Major ISPs to turn into copyright police by July says RIAA

[teh603]

Originally Posted by ilovejedd

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.

Depends on what packages you use; some of the ones in *-restricted-extras and the Medibuntu repositories are illegal in a lot of corporatized nations. Libdvdcss2 is a particularly sticky one because that's the one that allows you to play (by breaking the encryption on) DVDs. That's why they're kept in the repositories in the first place.

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).

Blizz uses a surprisingly modern business model; instead of selling on a per-copy basis, they sell on a per-account one and charge an "about right" for access. A lot of other game companies seem to be more concerned about protecting their client using ever-increasing DRM or other screwball methods (like the DCU Online game launcher's requiring some version of Internet Explorer for unspecified reasons). Makes me wonder if they "farm out" a lot of processing to the game client, thus making it vulnerable to cheaters.

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.

No idea either, and I wouldn't be surprised if there were lawsuits out the you can guess where. Quite frankly, though, I'm amazed nobody tried to force this sooner on the pretext of hunting down child porn.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by teh603

Now you just wait a second. Its only thought police if the government enforces it.

It's thought police when it limits expressing of thoughts or ideas. You still will be able to argue that copyright shouldn't exist. You just will find it a little more difficult to act on your conviction.

These ISP's have long been thought police because they try to block child pornography. But this time it isn't about thoughts. It's about behavior, and about whether you are willing to pay for copyrighted thoughts.

Remember that the ultimate sanction here is just slower internet service. You'll still be able to go anywhere on the internet you want, including this thread. And, sadly, you won't really be inconvenienced when downloading copyrighted books, since that doesn't take much bandwidth.

Originally Posted by xg4bx

is it really that far of a stretch before ISPs start deciding what other sites are ok?

That was the SOPA battle.

[xg4bx]

from what i'm understanding only torrents will be affected 'for now'.

"Those not engaging in file-sharing on P2P networks will probably notice very little (cyberlocker sharing is not covered), apart from ultimately having to help finance the scheme through their ISP bills."

i'd post a link but its from a pro-torrent site.

[xg4bx]

Originally Posted by calibrated

I do believe they're on it...

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

"The CIA wants to spy on you through your TV: Agency director says it will 'transform' surveillance"

"Everything from remote controls to clock radios can now be controlled via apps - and chip company ARM recently unveiled low-powered, cheaper chips which will be used in everything from fridges and ovens to doorbells."

"The resultant chorus of 'connected' gadgets will be able to be read like a book - and even remote-controlled, according to CIA Director David Petraeus, according to a recent report by Wired's 'Danger Room' blog."

"Petraeus says that web-connected gadgets will 'transform' the art of spying - allowing spies to monitor people automatically without planting bugs, breaking and entering or even donning a tuxedo to infiltrate a dinner party."


"Petraeus was speaking to a venture capital firm about new technologies which aim to add processors and web connections to previously 'dumb' home appliances such as fridges, ovens and lighting systems."

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...#ixzz1pRvw9bI7


its not 'paranoid lunacy' anymore, they're openly admitting what they want to do.

[speakingtohe]

Shades of George Orwell.

Of course some nutso people want to do that, but what will they do with all of this data.
Hire a million people to sift through it?
Prosecute a million offenders in courts?
Build several thousand more jails to alleviate the already overburdened penal system?

I agree it is an atrocity in the making, but in my part of the world criminals walk out of court every day with a slap on the wrist after being found guilty of some pretty serious crimes.

And of course the serious criminal/terrorist types of people will use disposable phones and USB network adapters so their MAC address will change and avoid talking about their evil plans in hearing distance of their intelligent appliances.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by xg4bx

its not 'paranoid lunacy' anymore, they're openly admitting what they want to do.

I wouldn't accept Daily Mail journalism at face value.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

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

I agree with most of the rest of your post, but in this case it doesn't really matter if the downloader is exercising fair use rights. If the site they're downloading from is not an authorized distributor, then the uploader is committing copyright infringement regardless of what the downloader does with the file.

Copyright infringement depends on whether or not the uploader is authorized, it has little to do with the downloader.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

I agree with most of the rest of your post, but in this case it doesn't really matter if the downloader is exercising fair use rights. If the site they're downloading from is not an authorized distributor, then the uploader is committing copyright infringement regardless of what the downloader does with the file.

Copyright infringement depends on whether or not the uploader is authorized, it has little to do with the downloader.

In that case, the uploader's ISP should go after them. (Funny how the RIAA and MPAA aren't making any noise about monitoring *uploads.* It's almost like they know how ridiculous that would be.)

Maybe it was uploaded under fair use--part of a "torrents for teachers" collection of well-known educational episodes of popular tv shows. ("70s TV episodes spotlighting racism." "20 anti-drug episodes." "Examples of gay people in popular media.")

While I have doubts such a claim would hold up in court, I could see a coherent and plausible argument that a "mix collection" of episodes from several production companies has educational value, and that the production companies themselves would never cooperate to allow such a thing to be made--especially if the collection included commentary on which shows got it right and which ones botched their attempt to showcase popular controversies. And a good argument can be made that you need the entire episode, not a small collection of clips, to discuss how it deals with these topics.

[mr ploppy]

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 !

It will all be automated, and it will be ISP customers who pick up the bill. The way it works in England, the copyright holders pay a company to trawl torrents for IP addresses, sift through them for friendly ISPs, then send the relevant ones on for processing.

These were one of our pioneers in the area:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/watchdog/...tening_le.html

[sbroome]

Originally Posted by Purple Lady

Since when do ISPs have the right to monitor what I do on the web? Isn't this an invasion of privacy? If my phone calls were monitored to see who I was calling, that would be illegal. From the article

If you pay someone to provide you with a service then your actions under that service are not private.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

These were one of our pioneers in the area:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/watchdog/...tening_le.html

Who, happily, were slapped down.

In 2008 an official complaint was made by the Consumers' Association to the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) about Davenport-Lyons' "campaign of letters alleging illegal filesharing".
The case against Davenport Lyons partners David Gore and Brian Miller was the subject of a 7 day hearing at the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT), starting 31 May 2011.
On 8 June 2011, the SDT found that all allegations against the pair had been proven. They were fined £20,000 each, ordered to pay interim costs of £150,000, and suspended from practising for three months.
The SRA said:
"Solicitors have a duty to act with integrity, independence and in the best interests of their clients. Solicitors who breach those duties can expect to face action by the SRA."

[anamardoll]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Which the ISP will know, because the subscriber will have been convicted of a crime.

Oh, wait. This isn't about knowing something has been done illegally because a court confirmed it. This is "ISPs will decide which downloads are legal and illegal, based on their extensive awareness of exactly which content is public domain, creative commons, shared with permission, owned by disinterested parties who don't care whether it's copied, or copyrighted and the owner(s) would prefer it not be downloaded by the person who's grabbing a copy." The ISP will know if this is an author who's regained their rights grabbing a copy from the torrents as a jump-start to selling their own ebooks. The ISP will know if the band that wrote and performs this song has a clause in their contract that allows them to grant permission for their songs to be shared. The ISP will know if the download of this TV episode is for educational purposes and allowed under fair use.

ISPs will also, of course, be happy to confirm the contents of each and every file being downloaded, to make sure it matches the description.

I wish I had more karma so I could give you more for this.

[6charlong]

Originally Posted by sbroome

The cheapest solution would be personal accountability. How do you think that's working out?

When I was in school I worked in a bookstore. A certain number of books were stolen every year. It happens because there are thieves in the world, they lack responsibility and accountability but we knew it is counter productive to treat every customer coming in as if we thought they were a thief because few of them are.

[sbroome]

Originally Posted by 6charlong

When I was in school I worked in a bookstore. A certain number of books were stolen every year. It happens because there are thieves in the world, they lack responsibility and accountability but we knew it is counter productive to treat every customer coming in as if we thought they were a thief because few of them are.

Technological stealing is a far different beast than brick and mortar though. And every business takes measures to stop stealing even if they know they'll never stop all of them.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

Who, happily, were slapped down.

That didn't stop any of the other similar companies who have started up since. It's a pretty big industry now, and generates a lot of income worldwide. That's real income too, not just made up "what if everyone bought it instead" income. If piracy was ever stopped completely it would put a lot of people out of work.