any person on reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms; and
(C) do not impose substantial costs on service providers or substantial burdens on their systems or networks.
----
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512
So, yes, there has to be a policy, and it has to be reasonable. I doubt most that an ordinary reasonable person would consider cutting someone's internet access off based on unproven accusations as reasonable.
Let's look at the definitions. The one about a broad consensus is interesting. Are a few ISPs (5? 6?) and a few lobbying organizations a broad consensus? I'd like to see you try to support that. And what about those words about "open, fair, voluntary" - since these 6 strikes proposals were anything but open, and I highly doubt fair or voluntary.
How about the requirements of the "standard technical measures" being available to any person on reasonable and nondiscrimintory terms? Many have been asking how the infringement detection system would work for the years that various strikes proposals have been under way. No information has been forthcoming.
By my count, this law is already on a 3rd strike.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The future
Could using a VPN an interference with technical measures if implemented by the open WIFI owner?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: The future
An answer to that question from the copyright maximalist camp is a big Hobson's choice.
If the answer is yes, then the open wifi provider is a service provider. As long as they can meet the other requirements, then they've got safe harbors against being held liable for their user's infringement.
If the answer is no, then they can implement the VPN to hide their users from the copyright holders.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: The future
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The future
It does interfere with extraordinary technical measures, such as deep packet inspection, though. Those measures should by illegal anyway, but that's a whole other discussion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The future
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The future
> infringer policy.
But it doesn't require they enforce it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The future
And still won't prevent piracy. It will be funny to see you come back here to bitch and whine about it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Or, the cafe would have to pay up a lot more money to get the exact same connection, except approved for business use, just to be exempt from such responsibility. Is this how the publishers got the ISPs to go along with this: they agreed to be copyright cops, so that in return they get to coerce the small business "freeloaders" to pay up for business class connections that don't offer anything they really needed in the first place?
Nice to see the free market is still live and well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Acceptable collateral damage
That seems acceptable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What about the Fortune 500?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What about the Fortune 500?
Were I a betting person I'd be willing to put up everything I own on the bet that there will be an 'unofficial' list of companies/IP addresses that will be considered untouchable, no matter how many accusations are made against them.
After all if such a system were actually applied equally and fairly, then you'd have governmental agencies, the offices of the *AA's, and countless other large companies losing their connections within a matter of months(at most), and they just hate being exposed as the hypocrites they are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What about the Fortune 500?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: What about the Fortune 500?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: What about the Fortune 500?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What about the Fortune 500?
No, the laws don't apply to the rich...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What about the Fortune 500?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What about the Fortune 500?
Nothing will happen. Accusations against a large powerful organization that don't come from a name the ISP immediately recognizes as another large powerful organization will be ignored.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
adaptor plug
Next step: the gatekeepers go after the smart ISPs and/or the third parties. Then begins an utterly pointless dance, when the ISPs must make gestures of looking for things they don't want to find (Nelson's telescope, anyone?) and a new ecology of not-illegal-but-not-safe business springs up.
Net effect: extra work is done at a net loss to society, the law is degraded, freedom is associated with criminality, open WiFi is harder to find and the coffee costs more.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: adaptor plug
I'm sure that's exactly what the framers of the constitution had in mind when they created copyright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: adaptor plug
It's copyright vs. coffeeright.
[ 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 ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Turn the tables?
Why not use the **AAs' own loaded gun to attack them?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Seriously!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just another escalation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just another escalation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just another escalation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
To all those who see nothing wrong with the 6-strikes system:
You are an arsonist.
You are an arsonist.
You are an arsonist.
You are an arsonist.
You are an arsonist.
Congratulations, using the very logic you seem to cherish so much, where an accusation of guilt is the same as evidence of guilt, you are now all legally considered arsonists, and are deserving of being treated as such, jail time included.
If you filthy criminals would like to contest these charges, you merely have to pay $50 per accusation to my frie- I mean a totally neutral third party, and show up in a court of said third party's choosing, which may require several hours of driving, and will require taking several hours of time out of your schedules per accusation.
The available defenses you are allowed to raise are limited, and you will be informed of them at the time of the trial.
Keep in mind that you must pay the fee, and present your defense per accusation, and given there is absolutely no penalty for a false accusation(there doesn't need to be one, as such a thing could of course never happen), expect to be seeing the inside of a court-room on a regular basis from now on to keep out of jail.
Hopefully I've made my point, but it not, it's not like I care what arguments you might present on this subject in the future, given you're all arsonists, and therefor criminals, anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: To all those who see nothing wrong with the 6-strikes system:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: To all those who see nothing wrong with the 6-strikes system:
You are very wrong in one thing - the six strikes system has nothing to do with the law and legally determines nothing.
It's an agreement between corporations to act outside the law to bully customers into spending more money. And that's true whether you get cut off or sued or neither.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: To all those who see nothing wrong with the 6-strikes system:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: To all those who see nothing wrong with the 6-strikes system:
I used a scary similar example... but I used candy instead of fire...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: To all those who see nothing wrong with the 6-strikes system:
I'm curious though, how did you use candy in your example?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: To all those who see nothing wrong with the 6-strikes system:
Its one of the replies I made that got called out by Kash.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: To all those who see nothing wrong with the 6-strikes system:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: To all those who see nothing wrong with the 6-strikes system:
First time posting there I hit it out of the park (the wall of text post on page 2 of the comments).
But then I was writing about 6 strikes in October... I might have an unfair advantage having spent much time digging into this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
See? This case isn't about the MPAA and RIAA at all
The collusion is what's offensive. Why is the CCI marketing wireless upgrades?
More and more, this smells like antitrust.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: See? This case isn't about the MPAA and RIAA at all
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If they're not part of the entertainment industry, then they don't matter!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh yeah...
Just because a man stands accused, does not make him innocent. That's for him to prove, and real non-pirates have nothing to hide. You are just so scared because you know you're all guilty. Of *course* a guilty person will resist a perfectly reasonable plan like this. No system is perfect, there will always be collateral.
But in the end, who is more important, Justin Beaver or that random medical worker guy who doesn't know what a Blit-torrent sounds like?
Next you will all be denying that Google want a hand in the coffee market. Well done trying to hide your true agenda, the disruption of Big Coffee by Big Search.
You sicken me, all you pirates. And I bet you all have crappy haircuts.
Operation PRAWN is already under way. Nothing can stop it. Not even you pirates or the Anonymouse.
J. Fallaschill
Trainee,
D.E.R.P Enterprises Ltd.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oh yeah...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Oh yeah...
It's always nice to know that I could be sitting in the cubicle (or tent) with/next to you with little effort. I could probably be hired as your supervisor.
Inevitable pain? I've already been Bieber-rolled once this year. Also, I don't live in America.
GL + HF
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Oh yeah...
And at the end of the day piracy will continue on and not even be phased by actions such as this. The only people inconvenienced, as usual, are law abiding citizens and paying customers of ISPs. And like usual, you and yours are biting the hand that feeds. And it's going to come back to bite you in the ass.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
For those who think the Six Strikes plan is good...
How much of the world is connected today?
DO you do any online shopping? Any ATM transactions? Do you play games via 360, PS3, DS, Vita or Wii?
If you said yes to any of these questions, you might want to realize that this is a BAD thing and shouldn't be used.
For more information, please read this Cracked.com article by John Cheese.
http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-reasons-internet-access-in-america-disaster/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
THe only problem is that in order to block illegal BitTorrent downloads, the collateral damage there is that you also block Skype. I have two routers, one public, and one private. On the public one, I block all UDP ports 1024 and above, which stops BitTorrent, but also blocks Skype if my smartphone just happens to be using that router.
If businesses decide to go the route of blocking BitTorrent, they will also block Skype as well, and there is no way around that,so Skype might suffer because of this.
Of course, I am on a small indepdent ISP that allows people to offer open WiFi, if they wish.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cafe's arn't the only ones
My parents are partially retired (one is one isn't), and a fair portion of their income comes from rental properties that they have invested in over time.
They run short term rentals (a few weeks to a few months) of fully furnished properties. As such you need to provide utilities: Power, phone and internet. I live in NZ so we have a 3 strike law in place already, and it holds the account holder responsible for any infringement by the users.
Their guests are often international visitors to whom internet access is incredibly important. However there is no way that said guests are able to get an internet account setup for the short time they are staying.
The liability this poses on the account owner and the costs associated are insane. This should be a matter of 'get a router, get an account'. But instead small business owners are looking at hiring an IT professional, doing complicated setups with expensive routers (filtering won't do the job here), and running VPN pipes overseas just so that your guests can check their mail.
This is all just working around the law, not working within it. There IS no way for my parents to provide internet to their guests without exposing themselves to significant liability.
-Qyiet
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Cafe's arn't the only ones
It is indeed an inconvenience.
You know who I blame? The assholes who don't obey the law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Cafe's arn't the only ones
In NZ if you use the internet to do something illegal apart from copyright infringement (lets say child porn) you are held responsible for your actions, not the account holder. This is the way it should be: if you break the law, you are responsible.
So I don't hold 'the assholes who don't obey the law' responsible. They will always exist. I hold the media execs that can't be bothered tracking down the actual lawbreakers responsible, and the politicians that re-wrote the law on their request.
I'm more disgusted by the politicians to be honest, throwing away basic principles of law, and adding overhead costs to the entire business sector on the say-so of vested interests like this is sickening.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Cafe's arn't the only ones
That must be why everyone in a city gets a fine every time someone speeds or litters, because only punishing the ones actually committing the crime wouldn't be nearly as profitable or easy. /s
I can't help but think you'd be yelling 'injustice!' if someone committed a crime in one of your rental houses, and you were convicted right along with them as an accomplice merely because you owned the property, even though you seem to have no problem with the idea here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Cafe's arn't the only ones
It is the standard tactic of oppressive totalitarian regimes, who are afraid that if they let up they will be out of power.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Cafe's arn't the only ones
Agreed, I blame the assholes who don't obey the law as well.
After all, the MPAA and RIAA have broken so many laws in their time and get new laws just for them that you can only blame them for this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Cafe's arn't the only ones
Seriously, do you children know how silly you look pretending the MPAA and RIAA are the big, evil boogeyman? Everyone knows you just pull that BS out of your ass to rationalize your theft.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Cafe's arn't the only ones
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Cafe's arn't the only ones
Well, I certainly didn't bribe politicians with campaign contributions and then threaten to stop giving them money if they didn't keep making laws that go my way. I certainly didn't have the DoJ take down webblogs on my say so only for the DoJ to have to give it back in a year because I couldn't produce evidence.
I certainly didn't try to stop the VCR from coming into being with lies.
The most I do is jaywalk.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Cafe's arn't the only ones
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Cafe's arn't the only ones
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Cafe's arn't the only ones
But they don't. So you don't.
How's that campaign for Andrew Crossley coming along?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Cafe's arn't the only ones
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Cafe's arn't the only ones
Your not allowed to do that... CCI said so.
LAWBREAKER!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A great comment from Reddit thread discussing this article
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A great comment from Reddit thread discussing this article
Kash called me out again in that thread...
I think I want her to be my secret girlfriend... well other than that whole I like men thing...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I say this, i will crack every router and download and pirate on others internet. Sure its messed up, people will innocently get there internet shut off, but someone needs to point out the absurdity to all this; the only way corporations pay attention is if they are losing money
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
For the trolls...
I have a long list of IP addresses owned 100% by the cartels running this program, that clearly shows them "stealing".
It is just as good as the list being provided by Reuters Thompson/MarkMonitor/Dtecnet, why are they still allowed to use the internet?
Maybe before they decide they can assign blame to account holders for the actions of 3rd parties they should clean their own house first.
Ms. Lesser needs to publish the review of Stroz's work as promised. The fact these are going out with a system with no independent verification of its abilities should be the basis for a nice class action lawsuit.
I think that State AG's need to ask why any public funds or rights of ways are provided to companies who are acting as Judge, Jury, and Executioner for the cartels on "evidence" that can not stand up in court.
Ms. Lesser will say whatever it takes to get the goals of CCI shoved down the throats of society, that is what she is paid to do. No amount of education, experince, etc will trump the simple fact that she is paid to extol the virtues of a system no matter what. Think of it as being a professional liar. If you doubt that, her statement about how Stroz having been a paid RIAA lobbyist had no bearing on them being able to be impartial reviewer should clear that right up.
The country needs to pick, either we accept the oligarchs are now in control or we remind them this is a free nation with laws made by the people not corporations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: For the trolls...
The usual pretending lawbreaking isn't happening... I'm oppressed... Enforcement is evil... Etc Gimme my free entertainment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: For the trolls...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: For the trolls...
If you want people to embrace the law it has to apply evenly.
I'll take your whining as you concede this point.
As soon as there are lawsuits among the cartel members over the obvious "stealing" going on between them I'll entertain them getting to do it to others.
Did you have anything else to add to your lacking statement or were you hoping that just misrepresenting what I said would be enough to derail me?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: For the trolls...
The usual AC asshole who can't address the actual positions being raised, and so has to make false accusations against everybody and deflect the discussion into addressing his fictions.
Do you honestly not get tired of lying?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So why would MPAA/RIAA not stop there? They'll just put surveillance cameras in your house and send you six copyright strikes in your mailbox for singing a copyrighted lyrics without the authorization of the content owner. After six strikes, They would take your brain out of your head, put it in a jar, and seal it in a frozen vault deep underground, and isolated from the outside world. And don't forget that MPAA/RIAA are planning introduce laws to make it mandatory to have DRM chips implanted in your brain making sure you're uncreative, unproductive, and force you against your will to buy their products.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
On collateral damage
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: On collateral damage
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I discovered that the wholsale blocking of all UDP ports, 1024 and up, to shut down BitTorrent, also causes IceNetwork streaming not to work, becuase their streams are using UDP ports somewhere in that range.
I do think that a lot of Wifi hotspots will go this route, rather than shut down completely, but the collateral damage in shutting down BitTorrent will be more than anyone could imagine.
I know for sure that IceNetwork, as well as the Skype telephone service, will be affected by this, and lord knows what else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]