×

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 Become 'Copyright Cops' July 12th

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the reality-show-soon-to-follow dept.

Piracy 409

An anonymous reader writes "Comcast, Time Warner and Verizon are among the ISPs preparing to implement a graduated response to piracy by July, says the music industry's chief lobbyist. ISPs, including Comcast, Cablevision, Verizon, and Time Warner Cable, have officially agreed to step up efforts to protect the rights of copyright owners. From the article: 'Supporters say this could become the most effective antipiracy program ever. Since ISPs are the Internet's gatekeepers, the theory is that network providers are in the best position to fight illegal file sharing. CNET broke the news last June that the RIAA and counterparts at the trade group for the big film studios had managed to get the deal through — with the help of the White House.'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

409 comments

The excuse I needed... (5, Insightful)

Midnight_Falcon (2432802) | more than 2 years ago | (#39371775)

To finally drop Comcast and replace them with Sonic.Net DSL! I hope others follow suit and migrate to more ethical ISPs.

Re:The excuse I needed... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39371795)

The excuse I need to drop Verizon and... wait, my only other option is Comcast? Damnit...

Re:The excuse I needed... (5, Insightful)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#39371979)

Same here. Verizon DSL has sent me 3 emails (about 2 years ago) where they caught me downloading movies or tv shows. I'm curious what they will do to me next time I'm caught. One thing's for sure:

I'm not going to go out and buy Hollywood's crap, unless it's something I've already seen and liked -- such as Battlestar Galactica. This past year I downloaded about 200 movies and liked almost none of them. TV shows were a little better percentage but not by much.

Instead I'll just read science fiction in books and magazines. Or watch free TV (the 45 channels I get over the antenna). Or free hulu. Or cheap games ($20 for 40+ hours is a good bargain). It makes no sense to buy movie/show DVDs when they have no return policy for the crap, and there are so many other options.

Re:The excuse I needed... (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39372089)

Same here. Verizon DSL has sent me 3 emails (about 2 years ago) where they caught me downloading movies or tv shows. I'm curious what they will do to me next time I'm caught.

How about using a P2P friendly VPN such as BTGuard [btguard.com] or Mullvad [mullvad.net] ? (Mullvad accepts payment in Bitcoins, btw)

Re:The excuse I needed... (5, Insightful)

QuasiSteve (2042606) | more than 2 years ago | (#39372293)

This past year I downloaded about 200 movies and liked almost none of them.

Wait... somewhere after movie #150 that you didn't like you kept thinking "maybe the next one will be awesome!"?

I guess at least you watched every single one of them yourself to form your own opinion, but surely it can't hurt to start with some reviews?
Figure out what reviewers you usually agree with and weigh their reviews more heavily, before you download 200 movies the majority of which you could probably have guessed you wouldn't like.

It would have saved you from bad entertainment, and freed your time for the books and magazines (presuming you don't just download the ebook versions of those, too, of course).

Re:The excuse I needed... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39371987)

No shit.

This is the biggest problem right now. I have a choice of AT&T DSL, Comcrap, or... nothing. A mile down the road they could get FiOS, but then that's Verizon.

Consumers don't get a fucking choice of carriers in most of the USA.

Re:The excuse I needed... (1)

Fluffeh (1273756) | more than 2 years ago | (#39372091)

Consumers don't get a fucking choice of carriers in most of the USA.

I hear this all the time. How come there is so little choice in the US? Is there some legal reason that stops a company opening shop and selling bandwidth? I mean even in Australia there is a LOT of choice when it comes to who you get your internet from. Here, I can have my phone with one company, but have DSL on the line with another company - is that not the case in the US?

Having said that, Cable is very limited, due to the low quantity of physical cable connections, most pay TV here is sold via a satellite service.

Re:The excuse I needed... (4, Insightful)

ZeroSumHappiness (1710320) | more than 2 years ago | (#39372147)

Cable is limited because the providers hoodwinked municipalities into giving them limited monopolies under the assumption that running multiple sets of lines would cause problems for the consumers including increased costs passed on as high prices. This is a lie, of course, but that's what we have at the point.

Re:The excuse I needed... (1)

murphtall (1979734) | more than 2 years ago | (#39372263)

Consumers don't get a fucking choice of carriers in most of the USA.

I hear this all the time. How come there is so little choice in the US? Is there some legal reason that stops a company opening shop and selling bandwidth?

to some degree its because its a huge, mostly sparsely populated land mass. IME there's many choices in metropolitan areas that are densely populated, but [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grays_Harbor_County,_Washington] link to wiki where i am there are so little people theres not much incentive or something

Re:The excuse I needed... (5, Informative)

compro01 (777531) | more than 2 years ago | (#39372315)

Here, I can have my phone with one company, but have DSL on the line with another company - is that not the case in the US?

Nope. Phone companies are not required to lease lines to other providers.

They were required to from 1996 til 2006 until the supreme court declares cable providers provided "information services" rather than "telecommunication services" and were exempt from such requirements and the FCC reclassified phone company's DSL services to match in the interest of "fairness"

Re:The excuse I needed... (4, Informative)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#39372105)

Another alternative is dialup. Folks like napisypl distribute nice small 70 or 150 megabyte rips. You can download 6 episodes per day (like I'm doing right now in my hotel) (Tudors season 1). AOL/Netscape's never sent me any warnings.

Re:The excuse I needed... (4, Interesting)

IB4Student (1885914) | more than 2 years ago | (#39371923)

Which ISP's are ethical? Is there a list of ISP's doing the bad stuff?

Re:The excuse I needed... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39371993)

That's what we need. Are there any ethical ISPs we can turn to?!

Re:The excuse I needed... (1)

reve_etrange (2377702) | more than 2 years ago | (#39372239)

Sonic.net is the only ethical ISP I've ever even heard of. You'll have to move to Northern California though.

The land of the free... (4, Funny)

alendit (1454311) | more than 2 years ago | (#39371787)

The home of the brave.

Re:The land of the free... (5, Insightful)

ka9dgx (72702) | more than 2 years ago | (#39371817)

Land of the Foreclosed, home of the Banking Gangsters.

Re:The land of the free... (5, Funny)

Savage-Rabbit (308260) | more than 2 years ago | (#39372007)

Land of the Foreclosed, home of the Banking Gangsters.

The correct term is 'Banksters'.

Re:The land of the free... (5, Funny)

Higgins_Boson (2569429) | more than 2 years ago | (#39372129)

Land of the Foreclosed, home of the Banking Gangsters.

The correct term is 'Banksters'.

Straight up bankster, yo.

Re:The land of the free... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39371963)

You know, it's commercial services dealing with illegal activity on their networks that, yes, we agree isn't as big a deal as it's made to be.

Let's save the "Omg soilent green" rhetoric for more important (and genuine) injustices, huh?

Vote with your wallets. (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39371805)

Stop buying music and movies. Very simple!

Re:Vote with your wallets. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39371881)

Can I stop buying the government that gives them free money? Oh, wait...

counter lawsuits - entrapment (2, Interesting)

RichMan (8097) | more than 2 years ago | (#39371813)

If the ISP can detect that I am accessing stuff I should not they can just slam the door shut so I don't get it.
If the ISP detects I am getting stuff I should not and does not slam the door they are complicit in the action since they are sending it to me knowing that I should not have it.

Anyone fingered by an ISP should sue them entrapment.

Re:counter lawsuits - entrapment (3, Interesting)

gknoy (899301) | more than 2 years ago | (#39371885)

I believe only agents of the government can be guilty of entrapment.

Re:counter lawsuits - entrapment (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39372047)

your corporations ARE your new government down there in the Fascist States of America, we3 CITIZENS odf the FREE world have to suffer for your ignorance and indifference to your totalitarian and criminal Regime, as our RIGHTS and FREEDOMS are watered down by malicious Influence Peddlers from America, grab your guns and start shooting,...

Re:counter lawsuits - entrapment (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39372199)

Corporations don't help you in illegal actions! Grab your gun!

Don't get me wrong, I'm as big a fan of (both!) piracy and free speech as you will come by, but I don't think that this is a 'grab your gun' moment. More of a 'start your own ISP' moment.

Re:counter lawsuits - entrapment (4, Insightful)

mark-t (151149) | more than 2 years ago | (#39372001)

Can you also sue a bar for entrapment, when you get nailed for driving drunk, when the bar could have simply stopped serving you after one drink?

Be an adult, and take responsibility for yourself.

Re:counter lawsuits - entrapment (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39372031)

If they're serving open drinks at a drive through window?

Maybe.

Re:counter lawsuits - entrapment (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39372165)

Can you also sue a bar for entrapment, when you get nailed for driving drunk, when the bar could have simply stopped serving you after one drink?

Be an adult, and take responsibility for yourself.

This is more along the lines of the bar cutting you off after one drink because you could possibly drive drunk with any more in you.

Re:counter lawsuits - entrapment (3, Insightful)

NoKaOi (1415755) | more than 2 years ago | (#39372171)

Can you also sue a bar for entrapment, when you get nailed for driving drunk, when the bar could have simply stopped serving you after one drink?

Under normal circumstances, of course not. But if the bar has worked out a deal with law enforcement to call them if you have more than one drink, then they might be acting as an agent for said law enforcement agency. If the bartender encourages you to drink more, knowing that you're gonna be driving home, then calls the cops, while acting as an agent for those cops, then that could be entrapment. I'm not saying it's an exact analogy...but just pointing that out.

Now..a better analogy might be a BYOB bar, where they take a sip of everything you drink to determine alcohol content, then report you to the cops if the alcohol content is too high. It's the sampling of my drink, whether or not it was alcoholic, that I would have a problem with. The difference is that if a bar did that, I simply wouldn't go to that bar, and I doubt many other people would either. With Internet access, most of us don't have the luxury of options.

One thing I want to know is: What methods are they going use to determine if somebody is pirating?

Not entrapment, tortious interference (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39372025)

A third party interfering with a business deal made by two others is tortious interference [wikipedia.org] . You would have to have pretty deep pockets to prove it, and it would have to be a pretty clear-cut case where there was no harm being done, say, a Bittorrent stream of a Linux distribution.

Re:counter lawsuits - entrapment (1)

QuasiSteve (2042606) | more than 2 years ago | (#39372219)

But it's not actually about ISPs detecting whether or not you're doing something that some group or another believes you should not be doing.

I know it's out of fashion to actually RTFA, but:

The program, commonly referred to as "graduated response," requires that ISPs send out one or two educational notices to those customers who are accused of downloading copyrighted content illegally.

That's not about the ISP accusing them - but those groups that are involved with the program.

It may make it easier for those groups to, down the line, suggest that ISPs should just take on that task as well - but that's still quite a leap away from "US ISP's become copyright cops" as the current subject suggests.

Under this program, ISPs would become mailmen (telling people that group X thinks you're doing something illegal), intermediaries (checking whether you got that mail) and executors of court-less verdicts (throttling, cutting off internet access altogether), but that doesn't make them cops.

It's still undesirable behavior to most of their customers, which might make one wonder why ISPs are agreeing to this in the first place. On the other hand, most ISP ToS's already state you can't use the service for illegal activities - which distributing copyrighted material without explicit license to do so falls under - so it's not that far of a stretch for those groups to suggest that ISPs actually enforce their own rules better or be faced with legal action instead.

The transformation is almost complete (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39371827)

The internet was once thought of as a digital library and commons. Now it is little more than an interactive television.

Re:The transformation is almost complete (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39371901)

Enjoy your new retina-burning tablet.

SSL? (1)

guanxi (216397) | more than 2 years ago | (#39371835)

Assuming people use SSL or something similar, how will ISPs know when someone is violating copyrights?

Re:SSL? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39371867)

fingerprinting, digital signatures, hashing, forensics, backtracing server, quantum cryptography, etc.

Re:SSL? (1, Insightful)

smileygladhands (1909508) | more than 2 years ago | (#39371869)

SSL requires an initial HTTP request that isn't encrypted, in order to transfer keys which are used to encrypt the connection. ISP's see the entire transaction from start to finish. Yay? Also, just wait until Linux Distributions and the Anarchist Cookbook become "illegal files".

Re:SSL? (5, Informative)

sconeu (64226) | more than 2 years ago | (#39371935)

The whole point of an SSL Diffe-Hellman or RSA key exchange is that any eavesdropper (including the ISP) can't figure out the session key, even if they hear the entire negotiation.

Re:SSL? (2)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#39372197)

Would these so-called "magnet links" protect torrent downloaders? Or are they mainly to protect Piratebay and other websites from prosecution?

Does turning-off PeerExchange or DHT: help a downloader stay hidden from Studios?

Re:SSL? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39371983)

I'm not sure how accurate that statement is: from what I remember, the ISP would see you connect to a specific port and IP... but the juicy HTTP info (i.e the URL) is only sent after the encrypted session has been made. They wouldn't see you grabbing "https://site/nsyncs_greatest_hits.mp3". Can anyone else comment?

Re:SSL? (2)

Em Adespoton (792954) | more than 2 years ago | (#39371921)

Assuming people use SSL or something similar, how will ISPs know when someone is violating copyrights?

All they need for suspicion of violation is your DNS lookup records, routing table history, and protocol volume history.

There's a LOT of data that gets passed through your ISP that's below/beside the TLS layer.

They'll look for things like: Spewing torrent connections but not connected to an OSS or MMORPG server? You're getting investigated.

Re:SSL? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39372123)

All they need for suspicion of violation is your DNS lookup records, routing table history, and protocol volume history.

From TFA: "The program, commonly referred to as "graduated response," requires that ISPs send out one or two educational notices to those customers who are accused of downloading copyrighted content illegally. If the customer doesn't stop, the ISP is then asked to send out "confirmation notices" asking that they confirm they have received notice."

The question is, accused by whom? Does the ISP proactively monitor for gigabytes of traffic on, say, port one-nineteen and provide John Doe's name to MAFIAA, who then asks for DPI? Or does the MAFIAA have to say they believe John Doe is downloading before the ISP confirms, without a warrant or court order, that John Doe has lots of traffic coming down from connections he initiated at that port.

Re:SSL? (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#39372057)

RIAA, MPAA, etc, will connect to bittorrent trackers that share files they have copyright on. They will see who is seeding, note their IP, contact their ISP, and begin this process.

Re:SSL? (1)

EllisDees (268037) | more than 2 years ago | (#39372253)

That's not particularly useful since all of the modern trackers inject random fake IP addresses as seeds. They are going to at least try to connect before sending a warning and any good blocklist will stop that.

Everyone, just cancel your service for 2 months... (2)

serbianheretic (1108833) | more than 2 years ago | (#39371851)

And they will be begging you to come back. Without filtering.

Re:Everyone, just cancel your service for 2 months (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39371891)

No slashdot for 2months!? C'mon now!

Unless we can set up an OMG Pony net to send handwritten posts... oh wait...

Thanks America (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39371855)

Thank you, America, for ensuring I have two choices for broadband, both of which are in bed with the RIAA for this scheme

Re:Thanks America (0)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#39372259)

It's more than that if you count dialup and wireless:

1. cable
2. DSL or FiOS through telephone company
3. Wireless/cellular
- 3.a. ATT
- 3.b. Sprint
- 3.c. Verizon
- 3.d. VirginMobile
- 3.e. et cetera
4. Wireless/TV Band Devices
- 4.a. (one-year-old technology; in process of rollout)
5. Dialup
- 5.a. AOL
- 5.b. Netzero
- 5.c. PeoplePC
- 5.d. Ooops I just noticed you said broadband.... delete number 5 (though you can use it for torrenting files if need be).

Liability? (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39371861)

Aren't the ISPs signing themselves up for a great deal of liability here? If they have the equipment and manpower to monitor for someone downloading Metallica songs, that also gives them the capability to scan for a great deal of other legally questionable content. Doesn't this make them responsible when someone, say, transmits illegal imagery over the ISP's service? They could have stopped it, so they should be considered accessories to it. Am I missing some legal loophole here, or is it simply a matter of "wink wink, nod nod, the people in charge only care about MP3s"?

Re:Liability? (1)

mark-t (151149) | more than 2 years ago | (#39372277)

There is a whole lot of difference between having the ability to detect it, and *ALWAYS* being able to detect it.

Basically, you'd be rolling the dice, and hoping you don't get caught if you are going to break the law in this way. All this means is that your chances of getting caught may be slightly higher... but by no means certain.

Government, meet your corporate OLs (1)

Randym (25779) | more than 2 years ago | (#39371879)

ISPs, including Comcast, Cablevision, Verizon, and Time Warner Cable, have officially agreed to step up efforts to protect the rights of copyright owners. From the article: 'Supporters say this could become the most effective antipiracy program ever. Since ISPs are the Internet's gatekeepers, the theory is that network providers are in the best position to fight illegal file sharing.

How delightfully efficient of our corporate overlords. Those 'people' are so clever! Personal anonymity is so 20th Century.

In case you didn't get it... (5, Interesting)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 2 years ago | (#39371883)

... this means they will be MONITORING your traffic. Possibly including deep packet inspection and worse.

Pardon me, but even if I'm not doing a damned thing wrong, I don't want or need my ISP to be monitoring my activity, any more than I would want a phone company listening to my telephone calls.

I find the idea ethically and morally repugnant, and, for that matter, on thin ice legally.

I should also point out that my cable contract contains none of these provisions. Maybe it's fine for new accounts, but I will hold them to my existing contract.

Re:In case you didn't get it... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39371941)

I should also point out that my cable contract contains none of these provisions. quote>

They will find a way to sneak it in.

Re:In case you didn't get it... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39371943)

They probably have a clause buried in said existing contract that gives them the right to change it whenever they damn well feel like it, so I doubt you'll have much luck trying that.

Re:In case you didn't get it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39372099)

Tell your family about it. Bet they feel the same way. Make sure they tell their friends too...

Re:In case you didn't get it... (5, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#39372121)

Nothing in this article indicates any sort of traffic monitoring on the part of the ISPs. It only sounds like a standardized way to keep track of the C&D letters they've been sending out for years.

Don't get me wrong, this is bad too as there's no accountability for sending faulty C&D letters, and I doubt there's going to be much of an appeals process. But it's bad in a different way than deep packet inspection is.

Re:In case you didn't get it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39372313)

Yes, but I believe Jane is correct - that they will, or already do, packet inspection on some level. It's bound to happen. Just like :"I would want a phone company listening to my telephone calls. " has already and still happens. My friend works for Verizon and says they have direct connections to various government agencies that basically allows them to grab any call they want at any time.

Re:In case you didn't get it... (2)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 2 years ago | (#39372261)

Deep packet inspection will throw off false-positives. Statistically, you can discard a few findings when logging traffic. But, if your aim is to block data based on a dictionary pattern (as my firewalls do), that causes all sorts of hell. Think VOIP, streaming video, or gaming traffic getting dropped because the ACK keeps transmitting the same "dirty" packet over and over hoping to get a response.

Personally, I've seen this happen with over the wire backups. Sometimes the MD5 or SH1 signature (if that's what they use, I don't know) will match but in fact have nothing to do with what's cataloged in the dictionary. When you call firewall vendors guilty of this false positive behavior, their official response is to add an IP source/destination exception or disable that particular false-positive signature.

Oh, and I haven't even touched on buffer hell either.

goodbye internet (1)

Aphoxema (1088507) | more than 2 years ago | (#39371911)

Better when it was a law, at least then you'll notice when they silence dissidents and have it on record.

Countermeasures? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39371931)

Well, damn. Anyone have recommendations for some reasonably priced proxy services that exit overseas?

Really folks. (3, Interesting)

Cosgrach (1737088) | more than 2 years ago | (#39371951)

Why doesn't someone simply go up to the guys who propose this crap and simply SHOOT THEM IN THE FUCKING HEAD!?

Re:Really folks. (4, Funny)

cdrudge (68377) | more than 2 years ago | (#39372081)

Because violating a copyright is 5 years or $250k fine (or whatever it's up to these days) while 1st degree murder carries a slightly stiffer sentence up to and including becoming a stiff.

Re:Really folks. (4, Insightful)

jd2112 (1535857) | more than 2 years ago | (#39372237)

So copying a Michael Jackson song potentially caries a greater penalty than killing him.

this means nothing (2)

Charliemopps (1157495) | more than 2 years ago | (#39371953)

It's a token effort that only large ISPs are making. My guess is that they are doing this in exchange for something... cheap deals on digital content, or something of the sort. In reality they will do very little to enforce this. The second this starts costing them customers they'll drop it like a hot potato. Remember, they have absolutely no incentive to help the dieing media industry police their content.

Re:this means nothing (5, Interesting)

nitzmahone (164842) | more than 2 years ago | (#39372079)

Except for those that are *part* of the "dying media industry" (think Comcast/NBC Universal and TimeWarner). Same kinds of internal conflict that Sony has for being a provider of devices that can infringe on copyright and a producer of copyrighted content. Guess which side wins (have a look at Sony's crippled devices)?

Re:this means nothing (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39372117)

Except that pretty much all the large ISPs have their own media arms, like comcast/nbc. Most also have monopoly or near monopoly in regions for cableTV and internet service, which compete against digital "sharing" with streaming services and On-Demand.

Re:this means nothing (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39372153)

Hey... I'd *SWITCH* to an ISP that did this.

With fewer pirates tying up the ISP's bandwidth, that leaves more for me.

Hey... porn is legal.

Re:this means nothing (1)

NoKaOi (1415755) | more than 2 years ago | (#39372247)

It's a token effort that only large ISPs are making. My guess is that they are doing this in exchange for something... cheap deals on digital content, or something of the sort. In reality they will do very little to enforce this. The second this starts costing them customers they'll drop it like a hot potato. Remember, they have absolutely no incentive to help the dieing media industry police their content.

Dunno about where you live, but where I live I think they'd love excuses to reduce bandwidth usage. TFA mentions they'll be issuing various levels of warnings. I'm sure they'd love to stop customers using P2P to download and serve movies, since they're already over-promising speeds. I can download a big file fast or stream a Netflix movie at good quality at 1am, but god forbid I would want to watch a Netflix movie (which I'm paying a subscription fee for) at 8pm when everyone else is trying to do the same thing while the neighbor's kids are downloading the latest Justin Beiber music video. Obviously they should either upgrade their infrastructure or stop over-promising speeds, but it's probably a lot cheaper just to send out a bunch of letters.

Re:this means nothing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39372297)

Untrue, big communications companies have been investing rather heavily in media and content companies, such that their interests are more inline with the RIAA/MPAA scum than ever before.
If the media companies wanna investigate piracy, they should have to do it themselves, on their own dollar. I dont pay my ISP to investigate me.
Its un-constitutional and un-American to intercept ppls communications without warrant, and thats exactly wat they are doing.
This is setting a very bad precedent.

-HasHie
"Fck the internet police"

Re:this means nothing (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#39372321)

>>>they have absolutely no incentive to help the dieing media industry police their content

The ones like Comcast and Verizon that profit by selling a separate TV service have incentive to make sure you buy their 100+ channels at ~$60 a month, rather than simply download the shows directly and save money.

odd i dont see charter in the list (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39371957)

odd i dont see charter in that list but im sure their next but even at that stealth boxes are king hows the isp to know what exactly im doing if im not downloading from my ip or MAC address

How can I get caught? (2)

hawguy (1600213) | more than 2 years ago | (#39371969)

All of my content at home is purchased and legal. What kind of suspicious behavior can I do to make Comcast flag me as a pirate (without having to actually download pirated content)?

Re:How can I get caught? (1)

The Archon V2.0 (782634) | more than 2 years ago | (#39372043)

All of my content at home is purchased and legal. What kind of suspicious behavior can I do to make Comcast flag me as a pirate (without having to actually download pirated content)?

Torrent stuff, I'd wager. Linux ISOs is the obvious one, though there is free & legal music out there.

What counts as copyright infringement? (1)

_xeno_ (155264) | more than 2 years ago | (#39371997)

I can't wait to learn what they consider to be "copyright infringement." Watch a video on YouTube that wasn't legally licensed? Have someone post a picture on your Facebook wall that wasn't licensed from the photographer? (That's more likely than it might seem at first - think "wedding pictures.") Read a forum that has links to pirated material? Want to jailbreak your phone?

Say goodbye to Internet access.

Re:What counts as copyright infringement? (1)

mark-t (151149) | more than 2 years ago | (#39372103)

Well, they are talking about infringing torrent content only, so youtube, et al, would be entirely unaffected.

I think that the only potential problem that might arise is if you happened to be using bittorrent legtimately at the same time that somebody fingers your IP address as accessing infringing content via bittorrent.

SSL Encrypted Usenet? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39372039)

Just asking from a purely hypothetical position, but would an user downloading from an SSL encrypted usenet provider be found out by this system?

Time for change... (1)

hendridm (302246) | more than 2 years ago | (#39372041)

I'm glad I have TDS Metrocom's sweet wireless service at the office.

Goodbye Time Warner at home, though!

How is this even legal? (2)

Pubstar (2525396) | more than 2 years ago | (#39372071)

Participating ISPs can choose from a list of penalties, or what the RIAA calls "mitigation measures," which include throttling down the customer's connection speed and suspending Web access until the subscriber agrees to stop pirating.

The only reason why I could see them doing something like that is because they may be held liable. Oh wait, DMCA gives them Safe Harbor. So what exactly gives them the power to stop the service that I pay for because I may be using it for something illegal. It's like my phone getting shut off by T-Mobile because I may have used it to call a dealer to buy some pot. I see class action lawsuits in the future for these companies.

Re:How is this even legal? (1)

mark-t (151149) | more than 2 years ago | (#39372241)

So what exactly gives them the power to stop the service that I pay for because I may be using it for something illegal.

They own it. I'm pretty sure that they have no legal obligation to offer their services to everyone unconditionally.

Your recourse, of course, if their terms are unsatisfying to you, is to take your business elsewhere. This creates a system of checks and balances that keeps it from spiraling hopelessly out of control.

This will not improve sales. (5, Interesting)

Jackie_Chan_Fan (730745) | more than 2 years ago | (#39372095)

The best part about this is, they will not increase the sale of any of these products at all.

If you cant afford it in the first place, you wont be buying it.

All this does, is actually hurt our entire civilization, especially those who cant afford these things. Things that are so easily copied and hurt no one by allowing poorer people access to them. There is no loss of sale and it only benefits the poor. Especially those burdened by health issues who pay 15k a year for insurance plans, who barely scrape by in todays world with min wage jobs, people who dont have a say at all in this country... people who try to just better their lives through knowledge using free programs, and perhaps building a future they can one day afford buy these "THINGS".

The benefits of piracy have outweighed the negative.

Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2, made 2 billion dollars in 2 months. Call of Duty Modern Warfare 3 made a billion dollars in 1 week. Avatar made over a billion dollars world wide in ticket sales alone, not to mention blu-ray sales, netflix etc on top of that. These 3 items were ALL readily available through piracy. They were also pirated heavily. Did it actually negatively impact the sales? Perhaps a tiny bit, but c'mon. The amount of money those 3 items generated, prove that no matter how much something is pirated, it makes a FUCKLOAD of cash regardless.

Without piracy, ITUNES would never have existed. iTunes is a very profitable buisness for music, and apps. ALL of which are still pirated today.

Trying to end piracy, is basically denying the poor of things they otherwise could never afford. How will that ever benefit humanity?

Awesome. (3, Insightful)

Zuriel (1760072) | more than 2 years ago | (#39372101)

With US ISPs playing copyright cop, darknets and other anonymizing techniques will be active by default in all P2P clients by the time my country rolls out similar laws.

Being a step behind the US means workarounds will be mature and widespread by the time I have to deal with this...

Sold out by Obama (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39372131)

Obama sells us out again.

Re:Sold out by Obama (1)

Jackie_Chan_Fan (730745) | more than 2 years ago | (#39372291)

Republicunts would sell you out too.

Corporations run this world, your life is meaningless shit to them. They will have you killed if they want you out of the way.

How long will collapse of music industry take? (4, Interesting)

kawabago (551139) | more than 2 years ago | (#39372135)

Sales will start falling off immediately after July 12th but they won't feel the hit until into the fall. I'll take a guess that it will take less than a year for the total collapse of the music industry due to sales falling to near zero. If they choke off file trading, people won't be able to find new music so they will stop buying.

Re:How long will collapse of music industry take? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39372299)

Sales will start falling off immediately after July 12th

No, they won't.

Proceeding without SOPA = lawsuit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39372159)

My understanding the inconvenience of innocent until proven guilty in a court of law was really one of the important aspects of SOPA/PIPA.

That you could "conduct an investigation" and unilateraly take action against a user without fear of legal recourse.

Notice none of these ISPs are willing to go as far as cutting the user off. A couple of throttling lawsuites should be more than enough to empty this little RIAA/MPAA sesspool.

Bound to happen (5, Insightful)

SuperTechnoNerd (964528) | more than 2 years ago | (#39372161)

What took them so long? I guess since they could not get laws passed they wanted, they are going to do an end run and get the ISP's to do their dirty work.

The free, unmonitored, unfiltered, open internet we know today will be unrecognizable ten years from now, mark my words.. Bottom line: the internet as we know it is incompatible with controlling, big money corporations. Period. They fear it like the plague, and will never stop at trying to break it, or control it. And they have the resources to do it.

In places like china and the middle east your internet access is filtered and monitored due to fear of upsetting the government's rule.
In this - supposedly free country- your internet access is filtered and monitored due to fear of upsetting corporate profits.
I just can't see the difference.

TW Customer (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39372163)

I think Time Warner is going to be getting a phone call here in the next few days.
I'll be damned if I'm going to keep paying the same price and lose quality of service (you doing deep inspection of my packets is a degradation of service in my book)

Better than RIAA lawsuits (1)

cornicefire (610241) | more than 2 years ago | (#39372181)

Small fines are better than strange random law suits, right? The big law suits were full of silly numbers. At least these numbers do a better job of fitting the crime-- and I do think that downloading is a crime.

Pull the plug (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39372251)

The day this plan goes into action i will be calling my local time warner office to let them know why i am discontinuing my service. Thank them cordially and wish them luck. I will go to a DSL provider that has some ethics if possible. If not i have a LAN setup that i can enjoy for a long time to come without the need for an ISP of any kind. Truth be told there will probably be many ways to make it practicly impossible for isp's to decipher your data, And if you ask me i welcome it. All information on the internet should be encrypted anyway. When that comes it wont matter.

Not too shocking... (1)

Roogna (9643) | more than 2 years ago | (#39372257)

After all, right off the bat. Comcast and Time Warner -are- two of the big media companies and copyright holders now. Of course they're more than willing to police their ISP networks looking for copies of their content.

Due process (1)

Skapare (16644) | more than 2 years ago | (#39372281)

Where is the due process? Just who (MPAA,RIAA vs Comcast,Verizon,etc) is making the determination that there is a violation to be acted on? We already know MPAA and RIAA have been getting it wrong in a lot of cases. Would Comcast, Verizon, and other ISPs be in any better position to get it right?

I hope they are not so stupid as to ass-u-me that torrent protocol connections automatically mean copyright infringement. What I download is GPL and other free license software.

I suspect there will be more use of HTTPS and SSL, too.

The end of Youtube. (1)

Jackie_Chan_Fan (730745) | more than 2 years ago | (#39372301)

This will of course be the end of Youtube. You simply wont be able to upload anything. Even home movies with a copyrighted song in the background.

the most effective antipiracy program ? (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 2 years ago | (#39372305)

No, its the most effective bandwidth reclamation program, as it will drive people away from these carriers, and for those that stay the ISPs will use the program to get rid of their heaviest users by falsely claiming they are violating.. and cut them off.

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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...