Posted on 02/26/2013 4:36:57 AM PST by Mad Dawgg
WASHINGTON (AP) — Internet users who illegally share music, movies or television shows online could soon receive warning notices from the nation's five major Internet service providers.
The Copyright Alert System, organized by the recording and film industry, is being activated this week to target consumers using peer-to-peer software.
Under the new system, complaints will prompt an Internet service provider — such as Verizon or AT&T — to notify a customer whose Internet address has been detected sharing files illegally. A person will be given up to six opportunities to stop before the Internet provider will take more drastic steps, such as temporarily slowing their connection, or redirecting Internet traffic until they acknowledge they received a notice or review educational materials about copyright law.
(Excerpt) Read more at myfoxny.com ...
It will be a selected enforcement effort.
And soon, people will have to pay $35 to appeal the accusation they visited Right wing websites before the administration takes more serious action....
I hate piracy, but this is BS.
How do they determine stolen? by file size? Can’t wait to see the bureaucracy put in place to administer legit sites complete with all software downloads being tracked and registered.
Just need a fee to have your company listed.
Then ISP’s will refuse service to your site unless you are.
Then you are refused registration to begin with and locked out of the net.
Two words to say:
Use and Net.
In other words, an alternate internet.
“The ‘policing organization’ could easily turn into a righthaven-type strong-arm thug group.”
Exactly. I don’t do Netflix but I do download legal software/sample libraries (gigabyte szed) for my music hobby. From companies here and overseas. Lots of these are small one/two people shops.
Why do I get the feeling that suddenly all such places would be tagged as ‘illegal sites’ since they are under no obligation to pay some to be created ‘fee’ to the US govt.
The Mafia must be envious.
And if you send him $500,000 you can meet with him 4 times a year and he might even throw in an ambassadorship.
I am going to go against the grain here, but on a quick read, this seems more than fair to me.
“A person will be given up to six opportunities to stop before the Internet provider will take more drastic steps, such as temporarily slowing their connection, or redirecting Internet traffic until they acknowledge they received a notice or review educational materials about copyright law.
Consumers who maintain they have been wrongly accused would be forced to pay $35 to appeal the decision. The fee would be reimbursed if they prevail.”
Compare this with some of the previous attempts where you get some kid sharing some CD tracks, and gets hauled into court and hit with fines north of $100,000 for sharing $15 worth of music.
If you get warned 3-4-5 times, seems to me you have ample opportunity to figure out what is going on, and avoid any problems.
What if someone keeps their wireless router open as a form of charity?
Unless the government goes in and physically analyzes your hardware, IP doesn’t prove anything.
Or will leaving a router open be outlawed too?
The usenet files are text, either base-64 or yenc encoded, but their MD5 might still be on file.
Of course, posters can rar up and hashsalt the files, but they won’t always do that. So I would recommend a usenet provider who offers port 443 as well as port 115.
They’ll probably check the MD5 of your download against a list of copyrighted files.
I plead ignorance. What’s an MD5?
If you get warned 3-4-5 times, seems to me you have ample opportunity to figure out what is going on, and avoid any problems."
Yeah I agree let's do away with all that "due process" nonsense and get right from accusation to punishment. Think how such will streamline our legal system. Police can just arrest you because they have a hunch no warrant necessary.
OR we could do it like the Constitution sez we have to. Though its just so hard for government and Big corps to go through those hoops set up by smart old white guys. Lets just let them do what they deem is appropriate right?
And like you say its better than it used to be. They would wrongly accuse someone of filesharing and sue them for millions of dollars. Now they can wrongly accuse someone of files sharing and just charge them 35 dollars.
I wonder if they will use stocky Italian guys to deliver the message that you need to pay up?
"Nice internet Connection you have there Sport. It'd be a shame if anything happened to it."
Leaving your router open is really dumb. You have no way of controlling who uses it or what they use it for. Pervert driving down the street downloads kiddie porn, and suddenly you have the FBI knocking down your door. Even if you aren’t actually convicted of anything, you never want to be in those crosshairs.
No good deed goes unpunished. Lock it down with WPA2. Turn off the SSID broadcasts. Add the MAC filter so only your devices are accepted. Block access to "sharing" sites with your firewall. That might be enough to keep the creepy lawyers away. Hopefully you didn't leave your systems wide open to having some kiddie porn stored on your hard disks.
Unless the government goes in and physically analyzes your hardware, IP doesn’t prove anything.
Plan on it. IP traces and a knock on the door with a warrant to seize your router and all the computers on your network. The forensics team will have a field day with your equipment. If you have any doubt, just check out the courses offered by SANS. That where the security pros go to get trained. The same people who will be going over your equipment with a fine tooth comb.
Many years ago I was active on a seismology bulletin board. A foul mouthed individual began trolling and leaving nasty messages. I analyzed the message headers and traced it all the way down to a specifically named computer inside the SEAL offices in Coronado. I was able to identify the time stamps on the messages. I contacted the office and they made the "problem" go away.
Its a hashing algorithm that converts a file of any size into a 128-bit number. While there are some collisions possible, it has good uniqueness and is usable for this purpose.
Copyright owners would provide a list of the MD5 hashes of their files, and the ISP would hash each file its users download and compare to the list.
If I understand you right, say I’m a pirate (Avast ye Freeper scum! ;) and I get “Spiderman 45 - The will to Homosexuality” to redistribute. It is hashed. So I zip it, thus hiding the actual file and changing the file size.
Doesn’t that pretty much defeat the scheme?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.