5 ISPs agree to help entertainment industry fight online piracy

5 ISPs agree to help entertainment industry fight online piracy
In a move that should have broad implications, 5 major ISPs have signed an agreement with the entertainment industry in an effort to help fight online piracy.

The ISPs are AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, Time Warner Cable and Cablevision.



Each has agreed to send emails/electronic alerts to customers who are allegedly downloading unauthorized movies, TV shows or music.

After "repeated" alerts, the ISPs can throttle the Internet speed of the offenders or even cut their access temporarily. Users can get their Internet back after either discussing the matter with the ISP or going through an "educational course" on copyright.

The ISPs cannot, fortunately for pirates, completely terminate services or impose any type of fines. The deal will mainly serve as an educational system in which customers will learn about copyright laws and legal sources for downloads like iTunes.

Behind the deal were the MPAA, RIAA and National Cable & Telecommunications Association.

Written by: Andre Yoskowitz @ 7 Jul 2011 13:06
Tags
Comcast piracy AT&T ISP Cablevision
Advertisement - News comments available below the ad
  • 37 comments
  • ntense69

    Sounds like its an itunes deal so they get more revenue as the suggested itunes.

    7.7.2011 13:10 #1

  • HxCMANIAC

    The ISPs wouldn't even want to cut off internet to offenders. They don't care what you download, as long as you are a paying customer.

    7.7.2011 13:12 #2

  • DVDBack23

    Originally posted by ntense69: Sounds like its an itunes deal so they get more revenue as the suggested itunes. There are tons of others, I just picked the market leader as an example.

    7.7.2011 13:13 #3

  • jos22

    Originally posted by HxCMANIAC: The ISPs wouldn't even want to cut off internet to offenders. They don't care what you download, as long as you are a paying customer. that true but ISP like customers who use very little bandwidth more. assume of course that file shares are hogging bandwith

    7.7.2011 13:15 #4

  • nonoitall

    Originally posted by jos22: Originally posted by HxCMANIAC: The ISPs wouldn't even want to cut off internet to offenders. They don't care what you download, as long as you are a paying customer. that true but ISP like customers who use very little bandwidth more. assume of course that file shares are hogging bandwith
    And in addition, the **AA's undoubtedly coughed up a fair chunk of change to bribe the ISPs into doing this. Enough change that it would probably offset a few lost subscriptions.

    7.7.2011 16:49 #5

  • ThePastor

    I used to think that the ISP's don't like big down loaders and then I thought about it a bit.

    Big internet users pay PREMIUM prices for the fastest they can afford. These PREMIUM services most likely make much more profit then the run-of-the-mill accounts.
    It's certainly more expensive.

    When it gets out that ISP A is charging a premium for premium service but then throttling or reporting or restricting in anyway, those users will take their premium accounts elsewhere.
    That's certainly what I would do.

    The real problem here is the fact that it is a PRIVATE enterprise with the ability to affect your life by getting your internet turned off. There is no way in hell that should be allowed.

    Unfortunately for them, all Blu-ray protections have been broken and BD rips can be found around the Internet, usually before the retail even hits shelves.

    7.7.2011 19:32 #6

  • midnightwalker

    will if thier call copyright in the frist place cant some one just get thier ip copyrighted or i have a good ida one not buy smart phone and get it through walmart fast net track that lol
    but i dont see why not get are ip copright and raa should be kissing up to the vzw witch why would they have anything to do with this trier only ds and wireless

    7.7.2011 19:40 #7

  • midnightwalker

    will if thier call copyright in the frist place cant some one just get thier ip copyrighted or i have a good ida one not buy smart phone and get it through walmart fast net track that lol
    but i dont see why not get are ip copright and raa should be kissing up to the vzw witch why would they have anything to do with this trier only ds and wireless

    7.7.2011 19:40 #8

  • ROMaster2

    Originally posted by jos22: Originally posted by HxCMANIAC: The ISPs wouldn't even want to cut off internet to offenders. They don't care what you download, as long as you are a paying customer. that true but ISP like customers who use very little bandwidth more. assume of course that file shares are hogging bandwith If you charge according to bandwidth usage it fixes that.

    7.7.2011 20:17 #9

  • Xplorer4

    I wish this was a bit more clear:
    "Each has agreed to send emails/electronic alerts to customers who are allegedly downloading unauthorized movies, TV shows or music. "
    So..does this mean only when an copyright enforcement group gets hold of your IP or does this mean that the ISPs will start to monitor traffic themselves and look at your activity to for copyright infringement?

    Thermaltake Mozart TX Case - Core i7 860 - MSI P55-GD65 - 2x2 GB DDR3 G.Skill Ripjaws - Sapphire 4890 1 GB Vapor X - 2 Intel X25-M Mainstream SSDSA2M080G2R5 in RAID 0 - 1x1TB WD Caviar Black - 1x1TB WD Caviar Green - 1x2TB WD Caviar Black - 1x2TB WD Caviar Green - Corsair HX520 PSU

    7.7.2011 20:55 #10

  • midnightwalker

    this world turning to heck isp needs us if they cut people off they wont have nothing them selfs so why should the look up to these copyright groups they dont help them make the money and they help put on those moives them selfs so really the mppa and the raa needs the isp so i dont get why they cant copright thier own ip and tell them to get bent cause its comeing i am wondering if its possblity to copyright your ip address

    7.7.2011 22:07 #11

  • jookycola

    I only download Tv shows. I could never understand how I could get in trouble for downloading something that is free to begin with. I'd love to see Comcast throttle me for downloading episodes of Hawaii Five-0, or Burn Notice. What's the difference if i DVR it or download it it's the exact same.


    7.7.2011 22:42 #12

  • Xplorer4

    Originally posted by midnightwalker: this world turning to heck isp needs us if they cut people off they wont have nothing them selfs
    ISPS do not need pirates. Pirates make up a minority, so it will not kill ISPs.

    Originally posted by midnightwalker: so why should the look up to these copyright groups they dont help them make the money and they help put on those moives them selfs so really the mppa and the raa needs the isp
    Scare tactics. If every one who downloaded a movie purchased it because they were scared to download it, would increase revenue.The scare tactics may not scare everyone but there are people out there afraid to do it based on information like this.

    Originally posted by midnightwalker: so i dont get why they cant copright thier own ip and tell them to get bent cause its comeing i am wondering if its possblity to copyright your ip address
    Doing the best to decipher your broken English, it sounds like you are saying the MPAA/RIAA should copyright there IP address, but I can only imagine you are saying people should copyright there IP. Let's say you could copyright your IP, which I am pretty sure would be impossible, so what good do you think that would do? Even if you could own an IP addy, how would you get an internet connection since you own the IP, not the ISP, who technically does not own the IP anyways(to the best of my knowledge)? They would not allow you to obtain your IP over there wiring with out paying them money. Plus copyright holders are public information accessible to any one I believe, so if your IP came up in a swarm on a torrent, all the RIAA and ISP would have to do is put in a request to the US Copyright Office for the owner of IP 192.168.1.1 and when they get the information, then you are pretty much screwed.

    Originally posted by jookycola: I only download Tv shows. I could never understand how I could get in trouble for downloading something that is free to begin with. I'd love to see Comcast throttle me for downloading episodes of Hawaii Five-0, or Burn Notice. What's the difference if i DVR it or download it it's the exact same.
    I never quite understood this myself. The only thing I can think of, it is some how related to advertising.

    Thermaltake Mozart TX Case - Core i7 860 - MSI P55-GD65 - 2x2 GB DDR3 G.Skill Ripjaws - Sapphire 4890 1 GB Vapor X - 2 Intel X25-M Mainstream SSDSA2M080G2R5 in RAID 0 - 1x1TB WD Caviar Black - 1x1TB WD Caviar Green - 1x2TB WD Caviar Black - 1x2TB WD Caviar Green - Corsair HX520 PSU

    7.7.2011 22:52 #13

  • midnightwalker

    something must be done i got a copyright thing and i dint even upload it or anything or had my utorrent on i am looking at ipfilters now

    7.7.2011 23:00 #14

  • midnightwalker

    andd i am wondering if btgurd works with a filter but i was wondering cause we pay for the net i dont see why we cant copyright are ow ip i was not saying why dont the rra copyright are ip but if net keep up like this thier not going to have people paying for them lol

    7.7.2011 23:06 #15

  • midnightwalker

    but you can play on them looking at your copyright ip so its like the sick games thier playing in all

    7.7.2011 23:13 #16

  • tongun6

    charter has put cap on bandwidth usuage, i am on second warning right now then on third my internet will be suspended for six months but keeps the phone and cable tv on. i have bundle package. i have 25mb dl and 3mb ul and cap for me each month is 250gb.

    is this pretty same for other ISPs? ATT, COMCAST, TIME WARNER ETC.?

    8.7.2011 06:51 #17

  • bratcher

    Originally posted by tongun6: charter has put cap on bandwidth usuage, i am on second warning right now then on third my internet will be suspended for six months but keeps the phone and cable tv on. i have bundle package. i have 25mb dl and 3mb ul and cap for me each month is 250gb.

    is this pretty same for other ISPs? ATT, COMCAST, TIME WARNER ETC.?
    Time Warner doesn't have a cap that I know of. Comcast does have a 250 GB cap & I ran over it once by 30 gigabytes several months ago & never heard a thing about it from them but then I usually use 150 to 200 gigabytes of bandwidth each month anyway.

    8.7.2011 08:05 #18

  • Mez

    Originally posted by nonoitall

    And in addition, the **AA's undoubtedly coughed up a fair chunk of change to bribe the ISPs into doing this. Enough change that it would probably offset a few lost subscriptions. [/quote:
    I doubt that! The only place the media spends money on is lobbiests and campain funding. That is where a little goes a long way. The lobbiest put pressure on the FCC, etc to put pressure on the ISPs. The loss of a subscription usually means the loss of more than a grand/yr per user that moves on. A few thousand of them is real money.

    8.7.2011 08:42 #19

  • ChiefBrdy

    Deleted by author

    8.7.2011 10:08 #20

  • LordRuss

    I was wondering when these goose stepping Socialists from the mid 1930s would rear their ugly heads again. I'd almost bet it had something to do with the $2 million campaign from their lobbying frenzy last year. What better way than to strong arm the 5 leaders in the entertainment feeders of the US.

    I can't wait for the false accusations to start flying & a few dozen grandmas to get paraded before the grand jury over this one as well. Its the whole McCarthyism witch hunt all over again.

    I also side with ThePastor as well; I don't see these vendors easily letting big spending clients go because the MPAA, RIAA are having a pissy parade. I spend a fortune for my internet alone & am looking to upgrade to a 50Mb service when they get it together. Emails & letters they'll send, but shut you off with the risk of the loss of high dollar business? That might be a risk too high even for them.

    @Jookie... The question you pose is a bit off to one side, but here is a pseudo answer... If the TV shows you download have the national commercials (Nabisco, Chevy, ect...) in them then there isn't a problem. Those are the shows originally intended for "off the air" broadcast. But if the show has no breaks, everything fades in/out where commercials should have gone, but the show just continues without a break (sans someone took the time to dvr & take the commercials out) then the TV shows may have been meant for a compilation DVD set or something like that & your download may have been mislabeled:) which could land you in trouble. Either way, the aforementioned alphabet socialists still won't care under what circumstances you got your TV show, they'll just go on their "kill a tree" spree & see about killing your internet connection as well.

    http://onlyinrussellsworld.blogspot.com

    8.7.2011 11:05 #21

  • davolente

    Accusations - NOT proof again. A UK judge has already ruled that an IP address does not identify an "offender". How can they go after the account holder without due process or a court hearing?

    8.7.2011 14:15 #22

  • R3b0rN

    Nonsense, how are the ISPs going to prove that the person has downloaded pirated stuff. What if they get it wrong and the person is only downloading free stuff from pirate websites.

    8.7.2011 15:05 #23

  • Mr-Movies

    Originally posted by davolente: Accusations - NOT proof again. A UK judge has already ruled that an IP address does not identify an "offender". How can they go after the account holder without due process or a court hearing? Although a good argument how does the EU and a lot of US States ticket vehicle violations with a photo of the license plate using automated gear? It is the same difference and they do not know for sure who is driving the vehicle yet they put the burden of proof on us to make their job easier and at less cost to them. And in the states it is a Hondo or more for pretty much any violation you may get.

    Government extortion and big money is behind this and due to that there are too many infractions and injustice is done.

    Russ isnít far off on the witch hunt although I would like to think it is socialist pound scum I think it is more due to big money driving the system, at least in this case.

    8.7.2011 15:43 #24

  • ps3lvanub

    I will start downloading from iTunes when they start doing DRM-less 16bit FLAC.



    IMPORTANT: If you hate Sony for being so corrupt, copy this image into your signature too!

    OMG! COD6 TENTH HACK WITHOUT JTAG!

    8.7.2011 16:11 #25

  • six60six

    Originally posted by ROMaster2: If you charge according to bandwidth usage it fixes
    that.

    then they have to get rid of the speed-based tiers. double-tiering (speed and bandwidth usage) seems a little retarded.

    8.7.2011 17:52 #26

  • FrankyJs

    If they're doing this in order to prevent piracy then that's fine with me, but if they're going to be turning this into a profit making venture, that's messed up. As someone who could be hurt by widespread piracy of my work I dislike piracy, but I don't want it to turn into other people just putting money in the bank claiming their just helping uphold the law.

    8.7.2011 18:10 #27

  • s_c47

    Efffff you, ISPs! I will take what I want, how I want, when I want and where I want!

    Mwah-hahahahaha!!!!!!!

    Seriously, go screw.

    Someone told me once that theres a right and wrong, and that punishment would come to those
    who dare to cross the line.
    But it must not be true for jerk-offs like you.
    Maybe it takes longer to catch a total a__hole.

    8.7.2011 19:56 #28

  • bradhall

    rad.hall
    Originally posted by nonoitall: Originally posted by jos22: Originally posted by HxCMANIAC: The ISPs wouldn't even want to cut off internet to offenders. They don't care what you download, as long as you are a paying customer. that true but ISP like customers who use very little bandwidth more. assume of course that file shares are hogging bandwith
    And in addition, the **AA's undoubtedly coughed up a fair chunk of change to bribe the ISPs into doing this. Enough change that it would probably offset a few lost subscriptions.
    it would have to be more than a little chunk of change and have to be more than one payment im sure.

    8.7.2011 21:03 #29

  • bradhall

    rad.hall
    Originally posted by nonoitall: Originally posted by jos22: Originally posted by HxCMANIAC: The ISPs wouldn't even want to cut off internet to offenders. They don't care what you download, as long as you are a paying customer. that true but ISP like customers who use very little bandwidth more. assume of course that file shares are hogging bandwith
    And in addition, the **AA's undoubtedly coughed up a fair chunk of change to bribe the ISPs into doing this. Enough change that it would probably offset a few lost subscriptions.
    it would have to be more than a little chunk of change and have to be more than one payment im sure.

    8.7.2011 21:04 #30

  • nonoitall

    I imagine they call it a "partnership".

    8.7.2011 22:01 #31

  • forkndave

    Originally posted by HxCMANIAC: The ISPs wouldn't even want to cut off internet to offenders. They don't care what you download, as long as you are a paying customer. My ISP is Qwest. What they do is send you an email and then cut off your internet before you even get the email. This happened to me twice with a threat to make it permanent the next time. I now use a VPN service and haven't had any more problems from them.

    8.7.2011 23:06 #32

  • davolente

    Some years ago (well before all this furore started) my UK ISP took it upon themselves to e-mail me, accusing me of the heinous "crime" of file-sharing, accompanied by a threat of cutting me off, so there's nothing new under the sun, as they say! Needless to say, I terminated my association with them in short order, stating that they had no right to set themselves up as judge and jury.

    9.7.2011 06:58 #33

  • DXR88

    Im sure ive collect thousands of those Warning emails...unfortunate for the ISP they have no email for me on record nor a Valid Phone Number for that matter. how ever will they warn me.

    Powered By

    9.7.2011 16:00 #34

  • Mez

    Originally posted by forkndave: Originally posted by HxCMANIAC: The ISPs wouldn't even want to cut off internet to offenders. They don't care what you download, as long as you are a paying customer. My ISP is Qwest. What they do is send you an email and then cut off your internet before you even get the email. This happened to me twice with a threat to make it permanent the next time. I now use a VPN service and haven't had any more problems from them. Quest is probably not all that interested in going after you. When torrents were doubling the band width usage each year they were very concerned. I am sure the usage is going down not up. I am certain they could figure out what you are doing but they do not want to. The media probably can't track you unless they can hack into the the group that provides the VPN. This has happened. Those providers are probably in countries that will not bow to court orders from the US or UK. You should be save enough. The media will continue to beat on the freebee torrent users since they can.

    10.7.2011 15:59 #35

  • forkndave

    Originally posted by Mez: Originally posted by forkndave: Originally posted by HxCMANIAC: The ISPs wouldn't even want to cut off internet to offenders. They don't care what you download, as long as you are a paying customer. My ISP is Qwest. What they do is send you an email and then cut off your internet before you even get the email. This happened to me twice with a threat to make it permanent the next time. I now use a VPN service and haven't had any more problems from them. Quest is probably not all that interested in going after you. When torrents were doubling the band width usage each year they were very concerned. I am sure the usage is going down not up. I am certain they could figure out what you are doing but they do not want to. The media probably can't track you unless they can hack into the the group that provides the VPN. This has happened. Those providers are probably in countries that will not bow to court orders from the US or UK. You should be save enough. The media will continue to beat on the freebee torrent users since they can.
    The email that Qwest would send me that I never would see until after my service was resumed was from some anti-piracy group. They knew exactly what I downloaded and insisted that I remove it from my computer. Of course I agreed to and never did. I think they got me for a movie and a TV show. The VPN was necessary even though it was not really cheap and it slows down my already slow connection a bit. I believe my VPN provider is in the US. They have tons of servers all over the country and around the world. While isohunt was pretty much banned in the US for a while I found that I could log in through a Canadian server. That was sort of handy.

    I don't think that Qwest actually cared one way or the other. Apparently they would be fined if they continued to allow this to happen. I got quite irate about this and threatened to cancel my service and go elsewhere. They didn't seem to care one way or the other if I left and said a new ISP would do the same thing. I would have switched, but my internet and cable TV are intertwined and I would be totally without probably for a couple of weeks. I believe I will eventually switch to COX which is my only other choice.

    10.7.2011 19:52 #36

  • Edmiester (unverified)

    Originally posted by HxCMANIAC: The ISPs wouldn't even want to cut off internet to offenders. They don't care what you download, as long as you are a paying customer. Not true. I've been whacked by Mediacomm. They've shut me down 3 times now. Once more and they say its permanate.

    26.11.2011 23:52 #37

© 2022 AfterDawn Oy

Hosted by
Powered by UpCloud