Ramblings of an old Doc
Published on July 9, 2011 By DrJBHL In Personal Computing

 

John Lister has reported that

“some of America's leading ISPs have reached an agreement with movie and music companies to punish customers who breach copyright laws. But while the sanctions are lighter than rights owners would like, the move could still spark a legal debate.The deal involves AT&T, Comcast, Time Warner and Verizon, along with industry bodies for Hollywood studios, record labels and TV producers. It's being organized under the newly-formed Center for Copyright Information.” – infoPackets

This is an industry program and isn't governed by legal regulations, and arstechnica.com reported that White House officials were instrumental in pressuring the ISP’s to take this action.

So what are we talking about? Many ISPs already provide warnings to users if suspect behavior is detected, but the Copyright Alert System is intended to provide a standardized approach that all ISPs will use. In 2008 the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) abandoned its practice of suing individuals for online piracy in favor of working with Internet service providers to track down offenders. Since then, ISPs have issued warnings on their own terms, but this agreement creates one system that major ISPs will follow.

“Under the new system, alleged offenders will get up to six warnings when they are suspected of downloading or sharing copyrighted material without permission. After that the ISP will take action, such as slowing access speeds or blocking Internet access until the customer contacts them to discuss the issue. It's being stressed that ISPs won't permanently disconnect customers as part of the scheme. Those behind the system argue that it will act as a warning mechanism to casual offenders, and that it will make parents aware when children are downloading illegally.” – ibid

The US plan appears loosely based on a system in France by which customers get two warnings and, after a third alleged offense, are disconnected. The RIAA and MPAA aren’t really pleased with the ISP’s solution, so there’ll probably be some pressure to “toughen” punishments. Also, it should be noted that the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) already requires ISPs to have a termination policy in effect if they want to take advantage of the law's "safe harbor" clauses. That way, if a copyright holder sues you for illegal downloading, the ISP can say it took measures to stop the activity and cannot be held liable for your activity.

The system allows you to request an independent review before any of those mitigation measures are put into place, but it will cost you $35.

Should you win one of these challenges, you get your $35 back and the "alert" is taken off your account, though no other alerts are. Your next alert will therefore begin the "mitigation" process once more.

These alerts do eventually expire; any subscriber who makes it 12 months without receiving a notice has their slate wiped clean  (arstechnica)

 

Appeal categories:

(i) Misidentification of Account - that the ISP account has been incorrectly identified as one through which acts of alleged copyright infringement have occurred.

(ii) Unauthorized Use of Account - that the alleged activity was the result of the unauthorized use of the Subscriber’s account of which the Subscriber was unaware and that the Subscriber could not reasonably have prevented.

(iii) Authorization - that the use of the work made by the Subscriber was authorized by its Copyright Owner.

(iv) Fair Use - that the Subscriber’s reproducing the copyrighted work(s) and distributing it/them over a P2P network is defensible as a fair use.

(vi) Misidentification of File - that the file in question does not consist primarily of the alleged copyrighted work at issue.

(vii) Work Published Before 1923 - that the alleged copyrighted work was published prior to 1923.

There are rules for each category, they can be viewed here: 

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/07/the-six-ways-you-can-appeal-the-new-copyright-alerts.ars

Also, the ISP’s aren’t looking at what you download. Apparently, P2P transfers of large files or pirated files carry the senders “address”. The company whose film or music is notified and they send an email to the ISP and the ISP warns you. You are not identified by name. That probably could be subpoenaed  and the ISP would have to give your name.

A more detailed list of companies companies and groups supporting this measure includes: Motion Picture Association of American and MPAA members like Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures, Paramount Pictures, Sony Pictures Entertainment, Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation, Universal Studios, and Warner Brothers Entertainment; Independent Film & Television Alliance; Recording Industry Association of America and RIAA members like Universal Music Group Recordings, Warner Music Group, Sony Music North America, and EMI Music North America; American Association of Independent Music; and the ISPs mentioned above (per PC Magazine).

 


Comments (Page 2)
10 Pages1 2 3 4  Last
on Jul 09, 2011

To cut long story short - it's another crap from lawmakers' pens, paid behind the curtain by those with money - leeches like RSAA, RIAA, MAFIAAAAAAA, and similar scum.

Now to elaborate - why is it crap? Because many problems come from compromised home computers - you can have a warez file storage on your kitchen computer and you don't have to be aware of it. As with spam floods, botnets and distributed attacks, innocent (and dumb) users will have problems.

Second, how will you defend? When you are accused and persecuted, how you, as an end user, will defend against this gang with crowds of lawyers? You won't be able to - they will just pull some logs out of their rectum and that's it. It's "presumed guilty" system, which is a direct violation of what the allegedly free countries were so proud of.

Note how they act as a cartel - all the major ISPs in America together, so that they minimize danger of users running away (which would no doubt happen if only one of them started). And the best of all - uninformed people applauding.

on Jul 09, 2011

For example, let's presume that I will run a SSL-encrypted torrent seed/peer. My ISP won't be able to decode what data are pouring in and out. What will they accuse me of? Excessive traffic? Suspicious number of TCP connections? Encryption usage? 

It's all just another "boo hoo" crap to scare people. Serious warez operators will start to use encryption. Some dumb people will get caught and "server as an example" at pompous trials, like it happened in the past.

Just as with attacks against FTP warez sites, nothing will change in the end - FTP was succeeded by bittorent, so bittorent will be succeeded by some encrypted distributed protocol. 

on Jul 09, 2011

Kamamura_CZ
Note how they act as a cartel - all the major ISPs in America together

No doubt discussing price fixing at that same meeting as well. 

on Jul 09, 2011

kona0197
What about someone using my network to pirate something? I get in trouble instead of the one who pirated the files? Not cool.

 

Read the OP:

 

Appeal categories:

(i) Misidentification of Account - that the ISP account has been incorrectly identified as one through which acts of alleged copyright infringement have occurred.

(ii) Unauthorized Use of Account - that the alleged activity was the result of the unauthorized use of the Subscriber’s account of which the Subscriber was unaware and that the Subscriber could not reasonably have prevented.

[/quote]

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kamamura_CZ
Now to elaborate - why is it crap? Because many problems come from compromised home computers - you can have a warez file storage on your kitchen computer and you don't have to be aware of it. As with spam floods, botnets and distributed attacks, innocent (and dumb) users will have problems.

Second, how will you defend? When you are accused and persecuted, how you, as an end user, will defend against this gang with crowds of lawyers? You won't be able to - they will just pull some logs out of their rectum and that's it. It's "presumed guilty" system, which is a direct violation of what the allegedly free countries were so proud of.

Again, the OP. Simple appeal procedure. Not that I like it, but railing against it will do nothing. And you won't need tons of lawyers.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[quote who="myfist0" reply="18" id="2964135"]
Quoting Kamamura_CZ, reply 16Note how they act as a cartel - all the major ISPs in America together

No doubt discussing price fixing at that same meeting as well. 

Extraneous paranoia. If you want more competition, start a movement to change existing legislation and force the expansion of the infrastructure.

 

I'd enjoy seeing what steps the critics would take to improve the current piracy situation.... not just criticize what's wrong with the current 'solution'. I agree it's not perfect, but how would you make it better?

 

on Jul 09, 2011

Nope. Not buying it.

The ISPs should not be able to levy fines or strikes or force me to "appeal a case" without evidence brought against me in a courtroom.

I don't steal, but I don't want to have to appeal an accidental identification. They are putting the burden of evidence on the one being charged - a complete reversal of how our law works.

on Jul 09, 2011

Has this been signed into law? I thought the Supreme Court said that this can't be done the other day and ruled against ISPs policing us. Did I misunderstand?

on Jul 09, 2011

kona0197
Has this been signed into law? I thought the Supreme Court said that this can't be done the other day and ruled against ISPs policing us. Did I misunderstand?

Law? Why can't you just read the OP? 

illmunkeys
The ISPs should not be able to levy fines or strikes or force me to "appeal a case" without evidence brought against me in a courtroom.

Fact: It exists. "Should"? There "shouldn't" be cancer, or suffering in any form. Fact? There is. I asked how to improve it? No answers yet.

 

 

on Jul 09, 2011

Perhaps option to try it before you buy it would be first step. If there is intention to repeatedly play watch or listen to product people are going to buy.

If not then people have moral problem which should be addressed by example from our leaders (politicians), parents and passed down to "simple folk" and our children. It doesn't help that people say something and they do completely different thing. It also doesn't help that people withhold a fact to advance their agenda. But that is topic for another thread named Human greed has no limits or perhaps Money is my Religion. 

Second step are more reasonable prices.

I'm not saying in not against piracy = stealing but after purchasing product (for example game) and spending 30+£ for it loading it 1 time for 30 minutes..... It makes me feel that I was robbed. Yes I did make my own decision and I'm responsible for it but I probably made it on basis of advertisements which in today s world 99% of it is a lie. With that I came back full circle back to morality .......

 

There something rotten......

on Jul 09, 2011

DrJBHL
*edit: Uvah, you posted while I was typing. Sorry. In this case, the greed is also illegal... the argument "illegality, if done discretely, isn't a big deal" doesn't work.

Not what I said Doc. The 'ISP Police' or whatever, the PTB's in order to punish those who abuse the system will make that punishment 'felt' by the majority. The chipping away at freedom as it were. To punish the few the many will suffer.

on Jul 09, 2011

I see a big invasion of privacy and lawsuits from that will make enforcing these rules not possible.

on Jul 09, 2011


Quoting DrJBHL, reply 4*edit: Uvah, you posted while I was typing. Sorry. In this case, the greed is also illegal... the argument "illegality, if done discretely, isn't a big deal" doesn't work.

Not what I said Doc. The 'ISP Police' or whatever, the PTB's in order to punish those who abuse the system will make that punishment 'felt' by the majority. The chipping away at freedom as it were. To punish the few the many will suffer.

The current trend on the internet is more restrictive and away from the old wild west as it were. 

If you aren't doing pirated software, there really isn't much of a chance you'd be "losing" any "freedom". What freedom? To download or trade what isn't yours to begin with?

If you are unjustly accused you have recourse. If you can't provide evidence you didn't download, you may well have an insecure network or malware on your computer. In those cases, there's recourse.

So, I return and ask, what "freedom" and which "rights" are you losing?

Even in the unlikely case you are warned, there are ample opportunities to rectify things and not repeat a mistake. So where's the harm?

on Jul 09, 2011

kona0197
What about someone using my network to pirate something? I get in trouble instead of the one who pirated the files? Not cool.

There's no excuse to have an unsecured network. If you are unsure how, here's a starting point.

on Jul 09, 2011

Not sure what they are concerned about anyway...music has gotten crappy and Tv programs are just as bad.

on Jul 09, 2011

I have a secure network, thanks. I have no control on what others on my network download.

I still see this whole issue as a breach of privacy.

on Jul 09, 2011

Personally, I see this as paying somebody to watch your every move then rap you across the knuckles if/when you slip up.  I mean, who pays their own executioner to pull the lever, switch the switch?  Who pays the cop who just wrote them a ticket?

While it is an admirable thing to uphold just laws, there is always the risk of unjust actions and abuses of power... and when large corporations are involved the greed factor always plays a part in how you are dealt with.  Just look at the woman who downloaded a few songs and was 'fined' several millions... and that is the fear each and every one of us should hold. 

Corporate 'law' [not to be confused with constitutional law] generally errs on the side of excess and usually aims to rip the arse right out of your world when it deems you the enemy.  I say deems because you/anyone can be named "the enemy' whether you're guilty of anything or not... as in you don't have to steal anything, just that you publicly speak against their agendas, future plans, etc.

Like I said, it is admirable to uphold a just law, but this has been brokered outside of the judicial system/courts and therefore is prone to abuse and excesses that people have no protection against.... just like a corrupt cop who has it in for you because your eye colour isn't to his/her liking.

In other words, be careful what you wish/ask for.

10 Pages1 2 3 4  Last