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!

Why the 'Six Strikes' Copyright Alert System Needs Antitrust Scrutiny

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the creators-clearly-aren't-familiar-with-baseball dept.

The Internet 159

suraj.sun sends this quote from an op-ed at Ars Technica: "Eight months ago, content owners and Internet service providers agreed to the Copyright Alert System, a 'six-strike' plan to reduce copyright infringement by Internet users. Under the system, ISPs will soon send educational alerts, hijack browsers, and perhaps even slow/temporarily block the Internet service of users accused of online infringement (as identified by content owners). At the time it was announced, some speculated that the proposed system might not be legal under the antitrust laws. ... If I had to explain antitrust in a single word, it would not be 'competition' — it would be 'power.' The power to raise prices above a competitive level; the power to punish people who break your rules. Such power is something society usually vests in government. Antitrust law is in part concerned with private industry attempting to assert government-like power. ... The Copyright Alert System represents a raw exercise of concerted private power. Content owners as a group have control over their product. They have leveraged this control to forge this agreement with ISPs, who need to work with content owners in order to offer content to their own users. ISPs, in turn, have power over us as users."

cancel ×

159 comments

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

Fr1st P0st (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39405271)

Frosty piss on you and your alert system, teabagger!!!

In Soviet Russia... (-1)

theNAM666 (179776) | more than 2 years ago | (#39405315)

ISP control YOU.

Re:In Soviet Russia... (4, Funny)

Kenja (541830) | more than 2 years ago | (#39405387)

That's one, you only have five left. Sincerely Yakov Smirnoff.

Re:In Soviet Russia... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39405741)

Appearently, in Soviet Russia your reposts of a single meme are limited.

Re:In Soviet Russia... (1)

Ambiguous Coward (205751) | more than 2 years ago | (#39405769)

In Soviet Russia, meme reposts you.

Re:In police state USA... (3, Insightful)

denis-The-menace (471988) | more than 2 years ago | (#39405851)

The Corporations control/buys the government which controls you.

Re:In police state USA... (-1, Troll)

Jawnn (445279) | more than 2 years ago | (#39406151)

The word you are looking for is "fascism", and it has been the predominant form of "government" in the United States for quite some time. You (the collective, as in the electorate, you) actually voted for this. Don't you remember? You elected a fascist (by his own admission) president, twice. Okay, not really, but not nearly enough of you voted against him when it counted. And then you handed control of the House to the fascists when you wet yourself over "the Tea Party Revolution" which was, of course, a pageant (bought and paid for by corporate interests) for gullible and fearful old white people. So kindly stop your whining. That, or get off your ass and do something about it before it really is to late.

Re:In police state USA... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39406435)

Oh I get it. Fascist = Republican by your definition. I am guessing anyone who doesn't agree with you is also a "fascist".

Re:In police state USA... (5, Interesting)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 2 years ago | (#39406743)

The Corporations control/buys the government which controls you.

That's right. Our legislators are all about preserving and honoring the founding documents, the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.

Unless money is involved, and then it's "because I said so".

Do you know that the big brains at American Legislative Exchange Council have put forth sample legislation that would make it illegal to promote a boycott of any business? To create new protections for corporations in regard to negative speech? In effect extending the libel laws to protect corporations, who are in their eyes "super-people" and thus must be protected from anyone saying, "Hell, AT&T is screwing their customers. Don't use AT&T."

They say it's only "brainstorming", the same way it was "brainstorming" to pass laws preventing students from voting in states where they go to university. Oh, that reminds me: Wisconsin republicans have passed a bill saying a photo ID from a state-run university is not sufficient photo identification to vote, and they've moved all of the early voting sites, which by law are required to be wherever there is dense population, as far away from college campuses as possible. They've also closed almost all of the offices where it's possible to get a stateID in poor or working class neighborhoods and moved them to the suburbs, safely away from any public transportation.

Corporations want to make it illegal for you not to buy their stuff whether or not you happen to want it. And they want to make it illegal to complain and impossible to vote pro-corporate politicians out of office. Corporate super-PAC money is dwarfing any money being spent by actual campaigns this year. It's like 15 to 1 already and we're barely into the real political advertising season. We are so fucked.

In America (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39405331)

Same lame outdated jokes

Who cares if it's legal? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39405337)

Let's be realistic, here. This is America. The telcos can do whatever the hell they want and get away with it.

any lists (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39405369)

I saw a few major ISPs mentioned, anyone have a pointer to a list?
Curious if Cox Communications is signed on to this.

Any one large ISP that *doesn't* engage in anti-customer actions is
sure to get a windfall of new signups.

Re:any lists (1)

Reverand Dave (1959652) | more than 2 years ago | (#39405581)

Are there any "fucking you out of your rights" agreements that Cox doesn't stand first in line to get?

Re:any lists (4, Funny)

g0bshiTe (596213) | more than 2 years ago | (#39405659)

Why do you think they chose the name Cox?

Re:any lists (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39406621)

Pretty much all of them. AT&T holds all licences relating to "fucking your customers over for fun and/or profit". However, TimeWarner, Cox, Comcast, and Verizon all have cross licensing agreements.

Re:any lists (3, Informative)

Moryath (553296) | more than 2 years ago | (#39406501)

Any one large ISP that *doesn't* engage in anti-customer actions is
sure to get a windfall of new signups.

Apparently you're new here. Over 90% of America has NO functional choice in ISPs. In the area I live in, we have Comcrap or AT&T and that's it. A few miles down the road it's Comcrap and Verizon FiOS, but no AT&T (their DSLAMs don't reach that far).

Go a few miles out of town, you're lucky to have any choice at all, you'll likely have whatever cableco bought monopoly rights from the city council 30 years ago and that'll be it.

There are some ISPs I've heard good things of. But they'll never serve my area, which is a problem.

Re:any lists (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39406691)

So let me get this straight.

You are saying that you are going to reward your current ISP for bad
behavior because you don't want to take a chance at pissing them off,
is that correct? Damn the free market system, if I get mine, good enough.

This will work (3, Funny)

cjb658 (1235986) | more than 2 years ago | (#39405371)

Finally, the AAs will be able to do something to stop piracy!

Re:This will work (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39406625)

I, too, am glad that pirates are working on their addiction to grog.

This will work well.... (5, Insightful)

ai4px (1244212) | more than 2 years ago | (#39405393)

because it's not like a content provider every misidentified something like a bird song as it's own copyrighted material.

Re:This will work well.... (5, Interesting)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 2 years ago | (#39405827)

I recall an event on the Image-Line forum. One of the site admins (guys who make their software etc - content creation software) - was accused of "stealing" his own samples. Said content provider even "reviewed" the claims and rejected it... which was hilarious, because it was demonstrable that he created the damn things and gave permission for it's use in the work triggering the takedown.

This shit is insane.

Re:This will work well.... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39406283)

I recall an event on the Image-Line forum. One of the site admins (guys who make their software etc - content creation software) - was accused of "stealing" his own samples. Said content provider even "reviewed" the claims and rejected it... which was hilarious, because it was demonstrable that he created the damn things and gave permission for it's use in the work triggering the takedown.

This shit is insane.

It's not all about stopping piracy - you have to keep in mind they're basically glitzy headhunters. If there is no _need_ for a publishing agency they go out of business. If you can just go an be some kind of underground sensation, you not only risk them losing money over you giving your work away for free, but by diluting the amount of new media on the market - if you can make a profit on it in the process you have the added risk of becoming their competition - and the media is notorious (even making movies about it) for how ruthless they are - hell, the only truly evil corporations in America can almost always be classified in the healthcare, banking and publishing industries - and of the 3 they are the only group trading in both people and intangible assets.

Not really a trust (monopoly) (-1, Flamebait)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#39405415)

If Verizon gives me a hard time and slows-down by torrenting of movies/tv shows, I can switch to Comcast. Or Sprint. Or ATT. Or VirginMobile. Or Cingular. Or Dish. It would cost me additional money ($50 instead of $15) but still the choice exists so it's not a monopoly.

Re:Not really a trust (monopoly) (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39405501)

And when you've circled through all of them and found that each one does this in turn, what then?

Always a way (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39405637)

I'm opening my door, walking across the street, and "borrowing" DVD's with the neighbours teenage kid :)

Just like in the good old days.

-- I figure in any given year about 6-8 movies (worth watching) come out, just on my immediate block we are good for 20 years (assuming 8 strikes per household) :)

Re:Always a way (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39405821)

Careful. First the door won't work, then the path to your neighbor will be obstructed. Then, they'll break your fucking legs!

Re:Always a way (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39406587)

I am already equipped to ensure I take a few of them down with me and will consider it my responsibility to do so. (Big difference between trying to prevent me from watching a movie and preventing me from leaving my house.)

Re:Always a way (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#39405977)

Good plan.

Or just wait until the movies come to free TV on Saturday and Sunday afternoons. I've seen many new movies there, rather than through the net or DVD.

Re:Not really a trust (monopoly) (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39405647)

Then the Invisible Hand of the Free Market will descend from the heavens, dispensing righteous justice and fair prices to all the good boys and girls. And on the third day it will ascend again, to hold aloft the Invisible Basketball of the Free Market, in a never-ending slam dunk.

Re:Not really a trust (monopoly) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39405511)

Only 2 of those offer broadband in my area. When they're both part of the cartel, well, it is abuse of a monopoly.

Re:Not really a trust (monopoly) (0)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#39405599)

Only 2 broadband providers? Which ones? I imagine Cable and Dish are two of those. You can't get wireless through one of the cellphone companies?

Re:Not really a trust (monopoly) (1)

luther349 (645380) | more than 2 years ago | (#39405653)

heavy capped and slow wireless threw the same shady telcos that i would assume they would have you on some sort of list.

Re:Not really a trust (monopoly) (2)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#39405809)

Yeah the Cellular internet caps are ridiculous. I can't believe I actually get more data/month through my dialup line (~12 gigabytes) than through most cellphone providers (3 GB).

Ideally you would want a cell company that lets you use continue using the service, even after it has been slowed down to 128k.

Re:Not really a trust (monopoly) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39405603)

Lucky you. I have my choice of two ISPs that are both corrupt. If I want to switch, I have to move someplace with more options, which isn't an option for the time being.

Re:Not really a trust (monopoly) (1)

PenquinCoder (1431871) | more than 2 years ago | (#39405875)

Lucky you, I have my 'choice' of one 'broadband' provider, and NO dial-up ISP. You have three options in my location. Charter, Hughes-net, or nothing. I fucking hate this monopolistic bullshit attitude these companies have. $50 a month for a 2meg down, .3 meg up line.

Re:Not really a trust (monopoly) (3, Insightful)

Githaron (2462596) | more than 2 years ago | (#39405651)

We only have one choice where I live.

Re:Not really a trust (monopoly) (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39405733)

Then stop pirating Mr Pirate!

You still have the choice to move elsewhere, not have an internet connection or to kill yourself.

The free market works!

Re:Not really a trust (monopoly) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39405663)

In my area I have to take TimeWarner. If I moved 10 minutes walk away, I only get Cablevision. There is no godamn competition here because the powers-that-be get to choose what internet provider my building has. Moving to satellite internet is not a reasonable alternative to the guy who gets to plug a wire to my building, ever.

Re:Not really a trust (monopoly) (1)

g0bshiTe (596213) | more than 2 years ago | (#39405683)

Not everyone has an array of sources to choose from. I have two choices, Cox Communications and Verizon. If for instance my ISP did this my only choice is going back to dial up, as I am unable to get Verizon service in my neighborhood.

Re:Not really a trust (monopoly) (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39405695)

No. It's collusion. Normally, if every business gets together and says "we're not going to compete on this", it is very much illegal. Unfortunately, this time, it has the Obama administration's blessing. Let's just hope that the GOP knee-jerk reaction kicks in and they manage to stop Obama with crazy claims, like:

Comcast detention centers for people who didn't watch "community"
Government takeover of entertainment media
Media monitoring and censorship

or

Socialized internet

Come on, GOP. I know we've had our differences in the past, but can you point some of that craziness in a useful direction for once?

Re:Not really a trust (monopoly) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39406257)

What a crock of shit. No, dumbass, businesses getting together and saying 'we're not going to compete on this' is most certainly NOT illegal. Ever hear of things like 'standards'? What the hell do you think they are other than agreement not to compete.

There are a very few things which businesses are not allowed to collude on. The major one is price. 'Providing products and services I want' is most certainly not one of them.

Re:Not really a trust (monopoly) (5, Insightful)

billcopc (196330) | more than 2 years ago | (#39405775)

And when you've gotten booted off of every single ISP, they will use that data to lobby for even worse Big Brother legislation to monitor every single communication. The antitrust label is very apt here, because the copyright lobby is basically arguing that their profits are more important than human rights and freedoms, so important that the whole world must bow to their demands.

All I want to say is "Or else WHAT?"

It is truly shameful that what we consider a democratic political system is so nearsighted that it can be trivially manipulated by valueless profiteers. They don't even have an actual product, they're only selling contrived litigation.

Re:Not really a trust (monopoly) (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39405823)

First, Verizon, Comcast, AT&T, Cablevision, and Time Warner Cable [arstechnica.com] have already signed on to the program.

Second, Comcast is a cable/internet company while Sprint, VirginMobile and Cingular are cell phone companies (with a data plan), so they're not exactly equivalent (and yes, Verizon and AT&T are both).

Third, it doesn't have to be a monopoly to be illegal. A group of companies that dominate a market is called a oligopoly. And when they all agree to manipulate prices, restrict supply or implement other restrictions on the market it's called collusion and it's just as illegal as if one company does it.

Re:Not really a trust (monopoly) (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#39406087)

(Score:0, Flamebait)

Thanks. It is not flamebait to state outloud what the Courts will likely decide (that customers like me have multiple choices == not a trust). Of course they could make the argument it's a cartel, as they did with the CD cartel (colluding to fix prices high). But that's a different issue.

LOL (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39406331)

the fact that you get to post at +2 is a sad commentary on the whole /. moderation system

Re:Not really a trust (monopoly) (2)

thoughtlover (83833) | more than 2 years ago | (#39406523)

Oh, that's ripe.. I don't know where you live, but where I do, I have access to one.. maybe two ISPs. However, as I understand it, you wouldn't be able to do that because ISPs would share a blacklist of violators, thus reducing the ability to switch to another provider.

Strike Challenge? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39405419)

If I can't challenge any 'Strike' brought against me to a neutral 3rd party against the ISP, or the content owners themselves, the system is broken before it's even begun.

When did cross-sector Corporations become so buddy-buddy to the point that these ISP's are willing to lose costumers to appease certain Industries?

Anyone else smell conflict of interest, AntiTrust if you will, if ANY ISP or Telco owns, or is owned, by ANY media or content company? You can have contracts together out the wazzo. Those contracts however, shouldn't take priority over my ability to get a lawfully provided service. Wait! It's not a public service is it. It's a private service. Nevermind! Thanks a lot FCC, SEC, and FTC!

Re:Strike Challenge? (2)

luther349 (645380) | more than 2 years ago | (#39405549)

its broken before its out of the gate due to vpn and the fact as soon as some rich guy gets banned or whatever this idea will quickly get tossed.

Re:Strike Challenge? (3, Interesting)

hoggoth (414195) | more than 2 years ago | (#39405803)

No, as soon as some rich guy gets banned congress will force an exemption for members of congress and it will be business as usual for us plebes. Like the exemption for insider trading congress granted itself.

Re:Strike Challenge? (1)

thoughtlover (83833) | more than 2 years ago | (#39406597)

When did cross-sector Corporations become so buddy-buddy to the point that these ISP's are willing to lose costumers to appease certain Industries?

Probably when The Powers That Be realized that peaceful revolution could be achieved via the internet. Seriously, when people boycott their ISP by terminating their service in protest, those very people have become disconnected with those still connected. A SOPA-style exodus from GoDaddy doesn't work the same way with ISPs because you disagree with their draconian policies.

Per? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39405449)

This is six strikes per day? Right?

A problem easily fixed (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39405451)

Just get all your friends to claim to be a content owner and submit take downs against everyone.
The furor over the abuse should be enough to fix it quickly.
Then the idiots, uh uh law makers, who passed the law will get a black eye and will consider the source when listening to presentations.

Re:A problem easily fixed (1)

Reverand Dave (1959652) | more than 2 years ago | (#39405623)

Righthaven, is that you?

Sue them till they bleed. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39405455)

From the **AA's, who brought you lawsuits against the dead, comes this latest greatest solution to the problem of not wanting to adapt!
We got a buncha companies owned by our buddies to sign onto a program to screw the consumer.
Our super secret tech, which no one can be allowed to challenge or examine, is never wrong! Except that one time it identified the woman who didn't own a computer.

This great plan will raise the prices for consumers, all to protect our "rights".
The plan is 50/50 funded by the ISPs and the **AA's, both of which will just extract those costs from you by passing them on.
The system lacks any real fairness, and even if you can prove we were high as a kite when we blamed you... it costs $35 to challenge us.

The main goal of this system is to give us the powers of SOPA, without having to waste money on Congresscritters.
Even ISPs who aren't part of this plan now, well we are going to apply pressure and make them cave in.
We might not terminate your service, but it'll work just as well at 1 step above Dialup speeds.

You might want to move to a different ISP, well fuck you we have monopolies in most areas of the country.
Once this plan is moving along perfectly, we plan on adding a requirement for deep packet inspection... we want to make sure you can't "steal" a cent from us by even discussing the plots of our shows. Dare to quote the lyrics of a new song? We'll send you a bill.

It might be time to look into ripping the public funds out of the ISPs, making them purchase the rights to have poles and wires. Remove their monopoly control over communities, and demand actual competition. This is a service provider deciding a 3rd party has a right to control how you use the service your paying for. If someone claimed they saw you speeding, would you expect the car maker to come and make your car slower based on that claim? But your ISP thinks its a great idea.

Its time to get the FCC, FTC, and a bunch of other acronyms to get off their asses and protect the public from this massive overreach.

Re:Sue them till they bleed. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39405749)

The main goal of this system is to give us the powers of SOPA, without having to waste money on Congresscritters.

That is all sopa was a way of leveraging ISPs. They would much rather have this than have to deal with legislation. The risk of noncompliance is minimal if not nothing.

Re:Sue them till they bleed. (4, Interesting)

Rude Turnip (49495) | more than 2 years ago | (#39405867)

Cut THEIR cables from YOUR property and throw them into the street. Let's play real capitalism. I have no relationship with Comcast and see no need for their wires to trespass on my property, although I will rent out the space for $1 million per month. I concede the need to have power lines cross over, because they provide a necessity, while cable service is a mere luxury.

How to make it interesting (4, Insightful)

MikeRT (947531) | more than 2 years ago | (#39405473)

If you disconnect someone who is factually innocent, give them a right to sue for defamation where intent is irrelevant.

Re:How to make it interesting (4, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 2 years ago | (#39405495)

Except you're new user agreement will strip away the right to sue in favor of arbitration... thanks a lot SCOTUS.

Re:How to make it interesting (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39405533)

That may be true of the ISP, but you can still sue the people who are making the accusations, mainly the MAFIAA. Not that you will have much chance but it is an option.

Re:How to make it interesting (1)

luther349 (645380) | more than 2 years ago | (#39405633)

if you don't agree with the arbiter. you can still sue. its just a extra step.

Re:How to make it interesting (2)

russotto (537200) | more than 2 years ago | (#39405995)

if you don't agree with the arbiter. you can still sue. its just a extra step.

Nope, you give up the right to appeal on substantive grounds. You can only appeal on procedural grounds.

Re:How to make it interesting (1)

gl4ss (559668) | more than 2 years ago | (#39405731)

Except you're new user agreement will strip away the right to sue in favor of arbitration... thanks a lot SCOTUS.

you can just sue.
see the at&t shitcase, you can't actually force consumers into arbitration. if you could you'd have an eula on your fucking milk carton.

Hello. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39406547)

I would like to purchase your milk carton. For research.

Re:How to make it interesting (1)

aaaaaaargh! (1150173) | more than 2 years ago | (#39406601)

Probably wouldn't help much.

Consider this. In Europe almost all EULAs of software products are illegal and void. In theory, people could sue companies or ignore the EULAs and sue if the companies try to apply them, but in reality nobody does it. Who has the money and will to pay for a lawyer and risk year-long lawsuits only to get a $15 CD coupon and a pre-formulated apology with advertisement leaflet in the end?

The right way to fix a broken system is to fix it, not to help lawyers get richer.

Great.... (1)

crhylove (205956) | more than 2 years ago | (#39405477)

...Yet another reason to log out of the US.

Re:Great.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39405611)

Best comment so far.

The country is a digital warzone.

Re:Great.... (1)

luther349 (645380) | more than 2 years ago | (#39405675)

its not just the usa the war is all over the world its the people vs big media. its been raging sense the late 90s most country would have gone broke by now in a real war.

The really big problem (5, Insightful)

erroneus (253617) | more than 2 years ago | (#39405487)

I think we have seen more than our share of false assertions of copyright by parties who professionally act "on behalf of copyright holders." They operate on assumption and without proof. These systems which do not require proof, but instead operate on "good faith" and "...under penalty of perjury" are rife with abuse.

Current systems in place are experiencing an epidemic of abuse by rights holders at the expense of many innocents. The harm this kind of thing causes the many outweighs the convenience and consideration of the many.

I don't understand. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39405503)

If I'm doing something wrong, then take me to court. Otherwise, shut the hell up and leave me the fuck alone.

vpn anyone (2)

luther349 (645380) | more than 2 years ago | (#39405509)

all this and any smart user will just use avpn or tor let them play with the packets all they whant.

A question of values (4, Insightful)

Compaqt (1758360) | more than 2 years ago | (#39405541)

Somehow or another, the copyright MAFIAA has managed to hijack the public conversation such that the only value or goal of public telecom policy is to stop copyright violations.

It's time to stop fighting defensive battles on "what's the best way to stop copyright violations".

A better question is, "What should be the goal of telecom policy". My view: freer communication.

Just as we accept that some people will die on the highways, but we don't shut them down. Some people may be offended by various speech, but we don't shut down the 1st amendment. Some people may get shot, but we don't abridge the right to bear arms.

So, similarly, some copyright violations may occur, but we don't abridge the right to communicate. Also the 1st amendment amends the copyright clause [google.com] .

Re:A question of values (1)

luther349 (645380) | more than 2 years ago | (#39405601)

maybe 20 years ago.

Re:A question of values (5, Informative)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#39405715)

First Amendment does not alter the copyright clause in any singnificant way. See Eldred v. Ashcroft (SCOTUS case)

Holding
20-year retroactive extension of existing copyright terms did not violate the Copyright Clause or the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.

"On January 15, 2003, the Court held the CTEA constitutional by a 7-2 decision. The majority opinion, written by Justice Ginsburg, relied heavily on the Copyright Acts of 1790, 1831, 1909, and 1976 as precedent for retroactive extensions. One of the arguments supporting the act was the life expectancy has significantly increased among the human population since the 18th century, and therefore copyright law needed extending as well.

"However, the major argument for the act that carried over into the case was that the Constitution specified that Congress only needed to set time limits for copyright, the length of which was left to their discretion. Thus, as long as the limit is not "forever," any limit set by Congress can be deemed constitutional." - wikipedia.

Re:A question of values (4, Insightful)

Compaqt (1758360) | more than 2 years ago | (#39405949)

Yeah, if you go by the rule "the Constitution is whatever the Supreme Court says it is."

But nothing says the people cannot discuss what the Constitution means. And then vote in Presidents and Senators who will appoint the Supreme Court justices that agree with the people's interpretation of the Constitution.

So what I did was the first step in that process: advance an opinion. And I'd encourage anybody who cares about the right to communicate to propagate the notion that the 1st amendment amends the copyright clause.

Re:A question of values (2)

Compaqt (1758360) | more than 2 years ago | (#39406125)

Every movement must begin first with moral persuasion.

If you think the MAFIAA has gone too far, you're ready for this:

Coypright violates the 1st and 8th amendments
http://c4sif.org/2011/11/copyright-is-unconstitutional/ [c4sif.org]

Re:A question of values (1)

JesseMcDonald (536341) | more than 2 years ago | (#39406211)

First Amendment does not alter the copyright clause in any [significant] way. See Eldred v. Ashcroft (SCOTUS case)

The SCOTUS cannot be considered an authoritative reference in cases involving their own parent organization (i.e. the federal government). That would be an obvious conflict of interest. They can act as an internal "watchdog" by ruling the actions of the federal government unconstitutional, but they cannot authoritatively declare any action constitutional in the positive sense. Only an impartial outsider or the legitimate principals (i.e. the People) can make that call. The SCOTUS ruling an action constitutional would amount to the government granting itself power, and that isn't how the system is designed to work.

It's fairly obvious that there is a conflict between the idea of copyright and freedom of speech. In fact, this has been acknowledged before; it's how we ended up with "fair use"—a poor compromise which only addresses the most egregious limitations imposed by copyright on speech, when the actual amendment says "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech". Any form of copyright abridges the freedom of speech. The text allows no scope for compromise.

Re:A question of values (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#39406337)

>>> Only an impartial outsider or the legitimate principals (i.e. the People)

I would say the principals are the State Legislatures, same as over in the European Union. The States created the central contract known as the constitution (or Lisbon treaty) and more-importantly have the power & resources to nullify unconstitutional acts by the congress (whereas the people do not).

Re:A question of values (1)

JesseMcDonald (536341) | more than 2 years ago | (#39406447)

Only an impartial outsider or the legitimate principals (i.e. the People)

I would say the principals are the State Legislatures...

Sure, if you want to get technical. Ultimately the authority still comes from the People, however; the States are just middlemen. The States have no powers or resources apart from the powers and resources of their citizens.

Re:A question of values (2)

StikyPad (445176) | more than 2 years ago | (#39406099)

we accept that some people will die on the highways, but we don't shut them down.

But we do take people off the road who kill other people.

Some people may be offended by various speech, but we don't shut down the 1st amendment.

But we do silence those who cause harm through their speech and hold them accountable for the damage they caused.

Some people may get shot, but we don't abridge the right to bear arms.

But we do take away the right to bear arms for the person who did the shooting.

You've basically laid out a solid argument against a laissez-faire internet policy.

Do I get this right? (1)

no-body (127863) | more than 2 years ago | (#39405575)

Seems to be equivalent that you get your drivers license suspended when you did not pay a private parking house fee - or some toll fee while driving on a toll-road owned by some foreign (?) company....

Should be illegal - two unrelated entities colluding to coerce actions and cause harm.

Do people have too much time and money available to think out those schemes?

Re:Do I get this right? (3, Interesting)

Doctor_Jest (688315) | more than 2 years ago | (#39405717)

Never underestimate the power of stupid people in groups. And never underestimate the size of the coffers controlled by the *AA's. Couple large volumes of cash with large volumes of malignant stupidity and you've got a recipe for an anal rape of gargantuan proportions. And since the *AA's now don't have to try to legislate this, you won't get any lube.

My hunch is lots more VPN traffic, and lots more encryption for those who want to infringe. It makes me laugh when I think of all the trouble these idiots go to in order to stop something that costs them nothing in terms of losses, but immeasurable amounts of goodwill. I wonder if this new "system" will be the thing that makes Joe Sixpack sit up and say "wait, those nerds were right! I'm getting screwed here!" :) Here's to hoping the Great Unwashed have a threshold of tolerance.... and I just wonder if this (like SOPA/PIPA) is the tipping point.

For those of us who don't consume their product any longer (unless it's used DVDs... I had to get Young Frankenstein on DVD... heh.), there is always the chuckles associated with fanatical devotion to a business model that's more outdated than buggy whips, wagon wheels, and 78rpm records combined.

Re:Do I get this right? (2)

MountainLogic (92466) | more than 2 years ago | (#39405847)

A better example might be if you fail to pay for parking at one parking lot, can other parking lots (different owners) black ball you? Can grocery stores join in on the blackball until I pay my parking bill? Can businesses form collaborations to blackball customers? What about in a restricted competition environment such as telecos? On the other side of this, should business be able to refuse to do business with you? If you ran a toy store would you want a convinced child molester in your store with families?

Re:Do I get this right? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39406173)

The parking lot analogy falls apart when you look at necessity. You need to be able to park your car somewhere more than you need that new *INSERT TOP 40 BAND* album, or that copy of Assassin's Creed 3 that you thought had DRM too strict to warrant purchasing it.

Re:Do I get this right? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39406701)

what do you think your credit score is? a private score, developed by private companies that share it with other private companies to inflate percentage rates.

Highly insightful comment in original article (4, Insightful)

Mike Van Pelt (32582) | more than 2 years ago | (#39405687)

This ...

If I had to explain antitrust in a single word, it would not be 'competition' -- it would be 'power.' The power to raise prices above a competitive level; the power to punish people who break your rules. Such power is something society usually vests in government. Antitrust law is in part concerned with private industry attempting to assert government-like power.

... deserves "+5 Insightful".

bullies bullying their way into public domain (2)

elloGov (1217998) | more than 2 years ago | (#39405711)

The idea is inherent to corruption. Omnipotent powers granted to a select special group are bound to be abused. World is/has changing/changed. Public domain is what it is, PUBLIC. If the antiquated bureaucrat fat cats are that concerned with keeping status-quo of making millions off of someone else s creative efforts, they ought to not digitize their content. This is plain and simple bullies bullying their way into governing the public domain.

Apple Amazon taken down? (1)

MountainLogic (92466) | more than 2 years ago | (#39405757)

OK, even if a content provider such as Apple or Amazon intends to follow the rules they are sure to unintentionally distribute content they do not have the rights to. What are the chances they will be hit? I didn't think so

Did you know? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39405839)

Copy Right Alert System Backers
Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures: Owned by Disney Enterprises, Inc run by Bob Iger Jewish

Paramount Pictures Corporation run by Brad Grey Jewish

Sony Pictures Entertainment Inc run by Michael Lynton Jewish

Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation run by Stephen Blairson Jewish

Universal City Studios LLC run by Ron Meyer Jewish

Warner Bros. run by Barry Meyer Jewish

And on and on and on
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-stein19-2008dec19,0,4676183.column [latimes.com]

Crossed checked via Wikipedia

Now go look up who owns and runs the major banking and financial corporations.

Now go look up "neo-conservatism" and AIPAC

http://www.ifamericansknew.org/ [ifamericansknew.org]

ISRAEL FIRST

Now thumbs down and scream "anti-semetism" like a Pavlovian dog.

The real problem is copyright itsel (5, Insightful)

fiatpirate (2445398) | more than 2 years ago | (#39405893)

Let's kill off the beast once and for all and eliminate most forms of intellectual property. The copyright term was so long originally because of slow distribution and printing channels. Now we have high speed internet (until they take it) and fast printing of media. If anything, copyright should be reduced to ten years and nothing more. Once copyright is reduced to a short term, the **AA's of the world will be forced to continually innovate and compete (which was ironically the original purpose of copyright).

the biggest problem is False Positives (2)

RobertLTux (260313) | more than 2 years ago | (#39405947)

Okay so you get tagged for a violation

1 is the tag "correct"? (did you actually download/distribute/ect a "covered" file)
2 Is the File in fact freely distributable??
3 if they later find out you are in fact not guilty will they "untag" you??
4 what about offline channels??
5 exactly how not guilty are THEY??

In Germany the ISPs consider that illegal (2)

prefec2 (875483) | more than 2 years ago | (#39405965)

Recently, the German ministry for commerce, the ISPs and the content industry tried to negotiate a two strikes approach. The ISPs commissioned a report to evaluate if such agreement would be legal. The report states that such agreement would be unconstituional. And it would not make any difference if the commerical partners made an agreement or the state would make a law. The ministry of commerce thinks differently. However, the ministry of justice has similar doubts. As the report sees a direct violation of basic human rights in such an agreement, I wonder why such thing should be legal in the US. Even if European often think the US is some kind of banana republic, it is not true (at least not more true than for Europe as well). And basic consitutional things cannot be violated.

But maybe I am totally wrong with my assumption about the US. How would your legal system react to such an agreement or law?

Re:In Germany the ISPs consider that illegal (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39406503)

The US courts and legal system do have the concept of rights. There is the concept that laws abridging rights are unconstitutional.
But while European courts have mentioned "internet connection" and "human rights" in the same ruling, I haven't heard of any case where US courts have come close to stating that connectivity is a right.

If communication/data connectivity isn't a right, then there is no constitutional problem with limiting or denying someone access.

New method of DOS... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39406021)

Anyone else guess that once it's figured out how to trigger a strike, that small virii/trojans/whatever will make use of this as a method of Denial of service, and ransom, EG call this number to get service back. Many popular books can be compressed into very small files.

"Private Power"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39406059)

Yeah, it's pure private power; no government at all.

It's not as if these companies had, like, regional monopolies, or anything.

It's not as if these companies have a government agency charged with their oversight, like the FCC or anything.

Pure private power.

Collusion (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39406103)

My immediate reaction to hearing about all the ISPs working together to implement a unified plan is that it smacks of collusion. No?

false positives (5, Insightful)

Mozai (3547) | more than 2 years ago | (#39406215)

We've already had people get slapped for birdsong [slashdot.org] as copyrighted work. An acquaintance of mine is already wrestling with YouTube because he recorded classical music on his guitar, and he's getting slapped because someone else identified it as a copy of their recording, and YouTube has already jammed advertisements into his video to compensate the accuser, as if he already agreed to a plea-bargain.

Too many false positives, and it costs much less for the people who are already wealthy to make false claims than it does for private citizens to defend themselves against the false claims. This stinks to high heaven.

its called gang bang...... (1)

3seas (184403) | more than 2 years ago | (#39406439)

So what happens to those who make claims that do not pan out? Do they then reimburse the party they lied about as easy as they made the false complaint and fairly?

Of course not, and therefor it is anti-trust violation.
The real solution is to just kill everyone off and that way no one will infringe... fuck sales and free advertising...

Second Circuit might be wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39406529)

The article says:

  "For example, he cited a 2000 opinion by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which stated that "no one but a copyright violator can gain by denying to copyright holders the right to engage in cooperative efforts to enforce their copyrights against a common infringer." "

Perhaps the Second Circuit got it wrong.
      Seems like someone wrongly accused of copyright violation would also stand to gain by denying this particular plan.

Which is partly why the rules which the copyrights holders find so pesky are there.

Privacy and municipal monopoly Controls (1)

hemo_jr (1122113) | more than 2 years ago | (#39406629)

There are some major privacy issues here. To determine what you are downloading, the ISPs will need to look at it. Passwords, financial records, email all seem to be at risk.

Also, the ISPs involved appear to consist of cable tv franchises. And those are subject to local municipality controls. I doubt if the RIAA and MPAA can bribe all the local politicians in the US. So I would think that enforcing these kinds of controls would be something that municipalities could fight locally by threatening to revoke the franchise monopolies for the cable companies who try to enforce these draconian measures.

I suggest that people start looking into local government and seeing if they can hit these conglomerates where it hurts.

What an amazing interpretation of antitrust law! (1)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 2 years ago | (#39406713)

n/t

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?