Comcast NBC Universal Already Moving Past Six Strikes; Trying New Malware Popups Urging Downloaders To Buy

from the that-seems-like-a-bad-idea dept

The "six strikes" Copyright Alert System (CAS) is barely under way and already Comcast/NBC Universal are looking to go beyond it with malware-like popups that show up as you download a piece of content, pushing you to buy it (well, "license" it) via an authorized source. Variety has the details at the link above, though late in the article it seems to suggest that this is all really coming from the NBC Universal side, not the Comcast side, which shouldn't come as a huge surprise:

While Comcast knows the solution is feasible, the company’s engineers haven’t formally begun work on it. The project is being worked on in tandem with engineers at NBC Universal, the content side of the conglomerate.

That certainly sounds like something cooked up on the NBC Universal side of things. The offering here sounds ridiculous and intrusive:

As sources described the new system, a consumer illegally downloading a film or movie from a peer-to-peer system like Bittorrent would be quickly pushed a pop-up message with links to purchase or rent the same content, whether the title in question exists on the VOD library of a participating distributor’s own broadband network or on a third-party seller like Amazon.

This highlights a few key points:

• For all the fuss about the six strikes system and how important it was, it sure sounds like yet another expensive disaster in a long line of expensive disasters by the legacy entertainment industry in its quixotic quest to stamp out infringement. They still don't get that this isn't an education problem, nor is it an enforcement problem. It's a service problem. And being creepy and spying on what people are surfing on isn't going to make people feel particularly warm and fuzzy about moving on to buy something.
• Popups are a bad idea. As in really, really bad. First off, it just pisses people off to get any sort of popup. Second, the only way to do this is by effectively spying on all trafffic -- i.e., some sort of deep packet inspection/malware-like setup monitoring everything you do. Anyone who doesn't think that doesn't open up opportunities for abuse and security vulnerabilities hasn't been paying much attention.
• As many people warned, you knew that the legacy entertainment industry would never believe that the six strikes program was "enough." They have huge staffs of "anti-piracy" people who need to stay employed, so you had to know they were cooking up more. But, no matter what plan is agreed to, there's always going to be mission creep as they try to get more and more and more.
• Any system that involves spying on the activities of users is going to be a non-starter. Creeping the hell out of people isn't a way of encouraging them to buy. It's a way of encouraging them to want nothing to do with you.
• My favorite part: the system would include affiliate links within the alerts in an attempt to drive extra revenue and to encourage other ISPs and sites to participate. I guess it's better than pressuring companies with a stick, but the affiliate link carrot just feels sleazy.

In the end, as we've been saying all along, the way to deal with infringement is by offering users a good reason to buy. That means providing them with more value -- whether it's direct value from purchasing authorized versions or something like a connection (e.g., so that people want to support the content creator directly). Anything that involves trying to pressure people just turns people off. It's the difference between setting up a store so that it's friendly and inviting, and filling a store with pushy salespeople who keep scolding you. One system attracts customers, the other attracts disdain. Why the legacy guys always go with the "disdain" path is beyond me.

Filed Under: copyright, copyright alert system, deep packet inspection, infringement, malware, popups, six strikes
Companies: comcast, nbc universal

Warner Bros. Copyright Trolling Customers Of Non-Six Strikes ISPs

from the but-of-course dept

One point that people have pointed out concerning the US's "six strikes" agreement between ISPs and Hollywood, is the fact that it only covers a group of the largest ISPs, but there are a fair number of other, smaller, independent ISPs. Apparently, however, Hollywood has decided that it will go after users on those ISPs as well, and will go after them more aggressively -- by demanding cash from them. Basically, Warner Bros. has teamed up with a company called Digital Rights Corp., which is sort of a "slightly more legit" form of copyright trolling -- demanding licenses from people they accuse of infringement.

“Yes. Warner Bros. is working with Digital Rights Corp on a test ISP/subscriber notification program to many ISPs that are not participating in the Copyright Alert System,” a Warner spokesman told TorrentFreak.

[....] “The notices give consumers an opportunity to settle the identified infringement for a very nominal sum of $20 per title infringed–not as a measure of damage, but as a concrete reminder that our content has value and as a discouragement of future unauthorized activity.”

This is nefarious on multiple levels, because it actually treats the consumers of alternative ISPs worse than customers of ISPs who agreed to sell out those customers to Hollywood.

As TorrentFreak notes, it's not clear that Warner Bros. can or would actually do anything if you don't pay such a demand. But, if you do pay, it appears they go back to you seeking more:

After the initial payment, Rights Corp matched the notified (and settled) infringement with two others already on file. Since the guy had filled in his phone number, the company then called him up and asked for another $40.00 to clear his file.

This certainly sounds like copyright trolling, along the lines of Prenda, but at a slightly cheaper level.

Filed Under: copyright, copyright trolling, fines, isps, six strikes
Companies: warner bros.

Center For Copyright Information Loses Company Status, Not Supposed To Conduct Business In The US

from the strike-one? dept

TorrentFreak has discovered that the Center for Copyright Information (CCI), better known as the company running the whole "six strikes" scheme in the US, somehow had its company status revoked last year for reasons unknown. However, this could have serious consequences:

“If entity’s status is revoked then articles of incorporation / organization shall be void and all powers conferred upon such entity are declared inoperative, and, in the case of a foreign entity, the certificate of foreign registration shall be revoked and all powers conferred hereunder shall be inoperative,” the DCRA explains.

It also may face penalties and fines. It appears that this may have just been a paperwork screwup, which does happen, but given the organization's overall mission, you would think that they would have been a lot more careful dotting their i's and crossing their t's.

Filed Under: business, cas, cci, copyright alert systems, registration, six strikes
Companies: ccia, center for copyright information

Attempt To Trigger Six Strikes Comes Up Empty

from the this-time... dept

Right after the "six strikes" Copyright Alert System (CAS) launched, I heard from a few people saying that it was actually likely to increase their file sharing activities, in part because it clearly laid out the "risks" of doing so. In other words, rather than educating people that file sharing was "wrong," the CAS seemed to clarify the actual risks involved. Of course, some of the CAS punishments can be somewhat severe, so I do wonder how accurate those predictions were. However, apparently some folks have tried and failed to get themselves a strike under the CAS system, according to a report in DailyDot (which, bizarrely, never seems to name who conducted the actual study). They chose some popular content -- including some Rihanna songs, since Rihanna songs have been targeted under both France's and New Zealand's three strikes systems. They found torrents via The Pirate Bay, downloaded the works and then left the files available for weeks... and nothing.

Obviously, this is just one test on one ISP (Verizon) with just a few files. That's hardly indicative of what's actually happening with the overall CAS. However, it does make me wonder, if we start seeing more, similar reports, if it will lead more people to actually look at the whole system as making it more enticing to share files than before. Obviously, that would be the exact opposite of what the program's supporters would like.

At the very least, however, it makes me wonder (yet again) why the industry is putting so much effort towards punishment and enforcement, and so little towards actually adding value and giving people good reasons to buy.

Filed Under: cas, six strikes
Companies: verizon

Copyright Troll Malibu Media Seeking 'Six Strikes' Info From Verizon In Lawsuit

from the but-of-course dept

One of the many complaints about the "six strikes" Copyright Alert System (CAS) in the US is the fact that while it doesn't directly lead to litigation, there is nothing in the agreement that prevents copyright holders from seeking out and using information from the six strikes system in copyright infringement lawsuits. And, surprise surprise, it appears that at least one copyright trolling operation has jumped to the front of the line in testing this out. Malibu Media, who was already building up quite the reputation as a copyright troll (not quite Prenda-like, but still up there), is trying to get Verizon to cough up a ton of information, including details from its six strikes system.

As TorrentFreak notes, the list of information demanded via subpoena has been culled down to the following:

• DMCA notices and if applicable six strike notices sent to the applicable subscribers.
• Defendants’ bandwidth usage.
• Information about the (reliability of the) correlation of the IP-Address to the subscriber for purposes of use at trial.
• Content viewed by Defendants to the extent the content is the same show or movie that Plaintiff learned from third-party BitTorrent scanning companies that Defendants also used BitTorrent to download and distribute.

So far, Verizon (who has been one of the better companies in resisting copyright trolls) is objecting to handing over the information and has so far refused to do so, arguing that it does not wish to help "shakedown tactics" by copyright trolls. Malibu is now trying to have the court compel Verizon to cough up the info. Given that we'll likely see more of this, how the court responds should be worth following.

Filed Under: copyright, copyright alert system, copyright troll, information, lawsuits, six strikes
Companies: malibu media, verizon

Government Can Keep Key Emails With Hollywood Lobbyists About 'Six Strikes' Secret

from the can't-interfere-with-that-'commercial'-relationship dept

While we keep hearing folks in the entertainment industry and their supporters in DC talk about how great it is that the "six strikes" "Copyright Alert System" (CAS) was a "voluntary" agreement between industry players, one of the worst kept secrets in the world was that the White House was heavily involved. They basically helped Hollywood out and at least hinted strongly at the fact that if no "voluntary" agreement came through, legislation might have to be put in place (creating a novel definition of "voluntary"). Specifically, it came out that Victoria Espinel, the White House's IP Enforcement Coordinator (IPEC), had been emailing with people about the program.

That news came out because Chris Soghoian had submitted a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, seeking details of all communications between Espinel and her staff and the various players in six strikes, both the entertainment industry and the various ISPs (no need to seek communications with the real stakeholders, the public, since they weren't even invited to the table). However, Soghoian felt that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), in which Espinel works, kept key documents from being revealed, and appealed. Following that, OMB released a few more documents, but still kept many secret. Soghoain then went to court over the issue -- arguing specifically that exemptions claimed for "trade secrets, commercial or financial interesets" and "privileged intra-agency memoranda and letters" were inappropriate. Unfortunately, the court has now rejected that case, siding with OMB.

At issue are some details of the draft "memorandum of understanding" that created the six strikes CAS program. Apparently, entertainment industry lobbyists shared those drafts with Espinel, but OMB won't release them, claiming that they're commercial, confidential information. OMB also argued that the documents were provided voluntarily and that the drafts "were not compelled or obligated." In response, Soghoian argued that the documents were clearly provided to OMB for the sake of having Espinel "press ISPs for additional steps to combat copyright infringement (steps they are not legally obligated to take)." The court rejects this, saying that the info was provided confidentially, and voluntarily, and it represents commercial information. So... they remain secret.

The court also rejected an attempt to see internal discussions within the government about the six strike plans (as well as discussions on foreign laws like the Hadopi six strikes plan in France). Espinel's office argued that these are protected because they're a part of the "deliberative process privilege" that lets them withhold internal deliberative discussions about policy (so that government employees can discuss stuff openly before coming to an official policy position). However, here, Soghoian argued that Espinel and the IPEC have almost no policy setting role under the law, and thus this exemption makes little sense. Once again, the court disagreed. Here, they argued that since the government may make policy decisions based on whether or not six strikes formed (or how well it works) that these communications were properly classified as privileged and not open to FOIA requests.

The court goes into a bit more detail on a few specific withheld documents, but the conclusion is all the same: OMB can keep these documents secret because they involve internal deliberative discussions. This isn't too surprising, but it also means that we don't get to learn the full extent of the government's involvement in this "voluntary" process.

Filed Under: chris soghoian, copyright alert system, foia, six strikes, victoria espinel

Six Strikes Is Just 'Soft SOPA'

from the more-futility-and-stupidity dept

The nationwide Six Strikes Copyright Alert System continues to roll out with many of the details still shrouded in secrecy. The few aspects of the system that can be guaranteed are negative: open WiFi could become a thing of the past and non-infringers are likely to be swept up in the CAS net.

Then there's the problematic system itself, one that places the burden of proof entirely on the end user. In addition, the punishment (in some cases, the loss of internet service) seems to greatly outweigh the crime. As Andrew Bridges points out in his interview with ReadWrite, the ridiculousness of this punishment becomes apparent when you move the discussion out of the copyright arena.

Say you send out one of those mailers for a subscription to Time Magazine. And you check the box that says bill me later. Let's say that they start sending you Time Magazine, and after 2 or 3 issues they send you the bill, and you never pay. But in the meantime you have 6 or 8 issues before they cut you off for not paying. My proposal is let's adopt Six Strikes and knock somebody off the postal system. You don't pay for it, you don't get to use the postal service any longer. Or let's say somebody blows through a toll plaza 6 times, does that mean you don't ever use the highways anymore?

Now, some might argue that this is no different than, say, revoking a driver's license after certain number of DUIs. I'd argue it's closer to punishing a boiler-room scammer with loss of telephone privileges. It's one thing to limit one specific activity (driving/driving drunk) as a deterrent. (After all, the person with multiple DUIs can still walk places, use public transportation and drink to his heart's content.) It's quite another to block off an entire form of communication simply because the infringement was committed via an internet connection.

This urge to sever infringers from their internet connections (or slow the connection to nearly-unusable speeds) stems from the copyright industries' paranoia about all things internet-related. One needs look no further than the MPAA's knee jerk reaction to Google's plan to provide 1gb up/down internet to Kansas City. From its limited viewpoint, the only thing anyone does with a fast internet connection is commit high speed infringement.

This paranoia goes hand-in-hand with the industries' general panic over every new technology that threatens their control over distribution.

The function of copyright law as it has evolved is indeed to disrupt innovation and to disrupt new technologies that threaten the interest of copyright holders. Frankly all copyright legislation has been in reaction to new technologies that are developed. And copyright law has sought as its purpose, interfering with, limiting, pampering and indeed disrupting innovation of technology, business plans, even disruption of consumer choice.

Bridges refers to the Six Strikes plan as "Soft SOPA." Even though SOPA itself was killed off, certain aspects still remain and are being incorporated into other legislation and "voluntary" initiatives like the Copyright Alert System.

Even though SOPA failed, SOPA is now in some respects the law of the land. Because we now have Soft SOPA. We have the government putting pressure on advertising networks and putting pressure on payment processors, unofficially, to take the same measures that SOPA was going to require them to [do]. But now it's a sort of 'if you know what's good for you, could you pretty please, wink-wink' method.

There are payment processors notifying companies that they are no longer willing to process payments for them. It's happening. It happened with three of my clients... [W]e have advertisers blacklisting certain sites, and telling sites. 'We're not going to place advertising on your site because people tell us you're not a good site.' So that's happening. And it's being done as "Oh it's just a private decision."

In the long run, it appears the RIAA, MPAA and various others have still managed to push their agenda through. The only difference is the lack of an official government mandate. Instead, we're seeing something a bit shadier -- SOPA's directives presented as "cooperation" between the copyright industry and private companies.

This is still business as usual for the industry and their support system within the US government. As was pointed out here (both before and after SOPA's defeat), the legal authority to shut down foreign sites the RIAA/MPAA sought when pushing this bill seemed redundant. ICE and the DOJ were already shuttering foreign sites without the aid of this supposedly essential anti-piracy legislation.

What's happening now is a continuation of that process. The content industries already have the DOJ/ICE working for them. Now, they're hoping that a blend of "voluntary" alert systems and heavy-handed "suggestions" will finish the job. And whoever gets mangled in the machinery is simply the price of "doing business." After all, it won't affect anyone but the sites and users knocked offline.

Filed Under: andrew bridges, cas, six strikes, soft sopa, sopa

Dear Hollywood: Hire Better Shills

from the wow dept

The Wall Street Journal recently ran a puff piece showing just how much work it is for NBC Universal to keep fighting all those darn pirates. It's basically a propaganda piece starring Rick "Save the Corn Farmers!" Cotton, NBC's general counsel who fights piracy the way that Captain Ahab chases Moby Dick. There are all sorts of problems with the piece, including the fact that it appears to believe that just because NBC is sending a lot more takedowns, it means that the "problem" is growing. Of course, as we were just discussing last week, when you look at the actual data, it makes a pretty clear case for anti-piracy efforts doing nothing to stop piracy, but investment in lots of innovative startups providing consumers what they want being the path to success. But, that's not Cotton's style.

Anyway, Janko Roettgers, over at PaidContent, wrote a nice post debunking much of the story, which quickly got three comments that all sounded vaguely similar in their poor use of the English language -- all of which tried to spin the story into "proof" that greater enforcement, such as the six strikes effort, was needed. Two of them make the laughable claim that each infringement represents "lost revenue." That's not how it works. Here's one of the three comments:

I’m glad the author is pointing out what is pretty clear to people who browse the internet everyday, piracy is still widespread and is evolving every year. Not even taking into account the huge piracy issues overseas, each of these takedown requests represents lost revenue for both views and time spend tracking and reporting this illegal behavior. NBC will and should continue to do this because legal viewing of their content is vital for their business. But the better long term solution is to create a system where NBC isn’t playing a carnival game just to receive the proper copyright benefits for the content they invest so much in.

Of course, the real way to get to that "long term solution" is for NBC to stop playing the carnival game of takedowns -- which do nothing to reduce infringement -- and focus on making sure its content is more widely available from more legitimate sources.

Either way, Janko quickly pointed out that, in a surprise to no one, it was pretty clear that the comments were from DC-based hired shills for the entertainment industry:

Kelseliz, AlexB and SteveFeather, I’m glad you all enjoyed my story. However, I’m not too surprised you all share the same point of view. After all, the three of you commented from the same Washington D.C.-based IP address, and one of the email addresses you left points to a D.C. lobbying firm that gets paid by major labels, rights holder groups and movie studios… but I’m sure that’s all just one big coincidence.

I know that it's common in our comments for people to accuse others of being "shills." Frankly, people jump to the shill label way too fast. While it is clear that some of our commenters do work in the industry, there are very few indications that they are paid to be propaganda spreaders, and I try to give them the benefit of the doubt (similarly, I would urge our commenters to stop throwing around the "shill" term so readily -- unless there's actual evidence, don't leap to unsupported conclusions). That said, in this case it seems pretty blatant that some entertainment industry "friends" from a DC lobbying group are now out trying to spread a very poorly argued concept that we somehow "need" six strikes. I'd suggest that the RIAA, MPAA and others might find better ways to spend their money.

Filed Under: entertainment industry, hollywood, lobbyists, piracy, shills, six strikes

System Used By New Six Strikes CAS, Falsely Identifies Game Mods As NBC TV Shows

from the this-is-going-to-be-a-disaster dept

Reader David Sutherland emailed us this week about a DMCA notice that he received via his MediaFire account. The notice, which we've included below (including all of the crappy formatting) claimed that he was using MediaFire to host "one of the following files: Downton Abbey, CONTRABAND (2012), GRIMM (2011), House M.D., MAN WITH THE IRON FISTS, THE, The Office." The "file" they claimed was one of those TV shows/movies was "Cantha Cartography Made Easy 2009.tpf" which is actually a game mod for Guild Wars. You might possibly be able to argue that ArenaNet, makers of Guild Wars could have a copyright claim (maybe, sorta), but that's not who sent the notice and it's not what they claimed it was. Sutherland notes that he set up this MediaFire account solely to host game mods and has never hosted any other content there.

So, who sent the DMCA takedown? Dtecnet. And, as you can see from the messy, messy DMCA notice below, they tried to takedown a huge list of files. If Sutherland's experience is anything to go by, you have to wonder how many of them are actually infringing.

Of course, we've seen plenty of bogus DMCA takedowns. It happens all the time. But this one is doubly important, because it's from DtecNet, a division of MarkMonitor. MarkMonitor/Dtecnet also just happen to be the company providing the key monitoring for the new "six strikes" Copyright Alert System (CAS). The Center for Copyright Information has a web page on its site about an "independent expert assessment" of MarkMonitor's antipiracy methodologies. Except... that page is completely blank. Perhaps, if they're looking to do an analysis, figuring out why they're taking down content that has nothing to do with what they claim would be a good place to start.

Good thing the CAS works entirely based on accusations, without needing to show any proof at all, huh?

Filed Under: cas, copyright, false alerts, game mods, six strikes
Companies: dtecnet, markmonitor, nbc

Comcast: We Won't Terminate Your Account Under Six Strikes; We'll Just Block Every Single Website

from the well,-there's-that dept

The various ways in which the big ISPs would implement their version of the "six strikes" Copyright Alert System had mostly been leaked over the past few months, but there had been nothing coming out of Comcast. AT&T planned to block "frequently visited websites" after the fourth strike. Verizon planned to throttle speeds so low that it would drive users crazy. It looks like Comcast is doing something similar to Time Warner, which means that after four accusations (not convictions, not proof of guilt, just accusations), anyone using the account of someone who hits that strike will have all of their browsing hijacked and sent to a landing page that they cannot get around. Oddly, for reasons that don't make much sense, the page that TorrentFreak links to on Comcast's site disappeared. If I go to it, I get a 404 not found. But if I do a search on the keyword "mitigation," it still shows up in the index. Then I click, and the page is still gone. Either way, while it's technically true that they're not "cutting off" people, they are clearly cutting them off from the wider web.

"If a consumer fails to respond to several Copyright Alerts, Comcast will place a persistent alert in any web browser under that account until the account holder contacts Comcast's Customer Security Assurance professionals to discuss and help resolve the matter,"

No information is given on what it means to "resolve the matter." It's hardly a surprise that Comcast would choose the most extreme option, considering that it owns NBC Universal, whose execs supposedly drove much of the discussion around the CAS system. In the meantime, are we still supposed to believe, as per the cheery video that the Center for Copyright Information put out, that this is all for the benefit of ISP users?

Filed Under: cas, copyright alert system, pop ups, proxies, six strikes
Companies: comcast