Support NeoGAF

[marrec]

I'm a little tired of it all.

"Oh no, they are going to stop me from doing a crime!! Through a series of extensive warnings!! I might have to commit that crime some other way!! While claiming I only download out of print or unavailable content, just like everyone else, while statistics prove the vast majority of downloaded content is not in fact out of print or otherwise unavailable for purchase!"

I agree.

Though I'm still wondering how exactly this is different from current set ups.

On a related note, I'm also wonder how this will affect the number of false positives from the current system.

 

[rdrr gnr]

The Internet will be less and less free as long as people commit piracy. It's a damn shame.

Excellent.

 

[slit]

I thought this was how they were already monitoring P2P traffic.

Is the new system just a way of letting infringers know via the ISP?

Essentially. If you know how to properly cloak yourself this changes nothing really.

 

[Hari Seldon]

This sounds like a whole lot of nothing. OP needs updated by someone knowledgable of wtf is going on.

 

[marrec]

They've had to e-mail ISPs and ask them to do something about it. Various ISPs have handled that (or done nothing) over the years.

The ISPs did VERY LITTLE until the RIAA/MPAA started mass suing their customers.. then the RIAA/MPAA agreed to stop doing that.. the ISPs started sending out more "hey we know you do this, we will meter you" warnings to people.

But it was all very unstructured and sort of random.

This is just an organized approach.. more efficient.. more well defined.. and a more "standard" approach to it.

If you actually look into.. it couldn't be much more fair.

Your first "warning" can be dissolved by simply claiming you didn't secure your wireless well enough for example.

I see.

The most interesting thing is how the automated systems works with the human system. I'd love to see the breakdown of this.

So for those who currently aren't worried, then this does not increase the worry.

 

[rdrr gnr]

I wonder what the email address Comcast gave me is.

 

[nVidiot_Whore]

I agree.

Though I'm still wondering how exactly this is different from current set ups.

On a related note, I'm also wonder how this will affect the number of false positives from the current system.

There is no current "system".. that's all this is.. an actual system being put in place.

And instead of ISPs just randomly deciding what to do.. they now have a structured way of applying a standard series of warnings and communications.

And how exactly do you think your IP address would show up as a "false positive" on a P2P download? What technology is causing that to be anything but an extreme anomaly?

As I mentioned in my last post.. the idea that someone ganked your Wi-Fi can be used as an excuse to make your first warning completely go away..

Other than that.. the IP address assigned to me at a given time by my ISP is unlikely to be recognized incorrectly... especially if the ISPs work with the monitoring agency to ensure they are correctly recording time-stamps that they can match up, etc.

 

[Iacobellis]

So this affects porn?

 

[SolidusDave]

They've had to e-mail ISPs and ask them to do something about it. Various ISPs have handled that (or done nothing) over the years.

The ISPs did VERY LITTLE until the RIAA/MPAA started mass suing their customers.. then the RIAA/MPAA agreed to stop doing that.. the ISPs started sending out more "hey we know you do this, we will meter you" warnings to people.

But it was all very unstructured and sort of random.

This is just an organized approach.. more efficient.. more well defined.. and a more "standard" approach to it.

If you actually look into.. it couldn't be much more fair.

Your first "warning" can be dissolved by simply claiming you didn't secure your wireless well enough for example.

But it is correct to say there is no "new" monitoring being done. It's just a new system for reporting and warning people about the law breaking being done using their service.

Sounds much better than supporting sketchy lawyers to send out mass lawsuits and scare people into paying hundreds of dollars.

 

[Anatopism]

And this is a system where:

- People are caught commiting a crime
- They are caught by the people who this crime is being commited against
- The service you used to commit that crime is alerted to your crime
- You are then given an extensive series of warnings

How is this again, overly restrictive?

How is it unreasonable for petty criminals to get a series of warnings before they lose a service that they can't seem to use without breaking the law?

The monitoring itself is what I think is unreasonable. Nowhere did I state punishment itself was, but what it takes to know whether it is deserved can be.

 

[marrec]

There is no current "system".. that's all this is.. an actual system being put in place.

And instead of ISPs just randomly deciding what to do.. they now have a structured way of applying a standard series of warnings and communications.

And how exactly do you think your IP address would show up as a "false positive" on a P2P download? What technology is causing that to be anything but an extreme anomaly?

As I mentioned in my last post.. the idea that someone ganked your Wi-Fi can be used as an excuse to make your first warning completely go away..

Other than that.. the IP address assigned to me at a given time by my ISP is unlikely to be recognized incorrectly... especially if the ISPs work with the monitoring agency to ensure they are correctly recording time-stamps that they can match up, etc.

Well that's my question, I'd love to see the breakdown of how the new system automates things.

Trust me I'm not worried about false positives. I do not download illegal material, I'm purely interested in the process and the failures that are inherently associated with any process that mixes automation with human interaction.

 

[cheststrongwell]

Cox has been sending warnings just like this for years.

 

[Troll]

If you guys are really worried, use this.

It costs money but no one will know your surfing habits.

 

[nVidiot_Whore]

The monitoring itself is what I think is unreasonable. Nowhere did I state punishment itself was, but what it takes to know whether it is deserved can be.

There is no monitoring being done by the ISPs.

It's done by merely downloading the same P2P files. You missed one of my bullet points.

- They are caught by the people who this crime is being commited against

It's akin to the labels hanging out in record stores... catching people steeling records.. then turning them into the store.. and all the store does is warn you 4-5 times.. then they only let you shop on Wednsdays.. then they bar you from the store.

After being caught red handed stealing 5-6 times by the person who created the work you stole. *

* No I am not interested in getting into a debate about piracy vs. theft.. my analogy was to the physical world, it is not a perfect one.

 

[jorma]

I guess that's what the ISP's get for not spending as much on Obamas campaign as the IP industry does.

 

[Joates]

If we lower taxes on the entertainment industry, everybody wins!

More people getting shit for free, and more people being hired! Go Mittens!

 

[LordCanti]

I guess that's what the ISP's get for not spending as much on Obamas campaign as the IP industry does.

I'm confused. What is the ISP getting exactly? I'm sure a computer can match the IP's submitted to the account holder that had the IP at the given time automatically. Then a computer can send out the e-mail warning, and a computer can keep track of how many warnings have been issued.

It doesn't sound like much extra work for them at all.

 

[User Name Here]

Google, you know that network you are working on? Please, hurry up.

You think Google wouldn't use this system or some variation of it? Hah! They're already spying on us!

 

[amrod]

http://torrentfreak.com/which-vpn-providers-really-take-anonymity-seriously-111007/

This is the link I ment to post... use one of these

 

[jorma]

I'm confused. What is the ISP getting exactly? I'm sure a computer can match the IP's submitted to the account holder that had the IP at the given time automatically. Then a computer can send out the e-mail warning, and a computer can keep track of how many warnings have been issued.

It doesn't sound like much extra work for them at all.

They are pissing off their customers for no gain at all? Do you really think they do this out of their own free will? I'm almost positive there's some legislative threat behind this. Just in time for election, too!

 

[Anatopism]

There is no monitoring being done by the ISPs.

It's done by merely downloading the same P2P files. You missed one of my bullet points.



It's akin to the labels hanging out in record stores... catching people steeling records.. then turning them into the store.. and all the store does is warn you 4-5 times.. then they only let you shop on Wednsdays.. then they bar you from the store.

After being caught red handed stealing 5-6 times by the person who created the work you stole. *

* No I am not interested in getting into a debate about piracy vs. theft.. my analogy was to the physical world, it is not a perfect one.

In order to effectively deploy the alert system, the CCI partnered with AT&T, Cablevision, Comcast, Time Warner Cable, and Verizon, each of which will utilize their own version of the CAS. The Copyright Alert System detects illegal downloading with a mix of humans and automated processes provided by "brand protection" firm MarkMonitor.

Yeah, I don't think your version sounds quite right.

 

[nVidiot_Whore]

They are pissing off their customers for no gain at all? Do you really think they do this out of their own free will? I'm almost positive there's some legislative threat behind this. Just in time for election, too!

This has been in the works for years, the timing is coincidental. IIRC they did talk with the government about this but I don't believe it was under any "legislative threat" that anyone enacted it.

It's just a more organized version of what they've been doing for years.. getting reports from copyright holders.. doing something about it.

And what they get out of it is integrity.

Helping to stop rampant petty lawbreaking.

Under what other context do people cry and whine for the ability to break the law? Or demand companies ignore rampant law breaking?

 

[nVidiot_Whore]

Yeah, I don't think your version sounds quite right.

No, my version is 100% correct.

The system in place by the ISPs is the REPORTING and ALERTING SYSTEM.

It's akin to YouTube's system.

YouTube doesn't monitor videos for copyrights... it's the onus of the copyright holders to do so.

YouTube does however (and was required by law to implement) a system where copyright holders could report videos or audio that was in violation. There is a section of their web site to do so.

This is akin to YouTube and 6-7 other large streaming video networks all agreeing to a similar system for efficiency... none of which involves them doing any monitoring.

 

[Thoraxes]

So how do we block them from monitoring what we do on the internet? I'd rather they not track and throttle my Netflix usage just because they deem it bad.

I'd also like it if they could tell us how they're determining all of this too.

 

[Father_Brain]

The Internet will be less and less free as long as people commit piracy. It's a damn shame.

Piracy, viewed at a macro level, is an inevitable consequence of rapid advances in reproduction, storage, and networking technology.

You can say what you will about individual acts of piracy, but I'm going to say that the corporations actively choosing to restrict Internet freedom deserve far more blame for this than people collectively doing the inevitable.

 

[CheesecakeRecipe]

So how do we block them from monitoring what we do on the internet? I'd rather they not track and throttle my Netflix usage just because they deem it bad.

I'd also like it if they could tell us how they're determining all of this too.

AFAIK it is only covering P2P protocols, not genuine usage like Netflix streaming.

 

[nVidiot_Whore]

So how do we block them from monitoring what we do on the internet?

Don't download torrents?

You are agreeing to such "monitoring".. it's the very nature of how P2P works.

For those that don't believe me:

http://www.copyrightinformation.org/alerts

Only P2P:

The Copyright Alert system applies to peer-to-peer* file sharing of digital copyrighted content.

(because that's how they catch you without any internal monitoring)

It's done by copyright holders, not ISPs

Under this system content owners (represented by MPAA and RIAA) will notify a participating ISP when they believe their copyrights are being misused online by a specific computer (identified by its Internet Protocol (“IP”) address which indicates the connection to the Internet).

And again.. the fairness of it:

First Alert: In response to a notice from a copyright owner, an ISP will send an online alert to a subscriber, such as an email, notifying the subscriber that his/her account may have been misused or involved in copyright infringement. This first alert will also direct the subscriber to educational resources which will (i) help him/her to check the security of his/her computer and network, (ii) provide explanatory steps which will help to avoid copyright infringement in the future and (iii) provide information about the abundant legal sources of music, film and TV content.
Second Alert: If the alleged activity persists despite the receipt of the first alert, the subscriber will get a second similar alert that will underscore the educational messages.
Third Alert: If the subscriber’s account again appears to have been used for copyright infringement, he/she will receive another alert, much like the initial alerts. However, this alert will provide a conspicuous mechanism (a click-through pop-up notice, landing page, or similar mechanism) requiring the subscriber to acknowledge receipt of this alert. This is designed to ensure that the subscriber is aware of the third copyright alert as well as the previous educational alerts.
Fourth Alert: If the subscriber’s account again appears to have been used for copyright infringement, the subscriber will receive yet another alert that again requires the subscriber to acknowledge receipt.
Fifth Alert: At this time, the ISP may take one of several steps, specified in its published policies and the alert itself, reasonably calculated to stop future copyright infringement. These steps, referred to as “Mitigation Measures,” may include, for example: 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 that the ISP may deem necessary to help resolve the matter. The ISP may decide to waive the Mitigation Measure at this point – but it would be applied if a further notice of copyright infringement associated with the same subscriber’s account is received.
Sixth Alert: If the subscriber’s account again appears to have been used for copyright infringement, the ISP will send another alert and will implement a Mitigation Measure as described above. As described above, it’s likely that very few subscribers who after having received multiple alerts, will persist (or allow others to persist) in the copyright infringement.

It's not until your SIXTH warning that the ISPs actually do any "Mitigating Measures".. (other than requiring you verify you have read information)

 

[LordCanti]

So how do we block them from monitoring what we do on the internet? I'd rather they not track and throttle my Netflix usage just because they deem it bad.

I'd also like it if they could tell us how they're determining all of this too.

VPN, if you're really serious about it. Netflix is completely legal though, and throttling is a different (and much more sinister IMO) issue entirely.

They are pissing off their customers for no gain at all? Do you really think they do this out of their own free will? I'm almost positive there's some legislative threat behind this. Just in time for election, too!

Most of their customers have few if any alternative choices when it comes to an ISP. I doubt most people will even know this plan exists.

I'm not supporting the plan, I'm just not sure how this is bad for ISP's (especially ones like Comcast that own a great deal of content).

 

[DarkFlow]

Cox is liberal I think

Long live cox! They say they have a cap, but they don't enforce it. I've blown over the cap a lot and they never say anything.

 

[inm8num2]

ISPs can suck my e-dick.

 

[devilhawk]

I'm a little tired of it all.

"Oh no, they are going to stop me from doing a crime!! Through a series of extensive warnings!! I might have to commit that crime some other way!! While claiming I only download out of print or unavailable content, just like everyone else, while statistics prove the vast majority of downloaded content is not in fact out of print or otherwise unavailable for purchase!"

Have we not had this discussion before? No crime is being committed.

We have. http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=42746085&postcount=104 Even after acknowledging it is true, you just decided to stick your fingers in your ears nonetheless. Yet you wonder why you get condescending responses?

 

[nVidiot_Whore]

And what do ISPs get out of this?

First of all.. remove yourself from the selfish childish reality you've create for yourself where a company that knows you are rampantly breaking the law has no reason to do something about it.

Take a deep breath after reading that sentence.. but try if you will to imagine any other business where the public would DEMAND they ignore rampant petty lawbreaking?

So the fact that they are doing something about rampant petty lawbreaking SHOULD simply be an EXPECTATION from society.

So it gives them INTEGRITY.

Beyond that, what does this system do?

Makes it cheaper for them to do something about it.. largely funded by copyright holders.. you know.. the people who are the victims of the petty crime we are discussing.

Because the copyright holders created software and other systems for the ISPs to implement.. so they didn't have to have employees sit around getting and writing e-mails.. or coming up with their own system to maintain the basic integrity of doing something about rampant obvious lawbreaking, because society should expect them too.

It's a more organized and cheap way to do what they should be doing.

 

[RionaaM]

Copyright holders do the monitoring, not the ISPs.

They do it by...

Downloading the same file you are on a P2P network.

You are basically caught red handed by the copyright holder, or someone representing them (in this case, a 3rd party agency funded by copyright holder groups is handling it).. who turns you in to your ISP for a serious of numerous "warnings" before they do anything.

Cry more America

So the copyright holders will pirate their own material? Nice logic there.

 

[nVidiot_Whore]

Have we not had this discussion before? No crime is being committed.

A federal statute with criminal punishment is not violated.

That doesn't mean it isn't a crime to pirate something.

You are violating the law... if you expect me to add an asterics every time I refer to it as a crime..

No.

 

[FLEABttn]

So the copyright holders will pirate their own material? Nice logic there.

They hold the copyright to it. How could they possibly pirate their own material?

The issue isn't just the act but who commits it. I can put down my own cat with no problems; there will be issues if I put down my neighbors cat without permission.

 

[Delusibeta]

It's essentially a replacement for the mass-lawsuits that the RIAA/MPAA ended several years ago.

Instead they asked the ISPs to help them.. to provide an efficient way to report illegal activity.. and warn, then eventually "meter".. then eventually cancel people's service..

For repeatedly and blatantly breaking the law.

And I will wager a good 90% of the people receiving these notices will be innocent.

 

[XANDER CAGE]

This doesn't seem all that different to what a lot of ISPs do anyway, especially if it's only P2P.

The thing I'm worried about is streaming and whatnot being effected, since it's a lot easier to watch a Youtube video that's technically illegal content than it is to feign innocence about torrenting something. It'd be a real shame if one day watching clips/making mashups/making edits would land you a naughty notice from an ISP.

 

[nVidiot_Whore]

So the copyright holders will pirate their own material? Nice logic there.

They own the content.. it's not piracy for them to download it.

Nice logic there.

 

[Mumei]

People commit rape and murder, would you like someone to follow you around 24/7?

If you aren't doing anything wrong, you don't have anythi - I can't even finish saying that with a straight face.

 

[nVidiot_Whore]

And I will wager a good 90% of the people receiving these notices will be innocent.

And why do you think that is true?

What technical basis do you have for suggesting IP addresses would somehow be wrongly tracked?

 

[Delusibeta]

And why do you think that is true?

What technical basis do you have for suggesting IP addresses would somehow be wrongly tracked?

Because it's pretty much the same system as last time, and as such is vulnerable to users spoofing their IP, torrent trackers adding fake IPs to make their torrents look more attractive to pirates and good ol' unprotected wi-fi hotspots, while still completely missing newsgroups and direct downloaders. Besides, tracking IP addresses tends to be fairly unreliable regardless.

 

[nVidiot_Whore]

Have we not had this discussion before? No crime is being committed.

We have. http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=42746085&postcount=104 Even after acknowledging it is true, you just decided to stick your fingers in your ears nonetheless. Yet you wonder why you get condescending responses?

Dude..

It's illegal.. it violates laws... it's a crime. English language.

There is no federal statute for punishment of this crime..

Hence why I've repeatedly said "petty crime" in this thread.

Do we really need to have the same stupid conversation?

I refuse to not call it a crime.. and I'm not going to point out why every time.

 

[Izayoi]

And why do you think that is true?

What technical basis do you have for suggesting IP addresses would somehow be wrongly tracked?

People piggybacking on unprotected wi-fi networks, to start?

Remember when the SWAT team kicked down that family's door because someone had posted threats via their internet connection?

If you give the copyright holders an inch, they WILL take a mile. This is fucking ridiculous.

 

[Joates]

They own the content.. it's not piracy for them to download it.

Nice logic there.

So if I go out and buy a copy of a movie, then download it and they catch me, all theyre doing is wasting money?

Sounds like the solution here is for everyone to download everything they own that they can.

 

[Emily Chu]

my grandmother is going to get anally raped in jail...

because I told her about the magic and wonders of "torrents"

 

[I NEED SCISSORS]

"intellectual" property

- phew, for a second there I thought my daily dose of Splashes on Glasses was in danger. Carry on.

 

[nVidiot_Whore]

Because it's pretty much the same system as last time, and as such is vulnerable to users spoofing their IP, torrent trackers adding fake IPs to make their torrents look more attractive to pirates and good ol' unprotected wi-fi hotspots, while still completely missing newsgroups and direct downloaders. Besides, tracking IP addresses tends to be fairly unreliable regardless.

So 90% of the IP addresses connected to torrents are wrong, and in fact resolve to actual IP addresses of Americans?

That's really far fetched.

People piggybacking on unprotected wi-fi networks, to start?

So secure your network.

The system includes the ability to "waive" your first warning by claiming this occured..

And they don't bother to check if you are lying or not even.

 

[RionaaM]

They own the content.. it's not piracy for them to download it.

Nice logic there.

I didn't know you could download an illegal torrent if you were the copyright owner. And I'm being honest.

They hold the copyright to it. How could they possibly pirate their own material?

The issue isn't just the act but who commits it. I can put down my own cat with no problems; there will be issues if I put down my neighbors cat without permission.

Yeah, if you put it that way it kinda makes sense. I still think that if downloading from P2P and torrent networks are illegal for some, it should be for everyone, including copyright owners. Euthanasia isn't the same as murder, while piracy IS the same as piracy.

 

[nVidiot_Whore]

I didn't know you could download an illegal torrent if you were the copyright owner. And I'm being honest.

Copyright laws put the onus on the copyright holder to report abuse, outside of large-scale piracy measures which the feds will handle because their are federal statutes against large-scale piracy (mainly for profit is targeted.)

So the act of the illegal download is meaningless until a complaint is filed.. by a copyright holder who has not given you the right to use their content how you are using it.

It is implied that they grant themselves the right to use the content however they please.. including downloading a copy of that content.

So if I go out and buy a copy of a movie, then download it and they catch me, all theyre doing is wasting money?

Sounds like the solution here is for everyone to download everything they own that they can.

No. Purchasing a physical product does not grant you the right to download said content from the internet. You simply own that physical product.. when I said "own the content" I was referring to owning the right to say how that content is used.. aka.. they old the copyright.

So they wouldn't be wasting anything.. you have no recourse under this to say "Well I own the Blu-Ray!"

 

[FLEABttn]

Yeah, if you put it that way it kinda makes sense. I still think that if downloading from P2P and torrent networks are illegal for some, it should be for everyone, including copyright owners. Euthanasia isn't the same as murder, while piracy IS the same as piracy.

Piracy is the act of downloading copyrighted material without permission. The copyright owner inherently has permission to download their own intellectual property.

It's basic and fundamental property rights. They literally can't infringe on what they own - they own it.