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!

ISPs Will Now Be Copyright Cops

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the best-of-europe-and-australia-coming-soon dept.

The Internet 338

An anonymous reader writes "Wendy Seltzer, Fellow at Princeton University's Center for Information Technology Policy, talks about the new plan by ISPs and content providers to 'crack down on what users can do with their internet connections' using a 6-step warning system to curb online copyright infringement."

cancel ×

338 comments

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

Who the fuck is she? (-1, Troll)

Alex Belits (437) | more than 3 years ago | (#37010782)

I mean, other than some stupid bitch?

Please moderate your tone (5, Informative)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#37010794)

Wikipedia says [wikipedia.org] she's a lawyer who founded Chilling Effects and used to work for the EFF.

Re:Please moderate your tone (0, Troll)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 3 years ago | (#37010904)

Doesn't mean that her idea is any less stupid than any other "system" that's been brought into existence, or in use, or tried to be thrown onto people. Until the media cartels are broken, this won't change though.

RTFS? (3, Informative)

curio_city (1972556) | more than 3 years ago | (#37011182)

talks about the new plan by ISPs and content providers

Not her plan, she's just talking about it.

Re:RTFS? (1, Insightful)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 3 years ago | (#37011334)

Again. Doesn't make it any less stupid, inane, or fucked up.

Re:Who the fuck is she? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37010818)

I mean, other than some stupid bitch?

Dude. Google. Your friend. Try it.

"Sits on the board of the TOR PROJECT."

I'm fairly certain the 'stupid bitch' is probably in the ISP's sights, as well.

TFA. Read it.

Re:Who the fuck is she? (2)

Alex Belits (437) | more than 3 years ago | (#37011166)

Okay, not some stupid bitch. But it's still customary to describe a person's relation to the topic being discussed, and her position at Princeton means absolutely nothing in the context of this. Nor any explanation is given (by summary, interviewer or her) what kind of "plan" is this -- some kind of contract-backed policy decision, lobbying for a law that would make it mandatory, or two guys from AT&T and Comcast discussing it over beer.

Re:Who the fuck is she? (0)

poena.dare (306891) | more than 3 years ago | (#37010946)

I find your comment to be outside of any sane value system.

Re:Who the fuck is she? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37011064)

A privileged, spoiled rich kid who's pampered with position and now she's using it.

Sad, isn't it.

Re:Who the fuck is she? (2)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 3 years ago | (#37011332)

Isn't this an interesting choice of story for the hijack trolls to decide to try to bury?

I'm Glad For This (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37010788)

It is really crazy how blatant and out of control copyright infringement at become in our society. I'm all for ISPs cracking down on such illicit and nefarious activitity.

As an artist, I'm dismayed that works that took years of effort and money just get pirated without any compensation at all. It's time ISPs do something about this.

Works are based on other works (4, Insightful)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#37010808)

As an artist, I'm dismayed that works that took years of effort and money just get pirated without any compensation at all.

All works of authorship are based in part on other works. Would you want to get your Internet access cut off for having inadvertently included too much of someone else's work in your own work?

Re:Works are based on other works (1, Interesting)

dwywit (1109409) | more than 3 years ago | (#37010952)

That's probably true to some extent in all works of authorship, but it's not justification for dismissing income protection via copyright for someone who creates (for example) a new interpretation of one of Shakespeare's plays - let's use "Forbidden Planet" as an example. At least partly based on "The Tempest", does that mean "Forbidden Planet" is therefore automatically not entitled to copyright protection?
 
I wrote and produced a short film based on an ancient legend, and there are aspects of the "hero's journey" in the story, but I wrote the screenplay - all 9 minutes of it:) - funded and produced the film, all the way to a screening at a local film festival, where I also sold some copies. Am I justified in seeking redress for anyone who makes their own copy of this film and distributes that copy?
 
Action to cut someone's internet access for a single violation is excessive, but deliberate, repeated, warnings-ignored violations - that's different.

Re:Works are based on other works (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37011076)

I wrote and produced a short film based on an ancient legend, and there are aspects of the "hero's journey" in the story

Yes, but did the background music go "Dun, dun-dun-dun, duh-duh, dun-dun" or "Dun, dun-dun-dun, duh-duh, DAH-dun"?

Re:Works are based on other works (3, Insightful)

Gerzel (240421) | more than 3 years ago | (#37011190)

How about holding that income protection for a term so that the artist who created it will be long dead before it expires?

How exactly does that encourage the artist or the artist's heirs to produce?

Re:Works are based on other works (2)

visualight (468005) | more than 3 years ago | (#37011326)

When copyright terms are again 30 years or less with no exceptions, and the DMCA is completely repealed, I'll be with you, really with you. Until then, I will always choose the option that costs Hollywood the most money. If I think that the media lobby will benefit in any way then "no sale". For me there is no ethical dilemma with regard to copyright, it's black and white.

Re:Works are based on other works (2)

lostmongoose (1094523) | more than 3 years ago | (#37011328)

The problem with your example is this: I make a work based on a work that is currently copyright protected, I can be sued for infringement by the owner. If I make a work based on a work where the copyright is now Public Domain, my work is now private copyright protected even though it's a derivative. My point is, if a copyright owner can shut down and claim ownership of derivatives, then derivatives of Public Domain should also be Public Domain. Having it only work one way doesn't encourage anything but Disney-like shenanigans.

Re:Works are based on other works (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37011358)

I think it would be slightly better if they presented a court with sufficient evidence that you were indeed the one that violated the copyright (good luck with that) and asked them if they could shut your internet connection off.

Re:I'm Glad For This (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37010810)

lol

Re:I'm Glad For This (5, Insightful)

drobety (2429764) | more than 3 years ago | (#37010822)

I will be glad to pay you directly for your work. The problem really is the greedy dinosaurs between you and me who try hard to stay relevant despite technological advances.

Re:I'm Glad For This (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37010926)

I wouldn't. His work is crap.

Re:I'm Glad For This (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37010920)

Unless you happen to have sold out to a big enough publisher (of any kind) capable of bribing the ISPs, they will not care about your valuable content being "illegally" copied.

Re:I'm Glad For This (5, Insightful)

ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371) | more than 3 years ago | (#37010934)

It is really crazy how blatant and out of control copyright has become in our society. I'm all for just abandoning or totally revising the concept altogether.

As an academic, I'm dismayed that research up to 70 years old and paid for with public money money can just be locked off for no reason at all. And that the essential right of citizens to acess the public internet can be interdicted by private corporations. It's time governments do something about this.

Re:I'm Glad For This (3, Insightful)

ZorinLynx (31751) | more than 3 years ago | (#37010958)

Especially in the US, we don't really manufacture much anymore. A good percentage of our GDP is intellectual property. So of course people are going to go overboard in protecting it.

Re:I'm Glad For This (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37010980)

You need to go to a chiropractor. With a simple adjustment in the vertebrae, you'll give off a set of pheromones so strong, nobody will ever want to download your work.
-In lieu of Dr.Bob

6 Warnings (5, Funny)

ArchieBunker (132337) | more than 3 years ago | (#37010798)

Alright 6 warnings! Now I know to cut it out after the 5th.

Re:6 Warnings (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37011120)

Alright 6 warnings! Now I know to cut it out after the 5th.

Why? Don't you have one more warning?

Re:6 Warnings (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37011124)

you're correct in that you'll be cut off after the 5th.

and it'll cost you $30 to appeal that cut off. completely non refundable.

Re:6 Warnings (4, Insightful)

sgt scrub (869860) | more than 3 years ago | (#37011154)

Did your keyboard break? You forgot, "so my neighbors don't loose their connections".

US. triple-A debt rating cut by Standard & Poo (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37010802)

The United States late Friday lost its triple-A debt rating from Standard & Poor’s for the first time in its history, with the rating agency saying the political system of the world’s top economy has become less stable and budget cutting announced earlier this week didn’t go far enough

Re:US. triple-A debt rating cut by Standard & (-1)

webmistressrachel (903577) | more than 3 years ago | (#37010928)

Yum yum, a lovely tasty copypasta!!!

One thing is clear (-1, Troll)

JockTroll (996521) | more than 3 years ago | (#37010806)

This seltzer person must be executed to send a message and make an example. Her family should be taken out as well.

Re:One thing is clear (1)

Lord Juan (1280214) | more than 3 years ago | (#37010914)

FFS, find out who she is before you call for her execution.

Re:One thing is clear (2)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 3 years ago | (#37010968)

Why her? She's just explaining what is going on. Are you anti free speech or something? If anyone should be executed, it's certainly not someone who's actually helping put more focus on the unethical behavior of the ISP's.

Re:One thing is clear (1)

Lanteran (1883836) | more than 3 years ago | (#37011002)

Well he's got troll in his username. Do the sarcasm tags need to be in caps, too?

Re:One thing is clear (1)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 3 years ago | (#37011014)

nah, but it's a bit extreme of a sarcastic joke even for a troll username. I didn't fail to see it, but I'm not exactly going to go through their post history to see if they post continual troll-posts.

Re:One thing is clear (2)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 3 years ago | (#37011090)

Shooting the messenger has always solved every problem. What I can't hear does not exist, lalalalala...

Re:One thing is clear (3, Interesting)

alex67500 (1609333) | more than 3 years ago | (#37011202)

I you watched the F video, you'd see that she's actually advocating net neutrality and warning against the ramifications of such a system.

This is a very large debate, but ISPs cutting/censoring/throttling your access is actually a massive deal, and goes against a lot of principles in modern coutries' Constitution.

Re:One thing is clear (0)

KingMotley (944240) | more than 3 years ago | (#37011346)

Yes, because thier constitution says "shalt not throttle thee internet tubes", or were you referring to the section that guarantees the right to steal other people's digital work and not to be questioned about it?

Just like the "war on drugs" (5, Insightful)

scottbomb (1290580) | more than 3 years ago | (#37010842)

Haven't we been arguing this since the invention of the copy machine? As long as people want something bad enough, they will get it. The cat and mouse game will never end and the cat will never win. For every torrent site that gets shut down, 3 new ones appear. The genie technology has been let out of the bottle. People will find new ways to transport and hide/encrypt their files.

Re:Just like the "war on illegal variable X" (3, Insightful)

ae1294 (1547521) | more than 3 years ago | (#37010938)

Haven't we been arguing this since the invention of the copy machine? As long as people want something bad enough, they will get it. The cat and mouse game will never end and the cat will never win. For every torrent site that gets shut down, 3 new ones appear. The genie technology has been let out of the bottle. People will find new ways to transport and hide/encrypt their files.

If you're of noble birth and choose to make most everything illegal, than you've made most everyone else your slave. Make knowledge illegal and their children and children's children become slaves. Make chiropractic schools illegal and you've made Dr. Bob your new court jester.

Re:Just like the "war on illegal variable X" (3, Insightful)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 3 years ago | (#37011306)

DAMN YOU....what kind of choice is that? Slavery...Dr Bob wearing the little hat and bells on his shoes and made to do tricks....slavery...bells and stupid tricks...ARGH I can't choose and its YOUR FAULT asshole!

As for TFA, sorry babe, but after 30+ years of a policy of " Give teh rich more MONIES nom nom nom" the wealth is too concentrated for them to give a fuck what YOU think. They own the MSM, so try protesting, nobody will see it, nor will they see the cops crack your head later. Vote? For whom? Thanks to Citizens United they don't even have to hide the bribes anymore!

Until we have our own Arab Spring, which I figure is coming, 5 or 6 years of depression should do the trick, you might as well give it up as you simply can't compete with the 1%ers. You have your little signs, they have congressmen on speed dial. You have your little forums, the have Fox, CBS, ABC, NBC, and a couple of dozen more. Not much of a fight really.

Re:Just like the "war on drugs" (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37011022)

If the cat kills every mouse, the cat will die. The cat only needs to catch enough mice to sustain it's lifestyle. I think it is a very accurate analogy.

Re:Just like the "war on drugs" (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37011144)

Yes, but the age-old approach to social ills has not been to actually find a cure. Instead, people are satisfied with the sense that there is a cosmic balance between crime and punishment. So as long as there are victims to crucify, the war on drugs, piracy, terrorism, abortion, homosexuality etc can be considered a great success.

Those with a conservative mindset are even opposed to real solutions if they break the cosmic balance. Giving condoms to teens (no baby as a punishment). Removing poverty from functioning social democracies (the Scandinavian countries were admonished by Pope John Paul II for removing poverty and thus the possibility of Christians to practice charity).

Re:Just like the "war on drugs" (4, Insightful)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#37011174)

People will find new ways to transport and hide/encrypt their files.

Nobody cares about that. The whole idea here is to give new pretense to to spy on people and knock their doors down. Make everybody subject to arrest and their equipment subject to seizure. Yeah, just like the war on drugs, which is still proving to be very profitable, so don't expect much change there.

Beg to differ... (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37010844)

ISPs are taking a path that will promote end to end encryption and obfuscation to prevent guessing at the content of encrypted baby videos being distributed to relatives.

Perhaps if the creators and providers of "content" were able to devise a workable business model, there'd be no need for ISPs to be coerced into inspecting customers private data?

Just a thought.

Re:Beg to differ... (2)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 3 years ago | (#37010942)

ISPs are taking a path that will promote end to end encryption and obfuscation to prevent guessing at the content of encrypted baby videos being distributed to relatives.

Oh god - yes. Please! That's the way it should have been in the first place.

Re:Beg to differ... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37011244)

It's the way it should have been in the first place, yes, but I fear it's too late now. If encryption becomes ubiquitous, it'll be blocked except to "known" sites like banks. Anything else will be seen as a sign that you have something to hide.

I've been trying to get people to use encryption for everything (email, IM, whatever) for many years, but people just don't care.

Re:Beg to differ... (4, Interesting)

sconeu (64226) | more than 3 years ago | (#37011364)

If encryption gets banned, there is an ally that the bought-and-paid-for Congresscritters *will* listen to.

Go to the NRA. Seriously. Strong crypto was classified as a munition, making crypto a Second Amendment issue. Congress doesn't give a shit about the ACLU or the EFF or any of those types, but they will listen to the NRA.

Re:Beg to differ... (2)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 3 years ago | (#37011104)

You are aware that a lot of ISPs are also either subcompanies or at least somehow affiliated with copyright holders, yes?

Misleading? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37010854)

Is this already in the pipeline or is this hopeful blabbering by a fellow who's on the MAFIAA payroll? US only if it even happens aswell.

Re:Misleading? (2)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 3 years ago | (#37011130)

Considering who she is (founder of Chilling Effects, board member of the TOR project, advocate for ICANN transparency and privacy protection, former staff attorney of the EFF for IP and free speech...) I'd guess she's not a MAFIAA shill and we should probably take that seriously.

Sigh (1)

Lanteran (1883836) | more than 3 years ago | (#37010856)

Anyone interested in resurrecting packet radio?

Re:Sigh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37011094)

Never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon full of microSD cards.

Re:Sigh (1)

compgenius3 (726265) | more than 3 years ago | (#37011148)

But think of the latency!

Re:Sigh (2)

cbiltcliffe (186293) | more than 3 years ago | (#37011374)

But think of the latency!

I don't know...I can drive pretty fast...

Re:Sigh (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 3 years ago | (#37011142)

Resurrecting? Who declared it dead?

Packet radio is still in use. Plus with the advances in WiFi (802.11n looks pretty decent, speed-wise) and antennas becoming cheaper while we're talking, I guess we needn't even return to PR. WiFi will work just fine.

Re:Sigh (1)

Lanteran (1883836) | more than 3 years ago | (#37011340)

It's not dead, but hardly in common use anymore. Mesh networking would work great over short distances, but in anything larger than a subdivision, you're going to need a longer range link.

Re:Sigh (1)

couchslug (175151) | more than 3 years ago | (#37011186)

"Anyone interested in resurrecting packet radio?"

That's gonna make for some slow torrents!

Massive Respect for Wendy Seltzer (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37010874)

She explicitly said that "study after study has shown that those who pirate the most frequently are also the ones who are willing to pay the most for legal access to that copyrighted material." And then she also pointed out that it's disturbing to see the conglomeration of media companies and service providers like NBC-Comcast.

I like this lady, and I hope she manages to make those points to others!

16billion in loses? (5, Informative)

arbiter1 (1204146) | more than 3 years ago | (#37010890)

That is numbers from movie and music companies, Sure we all remember story's in the past of these companies inflating their loses to make it look worse then it was.

Re:16billion in loses? (3, Insightful)

Lanteran (1883836) | more than 3 years ago | (#37011038)

That's an understatement. They've made claims that are greater than the GDP of the entire world.

Re:16billion in loses? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37011112)

Every major studio has been pumping out movies that have huge losses. Therefore, we can only assume that they want to keep making losses or else they would have stopped making movies already. So, really, we're just helping them out do what they have always been doing.

The latest research (3, Insightful)

kawabago (551139) | more than 3 years ago | (#37011134)

The media industry commissioned a 'real' study of file traders and their effect on sales. They found the file traders were also the best customers. They found that file trading is like radio was in previous decades. File traders download music and films to see if they like them, if they do, they buy them. I don't see anything wrong with that at all. The industry buried the report. Stopping file trading will lead to a complete collapse of the music industry, that is exactly what we need!

Re:The latest research (2)

Crypto Gnome (651401) | more than 3 years ago | (#37011264)

FULL DISCLOSURE:

Just to be clear, *NOBODY* claims this behaviour is true of *ALL* P2P filesharers.

However all the studies (other thn marketing propaganda by The **AA) clearly show that *OVERWHELMINGLY* most filesharers end up actually *BUYING* significantly more music.

And by MORE I do mean
  • more than before they were filesharing
  • more than they "pirate"
  • collectively MORE is being purchased than pirated, ie there is SALES GROWTH AS A DIRECT RESULT OF FILESHARING

Huh... (2)

PessimysticRaven (1864010) | more than 3 years ago | (#37010898)

(Insert random ./ death threats and anal rapings here, quoted from previous comments..)

So, I guess NO one reads/watches TFA.

Google. Try it, folks!

..."She sits on the board of the TOR PROJECT. (Enabling folks to 'anonymously' browse pr0n for some time.)

Really, though, six mailings/warnings followed by throttled bandwidth doesn't do much, that I can see, apart from the 'we're watching you' vibe. It'll just be a shot in the arm for the VPN market.

Re:Huh... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37010948)

Only if your VPN provider, or if you run your own server, then the datacenter you run out of, is not part of this coalition.

Most datacenters for collocation are owned by members of this coalition

Re:Huh... (1)

RobbieThe1st (1977364) | more than 3 years ago | (#37011222)

There are plenty of servers in plenty of countries that would be more than willing to host a VPN and or SSH-based proxy for a fee. Sure, it may require higher latency, but that's not too much of a problem.

Only a problem where monopolies exist (4, Insightful)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 3 years ago | (#37010900)

This could really only be a problem in the United States because there is such little competition in the market. In any market where true competition exists, a company that attempted to restrict access in a way that did not have a clear economic benefit or cost would slowly lose customers. Restricting access to certain websites or data could never work in a competitive marketplace. The only reason the United States has bandwidth caps is because of a lack of competition as well... But at least there is an underlying economic reason for the ISPs to do so.

But why do ISPs care? (0)

rolfwind (528248) | more than 3 years ago | (#37011176)

This will only cost them money to enforce. Wouldn't they also lose commoncarrier status? I have to ask why ISPs even care to do other people's leg work here and lose some customers in the process.

Re:But why do ISPs care? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37011212)

Most ISPs also are content providers so they see it as using their control over their internet connections to increase the revenue of their content. This is why content carriers and content producers should never be allowed to be the same people.

Good! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37010902)

Being able to read/say/watch whatever I wanted online was too much of a responsibility anyways. It's about time the internet start reflecting the world we actually live in.

Just like the Patriot Act (1)

alienzed (732782) | more than 3 years ago | (#37010912)

Big brother just got a lot bigger (and hey he's in debt!)

That's great (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37010982)

That's great, Wendy. When can I expect your check for the part of my ISP's service you and your MAFIAA pimps would prefer I don't use?

Oh, there's no check? Then STFU, thundercunt.

Plan? It's already started (5, Interesting)

Chewbacon (797801) | more than 3 years ago | (#37011008)

My ISP (Cox) is already suspending accounts for privacy. A friend of mine called Cox to find his account had been suspended for pirating Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare. He doesn't play video games, but also doesn't know jack about Wifi security. After a little looking around for him, I saw someone had been squatting on his connection and then locked it up for him. Despite he explained someone apparently used his network without his permission and broke the law, Cox didn't give a rat's ass about it. It's much easier and cheaper for them to shoot now and ask questions later.

Uh, SSL? (1)

Rodness (168429) | more than 3 years ago | (#37011056)

So set your torrent client to require SSL connections to peers, and they can't prove you weren't downloading the latest Ubuntu.

Problem solved.

Re:Uh, SSL? (3, Informative)

Freddybear (1805256) | more than 3 years ago | (#37011126)

Encryption won't work. The MAFIAA gets your IP address from the tracker, or by joining the torrent swarms for files they considering to be infringing. Then they make the ISP correlate the IP address to your account.

You'd need a VPN proxy network to obscure your IP address from the tracker and the other members of the torrent swarm.

Re:Uh, SSL? (3, Interesting)

DaMattster (977781) | more than 3 years ago | (#37011170)

Encryption won't work. The MAFIAA gets your IP address from the tracker, or by joining the torrent swarms for files they considering to be infringing. Then they make the ISP correlate the IP address to your account.

You'd need a VPN proxy network to obscure your IP address from the tracker and the other members of the torrent swarm.

Simple enough. Find a provider that will give you some server space with shell access and install OpenVPN. Then use OpenVPN to obscure your IP address.

Re:Uh, SSL? (1)

Baloroth (2370816) | more than 3 years ago | (#37011240)

Out of curiosity, do you happen to know of any such providers that are fairly inexpensive? I know of a couple of VPN services, but most (I believe) shut you down if they are informed of infringement.

Re:Uh, SSL? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37011272)

Just make a bittorrent system that has both a file tracker and a proxy tracker. The client will allow a user-definable number of 1Mb/s proxy connections. For every proxy of yours that you open, you get to bounce your DL through someone else's proxy. Open 10 , and you can have 10 proxy'd connections to 10 other people... or one connection that bounces through 10 other proxies.

Thus, even if the **AA's trace a connection back to your IP, they'd have to show 'beyond a reasonable doubt' (or in civil cases 'beyond a preponderance of the evidence') that it wasn't just a proxy connection. If you leave your proxies open all the time, and only DL sometime, then most of the cases will be proxy connections.

Re:Uh, SSL? (2)

vlueboy (1799360) | more than 3 years ago | (#37011172)

So set your torrent client to require SSL connections to peers, and they can't prove you weren't downloading the latest Ubuntu.

Problem solved.

I know you know this, but let me restate an important fact for everyone else who is new to your suggestion. For torrents of enough value, "unlawful infiltration" by you, the downloader / (lawsuit target) is just as simple as "lawful infiltration" by they, the copyright owners... since everyone can pose as a sharer in this SSL encrypted "anonymous" environment.

The internet is a little weird with this respect: we have the illusion that you don't know the sharers, and they don't know you... unless "they" happen to be an undercover owner with a honeypot, or just a passive watcher in someone else's implementation of the idea that "this property is free for all." Unlike the real world, in the digital world, it's very bullet free to crash illegal parties and take prisoners, or at least indebt them for life.

You're only faking out filenames and data to your passive ISP tools, but they can still see all your peer IPs, since they're the ones hand-delivering the bagged goods to you even if they don't know what's in the bag. All they need is to look at the recent URLs and then they can tell were you clicked. This is already simple enough to secretly automate to let your ISP auto-join all your password-free torrent sites that it makes little sense to have a human sit down and join your torrent by hand... all they need are filenames, and I've seen enough legit traffic-sniffer magic that I know this is doable.

just plain absurd (4, Insightful)

Blymie (231220) | more than 3 years ago | (#37011084)

Private industry has absolutely NO place as judge, jury and executioner. NONE. Zero. Zilch.

If one is to be found guilty of anything, a court should be involved. Perhaps there should be changes to the law, to make small claim's court responsible for minor copyright infractions by users.

Regardless, in no way should one private company provide proof to another private company, which results in any sort of detrimental action being taken against a citizen of a free country! In fact, if that information is wrong, the copyright holder could be sued for slander/libel, along with the ISP being sued for various other things.

Re:just plain absurd (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37011158)

Private industry has absolutely NO place as judge, jury and executioner. NONE. Zero. Zilch.

If one is to be found guilty of anything, a court should be involved. Perhaps there should be changes to the law, to make small claim's court responsible for minor copyright infractions by users.

Regardless, in no way should one private company provide proof to another private company, which results in any sort of detrimental action being taken against a citizen of a free country!

If it's a free country, shouldn't the private company be free to do what they want, barring any agreement with you that precludes them from doing otherwise?

Or is your "free country" just free for YOU?

In fact, if that information is wrong, the copyright holder could be sued for slander/libel, along with the ISP being sued for various other things.

Yep - but you probably signed away that right when you agreed to your ISPs TOS.

Yeah, it sucks if someone wants to pay ISPs to play copyright cop. But given who the MAFIAA has in their pocket (remember, you can't spell DMCA without tha big fat "D"....) I don't see any realistic way that's going to change any time soon.

Re:just plain absurd (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37011266)

Protip: If it is possible to sign away your rights, they aren't really rights and your country isn't free.

The ISPs have every reason to be aggressive (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37011102)

With the coming of bandwidth caps, suspected piracy will be a new and probably well-used excuse to bounce those in the 99th percentile of bandwidth use.

Don't assume that ISPs will be lethargic about policing other peoples' content.

They will be enthusiastic to terminate expensive customers by invoking an illegal activities clause of the TOS.

RIAA hypocracy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37011114)

When radio stations contact the record industry and ask for music, the recording industry tells them to just download the mp3s off of bittorrent.

I suppose we should be grateful (1)

rastoboy29 (807168) | more than 3 years ago | (#37011132)

It does indeed appear that, finally, in 2011, after only a decade plus of sheer stupidity, the entertainment "industry" has figured out that they can't win this battle.

I just wish all the various tentacles involved could get with the program.

Legal options = less piracy! (1)

KreAture (105311) | more than 3 years ago | (#37011146)

Basically, it's too late to stop downloading and streaming. Consumers are not passively accepting networks scheduling any more.
They must understand they are now selling content, not a continous shedule. People will pick what they want to watch and everything else is nicely filtered out by their PVR's or simply not downloaded.
Give users a proper option with easy subscriptions and a system that works for distribution and they will pay. That means no insane prices where a simple episode cost the same as a month of network tv, nor a 1-time watch deal where you only have access to your episode for 6 or 24 hours. A proper service that allows the user to be informed about new shows and series as well as keep track of what shows are ready to watch and what have already been watched.
It also means actually supplying a lot of content, not just a few select series that don't sell well on dvd anymore.

It is not hard, and the pirates have already laid down the groundwork. No ammount of legislation will force users back on old schedules again, it's time to step up and meet the demand.

Common carrier status (1)

Roogna (9643) | more than 3 years ago | (#37011168)

The moment AT&T and the "major" ISP's do this, don't they loose any chance at ever claiming common carrier status? I'm not a lawyer, nor do I understand any of the telecom laws... but it seems to be as soon as they filter for copyright they can be held libel for anything they didn't filter for...

Re:Common carrier status (4, Insightful)

erroneus (253617) | more than 3 years ago | (#37011252)

That never has existed for ISPs and lately, the biggest ISPs have dreams and intent on being content providers as well. If they hope to get you to pay for streaming content, they need to limit your access to free materials in whatever forms. So they are not interested in common carrier status. This is precisely why we need network neutrality laws firmly in place... of course, if someone were to try to get it passed, there would be so many little tweaks in there it wouldn't even resemble the original intent. (Look what happened to Obama's healthcare reform... it might have been nice.)

Re:Common carrier status (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37011262)

ISPs have been specifically exempted from common carrier designation.

How.... (2)

Roskolnikov (68772) | more than 3 years ago | (#37011196)

I pay my ISP for a connection to the internet; essentially I will be paying for this 'service' to the RIAA and the MPAA, this is not what I consider customer service, I predict this will increase the use of encryption, which will in turn spawn legislation that deems secure encryption illegal. Pretty soon they will want 'virus and copyright compliance software' installed on all systems non-supported operating systems will not be allowed on public networks, etc... tin-foil hat folks don't have to be wrong, they just have to wait long enough to see their 'crazy' views realized.

Am I missing something? (3, Interesting)

RapmasterT (787426) | more than 3 years ago | (#37011204)

I admit I didnt' watch the video, because...well, I don't watch videos that I could have read a transcript from in 1/10th the time.

Regardless though, I just don't see any way for the ISP to filter/detect copyrighted content without actually intercepting and analyzing the traffic on the wire.

Something seems to be wrong here. We would all be shitting our respective pants if the phone company stated they would be listening to our phone calls, or if the post office said they would be reading our mail...but we're not worried that our ISP is analyzing our private data packets, we're only worried what they do with the info?

Re:Am I missing something? (1)

MrShaggy (683273) | more than 3 years ago | (#37011344)

Since I live in Canada I am not certain.

However it is because it has to do with the fact that your phone company is a Common carrier. Which means that they can not listen in on your phones with out a warrent. You can sue if you relise they do.

However the company can not be Sued because you used its phone lines to order drugs, or to assassinate someone.

Same with the mail.

Since the isp said'no fucking way' to common carrier. I am not sure why they would.

Is it time for net neutrality yet? (2)

erroneus (253617) | more than 3 years ago | (#37011220)

Without net neutrality firmly in place, we are going to see lots of things we can and cannot do with our internet connections. They should be a common carrier and indemnified for the content carried across them just like phone companies. Instead, we have content providers owning the internet links... we have an ugly future ahead if things doing get changed radically.

3 of 6 half a dozen of the other (2)

wrencherd (865833) | more than 3 years ago | (#37011260)

It doesn't seem like any of the "strikes" plans has any hope of working out.

ISP's have no police power and locking someone out from access to any given service--particularly if they've paid the statutory damages for whatever infringing they've been shown to have committed--requires police power. And it does not seem like even if they did have that power that it could be used to accomplish any of the "strikes" that are described in TFV.

Question (1)

MrShaggy (683273) | more than 3 years ago | (#37011286)

Could you not sue you isp if they threw you off the connection?

Since it seems they would in fact be violating the DMCA? Since in a sense they are breaking the safe harbor rules?

As well as breaking the contract to provide service to you the customer.

Since the isp's were desperate not too have the 'common carrier' status that in a sense would protect you the user as well as the provider from any of these sorts of things.

Would this also not smack of the Riaa that is merely a disgruntled 3rd party. So why would you stop providing to your customers just to someone else happy.

Since the Riaa does not have court order to disconnect then why would the isp bother?

Who watches the Watchmen? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37011288)

So who slaps down the ISPs and "content providers" when they are wrong? What legal recourse do citizens have?

Return of the BBS? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37011292)

Perhaps we need to return to the BBS days for some inspiration?

I'm working on installing an "off the grid" wifi network at my house/neighborhood so that my neibors and myself can share data unrestricted by the internet gestapo. I suggest others start working on their own hotspots as well... maybe there will come a time when all of our hotspots can become connected (again) without the need for the gatekeepers to tell us what, when and how much we can share with each other.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?