Internet Providers To Begin Warning Customers Who Pirate Content 442
beltsbear writes "Welcome to the future that you warned us about. Starting soon, Verizon, Comcast and others will work with the Center for Copyright Information to reduce piracy. Customers thought to be pirating will receive alerts. 'The progressive series of alerts is designed to make consumers aware of activity that has occurred using their Internet accounts, educate them on how they can prevent such activity from happening again,' If a customer feels they are being wrongly accused, they can ask for a review, which will cost them $35, according to the Verge."
Re:I should not have to pay $35 (Score:5, Interesting)
C'mon - Verizon and Comcast likely wrote that provision themselves. After all, why treat it as a procedure when you can treat it as a profit center?
I've received about a dozen of these alerts. You know what I do with them? right-click... delete. Go ahead, tell me I'm pirating. Go ahead, threaten me. They once sent me a very intimidating "final notice" saying they were going to cut off my internet. It was the only one I replied to -- via a certified letter. All it had in it was a print out of the e-mail and the following word: "Nuts."
It's been four months and several terabytes of pirated material. I haven't heard a peep from them. Here's the truth guys: Ignore, ignore, ignore. They're trying to use fear to motivate people because they know the "problem" is so widespread that it would take tens of millions of lawyers working around the clock and an equal number of judges, experts, juries, etc., at a cost of many billions of dollars to go after everyone legally. Ignore your ISPs until they actually turn off your internet. Then... complain to your public utilities commissioner and legislators and explain how they're engaging in vigilante justice, it's unamerican, etc. Be creative, but above all, be loud, and send your complaints on something with a stamp on it, not an e-mail. Or use a fax machine. That shit gets read, unlike e-mails. We are legion. Don't forget that: Hundreds of millions of us. A few dozen of them. Even if they have machine guns and tanks, they're still fucked.
Re:I should not have to pay $35 (Score:5, Interesting)
For once, a post I can agree with 100%.
The contract I signed with them has no provision for "punishment" based on some 3rd-party's say-so. If they tried to throttle me or cut me off, that is fraud or at least breach of contract.
They can threaten all they like, but I'd bet you a lot their lawyers told them they'd damned well better stop short of actually taking any action.
Re:Ooor.... (Score:4, Interesting)
"... and the judges will find for them if it ever comes to trial."
Actually, more and more judges have been ruling that an IP address does not identify a person.
As we saw here on Slashdot just the other day, the first "three strikes" prosecution in the Netherlands was thrown out of court on that very basis: all they had was an IP address. It could have been anybody.
And take a situation like mine: I keep my router open as a public service (as suggested by EFF)... and I have one of the strongest signals around. People on the next block over could be using my internet. I neither know nor care, unless they were to become abusive of my generosity.
Re:I should not have to pay $35 (Score:5, Interesting)
I should not have to pay ... if I didn't do anything wrong. THEY should first prove I did.
For the consumers that are reluctant to pay $35 to be reviewed and cleared, they will soon have $1000 (per file) fee for downloading content they consider illegal. And by then the new Terms and Conditions mandatory arbitration clause will be in place if it isn't already, so you'll have no recourse - and occasional $35 "compliance" surcharge will be a wise choice. If you never pay the fee, an occasional "mistake" may happen, where you are charged for a couple of illegal files even if you don't download anything (again, see the new arbitration clause).
I know someone is plotting this, because it will make money and I do not remember ever having a choice of internet provider (maybe 2 options at most) regardless of where I lived in the past 10-12 years.
Re:I should not have to pay $35 (Score:2, Interesting)
If they tried to throttle me or cut me off, that is fraud or at least breach of contract.
Usually not.
And they're not afraid of you. They'll just start answering those incoming John Doe requests.
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Innovative solution (Score:5, Interesting)
How about not overspeed in the first place?
How about not punishing people for such a ridiculous thing in the first place? Expecting people to be perfect is ludicrous and destroys respect for both the law and police officers.
That bird flew away from the nest a long time ago.
Ever since about 1980 there was a movement in law enforcement called "proactive policing". Prior to that, police were much less aggressive in terms of actively trying to find violations themselves. Other than regular patrols, they tended to come only when called. They try much harder now to look for trouble, to nail you for every little technical violation they can write up.
Believe it or not, a couple of generations ago the general attitude was "the police officer is your friend, if you have a problem go find a cop and he will help you". People believed in it, expected it, and it worked. The relationship now is much more adversarial because the police don't see us anymore as a community they are serving, like they once did (believe it or not). They see us as potential tickets and arrests to pad out their performance records. That's what proactive policing has done.
Incidentally, a lot of license plate scanners, GPS trackers, infrared scanners, and other surveillance tools local police are implementing are actually being funded with federal money. Most of the 1984 bullshit is coming from the federal government, not your local elected sheriff. Of course for their part, the local cops are only too happy to get all the new toys...