Comment by tantalor | Hacker News Reader

Comment by tantalor | Hacker News Reader

The podcast Reply-All had a good episode about why this is problematic earlier this year.

https://www.gimletmedia.com/reply-all/118

Excerpt:

ALEX: So finally, I find this website that is called the Center for Copyright information.

PJ: And what’s that?

ALEX: It’s a website that is run by both the entertainment industry and the ISPs, they’re working together. And the deal is, if you feel that you have wrongly received a DMCA notice, you can go to this website, pay $35, and you can appeal it. And if you’re successful, then they will tell your ISP they were wrong, and they retract it, and you shouldn’t have any strikes on your account.

PJ: You found internet court.

ALEX: Yeah, I found internet court.

PJ: So are you taking this case to internet court?

ALEX: I sent them an email and said, hey this person Cayden was wrongfully accused.

PJ: And what did they say?

ALEX: They didn’t say anything, they never got back to me!

PJ: (laughs) Got it.

ALEX: So basically what I found was a completely unaccountable system that was frustratingly opaque. It was maddening. So I decided to try something else.

> It’s a website that is run by both the entertainment industry and the ISPs, they’re working together

The entertainment industry wants takedowns eagerly enforced. The ISPs don't want to do work. Ignoring complaints is the predictable outcome. (As is AT&T becoming stricter about copyright enforcement after buying a content company.)

> pay $35

And make a quick buck on the side too!

That's a bargain compared to being on the wrong end of a federal copyright lawsuit.

It's cheaper than most court fees (whether those fees should exist is a different story).

But courts actually... do stuff.

And have some level of accountability.

You know what else is cheaper than court fees AND this ISP 'court' thing? Giving me $25. It's about as effective as this ISP 'court' thing too, maybe more since I promise that I will at least tell you "thank you."

Considering that the 'process' doesn't work (assumming the folks above are correct about being ignored), what makes you think you won't end up on the wrong end of a federal copyright lawsuit even after your $35 donation?

Could actually be a way to identify the pirates with money to waste, ie, the most sue-worthy.

Joel Embiid puts in the work, trust me.

Then get sued for fraudulently taking people's money without fulfilling the advertised service.

Nah, the TOS probably has text buried in it that absolves them from any responsibilities.

And if not, there's always binding arbitration!

Neither of those can apply when the service itself was never actually provided.

Anymore, the ISPs and the entertainment industry are the same entities.

AT&T owns WarnerMedia, formerly Time Warner, which owns cable networks, movie & music studios. Most of the entertainment Americans consume are owned or produced by AT&T or a subsidiary.

I don't know about most of the entertainment. Now that Disney owns Fox Studios they're the other major creator of film and music.

AT&T has ownership stakes an a lot of companies which end up working on projects with Fox, Sony, NBC, etc. They also co-own several distribution channels with said companies.

So they absolutely have some control/influence over a sizeable portion of the media that we consume, even the segments they don't technically "own".

Don't forget NBC /Universal/Comcast.

Which is why the next multi-billion dollar company is a simple ISP, the one charging $$ for delivering IP packets. Unfortunately, it is not sexy enough for VCs to fund.

I doubt it. Google couldn't break into this market with all of their money, influence, and incentive. I see nothing to suggest any other company could.

Regulatory capture has turned the internet into a de facto monopoly. There won't be any new players because they can be sued or acquired long before they become a threat. Our only hope is for regulations that prevent ISPs and media companies from being under the same umbrella.

"self regulation"

I don't think many people yet realize that this is what people are arguing for every time they say it's okay for a private company to not do business with whoever they dislike.

“...a completely unaccountable system that was frustratingly opaque.”

Oh, you mean they actually discovered “internet arbitration.” No appeals, no real incentive to be impartial, and a good way to take a lot of peoples’ money.

This is a horrible idea. by engaging in this system you volunteer your identity information which up to this point the ISP has not provided to the copyright holder

> you can go to this website, pay $35, and you can appeal it.

If you get ignored but you paid, does it mean you're open to make it a small claim case with binding result? Or would that only recover your money (after a fee of $50 or so...)

Someone (an attorney general, perhaps?) might be able to make a fraud case against them. Or, a class could pull together to pool damages, if a court approves the class (which I suspect it would).

Small claims courts are typically limited to actual damages; you're not going to get a heavy "punishment" fine added on top. So, yeah, you'll get your $35 back, minus filing costs.

Literal definition of extortion there.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com