Major ISPs agree to "six strikes" copyright enforcement plan

[Borg 386]

Except that it hosts absolutely no copyright content what so ever, the problem with all these rulings is that the people that are left to interpret the law are getting it completely wrong; although these type of service point you in the right direction of pirate material they do not host or provide any and are really covered under the same safe harbor protection as google and other search engines.

That's what I thought when I read the news on it. Just pointing you in a direction doesn't mean they were responsible for what that person decided to do with the information. If someone looks up "Windows 7 crack" on Google, and decides to go to the site hosting it & d/l it, is Google responsible for that? They're information based and that's all they're doing, providing information, not twisting the persons arm to do it.

There is some merit to what lehnerus2000 is saying. In some cases, even if the person isn't directly/not at all responsible for d/l ing something, it's often cheaper for them just to pay the fine offered rather then have to go to court. There have been instances of that happening in the past, and unfortunately in some cases, it's hard to get concrete evidence that the person accused was not the actual perpetrator of the crime. If someone taps into a unsecured wi fi connection for instance.

All in all, it's a new legal area & new laws are being defined every day. I myself think that it a good thing they give you warnings, just in case someone is utilizing your connection without you knowledge.

When people ask me about torrents & such, I tell them "You want to give it a try, that's your choice. Just be prepared for the possible consequences that can arise."

 

[Nigsy]

Yeah the whole scaring money out of pirates has been tried here by lawers in the UK, ACS:Law tracked the IP addresses of clients connecting to certain torrents (which i believe they floated anyway) then got the isp's to release over 4000 names and address' and then mass mailed them threatening legal action which they could make go away for £500. Then after coming under investigation they sold all that personal data to another company who again mass mailed everyone asking for a slightly reduced ammount and included with the letter a news report from the BBC about a sucessful claim (not by them) against some woman a few years ago. This BBC report was ripped directly from the website and BBC which is copyright theft as the BBC do not allow its content to be used for such comercial puposes without their prior written consent (which they didnt have and likely wouldnt get) so the lawyers became the law breakers, haha

Yep this fell flat on it's face..but they wern't trying to prosecute for illegally downloading files, they tried to prosecute on the fact you were actually sharing the file, hence people being fined silly amounts for d/l 1 album. They were being prosecuted based on the number of incoming conections from the swarm.

 

[seth500]

The main thing that p2p users need to remember and I'm only giving this as advice if you going to download stuff no matter what is is, always have encryption turned on to forced no matter what, use peer-block with a full compiled list not just one from peer-block itself but a large one that is blocking at least 3,000,000,000 ip's and don't ever hop on anything that is "NEW" with a lot of seeds and leechers this is a dead give away to you isp that your doing something stupid.

 

[Warlockz]

The main thing that p2p users need to remember and I'm only giving this as advice if you going to download stuff no matter what is is, always have encryption turned on to forced no matter what, use peer-block with a full compiled list not just one from peer-block itself but a large one that is blocking at least 3,000,000,000 ip's and don't ever hop on anything that is "NEW" with a lot of seeds and leechers this is a dead give away to you isp that your doing something stupid.

The ISPs said they will protect subscriber privacy and they won't filter or monitor their own networks for infringement.

It is not your ISP, it is the Copyright holders people have to worry about if they download pirated Music/Movies.....

Also PeerBlock and Encryption does NOT hide your real IP, they can set up dummy/honeypot servers which are unlisted on peerblocks Blocklists, or whatever millions of ips you want to add, and Bam their goes your real IP added to their long list of Copyright Infringer's....

 

[lehnerus2000]

Thanks Borg 386

There is some merit to what lehnerus2000 is saying. In some cases, even if the person isn't directly/not at all responsible for d/l ing something, it's often cheaper for them just to pay the fine offered rather then have to go to court. There have been instances of that happening in the past, and unfortunately in some cases, it's hard to get concrete evidence that the person accused was not the actual perpetrator of the crime. If someone taps into a unsecured wi fi connection for instance.

Thank you.

It's the same thing that MS is always accused of doing.
The RIAA, MPAA, etc. are banking on the fact that you can't afford to fight them in court.

Regarding torrents:
http://www.sevenforums.com/1579336-post2.html

 

[lhorwinkle]

Except that it hosts absolutely no copyright content what so ever.

The court said otherwise, didn't it?

The court can rule whatever it likes, but how torrents work tells me it's pretty much impossible that piratebay actually hosted the material. Where is this proof that it was?

Read the legal brief. That's not the issue. The court does not agree with you because the law does not agree with you.

 

[EvilOzzmess]

Here's usually what I torrent for, and yes I do torrent (that's basically the main reason you go out and buy the asininely expensive $100+ per month Broadband internet in the first place). But first, let me break a few things down.

We pay extra-ordinarily rich fees for our TV and Internet service to the tune of over $170 per month. Add to this a Netflix account and at the present time, Showtime (we bounce around from that one to HBO and Cinemax), and that above figure also includes the $20 fee we're charged for a DVR set top box (but NOBODY calls THOSE pirating devices - funny, isn't it?).

So, now that those points are out of the way and that we DO pay to get access to these shows and movies and etc. and to get to my main point: I do not feel like a thief when I go to a website, click "download" and then launch the hash code into my uTorrent and get a RIPPED COPY of the TV show I just watched last night (THAT I ALREADY AM PAYING FOR THROUGH MY CABLE COMPANY) and which some kind soul has generously taken the time to record off of their TV (WHICH THEY ALSO PAY FOR), cut the commercials out, and then to share with others who'd like to keep a copy of that show that AGAIN THEY PAID FOR.

And now to get into the center of the matter at hand... is the fact that in America, Government and Corporations SHOULD NOT HAVE THE LEGALITY TO INFILTRATE YOUR ONLINE ACTIVITIES TO KNOW WHAT YOU ARE DOING, WHERE YOU ARE GOING, WHAT YOU ARE INVOLVED IN, AND WHAT YOU HAVE DOWNLOADED OR UPLOADED. PERIOD! It is a DANGEROUS precident we're standing on here, and it WILL NOT STOP WITH THIS! That is the problem many people have. It's certainly the problem that *I* have with this, other than the fact that I am a PAYING CUSTOMER for these services rendered on any given ISP.

This, of course, would all be a SUBSTANTIALLY different issue if I were breaking into these companies' websites and downloading THEIR hosted copies of this material, and also without having paid a cent through any other structures (aforementioned: TV, Netflix, movie subscriptions and etc) to get said materials in the first place.

As a matter of fact, this raises another point and that is that I happen to know how laughably easy it is to break into a Verizon fiOs wireless internet connection (and most others). So easy, my 97 year old great grandfather could do it (and has)! So there's one of the hundreds of other points to be raised on this. It won't stand.


And lastly... these ISPs are only shooting their businesses in their own faces. As I previously said, the one of very few reasons to even have the more expensive, larger bandwidth internet connections is BECAUSE OF Torrents! That is the ONLY reason you would desire and NEED to have equal to or more than 10Mbps down and 5Mbps up (just as an example), other than because of a PS3 online gaming system or a TV-streaming entertainment system (I assure you, Torrenters account for more than 75% of these broadband users Nationally)!


So way to go! You 6 "titans" if ISPs will be out of business in no time, and good riddance! Don't let the door hit you in the @$$ on your way out! :devil:


EDIT: And by the way, I guess corporations don't like the Socialism they're trying to jam down our throats huh? Because Torrents are kind of like that, everybody pitching in and "giving their fair share", but digitally. Just thought I'd point that out. Peace!

 

[Lebon14]

Example 3:
I purchase an e-book from some legal online provider.
The copyright owner decides to remove it from distribution.
The online provider deletes it from my device (without my permission).

These groups are the new Mafia:

• They buy politicians (just like the Mafia did).
• They have laws changed to suit themselves (just like the Mafia did).
• They use standover tactics against ordinary people (just like the Mafia did).
• They basically do whatever they like (just like the Mafia did).

Pretty much the killer argument.
The internet would be a better place if the New Mafia would use the internet's power and market that way. They would gain much more than trying to make people pay a LOT of money for a couple of files (I know somebody in the US was accused downloading like 16 MP3s and had to pay $650,000; seriously!). It has been proven also that people that downloads either movies, music, softwares and games are more likely to buy the original product afterwards than people that doesn't. I know I do for the most part. The New Mafia really need to change their strategies to adapt itself to the 21st century. That's what is killing them; and us.

 

[Max Power]

I am not an apologist for corporations and government, far from it.

But I find the attitude "down with the man" and "corporations are evil" to be just as ill-informed.

Not speaking to the specifics of this case, but in general, I work for a small publisher that employes about 15 people. Your friends, your neighbors, that guy that let you in the spot in front of him in traffic.

My company is a book publisher and produces content. We used to do it exclusively on paper, but the world is changing, so it looks like most of what we produce will be electronic as well. When we do produce a PDF of one of our titles, available for purchase on our website, we digital rights management (or DRM) protect it. There are many in the media who think, like the music companies and the RIAA, we are being selfish for doing so, and actually hurt our customers because they can only use the pdf on the computer they downloaded it on with the security passkey. And to some extent, they are right. I would love our pdf customers to be able to use the item on multiple devices. But...


What I don't want is them posting our unprotected pdf content on forums. And as we have learned, if we don't protect it, people will do it. And do it a lot. Whether is some slacker on a forum that wants to look like a hero or a torrent site for motivations unknown to me, they will throw it out there into the free world, with no regard for the work, expense, and creative talent it took to make that piece they just decided to share.

Creating a book, or a song, or a movie, requires the skills and talent of a huge number of professionals, professionals that have to eat and live and pay the rent like everybody else. I have learned just with the advent of the legal part of the internet, many of our readers are now getting their info from forums and private websites and not buying as many books as they used to. It is becoming extremely difficult to get talented authors to create the materials for the amount we can offer in royalties. At some point, it may stop altogether. That's the way of the world. Like many other technologies, this one might eliminate jobs too, kind of a big deal these days. If people decide they would rather get free un-curated information instead of pay for it, then the pay information will go away.

Same is true with music, same is true with movies. And judging from the free content I see available out there, I don't think we are better off if that happens. It's like a race to the bottom. Read the comments under any news story on the internet vs the letters to the editor in any magazine to see what I mean.

Stealing content that is protected, without paying for it, is theft, plain and simple. It doesn't matter if you don't have any money, or you think your cable bill is too high, you saw the movie in a theater, or you bought the CD years ago, it's still theft. You don't get a 2nd car bacause you already bought one, or a pair of shoes, or any other goods. While it may not seem like a crime to many because hacking on a computer seems harmless, yet if you ask any hacker if they hacked into Bank of America's account database and transfered money into their personal account, they would know it is a crime.

While I have sympathy with the torrent example above where the person used torrents to watch free shows they already pay for (I just use On-Demand, but your company may be different), and it is probably incumbent of the cable company to address situations like that, the reality is that it is still classified as theft, like taking seconds at a restaurant, and nobody owes anybody entertainment. If you feel you are paying too much for entertainment, buy less.

So anyway, I have rambled long enough, I know with the upcoming generation of computer savvy people that my words are probably dust in the wind, but I sure hope those people aren't going to be looking for jobs in the industries that they are torrenting, because they simply won't be there. It's not a victimless crime. And if people can't get paid creating content, the quality of the content will suffer greatly. Stephan King will be selling car insurance.

Just thought you guys might like to hear from the "content" side of the equation.

 

[stacey1981]

Hmmm, not good, not good at all. This will just drive more people to use prepaid credit cards, Usenet etc.

 

[seekermeister]

Max Power ,

It is not a question of whether it is right or wrong to take content via torrents or in any other fashion. The question is about the right and legality of the method being employed to counteract the problem. No one should ever be dealt with in the fashion that this is about, unless there is solid evidence against them, and action is taken against them in court, where they have the ability to defend themselves.

 

[lhorwinkle]

One of very few reasons to even have the more expensive, larger bandwidth internet connections is BECAUSE OF Torrents!

For you, perhaps. But lots of people have other reasons for wanting high bandwidth

People often see themselves as typical. "Most everyone is just like me."
Not so.

 

[jorpe]

One of very few reasons to even have the more expensive, larger bandwidth internet connections is BECAUSE OF Torrents!

For you, perhaps. But lots of people have other reasons for wanting high bandwidth

People often see themselves as typical. "Most everyone is just like me."
Not so.

I have used a 50/10 connection from Comcast because the higher upload speed made working on a home computer remotely a lot faster than before. I couldnt imagine using a 2mb upstream connection for that anymore.

I'd like to see a breakdown of the usage on a network of a couple family members streaming HD video while someone else is downloading podcasts on iTunes and simultaneously backing up with carbonite. I could see that saturating a connection fairly quickly, if they even have a router capable of handing that diverse traffic and data types.

 

[Borg 386]

Max Power ,

It is not a question of whether it is right or wrong to take content via torrents or in any other fashion. The question is about the right and legality of the method being employed to counteract the problem. No one should ever be dealt with in the fashion that this is about, unless there is solid evidence against them, and action is taken against them in court, where they have the ability to defend themselves.

I Agree with that.

Why is it, they they are offering you this "courtesy" of settling out of court, which basically is saying "We feel you committed a crime, but we're feeling generous today, so we'll give you the opportunity to pay us a settlement instead of going to court." Nice of them, isn't it?

Factor in how much most attorneys charge per hour for their services, court costs, etc., it's no wonder that most people will pay, even if they never did such a thing or had no control over it, because by the time all was said & done, they would be facing a bigger bill then had they just settled.

 

[seekermeister]

Borg 386,

Factor in how much most attorneys charge per hour for their services, court costs, etc., it's no wonder that most people will pay, even if they never did such a thing or had no control over it, because by the time all was said & done, they would be facing a bigger bill then had they just settled.

It is for this very reason that I believe that the tables need to be turned against both the ISPs and RIAA or anyone involved in provoking such an action. Unless the "settlement" requires the user to sign a document that includes a provision that they must release the ISPs, etc. from the possibility of prosecution, perhaps they should pay the "fee", then take them to court, but not just for recovery of the fee, but for a much greater sum including the fee, court costs, legal fees and a significant penalty for wrongful treatment and illegal business practices. Even if such a document is involved, I doubt that it would hold up in court.

Obviously, it is not just the user who they expect will take the "easy" way out, they are doing the same, otherwise they would never resort to such a dispicable method of doing business. While I can understand why RIAA would want to do something like this, I totally fail to understand why any ISP would. The penalty mentioned is not worth abusing their customers over, nor exposing themselves to litigation. Something more than meets the eye must be involved.

 

[nickyoung]

Obviously, it is not just the user who they expect will take the "easy" way out, they are doing the same, otherwise they would never resort to such a dispicable method of doing business. While I can understand why RIAA would want to do something like this, I totally fail to understand why any ISP would. The penalty mentioned is not worth abusing their customers over, nor exposing themselves to litigation. Something more than meets the eye must be involved.

The RIAA has been sitting on their ass instead of finding new innovative ways to protect and profit from rich digital content. Had they simply adopted a cloud distribution model and new sales tactics, they could be selling more music and pushing positive messages into the public before people thought about alternative methods to acquire the same content. Instead they sit back and expect royalties to flow in year after year. Note to RIAA - "This market is always changing and if you fail to recognize the market demand and counter it with the appropriate supply, you will sink faster than a rock. Surprised?"

So what's wrong with this scenario? "I won't lock my front door because 20 years ago there wasn't any crime". Obviously theft is wrong - But negligence creates negligence...and it doesn't help when the source of all this content is demonstrating negligence themselves. You can't throw a dollar bill in the public domain and expect it to be sitting there tomorrow do you? And then proceed to track down who took that dollar and threaten them? You put food in a fish tank and sure enough fish will eat it whether you like it or not. Similarly you can't expect a terms of use on paper to work flawlessly in the real world without considering what is out there. That's negligence! Take negligence a step further by abusing legal loopholes and you have extortion.

All for supporting artists. Not greed buckets. Long live consumer awareness.

 

[linnemeyerhere]

Amazing how we have to explain right vs wrong behavior and then give the punishment portion a politically correct slant like this six strikes. If we were the ones creating this content and being denied the royalties of all our hard work, a whole other tune you'd be humming. All I know is I'm not expecting a knock on the door for my vast music collection and yes it's cost me one pretty sum but at least I have the full resolution if it's various mediums and for me the labor and routine of my grooves still rule all other mediums sans master tapes running 15 ips. Though I do love the idea of blu-ray audio but I'm not sure if this generation is interested in that level of quality as they seem so happy with mp3's and $1.50 ear buds............omg!

 

[nickyoung]

...Though I do love the idea of blu-ray audio but I'm not sure if this generation is interested in that level of quality as they seem so happy with mp3's and $1.50 ear buds............omg!

Stepped up from $1 ear buds to Sennheisers and never looked back...

But on another note I continue to mock the sad state of the industry. Once upon a time, I bought a disc set in WalMart only to find there were no discs in the sealed package when I got home. That's right...an empty box! :huh: WalMart's store manager completely denied a refund on the same day despite having the receipt and everything above, without even the slightest sympathy. Regional manager played the dodge ball game for 2 weeks straight. Why are these people even allowed to be in a management position? It seems we have gotten to the point where expectations are so low that being a Manager in Walmart does not require more than the ability to read and write English. (Remember that word above? Negligence) Unfortunately their actions are a mere reflection of corporate greed - paying their employees to rip consumers off and forget ethics.

 

[seekermeister]

But on another note I continue to mock the sad state of the industry. Once upon a time, I bought a disc set in WalMart only to find there were no discs in the sealed package when I got home. That's right...an empty box! :huh: WalMart's store manager completely denied a refund on the same day despite having the receipt and everything above, without even the slightest sympathy. Regional manager played the dodge ball game for 2 weeks straight. Why are these people even allowed to be in a management position? It seems we have gotten to the point where expectations are so low that being a Manager in Walmart does not require more than the ability to read and write English. (Remember that word above? Negligence) Unfortunately their actions are a mere reflection of corporate greed - paying their employees to rip consumers off and forget ethics.

I guess that everybody's experience varies, because I had a similar experience at Walmart once, where a movie that I bought had no disc inside. Fortunately in my case, I was able to exchange it for another of the same title. Therefore, I suspect it has less to do with corporate policy, than it does with the particular people you are dealing with.

 

[Hawaiian]

I sincerely hope that time is not wasted for the laws to catchup with technologies marvels. I also sincerly hope that somewhere in all these marvels there is something to remind us of long ago taught table manners that some apparently seem to disregard for the fever of technology.

It's not whether your guilty or innocent - it's what can be proven in court.