26 replies to this topic 1 votes

[YounGMessiah]

Gary7, on 25 February 2013 - 16:02, said:

No but all of their IP's can be blocked.

Exactly what I do, I block tons of ips...


Edit: Still laughing at the last guy who thinks his internet will be better with this passed...

[1941]

goretsky, on 26 February 2013 - 09:34, said:

Hello,

A slightly different point of view here:

I do not have cable TV (or satellite or fibre or som other paid-for delivery system). I do have broadband connections, but they are only for Internet usage (and, in some cases, telephone).

I do not use peer-to-peer file transfer networks to steal other companies intellectual property. I have a few programs (games) that use P2P mechanisms for updating themselves, but that's internal to the game client and does not involve any kind of copyright infringement.

If I want to watch something and it's not on Hulu, Vimeo or YouTube, I purchase the DVD or Blu-ray discs if I want to see it. For books and magazines, I can go to the bookstore and buy them, an online store like Amazon or Nook, or sometimes even directly to the publisher or author.

Personally, I look forward to having my Internet connection's speed, throughput and latency improve as the people who are abusing it through their criminal actions are kicked off.

Those are all going to improve after the infringers are removed from the equation and the networks are once again used for legitimate, legal activity, aren't they?

Regards,

Aryeh Goretsky

The problem is that nothing is done about the real theft. The Pirates that burn 1000 of those DVD's that you buy and sell them on the corner. So what to these geniuses do? Go after the the little guy, the guy that may not even be aware that what he or she is doing is illegal. I also see that you would rather watch Hulu or YouTube than have a TV. You also have multiple broadband connections. I find this very interesting......

[David085]

Go after your parents they're ignorant.

[#Michael]

I have a real problem with Comcast being part of this system. As part of the agreement with the DOJ with Comcast buying NBCU from GE they agreed to not throttle P2P traffic, not block popular websites, and not reduce bandwidth speeds. This is now exactly what they are doing...how is this not breaking major concessions and thus breaking some sort of contract with the DOJ?

I have family that works for GE/NBC and this is exactly why I tried very hard to have them vote against the buy out.

[Klownicle]

Things like this will bring us back to the times when it required actual knowlegde to do any of these activities. These days it is all to easy and that is why there is more publicity. Usenet is loaded with fake files, blatent names, and take down requests. Torrents have gone private. File Lockers have moved out of the US or shut their doors to any type of sharing. P2P is long dead, but old school DC++ still exists. Weed out the idiots I say.

The problem with companies these days is they arn't offering what the people want, so where else can they go? I do not support the people who do it just because.

[+goretsky]

Hello,

As far as I know, the MPAA/RIAA go after these folks, too. On the government side, though, things seem to bit more nuanced: I was in a workshop a couple of years ago with the federal prosecutor who handles high-tech crime in my region, and he indicated that they have little interest in prosecuting non-commercial infringement; there are other crimes which are higher priority to them. On the other hand, if anyone was engaging in some kind of commercial activity around the infringement (i.e., attempting to sell pirated movies, software and so forth) they would go after them and seek maximum penalties... in order to make an example out of them.

The solution, in any case, seems very simple to me: Don't take things which don't belong to you.

Whether that is a physical object (a disc) or something less tangible (a file) seems irrelevant to me.

My parents brought me up to respect other people's property, even if the other person in this case happens to be some sort of horrible company with a trade association that is less liked than blood-sucking parasites.

The secret to winning this war is actually quite simple. Don't pirate things. And don't buy them, either. That includes paying for paying for services like cable TV.

Fundamentally, this is an economic problem, not a legal one: You certainly cannot out-spend (including money spent on legislation and legislators) these creators of content you find so desirous. The only thing you can do to affect them is to vote with your dollars. If enough people choose not to pay them for whatever pablum they are offering, the content creators will be forced to seek new markets and methods of distribution, and that's when you'll get what you want.

I do occasionally watch videos on YouTube (my employer's are great, by the way) and some shows on Hulu (the free service, not the paid one). But, if there's something that's compelling enough for me to watch it in full, I'll get the discs for it. Frankly, though, I spend more time reading. And, yes, I have multiple residences so I have multiple broadband connections. Only one per location, though. Sorry if I was unclear on that.

Regards,

Aryeh Goretsky

Gary7, on 26 February 2013 - 09:56, said:

The problem is that nothing is done about the real theft. The Pirates that burn 1000 of those DVD's that you buy and sell them on the corner. So what to these geniuses do? Go after the the little guy, the guy that may not even be aware that what he or she is doing is illegal. I also see that you would rather watch Hulu or YouTube than have a TV. You also have multiple broadband connections. I find this very interesting......

[#Michael]

goretsky, on 27 February 2013 - 09:24, said:

Hello,

As far as I know, the MPAA/RIAA go after these folks, too. On the government side, though, things seem to bit more nuanced: I was in a workshop a couple of years ago with the federal prosecutor who handles high-tech crime in my region, and he indicated that they have little interest in prosecuting non-commercial infringement; there are other crimes which are higher priority to them. On the other hand, if anyone was engaging in some kind of commercial activity around the infringement (i.e., attempting to sell pirated movies, software and so forth) they would go after them and seek maximum penalties... in order to make an example out of them.

The solution, in any case, seems very simple to me: Don't take things which don't belong to you.

Whether that is a physical object (a disc) or something less tangible (a file) seems irrelevant to me.

My parents brought me up to respect other people's property, even if the other person in this case happens to be some sort of horrible company with a trade association that is less liked than blood-sucking parasites.

The secret to winning this war is actually quite simple. Don't pirate things. And don't buy them, either. That includes paying for paying for services like cable TV.

Fundamentally, this is an economic problem, not a legal one: You certainly cannot out-spend (including money spent on legislation and legislators) these creators of content you find so desirous. The only thing you can do to affect them is to vote with your dollars. If enough people choose not to pay them for whatever pablum they are offering, the content creators will be forced to seek new markets and methods of distribution, and that's when you'll get what you want.

I do occasionally watch videos on YouTube (my employer's are great, by the way) and some shows on Hulu (the free service, not the paid one). But, if there's something that's compelling enough for me to watch it in full, I'll get the discs for it. Frankly, though, I spend more time reading. And, yes, I have multiple residences so I have multiple broadband connections. Only one per location, though. Sorry if I was unclear on that.

Regards,

Aryeh Goretsky

That's all well and good. But here is the problem with the new CAS...the entertainment industry and the ISPs cannot determine without a reasonable doubt that it was you or me that was involved in electronic copyright infringement. IP or MAC spoofing, open wifi, etc...are going to prevent this. Also, not one law enforcement agency is part of this new system. Therefore, this CAS is not acting within one local/state/federal law and they are acting as a private security force. This is nothing short of extortion.

[alwaysonacoffebreak]

LaP, on 25 February 2013 - 16:17, said:

You know what is also a problem.

I want to have HBO to legally watch Game of Thrones.

You see the problem is to have HBO i need to have TMN instead of Super Écran. Problem is i'm the only one to watch TV in english. So it's not possible to switch Super Écran to TMN unless i want to give up on sex ... so it's impossible for me to get HBO and legally watch Game of Thrones.

So what ******* **** ******* option do i ******* have for *** ****.

****.

Those greedy ****** ******* ********. They want the butter and the money from it.

Aren't you a fun guy to be around Mister *****.

[sathenzar]

If these people were smart they'd create a service reasonable like netflix or partner up with them. I'd be more than happy to pay a small fee each month (even sign up for a year) to watch shows on my computer.

[+Jdawg683]

a few weeks ago i heard a very blunt conversation on NPR. The host was interviewing a spokeswoman from TWC about this issue.

They got talking about Strikes 1-4. Basically, nothing happens. They might send you a letter, or put something on a website 'educating' you about piracy. At Strike 5, they make you sign a form and will throttle your connection. Same for Strike 6. Somewhere in this process they make you take an online course about piracy. Even after 6 strikes, TWC will do nothing. They will temporarily throttle your connection, but will not cancel your subscription or report you to the Feds. TWC will not risk losing a customer.

So, you could get 30 strikes and TWC will still do nothing further than throttle.

The Host of the show even asked the woman: "what can you do about people using such things as a VPN to hide their activity?" The woman said "nothing."

(edit) thinking further about this - what is the MPAA, etc going to do about people using free, open, public wifi to download material?

[#Michael]

Jdawg683, on 27 February 2013 - 14:38, said:

a few weeks ago i heard a very blunt conversation on NPR. The host was interviewing a spokeswoman from TWC about this issue.

They got talking about Strikes 1-4. Basically, nothing happens. They might send you a letter, or put something on a website 'educating' you about piracy. At Strike 5, they make you sign a form and will throttle your connection. Same for Strike 6. Somewhere in this process they make you take an online course about piracy. Even after 6 strikes, TWC will do nothing. They will temporarily throttle your connection, but will not cancel your subscription or report you to the Feds. TWC will not risk losing a customer.

So, you could get 30 strikes and TWC will still do nothing further than throttle.

The Host of the show even asked the woman: "what can you do about people using such things as a VPN to hide their activity?" The woman said "nothing."

My continued point on this though is that the six strike policy shouldn't even be there....they have no authority to even enforce it. Since no law enforcement agency is taking part in this system, at least in Illinois no law states that I have to abide by this. AFAIK, no federal is backing this up either. This system is giving the industry and the ISPs authority to act as a private security force and forcing paying customers to abide by something that may not even be legal.

[Jessica1Lipp19]

What concerns me most is the concept behind it: guilty until proven innocent. Incorrectly identified users will need to spend money to clear their names…
CAS is not a law, it doesn't stop RIAA or MPAA from taking offenders to court, instead it uses ISPs to punish copyright violations, which is against an ISPs own business interest. You could potentially use a VPN to get around this, but you will need to choose a VPN which doesn't record your IP address, commonly known as no log VPN. Suddenly, Kim dotcom's new mega seems promising since everything will be encrypted.