19 votes

Six Strikes Copyright Alert System Launches This Week

By Zach Walton | February 25, 2013

For the past year, we’ve seen delay after delay for the Center for Copyright Information’s six strikes Copyright Alert System. For a while, it looked like it would never become a reality. Now it looks like the system is finally in place, however, and it may be launching today.

The Daily Dot reports that the CCI plans to launch the six strikes Copyright Alert System across all the major participating ISPS – AT&T, Cablevision, Comcast, Time Warner and Verizon – this week. Each ISP will reportedly launch on a different day this week which Comcast reportedly launching its system today.

A small recap for those unaware, the Copyright Alert System is a joint operation between ISPs and major content holders around the country. In essence, these content holders will be scanning Internet connections looking for people downloading pirated content via BitTorrent. If you’re caught, the content holders will send your a notice through your ISP. There are three tiers of warning with two warnings per tier, hence the six strikes.

http://www.webpronews.com/six-strikes-copyright-alert-system...

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

BUMP

BUMP

Change

These companies are relying on the same business model that would have worked 20 years ago. I think it's time to reconsider their business models to adapt to the times. Regardless, they will never be able to "stop piracy." Everytime they take a step toward "ending piracy," developers are already three steps ahead creating workarounds. In this case, there's a simple workaround: VPN, VPN, VPN!

Long live TPB!

COPIED AND SEEDED!

" The number of VPN

" The number of VPN subscriptions in the U.S. is already on the rise,"

From linked article comments above:

'VPN service. After which they will have no problems.'
...
'All those first two strikes will do is get people to invest in a VPN service. After which they will have no problems.'

---
You need a VPN service as part of your privacy online. Most people have no idea how much everything they do, visit, and search for online is monitored by big corporations and government and archived. But the government does. Virtually every week there is a news story about a trial where what someone 'anonymously' searched for on google is part of the circumstantial 'evidence'.

Our society is rapidly over the edge to a big brother society that is worse than anything dreamed up in science fiction. Facial recognition is already in use by facebook - which links up your friends and acquaintances for automatic recognition in a way that took detectives 20 years ago weeks of work; drones are already in place that allows the same drone technology to automatically assassinate people - no one at the firing button; while digital camera networks are being incorporated into massive surveillance grids - china already has a MILLION cameras in Beijing alone. Phone calls are no longer safe by virtue of there being too many calls to monitor - voice recognition has now advanced to the point where everything is converted to text and mined. And it goes on and on.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

It's possbile that

the ISP can throttle your bandwidth although I would switch providers in a heartbeat if they tried it. These people are the dumbest of the dumb. They continually fight the market and never use their crippled minds to realize that the market will always seek the proper price for something, above ground or below. That price is based on supply and demand. Digital items are in an almost infinite supply limited only by such things as storage, bandwidth, visibility, digital protection schemes, etc. The artificial prices and restrictive methods that these mental midgets choose are what's driving the black market, the harder they make it for customers to get what they want at a reasonable price the more it will happen and nothing will stop it. They have every right to implement digital protection schemes if their customers will swallow them. These schemes are usually inconvenient and quickly defeated but if they want to waste their time pissing off their customers that's their choice, but it will also be their loss. You would think that at some point their rusty minds would start to slowly turn which makes me think that their real goal is total control of the internet and abolishment of online anonymity. They want a system of fake "property" rights dictated by a powerful cartel with prices dictated by fear and abuse. Copying a digital item takes nothing from the original creator so it cannot be stealing. People suppose that it hurts the creator's sales but there's no real proof that people can be forced into buying artificially costly items when alternatives are reduced. They just find other methods or entertain themselves in another way. Information wants to spread and those who oppose it are our enemies.

"Endless money forms the sinews of war." - Cicero, www.freedomshift.blogspot.com

I don't know much about this

but I have teenagers so I'm pretty sure they know what this is and I need to let them know about it.

I found this comment from the linked article above interesting:

So I am paying for a service from company “A” and some random person/company is allowed to constantly snoop on and augment that service relationship even though they are not contractually engaged? Under the UCC, if the ISP acts against their contract to provide service based on the heresay of an unrelated 3rd party then both parties are exposing themselves to an egregious class action lawsuit. Look, I cannot go to your car insurance agency and say “hey, I saw him driving funny” and have them increase your rates. The reason why I cannot do this is because I am not a direct party to that contractual agreement, neither is my opinion a mater of fact – it is conjecture. Similarly, if I am interested to know if my name is being tossed around by the CCI, I cannot intercept all of their communications just to look for my name – under what strange laws would this scraping of information be legal, even if I did not keep any of the data? Ironically, such an act by me against the CCI would be legal if the CCI is legally able to do this. I will be calling Comcast tonight to stress their illegal position here.

Freedom is not: doing everything you want to.
Freedom is: not having to do what you don't want to do.
~ Joyce Meyer

Another odd case. Let's say

Another odd case. Let's say you don't like your neighbor, but you know he's got guns, maybe some drugs, something that will get him in trouble if the police search his house.

All you have to do is call the police and express deep caring concern for them that he is going to hurt himself, make some stuff up (or maybe it's real), and they will break in and do a care check.

Really messed up system.

Blah.

Good. Something has to stop

Good. Something has to stop people who think it is okay to just download everything for free against the owner's permission and consent..

ALl the thieves can down vote me..

If you disagree with me on anything you are not a real libertarian...

I did some more thinking on this last night

This whole "stealing idea" is silly.
I used my DVR to record the Daytona 500(copyrighted by fox sports).
If I then invite a friend over(who has not paid for Comcast cable and has no tv in their house)to watch that race tonight. Would I then be in violation of the copyright and did I steal this broadcast?

What if I own a bar, record the race, and play it back Monday night as a promo thing? Am I stealing it?

And then I did some real hard thinking. If I drive down the road, the law states that I can be recorded since my expectation of privacy is null and void since I am now in the public domain. Well, then why when that music, tv etc is broadcast over the public domain of the air waves do they not lose that same expectation? Doesn't the recording then become public domain? If they want to maintain the rights - don't they have an obligation to reasonably protect them. If you come to my house and put twenty dollars on my porch - at what point is it reasonable to take the 20 dollars and not call it theft? At what point do we say you gave away your right to the 20 dollars by your actions?

good ideas belong to everyone

information should be free

originally, art was not signed or owned by the artist

The leading industry that is

The leading industry that is pushing the surveillance society is IP - because IP isn't enforceable without a big brother society.

Since that isn't in the public's interest, IP laws should be eliminated just for that reason.

IP laws are nothing like they were in the 70s. In the 70s, piracy meant commercial sales of someone else's work - private copying was not illegal. Sound recordings were not copyright-able. software patents didn't use to exist. The length until something came into the public domain was a lot less. Author's tended to keep their copyrights to their own works.

It worked just fine then. We need to go back to that, instead of changing definitions and calling non-commercial reproduction "piracy", which under the original definition, it is not.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

Michael Nystrom's picture

Intellectual property

is a subject of debate within the libertarian community.

Problem being (from a libertarian standpoint) that the government has to use force to enforce copyright protections. Libertarians don't like the use of force, except to defend one's life or property.

There is a debate coming up, and in true libertarian spirit, it looks to be a knife fight. Stephan Kinsella (who does not believe in IP) vs. Robert Wenzel, who does.

Details, and the first few slashes in the knife fight, here:

http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2013/02/stephan-kinsell...

At the very least, it should be entertaining,

p.s. Brian, if I were to make a copy of the new U2 Album, after it was released, and I purchased a legal CD, and mailed it to you, would that be stealing?

Just curious.

What if instead of making a CD, I made a casette tape of it.

Were the mix-tapes of yore "theft?"

Just askin' (for the purpose of stretching the brain)

:-)

To be mean is never excusable, but there is some merit in knowing that one is; the most irreparable of vices is to do evil out of stupidity. - C.B.

Yes, the industry considers "mix-tapes" theft.

They didn't try to prosecute anyone however, for two main reasons:

  1. It was too hard to catch someone, due to the manner of distribution
  2. Because the copy was by virtue of the technology, not exact, they lost a few early court cases.

The reason they are going hard for digital copying is because:

  1. They can catch people much easier
  2. The copy is nearly or actually, identical

As well, the nature of the tech today means sharing is ubiquitous and rampant. They claim then that they stand to suffer more damage from digital copying than analog copying due to the ability to distribute en masse.

To them ANY copying is theft, but for practical reasons, they are only going hard after digital copying and sharing.

Eventually, they want to force a streaming only, pay per play system for ALL media. They want to eliminate storage media entirely as an option. They will even go to the point of not even distributing discs for music or movies or games, everything will be downloaded/streamed and not storable, and you'll have to pay for each play of the media.

Of course, these fools have no idea or don't seem to grasp that already, people know how to record streams.

If they can record and store the data stream of you downloading the "pirated" material, you can record and store the data stream that is "legally" purchased. If DRM is added to a file to make it play, it can be stripped from a file to make it play. They will NEVER win this battle.

The problem here is not the stolen music

It is the fact that news casts, web pages, everything is under copy right protection.

So - msnbc goes on some rant and puts up a few false graphics(I know - hard to believe). Some savvy Daily Paul user downloads the image and posts it to the Daily Paul for the sake of posterity and truth. msnbc then warns the Daily Paul to remove it or be fined - and a hefty fine it is.

The truth dies under the guise of copy rights.

Just

to preface my other comment, I have seen far better arguments against copyright than for it, and even then the ones for it are dependent on the current economic system to be relevant.

Freedom is a byproduct of acceptance - judge not.

Reply to R-Hal

Which I believe is only one of its purposes. The other is the obvious one of monopolizing intellectual commerce. I have been in a dilemma concerning copyright for a while, due to a desire to do what is best for everyone and not being sure what exactly that is, so I made a list of the arguments for and against it. Have a read :

Pro Arguments

* No motivation to create new ideas if they can be copied freely and easily. ( A lot of time and energy goes into invention etc )

* 3D printers will open up even more areas for copying including physical technologies.

* If a product such as a book or movie etc is copied and distributed before it is even publicly released then the production is enviable ( currently ).

Con Arguments

* The information ( or patented products ) can only be afforded by the rich.

* New revenue channels are becoming possible such as YouTube vlogging, Hulu, and Kickstarter which don't require copy right.

* There is no consumer guarantee with media such as movies ( you can't get your money back when it is poor quality ).

* People are forced to pay exorbitant fees to work with recording industries. This is prohibitive for many.

* Recording industries / production companies cream the returns on the work of the artists.

* The "for free" working model creates far greater consumption and profitability than regulated and priced models.

* Nothing is truly original and everything has its inspirations or foundations on preceding ideas etc. Ownership laws are clumsy in facilitating this.

* Current copy right laws allow for a few to become excessively rich, while others are not able to benefit from technologies which should be available for all.

* Copy right retards progress by creating restrictions on the flow of knowledge and resources across disciplines.

* People will still invent / create things regardless of whether they are funded or not.

* All businesses are subject to change or decline dependent on their contextual climate. The media industry is not exempt and needs to change with the times.

* You can not police the scale of information freedom that exists today, and if you could, you wouldn't want to live in the resulting world.

Freedom is a byproduct of acceptance - judge not.

You have a lot of good thought here

I will touch on a couple.

1. The whole "no motivation to create" is nonsense. I was once a teenager, growing up in the late eighties and aspired to be a rock and roll star. Had youtube existed in those days - it may have happened. However, since it didn't, my only option would have been to move all the way from CT to LA. Work my balls off, living like a bum only to hopefully be singed by a label that then would have tried to screw me out of every penny I earned. It would be a dream to be 16 again, be able to buy a whole recording software package for less than the price of two hours in a studio back then, push my music out for free and make a name. I could have a million people listen to my song today for free - to push a million demo copies in the day could not happen and would not happen. Big bands made there money touring - not selling albums. This is a case of our youth not understanding the reality of yesterday and not capitalizing on the tools they have now.
2. Digital copyright should be no different than physical. Are they going to fine my public library for letting me read that book for free and not paying the royalty? Then why should it be any different if I download the book?
3.Copyrights and patents in general harm the public good. How many patents are locked in vaults by people/companies and not being pushed to market? The concept that you can patent and idea is silly. Are they saying that of the billions of people on this planet - NOBODY would have thought of the same thing?

Do you have to protect things to an extent - yes. No company would invest millions of dollars to innovate if it can just get ripped off after the fact. But these things should have patent life cycles(like drugs do for example). What should that cycle be on a song or a movie - probably not very long at all. Should there also be a clause to bring to market - yes. You should not be allowed to sit on a patent.

As with many things in the world today - it seems a common sense approach would solve a lot of problems. But big companies with big lawyers rule the world, not common sense.

Michael Nystrom's picture

Anyone here use bit torrent?

FYI! Alert!

Just sayin'

To be mean is never excusable, but there is some merit in knowing that one is; the most irreparable of vices is to do evil out of stupidity. - C.B.

yes daily, tpb

haven't had cable in years. just downloaded the walking dead last night in hd. tue i will attempt to download TUF and see what happens. bookmarked for updates.

Official Daily Paul BTC address: 16oZXSGAcDrSbZeBnSu84w5UWwbLtZsBms
#standwithrand