Major ISPs to turn into copyright police by July says RIAA

[Penforhire]

This isn't quite the same as what has been struck down. These are only warnings and a possible slow-down. They are not saying anyone gets disconnected. I still think it is rotten. I want a dumb-pipe to the internet.

Of course even these warnings/slow-downs are also easily circumvented through using a VPN, if it matters to you. At least until they ban encrypted traffic!

[speakingtohe]

I stop my cable/internet every year as I go out of town to work.
I am immediately inundated with calls and letters from the ISP offering me discounts, asking me why etc..
If enough people switch providers on receipt of a letter, guilty or not, poilicies should change, especially if they tell the ISP they are afraid that someone may be abusing their service and don't want to take a chance.

Helen

[silverraven]

At least until they ban encrypted traffic

I've thought of that too, but so many people work from home now that have to use encrytion: bankers, lawyers, Drs. etc.
Maybe everyone should do everything on a vpn, that way everything is encrypted all the time. Just one big giant encrypted web.
S

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by Purple Lady

Since when do ISPs have the right to monitor what I do on the web?

I'm pretty sure they've had that right since day 1.

ISP's already monitor traffic, especially in aggregate; there's no way they could manage their networks without doing so. They do have the right to cap and/or throttle user traffic, so this is basically another means of doing so. E.g. if you use too much data, Comcast will throttle your usage by effectively reducing its priority.

I believe they do not have the right to provide specific information about you to a 3rd party without a subpoena or warrant. E.g. if the IP 64.22.31.127 is hosting tons of files that the MPAA suspects are infringing video files, and that IP is in Verizon's block, then Verizon can't tell the MPAA which one of their customers used that IP during that timeframe without a subpoena.

This is not required by the new policies, however, since that's Verizon notifying one of its own customers that if they don't cut it out, they will get throttled.

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

This is "ISPs will decide which downloads are legal and illegal, based on their extensive awareness of exactly which content is public domain....

It's not a snap, but it can definitely be done. Companies like Websense already make a business out it, and a company like Verizon can easily put $10 million into a system that will save them huge amounts of bandwidth by throttling infringing material.

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

The ISP will know if the download of this TV episode is for educational purposes and allowed under fair use.

You're not allowed to download an episode of a TV show via an infringing method just because it's for "educational purposes."

[Quelch]

If any government requires ISP's to become internet police then the government will have to pay them for the service

Keeping track of billions of users will require an army of well trained personnel !

[MovieBird]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

You're not allowed to download an episode of a TV show via an infringing method just because it's for "educational purposes."

Please define an "infringing method".

[calibrated]

Originally Posted by Quelch

If any government requires ISP's to become internet police then the government will have to pay them for the service

Keeping track of billions of users will require an army of well trained personnel !

I do believe they're on it...

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/201...nsadatacenter/

[jgaiser]

Originally Posted by MovieBird

Please define an "infringing method".

Come on. Torrents. You know that everything that comes from torrents is pirated.

[ilovejedd]

Originally Posted by jgaiser

Come on. Torrents. You know that everything that comes from torrents is pirated.

Doesn't Blizzard use torrents (or at least some form of peer-to-peer connection) to distribute updates and reduce load on their servers? I read the fine print on my StarCraft II manual/ToS and they give you permission to distribute the software as long as it remains unaltered. I'll have to double-check the new License Agreement for Windows 7 but I think it also says the same thing (of course, sharing your product key is another matter).

Seriously, I don't know how they're going to implement this. I think there may be a lot of false positives when they eventually do.

[jgaiser]

Originally Posted by ilovejedd

Doesn't Blizzard use torrents (or at least some form of peer-to-peer connection) to distribute updates and reduce load on their servers? I read the fine print on my StarCraft II manual/ToS and they give you permission to distribute the software as long as it remains unaltered. I'll have to double-check the new License Agreement for Windows 7 but I think it also says the same thing (of course, sharing your product key is another matter).

Yes. I was being a smart-ass. I get all my new Linux ISO images via torrents. Usually *much* faster than trying to download copies from Ubuntu sites.

[ilovejedd]

Originally Posted by jgaiser

Yes. I was being a smart-ass. I get all my new Linux ISO images via torrents. Usually *much* faster than trying to download copies from Ubuntu sites.

Realize that. However, Linux distros are obviously legal to distribute. Just wanted to point out a couple of scenarios where you might receive a nasty letter when you haven't actually done any infringing.

You're right about *buntu torrents being much faster compared to normal HTTP/FTP servers. I was getting 2~4MB/s when I downloaded Karmic.

[Hellmark]

Originally Posted by Penforhire

This isn't quite the same as what has been struck down. These are only warnings and a possible slow-down. They are not saying anyone gets disconnected. I still think it is rotten. I want a dumb-pipe to the internet.

Of course even these warnings/slow-downs are also easily circumvented through using a VPN, if it matters to you. At least until they ban encrypted traffic!

Heh, I'd like to see that happen.

As far as the warnings, from what they've said, it is supposed to be a 6 strike system. They send you warnings, and after the 6th, you're cut off. I remember when I first moved into my apartment, a few weeks after being there, I got 5 separate copyright notices, all dated for a time when I did not have the internet fully set up. I had a modem plugged in, but did not have a router yet, and did not have my computer set up (was in another county). Since I didn't have a router, I obviously didn't have wifi enabled in any capacity. If I didn't have a computer or router there, how could I have downloaded the 5 different things they claim I did? Most likely, they had logs saying that my modem had the IP after it came active, and the person who used it last had downloaded that stuff, and inadequate logs or research fingered me. Luckily at the time, the ISP was pretty lenient and said they'd not hassle me if I promised to not download anything like that, and to make sure when I got my wifi up that I had it encrypted. Under the system things are going to, those false positives would have still counted, and one more thing would have got my net connection killed.

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

It's not a snap, but it can definitely be done. Companies like Websense already make a business out it, and a company like Verizon can easily put $10 million into a system that will save them huge amounts of bandwidth by throttling infringing material.

You're not allowed to download an episode of a TV show via an infringing method just because it's for "educational purposes."

See, that's the deal. There is no "infringing methods". It isn't how you do it, but rather the act itself.

As far as the rest, well, they can tell basic info from handling it, just on what they need to route the packets with, but they cannot tell anything about it without doing deep packet inspection. So, for instance, if you're an ISP and you're routing a deluge of UDP packets from a ton of connections, and occasionally connecting to say, thepiratebay.se, you can surmise that they're using bittorrent and are likely pirating. But you have no clue on exactly what they're downloading, or uploading. While they'd likely be right if they slapped you for the above, they have no proof. The Pirate Bay isn't exclusively pirated content. For instance, just the other day I downloaded a Linux ISO, that happened to be tracked by the pirate bay. Did I do anything illegal? No. If you just have the vague clues the ISP has, would it appear as if I did? Yes. Deep packet inspection, while possible, does have some issues. High overhead for the ISP. Unable to get anything of use if the traffic is encrypted. If you break the encryption to find out, you're then violating a few laws. Plus, the other legal consequences due to the relation to wiretapping. Deep packet inspection is basically recording everything you do, and putting it together in a coherent manner, more or less making a mirror of all your downloaded and uploaded content. They'd have to have your permission for doing that, or a court order. Plus depending on how they did things, they'd potentially be committing copyright infringement as well.

Also, with the way the laws are in the US, the person who does the uploading is the one who is actually breaking the law. Somewhat of a moot point, considering that typically with the modern P2P networks you're uploading before you're even finished downloading, but still an important point to consider. Reason is, you can block all upload, so you're downloading only, and try some tricks to fool the trackers into thinking you're uploading as well (most trackers cut off people who aren't uploading to people that they requested you upload to). From a legal standpoint, they couldn't do anything to you there. However, the way they've spun things around, they make people think it is the downloading that is the illegal part. You violate copyright by making a copy without permission, correct? When you're downloading, the copy is being made by the party uploading. The person downloading is only receiving the copy.

[RainingLemur]

I sense some VPN providers making bank after this goes into effect.

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by calibrated

I do believe they're on it...

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/201...nsadatacenter/

Sure they are