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).
I'm not saying it's right, just that when inequity is engineered to benefit an elite group while the majority are deprived/having to go without, stealing the unattainable is the only way some know to level the playing field a little.
Business obviously has to make some profit in order to exist, but it is the obscene level of profit to which major corporations aspire to regardless, and sadly, the market/consumers do not set the price, corporate big-wigs do, and thus profit is in their hands, not the consumers. When corporations speak of exponential growth, they're not speaking about expansion but rather how many more of your [the public's] dollars they can grab, and if they can't sell you more shit, they'll care you more for the shit you do/will buy. That IS corporate mentality,... ruthless, and to believe/think otherwise, well it'd be like being off with the fairies.
For the most part, private [non-government] doctors were the thorn in my side when I could not get decent pain relief, etc. I have since found a decent doctor who does not refer to foreign law/culture to refuse treatment, but rather he addresses my issues and treats them accordingly. Also, my recent treatment at the public hospital here in Ipswich was very good and I have no complaints there, either. The staff were courteous and polite and respectful.
However, if what you say is true of health care in the US then there is something fundamentally wrong, not just with government, the insurers and health care in general, but with society as a whole. It is totally ludicrous that a country as advanced as the US can't manage a workable health system, and frankly, it sounds far from the land of the free and I'm glad I don't live there.... it's going down the proverbial gurgler
I am at the lower end of the socio-economic scale here in Australia, yet it seems I enjoy many more choices and freedoms than I ever could/would in the US, and certainly more than many [supposedly better off than me] in the US do And here I was bitching about Gillard's carbon tax last week. Shit, that's bugger all compared to what's going on over there.
Theft is theft. Prison doesn't level any playing field. It's the Criminal Higher Learning Center.
The profit goes to the company and is disbursed to executives and employees (they don't get paid from thin air), stockholders and invested for expansion. Also to pay bills. They want to sell more. Fine. So?
You think you got great care. Hope you did. But your frame of reference is 2 socialized health care systems with rationing protocols, etc. Do tell about the chances a 60 year old has of getting on Dialysis in England if he can't pay for it himself. Great system. It was born out of post WWII poverty, and reflects that in the care it gives. The priorities are "different".
You are completely avoiding or ignoring the greater issue here. I'm not saying theft is right or that it isn't a crime, but rather that the mechanisms to steal were created by the very people who complain about it most... the wealthy. What I am saying is that we need to remove more of the reasons/causes if we are to reduce the incidence of theft... and to make society a more equitable place would be one right step in that direction.
Okay, stealing is wrong, but is an already wealthy entrepreneur any better when he/she marks up his/her goods by 800% to maximise profit per unit? We have one such retailer here in Oz, and because his sales have fallen, largely due to online prices being more competitive, he wants government to tax online purchases at a higher rate to force consumers back to his stores. F**k him, I'll never step foot in one of his stores, ever, not with his billions and whining, self-serving arrogance, and I'm not the only one according to opinion polls.
Some of his markups are/have been 900%. according to our consumer watchdog So tell me, how is that any less stealing than stealing a loaf of bread? In both instances, somebody's expendable income is reduced... in both cases somebody is ripped off. The one difference is that one is legal and the other is not... while one suffers a small dent in a huge personal fortune, the other gets to feed his family another day. To me, neither crime is acceptable, but my sympathies would err on the side of the person who, through no fault of their own, is forced by socio-economic inequity to steal to feed his/her family.
For mine, the wealthy retailer/entrepreneur deserves no sympathy because he most likely begged, borrowed and stole to get where he is, and hopefully on Judgement Day his Hell is twice as hot and fiery as the bloke who stole simply to feed his family... cos really, which is the greater crime at the end of the day?
And this is different from the impoverished family man in the US who has no health cover and no disposable income how? I have spoken to a number of people from the US who came to Australia specifically to receive health care because it is equally as good as and far more equitable than what they had at home. You can decry the public system all you want, and laud the excesses of the private sector all you want, the fact is, I would rather an imperfect public system that co-exists with a private one... and in the event the public system cannot accommodate my particular need, I can resource the private sector to provide treatment...
Yes, that's right, under the universal health care scheme here, I could access private health resources and be reimbursed 75% of my initial outlay... my/our government's way of ensuring I/we [at the lower end of the socio-economic scale] do have access to adequate health services. Is it perfect? Hell no, and I don't always have the spare cash to pay for private services up front, but various providers 'bulk bill' [send medicare the bill] and my treatment is not with-held on grounds of inability to pay.
Am I always happy with the outcome? Nope, I'm a grumpy old bastard who's in a lot of pain most of the time, and while that's not the doctor's fault, it helps to blame him/her and let off a bit of steam with a good whine.
In a humane, compassionate and caring society, the primary focus of any hospital and/or doctor should be the provision of health care... before the cost involved becomes a consideration. Sadly, for far too many [and that's worldwide], the primary concern is finance and even basic care is denied because the propensity to pay is not there. That is my greatest argument against the broad privatisation of hospitals... because a profit is there to be made and that is the primary goal. True, public health has administrative waste and etc, but waste if far more acceptable to me than the provision of care being denied because "he/she is poor" and profit will take a hit. In other words, the body corporate and shareholders can't afford compassion.,, or simply don't have it because the dollar signs are too distracting
Anyway, I have seen how it works here... and you have seen how it doesn't work there, so how about we agree to disagree. Our system.. your system... a bit like comparing apples to oranges, don't yer think?
I decry the lacks of the public system and do not "laud" the private sector, as it has major faults as well.
I am opposed to the excesses of both. The inhumanity of yours (and the defection of good practioners from it), as well as the "conceirge" practioners here. I understand them, and they do their share of treating the uninsured, if not enough. I decry the lack of the Public option here because that would have caused prices to fall. I do not believe it would have caused the government take over of medicine... paranoid crap.
You are enamored of socialized medicine and its obligatory rationing. Fine. I don't want my life in the hands of a high school drop-out clerk.
You attribute everything you don't like to greed. I attribute the shortcomings of both systems to putting ideology before people.
No, I am not at the mercy of some high school dropout clerk. When I attend the public hospital I am placed in a queue to see a doctor... when I see that doctor I am assessed by him/her, not a clerk... and if I require further attention [x-rays, dressings, minor or major surgery] I will likely receive it.
Like I said before, the system is imperfect, and I'm certainly not enamoured by it. If anything, I want to avoid it like the plague, and not because I am worried about its effectiveness/ability to treat me. No, having to attend a hospital would mean I am sick/there's something wrong, right?
Again, no! Some of it I attribute to pure evil and/or corruption. The rest I attribute to bankers, ex-wives and not enough corn flakes for breakfast. However, greed is a primary motivator for human excesses and shortcomings, don't you think?
Oh, and to let of steam that's built up because of rampant corporate greed, sometimes I go down to the CBD where all the bankers and corporate high flyers park their cars, and if I hit the parking meter just right with the palm of my hand, the expired tag pops up and they're greeted with a parking ticket or 3 by the time they knock off work... hehe.
Now can we agree to disagree?
And the simple fact is, we are all different and there are some things we, as individuals, will never come to agreement over, and this is perhaps one of them.
EDIT: You posted 41 seconds before I did.
Best regards,Steven.
And the thing is, I know I'm right... only because the missus hasn't told me [as yet] I'm wrong.
Thing is, she's never told you you're right.
@Starkers: Would you mind if I quoted you in my topic Inside Job about the economic collapse?
No need! I'm right unless she tells me otherwise.
[must admit though, that's more often than not]
No, not at all... go for it.
There once was limewire, now there's torrents, next there's apple air-drop. Drag and drop files from id encrypted computers?
There people who just tunnel everything through http and forget about p2p ports. I see a future where encryption and id that show its youtube streaming when in actual fact its people downloading stuff I'm not allowed to mention here.
Its a battle there not going to win because ISPs start violating Privacy Laws.
This is going to prove to be a huge waste of time, resources and money. Just like the "war on drugs". How many years has the U.S. been fighting the "war on drugs"? How much money has been wasted on the "war on drugs"? How much better off are we because of the "war on drugs"?
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
