Secret Anti-Piracy Treaty Turns ISPs into Pirates

If this really goes thru here is a worst case scenario, time to scare you.

Now remember No proof is needed just one party says "Its him/her" and bang! its done and you are a pirate.

WHAT IF:

1. The MPAA/RIAA will hit the torrents and capture IP's of seeds and then send notices. They might even put up thier own and note every connecting IP.
2. The ISP's will comply and then go "wow look how the traffic has slowed, this might actually work. We freed up so much bandwidth with these notices and forced disconnects"
3. Seeing opportunity and hiding it under the attempt to be proactive the ISP's weed out the top 10% of bandwidth users and disconnect them. The "non profit section of customers" They base this on surfing torrent sites, newsgroup listing sites and so on. This makes a majority of their users left casual surfers. So they can provide little service at the same cost.
4. Accusers then bat cleanup. They go after People who browse illeagal sites, No-cd crack sites, newsgroup hosting sites,etc.
5. This becomes a perfect time to introduce Tiered DL services at the ISP's. 400m for what you pay now, 1g for 3x the price and 3g for 5x the price
6. The dust starts to settle. ISP's announce new exclusive pay per view contracts with the studios. They get these at a "reduced" rate somehow and now have a ton of bandwidth to broadcast them. This media hosted by your ISP is Excluded from your DL cap on your account.

Is it going to happen? Hopefully not.
You might say it could never happen. Could it? Sure as hell. Will it?
Lots will say "hell with the pirates they deserve it" and turn away
But once again..You dont have to be one Just be accused of one.
In turn it puts the power in 2 sets of hands.
The content maker and the ISP that provides you access.
No other content providers like a Netflix,amazon,Itunes
And they get 2 birds with one stone with youtube. Infringement and bandwidth.
This could be the excuse both groups are looking for.
It wouldn't kill the internet, its just finally someone would own it.:mad:


It makes me think of this:
First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak out for me.
 
Ualdayan said:
Read it. They can't tell the difference, and it won't matter. If you are suspected, you are guilty, there is no court time for you to plead your case, there is no "I've been wrongly accused!" That's the version they're considering now anyway. If someone says you violated their copyright it won't go through a check or balance, it's an automatic strike for you. They accuse you a 2nd time, there's another strike. They accuse you a third time - boom you lose your internet and no other ISP would be allowed to serve you.
Click to expand...

So, they are giving the recording industry the rights to determine who can have internet access and who doesn't
This is really sick and twisted:mad:
 
NeghVar said:
Part of the freedom of information act is that any bill being sent through congress is required "BY LAW" to be freely available to anyone since it is going to affect them in some way. By holding this proposed bill behind closed doors and refusing to release it, is criminal
Click to expand...

It's a treaty negotiation. The bills don't hit congress til after we sign our internet away. Then the truck load of garbage bills will hit congress, and get passed to comply with the treaty. When we try to call them to the mat for it, the politicians will point at the treaty and pretend they are not to blame, and the sheep that elected them will buy their excuses and reelect them, no matter how badly this turns out.

Oh! yeah, some piece of trash or another will prolly win a piece of Nobel toilet paper in the bargain as well.
 
So to get rid of a few bad apples, my rights are being pissed away to satisfy the desires of some greedy corporate whoremongers? May as well string my own fiber and start my own network then.
 
I just don't see why you don't understand what's beneath this. Internet piracy is just an excuse. Is simply a matter of power and control , not about money but about making decisions for you. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The more power you give these people the more corrupt and power hungry they'll become.
 
EvilWays said:
So to get rid of a few bad apples, my rights are being pissed away to satisfy the desires of some greedy corporate whoremongers? May as well string my own fiber and start my own network then.
Click to expand...

What are you waiting for? Want me to help you?
 
My internet was shut off a few days ago. I contacted Qwest. They informed me I either had bad viruses/malware or had downloaded something illegal. I requested they tell me what files I could possibly have that would be illegal, and second, why do they have a right to see what's on MY computer. So they emailed me a list.

I recently purchased two bluray movies: Transformers and Monsters vs. Aliens. I OWN both movies. I downloaded the torrents so I could have a backup copy on my own personal computer in the same house where my owned movie is. I explained this to Qwest, and said the only things I have downloaded via torrents are materials I OWN, not rent, not borrow, but have purchased. I offered to send them copies of my receipts and pictures of the products.

The Qwest guy was actually fairly friendly to me, and he explained that I'm not allowed to download copyrighted materials via torrent, that it's illegal. I asked, "Even if it's material I purchased? I just want to have a copy on my hard drive!" He then asked why I don't just rip it to my computer.

I told him I have certainly tried, but I really haven't had ANY success even ripping just an image of the disc to my computer, and that with new DRM released often on new movies, blurays, even though more expensive, are a lot more difficult to backup, and that I should have a right to backup my expensive movie.

He said that he understands but he blatantly stated, "Downloading any copyrighted movies via torrent is illegal, even if you own the movie." That's a QUOTE. I then asked if all torrenting was illegal, and he said that if it's copyrighted, that it is. He said if I wanted actual documentation of this I would have to contact customer service, because I asked him how long they have been enforcing this so strictly. He doesn't know the details but he said in the last few months he's been getting LOTS of these calls. They turned my internet back on, but not before sending a nasty, and lengthy email informing me that I've basically used one of my strikes.

So obviously someone is already putting pressure on ISPs, and it's growing, because this has never happened to me before, and I have torrented files new and old, and I really do take care to download content that I actually own. If I create digital content, I would want people who use it to pay me for my work, so it's only fair that I treat others the same.

I just think something's horribly wrong when they are shutting down the internet on people who legitimately purchase their content. I could just buy rentals and rip them to the HD - no sharing or torrenting. I would be "stealing" a tremendous amount of content (versus purchasing) and they would lose a LOT more. I don't see how this is going to do anything but encourage more rental piracy and bring more people to the drawing board to find ways to crack DRM and get media without paying.

You're damned if you do AND damned if you don't, so if you're going to get screwed anyway, at least screw them too, right?

This really pisses me off.
 
the-one1 said:
6469c0.png

Here's how things work now.
Click to expand...

This works on so man levels. People need to learn to take responsibility unto themselves on any level, any time and so much is immediately solved.

I must comment on "refrained from publishing the three-page leaked document in its entirety" by wired... come on, there are no secrets here. Any information withheld is a crime.
 
k1pp3r said:
Sooner or later, the wall of "we are not responsible for what others do with our services" will come crashing down. Its going to vastly change the business landscape and a few big companies will probably get hurt bad or be fored out of business.

That wall is already starting to fall, this whole thing is due to the horrible laws covering the digital age, laws need to be re-written
Click to expand...

couldn't agree more.
 
Raxiel said:
Don't get me wrong, I don't like where this is going, but the analogy isn't quite right.

A more accurate version would be:
Police visit a gun store and show the owner a picture of someone and say "We think this guy may have unlawfully shot someone, but we've no proof" then the next day the guy in question comes in and the shopkeeper sells him a gun anyway. The day after that the Police return and say "We think the guy may have killed again, we still can't prove it but we're arresting you for accessory to murder"

Its still bullshit, just a different kind. Its not the act of issuing take-down notices that is necessarily wrong, just the fact it requires no proof. Copyright holders can (and do) make any bullshit claim they like and no ISP is gonna ignore them if it leaves them liable, and since they won't spend their own resources to prove infringement hasn't occurred, and will just fold as soon as they hear a complaint.
Click to expand...


I thought this version was pretty accurate actually. They have tried other tactics, and suspending the connection of repeat offenders will probably pass as a reasonable solution to that which they see as a "Major" problem. Certainly better than taking a few small peons to court for Millions that they can never collect. I agree, I do not think they will see a huge amount of increased revenue, as most of us who pirate, would probably never buy 98% of what we download, but creating these deterrents will encourage other ways of making content available where profit can be realized..

We are all just in a panic because our current way of life is being threatened.. I do not like it any more than anyone else, but shit is changing.. Stick to the private communities, keep them private and safe.. Hold on as long as you can.. Man I miss Demonoid.. Yeah, I know it was not exactly a private location, but it was the best imo.. Sort of brings to mind that epic moment at the end of Braveheart, when Mel Gibson, battered and tortured, harnessed all of his remaining energy and called out to the heavens... FRREEEDOMMM!!!
 
Well if China's not in it, I don't see much dent in copyright.

Gotta love the US's obsession with the new demo (make that demolition, as in destroy everything that's good) president :D
 
chrnochime said:
Well if China's not in it, I don't see much dent in copyright.

Gotta love the US's obsession with the new demo (make that demolition, as in destroy everything that's good) president :D
Click to expand...

Not defending the guy, but, it has been a while since we anything but that sort of president. This one is just in turbo mode.
 
At my ISP, they promote the 20 Meg package as being good for downloading movies.
I presume they mean legal services like netflix, etc, but let's face it, they've been using
music downloads and movie downloads as a way to sell their service for years now.
In some ways, they have brought this upon themselves.

Should copyright holders rights be preserved, absolutely. You don't have a right to illegally
copy someone else's work. Should your internet be disconnected if you're caught three times?
Yes, I am in favor of that. Copyright violation is a crime, and if you can't take the punishment,
then don't do the crime.
 
OldSchoolCoder said:
At my ISP, they promote the 20 Meg package as being good for downloading movies.
I presume they mean legal services like netflix, etc, but let's face it, they've been using
music downloads and movie downloads as a way to sell their service for years now.
In some ways, they have brought this upon themselves.

Should copyright holders rights be preserved, absolutely. You don't have a right to illegally
copy someone else's work. Should your internet be disconnected if you're caught three times?
Yes, I am in favor of that. Copyright violation is a crime, and if you can't take the punishment,
then don't do the crime.
Click to expand...

read that document again
EVEN YOU COULD BE on the ass end of that
you have a wireless network? sure you got good password on it if its even WPA2

what about all the people that dont know how to lock down there wireless
the pirates will use some one elses net

dont think this wont effect you at all
Copyright violation is a CIVIL offense
this is worse the DMCA which already violates faruse laws by making it illegal to back things becouse you have to break the copy protection to do so
 
Elios said:
read that document again
EVEN YOU COULD BE on the ass end of that
you have a wireless network? sure you got good password on it if its even WPA2

what about all the people that dont know how to lock down there wireless
the pirates will use some one elses net

dont think this wont effect you at all
Copyright violation is a CIVIL offense
this is worse the DMCA which already violates faruse laws by making it illegal to back things becouse you have to break the copy protection to do so
Click to expand...

So that's an excuse? Pirates could be using someone's network, so therefore no one should be held accountable?

Copyright infringement can be civil or criminal, depending on the flagrancy of the offense.

It's fair use, not far use, and it means you can use copyrighted works in a fair manner, such as to educate, quote (snippets), and so on, and of course, making one backup copy for your private use, but not for sharing on the internet. Like on the H front page, we get small quotes of each story, but have to visit the site for the full story. That's fair use.

If you are unhappy that modern encryption has defeated your ability to make that sacred backup copy, then vote with your wallet and don't buy copy-protected media. If the music and movies are as bad as everybody claims (to justify stealing them), then you can easily go without, right?

You can't expect to change a business model overnight, at internet speed. These things take time, and I am beginning to see signs that the model is adjusting, slowly. There is a middle ground that everyone can live with, we just aren't there yet.
 
OldSchoolCoder said:
So that's an excuse? Pirates could be using someone's network, so therefore no one should be held accountable?

Copyright infringement can be civil or criminal, depending on the flagrancy of the offense.

It's fair use, not far use, and it means you can use copyrighted works in a fair manner, such as to educate, quote (snippets), and so on, and of course, making one backup copy for your private use, but not for sharing on the internet. Like on the H front page, we get small quotes of each story, but have to visit the site for the full story. That's fair use.

If you are unhappy that modern encryption has defeated your ability to make that sacred backup copy, then vote with your wallet and don't buy copy-protected media. If the music and movies are as bad as everybody claims (to justify stealing them), then you can easily go without, right?

You can't expect to change a business model overnight, at internet speed. These things take time, and I am beginning to see signs that the model is adjusting, slowly. There is a middle ground that everyone can live with, we just aren't there yet.
Click to expand...


No, it is not an excuse to pirate. The problem lies in the "guilty with no chance to prove innocence" wording contained in it. Poorly secured networks, spoofed mac and IP addresses, unauthorized use of a pc, etc., are things that can get YOU in particular kicked off the internet without ever having done the crime. And you would have NO recourse to correct the injustice. The way this is worded so far, only the fact that you were accused matters. This treaty essentially give the right to decide who has internet access, and who does not, over to the RIAA/MPAA and the likes of the oh so inaccurate methods of Media Sentry. If this is really in your best interests then back it if you like.
 
OldSchoolCoder said:
So that's an excuse? Pirates could be using someone's network, so therefore no one should be held accountable?

Copyright infringement can be civil or criminal, depending on the flagrancy of the offense.

It's fair use, not far use, and it means you can use copyrighted works in a fair manner, such as to educate, quote (snippets), and so on, and of course, making one backup copy for your private use, but not for sharing on the internet. Like on the H front page, we get small quotes of each story, but have to visit the site for the full story. That's fair use.

If you are unhappy that modern encryption has defeated your ability to make that sacred backup copy, then vote with your wallet and don't buy copy-protected media. If the music and movies are as bad as everybody claims (to justify stealing them), then you can easily go without, right?

You can't expect to change a business model overnight, at internet speed. These things take time, and I am beginning to see signs that the model is adjusting, slowly. There is a middle ground that everyone can live with, we just aren't there yet.
Click to expand...

Did you read the article even to know what he is talking about?

The article states that they don't have to prove anything and the ISP can terminate your connection. (Wireless network the pirate is using)

His argument is a pirate is using someone who doesn't know anything about securing a wireless network. Now who do you think the ISP is going to disconnect? Not the pirate, he just hop on another wireless network in range. HOW THAT FAIR????

That sums up how this treaty would make things work. You have a valid point. Holding someone accountable. Find a solution that hold the pirate accountable not the ISP and wireless network owner. He doesn't know any better or have a clue what the heck going on.
 
Shockey said:
Did you read the article even to know what he is talking about?

The article states that they don't have to prove anything and the ISP can terminate your connection. (Wireless network the pirate is using)

His argument is a pirate is using someone who doesn't know anything about securing a wireless network. Now who do you think the ISP is going to disconnect? Not the pirate, he just hop on another wireless network in range. HOW THAT FAIR????

That sums up how this treaty would make things work. You have a valid point. Holding someone accountable. Find a solution that hold the pirate accountable not the ISP and wireless network owner. He doesn't know any better or have a clue what the heck going on.
Click to expand...

QFT

heres another one to think about

User get infected with Trojan
Pirate then uses that uses PC as relay to a privet FTP over SSH
guess who gets there net turned off?
 
If wireless is so troubling, then don't use it. Run some LAN cable, it's not that hard.
Consumer ignorance of router set-up isn't really a valid excuse.

In the end, if this even goes anywhere, they'll adopt some watered down version of
what TPTB actually wanted in the first place. This is the way negotiations work.
You ask for the moon, expecting to get far less, and eventually a compromise
is reached that everyone can live with.

In comparison, I'd probabily be more worried about the monthly traffic caps which are coming
to an ISP near you. Without a meter to tell you how much you are using, imagine how much fun that
will be. (Hint: Get a DD-WRT capable router, it's got traffic data collection.)
 
Elios said:
QFT

heres another one to think about

User get infected with Trojan
Pirate then uses that uses PC as relay to a privet FTP over SSH
guess who gets there net turned off?
Click to expand...

and even a secured wireless network if not uses WP2 with a strong key can be easly hacked
WEP is a joke and WPA1 is almost as easy
WPA2 if you dont use a good key could only be a matter of day to crack

what then?
 
Sorry for the double-post, it won't let me edit to add-on.

It's been fun debating the issue with all of you, but in my opinion
the whole thing is a non-starter, and something so trivial so as not to
waste your time, energy, or worry on.

If you are on a major provider, then your acceptible use policy already says
"No copyright infringement" and your service can be terminated without warning.
No strikes. No burden of proof.

Doesn't that make the idea of a uniform three strikes policy more attractive?
You'd at least have a chance to fix the problem.

I'm sure that if you check your ISPs policies, you can be bumped without notice
for a variety of reasons, wireless or malware notwithstanding, as it is.

This new agreement isn't going to change anything, other than that ISPs are going
be required to actually enforce their own written policies that are already in place.
 
OldSchoolCoder said:
Should copyright holders rights be preserved, absolutely. You don't have a right to illegally
copy someone else's work. Should your internet be disconnected if you're caught three times?
Yes, I am in favor of that. Copyright violation is a crime, and if you can't take the punishment,
then don't do the crime.
Click to expand...

I can almost guarantee that if anyone on here were in the business of making copyrighted content, and they depended on it to make their living, they would agree with this, too, although hypocrites abound. Look at some of the examples out there where an artists has complained against people "stealing" their content, all while sitting at home downloading content on Limewire ...

But I received a cease and desist 1st strike threatening nasty letter for downloading content I PURCHASED! That's where it begins to really piss me off.
 
OldSchoolCoder said:
Sorry for the double-post, it won't let me edit to add-on.

It's been fun debating the issue with all of you, but in my opinion
the whole thing is a non-starter, and something so trivial so as not to
waste your time, energy, or worry on.

If you are on a major provider, then your acceptible use policy already says
"No copyright infringement" and your service can be terminated without warning.
No strikes. No burden of proof.

Doesn't that make the idea of a uniform three strikes policy more attractive?
You'd at least have a chance to fix the problem.

I'm sure that if you check your ISPs policies, you can be bumped without notice
for a variety of reasons, wireless or malware notwithstanding, as it is.

This new agreement isn't going to change anything, other than that ISPs are going
be required to actually enforce their own written policies that are already in place.
Click to expand...

Although i sure ISP have this, When they send a letter i sure they provide some proof that your connection was used.

With this treaty nothing has to be provided except a complaint saying xxx downloaded copyrighted material.

Also with current policy and no treaty you not kicked off and baned after 3 strikes from the internet. you just have to find a new provider.
 
I wonder, does this only apply to residential connections? what if someone hacks a box, at say, some major data center, and starts sharing every movie known to man... do their multiple giant pipes to the Internet get cut off? How about an employee at a company on a T1 line? Or a company on a Metro-Ethernet connection? you could literally sink a company by taking away their Internet connection
 
FLECOM said:
I wonder, does this only apply to residential connections? what if someone hacks a box, at say, some major data center, and starts sharing every movie known to man... do their multiple giant pipes to the Internet get cut off? How about an employee at a company on a T1 line? Or a company on a Metro-Ethernet connection? you could literally sink a company by taking away their Internet connection
Click to expand...

i would say yes they would be SOL and sued faster then you can think
 
Elios said:
i would say yes they would be SOL and sued faster then you can think
Click to expand...

ya but for what? copyright infringement because one of their colo clients didnt secure a *nix/windows box properly?

how far up the pipe does it go? should we sue the guy that invented TCP/IP because its aiding copyright infringement?

maybe we should sue Al Gore, after all he invented the INTERNET lol ;)

also if there is no way to prove innocence what is to stop one company from saying "hey we saw XYZ content being shared from these IP's *insert IP addresses of rival company here*"

but seriously this is some scary stuff...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top