ISPs Will Start Acting As Hollywood's Private Online Security Guards By July

from the time-to-find-a-better-ISP dept

Last July, we wrote about how the major ISPs had agreed to a "voluntary" "six strikes" plan (really five strikes, but everyone calls it six...) to start acting as Hollywood's private online security guards. And, by "voluntary" we mean without any input from the actual stake holders (customers) and with significant pressure being applied by the Obama administration. Since then, nothing has been heard, but the RIAA's Cary Sherman has now said that the ISPs involved will roll out their plans by July of this year, a year after the agreement went into place.

Sherman says that the plan had always been to give them a year to deal with the technical aspects of setting up the plan:
"Each isp has to develop their infrastructure for automating the system," Sherman said. They need this "for establishing the database so they can keep track of repeat infringers, so they know that this is the first notice or the third notice. Every ISP has to do it differently depending on the architecture of its particular network. Some are nearing completion and others are a little further from completion."
Funny how, now that the plan is in place, the RIAA has no problem admitting that it required significant infrastructure changes. Somehow I doubt the RIAA is paying for this... meaning that you and I are paying for it with higher fees.

Of course, the real question is what this means for the non-major ISPs who have not agreed to take part in this anti-consumer plan. Will the RIAA and MPAA now start assuming that this is a requirement, despite it not being in the law? That's what they've been doing with content filtering on user-generated content sites now. Multiple lawsuits have pointed out that because YouTube and others have installed upload filters, everyone should have to. I'd imagine it won't be long until they start making the argument that ISPs that don't implement such a plan are "inducing" infringement somehow.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    identicon
    [citation needed or GTFO], Mar 14th, 2012 @ 3:06pm

    Well, crap.

    So, the RIAA managed to win this one, huh?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    kenichi tanaka, Mar 14th, 2012 @ 3:15pm

    The RIAA and the MPAA will scare these other ISPs into thinking that it is law. The problem is that I doubt it will work. because what happens when every subscriber is downloading music and movies? I can tell yoou that ISPs will not simply kick every single subscriber off their internet service.

    Because that will strike a huge blow to their bottom lines and they won't have any subscribers left. I think that this is going to turn into a major headache for ISPs when they start losing hundreds of subscribers. The problem is that these ISPs are not looking at the long term picture, which is the smoke and mirrors that the entertainment industry has clouded them with.

    Just imagine every ISP losing a majority of their subscribers due to this agreement. I think it's going to be a wakeup call and force them to re-evaluate those agreements.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      :Lobo Santo (profile), Mar 14th, 2012 @ 3:25pm

      Re: What if...

      Were I an ISP, I'd send recurring bill for the amount my disconnected customer(s) would have been paying for another year or so of service at their present plan rate(s) to the RIAA & MPAA--and expect them to pay it.

      Those assholes demand I disconnect customers, then they will reimburse me the cost of my lost business.

      Easy.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Mar 14th, 2012 @ 3:50pm

        Re: Re: What if...

        ...and you can call them lost sales, to boot.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Mar 14th, 2012 @ 4:25pm

        Re: Re: What if...

        "Sure, we'll disconnect people for you, but in return, you're paying our lost sales for them, at the price they were paying. No discounts for you, not even if it was business-class. Stop paying us for our lost sales, and we stop bothering to disconnect perfectly fine customers."

        (What, no one said it had to be fair for the MAFIAA ;) )

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Mar 14th, 2012 @ 4:04pm

      Re:

      I said it once, I've said it again, here goes for the third time.

      Nobody is thinking long term. The current mentality is "Grab what you can now, who cares if everything burns down in the process." If they raise extra money now, they get their raises and bonuses, and 5 to 10 years from now when this bubble bursts and all their bullshit catches up with them, it'll be the problem of someone else.

      The RIAA/MPAA does this.
      The politicians do this.
      Even the bankers did this.

      Now lets look at the bankers. The banking industry managed to get the laws changed in their favor (by greasing the palms of the government), so they could rake in the cash. The sub-prime/mortgage bubble formed, burst, and took down the rest of the economy with it. Did those that caused all this get punished for it? No! The people that caused most of the damage all walked away with little to no penalties and huge golden parachutes. We REWARDED their behavior.

      So here we have the RIAA/MPAA, they'll do everything they can to get the laws changed in their favor. They'll try to rake in all the cash they can for the next few years, then once they clog up the judicial system with lawsuits and finally manage to break the Internet, the guys that started all this will be on some Caribbean beach laughing at how they got away with it all.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      gorehound (profile), Mar 14th, 2012 @ 4:23pm

      Re:

      I am on a Boycott of MPAA & RIAA
      So they will never see a dime out of me.I can always be patiuent and wait to buy it used somewhere.No rush any longer for me.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Mar 14th, 2012 @ 6:18pm

      Response to: kenichi tanaka on Mar 14th, 2012 @ 3:15pm

      Getting kicked off is not a remedy. You'll get throttled back so it will take two days to download a movie. .

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        silverscarcat (profile), Mar 14th, 2012 @ 6:44pm

        Re: Response to: kenichi tanaka on Mar 14th, 2012 @ 3:15pm

        I'll just go to some place like Starbucks or a college and do wireless downloads.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    John Fenderson (profile), Mar 14th, 2012 @ 3:16pm

    Time to switch

    I guess it's time to change ISPs to one that isn't a stooge for the *AAs. At least I have until July to do it!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Doug D (profile), Mar 14th, 2012 @ 3:18pm

    Is there an authoritative list of compliant and noncompliant ISPs?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    heebert, Mar 14th, 2012 @ 3:22pm

    leaving...thank god

    What a travesty. Glad I am leaving the country. Regardless, not like there won't be a work around developed in T-minus 3....2......1....

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Drak, Mar 14th, 2012 @ 3:23pm

    This is actually a way for the RIAA/MAFIAA to shut down TOR. 5 strikes and you're no longer an exit node.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Khaim (profile), Mar 14th, 2012 @ 4:51pm

      Re: TOR

      While I don't use TOR myself, I don't think that's correct. If you do your downloading via TOR, then it's encrypted and you won't get any strikes. If you download without TOR, then who cares?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Mar 14th, 2012 @ 6:31pm

        Re: Re: TOR

        TOR exit nodes connect to the internet and their IP's are the ones that appear when logs are made those are the ones that could be shutdown, unless they have some defense against bogus claims since they are not the ones doing the download but being a service.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Mar 14th, 2012 @ 6:59pm

          Re: Re: Re: TOR

          as a side note, using tor for large downloads is kind of a dick thing to do.

          my 2c

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Drak, Mar 14th, 2012 @ 8:36pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: TOR

            I totally agree. Still the point stands as an example of how the system is flawed.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Mar 15th, 2012 @ 3:13am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: TOR

            Not really since the fat pipes being used are from the US, French and German governments trying to do something there.

            Did you guys know that you can reach download speeds of up to 500 kilobytes that is 4 megabits for the IT challenged.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, Mar 15th, 2012 @ 9:01am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: TOR

              ? Downloading large files over a TOR network is a dick move, it has enough traffic as it is without people trying to download movies and cds. If you want to infringe pay for a VPN.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                identicon
                Anonymous Coward, Mar 15th, 2012 @ 12:24pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: TOR

                If you want to infringe pay for a VPN.

                Or just pay for the content.

                Which is what the vast amount of people will choose to do.

                Because it's the easiest.


                This blog is quickly becoming redundant and pointless.

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Mar 14th, 2012 @ 8:44pm

          Re: Re: Re: TOR

          Except that the ISP log entries will only show the connection to the TOR node not to the original source.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Mar 15th, 2012 @ 3:14am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: TOR

            Exactly, that is why they are at risk because they are the ones that will receive all the notices and the ones being shutdown if they don't have any defense.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, Mar 15th, 2012 @ 11:29am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: TOR

              The point is a connection to a TOR node is not a connection to content.

              The way they track get evidence for a DMCA complaint about BitTorrenting is this.

              Someone like SafeNet attempts to download the file using BitTorrent. While it is transferring, They collect all the IPs they are connected to along with the timestamp for the check. They then look all of them up. If these are ISPs, they then contact the ISP with the complaint about the connection at that time. However if they are TOR node IPs, They there isn't an ISP to contact, at least one that that is tied to the specific tranaction by a log entry. If they have an ISP check it's logs for TOR connections? What is the justification for that? Lot's of traffic could go through a connection to a TOR node? Where is any evidence that it was connected to a infringing transfer? You have an anonymous middleman that breaks the paper trail.

              They would have to link the connection THRU the TOR node to the source of the content in order to make the linkage to infringement from looking at the logs.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                identicon
                Anonymous Coward, Mar 15th, 2012 @ 11:35am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: TOR

                And it is likely that the TOR node that you connect thru is somewhere outside the US. No link. All someone has to do is build into TOR the ability to do a lookup and make sure that when you connect to a TOR node, it is not one in the same legal jurisdiction as your original one (in other words outside the US). The ISPs will have logs showing traffic connected to somewhere outside the US and the investigators will have evidence that erroneously suggests someone connected outside the country that they don't have any influence had a connection to the file.

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    bob (spelled backwards), Mar 14th, 2012 @ 3:28pm

    Victory!

    I'm sure there will no errors in reporting, no technical work arounds will be developed to by pass the monitoring and most importantly Hollywood will make even more money than they do now!

    Best of all, it's a victory for the costumers who actually buy content. No longer will they be the only idiots actually paying for stuff!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Mar 14th, 2012 @ 8:03pm

      Response to: bob (spelled backwards) on Mar 14th, 2012 @ 3:28pm

      No idiot. I means the ISPs will jack up their rates to ALL customers to pay for this dog and pony show. It also means that they will placate the Content Cartels by picking some "low hanging fruit" for them and making examples of the most obvious offenders that are the easiest targets. They are not going to kick a large percentage of their customer base off. There will be some headline grabbing stories but no significant change. In the meantime people will become more politically motivated to combat the violations of their privacy caused by these sorts of actions and privacy protection technology will improve to the point where the traffic can no longer be tracked.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    That Anonymous Coward (profile), Mar 14th, 2012 @ 3:28pm

    Actually its time to sue the telcos.

    If they want to take actions based on mere accusations while taking peoples money, then they obviously do not need rights of way or easements. I think its time they start paying for every pole, and returning all public funds they used to expand their networks.

    They are there to provide a service to the people paying them, not some lobbyist group with no actual legal standing in the contract between the customers or the municipalities.

    As has been shown time and time again, this process of detecting infringement is flawed on a serious level. To take away a service that has been paid for without any legal basis seems like a slam dunk class action lawsuit against every ISP taking part in this. This would be akin to Ford/GM/Chrysler coming and taking away your car based on a neighbor calling in they saw a blue car speeding and you own a blue car.

    The process which makes every attempt to look fair, limits the responses to these letters to a very select few choices, all of them leaving out the defenses offered legally and ignoring the best answer of misidentification. It is more of the corporations are always right and you must give into them.

    I could see a court ending someones "right" to internet service, but this avoids the pesky hassle of the law being involved at all. This will lead to more things happening at the ISP level that the end customer will end up subsidizing to make work to keep the **AA's from suing, despite not having the standing to do so.

    I look forward to the FCC explaining how this is all legal and correct, with much spin and feigning ignorance of what is happening.

    IP Rights and Corporate Rights keep trumping the rights of the people. Its time to vote with our wallets, and with lawsuits. There needs to be a clear loud response like the antiSOPA/PIPA campaign that the balance has shifted to far and we are unwilling to accept it any more.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      copyrightsmatter (profile), Mar 14th, 2012 @ 11:32pm

      Re:

      If the ISP has knowledge of a repeat infringer and DOES NOT terminate them, the ISP is liable for $150,000 in civil damages per infringement. In this case, the copyright owners are agreeing not to sue the ISPs in exchange for their cooperation. In America, downloading movies without permission on BitTorrent is a serious violation of the law no different than stealing the movie from a store.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Mar 15th, 2012 @ 1:55am

        Re: Re:

        Citation?

        Y'know, cos I think you just made that up.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Mar 15th, 2012 @ 3:16am

        Re: Re:

        Is so serious I am going right now start pirating 10 DVD's.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        JaseP, Mar 15th, 2012 @ 6:14am

        Re: Re:

        Wrong. It IS different from stealing a movie from a store. Stealing a movie from a store is shoplifting, and in most jurisdictions a misdemeanor. Downloading/Uploading one is a felony, I believe. Go figure that the "crime" that involves a physical act, and the potential for collateral violence is a lessor crime than the one that is pure economic harm... Priorities, I guess.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        ChrisB (profile), Mar 15th, 2012 @ 7:17am

        Re: Re:

        > serious violation of the law no different than stealing
        > the movie from a store.

        The closest analogy to infringing is fare-evasion. Look at the penalties for fare-evasion to see how far out of line the law for infringing are.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Mar 15th, 2012 @ 1:11pm

        Re: Re:

        No this is NOT a legal requirement on the part of the ISP. This is an AGREEMENT between the ISPs and the Content Cartels that the ISP MAY take one of the listed actions. They are not OBLIGATED by law or anything else to do so.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        That Anonymous Coward (profile), Mar 16th, 2012 @ 2:07pm

        Re: Re:

        When you pull your head from the dark place you keep it, would you care to cover how the ISP is to know they are repeat infringers?
        Are you suggesting they are tapping the communications moving over their network without legal basis to do such?
        Would you care to answer the legal problems with the **AA's using unlicensed "investigators" to provide "evidence" that can not stand up to a court case?
        Would you care to answer questions about the glaring holes in this identification technology?
        Would you care to answer the liability issues when the ISPs often provide unsecured WiFi routers to their customers, which would allow unknown parties to cause problems for the customer under this plan?

        Copy - We both end up with something.
        Steal - You no longer have it.

        You seem to have a real problem dealing with reality, seek medication.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    BreadGod (profile), Mar 14th, 2012 @ 3:36pm

    Does that mean they'll start monitoring stuff I download from cyberlocker sites like Mediafire and Depositfiles?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Rekrul, Mar 14th, 2012 @ 6:43pm

      Re:

      Does that mean they'll start monitoring stuff I download from cyberlocker sites like Mediafire and Depositfiles?

      No.

      The ISP itself won't be monitoring anything. The anti-piracy groups will be monitoring file sharing networks to see who is uploading copyrighted files. They may also go after the people who upload to cyberlocker sites. However, there is no legal method that can be used to monitor what a person downloads from cyberlockers, or newsgroups.

      At most, the cyberlocker site might keep download logs (although many claim that they don't), and if they had access to them, they could see which IP addresses have downloaded which files. However, that's no cause for alarm. It's not practical to go after people who have only downloaded and not uploaded. With uploading, they can claim that an unknown number of copies were distributed, but with downloading, all they can prove is that one copy was made by you. They might possibly try to scare you into paying a settlement, but it wouldn't be cost-effective to actually sue you. It would probably cost them more in lawyers' fees than they would get from a win.

      I doubt that any cyberlocker downloaders will ever get in trouble.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Paul, Mar 14th, 2012 @ 3:38pm

    RIAA live in a dream world

    Yeah right, what kind of business model says you (ISPs) harass your customers and increase your churn rate just to placate a 3rd party? Unless the RIAA are offering to refund lost customer revenue and somehow cover the amount of bad-will this kind of customer service will generate, I seriously doubt ANYTHING will happen.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anon, Mar 14th, 2012 @ 3:47pm

    Cause I'm too stupid to start using a seedbox or a VPN connection. What a fail.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Mar 14th, 2012 @ 4:32pm

      Re:

      I use a SOCKS proxy in an undisclosed location outside of the US to torrent files. Costs me a few bucks a month. Yee haw!

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Bob Bunderfeld, Mar 14th, 2012 @ 3:57pm

    Well, we could just educate the masses

    How about Blogs like Techdirt start educating the masses on how to get an account on a true anonymous proxy server, like ipredator.se.

    Then ipredator.se can educate those masses on how to setup such connections and download files.

    Suddenly the ISP's are blind to what their Customers are doing and all that money spent on upgrading their Infrastructures become a waste.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      That Anonymous Coward (profile), Mar 14th, 2012 @ 4:15pm

      Re: Well, we could just educate the masses

      Oh no, the notices will still come form the **AA's. They systems the ISPs are putting into place are just to let them automatically match time/date/ip address to a customer and forward on the notice.

      Because if they actively started monitoring what customers were doing with their connection they would be in a world of hurt. Its ok when the Feds do it, but not when random corporation does it... yet.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        BreadGod (profile), Mar 14th, 2012 @ 4:39pm

        Re: Re: Well, we could just educate the masses

        So I take it they won't monitor what I download from cyberlocker sites or am I getting things wrong?

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          That Anonymous Coward (profile), Mar 14th, 2012 @ 8:01pm

          Re: Re: Re: Well, we could just educate the masses

          currently they do not, but given the massive push by the **AA's to get more "laws"...
          If they were found to be listening in on what customers were doing it would be a serious problem for them, until they staple an amendment to a law.

          That is another problem with 6 strikes is it is clear as mud as to how the system works, who is providing what, and what it actually means.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Mar 14th, 2012 @ 6:28pm

      Re: Well, we could just educate the masses

      Ipredator is not a true anonymous proxy server, they could and probably will be compelled by governments to maintain and have logs of who is connecting to them.

      I2P, darknets and others on the other hand are more anonymous and secure than any VPN service will ever be.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Ed (profile), Mar 14th, 2012 @ 4:02pm

    Bring on the VPNs!

    Thankfully, there are several offshore VPN services that work quite well. F*** you, Cary Sherman.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Nigel (profile), Mar 14th, 2012 @ 4:07pm

    Crowdfund ads

    I can see its time to start crowdfunding full page ads in newspapers to better illuminate the issue with ISP's.

    N.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    That Anonymous Coward (profile), Mar 14th, 2012 @ 4:17pm

    On the upside from the list in the article it appears to be the cable players involved who have their own special interests to look after as well.

    As many of them are granted monopoly access to many cities and areas this means people cut off will not have any other options... I expect lots of fun lawsuits.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 14th, 2012 @ 4:20pm

    leave isp's that do this.. simple.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Mar 14th, 2012 @ 4:36pm

      Re:

      Is there a list of ISPs who are rolling over for the MAFIAA? Another list with ISPs that aren't playing Hollywood's game?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      That Anonymous Coward (profile), Mar 14th, 2012 @ 8:02pm

      Re:

      And for those people in areas only under-served by 1 ISP because the local lawmakers decided giving them a monopoly was the best way to help their citizens?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Chosen Reject (profile), Mar 14th, 2012 @ 4:25pm

    Coercive Acts

    Why do I get the feeling that we've been down this road before:

    Boston Port Act: Represented by all of the domain takedowns, including TVShack.net and megaupload. Also consider the DMCA's notice-and-takedown provision.

    Massachusetts Government Act: Represented by this deal with the ISPs encouraged by the Obama administration.

    Administration of Justice Act: Represented partly by SOPA, partly by the extradition of Richard O'Dwyer.

    Quartering Act: Represented by the takedown tool that Hotfile gave to the MPAA and which WB abused, content filtering by YouTube being abused by Universal, etc.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    MrWilson, Mar 14th, 2012 @ 4:28pm

    Cutting someone off the internet for copyright infringement is like starving someone to death for throwing food. The method of punishment is ignorant of the other possible uses for the tool with which the perpetrator broke the law.

    But I guess since the entertainment industry thinks that only their content is worth anything, then everyone on the internet must be pirating their content, so everyone on the internet is a criminal.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 14th, 2012 @ 4:30pm

    You should've been more specific with telling them to get a new business model, because the RIAA's definition of "new business model" is to treat everyone like criminals and ATMs.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 14th, 2012 @ 5:02pm

    Which ISP's are NOT on that absurd plan? I need to switch immediately.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      That Anonymous Coward (profile), Mar 14th, 2012 @ 8:03pm

      Re:

      They have in the past refused to say.
      The Cnet article linked above lists the players you would expect. If they are part of a "media conglomerate" they signed on.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 14th, 2012 @ 5:13pm

    But, but, but I thought music was going to become officially free and the major labels were all going to die?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Overcast (profile), Mar 14th, 2012 @ 5:39pm

    Maybe the ISP's should copyright the logs and charge exorbitant fees - like Hollywood - for the rights to use them.. :)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Overcast (profile), Mar 14th, 2012 @ 5:40pm

    To add: I mean - WHAT entitles Hollywood or anyone to the ISP's log files? Wouldn't the ISP have the same 'rights' claim to the logs their servers generate as Hollywood has to a movie?

    Why not?

    Why should Hollywood, even for a second, expect these for free?

    That's what this is all about, right?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      That Anonymous Coward (profile), Mar 14th, 2012 @ 8:08pm

      Re:

      Because every single bit of "enforcement" of their imaginary property rights has come at the cost of someone else.

      Hotfile paid for and developed a tool to keep WB from suing.
      Youtube developed and paid for Content ID to keep them from suing.
      DMCA places the burden on service providers to jump when a content holder says jump... even when it is obvious they are wrong. There is no penalty for being wrong.
      They get the police to sweep swap meets looking for counterfeit merchandise.
      They get the FBI to arrest people for providing links in foriegn countries.

      They have been after this for a while, and 6 strikes is just the fall back position. They have been paying Congresscritters and even at the state level for laws requiring ISPs to log every connection users make for YEARS... hiding behind won't you think of the children.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      copyrightsmatter (profile), Mar 14th, 2012 @ 11:27pm

      Re:

      Because in the United States copying and distributing copyrighted material via BitTorrent is illegal without the copyright owners permission 17 USC 106 and the infringer is liable for up to $150,000 in damages per infringement. If the ISP had knowledge of a repeat infringer and did not terminate them, the ISP is liable for the $150,000 per infringement. Also, when the copyright owner issues a subpoena to the ISP, the ISP must produce the name of the infringer or be held in contempt of court. That is why they reveal the identities. In America, the law sees little difference between downloading a movie on BitTorrent and stealing it from Walmart, its just harder to prove it.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        techflaws.org (profile), Mar 14th, 2012 @ 11:46pm

        Re: Re:

        So no section 230?

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Mike Masnick (profile), Mar 14th, 2012 @ 11:46pm

        Re: Re:

        Because in the United States copying and distributing copyrighted material via BitTorrent is illegal without the copyright owners permission 17 USC 106 and the infringer is liable for up to $150,000 in damages per infringement.

        That's not accurate. It *may* be illegal under 106, but that depends on many factors. Declaring it absolutely illegal is simply wrong.

        Separately, $150,000 is the statutory maximum for *willful* infringement, which is a much higher bar and unlikely to be matched in mere downloading cases. It's misleading to use the $150,000 number.

        If the ISP had knowledge of a repeat infringer and did not terminate them, the ISP is liable for the $150,000 per infringement.

        You might want to brush up on the specifics of the law around secondary liability, because you're a bit confused. An ISP needs to have a policy to deal with repeat infringers -- but that's specific to infringers called out via DMCA takedowns.

        None of that requires them to be Hollywood's personal copyright cops.

        Also, when the copyright owner issues a subpoena to the ISP, the ISP must produce the name of the infringer or be held in contempt of court.

        Again, you seem to have a somewhat questionable understanding of the law. There are certain situations under which they have to reveal names, and they already do so. But there are others where they can and do fight on behalf of their user's rights.

        In America, the law sees little difference between downloading a movie on BitTorrent and stealing it from Walmart, its just harder to prove it.

        Um. Actually that's not true *AT ALL*.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Josef Anvil (profile), Mar 15th, 2012 @ 1:01am

        Re: Re: You Win!!!

        If Mike won't do it, then I will.

        You win the award for Most Uninformed Comment of the Week!!!


        Yay! You can download your award at TPB.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Machin Shin (profile), Mar 14th, 2012 @ 5:56pm

    So I guess this is their idea of punishment fitting the crime. Someone used the internet to steal our stuff so we shall take their internet. Who cares that in this day in age taking away the internet is crippling to most people.

    The internet is not some simple commodity anymore. It is needed if you are to function in society.

    Another really interesting question. What they hell they think will happen when they do this? You think if you take away my home connection you will keep me off the internet? If so you are a bigger idiot than I thought possible.

    Go ahead and take my internet. I know where McDonnalds is as well as about 100 other hot spots and that is out here in middle of nowhere farming country. So what you going to shut them down too? Hell why not just pull the plug on the whole internet. That is the only way to stop it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      That Anonymous Coward (profile), Mar 14th, 2012 @ 8:12pm

      Re:

      The flaw is they can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt (criminal standard) or even a preponderance of the evidence (civil standard) that someone did use the internet to "steal" from them.

      They can MAYBE prove someone reporting using an IP address (which can and will be faked or hacked into the WiFi signal) downloaded some material. The odds of them getting the "right" person by going after the name on the bill is actually really low.

      They tried to pull the plug... SOPA/PIPA... and they are working on getting the entire US IP banned around the world from unique useful services because they fear the US sending in a heavily armed swat team to arrest them.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 14th, 2012 @ 6:05pm

    So.... is there a list of the ISP's going along with this?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Idwal (profile), Mar 14th, 2012 @ 6:07pm

    Charter Communications

    Can anybody confirm my research that Charter Communications is not in on the Six Strikes deal? I'm planning on switching my internet over to them, just on principle.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      That Anonymous Coward (profile), Mar 14th, 2012 @ 10:26pm

      Re: Charter Communications

      I can't see them not being on the list. Charter recently has been the single target of many mass john doe lawsuits. The trolls have found other ISPs to put up a fight or not going fast enough, and I've seen hundreds of IPs on lists in recent cases all belonging to Charter.

      I would directly ask a Charter representative and make your taking service from them contingent on them not joining 6 strikes. The **AA's are not forthcoming with details, and questions asked when this program was initially pitched to the ISPs resulted in lots of nonanswers.

      https://torrentfreak.com/u-s-anti-piracy-police-kept-secret-from-the-public-110811/

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    DigitalDao (profile), Mar 14th, 2012 @ 6:30pm

    Is this much different than what some of the ISPs are doing already?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    mr pitt, Mar 14th, 2012 @ 6:41pm

    Something to consider

    My understanding, is that it is not the downloading that is what is actually (technically) illegal. It is when you upload a file to be shared or directly share some sort of copy written material. In the case of Bittorrent, because you are sharing/re-sharing a given file as you download it, you are "guilty" of infringement.

    If you download and don't re-share, because the file is freely given, you are not actually in violation of any law.I could be wrong, but I am pretty sure I am not.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Mar 14th, 2012 @ 8:52pm

      Re: Something to consider

      To be accurate, one who simply downloads can be deemed to have violated the reproduction right under copyright law (i.e., making a copy). However, it would be an unusual situation indeed for a mere download to rise above "noise" level.

      The much bigger issue of concern is associated with uploads that enable what is in essence the worldwide distribution of a protected work, and perhaps even a public performance of that work.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        That Anonymous Coward (profile), Mar 14th, 2012 @ 10:31pm

        Re: Re: Something to consider

        You might want to do a Search for USCG here.
        There are currently hundred of thousands of people who have been targeted in mass John Doe lawsuits for allegedly having downloaded via BitTorrent.
        The porn version of this shakedown has targeted the blind and the elderly.

        This is about stopping uploading and downloading, having access to everything you do online and making sure they approve of what your doing.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Mike Masnick (profile), Mar 14th, 2012 @ 11:20pm

      Re: Something to consider

      My understanding, is that it is not the downloading that is what is actually (technically) illegal

      Your understanding is incorrect. Copyright has separate rights -- including (among others) both a reproduction right and a distribution right. Downloading an unauthorized file may violate the reproduction right. Uploading may violate the distribution right.

      The reason you are confused is that downloaders are rarely targeted by the industry -- mainly because it's harder to find them. Uploaders are easier to find because they're broadcasting their IP address and the file they're offering.

      Of course, with the rise of BitTorrent swarms and such, there's been more of an effort to go after downloaders as well.

      If you download and don't re-share, because the file is freely given, you are not actually in violation of any law.I could be wrong, but I am pretty sure I am not.

      Yeah, that's almost entirely incorrect.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anon I Mouse Card, Mar 14th, 2012 @ 7:23pm

    Just say no to paying

    Just say no to paying, and download, share, and post all the movies and tv shows you can until these asshats get a clue that this is NOT a battle they can win! I quit TV 6 years ago, and only go to the movies once in awhile (like 2-3 times a year) with my wife because there is some movie worth watching on the big screen. Everything else that I am interested in I download from file sharing sites. Would I pay for streaming? Yes if all of the following applied:

    1. I could timeshift it so I could download at night and play it the next day, or whenever - just like I do now!The stuttering you get with direct streaming is just too much pain to deal with, especially if your system is doing something on the internet, which in our case is not uncommon being that we are scientists and engineers and have a lot of network activities going on.
    2. There was no DRM and it will play on Linux on my preferred video players, or streamed to my TV set.
    3. The cost for unlimited streaming was under $20/month - I figure that's about how much of my high-speed DSL bandwidth I use now.
    4. TV shows and movies would be available at the time of broadcast or theater display. None of this windowing crap. Like I said, we do go to theaters occasionally, but a lot of the time we want to watch in the comfort of our home, a glass of good Scotch in hand.

    FWIW, we still buy DVD's - sometimes very expensive boxed sets of stuff we really like. BluRay? Fergeddaboudit! One, I am totally boycotting anything that Sony is associated with. Two, the DRM they use make it impossible to create a backup disc copy in any reasonable way.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Mar 14th, 2012 @ 8:11pm

      Re: Just say no to paying

      typical freetard, you want it all and you figure 20 bucks is all it should cost, what wrong you are "scientists and engineers" and you can't figure out the real cost of all your freeloading???

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Mar 15th, 2012 @ 3:25am

        Re: Re: Just say no to paying

        The cost of all freeloading is zero.
        If it can be procured and acquired for nothing than it costs nothing.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        ChrisB (profile), Mar 15th, 2012 @ 7:28am

        Re: Re: Just say no to paying

        Most freetards were once paying customers who were fed up with:
        - Buying a CD after hearing the single on the radio and the rest of the album is sh!t.
        - Buying a PC game and finding it doesn't work on your computer but there is no way to get a refund.
        - Buying a movie on DVD only to have the "special edition" come out 6 months later with extras.
        - Having to put up with ridiculous DRM that makes many games unplayable in certain situations, and the publisher doesn't care.

        You think freetards just sprung into existence in a vacuum? It is years of abuse that created this backlash. Pull your head out of your ass.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 14th, 2012 @ 9:06pm

    The real effect...

    They started a fire with the DMCA. They kept adding fuel to it steadily until it got bigger and bigger. They kept pouring gasoline on it until SOPA/PIPA blew up in their face and they got burned but they refuse to learn. They will keep pouring gasoline on it until it kills them.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    copyrightsmatter (profile), Mar 14th, 2012 @ 9:50pm

    Why Does Techdirt Support Organized Crime?

    Copyright is in the United States constitution. It is not going anywhere. BitTorrent copies and distributes content without the creator's permission, violating their rights. It would be incredibly easy for BitTorrent to maintain an opt-in list by hash that creators could register when they WANT their work distributed for free. Does Techdirt promote that? No, that would be a move towards innovation and against theft. For the author's opinions on copyright to become reality (that filesharing of copyrighted material without the creator's permission is here to stay and media companies just don't get it), it would take an amendment to the Constitution to overturn the copyright clause in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. That means that both houses of Congress by a two thirds majority and three quarters of all state legislatures would have to vote to repeal copyright law. Rather than promoting the fantasy of an America with no copyright laws, lets hear about some ideas, some innovation. If Techdirt truly promotes innovation rather than theft, the author would be suggesting ways to work within the laws of the United States to make the Internet work for everyone, not just search engines, internet ad networks and ISPs who make 20 to 40 times more than money the RIAA and MPAA member companies. The search engines, internet ad networks and ISPs make billions distributing content that they pay nothing for.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Mike Masnick (profile), Mar 14th, 2012 @ 11:26pm

      Re: Why Does Techdirt Support Organized Crime?

      Copyright is in the United States constitution. It is not going anywhere.

      I don't think you understand much of what you're speaking about.

      Copyright is not required by the Constitution. The Constitution gives Congress the power -- *should it choose* -- to create copyright law *IF* it "promotes the progress of science." That's it.

      There is no guarantee of copyright in the Constitution. Thinking that there is suggests you are ill-informed.

      It would be incredibly easy for BitTorrent to maintain an opt-in list by hash that creators could register when they WANT their work distributed for free.

      I don't think you understand what BitTorrent is. It's just a protocol.

      The search engines, internet ad networks and ISPs make billions distributing content that they pay nothing for.

      Okay. You don't understand the internet either.

      So you don't understand copyright, you don't understand BitTorrent and you don't understand the internet. Might help to start with the basics before we get into a larger discussion on specifics.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        copyrightsmatter (profile), Mar 15th, 2012 @ 4:38pm

        Re: Re: Why Does Techdirt Support Organized Crime?

        That is not correct. BitTorrent is a protocol and a venture-backed company that has received more than $40 million in capital from groups like Accel Partners.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        copyrightsmatter (profile), Mar 15th, 2012 @ 4:44pm

        Re: Re: Why Does Techdirt Support Organized Crime?

        I understand perfectly how internet ad networks work. Google "Katy Perry Download," the most popular keywords related to people searching for Katy Perry music. The #1 link is on isohunt. Clicking on that link displays a page with four ads served by internet ad networks. If you printed a publication that sold ads featuring stolen merchandise, you would get arrested. If these internet ad networks were law abiding businesses, they would prevent their ads from being served on pages that advertise stolen merchandise.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Mar 15th, 2012 @ 10:12pm

          Re: Re: Re: Why Does Techdirt Support Organized Crime?

          Too much logic and facts for the bozos on this pro-piracy blog.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Mar 16th, 2012 @ 2:10am

        Re: Re: Why Does Techdirt Support Organized Crime?

        And you don't understand how to argue convincingly.

        The world must really suck for you now, Masnick. You bet on the wrong horse and will forever be spending your days complaining about it here.

        I'd say sad, but you're a total douchebag that deserves all the horrible karma that's started to come your way. Karma that won't be ending.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          RadialSkid (profile), Mar 16th, 2012 @ 10:05am

          Re: Re: Re: Why Does Techdirt Support Organized Crime?

          I'd say sad, but you're a total douchebag that deserves all the horrible karma that's started to come your way. Karma that won't be ending.

          Your industry is getting - and will continue to get - a very hard lesson in that. You're beyond salvation at this point...I won't be satisfied with anything less than complete destruction.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Mar 17th, 2012 @ 2:49pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Why Does Techdirt Support Organized Crime?

            Then it looks like you're facing a lifetime of dissatisfaction.

            US recorded music sales started rising after Limewire was shuttered, and have continued to rise.

            This summer's six strikes laws will move more people to legal options like itunes, spotify, etc.

            The US government will continue it's crackdown on piracy.

            The golden age for music pirates is over.

            You just don't want to accept that.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Mar 15th, 2012 @ 3:28am

      Re: Why Does Techdirt Support Organized Crime?

      Good luck finding anyone to use that bittorrent client anywhere LoL

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Mar 16th, 2012 @ 12:23am

      Re: Why Does Techdirt Support Organized Crime?

      >search engines, internet ad networks and ISPs who make 20 to 40 times more than money the RIAA and MPAA member companies

      Funny, I don't remember those companies making money to the point that they give their CEOs $50 million dollar bonuses.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    copyrightsmatter (profile), Mar 14th, 2012 @ 9:51pm

    Why Does Techdirt Support Organized Crime?

    Copyright is in the United States constitution. It is not going anywhere. BitTorrent copies and distributes content without the creator's permission, violating their rights. It would be incredibly easy for BitTorrent to maintain an opt-in list by hash that creators could register when they WANT their work distributed for free. Does Techdirt promote that? No, that would be a move towards innovation and against theft. For the author's opinions on copyright to become reality (that filesharing of copyrighted material without the creator's permission is here to stay and media companies just don't get it), it would take an amendment to the Constitution to overturn the copyright clause in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. That means that both houses of Congress by a two thirds majority and three quarters of all state legislatures would have to vote to repeal copyright law. Rather than promoting the fantasy of an America with no copyright laws, lets hear about some ideas, some innovation. If Techdirt truly promotes innovation rather than theft, the author would be suggesting ways to work within the laws of the United States to make the Internet work for everyone, not just search engines, internet ad networks and ISPs who make 20 to 40 times more than money the RIAA and MPAA member companies. The search engines, internet ad networks and ISPs make billions distributing content that they pay nothing for.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 15th, 2012 @ 1:08am

    so this is a perfectly acceptable circumstance for monitoring a member of the publics privacy

    Another fuck you to the constitution by the very system thats suppose to uphold it

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 15th, 2012 @ 3:23am

    instead of falling over together, all ISPs should have stood up together and sided with their customers against these self-righteous arse holes! and it isn't costing the industries a cent. how stupid does it have to get?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Boo Boo, Mar 15th, 2012 @ 3:27am

    ya so it goes on.

    ' We reserve the right to monitor and inspect each and every packet of data you send or receive over your internet connection provided by us '

    'In the event you are found to be either uploading, downloading,streaming, any content that is copyrighted by a 3rd party we reserve the right to disconnect you from our service and report you to the appropriate authorities '

    ' We are under no obligation to ensure the content in question is actually infringing copyrights owned by a 3rd party '

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Violated (profile), Mar 15th, 2012 @ 4:20am

    Welcome to the era of encrypted links. Everyone has the right to privacy and anonymity then not many like being spied upon.

    VPN in Europe would be the ideal but there are many other options.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Michael, Mar 15th, 2012 @ 5:32am

    ...Since when did it become the people's responsibility to "protect" Hollywood and the music labels' interests? What, are their movies and music really so important that they can afford to jeopardize the integrity of the internet and threaten upstarts and tech companies to the point where they move abroad? That oughta have a nice ripple effect on the economy. But hey, everyone can sleep easy with the knowledge that they *finally* nabbed that vicious 12-year old criminal who uploaded Rocky III and will be suing him for $1,000,000,000,000,000 in purported damages.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    CN, Mar 15th, 2012 @ 5:55am

    Automation

    Each isp has to develop their infrastructure for automating the system,"

    Yeah, because we all know how well automation works for this sort of thing! ;)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    CN, Mar 15th, 2012 @ 5:59am

    And then one day someone hacks the database.

    They need this "for establishing the database so they can keep track of repeat infringers, so they know that this is the first notice or the third notice.

    And then one day someone hacks the database, and an ISP has to disconnect every single customer.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    An Anonymous Nerd, Mar 15th, 2012 @ 7:08am

    This is nothing to worry, it will backfire

    Honestly...first of all, ISPs will lose their subscribers (thank goodness neither me or my family are subscribed to THEM) and panic, and then undo it, if that does not work...its only a matter of time until before someone has The Supreme Court involved since this is not a law, also these ISPs might not even follow a damn thing the RIAA and MPAA want, and at least the don't censor us out for good, this thing is flawed and won't effect us because of public backlash, ISPs not really doing what MPAA and RIAA say as they have in the past, plus someone might takes this to Supreme Court, this thing will collapse before it even does anything

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Overcast (profile), Mar 15th, 2012 @ 7:18am

    typical freetard, you want it all and you figure 20 bucks is all it should cost, what wrong you are "scientists and engineers" and you can't figure out the real cost of all your freeloading???

    For many of us - we don't download copy-written content that we know we shouldn't for free.

    I know that downloading the latest Universal Pictures movie off of torrent is illegal.

    However....

    There are hours upon hours of free content on the web - that's 100% legit free. YouTube is an example, Hulu, Crackle, and many others.

    But yes - $20.00 for a digital file is a outright rip off and I won't pay it - content or not.

    I pay LESS than that per month for a Movie Channel on Cable - that movie channel offers me the ability to watch movies on-line or watch them on-demand. All I want, all month for $16.00 - why in God's name would I want to pay $20.00 for a single movie? LOL

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Dave, Mar 15th, 2012 @ 7:18am

    Scary

    I presume that this is only in the States at present but you know what they say about the UK (my location) following on later.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Overcast (profile), Mar 15th, 2012 @ 7:23am

    Wrong. It IS different from stealing a movie from a store. Stealing a movie from a store is shoplifting, and in most jurisdictions a misdemeanor. Downloading/Uploading one is a felony, I believe. Go figure that the "crime" that involves a physical act, and the potential for collateral violence is a lessor crime than the one that is pure economic harm... Priorities, I guess.

    It is quite different I do agree. Stealing the movie from the store takes from the store - they bought the movie to re-sell it. Stealing the movie causes them provable financial loss.

    Making a copy of a digital file that can be replicated infinitely is certainly different. While I will agree that in most cases it is in fact illegal - I must also add that copyright law is non-functional in it's current form for the digital age and I'll also add, it's an injustice to the public to keep copyrights in force for so many years.

    It's also theft from the US taxpayer to bring up frivolous lawsuit after frivolous lawsuit as well. I would like to see someone take that to task as well - might be a good soapbox for a politician to run on even...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Overcast (profile), Mar 15th, 2012 @ 7:37am


    You think freetards just sprung into existence in a vacuum? It is years of abuse that created this backlash. Pull your head out of your ass.


    I copied more music onto Cassette from the Radio in the 80's than I have digital music, LOL!

    At least without owning it. Now I buy a used CD for a buck or less sometimes at the local pawn shop - rip to MP3 and put the CD in the closest.

    Funny thing is really, unless you want the NEWEST stuff, you can find so much used stuff out there for dirt cheap - it's almost not worth illegally downloading it. And the 'best deals online' for media is quite misleading. Used CD shops, pawn shops, thrift stores, flea markets commonly have movies and CD's for a buck or two.

    When it comes to movies - I figure I'll just run a year or two behind, pay my $16.00 a month for a movie channel + on-demand, and that's all I really need to pay. I do buy some DVD's - but knowing now how much of a rip-off they are at traditional prices - I buy few, and they are almost always gifts now.

    If it wasn't for recording devices - Hollywood and the Music Industry wouldn't even exist now - would they?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Overcast (profile), Mar 15th, 2012 @ 7:40am

    so this is a perfectly acceptable circumstance for monitoring a member of the publics privacy

    Another fuck you to the constitution by the very system thats suppose to uphold it


    Bingo.

    If the government, corporations, and such don't have to follow the law - why does the public?

    I do out of personal moral reasons that have nothing to do with government. But that's a personal choice.

    In terms of the "rule of law" - Government doesn't follow it, so I don't see what obligates the public to follow it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Digger, Mar 15th, 2012 @ 8:36am

    I'm sure they haven't really thought this through very well...

    If they are now monitoring for any kind of content, then they are now responsible for 100% of all content flowing through their pipes.

    This means they are culpable for things like child pornography, as well as copyright violations.

    Anyone who is caught doing any of these things, their ISP (if one of the ones monitoring) is also legally responsible, because they allowed the traffic through.

    Remember folks, if you're restricting or monitoring traffic for some things, you become responsible for EVERYTHING that happens on your network.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 15th, 2012 @ 9:22am

    How will they know if you download? What about streaming?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    BreadGod (profile), Mar 15th, 2012 @ 9:47am

    I find it hilarious how the entertainment industry still believes that piracy is an "ignorance" problem. They seem to believe that if people only knew that piracy is illegal, then they'd stop pirating. How fucking naive are they? People already know that piracy is illegal, but they don't care. And besides, tech-savvy kids are always one step ahead of all the ISPs and the entertainment industry. I'm confident that they'll find many ways around this.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    rolland, Mar 15th, 2012 @ 11:30pm

    money talks

    Funny how isp's are concerned with who gets free copies of "beetlejuice", but yet have no interest in trackng the fake "virus software" companies that spread viruses and destroy computers with trojans unless you pay for their services... Just more corporate hypocracy and greed

    The internet is a luxury just like cable TV...get a digital antennae for your TV, if you feel the need to watch TV, and disconnect your cable...boycott comcast and the others....just pay a few dollars and use telephone connections if you want to look at some blogs or whatever because the internet will be otherwise useless anyways...

    You can't run any type of interent business with other isp businesses having access, automated or otherwise, to all of your business dealings, proprietary and otherwise....attorney-client privledge and doctor-patient privledge is destroyed...all your actions will be monitored by the CIA and predatory ISP companies

    If the billion dollar entertainment industry is willing to destroy constitutional rights for greed, then boycott the entertainment industry..its only entertainment..and the artisitic quality and substance is at an all-time low...if they don't want you to have it unless they can extort whatever prices they deem appropriate..then you're better of without it

    Go outside and get some freah air...and let the greedy companies go broke and rot in hell

    It all sounds like more "operation garden plot" i.e suspension of constitutional rights, development of a socialistic police state

    Its time for real americans to speak up for their freedoms and resist the corprorate culture of greed destroying this country...before its to late

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    The Liberty Tree, Mar 16th, 2012 @ 12:53am

    We must act in response to the greased politicians and their corporate lobbying groups.

    They have the media influence..."soapbox"
    They (lawmakers and the Hollywood cartel lobby) have the majority votes in Congress..."ballot"
    They have the federal (DMCA/PRO-IP) courts on their side..."jury"

    The only thing that WE THE PEOPLE still have at this time is AMMO. Do not wait further until all things are in their favor - liberty ONLY exists when ALL people band together for a common greater cause! Hear our voice! Don't tread on us! May God forbid that we have to resort to ambush killings and roadside EFP's against these people upon our constitutional rights! These decrepit, unholy, and degenerate Hollywood scum can only go so far in destroying the lives of common folk by subjecting them to UNFAIR AND COSTLY lawsuits. Given time, the PEOPLE will say ENOUGH IS ENOUGH and they will RISE UP! You reap what you sow!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      The Liberty Tree, Mar 16th, 2012 @ 12:55am

      Re: We must act in response to the greased politicians and their corporate lobbying groups.

      ADDENDUM:

      against these people WHO STEP UPON our constitutional rights!

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      copyrightsmatter (profile), Mar 16th, 2012 @ 1:46pm

      Re: We must act in response to the greased politicians and their corporate lobbying groups.

      Facts are stubborn things. Search engines, internet ad networks and ISPs make 10 to 20 times more money than the music and movie industries depending on how you size them. Annual revenues: Google $44B, Verizon $120B,Viacom (Paramount, CBS $14B), WMG $2.4B. The US home video (BluRay, DVD, VOD, PPV, Streaming) was approx. $18B in 2011, down from $25B in 2006. Music was $6B in 2011 down from $12B in 2000. According to Sandvine 18% of US Internet traffic is P2P filesharing (top 10,000 torrents all violate copyright - Envisional) and 5% is used for sites like Megaupload. Meanwhile ISP, search engine and internet ad networks book record profits (Google $14B profit last year - double the entire music industry revenues) and growth on the backs of stolen content. Search engines and internet ad networks make billions from selling ads to point people to these links without compensating content creators. ISPs make billions distributing this content illegally and spend four times as much as content industries in lobbying. At least labels actual paid the creators.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        HumbleForeigner (profile), Mar 16th, 2012 @ 7:25pm

        Re: Re: We must act in response to the greased politicians and their corporate lobbying groups.

        Hmm, a few points that you may want to take into account:
        1. ISP's are not distributing a thing, their customers may be, but they aren't
        2. Labels are not paying the creators, refer to Kenny Rogers and other artists being cheated by the label
        3. Google was built on providing search results, the ranking of said results determined by what people are actually selecting

        So yes, facts are stubborn things.

        And lest you bring up the decline in the Music industries profits, please read the following:
        http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120210/11270617732/how-much-collapse-recorded-music-s ales-revenue-was-due-to-end-illegal-price-fixing.shtml
        And realise that, yes, your revenue will drop once you are prevented from illegal price fixing. That and the fact that the labels are producing very little that is worth spending money on, so people will get from iTunes etc. the one or 2 tracks that they want.

        If the Music industry wants to increase revenues:
        start producing quality that people will pay for
        start making it easier and more convenient for us to buy the music
        stop treating your customers as thieves
        stop treating the artists you rely on as serf's

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    zhysay, Mar 17th, 2012 @ 11:44pm

    unlawful and unwarranted search and seizure

    I may be mistaken in this however, and please correct me if I am. In order for any of the ISP protocols to work it would involve searching our data streams. It is not unreasonable to demand that laws in the 3-D world carry over to the internet. By this I mean that the government nor any other parcel delivery service can rummage thru our packages without getting court approval for that individual item. Why should our data packets be treated any differently?

    Orwell was a fucking optimist.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Jerry, Mar 20th, 2012 @ 12:05pm

    July 4th Boycott

    DO NOT buy any music/movies starting July 4th !!!
    After a few weeks of silence, see what happens.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    rolland, Mar 26th, 2012 @ 6:23am

    money talks again

    Exactly...DO NOT BUY ANYTHING from the corporate entertainment military industrial complex

    These same theives that are complaining about money are putting on shows like "celebrity house hunting" where, in this economy, they are debating lightly whether to buy the 6 million or 15 million dollar homes !!!

    obviously the fans have taken good care of them financially because most of the "celebritys" that stoop to do this crap haven't done any serious work in years...but yet they still have enough to blow on extravagant mansions

    Don't support them at all if the entertainment industry has such contempt for its fans so as to wage "cybwe-war" against its customers

    instead support local artists who the industry ignores, local musical artists and theatrical artists actually trying to make someting good...

    with today's technology ...the entertainment industry is becoming obsolete anyways... because you can produce high quality products with realtively cheap equipment that you can get at bestbuy.

    remember...the whole point of this "isp surveillance proclomation initiative" is "operation garden plot"...control of your spirit and minds...suspension of constitutional rights in development of a police state...thats why 4 out of 5 tv shows made today are about about police investigations or military authority

    what the military/industrial complex wants to do is have sole control over any media distributed...so they can eventually stop totally the distribution of any truly enlightening products, while charging high prices for racist, sexist mind numbing garbage...that turn free american citizens into subservient cowardly slaves

    screw the greedy sellout artists and support the independents on the internet and eleswhere...afterall...independence is the founding concept of our great nation

    lastly, always embrace free commerce..after doing research...if i had to have a high speed connection...there are many different isps that serve my area...patronize the up and comers who don't have alot of restrictions, but are happy just to be in business..and when they get to big..switch again

    always remember that technology is here to serve us...to the extent it does that succesfully, then it is useful...when it becomes a burden ...then get rid of it

    your money is the key so spend it wisely...let the hollywood greedy corrupt sellouts know who is really in control !

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Martha Scott, Nov 16th, 2012 @ 7:23pm

    Anonymous Coward, I have greatly enjoyed reading your very well written and well informed comments. Great perspective and fantastic writing style. Look forward to reading more of the same.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Jazzman, Nov 23rd, 2012 @ 8:18pm

    I hater to tell you but Comcast is already on the band wagon and have threatened me. One more offense and I get shut down for on year. NO CABLE, NO INTERNET AND NO PHONE.

    I can't believe this. We pay them to provide a service not to police the internet. Screw them. We'll find a way to get around them like an un rooted hot spot.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 4th, 2013 @ 10:00pm

    , but the RIAA's Cary Sherman has now said that the ISPs involved Will the RIAA and MPAA now start assuming that this is a requirement, despite it not being in the law? That's what they've been doing with conten

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This