Beta
×

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

Thank you!

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

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

US ISPs Delay Rollout of "Six Strikes" Copyright Enforcement Framework

Unknown Lamer posted more than 2 years ago | from the never-seems-like-a-good-launch-date dept.

Piracy 216

zacharye writes with an excerpt from BGR: "The new 'six strikes' anti-piracy policy soon to be implemented by a number of major Internet service providers in the United States will reportedly stumble out of the gate. The policy, which is set to be adopted by Comcast, Cablevision, Verizon, Time Warner Cable, and other ISPs, will see action taken against users caught downloading pirated files in six steps, ultimately resulting in bandwidth throttling or even service suspensions. The system responsible for managing the new policy may not be ready on schedule, however, and the targeted launch date of July 12th may slip back as a result..."

cancel ×

216 comments

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

Thanks for reminding me... (4, Informative)

Cornwallis (1188489) | more than 2 years ago | (#40074987)

why I'm not going to switch our company Internet access to Comcast.

Re:Thanks for reminding me... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40075027)

Because you plan to be caught downloading pirated files?

Re:Thanks for reminding me... (4, Insightful)

neokushan (932374) | more than 2 years ago | (#40075117)

You don't have to be affected by someone's ideals in order to be against them. I wouldn't make friends with someone who went out to beat up people of a certain skin colour, even though I'm not liable to be one of his "targets".
Why should it be any different for companies?

Would you move over it? (0)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#40075453)

So if you lived in an area where the cable was from one of these companies and the DSL was also from one of these companies, such as Comcast and Verizon, would you move because of this?

Re:Would you move over it? (1)

stanlyb (1839382) | more than 2 years ago | (#40075821)

Yes

Re:Would you move over it? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40076625)

Yes

Bullshit. You are either a liar or a fool. From your answer I'm going to go with "both". List all the companies you've done business with, all the products you've owned, and everywhere you've worked and I'll tell you why you're worse than Hitler.

Re:Would you move over it? (2)

neokushan (932374) | more than 2 years ago | (#40076037)

That depends on too many different factors to list. Sometimes you don't have a choice and you're stuck with using a company you don't necessarily agree with - many slashdotters here hate Microsoft but have to use Windows in some form because their views don't warrant them moving jobs.
Using my original analogy, I wouldn't befriend that person because I have many friends and don't need any more. If he and I were the last people alive, I'd probably have to make an exception and work with him.

Re:Thanks for reminding me... (2)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40076495)

Calling this a hate crime is a bit much. Maybe we need a new Godwin's law. Mind you I don't like this either, but an ISP stopping attempting to curtail illegal activity is different from a racist beating up a person of color.

Re:Thanks for reminding me... (4, Informative)

AngryDeuce (2205124) | more than 2 years ago | (#40075073)

I was wondering why I stayed with Charter recently, until I realized that I had no fucking choice unless I wanted to downgrade to shitty 7 meg DSL.

These guys better be hoping and praying (and dumping a metric shit-ton of money on our reps) that they never lose their local monopolies, because once they open up the lines like they did with long distance telephone service in the 90's they're going to see their enormous profits fucking evaporate overnight as customers give these guys the finger and go with someone that isn't gouging the fuck out of them.

Re:Thanks for reminding me... (1)

metalgamer84 (1916754) | more than 2 years ago | (#40076567)

Same problem I'm in, I'm stuck with Comcast as the only cable Internet provider. My only other option is CenturyLink(Qwest) DSL at 7Mb.

Re:Thanks for reminding me... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40076697)

Why, because Comcast is helping to pave the way for encrypted file sharing over das internet?

Capitalism is garbage! (1, Flamebait)

For a Free Internet (1594621) | more than 2 years ago | (#40074993)

We need a workers revolution! Down with the bourgeoisie! Workers to power! Reforge the Fourth International!!!!!!!

Re:Capitalism is garbage! (1)

couchslug (175151) | more than 2 years ago | (#40075563)

Worked fucking great the first time!

You can't build a system that Bolsheviks and Maoists won't take over. Nature of the beast.

Re:Capitalism is garbage! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40076197)

Pffft. the Marxist revolution is so-so passè. I want the Congress of Vienna back.

Consumer friendly? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40075003)

“The dates mentioned in the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) are not hard deadlines but were intended to keep us on track to have the Copyright Alert System up and running as quickly as possible and in the most consumer friendly manner possible,” a spokesperson told us.

“We do not intend to launch until we are confident that the program is consumer friendly and able to be implemented in a manner consistent with all of the goals of the MOU. We expect our implementation to begin later this year.”

The CCI, however, ensured TorrentFreak that none of the ISPs has plans to terminate the accounts of subscribers. Temporary disconnections remain as one of the possible punishments. Which measures the various ISPs will choose remains a mystery for now. We’ll publish more on this and other details of the scheme in the near future.

Temporary disconnections? Is one required to pay for the disconnected service. How is this consumer friendly?

Re:Consumer friendly? (1)

game kid (805301) | more than 2 years ago | (#40075129)

I guess they mean "friendly" as in "those two were getting friendly [urbandictionary.com] last night" or "that movie exec thought copyright infringement was "content theft" [copyrightinformation.org] and also had an annoying boner, so he got friendly with everyone's internet traffic in the hopes he could catch one of his films' sex scenes".

Send Flowers (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40075005)

*plays the world's tiniest violin*

awwwww (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40075011)

o was looking forward to a rapid fire machine gun errrr loss of Americans on the internet....can't wait till your ALL OFF THE DAMN INTERNET...we'll do just fine without you

Re:awwwww (2)

wed128 (722152) | more than 2 years ago | (#40075059)

I'm sure that none of the content that you're pirating comes from the US...

Re:awwwww (1)

lexa1979 (2020026) | more than 2 years ago | (#40075827)

in Europe, we call this "private copy"

nope (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40075947)

nothing your hollywood is doing last few years is even worth it....

A great solution for oversubscribed ISPs (4, Insightful)

GeneralTurgidson (2464452) | more than 2 years ago | (#40075013)

Throttle everyone on the basis of piracy! No need for network expansions! The shareholders will go wild!

Re:A great solution for oversubscribed ISPs (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40075089)

herpa derp! because fiber optics are basically free to run over long distances right? we have the technology for ISPs to have unlimited bandwidth, thus is must be affordable! derp derp!

Re:A great solution for oversubscribed ISPs (1)

Enry (630) | more than 2 years ago | (#40075145)

Then ISPs shouldn't be advertising unlimited Internet service.

Newspeak (2)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 2 years ago | (#40075291)

Unlimited (adv): Useful up to some predefined cap.

Re:Newspeak (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40075619)

adj*

Re:Newspeak (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 2 years ago | (#40076635)

This is why we drink our coffee before we post to /.

Re:A great solution for oversubscribed ISPs (5, Insightful)

AngryDeuce (2205124) | more than 2 years ago | (#40075171)

Wasn't the bulk of the fiber backbone they all plug into paid for by taxpayers in the 90's during the Dot Com bubble? Maybe the people should be charging them similar fees for the bandwidth running along those pipes that they charge their end users...

Re:A great solution for oversubscribed ISPs (2)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 2 years ago | (#40075229)

herpa derp! because fiber optics are basically free to run over long distances right?

Last year, Comcast reported "$14.3 billion in revenue in the quarter that ended in October, a 51 percent increase over the same period last year. Net income rose 4.7 percent to $908 million and operating income rose 35 percent to $2.6 billion, driven by 261,000 new high-speed internet subscribers."

So those "fiber optics" are not only free, but happen to be putting a whole shitload of money into Comcast's pockets. The way I read it, when something puts money in your pocket, it's better than "free".

So I'm guessing that derp derp! we don't need to have any bake sales for Comcast just yet.

Transit still costs money (2)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#40075507)

Just because the data can move easily through Comcast's fiber network doesn't mean Comcast doesn't have to pay its own upstream ISPs (Tata and Level 3) for transit. That's why Comcast and other wired ISPs impose a cap on home subscribers, so that the ISPs don't have to overpay for expanding upstream capacity [slashdot.org] .

Re:Transit still costs money (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40075709)

They wouldn't be "overpaying"; they would be paying the requisite sum to support the service they are selling. They make money by overselling their allotted bandwidth, and people taking advantage of unlimited 30+Mb pipes throws a wrench into their profit margins. Morally, they shouldn't be advertising a service that they cannot provide, but the moral business is often out-of-business in the modern world, so we can't have sensible solutions... better to attack the unpopular paying customers.

ISPs have pulled their "unlimited" ads (3, Informative)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#40076015)

They wouldn't be "overpaying"; they would be paying the requisite sum to support the service they are selling.

Or they could choose to sell less service. For example outside telecommunications, look at all the ice cream manufacturers that have cut the package size from 64 ounces to 48.

Morally, they shouldn't be advertising a service that they cannot provide

Which is why ISPs have pulled their "unlimited" ads in favor of "always on" ads.

Re:A great solution for oversubscribed ISPs (0)

clonehappy (655530) | more than 2 years ago | (#40075797)

Anytime anyone ever uses "herp" or "derp" or any derivative thereof in their comments, they immediately get ignored by me. That childish crap should stay on Fark or Reddit or wherever the hell it originated. If you don't have something intelligent to add to the discussion, then please refrain from posting here.

It doesn't help that anyone who ever uses these terms are only using them to insult someone who made a valid point, so even though it is a probably a 13-year old kid who actually thinks he's being humorous (note to AC, it's not even remotely funny now, nor was it when it first started happening on other sites) because insults are the only humor mechanism a stupid child can really use effectively.

Re:A great solution for oversubscribed ISPs (2)

ZorinLynx (31751) | more than 2 years ago | (#40075847)

Well, herp a derp, feel free to ignore me. :)

I find the terms amusing. Also Derpy Hooves is best pony.

Re:A great solution for oversubscribed ISPs (0)

TemplePilot (2035400) | more than 2 years ago | (#40075903)

@clonehappy, so you're a curmudgeon & you have no life. Big whoop. Meanwhiles the rest of the herpy derpy world continues to evolve our online language and textual lingoisms while you remain in the dismal ostritch hole you've placed your noggin into. Sucks to be you. --- and back to our discussion of the day --- : Six Strikes Copyright Enforcement is Bad M'kay --- Big Content needs to --- Grow Up & Get with the future or forever hold your silence. The interwebs belongs to the people not the corporate oligopoly capice.

Re:A great solution for oversubscribed ISPs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40075975)

I weep for the future... :)

Re:A great solution for oversubscribed ISPs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40076195)

lol ur so rite m8
+1
lmao

Users "caught" downloading? (5, Insightful)

AngryDeuce (2205124) | more than 2 years ago | (#40075015)

Don't they mean users "accused" of downloading? As it seems to me, all that is required is an accusation by some asshole MAFIAA goon. It's not like they actually prove their accusations or anything.

Re:Users "caught" downloading? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40076675)

Ah, you're one of those people who think they are invisible online.

Piracy? What Piracy? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40075017)

Forget 3 strikes. Forget 6 strikes. I have a simple 37 step plan for dealing with this widespread phenomenon. Buy my bestseller book and read all about it.

Re:Piracy? What Piracy? (1)

santax (1541065) | more than 2 years ago | (#40075039)

I sure hope it's better then the 12-step program I followed last year!

Re:Piracy? What Piracy? (2)

Qzukk (229616) | more than 2 years ago | (#40075077)

I've got one weird tip that will fix all your problems!

Re:Piracy? What Piracy? (1)

santax (1541065) | more than 2 years ago | (#40075097)

Does it involve binoculars? :O

Re:Piracy? What Piracy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40075157)

Are you selling bridges invented by a SciFi asshole?

Bye Bye free Wirless at Starbucks, McDonalds.... (5, Insightful)

realsilly (186931) | more than 2 years ago | (#40075031)

and all of those other things. People will go where they can't be traced as easily and download all that they can, then local establishments will take the hit, and then when all those options are gone, some unsuspecting family will be hit next because I didn't configure their wireless connection to be secured.

I don't agree with pirating, but I feel this is also just going to backfire.

Re:Bye Bye free Wirless at Starbucks, McDonalds... (1)

I_am_Jack (1116205) | more than 2 years ago | (#40075231)

The tighter the fist squeezes, the more that slips through the fingers.

Re:Bye Bye free Wirless at Starbucks, McDonalds... (2)

bmo (77928) | more than 2 years ago | (#40075269)

>but I feel this is also just going to backfire

This is probably why the implementation date is slipping. The ISPs might be waking up to the shitstorm that comes when they roll this out.

--
BMO

Re:Bye Bye free Wirless at Starbucks, McDonalds... (1)

Idbar (1034346) | more than 2 years ago | (#40075311)

Well, knowing that big ISPs are planning on roamming wifi networks for their subscribers as a next step to "increase coverage". I'm thinking they will be running coffee shop wifis and tracking you down anyways.

More likely... (4, Insightful)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 2 years ago | (#40075335)

People will start using more encryption and private filesharing networks to get their media. I already see it happening at universities, where students who are accused of downloading can face punishments without any sort of a trial. Eventually you will see people moving to things like Freenet.

There are two interpretations:
  1. Old businesses die in the face of new technology -- and good riddance to bad rubbish.
  2. The MPAA continues to profit, because downloaders are also their best customers.

Re:Bye Bye free Wirless at Starbucks, McDonalds... (5, Insightful)

bzipitidoo (647217) | more than 2 years ago | (#40075835)

Haven't you realized that's what they want? To shut down the Internet?

They don't say it outright, but they very much wish it was 1985 for the rest of us, when less than half the population had a home computer, and the hard drive, if present, was 20M, mp3 didn't exist yet and even if it had the hardware of those days couldn't decode it in real time, and what little data exchange there was happened over 1200 bit/s modems on local BBSes, a few of which participated in FidoNet. Music piracy was possible but limited and inconvenient, with the cassette tape being the best way. They themselves are quite happy to reap the benefits of modern technology, they just don't like the rest of us being able to do so too.

Don't agree with pirating? Futile, and dated of you. Might as well act disapproving of skirts above the ankle, and shocked over the licentiousness of 60's Rock and Roll. What do you think when you run into some senior who is still upset over Elvis the Pelvis? Who thinks the young are all depraved and they and the nation are going to Hell because of the music they listen to and their general disrespect for the traditions that made the country great. You roll your eyes at their cluelessness, that's what. And you ignore them. Dismiss them as a typical "get off my lawn" senior. No use talking to them.

Sharing is here to stay. No amount of force or cajoling will put this genie back in the bottle. Today, you still have lots of company. You and people of similar mind are why ISPs dare to even think of giving in to Big Media to engage in such idiocy as these 3 or 6 strikes efforts. You disagree with the means, but not the goal. That's enough of a green light for them. Often, means and ends cannot be so easily separated. 20 or 30 or 50 years from now, such attitudes will look utterly ridiculous to most everyone, like asking for sunshine without the heat and acting as if that's such a perfectly reasonable expectation that it need not be spoken aloud because that would be insulting to others' intelligence. "You know, something beggable but not leprosy, which is a pain in the ass to be blunt and excuse my French, sir." If you want to stay relevant, you'll have to accept piracy.

Re:Bye Bye free Wirless at Starbucks, McDonalds... (1)

cant_get_a_good_nick (172131) | more than 2 years ago | (#40075961)

There is a bug in the protocol for WPS - Wifi Protected Setup - which makes it pretty easy to crack. WPS (with a broken protocol) was required by the Wifi alliance if you want a nice sticker on your box (and as a manufacturer you do). Some router firmware won't even let you turn it off.
WEP, old but still needed for some very old clients, is also trivial to crack.

So, there are two currently known semi-trivial ways to get on a huge subset of "protected" Wifi networks. If someone were to log on to your network with those, it would be hard to prove it wasn't your infringement. Ahh, but haven't courts said they can't identify you by IP? True, but this is not a court case, this is a semi-monopolistic ISP that can dictate terms. (In my area, I only have one real choice, Comcast).

Re:Bye Bye free Wirless at Starbucks, McDonalds... (1)

Anubis IV (1279820) | more than 2 years ago | (#40076439)

And then shortly thereafter you'd have lawmakers telling everyone with a public access point to log MAC addresses, which can easily be tied back to a specific device and thus a specific user much more precisely than you can with an IP address.

Uploading, not downloading. (1)

jlv (5619) | more than 2 years ago | (#40075037)

That link should "users caught uploading" not "users caught downloading".

Re:Uploading, not downloading. (1)

cant_get_a_good_nick (172131) | more than 2 years ago | (#40075851)

That link should "users caught uploading" not "users caught downloading".

How do Bittorrents fit in, which have an element of both? I'd suspect they'd cast a wide net, and call it an upload.

Re:Uploading, not downloading. (1)

dmacleod808 (729707) | more than 2 years ago | (#40076329)

The MAFIAA monitor bittorrent swarms and are already sending infringing notices, which only reference sharing, not the downloading part... I have stopped using Bittorrent for anything but legal downloads or if I am in a cafe or mcdonalds with wifi, where it cannot be traced back to me.

How will they do it? Flogging a dead horse? (5, Informative)

bogaboga (793279) | more than 2 years ago | (#40075085)

Who are they hoodwinking? Just recently, a US judge ruled [tomshardware.com] that you cannot identify a "pirate" using an IP address. They appear to be preparing to flog a dead horse, right?

Re:How will they do it? Flogging a dead horse? (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40075137)

They are ISPs. They can put it in their TOS that the account holder must ensure that no copyright infringement takes place through the account. Voila, the account holder is now responsible - not to the copyright holder but to the ISP. Lucky coincidence that the ISP also happens to be a media conglomerate.

Accidental infringement (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#40075599)

Anonymous Coward wrote:

They can put it in their TOS that the account holder must ensure that no copyright infringement takes place through the account

How can an ISP reasonably expect a subscriber to ensure this? For example, say the subscriber is a songwriter, and he posts videos of himself singing songs he wrote. How can he make sure that those songs aren't by accident substantially similar to some existing song?

Re:Accidental infringement (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40076565)

The ISP doesn't really care, they also reserve the right to revoke service for any reason at any time. In reality this means "any reason that probably won't get us sued by the customer", but this is still well within that range.

In practice, your example case is going to be based on the number of DMCA takedown notices that the subscriber ends up getting.

Re:How will they do it? Flogging a dead horse? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40076087)

And that is the big issue, not unlike financial and banking in the same house. There is no getting around that media conglomerate are also the ISP which makes for a terrible future for an open internet.

"Illegal downloading" Again! (4, Interesting)

ratboy666 (104074) | more than 2 years ago | (#40075115)

There ain't no such thing.

Everything on the Internet is Copyrighted (or public domain)...

There may be illegal sharing. Or making available. Just not downloading.

Of course the "Industry" wants to plant a meme -- "illegal downloading".

Since there is no such thing (as illegal downloading(*)), usenet groups have been cut first (because usenet clients do NOT upload as they download). Peer-to-peer systems upload from clients, which is why they got hit.

MegaUpload? A shot across the bow -- and the service ended up being legal.

Advice: Turn off sharing in your bittorrent client, unless you are sure that you can distribute the material.

Or fetch the material from usenet, ftp, or other "one-way" means. Do not post the material on Web Sites, ftp servers or usenet -- do not make it available for download.

Unless you live somewhere more enlightened, of course (Personal Copy Exemption in Canada, for example).

(*) Except for specific material, child porn, hate literature, other material, depending on venue.

Re:"Illegal downloading" Again! (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40075223)

Turn off sharing in your bittorrent client, unless you are sure that you can distribute the material.

Or fetch the material from usenet, ftp, or other "one-way" means.

Or torrent anonymously via I2P. The selection isn't as good, but it will be if more people start using it before their sixth strike.

Re:"Illegal downloading" Again! (1)

guruevi (827432) | more than 2 years ago | (#40075533)

Or enable encryption on your torrent. Most torrent clients have an option for encryption, most of the time it's set to 'prefer encryption' but you can set it to 'require encryption'

Re:"Illegal downloading" Again! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40075673)

Doesn't help when you upload to the *AAs.

Re:"Illegal downloading" Again! (1)

Fnord666 (889225) | more than 2 years ago | (#40076581)

Or enable encryption on your torrent. Most torrent clients have an option for encryption, most of the time it's set to 'prefer encryption' but you can set it to 'require encryption'

What would that accomplish? The MAFIAA is not capturing your packets and analyzing them to see what you are transferring. They are one of the clients that you are seeding to. Once they download the song and capture your IP address, the start the paperwork. There are solutions to this, but encryption of your data stream is not one of them.

Usenet? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40075153)

How does something like this affect Usenet users? Are they going to assume all Usenet traffic is for "illegal" stuff?

Re:Usenet? (1)

oh-dark-thirty (1648133) | more than 2 years ago | (#40075687)

It's hard to assume anything when the stream you're deep-packet-inspecting is encrypted.

Criminals like any other (3)

J'raxis (248192) | more than 2 years ago | (#40075155)

This will only serve to improve online privacy and anonymity technology, making it more robust, resilient, and secure---putting these companies and their attacks on Internet users in the same category as any other online criminals, right where they belong.

Re:Criminals like any other (1)

Ihmhi (1206036) | more than 2 years ago | (#40075743)

We have stuff like Truecrypt that, with a proper key, is pretty much uncrackable.

What happens when we have a filesharing client that reaches this apex? All it takes is some dedicated kid at Caltech or MIT or Basement U to come up with something that would basically be untrackable. Would the government make a completely legal program illegal? Massive spying?

It's going to happen and it will be interesting to see how its handled. I'd pay a hefty sum of money to see the face of the MAFIAA execs when a tech guy tells them "No, there really isn't any way to track this program. It's impossible."

Re:Criminals like any other (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40075877)

We have had that for more than a decade. It's called 'Freenet'.

Re:Criminals like any other (1)

semi-extrinsic (1997002) | more than 2 years ago | (#40076085)

As has been pointed out in earlier /. submissions, the logical conclusion of "The War On Piracy" is to ban the all-purpose computer. Only computers incapable of running software not from a MAFIAA approved app store should be allowed. What's that, you say, you have "research labs" and "universities" where they "write software themselves"? BAN THEM AS WELL! All those college kids are pirates, anyway.

Don't delay TV Show DVDS (3, Insightful)

kms_one (1272174) | more than 2 years ago | (#40075197)

Don't delay TV show DVDs until 3/4 of the way through the next season and I won't pirate the shows!

The Onion Router (3, Interesting)

fallen1 (230220) | more than 2 years ago | (#40075227)

TOR, TOR, TOR! The more people who use The Onion Router [torproject.org] , the better. There will need to be some brave souls out there to run Exit Nodes as they will be the ones targeted if, or when, accusations begin flying.

If they try to ban TOR in the United States, we _ALL_ simply stand up to our government and say "WHAT?!? I was under the impression the United States government espoused a belief in Freedom and Democracy for all people. Why do you think I run TOR? I do it to support those people who wish to communicate freely and throw off their oppressors! Since you are trying to ban TOR in the United States, , I presume you no longer support the struggles of those people who are being crushed by oppressive regimes? It seems to me, , that you actually want to turn the United States into an oppressive police state where the individual is much less important than a corporation, in violation of the Constitution of these United States. Didn't you swear an oath to uphold and defend said document?"

Never give them a chance to bullshit their way out of it. Hit them hard, hit them fast, and keep hitting them with the "So, you work for the corporations now? You certainly are no longer representing the People." and so on. Hey, if they can use "Think of the children??" then we, the People, can damn well use all of the above to get them to back down.

This is still a free country... right?

Re:The Onion Router (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40075265)

Wait til they six-strike every bittorrent user off the internet and everybody starts using anonymous networks. What do you think the MAFIAA's next target will be?

Activision uses BitTorrent (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#40075477)

Wait til they six-strike every bittorrent user off the internet

I thought Activision, which used BitTorrent to distribute updates for its video game World of Warcraft, had too much clout for this to happen.

Re:Activision uses BitTorrent (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40076315)

I'm pretty sure Blizzard uses BitTorrent based clients for all of it's game distribution via Battle.Net at this point. Saves them a butt-load on bandwidth.

Re:The Onion Router (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40075349)

This is still a free country... right?

Wrong. Get back in your cell... err home.

Re:The Onion Router (3, Funny)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | more than 2 years ago | (#40076053)

This is still a free country... right?

Wrong. Get back in your cell... err home.

The word you're looking for there is cubicle

Re:The Onion Router (1)

fallen1 (230220) | more than 2 years ago | (#40075515)

Well shit. Between "...ban TOR in the United States," and ",I presume you no longer..." as well as between "It seems to me," and the ",that you actually want to..." there should be (Senator, Representative, other politician) listed but it vanished because I used greater than and less than symbols instead. Whoops, sorry about that.

Re:The Onion Router (1)

Anubis IV (1279820) | more than 2 years ago | (#40076593)

TOR is not actually as secure as you seem to think it is. When I was doing grad school, we regularly discussed current research, and it wasn't uncommon for us to find papers disclosing holes in TOR that any significantly large enough group could exploit fairly easily with varying degrees of success. Governments and ISPs are large enough to find people if they want to, and they likely have, since there was an example of a TOR-using criminal ring getting broken up [slashdot.org] just two months ago.

Did I miss something? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40075259)

Did the U.S. finally sneak a law through or is this a private action on the part of the ISPs?

If the latter, is it not collusion for these multiple companies to simultaneously implement this system? And, if there is no law, how will they defend it from a legal perspective? They shouldn't be able to switch contract terms for existing subscribers.

This all sounds like a massive opportunity for a class action lawyer and competitive ISPs to eat these company's lunches. Or, perhaps the bleating sheep like it in the pooper.

Re:Did I miss something? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40075689)

Collusion - maybe. It seems though that there will not be a centralized database, so if you get banned form one ISP, you can sign up with another ISP. Though if you get banned from all ISPs, you're SOL.

As far as contract terms go - have you read your TOS? They usually state that the terms of the agreement may change at any time without any notice. They also almost always have an arbitration clause forbidding you from suing them or joining a class action.

I certainly think we should try a legal remedy, i.e. collusion. However, beyond that, our only choice might be technical options. Encrypt communication between peers and peers, and between peers and trackers.

Re:Did I miss something? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40076349)

As far as contract terms go - have you read your TOS? They usually state that the terms of the agreement may change at any time without any notice.

Yes, I have read my contract. I read all contracts prior to applying my signature. (Sales droids hate me for this.) I would never sign anything that said it could be changed without notice after my signature finalizes it. That's asinine!

They also almost always have an arbitration clause forbidding you from suing them or joining a class action.

True, most service contracts have such a clause. However, these clauses are completely irrelevant. Nothing stops anyone from bringing suit for any reason.

Maybe it is time for the Nuclear Option (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40075319)

Perhaps we should consider the nuclear option. This would be to simply destroy these big telecoms and labels that won't stop attacking internet freedom because of some copying. They are not hurting for money despite piracy and they pay the artists little, leaving the bands to survive on performance only.

Step 1. Free CD/DVD day. People all over the world burn all the music they can find onto DVD and CD-R's and pass them out on the street or leave them in places for people to find like bus seats, subway seats. Stick them in newspapers and free auto or rental property booklets you find at grocery stores and shopping malls. This will spread things around and cripple these goons financially. This will target the RIAA since they are the worst offender. Send a strong message by demolishing the last 3 or 4 big labels and leaving the RIAA in total ruin. Avoid hurting any indie labels if possible. We will need them later.

Step 2. For movies, push hard for a "Steam" like solution where you can buy once, redownload if you lose a copy and run it on any player. The MPAA members can go with this or they can face the fate of the RIAA. I think given that choice, they will go with the steam method and find that it actually increases sales and profits, especially on older stuff that can be put on sale at times.

Step 3. For music, it would be good to see a community form where most music gets shared freely and the artists make a living from live performance. They already do this now, the difference is that they rely on the big labels recording studios and for distribution. The internet can handle distribution easily. Just share. Bands would hire local micro studios to record in and let the experts there do the mixing and other work involved in polishing their album. Since tech is cheap now you don't have to be a multi billion dollar label to set up a studio. You just need some enthusiasts with know how and a few thousand dollars in computers and other equipment and local bands can come record for a reasonable fee. Production is cheap. CD burners, usb sticks and the internet. The band lives off of t-shirts and performance like today. The difference? No big labels to kowtow to and sign your rights away to forever. I think that is a win-win for everyone except the RIAA. The smaller indie labels will form the first micro-studios used by local bands to record.

Who pays the bills? (1)

halfkoreanamerican (2566687) | more than 2 years ago | (#40075331)

I wonder who will ultimately pay them more, the users or the RIAA/MAFIA? Usually companies go the way of the money... We'll see how long it lasts. On another note, Iran does similar things on the internet, only if you get caught you get killed.

Dangerous Precedent (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40075383)

The idea of "common carriers" is going out the window. Now, anyone who provides a network is going to be responsible for what their customers use it for.

That would be like holding government responsible for car accidents, since the government provides the roads. Obviously, this is a very different system, since the users of the roads are legally and financially liable for their use. It should be no different for any other infrastructure.

Re:Dangerous Precedent (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40075703)

ISPs have never been common carriers. Look in your TOS. They have rules against spamming and trolling usually.

While I sympathize, this is does not change the ISP's legal position.

Re:Dangerous Precedent (1)

hackula (2596247) | more than 2 years ago | (#40075751)

I could see the government being held responsible in some way for an auto accident, if they had an unreasonably dangerous road.

Re:Dangerous Precedent (1)

TemplePilot (2035400) | more than 2 years ago | (#40076017)

I agree. ISP's should just be network neutral dumb pipes responsible for transport only and no more than that. They're not the worlds internet police and shouldn't have to be made to.

Re:Dangerous Precedent (1)

Dynedain (141758) | more than 2 years ago | (#40076663)

ISPs could push back and set themselves as common carriers if they wanted to, but the temptation of selling content to their customers in addition to dumb pipes is just too tempting.

Comcast - planning (or already has) their own streaming music service, and owns NBC Universal
Cablevision - has a streaming video service, and also makes their bread and butter off of Cable TV
Verizon - sells TV via their FiOS bundles
Time Warner Cable - Not associated with Time Warner Media anymore, but any time spent on the internet is time not spent watching their Cable TV offerings.

Notice any patterns here? Bandwidth is a cost to these companies, and they all operate other significant revenue streams that are in direct competition with unmetered data service when it comes to what customers are doing.

Nearing Utopia (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40075443)

After they get this last problem with the world under control we will finally be able to live in utopia.

Re:Nearing Utopia (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 2 years ago | (#40075683)

I don't want to live in Utopia [wikipedia.org] , the resolution is way too low!

Private police (1)

Hentes (2461350) | more than 2 years ago | (#40075463)

So now the copyright industry can afford their private copyright police? Strange considering how piracy is driving them bankrupt.

work at home (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40075489)

just as Kyle said I'm impressed that any body can get paid $4404 in a few weeks on the internet. have you seen this page makecash16.com

BTGuard (1)

sfhock (1308629) | more than 2 years ago | (#40075499)

Should be seeing a significant uptick in new user stats pretty soon...

New Business Opportunity! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40075535)

I'm starting a download service in the UK.

I will download anything you want and give it to you on a USB thumbdrive for just a quarter pound per GB.

I will do this by parking my car in front of your or your neighbors house and using ripe and juicy unsecured Wi-Fi.

The "Response" part may be delayed (1)

Pf0tzenpfritz (1402005) | more than 2 years ago | (#40075753)

But you bet, the deep packet inspection system will be rolled out soon enough.

"Six" strikes? (1)

cant_get_a_good_nick (172131) | more than 2 years ago | (#40075991)

Three strikes was bad enough, do we have to stretch a bad analogy so far as to six? How about Pi strikes, or square root of two strikes; the phrase is just as contrived.

Pirate voting block (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40076081)

With the BSA claiming half of PC users are pirates [slashdot.org] and the subscribers of the largest ISPs in the country getting (perhaps often unwarranted) strikes, so politicans realize what an enormous voting block this is?.

All that needs to happen is this becoming an issue on the political agenda. With tons of people getting these accusatory letters, that will undoubtedly come a step closer.

Amusing. (1)

ArcCoyote (634356) | more than 2 years ago | (#40076461)

These kind of stories always draw half-cocked comments, spewed (along with flecks of Doritos) from the basements of parent-owned houses.

You can talk big, but you're not going to stick it to Comcast when you don't even pay the bill.

The rest of us just get on with our lives, using BitTorrent to grab an episode or two of a show the DVR missed. Occasionally we suck down entire seasons and don't worry too much about it. We leave a wireless "guest network" open and shut down torrents when we hit a 1.0 ratio. We have encryption and auto-updated blocklists.

We're smart geeks and we know the risks. We know it might piss someone off. Just like keeping up with highway traffic: technically we're speeding, but the chances of getting pulled over are slim to none. If we get caught and our ISP send us a nastygram, we knock it off for a while.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?