Film Consortium Urges ISPs To Dump Ineffective "Six Strikes" Policy For Pirates 186
An anonymous reader writes: The Internet Security Task Force, a group of businesses working to protect content creators and consumers from the negative effects of piracy, has called for an end to the Copyright Alert System, saying the anti-piracy initiative is not only ineffective but actually makes things worse. The group suggest that it be replaced with a new system based on Canada's Copyright Modernization Act. Mark Gill, ISTF chairman and President of member company Millennium films, says "We've always known the Copyright Alert System was ineffective, as it allows people to steal six movies from us before they get an educational leaflet. But now we have the data to prove that it's a sham." The Copyright Alert System (CAS) is set to expire early July.
Wait, what? (Score:5, Interesting)
From the article:
"The incendiary acts behind the move appears to be the wide-spread pirating of 2014 action blockbuster The Expendables 3, about which Mark Gill comments that it “has been illegally viewed more than 60 million times, the CAS only allowed 0.3% of our infringement notices through to their customers. The other 99.7% of the time, the notices went in the trash"
And how the hell would they know this? It's not like snail mail letters have GPS attached to them so the sender will know you have opened them. How do they have any idea at all in any way shape or form how often these letters were received, opened, read or followed? I smell a rat...
Re:Wait, what? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm more concerned with the claim that The Expendables 3 has been viewed more than 60M times. Viewing crap movies like that causes far more damage to the public than any possible money lost by the studios.
Re:Wait, what? (Score:4, Interesting)
Unfortunately, this is why crap movies continue to get produced.
[scene, studio boardroom] "Ex 3 was viewed 60+ million times. Yeah, most of them were illegal, but so what. Eyeballs !! Obviously, we need to make Ex 4!"
Re: (Score:2)
look dude, that would make expendables 3 the most popular movie in canada.
or perhaps they have some examples of movies which were viewed(pirated) multiple times by everyone in the nation due to their logic.
they're copyright guys so it's unknown if they know how the internet works, so they can just pull out things from thin air or base claims on shit like every connection opening in a torrent network is a view (resulting in anyone copying a movie making 20-1000 "views" - it's absurd they could deduce the num
Re: (Score:2)
That only holds true if your time has no value.
Time, though, is the most valuable commodity you have. It's damn hard to get more of it and once used it's gone.
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, kid, maybe some people like to watch mindless action movies where things explode. Viewing habits are NOT indicative of mental capacity. Ever heard of suspending disbelief? Try it sometime.
I tried that, then the neo-puritan and 3rd wave radical feminists showed up and tried blaming videogames for all the worlds ills.
Re: (Score:2)
And certainly not grounds for making a second one. Hell, not even the notoriety of the first makes making a second one a viable idea!
Re:Wait, what? (Score:5, Informative)
So really it's not about the number of notices it's the fact the ISP's that composed the CAS aren't forwarding the letters.
Citation: http://www.prnewswire.com/news... [prnewswire.com]
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
From the article:
"The incendiary acts behind the move appears to be the wide-spread pirating of 2014 action blockbuster The Expendables 3, about which Mark Gill comments that it “has been illegally viewed more than 60 million times, the CAS only allowed 0.3% of our infringement notices through to their customers. The other 99.7% of the time, the notices went in the trash"
And how the hell would they know this? It's not like snail mail letters have GPS attached to them so the sender will know you have opened them. How do they have any idea at all in any way shape or form how often these letters were received, opened, read or followed? I smell a rat...
They use polls and extrapolate. After the notices were sent, they then "follow up" with a percentage of the notices sent out, to see if the intended recipient actually got/read them. The notice itself may also include a step the target is supposed to take that signals to someone that it was read and acted on.
Either way, it's not going to be very accurate.
Re: (Score:3)
I think they are claiming that only 0.3% of their notices(to the isp) made the 6 strikes CAS cutoff and actually materialized as a mailing to the customer.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the real purpose behind this is a call for a new organization called The Movie Security Task Force that promotes the use of VPNs and private trackers to reduce the number of copyright notices sent out.
60 million times? (Score:5, Insightful)
Wait, is this guy claiming 20% of the US population pirated Expendables 3?
And we're supposed to take anything else he says seriously?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Your implication that someone could sit through this train wreck more than once is even more outlandish than the original claim.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, makes total sense to me.
See, someone could have downloaded a single copy. Then hooked up hundreds of TVs in a circle around someone. Then forced (enhanced interrogation style) someone to watch it 60 million times worth. Okay, maybe that's excessive, but you get the idea.
I think that qualifies as torture. At least choose something better...
Re: (Score:2)
No, the Film Consortium guy is the one implying that by suggesting that every download should have gotten a CAS notice. The goal is, as always, to misconstrue the numbers to suggest that piracy is a huge problem (20% of the US population pirating movies is scarier than 0.8% of the global population).
The person you responded to is simply reacting with disbelief that at the Film Consortium guy's idiotic statement.
IRTF (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Extrapolating from the experience of the efficiency of the rest of the snail mail spam.
COOL! (Score:2)
I'm off to find Millenium films at the store. I'm going to physically steal 6 movies and then ask for my educational pamphlet. What a deal... thanks ISTF!
Re: (Score:2)
Millenium Films are what you watch while on a long journey in the Millennium Falcon
My favorite part is the time the guy wrote:
"working to protect content creators and consumers from the negative effects of piracy"
Consumers? What fucking negative effect are they talking about because the prices sure have not been improved. Oh yeah, they *might* get a reduction if all the pirates of the world are caught and locked up in movie jail. That's the ticket!
Re: COOL! (Score:2)
Coincidentally, they are showing Expendables 3 in movie jail, though some have said that this is inhumane.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, you're losing valuable information. Like the FBI warning, the unskipable ads for movies you are not interested in and a DVD menu that doesn't work.
The Real Question I Hope That Gets Asked... (Score:2)
Sounds like 6 strikes is terrible (Score:5, Informative)
Ohh, they were doing that thing with the word "steal" again, where they accidentally used it instead of "make a copy in violation of copyright law."
Re:Sounds like 6 strikes is terrible (Score:5, Insightful)
taken without permission. The last 3 words in the previous sentence define theft.
No, they don't. Theft is taking scarce good without permission. You can keep using their newspeak if you want though.
Re: (Score:2)
taken without permission. The last 3 words in the previous sentence define theft.
No, they don't. Theft is taking scarce good without permission. You can keep using their newspeak if you want though.
Depends on where you live. Some states define "Theft of Services" as a crime.
Let me help here... (Score:2)
"Theft of services" is fancy lawyer for 'failing to pay for services'--from US Legal [uslegal.com]:
Theft of service is defined by state laws, which vary by state, but typically define the crime as knowingly securing the performance of a service by deception or threat, diverting another's services to the actor's own benefit, or holding personal property beyond the expiration of rental period without consent of the owner. Intent to avoid payment may be presumed under certain circumstances, such as failure to pay for an applicable rental charge within 10 days after receiving written notice demanding payment.
Thus, it is theft of services being talked about in the classic question "If you force a sex worker to have sex with you, is it rape or theft?" (I am inclined to go with 'both.')
Re:Sounds like 6 strikes is terrible (Score:5, Insightful)
Since "good" refers to something physical, I see you've decided to respond with the predicted "it's not tangible, so therefore it doesn't count" excuse.
This completely ignores the fact that things do not have to be tangible to be considered to have a measurable value. Your time, for example, is worth money both to yourself and your employer.
Nobody is saying that there's no value in copyright violations. What they are saying is that it is not theft. I like the car analogy for this one:
See the difference? And remember that it was you who said it makes no difference as to whether the things are tangible or not.
Re: (Score:3)
You appear to be stuck on the notion that if copyright violation on a movie, for example, were theft, that it is the movie itself that was being allegedly stolen
Never said anything like that. All I'm saying is that if I download a movie (or other IP) in violation of copyright laws then that is not theft. If you want a catchy, single-word term, use "piracy" (though, in my view, that devalues the original crime of that name which is still going on) but use of the word "theft" in this context by big content et al. is wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Piracy is even more wrong than thievery. Piracy is not only the unlawful taking of goods, it's the unlawful taking of goods with force and violence under aggravated circumstances with little if any regard for the life of the ones deprived of property.
And so far I never felt the urge to kill studio bosses just to get a movie. That urge is independent of whether I have any interest in the movie.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So yes... it is theft. Suggesting that it isn't is just a specious rationalization used by people who don't want to feel guilty about it.
And by judges preventing improper inflaming of juries [techdirt.com].
Re: (Score:2)
I'll have to give you that one.
Unfortunately for your position, "that one" is the entire argument. Our civilization possesses codified laws in which the words used to define the laws actually matter.
In the laws that we actually have, as opposed to the ones you wish we had, the taking of scarce goods is theft, while making unauthorized reproductions of copyrighted material is copyright violation.
Highly flawed analogy (Score:2)
"It is no more wrong to call piracy theft than it is to call it the same if you tap into your neighbor's cable so that you can get cable without paying for it."
There's a big difference between tapping a neighbor's cable and pirating a movie off the Internet. An unlicensed cable connection generally involves one connection/source, your neighbor's. But if you want to download from the Internet the same number of movies you could watch from an unlicensed cable connection, you can choose from more than one sour
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The rights still exist. If I pirate a movie, the copyright holder(s) still have all their legal rights as well as all their copies. It may diminish the potential audience.
Re: (Score:2)
Still orating from your moral high horse, claiming that people who disagree with you are immoral?
Let me clue you in on rhetoric. If you make stupid arguments against a practice, and claim moral superiority like that, you're actually encouraging that practice. People who pay attention to you are likely to reject your message because you're saying they're immoral. They're likely to find your arguments bad, and generalize to the attitude that arguments against copyright infringement are bad.
Some of the
Dog in the manger (Score:2)
So what's the working, lawful source for the film Song of the South or Pinocchio and the Emperor of the Night? If a work's copyright owner does not make the work available to the public, what "value" are infringers "stealing"?
Re: (Score:2)
I haven't alleged a darn thing about morality.... all I said was that copyright infringement is theft because it amounts to the taking of something that one has no lawfully recognized permission to take.
But theft itself is not necessarily immoral. For example, stealing something from somebody who himself has previously stolen in violation of recognized law, but has gotten away with it, in order to give the property back to the rightful owner is still quite clearly theft (and one may find themselves crim
Re: (Score:2)
It's fraud. It's not theft. Stealing is by its very definition the taking of something using guile or trickery with the intent to keep and depriving the original owner of its continued use. And that latter part is not fulfilled.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There is still the option to take something by force or threat thereof, which serves as the difference to robbery (which is, for this very good reason, usually something punished much harder).
Be it as it may, the requirements for stealing are not fulfilled. Neither is the intention to deprive the rightful owner of its use nor is there any way someone copying content could deprive the rightful owner of its use.
And ... what the hell is the value of a right that is only maintained as long as people voluntary r
Re: (Score:2)
So yes... it is theft. Suggesting that it isn't is just a specious rationalization used by people who don't want to feel guilty about it.
Like the US Supreme Court, for example [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Copyright is an extension to the *entirely* natural right to exclusivity that would exist if the creator had never published at all... After all, if nobody else even knows about it, then how an they copy it? To encourage creators to publish in the first place wen it s possible for others to copy e work (before the printing press, copying was sufficiently labour intensive and error prone that those barriers were considered to be adequate disincentive) copyright was invented to give such people some measure
Re: (Score:2)
Which is covered by copyright laws.
Please understand that an exclusive right to copy a work ("copyright") is a relatively recent notion in the grand scheme of things, and that theft is probably humankind's second defined profession (after prostitution).
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, copyright is by definition a right. Hence the name clearly meaning "the right to copy". And I will buy your argument that piracy is taking away somebody's right in that sense. However, taking away somebody's right to something is not theft. If it was, copyright violations could be prosecuted under larceny laws. If Slashdot turned off your account, preventing you from soapboxing about piracy, they would be taking away your free speech right. Likewise, they can't be prosecuted for larceny in that case. In
Re: (Score:2)
The exclusive right to copy a work has *ALWAYS* existed.... if the creator doesn't publish in the first place, then their exclusivity on controlling the work is entirely natural. Before the printing press, exclusivity on controlling who could copy a work was a fortuitous side-effect of the fact that copying something was so labour-intensive and error prone, that it was not generally in would-be pirate's best interests to pursue it.
Bullshit, people freely copied right up until publishers came along and wanted money for free or close to it, by paying a pittance to an authour for his work and trying to keep a monopoly on it.
There has always been musicians who freely copied each others work. There has been poetry for near forever which people freely copied. There has been stories told by people and freely copied probably since before humans were modern humans. At that people had very good memories before being literate was common and cou
Re: (Score:2)
erh... no. The problem with being able to reap the rewards for the works of art has exactly been the problem since the dawn of time for artists. Painters had it fairly easy in this regard since copying a painting is pretty hard. But you do not have to look further than theater and drama, let alone opera and music, before you find the problem of "copying". The ushers looking for people filming the movie screen may be a relatively new thing, but in Shakespearian times they were looking for people sitting in t
Re: (Score:2)
Because theft has a strict legal definition that pre-dates the invention of copyright.; that is "the intention to permanently deprive someone of something physical". As such copyright infringement does not meet the legal definition of theft and calling it theft when discussing something legal is simply wrong.
Stupid car analogy, if I take your car without permission and go for a drive, then a week later return it, I will not be prosecuted for theft (well at least not in the U.K.) because I had no intention t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If I was taking someone's exclusivity, then I'd have some of it. Guess what I DON'T have if I copy something, with or without permission?
If I take something from you, then I have it and you don't (despite various idiomatic phrases, e.g. to take someone's virginity). If I haven't taken something from you, it isn't theft. If I copy something, I haven't taken anything. It may be copyright violation, but it isn't theft.
Re: (Score:2)
I see you've decided to respond with the predicted "it's not tangible, so therefore it doesn't count" excuse.
That's simply false - as several posts below have noted.
This completely ignores the fact that things do not have to be tangible to be considered to have a measurable value.
No, it doesn't, and further you are conflating scarcity and tangibility. Regardless of the measurable value, or tangibility, of a thing, it must be scarce to be stolen.
Referring to copyright violations as "theft" is nothing more than a lobbying tactic based on perverting our language into a simplified form in which nuance cannot be expressed, but I'm not surprised you've fallen for it given your demonstrated lack of legal and linguistic knowledge.
Re: (Score:2)
And when my employer does not pay me after I do my work I can have him arrested for stealing my time?
Re: (Score:2)
It's called "theft of services". It functions as theft because your time and labor are a scarce resource, and if you do some work for somebody you've expended time and energy that you don't get back.
So, yes, if your employer deliberately hires you with the intention of not paying you, that's a criminal offense. It's hard to prove that, though, so usually it's treated as a civil matter.
Re: (Score:3)
Rather, I argue that language has meaning and entrenched rightsholders like this ISTF are abusing language for their own gain. Theft already has both a legal and commonsense definition that requires the victim be deprived of the stolen thing.
Coopting words like theft and piracy is an attempt to take the very real negative emotions that go along with being robbed and deprived of
Re: (Score:3)
The difference between real theft and copyright infringement is that if you steal a physical item (say a DVD of a movie), the legit owner of the item no longer has it. He is then out the money he paid for it (paid money, no item). I steal a DVD from you, you can no longer play that DVD.
Copyright infringement is different in that here no item is lost - the studio still has as many copies of the movie as they had before I downloaded it. What the studio considers a loss is the potential profit they would have
Re: (Score:3)
And yet, there is a difference - even the law recognizes it. The "no item is lost" is not because it's intangible, but also because making a copy does not destroy the original. Compare these two events:
1. I copy a CD borrowed from a friend. The studio still has as many copies of the album as they had before.
2. I break into the studio, grab the master tape, leave a blank tape (the same type) (or copy the tape then erase it) and run away. The studio no longer has the album, but I only stole the music - they d
Re: (Score:2)
That's not stealing. But hey, at least you call it stealing. In German, the word creation is literally "robbed copy".
But yes, it's actually possible to steal a copy. That's when you go into a store, cut open a CD, take a blank CD from the store that you did not buy, make a copy and then leave with the CD you just burned in the store.
Copyright infringement is still not legal. But it just ain't stealing. You're depriving someone income that he is legally entitled to. Yes, that's more words than "stealing", bu
Re: (Score:2)
Copyright infringement reduces the value that copyright has in the first place... so you are not just depriving them of something they *may* have otherwise possessed, but something that they were supposed to actually have already had... the exclusive right to control who can make a copy. That exclusivity is where copyright gets its value from, so depriving them of that lowers its value to the holder.
If you steal $20 from somebody, in actuality all you've really stolen is paper that is worth a few cent
Steal? (Score:4, Insightful)
as it allows people to steal six movies from us
Holy crap, you mean all this time the pirates could have actually been stealing movies and thus kept the rest of the world from ever seeing them? I guess we're lucky they only made copies.
Naw (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So their plan is that they can plead insanity if they get caught?
Re: (Score:2)
I think they meant taking 6 DVDs from them, which often would mean breaking and entering, something I do agree should be illegal. I'm just amazed that such a huge number of DVDs, Blurays etc were taken.
Leaflet? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
You honestly expect people to open, let alone read, mail spam?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure you'd object if people started copying and distributing the content of your emails without your permission.
Fortunately, such things are already illegal totally outside any form of intellectual property law.
Re: (Score:2)
Then again, I don't try to sell the crap I write about in my email to the world. I try to keep it private. And I'm very sure that most people would not mind if those littering the charts today had done the same.
a new system based on Canada's (Score:2, Informative)
Oh, that system that they are abusing by sending threatening letters in direct opposition of the purpose of the system and the courts here in Canada? I'm sure they'd love to have that system elsewhere so that they can abuse it all over the place.
Negative (Score:4, Funny)
a group of businesses working to protect content creators and consumers from the negative effects of piracy
These guys must be doing a great job - I've never suffered any negative effects from piracy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Negative (Score:4, Insightful)
No. (Score:5, Interesting)
File sharing can't drive those prices up. If piracy results in fewer people going to theaters, the reduction in demand will force prices down. If movie watching suddenly became more popular, prices would not go down, they would go up, especially when theaters are routinely sold out. That's how commerce actually works.
The greatest harm file sharing could do is: reduce the expected ROI on major movies, which in turn results in fewer movies produced, and less money spent on the movies being made (which might reduce their quality). At the moment, the market is awash with more movies than anyone can watch, and the amount of money spent on some of them is ridiculous. So, I don't see that harmful consequence happening at all.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
File sharing can't drive those prices up. If piracy results in fewer people going to theaters, the reduction in demand will force prices down. If movie watching suddenly became more popular, prices would not go down, they would go up, especially when theaters are routinely sold out. That's how commerce actually works.
The greatest harm file sharing could do is: reduce the expected ROI on major movies, which in turn results in fewer movies produced, and less money spent on the movies being made (which might reduce their quality). At the moment, the market is awash with more movies than anyone can watch, and the amount of money spent on some of them is ridiculous. So, I don't see that harmful consequence happening at all.
Kinda sorta. Reduced demand for tickets would indeed result in fewer movies produces, but I suspect that the ones being produced would be the highest-selling ones (blockbusters/etc). These could very well be priced higher, since they would have less competition. If they didn't think they could price it higher, they probably wouldn't produce it at all, since they would anticipate low volumes being sold.
That is my sense of it at least.
But you are correct that it isn't some kind of zero-sum game where some
Re: (Score:2)
File sharing can also increase demand. If the pirate buys what he or she likes, as is common, then the pirate is getting more value per dollar spent, and will spend more money overall on whatever he or she is pirating. Simple economics.
Re: (Score:2)
As I understand it, in the US the ticket prices mostly go to the production companies, not the theaters, and the theaters largely make their money on selling food-like substances. Since the cost of providing copies to theaters is small, the ticket prices could go a lot lower.
Re: (Score:2)
You believe that? For real?
The price of a commodity is independent of its creation cost. The only effect the cost has on the price is whether the commodity is offered at all. If, and only if, the cost is higher than the price, it will not be produced. That's the ONLY effect the production cost has on a commodity.
Price is what the seller assumes as the point where the most profit can be made. And this is very easy to determine for a commodity that has a near zero per-unit cost: Units * price per unit. That o
Double Standards of Course... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
How about you used DRM to deprive people of their right for format shift and backup. Sorry you loose your right to sue for any copyright infringement.
Re: (Score:2)
Crappy Research (Score:4, Insightful)
From TFA:
Under CCMA there is no limit on the number of notifications that must legally be forwarded to ‘offending’ ISP customers, which has led to a 69.6% reduction in infringements at Bell Canada, with Rogers, TekSavvy, Telus and Shaw all reporting notable reductions in piracy (or, theoretically, greater uptake of VPNs).
I'm willing to bet after the first notification, people just move to a VPN service to hide behind... Fix the inaccessibility issues involving movie and show availability, and I think you'll see piracy drop a lot faster than trying to punish people. People really just don't care, they just want their movie or show, so make it accessible and affordable. Market is just waiting on you guys to fix the issues IMHO.
Some people also don't want to go to a theater with a bunch of other people and pay astronomical prices for a bag of popcorn. On the other hand, some people really like that theater experience. So offer us both, simultaneously, an online release and theater release, so the shy people can enjoy the movie with the need to wait 6 months or steal it.
Re: (Score:2)
erm correction: So offer us both, simultaneously, an online release and theater release, so the shy people can enjoy the movie WITHOUT the need to wait 6 months or steal it.
Re: (Score:2)
The 6 month wait is because the Academy Awards require that gap between theatrical release and showing any other way for a movie to qualify for the awards. There's every reason, however, for studios to decide to go with simultaneous release for any film whose likelihood of getting even a nomination is roughly the same as the MPAA & Friends using accurate piracy numbers by anything other than accident--though theaters might stop getting their cut as usually the first week's ticket sales go entirely to t
Re: (Score:2)
Excuses. The market's response to excuses: Steal it if you won't make it available.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm willing to bet after the first notification, people just move to a VPN service to hide behind...
Not only this (and I know people who did exactly that), but people are also opting for VPNs to get around Netflix geo-blocking. I bet a lot of the Canadian reduction is mirrored in US increases.
Re: (Score:2)
Now they don't. But knowledge is easily multiplied. Knowing how to set up a VPN service in such a way that you can't get detected is one YouTube video away.
And knowing that you need a VPN service is one posting in a torrent board away.
Re: (Score:2)
Guess you haven't used uTorrent lately, they advertise often enough for BitGuard, which is a very easy point and click VPN service. Any idiot could set it up.
a group of businesses working to protect content (Score:5, Insightful)
stopped reading there.
look, don't lie to me that you are helping ME, a consumer.
you look stupid when you lie. and you guys do such a really bad job of lying, too.
Ineffective? (Score:2)
It's certainly not ineffective. If it were, there wouldn't be so many VPN providers in business.
Orwell (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm not a fan of the new trend of naming legislation by the opposite of its purpose.
E.g. Copyright Modernization Act which is about implementing feudalism.
Copyright Trolls complain they can't get cust info (Score:2)
That's what this is really about, litigious companies like Volt Pictures have formed the Voltron of Copyright Trolls and now are complaining that they do not have enough fodder to feed their ambulance chasing lawyers to send out threatening (and misleading) settlement letters too.
... so they want pirates to use VPNs? (Score:2)
These guys don't seem to grasp they're in an arms race that they already lost.
Between VPNs and cyberlockers exactly how do these clowns think they're going to stop anything? People selling heroine on the internet are rarely caught and as we can see despite the DEA expanding their efforts against it, that is expanding geometrically.
These people think that they're going to have more of an effect against people pirating the latest movie than the DEA is having stopping people from selling heroine? They're just
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think the NSA has anything to do with this because they have very different interests.
The NSA does primarily concern itself with state level enemies and various terrorist groups. Not only does the NSA not give a shit about pirate groups but they don't really care about the heroine dealers that the DEA is after either.
The NSA is only interesting in that they are the apex of US cyber spycraft. But while they are the apex they are also really only interested in the apex themselves of which pirates don'
Re: (Score:2)
The real problem is that with the increase of VPN and encryption, it also gets way harder to detect real criminals that commit real crimes that are a real danger to people. Because as the noise increases it's getting harder to see the real problem makers.
Good chance I have 8 strikes. (Score:2)
If: "Dear Charter Internet Customer:
Charter Communications ("Charter") has been notified by a copyright owner, or its authorized agent, that your Internet account may have been involved in the exchange of unauthorized copies of copyrighted material" = a strike. I have 8 against me for something you can view on youtube.
Good chance I have 8 strikes. (Score:2)
If: "Dear Charter Internet Customer:
Charter Communications ("Charter") has been notified by a copyright owner, or its authorized agent, that your Internet account may have been involved in the exchange of unauthorized copies of copyrighted material" = a strike. I have 8 against me for something you can view on youtube.
-Might be a dupe having a bit of a /. connection problem.
Internet Security Task Force? (Score:2)
What is up with their name? They have nothing to do with "internet security."
If I saw that name out of the context of this article, I would think they were something like CERT..
Six movies you say? (Score:2)
Muahahaha, how quaint!
Re: (Score:2)
But ... but... but then I'd have to pay for it! I'm entitled to you paying for my protection! I've bought enough politicians to say so!
Re: (Score:2)
Naja, MIEFPTDSLAFARPTP isn't quite a catchy acronym.
But the idea itself is sound. maybe find a better way to phrase it that TV anchors can pronounce.