Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
The Internet Piracy Technology

Six-Strikes System Starts In U.S. 418

New submitter mynameiskhan writes "Major internet service providers today will start monitoring the internet traffic to their customers' computers and will warn them if they download copyrighted materials using peer to peer network. The article says, 'A person will be given up to six opportunities to stop before the Internet provider will take more drastic steps, such as temporarily slowing their connection, or redirecting Internet traffic until they acknowledge they received a notice or review educational materials about copyright law.' Furthermore, if you appeal the warning you will be required to pay $35 to state your case. Have the ISPs have had enough of RIAA pestering, or are they siding with RIAA?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Six-Strikes System Starts In U.S.

Comments Filter:
  • All bark, no bite (Score:5, Insightful)

    by langelgjm ( 860756 ) on Tuesday February 26, 2013 @06:15PM (#43018993) Journal
    Termination of subscribers’ connections is specifically mentioned by the Center for Copyright Information as a penalty that will not be imposed under the Copyright Alert System. The strategic partnership between rights-holders and ISPs makes it obvious why the CAS does not—and in fact cannot—threaten to terminate Internet subscriptions as a penalty for alleged copyright infringement: the five ISPs participating in the CAS would never voluntarily agree to give up the revenue associated with allegedly infringing subscribers. In theory, rights-holders could perhaps convince ISPs to terminate allegedly infringing subscribers if rights-holders were willing to compensate ISPs for the associated loss in subscription revenue. In practice, however, the cost of such compensation for rights-holders would far outweigh the benefits to rights-holders of halting the average alleged infringer.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 26, 2013 @06:18PM (#43019035)

    If one side has to pay to participate in the "trial", and the other doesn't, then one side has an incentive to just suck it up, and the other side has no disincentives to stop.

    Just like DMCA takedowns. If there is no penalty for filing, companies will just robo-spam.

    Captcha: tedious, just like the appeals process will be.

  • Oh boy. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by JustAnotherIdiot ( 1980292 ) on Tuesday February 26, 2013 @06:19PM (#43019041)
    Who wants to take bets on how many days it is until we get the first false positive story?
  • If I had to guess (Score:5, Insightful)

    by PickyH3D ( 680158 ) on Tuesday February 26, 2013 @06:22PM (#43019083)

    This is both the RIAA and the ISPs winning with users losing. The ISPs can point to this system to get the RIAA off of their backs. The RIAA can point to this system in courts to try to further pinpoint end users to sue.

    However, as the summary points out, the end user must pay $35 to challenge "strikes" against them, and while they are refunded the full amount, if they win, there is nothing else won, nor is the ISP punished for false claims. In other words, the user assumes all risk even if they know that they are innocent.

    While I imagine that this system might catch a few pirates out there, I suspect that the errors related to this system will lead to far more collateral damage than it even supposedly fixes. And I am strongly against pirating, but this system screams of looming problems to be faced by the innocent like myself. As someone that has been hit with a "gotcha" notice from a previous roommate's downloading, I know the problems that this will cause. In my case, my roommate was reasonable and he did not continue the practice after I showed it to him and explained that I would not "go down" for it.

    How many people can we expect to be burned by this before we have an online petition in Congress? If we're lucky, then maybe this is the start of turning ISPs into dumb-pipe utilities. But we're not lucky.

  • by xanadu113 ( 657977 ) on Tuesday February 26, 2013 @06:35PM (#43019223) Homepage
    If I'm paying extra for a higher speed, how can they throttle my connection, based on an ALLEGED infringement..??
  • by gstoddart ( 321705 ) on Tuesday February 26, 2013 @06:36PM (#43019229) Homepage

    And, of course, the expenses the ISP incurs to process this will get passed onto the consumers in their bills.

    Which means the consumers will end up paying for the ISPs to police copyright on behalf of the *AAs.

    What an awesome outcome for the *AAs.

  • by elucido ( 870205 ) on Tuesday February 26, 2013 @06:38PM (#43019257)

    And once one group of corporations gains the ability it's only a matter of time before they want other excuses.

  • Sweet! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 26, 2013 @06:41PM (#43019303)

    This is awesome! Up until now I've been paranoid about getting sued by the MPAA every time I torrent something. Now I'll get 5 warnings first? That's great!

  • Re:I hope they do. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 26, 2013 @06:43PM (#43019321)
    Don't be silly. Wikipedia didn't tell anyone to be upset over this.
  • Re:Oh boy. (Score:2, Insightful)

    by WillgasM ( 1646719 ) on Tuesday February 26, 2013 @06:43PM (#43019329) Homepage
    I'm sure there are plenty out there trying to force a false positive right now.
  • Re: First strike (Score:5, Insightful)

    by hairyfeet ( 841228 ) <bassbeast1968 AT gmail DOT com> on Tuesday February 26, 2013 @07:06PM (#43019549) Journal

    The REAL bullshit is you are guilty until you PAY to prove your innocence and there is ZERO protection or penalty for fraudulent claims, so pretty much anybody can say "infringed" and get you shut down with no penalty on their end or recourse on your end.

    And before anybody says "The ISP don't want to lose customers" remember how they are overselling the hell out of their lines while not adding capacity? i have a feeling the ones given strikes won't have a damned thing to do with copyrights, it'll be the ones the ISPs want to toss for actually using what they PAID for. get close to the cap? well you must have infringed because our data says you shouldn't do that. I've already seen similar shit in my area where an ISP claims you have a "virus" and pulls your plug if you use more data than your average grandma. I finally walked in with my Xandros laptop and said "Show me a fucking virus or give me my money back" but there is no telling how many they pulled the same shit in for daring to use YouTube or watch netflix.

    BTW you can kiss that "future is the cloud" bullshit buh bye, the ISPs are gonna make the net all but unusable so they can keep all the profits as CEO bonuses instead of laying lines. Capitalism, ain't it grand?

  • by Bob9113 ( 14996 ) on Tuesday February 26, 2013 @07:11PM (#43019597) Homepage

    If I'm paying extra for a higher speed, how can they throttle my connection, based on an ALLEGED infringement..??

    Sit down, shut up, and be thankful They are giving you anything, consumer.

  • Re: First strike (Score:5, Insightful)

    by v1 ( 525388 ) on Tuesday February 26, 2013 @07:14PM (#43019619) Homepage Journal

    Can someone explain to me how they can charge me to review the legality of my case? I realize they're offering to "give it back" if I win, but that's not relevant. I shouldn't have to pay for judicial oversight. Imagine if you got a speeding ticket and had to pay the court to hear your case where it clocked the car that just blew by you? Even if the court refunded your money if you won the appeal, that's still justice that you have to front money for, and it's wrong

    Another good example would be public defenders. Imagine if you had to pay for a public defender, and you'd only get your money back if you were found innocent? You shouldn't have to front money to get access to justice.

    I will be very surprised if this doesn't go to court real quick. "Guilty until PAID innocent" isn't going to hold up well in court.

  • Re:Of course (Score:5, Insightful)

    by nabsltd ( 1313397 ) on Tuesday February 26, 2013 @07:24PM (#43019709)

    It's not necessarily a waste of $35, since if they are unable to verify the alleged infringement, you get the $35 refunded, and the "strike" is removed.

    Just how many claims do you think will be overturned by a group of people that were picked by the same people who made the claim?

    In particular, when the entire evidence of infringement for these claims consist of an IP address, a date and time, and the name of a torrent, exactly how are you going to prove that you didn't infringe? When the party making the claim of infringement doesn't even have to prove that the named torrent was their copyrighted content (much less any of the other things needed for infringement, like proving uploading), how can you possibly defend yourself? Even if you aren't running any bittorrent software at all, how can you prove that? And, if you are running bittorrent software, how can you prove that you were not part of that torrent at that time?

    This is one of the many problems with "guilty until proven innocent"...often you have to prove a negative, and sometimes that can't be done.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 26, 2013 @07:58PM (#43020003)

    "The long-term challenge here is getting users to change their attitudes and behaviors and views toward copyright infringement"

    I'd say the MPAA has been remarkably effective in successfully meeting that challenge over the last decade or so. In 2003, analog cable TV worked flawlessly with standard decoders, and I could secretly violate DMCA in the privacy of my own home, whenever I wanted to watch a DVD. Everything just worked, reliably. Comcast got their monthly payment and various stores, both local and online, got an occasional DVD purchase (and I could be confident that the DVD would play, even if illegally). I waved money in the industry's face and the industry took it, only slightly begrudgingly. (Not as healthy as their attitude ten year before that, but as late as 2003 I'd say that nearly all MPAA members still mostly maintained the appearance of trying to be real for-profit businesses.)

    Today, the situation is completely different, with a very predictable and obvious outcome. Cable TV doesn't work with the industry's own standard tuners and TVs (QAM). And even if you successfully played a BluRay disc last week, the one you buy this week might not work, or it'll only work if you subscribe to some key-update service.

    They did indeed change my attitude and behavior and view toward copyright infringement, so I'd say "Mission Accomplished." I might be a little dumb and slow, but if you shout "NO!" every time I wave my money in your face, eventually I'll get the message.

    I think the next challenge should be to change peoples' attitudes about infringement again (which will be slightly harder but I think may still be possible). To do that, though, we'll have to change the MPAA's attitude about customers and the revenue they bring. This might require that the MPAA companies fire their communist-leaning CEOs and hire some greedy businessmen. I know, I know, Hollywood has long villified greedy businessman, "money is the root of all evil" and all that. It'll be a cultural shift. But please, think of the childen. Think of their games' low ping times due to incorrect QoS setup, combined with all the downloading of movies and TV shows.

  • Re:Of course (Score:4, Insightful)

    by sjames ( 1099 ) on Tuesday February 26, 2013 @08:26PM (#43020193) Homepage Journal

    Verify to who's satisfaction, theirs? I'll give you my opinion. For $35 you can have me judge that opinion and tell you I was right all along.

  • by jhoegl ( 638955 ) on Tuesday February 26, 2013 @09:19PM (#43020571)
    Oh to be gullable again and believe in Capitalism fixing it.
  • by jalopezp ( 2622345 ) on Wednesday February 27, 2013 @06:35AM (#43022741)
    I use several at work every day. Sometimes, when I've weekend work (rare enough, thankfully), I use them from home. VPNs are too useful to too many businesses to be disallowed. It's not like it's merely the public who find them useful! These are the clients ISPs actually care for.

Make it myself? But I'm a physical organic chemist!