US ISPs Become 'Copyright Cops' July 12th 409
An anonymous reader writes "Comcast, Time Warner and Verizon are among the ISPs preparing to implement a graduated response to piracy by July, says the music industry's chief lobbyist. ISPs, including Comcast, Cablevision, Verizon, and Time Warner Cable, have officially agreed to step up efforts to protect the rights of copyright owners. From the article: 'Supporters say this could become the most effective antipiracy program ever. Since ISPs are the Internet's gatekeepers, the theory is that network providers are in the best position to fight illegal file sharing. CNET broke the news last June that the RIAA and counterparts at the trade group for the big film studios had managed to get the deal through — with the help of the White House.'"
counter lawsuits - entrapment (Score:2, Interesting)
If the ISP can detect that I am accessing stuff I should not they can just slam the door shut so I don't get it.
If the ISP detects I am getting stuff I should not and does not slam the door they are complicit in the action since they are sending it to me knowing that I should not have it.
Anyone fingered by an ISP should sue them entrapment.
Liability? (Score:4, Interesting)
Aren't the ISPs signing themselves up for a great deal of liability here? If they have the equipment and manpower to monitor for someone downloading Metallica songs, that also gives them the capability to scan for a great deal of other legally questionable content. Doesn't this make them responsible when someone, say, transmits illegal imagery over the ISP's service? They could have stopped it, so they should be considered accessories to it. Am I missing some legal loophole here, or is it simply a matter of "wink wink, nod nod, the people in charge only care about MP3s"?
In case you didn't get it... (Score:5, Interesting)
Pardon me, but even if I'm not doing a damned thing wrong, I don't want or need my ISP to be monitoring my activity, any more than I would want a phone company listening to my telephone calls.
I find the idea ethically and morally repugnant, and, for that matter, on thin ice legally.
I should also point out that my cable contract contains none of these provisions. Maybe it's fine for new accounts, but I will hold them to my existing contract.
Re:counter lawsuits - entrapment (Score:4, Interesting)
I believe only agents of the government can be guilty of entrapment.
Re:The excuse I needed... (Score:4, Interesting)
Really folks. (Score:3, Interesting)
Why doesn't someone simply go up to the guys who propose this crap and simply SHOOT THEM IN THE FUCKING HEAD!?
Re:this means nothing (Score:5, Interesting)
Except for those that are *part* of the "dying media industry" (think Comcast/NBC Universal and TimeWarner). Same kinds of internal conflict that Sony has for being a provider of devices that can infringe on copyright and a producer of copyrighted content. Guess which side wins (have a look at Sony's crippled devices)?
This will not improve sales. (Score:5, Interesting)
The best part about this is, they will not increase the sale of any of these products at all.
If you cant afford it in the first place, you wont be buying it.
All this does, is actually hurt our entire civilization, especially those who cant afford these things. Things that are so easily copied and hurt no one by allowing poorer people access to them. There is no loss of sale and it only benefits the poor. Especially those burdened by health issues who pay 15k a year for insurance plans, who barely scrape by in todays world with min wage jobs, people who dont have a say at all in this country... people who try to just better their lives through knowledge using free programs, and perhaps building a future they can one day afford buy these "THINGS".
The benefits of piracy have outweighed the negative.
Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2, made 2 billion dollars in 2 months. Call of Duty Modern Warfare 3 made a billion dollars in 1 week. Avatar made over a billion dollars world wide in ticket sales alone, not to mention blu-ray sales, netflix etc on top of that. These 3 items were ALL readily available through piracy. They were also pirated heavily. Did it actually negatively impact the sales? Perhaps a tiny bit, but c'mon. The amount of money those 3 items generated, prove that no matter how much something is pirated, it makes a FUCKLOAD of cash regardless.
Without piracy, ITUNES would never have existed. iTunes is a very profitable buisness for music, and apps. ALL of which are still pirated today.
Trying to end piracy, is basically denying the poor of things they otherwise could never afford. How will that ever benefit humanity?
How long will collapse of music industry take? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:The transformation is almost complete (Score:5, Interesting)
Common Carrier (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Contracts (Score:5, Interesting)
"Even if it doesn't explicitly say they can monitor and take actions to "protect the integrity of their network" like most all do, they left a clause in where they can change the terms at any time."
To the extent that they have such a clause, it's not a contract!
Let me clarify that: generally speaking, especially in my area, where we have one of the major cable companies but no real competition, the contract in the first place is very one-sides, with the big powerful cable company on one side, and the consumer (who has few choices) on the other. Combine that with the fact that it's a "boiler-plate" contract -- that is to say, there is no real opportunity for negotiation -- and what you end up with is what the courts call a "contract of adhesion". Contracts of adhesions are WEAK contracts, and sometimes courts will not honor them at all.
The reason for this is really the whole historic foundation of contract law, which goes back to common law beginning far earlier than this country even existed. Some things about contract law must be kept in mind. First, a contract is a VOLUNTARY agreement between 2 or more parties. Voluntary means without coercion, and it implies that you can negotiate your terms. After all, if the other party is stipulating all of the terms then it's not really very voluntary on your part, is it? It's "take it or leave it". Which is somewhat coercive, especially if you don't have other choices.
The second big issue to keep in mind is that in order to have an agreement at all, you have to know what you are agreeing to IN ADVANCE. Otherwise you can't really be agreeing to it, can you? Informed consent is an essential part of a contract.
So pardon all the theory. We know that in recent years many courts have tended to be corporate ass-kissers. Nevertheless, technically at least, a contract can't really say "we reserve the right to change the terms of this contract". Because then there is no informed consent, and to the extent there is no informed consent, there is no contract.
I am well aware that as a practical matter, some judges might honor such a contract (the assholes!). On the other hand, some would not. But if they tried to do it to me in this case, they'd have a fight on their hands.
Re:The excuse I needed... (Score:4, Interesting)
or if it's bittorrent you must, maybe a seedbox :)