US ISPs Refuse To Disconnect Persistent Pirates (torrentfreak.com) 198
An anonymous reader writes: The U.S. broadband association USTelecom, a trade association representing many ISPs, is taking a stand against abusive takedown notices and a recent push to terminate the accounts of repeat infringers. They argue that ISPs are not required to pass on takedown notices and stress that their subscribers shouldn't lose Internet access based solely on copyright holder complaints. ustelecoSigned into law nearly two decades ago, the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) aimed to ready copyright law for the digital age. The law introduced a safe harbor for Internet providers, meaning that they can't be held liable for their pirating users as long as they 'deal' with repeat infringers.
Uhhh (Score:3, Insightful)
... the Digital Millenium (sic) Copyright Act (DMCA) aimed to ready copyright law for the digital age.
Uh huh, yeah, that's what their intent was. Sure.
Re:Uhhh (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes it was. Copyright law was very efficient at being a tool to violate any and all consumer rights in the physical world, the DMCA brought this property to the digital realm.
Re:Uhhh (Score:5, Informative)
Copyright "piracy" was defined more than 100 years ago. It's a legal term, and it relates to those who copy and reproduce copyrighted works for profit.
The vast majority of file-sharers are not "pirates". Copyright holders started using that term around 2000 to deliberately muddy the waters surrounding file sharing.
Just in case there is someone who doesn't yet know: copyright "piracy" is a crime. File sharing, if not done for profit, is not. Uploading could make you the subject of a civil suit, but not a criminal charge. Unless you're doing it for meaningful personal gain.
Re: (Score:2)
That 'civil' charge carries $150K 'per instance' fine. It's absurd and why we need to get these laws changed.
Re: (Score:2)
And even "piracy" as originally applied to copyright violations is a deliberately provocative term. I'm pretty sure illicitly copying content doesn't involve capturing ships at sea, raping, pillaging, or killing large numbers of people.
Usually. I suppose everybody needs a hobby.
The customer losses would be too big. (Score:3)
They would never agree to willingly lose busieness. It would also highlight the fact there is no competition for broadband in many areas when those customers realized there was no one else to go to for service after being kicked out.
Re:The customer losses would be too big. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
As someone who used to partake in the darker side of content acquisition, I always paid for the fastest package I could find.
Re: (Score:3)
They probably pay for better than average, but when it's so easy to set up a 24/7 torrent device (a Raspberry PI would be plenty), there's no reason to buy top-tier, you can just let things run in their sweet time and download while you're asleep/away from home. Anything 20 mbps or above will be able to support play-as-you-download if your client is downloading in consecutive piece order.
But I think that piracy is so widespread that if ISPs actually did shut people off the providers would be losing a signif
Re: (Score:3)
But surely those customers are going to want some kind of Internet service. It seems unlikely that they're going to say, "Well, if I can't torrent Orphan Black, I don't need to get email."
They might even let them sign up for the same company. A few days lack of service, plus a reconnect fee, might convince them to cut out illegal downloads (or at least, try harder to hide it).
It might end up with all of the downloaders at the one ISP in town who tolerates them. But I suspect that the other ISPs might have w
Re: (Score:3)
I had to re-download my entire Steam game library after a hard drive failed
Wouldn't it make more sense to re-download the games only as you play them, rather than downloading them all at once?
Re: (Score:2)
Whoosh?
Re: The customer losses would be too big. (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It's a good enough story. My Linux Steam catalog is over 200G. I can only imaging how big an old legacy Windows account with tons of AAA games is.
Re:The customer losses would be too big. (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the ISPs are just rightly trying to avoid the movie/music industry pushing them into becoming the de-facto "internet police" (along with the associated responsibilities and liabilities) instead of the media industry doing their own dirty work at their own cost.
Re:The customer losses would be too big. (Score:4, Interesting)
This is a good idea in theory.
But then the ISPs get bought by the media conglomerates who also own the movie/music companies.
I'm not sure where that all ends up, but probably some ugly meetings.
Re:The customer losses would be too big. (Score:4, Insightful)
The correct way to provide constructive criticism:
Make a statement to the contrary, provide supporting evidence. eg:
You are incorrect as to who bought whom. Comcast bought Time-Warner
In 2014:
http://money.cnn.com/2014/02/1... [cnn.com]
In 2015:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/... [usatoday.com]
Wiki:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Name calling is not constructive and suggests the name caller may be lacking in maturity, or blood sugar.
Re: (Score:3)
You are incorrect as to who bought whom. Comcast bought Time-Warner
I'm really confused about why this post was modded up. (1) Comcast didn't actually buy Time Warner CABLE, as your links note. Charter is trying to buy Time Warner Cable, but the deal still needs approval. (2) This discussion seems to be about whether media companies buy cable companies or the reverse or whatever... except this purchase is only about Time Warner CABLE. Neither Comcast nor Charter has been buying Time Warner MEDIA, which has been a completely separate corporate entity from Time Warner CAB
Re: (Score:2)
Neither Comcast nor Charter has been buying Time Warner MEDIA, which has been a completely separate corporate entity from Time Warner CABLE since 2009.
You are Correct. However I never mentioned anything about Time Warner Media. Since they don't provide a service within the context of this discussion I mentally blocked the media branch from my mind and may have neglected to mention the distinction assuming everyone else would ignore them also.
My Bad? :)
Re: (Score:3)
disclosure - i work for time warner
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
My point had more to do with the quality of the call out than the data anyways. :)
Re: (Score:2)
My point had more to do with the quality of the call out than the data anyways. :)
We know you dont care about the quality of data. You declared as a fact that Comcast purchased Time Warner when in fact Comcast did no such thing.
Obviously you don't care about the veracity of data. All you seem to care about is that people be nice to lying fucks.
Re: (Score:2)
The correct way to provide constructive criticism:
Why would I want to "constructively criticize" someone that is actually being a dishonest fuck?
We should not be tolerant of these fucks that destructively rush to get their guesses in while making sure never to reveal that they are fucking guessing.
You want people to help this fuck when the effect he has on discussions is to actively try to ruin them? Fuck you too then.
Re: (Score:2)
You are incorrect as to who bought whom. Comcast bought Time-Warner
Comcast did not buy time-warner you lying fuck.
Re: (Score:2)
Who bought whom doesn't really matter in terms of where they are, now does it?
Re: (Score:2)
It does when the person responding is just one of those asses who blames their behavior on Aspergers. The site seems populated with 'em at times. I don't think they really have it, by the way. I think they're just assholes who have social issues and blame it on something other than their ability to consider others before they consider themselves. Hell, or consider them at the same time. :/
Re: (Score:2)
Who bought whom doesn't really matter in terms of where they are, now does it?
When the lying fuck claims that the RIAA/MPAA could buy Comcast, it does fucking matter.
Not only can't the RIAA/MPAA afford to buy Comcast, Comcast could in fact afford to buy all of the RIAA and MPAA companies combined. Its not even close.
You people are idiots. The market cap of the RIAA/MPAA companies is tiny in comparison to the market cap of telecom companies. You fucks hate the MPAA/RIAA so much that you dont give a shit that what you say they can do, they actually can't? Fuck you then. You are wo
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Private entities generally have the right to refuse service to anyone as long as it isn't some legally protected reason. Cutting internet off for copyright infringement is about on par with because I don't like your socks in this case. Itwould not be the same as criminal or civil penalties.
But there may be other problems concerning their franchise agreements. If they cut people off arguments might be made that they aren't serving the public and could be forced to allow competition in possibly using their o
Re: (Score:2)
Cutting internet off for copyright infringement is about on par with because I don't like your socks in this case.
Only if the ISPs TOS specified what color socks you were allowed to wear. Most of them prohibit illegal use of the service. Since the ISP is not a police agency, they don't have to follow the "presumed innocent" concept -- not that many police agencies do that anymore.
If they cut people off arguments might be made that they aren't serving the public and could be forced to allow competition in possibly using their own equipment too.
I doubt that any of them are worried about that. "Obeying federal law" is a pretty good counter-argument to "you aren't serving the public". And, of course, since all it would take to be "forced" to allow competition is for a competitor to ent
Re: (Score:2)
The TOS does not need to specify anything in most areas. That is what the right to refuse service actually covers. If you are unfamiliar with that concept then look it up.
As for the franchise agreement, they very often carry exclusivity clauses for the purpose of infrastructure improvements. As I said, it isn't just competition but having to enable it through the use of said infrastructure. In the case of areas with a single isp for high speed internet, That would likely be access to the cable.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the ISPs holding out for some way to make money on the copyright extortion racket. As soon as they figure out how to get paid for punishing their customers, they'll be all over it.
Maybeee (Score:5, Funny)
They would never agree to willingly lose busieness. It would also highlight the fact there is no competition for broadband in many areas when those customers realized there was no one else to go to for service after being kicked out.
Or maybe even Comcast is unwilling to deal with their own customer service.
Re: (Score:2)
The ISPs are not harassing their customers over stupid crap! Oh, the huge manatee!
I'm actually not sure why this is being presented as a bad thing. Yeah, some people are jerks. The ISP shouldn't be accountable. Send 'em a letter. Take 'em to court. Scream loudly. Do what you want but leave the ISP out of it.
I will add that I'm a staunch supporter of copyright and other IP protections/rights. (I'm not in favor of the current system.) Leave the ISP out of it. Chances are, the person paying the bill isn't even
Define Pirates (Score:5, Insightful)
DCMA is a violation of my privacy and publishing rights as a Canadian citizen in the US under the US/Canada Data Treaty, which is subject to the Canadian Bill of Rights (which was adopted in the 1980s so it has greater rights than Americans do).
What DCMA calls a pirate is a treaty violation. DCMA is subject to treaty rights, not the other way around.
You can't steal my rights by calling them piracy.
Re: (Score:2)
You are in the US so you are subject to US laws. It would only be a violation of the Canadian Bill of Rights if you are in Canada.
Re: (Score:2)
Name.
The.
Treaty.
Also show us that it was signed and ratified.
Re: (Score:2)
It has many names. It actually has had different parts ratified by both countries over many years.
"Under the Treaty, information will not be shared on Canadian or U.S. citizens or permanent residents. Any information shared on travellers and asylum seekers will be handled responsibly and, as with other information sharing agreements, exchanged in accordance with relevant Canadian laws including the Privacy Act to ensure individuals’ privacy rights are considered and protected."
full information on cert
Re: (Score:2)
well.... you quoted something, where is the link??? no wonder people dont take canada seriously, you are a spitting image of a southpark canadian
Re:Define Pirates (Score:4, Interesting)
Look, I know Americans don't get it, but you signed two treaties: one with Canada, which grants Canadian citizens in the US the same rights of privacy and data access they have in Canada, stronger rights than Americans.
And another one with the EU, which does the same thing.
Re: (Score:2)
What the rest of the World doesn't get is just because the POTUS signs a treaty, and there is a big televised signing ceremony and all of the big-wigs stand around smiling and shaking each others hands in front of the cameras for the news; it don't mean jack unless the Senate ratifies it.
I also suspect that a treaty that " grants Canadian citizens in the US the same rights of privacy and data access they have in Canada, stronger rights than Americans." would be unconstitutional in the US under the 14th amen
Re: (Score:2)
A couple of things...
This is abut *US* ISPs and not Canadian ISPs.
As someone who's mostly First Nations (Amerindian for your USians), I can only say welcome to the club? The US doesn't exactly have a stellar history of adhering to treaties. Then again, the Canadians aren't that great either - both have improved, significantly, over time.
Information Sharing Treaty (Score:2)
It was news in Canada.
I'm sorry you don't read "international" news, but it's been a major topic for many years now.
Just like Free Trade and NAFTA were.
1. I believe you, but you are also not knowing the name of the thing you are talking about, and he can't find it on Google, so there's no evidence that it exists except for your memory of a news report of a couple of years ago. While Canadian news is often better (and is certainly funnier) than American news, that's like remembering the time a chimpanzee told you that your dog was up to something. Maybe you're right, but between the flying poop and the time that's passed chances are information got lost.
2
Re: (Score:2)
The Canadian Supreme Court ruled that all treaties may not sign away and rights in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Which exist no matter where you reside, in or out of Canada.
Re: (Score:2)
The Canadian Supreme Court ruled that all treaties may not sign away and rights in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Which exist no matter where you reside, in or out of Canada.
The Canadian Supreme Court has no jurisdiction over activities by the United States government in the United States. At the most it is a persuasive authority under International Law and principles of comity; it has no binding authority. If Canada failed to attach reservations to the treaty, then Canada's international law obligations can even be in conflict with its own Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Re: (Score:2)
The Canadian Supreme Court ruled that all treaties may not sign away and rights in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Which exist no matter where you reside, in or out of Canada.
Perhaps, but the Canadian Supreme Court has no jurisdiction in the US, so their opinions don't count for much.
This might be "a thing", but the challenge is going to get it enforced without spending a lot of money.
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody is suggesting the Canadian Government violate the rights of Canadians in the US, but that is not the same as the US Government giving Canadians more rights than Americans have in the US.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not my job. Try looking at the Canadian government web site.
Again, not my problem if you don't understand the consequences of the existence of treaties you sign.
It is not my job to explain the binding force of treaties on US law, however I'll do it anyway so you'll see that treaties may be be as cut and dry in the US as they are in Canada. As a side note, I would be surprised if your diplomats did not understand the binding force of different treaties with the US on US law.
Although under international law, a US Treaty [wikipedia.org], a US congressional-executive agreement [wikipedia.org], and a sole-executive agreement [wikipedia.org] are all the same, within the United States they have significant legal diffe
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not my job. Try looking at the Canadian government web site.
Actually it is. You made the claim the treaty existed, but give no evidence whatsoever that it does. This is called upholding the burden of proof.
Making a false claim and then saying that those requesting proof should "look it up" (impossible since it does not exist) is one of the laziest techniques of debate trolling.
Currently you are looking like a lazy troll. If you are not, just name the treaty and this appearance will be instantly dispelled. Up to you.
Re: (Score:2)
What about the wct and wppt? The dmca is directly born from those treaties which is why dmca style laws pop up all over the world and get defeated repeatedly.
Those are two treaties that can actually be named and Canada is part of. Perhaps you could ask your mom for help supporting your claims?
Re: (Score:2)
The treaties WE sign? You think we actually approve of what our overlords do, ostensibly in our name? You think we can do anything to stop it? The ass has the bit in its teeth, it does what it wants and serves only itself.
The overlords don't read their own laws before signing, so why should we read them? That is assuming we manage to find out about the laws (which they are often trying to hide) and manage to get our hands on the text (which they often refuse to allow). And even if we do read it, the words d
Re: (Score:2)
Try doing a search for "data transfer pact".
It isn't a treaty as of yet but an agreement and from my limited investigation it might only be a framework for some future agreement that might or might not become a treaty.
Repeat infingers (Score:5, Insightful)
I have no issue with them disconnecting people who lose multiple lawsuits for copyright infringement. I think at this point the MPAA etc has blanket sent notices to every subscriber in the US multiple times so thats far to low of a bar to use.
Re: (Score:3)
illegal notices (no valid proof of claim) are ... illegal.
Re: (Score:2)
I am pretty sure it's worse than that. Only the person (usually a lawyer - and not the rights holder themselves but a representative of them) must believe that they are filing on behalf of the people who own the rights. This is why they get away with making false claims. The rights holder can actually *lie* to the rep/lawyer, the lawyer file (believing it true), and the thing is not illegal.
Yes, yes I have read the damned thing. I did skim some of it but I kind of had to read it.
Re: (Score:2)
has blanket sent notices to every subscriber in the US multiple times so
Never seen one here. I don't pirate. If you think they're blanketing everyone you're wrong. Former comcast, centurylink subscriber and current charter subscriber.
I'm no fan of IP holders but making stuff up is bullshit. I know people that pirate nearly everything they watch/listen to; some have been noticed and others haven't. So my anecdotal evidence is that they're being conservative.
Re: (Score:2)
I've had multiple relatives and friends get notices for infringement who I know are not do not have kids who might etc. Most of these were obvious scams, with we could make you pay 100k or more send us 1k now and we will settle BS. I'm pretty sure my 90+ year old grandparents were not torrenting considering the only things in the house was some roku's and streaming radio's. So yea I feel pretty safe to say there are many fraudulent notices being sent.
In any event only lost trials should count anything el
Re: (Score:2)
I might be lazy and pirate. It's odd 'cause I only watch documentaries and they all show up eventually but sometimes I want the whole series and to play it in order. So, I pirate. At the same time, I've Netflix and Hulu+ - except I don't remember when I last logged into either one. It hasn't been in the past six months, at least. I also have a separate, disparate, connection that does nothing but seed. It seeds Linux distros and that's my story and I'm sticking to it. (Well, I always share anything to a 12:
Re: (Score:2)
Makes sense (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
No, they are refusing to forward extortion notices because they have no legal requirement to. Whether or not the entity issuing the takedown request is the rightsholder or is authorized to act on the their part is covered by the DMCA request. The issuer has to affirm under penalty of perjury that they have the right to issue the notice, and it's no skin off the IPS's nose if it's not true -- all things being equal, they would prefer invalid claims.
The reason that they don't want to forward claims is because
Re: (Score:2)
I've been pondering this for a VERY long time. I don't know how old you are but it might be since before you were born. Your user ID indicates that it'd be silly of me to assume that to be the case. So, for now, a very long time indeed.
We need something FUNCTIONAL that sits below the courts. And no, it's not the bullshit they call arbitration. Findings need to be able to be appealed. It needs to have oversight. Things like IP need to be dealt with in those systems before even seeing a court of law. It needs
What is coming up ahead... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think that's remotely the shipping companies job unless via court order but I've never heard of that happening.
AFAIK I can get any size transformer and meter installed at my house as I am willing to pay for without being questioned on why I need a 250KVA transformer.
They tend to be much more concerned with people stealing power than they are with people using obnoxious amounts and paying their bill on time.
If someone was caught growing pot http://sparkreport.net/2009/03... [sparkreport.net]
I doubt the electric compan
Re: (Score:2)
If pot growers use electric lights to grow weed, then the electric utility must cut off electricity to the whole building or the apartment complex. Why take half measures, no electricity to the entire zip code. That will teach them.
Electric lights? I hear there's pot growers using sunlight, it's time to shut it all down. <godmode>*click*</godmode> Eight minutes to go, time to find your nearest pub and a friend from a small planet somewhere in the vicinity of Betelgeuse.
Re: (Score:2)
Just nuke them from orbit, just to be sure.
No Problem, but it should work both ways. (Score:3, Insightful)
Its fine to disconnect customers after 3 violation notices, as long as:
they also stop accepting violation notices from any "rights holder" who sents 3 incorrect ones.
Re: (Score:2)
Disconnect infringers from the web for 3 violations and "disconnect" any rights holder from filing after three clearly fraudulent notices in bad faith.
If rights weren't so easily shifted into shell companies, I'd agree. Unfortunately changing my name is far more complicated than opening another shell corporation.
Re: (Score:2)
Your changing your name is not more complicated than they changing to another shell corporation. What gave you that idea? It's not even remotely more complicated, it's much less complicated. Sure, it's more annoying for you but it's less complicated. You've got very little paperwork to file and only one person to help you - but that doesn't mean it's more complicated.
Not at all. It's less complicated to change your name. It's easy to do the follow ups with banks, DMV, all that - than it is to pop up a new s
The *AA organizations (Score:2, Interesting)
Personally I'm amazed at how goddamn lazy the RIAA and MPAA have gotten. Do they even do anything to earn their money these days or just go around demanding that everyone else to do their job for them? I wish I had a few billion dollars so I could whine to congress about how hard my job is and everyone else should do it for me for free.
Re: (Score:2)
Personally I'm amazed at how goddamn lazy the RIAA and MPAA have gotten. Do they even do anything to earn their money these days or just go around demanding that everyone else to do their job for them?
In the grand scheme of things, we arent actually talking about a lot of money.
Last I checked the telecom industry handles about $5 trillion annually, while the movie industry only about $35 billion.
To put this in perspective
78,000,000,000,000 - Gross world product
5,000,000,000,000 - Telecom industry (6.4102% of GWP)
35,000,000,000 - Movie industry (0.0449% of GWP)
21,000,000,000 - Music industry (0.0269% of GWP)
This is why the RIAA/MPAA have failed so miserably is getting what they want. Its like
Re: (Score:2)
What makes content so incredibly powerful as an export good is that you can literally export thin air. You export ... well, essentially nothing. You export something that is trivially easy to multiply at zero cost. That is some powerful export asset.
To make matters worse, rather than looking at the annual GWP, look at the perceived value of those assets. And realize that this value drops to ZERO if everyone can multiply it at will.
Re: (Score:2)
Who talks about "earning" any money? They just want to get it, "earn it"... that sounds like they'd have to do some kind of honest work for it.
Safe harbor and repeat infringers (Score:2)
Must the electric company cut power to a bookie joint that pays it's bills just because it's a bookie joint?
Re: (Score:3)
"Must the content industry exist?"
At least ask one relevant question.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean that people should have their rights stripped on a whim?
This is something that both sides of the political spectrum seem far too eager to do. It seems like a handy way to deprive your political enemies of any sort of voice.
TFA (Score:2)
Rare pleasure (Score:5, Interesting)
I hardly ever get to say this, but I agree with the ISPs whole heatedly. It's not their problem. It's not their job or their legal obligation to do anything about those notices the *IAA and other "reputable organizations" like Prenda send out every time a bird chirps. Especially now that the FCC has made them title ii.
They don't get to sentence people to digital exile on their whim.
Re: (Score:2)
The ISP's should probably change their terms of service then... since they usually explicitly prohibit using their connection to do things that are illegal. I mean, if they aren't going to enforce it, what's the point of mentioning it?
This is of course, assuming that sufficient evidence of illegal activity exists in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
I mean, if they aren't going to enforce it, what's the point of mentioning it?
Well... because most "terms of service" are "cover-your-ass" legalese, rather than something companies actively care about.
Seriously -- is this that hard to understand why a company wants to have a disclaimer like this in their terms? (e.g., By accepting the contract for our services, you agree not to use our services for illegal acts.) If you don't include that disclaimer, some idiot could come after you and say, "You facilitated the illegal actions of person X. Therefore you are partly responsible,"
Re: (Score:2)
Why should they? That clause gives THEM the right to terminate the connection for illegal activity, at their discretion. It confers no obligation upon them. Basically it's so that if they see clearly illegal activity (probably as a result of the inevitable backlash), they can dump you quick and easy.
For the rest, that's a HUUUUUUGE assumption. As I indicated, the various notices are a combination of complaints that birds were chirping something like their song in the background, out and out fraud, incorrect
If the MPAA/RIAA/whatever other IP Nazis (Score:2)
were willing to pay the ISPs to do this per instance and the fee was substantial enough I suspect the ISPs would change their tune.
Many people are locked in to local ISP monopolies. If they were serious they'd put the money up and people would have no alternative but to either stop/get more sophisticated/or get fleeced for the overpriced media laden with ads and threats...
Re: (Score:2)
-I'm just sayin'
Just add the content fee to the bill (Score:2)
I agree with the ISPs on this one (Score:2)
let them use the courts for their civil lawsuit (Score:3)
They say piracy but really its civil. I get these notices to deliver their crap letters to our customers. They want us to roll a truck to deliver them for free. Not one has ever subpoenaed us through the courts. When asked to pay for the truck roll they hang up and refuse. They wan't us as a process server for free. We don't live in the land of the free we live in the land of them fee.
Re:Lol (Score:5, Funny)
Every ISP I've dealt with has required a physical address. And it has to be real. Whenever I give a fake address for my internet service, I end up getting no service at my real address. Also, every ISP I've dealt with has required real payment. Whenever I give the ISP fake payment information, the ISP doesn't get paid and then cuts off my service.
Here is what you can do:
1) Set up a Nevada LLC and use nominee management and registered agent services and get the "physical address in NV" service, which gets you a mailbox with a physical address in NV.
2) Set up an online bank account for the LLC in which you deposit $100,000 in various increments under $10,000 over time.
3) Have the Nevada LLC purchase a house someplace that it can rent for a profit.
4) Using only typed letters and/or an anonymous free email address, get the house rented.
5) Have the LLC set up another LLC, which second LLC will also open a bank account. Rent profits from the first LLC will be depsosited into the account of the second LLC.
6) The second LLC will, using only typed letters and anonymous emails, will rent an apartment adjacent to yours (did I mention you have to live in an apartment complex with an empty apartment next door?). Leave the door unlocked and throw away the keys. Furnish the apartment so it looks legit if searched--you don't want the police to search the apartment and find it furnished solely with a wireless router. Maybe even let a squater liver there for a few days.
7) Have the second LLC order internet for the apartment.
8) Set up a strong wireless router in the apartment with open access. Use that for all your illigitimate stuff. Dont ever use personally identifying information when hooked in to that signal.
9) Also make sure you have your own internet service that you use for the legitimate stuff.
10) When ISP kicks you off for doing illigitimate stuff, have your first LLC set up another largely hidden LLC and bank account, transfer the lease to the new LLC (via letters and emails). Set up new internet service.
The main problem I see with this is the bank accounts. You'll probably need a tax ID number, so you'll need a real SS# for the IRS. And the bank will need a signatory on the account. I don't think of a good way to set this up truly anonymously.
Re: (Score:3)
The main problem I see with this is the bank accounts.
Or the Time and PITA that would be to do.
It's also illegal to make micro-deposits with the aim to undermine the 10k limit. Like that's going to stop anyone from doing it.
Re: (Score:3)
The $10k threshold only applies to cash.
Checks, credit, wires, and anything with a digital trail is exempt since the funds can be traced.
The underlying intent is to prevent money laundering/fraud...but it's from 1970 where $10k was significantly more money (about $60k 2016 $'s). Inflation has quietly make this law much more restrictive to the point where 'normal' people doing 'normal' things can and do trip it up and give big brother an excuse to stick their nose in.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Or you could just use one of the many VPN services around these days to mask your identity.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Shut up, bitch, at least after death stop telling everyone your opinion without anyone ever asking for it.
Re: (Score:2)
Constiwhatnow? Does that thing even still exist? Dude, get with the times, that's so pre-Millennium.
Re: (Score:2)
How about "ISPs fail to fall for flam"?
Newspaper love alliterations in their headlines. Any native speaker find a good F-word for ISP.
No, not THAT one, one that can be printed.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm thinking that any F word at all will do - so long as it's talking about the copyright cartels but as this is the ISP (oddly the good ones in this story) then maybe Flimflam. (It's even a legitimate word and, with some mental gymnastics might most suit.)
Or, Fairpoint is the name of my ISP. Find a few more that start with F.
Fairpoint, F-co, F-c, flimflam, fail to fall for flam.
Sadly, I've been doing alliteration way too often in my posts for the past two weeks or so. I don't mean it. It just happens. :/