

US ISPs to Disrupt Internet Access of Copyright Scofflaws - vabole
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/07/disrupting-internet-access/

======
bediger
This is a rubbish article. It confuses "theft" with "infringement". Mostly, it
calls the action of infringement an "offense", but at one point it calls it an
"infraction", The article fails to say who decides if an "offense" or
"infraction" occurs. Usually, conviction of a crime requires some kind of
judicial activity, but other sources report that mere accusation of
infringement is what counts as an "infraction".

This whole scheme is most un-American. No presumption of innocence is made, no
judicial review occurs, and there is no procedure in place to redress
mistakes. The RIAA is a known un-American organization, seeking to undermine
basic constitutional rights like Freedom of Speech, Freedom from unreasonable
search and seizure, due process of law, and presumption of innocence. I call
upon the ISPs in question to stop performing un-American actions, and
diassociate themselves from the nearly-fascist RIAA and MPAA.

~~~
bugsy
That's a very interesting perspective, I hadn't thought of that, the media's
coverage of this topic is so one sided and lacking detail as to be useless.

It's amazing that, unable to prove their case in court, they are resorting to
deals with the ISP oligarchy to monitor and control the populace in this way.

Unanswered questions are what will qualify. Technically if I come to hacker
news and someone has posted 5 out of 7 paragraphs from an AP news article in a
comment, that is a copyright violation. Under the principles outlined, the
poster and perhaps all the readers could end up being blacklisted from
internet access, which for many people who use the internet to work would
result in unemployment and homelessness. I know the response will be "don't be
silly we would never do that for a small infraction" but who don't really know
that at all. Criticize the wrong people in corporations or government and it's
a simple matter to find someplace that you've quoted too many sentences from
an article, and now your access is cut off and your dissent squelched. There
is no judge to appeal the sentence to, and no proof required that the quote
wasn't fair use.

This is about establishing a mechanism to control the populace and squelch
dissent. Not copyright violations. Those are just the excuse.

~~~
wmf
I'm a big fan of due process, but a lawsuit hardly seems like the right
process when someone downloads or shares a $20 movie without paying. (It's
worth noting that when the MPAA sue people, the people complain that they
can't afford to defend a suit, but when the MPAA try some other tactic, people
complain that the courts should be used.)

------
danielsoneg
Ok, this is just ridiculous. I've really tried to do this right - I have
Netflix, RDIO, Pandora, and Amazon Select, and by and large, if something's
available on those services, I don't go trying to dig it up somewhere else.

If I'm not paying for something, it's because the media companies won't let
me, not because I'm not willing.

------
joejohnson
Woah. Does anyone have more information about this? I wish the article said
which ISPs. All of them?

~~~
jwatzman
From the second paragraph of the article:

"The deal, almost three years in the making, was announced early Thursday, and
includes participation by AT&T, Cablevision Systems, Comcast, Time Warner and
Verizon."

~~~
joejohnson
Wow. Thanks. I clearly read that too fast. I like this article better:
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2738776>

------
rnernento
Honestly this looks pretty tame... The only scary part is the lack of
definition of what exactly constitutes an infraction.

