Copyright Alert System To Launch Monday 224
An anonymous reader sends this excerpt from the Daily Dot:
"Starting next week, most U.S. Internet users will be subject to a new copyright enforcement system that could force them to complete educational programs, and even slow their Internet speeds to a crawl. A source with direct knowledge of the Copyright Alert System [said] the five participating Internet service providers will start the controversial program Monday. The ISPs — industry giants AT&T, Cablevision, Comcast, Time Warner, and Verizon — will launch their versions of the CAS on different days throughout the week. Comcast is expected to be the first, on Monday."
Of course, there are many ways around the Copyright Alert System, so it probably won't be terribly effective.
To be fair. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:To be fair. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:To be fair. (Score:5, Funny)
Ubuntu Tycoons
You owe me a new keyboard.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What are you on? (Score:5, Insightful)
DUDE! That thing sticking outta the side of his head... is his tongue in his cheek... next you're supposed to laugh... and now we know why there are no savant comedians...
Re:What are you on? (Score:4, Funny)
Are you sure it's his tongue? Might be the antenna. They're not supposed to be visible, but some people have bad reactions to the materials.
Re: (Score:2)
or are you really that stupid?
I sincerely hope you're just one-upping the tongue-in-cheekiness of the parent poster. It was so thick, people walking around my cubicle slowed to a crawl.
Re:To be fair. (Score:5, Interesting)
Is it as bad? Well, this could easily affect innocent people, and it could be used against anyone. Hell, since there's no real oversight, I can say that it probably will.
Regardless of whether it's as bad as some of the other insane copyright enforcement schemes, it's still unjust.
Re: (Score:2)
(A) They've been saying they were going to do it "any day now" for over a year. Most of the time they've said they were going to start "the beginning of next month". Now it's "next week" (which, in fact, is the beginning of next month). So if their past performance is any indication, it will probably be another 6 months at least.
(B) I predict that as soon as they do start to implement it, whenever that may be, they will start to see lawsuits. Maybe even class-action
Re:To be fair. (Score:4, Insightful)
It's "pretty moderate" in the same sense as beating up a woman is "pretty moderate" compared to raping her.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Only it will now be used IN CONCERT with lawsuits, not instead of.
Re:To be fair. (Score:5, Insightful)
True, but keep in mind that this is likely just in addition to suing single mothers for millions of dollars for downloading an MP3 once. I don't expect they're going to call off their political lobbying, either.
Re:To be fair. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The funny thing is that all this is gonna do is grow tor's (and other thingies) use to levels unseen before. It will take some years, sure, but sooner or later these dumbasses are going to be scratching their heads wondering what the hell is that seemingly random flow out there that they cannot crack.
Re:To be fair. (Score:5, Informative)
Nah, they already got Tor's number. They'll just arrest all the node operators on child porn charges [redorbit.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Step 1: Apply egregious, extortionate infringements on personal freedoms.
Step 2: Replace egregious infringements with milder versions so that in comparison the victim might not recognize the infringement.
Step 3: Prophetz.
Re:To be fair. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:To be fair. (Score:5, Funny)
...pretty moderate approach...
A guy got stopped by a cop for rolling through a stop sign.
The guy started complaining about it, saying, "C'mon man, I slowed down before crossing."
The cop rips him out of the car and starts to beat the crap out of the guy, saying, "Do you want to me to stop? Or do you want me to slow down?
Re:To be fair. (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree. Nothing can ever go wrong when government and corporations establish a re-education programs.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd also like to point out that the "independent expert" they first selected to evaluate their "system", turned out to be an ex-lobbyist for the RIAA. (Or maybe it was the MPAA, but it was definitely one of the two.)
While they did drop the guy, and say they'd go with some other "independent expert", there are three notable things about that:
(1) They still haven't done it yet,
(2) when they do, you can bet it will STILL be somebody about as "independent" as my ass is from the r
Re: (Score:3)
"This is actually a pretty moderate approach compared to just suing single mothers for millions of dollars for downloading an MP3 once."
But even if it is "more moderate", it isn't going to work, and it's still very likely illegal on a number of grounds, which I have repeatedly pointed out here on /. before.
Re:To be fair. (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic but I don't think you are, so I'm addressing your point as if it's serious:
In Asian diplomacy, step 1 is to be outrageous. Refuse to listen to the opposing party, make ridiculously absurd demands, and concede nothing.
Step 2 is stalemate, but you make it extremely clear that you will still concede nothing.
Step 3 is to pretend to listen to the opposing party, say you'll compromise, make slightly less absurd demands, and concede nothing.
If this fails you start the process over again. Insist that the slightly less absurd demands are a moderate compromise, which is a true statement, because compared to the original ridiculously absurd demands, it's a 'more moderate' approach. The RIAA/MPAA is playing a game of Asian diplomacy and suckers like you (assuming you're not just being facetious) enable them to win.
I would like to report ALL Pinterest users (Score:2)
Ok great. How would I go about reporting all users of Pinterest, including all employees of Pinterest, Inc.? Let's start this program out with a bang just to point out the entire absurdity of selective enforcement on the Web.
I think kicking it off with a million or so forced educational programs on the first day would bury this program pretty quickly.
Download Linux (Score:3)
En mass, then go for a class action lawsuit when they throttle you. Problem solved.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would they bust you for downloading Linux? Do you have any idea how the system works?
Re: (Score:3)
Somehow, I suspect that if you downloaded Linux over BT but with the filename skyfall.iso you'd still find yourself answering someone's accusation (or just getting black marked without any opportunity to answer). How these systems tend to work is unfortunately rather well known, since Big Media have screwed up so many times by going after perfectly legitimate and legal activities that were a bit too close to some keyword they naively searched for.
Re:Download Linux (Score:5, Interesting)
I got a nasty letter from my ISP telling me "No peer-to-peer". I called them, and said "WTF guys? I download Linux distros and OpenOffice ISOs via torrent, all kinds of 100% legal and legitimate content." "We don't care. No peer-to-peer."
So I signed up for a VPN, of course.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I got a nasty letter from my ISP telling me "No peer-to-peer". I called them, and said "WTF guys? I download Linux distros and OpenOffice ISOs via torrent, all kinds of 100% legal and legitimate content." "We don't care. No peer-to-peer."
So I signed up for a VPN, of course.
I wonder if they also go after all the folks that are just trying to download the latest WoW patch. Seems like most MMORPGs these days use P2P updaters.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Download Linux (Score:5, Insightful)
"We don't care. No peer-to-peer."
This is unacceptable and unprofessional, can I please speak with your supervisor?
Re:Download Linux (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
"We don't care. No peer-to-peer."
"I just asked my coworker here at the ISP to confirm this, and he said he couldn't answer because - No peer-to-peer!"
Re: (Score:2)
Then I think it's time to change ISPs.
Re:Download Linux (Score:4, Informative)
Not everyone gets the luxury of choice.
Re:Download Linux (Score:4, Insightful)
Any excuse to limit the usage by high-bandwidth users. Comcast would be much happier (and profitable) if, despite all the adverts about the speed Comcast offers, you used your connection only to check your email a few times per day. No streaming media, etc..
Re: (Score:3)
Any excuse to limit the usage by high-bandwidth users.
I think the solution should be that we need call up Comcast, Verizon, etc., and find out the method to report someone as "infringing", post it here, and then everyone should just report a few dozen random IPs that are known to be in the US networks of these companies. There is no penalty for a false accusation, so let's just see what happens if they have to deal with 50-60 million reports in a month.
Re:Download Linux (Score:5, Interesting)
Fortunately or unfortunately, only agents of the *AA can report infringement. The system cannot be turned against itself. Arguably this is unfair to all copyright holders who are not part of the *AA, but the flip side is that you can pirate non-AA content with impunity.
Re: (Score:3)
Fortunately or unfortunately, only agents of the *AA can report infringement. The system cannot be turned against itself. Arguably this is unfair to all copyright holders who are not part of the *AA, but the flip side is that you can pirate non-AA content with impunity.
So let's get completely clear about this... ISPs are just doing what they do to make a profit. They look at the cost of fighting *AAs, and the impact of fighting vs. not fighting on their customers, then they optimize for profit. And let's not forget the not so subtle and significant pressure from government who panders to *AAs and less obviously, the government wouldn't mind having technology installed that could be used later to crawl up every American's ass to have a look see at what we collectively had
Clones in GNOME Games (Score:3)
Good lord (Score:3, Funny)
Security is NOT sexy.
Re: (Score:3)
You never been to the RSA after-parties that I have, then... ;-)
Re: (Score:3)
How big is your KEY, Baaabbeee!
Good News (Score:5, Informative)
For VPN providers.
I'm partial to AirVPN since they accept Bitcoins for payment and let you connect via Tor if that's what you want.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, six-strikes is basically the MAFIAA's gift to the VPN industry and the "web locker" industry.
I've been looking at VPNs for a while, but I haven't found one that hits all of my requirements. Maybe people here can make some recommendations.
1) At least 3 devices - my home router and the smartphones of me and the wife. I'd really like to see 5 devices just so I've got enough of slop that I don't have to worry about keeping track of what is VPNed and what is not.
2) High throughput
3) Multiple egress points
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Subscription VPN services are about as shady as porn and warez sites. Good luck finding the right mix of:
+ Our policy is not to retain logs, so we have no data to respond to requests for data with.
+ We have plenty of locations.
+ We don't have caps (or, at least, low caps).
+ We don't require that you install a ridiculous crappy VPN client (and, often, one that is just specifically aimed at file sharing -- or even worse, they just give you their own version of a torrent client with the VPN crap built into it)
Re: (Score:2)
Can't catch me, I'm behind 7 proxies (Score:2, Funny)
And the real pirates will continue to secretly proxy their stuff over encrypted channels.
I've heard that one before (Score:5, Insightful)
What were those, the famous last words of a few Anonymous script kiddies right before they got arrested?
Finding someone who is "anonymous" on the Internet is hard, in the same way that cracking a new hardware-based DRM scheme is hard. It can take a lot of work, at least if you're the first person trying to do it, but ultimately trying to establish two-way communications over the Internet and yet remain completely anonymous is just as futile as trying to lock up content that you're also showing to someone. There may be many levels of indirection that are difficult to follow, but it's impossible to do what you actually need to do and yet still remain 100% safe from hostile activity.
Re: (Score:2)
It can take a lot of work, at least if you're the first person trying to do it, but ultimately trying to establish two-way communications over the Internet and yet remain completely anonymous is just as futile as trying to lock up content that you're also showing to someone.
This is mostly because encrypted channels and point-to-point VPNs stick out like a sore thumb, if anyone has monitoring capabilities over a large number of hosts.
This works because VPN hosts can be attacked/compromised, and there
Re: (Score:3)
I understand what you're saying, but just remember the old warning: you have to be lucky every time, and they only have to be lucky once. Everyone makes mistakes, even world class black hats, and most people ripping off the latest movie aren't world class black hats even if they think they're smart because they heard the terms "proxy" and "VPN" once.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"you have to be lucky every time, and they only have to be lucky once."
This is true when you are topping out the FBI's most wanted list.
It is not true when you're just another pirate in a crowd of millions. You don't need to be lucky, then - you just need to be something other than the lowest-hanging fruit.
Massive consumer backlash (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Note that the units of advertised speed and actual speed can be determined by how you feel about the ISP's overall behavior and level of service. Slightly annoyed? Use MBps. Extremely pissed off? baud.
PLEASE!!! (Score:4, Interesting)
Can we PLEASE keep referring to it as "Six Strikes system"? Not the Industry-concocted, innocent-sounding "alert system" crap? Thank you.
Full Encryption (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Freenet is just waiting for people to realize that strongly encrypted P2P is there and waiting for them.
Re: (Score:2)
Except freenet is extreme-high-latency, unless you like to wait 2 minutes to view a simple text file, extremely resource-intensive, unsuitable for large file transfers.
Re: (Score:2)
Freenet makes a poor web browser to be sure (but TOR is there for that. But for P2P file sharing latency isn't so important. From what I hear it's not so resource-intensive these days, execpt that you can't really leech as I understand it all, so maybe is is compared to leeching.
Of course when I played with it there was nothing there and it was really slow, but that's just the fact no one used it. Darn network effect.
Please don't let that happen -- not yet (Score:3)
This will only speed up the race to fully encrypted comms.
Which will promptly be declared illegal in itself and probably with worse penalties than the original copyright infringement, unless you're connecting to an organisation sufficiently rich to allow it like a bank or government. Consider the way that merely circumventing technical measures protecting a copyrighted work is enough to make your actions illegal in many countries now even if your actual use of the work would have otherwise been completely legal. Just mention something about terrorism or child porn
Re: (Score:2)
Copyright reform needs to happen before we get to everyone encrypting everything by default, or it's in danger of being the catalyst for something far worse than anything the **AA and their international brethren have ever done.
We don't necessarily need copyright reform first.
Encrypt everything by default, and allow nothing unencrypted, just needs to become default behavior in all operating systems, and become the de-facto standard, for everything, for security purposes, before anyone else can act.
Re:Please don't let that happen -- not yet (Score:4, Interesting)
Encrypt everything by default, and allow nothing unencrypted, just needs to become default behavior in all operating systems, and become the de-facto standard, for everything, for security purposes, before anyone else can act.
The trouble is, while passing good laws often requires a lot of time and debate, passing knee-jerk reactionary laws based on lobbying in technical fields that most legislators frankly don't understand can be done almost in moments. It's already a criminal offence here in the UK to refuse to hand over a password if the Powers That Be want to know what your encrypted communications say, and the law was widely criticised for (among other things) being about as black-and-white as you could possibly be. For example, minor details like whether the password you've been required to provide actually exists tend not to be relevant to any defence.
So in my admittedly pessimistic view of how these things currently tend to work in practice, I don't see your "default behaviour in all operating systems" as being even remotely possible until the authorities and in particular the legislators are far, far more clued up on technical issues than most of them are today. Plausible preemptive countermeasures might include whoever first creates such an operating system being labelled an $EMOTIVE_THREAT and getting banned from trading/selling in the jurisdiction, anyone installing such an OS being labelled a criminal under those same knee-jerk blanket-ban laws I talked about before, or possibly more insidious things like Microsoft/Apple/etc. cutting a RIM-style deal where their "secure" systems weren't really secure at all (but of course any more secure/trustworthy platform like, say, Linux, is now an $EMOTIVE_THREAT, according to lots of "industry experts" probably indirectly funded by the aforementioned Microsoft/Apple/etc.).
The basic problem with this whole situation is that there is no good answer that always works. There really are bad people in the world, and there really are legitimate reasons that security services would want to intercept their communications, so any argument for universally encrypting anything is always going to run into some degree of resistance for sensible reasons that few reasonable people would disagree with even if they might feel that on balance the costs outweigh the benefits. But as we've seen on many occasions already, such legitimate reasons are all too easily twisted into mere commercial power plays when governments and big business mix. Sadly, but honestly, I see no reason to expect anything better to happen as long as the political status quo in most of the western world remains.
Re: (Score:3)
Think about it. How do they know you're sharing a file? Because it was advertised as being available at your IP address.
Encrypt all you like--that only helps with eavesdropping.
Will be effective (Score:2)
The people with clue will not be affected, the people with not enough knowledge, in the other hand, will end being punished for doing things that they don't understand or see as possibly wrong, or even without doing anything, as being used as proxies or unsecure wifi access points.
And considering what could be considered illegal [torrentfreak.com] this will be the perfect tool to put out of circulation inconvenient people or to push public opinion in the direction they want.
force violators to take educational courses (Score:2, Interesting)
" force violators to take educational courses". where they can learn the 'company line'. I'll switch ISP's when one tries that shit with me, and when their are no ISP's to switch to, get away with as much as possible and make it a RULE to NOT purchase any IP media ever, regardless.
A solution to this would be if everyone just stopped going to theaters and stopped buying movies for about 6-12 months, it would bankrupt all these corps and there wouldn't be a lobby to try to criminalize this stuff. Sur
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
...it would bankrupt all these corps...
And they'll come back at you with, "You're putting people out of work!"
Meanwhile, company officers will simply shift their portfolios, and write down the losses onto the smaller investors and the taxman.
Re: (Score:2)
A solution to this would be if everyone just stopped going to theaters and stopped buying movies for about 6-12 months, it would bankrupt all these corps and there wouldn't be a lobby to try to criminalize this stuff
Then they'll just lobby to make boycotting their businesses illegal.
For who is this? (Score:3, Insightful)
The producers, artists and performers don't own the copyright. So for who was this again?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Producers do own the copyright if they put out novel content, although that rarely happens outside of megacorps for the following reasons :
It's useless to be based outside of major metro areas as all the crew talent is there. Major US cities and surrounding ares cost a lot to live in compared to the mid-west or anywhere else except western Europe ; that implies that crews have to get paid a minimum of $30k/year. As a US business, one MUST have all software licenses to operate without getting squashed by a
So are they going to target all bittorrent users? (Score:5, Insightful)
Because I'd have to say I have a problem with that.
I don't use Bittorrent very often, but when I do, it's to download content that is entirely legitimate. I have to say that if they accuse you of infringing on copyright, you should be permitted to at the very least be able to say "No I didn't", and have that actually mean something.
say "No I didn't" (Score:3)
For $35.00 U.S.
No, they have show exactly what you ripped off X6 (Score:3)
Or, in the case of most of the software
Due Process (Score:3, Insightful)
The Obama Administration pressured ISPs into adopting this scheme. Now we get private enforcement of copyrights without the usual defenses against such. No government involvement, so no due process. People should be more worried about this than they really are, especially considering the government's involvement.
Re: (Score:2)
Government is not involved in enforcement actions under the copyright alert system, but it was very much involved in its establishment. Sorry if I misspoke.
Still worried (Score:2, Funny)
I've never pirated anything. Whether you care to believe that, or not, is irrelevent to me.
I'll be unsurprised if I am flagged as a pirate, though.
Crawl (Score:5, Funny)
"... or slow their Internet speeds to a crawl."
So, pretty much business as usual then?
I have a one strike system (Score:2, Informative)
one notice and I use a swedish vpn and verizon's marketing department doesn't get my data....oh well
and since a year of vpn costs less than 2 new blu ray disks i come out pretty far ahead
Re: (Score:2)
I got one better, i get one strike and i start cracking all the WPS wireless routers around my neighborhood...its fucked up, but hey, ill get dirty np
Internet access is a public utility (Score:5, Insightful)
like phone lines, water, and electricity. Would you accept an unelected corporate group like Hollywood policing your phone conversations and throttling the line if they didn't like what they overheard you saying? Or throttling your water supply if they objected to the flowers growing in your yard?
Inform your elected officials. Make it clear that we will not tolerate these for-profit commercial groups invading our privacy and abusing public resources. Apply citizen utility rights to internet access.
(By the way, expect small captured governments like New Zealand to bend to corporate influence, but how is this stuff not struck down in modern social leaning nations such as France?)
Re: (Score:2)
As far as I understand, this is a US only thing. France is not affected by this particular law... though yeah, I don't get how the initial three strikes thing went as far as it did either. Good thing I live in the Netherlands, which might almost seem progressive on the copyright front if you don't watch the news too carefully.
Re: (Score:3)
I informed my elected senators, and they told me "Thank you for your opinion", and voted in favor of the Mickey Mouse copyright extension.
I haven't trusted them since I started paying attention. But the only opposition with a chance to win is, I think, worse. Sometimes this means I vote third party, even though with the US election system this means I might as well not bother to vote. (The system is designed to support two, and only two, parties. A majority required would be different, but a plurality m
Why this is REALLY really stupid (Score:4, Insightful)
State of the art copyright 'protection' methods use signature databases. Companies acting as 'agents' on behalf of copyright 'owners' scan various forms of their clients 'property' to create signatures that can be tested against video/sound streams, or against packet streams intercepted at the ISP using 'deep packet inspection'.
Now, here we are talking about the later- the ISP inspecting the 'signature' of data traffic to the users. Firstly, false positives will swamp the system. We have already seen have legal live video streams have been closed down by automated signature testing systems. But let us instead consider the 'valid' matches.
To fight back, users will need packet streams that are unique to the user. While this is frequently described as 'end to end' encryption, simpler solutions also work. The 'deep packet' signature test fails if the data stream suffers ANY per user modification, and that can include a simple XORing of most of the packet via an XOR key at the head of the packet. This really isn't 'encryption' but data 'morphing' where the same data can have a massive number of different forms, confusing or defeating a 'signature' based approach.
Data morphing can be done with near zero computational processing, unlike proper encryption. The goal is simply to ensure the same data has a vast number of different forms. And included 4-byte XOR key, for instance, has 4000 million variants, if memory serves, requiring this number of signatures in the database to dumbly recognise ONE packet.
Now, today, governments benefit greatly from the mostly open nature of data transmitted across the net. Intelligence agencies must be doing their nut over useless proposals that simply have the effect of moving us ALL to obscured forms of net traffic. The new US system will ensure EVERYONE will come to the conclusion "I do not want my ISP sniffing my traffic".
PS Automated (or Human) takedowns of non-live material can never work. If the worst comes to the worst, people will simply post encrypted 'zips' with no description, and tell people to "watch this space". Seven days later (or whatever), the password will be posted alongside a description of contents. Sure, this still allows the uploaders to be targeted, but their has NEVER been a time when uploaders were unable to be targeted.
Since survey after survey shows that 'pirates' are also the biggest purchasers of 'legal' content, we already know that the solution is in providing the legal services people want (which means EVERYTHING available EVERYWHERE for use on ALL devices). The tech war should not be wasted on 'downloaders' but on finding better ways to get paid content available universally.
Re: (Score:2)
Six strikes doesn't use DPI, but I'm sure you enjoyed coming up with that elaborate fantasy about how to evade DPI.
Re: (Score:2)
Sooner or later, the ISPs will be obliged to use the same 'state of the art' as Google and others.
That's a decent argument, although I am skeptical that anyone will be willing to pay for it. My complaint is just that your comment wasn't labeled as speculation and thus is likely to mislead people into thinking that six strikes already works that way.
Re: (Score:3)
Sure, this still allows the uploaders to be targeted, but their has NEVER been a time when uploaders were unable to be targeted.
Freenet protects uploaders (actually better than downloaders, though it's quite strong both ways). Freenet is a fully cooked P2P network with strong encryption, lacking only a client as easy to use and configure as BT (c'm, free software movement!). Given the network effect (why use Freenet when there's no content there; why upload there when there are no users) I doubt people will make the switch untill they're forced off what works today, but if people really do start losing their connection over this c
Re: (Score:2)
My question is this:
If this is happening at the ISP level using deep packet inspection and a magic hash table, won't my exclusive use of encryption in BitTorrent be invisible to it?
what triggers a strike? (Score:2)
Pure Kafka (Score:4, Insightful)
From the 2nd fine article [computerworld.com]:
If you feel "wrongly accused" then there is a $35 'review fee' to see precisely what you are accused of. It's refunded if you win, but if the Copyright Alert System is so sure of itself then why charge at all? Why not let individuals know what they are accused of without this stipulation that the fee is to stop "frivolous appeals?"
You actually have to pay money to see what this non-government cabal is accusing you of? It costs them next to nothing to tell you what the exact accusation is. It's just a few more bytes in the warning email or in a web page linked to by the email. I could maybe understand having to pay a fee to contest the charges but it is truly Kafkaesque to have to pay a fee just to find out what the charges are.
Re: (Score:2)
That's because legally it's not the government doing the accusation, but a private entity. That the entity is acting as an agent for the government is considered not worth mentioning.
Perhaps I've gotten too addicted to having an internet connection. It gives too much power into the hands of an unregulated monopoly (well, duopoly).
Peerblock still somewhat viable? (Score:2)
I'm expecting.... (Score:2)
You know it's coming.
What about Games like Warcraft that use P2P (Score:2)
Ok, so what about games like World of Warcraft which use a P2P system to distribute legit patches? I wonder if any P2P type traffic will be potential victim of this, or if they're specifically looking just at BitTorrent users?
Oh waitaminute!!! According to WowWiki http://www.wowwiki.com/Blizzard_Downloader [wowwiki.com] , the original Warcraft updater used BitTorrent code.
So, will this system be able to distinquish between legitimate uses of BitTorrent and pirate uses? Am I in danger of being flagged when one or all of
Re: (Score:2)
Fortunately DtecNet can't see what Usenet providers you're connecting to. Oh wait, you don't have any idea how the six strikes system works and even if you did you'd just spout conspiracy theories anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I get it. The content owners need to wheel and deal and figure out licensing and who can distribute what, etc. and whathave you. Well, guess what? I don't give a fuck. That's not my problem! And I'll be DAMNED if I have to watch advertising.
Guess what? Your boss wants the same
Re: (Score:2)
Did you miss the first line of the post you're replying to? "I have money and I'm willing to use it."
I concur with the GPP. Give me a service that presents all digitally-available movies and TV - all of them - for one monthly fee and as easy as pirating is now, an I'll pay it - even quite a steep fee. Heck, I pay for Netflix now and that streaming service is, frankly, crap (very little content,no client-side caching, and rewinding and FF are just terrible).
Make this streaming shit work well, and make it e
Re: (Score:2)
And the entire rest of it was about seedboxes, VPNs, no advertising, torrents, Usenet. Setting up all of that costs time and money. But nothing in there about actually paying the content creators.
Re: (Score:2)
Any discussion about the poor content creators (who are creating mostly crap these days)
Don't kid yourself, it's always been mostly crap. That's why I'd happily pay someone like Netflix or Amazon for a good recommendation engine, ratings system, and so on. But the content and non-BS streaming tech needs to be there too.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, that would be an inconvenience to you? God forbid you should have to go without Facebook and Twitter for a while, and actually start living life the way it was meant to be lived. God forbid you should actually have to pick up the phone and CALL SOMEONE rather then leaving a message on somebodies virtual wall.
Of course you do realize there is far more to do on the internet than Facebook and Twitter, right? Suggesting that some individuals don't need the internet at all is absurd.
Re: (Score:3)
Cancel your account.
Oh, that would be an inconvenience to you? God forbid you should have to go without Facebook and Twitter for a while, and actually start living life the way it was meant to be lived. God forbid you should actually have to pick up the phone and CALL SOMEONE rather then leaving a message on somebodies virtual wall.
Americans just don't fucking get it...
Offering to make my house payment, are we?
ProTip: This is Slashdot, not Facebook. Many of us not only work from home, we're also employed doing something other than stuffing envelopes.
Re: (Score:2)
If I'm understanding the changes in the law in the last decade, a class action lawsuit is not very likely. If I'm understanding things properly, now a corporation can sue a class of people, but a class of people can't sue a corporation.
I *do* hope that I'm wrong, but I don't think I am.