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!

Criticism Of Copyright Alert System Mounts

timothy posted about a year and a half ago | from the prior-permission-and-assumed-wrongdoing dept.

United States 172

Dangerous_Minds writes "This last week, the Copyright Alert System was rolled out. Now that everyone is getting a better idea of what the alert system looks like, criticisms are building against the system. Freezenet says that the mere fact that ISPs are using a browser pop-up window opens the floodgates for fraudsters to hijack the system and scam users out of money. The EFF criticized the system because the educational material contains numerous flaws. Meanwhile, Web Pro News said that this system will also hurt small business and consumers."

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

Not about Internet Rights anymore (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43053387)

The EFF has gradually changed from protecting important rights such as the right to free speech and the right to privacy to being an advocate for wide scale copyright infringement. It's interesting that their agenda seems to dovetail mostly with that of Google - and that they've become about as independent of Google as the NRA is of the Republicans. We need an internet rights association that actually cares about defending rights beyond the right to bittorrent Hollywood crap.

Re:Not about Internet Rights anymore (4, Insightful)

Beavertank (1178717) | about a year and a half ago | (#43053741)

Would you also say that the ACLU doesn't back important rights because it advocates for the speech rights of groups you disagree with? Privacy doesn't mean being left alone to do just what _you_ think everyone else should.

The EFF is still fighting for internet privacy. That some people their privacy so they may violate IP laws is immaterial.

A video explaining the topic (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43053405)

Here is the link : Copyright Alert [youtube.com]

What "education" (4, Insightful)

johanw (1001493) | about a year and a half ago | (#43053411)

This is exactly the same as other totalitarian regimes did and do to re-"educate" (or to say it plainly, indoctrinate) their citizens with ideological propaganda to support the system. The USSR did it before the wall fell in 1989, and now the megacorps are doing it in the USA. Most Russians were clever enough to see through such propaganda, I'm curious to see if Americans are just as smart.

Re:What "education" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43053513)

The nazis did it before them, the Brits did it before them, Napoleon did it before them, but it's not really indoctrination, because a lot of those ideas already exist. The system to enforce them already exists and does so to some degree.

The problem, if you could call it that, is social. In the USA, IP, copyright etc, are very important things, and on a basic level, most people living there, consider infringing those as illegal. In Europe, where socialsm had a chance to develop the benefits, without so many of the downsides, the thinking is different.

Personally, I wouldn't worry much. Because right now, USA is the biggest economy in the world, but when it gets replaced by China in 4-5 years, they'll lose that negotiating power, and things will change drastically.

Re:What "education" (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43053531)

Because right now, USA is the biggest economy in the world, but when it gets replaced by China in 4-5 years, they'll lose that negotiating power, and things will change drastically.

This has happened already to some extent.

The only export the USA has right now is its entertainment, not much else outside of that at this stage.

Everything else is already made in China.

Re:What "education" (4, Informative)

SteveFoerster (136027) | about a year and a half ago | (#43053639)

What a obviously stupid thing to say. The U.S. exported over $2 trillion worth of goods and services last year [npr.org] .

Re:What "education" (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43053701)

And how much did it import?

Re:What "education" (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43055193)

Their greatest export is dumb americans, usually either in XXXL shorts and t-shirts with cameras or camo's and guns.

Their greatest import is smarter immigrants that replace the exports.

Re:What "education" (5, Insightful)

flayzernax (1060680) | about a year and a half ago | (#43053771)

If you take the time to read over that you will see some interesting facts.

1. They consider consumer goods bought in the country by traveling foreigners exports (t-shirts, cake, cell phones, etc) I don't think that should count its cheating since those goods were not manufactured here and we are just middle men. Walmart is not an exporter of TV's, they are a retailer.

2. The other factor they add in which accounts for 500 billion of that is software, movie, and TV royalties. These are not physically manufactured goods or property as much as your civil ideology likes to believe they will never be property. The wealth from this industry is even worse distributed then the wealth from the auto and oil industries. It only accounts for probably the top 1000 wealthiest families and is probably immediately exported to tax havens.

So I am going to call $2 trillion exports bullshit, its great that we can use Hollywood accounting there also.

I would like to see numbers that show real exports of physical goods, that are useful in a real sense, like water, steel, oil, natural gas, salt, food, cars, etc...

Re:What "education" (2)

SteveFoerster (136027) | about a year and a half ago | (#43053831)

You may not like that they count stuff that tourists buy, but I think the article's use of "export" is pretty standard. Besides, such goods have to count as exports since they also count as imports when those retailers bring them in.

When you say "your", I don't know whose civil ideology you're talking about, but I don't accept the legitimacy of the multiple different information monopolies that get lumped together as "intellectual propery", so it's clearly not me. But we're not talking should and shouldn't, we're talking is and isn't, and besides, if you take a closer look at the charts in that article you'll see that the sum of royalties from such things wasn't the majority of the value of the services category anyway.

Re:What "education" (1)

flayzernax (1060680) | about a year and a half ago | (#43054213)

500$ billion is not a majority of 2 trillion. But its a pretty big chunk.

I apologize for the "your ideology" statement. And yes my grammar is terrible today.

I think the linked website disregards that most of our economy is service based and tries as it might like me by using laymans logic to make it look like the service industry is an export industry. That is what I am trying to illustrate. But as you point out it may be the prevailing standard by which exports are measured. In which case I only have a difference of opinion and no authority on the matter.

Someone else linked the CIA world factbook which ironically I think is more accurate probably for a breakdown of exports.

Re:What "education" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43054131)

I'm going to go ahead and ignore what you wrote and just say it was complete bullshit. See, I'm using the flayzernax system of thinking whereby I do not need to use typical thought processes to make a decision. Under this system I am free to make arbitrary rules to make my point. If data makes it harder to defend my position, I simply ignore it or even worse, make up a new arbitrary and irrelevant reason why it should be discounted.

Re:What "education" (1)

flayzernax (1060680) | about a year and a half ago | (#43054179)

Well, isn't it great that we are all entitled to our opionions and point of view still?

I would say the vast majority of our economy comes from the service industry. People selling things to each other. Walmart employee's, and the protection racket of police and military.

Nurses, doctors, lawyers all fall under service to. As well as Insurance, and ISPs.

That our economy is service based is nothing new since Sim City 2000 were I learned my macro and micro economics.

Re:What "education" (1)

sjames (1099) | about a year and a half ago | (#43055251)

When the tourists go back home, where do the goods end up? That's right, in a foreign country. Why should the shipping method matter?

Re:What "education" (3, Interesting)

Solandri (704621) | about a year and a half ago | (#43055529)

1. They consider consumer goods bought in the country by traveling foreigners exports (t-shirts, cake, cell phones, etc) I don't think that should count its cheating since those goods were not manufactured here and we are just middle men. Walmart is not an exporter of TV's, they are a retailer.

2. The other factor they add in which accounts for 500 billion of that is software, movie, and TV royalties. These are not physically manufactured goods or property as much as your civil ideology likes to believe they will never be property. The wealth from this industry is even worse distributed then the wealth from the auto and oil industries. It only accounts for probably the top 1000 wealthiest families and is probably immediately exported to tax havens.

So I am going to call $2 trillion exports bullshit, its great that we can use Hollywood accounting there also.

These are the correct accounting definitions of exports - the money used to pay for these items came from outside the country. Semantic arguments like you are making matter little to the accountants. What matters is that the money on both sides of the transaction balance out. And in both these cases, the money used to pay for these goods is deducted from the "other country" column and is added to the "U.S." column. So they are exports.

If you try to classify them as domestic purchases as you are suggesting, the amount of money earned by workers domestically ends up not equaling the amount of money spent domestically (after factoring in money put into/taken out of savings accounts and the like). And the accountants throw a hissy fit.

It only accounts for probably the top 1000 wealthiest families and is probably immediately exported to tax havens.

This is an interesting one. I'll have to ask my account friend about it. But I suspect until that money is used to buy something (whether in the U.S. or abroad), it's still considered U.S. money. Just because they put it into an offshore account doesn't mean they won't eventually use it to buy something domestically.

Re:What "education" (3, Interesting)

Nidi62 (1525137) | about a year and a half ago | (#43053755)

You'd be right, except you're very wrong. Per CIA World Factbook:

Exports:$1.612 trillion (2012 est.) country comparison to the world: 3 $1.497 trillion (2011 est.) Exports - commodities: agricultural products (soybeans, fruit, corn) 9.2%, industrial supplies (organic chemicals) 26.8%, capital goods (transistors, aircraft, motor vehicle parts, computers, telecommunications equipment) 49.0%, consumer goods (automobiles, medicines) 15.0%

Re:What "education" (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43054245)

For one the EFF should demand to also be linked in these e-mails and pop-ups, for instance with the clause:

"If you object to being monitored, object to current copyright law, you can get more information from for instance the Electronic Frontier Foundation (link)."

The EFF should on its part have a specific"Six Strikes" information website (and make sure it's ranked #1 on Google) where among other things is explained HOW it works, and among other things, how to select, subscribe to a VPN service to avoid being monitored. Rationale is that Strike-avoidance en masse will make the system obsolete.

VPN Services should offer special discounts with promocodes like "SixStrikesSucks","KimJongDodd", etc. Be creative!

Why the hell are the pure ISps doing this? (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43053415)

Aren't they protected from liability as long as they act as "dumb pipes"? Doesn't his mean they are opening themselves up for liability? Yeah, I understand the ones that own media companies but what about the rest? Seems like a way to lose customers is all.

Everyone should draw a crappy picture in paint, host it on something free like google sites, and spread links that bring people to a second page that says "You don't have permission to click this link" with a link to the picture itself. Then bring copyright complaints to all the ISPs of all the people who inevitably click that and hence download your copyrighted crap without permission. Flood the fuckers.

Re:Why the hell are the pure ISps doing this? (1)

Ice Station Zebra (18124) | about a year and a half ago | (#43053449)

Mode this one up. AC is right on what needs to happen.

Re:Why the hell are the pure ISps doing this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43054349)

Moding up now

Re:Why the hell are the pure ISps doing this? (4, Informative)

kelemvor4 (1980226) | about a year and a half ago | (#43053547)

Aren't they protected from liability as long as they act as "dumb pipes"? Doesn't his mean they are opening themselves up for liability? Yeah, I understand the ones that own media companies but what about the rest? Seems like a way to lose customers is all.

Everyone should draw a crappy picture in paint, host it on something free like google sites, and spread links that bring people to a second page that says "You don't have permission to click this link" with a link to the picture itself. Then bring copyright complaints to all the ISPs of all the people who inevitably click that and hence download your copyrighted crap without permission. Flood the fuckers.

They aren't going to be losing customers because in MOST markets there is no competition for a customer to choose. With very little risk to their market share they don't have a lot to lose.

Re:Why the hell are the pure ISps doing this? (1)

flayzernax (1060680) | about a year and a half ago | (#43053739)

They are also government protected monopolies. People like to think our ISPs run on a free market system but its no better then a country like Brazil. In order to be permitted to sell internet other then dial up the palm greasing you need to do is probably in the order of billions or trillions now.

Re:Why the hell are the pure ISps doing this? (5, Interesting)

hairyfeet (841228) | about a year and a half ago | (#43054355)

Not to mention everyone here seems to be missing the point of WHY they were so quick to jump on the bandwagon...does anybody here think these megacorp ISPs give a rat's ass about any copyrights they don't profit from? Fuck no but what they DO care about is customers actually getting what they paid for!

You see folks for years the ISP have oversold the HELL out of their lines, in some cases claiming a good 5 times what they could actually deliver because they counted on so few people actually using what they paid for they could get away with it. Then a funny thing happened....people actually started using their connections. oh they'll SAY its because of piracy, but that is bullshit as I've known plenty of pirates and most are still downloading DVDrips that suck a hell of a lot less bandwidth than somebody like me who doesn't pirate uses. Where is my bandwidth going? Steam, Hulu, YouTube and for awhile Netflix.

See the ISPs don't like this for a couple of reasons. One since they are all now in the content business, an obvious conflict of interest BTW, well they sure as fuck ain't gonna be happy if you are watching Hulu instead of paying them for their overpriced channel packages are they? Not gonna be watching their PPV if you already have netflix, and if you are using Steam or OnLive that is hours you COULD have been giving them money for content that went to gaming companies instead, can't have that. The second reason hurts their bottom line even worse, for years they haven't added shit as far as new lines and capacity and now that even grandma is using YouTube and Hulu that means if they don't find a way to "thin the herd" of those that actually use what they paid for? Good God man, they may actually have to...gasp!....stop handing all the money out as bonuses to the execs! The horror!

So I have NO doubt that the first ones to see six strikes? Will NOT be pirates, it'll be the ones actually using close to the full amount they paid for. The Steam users, netflix and Hulu users, all those that get close to their cap every single month will get a "uh oh, you used what you paid for, you dirty filthy pirate you" and run out on a rail. that way they can keep falsely advertising their have more capacity than they have, keep giving the profits as bonuses, and keep their content making crazy money because that doesn't go against your cap don't ya know.

Re:Why the hell are the pure ISps doing this? (1)

nabsltd (1313397) | about a year and a half ago | (#43055597)

You see folks for years the ISP have oversold the HELL out of their lines, in some cases claiming a good 5 times what they could actually deliver because they counted on so few people actually using what they paid for they could get away with it.

If your theory was correct, then Verizon shouldn't be part of this, as they don't oversell their wired connections. They really do have full bandwidth available to every user. There are times where DSL doesn't get full speed, but that is because of the distance from the CO, not the lack of network bandwidth.

Re:Why the hell are the pure ISps doing this? (3, Insightful)

stephanruby (542433) | about a year and a half ago | (#43053787)

Yeah, I understand the ones that own media companies but what about the rest? Seems like a way to lose customers is all.

You're not just the customer, you're the product (some of you already locked-in by contracts). For those ISPs that are not owned by big media conglomerates, they'll just get money for the ad-impressions that are generated by this surveillance system.

Re:Why the hell are the pure ISps doing this? (1)

Beavertank (1178717) | about a year and a half ago | (#43053817)

IANAL, but, the issue doesn't seem to be quite that simple. ISPs argue strenuously that they're not actually common carriers (the legal term of art for basically being "dumb pipes") because there is a feeling that it would bring them under FCC Title 2 regulation instead of Title 1 regulation. Whether or not that's correct is still an open question.

But the other way that being a "dumb pipe" comes into play is with the DMCA safe harbor exception (which is 17 U.S.C. Section 512). There, an ISP isn't liable for infringing material passed through its network if (among other things) "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".

So the bit-torrent throttling Comcast was trying a couple years ago might have put it outside of the DMCA safe harbor, but simple monitoring like this probably wouldn't.

The only part of the safe harbor where knowledge comes into play is when an ISP stores files on its servers at the request of users (so, a webhost, or dropbox). In that case the ISP is only protected from liability if they have no actual knowledge of the presence of infringing material.

Re:Why the hell are the pure ISps doing this? (2)

Tom (822) | about a year and a half ago | (#43053819)

Everyone should draw a crappy picture in paint, host it on something free like google sites, and spread links that bring people to a second page that says "You don't have permission to click this link" with a link to the picture itself. Then bring copyright complaints to all the ISPs of all the people who inevitably click that and hence download your copyrighted crap without permission. Flood the fuckers.

That's not a stupid idea.

What is the procedure for filing a complaint under this system? I'd really love to write a script and post it in github for everyone to copy.

Re:Why the hell are the pure ISps doing this? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43054577)

What is the procedure for filing a complaint under this system?

Nobody actually knows. It is something on the close order of:
Be a large "media company" and submit some samples to some automated system so that some other automated system can do some pattern recognition on it and deem other content as infringing on your copyright." (Similar to how TWiT gets take-downs from YouTube when they simply cover some other report.) If you mean, "how can I, as a little guy, add my legitimate content to this system?", then the answer is, "the system isn't made to help you."

Re:Why the hell are the pure ISps doing this? (2)

dissy (172727) | about a year and a half ago | (#43054605)

What is the procedure for filing a complaint under this system? I'd really love to write a script and post it in github for everyone to copy.

They only accept complaints through the RIAA and MPAA.

The procedure would be to become a MPAA member and request they make a complaint in your name.

You didn't think this system was for the copyright holders did you?

Re:Why the hell are the pure ISps doing this? (2)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about a year and a half ago | (#43054749)

The procedure is you have to hire an expensive legal firm to submit requests to the ISP. They carefully priced it is that it isn't worth while for individuals and small companies, only large ones that can do tends of thousands of requests at a time.

Re:Why the hell are the pure ISps doing this? (1)

nabsltd (1313397) | about a year and a half ago | (#43055571)

Aren't they protected from liability as long as they act as "dumb pipes"? Doesn't his mean they are opening themselves up for liability? Yeah, I understand the ones that own media companies but what about the rest?

The ones that own media companies could be in even more trouble, if another media company decides to break ranks (which happens all the time in disputes over carry fees).

Suppose that Disney claimed that Comcast wasn't passing on as many infringement notices for Disney material as they should, but were passing on everything for NBC/Universal?

break up this monopoly (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43053457)

"residential Internet accounts are the focus of our program. The vast majority of businesses, including those like Starbucks that provide legitimate open Wi-Fi connections, will have an Internet connection that is tailored to a business operation and these business networks are not part of the CAS and will never be sent a Copyright Alert."
  the rest of the site looks like an advertisement for the major media companies, directing you to "their" content as if it is the only game in town, while appearing to mom and dad as an official legal page

Re:break up this monopoly (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43053529)

Hang on- does that mean if I have Comcast Business class, I won't be subject to CAS monitoring?

I've got true unlimited bandwidth, symmetric 30gb connection, plus no CAS- and all I had to do was pay them a little more?

Ugh (5, Interesting)

JWW (79176) | about a year and a half ago | (#43053499)

The fact that the content industry has no problems with having the ISP industry monitoring their CUSTOMERS use of the Internet makes me sick.

Some rights are more important than others. My right to not be spied on by a company I (not the content industry) am doing business with is much more important than the content industries desire to make sure they're paid every dime they think they deserve.

The ISPs should have fought like hell to achieve a common carrier status which would have allowed them to tell big content to pound sand. Oh and as for the content industry owning many ISPs our government should have never allowed that.

I'll say it again. If your business model requires a police state to be viable, you need to fucking go out of business.

Re:Ugh (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43053577)

Technically, your ISP isn't spying on you. They will only send you a notice if they are alerted by a content provider.

Re:Ugh (3, Interesting)

Skapare (16644) | about a year and a half ago | (#43054053)

If they can insert content into your data stream in the place that makes it pop up, then they have to be able to look at that stream. Spying!

Re:Ugh (2)

stephanruby (542433) | about a year and a half ago | (#43053891)

The fact that the content industry has no problems with having the ISP industry monitoring their CUSTOMERS use of the Internet makes me sick.

It may make you sick, but it's nothing new.

The ISP industry has always tried various ways of getting into the double-dipping business.

Hell!! Even my freaking TiVo started inserting interactive ads every time I touch its menu. For some executives, it really doesn't matter if they're killing off their company in the long term, if it means that they can increase their revenue in the short term.

Re:Ugh (1)

spire3661 (1038968) | about a year and a half ago | (#43054867)

That Tivo thing pissed me off. Not only do i consider Tivo service outrageously overpriced, they had the gall to insert ads too.

Spying? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43054375)

Is it really spying when you agreed to them doing it? To me its called management of resources. And don't toss 'violation of rights' around, for the same reason. Its their network, not ours, and we agree via contract. If we don't like the terms, we don't have to enter into the contract.

Now, if they did it without us knowing, or it was the government, sure there is a problem.

Re:Spying? (3, Insightful)

spire3661 (1038968) | about a year and a half ago | (#43054885)

That network that isnt 'ours' crosses a billon public right-of-ways. They may own the wire, but we own the land it runs through, its not as simple as you make it to be. The public has a vested interest in regulating ISPs and we should be doing more to leash them.

Re:Ugh (3, Informative)

jd2112 (1535857) | about a year and a half ago | (#43054531)

The fact that the content industry has no problems with having the ISP industry monitoring their CUSTOMERS use of the Internet makes me sick.

Some rights are more important than others. My right to not be spied on by a company I (not the content industry) am doing business with is much more important than the content industries desire to make sure they're paid every dime they think they deserve.

The ISPs should have fought like hell to achieve a common carrier status which would have allowed them to tell big content to pound sand. Oh and as for the content industry owning many ISPs our government should have never allowed that.

I'll say it again. If your business model requires a police state to be viable, you need to fucking go out of business.

Most of the largest ISPs are owned by content providers (Time-Warner) or own content providers (Comcast) or have business interests working with content providers (all cable internet providers)

Re:Ugh (2)

Nyder (754090) | about a year and a half ago | (#43054641)

The fact that the content industry has no problems with having the ISP industry monitoring their CUSTOMERS use of the Internet makes me sick.

...

The Content owners own the big ISP's.

Re:Ugh (1)

couchslug (175151) | about a year and a half ago | (#43054853)

Google should start "divide and conquer" by buying large chunks of the content industry and giving them marching orders to cease that shit.

This is about money, not principle. We I rich enough I'd gladly buy firms whose politics I disagreed with and reform them or Bain them to profitable destruction.

Popup? (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43053511)

Browser hijacking popup?

Noscript says "wat?"

Re:Popup? (2)

QuantumRiff (120817) | about a year and a half ago | (#43053673)

They probably hijack your DNS, or do deep packet inspection, and return their page as the answer. Not sure if NoScript will help you with that.

Re:Popup? (1)

BrokenHalo (565198) | about a year and a half ago | (#43053773)

It probably won't, but there's nothing to say you have to use your ISP's DNS. You could even run your own if you felt like it. And if you routed your traffic through a VPN, packet inspection will probably just be a waste of resources.

Re:Popup? (2)

Rob the Bold (788862) | about a year and a half ago | (#43053779)

They probably hijack your DNS, or do deep packet inspection, and return their page as the answer. Not sure if NoScript will help you with that.

Time Warner had already been screwing around with DNS results for me, and I had to switch to Google's DNS. I wasn't even attempting anything naughty, as far as I knew.

Re:Popup? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43055533)

I wonder if Tor would circumvent it...

Is this not a form of wire tapping? (5, Insightful)

smartin (942) | about a year and a half ago | (#43053519)

It seems to me that the content of an IP packet should be protected under wiretapping laws. What gives the ISPs the right to monitor my traffic. If they do have this right, do they also have the right to break or somehow spoof encrypted traffic as well?

Re:Is this not a form of wire tapping? (3, Informative)

poofmeisterp (650750) | about a year and a half ago | (#43053541)

It seems to me that the content of an IP packet should be protected under wiretapping laws. What gives the ISPs the right to monitor my traffic. If they do have this right, do they also have the right to break or somehow spoof encrypted traffic as well?

The ISP has the right to monitor your traffic because you signed an agreement that says they are allowed to, and are allowed to take action.

They aren't breaking encrypted traffic; the endpoints are the endpoints whether the traffic is encrypted or not. If one of those endpoints is a "MarkMonitor" entity, they are perfectly within their right to receive any information they do.

Now, if only a totally encrypted environment existed with no palatable way to identify users..... Oh, wait, Freenet does exist. It's just so damned slow that using it is, well.. feasible, but not something fast-paced people (read: most) are going to accept. However, it is an option.

You can't sign away the constitution? (1)

dutchwhizzman (817898) | about a year and a half ago | (#43054027)

Just because you signed something, the constitution and the law still applies, right? Or is the USA constitution and law so silly that people can sign away their legal rights? If so, the USA needs to changes their laws, fast. In most civilized countries, signing something that would give one or more parties in the contract rights that violate the law, that clause is invalid.

Re:You can't sign away the constitution? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43054907)

The US constitution is a document that spells out what the US Government can and can't do. It has no bearing between private entities. There is nothing to prevent you from signing away rights such as freedom of speech to another entity in return for something of value.

Lawsuits end that way all the time. Settlements generally contain non-disclosure provisions preventing either side from discussing them.

In this case the ISPs are private businesses that happen to have gotten in bed with another private business: the Entertainment industry. I as a subscriber to an ISP sign agreements allowing the ISP to do business as they see fit. Unfortunately, my only recourse is to take my business elsewhere if I don't like the way my ISP does business.

Re:Is this not a form of wire tapping? (2)

Tom (822) | about a year and a half ago | (#43054113)

The ISP has the right to monitor your traffic because you signed an agreement that says they are allowed to, and are allowed to take action.

There are limits to what you can legally sign away.

For example, in my country you can not legally sign a contract that allows someone else to kill and eat you. It's still murder. Yes, there was an actual court case to try this.

Likewise, if wiretapping laws make it illegal to monitor traffic, then they need to allow for such an exception or it's still wiretapping.

Now I'm fairly confident the lawmakers aren't so stupid that they didn't think of including that exception into the law, but still, in general, just because you sign something doesn't mean it's legal. There's a lot of rights you can not sign away and a lot of contracts that are invalid.

Re:Is this not a form of wire tapping? (1)

poofmeisterp (650750) | about a year and a half ago | (#43054293)

Exactly, that is what the commercial entities having you sign documents hope for. they hope that you have absolutely no clue how the law works, and that you will give into anything that they say, and not question it.

It will be interesting to see what happens with this. I can't wait. :)

Re:Is this not a form of wire tapping? (1)

helobugz (2849599) | about a year and a half ago | (#43053551)

The terms of service they imposed on you before CAS took effect negate this issue. Go ahead and sue them anyway. I dare you!

Re:Is this not a form of wire tapping? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43053655)

The ISP isn't monitoring anything, the reports of Copyright violations are coming from the Content Providers, not the ISPs.

Here's HOW it's done, & why... apk (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43053967)

Want to "control" something? BUY IT (or rather, majority stock share control) - after all folks: It's ALL for sale if it's a publicly held company on the stock market!

DO that? Yes - You'll get EXACTLY WHAT YOU WANT TO HAPPEN & GO THRU!

(Yes folks: It's THAT easy for those with large ca$h to play that particular game, & use those types of mechanics to make stuff happen for them!)

Costs up-front? Yes, it does!

HOWEVER - "the infamous they" (man behind the curtain you're NOT supposed to pay attention to ala the Wizard of Oz), wouldn't buy it to do so, without that 'end-goal' in mind...

Spend some, to make a LOT in other words. Simple trick really - nothing magical about it!

Where's it done? Everywhere pretty much - this is a small example "proof thereof" -> https://pineight.com/mw/?title=MPAA_news [pineight.com]

---

PERTINENT QUOTE/EXCERPT:

"Five out of the six major U.S. motion picture studios in the Motion Picture Association of America control the five major U.S. television news outlets"

---

Since they have the funds necessary to do THAT, then what exactly makes you *think* they're not "buying up" ISP's also, simply to do EXACTLY what I said above??

APK

P.S.=> IF you want to control a nation, industry, & (insert anything to do with "the holy dollar" here really)?

Again: BUY IT UP, end-to-end!

All the way from suppliers of materials (tangible or intangible), to logistics for delivery of RAW materials, to production, to marketing & distribution channels + COMMUNICATIONS CHANNELS (very important for the 'pr' end of it & marketing)! You control costs this way as well...

See - That way?

Yes, you really DO control it, completely (& can pull stuff like this off)...

The only part that "spooks me" is that say, if the 'enemies' the US has have reasoned this out, then what's stopping THEM from doing it? NOTHING... e

Especially say, Arabs with Oil monies!

I mean - think about it: Why bother "fight" us, you won't win (too much "muscle" in US military might)... or do "terrorism" (too much cost in lives etc.) - just BUY US UP, via the public stockmarket, & mismanage the hell out of us... that'd do the job!

Fact is, & I've suspected THAT for decades now? It's being done - I am NOT the "smartest guy" out there, but I do observe what goes on around me, sampling the thoughts & findings of others, & then I make decisions...

ANYHOW/ANYWAYS:

Hence, the huge mess around us financially (since nobody SANE would've allowed things to get so "outta control" as they are now presently in that arena, which affects EVERYTHING else pretty much - yes, I do suspect someone with a LOT of monetary power is steering this & creating it, for the reasons noted above - control, & power)...

... apk

Re:Here's HOW it's done, & why... apk (1)

shawnhcorey (1315781) | about a year and a half ago | (#43054295)

All true but why is everyone so concerned now? They had plenty of time to protest this bill before it became law. Why the heck weren't they protesting back then?

Re:Here's HOW it's done, & why... apk (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43054769)

Was so true it was downmoderated for what it said. Perhaps that answers your question, since as was said that owning distribution and communications channels allows suppressing truths that others couldn't get wind of or think of themselves by doing just what happened to the posters' post you applauded. Stomp out truths via control of the presses when truths that adversely affect those in control so people aren't even aware of real truths, only the manufactured 1/2 truths. Very simple.

Re:Is this not a form of wire tapping? (1)

skine (1524819) | about a year and a half ago | (#43055499)

You say that as if wiretapping laws are used anymore.

Well, except by police officers who don't want to be recorded.

I find myself torn.... (5, Insightful)

mark-t (151149) | about a year and a half ago | (#43053605)

If, as is described on the copyrightinformation.org website, the copyright alert system is implemented such that the IP addresses it gathers genuinely are being used by infringers, I don't have much of a problem with this, since I don't download infringing content, nor do I do anything which might permit or enable other people to use my internet connection who may, and I do not hold much sympathy for those who do.

There are, however, two major flaws that concern me greatly. The first is that if they are falsely alleging that a subscriber infringed on copyright with one of these alerts, the subscriber cannot actually challenge the alert until after about the 3rd or 4th one. The other issue, an even bigger one, is that all of the alerts, even including the ones which permit an alleged perpetrator to appeal, are worded very much like a form letter, and do not contain any particulars about the accusation, like what work was allegedly infringed on, which network the alleged infringement occurred on, when it occurred, etc. It doesn't even identify the *TYPE* of alleged infringing content, which strikes me as incrediby unfair.... and has a very similar feel in my opinion to the notion of, say, being stopped and given a warning by a police officer, but them not telling you what it was that you supposedly even did. If you don't know what they are even talking about, then how are you expected to sensibly respond, beyond calling them liars?

Re:I find myself torn.... (1)

mcgrew (92797) | about a year and a half ago | (#43053783)

I don't have much of a problem with this, since I don't download infringing content, nor do I do anything which might permit or enable other people to use my internet connection who may

First they came for the pot smokers, and I remained silent because I'm not a pot smoker. Then they came for the copyright infringers, and I remained silent because I'm not a copyright infringer...

Re:I find myself torn.... (2)

mark-t (151149) | about a year and a half ago | (#43053895)

The difference between your Martin Niemoller reference and what I am saying is that what they are going after, is that in Niemoller's case, the people "they came for" may have, at worst, been considered the fringes of society, but they weren't necessarily doing anything that was previously against the law. Copyright infringement actually *IS* illegal, and has been for quite a long time. I have absolutely no problem whatsoever if people who infringe on copyright could be reasonably held accountable for their actions. You certainly can't argue that it's even a remotely unusual thing for many people in our society to do today. Heck when the subject comes up, and I tell people that I don't download songs or movies online other than ones that I've paid for or are otherwise authorized to get, a lot of people look at me like I'm somehow abnormal. I would speculate that the ratio of people who download infringing content to people who never do is probably at least 3 to 1 (although many I've met naively believe that there can't be anything wrong with what they are doing on the grounds that so many other people do it all the time).

Re:I find myself torn.... (1)

Belial6 (794905) | about a year and a half ago | (#43054123)

Don't stop at copyright infringement "on a computer". Tell us how you don't commit copyright infringement at all. How you refuse to sing happy birthday in a my public place like restaurants. How you never tell a joke that you heard someone else say... That sort of thing.

Re:I find myself torn.... (1)

mark-t (151149) | about a year and a half ago | (#43054323)

Singing "happy birthday" to somebody you personally know, even in a public place, is a well established case of fair use, and not infringing on copyright, because the song is not being sung for the benefit of the public, but only for people personally known to those who are singing. If it were sung in such a way that it was apparent there was some deliberate intent for other people to hear it (and not merely a side effect of simply being nearby), then a copyright violation could be applicable, but such an intent would have to be pretty obvious... like standing up on a chair to be heard further, or singing/speaking in an unusually loud volume.

Employees of an establishment may be prohibited from singing such a song because since they are being paid, and fair use cannot apply, even if they personally know the people they may be singing to.

For what it's worth though... no, I don't sing happy birthday in public because it's embarrassing.

Jokes contain standard elements that are not, themselves, generally subject to copyright. There is also a significant difficulty that arises with even establishing that you originated a particular joke, since many are delivered verbally, which renders most attempts to claim any sort of copyright on them as moot.

Re:I find myself torn.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43054135)

Smoking pot is legal?

There may be all sorts of moral and ethical reasons a person might be involved in questionable activity by government and corporate standards, however one would expect the same entities actually address similar issues of their own and go about the root causes, not remove entirely "due process" and go heavy-handed on the weakest groups, so people like yourself can feel all smug, entitled and above all the commoners.

Because you'll find, one day they WILL come for you.

Re:I find myself torn.... (1)

mark-t (151149) | about a year and a half ago | (#43054405)

Smoking pot is legal?

Depends on your jurisdiction. Where I live, it's borderline, and probably on the verge of being legalized within the next couple of years.

However, I neither consider myself particularly entitled or above any so-called commoner (I consider myself a commoner). I do, however, hold a lot of respect for the general concept of copyright, even if I do not necessarily respect all of the methods that are employed by organizations which utilize it. Infringing on copyright, however, weakens its practicality for *ALL* copyright holders, and as confidence in copyright to protect a holder's interest wanes, they can and almost certainly will resort to other means to protect their interests which can only result in a vastly reduced practical availability of future works as they resort to self-censorship, artificially limiting distribution, and other tactics.

Re:I find myself torn.... (1)

cpt kangarooski (3773) | about a year and a half ago | (#43055103)

Copyright infringement actually *IS* illegal, and has been for quite a long time. I have absolutely no problem whatsoever if people who infringe on copyright could be reasonably held accountable for their actions. You certainly can't argue that it's even a remotely unusual thing for many people in our society to do today.

And therein lies the problem. If so many people do it (you yourself estimate that 75% of the population does) then why should it be illegal at all?

Most people probably break the speed limit whilst driving, but at least there is a real safety issue involved. And if enforcement became total, I doubt that the penalties would be allowed to remain substantial for violations of 5-10 mph over the limit -- the public outcry would be too much.

And during prohibition, most people who wanted to drink managed to anyway. And the negative effects of enforcement efforts, up to and including the rise of organized crime and widespread violence and corruption, ultimately led to a frickin' constitutional amendment being ratified!

If copyright were really important, like desegregation, then I could see pushing it down the throats of an unwilling and unruly populace. But it's not. Infringement isn't even wrong, copyright being an amoral issue. (Though if morality were a factor, surely it would not favor copyright holders who seek to lock up knowledge out of mere greed)

If everyone is breaking the law, and we intend to live in a place where the legitimacy of the government comes from the consent of the governed, then the correct choice of action is to legalize what those people are doing, absent a really important reason to do otherwise. And the more that enforcement of the current law is stepped up, the more likely it becomes that people will flock to a reform effort that could easily result in the copyright maximalists winding up worse off than if they had just ignored it.

Fuck your copyright bullshit! (4, Insightful)

bornagainpenguin (1209106) | about a year and a half ago | (#43055235)

The difference between your Martin Niemoller reference and what I am saying is that what they are going after, is that in Niemoller's case, the people "they came for" may have, at worst, been considered the fringes of society, but they weren't necessarily doing anything that was previously against the law. Copyright infringement actually *IS* illegal, and has been for quite a long time.

I'll take copyright infringement seriously the day that Big Media starts taking the public domain seriously, and not one second before. They thought they could play this game of indefinitely extending the length of copyright terms, effectively stealing from the public domain and all of humanity without there being unforeseen consequences? Guess what? People now take copyrights about as seriously as Big Media does, i.e. not at all [techdirt.com] .

Fuck your copyrights.

Re:I find myself torn.... (-1, Troll)

BrokenHalo (565198) | about a year and a half ago | (#43053793)

then how are you expected to sensibly respond, beyond calling them liars?

You could inform them that splitting an infinitive is no longer considered a crime.

Re:I find myself torn.... (1)

mark-t (151149) | about a year and a half ago | (#43053969)

As that response, in the context I provided, would be nothing less than nonsense, should I take your comment to mean that you just felt it necessary to really respond to what I had originally thought was just a rhetorical question? Or should I infer from it that the most productive thing you felt you could possibly add to my comment was to refer to the fact that my above comment employs a construction which was once considered a grammatical error, but that is no the longer the case? If the latter, I might suggest you're off topic. If the former... well... you seem to get it. Good for you (golf clap)

How do you know? (1)

dutchwhizzman (817898) | about a year and a half ago | (#43054095)

You could be inflicting on copyright constantly without being aware of it. I'm fairly certain that if they wanted to, they could easily get you for 6 violations within one week, while you think you're doing nothing wrong. Monitoring systems that are out to punish people will do so, since everyone breaks laws constantly. The average person in traffic (even walking) will commit enough violations to lose more than their daily pay if they would all be fined. We use the legal system to keep the excesses down. If you put in full monitoring, you will kill usage because everyone using it will get "caught" and penalized. This has happened to every system we've done it with and people put an end to it in almost all the cases as well. Some countries still have some of those systems, but the East German Stasi have disappeared. In the seventies, we all spoke about the "Free West" when we referred to East Germany. in 2013, the government is doing more to control and monitor us than the Stasi did in the seventies in East Germany....

Re:How do you know? (1)

mark-t (151149) | about a year and a half ago | (#43054725)

If a person is doing it without even realizing it, then it follows that it should be even *MORE* imperative that the alerts give specifics.

That said, however, I'm quite diligent when it comes to copyright.

I'm fairly certain that if they wanted to, they could easily get you for 6 violations within one week, while you think you're doing nothing wrong.

I'd ask if you want to make a bet on that, but I know there's no possible way you'd ever pay up... you'd only argue that I somehow hide my tracks well enough to not be caught when you weren't able to find anything.

Re:How do you know? (1)

cpt kangarooski (3773) | about a year and a half ago | (#43055231)

That said, however, I'm quite diligent when it comes to copyright.

Impressive. But quite difficult. Behold:

Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry, 75 F. Supp. 2d 1290 (D. Utah 1999) [uh.edu] (You'll want to skip ahead to the bit that begins with "Do those who browse the websites infringe plaintidf's copyright")

Since copyright (in the US at least) is a strict liability statute, it doesn't matter how diligent you are. Even if you take all reasonable care and are not even so much as negligent, even if you are tricked into it, infringement is still infringement and you're liable for it. And due to how a computer works, you can't read, see, or hear a damn thing on the Internet without having necessarily made some sort of copy in the process.

So aside from simply not using the Internet, I'd be impressed to know how you accomplish such a thing.

Re:How do you know? (1)

mark-t (151149) | about a year and a half ago | (#43055793)

Let's see.... I use email to keep in touch with people that I personally know, I read and participate in assorted legitimate online forums and discussions, such as slashdot, stackoverflow, and others, I subscribe to certain youtube channels which only contain content that is copyrighted by the people who created the corresponding channel (ie, not any content that they copied from somewhere else), upload my own home videos to youtube, use itunes, and pay for all content that requires payment, keep all my existing software up to date, and finally watch all of my favorite tv shows online, legitimately, streamed right from the appropriate nationwide network's very own website.

Nope... I think I'm pretty safe. If somebody can point to any specific place where i'm infringing on copyright, I might be able to alter my behavior. Until then, however... I'm good.

Re:How do you know? (1)

nabsltd (1313397) | about a year and a half ago | (#43055745)

That said, however, I'm quite diligent when it comes to copyright.

So, you've never recorded a TV show and kept the copy for longer than it took you to watch it once?

You've never downloaded any music, video, or even text without first verifying that the site serving the content had permission to do so? You've never shared more than a link to site with someone, but instead shared the actual content (cut and paste to e-mail, printed it out, etc.)?

There are literally hundreds of other examples of things that you likely do that almost certainly mean you have obtained content in such a way that you have violated copyright. In some cases (like here [techdirt.com] ), they might even specifically say they don't care about anybody copying them, and knowing the owners of that site, they wouldn't ever do anything about it, but technically they could change their mind and start enforcing it, because despite anything they say, it's not a legal license to the content, and thus you would be infringing copyright.

Re:I find myself torn.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43054683)

The fact you expect no false positives is pretty cute.

Hope you don't play wow or download linux over bittorrent, as you will eventually trigger one of the keywords on the list.

You would have been wise to have posted anonymously. After you receive your 6th notice, the EFF may decide not to help a supporter of the system.

Re:I find myself torn.... (1)

mark-t (151149) | about a year and a half ago | (#43054789)

You didn't read what I wrote very closely, did you? >p> Anyways, it's not the ISP's thar are trying to detect infringement, it's the companies that own the content, who would have no way to detect you were infringing on copyright in the first place unless the saw you downloading their content. The only way the mistakes you describe could occur (and I don't dismiss their possibility) is if they misidentify some particular content as their own.

Of course, as I said, since the alert doesn't contain any particulars about what was allegedly infringed on or when or where or anything that might remotely be used as a basis to appeal, the system as it stands needs a whole lot of improvement.

Re:I find myself torn.... (1)

nabsltd (1313397) | about a year and a half ago | (#43055773)

The only way the mistakes you describe could occur (and I don't dismiss their possibility) is if they misidentify some particular content as their own.

Or for them to misidentify anything, like whether that IP ever uploaded anything or not (as in the case of the laser printers). It's just one step farther to "no computer at that IP ever ran any file sharing software", and with no penalty for incorrect accusations (and they get 4-5 per IP before they can even be called on it), I guarantee you that lots of false positives will occur, since accuracy isn't the #1 priority on their agenda.

Re:I find myself torn.... (1)

nabsltd (1313397) | about a year and a half ago | (#43055635)

If, as is described on the copyrightinformation.org website, the copyright alert system is implemented such that the IP addresses it gathers genuinely are being used by infringers, I don't have much of a problem with this, since I don't download infringing content, nor do I do anything which might permit or enable other people to use my internet connection who may, and I do not hold much sympathy for those who do.

The software being used to determine IPs in the "Copyright Alert System" is the same one that sent a DMCA notices to laser printers [eff.org] .

Still feel certain you won't be getting an alert?

It's a ruse: the lawsuit angle (2)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43053659)

This is not an educational system. It's a system designed to assign IP violation liability to the owner of the IP address where by eliminating arguements like "I didn't know it was occurring" or "it was an unauthorized user. I'm very glad to see scrutiny rising on the topic, there was little coverage in the days leading up.

Re:It's a ruse: the lawsuit angle (1)

Skapare (16644) | about a year and a half ago | (#43054367)

Right. This is just a side system to gather information and make arguments for lawsuits they are not mentioning. Too bad the system is already flawed ... see this post [slashdot.org] for an example of failure. If the ISP does not know what email address you actually use, you can't be notified. If you browser (and its network configuration) cannot be penetrated, you won't get a popup. They could still throttle your network down to 300 baud ... but if you are paying a premium for a higher speed, then they are not providing what is paid for in speed terms. And this all assumes that they can trace down your IP address.

Re:It's a ruse: the lawsuit angle (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43054555)

And this all assumes that they can trace down your IP address.

Of course they can do it. They've created a GUI interface using Visual Basic [youtube.com] to trace copyright infrigers' IP addresses.

yeah (5, Insightful)

Tom (822) | about a year and a half ago | (#43053799)

True. When this was first posted, I didn't need to read further than "browser pop-up" to realize it's a bad thing. I am a professional IT security expert, after a couple of years you get an intuition about stupid ideas.

Will it work? Are you kidding me?

Will it have unintended consequences? Nah... neeeeever... what could possibly go wrong?

Re:yeah (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43053883)

Nothing, there are best legal and technical experts working on ensuring that nothing goes wrong...

By the way, <b><blink>WARNING! Copyright infringement has been detected from your IP address!!!</b></blink> This is second warning. After third warning your internet access will be TERMINATED PERMANENTLY and we will be obligated to pass your personal details to copyright holder for purposes of initiating LEGAL ACTION!!! Follow this <a href="hxxp://comcasst.cc/totally-reeducation-video-and-not-a-virus.exe">link</a> and/or send SMS to short number to reset warnings counter and reinstate your accesss to the internet.

Re:yeah (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43054163)

True. When this was first posted, I didn't need to read further than "browser pop-up" to realize it's a bad thing. I am a professional IT security expert, after a couple of years you get an intuition about stupid ideas.

Will it work? Are you kidding me?

Will it have unintended consequences? Nah... neeeeever... what could possibly go wrong?

I especially like that the popup requires you to enter your account information. Now that's not going to lead to any problems.

If that account info is their email address, that's all the keys you need to hijack their other websites login info.

Guilty until proven innocent (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43053975)

And let's not forget this is a system where you are guilty until proven innocent and the MPAA get's to decide who is guilty and it costs you $35 to even attempt to prove your innocence.

Re:Guilty until proven innocent (1, Insightful)

mark-t (151149) | about a year and a half ago | (#43054173)

First of all, the appeal reviews are done by the American Arbitration Association (AAA), not the recording industry. You might argue that the AAA is in the latter's pockets, but at the very least, this is not what is alleged to be the case. We'll have to see how things go.

Secondly, you get the $35 back if the appeal is successful.

However, because the nature of the alert does not contain any information about what work was supposedly infringed upon, I'm uncertain how an accused person who might not have had *ANY* infringing content being downloaded through their IP can sensibly respond.

According to the grounds for appeal [copyrightinformation.org] , most of the reasons aren't even applicable unless the person who is accused actually knows what the alleged infringing content that was downloaded and in turn identified their IP as infringing on copyright. where it was downloaded from, when, etc, Absolutely none of the alerts that the consumer receives contain any of that information.

Re:Guilty until proven innocent (1)

dcollins117 (1267462) | about a year and a half ago | (#43055233)

However, because the nature of the alert does not contain any information about what work was supposedly infringed upon, I'm uncertain how an accused person who might not have had *ANY* infringing content being downloaded through their IP can sensibly respond.

I'm sure that's by design. A feature, not a bug. They don't want millions of people trying to appeal their bogus claims, that would quickly become unmanageable. They nipped that problem in the bud by addressing it before it can become a serious problem.

Re:Guilty until proven innocent (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43055305)

Honestly, I do't give a flying fuck if the money is refunded - they should have reports that give proof - solid proof - or reason, and if they go after the wrong people, rightfully suffer the consequences for their fuckup.

Verizon (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43054011)

I cancelled my Verizon service today. Every time I use bittorrent, my internet connection slows to a crawl. This has been going on for months, and I'm sick of it. I only used bittorrent to download old movies. I did download the Star Trek movie, but the torrent was so terrible, it was cut off at the top and had a woman's hair in the foreground (obviously recorded at a theater), so I went to see it at the theater, and paid full price, because the 'preview' I downloaded looked really cool. I probably wouldn't have seen it at all if the torrent didn't exist.

independent artists (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43054085)

How do us independent musicians leverage this technology to catch thieves? Do i just submit my music then thieves strart getting busted?

DIdn't happen for me (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43054105)

My ISP is AT&T, and I made a couple of downloads this week, to see whether I would get a message. I didn't. Can it be that AT&T isn't enforcing this policy?

Re:DIdn't happen for me (1)

Skapare (16644) | about a year and a half ago | (#43054339)

No one said this would not be subject to all the typical internal communications problems inherint in large corporations. It's called "corpolag". They will notify you next year when you have forgotten all about it.

no need to use torrents (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43054121)

You can find almost any song/album/movie/tv show on youtube. It's a pirate's paradise.

How could anything thing go wrong (2)

Skapare (16644) | about a year and a half ago | (#43054205)

The first two warnings – “educational alerts” – tell consumers they’ve been caught. The email will then direct them to legitimate sources of content with the hopes that the early warnings are enough to scare people into buying content.

I hardly use email anymore. I almost don't use it at all. What I do have, my ISP does not know about, unless they've been spying on my HTTPS connections to Gmail. I don't have ISP based email, or if I do, I have no idea what it is, or have a means to login. Why would I use email that would change if I need to change layer 3 ISP?

And what "legitimate sources of content" will work on my Slackware based computer? If they had that, I wouldn't need to be working around their broken sites.

The next two warnings step it up a notch with what’s called “acknowledgement alerts.” The first two alerts were simply emails, but these next two will actually hijack your browser. You will be hit with a message telling you that you’ve been caught yet again, and must acknowledge that you’ve been caught before you can start browsing.

Criminal actions and privacy aside, how the hell are they going to hijack my browser? I'm using HTTPS whever I can. I have 4 VPN setups to use. Sure, I do some insecure browsing like at Slashdot. But I don't use THEIR proxies, so they would have to add equipment than can do intercepts to traffic. So maybe it's possible for them to hijack my Slashdot traffic. But combining the interception and Slashdot's crazy content format, how can they make a popup appear safely ... for every web site? And how will this even prevent browsing without cutting off service? Cut off port 80 if they think that stops anything of high value?

The next two tiers, and presumably every alert afterwards, will be “mitigation measures.” In essence, the ISPs will begin throttling your bandwidth or blocking Web sites you frequently visit. The ISPs will not be able to cut off your Internet connection under the plan.

I frequently visit Slashdot. I guess they are going to block that And I am paying extra for the higher tier (8 mbps ... and it works). If they throttle below that level, they are violating the service offering they have for that extra payment. So I stop paying the extra.

Re:How could anything thing go wrong (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43054695)

Well, to be fair, why should the entertainment / copyright industry have to work around your broken-ass computer? I mean, if it doesn't work on Slackware there are about 1,500 people who care. Just about the same number of people who care if it works on an old TRS-80. It still has a copyright and you still aren't allowed to violate it - even if you choose to use technology (for whatever reason) that is different than what most people employ.

I'm with you on the rest of it though. I won't get an email from the ISP for months because although everyone with an ISP account has email, many of us don't know it or login to it. I think I check mine about once every couple of months. I then mark everything there as spam, because it is.

Ive been purposely download as much as possible (3, Informative)

bobjr94 (1120555) | about a year and a half ago | (#43055097)

for the last week, so far no emails, letters or pop up's from comcast. Ive wanting to see how much downloading does it take before I get flagged. Then once I know the triggers, I can switch to an anonymous vpn and try it again.

results supplied by CCI (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43055455)

So exactly how can we, holders of copyright, show in court that CCI is unwilling to enforce our copyrights or how the system excludes we - the little peoples' copyright.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?