dslreports logo
spacer

spacer
 
   
spc
story category
Six Strikes Plan Delayed
Likely Won't Start Until Later This Year
by Karl Bode 12:31PM Monday Jul 16 2012
The entertainment industry's six strikes collaboration with all of the largest ISPs was supposed to launch in July, with ISPs imposing warnings, throttling, "education" efforts, and even disconnection for repeat copyright infringers. But early July came and went, with no apparent start to the program. Interestingly, it appears that the delay may be because the ISPs and entertainment industry are having problems agreeing on some of the specifics:
quote:
Jill Lessig, Executive Director of the Center for Copyright Information, told the Daily Dot that the repeated delays were because the coalition wanted an independent review from the American Arbitration Association. She hinted that disagreement between the ISPs or the lobbying groups might have held up the process. Responding to a question about the delay, she wrote “members are all very involved in internal planning and review of the alert system, which has been and will continue to be a collaborative process."
The Center for Copyright Information, who'll be running the operation, now says the plan will launch sometime later this year -- with different ISPs launching heir own versions of the program at different times. While the group insists they want to take time to ensure the plan is "consumer friendly," the entire plan was hashed out in secret resulting in a result there's numerous obvious problems, such as the assumption of an IP address as proof of guilt -- and the fact users have to pay a fee just to try and protest their innocence. None of these concerns appear to have been addressed yet.

view:
topics flat nest 

NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:12

Will this survive judicial scrutiny?

Pay to prove "innocence"? The cost of the burden of proof should be borne by the complainant!
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum
axus

join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC

Re: Will this survive judicial scrutiny?

This completely bypasses the courts, for judgement and punishment. It's kind of like your parents taking away your car because they think you were driving over the speed limit, instead of having your license suspended by a court.

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

Pay to prove "innocence"? The cost of the burden of proof should be borne by the complainant!

It's a civil matter with private services. There is no presumption of innocence, so no reason why judicial scrutiny would even apply. That's one of the reasons why Hollywood hashed out the deal directly with the ISPs vs going through Congress. They get to skip that whole judicial review part.
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3

Re: Will this survive judicial scrutiny?

said by cdru:

said by NormanS:

Pay to prove "innocence"? The cost of the burden of proof should be borne by the complainant!

It's a civil matter with private services. There is no presumption of innocence, so no reason why judicial scrutiny would even apply. That's one of the reasons why Hollywood hashed out the deal directly with the ISPs vs going through Congress. They get to skip that whole judicial review part.

While on first view, I agree with you that it's a civil matter. However, they are standing behind a federal law which has criminal teeth in it. Further, they (the industry and ISP) are causing what could ultimately harm SOME users (I'm talking real cost associated harm, such as people who work from home, people who depend on their internet for phone services (think health) and other financial factors) and they're doing so arbitrarily. As far as I know, every person in the service area has a right to purchase services from the providers that serve the area. For the service provider to take away access because of a complaint of a third party with out any judicial oversight, I think that's where the line is crossed.
But unfortunately for them, no, they don't just get to make a private backdoor deal and cut congress out in order to take actions against private citizens.

The law isn't so simple. While it remains a private business with little government oversight, one action which is motivated by a cause can absolutely violate the rights of people or other laws in place. It's a common mistake so many people make in life when they say things like you just did in the fact that laws are broad, and not always so narrow.

I do believe that it's a mistake to think that going direct to the ISPs is going to make their day easy.. in fact, I think this ultimately turns out to a major mess for both parties, yet again. And remember, you can't sue this out of existence BEFORE it goes into play.. one can only sue once they've suffered damages or harmed by the action.. and that even includes laws. For that matter, I say let them put this into action... I'd love to sit back and watch the show.

maartena
Elmo
Premium
join:2002-05-10
Orange, CA
kudos:4
said by NormanS:

Pay to prove "innocence"? The cost of the burden of proof should be borne by the complainant!

This is a "no shoes, no shirt, no service" issue.... the RIAA and entertainment industry just went into cahoots with each other, and just like any other business that isn't really regulated (which internet connections are not), an ISP has the right to refuse service to any customer for any reason, just like the only bar in 25 miles has the right to throw you out, without providing any proof that it was YOU who threw the beer glass the last time around.

The justice system really can't do all that much about it. Just as much it can't do much about ISP's snooping in on your data.

What is going to happen next is that the pirates are going to dig in deeper. Completely anonymous, encrypted P2P already exists, it is just not very popular at the moment and because of fewer users, it is still slower. But that system is ready for completely encrypted torrents, and then it is check, mate, and game over for the entertainment industry, because the average encryption used these days takes about 3 months to crack IF you have a Google-sized data center at your disposal, costing about $250k a day to operate.

Right now, we are at the edge. People don't want to use encryption P2P because it is still slow, but a few more pushes by the entertainment industry might force people to use things like I2P, and that effectively closes the door for ISP's being able to find out who uploads what.

The entertainment industry needs to re-evaluate their business model. The recent dispute between Viacom and DirecTV is showing that it is time to make changes in how content is delivered. Perhaps it should be show to the web *first* and to TV *second*, so shows aren't recorded and torrented the next day, but people can watch it online a MONTH before it shows on TV for like $1.99 an episode or something.

Same with physical DVD's. Put it out on Pay Per View systems, online Pay-Per-Movie services a month BEFORE you release it on a hard media that can be ripped, and distributed on the day of the release. Online video CAN be manipulated better to to prevent capturing.

Piracy is going to exist. Business models just need to be changed so you can still make money. iTunes seems to work well for music, just to give an example.
--
"I reject your reality and substitute my own!"
zod5000

join:2003-10-21
Victoria, BC
Reviews:
·Shaw

Re: Will this survive judicial scrutiny?

said by maartena:

Completely anonymous, encrypted P2P already exists, it is just not very popular at the moment and because of fewer users, it is still slower. But that system is ready for completely encrypted torrents, and then it is check, mate, and game over for the entertainment industry, because the average encryption used these days takes about 3 months to crack IF you have a Google-sized data center at your disposal, costing about $250k a day to operate.

Is that really true? P2P means you connect directly with other people sharing the same file. No matter the encryption how do you hide the ip addresses of everyone your connecting to in the swarm. With p2p your making direct connections to other peoples IP addresses?

anoan238

@wenet.com

Re: Will this survive judicial scrutiny?

said by zod5000:

said by maartena:

Completely anonymous, encrypted P2P already exists, it is just not very popular at the moment and because of fewer users, it is still slower. But that system is ready for completely encrypted torrents, and then it is check, mate, and game over for the entertainment industry, because the average encryption used these days takes about 3 months to crack IF you have a Google-sized data center at your disposal, costing about $250k a day to operate.

Is that really true? P2P means you connect directly with other people sharing the same file. No matter the encryption how do you hide the ip addresses of everyone your connecting to in the swarm. With p2p your making direct connections to other peoples IP addresses?

The data is encrypted. Everyone connects to an IP on the internet however some data can be read easily and others need to be decrypted, which takes time and money.
rtazz1
Rtazz

join:2001-05-02
Fulton, KY
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·Comcast
Wow. very well thought out. I never gave the order of distribution much thought. You have pointed out a very good way to reduce the copyright issues they currently have. It is true people will find a way to watch the content thew way they want it. Be that online rental or torrents.
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3
said by maartena:

said by NormanS:

Pay to prove "innocence"? The cost of the burden of proof should be borne by the complainant!

This is a "no shoes, no shirt, no service" issue.... the RIAA and entertainment industry just went into cahoots with each other, and just like any other business that isn't really regulated (which internet connections are not), an ISP has the right to refuse service to any customer for any reason, just like the only bar in 25 miles has the right to throw you out, without providing any proof that it was YOU who threw the beer glass the last time around.

You're incorrect in your statement and it's clearly why you believe that. (you stated it in the very sentence where you made your mistake)

No, ISPs are not just so freely able to just deny services access to their networks "just because".. it has nothing to do with the "no shoes, no shirt, no service" issue, which by the way is derived from the health code and public decency laws so you know. You make the mistake like so many others when they try to associate one thing that SOUNDS the same to another issue..

ISPs, like any business open, have to open their doors to all consumers that wish to patronize them UNLESS and UNTIL there is a compelling reason not to, otherwise they are open to discrimination scrutiny. Further, and this is the rule, and I'm sure there are exceptions, but to provide service in a service area you must provide service to all people in the service area, gain, unless you have a compelling reason to deny service.. it's actually a requirement.

So I'm not sure where you get your information from but you couldn't be any more wrong. Tell a black person,.. a gay person, a female, a christian, or an elderly person, for example, as an ISP or any business owner that is, that you are denying service just because you can and see what happens.

FutureMon
Ach Du Lieber
Premium,ExMod 2002-05
join:2000-10-05
Seaside, CA
said by maartena:

Online video CAN be manipulated better to to prevent capturing.

Not by a perfectly framed standalone digital camcorder pointed at the computer screen. Now you've just helped out the guys who sell ripped DVD's from their trunk a month earlier than usual and given them better quality than those who sneak video cameras into the theater.

- FM
--
Q: How many theoretical physicists specializing in general relativity does it take to change a light bulb?
A: Two. One to hold the bulb and one to rotate the universe.
Sammer

join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA

Six strikes and due process

It should be obvious to any reasonable person that six strikes will bludgeon what should be considered due process.
Wilsdom

join:2009-08-06

1 recommendation

Re: Six strikes and due process

You have no right to be on their network, so due process doesn't apply.
Aluminum
Premium
join:2006-01-23
Mclean, VA

Re: Six strikes and due process

"Their" network runs over lots of public land and received much public funding. (several hundred billion in tax breaks for upgrades that "vanished" in the 90s...)

Also much like a power company trying to dictate how you use your paid-for kilowatts (toaster not approved!) this mentality will crash' n burn in the long run, internet is destined to be a utility.
Aluminum
Premium
join:2006-01-23
Mclean, VA
"Their" network runs over lots of public land and received much public funding. (several hundred billion in tax breaks for "upgrades" that vanished in the 90s...)

Also much like a power company trying to dictate how you use your paid-for kilowatts (toaster not approved!) this mentality will crash' n burn in the long run, internet is destined to be a critical utility.
Sammer

join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA
said by Wilsdom:

You have no right to be on their network, so due process doesn't apply.

Then the ISP has no right to safe haven protection and is liable for any and all copyright infringement that takes place on their network.
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3

Re: Six strikes and due process

said by Sammer:

said by Wilsdom:

You have no right to be on their network, so due process doesn't apply.

Then the ISP has no right to safe haven protection and is liable for any and all copyright infringement that takes place on their network.

Another arm-chair lawyer..

Not even sure how to dismiss your faulty comment without an entire education of the law... But, in short, laws are not narrow and not only one law or rule apply to any given situation which is why it takes a judge/court to determine the very things that you so eloquently stated in a matter of a sentence.

In short, no, they're not liable for any and all copyright infringement and that's already been heard.
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3
said by Wilsdom:

You have no right to be on their network, so due process doesn't apply.

Yes you do.. up front, at first, with out any reason to be have access, you absolutely DO have "a right" to be on their network.

Try to change your statement a little and you may be closer to a more accurate statement.

Perhaps you should say that "You have no right to USE their network in any way you feel fit. Violating the use policy gives them the right to deny access to their network"... THEN you'd be correct. But up front, you absolutely DO have a right to be on their network.. and even then, I use the tern "right" lightly... because in this country our rights are not given to us by the government,.. they are give to us by our creator, but the law prohibits discrimination.

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

2 edits

IP addr as proof of guilt not a "problem"

An IP addr used as proof of guilt is not a "problem". I keep seeing this old bogus argument trotted out over and over, as if repeating it endlessly makes the claim somehow legitimate. "Six Strikes" is a CIVIL & contractual process. It isn't a criminal procedure and proof beyond a reasonable doubt is not the standard.

Many civil claims are awarded against the owner or lessee of a property. Proof that the owner or lessee(or whoever signed the contract) committed the offending action is not needed. The person who signed the contract pays the piper.

If grandma(who signed the contract with the ISP) isn't the one who actually committed copyright infringement - too bad. Her name is on the contract and she is responsible for following the terms of the contract. Some 3rd party in the house who actually did it doesn't absolve her from responsibility.
--
»www.mittromney.com/s/repeal-and- ··· bamacare
»www.mittromney.com/issues/health ··· lth-care

NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:12
Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC

Re: IP addr as proof of guilt not a "problem"

The "problem" isn't in the standard of proof. The problem is whether the address has been transcribed accurately. Service of subpoena to the wrong address does not constitute evidence of wrongdoing; even in civil matters.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum

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

Re: IP addr as proof of guilt not a "problem"

said by NormanS:

The "problem" isn't in the standard of proof. The problem is whether the address has been transcribed accurately. Service of subpoena to the wrong address does not constitute evidence of wrongdoing; even in civil matters.

That is why they have civil courts - to correct the mistakes. And sometimes that means you spend money. Welcome to the real world.
--
»www.mittromney.com/s/repeal-and- ··· bamacare
»www.mittromney.com/issues/health ··· lth-care
Rekrul

join:2007-04-21
Milford, CT
said by FFH5:

An IP addr used as proof of guilt is not a "problem". I keep seeing this old bogus argument trotted out over and over, as if repeating it endlessly makes the claim somehow legitimate. "Six Strikes" is a CIVIL & contractual process. It isn't a criminal procedure and proof beyond a reasonable doubt is not the standard.

And who says that they even have the right IP address? Their only proof will be a screenshot and a log file, which is probably stored as plain text either, of which could be easily altered.

Who is responsible for making sure that their evidence is accurate? After all, the recording industry once sent a copyright infringement notice to the IP address used by a networked printer.

Give me your IP address and I can easily fabricate screenshots and log files saying that you were distributing all kinds of copyrighted material. Of course, none of it would be real, but hey, making sure the evidence is accurate isn't a high priority in a "civil" matter, right?

And when did it become a bad thing to allow others to use your WiFi? Aren't people supposed to share? Oops, I forgot, all that "be nice to others" BS goes out the window where a corporation's bottom line is concerned...

Jim Kirk
Premium
join:2005-12-09
Westerville, OH
said by FFH5:

An IP addr used as proof of guilt is not a "problem". I keep seeing this old bogus argument trotted out over and over, as if repeating it endlessly makes the claim somehow legitimate. "Six Strikes" is a CIVIL & contractual process. It isn't a criminal procedure and proof beyond a reasonable doubt is not the standard.

Many civil claims are awarded against the owner or lessee of a property. Proof that the owner or lessee(or whoever signed the contract) committed the offending action is not needed. The person who signed the contract pays the piper.

If grandma(who signed the contract with the ISP) isn't the one who actually committed copyright infringement - too bad. Her name is on the contract and she is responsible for following the terms of the contract. Some 3rd party in the house who actually did it doesn't absolve her from responsibility.

Really?

»torrentfreak.com/judge-an-ip-add ··· -120503/

anuye4

@wenet.com
said by FFH5:

An IP addr used as proof of guilt is not a "problem". I keep seeing this old bogus argument trotted out over and over, as if repeating it endlessly makes the claim somehow legitimate. "Six Strikes" is a CIVIL & contractual process. It isn't a criminal procedure and proof beyond a reasonable doubt is not the standard.

Many civil claims are awarded against the owner or lessee of a property. Proof that the owner or lessee(or whoever signed the contract) committed the offending action is not needed. The person who signed the contract pays the piper.

If grandma(who signed the contract with the ISP) isn't the one who actually committed copyright infringement - too bad. Her name is on the contract and she is responsible for following the terms of the contract. Some 3rd party in the house who actually did it doesn't absolve her from responsibility.

What contract? When i called Cox, i said i want internet. They gave me a price and I agreed ont he cost. They sent me a modem. I plugged it in and had internet. I receive a bill and pay it. No contract was ever exchanged and/or signed. No TOS ever mentioned, etc. This is how it is for most people.

thegeek
Premium
join:2008-02-21
right here
kudos:2

Be a Smart Pirate

If you pirate smartly you'll never get a notice from your ISP. I've never had a problem.

arrrrrrrrrr

@torservers.net

Re: Be a Smart Pirate

Indeed. This is like suing limewire users: only the less saavy will be caught. Encryption and the international nature of the Internet can be used to evade national law, for better and worse.
Kearnstd
Space Elf
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
kudos:1

I do not see this working

Unless every ISP agrees to construct a national database that must be checked before internet service can be established of six strike users the competitor will be more than happy to sign people up. Someone gets kicked off Verizon they can be on the phone to Comcast and activate the modem in maybe twenty min.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3

Re: I do not see this working

Further, service is tied to the end user and not the home. This is why liability for misuse of any service goes against the individual specifically. Now, Comcast has in the past tried to black list a home and when pressed it often rules against their favor. Having been someone that has dealt with that personally, I can tell you that they use their size to intimidate end users by telling the roommate "you can't have service here because of your roommate".. the local franchises or states often don't agree in those instances. There have been many times where it's been said "do not install" and yet after a few complaints filed, the installation goes through in the other person's name.

So really, and while I agree with you, this whole 6 strikes thing is a joke.

And, while I also do NOT agree with piracy and those who WILLINGLY take an active part in it (as I think they're of the scum of the earth) I would like to see the industry put some hard core numbers behind their claims of losses... and I'd like to see it done with a 3rd part independent auditor. First things first, they can't claim POTENTIAL loss revenue.. hell, even Judge Judy will tell the average person that. Second, they do assume that people who have stolen would have been a lost sale and count that towards (pay close attention here) "the continual down turn in revenue".. you can't count someone that was never a customer, but it STILL doesn't make theft right. Finally, they don't ever take into account that times have changed, people's entertainment needs/desires are changing and that their own choices in programming content too has gone down hill which has turned off their customer base. I for one don't pirate. I do buy my software when I want it.. but they've gone towards "reality TV" which I call trash TV, and out of the last 12 movies I've gone to the theater to see, all but 4 were horrible.

I think they grossly over exaggerate their "loss due to piracy" very dishonestly. I DO believe they are losing money, but it's not all due to piracy. Perhaps they should stop selling a DVD for one price, a bluray for another, and a 3D movie at a price point which is often FAR more expensive that seeing it in the theater all together. Asshats!
tmc8080

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

revenue..

apparently, the riaa/mpaa will need to make up for the lost revenue as these customers are cut-off. it it unlikely a subscriber will pay for no service, or severely degraded service. take away the "killer app" and who will be left to pay $200 for 300 megabit internet service? huh, Verizon?
15444104
Premium
join:2012-06-11

Re: revenue..

All these caps are nothing but a wild money grab, it's pretty comical because they are going to eventually drive many of their customers away from ANY service at all because lots of folks are barely surviving currently with the ongoing recession, some say mild depression.

I for one will simply stop ANY internet/data service and go with only a prepaid tracfone if the greed (outrageous rates,caps, ect) becomes rabid enough, it is closing in on that point. I will NOT be held hostage to these giant greed machines.

There is always the public library for internet service.

Lets not forget that internet is NOT a necessity.