Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Internet Piracy Technology

Six-Strikes System Starts In U.S. 418

Posted by Soulskill
from the six-strikes-and-you're-out-out-but-not-really-out-kinda dept.
New submitter mynameiskhan writes "Major internet service providers today will start monitoring the internet traffic to their customers' computers and will warn them if they download copyrighted materials using peer to peer network. The article says, 'A person will be given up to six opportunities to stop before the Internet provider will take more drastic steps, such as temporarily slowing their connection, or redirecting Internet traffic until they acknowledge they received a notice or review educational materials about copyright law.' Furthermore, if you appeal the warning you will be required to pay $35 to state your case. Have the ISPs have had enough of RIAA pestering, or are they siding with RIAA?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Six-Strikes System Starts In U.S.

Comments Filter:
  • All bark, no bite (Score:5, Insightful)

    by langelgjm (860756) on Tuesday February 26, 2013 @06:15PM (#43018993) Journal
    Termination of subscribers’ connections is specifically mentioned by the Center for Copyright Information as a penalty that will not be imposed under the Copyright Alert System. The strategic partnership between rights-holders and ISPs makes it obvious why the CAS does not—and in fact cannot—threaten to terminate Internet subscriptions as a penalty for alleged copyright infringement: the five ISPs participating in the CAS would never voluntarily agree to give up the revenue associated with allegedly infringing subscribers. In theory, rights-holders could perhaps convince ISPs to terminate allegedly infringing subscribers if rights-holders were willing to compensate ISPs for the associated loss in subscription revenue. In practice, however, the cost of such compensation for rights-holders would far outweigh the benefits to rights-holders of halting the average alleged infringer.
    • by elucido (870205) on Tuesday February 26, 2013 @06:38PM (#43019257)

      And once one group of corporations gains the ability it's only a matter of time before they want other excuses.

    • by Hatta (162192)

      What actual monitoring is going to be happening? The ISP is going to sniff my packets? So what, my torrents are encrypted. The only way they're going to determine if I'm sharing copyrighted material is by connecting to the tracker and seeing my IP as a peer. But they've been able to do that for years, and have been doing that for years. What more can they actually do?

      • by WillgasM (1646719)

        What more can they actually do?

        Redirect to crappy "educational" videos and throttle your connection. Haven't you been paying attention.

      • by Beardo the Bearded (321478) on Tuesday February 26, 2013 @07:03PM (#43019519)

        Assume any encrpyted traffic is a copyright violation.

        After all, if you didn't have anything to hide, you wouldn't be using TERRORIST TOOLS.

        You fucking scumbag.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by camg188 (932324)

        What actual monitoring is going to be happening?... The only way they're going to determine if I'm sharing copyrighted material is by connecting to the tracker and seeing my IP as a peer.

        That is exactly what they are doing. According to the Center for Copyright Information [copyrightinformation.org] the process is:
        1. Companies that own music, tv shows, and movies join peer-to-peer networks and search for media that they own.
        2. They confirm that the titles are indeed copyrighted content.
        3. They collect the IP addresses making the con

    • More like bark and potential bite. Documentation of violations, which customers have to pay to dispute. I wonder if these notifications of violation might be used in court, or to inspire further action by other parties?
    • Re:All bark, no bite (Score:5, Interesting)

      by mlts (1038732) * on Tuesday February 26, 2013 @08:50PM (#43020361)

      There is also the fact that if people's subscriptions are cut, it will get people to do what ISPs fear, and that is to hit the VPN services. What CAS appears to do go after the "casual" user. However, if their account is on the line, they will be joining the ranks who are using encrypted tunnels for virtually all their communications..

      Once VPNs become a standard thing (just like antivirus programs), ISPs now lose all passive tools, and are forced to act in an active manner. I wouldn't be surprised to see some of the following as the next step:

      1: VPNs throttled or randomly disconnected. Throttling can be undetectable and it becomes a word against word argument with a quite uphill battle against the subscriber.

      2: Active prohibition of VPNs who don't log, with consequences to accounts due to TOS violations.

      3: A ban of VPNs altogether (Pakistan is doing this.)

      4: A requirement for subscriber machines to pass a "healthcheck" before being allowed on the Net. This "healthcheck" would require software that prohibits IP forwarding/masquerading/connections to VPN addresses.

      5: Similar to #4, except with mandated "anti-pirate" software. Picture an antivirus scanner, except for detecting VPN software, cracks, patches, P2P apps, and proxy software, shutting the computer down and phoning home if it is found.

      6: TPMs and trusted boot paths to make #4 and #5 work better, with automatic permanent blocking of the machine off the Net if tampered with.

      7: Another round of DMCA laws to support #4-6, and to further keep #1 from being provably detected.

  • I hope they do. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by waspleg (316038) on Tuesday February 26, 2013 @06:17PM (#43019007) Journal

    I hope the backlash from this makes SOPA look tame.

  • Lucky (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 26, 2013 @06:17PM (#43019015)

    I live in China

  • Of course (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 26, 2013 @06:17PM (#43019021)

    Furthermore, if you appeal the warning you will be required to pay $35 to state your case. Have the ISPs have had enough of RIAA pestering, or are they siding with RIAA?"

    What do you think, genius?

    Of course they're siding with the cartels...and they've figured out a nice little side earner while they screw their customers.

    • by Synerg1y (2169962)

      why would you argue your case though with them though?

      1. They aren't going to do anything, but mail you letters and eventually throttle you for a couple of days.
      2. The only argument these "people" will listen to is the one that comes from behind a gavel.

      Waste of $35 if there ever was one.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by mark-t (151149)
        It's not necessarily a waste of $35, since if they are unable to verify the alleged infringement, you get the $35 refunded, and the "strike" is removed.
        • Re:Of course (Score:5, Insightful)

          by nabsltd (1313397) on Tuesday February 26, 2013 @07:24PM (#43019709)

          It's not necessarily a waste of $35, since if they are unable to verify the alleged infringement, you get the $35 refunded, and the "strike" is removed.

          Just how many claims do you think will be overturned by a group of people that were picked by the same people who made the claim?

          In particular, when the entire evidence of infringement for these claims consist of an IP address, a date and time, and the name of a torrent, exactly how are you going to prove that you didn't infringe? When the party making the claim of infringement doesn't even have to prove that the named torrent was their copyrighted content (much less any of the other things needed for infringement, like proving uploading), how can you possibly defend yourself? Even if you aren't running any bittorrent software at all, how can you prove that? And, if you are running bittorrent software, how can you prove that you were not part of that torrent at that time?

          This is one of the many problems with "guilty until proven innocent"...often you have to prove a negative, and sometimes that can't be done.

          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by l0ungeb0y (442022)

            This is one of the many problems with "guilty until proven innocent"...often you have to prove a negative, and sometimes that can't be done.

            FYI: "Guilty till proven innocent" is a concept of Criminal Case Law and has no role in Civil Litigation, where you must only show "probable cause". And even then, this is not a Civil Action, this is a wholly private action by a Private Enterprise to terminate your service agrement with them for supposedly braking that service agreement.

            And off hand, I can't think of any way to sue them in Civil Court, since they are the ones claiming "breach of contract" and unless you have a home business or can show othe

            • Re:Of course (Score:4, Informative)

              by nabsltd (1313397) on Tuesday February 26, 2013 @10:10PM (#43020867)

              FYI: "Guilty till proven innocent" is a concept of Criminal Case Law

              Not in the US, it isn't.

              and has no role in Civil Litigation, where you must only show "probable cause".

              Civil lawsuit outcomes are based on "preponderance of evidence"...in layman's terms, who is "most right", not "probable cause". Regardless of how the determination of liability at the end of the trial is done, you can still sue anybody for anything with no real evidence that they did anything wrong. With far less than "probable cause", civil litigation can reach the discovery stage, at which point you better have deep pockets if you want to continue a defense.

              The major difference in a lawsuit and this system is that evidence is not assumed to be valid in a lawsuit...it must be proven. For example, if the plaintiff claims to have evidence of infringement on a computer, the defendant would be able to get to see that computer (usually via a neutral third party) to verify that the alleged evidence does exist and was collected in a proper manner. This discovery might allow the defendant to show that the evidence is faulty in some way.

              All this is absent from the "six strikes" system, which assumes that all evidence against the alleged infringer is valid with no possibility for a mistake. Because of this, the term "guilty until proven innocent" applies. Unfortunately, there is really no way to prove innocence once you start with the assumption that all evidence indicating guilt is valid and not subject to rebuttal.

        • Re:Of course (Score:4, Insightful)

          by sjames (1099) on Tuesday February 26, 2013 @08:26PM (#43020193) Homepage

          Verify to who's satisfaction, theirs? I'll give you my opinion. For $35 you can have me judge that opinion and tell you I was right all along.

  • Finally! (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Finally an incentive I needed to get a seedbox and VPN in a country far, far away.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 26, 2013 @06:18PM (#43019035)

    If one side has to pay to participate in the "trial", and the other doesn't, then one side has an incentive to just suck it up, and the other side has no disincentives to stop.

    Just like DMCA takedowns. If there is no penalty for filing, companies will just robo-spam.

    Captcha: tedious, just like the appeals process will be.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      * If the appeal is successful, the $35 is refunded to the appellant (and you can bet the AAA will charge the respondent, since they want to cover their costs).
      * The fee is also refunded if the Copyright Alert is withdrawn by the copyright owner.
      * The $35 fee is waived if your income is less than 3 times the federal poverty level (that is, $33,510 for a family of 1, more for more people).

    • There are costs on both sides. The *AA are paying DtecNet to send the strikes in the first place, and if you appeal it will cost them more than $35 to put together the paperwork to argue with you.

      • by mark-t (151149)
        Not to mention that the $35 is refunded if the consumer's appeal is successful.
      • by nabsltd (1313397)

        The *AA are paying DtecNet to send the strikes in the first place, and if you appeal it will cost them more than $35 to put together the paperwork to argue with you.

        I sincerely doubt that printing out an IP address, date and time, and torrent name will cost $35. This is all the "evidence" they have, and it's unknown whether you will get to see it unless you ask for a review. The "alert" might be nothing more than "you've been a bad boy" with no details.

  • Oh boy. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by JustAnotherIdiot (1980292) on Tuesday February 26, 2013 @06:19PM (#43019041)
    Who wants to take bets on how many days it is until we get the first false positive story?
    • And once that happens anything you do or say while on that ISP will be monitored.It may be under the guise of copyright infringement but the result is you're being monitored at the deep packet level. So when you tweet about how much you love Julian Assange and how much you support Wikileaks and the EFF, and when you hit the donate button, not only can they cut off funding to these organizations but they can cut off your internet as well.

      Six strikes? No clue if they will look at some people with more scrutin

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by WillgasM (1646719)
      I'm sure there are plenty out there trying to force a false positive right now.
      • Re:Oh boy. (Score:5, Funny)

        by girlintraining (1395911) on Tuesday February 26, 2013 @09:19PM (#43020567)

        I'm sure there are plenty out there trying to force a false positive right now.

        Hi. I've got three trials running right now:

        One is downloading off The Pirate Bay's top 100 list, and then dumping the torrents on a scratch disk. No encryption, all in the clear.

        The second is doing the same thing, but all encryption options are enabled, and torrents/DHT are pulled through Tor, so only the (encrypted) bittorrent traffic is being relayed through.

        The third is to previously-uploaded torrents that have the naming convention of the same top-100s, and the same apparent contents (file sizes, etc., ) but are public domain video.

        And yes, I do plan on suing the pants off my ISP if they flag the third -- and then getting a petition passed around my neighborhood asking our local representatives to demand the system be turned off, or the permits for our cable providers be yanked with immediate effect. And yes, I know the Public Utilities Commissioner is supposed to be in charge of such things, but the PUC will wipe their arse with any petition... this is going straight to the city and state representatives, with the words "We will vote your sorry ass to the curb if you allow this." It tends to get better results.

        The petitions are already printed off and sitting next to me.

  • EFF (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Threni (635302) on Tuesday February 26, 2013 @06:20PM (#43019059)

    Are they getting involved? Perhaps share a copyright-free file, get people to download it, get reports raised against it, get complaint, ignore complaint, get to 6 strikes, then ask the ISP to take further steps against them. A few million people doing that at the same time should be fun.

  • by WaffleMonster (969671) on Tuesday February 26, 2013 @06:21PM (#43019075)

    I don't normally eat popcorn but some good'ole fashioned jiffy pop made over the stovetop while reading tales of ISPs being sued for playing judge, jury and executioner is gonna be fun.

    • by X0563511 (793323)

      It's crap and all, but it's not that crap. Termination is not an end result.

      Merely a temporary bandwidth throttle and a sternly worded letter. As well, "repeat offenders will not be perused as they are not the kind of people we can reach" (paraphrased from memory)

    • Your ISP's TOS says they can do anything to you.

  • If I had to guess (Score:5, Insightful)

    by PickyH3D (680158) on Tuesday February 26, 2013 @06:22PM (#43019083)

    This is both the RIAA and the ISPs winning with users losing. The ISPs can point to this system to get the RIAA off of their backs. The RIAA can point to this system in courts to try to further pinpoint end users to sue.

    However, as the summary points out, the end user must pay $35 to challenge "strikes" against them, and while they are refunded the full amount, if they win, there is nothing else won, nor is the ISP punished for false claims. In other words, the user assumes all risk even if they know that they are innocent.

    While I imagine that this system might catch a few pirates out there, I suspect that the errors related to this system will lead to far more collateral damage than it even supposedly fixes. And I am strongly against pirating, but this system screams of looming problems to be faced by the innocent like myself. As someone that has been hit with a "gotcha" notice from a previous roommate's downloading, I know the problems that this will cause. In my case, my roommate was reasonable and he did not continue the practice after I showed it to him and explained that I would not "go down" for it.

    How many people can we expect to be burned by this before we have an online petition in Congress? If we're lucky, then maybe this is the start of turning ISPs into dumb-pipe utilities. But we're not lucky.

    • How many people can we expect to be burned by this before we have an online petition in Congress?

      Lots, considering that Congress participates in no such program.

      Love the idea, though.

      • by AK Marc (707885)
        It's called "email your representative". It exists today, and so few use it.
        • It's called "email your representative". It exists today, and so few use it.

          Ah, yes.

          About as effective as the We The People petition site.

          Source: I write my Congresscritters regularly, at least once per quarter. The boilerplate responses make great birdcage liner.

    • by gstoddart (321705) on Tuesday February 26, 2013 @06:36PM (#43019229) Homepage

      And, of course, the expenses the ISP incurs to process this will get passed onto the consumers in their bills.

      Which means the consumers will end up paying for the ISPs to police copyright on behalf of the *AAs.

      What an awesome outcome for the *AAs.

    • by Bookwyrm (3535)

      However, as the summary points out, the end user must pay $35 to challenge "strikes" against them, and while they are refunded the full amount, if they win, there is nothing else won, nor is the ISP punished for false claims. In other words, the user assumes all risk even if they know that they are innocent.

      Maybe. If the $35 if refunded in the full amount to the end user, who is paying for the arbitration service? If the ISP's detection system erroneously flags a few thousand people, and each of the claims has to be considered, some one is going to be paying for the man-hours of the arbitration work. It's not clear who is bearing the risk of the costs of false claims.

      • by PickyH3D (680158)

        That's a fair point, but I suspect that the service probably hopes to pay for itself with people getting caught trying to game the system. It's possible that you are right and that the ISPs might end up footing a significant bill--one that that they will surely pass onto normal user's monthly bills--by sending out too many false claims.

        At the very least, your point provides some incentive for the ISPs to be accurate to minimize costs even if they plan on passing the buck.

    • the end user must pay $35 to challenge "strikes" against them

      Any chance they'll find a way to refund the time wasted appealing this garbage too? Or am I asking too much?

    • by Kjella (173770)

      However, as the summary points out, the end user must pay $35 to challenge "strikes" against them, and while they are refunded the full amount, if they win, there is nothing else won, nor is the ISP punished for false claims. In other words, the user assumes all risk even if they know that they are innocent.

      I'm more interested in what happens when you lose your challenge, to you have to just accept it or what happens if you take it to court? Defamation of character, harassment, false accusations, take your pick. Or is this one of those wonderful "binding arbitration" aka kangaroo courts that are binding and final?

      Anyway, as long as you got choices I would suggest to not contest and simply cancel your subscription on first notice as long as you got choices. Even if you only have a couple to choose from the ISP

      • Anyway, as long as you got choices I would suggest to not contest and simply cancel your subscription on first notice as long as you got choices. Even if you only have a couple to choose from the ISP and you're going to is another six-strike ISP they will still hate that much more than anything else.

        I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you don't live in the USA. The vast majority of customers here have only 2 choices - telco or cableco and the telco choice is usually butt-slow DSL.

        Verizon has even colluded with comcast to stop building out any new fibre installs that would have competed with comcast's internet service business, and that's with the FCC's blessing. [stopthecap.com]

    • by pitchpipe (708843)

      In my case, my roommate was reasonable and he did not continue the practice after I showed it to him and explained that I would not "go down" for it.

      So tell me genius, if a civil suit was filed against you and your roommate then denied that he infringed any copyright, how exactly you would prevent yourself from 'going down' for this? The burden of proof lies with you to prove that you didn't download it, 'cause it sure looks to them like you did. It's not like they're going to confiscate your computer to do a forensics investigation on it to prove you're guilty, they already have your IP address showing that you did it (not that that proves a fucking th

      • The burden of proof lies with you to prove that you didn't download it, 'cause it sure looks to them like you did.

        In the courts I think the burden of proof is on the plaintiff.

        It's not like they're going to confiscate your computer to do a forensics investigation on it to prove you're guilty...

        AFAIK that is exactly what they tend to do.

    • by mark-t (151149)

      A defendant in *ANY* sort of case or trial that does not have an accompanying countersuit assumes all risk, even if they know they are innocent. The disincentive for them to frivolously charge innocent people, however, is that when those people win their appeals and get their fee completely refunded, somebody's going to be coming after the ones who made those accusations to pay the bills for that appeal process. And it's going to be a lot more than $35.

  • by elucido (870205) on Tuesday February 26, 2013 @06:27PM (#43019133)

    And they know who has been naughty and nice. You get six strikes. Six chances. Deep packet inspection, and they know what sites you like to visit and probably what you say too.

    • Deep packet inspection versus SSL, who wins?

      Seems more likely they'll have machines sitting around on popular trackers grepping for IP addresses from blocks they own. At least if they want it to be even sort-of effective.

      • by elucido (870205)

        Deep packet inspection versus SSL, who wins?

        Seems more likely they'll have machines sitting around on popular trackers grepping for IP addresses from blocks they own. At least if they want it to be even sort-of effective.

        That depends on the quality of the certificate authority and the implementation of SSL. It also depends on what the ISP does. SSL doesn't protect anything port 443. What good is that going to be for other ports? The only way users can protect themselves is by using a VPN.

        • SSL is used on non-443 ports all the time. It's not just for HTTPS.

          I'd assumed that's what encrypted Bittorrent traffic uses, though looking in to it farther it appears they use something else. It is used for encrypted peer-to-tracker communication, though. Either way, telling what a user's downloading over encrypted BitTorrent protocol is non-trivial without a peer connected to the same tracker.

      • by AK Marc (707885)
        SSL doesn't hide the endpoint of a two-point conversation. So they'll know you went to Pirate Bay or whatever. And they are going after Peer-to-Peer, and I haven't seen a P2P application that uses SSL between peers, and even if it did, that might stop snooping, but wouldn't stop peering. How do you stop the ones that join the swarm, offer up pieces of the movie and download in return, then record anyone who offers them any of the movie?
  • Profit (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Dan East (318230) on Tuesday February 26, 2013 @06:29PM (#43019153) Homepage Journal

    Just remember, the music industry saw growth and "profit" in 2012, the first time since 1999, before this copyright protection went in place.

    http://www.theverge.com/2013/2/26/4031912/music-industry-grew-revenue-for-first-time-since-1999 [theverge.com]
    http://247wallst.com/2013/02/26/music-industry-posts-first-profit-since-1999/ [247wallst.com]

  • by tekrat (242117) on Tuesday February 26, 2013 @06:34PM (#43019209) Homepage Journal

    Verizon offers a sweet deal for FIOS if you're a new customer, so you sign up for the Triple Play, pay $80 per month, and then cancel, because you've used up your six strikes...

    Then sign up for Comcast, get a sweet deal because you're a new customer, pay $50 per month, and then cancel because you've used up your six strikes...

    Wash rinse repeat....

    • As long as you have two internet providers to choose from. Rural areas still only have one choice, if any.

    • by loshwomp (468955)

      Then sign up for Comcast, get a sweet deal because you're a new customer, pay $50 per month, and then cancel because you've used up your six strikes...

      How about not giving money to ISPs like that in the first place? Out here we have sonic.net, one of the last remaining great independent ISPs (especially since Speakeasy sold out). They treat their customers like adults, and on the rare occasion that I've needed technical support, a knowledgable real person answers the phone on the first ring.

      (Disclaimer--no affiliation other than as satisfied customer, blah blah blah.)

  • by xanadu113 (657977) on Tuesday February 26, 2013 @06:35PM (#43019223) Homepage
    If I'm paying extra for a higher speed, how can they throttle my connection, based on an ALLEGED infringement..??
  • by bhlowe (1803290) on Tuesday February 26, 2013 @06:37PM (#43019247)
    Whether this is "good" or "evil", it will be interesting to see how the metrics of illegal file sharing change.
    How many thousands of BT users decided not to launch their torrent client today?
    What will US traffic in bittorrent do over the coming weeks and months?
    Will NetFlix see an influx in business?
    Will the number of leaches and seeders of pirated content decrease?
    Take-away lesson? Buy NFLX and CMCSK...
    • I see XBMC use going way up. Thats what I decided to do anyway.
    • by Omestes (471991)

      How many people just don't bother with the content anymore, and don't bother switching to a legal alternative either?

      Thats what would happen in my household. When Hulu took a crap, my mainstream media consumption pretty much flatlined. I can live without TV, movies, or RIAA music. And if I really want it I'll get it second hand for a deep discount.

  • by jonwil (467024) on Tuesday February 26, 2013 @06:38PM (#43019261)

    All of the cable companies obviously rely heavily on the media companies for their content on the cable channels but so to do Verizon (with FiOS TV) and AT&T (with u-verse TV).

    The ISPs need to do this to keep their friends in the content industry happy and providing them with the content they need for their TV setups.

  • by Joe_Dragon (2206452) on Tuesday February 26, 2013 @06:38PM (#43019267)

    just file a allegation ageist all IP's and do it say 10 times and this will die.

  • Sweet! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 26, 2013 @06:41PM (#43019303)

    This is awesome! Up until now I've been paranoid about getting sued by the MPAA every time I torrent something. Now I'll get 5 warnings first? That's great!

  • by NoKaOi (1415755) on Tuesday February 26, 2013 @06:47PM (#43019373)

    Major internet service providers today will start monitoring the internet traffic to their customers' computers

    False. The ISPs will not be monitoring traffic. The *IAA will monitor bittorrent and report IPs to the ISPs. Not that this isn't still bad, but at least get your facts straight in the first sentence of the summary. Even TFA got it more or less right:

    Under the new program, the industry will monitor "peer-to-peer" software services for evidence of copyrighted files being shared.

    Industry, as in the *IAA, not the ISP.

  • by CanHasDIY (1672858) on Tuesday February 26, 2013 @06:54PM (#43019429) Homepage Journal

    Shay-zus, there's no level so low these fucks won't stoop to it, is there?

    Check this gem out, from the "How Do Content Owners Know About My Activity?" section:

    CCI’s content partners – companies that own and develop music, movies and TV shows – join peer-to-peer networks and locate the music, movies or TV shows they have created and own. Once they see a title being made available on the peer-to-peer network, they confirm that it is, in fact, copyrighted content.

    After confirming that a file appears to have been shared illegally, content owners identify the Internet Protocol (IP) address used by the computer making the file available. Each IP address belongs to an Internet Service Provider (ISP), so content owners notify the ISP to which the address is assigned and the ISP then passes a Copyright Alert on to its customer.

    No personal information about consumers is shared between the content owners and ISPs, and ISPs are not involved in the process of identifying copyrighted content.

    Riiiight... 'cuz, we all know, ISPs and the MAFIAA are certainly trustworthy entities, who would never misuse people's personal information, or god forbid, lie to support their goals.

    Best part: When you mouse-over the phrase "Internet Protocol (IP) address" in the second paragraph, this is what pops up:

    A unique set of numbers associated with individual computers connected to the internet

    Do they not realize that's a blatant lie? Or do they expect us to not realize it?

    My favorite, however, was the "How do I find Movies and Music Legally" link - it takes you to a page with links to...

    Wait for it...

    RIAA, MPAA, and ISP websites!

    Shazam!

  • bothering to pirate stuff from the RIAA anymore? I mean, anyone actually old enough to have a job (and therefore, money)? I don't know anyone that does; the stuff the RIAA poops out is crap, and there's other legal sources for better music now...
  • Just MPAA/RIAA? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by PhxBlue (562201) on Tuesday February 26, 2013 @06:57PM (#43019451) Homepage Journal
    So no one's bothering to monitor pirated software, right? Asking for a friend.
  • .... that the $35 fee is refunded to consumers who pay it, and are not found to have actually committed any copyright infringement.
    • And if you'll -- buy -- that
      I've got some ocean front property in A-ri-zo-na
      From my front porch you can see the sea
      I've got some ocean front property in A-ri-zo-na
      If you'll buy that, I'll throw the Golden Gate in free.

      • by mark-t (151149)

        What's not to believe? That it will be refunded if the appeal is successful, or that appeals would ever be successful?

        If the latter, what's the basis for believing that the appeal process wouldn't be successful, if neither the appellant nor anyone else using that person's internet connection ever did what was being alleged?

  • Isn't this like saying it's ok to put a webcam in my house in case I do something wrong?

    Just wondering where this slippery-slope leads... (shrug)

  • by sdo1 (213835) on Tuesday February 26, 2013 @07:03PM (#43019527) Journal

    They're either the same companies (Time-Warner cable), or they're in cahoots (Verizon with their NFL deals, Comcast with their sports networks).

    At a minimum, they ask you to pay for things (HBO comes to mind) that you could, admittedly illegally, torrent. They make more off of your cable subscription than they would for just the raw bits for you to take what you want.

    So it should come as no surprise that they're willing to sign up for this.

    -S

    • They're either the same companies (Time-Warner cable), or they're in cahoots (Verizon with their NFL deals, Comcast with their sports networks).

      I'm surprised that it has taken so long for someone to mention this. This is not a case of ISPs "going along" or "being on the side of" the RIAA/MPAA. The 6 major ISPs who are pulling this crap ARE the RIAA/MPAA. Every one of them owns or is owned by movie studios, TV networks, record companies, etc.

  • money to a corporation to defend myself against allegations they make against me is the day I have the service removed, report my credit card lost, and tear up the last month's bill.

  • The "three strikes" baseball analogy was supposed to make it EASIER to understand. "Five or six strikes" has passed up strained and become just plain stupid.

  • by SampleFish (2769857) on Tuesday February 26, 2013 @08:44PM (#43020315)

    There are a couple of problems with what they are doing here.

    #1 Illegal wire tap:
    I use my internet connection for both telephone and mail. That being the case deep packet inspection is both opening my mail and tapping my phone line. There are many federal laws broken here.

    #2 Disclosure of CPNI:
    There are FCC regulations and mandates about sharing customer proprietary network information without consent. Your ISP needs your consent to share network usage data with a 3rd party. I have received no communication or notice from my ISP.

    Here is the form you can use to file an FCC privacy complaint:

    https://esupport.fcc.gov/ccmsforms/form2000.action?form_type=2000B [fcc.gov]

    If we get a large number of people making formal complaints against their ISPs for breech of privacy the FCC will be at the very least annoyed. They might even do something about it if we are lucky. This can be used as the groundwork for the upcoming court battles I envision.

  • by cpghost (719344) on Wednesday February 27, 2013 @10:16AM (#43023869) Homepage
    Let's see: the US government pushed hard for the rest of the world to adopt a three strike regime, while US Citizens enjoy six strikes. Are some people more equal than others, as in: are citizens of the "Holy IP Empire" more privileged than the "barbarians" at its periphery? (Roman Empire analogy)

Make headway at work. Continue to let things deteriorate at home.

Working...