
Major ISPs agree to "six strikes" copyright enforcement plan - evo_9
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/07/major-isps-agree-to-six-strikes-copyright-enforcement-plan.ars
======
joeybaker
All of the ISPs involved also provide cable TV service. That's to say, they
have a vested interest in seeing the business model of "copyright holders"
continue so that they can receive their affiliate fees. It's little wonder
that this deal was "voluntarily" agreed upon.

------
navyrain
Given that these ISPs often have exclusive markets, in which they have no
direct competitors, this would effectively deny internet access to anyone who
had the misfortune of getting a few of these notices.

Lack of judicial oversight is obviously a problem. But furthermore, this
really overstates the seriousness of copyright infringement, and understates
the importance of internet access for all.

~~~
kelnos
If you read the article, you'd know that ISPs seem unwilling to cut off access
entirely, even after 6 strikes.

Agreed on the judicial issues. While the ISP is legally free to make any
decision it wants as to who is allowed to use its network, and in what
capacity, they're essentially making these determinations based on hearsay.

~~~
click170
What tickles me in that special way is the way this 'conversation' has gone.

Them: "We've got an awesome new idea, 3 strikes policies. 3 accusations, and
your out."

Us: "Um, well actually it's not fair to have your internet cut off based on
unproven accusations."

Them: "Well then... 6 strikes!"

Us: "I don't think you understand the objection..."

~~~
JoshTriplett
That's a standard political tactic; a compromise is always considered OK, so
you propose something ridiculous and end up with half of ridiculous.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Door-in-the-face_technique>

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_Window>

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation>

------
wmf
I wonder if copyright holders will file a lot more of these notices (100X?
1000X?) since they will presumably be cheaper and seen as less threatening.

~~~
bediger
Indeed. Does a penalty for filing a false notice (accusation) of infringement
exist? What's the process for adjudicating disputes?

~~~
kijinbear
I don't think there's any penalty for false accusations of copyright
infringement. Likewise, nobody needs to pay for falsely accusing you of
anything unless you sue them for defamation.

If your ISP actually cuts off your internet after 6 false accusations, you
might want to take them to the courts. EFF will probably love to take on such
a suit. Unfortunately, very few people have the financial means or guts to sue
the RIAA/MPAA and follow through with it.

~~~
blendergasket
I think judges can order the accuser to pay the legal fees of the accused at
least.

~~~
kijinbear
You'll probably need to win the lawsuit before the judge can order something
like that.

------
InclinedPlane
This is a very sad state of affairs. We already have a system for judging
evidence, determining guilt and for assigning punishment, it's called the
courts. This seems to be yet another advancement in abandoning all of the
institutions of civil society and rule of law in the online world, frequently
to the detriment of individual liberty. We can only hope that eventually these
assaults against our freedoms will eventually be rolled back.

~~~
jff
These courts have already been very effectively used... as a threat by
copyright holders in an attempt to shake people down for out-of-court
settlements.

~~~
blendergasket
The tide seems to be turning against the RIAA/MPAA, damages 100s of times the
cost of legitimately downloading the song are being questioned, the ruling
that an IP address != a person and other stuff that is making it less likely
that the copyright groups will be able to mass litigate going forward so they
are starting to look for extrajudicial means.

The scariest thing to me about this article is this: This is basically a
system of penalty, based on enforcing the government's laws (even though
lobbied for by the RIAA et al), that is not dealt with in courts. In the US at
least we have the idea that our judges/juries are either our peers or are
elected by our peers. There is a sense that they act on behalf of the
collective will in transparent ways and are always accountable in some sort of
way. It's a way for the community to enforce its norms on its members (for
better or worse).

In the system propsed in this article there are consequences to the file
sharers. And there is no accountable system for doling out these consequences.
These are not our peers judging us. These are corporations who have very
vested interests, which are not the interests of the populous it is enforcing
them upon. I'm worried that this will become something of a precedent.

I think another really good example of this in action is the Visa/Mastercard
embargo on Wikileaks. Operating outside of any judicial framework they barred
funds to Wikileaks and its host for months. Then as soon as they get sued, and
there is the prospect of having to account for their actions based on real
laws they cave in, implicitly acknowledging the illegality of their stance. It
seems that however powerful this government/corporation blanket of control
thinks it is it still fears having to account for itself in the courts. An
independent judiciary is a great check to power. The RIAA/MPAA are attacking
one of the few checks on power that still give me hope that the idea of
government the USA stands for can be salvaged.

------
jolan
Make sure to do all your copyright infringement on a disposable VPS.

~~~
kevingadd
Regardless of whether you break the law on a regular basis, having a personal
VPS is a very good idea these days.

I still regularly run into problems with websites and applications related to
geolocation, blacklisting, or routing, and being able to proxy stuff through
my VPS enables me to keep getting things done.

In particular, if you're a Comcast user a VPS is pretty essential since their
routing and peering are _awful_.

Being able to run sensitive traffic through an SSH tunnel when you're on
public Wi-fi is also a nice perk.

~~~
ComputerGuru
I'm considering purchasing Comcast internet for businesses (not the
residential stuff), and am interested in your comments about bad routing and
peering. Can you expand on that, please?

EDIT: I'm talking about Chicagoland region. Didn't know it was geographic.

~~~
nitrogen
An example: if you are in Salt Lake City, your traffic to the west coast (i.e.
California and Washington) is first routed to Dallas, TX, then across New
Mexico and Arizona on a saturated link that limits you to a few mbits/s.

~~~
koenigdavidmj
I am in Seattle. To get to my work VPN, also in Seattle, my traffic is routed
through San Jose because Comcast refuse to peer with my employer's provider.

------
floppydisk
At some point, someone will probably sue -- after getting cutoff by this new
policy or receive significant fines -- on the grounds this does constitute a
conflict of interest on the part of the internet provider.

In the ideal world, we'd allow for competition across the board and remove the
monopolies through the introduction of new options. Those options could make a
major dent by positioning themselves solely as pipe providers. In turn, this
would put market pressure on the conglomerates to either compete or die, in
the ideal world.

In the realistic world, the options would be to force the companies to split
into wholly owned subsidiaries of a parent corporation. IE: Comcast Internet,
Comcast TV / Comcast Content and they would not receive preferential treatment
from one another. Also, remove the monopolies and change the current
regulatory structure to create incentives for new ISPs to spring up and
challenge the conglomerates.

Ideally, we would be able to solve this without having to involve the
government bureaucracy which will end up creating more new rules and probably
hurting as much as helping. Realistically, the only way people will go for is
if there's a regulatory change.

------
omouse
This is why we should get rid of the copyright system completely and keep it
that way or start from scratch and build a new system (I prefer the
former...).

Time to move over to some kind of fully encrypted Internet or something :/

------
Adam503
I suspect the content owners are going to get a big load of IP addresses from
the ISPs and file a big huge pile of criminal charges or civil lawsuits
against the people who the ISPs finger. The ISPs will then pretend to act hurt
when the content owners violate this agreement.

Give your internet account to a fine business establishment who doesn't do
something as ridiculous as trusting Time Warner or Comcast with confidential
customer information.

------
freejack
So now ISP = "Internet Services Police"?

------
ruby_on_rails
So who will guard the guards? I fail to see any oversight whatsoever. Ohh and
look who these 6 major ISPs are. TimeWarner Cable sounds like they may have a
few copyrights laying around... Major conflicts of interest? You bet.

And what does this mean for the thousands of coffee shops, book stores, and
other wi-fi hotspots which dynamically assign ip addresses? Most likely:
nothing pleasant.

Its a fine day when not only do corporations wield ridiculous power of
lawmakers, but can form agreements tantamount to monopoly power. Net
neutrality? Good luck with that.

~~~
Derbasti
Case in point: In some European countries (e.g. Germany), a wifi provider is
liable for all the stuff that happens on his network. Which means that there
are next to no public wifis. A shame, really.

Another step from democracy towards corporate dictatorship. Sometimes I wonder
if we are currently experiencing a fatal flaw in commercialism that will
ultimately subvert democracy.

------
lwat
Why not also cut off their electricity if someone used it 6 times to copy
music or movies?

