Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Piracy The Internet Your Rights Online

Copyright Alert System To Launch Monday 224

Posted by Soulskill
from the launch-into-orbit,-i-hope dept.
An anonymous reader sends this excerpt from the Daily Dot: "Starting next week, most U.S. Internet users will be subject to a new copyright enforcement system that could force them to complete educational programs, and even slow their Internet speeds to a crawl. A source with direct knowledge of the Copyright Alert System [said] the five participating Internet service providers will start the controversial program Monday. The ISPs — industry giants AT&T, Cablevision, Comcast, Time Warner, and Verizon — will launch their versions of the CAS on different days throughout the week. Comcast is expected to be the first, on Monday." Of course, there are many ways around the Copyright Alert System, so it probably won't be terribly effective.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Copyright Alert System To Launch Monday

Comments Filter:
  • To be fair. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by masternerdguy (2468142) on Friday February 22, 2013 @06:24PM (#42985295)
    This is actually a pretty moderate approach compared to just suing single mothers for millions of dollars for downloading an MP3 once.
  • Full Encryption (Score:5, Insightful)

    by spire3661 (1038968) on Friday February 22, 2013 @06:42PM (#42985499) Journal
    This will only speed up the race to fully encrypted comms.
  • Re:To be fair. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 22, 2013 @06:55PM (#42985631)

    This is actually a pretty moderate approach compared to just suing single mothers for millions of dollars for downloading an MP3 once.

    It's "pretty moderate" in the same sense as beating up a woman is "pretty moderate" compared to raping her.

  • For who is this? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by El_Muerte_TDS (592157) <elmuerte AT drunksnipers DOT com> on Friday February 22, 2013 @06:57PM (#42985645) Homepage

    The producers, artists and performers don't own the copyright. So for who was this again?

  • by mark-t (151149) <markt&lynx,bc,ca> on Friday February 22, 2013 @06:58PM (#42985659) Journal

    Because I'd have to say I have a problem with that.

    I don't use Bittorrent very often, but when I do, it's to download content that is entirely legitimate. I have to say that if they accuse you of infringing on copyright, you should be permitted to at the very least be able to say "No I didn't", and have that actually mean something.

  • Due Process (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Adrian Lopez (2615) on Friday February 22, 2013 @07:01PM (#42985685) Homepage

    The Obama Administration pressured ISPs into adopting this scheme. Now we get private enforcement of copyrights without the usual defenses against such. No government involvement, so no due process. People should be more worried about this than they really are, especially considering the government's involvement.

  • by Snufu (1049644) on Friday February 22, 2013 @07:11PM (#42985775)

    like phone lines, water, and electricity. Would you accept an unelected corporate group like Hollywood policing your phone conversations and throttling the line if they didn't like what they overheard you saying? Or throttling your water supply if they objected to the flowers growing in your yard?

    Inform your elected officials. Make it clear that we will not tolerate these for-profit commercial groups invading our privacy and abusing public resources. Apply citizen utility rights to internet access.

    (By the way, expect small captured governments like New Zealand to bend to corporate influence, but how is this stuff not struck down in modern social leaning nations such as France?)

  • Re:To be fair. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by c (8461) <beauregardcp@gmail.com> on Friday February 22, 2013 @07:11PM (#42985779)

    This is actually a pretty moderate approach compared to just suing single mothers for millions of dollars for downloading an MP3 once.

    True, but keep in mind that this is likely just in addition to suing single mothers for millions of dollars for downloading an MP3 once. I don't expect they're going to call off their political lobbying, either.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 22, 2013 @07:13PM (#42985799)

    State of the art copyright 'protection' methods use signature databases. Companies acting as 'agents' on behalf of copyright 'owners' scan various forms of their clients 'property' to create signatures that can be tested against video/sound streams, or against packet streams intercepted at the ISP using 'deep packet inspection'.

    Now, here we are talking about the later- the ISP inspecting the 'signature' of data traffic to the users. Firstly, false positives will swamp the system. We have already seen have legal live video streams have been closed down by automated signature testing systems. But let us instead consider the 'valid' matches.

    To fight back, users will need packet streams that are unique to the user. While this is frequently described as 'end to end' encryption, simpler solutions also work. The 'deep packet' signature test fails if the data stream suffers ANY per user modification, and that can include a simple XORing of most of the packet via an XOR key at the head of the packet. This really isn't 'encryption' but data 'morphing' where the same data can have a massive number of different forms, confusing or defeating a 'signature' based approach.

    Data morphing can be done with near zero computational processing, unlike proper encryption. The goal is simply to ensure the same data has a vast number of different forms. And included 4-byte XOR key, for instance, has 4000 million variants, if memory serves, requiring this number of signatures in the database to dumbly recognise ONE packet.

    Now, today, governments benefit greatly from the mostly open nature of data transmitted across the net. Intelligence agencies must be doing their nut over useless proposals that simply have the effect of moving us ALL to obscured forms of net traffic. The new US system will ensure EVERYONE will come to the conclusion "I do not want my ISP sniffing my traffic".

    PS Automated (or Human) takedowns of non-live material can never work. If the worst comes to the worst, people will simply post encrypted 'zips' with no description, and tell people to "watch this space". Seven days later (or whatever), the password will be posted alongside a description of contents. Sure, this still allows the uploaders to be targeted, but their has NEVER been a time when uploaders were unable to be targeted.

    Since survey after survey shows that 'pirates' are also the biggest purchasers of 'legal' content, we already know that the solution is in providing the legal services people want (which means EVERYTHING available EVERYWHERE for use on ALL devices). The tech war should not be wasted on 'downloaders' but on finding better ways to get paid content available universally.

  • by Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) on Friday February 22, 2013 @07:18PM (#42985855)

    What were those, the famous last words of a few Anonymous script kiddies right before they got arrested?

    Finding someone who is "anonymous" on the Internet is hard, in the same way that cracking a new hardware-based DRM scheme is hard. It can take a lot of work, at least if you're the first person trying to do it, but ultimately trying to establish two-way communications over the Internet and yet remain completely anonymous is just as futile as trying to lock up content that you're also showing to someone. There may be many levels of indirection that are difficult to follow, but it's impossible to do what you actually need to do and yet still remain 100% safe from hostile activity.

  • Re:Download Linux (Score:4, Insightful)

    by whoever57 (658626) on Friday February 22, 2013 @07:20PM (#42985879) Journal

    Why would they bust you for downloading Linux? Do you have any idea how the system works?

    Any excuse to limit the usage by high-bandwidth users. Comcast would be much happier (and profitable) if, despite all the adverts about the speed Comcast offers, you used your connection only to check your email a few times per day. No streaming media, etc..

  • Pure Kafka (Score:4, Insightful)

    by DrJimbo (594231) on Friday February 22, 2013 @07:40PM (#42986037)

    From the 2nd fine article [computerworld.com]:

    If you feel "wrongly accused" then there is a $35 'review fee' to see precisely what you are accused of. It's refunded if you win, but if the Copyright Alert System is so sure of itself then why charge at all? Why not let individuals know what they are accused of without this stipulation that the fee is to stop "frivolous appeals?"

    You actually have to pay money to see what this non-government cabal is accusing you of? It costs them next to nothing to tell you what the exact accusation is. It's just a few more bytes in the warning email or in a web page linked to by the email. I could maybe understand having to pay a fee to contest the charges but it is truly Kafkaesque to have to pay a fee just to find out what the charges are.

  • by Genda (560240) <marietNO@SPAMgot.net> on Friday February 22, 2013 @07:42PM (#42986053) Journal

    DUDE! That thing sticking outta the side of his head... is his tongue in his cheek... next you're supposed to laugh... and now we know why there are no savant comedians...

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 22, 2013 @08:14PM (#42986289)

    Your reading comprehension skills match your knowledge of where the industry is going. 'Six Strikes' sets a precedent. When it doesn't work well enough, the industry will easily persuade politicians to force the ISPs to use methods already widely deployed by music/video streaming companies.

    Let me make this so simple, even you can understand. Takedowns at Youtube, for instance, began with copyright owners having to identify infringing work themselves, and then make direct appeals to Google. As soon as the principle was established that Google was aware of massive amounts of infringing content, and that removing this content with takedown requests was far too slow, various courts DEMANDED (note that word) that Google develop technology solutions that could automatically recognize infringing content from lists of data provided by the owners.

    Up to now, ISPs have acted as 'common carriers'- responsible for NOT knowing what traffic passes over their network. 'Six Strikes' reverses this position. Now the ISP is engaged in being a PARTY TO the process of identifying infringing content. Sooner or later, the ISPs will be obliged to use the same 'state of the art' as Google and others.

    Now DPI can take many forms. As used by the intelligence agencies, it is obviously about reconstructing the data streams in their entirety, using databases of all common protocols used by higher network layers. Anti-piracy DPI does NOT need this mega-expensive approach. Signature matching is a statistical method that looks for patterns in runs of bytes. I am interested why you are so determined to distract people from anti-piracy solutions currently being implemented by signature-matching software companies across the planet. I would guess you financially benefit from such work, and desperately hope your solutions can be mandated for use by ISPs before countermeasures become widespread.

    Of course, some might split-hairs as to whether signature matching counts as DPI, but that is irrelevant to my point.

    To be honest, you sound a lot like the people who shill forums telling people that the government has 'magic' tech that can recover properly erased hard-drive files, or retrieve files from smashed drives. Or like the shills that deny the government has DPI equipment attached to ALL networks provided by the major telecoms companies in the USA. Funny how people who shill to a common purpose will use completely opposite arguments when it serves their purpose. In reality the government will do whatever tech allows it to do within cost constraints UNLESS the people fight back.

  • Re:To be fair. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Seumas (6865) on Friday February 22, 2013 @08:22PM (#42986333)

    I agree. Nothing can ever go wrong when government and corporations establish a re-education programs.

  • Re:To be fair. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Jane Q. Public (1010737) on Friday February 22, 2013 @08:45PM (#42986505)
    I don't remember who said this about the RIAA and MPAA, but it was something like, "Bashing somebody in the head repeatedly and then saying 'Buy my product!' is probably not a very good business model."
  • Re:Download Linux (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mysidia (191772) on Friday February 22, 2013 @08:49PM (#42986535)

    "We don't care. No peer-to-peer."

    This is unacceptable and unprofessional, can I please speak with your supervisor?

  • Re:Download Linux (Score:5, Insightful)

    by deimtee (762122) on Friday February 22, 2013 @10:15PM (#42987029) Journal
    Drone: "Certainly Sir, just a minute", hits mute button, says to coworkers, "Who wants to be superviser today?".
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 22, 2013 @10:22PM (#42987057)

    "you have to be lucky every time, and they only have to be lucky once."

    This is true when you are topping out the FBI's most wanted list.

    It is not true when you're just another pirate in a crowd of millions. You don't need to be lucky, then - you just need to be something other than the lowest-hanging fruit.

  • Re:To be fair. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 22, 2013 @10:45PM (#42987129)

    I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic but I don't think you are, so I'm addressing your point as if it's serious:

    In Asian diplomacy, step 1 is to be outrageous. Refuse to listen to the opposing party, make ridiculously absurd demands, and concede nothing.

    Step 2 is stalemate, but you make it extremely clear that you will still concede nothing.

    Step 3 is to pretend to listen to the opposing party, say you'll compromise, make slightly less absurd demands, and concede nothing.

    If this fails you start the process over again. Insist that the slightly less absurd demands are a moderate compromise, which is a true statement, because compared to the original ridiculously absurd demands, it's a 'more moderate' approach. The RIAA/MPAA is playing a game of Asian diplomacy and suckers like you (assuming you're not just being facetious) enable them to win.

  • Re:To be fair. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jamstar7 (694492) on Saturday February 23, 2013 @02:48AM (#42987867)
    Also keep in mind the $35 'review fee'. They'll dump shitpiles of notices on people just to get those review fees. Another revenue stream to add to their gains from litigation.

Things equal to nothing else are equal to each other.

Working...