Three Strikes Coming To U.S. Eventually

[Shakes head]........dumb just a dumb idea.

3 strikes will only mean proxy servers will become more mainstream.
i can just imagine the late night TV commercial for proxy's now...

»www.youtube.com/watch?v= ··· JyfN0ICU

LOL at the video.

i'm not sure about proxies, but i could easily see the rise of encryption on every connection all the time and increased TOR usage. if TOR does make increase in usage heavily, i would think ISPs would hate it (ignoring caps and throttling) because 1 KB of data would no longer just effect 1 path between 2 computers + routers, but many more computers and routers with no benefit to anyone but the 2 computers at the source and destination.

I found this interesting, thanks.
»www.torproject.org/

if I decide to be a relay, how low
should i keep background traffic
as to not intimidate my ISP.

is there a danger of being a relay,
if others are using TOR to route
illegal activity?

should I disable TOR when I'm
doing something personal like
my own online banking?

I've been using PeerGuardian 2
while doing P2P, but it's been
poorly updated this past year,
so I'm looking for a different
solution to my anony concerns.

according to wiki, TOR blocks
P2P since they don't want your
bandwidth hogging other relays.
»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To ··· network)
which of course makes sense.

so I guess I need another solution.

First of all, never TOR your torrents, only the tracker connections. If you TOR the torrent then you're overloading the TOR network. This information applies to Azureus as well as other torrent clients:

»azureus.sourceforge.net/ ··· _0.5.htm

Second, running a TOR relay is running a server, check that running a server isn't prohibited in your terms of service with your ISP. If it is and you operate a relay they have grounds to disconnect you.

Third, use uTorrent (it looks and acts just like BiTorrent) and check this out:

»forum.utorrent.com/viewt ··· d=345208

That might work on other clients like Azureus etc.

Set that to update every day in your task scheduler. That takes care of the torrent client and...

Then get PeerBlock here:

»www.peerblock.com/

That takes care of other connections to your machine. Make sure you check out the available lists...

Be sure that you're only accepting encrypted traffic in uTorrent, don't allow exceptions for legacy connections. End to end encryption is similar, traffic wise, to a VPN client. Ubergeeks, don't pop a node here, it's not exactly like it and it can be differentiated but it takes someone having a special interest in your traffic so I don't need to read anyone's show-off comment about how wrong I am. If you're just looking at volume it looks very similar, if you're looking at why someone is connected to 50 IP's from all over the world obviously it's different. Lots of people use VPN from home to work and more come online as more telecommuters come into existence.

Get a REAL hardware firewall like a Watchguard, SonicWALL, etc. I'm very happy with my SonicWALL TZ-180

User non-default ports, no sense in making it easy for them to see your traffic.

Seeding is an issue, the longer you do it, the more likely you are to get hit. They'd have a very hard time proving you've distributed copyrighted material if all you sent was a few kilobytes of otherwise unusable data.

You don't need to use any of this for daily web surfing, just set up your torrent client and firewall for it. If you TOR your browser and you live in the US, you're just wasting time. Unless you're a dissident, bomb maker, etc. If you're other wise law abiding but just have problems with the entertainment industry's draconian approach to life you don't need to TOR your browser. If you're really paranoid torrent-wise you could use TORButton on FireFox when you're visiting torrent search sites.

Don't get cocky, complacent, or over-confident. Smart people are being paid to stop you, don't forget that.

Worse than dumb, it is unjust.

A reasonable policy would be:

* ISPs must give subscriber data if ordered by a court, and may not under any other conditions.

* ISPs are exempt from liability as long as they comply with the above.

* To get a court order, a copyright holder must show evidence likely to be sufficient to prevail in an infringement action, and file suit.

* Penalties for proven infringement are only the retail cost of the files plus expenses of the suit, not huge arbitrary amounts, and not being banned from the most important modern communcations medium.

These rules would not only avoid wrongful burdens on innocent parties - they would also motivate the obsolete copyright industry to find new business models.

1) 3-strikes policy comes to US with CEO's claiming it will be great for the industry and for customers as we will get a "better experience" whatever the hell that even means

2) Plenty of people will then realize the expense of this service which will be put on the ISP's thus rates will be raised even more than usual and the excuse will be improvements in the service (which probably wont justify the bigger than usual increase), blaming the economy (however it is doing, probably wont matter anyway), or again using the "This price increase means better things for the customer" bull line we are fed which makes little to no actual sense

3) With rates increased even more, we will see companies struggle with a variety of issues such as (like you say above, Karl) are you sure this IP address downloaded this file? What happens when it is appealed? Are we talking one person...if so what about the rest of the family in the house? And I am sure numerous other questions that I can't think of off the top of my head

4) Rates are increased substantially yet again in the 2nd year as companies run-around to try and fix all the loopholes and problems found in this issue.....and CEO's again tell the customer that rates are being increased for the "benefit of the customer" as we all know that paying higher bills makes us enjoy things even more.

Why is it so hard for people to understand that companies can't raise rates willy nilly? IF they could, why the devil would they wait for a tax or fine in order to do so?

Especially in the noncompetitive ISP market, corporations already price their services at what people are at maximum willing to pay before deciding to go without service.

I don't see anything I said as "willy nilly" considering my rates are increasing every year with little to no actual service upgrade.

Doesn't seem unrealistic to see a 3rd/4th straight year of price increases with maybe a tad bit more of an actual increase due to these issues

is the new norm, in spite of campaign promises of "transparency".

Maybe you are new in this country or have never read it, but we have this thing called the Consitution, and in it are rules called the seperation of powers.

The President has no power over what Congressional or Sentorial hearings, meetings, or whatever are televised or open to the public. He can ask, he can demand, but in the end it's not his decision.

My original comment was a left-handed way of saying there's not a whole lot of new going on in Washington. And I won't blindly accept that the President's hands are tied in this. Promising what he can't deliver isn't new, but he's still at it. Just call me disillusioned about the whole mess going on down there.

Staying on topic: three strikes vs. entertainment's new profitable business model. Which do you think will get here first? Maybe neither, if they lose critical mass. Only thing I can do is vote with my wallet.

Yes on paper that all sounds very good and righteous but the reality of the matter is that the separation of the Judicial Executive and Legislative branches is violated time and time again.
I would dearly love to see the three branches separated but it is no longer a reality. We the people no longer have any rights that have not or cannot be violated. All it takes is a few words from powerful people to make it happen- That is the reality.
Don't expect any assistance form the Federal govt in curtailing the enrichment of the bottom line of Corporate America. A few well-placed dollars will effectively stifle any real impact.

Since the Merriam Webster dictionary ban in some US schools recently, they have been forced to revise some of their definitions.

Sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words, so why not save time on figuring out definitions that are going to insult prude (read: ignorant) parents and put the picture of that woman in the definition for DRACONIAN. I'm sure she'd fit somewhere in the S's too.

Why is it that we as taxpayers are to be expected to pay for the poor business decisions of yet another group of companies? In this case, it will be the taxpayer who will now be on the hook for performing loss prevention for content providers.

It is certainly not the fault of the US taxpayer that people are not buying the products sold by content providers the way they used to be. It is also not our fault that content providers have refused to adapt to the fact that people no longer believe that the products produced by these companies are worth the prices at which they are being offered for sale.

Copyright law already provides very generous civil and criminal penalties against people who infringe on copyright. There is no need for the government to take more of an enforcement approach here.

As for the content industry, adapt or die.

Very well said.

[/thread]

This is about all I can add to this conversation that hasn't been said.

Such low standards.

Thanks!

Lol... and in a sick way...

The Government support of the entertainment industries make them poster boys for the Governments discrimination against ordinary citizens. I guess the entertainment industry is exempt from the principal that the accused is innocent unless proved guilty. In the new environment there will be two constitutions, the original written by the Founding Fathers will be ignored and the other written by big business will be followed to the letter. Corrupt lawmakers will write laws under the big businesses constitution that eliminates all protections of the old citizen oriented obsolete constitution. This will make it possible for citizens to be found guilty unless they proved their innocence of any accusation whether valid or invalid.

The next step on that journey happened just recently when the Supreme Court decided to throw 100 years of law out the window and allow corporations to directly "donate" to political campaigns.

but will it be legal and stand up to legal scrutiny that's the key. They can say what they want..the courts will have the last say over this nonsense.

Do you mean the show me the money Roberts Supreme Court? If this case comes before them, all citizens rights are lost.

The Supreme court evened the field as Labor Unions have not had such limits imposed on them. I am not saying this is right but now things are on a even level. What should be done, and the changes of this are about the same as Jessy Jackson joining the KKK, is to do what is done in the UK 3 months is all you can campaign when an election is called none of this years long campaigning that costs 10 of millions of dollars. We also need to have a third party, I vote for a State side version of the UK Monster Raving Loony Party ( »www.omrlp.com/ )

Answer: You don't. The responsible adult who signed the contract for ISP service for the household is responsible for the actions of those in the household. And if anyone in the household misuses the internet connection, then the whole household gets disconnected.

This isn't a criminal proceeding where only the person who shot the deliveryman goes to jail and others in the house are blameless. It is a commercial contract where the responsible adult who signed the contract has agreed to the terms of the contract.

I am sure the company who gets that family's business next will be quite pleased

Haha, maybe it will fuel actual competition?

Yeah, that won't work.

Dad gets disconnected from his office because of what the college-aged teen does? Or for what the guy whose renting the teen's old room does?

We don't wiretap the phone just to stop potential drug deals. We shouldn't wiretap the Internet just to stop a little Xerox'ing.

i just hacked your WiFi and downloaded every thing i can
now what?
i dont think the BUT I DIDNT DO IT defense is going to work here

Good luck with that. My AP power is dialed down to not extend past the walls in my house. It has the highest security levels(WPA2 AES). It has mac verification on. DHCP Server is disabled. The default IP address has been chgd from default. The subnet mask is set to minimize number of hard coded IP clients. The router is set to block all P2P protocols.Ignorance of the law(or the terms of the contract) is no excuse. So no, I have no problem with disconnecting users who haven't taken the trouble to secure their system. If they can't do that, then stick to hard wired clients.

The problem is that many people have wireless routers that either totally open or can easily be hacked. From my bedroom i can see 15 router, 5 of them totally open rest of them are using wep. So you basically see no problem of kicking someone off the internet because someone else hacked them?

It's like a car gets stolen and used in bank robbery and you arrest the register owner because he forgot to lock the doors.

Well said.

Well how about unprotected wifi networks, is the owner now liable for copyright infringement done by the neighbour hood kid who is illegally using there network?

Again people may simply shift to a solution that makes it difficult to identify who is sharing/downloading files, you already see some server based solutions that reside in other countries outside the US jurisdiction to subpoena.

If isp start monitoring this through DPI or other methods to monitor packets for filename, etc. These servers would likely enable encryption.

This only looks good on paper and does little to deter piracy.

This was the very reason that spy agencies like MI5 in the UK objected to that country's Digital Economy Bill. Because if the so-called "graduated response" were adopted, people would start encrypting everything, and this would make it harder for them to pick out the terrorist chatter from the p2p traffic.

so you think that if someone's AP gets hacked they should be liable for what has happened over it?

also i do not want my tax or ISP bills wasted on setting up something that wont work and will not benefit me as a customer one bit. to me DOCSIS 3.0 is far far far more important then protecting copyrights. fiber optics is more important then copyrights.

the movie industry isnt loosing money, hell Avatar is on course to two billion in sales.

I will be damned if I let it come to Canada. If you want to stop this crap arrange meetings. Talk to people, dont sit behind your computer and hope someone does that. Get up and do it yourself. I am I have a meeting booked on monday to try and get the ACTA stopped up in Canada.

Quoting Friedrich Nietzche

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men fail to act.

Meetings with whom?

Our local man Daryl Kramp (conservative) insists that all of this ACTA shit is for our benefit (creating jobs) and that the throttling/UBB drama isn't his issue to comment on...

The quote is actually by a man named Edmund Burke and it's:

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

You could have found that information in about 30 seconds on Google. I realize Canadians aren't usually bothered by such details, I watch South Park

no one will be left everybody will be kicked off so what do you do then ?

why will we need the internet after this anymore? to look at youtube o joy by the way Shira Perlmutter is hot

will force me to buy another DVD or CD so whatever.

i don't buy them because I hate having all those damn disks. .avi files use a lot less space.

In response to these shady dealings, I will NEVER buy another dvd, cd, blu-ray, newspaper or magazine.

Seriously, big content is feeling all down about themselves because their business model is failing... well then I'll do everything I can to accelerate that death.

I fail to see how terminating net connections around the country for sharing files will drive sales of copyrighted works, since the folks who lose their connections will be more than a little bitter.

Well until they end up buying all the USENET servers, they have NO chance at stopping anything...

Unless they can decrypt SSL connections!!!

Done and done

3 strikes will kill google and any other site like it.

Good morning kids! The phrases for today are "due process" and "unconstitutional".

Tomorrow's are "lawsuit" and "law being struck down".

Yeah, won't last long. The EFF will file suit the day it passes, with an injunction on enforcement until trial.

This will be just like red light cams. doesn't matter who is driving it's your car ie your Internet connection.

I don't know for sure on this but with the gov becoming apart of this don't they have the keys to decript ssl?

doesn't matter who was driving it's ur car....ip

I think we need to take a step back and examine this whole mess.

First of all, nobody except the content owners themselves should be financially responsible for protecting their supposed "rights" under the law. This 3 strikes nonsense is simply a means by which someone else (ISP's, Taxpayers, etc) have to pay to protect their rights.

We are already paying to purchase their products! Why should we also be responsible for protecting their rights? For god sakes, enough is enough.

If the content providers are so concerned about piracy, and their rights, then they have a right not to distribute said content, and keep it to themselves! It's really as simple as that.

It's Business 101 that if your business model is such that you can't make a profit off of it due to whatever reason, piracy, weather, economic conditions, then DON"T DO IT!

These Corporations needs to start taking responsibility for their own decisions to distribute their content digitally, and accept the risks along with the rewards, or take their glorious content and GO HOME!

-Chris

pave the way to cruel and unusual punishment.

I'm always amused at the use of "3 strikes."

Why 3 strikes? Why not 5 strikes, 4, 3, 2, or just 1?

What is the logic behind applying a baseball rule to this or any other situation??