Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Major ISPs agree to "six strikes" copyright enforcement plan

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 45 posts

Re: Major ISPs agree to "six strikes" copyright enforcement plan

#21

Post by qq66 »

navyrain wrote: post #10

Given that these ISPs often have exclusive markets, in which they have no direct competitors, this would effectively deny internet access to anyone who had the misfortune of getting a few of these notices. Lack of judicial oversight is obviously a problem. But furthermore, this really overstates the seriousness of copyright infringement, and understates the importance of internet access for all.

You know, the "misfortune" of getting the fifth notice can be pretty effectively mitigated by stopping file sharing after your fourth notice.*

* except in the cases where you're in a botnet

Re: Major ISPs agree to "six strikes" copyright enforcement plan

#22

Post by navyrain »

qq66 wrote: post #21
navyrain wrote: post #10

Given that these ISPs often have exclusive markets, in which they have no direct competitors, this would effectively deny internet access to anyone who had the misfortune of getting a few of these notices. Lack of judicial oversight is obviously a problem. But furthermore, this really overstates the seriousness of copyright infringement, and understates the importance of internet access for all.

You know, the "misfortune" of getting the fifth notice can be pretty effectively mitigated by stopping file sharing after your fourth notice.* * except in the cases where you're in a botnet

Nothing stops anyone claiming to have a copyright to send a notice for any IP. Frankly, if I don't like your haircut, and know your IP, I can send a notice to your ISP claiming that you "infringe on my intellectual property."

Without judicial oversight, the potential for abuse or error is just too great.

Re: Major ISPs agree to "six strikes" copyright enforcement plan

#23

Post by InclinedPlane »

This is a very sad state of affairs. We already have a system for judging evidence, determining guilt and for assigning punishment, it's called the courts. This seems to be yet another advancement in abandoning all of the institutions of civil society and rule of law in the online world, frequently to the detriment of individual liberty. We can only hope that eventually these assaults against our freedoms will eventually be rolled back.

Re: Major ISPs agree to "six strikes" copyright enforcement plan

#24

Post by horser4dish »

kelnos wrote: post #14
navyrain wrote: post #10

Given that these ISPs often have exclusive markets, in which they have no direct competitors, this would effectively deny internet access to anyone who had the misfortune of getting a few of these notices. Lack of judicial oversight is obviously a problem. But furthermore, this really overstates the seriousness of copyright infringement, and understates the importance of internet access for all.

If you read the article, you'd know that ISPs seem unwilling to cut off access entirely, even after 6 strikes. Agreed on the judicial issues. While the ISP is legally free to make any decision it wants as to who is allowed to use its network, and in what capacity, they're essentially making these determinations based on hearsay.

That last point is my primary complaint about these systems. While yes, this is actually a quite reasonable series of warnings (the first four carry no penalties at all), it still bothers me that there is no real proof behind any of this. As far as I know, all the content owners have to say to the ISP is that such-and-such IP was uploading our content X, and then the warnings begin. There's no first- or third-party fact-checking (which, I admit, would be quite difficult with torrents anyway), it is, as you say, "hearsay." I'm not quite sure why, but the RIAA and other organizations now carry as much weight as our government regarding our internet access (can the state even shut down a customer's access at all? I have no idea, but if it can't, that's even worse).

Re: Major ISPs agree to "six strikes" copyright enforcement plan

#25

Post by sorbus »

kijinbear wrote: post #16
navyrain wrote: post #10

Given that these ISPs often have exclusive markets, in which they have no direct competitors, this would effectively deny internet access to anyone who had the misfortune of getting a few of these notices. Lack of judicial oversight is obviously a problem. But furthermore, this really overstates the seriousness of copyright infringement, and understates the importance of internet access for all.

Some European countries [1] and even the UN [2] have recently begun to recognize internet access as a Constitutional right. If similar decisions were made here, one might be able to sue one's ISP for breaching that right... but maybe not, as long as there's free internet at public libraries. I'm also very pessimistic that SCOTUS will recognize internet access as a Constitutional right any time soon, what with the MAF…

> internet access as a Constitutional right.

You mean Human Right.

Re: Major ISPs agree to "six strikes" copyright enforcement plan

#26

Post by floppydisk »

At some point, someone will probably sue -- after getting cutoff by this new policy or receive significant fines -- on the grounds this does constitute a conflict of interest on the part of the internet provider.

In the ideal world, we'd allow for competition across the board and remove the monopolies through the introduction of new options. Those options could make a major dent by positioning themselves solely as pipe providers. In turn, this would put market pressure on the conglomerates to either compete or die, in the ideal world.

In the realistic world, the options would be to force the companies to split into wholly owned subsidiaries of a parent corporation. IE: Comcast Internet, Comcast TV / Comcast Content and they would not receive preferential treatment from one another. Also, remove the monopolies and change the current regulatory structure to create incentives for new ISPs to spring up and challenge the conglomerates.

Ideally, we would be able to solve this without having to involve the government bureaucracy which will end up creating more new rules and probably hurting as much as helping. Realistically, the only way people will go for is if there's a regulatory change.

Re: Major ISPs agree to "six strikes" copyright enforcement plan

#27

Post by jff »

InclinedPlane wrote: post #23

This is a very sad state of affairs. We already have a system for judging evidence, determining guilt and for assigning punishment, it's called the courts. This seems to be yet another advancement in abandoning all of the institutions of civil society and rule of law in the online world, frequently to the detriment of individual liberty. We can only hope that eventually these assaults against our freedoms will eventu…

These courts have already been very effectively used... as a threat by copyright holders in an attempt to shake people down for out-of-court settlements.

Re: Major ISPs agree to "six strikes" copyright enforcement plan

#28

Post by jff »

eyeareque wrote: post #11
kevingadd wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Regardless of whether you break the law on a regular basis, having a personal VPS is a very good idea these days. I still regularly run into problems with websites and applications related to geolocation, blacklisting, or routing, and being able to proxy stuff through my VPS enables me to keep getting things done. In particular, if you're a Comcast user a VPS is pretty essential since their routing and peering are aw…

What does it cost per month for a simple VPS service that can do this?

You can get a year on Amazon for free.

Re: Major ISPs agree to "six strikes" copyright enforcement plan

#29

Post by kijinbear »

sorbus wrote: post #25
kijinbear wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some European countries [1] and even the UN [2] have recently begun to recognize internet access as a Constitutional right. If similar decisions were made here, one might be able to sue one's ISP for breaching that right... but maybe not, as long as there's free internet at public libraries. I'm also very pessimistic that SCOTUS will recognize internet access as a Constitutional right any time soon, what with the MAF…

> internet access as a Constitutional right. You mean Human Right.

In the case of individual countries, it's often construed as a constitutional right. But in the case of the EU, you're right, it's a human right. Thanks for the correction.
Post reply on HN