Net providers begin warning of illegal downloads

[Heath]

http://www.myfoxny.com/story/2134718...egal-downloads

WASHINGTON (AP) ? Internet users who illegally share music, movies or television shows online could soon receive warning notices from the nation's five major Internet service providers.

The Copyright Alert System, organized by the recording and film industry, is being activated this week to target consumers using peer-to-peer software.

Under the new system, complaints will prompt an Internet service provider ? such as Verizon or AT&T ? to notify a customer whose Internet address has been detected sharing files illegally. A person will be given up to six opportunities to stop before the Internet provider will take more drastic steps, such as temporarily slowing their connection, or redirecting Internet traffic until they acknowledge they received a notice or review educational materials about copyright law.

Consumers who maintain they have been wrongly accused would be forced to pay $35 to appeal the decision. The fee would be reimbursed if they prevail.

Proponents say the focus is on deterring the average consumer rather than chronic violators. The director of the organization behind the system, Jill Lesser of the Center for Copyright Infringement, said in a blog post Monday that the program is "meant to educate rather than punish, and direct (users) to legal alternatives."

Each Internet provider is expected to implement their own system. The program gives each customer five or six "strikes" after a music or film company has detected illegal file-sharing and lodged a complaint. The first alerts are expected to be educational, while the third and fourth would require the customer to acknowledge that they have received the warnings and understand their behavior is illegal. The final warnings are expected to lead to "mitigation measures," such as slowing a person's Internet connection speeds.

Officials involved in the effort acknowledge it's unlikely to stop the biggest violators. There are ways to disguise an IP address or use a neighbor's connection that is unlocked. Public wireless connections, such as those offered at coffee shops, also won't be monitored.

[pornmasta]

i wonder how legal it is

[EriktheRabbit]

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr...t-alert-424231

Great news. Thieves will soon be filling mommy's basement with tears. She is gonna be mad as hell when her ISP shuts her down.

[sandman!]

[purecane]

so if you're at the local starbucks and its a free public signal you can steal whatever you want, but if you do it from your own home or office connection you get punished?????


am i reading that wrong?

[Mark67]

Great news

[stinkyfingers]

Originally Posted by purecane73

so if you're at the local starbucks and its a free public signal you can steal whatever you want, but if you do it from your own home or office connection you get punished?????


am i reading that wrong?

starbucks will have to start "policing" it's users sounds great. stop piracy by enforcing uneforcable laws by fining suspects with no judge, jury

the kid at godaddy that gave you that great tech support will be the same guy that decides if you just broke the "rules" .......

$35 a pop a great incentive to find ( create ) evil doers

if you're not with us you're with the pirates

[pornmasta]

what you won't be able to listen anymore because of this law:

[Supz]

Originally Posted by pornmasta

i wonder how legal it is

It is there service. If you are doing something illegal on it. I am sure they have the right to stop you from using there service. It is not your right to have them provide your service. Ever read your ISPs TOS?

[Heath]

I'm pretty sure no one here has actually looked at their TOS, it says it right in there already that they can cancel your service for illegal activity.

[bronco67]

If someone has a problem with this...you have to wonder why. Could it be maybe a threat to getting all that stuff for free?

Ones who like to rip off free digital stuff will usually protest a move like this under the guise of some bullshit "slippery slope" argument.

[Antonio]

Originally Posted by EriktheRabbit

Great news. Thieves will soon be filling mommy's basement with tears

right, we all know how well the prohibition worked, good luck wiht sending 95% of your teens to jail

[EriktheRabbit]

Originally Posted by Antonio

right, we all know how well the prohibition worked, good luck wiht sending 95% of your teens to jail

most are chickenshit losers who will back down pretty quick. They dont want new pussies made out of their assholes.

[kane]

Originally Posted by Antonio

right, we all know how well the prohibition worked, good luck wiht sending 95% of your teens to jail

The difference is that during prohibition there was no booze available anywhere. Here it is still available, you just have to pay for it.

That said, I don't know how well this will actually end up working. The big downloaders will figure out how to get around detection, but it could stop the more casual downloaders.

[Quentin]

Originally Posted by kane

The difference is that during prohibition there was no booze available anywhere. Here it is still available, you just have to pay for it.

That said, I don't know how well this will actually end up working. The big downloaders will figure out how to get around detection, but it could stop the more casual downloaders.

Actually, downloaders need not concern themselves with this, regardless of where they are downloading from, as the notices the system is going to send out aren't about downloading; they're about seeding.

Here's a reasonably accurate account of how the system works.

When the system was discussed by a panel at the INET in New York last November (a panel that included the Jill Lesser, the head of the Center for Copyright Information, which is the group administering the Copyright Alert System), the panelists emphasized that people who merely download won't be receiving notices from the CAS; only those who seed p2p will receive notices.

As Ron Wheeler, a senior VP at Fox Entertainment put it: "If you're downloading, you're fine."

As such, will this system have any impact the piracy it seeks to curb? I'm going to withhold judgment on that for the time being... but my offhand hunch is that the answer will turn out to be "not really, no."

[brassmonkey]

wont work

[L-Pink]

Hope it works.

.

[BlackCrayon]

so this only goes after torrents and old ass p2p? i don't know why anyone would use torrents to start with. not even worth the hassle.

[kane]

Originally Posted by Quentin

Actually, downloaders need not concern themselves with this, regardless of where they are downloading from, as the notices the system is going to send out aren't about downloading; they're about seeding.

Here's a reasonably accurate account of how the system works.

When the system was discussed by a panel at the INET in New York last November (a panel that included the Jill Lesser, the head of the Center for Copyright Information, which is the group administering the Copyright Alert System), the panelists emphasized that people who merely download won't be receiving notices from the CAS; only those who seed p2p will receive notices.

As Ron Wheeler, a senior VP at Fox Entertainment put it: "If you're downloading, you're fine."

As such, will this system have any impact the piracy it seeks to curb? I'm going to withhold judgment on that for the time being... but my offhand hunch is that the answer will turn out to be "not really, no."

Good read. Thanks for the link and the info.

[pornmasta]

Originally Posted by Supz

It is there service. If you are doing something illegal on it. I am sure they have the right to stop you from using there service. It is not your right to have them provide your service. Ever read your ISPs TOS?

Even if you use the post service to threaten someone, the post service can't open your letter before the recipient.
Since when can you monitor what people are doing ?

Also it privatizes the justice: not good for me.

[pornmasta]

Originally Posted by L-Pink

Hope it works.

.

Even if it works, it could save the RIAA but not us...

[Supz]

Originally Posted by pornmasta

Even if you use the post service to threaten someone, the post service can't open your letter before the recipient.
Since when can you monitor what people are doing ?

Again, This is not the government. This is a service you are using, similar to webhosting. So if a webhosting company decides to not accept adult, it is there right. If they find you using it, they are going to ban you. It is natural for an ISP to monitor there traffic. That is there job. They have to make sure its not being abused etc.... It is not the government watching without you knowing. This is a business, you are using there services. They are aloud to monitor it, and they have been doing it since the beginning of the internet.

[pornmasta]

Originally Posted by bronco67

If someone has a problem with this...you have to wonder why. Could it be maybe a threat to getting all that stuff for free?

Those (like me) who have a problem with the fact that a private company could monitor what i'm doing with my internet connection have also very tiny (small small small) penis...
Yes that's right !

[pornmasta]

Originally Posted by Supz

So if a webhosting company decides to not accept adult, it is there right.

here i doubt of the legalty of that too.
In reality i just go elsewhere, but if something is legal, you can't refuse to host it.

I can't deny to sell something to someone because he is gay, for example, that's the same thing.
Also here, webhostings DON'T WANT to monitor what people are doing with their hostings and in fact, they are not the justice and without a complaint and good reasons, they won't monitor your hosting and won't cancel it.

[pornmasta]

Originally Posted by Supz

It is natural for an ISP to monitor there traffic. That is there job.

best joke of the year

[The Porn Nerd]

Great, now I'll NEVER get a fucking table at Starbucks!!! Grrr!!

[StickyGreen]

3 letters: VPN

[Supz]

Originally Posted by pornmasta

best joke of the year

you're lost....

[Supz]

Originally Posted by pornmasta

here i doubt of the legalty of that too.
In reality i just go elsewhere, but if something is legal, you can't refuse to host it.

I can't deny to sell something to someone because he is gay, for example, that's the same thing.
Also here, webhostings DON'T WANT to monitor what people are doing with their hostings and in fact, they are not the justice and without a complaint and good reasons, they won't monitor your hosting and won't cancel it.

Its not the same thing. You are comparing dicks and fingers. Saying someone is gay and they cant host with your, and saying there content is gay porn and they cant host with you are 2 different things. A gay guy who owns a mainstream e-commerce site, or a gay guy who own a gay sex website. One can host with a company that allows adult, one doesnt. Not sure whats so hard to grasp about this. The ISPs are private companies. They are not entities of the government. They can do whatever they please.

You choose what you want on your network. The customers dont choose. This is the reason for TOS.

[pornmasta]

...but TOS can be illegals...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_form_contract

[signupdamnit]

I wish it weren't the case but I doubt they will be going after people downloading pirated porn. It'll be the mainstream stuff owned by the big media companies which gets protected and it looks like mainly torrent downloaders will get hit.

It would be great if they did this to users of file lockers and tubes with stolen videos but I seriously doubt it. If it happened I bet we would all see 30%+ jumps in paysite revenue within a month as people decided to start paying again rather than risk it.

But it will still probably be open season on porn as usual. But who knows if some of the big adult content providers remove their heads from their asses and put pressure to get equal protection maybe something can come of it for us?

[signupdamnit]

Originally Posted by Quentin

Actually, downloaders need not concern themselves with this, regardless of where they are downloading from, as the notices the system is going to send out aren't about downloading; they're about seeding.

Here's a reasonably accurate account of how the system works.

When the system was discussed by a panel at the INET in New York last November (a panel that included the Jill Lesser, the head of the Center for Copyright Information, which is the group administering the Copyright Alert System), the panelists emphasized that people who merely download won't be receiving notices from the CAS; only those who seed p2p will receive notices.

As Ron Wheeler, a senior VP at Fox Entertainment put it: "If you're downloading, you're fine."

As such, will this system have any impact the piracy it seeks to curb? I'm going to withhold judgment on that for the time being... but my offhand hunch is that the answer will turn out to be "not really, no."

Usually when you download a torrent you are also uploading. Clients are written to be tit-for-tat so if you don't upload you will get horrible speeds. Some trackers or clients will even ban you. So it will still get people unless their software is specifically only going after people who are registered as seeding with 100% of the file versus say only 80%. But if that's the case then it's a loophole which could be exploited by writing a special client to always show that you have only 99.9% of the file and thus never be seen as a proper seeder.