Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

Media Companies Create Copyright Enforcement Framework

Unknown Lamer posted about 3 years ago | from the copying-is-bad-mmkay dept.

Piracy 219

An anonymous reader writes with an article in Ars Technica. From the article: "American Internet users, get ready for three strikes^W^W 'six strikes.' Major U.S. Internet providers — including AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, Cablevision, and Time Warner Cable — have just signed on to a voluntary agreement with the movie and music businesses to crack down on online copyright infringers. But they will protect subscriber privacy and they won't filter or monitor their own networks for infringement. And after the sixth 'strike,' you won't necessarily be 'out.'" It's not suspicious at all that most of the ISPs signing on for this are owned by or own media companies.

cancel ×

219 comments

There's nothing terribly wrong with this (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36684962)

As long as you accurately detect those who are actually illegally downloading (i.e. no false positives). Therein lies the problem of course.

Re:There's nothing terribly wrong with this (5, Insightful)

EraserMouseMan (847479) | about 3 years ago | (#36685082)

...except for the fact that it amounts to incremental-ism. One baby step at a time.

Unclean hands (1)

tepples (727027) | about 3 years ago | (#36685100)

The article mentions a dispute procedure that costs $35. I imagine that if one copyright owner establishes a pattern of getting disputes filed against its infringement notices, the ISP can ignore the copyright owner's later notices on grounds of unclean hands [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Unclean hands (1)

Nadaka (224565) | about 3 years ago | (#36685472)

Or they could keep raking in the $35 dispute fees for fun and profit.

Re:Unclean hands (1)

black soap (2201626) | about 3 years ago | (#36685574)

It'll be a standard fee on your bill, within a decade.

Re:Unclean hands (1)

gstoddart (321705) | about 3 years ago | (#36685558)

I imagine that if one copyright owner establishes a pattern of getting disputes filed against its infringement notices, the ISP can ignore the copyright owner's later notices on grounds of unclean hands

Well, that ignores two things ...

1) A good chunk of these ISPs are owned by copyright owners, and will likely take a default position on their side.
2) Unclean hands is a legal term ... which is all well and good until you realize that no court is actually involved in this. They're under no obligation to apply such reasoning, and quite possibly won't.

These are arrangements between companies ... what you and I want, and what would be the standard in a court of law is absolutely irrelevant in this context. And, it's either naive or wishful thinking to think that the dispute resolution of this will be held to any meaningful level of jurisprudence ... I'm sure they'll have a "mandatory arbitration" clause in the terms of service.

Besides, in the case where the copyright owner outright owns the ISP ... well, they will just use funny accounting to show even further how the fight against copyright infringement is costing them astronomical amounts of fictional money, just like movies with huge box office receipts "lose" money for accounting purposes.

Anybody who isn't an ISP or a media company gets fucked in this arrangement. It's nice to think of it in terms of legal terms and precedent ... but it won't work that way.

"Subscribers can always still sue their ISP" (1)

tepples (727027) | about 3 years ago | (#36685704)

A good chunk of these ISPs are owned by copyright owners, and will likely take a default position on their side. [...] no court is actually involved in this.

From the article: "In addition, subscribers can always still sue their ISP in court."

Besides, in the case where the copyright owner outright owns the ISP

Comcast "outright owns the ISP" only for works published by NBCUniversal. The other eight MAFIAA members (Sony, WMG, Vivendi, EMI, Viacom, Disney, Fox, and Warner) still have to follow the procedure.

Anybody who isn't an ISP or a media company gets fucked in this arrangement.

And any organization that makes and self-publishes works is technically a "media company".

Re:There's nothing terribly wrong with this (1)

BJ_Covert_Action (1499847) | about 3 years ago | (#36685926)

Of course, it does give a few (some would say unscrupulous) companies the ability to deprive U.S. citizens of access to the Internet, something that the U.N. has declared to be a fundamental human rights. [ohchr.org]

Thus far, for-profit companies do not have a particularly stellar track record when it comes to protecting fundamental human rights.

Beats getting sued... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36684964)

If this is the punishment that we get for copyright infringement instead of getting sued, then I'm all for it.

If this is what we get in addition to immorally expensive lawsuits, then I suspect that overseas torrent dropboxes will get even more popular.

Re:Beats getting sued... (1)

Jerry Rivers (881171) | about 3 years ago | (#36685046)

"...then I suspect that overseas torrent dropboxes will get even more popular."

Or people will simply switch to using NZB files pointing to Usenet servers.

Re:Beats getting sued... (4, Interesting)

Artifakt (700173) | about 3 years ago | (#36685628)

The first rule of Usenet is we do not talk about Usenet.
The second rule of Usenet is we wave our hands in their faces and say "These are not the NZBs you're looking for."

Usenet - making old tech do things sane nature never intended to allow fall into the clever hands and febrile minds of mortals. (With NZB and PAR2 as the neck-bolts of our shambling creations brought back from beyond the ultimate veil).

Corporate blacklists (4, Insightful)

arisvega (1414195) | about 3 years ago | (#36685006)

So are we looking at some sort of private blacklisting? Like the one banks employ- figure out who is the 'good' customer and who ain't? And how lawful will it be for them to deny service to you on the grounds that 'it is statistically confirmed that you may use our services to support piracy, therefore we are forced to turn down your application'?

Re:Corporate blacklists (1)

gl4ss (559668) | about 3 years ago | (#36685230)

they'll get greedy soon enough for those people's money too. the future is in prepaids.

USA = NO HUMAN RIGHTS (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36685012)

this violates HUMAN RIGHTS

Re:USA = NO HUMAN RIGHTS (1)

Osgeld (1900440) | about 3 years ago | (#36685038)

your a twit

Re:USA = NO HUMAN RIGHTS (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36685110)

your a twit

You're illiterate.

Re:USA = NO HUMAN RIGHTS (1)

Tsingi (870990) | about 3 years ago | (#36685550)

your a twit

You're illiterate.

LOL! Yeah.

Media Companies (3, Insightful)

bws111 (1216812) | about 3 years ago | (#36685036)

It's not suspicious at all that most of the ISPs signing on for this are owned by or own media companies.

Since when does 2 out of 5 count as 'most'? Other than Comcast and Cablevision, which ones are owned by or own media companies?

Re:Media Companies (1)

DevConcepts (1194347) | about 3 years ago | (#36685124)

2 out of 5?
Umm Time Warner....
That would make it 3 of 5.
Time Warner Inc., a global leader in media and entertainment with businesses in television networks, filmed entertainment and publishing, uses its industry-leading operating scale and brands to create, package and deliver high-quality content worldwide through multiple distribution outlets.
http://www.timewarner.com/our-company/about-us/ [timewarner.com]

Re:Media Companies (1)

bws111 (1216812) | about 3 years ago | (#36685238)

TimeWarner and TimeWarner CABLE [timewarnercable.com] are two different companies. Notice how the statement you copies says nothing about being an ISP? That is because they are not.

Re:Media Companies (1)

meloneg (101248) | about 3 years ago | (#36685468)

Um, from your link "a leader in the entertainment and communications industry"

Re:Media Companies (1)

Nemyst (1383049) | about 3 years ago | (#36685596)

Why yes, lawsuits.

Re:Media Companies (1)

bmacs27 (1314285) | about 3 years ago | (#36685490)

Yes, and Time Warner Cable is not a magazine company. That doesn't make them devoid of, let's say, a "media sales" division.

Re:Media Companies (1)

AJH16 (940784) | about 3 years ago | (#36685782)

They have the same parent company, DevConcepts is correct that they are owned by Time Warner which is the same Warner as Warner Brothers as I recall. Even if it is not 100% ownership (which I believe it is still majority share) there is still a lot of political connection between the organizations. It would be kind of like calling Verizon and Verizon Wireless different companies.

Re:Media Companies (1)

bmacs27 (1314285) | about 3 years ago | (#36685266)

"It's a trap!" /Ackbar He's trying to trick you. Time Warner, Inc spun off Time Warner Cable two years ago. Of course, they still share buildings, probably 90% of their shareholders, and operate in media distribution, but you know... details.

Re:Media Companies (1)

bws111 (1216812) | about 3 years ago | (#36685464)

Still share buildings? So what? The company I work for has spun or sold off several divisions, and the new companies are still in the same buildings, but there is absolutely no connection between the companies. Have the same shareholders? Again, so what? Probably half of the people who own shares in Time Warner also own shares in CocaCola or IBM or some other company - doesn't make all those the same company.

Re:Media Companies (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about 3 years ago | (#36685584)

They don't have to be "the same company", in order to have a de facto conflict of interest. Many of the same stockholders? Some of the same people on both boards? Conflict of interest.

I hope you get that it is both the principle and the actuality that matters here, not some minor technical matter of paperwork.

Re:Media Companies (1)

bmacs27 (1314285) | about 3 years ago | (#36685604)

Even if they aren't the same company (though I'd argue they have extremely intertwined interests to this day), that does not discount the fact that TWC is a media company.

Re:Media Companies (1)

bmacs27 (1314285) | about 3 years ago | (#36685662)

In fact, you could argue by the same logic that all of the above are media companies. They all offer television services, and monetize the delivered content through ads.

Re:Media Companies (1)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | about 3 years ago | (#36685140)

Since when does 2 out of 5 count as 'most'? Other than Comcast and Cablevision, which ones are owned by or own media companies?

A cable television network is a media company. They may not create the media but they directly charge for and profit from its distribution.

Re:Media Companies (1)

bmacs27 (1314285) | about 3 years ago | (#36685162)

Many aren't comfortable considering Time Warner Cable a completely separate entity from Time Warner just yet. For instance, they still share offices. It's been all of what, 2 years since they parted ways?

Re:Media Companies (2)

countertrolling (1585477) | about 3 years ago | (#36685202)

The media 'companies' (more like cartels) have their claws in the entire backbone. Presently there is no escape. Not until we develop secure ad hoc networks will we be safe from them, and the government of course. Even the darknet over corporate wire is not immune.

Re:Media Companies (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36685288)

Time Warner

Re:Media Companies (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36685578)

Since when are Verizon, and Time Warner NOT media companies? You are fucking kidding right? Because you do know that Time Warner is a merger between TIME magazine and Warner Brothers... right? And Verizon is Richard Branson's baby, I'm pretty sure he dabbles in media as well.

That's 4 out of 5, and only leaves ATT out. The only company on the whole list that really IS a communications company, and not a media outlet masquerading as a service provider.

Are people really so ignorant? I find that hard to believe. OK, no I don't.

"Those who cannot remember the past... (2)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about 3 years ago | (#36685064)

"... are condemned to repeat it." -- George Santayana

This is precisely why historically, the FCC did not allow on company to be both a content creator and content provider or "carrier". There is a huge conflict of interest which is not in the best interest of either innovation or the citizenry in general.

Where were all the protests when Time-Warner became a cable operator? Where were all the protests when any of these providers acquired the creators, or vice versa?

Goddamned American public in recent years has acted like it has never read a newspaper or history book.

Time Warner spun out TWC two years ago (1)

tepples (727027) | about 3 years ago | (#36685128)

Where were all the protests when Time-Warner became a cable operator?

They must have worked; Time Warner spun out TWC two years ago according to Wikipedia.

Re:Time Warner spun out TWC two years ago (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about 3 years ago | (#36685410)

"They must have worked; Time Warner spun out TWC two years ago according to Wikipedia."

According to Wikipedia. When are they going to move out of the same offices, much less the same building?

Re:Time Warner spun out TWC two years ago (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36685612)

>> Where were all the protests when Time-Warner became a cable operator?
>They must have worked; Time Warner spun out TWC two years ago according to Wikipedia.

Hardly. The TWC spinoff was due to the cosmic flush of Time Warner's value that happened after consolidation into AOL-TimeWarner, not because of a forgotten years-old protest that never popped up.

Wanna get really rich? Figure out a way to short-sell Facebook and LinkedIn and others on a much-longer-than-quarterly contract. The one thing that b-types never seem to grasp is that internet users *move on* when something new and shiny pops up.

Re:"Those who cannot remember the past... (0, Flamebait)

Moryath (553296) | about 3 years ago | (#36685160)

Goddamned American public in recent years has acted like it has never read a newspaper or history book.

Been to a Pee Tardier rally lately?

None of them have. Durr Paul Revere Rode and Rang Dem Bells to Tell Da British Dey Cant Take Ur Gunz Derp...

Re:"Those who cannot remember the past... (2)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about 3 years ago | (#36685208)

Equating a whole political party with one or two idiots is not a very intellectually gifted thing to do, you know? Durr yourself.

Re:"Those who cannot remember the past... (0)

Qzukk (229616) | about 3 years ago | (#36685330)

Welcome to the difference between a Democracy and a Republic. Enjoy being represented by one or two idiots.

Re:"Those who cannot remember the past... (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about 3 years ago | (#36685606)

Not unless YOU vote for those particular idiots, because I am sure as hell not going to. In fact I did not vote for either of the last two Presidents, because unlike a lot of people, I recognized them for what they were BEFORE they got into office.

Re:"Those who cannot remember the past... (0)

bit trollent (824666) | about 3 years ago | (#36685710)

Wow.. great job not voting. How are you going to stick it to the man next time? By sitting on the couch or compalining on the internet. I'm sure they can't wait to appease the people that are too dumb to use their vote.

Re:"Those who cannot remember the past... (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about 3 years ago | (#36685886)

Read it again. I didn't claim that I didn't vote.

Re:"Those who cannot remember the past... (1)

Aryden (1872756) | about 3 years ago | (#36685808)

Of course you realize that even though YOU do not vote for the morons, they may get elected anyhow and will STILL be representing you...

Re:"Those who cannot remember the past... (-1, Troll)

Moryath (553296) | about 3 years ago | (#36685892)

The problem with that is that the person put up by the other side is usually ALSO a Friggin' Tard (to quote Captain Hammer).

I mean seriously here. Bush v Gore? There's a reason it came down to recounts and courts.

Bush v Kerry? I voted for Kerry only because the Retardicans were in no way going to lose Congress, and letting one party get hold of everything is just plain stupid (as we can see from history: the worst times we've had were the Carter years, the 1992-1994 of Clinton, the 6 years of Bush, and ironically enough the two years of Bush + Pelosi when it became obvious that Bush was just a fucking pushover who would sign any old thing they put in front of him).

Obama v McCain? Really? The other side controlled Congress, and yet McCain was the best the Republicans could put up? Worse yet, they saddle him with that retarded barbie-doll from Alaska as his running mate?

And seriously now, look at the field from the current Retardican side.

-Mitt Romney. AKA the Evil Mr. Rogers.

-Michele Bachmann. "I'm like John Wayne (Gacy)"... got her start on promoting "pray away the gay therapy" which mostly causes gays forced into it to commit suicide.

-Herman Cain. Can we say "token black guy"? This guy makes JC Watts look like an actual member of the Republicans by contrast.

-Newt "left my cancer-ridden wife in her bed to die while I shacked up" Gingrich. 'Nuff Said.

-Gary Johnson. See also "stealth libertarian." Not a bad thing, just a kook.

-Gary McMillan. aka. "The Rent Is Too Damn High." Hey Gary, don't look now, but it's YOUR party full of assholes who keep raising the rent!

-Roy Moore. aka "Fuck you Supreme Court" guy. Eventually disbarred for refusing to acknowledge that the constitution Fucking Means Something.

-Ron Paul. aka "Crazy Uncle Ron." Wanna smoke weed, he's your guy. See again "stealth libertarian wacko."

-Tim Pawlenty. The fucktard who ran Minnesota's government into the ground and left its budget a smoking wreck. Sure you want to let him do that to the country?

-Rick Santorum. Man who's so anti-gay they named a disgusting bit of the afters of homosexual anal sex after him. Just what we need to run the country, right?

-Fred Karger/Andy Martin/Thad McCotter/Tom Miller/Buddy Roemer/Vern Wuensche - Who The Fuck Are These People Anyways?

I mean, seriously here. These are the best people the Republicans and Pee Tardiers can come up with, and you wonder why I question their collective IQ and sanity?

Re:"Those who cannot remember the past... (1)

MaskedSlacker (911878) | about 3 years ago | (#36685224)

Goddamned American public in recent years has acted like it has never read a newspaper or history book.

They haven't. Hence why the newspaper and book publishing industries are dying. Haven't you been reading the--oh, right.

Re:"Those who cannot remember the past... (3, Insightful)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about 3 years ago | (#36685696)

The newspaper and (paper) book publishing industries are on hard times because for the first time in history they have actual competition. It has nothing to do with how many read.

Re:"Those who cannot remember the past... (1)

chipwich (131556) | about 3 years ago | (#36685492)

This is precisely why historically, the FCC did not allow on company to be both a content creator and content provider or "carrier". There is a huge conflict of interest which is not in the best interest of either innovation or the citizenry in general.

You mean the FCC actually protected public interest at one point? With the likes of Meredith Baker [washingtonpost.com] it's hard to believe they ever did anything other than line their own pockets by selling democracy, one dollar at a time.

Re:"Those who cannot remember the past... (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about 3 years ago | (#36685646)

History. History. Do you know what that means? It means (more or less) "what happened before the present".

Really depends on the implementation (-1, Flamebait)

Necroman (61604) | about 3 years ago | (#36685074)

As I've gotten older (and now have money to buy stuff), I'm fine with a way for copyright owners to shutdown pirates after repeated offenses. (When I first got a cable modem in 1997 or so, I got internet shutoff due to some involvement in pirating. A call to my ISP got my internet turned back on.)

BUT, there has to be some type of appeals process. If an arm of the MPAA can just say "these 1000 IP addresses were downloading my movie", and you have no recourse to protest the claim, this will be farm to easy to abuse and people not involved will get sucked into the mess.

But I'm not sure what alternatives there are? You could have the provider monitor "trouble" users after X number of complaints, but then the cost is pushed to the providers and they don't want that (and consumers wouldn't be too happy either).

There's a reason the court system is nice (well, nice in theory). Accused are given a chance to defend themselves and it's up to the accuser to prove that the defendant is guilty. The system that these providers are getting into probably doesn't have this sort of checks in place.

RTFA plz (1)

tepples (727027) | about 3 years ago | (#36685142)

BUT, there has to be some type of appeals process.

From the article: "An appeals process does at least exist."

Re:Really depends on the implementation (2)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about 3 years ago | (#36685170)

"I'm fine with a way for copyright owners to shutdown pirates after repeated offenses."

Please stop helping the media companies to spread misinformation. Downloaders are not pirates. "Pirates" are defined as people who make and sell copies of copyrighted works commercially, for a profit. Equating your typical downloader with "pirates" is a gross injustice. And which is something the media companies want everybody to do, in their minds.

Re:Really depends on the implementation (1)

H0p313ss (811249) | about 3 years ago | (#36685232)

"I'm fine with a way for copyright owners to shutdown pirates after repeated offenses."

Please stop helping the media companies to spread misinformation. Downloaders are not pirates. "Pirates" are defined as people who make and sell copies of copyrighted works commercially, for a profit. Equating your typical downloader with "pirates" is a gross injustice. And which is something the media companies want everybody to do, in their minds.

The correct term is GNU/Pirates.

Re:Really depends on the implementation (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36685256)

So now that you can afford to be ripped off, you don't want others to pirate the way you did. Lovely. Do as I say, don't do as I do. It's like those politicians who know the taste of a joint first-hand but still want zero-tolerance enforcement. Hypocrite.

Re:Really depends on the implementation (2)

brainzach (2032950) | about 3 years ago | (#36685340)

ISP's won't let the MPAA or RIAA abuse their customers. The ISP's will have discretion on how to enforce these copyright claims and won't do anything that will cause them to lose significant profits. If the MPAA abuses its power, the ISP will ignore the request because the agreement is voluntary.

Re:Really depends on the implementation (1)

Aryden (1872756) | about 3 years ago | (#36685880)

riiiiiiiiight, what Orwellian utopian society are you living in? 4/5 of those ISPs are the media companies that also make up the MPAA or have incredibly vested interests in them. The ISP can pass the cost (re: losses) off onto customers and to the media company filing the claim.

Re:Really depends on the implementation (1)

DamnStupidElf (649844) | about 3 years ago | (#36685884)

As I've gotten older (and now have money to buy stuff), I'm fine with a way for copyright owners to shutdown pirates after repeated offenses. (When I first got a cable modem in 1997 or so, I got internet shutoff due to some involvement in pirating. A call to my ISP got my internet turned back on.)

The court system.

That answer should be sufficient in and of itself, but to further elaborate; do you want your neighborhood covenant to have the power to shut off your water if you plant the wrong kinds of things in your yard? The power to turn off your electricity if they don't like your christmas lights or loud music? Do you want other drivers on the road to be able to disable your engine if they think you cut them off? Law and order is important. Allowing the media companies to control Internet connections is the very definition of vigilantism.

This is actually reasonable. (4, Interesting)

odin84gk (1162545) | about 3 years ago | (#36685088)

Have you ever gotten a copyright infringement letter? If not, then this probably won't apply to you.

Read the last two paragraphs of the article.

Essentially, after 6 notifications where they contact you about your infringing activities, they will throttle your internet, and possibly disconnect you until you contact them and have a chat about copyright laws.

While I don't like the thought of being disconnected, I really don't like the thought of the government getting involved. (Protect IP Act, anyone?)

Re:This is actually reasonable. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36685182)

I'd rather have the government be involved than have private entities colluding to create their own extra-legal framework. With the government, I have recourse to contest or change the law. With private entities, I'm practically a powerless serf. As messed up as things are in our republic now, I'll still take it over neo-feudalism.

Re:This is actually reasonable. (1)

Intrepid imaginaut (1970940) | about 3 years ago | (#36685292)

Mod parent up, and to think I just spent my last point. Private companies are not entitled to act as judge, jury, and executioner.

Re:This is actually reasonable. (2)

gstoddart (321705) | about 3 years ago | (#36685428)

Mod parent up, and to think I just spent my last point. Private companies are not entitled to act as judge, jury, and executioner.

Sadly, those are legal terms ...

A lot of people will take the position that it's their network, and you use it according to their terms and their whim. The fact that the FCC hasn't decided to enforce net neutrality seems to confirm that.

I believe in this case, those private companies have given you their terms, and given you an EULA that says they can change those terms at will ... so, yes, in this case they certainly can act as judge, jury, and executioner. Your alternative is to bugger off, and find another ISP if you don't like the way you treat them ... if that's not actually possible because there's no competition, well, then your SOL.

Not saying I agree with what they're doing ... but I don't see how anybody can stop them. Despite the fact that they have easements to run cable over private land, and the government seems to have granted them what is essentially a monopoly, they've also declined to regulate what they can do.

Welcome to a world in which private companies can screw you over any way they see fit, and you have no recourse. This will only get worse.

Re:This is actually reasonable. (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about 3 years ago | (#36685244)

"Essentially, after 6 notifications where they contact you about your infringing activities, they will throttle your internet, and possibly disconnect you until you contact them and have a chat about copyright laws."

Which is probably illegal. If they try it, I expect a horde of lawsuits over it.

Ethically, it's rather like your local utility company shutting off your gas until you come into the office and have a chat about conservation.

Re:This is actually reasonable. (0)

kiwimate (458274) | about 3 years ago | (#36685420)

Which is probably illegal. If they try it, I expect a horde of lawsuits over it.

And copyright infringement is definitely illegal. I haven't seen a single argument on Slashdot arguing otherwise. As strong as the feelings are here, people either complain the inappropriately draconian responses to the illegal activity, or ignore that it's illegal and engage in long-winded pedantic debates about whether it's theft (while still admitting it's illegal).

You did it yourself earlier on in this thread, rebutting someone who talked about piracy and self-righteously proclaiming "no, we're not at all like pirates, we don't sell the stuff, we just download it for our own personal enjoyment because we're too cheap to buy something we want".

Ethically, it's rather like your local utility company shutting off your gas until you come into the office and have a chat about conservation.

No, it's not at all like that. It's more like your local utility company shutting off your gas after you've missed several payments of your gas bill and received half a dozen letters asking you to pay up.

Re:This is actually reasonable. (2)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about 3 years ago | (#36685770)

"And copyright infringement is definitely illegal."

And your point is?

The legality of copyright infringement has nothing to do with this issue. Legal or not, private industry does not have the right to act as judge and jury! And further, even if they WERE acting as legal law enforcement (they are not), it is NOT permissible to break the law in order to enforce it!

"You did it yourself earlier on in this thread, rebutting someone who talked about piracy and self-righteously proclaiming "no, we're not at all like pirates, we don't sell the stuff, we just download it for our own personal enjoyment because we're too cheap to buy something we want"."

I did nothing of the sort. I stated a fact, while you are making assumptions (and imputations) about me that you have no right to make... or evidence to make for that matter. In short, you are being an ass.

"No, it's not at all like that. It's more like your local utility company shutting off your gas after you've missed several payments of your gas bill and received half a dozen letters asking you to pay up."

No, it's not. At all. If you want to be realistic, it's a lot more like your local utility company shutting off your gas because you were accused of stealing some propane from somebody else.

Re:This is actually reasonable. (2, Interesting)

brainzach (2032950) | about 3 years ago | (#36685554)

Why would it be illegal? The analogy is more like a utility company shutting off your electricity because they have evidence of you growing marijuana indoors illegally.

The only way people will win a successful suit is that if they were a false positive. Trying to sue when you are actually committing copyright infringement will make you an easy target for the MPAA/RIAA.

If you claim that your neighbors are stealing your Wi-Fi and downloading illegal content, then the education will probably focus mostly on securing your network better, which isn't necessary a bad thing.

Re:This is actually reasonable. (2)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about 3 years ago | (#36685854)

"Why would it be illegal? The analogy is more like a utility company shutting off your electricity because they have evidence of you growing marijuana indoors illegally."

No, it isn't. First, they would have no "evidence", only the word of somebody in the "content industry", so it's hearsay at best. From past court cases, we have seen the quality of THEIR "evidence". And to say it tends to be weak is a gross understatement.

Further, even if a utility company had evidence that you were growing marijuana, their only LEGAL recourse is to turn that information over to the "authorities". They have no legal authority to act on that information by themselves, by shutting off your service.

"... then the education will probably focus mostly on securing your network better, which isn't necessary a bad thing."

Precisely while freedom-lovers are pushing everybody to open their wi-fi, so that more people will have internet access. The thing is: network security is great, if you want it. But I am not legally required to "secure" my wifi. And I have some very strong reasons for not wanting to. Perfectly legal, ethical reasons.

Re:This is actually reasonable. (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | about 3 years ago | (#36685250)

I really don't like the thought of the government getting involved.

Um, where do you think copyright law comes from?

Wait and see... (-1, Troll)

serieoftubes (2351956) | about 3 years ago | (#36685096)

Thats is going to be used as an excuse to spy [aeonity.com] on the citizens.
Wecome to communist America in which internet disconnects and spies on the users...

Re:Wait and see... (1)

HaZardman27 (1521119) | about 3 years ago | (#36685262)

Warning: I'm guessing this is a goatse link, given the domain.

Monopoly pratices much? (1)

silas_moeckel (234313) | about 3 years ago | (#36685112)

Between AT&T and the various cable companies those are your only option for low latency high bandwidth consumer internet in a lot of the country. I do not suspect that the FCC will do it's job and squish this or the local regulatory bodies.

How many customers (4, Insightful)

Aladrin (926209) | about 3 years ago | (#36685144)

How many customers will they be forced to ban before they realize how much this hurts them and helps their competition?

A boycott like this doesn't work unless you get every ISP to join in because 1 service isn't significantly different than another. Nobody says, 'Oh man, I couldn't live if I had to switch to Sprint instead of Time Warner!'

Also, I wonder if there are any laws against this already? It seems to me that banding together to deny service to a certain list of people has got to have some anti-trust laws or something.

And, could this be a major nail in the IP coffin? Judges aren't going to have much respect for them if they do really crazy things in the name of protecting their IP. The tide is already turning on that front and this is pretty desperate.

Re:How many customers (1)

mrquagmire (2326560) | about 3 years ago | (#36685280)

What competition?

Re:How many customers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36685404)

Tell me how to switch providers? They all say they don't serve my area.

Re:How many customers (1)

jd2112 (1535857) | about 3 years ago | (#36685512)

How many customers will they be forced to ban before they realize how much this hurts them and helps their competition?

What is this competition that you speak of?

Re:How many customers (1)

kiwimate (458274) | about 3 years ago | (#36685636)

Also, I wonder if there are any laws against this already? It seems to me that banding together to deny service to a certain list of people has got to have some anti-trust laws or something.

Except that copyright infringement is illegal, y'know?

And, could this be a major nail in the IP coffin? Judges aren't going to have much respect for them if they do really crazy things in the name of protecting their IP. The tide is already turning on that front and this is pretty desperate.

No. See above. And as has been pointed out you're on thin ice trying to posit this as "really crazy". The response as described is quite reasonable.

Re:How many customers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36685924)

I have Verizon FiOS. Oh man, I"d be buggered if I had to switch from them to anything else!

what about false positives, bad clames, fake clame (2)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about 3 years ago | (#36685152)

false positives have been a issues in the past does this do any thing to fix that?
Let's say some without HSI but has cable some how get some HBO VOD data flagged? or just that they flag the wrong subscriber.

Bad clams
The bank's have done foreclosure on loans they don't even own so what stopping someone from makeing a clam on stuff they don't own or that may be free but some how they thing they own the rights to? What if a game is free but someone flags it based on in game music?

fake clams

One business may just make clams just to DOS a other business.

What about places with FREE WIFI or hotels? (A lot of hotels use cable HSI)

What about if you HAVE the rights to that Copyright and the right to download it and you still get flaged?

They don't care (1)

HalAtWork (926717) | about 3 years ago | (#36685528)

I think the RIAA/MPAA's rampant lawsuits against citizens shows that they would rather have false positives than false negatives. They're not concerned with your "end user experience." They would rather you have to fight to get the service you paid for* than for them to fight to prove you wrong. In essence, it's "guilty before proven innocent" except not in a court of law -- just on their say-so.

* So the ISP can kick you off and still keep your money. This also means they'll be more inclined to kick users off than to improve their network and add bandwidth.

Re:what about false positives, bad clames, fake cl (1)

thebra (707939) | about 3 years ago | (#36685592)

false positives have been a issues in the past does this do any thing to fix that? Let's say some without HSI but has cable some how get some HBO VOD data flagged? or just that they flag the wrong subscriber.

Bad clams The bank's have done foreclosure on loans they don't even own so what stopping someone from makeing a clam on stuff they don't own or that may be free but some how they thing they own the rights to? What if a game is free but someone flags it based on in game music?

fake clams

One business may just make clams just to DOS a other business.

What about places with FREE WIFI or hotels? (A lot of hotels use cable HSI)

What about if you HAVE the rights to that Copyright and the right to download it and you still get flaged?

Mmmm...clams.

Re:what about false positives, bad clames, fake cl (2)

ifrag (984323) | about 3 years ago | (#36685894)

While I must admit, how to execute a DoS attack using clams is a little beyond me, I think the issue of false positives is going to be a lot less funny.

If these companies are doing so little as just checking if an IP address is in a torrent swarm, then I would think just about anyone could be flagged. So even assuming they get the right IP address associated to who had it at that point in time, there is still not even a guarantee the file was being seeded by that IP at that moment. I see connections being made for a torrent long after I've shut it down. And if DHCP were to reassign that address, whoever else got it would probably be seeing a load of incoming traffic that makes no sense to them.

Traffic inspection for specific media is probably damn near pointless since a lot of torrent traffic is already encrypted anyway. In fact, the paranoid probably have legacy connections disabled and only used encrypted traffic.

And I'm also curious about how reliable DHT is in all of this, and if it is possible to poison DHT with IPs not really in the swarm.

I don't really expect any due diligence on the ISPs part, so hopefully the penalties stay mild enough their lack of investigation doesn't cause too many problems.

Beginning of the end... (1)

mrquagmire (2326560) | about 3 years ago | (#36685168)

This will be the beginning of the end of the Internet as we know it. Once these corporations have the power to control what we see, how much we see, and even IF we are allowed online... I guess I'm not going to want any part of that anyway.

Re:Beginning of the end... (1)

JockTroll (996521) | about 3 years ago | (#36685362)

Then fight. But be absolutely positive about it. If you're not prepared to kill a man in the name of Internet freedom, stand aside and just watch it being destroyed.

Re:Beginning of the end... (1)

shoehornjob (1632387) | about 3 years ago | (#36685942)

This will be the beginning of the end of the Internet as we know it. Once these corporations have the power to control what we see, how much we see, and even IF we are allowed online... I guess I'm not going to want any part of that anyway.

I don't want any part of it either. Big media believes that it has a captive audience and to some extent that's true but they can only push their luck so far before people wake up and realize they don't need them.

Re:Beginning of the end... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36685956)

"Dear media corporations, your property lease with the people of the united states is hereby terminated. You hereby have 48 hours to remove your belongings (transmission lines) from our property or we will be forced to confiscate them at which point they will be auctioned off at our discretion."

very intersesting .. "education" (1)

vonshavingcream (2291296) | about 3 years ago | (#36685214)

I wonder what the education will consist of. I have read several books on Copyright Law. Also books on the pros / cons of the current law. Plus other books on the legal interpretations of copyright law. All of the books seems to go around in circles and generally leave you more confused than you were when you started. they all say something like "if the item was published between 196x and 197x then it may be copyrighted, unless it was published without a copyright notice. then it's not copyrighted. Unless it was refiled before 1979 and then published again with a copyright notice before 1982 .... etc, etc, etc." I would be very curious how they will explain what can be downloaded and what cannot. I would also be interested to see if you were to follow the rules listed in the "education" package, and were to download something that did not meet the requirements for copyrighted work. Could they still sue you for it. Or would the blame be on them for not properly documenting the scenario in which it would be illegal to download the content.

Re:very intersesting .. "education" (1)

bfmorgan (839462) | about 3 years ago | (#36685276)

Ignorance of the law is no excuse!

Re:very intersesting .. "education" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36685676)

I absolutely love that statement. Do you know why ignorance of the law is no excuse? Because the guy who said it mandated that all the laws be posted in the public forum in plain language that everyone could understand.

Ignorance of the law is a perfectly valid excuse when the law is so convoluted you need an entire profession of people to act as intermediaries between you and it.

Re:very intersesting .. "education" (1)

black soap (2201626) | about 3 years ago | (#36685806)

It is literally not possible for a person to know all the laws at a given point in time. How long woudl it take a single person to read through the tax code alone?

Re:very intersesting .. "education" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36685320)

Their version will say "Thou Shalt Not Download Anything."

Re:very intersesting .. "education" (1)

black soap (2201626) | about 3 years ago | (#36685834)

They want us to watch only what they feed us. So they would rather be cable television providers/content producers than actual internet providers.

why is the internet not encrypted? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36685260)

We've had the internet for around 43 years. I understand in the early days protocols were not defined with encryption - it was too expensive.

But today.. why isn't every single damn byte transfered over ANY protocol end-to-end encrypted? It seems like that's really the way things must move. Not just for reasons like this story, but basic freedoms, e.g, Arab Spring people or dissident in China wanting to communicate freely.

Time for some form letters. (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about 3 years ago | (#36685386)

Dear {ISP company}:

The notice from {MAFIAA member} claiming that I was participating in copyright infringement must be some kind of mistake. To the best of my knowledge, nobody in my household has engaged in such practices.

I suggest that perhaps their methodology is at fault, or that someone may be spoofing my IP address, or accessing my router in an unauthorized manner.

In any case, I assure you that I have no knowledge of copyright piracy occurring at my residence.

Sincerely,

{my signature}


(Since downloading is not "piracy", this letter would be 100% truthful, and use the industry's own misinformation campaign against them.)

Re:Time for some form letters. (1)

jedidiah (1196) | about 3 years ago | (#36685440)

I would write my senators but they are already in Hollywood's pocket.

It's sad really. You would think that our senators were Democrats from California rather than Republicans from the Deep South.

Re:Time for some form letters. (1)

Mister Whirly (964219) | about 3 years ago | (#36685650)

You would think that our senators were Democrats from California rather than Republicans from the Deep South.

Hint: What do both types of senators really like?
Answer: Money by the boatloads from corporations.


They are not as different as you think. They both have the exact same #1 priority - get re-elected by any means necessary. Their "policies" and "morals" are just means to accomplish this goal.

How about for government (5, Interesting)

Bob the Super Hamste (1152367) | about 3 years ago | (#36685422)

Can we get something like this for government except instead of copyright infringement it is applicable to 3 (or 6 in this case) infringements of individual rights? Now instead of being cut off from the internet they are forced out of office, never allowed to hold office again, lose their pensions, and have to pay back all money and benefits earned while in office.

SO WHAT (2)

shoehornjob (1632387) | about 3 years ago | (#36685582)

One day big media will understand that they need us more than we need them. Take away my movies, video games and music (that part would suck) and I wouldn't be too happy but I would eventually find something else to do. Occasionally I come across someone that doesn't watch tv and they seem happy. My friend Chris told me that he couldn't imagine being glued to the tv again. Fuck big media.

Re:SO WHAT (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36685900)

media prices keep going up, I'm right with you on this; ever since they started jacking prices up and bringing in record profits year after year (e.g. movie industry) i've given up on supporting these industries other than the internet access that I need to pay for, i haven't had cable in... 7 years and haven't missed it a bit, that money is better spent elsewhere in my life

filing fees (1)

umrain (698867) | about 3 years ago | (#36685656)

The article mentions:

An appeals process does at least exist. Before a "mitigation measure" is taken, users can request an independent review of the accusation, but not from a judge; it remains unclear who exactly will handle the appeal. To keep everyone from using the system every time, there's a $35 filing fee (which can be waived by the independent reviewer).

But notably absent is any mention of a filing fee copyright holders need to pay to prevent them from abusing the accusation process.

Evolutionary Selection Pressure (1)

Improbus (1996348) | about 3 years ago | (#36685766)

Keep up the pressure you copyright fascists. Bittorrent and file sharing in general will just become more distributed and encrypted. Here is an idea guys, feel free to use it, give the public what it wants, now and at a reasonable price and you wont have to worry about piracy. Duh.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...