Forgot your password?
Piracy Your Rights Online

In Defense of Six Strikes 354

Posted by Unknown Lamer
from the except-for-the-deep-packet-inspection dept.
Deathspawner writes with a view on Six Strikes we don't normally see around here: "It's been well-established all over the Web that the just-implemented 'Six Strikes' system is bad... horrible, worthy of death to those who created it. But let's take a deep breath for a moment. Can Six Strikes actually be a good thing for consumers? While the scheme isn't perfect (far from it), one of the biggest benefits from this system is that it introduces a proxy, and any persecution you might have easily faced prior to Six Strikes is delayed under the new program. Wouldn't you rather receive a warning from your ISP than be sent a bill or legal threat by the RIAA/MPAA?" A couple of days ago, someone sent Torrentfreak an actual alert they received from Comcast (the alert itself is a few screens down). Noteworthy is that there is zero mention of the appeals process.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

In Defense of Six Strikes

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 06, 2013 @01:18PM (#43094467)

    1. "Six Strikes" it NOT a _LAW_.
    2. Not all copyright holders are participating and none are _bound_ to it.

    Because of that, there is no guarantee that you will receive a "strike" before receiving a settlement demand for infringement or before being named in a federal copyright infringement lawsuit!

    Example: Let's say you go download the latest LA porn producer's newest amateur flick via a public BitTorrent tracker. This producer is not participating in six strikes. The porn producer is monitoring the torrent, and logs your IP. They are teamed with a lawyer, and sue you as a John Doe in a lawsuit. You find out when the lawsuit reaches discovery.

    What will your defense be? "I never got a first strike, let alone a sixth!" Yeah, tell _THAT_ to the judge. They won't care. You're still getting sued. Copyright trolls will continue extorting innocent victims.

  • No (Score:5, Informative)

    by TubeSteak (669689) on Wednesday March 06, 2013 @01:21PM (#43094501) Journal

    Wouldn't you rather receive a warning from your ISP than be sent a bill or legal threat by the RIAA/MPAA?"

    This is a form of the prisoner's dilemma.
    Individually, it makes sense for each of us to take the easy way out, but collectively, this is bad public policy.
    Private accusations of crime, followed by private punishments, is odious to our system of justice.

    More and more court cases are ending up like this one [], where minimal evidence gets turned away as insufficient.
    The real truth is that the copyright industry doesn't want to prosecute these cases, because lawyers and discovery and expert witnesses are expensive.
    Even Hollywood can't afford 10,000 cases at a time.

    I am not unsympathetic to their problem, but the solution needs to balance the due process rights of the people with the interests of big business.
    That hasn't happened since the copyright owners discovered the scale of infringement couldn't be cheaply addressed by the existing legal system.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 06, 2013 @01:24PM (#43094547)

    You realize these 'strikes' aren't for infringements, but for 'claims' of infringements, right? The RIAA has misidentified users before, and it will continue to do so. Not infringing is not a perfect solution.

  • Re:I like this idea (Score:5, Informative)

    by jd659 (2730387) on Wednesday March 06, 2013 @01:43PM (#43094829)
    Idea is interesting, but it doesn't work under the current copyright law. The fact that anyone is downloading any material does not make that an infringement. "Making available" or sharing the copyrighted work is the only infringement that is a violation. In your case, only the server that hosts the file might be infringing on the copyright, not the people downloading.
  • by interkin3tic (1469267) on Wednesday March 06, 2013 @02:03PM (#43095111)
    There are actually some sources saying you won't have to pay if you're "[paid] a gross monthly income that is less than 300% of the federal poverty income level, are full-time students receiving needs-based financial aid, or who qualify for one of a series of means-tested federal benefits." (One such source, referring to leaked AT&T documents I think. [])

    It goes without saying that I'll believe such rumors when I see them and see how much trouble ISPs give you for proving you don't have to pay the fee. And, more importantly, whether an appeal will do anything at all in the first place.
  • by pdabbadabba (720526) on Wednesday March 06, 2013 @03:01PM (#43095823) Homepage

    There's a tort called vexatious litigation. It's common law.

    There is also a possible penalty under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 11, for signing your name to a legal declaration that you have not investigated and, thus, do not have good reason to believe that it is true. The judge, essentially, gets to make up any penalty they think is appropriate (within reason).

  • by CanHasDIY (1672858) on Wednesday March 06, 2013 @04:18PM (#43096683) Homepage Journal

    I have an idea, for everyone who receives this kind of warning from Comcast to respond with the following:

    Dear Comcast,

          Let me remind you that i am innocent until proven guilty, and that the only place where i could be found guilty is the court, and that if you try to imply that i am guilty of something, without due process, and punishing me on top of that, you are either blackmailing me, or you are trying to replace the court, both of which are unconstitutional, and would force me to sue you personally (corporations are persons now, right?), not for the before mentioned "infringement", but for blackmailing.

    Please consider this letter as a legal warning, and the fact that you read it, as an acknowledgment that you have read it.

    Sincerely. Yours


    P.S. make sure you send that bad boy certified mail, that way they can't say they never received it.

"Regardless of the legal speed limit, your Buick must be operated at speeds faster than 85 MPH (140kph)." -- 1987 Buick Grand National owners manual.