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."
Re:Not really a trust (monopoly) (Score:4, Interesting)
And when you've circled through all of them and found that each one does this in turn, what then?
Re:Do I get this right? (Score:4, Interesting)
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in groups. And never underestimate the size of the coffers controlled by the *AA's. Couple large volumes of cash with large volumes of malignant stupidity and you've got a recipe for an anal rape of gargantuan proportions. And since the *AA's now don't have to try to legislate this, you won't get any lube.
My hunch is lots more VPN traffic, and lots more encryption for those who want to infringe. It makes me laugh when I think of all the trouble these idiots go to in order to stop something that costs them nothing in terms of losses, but immeasurable amounts of goodwill. I wonder if this new "system" will be the thing that makes Joe Sixpack sit up and say "wait, those nerds were right! I'm getting screwed here!" :) Here's to hoping the Great Unwashed have a threshold of tolerance.... and I just wonder if this (like SOPA/PIPA) is the tipping point.
For those of us who don't consume their product any longer (unless it's used DVDs... I had to get Young Frankenstein on DVD... heh.), there is always the chuckles associated with fanatical devotion to a business model that's more outdated than buggy whips, wagon wheels, and 78rpm records combined.
Re:Strike Challenge? (Score:4, Interesting)
No, as soon as some rich guy gets banned congress will force an exemption for members of congress and it will be business as usual for us plebes. Like the exemption for insider trading congress granted itself.
Re:This will work well.... (Score:5, Interesting)
I recall an event on the Image-Line forum. One of the site admins (guys who make their software etc - content creation software) - was accused of "stealing" his own samples. Said content provider even "reviewed" the claims and rejected it... which was hilarious, because it was demonstrable that he created the damn things and gave permission for it's use in the work triggering the takedown.
This shit is insane.
Re:Sue them till they bleed. (Score:4, Interesting)
Cut THEIR cables from YOUR property and throw them into the street. Let's play real capitalism. I have no relationship with Comcast and see no need for their wires to trespass on my property, although I will rent out the space for $1 million per month. I concede the need to have power lines cross over, because they provide a necessity, while cable service is a mere luxury.
Re:In police state USA... (Score:5, Interesting)
That's right. Our legislators are all about preserving and honoring the founding documents, the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.
Unless money is involved, and then it's "because I said so".
Do you know that the big brains at American Legislative Exchange Council have put forth sample legislation that would make it illegal to promote a boycott of any business? To create new protections for corporations in regard to negative speech? In effect extending the libel laws to protect corporations, who are in their eyes "super-people" and thus must be protected from anyone saying, "Hell, AT&T is screwing their customers. Don't use AT&T."
They say it's only "brainstorming", the same way it was "brainstorming" to pass laws preventing students from voting in states where they go to university. Oh, that reminds me: Wisconsin republicans have passed a bill saying a photo ID from a state-run university is not sufficient photo identification to vote, and they've moved all of the early voting sites, which by law are required to be wherever there is dense population, as far away from college campuses as possible. They've also closed almost all of the offices where it's possible to get a stateID in poor or working class neighborhoods and moved them to the suburbs, safely away from any public transportation.
Corporations want to make it illegal for you not to buy their stuff whether or not you happen to want it. And they want to make it illegal to complain and impossible to vote pro-corporate politicians out of office. Corporate super-PAC money is dwarfing any money being spent by actual campaigns this year. It's like 15 to 1 already and we're barely into the real political advertising season. We are so fucked.