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!

Software That Flagged HBO.com For Piracy Will Power U.S. 'Six Strikes' System

Soulskill posted about a year and a half ago | from the raise-your-hand-if-you're-at-all-surprised dept.

Media 292

An anonymous reader writes "A copyright monitoring program called MarkMonitor mistakenly flagged HBO.com for pirating its own shows, and sent automatic DMCA takedown notices to the network. It's a funny story, until you realize that MarkMonitor is the same software that will power the U.S. Copyright Alerts System (a.k.a. "Six Strikes"), due to be rolled out by the five largest U.S. ISPs sometime in the next month."

cancel ×

292 comments

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

Of course HBO are pirates (5, Insightful)

crazyjj (2598719) | about a year and a half ago | (#42800137)

That "Game of Thrones" show has been stealing blatantly from the "Song of Ice and Fire" book series for 2 years now.

But if you're going to flag anyone, how about you get those thieves at Fox for pirating music from Jonathan Coulton? I think a fine of $22,500 for everyone who downloaded the Glee version sounds about right [cbsnews.com] .

Re:Of course HBO are pirates (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42800161)

Git yer queers here!

Re:Of course HBO are pirates (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42800425)

Yes only queers could have voted for this law.

Re:Of course HBO are pirates (5, Insightful)

shentino (1139071) | about a year and a half ago | (#42800689)

Fox is a large corporation.

It is therefore immune.

Laws are only for poor peons don't you know?

Re:Of course HBO are pirates (5, Insightful)

jythie (914043) | about a year and a half ago | (#42801033)

Unfortunately, you are about right. If one looks at the various enforcement systems like youtube, the system is wired for who can harass who. Complaints against known entities will be deleted, while ones against small producers or individuals from companies are handled without question.

You only gets much justice as you can threaten problems for whoever is handling it.

Re:Of course HBO are pirates (-1, Flamebait)

Cito (1725214) | about a year and a half ago | (#42800785)

then fine Jonathan Coulton for stealing the lyrics from Sir Mix A Lot

a cover of a cover is not theft and never will be...

so cry more.

Re:Of course HBO are pirates (5, Insightful)

gstoddart (321705) | about a year and a half ago | (#42800821)

a cover of a cover is not theft and never will be...

The performance is still copyrighted.

If his version was used in a TV show without licensing it, according to the copyright wonks, that's theft.

They can't have it both ways.

Re:Of course HBO are pirates (5, Insightful)

hlavac (914630) | about a year and a half ago | (#42800935)

They can't have it both ways.

Oh but they can! They always pick what is best for them, arbitrarily.

Want to make a backup copy of your DVD? It's a license, you can't.

You scratched your DVD? It's an item, you have to buy a new one for a full price!

Re:Of course HBO are pirates (2)

Synerg1y (2169962) | about a year and a half ago | (#42801087)

And still people vote to help them because their lobbyists cry wolf tears about how the artists aren't getting paid (they still won't) & how you wouldn't steal a car. But still consider this if it's any solace... all it would take to put out of business all the major ISPs is new technology, fiber could put comcast out of business where I live for example.

Re:Of course HBO are pirates (5, Insightful)

dougmc (70836) | about a year and a half ago | (#42801023)

then fine Jonathan Coulton for stealing the lyrics from Sir Mix A Lot

a cover of a cover is not theft and never will be...

Sir Mix A Lot wrote the song, and Jonathan Coulton probably paid him writer's royalties. If so, that's no more stealing than getting a candy bar at the store and paying for it.

a cover of a cover is not theft and never will be...

Covering a cover could still be stealing from the original song author if they aren't paid, and I suspect that Glee paid Sir Mix A Lot. But Glee didn't just cover the song, they actually used Coulton's performance itself (i.e. actual music from his recording ended up on the show -- not just notes, but part of his recording) -- which could indeed be stealing. I don't know if it was simply sampling [wikipedia.org] or it went beyond that -- but even if it was just sampling, in general royalties are paid for samples too nowadays.

so cry more.

You're not helping your case here.

Re:Of course HBO are pirates (1)

kelemvor4 (1980226) | about a year and a half ago | (#42801189)

then fine Jonathan Coulton for stealing the lyrics from Sir Mix A Lot

a cover of a cover is not theft and never will be...

so cry more.

"my neckbeard, growin
chinline dragging
Songs don't work
my right palm keeps naggin."

Re:Of course HBO are pirates (2)

bhcompy (1877290) | about a year and a half ago | (#42801047)

Not sure why Insightful rather than Funny.

Who cares (5, Funny)

schneidafunk (795759) | about a year and a half ago | (#42800219)

At least our e-voting software is safe.

Which ISPs? (5, Insightful)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about a year and a half ago | (#42800283)

due to be rolled out by the five largest U.S. ISPs

Which ones? I'd like to know who doesn't want my money.

Re:Which ISPs? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42800473)

Which ones? I'd like to know who doesn't want my money.

AT&T, Cablevision, Comcast, Time Warner Cable, and Verizon. It's in the article. :)

Re:Which ISPs? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42800563)

And Verizon (at least) already has implemented it.

Thank you for pointing this out. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42800849)

Re:Which ISPs? (5, Interesting)

cayenne8 (626475) | about a year and a half ago | (#42800681)

Which ones? I'd like to know who doesn't want my money.

AT&T, Cablevision, Comcast, Time Warner Cable, and Verizon. It's in the article. :)

Was this mandated by some law I've not heard was passed...or, are these companies all signing onto this one service voluntarily? If so...why, what is in the bargain for them, they have immunity anyway over what their users do on the networks...why even bother with this?

Re:Which ISPs? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42800867)

At least in the case of Comcast, they are merged with NBC, so their participation in this scheme makes sense. I mean, not really, but it's at least understandable.

Re:Which ISPs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42800991)

Regardless....one strike from Comcast and I'll drop them like a load of bricks. CenturyLink and OTA here I come....

Re:Which ISPs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42801065)

Drop them now. Don't wait.

Re:Which ISPs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42801145)

CenturyLink is dog-shit steam rolled and left out in the sun: http://www.consumeraffairs.com/cell_phones/centurylink.html [consumeraffairs.com] .

Re:Which ISPs? (5, Insightful)

sqrt(2) (786011) | about a year and a half ago | (#42800965)

Many people have noticed the same thing you did. This doesn't make sense for the ISPs unless they are getting financial compensation from the content cartels equal to or greater than the amount of money they're going to lose from lost subscribers AND the cost of implementing the system itself, which is not going to be an insignificant amount of money. So the RIAA/MPAA is footing the bill for the system plus whatever extra the ISPs needed to sweeten the pot and make the whole burdensome hassle actually worthwhile. The other reason they might have for implementing it is that they are involved in both content creation and ISP businesses. This is true for Time Warner at least.You can think of it as a conflict of interest, another bullet point for stronger anti-trust laws.

There will be a period of about a year when notices, "strikes", will be sent at a furious pace and then some other obfuscated, encrypted, file sharing system will replace bittorrent. Mega seems poised to fill that niche, but there's room for an encrypted, anonymous, p2p filesharing protocol. There are a few right now but there's never really been a need for them great enough to overcome BT's momentum. The six strikes plan will be that need.

And once you push p2p filesharing that far underground there'll be no technological solution to stop copyright infringement over that protocol short of breaking the fundamental workings of the internet. File sharers will have won, and the content cartels, having shot their last bolt, will wish they had stopped when they were at least not completely powerless. This is a last desperate power grab of a dying business model. We are witnessing the death rattle of copyright as we know it.

Re:Which ISPs? (1)

jythie (914043) | about a year and a half ago | (#42801115)

Depending on how big of a sheep buffer we get, it is possible they will try to go the 'break the internet' route. As long as the new methods are difficult to use (or require personal vouching) and thus only small groups of people can utilize them, they will not care too much. If the new methods have a low barrier to entry then I would not put it above them to start pushing for 'net breaking changes.

Re:Which ISPs? (1)

jythie (914043) | about a year and a half ago | (#42801075)

If it were a law you could challenge it.. but no, this is their own system so that content providers will not keep harassing them (or, in some cases, because of mergers).. and because there are no viable alternatives, not much we can do.

Re:Which ISPs? (4, Insightful)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | about a year and a half ago | (#42801121)

If so...why, what is in the bargain for them, they have immunity anyway over what their users do on the networks...why even bother with this?

Did you notice how all of them are also cable tv providers? It is in their interest to kill any other forms of entertainment distribution, legal or not, so that they can herd customers to their own products.

This is how the utterly stupid reclassification of ISPs as information services [wikipedia.org] (from their previous classification as telecommunications services) has become self-fullfilling.

Re:Which ISPs? (1)

jythie (914043) | about a year and a half ago | (#42801063)

Ah, then I will use my power as a consumer to patronize a provider who's behavior is more inline with my expectations.

Oh.. wait... that would require competition....

Well shit. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42801131)

I have a choice between AT&T or Comcast here. That's it.

Re:Which ISPs? (2)

neminem (561346) | about a year and a half ago | (#42800487)

Like you have a choice... (or, if you do, you're far luckier than I am. My choices are: do I want cable (which sucks), or would I prefer dsl (which also sucks)? I certainly don't have any choice of *providers* of either of those services.

That said, I just wikipedia'd it, and amazingly enough, Charter is not (currently) on the list. I can't believe Charter is actually doing something better than Verizon. Too bad I went with verizon.

Re:Which ISPs? (3, Interesting)

Synerg1y (2169962) | about a year and a half ago | (#42800583)

lol Verizon. I believe they pioneered anti-piracy tracking back on their 3g network and lost a class action for it. Never did it feel sweeter to get $50 in the mail than when they termed my service the year before for p2p and then lost a class action on the grounds that their technology wasn't good enough to accurately flag pirates. Round 2 anyone?

Re:Which ISPs? (1)

UltraZelda64 (2309504) | about a year and a half ago | (#42800731)

Yeah... the only service around here is cable (Time Warner) and DSL (AT&T). A selection between a garbage service and another garbage service. Cable vs. DSL. Both providers fucking suck. There is no way out of this fucked up, abusive, non-competitive mess.

Re:Which ISPs? (4, Informative)

DarthBling (1733038) | about a year and a half ago | (#42800523)

According to the article, it is:
AT&T, Cablevision, Comcast, Time Warner Cable, and Verizon

Re:Which ISPs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42800873)

Well, there goes my internet for the forseeable future.

Re:Which ISPs? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42801107)

You know, that one ISP: AT&VeriCastVisionCable

Re:Which ISPs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42800643)

All of them. Your choices between services that don't use this are sneaker net, carrier pigeon, or mesh networks.

So, do something (4, Insightful)

pablo_max (626328) | about a year and a half ago | (#42800293)

Well, you could always stand up and demand your leaders repeal this nonsense. Is that not one of the stipulations of the political system in the US, that one must participate?
I see a LOT of folks complaining on /., but I never hear about anyone actually DO anything. And no, a strongly worded facebook post is not doing something.
Say what you want about the French, but they have it right. Their leaders are scared shitless of the population. That is how it must be. When the leaders do the things the US politicians do each day, France burns.
So, I would say, If you don't like it, "man up" and do something.

Re:So, do something (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42800329)

If the french really "did" something when their politicians did something crazy, they would not have a 85% tax rate. Look up why Gepardieu became Russian, and you will see that the french does nothing.

But then again, the french are mostly from Algeria these days... Islam is spreading across Europe

Breivik was right

Re:So, do something (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42800477)

If the french really "did" something when their politicians did something crazy, they would not have a 85% tax rate. Look up why Gepardieu became Russian, and you will see that the french does nothing.

But then again, the french are mostly from Algeria these days... Islam is spreading across Europe

Breivik was right

France has the best quality of life bar none.
They are doing something right.

Re:So, do something (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42800633)

The US also had a top marginal tax rate like that. It was during the great economic boom of the 50s and 60s. Turns out that trickle-down, voodoo economics is and always will be bunk.

Re:So, do something (4, Insightful)

megamerican (1073936) | about a year and a half ago | (#42801213)

The US also had a top marginal tax rate like that. It was during the great economic boom of the 50s and 60s. Turns out that trickle-down, voodoo economics is and always will be bunk.

And as it turns out, nobody paid it. [economicpo...ournal.com] The effective tax rate, i.e. the tax rate people actually paid was around 30-35% at that time.

Re:So, do something (3, Insightful)

Sarten-X (1102295) | about a year and a half ago | (#42801241)

Turns out that trickle-down ... economics is and always will be bunk.

...But I think I am a good person, and I do good things with my money. Why would anyone not want good things to be done? Surely with more money I could do more good things, but that means I need to be sending less to the government. The government politicians just nickel-and-dime their way through the budget pulling money out of good investments for the future and into gift programs for the lazy.

A note to the witless: I'm not being wholly serious, but I'm not trolling, either. Just illustrating a particular perspective.

Re:So, do something (3, Informative)

pclminion (145572) | about a year and a half ago | (#42800347)

I see a LOT of folks complaining on /., but I never hear about anyone actually DO anything.

People actually doing something about it don't have time to rant on Slashdot. How exactly do you expect to hear about it? Telepathy?

Re:So, do something (2)

Farmer Pete (1350093) | about a year and a half ago | (#42800515)

Do what? Write congress? I'm sure they'll get right on that. I've written many a note to my representatives. It's never seemed to make a difference. I think the only way we can get change is if we form a SuperPAC and get some good financial backing.

Re:So, do something (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42800577)

the people that actually do something are over at reddit. even fucking 4chan beats you whiners.

Re:So, do something (2)

Mordok-DestroyerOfWo (1000167) | about a year and a half ago | (#42801113)

I ran for Congress last year, even won the primary election. But without the multi-million dollar GOP trust fund that my opponent had, I still came up tens of thousands of votes short. Change isn't easy...

Re:So, do something (4, Funny)

drakaan (688386) | about a year and a half ago | (#42800349)

Wait...does this mean that if HBO gets flagged 5 more times they go to jail? Sweet! Self-correcting legislation is awesome!

Re:So, do something (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42800443)

Yea, that's not how the U.S system works.

If you want to get stuff like this repealed, you have to pay millions to congress in the form of donations. Then MAYBE they will repeal it.

Re:So, do something (1)

Zero__Kelvin (151819) | about a year and a half ago | (#42800461)

" Is that not one of the stipulations of the political system in the US, that one must participate?"

Yes. You are absolutely correct. It is not one of the stipulations.

Re:So, do something (5, Insightful)

SuperTechnoNerd (964528) | about a year and a half ago | (#42800505)

I had to read your comment several times - since you seem to have such a strong and fantastic suggestion - but alas, a lot of hot air and no suggestions on how to go about "DOING SOMETHING." Please inform us sheep what your doing to help, and how we can too - since you got it all figured out.

Re:So, do something (1)

ad1217 (2418196) | about a year and a half ago | (#42800529)

The problem is that this is not a law; it is voluntary (for the ISP, not the user). Therefore, it cannot be repealed (by the government).

Re:So, do something (1)

labnet (457441) | about a year and a half ago | (#42800803)

You do realise all Senators and Officials will be on a white list, so will never see a notice, so why would they care.

Re:So, do something (1)

jythie (914043) | about a year and a half ago | (#42801133)

There is not much we CAN do about it. This is not a new law, it is a deal worked out between private entities.

hey, how do we know if the software is paid for? (1)

swschrad (312009) | about a year and a half ago | (#42800361)

I think it should be flagging all the ISPs to prove that all these instances of MarkMonitor are legit.

is Darl McBride involved in this business?

Nope. Still funny. (3, Funny)

Jmc23 (2353706) | about a year and a half ago | (#42800365)

I'm sure even the USians will enjoy more and more copyright owners getting sued by themselves.

Good news (1)

virgnarus (1949790) | about a year and a half ago | (#42800393)

Enough false positives and the system will quickly fade into obscurity.

Re:Good news (1)

Gr8Apes (679165) | about a year and a half ago | (#42800533)

Are you willing to start seeding false positive files? I would, except the connection is a requirement for me and I cannot deal with the hassles of being disconnected.

What if... (1)

Orphis (1356561) | about a year and a half ago | (#42800399)

What if, in addition to the flagging software, they also had another software that answered to DMCA takedowns with a "No, it's not illegitimate".
Would it create an infinite loop of takedowns and restores?

Well... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42800427)

If anything, this proves the system is doing it's job. It's unlikely I would be affected the same way, because I'm not big enough that their system is going to be looking for people putting out anything I would legitimately producing. They noticed and acted on someone distributing HBO content? Sounds to me like it's working the way it's supposed to.

Why are ISPs in bed with big content? (4, Insightful)

mdmkolbe (944892) | about a year and a half ago | (#42800451)

It's puzzled me for some time that ISPs are so eager to help with these piracy measures. Can someone explain to my why they are so eager to please when there is no reasonable legal threat against them? (IIUC, the DMCA safe-harbor clauses immunize them.) The same goes for YouTube. Why is Google so eager to go above and beyond the DMCA(*)?

(*) I am aware of Viacom v. Google, but my understanding is the appellate judgment in many ways reaffirms the DMCA safe-harbor provisions.

Re:Why are ISPs in bed with big content? (5, Insightful)

Crayz9000 (2783019) | about a year and a half ago | (#42800493)

It's puzzled me for some time that ISPs are so eager to help with these piracy measures. Can someone explain to my why they are so eager to please when there is no reasonable legal threat against them? (IIUC, the DMCA safe-harbor clauses immunize them.) The same goes for YouTube. Why is Google so eager to go above and beyond the DMCA(*)?

(*) I am aware of Viacom v. Google, but my understanding is the appellate judgment in many ways reaffirms the DMCA safe-harbor provisions.

Easy: Two of the biggest ISPs are also content owners. Time Warner and Comcast.

Re:Why are ISPs in bed with big content? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42800783)

Okay, so that can explain 2 of the 5. How about the other 3?

Re:Why are ISPs in bed with big content? (2)

gl4ss (559668) | about a year and a half ago | (#42800899)

they also want to get into the content distribution racket and cut their traffic to to one tenth

Re:Why are ISPs in bed with big content? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42800955)

Cablevision Optimum video on demand, ATT UVerse video on demand, Verizon FiOS TV video on demand.

These are less valuable services if their internet users are pirates. Since the internet provides a wider library, at less hassle, with better UIs, and your computer probably doesn't cost you a monthly rental fee.

Re:Why are ISPs in bed with big content? (2)

Wesley Felter (138342) | about a year and a half ago | (#42800881)

Time Warner Cable actually split from Time Warner recently, so they're not related.

Re:Why are ISPs in bed with big content? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42801205)

Time Warner Cable actually split from Time Warner recently, so they're not related.

As corporate entities when it comes to accounting, but should you bother to check who owns both, you'll see something else.

Re:Why are ISPs in bed with big content? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42800543)

It's puzzled me for some time that ISPs are so eager to help with these piracy measures. Can someone explain to my why they are so eager to please when there is no reasonable legal threat against them? (IIUC, the DMCA safe-harbor clauses immunize them.) The same goes for YouTube. Why is Google so eager to go above and beyond the DMCA(*)?

(*) I am aware of Viacom v. Google, but my understanding is the appellate judgment in many ways reaffirms the DMCA safe-harbor provisions.

A lot of these ISPs are also content owners. Take comcast for example. They own NBC.

Re:Why are ISPs in bed with big content? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42800589)

ISPs : They want excuses to choke down the bandwith of people who consume a lot of bandwith. Or plainly, they hate everyone who bittorrents, legal or not. False positives are the system working as intended for their goals - reduce consumption. The **AA just gives them an excuse to do it.

Youtube: Mainly has to do with how they implemented monetization for videos. Proper rightsholders monetizing rather then shutting off videos makes google money. Shutting down illicit pirates helps them keep up this cash flow; that's what they're after, really. Also, the legal requirements are much higher when dealing with "Person put this up for free on our servers" then "Person put this up for free on our servers and is using our services to make money off of it"

Re:Why are ISPs in bed with big content? (1)

black3d (1648913) | about a year and a half ago | (#42800773)

AT&T provides digital television services and is one of the largest cable providers, which they'd prefer people pay for rather than downloading content.

Cablevision provides digital television services as above. They also own the Clearview cinema chain.

Comcast is a major content producer of multiple television networks and owns 51% of NBC, also a major content producer.

Time Warner is a major content producer, owning dozens of film and TV studios.

Verizon provides the FiOS digital television service (500+ channels), which they'd prefer people pay for than downloading content.

Re:Why are ISPs in bed with big content? (1)

Wesley Felter (138342) | about a year and a half ago | (#42800925)

If ISPs refused to implement six strikes, the MPAA probably would have bought a new super-DMCA law that was even worse. Industries generally prefer self-regulation over government regulation because Congress is a bit of a wild card.

Re:Why are ISPs in bed with big content? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42800971)

Their usage costs are mostly based on pirates.

When the pirates stop, and you only have users like grandma who check their emails and read the news on their 25Mbps connections, Comcast becomes very happy.

That is why they are so eager. Their costs go down when they don't have to provide all of the services which they offer, sell, and install.

Encrypted proxy? (3, Informative)

goruka (1721094) | about a year and a half ago | (#42800465)

I'm not from the US, but if you really wanted to pirate stuff, isn't just renting a proxy or doing ssh -D somewhere else outside the country enough?
Or is it one of those measures trying to prevent John Doe from using bittorrent? (and expecting he won't learn how to use a proxy)

Re:Encrypted proxy? (1)

Nyder (754090) | about a year and a half ago | (#42800719)

I'm not from the US, but if you really wanted to pirate stuff, isn't just renting a proxy or doing ssh -D somewhere else outside the country enough?

Or is it one of those measures trying to prevent John Doe from using bittorrent? (and expecting he won't learn how to use a proxy)

it's to catch the people who aren't smart enough to protect themselves when copywronging.

I myself am using a torrent proxy, BTguard, but it's too slow, thinking of switching to a VPN.

I got me a cloaking device for when I am out on the interweb seas, raping, pillaging and copywronging. Arrr!

Re:Encrypted proxy? (1)

filthpickle (1199927) | about a year and a half ago | (#42800939)

It is going after bittorrent. Most people who are downloading movies and TV shows aren't going to be able to find another way if they can kill the torrents. Well, until the next thing comes along.

Those are the same people that are most likely scared away when they hear about this, or when they get caught the first time. My mother, who knows nothing about computers and does not care to learn, told me to "be careful downloading movies, because they are cracking down on that".

Americans (5, Insightful)

pitchpipe (708843) | about a year and a half ago | (#42800485)

I wish we in the US would get as upset about corporations taking away our rights (through the purchase of laws) as we do about gun laws. This would not be an issue if that were to happen.

Re:Americans (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42800917)

You in the U.S. has your gun laws exactly for cases like this. The original idea was, when government (or its minions) eventually gets too tyrannical . . .

Re:Americans (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42801203)

Shoot your ISP?

Re:Americans (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42801003)

then the content industry just blames the uproar over damn dirty criminals who want to violate the laws they bought.

Re:Americans (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42801157)

Corporations taking away your rights? In what possible way?

If they're using crony influence to regulate, then the politicians are taking away your rights.

If, on the other hand, they're creating and enforcing rules on the use of their property and you're signing a contract to do business with them... stop whining. That's not taking away your rights.

Lets break it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42800525)

Exercise your civil duty as a citizen. Let's find a way to flood it's input queue with bogus information and make it effectively useless.

The software will be crap. We know it will be crap because it's just a bullshit scheme cooked up and fed to some suits over a golf game. (Who else would greenlight garbage like this?) It won't be hard to bring it to it's knees.

Re:Lets break it (1)

hypergreatthing (254983) | about a year and a half ago | (#42801221)

A network torrent where all files are renamed to "metalica - (Insert bad song name here).mp3" and transferred unencrypted? Count me in. It needs to be run by a group of lawyers so they can sue the pants off big content providers who claim DMCA takedowns.

But seriously (1)

futhermocker (2667575) | about a year and a half ago | (#42800549)

Just as the article mentions, what if this causes sites to be excluded from Google if they just mention the copyrighted names? On a forum, a blogpost, etc. Plus you can count on it people are going to try and game this system to get competitors excluded.

Everything political is funny... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42800559)

,,,until one remembers that all this nonsense is backed by guns.

Imagine if all these goons were not taken seriously. Just imagine if these creepy and cranky old men had no courts, prisons, armies and police. Imagine if it were just a bunch of hysterical old grumps sitting around in a room complaining about things they didn't like. All of us in society would look at them no differently than we'd view an old bum muttering to himself.

Re:Everything political is funny... (1)

cfulton (543949) | about a year and a half ago | (#42800703)

Amen

AT&T, Cablevision, Comcast, Time Warner Cable (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42800567)

AT&T, Cablevision, Comcast, Time Warner Cable and Verizon. from the article

This will affect Netflix subscribers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42800661)

If this same software rolls out next month it will tag Netflix subscribers as "Pirates" and the content providing ISPs won't give a flying fuck. After all, why should they? They want their sheep to go through their on-demand library for 5$ a movie. This is why all ISPs that provide on-demand content should be sued under the Sherman anti-trust law since they are effectively monopolizing all content and the distribution of said content. This is what the free market drones get when their wish is fulfilled.

This is perfect (1)

cfulton (543949) | about a year and a half ago | (#42800691)

If it is all F*#?ed up then pretty soon it will just be ignored.

Hmmm ... (1)

gstoddart (321705) | about a year and a half ago | (#42800715)

A copyright monitoring program called MarkMonitor mistakenly flagged HBO.com for pirating its own shows, and sent automatic DMCA takedown notices to the network.

Wouldn't that make these DMCA notices fraudulent?

They're not the copyright holder, and I thought a DMCA notice was the equivalent of a sworn affidavit that you were the owner of it -- and Righthaven [wikipedia.org] already established that if you don't have legal standing, you can get smacked down.

I can't see how this automated service could have any legal standing to be issuing DMCA takedown notices.

Re:Hmmm ... (1)

Ksevio (865461) | about a year and a half ago | (#42800855)

But fortunately there's the loophole that it's only if you knowingly report that you own the copyright someone else has that it counts. Basically any large scale notice system can get around by saying it was just a mistake.

Re:Hmmm ... (1)

gstoddart (321705) | about a year and a half ago | (#42801029)

But fortunately there's the loophole that it's only if you knowingly report that you own the copyright someone else has that it counts. Basically any large scale notice system can get around by saying it was just a mistake.

I'm no lawyer, but if the 3rd party monitoring agent doesn't own any of the copyrights to these things, they can't mistakenly believe they owned something there was no chance of them owning in the first place.

I don't know if the individual companies are running their own servers, or if they've simply contracted a 3rd party to do the work for them. If it's the former, then sure ... if it's the latter, they never could have owned the copyrights in the first place.

Of course, the fact that this is so heavily skewed to content owners and leaves little room for people to defend themselves makes this suck even more.

We'll aggressively pursue you and demand huge sums of money, but if we don't bankrupt you in the process, we can just say it was a mistake. So there's no downside for companies to just do this recklessly.

So... (1)

lightknight (213164) | about a year and a half ago | (#42800763)

So, when someone from one of the media companies decides to pirate a show from another media company, and does so more than six times, what kind of fines are we looking at?

This violates the rights of EU and Canadians (5, Insightful)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | about a year and a half ago | (#42800765)

The US is the signer of a data treaty with both Canada and the EU that this violates.

As the holder of multiple copyrights in Canada, the US, Australia, and New Zealand, I do not accept this Six Strikes violation of my International Treaty rights, which are superior to any DCMA legislation in the US.

Period.

Re:This violates the rights of EU and Canadians (1)

DarwinSurvivor (1752106) | about a year and a half ago | (#42800891)

I'm actually quite interested in this situation, do you have any links to these treaties (particularly the parts the conflict with strikes)?

Re:This violates the rights of EU and Canadians (2)

gl4ss (559668) | about a year and a half ago | (#42800937)

US honoring their trade and privacy treaties? are you visiting Colorado and high as fuck??

Re:This violates the rights of EU and Canadians (1)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | about a year and a half ago | (#42801231)

US honoring their trade and privacy treaties? are you visiting Colorado and high as fuck??

No, I live in Seattle. The real Washington, strong and free. We legalized everything too. Have fun living in serfdom.

What can we do about this? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42800823)

You probably already pay for internet service. For a little bit more money/month, you can get away with as much piracy as you want. If you don't understand all the terms/lingo I'm about to use, hit the google. Here's what you can do:

Scenario 1: switch from bit torrent to usenet. Automate the downloading of your favorite shows with sickbeard + hellanzb/sabnzbd/your-favorite-nzb-grabber-here. Download movies with CouchPotato. I have this set up, but due to abuse of DMCA, a lot of the good nzb indexing sites (newzbin, nzbmatrix) are gone. Thinking about getting rid of a usenet provider alltogether because of this unfortunate turn of events.

Scenario 2: get a VPN. I have a VPN thru my usenet provider. I run a Win7 virtual machine for bit-torrent piracy purposes (since the good nzb indexing sites have gotten taken down, i find myself resorting to bit torrent more often now). All torrent traffic goes thru the VPN. Slows it down, but not by much.

Scenario 3: get a seedbox. Seedboxes are for fast bit-torrenting. The downloading/uploading happens on a server that you rent. Get one outside of the US. Since it's not your home connection that gets slammed, you can share more upload bandwidth with the community. When the download is done, transfer your file to your machine with a ssh/sftp client. with a good media player and a good connection, you can probably start watching a video file 10-15 seconds after you start the transfer.

Scenario 4: get a VPS. Can't find many that are bit-torrent friendly. But they're basically little virtual OS instances (typically linux) that you get root on. You can roll your own VPN with a VPS (as opposed to buying a VPN service), so if you are comfortable with Linux, going the VPS route might be your best and cheapest bet (then you can do #2 for cheap). There are plenty that are hosted outside of the US.

It's too bad that hollywood and the media content creation industries in general have been so blinded by greed that they've missed the boat on this whole internet thing. They could have made WAY more money, probably ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE MORE MONEY if they'd embraced the internet as a content delivery tool OVER A DECADE AGO, instead of using political pull to secure legislation that protects their backwards and antiquated business model.

Seriously. There are METRIC FUCKLOADS of money to be made on online advertising. Google is proof positive of this.
Of course, just giving away the content "for free" (in exchange for ad revenue) is such an anathema to the greedy fucks at the top of the totem-pole in the industry that the idea was probably never seriously on the table in the first place.

Such a shame.

I keep saying that I'd pay $100/month for a service that allowed me to watch or listen to whatever movie, tv show, or song I typed into the search box. Instead we have this bullshit like hulu and netflix, with arbitrary restrictions on what you can watch on your TV vs your computer, what you can watch via the net vs get as a disk in the mail, etc. It's bullshit and there's no technological reason for how bad this situation sucks. It sucks because of corporate greed, so I've made it my moral obligation to ensure that none of these fuckwits ever get any of my money.

Go buy a VPN.

Shhh! (1)

ThatsNotPudding (1045640) | about a year and a half ago | (#42800831)

We _want_ them to use defective by design, ineffectual, costly systems that will blow up in their faces! Didn't you get the memo?

PS - The ISPs are kinda on our side here, as they'd rather not be wet nurses to trogoldytes and their business models.

Workarounds? (1)

sdguero (1112795) | about a year and a half ago | (#42800907)

Anyone know how this monitoring software works and if any workarounds exist?

I'd guess that they grab tracker information and then gather IP addresses of those sharing but I have never heard of this company or their "product" until today.

Thanks

Re:Workarounds? (1)

Eightbitgnosis (1571875) | about a year and a half ago | (#42801161)

Buy a seedbox to do your torrenting

This sounds like a job for Anonymous (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42801077)

Were I Anonymous (and I am most certainly not), I would see this as a great opportunity to engage our fine Congress into taking up action. Since I am NOT Anonymous thus clearly lacking the knowledge I am not sure this could even be done....yet....

Would it not be thoughtful if something could be set up such that all sorts of protected files were downloaded and shared from a congressman's identifiable computer? Were it possible to acquire and spoof the MAC address, the IP address and set up a nice little honey pot for this wondrous program to sense and respond too. Six strikes you say, should happen quick and then we have our dear congress person getting dropped...oh wait you say, they are on the white list, but then Anonymous still does the job for now it can show the preferential treatment which certainly is news unto its self. Or, just bluw skying you know, take the old adage garbage in garbage out and just confuse the poor program. Help it to see everyone as a violator thus rendering its conclusions moot.

Hacking websites is one thing, sticky congress people into a situation where they have to try and explain that (1) it was not them and (2) why they feel this is good for the country would make for more interesting news coverage. Vigilantes that use their power to shine a light on a wrong do more power then just acting out in anger (hacking websites). I don't have the power or the knowledge or the influence to effectively change the mind of greedy SOB in Congress, but maybe there are those that do,,,,I wonder.

Funny, I posted AC because i started to ponder, what if when I get home I find some gentlemen in dark suits waiting for me, just to ask a few questions...Please, come with us.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>