-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Internet providers to start policing the web July 12
- Thread starter ClovingWestbrook
- Start date
- Status
You say she, but it didn't just happen once. Those cases show that IP addresses are a horrible way to figure out if someone has done something.
Of course this is a legal matter...it's a policy based on copyright law. It's a corporation taking the law into their own hands and handing out punishments without the necessary proof that would be required if they went through the courts.
This is silly, and ignores the reality that most people have no idea when it comes to technology. Are the ISP's going to send technicians out to every home and secure their wifi access points? Who is going to pay for that?
I wonder if piracy takes more or less bandwidth than streaming legitimate HD content. Either way, if pirates are converted to services like Netflix HD the bandwidth usage isn't going anywhere. Bandwidth usage continuing to rise is a foregone conclusion. I doubt ISP's would save a dime under this system (I'm actually pretty sure it would cost them money).
D
Deleted member 1235
Unconfirmed Member
Can't wait till we go back to BBS tech with a future twist
like this awesomely rad pirate box. Will be pretty funny watching the RIAA nerds running around saying 'WHERE THE FUCK IS IT' with detectors and shit.
http://wiki.daviddarts.com/PirateBox_DIY
and good luck shooting down ALL the pirate bay drones
http://blogs.computerworld.com/19923/the_pirate_bay_to_launch_airborne_proxy_drones?source=rss_blogs
like this awesomely rad pirate box. Will be pretty funny watching the RIAA nerds running around saying 'WHERE THE FUCK IS IT' with detectors and shit.
http://wiki.daviddarts.com/PirateBox_DIY
and good luck shooting down ALL the pirate bay drones
http://blogs.computerworld.com/19923/the_pirate_bay_to_launch_airborne_proxy_drones?source=rss_blogs
nVidiot_Whore
Banned
Complete exaggeration. In the vast majority of cases no mistake would ever be made. And if it's someone else using your internet connection, the mistake is truly yours. You let someone else violate an agreement you have with your service provider.. it's just pretty basic stuff here.
Which makes it not a legal matter. It's a matter of not violating a user agreement with a service you pay for.
The customer.. most ISP's certainly offer such services. They will sell or lease a wifi setup for you.. and have a technician come to your home.
Good point to some extent. But we are already paying the cost of piracy, that includes the costs associated with the ISP.. while society sees no benefit, other than selfish people getting things for free.
nVidiot_Whore
Banned
Sounds like something a big corporation would do..
AKA, The Pirate Bay.. same with that guy from the file sharing service.. probably made hundreds of millions of dollars off of advertising that they earned because of their sites that exist almost solely for the purpose of enabling the illegal downloading of someone elses work.
(if that's even real..but it's all part of the childish attitude.. "Yay, go Pirate Bay!! You make hundreds of millions.. stick it to 'THE MAN!'")
Theonik
Member
It's an exaggeration to say that people without computers, grandmothers, etc, were wrongfully targeted by lawsuits, and that it calls into question the validity of an IP address as "proof" of anything?
Okay.
A service that is now integral to modern life. I guess that is a more philosophical debate, but personally, I'd like being disconnected from the internet to be treated with the same weight as being disconnected from any other utility. (I realize that it's not currently a utility in this country, and I disagree with that)
Most ISP supplied modems come with wifi enabled. If wifi is enabled, it can be cracked, and there isn't a thing Grandma can do about that (except turn wifi off but...what if she needs it on? Not that she'd know how to turn it off in the first place)
Not to mention that anyone in the household could just walk up and plug in an ethernet cable. Good luck teaching regular people how to prevent that.
ISP pricing is divorced from the actual costs of the subscriber using their connection. The duopoly (if not monopoly) that exists in many areas of the country is how they can charge what they do, and it has little to do with the volume of data going over their lines.
sans_pants
avec_pénis
i cant wait til all content is crowd funded. completely cutting out corporate parasites ftw
Hipsters will turn to corporate produced content while complaining that indie content had become "too mainstream".
It's bullshit, but I don't think it will be as bad as everyone says.
They have to send you a bunch of "educational" notices (at least three iirc) that are essentially harmless, and only then do you get serious warnings that, after at least three times, the ISP can boot you, but it's entirely up to them if and when after that.
Furthermore, the only way I can see you getting caught is if you torrent a lot, unless they are making Google hand over IP addresses for search strings that were clearly intended to be used for downloading something copyrighted (which I doubt).
They have to send you a bunch of "educational" notices (at least three iirc) that are essentially harmless, and only then do you get serious warnings that, after at least three times, the ISP can boot you, but it's entirely up to them if and when after that.
Furthermore, the only way I can see you getting caught is if you torrent a lot, unless they are making Google hand over IP addresses for search strings that were clearly intended to be used for downloading something copyrighted (which I doubt).
nVidiot_Whore
Banned
In the vast majority of cases the IP address on a torrent is going to be for the person paying for the internet connection, and/or someone they knowingly let use that connection.
So don't pirate shit..don't have an open wi-fi. You are 99.9% protected.. the idea that there is some rampant "cracking" of home wi-fi signals is just.. ridiculous.
Sure it "can be cracked".. this would be a small minority of cases. The vast majority of encrypted wi-fi routers are never cracked by anyone.
I just can't even respond to this.
IP addresses are more than good enough to enforce something like this. If you have concerns.. do more to protect the connection you pay for. Or you might have to deal with the customer service of your ISP.. you are paying them $50 to potentially $100's of dollars for service.. they aren't in any hurry to lose you as a customer. Yeah, there are some monopolies / duopolies out there.. that is a separate issue IMO that needs to be dealt with.. it's being helped by the availability of 4g and other wi-fi services.. I don't know what to do about the land-line monopoly/duoploies out there.. it's a complex issue.
Either way, there are numerous alternatives for internet access aside from your home ISP.. and it's doubtful many, or anyone will actually get their service cut off for anything other than them personally pirating, or being irresponsible with their router settings.
Imagine that someone else gets on your network and violates other terms of your service. Maybe they run a web server, send out endless spam e-mails, operate a virus/bot network or exceeds your monthly bandwidth cap. Do you really think that the "Oh somebody else did it!" excuse is going to fly? Do you really think that excuse is going to fly the 6th or 7th time you're caught doing it?
ClosingADoor
Member
Posting from Europe here, so I'm not familiar with all the options in the US and you're right that discussion might not be that relevant. But piracy is a global issue, which requires a global solution. A lot of the piracy problems in Europe are because people have to wait weeks or months before they can see a tv show and then you have to hope it isn't badly translated in some countries.
And if you just block or filter some stuff, the next thing will be encrypted torrents, VPNs, etc. So going country to country with such a global issue is not the most effective one.
I have to go mow the lawn (f**k 80 degree, rainy march that should be 40 degrees and dry) but I'll say this:
It won't do anything but force pirates away from peer to peer and onto other services. Internet connections will not drop in price at all. Digital content won't become any more prevalent than it would have been (by force of the free market) anyway. It's a huge waste of time, and an enormous undertaking for the sake of making content holders feel good that something is being done. Some deserving people will get warnings, and some won't. Parents and grandparents will grapple with technology that they don't understand in order to comply with a notice generated by a company that hasn't proven any misconduct.
I'm anti-piracy, but this isn't going to help, and it's going to be a huge pain in the ass. Why do it at all?
They'd have to prove my involvement in a court of law for both of your scenarios. That is the difference.
nVidiot_Whore
Banned
Extradition treaties.
You basically just said "How does extradition exist and work?"
Extradition is defined by one country helping another country enforce it's laws.
sans_pants
avec_pénis
you can call us entitled because we demand content now and cheap, but that is the reality that the internet provides. companies can either compete with pirates to deliver content to its customers, or they continue to lose business. its not childish to want to take advantage of all the power that the internet provides. if anything its an advancement of society
Yeah, this is a really stupid move by the RIAA/MPAA and ISP's. It's not going to recover any lost revenue.
The information age that is the Internet is more and more increasingly being held hostage by telecoms and entertainment execs who have no care in the world about how profoundly things have changed over the past 10-15 years... it's really sickening. They need to be stopped.
The information age that is the Internet is more and more increasingly being held hostage by telecoms and entertainment execs who have no care in the world about how profoundly things have changed over the past 10-15 years... it's really sickening. They need to be stopped.
nVidiot_Whore
Banned
The Internet doesn't create TV shows, films,software or music though. That's where it's childish; the only thing the internet provides is an easy way to commit a crime. It becomes childish the moment someone starts arguing they should be allowed to commit such crimes under the guise of "freedom."
I think the problem is it's been around so long without anyone stopping anyone. We have an entire generation of adults now who grew up in a world where it is entirely normal and accepted to pirate music, movies, TV shows, software, etc. They have this attitude that something is being unrightfully "taken away" from them when it was never their right in the first place.
It's like.. "Well piracy is easy.. and they'll just have to deal with it".. and it's childish and short-sighted.. because it ignores the massive amount of money, hard work, and VALUE that goes into the content they want the "right" to take for free.
Music for instance.. it has become vastly MORE VALUABLE.. I can legitimately buy songs for far cheaper than I could before.. and load them up on numerous devices.. bring 1,000's of albums in my car that I can easily search and play, build playlists of, etc.
Yet the expectation to pay for music? Practically vanished. Why provide people with all of this convenience and value when they spit in your face and cry foul any time they try to enforce legitimate laws?
This isn't a fair and healthy market.. it's rampant piracy.. this isn't consumer demand.. it's crime.
Markets driven heavily by the influence of crime rarely are very healthy.. and it rarely works out for the legitimate consumer who just wants to buy things they find valuable.
Why do you keep thinking of this in legal terms?
They don't have to prove your involvement at all. There is no court. They simply suspend your service.
sans_pants
avec_pénis
its not about freedom, its about how it is. piracy exists and cant really be stopped with laws, unless you want to severely restrict the most free mode of communication we've ever had as a society. content providers could greatly lower piracy by just offering similar services at reasonable prices. instead, they want to force the government to keep their pre-internet business model viable
ReturnOfTheRAT
Member
You can lock it down to only the MAC addresses you assign.
so is my tax money going towards this? arresting some british guy for sharing music online?
nVidiot_Whore
Banned
Murder can't be stopped by laws either. No law stops any crime from happening.
I think it's totally false that law enforcement, ISPs, etc. can't help slow down piracy. I think it's patently ridiculous in fact, and entirely intellectually dishonest.
"OMG, what can we do!!" Uhhh.. how about shutting down access to web sites that obviously only exist for the purpose of profiting off of crime? "OMG, my rights!"
You asked me if "I didn't do it" would be an acceptable excuse if felonies (malware distribution and spam specifically) had been committed on my internet connection. My answer was that... of course it would be, if I hadn't actually done it, and there wasn't any proof.
That's the rub here; No one has to prove anything for these ridiculous notices to be sent out. An IP address isn't proof of anything at all, unless you want to go so far as to say that "anything that happens on the internet connection you are paying for is your responsibility". Taking that to the extreme, what if someone commits the felonies you mentioned on my connection? Am I responsible for that? Of course not, morally anyway, and if anyone tried to say I was legally responsibile, they'd have to prove it. Why shouldn't they have to prove that copyright infringement has actually occurred if they want to terminate my ISP contract, and cut off my access to what should (by all rights) be a utility?
Blah blah. I don't care what side of the issue you are on, the simple fact is that these industry fuckers basically view torrenting, say, Dexter Season 2 as being no different than walking into Target and jacking the Blu-Ray set. You cannot prove that; it's impossible. Yet they use this as justification for taking one step closer to getting what they really want: policing the Internet and controling the flow of content to suit their needs over anyone else's, which is anticompetetive to say the least, and threatens the open nature of the Internet itself -- both of these things are far more important than a copyright holder kicking and screaming until they get their way just because. There is absolutely NO basis for their tactics and it is infuriating that they can get away with this.
It's not the latest move that pisses me off, but their "war on piracy" as a whole that makes my blood pressure rise. They spend (waste) so much money "combating" piracy that they're pushing themselves deeper into debt than they would if they'd just get a grip on reality. What a bunch of neanderthals.
I really hope they just burn themselves out and implode within the next ten years. They champion a decaying business model, and the faster they get out of the way the better off we are. The Internet IS the future of entertainment, information, commerce, you name it. These assholes need to get out of the way instead of trying to get a stranglehold on something that was never really theirs to seize in the first place. Take part in it, fine. But don't you dare police it with baseless claims to back your actions because you say so. That's not the way it works.
It's not the latest move that pisses me off, but their "war on piracy" as a whole that makes my blood pressure rise. They spend (waste) so much money "combating" piracy that they're pushing themselves deeper into debt than they would if they'd just get a grip on reality. What a bunch of neanderthals.
I really hope they just burn themselves out and implode within the next ten years. They champion a decaying business model, and the faster they get out of the way the better off we are. The Internet IS the future of entertainment, information, commerce, you name it. These assholes need to get out of the way instead of trying to get a stranglehold on something that was never really theirs to seize in the first place. Take part in it, fine. But don't you dare police it with baseless claims to back your actions because you say so. That's not the way it works.
nVidiot_Whore
Banned
Yes. And? So are the tax dollars of anyone who sells intellectual property.
sans_pants
avec_pénis
playing whackamole with whatever piracy site pops up is clearly not working. providing the customer with what they want could help. your personal opinion is not necessarily the correct one
sans_pants
avec_pénis
the beautiful thing about crowd sourcing all of our content is that the money made will actually go to artists
nVidiot_Whore
Banned
Fixed your post. Childish diatribe is childish.
But you aren't alone.. in fact, you are a part of the vast majority who thinks somehow the companies that fund the entertainment you desire "getting out of the way" will magically be replaced by someone else paying the same amount of money to fund the same content?
WTF?
sans_pants
avec_pénis
its already happening
nVidiot_Whore
Banned
It isn't even possible, how do you know it isn't working?
That was the point of SOPA.. because right now they literally can't do anything to take down piracy sites hosted in foreign countries other than attempt to get the foreign law enforcement involved.
Which is hugely costly.. and not efficient.
Blocking access to said sites would be easy.. efficient.. and not costly. It could easily move piracy into an "under-net" that most people wouldn't bother with, especially with the aid of ISPs actually doing something about users who pirate.
Really not difficult IMO.. the only difficulty is getting beyond the publics ridiculous reaction to attempts to stop online piracy.
It's happening with music and books, but it's unlikely to happen with movies, games, or TV shows any time soon. Crowds couldn't really fund the blockbuster spectacles that are seen on those three mediums. I mean, they could in theory, but in practice how are you going to get a hundred million dollars in investments from random people based on the idea that they might like the result? Investors invest in blockbusters because they think they'll get their money back, not because they believe in the content being created.
Just imagining the fights over what to crowd fund.... Do we pay for Dragon Quest, or Final Fantasy? COD or Battlefield?
Bleh.
nVidiot_Whore
Banned
Sure for music. Neat. Explain to me how the film or TV industry will get around massive funding?
Music has never required large amounts of money to create.. nowadays it's not even costly to record and distribute it.
Good for music artists.. good for music consumers.
Explain to me how other industries will use this model.
And explain to me why it's really any better? You really think the public will somehow pick better content to fund? Based on what? Based on their tastes? We'll have $200 million budgets for Jersey Shore and independent film and TV producers will be left with dick squat..
And anyone wanting to sell a lot of.. well.. ANYTHING.. still has to advertise, promote, market, and distribute their product. It's entirely short sighted to think that "artists" are going to succesfully handle that en masse.
The ones that are right now? They were already made hugely popular by massive companies that spent loads of money ensuring their popularity. The ones that did it from scratch are the exception.
sans_pants
avec_pénis
sopa was a terrible bill any way you slice it
If you could get the latest episode of, for example, True Blood for $3-5 a pop in HD as an mpeg-4 file, directly from the show's official website, with no subscription to an overpriced cable plan or other bullshit fees -- that would do more than anything else to combat torrenting, newsgroups, megaupload-like services, etc. If everyone did this, and finally let the old model of subscription cable services start to wither away, piracy would be a much more irrelevant thing than it even is now.
The industry knows this, that's why they are creating a sideshow, making a "mountain out of a molehill" as the old-fashioned saying goes. Most people who pirate would never be bothered to all of the sudden pay $100+ a month for overpriced cable/satellite or go buy a bunch of boxsets at $40-80 a pop if they woke up tomorrow and all ISP's magically banned all possible methods of piracy.
New models for acquiring content worked quite well with the iTunes and Spotifys of the world. The MPAA and their like know this. That's what this is really about. That's why they are being even more aggressive because they studied how the Internet changed the music industry, and they're kicking and screaming, defying reality even, trying to change the rules to their benefit (and no one else's) so that the same thing doesn't happen with TV shows and movies. I am confident that they will fail, but then again this is the US and corporations have more power than ever before. Everyone loses but them if they continue to get their way. nVidiot_Whore and people like him are a part of the problem, not the solution, by assuming too much based on claims with absolutely no teeth whatsoever (just money), holding hostage new revenue streams that will do a far better job at combating piracy in the long run.
sans_pants
avec_pénis
price on stuff like that is plummeting. as computer and software power increase, itll become easier to create. hell, a lot of big budget movies have those sorts of budgets to pay actor quotes and marketing.
and not everything has to be a big budget spectacle anyway. things like kickstarter are being used to fund indie feature in the 50k range, webseries productions for 70k, etc
nVidiot_Whore
Banned
Not even going to get into SOPA.. so much mis-information it's pointless.
sans_pants
avec_pénis
cable television will be gone within 10 years unless they pay the government to keep propping them up. and we should all be rejoicing that fact, not lamenting it
sans_pants
avec_pénis
i watched our government discuss it with my own eyes. i watched as the obviously paid off ones ignored experts and didn't want to look into any problems it would cause. i watched as they decided that they could bring down any website simply based on suspicion, and then that website would have to prove their innocence in a costly battle. and i watched as they gave immunity to hosts as long as they agreed to take down the content with no argument.
personally, i dont want to live with such a neutered and scared version of the internet
nVidiot_Whore
Banned
Even if I believe all of this? (I don't.. people will continue to pirate in MASSIVE AMOUNTS if it's made super easy and nothing is done to enforce anti-piracy measures no matter how many companies offer it up for pay)
It's not your right as a consumer to turn around and take a copy of the content for free. And it is the right of the copyright holder to expect law enforcement, partnering companies, etc. to do something about stopping you.
It's way too damn easy to pirate, and way too accepted. That's my bottom line.
I'd LOVE for the ability to pay for everything digital.. day one, etc. I'm just realistic about it.. and still massively enjoy the content in the form it is currently sold to me.. and no matter how I feel about it, I will always find justifications for piracy childish, same with the whining, exageration, mis-information, etc. that stems from any attempt to stop it.
nVidiot_Whore
Banned
This post includes loads of mis-information about SOPA.
Point proven. What you said has little to do with what SOPA would have enabled. I read every word of the bill.. multiple times.. the vast majority of blogs, trendy YouTube videos, etc. were just outright lying about it's content.
But I am truly not going to get into it. Too frustrating, and it's an old topic anyways.
Yeah, they said that about the DMCA too and we're still living with the consequences. Don't even pull that bs. The bill was so broad in defining what could be counted as piracy that anyone with half a brain would know it's bad policy. You had liberals, conservatives, and libertarians all voicing opposition to this bill, during a time where there's been more obstruction and fighting in Washington since the buildup to the Civil War. It's that bad, and yet even now, they knew this was bad policy. Don't even go there.
It's not about rights, it is about ACCESS. If you streamline the access model and do what I suggested in my previous post you will see piracy fade away faster than it would under any of these bullshit "anti-piracy" methods.
People will always pirate; it's foolish to think otherwise. It's just as foolish to spend MILLIONS of dollars "combating" it, wasting more money than you would be just accepting the fact that you will have some "lost" revenue (I put quotes over it because you have no way of determining if someone would have bought it if they did not torrent it). The problem is that the execs of the entertainment industry overreact and are doing fuck all to combat the problem from the other end -- that is, starting to back off from outdated cable TV and moving into the new era of information and entertainment that is the Internet. Not by trying to buy it outright as though it were some huge TV network, but realizing how it works and how people have come to use it over the years by offering them what they want, the instant it is available, at a price that is reasonable.
You always had people copying VHS tapes/taping stuff from TV in the 80's and 90's. No one went to jail for that unless they had a HUGE piracy ring. The industry seemed to do just fine then. They are trying too hard by using tactics that are short-sighted and ultimately do nothing to combat piracy, but do a whole lot to hurt their own bottom line. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot. Think about all the money they have wasted suing websites and individuals alike over the past ten years. What has it done to protect their oh so precious business model? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. They are accelerating their own demise.
New revenue streams worked well enough for music, that's why you don't see the RIAA crying all the time like they used to. The MPAA is making all the noise now, while the RIAA plays more of a supportive role more than anything else. It's all a show. They are hanging on to dear live to outdated revenue streams and it is PATHETIC.
sans_pants
avec_pénis
i watched the writing of the bill on a live webstream. are you calling me stupid?
U n i o n 0015
Member
Jesus, a name like Cary Sherman is almost too perfect for a douchebag RIAA executive.
nVidiot_Whore
Banned
They composed the bill during a live webstream? WTF?
lol
Not going to continue to discuss SOPA.
Isps often have cable services as well.
- Status