| ... The Graduated Response seems to have all the ingredients to succeed.
THE ISP LIKES IT BECAUSE:
1. It discourages heavy file sharing usage.
2. It discourages usage outside their own PPV system.
3. Few, if any, would ignore the letters to the point of losing their service if any other provider they could go to would produce the same result.
Ars Technica wrote:
»arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20···too.html
"Adopting graduated response and letting the industry do all the identification should also avoid some of the regulatory problems that could crop up if ISPs instead started scanning and blocking content in realtime."
Well if they are not scanning then they are not identifying, are they? They are assuming, aren't they? Make enough assumptions against enough people and you can get yourself in some trouble. The wording of the warning letter and TOS are going to need to be crafted well.  |
|
Pv8man
join:2008-07-24
Hammond, IN | I received a notice from WOW (Wide Open West) about 3 months ago.
see screenshot
»publicviolate.com/images/p2pnotice.jpg
I called the number, and it always goes to a voice recorder, saying that it's a "special" department that requires "special trained staff" to deal with it, which they called me a week later at a random time, while I was at work.
They said that they have the evidence, and the evidence was ( Apparently ) that I downloaded "Pineapple Express" on bit torrent.
Now, I know some in this forum have probably already pre-judged me as "Guilty"
But, I swear I NEVER even tried to download that particular movie. I hardly ever even use bit torrent.
The representative said that the evidence does not lie.
and since I am the only one in the house that knows how to use bit torrent, I'm positive it was not someone else.
The representative then suggested that I encrypt my wi-fi router to "prevent it from happening again".
I then of course explained to him that NOTHING that is wireless is secure, and that it can all be cracked.
He did not have anything else new or useful to say after that.
I continue to use bit torrent to this day, and have not received another notice. |
|
1 edit | The WOW notice reads: "We have been notified.." Presumably they are being notified by the MPAA. I gather then that the Ars Technica article refers to the MPAA when it refers to the "industry."
Quote: "Adopting graduated response and letting the industry do all the identification should also avoid some of the regulatory problems that could crop up if ISPs instead started scanning and blocking content in realtime."
Makes sense now. The ISP, having reason to believe their TOS are being violated, is at least legally warranted in sending the notice. If the accusation turns out to be false it is the MPAA that is at cause. Still, I wonder if the ISP would be under some legal responsibility to confirm the accusation before it took action. |
|
Pv8man
join:2008-07-24
Hammond, IN | Sorry, forgot to mention that WOW got the notice from BayTSP. |
|
| »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BayTSP
»www.chillingeffects.org/piracy/notice.cgi
Pretty interesting system. MPAA hires BayTSP. BayTSP notifies ISP. ISP notifies subscriber.
As others in this topic have noted, the internet community may well learn to thwart the system. In this case, it all crumbles on BayTSP's efforts. |
|
|
|
