Why the 'Six Strikes' Copyright Alert System Needs Antitrust Scrutiny 159
suraj.sun sends this quote from an op-ed at Ars Technica:
"Eight months ago, content owners and Internet service providers agreed to the Copyright Alert System, a 'six-strike' plan to reduce copyright infringement by Internet users. Under the system, ISPs will soon send educational alerts, hijack browsers, and perhaps even slow/temporarily block the Internet service of users accused of online infringement (as identified by content owners). At the time it was announced, some speculated that the proposed system might not be legal under the antitrust laws. ... If I had to explain antitrust in a single word, it would not be 'competition' — it would be 'power.' The power to raise prices above a competitive level; the power to punish people who break your rules. Such power is something society usually vests in government. Antitrust law is in part concerned with private industry attempting to assert government-like power. ... The Copyright Alert System represents a raw exercise of concerted private power. Content owners as a group have control over their product. They have leveraged this control to forge this agreement with ISPs, who need to work with content owners in order to offer content to their own users. ISPs, in turn, have power over us as users."
Strike Challenge? (Score:5, Informative)
If I can't challenge any 'Strike' brought against me to a neutral 3rd party against the ISP, or the content owners themselves, the system is broken before it's even begun.
When did cross-sector Corporations become so buddy-buddy to the point that these ISP's are willing to lose costumers to appease certain Industries?
Anyone else smell conflict of interest, AntiTrust if you will, if ANY ISP or Telco owns, or is owned, by ANY media or content company? You can have contracts together out the wazzo. Those contracts however, shouldn't take priority over my ability to get a lawfully provided service. Wait! It's not a public service is it. It's a private service. Nevermind! Thanks a lot FCC, SEC, and FTC!
Re:Not really a trust (monopoly) (Score:1, Informative)
No. It's collusion. Normally, if every business gets together and says "we're not going to compete on this", it is very much illegal. Unfortunately, this time, it has the Obama administration's blessing. Let's just hope that the GOP knee-jerk reaction kicks in and they manage to stop Obama with crazy claims, like:
Comcast detention centers for people who didn't watch "community"
Government takeover of entertainment media
Media monitoring and censorship
or
Socialized internet
Come on, GOP. I know we've had our differences in the past, but can you point some of that craziness in a useful direction for once?
Re:A question of values (Score:5, Informative)
First Amendment does not alter the copyright clause in any singnificant way. See Eldred v. Ashcroft (SCOTUS case)
Holding
20-year retroactive extension of existing copyright terms did not violate the Copyright Clause or the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.
"On January 15, 2003, the Court held the CTEA constitutional by a 7-2 decision. The majority opinion, written by Justice Ginsburg, relied heavily on the Copyright Acts of 1790, 1831, 1909, and 1976 as precedent for retroactive extensions. One of the arguments supporting the act was the life expectancy has significantly increased among the human population since the 18th century, and therefore copyright law needed extending as well.
"However, the major argument for the act that carried over into the case was that the Constitution specified that Congress only needed to set time limits for copyright, the length of which was left to their discretion. Thus, as long as the limit is not "forever," any limit set by Congress can be deemed constitutional." - wikipedia.
Re:Not really a trust (monopoly) (Score:5, Informative)
First, Verizon, Comcast, AT&T, Cablevision, and Time Warner Cable [arstechnica.com] have already signed on to the program.
Second, Comcast is a cable/internet company while Sprint, VirginMobile and Cingular are cell phone companies (with a data plan), so they're not exactly equivalent (and yes, Verizon and AT&T are both).
Third, it doesn't have to be a monopoly to be illegal. A group of companies that dominate a market is called a oligopoly. And when they all agree to manipulate prices, restrict supply or implement other restrictions on the market it's called collusion and it's just as illegal as if one company does it.
Re:any lists (Score:4, Informative)
Any one large ISP that *doesn't* engage in anti-customer actions is
sure to get a windfall of new signups.
Apparently you're new here. Over 90% of America has NO functional choice in ISPs. In the area I live in, we have Comcrap or AT&T and that's it. A few miles down the road it's Comcrap and Verizon FiOS, but no AT&T (their DSLAMs don't reach that far).
Go a few miles out of town, you're lucky to have any choice at all, you'll likely have whatever cableco bought monopoly rights from the city council 30 years ago and that'll be it.
There are some ISPs I've heard good things of. But they'll never serve my area, which is a problem.
Re:Sue them till they bleed. (Score:5, Informative)
Thanks to statewide franchise laws, they have a right to run the cables through your property, and if you dig them up maliciously, they will sue you for the repair bill, and they will win.