'Six Strike' System, Slowing Or Suspending Internet For Illegal Downloads, Takes Effect Monday

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**reds8n**

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/25/six-strike-system_n_2759408.html?upw

A controversial strategy to combat Internet piracy took effect Monday, meaning subscribers who illegally share movies or songs could be punished by losing Web access or having their broadband speeds slowed to a crawl.

The new "Copyright Alert System," or "six strikes" system, is the result of a partnership between major Internet service providers and the entertainment industry to deter theft of copyrighted material online. The film and recording industries say online piracy costs them billions of dollars in lost revenue each year. A trade group representing the entertainment industry and Internet providers announced the move in a blog post on Monday.

Under the new system, Internet subscribers accused of online piracy will receive a series of alerts. Critics have called the system "six strikes" because the sixth copyright violation is expected to lead to punishment from the Internet providers.

The details of each Internet provider's alert system are still unknown, but each one is expected to be slightly different. Under Verizon's proposed plan, which leaked online last month, alleged copyright violators could have their Internet speeds slowed to dial-up speeds for two to three days.

Under Time Warner Cable's plan, the company will temporarily suspend Internet service to alleged copyright violators until they call a customer service representative and agree to stop pirating copyrighted material, Time Warner Cable spokesman Alex Dudley told The Huffington Post last month.

In a blog post Monday, Jill Lesser, executive director of the Center for Copyright Information, wrote that the alerts "are meant to educate rather than punish" and will direct them to legal alternatives and allow them to seek an independent review if they believe they are innocent.

Under Verizon's proposed plan, alleged copyright violators must pay $35 to have an arbitrator review whether they are guilty of Internet piracy. If the arbitrator rules in their favor, their money is refunded and their Internet speeds go untouched.

Some industry observers have questioned whether the alert system will be effective. Some note that Internet users who frequently engage in illegal file-sharing often use private networks or proxy services to disguise the location of their computers. Others worry that small businesses that provide Wi-Fi access could be accused of copyright violations if their customers engaged in illegal file-sharing on their networks.

Gigi Sohn, president of Public Knowledge, a public interest group, said the new copyright alert system "will be a significant test of whether a voluntary copyright enforcement system can work while at the same time protecting the rights of Internet users."

"I urge both the participating Internet service providers and the content companies to be more open and transparent about how the CAS works and, after the system has been in place for a time, to provide the public data that shows how the system is working," Sohn said in a statement.

**BlapBlapBlap**

This sounds like a terrible idea.

**MeanGreenStompa**

I wonder if some bright spark of an Internet Service Provider will refuse to participate and be rewarded with a throng of new customers unwilling to have their privacy intruded upon.

**Rented Tritium**

It's a terrible idea, but at the same time it has less teeth than people realize and won't really do anything to most people, It's trivially easy to avoid this.

Unfortunately, because of online legal streaming like pandora and netflix, there really WILL be a decrease in piracy over the next few years and the idiots will point at it as justification for MORE of this kind of thing.

**Seaward**

What makes it such a bad idea?

**DutchKillsRambo**

feth me this is stupid. Though I wonder how effective these systems are or if they're just for show.

**Rented Tritium**

Seaward wrote:
What makes it such a bad idea?

A common carrier of communications is restricting your access to communication based on an unsourced claim from a third party corporation who has no obligation to provide evidence and your only way out is a $35 review made entirely by people with skin in the game.

Could you imagine if the same thing happened with mail or telephone? We generally want our common carriers to be content-neutral to prevent perverse incentives.

**DutchKillsRambo**

Seaward wrote:
What makes it such a bad idea?

For someone that's so outspoken about gun freedoms I find it odd you don't mind giving up personal freedom online.

**Seaward**

DutchKillsRambo wrote:
For someone that's so outspoken about gun freedoms I find it odd you don't mind giving up personal freedom online.

I don't believe I've ever said I'm in favor of illegal guns. I'm certainly not in favor of illegal downloading. Being outspoken about gun freedoms doesn't mean I have to sign on to the notion that you should be free to illegally acquire a few TBs of movies and games, no.

**DutchKillsRambo**

Seaward wrote:
DutchKillsRambo wrote:
For someone that's so outspoken about gun freedoms I find it odd you don't mind giving up personal freedom online.

I don't believe I've ever said I'm in favor of illegal guns. I'm certainly not in favor of illegal downloading. Being outspoken about gun freedoms doesn't mean I have to sign on to the notion that you should be free to illegally acquire a few TBs of movies and games, no.

I meant more the freedom to let others dictate what they do with your property.

**Seaward**

DutchKillsRambo wrote:
I meant more the freedom to let others dictate what they do with your property.

Which property are you referring to? If a studio has decided they don't care if people pirate, I'm sure they're not in on this scheme to throttle the access of pirates.

**Rented Tritium**

Seaward wrote:
DutchKillsRambo wrote:
I meant more the freedom to let others dictate what they do with your property.

Which property are you referring to? If a studio has decided they don't care if people pirate, I'm sure they're not in on this scheme to throttle the access of pirates.

When you want someone to stop doing something, you have to get evidence and sue them. This allows the studios to just kind of say so and your ISP goes along with it.

I'm against torrenting material you don't have rights to as well, however I am also for due process and the neutrality of common carriers. I am not ok with the media companies being able to demand that my information be turned off when I do not have the same right to monitor them and demand that theirs be turned off.

**Seaward**

Rented Tritium wrote:
When you want someone to stop doing something, you have to get evidence and sue them. This allows the studios to just kind of say so and your ISP goes along with it.

I'm against torrenting material you don't have rights to as well, however I am also for due process and the neutrality of common carriers. I am not ok with the media companies being able to demand that my information be turned off when I do not have the same right to monitor them and demand that theirs be turned off.

You appear to be confusing this with some sort of law enforcement action. Your ISP can terminate its service to you anytime it likes.

**whembly**

Um... I wouldn't worry about it...

Most ISP do NOT cache the browsing activities of their clients. This was done on purpose so that courts can't force them to turn over their client's activities during any litigation.

The most the ISP could possible do is cap your download/upload amount over a given time.

**DutchKillsRambo**

Seaward wrote:
DutchKillsRambo wrote:
I meant more the freedom to let others dictate what they do with your property.

Which property are you referring to? If a studio has decided they don't care if people pirate, I'm sure they're not in on this scheme to throttle the access of pirates.

Your computer with the internet service you pay for. This system, at face value, allows someone else to decide what does and does not constitute illegal file sharing. Something that's not very well defined in the courts. And then they punish you for it. With the only recourse being a further punishment of money to even try and get an appeal. Would you watch a DVD on your computer if your friend lent it to you? Would you be happy if your ISP suddenly slowed down because of that? Its just not a good system to fight piracy.

**Seaward**

DutchKillsRambo wrote:
Your computer with the internet service you pay for. This system, at face value, allows someone else to decide what does and does not constitute illegal file sharing. Something that's not very well defined in the courts. And then they punish you for it. With the only recourse being a further punishment of money to even try and get an appeal. Would you watch a DVD on your computer if your friend lent it to you? Would you be happy if your ISP suddenly slowed down because of that? Its just not a good system to fight piracy.

Nothing's happening to the computer I own under this scenario, and suggesting I own the internet service I pay for is like saying I own HBO because I'm a subscriber. You're right that it's not a good system to fight piracy, but there aren't a lot of those, anyway. I personally like porn's approach, but this one may make a small dent as well.

**DutchKillsRambo**

Of course you don't own the service but you own the right to access that service. If I stop paying my bill I violate the contract just as if they stop providing the service, they violate the contract.

Out of curiosity Seaward what is porn's approach to piracy? Because I see more now than ever.

**whembly**

DutchKillsRambo wrote:
Of course you don't own the service but you own the right to access that service. If I stop paying my bill I violate the contract just as if they stop providing the service, they violate the contract.

Out of curiosity Seaward what is porn's approach to piracy? Because I see more now than ever.

See my previous post... most ISP do not get involved in content.

**Seaward**

DutchKillsRambo wrote:
Of course you don't own the service but you own the right to access that service. If I stop paying my bill I violate the contract just as if they stop providing the service, they violate the contract.

Out of curiosity Seaward what is porn's approach to piracy? Because I see more now than ever.

You see more streaming porn than ever, I'm sure, but they've been pretty active in going after torrenters. Not to stop the problem, but simply to make more money off of it. They'll gather up a whole list of people who've downloaded a given title, and forward it to their lawyers. The lawyers will then forward it to the ISP, and you'll get a nice letter from your ISP saying you've been named in an illegal downloading lawsuit, and here's the contact information for the firm representing the studio.

It's all a shakedown, basically. As this points out, they're basically counting on the fact that most people do not want to be publicly named in a porn lawsuit, and so will pony up a settlement fee.

**juraigamer**

It sound stupid. You can go to a free wi-fi area and force them to take the charges.

And it seems to be only for movies and music, I'm sorry but they don't lose billions every year from downloads, only a small portion of the potentional viewers actually do so, and furthermore such piracy tends to increase sales on the next movie due to more fans than would normally have seen it.

This will go down in flames.

**Ratbarf**

I also don't quite understand how the media companies lose billions to piracy. Before torrenting I simply wouldn't watch the movie/listen to the music. At least this way if I really like what I hear/see I generally go and buy a copy.

Also seems like it may soon become time to download TOR.

**LuciusAR**

My ISP should have no more right to monitor what I do on-line than my phone company should have to listen in on my calls.

It’s disturbing how many people seem willing to give up their privacy rights to protect big companies profits.

**Frazzled**

Your phone company can listen to your calls boyo...

**PhantomViper**

Frazzled wrote:
Your phone company can listen to your calls boyo...

I don't know how things go over there in the land of the free, but over here in our socialist hell hole the phone companies can't listen to jack without a court order.

**Seaward**

LuciusAR wrote:
My ISP should have no more right to monitor what I do on-line than my phone company should have to listen in on my calls.

It’s disturbing how many people seem willing to give up their privacy rights to protect big companies profits.

You're assuming that your ISP monitoring your traffic is how most torrenters get caught.

**Frazzled**

PhantomViper wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Your phone company can listen to your calls boyo...

I don't know how things go over there in the land of the free, but over here in our socialist hell hole the phone companies can't listen to jack without a court order.

You think that do you? Thats sweet.

**DutchKillsRambo**

Frazzled wrote:
PhantomViper wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Your phone company can listen to your calls boyo...

I don't know how things go over there in the land of the free, but over here in our socialist hell hole the phone companies can't listen to jack without a court order.

You think that do you? Thats sweet.

Do you have any evidence that says otherwise besides the tinfoil variety?

**Frazzled**

DutchKillsRambo wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
PhantomViper wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Your phone company can listen to your calls boyo...

I don't know how things go over there in the land of the free, but over here in our socialist hell hole the phone companies can't listen to jack without a court order.

You think that do you? Thats sweet.

Do you have any evidence that says otherwise besides the tinfoil variety?

All data is recorded.
is this a private company?
does his country have a bill of rights?

**DutchKillsRambo**

So you assume corporations have the right to intrude in our private lives due to the fact that they are a private company? And not being familiar with Portuguese (I think thats the flag) rights I'm going to go with what PhantomViper stated vs what you said. Which was really nothing besides deflecting my question: Do you have proof that companies are allowed to listen in to private conversations?

**Rented Tritium**

Laws like HIPAA apply to private corps. LOTS of countries have written similar things to cover all types of industries, not just medical.

And they have done so without our constitution.