Criticism Of Copyright Alert System Mounts

Dangerous_Minds writes "This last week, the Copyright Alert System was rolled out. Now that everyone is getting a better idea of what the alert system looks like, criticisms are building against the system. Freezenet says that the mere fact that ISPs are using a browser pop-up window opens the floodgates for fraudsters to hijack the system and scam users out of money. The EFF criticized the system because the educational material contains numerous flaws. Meanwhile, Web Pro News said that this system will also hurt small business and consumers."

What "education"

[johanw]

This is exactly the same as other totalitarian regimes did and do to re-"educate" (or to say it plainly, indoctrinate) their citizens with ideological propaganda to support the system. The USSR did it before the wall fell in 1989, and now the megacorps are doing it in the USA. Most Russians were clever enough to see through such propaganda, I'm curious to see if Americans are just as smart.

break up this monopoly

[Anonymous Coward]

"residential Internet accounts are the focus of our program. The vast majority of businesses, including those like Starbucks that provide legitimate open Wi-Fi connections, will have an Internet connection that is tailored to a business operation and these business networks are not part of the CAS and will never be sent a Copyright Alert."
  the rest of the site looks like an advertisement for the major media companies, directing you to "their" content as if it is the only game in town, while appearing to mom and dad as an official legal page

Is this not a form of wire tapping?

[smartin]

It seems to me that the content of an IP packet should be protected under wiretapping laws. What gives the ISPs the right to monitor my traffic. If they do have this right, do they also have the right to break or somehow spoof encrypted traffic as well?

I find myself torn....

[mark-t]

If, as is described on the copyrightinformation.org website, the copyright alert system is implemented such that the IP addresses it gathers genuinely are being used by infringers, I don't have much of a problem with this, since I don't download infringing content, nor do I do anything which might permit or enable other people to use my internet connection who may, and I do not hold much sympathy for those who do.

There are, however, two major flaws that concern me greatly. The first is that if they are falsely alleging that a subscriber infringed on copyright with one of these alerts, the subscriber cannot actually challenge the alert until after about the 3rd or 4th one. The other issue, an even bigger one, is that all of the alerts, even including the ones which permit an alleged perpetrator to appeal, are worded very much like a form letter, and do not contain any particulars about the accusation, like what work was allegedly infringed on, which network the alleged infringement occurred on, when it occurred, etc. It doesn't even identify the *TYPE* of alleged infringing content, which strikes me as incrediby unfair.... and has a very similar feel in my opinion to the notion of, say, being stopped and given a warning by a police officer, but them not telling you what it was that you supposedly even did. If you don't know what they are even talking about, then how are you expected to sensibly respond, beyond calling them liars?

Re:Not about Internet Rights anymore

[Beavertank]

Would you also say that the ACLU doesn't back important rights because it advocates for the speech rights of groups you disagree with? Privacy doesn't mean being left alone to do just what _you_ think everyone else should.

The EFF is still fighting for internet privacy. That some people their privacy so they may violate IP laws is immaterial.

Re:What "education"

[flayzernax]

If you take the time to read over that you will see some interesting facts.

1. They consider consumer goods bought in the country by traveling foreigners exports (t-shirts, cake, cell phones, etc) I don't think that should count its cheating since those goods were not manufactured here and we are just middle men. Walmart is not an exporter of TV's, they are a retailer.

2. The other factor they add in which accounts for 500 billion of that is software, movie, and TV royalties. These are not physically manufactured goods or property as much as your civil ideology likes to believe they will never be property. The wealth from this industry is even worse distributed then the wealth from the auto and oil industries. It only accounts for probably the top 1000 wealthiest families and is probably immediately exported to tax havens.

So I am going to call $2 trillion exports bullshit, its great that we can use Hollywood accounting there also.

I would like to see numbers that show real exports of physical goods, that are useful in a real sense, like water, steel, oil, natural gas, salt, food, cars, etc...

Re:Why the hell are the pure ISps doing this?

[stephanruby]

Yeah, I understand the ones that own media companies but what about the rest? Seems like a way to lose customers is all.

You're not just the customer, you're the product (some of you already locked-in by contracts). For those ISPs that are not owned by big media conglomerates, they'll just get money for the ad-impressions that are generated by this surveillance system.

yeah

[Tom]

True. When this was first posted, I didn't need to read further than "browser pop-up" to realize it's a bad thing. I am a professional IT security expert, after a couple of years you get an intuition about stupid ideas.

Will it work? Are you kidding me?

Will it have unintended consequences? Nah... neeeeever... what could possibly go wrong?

Re:Guilty until proven innocent

[mark-t]

First of all, the appeal reviews are done by the American Arbitration Association (AAA), not the recording industry. You might argue that the AAA is in the latter's pockets, but at the very least, this is not what is alleged to be the case. We'll have to see how things go.

Secondly, you get the $35 back if the appeal is successful.

However, because the nature of the alert does not contain any information about what work was supposedly infringed upon, I'm uncertain how an accused person who might not have had *ANY* infringing content being downloaded through their IP can sensibly respond.

According to the grounds for appeal [copyrightinformation.org], most of the reasons aren't even applicable unless the person who is accused actually knows what the alleged infringing content that was downloaded and in turn identified their IP as infringing on copyright. where it was downloaded from, when, etc, Absolutely none of the alerts that the consumer receives contain any of that information.

Re:Spying?

[spire3661]

That network that isnt 'ours' crosses a billon public right-of-ways. They may own the wire, but we own the land it runs through, its not as simple as you make it to be. The public has a vested interest in regulating ISPs and we should be doing more to leash them.

Fuck your copyright bullshit!

[bornagainpenguin]

The difference between your Martin Niemoller reference and what I am saying is that what they are going after, is that in Niemoller's case, the people "they came for" may have, at worst, been considered the fringes of society, but they weren't necessarily doing anything that was previously against the law. Copyright infringement actually *IS* illegal, and has been for quite a long time.

I'll take copyright infringement seriously the day that Big Media starts taking the public domain seriously, and not one second before. They thought they could play this game of indefinitely extending the length of copyright terms, effectively stealing from the public domain and all of humanity without there being unforeseen consequences? Guess what? People now take copyrights about as seriously as Big Media does, i.e. not at all [techdirt.com].

Fuck your copyrights.