dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
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. ..


dnoyeB
Ferrous Phallus
join:2000-10-09
Southfield, MI

dnoyeB

Member

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.
88615298 (banned)
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness

88615298 (banned)

Member

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.

cdru
Go Colts
MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN

cdru

MVM

Re: I think they are serious

said by 88615298:

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

I think the same types clueless people that fall for phishing or 419 scams will get all pissed off if/when they are wrongly accused. They'll get all upset because they have a "record" and want to "clear their name".
Cyron
join:2002-09-24
Charlotte, NC

Cyron to 88615298

Member

to 88615298
said by 88615298:

said by dnoyeB:

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

I think your jumping to the conclusion that IP Address = Individual. While I agree that the vast majority of accused IP addresses are accurate, so the person getting the letter pays for the internet account that was responsible, we've seen court cases go both ways on the IP address = person argument.
Crookshanks
join:2008-02-04
Binghamton, NY

1 edit

Crookshanks to 88615298

Member

to 88615298
said by 88615298:

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

Master plan:

1) Tell ISP about infringing account.
2) ISP sends strongly worded letter.
3) One of the following happens:

- Parent/Grandparent yells at teenager, teenager stops pirating music/videos for awhile.
- Spouse A yells at Spouse B, Spouse B stops pirating music/videos/porn for awhile.
- Grandma has no idea what happened, calls technically literate friend, who secures her wi-fi/cleans malware off her PC.
- Letter goes into the pile, never gets opened, account probably never receives another, if it does goto step #1.
- Serial pirate ignores letter, goto step #5

4) End.

5) Serial pirate invests in overseas VPN account OR gets sued in due time.

I suspect that the first example under step #3 accounts for a significant percentage of piracy, and in that instance a scary letter may well prove to be effective.
tmc8080
join:2004-04-24
Brooklyn, NY

tmc8080 to dnoyeB

Member

to dnoyeB
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/Cy ··· tion_Act
funny0
join:2010-12-22

funny0 to dnoyeB

Member

to dnoyeB
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.

yes htis is why this is happening cause they have huge balls in groups....hahaha right bend over some more big boy here comes dinnner and you can't do a thing about it...
88615298 (banned)
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness

88615298 (banned)

Member

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.
axus
join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC

1 recommendation

axus

Member

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.
88615298 (banned)
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness

88615298 (banned)

Member

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!
axus
join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC

axus

Member

Re: BS from the anti-6 strikes side

Rape laws are fine, a judge and jury will need to be convinced by DNA evidence, testimony, etc. It's fine to be arrested for a crime you didn't commit, as long as you have bail, a speedy trial, and the other protections that America was created for.

I don't see being arrested as a punishment. It's a system for holding you in custody (arrest) until it's almost sure that you will appear in court, or it's obvious that court is not needed. Nobody should be prejudged for merely an arrest.

People can judge you in their mind for evidence that led to the arrest. If there's a kid telling everyone you molested them, schools/daycares/whatever should err on the side of caution. An ISP isn't being harmed when MPAA is telling everyone you're uploading their movies.

ISPs are already sending letters out to people accused of infringement. That's great, the innocent are informed that something is making them look bad and track it down, the guilty get a chance to stop what they are doing. By all means, keep sending the letters. It's the internet disconnections I have a problem with.
Rekrul
join:2007-04-21
Milford, CT

Rekrul to 88615298

Member

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.
88615298 (banned)
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness

88615298 (banned)

Member

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.
Rekrul
join:2007-04-21
Milford, CT

Rekrul

Member

Re: BS from the anti-6 strikes side

said by 88615298:

Have you even been to court?

Only once for jury duty (where after making me come in at 8:00AM and then waiting all afternoon, they told me they didn't even need any jurors that day).
said by 88615298:

It's not a crime for me to leave my car door unlocked and have the keys inside. It's not very smart either.

If someone steals you car because you left it unlocked with the keys in it, and uses it in a crime, do you get charged?
said by 88615298:

Only a dumbass would have open Wi-Fi on a residential connection. That's just a lame excuse.

If you leave your car unlocked with the keys in it and it gets stolen, you no longer have your car. If you leave your WiFi open, you still have it, and your neighbors can share it. Or is sharing now considered bad? Should parents be teaching children not to share? Maybe when some kid wants some of little Bobby's candy, he should be rewarded for yelling "Get your own!"
said by 88615298:

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

It's not actually a law. There is no law one way or the other. Which means that customers don't have any legal protection in this agreement.
said by 88615298:

The word RESEARCHERS. Please enough with the rare weird examples to prove a point.

Yes, because it's not like there are hackers who can and will crack WiFi passwords or spoof IP addresses to hide their activities. I mean, that would be like the equivalent of building a fancy tone generator to scam the phone company out of long-distance charges or to get free calls at a pay phone, and we all know that those things never happened...

NOCTech75
Premium Member
join:2009-06-29
Marietta, GA

NOCTech75 to 88615298

Premium Member

to 88615298
said by 88615298:

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.

No... no you don't.

cdru
Go Colts
MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN

cdru to 88615298

MVM

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.

Unless you can not in which case a lawyer will be appointed. It may not be as good of a defense, but you don't have to pay.

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.

For $35 you would just be in small claims. Where you represent yourself. And it costs nothing to defend yourself other than your time.

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.

What's the "statue of limitations" on the accusations? It is improbable but not impossible.

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.

It does not require anything to happen, but that doesn't mean that they can't elect to happen. But I agree with you. An ISP, for the most part, doesn't care what their users do as long as it doesn't end up cost them additional money. Unless there is criminal use of the account (phishing, scams, child porn, etc), as long as the customer pays they are going to stay a customer.

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.

Remind me never to have you on my jury. Besides, if you're falsely accused, any subsequent time the jury would never hear about it.
funny0
join:2010-12-22

funny0 to 88615298

Member

to 88615298
said by 88615298:

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.

you were doing ok till hte cops part about you being guilty , no if that were the case you'd not get a trial of any kind or that right and go right to prison .....the cops THINK you did something wrong they arrest you and you goto court to determine guilt or innocence...
88615298 (banned)
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness

88615298 (banned)

Member

Re: BS from the anti-6 strikes side

said by funny0:

you were doing ok till hte cops part about you being guilty , no if that were the case you'd not get a trial of any kind or that right and go right to prison .....the cops THINK you did something wrong they arrest you and you goto court to determine guilt or innocence...

and this is different how? People here want the courts to determine innocence BEFORE letters are sent.
Os
join:2011-01-26
US

Os

Member

If the ISP's Were So Scared

of liability and false accusations, then why not tell the RIAA/MPAA to shove it?
88615298 (banned)
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness

88615298 (banned)

Member

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

Os

Member

Re: If the ISP's Were So Scared

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 Member
join:2009-08-03
USA

1 recommendation

silbaco

Premium Member

Re: If the ISP's Were So Scared

The members of MPAA do.
Os
join:2011-01-26
US

Os

Member

Re: If the ISP's Were So Scared

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.......
silbaco
Premium Member
join:2009-08-03
USA

silbaco

Premium Member

Re: If the ISP's Were So Scared

Wouldn't be surprising. The MPAA has never been known for thinking reasonably.
88615298 (banned)
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness

88615298 (banned)

Member

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.

NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
TP-Link TD-8616
Asus RT-AC66U B1
Netgear FR114P

1 recommendation

NormanS to 88615298

MVM

to 88615298
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.
88615298 (banned)
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness

88615298 (banned)

Member

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.

NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
TP-Link TD-8616
Asus RT-AC66U B1
Netgear FR114P

NormanS

MVM

Re: If the ISP's Were So Scared

said by 88615298:

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.

They do? Ask Paxio, Sonic.net, LLC or Google about how much last mile coax they are building out!

dnoyeB
Ferrous Phallus
join:2000-10-09
Southfield, MI

dnoyeB to NormanS

Member

to NormanS
Ouch. You just killed UVerse.

NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
TP-Link TD-8616
Asus RT-AC66U B1
Netgear FR114P

NormanS

MVM

Re: If the ISP's Were So Scared

said by dnoyeB:

Ouch. You just killed UVerse.

I wouldn't have if it was available. Oh, hark! It is and I don't.
Paxio
Premium Member
join:2011-02-23
Santa Clara, CA

Paxio to NormanS

Premium Member

to NormanS
said by NormanS:

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

In the largest sense, I agree with you completely. We want to "carry" video services but not be the actual provider. For example we are experimenting with delivery of DirecTV over our fiber in The Sonora in San Jose. The trial is going well, but I'd like to see MORE offerings of video service added -- GoogleTV, SureWest, maybe even Comcast.

Why not? We can build out and maintain our state-of-the-art fiber plant for much less than an old creaky coax network, so we could offer Comcast "wholesale" access to the addresses on our network and everybody wins.

It's the future of data services -- open access. Build a next-gen fiber plant and sell access to any provider who wants to reach your footprint. Everybody competes for the customer's dollar and the customer only needs one clean fiber connection to access the world.

Prices go down, service goes up and people build statues of Paxio in the park! (Hey, its my fantasy and I can end it any way I want!)
Kearnstd
Space Elf
Premium Member
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ

Kearnstd to Os

Premium Member

to Os
Content ownership and content delivery however should not be the same companies.

They also will not tell the MAFIAA to shove it because they fear harsher laws purchased by MAFIAA lobby groups. If "six strikes" did not get followed by the ISPs the entertainment groups would just buy laws that did far worse things.
silbaco
Premium Member
join:2009-08-03
USA

silbaco

Premium Member

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.

••••••••••
old_wiz_60
join:2005-06-03
Bedford, MA

old_wiz_60

Member

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?
axus
join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC

axus

Member

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.

morbo
Complete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000

morbo

Member

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

anon1

Anon

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?
axus
join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC

axus

Member

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.
Dodge
Premium Member
join:2002-11-27

Dodge

Premium Member

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 Member
join:2005-06-18
Forest Hills, NY
Asus RT-AC3100
(Software) Asuswrt-Merlin

Packeteers

Premium Member

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
88615298 (banned)
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness

88615298 (banned)

Member

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.

••••••••
Sukunai
Premium Member
join:2008-05-07

Sukunai

Premium Member

Afraid to be number 1, no shit

Gee there's a revelation, a company concerned about being the first company to stick their corporate head into the cannon.

Competition is vicious out there. I don't blame them.

I wonder when the MPAA RIAA will finally get told to piss off? When they run out of money in the bottomless money sack they say they don't have I guess.