ISPs To Start Booting More P2P Users But why make the entertainment industry's problem their own? Looking closely at new incumbent anti-piracy plans, the passage of the new Pro-IP Act and the new P4P Working Group, you'll notice we've entered a new era of copyright-enforcement where ISPs plan to play a much greater role in protecting copyright law. ISPs used to claim they didn't want the liability associated with being Internet content police. They begrudgingly passed on DMCA warning letters to users, but didn't give a damn whether you read it or used it for cat box filler. Things have changed. ISPs used to claim they didn't want the liability associated with being Internet content police. What changed? |
On the heels of similar discussion in France and the UK, Mike Masnick alerts me to the fact that Canada may be the latest country to implement a "three strikes and you're out" anti-piracy policy. Under such systems, first offense users would get a warnings, while second and third offense users would face account suspension and, ultimately, account termination. A number of converging trends indicate we're not far from such a system here in the United States. The process is already well underway. As I reported last week, Comcast is considering coming down harder on DMCA abusers as part of a significant policy shift. Whereas warnings were simply passed on and ignored before, now users who receive four warnings in twelve months would face account termination. Meanwhile, AT&T has been working on their own piracy filters, which I'd assume could have similar penalties (AT&T isn't ready to discuss the plans in more detail). Four years ago, both of these providers were more than happy to let P2P piracy flourish. What changed? For one, broadband growth has slowed. While the industry would never admit they promoted piracy, for years they've used the promise of free music to turn millions on to broadband. Now that we've reached a saturation point where there's fewer dial-up customers to lure, piracy no longer serves its purpose as a marketing tool. The game now is about retaining existing customers and locking them into long term contracts. Secondly, the RIAA & MPAA have been working hard (and apparently succeeding) in convincing many ISPs that fighting piracy means less money spent on infrastructure. As Comcast lawyers have realized, a greater role in piracy prevention is also one way to get the FCC and the network neutrality brigades off of their back. They can set clear limits ("we only throttle illegal traffic"), and clearly communicate this to customers without taking heat from consumer advocates. And lastly (and probably most obviously) both Comcast and AT&T are terrified of being "dumb pipe" providers, and increasingly see a future in content distribution. They're clearly now facing piracy as a direct competitor. ISPs can barely handle tracking simple things like whether a modem is rented or owned, or whether a user is under contract.
Now imagine them attempting international copyright enforcement. |
The problem is, I don't want the RIAA's secretive, unaccountable henchmen at BayTSP (think of them as the RIAA's CIA, responsible for targeting users who'll get DMCA abuse letters) determining whether my broadband connection works in the morning. Combine BayTSP's traditionally spotty piracy detection history with piracy filtering technology that doesn't work yet and you're looking at a large number of false positives. False positives mean more support headaches and a decline in support quality. Money spent on dealing with angry customers and implementing piracy filtering technology is money that could have been spent on infrastructure or existing support problems. ISPs can barely handle tracking simple things like whether a modem is rented or owned, or whether a user is under contract. Now imagine them attempting international copyright enforcement. ISPs are also looking at giving whatever ISP decides to not to play RIAA/MPAA wet nurse a distinct marketing advantage. While Comcast and AT&T's plans remain in the developmental stage, I can say with certainty they'd face a significant consumer exodus to regional competitors -- assuming there are any. While it may not be bringing in as many new subscribers, piracy remains this industry's not-so-secret "killer app." Hey ISPs, fighting piracy has proven to be not only a money sink, but it's an uphill battle with negligible results. Why make the entertainment industry's problem your problem too?
|
 | | The Battle Has Just Begun the line in the sand has been drawn. Now more than ever, anyone with a BB connection needs to get involved in this fight because we all know that our coin-operated "leaders" in Congre$$ prefer money over having to actually represent the constituencies that elected them.
GET INVOLVED TODAY! or the tools will take over permanently. | |
|  |  DMNTD join:2002-10-19 Austin, TX Reviews:
·AT&T Southwest
·AT&T DSL Service
| Re: The Battle Has Just Begun said by SilverSurfer1:the line in the sand has been drawn. Now more than ever, anyone with a BB connection needs to get involved in this fight because we all know that our coin-operated "leaders" in Congre$$ prefer money over having to actually represent the constituencies that elected them. GET INVOLVED TODAY! or the tools will take over permanently. I agree we need to fight back but involving the government won't change anything..in fact, whats so hard to understand that they BELIEVE in each other? No this is going to get worse before it gets better and the only choice your going to have is either bow down or cut your broadband off...I will cut it off. I will use my free will. | |
|  |  |  | | Re: The Battle Has Just Begun said by DMNTD:[...]involving the government won't change anything.. I bet you think voting doesn't change anything either.  | |
|  |  |  |  DMNTD join:2002-10-19 Austin, TX | Re: The Battle Has Just Begun You are correct. But its nothing I "think" its what I see. | |
|  |  |  |  | | Not when every candidate ends up running the country even further into the ground for personal gain.
See: the last eight years. | |
|  |  |  |  |  | | Re: The Battle Has Just Begun said by lordofwhee:Not when every candidate ends up running the country even further into the ground for personal gain. See: the last eight years. The past eight years? Um...how about for the past several DECADES. | |
|
 |  |  |  Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
·ProLog
| said by SilverSurfer1:said by DMNTD:[...]involving the government won't change anything.. I bet you think voting doesn't change anything either. Well, it does change the empty suit that occupies the seat......Thats about it as far as I'm concerned.
Oh wait, I forgot, it also changes the pocket our stolen tax dollars get put in. | |
|
 |  | | said by SilverSurfer1:the line in the sand has been drawn. Now more than ever, anyone with a BB connection needs to get involved in this fight .... and support the requirement for ISP's to throw the music & movie thieves off of their networks. And while we are at it, throw off those people whose systems have been botted and turned in to spam machines. -- My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page | |
|  |  |  1 edit | Re: The Battle Has Just Begun said by fAcEtIOUs:and support the requirement for ISP's to throw the music & movie thieves off of their networks. Sure, let's just be OK with giving ISPs carte blanche to do what they want. Because anyone who downloads is a thief by default. Because you personally don't use beyond X gigs per month. | |
|  |  |  |  | | Re: The Battle Has Just Begun said by SilverSurfer1:said by fAcEtIOUs:and support the requirement for ISP's to throw the music & movie thieves off of their networks. Sure, let's just be OK with giving ISPs carte blanche to do what they want. Because anyone who downloads is a thief by default. Because you personally don't use beyond X gigs per month. You should know by now that TK considers anyone who uses their connection for more than checking the weather a thief. | |
|  |  |  |  |  | | Re: The Battle Has Just Begun said by digitalfreak:said by SilverSurfer1:said by fAcEtIOUs:and support the requirement for ISP's to throw the music & movie thieves off of their networks. Sure, let's just be OK with giving ISPs carte blanche to do what they want. Because anyone who downloads is a thief by default. Because you personally don't use beyond X gigs per month. You should know by now that TK considers anyone who uses their connection for more than checking the weather a thief. You know something? You're right. My bad. | |
|  |  |  |  |  root9 join:2005-04-08 Kitchener, ON | Hmm ... Isn't taking stories and other materials from other places and posting them here and on his website a form of theft? Copyright infringement by TK maybe? -- Please engage eyeballs and retain functional brain before operating fingers. | |
|
 |  |  en102Canadian, eh? join:2001-01-26 Valencia, CA | There's a few issues at stake... not just the 'movie and music' theives, but..
- The spammers - Free speech - Unfiltered / unthrottled access to the Internet (yeah, I like to be able to run Skype, or even bittorrent)
ISP's want to be the network police, because then they would have the ability to throttle, snoop limit access and become the gatekeepers of the Internet while being paid for by the customer, and the Ad-driven forced content. To ISP's, this is merely another win-win for them. - A new revenue stream - Network control -- Canada = Hollywood North | |
|  |  |  swhx7Premium join:2006-07-23 Elbonia | said by fAcEtIOUs:and support the requirement for ISP's to throw the music & movie thieves off of their networks. I hope you can understand, or that at least readers will understand, that this kind of comment is like referring to defendants in criminal cases as "criminals" when they haven't been convicted of anything.
Even if someone has been found liable by a court for copyright infringement, preventing them from having internet access would be excessively harsh. It would be evil and anti-democratic to prevent a person from having access to news, books or publishers because he committed libel or obscenity; the judgment for the plaintiff is enough.
But we're not even talking about court judgments - just unaccountable accusations which may be mistaken, or trumped up for ulterior motives. | |
|
 |  KearnstdElf WizardPremium join:2002-01-22 Mullica Hill, NJ | id rather see spammers shut down before pirates. infact i think ALL of our current anti-p2p piracy resources should be focused on spammers. spam causes more loss of money then people downloading torrents on the pirate bay ever will. -- [65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
|  |  |  | | Re: The Battle Has Just Begun Isn't the statistic something like 93% of internet traffic is spam? And the problem is p2p? The problem is indeed that the owners of the pipes want to take control of distribution and the legacy media are all in favor of anything that keeps it difficult for mere mortals (aka artists and creators) to do their own distribution. What a sad state of affairs. Watch next for strict controls on encryption technology, because only pirates / drug dealers / terrorists / pedophiles / boogeyman of the month would use encryption, right? | |
|
 | | so if they start terminating accounts What are they going to do when they have no customers? | |
|  |  | | Re: so if they start terminating accounts that can't happen ever!!!
Just think again! | |
|  |  CorydonCultivant son jardinPremium join:2008-02-18 Denver, CO | said by dpmasterx :
What are they going to do when they have no customers? Your logic has several flaws:
1) It assumes that everyone is pirating. I'd submit that that is very far from being true.
2) It assumes that everyone who actually is pirating stuff can be caught. Another massive assumption that I think is not borne out by the facts.
3) One of the big attractions of piracy is that it is widely perceived as being free of consequences. Let's assume that the ISPs and the **AAs can actually overcome the second problem. Right now, in most cases, all you get is an official-looking letter in the mail asking you to stop. That's not a consequence.
The shift in policy wants to turn the other household members into the cops here. If Mr. Smith loses the internet connection he relies on to work from home because Billy Smith is downloading movies, that creates a massive incentive for him to monitor what his son is up to. Billy's actions no longer have no impact on the other family members.
As was mentioned in Karl's article last week, the benefit to the ISPs is the ability to boot high consumption users without any repercussions—it's kind of hard to complain about getting booted from your ISP when they have proof you've been using the connection to break the law.
Well, not hard to complain...there's plenty of that going on all the time...but hard to get anyone in a position to do anything about it to give you any sympathy. -- My opinions are my own. No-one else would want them! | |
|  |  |  | | Re: so if they start terminating accounts Ok but then let's assume Billy is a precocious 14 year old who loves browsing and downloading massive amounts of porn. His activity, while illegal by the law, isn't violating copyright. Yet, Billy's dad is going to be terminated because his son likes to download. However, he did not violate the law in the manner in which the ISP is targeting. So should Billy's dad pay the price? Let's take this another route. Billy's dad isa software engineer and uses linux for work. He downloads multiple software titles and distributions in order to test various software. Should he lose his connection? More realistically, Billy's mom got a video of his recital. Billy did a wonderful job. Now mom wants to share the dvd quality mini dvd with everyone in the family. Hell, she wants to toss in the family photos and some other dvds too. Should the family pay the price because they are doing what high speed was meant for? I say no. | |
|  |  |  |  Reviews:
·Comcast
| Re: so if they start terminating accounts How dare you use logic!
For heaven sakes won't some one think of the children !!
The child predators will get the kids if we don't stop the internets. Let's fill the internet tubes with cement.
Seriously now , my question. I have a large family , and giving them all access to an ftp to download the dvd of my kids games and special achievements would mean i can get kicked off the internet.
I have family all over the world , and they all have big pipes. So I simply put a torrent on a tracker and let every one get it from each other. This would make me a pirate by the terms these guys set. It's a joke. And I am cancelling my comcast this week in favor of a lower speed dsl connection from verizon, which is cheaper. And if they keep this up , I will cancel my cable tv and go to directv just for spite. -- "It's always funny until someone gets hurt......and then it's absolutely friggin' hysterical!" | |
|  |  |  |  |  | | Re: so if they start terminating accounts yes yes... damn those of us with that logic. Here, let me be more prudent. You are an evil and bad parent who wishes to share his mementos with other family around the world. HOW DARE YOU UTILIZE YOUR BANDWIDTH. You are an awful person who is only asking to use what you paid for. Yet, you are just a terrible human for expecting that privilege. May your soul rot in Comcast eternity forever!
Now seriously, these examples I listed are all true to life of things t hat might get someone kicked off. Let's face it, a lot of people work from home and must download large amounts of data. There are plenty of techies out there who must upload presentations, share media, etc. Likewise, there are plenty of families with lots of kids who want to use the internet. Hell, should your kids want to rent movies from netflix, and download them, you'd get kicked off. Theres a million to one ways that one can suffer and not even be breaking the law. I say give me a break. If you got alternatives, speak with your wallet. I'd rather have 768/128 DSL without a cap than 100mbit bidirectional with a silly low end cap. Sure, 250GB is a lot if comcast goes by that, but what's to say it doesn't get progressively lower. Hell, My ISP like 3 years back tried telling me 5 GB cap was plenty. What a joke. 5 GB? I pissed that away without doing anything illegal three years ago. | |
|  |  |  |  |  espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM join:2001-04-21 Minneapolis, MN kudos:2 Reviews:
·Clear Wireless
| said by BosstonesOwn:I have a large family , and giving them all access to an ftp to download the dvd of my kids games and special achievements would mean i can get kicked off the internet. Bandwidth in data centers is more plentiful (and thus cheaper) as they leverage a smaller number of high capacity interfaces. You could take the crazy approach of uploading the content to a website once, and having everyone fetch it (at significantly higher speeds, no less) from there. Most ISPs give you a decent amount of space (Comcast provides 1GB of web storage, for instance), and if that isn't enough companies like GoDaddy, Dreamhost, and Site5 will give you hundreds of gigs of space for about the price of a gallon of gas each month.
said by BosstonesOwn:I have family all over the world , and they all have big pipes. So I simply put a torrent on a tracker and let every one get it from each other. This would make me a pirate by the terms these guys set. It doesn't make you a pirate, it's just a poor loading of traffic. In your example of transfers for your family, this just results in generating network load for a longer duration than if you served it up via HTTP. While a datacenter hosted web server would likely be able to feed each of your family members at their broadband speed, the first few people to join the swarm are going to be limited to the technologically constrained low upload speed of broadband connections in a P2P scenario. If I take your "around the world" statement literally, that means people in different time zones so not everybody will be joining to get the file at the same time. If any of your family members gets crazy and shuts off their computer, the total upload throughput capacity goes down. Also, from a network utilization standpoint, each of your family members will have ended up transmitting more bits than what have been required to just fetch the file from a HTTP source.
Bandwidth is the most expensive in the last mile, which makes P2P inefficient from a network cost standpoint. At the head-end you can add another fiber pair and turn up 10gbps of capacity in one shot. On a DOCSIS plant, you can only turn up downstream channels in 6MHz chunks, and each one of those only yields 38mbps of shared bandwidth. The limits on growth and the sheer number of endpoints to service make it a more expensive resource to provide. | |
|
 |  |  rawwhidePremium join:2000-09-03 The Sticks Reviews:
·AT&T DSL Service
| said by Corydon:said by dpmasterx :
What are they going to do when they have no customers? Your logic has several flaws: 1) It assumes that everyone is pirating. I'd submit that that is very far from being true. Your logic as well. You assume that current and future techniques at identifying piracy will be without fault.
said by Corydon:2) It assumes that everyone who actually is pirating stuff can be caught. Another massive assumption that I think is not borne out by the facts. You are assuming that everyone who isn't will not be falsely accused.
said by Corydon:3) One of the big attractions of piracy is that it is widely perceived as being free of consequences. Let's assume that the ISPs and the **AAs can actually overcome the second problem. Right now, in most cases, all you get is an official-looking letter in the mail asking you to stop. That's not a consequence. You are assuming that no one gets prosecuted for copy right infringement. Everyone is getting sued. You might be next. »www.google.com/custom?hl=en&cof=···&spell=1
said by Corydon:It's kind of hard to complain about getting booted from your ISP when they have proof you've been using the connection to break the law. You are assuming that proof is foolproof. -- TinFoilers UFO Union of America!! TinFoilers UFO Union Local 101... | |
|
 IM1811 join:2001-08-20 Haverstraw, NY | What Nonsense! Could you imagine, in the State of New York? 'Three strikes'for piracy? Shit, they can't even do a 'three strikes' law for murder. The moment they turn me off and I can't do business, I'll sue 'em, and sue 'em, and sue 'em...
read more »bartgordon.net/ | |
|  RickPremium,MVM join:2001-02-06 Waterbury, CT 1 edit | I think the editorial above misses a key point as to why Isp's may want to do this and that boils down to liability.
Sooner or later, I think that if they don't do something to cooperate..the recording industry is going to convince some judge that they should have. And, because they didn't..(assuming they don't)..they are liable for facilitating..enabling..or whatever you want to call it.. the ones who did it.
There is well established laws on the books in all industries and across the country that allow for these kinds of suits to proceed. And that plaintiffs win. Go to a bar..get too drunk..and the bartender keeps feeding you more..KNOWING you are drunk..and PROFITING off of it.. and that bartender can be held liable if you are in an accident.
Has Comcast..time warner..Verizon..AT&T and whomever else KNOWN that their networks are continually being used for this? Absolutely. For years on end now.
And, have they been profiting off of it? It depends on the customer and whether they're using their connection for but clearly, for those who are downloading illegal music..they wouldn't be able to have done it had it not been for that connection facilitating the transfer.
Pure speculation on my part of course..but I think therein is the real answer as to why this is now happening. Nothing else has worked for the RIAA and it's doubtful they'd ever go down without a fight like this.
Could they win it? IMHO..they'd have a pretty good shot particularly if an ISP had done nothing at all to try to help the situation. | |
|  |  a333A hot cup of integrals please join:2007-06-12 Rego Park, NY Reviews:
·Cingular Wireless
1 edit | Re: I think the editorial above misses a key point so let the **AA's pay for the placement of appropriate equipment (PROVIDED THAT IT'S RELIABLE). THE **AA's argument is akin to blaming a car manufacturer for speeding and road rage, or blaming the wine companies for drunk driving. This logic just doesn't stand. I'm all for enforcing DMCA, I just don't think ISP's should be forced to bear, and pass on, the extra costs of setting up and administering the new equipment. THAT is the government's job. We have the laws, we just don't enforce them. (And no, enforcing the DMCA doesn't require a new clandestine White House position to be set up, that further wastes taxpayer money. Another matter of concern is that, as you add more filtering rules to core/end routers, doesn't that drastically increase the # of false positives (users getting flagged falsely), and spike latencies on the network? It also requires routers with massively larger processing brunt. Also, encryption can quite easily bypass such filters. (My point is, they want to stop 'illegal' p2p, not ALL p2p, so how's that going to happen without the above taking place?) As to liability, I personally think that tampering/touching/doing ANYTHING other than passing user data from pt A to pt. B, has the potential to get itself into some deep $hit. | |
|  |  |  RickPremium,MVM join:2001-02-06 Waterbury, CT | Re: I think the editorial above misses a key point But, it does happen all the time. cigarette makers blamed for cancer..and car makers WOULD be blamed for the things you cite had they not taken the same steps in making their cars safer with air bags and the like.
The fact is, the law often times doesn't let someone simply be the middle man..profit from what's going on..and then simply turn their heads to what is happening. And, that's what I think is ultimately driving ISP's to now adopt some policies in regards to helping prevent this.
All the reasons you cite for them not wanting to do this are very valid. It's going to create a real mess. That's why I think it's not really a case of the reasons cited in the editorial above. ISP's don't want to do this. It would be crazy to want to do it.
IMHO..they probably feel as if they have no other choice.
We're seeing it many places now with the RIAA saying to Universities they need to do something as well. The RIAA's other strategies simply haven't worked. And that might work in their favor in pushing for this against the isp's. They get to say to a judge..we tried everything we could and here are these companies making a profit everyday off of transporting our copyrighted material. That's a big argument and one a judge someday would say to the isp's what have you done to help this issue that you've known about for so long?..Other than make a profit off of it?
I'm not saying I agree that it would be a good thing. Quite the contrary.I think it opens up a hornets nest of problems. It's just that facilitating and providing the means for someone to continually engage in this doesn't come without potential legal ramifications IMHO. -- The Coyote captured the RR! Roadrunner Rick is now Comcastic! | |
|  |  |  |  a333A hot cup of integrals please join:2007-06-12 Rego Park, NY Reviews:
·Cingular Wireless
1 edit | Re: I think the editorial above misses a key point well, in such a situation, ISP's have reached a crucial fork: a) Join with the **AA's, and lose your common/neutral carrier status. This means you will pretty much rely on the support of the **AA's to get you past legal disputes with consumers. You will basically have to double the size of your legal department. -OR- b) Stay neutral, and let the **AA's/gov't do whatever they LAWFULLY can do to monitor customer traffic. If they want you to implement filters, demand compensation for the lower QoS/higher latency, and cost of deploying equipment and hiring appropriate staff. Nothing is a free lunch, and the **AA's are no exception. By doing the above, you can avoid lawsuits, and take a reasonable moral stance. I mean, you're a 'dumb pipe', so you can then stand back and brush off moaning customers by saying, "Look, we have NO hands on this, we're just following the law here".
Also, I can think of many implications of this precedent: - Google being censored for facilitating child porn? - Bars conducting breathalyzer tests, to prevent drunk driving? - As to car makers, how about SUV rollover rates? Or pedestrian deaths due to hit-and-run accidents, which in turn are due to not implementing alchohol testing equipment in the car (sounds crazy, but that may be the way things go if the **AA's have their way), or teenagers killed due to even being ALLOWED to buy cars?
As to speeding, why don't car makers just set an electronic governor that limits the engine to the standard speed limit of about 60 mph? That sure as hell would reduce the price of our cars. But that opens up a whole new can of worms, that belongs to an entirely different forum..
Moving on, I can see countless implications if such $hit passes. | |
|
 |  |  BabyBearKeep wise ...with Nite-Owl join:2007-01-11 | said by a333: I'm all for enforcing DMCA, Really?? Really??? Hope you don't have a 'chipped' ink jet printer.
DMCA needs to be repealed. Copyright law needs serious reforming much like Patent laws. | |
|  |  |  |  a333A hot cup of integrals please join:2007-06-12 Rego Park, NY | Re: I think the editorial above misses a key point I think anyone with half a brain can agree on that one, but my point is that I perfectly well support reasonable copyright laws. | |
|  |  |  |  |  BabyBearKeep wise ...with Nite-Owl join:2007-01-11 | Re: I think the editorial above misses a key point said by a333: but my point is that I perfectly well support reasonable copyright laws. The 'DMCA' and 'reasonable' do NOT belong in the same sentence, unless your implying sarcasm.  | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  a333A hot cup of integrals please join:2007-06-12 Rego Park, NY | Re: I think the editorial above misses a key point point out the "DMCA" in my last post then... "reasonable copyright laws" != DMCA Never said that, at least not in the post you so helpfully quoted... | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  BabyBearKeep wise ...with Nite-Owl join:2007-01-11 | Re: I think the editorial above misses a key point said by a333:I perfectly well support reasonable copyright laws. I'm all for enforcing DMCA, ok, noted. What I should have said then is those 2 thoughts don't go together especially when you did say your all for "reasonable copyright law" and "DMCA enforcement". Which is anything but reasonable.  | |
|
 |  itsbry join:2001-02-22 Fernandina Beach, FL | Good point, Rick. The ISPs don't want to be found liable for anything at all, I'm sure.
The other reason may well be that they can push the situation towards capping and it's future profits...
Kind of a win win deal for them. | |
|  |  2 edits | I think you might of hit it on the nose and your speculation has merit. Here is the reason why.
The *AAs are attempting shoot the messenger while the message is still being delivered. We saw this with MPAA and Torrentspy. What was the result, torrentspy can't pay the fine because they no longer exist, but the message aka torrents are still being delievered to anyone who wants to access the message.
What does this mean, well it's quite simple. Think of the ISP as just another messenger, after all we access the internet through our ISP. In a way it is the biggest messenger of them all. What I think the *AAs are trying to do is to set precedent by shooting the messenger. Don't be surprised in the future they will go after search engines when they felt they established enough precedent to warrant such a tactic, and once they kill the search engines or forcing them to comply, expect them to target ISPs.
Now do I think this is wrong, you betcha. Why, cause the tactics of the *AAs will never solve the copyright and piracy issue. Also, it is not the responsibility for to ISPs to enforce our copyright laws, it is the responsibility of the government to enforce our laws of the land. All they are doing is going after the messenger while the message will still exist. Which in why in the long run, their so called piracy solution will not work. But if the *AAs go after the ISP for delivering the message expect the impact to be huge and detrimental to us all who use the internet. -- True Happiness Must Come From Within | |
|
 funchordsHelloPremium,MVM join:2001-03-11 Yarmouth Port, MA kudos:5 | Most of Us Wouldn't Make Very Good Pirates. A pirate is someone who not only obtains property for himself, but at the same time deprives others of it, usually violently, usually for material gain.
Does this describe 16-year-old Johnny, who uses Limewire Pro because it's "legal?" -- "I paid for it," he says.
Or what about Francy, she knows better but still downloads songs more often than she buys them. "I can't afford that!" she says.
C'mon! PEOPLE! Can we get the heat out of the conversation and look at some facts? Francy and Johnny aren't right but they're not pirates.
The question we have to ask ourselves is whether Johnny and Francy (and all of their friends) make or break whether or not an artist will turn to a life of science and industry or of one of art and creativity.
After all, that's WHY we have copyright.
If it's really so mentally and physically easy to copy that the realities that made copyright law possible are now made moot, then the correct thing to do is to change with the times. No, that does NOT mean "free" music, but it could.
But it does mean that society needs to sit down and decide how to encourage artists to do their art. We've done that before -- the copyright law is a weirdo -- we take an expression (non-property) and call it property for a while. We invented copyright to encourage artists to stay in the "business" of art by giving them an exclusive market for a while. That's possibly broken beyond repair, now.
Let's replace it. The goal is the same as before.
Thoughts and ideas? -- Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon HTTP is the new Bandwidth Hog...
| |
|  |  |  |  JehuPremium join:2002-09-13 MA kudos:2 | Yes, one of each.
Thought: Free always wins.
Idea: Make not free an undesireabe option by terminating internet service -- Your reasoning is excellent -- it's only your basic assumptions that are wrong. | |
|  |  CorydonCultivant son jardinPremium join:2008-02-18 Denver, CO 1 edit | I agree that the entire framework not only needs to be changed—it will be changed by forces beyond the control of the **AAs.
Oddly enough, we may be returning to the way things were before the printing press made things relatively easy to copy. After all, medieval monks spent their lives making painstaking copies of manuscripts by hand and the artist was never compensated (assuming he was still alive at all) beyond the fame and recognition that went with seeing your work copied, distributed and read widely.
Now copying has been made so easy, there is little-to-no barrier to getting in the business (compared with the costs of materials, a press, time and effort to set type, etc.). So maybe it's time to return to the days when artists only get compensated with fame and recognition.
I personally think that the future will be one where all media will be more-or-less instantly available for free or near-free. We'll pay for better experiences—seeing a band live is an obvious case in point.
On the other hand, that doesn't do as much for movie producers if all they have to sell is the experience of seeing a movie in a theatre—a dubious experience at best.
Even worse off are book authors. Right now, readers still have a bias towards holding a book in their hands. How much longer will that last? And once books are widely available for free or near-free online, how will authors get paid?
Perhaps we'll move back towards a Renaissance style of patronage, where the arts are supported by wealthy individuals (and companies) as a means of displaying one's good taste and social standing. Perhaps the model of modern opera companies which are funded by a combination of ticket sales, private and corporate patronage and government money is where we're heading.
There's a problem with this model: historically, only a very small number of people have been able to become artists, even in wealthy societies. Even fantastically wealthy Romans like Maecenas supported a small group of half a dozen or so poets. Getting rid of copyright may lead to a big reduction in the number of people who can support themselves as a professional artist.
However, for now the ISPs do not live in the ideal world that you and I would like to see, at least not yet. They're caught between the interests of consumers and the laws that the **AAs have bought. Common carrier status gave them a lot of cover, but now other forces (such as available bandwidth) are coming into play. | |
|  |  |  root9 join:2005-04-08 Kitchener, ON | Re: Most of Us Wouldn't Make Very Good Pirates. It's not only the printing press. Similar happened to Radio, Ham Radio, Telephone, Cable or any other new media. In each case there have been many operators and many different groups using them in the beginning.
Each time the people find a medium to express themselves, share ideas, make life better and forward information about the wrong doings of the greedy here come the megalomaniacs slapping all kinds of laws and rules on it to kill off any descent and assure their rule.
This time I predict the power hungry are in for one hell of a surprise.
As one person said: "We know who you are, where you live and what you have been up to for thousands of years. Your old tricks won't work and we will depose you till the earth is rid of your rule and anyone like you." by NetGhost. -- Please engage eyeballs and retain functional brain before operating fingers. | |
|
 | | what next charging car companies because of drunk drivers? rapist that were condoms, charge condom maker?? -- »www.thereligionofpeace.com/ | |
|  |  JehuPremium join:2002-09-13 MA kudos:2 | The future = converged services = getting cozy with Entertainment content providers = making sure your customers can't bypass paying you for that "on demand" content. -- Your reasoning is excellent -- it's only your basic assumptions that are wrong. | |
|  Gogo1 join:2004-05-27 Brooklyn, NY | Nooo, not because he will lose his net connection (well that too), but because if this policy gets going there will only be about two members of DSLR left with net access to read his daily commie "news" rants! LOL.
I mean there wont be any front page comments sections anymore what with karlmarx, krk, silversurfer etc etc all of them gone...
I guess it will just be Karl and hctjunkmail left to argue between themselves. | |
|  |  dadkinsCan you do Blu?Premium,MVM join:2003-09-26 Hercules, CA kudos:18 | Re: I know why Karl is worried said by Gogo1:Nooo, not because he will lose his net connection (well that too), but because if this policy gets going there will only be about two members of DSLR left with net access to read his daily commie "news" rants! LOL. I mean there wont be any front page comments sections anymore what with karlmarx, krk, silversurfer etc etc all of them gone... I guess it will just be Karl and hctjunkmail left to argue between themselves. Freudian slip? I noticed you didn't include yourself in the few that would be left to read these news articles...  -- Think outside the Fox... Opera | |
|  |  |  Gogo1 join:2004-05-27 Brooklyn, NY | Re: I know why Karl is worried im the other one of the "two members of DSLR left" obviously 
1. HCJunk 2. me
Karl doesnt count as a member. Not that definition of the word "member" anyway.. | |
|
 EPS join:2008-02-13 Hingham, MA | Note that Comcast, Time Warner... they're all involved deeply in the content industry. I doubt Time Warner's position will change after it is split from it's parent as well- at&t justifies their moves in part because of their greater move into content distribution, Time Warner is already heavily involved.
I predict that at some point the telcos will start buying up content providers, giving them even greater reason to block piracy, and putting more of the content delivery ecosystem under their control... | |
|  | | what about all the open wifi in my apartment building there are at least 20 connections i can hop on. so i go on Mr smith wifi and down load till he is kick off,and he never downloaded anything, or someone does it to me! what then?? | |
|  |  EPS join:2008-02-13 Hingham, MA | Re: Open wifi People will probably lock their connections if that starts to happen- unintended consequences.
Wonder what it means for public WiFi- one can very easily leech off of Club Acela's WiFi at South Station, for example- if I sit at South Station with a laptop and start pirating some movies, how can they enforce anything? And are they really going to ban the Federal Government (Amtrak) from the Internet? Nope, but the public WiFi would probably be in danger... | |
|  |  |  Reviews:
·Comcast
| Re: Open wifi said by EPS:People will probably lock their connections if that starts to happen- unintended consequences. Wonder what it means for public WiFi- one can very easily leech off of Club Acela's WiFi at South Station, for example- if I sit at South Station with a laptop and start pirating some movies, how can they enforce anything? And are they really going to ban the Federal Government (Amtrak) from the Internet? Nope, but the public WiFi would probably be in danger... Even better question , what about all that old wireless b gear and some g gear that only had wep protection ? Will the isp that gave out the wep protected gear come to the rescue and read the logs to make sure it was a pc they own ? Or will the replace the gear for free ? To many questions and it looks like to much cost.
I said it once and I will say it again , this is nothing more then isps double dipping for when they become tv providers. No thanks I will go without , before I let some investor keep getting rich off me and my family while we get poorer. We can't have a constantly growing income at these companies , it just doesn't happen. -- "It's always funny until someone gets hurt......and then it's absolutely friggin' hysterical!" | |
|  |  |  |  espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM join:2001-04-21 Minneapolis, MN kudos:2 Reviews:
·Clear Wireless
| Re: Open wifi said by BosstonesOwn:Even better question , what about all that old wireless b gear and some g gear that only had wep protection ? Firmware upgrade to enable TKIP. The entire development of TKIP was based around using the WEP encryption hardware as to not require equipment replacement. | |
|
 beerbumobscurum per obscuriusPremium join:2000-05-06 Eastern PA | quote: Four years ago, both of these providers were more than happy to let P2P piracy flourish. What changed?
I'll tell you what changed - Comcast - It's bad enough they want to terminate and or cap users who download "too much", now they want to "enforce" copyrights and punish P2P "abusers".. in these two examples, Comcast sees these as a threat to their video income stream.
It all boils down to the dollar, and how many they can squeeze out of you. | |
|  amungusPremium join:2004-11-26 America Reviews:
·AT&T DSL Service
| Of all the things that upsets me about this whole mess, it's that there are still no legal online services that actually deliver what people want.
Sure, Rhapsody is great for music... Until they receive notice that they can't host some artists/tracks any longer. Same w/iTunes and the rest of 'em.
So, for music, I have a legal service which, despite its flaws, actually tries to live up to the expectations of its customers - the ability to listen/download darn near anything for a reasonable price.
Online tv shows and/or movies are also "not quite there yet." Sure, iTunes has some shows, some movies, and that's great. It really is a good start. But it's a bit overpriced, and far too restricting.
Sure, there are options out there, but there is still such bickering and such envy and far too many people with their heads in the wrong place.
If they want to gripe about all this, they need to step up and offer people a real alternative at a fair price.
Most "honest" people would absolutely and without hesitation break out their credit card to subscribe to something that: a) had a fair price b) had everything - and I mean everything. c) FAIR USE with purchased media. Subscription material with DRM? Sure. But if you buy it outright, you ought to be able to burn it to a CD, a DVD (video), or transfer it to your portable. End of story. No screwing around. No limitations that confuse and annoy legitimate customers.
...Look at Netflix... People gladly subscribing. Great idea for a service. Perfect for those who are too lazy to rent from their local places... Their online selection? Mostly a bunch of movies you haven't heard of and really don't care about.
...Rhapsody - great music service IMHO. Utterly astounding that things get "disappeared" from the service though. Also makes for a very disappointing experience when you come across things that just aren't there.
If "they" really want to appease people - give us a true service. Let go of this insanely selfish fear of actually selling things online without DRM. It's a mess and it annoys people more than anything else.
Honestly, I don't care if a "rental" is restricted in some ways - it's a rental. But if it's SOLD to anyone at a fair price, the incentive for piracy would be drastically lower than it is today. | |
|  DogfatherPremium join:2007-12-26 Laguna Hills, CA | Because piracy represents a TON of traffic on residential networks. | |
|  |  Reviews:
·RoadRunner Cable
·AT&T Southeast
| Re: Why Do ISPs Want To Make Piracy Their Problem? said by Dogfather:Because piracy represents a TON of traffic on residential networks. So someone downloading say 30 so movies off of xbox live or netflix or what ever that i can get a legal copy to rent they are a pirate? Alot of bandwidth there buddy and it LEGAL. | |
|  |  |  DogfatherPremium join:2007-12-26 Laguna Hills, CA | Re: Why Do ISPs Want To Make Piracy Their Problem? They aren't the bulk of traffic buddy.
You really think people are DLing 30 movies off XBOX at $5+ a pop? Hell no.
And you obviously haven't seen the Netflix instant movies library, there isn't 30 good ones in the bunch.
Think far more people are grabbing 30 pirated movies they see in a tracker then letting it seed 24-7. Hell yes. | |
|  |  |  |  | | Re: Why Do ISPs Want To Make Piracy Their Problem? IM saying not everyone uses P2P. | |
|  |  |  |  |  DogfatherPremium join:2007-12-26 Laguna Hills, CA | Re: Why Do ISPs Want To Make Piracy Their Problem? And non-P2P users don't consume a lot of traffic as a whole.
There are certain uses of the internetz that generate traffic, big ones being P2P and usenet binaries. Movie rentals like iTunes and Unbox are nothing even though individual movies may be large.
The problem for ISPs, particularly cable is that in order to sell 10Mb service for $50 they have to use a shared topology. And you have just a few BT seeders saturating the upstream channels killing the service for everyone.
If ISPs were actually interested in controlling piracy they would ignore downloads and cap uploads at 5GB a month. Kill the seeders and the ISPs traffic issues are for the most part solved.
But alas, all the traffic shaping and stuff isn't about controlling piracy. It's about normalizing traffic shaping so that later they're start using it against competitors like iTunes, Google and Amazon.
They just use the pirates as an excuse to get their foot in the traffic shaping door. | |
|
 |  |  |  Reviews:
·Frontier Communi..
·Verizon Online DSL
| said by Dogfather:And you obviously haven't seen the Netflix instant movies library, there isn't 30 good ones in the bunch. I beg to differ. They have a lot of decent movies up on instant view.
Even if I were to grant your point though, you didn't think about the television episodes they offer. They have a lot of older series (Magnum PI, News Radio, Columbo, Miami Vice, etc, etc) and even some current ones (Law & Order SVU, Criminal Intent) up for instant viewing. Quite the treasure trove for fans of those shows.
Hundreds of 45 minute long TV episodes -- they clock in at about 800 megs each if you have enough bandwidth to stream at the highest quality.
Given that, I don't find it hard to believe that Netflix instant view is a sizable percentage of the traffic on a residential broadband network. And that's not even including the other video on demand services that are out there. | |
|
 |  jgkoltPremium join:2004-02-21 Lakewood, OH | Wouldnt the isp be liable if anything happens on the first offense if they are supposed to filter it? Its sad one day that one major marketing advatange will be that this isp say abc company doesnt filter the content and give you a straight pipe to the internet. I have att and if they do put the filters in place to limit what i can view and download I am jumping ship. Even though i dont pirate software I still feel this filtering is wrong. But once again look at the underlying push: MONEY. ISP's arent making more money off piracy as they were before so they are changing the games. -- Learning how to invest? Sign up to get 3 free trades for you and me each. ME me | |
|  dvd536as Mr. Pink as they comePremium join:2001-04-27 Phoenix, AZ kudos:4 | Piracy is ISPs bread and butter and they're always wanting to kill that cash cow so they don't have to upgrade anything so that profit can go into CxO's pockets! -- When I gez aju zavateh na nalechoo more new yonooz tonigh molinigh - Ken Lee | |
|  | | According to this:
Whereas warnings were simply passed on and ignored before, now users who receive four warnings in twelve months would face account termination. Everyone now knows how to get rid of a Comcast user that annoys them. Simply send a few DMCA letters to Comcast concerning those users. Once Comcast gets the fourth letter, the user will be kicked off. {sarcasm}I'm sure this won't be abused at all.{/sarcasm} -- -Jason Levine Support a children's charity. Buy a calendar. Shooting For A Cause Jason's Toolbox | PCQandA.com | |
|  |  | | Re: How to kick off a Comcast user.. hey i had a rental property. everyone took my money and lied to me...over 6 months to evict....i never recovered any of the money stolen from me which is thousands by my tenant...courts laughed....where is my justice...why does the likes of these people get special attention...i will never buy another movie or cd again...i hate everyone | |
|
 Cthen join:2004-08-01 Detroit, MI | Encryption? Do these ISP's intend to break it to see if what is being downloaded is copyrighted? There are alot more P2P and Bit Torrent clients these days with that option included. Also most times it is enabled by default. | |
|  | | I have recived DMCA letters from charter, but they were from that BayNET place witch said i downloaded something i didn't, i called charter called them a liar and thretend to sue them for snooping, (they wasnt baynet was) but i got 2 free months of service outa it. Cause they could not PROVE it came from me just a ip someone on my node was on at the time so the same letter went to everyone on the node, how nice of them huh! | |
|
 | |
|
|