American ISPs to launch massive copyright spying scheme on July 12

If you download potentially copyrighted software, videos or music (Raw Story), your Internet service provider (ISP) has been watching, and they’re coming for you.

Specifically, they’re coming for you on Thursday, July 12.

That’s the date when the nation’s largest ISPs will all voluntarily implement a new anti-piracy plan that will engage network operators in the largest digital spying scheme in history, and see some users’ bandwidth completely cut off until they sign an agreement saying they will not download copyrighted materials.

Doesn't matter if it is copyrighted material or not, if your ISP thinks it is you're getting cut off of the intarwebs.

I don't see this as a totally bad thing. I agree that it isn't perfect, but it's a more measured approach to a real problem than what the RIAA has (over) done in the past.

If it's not copyrighted?

I don't like this at all.

According to the articles, it's only illegally downloaded copyrighted material that is subject.

I used to work for the firm that represented the RIAA in these cases. (There were several firms, but mine was in the lead.) They sure were assertive, weren't they?

And how do they tell? In fact, they can't, without humans involved. And they don't even take the effort to try.

Right now, one of the big problems on YouTube and other video sharing sites is the big content owners claiming copyright and forcing takedowns of lots of stuff that isn't theirs and isn't illegally posted. A couple of weeks ago, Rumblefish claimed copyright and forced a takedown of a video a guy made of his walk through a field -- because they said they owned the ambient noise he recorded. That wasn't the noise of someone playing a copyrighted song in the background of a video -- it was the birdsongs and other field noises recorded as he walked through.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news ... outube.ars

I make my living from the intellectual property that I create. I've had my stuff stolen and put up on a website in competition with me, and I've had someone who tried to pass off my work as theirs. I made it very memorable for the people who did it that they don't want to do that ever again.

But this is a whole different thing, and they start off by assuming that you (and everyone else) is guilty. It's a HUGE sweep and inspection of your private data by people who don't have a right (but they don't need a warrant to spy on you, you know, because they're not the government). And you can count on their fucking it up to your detriment and their benefit, and there won't be a fucking thing you can do about it when they decide that you are stealing and cut you off.

In fairness, Rumblefish later admitted their mistake





A couple of thoughts here - My "data" isn't private if I choose to use public networks to move it around. Even if there were some degree of protection within the US, outside of the US different governments will do whatever they want with someone's data stream. If you want to keep data private, either encrypt it or don't send it over a public network.

I'm probably being naive, but on the surface this looks quite a bit different from the chaos at YouTube. I expect there will be problems in the beginning, but I'm hoping it works out where legitimate copyright holders like yourself get the protection they deserve, while preventing the overzealous enforcement that has happened in the past.

Why should we expect conduct different than every other time such schemes have been tried? The fact is that traditional copyright enforcement mechanisms are completely broken, and breaking the Internet to try to fix copyright is not the way to go. Without in any effective way promoting " the Progress of Science and useful Arts," current law rewards rent-seeking by content owners to the detriment of the supposed goals of copyright.

Copyright owners have been making the same dumb, dishonest arguments for decades now, and it's time to stop listening to them.



That argument was stupid in the 1980s and it is still stupid.

Placing the entire burden on ISPs to filter the entire Internet proactively will either be ineffective, or will require so much hardware and human effort as to drive up prices of Internet service to astronomical prices for consumers and content providers alike.

Rob Reid's TED Talk: The 8 Billion Dollar iPod

http://www.ted.com/talks/rob_reid_the_8 ... _ipod.html

I think we may look back on the expansion of copyright to the extent of basically obliterating the public domain as a crime and a tragedy on the level of the burning of the Library of Alexandria.

I can say at least half of my cd collection, and that collection is over a hundred CDs, was sinply becasue I heard a tune on the internet and went off and ordered the CD because of it.

Spreading your music around actually helps sales for people that care about music. Icare about music as ine thing that can cut me out of depression at times. Copyright is killing music. Hell I used to enjoy making Youtube vids and I stopped becasue of all the horseshit Copyright bs I had to go through. One of my videos was so popular youtube kept poking me to get a partnership with me so I could earn a few pennies from it, but I didn;t bother as reading down the agreement the video would go before their board to check for copyright, and I know damn well that they would strip the soundtrack off of it as I used a song by Sarah Brightman. From a CD that I own.

For the curius here is the video



Egosoft actually wanted to include this video as part of the extra content in a special X3 commemoration disk, and even got me to sign a disclosure agreement. But then they found they couldn't, becasue they would have to ask the holders of the copyright.

I've actually had the audio in my videos disabled due to copyright infringement. The song on this video isnt the one that I originally had on it, its from the Free youtube songs. Its actually a nice song but now the one I built the video with, as youtube killed the audio.



Even going back a few years, Phil Collins wanted to use music from the Beatles in his film "Buster". The musicians themselves said go ahead but the Laywers said no. He was forced to use himself playing music in the soundtrack of a movie set in the 60s. How nuts is that?

CNET March 14, 2012 "RIAA chief: ISPs to start policing copyright by July 12"

Interesting comments plus some historical background.

I'm sorry, Suranis, are you actually complaining because you're not allowed to use someone else's intellectual property for your own purposes?? Seriously??

I'm biased in this argument because of what I and my wife (a Jazz singer who also records) do. Since when was it ok to co-opt someone else's work, use it for your potentially money making ventures, and not compensate the creator and owner of that work??

You're actually arguing that it should be fine for my wife to create an original song, go to all the expense of recording (and that ain't cheap), producing CDs, marketing the damn things only to have someone come along and decide to use for FREE that song in a fucking YouTube video or movie which may then bring that end-user some kind of remuneration?? Is that really the argument here?

It's one thing when an artist -- usually a musician -- decides to offer a song or two as a free download. That's good marketing. It's a completely different story when someone feels that just because they've paid for a CD or a download, that gives them the right to then use that song for their own moneymaking purposes, with nothing going back to the originator. That purchase doesn't constitute a license.

That's theft, plain and simple.

jesus Christ.

heh, rereading what I wrote I can certainly see where you got that impression. But the point I was really trying to make is that without people putting music like that on youtube I would have never heard a lot of music and I would never have bought over half my CD collection. With people using they work like that the record companies and artists actually made money. Hell, its free advertising, and most youtube authors actually put the music they used on the credits so people could go out and buy the artists music. I certainly did.

How far do you want to go with copyright? How about thrift shops, should they pay money to record companies to sell second hand CDs?

Well, like I (think I) wrote, my wife has put a couple of her original songs on the web for free download. And we're planning on videoing a performance and putting some stuff from that on YouTube. I've put a couple chapters of my book on the web for free. That's marketing.

Getting a couple of bucks for a second-hand CD is a far cry from using copyrighted material in a video or a movie without the permission of the copyright holder.

This is already well-covered in the U.S., at least - first sale doctrine etc. Used books, games, CDs, records, tapes, you can resell perfectly legally. I think that's kind of an apples and oranges question.

And then there is the California Resale Royalty Act.

And you still have to pay sales tax on the used items even though the tax was already paid at the first purchase.

I'm going to have to mull that one over.

You'll love this...


Washington Sales/Use Tax Law.



You are supposed to voluntarily keep track of the use (sales) tax and send the money to the Dept of Revenue.

They've been collecting it in California from business owners for the last couple of years. It's been on the books for longer, but starting a couple of years ago, they got serious about collecting it. I just got a notice reminding me that they are due on April 17 for last year.

Lots of states have use tax laws -- you didn't know that?

Yes, but sales/use taxes are real strong in places that do not have a state income tax as a rule, California excepted. For example Oregon doesn't have a sales tax, but does have an income tax.

I didn't do any business last year (retired), so I didn't have any sales tax to turn in to DOR. If I order stuff through the web, I am supposed to send the tax for it to DOR like a good little citizen.

It looks kinda strange on the Amazon bill. Anything that Amazon sells me from Amazon proper is taxed since Amazon and I are in the same state. The other vendors who utilize the Amazon sales system may or may not charge me tax depending on that specific vendor being headquartered/shipping from out of state.