Pirating Crackdown Imminent?

[Crumbz]

Will it finally happen? Are the days of carefree pirating soon to be gone? It may well be so...





A group of ISP (Internet Service Providers) such as AT&T, Comcast and Verison are soon to converge in a team effort to slow and hopefully stop the flow of pirated media's.
The agreement between the companies has been in the works for a long time, but seems to be reaching a conclusion.

The agreement between the companies is this:

- To have tougher crackdowns on people who are too frequently accessing sites where pirated information is available.

- To be able to cut off customers who refuse to cut down their intake on pirated media's.

- To have strict (and possibly expensive) charges laid to persons who are continually downloading content from sites containing pirated content.

- To track and share user IP information between each other to better remove the increased access to pirated sites.

I believe this to be a fundamentally necessary step in the fight to prevent a large percent of the public from accessing pirated content and from uploading pirated content.

Of course it wouldn't be a fine for the first offense, for the first offense your ISP would have to issue a written warning to your household. And for those who do not heed the warning the ISP would be allowed to do as seen fit. (EX: booting from pirating sites, slowing down bandwidth speed, denying access to the internet altogether.)

The agreement has the support of several large cable companies such as Time Warner Cable, CableVision, Charter Communications, Comcast, and Qwest Communications and also has the support of the White House and it's delegates.

If this agreement were to come together it would be one of the most powerful anti-piracy acts to date. And could spell out the beginning of the for piracy.




- CreativeMindMedias

[XsavioR]

The way this is worded is fraught with problems.

To have tougher crackdowns on people who are too frequently accessing sites where pirated information is available
You dont actually have to do any thing wrong.

To have strict (and possibly expensive) charges laid to persons who are continually downloading content from sites containing pirated content.
Again it is not specifically stated that your downloading illegal stuff just that the site you download from has some content some one can object to  ,



Of course it wouldn't be a fine for the first offense, for the first offense your ISP would have to issue a written warning to your household. And for those who do not heed the warning the ISP would be allowed to do as seen fit. (EX: booting from pirating sites, slowing down bandwidth speed, denying access to the internet altogether.)

Which is sheer awesome for people who live in bad areas where mail takes up to a week extra to get there. Lost mail, etc. Consider 27,000.00 dollar ATT bills on supposedly unlimited internet on netbooks that the customers were blatantly lied to being told it was unlimited,  Those customers got the same thing these will..... a month after their 13 year old figures out he can get music online they will get their door knocked down and a HUGE fine and lose access to internet , which in todays age is a serious thing.  The way this is worded sounds more like a witch hunt then any thing and seems doomed to take away more rights then it stands to preserve.

[FOOKz™]

Why don't they just have a new system of an agreement between the ISP and the place where you buy software.

If you download a copy of an expensive piece of software they can detect that and throw a red flag if the software that's being downloaded has not been paid for through the ISP's system.

[Crumbz]

To have tougher crackdowns on people who are too frequently accessing sites where pirated information is available
You don't actually have to do any thing wrong.

Well considering "Accessing" is different from "Surfing" through a web page. Accessing a page usually means you are using the sites services which in this case would be a download site,  and you would be using it's download services to potentially download illegal content.

To have strict (and possibly expensive) charges laid to persons who are continually downloading content from sites containing pirated content.
Again it is not specifically stated that your downloading illegal stuff just that the site you download from has some content some one can object to

K. First of all there are lots of people who object to things that they do not like. And not all of the things people object to are illegal or even offensive in any way. And there is no real way to see every file on a website, but it can be seen if you are downloading it. And if it's marked as something that was pirated, then you are doing something illegal and would be warned.

Of course it wouldn't be a fine for the first offense, for the first offense your ISP would have to issue a written warning to your household. And for those who do not heed the warning the ISP would be allowed to do as seen fit. (EX: booting from pirating sites, slowing down bandwidth speed, denying access to the internet altogether.)

Which is sheer awesome for people who live in bad areas where mail takes up to a week extra to get there. Lost mail, etc. Consider 27,000.00 dollar ATT bills on supposedly unlimited internet on netbooks that the customers were blatantly lied to being told it was unlimited,  Those customers got the same thing these will..... a month after their 13 year old figures out he can get music online they will get their door knocked down and a HUGE fine and lose access to internet , which in todays age is a serious thing.  The way this is worded sounds more like a witch hunt then any thing and seems doomed to take away more rights then it stands to preserve.

Well there is such a thing as parental controls, and monitoring what your kid is downloading. It's also called parenting.

And if you had actually read my article you would have noticed that i said that the ISP could choose what the coarse of action taken was. I never said it had to be the police breaking down their door and handing them a fine as well as having them banned from the internet now did i?

[toadzilla]

all i got say is woot for being canadian

[XsavioR]

Well considering "Accessing" is different from "Surfing" through a web page. Accessing a page usually means you are using the sites services which in this case would be a download site,  and you would be using it's download services to potentially download illegal content.

K. First of all there are lots of people who object to things that they do not like. And not all of the things people object to are illegal or even offensive in any way. And there is no real way to see every file on a website, but it can be seen if you are downloading it. And if it's marked as something that was pirated, then you are doing something illegal and would be warned.

Well there is such a thing as parental controls, and monitoring what your kid is downloading. It's also called parenting.

And if you had actually read my article you would have noticed that i said that the ISP could choose what the coarse of action taken was. I never said it had to be the police breaking down their door and handing them a fine as well as having them banned from the internet now did i?

I did read it , and thanks for stating the obvious.... I really want to give judge and jury power to an isp.  I didn't make a point to argue that when the standards for being liable for consequence was so questionable.  I don't support piracy and think something should be done, but this stands no chance to work as you worded it. Considering i copied half of your article to respond to the 14 sentences it contained.

Did I mention your an idiot

a quote from your post :
And could spell out the beginning of the for piracy.

Since you think i didn't read it. ( I was just being nice, you should have done the same)