American ISPs to launch massive copyright spying scheme on July 12

[chrisso]

You seriously don't have ISP competition?
Here in rural Australia I have dozens competing for my custom.

[rack gear]

Originally Posted by BrianVengeance

That doesn't make sense at all - safe harbor provisions are codified into law (the DMCA). How exactly do they lose this status? That particular provision already accomplishes what you describe - it isn't "pushing" the responsibility onto anyone else, (unless someone is trying to put it on them... Like the recording industry). The people stealing are still the ones liable.

You didn't address the other side of the responsibility / accountability coin... that of the recording industry to ensure that lawful citizens are not harmed by incorrect action / escalation, nor did you address the cost of enforcement pushed onto the ISPs, which will inevitably be pushed onto the consumer, law abiding or not.

the DMCA requires the ISP to take reasonable action against infringement... this is the stick that got the deal made... if there's no reasonable action against infringement, there's no safe harbor...

as for the other side of the coin... dude... it's SIX STRIKES... seriously... if people don't learn after SIX warnings... let the chips fall where they will...

and let me guess... your alternative course of action would be to do nothing, right?

[BrianVengeance]

Originally Posted by chrisso

You seriously don't have ISP competition?
Here in rural Australia I have dozens competing for my custom.

Not really... most areas in the US will have only one, maybe two cable / ISPs providers to choose from. Some have more, but it certainly isn't dozens.

[chrisso]

Looks like you have at least seven for DC:
Washington-DC ISPs, DC Internet Service Providers, DC ISPs

[Rust Creep]

I appreciate the facts people are sharing... IP creators deserve protection.. and i assume were all already being "spied" on so im not sure what to think

Maybe join a commune... with electricity... voltage hippies

Sent from my DROIDX using Gearslutz App

[BrianVengeance]

Originally Posted by rack gear

the DMCA requires the ISP to take reasonable action against infringement... this is the stick that got the deal made... if there's no reasonable action against infringement, there's no safe harbor...

as for the other side of the coin... dude... it's SIX STRIKES... seriously... if people don't learn after SIX warnings... let the chips fall where they will...

and let me guess... your alternative course of action would be to do nothing, right?

To address your last point first, no... you assume too much. My alternative course of action would be to continue discourse and working within the legal system to devise and revise laws and punishments that are both effective and targeted, without being overreaching or overbroad, or otherwise unjustly punishing the non-criminal or circumventing rights of anyone, be they citizen or corporation.

There is no right for anyone to steal any more that there is a right for any business to stay in business.

As for the six strikes, sure... that is more than generous for the criminal. But not everyone is a criminal, and nobody seems to be addressing the questions I raised about the process of vetting the strikes for their appropriateness (fair use, false positives), disputes, recourse for inappropriate damage caused to the law abiding, or the cost that will be pushed onto the consumer.

Actually, a different stick was used. The DMCA requires that reasonably expeditious action must be taken to remove infringing material, thus qualifying them for safe harbor so long as they played no direct / manual role in the process of distribution or storage of the infringing content. The DMCA does NOT compel and ISP to actively play a role in policing for infringement or otherwise preventing it, nor is it a qualification for safe harbor... or necessarily reasonable (it takes more than one to decide what is fair).

Honestly, if that were in fact what the DMCA said... there really wouldn't be the need for this sort of deal, now would there? Would seem a bit superfluous to ink such a contract in 2011, if it were already written into a law that became effective in 1998, no?

I'm sympathetic to the damage that piracy has done to the industry, but I'm far less sympathetic to bad laws and back room deals. Put the stick down and stop beating up lawful, paying customers just because other people who looked like us stole from you... it may just make your mission easier.

[BrianVengeance]

Originally Posted by chrisso

Looks like you have at least seven for DC:
Washington-DC ISPs, DC Internet Service Providers, DC ISPs

Can't believe everything you read on the internet, especially when it comes to products or services being offered. Besides, this is the nations capitol... you know... likely THE most important city in the entire USofA (no big deal). Of course there's going to be more choice here. I'm sure there's plenty more listed for NYC, LA or Chicago. There's also no differentiation between what neighborhoods are served. Even if there are 7, or even 10... you may only be able to get 2-3 in any particular area.

[chrisso]

Originally Posted by BrianVengeance

Put the stick down and stop beating up lawful, paying customers just because other people who looked like us stole from you...

That's assuming more than a few 'lawful, paying customers' would pass through 6 strikes and be punished.
Quite an assumption on your part.

[BrianVengeance]

Originally Posted by chrisso

That's assuming more than a few 'lawful, paying customers' would pass through 6 strikes and be punished.
Quite an assumption on your part.

Refer to the following:

Originally Posted by BrianVengeance

Has anyone seen any indication that the validity of notices will be verified under the "six strikes" deal? What is the vetting process? What recourse is available for wrongful shutoff and / or notification? How much will the additional infrastructure cost the law-abiding citizen for using the ISP - I wouldn't exactly characterize the ISP industry as rife with competition. How will this affect startup providers not wanting to participate?

Would you care to address the questions I've asked instead of huffing and puffing about non-existing assumptions that you feel I'm making? Don't forget that the money in your bank account comes from the consumer's pocket.

[AwwDeOhh]

Originally Posted by BrianVengeance

...
I'm sympathetic to the damage that piracy has done to the industry, but I'm far less sympathetic to bad laws and back room deals. Put the stick down and stop beating up lawful, paying customers just because other people who looked like us stole from you... it may just make your mission easier.

this isn't a law. This is a voluntary action being implemented by the ISPs.
An internet connection isn't a 'right'. It's a service. The service provider can make their own TOS. If you break the Terms of Service, they can drop you as a customer. Personallly, i think the 6-strike is a bit lax.. but i'm glad they're doing something.
now,
There was an ACTUAL law that tried to pass, that had safeguards, due process, ect. ect., and it ONLY went after the facilitator (ie Pirate Bay, ect), and NOT consumers... but it was shot down by misinformation and panic...

[initialsBB]

Originally Posted by chrisso

You seriously don't have ISP competition?
Here in rural Australia I have dozens competing for my custom.

In any given neighborhood in the US there's usually a phone provider that's given a monopoly and a cable company that's given a monopoly and those are your two choices for an ISP. There are also satellite options for rural areas with no cable or broadband infrastructure, but those aren't usually a great option. You can't really look up a city like DC and assume that every neighborhood gets service from all of those ISPs because each neighborhood will only get service from one phone company and one cable company.

[chrisso]

In most other countries an ISP can rent the line owned by the telco.

[initialsBB]

Originally Posted by AwwDeOhh

An internet connection isn't a 'right'. It's a service.

Universal internet access should be a legal right in the US. It has become or is quickly becoming a replacement for the telephone, the postal service, and the entire broadcast and print media. It's in the best interest of society that everyone should have access.

[chrisso]

Originally Posted by BrianVengeance

Would you care to address the questions I've asked instead of huffing and puffing about non-existing assumptions that you feel I'm making?

Well you are assuming a significant number of lawful paying customers will fall foul of the 6 strikes.

[chrisso]

Originally Posted by initialsBB

It has become or is quickly becoming a replacement for the telephone, the postal service, and the entire broadcast and print media.

None of which are rights either.

[initialsBB]

Originally Posted by chrisso

In most other countries an ISP can rent the line owned by the telco.

Actually that may be true here too. I'm not sure how common it is though. I'm lucky enough to live in an area that has Verizon Fios so they have a virtual monopoly.

[initialsBB]

Originally Posted by chrisso

None of which are rights either.

Even prisoners are given the right to phone calls.

The US has a long history of ensuring that everyone has equal access to information, from our basic freedom of the press, to universal postal service, to federally subsidized rural electrification and telephony programs, to recent subsidies for digital broadcast TV receivers. The idea that the general public should have easy and inexpensive access to news and information is a fundamental cornerstone of democracy.

[chrisso]

If you don't pay your phone bill you'll be cut off.
Same with water supply, electricity etc, etc.

[BrianVengeance]

Originally Posted by AwwDeOhh

this isn't a law. This is a voluntary action being implemented by the ISPs.
An internet connection isn't a 'right'. It's a service. The service provider can make their own TOS. If you break the Terms of Service, they can drop you as a customer. Personallly, i think the 6-strike is a bit lax.. but i'm glad they're doing something.
now,
There was an ACTUAL law that tried to pass, that had safeguards, due process, ect. ect., and it ONLY went after the facilitator (ie Pirate Bay, ect), and NOT consumers... but it was shot down by misinformation and panic...

Yes, this is a deal that was entered into between the content industries and the internet services providers, and nobody has argued whether or not an internets connection is a "right" in this conversation. Yours was the first mention.

On the point of TOS, they are still subject to law. initialsBB more adequately expressed the nature of the ISP / telco / cable market in the US... typically monopolies are handed out to companies for a given service area, which provides little or no choice for the consumer to either opt in or out of whatever TOS are given to them, however fair or unfair they may be. Under these sorts of circumstances, it is absolutely imperative that fair and just regulation take place in order to balance out the lack free market choice... otherwise the consumer will simply get trampled by the incumbent service provider.

Sure, I can see that for the criminal six strikes is a bit lax. However, not everyone is a criminal, and the law abiding should not be subject to ill-devised process that incurs additional cost or otherwise causes harm or damage in the form of time, money or reputation.

As a bit of a thought exercise... the laws that you say were recently shot down by "misinformation and panic" played absolutely no role in the recent raid / arrest of Kim DotCom. If such a bold move is possible on the behalf of protecting copyright holders based on preexisting law, how can it be argued that existing law / enforcement is ineffective? Without even seeing going to trial, a potential major player in the world if piracy has been apprehended and file sharing services have redoubled their efforts in the effort to reduce piracy.

Wasn't that the goal of SOPA / PIPA before they were unceremoniously butchered by people who thought they went to far?

[BrianVengeance]

Originally Posted by chrisso

Well you are assuming a significant number of lawful paying customers will fall foul of the 6 strikes.

You're dodging the questions.

[BrianVengeance]

Originally Posted by chrisso

If you don't pay your phone bill you'll be cut off.
Same with water supply, electricity etc, etc.

Non sequitar... the issue isn't about having your internet service shut off because you didn't pay the bill. The music industry is not an ISP.

[chrisso]

Originally Posted by BrianVengeance

Non sequitar... the issue isn't about having your internet service shut off because you didn't pay the bill. The music industry is not an ISP.

The discussion I was addressing was wether the internet should be a right like the phone. And as we agreed, neither are actually a right.

[BrianVengeance]

Originally Posted by initialsBB

Even prisoners are given the right to phone calls.

The US has a long history of ensuring that everyone has equal access to information, from our basic freedom of the press, to universal postal service, to federally subsidized rural electrification and telephony programs, to recent subsidies for digital broadcast TV receivers. The idea that the general public should have easy and inexpensive access to news and information is a fundamental cornerstone of democracy.

Along with the very fabric of the legal system being founded on the right of due process and assumption of innocence until proof of guilt is provided. To wit, I've actually got jury duty coming up as part of my civic responsibility as an American. Blah.

[chrisso]

Originally Posted by BrianVengeance

You're dodging the questions.

No, I haven't seen the details yet as to how it would work.
Six strikes seems more than reasonable to me, in fact rather ridiculous. And any private company is legally allowed to reject a customer if they think that customer is a trouble maker (rightly or wrongly).

[BrianVengeance]

Originally Posted by chrisso

The discussion I was addressing was wether the internet should be a right like the phone. And as we agreed, neither are actually a right.

I actually didn't make any comment as to whether or not I felt that internet access is a right. Would you care to answer my questions now?

[chrisso]

Originally Posted by initialsBB

The US has a long history of ensuring that everyone has equal access to information, from our basic freedom of the press

Has nothing to do with a paid for commercial service.

to universal postal service, to federally subsidized rural electrification and telephony programs, to recent subsidies for digital broadcast TV receivers.

Subsidized or not, everyone still pays for it, and private companies have a legal right to disconnect customers who they deem trouble.

The idea that the general public should have easy and inexpensive access to news and information is a fundamental cornerstone of democracy.

Well absolutely not.
In the UK and Australia we actually have government funded, fairly unbiased news services. Your news is all private, all commercial based. So your above claims seem even more fanciful.

[chrisso]

Originally Posted by BrianVengeance

I actually didn't make any comment as to whether or not I felt that internet access is a right. Would you care to answer my questions now?

You butted into a discussion I was having with another poster.
I have answered your questions (above).

[dualflip]

Dont take this the wrong way, but Anti-piracy threads have become soooo boring, its just rack gear and Chrisso VS the rest. and as always, nothing is actually accomplished nor settled, seems like its just arguing for the sake of arguing, count me out.

[BrianVengeance]

Originally Posted by chrisso

No, I haven't seen the details yet as to how it would work.
Six strikes seems more than reasonable to me, in fact rather ridiculous. And any private company is legally allowed to reject a customer if they think that customer is a trouble maker (rightly or wrongly).

Completely fair... not trying to be a dick about things, just get clear answers without being called a pirate or otherwise categorically dismissed as heretical. Ok, so then I suppose the next question is to whether or not the details of the process are actually available, and what makes you so certain the process won't be abused, when there are clearly instances where the DMCA has been.

No... that isn't the norm, but it is also frequent enough collateral damage to raise the hackles of the public, aka your customers.

Private companies do reserve the right to deny service, but as initialsBB pointed out, there is a granted monopoly status which throws a fork in things when it comes to the ISPs / cable / telcos.

There is also a clear separation between the content industry and the ISPs... or at least there was prior to the ISPs starting to stomp around in the content industry's turf (and why are you going after the consumers again?). Not once have I contacted EMI, Geffen, Atlantic or even Sub Pop to get my internet hooked up, so there is a disconnect in the "don't pay your bills, don't get your service" argument.

[rack gear]

Originally Posted by BrianVengeance

To address your last point first, no... you assume too much. My alternative course of action would be to continue discourse and working within the legal system to devise and revise laws and punishments that are both effective and targeted, without being overreaching or overbroad, or otherwise unjustly punishing the non-criminal or circumventing rights of anyone, be they citizen or corporation.

really? like what? after 13 years of the above... here we are... deal.

Originally Posted by BrianVengeance

There is no right for anyone to steal any more that there is a right for any business to stay in business.

uh yeah dude... how about we stop people from stealing from the businesses and see how well they do then...

Originally Posted by BrianVengeance

As for the six strikes, sure... that is more than generous for the criminal. But not everyone is a criminal, and nobody seems to be addressing the questions I raised about the process of vetting the strikes for their appropriateness (fair use, false positives), disputes, recourse for inappropriate damage caused to the law abiding, or the cost that will be pushed onto the consumer.

six strikes is fair for the criminal... but the innocent need more than six strikes really? why is that? what are the non-criminals doing that they require MORE warnings than the criminals? really?

Originally Posted by BrianVengeance

Actually, a different stick was used. The DMCA requires that reasonably expeditious action must be taken to remove infringing material, thus qualifying them for safe harbor so long as they played no direct / manual role in the process of distribution or storage of the infringing content. The DMCA does NOT compel and ISP to actively play a role in policing for infringement or otherwise preventing it, nor is it a qualification for safe harbor... or necessarily reasonable (it takes more than one to decide what is fair).

I'm not sure about that...

Originally Posted by BrianVengeance

Honestly, if that were in fact what the DMCA said... there really wouldn't be the need for this sort of deal, now would there? Would seem a bit superfluous to ink such a contract in 2011, if it were already written into a law that became effective in 1998, no?

like I said 13 years of blah, blah, blah... no it's finally getting serious and people like you are still in favor of doing nothing... what-ev-er...

Originally Posted by BrianVengeance

I'm sympathetic to the damage that piracy has done to the industry, but I'm far less sympathetic to bad laws and back room deals.

than you should be really upset at google...

Originally Posted by BrianVengeance

Put the stick down and stop beating up lawful, paying customers just because other people who looked like us stole from you... it may just make your mission easier.

uh yeah... whatever man.... lawful paying costumers shouldn't be getting any copyright warning notices should they...