Internet Providers To Begin Warning Customers Who Pirate Content 442
beltsbear writes "Welcome to the future that you warned us about. Starting soon, Verizon, Comcast and others will work with the Center for Copyright Information to reduce piracy. Customers thought to be pirating will receive alerts. 'The progressive series of alerts is designed to make consumers aware of activity that has occurred using their Internet accounts, educate them on how they can prevent such activity from happening again,' If a customer feels they are being wrongly accused, they can ask for a review, which will cost them $35, according to the Verge."
I should not have to pay $35 (Score:5, Insightful)
... if I didn't do anything wrong. THEY should first prove I did.
Re:I should not have to pay $35 (Score:5, Insightful)
C'mon - Verizon and Comcast likely wrote that provision themselves. After all, why treat it as a procedure when you can treat it as a profit center?
Just wait until they feel that profits aren't high enough...
Re:I should not have to pay $35 (Score:5, Insightful)
35 dollars later, they say "oh, our bad", and they keep the money.
Re: (Score:2, Redundant)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
How is that different from a mafia style protection racket?
Seriously these guys are approaching bond-villain levels of evil.
Re: (Score:3)
1) Increase the number of people you are accusing per day.
2) Decrease the length of time between repeat accusations.
3) Increase the fee to get rid of this pesky little smear.
They may not have to increase the fee, but I am skeptical that only sticking to the 1st and/or 2nd options would satiate their greed.
Re:I should not have to pay $35 (Score:5, Insightful)
C'mon - Verizon and Comcast likely wrote that provision themselves. After all, why treat it as a procedure when you can treat it as a profit center?
Just wait until they feel that profits aren't high enough...
They are a corporation, profits are never high enough...
Re: (Score:3)
They are a corporation, profits are never high enough...
Whatever, Che.
If the board corporation ever 'thought their profits were high enough' they'd be in BIG trouble with their shareholders and get hauled over the coals. Its called 'fiduciary responsibility'.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Spin.
The implication was that all corporations, by virtue of being corporations, will do anything to increase profit. That's false, but a common meme.
Re:I should not have to pay $35 (Score:5, Funny)
Yep. 99 percent of corporations give the rest a bad name.
Re: (Score:3)
Off topic I know. Not sure how to pm
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run..
Unfortunately the UK is a good (bad) example of government appeasing media as in Daily Mail hysteria campaigns. Media is corporation control of the masses
You will find that this is true in most democracies. In a democracy the people who hold true power are the ones who shape voting behavior. Since advertising works the end result of a democracy is that the people who control the advertising control the government. There is nothing that a democratically elected figure fears more than the media. Therefore the people who are elected are not the ones with real power but are figureheads. Democracy ends up being a cover, a sham, theater.
Re:I should not have to pay $35 (Score:5, Interesting)
C'mon - Verizon and Comcast likely wrote that provision themselves. After all, why treat it as a procedure when you can treat it as a profit center?
I've received about a dozen of these alerts. You know what I do with them? right-click... delete. Go ahead, tell me I'm pirating. Go ahead, threaten me. They once sent me a very intimidating "final notice" saying they were going to cut off my internet. It was the only one I replied to -- via a certified letter. All it had in it was a print out of the e-mail and the following word: "Nuts."
It's been four months and several terabytes of pirated material. I haven't heard a peep from them. Here's the truth guys: Ignore, ignore, ignore. They're trying to use fear to motivate people because they know the "problem" is so widespread that it would take tens of millions of lawyers working around the clock and an equal number of judges, experts, juries, etc., at a cost of many billions of dollars to go after everyone legally. Ignore your ISPs until they actually turn off your internet. Then... complain to your public utilities commissioner and legislators and explain how they're engaging in vigilante justice, it's unamerican, etc. Be creative, but above all, be loud, and send your complaints on something with a stamp on it, not an e-mail. Or use a fax machine. That shit gets read, unlike e-mails. We are legion. Don't forget that: Hundreds of millions of us. A few dozen of them. Even if they have machine guns and tanks, they're still fucked.
Re:I should not have to pay $35 (Score:5, Interesting)
For once, a post I can agree with 100%.
The contract I signed with them has no provision for "punishment" based on some 3rd-party's say-so. If they tried to throttle me or cut me off, that is fraud or at least breach of contract.
They can threaten all they like, but I'd bet you a lot their lawyers told them they'd damned well better stop short of actually taking any action.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
If they tried to throttle me or cut me off, that is fraud or at least breach of contract.
Usually not.
And they're not afraid of you. They'll just start answering those incoming John Doe requests.
Re: (Score:3)
"Usually not."
Maybe not... usually. But I have a performance contract. I pay a certain amount per month for a certain bandwidth tier. If they were to throttle me, they would not be delivering on their part of the contract. Period.
Re:I should not have to pay $35 (Score:4, Insightful)
I wouldn't ignore the first letter. I'd make life a living hell for the sender.
But then, I'm not pirating several terabytes of pirated material and then bragging about it on an internet website while also giving free (if dubious) legal advice and essentially saying "the system is broken so loot everything". Guess that gives me something of a moral high ground if I do get a letter.
You go on being legion. I'd rather be an individual than part of your mob.
Re:I should not have to pay $35 (Score:4, Insightful)
I wouldn't ignore the first letter. I'd make life a living hell for the sender.
It's hard to make life a living hell for an entity that sold its soul a long time ago. I ignore all letters unless served to me by the sheriff as a matter of course. In this society, the threat of legal action usually shuts people up. I'm something of an exception to the rule though -- until legal action actually commences, I really don't give a fuck. Remember, there's plenty of time to settle or negotiate, it's not like the legal process is fast.
But then, I'm not pirating several terabytes of pirated material and then bragging about it on an internet website while also giving free (if dubious) legal advice and essentially saying "the system is broken so loot everything".
While I am bragging about it on an internet website, fair enough, nothing I say here is under oath. I can lie all I want; as long as the words themselves aren't inciting people to violence or in some way providing a clear and present danger to public safety. "Download ALL the stuffs!" doesn't exactly make my list of Things People Say That Reasonable People Get Scared About. Actually, it makes the Things People Say Everyday That Only a Very Very Very Super Very Tiny Number Of People Have a Problem With list... and that's about it.
Guess that gives me something of a moral high ground if I do get a letter.
You had the moral high ground from day one. Fair use used to be legal. I could share music and videos with you freely -- even copies, even copies of copies, or copies of copies of copies. The operative word is of course 'free'. I can't charge you for it, and you can't make a profit off it. But as long as you stayed within those boundaries, it was all good. And the reason for this was that a lot of our music, media, movies, art, etc., is part of our collective culture. My sister made a reference to the Jetsons the other day -- despite never having actually seen an episode of it. That's part of our culture -- it's symbolism for something about us. The future, flying cars, whatever, it's part of who we are. There are tens of thousands of things just like that, songs "everybody" knows. I have yet to meet a girl who can't recite the lyrics to Sweet Dreams (are made of these), etc. Fair use isn't a cheat -- it's an essential part of retaining and spreading our culture. Locking it up and saying only the wealthy can afford it is wrong. It may be legal, but it's wrong. It will always be wrong. There is no way in which a moral and ethical person can conclude it's anything but wrong.
Legal does not mean right, and illegal does not mean wrong. I do what's right, what I think is fair, and act within the standards of my community, not some arbitrary standard set out by some rich fucker in a suit who thinks he has a say. Listen, rich fucker, you don't. You never did. All the money in the world can buy you corrupt laws and public officials and a lot of influence, but it can't buy you me.
I am free. So take your laws, your lawsuits, your bullshit ideology -- and literally fuck yourself with them. And I do mean literally... print them out on a sheet of paper, and shove it up your goddamned ass. Are we clear here? This isn't about me being part of a "mob", this is about me being a proud member of my community. I am proud of my values, and I know these are values that the majority of people in my community, in the country, in the world, support and agree with. That is what I mean when I say "we are legion."
You cannot threaten or cajoule me into doing something I feel is wrong. That's what standing up for what you believe in means, and I'll do it every time. They got my number, they know where I live... anytime they feel like coming over and trying to force their ideas onto me, I'm up for it. I'm here, ready, waiting. I'm not hiding. I'll fight... but I won't go looking for one. And I encourage you to do the same. Any fool can make a law, and any fool will mind it. You do what's right, that's all any moral, ethical, member of your community can ask... the law... doesn't matter.
Re:I should not have to pay $35 (Score:5, Informative)
Fair use used to be legal. I could share music and videos with you freely -- even copies, even copies of copies, or copies of copies of copies. The operative word is of course 'free'. I can't charge you for it, and you can't make a profit off it. But as long as you stayed within those boundaries, it was all good.
You do NOT get to make shit up. You obviously have no idea what you are talking about.
Look, I get it... you're pirating material.. and you're telling yourself all day long, it's ok... this *used* to be legal.
But it's NOT true. If you want to have a reasonable discussion about copyright law.. then YOU NEED TO STICK TO THE FACTS.
The first copyright law was the The Statute of Anne in 1709 in Britain. It did not apply to the colonies. The first copyright act in the US was the US Copyright Act of 1790.. it was similar to the Statute of Anne. http://www.copyright.gov/history/1790act.pdf [copyright.gov]
That from and after the passing of this act, the author and ... shall have the sole right and ...
authors of any map, chart, book or books already printed
liberty of printing, reprinting, publishing and vending such map, chart, book or books, for the
term of fourteen years
And be it further enacted, That if any other person or persons, from and after the
recording the title of any map, chart, book or books, and publishing the same as aforesaid, and
within the times limited and granted by this act, shall print, reprint, publish, or import, or cause
to be printed, reprinted, published, or imported from any foreign Kingdom or State, any copy or
copies of such map, chart, book or books, without the consent of the author or proprietor thereof,
first had and obtained in writing, signed in the presence of two or more credible witnesses; or
knowing the same to be so printed, reprinted, or imported, shall publish, sell, or expose to sale,
or cause to be published, sold or exposed to sale, any copy of such map, chart, book or books,
without such consent first had and obtained in writing as aforesaid, then such offender or
offenders shall forfeit all and every sheet and sheets, being part of the same, or either of them, to
the author or proprietor of such map, chart, book or books, who shall forthwith destroy the same:
And every such offender and offenders shall also forfeit and pay the sum of fifty cents for every
sheet which shall be found in his or their possession, either printed or printing, published,
imported or exposed to sale,
Re:I should not have to pay $35 (Score:4, Informative)
The first copyright law was the The Statute of Anne in 1709 in Britain. It did not apply to the colonies. The first copyright act in the US was the US Copyright Act of 1790.. it was similar to the Statute of Anne.
If we're going to have a measuring contest over who can nitpick the best, I'm going to win. The first copyright law in the United States was common law, which our laws were derived from, and Clause 8 of the US Constitution. In other words, until 1790, all our laws were case law, decided by judges. After that, a small portion of copyright law was codified. That's the very small part you quoted. Fair use predates that and continued after the passage of that law in our common law system.
Now, if you'd be so kind, please reply with another wall of text only tangentially-related, as is traditional when someone pulls your pants down around your ankles and giggles at your ineptitude in a public forum...
Re: (Score:2)
Sic 'em, girly!
Re:I should not have to pay $35 (Score:4, Informative)
Mod parent up. Although, there is a caveat (isn't there always?):
What you seem to be describing is the Shareware Concept. This isn't so much fair use as a licence to copy and distribute. For those of you born after the days of bulletin boards and floppy disks on the front of magazines, here's how it works:
You get a copy of a piece of software from wherever (I'll use a copy of FractINT 18.0 I got on the front of a magazine a few years before my oldest child was born). The licence that comes with it (in electronic form, a file named license.doc and another called vendor.doc) says I can distribute as many copies of the software as I like, to whomever I like, BUT:
1. I cannot charge for the software. I am, however, allowed to charge for the media and bare distribution costs such as postage and packaging.
2. If I distribute the software as part of a compilation I MUST get permission in writing from the copyright holder (they're usually very good about this).
3. The software must not be modified in any way. Ancillary files not essential to the software's functionality but included with it (such as the licenses) must be bundled with it. Usually the license documents include a list of the files that must be included (an exception to this is the example given, where the authors actually encourage community input into the program, great mods/additions make it to the next version).
4. If I find the software useful, I should consider paying the author. Sometimes, what you have is a locked-down version (a "demo") of the full program. Pay a small fee and you get the unlock key. Sometimes it's a 30-day period with full functionality then it locks down. Same thing. OR for some games, you get to distribute the first level or three, pay the fee to get the rest of the game sent to you in the post (what a weird concept these days!)
Now, I've been using FractINT for nigh on two decades, it's the most fantastic bit of geek porn. I've also made regular donations to the authors in time and development (as they say, "Don't want money, got money. Want recognition". Great philosophy!) and I've managed to sort of keep up with the latest developments myself (though I still prefer the DOS version).
What the Shareware Concept and associated licence does in these days of wireless broadband and "What's a CD-ROM?" is reduce the cost of distributing software attached to it, to almost zero. You're not buying media or envelopes, or paying postage anymore. You're opening a Bittorrent client and hooking up to a tracker. There's no effort involved anymore, and that is what is scaring the SHIT out of the big vendors and the associatives - their business model is COMPLETELY OBSOLETE.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You *still* believe pirating is stealing, even after spending time on slashdot?
I don't know about the other poster, but I do. It doesn't mean I'll get worked up enough to defend a failed business plan. This seems like one of the opportunities to get rid of crime by making it legal.
Re:I should not have to pay $35 (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
It is stealing in the core, meaningful sense of the word.
BS. The copyright holders have lost nothing except a "potential" sale. There's plenty of studies out there proving that "pirates" spend a hell of a lot more than the rest of us buying legal copies.
This is a horrible, horrible way to treat your most prolific customers. This is a vile and disgusting way to do business.
Boycott!
Re:I should not have to pay $35 (Score:5, Insightful)
You *still* believe pirating is stealing, even after spending time on slashdot?
(If you didn't mean to say loot, that's cool, we all make mistakes, just say so)
Tell people here that you use GPL-licensed code in a closed-source product and see how fast you'll be accused of stealing.
Re: (Score:2)
How lucky you feel today? The problem is not that they won't go after everyone, the real problem is if they will go against you in particular, and use that as an example to intimidate the rest even more. Remember the cases with lawsuits for hundreds or millons of dollars for pirating songs to grandmas?
Don't push your luck, if they don't get enough people complying, they could get lobbyed legal backing to actually cut your connection or other generic fast/automated mass punishment that don't need a lawsuit
Re: (Score:2)
How lucky you feel today? The problem is not that they won't go after everyone, the real problem is if they will go against you in particular, and use that as an example to intimidate the rest even more
Okay, how can I make this more clear: Attention Recording Industry Suits O Doom: Fuck you. I'm a pirate. I'm dropping my pants right now and showing you my curvy white ass. Nana Nana boo boo, stick your head in doo doo. Come and find me!
Immaturity aside, let me be crystal-clear here: I don't care if they come after me. I don't care if they come after me with tanks, shotguns, and black helicopters. No matter how much they throw at me, they're still morally and ethically in the wrong. And for me, it's just t
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
"I've received about a dozen of these alerts"
As a European, can you enlighten me how the ISP got your email address?
Besides the fact that my account with my ISP is registered to my cat, they certainly don't have any of my email addresses.
Do the ISPs give you mandatory addresses that you have to check regularly?
Was it the olde 'Save a buck and get your invoice per email' trick?
Re:I should not have to pay $35 (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't think so. The ISPs will do everything they can short of disconnecting the user or harming their connection because all that will do is result in losing customers. ISPs only put up with this shit as much as they do because it's not losing them business. If they have to start giving up customers, you damn well better believe the ISPs are going to start fighting, kicking and screaming.
Re: (Score:2)
I doubt I see it here, but Frontier was hesitating about joining the bandwagon. I don't know what they're at now.
All I know is, as long as people believe in a model of freedom in sufficiently high enough numbers, it will prevail. The only reason this happened is because people let themselves be told "even if you're not part of our problem, you deserve this
Re:I should not have to pay $35 (Score:5, Insightful)
If they have to start giving up customers, you damn well better believe the ISPs are going to start fighting, kicking and screaming.
Not exactly. I have yet to see very many companies not roll over and play dead at the threat of legal action. The only time they ever do is when complying with the demand costs them more money than the retainer's fee. Someone sat down in some meeting room and decided with a few other people to go ahead and do this. That someone is very high up in the company, and it would take them hemmoraging cash before they swallowed their pride. Techies always think about the system, never about the people in it. No, they'll lose customers left and right, bleeding them out, until the shareholders ask why earnings are down. Then, and only at that point, will Pridey McPrides-a-lot reconsider.
And here's the thing: If all the other ISPs in your area decide to do the same thing (collusion!), they're going to figure there's not much incentive. You may switch to a competitor, but you'll still have the same problem there, and so on and so on, until you're out of the market. All these ISPs have been told nobody will go without internet -- and all internet providers have to "be in it together". But, if people do start dropping off, and not buying internet at all, the entire industry will convulse and retaliate then.
Not that I expect that to happen. I do, however, expect and ask that anyone who gets their internet shut off file lawsuits against the company. It does not matter if it's justified. It does not matter if you think you can win or not. File one. Everybody, file a lawsuit. File many lawsuits if you can. Keep them busy, keep them in court, and most importantly: Cost them money. And cost the courts time. Because they're overloaded, it takes months to get in on a civil action -- and lawmakers and judges will sit up and take notice when their dockets start filling up with the same thing over and over again. You hammer them, over and over, force them to spend money defending themselves. And at the same time -- make sure your assets are safe. Ask your family to take the title to the car, etc., once you file the lawsuit. Make sure you have nothing they can take away from you.
Kick those fuckers in the balls so hard their kids are born dizzy. That's how you win. And trust me: It works. If even 1% of the population contested their speeding tickets, the court system would implode just on that. I mean, as in, smoking crater of ruin. I'm not asking everyone who gets a letter to do something: I'm asking 1% of you to. If you can, if you're in a position to put up a fight... do it. Stand up for something.
This is how you fight authority... and win.
Re:Innovative solution (Score:5, Interesting)
How about not overspeed in the first place?
How about not punishing people for such a ridiculous thing in the first place? Expecting people to be perfect is ludicrous and destroys respect for both the law and police officers.
That bird flew away from the nest a long time ago.
Ever since about 1980 there was a movement in law enforcement called "proactive policing". Prior to that, police were much less aggressive in terms of actively trying to find violations themselves. Other than regular patrols, they tended to come only when called. They try much harder now to look for trouble, to nail you for every little technical violation they can write up.
Believe it or not, a couple of generations ago the general attitude was "the police officer is your friend, if you have a problem go find a cop and he will help you". People believed in it, expected it, and it worked. The relationship now is much more adversarial because the police don't see us anymore as a community they are serving, like they once did (believe it or not). They see us as potential tickets and arrests to pad out their performance records. That's what proactive policing has done.
Incidentally, a lot of license plate scanners, GPS trackers, infrared scanners, and other surveillance tools local police are implementing are actually being funded with federal money. Most of the 1984 bullshit is coming from the federal government, not your local elected sheriff. Of course for their part, the local cops are only too happy to get all the new toys...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Would you be willing to keep paying a small amount of your earned money to the guys that sold you the computer you used to create your work? Just because
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You better hope to hell that your pirating is counted as theft because fraud caries a lot heavier penalty.
1. It's neither, it's a copyright violation.
2. It's not theft because he didn't take anything from you. You can speculate that he might have paid you instead of pirating, but in most cases people who pirate would not purchase it even if that was the only way to get it. They are pirating it as opposed to simply not having it at all. You're most likely confusing it with counterfeiting, which is when you pay someone for an illegitimate copy... in this case nobody is getting paid.
3. It's not fraud because he ne
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, they are doing something much worse than that. They are participating in huge amounts of unauthorized wealth creation outside of the official market.
I think the official name for that nowadays is treason.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd write up yet another diatribe about guilty until proven innocent, but that is par for the course these days.
Re:I should not have to pay $35 (Score:5, Interesting)
I should not have to pay ... if I didn't do anything wrong. THEY should first prove I did.
For the consumers that are reluctant to pay $35 to be reviewed and cleared, they will soon have $1000 (per file) fee for downloading content they consider illegal. And by then the new Terms and Conditions mandatory arbitration clause will be in place if it isn't already, so you'll have no recourse - and occasional $35 "compliance" surcharge will be a wise choice. If you never pay the fee, an occasional "mistake" may happen, where you are charged for a couple of illegal files even if you don't download anything (again, see the new arbitration clause).
I know someone is plotting this, because it will make money and I do not remember ever having a choice of internet provider (maybe 2 options at most) regardless of where I lived in the past 10-12 years.
Re: (Score:2)
I should not have to pay ... if I didn't do anything wrong. THEY should first prove I did.
For the consumers that are reluctant to pay $35 to be reviewed and cleared, they will soon have $1000 (per file) fee for downloading content they consider illegal. And by then the new Terms and Conditions mandatory arbitration clause will be in place if it isn't already, so you'll have no recourse - and occasional $35 "compliance" surcharge will be a wise choice. If you never pay the fee, an occasional "mistake" may happen, where you are charged for a couple of illegal files even if you don't download anything (again, see the new arbitration clause).
I know someone is plotting this, because it will make money and I do not remember ever having a choice of internet provider (maybe 2 options at most) regardless of where I lived in the past 10-12 years.
In the way you've described, that's not a "fee". That's called "extortion", especially when the evidence starts mounting on the "false positive" side of things. If Verizon wants to do this, then fine. I want them to be forced to pay for a 3rd party oversight committee to review their cases quarterly and those results made public to prevent blatant abuse. This will be under the guise of protecting their customer base, which could be significantly and drastically reduced if word got out that they were fal
Re: (Score:2)
It won't be just $35.
It will be $35 plus give up all your rights .
Re: (Score:2)
If you pay the $35, all that changes is that you get an infinitesimal chance of not receiving mail from them again.
If you don't pay $35, you can claim they tried to blackmail you with false accusations if it ever goes to court.
Re: (Score:2)
Verizon comcast etc dont give a fuck. They just want to tax you.
Re: (Score:2)
Ooor.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Can I sue them for defamation instead?
Re: (Score:2)
What's stopping them from extorting people by blanketing these notices and collecting $$$ for "reviews"?
Public insurrection.
Overturn a few cable company trucks in the town square and burn them, and the CEO/CFO's will think twice about this kind of shit. It will never happen, because most people think this kind of stuff will never happen to them. Most people also have no fucking clue that a illegitimate program can run under their user account, act as a vpn tunnel and download content from the internet. Good idea to make it lucrative for the 'bad' guys to frame the clueless when the clueless have to pay their
Re: (Score:3)
Nothing.
Can I sue them for defamation instead?
Maybe, but unless you're Warren Buffett, they'll outlawyer you and you'll lose bigtime. Keep in mind these are the exact same people who claim that an IP address is 'positive identification' of a pirate's 'guilt'. This is just a way to scam up $36 bucks at a time off millions of customers, which will make them tons more money than spamming the odd hundred thousand customers to cough up a 5-10K '
Re:Ooor.... (Score:4, Interesting)
"... and the judges will find for them if it ever comes to trial."
Actually, more and more judges have been ruling that an IP address does not identify a person.
As we saw here on Slashdot just the other day, the first "three strikes" prosecution in the Netherlands was thrown out of court on that very basis: all they had was an IP address. It could have been anybody.
And take a situation like mine: I keep my router open as a public service (as suggested by EFF)... and I have one of the strongest signals around. People on the next block over could be using my internet. I neither know nor care, unless they were to become abusive of my generosity.
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't matter what they do in the Netherlands, we're talking about ISPs in the US. You're comparing apples and hand grenades.
Re: (Score:3)
Thing about it is, courts have ruled both ways, which tells me that judges are experts in law, not technology. Lawyer buddies tell me that 99% of winning a case is snowing the judge with the precedents that 'prove' your argument.
Hell, an Italian court just ruled that some guy's brain tumor was linked to his cell phone use [mb.com.ph]. Science is still out on the
Re: (Score:2)
I beg to differ on your claim that judges are experts on the Law. I can tell you from first hand experience on many, many occasions that they are not. In fact, they tend to agree, without question, with the opinions given to them by the Clerks (who are qualified in Law).
Re: (Score:3)
Binding arbitrartion means you can't sue for it in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
no problem, they'll just do a Jon doe and leaflet everyone who parks outside your house.
I didn't know, RLY (Score:2)
Re:I didn't know, RLY (Score:5, Funny)
In your case they'd probably just add the $35 charge to your next bill plus $15 for the interpreter they'd hired to read that. :)
Re: (Score:2)
Got one? (Score:5, Informative)
Google Fiber (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Must be a MSCE... ;)
I'm neither, actually, I'm a BORED.
Re: (Score:2)
Cat 5, Cat5e, Cat6 and Cat7 all specify a maximum unswitched segment length of 100m for x-BaseT ethernet over copper. Any longer and you're either needing some switchgear or relay hardware, or you're going fibre over 1000BASE-LX, and 1000BASE-SX, 1000BASE-LX10, 1000BASE-BX10 or the non-standard -ZX, of which 1000Base-ZX (single mode fibre at 1550nm) offers the greatest segment length of around 70km.
Legal groundwork (Score:5, Insightful)
Pretty dumb for any ISP to help to attack their customers. When will the media companies learn that going to war with your customers is not a sustainable business model?
Plus I torrent Linux quite often how long before they start threatening even legitimate torrent users?
Re: (Score:3)
"This is just to lay the legal groundwork for the music and movie industries. This way they can demand this list from the ISP and show that the evildoer just kept going in the face of legal threats."
(A) It doesn't lay any "legal groundwork". They are simply notices that say someone else told them you were illegally downloading or something.
(B) The above point is important: the ISPs aren't informing the "copyright police", it's the other way around.
"Pretty dumb for any ISP to help to attack their customers."
Yep. It will eventually turn around and bite them in the ass. I suspect that sooner or later there will be some lawsuits, too.
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty dumb for any ISP to help to attack their customers.
Not when they hold full control over said customers! I can't think of many companies that have so much of a monopoly
I live in a building that's wired for [some provider]. I don't even remember their name (goes through building management), but their shitty internet connection is all I've got.
Previously I lived in RI and internet was... Cox. Where getting Basic Cable + Internet was $5 cheaper than getting just Internet
Where are those customers going to go after being attacked? The ISPs could raise the p
The first rule about (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Come On, Out With It! (Score:2)
"I'm using a VPN."
Maybe you could do us all a public service and explain how we can get torrents via some kind of public VPN.
isn't this ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:isn't this ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Only if the government does it. The contracts you sign up on likely cover this. Not that anyone reads them.
Re: (Score:2)
The contracts you sign up on likely cover this. Not that anyone reads them.
They'll probably put in an arbitration clause soon (just like eBay and PayPal are doing now). So no court recourse
And what choice do you have anyway.
I occasionally read these contracts, but if I find something outrageous, what can I do? When I sign up for something where I have options, I will cross outrageous things off or perhaps go elsewhere. But when it's the only game in town (ISP, both Apple user and Apple developer contracts come to mind here), I basically have to sign it regardless of how much I
Re: (Score:2)
no company can ask you to surrender your legal/lawful rights under any circumstances. Least of all as part of a contract. Where this argument falls down is if you ACCEPT the contract, you also accepted the clause that you give up your legal rights. The company hasn't won; you've lost by your own action. Next time, try negotiating that bit out.
Re: (Score:3)
No.
By participating in a swarm, you've made your information available to anyone else who joins that swarm.
There may be something that can be done with regards to "illegal to record my calls" in som
Re: (Score:3)
wouldn't entrapment come in there somewhere??
Fairness (Score:5, Insightful)
If a customer feels they are being wrongly accused, they can ask for a review, which will cost them $35, according to the Verge.
My initial reaction was the typical knee-jerk thought that "innocent until proven guilty" has clearly been thrown out the window, but after further reflection I changed my mind. If you are accused of a crime in court you will end up having to pay legal fees. This is not that different. Reviewing the case requires manpower and the review is not working for free.
To be fair, the fee for the review should only be charged if the customer is found guilty. If the customer is innocent, then the accuser should be charged a fee. In addition to the amount for the review, the accuser should be forced to pay for at least one month of service for the customer, to compensate him for the inconvenience.
There must be deterrents against false accusations and none against proving one's innocence, otherwise this will be abused like DMCA takedowns.
Of course, I don't expect such a reasonable system to be put in place. The telcos just want to make money. They're only doing this to relieve the pressure from the content mafia. They know that even if it makes customers unhappy, relatively few will let them know about it and fewer still can actually do anything.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
If you are accused of a crime in court you will end up having to pay legal fees.
The difference is that this isn't a court case and should not be handled by ISPs. That's just asking for abuse.
Re: (Score:2)
True, but when you defend yourself in court, it's your lawyer that's making the money. Someone on your side.
This is a cash cow that is just ripe for abuse by the ISPs, not a service fee.
To put it in perspective, I don't have to pay a fee to have my email unblocked should it be incorrectly flagged as a source of spam. This is the same situation -- defending yourself against an unproven allegation. And much like spam flagging, if it happens once, it's likely to happen again (because once a spammer sta
the customers will be asked (Score:2)
" the customers will be asked to acknowledge that they received the warning. "
and just how are they going to issue this warning? send it to your comcast.com email account that no one uses?
I had this same shit back in the dialup days with ATT, got a 300$ bill cause they wanted to change my unlimited plan to a byte limited plan, only notification I got was sent to my worldnet email which I never even knew the fucking password for ... a good cussing and a theat of suit made that go away with one phone call.
now
Re: (Score:3)
They send you the warning by replacing http websites you visit with the warning message.
Re: (Score:2)
This (Score:3)
This is exactly why we need competition.
Shithead companies that have nothing to fear will abuse everything they can to make a buck.
In fact, the strongest reason to support competition is probably how much they hate it.
Anything that pisses off the bad guys is probably a good thing.
Tell you what... (Score:2)
...stick your fixed line contract up your arse. I'll find an ISP that DOESN'T do SPI, DOESN'T do traffic shaping, DOESN'T cap, and DOESN'T pander to Mafia interests! Oh, and offers BETTER SERVICE with no wires at ONE THIRD THE PRICE!
Accuse everyone and profit (Score:4, Insightful)
1. Accuse all users of infringement
2. Collect $35 from all suckers
3. Profit1
Spam and Viruses? (Score:2)
Independent ISPs are not taking part (Score:3, Informative)
I was curious whether a major regional ISP was taking part in this clusterfuck, and found an interesting interview from August [torrentfreak.com] stating that the only ISPs taking part are AT&T, Cablevision, Comcast, Time Warner Cable and Verizon; independent ISPs are not involved and weren't even asked.
Relatedly, I highly recommend that anyone in the service area for Sonic.net [sonic.net] (their CEO/founder was the one interviewed) use them as an ISP -- they're the only one I know of that has been persistently doing what we've all been saying we want ISPs to do [wikipedia.org] when it comes to governmental & *AA demands and investing in fiber connections. No better way to show appreciation than voting with our wallets where we can...
Who actually pays the ISPs (Score:2)
trickle-down justice (Score:2)
"Pay us $35 to prove you did nothing wrong."
Corporations are the government too, my friend.
ISPs throwing away money (Score:3)
Somehow the content industry has convinced the ISPs to give up a large percentage of their customers. We'll just have to wait and see how effective this is.
This new measure will be effective within the borders of the United States if and only if:
1. The majority of the ISP's customers never torrent or infringe copyright online. It would be funny if some ISPs were willing to actually go out of business to help enforce copyright law.
2. The ISPs are willing to lose at least some amount of money.
3. No other ISPs are willing to cross the picket line by not being part of this.
4. The ISPs are willing to prevent known infringers from just signing up again.
5. People don't simply sign up for a VPN just before their ISP kicks them off.
It just so happens that one of my local choices for broadband ISPs (I have at least 3) is not a part of this agreement. I pay around $1400 per year for my internet service. If my ISP doesn't want me as a customer I'll just switch to the local ISP that is not a part of this ridiculous one sided agreement. It will be interesting to see if ISPs even try to enforce this in areas with competitors who are not part of the agreement.
Re:cost them $35? (Score:5, Funny)
A Slashdot story about how they are bad.
Re: (Score:2)
A begrudging notice that they will no longer record that you are dirty pirate, however this notice does not represent their opinion that they were wrong about you, just that they're removing the entry.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Freenet is based on the false premise that cells are incorruptible and can't be infiltrated. Or that they will have what you want.
Only when you open it up by someone in your cell (trusted peers) connecting to people you don't trust and shouldn't trust do you get access to more than you could by simply opening a common share with your trusted friends.
And then you become traceable.
The old Freenet which worked on different principles was better, but still no panacea. For one thing it was even slower - somet
Re: (Score:3)
vpn
How would that stop them from accusing you or charging you fees? An unusual or hidden traffic pattern may be proof enough.
Even more suspicious than downloading files -- because identifying file ownership is not that easy. But people hiding traffic must be doing something bad.
[/sarcasm], just in case.
Re: (Score:2)