Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
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This discussion has been archived.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:
  • I like this idea (Score:5, Interesting)

    by wbr1 (2538558) on Wednesday March 06, 2013 @01:17PM (#43094441)
    There was an AC post in another /. article about this I liked. It said something like create a crappy copyrighted work (in paint, sndrec of you singing, whatever). Host it free somewhere. Now create another page that says you do not have permission to download this file, with a link to the hosted file. Spam out the link to the page that says DO NOT DOWNLOAD everywhere you can. Not just one or two places, but thousands. Hell, post it through 10,000 forum backlinks free scams.
    Now collect the IPs of everyone who clicks the link and vies the file. Spam the six strike system with those IPs.
    If they ignore legitimate notices from you and do not issue alerts, sue, as they are using what is supposed to be a fair arbitration system to only police for content/companies they deem worthy. Keep flooding them with -legitimate- requests until they cannot handle it.
  • Anti-trust (Score:5, Interesting)

    by KoshClassic (325934) on Wednesday March 06, 2013 @01:19PM (#43094477)

    What we really have here is a huge anti-trust lawsuit waiting to happen - a situation where the large record & movie companies have banded together to collectively negotiate away our privacy with all of the large ISP's, who themselves have banded together and negotiated it away. Its completely anti-competitive in that, if I had any sort of option to get high speed Internet Access where I live from a company who wouldn't wave the white flag and offer up my information based on an IP address at the first hint of displeasure from the copyright industry, and I'd dump Time Warner immediately, almost entirely without regard for the cost or other aspects of whatever the alternative company might be offering.

    Any argument about supporting the artists crumbles in the face of studio accounting practices where no movie is ever profitable if the studios must share the profits, and where music artists basically never see a dime from the music that they record.

  • by 0100010001010011 (652467) on Wednesday March 06, 2013 @01:24PM (#43094545)

    The program they're using has a ton of false positives. It was removing stuff from NASA's youtube channel that NASA uploaded because news programs decided to use the footage.

  • Re:No (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 06, 2013 @01:46PM (#43094871)

    Actually, it's stag hunt: Stag Hunt [wikipedia.org]

  • by dj245 (732906) on Wednesday March 06, 2013 @02:07PM (#43095159) Homepage
    Which leads to a question- Would it be possible to set up a shell company, and claim infringement on every possible IP address? Then repeat 5 more times?

    This is a lot of IP addresses, but it could probably be done. I haven't read the entire actual law but the Wikipedia page doesn't mention anything about punishments for false infringement claims.
  • Re:I like this idea (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 06, 2013 @02:20PM (#43095311)

    But Six Strikes ISN'T about the hoster. It's about the downloader. That's why so many people are upset about it - there's a good legal argument that they didn't violate copyright, yet they're getting warnings accusing them of doing just that. The *AA hasn't had much (if any) luck going after the hosters, so they're going after the downloaders and forcing the ISPs to be their lackeys. Because otherwise they'll just sue the ISPs for contributing to the process, and the ISPs REALLY don't want that...

    CAPTCHA: crueler

  • by stanlyb (1839382) on Wednesday March 06, 2013 @02:27PM (#43095395)
    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
    THE CUSTOMER
  • by QuasiSteve (2042606) on Wednesday March 06, 2013 @02:36PM (#43095529)

    Who the FUCK delegated law enforcement to private corporations?

    It's kind of funny that way. On the one hand people are saying that copyright infringement is a private affair and the government should butt out - and certainly not devote a bunch of police work to it. On the other hand, people start complaining when private businesses do start taking action to enforce their copyrights.
    ( Mind you, since some say the government is bought by corporations anyway, the distinction might be moot. )

    Since you seem to be railing against the latter, are you saying that e.g. the police should be actively looking for copyright infringement and bring down to bear all of the privileges granted unto them in this endeavor?

  • by jythie (914043) on Wednesday March 06, 2013 @02:43PM (#43095605)
    I think when people say it should be a private affair, they are referring to the RIAA/MPAA not having special access to FBI resources that other types of civil crimes have. For instance if I was upset that a neighbor's dog was crapping on my lawn, I think we can agree that if I somehow pressured the FBI into going around and taking DNA samples of all my neighbor's dogs and then threatening them with fines well in excess of their lifetime earning potential, we could agree that I was getting disproportionate government assistance on my private matter, even though that private matter could leverage reasonable government support like getting the local police involved with minor fines and a warning.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 06, 2013 @03:36PM (#43096191)

    My kingdom for both mod points, and the ability to log in from work to use said mod points if I had them.

    This is EXACTLY what's going to happen. You get a pile of warnings, and Comcast says they won't litigate against you, sure, fine. They'll just pass your information along to the RIAA, and now they'll have all the ammunition they need to drain every dollar that you'll ever earn for the rest of your life from you. Acknowledgement that you not only "stole" (naturally, they'll keep using that word) their works, but that you continued to do it despite warning.

    And don't worry about those 6 strikes. A buck says that after a short time (aka: verifying if this system works on the first few poor bastards), a pile of people will be nailed to the wall by the RIAA after 2.

FORTH IF HONK THEN

Working...