This is a war to protect a business model that needs to adapt to the new market, and this intrusion into our lives based on smoke and mirrors needs to be stopped.

Filesharing isn’t caused by people trying to “steal”.  People like to share what they like, people who fileshare often buy more because they “sampled” the content first.  The content cartels have all of these self imposed limits with no basis in current reality that make it harder for people to give them money.

The self-entitlement bit was really just an aside on people who want things for free for reasons other than what you’re talking about.

(sorry if this is a double-post, chrome is acting a bit funky)

The amount of resources argument is pretty empty, its often a red herring used by the industry to explain why their connections suck… because they are taking your share!  Not because we have put no money into expanding our network to meet demand, even getting Government handouts to do so.

The other reason to keep bandwidth tight is so you don’t sign up for Netflix instead of the crappy offering your ISP has.  Or Skype instead of their crappy VOIP offering.  It is them making excuses to keep better offerings from competing.

The elephant in the room is that ISPs don’t really like filesharers, because they consume more than their fair share of resources. The ideal ISP client is somebody working elsewhere 9 to 5, going home just to download a few emails and to check the Daily Mail website before going to bed. Unfortunately, “unlimited downloads” is such a good selling point, nobody dares doing away with it, so filesharers and power-users are grudgingly tolerated. This sort of regulation will give them legal cover to do away with “unprofitable customers” without getting too much flack; it’s win-win all around the corporate table, really.

anything that happens on your connection is all on you

This is particularly ridiculous considering the matter at hand. For example, let’s consider somebody using an ISP-leased wifi access point. 

* The customer has no say in the choice of hardware (and increasingly very little say in how it’s actually configured).

* Assume he’s an uber-geek and locks down his wifi with state-of-the-art techniques.

* Assume an exploit is found, that will allow attackers to bypass such techniques on that particular hardware, and the exploit is not made public, as it often happens.

* Now the consumer is basically trapped, with no way to defend himself from accusations of misbehaviour.

He didn’t choose the castle, he was not told of the secret passage, and yet he will be beheaded if/when jewels get stolen. That’s irrational and unaccountable power right there, straight from the Middle Ages.

https://torrentfreak.com/six-strikes-independent-expert-is-riaas-former-lobbying-firm-121022/

“Between 2004 and 2009 Stroz Friedberg lobbied extensively in Washington on behalf of the RIAA. This consulting job earned the company more than half a million dollars ($637,000). One of the leading lobbyists on record was Executive Managing Director Beryl Howell, who lobbied U.S. Congress and Senate for copyright laws regarding digital music.”

This would be the same Judge Howell who ruled Does have no right to fight copyright troll lawsuits, even if they are out of her courts jurisdiction.  She feels that ISPs need to do more to help the poor copyright cartels.  She feels that you have no right to protest a 3rd party demanding your account details from an ISP based on the accusation made by questionable “experts” who claim they saw and IP and that the IP points to the infringer.

Anyone still think they are not a cartel buying influence and laws?
It might be time to demand investigations into the dealings of these corporations and their private laws.

CCI is just this system in a much nicer more manageable way, now we send you these notices, they yell at us not you, when they get 5 or 6 you can disconnect them
oh and you get to keep more records for us to prove their guilty because our notices are perfect.

This is the copyright cartels taking control of internet access with the blessing of the Government.
The perception hey are trying to give is you might get 1 or 2 of these notices but no one but bad people would get 5 or 6. 
Tell that to the Professor who happens to have the last name Usher.  He had nearly everything he ever tried to share with his students taken offline because the word Usher has to belong to his label, and it has to be music.  They signed off on the form saying they verified it was their property and it belonged to them… when is the last time they had to pay up for making a bogus claim other than in bad PR online?
The law does not apply to corporations, and they wonder why regular people don’t care about it either.

Learn more about copyright trolls from my friends…
Sophisticated Jane Doe – http://www.fightcopyrighttrolls.com
Die Troll Die – http://www.dietrolldie.com
Both have been referenced by Federal Judges in rulings… so they MIGHT know what they are talking about.  They let me hang out there and pick on trolls too.

You can thank overzealous DMCA interpretations for Suddenlink’s policies.  The law is so vague and abused it is often just easier for a service provider to cave in to crazy demands.  Given the bogus notice discussed here recently where MS’s agents wanted links on Bing blocked on Google due to craptastic software matching it might be time to make some noise about how this law is being abused against citizens with no recourse offered.

It didn’t, actually, but I was waiting for it.

“The joining of Internet service providers and entertainment companies in a cooperative effort to combat online infringement can further this goal and we commend them for reaching this agreement. We believe it will have a significant impact on reducing online piracy,” said U.S. Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator Victoria Espinel.

http://www.concordy.com/article/science-and-technology/april-5-2012/copyright-alert-system-companies-doing-what-sopa-couldnt/4354/

I provided links showing the RIAA paying both firms for lobbying, it is possible they did not use them at this time to help shore up the illusion it is all impartial and above board.

If interested in the “registered lobbyists” involved in this issue go to;

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/Public_Disclosure/LDA_reports.htm

and search the Lobbying Database for the “Record Industry Association of America” as a client and 2012 as the reporting period.

https://torrentfreak.com/six-strikes-anti-piracy-scheme-overly-secret-and-unfair-says-professor-120917/

A massive problem in my mind is this…
“CCI has released no information about the technology underlying CAS or the identity of the independent technical expert hired to evaluate that technology. Moreover, the MOU prohibits the independent expert from disclosing any findings of technical inadequacy to third parties without the express written consent of the relevant parties to the MOU.”

They have now said who the “expert” is, and someone being paid by the RIAA to lobby for them seems like a poor choice.  Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain, we said your guilty and it must be true!

Looks legit to me.