Interesting new anti-piracy news
 

Looks like there was a pretty big deal struck between the RIAA, MPAA and most major ISPs. They are going to work together in an "education" style system of copyright enforcement. Basically it will work like this:

If you are suspected of copyright violation via download/distribution you will get an email from your ISP telling you that you or someone using your account may have illegally downloaded something. If you continue to do it you will eventually get a pop up on your screen that won't go away until you acknowledge it and it may also send you to some information about why copyright infringement is bad. Eventually if you persist they will take harsher steps that could include throttling your bandwidth or redirecting you to a page that will persist until you call the support number and talk to them.

It sounds like they aren't going to sue people, but instead are just trying to educate people and make it a little more difficult for those who know what they are doing and don't care to get away with it.

I have mixed feelings about it, but I am interested in seeing how they implement this and if it will have any real effect.

Here are a couple of stories on it

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/201...ternet-access/

http://news.cnet.com/8301-31001_3-20...opyright-cops/

So instead of going after the businesses that profit from it and deliver it they are going after the guy who is downloading it? Something tells me this wont work.

It has been proven that suing indivduals doens't work. They have have gone after 1000's of people with some cases getting big victories for them and making headlines and yet piracy just keeps growing. Going after the companies hasn't been much more effective. Both the Pirate Bay and Isohunt have been dragging out litigation for years now.

I guess they have decided that this might inconvenience people enough that they will stop. Depending on where you live you may only have a few options when it comes to broadband ISPs so you burn your bridges at those places you could be out of luck. Maybe the threat of that will be enough.

Five or six years ago...a person that I knew was down loading feature films from some site and burning them to CD's and had accumulated quite a large collection of movies. One day he received an E-mail from his ISP informing him that they had received notification that he had downloaded several films and the names of the films were listed. They were all produced by the same studio and I do not recall what studio it was but his ISP told him that if they received another notification his service would be terminated. He stopped.

There was an article on bbc today about illegal downloading being up 30%. Here's what one guy had to say:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/14029865

It's people like Steve, who's 25 and from Essex, that the film industry says are the biggest threat to its future survival and success.

He illegally downloads and uploads around 10 films per week.

"I think in comparison to the money they make it's a drop in the ocean," he said.

'Creating jobs'

"Also, what I'm actually doing is providing people with new jobs.

"With all these ISPs that are producing super fast broadband we [illegal downloaders] are actually helping create those jobs," he added.

The only jobs he's creating are cron jobs.

what's stopping sites offering illegal downloads/streaming go behind SSL? how could anyone know what someone downloads or views then?

There are so many reasons pirates give for what they do that make me laugh. These are a couple of great ones. I also love the "I was never going to buy it anyway" excuse. A lot of these guys see themselves as freedom fighters who see the big studios as these evil entities and somehow they are fighting for the good of the regular guy by downloading. The rationalizations are endless and priceless.

The "never going to buy anyway" rationale always cracked me up.

Can you go into Foot Locker and put on some expensive Nike basketball shoes, say "I'm keeping these, because I wasn't going to buy them anyway", then walk out?

It would be jail time.

here's where a digital thief responds with, "yeah, but a movie is a copy of the original. You can't make copies of the sneaker" -- some other dumbass double talk bullshit.

A product is a product. One goes on your feet to help you play better basketball -- the other goes in your ear and eyeholes to be processed by your neurons and give you a woody.

Nothing changes as far as going after downloaders......or, uploaders,....or sites hosting stolen content.

Seems that we just have a warning system for downloaders going into play.

Only lifetime in prison would help in such cases :)

It's interesting that Time Warner hasn't taken a more aggressive stance on their own, considering they are both content provider with Warner Music Group & Warner Studios and ISP with Time Warner Cable.

Fortunately Canada's privacy laws all but guarantee such a deal never passing here. We already pay a "piracy" tax on blank media.

the only issues I see with that is the fact that they have to inject packets to enforce that "warning page" they throw up. ISPs in canada are starting to take heat over that

while i don't agree with the "never going to buy anyway" excuse

your analogy is just plain stupid

if you buy shoes you can sell them, you can rent them, you can break them up and make new stuff out of them.

all those rights don't exist for copyright

and a whole bunch of new rights do in their place, like the right to backup, timeshift, and format shift content you bought BY any technology available.

unless you want to give buyers all of those rights, you really have no right to make the comparison.

You can sell ONE pair of shoes. The shoes you bought. You cannot personally sell that pair of shoes to 1,000 different people like you can with digital content.

Content producers have never gone in and busted people selling their used CD's at yard sales. Now if they're selling copies of CD's, that's a whole different thing.

I used to buy storage units at auctions and sell the stuff that was inside them. Many units had VCR tapes and DVDs and CDs in them. One unit had three boxes full of nothing but pirated DVDs. There was probably 500 movies there. When I first opened the box and saw DVD cases I was happy. Then I started going through them and realized what they were and ended up tossing them all in the trash. I wonder if I bought his unit. :)

Where did you get that info? I know some people making bank suing the dog shit out of downloaders. It's not about stopping piracy, it's about getting paid for your content. They download it, they pay for it. It's that simple.

The first step to understand piracy and what to do with it is... forget what you *think* you know about it and only rely on real facts and what is actually working in the real world.

I guess I should have said it is proven that suing people does not curb the amount of piracy out there. It can get people paid for their content and it can make some people some money, but it has done nothing to curb the amount of people who are pirating.

It's been working for a while.

Most of the people doing it don't bother with press releases.

Yes, that would be correct.

Nothing is going to curb their appetite until there are serious consequences.

However, those consequences are going to have be far more wide spread than they have been to date. There have been people fined hundreds of thousands of dollars in cases that made big news. The RIAA has sued thousands and settled out of court with most of them, yet piracy grows. Whatever the consequences are going to be they will have to be pretty major, fast acting and hit a lot of people.

Oh snap. Let's see Gideon's answer to that one.

the granted right to backup assumed that the backups were not shared, especially if those 'backups' contained copyright material that you did not own distribution rights to.

the granted right to timeshift is perfectly valid - always was - as long as you PAID for the original and did not distribute it or the copies publically or for profit

the granted right to format shift is also perfectly valid as long as you PAID for the original format and didn't sell or distribute publically

the various 'backup and distribution' sites are abusing the hell out of the 'public distribution' portion and the 'sell' portion

I think the core of your argument is: you think that - 'everything must have been paid for at least once' and therefore it is a valid argument that "making 'everything' available for free (because it is a 'backup' to 'someone') is righteous"

"and if pirates make a shitload of 'incidental' cash from advertisements, well thats just dandy."

also - your 'shoe analogy' (or any hard good 'rights') assumes that you bought A product that can't be instantly, perfectly, and for free - copied - and distributed - so do with it whatever the fuck you want - sorry, try again.

you are so batshit crazy :321GFY


.

if i buy a chair there is nothing to stop me from taking it apart going into my shop and building 100 copies and selling them


just because it easier to do with content doesn't change the fact that your talking about taking away right

the whole theft analogy is bogus because copyright is all about taking away property rights and replacing them with use rights

a trade off allowed because you automatically grant the public unlimited use rights for a collection of actions defined as fair use.

thanks for sharing!

total bullshit

no where in the fair use statue does it ever say fair use has to be private

if backups became illegal the second they were shared system management servers would be illegal

corporate ghosting images would be illegal

both restore an image to 1000s of machines from one shared source.


well since your public vs private arguement is total bullshit made up by you

yeah

torrents are network effect version of a vcr

they are superior to any pvr on the market because they are basicallly an infinite hard drive pvr which records every show and never goes down for any reason.

they have 20k built in redundancy


how easy it is to copy doesn't change the fact that copyright is about taking away property rights from the buyer and replacing them with licience rights instead.

that the point your trying to equate property rights to a model that specifically eliminates property rights.

The suits are not gonna stop.. in fact.. they are about to kick back up big time.

sweet. a decades worth of internet is going to be rolled back. better fire up that geocities page.

just like what 10% of the american population is in jail because of the fear of those same "consequences?"

get over it. the days of making easy money from content production are over - and this is coming from a content producer.

enough content has been dumped on the net to last literally a hundred years.

the point - and money to be made - is in sorting and delivering it.

Once again, fair use is defined as YOU see it.

Fair use is not unlimited.

Property rights cannot be substituted with use rights as the rights belong to two different sets of users, i.e. content producers and users.

Time shifting for private use is permitted, mass distribution in the name of time shifting is not permitted.

Fucking pirates trying to redefine the arguments. They should be prosecuted and put in jail.

I'm surprised that nobody has brought a RICO suit against one of these fucking tubesites.

reread the copyright act again

all the exclusive rights are explictly excluded for the scope of fair use


you are only granted exclusive rights for non fair use

that exactly how the law was written

if it fair use, the copyright holder has no exclusive rights what so ever.

exactly my point that why comparing copyright infringement to stealing shoes is total bs

the former is a situation where property rights can never be transfered, the latter is

that the huge difference that completely invalidates the arguement

copyright is a transfer of right of use for everything except fair use, which there is no need of tranfer because copyright act explictly says the copyright holder holds no exclusive rights for.

what to show me where in the definition it ever says private only fair use

it doesn't exist

if it did caching would be illegal because it very public

and the internet as a whole would be destroyed

yeah th e horror expecting you to obey the law as it written rather then letting you getting away with making up this private vs public bullshit as a way to invalidate LEGIT fair use.

how dare anyone redefine the arguement back to the TRUTH.

I hope it works, because I'm sick of fighting these a*holes who are stealing our content

I don't know if you realize this about yourself, but you have a way of double-talking -- almost in some kind of half-baked legalese, and twisting things to fit your view of the way YOU think things should be. What you say barely makes sense, and only makes it obvious to everyone that you have never created anything. You just want to make money from other people's work, and make up silly, overly technical excuses to justify the living you make from it.

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encycloped...ial-30100.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use
(read the section on Amount and Sustainability)

You seem to be the self-proclaimed expert on fair use, but it also looks like you make up your own definition of it.

The is no "fair use" in Illegal tubes — that is asinine

So, rather than any due process, or proof, the MPAA email your ISP and say x has downloaded y, and the ISP then throttles your service?

QTF?

How many years of trying to punish downloaders do we need to learn to does nothing to stop piracy?

IF they have the tech to get the downloaders, why not use that to get the UPLOADERS? That's easy. That would stop, or at least curtail infringements.

Simple, because this has fuck all to do with stopping piracy and everything to do with quasi-extortion.

you might want to read your own quoted sources and the section you pointed me too

when i use the torrents to copy a tv show, i may be copying it from a public swarm (cloud), it however is still a copy made for a private viewing.

the cable vision case clearly established that public transmission of data does not invalidate the timeshifting right to make a copy.