MPAA/RIAA's ' 6 strikes ' anti-pirate policy coming soon ... be afraid

[teh603]

I'm a little more concerned that all this is going to be done by a for-profit company than a government regulatory agency like an arm of the FCC. I don't see this as having any transparency at all.

"Your internet is being disconnected."

"Why?"

"You downloaded some copyrighted material, but we don't have to tell you what, when, or how."

"This isn't Soviet Russia! I have rights."

"And we have a right to not tell you anything other than what we just did. What do you think we are, a government agency? Have a nice week."

[MikeOxlittle]

Originally Posted by BWinmill

They don't have to stop the real pirates. They only have to discourage the people who do it because they think they're hiding behind anonymity (when they aren't). In the long run, it will likely have a stronger impact because people are more likely to make mistakes.

But by not going after the real pirates, are they really accomplishing more than just putting a bandaid on a gunshot wound?

Getting a warning letter from an ISP might very well deter people from downloading, temporarily, until they seek out means in which to gain access to it again (which there are plenty).

But to be effective, they need effective measures. Giving someone 5+ passes to figure out how to circumvent their tactics is not effective.

[Quexos]

Also if your ISP starts getting on your case, you could just try a different ISP thereby sending the message to ISP's that they must not forget where their money comes from.

Originally Posted by MikeOxlittle

But by not going after the real pirates, are they really accomplishing more than just putting a bandaid on a gunshot wound?

Getting a warning letter from an ISP might very well deter people from downloading, temporarily, until they seek out means in which to gain access to it again (which there are plenty).

But to be effective, they need effective measures. Giving someone 5+ passes to figure out how to circumvent their tactics is not effective.

[MikeOxlittle]

Originally Posted by Quexos

Also if your ISP starts getting on your case, you could just try a different ISP thereby sending the message to ISP's that they must not forget where their money comes from.

Very good point.

A few years back I was able to save monthly on my internet costs by just calling them up, asking to speak to their retention department, and asking for a reduced rate or I'd go to a competitor. They quickly accepted.

[taustin]

This is zero change. Nothing whatsoever is different. There is no force of law, this is entirely voluntary on the part of ISPs. Some will sign on, some will not. Some will enforce it strictly, some will not.

That is exactly the same as it is now.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

So what are you saying? That we shouldn't prosecute people who commit piracy?

I'm saying actions have consequences.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by Quexos

Also if your ISP starts getting on your case, you could just try a different ISP thereby sending the message to ISP's that they must not forget where their money comes from.

I doubt they would be bothered. Heavy downloaders aren't very profitable to ISPs.

[Quexos]

That is something I can't understand. I mean digital data is not like water or oil or whatever other commodity, whenever you consume more water or oil, it's that much your provider does not have anymore, therefore he charges you accordingly. But digital data is not actually transferred from ISP to consumer, it's only copied. So how do heavy downloaders cost extra to ISP's I can't figure out. And don't say because they clutter up bandwidth. The only cost is for ISP's to strengthen it and if they are smart they do it once and get the widest possible bandwidth which is a one time investment and they are good after that for a long time (until new technologies allow for even wider bandwidth)

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

I doubt they would be bothered. Heavy downloaders aren't very profitable to ISPs.

[JoeD]

Originally Posted by Quexos

The only cost is for ISP's to strengthen it and if they are smart they do it once and get the widest possible bandwidth which is a one time investment and they are good after that for a long time (until new technologies allow for even wider bandwidth)

It is due to bandwidth. ISPs (at least in the UK) tend to lease access to "pipes". They pay for that access whether the portion of the pipe they've leased is used 100% or not at all.

If you have lots of heavy downloaders (doesn't matter if they're pirates or not, aside from which legit iPlayer users may use more bandwidth than illegal ebook pirates!) the ISP would either have to lease more pipes and increase their monthly costs to allow for the extra bandwidth heavy users occasionally use. Or, they let their customers suffer through packet loss and general slowness during high congestion times.

The problem afaik is when you have normal peak use at say 90% of your single pipe capacity, then a few extra heavy users knock that usage to 101%. You can't just lease 1% more, you have to lease an entire second pipe which doubles your monthly costs due to handle that extra 1% of over usage and 99% of that cost is going to waste as the majority of the pipe is unused. Not leasing more means during those times, all your users will see high pings, slow downloads and packet loss.

Now, if average usage increases to 101% and piracy took it to 110% it'd make no difference, the ISP would still have to upgrade to a second pipe to cover the average usage or face lots of complaints over a poor connection.

I've vastly over simplified of course, since for the odd time you hit 100% ISPs could traffic shape to reduce bandwidth usage across the board and avoid packet loss, but there is still a tipping point where you're over subscribing a single pipe either because of increased use overall, or a few heavy users.

[teh603]

Originally Posted by JoeD

Now, if average usage increases to 101% and piracy took it to 110% it'd make no difference, the ISP would still have to upgrade to a second pipe to cover the average usage or face lots of complaints over a poor connection.

If the complaints I've heard about certain ISPs are true, they just leave the average usage at 101 to 110%, and yell at the customers for using too much.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by Quexos

But digital data is not actually transferred from ISP to consumer, it's only copied.

Those news stories about how a full Kindle weighs 0.00000000001 microgram more than an empty one didn't impress you?

Originally Posted by Quexos

So how do heavy downloaders cost extra to ISP's . . .

You come so close to explaining it in the rest of your post that an answer seems superfluous.

One cost you did forget about: Slower internet service for others, like me. While iPhones users pirate copyrighted apps, I'm slowed down reading twp.com on my 3G Kindle 3. Time is money, just as electrons are.

P.S. Or do iPhone pirates sideload, thus slowing down my home internet? It's one or the other.

[DarkScribe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Not everybody has access to such services. I've never heard of the one you mention.

Do you mean to say that Australia has something that is less expensive than the UK or US? I thought that Quickflix was an Australian copy of a US operation. I have family in the US who subscribe to a similar service.

See: http://www.quickflix.com.au/PricingAndPlans

The unlimited streaming is so inexpensive that it really makes piracy a waste of time. You also have the express mailed DVDs if you don't want to stream.

[JoeD]

Originally Posted by teh603

If the complaints I've heard about certain ISPs are true, they just leave the average usage at 101 to 110%, and yell at the customers for using too much.

Indeed they do

[JoeD]

Originally Posted by DarkScribe

Do you mean to say that Australia has something that is less expensive than the UK or US? I thought that Quickflix was an Australian copy of a US operation. I have family in the US who subscribe to a similar service.

See: http://www.quickflix.com.au/PricingAndPlans

The unlimited streaming is so inexpensive that it really makes piracy a waste of time. You also have the express mailed DVDs if you don't want to stream.

UK has netflix and lovefilm.

[InsulinJunkie72]

Originally Posted by taustin

This is zero change. Nothing whatsoever is different. There is no force of law, this is entirely voluntary on the part of ISPs. Some will sign on, some will not. Some will enforce it strictly, some will not.

Some of the other articles over the past year or not (CNET and some other news outlets) noted the parties finally agreed due to some backstage arm-twisting from the White House. It's basically a back-channel law, with more PR protection for the administration if it goes over like a lead balloon.