AT&T, Cablevision, Comcast, Time Warner Cable, and Verizon have reached an agreement with music and movie publishers that will help enforce copyright infringement while giving the ISPs a chance to level with their customers. According to Ars Technica, copyright owners will continue to scour the dark corners of the net looking for anyone downloading and illegally sharing their content. If an IP is found to be downloading or sharing illegal content — likely via P2P networks — the music and movie companies will alert the ISP directly. ISP’s will then send a note to the offending customer, without passing off private information unless there is a court order to do so. Users may get up to four alerts from the ISP, but after that the ISP can choose to start implementing “temporary reductions of Internet speeds, redirection to a landing page until the subscriber contacts the ISP to discuss the matter or reviews and responds to some educational information about copyright, or other measures that the ISP may deem necessary to help resolve the matter.” If a user believes he or she has been targeted without merit, an appeals process can be started for a $35 fee but, as Ars Technica notes,it’s unclear who will be the judge in that process. Read on for the full details on the six strikes.

First Alert: In response to a notice from a copyright owner, an ISP will send an online alert to a subscriber, such as an email, notifying the subscriber that his/her account may have been misused for content theft, that content theft is illegal and a violation of published policies, and that consequences could result from any such conduct. This first alert will also direct the subscriber to educational resources which will (i) help him/her to check the security of his/her computer and any Wifi network, (ii) provide explanatory steps which will help to avoid content theft in the future and (iii) provide information about the abundant sources of lawful music, film and TV content.

Second Alert: If the alleged activity persists despite the receipt of the first alert, the subscriber may get a second similar alert that will underscore the educational messages, or the ISP may in its discretion proceed to the next alert.

Third Alert: If the subscribers account again appears to have been used for content theft, he/she will receive another alert, much like the initial alerts. However, this alert will provide a conspicuous mechanism (a click-through pop-up notice, landing page, or similar mechanism) asking the subscriber to acknowledge receipt of this alert. This is designed to ensure that the subscriber is aware of the third copyright alert and reminds the subscriber that content theft conducted through their account could lead to consequences under the law and published policies.

Fourth Alert: If the subscribers account again appears to have been used for content theft, the subscriber will receive yet another alert that again requires the subscriber to acknowledge receipt.

Fifth Alert: If the subscribers account again appears to have been used for content theft, the ISP will send yet another alert. At this time, the ISP may take one of several steps, specified in its published policies, reasonably calculated to stop future content theft. These steps, referred to as Mitigation Measures, may include, for example: temporary reductions of Internet speeds, redirection to a landing page until the subscriber contacts the ISP to discuss the matter or reviews and responds to some educational information about copyright, or other measures that the ISP may deem necessary to help resolve the matter. ISPs are not obligated to impose any Mitigation Measure which would disable or be reasonably likely to disable the subscribers voice telephone service (including the ability to call 911), e-mail account, or any security or health service (such as home security or medical monitoring). The use of the mitigation measure is waivable by the ISP at this point.

Sixth Alert: Whether or not the ISP has previously waived the Mitigation Measure, if the subscribers account again appears to have been used for content theft, the ISP will send another alert and will implement a Mitigation Measure as described above. As described above, it’s likely that very few subscribers who after having received multiple alerts, will persist (or allow others to persist) in the content theft.

i don’t think this is going to work… first of all just use a proxy… but hypothetically speaking, if i were to pirate something and you dont like it, i’ll take my money elsewhere

BluDD

no likey

Scott

Clad I don’t see Cox listed in there. But this should be illegal. Yeah, what I may be downloading isn’t legal, but giving the ISP right to shut me down? I pay my bill and that’s all they should care about. They’re just a dump pipe that provides internet. Why not go after the torrent sites? I guess that seems too logical.

Anonymous

Torrent sites don’t host illegal content… they just help in downloading the content

Anonymous

If you’re doing something illegal, you shouldn’t complain. People who break the law shouldn’t have the same rights as law abiding citizens.

Also, would you rather the ISP just turn you in? That’s the alternative if you get caught. This way you just get a warning.

Anonymous

Are you going to trust the ISP’s and their controlled arbitration system to be fair and just. I wouldn’t count on it. The threats will be based on IP addresses and not physical addresses. Your kids friend could be doing it, your neighbor could be stealing your WiFi because you can’t figure out how to lock down your WiFi Router (they all suck at simple configurations).

Anonymous

If that’s the case, that means you get a… warning?

So you can be aware that someone is misusing your connections?

Anonymous

You are amazingly naive. And what if you aren’t breaking the law? Hello $35 appeals process! Doesn’t it just give you a warm fuzzy feeling that you have to pay to prove that you are innocent? Very UN-American.

Aaron Bartholomew

Laws are relative. By your logic, one who runs a red light should not have the same rights as those who don’t.

This is about morals, free speech, and privacy on a broader scale. Not about the law. Go away.

Anonymous

When you sign up for the service, there are terms of use associated with it. I’m pretty sure conducting illegal activity on their service is a violation of the terms of use. All and all, this is a GOOD thing that the ISPs would rather give you warnings and benefit of the doubt rather than just turn you over at the first indication of possible infringement.

http://twitter.com/Kevniv Kevin N

Horse shit!

Anonymous

Thank goodness for usenet.

Kchristainsen

explain please

Anonymous

with the Usenet, he is probably not uploading/sharing any content. The copyright laws are about illegal distribution of the content.

http://twitter.com/1fuzzybear Carl Mason

Silence! The first rule of Usenet is never to speak of Usenet! Ten de-merits each and you are all on double-secret probation!

Anonymous

what happens to those who goto starbucks and download. theyll never get caught doing it that way.

Proexodus

How do you remove someone’s ability to call 9-1-1? I have an issue with that…

Anonymous

My thought exactly. Even a cell phone that’s not registered to a network (via SIM, etc) can make an emergency call

Anonymous

“including the ability to call 911” and “health service (such as home security or medical monitoring)” Ummm isn’t that illegal ?? i know they want to prevent piracy but disabling these services may get them sued into oblivion.

911 is a essential service and shouldn’t be touched.

Anonymous

I suggest you and Proexodus go and re-read that section…

Anonymous

Reading comprehension is fun.

It says they won’t do that. Obviously, they would be in legal doodoo.

http://twitter.com/WillieFDiazSF William Diaz ✔

And how many times are you allowed to get these alerts before they are reset? Once a month? Once a year? Once a life time? Once as a customer?

Anonymous

How about once a lifetime? How f-ing hard is it to not steal? I don’t understand the sense of entitlement of some of the other posters above (not necessarily you). Most folks wouldn’t steal from a store, even if they knew they wouldn’t get caught. Why is copyrighted material any different? What are parents teaching their kids these days??

Anonymous

Well said.

Anonymous

So you get wrongly accused, that happens all the time. You are relying on major corporations including these ISP’s who are ALSO content providers. Do you not see the conflict of interest here. There is no legitimate court hearing these cases, its the ISP’s deciding if you are guilty and the media companies filing the complaint.

The real answer is simple, make the friggin media affordable and readily available for people to LEGALLY buy. Do you know what a PITA it is to actually buy media that isn’t DRM’d to death. Do you really like buying from iTunes.

I simply buy the DVD’s I want, rip the files for portable consumption as I see it that IS fair use. I own a copy in physical form, I have it on my portable device since I don’t carry a DVD player and a TV with me.

Not everyone is a criminal, but good luck getting the stink off once you are called one and you never did it to begin with.

Anonymous

I rip DVDs that I personally own, it falls under fair use despite when the copyright holders may say.

Not the same as illegally downloading content off the Internet. Besides the morality, they can’t track what you do offline.

Also, the ISPs and copyright holders cannot judge you guilty. They have no civil or criminal powers in the legal system. This is a warning system. The worst the ISP can do is curb or cancel your service, and the worst the copyright holder can do is file a civil lawsuit. Which they already can do.

This is a formality so that ISPs can protect their own necks legally.

http://www.twitter.com/hokes Brendan

Every good/service that operates with a flawed and broken business model of this magnitude deserves to have a black market of the same magnitude.

Anonymous

It doesn’t make it not stealing.

Copyright holders don’t owe you anything. Why is it people feel entitled to things?

Dejan Jancevski

There is a reason black markets exist. And as Brendan stated, it’s a flawed and broken business model that exists in the entertainment industry. Mind you, forget the idea that most people who actually “download illegally” end up actually purchasing a legal copy of the work if they like it. The way I look at it is this way: If I want to purchase a Ford Mustang (or any other car), most dealerships will allow me to test drive the car BEFORE I decide to purchase it. Ok, that may be because of the cost of the vehicle, I’ll give you that. Instead, what about the toaster that you bought at your local Walmart? You can easily take it home, test it, decide you hate it after making say…a few hundred toasted slices of bread, barely clean the crumbs out, re-package it up, and return it with the receipt for a full refund with no questions asked! Can you do that with a music CD or any DVD? Obviously not…the second you open that plastic cover…you now OWN that garbage, even if you hate it. There is where the problem is found. The cost to make a music CD is in the realm of $0.01 to $0.05 per CD…AT MOST! DVDs are MAYBE a full $0.50 to $1.00 more.

Now think about the cost involved. You buy a crappy CD thinking your favorite artist is going to put out a great album (hey, the critics liked it), but when you listen to it…you think it sucks and don’t want to be stuck with it. Return it to Best Buy you say? Can’t do it. Unless there is something physically wrong with the media (basically, the ONLY option here would be if the media is warped due to a manufacturing process, not simply b/c you left it out in the sun to bake or b/c you purposely scratched it), you can’t even get a new copy of it (receipt or no receipt). So…you’re stuck. UNLESS, you opt to download the media, listen to it, and then opt to purchase those songs you like (or the entire CD since it might be cheaper).

But having companies like AT&T or Comcast be told by other companies what their customers are doing AND assuming that such allegations are true is insane. This is true corporate greed at its worst. Instead of complaining about the people who download stuff illegally, how about doing something about these corporations that flat out charge far too much for the garbage that they provide. After all…since when does “unlimited” data have an actual monthly cap of 150GB anyway? The point here is this…the people who are “ripping off” these entertainment companies would have either never bothered to purchase the content and end up deleting it long before any ISP provider would be alerted to it, OR they have already ended up purchasing a legal copy anyway. In the end, this type of behavior by these companies is what causes people to feel disenfranchised and no longer care. Well, time for us to stand up for our own FAIR USE! It should be fair to make a copy of your legally purchased media. It should NOT be a crime nor impossible to return media that a customer is dissatisfied with. So…time for us Americans to stand up and start demanding more for far less from these companies! Who’s with me?!? (HINT: You ALL should be).

Anonymous

@google-93549b4915fc0cb3c23769f500dbae2a:disqus I enjoyed your little quip there. You now have permission to play with my boobs.

http://twitter.com/snidely1459 Snidely

The problem is that the copyright holders have no idea what’s legally shared content and illegally shared. If I am Bono’s best friend and he allows me to download a song from him, the RIAA could still say that’s illegal, even though it is a totally legal transaction. The RIAA doesn’t investigate both ends of the download, they just assume it’s all illegal. Under this process, you have no recourse. This policy is a travesty of American law. You are no longer innocent until proven guilty by a court of law. You’re assumed to be guilty by some industry that’s in collusion with your internet provider. Bye bye due process. Here’s how it should work —
1. RIAA suspects person of illegally downloading songs and grabs their IP address
2. RIAA goes to court to get the name of the person associated with the IP address.
3. Court orders ISP to turn over name and ISP does so.
4. RIAA sues person for infringement in court.
5. Court decides whether person is guilty or not.

This is how the system works for other infringement. Why doesn’t Big Content have to follow the same rules? Why can they just accuse you without due process? The accused have the same rights as anyone else Enerji. That is the foundation of our legal system.

Anonymous

Here’s the issue I have with your comment. You’re giving far too much leverage to a media industry which has more than outplayed its existence (in its current form) and walked all over certain constitutional rights we as a free people are entitled too. If you think this agreement will do more to prevent the pirating of music, you’re misled. In fact, I surmise that this will only make it easier to for the true pirates (the one’s who perform MASSIVE illegal downloads) to continue on their current course while the bottom feeders like a 12 year old who knows little to nothing about consequences in life burns his families existing service agreement.

http://twitter.com/androidhelpers Android Helpers

Funny part is, you most likely infringe copyright a least a dozen times a day. It’s nearly impossible not to.

Anonymous

Given these major ISP’s decision to buckle under the media empires thumb, shouldn’t this also remove their “safe harbor” protection. I mean if they are going to track our every move and warn us and make us watch propaganda materials then why are they not liable for so much more. Comcast is already getting away with altering their agreement’s since buying NBC.

There is already a simple remedy available for people who pirate content, its called the US Court’s. They are free to file lawsuits and claim damages. But no they want the government to play policeman for them. Once again our government is FAILING to protect the very citizens who elected them with due process.

Anonymous

As I read this, it says the copyright holder is responsible for monitoring and reporting misuse. They then contact the ISP who may, at it’s discretion, issue multiple warnings.

If you’re guilty, it’s a heads up. If you’re not, it’s a head’s up so you can figure out what’s going on.

It strikes me that the people who are freaking out are likely the same ones who will likely be getting warnings.

And due process? Where are the criminal charges being filed? You have a contract with the ISP, and their contract reserves them the right to terminate their service if it’s being used for illegal purposes. Thus, it falls under contract law.

First_wd40

True on what you are saying BUT wait till YOU are wrongly accused then you will see what others are trying to say. Read part that says if you feel you are wrongly accused it will cost you 35.00 to start a appeals process. So by that when they say you are guilty they won’t even listen to you till you pay 35.00.
I can hear A T and T now when you call , be a script they will read.. I am sorry but you will need to go to this site and pay 35.00 and start an appeal before I can discuss this with you. That in itself sounds wrong to me , opening the door to all services saying we can accuse you of whatever, limit or even shut down your service and if you don’t like it pay 35.00 and we will talk to you about it.

Anonymous

If I was innocent, I would refuse to pay, cancel my service, and refuse to pay any cancellation fee, mailing a certified letter threatening legal action.

If you make a stink, it will go away.

Anonymous

This sounds like a good fair and balanced agreement (and not in a Faux News sort of way).

Wait till YOU are wrongly accused then you will see what others are trying to say. Read part that says if you feel you are wrongly accused it will cost you 35.00 to start a appeals process. So by that when they say you are guilty they won’t even listen to you till you pay 35.00.
I can hear A T and T now when you call , be a script they will read.. I am sorry but you will need to go to this site and pay 35.00 and start an appeal before I can discuss this with you. That in itself sounds wrong to me , opening the door to all services saying we can accuse you of whatever, limit or even shut down your service and if you don’t like it pay 35.00 and we will talk to you about it.

Anonymous

Then cancel your service with them.

First_wd40

only problem is where I live I can only get fast internet from AT&T so say this happens I cancel , I still pay cause then only option I have is ..dial up. They win. I see a door opening for all services to get more money and why not? Economy is doing so well, plenty of jobs , making tons of money. Economy got to be doing great with prices on all going up, umm even gas went up today 11 cents a gallon.

Anonymous

And go where? I hope you live in one of those all to rare markets in the US where there is actual competition in broadband. However the vast majority of Americans don’t have real choices when it comes to broadband service. Its one company and that’s it.

Shocked

Disgusting mega capitlists boosting their own wealth at the expense of the common people to propagate their obsolete business models.

http://twitter.com/derrickisonline Derrick -Lex-

LMAO! What a joke. This has already been going on, less the landing page and Internet speed reduction part. What a waste of time. You think that minimum wage making customer service rep is really going to give a flying fuck? Even still, would Comcast, Verizon, AT&T, Cox rather lose a customer because they reduced their Internet speed when they’re paying for service. Yeah right. One threat to cancel service after having your internet speeds reduced and I’m sure that “throttle” will be lifted. MPAA, and RIAA are getting desperate.

Not to mention you could use the whole “I must have had a virus or something”….”Pirate Pay? I don’t know anything about a Pirate Pay, I just used the Internet to check my email”

Andy Howard

Maybe this will be the thing that pushes more people to fully encrypt all their web traffic.

KCRic

This will work about as good as red light cameras. Prove it was me ‘driving the car’.

http://twitter.com/Atst4 Steve J

SOOOOO… WHat happens if you one of those happy people that shares an open wifi hotspot with your neighbors/passers-by… do you get F’ked?

Steve Jenkins

Sharing is Caring…..f**k the ISP’s, “Big Content” and their masters.

Anonymous

Nice… The heavy hand of government is back at it again, screwing consumers while protecting corporations yet again.

Anonymous

As long as I can still download free porn then I don’t care.

Anonymous

Can someone please tell me when this goes into effect? Or has it already?

Garratt

Does anybody else see a problem with this? Now ISP’s are spying on what we’re doing on the Internet? How is invading the privacy of American citizens any better than pirating warez on the web?