John Lister has reported that
“some of America's leading ISPs have reached an agreement with movie and music companies to punish customers who breach copyright laws. But while the sanctions are lighter than rights owners would like, the move could still spark a legal debate.The deal involves AT&T, Comcast, Time Warner and Verizon, along with industry bodies for Hollywood studios, record labels and TV producers. It's being organized under the newly-formed Center for Copyright Information.” – infoPackets
This is an industry program and isn't governed by legal regulations, and arstechnica.com reported that White House officials were instrumental in pressuring the ISP’s to take this action.
So what are we talking about? Many ISPs already provide warnings to users if suspect behavior is detected, but the Copyright Alert System is intended to provide a standardized approach that all ISPs will use. In 2008 the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) abandoned its practice of suing individuals for online piracy in favor of working with Internet service providers to track down offenders. Since then, ISPs have issued warnings on their own terms, but this agreement creates one system that major ISPs will follow.
“Under the new system, alleged offenders will get up to six warnings when they are suspected of downloading or sharing copyrighted material without permission. After that the ISP will take action, such as slowing access speeds or blocking Internet access until the customer contacts them to discuss the issue. It's being stressed that ISPs won't permanently disconnect customers as part of the scheme. Those behind the system argue that it will act as a warning mechanism to casual offenders, and that it will make parents aware when children are downloading illegally.” – ibid
The US plan appears loosely based on a system in France by which customers get two warnings and, after a third alleged offense, are disconnected. The RIAA and MPAA aren’t really pleased with the ISP’s solution, so there’ll probably be some pressure to “toughen” punishments. Also, it should be noted that the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) already requires ISPs to have a termination policy in effect if they want to take advantage of the law's "safe harbor" clauses. That way, if a copyright holder sues you for illegal downloading, the ISP can say it took measures to stop the activity and cannot be held liable for your activity.
The system allows you to request an independent review before any of those mitigation measures are put into place, but it will cost you $35.
Should you win one of these challenges, you get your $35 back and the "alert" is taken off your account, though no other alerts are. Your next alert will therefore begin the "mitigation" process once more.
These alerts do eventually expire; any subscriber who makes it 12 months without receiving a notice has their slate wiped clean (arstechnica)
Appeal categories:
(i) Misidentification of Account - that the ISP account has been incorrectly identified as one through which acts of alleged copyright infringement have occurred. (ii) Unauthorized Use of Account - that the alleged activity was the result of the unauthorized use of the Subscriber’s account of which the Subscriber was unaware and that the Subscriber could not reasonably have prevented. (iii) Authorization - that the use of the work made by the Subscriber was authorized by its Copyright Owner. (iv) Fair Use - that the Subscriber’s reproducing the copyrighted work(s) and distributing it/them over a P2P network is defensible as a fair use. (vi) Misidentification of File - that the file in question does not consist primarily of the alleged copyrighted work at issue. (vii) Work Published Before 1923 - that the alleged copyrighted work was published prior to 1923.
(i) Misidentification of Account - that the ISP account has been incorrectly identified as one through which acts of alleged copyright infringement have occurred.
(ii) Unauthorized Use of Account - that the alleged activity was the result of the unauthorized use of the Subscriber’s account of which the Subscriber was unaware and that the Subscriber could not reasonably have prevented.
(iii) Authorization - that the use of the work made by the Subscriber was authorized by its Copyright Owner.
(iv) Fair Use - that the Subscriber’s reproducing the copyrighted work(s) and distributing it/them over a P2P network is defensible as a fair use.
(vi) Misidentification of File - that the file in question does not consist primarily of the alleged copyrighted work at issue.
(vii) Work Published Before 1923 - that the alleged copyrighted work was published prior to 1923.
There are rules for each category, they can be viewed here:
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/07/the-six-ways-you-can-appeal-the-new-copyright-alerts.ars
Also, the ISP’s aren’t looking at what you download. Apparently, P2P transfers of large files or pirated files carry the senders “address”. The company whose film or music is notified and they send an email to the ISP and the ISP warns you. You are not identified by name. That probably could be subpoenaed and the ISP would have to give your name.
A more detailed list of companies companies and groups supporting this measure includes: Motion Picture Association of American and MPAA members like Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures, Paramount Pictures, Sony Pictures Entertainment, Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation, Universal Studios, and Warner Brothers Entertainment; Independent Film & Television Alliance; Recording Industry Association of America and RIAA members like Universal Music Group Recordings, Warner Music Group, Sony Music North America, and EMI Music North America; American Association of Independent Music; and the ISPs mentioned above (per PC Magazine).
The current trend on the internet is more restrictive and away from the old wild west as it were.
If you aren't doing pirated software, there really isn't much of a chance you'd be "losing" any "freedom". What freedom? To download or trade what isn't yours to begin with?
If you are unjustly accused you have recourse. If you can't provide evidence you didn't download, you may well have an insecure network or malware on your computer. In those cases, there's recourse.
So, I return and ask, what "freedom" and which "rights" are you losing?
Even in the unlikely case you are warned, there are ample opportunities to rectify things and not repeat a mistake. So where's the harm?
There's no excuse to have an unsecured network. If you are unsure how, here's a starting point.
Not sure what they are concerned about anyway...music has gotten crappy and Tv programs are just as bad.
I have a secure network, thanks. I have no control on what others on my network download.
I still see this whole issue as a breach of privacy.
Personally, I see this as paying somebody to watch your every move then rap you across the knuckles if/when you slip up. I mean, who pays their own executioner to pull the lever, switch the switch? Who pays the cop who just wrote them a ticket?
While it is an admirable thing to uphold just laws, there is always the risk of unjust actions and abuses of power... and when large corporations are involved the greed factor always plays a part in how you are dealt with. Just look at the woman who downloaded a few songs and was 'fined' several millions... and that is the fear each and every one of us should hold.
Corporate 'law' [not to be confused with constitutional law] generally errs on the side of excess and usually aims to rip the arse right out of your world when it deems you the enemy. I say deems because you/anyone can be named "the enemy' whether you're guilty of anything or not... as in you don't have to steal anything, just that you publicly speak against their agendas, future plans, etc.
Like I said, it is admirable to uphold a just law, but this has been brokered outside of the judicial system/courts and therefore is prone to abuse and excesses that people have no protection against.... just like a corrupt cop who has it in for you because your eye colour isn't to his/her liking.
In other words, be careful what you wish/ask for.
Starkers I'm shocked, you know the answer to that, we do
That's the kind of garbage I'm hoping this might do away with. Granted, no guarantees.
You do, me hearty wiv yer taxes.
But that doesn't obviate the need for law. But this whole thing isn't a law. Its only abuse is the shortfall of too many warnings and few teeth. Your kind of Pyrate me lurvs. The other kind gives us a bad name.
Me best to yer Missus, Cap'n.
Really? Well, I now have to be afraid that everyone I let on my network does the correct thing. Whee!
An "independent review" that I pay for? Ie: I have to come up with evidence I'm innocent? Innocence is impossible to prove, hence why the burden of proof is always on the prosecution, not the defendant.
I now have to challenge an ISP when I use something I'm legally able to use (ie: because of satire, other provisions in law that allow me to use bits and pieces of content). Content providers already abuse this: they constantly threaten/bully/force down youtube videos, articles, etc that are using their content well within the laws of fair use.
Again. This is something for the courts to enforce. Not corporations.
Blah, blah, blah. IT guys _always_ say "This is easy. <insert jargon> click here <jargon> here <jargon> here. Then <jargon>....."
Its easy to IT people because we're passionate about nearly all things computer. Unfortunately, the majority of the population doesn't care and won't take time to learn what the difference between WEP vs WPA. Jesus. If its not one click, its too damn complicated.
Then, there are very valid reasons to have an unsecured network. Public networks exist everywhere, ran by businesses for their customers, hospitals for their patients, etc. Are these public networks going to have to police their users? Please. They'll just shut them down before taking that cost.
If you don't like the ISP watching your pirated downloads, move to one that doesn't.
Personally I think it's good that the ISP's are taking proactive measure to change the internet culture about piracy. 6 warnings and then they will slow your speed and then have a chat about what you are doing wrong. I way prefer this than having lawyers involved.
Lucky we don't have this BS in OZ ... Yet
Some people have no choice to move to a different ISP. Monitoring what people do online is an invasion of privacy.
Yes, via taxes, but we don't pay extra just to have a cop come over and write a ticket, do we! The point being, nobody willingly pays to have something 'inflicted' upon them. In this case, it is the customer who is being outed by the provider... and last I heard, hookers don't turn their clients in to the cops, if you get my meaning. No, if the cops want an arrest, then they need to do their own legwork... and the same applies to the RIAA and FIAA. As it is they have become a law unto themselves and have manipulated the system to support their insatiable greed.
It wouldn't be so bad if their efforts truly benefited the artists and writers, but no, the only people to benefit are the greed driven media moguls and their scum sucking lawyers. I'm all for protecting the copyrights of the artists, writers/creators, but these corporate giants deserve no sympathy whatsoever, given they manipulate and cheat the true copyright holders of ownership purely for personal profit and gain.
No, I won't go in to bat for the media moguls and their parasitic lawyers.. their greed excludes them from any feelings other than contempt from me. So when I see them exploiting ISP's to shop their customers I cringe because it's one more step to a totalitarian world with greed as its leader.
The one question I've asked myself and others over the years is whether theft/piracy would exist if the upper crust wasn't so damned greedy The problem as I see it is that corporations set prices based on what they think the market can bear, rather than setting an affordable price that allows greater consumption... and the problem with that is that many at the lower end of the socio-economic scale cannot afford what the upper echelon thinks the market can bear, hence they resort to stealing to make their meagre ends meet. Is it right? No, but is it any more right than the 'legalised' stealing which exists in the form of corporate greed and excessive profit margins?
Sadly, the gap between the haves and the have nots is increasing annually, and sadly, more people will be prosecuted with crimes as a result, but a day will come when there is nothing left to take [when the haves have it all and the have nots have nothing] and that is when their greed will come back to bite them... hard. There will come a time of revolution and it will change how the world's wealth is distributed... when it is the wealthy who are persecuted and imprisoned/executed for crimes against humanity. Yup, bring it on, the French revolution will be a Sunday picnic in the park by comparison.
"Monitoring what people do online is an invasion of privacy."
It's not as if a ISP don't monitor what you do online already.
I use to work for a local ISP on the front desk for customer service. We had a user suing the business for breach of contract, he's issue was that he was not getting enough time and too many dropouts on the connection, this was back when dial up was the only option.
They explained to him if it went to court they would table everything he did on the internet, they gave him a mountain of paperwork to prove it. Don't know what was in the paperwork but he did drop the lawsuit.
I don't think there is much privacy on the internet, it always pays to be careful.
"Not perfect" is an understatement. It is at best futile and at worst (which is more likely) it will hurt the innocent. The best techonology for this kind of matching is used in Anti-virus software to identifiy threats. However for this use the range of methods to defeat it is far greater as viruses must still be able to prefore their function, files containing pirated content do not need to be usable until after they are downloaded.
And the recievers do not need to be very skilled, the work to evade detection comes from the distributing end.
It seems like everyone has to suffer to keep the "bad guys" in line. This is just the first step in the march to TOTAL government control of the internet. What's next? The ISPs having to monitor and report every website I visit, how long I'm there, and how often?
Don't get me wrong- piracy is wrong. But I'd rather have a few pirates roaming the net than my ISP looking over my shoulder waiting to slap me on the back of the head.......
Wonderful response matey. extra ration of grog to Starkers.
I wonder if clicking on the wikileaks torrent will earn Americans a strike.
This does seem like a perfectly reasonable solution. I don't like the implications of corporations policing their customers at all, but I can't really fault this particular instance.
You can look to Kindle, Amazon and iTunes who have all had incidences of deleting purchased music, movies and books that they didn't recognize as purchased--even though they were.
My son also was a victim of the Sony rootkit fiasco a few years back when he ripped his Best buy purchased CD in Windows media player to his hard drive and then immediately had the covert rootkit the CD had installed crash windows requiring a reinstall.
I'm all for ISP's working with law enforcement--I am not cool with the record companies and the like BEING law enforcement.
If they don't receive some well presented challenges legally, I assure you the next layer of this will be ensuring they are shielded from punitive suits when they make mistakes--just as the credit reporting agencies now are--note the, "all you get back is your $35".
Imagine if the only reliable service in your hometown is provided by a single ISP (as is the case in my town) and that your business requires regular large data transfers in real time (as does mine). Basically, if they have a 'glitch" in my case, they have a right to shut down my business--possibly with no legal punitive options for me--and all I can do is pony up $35 and hope they note the mistake because it's inherently assumed by them that their business rights are more important than mine.
Exactly... the RIAA, FIAA don't care who else they offend, compromise or call thief, so long as they get their pound and a half of flesh from whomever... doesn't matter so long as they're nailing somebody to the cross as an example. As I understand it, they are taking this course of action because the "pay up or else" stand-over tactics weren't working anymore... too many people were saying: "Well slap me in jail, then, cos I'm not paying you bastards a cent."
That's right, the intimidation tactics failed to secure payments, and just as those failed, so will this ISP policing fail. People will seek other ways and means if they want it badly enough, and internet cafes will pop up all over the place to accommodate file sharing, etc. In fact there was an item on TV a few days ago about people using smart phones with encrypting apps to download illegally, and there was nothing the telcos could do to stop them.
A change in pricing policy could be all it takes to strike a happy medium where the media moguls and pirates/file sharers are happy, but I don't see fairer pricing happening while there's an array of bully-boy tactics still available.
Thanks, mate, 2 extra rations for you, also
Another valid point supporting the argument against ISP's becoming internet police.... add network errors to system abuse, hacking and incorrect identification as to how the innocent could be wrongfully accused and/or convicted. No single entity should ever be judge, jury and executioner, and essentially this move would place that much power in the hands of the RIAA and FIAA via your ISP's.
You ask whether robbery would exist? Yes, unless there were no laws defining it as a crime. For some, there is no 'affordable price'. This does not justify taking what isn't yours. As for "what is the proper price?", what should there be, a committee to set prices? That has been proven not to be viable. The free market enforces competition, unless unfair practices prevent it. Those can be dealt with. Is there a perfect solution? No. But I'd rather have companies competing than a dictator telling me what's fair. Far too many abuses that way.
Be assured, should they try to enact that, I'll be among the rebels. To some extent, though, that already exists thanks to the Patriot Act. I like the necessity which forced that less than the the situation which requires it. The truism of "Those who would trade freedom for security soon have neither." is true to a certain extent: Those who are dead also have neither. It's a very unpleasant world, isn't it? Perhaps people can find a more civilized way to act, but odds are against it - at least in the short term.
There are recourses which I outlined above. I agree with you, in essence. There probably is a solution in your case and I'd encourage you to talk with the people in your ISP to prevent problems actively rather than wait for them to happen and try to play 'catch up'.
These probably won't fail, because they are being enacted with the people who have a hand on the switch. I don't favor intimidation, I'd rather see 'education' and civilized negotiation.... but really, do you see that working with a person hell bent on taking something for free? I don't.
Again, there are appeal procedures. I wish the pirates - hell, thieves, and their criminal empires didn't make this necessary, but they have. Look, if something was taken from you by force, which you were willing to sell, wouldn't you try to catch the thieves to prevent them gaining from a criminal act? Of course you would.
What's good for the goose (at least in this case) is good for the gander. Will there be problems? Absolutely. Will they get solved? Probably yes in the vast majority. Will it be 100%? No, what is?
That does not justify "Then do nothing." Because the companies and people who invest to produce things have evry right to expect lawful behavior. Why not set up cooperatives to bargain for pricing? There are many alternatives to theft.
Not sure what you mean in your last sentence. Seems to me that they'll be detected and that's fine. Their activity and usage statistics along with an ip address should be enough to nab them.
Perhaps an alternative solution to this would be branding the software in some unique way with several alternative "call home" features in them which can't be disabled nor prevented and still have the software work.
Don't know if that's possible, but it would be a good start. Doubt I'm the first to think of it, though.
I've got to reject the argument of "If songs cost less people wouldn't steal them." It doesn't hold up on principle and I don't think it holds up in reality either. Honestly I believe songs could cost 10 cents and people would still steal them.
I hated the "Sue them for a million dollars" approach. I hated the "Put a virus on their machines" approach Sinperium mentioned (I'd forgotten about that one). I don't particularly like this one either, but "don't particularly like" is an improvement over "hate".
I did sit here and try to think of a better idea and the only idea I came up with was the realization I'd acquired a headache. So I guess I won't be getting my $5 million bonus this year Such is life.
lol, DaveRI. Me too. Malicious software isn't an answer, I agree. Although tracking them to their sites is more attractive... still another would crop up in it's stead.
No, the answer has to reside with the market... same as with drugs. Make it really hard to deal, and at the same time try to convince people not to steal. Not great, but what else is there?
Not always... not when you have companies who act as monopolies, etc. We were told by our state government that the privatisation of electricity would force prices down through competition. WRONG!!!! Electricity prices have risen over 300% and are still rising. July 1st next year there will be a 30% increase, so we are told. Hmmm, market competition, eh? To me it looks like gouging... a handful of companies charging like wounded bulls because they know we are a captive market and have no place else to turn.
The thing is, Doc, I don't look at the world through rose coloured glasses. I call a spade a spade and out greed and corruption whenever wherever I see it. Now I'm not saying that theft wouldn't exist under a fair pricing scheme, but I do believe the less fortunate would be less likely to steal if items of need [and want] were made affordable to all, not just a select few.
As for the wealthy retailers, there are some here in Australia I'd have executed for their thieving greed that drives market prices up, and thus placing more people below the poverty line. Like Gerry Harvey, a billionaire retailer who wants government to tax online sales at exorbitant rates to drive more customers into his crappy stores to be ripped off by 400% markups. If I were a legislator, I'd pass a law to have he and others like him executed without mercy... such is their insatiable greed
No, the appeal procedure is a joke. I shouldn't have to pay the cost of an independent review. The prosecution should. And then, who chooses the independent party of the review and if the independent review rules against me, do I have to take the ISP to court to "prove my innocence". The burden of proof should NEVER BE LEVIED ON THE DEFENDANT. End of discussion. I'm pretty much going to keep harping this point over and over and over.
The pirates haven't made this necessary. Evidence points to the contrary on the effects piracy has on the market despite the RIAA/MPAA ridiculous "studies" which have mostly been "So, how much do you think your company has lost to piracy" rather than actual statistics.
Yes, piracy is a problem. There is no moral justification for it. Those that scream the corporations are greedy are ridiculous: if you don't think the price they charge is worth it, you move on. However, this is a knee jerk reaction to a problem that is solved simply by copyright already. We need no new police and we need no new laws (I'd argue quite well we need more limits on copyright and a complete retooling of the patent system).
The ISPs should never be involved without a court order. Ever. It is a violation of trust and yes, violates privacy. You don't want the library or Netflix or whoever to pass information onto a stranger who just comes out of the blue and goes: "Can I see what DrJBHL checked out in the past year? I'd like to know what he's reading/watching?" Or, even better, your phone tracks you right? "Hey, Google/Apple, can I find out where DrJBHL has been? Thanks!" COURT ORDER first, then private information. Not the other way around.
Doc, there is no, "get with the ISP in advance and work on a solution"...they flat out don't care (unless you're a well-known, huge business). In the US, cable providers (which now are the primary internet providers) are allowed to be regional monopolies. Ten miles from my home is the demarcation line for the "other" cable company and they are the only two in a 45 miles radius from where I am--I can't even pick between them...I have to use the one nearest me.
As a recourse, I could use satellite (and explain to clients I couldn't get their work to them on time because it rained) or I could grab a mobile hotspot and re-mortgage my home to pay for the cellular bandwidth use.
One thing you can do is go to your local government meetings when it becomes time for them to review cable service providers (usually about every three years or so).
But your suggestion assumes the cable BUSINESS is "reasonable" and will "understand".
Years ago, I paid for a woman's gas in front of me at a local station because she left her wallet at home. She insisted I take a check which I explained wasn't necessary. She would not take "no" for an answer so I politely acepted it and added it to my business account deposit.
Right after that, my bill payments went out and unknown to me, the check I was given was no good. It was the Thursday before a four-day holiday and the bank attempted to draw on the no good check three times on that single day. Each time, I was charged a $35 service fee. As a result of this, EVERY check I had written bounced because the bank decided to put her check "in front" of my own that I had written. The first business day of the next week, I received my mail at the end of the day notifying me my account was closed and I "owed" the bank $525 in bounced check fees. I spent the next morning arguing with the bank president and finally had my account re-opened after splitting the difference on the fees and then spent the rest of the day calling business clients and warning them to wait a day or my checks would bounce.
I was completely at the mercy of the bank and short of a lawsuit, had no other options. They were in fact at that time routinely 'stacking' checks so they could get the most in fees and when I had talked with them refused to explain to me how they determined what check was first, etc....and of course, there was no law restricting them from doing this.
I have had a scam creditor falsely add a delinquent balance to my credit report in past and even after notifying our state attorney general and getting a statement from the creditor that I had no balance was unable to remove it.
I could go on with other examples but the fact is, "trust business to fairly self-regulate" doesn't work.
We have a credit protection act (very weak) and we need at least the same sort of oversight on ISPs and RIAA and the like to prevent abuse and gouging by them.
If we don't have things like this we will end up having to pay a fee to "restore service",etc., etc. When you own the water hole, you can charge what you want for a drink.
Years back there was a chain record store in Louisiana that had a high rate of shoplifting. There solution was to pat down search every customer leaving the store. Needles to say, I stopped going there--but in this case, "there is no other store".
What's really happening here is letting RIAA and whoever else is with them decide whether or not you can use the internet on any given day.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
