Internet providers create six-strike policy to combat piracy

July 8, 2011 By Mike Flacy

Consumers who download illegal music or movies may soon lose Internet speed if they don't pay attention to new warnings from their Internet providers.

In a move supported by movie studios, record labels and the Obama administration, Internet providers have banded together to form a universal policy that imposes penalties on illegal downloads. The system allows for six strikes on an account with warning levels. The process starts with emails that require acknowledgement from the account holder. If the warnings are completely ignored, the final strikes result in decreasing Internet speed and eventually a block on all Web browsing. The system also offers a dispute process for anyone who disagrees with the warnings at the cost of a $35 filing fee.

Rather than continued litigation from the RIAA and MPAA to seek monetary damages against file sharers, this policy prevents piracy by nagging consumers that download illegal files and eventually threatening service elimination. Under this new policy, the ISPs will not release subscriber names to movie studios or record labels. The National Cable & Telecommunications Association represents the ISPs that are adopting the policy, including Time Warner Cable, Comcast, Verizon, Cablevision and AT&T.

According to the National Cable & Telecommunications Association, this policy is also designed to educate the consumer about illegal downloads as well as Internet security. Data suggests that this type of education halts theft and causes consumers to take a closer look at securing wireless networks. For instance, parents receive notification when children download illegal content. The NCTA claims that piracy of content costs the U.S. economy $3 billion in tax revenue, $16 billion in earnings and nearly 400,000 jobs every year. Providing an alternative view, The Center for Democracy & Technology released a statement today that appreciated the educational aspect of the new policy, but shunned account suspension as a remedy for piracy.

This agreement between the five major Internet providers specifically targets BitTorrent users, as well as simple peer-to-peer software like the now defunct LimeWire. However, consumers who use online streaming portals or cyberlockers like Megaupload and MediaFire likely escape the new warnings due to the difficulty of tracking violations on those third-party services.

Showing 23 comments

Kieeld at 10:30am 25th July 2011 I believe this wont stop people who really want to download stuff, I mean for like $80 you can purchase yearly services to download everything you want at the fastest speed possible redirecting your ip adress like 5 times, I mean you can either choose to buy 8 albums from itunes or pay for that service and download everything you want, luckly I have a summer house in mexico which I go to 3 times a year and have a 20mps speed, and legal issues dont do shit to you there :) I think I can wait a few months to download stuff, or might as well just go to a internet cafe and save stuff in a hardrive. You can really find so many ways to bypass this, starting with proxys. They can't really do much to stop it, they can slow it down and stop a few users but they are gonna end up hurting way more innocent people with these policies than "mischievous users" per say..
Ryosuke at 8:19am 9th July 2011 will it affect Asia??
crestfallen at 5:26am 9th July 2011 Fixed: The NCTA claims that the corrupt Government and banks abusing the system to better there financial standing costs the U.S. economy $3 billion in tax revenue, $16 billion in earnings and nearly 400,000 jobs every year. t
an artist at 12:52am 9th July 2011 The pleasure is not to download illegally, the pleasure is to enjoy art itself and enrich your knowledge and spread informations around and share the things you like with friends, so everybody can enjoy together. And for such a thing, it needs to be free and easily accessible.
Sia at 11:33pm 8th July 2011 usenet!
1. an artist at 11:43pm 8th July 2011 Usenet is not free as far as I know.
  1. Sia at 11:49pm 8th July 2011 Paying to download illegally, is the cool thing to do. $150 for one year, all the content I want, as fast as I can download it.
an artist at 11:13pm 8th July 2011 And there goes another strike against art itself, freedom to personal knowledge, sharing knowledge and developing intellect, for the sake of the capitalist system that not only cares about money, but makes sure also for the nation to stay dumb and consume ONLY what's available in the mainstream. Another attack on the privacy as well. Will at least Linux and other free software users be saved from this dystopia?
adam4um at 11:12pm 8th July 2011 While I do not support piracy in any form, I can guarantee I would be discontinuing service with any and all ISPs that attempted to accuse me of piracy and charged a bogus $35 fee to dispute it. If the music/movie industry wants to continue suing those that pirate their intellectual property, fine -- but they should have to follow the same procedures that are in place today (e.g. record evidence of the crime, obtain a subpoena from a court, etc., etc.)
Rolando at 11:08pm 8th July 2011 This needs to be challenged, what I do with the internet connection I pay for, its no ones business for what and how I use it.
Juan Frias at 12:12am 9th July 2011 So everyone is being monitored by their ISP on what is getting downloaded but yet we pay to use their internet service that allows us to do certain stuff and to educate us... wow.
James M. Tecco at 11:53pm 8th July 2011 I am not one that pirates music or movies, however, this policy is BS. Capitalist trying to make more money. The majority of individuals that pirate media do it because it is available and if they couldn't pirate it wouldn't be paying retail for it. I love it that these artist are saying that we are taking money out of their pockets when their "property" is being pirated. So instead of making 10 million a year they are only making 9.5 million.
Damon Schmitt at 11:37pm 8th July 2011 "this policy is also designed to educate the consumer about illegal downloads as well as Internet security. Data suggests that this type of education halts theft"Wow, thanks to this new policy, most mass media is no longer useless crap, AND I can suddenly afford to just pay full price for them all!
Michael Hookano at 10:41pm 8th July 2011 more*
Michael Hookano at 10:41pm 8th July 2011 time to return to encrypted transfers. and if this really passed, the price of software and music better come down because there should be mote people buying not downloading. but it won't, we all know that the bullshit numbers they come up with are there to make it seem like they are loosing soooooo much money. when most people probably wouldn't have bought their crap in the first place, apart from windows or Photoshop.
Arch Aznable at 9:39pm 8th July 2011 I bet that Skynet is behind all of this ... as ta la vista baby .... O_o
Mike Jordan at 9:32pm 8th July 2011 Everything will be encrypted and VPN peer to peer on private invite only networks. Of course there's always good ol fashioned Sneaker-Net and the return of the Software Swap Parties that were big in the C64 days.
Jamie Bustamante at 9:00pm 8th July 2011 I vote we start our own interfuckingnet -.-
Mike Dunn at 11:38am 8th July 2011 Maybe I don't pirate enough stuff, but 6 strikes seems excessive. Why not just do three strikes? Also what movie or music costs $35 or more (the dispute filing fee). I think if you get an email and dispute it by paying $35 it should go off your record, and straight to the company you pirated from. I know I wouldn't need to be told 5 times to stop stealing music before I listened.
1. Kyle at 10:23pm 8th July 2011 That's the problem - this is all about money. Any fines imposed should ideally go to the artists behind the work. Paying for a CD on a major label (which is what they're protecting) doesn't do much for the artist. The filing fee is just a shameless way to inflate profits.
2. Kyle at 10:25pm 8th July 2011 (and 6 strikes isn't exactly excessive.. Maybe for movies, but you can download 6 albums in 10 minutes pretty easily.)
3. Bob at 10:37pm 8th July 2011 I am guessing it it six strikes because they can't really determine between legal torrent usage and illegal torrent usuage without massive amounts of data being transfered. Although I still think that the amount of data being transfered still isn't all that reliable of a way to figure out what's going on. Also before anyone decides to say torrents are only used for illegal purposes, I have a newsflash for you they're not. There are many distros of linux that are completely free and one of their main distrobution methods are torrents. It's a tool and is not inately good or bad it is how the person uses it. Though even assuming they can for sure say someone is downloading an illegal file, I think they'll have a hard time permanatly banning someone who can move to a different part of the country or use a neighbor's unprotected wireless network and in the end they'll most likely hurt more innocent people then they will pirates. Then again that seems to be a theme with most companys' policies, "who gives a shit about most of our customers we have to try to hurt a small portion of them." I honestly think that if the music, movie, and all the other effected industries would shift their buisness model they could efectively make pirating a frivolous venture, but they'd rather keep their huge profit margins and complain they don't make more money.
PeepingTom at 10:06am 8th July 2011 So glad that RIAA and other industry organizations are able to get the providers to bend to their will. "Waaah, our business model is such we can only be rich, not rich beyond our wildest dreams, and we require assistance to prop up our unworkable business model that we refuse to adapt to survive in the present. Hail the nanny state!" Such a give up. The ISPs need to say no to this bullsh*t.