On Big Content’s part, you make six false accusations for a particular movie or song or episode of a TV show that you own, that piece of media instantly enters the public domain.

And if you make a SINGLE false accusation for a movie, song, or episode of a TV show you DON’T own… well, then you the person you accused gets to choose one piece of media of equal or lesser duration that you DO own to enter the public domain.

A fine would just be a drop in the coffers of the government that probably spent nearly as much to drag out, and the company will make back instantly. Putting something in the public domain helps everybody… AND, the company still has the right to sell that media all they want.

https://torrentfreak.com/riaa-anti-piracy-partner-clueless-about-bittorrent-091028/
This one is very telling about how little they actually understand.

Experts have admitted in other court cases that the information gathered by this firm can NOT identify the infringer, only the person who pays for the connection.
To tie a neat little bow around this corporation lawmaking, made with the blessing of the White House and their out of touch copyright czar, the terms of service claim your 100% responsible.
A secret system, where you have to pay to challenge them and only are allowed a handful of responses.  The arbitrator hired by CCI (run by a PR Agent for the RIAA) will of course be completely impartial and consider the real laws and not the pretend laws of corporations.

AT&T have said if you get enough they will block you accessing certain websites until you go to some webpage to click some buttons.
Net Neutrality be damned, the law be damned, we are corporations we can make law and force it on you over the pipes your taxes paid to build.
CCI wanted to cut people back to dialup speeds and other punitive actions all based on a company using technology never vetted that claims we saw YOUR IP address in a torrent swarm your guilty.
There is nothing like removing the legal system from the equation and letting them shortcut to the punishment phase on evidence that would NEVER stand up in court.
Think of them as the ultimate copyright troll.  They don’t even have to spend $350 to file a case to shake you down… they can just screw your connection.

One wonders if much like the bandwidth caps business class accounts will be immune to this silly BS.  Is this the ultimate upsell to more expensive contracts?
Cause you can only claim unsecured wifi 1 time ever, and we all know wifi is TOTALLY secure if someone is determined enough to break it.

There is no DPI, just an automated system sitting in popular torrent swarms gathering IP addresses.  Of course no one has ever gotten to see if the software is the source of the file to begin with or if it helps make the infringement worse.
But the public isn’t allowed to know how it works, they just have to accept what the corporate overlords dictate is now the law in the country.

The protocol is intended to punish file sharers and protect movie and music distributors. Will there be language to prevent artists from invoking the same protections and punishments against corporate theivery?

“In response to a complaint we received under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act, we have removed 1 result(s) from this page. If you wish, you may read the DMCA complaint that caused the removal(s) at ChillingEffects.org.”

I’m just wondering, since the ISPs are bending over so gratefully to kiss the copyright owners” asses, how far does the cooperation go? They know where you go; they know where you have been. Spend too much time or move just so many megabytes from the wrong place and an algorithm flags you as a likely problem. It isn’t proof of anything, just like a government watch list isn’t, but it still flags you for further perusal.

Given that there is no cost to the accusers for false accusations, but rather that cost is borne soley by the accused who have to pay $35 per false accusation to defend themselves, the false positive rate pretty much guarantees that this system is untenable in the long term, with thousands to millions of people all eventually receiving 6 strikes.

“The six-strikes rule comes from the major carriers, the studios and labels, and will not directly disconnect you — instead, the ISPs themselves will do it.”

Yes, it is a disingenuous claim. Reminds me of the Inquisition–litterally. The Catholic church didn’t execute anyone, they just accused people, tortured them into confessions and then handed them over to the state for execution–as if that absolved the Church of their deaths. Likewise the big content accusers, the Copyright Alert System (CAS) “torturers” (who control the limited “defenses” that do not include fair use and which all cost money to lodge), and the ISP “executioners” will use their collusion as a diffusion of responsibility, all claiming that they are just doing one part of the process.

As Philip Zimbardo has pointed out, one of the ways that evil arises is through lack of transparency and through the diffusion of responsibility which allows bad things to happen to individuals without anyone being held accountable. This new government negotiated, collusive censorship regime is just that. And it should be sued out of existence on multiple basis, including anti-trust provisions. There is no reason why **competitors** should all be allowed to collude in this clearly anti-consumer fashion to the detriment of consumers.