Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Zaerosz]

If you're going to be a pirate, better do it before this happens. Six instances of 'downloading copyright-infringing material' will either get your internet speed throttled or get you disconnected altogether.

Can we just, like... murder the RIAA?

EDIT: Thread title changed by request of Itnetlolor. I fear for the future.

[TherosPherae]

And now for another exciting game of "Everybody Say When They Lost Their Shit."

For me, it was right around... here.

ISPs will automatically monitor the Web activity of their customers.

Damnit, RIAA... I can understand wanting to stop piracy and all - I mean, you want to keep making money without messing with the way you have things set up. That makes sense from your perspective. I GET that. But can you please do it in such a way that assholes won't be able to take advantage of it?

What I'm more interested in is what the hell this actually is. Is this a law being passed? An agreement between the RIAA/MPAA/what have you and the ISPs? The head of the RIAA spewing shit? If it's going to be law, has it gone through Congress already, or is there still a chance we can scream at the House reps and Senators?

OFF TO THE RESEARCHMOBILE

[Enzo]

And now for another exciting game of "Everybody Say When They Lost Their Shit."

Oooh! I'm down. I love this game.

...customers who are suspected of downloading copyrighted content illegally.

As always, the claim of taking action against suspected crimes makes me cringe. Considering this objectively, they're going to some automated system for tracking downloaded material that is probably either going to very specific and therefor ineffective, or very general triggering tons of false-alarms. I guess? The link is short on details. Either way, it'll range from worthless to detrimental, and the odds of them hitting the sweet spot in the middle seems pretty low.

The so-called “six-strikes” plan is said to be one of the most effective anti-piracy efforts ever established in the US.

It hasn't even been implemented yet and it's already one of the most successful anti-piracy measures! Way to go supercorporations!

I'm not pro-piracy, but history has shown that the media pirating community is only going to be 30 seconds behind any anti-piracy measures they manage to come up with. This seems like another poor "security" effort that'll end up being a short-lived stopgap.

Also, anything that meticulously tracks your internet activity = not good on principle. I'M LOOKING AT YOU GOOGLE/FACEBOOK.

[Cthulhu]

My favorite parts are the one where ISPs aren't required to take mitigative action, and no ISPs have agreed to cut off internet access permanently; and where ISPs will have to develop the infrastructure for monitoring on their own dime.

Let's hope Big Business works in our favor here, this doesn't sound like a very favorable arrangement for the ISPs, and if they gave enough of a shit about copyright infringement to do something about it themselves, they would've done it already.

[Caz]

The internet is pretty much a fundamental human right these days. How many work-hours are going to be lost because of false alarms and being kicked off? How much is this going to cost the ISPs to police the entire internet and cut off their own customers?

What a waste of resources. This is what happens when a few rich business leaders can whisper into the ears of the law-makers. The kicker is, doing all this won't improve their income at all. Stopping piracy does not = Increase sales.

[SalmonGod]

Can we just, like... murder the RIAA?

Mission Approved

[Lord Dullard]

I'm not pro-piracy, but history has shown that the media pirating community is only going to be 30 seconds behind any anti-piracy measures they manage to come up with. This seems like another poor "security" effort that'll end up being a short-lived stopgap.

In this case, for even the most marginally clever of them, they're already 30 seconds AHEAD. I mean, it's not exactly terribly difficult to get a high-bandwidth VPN for like $5/month if you're really committed to illegal media sharing.

[da_nang]

Wouldn't people be able to just encrypt their traffic? How will they differentiate "legal" and "illegal" downloads? Or are they just going to assume that all P2P traffic is "illegal" (A big can of worms, for sure.)?

Are they going to look up the IP addresses of the website one visits? Stalking, much? But even then, that isn't enough to say that one "illegally" downloaded. You don't even need to "download" a torrent file if you're using magnet links.

What about proxies and VPNs?

Is it even legal to look at the content without a warrant? (It is essentially "mail", after all.)
It's a recipe for disaster just waiting to go into meltdown.

Can we just, like... murder the RIAA?

Mission Approved

We can use an UAV and send it at their next meeting. Now what shall we load it with? Napalm? Warhead? Or maybe Zyklon B? Or perhaps something slower and more painful, yet with guaranteed, certain death.

[bukitodinos]

"Everybody Say When They Lost Their Shit."

OH OHH I GOT ONE!!

what about customers that get Internet access from smaller providers? Will those companies be pressured into jumping on the Hollywood bandwagon?

NO execulink! hate this, it like saying, "IF YOU DON'T HAVE A GOLD PLATED NES YOU SUCK"

[Aqizzar]

My favorite parts are the one where ISPs aren't required to take mitigative action, and no ISPs have agreed to cut off internet access permanently; and where ISPs will have to develop the infrastructure for monitoring on their own dime.

It does sounds like the RIAA president is kinda talking out of his ass there about some plan he's really hoping everybody's going to jump on board with.

I don't suppose anybody knows how many ISPs there are in America?  As far as I understand it, my ISP is my cable company and there's only like three of them.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I have my doubts that this is even feasible.

[RedKing]

This will last exactly as long as it takes for an ISP to drop someone's access over false alerts and then get sued for a metric fuckton of money over it.

[Aqizzar]

This will last exactly as long as it takes for an ISP to drop someone's access over false alerts and then get sued for a metric fuckton of money over it.

I have a distinct feeling they're expecting that, and probably consider a very good reason to maintain their current total inaction stance.  Really, what's in it for an ISP to implement at-cost a system for system for kicking out its customers with potential lawsuits behind it, for no visible benefit to themselves besides the goodwill of the RIAA?  Without a law to force them to do something like this, they have every incentive not to.

[Dutchling]

Didn't France tried to do something similar a few years ago? I think it's senate (or the supreme court, not sure) said the 'three illegal downloads => no internet' was against some human (or European) right for communication or so.

[Sheb]

Yeah, it was Hadopi. But it was a state-run stuff. I don't really know what happened.

EDIT: Apparently it passed.