dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
31
share rss forum feed


FFH5
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5

1 recommendation

reply to Chiyo

Re: Suspected = guilty no matter what

said by Chiyo:

the ISP shouldn't be able to tell me what I can and can't visit because they suspect me of being a pirate.

Their TOS already gives them that right.

It was inevitable that the ISPs got onboard with discouraging copyright infringement. They are the ones in the best position to be enforcement cops. The MPAA & RIAA are helping cover the costs. And the White House is backing the agreement. It isn't three strikes, but ISPs will take actions against violators they feel is appropriate.
--
Record your speedtest.net results in DSLReports SpeedWave
»www.speedtest.net/wave/afe201cb84d45c88


DataRiker
Premium
join:2002-05-19
00000
said by FFH5:

Their TOS already gives them that right.

Most peer to peer programs run randomized encryption by default, and DDL sites are inherently immune to this. Sure some non-tech savvy people will get caught in the crossfire, but the real pirates will keep on like usual.

As long as anti-piracy measures are this far behind I have no problem with them.

If this is how they are going to attack piracy, the pirates need not worry.


Uncle Paul

join:2003-02-04
USA
kudos:1
reply to FFH5
said by FFH5:

said by Chiyo:

the ISP shouldn't be able to tell me what I can and can't visit because they suspect me of being a pirate.

It was inevitable that the ISPs got onboard with discouraging copyright infringement. They are the ones in the best position to be enforcement cops. The MPAA & RIAA are helping cover the costs. And the White House is backing the agreement. It isn't three strikes, but ISPs will take actions against violators they feel is appropriate.

How about MPAA and RIAA foot 100% of the cost. Why should an ISP shoulder the cost of the MPAA or RIAA recover its lost revenue (once lost revenue is actually proven).

openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
Germany
kudos:2
reply to DataRiker
They aren't, and that's part of Karl's point. The few tend to ruin things for the masses. That theory isn't exclusive to ISPs, but they are the latest to clamp down. Thank your local copyright infringer....


Camelot One
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-21
Greenwood, IN
kudos:2

1 recommendation

reply to Uncle Paul
said by Uncle Paul:

How about MPAA and RIAA foot 100% of the cost. Why should an ISP shoulder the cost of the MPAA or RIAA recover its lost revenue (once lost revenue is actually proven).

You have to keep in mind, Verizon and AT&T aren't just the ISP anymore. They are also selling the video service, audio channels, etc. Reducing pirated downloads results in more people subscribing to their premium channels. (or so they are spinning it)


camper
Premium
join:2010-03-21
Bethel, CT
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Comcast
said by Camelot One:

You have to keep in mind, Verizon and AT&T aren't just the ISP anymore. They are also selling the video service, audio channels, etc. Reducing pirated downloads results in more people subscribing to their premium channels. (or so they are spinning it)

Comcast, the new owner of NBC Universal, is also a content provider that wants to protect its content.


DataRiker
Premium
join:2002-05-19
00000
reply to openbox9
said by openbox9:

They aren't, and that's part of Karl's point. The few tend to ruin things for the masses. That theory isn't exclusive to ISPs, but they are the latest to clamp down. Thank your local copyright infringer....

What exactly is being ruined?

Pirates will not be affected by this, obfuscation and encryption layers have been standard on P2P for the last few years.

Your ISP can't tell if your on a corporate VPN or P2P unless they actually peer with you.

Good luck with that.


axiomatic

join:2006-08-23
Tomball, TX

1 recommendation

reply to openbox9
Why do "the masses" have to be inconvenienced then if there is no chance that the MPAA/RIAA can combat highly skilled P2P users? Your justification does not fit the perpetrator of the crime and yet you applaud the innocent being inconvenienced or potentially even being incorrectly accused? Where's the logic in that? Again openbox9 you seem to not understand how networks actually work and why punishing "the masses" does nothing to address the real problem.

Even considering the coming of IPV6 with everyone getting a unique IP address cannot surmount the encrypted VPN problem nor the private direct download services doing 30-day usenet backups. Until a major change in internet protocols occurs intellectual property owners are just going to have to cope. Suing the "low hanging fruit" users not skilled enough to cover their tracks again does not address the real problem.

Punish the real criminals, not your paying customers.

No I do not use P2P illegally nor do I condone that activity. I also however have not bought an MPAA or RIAA product (knowingly) for more than 10 years now until they come to their senses and stop suing and/or inconveniencing their paying customers.

openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
Germany
kudos:2
reply to DataRiker
Services aren't being ruined or impeded for the infringers. Rather everyone else, which is my point.

openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
Germany
kudos:2
reply to axiomatic
Where do you see my applause for the inconvenience? I'm on the other side of this argument, so perhaps I made my point poorly.

Please, stop with the "that's how networks work" thing. It's irrelevant to most of your arguments.


DataRiker
Premium
join:2002-05-19
00000
reply to openbox9
Oh, Well yea that's obvious.

Good thing I only use the internet to pirate.


C_Chipperson
Monster Rain
Premium
join:2009-01-17
00000
kudos:3
reply to Uncle Paul
Oh, Uncle Paul! You're gonna get caught no matter what for what you're downloading!!