dslreports logo
site
spacer

spacer
 
   
spc
story category
Six Strikes 'Independent' Review Process to Be Revised
After News Emerged Saying Their Overseer Lobbied for RIAA
by Karl Bode 09:47AM Friday Nov 02 2012
Earlie this month it was revealed that the so-called "independent expert" tasked with overseeing the entertainment and telecom industry's upcoming "six strikes" anti-piracy initiative formerly lobbied for the RIAA. The program had already seen significant criticism for assuming guilt, requiring that accused pirates pay $35 to contest their innocence, relying on often-unsound IP address evidence, while potentially driving up the costs for all broadband users as ISPs pass on program deployment costs to consumers. The Center for Copyright Information (CCI), tasked with overseeing six strikes, now says they're going to take a fresh look at the evidence review process:
quote:
“Recent reports that a former employee of Stroz Friedberg lobbied several years ago on behalf of RIAA on matters unrelated to CCI have raised questions about the impartiality of Stroz Friedberg,” CCI’s Executive Director Jill Lesser now states. The CCI is convinced that despite this history Stroz Friedberg is capable of delivering an independent review. However, to reassure the public that it was carried out properly, CCI will hire a new expert to go over the evidence review.

"We are sensitive to any appearance that Stroz lacks independence, and so CCI has decided to have another expert review Stroz’s initial evaluation of the content community’s processes. We will be selecting the additional expert promptly and will make that information available," Lesser says. Realizing that openness is in the best interest of all parties involved, CCI has also decided to make Stroz Friedberg’s initial review public.
While that may or may not address the problems people have with the evidence review process being fair, the overall system itself still has more that a few critics.

view:
topics flat nest 

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

$35 fee helps offset pgm costs

The $35 fee to contest your being caught stealing music and movies has 2 reasons:
1. It helps offset the cost of running the copyright infringer punishment program
2. It stops every copyright infringer from making appeals in order to muck up the system even when they know they are guilty.

Remember folks, this is a CIVIL program and NOT a CRIMINAL one. Innocent until PROVEN guilty doesn't apply.
--
»www.gop.com/2012-republican-platform_home/
»www.gop.com/2012-republican-plat···onalism/

seamore
Premium
join:2009-11-02

Re: $35 fee helps offset pgm costs

said by FFH:

The $35 fee to contest your being caught stealing music and movies has 2 reasons:

is your statement always correct? Yes or no?

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

Re: $35 fee helps offset pgm costs

said by seamore:

said by FFH:

The $35 fee to contest your being caught stealing music and movies has 2 reasons:

is your statement always correct? Yes or no?

Yes, I am ALWAYS correct.
--
»www.gop.com/2012-republican-platform_home/
»www.gop.com/2012-republican-plat···onalism/

seamore
Premium
join:2009-11-02

Re: $35 fee helps offset pgm costs

said by FFH:

said by seamore:

said by FFH:

The $35 fee to contest your being caught stealing music and movies has 2 reasons:

is your statement always correct? Yes or no?

Yes, I am ALWAYS correct.

ok, if you say so. Nice little dreamland you have there.

war_by_proxy

join:2004-06-15
Houston, TX
Actually, you don't know what you're talking about. There's no guilty or innocent in a civil system at all. And this isn't a civil system, it's a private agreement. The government and the courts are not involved. So there's a big distinction.
jjeffeory

join:2002-12-04
USA
Sounds like Roman law. Guilty first, prove you're not! Sounds like the Salem Witch trials, too. This whole thing is craziness, I tell you!
silbaco
Premium
join:2009-08-03
USA

Re: $35 fee helps offset pgm costs

They could have made an agreement with copyright holders by giving them all your information so they could sue you directly. It would cost a person a lot more than $35 to prove you are innocent. As is, most copyright holders have agreed not to sue people on ISPs that implement the 6 strikes policy. Of course if you hit 5 or 6 strikes that could change. Not saying it is a good system, but it is better than some of the possible alternatives.
tmc8080

join:2004-04-24
Brooklyn, NY
Reviews:
·ooma
·Optimum Online
·Verizon FiOS

Re: $35 fee helps offset pgm costs

said by silbaco:

They could have made an agreement with copyright holders by giving them all your information so they could sue you directly. It would cost a person a lot more than $35 to prove you are innocent. As is, most copyright holders have agreed not to sue people on ISPs that implement the 6 strikes policy. Of course if you hit 5 or 6 strikes that could change. Not saying it is a good system, but it is better than some of the possible alternatives.

This agreement does NOTHING to prevent companies from suing you and violating your privacy, and making false civil and/or criminal complaints. There is a potential for abuse of the customer base.. and I'm sure more than a few people will get rid of their service provider as a result of being one of the falsely accused who resent higher costs.
rradina

join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO
Prove your innocent? Why?

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

It would cost a person a lot more than $35 to prove you are innocent.

Why would a "person" want to prove I am innocent?

In any case, most copyright infringement complaints heard in the courts have been allegations of damages requiring compensation (torts), not allegations of criminal acts. Primarily because criminal conviction ("guilt") requires a higher standard of proof (and defendant is not required to prove his innocence, rather a DA or AG, representing county or state, has the burden of proof of guilt).

Proof of a tort on requires a preponderance of evidence.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum
sandman_1

join:2011-04-23
11111
said by FFH:

The $35 fee to contest your being caught stealing music and movies has 2 reasons:
1. It helps offset the cost of running the copyright infringer punishment program

Why should innocent people be burdened with the cost of running a program enacted by the RIAA and MPAA? It seems to me, that the burden of cost should be on the people that wanted the program in the first place not on the subscribers of the ISP who could care less about the program.

KeepOnRockin
Music Lover Forever
Premium
join:2002-11-08
Beaverton, OR
Reviews:
·Comcast
said by FFH:

2. It stops every copyright infringer from making appeals in order to muck up the system even when they know they are guilty.

Makes sense. For the $35, they could have just bought some of the music they were pirating. lol

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

Remember folks, this is a CIVIL program and NOT a CRIMINAL one. Innocent until PROVEN guilty doesn't apply.

"Innocent" is not a concept of Civil Law. Proof of damages is the basis of settling a tort.

Having the IP address of a putative infringer is not proof of damages.

And the real question is: "Whom does the ISP serve?" If they serve the MPAA/RIAA, then "Six Strikes" is eminently fair. But this begs another question: "Why am I paying my ISP to serve the MPAA/RIAA?"
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum
Rekrul

join:2007-04-21
Milford, CT
Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
said by FFH:

The $35 fee to contest your being caught stealing music and movies has 2 reasons:

I say you're a shill for the copyright industry.

If you want to contest this accusation, you have to pay me $50.

Hey, I like this system...
Kamus

join:2011-01-27
El Paso, TX

Re: $35 fee helps offset pgm costs

said by Rekrul:

said by FFH:

The $35 fee to contest your being caught stealing music and movies has 2 reasons:

I say you're a shill for the copyright industry.

If you want to contest this accusation, you have to pay me $50.

Hey, I like this system...

That made me laugh!
I'll join your accusation and demand 50 dollars from him too even if he isn't.

NO to ESPN

@sbcglobal.net

Competition

Organized crime does not competition.

ryukags99

@cox.net

Re: Competition

said by NO to ESPN :

Organized crime does not competition.

That's why they're called MAFIAA.

cyber

@173.254.212.x

use VPN

use a VPN
funny

join:2010-12-22

hrrrm

how aobut having to pay when you prove im guilty
oh wait no one is innocent any more your al guilty

judge fat porker needs more big cheesy bacon to eat

Bill Neilson
Premium
join:2009-07-08
Arlington, VA

There are so many different

ways to attack this "You're guilty but if you say you are not, pay us $35 to review" program....civil or criminal (I know this is Civil, just stating that it applies to both) from a legal perspective.

As others have said, this is not a "I am innocent until proven guilty" type of Court experience but this also calls into question a corporations practice (well, several) which can be brought into court and reviewed.