Life In The Safe Harbor About To Change For ISPs How the ACTA pushes ISPs toward kicking copyright infringers off the network... Tipped by Go Tarheels 
We've already discussed at length how a massive new international Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) is being crafted in total secrecy, with no input from independent parties or the consumers it will impact. That's been particularly troubling for broadband users and ISPs, given leaked information on the plan suggests the agreement may include mandatory three strikes requirements (repeated copyright infringement means account termination) for carriers, erode ISP safe harbor protections, and extend many of the more troubling and myopic aspects of US DMCA copyright law internationally. Over the weekend, bits of the ACTA finally leaked out (Google storage link to pdf), and while the legal wording of the agreement does not include mandatory three strikes provisions, it does dramatically change the safe harbor protections enjoyed by ISPs, and seriously pushes ISPs in the three strikes direction. Mike Masnick over at Techdirt does a good job hacking through the lawyer linguistics: In section 3, it tries to set up the "safe harbors" by which a service provider might avoid liability. In the US, we already have this, with the DMCA's notice-and-takedown provision, which is widely abused. Yet, to qualify for the safe harbors in ACTA, the bar is set much higher. . . Basically, it says that for a service provider to get safe harbors, it must implement a policy to deal with infringing works -- and in footnote 6, it gives the concept of "termination" of service in the case of repeat infringers as an example of the type of measure. That, of course, is three strikes rules. In other words, the wording of the agreement doesn't explicitly mandate three strikes rules -- it simply uses graduated response as the only real example for ISPs to embrace if they want to be protected from legal liability. That's (not coincidentally) handy, given we're seeing how the biggest ISPs (most recently Qwest and Verizon, but also Cox) are already voluntarily threatening users with account termination if they don't stop downloading pirated The Golden Girls episodes. So while crafting the ACTA with the full cooperation of the world's governments, the entertainment industry has quietly been working with ISPs ahead of the changes to ensure they're playing along. All the biggest ISPs are happily obliging, because they have one foot in the entertainment business (Comcast, AT&T, Verizon). All of this of course is ongoing without any real discussion in the public sphere about independent oversight of such a process, whether the evidence used is reliable, how small ISPs are supposed to afford the added support burden, or whether account termination suits the crime.
|
 DesdinovaPremium
join:2003-01-26
Gaithersburg, MD | Hmmm... I'm just hoping that for once, the elected officials who will need to vote on the treaty will act responsibly and see the dangers ACTA represents to a free and fully functional internet.
Hoping, not holding my breath... | |
|  | | | Re: Hmmm... said by Desdinova:I'm just hoping that for once, the elected officials who will need to vote on the treaty will act responsibly and see the dangers ACTA represents to a free and fully functional internet. Hoping, not holding my breath... LOL!! They have been bought and paid for. Why else would this be being crafted "in secrecy"? The RIAA and its other outfits buy and pay for laws and law makers every day. | |
| |  tiger72SexaT duorPPremium
join:2001-03-28
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:1 | don't hope. email your congressperson, and get everyone you know to email theirs too.
Just ask them if they or anyone else in their home as EVER downloaded an mp3 file or a ringtone from a website.
Ask them if they watch copyrighted music videos on youtube.
Ask them if their children like to upload videos of themselves singing copyrighted songs to youtube (ie about half of all youtube content).
Ask them if they're willing to get kicked off of the internet simply for being ACCUSED of doing the above.
Then tell them to call their congressperson and tell them to get scuttle this bill.
--
"What makes us omniscient? Have we a record of omniscience? ...If we can't persuade nations with comparable values of the merit of our cause, we'd better reexamine our reasoning."
-United States Secretary of Defense (1961-1968) Robert S. McNamara | |
| | |  sivranOpera convertPremium
join:2003-09-15
Arlington, TX
kudos:1 | Re: Hmmm... Screw email. Too easy to ignore.
Fax them. Snail-mail them letters. Call them. Make it personal. | |
|
| | | ACTA = me never buying a new film from hollywood again.nor shall i be going to any theaters.screw you corporate dicks we dont want your ACTA.
i can find used movies if i need one. | |
| |  Rogue WolfReally Ties The Room Together
join:2003-08-12
Troy, NY | said by Desdinova:I'm just hoping that for once, ... elected officials... will act responsibly.... And that's where you lost me, I'm sorry to say. The era of the responsible statesman is long gone. Now we have a crowd of people whose two primary concerns once being elected are:
- getting as much bribe money PAC donation money as they can
- getting re-elected
So much could be done if we eliminated money from politics and instituted term limits... but the politicians would have to vote for that. Sort of like getting a heroin addict to vote for banning needles. 
--
[Beeth] Progress (n.): The process through which the Internet has evolved from smart people in front of dumb terminals to dumb people in front of smart terminals. | |
| | | BarneyBadAssBadasses Fight For FreedomPremium
join:2004-05-07
00001 | Re: Hmmm... Oh for Pete's sake, it's all about $$$$ ....
I hope there's a provision in there to pay the ISP's for their added expenses!
--
---Barney | |
| | | |  KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | Re: Hmmm... said by BarneyBadAss:I hope there's a provision in there to pay the ISP's for their added expenses! That's built in. Raise prices for you and me.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
| |
|
| | | | | | KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | Re: Hmmm... Who was it who said:
"But yeah--- We can't ALL fly a plane into a Government building!" | |
|
| | tiger72SexaT duorPPremium
join:2001-03-28
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:1 | said by Rogue Wolf:said by Desdinova:I'm just hoping that for once, ... elected officials... will act responsibly.... And that's where you lost me, I'm sorry to say. The era of the responsible statesman is long gone. Now we have a crowd of people whose two primary concerns once being elected are: - getting as much bribe money PAC donation money as they can - getting re-elected So much could be done if we eliminated money from politics and instituted term limits... but the politicians would have to vote for that. Sort of like getting a heroin addict to vote for banning needles. Did you know that, by getting your fellow voters to vote for someone else, we can actually institute term limits WITHOUT the buy-in of the politicians currently in office?
Sort of like simply taking that heroin addict's needles and throwing them in the trash.
--
"What makes us omniscient? Have we a record of omniscience? ...If we can't persuade nations with comparable values of the merit of our cause, we'd better reexamine our reasoning."
-United States Secretary of Defense (1961-1968) Robert S. McNamara | |
|
| Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA | said by Desdinova:I'm just hoping that for once, the elected officials who will need to vote on the treaty will act responsibly and see the dangers ACTA represents to a free and fully functional internet. Hoping, not holding my breath... I'm just hoping that any U. S. Senator that votes to ratify such a piece of feces that will make our founding fathers and mothers turn over in their graves will either be impeached or shot. This country fought one Revolutionary War to overthrow the tyranny of King George and if crap like ACTA becomes the law of the land we will need to fight a second Revolutionary War to overthrow the tyranny of corporate overlords. | |
|
| | Screw ACTA they wont be able to tell what were downloading when all our packets are encrypted, vpn'd or proxied. | |
| | | | Re: Screw ACTA VPNs can be blocked and or throttled, encryption? LOL if they're routing everything through a central location or many locations that can be broken, maybe the NSA in the US, and as far as proxies? Block 'em.
--
www.two-pugs.com www.twopugsbrand.com | |
| | | Reviews:
 ·Acanac
4 edits | Re: Screw ACTA What??
People need VPN's and proxies for work. ISP's cant just flat out block or throttle them. AOL on broadband is a VPN; Do any ISPs disallow AOL? Good ISPs allow servers on home computers, and a lot of home VPNs and VPN devices are available from linksys, dlink etc.
This is not the smartest minds working on breaking peoples privacy. This is the man working with his known, avoidable detection techniques, anything else would cost too much. And AES has not been broken.
Google cant even figure out where that huge attack hit them came from. They blame China because of faulty reasoning.
If it's possible that we cant figure out where a connection is coming from, how are we going to figure out who to charge for infringement?
Not to mention the millions of people using WEP encryption or no encryption. How do you know a hacker didn't connect wireless to that router and download that content? | |
| | | | | | Re: Screw ACTA ISPs can blow them. Why? Because if you want access to them pay for a business class connection. Most ISPs will tell you this. Especially in the States. My Residential connection is meant just for that. It actually states not for BUSINESS use. Income can NOT be made by using the connection.
As for AOL their stuff is all free now; no need to use the actual AOL program. And if you want to AOL Desktop. It doesn't VPN anywhere and works just like IE or FireFox.
--
www.two-pugs.com www.twopugsbrand.com | |
|
| |  TrimlinePremium
join:2004-10-24
Windermere, FL | Re: Ah good, start with the MPAA who stole code Great find, I LMAO... oh the irony. | |
|
| | Meh... No amount of ACTA can solve the piracy issue. The pirates are already in the process of encrypting everything. All this is going to do is turn off the internet connections of your best customers.
I see this being enforced right up to the point that ISP's start to loose money because they have kicked their highest tier (premium) users off the net. | |
|  LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5 |  Golden Girls not the target; top 10 box office movies are
already voluntarily threatening users with account termination if they don't stop downloading pirated The Golden Girls episodes That is amusing, but that isn't what the MPAA is worried about or the ACTA is meant to stop. It is meant to stop the sharing of the very latest movies still in the theaters:
1. Shutter Island
2. Valentine's Day
3. Avatar
4. The Lightning Thief
5. The Wolfman
6. Dear John
7. Tooth Fairy
8. Crazy Heart
9. From Paris With Love
10. Edge of Darkness | |
| |  PhoenixDown-- Wants FIOSPremium
join:2003-06-08
Fresh Meadows, NY
kudos:1 | Re: Golden Girls not the target; top 10 box office movies are said by Linklist:already voluntarily threatening users with account termination if they don't stop downloading pirated The Golden Girls episodes That is amusing, but that isn't what the MPAA is worried about or the ACTA is meant to stop. It is meant to stop the sharing of the very latest movies still in the theaters: 1. Shutter Island 2. Valentine's Day 3. Avatar 4. The Lightning Thief 5. The Wolfman 6. Dear John 7. Tooth Fairy 8. Crazy Heart 9. From Paris With Love 10. Edge of Darkness You have to be kidding ... most of those are making record profits at the box office.
Those who want to see it in the theater will go (like my friend who saw Avatar 5 times) and those who will never go just won't.
--
~ Insert a Funny Sig Here ~ | |
| | | | | Re: Golden Girls not the target; top 10 box office movies are Exactly.
Pirating does not equal losing a ticket purchase.
It may end up that the user really likes the movie and goes and sees it in theatres.
It also may end up that the user buys the DVD and/or copies for his friends. | |
| | | | LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5 | Re: Golden Girls not the target; top 10 box office movies are said by the cerberus:It also may end up that the user buys the DVD and/or copies for his friends. And it also may end up that he downloads it and watches it at home and pays nothing. | |
| | | | | Reviews:
·Acanac
3 edits | Re: Golden Girls not the target; top 10 box office movies are But in that case it is highly likely that the user was never going to watch it in theatres, and was disappointed by the entertainment value. So no money was lost still. You can walk out of a movie 30 minutes in and get your money back, not many people do, as they'd like to see if the movie gets any better.
The empire theatre near myself in canada gives a voucher for a free movie if you are not satisfied after watching the complete film. | |
| | | | | | Ulmo
join:2005-09-22
San Jose, CA | Re: Golden Girls not the target; top 10 box office movies are The purposes and results of pirating video include both financial and non-financial, both beneficial and detrimental.
One example is the person who would pay for it if they had to, but would pirate to save money. Happens sometimes for sure.
Another example is the person who would pay for it if they could figure out how to, but it's easier to just pirate it. Happens often for sure. Often this happens in situations in which it is nearly impossible to pay for it, such as streaming a movie, or viewing a foreign film, or the car doesn't work to go to the video store, or the video store doesn't have it in stock, or the streaming systems you know how to use that take money don't work on your computer. One example is a Linux or Macintosh user being asked to pay for some Silverlight movies: such an act will automatically create a pirate network for such content. Typically, if the content is playable on a Linux or Macintosh without the pirating network, some people would pay more since they could, whereas before, they could not, while others would pay less simply because it's easier to pirate and now they're pirating more.
The questions become:
A. Would updating the archaic Hollywood business models have a net increase in profit for video-related companies, or a net decrease? I don't care about vested interests that individually would themselves see a decrease because they're too geriatric to see the modern world. I only care about the net profit difference of all video-related companies.
B. Would not updating the archaic Hollywood business models have a net change in profits more or less than updating them?
C. What types of activities would be illegal, what such activities would continue, and would the impact of those activities be worse or better?
Those are all serious points. You cannot exclude any of them from the overall study of the problem. I doubt most parties are willing to do so.
We're in a world where some people are still asking cable and satellite companies for "a-la-carte" marketing for channels, where a user could choose which channels to subscribe to. The "per-channel subscription" concept is both simultaneously eons ahead of what the content amalgamators are willing to do, and eons behind what the current market is demanding and supplying: per-unit where unit is somewhere smaller than one episode. Someone starts to watch a single show in streaming, and decides not to finish it. For almost a decade, the masses have been able to view video per-episode, rather than per-channel. The per-channel subscription model is archaic, even though it is more modern than what is being delivered by the biggest of the distributors.
So, in that kind of world, I'm not expecting much movement on these problems until the baby boomers die off and real people take over. If we cancel all Social Security benefits for old people, immediately, that would help hasten this situation, and we won't have to deal with pirated video any more to the current extent we do today. I'm guessing the baby boomers won't vote against their own Social Security, just as they won't vote to go away from the archaic Hollywood business models of lore.
I just look at the many businesses that are able to change with the times, and the few that are not: Hollywood, Politics, Oil, and War. Evidence that we've had clean abundant non-polluting no-waste energy for half a century (nuclear power), and yet to avoid the benefits of such clean abundant non-polluting no-waste energy, the Oil mavens keep us in continual war with terrorists and exporting our manufacturing to other countries. Sure, there are many businesses that keep up with the times. Some, however, do not, and I believe that we can crow all we want, but we're going to still witness some form of molasses movement by Hollywood to update. The only questions are how warm the molasses gets and how hard it's pushed to pour out. | |
|
| | |  Augustus IIIIf Only Rome Could See Us Now....
join:2001-01-25
Gainesville, GA | Re: Golden Girls not the target; top 10 box office movies are said by Linklist:already voluntarily threatening users with account termination if they don't stop downloading pirated The Golden Girls episodes That is amusing, but that isn't what the MPAA is worried about or the ACTA is meant to stop. It is meant to stop the sharing of the very latest movies still in the theaters: 1. Shutter Island 2. Valentine's Day 3. Avatar 4. The Lightning Thief 5. The Wolfman 6. Dear John 7. Tooth Fairy 8. Crazy Heart 9. From Paris With Love 10. Edge of Darkness out of all those listed, there is only 1 worth seeing. of course they want to prevent you from seeing it. it is always easier to take the money before you get the chance to inspect the merchandise.
columbian cartels conduct business fairer! | |
|
Reviews:
 ·ooma
 ·Optimum Online
 ·Verizon FiOS
| blinding google good luck trying to bleed youtube dry of all those copyright infringing videos up there.. much less the rest of the p2p world.
much like the mpaa & riaa calling the kettle black across the world, the only way for them to justify acting like bullies across the world is to put up some changes at home (USA) and the ONLY sleezy way to get any traction is in a backdoor trade agreement which will (prediction) have little legal binding & standing in USA courts which is ultimately where the rubber meets pavement. | |
| | | | Re: blinding google FYI the US Constitution gives Treaties the same weight as the Constitution itself. The treaty is a backdoor way to essentially amend the constitution without all the rigor of a constitutional amendment.
There has been a lot of speculation that the recent success in getting unpopular laws written using treaties that the fed would begin to use the power more liberally to enact even more unpopular law, as a treaty only requires a majority vote in congress and no state approval whereas a constitutional amendment requires 2/3rds of both. | |
| | | Ulmo
join:2005-09-22
San Jose, CA | Re: blinding google said by rahvin112:FYI the US Constitution gives Treaties the same weight as the Constitution itself. The treaty is a backdoor way to essentially amend the constitution without all the rigor of a constitutional amendment. There has been a lot of speculation that the recent success in getting unpopular laws written using treaties that the fed would begin to use the power more liberally to enact even more unpopular law, as a treaty only requires a majority vote in congress and no state approval whereas a constitutional amendment requires 2/3rds of both. Yes, I've been quite afraid of this. This will require us to go to a more British-like system sooner, where we can throw out the constitution every so often and start from scratch. The vested interests would muddle with it, but we can unmuddle it every so often. I'm not sure it's superior to our current system. Can we amend the part of the US Constitution that says treaties hold the same weight as amendments? | |
|
 pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD |  More Corporate Welfare
--
"Net Neutrality" zealots - the people you can thank for your capped Internet service. | |
| |
See 13 replies to this post | |
| | In response to further review After the ISP's actually read the draft, I honestly think they will all band together to NOT SUPPORT this. Ask yourself, the ISP revenue of the major ISP's amounts to $44 billion in the US alone. The ENTIRE MPAA brings in a total of about $11 billion. It's all a numbers game. Assume that 25% of your users are 'at-risk' under this plan. Do you honestly think the ISP's are willing to risk $11 billion of revenue (about $5 billion of profit), to support an industry that will only bring in about $2 billion of profit a year? If I was comcast, I would immediately back out of the comcast deal, and focus my revenue stream on my bread and butter. If comcast is stupid like Sony, they will have 2 divisions which have different business goals, and that can only hurt themselves.
--
Remember 1 in 4 people are retarded. 25% of Americans are Republican. Coincidence? I don't think so. | |
| |  knightmbEverybody Lies
join:2003-12-01
Franklin, TN | Re: In response to further review We already DON'T SUPPORT IT, why else why they being doing the backroom deal? 
It's like running your own Water Utility Company and backroom deals being made that would require you to starting monitoring who uses water to make Kool-aid and who uses water for flush the toilet.
You just care about getting the water to them, not how they use it (legally anyway). ISP (well at least most that I've talked with) have the same attitude, let me get the bits and bytes to the customer, how they use it, don't care (legally anyway).
Hench the problem, if it's not a legal issue, well they have to actually do something since the government is forcing you to. 
--
Fight Insight Ready (Was NebuAD) and the like:
Click Here to pollute their data | |
|
| | | | Re: Reps The thing is that our elected reps aren't listening to US. They're listening to their Hollywood friends that have lined their pockets. Why else would Hillary Clinton be doing secret backroom deals and journalists/etc were being excluded? Why else would they be holding media industry only sessions? So much for Obama's "open government" campaign promise. The backroom dealings that have been going on with ACTA are just disgusting.
Also remember that Obama stacked the Department of Justice with FIVE former RIAA lawyers.
»copyfight.corante.com/archives/2···_doj.php
We have all been seriously snowed by "hope & change" in so many ways. Remember Joe Biden's "F" grade on tech issues? Most people don't, unfortunately. But the EFF does:
»news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10024163-38.html | |
|
| | this wont work Life will find a way
-Ian Malcom
so will free people, this will not stop anything, they cannot monitor everyone or everything and this will just pave the way for more/better encrypted/untraceable piracy. | |
| ame101
join:2002-05-02
Southington, CT | If it is good it will sell.... ......the point less junk is all they fight about TGG, please, what 20yo VHS tapes. Oh please. | |
| BarneyBadAssBadasses Fight For FreedomPremium
join:2004-05-07
00001 | Do you remember... Carnivore?
Magic Lantern?
as for encryption stuff and wanting to know if the G'ment can decrypt your stuff... watch this:
»www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/homefront/
And we think the G'ment doesn't know what's being shuffled around the net???? I wonder if this technology has been deployed in other countries too.
Hmmmmmm..... makes you want to loose your computers or use them for boat anchors.... opps.... used as a boat anchor is likely an environmental hazard issue 
--
---Barney | |
| | | | Re: Do you remember... said by BarneyBadAss:Carnivore? Magic Lantern? as for encryption stuff and wanting to know if the G'ment can decrypt your stuff... watch this: » www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/homefront/And we think the G'ment doesn't know what's being shuffled around the net???? I wonder if this technology has been deployed in other countries too. Hmmmmmm..... makes you want to loose your computers or use them for boat anchors.... opps.... used as a boat anchor is likely an environmental hazard issue I would seriously doubt the NSA can decrypt 4096 RSA or AES256 whole sale. The computing power it would take would dwarf all the computing power on earth.
Besides, NSA isn't going to be enforcing copyright laws.
--
Getting people to stop using windows is more or less the same as trying to get people to stop smoking tobacco products. They dont want to change; they are happy with slowly dying inside. -- munky99999 | |
| | | BarneyBadAssBadasses Fight For FreedomPremium
join:2004-05-07
00001 | Re: Do you remember... said by KodiacZiller:said by BarneyBadAss:Carnivore? Magic Lantern? as for encryption stuff and wanting to know if the G'ment can decrypt your stuff... watch this: » www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/homefront/And we think the G'ment doesn't know what's being shuffled around the net???? I wonder if this technology has been deployed in other countries too. Hmmmmmm..... makes you want to loose your computers or use them for boat anchors.... opps.... used as a boat anchor is likely an environmental hazard issue I would seriously doubt the NSA can decrypt 4096 RSA or AES256 whole sale. The computing power it would take would dwarf all the computing power on earth. Besides, NSA isn't going to be enforcing copyright laws. If you mannaged to watch the video, you would have seen that the g'ment would already have the keys on a public network, a private network is a little more isolated.
--
---Barney | |
|
 japPremium
join:2003-08-10
038xx | (you are reading 'post topic' words forced upon me) said by Karl237:All the biggest ISPs are happily obliging, because they have one foot in the entertainment business (Comcast, AT&T, Verizon).
And Time-Warner. For years I've been saying ISPs and their content origins would eventually have very negative impacts on both ISP freedoms and on network neutrality. It's a simple conflict of interest and without doubt inhibit the packet delivery to/from competitor services. | |
|
| |
|
|
·
