Internet Providers to Start Policing the Web July 12th

MooninitesWTF? Via Russia Today:

Some of the biggest Internet service providers in America plan to adopt policies that will punish customers for copyright infringement, and one of the top trade groups in the music biz announced this week that it could begin as soon as this summer.

The chief executive officer of the Recording Industry Association of America told an audience of publishers on Wednesday that a plan carved out last year to help thwart piracy is expected to prevail and be put in place by this summer. RIAA CEO Cary Sherman was one of the guest speakers among a New York panel this week and he confirmed that, at this rate, some of the most powerful Internet providers in America should have their new policies on the books by July 12, 2012.

Last year, Time Warner, Verizon, AT&T, Comcast, Cablevision Systems and other Internet service providers proposed best practice recommendations that they suggested would help curb copyright crimes on the Web. The end result largely settled on consisted of a “graduate response” approach, a plan that would mean culprits could be issued a series of warnings for illegally downloading suspect material which, after a certain number of offenses, would lead to “mitigation measures,” connection speed throttling and termination of service.

“We anticipate that very few subscribers, after having received multiple alerts, will persist (or allow others to persist) in the content theft,” the Center for Copyright Information said in an official statement last summer as plans were first publicized. Now nearly a year after developments made by the big ISPs were first discussed, the RIAA’s Sherman says that online censorship sanctioned by corporate conglomerates such as Time Warner and Verizon are practically set in stone.

Read More: Russia Today

, , , , ,

  • David Plumer

    Great way to loose customers and send them to smaller competitors.

    • De Carabas

      And who exactly are these smaller competitors?

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1626939438 Val A Lindsay

        A valid question, but it really depends of the creators, not these companies. The companies are distributors and publishers, not the creators. Example; Youtube isn’t forever. It’s only a matter of time before UMG gets too invasive and creators will move to another site…

  • Leachpunk

    Yeah, who needs SOPA and PIPA, big industry can just privately handle things.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Faceless-Anarkest/100001973641169 Faceless Anarkest

    Everyone one needs to stop buying music and movies from these peoples stores and the copy right infringement nonsense will end.  Make your own music and movies and share them for free.

    • Anomaly_of_Anomie

      The real problem here is the potential for corporate and government loopholes. These laws could corrupt public information being shared freely on the internet as we know it today. 

      But…. quality music and movies require detailed work and funding to produce. “Copyright infringement nonsense” as you put it, is supposed to protect rights of ownership, which should be respected. From personal experience I’ve found that free tends to equal worthless. Appreciative art costs money and labor to create, therefore artists deserve compensation. 

      Here’s a better suggestion: Why don’t you work for free? Well maybe you don’t bother to work at all and that’s why you would rather steal from others.  

  • DeepCough

    Fuck ‘em. Let’s make our own internet, with blackjack and hookers.

    • I_abide

      I’m with bender

      • Mrtchops

         in fact, forget the blackjack. ahh, screw the whole thing…

  • JohnFrancisBittrich

    I have a theory that underground culture is going to end up re-appropriating “dead” media (zines, tape trading, am and fm radio signals) eventually in order to be able to speak and act freely. Thanks, RIAA, for making it that much more likely that I will be proven correct.

    • eyeoftheaxis

      Some say the first use of the early dial up BBS systems was a
      communications response to 1970’s CB radio becoming so popular and polluted with
      morons. — I just purchased a self published comic book, and the Vemo video I watched
      this morning gave me serious camera envy. It might be not so much the dead media as the concepts behind them. Is
      traditional broadcast AM/FM dead media, I think it still has to much $ in it,
      but DVD’s are low cost good for trade.

      • JohnFrancisBittrich

        The FCC is loosening regulations of AM/FM startups big time. As a one-time independent, commercial-free college radio sound-collagist, I think opening up the floodgates to smaller, local not-for-profit transmitters can only be a positive thing. Of course, the pendulum could swing the other way… Either way, you are right. “Dead” media is probably the wrong term.

  • A55bruuner5555

    we are legion

    • Andrew

      So are they.

  • Calypso_1

    Oh how I miss the good ol’days working as a sysadmin for an ISP when the net was in it’s infancy.  We kindly told gov alphabet soup agents coming through the door that they were welcome to look at user data – when they came back with something from a judge….that happened only once.

  • Mr Willow

    Without a regulating body telling them they can’t, private enterprise violates your rights to privacy all on its own. . . 

    The Free-Market in Action!!

    • DeepCough

       Fuckin’ A.

    • Sam

      That’s a shot at our good ol uncle Ron isn’t it? ;-)

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1626939438 Val A Lindsay

    This coming from conglomerates who would copyright the color Blue if they could…

    • not to mention

      T-Mobile HAS trademarked that magenta color it uses.  No one else can use it ANYWHERE (at least in the USA.

  • Yer Dad

    People have gotten used to this freedom.
    They want it, and won’t give it up. Clamp
    down in one area, and it will pop up in another
    form somewhere else.

    Want free music? Just find a way to surf anonymously
    and download away.

  • Simiantongue

    Oh man here I go again.

    In many aspects cars and roads are very similar to computers and the internet and not just in an analogous way, quite literally. People have cars and they drive around to accomplish things they need to get done in a mechanized, industrialized society. They use them in order to get work, to go buy food, bring the kids to the park, drive to a singles bars to cheat on their spouses… ahem, well, you get the idea. Many societies have taken the technology of cars and roads and made it an integral part of life.

    We have done so with computers and the internet. We can telecommute to work(if you’re fortunate), buy things online and have them delivered, play games with the kids, go to a singles dating site and lie their ass off etc… Computers and the internet have become very integrated into many aspects of our lives.

    A very few people use cars and roads to get to a store in order to
    shoplift. Much the same as computers and the internet do allow some few to pirate copyrighted material. Yet retail stores don’t conspire with car manufacturers and
    road construction contractors to track where you drive your car, or check the
    contents of your car. Building into cars and roads the capability to spy on you. Again, people simply wouldn’t tolerate such things as companies randomly spying on them. But they do tolerate it with computers and the internet, because this is done largely without peoples knowledge.(That’s another whole post though)

    We don’t identify the cars and roads as the major problem in contributing to shoplifting, thus not as part of any solution. Private companies doing random car checks in order
    to try and stop people from shoplifting seems ridiculous on the face of it because it is. It’s not a tenable workable way to curtail people from shoplifting. Doing the same on the internet isn’t either. It’s going to be very expensive to do so, but guess who is going to absorb that cost? Yes you, and a little more on top for the companies trouble, the mantra is after all that everyone has a right to make a buck. So it’s another way to squeeze another dime out of the customers with claims of legitimacy.

    Most important, if companies are allowed to track and spy on peoples driving habits and the contents of their vehicle, we can incontrovertibly acknowledge that as a solution it is an egregious invasion of privacy that in no way commensurates with the problem of shoplifting. Not to mention that allowing such is ripe for abuse. Information is very interchangeable with power and money these days. I personally think it is not pirating which is the real reason why this type of solution, the invasion of peoples privacy, finds traction from many sides. It’s just a pretext. There is money to be made from information like where you go, who is with you, who do you frequently visit, what types of places do you visit, what is in your computer/car etc…

    The profit incentive to use this information, even with assurances that they won’t, is just too much for creeping bureaucracies in business and government to make any such promises. Today some people in charge like a CEO, president, congressman, senator might assure you they have the best of intentions in doing so. But in reality they have absolutely no control over how such things will develop in the future. Any promises along those lines of “This will only be used to…” are empty. Where there is a motivation, be it profit or “security” or whatever, by creeping steps it will eventually be abused. Until one day people look around and say “How the hell did things get this way, this is outrageous”. The way it happens is that one leap was made, like people accepting it’s okay to be spied on, then motivations and incentives allow the paradigm to take on a life of it’s own. The only solution is to nip these types of situations in the bud. But since these steps tend to start small, with companies and governments or whatever making arguments of necessity. Keep in mind that “Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves”. – William Pitt

    It is and it isn’t very strange how companies and government say the solution to pirating is to spy and invade peoples privacy. It’s not going to stop pirates, a *VPN only cost ten dollars a month or *TOR is free if you’re willing to sacrifice a little speed for privacy. Which will effectively make it impossible for ISP’s to do what they say they want to do. There are alterations being made to programs like *Tribler all the time in order to get around this. So as a solution to pirating, spying on people pointless. But as a way for companies and government agencies to increase their reach it’s priceless.

    If people use roads and cars in order to go to a store and shoplift, we don’t then entertain the idea that it’s okay for companies or governments to spy on people and track everyone in order to curtail such activity. Who would tolerate Wal-Mart or Target setting up random roadblocks to inspect vehicles for shoplifted items? Or who would tolerate GM putting tracking devices in cars in order to track your location in cooperation with Wal-Mart, giving them that private information?

    You don’t think that’s reasonable, allowing companies or governments to do that in order to stop shoplifting? Well are you aware of how much money is lost in shoplifting every year? Hundreds of millions maybe? Of course we understand that even if shoplifting is a tragic happenstance and cars and roads do enter the equation at some point,  that allowing companies to spy on the public is not a solution. The retail industries concerns about shoplifting are really quite provincial on the grander scheme of things. Cars and roads are an integral part of society, doing much more than bringing people to shop. Allowing stores to take such drastic actions is really the tail wagging the dog. So too with ISP’s tracking you and peeking at your online traffic to make sure you’re not downloading anything “pirated”.

    I’m never quite sure where to stop rambling, I just love rambling about things I’ve been putting some thought into, so I’ll leave it at this. The basic problem lies in that on the internet, unlike roads, we are renters instead of owners. Though created by public funding we allowed the internet to become privately owned. it wasn’t even handed over for free we paid ISP’s to take it with public money. The solution at some level is pretty simple, the internet should be as publicly owned as roads. That has actually been tried in some places. Towns starting their own public ISP. It gets stomped on pretty quick, laws are passed that make it almost impossible.

    *Tribler
    http://www.tribler.org/trac

    *TOR
    https://www.torproject.org/

    *VPN
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_private_network

    • Mr Willow

      While I agree with your overall assessment, and applaud your conclusion, it should be pointed out that people have already allowed companies like OnStar to track their locations with the promise of greater security*—the very fact that every smartphone has a GPS in it means that whatever company manages the service knows its (owner’s) location at all times—and there was that whole kerfuffle with Target a little while ago, when it was revealed that they constantly, and surreptitiously, collect information*. 

      *OnStar: http://consumerist.com/2011/09/onstar-now-tracking-your-car-even-after-you-cancel-service.html (luckily, they reversed this http://consumerist.com/2011/09/onstar-scraps-plans-to-collect-data-after-you-quit-service.html , but it still apples to subscribers)

      *Target: http://techland.time.com/2012/02/17/how-target-knew-a-high-school-girl-was-pregnant-before-her-parents/ (I wonder how many other retailers do the same thing without us knowing)

      • Simiantongue

        The difference between Onstar and what they are proposing to do with ISP’s is worlds apart. The biggest difference being consent. By having a contract with Onstar you are a willing participant, thus the paradigm changes. For instance people generally like to have sex. But not really without their consent. Consent is a game changer.

        (I don’t want to talk out of turn here and stir up problems for myself or any associates. I do have access to some proposed changes in a terms of agreement from an ISP. Can’t comment on it specifically, but basically the only choices you are given in terms of consenting is whether to have internet access or not. It’s either their way or “no internet for you NEXT!” Think soup nazi heh.)

        So we can’t really compare Onstar with ISP’s.

        As for Target and in fact most other chains, yes that is done. Most people are not aware of it. That’s what your supermarket savings cards are for example. They give you rebates and coupons and keep records of your shopping habits. They list many advantages to you, for instance giving you coupons on products you like. No matter how it’s spun your convenience is not the primary purpose of those cards however, it’s just a carrot to get you to agree to let them do as they wish. It’s data mining information they want to sell. They assure you that any personal information may only be shared with their affiliated companies and what not. But in the legalese fine print they define their affiliates any which way they choose. Which in a nutshell means you are signing over the management of your personal information to them for tokens really. They can give anyone they see fit any information they have obtained about you and not be held legally liable if some unknown situation should arise from that.

        They’re essentially buying your privacy. They’re careful not to let it appear that way. And no it’s not some grand conspiracy it’s called business and making money, the essence of which is exploitation. So what if personal privacy is being commodified and most people are completely unaware that it is. That’s not the business’ problem when all they have to do is lie by omission and not be forthright about what it is they’re doing. It’s your loss if you’re not aware enough to realize they’re buying Manhattan for glass baubles, or coupons for pampers in their case. Just par for the course in western society to know the price of something and nothing of the value. I think that’s a play on Wilde but don’t’ quote me. Where was I? Oh yeah I was rambling.

        It’s another long whole rant on phones. Should I get into it? Lets suffice to say that commodification of privacy is happening on more than one front. Having ISP’s track the content of the data coming to and from your computer is but one. Phone companies have been very successful in datamining too. So have retail stores. But I don’t think you’re arguing that since “One company does it then what’s the problem with more companies doing it?” I’ll take it more as a comment that makes people more aware that it’s not just happening with ISP’s. I don’t see any disagreement even if other companies are trying to do the same thing essentially. Just another aspect of the same problem. So I agree with you.

        We must remember in all this a companies motivation. They don’t undertake these types of actions to service the consumer better, consumers won’t be better served by ISP’s spying on them no matter what they claim. They don’t do this to build a better tomorrow or to ensure social cohesion by ending piracy or any clap trap individuals in those companies spew. That’s just so they can sleep at night. Companies do things like datamining because there is profit in it. Period. Following the strict rules of acquisition for all you Trek nerds. If there is money to be made there is incentive. If there is incentive then it must be the right thing to do.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_J2GS6NVYL2PB35UZ2EHMJ47EPM OhDogg

       Well said my friend. I only wish more people could read and understand this issue. I’ve received countless “nastygrams” from my ISP regarding my downloading of “protected content”  I ignore them. Someday I may end up in court because of my alleged illegal activity’s, and that does scare me a bit. I hope  voices of reason, such as Simiantongue’s, prevail and take the profit and incentive of web snooping out of the equation.

  • Haystack

    We need to parse through the content published by these companies for IP violations and use their own laws against them. I suggest we start with the Sgt. Pepper album cover. 

    • Andrew

      Don’t be silly.  Laws are for little people.

  • Leclaire

    The SECOND I receive a SINGLE message from AT&T about ANYTHING I do on the web, I switch to my local Internet Provider.  Unless and until internet providers are officially considered a branch of law enforcement, which, last time I checked, they are not.

  • http://www.jaycob.co.nf/ Scruffy

    Just stop using them and they’ll adapt or die.

21