Intellectual property (copyrights, patents, pirating, etc)

david75

New anti-piracy system will hit U.S. Internet users next week

By Kevin Collier on February 22, 2013

Starting next week, most U.S. Internet users will be subject to a new copyright enforcement system that could slow the Internet to a crawl and force violators to take educational courses.

A source with direct knowledge of the Copyright Alert System (CAS), who asked not to be named, has told the Daily Dot that the five participating Internet service providers (ISPs) will start the controversial program Monday.

The ISPs—industry giants AT&T, Cablevision, Comcast, Time Warner, and Verizon—will launch their versions of the CAS on different days throughout the week. Comcast is expected to be the first, on Monday.

The CAS, designed as an "educational" service to combat casual piracy in the U.S., has been criticized as designed purely for corporate interests, at the expense of the average Internet user. While it doesn't require ISPs to cut off Internet access to repeat pirates—as is the case in France and New Zealand—it will issue escalating punishments to suspected pirates, severely reducing their connection speeds after five or six offenses.

Though the system's executive director promised to hire an independent consultant to vet the software that will flag copyright violators, that hasn't happened yet.

The date of the launch isn't yet official—the source expressed surprise that the news has been kept so tightly under wraps—but it's been rumored for several weeks to be at the end of February.

Apparently to mark the launch, the CAS has created a shiny new website. It replaces a drab earlier version, one that would go months without an update and seemed a metaphor for the the system's repeated delays and internal conflicts: Most recently, it was pushed from November to late February, "due to unexpected factors largely stemming from Hurricane Sandy."

The CAS also has a sleek new promotional video, wherein a woman explains the process over smooth jazz.

david75

counterpoint, actually previous to the above:

3 unintended effects of the Copyright Alerts System

By Kevin Collier on January 28, 2013

Years in the making, the Copyright Alerts System (CAS) is intended to reduce the number of casual pirates in the U.S. The program will essentially slow the Internet connections for those who are thought to upload copyrighted material and force repeat offenders to complete "educational" courses to stay online.

When the program begins—sometime in "early 2013" —you can safely assume it will bring some unintended consequences as well.

The CAS has been rife with setbacks. It's been delayed multiple times, slowed down by infighting between content companies and Internet service providers (ISPs), and forced to hire a new consultant after the scandal broke that its first one had a substantial conflict of interest.

In theory, the process will curb what the lobbying organizations that represent the film and music industries—the Motion Picture and (MPAA) and Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA)—see as a culture of casual piracy, which they claim hurts their sales. When people upload copyrighted content to a specific address, like a file-locker site, content companies can send a takedown notice under the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) to get quick results.

But it's harder for them to track people who use peer-to-peer downloading services, including BitTorrent, the industry standard. The CAS will track users who upload major releases by their unique Internet protocol (IP) address, then send them a series of escalating "educational" directives if they're caught again and again.

According to a leaked version of Verizon's plans (AT&T, Cablevision, Comcast, and Time Warner are expected to adopt a similar model), the first two times a customer is believed to be uploading copyrighted content, it's a simple notice: an email and an automatic voicemail to whoever pays the bill on that account. The third and fourth times are a little more invasive: Users are redirected to a splash page where they must acknowledge that they've read some educational material on piracy. Any more strikes, and their Internet speeds will slow to a crawl for two to three days.

But even if the CAS is successful in deterring Internet users from pirating at home, it could have unintended side effects that hurt Internet users and backfire on content companies.

What follows is based on recent information from CAS Executive Directive Jill Lesser and her media relations representative, Caroline Langdale. It's entirely possible that when the CAS finally launches, something else will have changed.

1) Your local cafe becomes a hotbed of piracy.

Contrary to some reports, your local coffee shop shouldn't actually see the same reduced Internet speeds that residential customers face under the CAS. Since anyone can sit at a cafe and start pirating, it wouldn't be long before somebody triggers the CAS, slowing everybody's connection speed to a crawl. Langdale told the Daily Dot,

"Small businesses like cafés should obtain Internet service that includes the offering of public wifi as part of their terms of services. Services that include this in their terms of service will not be a part of CAS."

So if casual pirates don't want to risk getting caught at home, what can they do? If you want to pirate, and you don't want to learn about encryption, the solution might be easy: Head somewhere where you won't take the blame. Places like cafés and bars with open WiiFi might become the new havens for pirates.

2) Legions of new users educate themselves about how to avoid detection.

According to comments Lesser made at an Internet Society meeting in November 2012, the definition of who the CAS is after is extremely narrow, at least for its planned first iteration. It only tracks those who upload the most-popular copyrighted content, like blockbuster movies and best-selling albums, via the peer-to-peer service BitTorrent, and it only identifies them by their Internet protocol (IP) addresses. That's it. So pirates who can avoid BitTorrent, or peer-to-peer altogether, or download without uploading (a major faux pas on some torrent sites), or hide their IP addresses, will avoid detection.

Learning to conceal one’s IP address is already a major point of Internet activism, for reasons that have nothing to do with piracy. The Electronic Frontier Foundation, for instance, suggests bloggers in dangerous parts of the world hide their IP addresses to ensure their anonymity from authoritarian governments.

3) Devastation to the Open Wireless Movement.

A growing trend, the Open Wireless Movement, encourages anyone with the means to do so to open their home Wi-Fi connection to passersby. The idea is to make the world a more consistently plugged-in place by sharing resources. "To me, it's basic politeness," activist and computer security expert Bruce Schneier has written. "Providing Internet access to guests is kind of like providing heat and electricity, or a hot cup of tea."

But that's actually against the terms of service for anyone who has a home/business account with one of the five major ISPs participating in the CAS. The legal issues surrounding what happens when you commit crimes on a neighbor's Wi-Fi are tricky, though some U.S. courts have found that the owner of an account isn't actually liable for others' actions.

However, if and when someone uses their neighbor's Wi-Fi for piracy and gets caught, they'll have implicated their neighbor. And because the CAS only tracks IP addresses, not individual computers on a network, that neighbor will have to go through the CAS system of acknowledging the definition of piracy and living with reduced Internet speeds.

Considering the potential side effects, is the CAS worth it, for anyone? It’s too early to predict how effective it'll be at reducing piracy, but we can already draw some parallels to previous anti-piracy measures.

The French government uses a similar, but far stricter system, called HADOPI. It's a government program—unlike the CAS—which means it affects every French ISP, where users only get three strikes and multiple offenders can be cut off from the Internet entirely. HADOPI has indeed reduced piracy in France, though that hasn't come with the rise in music sales record companies might have expected.

On the other hand, studies have shown that MPAA and RIAA efforts to cut piracy on file-locker systems—like the notorious Megaupload, which was shut down a year ago by U.S authorities—have been utterly futile. The CAS may not fare much better.

im invisible

Cant help but see the irony in posting the whole article, without a link to the source

juice1304

+1 especially seen as how we had internet copyright laws introduced last year.:rolleyes:

david75

Can't find the link now. Deadly.

Seachmall

TL;DR

Prepare for 16 pages of

"Pirating is theft!"
"No, it's COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT!"
"Different words, same thing."
"No, theft denies a person the ability to use something they own, infringement simply copies it and prevents them from profiting from it!"
"So what you're saying is it denies people money they deserve, how is that not stealing?"
"OMG UR SUCH A NOOB!"
"NO, U R"




The real tragedy is it'll be me arguing for those 16 pages.

catallus

All copyright should expire after 18 months. If you can't make your money in a year and a half, it's your own problem.

tigger123

catallus wrote: »

All copyright should expire after 18 months. If you can't make your money in a year and a half, it's your own problem.

What?! Why 18 months?

catallus

It's a number I came up with out of the blue, like they came up with when they legislated for copyright the first time.

Franticfrank

Even with this, I'd doutbt the Internet will slow to a crawl.

humbert

catallus wrote: »

All copyright should expire after 18 months. If you can't make your money in a year and a half, it's your own problem.

What if I want to copyright my car, would you steal it after 18 months??

hooradiation

catallus wrote: »

It's a number I came up with out of the blue, like they came up with when they legislated for copyright the first time.

So your thinking on this was "Hey, the limit on copyright is totally arbitrary and that's bad... i know! limit it to.... eighteen months! Why? fucked if I know."

*slow clap*

catallus

No need for applause! I know it's an obvious solution, no need to thank me.

Nobody should own music or movies.

Kirby

catallus wrote: »

Nobody should own music or movies.

Er.....

Um..........:(

So.......................:o

Nope, got nothing. Somebody else take this one. My brain would just explode debating with this guy.

hooradiation

catallus wrote: »

No need for applause! I know it's an obvious solution, no need to thank me.

You do realise that you've just made the exact same mistake that you were setting out to correct, right?

catallus wrote: »

Nobody should own music or movies.

And what makes you think that?

tigger123

catallus wrote: »

No need for applause! I know it's an obvious solution, no need to thank me.

Nobody should own music or movies.

So why suggest an 18 month copyright?

Evilsbane

I think that copyright IS something that should exist, since it encourages production if people can profit from what they make. But I agree that it shouldn't last nearly as long- it's currently 95 years in the US. The best solution would be to limit it to 50 years at first and see how that goes, then reduce it further when everyone sees that the world doesn't end. In all honesty, the only way piracy will become legal is through gradual steps like that.

catallus

18 months is a perfectly reasonable period of time for an artist or film producer to flog their product. You can get two Christmases into it!

Then all of this idea of perpetual payment will die down.

Zillah

Time to buy shares in VPN providers, me thinks.

Evilsbane

catallus wrote: »

18 months is a perfectly reasonable period of time for an artist or film producer to flog their product. You can get two Christmases into it!

Then all of this idea of perpetual payment will die down.

Currently the entertainment industry's projections for a piece of work's useful shelf life lasts far longer. Now you could be right and you could be wrong, but either way if you tried to change copyright limits that drastically so suddenly, the industry would fight tooth and nail to get any such legislation voted down. However a gradual scaledown would startle them less and have a chance - aside from the odd classic such as Dr No or Gone With The Wind, movies older than fifty years don't make up as much of their profit projections. They'd still fight it, but not as hard, and itd be harder for them to convince politicians that the industry depends on films from 1930.

catallus

That's a fair enough outlook, evilsbane.

I think there needs to be a radical and drastic change to the copyright periods; let them fight, they've lost already and they started the fight when they started charging £25 for a CD. And now they want to change the rules because they can't gouge profits from downloading and so they want total control of the infrastructure through which they deliver the product; nobody should own music or movies, and nobody should have that much control over the internet.

V_Moth

Evilsbane wrote: »

Currently the entertainment industry's projections for a piece of work's useful shelf life lasts far longer. Now you could be right and you could be wrong, but either way if you tried to change copyright limits that drastically so suddenly, the industry would fight tooth and nail to get any such legislation voted down. However a gradual scaledown would startle them less and have a chance - aside from the odd classic such as Dr No or Gone With The Wind, movies older than fifty years don't make up as much of their profit projections. They'd still fight it, but not as hard, and itd be harder for them to convince politicians that the industry depends on films from 1930.

I think a better solution would be say a 5 to 10 year period of free Copyright followed by an ever increasing annual fee to the Copyright holder. The current system is completely bust - with "Copyright" being used as a fig leaf to stifle criticism, as well as now hindering Innovation. Eg. company brings out new product challenging market leader, with latter then suing on the grounds of frequently spurious Copyright Infringement - see Apples "rounded corners".

Copyright was also intended as a way of opening up media to the public for use in research (amongst others) rather than the current system where it is used by large corporations as an eternal money spinner. I don't think it is a co-incidence that the length of copyright is extended (in the US) as soon as Mickey Mouse approaches the previous limit.

A good counterpoint is Lego, which is thriving despite its product now longer being covered by copyright.

How so Joe

V_Moth wrote: »

I think a better solution would be say a 5 to 10 year period of free Copyright followed by an ever increasing annual fee to the Copyright holder. The current system is completely bust - with "Copyright" being used as a fig leaf to stifle criticism, as well as now hindering Innovation. Eg. company brings out new product challenging market leader, with latter then suing on the grounds of frequently spurious Copyright Infringement - see Apples "rounded corners".

Copyright was also intended as a way of opening up media to the public for use in research (amongst others) rather than the current system where it is used by large corporations as an eternal money spinner. I don't think it is a co-incidence that the length of copyright is extended (in the US) as soon as Mickey Mouse approaches the previous limit.

A good counterpoint is Lego, which is thriving despite its product now longer being covered by copyright.

Apple's rounded corners, if I'm not mistaken, were patented, not copyrighted.
Just a point of information.

Capt'n Midnight

copyright and patents should be revisited and the original aims and standards applied

patents were when a secret process was revealed to all and a short term monopoly was granted to in exchange

given that product life cycles are much shorter than in the 17th century should the monopoly last as long ?

I strongly feel that we should be using the original criteria for patents, where the patent could be denied if you couldn't demonstrate it. This would remove most of the squatters (cf. British Rail Nuclear Powered Flying Saucer - patented to remove possible competition)

I also feel that nowadays when we have better records patents should be shared or cancelled. Lots of 'inventions' arrive at similar times. Look at the Electric Light bulb. Both Swan and Edison patented similar configurations at the same time. ergo no secret process as it was already known.

I propose that if someone applies for a patent then they must be able to demonstrate that it is practical (ie. no handwaving) and then others will be able to submit their research to date and those that have reached the same conclusions will share the patent royalties. This will remove the first past the post nature and mean that basic research won't be patented.



Copyright terms were originally relatively short. Lets return to that. We could do a quick survey of income on copyrighted media to determine what term would preserve 95% of the income on 95% of copyrighted works. This would be less than two years for books and films (cinema --> TV) , possibly longer for games, yes Dark Side of the Moon was in the top 200 for 14 years BUT most of the chart music sales happen in a few months and besides unless you are a megastar all your music sales do is advertise your concerts because that's the only place you are likely to do anything other than break even.

At present copyright terms are more or less extended to preserve the income from a tiny number of classic Disney Cartoons and Best Selling Author for large corporations long after most of the artists are dead.

There is an excuse that copyright terms were extended to provide for the support of children, but since rights are usually sold on and states now provide a safety net this no longer applies. Again a 5% rule could be invoked. - If more than 5% of descendents of all copyrighted artists descendants are getting an appreciable income from the works then we can talk.

hooradiation

catallus wrote: »

18 months is a perfectly reasonable period of time for an artist or film producer to flog their product. You can get two Christmases into it!

I don't see why the ownership of a work should terminate after eighteen months simply because you've judged that they've had "enough" time to make money.

And you still haven't explained why "Nobody should own music or movies".
Though unless you've a gem of an argument waiting for this one, my counterpoint would be "If I made it, it's mine. Fuck you".

blackwhite

catallus wrote: »

18 months is a perfectly reasonable period of time for an artist or film producer to flog their product. You can get two Christmases into it!

Then all of this idea of perpetual payment will die down.

Genius. So everyone just waits 18 months and get it for free.
I can see loads of film studios spending $50m-100m on a movie that nobody will be arsed paying for :rolleyes:

Capt'n Midnight

hooradiation wrote: »

I don't see why the ownership of a work should terminate after eighteen months simply because you've judged that they've had "enough" time to make money.

I don't see why I should have to pay for every work created in my lifetime when the rules keep changing.

Speilberg made a film in 1964. If he dies tomorrow it won't be public domain until at least 2083. There's a good chance that it won't be public domain until after 2100 (or longer if Disney get yet another Mickey Mouse act.)

In the US any film made before 1964 became public domain in 1991 unless it's copyright was renewed.

If you don't grasp the disconnect of over a century in copyright life between works created in 1963 (expired before lots of boardsies were born) and 1964 (will be copyrighted long after most boardsies have died) then you don't understand that copyright extensions are a land grab by corporations rather than protecting the income of living authors.

catallus

The "If I made it, it is mine.." argument is the catch-call of the capitalist swine, who want to wrench every last possible penny from consumers for the sh1te they peddle. The film and music industries say they are dying on their feet (if they can be believed): maybe they should think about offering premium products to their audience for a limited period, and make their money that way, instead of holding what is now, due to technology, an ineffectual copyright system which actively promotes piracy!

The billions they take from the people year-in year-out to maintain an over-extended marketing machine, just to create more dross. The system sucks, and hopefully the artists and real creators of proper content can take the reins from the suits who just want to keep the sh1tlist on the go, and the likes of Britney and Beyonce in their private jets.

hooradiation

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

I don't see why I should have to pay for every work created in my lifetime when the rules keep changing.

Because if you want to have something you have to pay for it?

Besides, complaining that copyright is now longer than the life of the creator doesn't mean the other extreme is the answer, now does it?

CrazyRabbit

Copyright infringement is perfectly fine so long as it's not my copyrighted material.

V_Moth

hooradiation wrote: »

Because if you want to have something you have to pay for it?

Besides, complaining that copyright is now longer than the life of the creator doesn't mean the other extreme is the answer, now does it?

I think the whole "paying for Copyright" is a bit of a sidetrack. If a company requires such excessive copyright terms to make money, then there is something wrong in the way is doing business.

With tools such as Kickstarter, Youtube, Facebook etc, it is now so much easier for musicians, authors and other artists to get their works seen/heard and potentially make a good living without the need for Copyright. If enthused enough, people will continue to albums/movies (Oscar for Kickstarter film earlier)/whatever, but they need to have a quality product. See US Comedian Louis CK who made €1 million+ on copyright free works recently.

That is not to say that Copyright doesn't have its place, but the current system is bordering on being fraudulent.

Totofan99

V_Moth wrote: »

With tools such as Kickstarter, Youtube, Facebook etc, it is now so much easier for musicians, authors and other artists to get their works seen/heard and potentially make a good living without the need for Copyright.

But there is a need for copyright. Musicians, authors, etc. can of course sell their work for free, but there is still a need for copyright so that nobody can steal their material and market it as their own without giving credit!

Seachmall

Totofan99 wrote: »

but there is still a need for copyright so that nobody can steal their material and market it as their own without giving credit!

Absolutely, but there's a balance to be met between allowing creators to profit and enjoy rights to their work and not stifling progression. That balance may (arguably) be less of a big deal in artistic endeavors but in terms of technology and science it's of huge importance.


Simply put we wouldn't be anywhere near technologically or scientifically advanced if people had to fear lawsuits every time they wanted to try out a variation of an already existing concept.

Capt'n Midnight

hooradiation wrote: »

Because if you want to have something you have to pay for it?

Besides, complaining that copyright is now longer than the life of the creator doesn't mean the other extreme is the answer, now does it?

where did I suggest the other extreme was the answer ?

what I was suggesting was a return to the original ideas behind copyright/patents instead of "forever minus a day"


I showed that the situation changed drastically not that long ago (in copyright terms)

many 1963 films have been public domain for the last 22 years
no 1964 film will be public domain for another 21 years and that only if there was a Fr Ted style plane crash that killed everyone involved. Realistically it'll be another 50 years before those films will be public domain.


1963 is an interesting year , because that's 50 years ago and that means that any thing broadcast on radio or TV is now public domain, which is the sort of stuff they show on the cheaper satellite channels.



Re Patents , many technologies are obsolete by the time the patent is over so the information won't ever be used by anyone else. The data CD was invented in 1985 (yellow book) and fewer new computers have those drives. Did any type of floppy disk exist for 27 years ? Look at VCR's, Look at DVD players.

Granting monopolies on the basis that secrets will be shared is crazy when the secrets no longer matter - yes the patents on the composition (but perhaps not the methodologies) of making the magnetic coating for 1.44MB disks has expired, but what use is that information to someone who couldn't trade using that technology and now has to catch up in a world where a 3.5" disk can now hold 1,440 000 MB

State of the art today is storing a bit in 12 atoms. Though at room temperature it may take a few hundred.


Don't get me started on patents and copyright and paywalls funded by the public purse - this includes most medical stuff since health care is money out of peoples pockets

Dwork

Zillah wrote: »

Time to buy shares in VPN providers, me thinks.

Old fart brain slows to a crawl trying to decypher....visible panty.no..virtual plague nominat.no..video player numnuts..no...system has encountered a critical error and has to shut down..000000 jasus..00000

Truncheon Rouge

China will save us.

I ruv you China.