Print 70 comment(s) - last by Creig.. on Feb 28 at 2:35 PM

Those who wish to avoid system should quit Verizon, AT&T, Comcast, or Time Warner service

After months of delays, a "six strikes" system designed to curb copyright infringement will go live in the United States, affecting customers on many of the nations' top internet service providers (ISPs).  While avoiding the most draconian of punishments proposed in past plans -- severing offenders' internet connections -- the system will carry serious consequences including connection throttling and forced "education" from anti-piracy groups.

The nation's top two mobile carriers -- Verizon Communications Inc. (VZ)/Vodafone Group Plc. (LON:VOD) joint subsidiary Verizon Wireless and AT&T, Inc. (T) -- are both participating (as is Verizon Communications’ cable network).  Also onboard is top cable internet provider Comcast Corp. (CMCSA), a company that knows a thing or two about throttling.  Rounding out the early adopters is Time Warner Cable, Inc. (TWC), a company known for its tireless efforts to stomp out municipal cable.  The group, along with its big media partners, is known as the Center for Copyright Information.

The Daily Dot was the first to report that the system would go online this week.  The system had been delayed for months due to issues with testing servers getting knocked offline by Hurricane Sandy.

The CCI's so-called Copyright Alert System (CAS) just had a shiny new website and promotion video pop up on YouTube, lending credence to the report that the system will be deployed next week.

CCI Website
CCI's new website just went live.

Under the plan, copyright watchdogs like the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) and Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) -- groups that have been internationally involved in convictions or settlements involving their own "theft" of independent artists' work -- will join peer-to-peer networks or BitTorrent transfers and log internet protocol (IP) addresses of people who are downloading "confirmed infringed content".

The first warning carries no action, but later warnings carry ISP-specific "Mitigation actions".  The (sort of) good news is that there is a path to appeal warnings.  Writes the CCI:

There is a $35 filing fee, which may be waived if you meet affordability criteria. The fee will be refunded if your challenge is successful.

Still, the system is a concern for real estate owners and Wi-Fi cafe owners, in that their services could be limited due to their customers’ actions.  In many cases, it would be near impossible for such entities to police their customers’ actions.

The simple solution for business people in that situation is to cancel their service with AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, or Time Warner and seek a local alternative.  

Of course that approach could be difficult in some regions, and may become infeasible if more ISPs jump on the CCI bandwagon.  For now, though, there are alternatives for many customers who want to avoid the system.

Source: Daily Dot

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Don't advocate Pirating
By edge929 on 2/25/2013 4:25:57 PM , Rating: 2
Between Tor Browser, PeerBlock, VPNs and services like BTGuard this shouldn't be an issue for those who want to stay anonymous. All but BTGuard are free and it's still cheaper, per year, than contesting one notice ($35).

RE: Don't advocate Pirating
By NellyFromMA on 2/25/2013 4:30:06 PM , Rating: 2
Using a VPN service is sort of contradictory to the intent of the service, especially when people choose to do illegal things with them, don't you think?

Piract isn't supported in a VPN. You're just trying to use that service to hide your illegal activities.

How long do you thin kbefore the owners of those companies get similar notices that if they want to stay in business they must ensure all network activity is in legal good standing?

If you insist on uber privacy for your 'very legal torrenting activities' then for the love of god, don't get a friggin external service!?!?

Pony up and get the hardware. 100 bucks should do just fine and you never have to worry about your other 'service provider' (because now you shifted the onus from your ISP to you VPN SP) having the onus shifted to them to crack down.

C'mon peeps, where's the network admins?!?!

RE: Don't advocate Pirating
By Kragoth235 on 2/25/2013 5:13:26 PM , Rating: 2
Care to explain how your own hardware which must have an external facing IP in order to have traffic routed to it can fool anyone analysing your packets?

I'm not questioning if it can be done. I'm curious as to how it works.

I was always under the impression that you would have to go through a proxy/external vpn to hide your real IP.

RE: Don't advocate Pirating
By NellyFromMA on 2/26/2013 1:32:13 PM , Rating: 2
Well, on the illegal side, there are ways of course. I wouldn't even make that comment normally but seeing as how the nature of this discussion is obfuscating or ultimately hiding your illegal activities I figured I'd say so...

With that said, you make a point in that you'll need a static IP assigned for your use when configuring the VPN/Firewall/Router so I take your point on where you are going with that.

Honestly, unless you are ok with stealing IPs or using a legit obtained one, you probably couldn't hide your identity.

Don't you have to supply ID for these vpn services? At least in payment if nothing else? Or, are there free ones?

Personally the thought of free VPN is kinda scary IMO if that even exists.

I think either way you have the potential to have your packets analyzed though. It will just be more burdensome (but not too substantially) to hunt the provider down for payer info.

Could be wrong but I think the truth is unless you're ok with illegally setting up the VPN or proxy (one way or the other) you are effectively in the same boat.

Then again, pirating is illegal and so maybe some people are ok since they are already involved in the activity.

Idk... is it worth it really?

RE: Don't advocate Pirating
By Ammohunt on 2/26/2013 2:10:00 PM , Rating: 2
Idk... is it worth it really?

My point was not whether is was worth it but more about how easy it would be to defeat this kind of nonsense. A friend has a machine at a colo and runs his entire home network through an ipsec tunnel terminated to it. The larger issue is net neutrality why would ISP's be in league with copyright owners other than bowing before the pressure of litigation. Net neutrality laws would and should indemnify internet Service Providers from this crap.

"If you can find a PS3 anywhere in North America that's been on shelves for more than five minutes, I'll give you 1,200 bucks for it." -- SCEA President Jack Tretton

Most Popular Articles5 Cases for iPhone 7 and 7 iPhone Plus
September 18, 2016, 10:08 AM
Automaker Porsche may expand range of Panamera Coupe design.
September 18, 2016, 11:00 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM
No More Turtlenecks - Try Snakables
September 19, 2016, 7:44 AM
ADHD Diagnosis and Treatment in Children: Problem or Paranoia?
September 19, 2016, 5:30 AM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki