Verizon’s “Six Strikes” Anti-Piracy Measures Unveiled

Verizon’s “Six Strikes” Anti-Piracy Measures Unveiled
http://torrentfreak.com/verizons-six-strikes-anti-piracy-measures-unveiled-130111/

I seem to recall hearing of numerous cases of bogus copyright claims and thus find the whole system concerning. It will be interesting to see if the ISPs provide full details for those claiming copyright infringement. Perhaps they will and that will open the door to claims against parties on the other side. Since we don't know if the ISPs have any bugs in their IP Address<->Account tracking software and so forth, it might be a good idea for users to do their own tracking of IP Address assignments.

 

This is pretty much the RIAA giving up. The MPAA is having more success with suing, but even they, with this "Strikes" policy are admitting there isn't much they can do. Cutting off internet access would have been far more effective for the casual pirate than this toothless policy. In fact, by giving the user any options beyond paying a fee to get their net back or the speed bumped back up, the whole policy is a big joke. It also tells me that the ISPs involved are a little worried about backlash themselves, or else it wouldn't be so weak.

If content providers would just start listening to other people besides their lawyers and the pitbulls at the RIAA/MPAA, casual piracy would drop. The pro pirates, they won't stop. There is too much money to be made and they just are the way they are. This isn't the 70s and 80s anymore, they just won't get past that. Consumers need more Netflix and Hulu-type services, they need more Songza, 8Tracks, Rdio-type services. I keep hearing "Well, the future for streaming services is unknown". Um, well, they've been around a while now, and more people are flocking to them than they are iTunes now. They need all this and they need record companies and movie studios to take the handcuffs and ankle chains off. Open up your entire catalogues and don't make us chase down artists across several services. There is so much cash to be made without stepping into courtrooms. Artists are getting that, which is why you see them hitting YouTube first and then either making their own websites with purchasable music or going directly to the streaming services.

 

Innocent until proven guilty, remember? The weak penalties you speak of are dished out *before/without* a judicial system ruling on whether there even was a reasonable claim of copyright violation let alone an actual case of copyright violation. This isn't a subject I've followed, but it tends to make headlines at sites I do follow (Slashdot in this case). I don't recall ever seeing a document that spells out, in detail, the steps each of the participating ISPs is going to take in regards to investigating each and every claim of copyright infringement. Have you seen such a thing?

 

I haven't seen a lot of explanation, no. My first thought is that's exactly the way it's wanted. You though are also forgetting that, barring messing around with VPNs, ISPs can see just about everything you do anyway. They're going to see that torrent site you connected to, followed by heavy, long lasting traffic on your account. I had a run in long ago with my own ISP. They called and said they noticed my traffic (I was using Emule at the time) and wanted to make sure I knew what was happening on my account. I didn't get threats, no "We know what you're doing, stop it" or any of that. The guy kind of chuckled when I was explaining my way through the minefield without stepping on anything. He knew what was up, but back then it was more an issue of "Hey, that's a lot of network use you're using up bud" and less "You're breaking the law, you're a criminal and people are out of work because of your kind". This was even before the newer tools used to monitor access.

You might as well drop the innocent before proven guilty talk, that's all but gone away in many matters, let alone piracy. But, back to the subject at hand, Bittorrent traffic is pretty easy to capture and just being in the swarm is enough for the government and the anti-pirate brigade. They literally will go after a 50 year old woman down to a 5 year old girl. They've proved it.

 

Me, forget that?! Yes, I expect ISPs to have some logged information that *could* be used to investigate claims. However, *will* they take the time to do so? Where will they draw the lines? Those are incredibly important questions.

I've never been into that scene and have forgotten what little I've read about it. However, if all the ISP logs showed is that the user happened to be downloading something, but they can't tell what, via a torrent during a time that corresponds to a claim of copyright violation, the ISP has no evidence to substantiate the claim. Thus that claim should go in the bucket and not count as any strikes against the user.

 

Well, actually it has been said that they can see particular files you download. But I'd have to go searching again to find out before I put that in stone. I really don't think the ISPs wanted to mess with it, but the government backed them into a corner. If they made AT&T let them have a locked room with surveillance equipment and warrant-less wiretapping, they can force the anti-piracy cause too. The subpoena issue means little with the warrant-less wiretapping powers on the books and keep being reenacted every time the law is about to expire.

The ISP wouldn't have to know what was downloaded or uploaded via torrent. Again, if your IP is in the swarm you're assumed guilty and here comes RIAA/MPAA police, if not also ICE. Casual pirates don't seem to often use VPNs and other advanced methods to avoid detection. It would not at all surprise me if they came after someone for starting to download a song, then stopping it halfway through and forgetting about it. The industry doesn't see grey areas, they attack first and let the courts sort out any messiness and the government wipes out domains and worries about the collateral damage later. This is all coming about because of Federal intervention and the fact that the RIAA was basically suing its own self into the ground with judgements awarded being less than what they were spending on court costs.

 

Government does establish laws that require wire-tappability and require that they be able to acquire information, but do we know that the government actually forced AT&T to give them a raw tap? Might AT&T have suggested it as a way to eliminate the burden of responding to individual "warrants", to acquire steady income (I assume they are getting paid to provide the taps), and to "back-scratch"?

There are costs and hassles involved in running a program such as this, which would be proportional to the effort made to substantiate and handle claims of copyright infringement. From that POV it is easy to think that ISPs wouldn't want to mess with this. However, and this is likely not an original thought, this might also be a way for these ISP/ContentDelivery/SomeContentOwner companies to more generally target their competition and those that use it.

Put another way, I think it would be a mistake to assume that these corporations are non-belligerents that simply got caught up in these messes. We're talking big boys here, major players at all levels that are always looking out for their own interests and pursuing approaches which are best for their own businesses.

 

You have a point, but, think of all the extra expense in monitoring and log storage. Remember, up until the paranoia started over 9/11 and the government getting trigger happy with "protective" laws, ISPs generally kept logs for several months, up to a year, instead of the much longer time they do now. It's expensive, and even the "big boys" aren't going to spend money they don't have to (otherwise you wouldn't still have crap broadband all over the country and just about everybody would be at 30+Mb or even Fiber connections). The AT&T deal, well, recall that telecommunications services have immunity from lawsuits, which was the best way to "suggest", they let the NSA put those rooms in AT&T facilities. But before I end up dealing with getting my post "tweaked" or the thread killed, let's move back to the piracy mess.

I'm fairly sure the government is helping with some of the cost of monitoring for P2P under this new policy. After all, they're basically running the anti-piracy ship. It should be made clear that the harder they fight the pirates, the harder the pirates will fight back. The 50 year old moms and the 5 year old kids are going to be the victims in the war, with innocent blogs/websites being the collateral. The "big boys" of the pirate world will be unaffected, save for the once in a while arrest of a lower player and even rarer "big catch". They'll have to have full control over the net in their individual countries or, the U.N will win the control over it in order to stop piracy. But, at that point, forget the pirates, we'll all be in a jam.

 

Where there is demand, there is offer. The attempts to stop piracy with such things, are ridiculous, it's more like prohibition in the 30s. People want to drink, they will find a way, people who don't want to pay, they will find a way. Assuming the anti-piracy measures would have huge "success", this only means that it would push the potential pirates to explore and improve the following options:

- VPN
- Seedbox
- Encrypted p2p networks.
- Downloading from filehosting.
- Downloading directly from pirates' FTP servers.
- Proxy services like BTGuard.
- Usenet.

This only to include existing projects, not new ones that may appear under the increasing "demand" for alternatives.

Good luck RIAA!

 

Filehosting the way we've known is probably going to die off. MegaUpload was the first domino, and even before they went down Rapidshare had already clamped down. VPNs I'm worried are going to start feeling the effects of the fight as well. They're already looked at suspiciously and many of them keep logs as well whether they say they do or not. Usenet is not all that safe considering payments have to be made and they're watched like hawks. The only truly successful and widely used encrypted P2P has been KAD, and for that you have to rely on Emule, which hasn't been updated since God came down to earth the first time, or rely on one of the many buggy and sometimes shady looking Emule "mod" projects. Seedboxes are still effective, providing the provider of seedboxes is trustworthy enough and not afraid of having their door knocked down. Few services are that bold these days since the copyright police have extended their reach into other nations, where used to said nations would tell them to go pound sand.

Even with all that, criminals and pirates will find a way.

 

I think you are overoptimistic on the effectiveness of these controls...

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...ency-hadopi-only-sued-14-people-in-20-months/

You know why in France they put Hadopi? Because the ISPs themselves don't want to make mass attacks against their own clients. Their best clients are those who want the ultrafast internet connections. But those are not the ones who want optical fiber in order to send emails at the speed of light. So the ISPs have a conflict of interest.

If in the US actually did have success, it would automatically multiply the offer and effectiveness of other systems. An encrypted VPN you can look at it as suspiciously as you like, but that's all you will do. ISPs won't bother do anything more.

Encrypted, anomymous p2p aren't widespread, exactly because there isn't high need for them, as they are slower than traditional ones. Change the need and you will see them booming.

Filehosting sites are still alive and well despite Megaupload incident.Simply the hosts changed.

To kill seedboxes, you 'd have to kill servers everywhere and people operating business with them even in countries that don't give a damn about that or kill bit torrenting altogether.

The worst is, they never learn. It was Napster. They went after Napster. Did it end? No. They went after one, the other, then the other. They made fake Emule servers. Did it end? No. And everytime they were killing a network, a new one was taking its place. Because when you PRESS things, the NEED provides NEW solutions.

History repeats itself as a farce.

P.S.: Where's the most blooming seedbox hosting right now? France. And grew up a lot in the last 2 years, because of the locals. Doesn't OVH know what her servers are doing? Of course she does. Does she care? Nope. Because, they 're making a LOT of money out of it. Money talks, OVH walks. As a matter of fact, OVH has given unlimited servers only to french nationals. Wow, what a coincidence! I wonder what would one want an unlimited server, instead of a 5TB upload server for external traffic that gives non french nationals. Geeee... Could it be... torrent distribution?

 

I agree . I use Netflix and I definitely don't think it has no future.

 

@Fuzzfas: France and U.S policy is different though. The U.S has gotten almost O.C.D about it and they're not at all concerned about jurisdiction issues. France considers piracy a problem, heck, the world considers it a problem. The U.S considers it an issue of national security somehow, and they enact laws accordingly..whether Congress is on board or not. If they don't do that, they play the old tried and trued game of be overly aggressive at first (SOPA), back off, then go into incremental mode while everybody calms down. It's very effective.

As for ISPs, I already stated that they didn't really want to get involved. But, they've been pushed by the government and the R.I.A.A and M.P.A.A, those two organizations coming to the realization they couldn't get the job done without the backing of the government and starting at the source, the ISPs.

 

Off-topic, but if the content providers don't start opening up and giving Netflix access to more than just 10 year old shows and movies, or cutting season access off at the second or third season, Netflix may eventually collapse...probably much to the delight of content providers who prefer us all to be locked down with DRM, high pay plans and cable.

 

It's understandable, since the producers of world music and films, are mainly in USA, so the money in question is a lot. Much money, much influence on the politicians...

Yeah, but that's a big problem. When the ISPs don't really support this, it is doomed to fail. Cause ISPs may understand the pressure on them, but at the end of the day, they don't share money with RIAA or MPAA... If an ISP gets the "fame" of being more "aggressive" towards customers, customers will move to more "lenient" ISPs, until a downward spiral begins. In the meantine, the "evasion tactics" will boom. The problem with USA, is that there are high economical interests, but there is also high population and in conseguence, many pirates. And many of them highly educated. What will come out of the pressure on them, may be worse than what RIAA is battling now...

As a comunist friend of mine says, "Comunism can succeed, but, alas, only if all countries want it and adopt it". It's a bit the same with piracy too. With the difference that you need countries and ISPs wanting it. One thing is pretending to want it. Another is to really want it. ISPs pretend only. And if in another country one can run a server, your local pirates will find the way to connect to that.

I wouldn't be surprised if the first encrypted,anonymous, serverless p2p network of big success, was born in USA after this law. Too many Linux geeks in USA with a lot of time in their hands. And these know how to code...

 

The easy access for old great movies and series is good too. But yeah, more and newer content wouldn't hurt, certainly. I already have access to the "latest" content with my satellite TV and I regularly watch movies at cinemas, but the convenience of Netflix is something I really appreciate.