RIAA/MPAA and your ISP - "Six Strikes" - Anyone else concerned?

Javery

Javery

CAGiversary!
Feedback
20 (100%)
I don't like the sound of this. I don't like that my internet activities are going to be actively monitored by someone and I don't like that there is basically no due process here.

Starting July 1, the nation’s largest Internet service providers (ISPs) have agreed to adopt a “Graduated Response” program intended to cut down on illegal file sharing. The program, colloquially known as the “six-strikes” system, is the brainchild of the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) and the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) — the same industry groups that conjured up SOPA and PIPA. The system will affect millions of Internet users across the country.
Click to expand...

http://news.yahoo.com/six-strikes-youre-screwed-upcoming-piracy-crackdown-means-144559247.html
 
I rarely ever buy music (no I don't download it instead) and shit like this makes me want to completely abstain from seeing any movies as well.
 
What's the difference between this and SOPA/PIPA beyond "six-strikes?" Uploading, downloading, and distributing copyrighted materials is as simple as posting a clip from tv on youtube. Like literally.
 
Lol, so ISPs got their hands in the pockets of the RIAA now? More money for Comcast as they'd never voluntarily lose income from paying customers. They might follow through with email warnings but nothing will ever come of it. Business as usual.

Also, this is not a law and for good reason: it's unconstitutional.
 
Lack of due process bothers me for sure--one of many reasons I'd rather see illegal uploads/downloads be treated as misdemeanor crimes rather than civil matters. Gives accused due process, and hopefully have punishments in line with the crime rather than the sizable fines the RIAA goes after in civil court.

I have no problem with my net activity being monitored personally. I view it as a public space and there's no expectation of privacy in public spaces. If you're committing crime in public you risk getting caught and punished. If you're doing illegal things online you risk getting caught and punished.

And that's all I'll say about it as we had too many debates over piracy, copyright law etc. not that long ago and there's no point in re-beating that long dead horse as people have strong opinions on it and never change their minds anyway. Myself included as I'll always be on the side of the copyright holders and having strong laws to ensure their control of their materials.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']I have no problem with my net activity being monitored personally. I view it as a public space and there's no expectation of privacy in public spaces. If you're committing crime in public you risk getting caught and punished. If you're doing illegal things online you risk getting caught and punished.[/QUOTE]

I think we have to be a more careful with privacy.

If your net activity was freely made available, corrupt law enforcement authorities ciould use information from your personal search history or freemail correspondence to intimidate, blackmail, or stalk you. And once you go beyond law enforcement - once you start giving this information to corporate lobbyists, the stakes get even higher. We better know exactly what is being requested, why, and based on what evidence. Before any bit of info is doled out. Period.

That being said I actually like some aspects of this plan, especially the informational part. But there need to be more safeguards, like a robust appeals process and more appropriate deterrents.

Also - IMO shutting off someone's internet access because they downloaded a few tunes is a showstopper.
 
Oh, I do think it needs to be open, and it needs to be clear what info they're tracking etc. It is a thin line for sure. So I'd agree with that stipulation.
 
[quote name='Jodou']Lol, so ISPs got their hands in the pockets of the RIAA now? More money for Comcast as they'd never voluntarily lose income from paying customers. They might follow through with email warnings but nothing will ever come of it. Business as usual.

Also, this is not a law and for good reason: it's unconstitutional.[/QUOTE]

What makes it unconstitutional?
 
[quote name='IRHari']What makes it unconstitutional?[/QUOTE]
Confrontation clause. Since it would be a criminal case of violating copyright laws, you're entitled to face your accusers with witnesses against you. Since it's impossible for anyone to 'witness' your act (and given the nature of open wireless ports, be wrongfully accused) it would violate the 6th amendment.

Obviously I'm just an armchair lawyer, but that's my take on it.
 
Well I guess this is the danger of allowing companies that are so heavily dependent on the income of film, television and other media forms to control the internet.
 
[quote name='Javery']I don't like the sound of this. I don't like that my internet activities are going to be actively monitored by someone and I don't like that there is basically no due process here.



http://news.yahoo.com/six-strikes-youre-screwed-upcoming-piracy-crackdown-means-144559247.html[/QUOTE]

From what I understand about the process, it is nothing new. Basically everything that the industry does currently to stop pirates, such as monitoring swarms and taking ip addresses, is basically going to continue. But instead of suing you they will start reporting you to your internet provider. If this much monitoring frightens you, you are kinda late to the party.
 
[quote name='cindersphere']From what I understand about the process, it is nothing new. Basically everything that the industry does currently to stop pirates, such as monitoring swarms and taking ip addresses, is basically going to continue. But instead of suing you they will start reporting you to your internet provider. If this much monitoring frightens you, you are kinda late to the party.[/QUOTE]

I think it's more the fact that they can ban you from the internet.

I see a ton of problems with this.

First of all, how will they enforce it.

Secondly, internet is fast becoming vital to everyday life. Cutting someone off can disrupt their life in a fucking major way.

Just fine the people, either they will learn or the RIAA will get free money, why do they have to be such fascist dicks.
 
[quote name='camoor']I think it's more the fact that they can ban you from the internet.

I see a ton of problems with this.

First of all, how will they enforce it.

Secondly, internet is fast becoming vital to everyday life. Cutting someone off can disrupt their life in a fucking major way.

Just fine the people, either they will learn or the RIAA will get free money, why do they have to be such fascist dicks.[/QUOTE]

Court's have always had the power to bar people from the internet, and some people have been bared from even owning a computer in the United States from what I understand.

Secondly, so is taking away someones car, yet we still revoke licenses when people fuck up (as do insurance companies take away coverage if one is a fuck up). The only really big problem I see with this act is that we are shitty at actually identifying true pirates, and that is about it.
 
People's utter refusal to allow any control/monitoring on what you do on the internet astounds me. It shouldn't, but it does. Freedom of privacy does not mean freedom from tools of observation by authorities if you're doing something illegal.

Of course, it's a sad indicator of the priorities of our free leisure first society that a bill like this will be taken, completely misunderstood (deliberately or otherwise) by teens and young adults, turned into a digital protest movement, and then die. Why? So we can download the newest Bruce Springsteen album without paying for it. If that weren't the case, we wouldn't have to engage in slippery slope logical fallacies ("you'll be arrested for linking to a video on your friend's facebook page!")

Nero fiddled while Rome burned has become Neo downloaded from rapidshare while Rick Santorum got elected.

Like I said, I understand why people are reluctant to allow for some control, but at the same time I don't understand. Maybe it's because I find so many of the arguments to come from liars: if you want to continue to pirate, just have the dignity to say as much when arguing against the bill.
 
Government monitoring is one thing, and we all know it happens and has for a while. This is big business and your ISP coming together to do something which only our government should be able to do IMO, and then only for serious crimes. I personally think it's time that the entertainment industry understood that piracy exists and isn't going away, they should put their resources into improving the legal methods of obtaining their products.
 
Maybe someone can confirm this, but as I understand things now that ISPs do not monitor your activity and they already only respond to illegal activity after the copyright holder notes your IP as uploading illegal activity to other users. It seems to me that they will still rely on third parties to provide evidence of their internet connection used rather than the ISP themselves take responsibility for subscriber activity monitoring.

That said, I'm on the fence on how to feel but I will say one thing. Last year I unsecured my WiFi connection because I was having issues with some devices connecting and I was troubleshooting why. It came to my attention I had not re-established security when I received a copyright notice for a neighbor using my WiFi to download a movie. So I'll play Devil's Advocate and that if it offers some protection for situations like this, then it can be a step forward. I'm not clear on the law as it stands now but if it would have allowed for the copyright holder to come after me for a large civil damage settlement off of just one infraction and the burden of proof was on me to pin it on a neighbor, that is more scary than a six strike rule.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']People's utter refusal to allow any control/monitoring on what you do on the internet astounds me. It shouldn't, but it does. Freedom of privacy does not mean freedom from tools of observation by authorities if you're doing something illegal.

Of course, it's a sad indicator of the priorities of our free leisure first society that a bill like this will be taken, completely misunderstood (deliberately or otherwise) by teens and young adults, turned into a digital protest movement, and then die. Why? So we can download the newest Bruce Springsteen album without paying for it. If that weren't the case, we wouldn't have to engage in slippery slope logical fallacies ("you'll be arrested for linking to a video on your friend's facebook page!")

Nero fiddled while Rome burned has become Neo downloaded from rapidshare while Rick Santorum got elected.

Like I said, I understand why people are reluctant to allow for some control, but at the same time I don't understand. Maybe it's because I find so many of the arguments to come from liars: if you want to continue to pirate, just have the dignity to say as much when arguing against the bill.[/QUOTE]

When it comes to living your life (paying bills, shopping, doing your job) getting on the net will become increasingly important. Also turning off net access is also a great way to silence someone.

Bottom line: we need to be exceptionally careful that this power to sever lines of communication and effectively censor is used as seldom as possible.

Having a bill that can shutoff net acess because your unruly teenage daughter won't stop downloading the latest Kesha crap is like swatting flies with an AK47.
 
Six strikes seems reasonable to me. If your kid is downloading Kesha is a problem, get them offline. Be a parent.

I'll agree that work and bill responsibilities are likely to become necessary online (and in some cases already is), and perhaps there's a need to rethink the sanction here - i.e., some heavily restricted and/or heavily monitored web access instead of none.

But I'm short on sympathy for people who get caught six times, and I'm short on sympathy for people who will vehemently fight against bills like this, and continue to be dishonest about their reasons for fighting it (i.e., people who won't admit to being against legislation because they love to pirate stuff).
 
I was thinking more on this and what would happen to LAN centers. Seems to me that it would be up to those places to police any illegal downloading, but more realistically they would be cut off after just a day of customers. I could also see this as a haven for downloaders who are either cut off, or who don't wish to be caught. Additionally, there could be anti-trust lawsuits given the livelihood of LAN centers relies on (non-illegal) downloading, not just gamers.

They really need to focus on how best to serve paying customers, rather than constantly harass the public with this nonsense.
 
This bill seems like it was made in the mid 90's as a way to combat Usenet. The internet now hosts legitimate services like Netflix, Dropbox, Spotify, etc. and is also a means of acquiring goods that are online only like Amazon, eBay. Let alone that I do my banking and bill payment online.

This is less about being embarassed that the government knows you look at boobs in private and more about media companies making sure they don't become obsolete at your expense and privacy.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']People's utter refusal to allow any control/monitoring on what you do on the internet astounds me. It shouldn't, but it does. Freedom of privacy does not mean freedom from tools of observation by authorities if you're doing something illegal.

Of course, it's a sad indicator of the priorities of our free leisure first society that a bill like this will be taken, completely misunderstood (deliberately or otherwise) by teens and young adults, turned into a digital protest movement, and then die. Why? So we can download the newest Bruce Springsteen album without paying for it. If that weren't the case, we wouldn't have to engage in slippery slope logical fallacies ("you'll be arrested for linking to a video on your friend's facebook page!")

Nero fiddled while Rome burned has become Neo downloaded from rapidshare while Rick Santorum got elected.

Like I said, I understand why people are reluctant to allow for some control, but at the same time I don't understand. Maybe it's because I find so many of the arguments to come from liars: if you want to continue to pirate, just have the dignity to say as much when arguing against the bill.[/QUOTE]

I agree in theory but I do like my porn. I know that my actions online CAN be monitored but I don't like the idea of my actions being ACTIVELY monitored. Maybe I'm naive about what is actually going on right now but when I read about laws like this I can't help but think that our collective freedom is continually being narrowed by the powers that be. It just doesn't sit well with me.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Six strikes seems reasonable to me. If your kid is downloading Kesha is a problem, get them offline. Be a parent.

I'll agree that work and bill responsibilities are likely to become necessary online (and in some cases already is), and perhaps there's a need to rethink the sanction here - i.e., some heavily restricted and/or heavily monitored web access instead of none.

But I'm short on sympathy for people who get caught six times, and I'm short on sympathy for people who will vehemently fight against bills like this, and continue to be dishonest about their reasons for fighting it (i.e., people who won't admit to being against legislation because they love to pirate stuff).[/QUOTE]

I also don't like words like "heavily restricted" and "heavily monitored" Draconian punishments rarely work.

Having intellectuals making a case for totalitarian measures (even on a limited basis) because someone dowloaded a handful of illegal tunes doesn't make me optimistic about the future.
 
[quote name='Javery']I agree in theory but I do like my porn.[/QUOTE]

:lol:

Perhaps you should start a PAC? Fervent Masturbators for Secure Browsing? It's not a clever acronym, but hey...

EDIT: Glad to see there's no willingness to compromise whatsoever, camoor. We're really gonna accomplish things in society with attitudes like yours.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']EDIT: Glad to see there's no willingness to compromise whatsoever, camoor. We're really gonna accomplish things in society with attitudes like yours.[/QUOTE]

Ironically your post is right on the money - if this bill gets killed it will be an accomplishment.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']an accomplishment that will do absolutely nothing to curb online crime. three cheers![/QUOTE]

Whadya want. The recoding industry is Goliath, they choose the time and playing field. The people are David, we only have one chance and one stone.

If the recording industry doesn't like it then come up with a fair bill.
 
I guess I just don't have much sympathy for these various industries, they've done at least some things to bring it upon themselves. Like when the (mostly American) auto industry suddenly realized they couldn't sell all of those giant SUVs with gas prices going through the roof. They had to hurry to get smaller cars to market because many of them had been getting fat off those SUV sales and weren't fast enough to see things changing. Well it seems to me that the internet took many of the entertainment industries by surprise (after the internet having been around for years), they weren't fast enough to take advantage of it like they should have, or to stop online piracy either. They're paying the price for both now. So instead of trying to do something sensible years ago, they're over-reacting today.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']an accomplishment that will do absolutely nothing to curb online crime. three cheers![/QUOTE]

Are you being serious? This is such a trumped up problem I can't believe you accept it as valid.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top