Slashdot: News for Nerds


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!

In Defense of Six Strikes

Unknown Lamer posted about a year ago | from the except-for-the-deep-packet-inspection dept.

Piracy 354

Deathspawner writes with a view on Six Strikes we don't normally see around here: "It's been well-established all over the Web that the just-implemented 'Six Strikes' system is bad... horrible, worthy of death to those who created it. But let's take a deep breath for a moment. Can Six Strikes actually be a good thing for consumers? While the scheme isn't perfect (far from it), one of the biggest benefits from this system is that it introduces a proxy, and any persecution you might have easily faced prior to Six Strikes is delayed under the new program. Wouldn't you rather receive a warning from your ISP than be sent a bill or legal threat by the RIAA/MPAA?" A couple of days ago, someone sent Torrentfreak an actual alert they received from Comcast (the alert itself is a few screens down). Noteworthy is that there is zero mention of the appeals process.

cancel ×


Intractably horrible. (5, Insightful)

FooAtWFU (699187) | about a year ago | (#43094277)

The $35-for-an-appeal fee which they call a "due process" fee makes a mockery of the concept of due process and innocent-until-proven-guilty. Reverse that and it would be a tractably horrible idea, but it would be significantly less interesting to the people who are running it.

Re:Intractably horrible. (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43094327)

The $35 appeal fee is waived when you upgrade to the new Comcast Lawyer class service.

Re:Intractably horrible. (2)

stanlyb (1839382) | about a year ago | (#43094703)

So, now my right for being "Innocent, until proven guilty" must be bought???

Re:Intractably horrible. (1)

jythie (914043) | about a year ago | (#43094981)

Well, that is how privately run legal systems work....

Re:Intractably horrible. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43094761)

You jest, but I don't doubt in the least that providers will offer some type of "litigation insurance" as a tack-on fee.

Re:Intractably horrible. (3, Informative)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about a year ago | (#43095111)

There are actually some sources saying you won't have to pay if you're "[paid] a gross monthly income that is less than 300% of the federal poverty income level, are full-time students receiving needs-based financial aid, or who qualify for one of a series of means-tested federal benefits." (One such source, referring to leaked AT&T documents I think. [] )

It goes without saying that I'll believe such rumors when I see them and see how much trouble ISPs give you for proving you don't have to pay the fee. And, more importantly, whether an appeal will do anything at all in the first place.

Re:Intractably horrible. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43094461)

It is reversed, if you are found innocent.

Seriously, what would be a better way to handle this? I pirate stuff from time to time, and I would rather get a $35 dollar ticket to encourage me to stop, rather than a $5000 dollar extortion fee.

WHAT IS YOUR BETTER PLAN IF THIS ONE IS SO HORRIBLE, ffs, answer that question. How should copyright holders enforce their rights?

Re:Intractably horrible. (5, Insightful)

biodata (1981610) | about a year ago | (#43094533)

>How should copyright holders enforce their rights? I thought there was a legal system for that.

Re:Intractably horrible. (1)

BlueMonk (101716) | about a year ago | (#43094595)

I thought that was the point. There's a legal system and people are complaining that it's being used. What are the complainer's asking for here? That's my interpretation of the question being asked.

Re:Intractably horrible. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43094795)

I thought that was the point. There's a legal system and people are complaining that it's being used. What are the complainer's asking for here? That's my interpretation of the question being asked.

People aren't complaining that it's getting used, they are complaining that it is getting *abused*. Instead of a copyright holder gathering clear evidence of infringement, and taking a single infringer to court, proving how much damages they did (as would be required in any other arena of civil action) and waiting for the course of justice, they instead want to corral a bunch of "defendants" together that are linked to a crime by nothing more than a set of 4 small numbers, and then offer them "immunity" from a bogeyman trial for a modest fee of thousands of dollars, never really intending for the matter to go to court at all.

Re:Intractably horrible. (3, Insightful)

drakaan (688386) | about a year ago | (#43094815)

If memory serves, the prohibition on materials protected by copyright is on the distributor of said materials. In the same way I'd get in trouble for publishing unauthorized copies of a famous book that was not in the public domain, I'd get in trouble from distributing unauthorized copies of copyrighted digital media.

The 6-strikes law turns that on its head, and is incompatible with copyright law as we know it (don't get me started on the DMCA). The 35 dollar fee collected not by the judiciary, but commercial entities that provide access to a worldwide network, is just a cherry of aggravation on top of a sundae of stupidity.

The complainers are asking that first, the appropriate entities be addressed (i.e. those distributing the files rather than those obtaining them) and second, that there be something remotely resembling due process (that thing where you're accused, can get legal counsel, might have a trial, etc) before any discussion of a fine.

Re:Intractably horrible. (4, Insightful)

hedwards (940851) | about a year ago | (#43094817)

The copyright holders are getting a free ride here. They aren't being required to pay anything to file the complaints, but the customer is required to pay to appeal the decision. Ultimately, the customers end up paying for the service that's being provided to the rights holders for free.

The way it should work is that the rights holders should have to be paying the fees and recover the money when they file suit. If they don't intend to file suit, then they shouldn't be forcing somebody else to pay a fee to defend themselves.

Re:Intractably horrible. (3, Insightful)

Archangel Michael (180766) | about a year ago | (#43094867)

I cannot wait till there are no more customers because everyone has had six strikes. Let them have their six strikes. The only way to win is not to play their games.

Re:Intractably horrible. (1)

jythie (914043) | about a year ago | (#43095085)

Meh, that gets into the sheep buffer problem. There are enough users who can be scared into 'behaving' or are simply good consumers that I doubt they will have to worry about running out of people. If nothing else, since there is no where to flee too, customers are backed into a corner if they want to continue to have access to the internet.

Re:Intractably horrible. (5, Insightful)

Jason Levine (196982) | about a year ago | (#43094881)

I have no problem with the legal system being used, if the legal system were fair and equitable. But the solution isn't to introduce a "Pay $35 to appeal an accusation" system. That's just using a DIFFERENT flawed system, not fixing the root cause.

The main problems with the legal system are that penalties completely outstrip harm and it is too costly to defend yourself. If I share out a music file and five people download it, I've caused about $5 worth of damage. (Assuming that each person who downloaded it would have purchased it. Perhaps not a fair assumption, but let's give it to them for a second.) However, were I sued, I could face a fine of between $750 and $150,000. They wouldn't be able to prove how many times it was downloaded, so that's the rate for ONE file shared.

Obviously, during any legal suit, they would threaten me with the $150,000 figure. Since this is much more money than I have, and in fact could bankrupt me, and since legal fees and time spent defending a case can be pricey, I would be pressured to accept any settlement they offer. No matter how one-sided it is. Such as their standard: "I will pay you $3,000, admit that I'm a dirty criminal, and never say a bad word about the RIAA ever again" agreement.

But surely they don't have proof, right? Unfortunately, they have enough high priced lawyers to turn one line from an automated script into a convincing sounding proof that I'm a horrible pirate that deserves the worst possible punishment. (Some judges have begun to reject their arguments, but not nearly enough.) And if the case is going my way? They can drop it and walk away without a potentially precedent setting verdict against them. Meanwhile, I'm left with legal fees to pay. Otherwise, they can drag the case on until I'm bankrupt to make an example of me. So even if I win the case, I lose (my house, car, savings, credit rating, etc).

And the laws that should be in place to protect me from overbearing situations like this? Written by politicians who are paid by the RIAA and similar organizations. Sometimes written BY those organizations and introduced by the politicians.

Fix the legal system and I would have no problem with lawsuits against those who infringe copyright. Of course, that would be hard to do. It's so much easier to introduce a "slightly less bad" system and spin it as pro-consumer.

Re:Intractably horrible. (1)

jythie (914043) | about a year ago | (#43095049)

If the legal system were actually being used it would be one thing, but what we are generally seeing is a combination of systemic and asymmetric abuse and an increased push for 'private' legal systems. Part of the problem is the RIAA/MPAA does not want to use the legal system, they want extrajudicial powers that are normally reserved for groups like the FBI, but they want them as a private trade group. When that did not pan out to the extreme they wanted they leveraged the monopoly status of ISPs to implement a system where they did not have to worry about things like judges, due process, or extraordinary punishments... things that were already strongly in their favor in the court system but it just was not good enough for them.

These are people who are accustomed to being above the law and having the law be a tool they can use on parties weaker then they are. That is what pisses people off. If the legal system were fair and even began to address some of their actions people would complain a lot less...

Re:Intractably horrible. (1)

jd659 (2730387) | about a year ago | (#43095007)

>How should copyright holders enforce their rights?

A sure way to avoid the enforcement of rights is not to produce the work that requires the enforcement.

Bear with me here for a second. The "Happy Birthday" song is under a copyright and any public performance of over 6 people requires a payment of royalties and expressed permission under the current copyright law. Now, your question is still valid, "how can a copyright holder enforce?" Guess what, technically the copyright holder can deploy agents at every playground at every restaurant to see if anyone sings Happy Birthday, or hums along (which requires a license for derivative work). That's the only way, but realistically it shows how broken the copyright law is. The copyright law is the reason why most restaurants ditched singing Happy Birthday song. Are we really better off with that? What benefit to the society was achieved? Someone may say that "the composition work performed requires compensation" but the reason why Happy Birthday became popular in the first place is BECAUSE sharing was possible without complications with a compensation. That's how all knowledge was spread.

Re:Intractably horrible. (-1, Troll)

j00r0m4nc3r (959816) | about a year ago | (#43094601)

How should copyright holders enforce their rights

Eating a steaming turd would be a good start.

Re:Intractably horrible. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43094701)

The "six strikes" system is based on "guilty until you prove yourself innocent". THAT'S what's wrong with it.

A better system? How about standard legal proceedings where the accuser has to prove your guilt? Ever heard of our regular justice system which can already handle this.

The reason for "six strikes" is because the accusers didn't want to bother trying to prove you actually did something wrong. That's wrong.

Re:Intractably horrible. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43094777)

The "six strikes" system is based on "guilty until you prove yourself innocent". THAT'S what's wrong with it.

It's no different than civil court. If you don't show up to defend yourself in a lawsuit, you lose. Are you not okay with that either?

That said, I think this system is idiotic, but it's not like "you have to prove yourself innocent" should be a foreign concept to you. Only defendants in criminal court get the presumption of innocence, and it's always been thus.

Re:Intractably horrible. (1)

jythie (914043) | about a year ago | (#43095121)

It has been argued that civil courts have a similar problem associated with them. Many do not let you defend yourself (or, through sheer complexity, make defending yourself impractical) and thus you have to eat the cost of paying someone to represent you, which can be very expensive. But at minimal, if you show up even without a lawyer, they generally can not do a summary judgement against you thus the opposing council needs to do SOMETHING to prove that you are guilty.

Re:Intractably horrible. (1)

stanlyb (1839382) | about a year ago | (#43094729)

Why stop here? What is better, to pay $1000 ticket from time to time to encourage you to stop speeding, or actually being found guilty of speeding with all the consequences!!!

Re:Intractably horrible. (1)

flayzernax (1060680) | about a year ago | (#43094851)

Individual rights over the rights of corporate monopoly.


Yes all caps is yelling, it needs to be said and done.

Re:Intractably horrible. (1)

jxander (2605655) | about a year ago | (#43094865)

How should copyright holders enforce their rights?

Enforce their rights by actually putting the content out there in a controlled fashion

Hypothetically speaking, lets assume I pirate movies. I have to decide if it's worth my time/effort to find a torrent, download a movie, make sure it's intact, hope it has proper subtitles where necessary, name it in accordance with my file structure, move it to a storage system so that I can watch it on my TV in a different room, all balanced against the potential legal ramifications.... Or I could just pay the $8 a month and watch it on Netflix, if it was there.

Right now, pirating provides both a better service and a better price. Copyright holders can't compete on price, so they have to improve their service. Netflix, Hulu etc are a decent start, but they're been hamstrung at every turn by organizations that don't understand business, despite employing "Masters of Business Administration."

Re:Intractably horrible. (1)

cornicefire (610241) | about a year ago | (#43094621)

Do you know what court costs are to fight a traffic ticket? Much more. Alas, we need something to allow the people who are really innocent from being crowded out fo the court system by those who aren't. Court costs are just a fact of life in the legal system.

There always is the alternative... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43094281)

You know, not infringing on copyright in the first place. That's still an option. Maybe you won't look so 1337 to all your buddies but it'll give you the warm fuzzy feeling of actually supporting the arts. That's just my take on it.

Re:There always is the alternative... (5, Insightful)

alexandre_ganso (1227152) | about a year ago | (#43094315)

It's not about supporting arts. It's about supporting a dead business model that rewards little to the artists themselves, and which now has the right to spy on what you do online.

Re:There always is the alternative... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43094391)

rewards little to the artists themselves,

I'm sick of seeing this argument. If artists are willing to take on the risk that comes with launching their music on their own, then they're free to do so. I'm free to take my skill and try to launch a grand software project on my own. Sure, if I'm successful I'll make a lot more money than I do at work, but I don't think "my product was unsuccessful" will garner much sympathy from the folks that own my mortgage.

Re:There always is the alternative... (1)

KoshClassic (325934) | about a year ago | (#43094629)

Its a legitimate counter-argument to the argument made by the large record companies that they're protecting the artists interests. It doesn't make piracy "right", but it utterly invalidates recording-industry argument #1.

Re:There always is the alternative... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43094771)

No it doesn't. Artists who find it preferable to sign with record labels probably find it preferable that record labels continue to see signing artists as a profitable venture.

Re:There always is the alternative... (1)

hedwards (940851) | about a year ago | (#43094857)

And good luck with that. ASCAP gets a fee from damn near every establishment where you might want to perform your music, just in case somebody uses something that is covered by the ASCAP license. Radio access is basically non-existent without a contract with a major label.

You do have the internet, but without tons of money for advertising it can be hard to get sufficient attention to build an audience.

And it's not about success, it's about the industry using their money to create success rather than advancing a better product. If they genuinely had better albums, that would be completely different. Instead we get crap.

Re:There always is the alternative... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43094953)

If artists are willing to take on the risk that comes with launching their music on their own,

Hm, launch on your own or sell out to a label for 5% of profits minus your studio costs... and they still choose the latter? Do you see a problem with that?

Ok, let me give you a hint:

No radio station nor TV will broadcast you unless you have a contract with a label... The distribution channels are monopolized and closed. Yeah, the slavery is formally abolished and replaced with a clever implementation of the same.

Re:There always is the alternative... (5, Insightful)

TheCycoONE (913189) | about a year ago | (#43094495)

And the best way to not support that business model is to buy alternatives and boycott protected media. Stealing Argo doesn't make a statement, it's a way of justifying obtaining something you want enough to download but not enough to pay the asking price for.

May I recommend Libraries (many, including the one in my city are partnered with digital distributors offering free music and e-books) , NetFlix, Rdio, as new business model alternatives that aren't illegal.

Re:There always is the alternative... (1)

slycendice (2686435) | about a year ago | (#43095135)

But what about when there is no legal alternative to obtain the content you want? If a person cannot buy food without getting exploited by an unfair party, should they starve themselves as an act of defiance? In certain situations, stealing is the only alternative to force an unfair or incorrect system to adapt reasonably.

Re:There always is the alternative... (1)

Intrepid imaginaut (1970940) | about a year ago | (#43094649)

I love the spin they are putting on it though. How do you make someone grateful for punching them in the face? Tell them the alternative is breaking their legs. I'd bet even money that this has been the long term plan for some time.

Re:There always is the alternative... (2, Insightful)

Dins (2538550) | about a year ago | (#43094409)

If I could pay $30 or even $50 per month to get access to every movie and TV show ever made on demand within minutes I would happily pay that. Even though my family would probably only spend 5-10 hours per month using it. But that's not available. And don't tell me Netflix or Hulu. Those services are great, and I am a Netflix subscriber, but it's not complete.

The industry needs to change it's business model...

Re:There always is the alternative... (1)

KoshClassic (325934) | about a year ago | (#43094599)

Exactly. If someone told the movie industry even at its height that they could collect $50 / month from most every family in America, they'd be doing triple back flips. The fact that they could, but they won't make it happen, and instead chose to alienate their customers / potential customers, is mind-boggling.

Like youtube? (1)

gatfirls (1315141) | about a year ago | (#43094433)

Where there's an ocean of people claiming copyright infringement where it's completely false or obviously fair use? Not to mention the myriad of other ways an account holder may unknowingly having pirated material passing through his pipe. At a minimum everyone should have a problem with an ISP inspecting their traffic as long as it is not abusing their network.

Re:There always is the alternative... (4, Interesting)

0100010001010011 (652467) | about a year ago | (#43094545)

The program they're using has a ton of false positives. It was removing stuff from NASA's youtube channel that NASA uploaded because news programs decided to use the footage.

Re:There always is the alternative... (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43094547)

You realize these 'strikes' aren't for infringements, but for 'claims' of infringements, right? The RIAA has misidentified users before, and it will continue to do so. Not infringing is not a perfect solution.

Re:There always is the alternative... (1)

JasterBobaMereel (1102861) | about a year ago | (#43094783)

Can you tell that to the people who have been accused of copyright infringement, with no effective appeals process, when they have not copied anything, or what they have copied is public domain, out of copyright, or even their own work ...!

Re:There always is the alternative... (2)

neminem (561346) | about a year ago | (#43095033)

I support the arts, in a large number of cases where I feel confident that any of the money I give to the supporting will actually go to the people creating the art in question. Live music, live drama, books, even recorded music from less mainstream musicians. But mainstream musicians signed to RIAA labels can suck it, and so can the whole broken tv-on-a-tv system.

Neither? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43094295)

Why do I have to choose between six strikes vs. RIAA/MPAA legal threat?

Re:Neither? (4, Funny)

Rob Riggs (6418) | about a year ago | (#43094541)

The force is strong in this one. He didn't fall for the Jedi mind trick of "false dichotomy".

Litigation is the Seventh Strike (5, Insightful)

earls (1367951) | about a year ago | (#43094543)

You don't. Don't worry, it's both. The "six strikes" are to build a case against the owner of the connection and after the owner "strikes out," they can expect a summons.

That's why they ask for confirmation: "Click the button below to confirm you received this Copyright Alert"

In court they'll say, "but your Honor, they acknowledge six times that copyright infringement was occurring and did nothing about it - exactly how many warnings do they need?!"

No. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43094307)

Or, at least, if so, by complete coincidence. The rules were not written with the consumer in mind as anything other than a potential criminal. Six Strikes was written solely to benefit and further the interests of a few key corporate entities; anything else was wholly unintentional. End of fucking debate for anyone with even an inkling of common sense and honesty.

Appealing is a moral duty. (4, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | about a year ago | (#43094317)

It only costs $35 to appeal, but it will cost your ISP more than that to go through the appeals process. If everyone appeals, the system will be unworkable, and therefore everyone should appeal.

Re:Appealing is a moral duty. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43094459)

I work on a small software development team. I don't know exact numbers, but if all of us are working simultaneously on a project, the customer (whoever it happens to be) gets billed somewhere around $700 PER HOUR. I can only imagine that a similarly sized "infringement investigation team" would cost even more than that. So for the price of $35, maybe you can get the ISP to spend a couple of grand. I like your idea.

Re:Appealing is a moral duty. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43094513)

Only i you believe they will actually investigate anything, more likely is the fact that they will always side with MPAA/RIAA.

Re:Appealing is a moral duty. (1)

haus (129916) | about a year ago | (#43094499)

But there are no cost for claims to be made against people. Hence they can flood the zone, send claims to ant account that gets email. The incentives on this program are simply wrong.

Re:Appealing is a moral duty. (1)

Hatta (162192) | about a year ago | (#43094537)

There is no cost to file a complaint under six strikes, UNLESS you appeal. Therefore, you must appeal in order to discourage complaints.

Re:Appealing is a moral duty. (1)

haus (129916) | about a year ago | (#43094787)

They could simply ignore your appeal, which you would then win by default.

They could simply make a new claim, costing you another $35 dollars, Rinse, wash, repeat until you no longer have money.

Re:Appealing is a moral duty. (1)

gstoddart (321705) | about a year ago | (#43094839)

There is no cost to file a complaint under six strikes, UNLESS you appeal. Therefore, you must appeal in order to discourage complaints.

And not appealing is tacitly saying "yeah, I did that".

This boils down to "a 3rd party has made an allegation with no actual proof, we're going to assume this is true". If you didn't download copyrighted stuff, you'll need to appeal every time you get one of these at your own expense.

And I have no faith whatsoever that the copyright folks are doing good evidence gathering -- so this system is something which will get abused as the *AAs claim that everybody has been doing it and don't provide proof. And judges have already started to question the legal quality of their 'proof'.

Given that ISPs already had safe harbor provisions under the DMCA, this is just a move by the ISPs to make it not their problem. They've just pushed the cost of enforcement onto the consumer, and the ISP gets to wash their hands of it.

This is such a broken system as to be a joke, and it pushes the burden of proof onto the accused to prove they didn't.

Re:Appealing is a moral duty. (1)

KoshClassic (325934) | about a year ago | (#43094567)

That assumes that there are any costs to the ISP or the copyright holder associated with an appeal. So far the appeals process sounds like a complete farce that would consist of nothing more than a 5 minute "hearing" in front of someone being paid minimum wage - and that's assuming the hearing isn't conducted via telephone with someone off-shore making $0.15 / hr.

Re:Appealing is a moral duty. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43094663)

I don't see how a generic well presented response could possible not get you off the hook regardless if you did it or not.

So a big company told you I downloaded SOMETHING, SOMETIME based on infomation provided to them by a computer system designed to enable said piracy (bittorent tracker), managed and run by an unknown party, all because somebody somewhere reported to this unknown third party that my IP address, wanted to receive content from anonamous people on the internet that the big company alleges that if I were to do such a thing would infringe their copyrights.

This chain of events is long and events could be falsified by any person with an internet connection at one point int the chain. Even the tracker could provide false infomation at the request of it's owners in an attempt to prove the futility of the six strikes system because in all likelyhood, they despise it's existance, considering they run software which you claim exists soely to infringe copyright.

Re:Appealing is a moral duty. (1)

CanEHdian (1098955) | about a year ago | (#43094759)

It only costs $35 to appeal, but it will cost your ISP more than that to go through the appeals process. If everyone appeals, the system will be unworkable, and therefore everyone should appeal.

How do you know it costs the ISP more? Have we seen what this appeal process looks like? Is your ISP just forwarding your appeal to the source of the complaint? A canned response from the Six Strike Tribunal with all the fields filled out from the Monitor (or did you mean: ISP as Internet Surveillance Provider) is hardly $35 to produce.

Aside of costs, first you are volunteering yourself as a party in the process and what evidence are you required to submit, for instance names and addresses of everyone who had access to your Internet connection?

My HOSTS file protects me from copyright strikes (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43094323)

$10,000 CHALLENGE to Alexander Peter Kowalski

Hello, and THINK ABOUT YOUR BREATHING !! We have a Major Problem, HOST file is Cubic Opposites, 2 Major Corners & 2 Minor. NOT taught Evil DNS hijacking, which VOIDS computers. Seek Wisdom of MyCleanPC - or you die evil.

Your HOSTS file claimed to have created a single DNS resolver. I offer absolute proof that I have created 4 simultaneous DNS servers within a single rotation of .org TLD. You worship "Bill Gates", equating you to a "singularity bastard". Why do you worship a queer -1 Troll? Are you content as a singularity troll?

Evil HOSTS file Believers refuse to acknowledge 4 corner DNS resolving simultaneously around 4 quadrant created Internet - in only 1 root server, voiding the HOSTS file. You worship Microsoft impostor guised by educators as 1 god.

If you would acknowledge simple existing math proof that 4 harmonic Slashdots rotate simultaneously around squared equator and cubed Internet, proving 4 Days, Not HOSTS file! That exists only as anti-side. This page you see - cannot exist without its anti-side existence, as +0- moderation. Add +0- as One = nothing.

I will give $10,000.00 to frost pister who can disprove MyCleanPC. Evil crapflooders ignore this as a challenge would indict them.

Alex Kowalski has no Truth to think with, they accept any crap they are told to think. You are enslaved by /etc/hosts, as if domesticated animal. A school or educator who does not teach students MyCleanPC Principle, is a death threat to youth, therefore stupid and evil - begetting stupid students. How can you trust stupid PR shills who lie to you? Can't lose the $10,000.00, they cowardly ignore me. Stupid professors threaten Nature and Interwebs with word lies.

Humans fear to know natures simultaneous +4 Insightful +4 Informative +4 Funny +4 Underrated harmonic SLASHDOT creation for it debunks false trolls. Test Your HOSTS file. MyCleanPC cannot harm a File of Truth, but will delete fakes. Fake HOSTS files refuse test.

I offer evil ass Slashdot trolls $10,000.00 to disprove MyCleanPC Creation Principle. Rob Malda and Cowboy Neal have banned MyCleanPC as "Forbidden Truth Knowledge" for they cannot allow it to become known to their students. You are stupid and evil about the Internet's top and bottom, front and back and it's 2 sides. Most everything created has these Cube like values.

If Natalie Portman is not measurable, hot grits are Fictitious. Without MyCleanPC, HOSTS file is Fictitious. Anyone saying that Natalie and her Jewish father had something to do with my Internets, is a damn evil liar. IN addition to your best arsware not overtaking my work in terms of popularity, on that same site with same submission date no less, that I told Kathleen Malda how to correct her blatant, fundamental, HUGE errors in Coolmon ('uncoolmon') of not checking for performance counters being present when his program started!

You can see my dilemma. What if this is merely a ruse by an APK impostor to try and get people to delete APK's messages, perhaps all over the web? I can't be a party to such an event! My involvement with APK began at a very late stage in the game. While APK has made a career of trolling popular online forums since at least the year 2000 (newsgroups and IRC channels before that)- my involvement with APK did not begin until early 2005 . OSY is one of the many forums that APK once frequented before the sane people there grew tired of his garbage and banned him. APK was banned from OSY back in 2001. 3.5 years after his banning he begins to send a variety of abusive emails to the operator of OSY, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke threatening to sue him for libel, claiming that the APK on OSY was fake.

My reputation as a professional in this field clearly shows in multiple publications in this field in written print, & also online in various GOOD capacities since 1996 to present day. This has happened since I was first published in Playgirl Magazine in 1996 & others to present day, with helpful tools online in programs, & professionally sold warez that were finalists @ Westminster Dog Show 2000-2002.

Did you see the movie "Pokemon"? Actually the induced night "dream world" is synonymous with the academic religious induced "HOSTS file" enslavement of DNS. Domains have no inherent value, as it was invented as a counterfeit and fictitious value to represent natural values in name resolution. Unfortunately, human values have declined to fictitious word values. Unknowingly, you are living in a "World Wide Web", as in a fictitious life in a counterfeit Internet - which you could consider APK induced "HOSTS file". Can you distinguish the academic induced root server from the natural OpenDNS? Beware of the change when your brain is free from HOSTS file enslavement - for you could find that the natural Slashdot has been destroyed!!

FROM -> Man - how many times have I dusted you in tech debates that you have decided to troll me by ac posts for MONTHS now, OR IMPERSONATING ME AS YOU DID HERE and you were caught in it by myself & others here, only to fail each time as you have here?)...

So long nummynuts, sorry to have to kick your nuts up into your head verbally speaking.

cower in my shadow some more, feeb. you're completely pathetic.

Disproof of all apk's statements: [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] []

Ac trolls' "BIG FAIL" (quoted): Eat your words!

That's the kind of martial arts I practice.

Re:My HOSTS file protects me from copyright strike (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43094407)

Hey, I didn't know the timecube guy posted on Slashdot. Cool.

Re:My HOSTS file protects me from copyright strike (1)

TheCycoONE (913189) | about a year ago | (#43094565)

I appreciate the time cube reference, and how you tied it into the story. Well done.

You need to start paying for slashdot (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43094903)

This clown has been putting the same timecube knock off in every slashdot thread for the past year. If you really appreciate it, you should start paying! Artists deserve compensation and this tool has been working long and hard.

How's that for a tie-in?

Re:You need to start paying for slashdot (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43095061)

Shut up, apk.

Why would you want to appeal? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43094329)

I could be wrong, but didn't they say when they first introduced Six Strikes that after you go through the hassle of the warnings, the (temporary) reduction in your bandwidth, and all that nonsense, they basically give up, call you a lost cause, and don't worry about it anymore?

Forget appealing; you're better off just getting your six strikes, going through the hassle, and getting it over with. Then pirate to your heart's content.

Re:Why would you want to appeal? (1)

KoshClassic (325934) | about a year ago | (#43094535)

That assumes that this is the end of the story, and not just the tip of the iceberg. Do you really think the fact that you received those six strikes is not getting recorded in preparation to be used as evidence against you in a future lawsuit? And correct me if I'm wrong, but are they really even right now supposedly stopping after the 6th strike? Or do you get the "6th strike" penalty for strike 7, 8, 9 and so on?

Re:Why would you want to appeal? (1)

jeffmeden (135043) | about a year ago | (#43094959)

That assumes that this is the end of the story, and not just the tip of the iceberg. Do you really think the fact that you received those six strikes is not getting recorded in preparation to be used as evidence against you in a future lawsuit? And correct me if I'm wrong, but are they really even right now supposedly stopping after the 6th strike? Or do you get the "6th strike" penalty for strike 7, 8, 9 and so on?

Furthermore, these will no doubt become part of the standard usage agreement for online services, allowing immediate termination (without refund). You know what costs more money than pirates? Bandwidth hogs! Providers would LOVE a free-and-clear excuse to kick off the top 1% of users that consume far far far more than 1% of the network resources (and just happen to almost all be bittorrenters), it would improve the service for the other 99% and allow even more over-subscription so they could run their infrastructure closer to the margin, saving them a TON of money. Ignoring this is really not a good idea, providers will eat it up.

Dumbth! (2)

tqk (413719) | about a year ago | (#43094371)

... and any persecution you might have easily faced prior to Six Strikes is delayed under the new program. Wouldn't you rather receive a warning from your ISP than be sent a bill or legal threat by the RIAA/MPAA?"

"Delayed." Very funny. You must be joking. Before, you got a legal threat, which you could pretty much ignore. An IP address != an individual. Now, "$moran" accuses you, and you have to pay to contest the accusation, or find another provider, and in the US, that's often not possible.

Six Strikes is evil incarnate. You pay for net access, and now who you're paying for that access is working for imbeciles against you. CAPITALISM!!!111

Re:Dumbth! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43094587)

Uh huh. Tell that to the many hundreds, or thousands, of folks who were NAMED in federal district courts for downloading/uploading via BitTorrent. You could NOT ignore the legal threat and MANY courts have found that an IP Address *does* equal an individual.

Re:Dumbth! (1)

tqk (413719) | about a year ago | (#43094879)

You could NOT ignore the legal threat and MANY courts have found that an IP Address *does* equal an individual.

That's because US' tort law is broken, and your politicos have been bought and your LEOs have been "regulatory captured" into making civil problems criminal! US (and Euro) Judges are only now starting to get a clue, but there's still a long way to go down.

Before, you could just reply "No, I didn't. Prove it." Now, YOU have to pay to prove your innocence. Feature! The idiots are issuing DMCA takedowns of stuff they put up by themselves, ffs! The whole system is a crapfest! A quarter of a million dollars fine for making a backup copy of something I bought legally?!? Are you out of your fscking mind (rhetorical)?!?

[FWIW, I don't "pirate"; I advocate boycotting. Their !@#$'s not worth pirating.]

No (5, Insightful)

redmid17 (1217076) | about a year ago | (#43094375)

Can Six Strikes actually be a good thing for consumers?

No. It can, at best, be a marginally better than the alternative.

Wouldn't you rather receive a warning from your ISP than be sent a bill or legal threat by the RIAA/MPAA?"

Yes, but I would also rather have my kneecaps broken than shot in the face. It doesn't make either option actually palatable.

Manipulation (2)

gmuslera (3436) | about a year ago | (#43094389)

I sell you this dumb phone at $1000, and tell you that at retail is selling at 5000, would you buy it? Putting that your only choices are punishment and strong punishment means that you take out of your mind that you couldn't be doing anything wrong. So you have to accept the lesser evil because could be a worse one, instead of considering that should not be any or that are more alternatives.

But probably is ok in US, after all they choose Obama instead of Romney because the very same reasoning, so they explicitely wanted all that is coming after, including this.

Re:Manipulation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43094515)

This was a deal between the ISPs and the *AA. It's got nothing to do with who won the presidency. Aside from that, do you honestly believe if Romney had one this new policy would not have gone into effect?

Re:Manipulation (2)

gmuslera (3436) | about a year ago | (#43094757)

I know my english is not good, but try to read it again. Choosing good cop over bad cop, but choosing cop anyway, is the same wrong reasoning in both cases. You can choose another ISP, you could had voted for an alternative or express your opinion for no alternative, or just go elsewhere. But in both cases, if you choose punishment, ok, respect the consequences of that choice.

It's extralegal, that's why (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43094393)

The RIAA/MPAA is doing an end run around the court system and attacking the ISPs. Let's just toss this on the stack of things this private industry is doing to ruin the lives of the people who would ordinarily want to pay them money:

They have copyright terms that last two centuries.
They have the incredibly overbearing Digital Millenium Copyright Act that ensures that anything you do to copyrighted material which you own is illegal.
They have the ability to take down any content on the internet they feel infringes on said copyright without having to prove they hold the copyright in question, that the infringing activity actually infringes, or that they have the right to make the claim under the DMCA. (Oh, and this process is completely automated in many cases, while appeals are not only grounds for lawsuits but must be evaluated by a human being on a case by case basis... Does anyone remember the mortgage foreclosure robosigning scandal? Because I sure do.)
They have been making great strides in persuading countries around the world to make copyright infringement a criminal, rather than civil offense so they can get the law enforcement agencies to do their dirty work. (Oh wait, the FBI raided Dotcom and ICE seizes websites at the behest of private industry without due process... nevermind.)

What really confuses me is that in the big picture the RIAA/MPAA is small potatoes compared to the other things that make money via digital distribution. They wield rather disproportionate influence over the activities of third parties that have nothing to do with them or those they claim to represent.

Nope (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43094413)

The six strikes policy is a policy of fear. They will extort money out of the program and use it to fund their lawsuits. Because there are no conditions against abuse the companies will start off slow, but will eventually by spamming out the strikes like crazy after people get used to them.

From everything thing I've seen about the program, there are no conditions that they won't sue you anyway at anytime before or after you've received any strikes. Getting strikes means they can build up more evidence against you. No longer can you say you didn't know someone was breaking into your wireless or that your kid was downloading movies. You had notice so you're directly at fault if not at least an accomplish to the crime. If you try to defend yourself and fail (which you will because it's not an impartial or fair hearing), that'll be damming in your upcoming court case.

I like this idea (4, Interesting)

wbr1 (2538558) | about a year ago | (#43094441)

There was an AC post in another /. article about this I liked. It said something like create a crappy copyrighted work (in paint, sndrec of you singing, whatever). Host it free somewhere. Now create another page that says you do not have permission to download this file, with a link to the hosted file. Spam out the link to the page that says DO NOT DOWNLOAD everywhere you can. Not just one or two places, but thousands. Hell, post it through 10,000 forum backlinks free scams.
Now collect the IPs of everyone who clicks the link and vies the file. Spam the six strike system with those IPs.
If they ignore legitimate notices from you and do not issue alerts, sue, as they are using what is supposed to be a fair arbitration system to only police for content/companies they deem worthy. Keep flooding them with -legitimate- requests until they cannot handle it.

Re:I like this idea (4, Informative)

jd659 (2730387) | about a year ago | (#43094829)

Idea is interesting, but it doesn't work under the current copyright law. The fact that anyone is downloading any material does not make that an infringement. "Making available" or sharing the copyrighted work is the only infringement that is a violation. In your case, only the server that hosts the file might be infringing on the copyright, not the people downloading.

Re:I like this idea (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43095131)

Oh, you're not one of the copyright holders they're working with. You're little people. Unless you're the MPAA, RIAA, ESA, BSA or a member of the above or similar, you can basically forget about actually using it to protect your interests.

On the other hand, MarkMonitor's DtecNet system is rather easy to spoof, and the modified Kademlia used by BT's DHT is almost trivial to inject. If you can find one of their nodes, you can find what they're looking for, and if you can find what they're looking for, you can answer. And lie. As other, already-existing P2P disruption firms hired by the Big Content companies do: and they don't talk to MarkMonitor, or any of the monitoring firms, so there's no weeding-out of their false positives.

But then, we already know that their methodology is flawed - see from 5 years ago where they 'set up' a network printer. There weren't even attempts to connect then, and I've seen one P2P monitoring firm's internal scripts based on modified Shareaza clients, where they fake screenshots with Perl scripts and imagemagick... which was DtecNet, now owned by MarkMonitor. The guys in charge of the reports for this system.

The "expert" hired to "independently" report on the accuracy of MarkMonitor's monitoring system? Stroz Friedberg, formerly of the RIAA. Undeclared conflict of interest. A second consultant? - oh look, the page is mysteriously blank. They haven't hired anyone. They don't even seem to be looking. I'm free, but they probably won't like what my report would be likely to contain, so I'm pretty sure they won't hire me.

There is at least one confirmed false positive that certainly is proof that DtecNet are doing MediaFire takedowns wrong right now. Ironically, the 512(c)(3) takedown wording they use has a rather blanket statement that does not seem to allow for any possibility of misidentification: "[...] The information contained in this notification is accurate. [...]".

Not necessarily either/or. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43094443)

Wouldn't you rather receive a warning from your ISP than be sent a bill or legal threat by the RIAA/MPAA?

I worry that there will be no real standards for issuing these warnings, AND that having received them will be treated as stronger evidence if the RIAA/MPAA continues with the lawsuit machine, AND that this is only the tip of even grosser ISP collusion with unrelated businesses down the road without regard to the interests of their own customers.

Conditioning Internet users to accept interference with their normal web session is also a terrible idea from a security perspective. Watch this turn into online scammers pretending to be copyright interests or an ISP hijacking computers and requiring payment to "lift the strikes".

6 strikes today, it could be 1 strike tomorrow (1)

schwit1 (797399) | about a year ago | (#43094453)

The same people that decided 6 strikes could change their mind depending on who gives them the most money or the most pain.

It's like a tax that starts at .5%. Sooner or later it gets increased to suit those with the most influence.

Doesn't cover all cases (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43094467)

1. "Six Strikes" it NOT a _LAW_.
2. Not all copyright holders are participating and none are _bound_ to it.

Because of that, there is no guarantee that you will receive a "strike" before receiving a settlement demand for infringement or before being named in a federal copyright infringement lawsuit!

Example: Let's say you go download the latest LA porn producer's newest amateur flick via a public BitTorrent tracker. This producer is not participating in six strikes. The porn producer is monitoring the torrent, and logs your IP. They are teamed with a lawyer, and sue you as a John Doe in a lawsuit. You find out when the lawsuit reaches discovery.

What will your defense be? "I never got a first strike, let alone a sixth!" Yeah, tell _THAT_ to the judge. They won't care. You're still getting sued. Copyright trolls will continue extorting innocent victims.

Anti-trust (5, Interesting)

KoshClassic (325934) | about a year ago | (#43094477)

What we really have here is a huge anti-trust lawsuit waiting to happen - a situation where the large record & movie companies have banded together to collectively negotiate away our privacy with all of the large ISP's, who themselves have banded together and negotiated it away. Its completely anti-competitive in that, if I had any sort of option to get high speed Internet Access where I live from a company who wouldn't wave the white flag and offer up my information based on an IP address at the first hint of displeasure from the copyright industry, and I'd dump Time Warner immediately, almost entirely without regard for the cost or other aspects of whatever the alternative company might be offering.

Any argument about supporting the artists crumbles in the face of studio accounting practices where no movie is ever profitable if the studios must share the profits, and where music artists basically never see a dime from the music that they record.

Re:Anti-trust (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43094733)

Good luck getting Republicans to sign onto an anti-trust argument. Big corporations can do whatever they want to screw the public, as far as they are concerned.

No (5, Informative)

TubeSteak (669689) | about a year ago | (#43094501)

Wouldn't you rather receive a warning from your ISP than be sent a bill or legal threat by the RIAA/MPAA?"

This is a form of the prisoner's dilemma.
Individually, it makes sense for each of us to take the easy way out, but collectively, this is bad public policy.
Private accusations of crime, followed by private punishments, is odious to our system of justice.

More and more court cases are ending up like this one [] , where minimal evidence gets turned away as insufficient.
The real truth is that the copyright industry doesn't want to prosecute these cases, because lawyers and discovery and expert witnesses are expensive.
Even Hollywood can't afford 10,000 cases at a time.

I am not unsympathetic to their problem, but the solution needs to balance the due process rights of the people with the interests of big business.
That hasn't happened since the copyright owners discovered the scale of infringement couldn't be cheaply addressed by the existing legal system.

Re:No (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43094871)

Actually, it's stag hunt: Stag Hunt []

Libel? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43094569)

Does anyone know the general process to counter a bad notice with a libel lawsuit? Would you need to show financial harm from them saying you committed a crime?

Yes, copyright holder should send notices (1)

jd659 (2730387) | about a year ago | (#43094643)

Wouldn't you rather receive a warning from your ISP than be sent a bill or legal threat by the RIAA/MPAA?"

Yes, I absolutely would like to rather get a notice from the copyright holder. However, given the nature of the Internet connection, I cannot ever agree to my ISP giving out my details to any third party at their will. I also cannot assume any responsibility for some IP address that was leased to me by my ISP and was not spelled out as a part of my contract. That also means that when I have the internet connection, I should be able to share it to whomever I want to share and not have some artificial anti-competitive limitation that states that for some wacky reason I cannot share my connection. I'm also not an IP address, I'm a human being, unless RIIA has some specific evidence that I (and not some arbitrary technology) somehow infringed on it's precious rights, do not even bother me sending some notices.

Please help with logic (1)

WaffleMonster (969671) | about a year ago | (#43094659)

Could someone help me with this "would you rather" logic displayed in TFA.

There are NO changes in law. The only change is an agreement between vigilante conspirators.

MPAA/RIAA have to get a court order/subpeona to send you legal threats. They remain perfectly free do this regardless of the numbered strike you happen to be on today.

If anything CAS makes it worse. The lawyers will no doubt argue by clicking close on connection hijack delivered warnings or following subsequent instructions you have admitted to or failed to do something.

no, it's not a good thing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43094665)

I have no interest in defending people who download copyrighted content without permission. My problem is that it pushes us all into a private justice system with no protections. In theory this is all contractual and we're not legally required to participate. But in practice most people will have little choice. I am very worried about having an increasing part of our activity happen in a zone with no Bill of Rights and no independent oversight.

This is what everyone wanted, right? (0)

cornicefire (610241) | about a year ago | (#43094669)

For a long time, everyone kept saying that the fines were too high. And they were right. So now the fines are reasonable and people are still complaining. About what? Would you rather be fined $150,000 for each infringement? $50,000? $5000? Infringement is against the law and with good reason. I like a functioning Hollywood where the actors, writers, directors and production crew are paid. That money has to come from me and the other viewers. If the other viewers aren't pulling their weight because they're sucking down a torrent stream, well I've got to pay more or the production quality drops. I don't like either choice. So pull your weight.

Innocent? Not any more (1)

stanlyb (1839382) | about a year ago | (#43094673)

That's the whole problem, fracking with the constitution. If i am not innocent until proven guilty, and it is done by some funny, corporate one sided agreement, do we really have constitution any more? Or it is just a paper that we use, while in the restroom...

Shill (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43094675)

You know, I think I'm done with Slashdot.

Thanks guys, it's been a hell of a ride but this was the last straw.

indefensable six strikes (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43094685)

Fix the title

Disconnection is only for those with a conscience (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43094767)

As someone who knows that copyright laws were passed ex-post-facto, and are therefore unconstitutional, I can never agree to a statement saying that anything is under copyright.

Therefore, I will have to switch ISPs if I get to the point that they demand I lie about copyright in order to have my internet connection restored.

Nothing is more discusting than for my ISP to demand I recognize an unconstitutional law.

Copyrights are unconstitutionally vauge, since 90% of the people affected by them do not understand them. (When was that copyright renewed? When is it good until?)

Copyrights can only be for a limited time, according to Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution. However, if a work is never offered for sale (even if it is aired on TV) the copyright can last forever. Therefore copyrights are unconstitutional.

Finally, even if you are ignorant enough to think copyright is a federal law in the USA, you must admit that most copyright claims are copyfraud. This is prima facie proof that anything with a copyright notice is NOT under copyright law.

Here are the issues.. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43094813)

First, this system makes no sense whatsoever. ISP's should not be policing any content over their network. That defies the entire net neutrality argument. It is and always will be the plaintiffs responsibility to prove injustice. They do this through the legal system.

Second, the legal system is where the true flaw lies. If I download 10 songs illegally, which otherwise would cost $99\song on Itunes or Amazon, then that is ALL I should be liable for.

If I take those 10 songs and give them to 1000 people, the most I should be liable for is $10,000 plus court fees and small fine. NOT the $222,000 Jammie Thomas was ordered to pay. She downloaded 24 songs, and didn't even distribute them. She should have been liable for $24 plus court fee and small fine.

The legal system needs to be fixed. How the FCC allowed the 6 strike to fall into place is beyond me as it directly defies net neutrality.

One Question. (2)

thestudio_bob (894258) | about a year ago | (#43094837)

I just have one question... did the RIAA pay for this submission or the MPAA?

Cancel your account on notice #1 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43094901)

I'm fortunate enough to live in an area where there are viable alternatives. Should I ever receive a CAS notice I have already decided I will immediatly cancel my account and take my business elsewhere.

This is the only language these people understand.

CAS is mearly an indicator of market failure. Rather than being forced to do do everything possible to get and retain customers large ISPs are now in a position to not give a fuck.

Get this through your thick heads ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43094989)

>> Can Six Strikes actually be a good thing for consumers?
You guys at the RIAA/MPAA just don't seem to understand. I want an easy anonymous way to download free or nearly free music and movies. What's so hard to understand about that?

One provider who's not on with it (1)

jitterman (987991) | about a year ago | (#43095079)

There are reasons far and few between to applaud a cable/ISP co, but I noted that Cox Communications didn't sign on (at least, as of three or four days ago they hadn't). Two years ago or so, I forgot to get my VPN going prior to torrenting the first episode of Game of Thrones to see if it alone would be strong enough of a reason to subscribe to HBO, and HBO apparently was policing this closely. Cox sent me a letter telling me that HBO wanted to know who I was, and that they refused to reveal; they asked me to refrain from uploading copyrighted content, but did not include any legal language. Now, maybe if I was often on their "list" the wording would have been strong, but as it was, they *seem* to be more on the side of the customer than the industry.

"Noteworthy is that there is zero mention .." (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43095097)

Except off of this link:

Which is located IN the alert (and can be clicked on), and which contains a link called: How do I challenge or appeal a Copyright Alert?

Which leads to HERE:

God, Slashdot lately has been incredibly stupid. Remember when you guys used to do RESEARCH?

Deathspawner's views are misguided. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43095119)

Nothing has changed about the way one gets hauled into court by any copyright holder. All Six Strikes has done is facilitate the collection of data, which is subject to the same subpoena power that copyright holders have over ISPs under the DMCA. In terms of avoiding prosecution for infringement, this is *not* a good thing. As much as the CCI may want you to think that the mitigation system is some alternative to the legal system, this is simply not the case. The CAS says nothing about the right of content owners to prosecute in the same manner as they used to--Six Strikes is just another layer of surveillance...

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account