Six Strikes Delayed Until 'Early Part' Of 2013
from the of-course-it-was dept
We heard rumors of this a couple weeks ago from people involved in some of the six strikes program at various ISPs, but the six strikes effort, already delayed from its original planned starting date of July until around now, has been pushed back again until “the early part of 2013.” The Center for Copyright Information, which is administering the program, claims that it’s due to “unexpected factors largely stemming from Hurricane Sandy,” but we’ve heard that’s mainly an excuse for some other problems that meant the plan was simply not ready for prime time. Either way, the program will certainly begin at some point… at which point ISPs and the entertainment industry will proceed to piss off some of their best customers for no good reason. Can’t see how that’s going to increase sales, but I guess all of those MPAA lawyers who have “anti-piracy” in their titles have to feel like they’re contributing something to justify their salaries.
Filed Under: delay, isps, six strikes
Comments on “Six Strikes Delayed Until 'Early Part' Of 2013”
They really should just drop it. Its not really going to stop piracy all that much and just annoy the crap out of people.
Re: Re:
Ditto,I’m skeptical if it’s gonna be implemented at all,if they delayed it so many times already.
Re: Re:
‘Its not really going to stop piracy at all and just annoy the crap out of people.’
Fixed/edited for accuracy.
They need to have a “three strikes” rule for groups trying to submit bad legislation.
I Told You So :-)
I claim to be the first person on TD to have pointed out that the implementation date for Six Strikes keeps marching backwards so that it is always three months in the future. I don’t have time to grub for my old comments, though.
Did anyone have time to pick apart the Stroz Friedberg review of process which was released by the Center for Copyright Information? It was redacted, the better to be transparent with. 🙂 (Really. The announcement of the redacted report has a headline proclaiming transparency.) All the key details still seem to be treated as trade secrets. I think this is new, US citizens being accused of wrong doing by a trade-secret process.
Re: I Told You So :-)
I’m enough of an egotist to have dug this out:
June 27:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120627/01050319504/big-isps-expected-to-start-six-strikes-program-this-weekend.shtml#c811
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120627/01050319504/big-isps-expected-to-start-six-strikes-program-this-weekend.shtml#c1685
The story so far, for those who came in late:
In March 2012, the news was that Six Strikes would start July 1. (This is the story which Techdirt reprinted (oops!) in late June.)
In Late June, the news was that Six Strikes would start in the “fall.” (Source: Time Magazine)
On October 18, CCI announced that Six Strikes would start “over the course of the next two months.” (Source: CCI blog posting)
And now, November 28, Six Strikes will start in early 2013.
Oh, what I would give to be a fly on the wall of the ISP tech offices trying to implement the large-scale, accurate matching of IP address reports to customers!!
Just out of curiosity, what makes file sharers “the best customers of the ISP’s?” I’d think the ISP’s would think the “best” customers who pay for more capacity than they use.
Re: Re:
At the time 6 strikes was drawn up, the MPAA/RIAA were threatening legislation that could have passed like 3 strikes. Since then however, internet regulation bills have become toxic in Washington thanks to SOPA/PIPA, so the ISPs no longer have any reason to go through with it because there is no longer a legislative threat.
Re: Re: Re:
I really hope ISP’s don’t give us these headaches when they don’t need to.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
That ship sailed long ago. The mere fact that a whatever-strikes program has been drawn up at all is an implicit admission that there is an issue they see as a problem and are trying to address.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
The only issue they see is trying to implement this program to save an old business model while not losing all their own customers. Hence the repeated push-backs.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
I was gonna say that too.
Re: Re: Re:
T?he ISP’s make money on content (hello? Comcast) They have an interest in reining in piracy.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I am sure they make some money but nothing compared to what they have to pay to Hollywood. I would say they make much much more from there customers than from a few cents they make selling a movie or tv channels to people.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Comcast owns NBC.
So yeah, they have an interest in this.
Re: Re:
Regardless of who the best customers are its still dumb of ISP’s to do this. Unless they get really specific about what it targets this will bother everyday people. Maybe if its like only torrents then it won’t bother people but if its viewing all web traffic and harasses people you can be sure its going to affect people who don’t pirate at all.
Re: Re: Re:
Maybe if its like only torrents then it won’t bother people but if its viewing all web traffic and harasses people you can be sure its going to affect people who don’t pirate at all.
It’s been said numerous times how this monitoring will work and you still have no idea what they’re going to be doing?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well its not like the media companies kindly explaining it for me. All I get is that they want to implement a strikes program when they somehow determine you’ve infringed upon something.
I’d like to be better informed if you have it how this will be implemented I’d like it.
Re: Re: Re:
You do know it’s possible to use torrents regularly and never pirate a thing, right?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I pirate Linux every day!
I even came up with a new name for it.
Pyrex!
Re: Re: Re:
I think you hit the nail on the head here, If Hpllywood manage to get the isp’s to go ahead with this then it is not long before they will be asking for ip info of people visiting sites they dont like like thepiratebay or monitoring all files a person downloads for copyright infringement, eventually the ISP’s will be spending millions just to help Hollywood lose even more sales when innocent people start complaining
I for one think that they(ISP’s) are trying there hardest to make sure only the guilty get warnings but the problem is that the way IP addresses work that is impossible to guarantee 100%, and all it takes is one person taking an ISP to court and winning a settlement for false accusations to cause severe problems for the ISP not the content monopolist “note I did not say creators there”.
I think the ISP’s are very aware of how Hollywood has caused a lot of problems for those helping them, just look at what the DOJ might have to pay in damages to Kim Dotcom, and the Police in NZ are under investigation for doing things beyond what they have been authorised to do, like monitoring Dotcom illegally on behalf of Hollywood.
So Hollywood gets away with not having to pay any damages to those affected by the cost of failing, but reaps supposed rewards for the actions taken.
I would not be surprised if this never happens as there are too many cases where a court has said an ip address does not identify an infringer, and nobody expects the account holder to have the knowledge to monitor what is happening on there connection all the time and what files are being downloaded by all the individuals using the account.
For example in my situation i have given access to the internet to everyone that comes to visit so they can use it on there phones, i have also given access to a few people who come around regularly for games nights, and people who i let use my connection as they are friends.Now how am i supposed to monitor everything they do when they are using the connection, what software can i install to show me a clear list of all files uploaded and downloaded.
They also have a problem with some ISP’s giving access to other routers via wifi so they can supply hotspots everywhere , well they do in the UK, now how would they identify who is using that router for whatever is being downloaded.Yes they can identify the amount of people using the router but not all of individuals activities.
Then you have the problem of internet cafes and libraries that are not going to be giving any customer details unless they have a court order and if all there traffic is routed though one ip address they need to identify which customer downloaded which files.
Sorry but even i can see that this would be a clusterfuck for the ISP’s.
Watch this all come falling down before one person receives a warning. And who loses , the ISP’s that have had to spend there time and money so that they look like they are at least trying to help Hollywood, even if they do not want to.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
A few things i dont like in that scenario
-being forced to essentially spy on my friends to make sure were all internet “lega”
-the cafes and other public hotspots, will either be forced to spen time a likely their own money putting in a system, whereby they can identify a suspect, maybe be told to monitor all internet activity, depending on whether, the governments plan is to be the only one with that sadistic ability
Or
Shutdown
Re: Re:
Two things: 1, file sharers (be they illegal or legal) pay more for the faster connection. 2, Studies have shown again and again that file sharers (probably the illegal ones) buy more music then those who don’t.
So yes, file sharers are their best customers.
Re: Re:
It was a poorly structured sentence. There have been several studies that show that file sharers tend to buy more music, movies, games, and ebooks than people who don’t share. Thus the argument is that pirates are also paying customers of the media companies.
There are several perspectives on this. We’re quick around here to say that file sharers are the industry’s “best customers.” Personally I think that is a bit of an exaggeration to say they are the best customers. But on the other hand there isn’t much denying that file sharers are also customers, and it seems odd for any business to declare war on their own customers.
There is also a perspective that says pirates are just under served customers. A lot of piracy seems to be happening because legal products are either completely unavailable in certain markets or are only available with annoying restrictions, DRM, or prices that are too high. From this perspective file sharers could probably be even better paying customers if products were available under terms that were not so hostile toward customers.
Of course, the copyright apologists see the situation differently. They have gotten to the point where some of them admit that at least some pirates are customers. But they maintain that if there were stronger laws they would buy even more.
As far as file sharers being an ISP’s best customers, it is probably not true. ISP’s and wireless carriers like to talk about “bandwidth hogs” but the truth is that broadband costs have been dropping very fast over the last decade (at least). The actual bandwidth used by even a heavy user is probably among the cheapest parts of an ISP’s costs. ISP’s who also provide cable TV have a major issue with pirates and some other groups of users. There are increasing numbers of young people who are “cable cutters” that are doing without cable TV and are only subscribing to an Internet service. Cable TV service is very profitable. A lot of cable companies see pirates, Netflix, and Hulu as competition for Cable TV service. Some cable companies-ISP’s might think that if there are fewer pirates there would be more people subscribing to TV service. Personally I think they are crazy if they believe that cutting off someone’s internet is going to cause them to subscribe to cable TV. I think it is more likely that customers who have both TV and Internet subscriptions will cancel both if the company pisses them off by cutting the customer’s internet service. It may be extremely short sighted of any ISP to cut off users when Google Fiber and other fiber services are threatening to provide alternate service with no strike programs at all.
Re: Re:
capacity is FILTHY cheap. thats the dirty secret.
file sharers like to pay for higher speeds, and pay more to get it. this costs the isp a few nickels, the customer pays 50$, see the margins there?
Re: Re: Re:
I remember a technology futurologist from BT (The major UK telco and ISP) saying that the major cost of all of these services is actually finding out how much people are using – so if they gave up on the metered plans and bandwidth caps etc it would actually cost them LESS.
The same way that the UI design of Windows 8 generated income for third party software companies that offered “fixes” for restoring the good features of Windows 7 and earlier versions, like the start menu, the six strikes program will generate income for VPN companies. It won’t, however, bring a significant increase to media sales by itself.
haha, this is surely news to any of the readers of this blog that have already been throttled.
Call it a test run or beta or whatever, but this shit is already happening for real.
This could freeze independent’s from offering services online. I don’t think there is a way to target only illegal traffic. People also have a right to backup copyrighted files to online services too.
Hmm
I doubt Hurricane Sandy was cause of this delay,Remember about 2 weeks before the storm,they were caught with biased auditing firm,so…
Re: Also
Meaning Stroz Friedberg.I have ask them about that as well as possibility possibility people get false positives,planted files and would they be liable in a suit if someone proved they were innocent,I haven’t got a response.
So the official announcement says, “We need to be sure that all of our ?I?s are dotted and ?T?s crossed before any company begins sending alerts, and we know that those who are following our progress will agree.”
Once they cross the t’s in shill though, they’ll just have shitt.
Re: Re:
LOL
Huh?
I’m surprised that out_of_mind hasn’t shown up with his usual histrionics yet.
Scare Tactics Work
As history has shown, fear is a great marketing ploy that has proven time and time again to be effective.
One one has to look at the puritan self flagellation whips boom of the 1690’s to see that this is surely going to be a success again now.
Re:
“Maybe if its like only torrents then it won’t bother people”
It’s only torrents.
I Told You So :-)
No but I dug up that Stroz was a paid lobbyist for the RIAA and that MarkMonitor acquired Dtecnet which created filesharing so they would have evidence to present in court in Oz.
Stroz’s report is a joke as it was done in a lab, on a closed network. There is still no answer as to how they are going to acquire the hashes, unless they seed them themselves… or what happens if I label something SkyFall and instead it is someone else’s copyrighted work that they infringed upon by downloading.
Oh and they still owe us 1 review of the Stroz methodology, they have yet to name the reviewer or release the report. I wonder if this one will have lobbied for the MPAA this time.
Fact or Rumor?
So is this actually fact or is this rumor? A lot are calling this rumor because well its not all over the news media and over the web and various news sources. Can someone verify this is in fact a fact or simply a hoax?
Also some of my friends were calling this a rumor/hoax as they’ve downloaded lots of things via torrents and no warnings or anything.
Re: Fact or Rumor?
Does a press release on the CCI webpage count?
You know that place the first link in the story points to, where they blame the hurricane for a program in development for 4 freaking years still is not ready to roll out…
simple fix: Just get a vpn like torguard or hma
problem solved!
Hollywood
I am sure they make some money but nothing compared to what they have to pay to Hollywood. I would say they make much much more from there customers than from a few cents they make selling a movie or tv channels to people.