Comcast Working On 'Helpful' Copyright Violation Pop-ups 284
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.
let me get this straight (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Re:let me get this straight (Score:5, Insightful)
Hey, break DNS, why not break HTTP too?
Re:let me get this straight (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:let me get this straight (Score:5, Interesting)
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
Re:let me get this straight (Score:5, Insightful)
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. :/
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm a little curious now...do you think an 'underground' set of HTTPS certificate authorities is out of the question? Does such a thing exist?
Re: (Score:3)
We really need to get DANE up and running. It's strictly better than the CA cartel model.
If you use DANE with stapled certificates (rather than just CA selection -- why does it even exist?), you are as secure as SSL + DNSSEC.
With the CA cartel, you need to trust all of 300+ CAs. This includes CNNIC, Etisalat and a crapload of US companies. And even if all of them were 100% honest and 100% secure, an unaffiliated attacker can obtain a certificate if he controls your DNS at an arbitrary time of his choosin
Android 2.x and IE on XP (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The obvious problem is that they could script around this with a client of their own. Unless of course you are claiming that private servers are not already locked down with authenticated HTTPS, which they are.
Sure, it's an extra step for them. In today's dumb as rocks corporate culture, that happily patents ideas and believes that copyrights on creations that take a few minutes (think certain blogs) are currently too short at 2.8 decades, do you really think they won't take this extra step? I think that
So, let me get this straight (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
DPI is already there (in hardware) on more mid and higher end routers.
nothing to buy. just turn it on and use it.
Re:So, let me get this straight (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:So, let me get this straight (Score:4, Insightful)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
[citation required]
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Fuck comcast... (Score:4, Informative)
Yeah, I eventually looped back around and saw that story too. However, as you say the recommendation is:
Adopting the same range of penalties for criminal streaming of copyrighted
works to the public as now exists for criminal reproduction and distribution.
While the willfully infringing reproduction and distribution of
copyrighted works can be punished as a felony, willful violations of the
public performance right are punishable only as misdemeanors. This
discrepancy is an increasingly significant impediment to the effective
deterrence and criminal prosecution of unauthorized streaming. Since
the most recent updates to the criminal copyright provisions, streaming
(both audio and video) has become a significant if not dominant means
for consumers to enjoy content online. The Administration and the
Copyright Office have both called on Congress to amend the Copyright
Act to ensure that illegal streaming to the public can be punished as a
felony in the same manner as other types of criminal infringement.
Which is exactly the opposite of what the GP claims. Also, Obama Administration != Obama, but for a certain class of jackass that's a very fine point.
So, the NSA gets sloppy seconds? (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
NSA should do the same (Score:2)
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]
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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 straw man this, and stay on topic (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Not new from them (Score:2)
Comcast should not be a content creator! (Score:3)
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).
Re: (Score:2)
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.
So, kids, (Score:2)
...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.
Re: (Score:2)
no, just get a VPN and use that for all your i/o.
problem solved.
It's (Score:5, Insightful)
Internet
Service
Provider.
Just forward the damn packets and take my money.
Re: (Score:3)
Way too big of segment of our populace has become completely nonproductive, yet richly living by gaming the system.
It remains that way because a much bigger segment has become completely oblivious. This is not mere ignorance. This is a self-protecting, oblivious, zombie-like sleep state. It includes an active hostility towards anyone who suggests that perhaps the increasingly centralized power and wealth of our society lends itself to being controlled by a small elite. You'll be called a tinfoil hatter no matter what evidence and reasoning you produce, not matter-of-factly either but often in an angry hostile fashio
Someone sue for Copyright Infringement... (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
So is this the NSA equipment (Score:2)
that's already installed?
I feel bad for the programmers and sysadmins (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
uh... downloading isn't illegal... (Score:2)
The crime is distribution, not receiving. Its perfectly legal to download any file off the internet.
Re:uh... downloading isn't illegal... (Score:5, Informative)
Sorry, but your own link contradicts your statement.
Please cite for us one (and preferably more) cases where someone was sued and received a judgement against in a court of law for DOWNLOADING a file.
Your own link says:
"Most downloading over the Internet of commercially available copyrighted works, such as music or movies, through file sharing systems is illegal. In a widely followed case, a federal Court of Appeals held that users of Napster were infringing copyright when they shared MP3 files of copyrighted music."
As far as I am aware, every single case that has ever existed has hinged on the act of distribution. That is, uploading the file. People have found themselves in hot water because they downloaded content and left it in an accessible folder that is shared back to the other users, publically, of the download program - like Napster or used bittorrent, where you usually have to also upload content back (though you are of course only ever uploading small snippets and never an actual entire file).
Yes, people go around saying "oh noes, downloading a copyrighted file is infringement and somehow now days an instance of copyright infringement is a criminal offense punishable by a decade in prison or forfeiting your life into indentured servitude!", but the fact is (last I checked and I would be glad to know if this has since changed in the States if someone knows of legitimate examples) it is only uploaders/distributors of said content that are cornered.
Re: (Score:2)
Funny example. It is actually illegal in many places to keep found property (at least above a certain threshold; a mere $1 may be okay), it's just rarely caught or enforced. There have, however, been on occasion stings where the police, for example, leave a cash-laden wallet on the street with conspicuous police presence! If you see the cop, but pick up the wallet anyway and don't turn it in to the cop, you get busted.
It's also illegal to download copyrighted material. They don't go after it because it's ha
if I owned a botnet.. (Score:4, Funny)
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.
What about stuff with NO legal alternatives? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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]
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Safe Harbor is the first victim? (Score:3, Interesting)
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"
Re: (Score:2)
as measured by... (Score:4, Interesting)
Now I can get game of thrones (Score:4, Insightful)
Great, now they will tell me where I can legally pay to download the latest season of "game of thrones"
So... (Score:3)
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.
("Comcast"+"helpful"+"copyright"+"pop-ups")=error (Score:2)
Logic fail.
or to put it another way:
" You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." [imdb.com]
if they will offer it, i will rent it (Score:2)
... 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.
Bring on the VPNs (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Web Browsing or Peer-to-Peer? (Score:2)
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
What could possibly go wrong (Score:2)
How, exactly? (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Make sure you use encryption.
Those assholes (Score:2)
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.
very helpful (Score:2)
Don't these old media types understand? (Score:2)
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
MPEG-LA (Score:2)
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].
Re: (Score:3)
*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...
https, non-http urls and I'm going to sue Comcast. (Score:2)
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.
The return of Clippy (Score:4, Funny)
Another brain dead idea (Score:2)
Local last mile monopoly (Score:2)
COMCAST can't force it on people. If they try, customers will leave.
Leave for whom? Dial-up?
And in other news ... (Score:2)
... the rate of use of HTTPS and VPNs is going up.
Re:Is this so bad? (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the EFF is outgunned here when you have former Senator Chris Dodd heading up the MPAA. There's a reason why the MPAA and RIAA have friends in DC and why we have laws like the DMCA and an abhorrent fear that the profits of the members of these organizations is at risk. John Doe suits have been their bread and butter attack method and now with more and more Federal Judges growing backbones it would appear that their tactic involves harassing the ISPs all the while greasing the palms of Congress. Let's not forget where the push for SOPA comes from, it's guys like old Chris there, pushing his contacts in DC. [forbes.com]
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
You guys here at Slashdot have spent the last 12 years fighting to legalize your pre-college, college-, post-college habit of spending all your leisure time downloading content from fold-tent-one-step-ahead-of-the-sheriff sites, 80 percent of which you'll never get around to listen to or watch.
So who won? You didn't win. Look around at pop music and what's being created today. Taylor Swift, Katy Perry and Justin Bieber style music is all that anyone can make money doing nowadays. Tower Records and all o
Re: (Score:2)
All you guys did was drive the individual artists out of business so these corporate bullies could step in and rake *all* the profits.
Is that really why it ("it" refers to music you don't like being produced and many people buying it) happened, or is that what you wish the cause to be?
Re:Is this so bad? (Score:5, Insightful)
No, the same big corporations such as the RIAA and MPAA did that. Its because of their aggressive marketing, they've made sure there is no markett for anyone else. Justin Bieber is what you can listen to without being being labeled as "crazy", or something else where you inherently lack rights, such as being free from assault. This was going on even in the 1990s.
". All you guys did was drive the individual artists out of business so these corporate bullies could step in and rake *all* the profits."
First you complain about big chain stores, next your talking about artists going out of business. Now has never been a better time for live music. This is a bold face lie. None of those artists made a dime off record sales.
" Taylor Swift, Katy Perry and Justin Bieber style music is all that anyone can make money doing nowadays."
Black Sabbath Just go back together and released a new album with all original content. Oh, it sounds sick too.
I think there is more live music going on now, and with the same computers, and even the same technology that is used to "pirate", such as CD Burners, MP3s, and audio tools, can easily be used by artists to produce music without the need for record labels.
The only people really bitching are record label owners. They've always been sleeze bags who've abused musicians. So take your corporation shill ass out of here. Don't wanna here it. The movie industry doesn't have to pay the same 10-20 shitty actors $30 million a movie for a blockbuster with a total budget of $100 million, then bitch about money.
Next you'll talk about how living wage drove blue collar jobs to china.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I'm not up to speed with current hipster talk. Does that mean good or bad?
Yes.
Re:Is this so bad? (Score:4, Insightful)
How does "downloading content ... 80 percent of which you'll never get around to listen to or watch" produce the effect of "drive the individual artists out of business?"
The individual artists didn't pay for the bandwidth we used to download the crap we purportedly ignored. Or are you saying that the 20% we listened to drove them out of business because, obviously, we would have bought all of that content otherwise, and spending that money would have kept the artists in business?
Fact #1: reducing price increases consumption. At a price of zero, it is guaranteed that people are consuming quite a lot of content that they never would have paid a dime for. So that downloading (at no cost to the artist) would not have translated to pure profit if downloading were not an option, and in fact only a tiny portion of it would have translated to sales, and therefore it could not possibly have hit their sales as hard as you seem to think it did.
Fact #2: The labels habitually left their signed talent owing them money after their albums made the labels a fortune. THAT harmed the artist far more than the free exposure provided by downloading. Buying more albums would not have changed this *at all*.
Fact #3: The issue is not as polarized as you seem to think. Plenty of people on slashdot approve of copyright law, but disapprove of these means of enforcement. Your slippery-slope fallacy is falling on deaf ears.
So there you have it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
One thing that the MAFIAA has right about "stealing profits"
Money is a finite resource, and you can only spend so much of it before you're broke.
So in a sense, when you pirate something instead of buying it, you are getting your cake for free, and money you could have spent on the media you "stole" instead goes to someone else. Whereas if you didn't pirate, you'd have to make a choice as to where you spend your finite money. Everyone having goods or services to sell you is competing for your money, and if
Re: (Score:3)
Valid argument. One problem: people (common people that aren't your regular slashdot user) are already paying for the content. So, to reduce prices/increase quality (I'm more willing to pay for FLACs), we would have to convince the regular music buyer that doesn't really care about the things I care because they find that the offerings are cheap enough for them and good enough for them.
In my case, I try to buy as much as I can. Which is little, but I try to. My steam account usually grows during holiday/sal
Re:Is this so bad? (Score:5, Informative)
Son, do you realize TPB has been around longer than Facebook?
That's complete bullshit. There's a community of artists here in my town who are making decent middle-class livings as musicians without having to be like any of those people. With health insurance and homes and everything.
Maybe you need a refresher course in what capitalism really means. You can find several very good syllabi and reading lists online. You will learn that "SOMEBODY will make big money from content" doesn't have anything to do with "capitalism", when capitalism is actually working. Corporatism is not capitalism.
Re:Is this so bad? (Score:4, Insightful)
The brick and mortars going out of business was something that was going to happen regardless. When you can make distribution more or less instantaneous from the comfort of your own home, folks will take the convenient option most of the time. I for one do not miss having to haul around a mess of CD's in my car, which has a six-changer that's never been used, nor do I miss lugging around a huge library of technical books when my tablet can essentially hold a full reference library for a fraction of the weight.
The next thing to go will be movie theaters. Sooner or later, some enterprising company is going to try offering movies on demand at release instead of waiting out the normal theater release period. It'll cost something like $50, but that will still be cheaper than hauling the family into the theater, paying marked up ticket prices, marked up concession prices, and having to deal with some idiots crying kid.
Whether or not it's right or contributes to the degradation of our society's ability to actually socialize is a whole other discussion, but there is no stopping the march of technology and it's use to feed the public's ever growing demand for instant gratification.
Re:Is this so bad? (Score:5, Interesting)
Let me put it this way -
I have 3 kids and a wife. Counting myself, that means 5 people. Prices in my area run ~10 for an adult, ~8 for a child. So I'm already up to $44 just to get into the door. Then for concessions, figure about 7.50 a head, and that's being conservative. So add another $38ish, and I've already got a pretty expensive night out for the family. Since we traditionally eat out when we go to the movies, that generally adds another 40 bucks or so.
Now, I'm also a technically savvy geek, who likes his toys. I have a fairly nice home theater system. Have to watch Star Wars in style, you know.
Now let's say my tv provider was offering the same movie I'd go see in the theater as an on demand option, at the same time it's in the theater, for $50. A quick run to the store to buy some soda and microwave popcorn and order out for a pizza for dinner instead, and I've got some fairly substantial savings, can watch the movie in the comfort of my own home on my nice equipment, and I don't have to drive anywhere and deal with a crowd. I'd leap at that.
Re: (Score:3)
... Look around at pop music and what's being created today. Taylor Swift, Katy Perry and Justin Bieber style music is all that anyone can make money doing nowadays. ...
This is why you aren't taken serious. Only a few musicians actually get rich making music. Their record companies though get very rich off them and other musicians they sign. It has always been this way, and they are fighting hard as hell to keep it that way.
Re:Is this so bad? (Score:5, Informative)
Musician here. Spot on, at least as to the record labels having historically horribly abused & cheated the artists.
To get some idea how this works and how bad it typically is for the majority of artists who are, or are trying to become, "signed" with a label, check out this piece by Steve Albini on negativeland.com
"This oft-referenced article is from the early â(TM)90s, and originally appeared in Maximum Rock ânâ(TM) Roll magazine. While some of the information and figures listed here are dated, it is still a useful and informative article."
http://www.negativland.com/news/?page_id=17 [negativland.com].
One of the record labels' top priorities is controlling the means of distribution. That's the actual, underlying reason they are pushing DRM and copyright-related laws/regulations, particularly those that involve the internet and digital (copyable) media formats, streaming, etc. It's aimed ultimately at erecting barriers to entry for independent artists in both marketing & distribution channels using the internet as a vehicle.
Once it becomes commonplace for artists in the top-100 to be independents without a mainstream "label" contract, the old recording labels and their associated parasites will be truly doomed. They know this. That's the reason for the war on sharing, various forms of independent distribution/marketing channels, and internet radio.
Want to support artists? Go to shows. Buy CDs & merch. Share their music with those who haven't heard of them. Encourage those friends to do the same. Tell the bar/club/venue owner when you like the band, and that you'd come back and bring friends when they play there next time.
There are tons of amazingly-talented and hard-working artists & bands playing in bars/clubs/festivals/etc all over. Simply not buying cookie-cutter record-label music is not enough. You need to support the bands and artists you would rather see take their place.
Keep in mind that even the members in most above-average-talent bar/club bands could make more money working part-time at McD's or Walmart. A modest-but-decent used bar-gigging-quality guitar can easily cost over $500. Used modest-but-decent amp easily over $1,000. Let's not even talk drum sets.
That's also not counting the PA and lights that many small/medium bars/clubs do not provide, and then a vehicle/trailer to haul all that crap around with and all the costs associated with that.
Strat
Re: Is this so bad? (Score:2)
Re:Is this so bad? (Score:5, Insightful)
So who won? You didn't win. Look around at pop music and what's being created today. Taylor Swift, Katy Perry and Justin Bieber style music is all that anyone can make money doing nowadays. Tower Records and all of its bricks and mortar competitors went out of business long ago. So did Borders.
Oh really? Actually there is as much or more music being made today than before the big bad Internet 'destroyed' the music industry. You may not know this if you only listen to terrestrial radio but there is a lot of music being made, of every genre imaginable.
Few artists today can sell a million records. Those than can you find on the radio. The rest you have to search out. For those artists the Internet is their friend.
I have discovered a lot of new music listening to Pandora and Slacker that I would never have heard listening to the radio. Hell I've discovered entire genres that I hadn't heard of. I've watched their videos on Youtube and learned about the artists on Facebook. If you aren't a top-tier pop, hip-hop or country act the record companies are willing to put marketing muscle behind the Internet provides a way for artists to take promotion into their own hands.
In some cases the Internet even provides artists with the means to bypass the labels altogether, allowing them to be in control over their own destiny. Sure, they won't have any platinum records on the wall but for true artists it is more important than selling out your artistic vision to get a big-label record contract.
Music isn't dying. Slowly but surely the big record labels are, at least in their current form.
Re:Is this so bad? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Is this so bad? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Is this so bad? (Score:5, Insightful)
I mean, if this prevent having to deal with the RIAA or the MFAA and all the legal expenses, wouldn't it be better to be warned and go "My bad." and move along?
If we set aside the whole "monitoring your connection" issues (privacy issues, who watches the watchers, etc) and pretend thats not a problem... and if this were them "sending you a friendly warning letter", maybe thered be some room for discussion.
But the only way to accomplish what Comcast is suggesting here is by MITMing all of your connections and injecting content into the middle. Thats great in company environment, and "less than great" on a home ISP connection where you have a high expectation of privacy. Off the top of my head, some major concerns here:
I am not one to rail at the RIAA / MPAA without acknowledging that there is an issue with piracy (or whatever you want to call it). But 95% of the time the issue is that the response-- whether by MPAA, RIAA, or the ISPs -- is that the response is completely over the top. This is a golden example-- Comcast here suggests completely undermining the expectation of privacy and integrity of the connection they provide.
Why do you think the Sandvine / bittorrent issue a few years ago was such a big deal? Its because "somebody" randomly inserting bogus traffic into your connection represents a MASSIVE threat.
Re: (Score:2)
HTTP shouldn't (and wasn't) created with full end to end encryption or authentication because it's not supposed to be. That stuff is (and should be) all done at a lower level in the network stack.
Re: (Score:2)
But then the mailman will know what kind of porn you like.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe has something to do with the 'NBC/Universal' portion of Comcast [wikipedia.org]?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
slashdot: land of liberal niggerlovers who think it's SO VERY HORRIBLY TERRIBLE for me to say nigger. because they never lived near a bunch of niggers, had anything not nailed down go missing, seen them congregate in packs of 20-30 all of them thugged out and most of them armed, blasting loudass rap music into the wee hours of the morning, aggressively yelling at anyone on the public road, vandalizing everything with gangsta graffiti, destroying property values, causing cop cars to show up weekly, letting their undisciplined bastard kids run around causing trouble, parking junk cars in the yard and leaving them on blocks, and generally acting like the goddamned vermin they are.
Sounds exactly like the rednecks I grew up with. Swap the rap for country and its a dead ringer. Now, would you kindly go fuck off and die?