Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Verizon

Internet Providers To Begin Warning Customers Who Pirate Content 442

Posted by timothy
from the looks-like-you're-not-using-tor dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Internet Providers To Begin Warning Customers Who Pirate Content

Comments Filter:
  • by Skapare (16644) on Sunday October 21, 2012 @12:06AM (#41719471) Homepage

    ... if I didn't do anything wrong. THEY should first prove I did.

    • by Penguinisto (415985) on Sunday October 21, 2012 @12:08AM (#41719485) Journal

      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?

      Just wait until they feel that profits aren't high enough...

      • by RanCossack (1138431) on Sunday October 21, 2012 @12:35AM (#41719587)
        They don't even have to raise the fee; that's the best part of this, to them. They can just increase profit by going "Oh, let's pick accounts at random and accuse them of piracy."

        35 dollars later, they say "oh, our bad", and they keep the money.
        • Re: (Score:2, Redundant)

          by houghi (78078)

          They can just increase profit by going "Oh, let's pick accounts yearly and accuse them of piracy."

          There, fixed that for you.

        • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

          by Anonymous Coward

          How is that different from a mafia style protection racket?

          Seriously these guys are approaching bond-villain levels of evil.

        • by Golddess (1361003)
          To increase profit, at least 1 of 3 things must be done.
          1) Increase the number of people you are accusing per day.
          2) Decrease the length of time between repeat accusations.
          3) Increase the fee to get rid of this pesky little smear.

          They may not have to increase the fee, but I am skeptical that only sticking to the 1st and/or 2nd options would satiate their greed.
      • by Nyder (754090) on Sunday October 21, 2012 @12:37AM (#41719599) Journal

        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?

        Just wait until they feel that profits aren't high enough...

        They are a corporation, profits are never high enough...

      • by girlintraining (1395911) on Sunday October 21, 2012 @12:41AM (#41719613)

        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.

        • by Jane Q. Public (1010737) on Sunday October 21, 2012 @12:48AM (#41719637)
          Bravo.

          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: (Score:2, Interesting)

            by Anonymous Coward

            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.

            • "Usually not."

              Maybe not... usually. But I have a performance contract. I pay a certain amount per month for a certain bandwidth tier. If they were to throttle me, they would not be delivering on their part of the contract. Period.

        • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 21, 2012 @12:59AM (#41719665)

          I wouldn't ignore the first letter. I'd make life a living hell for the sender.

          But then, I'm not pirating several terabytes of pirated material and then bragging about it on an internet website while also giving free (if dubious) legal advice and essentially saying "the system is broken so loot everything". Guess that gives me something of a moral high ground if I do get a letter.

          You go on being legion. I'd rather be an individual than part of your mob.

          • by girlintraining (1395911) on Sunday October 21, 2012 @01:41AM (#41719857)

            I wouldn't ignore the first letter. I'd make life a living hell for the sender.

            It's hard to make life a living hell for an entity that sold its soul a long time ago. I ignore all letters unless served to me by the sheriff as a matter of course. In this society, the threat of legal action usually shuts people up. I'm something of an exception to the rule though -- until legal action actually commences, I really don't give a fuck. Remember, there's plenty of time to settle or negotiate, it's not like the legal process is fast.

            But then, I'm not pirating several terabytes of pirated material and then bragging about it on an internet website while also giving free (if dubious) legal advice and essentially saying "the system is broken so loot everything".

            While I am bragging about it on an internet website, fair enough, nothing I say here is under oath. I can lie all I want; as long as the words themselves aren't inciting people to violence or in some way providing a clear and present danger to public safety. "Download ALL the stuffs!" doesn't exactly make my list of Things People Say That Reasonable People Get Scared About. Actually, it makes the Things People Say Everyday That Only a Very Very Very Super Very Tiny Number Of People Have a Problem With list... and that's about it.

            Guess that gives me something of a moral high ground if I do get a letter.

            You had the moral high ground from day one. Fair use used to be legal. I could share music and videos with you freely -- even copies, even copies of copies, or copies of copies of copies. The operative word is of course 'free'. I can't charge you for it, and you can't make a profit off it. But as long as you stayed within those boundaries, it was all good. And the reason for this was that a lot of our music, media, movies, art, etc., is part of our collective culture. My sister made a reference to the Jetsons the other day -- despite never having actually seen an episode of it. That's part of our culture -- it's symbolism for something about us. The future, flying cars, whatever, it's part of who we are. There are tens of thousands of things just like that, songs "everybody" knows. I have yet to meet a girl who can't recite the lyrics to Sweet Dreams (are made of these), etc. Fair use isn't a cheat -- it's an essential part of retaining and spreading our culture. Locking it up and saying only the wealthy can afford it is wrong. It may be legal, but it's wrong. It will always be wrong. There is no way in which a moral and ethical person can conclude it's anything but wrong.

            Legal does not mean right, and illegal does not mean wrong. I do what's right, what I think is fair, and act within the standards of my community, not some arbitrary standard set out by some rich fucker in a suit who thinks he has a say. Listen, rich fucker, you don't. You never did. All the money in the world can buy you corrupt laws and public officials and a lot of influence, but it can't buy you me.

            I am free. So take your laws, your lawsuits, your bullshit ideology -- and literally fuck yourself with them. And I do mean literally... print them out on a sheet of paper, and shove it up your goddamned ass. Are we clear here? This isn't about me being part of a "mob", this is about me being a proud member of my community. I am proud of my values, and I know these are values that the majority of people in my community, in the country, in the world, support and agree with. That is what I mean when I say "we are legion."

            You cannot threaten or cajoule me into doing something I feel is wrong. That's what standing up for what you believe in means, and I'll do it every time. They got my number, they know where I live... anytime they feel like coming over and trying to force their ideas onto me, I'm up for it. I'm here, ready, waiting. I'm not hiding. I'll fight... but I won't go looking for one. And I encourage you to do the same. Any fool can make a law, and any fool will mind it. You do what's right, that's all any moral, ethical, member of your community can ask... the law... doesn't matter.

            • by rgbrenner (317308) on Sunday October 21, 2012 @02:06AM (#41719947)

              Fair use used to be legal. I could share music and videos with you freely -- even copies, even copies of copies, or copies of copies of copies. The operative word is of course 'free'. I can't charge you for it, and you can't make a profit off it. But as long as you stayed within those boundaries, it was all good.

              You do NOT get to make shit up. You obviously have no idea what you are talking about.

              Look, I get it... you're pirating material.. and you're telling yourself all day long, it's ok... this *used* to be legal.

              But it's NOT true. If you want to have a reasonable discussion about copyright law.. then YOU NEED TO STICK TO THE FACTS.

              The first copyright law was the The Statute of Anne in 1709 in Britain. It did not apply to the colonies. The first copyright act in the US was the US Copyright Act of 1790.. it was similar to the Statute of Anne. http://www.copyright.gov/history/1790act.pdf [copyright.gov]

              That from and after the passing of this act, the author and
              authors of any map, chart, book or books already printed ... shall have the sole right and
              liberty of printing, reprinting, publishing and vending such map, chart, book or books, for the
              term of fourteen years ...

              And be it further enacted, That if any other person or persons, from and after the
              recording the title of any map, chart, book or books, and publishing the same as aforesaid, and
              within the times limited and granted by this act, shall print, reprint, publish, or import, or cause
              to be printed, reprinted, published, or imported from any foreign Kingdom or State, any copy or
              copies of such map, chart, book or books, without the consent of the author or proprietor thereof,
              first had and obtained in writing, signed in the presence of two or more credible witnesses; or
              knowing the same to be so printed, reprinted, or imported, shall publish, sell, or expose to sale,
              or cause to be published, sold or exposed to sale, any copy of such map, chart, book or books,
              without such consent first had and obtained in writing as aforesaid, then such offender or
              offenders shall forfeit all and every sheet and sheets
              , being part of the same, or either of them, to
              the author or proprietor of such map, chart, book or books, who shall forthwith destroy the same:
              And every such offender and offenders shall also forfeit and pay the sum of fifty cents for every
              sheet
              which shall be found in his or their possession, either printed or printing, published,
              imported or exposed to sale,

              • by girlintraining (1395911) on Sunday October 21, 2012 @02:53AM (#41720129)

                The first copyright law was the The Statute of Anne in 1709 in Britain. It did not apply to the colonies. The first copyright act in the US was the US Copyright Act of 1790.. it was similar to the Statute of Anne.

                If we're going to have a measuring contest over who can nitpick the best, I'm going to win. The first copyright law in the United States was common law, which our laws were derived from, and Clause 8 of the US Constitution. In other words, until 1790, all our laws were case law, decided by judges. After that, a small portion of copyright law was codified. That's the very small part you quoted. Fair use predates that and continued after the passage of that law in our common law system.

                Now, if you'd be so kind, please reply with another wall of text only tangentially-related, as is traditional when someone pulls your pants down around your ankles and giggles at your ineptitude in a public forum...

            • by Tastecicles (1153671) on Sunday October 21, 2012 @02:41AM (#41720089)

              Mod parent up. Although, there is a caveat (isn't there always?):

              What you seem to be describing is the Shareware Concept. This isn't so much fair use as a licence to copy and distribute. For those of you born after the days of bulletin boards and floppy disks on the front of magazines, here's how it works:

              You get a copy of a piece of software from wherever (I'll use a copy of FractINT 18.0 I got on the front of a magazine a few years before my oldest child was born). The licence that comes with it (in electronic form, a file named license.doc and another called vendor.doc) says I can distribute as many copies of the software as I like, to whomever I like, BUT:

              1. I cannot charge for the software. I am, however, allowed to charge for the media and bare distribution costs such as postage and packaging.
              2. If I distribute the software as part of a compilation I MUST get permission in writing from the copyright holder (they're usually very good about this).
              3. The software must not be modified in any way. Ancillary files not essential to the software's functionality but included with it (such as the licenses) must be bundled with it. Usually the license documents include a list of the files that must be included (an exception to this is the example given, where the authors actually encourage community input into the program, great mods/additions make it to the next version).
              4. If I find the software useful, I should consider paying the author. Sometimes, what you have is a locked-down version (a "demo") of the full program. Pay a small fee and you get the unlock key. Sometimes it's a 30-day period with full functionality then it locks down. Same thing. OR for some games, you get to distribute the first level or three, pay the fee to get the rest of the game sent to you in the post (what a weird concept these days!)

              Now, I've been using FractINT for nigh on two decades, it's the most fantastic bit of geek porn. I've also made regular donations to the authors in time and development (as they say, "Don't want money, got money. Want recognition". Great philosophy!) and I've managed to sort of keep up with the latest developments myself (though I still prefer the DOS version).

              What the Shareware Concept and associated licence does in these days of wireless broadband and "What's a CD-ROM?" is reduce the cost of distributing software attached to it, to almost zero. You're not buying media or envelopes, or paying postage anymore. You're opening a Bittorrent client and hooking up to a tracker. There's no effort involved anymore, and that is what is scaring the SHIT out of the big vendors and the associatives - their business model is COMPLETELY OBSOLETE.

            • by hairyfeet (841228) <bassbeast1968 AT gmail DOT com> on Sunday October 21, 2012 @03:52AM (#41720299) Journal

              I just wonder how long its gonna take for the other major corps that are gonna get screwed by this to start bringing out THEIR lawyers and lobbyists and getting nasty. Because i've known a LOT of pirates and ya know what? Frankly they buy just as much if not more than they pirate, in fact many of them pirate because there is just more entertainment out there than their budgets will allow. How many pirates buy from Steam? How many have Hulu or Netflix? And of course the search engines will get dinged as well.

              I've known guys that buy the good movies and just download the crappy ones, I've known guys that have dozens if not hundreds of games in Steam and still download new games so they can see if they suck before plunking the cash, and I've known a LOT that will just download TV shows rather than watch them OTA because they would rather watch when THEY want instead of revolving their evenings around somebody else's schedule.

              But the dirty little secret the ISPs don't want you to know is they WANT this, not because they give a flying fuck about piracy, but because they are too fucking cheap to upgrade their lines and they oversell the living hell out of them. if they can find an excuse to get rid of anybody that actually uses what they pay for then they can "cherry pick" their customers like they do the neighborhoods. I know in my area neither cable nor DSL has moved a single inch in over a decade, despite their ever rising prices and the fact the town is a third larger than it was a decade ago, because the cost of running lines might cut into their profits ZOMFG!

              So for all those that are saying "The ISPs won't want to lose customers" know now that you are DEAD WRONG, they would LOVE to get rid of anybody that does more than watch some crappy SD YouTube videos because that means they can oversell their badly degrading infrastructure that much more. its gonna be all those businesses that rely on the net, your webmail and search, your cloud services and video services, those are the ones that will end up being the ones that break out the lobbyists and actually get heard because they can't afford to watch their customers dry up and blow away in a dead economy.

              Kinda sad that it will end up "Battle of the douchebag corporations" but nobody listens nor gives a flying fuck about the consumer anymore, after all you can just bribe the politicians and get declared "too big to fail" and take the money straight from their pockets by gunpoint, why listen to them?

              • by CastrTroy (595695)
                My only reply to this is that there's more free content out there than time allows. Sure there's a lot of entertainment out there, and if you choose to watch all the latest blockbusters, you will (possibly) run out of money quite quickly, but there there's also more free stuff than you could ever watch, assuming you hold down a job and actually sleep. Most people I know who pirate a lot don't even end up watching half the stuff they download because they just don't have the time. Renting 3 or 4 movies a w
        • by gmuslera (3436)

          How lucky you feel today? The problem is not that they won't go after everyone, the real problem is if they will go against you in particular, and use that as an example to intimidate the rest even more. Remember the cases with lawsuits for hundreds or millons of dollars for pirating songs to grandmas?

          Don't push your luck, if they don't get enough people complying, they could get lobbyed legal backing to actually cut your connection or other generic fast/automated mass punishment that don't need a lawsuit

          • How lucky you feel today? The problem is not that they won't go after everyone, the real problem is if they will go against you in particular, and use that as an example to intimidate the rest even more

            Okay, how can I make this more clear: Attention Recording Industry Suits O Doom: Fuck you. I'm a pirate. I'm dropping my pants right now and showing you my curvy white ass. Nana Nana boo boo, stick your head in doo doo. Come and find me!

            Immaturity aside, let me be crystal-clear here: I don't care if they come after me. I don't care if they come after me with tanks, shotguns, and black helicopters. No matter how much they throw at me, they're still morally and ethically in the wrong. And for me, it's just t

          • And you should return all runaway slaves to their owners, and report black people sitting in the front of the bus.
        • by houghi (78078)

          In Belgium it used to be (not sure if it still is) that if you do not make any money from it, the courts do not want to open a case and will consider it obstruction of the court.
          Obviously if you make money from pirating then they will be happy to help. e.g. if you copy DVDs and sell them, you can be going to court. If you make a mixed tape to give to your loved one, you won't.
          Running torrents won't bring you to court, unless you are the person who makes money from it.

          That is why the local MAFIAA goes after

        • by hairyfeet (841228) <bassbeast1968 AT gmail DOT com> on Sunday October 21, 2012 @03:31AM (#41720235) Journal

          I approve of this message 100%. I USED to be all for fair and just copyright, the kind that was actually written by the founding fathers...but that sure as fuck ain't what we got now. What we have is Jack Valenti's "forever minus a single day" copyrights and if that isn't enough the greedy pricks have even lobbyed and had some of the material that was public domain handed over to them! Meanwhile they fuck the artists as bad or worse than the consumer, see how Cheap Trick gets NOTHING from iTunes and Meatloaf had to spend over a decade in court and ended up filing for bankruptcy because they had the brass balls to claim that Bat Out Of Hell I, the album with the fricking Guiness record for longest stay in the top 200, never made a dime!

          So fuck 'em, until We, The People have a say at the table again and copyrights are returned to a sane number instead of a fricking century and a half we should all just give them the bird. My ISP has made a good $7k+ off of me in the past 5 years and have only had to come out twice because of network issues, if they want me to give that money to someone else? I'll be more than happy to.

        • by nospam007 (722110) *

          "I've received about a dozen of these alerts"

          As a European, can you enlighten me how the ISP got your email address?
          Besides the fact that my account with my ISP is registered to my cat, they certainly don't have any of my email addresses.
          Do the ISPs give you mandatory addresses that you have to check regularly?

          Was it the olde 'Save a buck and get your invoice per email' trick?

    • by mlts (1038732) *

      I'd write up yet another diatribe about guilty until proven innocent, but that is par for the course these days.

    • by Mitreya (579078) <mitreya.gmail@com> on Sunday October 21, 2012 @01:01AM (#41719677)

      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.

      • by geekmux (1040042)

        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.

        In the way you've described, that's not a "fee". That's called "extortion", especially when the evidence starts mounting on the "false positive" side of things. If Verizon wants to do this, then fine. I want them to be forced to pay for a 3rd party oversight committee to review their cases quarterly and those results made public to prevent blatant abuse. This will be under the guise of protecting their customer base, which could be significantly and drastically reduced if word got out that they were fal

    • by whoever57 (658626)

      It won't be just $35.

      It will be $35 plus give up all your rights .

    • by mwvdlee (775178)

      If you pay the $35, all that changes is that you get an infinitesimal chance of not receiving mail from them again.
      If you don't pay $35, you can claim they tried to blackmail you with false accusations if it ever goes to court.

    • Verizon comcast etc dont give a fuck. They just want to tax you.

    • It would be a better idea to donate your $35 to the EFF/Pirate Party/pro-electronic-rights-organization-of-your-choice.
  • Ooor.... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by O('_')O_Bush (1162487) on Sunday October 21, 2012 @12:06AM (#41719477)
    What's stopping them from extorting people by blanketing these notices and collecting $$$ for "reviews"?

    Can I sue them for defamation instead?
    • What's stopping them from extorting people by blanketing these notices and collecting $$$ for "reviews"?

      Public insurrection.

      Overturn a few cable company trucks in the town square and burn them, and the CEO/CFO's will think twice about this kind of shit. It will never happen, because most people think this kind of stuff will never happen to them. Most people also have no fucking clue that a illegitimate program can run under their user account, act as a vpn tunnel and download content from the internet. Good idea to make it lucrative for the 'bad' guys to frame the clueless when the clueless have to pay their

    • by jamstar7 (694492)

      What's stopping them from extorting people by blanketing these notices and collecting $$$ for "reviews"?

      Nothing.

      Can I sue them for defamation instead?

      Maybe, but unless you're Warren Buffett, they'll outlawyer you and you'll lose bigtime. Keep in mind these are the exact same people who claim that an IP address is 'positive identification' of a pirate's 'guilt'. This is just a way to scam up $36 bucks at a time off millions of customers, which will make them tons more money than spamming the odd hundred thousand customers to cough up a 5-10K '

      • Re:Ooor.... (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Jane Q. Public (1010737) on Sunday October 21, 2012 @01:01AM (#41719675)

        "... 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.

        • by jamstar7 (694492)

          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.

          Doesn't matter what they do in the Netherlands, we're talking about ISPs in the US. You're comparing apples and hand grenades.

      • by shentino (1139071)

        Binding arbitrartion means you can't sue for it in the first place.

  • yo ISP, am I downloading warez? I am just running a TOR relay and I also participate in folding dem protein chainz, dem electric-sheep, dem distributed computing sh!ts. Oh, did i also mention I am running a public open WiFi Hot Spot and a proxy server for my friends in foreign countries, who cant access our local private warez sites, I meant linux trackers?? it wasnt me. it was the evil hacker next door, i guess. I doubt ISP's in Pridnestrovie Republic or other similar regions will comply, LULZ. Yawn.
    • by game kid (805301) on Sunday October 21, 2012 @12:22AM (#41719547) Homepage

      In your case they'd probably just add the $35 charge to your next bill plus $15 for the interpreter they'd hired to read that. :)

    • Shit, I know whachu mean dawg. Jus cuz they be readin my packets an seein someonez downloadin dr who an homeland dont meen that I be stealin no pirate contentz an shit. Serisly its my brothuh. I cant controll what he duz wit my connectionz dawg. I dont wanna even know what he downloadin with his frends in russia. Shit.
  • Got one? (Score:5, Informative)

    by CanEHdian (1098955) on Sunday October 21, 2012 @12:17AM (#41719527)
    Did you get one, or know anyone who received one of these? Visit the US Pirate Party [pirate-party.us].
  • by moniker127 (1290002) on Sunday October 21, 2012 @12:19AM (#41719535)
    Hey does anyone in Kansas City have a REALLY long ethernet cord?
    • I will, but they haven't come to my neighborhood yet. Bitches have only deployed it in Westport and the Plaza so far. So you'll need to talk to the smug hipsters and college kids.
  • Legal groundwork (Score:5, Insightful)

    by EmperorOfCanada (1332175) on Sunday October 21, 2012 @12:33AM (#41719577)
    This is just to lay the legal groundwork for the music and movie industries. This way they can demand this list from the ISP and show that the evildoer just kept going in the face of legal threats.

    Pretty dumb for any ISP to help to attack their customers. When will the media companies learn that going to war with your customers is not a sustainable business model?

    Plus I torrent Linux quite often how long before they start threatening even legitimate torrent users?
    • "This is just to lay the legal groundwork for the music and movie industries. This way they can demand this list from the ISP and show that the evildoer just kept going in the face of legal threats."

      (A) It doesn't lay any "legal groundwork". They are simply notices that say someone else told them you were illegally downloading or something.

      (B) The above point is important: the ISPs aren't informing the "copyright police", it's the other way around.

      "Pretty dumb for any ISP to help to attack their customers."

      Yep. It will eventually turn around and bite them in the ass. I suspect that sooner or later there will be some lawsuits, too.

    • by Mitreya (579078)

      Pretty dumb for any ISP to help to attack their customers.

      Not when they hold full control over said customers! I can't think of many companies that have so much of a monopoly

      I live in a building that's wired for [some provider]. I don't even remember their name (goes through building management), but their shitty internet connection is all I've got.

      Previously I lived in RI and internet was... Cox. Where getting Basic Cable + Internet was $5 cheaper than getting just Internet

      Where are those customers going to go after being attacked? The ISPs could raise the p

  • by networkzombie (921324) on Sunday October 21, 2012 @12:33AM (#41719579)
    I'm using a VPN. I am very curious why they haven't complained about my bandwidth usage, which runs around 50 GB per month. Is that high or does it compare with Netflicks? I don't know, but my mkv goodness with no advertisements, censorship, or in-screen ads, is marvelous. I still go to the theatre but it feels like a total rip-off. My experience last month was the bright smart phone displays making it impossible to enjoy the film. You'd think they would fix that. Oh yeah, the popcorn at home costs about a nickel, with real butter.
  • isn't this ... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by vlad30 (44644) on Sunday October 21, 2012 @12:34AM (#41719585)
    an illegal wiretap
    • Re:isn't this ... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by geek (5680) on Sunday October 21, 2012 @12:37AM (#41719601) Homepage

      Only if the government does it. The contracts you sign up on likely cover this. Not that anyone reads them.

      • by Mitreya (579078)

        The contracts you sign up on likely cover this. Not that anyone reads them.

        They'll probably put in an arbitration clause soon (just like eBay and PayPal are doing now). So no court recourse

        And what choice do you have anyway.
        I occasionally read these contracts, but if I find something outrageous, what can I do? When I sign up for something where I have options, I will cross outrageous things off or perhaps go elsewhere. But when it's the only game in town (ISP, both Apple user and Apple developer contracts come to mind here), I basically have to sign it regardless of how much I

        • no company can ask you to surrender your legal/lawful rights under any circumstances. Least of all as part of a contract. Where this argument falls down is if you ACCEPT the contract, you also accepted the clause that you give up your legal rights. The company hasn't won; you've lost by your own action. Next time, try negotiating that bit out.

    • by mrbene (1380531)

      No.

      1. MarkMonitor goes to The Pirate Bay and grabs the .torrent files for today's top illegal content.
      2. MarkMonitor has a farm of BT clients, all of which connect to the swarms as normal clients would, but that also log the IPs of all other members of the swarms.
      3. MarkMonitor sends those IPs to the appropriate ISPs.

      By participating in a swarm, you've made your information available to anyone else who joins that swarm.

      There may be something that can be done with regards to "illegal to record my calls" in som

  • Fairness (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 21, 2012 @12:36AM (#41719591)

    If a customer feels they are being wrongly accused, they can ask for a review, which will cost them $35, according to the Verge.

    My initial reaction was the typical knee-jerk thought that "innocent until proven guilty" has clearly been thrown out the window, but after further reflection I changed my mind. If you are accused of a crime in court you will end up having to pay legal fees. This is not that different. Reviewing the case requires manpower and the review is not working for free.

    To be fair, the fee for the review should only be charged if the customer is found guilty. If the customer is innocent, then the accuser should be charged a fee. In addition to the amount for the review, the accuser should be forced to pay for at least one month of service for the customer, to compensate him for the inconvenience.

    There must be deterrents against false accusations and none against proving one's innocence, otherwise this will be abused like DMCA takedowns.

    Of course, I don't expect such a reasonable system to be put in place. The telcos just want to make money. They're only doing this to relieve the pressure from the content mafia. They know that even if it makes customers unhappy, relatively few will let them know about it and fewer still can actually do anything.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by arekin (2605525)
      This is sadly not something you will be able to fight. Honestly I would never pay for this review because it will just come back the same and you will now be $35 dollars short. The reality is that their "research" is to use the same information that resulted in a letter being sent to you to verify that you pirated material (whether you did or did not). Ultimately you're screwed. Best means to fight it is to get a legitimate copy of materials you were downloading and claim that you have a license to own
    • If you are accused of a crime in court you will end up having to pay legal fees.

      The difference is that this isn't a court case and should not be handled by ISPs. That's just asking for abuse.

    • by msobkow (48369)

      True, but when you defend yourself in court, it's your lawyer that's making the money. Someone on your side.

      This is a cash cow that is just ripe for abuse by the ISPs, not a service fee.

      To put it in perspective, I don't have to pay a fee to have my email unblocked should it be incorrectly flagged as a source of spam. This is the same situation -- defending yourself against an unproven allegation. And much like spam flagging, if it happens once, it's likely to happen again (because once a spammer sta

  • " the customers will be asked to acknowledge that they received the warning. "

    and just how are they going to issue this warning? send it to your comcast.com email account that no one uses?

    I had this same shit back in the dialup days with ATT, got a 300$ bill cause they wanted to change my unlimited plan to a byte limited plan, only notification I got was sent to my worldnet email which I never even knew the fucking password for ... a good cussing and a theat of suit made that go away with one phone call.

    now

    • by Dwedit (232252)

      They send you the warning by replacing http websites you visit with the warning message.

  • by shentino (1139071) on Sunday October 21, 2012 @01:32AM (#41719825)

    This is exactly why we need competition.

    Shithead companies that have nothing to fear will abuse everything they can to make a buck.

    In fact, the strongest reason to support competition is probably how much they hate it.

    Anything that pisses off the bad guys is probably a good thing.

  • ...stick your fixed line contract up your arse. I'll find an ISP that DOESN'T do SPI, DOESN'T do traffic shaping, DOESN'T cap, and DOESN'T pander to Mafia interests! Oh, and offers BETTER SERVICE with no wires at ONE THIRD THE PRICE!

  • by flyingfsck (986395) on Sunday October 21, 2012 @02:46AM (#41720105)

    1. Accuse all users of infringement
    2. Collect $35 from all suckers
    3. Profit1

  • So where are all the "Clean your computer NOW or be disconnected." letters to the customers with computers infected by more viruses than a $2 whore on half-price Thursday?
  • by TheSeatOfMyPants (2645007) on Sunday October 21, 2012 @05:42AM (#41720631) Journal

    I was curious whether a major regional ISP was taking part in this clusterfuck, and found an interesting interview from August [torrentfreak.com] stating that the only ISPs taking part are AT&T, Cablevision, Comcast, Time Warner Cable and Verizon; independent ISPs are not involved and weren't even asked.

    Relatedly, I highly recommend that anyone in the service area for Sonic.net [sonic.net] (their CEO/founder was the one interviewed) use them as an ISP -- they're the only one I know of that has been persistently doing what we've all been saying we want ISPs to do [wikipedia.org] when it comes to governmental & *AA demands and investing in fiber connections. No better way to show appreciation than voting with our wallets where we can...

  • So, let me get this straight...they work for free for the music and film labels, and scam, threaten and extort money from the very own people that supports their business model and pays their salaries...sweet.
  • "Pay us $35 to prove you did nothing wrong."

    Corporations are the government too, my friend.

  • by 0111 1110 (518466) on Sunday October 21, 2012 @11:43AM (#41722241)

    Somehow the content industry has convinced the ISPs to give up a large percentage of their customers. We'll just have to wait and see how effective this is.

    This new measure will be effective within the borders of the United States if and only if:
    1. The majority of the ISP's customers never torrent or infringe copyright online. It would be funny if some ISPs were willing to actually go out of business to help enforce copyright law.
    2. The ISPs are willing to lose at least some amount of money.
    3. No other ISPs are willing to cross the picket line by not being part of this.
    4. The ISPs are willing to prevent known infringers from just signing up again.
    5. People don't simply sign up for a VPN just before their ISP kicks them off.

    It just so happens that one of my local choices for broadband ISPs (I have at least 3) is not a part of this agreement. I pay around $1400 per year for my internet service. If my ISP doesn't want me as a customer I'll just switch to the local ISP that is not a part of this ridiculous one sided agreement. It will be interesting to see if ISPs even try to enforce this in areas with competitors who are not part of the agreement.

The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it!) but "That's funny ..." -- Isaac Asimov

Working...