Six strikes event in NYC, Nov 15

Joly from the Internet Society writes,

As Boing Boing readers will know, the Copyright Alert System, the result of a deal between big content and big ISPs, is a graduated response program - popularly known as the six strikes - that escalates from nastygrams, to copyright school, to Internet throttling. Just like SOPA/PIPA, enforcement targets will be arbitralily selected by the content owners, but unlike SOPA/PIPA there will be no appeal via the courts - only to an arbitration firm hired by the program. There is no question that the plan will have a chilling effect on the Open WiFi movement and thus impede speech. In other countries such plans, arguably ineffective, have only been implemented after a lengthy public process - but in the USA, none.

With the plan due to kick in on November 28, on Thursday November 15 2012 the Internet Society will present 'INET New York: An Open Forum on The Copyright Alert System' at the New York Law School, with speakers representing the MPAA, RIAA, Verizon, and Time Warner, plus advocates of the public interest. The forum is open to the public, free, and will also be webcast live. This is the only opportunity for Internet users to speak up. If you are in NYC show up and let your voice be heard, if elsewhere there is an online backchannel.

INET New York: An Open Forum on the Copyright Alert System – Nov 15 @ New York Law School #6strikes #copyright #inetny (Thanks, Joly!)


    1. First, there are a couple of inaccuracies in the title 1) the event’s date is Nov 15, 2) the Copyright Alert System very specifically does not prescribe “disconnection” but throttling. I have written to Cory suggesting a correction. As far as public advocacy goes I think we have a fairly balanced line up. Our second panel includies the following speakers: Jeff Jarvis, Associate Professor and Director of the Tow-Knight Center for Entrepreneurial Journalism at the City University of New York’s Graduate School of Journalism Konstantinos Komaitis, Policy Advisor, Internet Society Molly Land, Associate Professor of Law at New York Law School Aram Sinnreich, Assistant Professor, Rutgers University’s School of Communication and Information Gigi Sohn, President and CEO, Public Knowledge David Sohn, General Counsel, Center for Democracy and Technology And then further, we are hoping that Internet users themselves will take the opportunity to advocate on their own behalf, whether it is for or against the system.

      1. I’m sorry I’ve read the MOU, disconnection is clearly spelled out and this document is still offered by CCI as the basis for the entire program.  While the talking PR head of CCI has said differently, unless there is an updated agreement released we should remember that corporations can and will lie to people so we’d like it in writing.

        Maybe the fault lies in using a secret program without actual legal basis for the content cartels to exercise control over peoples access to the internet.  As a stakeholder in the copyright system often overlooked, I think the people deserve to know exactly what is happening, rather than ominous statements and a program that functions differently depending on your provider.  4 years and there is not a single unified system across each provider… seems like a poorly designed and implemented system.

        While they push disconnection as being the duty of the ISPs under the DMCA, no one wants to comment how the “alerts” fail to even meet the ridiculously low bar for a DMCA notice.

        Will you be discussing Dtecnet’s role in AFACT vs iiNet?  Where they created the filesharing they claimed was destroying the cartels so they would have “evidence” to present at trial?  If your playing the home game – Dtecnet was acquired by MarkMonitor and then acquired by Thomspon Reuters.  You know that name, that is the company that Stroz vetted as having an infallible system for saying an IP address had to point to an infringer.  The talking head when challenged admitted that the wording was a poor choice, but did not matter as the Terms of Service and Acceptable Use Policies of the ISPs mean your totally responsible for what happens on your connection… funny several Federal Court Judges have ruled just the opposite.

        Will you be covering why Stroz’s report was released nearly completely redacted so that people can not actually look at this perfect system?  The system is claimed to be perfect, so hiding portions of the review (done in a lab and not the real world) seems like the work of people scared of having to answer questions they can’t.

        Will you be covering how a sitting board member of CCI failed to disclose the $675,000 paid to Stroz previously, and how much the contract for continued monitoring of the system meant Stroz would be paid?

        Corporations making laws and back room deals to meddle in your internet connection based on claims that do not even meet the requirements for a civil case in the US, seems legit to me.

        Just tell me which one I have to sue to trigger the escape clause built into the MOU so we can end this program before it starts.  Or should we just file complaints with each states AG and utilities board to get actual investigation and removal of those rights to poles and things… obviously they do not need outside support if they now answer to the copyright cartels.  A lovely antitrust case is just what we need to end the year on a high note.

  1. People – if you are going to download illegally, just use a program like Peerblock. Also, be aware that using mainstream torrent sites are a stupid idea. Spend some time researching other methods of downloading from more private bittorrent sites, and you will NEVER be found.

    And finally – I fully advocate downloading illegally, as content providers sign sweetheart deals with content makers, bundling 900 channels noone wants, with 1 channel people do want. Until we have a true ala carte system, there will always be downloading.


    1. Start uploading files with wrong names, they download the material and verify it is that content.
      Once they are pirating copyrighted material, it will be easy to shut them down.

      One wonders if they have to turn themselves in if they download copyrighted material they do not have the rights to, as this is what they are doing to citizens.
      So find copyrighted material not controlled by the **AA’s… label it Skyfall and let havoc begin.

      How can CCI claim the high ground when their agent is violating others copyrights, copyright is very important so they should respect others copyrights…

    2. Peerblock only blocks known IP’s that might be tracking you. Getting an IP not on the lists to gather info is easy enough and your ISP can monitor your traffic directly no matter how many IP addresses you block.  Your only protection would be an encrypted proxy connection or a VPN.

  2. As to the speakers appearing…
    Some of them sit on the advisory board and pretend this isn’t amazing overreach but are actually powerless to do anything about it.  Working with a system so blatantly designed once again to take the word of corporations as truth and law and punish people on mere accusation.  Notice none of them have quit the board in protest trying to draw attention to it, so despite nicely named groups I doubt they give a rats ass about the rights of the people they are supposed to be consulting on behalf of.

    CCI also announced the formation and membership of its Advisory Board, which will include Jerry Berman, the chairman of the Internet Education Foundation and founder of the Center for Democracy and Technology; Marsali Hancock, the president of; Jules Polenetsky, the current director and co-chair of the Future of Privacy Forum; and Gigi Sohn, internationally known communications attorney, and president and CEO of Public Knowledge.  Pursuant to the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), the Advisory Board will actively consult on issues the Executive Board is considering with regards to the design and implementation of the CAS, as well as CCI’s educational framework.

    Maybe if we push to end the monopoly position these ISPs enjoy in a majority of the country they might understand that aiding attacks on your customers is a very bad idea.

    I haven’t heard a single peep from the Advisory Board after the revelation about Stroz, hell they probably didn’t even look.  Why is it regular people online have done more research into the program they advise?  Why is it our voices pointing out the obvious conflict of interest in using Stroz while they sit silently.

    This program is crap, plain and simple.  Its designed to allow a dying business model the right to dictate what you can do online.  One merely has to look at every other single time anyone has agreed to work with the **AA cartels.
    Hotfile gave WB access to take down their content, well above the requirements of the law, and they took down content they did not own and content they just did not like.
    MegaUpload gave the **AA’s special access to remove files well above what the law required, and it still wasn’t enough.
    Members of the RIAA send music to DaJaz1 with instructions to share it on the site, at the request of the RIAA the site was seized and held for 18 months without getting a day in court.  The site was returned after it became clear the RIAA was not going to provide the Department of Justice with the evidence they claimed to have that triggered the seizure in the first place.
    They send out thousands of DMCA takedown notices on fuzzy word matches, and “accidentally” include URLs to people writing critical reviews of properties they market.

    And now we are supposed to accept that these lovely corporations aren’t going to abuse their special “rights” over peoples internet connections… ummm yeah…

    While the dog and pony show sounds nice on paper, the fact they have been working on this IN SECRET for 4 years means they don’t give a rats ass about consumers and are just trying to allay fears that this isn’t a private corporate legal system where you have no rights. 
    Guess what, this is a private corporate legal system that voids consumers rights.

Comments are closed.