Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Piracy Media The Internet

Comcast Working On 'Helpful' Copyright Violation Pop-ups 284

Posted by Soulskill
from the because-movie-pirates-love-popups-even-more-than-free-things dept.
gregor-e writes "Comcast is said to be preparing to snoop on your internet browsing to detect when you attempt to download a copyright-protected item. On detection, Comcast will pop up a helpful window that contains information about where you can obtain a legal version of whatever you're downloading. 'While sources familiar with the new initiative emphasized that it is being seen as a complement to CAS [a.k.a. six strikes] and not a replacement, the very emergence of an alternative raises questions as to the viability of CAS, which has been criticized for myriad reasons ranging from the questionable strategic rationale of punishing subscribers to an implementation that has been characterized as scattershot. How the two systems would coexist is unclear.'" Comcast will be inviting other ISPs to join its new system as well.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Comcast Working On 'Helpful' Copyright Violation Pop-ups

Comments Filter:
  • by jaymz666 (34050) on Tuesday August 06, 2013 @08:13PM (#44492781)

    They are going to be modifying web pages with this popup crap? They will be actively scanning every page I go to to see if there is a link to something on some master lists somewhere, modify every HTML page I download to include some sort of script to create a pop-up?

    Really?

    I guess they could maybe just intercept all HTTP requests that go to specific hosts and URIs and supplant the destination with a replacement HTML page... much better

    • by VortexCortex (1117377) <`VortexCortex' ` ... -retrograde.com'> on Tuesday August 06, 2013 @08:19PM (#44492827) Homepage

      Hey, break DNS, why not break HTTP too?

    • by fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) on Tuesday August 06, 2013 @08:45PM (#44492987) Journal
      Maybe some webmasters would be interested to hear that Comcast is exploring a plan to produce unauthorized derivative works, based on their pages, to hawk media products (not a few of which are from companies in the same ownership structure)... Isn't that the sort of plan that would be approximately a zillion counts of copyright infringement, trademark violation, and who knows what else if it were proposed by anybody other than a hegemonic corporation?
      • The copyright infringement problem you describe is only the beginning. The long-term flaw in this plan, I suspect, is that they are claiming to be able to detect a class of "illegal"/"bad" data.

        In the early days of the net, this kind of detection was a major part of the pornography debate in addition to the usual copyright stuff. A major defense (one I suspect lead to the creation of the "safe harbor" provisions in the DMCA) was that it is patently unreasonable to force an ISP to decide the legality of each bit that moves across their network. Comparisons were made to the Common Carriers, etc. The consensus seems to be more or less that "safe harbor" idea - that it was only reasonable to request the ISP act after the fact, instead of trying to make them invent some sort of magic "evil bit" detector.

        If an ISP wants to ignore all that, though, and volunteer that they have such detection capability... they might be asking for a long line of lawsuits for each item they *failed* to warn about. Even better: it's all the excuse the anti-porn (or anti-whatever) busybodies need to impose their ideas of a "child safe" internet. After all, if you can detect something complicated like copyright infringement, detecting pornography must be trivial.

        TL;DR - their lawyer must be having a seizure over the potential liability exposure they seem to be asking for

        • by girlintraining (1395911) on Wednesday August 07, 2013 @01:15AM (#44494275)

          TL;DR - their lawyer must be having a seizure over the potential liability exposure they seem to be asking for

          It's peanuts compared to the marketing potential. Scareware is a booming industry -- look at how much malware we have to scrub off our computers now. The average computer is more likely than not to be infected with some kind of rogue application at this point, and the problem is accelerating.

          Now we have ISPs injecting HTML into web pages to scare them into purchasing digital media "legally" and threatening to report them to the police if they do not... we've legitimized this whole ecosystem. The internet has become a place where you are either predator or prey.

          Fits in rather nicely with our imperialist views that we can engage in cyberwarfare whenever we want, and then loading aircraft carriers full of automated drones. The corporate-military supraorganization is marrying the idea of greed and profit to abstract murder on the basis of algorithmic determinism. Soon it won't be people killing people, it'll be algorithms killing people. In a world like that, what's a little advertising? What's a little dystopia when there's profit to be had?

          History may well remember that the information age was just the prelude to a whole new dark age. And it'll be recorded that we doomed ourselves trying to protect ourselves from pedophiles, murderers, terrorists, and every other boogieman. But... it's not exactly the first time in human history that a sudden leap forward in technology or industry created a power vaccum that led to social collapse. Actually... this would be the first time it hasn't happened, in case it doesn't. :/

    • And of course they'll get a commission on any actual sales. This is the same drive for monetisation that lead network solutions to direct you to advertising laden search results instead of returning NXDOMAIN.
  • by stox (131684) on Tuesday August 06, 2013 @08:14PM (#44492787) Homepage

    Buying more bandwidth is out of the question is too expensive, but dropping a fortune on the hardware to do deep packet inspection is no problem.

    • DPI is already there (in hardware) on more mid and higher end routers.

      nothing to buy. just turn it on and use it.

    • by girlintraining (1395911) on Tuesday August 06, 2013 @11:12PM (#44493819)

      Buying more bandwidth is out of the question is too expensive, but dropping a fortune on the hardware to do deep packet inspection is no problem.

      That's because the hardware to do that you can stuff in a closet somewhere. The hardware to create more bandwidth on a coaxial network that is continuously being pushed and prodded into doing something it wasn't designed to do -- two-way communication, is considerably more complex to deploy and maintain. To add a server, you just need a port on a wall and some space in a rack. To add another 100 mhz of bandwidth to a coaxial network, you need to rip out every repeater, run down every possible source of signal leakage, and then yank out all the equipment at the head-end... and nevermind that many customers are using their own equipment that may or may not be compatible with the new protocols, equipment, etc.

      Now, all that said... Comcast should have been incrementally upgrading this whole time, like any other utility provider. Unfortunately, like every other utility provider, they don't upgrade their infrastructure until there's no other choice. Our power grids are maxed out, our sewers are rotting, our bridges are falling into rivers, our cell phone service is the laughing stock of the first world... and we are paying more and more every year for them. All because short term profit isn't just a mentality... for a publicly-traded company, it's a legal requirement. The problem here is that our method of economic incentives and government regulations about infrastructure/utility services is, achem... broken. Badly.

      So it's not technically Comcast's fault... they're just doing what everyone else is doing: Doing anything possible to avoid biting the bullet and investing in infrastructure. So long as the government isn't willing to simply revoke their licenses and tell them to get the fuck out, and start inking non-exclusive contracts for services, and making regulatory demands for regular and timely upgrades... businesses will continue to profit at your expense. But of course, that is how they want it, though we did, by remaining politically inert, allow it to be this way.

      There's plenty of blame to pass around.

      • by s.petry (762400) on Wednesday August 07, 2013 @12:34AM (#44494153)

        Interesting points and I agree with all but one, but I need to add an item.

        Comcast doing this brings a sense of normality to the current Government intrusions to privacy. Data should be protected from this, as Comcast is a service provider (utility), by the first and fourth amendment. If they are using DPI on the network, they will not just be inspecting HTTP requests but ALL packets.

        The point I disagree with is where you claim it's not Comcast's fault. It absolutely is their fault. Just like it's the power companies fault when things fail, the oil companies fault when they don't upgrade refineries, etc... They have a choice (or at least I believe they have a choice) on how they dump their marketing and lobby dollars. They could lobby for improvements and alert customers to the draconian big brother rules the Government creates just as easily as they could lobby for higher profits and helping big brother. Few if any companies choose to do the former, especially when it they hit larger scale.

        Of course we pay the price for the latter, and there is no penalties for these companies screwing up. Since they helped the Government, the Government helps them monopolize and uses tax dollars to keep them floating when needed. The big unfortunate issue is what happens when all the phony money runs out and everyone is broke? It can't be that far down the road.

  • Fuck comcast... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 06, 2013 @08:15PM (#44492799)

    My fancy new 'digital' tv wont work without comcasts boxes around. You can't even buy one. Rental only. Good thing they gave them out for free...
    Oh Wait...'free' dta boxes are now costing every month. What the actual fuck... 'free' to comcast actually means until we start charging for it.

    Forced to pay for 40 channels of pure shit to get 10 channels you might want to watch sometime. It's such a complete scam.

    Every month its yet another problem with either the net or the tv or billing. And the bills keep going up. The service and quality keeps going down.
    And habib over in india or wherever has no fucking clue how to fix anything without calling them at least 5 times.

    $160 a month for this shit... It's about time to get rid of them for tv at least...
    God i wish i had another choice for internet...

    Save us google you're our only hope. Your worst half-assed attempts at anything are 5000% better than comcasts best effort.

    • Netflix is your actual savior.

      Step 1 - subscribe to netflix and buy a Roku/AppleTV
      Step 2 - cancel cable tv (and possibly upgrade your network speed)
      Step 3 - profit by saving ~$100 / month, which you can optionally spend buying tickets to live music/sports events instead of sitting at home or if you must rent a VPN and usenet anything not on Netflix.

  • by sabt-pestnu (967671) on Tuesday August 06, 2013 @08:20PM (#44492833)

    We're worried about the NSA seeing everything that goes over our connections.

    But how much worse is it to have your own ISP doing so? Previously, we at least had the illusion that they didn't know. (Yeah, right. Do you browse with HTTPS-everywhere? And if you do, do your search terms go to some search provider that reports to the government?)

    But now we know that they'll be looking directly at what you download. It's no step at all to go from "looking for copyrighted material" to "looking for anything we are interested in". Al Qaida training materials? Anarchist cookbook? PETA protest schedules? Republican party caucus meeting schedule?

    Remember that adhesion contract you agreed to when you signed up with your ISP? Where they can change the terms when they want? Care to guess whether those terms will change to assure that you "agree" to deep packet inspection and content filtering of your internet traffic?

    • by Rockoon (1252108)

      But how much worse is it to have your own ISP doing so?

      Its not worse. Its not good, but the idea that its 'worse' than the government doing it is complete bullshit.

    • by Seumas (6865)

      That's exactly the problem. There are so many layers of potential compromise that it really doesn't matter, anymore. Even if everything else in the chain can be trusted to be secure and trustworthy, the government can spike-in anywhere they want from inside a data center to just outside of a provider's (ISP, facebook, etc) network,... and then your own ISP... and if you use VPN, then you still have to hope your VPN provider can be trusted (assuming you can even GET a VPN service anymore, since it has basica

    • We're worried about the NSA seeing everything that goes over our connections.

      Exactly. Clearly the NSA should be part of this scheme and provide popups to let you know when you are engaging in behaviour they deem questionable. So next time you click on an https connection to a non-US company you can get a helpful popup: "Using encrypted internet connections to foreign entities puts you on an NSA watch list, are you sure you wish to continue? If you so have you considered using an NSA-approved proxy server that will ensure we can protect your connection - available for free at: https [notthekgb.gov]

    • We're worried about the NSA seeing everything that goes over our connections.

      But how much worse is it to have your own ISP doing so?

      Here's the thing you've got to remember. Comcast is no longer just a service provider. With the acquisition of NBC, Comcast is also a content provider. It's in the companies best interests to curtail the piracy if they can, but they have to do it for everyone, not just their own content, or the company gets accused of unfair business practices.

  • Stupid (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Virtucon (127420) on Tuesday August 06, 2013 @08:22PM (#44492857)

    This Six Strikes thing is both retarded and a horrible business practice. Why? Because they'll probably single out torrent traffic and assume that you must be pirating something. Hello Comcast: torrents != piracy. Ultimately that's what all these initiatives for piracy look at and they've declared war on P2P sharing because regardless of what it is, it must be "illegal." It also feeds right into the argument for traffic prioritization and filtering which is another horrible idea for the Internet. I can see some Comcast exec saying "We're going to be filtering torrent traffic because our friendly warnings have shown that 90% of the users involved in P2P are doing illegal activity." All the while they're pushing their own content services for substantial fees onto their users. I for one would be worried if I were a Comcast user and would seek out HTTPs connections everywhere I go on the net or look for another ISP.

     

    • That's sure gonna be fun to watch, considering that quite a few games, with WoW maybe being the most prominent one, distribute their patches by P2P means.

      Although it could explain why WoW keeps losing players quickly lately, maybe some of them are getting into trouble for "strikes".

    • Lets not magically assume that we know the mistakes they will make before they make them. I doubt that p2p will be an issue. I am curious as to how they plan to allow movie-previews and other stuff that generally benefits the copyright holders. There is a lot of stuff on the websites like rottentomatoes and whatnot that might get flagged. Is there going to be a magic handshake from the website that says we are entitled to broadcast this? Or is the allowed content going to be watermarked.

      I am certa

    • I do not, nor did I ever have an issue with traffic prioritization. Mostly the people who don't know what that is, or how it works have issues with it, but that's just ignorance. Real traffic prioritization only kicks in when lines are completely full, and then it lets stuff through with higher priority (VOIP, gaming packets, web browsing, video on demand) first. Things that aren't time sensitive (FTP, HTTP, BitTorrent, NNTP, etc) are sent as soon as they can.

      Of course, the alternative is that the intern

      • I do not, nor did I ever have an issue with traffic prioritization. Mostly the people who don't know what that is, or how it works have issues with it, but that's just ignorance. Real traffic prioritization only kicks in when lines are completely full, and then it lets stuff through with higher priority (VOIP, gaming packets, web browsing, video on demand) first.

        Not entirely accurate. Traffic prioritization is not only a saturation thing, it's also about time sensitivity. Network interfaces are still FIFO, so if you've got a big transfer going, those big packets take longer to serialize on the wire, and things like VOIP, Video, and gaming start to suffer from time delay. A properly done QoS setup will prioritize time sensitive traffic to be sent before anything else, regardless of whether the interface is full or not (obviously, you put a limit on the amount of ban

    • Because they'll probably single out torrent traffic and assume that you must be pirating something.

      This is not correct. Even the summary clearly states that they will detect infringing content and (somehow) present you with an offer to buy that content from a legal vendor. This monetisation is the entire point of the venture and it seems the system will only work with content from providers who sign up with Comcast's system.

      You won't be seeing popups that say "You have been detected illegally downloading archlinux-bootstrap-2013.08.01-i686.tar.gz. Please cease and buy a legitimate copy from amazon.com

  • C'Cast did this just a few years back, but the topic was bandwidth, I think. So their sniffing isn't new at all, just their nanny-state attitude over in-your copyright nag.
  • by ravenscar (1662985) on Tuesday August 06, 2013 @08:31PM (#44492909)

    They are so happy to do this because they own companies that produce copyrighted content. This is not okay. In an effort to get broadband out to larger numbers of people Comcast has been granted monopolies, subsidies, easements, and other things in the public domain. They should not be able to use that public domain to make sure that they can distribute and protect their own content. As soon as they took handouts from the public they lost the right to be anything but a "dumb" connection. I can't understandy why the FCC allows Comcast to exist as it does today - with clear conflicts of interest between their obligation to fairly contribute to the public domain and their need to make as much money as they can from the production of copyrighted content (that they distribute on their infrastructure).

    • by causality (777677)

      I can't understandy why the FCC allows Comcast to exist as it does today

      For the same reason that the FDA allows aspartame despite the mountains of scientific evidence that it's toxic: money.

      You just haven't greased the correct palms. If you did, I'm sure you'd have their full support.

  • ...when you get a Comcast warning, better start looking for another source of your content, 'cause this one has been found out and will probably become unavailable soon.

    Nice of them to hand out an early warning.

  • It's (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Richy_T (111409) on Tuesday August 06, 2013 @08:38PM (#44492955) Homepage

    Internet
    Service
    Provider.

    Just forward the damn packets and take my money.

  • This is clearly creating an unlicensed derivative work from the original webpage.

    Or, better, how will this work with an HTTPS connection?

    Is it HTTP only? What about SFTP, FTP, and Torrent?

    • by mark-t (151149)
      You could have some javascript code that automatically runs an md5 hash on its content, and compares it to what is known for that page, recording any differences as qualifying as a derivative work, effectively automating the process.
    • Only if they include content from the original webpage, which it most likely will not. It'll probably be implemented as a DNS redirect, but they might get fancy and just redirect based on URL, but the later requires significantly more hardware, so I'm guessing it's the former. They see you are trying to access www.moviepiratesgalore.com and redirect you to www.mpaa.com instead.

      • by causality (777677)

        Only if they include content from the original webpage, which it most likely will not. It'll probably be implemented as a DNS redirect, but they might get fancy and just redirect based on URL, but the later requires significantly more hardware, so I'm guessing it's the former. They see you are trying to access www.moviepiratesgalore.com and redirect you to www.mpaa.com instead.

        Do you suppose they would also include a transparent HTTP proxy for people like me who run their own caching nameserver?

        • Probably not. But if they are just doing redirection via DNS, then it depends on what you have your nameserver set as its upstream nameserver.

        • No. That's too hard to pull off for the amount of traffic that goes through the Comcast network, it'd create a huge bottleneck and way too much impact to performance, not to mention another point of failure. It would also require a major effort reengineering traffic flow and routing policy.

          This will likely be done through DNS and URI inspection, allowing the service to stay on the periphery and be turned off without any impact to customers when it breaks, needs maintenance, etc.

  • that's already installed?

  • by grahamsaa (1287732) on Tuesday August 06, 2013 @08:45PM (#44492985)
    I feel bad for the programmers and sysadmins that are being asked to implement this. Surely, they must know that it won't work, but senior management probably insists that everyone can afford all the content they want, and that DRM is easy to deal with (and somehow beneficial) because senior management is completely lost.

    The front line people responsible for setting this up are probably rolling their eyes in disgust, and looking for better jobs. If I were in their position, I would be. Have fun trying to enforce something that is unworkable and unrealistic. When you're not having fun anymore, hopefully you'll find a job that uses your skillset to do something that makes sense.
    • Why feel bad for the programmers? I'd do if they paid me to do it. I've coded lots of stuff that were based on totally bad designs that I knew would flop almost instantly. I got paid the same, and they flop, and then they pay me to do something less retarded.

    • by jonwil (467024)

      I am not convinced that its about piracy vs legit content so much as it is about doing whatever it takes (including bandwidth caps etc) to reduce or eliminate the ability for people to use the Internet as an alternative way to get their content instead of paying the big bucks to Comcast for Cable TV.

  • The crime is distribution, not receiving. Its perfectly legal to download any file off the internet.

  • by wierd_w (1375923) on Tuesday August 06, 2013 @08:54PM (#44493047)

    If I owned a botnet, I would dedicate a tiny portion of the swarm's resources to simply doing an http get request for some arbitrary file from a list of know triggers, and doing everything in my power to both route the request over a comcast owned link, and suppress the popup on the zombie.

    The goal? Create as much noise in the line as possible to make the effort futile. (As a botnet operator, I would have incentive to make deep packet inspection as undesirable as possible.)

    It wouldn't take much. Just pull a few bytes of an MP3 here, poke an illegal video server there, and just discard the replied datagrams (occasionally pull a whole fle, just to make it hard to filter). Wait some configurable time variable, then do it again with a different random file. Make it look like piracy is radically out of control, and totally discredit any metrics they collect from deep packet snooping.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 06, 2013 @08:56PM (#44493055)

    What kind of "helpful pointers" will they be giving when there is NO legal alternative? The few times I've ever used peer-to-peer is when the item in question is "out of print" and "currently unavailable" (Disney is notorious for doing this). Just try and get an original cut of Disney's live action/animated hybrid "Song of the South". It's not available in this country at any price. Oh you can get heavily censored versions, but not the original (supposedly it is "too racist" for Americans).

    I realize this represents a very tiny fraction of online acquisition (I hesitate to call it piracy if it can't be purchased) but I mention it because a lot of companies (like Disney) deliberately take things off the market in order to trundle it out every ten years or so with a grossly inflated profit margin.

    • Just try and get an original cut of Disney's live action/animated hybrid "Song of the South"

      Ok, here: http://classicmoviereel.com/SOTS.html [classicmoviereel.com]

    • by MobyDisk (75490)

      Exactly! If Comcast could write a program where I give it a file, and it tells me where I can legally obtain it, I would PAY for that service, just so I know where I can get it from! Of course, such a magical program is impossible.

  • by Walt Sellers (1741378) on Tuesday August 06, 2013 @09:04PM (#44493095)

    Wouldn't this violate their "safe harbor" protection? This would mean they would know about violations and they might even benefit from them by saying "get it legally FROM OUR STORE"

    • by robot256 (1635039)
      Exactly what I was thinking. The reason they want to pawn off the same system to competing ISPs is so they can turn around and sue them for knowingly letting their users violate Time-Warner's copyrights.
  • as measured by... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by OFnow (1098151) on Tuesday August 06, 2013 @09:09PM (#44493117)
    As measured by a proprietary algorithm with no human review of its calculation or of fair use -- you will be judged.
  • by joe_frisch (1366229) on Tuesday August 06, 2013 @09:24PM (#44493193)

    Great, now they will tell me where I can legally pay to download the latest season of "game of thrones"

  • by Hartree (191324) on Tuesday August 06, 2013 @09:24PM (#44493195)

    Does this mean they're going to start flagging the oodles of things on Youtube that "copyright violations"? And post links to Amazon or some such where you can pay for the music in them (of course ignoring the other content)?

    This should get funny when they go up against Google for treading on their turf.

    Not gonna mess with Google-tube, huh? Well, I guess like in Animal Farm, some are more equal than others.

  • ... would be quickly pushed a pop-up message with links to purchase or rent the same content

    if you can sell or rent me an episode of show that just broadcast an hour ago in 720p without ads and is DRM free, i'll do it. otherwise, fuck off because what i'm getting is better than what you have to offer.

  • I am loving this stuff - six-strikes and traffic snooping. It so obviously sucks that it is driving the market for VPNs to levels of hyper competition. And I lurve me a VPN because it mixes all my traffic with everybody else on the same egress node which is just great for "hiding in the crowd" while you browse the web without cookies (and other trackers).

    Thanks to six-strikes I'm paying less than $4/month for VPN access that gets me my choice of exit nodes in about 10 different countries and 5 simultaneou

    • by robot256 (1635039)
      But buying a VPN puts you on the NSA watch list. They don't care what you use it for, only who you talk to with it.
  • As usual the summary is terrible. There is no mention of snooping on internet browsing, only P2P. How would this work? Perhaps;

    1. Comcast gets you to install a program or browser plugin as part of their ISP crapware.
    2. Comcast detect an illegal download by passively joining P2P swarms and, since they know your IP, inject HTML popups into your next browsing request. Popups don't work with many modern browsers but even if this was in the page it would be bizarre for the user to head to their Gmail and s

  • I already hear the thousands of complaints that come streaming in on day one. Just because you are downloading a copyrighted work doesn't mean you are doing something illegal or shady because I'm not downloading it from the "official" source. I've already fought with my cable provider over this when I was served a notice over a year ago and they admitted to being wrong.
  • by ZorinLynx (31751) on Tuesday August 06, 2013 @10:03PM (#44493423) Homepage

    How exactly will they "pop up" anything? Unless they transparent proxy an outgoing web request and send back a page with a pop-up, which would (in my opinion) be a gross violation of just being an internet provider and not fucking around with my packets?

    Sigh. Why can't internet providers just provide internet, and stay the fuck out of this sort of thing? I just want my packets to make it to their destination, uninspected and un-fucked with, and I want the same for the packets coming back to me.

    At this rate, the Internet is eventually going to become a glorified version of what AOL was in the 90s. Shudder.

  • Would be nice if they'd work on getting their service working instead.

    Six months of having to use Google DNS because they can't run a goddamned DNS server.

  • I found them helpful already just reading about them. Now I'm never going with Comcast ever.
  • Don't these old media types understand that this just makes an opening for smaller more nimble ISPs to simply say, "We provide the bandwidth and what the hell you do with it is your business!"

    I hope that these guys vomit their cheerios when they see how many previously complacent customers jump to the competition and never come back. Most people are barraged with better offers every day but ignore them thinking that it isn't worth the trouble. But when your ISP starts to threaten you then it does become w
    • I hope that these guys vomit their cheerios when they see how many previously complacent customers jump to the competition and never come back.

      Hence all the commercials about "slow DSL". Comcast has power because in a lot of areas, the competition can't even deliver 2 Mbps.

      Will they start warning people about downloading VLC

      That depends on whether the MPEG-LA is willing to get into bed with Comcast the way the MPAA has.

      What about a warning for downloading Snowden's stuff from Wikileaks?

      Worse yet: a warning even for downloading information about a plush snowman sold by Target [google.com].

    • by neminem (561346)

      *What* smaller more nimble ISPs? I haven't seen any of those in like 10 years. They still exist? I'd love to get off Verizon internet, but our only other choice is Charter, which is even frelling worse. Yes, we're barraged with "better" offers every day... from Charter...

  • How are they going to know what I'm downloading via https://..../ [....] websites and magnet: links? I'm pretty sure bittorrent won't display any of their popups.

    They're also running in to the problem that altering the content delivered to the browser is creating a derivative work of someone elses content, potentially violating their copyright.

  • by jfdavis668 (1414919) on Tuesday August 06, 2013 @10:42PM (#44493641)
    It looks like you are trying to pirate a movie. Would you like help?
  • No one is going to install this software on their computer and COMCAST can't force it on people. If they try, customers will leave. This is nothing more than further proof that the entertainment industry doesn't understand technology or the internet and, they are also complete idiots. A far more productive approach would be to bang their heads against the wall and if it doesn't work, bang some more. It will achieve just as much and won't bother anyone else.
  • ... the rate of use of HTTPS and VPNs is going up.

Byte your tongue.

Working...