Six strikes and you're out.

[cybok0]

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2415814,00.asp

The Copyright Alert System, as it's been named, will allow an individual to receive up to six "alerts" when it's been detected that said user is sharing copyrighted content – after said copyright owner complains, that is. These alerts, according to the Copyright Alert System's website, will eventually result in a "mitigation measure" for those who continue to share copyright material.

Those "mitigation measures" aren't as severe as some of the copyright-protection measures found in other countries – namely, France's "three strikes" HADOPI law that allows an ISP to completely cut off a user's service after a few accusations of copyright violations.

Nevertheless, they could include the throttling of a user's Internet speed, or a prompt that forces a user to contact the ISP or complete an educational session about copyright before being allowed to access the Web once again.


However, with sources tipping off both Torrentfreak and The Daily Dot about the upcoming roll-out of the "six strikes" plan – in addition to the recent redesign of the Center for Copyright Information's website – there's a little more credibility lent to the notion that Comcast might indeed lead off as the first ISP to incorporate the new plan starting Monday. It's expected that the other ISPs will begin participating in the new Copyright Alert System at various points throughout the week.

Interestingly enough, reports Torrentfreak, the entire premise of the Copyright Alert System isn't to punish "hardcore pirates." Rather, the goal of the program is to educate the public in general about copyright policies in the digital age, as it's presumed that those looking to seriously share in copyright material will be able to evade owners' discovery techniques by using VPNs or proxies to conceal the source of their legitimate Internet accounts.

 

[osu1991]

Not really a fair system. Your considered guilty if the copyright owners say so and you have to pay to appeal. The appeals are being handled by a firm that helped set up the system.

Sent from my cracked screen but still blazing fast galaxy s3 using SatelliteGuys

 

[John Kotches]

Not really a fair system. Your considered guilty if the copyright owners say so and you have to pay to appeal. The appeals are being handled by a firm that helped set up the system.

Sent from my cracked screen but still blazing fast galaxy s3 using SatelliteGuys

It's the United States where the rules are set by those with money.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy Note 2 using Tapatalk 2.x

 

[meStevo]

You really think someone downloading linux or something is going to get six strikes? Appeal is refunded if you are successful also.

 

[osu1991]

You really think someone downloading linux or something is going to get six strikes? Appeal is refunded if you are successful also.

You shouldn't have to pay to appeal, that is my problem with this. So much for innocent until proven guilty. They say your guilty and you have to pay to prove your innocence. If they are so positive you're guilty, then take it to appeal and prove guilt, then fine the guilty.

Considering this all about the MPAA and RIAA, I would bet you could torrent every program sold by Microsoft , Apple or any other software company and never get a warning.

 

[mike123abc]

I believe the appeal is $35 http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...ystem-goes-live-this-fall-appeals-to-cost-35/

You get the money back if you win the review.

 

[osu1991]

I believe the appeal is $35 http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...ystem-goes-live-this-fall-appeals-to-cost-35/

You get the money back if you win the review.

It is, but it still doesn't make it a fair system.

 

[meStevo]

It's only $35 and it's not a sudden 'surprise, you just got your 6th strike!' if you've read anything about it at all.

It's not like they're going to see you've downloaded 2gb of something at random and strike you. That makes this more trouble for them than it's worth.

I don't really see the issue with this unless you have something to be afraid of outside of political/principles views. If I downloaded as much as I did a few years ago I'd probably just pay the $15 or whatever for VPN+seedbox or something.

 

[osu1991]

It's only $35 and it's not a sudden 'surprise, you just got your 6th strike!' if you've read anything about it at all.

It's not like they're going to see you've downloaded 2gb of something at random and strike you. That makes this more trouble for them than it's worth.

I don't really see the issue with this unless you have something to be afraid of outside of political/principles views. If I downloaded as much as I did a few years ago I'd probably just pay the $15 or whatever for VPN+seedbox or something.

Its the principle!

I don't have anything to be afraid of. I would love to be able to act like the mpaa. However, no matter how much myself and my clients lose, I can't do anything until I spend thousands in court costs and attorney fees to drag someone into court and even then the odds we get reimbursed are very very low and the guilty party is going to be back out and likely causing damage to our infrastructure again.

I've not violated any US copyright but I watch a lot of foreign tv, if the US tv networks would get off their asses and offer something worth viewing here, other than reality shows about bankrupt athletes, housewives that don't have clue, towing companies, pawn shops, pregnant teens, redneck kids, hoarders, etc I would gladly pay for it. As it is now, the only reason I pay for TV is Live sports. However I use a vpn and watch a lot of foreign tv shows on their network sites and I download some tv shows too, because they are not available here.

Downloading movies,music or software, I don't do and don't see a reason to because it is available at a reasonable cost here, but I do believe you should not have to pay to prove your innocence, if they think you're guilty and can prove it, then do it legally, not thru a third party that helped set up their little internal system.

 

[meStevo]

You are warned SIX times.

Or would you rather they send a summons for the first? After all if you are caught doing any of the illegal stuff you just said you are doing it is justified right?

This isn't the principle, you are just afraid you'll be caught despite your rationalizations.

Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk 2

 

[dangue]

You are warned SIX times.

Or would you rather they send a summons for the first? After all if you are caught doing any of the illegal stuff you just said you are doing it is justified right?

This isn't the principle, you are just afraid you'll be caught despite your rationalizations.

Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk 2

The problem is you're warned based on their allegations. Not proof. And the party handling the appeals process is not neutral. They are clearly bias in favor of the MPAA and RIAA.

That's the real problem that I see.

Sent from my iPhone using SatelliteGuys

 

[osu1991]

You are warned SIX times.

Or would you rather they send a summons for the first? After all if you are caught doing any of the illegal stuff you just said you are doing it is justified right?

This isn't the principle, you are just afraid you'll be caught despite your rationalizations.

Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk 2

Well contrary to your opinion it is THE PRINCIPAL. Are people that get six strikes going to appeal, no they're going to go to another provider if available or start using a vpn before they get six strikes.

There is nothing legal about this system, that is why you don't see all providers participating. Run this thru the courts, and not some third party that helped set up the system. Six warnings boohoo, I can and do give more warnings than that on a weekly basis, yet at the end of the day anyone can appeal freely and I am the one that has to pay and prove their guilt.

What have I done that is illegal? I haven't broken any US copyrights. I pay for my tv service and for online video service for all my US viewing. It isn't illegal in the US to watch videos on a foreign site with a vpn. I said I download, I didn't say I use torrents, there is nothing illegal about someone I know; personally overseas, putting a file up online for me and no one else to download for my personal use. It's no different than me using a vcr to record a show and give it to my neighbor to watch.

I'm not scared a bit, I have been warned before and when I asked for the details, all I got was a sorry we were mistaken letter we were just informed you were guilty. No accountability what so ever. The mpaa is just trying to bully the service providers to be their own private police force.

So I've stated my opinion and the rationale behind it and am done with this discussion.

 

[John Kotches]

I'm with OSU on this. I don't like it one bit, and I only download legal, stuff.

Guilty until proven innocent indeed.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy Note 2 using Tapatalk 2.x

 

[osu1991]

I may come across harsh or pig headed, but this just ticks me off. They want to avoid bad publicity going to court and trying to claim hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages because someone downloaded a tv episode, movie or song. So they get the isps to police for them on their terms and conditions.

 

[John Kotches]

Most ISPs are also TV providers, so the content providers can hold that over the ISPs head.

Cheers,

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy Note 2 using Tapatalk 2.x

 

[cybok0]

I don't download anything but I still don't think what the RIAA or the MPAA is doing is right.

Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 2

 

[John Kotches]

Cybok, I agree.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy Note 2 using Tapatalk 2.x