Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

[Copyright Alert System] Or, how to alienate everyone. Six Strikes rollout begins Monday.

2456716

Posts

  • Rhan9Rhan9 Registered User regular
    edited February 2013
    It's just another power grab by big companies. This doesn't have dick to do with any sense of fairness or legality. It's not like it's ever stopped big copyright proponents from breaking copyright when it's not owned by one of the big boys, but someone without the funds to fight their legions of lawyers. Law doesn't mean shit to the companies with the money to fight the opponents to bankruptcy, but changing laws and systems makes it very easy for them to arsefuck the population at large even more, this time legally.

    This entire scheme is all about trying to justify fucking over the users, while fattening the companies' wallets without providing any services or goods. And then they try to sell it as a good thing? Yeah, don't piss in my ear and tell me it's raining.
    This is a terrible, terrible scheme. It has nothing to do with rewarding artists, or the public good. It's all about screwing the people out of some more money while providing an ever worse service, and whoever came up with this should be crucified for being the fascist fuck they are.

    The copyright holders aren't even the original content creators much of the time. They usually just fuck over the original artists/writers/etc. in contracts because they had locked the market in to prevent people from being successful without being roped into selling their creations for spare change. Much of the time they're a middleman/parasite that contributes nothing on the grand scheme of things.

    EDIT: I may have been rather pissed off writing this. Tried to make it a bit more sensible.

    Rhan9 on
    Niceguyeddie616ArthilEdith UpwardsJusticeforPlutoHarry Dresden
  • TubularLuggageTubularLuggage Registered User regular
    The Ender wrote: »
    Why is the knee jerk reaction to be opposed? I mean, it would suck if you are falsely accused, but if you are pirating, maybe don't do that?

    You just watched a pirated film, spaceman. I mean, assuming you clicked 'play' on the video in the OP, and assuming the OP didn't get permission from the distributors of that film to post it here for discussion.

    Don't worry, though! You're only at Violation Level 1! An educational video and Probationary Agreement Contract has been emailed to you! As soon as we get confirmation that you've watched the video & we receive the signed copy of the contract, we'll stop throttling your bandwidth.


    That is just the smallest part of the problem, but I hope it's one that even you can understand: copy protection laws are outdated, they're internationally inconsistent, and fucking DMCAs are thrown everywhere, at everything in order to try and censor people (or just because the distributors want to be dicks). Posting clips like the one above should be covered under Fair Use, of course, but the reality is that DMCAs are thrown at Fair Use material all of the time, and most companies react to any DMCA filing by automatically assuming guilt. You have to prove your own innocence on YouTube, for example, by filing a counter-notice.

    Eh. If YouTube disappeared, i would shed no tears. I'd love to see infringement/fair use heavy social media sites like Facebook and tumblr gone too though, so I'm not going to be persuaded by any perceived injustice here. I view the rights of the copyright holders as much more important than frivolous social media.

    No offense, but this seems about as out of touch as when Elton John suggested 'shutting down the internet for a little while' a few years ago.

    Gandalf_the_CrazedBloodySlothHacksawPLALord_AsmodeusRBachFeralEchoMr RayzagdrobElldren
  • PhillisherePhillishere Registered User regular
    Say goodbye to coffee shop WiFi.

    Hacksaw
  • BigBearBigBear If your life had a face, I would punch it. Registered User regular
    Jurg wrote: »
    I don't pirate. But I'll listen to a lot of songs on Youtube, which I think would count under this. The thing is, many of the songs that I listen to, I've already purchased, or will purchase because of the Youtube songs. I'll listen to the VEVO or whatever if it exists but many bands have inadequate channels.

    That's not bullshit. I just got two Sleigh Bells CDs AND a t-shirt in the mail, which wouldn't have happened without Youtube. And I bought direct from the band's site.

    Wait wait wait, so is that all it would take to get in trouble? Just watching a music video somebody put up on Youtube?

    Like, if I watch a random short clip of a movie somebody posted, or a music video on Youtube, will that get me a strike?

    I thought they were just going to go after P2P networks and torrents. Granted, they could be keeping things from us, but I don't know if Youtube and other video sites like that are specific targets, I thought those sites already did stuff themselves in regards to copy protection.

  • Rhan9Rhan9 Registered User regular
    BigBear wrote: »
    Jurg wrote: »
    I don't pirate. But I'll listen to a lot of songs on Youtube, which I think would count under this. The thing is, many of the songs that I listen to, I've already purchased, or will purchase because of the Youtube songs. I'll listen to the VEVO or whatever if it exists but many bands have inadequate channels.

    That's not bullshit. I just got two Sleigh Bells CDs AND a t-shirt in the mail, which wouldn't have happened without Youtube. And I bought direct from the band's site.

    Wait wait wait, so is that all it would take to get in trouble? Just watching a music video somebody put up on Youtube?

    Like, if I watch a random short clip of a movie somebody posted, or a music video on Youtube, will that get me a strike?

    I thought they were just going to go after P2P networks and torrents. Granted, they could be keeping things from us, but I don't know if Youtube and other video sites like that are specific targets, I thought those sites already did stuff themselves in regards to copy protection.

    See now, they'd say that of course they wouldn't come after you for something like that, and you shouldn't be scared. The problem is, that policies and laws and whatnot like this are vague enough to make it possible later if they change their minds. I wouldn't be comfortable with potential for abuse existing, regardless of whether the beneficiaries are currently saying that "of course they wouldn't abuse the system", while doing their damned best to make it possible for them to abuse it in the future if they wish to. Without looking further into the nitty gritty details on this system, I can't comment further, but this is a trend that's so far existed in damned near all similar propositions. Have a lot of leeway and potential for abuse, try to calm people down with claims that the potential abuse won't happen while fighting tooth and nail against removing the potential for abuse, in case they want to use it in the future despite earlier assurances. It's basically led me to adopt the default position of opposing any copyright systems being introduced by current copyright holders until I've had time to read through the contents. So far cynicism seems to be the proven approach.

  • Casually HardcoreCasually Hardcore Once an Asshole. Trying to be better. Registered User regular
    It should only target torrent users, according to the research I've done. Though, if RIAA deemed this as a 'success' then I wouldn't be surprised if they try to extend this to streaming services like youtube.

    IMO, the only thing we'll see out of this is more users to begin using VPN and seedboxes.

    Dark Raven X
  • CalixtusCalixtus Registered User regular
    edited February 2013
    Rhan9 wrote: »
    Fuck, the copyright holders aren't even the original content creators much of the time. They usually just fuck over the original artists/writers/etc. in contracts because they had locked the market in to prevent people from being successful without being roped into selling their creations for spare change. Much of the time they're a middleman/parasite that contributes nothing on the grand scheme of things.
    This gripe might have made sense 15 years ago, but today its bullshit. If I want to self publish an e-book, it's piss easy to do. It has never been easier for a content creator to distribute his works, without signing away any rights. Not in the history of the world.

    So why are people still signing record deals?

    A) They're complete blithering idiots with a sense of business that makes shopping at Walmart difficult.

    B) The distribution companies provide other services. A ready example of one such service is marketing, which has an upfront cost an up-and-coming author might find hard to finance. Creating a website and setting up a paypal account isn't particularly expensive, but a marketing campaign, and ad space? You need to finance that. But it could also be funding studio equipment, studio time, money that lets you cut back on your day job hours so you've got more time to spend on creative works and so on, and so forth.

    Essentially, a company like Sony BMG acts like a sort of bank, except highly specialized. They've got deals, they've connections, they've got expertise, they've got equipment, and because of economies of scale, all of these things are much cheaper than if the Next-Big-Thing were to get it himself. And then the company offers what is essentially a loan, where you pay back not a flat interest, not a floating interest, but a percentage of your potential future income. In doing so, the company has (depending on the exact layout of the deal) usually taken over a financial risk that you either had, or was too big for you to even take on - you could fund all of these things yourself, but you might need a loan to do it. And getting such a loan might be hard.

    (Though yes, the kind of invasions of privacy and extralegal bullshit they try to pull is still complete and total bullshit, but the idea that they habitually "screw over" content creators only works if, through magic, content creators are somehow entitled to free money in a way no one else is.)

    Calixtus on
    -This message was deviously brought to you by:
    spacekungfumanshryke
  • syndalissyndalis Getting Classy On the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Products regular
    edited February 2013
    It should only target torrent users, according to the research I've done. Though, if RIAA deemed this as a 'success' then I wouldn't be surprised if they try to extend this to streaming services like youtube.

    IMO, the only thing we'll see out of this is more users to begin using VPN and seedboxes.

    Or stream encryption

    Or only allowing from encrypted peers

    Or peer blocklists that update hourly and suss out RIAA/MPAA/ISP watchdogs

    Or private trackers

    ...

    This is a lot of money going towards something so very easily breakable.

    syndalis on
    SW-4158-3990-6116
    Let's play Mario Kart or something...
    PLAEcho
  • Phoenix-DPhoenix-D Registered User regular
    The Ender wrote: »
    Why is the knee jerk reaction to be opposed? I mean, it would suck if you are falsely accused, but if you are pirating, maybe don't do that?

    You just watched a pirated film, spaceman. I mean, assuming you clicked 'play' on the video in the OP, and assuming the OP didn't get permission from the distributors of that film to post it here for discussion.

    Don't worry, though! You're only at Violation Level 1! An educational video and Probationary Agreement Contract has been emailed to you! As soon as we get confirmation that you've watched the video & we receive the signed copy of the contract, we'll stop throttling your bandwidth.


    That is just the smallest part of the problem, but I hope it's one that even you can understand: copy protection laws are outdated, they're internationally inconsistent, and fucking DMCAs are thrown everywhere, at everything in order to try and censor people (or just because the distributors want to be dicks). Posting clips like the one above should be covered under Fair Use, of course, but the reality is that DMCAs are thrown at Fair Use material all of the time, and most companies react to any DMCA filing by automatically assuming guilt. You have to prove your own innocence on YouTube, for example, by filing a counter-notice.

    Eh. If YouTube disappeared, i would shed no tears. I'd love to see infringement/fair use heavy social media sites like Facebook and tumblr gone too though, so I'm not going to be persuaded by any perceived injustice here. I view the rights of the copyright holders as much more important than frivolous social media.

    No offense, but this seems about as out of touch as when Elton John suggested 'shutting down the internet for a little while' a few years ago.

    Its @spacekungfuman . He's like that.

    But even if you aren't pirating, you still have problems with this system. For example, NASA probably would have been banned from the internet by this. They posted video of the Curiosity landing. Several news organizations published those videos on YouTube, then Google's auto-block system blocked NASA for pirating, because their video matched the "copyrighted" video uploaded by the news groups! Remember the systems are automated, and STUPID. If Google can't get it right, random ISPs sure as fuck won't.

    We really need a strong false claim punishment added to copyright law.

    TubularLuggageRhan9PLANiceguyeddie616Lord_AsmodeusMr RayDivideByZeroElldrenHarry Dresden
  • override367override367 ALL minions Registered User regular
    this doesnt have too much of an effect on me since Charter has been doing this for years

    I got an infringement notice once for downloading <1kb of a tv show on bittorrent

    It's just a really shitty precedent

  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    The Ender wrote: »
    Why is the knee jerk reaction to be opposed? I mean, it would suck if you are falsely accused, but if you are pirating, maybe don't do that?

    You just watched a pirated film, spaceman. I mean, assuming you clicked 'play' on the video in the OP, and assuming the OP didn't get permission from the distributors of that film to post it here for discussion.

    Don't worry, though! You're only at Violation Level 1! An educational video and Probationary Agreement Contract has been emailed to you! As soon as we get confirmation that you've watched the video & we receive the signed copy of the contract, we'll stop throttling your bandwidth.


    That is just the smallest part of the problem, but I hope it's one that even you can understand: copy protection laws are outdated, they're internationally inconsistent, and fucking DMCAs are thrown everywhere, at everything in order to try and censor people (or just because the distributors want to be dicks). Posting clips like the one above should be covered under Fair Use, of course, but the reality is that DMCAs are thrown at Fair Use material all of the time, and most companies react to any DMCA filing by automatically assuming guilt. You have to prove your own innocence on YouTube, for example, by filing a counter-notice.

    Eh. If YouTube disappeared, i would shed no tears. I'd love to see infringement/fair use heavy social media sites like Facebook and tumblr gone too though, so I'm not going to be persuaded by any perceived injustice here. I view the rights of the copyright holders as much more important than frivolous social media.

    No offense, but this seems about as out of touch as when Elton John suggested 'shutting down the internet for a little while' a few years ago.

    Its @ spacekungfuman . He's like that.

    But even if you aren't pirating, you still have problems with this system. For example, NASA probably would have been banned from the internet by this. They posted video of the Curiosity landing. Several news organizations published those videos on YouTube, then Google's auto-block system blocked NASA for pirating, because their video matched the "copyrighted" video uploaded by the news groups! Remember the systems are automated, and STUPID. If Google can't get it right, random ISPs sure as fuck won't.

    We really need a strong false claim punishment added to copyright law.

    We need a lot of things done to copyright law. Pretty much everything just shy of practically abolishing it.

    Hopefully if this technological terror actually takes off and gets expanded it seems more likely that we'll actually see improvements in IP legislation because it'll actually impact and piss off various members of Congress. The whole reason we have a 'do not call list' is literally because some telemarketer called Chuck Schumer a couple times.

  • override367override367 ALL minions Registered User regular
    So break into congressional networks and download copyrighted material so they get C&Ds?

  • AthenorAthenor Battle Hardened Optimist Registered User regular
    I don't think you are going to see public business wifi go out of business as a result of this. For our clients, for instance, we install firewalls that already do deep-packet inspection and block websites and content that our clients don't want the public getting to. We recently turned that on for a fitness club and the monitoring reports.. well, the shop owners were kind of shocked at how many people were visiting porn sites at their club. :)

    Then again, we don't provide wifi to any coffee shops. But the firewalls should prevent the public from doing anything shady on the owners' dime, unless they are using anonymous proxies (and a good firewall can block that too). Now for home users? This is complete and utter bullshit and hopefully the cable companies get burned, HARD, by it

    Official member of the Grilling Gentry
    "Brevity is the soul of getting your shit read." - Tube
    Rarely-updated Collecting blog
    He/Him
  • TubularLuggageTubularLuggage Registered User regular
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    The Ender wrote: »
    Why is the knee jerk reaction to be opposed? I mean, it would suck if you are falsely accused, but if you are pirating, maybe don't do that?

    You just watched a pirated film, spaceman. I mean, assuming you clicked 'play' on the video in the OP, and assuming the OP didn't get permission from the distributors of that film to post it here for discussion.

    Don't worry, though! You're only at Violation Level 1! An educational video and Probationary Agreement Contract has been emailed to you! As soon as we get confirmation that you've watched the video & we receive the signed copy of the contract, we'll stop throttling your bandwidth.


    That is just the smallest part of the problem, but I hope it's one that even you can understand: copy protection laws are outdated, they're internationally inconsistent, and fucking DMCAs are thrown everywhere, at everything in order to try and censor people (or just because the distributors want to be dicks). Posting clips like the one above should be covered under Fair Use, of course, but the reality is that DMCAs are thrown at Fair Use material all of the time, and most companies react to any DMCA filing by automatically assuming guilt. You have to prove your own innocence on YouTube, for example, by filing a counter-notice.

    Eh. If YouTube disappeared, i would shed no tears. I'd love to see infringement/fair use heavy social media sites like Facebook and tumblr gone too though, so I'm not going to be persuaded by any perceived injustice here. I view the rights of the copyright holders as much more important than frivolous social media.

    No offense, but this seems about as out of touch as when Elton John suggested 'shutting down the internet for a little while' a few years ago.

    Its @spacekungfuman . He's like that.

    But even if you aren't pirating, you still have problems with this system. For example, NASA probably would have been banned from the internet by this. They posted video of the Curiosity landing. Several news organizations published those videos on YouTube, then Google's auto-block system blocked NASA for pirating, because their video matched the "copyrighted" video uploaded by the news groups! Remember the systems are automated, and STUPID. If Google can't get it right, random ISPs sure as fuck won't.

    We really need a strong false claim punishment added to copyright law.

    This, so much. There really does need to be some sort of consequence for false copyright infringement claims.
    Otherwise, you get BS like when Warner filed claims against a bunch of Youtube videos that had literally no Warner content in them, and even when they were called out on it, there was no penalty.

    Harry Dresden
  • LanzLanz Registered User regular
    edited February 2013
    So break into congressional networks and download copyrighted material so they get C&Ds?

    Why do that when they're doing it already themselves? :V
    Do as we say, not as we do...

    The U.S. House is currently debating the Stop Online Piracy Act (H.R. 3261), better known as SOPA. As mentioned in our previous analysis, SOPA has the potential to create devastating harm to internet businesses, as it allows sites to be taken down if any user posts links to infringing content.

    For example, if a site's user policy explicitly forbid posting links to copyrighted material and one rogue user posted such content, the entire business could be effectively killed for however many weeks or days it took to remove the offending links and pass a complaint through the gears of bureaucracy. The solution appears to be sort of like chopping your leg off to fight an ingrown toenail.

    I. All Onboard the Congressional Pirates Train

    Now a particularly ironic fact has come to light -- it appears that IP addresses belonging to the offices of members of Congress have been downloading content illegally via BitTorrent.

    TorrentFreak used Hurricane Electric's handy list of assigned IP blocks (found here) to track down which IP addresses belong to the offices of members of Congress. And lo and behold, when those addresses were compared to results on YouHaveDownloaded, a torrent tracking site, they yielded over 800 hits.

    Now to put this in context YouHaveDownloaded tracks only a tiny portion of torrent traffic, so it appears that Congress -- even as they look to punish lesser mortals for file sharing -- are themselves gleefully committing a "smash and grab" as Vice President Joe Biden (D) once put it.

    Much of the pirated materials appeared to be adult self-help or education books such as "Crucial Conversations- Tools for Talking When Stakes Are High" and "How to Answer Hard Interview Questions And Everything Else You Need to Know to Get the Job You Want".

    A fair amount of useful software -- like Microsoft Corp.'s (MSFT) Windows 7 Ultimate Edition -- was also pirated.

    But other pirated works appeared to be purely stolen for pleasure. For example one individual within the halls of Congress downloaded a season of Sons of Anarchy, a TV show on News Corp.'s (NWS) FX channel. Another download appeared to be more "adult" in nature -- "Gangland Cream Pie 21" (we're guessing that's not an educational baking special).

    II. Editorial/Analysis: Should we be Surprised that Politicians are Hypocrites?

    Is it surprising that the office of Congress are pirating even as they plot to chop the legs off of online business, further crippling the struggling U.S. economy, and raise taxes to further punitive punishments for filesharing that are already grossly disproportionate with offline offenses? Is it surprising that federal politicians or bureaucrats are pirating even as they plan to imprison Americans for streaming sports events, injecting even more Americans into the crowded penal system at a time when America imprisons more of its citizens than any nation in the world?

    If Americans wants unbiased political representation -- human beings who truly wish the best for their well being -- why would they allow special interests to pay federal politicians' way into office? Clearly you're the boss of who pays you, and when it comes to politicians, their boss isn't the American people.

    Lanz on
    waNkm4k.jpg?1
    DonnictonLord_AsmodeusMrVyngaard
  • Rhan9Rhan9 Registered User regular
    edited February 2013
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    The Ender wrote: »
    Why is the knee jerk reaction to be opposed? I mean, it would suck if you are falsely accused, but if you are pirating, maybe don't do that?

    You just watched a pirated film, spaceman. I mean, assuming you clicked 'play' on the video in the OP, and assuming the OP didn't get permission from the distributors of that film to post it here for discussion.

    Don't worry, though! You're only at Violation Level 1! An educational video and Probationary Agreement Contract has been emailed to you! As soon as we get confirmation that you've watched the video & we receive the signed copy of the contract, we'll stop throttling your bandwidth.


    That is just the smallest part of the problem, but I hope it's one that even you can understand: copy protection laws are outdated, they're internationally inconsistent, and fucking DMCAs are thrown everywhere, at everything in order to try and censor people (or just because the distributors want to be dicks). Posting clips like the one above should be covered under Fair Use, of course, but the reality is that DMCAs are thrown at Fair Use material all of the time, and most companies react to any DMCA filing by automatically assuming guilt. You have to prove your own innocence on YouTube, for example, by filing a counter-notice.

    Eh. If YouTube disappeared, i would shed no tears. I'd love to see infringement/fair use heavy social media sites like Facebook and tumblr gone too though, so I'm not going to be persuaded by any perceived injustice here. I view the rights of the copyright holders as much more important than frivolous social media.

    No offense, but this seems about as out of touch as when Elton John suggested 'shutting down the internet for a little while' a few years ago.

    Its @spacekungfuman . He's like that.

    But even if you aren't pirating, you still have problems with this system. For example, NASA probably would have been banned from the internet by this. They posted video of the Curiosity landing. Several news organizations published those videos on YouTube, then Google's auto-block system blocked NASA for pirating, because their video matched the "copyrighted" video uploaded by the news groups! Remember the systems are automated, and STUPID. If Google can't get it right, random ISPs sure as fuck won't.

    We really need a strong false claim punishment added to copyright law.

    This, so much. There really does need to be some sort of consequence for false copyright infringement claims.
    Otherwise, you get BS like when Warner filed claims against a bunch of Youtube videos that had literally no Warner content in them, and even when they were called out on it, there was no penalty.

    What is needed is equivalent fines for false claims as in the case of various copyright lawsuits. Distributing 20 songs, get a 50 million USD fine? The copyright holder files 20 false claims on 20 songs on Youtube, automatic 50 mil fine, no legal loophole out of it. If there's evidence that Firm A filed a false claim, no amount of lawyering should get them out of paying a massive fine for attempting to abuse the system for financial gain. This would kill automated copyright claim bots instantly, and make the right holders to actually check properly if they have a case or not.

    Rhan9 on
    PLADivideByZero
  • DonnictonDonnicton Hey it's me, your old pal Movie Sonic - let me in. LEMME IN. Registered User regular
    So how much does average joe know about this? Because I can image he's gonna be ecstatic when he finds out his internet has been shut off because of that free movie site his friend told him about at work. Seeing as this doesn't seem to have widespread news coverage, and is a blatant violation of personal rights, this is gonna cause a shitstorm the likes of which nobody has ever seen.

    I know so many people like that at my job, I don't envy anyone that works customer service for these companies, their jobs are gonna get a whole lot more painful.

    As I mentioned before, not a lot of people are going to know that don't visit niche techie sites. The media is being completely silent about it and lord knows their ISPs aren't telling them a damn thing. What's going to happen is that there's going to suddenly be a whooole lot of people wondering what the hell is going on once the first wave of warnings go out.

    Athenor wrote: »
    I don't think you are going to see public business wifi go out of business as a result of this. For our clients, for instance, we install firewalls that already do deep-packet inspection and block websites and content that our clients don't want the public getting to. We recently turned that on for a fitness club and the monitoring reports.. well, the shop owners were kind of shocked at how many people were visiting porn sites at their club. :)

    Then again, we don't provide wifi to any coffee shops. But the firewalls should prevent the public from doing anything shady on the owners' dime, unless they are using anonymous proxies (and a good firewall can block that too). Now for home users? This is complete and utter bullshit and hopefully the cable companies get burned, HARD, by it

    Here's the problem - your statement regarding the fitness club either implies that it's not a function that's on by default, or their previous provider does not provide that functionality(or both..). Unless ISPs approach them with this functionality, many business may not even think of it. Having set up a number of security camera systems for remote access, I could point out lists of stores and hotels that don't have any substantial blocking on their (Comcast) business WiFi by default. (Hell, Maddox was able to visit Reddit gone wild in an Apple Store.)

    Yeah, you'll likely get business asking questions once they get their first warnings, which will result in them contacting their ISP and having it enabled(where applicable), but two problems arise here:

    1) They don't say if there's any kind of buffer between warnings here - it's possible some businesses may be actioned for third or fourth warnings before they even receive their first in the mail.
    2) The warnings may have the opposite effect of making businesses paranoid about getting punished further even with firewall functionality and they may turtle up anyway.

    Especially since they heavily imply that their system is going to be automated; It doesn't take a lot to show that the ContentID system on YouTube is garbage(look at what happened to NASA), there isn't really any reason to believe that this is somehow the only thing they're going to implement correctly just because they claim it won't affect businesses.

  • DiannaoChongDiannaoChong Registered User regular
    Say goodbye to coffee shop WiFi.

    This actually doesn't have any effect on them. If you upgrade to a business line from your ISP, you are effectively immune from this system.

    steam_sig.png
  • DonnictonDonnicton Hey it's me, your old pal Movie Sonic - let me in. LEMME IN. Registered User regular
    edited February 2013
    Say goodbye to coffee shop WiFi.

    This actually doesn't have any effect on them. If you upgrade to a business line from your ISP, you are effectively immune from this system.

    As I've said previously, given how the copyright industry has acted before, there is absolutely no reason to believe that this is the one thing that's true - or that they'll even do correctly.

    Donnicton on
  • DiannaoChongDiannaoChong Registered User regular
    edited February 2013
    The act is toothless too. Right now after 6 strikes they literally give up and leave you alone.

    The point is to try and scare people into their line of thinking. If it doesnt work after so long they consider you a lost cause. So this is meant for like 7 year olds.

    I see this as much more nefarious for other reasons. Because they can just scarlet A the fuck out of people, and it costs money to remove, they can sue the shit out of them later and say "we sent x warnings nicely through this system, and you didnt fight them, so you're obviously guilty right? that will be x*10,000 please" (edit this is wrong)

    edit: In a lawsuit they would have to ask isp to provide if the user was ever warned before and their response. the notifiers dont get the cash for the challenge either.

    DiannaoChong on
    steam_sig.png
  • AiouaAioua Ora Occidens Ora OptimaRegistered User regular
    Say goodbye to coffee shop WiFi.

    This actually doesn't have any effect on them. If you upgrade to a business line from your ISP, you are effectively immune from this system.

    This is why we have business internet at my house :D

    life's a game that you're bound to lose / like using a hammer to pound in screws
    fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
    that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
    bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
  • DiannaoChongDiannaoChong Registered User regular
    edited February 2013
    Donnicton wrote: »
    Say goodbye to coffee shop WiFi.

    This actually doesn't have any effect on them. If you upgrade to a business line from your ISP, you are effectively immune from this system.

    As I've said previously, given how the copyright industry has acted before, there is absolutely no reason to believe that this is the one thing that's true - or that they'll even do correctly.

    It's not them acting, they send ips to the isp, the isp sends the warning. this states its only for consumer lines, why would ISPs bug the fuck out of people if they didnt feel they had to?

    DiannaoChong on
    steam_sig.png
  • DonnictonDonnicton Hey it's me, your old pal Movie Sonic - let me in. LEMME IN. Registered User regular
    Donnicton wrote: »
    Say goodbye to coffee shop WiFi.

    This actually doesn't have any effect on them. If you upgrade to a business line from your ISP, you are effectively immune from this system.

    As I've said previously, given how the copyright industry has acted before, there is absolutely no reason to believe that this is the one thing that's true - or that they'll even do correctly.

    It's not them acting, they send ips to the isp, the isp sends the warning. this states its only for consumer lines, why would ISPs bug the fuck out of people if they didnt feel they had to?

    Like I said, they claim that but the reality is much different.

    Not that the CCI administrator cares, she notes that some business will be affected, but like whatevs, it's their fault anyway.
    A week ago TorrentFreak had the honor to reveal the full details of Verizon’s implementation of the upcoming “copyright alerts” system.

    In short, the Internet provider will notify customers whose accounts are caught sharing pirated movies and music, and after four warnings these account will be temporarily throttled to 256kbps.

    Besides from the details, the leaked documents also revealed that business accounts will also be subject to the copyright alert system. This means that these companies will have to prevent their employees from pirating, and makes it impossible for coffee shops to share their WiFi with customers.

    Following up on this finding we asked the Center for Copyright Information (CCI), the group that’s responsible for the copyright alerts plan, whether Verizon perhaps made a mistake by applying it to business accounts. This is not the case.

    CCI Executive Director Jill Lesser told TorrentFreak in a comment that most alerts will go to private customers, but that some businesses are indeed affected.

    “The Copyright Alert System is targeted to residential customers, and the vast majority of alerts issued will be residential. There is a small pool of home office or home-business customers that may end up in the copyright alert system due to infrastructures in place at the member ISPs,” Lesser said.

    According to the CCI this is not a problem as these companies shouldn’t let employees share copyrighted material in the first place.

    “Importantly, the terms of service are essentially the same as residential accounts and if small businesses are allowing their employees to engage in copyright theft then they are violating their terms of service,” Lesser says.

    The same is true for public WiFi according to Lesser, as these business accounts are already forbidden to share their Internet access with customers.

    “In addition, the terms of service on such accounts do not allow them to be used to provide free WiFi or ‘hotspots’ so the hypothetical café owner offering public WiFi will not be subject to the CAS if they are following their terms of service.”

    Indeed, as we look at Verizon’s business TOS we read the following:

    “You may not provide Internet access to third parties through a wired or wireless connection or use the Service to facilitate public Internet access (such as through a Wi-Fi hotspot).”

    Previously these terms were hard to monitor and enforce, but with the copyright alert system this changes.

    We have no information on the number of small businesses that will be directly impacted, but expect that there are quite a few. So don’t be surprised to see the public WiFi disappear at your favorite coffee shop when the six-strikes scheme goes live.

  • PLAPLA The process.Registered User regular
    She sounds like the kind of robot that would appear in Adventure Time.

    Dark Raven X
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    Honestly, while the whole thing bothers me, the part that is absolutely unacceptable is the "independent" arbitration that the user gets to pay for.

    Because certainly, they have no incentive whatsoever to be biased in favor of content holders.

    AManFromEarthQuidEdith UpwardsLord_AsmodeusHacksawshrykeMrVyngaardDivideByZero
  • The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    edited February 2013
    Eh. If YouTube disappeared, i would shed no tears. I'd love to see infringement/fair use heavy social media sites like Facebook and tumblr gone too though, so I'm not going to be persuaded by any perceived injustice here. I view the rights of the copyright holders as much more important than frivolous social media.

    The legal rights are more important, even when they actively harm the copyright holders / content creators? Because everyone either is or could be reaping huge benefits from the changing times. Imagine if anytime you watched a YouTube video with an included MGM song or whatever, one of their little widgets populated asking you if you wanted to hear more from that artist / buy the song / buy the album. MGM gets a cut, the artist gets their royalty, Google get a cut (presumably the song/album is sold through Google's music store). The good old boys fighting digital distribution because they don't want to play second fiddle to them YouTube kids would be dumped out into the street tomorrow by company shareholders once they saw how much money there was to be had that the dinosaurs were just setting fire to.

    And that's just music! They could do it with movie clips & game footage too (depending on how smart it is, it might even be able to do it with things like board games, tabletop RPGs, books, etc).


    Here's the thing: YouTube isn't going to disappear. If it really does come down to a bare knuckle fight between Google & the old guard, Google will win that fight. It won't even be close. The notion that anyone is going to be 'shedding tears' over some hypothetical shutting down of social media is a joke. The old guard is fucking broke, and the only reason they can still do anything is that:

    a) Google has been playing nice so far.

    and

    b) Washington is still full of old timers.

    When either of those things is no longer true - and that's just a matter of time - bullshit like the CAS won't even be entertained anymore. Hell, it might not even be legally feasible by that point.

    It's not whether or not you have 'sympathy' for the juggernauts of the new paradigm, it's whether or not you have sympathy for the old guys trying to stand in their way. I know some of those guys, and I do have sympathy for them because they used to help me out. I also worry about what happens when they inevitably get crushed by the freight train they're trying to stop by leaping onto the tracks, and artists lose the powerful negotiation partners they once had.

    The Ender on
    With Love and Courage
    GethCantidoAManFromEarthLord_Asmodeus
  • AthenorAthenor Battle Hardened Optimist Registered User regular
    I thought youtube already did that, showing up a little icon that identified the song and linked to google play to buy it?

    Official member of the Grilling Gentry
    "Brevity is the soul of getting your shit read." - Tube
    Rarely-updated Collecting blog
    He/Him
  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    If I could press a button and shit down social media and Web 2.0, it wouldn't even take me a second to decide, but that's off topic.

    I hate these arguments that publishers aren't "content creators." If you do work for hire or sell your work to a publisher, why does the fact that the publisher paid money for that creation make them somehow undeserving of their rights or protection of those rights?

    7zh9uu9etcor.jpg
    Chanus wrote:
    It's been a butt come true! I get to work with the absolute best boobs in the business. What more could a money ask for? Kids, aim for the freeloaders !

    @chanus
  • The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    Athenor wrote: »
    I thought youtube already did that, showing up a little icon that identified the song and linked to google play to buy it?

    Only on videos implicitly uploaded with permissions to market the material. Otherwise, you just get a takedown notice.

    With Love and Courage
  • DonnictonDonnicton Hey it's me, your old pal Movie Sonic - let me in. LEMME IN. Registered User regular
    The Ender wrote: »
    Athenor wrote: »
    I thought youtube already did that, showing up a little icon that identified the song and linked to google play to buy it?

    Only on videos implicitly uploaded with permissions to market the material. Otherwise, you just get a takedown notice.

    In some cases. In other cases, you'll have adsense ads placed directly onto the video and the revenue goes straight to the copyright owner.

    Which is also hit-and-miss as well, as you'll also see fair use protected videos such as reviews get smacked with adsense ads(or their own adsense revenue redirected) for having a clip of gameplay/movie at some part of the video. However, at least in those situations the author can contest it without the video being completely gone for the duration.

  • Edith UpwardsEdith Upwards Registered User regular
    The RIAA has done more to accelerate the growth of distributed computing and networking than any ISP, intelligence agency, scientific foundation, or civil rights group.

    I am honored to extend the first Vriska Serket Award to the RIAA. COME ON UP AND TAKE A BOW!

  • Edith UpwardsEdith Upwards Registered User regular
    edited February 2013
    The Ender wrote: »
    Invisible wrote: »
    I don't think you can put the genie back in the bottle. If suing grandmothers didn't work, why would a stern letter work?
    It certainly doesn't work for the UN.

    That's the thing: Most people, even most people selling creative works that are often pirated, don't want to put the genie back in the bottle.

    There are some publishers & some developers that do kick-up a stink about piracy - but, for the most part, it's the retailers and distributors. And piracy is just the scapegoat for the larger issue: they they are slowly becoming irrelevant

    Actually, the real question is "Where the fuck is my percentage and how are you still in business when nothing you make turns a FUCKING profit?"

    Edith Upwards on
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    If I could press a button and shit down social media and Web 2.0, it wouldn't even take me a second to decide, but that's off topic.

    I hate these arguments that publishers aren't "content creators." If you do work for hire or sell your work to a publisher, why does the fact that the publisher paid money for that creation make them somehow undeserving of their rights or protection of those rights?

    No one is saying distributors shouldn't get a cut. But the fact that they basically have content creators by the nuts is ridiculous. Publishers fulfill an important role in the artist-customer-dolla dolla bills ya'll cycle, but not the most important one.

    Lh96QHG.png
    Harry Dresden
  • MillMill Registered User regular
    edited February 2013
    This is probably another good time for people to start poking their three federal Congress critters.

    Hell, might be a good time to get into the habit of poking state and local government critters as well. I'm pretty sure the states have some leverage over the ISPs and you technically have five critters that can be poked here (your state delegate, state senator, Governor, Lt. Governor and AG - last three can't right legislation but they have other means to exert influence on such matters - hell some states might have one or two others that could do something). Only problem with this right now, is that I'm pretty sure most states are done with their 2013 legislative sessions, so legislation might not be forthcoming, but some do have elections this year.

    As for localities, IIRC influence on such matters varies. Depends on what authority the state they reside in grants them. Even so they can bug people higher up on the government food chain and I'm pretty all have a few meager means to make ISPs miserable if they so choose without getting the feds or the state to shit on the ISPs for them.

    What I find particularly concerning about this, is that the clowns at CSI do seem to understand that we practically have zero competition between ISPs. In most places there is no, "hey ISP provider you're a fucking, shit ass scammer, I'm going to switch over to your competition." You're pretty much stuck with the local ISP, unless someone buys them up. CSI gets that people can't boycott this bullshit.

    I've been meaning to write my Congress critters about get their shit into gear and modernizing this country's internet infrastructure and putting the big telecoms in their place. Guess it's just as well that I haven't gotten those letters out because I can add this garbage on as a reason for why such steps need to be taken.

    The Ender is correct though that social media companies aren't going anywhere. We haven't seen the entrenched old guard that is holding up plenty of economic growth and innovations get bitch slapped yet because A) we have lots of morons and/or old timers in Washington that don't get it and B) companies that benefit from more accessible internet are being nice right now.

    Edit: Anyone remember how that jackass Issa was parading the idea of putting a moratorium on internet legislation?

    Mill on
  • durandal4532durandal4532 Registered User regular
    I like that they appeal to a notion of fairness.

    I mean for fuck's sake, guys. I'm not dumb. I'd respect them slightly more if they hit me in the teeth and took my wallet.

    Take a moment to donate what you can to the International Rescue Committee, the National Immigration Law Center, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and the American Civil Liberties Union. There has never been a more urgent moment to do so.
    EddEdith Upwards
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    If I could press a button and shit down social media and Web 2.0, it wouldn't even take me a second to decide, but that's off topic.

    The irony of you posting that on an internet forum is just...
    I hate these arguments that publishers aren't "content creators." If you do work for hire or sell your work to a publisher, why does the fact that the publisher paid money for that creation make them somehow undeserving of their rights or protection of those rights?

    They do deserve the rights to the intellectual property that they purchased. However, what those 'rights' have evolved into over the course of copyright, patents, and various other intellectual 'property' statutes are horrific in an immense and multifaceted way. (Why does Disney get perpetual royalties but not the descendants of Grimm whose fairy tales make up their work? How can a publisher claim rights to a work when their original contract was built under a law that would put it in the public domain by now?) This is ignoring the way in which publishers and distribution networks are oligopolies who don't so much 'negotiate' the sale of your work to them as dictate the terms to anyone who hasn't hit the lottery and gotten a cult following.

    All of this is also operating under an assumption that all and every cease and desist request occurs only when an actual offense against their fiduciary responsibility rather than against an allowed use, is only ever done in good faith with a responsible appeals process, and is never abused so as to exert power or influence over the marketplace in order to further entrench their position. Which is to say that we're talking about a world where the IP claims are adjudicated by omniscient unicorns.

    AManFromEarthQuidGennenalyse RuebenLord_AsmodeusMagellRhan9Knuckle DraggerPLAAiouaMr RayzagdrobElldrenHarry Dresden
  • ShadowfireShadowfire Vermont, in the middle of nowhereRegistered User regular
    That video simultaneously reminds me of something I would have watched in orientation for one of my retail jobs, and of something GLaDOS should be narrating.

    WiiU: Windrunner ; Guild Wars 2: Shadowfire.3940 ; PSN: Bradcopter
    MagellKnuckle DraggerMrVyngaard
  • Edith UpwardsEdith Upwards Registered User regular
    edited February 2013
    If I could press a button and shit down social media and Web 2.0, it wouldn't even take me a second to decide, but that's off topic.

    No. It's not. You want to raze the entirety of our fourth estate and shit on the ashes. This goes three steps beyond what rentseeking obsoletes would do with the power that they apparently have. But that very post, combined with musicians, artists, and documentarians who've suffered repeated DMCA claims against their own work already serves as adquate warning against this shit.

    altpost:ISPs are using music pirates in order to cover for the fact that they're imbecilic ponzi schemers who are incapable of providing the services that they promise. If these people were offering financial services and then attempting to use MORALITY CLAUSES to prevent others from getting their money back it would be much the same model.

    Edith Upwards on
  • QuidQuid I don't... what... hnnng Registered User regular
    If I could press a button and shit down social media and Web 2.0, it wouldn't even take me a second to decide...

    It's the link at the top right that says "sign out".

    Gennenalyse RuebenDonnictonAManFromEarthEdith UpwardsAistanrndmheroagoajTubularLuggageMagellshrykeRhan9skyknytPhillishereDark Raven XMrVyngaardPLAJusticeforPlutoSquigieHefflingMr RayzagdrobMan in the MistsDelmainL Ron HowardDelphinidaesturtleantHarry Dresden
  • durandal4532durandal4532 Registered User regular
    I'm just imaging myself going to a comic shop and playing people a sappy film strip about how their decision not to purchase from my collection is basically stealing and how I'll be stapling a note to the front of all their floppies saying as much.

    It's just... you want to make money. That's okay. No one wants to pay you, though. No one likes you. Not even if you're doing something useful. They like the art, and the artist. And they barely even want to pay the artist! And that's okay, too. They'll probably get less of the art they like if they keep it up but that's the way things shake out.

    Trying to make me feel bad for you is real weird. You're competing to take the most money with the least effort, this is not something that fair play enters into. It baffles me that they show me their financials and expect sympathy pangs.

    Take a moment to donate what you can to the International Rescue Committee, the National Immigration Law Center, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and the American Civil Liberties Union. There has never been a more urgent moment to do so.
    Edith UpwardsMagellJusticeforPlutoHarry Dresden
This discussion has been closed.