bling581

July 08, 2011 at 9:53am

What bothers me the most about all of this is that most of the ISP's listed in this article have a monopoly or involved in a duopoly in many parts of the US. In the Green Bay, WI area all I have to choose from is Time Warner or AT&T. Nice huh? We're pretty much screwed and are at the mercy of the ISP's who can do whatever they want. It's either play their game, or get dial-up.

LatiosXT

July 08, 2011 at 8:23am

I read about this on ArsTechnica. Amazing what a bit of wording can do to change the reactions of people (because most of those commenters were actually okay with this). But according to them...

1. The "Mitigation Measures" are optional.

2. ISPs won't hand over IP addresses or anything else that would be a breach of privacy without a court order.

3. tl;dr version, ISPs are making empty threads because its in their best interest (At the moment) to keep subscribers, not be the RIAA/MPAA's bitch.

maxeeemum

July 08, 2011 at 1:24am

A download cap and now this! Bye bye AT&T!  Neither affect me at present but it's a matter of princple.

 

Write your congressmen and senators! There is an election coming in 2012!

ShyLinuxGuy

July 07, 2011 at 10:56pm

The **AA is not in any way a governmental body. It is a *private* association. Just like PETA. They have effectively ZERO authority over you, me or any company or governmental body. Therefore the ISPs can legally tell them to f*ck off without reprimand. I don't pirate, but if the **AA can snoop for illegal downloads, who's not to say that they aren't looking for anything else, like your surfing and shopping habits, when and what you post to social networking sites, etc to turn around and sell. Think about it...

This is going to cause a lot of problems btw and will cause lawsuits against the ISPs that chose to succumb to the **AA on behalf of customers this will effect. We already know an IP address isn't the be-all-end-all, even judges have mentioned that. People can mistakenly be tagged as someone else, and don't forget the people with open routers or kids in the house who use BitTorrent...I say that the **AA needs to find different ways to protect their content. I do believe the content producers have the right to protect their intellectual property, but they are being TOO invasive and overreactive. It would be like Wal-Mart strip searching you every time you entered or left the store to make sure their merchandise isn't getting stolen. I by NO means agree with them though, I could care less if they dropped off the face of the earth, just for the record =P

HKUSPC40

July 07, 2011 at 5:04pm

This is insane.  I'm so pissed about this I forwarded the article to my state senator with a letter.  There is a reason the cops aren't owned by corporations.  Corporations aren't in it for the best interests of the people PERIOD. Copyright infringement is illegal but punishment should be determined by our government not by corporations.

Jiffy

July 07, 2011 at 4:56pm

 

This is a big fascist nation, the corporations stroke the Government, the Government strokes the corporations, the corporations stroke each other, it's ridiculous really.  Any administration who claimed they were "in control" while this shit is happening is delusional. In any decently run country, the RIAA and MPAA would have been out on their all-powerful ass a long time ago.

Can you guess who performs the independent review? Yup, the RIAA or MPAA who will only confirm matching records with the ISP, as the name states, it's only a review (as opposed to a formal investigation).

But this happens because the people let it happen. You continually pay your ISP to stroke the corporations that will only work against you. Drop these ISP's if you have them (and there will be more) and get an ISP that isn't sucking Mitch Bainwol's dick. This is a step forward to a completely desensitized and censored internet, which is a blatant disregard for your first amendment. It's the first one for Christ sake, you don't even have to read all of them.

That's my two cents. I hate to be that guy bitchin' over the internet.

 

FahKingNut

July 07, 2011 at 3:13pm

I am a Comcast customer and recently received one of these type of notices.  So, not only is the service that I am paying for limiting my monthly bandwidth to 250 GB, but now they are going to do their best to work against me and hand over any questionable information to the MPAA & RIAA?  I need a new ISP.

mseyf

July 07, 2011 at 2:35pm

I wonder what the ISPs get in exchange for their "cooperation"?

Blaze589

July 07, 2011 at 1:26pm

Well, that's better than the three strikes and you're perpetually screwed policy. I figure these isps' wanted to do this so that they alone can regulate their network.

TerribleToaster

July 07, 2011 at 1:07pm

 

From what I see, they are trying to force the government's hand in the matter.

 

I believe it will go something like this:

 

A. 

1. Massive complaints to local government which then heads to congress

2. Congress proposes/passes new laws.

3. Some poor sap gets sued by RIAA and Co. or that poor sap get's hit with new law and sues the US government. (depending on whom the laws favor)

4. Cases moves up to Supreme Court.

5. Final ruling on the subject by Supreme Court.

 

Or it could go like this if Congress keeps dragging its feet:

 

B. 

1. Someone, somewhere get's hit with these penalties.

2. They sue their ISP on some grounds (unfair business practices and such being most likely).

3. Cases moves up to Supreme Court.

4. Semi-final ruling on the subject by Supreme Court's interpretation of the Silence of Congress.

5. Possible new laws passed by Congress under pressure from RIAA and Co. or citizens with regards to Supreme Court ruling.

6. See A-3. to A-5.

 

Basically, RIAA and Co. are trying to force this issue to a close. It's all tactics and RIAA has just made their gambit.

 

Blues22475

July 07, 2011 at 12:14pm

This isn't a good idea. I do recall reading one these articles before, and that one of the commenters posted an example of how the innocent will get accused for something they didn't do.

This is a bad idea, very bad. Unless they track usage via MAC Addresses, then this is gonna be a issue. Where's all the funding for this kind of thing gonna come from? Seriously, this is just another waste of tax payers money.

chronium

July 07, 2011 at 11:53am

are there not privacy laws they are breaking since this is not a government pushed agreement?

haboh

July 07, 2011 at 11:37am

So, now I expect an MPC how-to on blocking my ISP from spying on my traffic. Maybe there already is one? I need to check. I hardly ever torrent stuff, but still don't want them sniffing my packets (that sounds dirty no matter how many times I hear it..)

Markitzero

July 07, 2011 at 11:19am

I can fell on this there will be alot of people that will be falsely accoused if they open up a torrent that contains creative commons Music. For anybody that uses torrents or frostwire keep a copy of Tor"The Onion Router" ready and locked and loaded.

 

The Big Broadband Compaines put in Caps to prevent file sharers then they do this. The Caps alone are outragous with some companies like Comcast were you can barely do streaming of legal movies. The Big companies just think mainly about there pocketbook and money.

Ghok

July 07, 2011 at 11:15am

Who exactly do you pay to investigate? The ISP? So you can be accused of infringment, but if they're wrong you have to pay them to clear it up? How backwards is that?

I actually like PARTS of this agreement, but plenty of questions remain, and of course the main problem is there is no oversight or proof required...

This is also why indie ISPs are important. I'd like to think my ISP would never agree to doing something like this.