Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Piracy Censorship Media

Media Companies Create Copyright Enforcement Framework 219

Posted by Unknown Lamer from the copying-is-bad-mmkay dept.
An anonymous reader writes with an article in Ars Technica. From the article: "American Internet users, get ready for three strikes^W^W 'six strikes.' Major U.S. Internet providers — including AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, Cablevision, and Time Warner Cable — have just signed on to a voluntary agreement with the movie and music businesses to crack down on online copyright infringers. But they will protect subscriber privacy and they won't filter or monitor their own networks for infringement. And after the sixth 'strike,' you won't necessarily be 'out.'" It's not suspicious at all that most of the ISPs signing on for this are owned by or own media companies.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Media Companies Create Copyright Enforcement Framework More

Media Companies Create Copyright Enforcement Framework

Comments Filter:

  • Corporate blacklists (Score:5, Insightful)

    by arisvega ( 1414195 ) on Thursday July 07, 2011 @01:28PM (#36685006)
    So are we looking at some sort of private blacklisting? Like the one banks employ- figure out who is the 'good' customer and who ain't? And how lawful will it be for them to deny service to you on the grounds that 'it is statistically confirmed that you may use our services to support piracy, therefore we are forced to turn down your application'?

  • Media Companies (Score:4, Insightful)

    by bws111 ( 1216812 ) on Thursday July 07, 2011 @01:31PM (#36685036)

    It's not suspicious at all that most of the ISPs signing on for this are owned by or own media companies.

    Since when does 2 out of 5 count as 'most'? Other than Comcast and Cablevision, which ones are owned by or own media companies?

    • Since when does 2 out of 5 count as 'most'? Other than Comcast and Cablevision, which ones are owned by or own media companies?

      A cable television network is a media company. They may not create the media but they directly charge for and profit from its distribution.

    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • The media 'companies' (more like cartels) have their claws in the entire backbone. Presently there is no escape. Not until we develop secure ad hoc networks will we be safe from them, and the government of course. Even the darknet over corporate wire is not immune.

  • "Those who cannot remember the past... (Score:3)

    by Jane Q. Public ( 1010737 ) on Thursday July 07, 2011 @01:33PM (#36685064)
    "... are condemned to repeat it." -- George Santayana

    This is precisely why historically, the FCC did not allow on company to be both a content creator and content provider or "carrier". There is a huge conflict of interest which is not in the best interest of either innovation or the citizenry in general.

    Where were all the protests when Time-Warner became a cable operator? Where were all the protests when any of these providers acquired the creators, or vice versa?

    Goddamned American public in recent years has acted like it has never read a newspaper or history book.

    • Where were all the protests when Time-Warner became a cable operator?

      They must have worked; Time Warner spun out TWC two years ago according to Wikipedia.

      • "They must have worked; Time Warner spun out TWC two years ago according to Wikipedia."

        According to Wikipedia. When are they going to move out of the same offices, much less the same building?

    • Goddamned American public in recent years has acted like it has never read a newspaper or history book.

      They haven't. Hence why the newspaper and book publishing industries are dying. Haven't you been reading the--oh, right.

    • This is precisely why historically, the FCC did not allow on company to be both a content creator and content provider or "carrier". There is a huge conflict of interest which is not in the best interest of either innovation or the citizenry in general.

      You mean the FCC actually protected public interest at one point? With the likes of Meredith Baker [washingtonpost.com] it's hard to believe they ever did anything other than line their own pockets by selling democracy, one dollar at a time.

  • This is actually reasonable. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by odin84gk ( 1162545 ) on Thursday July 07, 2011 @01:35PM (#36685088)

    Have you ever gotten a copyright infringement letter? If not, then this probably won't apply to you.

    Read the last two paragraphs of the article.

    Essentially, after 6 notifications where they contact you about your infringing activities, they will throttle your internet, and possibly disconnect you until you contact them and have a chat about copyright laws.

    While I don't like the thought of being disconnected, I really don't like the thought of the government getting involved. (Protect IP Act, anyone?)

    • Re:This is actually reasonable. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 07, 2011 @01:41PM (#36685182)

      I'd rather have the government be involved than have private entities colluding to create their own extra-legal framework. With the government, I have recourse to contest or change the law. With private entities, I'm practically a powerless serf. As messed up as things are in our republic now, I'll still take it over neo-feudalism.

      • Mod parent up, and to think I just spent my last point. Private companies are not entitled to act as judge, jury, and executioner.

        • Mod parent up, and to think I just spent my last point. Private companies are not entitled to act as judge, jury, and executioner.

          Sadly, those are legal terms ...

          A lot of people will take the position that it's their network, and you use it according to their terms and their whim. The fact that the FCC hasn't decided to enforce net neutrality seems to confirm that.

          I believe in this case, those private companies have given you their terms, and given you an EULA that says they can change those terms at will

          • They've been stopped from doing the same thing many times in the EU.

            • They've been stopped from doing the same thing many times in the EU.

              Yes, and this story is about the US ... where there seems to be no appetite for regulating business in this way.

              So, while this may have been stopped in the EU ... I don't expect the same thing to happen in the US. US laws (and lawmakers) have been bought and paid for by commercial interests.

              Don't worry, this will eventually get put into something like ACTA as a treaty, and the EU will get to play too. This is just the dry run.

      • Ideal situation: Government makes some rules. If people don't like them they elect a different government which changes the rules to better benefit the people.

        Realistic situation: Government gets paid by... I mean listens to a lobbying group and then makes some rules. If people don't like them they elect a different government which... then does the exact same thing as the previous one did!

    • "Essentially, after 6 notifications where they contact you about your infringing activities, they will throttle your internet, and possibly disconnect you until you contact them and have a chat about copyright laws."

      Which is probably illegal. If they try it, I expect a horde of lawsuits over it.

      Ethically, it's rather like your local utility company shutting off your gas until you come into the office and have a chat about conservation.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by brainzach ( 2032950 )

        Why would it be illegal? The analogy is more like a utility company shutting off your electricity because they have evidence of you growing marijuana indoors illegally.

        The only way people will win a successful suit is that if they were a false positive. Trying to sue when you are actually committing copyright infringement will make you an easy target for the MPAA/RIAA.

        If you claim that your neighbors are stealing your Wi-Fi and downloading illegal content, then the education will probably focus mostly on

        • "Why would it be illegal? The analogy is more like a utility company shutting off your electricity because they have evidence of you growing marijuana indoors illegally."

          No, it isn't. First, they would have no "evidence", only the word of somebody in the "content industry", so it's hearsay at best. From past court cases, we have seen the quality of THEIR "evidence". And to say it tends to be weak is a gross understatement.

          Further, even if a utility company had evidence that you were growing marijuana, their only LEGAL recourse is to turn that information over to the "authorities". They have no legal authority to act on that information by themselves, by shutting off your

          • No, it isn't. First, they would have no "evidence", only the word of somebody in the "content industry", so it's hearsay at best. From past court cases, we have seen the quality of THEIR "evidence". And to say it tends to be weak is a gross understatement.

            If the evidence is faulty then you can sue them over it and can possibly win in court. The ISP's will get a lot of negative publicity and customers will switch to a competitor who doesn't cut them off for no reason. Problem solved.

            Precisely while freedom-lovers are pushing everybody to open their wi-fi, so that more people will have internet access. The thing is: network security is great, if you want it. But I am not legally required to "secure" my wifi. And I have some very strong reasons for not wanting to. Perfectly legal, ethical reasons.

            You can let the public use your property for free, but if people start doing illegal things on it, then you can be held liable. Even if there was people are accessing your Internet to do criminal activities, you have 6 notifications that it is being done and you need to secure

            • The ISP's will get a lot of negative publicity and customers will switch to a competitor who doesn't cut them off for no reason.

              I know nobody on /. will RTFA, but with the fact that most ISPs are monopolies, and the summary basically saying that all the big ISPs are in on this, it should be obvious that the chance of switching to a competitor (by which I mean a company with similar price/performance) is basically zero.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by bws111 ( 1216812 )

        How would it be illegal? At most it could be a breach of contract (if in fact you have a real contract), and even then only if the disconnection is against the terms of the contract.

    • I like the thought of the government defending its citizenry's fundamental human rights. [ohchr.org] But these days nobody seems to value that role of the government.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by antdude ( 79039 )

      Some companies do(?)/did have three strikes law. Adelphia did, with its snail mail letters and disconnections, and no throttlings.

  • Between AT&T and the various cable companies those are your only option for low latency high bandwidth consumer internet in a lot of the country. I do not suspect that the FCC will do it's job and squish this or the local regulatory bodies.

  • How many customers (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Aladrin ( 926209 ) on Thursday July 07, 2011 @01:39PM (#36685144)

    How many customers will they be forced to ban before they realize how much this hurts them and helps their competition?

    A boycott like this doesn't work unless you get every ISP to join in because 1 service isn't significantly different than another. Nobody says, 'Oh man, I couldn't live if I had to switch to Sprint instead of Time Warner!'

    Also, I wonder if there are any laws against this already? It seems to me that banding together to deny service to a certain list of people has got to have some anti-trust laws or something.

    And, could this be a major nail in the IP coffin? Judges aren't going to have much respect for them if they do really crazy things in the name of protecting their IP. The tide is already turning on that front and this is pretty desperate.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by jd2112 ( 1535857 )

      How many customers will they be forced to ban before they realize how much this hurts them and helps their competition?

      What is this competition that you speak of?

    • Also, I wonder if there are any laws against this already? It seems to me that banding together to deny service to a certain list of people has got to have some anti-trust laws or something.

      Except that copyright infringement is illegal, y'know?

      And, could this be a major nail in the IP coffin? Judges aren't going to have much respect for them if they do really crazy things in the name of protecting their IP. The tide is already turning on that front and this is pretty desperate.

      No. See above. And as has been pointed out you're on thin ice trying to posit this as "really crazy". The response as described is quite reasonable.

      • Except that copyright infringement is illegal, y'know?

        Yes, and there are sections within 17 USC that say exactly how you get to recover damages from copyright infringement, and all of them require a lawsuit (y'know, one of those things that takes place in a court of law).

        Likewise, messing with the Internet connection of the infringer is not one of the possible damage recovery for the copyright holder.

        So, yeah, it's likely that at least some judges will be quite upset that these companies are colluding to violate US law in order to increase their revenues.

    • Yes, ISP blacklists are a legal nightmare. You better have damn good proof to back up your claim and crap load of insurance to go with it or you are looking a major problems from the people blacklisted as well as the government. If you share that blacklist with others....oh man...your liability just went even higher and the government can take an even more active interest in what you are doing. I used to own an ISP and talked several times about a blacklist of customers who didn't pay their bills and was to

  • false positives have been a issues in the past does this do any thing to fix that?
    Let's say some without HSI but has cable some how get some HBO VOD data flagged? or just that they flag the wrong subscriber.

    Bad clams
    The bank's have done foreclosure on loans they don't even own so what stopping someone from makeing a clam on stuff they don't own or that may be free but some how they thing they own the rights to? What if a game is free but someone flags it based on in game music?

    fake clams

    One business may just make clams just to DOS a other business.

    What about places with FREE WIFI or hotels? (A lot of hotels use cable HSI)

    What about if you HAVE the rights to that Copyright and the right to download it and you still get flaged?

    • I think the RIAA/MPAA's rampant lawsuits against citizens shows that they would rather have false positives than false negatives. They're not concerned with your "end user experience." They would rather you have to fight to get the service you paid for* than for them to fight to prove you wrong. In essence, it's "guilty before proven innocent" except not in a court of law -- just on their say-so.

      * So the ISP can kick you off and still keep your money. This also means they'll be more inclined to kick us

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by thebra ( 707939 )

      false positives have been a issues in the past does this do any thing to fix that? Let's say some without HSI but has cable some how get some HBO VOD data flagged? or just that they flag the wrong subscriber.

      Bad clams The bank's have done foreclosure on loans they don't even own so what stopping someone from makeing a clam on stuff they don't own or that may be free but some how they thing they own the rights to? What if a game is free but someone flags it based on in game music?

      fake clams

      One business may just make clams just to DOS a other business.

      What about places with FREE WIFI or hotels? (A lot of hotels use cable HSI)

      What about if you HAVE the rights to that Copyright and the right to download it and you still get flaged?

      Mmmm...clams.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by ifrag ( 984323 )

      While I must admit, how to execute a DoS attack using clams is a little beyond me, I think the issue of false positives is going to be a lot less funny.

      If these companies are doing so little as just checking if an IP address is in a torrent swarm, then I would think just about anyone could be flagged. So even assuming they get the right IP address associated to who had it at that point in time, there is still not even a guarantee the file was being seeded by that IP at that moment. I see connections being

  • Dear {ISP company}:

    The notice from {MAFIAA member} claiming that I was participating in copyright infringement must be some kind of mistake. To the best of my knowledge, nobody in my household has engaged in such practices.

    I suggest that perhaps their methodology is at fault, or that someone may be spoofing my IP address, or accessing my router in an unauthorized manner.

    In any case, I assure you that I have no knowledge of copyright piracy occurring at my residence.

    Sincerely,

    {my signature}

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by jedidiah ( 1196 )

      I would write my senators but they are already in Hollywood's pocket.

      It's sad really. You would think that our senators were Democrats from California rather than Republicans from the Deep South.

      • You would think that our senators were Democrats from California rather than Republicans from the Deep South.

        Hint: What do both types of senators really like?
        Answer: Money by the boatloads from corporations.


        They are not as different as you think. They both have the exact same #1 priority - get re-elected by any means necessary. Their "policies" and "morals" are just means to accomplish this goal.

      • I guess the first problem with your statement is that I don't think you actually know how the Senate itself works.

  • How about for government (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Bob the Super Hamste ( 1152367 ) on Thursday July 07, 2011 @02:00PM (#36685422) Homepage
    Can we get something like this for government except instead of copyright infringement it is applicable to 3 (or 6 in this case) infringements of individual rights? Now instead of being cut off from the internet they are forced out of office, never allowed to hold office again, lose their pensions, and have to pay back all money and benefits earned while in office.

  • SO WHAT (Score:3)

    by shoehornjob ( 1632387 ) on Thursday July 07, 2011 @02:11PM (#36685582)
    One day big media will understand that they need us more than we need them. Take away my movies, video games and music (that part would suck) and I wouldn't be too happy but I would eventually find something else to do. Occasionally I come across someone that doesn't watch tv and they seem happy. My friend Chris told me that he couldn't imagine being glued to the tv again. Fuck big media.

  • IIRC, Adelphia had a three strikes for copyright infringements during its days before it died.

  • It's not suspicious at all that most of the ISPs signing on for this are owned by or own media companies.

    Why would it be? You would have to be absolutely retarded to think they wouldn't look out for their own best interests. Do you think it would be a good idea for your mother to say 'I'm protecting the privacy of your father by not telling the cops' while he rapes you repeatedly?

    Why the fuck would they not want to cooperate with their own internal groups? Do you not treat your family differently than some random stranger?

  • I once got an infringement notice that I was sharing the movie "Stepmom". Given that I've never even heard of the movie, much less seen it, I just ignored it and went on with my life.

    Right now ISPs typically just forward infringement notices to their users and don't actually penalize anyone for it. If they start penalizing people, it could become a problem. Dynamic IPs change all the time, trackers can hold onto client IP lists for quite some time, and false positives will happen.

    The movie/TV industry COULD

Slashdot Top Deals

One man's constant is another man's variable. -- A.J. Perlis

Close