All of the ISPs involved also provide cable TV service. That's to say, they have a vested interest in seeing the business model of "copyright holders" continue so that they can receive their affiliate fees. It's little wonder that this deal was "voluntarily" agreed upon.
Given that these ISPs often have exclusive markets, in which they have no direct competitors, this would effectively deny internet access to anyone who had the misfortune of getting a few of these notices.
Lack of judicial oversight is obviously a problem. But furthermore, this really overstates the seriousness of copyright infringement, and understates the importance of internet access for all.
Some European countries [1] and even the UN [2] have recently begun to recognize internet access as a Constitutional right. If similar decisions were made here, one might be able to sue one's ISP for breaching that right... but maybe not, as long as there's free internet at public libraries. I'm also very pessimistic that SCOTUS will recognize internet access as a Constitutional right any time soon, what with the MAFIAA still at large.
If you read the article, you'd know that ISPs seem unwilling to cut off access entirely, even after 6 strikes.
Agreed on the judicial issues. While the ISP is legally free to make any decision it wants as to who is allowed to use its network, and in what capacity, they're essentially making these determinations based on hearsay.
Apart from this, and quoting the Ars Technica article, it's a prime example of "guilty until proven innocent" and a really sneaky tactic by the government to go around the political / democratic process and form "voluntary agreements" with ISP's and media companies.
This is a very sad state of affairs. We already have a system for judging evidence, determining guilt and for assigning punishment, it's called the courts. This seems to be yet another advancement in abandoning all of the institutions of civil society and rule of law in the online world, frequently to the detriment of individual liberty. We can only hope that eventually these assaults against our freedoms will eventually be rolled back.
These courts have already been very effectively used... as a threat by copyright holders in an attempt to shake people down for out-of-court settlements.
Regardless of whether you break the law on a regular basis, having a personal VPS is a very good idea these days.
I still regularly run into problems with websites and applications related to geolocation, blacklisting, or routing, and being able to proxy stuff through my VPS enables me to keep getting things done.
In particular, if you're a Comcast user a VPS is pretty essential since their routing and peering are awful.
Being able to run sensitive traffic through an SSH tunnel when you're on public Wi-fi is also a nice perk.
At some point, someone will probably sue -- after getting cutoff by this new policy or receive significant fines -- on the grounds this does constitute a conflict of interest on the part of the internet provider.
In the ideal world, we'd allow for competition across the board and remove the monopolies through the introduction of new options. Those options could make a major dent by positioning themselves solely as pipe providers. In turn, this would put market pressure on the conglomerates to either compete or die, in the ideal world.
In the realistic world, the options would be to force the companies to split into wholly owned subsidiaries of a parent corporation. IE: Comcast Internet, Comcast TV / Comcast Content and they would not receive preferential treatment from one another. Also, remove the monopolies and change the current regulatory structure to create incentives for new ISPs to spring up and challenge the conglomerates.
Ideally, we would be able to solve this without having to involve the government bureaucracy which will end up creating more new rules and probably hurting as much as helping. Realistically, the only way people will go for is if there's a regulatory change.
This is why we should get rid of the copyright system completely and keep it that way or start from scratch and build a new system (I prefer the former...).
Time to move over to some kind of fully encrypted Internet or something :/
I suspect the content owners are going to get a big load of IP addresses from the ISPs and file a big huge pile of criminal charges or civil lawsuits against the people who the ISPs finger. The ISPs will then pretend to act hurt when the content owners violate this agreement.
Give your internet account to a fine business establishment who doesn't do something as ridiculous as trusting Time Warner or Comcast with confidential customer information.
So who will guard the guards? I fail to see any oversight whatsoever. Ohh and look who these 6 major ISPs are. TimeWarner Cable sounds like they may have a few copyrights laying around... Major conflicts of interest? You bet.
And what does this mean for the thousands of coffee shops, book stores, and other wi-fi hotspots which dynamically assign ip addresses? Most likely: nothing pleasant.
Its a fine day when not only do corporations wield ridiculous power of lawmakers, but can form agreements tantamount to monopoly power. Net neutrality? Good luck with that.
Case in point: In some European countries (e.g. Germany), a wifi provider is liable for all the stuff that happens on his network. Which means that there are next to no public wifis. A shame, really.
Another step from democracy towards corporate dictatorship. Sometimes I wonder if we are currently experiencing a fatal flaw in commercialism that will ultimately subvert democracy.
[+] [-] joeybaker|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] navyrain|14 years ago|reply
Lack of judicial oversight is obviously a problem. But furthermore, this really overstates the seriousness of copyright infringement, and understates the importance of internet access for all.
[+] [-] kijinbear|14 years ago|reply
[1] http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Global-News/2010/0309/Is-Inte... [2] http://www.theatlanticwire.com/technology/2011/06/united-nat...
[+] [-] kelnos|14 years ago|reply
Agreed on the judicial issues. While the ISP is legally free to make any decision it wants as to who is allowed to use its network, and in what capacity, they're essentially making these determinations based on hearsay.
[+] [-] mahrain|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] qq66|14 years ago|reply
* except in the cases where you're in a botnet
[+] [-] wmf|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bediger|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] InclinedPlane|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jff|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jolan|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kevingadd|14 years ago|reply
I still regularly run into problems with websites and applications related to geolocation, blacklisting, or routing, and being able to proxy stuff through my VPS enables me to keep getting things done.
In particular, if you're a Comcast user a VPS is pretty essential since their routing and peering are awful.
Being able to run sensitive traffic through an SSH tunnel when you're on public Wi-fi is also a nice perk.
[+] [-] RexRollman|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] floppydisk|14 years ago|reply
In the ideal world, we'd allow for competition across the board and remove the monopolies through the introduction of new options. Those options could make a major dent by positioning themselves solely as pipe providers. In turn, this would put market pressure on the conglomerates to either compete or die, in the ideal world.
In the realistic world, the options would be to force the companies to split into wholly owned subsidiaries of a parent corporation. IE: Comcast Internet, Comcast TV / Comcast Content and they would not receive preferential treatment from one another. Also, remove the monopolies and change the current regulatory structure to create incentives for new ISPs to spring up and challenge the conglomerates.
Ideally, we would be able to solve this without having to involve the government bureaucracy which will end up creating more new rules and probably hurting as much as helping. Realistically, the only way people will go for is if there's a regulatory change.
[+] [-] omouse|14 years ago|reply
Time to move over to some kind of fully encrypted Internet or something :/
[+] [-] Adam503|14 years ago|reply
Give your internet account to a fine business establishment who doesn't do something as ridiculous as trusting Time Warner or Comcast with confidential customer information.
[+] [-] freejack|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ruby_on_rails|14 years ago|reply
And what does this mean for the thousands of coffee shops, book stores, and other wi-fi hotspots which dynamically assign ip addresses? Most likely: nothing pleasant.
Its a fine day when not only do corporations wield ridiculous power of lawmakers, but can form agreements tantamount to monopoly power. Net neutrality? Good luck with that.
[+] [-] Derbasti|14 years ago|reply
Another step from democracy towards corporate dictatorship. Sometimes I wonder if we are currently experiencing a fatal flaw in commercialism that will ultimately subvert democracy.
[+] [-] lwat|14 years ago|reply