ISP's "Six Strikes Your Out" plan

Can I still get porn?

whats the problem with this?

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***

brianlux wrote:

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.

I 'copied' this from EFF (electronic Frontier Foundation)


"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.