Go Back   DreamTeamDownloads1, FTP Help, Movies, Bollywood, Applications, etc. & Mature Sex Forum, Rapidshare, Filefactory, Freakshare, Rapidgator, Turbobit, & More MULTI Filehosts > World News/Sport/Weather > Piracy/Warez/Legal/Hackers/Scams & Internet News

Piracy/Warez/Legal/Hackers/Scams & Internet News Anything Related to Piracy, Warez, Legal Matters, Hackers, Internet News & Scams and How it Affects Sites/Members Can Be Read Here. Please do NOT post links to other Sites, but you May Name Them if They are Scam Sites

IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT
Hallo to All Members. As you can see we regularly Upgrade our Servers, (Sorry for any Downtime during this). We also have added more Forums to help you with many things and for you to enjoy. We now need you to help us to keep this site up and running. This site works at a loss every month and we appeal to you to donate what you can. If you would like to help us, then please just send a message to any Member of Staff for info on how to do this,,,, & Thank You for Being Members of this site.
Post New ThreadReply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 17-09-12, 20:04   #1
The Enigma
 
photostill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 9,978
Thanks: 3,012
Thanked 1,524 Times in 928 Posts
photostill has a brilliant futurephotostill has a brilliant futurephotostill has a brilliant futurephotostill has a brilliant futurephotostill has a brilliant futurephotostill has a brilliant futurephotostill has a brilliant futurephotostill has a brilliant futurephotostill has a brilliant futurephotostill has a brilliant futurephotostill has a brilliant future
Default “Six Strikes” Anti-Piracy Scheme Overly Secret and Unfair...

“Six Strikes” Anti-Piracy Scheme Overly Secret and Unfair, Says Professor
by Ernesto

In the coming months U.S. Internet providers will begin to warn and punish alleged copyright infringers. The “six strikes” plan is the result of a deal between the MPAA, RIAA and several large ISPs. While the parties involved have described the scheme as fair and balanced, University of Idaho Law Professor Annemarie Bridy has her concerns. In a new report she points out that the copyright alert system lacks transparency, favors copyright holders, and that procedural fairness is hard to find.

In the coming months the Center for Copyright Information (CCI) will start to track down online ‘pirates’ as part of an agreement all major US Internet providers struck with the MPAA and RIAA.

The parties agreed on a system through which copyright infringers are warned that their behavior is unacceptable. After five or six warnings ISPs may then take a variety of repressive measures, including temporary disconnections.

Both copyright holders and ISPs have described the copyright alert system (CAS), or “six strikes” scheme, as a sensible approach to tackle the growing piracy problem.

To assess if this is indeed the case University of Idaho Law Professor Annemarie Bridy reviewed the plan to see whether it respects basic consumer protection norms. The results were just published online and the report includes harsh critique as well as some positive notes.

On the upside, the professor notes that the memorandum of understanding (MOU) prescribes “less draconian sanctions than its French and Irish counterparts.” Unlike in these European countries, permanent Internet disconnections and hefty fines are not an option.

Other positive points are that the American six-strikes scheme doesn’t involve content blocking or filtering, that ISPs are not required to hand over personal details of subscribers, and that alleged infringers have an option to appeal accusations to an independent reviewer before any sanction is imposed.

But there are also significant concerns according to the law professor, especially when it comes to fairness and transparency norms.

For example, in civil copyright infringement lawsuits the burden of proof is on the copyright holder, but the six-strikes scheme turns this around. In other words, there is no presumption of innocence.

“When it comes to the norm of fairness CAS leaves much to be desired. With respect to procedural fairness, the system lacks the presumption of innocence,” Bridy writes.

“The allocation of burdens built into CAS is troubling because it conflicts with a basic principle underlying our justice system—that a person accused of having engaged in illegal
conduct is presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law,” she adds.

This unfairness is increased because the evidence provided by copyright holders is seen as valid by default.

“Allocating the burden of proof on infringement to the accused is a significant compromise of fair process. Adding to that compromise the presumption that the evidence offered against the accused is valid unless it was collected in a grossly negligent way is a bridge too far.”

The evidence that is used as basis for the warnings should be held to a much higher technical standard, Professor Bridy argues.

“Copyright owners should be required by the MOU to adopt technical means of collecting IP addresses and identifying content that are affirmatively and demonstrably reliable. Moreover, the accuracy of those methods should be verifiable by independent experts who do not work as consultants for CCI and who are not bound by nondisclosure agreements,” she writes.

In addition to the reversed burden of proof and the lack of evidence verification, Bridy points out several other fairness concerns. She notes that the independent reviewers of appeals may be biased, and that the appeal defenses available to subscribers are unduly limited and not in line with copyright law.

Besides fairness, the six-strikes scheme also fails to live up to the transparency norm. According to the professor the system is overly secret when it comes to the overall design, oversight of implementation and the reporting on outcomes.

Starting with the design, Bridy notes that the agreement was written without public oversight.

“As law that is formally private but functionally public, the MOU should not have been negotiated entirely out of the public’s view and without any input from public interest groups. One wonders in this regard about the timing of the advisory board appointments and why they weren’t made before the details of the agreement were hammered out,” she writes.

The same is true for the implementation stage, where reports on the accuracy of the evidence gathering are kept secret.

“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.”

And again for the outcomes, which will be kept internal.

“The level of secrecy maintained under the MOU with respect to program outcomes is excessive and, from a public relations standpoint, unproductive. At the very least, the advisory board should receive the semi-annual reports submitted to CCI by the parties and should be privy to the results of CCI’s annual comprehensive assessment of CAS,” Bridy writes.

Professor Bridy concludes her report by advising CCI to be more transparent and to expand the role of the advisory board. While this would not alleviate all concerns, it would be a good start.

For now, however, the people behind the six-strikes anti-piracy scheme remain silent. No public press releases have been issued in months and the technology partners tasked with gathering evidence have yet to be made public, if they will ever be.


Not only is it unfair but there looms the questions of if it is even legal.

Among the points that raise question of legality are:
  1. Lack of presumption of innocence
  2. Lack of proof that evidence is accurate
  3. That open wifi is illegal
  4. Lack of allowance for fair use

I list these off the top of the head for reasons.

In #1 having to prove a negative is very much harder than having to present evidence of having done something. How do you prove you didn't do something? I didn't travel to Mars but where do I grab the evidence to prove that beyond say-so? Just because it isn't technology feasible at this day and age, isn't an acceptable answer as the way it is setup you have to pick from a list as your defense and are not allowed to give an open answer.

In #2 the lack of evidence has led to wild and inaccurate claims in the past. A dead grandmother with an aversion to computers turns up as an infringer. Common sense says if you have no computer (at a time when internet capable cell phones were a rarity) then it is highly unlikely you have an internet account. Yet one ISP reported that address as the address of the account holder. The University of Washington ran a research project to see how accurate the investigation into IPs were by reporters. The result ending in a printer being issued hundreds of Cease and Desist claims. Software is not equipped to detect or check where an IP class originates.



In #3 two recent court rulings state that it is not illegal to have an open wifi. There is no requirement that a home owner secure his router. Yet the 6 strikes process allows you a one time defense of open wifi as the reason for infringement. This set of rulings has come out since the drawing up of the list of allowable defenses.

In #4 the defense of fair use is not in the list of defenses. If you get falsely pointed out, for downloading a Linux run disc, you have no choice on the list to say it's not infringing.

One of the stances of copyright maximialists is that you should just know what is or is not covered by copyright. No such fences are transmitted with digital files in all cases. Despite the claims you should know, the only way I know is when court rules it is. Even copyright holders often have difficulties in producing said ownership proof. Many has been the time when a lawyer in court could not proof their client actually possessed the said document resulting in a win for the defendant.

A couple of judges in the past have ruled that an ip is not an individual. Getting an ip in no way identifies who is at the keyboard.
__________________

You can help this site, by clicking on the link below to buy a Premium Account.
& Thank you for helping us. Click;




photostill is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 17-09-12, 21:19   #2
Honoured Member & VIP
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 68
Thanks: 122
Thanked 109 Times in 49 Posts
Al.Ternat will become famous soon enoughAl.Ternat will become famous soon enough

Awards Showcase
Bronze Medal Bronze Medal 
Total Awards: 2

Default Re: “Six Strikes” Anti-Piracy Scheme Overly Secret and Unfair...

The Center for Copyright Information (CCI) is an American organization created by the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) and Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) which aims to reduce online copyright infringement through a graduated response scheme called the Copyright Alert System.

I had to look it up, because as a European, one would think that an organization with that kind of power must be governmental.

Since when can a non-governmental organization without any jurisdiction, impose sanctions on an individual?

In which type of court setting can the individual argue his/her case?

So the corporations involved, are making their own laws.
It reminds me of the movie "Robocop" where a private company took over law and order.

What is the government and law's point of view in all of this?
Al.Ternat is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Al.Ternat For This Useful Post:
photostill (18-09-12)
Old 18-09-12, 01:05   #3
The Enigma
 
photostill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 9,978
Thanks: 3,012
Thanked 1,524 Times in 928 Posts
photostill has a brilliant futurephotostill has a brilliant futurephotostill has a brilliant futurephotostill has a brilliant futurephotostill has a brilliant futurephotostill has a brilliant futurephotostill has a brilliant futurephotostill has a brilliant futurephotostill has a brilliant futurephotostill has a brilliant futurephotostill has a brilliant future
Default Re: “Six Strikes” Anti-Piracy Scheme Overly Secret and Unfair...

What we in the states are seeing and you in Europe as a result of global expansion is what I call regulatory capture. Corporations are sending ex-employees into seats of government office, not as the highest seat but the underlings just below it. They in turn see to it that law enforcement, policy actions, or what is neglected to be followed up on is in benefit of that particular industry.

Ask yourself why in the US no banker nor Wall Street executive has been put in jail over the cratering of the US economy? Mainly because the SEC responsible of enforcement of white collar crime is accepting wrist slaps without jail time nor even requiring a corporation to admit guilt. This particular administration now in power has had less bankers going to jail over illegal actions than any past administration I know of.

It's the same wherever you look. Agriculture, entertainment, military procurement, you name it. These people are not elected, not put into power so to say. They remain there no matter what party wins office.

This is no court. It's a committee that was assigned to carry out the task of review on those accused. More telling, is that the committee was not assigned to seats or even formed till after the agreement was drawn up and set in place.

The reason for this 6 strikes is the present administration put the entertainment lobby/interests with the telco lobby/interest and told them make an agreement or we'll make a law.

Here is an example of regulatory capture as it now exists.



None of these politicians are listening to the citizens concerned with all this unless they near riot. The reason for that is money in politics. They are protecting their income streams and not paying attention to running the country.
__________________

You can help this site, by clicking on the link below to buy a Premium Account.
& Thank you for helping us. Click;




photostill is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to photostill For This Useful Post:
Al.Ternat (19-09-12)
Post New ThreadReply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
SEO by vBSEO 3.5.2
Designed by: vBSkinworks