5 ms·

US “Six Strikes” Anti-Piracy Scheme Will Roll Out Gradually

49 points by nsns 14y ago

bediger4000 14y ago
This makes no sense, it's like the State of New Jersey saying that the new murder law will "roll out gradually". Only some convicted offenders will be sentenced under the new law, while we work out the kinks. Eventually, all convicted murderers will be subject to the same law. That's a recipe for massive discontent, mainly because it's so unfair to those getting penalized first. It's also very "corporate IT". "The VP wants us to phase in the new credit card processing system, because he doesn't want to lose the revenue if it crashes". The ISPs in question decided to do "pilot roll-outs" of what the techies know will be massively unpopular with the users.
- noahc 14y ago
  I'm not sure your State analogy works. From what I can tell this is a private party agreement, which is essentially a contract. It has nothing to do with justice or laws of any sort. You agreed that you wouldn't pirate content, when you signed up with your ISP. Your ISP has the right to terminate your service, and so this is just formalizing how that termination will take place with another party. So what you're really saying is "Private Parties shouldn't be allowed to gradually phase in contractual agreements". I think we can all agree that regulating private contracts to this degree isn't something we want to see the US government engaged in.
  - bediger4000 14y ago
    I'm saying that "phasing in" punitive measures, by any authority figure, under any legal or moral basis, doesn't really sit well with the population subject to those measures. Human nature makes everyone who gets punished in an early phase very irritated by the fact that others, not subject to the early phase, but to a later phase, do NOT get punished for the same actions. No lawyering or contractual fine points or legalistic thinking necessary.
  - guard-of-terra 14y ago
    "You agreed that you wouldn't pirate content, when you signed up with your ISP" Why? Why would your ISP care about it? Why didn't you agree (in a contract with ISP) that you are goind to brush your teeth? That you won't troll online? That you would pay your taxes? Because it's State masquerading as private party interests. Doing with lies what they can't do with laws. P. S. You americans have very unusual opinion on what makes a contract and what you can put into it. Very, very unusual. And it seems that you don't even see it.
penfro 14y ago
The more savvy users will just sign-up for VPN or Usenet service. One 1TB of SSL encrypted Usenet transfer from NewsgroupDirect for $40 is more than enough for most people. Couple that with SABnzbd and NZBMatrix and you have a very usable service out of the reach of the latest anti-piracy scheme. Amazing how much of our rapid loss of liberties are attributed to the same 4 categories: child pornography, terrorism, file-sharing, and organized crime.
- ihsw 14y ago
  Indeed, the prospect of paying $40 for privacy may previously have seemed absurd, but it is now a viable (and now necessary) expense.
- alttab 14y ago
  I see those categories more as excuses. I refuse to believe societies decision markers are that blind to basic human civility. There has to be a better way to reduce harm from technology than turning the world into a gulag.
  - zanny 14y ago
    It is easy - digital content has no cost of distribution, replication, or reproduction so charging for individual units is a failing model. So charge elsewhere, such as at the point of creation, or as an inclusion on something with per unit cost. Basically, fund the creation of infinitely reproducible goods and release them for free, either through ads, through investments or crowd-funding, or through contracts. We should be embracing how easy and cheap it is to replicate media of all forms, not trying to prevent the physical realities of electric charge and transistors.
    - alttab 14y ago
      Theoretically easy, I agree. We need to dislodge the dinosaur thugs that have made this difficult. Unfortunately it seems as though their moral compass and logic calibration is inversely proportional to their degree of desperation for profit.
- 14y ago
paulsutter 14y ago
Someone needs a way to audit this system. I'd like to see someone like the EFF involved. If done right this system could be an improvement over harsh penalties meted out randomly. Harsh punishments for a few as a scare tactic aren't justice. Reasonable penalties that are a higher probability are an improvement. But it all depends on who is monitoring the monitors.
praxulus 14y ago
I don't understand how this helps ISPs. If they aren't also cable TV providers, what incentive do they have to cut off customers? Forwarding C&D emails can't be that expensive, can it?
- wmf 14y ago
  Participating in six strikes may be cheaper than processing tons of subpoenas from mass copyright lawsuits. There's a long game being played here. It's possible that if ISPs had not agreed to six strikes the MPAA/RIAA would have agitated for new laws which would be even more expensive to lobby against/comply with.
  - glimcat 14y ago
    > It's possible that if ISPs had not agreed to six strikes the MPAA/RIAA would have agitated for new laws which would be even more expensive to lobby against/comply with. I don't see where "giving in a little bit this time so they'll go away" makes for a good long-term strategy. They'll just be back for more.
    - cabalamat 14y ago
      > They'll just be back for more. Indeed. Maybe the ISPs should call the MAFIAA's bluff, because after SOPA it's not obvious they would succeed in getting new laws passed.
    - einhverfr 14y ago
      Well, as long as they don't invade Poland, the great powers of the world will take little notice..... ;-) I am sure the ISP's have in fact brought us peace in our time....
batgaijin 14y ago
The strike laws in France, NZ, UK, were all financed and supported by the aa and the us gov helped. I remember feeling so great about seeing the confirmation in the wikileaks docs. Sad to say I'm too lazy to find/post the reference on my phone.
linuxhansl 14y ago
I am reminded of the facsimile of the frog. If thrown into hot water he will jump out, but if thrown into cold water that is slowly heated he will die without reacting. These measures would have been unthinkable 10 or 15 years ago, yet we've to come almost expect them. Spying and snooping appears to be a one-way street where our privacy is slowly eroded and the trend is never reversed (the excuses given for this vary, but they always include at least one of "child porn", "terrorism", "IP violation", or "organized crime"). "Those who sacrifice liberty for security will lose both and deserve neither." - Benjamin Franklin
codys 14y ago
>> While TorrentFreak has learned that various ISPs will start the implementation at different times, it remains a mystery which company will be spying on filesharers. Lets be clear here, they are spying on _all internet users_, not just filesharers.

49 points by nsns 14y ago

This makes no sense, it's like the State of New Jersey saying that the new murder law will "roll out gradually". Only some convicted offenders will be sentenced under the new law, while we work out the kinks. Eventually, all convicted murderers will be subject to the same law. That's a recipe for massive discontent, mainly because it's so unfair to those getting penalized first. It's also very "corporate IT". "The VP wants us to phase in the new credit card processing system, because he doesn't want to lose the revenue if it crashes". The ISPs in question decided to do "pilot roll-outs" of what the techies know will be massively unpopular with the users.

noahc 14y ago
I'm not sure your State analogy works. From what I can tell this is a private party agreement, which is essentially a contract. It has nothing to do with justice or laws of any sort. You agreed that you wouldn't pirate content, when you signed up with your ISP. Your ISP has the right to terminate your service, and so this is just formalizing how that termination will take place with another party. So what you're really saying is "Private Parties shouldn't be allowed to gradually phase in contractual agreements". I think we can all agree that regulating private contracts to this degree isn't something we want to see the US government engaged in.
- bediger4000 14y ago
  I'm saying that "phasing in" punitive measures, by any authority figure, under any legal or moral basis, doesn't really sit well with the population subject to those measures. Human nature makes everyone who gets punished in an early phase very irritated by the fact that others, not subject to the early phase, but to a later phase, do NOT get punished for the same actions. No lawyering or contractual fine points or legalistic thinking necessary.
- guard-of-terra 14y ago
  "You agreed that you wouldn't pirate content, when you signed up with your ISP" Why? Why would your ISP care about it? Why didn't you agree (in a contract with ISP) that you are goind to brush your teeth? That you won't troll online? That you would pay your taxes? Because it's State masquerading as private party interests. Doing with lies what they can't do with laws. P. S. You americans have very unusual opinion on what makes a contract and what you can put into it. Very, very unusual. And it seems that you don't even see it.

penfro 14y ago

The more savvy users will just sign-up for VPN or Usenet service. One 1TB of SSL encrypted Usenet transfer from NewsgroupDirect for $40 is more than enough for most people. Couple that with SABnzbd and NZBMatrix and you have a very usable service out of the reach of the latest anti-piracy scheme. Amazing how much of our rapid loss of liberties are attributed to the same 4 categories: child pornography, terrorism, file-sharing, and organized crime.

ihsw 14y ago
Indeed, the prospect of paying $40 for privacy may previously have seemed absurd, but it is now a viable (and now necessary) expense.
alttab 14y ago
I see those categories more as excuses. I refuse to believe societies decision markers are that blind to basic human civility. There has to be a better way to reduce harm from technology than turning the world into a gulag.
- zanny 14y ago
  It is easy - digital content has no cost of distribution, replication, or reproduction so charging for individual units is a failing model. So charge elsewhere, such as at the point of creation, or as an inclusion on something with per unit cost. Basically, fund the creation of infinitely reproducible goods and release them for free, either through ads, through investments or crowd-funding, or through contracts. We should be embracing how easy and cheap it is to replicate media of all forms, not trying to prevent the physical realities of electric charge and transistors.
  - alttab 14y ago
    Theoretically easy, I agree. We need to dislodge the dinosaur thugs that have made this difficult. Unfortunately it seems as though their moral compass and logic calibration is inversely proportional to their degree of desperation for profit.
14y ago

paulsutter 14y ago

Someone needs a way to audit this system. I'd like to see someone like the EFF involved. If done right this system could be an improvement over harsh penalties meted out randomly. Harsh punishments for a few as a scare tactic aren't justice. Reasonable penalties that are a higher probability are an improvement. But it all depends on who is monitoring the monitors.

praxulus 14y ago

I don't understand how this helps ISPs. If they aren't also cable TV providers, what incentive do they have to cut off customers? Forwarding C&D emails can't be that expensive, can it?

wmf 14y ago
Participating in six strikes may be cheaper than processing tons of subpoenas from mass copyright lawsuits. There's a long game being played here. It's possible that if ISPs had not agreed to six strikes the MPAA/RIAA would have agitated for new laws which would be even more expensive to lobby against/comply with.
- glimcat 14y ago
  > It's possible that if ISPs had not agreed to six strikes the MPAA/RIAA would have agitated for new laws which would be even more expensive to lobby against/comply with. I don't see where "giving in a little bit this time so they'll go away" makes for a good long-term strategy. They'll just be back for more.
  - cabalamat 14y ago
    > They'll just be back for more. Indeed. Maybe the ISPs should call the MAFIAA's bluff, because after SOPA it's not obvious they would succeed in getting new laws passed.
  - einhverfr 14y ago
    Well, as long as they don't invade Poland, the great powers of the world will take little notice..... ;-) I am sure the ISP's have in fact brought us peace in our time....

batgaijin 14y ago

The strike laws in France, NZ, UK, were all financed and supported by the aa and the us gov helped. I remember feeling so great about seeing the confirmation in the wikileaks docs. Sad to say I'm too lazy to find/post the reference on my phone.

linuxhansl 14y ago

I am reminded of the facsimile of the frog. If thrown into hot water he will jump out, but if thrown into cold water that is slowly heated he will die without reacting. These measures would have been unthinkable 10 or 15 years ago, yet we've to come almost expect them. Spying and snooping appears to be a one-way street where our privacy is slowly eroded and the trend is never reversed (the excuses given for this vary, but they always include at least one of "child porn", "terrorism", "IP violation", or "organized crime"). "Those who sacrifice liberty for security will lose both and deserve neither." - Benjamin Franklin

codys 14y ago

>> While TorrentFreak has learned that various ISPs will start the implementation at different times, it remains a mystery which company will be spying on filesharers. Lets be clear here, they are spying on _all internet users_, not just filesharers.