[real-eyes] Re: ISP Copyright Crackdown Raises Red Flags
- From: Bret Kroeker <bkroeker162@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <real-eyes@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <nut@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 14:11:20 -0500
Wow, thanks for this forward! I think it is even more important now that if
you have your own wifi network, that you secure it, to ensure nobody accesses
your network and downloads things illegally. I could see some problems with
people getting accused wrongfully for something that they didn't do. Like the
article had mentioned, people can get proxies or VPN to mask their cyber
footprints. It would be very hard to crack down on those who use proxies
because they can change to another IP whenever they want to download something
new. This will be very interesting, because people will download copyrighted
material no matter what. They will always find new ways to get around
something. Bret
> From: sgeorge@xxxxxxxxx
> To: real-eyes@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; nut@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [real-eyes] ISP Copyright Crackdown Raises Red Flags
> Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 13:44:27 -0500
>
> A couple of edited articles from PC World on a sea change that may effect
> many of us.
> Copyright Cops Team with ISPs to Crack Down on Music, Movie Pirates
> By Paul Suarez, PCWorld Jul 7, 2011 6:05 PM
>
> A group of prominent Internet service providers, including Comcast, AT&T,
> Verizon, and Time Warner Cable, announced Thursday that they will seek a more
> active role to protect copyright owners--a.k.a. the entertainment
> industry--from online piracy.
>
> ISPs will now send "Copyright Alerts" to Internet subscribers when their
> connection is allegedly being used for content theft. If a single subscriber
> receives multiple alerts without responding, ISPs may limit the user's
> connection speed or block them from accessing the web altogether.
>
> These notifications aren't new, but the ISP responses are. The National Cable
> & Telecommunications Association, which represents ISPs, says in a release
> that online content theft costs hundreds of thousands of jobs and billions of
> dollars of lost earnings in the United States every year.
>
> Piracy Prevention
> But the policy change isn't to recoup costs of piracy, it's meant to prevent
> it.
>
> According to the release, ISPs won't release subscriber names to copyright
> holders--meaning it isn't likely for them to wind up in a messy court case.
> The association also says subscribers will be able to challenge an alert if
> they feel they were wrongly accused. They didn't specify how those challenges
> will work or who will oversee them.
>
> Corynne McSherry, director of intellectual property issues for the Electronic
> Frontier Foundation (a digital rights advocacy group) told CNET that
> oversight could be a problem. She thinks that people hired to oversee
> challenges for the ISPs will surely have a conflict of interest. She's also
> worried the new arrangement will open the doors for more strict forms of
> enforcement.
>
> The whole thing puts the National Cable & Telecommunications Association on
> shaky ground. It is in the ISPs' interest to make sure that consumers aren't
> violating terms of service but, at the same time, revoking someone's Internet
> connection also means they are going to lose a customer. For now, it sounds
> like they hope to ride the middle ground, pleasing the entertainment industry
> and their customers.
>
> The new policy isn't in place just to jumpstart the entertainment economy;
> the association said that it will also help educate consumers. The
> association singles out parents and caregivers that many times don't know
> their Internet connection is being used for illegal activities. The group
> also hopes to educate individuals that aren't aware downloading movies, music
> and other copyrighted material is illegal.
>
> "Data suggest that, once informed about the alleged content theft and its
> possible consequences, most Internet subscribers will quickly take steps to
> ensure that the theft doesn't happen again," it says.
>
> Internet User Rights?
> That may be true for Grandma or a neighbor with an unsecured Wi-Fi network
> that are being abused by tech-savvy content pirates, but the new deal won't
> do much for those that know what they are doing is illegal--besides put them
> at risk of losing a service they pay for.
>
> Digital rights groups acknowledge the policy change's potential for public
> education about online piracy, but assert that the move has potential to
> undermine internet user rights.
>
> It's a big win for the RIAA and MPAA, both of which have been attempting to
> forge an alliance with ISPs to knock out illegal file-sharing.
>
> "This ground-breaking agreement ushers in a new day and a fresh approach to
> addressing the digital theft of copyrighted works," Cary Sherman, President
> of the Recording Industry Association of America said in a release. "We hope
> that it signals a new era in which all of us in the technology and
> entertainment value chain work collaboratively to make the Internet a more
> safe and legal experience for users. It is a significant step forward not
> only for the creative community, which invests in and brings great
> entertainment to the public, but for consumers and the legitimate online
> marketplace as well."
>
>
>
> ISP Copyright Crackdown Raises Red Flags
> By Paul Suarez, PCWorld Jul 8, 2011 5:30 PM
>
> A satirical comment on the antipiracy effort. Source: modernhumorist.comThe
> decision by Internet service providers this week to combat, educate, and
> punish people sharing copyrighted files online has provoked a storm of
> criticism by digital rights groups and some Internet users.
>
> The response is a reaction to Thursday's announcement that the nation's
> largest ISPs, including Comcast and Verizon, have agreed to work with
> Hollywood and the music industry and play a more active role to protect
> copyright owners. ISPs have agreed to identify suspected copyright violators
> and warn them via e-mail or bring their Internet connection to a crawl.
>
> Criticism over what is called the "Copyright Alert System" centers around
> charges of unfair policies and procedures and accusation that the policy
> tramples users' rights. Others question the effectiveness of the new measure.
> At sites catering to the people who share, swap, and download digital content
> readers are weighing in with possible workarounds to avoid copyright alerts.
>
> Copyright Fight
>
> ICV2, which comments on these antipiracy tactics with the illustration at
> left, notes that "The voluntary agreement from the five leading ISPs
> represents a different approach from that taken by some other countries,
> which have adopted tough "three strikes laws, which are universal in scope
> and backed by the power of a specific statute."
>
> David Sohn, senior policy council with the Center for Democracy & Technology
> says in a release that CDT is disappointed that "temporary restriction" of
> Internet access is a mitigation possibility. Sohn believes it is wrong to
> temporarily disconnect a customer from his or her Internet connection "based
> on allegations that have not been tested in court." He also says that making
> sure the alerts are sent to the subscriber will be difficult and he isn't
> sure how effective the appeal process will be for accused infringers.
>
> Abigail Phillips, senior staff attorney with the Electronic Frontier
> Foundation, is also skeptical. Phillips points out in a response to the ISPs
> announcement that the policy says failure to secure a Wi-Fi router can only
> be used once in the appeal process. She says that will have serious
> consequences for small businesses that allow customers to access Wi-Fi
> networks. She also notes that people who want to appeal an alert must send
> their personal information to content owners.
>
> Outrage
> Kevin Gosztola says on Firedoglake that it is outrageous that subscribers
> must pay a $35 fee to initiate a review. He speculates that the fee may be a
> way for ISPs to cover administrative costs. He also is concerned that fair
> use claims would be handled by an independent expert on copyright law.
> Gosztola says if the representative is selected by the industry interest
> groups will likely have a conflict of interest in favor of the ISPs and the
> entertainment industry.
>
> Nate Anderson of Ars Technica pointed out that the announcement's alleged
> focus on education is questionable since content owners have historically
> sued subscribers "securing absurd multimillion dollar judgments." He also
> says that mitigation measures result from private, unverified accusations.
>
> Hillel Parness, partner with trial firm Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi, told
> E-Commerce Times that the ISPs roles need to be better defined -- he's not
> sure if they will actively seek out illegal activities or just respond to
> notices from the copyright owners. Parness also speculates that ISPs may be
> getting involved to remove any P2P strain on their networks.
>
> TorrentFreak reader Scary Devil Monastery recommends using a proxy or VPN to
> mask Internet activity from ISPs. Reader Violate0 suggests that content
> pirates can use file lockers and news servers to avoid third-party watching.
>
>
> Reginald George
> Adaptive Technology Specialist
> Kansas City Missouri
> 816-200-1064
> adapt@xxxxxxxxx
> To subscribe or to leave the list, or to set other subscription options, go
> to www.freelists.org/list/real-eyes
>
>
To subscribe or to leave the list, or to set other subscription options, go to
www.freelists.org/list/real-eyes
Other related posts:
