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?"
All bark, no bite (Score:5, Insightful)
So the defendant has to pay to "appeal"? (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
If I had to guess (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
If I'm paying extra for a higher speed... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:If I had to guess (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
It gives the RIAA/MPAA an excuse to monitor users (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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)
Re:Oh boy. (Score:2, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:If I'm paying extra for a higher speed... (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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)
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.
Mission Accomplished (Score:2, Insightful)
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)
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.
Re:It gives the RIAA/MPAA an excuse to monitor use (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Good thing proxies can't be spoofed! (Score:3, Insightful)