• “Six Strikes” Anti-Piracy Scheme Starts Monday in the US
    237 replies, posted
[QUOTE=fruxodaily;39696080]Like that's going to do jack shit to stop piracy waste of time and money IMO[/QUOTE] And its probably gonna make some people switch to services that don't have those systems, if there are any.
[QUOTE=Ericson666;39699786]If you don't like the business practices of your ISP, send them a message by switching to someone else[/QUOTE] Except most ISPs have destroyed or are attempting to destroy all other competition in their area exactly so you can't do that. The SEC tries to bust up monopolies in every industry EXCEPT telecom it seems. Comcast and other telecoms are free to shit all over the consumer with no repercussions except the occasional light tap on the wrist. [editline]24th February 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Iago;39701004]How do I make my own ISP company? I'm serious what do I need and i'll consider to make a cheap fast one.[/QUOTE] Good luck, the big telecoms bought up most of the infrastructure for the sole purpose of shutting others out of the market. It's why Google can't bring fiber to other cities, Kansas was literally the only place they could do it.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;39705007]A strike is based on an accusation of copyright infringement from a rights holder. No, they don't have to actually prove it in court or anything.[/QUOTE] Once again, if you actually read the article, you'd know you can appeal [QUOTE]The website explains how the copyright alert system works and lists places where people can download and stream music and movies legally. It also lists details about the appeals process for people who want to dispute one of the warnings.[/QUOTE]
my as well slow everyones internet down since there are so many people who torrent shit, it wont make any long term affect to piracy anyway
[QUOTE=Ericson666;39706835]Once again, if you actually read the article, you'd know you can appeal[/QUOTE] It doesn't really matter that you can appeal. It's still guilty until proven innocent no matter how you splice it, and on top of that it's still absolute bullshit that they are allowed to filter you in the first place.
[QUOTE=Brod Ster;39706942][B]my as well slow everyones internet down [/B]since there are so many people who torrent shit, it wont make any long term affect to piracy anyway[/QUOTE] honestly, how would people do this
[QUOTE=Zephyrs;39706967]It doesn't really matter that you can appeal. It's still guilty until proven innocent no matter how you splice it, and on top of that it's still absolute bullshit that they are allowed to filter you in the first place.[/QUOTE] The fact that they have an appeals system obviously shows that there's a process. Stop making assumptions that everything is going to be absolutely terrible Also, to everyone who says this won't have any affect on piracy, for the fifth time now, if you actually read the article before exploding in a ball of hatred, you'd know that they're not trying to "stop" pirates, they're trying to educate people. [QUOTE]Of course, there are plenty of ways for people to prevent being monitored by copyright holders. BitTorrent proxies and VPN services are the most likely option here. These services replace a user’s home IP-address with one provided by the proxy service, making it impossible for tracking companies to identify who is doing the file-sharing. Also, those who download through Usenet, cyberlockers or other non-P2P services can not be monitored by the copyright alert system at all. These circumvention options are not news to the copyright holders and the ISPs. CCI Executive Director Jill Lesser previously said that the main purpose of the alerts is to educate the public, and that hardcore pirates are not the target of the system.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Zephyrs;39706967]It doesn't really matter that you can appeal. It's still guilty until proven innocent no matter how you splice it, and on top of that it's still absolute bullshit that they are allowed to filter you in the first place.[/QUOTE] Not a court of law. You ain't being prosecuted, you're agreeing to a service. They can kick you out for any reason they damn well want. Part of the fine print I assume you didn't read.
[QUOTE=Shadaez;39696428]that site looks so fake [img]http://puu.sh/27p6y[/img] and then there's this[/QUOTE] [t]http://puu.sh/27YGB[/t] is this serious
[QUOTE=Ericson666;39706996]The fact that they have an appeals system obviously shows that there's a process. Stop making assumptions that everything is going to be absolutely terrible[/quote] So I can just spam fake things and mess with people like people have done with DMCAs? Sounds like a brilliant system there. Truly impossible that it will be misused. [QUOTE=scout1;39707047]Not a court of law. You ain't being prosecuted, you're agreeing to a service. They can kick you out for any reason they damn well want. Part of the fine print I assume you didn't read.[/QUOTE] Which is why I said I wanted regulation previously specifically to prevent that. Again. I can basically do whatever the hell I want with my phone line. They aren't allowed to block me from calling somebody. By extension, they aren't held accountable for anything illegal that I may do on the phone line (death threats, terrorism, fraud, that sort of thing). Why is the internet different? [QUOTE=Ericson666;39706996]Also, to everyone who says this won't have any affect on piracy, for the fifth time now, if you actually read the article before exploding in a ball of hatred, you'd know that they're not trying to "stop" pirates, they're trying to educate people.[/QUOTE] Educate them about what? That copyright infringement is wrong? Guess what. Most pirates know that. They don't care. It's the same problem that crops up everywhere in education. You cannot force someone to give a fuck, and needlessly inconveniencing them is not going to yield favorable results, especially if you end up needlessly inconveniencing someone who isn't actually doing anything 'wrong'. Of course false positives will [i]never[/i] happen with a system such as this right?
[QUOTE=Zephyrs;39707308] Which is why I said I wanted regulation previously specifically to prevent that. Again. I can basically do whatever the hell I want with my phone line. They aren't allowed to block me from calling somebody. By extension, they aren't held accountable for anything illegal that I may do on the phone line (death threats, terrorism, fraud, that sort of thing). Why is the internet different? [/QUOTE] If you abuse your phone line to bring potential harm to your carrier or otherwise do something against their TOS they have every right to boot you. It's not just that they could be held liable (in any possibility), but also that they have signed a business agreement to stamp out piracy - something that is protected and allowed under law. The internet isn't different, it's not special, and you have certain responsibilities. Follow them. [QUOTE=Zephyrs;39707308] Educate them about what? That copyright infringement is wrong? Guess what. Most pirates know that. They don't care. It's the same problem that crops up everywhere in education. You cannot force someone to give a fuck, and needlessly inconveniencing them is not going to yield favorable results, especially if you end up needlessly inconveniencing someone who isn't actually doing anything 'wrong'. Of course false positives will [i]never[/i] happen with a system such as this right?[/QUOTE] This is the "soft" approach. it's not a matter of inconvenience, and yes of course it can fail. Even if there is 1 in 10,000 false positives, it's not going to matter to the average person. The chance of someone piling up three, four, five, or even six strikes is so astronomically high that you can ignore the letters unless you're actually pirating.
[QUOTE=Zephyrs;39707308]So I can just spam fake things and mess with people like people have done with DMCAs? Sounds like a brilliant system there. Truly impossible that it will be misused. Which is why I said I wanted regulation previously specifically to prevent that. Again. I can basically do whatever the hell I want with my phone line. They aren't allowed to block me from calling somebody. By extension, they aren't held accountable for anything illegal that I may do on the phone line (death threats, terrorism, fraud, that sort of thing). Why is the internet different? Educate them about what? That copyright infringement is wrong? Guess what. Most pirates know that. They don't care. It's the same problem that crops up everywhere in education. You cannot force someone to give a fuck, and needlessly inconveniencing them is not going to yield favorable results, especially if you end up needlessly inconveniencing someone who isn't actually doing anything 'wrong'. Of course false positives will [i]never[/i] happen with a system such as this right?[/QUOTE] So companies should just allow people to pirate all they want, without even trying to stop them? How does that make any sense
[QUOTE=Zephyrs;39707308]So I can just spam fake things and mess with people like people have done with DMCAs? Sounds like a brilliant system there. Truly impossible that it will be misused.[/QUOTE] Spam fake what? I don't really see how this is abusable by ordinary people. I could see it potentially being used by big companies to try to quash legitimate torrents, but we'll see how that pans out. [QUOTE=Zephyrs;39707308]Which is why I said I wanted regulation previously specifically to prevent that. Again. I can basically do whatever the hell I want with my phone line. They aren't allowed to block me from calling somebody. By extension, they aren't held accountable for anything illegal that I may do on the phone line (death threats, terrorism, fraud, that sort of thing). Why is the internet different?[/QUOTE] Did you know that in order to have such legal immunity, phone companies [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Assistance_for_Law_Enforcement_Act]are legally required to have infrastructure allowing the government to monitor phone traffic[/url]? So sure, if the Internet were regulated like telephones, then maybe the telecom companies wouldn't be able to selectively throttle your service. Instead, they'd be required to turn you over to the FBI. Is that really what you want? [QUOTE=Zephyrs;39707308]Educate them about what? That copyright infringement is wrong? Guess what. Most pirates know that. They don't care. It's the same problem that crops up everywhere in education. You cannot force someone to give a fuck, and needlessly inconveniencing them is not going to yield favorable results, especially if you end up needlessly inconveniencing someone who isn't actually doing anything 'wrong'. Of course false positives will [i]never[/i] happen with a system such as this right?[/QUOTE] Six false positives in a row without any appeal is pretty unlikely. And more importantly, this isn't about stopping the diehard pirates. It's about stopping the casual users who download a song or movie because they can, and will stop if they are made aware of the fact that their activity is being watched. There are a lot of Americans who are tech-savvy enough to pirate but not enough to avoid being caught.
[QUOTE=scout1;39707352]This is the "soft" approach. it's not a matter of inconvenience, and yes of course it can fail. Even if there is 1 in 10,000 false positives, it's not going to matter to the average person. The chance of someone piling up three, four, five, or even six strikes is so astronomically high that you can ignore the letters unless you're actually pirating.[/QUOTE] Utter bullshit. I have received multiple threatening letters about content I didn't even know existed several years ago. Ended up changing ISPs because their service was garbage, combined with the constant spam of threats. (Throttling us to less than 50kB/s during the day. Couldn't even watch the low resolution youtube at the time). And it's not like I'm alone in this. There's thousands of stories floating around (some of them probably fraudulent to be fair), of this happening. Hell, there were even scandals popping up in Britain about companies threatening to litigate over people allegedly downloading gay porn, and using the threat of public slander, when no such incidents occurred. The ultimate irony? At the time in question here I know for a fact that a family member actually [I]was[/I] pirating some material, and was never caught. So forgive me for not trusting something like this. IP based detection is singularly fucking terrible. Any sort of automated detection like this is practically guaranteed to generate arbitrarily large amounts of false positives, or detect nothing in the first place. On top of that, any sort of "prove your innocence" system is hilariously trivial to abuse and exploit (see DMCA, false infringement notices, and anything of the sort). [editline]24th February 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Ericson666;39707412]So companies should just allow people to pirate all they want, without even trying to stop them? How does that make any sense[/QUOTE] Strawman arguing 101 here. Show me where I said that. [QUOTE=catbarf;39707437]Spam fake what? I don't really see how this is abusable by ordinary people. I could see it potentially being used by big companies to try to quash legitimate torrents, but we'll see how that pans out.[/QUOTE] This exact thing has happened effectively every time some new tool has been provided. I'd honestly go so far as to say someone who thinks this won't be abused in some fashion is either misinformed, or outright delusional. Look at youtube. How much legitimate content has been repeatedly spammed out because of DMCA stuff. OK, this doesn't appear to have quite the same set of teeth in what happens, but it's the same garbage in a different pile. [QUOTE=catbarf;39707437]Did you know that in order to have such legal immunity, phone companies [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Assistance_for_Law_Enforcement_Act"]are legally required to have infrastructure allowing the government to monitor phone traffic[/URL]? So sure, if the Internet were regulated like telephones, then maybe the telecom companies wouldn't be able to selectively throttle your service. Instead, they'd be required to turn you over to the FBI. Is that really what you want?[/QUOTE] You can already snoop on someones internet usage. In both cases warrants are (well supposed to be at any rate, yay fucking ra for the the patriot act) required. I am failing to see the significant difference. They are paid to provide a service, and should be relatively blind about it's usage. If they cannot provide such service, then their infrastructure, or listed offerings need to be changed to reflect this. Note that I am not saying they need to have infinite plans, specific price points, or any of that garbage. If a company wants to charge by the GB, then they are free to do so. What I am saying is that they should not be allowed to dictate the use of said service.
Hey if anyone has a VPN could you let me use it pretty please? :suicide:
[QUOTE=Ericson666;39706835]Once again, if you actually read the article, you'd know you can appeal[/QUOTE] Who cares? The system is set up so that six accusations of guilt (from what are largely [i]automated[/i] systems that send out these notices en masse) = actual guilt. How can you support that? [editline]24th February 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=scout1;39707047]Not a court of law. You ain't being prosecuted, you're agreeing to a service. They can kick you out for any reason they damn well want. Part of the fine print I assume you didn't read.[/QUOTE] If this was set up so a certain number of unfounded accusations of sexual misconduct online meant you were branded as a pedo and had your internet cut off I doubt you'd be as cool with it
[QUOTE=Zeke129;39707697] If this was set up so a certain number of unfounded accusations of sexual misconduct online meant you were branded as a pedo and had your internet cut off I doubt you'd be as cool with it[/QUOTE] Except that this is a private company not the government, which is why they [I]can[/I] do this, especially when I agree to their terms when buying their service Although "branded as a pedo" I can just go sue them for slander. The law works in many ways.
[QUOTE=scout1;39707726]Except that this is a private company not the government, which is why they [I]can[/I] do this, especially when I agree to their terms when buying their service Although "branded as a pedo" I can just go sue them for slander. The law works in many ways.[/QUOTE] It wouldn't be slander because they're not publicizing it. You'd get a letter saying 6 people have accused you of sexual misconduct with minors online and that your internet is being limited in some way. That's not slander, and maybe it would even be in their hypothetical contract, but it's still stupid and wrong
[QUOTE=Zeke129;39707799]It wouldn't be slander because they're not publicizing it. You'd get a letter saying 6 people have accused you of sexual misconduct with minors online and that your internet is being limited in some way. That's not slander, and maybe it would even be in their hypothetical contract, but it's still stupid and wrong[/QUOTE] So if 6 complaints came up from different sources that were confirmed by software and all signs pointed to me being a pedophile on the internet? Maybe I shouldn't have been talking to little girls then
[QUOTE=scout1;39707853]confirmed by software[/QUOTE] The problem is that the validity of that software has been proven to be unreliable.
[QUOTE=scout1;39707853]So if 6 complaints came up from different sources that were confirmed by software and all signs pointed to me being a pedophile on the internet? Maybe I shouldn't have been talking to little girls then[/QUOTE] Confirmed by software that has been known to confirm that some laser printers are pedophiles, yes.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;39708374]Confirmed by software that has been known to confirm that some laser printers are pedophiles, yes.[/QUOTE] Hey man I'm all for reading packet headers but last time somebody suggested this a lot of FPers got angry
[QUOTE=Zeke129;39708374]Confirmed by software that has been known to confirm that some laser printers are pedophiles, yes.[/QUOTE] Or better yet, [url=http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1150020]people who don't own computers.[/url]
so is that it are we fucked
Privacy.io is a wonderful VPN service. Apparently they've been verified to not be one of the VPN companies that fuck you over. The "you agree to their service so be quiet" talk kinda get's me riled up. It's not like you're offered much of a choice with ISPs. The internet is too important to be distributed like it is right now. ATT won't usually give me the speeds I'm paying for. :(
Okay, it's now Monday. I haven't been arrested yet, I think that's a good sign.
[QUOTE=Chicken_Chaser;39709043]Privacy.io is a wonderful VPN service. Apparently they've been verified to not be one of the VPN companies that fuck you over. The "you agree to their service so be quiet" talk kinda get's me riled up. It's not like you're offered much of a choice with ISPs. The internet is too important to be distributed like it is right now. ATT won't usually give me the speeds I'm paying for. :([/QUOTE] Also, unless it somehow benefits the consumer, it just seems fairly unethical to make these kinds of agreements behind their back. After all the consumers are the ones paying for the service, not the MPAA/RIAA/whatever and switching services is not so easy in some areas (the state of telecommunications in Canada is pretty awful, and I know somebody in the U.S. who says it's the same way in her area -- just one provider who only has dial-up in her area).
Corporate America doesn't care about things like fairness or ethics, they only care about how much money they can extract from a captive consumer base. [editline]24th February 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=TurtleeyFP;39709123]Okay, it's now Monday. I haven't been arrested yet, I think that's a good sign.[/QUOTE] And then suddenly a fully armed Copyright Enforcement squad kicks your door in and crashes through all your windows.
[QUOTE=Kuro.;39709348]Corporate America doesn't care about things like fairness or ethics, they only care about how much money they can extract from a captive consumer base.[/QUOTE] You know, it's one thing to complain that this process might produce false positives or be unfairly applied, but to accuse these companies of poor [I]ethics[/I] when they're doing this to combat [I]piracy[/I] makes my irony meter explode.
[QUOTE=catbarf;39711637]You know, it's one thing to complain that this process might produce false positives or be unfairly applied, but to accuse these companies of poor [I]ethics[/I] when they're doing this to combat [I]piracy[/I] makes my irony meter explode.[/QUOTE] I'd agree with you if cases like the aforementioned gay porn threats, and numerous documented false positives didn't exist. Nobody (in their right mind at least), would argue that the pirates are the 'good guys', but you cannot claim that big media is either. As soon as you've started trampling legitimate consumers in your witch hunt, you've crossed a very dangerous line. One for which behavior is frequently the exact antithesis of what is wanted, and one for which people mock you for claiming the moral high ground. (See people's reaction to ubisofts always online for a perfect example.)
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.