Devastating internet censorship plan (new SOPA) to be put in practice starting July!

[Phil Deakins]

I haven't accused anyone of being a pirate. Because only thieves will be affected (and only if they ignore the warnings), and people's activities on the internet will not be monitored (only downloads of pirate stuff will be monitored), and because of some comments in this thread, I strongly suspect that some people here actually download illegal copies of stuff and prefer to keep doing it. That's what I said - a strong suspicion - not an accusation.

[Ceka Cianci]

i guess my isp backed out of it..

from what i heard last..

i really don't see a lot of them taking on the extra work load ..i'm sure they are busy enough as it is..

and i'm sure they feel a lot of people on the net download something at some point that is illegal..

maybe they have asked themselves..do they really want to hurt thier own income any because of the RIAA and MPAA..

they turned them down back in the napster days as well..

what would an isp gain from going along with something like that? is the question that should be asked..

because they are corps as well..and they move like them as well..

 

[Freya Mokusei]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

Because only thieves

will

be affected (and

only if

they ignore the warnings), and people's activities on the internet

will not

be monitored (only downloads of pirate stuff

will be

monitored)

---

I remain skeptical of this, and yet you appear to be presenting it as fact. Unless you can guarantee that this is the case then it would unwise to do so. If you can guarantee this, then I would like to see that information, if you can't then why are you still saying it? (And if you're not presenting it as fact, 'should be affected', 'should be monitored' would be far more appropriate).

The privacy complaint is just one of several reasons why it could affect the consumer:-

- Why are ISPs spending time on this when they should be replacing copper with fiber (or fixing other maintenance issues)?

- How is this data compared, and what is it compared against? What piece of personally-identifying information is used to link infractions with bill-payers? How susceptable is this information to being 'leaked'?

- How is the 'chiclist' that 16 referred to generated? Is it guaranteed to be only pirate material? Is it open for people to see? Is there a way to appeal being put onto this list (and having your legitimate customers criminalised in the process)?

- Will these extra monitoring systems delay connections and responses?

- Even if it's IP/header-based (as 16 suggests) are there fail-safes to prevent people with open routers (i.e., wardriving) from being disconnected? How about large families with children that click any link available? How about companies with rogue employees?

- Is there an appeal process, where people can safely claim that they didn't do it, and have their objections listened to?

- What about public spaces and shared IPs?

- What about servers that end up hijacked, and used to distribute flagged material? Will they ever be unblocked?

- What about zombie PCs, and other hacks that divert traffic? Will innocent people be used by criminals, and then be unable to clean their PC adequately (and so end up disconnected)?

- What prevents ISPs from 'teaming up' to ring-fence users convicted by this system into being unable to find an ISP that will take them on as a customer? Are they going to be allowed to share these privately-determined convictions with each other?

- What about servers that host multiple websites, some of them legitimate and others that infringe? Will this system be able to tell the difference?

- If the system is incapable of tracking people who use advanced methods of hiding their tracks, is it cost-effective at all or will it just become another money-suck, like the UK ban on the torrenting site I mentioned earlier in the thread?

There's lots and lots of questions about this that should have a lot of people worried. Lots and lots of legitimate reasons for asking them, that aren't tied to criminal activities. Using umbrella statements like 'Only criminals should be worried', is dangerous and misleading.

Restaurants, cafes, nightclubs, train-stations, airports, private businesses, online retailers, families, 'vulnerable' internet users, to name only the ones I've thought up.

'Because this is what they've said' isn't enough.

[161488303349]

---

Dresden Ceriano wrote:

I don't know if anyone else has experienced this, but I've gone shopping, spending hundreds of dollars at Wal-Mart, only to be stopped at the door on the way out to be told to show my receipt, simply because I had a big bag of dog food that couldn't be fit into a bag.  ...

---

where i live they are allowed to that. they also allowed to ask you to open your bag so they can inspect the contents. if you refuse to open your bag then they can detain you under citizens arrest powers until the police come

to address the civil liberties aspect of this the shop must post a big sign at the entrance to say that they reserve the right to do this. if you dont accept then dont come in the shop

[161488303349]

---

Freya Mokusei wrote:

- Is there an appeal process, where people can safely claim that they didn't do it, and have their objections listened to?

---

where there is specific interwebz legislation in countries that do have this then yes

where there isnt then the ISP is bound by their Terms of Service. if they choose to put in an appeals process then they must follow it to the letter under general provisions of common law/principles or existing consumer laws if any

where is no legislation then property owner (ISP/IPAP/shop/business/etc) is free to solely determine whether or not they will include an appeal process in their ToS. potential customer can accept or reject the service on signup as they like

[Freya Mokusei]

Sooo... 'maybe'.

And if you're on an ISP/whatever without an appeals process at present, that's unlikely to change. With the increased cost involved in monitoring and retaining these records I'd doubt many ISPs would invest any more than absolutely necessary (hiring an appeals team and insuring they are unbiased is expensive).

Does the industry even have a regulatory body in the US? Something like an ISP Ombundsman? A neutral party (preferably government-owned) that responds to complaints about ISP behaviour.

Wonder how many people pick an ISP based on hypothesized future policy decisions.

[Dresden Ceriano]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

Dresden Ceriano wrote:

I don't know if anyone else has experienced this, but I've gone shopping, spending hundreds of dollars at Wal-Mart, only to be stopped at the door on the way out to be told to show my receipt, simply because I had a big bag of dog food that couldn't be fit into a bag.  Now, maybe that's fine to most people (people such as Phil), but to me, it feels as if I'm being treated as a criminal when I've done nothing whatsoever wrong.  I don't want my ISP checking my receipt, as if I'm some sort of criminal.

Just because corporations can get away with such nonsense, doesn't mean it's right or that common, law abiding citizens have to put up with it.  I hate being monitored as such in the real world, why would I ever accept being monitored that way on the net?  You (Phil) may think it's great to get your freedom sucked away from you in this manner, but don't throw the rest of us under the bus with you.

...Dres

---

So you think it's just fine for supermarkets to be stolen from?

---

How you've managed to comprehend what I've written as meaning that I endorse stealing is beyond me.  It might be time to go back to school and relearn how to read English, because it obviously didn't stick the first time.

Forgive me for not reading another word of the ridiculous tripe which you've chosen to splash across this thread, but I refuse to sit here and read the words of an overwrought imbecile, who takes it upon himself to accuse anyone and everyone who chooses to voice their very legitimate concern for their right to privacy and human dignity, a criminal and/or a murderer.

...Dres

[161488303349]

any appeal process is fundamentally a legal process

a ToS for example is a legal process. is a contract between two parties and is legally enforceable under whatever legislation enforces contracts. is pretty much how the USA works at the moment and lots of other countries as well

+

in the NZ legislation way earlier that i linked to, their legal process for interwebz is ToS and then the Tribunal. in NZ they quite big on tribunals for all kinds of things. the Tribunals are courts. they kinda work like Judge Judy without the showboat

like in the Small Claims Tribunal is just the 2 parties and the judge. no lawyers allowed. each party state its case as they understand it and the judge then asks each party what they think they can live with in terms of a settlement to the dispute

the Judge then asks each party if the proposed settlements are acceptable to the other. if so then case over. if not then the Judge will ask them to reconsider and try to make a settlement. if the parties cant do that then the Judge will make a ruling and thats it. case over

seems the Interwebz Tribunal works the same way but i not find any publicly reported cases for that yet

+

NZ  go with tribunals bc of the cost of fullon Court actions seems like. the Tribunals work really fast. like the Tribunal Judges dont mess round. most cases are over in a single session

the point is to make a settlement. the assumption being that the parties are grown ups and that is what they want. to settle the dispute fairly and then move on with their lives

[Phil Deakins]

---

Dresden Ceriano wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

Dresden Ceriano wrote:

I don't know if anyone else has experienced this, but I've gone shopping, spending hundreds of dollars at Wal-Mart, only to be stopped at the door on the way out to be told to show my receipt, simply because I had a big bag of dog food that couldn't be fit into a bag.  Now, maybe that's fine to most people (people such as Phil), but to me, it feels as if I'm being treated as a criminal when I've done nothing whatsoever wrong.  I don't want my ISP checking my receipt, as if I'm some sort of criminal.

Just because corporations can get away with such nonsense, doesn't mean it's right or that common, law abiding citizens have to put up with it.  I hate being monitored as such in the real world, why would I ever accept being monitored that way on the net?  You (Phil) may think it's great to get your freedom sucked away from you in this manner, but don't throw the rest of us under the bus with you.

...Dres

---

So you think it's just fine for supermarkets to be stolen from?

---

How you've managed to comprehend what I've written as meaning that I endorse stealing is beyond me.  It might be time to go back to school and relearn how to read English, because it obviously didn't stick the first time.

Forgive me for not reading another word of the ridiculous tripe which you've chosen to splash across this thread, but I refuse to sit here and read the words of an overwrought imbecile, who takes it upon himself to accuse anyone and everyone who chooses to voice their very legitimate concern for their right to privacy and human dignity, a criminal and/or a murderer.

...Dres

---

Frankly, Dresden, you talk a load of cr*p. You wrote (see the quote above) that you felt you were being treated as a criminal at the supermarket. That imples that you think it shouldn't have happened, which necessarily means that people should be permitted to take unbagged stuff out of the supermarket without hinderance and, if they are stealing, so be it. Your opinion is wrong - simple as that.

Your opinion's wrongness is further compounded by your outright rejection of my view that companies should be allowed to prevent theft of their stuff in any way possible that doesn't impact negatitvely on innocent people. What the companies are intending to do along with the ISPs doesn't impact negatively on innocent people. That's a summary what I've been saying through this thread, and it's what you described as 'tripe'. Your description is the real tripe, my friend.

Your idea that it will infringe people's right to privacy (which people only have in some circumstances, but not these) is nonsense. Your idea that it impacts on people's human dignity is also nonsense. And your stupid idea that I accuse anyone who disagrees with me of being "a criminal and/or a murderer" is just the ravings of a <fill in the rest yourself>. Of course, if you would like to quote where I made any such accusations, please do, but you won't because no such accusations exist.

I hope that helps

[Dresden Ceriano]

See how it feels when people put words in your mouth?

...Dres

[Phil Deakins]

One of the posters literally changed my words more than once in this thread, but I didn't put any words in your mouth. What you wrote led to me asking you a question -  "So you think it's ok for people to steal from supermarkets?", and I explained how it led to that. What you wrote still does lead to that. I don't think it's me who needs to brush up their english.

But I don't think you tried to put any words in my mouth as such. I think you just tried to be objectionable and you were found out. Your "words in your mouth" bit is just you trying to crawl out from being found out - imo.

[Drake1 Nightfire]

I have a few questions.

Who is going to pay for all of the extra added employees and code writers to implement this? Cuz they better not jack up my rates over this.

Also, who is to say what is "pirated" or not. Does this include copyrighted images from Google?

What about YouTube? You can Download videos from some users.. what if those videos are Copyrighted material not belonging to the uploader? who gets slapped down?

Lets say i went to a torrent site and downloaded a packet of images that someone took themselves of beautiful sunsets.. am i now in danger of losing my ISP?

What about File sharing sites?

too many questions and not enough answers.

[Dresden Ceriano]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

Your "words in your mouth" bit is just you trying to crawl out from being found out - imo.

---

No... that was me trying to crawl out of a futile, frustrating conversation.  I should have just stopped replying, which is what I'll do in the future.  Have a nice day.

...Dres

[161488303349]

---

Ceka Cianci wrote:

 

what would an isp gain from going along with something like that? is the question that should be asked..

 

---

this the actual main question i think

 

why would they?

 

if look at the business model for ISP (same like trad phone companies) is based on traffic volume. more volume then more revenue more profit for them

 

whats happening tho specially with smartphones is that ISP/phone company working out that

is more money like profits to be made out of content+traffic than just traffic alone

 

same like how the cable TV model works. can get premium payments on some kinds of content. pay per view

 

+

 

the content owners, well the big ones anyways, that own the mass market content or control the rights to big events arent interested in working with ISP/phone/carriers who wont work with them to ensure that the content can stay premium price

 

in this case they quite adverse to providing content over a carrier when that carrier is simultaneously allowing their service to carry rips of that same content. it doesnt make any business sense to the content owner to do this

 

so they trying to align/make deals with ISP/carriers who will make an effort to donk rips off their service

 

is a cost/profit tradeoff for the ISP who do this. is not a moral decision for them either way. is financial decision

+

 

has been tried on trad internet before partially this with mixed success/fail

 

but back in the day when open view network TV built on the advertising revenue model ruled. nobody thought that subs/ppv cable/sat TV would ever succeed. like why would TV consumers ever buy/pay for TV when can get for free just by watch network TV

 

was lots of mixed success/fail for cable/sat TV as well back in the startup days

 

but they keep at it and now they winning, making heaps money at it. so now network TV based on advertising revenue model is the dinosaur of TV. is still profitable for some network TV companies but is not a growth segment anymore

 

+

 

bc of the extra revenues that subs/ppv model generates then internet providers can pay content owners more for content and are happy to when is good margins in it for them when they onsell to their customers

 

the financial question for ISP is: does the revenue in these margins exceed the cost of donking rippers off our service?

 

when it does then we will start seeing their head honchos via PR dept making pious statements about declaring war on theft in glossy terms

 

+

 

the interwebz is starting to realign along these lines. by interwebz i mean all forms of content and engagement conveyed digitally. can see this happening already with what MS and Apple are doing with their platforms and app stores. can also see all kinds of legit providers like netflix etc joining in. they all working out is more money longterm for themselves in legit content

 

when we say content owner we normally think of the person who made/owns the rights to it. we not really think much about the ownership of the revenue that can be derived from it

 

when we do then can see that a cable/sat/net provider owns/is vested in a substantial part of the revenue generated

 

that the game changer thought i think

 

 

 

[Phil Deakins]

---

Drake1 Nightfire wrote:

Also, who is to say what is "pirated" or not. Does this include copyrighted images from Google?

---

That's a good question. I've always seen Google's use of other people's property, such as those images, as theft on Google's part. And it's worse than it appears. For some of their displays they get the images from the websites where they are located and display them in their own pages. That adds to the bandwidth for those websites, which could cost them more than they would otherwise have needed to pay their hosts. Some websites have gone to the lengths of spotting Google's image requests and blocked them, or returned a message for the user.

So my answer to your question is that Google has been openly pirating for many years.

[Alisha Matova]

I would suggest that info will be in your ISPs new TOS. Mine, Verizon, updated theirs a few weeks ago. Google it if interested. They did add a new clause about repeat infringers.

 

I don't see anything bad in the new TOS, really. In fact, one of my biggest fears is alleviated, at the bottom of the new clause is an email address I can use to protect MY content! Woo(since I make my living off my ip)! But even that doesn't stop me from feeling disgruntled with the way RIAA(after being denied by congress and the public) went behind our backs and set this up(forced/coerced/paid) the ISPs to monitor their IP.

[Cat Nebula]

ehm.. if u guys didn't knew, these projects failed, wealready won the battle against these extremists capitalists of the north ^^

Megaupload is coming back along with few others~ 

[161488303349]

---

AruKuusouka wrote:

ehm.. if u guys didn't knew, these projects failed, wealready won the battle against these extremists capitalists of the north ^^

 

Megaupload is coming back along with few others~ 

---

dunno if you keep up with the news over on torrentfreak

 

if you do then probably know that in the last few weeks Paypal have cut off processing payments for Putlocker, ExtaBit, TurboBit, UptoBox, Cloudnator, RYUShare, BulletUpload, BackUpload, RGHost, NitroBits, FireGet, FileMates and quite a few others seems like

 

+

 

i think the days of massive open to public cyberlockers that allow anyone to upload and share anything they like without any checks by the hosting company are pretty much coming to an end

mostly bc i cant see anyone much wanting to host anymore if cant get paid for doing it