AT&T Starts Six-Strikes Anti-Piracy Plan Next Month, Will Block Websites - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Fhenexx;38013894]What's sad is that a lot of telecommunications companies can have huge monopolies over certain areas, especially rural areas. For example, here you can only get Verizon or satellite internet; I have no other choices, which sucks.[/QUOTE] FiOS is fuckin awesome

Just moved from at&t to Comcast last month. Booya. Seriously though, at&t is terrible in every damn way. There was one week where my download speed was down at 0.14 mbps. Not fun.

"I AM SO ANGRY AT THIS" Yet none of you will actually do anything other than strop on forums about it. Power in masses people. Go and complain. Threaten to swap providers. I don't have this problem yet over in the UK but they day I do I'm not going to just sit on a forum and moan about it, I'll go to the source.

[QUOTE=Bobie;38041102]ericson666 wouldnt download a car ...or look at the [URL="http://www.ifpi.org/content/library/The-Impact-of-Illegal-Downloading.pdf"]studies which suggest that piracy is good at distributing wealth in creative industries[/URL][/QUOTE] Guys, step back for a second and look at this. [i]You are complaining about not being able to pirate[/i] Do you know how entitled it is to threaten to switch providers because a company wants to protect its interests?

[QUOTE=phantompain5;38021074]I don't get anti piracy measures, just because you are cracking down on piracy doesn't mean people are going to buy more of your music, games, movies. If anything doesn't that just cause people to hate them even more and refuse to buy their products in the long term?[/QUOTE] I don't get anti theft measures, just because you are cracking down on theft doesn't mean people are going to buy more of your music, games, movies. If anything doesn't that just cause people to hate them even more and refuse to buy their products in the long term? Same argument. You wouldn't expect retail stores to stop trying to discourage theft because they're afraid thieves might get uppity and never buy their products. The main difference would be the nature of theft versus copyright infringement, but in either case it's still in the company's interest to preserve control over their work even if it doesn't immediately secure a sale.

[QUOTE=Live2becool;38045959]Just moved from at&t to Comcast last month. Booya. Seriously though, at&t is terrible in every damn way. There was one week where my download speed was down at 0.14 mbps. Not fun.[/QUOTE] comcast is going to do the exact same thing also.

[QUOTE=jordguitar;38046513]comcast is going to do the exact same thing also.[/QUOTE] Sucks cause they actually provide me with great internet. Also is at&t decent at all for internet? I thought they were only a cell phone company.

Is Time Warner really that bad? Had them for a long time and no complaints here.

This can only be done right if the main focus wasn't "How to earn money off of the pirates"

[QUOTE=Ericson666;38046134]Guys, step back for a second and look at this. [i]You are complaining about not being able to pirate[/i] Do you know how entitled it is to threaten to switch providers because a company wants to protect its interests?[/QUOTE] Actually I'm complaining about the lack of net neutrality. If a carrier blocks stuff, that means they are snooping on my activities. You're insane if you think it will stop at 'piracy'. The last thing I want is for my internet connection to turn into another cable TV clusterfuck. 5 dollars for youtube access, 2.49 for facepunch. 37 dollars for 6 months only, (regular 49.95) for the blog pack. Fuck that shit so goddam hard.

1. Subscribe to a VPN. 2. ??? 3. Profit?

[QUOTE=PX1K;38046067]"I AM SO ANGRY AT THIS" Yet none of you will actually do anything other than strop on forums about it. Power in masses people. Go and complain. Threaten to swap providers. I don't have this problem yet over in the UK but they day I do I'm not going to just sit on a forum and moan about it, I'll go to the source.[/QUOTE] My ISP already doesn't give a shit so I'm good to go

[QUOTE=PX1K;38046067]"I AM SO ANGRY AT THIS" Yet none of you will actually do anything other than strop on forums about it. Power in masses people. Go and complain. Threaten to swap providers. I don't have this problem yet over in the UK but they day I do I'm not going to just sit on a forum and moan about it, I'll go to the source.[/QUOTE] Some of us don't have a fucking option. My options are: dial up, satellite (which has obscenely low download rates, preventing me from downloading my games off steam/playing online games, and it tends to lose signal if it's even remotely cloudy), or my current set up which gets their internet rom AT&T. Believe me, if there were more options, I'd go for it, but there isn't.

[QUOTE=Zephyrs;38046869]Actually I'm complaining about the lack of net neutrality. If a carrier blocks stuff, that means they are snooping on my activities. You're insane if you think it will stop at 'piracy'. The last thing I want is for my internet connection to turn into another cable TV clusterfuck. 5 dollars for youtube access, 2.49 for facepunch. 37 dollars for 6 months only, (regular 49.95) for the blog pack. Fuck that shit so goddam hard.[/QUOTE] If a carrier reprimands you for torrenting, it means they are recognizing the very obvious torrent traffic. It's not 'snooping on [your] activities', it's accomplished without knowing what you're doing at all. Not that I agree with this tactic, because there are some legitimate applications to torrents, but the 'baw I can't pirate' and 'they're spying on everything I freely send to them' non-arguments are invalid.

[QUOTE=catbarf;38047599]If a carrier reprimands you for torrenting, it means they are recognizing the very obvious torrent traffic. It's not 'snooping on [your] activities', it's accomplished without knowing what you're doing at all. Not that I agree with this tactic, because there are some legitimate applications to torrents, but the 'baw I can't pirate' and 'they're spying on everything I freely send to them' non-arguments are invalid.[/QUOTE] They have zero way of determining legitimacy without invasive DPI.

[QUOTE=Zephyrs;38047913]They have zero way of determining legitimacy without invasive DPI.[/QUOTE] Right, so they're taking the 'easy' way and just categorically blocking torrent traffic. Like I said, I don't agree with it, but it's better than the alternative. At the very least, hopefully this means there'll be fewer out-of-the-blue multi-million dollar lawsuits coming down on ordinary people.

[QUOTE=catbarf;38047937]Right, so they're taking the 'easy' way and just categorically blocking torrent traffic. Like I said, I don't agree with it, but it's better than the alternative.[/QUOTE] Apart from the whole guility until proven inoccent thing, which automatically completley and utterly invalidates your point. They are paid to provide a service. They should not get to dictate its use. In the phone world they are protected from any and all legal liability if I make death threats over the phone. They do not listen for them. They do not filter for them. I can call whoever the hell I wish and talk for as long as I want, and they are free of all responsibility. The United States Postal Service is identical. I can send illegal content through the mail, and they are free of responsibility. The sole exception to this is if I am sending explosives or other hazardous [I]physical[/I] content. They cannot be held responsible for the content of letters, and they cannot be held responsible for me sending billions of letters. Why is this any different? [QUOTE=catbarf;38047937]At the very least, hopefully this means there'll be fewer out-of-the-blue multi-million dollar lawsuits coming down on ordinary people.[/QUOTE] You are outright delusional if you think the mega media companies are going to be reasonable. They have a century of history indicating that they will try to fuck the consumers in every way they possibly can. Any tool given to them gets abused. This happens time and time again.

AT&T Recently started offering service in our area. I was so excited because I'm tired of time warner's terrible bullshit support, their shitty lines, and them forcing you into bundles to get any level of internet service for a decent price. Meanwhile AT&T offered 25mb/s for $46/mo, which is $5 less than what I am paying now at the same time being 10mb/s faster. However, AT&T is sadly a very scummy company as well. Between the bullshit in the OP, the INSANE manditory $300 or so installation fees (that are only waived if you get their highest tier bundle services), the fact that you are FORCED to use their propritary modems/routers (that by the way, are $200 to buy, or a permanent $6-$8 extra charge a month to lease), and their totally fucking stupid 250GB data cap, there is no way I will ever switch to AT&T. It's like they are too stupid to realize people don't actually like this bullshit.

[QUOTE=Zephyrs;38048064]Apart from the whole guility until proven inoccent thing, which automatically completley and utterly invalidates your point.[/QUOTE] Full stop. Being able to torrent is not a legal right. If they choose to not allow torrent traffic on their service, they can do so. If you violate this repeatedly, they terminate your service. Nowhere is any sort of legal injunction being sent as a direct response to alleged infractions- at worst, they provide information if the RIAA comes a-knocking, which they've historically always done anyways. Innocent until proven guilty does not apply to actions made by a company within a mutually agreed-upon contract. [QUOTE=Zephyrs;38048064]They are paid to provide a service. They should not get to dictate its use. In the phone world they are protected from any and all legal liability if I make death threats over the phone. They do not listen for them. They do not filter for them. I can call whoever the hell I wish and talk for as long as I want, and they are free of all responsibility. The United States Postal Service is identical. I can send illegal content through the mail, and they are free of responsibility. The sole exception to this is if I am sending explosives or other hazardous [I]physical[/I] content. They cannot be held responsible for the content of letters, and they cannot be held responsible for me sending billions of letters. Why is this any different?[/QUOTE] USPS can and does refuse to accept poorly-constructed packages. They are not responsible for the content of any package, but they can still choose to refuse service if it violates their terms of service. If an ISP wants to cut off torrent traffic, that's the ISP's choice alone, and you're free to cancel service and find another provider. In any case, one thing you haven't noted is that phone service providers are legally required to have infrastructure in place for phone monitoring in case a governmental agency wants to listen in. They may not be responsible for the content of any transmission using their service, but they have a legal obligation to aid the government in pursuing legal violations using their service. [QUOTE=Zephyrs;38048064]You are outright delusional if you think the mega media companies are going to be reasonable. They have a century of history indicating that they will try to fuck the consumers in every way they possibly can. Any tool given to them gets abused. This happens time and time again.[/QUOTE] Such is how it's always been. The difference is at least now you'll get a few warnings, not just suddenly get a multi-million-dollar lawsuit show up on your doorstep.

Thanks AT&T Just fuck you 6g my fucking ass Wow a blazing 300 fucking kilobytes Holy shit It takes 8 hours to download Crysis

Watch as AT&T loses customers as a result of this and eventually goes into bankruptcy protection And fuck, I have it too.

So if i go to youtube and stream copyrighted music, am i going to get a warning, because it's copyrighted content, that i am streaming (which is downloading in a sense), without the express authorization of the copyright company. Or does this only apply to P2P? Ima lol if i get blocked from websites like the piratebay, even though i wont download anything directly.

[QUOTE=Ericson666;38046134]Guys, step back for a second and look at this. [i]You are complaining about not being able to pirate[/i] Do you know how entitled it is to threaten to switch providers because a company wants to protect its interests?[/QUOTE] It's hardly entitled. "Pirating" isn't restricted to downloading torrents, it's also aimed at streamed clips, songs, and images (entirety of youtube). Knowing how greedy those companies are, it seems that you can get in trouble for them.

//

I don't know how it is in the USA, but in my country EVERYONE pirates. Movies, games, music everything. I actually got laughed at several times because I was so stupid and bought games. Thing is no one does anything about it because it's the only reason people are upgrading their connections (we have one of the fastest internet in the whole world).

[QUOTE=demoTron;38059136]I don't know how it is in the USA, but in my country EVERYONE pirates. Movies, games, music everything. I actually got laughed at several times because I was so stupid and bought games. Thing is no one does anything about it because it's the only reason people are upgrading their connections (we have one of the fastest internet in the whole world).[/QUOTE] I thought Estonia had the fastest internet in the baltics. But yeah piracy is all over eastern europe in general

[QUOTE=Remscar;38052618]So if i go to youtube and stream copyrighted music, am i going to get a warning, because it's copyrighted content, that i am streaming (which is downloading in a sense), without the express authorization of the copyright company. Or does this only apply to P2P? Ima lol if i get blocked from websites like the piratebay, even though i wont download anything directly.[/QUOTE] Streaming copyrighted content is illegal, it's just that most companies suing for damages over it generally sue the people that host the stream and not the people that view it because they can get a bigger payout. Bust just because that's currently the status quo, doesn't mean that it won't change in the future. An example would be that Viacom is still trying to get over a billion dollars out of Google for all of the supposed infringing Youtube videos they host.