I kind of think this is a better approach than trying to sue people, but I don't know how effective it's going to be to be honest. I really don't think there's any good way to stop piracy.

I have no idea if they are just going after downloaders or uploaders as well. However, the way I understand it there will be phases to it. If you are suspected of doing this they send you an email letting you know that this is happening. This way if you are innocent and maybe you have an unsecured WiFi connection or other people on your computer you can look into it and see what is going on.

If you persist in doing this they send a pop-up to your computer that will not go away until you click it and are sent to a page about why illegal downloading is bad. If you still continue they will redirect you and/or throttle you until you call them and talk to them.

So it isn't like if you download one thing, bam! you are throttled. I often see people argue that people could be a victim of unsecured WiFi or other people using their computer to download and the owner of the ISP connection gets screwed. This solution gives you a change to fix that problem without hitting you with a massive lawsuit.

I also saw no mention of them going after people for money. Maybe this will, but it sounds like they are just trying to take away people's service if they abuse it.

you do realize that current secure routers can be brute force cracked in less than 2 hours using free tools downloadable from the internet

unless the riaa is paying for 20k military grade routers with revolving key encryption

securing your wifi is not going to do shit to stop people from using your connection without authorization.

in fact because judges don't realize how easy it is to crack supposedly secure wifi
your basically going to open your self up to more liablity by securing your connection since the riaa will argue that you must be the downloader because the connection was "secure"

Where it the judicial review? Where is the process? Where is the right to appeal?

As you know, an IP address can be spoofed VERY FUCKING easily. Secure wifi can be cracked in 2 hours with open source tools.

They will be restricting/removing service for people the RIAA *say* are infringing.

That's all.

I prefer that old fashioned thing for criminals, what is it again, oh yes. Proof.

Just for the sake of argument, does any of this discussion even matter.

Can't a private company like an ISP pretty have much any TOS they want. For example, when you sign up to any ISP they usually have a line in the contract that says using this account for spam will cause them to close your account. They don't need proof from any sort of court, they can just cancel you as a subscriber if they suspect you are spamming.

I'm not saying it's right, but private companies have all kinds of shit in their TOS so they can pretty much tell you to fuck off anytime they want without any court proceeding. Credit cards, cell phone companies, gym memberships, they all have stuff in the TOS that lets them stop giving you service whenever they want for pretty much whatever reason. Most even have blatant language like "Company XYZ can terminate this agreement at anytime".

Check out some of the stuff you sign and you'll see what I mean. Very few companies are legally bound to continue providing you service if they choose not to and give you notice.

A quote from the Netflix TOS:

Even in adult, if a program puts it in their TOS that they don't want to pay for certain types of joins, they can do it.

I don't know about judicial review or what process they will be using. I just read the story and thought it was an interesting way to deal with it. Would you rather have it this way and defend yourself against possibly losing your ISP connection or would you rather it be a lawsuit asking for huge damages? To me the lawsuits are the hammer, this is more like the poke.

If you get the email or the pop up accusing you of piracy and really are innocent of any wrong doing I would assume you could contact your ISP explain this to them and perhaps they could look into it and find out what is going on.

Really, and be 100% honest here, how often do you think individuals encrypted WiFi connections are forced hacked so that the hacker can use the WiFi to download pirated movies and music? I'm sure it has happened but I would assume it is pretty rare especially when they could just drive down the street and likely find a completely unsecured WiFi connection to use. A few months ago I was at my brother's house helping my niece setup her laptop. When I went to connect to the WiFi they had in the house there were at least half a dozen other signals that I could reach that belonged to the various neighbors. Two of them had no security at all on them. I could see how someone like that could have their WiFi used for downloading, but I think the cases of people getting encrypted WiFi hacked for the purpose of downloading is pretty damn rare.

We can go back to the way you want it. The old fashioned way. With this technique the RIAA will decide that you are infringing and without warning they will file a suit against you asking for potentially thousands of dollars in damages and now you get the pleasure of hiring a lawyer and defending yourself against this and if you do win the case then you get to hope that your lawyer will get his fees paid by them. Even if it all works out in your favor and win the case how many hours of your time and how much stress are you going go through dealing with that? If you truly are innocent wouldn't you rather have them notify you that they think you are downloading and you can find out what is going on and put an end to it before anything gets started?

A friend of mine and I were talking about this today and we decided that if this idea is to go forward it will be through TOS changes. He argued that if the ISP's put something on his site to redirect him or give him a pop-up that was violating his privacy. I said that while that might be true the ISP would likely change their TOS so that you agree to let them do that as part of having internet access. I wouldn't be shocked if they also added that if you are notified/reported/or whatever they are going to call it of downloading more than a set number to times they have the right to terminate your service.

seriously

you just pointed out above that under this policy people who had unsecured wifi would have a chance to fix the problem by securing their wifi

if this policy was established how many unsecured wifi do you think you would find

the ony unsecured wifi would be people who know that you need a 20k router to properly protect yourself against open source tools currently available.


and your arguing those people should be throddled to hell

are you actually trying to justify this abuse by saying the old abuse was worse

do you realize that the old abuse was basically made illegal with the rulings that ip address is not proof of infringement.

I don't want to be rude and not answer so I will just quickly say two things.

I'm not justifying anything. I read the articles, I thought they were interesting and I thought they were a different take on attacking the piracy problem. I don't have the answers. I don't know how they plan to enforce it or how they will deal with people. I just posted the links because I thought they were interesting.

Secondly, I made an agreement with myself to stop dealing with you during our last debate so I am going to stick to that and not debate you. Think what you will. I don't care.

tell that to eharmony

http://www.ebar.com/news/article.php...s&article=1886

eharmony lost this case even though they proved they excluded gays because the cost of comming up with the 29 points of compatibility test for the demographic was not cost effective (they would spend more on the research then they would recoup by sellinf the service)

you can not tos away your legal responsibilities

try putting a clause in your contract that you won't pay hahahahahahas
and see how fast you get sued

such an action would violate privacy laws, rights to due process, etc.

Fiddy people thinking an IP address is a person

I'd rather have neither. Neither work. When France introduced 3 strikes, piracy increased. Citation: http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/P...kes-Law-107320

I don't think it is right to have the MPAA demand your bandwidth is throttled because *they* say so.

I don't think having people that don't understand you can hack secure wifi connection in 2 hours or spoof an IP listening to appeals is good.

I think it's a huge waste of time and money and will achieve nothing.

There are no stats, I know I could hack yours in 2 hours though. So if I wanted to fuck your shit up, what's to stop me?

How about the ISPs tell the RIAA and MPAA to fuck off?

How about they realise this 'fight' against piracy has achieved the same as the war on drugs. Nothing. More drug use. More piracy.

Go after the uploaders, not the downloaders.

Do we know for sure that this is in response to this law? No we don't. Piracy has increased no matter what. The MPAA and RIAA have sued thousands of people and some of those cases have made big headlines and yet piracy increases. I don't think it is out of spite, I think people just assume they won't get caught, or they don't pay attention to the news and even know that these guys are going after pirates.

Again, I don't know the logistics, but it seems fair to me that if you get multiple warnings and are still doing it, throttling your bandwidth is reasonable.

well, I personally don't have WiFi. But aside from me as you say don't know the hard and fast numbers but do you really, honestly, think there are large numbers of people out there hacking into WiFi connections so they can download a copy of Transformers 3? They could go to Starbucks or McDonalds or maybe even the library and use their WiFi to do the same thing without having to hack into it.

I feel that there are a lot of dumb people out there who might not know that downloading a movie or music is illegal, but those who are smart enough to hack into a WiFi connection know they are breaking the law. If they are going to go to that kind of trouble they are likely looking to steal my identity or access my bank accounts. They probably aren't doing it so they can download the new Britney Spears record.

I can see a situation where a guy is sitting in his house and can access a neighbor's WiFi and hacks into it (or just uses it if it is unsecured) to download, but I still think those cases are few and far between.



Maybe the MPAA played hardball. They say to Comcast: "If you don't work with us on this, we won't give you any of our services for your subscribers and they will leave your ass and flock to someone who will."

I wasn't there. I don't know what the agreement between them is, but I would assume the ISPs are getting something in return.

By default many downloaders are also uploaders. When you download via torrent you are also sharing the file you are downloading. I would guess many people leave those files open to seed when they are done as well.

You want to go after uploaders, but so far you have shot down every technique potentially used to do so. How do you propose they do this?

Right, so whatever is being done isn't working. So, something else needs to be done. Cool. Agreement. :)

Not without proof and judicial process. None of which are on the table here.

So, the Macdonalds or the library or Starbucks would get throttled. Brilliant!

Doesn't matter how many people ARE doing it. It is possible. It is, in fact, facile. With free tools online. As is spoofing and IP.

Therefore, there will *always* be reasonable doubt. And no actual proof. Always.

You only need one case for it to stand up in court though, don't you.

Read up on it before coming to an opinion. The ISPs fought tooth and nail to NOT do this.

Yes, yes technically on their shitty little upstreams. I think you knew I meant the active groups that grab the content and upload it in the first place. The initial seeders. There really aren't very many hugely active.

They use the *law* to find *proof* that someone is wholesale stealing and uploading pirated content. They get an IP address > physical address > they go there > they have a warrant and seize all computer equipment > they search the hard drives > they find *proof* a crime has happened > the perp is prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

You know, like with other crimes. Research, evidence, judge jury, prosecution. That seems to work for other things...

All this is moot really anyway. If it was 6 years ago, maybe. But use of torrents for wares is so old now. The file lockers and illegal tubes are the problem. Not torrents. I bet you a gajamillion dollar pounds that if there was a magic wand and torrents vanished overnight sales of porn would not be altered one jot.

Question, has anyone sued or been sued over branding stolen images? It's something that happens a lot and I would imagine it's actionable, i.e. someone takes your photo and pastes his url over it... any precedent?

Can't argue with hard evidence. Would be interesting to see how many uploaders go to the trouble to spoof their IP. As with anything else, need to set a precedent and make an example of someone.

I heard of someone in Boston two months ago who received a letter from Comcast threatening to terminate his service. Turns out they detected an unusual amount of bandwidth usage due to his teenage son downloading tons of bootleg movies. His son only downloads and doesn't upload any.

Hear ye, hear ye the ISP court is now in session, Judge Former Customer Service Flunky will now hear your case ... (Do I really have to explain why this is a lame proposal?)

People have been downloading porn since the glory days. This is nothing new and it never effected the business. You actually need to be a bit of an advanced surfer to use Bit Torrent sites etc. These are the kind of people that would probably never get you a sign up anyway. When you have a newbie that has access to sites like Xham... (not even gonna put these low lifes full name here) giving away hour long movies this is your real problem. These fuckers get about 10 million hits a day now. Remember the porn business was fine before the advent of the Tube. So Chad Hurley, Steve Chen, and Jawed Karim GO FUCK YOURSELF!

My point wasn't to push the blame onto them it was to simply point out that if you wanted to use someone else's WiFi for illegal downloading there are a lot easier ways to do so than to hack into someone's.

You are right on all of these accounts. So again, I ask, which would you rather have? Would you rather the ISP contact you and tell you they suspect that you are illegally downloading and if you are not you can contact them and hope that they can help you find out it you have been hacked etc or would you rather nobody says anything, they come into your house, seize your computers and you get to explain in court how it wasn't you and you must have been hacked?

To me it seems a little more sensible to try to deal with the problem before lawyers get involved than to just suddenly one day be accused of a crime and forced to defend yourself in court.



I'll look more into it. I assumed they didn't just go happily along with it, there must have been some serious pressure put on the.



Sure, in a perfect world these would be the people that would be best to go after. I remember a while back when the new Guns N Roses album was about to come out and it leaked online. Somehow they tracked down the guy who was the initial leak and he got in some serious trouble. The same thing happened with the Wolverine movie. It leaked online before it was in theaters. They tracked down the guy who leaked it and reamed him. Of course, that didn't stop anyone, but at least they faced consequences for their actions.



In a perfect world I would agree with you. I go back to my earlier statement above. If you are truly innocent and are a victim of hacking would you rather get a warning that you are suspected of pirating so you can contact your ISP and work with them to find out what is happening and stop it or would you rather be sitting in your living room watching TV one afternoon and have the police show up to seize your stuff and have to explain to them that it wasn't you?

Neither option is good, but to me it is the difference between being warned that you might get punched and just getting kicked in the balls for no reason.

I agree. It might dip down for a short time, but there will always be some other way and some other system. The cat is out of the bag now. To me this is why this ISP system might help to some degree. You can go after all the uploaders and seeders in the world. You can go after the torrent sites all day long, in the end if there is a demand there will be a supply, just like drugs. The drug war is a complete and utter failure. The only part of the drug war that has had any success at all is the early education programs that helps inform people and keep them from using drugs in the first place. Maybe informing people and letting them know that what they are doing is wrong and could cost them down the road will ultimately help curb the demand.

kane you made some very good and thoughtful posts on this.
Unfortunately you are arguing with 2 guys who will justify that nobody should ever do anything to try and stop piracy. The only hope you have is to somehow "adapt" to this new "business model".

In other words get out of the porn business. :(
That's what they would have you believe anyway. We should all be trying to figure out how to monetize worthless freeloader traffic (that we don't have anyway because it's all at the pirate sites...oh wait, I forgot...traffic junky will SELL the traffic they draw from your own stolen content right back to you!), or try to sell dating, cams, or dildos with your content.

Just walk past the dollars and pick up pennies because 2 guys who have never done anything in our business say so. :)

Discriminating against race, religion, country of origin, etc, is illigal in almost every state and county. That's a totally different thing.

All this requires is the ISP to change their TOS. Nobody has a legal right to be granted internet access. It's a private contract between a company and an individual.

The same way nobody has a legal right to cable television. If comcast decides they don't like you as a customer, they can tell you to fuck off for whatever reason as long as the policy is consistent among all customers. Suspected file shareres are not a protected group like race, religion, or sexual orientation.

All this legal talk is silly and pointless. Companies put all kinds of stuff in their TOS and this 100% with what is in line with what companies already do.

For those arguing against it, check your credit card contracts and pretty much any other contract you have and it will say they can deny you service for any reason they want. I already posted a pretty common example. Here is another from ATT, so they can already do it legally without changing their TOS

Notice it says they can terminate your account if they "believe" you are doing something illegal. No proof is needed.

I'm not saying it's right, but all this talk about due process and legal proceedings is silly and pointless.

It's the same way if you guys own an adult site. If you don't like a customer for whatever reason, you can cancel his membership, give back his money, and block him from ever joining again. You don't need legal proof he did anything wrong and the customer has no legal recourse as long as you credit him back his money.

CCbill blocks customers it "suspects" of fraud despite not having legal proof and there is nothing wrong with that.

Look, this stuff goes on all the time.

seriously what exactly about the statement
if you respect fair use you don't ever have a problem with piracy do you not understand

you want to take down both fair use (by reclassifying legitimate fair use as not really fair) and piracy at the same time

the doc argues you should simply market to piracy sources and collect whatever crumbs can be salvaged.

neither one of is adapting to the new marketplace, that the point

to put it simply

your actions are equal to the mpaa complaining to congress that the VCR will kill the industry

the docs is the equivalent of buying ads for theatre movies on television

neither is equal to the real solution of putting your shit on the cassettes and selling it to the VCR owners.

but all i need to do to accuse you of discrimination is that i have to be a visible minority

eharmony didn't deny services to gay and lesbians because of a bias they did it purely on a financial basis. If they just used the same 29 points of compatibility that worked for straight people it would not work for a complete different demographic.

if you dumped my account for one of your "reasons" the first thing i would claim is that you did it because of my ethnicity and you were just using that reason as cover

and i would be perfectly within my right to do so

oh and BTW the UN just ruled that disconnecting a person from the internet is a violation of human rights so your argument doesn't have anywhere close to the merits you think it does.

so were are completely ignoring the principle of innocent until proven guilty
what exactly about the chain of evidence that DJ presented to you do you not understand








except the real choice is between getting fucked over both ways
and the copyright holders respecting rights like presumption of innocents

having to actually make their case to get the info of the persons address BEFORE they bust down any doors

Having prove that the seizure of the equipment is justified BEFORE they seize anything

and then having to prove that their collected evidence actually proves the person is guilty BEFORE they apply penalties.

So you would lie and make up a false accusation? Isn't that what you are accusing the ISPs of doing? Two wrongs don't make a right.

As for the U.N declaring that disconnecting a person from the internet is a human rights violation, I would like to see the context in which they declared that. Second of all, the U.N. has no jurisdiction over American companies offering service to American citizens. So you have no point there.

Even if it's true, does that mean I can stop paying my ISP bill and when they disconnect service, I can claim they have violated my human rights..lol. Good luck with that.

gideongallery = clown

who said anything about lying

i only use the torrent to download tv shows i paid for

i use the technology to timeshift

if your accusing me of copyright infringement your accusations is false because fair use says none of the copyright holders exclusive rights apply to my actions.

if your misrepresenting my fair use as a false copyright infringement I want proof that "misrepresentation" isn't because of my race


i love that arguement

just because your not given it for free, your not entitled to it at all

you have a right to own property, does that mean that the government can take your property away from you just because all property is not given away for free.


already address that and a whole bunch of equally bogus arguements when i first reported it

https://gfy.com/showthread.php?t=1025...UN+human+right

Are you saying that you can hack WPA in 2 hours?
What's under the hood? :winkwink:

Gideon, I think you are losing touch with reality. You are trying to bring in all these unrelated circumstances and weave some sort of truth or precedent from it. It's like when a student doesn't know the answer to an essay question and he bluffs his way through it by making a bunch of vague references to different things which are mostly true, but the overall answer is just a rambling mess. Trust me, I use to do this all the time in school so I'm very familiar with the technique.

I applaud your effort, but this particular cloth you've woven from unrelated cases just has no place in how the real world actually works. You might be able to score some points in a debate club with these arguments, but in the real world they won't have any impact.

Unlike most people on GFY, I actually think you're probably a decent guy and your heart is the right place. But on this one you are trying to frame the issue as some sort of legal or civil rights issue, when that's just not the case.

This is a free market issue. If an ISP starts dropping subscribers and word gets out and people don't like it, then those customers will move to an ISP that doesn't do it. Or one ISP will drop out of the agreement and mop up all the angry subscribers. The free market will take care of this issue if it's truly as bad as you say it is.

seriously the guy who is arguing that you can make up any excuse you want to breach the contract simply by claiming you "believe" that excuse is legitimate is claiming i am stretching the truth.

all business actions are governed by consumer protection laws.

Think about what your trying to claim, companies could promise insanely high speeds, massive bandwidth availability, and NEVER delivery any of it because they misrepresent fair use as infringment and cap every account, if you were right

Fuck all the anti fraud statutes that prevent such an action they would alll be irrelevent because they could simply argue that they "believed" it was a crime with "no proof" whatsoever.



your talking about an industry wide mandated policy, which all isp would be forced to comply with.

they were dragged kicking and screaming to comply by copyright cartel


That a monopoly control level change, which by definition eliminates the free market solution from the equation.

He never had touch with reality. He's not in our business. He's never been in our business. He's an armchair quarterback with a pro-stealing agenda. And a very, very bad problem with processing of abstract thought.

My take on gideongallery is that he was a "special" student in school and had a lot of trouble learning. Not saying he is stupid...just saying that something in his brain processes is short circuited and makes learning things very difficult for him.

right i am the idiot who recommended that manwin copy mininova's go legit plan for their tube sites and thought that was a brilliant idea that would fix the industry

oh wait that was you

seriously if ideas like that are what your "industry Experts" can come up with
you defininately need an outside voice or at least a voice that has actually experimented with the principles, and has enough of a brain to realize that if you copy the failed process of another company it going to fail again.