dslreports logo
site
spacer

spacer
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


view:
topics flat nest 
Comments on news posted 2012-10-03 10:57:19: Last summer major ISPs including Comcast, AT&T, Verizon and Cablevision signed off on a new plan by the RIAA and MPAA taking aim at copyright infringers on their networks. ..

page: 1 · 2 · 3 · next


dnoyeB
Ferrous Phallus

join:2000-10-09
Southfield, MI
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Comcast

I think they are serious

I think they really intend to do this. It obviously won't have any impact on crime. Might beat up on a few people that make mistakes. Plus, piss off a whole lot of innocent people.

I think Americans do not like being falsely accused. Also, American's have huge balls in groups. Once the piss off that critical mass of people there will be hell to pay.
--
dnoyeB
"Then said I, Wisdom [is] better than strength: nevertheless the poor man's wisdom [is] despised, and his words are not heard. " Ecclesiastes 9:16


88615298
Premium
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness

BS from the anti-6 strikes side

The plan has seen fierce criticism from the EFF and some researchers because it assumes guilt before innocence and requires users pay a $35 fee just for the honor of defending themselves against accusations

If I get arrested for a crime, the cops think I did it( ie GUILTY of said crime ) before I've had a trial. Thus I have to pay to prove I am not guilty.

If I am sued in a civil case I have to pay to defend myself. The court doesn't investigate and decides I'm not guilty BEFORE a trial. That's the whole point of a trial.

ISPs have traditionally been legally terrified of this entire affair, refusing to talk in any detail about their piracy mitigation measures -- in part because they've falsely accused people in the past and are worried about legal liability for screwing up.

It would be incredibly bad luck to be falsely accused 6 times in a row. Something akin to being struck by lightning while being eaten by a shark.

Considering the "penalty" the first 5 strikes is a letter and the penalty for the 6th strike is um NOTHING( maybe throttling ) I'm not seeing the point of all the hub bub.

If you're accused of rape, sure there is a chance you are could be falsely accused. Happens all the time. However if you are accused 6 times in a row there is no way you are not guilty.

Os

join:2011-01-26
US

If the ISP's Were So Scared

of liability and false accusations, then why not tell the RIAA/MPAA to shove it?


88615298
Premium
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness
reply to dnoyeB

Re: I think they are serious

said by dnoyeB:

I think they really intend to do this. It obviously won't have any impact on crime. Might beat up on a few people that make mistakes. Plus, piss off a whole lot of innocent people.

I think Americans do not like being falsely accused. Also, American's have huge balls in groups. Once the piss off that critical mass of people there will be hell to pay.

A) You overestimate the number of people that will be truly falsely accused. It's almost as if you WANT it to happen.

B) You're going to get all pissed off and ragey over a letter? Which is the "penalty" for illegally downloading.


88615298
Premium
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness
reply to Os

Re: If the ISP's Were So Scared

said by Os:

of liability and false accusations, then why not tell the RIAA/MPAA to shove it?

Most ISPs also provide video services. I'm pretty sure they would like to continue to do that.

Os

join:2011-01-26
US
The MPAA doesn't sell them the content. Whether they're satisfied or not is merely pleasing someone they don't have to.

silbaco
Premium
join:2009-08-03
USA

Oh well....

If you download content illegally, you are violating your ISP's ToS anyway. I really don't see much wrong with this. How many false accusations arise in countries with 3 strikes laws? Relatively few. 6 false accusations is extremely unlikely and they don't do much anyway.

silbaco
Premium
join:2009-08-03
USA

1 recommendation

reply to Os

Re: If the ISP's Were So Scared

The members of MPAA do.

Os

join:2011-01-26
US
So the MPAA's going to tell the content providers to refuse selling their products to anyone who's an ISP?

Yea, that's going to end well for them without cable, and surely decrease piracy.......

old_wiz_60

join:2005-06-03
Bedford, MA
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS

Of course..

according to RIAA/MPAA if the IP address shows illegal download then someone is obviously guilty and there is no reason to suppose otherwise. They paid enough money in bribes to make sure the 6 strikes law went through, so they expect returns.

"Innocent until proven guilty" is no longer the watchword, whether it's online "piracy" or terrorism. The government routinely assumes anyone accused of terrorism is a terrorist, so why shouldn't the RIAA/MPAA?

silbaco
Premium
join:2009-08-03
USA
reply to Os

Re: If the ISP's Were So Scared

Wouldn't be surprising. The MPAA has never been known for thinking reasonably.


morbo
Complete Your Transaction

join:2002-01-22
00000

The backlash will be great

The sooner this gets going the sooner the backlash will begin and serious attention at the government level will be drawn to the ISP industry.


anon1

@marshall.edu

Anti-trust

IANAL and I can't begin to make sense of business law. So could anyone explain how this does not run afoul of anti-trust regulations? If the ISPs colluded to set prices, or data caps, or similar policies it seems like it would.

So why not in this case?


88615298
Premium
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness
reply to silbaco

Re: If the ISP's Were So Scared

said by silbaco:

Wouldn't be surprising. The MPAA has never been known for thinking reasonably.

Exactly. The same people that almost killed the VCR because it was going to lead to massive piracy and kill the movie industry.


88615298
Premium
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness
reply to morbo

Re: The backlash will be great

said by morbo:

The sooner this gets going the sooner the backlash will begin and serious attention at the government level will be drawn to the ISP industry.

Backlash based on what? Hysteria and hyperbole? The first person that is falsely accused 6 times in a row I'll suck a donkey's cock and put it on the internet for all too see.


NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:12
Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC

1 recommendation

reply to 88615298

Re: If the ISP's Were So Scared

said by 88615298:

said by Os:

of liability and false accusations, then why not tell the RIAA/MPAA to shove it?

Most ISPs also provide video services. I'm pretty sure they would like to continue to do that.

Video delivery and Internet access should not be provided by the same company.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum


88615298
Premium
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness
reply to silbaco

Re: Oh well....

said by silbaco:

How many false accusations arise in countries with 3 strikes laws? Relatively few. 6 false accusations is extremely unlikely and they don't do much anyway.

In France they have had 3 strikes for 3 years

According to Hadopi's July newsletter, the agency has to date sent one million warning emails to potentially infringing users under the first stage of the regime. 99,000 'strike two' follow-up letters have been sent, while 314 cases have been referred to the courts for possible prosecution. To date, nobody has actually been disconnected under the law.

So about 10% that got a strike 1 letter got a strike 2 letter and one 1 out of 3200 people that got a strike 1 letter ended up getting a strike 3. I'm sure all 314 were totally innocent.

axus

join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC
Reviews:
·Comcast

1 recommendation

reply to 88615298

Re: BS from the anti-6 strikes side

You don't have to prove your guilt or innocence to police. You aren't going to talk your way out of getting arrested, that's based on what they observe.

Nobody has a problem defending themselves in court. The problem is a process that bypasses the courts and has ISPs making quasi-legal judgments, when they aren't an impartial observer.

If you're falsely accused once by an automated process, it's likely that the broken process which accused you will repeatedly generate the same result. That's why you need an independent judge/jury to analyze the process, instead of being judged by the same company that made the broken process in the first place.

Rekrul

join:2007-04-21
Milford, CT
reply to 88615298
said by 88615298:

If I get arrested for a crime, the cops think I did it( ie GUILTY of said crime ) before I've had a trial. Thus I have to pay to prove I am not guilty.

If I am sued in a civil case I have to pay to defend myself.

The difference is that you aren't paying money to the people who are accusing you. No court says "If you want to plead 'not guilty', you'll have to first pay us $100."

said by 88615298:

It would be incredibly bad luck to be falsely accused 6 times in a row.

Unless you leave your WiFi open for others to use, which despite much propaganda from the entertainment industry, is not a crime.

said by 88615298:

Considering the "penalty" the first 5 strikes is a letter and the penalty for the 6th strike is um NOTHING( maybe throttling ) I'm not seeing the point of all the hub bub.

There's no formal penalty for any of the strikes. That's left up to the ISP, which can terminate your account. Also, all of the information on accused subscribers is sent to the copyright holders who can decide to sue.

said by 88615298:

If you're accused of rape, sure there is a chance you are could be falsely accused. Happens all the time. However if you are accused 6 times in a row there is no way you are not guilty.

Actually, I can't find a reference now, but several years ago, there were a string of rapes in one city and all of the witnesses positively IDed the same guy, even though he had alibis for each of the rapes. The police finally discovered that it was another guy who looked enough like the first guy to be his brother. As I recall, the show Law & Order SVU used it as the basis for one of their episodes.

Considering that researchers were able to trick the copyright industry into sending infringement notices to a networked printer's IP address (a device incapable of reproducing movies or music), it's not impossible that someone else could cause you to be mistakenly sent infringement notices.

axus

join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC
reply to old_wiz_60

Re: Of course..

There is no law here, and no bribes were paid to the government this time. The government isn't involved here, but they should be. This is a system made by RIAA/MPAA, because they could not get a law through Congress for it.

axus

join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC
Reviews:
·Comcast
reply to anon1

Re: Anti-trust

This doesn't make them any money, it's costing them. It's equivalent to movie theaters agreeing to rating system G/PG/R and turning away under-age customers. Another system designed by the MPAA.

But now, they're cutting off a communication method, instead of keeping you off movie theatre property.


88615298
Premium
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness
reply to axus

Re: BS from the anti-6 strikes side

said by axus:

You don't have to prove your guilt or innocence to police. You aren't going to talk your way out of getting arrested, that's based on what they observe.

If you get arrested for child molestation, even if you're 100% innocent you're not going to look that way for a LONG time.

The fact that legally you are INNOCENT until proven guilty doesn't mean you can not be accused of committing crime so how is this different.

Nobody has a problem defending themselves in court. The problem is a process that bypasses the courts

You want to go to court over a fucking letter that doesn't even have any teeth? Seriously?

and has ISPs making quasi-legal judgments, when they aren't an impartial observer.

Police arrest you because they think you are guilty of a crime even though you haven't been to court. They are making judgments are they not? And face it cops are hardly impartial.

If you're falsely accused once by an automated process, it's likely that the broken process which accused you will repeatedly generate the same result. That's why you need an independent judge/jury to analyze the process, instead of being judged by the same company that made the broken process in the first place.

Hyperbole. I'm sure plenty of people will claim they have been falsely accused. Most of them are full of shit. 100% of those accused of rape say they were falsely accused, maybe 2% actually are.

Maybe we should abolish rape laws so those 2% don't suffer needlessly. Oh hey hyperbole is awesome!

Dodge
Premium
join:2002-11-27

Stupidity Test?

Assuming that someone is downloading illegally (not talking about false positives right now), and continues to download in the same manner after the warning without learning what VPN, usenet, etc. are, they probably need to be removed from society for being a moron.

Now I am not advocating illegal sharing in any way, but if for whatever reason someone is insistant on doing it, there are enough technologies out there to avoid getting these letters all together (and I'm sure people at RIAA/MPAA know this), which makes me believe that the only reason RIAA/MPAA want this out there is "foot in the door", so when they start pushing for more things, it will have incremental impact and will be less of a PR nightmare for them.


Packeteers
Premium
join:2005-06-18
Forest Hills, NY
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable

they may already have the goods on you

if you have been torrenting through 2012 without any VPN/Proxy/Seedbox connection,
don't take comfort with this notification system delay - they already have you well
documented and you probably have a strike or two against you on file.

bottom line: if you must torrent, get a $5-$10/month OpenVPN service as soon as possible.

BTW, see this news out of Brazil? people using VPN service down there were totally safe;
»DSL Modem Attack in Brazil Impacts Millions

tmc8080

join:2004-04-24
Brooklyn, NY
Reviews:
·ooma
·Optimum Online
·Verizon FiOS
reply to dnoyeB

Re: I think they are serious

said by dnoyeB:

I think they really intend to do this. It obviously won't have any impact on crime. Might beat up on a few people that make mistakes. Plus, piss off a whole lot of innocent people.

I think Americans do not like being falsely accused. Also, American's have huge balls in groups. Once the piss off that critical mass of people there will be hell to pay.

I think their timing is key, because they want to implement this, and at the same time are trying to ram down more legislation in the form of CISPA to violate people's privacy even moreso than they do today... it's worth a read and to let your senators know where you stand on it... how popular do you think it will be if people get ratted out by their ISPs.. whether it's true or not?

»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyber_Inte···tion_Act


88615298
Premium
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness
reply to Rekrul

Re: BS from the anti-6 strikes side

said by Rekrul:

[The difference is that you aren't paying money to the people who are accusing you. No court says "If you want to plead 'not guilty', you'll have to first pay us $100."

Have you even been to court? Every time you show up to court it is going to cost you money. That's why they have thing called COURT COSTS. Not to mention the money you pay your lawyer just for him to show up in court for you to plead NOT GUILTY. It's more than $35 trust me.

said by 88615298:

Unless you leave your WiFi open for others to use, which despite much propaganda from the entertainment industry, is not a crime.

It's not a crime for me to leave my car door unlocked and have the keys inside. It's not very smart either. Only a dumbass would have open Wi-Fi on a residential connection. That's just a lame excuse.

said by 88615298:

There's no formal penalty for any of the strikes. That's left up to the ISP, which can terminate your account. Also, all of the information on accused subscribers is sent to the copyright holders who can decide to sue.

If you actually read the law you can not be disconnected for a 6th strike.

Sure an ISP can disconnect you, but that's part of their TOS which they have had for YEARS. So technically they can cut you off after ONE strike if they choose. And they will maintain that right even if this law were to be abolished.

said by 88615298:

Actually, I can't find a reference now, but several years ago, there were a string of rapes in one city and all of the witnesses positively IDed the same guy, even though he had alibis for each of the rapes. The police finally discovered that it was another guy who looked enough like the first guy to be his brother. As I recall, the show Law & Order SVU used it as the basis for one of their episodes.

That's ONE incidence in my book. Once a guy is arrested for rape other victims can be convinced that that guy did it, especially if the new media make him seem 100% guilty and the cops encourage then to finger the guy. I'm talking about 6 completely separate and non connected rapes.

Considering that researchers were able to trick the copyright industry into sending infringement notices to a networked printer's IP address (a device incapable of reproducing movies or music), it's not impossible that someone else could cause you to be mistakenly sent infringement notices.

The word RESEARCHERS. Please enough with the rare weird examples to prove a point. Just because there have been proven case where earing a seatbelt actually caused a death where there wouldn't otherwise be one doesn't mean you stop wearing seatbelts.

I can find a guy that smoked 3 packs a day and drank a fifth of whisky a day and lived to be 100. That doesn't mean that will happen to everyone.


88615298
Premium
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness
reply to NormanS

Re: If the ISP's Were So Scared

said by NormanS:

said by 88615298:

said by Os:

of liability and false accusations, then why not tell the RIAA/MPAA to shove it?

Most ISPs also provide video services. I'm pretty sure they would like to continue to do that.

Video delivery and Internet access should not be provided by the same company.

So you are going to force all the cable companies to sell off their internet access? Considering they run off the same lines the new ISPs would have to build out their own infrastructure. Yeah good luck with that.


88615298
Premium
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness

Just for the record

I think this is stupid and certainly won't stop piracy. And in fact there are much better ways for the music and movie/TV industry to reduce piracy, but that would require thinking outside the box and accepting new ways of doing things.

That being said all the people bringing up non existent scenarios as to why this law is bad are getting on my nerves.

Kearnstd
Space Elf
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
kudos:1
it is a bad law because its asking one industry to police for another industry. I figure it like this, its not the job of the Mall to make sure that Sears is not selling fake Gucci bags causing Macy's to lose business.

and the entertainment industry will never think outside the box as long as their old business model is remotely profitable for huge profits. A big issue is the cost per unit on the internet is far lower than physical retail(see iTunes and how it altered the music industry and profits).

Oddly enough the video game industry has fully fallen in love with Steam and prices on Steam outside of a sale match that of a retail box and has not slowed it any.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports
Expand your moderator at work