Movie Studios Want Automated BitTorrent Warnings 140
daria42 writes "The lawsuit filed by movie and TV studios against Australian Internet service provider iiNet appears to have taken a new twist, with the studios using early judgments in the case to attempt to push other ISPs towards what it has described as a 'standardized automated processing system' for BitTorrent copyright infringement notices that would integrate with the ISPs' networks and automatically forward messages to customers when they were sent by the studios."
"We want to spam all your customers at will..." (Score:5, Insightful)
"...but it's too much trouble to do it ourselves. You do it for us."
Another warning proposal (Score:5, Insightful)
Can we also have a warning for *AA affiliates exec? It should be triggered everytime they approach a public statement, it should say "If you're about to talk about piracy, please consider the fact that you're about to make a fool of yourself. Again."
Does it include an envelope for the fine? (Score:4, Insightful)
Man, this is starting to sound more and more like the local parking enforcement and red-light camera issued tickets! Guilty without need to present evidence and little to no contesting rights. Next thing you know, the studios will have enforcement troops.
ISP response: sure, studios - here's the BILL (Score:5, Insightful)
The ideal ISP response to this would be to agree and then send the studios a bill at, say, $10000 per notification to cover "costs". Hollywood accounting works both ways...
Yep. This is not a free country. (Score:5, Insightful)
Just notify EVERYONE. They're all dirty pirates, right?
Yeah. That's how America works these days.
Treat everyone as a terrorist - search them at airports, train stations, on the road, etc - ever been for radiation therapy? Look out!
Everyone is a potential meth addict - gotta show your driver's license to get 10 pills of Sudafed!
Everyone is a drunk driver - that's why there are road blocks where they stop everyone to see if they're drunk - sucks when you're working weekend nights and you're automatically considered a drunk!
On the internet? Well, you're pirating and downloading child porn unless proven innocent!
Re:"We want to spam all your customers at will..." (Score:5, Insightful)
"...but it's too much trouble to do it ourselves. You do it for us."
If they keep pushing this, the result will be predictable enough.
It will eventually result in a new distributed peer-to-peer protocol. This new protocol will have mandatory strong encryption, will be obfuscated, will likely not have central trackers of any kind (perhaps it will rely on something like DHT), and will generally make it much more difficult to identify individual users. In turn, the pirates, who already feel quite bold, will likely share even more copyrighted material as a result of the reduced risk.
If they really want to drive it even more underground, they can, but they will regret the results. Meanwhile, the more unreasonable they become the more likely it is that Joe Sixpack will start to see them as little more than greedy thugs. Right now a lot of people who don't keep up with these developments have at least some sympathy for them. There are still many who will entertain arguments claiming that infringement of copyright is exactly the same thing as theft of tangible goods (which it is not) and the like, but the copyright cartels are on a certain path towards changing that.
Unreasonable asshats with control complexes who have politicians in their back pockets are a recipe for lawlessness, both of the unprincipled type that just wants a new movie/game/mp3 and of the civil-disobedience type who promote and support what the cartels are trying to stop as an act of protest. Exactly how many thousands of examples are needed for this to become something obvious that "everybody knows" and no longer wants to try?
Re:Rent it and Rip it (Score:4, Insightful)
The best thing that can happen to the open source / free software movement is that enforceable / unbreakable DRM exists - so idiots like you who think convenience justifies pirating content can't play your pirated games or movies any more. (This also goes for Office, Windows etc)
Of course, there are still idiots like you that continue to use incorrect terminology. That dilutes whatever message you may think you have (especially here on Slashdot) and, if anything, makes you appear like a media company shill. That's the facts, jack. If you're an American (and I accept that you may not be) you should read up on what our law considers the definition of "piracy" to be. Hint: it's not the GP grabbing a couple of torrents. Using the attempted re-definition of legal language that the media companies are using to promote their twisted definition of copyright does not help matters at all, no matter what side of the fence you're sitting upon. Outright lies, fabrications and untruths (something that big media is absolutely famous for spewing forth at regular intervals) rarely improve any situation, and make any form of reasonable compromise impossible. More fact: these little pricks put themselves into the situation they're in today, by demonstrating a depth of vision flatter than a sheet of Reynold's Wrap. Luddites and modern technology rarely get along well, especially when you toss in a sprinkling of sociopathy.
What I think you fail to understand are a couple of important things. One: this is not directly about money. I think it's pretty clear at this point that copyright infringement, even on the scale afforded by the Internet, is not lowering industry profits overall, in fact, it's probably the opposite. Two: what these conglomerates want is to regain control of content distribution, like they had prior to the rise of peer-to-peer. Three: that gives them control not only of consumers (who then have little choice but to "enjoy" whatever pablum those bastards decide to dole out at any given time) but, just as importantly, control of the artists, who then have no place to go to sell their works except through "approved" channels. Why do you think the record labels hate iTunes so much? Because they effectively ceded control of their entire music distribution network to Steve Jobs, who is just as big a control freak as they are. Well, I told you they aren't particularly intelligent.
Sorry buddy, that is simply not the social contract that the Constitution granted Congress the power to make between business and the public domain. It just isn't, and when you add into the mix the insanely extended copyrights (also not exactly Constitutional) any sympathy I might have for the big copyright holders just evaporated. Time to get a reality check: you are not supporting artists with your attitude, you are not supporting the public domain, you are not supporting what is best for your own society. You are, instead, taking the side of several criminal gangs who have successfully corrupted our legal system and spent quite a bit of money conscripting the Federal government to enforce copyright. That's not how it is supposed to work: having a copyright simply means that you have the right to seek redress: it was not supposed to mean that the United States Federal Government will seek to destroy people and companies on your behalf.
I ask you: is that a good thing?