Verizon to Start Throttling Pirates This Month → Watch as network performance decreases for all...

Whenever anyone, ISP or otherwise deploys equipment to throttle or block access, network performance will decrease. I've noticed in the past few months Verizon's network hasn't had quite the snap that it normally has when loading up content. Yet, my latency is fine and my speed is there, and performance for real time applications hasn't quite changed. It's pretty typical with the signs I see on networks with filtering appliances or other such "monitoring" solutions.

So to say the least, I'll believe it if I see people complaining about being throttled or seeing additional latency even if there actually was not any problematic traffic and congestion isn't a factor. Let the complaints roll in!

Because corporations really care about complaints. Maybe they will take the Tmo "stabbing" routine.

By who?

You know who (Hint: they are not Pirates)

yeah ignorant people that have yet to be charged with anything nor ever will be. Once again the WORST punishment is 3 days of throttling. If I was a pirate that wouldn't scare me in the least. Ok wait 3 days start pirating again.

So people who are using their Internet for work or play who may be affected by things such as false positives are ignorant and should be punished because of something they had nothing to do with? Should they have to take a lecture or whatever is planned for them because of something that they did not do and was just a mis-identification of their traffic? Should their Internet take a performance hit because of that? Should their Internet which they pay for no matter how big or small the price tag take a potential performance hit because of gear that had to be installed to manage "pesky" users? It's an inconvenience, but "severe throttling" could mean you're going from already mediocre speed to something that isn't worth fighting with.

I suppose you also missed the portion of the message stating that what happens after is still up for debate. I'd be afraid about that pirate or not.

IF that happens post back here and we'll continue this conversation. All you have now is "what ifs"?

The same thing that has to go into making decisions to throttle users if they are a suspected pirate. All the "What If's..." must be considered. When you're implementing a system that has known inherent flaws that will never possibly be worked out (see: any web filter) due to it's nature you have to weigh them.

I could play a "Wait and See" method but what fun is that. By then it's already too late to consider anything. You're either being punished, or you're roasting in a fire.

even if they are a pirate, they are innocent until some form of evidence has been produced. ISPs have no business degrading service under this or any other pretense. You pay for service X, you should get service X.

You COULD and you WILL. You don't have a say in this. I'm not sure which part of that you aren't getting. And frankly if I was Verizon or TW customers I would NOT be worried in the slightest. I have far more important things to worry about than things that are less likely to happen to me than getting struck by lightning while being eaten by a shark while winning the Powerball.

you mean like an ISP address and time and date and name of the content which has been pirated? Sorry watching Law and Order doesn't make you a legal expert. Which part of 5 TIMES before 3 days of throttling occurs are you not getting? And if you are a pirate and you are stupid enough to get caught 5 times you deserve to beaten to a pulp by your fellow pirates for being so stupid.

I shouldn't get any notices. And there is no oversight to prove that the complaint is legit. I have no reason to believe it.

You sure do a warped view of this. How anyone thinks it is okay for any kind of big brother to be watching what you do online is beyond me. Keep trying to justify it, it's still wrong.

It doesn't matter if I don't have a say in the end game. I understand how corporations and conglomerates operate and that hasn't changed one bit as time goes on. It's simply a repeat of the past but in a different form. I do however, have every right and will to be concerned about it even if it doesn't exclusively apply to me. I am a Verizon customer, with my other reasonable alternative being Time Warner. I have every reason to believe that what they're doing detriments the network for everyone, not just for the pirates because it isn't a belief; it's something I've seen in the past in person, hand in hand, and have diagnosed outside of forums. Filters and analytics are flawed by design, tech support lines for ISPs insist on replacing modems and blaming the computer, or saying it's within spec rather than get to the meat and potatoes of the problem, and legitimate people are going to be punished wrongfully because of someone's bad decision who did not go through the scenario thought process and weigh pros and cons. You know, sort of like how data usage meters and how they measure aren't disclosed and the meter doesn't reflect what is actual.

A time will come where just like the phantom data usage on mobile phones, the "ignorant" people are going to start worrying about it. It's happened before. If you take a look at the Canadian forums, the throttling mechanisms in use routinely throttle legitimate traffic. If you look at any corporate firewall out there, no matter how well it is set up it will make mistakes on traffic, effectively blocking what is not something that a rule was intended to cover. What about YouTube's content ID system that flags videos incorrectly and makes contesting them a big PITA? Who's to say the magical system the ISPs are deploying won't make similar mistakes? If they do throttle, what are they going to do about those locations that rely on VoIP or VPN service for work? The wording of this also reflects business accounts and it has a lot of consequences that were most likely not considered.

Like I said. Unless the Internet is some toy thing that can be chewed and stepped upon without affecting a single person but you and the person doing the bad, I'd be concerned. Granted, it doesn't have to be something that stops your ability to do other things.

It's what you're NOT paying for that causes this
Don't pay for X, get throttled.

In that case, this "solution" won't fix much of anything.

No but it pretty clearly will point to those who repeatly download illegally and highlight them for further action.

but there is no action that can be taken against those who do not upload.

So you say, it still is an illegal download they just haven't determined an effective legal and cost effective method of response for a single download vs uploads recording hundreds of counts.
For download maybe lawyers are too expensive, so maybe a guy with a baseball bat would be more convincing.

I really hope you're joking.

Downloading is impossible for the content owners to detect. There is no way to go after people when you don't even know if they are doing anything.

In the end, we will probably end up with an Internet surcharge which gets paid to content owners much like the audio CD fee. Even if they were to get legislation, they would still cry piracy in order to get some free money... that's all this is about.

First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the socialists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me.

Why?
He doesn't believe in the "don't steal other peoples work" Law.
The guy with the bat may not believe in the "don't bash my brains in" law.
once you decide to be selective, you open a door which lets in all sorts of stuff you don't want.

Because it's difficult, doesn't make it legal, moral, or right.
And yes they'll always get legislation/gov't will side with them, because that industry represents 10's of millions of jobs, downloaders almost none.
the industry won't give up but they may escalate to the point where it damages internet usabiliy (massive/slow deep packet inspection, servers being blocked, counrties being blocked, far worse than today) And the pirates are to blame, not the system, not the industry, not the gov't, just a bunch of cheap asses.

And a content onwers fee is the worst way to handle it.
Internet costs double for everyone even if they don't download?
How about everyone PAY for what THEY use/download, even if they "weren't going to buy it anyway" (bunch of spoiled brats)

Are you seriously advocating for a cap system to deter piracy?

Also, let's be real here, no one deserves getting their head bashed in for copyright infringement. There's a difference between stealing and copyright infringement which has been discussed here ad naseum. I don't pirate much anymore (simply because if the product isn't worth buying then I don't bother).

I'm not advocating, I'm predicting a fairly obvious response.
And yes you can play the "it's infringement, not stealing" semantics game forever, but downloading does damage the economic value to the artist and those they choose to assign the legal rights to distribute.

If you are staving( or see your job being devalue/eliminated) BECAUSE I run by a STEAL your food/money, you will try to stop me.
if saying "Hey, Man!?!" doesn't work, you'll call a cop, if that fails to stop me, you'll get physical.*
The same applies to pirates vs the industry, It will escalate.
And those most responsible for promoting piracy usually aren't the first to get hurt, it'll be kids and mothers and others who thought it was "OK, cause everyone does it"

*Actually clubbing to death is a metaphor for higher, more punitive actions, and would probably be a near last ditch effort, but you never know, when things get out of control, bad things happen.

You are right, a fee paid to the content owners is a terrible way to handle it but it is exactly what they are after. It represents guaranteed income for the shareholders so they have to go for it (bunch of spoiled brats). They will continue to claim massive losses to piracy until they do get it, just like with CDs.

Why don't people simply pay for what they download? Because that product doesn't exist! How is it that people with no money invested nor money to be gained can develop a system that provides a massive library of content available immediately and the content owners are unable to do the same? Netflix is a great start, I have an account and if something is available there I watch it there... why bother downloading it. As anyone will tell you, their content is lacking. So the real question is why can't business provide the product the customers want to buy?

But music downloads for MOST content have been available for years, legally even if early efforts were crude.
both the music and film industries were highly vested in the DVD and Bluray distribution methods, and were afraid of losing that known market for an online market that seemed uncontroled and highly driven by theft.
there was "profit" for torrent, limewire, and other distribution designers in that they got "free" content, more over had they CHOOSEN to packageand market they're methods well they could have been running the legit services, or at least writting the software for the current storefronts.

The real question are: If EXACTLY what I want is not for sale in the way I want it, do I have the right to steal it? to encourage others to steal it? and to develop and contribute, and possibly profit from the black market using it?
And if the applies to data{software, music, video, other} what else can I take?

Yes downloads for music have been available (despite initial RIAA resistance to them) and the people that used to ask me how limewire works now ask me how iTunes, Pandora & Spotify work. Unfortunately, you will NEVER hear the RIAA admit that piracy has decreased... if anything, they say it is getting worse. Why? Because they are extortionists trying to get free money.I have no problem using a more realistic, non-lobbied definition of 'fair use' when watching/listening for my own personal entertainment & the content owner refuses to make it reasonably available. I could just as easily steal it by borrowing it from the library and listening to/watching it or by borrowing it from a friend (which is, in essence, what torrenting is) and listening to/watching it.

Is it wrong to steal from an extortionist?

Yes, it is wrong to steal from anyone.
You don't legally get to decide the ToS.
Torrenting is quite different in that you may end up with millions of unpaid for copies, where the library or fiends copy was paid for and would take a long time to circulate to millions of people, most likely encouraging many more sales.

Again you are being selective in your adherence to the law.

So whatever the industry does in response is on your(collective) head, unfortunately, some of this fallout may effect the rest of us, and some may choose to strike out at you rather than the industry.

Your continuing efforts to rationalize your behavior only point out how weak your case is.
you obviously understand fair use does not mean free use, but chose to ignore it when it's most convenient for you.
Each of your statements show that YOU are the greedy one, completely self serving exactly as you pretend/portray the industry and the politicians without conviencing evidence in most cases.
You are the problem, not the solution.

And you obviously know that copying does not mean stealing but choose to ignore it when it's most convenient for you :P

I may be 'the problem' from the point of view of the **AA but I do not have their viewpoint. I have seen their viewpoint and it is wrong. Why anyone would choose to deliberately convince themselves that an incorrect view is correct and everyone else is wrong is beyond me.

EVERYONE is selective in their behavior and whether or not they choose to follow a particular law. If people blindly followed stupid laws Alcohol would still be prohibited, oral sex between married couples would still be illegal in most states, and you would still be paying tax on your tea to the British. I am sure those laws also had their 'defenders' up on moral high horses admonishing everyone for their wrongness. In the end, common sense usually prevails.