Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

US ISPs, Big Content Reaching Antipiracy Agreement

Soulskill posted more than 3 years ago | from the i-would-download-a-car dept.

Piracy 342

Chaonici writes "The word from CNet is that an antipiracy agreement between a number of ISPs (including Verizon, AT&T, and Comcast) and the RIAA & MPAA is nearing completion. Under the agreement, ISPs will step up their responses to copyright infringement complaints against subscribers. If a subscriber accumulates enough complaints, the ISP can throttle their bandwidth, limit their Web access to only the top 200 websites, and/or require participation in a 'copyright awareness' program that explains the rights of content creators. ISPs and rights holders will share the costs of the system. Ars Technica confirms the story with notes from an industry source, who mentions that the Obama administration is 'generally supportive' of the agreement."

cancel ×

342 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

What is this? (4, Insightful)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 3 years ago | (#36553984)

What is this, fascism week?

Re:What is this? (0)

Samalie (1016193) | more than 3 years ago | (#36554072)

Actually, it isn't fascism when two private businesses agree to do something incredibly unfriendly to the consumer.

But the joy of it all - you ARE still the consumer...YOU hold the power. Vote with your wallet - join an ISP that doesn't bend over & take it up the ass from the **AA's.

Re:What is this? (3, Informative)

jaymz666 (34050) | more than 3 years ago | (#36554090)

good luck finding one!

Re:What is this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36554108)

Which would be who ? Choice only exists IF it exists. After this sits a while, a few RIAA style lawsuits against some mom and pop ISP will bring the stragglers into line.

Every HDTV has HDCP. Is is a law ? no, but between patent protection, licensing, and industry lockstep, good luck finding a device which ignores it.

Re:What is this? (1)

urbanculturedispatj (2268912) | more than 3 years ago | (#36554126)

Surely all that this is going to achieve is more people jumping on the lulzsec/anonymous bandwagon??

Re:What is this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36554264)

Because ISP's are screwing customers, those customers are going to decide to join organizations whose business it is to attack the government? Kinda seems like twisted logic to me.

Re:What is this? (1)

urbanculturedispatj (2268912) | more than 3 years ago | (#36554348)

Maybe more the idea that they are advocating anonymous use of the internet which when all these blocks come into place is surely going to be a tempting option.

Re:What is this? (5, Insightful)

Doctor_Jest (688315) | more than 3 years ago | (#36554190)

That would be great if there was actual market competition in the broadband arena. It's pretty simply a monopoly, and if you factor in the government sanction that provides the monopoly... then yes... it is fascism.

This is vastly more sinister than the government adopting this stance officially.. because we can vote the bastards out who passed it. With the current state of broadband in the US, the only voting out we can do is canceling service in protest, something I suspect the Great Unwashed is unwilling to do.

This has nothing to do with actual infringement. All you need is to piss off the right people and zing! you're throttled and limited. There is no due process. If you get "enough complaints"... your ISP is going to screw you over withholding service that YOU paid for. How equitable is that? How is that not illegal? The EFF needs to sue.

Without competition, we are, to put it bluntly... fucked. And this sort of nonsense has made it more and more clear that the *AA's don't want my money. That's fine. I'll keep it. If only 20% of the people in the US did that, we'd be able to force change. As it stands now, about all we can do is shake our fists and shout insults as the *AA's burn down the orphanage and assrape the kids escaping the fire.

Re:What is this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36554676)

Screw that. Let's just use the technology that exists today, and start building out our own networks. Tired of paying high prices for substandard service.

Re:What is this? (2)

king neckbeard (1801738) | more than 3 years ago | (#36554192)

It's a good bit closer when both of those private businesses have government backed monopolies in their respective fields.

Re:What is this? (1)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 3 years ago | (#36554806)

It's a good bit closer when both of those private businesses have government backed monopolies in their respective fields.

And, when they tell the government what laws they need passed to be sure the deck is stacked in their favor.

America is so beholden to the content makers it's not funny ... and they've more or less started to make the rest of the world beholden to them with ACTA.

Re:What is this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36554314)

What is this, fascism week?

Fascism *week*? Where have you been for the last thirty years?!

Re:What is this? (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 3 years ago | (#36554486)

I'm just saying things have really been picking up speed over the last week. Just last week, Australians and Americans could access any website without government/corporate permission.

Re:What is this? (2)

JMJimmy (2036122) | more than 3 years ago | (#36554418)

I smell a lawsuit.

Great for businesses not in the top 200!

Re:What is this? (5, Insightful)

Threni (635302) | more than 3 years ago | (#36554600)

Isn't Pirate Bay in the top 200 sites?

The wording scares me (3, Insightful)

Combatso (1793216) | more than 3 years ago | (#36553994)

"complaints" and "suspected pirate". From what I can tell, to the MPAA and RIAA everyone is a "suspected" pirate..... I wonder if ThePirateBay is in the top 200 website list?

Re:The wording scares me (1)

jaymz666 (34050) | more than 3 years ago | (#36554106)

The wording is very scary, it certainly seems to imply that the powers that be only have to accuse you of piracy, with little or no means of proof and no appeal process.

Re:The wording scares me (1)

kelemvor4 (1980226) | more than 3 years ago | (#36554280)

That was my thought as well. The setup sounds like it will totally circumvent due process.

Re:The wording scares me (1)

CapuchinSeven (2266542) | more than 3 years ago | (#36554518)

I wonder if ThePirateBay is in the top 200 website list?

I believe it is, along with a number of other sites they wouldn't want you going to.

Top 200 web sites? (5, Funny)

jd2112 (1535857) | more than 3 years ago | (#36553996)

Good, I'll still be able to get to ThePirateBay

Indeed (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36554088)

Aye, Alexa confirms it [alexa.com] : the Pirate Bay has a global traffic rank of 89 and a US traffic rank of 97.

Slashdot, on the other hand, would be inaccessible at 1354 (globally) / 775 (US).

Re:Top 200 web sites? (2)

soodoo (2004582) | more than 3 years ago | (#36554144)

What's the reasoning behind only allowing the top 200 web sites anyway?
Why are websites with less traffic bad?

This is wrong on so many levels.

Re:Top 200 web sites? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36554324)

Google is in the top 10 and has a cache.
What more do you need? :-)

Re:Top 200 web sites? (2)

JMJimmy (2036122) | more than 3 years ago | (#36554476)

Freedom.

What reasoning? nt (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36554754)

What reasoning?

Re:Top 200 web sites? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36554168)

I believe they are referring to the top 200 sites the ISP/*AA would like you to visit.

Re:Top 200 web sites? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36554240)

But the torrents won't work!

Re:Top 200 web sites? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36554474)

Not just that either, even Facebook has copies of media files uploaded to their video services quite a damn lot.
Youtube too.

This idea sounds terrible, but if it makes them feel any better, then let them do it, it won't make much of a difference.

It is a good thing that (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36554000)

The Pirate Bay is in the top 200 websites.

Good... (1)

Jawnn (445279) | more than 3 years ago | (#36554002)

It's about time that other corporate "citizens" (the telco's and ISP's) step up and do their part to help our government enforce the rights of corporate "citizens", like the RIAA and the MPAA, in their fight against the terrorist hordes who threaten their their very existence.
[/sarcasm]

VPN anyone? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36554010)

Perhaps this would work with a laymen, but for $20/month you can get a VPN account with an offshore company which allows for torrents. So the monthly cost may go up, but I really don't see this as any kind of impediment to online piracy.

Re:VPN anyone? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36554254)

Bingo. What is going to happen, if people get banned from their ISP, throttled, or otherwise penalized without any due process... the ISPs and the *AA will win that round.

The war will take to a different front. There are a lot of anonymous VPN providers. Lots of them being offshore. Right now, the average college student slurping movies and MP3s doesn't bother. However, if the axe comes down, guess what? All that traffic goes dark and encrypted.

ISPs can start trying to block proxies, but all that means is that they are now actively affecting people's connections, which might bring lawsuits.

End result if the lines go dark with people using VPNs: Real traffic about child pornography, terrorism communication, and other stuff also will go dark. Police work against actual criminals will now become a lot harder.

So, in theory, the next terrorist attack on the US could not be detected because ISPs chase after issues that are not even crimes forcing all subscribers to use VPNs.

To sum it up: People are fat, dumb, and happy now. If they start getting kicked off or penalized for actions that are not even mandated by a court, even the average guy in middle America will be using a VPN, and watching websites of which VPNs will rat you out versus which ones actually keep mum of what you do.

Re:VPN anyone? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36554318)

Even cheaper than that: STOP WATCHING THEIR STUFF.

Really - just stop. You're not inherently entitled to it, they want to punish you for peeking at it; so why not just stop?

Re:VPN anyone? (2)

king neckbeard (1801738) | more than 3 years ago | (#36554468)

Who's saying they are entitled? If I can do something, there needs to be a justification in why I shouldn't do that. Big Content isn't inherently entitled to stop me. The only purpose that copyright laws can exist for is to benefit the public by fostering the creation of more creative works. Copyright has utterly failed in that respect, so copyright laws are unjust.

Re:VPN anyone? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36554662)

Your post sounds like a 6 year old stomping around chanting "But it's not fair! I can do what I want and you can't stop me!"

What's the justification to stop you from downloading copyrighted content? How about the law saying it's illegal? Yes I know you think the law has failed, but what if it was the law that failed at convicting a criminal that you're sure is guilty. Are you now allowed to go shoot them because the law "utterly failed in that respect"?

Just because you disagree doesn't mean it doesn't still apply to you. Grow up.

Re:VPN anyone? (1)

JMJimmy (2036122) | more than 3 years ago | (#36554520)

We all know the *AA's are always 100% accurate with their accusations of copyright infringement. /s

Re:VPN anyone? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36554368)

if you are spending an extra $20 a month just to let you secretly pirate stuff so that your ISP can't detect you, why not just buy the stuff legitimately?

Re:VPN anyone? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36554656)

still cheaper than cable

oh, the irony (2)

orange47 (1519059) | more than 3 years ago | (#36554016)

um, Pirate bay is probably in those "top 200 websites"

Won't stop me from pirating (-1, Troll)

seatreasurearr (2304166) | more than 3 years ago | (#36554024)

Arrr!!!. I have sufficient countermeasures [aeonity.com] installed already.

Re:Won't stop me from pirating (1)

Shikaku (1129753) | more than 3 years ago | (#36554038)

Cool goatse link bro

Re:Won't stop me from pirating (1)

Noughmad (1044096) | more than 3 years ago | (#36554052)

Goatse.

Re:Won't stop me from pirating (1)

ciderbrew (1860166) | more than 3 years ago | (#36554070)

ALERT ! goatse
ya got me :(

lawsuit (1)

AmiMoJo (196126) | more than 3 years ago | (#36554060)

For unfair disconnection in 3... 2... 1...

Re:lawsuit (1)

sincewhen (640526) | more than 3 years ago | (#36554560)

And yet not, as the terms of service will be revised and you will agree to them in order to have internet service at all.

subject (3, Insightful)

Legion303 (97901) | more than 3 years ago | (#36554084)

"ISPs and rights holders will share the costs of the system."

Ha ha! But seriously, customers will share the costs with other customers. RIAA might jack up member fees, but they were probably going to do that anyway.

CONSUMERS will burden the costs of the system (4, Informative)

jDeepbeep (913892) | more than 3 years ago | (#36554086)

ISPs and rights holders will share the costs of the system

Naturally, the ISP will pass on the costs to the consumer, and the rights holders will find a way to pad the product price with their piece of the cost, but we all knew that.

Re:CONSUMERS will burden the costs of the system (1)

hosecoat (877680) | more than 3 years ago | (#36554220)

do the ISPs realize that if they throttle me and cut access to sites then I will stop paying them money.

Peer Block (1)

CPTreese (2114124) | more than 3 years ago | (#36554104)

I have recently heard rumors that the anti P2P servers have found a way around clients like Peer Block. Can anyone confirm or deny this rumor? If it is true, how is it done?

Re:Peer Block (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36554402)

Peer Block is neigh pointless. All it does it prevent communication with an IP based off a list. This fails in 2 distinct ways. A. You have to have a trustworthy list that assumes they don't rotate their IP addresses and isn't poisoned by those same companies. B. The Trackers have a full list of IP addresses that are part of the swarm and also maintain statistics on upload/downloads. Preventing communication isnt the same as being hidden, dont trust peer block to do much for you.

Re:Peer Block (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36554598)

I do also recall reading that certain trackers such as tpb add fake ip addresses to their IP address lists, which is what makes their whole court thing from p2p a bit shit.

Re:Peer Block (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 3 years ago | (#36554758)

Peer Block was never a foolproof measure. It blocks the bogon ranges, which is the most important part, but basically any company using a non-static address (like a home connection) to monitor swarms will have no problem doing so.

Re:Peer Block (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36554778)

Yeah, its called using a different IP. Seriously, peer blocking software is snake-oil.

Bullshit. (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36554114)

If anything, this is going to push me into "pirating" more. Limit my freedom just because some asshole corporate fuck thinks it's "fair"? Fuck these mother fuckers. I'll advise EVERYONE I know to NEVER do business with Comcast, AT&T, or Verizon from here on out.

Just because of this, I refuse to buy a movie or song ever again. 100% piracy from now on.

It's seriously time for a pro-freedom ISP that encrypts everything, logs nothing, and is crazy fast. Anybody have access to some VC capital to make this happen?

Re:Bullshit. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36554316)

Just pirate your connection bitch. 100% free

Re:Bullshit. (1)

Duradin (1261418) | more than 3 years ago | (#36554780)

Why not power it with cold fusion while you're at it?

Complaints only? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36554116)

How about a campaign to complain that the CEOs of these companies have been downloading illegal files?

contracts? (2)

king neckbeard (1801738) | more than 3 years ago | (#36554140)

I don't recall the fine print of my TOS, but I would really wonder whether or not the contracts signed allowed for this bullshit, and whether or not such things would hold up in court.

Good luck with that. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36554162)

Most ISP will go bankrupt within a week.

Re:Good luck with that. (1)

kelemvor4 (1980226) | more than 3 years ago | (#36554322)

Right, because everyone is going to stop using the internet ASAP! In the US at least there are few areas where you can choose broadband service from more than one provider. It's not like most people have an option to switch to another.

Re:Good luck with that. (1)

0111 1110 (518466) | more than 3 years ago | (#36554810)

There's a difference between using the internet for just browsing web sites and actually downloading content. The only point of having "broadband" speeds at all is for the content. If the ISPs find a way to cut that off I won't be paying $100 a month anymore just to browse websites. Maybe I'll pay $20 a month for slow DSL or even $10 - $15 a month for dialup.

It will also become quite tempting for many techies to steal internet service from unprotected or WEP wireless routers. My friend has already been doing this for years. He downloads content all the time without paying a dime. The point is the ISPs will be really screwing themselves. If they are smart they will start seriously encouraging everyone to migrate to WPA2 protection for their routers and paying the price in offering the tech support for it because this would *seriously* encourage service theft for those living in densely populated areas.

The biggest likely outcome of this sort of thing is an explosion in anonymous VPN use. A significant percentage of the US and Australian internet will just hide behind an anon VPN and access TPB from there.

The ISPs will really be shooting themselves in the foot if they do this. That is the difference between something like this which only benefits the rights holders (although that is debatable) and something like bandwidth capping which clearly benefits the ISPs by either getting rid of or neutering their high use customers. Of course they are trying to avoid giving customers a choice by all agreeing to it (unlike the bandwidth caps and torrent throttling). But they are neglecting the basic fact that ISPs benefit more financially from piracy than almost anyone. If I were an ISP shareholder I would be seriously pissed off right now. There is no profit in this and a huge potential for loss.

Internet Access Is a Basic Human Right (5, Insightful)

ALeavitt (636946) | more than 3 years ago | (#36554170)

The UN recently declared [ohchr.org] internet access to be a basic human right. I wonder what they would have to say about the government colluding with corporations to curtail the basic human rights of citizens of the United States.
Oh, who am I kidding. They probably won't have anything to say about it at all.

Re:Internet Access Is a Basic Human Right (1)

Shadow99_1 (86250) | more than 3 years ago | (#36554440)

If they did, they may soon find themselves without internet access....

Re:Internet Access Is a Basic Human Right (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36554760)

For the american government, nothing new.

Sounds reasonable (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36554180)

Content thieves deserve this at the very least. I'd rather see jailtime involved but I'll take what I can get.

Anybody surprised? (2)

MCSEBear (907831) | more than 3 years ago | (#36554196)

This is the same administration that declared the details of the draconian ACTA treaty to be freaking State Secrets: [techdirt.com]

Plenty of folks are quite concerned about the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) negotiations are being negotiated in secret. This is a treaty that (from the documents that have leaked so far) is quite troubling. It likely will effectively require various countries, including the US, to update copyright laws in a draconian manner. Furthermore, the negotiators have met with entertainment industry representatives multiple times, and there are indications that those representatives have contributed language and ideas to the treaty. But, the public? The folks actually impacted by all of this? We've been kept in the dark, despite repeated requests for more information.

When the Obama administration took over, there was a public stance that this administration was going to be more transparent -- especially with regards to things like Freedom of Information Act requests. The nonprofit group Knowledge Ecology International took that to heart and filed an FOIA request to get more info on ACTA. The US Trade Representative's Office responded denying the request, saying that the information was "classified in the interest of national security pursuant to Executive Order 12958." This is a treaty about changing copyright law, not sending missiles somewhere. To claim that it's a national security matter is just downright scary. As KEI points out, the text of the documents requested have been available to tons of people, including more than 30 governments around the world and lobbyists from the entertainment industry, pharma industry and publishing industry.

But when the public asks for them, we're told they're state secrets?

Behold, unbridled capitalism! (0)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 3 years ago | (#36554210)

Want more of this bullshit? Vote against net neutrality! KEEP THEM GUB'MINT PAWS OFF MA INTERNET CONNECTION! If the government could regulate my Internet connection, that will like, make them feel more entitled to think about starting to regulate content, or some junk. Do you want some ELITES who think they know better than you telling you what you can and can't browse!?!?

Oh...wait...shit. Well I can vote with my dol...oh you can't get an unfiltered connection anymore? Fuck. Well I'll start my own ISP!

Selling my rusty '90s Japanese cars...OK, got $5,000, guess I can put another $5k into it from my savings, just $1.99M to go before I can get this business off the ground. See, free-market capitalism allows me to solve my own problems! FUCK YEAH!

Re:Behold, unbridled capitalism! (1)

king neckbeard (1801738) | more than 3 years ago | (#36554334)

I think arming an angry mob to beat the top execs for the involved companies to death would be more cost effective.

Re:Behold, unbridled capitalism! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36554550)

lol

Re:Behold, unbridled capitalism! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36554680)

The US government would provide protection to them with our military.

Re:Behold, unbridled capitalism! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36554752)

It doesn't take $2M to start a WISP. I would definitely look for the nearest wholesale bandwidth provider or datacenter and set up wireless backhauls to make damn sure you don't need T1s.

Bandwidth can cost $80/mo per megabit/sec, so set expectations accordingly.
If you're lucky, you can get it for $0.10/GB or less with burst to 100Mbit.

$20 per month per Mbit/sec throughput and metered use past the first 10GB may be sustainable.
Just get a 100Mbit backhaul, so it can handle a significant number of users.
Here's an example link [a1securitycameras.com] with a range of up to 20 miles. The next part is to identify the most reliable point to multipoint setup for the last-mile setup.

You will want to consult the USGS topographical maps [nationalmap.gov] and do some math on the fresnel zone [afar.net] to make sure you can serve a customer before setting it up. This can also help you with antenna positioning.

Also, charge something like $0.30/GB overage - people wouldn't mind that and you'd get more profit the more they download. You should be able to support 1000 or more users on that, then you may be able to afford to contact Qwest for a dedicated fiber backhaul. After that, increase speeds and start getting fiber to your customers.

What does it take to become an ISP? (2)

Cholten (253069) | more than 3 years ago | (#36554216)

So someone will just rent a big pipe from a company that's not signed up to this, split it and sell it on (full encrypted) to downline customers. Sounds like a business model to me...

Another thought - do corporations realise that their 'net feeds will be deep packet sniffed to look for copyright infringing material? I wonder how much they will like the ISPs no longer being just a bunch of tubes...

Re:What does it take to become an ISP? (4, Informative)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 3 years ago | (#36554524)

Won't work sadly, as ALL of the backbone is owned by....dum dum dum...assholes like AT&T! I know because a friend had a business just outside the area where cable and DSL end (and good luck EVER getting them bastards to expand, in my area they haven't moved an inch in 20 years) so he paid a crazy amount of money to have a T-1 run out there and started his own ISP. All well and good, American capitalism right?

Nope, because AT&T got wind and cut off his backbone access, some bullshit excuse about "number of connections" or some shit, made a few phone calls and made sure nobody else would sell to him either. Their answer was a bald faced "try to sue us, we're fucking AT&T!" and his lawyer said "Sure you'll win, but it'll take anywhere from 10 to 15 YEARS and cost...ohhh...about 3 MILLION dollars in lawyers fees". So he closed up his business and moved away, and those people that had a decent Internet were forced back onto AT&Ts $75 a month dialup.

You see the problem isn't fascism, its corporatism. The corps OWN the courts, they OWN the congress, they OWN the lines, they OWN the media. So download all you can while you can friends, because until we have our own Arab Spring this country is gonna have its very own little dark age, with more and more draconian laws designed to royally fuck you in the ass, and there is nothing you can do about it. Vote? you tried that, how's that "Hope & Change" working out? Vote with your dollars? More than 70% last I checked of the population is under monopolies when it comes to the net and ALL are under the same backbone providers, which guess what? Are listed above.

So snatch every damned thing that ain't nailed down, slam the shit out of the ISPs. pretty much all the Internet will be in less than 3 years is the Home Shopping Network and that's the way big business/government wants it because it is easier to control the population if they can't organize, and easier to shut down any "troublemakers" if you make sure they can't be heard. That way they can control the "spin" and make anyone who doesn't go "America Fuck yeah!" into an evil socialist pedo/terrorist. Think I'm crazy? They already got Valenti's dream of "forever minus a single day" copyrights, and with the above they'll kill the net. The party is over folks, the dream is dying. Enjoy as much as you can while you can, because our kids are gonna look back from their dreary media controlled lives and consider this a mythical "golden age" where people could actually converse freely and share ideas. Those days are sadly about to end. Don't forget to hit the lights on your way out.

Sounds fair enough... (1)

jafo (11982) | more than 3 years ago | (#36554236)

As long as their members are held to the same standards... If they abuse fair use, for example, they're required to pull their products, participate in "copyright awareness" programs, and they can only visit the top 200 websites.

I'll drop my subscription again (1)

andymadigan (792996) | more than 3 years ago | (#36554282)

I've got the 'choice' between Frontier DSL and Time Warner. I will drop my $60/mo 30 Mbps down service if Time Warner starts doing this and Frontier doesn't. I've gone legit with Netflix, which I've had for a few years now, but that doesn't mean I'm going to let some corporate lobby like the RIAA decide whether I'm allowed on the net this week. I have absolutely no faith in their investigators, nor do I believe that they'll have any reason to tell the truth.

In fact, they'll probably have notices or even lockdowns sent out to random groups of people each week just to "remind" them that they're watching.

Piracy not cool anymore... (2)

mabhatter654 (561290) | more than 3 years ago | (#36554298)

Personally, I think we're on the downward side of piracy anyway. Of course the President would be on-board with this because the frivolous complaints against 10k people at a time are a misuse of the courts and a waste of time.

I think piracy is on the way out anyway. Things like iTunes, Netflix,& Hulu make it really easy to get almost anything legally. I don't think regular folk will like getting the first warning letter one bit... Having a warning system in place will get people warned their actions have consequences sooner... Just knowing somebody takes notice is enough to get many people to stop. I think most people have "grown up" and are sick of all the spyware, viruses, and hacks from torrent sites anyway.

Re:Piracy not cool anymore... (1)

Combatso (1793216) | more than 3 years ago | (#36554490)

Netflix and Hulu? The same ISPs wanna tap that revenue stream with transfer caps... I dont know what makes you think piracy is on the decline, personal experience maybe... My personal experience (as a Canadian staring down ridiculously low Xfer caps), Piracy has moved from the internet back to SneakerNet. People passing around USB Harddrives with movies to copy, DVD's of the latest downloads, Ripped DVDs, Ripped CD's. I dont see piracy declining, I see it growing... as many of the people who are getting these copied DVD's can barely use their computer... they just want to watch Showtime shows without paying for Showtime (or the overpriced bundled channels that come with it).

Times are tough all around, even regular Farmville players are upset with the Telco/Cable duopolies...

Re:Piracy not cool anymore... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36554736)

Never had any problems from torrents, i just don't run video files which are .exe .dos .bat etc, doesn't take much knowledge to avoid the fakes.

Doesn't sound that bad (1)

barlevg (2111272) | more than 3 years ago | (#36554300)

As long as my ISP notifies me that I'm getting close to my "complaint limit" before I actually hit it, I don't really see a problem. I'd rather this than be indicted in a lawsuit. And, given the option, I'd sit through that "'copyright awareness' program" any day. It's bound to be amusing.

Re:Doesn't sound that bad (1)

Travelsonic (870859) | more than 3 years ago | (#36554410)

I'd be more in agreement if they actually showed interest in fact checking, going on more evidence than just mere accusation, and showed a flying damn in at least a consumer-company level concept of due process - something that deals worked out with the likes of the RIAA, MPAA, usually lack.

Re:Doesn't sound that bad (1)

misexistentialist (1537887) | more than 3 years ago | (#36554582)

The lawsuits weren't working and were too expensive. Now you will be paying every month for your connection to be spied on and crippled. I also doubt you will be very amused having no internet for a month and then having to take a day off work to take the class, knowing that it is the final step before you are cut off the internet for the rest of your life.

Fighting back? (3, Interesting)

CelticWhisper (601755) | more than 3 years ago | (#36554306)

Okay, I'll ask the obvious question: How do we fight this? We know that there's little choice between ISPs in many rural (and even some sub/urban) areas, so threatening to switch isn't always practical. It's not a bill being proposed so we can't direct elected officials to vote against it - do we demand our legislators draft a bill to stop it? Is this FCC territory? FTC? Who do we talk to, who do we demand answers from, who do we petition, and how do we get the message across?

Re:Fighting back? (1)

Combatso (1793216) | more than 3 years ago | (#36554556)

You could petition Chuck Norris himself, sadly, aside from the government making the practice illegal, aint much gonna help... and why will the government step in? Telco/Cable and Showbiz are a powerhouse, especially together.. By the people for the people is a lost value... its now "Buy the Government, own the people"

Isn't using a proxy and encryption one answer? (1)

TechForensics (944258) | more than 3 years ago | (#36554328)

Is there anyone who thinks these ISP warnings can't be kept from triggering by judicious proxy use and encrypted traffic? Or is deep-packed inspection good enough to identify P2P traffic? Even if it could, it surely couldn't determine the copyright status of the stream.

I was going to remark that we would surely see services like Tor and FreeNet grow exponentially in response, but what's wrong with a good old simple non-US proxy service plus traffic encryption? At least when we're talking about cyber-locker repositories if not bittorrent.

Re:Isn't using a proxy and encryption one answer? (1)

Combatso (1793216) | more than 3 years ago | (#36554588)

up here (Canada) they (the Blue monopoly) throttle all encrypted traffic... cuz afterall, it might be a pirate... So when I connect to my company VPN, my speeds drop.

Re:Isn't using a proxy and encryption one answer? (1)

Arlet (29997) | more than 3 years ago | (#36554592)

The next step is to block encrypted data, unless the server is on an approved white list (banks, big e-mail providers, etc)

one more nail in their coffin (2)

AarghVark (772183) | more than 3 years ago | (#36554388)

Between actions like this and things such as bandwidth caps it appears that the major ISP's are looking to alienate their customer base. In the mean time, figure it will be possible to DOS someone by placing some complaints against them? How about businesses placing complaints against their competitors? Maybe I should go apply for a business process patent on doing this....

Private Sector / Non-legal Solution (1)

rwv (1636355) | more than 3 years ago | (#36554446)

Is it possible that the private sector has realized it needs to stop leaning on the judicial branch of the government as a crutch? This proposal at least seems better than their response to extort settlements from people in courts, so that's a step in the right direction.

The "copyright awareness" program seems like a worthy response. If they assume that their customers are innocent when they decide to take action, a course about securing your wireless connection and teaching their kids about not downloading stuff would be useful. It doesn't seem that unreasonable to then throttle the Internet for customers who ignore the awareness program. However, there WILL be hell to pay if they start blocking everything but the top 200 websites.

In the end, it's there goddamn network and they can do whatever they want with it. If these "antipiracy" networks are unpopular, other "more expensive" options will form in niche markets. Customers will *probably* be happy to pay more to companies who provide the premium service of not being the Internet police for the RIAA/MPAA.

Full disclosure... I'm not a pirate. I'm a strong supporter of Creative Commons. I believe the real path to freeing our culture isn't going to be achieved by ignoring copyright infringement laws, but rather by ignoring artists who continue to release their work with restrictive copyrights.

Re:Private Sector / Non-legal Solution (1)

king neckbeard (1801738) | more than 3 years ago | (#36554576)

Is it possible that the private sector has realized it needs to stop leaning on the judicial branch of the government as a crutch? This proposal at least seems better than their response to extort settlements from people in courts, so that's a step in the right direction.

Both ISPs and big content are still relying on the government, and the settlement letter thing seems to be dying out due to judges with a sense of due process. Suing individuals wasn't going to be a profit stream or a deterrent.

In the end, it's there goddamn network and they can do whatever they want with it.

Not rightfully. Taxpayers have paid for more than the networks we have, and that's not even counting the rents made through blocking competition

ATTENTION INDUSTRY (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36554456)

Let me pay HBO et al directly for a stream of their content. Quit locking things up into the deprecated business model.

Cats out of the bag (4, Interesting)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | more than 3 years ago | (#36554462)

Really, it is out. Look, it is there, sitting on the windowsill licking its... well, that is just rude... but it is out of the bag in any case. No you can't put it back in the back. Or the case.

Whenever now some new story breaks about the latest means of illegal filesharing and the industry moving against it, I am near instantly asked by non-techies how to do it themselves.

Educate them? What, that artists like Britney Spear would starve to death without your hard earned money? Yeah, I am sure most of the people I know, some of who have trouble making end meet month to month give a shit.

Content production has always relied on the artificial limitation of availability (we only print X amount) to keep the price up. With digital reproduction, this limit has gone. Worse, the cost of distribution is approaching trivial. I can share a movie for a couple of cents. How in the world are you going to persuade me to pay MORE for a SINGLE movie then I pay for my internet connection that can give me hundreds of them?

And yet, movie ticket sales are on the increase. Gaga earns millions. Clearly all this piracy isn't actually affecting anyone. Where are the starving artists, where are the movies that should have been made that are not made (no, the ones that should not have been made but were made do NOT count instead).

It reminds me of the anti-piracy messages in shows like Futurama. Yeah, you sold me, I felt very bad for downloading the entire series... oh wait, I didn't. The cost of purchasing series is just to high, i am not going to pay that much for a piece of plastic. As for watching it on TV, the commercials are just to long, not just the ones that make money, WHY one EARTH do TV stations struggling to keep viewers watching commercial breaks ADD to the length of the breaks by advertising their own station I am WATCHING?

Talk about oversell.

The content industry either re-invents itself or has to just accept the year after year profit increases they been suffering at the hands of pirates (oh, you thought they were making a loss? Nope, in fact investing in music back catalogs is now considered a risk free investment for pension funds).

Educating me? I am educated thank you very much, I know the costs of printing a plastic disc and the cost me of funding the superstar lifestyle of an artist versus the cost of me not funding it.

No more music? I could care less. If all the artists of the world want things to change, let them strike. Every single one of them against me not paying for their work. STRIKE. See if anyone gives a shit. Do you?

Re:Cats out of the bag (1)

Combatso (1793216) | more than 3 years ago | (#36554650)

Well put, id mod you up but I already made snarky d-bag comments...

what i see is.. (1)

vonshavingcream (2291296) | more than 3 years ago | (#36554514)

it looks like in the article is says they will throttle bandwidth and/or limit your web access until the file sharing stops. it also says that these would be for the most grievous offenders. I'm not siding with the agreement .. i really think is stinks, I'm just sayin. My biggest complaint is that my service cost is going to go up because of this.

Welcome to Nazi America (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36554530)

F*ck the RIAA and the MPAA. It's about time we take this crap in our own hands and set off some bombs at their offices. Blow their ass of the face of the earth and we won't have to deal with their bull sh*t. I say the more we kill the better. Lets start at the top and work our way down...maybe they'll get the message after we blow first 10-20 people into little pieces of ground dumb ass.

Amazing new revenue source (1)

eL-gring0 (1950736) | more than 3 years ago | (#36554536)

Since US ISP's apparently are too glad to turn over name and address information when confronted with an *IAA letter, perhaps they can take it a step further: hand over the billing details.

When this cozy integration goes through, since they're already operating on guesses and the whim of 'investigators' as to your pirating, perhaps they should take the liberty of automatically debiting or tacking on to your bill the cost of the IP they think you got for free.

May as well go for the DP if you're gonna rape customers' rights (is this a rthis hard.

Re:Amazing new revenue source (1)

eL-gring0 (1950736) | more than 3 years ago | (#36554558)

I love typos. I was asking myself if this is a real rights issue, or whether it's just a contract we agree to bind ourselves with.

The End to Lawsuits? (1)

pwileyii (106242) | more than 3 years ago | (#36554626)

Because of the "agreement," does this mean the RIAA and MPAA can no longer demand payment of damages for pirating? If so, or even if it assumed by consumers, this may have the impact of increasing the amount of pirating happening among the ISPs that enter into this agreement. As far as I can tell, it still isn't the job of the ISPs to police their networks and the penalties really don't seem that bad, especially if they provide me a warning. I'm also not sure why there is a cost associated with the agreement, unless it is for the hardware and staff required to carry it out. If any money is going to the RIAA and MPAA then it would seem like it even further legitimizes the download of music/movies as how could that be interpreted any other way then a license fee for the downloads?

Anti-Trust? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36554776)

Is there any reason that this wouldn't be considered collusion in a court of law, with all the companies consorting together for business practices that hurt consumers? If one did it and others didn't, competition, and the one doing it fails. But with all of them negotiating to do it together as an industry.....

How will this impact hardcore infringers? (4, Insightful)

Iphtashu Fitz (263795) | more than 3 years ago | (#36554814)

Answer: It won't.

Most people who are hardcore infringers are already using things like seedboxes for uploading & downloading torrents. How do these idiot lawyers expect these agreements to impact VPS's hosted in countries like India? Rent 100gig of disk space & bandwidth from another country for $20/month or so, run all your torrents there, then use rsync via ssh, scp, etc. to do an encrypted transfer to/from your home. Even with deep packet inspection the ISP couldn't possibly know that you're copying copyrighted material to/from your seedbox.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>