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!

Six-Strikes System Starts In U.S.

Soulskill posted about a year and a half ago | from the six-strikes-and-you're-out-out-but-not-really-out-kinda dept.

The Internet 418

New submitter mynameiskhan writes "Major internet service providers today will start monitoring the internet traffic to their customers' computers and will warn them if they download copyrighted materials using peer to peer network. The article says, 'A person will be given up to six opportunities to stop before the Internet provider will take more drastic steps, such as temporarily slowing their connection, or redirecting Internet traffic until they acknowledge they received a notice or review educational materials about copyright law.' Furthermore, if you appeal the warning you will be required to pay $35 to state your case. Have the ISPs have had enough of RIAA pestering, or are they siding with RIAA?"

cancel ×

418 comments

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

First strike (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43018985)

I'm sorry

Re: First strike (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43019003)

First strike, but not first to be banned ;-) Let's race to see who can get six strikes first! I'm sure the winner's legal battle will be worth watching.

Re: First strike (1)

noh8rz10 (2716597) | about a year and a half ago | (#43019279)

I already have five strikes :( what happens next? btw the analogy is fucked. everybody knows, 3 strikes and you're out. Doesn't make any sense to have 6 strikes. what is this, cricket? 10 wickets, and you're out?

Re: First strike (1)

AK Marc (707885) | about a year and a half ago | (#43019325)

In cricket, one wicket and you are out. But the three outs and the inning is over works better for cricket, in that it's 10 wickets per inning, and some games are a single inning long, or something like that. All I know is ball, stick, hit, run.

Re: First strike (5, Insightful)

hairyfeet (841228) | about a year and a half ago | (#43019549)

The REAL bullshit is you are guilty until you PAY to prove your innocence and there is ZERO protection or penalty for fraudulent claims, so pretty much anybody can say "infringed" and get you shut down with no penalty on their end or recourse on your end.

And before anybody says "The ISP don't want to lose customers" remember how they are overselling the hell out of their lines while not adding capacity? i have a feeling the ones given strikes won't have a damned thing to do with copyrights, it'll be the ones the ISPs want to toss for actually using what they PAID for. get close to the cap? well you must have infringed because our data says you shouldn't do that. I've already seen similar shit in my area where an ISP claims you have a "virus" and pulls your plug if you use more data than your average grandma. I finally walked in with my Xandros laptop and said "Show me a fucking virus or give me my money back" but there is no telling how many they pulled the same shit in for daring to use YouTube or watch netflix.

BTW you can kiss that "future is the cloud" bullshit buh bye, the ISPs are gonna make the net all but unusable so they can keep all the profits as CEO bonuses instead of laying lines. Capitalism, ain't it grand?

Re: First strike (2)

ganjadude (952775) | about a year and a half ago | (#43019613)

serious question..., what happened when you called them out?

Re: First strike (4, Insightful)

v1 (525388) | about a year and a half ago | (#43019619)

Can someone explain to me how they can charge me to review the legality of my case? I realize they're offering to "give it back" if I win, but that's not relevant. I shouldn't have to pay for judicial oversight. Imagine if you got a speeding ticket and had to pay the court to hear your case where it clocked the car that just blew by you? Even if the court refunded your money if you won the appeal, that's still justice that you have to front money for, and it's wrong

Another good example would be public defenders. Imagine if you had to pay for a public defender, and you'd only get your money back if you were found innocent? You shouldn't have to front money to get access to justice.

I will be very surprised if this doesn't go to court real quick. "Guilty until PAID innocent" isn't going to hold up well in court.

Good thing proxies can't be spoofed! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43018989)

This will end P2P piracy in a snap!

Re:Good thing proxies can't be spoofed! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43019333)

This will end P2P piracy in a snap!

Considering the number of american clients that are leeching from me I'd guess the 6 strike law makes no difference.

All bark, no bite (5, Insightful)

langelgjm (860756) | about a year and a half ago | (#43018993)

Termination of subscribers’ connections is specifically mentioned by the Center for Copyright Information as a penalty that will not be imposed under the Copyright Alert System. The strategic partnership between rights-holders and ISPs makes it obvious why the CAS does not—and in fact cannot—threaten to terminate Internet subscriptions as a penalty for alleged copyright infringement: the five ISPs participating in the CAS would never voluntarily agree to give up the revenue associated with allegedly infringing subscribers. In theory, rights-holders could perhaps convince ISPs to terminate allegedly infringing subscribers if rights-holders were willing to compensate ISPs for the associated loss in subscription revenue. In practice, however, the cost of such compensation for rights-holders would far outweigh the benefits to rights-holders of halting the average alleged infringer.

It gives the RIAA/MPAA an excuse to monitor users (4, Insightful)

elucido (870205) | about a year and a half ago | (#43019257)

And once one group of corporations gains the ability it's only a matter of time before they want other excuses.

Re:All bark, no bite (1)

Hatta (162192) | about a year and a half ago | (#43019353)

What actual monitoring is going to be happening? The ISP is going to sniff my packets? So what, my torrents are encrypted. The only way they're going to determine if I'm sharing copyrighted material is by connecting to the tracker and seeing my IP as a peer. But they've been able to do that for years, and have been doing that for years. What more can they actually do?

Re:All bark, no bite (2)

WillgasM (1646719) | about a year and a half ago | (#43019435)

What more can they actually do?

Redirect to crappy "educational" videos and throttle your connection. Haven't you been paying attention.

Re:All bark, no bite (4, Funny)

Beardo the Bearded (321478) | about a year and a half ago | (#43019519)

Assume any encrpyted traffic is a copyright violation.

After all, if you didn't have anything to hide, you wouldn't be using TERRORIST TOOLS.

You fucking scumbag.

Re:All bark, no bite (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43019585)

Copyright infringement? My God, that's worse than murder!

Re:All bark, no bite (2)

ohnocitizen (1951674) | about a year and a half ago | (#43019535)

More like bark and potential bite. Documentation of violations, which customers have to pay to dispute. I wonder if these notifications of violation might be used in court, or to inspire further action by other parties?

I hope they do. (4, Interesting)

waspleg (316038) | about a year and a half ago | (#43019007)

I hope the backlash from this makes SOPA look tame.

Re:I hope they do. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43019321)

Don't be silly. Wikipedia didn't tell anyone to be upset over this.

Lucky (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43019015)

I live in China

Huh (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43019019)

Finally time to start paying for U****t, I guess.

Re:Huh (1, Informative)

TheSpoom (715771) | about a year and a half ago | (#43019037)

Welcome to the party, you're a few years late.

Re:Huh (1, Funny)

nthitz (840462) | about a year and a half ago | (#43019391)

Usenet.. the biggest secret since Reddit!

Of course (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43019021)

Furthermore, if you appeal the warning you will be required to pay $35 to state your case. Have the ISPs have had enough of RIAA pestering, or are they siding with RIAA?"

What do you think, genius?

Of course they're siding with the cartels...and they've figured out a nice little side earner while they screw their customers.

Re:Of course (1)

Synerg1y (2169962) | about a year and a half ago | (#43019105)

why would you argue your case though with them though?

1. They aren't going to do anything, but mail you letters and eventually throttle you for a couple of days.
2. The only argument these "people" will listen to is the one that comes from behind a gavel.

Waste of $35 if there ever was one.

Re:Of course (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43019243)

Because the strikes will be presented as evidence against you during a lawsuit by the MPAA/RIAA maybe.

Re:Of course (2, Informative)

mark-t (151149) | about a year and a half ago | (#43019425)

It's not necessarily a waste of $35, since if they are unable to verify the alleged infringement, you get the $35 refunded, and the "strike" is removed.

Re:Of course (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43019593)

And they'll verify it just like every single RIAA case is verified.

IP address of 243.158.48.54 downloaded file PopularArtist - OnlyGoodSong.mp3. Case closed, unless you can somehow magically prove to them that their tracker is wrong over the phone. It's not like they're going to take the effort to haul your computer in and do a deep scan of all files and deleted files to attempt to verify if that mp3 has ever resided on the hard drive.

Finally! (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43019033)

Finally an incentive I needed to get a seedbox and VPN in a country far, far away.

So the defendant has to pay to "appeal"? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43019035)

If one side has to pay to participate in the "trial", and the other doesn't, then one side has an incentive to just suck it up, and the other side has no disincentives to stop.

Just like DMCA takedowns. If there is no penalty for filing, companies will just robo-spam.

Captcha: tedious, just like the appeals process will be.

Re:So the defendant has to pay to "appeal"? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43019245)

* If the appeal is successful, the $35 is refunded to the appellant (and you can bet the AAA will charge the respondent, since they want to cover their costs).
* The fee is also refunded if the Copyright Alert is withdrawn by the copyright owner.
* The $35 fee is waived if your income is less than 3 times the federal poverty level (that is, $33,510 for a family of 1, more for more people).

Re:So the defendant has to pay to "appeal"? (1)

Wesley Felter (138342) | about a year and a half ago | (#43019471)

There are costs on both sides. The *AA are paying DtecNet to send the strikes in the first place, and if you appeal it will cost them more than $35 to put together the paperwork to argue with you.

Re:So the defendant has to pay to "appeal"? (1)

mark-t (151149) | about a year and a half ago | (#43019505)

Not to mention that the $35 is refunded if the consumer's appeal is successful.

Oh boy. (5, Insightful)

JustAnotherIdiot (1980292) | about a year and a half ago | (#43019041)

Who wants to take bets on how many days it is until we get the first false positive story?

your ISP is becoming a government asset. (1)

elucido (870205) | about a year and a half ago | (#43019169)

And once that happens anything you do or say while on that ISP will be monitored.It may be under the guise of copyright infringement but the result is you're being monitored at the deep packet level. So when you tweet about how much you love Julian Assange and how much you support Wikileaks and the EFF, and when you hit the donate button, not only can they cut off funding to these organizations but they can cut off your internet as well.

Six strikes? No clue if they will look at some people with more scrutiny than others.

Re:your ISP is becoming a government asset. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43019465)

This is what the people voted for. We have a long history of government dickering in private matters but we had half the voting public eat it up when the abomination known as the Patriot act got passed. The other side shunned it and claimed that it was the downfall of freedom until their fuhrer got in office and expanded and extended the Patriot act. That was it, game over. Now both sides of the one party system are loving their shit sandwich. The alternative is to admit that their party is full of totalitarian bitches. That just won't play out. The average fucktard on the street defends their party even as they're smothering the nation in debt, schism and lies.
 
By the time these fucks realize what's going on it'll be too late. America is as good as gone.

Re:your ISP is becoming a government asset. (0)

CncRobot (2849261) | about a year and a half ago | (#43019605)

What I find amusing, as accurate as your rant is, is how much money has been printed/borrowed and stolen in the last 4 years. It is mind boggling what has been going on and every time its mentioned the person mentioning it is labeled a racist.

Everyone SHOULD know about the stimilus being a union hand out to fund the DNC elections. However the EPA [forbes.com] has a "sue and settle" scam going on and they have recently gotten into trouble for using private emails to conduct EPA business to set these up.

Your rant about the Patriot act is exactly what they want. They could care less about that, but as long as you rant about the Patriot act you are missing the millions and billions they are outright stealing from the US taxpayer.

Re:Oh boy. (1, Insightful)

WillgasM (1646719) | about a year and a half ago | (#43019329)

I'm sure there are plenty out there trying to force a false positive right now.

AAAAAAAAAND (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43019043)

YOU'RE OUT

Hadopi (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43019047)

Who have said that the French can't export (stupid) things to the US ?

EFF (5, Interesting)

Threni (635302) | about a year and a half ago | (#43019059)

Are they getting involved? Perhaps share a copyright-free file, get people to download it, get reports raised against it, get complaint, ignore complaint, get to 6 strikes, then ask the ISP to take further steps against them. A few million people doing that at the same time should be fun.

Re:EFF (5, Informative)

X0563511 (793323) | about a year and a half ago | (#43019159)

I suggest you join the Effector [eff.org] mailing list, and have a good strong look at Demand Progress [demandprogress.org] .

I should also point out Move to Amend [movetoamend.org] while I'm plugging these. This one's actually been introduced to congress.

First lawsuit? (2)

WaffleMonster (969671) | about a year and a half ago | (#43019075)

I don't normally eat popcorn but some good'ole fashioned jiffy pop made over the stovetop while reading tales of ISPs being sued for playing judge, jury and executioner is gonna be fun.

Re:First lawsuit? (2)

X0563511 (793323) | about a year and a half ago | (#43019183)

It's crap and all, but it's not that crap. Termination is not an end result.

Merely a temporary bandwidth throttle and a sternly worded letter. As well, "repeat offenders will not be perused as they are not the kind of people we can reach" (paraphrased from memory)

Re:First lawsuit? (1)

Wesley Felter (138342) | about a year and a half ago | (#43019493)

Your ISP's TOS says they can do anything to you.

If I had to guess (4, Insightful)

PickyH3D (680158) | about a year and a half ago | (#43019083)

This is both the RIAA and the ISPs winning with users losing. The ISPs can point to this system to get the RIAA off of their backs. The RIAA can point to this system in courts to try to further pinpoint end users to sue.

However, as the summary points out, the end user must pay $35 to challenge "strikes" against them, and while they are refunded the full amount, if they win, there is nothing else won, nor is the ISP punished for false claims. In other words, the user assumes all risk even if they know that they are innocent.

While I imagine that this system might catch a few pirates out there, I suspect that the errors related to this system will lead to far more collateral damage than it even supposedly fixes. And I am strongly against pirating, but this system screams of looming problems to be faced by the innocent like myself. As someone that has been hit with a "gotcha" notice from a previous roommate's downloading, I know the problems that this will cause. In my case, my roommate was reasonable and he did not continue the practice after I showed it to him and explained that I would not "go down" for it.

How many people can we expect to be burned by this before we have an online petition in Congress? If we're lucky, then maybe this is the start of turning ISPs into dumb-pipe utilities. But we're not lucky.

Re:If I had to guess (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about a year and a half ago | (#43019205)

How many people can we expect to be burned by this before we have an online petition in Congress?

Lots, considering that Congress participates in no such program.

Love the idea, though.

Re:If I had to guess (1)

AK Marc (707885) | about a year and a half ago | (#43019347)

It's called "email your representative". It exists today, and so few use it.

Re:If I had to guess (2)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about a year and a half ago | (#43019443)

It's called "email your representative". It exists today, and so few use it.

Ah, yes.

About as effective as the We The People petition site.

Source: I write my Congresscritters regularly, at least once per quarter. The boilerplate responses make great birdcage liner.

Re:If I had to guess (4, Insightful)

gstoddart (321705) | about a year and a half ago | (#43019229)

And, of course, the expenses the ISP incurs to process this will get passed onto the consumers in their bills.

Which means the consumers will end up paying for the ISPs to police copyright on behalf of the *AAs.

What an awesome outcome for the *AAs.

Re:If I had to guess (1)

Bookwyrm (3535) | about a year and a half ago | (#43019237)

However, as the summary points out, the end user must pay $35 to challenge "strikes" against them, and while they are refunded the full amount, if they win, there is nothing else won, nor is the ISP punished for false claims. In other words, the user assumes all risk even if they know that they are innocent.

Maybe. If the $35 if refunded in the full amount to the end user, who is paying for the arbitration service? If the ISP's detection system erroneously flags a few thousand people, and each of the claims has to be considered, some one is going to be paying for the man-hours of the arbitration work. It's not clear who is bearing the risk of the costs of false claims.

Re:If I had to guess (1)

PickyH3D (680158) | about a year and a half ago | (#43019463)

That's a fair point, but I suspect that the service probably hopes to pay for itself with people getting caught trying to game the system. It's possible that you are right and that the ISPs might end up footing a significant bill--one that that they will surely pass onto normal user's monthly bills--by sending out too many false claims.

At the very least, your point provides some incentive for the ISPs to be accurate to minimize costs even if they plan on passing the buck.

Re:If I had to guess (1)

orthancstone (665890) | about a year and a half ago | (#43019335)

the end user must pay $35 to challenge "strikes" against them

Any chance they'll find a way to refund the time wasted appealing this garbage too? Or am I asking too much?

Re:If I had to guess (2)

Kjella (173770) | about a year and a half ago | (#43019393)

However, as the summary points out, the end user must pay $35 to challenge "strikes" against them, and while they are refunded the full amount, if they win, there is nothing else won, nor is the ISP punished for false claims. In other words, the user assumes all risk even if they know that they are innocent.

I'm more interested in what happens when you lose your challenge, to you have to just accept it or what happens if you take it to court? Defamation of character, harassment, false accusations, take your pick. Or is this one of those wonderful "binding arbitration" aka kangaroo courts that are binding and final?

Anyway, as long as you got choices I would suggest to not contest and simply cancel your subscription on first notice as long as you got choices. Even if you only have a couple to choose from the ISP and you're going to is another six-strike ISP they will still hate that much more than anything else.

Re:If I had to guess (1)

pitchpipe (708843) | about a year and a half ago | (#43019503)

In my case, my roommate was reasonable and he did not continue the practice after I showed it to him and explained that I would not "go down" for it.

So tell me genius, if a civil suit was filed against you and your roommate then denied that he infringed any copyright, how exactly you would prevent yourself from 'going down' for this? The burden of proof lies with you to prove that you didn't download it, 'cause it sure looks to them like you did. It's not like they're going to confiscate your computer to do a forensics investigation on it to prove you're guilty, they already have your IP address showing that you did it (not that that proves a fucking thing). And that is just one of many problems of this so called 'piracy' bullshit.

Re:If I had to guess (1)

Wesley Felter (138342) | about a year and a half ago | (#43019601)

The burden of proof lies with you to prove that you didn't download it, 'cause it sure looks to them like you did.

In the courts I think the burden of proof is on the plaintiff.

It's not like they're going to confiscate your computer to do a forensics investigation on it to prove you're guilty...

AFAIK that is exactly what they tend to do.

Re:If I had to guess (1)

mark-t (151149) | about a year and a half ago | (#43019575)

A defendant in *ANY* sort of case or trial that does not have an accompanying countersuit assumes all risk, even if they know they are innocent. The disincentive for them to frivolously charge innocent people, however, is that when those people win their appeals and get their fee completely refunded, somebody's going to be coming after the ones who made those accusations to pay the bills for that appeal process. And it's going to be a lot more than $35.

They told me (-1, Troll)

AntiBasic (83586) | about a year and a half ago | (#43019089)

They told me if I voted for Romney we'd see an administration, more beholden than the last to the interests of the RIAA & MPAA... and they were right.

Re:They told me (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about a year and a half ago | (#43019235)

They told me if I voted for Romney we'd see an administration, more beholden than the last to the interests of the RIAA & MPAA... and they were right.

Though I fully understand that the situation would likely be much the same, if not worse, under Romney, I still get a kick out of these.

At least Mitt, being a Republican, comes right out and let's you know you're gonna get corn-holed, instead of the Democrats who pretend to be your friends as they force you over the barrel.

Re:They told me (1)

RoknrolZombie (2504888) | about a year and a half ago | (#43019517)

At least Mitt, being a Republican, comes right out and let's you know you're gonna get corn-holed, instead of the Democrats who pretend to be your friends as they force you over the barrel.

Minor quibble: Mitt doesn't "come right out" and say a damned thing unless it's what he thinks you want to hear. Just because you already know he's a douchbag doesn't make him more honest...just worse at being deceptive.

No real consequences imposed by the ISP (0)

Mr. Sketch (111112) | about a year and a half ago | (#43019121)

After five or six "strikes," however, the person won't face any repercussions under the program and is likely to be ignored. It's unclear whether such repeat offenders would be more likely at that point to face an expensive lawsuit.

So, no termination of your account, or automatic penalties from your provider except maybe some bandwidth throttling. Seems like it's just an alert system for the RIAA/MPAA.

It's cyber intimidation (1)

elucido (870205) | about a year and a half ago | (#43019193)

And it's up to the ISP to decide who to intimidate. There will be millions upon millions of people who break the 6 strikes rule. There will be certain people singled out and targeted.

If you support Wikileaks watch out,ISP is watching (2)

elucido (870205) | about a year and a half ago | (#43019133)

And they know who has been naughty and nice. You get six strikes. Six chances. Deep packet inspection, and they know what sites you like to visit and probably what you say too.

Re:If you support Wikileaks watch out,ISP is watch (1)

Fallingcow (213461) | about a year and a half ago | (#43019191)

Deep packet inspection versus SSL, who wins?

Seems more likely they'll have machines sitting around on popular trackers grepping for IP addresses from blocks they own. At least if they want it to be even sort-of effective.

Re:If you support Wikileaks watch out,ISP is watch (1)

elucido (870205) | about a year and a half ago | (#43019221)

Deep packet inspection versus SSL, who wins?

Seems more likely they'll have machines sitting around on popular trackers grepping for IP addresses from blocks they own. At least if they want it to be even sort-of effective.

That depends on the quality of the certificate authority and the implementation of SSL. It also depends on what the ISP does. SSL doesn't protect anything port 443. What good is that going to be for other ports? The only way users can protect themselves is by using a VPN.

Re:If you support Wikileaks watch out,ISP is watch (1)

Fallingcow (213461) | about a year and a half ago | (#43019331)

SSL is used on non-443 ports all the time. It's not just for HTTPS.

I'd assumed that's what encrypted Bittorrent traffic uses, though looking in to it farther it appears they use something else. It is used for encrypted peer-to-tracker communication, though. Either way, telling what a user's downloading over encrypted BitTorrent protocol is non-trivial without a peer connected to the same tracker.

Re:If you support Wikileaks watch out,ISP is watch (1)

AK Marc (707885) | about a year and a half ago | (#43019421)

SSL doesn't hide the endpoint of a two-point conversation. So they'll know you went to Pirate Bay or whatever. And they are going after Peer-to-Peer, and I haven't seen a P2P application that uses SSL between peers, and even if it did, that might stop snooping, but wouldn't stop peering. How do you stop the ones that join the swarm, offer up pieces of the movie and download in return, then record anyone who offers them any of the movie?

Profit (4, Interesting)

Dan East (318230) | about a year and a half ago | (#43019153)

Just remember, the music industry saw growth and "profit" in 2012, the first time since 1999, before this copyright protection went in place.

http://www.theverge.com/2013/2/26/4031912/music-industry-grew-revenue-for-first-time-since-1999 [theverge.com]
http://247wallst.com/2013/02/26/music-industry-posts-first-profit-since-1999/ [247wallst.com]

Re:Profit (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43019343)

Yeah, but look at the different media types available. and the choices we have. We no longer have to buy the full crappy album for those two songs we love. That in and of itself caused a huge increase. That and the price per song went down which increased the consumer buying power. The down side though is those 2 songs usually cost 3/4 the price of the album. But the RIAA and any regulation which focuses on incriminating children is wrong.

Re:Profit (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43019367)

Great. Since you made money last year, it's cool if I sleep on your lawn, right?

Judge, Jury, and Executioner (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43019177)

Sweet! Extrajudicial punishments! And I thought China was awesome!

Change internet providers every year (3, Interesting)

tekrat (242117) | about a year and a half ago | (#43019209)

Verizon offers a sweet deal for FIOS if you're a new customer, so you sign up for the Triple Play, pay $80 per month, and then cancel, because you've used up your six strikes...

Then sign up for Comcast, get a sweet deal because you're a new customer, pay $50 per month, and then cancel because you've used up your six strikes...

Wash rinse repeat....

Re:Change internet providers every year (2)

Mr. Sketch (111112) | about a year and a half ago | (#43019381)

As long as you have two internet providers to choose from. Rural areas still only have one choice, if any.

Re:Change internet providers every year (1)

DragonDru (984185) | about a year and a half ago | (#43019515)

The lack of options is frustrating, particularly when these issues come up.

Re:Change internet providers every year (2)

loshwomp (468955) | about a year and a half ago | (#43019415)

Then sign up for Comcast, get a sweet deal because you're a new customer, pay $50 per month, and then cancel because you've used up your six strikes...

How about not giving money to ISPs like that in the first place? Out here we have sonic.net, one of the last remaining great independent ISPs (especially since Speakeasy sold out). They treat their customers like adults, and on the rare occasion that I've needed technical support, a knowledgable real person answers the phone on the first ring.

(Disclaimer--no affiliation other than as satisfied customer, blah blah blah.)

$35? (1)

Revek (133289) | about a year and a half ago | (#43019219)

As long as they understand I'm gonna charge them $75 for my trouble.

If I'm paying extra for a higher speed... (5, Insightful)

xanadu113 (657977) | about a year and a half ago | (#43019223)

If I'm paying extra for a higher speed, how can they throttle my connection, based on an ALLEGED infringement..??

Power to the RIAA/MPAA. (2)

elucido (870205) | about a year and a half ago | (#43019287)

It's as simple as that. CORP POWER.

Re:If I'm paying extra for a higher speed... (4, Insightful)

Bob9113 (14996) | about a year and a half ago | (#43019597)

If I'm paying extra for a higher speed, how can they throttle my connection, based on an ALLEGED infringement..??

Sit down, shut up, and be thankful They are giving you anything, consumer.

Metrics should be easy to track (3, Interesting)

bhlowe (1803290) | about a year and a half ago | (#43019247)

Whether this is "good" or "evil", it will be interesting to see how the metrics of illegal file sharing change.
How many thousands of BT users decided not to launch their torrent client today?
What will US traffic in bittorrent do over the coming weeks and months?
Will NetFlix see an influx in business?
Will the number of leaches and seeders of pirated content decrease?
Take-away lesson? Buy NFLX and CMCSK...

The big ISPs are all content distributors (2)

jonwil (467024) | about a year and a half ago | (#43019261)

All of the cable companies obviously rely heavily on the media companies for their content on the cable channels but so to do Verizon (with FiOS TV) and AT&T (with u-verse TV).

The ISPs need to do this to keep their friends in the content industry happy and providing them with the content they need for their TV setups.

just file a allegation ageist all IP's (2)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about a year and a half ago | (#43019267)

just file a allegation ageist all IP's and do it say 10 times and this will die.

How do ISPs know what is legit or not? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43019283)

vodo.net legal torrents - do they get a pass or will they be counted within the six tries?

Sweet! (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43019303)

This is awesome! Up until now I've been paranoid about getting sued by the MPAA every time I torrent something. Now I'll get 5 warnings first? That's great!

Well ... (1)

DakotaSmith (937647) | about a year and a half ago | (#43019315)

Guess I'll be looking for a VPN provider overseas.

Re:Well ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43019625)

Wait, are you implying that you are planning on downloading copyrighted content over a P2P connection?

Land of the Free eh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43019317)

Doesn't sound like it.

ISPs not monitoring traffic (4, Informative)

NoKaOi (1415755) | about a year and a half ago | (#43019373)

Major internet service providers today will start monitoring the internet traffic to their customers' computers

False. The ISPs will not be monitoring traffic. The *IAA will monitor bittorrent and report IPs to the ISPs. Not that this isn't still bad, but at least get your facts straight in the first sentence of the summary. Even TFA got it more or less right:

Under the new program, the industry will monitor "peer-to-peer" software services for evidence of copyrighted files being shared.

Industry, as in the *IAA, not the ISP.

legit mp3s? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43019377)

How are they determining if music is legal or not? I get alot from bt.etree.org which is totally legit live music.

DMCA Safe-Harbor (1)

steamraven (2428480) | about a year and a half ago | (#43019419)

Does this exclude ISP's from DMCA Safe-Harbor?

17 USC 512
(a) Transitory Digital Network Communications.
(2) the transmission, routing, provision of connections, or storage is carried out through an automatic technical process without selection of the material by the service provider

What. A. Load. Of. Shit. (5, Informative)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about a year and a half ago | (#43019429)

Shay-zus, there's no level so low these fucks won't stoop to it, is there?

Check this gem out, from the "How Do Content Owners Know About My Activity?" section:

CCI’s content partners – companies that own and develop music, movies and TV shows – join peer-to-peer networks and locate the music, movies or TV shows they have created and own. Once they see a title being made available on the peer-to-peer network, they confirm that it is, in fact, copyrighted content.

After confirming that a file appears to have been shared illegally, content owners identify the Internet Protocol (IP) address used by the computer making the file available. Each IP address belongs to an Internet Service Provider (ISP), so content owners notify the ISP to which the address is assigned and the ISP then passes a Copyright Alert on to its customer.

No personal information about consumers is shared between the content owners and ISPs, and ISPs are not involved in the process of identifying copyrighted content.

Riiiight... 'cuz, we all know, ISPs and the MAFIAA are certainly trustworthy entities, who would never misuse people's personal information, or god forbid, lie to support their goals.

Best part: When you mouse-over the phrase "Internet Protocol (IP) address" in the second paragraph, this is what pops up:

A unique set of numbers associated with individual computers connected to the internet

Do they not realize that's a blatant lie? Or do they expect us to not realize it?

My favorite, however, was the "How do I find Movies and Music Legally" link - it takes you to a page with links to...

Wait for it...

RIAA, MPAA, and ISP websites!

Shazam!

Is anyone really (1)

s0nicfreak (615390) | about a year and a half ago | (#43019433)

bothering to pirate stuff from the RIAA anymore? I mean, anyone actually old enough to have a job (and therefore, money)? I don't know anyone that does; the stuff the RIAA poops out is crap, and there's other legal sources for better music now...

Just MPAA/RIAA? (4, Interesting)

PhxBlue (562201) | about a year and a half ago | (#43019451)

So no one's bothering to monitor pirated software, right? Asking for a friend.

zz (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43019475)

So, if I download a bunch of stuff illegally, I'll only have my internet throttled for 3 days? Time to schedule all of my downloading right before I leave on 3+ day vacations!

I think people are failing to understand.... (1)

mark-t (151149) | about a year and a half ago | (#43019477)

.... that the $35 fee is refunded to consumers who pay it, and are not found to have actually committed any copyright infringement.

Did Someone Just Install a Cam in my House? (1)

Press2ToContinue (2424598) | about a year and a half ago | (#43019479)

Isn't this like saying it's ok to put a webcam in my house in case I do something wrong?

Just wondering where this slippery-slope leads... (shrug)

ISP's = Cable companies = Content providers (2)

sdo1 (213835) | about a year and a half ago | (#43019527)

They're either the same companies (Time-Warner cable), or they're in cahoots (Verizon with their NFL deals, Comcast with their sports networks).

At a minimum, they ask you to pay for things (HBO comes to mind) that you could, admittedly illegally, torrent. They make more off of your cable subscription than they would for just the raw bits for you to take what you want.

So it should come as no surprise that they're willing to sign up for this.

-S

The day I have to pay (1)

Jafafa Hots (580169) | about a year and a half ago | (#43019555)

money to a corporation to defend myself against allegations they make against me is the day I have the service removed, report my credit card lost, and tear up the last month's bill.

Kindly (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43019559)

Fuck Off

Please STOP with the "strikes"! (1)

Dahamma (304068) | about a year and a half ago | (#43019591)

The "three strikes" baseball analogy was supposed to make it EASIER to understand. "Five or six strikes" has passed up strained and become just plain stupid.

I'll be going back to IRC and FTP's instead. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43019627)

I'll be going back to IRC and FTP's instead. Also I bet the most pounced upon media will be popular modern crap. The new Beiber song, some stupid comedy. I do not see this affecting more cult classic/ avant garde stuff, which is needed to be downloaded as it is harder to find.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?