The Pirate Bay Claims It's Going To Host The Site Via Drones Flying Over International Waters
DailyDirt: Pigs In Space…

Why Hollywood's Six Strike Plan Should Be Investigated For Antitrust Violations

Legal Issues

from the good-points dept

Mon, Mar 19th 2012 03:49pm -

With there being renewed interest in the questionable deal between the RIAA/MPAA and the US’s largest ISPs to set up a “six strikes” graduated response plan to cause trouble for those accused (not convicted) of file sharing, some are beginning to realize that the whole plan deserves serious antitrust scrutiny. After all, you have the representatives of two major industries getting together in a room to collude on a plan that will make internet access more expensive for users.

On top of that, since it’s based on mere accusations (not convictions) — and those accusations will come from a company with a terrible track record for accuracy — you’ll have to pay to challenge a strike and (most ridiculous of all) if you do challenge it, you are limited to just six defenses — significantly less than are allowed under copyright law. That is, if the work is in the public domain, but published after 1923, you have no official defense under the plan. In other words, not only does the plan involve collusion among multiple big industries, but at the outset it assumes guilt before innocence, makes you pay to claim you’re innocent, and won’t even let you use basic defenses afforded to you under existing copyright law.

All of that seems of questionable legality. It also makes the White House’s direct involvement in brokering this plan look even worse. And, once again, it makes us wonder why the real stakeholders, internet users, weren’t given a seat at the table. If they were, perhaps this would have been avoided.

Of course, given the White House’s involvement in brokering the deal, there doesn’t seem much likelihood that the Attorney General will bother to scrutinize the agreement, since it would effectively be challenging his own boss.

That said, the article linked above suggesting that an antitrust inquiry seems necessary is written by Sean Flaim, and is based on his even more thorough research paper detailing why this program needs to be reviewed for antitrust violations. Unfortunately, the chances of that actually happening are still pretty slim.

Filed Under: , , , , ,
Companies: mpaa, riaa

220 CommentsLeave a Comment
If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...
Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Why Hollywood's Six Strike Plan Should Be Investigated For Antitrust Violations”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
220 Comments
Samuel Abram (profile) says:

Re: Corrupt AG will not act

The Attorneys General under George W. Bush were no less puppets (when they should have been independent). Expecting While you are 100% right that Holder is a puppet, Obama’s eventual Republican nominee would doubtlessly appoint an equally or more servile Attorney General were he to become president.

MrWilson says:

Re: Re: Corrupt AG will not act

Not to mention that if Santorum were to become president (not that he could against Obama in an election), his choice for attorney general would likely be even worse than holder because beyond intellectual property issues, they’d try to go after freedom of speech and freedom of religion (specifically the freedom to not be dictated to by Santorum’s religious-based morality).

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Corrupt AG will not act

The title is corrupt, not the person. It means that whoever will have that title will automagically be corrupt. Even if they weren’t in the first place. It’s not like that actually decide anything… puppets are puppets, they just sign the dotted line.

Again, the government is like the AA’s. Outdated and refuses to adapt. It needs to end being about the business and for the business and start being about the people again… but as long as this much money is involved, it’s not going to happen.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Corrupt AG will not act

Santorum has little chance of being elected. He is only there to hold the attention of the religious element of the ultra conservative part of the right wing. He’s a side show for the GOP. If he were to win the nomination it would be the best case scenario for the Democrats as his propensity for foot and mouth interaction would make him an easier target than a soldier wearing blaze orange camo. Instead the GOP is banking on those who support him interpreting his presence as an indication that they support their views as a party so that when he doesn’t get the nomination the real GOP candidate becomes their second choice. It’s the same classic strategy they have used forever. Pay lip service to the religious fanatics to get them to support their real agenda which is corporate special interest. It’s just this time they have to make more noise with their side show to drown out the opposing noise coming from the occupy. Can you say “Look at the monkey?”

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Corrupt AG will not act

I’m not even sure Santorum believes half the crap that comes flying out of his mouth. It’s quite possible he is playing a role for the GOP to accomplish their goals. They have a long history of using jesters to say outrageous things in an attempt distract people from the issues they care about and focus them on others. Take Rush Limbaugh for instance. Do you honestly think he believes everything he says? He’s playing a role. His JOB is to be outrageous and get people to focus on him instead of those really making their policy decisions.

FuzzyDuck says:

Re: Re: Corrupt AG will not act

Considering that some Republicans don’t like Hollywood, which they consider to be too liberal, I don’t think it’s a given that a Republican Attorney General would be worse on the subject of copyright enforcement. Even Bush’s AGs haven’t done as much for Hollywood as Holder has.

Samuel Abram (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Corrupt AG will not act

Keep in mind that Copyright is not simply Hollywood. And Republicans like Hollywood when it suits their interests (their patron saint is Ronald Reagan, an actor). Also, the Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998 was named for Sonny Bono, who according to his widow claimed that “Copyright should last forever” (That act passed unanimously in both houses of congress, BTW). This is not to claim that Democrats are any better (not by a long shot), but it is certainly not the case that Republicans are in general.

GMacGuffin says:

I was wondering when this would come up. Great. Smells like antitrust to me. Who cares if the US Gubment investigates – there are private rights of action that could get to this.

Class actions of late have a pall of lawyer money-grubbing over them, but this seems like a good case to let a class action do what it was designed for — vindicate the rights of a distinct class of people. A pretty freaking big class.

That Anonymous Coward (profile) says:

But but but
The entire plan is funded 50-50 by the **AA’s and the ISPs.
Who are just going to recoup the cost by charging more.

Its just education about the law!
Except the **AA’s have sued dead people and people without computers using this same tech.

*backpeddle* We won’t cut them off entirely, people with VOIP will still have 911 access.
Except we want their speeds cut down to just above dial-up and Voip will not function very well with those kinds of limits.

Consumers can just change providers.
Except in the 71% of the country where the only choice is one of the companies signed up for this.

But but but we are loosing jobs!
Except you claim job loss numbers higher than government recorded employment in your industry ever.

But but but we are loosing money!
Much of this “lost” money is because you refuse to actually offer the product to the consumer when the consumer wants to purchase it.

But but but piracy!
This is not the 1700’s, you are not on a galleon. There are no “pirates”. (This mindset could be what is holding them back.)

But but but piracy!
Commercial copyright infringement is mostly dead. It is not worth their time and money to compete with the better offerings created by the consumers.

But but but the White House Agrees!
Because Biden is in your back pocket does not make it legal, right, or fair.

I expect people to push, shove, and make lots of noise until several acronyms have to give us half-hearted excuses as to why they will not investigate or why this is okay with them.
Then I expect wise government officials on the local level to terminate monopoly agreements, rights of way, easements.
I expect to see lawsuits asking why Government money is being handed to groups who answer to lobbyists not consumers.
I expect lawsuits to get back Government funds collected from all of us to expand coverage so everyone can be online, that was used to line pockets and stop competition.

I expect to see Sherman and Dodd having to explain how they have any rights to demand anything from service providers. I expect to laugh at those answers.

Maybe it is time to sue them ISPs and force them to be “common carriers”, that thing they are so terrified of… having to let others use the pipes. Offering services not subject to 1 sided the customer is always a thief rules.

If you were pissed off about the SOPA protests, wait till you get a load of this.

That Anonymous Coward (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

*yawn*
When you resort to just picking on my spelling it is pretty clear you have no real point. Your just gnashing and writhing hoping no one will notice the truth.

I think I will have a grand old time protesting this, given the secret tech being used with real world implications.

I enjoy you factually stating I “rip off content”. Would you care to retract that statement? Or is defamation the only tool left to a desperate fool?

As I have stated before, in another life I own a couple copyrights, so your broad brush attack really holds no water. I’m a rightsholder and I think this is crap, this is not being done to benefit myself or other artists. This is the last ditch effort of an industry fighting the changes that have happened in the world in the last 20 years.

BreadGod says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

“And neither does any other sane artist or creator.”

Pfft- AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Try telling that to the myriad of artists who have become successful by using the devices given to them by the internet. In this day and age, the big media conglomerates you represent are fast become unnecessary middlemen.

abc gum says:

Re: Re: Re:

You are absolutely correct – those damned computerless grandmas had better face the facts because their pirating days are numbered. Oh yeah, those HP laser printers too – they are going to pay.

I can’t wait for the content industrial complex to begin seizing the savings accounts of children for their brazen disregard of the laws of this land. It’s about time they paid for their misdeeds. Filthy diapers and pirates can be dealt with in one easy accusation.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

Because as we all know that’s the ONLY factor that can possibly be involved! It has to be that simple! It can’t be the introduction of new legal services, better product, better pricing or that fact that some parts of the industry have work out how to compete! It can only be police action against a service most “pirates” had stopped using long before!

No matter how much you wish it was, correlation != causation, never has been and never will be. Cherry pick a more convincing data point next time, because this one was tired looonnggg before you repeated it in every thread… yet you still believe your own propaganda.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

Oh look, it’s Paul T again, being a fucking idiot.

Hey Paul, we know you’re not blind and can read, cuz you’re posting here; so your buffoonish claims about “services” illustrate what a deranged sociopath you most surely are in person, because EVERYONE knows there are legal services for content in the US.

Tim K (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

Wait, people still used that virus riddled software? I’m pretty sure the number of people who used it before it was shutdown might be able to add up to 10 sales if they all bought something. Also, closing Limewire wouldn’t do shit even if there were still a significant number of users because there are tons of other services out there that they would have switched to.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

There’s so much bullshit here it’s hard to know where to begin:

Consumers can just change providers.
Except in the 71% of the country where the only choice is one of the companies signed up for this.

The satellite internet providers haven’t joined the evil cabal yet and cover the continental US. http://www.ipsatellitesystems.com/

But but but the White House Agrees!
Because Biden is in your back pocket does not make it legal, right, or fair.

But it does mean DoJ won’t be wasting its time undoing a lawful private agreement designed to slow the theft of copyrighted creative output.

I expect to see Sherman and Dodd having to explain how they have any rights to demand anything from service providers. I expect to laugh at those answers.

Do you really think ATT, Verizon, Comcast, etc caved in to threats from the AA’s? Or could it be that they have significant self-interest in protecting content? A huge derp here.

Maybe it is time to sue them ISPs and force them to be “common carriers”, that thing they are so terrified of… having to let others use the pipes. Offering services not subject to 1 sided the customer is always a thief rules.

Good luck with that. The FCC cannot regulate an information service. Genachowski got a new hairdo over the phone for even suggesting it.

That Anonymous Coward (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

Operative word in the sentence… YET.
Satellite internet is not exactly broadband speeds, and has its own host of issues.

A lawful private agreement. With accusations, punishments, etc. Does not seem lawful that an accusation made by a system known to be flawed should carry such weight. That people paying for a service should expect to have that service interrupted on the basis of accusations of unproven merit.

No I expect the threats to go out to the smaller ISPs to force them to join this cabal of bullshit.

The FTC can investigate antitrust allegations, as many of these providers are the only game in town… BY LAW.

And maybe it is time the FCC get off its ass and decide to regulate this crap.

You’ve given up on stopping alleged copyright infringement and just want to slow it now?

As there are no hard numbers on the actual losses, everything they point to is debunked within minutes, I find it hard to take them seriously.

An information service should not have someone else controlling the spigot.

Its an election year, if the people get loud enough expect DOJ to get kicked into gear.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

The whole antitrust theory is weak. It’s impossible with satellite in the mix. Six strikes based on allegations only is pretty strong. Hard to imagine how a completely innocent party accumulates 6 strikes. I don’t know but I’d be interested to know what the error rate is under HADOPI. Assuming it is a staggering 10% the odds of six errors accumulating to a single IP address is .1x.1x.1x.1x.1x.1= .000001 or .0001%. Pretty insignificant odds for the kind of FUD associated with this.

I didn’t bother reading the article but generally, anti-trust is law that promotes and/or maintains market competition by regulating anti-competitive conduct by corporations. I don’t see how it applies to companies working in concert to prevent unlawful conduct. I don’t see how this is anti-competitive behavior.

That Anonymous Coward (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

http://dmca.cs.washington.edu/
be educated.

Look at the proliferation of nonexistent and weak passwords on WiFi routers being provided by some of these ISPs to their less than tech savvy clients.

Look at the mass copyright lawsuits that are sweeping the country, the blind, the elderly, women accused of downloading hardcore gay porn. One lawyer seems to to think even if your WiFi was used by an evildoer without your knowledge, consent, permission your still liable to the tune of $10,000.

IP identification is FLAWED.
The German firm providing a large number of IP addresses in these lawsuits using a “state of the art system” – was thrown out of German courts for hiding flaws in the system. They were sued by a lawfirm in Germany they partnered with because they hid the same flaws in their “secret” system.

There are people who can not have satellite, local law forbids them to use anything but the carrier with the contract for service. People who live in apartments are at the mercy of whoever holds the building contract.

The average WiFi password can be hacked in about 10 minutes by a 15 yr old with a netbook. A gifted person can get that down to 5 or less.

So how pray tell do you not see someone getting 6 strikes and still being completely innocent?

Allowing 6 strikes to be launched without a fight is just the start. Then they will want deep packet inspection. Then they will want to look deeper at what you do and where you go. A private group will get to decide what your “allowed” to do online, while forcing you to pay for the privilege of being spied on.

I have to accept the NSA doing it, I’ll be damned if you think the **AA’s deserve that right.

That Anonymous Coward (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

The WiFi is setup by the part of the cabal that gets to collect money and degrade service. So we should have their peering agreements throttled as well for not providing the secure systems in the first place?

Locking a door is obvious, like the fact your a troll.
Knowing that WPA, WEP, ETC are flawed and how to set them up when the nice man from the cable company told me I was all set means they are liable.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

Like I said in the NSA article, all you have to do to defeat deep packet inspection is make it cost prohibitive to do so. Encryption can do that. So what if they can break the encryption? You can encrypt stuff multiple times so that it costs them again and again to get through every level until it is not worth doing any more. And I’m not talking about encrypting just file-sharing traffic. Encrypting other stuff too. Stuff that they have to use resources to inspect only to find that it isn’t what they are looking for. Seriously, Sun Tzu had the answer 2500 years ago.

That Anonymous Coward (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

Actually it is being done by an outside “company”. Recording IP addresses seen in swarms. They can’t track cyberlockers – (Notice how they did a raid to get several to cut off access to the US?)
For an ISP to start deep packet inspection would open them up to a whole host of privacy lawsuits.
While consumers have so few rights these days, wholesale admitted spying by a service provider on emails is still something that riles up even the senile citizens in congress.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

That stadistic is only true as long the event are independents.
And

Poor protected wifi not independent
Bug in loging software of the ISP no independent
Bug in colecting tracking software not independent

want me to continue all the sources of sistematic error are no independent that mean that while the general population the probability could be as low as you say there will be some people with probabilities as high as 1 of getting 6 false strickes.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

“Hard to imagine how a completely innocent party accumulates 6 strikes.”

When we are talking about the Content Cartels that are responsible for submitting baseless DMCA take down requests REPEATEDLY on against innocent sites without any regard for the effect or damage to the innocent parties. Yeah this is REALLY difficult to imagine.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

The FTC can investigate antitrust allegations, as many of these providers are the only game in town… BY LAW.

That is simply not true unless you are completely ignoring satellite broadband. You can if you choose, but the courts won’t. It will never get that far as there’s simply no evidence of anti-competitive behavior.

If it is the “only game in town… BY LAW” why wouldn’t it be subject to anti-trust enforcement today? How does entering into a voluntary agreement on copyright infringement change anything?

…people paying for a service should expect to have that service interrupted on the basis of accusations of unproven merit.

There’s an appeals process and as stated the probability of six erroneous strikes accumulating to a single IP address is ridiculously low. The TOS are substantially unchanged. The only real difference is that wanton, unlawful conduct will now be punished by getting throttled. That’s hardly a death sentence given the low probability of six errors. I submit that those who do not use their internet connection to infringe will have no problems at all. The freeloaders…. well that’s another matter.

That Anonymous Coward (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

One should not be forced to pony up $35 to have a mediator decide if an IP address grab is legit or not.

Maybe if they got off their high horse and stopped trying to hide the super secret system and actually let experts evaluate its reliability. Of course it will go up in flames, so that will not happen.

They can begin the “corrective” measures at any point they want once you get an accusation. It is after all a private agreement not subject to reality or reason-ability.

Your statement is correct the odds of a single IP address getting 6 strikes is really low. This ignores that the strikes are assigned to accounts and not IP addresses that constantly change. Dynamic Addresses, look it up.

The TOS are changed, a 3rd party gets to inject themselves into the contract customers have with their ISP and demand extra rights they are not entitled to by law. This is meant to be an endrun around due process. You want the evil copyright “pirates” sue them, its part of the rights you have. Except you have to pay your own way, not make everyone else bear the unreasonable burdens you want to put on everyone else.

That Anonymous Coward (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:6 Re:

Therein lies the rub.
If this wasn’t the **AA’s doing this, lets say it was the NRA.
And every time they think you made a post saying guns were bad, you got a “warning” that you had done a bad thing, and if you get 6 of them they would throttle your access or cut you off would it look bad?

Or one of the organized religious groups because they think your not religious enough.

The only reason this is even moving forward is because they claim they are loosing billions of dollars, that they can’t offer any actual proof of. They have a right under copyright law to protect their copyrights. They option they have picked is to get outside companies to half fund a process that relies on faulty technology and assumes the person with the copyright is never wrong.

The costs of this “education” effort is going to be passed onto consumers, and to try to overturn the allegations requires money be paid to be heard by an “impartial” person they get to pick.

Meanwhile you can have your service degraded because you have X demerits that might be completely incorrect because this system refuses to accept there is ANYTHING in the public domain created after 1923.

This is private “law enforcement” being handled by 2 corporations, and that should be illegal and stopped.

GMacGuffin says:

Think of the copyright lawyers! ... (and the children)

So let’s say, er, you’re a copyright lawyer who, er, advises clients regarding file sharing issues, or … well anything copyrighted. And, well you can’t really work a case without having access to the material in question, which means your client has to, um … share it with you.

I’ll bet there isn’t a check box for that defense. Guess the lawyers will have to find the six best cases, throw the other clients to the curb, and find a new line of work after those 6 are over. Thanks *AAs. Like to send a lawyer off the wagon and to AA.

TtfnJohn (profile) says:

SOPA/PIPA only much worse

If the “content” industry can’t get what it wants through legislation it’ll get it this way. Complete with White House backing.

There is something seriously wrong when an industry, any industry, gets to rewrite laws through the back door and bypass due process by the same route.

When it’s one that contributes something less that 1% to the GDP of the United States there’s something even more wrong.

When the same industry gets to decide, on its own, who can and cannot use the major means of communication people use these days there is something terribly wrong.

When they get to have accomplices in the form of cableco’s, essentially monopolies in many areas then there is something bloody awfully wrong.

Since when did anyone sign up for a legal system based on the interests of private corporations? Divine right of the “content” industry????

Law Student says:

Private Antitrust Remedies Under U.S. Law

Like everything else in the law, anyone who can convince someone in a black robe that they are right will win, Pro Se or not. The following paper gives a brief intro into private enforcement of antitrust laws by Kenneth Ewing, Steptoe & Johnson, LLP. “[D]iscusses the central elements of private anti-trust actions and the important practices and procedures commonly associated with litigating them.”

http://www.steptoe.com/attachment.html/2804/Private+antitrust+remedies+under+US+Law.pdf

Remember, it only takes one person, one case.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Private Antitrust Remedies Under U.S. Law

People like you, right? LOL

Just more of the eye-rolling comments that we expect to see on this pro-piracy blog.

Feel free to point me to a person that gets kicked off the internet after getting SIX false notices. I’ll be happy to defend him.

I won’t hold my breath tho.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Private Antitrust Remedies Under U.S. Law

It only slowed because you’re looking at the wrong places and make up false facts. I’m sorry to say that most sites are growing, and the more you spend our time and money trying to shut them down, the more of our time and money they’ll spend growing. For every dollar I give you, I have no problem giving to them. Why? They offer it faster than you do. More reliably. More conveniently. So call me all the names you want. At least I’m not buying corruption and calling it “saving the industry”. If your industry is dying, it’s time to change it. As it was put last week: you sir, are just the entertainment. If you refuse to do it, other will pick up gladly.

You’re fighting the wrong fight and you know it, hence why you need to come here, troll like hell (good job by the way, you managed to get more than half the posts in responses to your trolling, +1), do like you publicly do and claim false facts, call people names, and refuse to hear anything else than what you think you know. Obama is that you?!

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Private Antitrust Remedies Under U.S. Law

I couldn’t give a fuck what you think is piracy, because I’m sure it has absolutely no basis in reality.

Mine is downloading music and movies without permission and in violation of the law.

That’s the same one that the government and ISPs have.

Y’know, the one based in reality.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Private Antitrust Remedies Under U.S. Law

Funny, you seem to.

I’m sure Google will round up Masnick and the rest of the paid pro-piracy shills to try and lie about this and organize some Goebbels-esque fear-mongering protest. Have at it.

The thing is you people got away with lying during the last one and everyone is on to your bullshit.

Samuel Abram (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:6 Private Antitrust Remedies Under U.S. Law

Why do you assume I don’t pay for content? I pay for content. I even pay the *AA’s rather than infringe their copyrights. In some cases, I even pay for content even when it’s offered under a Creative Commons license. You assume that just because I like “free” as in “freedom” it must also mean I think everything should be “free” as in “free of charge”. Don’t play that Straw Man with me.

And it’s a worthy free speech issue if we have no other broadband provider to go to after six false positives, which you don’t about. So that means we’re locked out of the only communications medium that could help us. And you don’t care about innocent collateral damage.

Typical for a shill like you.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Private Antitrust Remedies Under U.S. Law

get of your fucking high horse you twat, and face the reality that your piece of shit, who see’s nothing wrong with exagerating or flat out lying in order to make their opinions sound……….you think youre side is the only side who feels passionate about this, you my friend better open your eyes, you push, we push back, no more backing down and leaving questions unanswered.

Grow some balls grow some brain cells, think of others and not just the ones who agree with you, overall, stop being a cocksucker

Have a nice day 🙂
Come again

BreadGod says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Private Antitrust Remedies Under U.S. Law

And just like all those previous hurdles, the pirates will pass it with the greatest of ease. When will you dumb assholes at the entertainment industry actually listen to the advice we’re trying to give you? We here at the tech industry are trying to help you fight piracy by offering you solutions that won’t cause collateral damage, and yet you plug your ears and keep screaming at the top of your lungs that the only way to stop piracy is by implementing increasingly more draconian legislation.

And by the way, implementing plans such as “six strikes” and smugly dismissing all your critics as “freetards” is not going to make people buy music and movies at the store again. It will only make people hate the entertainment industry even more.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Private Antitrust Remedies Under U.S. Law

I couldn’t care less what you think, don’t you understand that by now?

I’ve seen how you people think and act. You’re sociopaths that think you’re entitled to other people’s labor without asking them or compensating them. That’s fucked up. You talk about “rights” when you have absolutely no respect whatsoever for the rights of others.

You people got way too cocky and now deserve every bit of karma you’re about to deal with.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:6 Private Antitrust Remedies Under U.S. Law

“I couldn’t care less what you think, don’t you understand that by now?

I’ve seen how you people think and act. You’re sociopaths that think you’re entitled to other people’s labor without asking them or compensating them.”

Who’s fault is that Master, when todays technology gives ample opportunity for these companies to offer free or cheap services, to compensate the ARTIST! Im not gonna support greed no matter how much you scream, master

“That’s fucked up. You talk about “rights” when you have absolutely no respect whatsoever for the rights of others.”

Over generalise much, there are many “rights” out there, are you implying that we dont respect ANY rights whatsoever because we dont support this ONE right……….hint: incase your not aware, thats classic implication by association……well done

“You people got way too cocky and now deserve every bit of karma you’re about to deal with.”

You people……..you people……what do you mean you people………yesah master, spit and polish on your boots, sir, clean em the real good, sir…………whos the one with entitlement issues again?

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:10 Private Antitrust Remedies Under U.S. Law

I’m intrigued as to where you’re getting this information about this person who had not supplied any details about his identify. Why, it’s almost as if you’re attacking someone blindly and have no evidence to back up your tantrum, unable to accept that reality differs from your own delusions. Hmmmm…

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:6 Private Antitrust Remedies Under U.S. Law

Just exactly what do you do for a living? I suspect you are not even a paid shill. You do seem to have some talent for being obnoxious and argumentative.
However given you continued lack of real dialog gives the impression that you really don’t know what you are talking about.

As a result, I’ve decided you are a middle aged homebody with no real accomplishments to your name. Accordingly, I give your arguments no value.

Have a great day!

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:6 Private Antitrust Remedies Under U.S. Law

I know you don’t care, which is just further proof of what I’m about to say, but perhaps you should step back and examine your own behavior. It’s classical sociopathic behavior. Either you are truly fucked in the head, or you’re just that much in need of attention. Either way, your attitude and behavior shows your arrogance and ignorance. I’d wager that your life is a terrible shambles of loneliness. Even if you’ve got a ton of money, the little presidents on those slips of paper and rag are the only people that will ever love you. And that only in your own mind.

The Logician says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Private Antitrust Remedies Under U.S. Law

Insults and condescension automatically invalidate any argument you make, AC 43. All you are doing here is making a fool out of yourself, and quite spectacularly, I might add. You avoid addressing the actual points raised as though doing so would infect you with some kind of virus. And empirical, non-industry evidence? You provide none, so do not expect to be believed. Never underestimate the ability of the oppressed to evade and resist their oppressors.

How can you steal something which cannot be diminished? Because content, once copied into digital form, is infinite. Making a copy is addition, not subtraction. Let me say that again, that you might better understand: A copy is addition, not subtraction. And it is multiplication, on a vastly exponential scale. You might as well try to stop tribbles from breeding.

Nothing is lost because the original still exists. The original still exists. And there is no technical or structural difference between an infringing file and a non-infringing one. With both on your computer and no information on where they came from or which was which, how would you tell them apart? It would be impossible because they are identical.

You do not pay for air (unless you are President Skroob stocking up on Perri-Air), so why do you expect us to pay for digital files, which are even less feasible to charge for and which are by their very nature infinite? Only those with a personal (most likely financial) stake in the old system defend it. Everyday people do not. And the efforts you saw that defeated SOPA? That was the stun setting. What will happen next is not.

JMT says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Private Antitrust Remedies Under U.S. Law

“You people are panicking because now there is yet another hurdle to overcome in satiating your sick addiction to content.”

WTF? Wanting to watch movies and listen to music is a sick addiction? Surely if you can describe it that way then we must try to stop consuming this content! It’s a sickness! Don’t download it for free and certainly don’t pay money for it! We’ll be saved from our sickness and the content industries will… oh, wait…

I think you might have accidentally gone off-message there son.

Anonymous Coward says:

With the Obama administration’s record on whistleblowers and anything “against the government”, there’s no chance in hell of any of this happening. Plus the “**AA’s” as he put it, inject way too much money into the government; signs of a flawed and badly outdated, do the richest bidder’s dirty work, government model. It’s a wonderfully sad thing to see happen, especially since the people are apparently oblivious to it.

Anonymous Coward says:

if the isps agree to this

If the ISPs actually follow through with this and implement it, they should immediately lose all monopoly rights.

The internet is a vital utility now, and it cannot simply be removed from CITIZENS without the GOVERNMENT itself very carefully determining it is a suitable punishment for a specific crime they are CONVICTED of.

The ISPs only have monopoly rights cause they agreed to provide nondiscriminatory service to the CITIZENS.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

A isp across the board blackout would at least get people informed on the subject, but wont fix the main problem…..you need to follow the money trail all the way back to its roots and fix that before any real change happens, however high that may be………which makes it nigh near impossible, seing as the ones that need a scrubbing are the ones in the position to make the changes

MahaliaShere (profile) says:

You know

You know, when I first started reading Techdirt, it used to upset me whenever someone accused another of being a paid shill. After all, how can one know, right? Then SOPA Blackout happened, and as I was following the coverage, there was one thing I didn’t see. Trolls. I don’t remember seeing a single one that day (maybe you guys did but I didn’t). Sure, there were a few with a dissenting opinion of the whole thing but that was about it.

If they’re not shills, some of them have got to be involved with the industry somehow, by proxy, indirectly, whatever. Maybe the staffers who manned the phones that rang off the hook, leaving no time to troll blogs. Anyway, the shill-calling hasn’t bothered me since. None of them reveal who they are, but it doesn’t matter because their words speak for themselves. But I say it’s time they were outed. If we have to endure being spied on by MAFIAA in collusion with our own ISPs, then it’s the least that can be asked for.

ANON (profile) says:

results

When the DCMA was passed I quit having direct links to files and things of that nature, mainly just linked to other sites. When they sued Napster it made headlines several times and tons of every day people wanted to know what it was and started using it. When it died, several more replaced it. When those died several more replaced those. When ISPs started slowing down bittorrent traffic utorrent and other clients put in encryption and within a few days most torrent traffic was encrypted by default. The only way to slow it down was to slow down all encrypted traffic. They sue people all the time.. Doesn’t seem to have much of an effect.

I think this, well not law, but collusion between these businesses will simply push people and programs more to encryption, ToR, private trackers, VPN, etc. Then their whole way of monitoring what you are doing is not effective again.

I explained it the other day. At the moment they can see I this person goes to torrentsite.com and downloads Copyrighted.File.x264.bla.mkv.torrent, then they contact a tracker. I told the person, just start using HTTPS for both the site and tracker, problem solved. They will tell others the same thing, problem solved.

Why do I have to go to a private tracker to download ‘Whatever Show’ ~30 minutes after it airs instead of going to NBC.com to watch it or download it. Honestly at this point I am happy with getting the shows from the warez scene and no matter content providers do short of having one universal service that would in effect replace my TV trackers with something better, I will continue to pirate.

Honestly, I am a broke MF. I make no money, I do not have money to spend on anything I can get for free. I do not have any sort of TV service. I have bought less than 3 movies in the last 5+ years. I have went to the movies theater a few times, maybe 10-20 times in the last 5 years mainly on dates or others were going. I do not set out to do it myself. I have bought less than 5 music CDs or digital downloads in it seems like 8+ years.

So. whatever I will keep pirating forever. It is better than what they offer or will ever offer obviously. No DRM, I can play it on whatever I want, bla bla bla.

I know I rant a bit but. I think the whole thing they are doing its pointless as far as it effects me. I think it is pretty pointless against normal people even..

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: results

Honestly, I am a broke MF. I make no money, I do not have money to spend on anything I can get for free. I do not have any sort of TV service. I have bought less than 3 movies in the last 5+ years. I have went to the movies theater a few times, maybe 10-20 times in the last 5 years mainly on dates or others were going. I do not set out to do it myself. I have bought less than 5 music CDs or digital downloads in it seems like 8+ years.

This is the true essence of the problem. An enormous sense of entitlement to take whatever he wants for free because he can’t “afford” it.

The poster boy for the freeloader movement.

ANON (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: results

It will have zero effect on me. It might have effect on the every day people in the sort term. But they will simply be move to encrypted, VPN, private trackers, etc etc. The ISP won’t be able to track what they do anymore ever again and this whole exercise and effort will be more or less a waste of time.

The people who create the content are awesome. Love them. The companies who distribute the content want this crazy control over it that makes people like me turn to piracy.

Yeah I am sure there is some sense of entitlement that is wrong on my part. I am not entitled to anything from these companies I know that. Movies make more money than ever every year. Artists do too I think, maybe I am wrong on that one. No idea about TV shows, seems the actors are doing very though.

You can talk about what is wrong vs right, piracy vs copies, bla bla. End of the day you have to deal with the real world. Fact is I can get what I want from piracy all day long. They know this and you know this. Why would I deal with a highly inferior system from content providers when piracy is right there. Content providers could start to offer me an option, I have yet to see something as good as piracy…

It isn’t all about free stuff to most people, including myself. I can get the music via piracy, in the format I want, with no DRM weeks or months before you will sell me a format I do not want. Why in the hell would I not go the way of piracy. Same thing applies to movies word for word pretty much. TV shows not quite the same but similar.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: results

Pray tell, then, how all these plans would result in more money placed in the “content creators”‘s pockets.

I’m sorry you failed Econ 101.

A free market economy dictates people’s expenditures going towards what is most important to them.

If *all* the people that are so hopelessly addicted to content suddenly give it up because they can no longer get it for free, then you’ll have a case that piracy wasn’t a problem.

Good luck with that.

ANON (profile) says:

Re: Re: results

for the last ~15 years (with the exception of the most recent couple years) I made a good living and had plenty of money. I could afford to buy most anything I wanted. Money was typically not a concern of any sort. That had very little effect on my piracy. I did go to the movie theater more often but I still did not buy DVDs, CDs, digital downloads, etc. Why would I? I knew I would just have to bring the damn CD home, rip it to MP3 to use it. DRM on digital downloads preventing me from using it how I wanted for my own personal use. Same for the movies for the most part. TV shows? I had direct TV for a while with DVR, etc. The ONLY reason I got it was I was in the country and didnt have access to broadband. I was much happier with the scene releases of my tv shows than what I got from Direct TV. On Direct TV I had to have the DVR record the shows, it was limited on space and could only record 2 channels at once, usually not an issue but at prime time it could be. If I missed an episode I was just screwed no way to watch it again other than repeats. And I had commercials, no biggie really I can just skip them but why I am I even having to do that. With piracy I have the shows, any i want, no commercials, any time I want, on any device I want no problems. Piracy is simply a better way of doing things.

I don’t want to take money from artists. I wish there was a paypal link on the artists websites so I could ‘pay’ them. I have no interest in paying the *IAA though. They do nothing good for me. When I had money I went to their concerts when I could, bought a T Shirt, etc. The TV shows yeah that is a bit more complicated. Most of what I watch is aired on normal channels like they have been for the last 50+ years. I could setup a box to record all them, but why go through all that trouble when the scene groups do all that work for me. Movies are about like music to me. Honestly I don’t watch many movies. I could wait for them to be in the $5 bin at the local stores years later if I wanted I guess and simply deny myself watching them until then, I just don’t see the point in all that.

Sure there is obviously some sense of entitlement as you noted. I know I am part of the problem. 95% of what I pirate is TV shows, 1% music, 3% movies. Maybe I don’t care enough but I just can’t bring myself to deal with the current factored way content providers offer their products. I am speaking really about TV shows. Hours, days, months, years later, all on separate sites, none I can download and use on devices without DRM, etc. The Vast majority of which I am legally allowed to capture over the air, record, rip out the commercials myself and encode myself, etc. Or they are not aired in my country at all. Yes there are a few I watch from HBO, Showtime, etc. I could live without those or pay for those if I had to.

ANON (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 results

My piracy was this bad before those services existed. But yes some of what i get is on those services in a nice DRM format that I have to watch in their player and can’t put on my phone to watch when I am on my lunch at work, etc. Then I would have to wait days, weeks, months, even years to watch content. Shows are not on those services the say day or week that they air. I’ll gladly pay $20 a month for a service that will give me what piracy offers me.

ANON (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 results

So the whole time I been posting comments I have had Media Player classic paused in the background with a TV show that aired on an over the air station around 8 hours ago. I downloaded it from a private tracker, 720p, mkv, etc about 30 minutes after it aired automatically via rss & utorrent.

I decided to see if I could view this on iTunes, Amazon, Hulu or the website for station, etc.

Station website (Fox)
This episode is available Online or via TV On Demand to customers of participating cable or satellite TV providers.

The episode automatically unlocks online 8 days after airdate.

Amazon: Yes, I can watch it it looks like for $1.99 in a lower quality only streaming in a browser it seems. Maybe they have other options if I looked into amazon prime or something.

iTunes I assume has the same thing amazon has, im guessing Hulu+ doesnt have it. I am not installing their terrible software to search and look.

Hulu+: “If you are a DISH Network subscriber, you can connect to Hulu and watch new episodes of FOX shows the day after they air on TV. Otherwise, episodes will be available on Hulu.com 8 days after they air on TV.”

So each show has different rules depending on the content providers/owners. I would most likely have to watch it in a browser (yes full screen), at a lower quality. I could not put it on my devices, save a copy for when I was bored and wanted to just mellow out with a cartoon playing. What about being able to download a copy I can actually use on my devices. The shows I watch from other countries that do not air here. etc? So I can pay for Hulu+, amazon, etc they dont have a few of the shows I watch and I still end up having to pirate those and I can’t use the content like I can the pirated versions.

I am better off setting up a MythTV (or whatever people use these days) box and recording the crap myself over the air. I could setup all the scripts to do all that sure. I just do not see the point.

ANON (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: results

I am no sure they are. I piracy WAY more than I could ever afford to buy/pay for/etc. As any normal person I talk to people at work about how much i love this show or that show. Actually I work at a place that sells this media lol. I tell customers how good this show or that movie is all the time.

Hypothetically if piracy was NOT an option… I would have cable TV, most likely the lowest or mid package. I would in turn pay less for internet (to the same company that would provide my tv). They would end up with around the same money from me, but I would use a lot less bandwidth. I already am to the point I do not listen to newer music. They would still get nothing from me. I would back up my CDs legally and I doubt they would get anything from me. Movies… I think I would buy 5 or so a year? Maybe some cheap ones here or there but honestly I don’t care about watching most movies. Actually since I do not have the money to buy movies actually I would use redbox for sure.

I would set up a MythTV or whatever box to record 90% of what I watch now. I would be left without ever being able to watch a few shows not aired in my country. I would not ever watch some of the shows I see on HBO, etc. I might buy Dexter & Breaking Bad, find another way to watch them or go without them.

So I wouldn’t watch as much, I would have a lot less to tell customers and friends about.. Redbox would make a little money from me, in turn so would them… Not sure if it would work out in their favor or not at the end of the day

ANON (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 results

Comcast would end up with less or the same money from me I think. I pay around $50 for my internet atm. I would pay for the lower internet if piracy wasn’t an option but would pay for the lowest cable package. We are talking at most $5 I think. They can have that $5 no problem, I got $20 if they would just provide me a service as good as piracy.

ANON (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:6 results

Yeah.. End of the day I just want to watch my tv shows, a movie here or there etc. I don’t mind paying for it. I pay for extra hard drives, better internet and use more of my own time due to piracy. My time would be worth more than anything, that is why I have my rss feeds etc going to save me time. It isn’t about what is right, wrong, etc. It is about what is the best way for me to see shows with the little money I have to do that.

I think they could do a lot better for themselves and everyone by joining the rest of the internet in the 21st century and at least making an attempt to offer me an alternative. I do go to the Daily Shows website to see an episode maybe once a month, if it was out right after it aired I might just do that every day but there is a waiting period where you cant watch it. I go to HBO’s website some times to see the Overtime from Bill Maher. That is about it. I would watch a bit more on their sites if I wasn’t already ‘having’ to pirate everything else already and there wasn’t some waiting period.. To me it is simply watch it now via piracy or watch it hours, days, etc from now on their website…

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:6 results

“At least you’re honest about what you do, unlike Mike Masnick and the rest of his deranged sycophants.”

I’m still waiting for the evidence that the money I spend on content every month represents piracy, despite the amount you’ve accused me of it. Try presenting some facts occasionally, it will help.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:8 results

“Please feel free to share with the class evidence of you paying for content.”

Well, I shouldn’t have to but I might as well get more hits on my blog while I’m at it – http://80sfear.com/blog/tag/frightfest/

Note my recent trip to Frightfest Glasgow and several years’ worth of reports from the London and Glasgow festivals each year under that tag. Explain how I “pirated” that content. I have a lot more where that came from, despite your industry’s best efforts to block me from being able to obtain and pay for content legally. I can share evidence all day if you want.

“That would still be more than the psycho lying sack of shit Mike Masnick has ever done.”

Provide evidence of him pirating content. If you had a logical cell in that tiny little brain of yours, you’d know you can’t conclusively prove a negative, so perhaps you should start providing evidence for your own claims?

“He claims to have mega-gigs of content on his drives.”

I have over 220Gb of music either ripped from CDs I own or bought from eMusic over the period I was a subscriber, and a equal amount of free, legal podcasts and the like. I’m not sure why you think that having a lot of content makes you a criminal, but this faulty logic is what’s causing you to attack your own potential customers I suppose…

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:6 results

Mike doesn’t pirate, either. You just like to assume that he and the rest here do, because it validates you. Do I pirate? Very, very little. Mostly very old movies (20 years+) that I can’t find elsewhere. Because the new stuff is all remakes or total crap not worth the electricity to run the projector.

ANON (profile) says:

Re: Re: results

rss downloads the shows while I am at work for the most part. But your point is valid. I need a better job and it is up to me to make that happen.

For the most part (with the exception of the last couple years) i made quite a good living. I still was just the same way as far as piracy went. But your point didn’t seem to be directed at my piracy 🙂

That One Guy (profile) says:

What's the problem?

I really don’t see the problem with these 6 strikes ‘agreements’. I mean, it’s not like a company/individual would ever say, spoof their IP address to look like one belonging to someone they don’t like(like, oh I don’t know, a competitor or an individual they have a grudge against) to get them booted off the net.

And it’s not like it’s difficult to fight the charges, it just takes time, money, lawyers, more time and money, and a couple more lawyers*.

Come on, that’s not that hard for your average person/small business owner to scrape together, and I’m sure that the ones issuing the accusations would be totally reasonable when they’re presented with evidence that they made a mistake, and retract the accusations.

And finally, as we should all know by now, just like the DMCA, something like this would never be used incorrectly, or anti-competitively, so all the worries about those sort of problems are obviously just foolish.

*per accusation.

Not an Electronic Rodent says:

Speaking of 6 strikes plans

Perhaps a xx? strikes plan should be considered for this site? I’m all for opposing opinions even a bit of name calling now and again can be ignored, but random spewing of mindless venom is starting to make the comment threads all but unreadable – presumably that’s the plan.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

but you should

“i dont have to, if i dont want to, now fuck off”

Now, now now……did you mum ever teach you any mannners

“YOURE, mum”

Yes, i guess i walked right into tha one, well played sir

“you freeterds and your sense of entitlement”

???

“dont you know its the companies and governments who are entitled to your money, what is wrong with YOU PEOPLE”

That Anonymous Coward (profile) says:

Re: Re:

I’m sorry but it will not work.
The same defense they used against investigating Dodd admitting bribery will be invoked. It asks for a specific legal thingy, and they won’t do it.

A better petition would be to ask why an untested/unproven “enforcement” system was supported by the White House ignoring that factual data that the industry has lied about their losses. Do they believe that extrajudical measures taken by corporations should replace the systems of laws in the country? Are corporations entitled to make their own laws for American Citizens? Why would our elected leaders support circumventing the law?

The nonanswer to that one would be awesomes.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

“Do they believe that extrajudical measures taken by corporations should replace the systems of laws in the country? Are corporations entitled to make their own laws for American Citizens?”

These aren’t matters of law, they are about enforcing terms of service. You don’t have a right to internet access on your own terms.

That Anonymous Coward (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

No these are about 2 corporations creating new terms of service to benefit the corporations.

Ford doesn’t get to say what roads you drive on.
McDonalds doesn’t get a say in what you can buy in the grocery store.
Why should a lobbyist group get a say in how I use my net connection?

You are working from the fact sheet that says their system has no flaws, this is incorrect. It is a cheap crappy system, that will result in false positives and in the time it takes someone to actually manage to sue them many more customers will have been branded “pirates” and had service they are still paying full price for cut back.

You assume everyone concerned about this is a pirate.
If I pay for the pipe, I get to use it how I want. I do not and should not have any outside lobbyist group trying to decide if what I am doing is right or wrong in their opinion. If I use my pipe and break the law, sue me. This is a move designed to save them the costs of defending their copyrights and forcing their will unto the people who are assumed guilty until proven innocent… which has a fee to even get considered.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Just 1 Question I'd like answered...

if this is all about saving industry jobs and such…
Then why the fuck is everything filmed in Canada now?
They hire Canadians for those things.

What are you talking about? Production in Canada peaked in 2005-2006. It may have something to do with the fact that the canadian dollar was worth .76 of a US dollar. Now it’s higher than the US dollar. I honestly don’t know where you get your information.

http://www.omdc.on.ca/AssetFactory.aspx?did=6563

Anonymous Coward says:

No these are about 2 corporations creating new terms of service to benefit the corporations.

Ford doesn’t get to say what roads you drive on.
McDonalds doesn’t get a say in what you can buy in the grocery store.
Why should a lobbyist group get a say in how I use my net connection?

You are working from the fact sheet that says their system has no flaws, this is incorrect. It is a cheap crappy system, that will result in false positives and in the time it takes someone to actually manage to sue them many more customers will have been branded “pirates” and had service they are still paying full price for cut back.

You assume everyone concerned about this is a pirate.
If I pay for the pipe, I get to use it how I want. I do not and should not have any outside lobbyist group trying to decide if what I am doing is right or wrong in their opinion. If I use my pipe and break the law, sue me. This is a move designed to save them the costs of defending their copyrights and forcing their will unto the people who are assumed guilty until proven innocent… which has a fee to even get considered.

I assume that you are a pirate. You’ve said as much. And no you don’t get to pay for the pipe and do whatever you want. Their are terms of service. Abide them or find another alternative.

I don’t know what “outside lobbyist group” you are talking about. Do you? This was a deal between the content companies and the ISP’s. The White House was a broker but lobbyists typically lobby lawmakers. I’d be interested to know who you’re referring to. And yes this is a move designed to defend their copyrights, a situation caused by people like you. I wouldn’t worry too much about false positives. If the Anonymous clowns can be ferreted out by the government I’ll bet a lot of freetards will be properly identified and throttled accordingly. Hopefully they start with you.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

>I wouldn’t worry too much about false positives. If the Anonymous clowns can be ferreted out by the government I’ll bet a lot of freetards will be properly identified and throttled accordingly.

If the content companies had a history of being accurate then yes, you might have a point. The “Anonymous clowns” that were “ferreted out” were the resultant of FBI-driven investigations and one of their own doxing the rest of them. As far as I know the content companies have no such investigative clout or resources and have a consistent record of suing the wrong people – in addition to blindly insisting that their methodologies are never, never wrong and having a blatant disregard for the dolphins caught in their fishing expeditions.

If by “defend their copyrights” you mean defended by the largest players today like John Steele, Evan Stone and Andrew Crossley, then you might want to be worried about false positives. A LOT of false positives.

That Anonymous Coward (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Dear asshat –
1 – There is a reply button under the posts so people know you responded and then can rip your sad little argument to pieces.

2 – Where did I say I was a pirate, or are you back to name calling because your full of shit?

3 – The terms of service for my internet connection do not currently allow for an outside company to submit spurious claims and demand my service be negatively affected based on flawed technology.

4 – The MPAA, The RIAA are outside lobbyist groups. They so not actually produce any content and therefore are not content holders.

5 – This move to “defend” their copyrights moves it from the courtroom to them being the sole decision maker. This makes it extrajudicial… that means outside of the law.

6 – The RIAA sued a woman who did not own a computer based on this “technology”.

7 – The Government is not doing the identification of alleged pirates, a private company is.

http://www.copyrightinformation.org/
Which is having PR run by another lobbyist/advertising firm based in DC. Imagine that.

The Glover Park Group, who work for the RIAA and lobby on their behalf.

http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/firmsum.php?id=D000034089&year=2011

http://www.copyrightinformation.org/sites/default/files/Momorandum%20of%20Understanding.pdf

That is the agreement they are using, its posted on the website next to the lies about how many jobs are lose every year in the industry and inflated numbers not supported by factual information.

I would have thought GPG could have afforded better shills than yourself.

Samuel Abram (profile) says:

What if?

I assume that you are a pirate. You’ve said as much. And no you don’t get to pay for the pipe and do whatever you want. Their are terms of service. Abide them or find another alternative.

What if we can’t find another alternative? That’s his point that you conveniently ignore.

Also, our justice system was not based on “guilty until proven innocent”. I’m surprised you didn’t know that.

I don’t know what “outside lobbyist group” you are talking about. Do you? This was a deal between the content companies and the ISP’s. The White House was a broker but lobbyists typically lobby lawmakers.

He means the Recording Industry Association of America and the Motion Picture Association of America, both of whom are lobbyist groups. Do you not actually see that?

And yes this is a move designed to defend their copyrights, a situation caused by people like you.

No, it was a situation caused by technology improving to the point where mass infringement became possible. What the *AAs and the ISPs are trying to do is to put the toothpaste back in the tube so they can recover their rents (which they won’t do).

I wouldn’t worry too much about false positives

What if you become a false positive? Did that ever occur to you?

If the Anonymous clowns can be ferreted out by the government I’ll bet a lot of freetards will be properly identified and throttled accordingly.

The “Anonymous Clowns” as you call them were caught by a whistleblower, a snitch if you will. Not through data mining or anything like that. It’s not like Anonymous as an organization is done for.

Also, You call us “freetards”. Unfortunately, I don’t mock the intellectually deficient to use that slur (Granted, the same could be said about “paytard”, but “freetard” preceded “paytard”. Still, both are wrong).

Hopefully they start with you.

You and me both, sucka AC. 😉

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: What if?

“I assume that you are a pirate. You’ve said as much. And no you don’t get to pay for the pipe and do whatever you want. Their are terms of service. Abide them or find another alternative.”

What if we can’t find another alternative? That’s his point that you conveniently ignore.

Then do without. You do not have an inalienable right to connect to the internet.

Also, our justice system was not based on “guilty until proven innocent”. I’m surprised you didn’t know that.

Our justice system applies to our justice system. It does not apply to a voluntary agreement like TOS.

“I don’t know what “outside lobbyist group” you are talking about. Do you? This was a deal between the content companies and the ISP’s. The White House was a broker but lobbyists typically lobby lawmakers.”

He means the Recording Industry Association of America and the Motion Picture Association of America, both of whom are lobbyist groups. Do you not actually see that?

Do you have any actual evidence of their involvement in those negotiations? Or is this just more tinfoil hat shit?

“And yes this is a move designed to defend their copyrights, a situation caused by people like you.”

No, it was a situation caused by technology improving to the point where mass infringement became possible. What the *AAs and the ISPs are trying to do is to put the toothpaste back in the tube so they can recover their rents (which they won’t do).

They are having to spend millions to keep have their shit stolen.

“I wouldn’t worry too much about false positives”

What if you become a false positive? Did that ever occur to you?

I don’t steal, I like my chances.

“If the Anonymous clowns can be ferreted out by the government I’ll bet a lot of freetards will be properly identified and throttled accordingly.”

The “Anonymous Clowns” as you call them were caught by a whistleblower, a snitch if you will. Not through data mining or anything like that. It’s not like Anonymous as an organization is done for.

That’s part of the story. ISP current use deep packet inspection and will use it to enforce six strikes. This won’t stop the hardcore freeloader, but will reign in the majority of infringers.

Also, You call us “freetards”. Unfortunately, I don’t mock the intellectually deficient to use that slur (Granted, the same could be said about “paytard”, but “freetard” preceded “paytard”. Still, both are wrong).

What a sissy. The classification for mental retardation until the 1960’s was moron, imbecile, idiot. Are you offended by those terms too? If so, that would make you a moron- at the bottom of the ladder.

“Hopefully they start with you.”

You and me both, sucka AC. 😉

You should stop infringing on the trite dialog from The Mod Squad

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: What if?

>Do you have any actual evidence of their involvement in those negotiations? Or is this just more tinfoil hat shit?

Uh, Chris Dodd recently just threatened Congress saying that if Congress stopped passing the laws they demanded, the lobbyists would stop funding their campaigns. Weren’t you around when it happened?

>They are having to spend millions to keep have their shit stolen.

And it ended up being an extremely damaging venture to not only their coffers (of course, we say damaging because it’s “millions”. In the long run I’m sure they have much more money; enough to give Mitch Bainwol a $50 million dollar bonus), but also their PR. Why not spend less money on less negative opportunities?

>I don’t steal, I like my chances.

Yeah, so were the chances of Tanya Andersen.

>That’s part of the story. ISP current use deep packet inspection and will use it to enforce six strikes. This won’t stop the hardcore freeloader, but will reign in the majority of infringers.

What this will do is force more “infringers” to join the “hardcore freeloader” in being harder to track, in which case you can count on more false positives as your IP gets spoofed. ISPs mucking with your connection and throttling it is already affecting everyone who downloads, legal or otherwise. What these efforts will do is make things harder for the legitimate user while having questionable effects on the activity you want to clamp.

>You should stop infringing on the trite dialog from The Mod Squad

Nice try, but that doesn’t constitute infringement.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

The Pirate Bay Claims It's Going To Host The Site Via Drones Flying Over International Waters
DailyDirt: Pigs In Space…
Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Ctrl-Alt-Speech

A weekly news podcast from
Mike Masnick & Ben Whitelaw

Subscribe now to Ctrl-Alt-Speech »
Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...