dslreports logo
site
spacer

spacer
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


view:
topics flat nest 
Comments on news posted 2012-11-19 15:27:12: Time Warner Cable's "six strikes" anti-piracy measures won't include the filtering of any websites, Broadband Reports has learned. ..

page: 1 · 2 · next


birdfeedr
Premium,MVM
join:2001-08-11
Warwick, RI
kudos:9

2 edits

4 recommendations

Obligatory rant from Tennessee

To save some of the effort and repetition,

• Only copyright infringers will receive the notices.
• Everybody who uses torrents are pirating something.
• If you pay for content, that's what you're supposed to do.
• Content producers have the right to control access.
• Anyone who wants something different than what the studios/labels want are pirates.
• You only have rights to view/play the content. You do not own it.

Now that these points are made up front, they don't need to be repeated endlessly.

Did I miss one?

[edit to add]
• It's against ISP TOS, therefore safe harbor provision can be selectively enforced.
• Enforcement action is merely "educational" and short term, so it doesn't have lasting effect if you aren't a pirate.
• Defending yourself for $35 is worth it if you aren't a pirate, since only pirates will get notices.
• If you do nothing wrong, you won't get a notice.
• You are responsible for your internet connection. You need to monitor your kids and Thanksgiving houseguests.
• Wireless security is your responsibility. You deserve a notice if your wireless is hijacked.
• If you make it to 5 notices, whatever happens is your fault.
• The system will have no false positives. If you're tagged, it's real.
• Don't sweat it until you get a notice. Then you get to take action. After all, you have 5 more to go.
• Most people who claim innocence, are not really.



ptrowski
Got Helix?
Premium
join:2005-03-14
Putnam, CT
kudos:4

1 recommendation

Seriously laughed and spit out my water. Thanks.


DabberDan

join:2004-11-15
Canada

Guilty!

As of a customer's third and fourth violations, they'll be greeted with a splash screen forcing them to acknowledge the accusation that they've traded a copyrighted file, and unless they click through -- they can't access the Internet.
This isn't a splash screen. It's an "I'm guilty even though I have no idea what the file is or who on my network sent it".


Cjones

@teksavvy.com

the relation isn't quite understood

Dear TW and other providers
You seem to misunderstand the relations between us. Let me explain them, if I may.
1. I pay you a mutually agreed upon amount of money.
2. You provide me with a service and, possibly, some equipment.
3. If I damage your lines/equipment, or if I don't make the said payments, you are able to cut me off from the flow of bits.
4. If You make changes to the service I don't like, or if I don't require the service any longer, I am able cut you off from the flow of money.
5. Given the current state of technology, including encryption, VPN systems, etc, I am able to enforce the relations as stated above.

Respectfully submitted.

Your service user

That is why I foam at the mouth when I hear the idea of my browser being "restored". TW has neither the right nor the ability to remove or restore anything except their service.


Mr Matt

join:2008-01-29
Eustis, FL
kudos:1

1 recommendation

Admit guilt even if you are not guilty of infringement.

Seems unconstitutional to me.

"As of a customer's third and fourth violations, they'll be greeted with a splash screen forcing them to acknowledge the accusation that they've traded a copyrighted file, and unless they click through -- they can't access the Internet."

What does a customer do it they did not download copyrighted material and Time Warner forces them to admit guilt of infringement by blocking their connection to the internet until they do?

What if the person infringing is someone that is visiting and does the dirty deed while you do not have a clue what is going on. The guest downloads infringing files via customers broadband connection without anyone's knowledge, each time they visit. Customer should have a choice of denying infringing and the denial would generate a report of the time, date and identity of the infringement(s). Customer reviews the report and discovers that a guest was visiting each time the infringement occurred. Time to blow the whistle on guest.



kontos
xyzzy

join:2001-10-04
West Henrietta, NY

1 edit

Kicked off the net

quote:
the mitigation measure in this case is a suspension of their service beginning 14 days after acknowledgement of the notice, unless an appeal is filed
Is it just me, or does this sound pretty much like getting kicked off the 'Net after your six-strikes?

You know like the lady from the CCI police said was not going to happen.

Kamus

join:2011-01-27
El Paso, TX
reply to birdfeedr

Re: Obligatory rant from Tennessee

said by birdfeedr:

To save some of the effort and repetition,

Only copyright infringers will receive the notices.

So pretty much everyone? (though there are some people that actually believe they have never, ever infringed copyright)
But i guess if you infringe copyright on YouTube they'll let that one go.

Verizon (and other ISP's as well) has never been really serious about their high speed offerings as they are artificially inflated. They would have no problem in offering much higher speeds to their entry level plans, but they choose not to do it anyway.

And just to show they could do it. They do offer much higher speeds just for bragging rights. This is evident by the fact that it's priced just high enough so most people never consider getting it, but still get the PR from doing it. (and well, also evidenced by the fact that Google isn't doing any magic tricks by offering a symmetrical gigabit for 70 bucks. As current technology makes that price/performance ratio possible)

And now we get even more evidence of this by the fact that they are willing to send their customers to last decade speeds if they don't behave as if they were living in it.

Google's plans when making devices like their Nexus phones and tablets is to show manufacturers how to go about it to make competent devices (at least that was the idea when it all started)
Now they are attempting to do this with internet connectivity, by showing ISP's how to offer speeds that are worthy of this decade.

But what they don't seem to realize (or maybe they do but are hopeful?), is that ISP's have absolutely no interest in doing this in the first place. Since of course those ISP's also happen to be content distributors. on something that isn't nearly as competitive as the internet.


kontos
xyzzy

join:2001-10-04
West Henrietta, NY

1 recommendation

reply to Mr Matt

Re: Admit guilt even if you are not guilty of infringement.

acknowledge the accusation is NOT equal to acknowledge guilt



Jason Levine
Premium
join:2001-07-13
USA
reply to DabberDan

Re: Guilty!

I was wondering what the wording of the notice would be. Will it be "I have received this notification of an accusation" or will it be "I agree that I have violated copyright and promise not to do it again"? If it's the latter, do they provide contact information to protest and get your Internet access back without "admitting" to the false positive?

If there isn't an easy appeal process then the system could be abused and anyone can make any accusation and push people to the five level. If a forum administrator were to get upset with someone, they could log their IP address and make repeated false copyright violation claims against the user to get them suspended.
--
-Jason Levine



cdru
Go Colts
Premium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:7

1 recommendation

reply to Mr Matt

Re: Admit guilt even if you are not guilty of infringement.

said by Mr Matt:

Admit guilt even if you are not guilty of infringement.

Seems unconstitutional to me.

It's a civil matter between 2 non-government parties, so constitutional issues do not apply.

What does a customer do it they did not download copyrighted material and Time Warner forces them to admit guilt of infringement by blocking their connection to the internet until they do?

Well, they could appeal it. And from the article it sounds like they won't be blocked while it's in appeal.


cdru
Go Colts
Premium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:7
reply to kontos

Re: Kicked off the net

If you read the next paragraph, you'd know that once you're "kicked off" you just have to listen to a script read to you by a half brain-dead CSR, at which point they push a button and you have service again. It's no more kicking you off the net as holding you at a captive page that you have to click an acknowledge button.



NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:11
Reviews:
·SONIC.NET

1 recommendation

reply to Mr Matt

Re: Admit guilt even if you are not guilty of infringement.

Just click through the damned pages, already. That is no more an admission of guilt than your signature on a speeding ticket is an admission of guilt. By clicking through the offered pages you are acknowledging that you have received notice of an accusation of piracy, and "assimilated" certain BS propaganda disguised as, "educational material". Then you get your Internet access back.

Until an agent of the MPAA/RIAA shows up on your doorstep to serve you a court order to appear before a judge in a court of law, this is just a BS circle jerk you have to work through; a "speed bump" on the Information Highway".
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum



kpfx

join:2005-10-28
San Antonio, TX

1 recommendation

Brings up an interesting point....

I keep an open wireless connection for visitors at my house (openwireless.org). The ISP can't verify that it was actually me that then clicked on that acknowledgement page should it come up.

But that also goes back to the whole problem of this accusation system... that an IP address does not equal a person and is not guaranteed to lead to the person supposedly violating said copyright.


XknightHawkX

join:2003-02-13
East Peoria, IL

Downloaded??

"simply be sent an e-mail informing they've downloaded copyrighted material"

How do they know what you downloaded unless they uploaded it to you. In which case I believe is entrapment. Then again Downloading on some apps you are uploading what you got to other people.

Always mentioning downloading. It's uploading that they bust you on.



skeechan
Ai Otsukaholic
Premium
join:2012-01-26
AA169|170
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Clear Wireless
·Cox HSI
·Verizon FiOS

Who gives a crap...seriously?

While most everyone here will get their panties in a bunch this really isn't a big deal. You can get caught a crap load of times before anything actually happens and under this system you get a heads up that you got pinched (without you having to admit anything) so you can change your methods for pirating should you choose to ignore the warnings.

And seriously, what percentage of people will be wrongly dinged? A fraction of a percent and then so what? They click through and in a second they're back off doing whatever they're doing with a notice that they may want to check the security of their home network to make sure they're are no leeches or their kids aren't DLing a bunch of crap.

Seems perfectly reasonable to me.


gkloepfer
Premium
join:2012-07-21
Austin, TX
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
reply to kpfx

Re: Admit guilt even if you are not guilty of infringement.

Most ISP TOSs essentially say that the person who is the subscriber to the Internet services is responsible for anything that is done on their connection. If you choose to allow guests or other individuals access to your service, that's OK as long as you assume responsibility for their behavior while using it.

Effectively, the ISP (in this case, Time Warner/RoadRunner) is saying, "You can't use our Internet services to illegally access copyrighted material."

So all this said, yeah, I think the whole thing is absurd, and frankly it seems like it's going to take an awful lot of resources to both detect and enforce this whole thing...resources that could be better spent giving us better service. Thanks a bunch, RIAA (said rich in sarcasm)...



N3OGH
Yo Soy Col. "Bat" Guano
Premium
join:2003-11-11
Philly burbs
kudos:2
reply to Mr Matt

UGH. I love when people pull the old "unconstitutional" horse out of the barn.

The Constitution regulates the relationship between you and the government. It has nothing to do with your relationship with an ISP.

You don't have a Constitutional right to Internet service. If you didn't download the pirated materials (this being the 5th warning) don't click the button that says you did it. It's that simple. Until you settle things otherwise with TW, you have no Internet.

So either you say "screw it" and click through & you pay the price that way, or you don't and you prove to TW you didn't violate copyright laws.

Either way, it's your connection, you're responsible for whatever is downloaded from it. Secure your WiFi, be selective who you give access to it.
--
Petty people are disproportionally corrupted by petty power



N3OGH
Yo Soy Col. "Bat" Guano
Premium
join:2003-11-11
Philly burbs
kudos:2
reply to Kamus

Re: Obligatory rant from Tennessee

I can honestly say I've never violated copyright. I have no file trading software on my computer, and the only place I download music from is iTunes. With the exception of surfing the web, paying bills, the only thing I use my Internet for is streaming XM, and streaming Netflix to my Internet enabled TV.

Now, if something I have downloaded from iTunes or watched on Netflix was not properly cleared through copyright, I'm not the one who violated copyright, the provider did. I paid for what I thought was a properly obtained content. No Mens Rea exists, and being a reasonable person I had every reason to believe the multinational corporation I am paying for content properly vetted its offering.
--
Petty people are disproportionally corrupted by petty power



MxxCon

join:1999-11-19
Brooklyn, NY

Lose arbitration?

So they have a clause where you can challenge your accusation through arbitration(that $35 fee). In the video they said if you win your arbitration trial your counter gets reset to 0.

But what happens if you lose that arbitration?
--
[Sig removed by Administrator: signature can not exceed 20GB]


Kamus

join:2011-01-27
El Paso, TX
reply to N3OGH

Re: Obligatory rant from Tennessee

said by N3OGH:

I can honestly say I've never violated copyright.

I believe you in thinking you've never done it. But if you've ever been on YouTube there's a HUGE chance you have. or watched something a friend posted on Facebook, etc. If you have ever listened to a friends mixed tape (or if you're not old enough for that, a mixed CD) or recorded anything from the radio at some point if in your life. You have, in effect, violated copyright.

So while unlike most people you might not be aware of it, it doesn't mean you haven't done it repeatedly.


ITALIAN926

join:2003-08-16
kudos:2

Copyright holders can easily have material removed from youtube



birdfeedr
Premium,MVM
join:2001-08-11
Warwick, RI
kudos:9
reply to Kamus

said by Kamus:

said by birdfeedr:

To save some of the effort and repetition,

Only copyright infringers will receive the notices.

So pretty much everyone? (though there are some people that actually believe they have never, ever infringed copyright)

This is clearly directed to current Six Strikes efforts at this time.


birdfeedr
Premium,MVM
join:2001-08-11
Warwick, RI
kudos:9
reply to Kamus

said by Kamus:

said by N3OGH:

I can honestly say I've never violated copyright.

I believe you in thinking you've never done it. But if you've ever been on YouTube there's a HUGE chance you have. or watched something a friend posted on Facebook, etc. If you have ever listened to a friends mixed tape (or if you're not old enough for that, a mixed CD) or recorded anything from the radio at some point if in your life. You have, in effect, violated copyright.

Q: Why is the **AA staying away from Google?
A: ISP subscribers are easier pickings, especially since they've got the ISPs on board.

Good luck getting Google to cripple their service.

If you can, vote with your feet

I'm waiting for WOW Cable to install their service, then good bye Time Warner.



joao

@telemar.net.br
reply to kontos

Re: Admit guilt even if you are not guilty of infringement.

said by kontos:

acknowledge the accusation is NOT equal to acknowledge guilt

joao


N3OGH
Yo Soy Col. "Bat" Guano
Premium
join:2003-11-11
Philly burbs
kudos:2
reply to Kamus

Re: Obligatory rant from Tennessee

It was my understanding under fair use that it was legal to tape a song from FM radio. Can't remember if I did it when I was a kid, that was a long time ago.

Never passed around mix tapes, just wasn't my thing.

I think both examples are a bit out of context. We are talking about violating copyright via the Internet. Two COMPLETELY different animals.

Taping a song off the radio produces a clearly inferior product the degrades in quality exponentially with every subsequent generation. Mix tapes degrade as well and you pretty much only trade them with a few people.

With the Internet, I can trade with anyone in the word instantaneously, with no loss of quality whatsoever.

Big difference...
--
Petty people are disproportionally corrupted by petty power


Kamus

join:2011-01-27
El Paso, TX
reply to ITALIAN926

said by ITALIAN926:

Copyright holders can easily have material removed from youtube

Yes.

Kamus

join:2011-01-27
El Paso, TX
reply to N3OGH

said by N3OGH:

With the Internet, I can trade with anyone in the word instantaneously, with no loss of quality whatsoever.

Big difference...

I know! It's so much better isn't it? ^_-

--EDIT-- You reminded me of this:

»www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvvKsOFEEqQ

RamsteinUSA

join:2007-02-15
Scio, OR

vote in leadrers that send you to re-education camps!

vote in leaders that send you to re-education camps!



wes7979

@sprint.com

vpn

run it all over a vpn tunnel if they look into enctypted packet data over vpn there violating wire tap laws end of story