Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
United States Your Rights Online

Criticism Of Copyright Alert System Mounts 172

Posted by timothy
from the prior-permission-and-assumed-wrongdoing dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Criticism Of Copyright Alert System Mounts

Comments Filter:
  • What "education" (Score:5, Insightful)

    by johanw (1001493) on Saturday March 02, 2013 @07:23AM (#43053411)
    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.
    • Most Russians were clever enough to see through such propaganda

      Google "Stalin's funeral", you may be in for a shock. The inmates of Stalin's camps commonly believed their beloved Stalin would one day come and rescue them, the sad truth is he personally reviewed and edited the next day's execution list every night. And yes I can see a metaphor with "job creators" playing the role of Stalin. - such is the power of propaganda that the victim (AKA "useful idiot") will fervently work against his own interest.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 02, 2013 @07:28AM (#43053415)

    Aren't they protected from liability as long as they act as "dumb pipes"? Doesn't his mean they are opening themselves up for liability? Yeah, I understand the ones that own media companies but what about the rest? Seems like a way to lose customers is all.

    Everyone should draw a crappy picture in paint, host it on something free like google sites, and spread links that bring people to a second page that says "You don't have permission to click this link" with a link to the picture itself. Then bring copyright complaints to all the ISPs of all the people who inevitably click that and hence download your copyrighted crap without permission. Flood the fuckers.

    • Mode this one up. AC is right on what needs to happen.

    • by kelemvor4 (1980226) on Saturday March 02, 2013 @08:11AM (#43053547)

      Aren't they protected from liability as long as they act as "dumb pipes"? Doesn't his mean they are opening themselves up for liability? Yeah, I understand the ones that own media companies but what about the rest? Seems like a way to lose customers is all.

      Everyone should draw a crappy picture in paint, host it on something free like google sites, and spread links that bring people to a second page that says "You don't have permission to click this link" with a link to the picture itself. Then bring copyright complaints to all the ISPs of all the people who inevitably click that and hence download your copyrighted crap without permission. Flood the fuckers.

      They aren't going to be losing customers because in MOST markets there is no competition for a customer to choose. With very little risk to their market share they don't have a lot to lose.

      • They are also government protected monopolies. People like to think our ISPs run on a free market system but its no better then a country like Brazil. In order to be permitted to sell internet other then dial up the palm greasing you need to do is probably in the order of billions or trillions now.

        • Trillions? To paraphrase Bill Maher (sic?) - "If you take the net worth of the average ISP and add it to a trillion dollars, you still only have a trillion dollars".
      • Not to mention everyone here seems to be missing the point of WHY they were so quick to jump on the bandwagon...does anybody here think these megacorp ISPs give a rat's ass about any copyrights they don't profit from? Fuck no but what they DO care about is customers actually getting what they paid for!

        You see folks for years the ISP have oversold the HELL out of their lines, in some cases claiming a good 5 times what they could actually deliver because they counted on so few people actually using what they paid for they could get away with it. Then a funny thing happened....people actually started using their connections. oh they'll SAY its because of piracy, but that is bullshit as I've known plenty of pirates and most are still downloading DVDrips that suck a hell of a lot less bandwidth than somebody like me who doesn't pirate uses. Where is my bandwidth going? Steam, Hulu, YouTube and for awhile Netflix.

        See the ISPs don't like this for a couple of reasons. One since they are all now in the content business, an obvious conflict of interest BTW, well they sure as fuck ain't gonna be happy if you are watching Hulu instead of paying them for their overpriced channel packages are they? Not gonna be watching their PPV if you already have netflix, and if you are using Steam or OnLive that is hours you COULD have been giving them money for content that went to gaming companies instead, can't have that. The second reason hurts their bottom line even worse, for years they haven't added shit as far as new lines and capacity and now that even grandma is using YouTube and Hulu that means if they don't find a way to "thin the herd" of those that actually use what they paid for? Good God man, they may actually have to...gasp!....stop handing all the money out as bonuses to the execs! The horror!

        So I have NO doubt that the first ones to see six strikes? Will NOT be pirates, it'll be the ones actually using close to the full amount they paid for. The Steam users, netflix and Hulu users, all those that get close to their cap every single month will get a "uh oh, you used what you paid for, you dirty filthy pirate you" and run out on a rail. that way they can keep falsely advertising their have more capacity than they have, keep giving the profits as bonuses, and keep their content making crazy money because that doesn't go against your cap don't ya know.

        • by nabsltd (1313397)

          You see folks for years the ISP have oversold the HELL out of their lines, in some cases claiming a good 5 times what they could actually deliver because they counted on so few people actually using what they paid for they could get away with it.

          If your theory was correct, then Verizon shouldn't be part of this, as they don't oversell their wired connections. They really do have full bandwidth available to every user. There are times where DSL doesn't get full speed, but that is because of the distance from the CO, not the lack of network bandwidth.

          • by hairyfeet (841228)

            Allow me to quote from Wikipedia under products and services, emphasis mine: "Verizon launched its FiOS Video service in Keller, Texas on September 22, 2005. FiOS TV uses an optical fiber network to deliver more than 500 total channels, more than 180 digital music channels, more than 95 high-definition channels, and 10,000 video-on-demand titles.

            What did I say the first reason was again? Because they were not liking competition with their content services? Well there ya go, there is your reason, if you a

    • by stephanruby (542433) on Saturday March 02, 2013 @09:28AM (#43053787)

      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.

    • by Tom (822)

      Everyone should draw a crappy picture in paint, host it on something free like google sites, and spread links that bring people to a second page that says "You don't have permission to click this link" with a link to the picture itself. Then bring copyright complaints to all the ISPs of all the people who inevitably click that and hence download your copyrighted crap without permission. Flood the fuckers.

      That's not a stupid idea.

      What is the procedure for filing a complaint under this system? I'd really love to write a script and post it in github for everyone to copy.

      • by dissy (172727)

        What is the procedure for filing a complaint under this system? I'd really love to write a script and post it in github for everyone to copy.

        They only accept complaints through the RIAA and MPAA.

        The procedure would be to become a MPAA member and request they make a complaint in your name.

        You didn't think this system was for the copyright holders did you?

      • by AmiMoJo (196126) *

        The procedure is you have to hire an expensive legal firm to submit requests to the ISP. They carefully priced it is that it isn't worth while for individuals and small companies, only large ones that can do tends of thousands of requests at a time.

    • by nabsltd (1313397)

      Aren't they protected from liability as long as they act as "dumb pipes"? Doesn't his mean they are opening themselves up for liability? Yeah, I understand the ones that own media companies but what about the rest?

      The ones that own media companies could be in even more trouble, if another media company decides to break ranks (which happens all the time in disputes over carry fees).

      Suppose that Disney claimed that Comcast wasn't passing on as many infringement notices for Disney material as they should, but were passing on everything for NBC/Universal?

  • by 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

  • Ugh (Score:5, Interesting)

    by JWW (79176) on Saturday March 02, 2013 @07:55AM (#43053499)

    The fact that the content industry has no problems with having the ISP industry monitoring their CUSTOMERS use of the Internet makes me sick.

    Some rights are more important than others. My right to not be spied on by a company I (not the content industry) am doing business with is much more important than the content industries desire to make sure they're paid every dime they think they deserve.

    The ISPs should have fought like hell to achieve a common carrier status which would have allowed them to tell big content to pound sand. Oh and as for the content industry owning many ISPs our government should have never allowed that.

    I'll say it again. If your business model requires a police state to be viable, you need to fucking go out of business.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Technically, your ISP isn't spying on you. They will only send you a notice if they are alerted by a content provider.

    • The fact that the content industry has no problems with having the ISP industry monitoring their CUSTOMERS use of the Internet makes me sick.

      It may make you sick, but it's nothing new.

      The ISP industry has always tried various ways of getting into the double-dipping business.

      Hell!! Even my freaking TiVo started inserting interactive ads every time I touch its menu. For some executives, it really doesn't matter if they're killing off their company in the long term, if it means that they can increase their revenue in the short term.

      • That Tivo thing pissed me off. Not only do i consider Tivo service outrageously overpriced, they had the gall to insert ads too.
        • by soundguy (415780)

          That's because you opted for the monthly payment. Buy the lifetime service plan for a couple hundred bucks and be done with it. My first Series 1 Tivo from 1999 (with lifetime service) is still being used at my vacation home. The cable provider there still has an analog tier. My service cost over that time period is about 75 cents per month. Not what I'd call "outrageously overpriced"?

          re: the ads. What ads? The only ones I've ever seen on the digital boxes are lines of text at the bottom of the menu scre

          • I ended up building a Core i5 mini-itx HTPC for slightly more then the cost of Tivo 'lifetime' service. Infinitely more powerful and flexible then any Tivo, ever. Records 4 streams, 3 TB of storage (+ a hot swap external bay), automatically strips out commercials and compresses the shows to more efficient formats. It is also significantly smaller then my Tivo Premiere and looks just as at home in the A/V rack. No subscription cost at all. When my Hard drive fills up I pull it out and add it to the NAS and
    • Re:Ugh (Score:4, Informative)

      by jd2112 (1535857) on Saturday March 02, 2013 @11:46AM (#43054531)

      The fact that the content industry has no problems with having the ISP industry monitoring their CUSTOMERS use of the Internet makes me sick.

      Some rights are more important than others. My right to not be spied on by a company I (not the content industry) am doing business with is much more important than the content industries desire to make sure they're paid every dime they think they deserve.

      The ISPs should have fought like hell to achieve a common carrier status which would have allowed them to tell big content to pound sand. Oh and as for the content industry owning many ISPs our government should have never allowed that.

      I'll say it again. If your business model requires a police state to be viable, you need to fucking go out of business.

      Most of the largest ISPs are owned by content providers (Time-Warner) or own content providers (Comcast) or have business interests working with content providers (all cable internet providers)

    • by Nyder (754090)

      The fact that the content industry has no problems with having the ISP industry monitoring their CUSTOMERS use of the Internet makes me sick.

      ...

      The Content owners own the big ISP's.

    • by couchslug (175151)

      Google should start "divide and conquer" by buying large chunks of the content industry and giving them marching orders to cease that shit.

      This is about money, not principle. We I rich enough I'd gladly buy firms whose politics I disagreed with and reform them or Bain them to profitable destruction.

  • Popup? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 02, 2013 @07:59AM (#43053511)

    Browser hijacking popup?

    Noscript says "wat?"

    • They probably hijack your DNS, or do deep packet inspection, and return their page as the answer. Not sure if NoScript will help you with that.

      • They probably hijack your DNS, or do deep packet inspection, and return their page as the answer. Not sure if NoScript will help you with that.

        Time Warner had already been screwing around with DNS results for me, and I had to switch to Google's DNS. I wasn't even attempting anything naughty, as far as I knew.

        • by KiloByte (825081)

          How exactly switching to any other DNS would help? Unless they subvert only data on the DNS that's handed over via DHCP but leave all other port 53 traffic, queries will be mangled just the same. There's little you can do there other than tunnelling all DNS somehow.

          • How exactly switching to any other DNS would help? Unless they subvert only data on the DNS that's handed over via DHCP but leave all other port 53 traffic, queries will be mangled just the same. There's little you can do there other than tunnelling all DNS somehow.

            Hell if I know. Switching to a statically defined DNS fixed the problem, so I didn't investigate further. Curiously, Chrome browser wasn't affected. Other browsers, ping, traceroute, etc. were. Maybe Chrome bypasses the DHCP-assigned DNS, I dunno.

  • by smartin (942) on Saturday March 02, 2013 @08:02AM (#43053519)

    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?

    • by poofmeisterp (650750) on Saturday March 02, 2013 @08:09AM (#43053541) Journal

      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?

      The ISP has the right to monitor your traffic because you signed an agreement that says they are allowed to, and are allowed to take action.

      They aren't breaking encrypted traffic; the endpoints are the endpoints whether the traffic is encrypted or not. If one of those endpoints is a "MarkMonitor" entity, they are perfectly within their right to receive any information they do.

      Now, if only a totally encrypted environment existed with no palatable way to identify users..... Oh, wait, Freenet does exist. It's just so damned slow that using it is, well.. feasible, but not something fast-paced people (read: most) are going to accept. However, it is an option.

      • Just because you signed something, the constitution and the law still applies, right? Or is the USA constitution and law so silly that people can sign away their legal rights? If so, the USA needs to changes their laws, fast. In most civilized countries, signing something that would give one or more parties in the contract rights that violate the law, that clause is invalid.
      • by Tom (822)

        The ISP has the right to monitor your traffic because you signed an agreement that says they are allowed to, and are allowed to take action.

        There are limits to what you can legally sign away.

        For example, in my country you can not legally sign a contract that allows someone else to kill and eat you. It's still murder. Yes, there was an actual court case to try this.

        Likewise, if wiretapping laws make it illegal to monitor traffic, then they need to allow for such an exception or it's still wiretapping.

        Now I'm fairly confident the lawmakers aren't so stupid that they didn't think of including that exception into the law, but still, in general, jus

        • Exactly, that is what the commercial entities having you sign documents hope for. they hope that you have absolutely no clue how the law works, and that you will give into anything that they say, and not question it.

          It will be interesting to see what happens with this. I can't wait. :)

    • by skine (1524819)

      You say that as if wiretapping laws are used anymore.

      Well, except by police officers who don't want to be recorded.

    • 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 dislike CAS as much as everyone else but lets be real about what is and is not happening here.

      The ISPs are not searching their pipes for infringements they are being notified by rights holders...although it is anyones guess how rights holders are determining infringement.. most obvious low hanging fruit is P2P where your participation in a torrent is essentially public knowledge and requires no spying or intercepting of pipes.

      I dislike CAS for handing the phishers a gift from heaven.

      I think CAS is illegal

  • by mark-t (151149) <markt@l y n x . b c .ca> on Saturday March 02, 2013 @08:32AM (#43053605) Journal

    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?

    • by mcgrew (92797) *

      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

      First they came for the pot smokers, and I remained silent because I'm not a pot smoker. Then they came for the copyright infringers, and I remained silent because I'm not a copyright infringer...

      • by mark-t (151149)
        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 have absolutely no problem whatsoever if people who infringe on copyright could be reasonably held accountable for the
        • by Belial6 (794905)
          Don't stop at copyright infringement "on a computer". Tell us how you don't commit copyright infringement at all. How you refuse to sing happy birthday in a my public place like restaurants. How you never tell a joke that you heard someone else say... That sort of thing.
          • by mark-t (151149)

            Singing "happy birthday" to somebody you personally know, even in a public place, is a well established case of fair use, and not infringing on copyright, because the song is not being sung for the benefit of the public, but only for people personally known to those who are singing. If it were sung in such a way that it was apparent there was some deliberate intent for other people to hear it (and not merely a side effect of simply being nearby), then a copyright violation could be applicable, but such

        • Copyright infringement actually *IS* illegal, and has been for quite a long time. I have absolutely no problem whatsoever if people who infringe on copyright could be reasonably held accountable for their actions. You certainly can't argue that it's even a remotely unusual thing for many people in our society to do today.

          And therein lies the problem. If so many people do it (you yourself estimate that 75% of the population does) then why should it be illegal at all?

          Most people probably break the speed limit

          • And during prohibition, most people who wanted to drink managed to anyway.

            Note that it was NOT illegal to drink alcohol during Prohibition.

            Nor was it illegal to OWN alcohol.

            What was illegal was making it and selling it.

            And the negative effects of enforcement efforts, up to and including the rise of organized crime and widespread violence and corruption, ultimately led to a frickin' constitutional amendment being ratified!

            I'm assuming you're talking about the Constitutional Amendment that repealed the Co

            • What was illegal was making it and selling it.

              And a fat lot of good that did. Anyone who wanted to drink it wound up doing business with someone who made it and sold it.

              I remember my Grandmother telling me about how convenient it was where she grew up; the local sheriff's office was the distributor, so you could call them up and they'd deliver.

              Note that "ultimately led to a frickin' constitutional amendment being ratified!" wouldn't have been possible without the previous Amendment, which also got the required votes in Congress and the various State Le

            • Note that it was NOT illegal to drink alcohol during Prohibition.

              Nor was it illegal to OWN alcohol.

              What was illegal was making it and selling it.

              And copyright laws do not prohibit owning or perusing a copy, only creating and distributing a copy. So you are merely confirming the parent's point.

        • by bornagainpenguin (1209106) on Saturday March 02, 2013 @01:30PM (#43055235)

          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.

    • You could be inflicting on copyright constantly without being aware of it. I'm fairly certain that if they wanted to, they could easily get you for 6 violations within one week, while you think you're doing nothing wrong. Monitoring systems that are out to punish people will do so, since everyone breaks laws constantly. The average person in traffic (even walking) will commit enough violations to lose more than their daily pay if they would all be fined. We use the legal system to keep the excesses down. If
      • by mark-t (151149)
        If a person is doing it without even realizing it, then it follows that it should be even *MORE* imperative that the alerts give specifics.

        That said, however, I'm quite diligent when it comes to copyright.

        I'm fairly certain that if they wanted to, they could easily get you for 6 violations within one week, while you think you're doing nothing wrong.

        I'd ask if you want to make a bet on that, but I know there's no possible way you'd ever pay up... you'd only argue that I somehow hide my tracks well enough t

        • That said, however, I'm quite diligent when it comes to copyright.

          Impressive. But quite difficult. Behold:

          Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry, 75 F. Supp. 2d 1290 (D. Utah 1999) [uh.edu] (You'll want to skip ahead to the bit that begins with "Do those who browse the websites infringe plaintidf's copyright")

          Since copyright (in the US at least) is a strict liability statute, it doesn't matter how diligent you are. Even if you take all reasonable care and are not even so much as negligent, even if you are

          • by mark-t (151149)

            Let's see.... I use email to keep in touch with people that I personally know, I read and participate in assorted legitimate online forums and discussions, such as slashdot, stackoverflow, and others, I subscribe to certain youtube channels which only contain content that is copyrighted by the people who created the corresponding channel (ie, not any content that they copied from somewhere else), upload my own home videos to youtube, use itunes, and pay for all content that requires payment, keep all my

            • I use email to keep in touch with people that I personally know, I read and participate in assorted legitimate online forums and discussions, such as slashdot, stackoverflow, and others

              Roses are red,
              Violets are blue,
              Notwithstanding my usual dedication to the public domain in my .sig, or my usual practice, (either based upon the .sig in this post or in others, or any other similar routine statements, here or elsewhere),
              This extremely bad example of poetry is copyrighted,
              To wit: © 2013 cpt kangarooski,

              • by mark-t (151149)
                I refute your claim that I infringed on your copyright simply by reading your poem. In fact, there is an abundance of precedent that the mere act of USING a copyrighted work, even if it somehow makes a copy, does not, by itself constitute copyright infringement. If it did, then even the act of memorization would be illegal, since that is making a copy in somebody's head.

                Feel free to talk to your lawyer about the matter. if you feel that I've actually infringed on your copyright.

                Because, in a nutshell

                • I refute your claim that I infringed on your copyright simply by reading your poem.

                  No, not reading. Copying. You downloaded it as a necessary step before you possibly could read it. Check out the case I provided a link to a few posts ago; the opinion discusses how it works, and itself provides citations to other cases that provide the precedents it builds on.

                  I find that people generally are ignorant as to what copyright law actually is. They've got an idea which is not too objectionable, so they don't speak

                  • by mark-t (151149)

                    The "copy" that was made on my computer is not infringing on copyright, since it merely existed there for the purpose of reading it.

                    Please, feel free to consult a lawyer on the matter if you feel otherwise.... I have one at the ready as well. One who even specializes in copyright infringement cases, actually.

                    • by mark-t (151149)

                      The case involved the notion of copying content to a computer's ram when the person did not have authorization to even be using the work in the first place.

                      The author of the previous work made evident an obvious intent for his comment to be read by me, or else he would not have responded directly to me. In fact, the act of even putting it up on a public forum implicitly authorizes any user of that forum to read (but not necessarily copy) that post. However, a copy of a work which exists in a computer

                • by sjames (1099)

                  And for the low low price of $35 dollars, you may feel free to make your argument.

                  • by mark-t (151149)
                    When I receive any such actual alert, you can be sure I will.
                    • by sjames (1099)

                      But more than likely, you'll get a Kafkaesque message like "someone said you stole something" and it'll be up to you to figure out who and what.

                    • by mark-t (151149)
                      Well, if you read my very first post on the subject here at the top of this thread, you'll find that this was actually *VERY* a key objection I had to the text they are using in the alerts, albeit not an objection to system as a general concept.
            • Well, I hope you don't ever download that reply to read it, because it's copyrighted (and if you look at /. agreement, I still hold all the rights), and you won't like to copy a copyrighted work, will you?

        • by nabsltd (1313397)

          That said, however, I'm quite diligent when it comes to copyright.

          So, you've never recorded a TV show and kept the copy for longer than it took you to watch it once?

          You've never downloaded any music, video, or even text without first verifying that the site serving the content had permission to do so? You've never shared more than a link to site with someone, but instead shared the actual content (cut and paste to e-mail, printed it out, etc.)?

          There are literally hundreds of other examples of things that you likely do that almost certainly mean you have obtained content

          • by mark-t (151149)

            So, you've never recorded a TV show and kept the copy for longer than it took you to watch it once?>/blockquote>Keeping recorded shows longer than the time it takes you to watch them might not be something that content holders particularly like, but it's definitely *NOT* a violation of copyright as long as all such home recordings are watched in the context of private home viewing.

            Secondly, quoting from something or using small snippets of a sourtce is not copyright infringement either (it's fair us

            • by nabsltd (1313397)

              Keeping recorded shows longer than the time it takes you to watch them might not be something that content holders particularly like, but it's definitely *NOT* a violation of copyright as long as all such home recordings are watched in the context of private home viewing.

              The court rulings about home recording are pretty clear, and all of them stress the limited time nature that makes it fair use. Once you start building a library, it's infringment.

              Secondly, quoting from something or using small snippets of a sourtce is not copyright infringement either (it's fair use, actually), as long as 1) the source is acknowledged; 2) the amount of content so quoted or copied is small (a subjective term, but generally fairly easily agreed upon when its actually applicable) relative to the copyrighted work's entire content; and to some extent 3) is contextually relevant to the larger work in which it is contained.

              All of this is completely wrong. You do not need to attribute a source for it to be fair use. Attribution is a scholarly rule, not one of copyight.

              Second, courts have found that copying whole works is still fair use, while in other cases even insanely short snippets (1-2 seconds of a 3 minute song) are judged infringing.

              Last, n

    • by nabsltd (1313397)

      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.

      The software being used to determine IPs in the "Copyright Alert System" is the same one that sent a DMCA notices to laser printers [eff.org].

      Still feel certain you won't be getting an alert?

  • by Anonymous Coward

    This is not an educational system. It's a system designed to assign IP violation liability to the owner of the IP address where by eliminating arguements like "I didn't know it was occurring" or "it was an unauthorized user. I'm very glad to see scrutiny rising on the topic, there was little coverage in the days leading up.

    • by Skapare (16644)

      Right. This is just a side system to gather information and make arguments for lawsuits they are not mentioning. Too bad the system is already flawed ... see this post [slashdot.org] for an example of failure. If the ISP does not know what email address you actually use, you can't be notified. If you browser (and its network configuration) cannot be penetrated, you won't get a popup. They could still throttle your network down to 300 baud ... but if you are paying a premium for a higher speed, then they are not provi

  • yeah (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Tom (822) on Saturday March 02, 2013 @09:30AM (#43053799) Homepage Journal

    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?

  • by Skapare (16644) on Saturday March 02, 2013 @10:41AM (#43054205) Homepage

    The first two warnings – “educational alerts” – tell consumers they’ve been caught. The email will then direct them to legitimate sources of content with the hopes that the early warnings are enough to scare people into buying content.

    I hardly use email anymore. I almost don't use it at all. What I do have, my ISP does not know about, unless they've been spying on my HTTPS connections to Gmail. I don't have ISP based email, or if I do, I have no idea what it is, or have a means to login. Why would I use email that would change if I need to change layer 3 ISP?

    And what "legitimate sources of content" will work on my Slackware based computer? If they had that, I wouldn't need to be working around their broken sites.

    The next two warnings step it up a notch with what’s called “acknowledgement alerts.” The first two alerts were simply emails, but these next two will actually hijack your browser. You will be hit with a message telling you that you’ve been caught yet again, and must acknowledge that you’ve been caught before you can start browsing.

    Criminal actions and privacy aside, how the hell are they going to hijack my browser? I'm using HTTPS whever I can. I have 4 VPN setups to use. Sure, I do some insecure browsing like at Slashdot. But I don't use THEIR proxies, so they would have to add equipment than can do intercepts to traffic. So maybe it's possible for them to hijack my Slashdot traffic. But combining the interception and Slashdot's crazy content format, how can they make a popup appear safely ... for every web site? And how will this even prevent browsing without cutting off service? Cut off port 80 if they think that stops anything of high value?

    The next two tiers, and presumably every alert afterwards, will be “mitigation measures.” In essence, the ISPs will begin throttling your bandwidth or blocking Web sites you frequently visit. The ISPs will not be able to cut off your Internet connection under the plan.

    I frequently visit Slashdot. I guess they are going to block that And I am paying extra for the higher tier (8 mbps ... and it works). If they throttle below that level, they are violating the service offering they have for that extra payment. So I stop paying the extra.

  • by bobjr94 (1120555) on Saturday March 02, 2013 @01:06PM (#43055097) Homepage
    for the last week, so far no emails, letters or pop up's from comcast. Ive wanting to see how much downloading does it take before I get flagged. Then once I know the triggers, I can switch to an anonymous vpn and try it again.

Work without a vision is slavery, Vision without work is a pipe dream, But vision with work is the hope of the world.

Working...