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).
Let them have at it then. I don't download anything that has to do with music or movies. For music I can listen to Internet radio...for movies there's Hulu or the local library where I can rent them. I let others go online and deal with the hassles. I can't be bothered.
I think it's at least an improvement over suing individuals for ridiculous amounts that will never get paid. Otherwise, like Uvah, I've really got other things to worry about. Does seem like another step towards policing the internet, that seems to be how freedoms are lost - chip, chip, chip away one little detail at a time, each detail seeming like a good idea by itself and then suddenly "poof". I do have to support a person's (group's) right to stop people from stealing their product though, somehow.
Should be a big thread. Maybe we could start a pool on post #?
Chipping away a little bit at a time is inevitable when there are those who abuse the system. Eventually rights will be lost by the majority because of the actions of a few greedy people. Then those very same greedy people cry when their rights are gone. To bad the PTB's won't go after them instead of acting against the multitude who don't abuse the system. I guess their attitude is if we get enough of them we're sure to get the right ones. Stupidity reigns.
Dave, I enjoy your comments because they are honest in pointing out inherent contradictions.
How to balance abuse of freedom? With responsibility. Protection from theft is everyone's right. Therefore, honesty is their responsibility. Unfortunately, not everyone creates and understands the feeling of having been 'ripped off'. Therefore, freedom becomes the the 'coin of punishment' with which one 'pays' for irresponsibility. The more irresponsible, the less the freedom.
The biggest pitfall here is that address:user ratio is not always 1:1. In other words, where more than one person uses one computer or where one router address is shared by several pc's, punishment becomes "collective", and not individual since 'guilt' cannot be strictly assigned.
This is also the case with insecure or hacked networks. This is a good reason to get with securing your home network (and office one as well).
*edit: Uvah, you posted while I was typing. Sorry. In this case, the greed is also illegal... the argument "illegality, if done discretely, isn't a big deal" doesn't work.
Boy are we in big trouble
SO... If I use a torrent to download the client for starteck online, or Ace online, or World of Tanks or something.... My isp will be all like "hey! large p2p file transfer!!!!!!!!" and smack me?
"Your ISP is not keeping tabs on your Internet activity. If you distribute or download a file over a P2P network, however—from the latest episode of Game of Thrones to Transformers 3—that file includes an IP address associated with your account. Available technology can identify pirated content on these networks, and when it's found, the content holder will contact the ISP with the IP address." - PC Mag
If the IP address matches the computer with the purchased game, I suppose not.
I don't like it but they do have to do something ... I can see a lot of non computer savvy people getting hit.by this.
the ISP's want to police the internet then they need to do it for spyware,Malware,Virus,Trojans,Etc...
and bartenders need to start Policing their bars and not let drunks drive...
Shop keepers need to start Pat downs when you come in and go out.. just so they can get the ones that are doing the crimes (it's sarcasm if you didn't catch it)
Remove do to it's in the OP
this one is stupid IF your a Pirate
These alerts do eventually expire; any subscriber who makes it 12 months without receiving a notice has their slate wiped clean.
it's counter intuitive... So if Mr./Mrs. Pirate get lets say 4 Warning and stops for a year his/her slate is cleaned then back to Pirating again
Yep, not strict enough. Number of warnings should be a good deal fewer.
Wait a minute, do pirates give out warnings when they are about to take something, I think not.
I remember back in the day, you could copy what ya bought, record from the radio, borrow someones tape or record and make a copy and they didn't bitch. Now greed has set in and now they want their pound of flesh. I haven't bought music in years(nor copied). I could care less. If I want to listen to some I'll turn on the radio or put in a cd that I have.
'Back in the day' methods of duplication were at best pretty bloody slow and thus 'commercially' inpractical for the wannabe pirate.
Way back 'in the day' no-one was likely to have a record 'press' for turning gobs of plastic into LPs.
No-one had high-speed tape dubbing....
No-one could even afford a CD burner.... and once those became accessible they were slow enough to be close to useless.
As technology makes it increasingly so damn easy to distribute property to a mass market then so must legislation try to keep up.
Damn, this means more Americans sneaking into Canada.
After all these years the RIAA and MPAA are still pursuing that failed scaremongering campaign of theirs. Good luck to them.
What about someone using my network to pirate something? I get in trouble instead of the one who pirated the files? Not cool.
To cut long story short - it's another crap from lawmakers' pens, paid behind the curtain by those with money - leeches like RSAA, RIAA, MAFIAAAAAAA, and similar scum.
Now to elaborate - why is it crap? Because many problems come from compromised home computers - you can have a warez file storage on your kitchen computer and you don't have to be aware of it. As with spam floods, botnets and distributed attacks, innocent (and dumb) users will have problems.
Second, how will you defend? When you are accused and persecuted, how you, as an end user, will defend against this gang with crowds of lawyers? You won't be able to - they will just pull some logs out of their rectum and that's it. It's "presumed guilty" system, which is a direct violation of what the allegedly free countries were so proud of.
Note how they act as a cartel - all the major ISPs in America together, so that they minimize danger of users running away (which would no doubt happen if only one of them started). And the best of all - uninformed people applauding.
For example, let's presume that I will run a SSL-encrypted torrent seed/peer. My ISP won't be able to decode what data are pouring in and out. What will they accuse me of? Excessive traffic? Suspicious number of TCP connections? Encryption usage?
It's all just another "boo hoo" crap to scare people. Serious warez operators will start to use encryption. Some dumb people will get caught and "server as an example" at pompous trials, like it happened in the past.
Just as with attacks against FTP warez sites, nothing will change in the end - FTP was succeeded by bittorent, so bittorent will be succeeded by some encrypted distributed protocol.
No doubt discussing price fixing at that same meeting as well.
Read the OP:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Again, the OP. Simple appeal procedure. Not that I like it, but railing against it will do nothing. And you won't need tons of lawyers.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[quote who="myfist0" reply="18" id="2964135"]Quoting Kamamura_CZ, reply 16Note how they act as a cartel - all the major ISPs in America togetherNo doubt discussing price fixing at that same meeting as well.
Extraneous paranoia. If you want more competition, start a movement to change existing legislation and force the expansion of the infrastructure.
I'd enjoy seeing what steps the critics would take to improve the current piracy situation.... not just criticize what's wrong with the current 'solution'. I agree it's not perfect, but how would you make it better?
Nope. Not buying it.
The ISPs should not be able to levy fines or strikes or force me to "appeal a case" without evidence brought against me in a courtroom.
I don't steal, but I don't want to have to appeal an accidental identification. They are putting the burden of evidence on the one being charged - a complete reversal of how our law works.
Has this been signed into law? I thought the Supreme Court said that this can't be done the other day and ruled against ISPs policing us. Did I misunderstand?
Law? Why can't you just read the OP?
Fact: It exists. "Should"? There "shouldn't" be cancer, or suffering in any form. Fact? There is. I asked how to improve it? No answers yet.
Perhaps option to try it before you buy it would be first step. If there is intention to repeatedly play watch or listen to product people are going to buy.
If not then people have moral problem which should be addressed by example from our leaders (politicians), parents and passed down to "simple folk" and our children. It doesn't help that people say something and they do completely different thing. It also doesn't help that people withhold a fact to advance their agenda. But that is topic for another thread named Human greed has no limits or perhaps Money is my Religion.
Second step are more reasonable prices.
I'm not saying in not against piracy = stealing but after purchasing product (for example game) and spending 30+£ for it loading it 1 time for 30 minutes..... It makes me feel that I was robbed. Yes I did make my own decision and I'm responsible for it but I probably made it on basis of advertisements which in today s world 99% of it is a lie. With that I came back full circle back to morality .......
There something rotten......
Not what I said Doc. The 'ISP Police' or whatever, the PTB's in order to punish those who abuse the system will make that punishment 'felt' by the majority. The chipping away at freedom as it were. To punish the few the many will suffer.
I see a big invasion of privacy and lawsuits from that will make enforcing these rules not possible.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
