ISP's "Six Strikes Your Out" plan
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,084
I'm not sure I follow what all this means. I often get links to music and such from friends. Heck, I don't know if it's copyrighted or not. If I inadvertently download copyrighted material six times I lose internet privileges? WTF?
Anyone have more info on this?
http://act.demandprogress.org/letter/si ... 619.C9v0KL
Tell ISPs: No "Six Strikes" Plan -- Or We'll Take Our Business Elsewhere
Here it comes: After over a year of secret negotiations with the players who pushed SOPA, the major Internet Service Providers on the verge of implementing their "Six Strikes" plan to fight "online infringement". With essentially no due process, AT&T, Cablevision Systems, Comcast, Time Warner Cable and Verizon will get on your case if you're accused of violating intellectual property rights -- and eventually even interfere with your ability to access the Internet. (You can contest accusations -- if you fork over $35.)
After the first few supposed violations, they'll alert you that your connection was engaging in behavior that they -- the giant corporations that provide your Internet service -- deem inappropriate.
And then it gets really dicey: They can make it difficult for you to access the web, or start throttling down your connection. From Wired:
After four alerts, according to the program, “mitigation measures” may commence. They include “temporary reductions of Internet speeds, redirection to a landing page until the subscriber contacts the ISP to discuss the matter or reviews and responds to some educational information about copyright, or other measures (as specified in published policies) that the ISP may deem necessary to help resolve the matter.”
That's right: These mega-corporations now claim the authority to undermine your Internet access -- and want to serve as judge, jury, and executioner. Tell them to back off -- or that you'll start looking for other places to bring your business.
Just add your name at right to tell the ISPs to back down.
Anyone have more info on this?
http://act.demandprogress.org/letter/si ... 619.C9v0KL
Tell ISPs: No "Six Strikes" Plan -- Or We'll Take Our Business Elsewhere
Here it comes: After over a year of secret negotiations with the players who pushed SOPA, the major Internet Service Providers on the verge of implementing their "Six Strikes" plan to fight "online infringement". With essentially no due process, AT&T, Cablevision Systems, Comcast, Time Warner Cable and Verizon will get on your case if you're accused of violating intellectual property rights -- and eventually even interfere with your ability to access the Internet. (You can contest accusations -- if you fork over $35.)
After the first few supposed violations, they'll alert you that your connection was engaging in behavior that they -- the giant corporations that provide your Internet service -- deem inappropriate.
And then it gets really dicey: They can make it difficult for you to access the web, or start throttling down your connection. From Wired:
After four alerts, according to the program, “mitigation measures” may commence. They include “temporary reductions of Internet speeds, redirection to a landing page until the subscriber contacts the ISP to discuss the matter or reviews and responds to some educational information about copyright, or other measures (as specified in published policies) that the ISP may deem necessary to help resolve the matter.”
That's right: These mega-corporations now claim the authority to undermine your Internet access -- and want to serve as judge, jury, and executioner. Tell them to back off -- or that you'll start looking for other places to bring your business.
Just add your name at right to tell the ISPs to back down.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.” Variously credited to Mark Twain or Edward Abbey.
Democracy Dies in Darkness- Washington PostPost edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
Glad I stick to smaller, more local internet providers
Ahh, hold on, I think there's spy crawling around under my desk. Back in a few... I hope!
OK fine, but this doesn't answer my questions.
No nothing happens that's the best part
What kind of links are you downloading songs/albums or live bootlegs?
Yep they're not covered under this plan
Also, If I continue downloading from here, how will this effect me? I doubt the Chinese authorities will give a rats ass about it. It's not as if China has a large entertainment industry or anything.
Apart from all the books from Amazon, I bought just two things last year: Pearl Jam 20 DVD, and 'Son of Rogues Gallery: Pirate Ballads, Sea Songs & Chanteys: Various Artists' (pre-order).
Ive heard download speeds are painfully slow over there is that true, what do you typically get?
Not too sure of the speed, but it'd never seemed any slower than back in the U.K.
Thats surprising heard from a few people it takes forever, anyway you can always run a speed test if you want to find out. I typically get around 55mb/s on my dl speed.
they are giving you PLENTY of warnings,
and speaking from experience ...
they KNOW what they are doing.
What i mean is ...
if you are getting a letter \ a landing page alert \ speed-throttled
then YOU ARE STEALING.
Its not that hard to figure out.
I'll give you all a hint, fuck, most times you can even steal OLDER copyrighted material, but if you're downloading new albums and new movies, you are going to be fucked.
I've pretty much switched over to just downloading torrents of LIVE music,
so i could give two shits.
But those of you who continue to infringe on copyrights,
yeah your days in the sun are coming to an end
(i mean, they've been sending out letters \ landing pages \ throttling torrent downloads for a few years, anyhow) but looks like it's about to be end of days for ILLEGAL downloads.
oh well.
***you could always PAY FOR VPN***
If I opened it now would you not understand?
No, I never steal music or movies, etc. No way. I always pay for those. But what about articles that are copyrighted--in other words, almost anything from a news source? People do that all the time. Know what I mean? Or what if someone sends me a link to a song that is copyrighted and I open it and listen to it or pass it along? That happens all the time. Hell, I'd never steal anything intentionally and that's the truth but what if I do so unknowingly? Do I have $35 to blow to defend and innocent action? NO! Do I want to lose my privilege to use the internet due to unknowingly done something against the rules. NO!
You won't lose your privileges, after the 6th time they assume you're not capable of reform and no longer issue warnings. Seems to be a all bark no bite policy
Hate to break it to you but opening a copyrighted file and listening to that song or sharing it with a friend is a violation of copyright laws whether you do it knowingly or not you're technically stealing.
Brian, it looks like there's a distinction between downloading and listening/viewing/passing along. I haven't downloaded anything in ages, musicwise or otherwise.
As to the fee...I'd find a way to get the $35 (Ten Club membership! :P ) to defend myself, plus I assume it's like our court system, where you don't pay the filing fees if found not guilty.
"The Copyright Propaganda Machine Gets a New Agent: Your ISP
It’s been a long time coming, but the copyright surveillance machine known as the Copyright Alert System (CAS) is finally launching. CAS is an agreement between Big Content and large Internet Service Providers to monitor peer to peer networks for copyright infringement and target subscribers who are alleged to infringe—via everything from from “educational” alerts to throttling Internet speeds.
As part of the launch, the Center for Copyright Information, which administers the program, has revamped its website. The website is supposed to help educate subscribers about the system and copyright. Unfortunately, it’s chock full of warning signs that this whole campaign is not going to go well.
For example, on the process for targeting subscribers, the site explains that:
"Before each Alert is sent, a rigorous process ensures the content identified is definitely protected by copyright and that the notice is forwarded to the right Subscriber."
Just because content is copyrighted doesn’t mean sharing it is illegal. It would be better to have a rigorous process that ensures the use identified is actually infringing. It would be even better to have a process that was vetted by a truly independent entity, and public review of the full results.
And then there are these nuggets:
"While CCI encourages all consumers to secure their home networks, it is especially important for consumers who have received a Copyright Alert."
In other words, if you’ve received a notice, you’ve better lock down your network, and fast. As we’ve explained, this seems designed to undermine the open Wi-Fi movement, even though open wireless is widely recognized to be tremendously beneficial to the public.
"Subscribers are responsible for making sure their Internet account is not used for copyright infringement."
Not so—at least not under copyright law, unless additional conditions are met. We don’t all have to sign up to be copyright police, though if your ISP is part of the deal—AT&T, Cablevision, Comcast, Time Warner, and Verizon—you’ve signed up to be policed.
Then there’s the generally maximalist approach to copyright. For example, while we were able to find at least a nod to fair use in CCI’s materials, they are also replete with statements like this (from the section on what students and teens need to know):
"Whenever you create something like a poem, a story or a song, you own it – and no one else can use it without your permission."
Not so: thanks to the fair use doctrine, others can in fact use the works you create in a variety of ways. That’s how we help ensure copyright fosters, rather than hinders, new creativity and innovation.
Equally worrisome: the CCI site directs users to the Copyright Alliance to learn more about the history of copyright. The Copyright Alliance is hardly a neutral “resource”—it was a leader in the battle to pass SOPA and remains a staunch advocate of copyright maximalism.
Finally, CCI is promising to partner with iKeepSafe to develop a copyright curriculum for California public schools. It will be called: "Be a Creator: the Value of Copyright." Based on what we’ve seen so far, that curriculum will do little to help kids understand the copyright balance. Instead, it is going to teach kids that creative works are “stuff” that can be owned and that that you must always check before using that “stuff.”
Not to toot our own horn, but EFF has developed a copyright curriculum that explains what copyright law permits as well as what it forbids and, we hope, encourages students to think critically about creativity, innovation and culture. And it’s CC-licensed, so the CCI should feel free to save itself some time and money by using it.
In the meantime, we are disappointed if not surprised by the tenor of the CCI’s approach to surveillance and education. Watch this space for more on the CAS and what you can do to challenge it."
So, by me copying this, posting it here to share, does this mean I've just been hit strike 1?
I think it's fair to say that the music & movie industry have been hit hard by illegal downloads. My concern, as is Brians, is, #1) what about all the OTHER material out there? Half of the posts on AMT comes straight from some news source who 'owns' what they wrote?
2#) whenever laws are implemented, it's about control. the laws implemented today, might seem harmless & most likely are, but the interenet is a place where we are currently free to voice oppostition to whatever control type out there and it's been coming under heat because of this.
If SOPA & PIPI didn't fly, then just alter the acronym a bit & call it CAS.
Remember January 18, 2012?
I 'copied' this from Wikipedia, (strike 2 in only 1 post!) as I remember they took part in that protest. "A series of coordinated protests occurred against two proposed laws in the United States Congress—the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and the PROTECT IP Act (PIPA). These followed smaller protests in late 2011. Protests were based on concerns that the bills, intended to provide more robust responses to copyright infringement (colloquially known as piracy) arising outside the United States, contained measures that could cause great harm to online freedom of speech, websites, and internet communities. Protesters also argued that there were insufficient safeguards in place to protect sites based upon user-generated content."
Overall, alarms don't seem to be going off in the general publics mind about this type of censorship. I gleen this assessment from the posts in this thread and from other posts on AMT about it all right down to those cute little harmless Drones.
I get that- which is why this is unsettling to me.
I seriously doubt you're ever going to get flagged for what you're doing but if it bothers you than don't open anymore files.
Do these ever work?
Speed throttling DOES work. 100% works. It's not some dumb gimmick, or an annoying inconvenience.
It literally solves the problem.
You guys seem to be missing the finer point here.
I don't think anyone is going after folks sharing articles on a message board, or watching YouTube videos.
These changes are meant to affect naked theft of mainstream audio and video content that in all likely hood is owned by the same corporations that own the ISPs. Call it big corporations going to far, but they are looking after their bottom line and doing it in a way that is both more than generous to offenders (six strikes. SIX strikes) and actually effective.
Like I said. I've received copywriter letters/landing page letters before. Those in and of themselves are eye openers. "Oh shit. They know!"
And speed throttling?
It works.
You are trying to download a movie or a flac file. It is 500mb or a gigabyte. Your download speed is 1.5mb/s ... Suddenly, after less than a minute or two, your speed ON THAT DOWNLOAD slows from 1.5mb to 1.2 to 900kb to 500 to 100 to 50 to ONE OR TWOkb/s.
That happens in less than 30seconds. You were downloading 1.5mb/s , then WHAM 30 seconds later you are effectively NOT downloading at all. It's not a gimmick.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
However, until we start fully apprising just what's behind anymore censorship issues — I APPOSE ALL OF EM!
Jeanwah, I registered such on you link. I too hope it works.
Two very different issues.
Hedonist, good point & I'm glad you asked.
Here, I'll 'copy' from Wikipedia this time -- at least I always give credit to whom I've copied from! :?
Hope that helps me during the penalty phase....
"The copyright alert system, also known as the six strikes program,[1] is a graduated response framework for the United States, agreed upon by participating ISPs and Intellectual property organizations in which a third-party will monitor file-sharing networks, collect the IP addresses of suspected copyright infringement, and submit the IP addresses to ISPs who will in turn issue the suspected infringer a copyright alert."
Please notice CAS is not specific to copyright infringement of movie & music only. While trying to find a consise list of what's 'censored', I've found the list is still vague but developing; (see copyrightinformation.org)
This newfound tidbit makes me wonder why this list is not a frontrunner to a system now implemented? Why is it so hard to put trackers on the data in which people don't want pirated? ASCAAP & BMI are paid to work in behalf of musicians for this very thing, why are they not the ones to be censoring who just nabbed a copy of something they need to pay for? Why then, can't they turn in repeated offenders for prosecution of what is law just like all other laws?
Hedonist, I don't know much about this stuff but I'm not alone. The internet is an ever-evolving bohemeth data field where gov's are also scrambling to try & stay ahead of it being used for things such as child porn, terrorism & artistic piracy. For myself, I still buy CD's. I love to support artists in this manner & I hope CD's don't become a thing of the past as did LP's, so I certainly want artists to keep creating & I wished people would simply raise their standards & stop pirating. Their pathetic behavior is what's giving other control measures a foothold into the land of the big www. & I passionately want this land to remain OUR domain, not a governments or big business land to censor.
Oh, by the way, here's a definition of censorship & why I use it: "the actions or practices of censors; especially: censorial control exercised repressively".
Also, while the penalty phase for actual music & movie pirates might deserve being treated in this manner, I don't like how the rest of us will be treated; the ones not guilty, the ones guilty of copyright issues not related to music & movies. (Copied from Wikipedia also) "Customers found in violation who believe an error has been made may not appeal individual errors until the process has reached the mitigation stage. At that point the customer will pay $35 and will then be informed of the number of Alerts that need to be invalidated to avoid mitigation. The customer may not question errors until the penalty is applied, and then has only 14 days in which to pay the application fee, be informed of the number of errors that must be identified in order to succeed and formally appeal the penalization decision."
This is backwards. We will be treated guilty first, absolved only after this "fair & partial process"?
Of course, it's a computer thing. I may not know what the heck I'm talking about.