Major U.S. Net Providers Launch Copyright Alert System

Love to know how many of the people involved in these organisations also have money invested in Pinterest..

Love to know how many of the people involved in these organisations also have money invested in Pinterest..

And I would love to know what they think about Google's and Bing's Image Search copyright violations and bandwidth theft.

Love to know how many of the people involved in these organisations also have money invested in Pinterest..

And I would love to know what they think about Google's and Bing's Image Search copyright violations and bandwidth theft.

One way to find out- once the system is rolled out, start filing reports against Pinterest, Google, and Bing.

One way to find out- once the system is rolled out, start filing reports against Pinterest, Google, and Bing.

Only their "content partners" will be able to report infringements upon their copyright content to the participating ISPs..

The rest of us, ( the "little people" ) whose copyright content is being infringed upon by pinterest et al and "image search"..are not given a voice..There is no facility for us to file any reports to them..

Hence my original comment..

Become big enough to become a "content partner." Or, start a grass roots campaign to combine lots of "little people" to become a formidable block with clout.

Sure..I'll move to the USA and I'll become a movie studio..record label..do mods get to troll nowadays ?

become a formidable block with clout

Companies respecting the law, and being sanctioned by the justice departments without the little guys needing to bring cases to court and get into un-winnable spending wars with corporations who have their lawyers in house..should be all the "clout" that any one needs..or is it OK now to say out loud that in the USA ..that one gets the best justice that one can buy/lobby for..and the rest of us can go to hell for our justice and respect for the laws ?

So all the leachers will do is move to an ISP not participating in the scheme ?

I'm shocked Comcast waited this long to do anything after they purchased NBC Universal they now have a huge stake in this game.

So all the leachers will do is move to an ISP not participating in the scheme

Haven't had time to look into the details but all the major players also tend to be the major backbones and often the only game in town. It's a situation of you can run but you cannot hide.

...the latest chapter in the world's largest game of whack-a-mole.

It's a situation of you can run but you cannot hide.

I'd have to disagree Bill, even with one service in some areas whoever is downloading is inevitably going to find a way to get around it.

I haven't read the whole article (don't like reading bad news), but can someone tell me how they think they can catch encrypted data?

So a group of big businesses have got to together to protect each other interests, setting up a private quasi-judicial system. They also have an investigative system that must involve routine monitoring of what huge numbers of people do - yes ISPs do that to some extent, but this requires a lot more.

Funny how those that bellyache about how large companies protect themselves in other threads complain about their sites getting scraped and don't even see the irony.

@incrediBILL

There is a thick line between those too... I have absolutely no intention of IMPRISONING, or fining $200,000 anyone for stealing my $0.99 images.

The web is a free place and it should not be monitored by anyone. Those that complain about their sites getting scraped provide the content for free (decorated with ads). The bad guy steals it and wants to earn some money from serving his ads instead.

Now... this is VERY different from sharing a movie, or a song online. Some don't have the money to buy the movie or the song it is not free, it has nothing to do with scraping websites. It has more to do with financial capabilities.

Ok, so the leachers buy an offshore hosting account, setup an encrypted tunnel to the server and get their daily dose that way.
If the offshore provider calls it enough at some point they move to the next server.

The bottom line -even for "hollywood"- is that once it's out there you can;t get it back. Not for us, not for them.
The thing is they go after the wrong targets: when I object to pinterest stealing my images I object to somebody making money off of my work (pinterest might not make money but they collect a lot of dollars on wall street), not to their visitors having a good time - they would not pay me anyway. The movie and music industry needs to realize that those into copying movies would not pay them even if they could not get it online, nor to those watching it/listening to it earn themselves anything. They don't lose anything in the copying process - on the contrary: they stand to gain if they play their cards right. But they are entrenched in an obsolete model where copying was hard.

Let's look at this model for the music industry: artists are free to post their creation on the record company's streaming services (think of them for this aspect to be youtube). The record company encourages viewing (with some subtle advertising). Those that got the talent to catch an audience will do so (aided by clever matching of taste of vistors to the content they have).
Cost for the label: negligible.
Cost for the artist: might be significant, but it's the thing they like to do, they do it anyway.
Cost for the consumer: watch some ads.
Income for the artist: small kickback from the label for the ads (much like youtube)
Income for the label: advertising.

Sounds lik they make more now, but wait.

The contract they have with the artist gives them rights over one thing: concerts.
Yes the kind of thing that sells out in mere minutes at steep costs.

So anybody floating to the top of their "youtube" charts and being popular gets the support and coaching from the label to become a professional and eventually gets a shot at filling up a stadium and both of them earning millions.

Population: music is free (or you pay to remove the ads).

Copying is now a problem where others will scrape the music and add their own ads: we all know how that feels, but the scrapers have assets in one place and are easy to find -> sue them into oblivion. Instead of alienating your potential customers by threatening them all the time...

Alienating your potential customers is the worst move a business can make.

Maybe they should stop showing Popular TV Shows split by 15 TV Commercials. People will finally start paying attention and the monies for the content they provide.

At the end of the show you know that you should save on car insurance, install home alarm system, your spouse should seriously consider other brands of haircare and skincare products and you should talk to your doctor about getting into the pills that enable you to walk on the beach with the sweater on your shoulders and be Ready.

Oh, what was the show about? An average adult could develop ADD after watching cable TV for couple of weeks every evening.

OK, Thousands of On Demand choices right?, ge, who the @$%& programed that on screen guide?

2 Adults and 2 children >> 4 tickets + Parking for 3 hours >> $45 >> + Popcorn, soda & pretzels with cheese $30

Twice a month = $150.

Premium package via cable TV = $90

That's 240 a month.

Oh and first thing they do when you click on "Find Movies and TV Shows"?

This site requires JavaScript and Cookies to be enabled. Please change your browser settings or upgrade your browser.
http:/ /www.mpaa.org/contentprotection/69.123.NNN.NNN <<< IP Tracking. Ha.

Is this the big thing that was supposed to have launched this past summer?

this is VERY different from sharing a movie, or a song online. ... it has nothing to do with scraping websites.

How is it any different? A scraper steals content and deprives the rightful owner of the revenue associated with publishing that content. A pirate steals a movie and deprives the rightful owner of the revenue associated with publishing that content.

Actually, there IS a difference. The web publisher publishes his content on the Web knowing it can be scraped. The movie producer does NOT make his movie available for free online.

Some don't have the money to buy the movie or the song it is not free... It has more to do with financial capabilities.

Um, please correct me if I have misinterpreted what you wrote, but it sounds like you're saying it's okay to steal something if you don't have the money to pay for it?

Um, please correct me if I have misinterpreted what you wrote, but it sounds like you're saying it's okay to steal something if you don't have the money to pay for it?

It's ok to share what you have with a friend who has no money. What I wrote was that sharing is VERY different from stealing. No, stealing is not ok.

How is it any different?

Stealing an apple is a lot different than sharing a movie or a song. The company does not lose money because those who get the shared content mainly do not have the money to buy it. Plus, recently they (Hollywood) said that 2012 was their best year in sales...

One intends to earn money through providing free service that you were providing the same way, and even better. The other earns no money, he shares. It's like providing a backdoor access to a museum to see a famous panting. If you don't have the money to by the admission ticket then the extra eye won't hurt the painting or the museum.

Cheers

those who get the shared content mainly do not have the money to buy it.

Utter BS! You have no way of making sure only "qualified" poor people get access to the content. For every person who can't afford it, there are most likely 5 people who can afford it downloading it.

And here's a radical concept for you: if you can't afford it, do without. That's what other people do. Sorry to be harsh, but I am sick and tired of people who feel they are entitled to freebies and handouts just because they think they should be.

Food stamps and welfare so that someone can eat are one thing. Pirated movies and music are NOT basic necessities.

If you don't have the money to by the admission ticket then the extra eye won't hurt the painting or the museum.

Actually, some exhibits require severe environment controls to prevent excessive temperatures, humidity, etc. One extra person may not throw off the system, but 100 people with the same "altruistic" views as yours may.

It's ok to share what you have with a friend who has no money.

If you rent a DVD and decide to let your poor friend watch it with you, that's one thing. But if you put the same DVD online to make it freely available to anyone- that's piracy.

there are most likely 5 people who can afford it downloading it.

And why do you think your statement is less Utter BS than mine, you have better sources? Please keep it civil and don't get off topic.

you have better sources?

Here's one of my sources: US Congress employees found downloading pirated content online [guardian.co.uk]. I showed you mine, now you show me yours. :)

Earlier this year, the Wall Street Journal interviewed EFF lawyer Fred von Lohmann about the Jammie Thomas-Rasset case, and von Lohmann noted that the RIAA had so far "targeted about 35,000 people, many of whom seemed to settle usually in the neighborhood of between $3,000-$5,000."

[arstechnica.com...] is what I found in a minute, there are tons of it. Students, mothers of four, normal people fined huge amounts. How come we don't listed a congressman being fined for downloading a movie? Oh wait, they are the ones who give the green light...

So... who's going to suffer the congressman or the average guy? I bet you've got the wrong answer :)

To afford doesn't mean to have $15 to go to the movies. To afford means watching as many movies and listening as many songs as you like without thinking about the money... Now that is something that even congressmen can't afford ;)

Your source affirms my position. I wouldn't classify people that can easily toss around $3000-$5000 as being poor.

I have no problem with congressmen being targeted for stealing. In fact, I am all for going after the hypocrites. But that doesn't mean people should be given a pass simply because of their financial position. Guilty is guilty.

Regardless, if you want to stick with the "It's okay to steal something if you can't afford it" position, it's your right. But I don't think you will find much sympathy here.

If someone steals from me, you can be sure I won't discriminate against their financial position (or lack thereof).

Consumers whose accounts have been used to share copyrighted content over P2P networks illegally (or without authority) will receive Alerts that are meant to educate rather than punish

They are perfecting their monitoring systems, for now.

Two questions for everyone who thinks it's okay to fileshare:

1. If you were unable to control and profit from your labor, would you work as hard?

2. As a member of a community and society, do you think that it's fundamentally right for individuals to disregard laws because you don't personally believe in them? I'm not asking about civil disobedience, where the point is to get arrested for flaunting the law and thereby challenge it.

Anyway...

From the article:

Practically speaking, this means our content partners will begin sending notices of alleged P2P copyright infringement to ISPs, and the ISPs will begin forwarding those notices in the form of Copyright Alerts to consumers.

What I find interesting about this, is this already happened to us two years ago. Someone renting our downstairs apartment was illegally trying to share HBO films. HBO lawyers sent Cease and Desist letters to our ISP and said they would be liable if they didn't stop it. The ISP lawyers then sent us Cease and Desist letters saying we would permanently lose our service if we didn't put a stop to it.

@swa66

The movie and music industry needs to realize that those into copying movies would not pay them even if they could not get it online,

I had to laugh at this. Why? Guess the profession of the copyright violator who almost lost us our service permanently? Yep, filmmaker. The conversation went like this:
Me: "You should know better. You make a living from selling your films."
Him "Well people are constantly ripping off my stuff."
Me: "And how does that make you feel?"
Him "That's a totally separate issue."

Seriously... it was like that.

@swa66 again

Let's look at this model for the music industry

Yes, let's look at the music industry. I would adjust this analysis. The music industry has lived by a simple model for decades: concerts are loss leaders to sell records. Sharing turns that on its ear. In the new model, recorded music becomes a loss leader to sell concert tickets.

Seth Godin loves to point out that people will no longer pay $0.99 for a recorded song, but Bruce Springsteen sold out three nights in a row at the Montreal Coliseum at $200/seat.

But once you start giving away the content, there's no real role left for the record labels or perhaps more optimistically, record labels cease to be publishers and become music-oriented marketing and event planning (i.e. concert promotion) firms.

From the consumer and the musician point of view, I don't know as a sharing-based model is necessarily bad, but from a label perspective, it means death to the vast majority of them.

For movies, it's even harder since the only real product *is* a recorded medium and they are looking at more and more homes having the same Dolby 7.1 and massive screens as the movie house. They don't really have a "live" experience to sell anymore and movies are prohibitively expensive to make. The money has to come from somewhere.

As societies, we generally say that if people are too poor to buy food, we don't allow them to steal it, but we do find subsidies to make sure they don't starve to death. Perhaps part of the solution is to take a similar approach to art. Alternatively, we could go back to a patronage model like in the Renaissance - art is produced only on demand and mostly just for the rich who may or may not open the theaters to the masses. That's actually a proven model - nobody can say the Renaissance was bad for art.

I'm simply staggered at the opinions of other webmasters who, as ergophobe puts it with his movie maker story, "should know better". How often are we given the $hitty end of this particular stick and yet there are those who are happy to make excuses for those who steal/deny revenue.

the mind boggles. There's no hope if webmasters themselves are joining the ranks of the apologists.

"it's not stealing if the person can't afford it"...that will send me off to sleep tonight with a chuckle, that will quickly become a nightmare!

Regardless, if you want to stick with the "It's okay to steal something if you can't afford it" position, it's your right.

No I don't think that it's okay to steal (share, the word is share) something if you can't afford. But if there is a huge demand in getting the content through piracy then record labels and movie studios should try making their content more accessible rather than putting people in jail or fining 200,000.

My concern is the freedom of the web. If their business model doesn't work the way they want, then they should fix it rather than making people to use it.

Again I'm not pro-piracy, I'm pro-innovation (netflix, steam) and think that people should have their privacy. People share (not steal) content because they can't afford it, that's what I believe, and if you can tell just one story where a top studio or a record label went bankrupt or had some major losses because of piracy then I'd be happy to look at it.

But I don't think you will find much sympathy here.

I'm not here to find sympathy, sorry. Just spending my free time to help others by sharing my knowledge and points of view.

Thank god that this discussion is in written form, I made it clear that stealing is not ok, and that stealing is very different from sharing, but still people misread it.

Imagine what a mess it would be if we talked in person about this :)