The parties founded the Center for Copyright Information (CCI) and agreed on a system through which copyright infringers are told that their behavior is unacceptable. After five or six warnings ISPs will then take a variety of repressive measures.

This week TorrentFreak learned from a source close to CCI that the system is currently scheduled to launch on February 18. However, a spokesperson for the copyright alerts system denies that there is a hard launch date at the moment, and stated that they are “still working towards implementation.”

Exact launch date or not, it appears that after more than a year of delays the copyright alerts will soon go live. The question remains, however, if the plan will be an effective tool to decrease piracy.

The answer to this question is not an easy one to arrive at, but it’s evident that not all copyright infringers are at risk of being caught.

First it has to be noted that the copyright alerts only target a subgroup of online pirates, namely BitTorrent users. The millions of users of file-hosting services, Usenet and streaming sites are not going to be affected.

Needless to say, piracy on these services is likely to increase rather than decrease.

And that’s just half of the story. Even those who keep using BitTorrent can avoid the warnings by signing up for one of many anonymizer services.

BitTorrent proxies and VPN services are the preferred way for people to remain anonymous while downloading. These services replace a user’s home IP-address with one provided by the proxy service, making it impossible for tracking companies to identify who is doing the file-sharing.

In the U.S. 16% of all file-sharers already hide their IP-address, and this is likely to increase when the copyright alert system goes live.

The above doesn’t mean that the copyright alert system will have no effect whatsoever. In fact, it may be quite effective in deterring a small percentage of casual ‘pirates’. However, we expect that the overwhelming majority of copyright infringers will simply take measures to avoid being caught, while continuing their downloading habits.

Of course this is not news to the copyright holders or the ISPs.

When CCI Executive Director Jill Lesser was confronted with these circumvention options she stressed that the main purpose of the alerts is to educate the public. The participating parties realize that determined individuals can circumvent the system by using a VPN or switching to other means of file-sharing.

“Yes, there are ways around it, and yes there are other ways to pirate,” Lesser previously said, adding that these hardcore pirates are not the target of the system.

How big the real target group is will become apparent in the months to come, when the first statistics on U.S. BitTorrent usage are published after the six strikes come in.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

In short, the Internet provider will notify customers whose accounts are caught sharing pirated movies and music, and after four warnings these account will be temporarily throttled to 256kbps.

Besides from the details, the leaked documents also revealed that business accounts will also be subject to the copyright alert system. This means that these companies will have to prevent their employees from pirating, and makes it impossible for coffee shops to share their WiFi with customers.

Following up on this finding we asked the Center for Copyright Information (CCI), the group that’s responsible for the copyright alerts plan, whether Verizon perhaps made a mistake by applying it to business accounts. This is not the case.

CCI Executive Director Jill Lesser told TorrentFreak in a comment that most alerts will go to private customers, but that some businesses are indeed affected.

“The Copyright Alert System is targeted to residential customers, and the vast majority of alerts issued will be residential. There is a small pool of home office or home-business customers that may end up in the copyright alert system due to infrastructures in place at the member ISPs,” Lesser said.

According to the CCI this is not a problem as these companies shouldn’t let employees share copyrighted material in the first place.

“Importantly, the terms of service are essentially the same as residential accounts and if small businesses are allowing their employees to engage in copyright theft then they are violating their terms of service,” Lesser says.

The same is true for public WiFi according to Lesser, as these business accounts are already forbidden to share their Internet access with customers.

“In addition, the terms of service on such accounts do not allow them to be used to provide free WiFi or ‘hotspots’ so the hypothetical café owner offering public WiFi will not be subject to the CAS if they are following their terms of service.”

Indeed, as we look at Verizon’s business TOS we read the following:

“You may not provide Internet access to third parties through a wired or wireless connection or use the Service to facilitate public Internet access (such as through a Wi-Fi hotspot).”

Previously these terms were hard to monitor and enforce, but with the copyright alert system this changes.

We have no information on the number of small businesses that will be directly impacted, but expect that there are quite a few. So don’t be surprised to see the public WiFi disappear at your favorite coffee shop when the six-strikes scheme goes live.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

The parties agreed to implement a system through which subscribers are warned that their copyright infringements have been monitored by rightsholders. After several warnings ISPs may then take a variety of repressive measures against alleged infringers.

After more than a year of delays the plan will officially roll out in the first weeks of this year.

One of the ISPs taking part is Verizon. Previously, the ISP made some remarks about the various punishments it would hand out to subscribers but in common with other participating providers the company has not yet announced the full details. Today, we can do this for them.

TorrentFreak has obtained a complete overview of how Verizon’s alert scheme will work and details of the mitigation measures they intend to put in place. The document is stored on Verizon’s web server but due to its placement is currently unfindable using Google.

When the IP-address of a Verizon customer is caught sharing copyrighted works on BitTorrent, the responsible account holder will first get two notification alerts. These inform the customer about the alleged copyright infringements and also explain how file-sharing software can be removed from their computer.

Alert 1 and 2

“Are delivered by email and automatic voicemail to the telephone number we have on file for you. Notify you that one or more copyright owners have reported that they believe your account has been involved in possible copyright infringement activity.”

“Provide a link to information on how to check to see if file sharing software is operating on your computer (and how to remove it) and tell you where to find information on obtaining content legally.”

If more infringements are found after the first two alerts then the account holder is moved on to the acknowledgment phase where “popups” appear on-screen. Customers will have to acknowledge that they received the new alert and will be instructed to watch a video about the consequences of online piracy.

Alert 3 and 4

“Redirect your browser to a special web page where you can review and acknowledge receiving the alerts. Provide a short video about copyright law and the consequences of copyright infringement.”

“Require you to click on an “acknowledgement” button before you will be able to freely browse the Internet. Clicking the acknowledgement button does not require you to admit that you or anyone else actually engaged in any infringing activity, only that you have received the alert.”

If the infringements continue after the fourth alert the subscriber will move on to the mitigation phase. Here, the customer can either ask for a review by the American Arbitration Association or undergo a temporary speed reduction to 256kbps.

Alert 5 and 6

“Redirect your browser to a special web page where you will be given several options. You can: Agree to an immediate temporary (2 or 3 day) reduction in the speed of your Internet access service to 256kbps (a little faster than typical dial-up speed); Agree to the same temporary (2 or 3 day) speed reduction but delay it for a period of 14 days; or Ask for a review of the validity of your alerts by the American Arbitration Association.”

If more infringements are found after the sixth alert “nothing” will happen. The user will receive no more alerts and can continue using his or her Internet connection at full speed.

However – and this is not mentioned by Verizon – the MPAA and RIAA may obtain the IP-addresses of such repeat infringers in order to take legal action against them. While the ISPs will not voluntarily share the name and address linked to the IP-address, they can obtain a subpoena to demand this information from the provider.

The potential for copyright holders to use the alert system as solid evidence gathering for lawsuits remains one of the most problematic aspects of the six-strikes scheme.

Finally, TorrentFreak also confirmed that the alerts outlined above will also apply to business customers. This means that coffee shops and other small businesses will have to be very careful over who they allow on their company networks. It could mean the end of free WiFi in many places.

Aside from Verizon we previously received some details on the measures AT&T and Time Warner Cable will take.

Leaked AT&T documents showed that they will block users’ access to some of the most frequently-visited websites on the Internet, until they complete a copyright course. Time Warner Cable will temporarily interrupt people’s ability to browse the Internet.

It’s expected that the two remaining providers, Cablevison and Comcast, will take similar measures. None of the ISPs will permanently disconnect repeat infringers as part of the plan.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

The parties agreed to operate a system which will see subscribers warned when their connections are observed engaging in copyright infringement. After several warnings ISPs will take a variety of mitigation measures against account holders.

This continues up to six “strikes” and after that “nothing will happen” according to the parties involved. While this is true in terms of mitigation measures applied by Internet providers, the tracking of these subscribers doesn’t stop. Even worse.

In the Memorandum of Understanding signed by the participating parties we read the following:

“The Participating ISP will, however, continue to track and report the number of ISP Notices the Participating ISP receives for that Subscriber’s account, so that information is available to a Content Owner Representative if it elects to initiate a copyright infringement action against that Subscriber.”

While copyright infringement action could mean a lot of things, we previously pointed out that this means “lawsuits.” As part of the system ISPs have to share the monthly reports with copyright holders which would allow these groups to uncover identities of these alleged BitTorrent pirates. This means that IP-addresses will be shared without being redacted.

The Memorandum of Understanding puts it as follows.

“The Content Owner Representatives [MPAA / RIAA] or any other member of the Participating Content Owners Group may use such reports or data as the basis for seeking a Subscriber’s identity through a subpoena or order or other lawful process. For the avoidance of doubt, the Parties agree that the Content Owner Representatives may share such reports with the other members of the Participating Content Owners Group..”

This “side-effect” of the six-strikes plan has been largely ignored so to get clarification on the purpose of the above paragraphs TorrentFreak contacted CCI Executive Director Jill Lesser this week.

Lesser confirmed over the phone that the data shared by ISPs would allow copyright holders to request the personal details of alleged infringers through subpoenas, but that this type of legal action is not part of the copyright alerts program. Lesser added that copyright holders can and are already tracking BitTorrent users right now, suggesting that it’s nothing new.

While it is true that the MPAA and RIAA can use monitoring companies to track alleged infringers, from a legal perspective they have a much stronger case when it’s done as part of the copyright alert system.

For example, getting the data from ISPs allows copyright holders to say with certainty that certain accounts were used for multiple infringements, as ISPs will connect dynamic IP-addresses to the correct account holders.

Also, those who receive warnings under the copyright alert system will have to acknowledge that they understand the risks. This means that rightsholders could show the court that subscribers were warned multiple times, but chose not to take action.

Lesser told TorrentFreak that she doesn’t believe that the MPAA and RIAA are interested in going after persistent pirates. However, she admitted that she doesn’t know why the language was included in the agreement, as she wasn’t yet around when the agreement was drafted.

While we can’t say with certainty that information shared by the ISPs will lead to lawsuits from the RIAA or MPAA, it wouldn’t be a surprise if this happens. Why else would they have negotiated this option to begin with?

We can think of no other reason why these groups would want to know the identities of repeat infringers.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

The parties launched the Center for Copyright Information (CCI) and agreed on a system through which Internet account holders will be warned if their connections are used to commit copyright infringement. After five or six warnings ISPs may then take a variety of repressive measures.

Initially the first ISPs were expected to send out the first “copyright alerts” by the end of 2011, but for reasons unknown this deadline silently passed, as did the revised July 2012 start date.

When leaked AT&T documents cited November 28 as the planned start date CCI confirmed that the first alerts would indeed be sent out late 2012, but today the group announced yet another delay.

“Due to unexpected factors largely stemming from Hurricane Sandy which have seriously affected our final testing schedules, CCI anticipates that the participating ISPs will begin sending alerts under the Copyright Alert System in the early part of 2013, rather than by the end of the year,” CCI’s Executive Director Jill Lesser explains.

“We need to be sure that all of our ‘I’s are dotted and ‘T’s crossed before any company begins sending alerts, and we know that those who are following our progress will agree,” Lesser adds.

It’s unclear how Hurricane Sandy affected the launch, but it’s unlikely to explain the delay of more than a month.

TorrentFreak has learned that the main problem is to get all actors, including the ISPs and the American Arbitration Association, lined up to move at once. This proved to be much more difficult than anticipated.

Three of the five U.S. ISPs participating in the copyright alerts plan have revealed what mitigation measures they will take after the fourth warning.

AT&T will block users’ access to some of the most frequently websites on the Internet, until they complete a copyright course. Verizon will slow down the connection speeds of repeated pirates, and Time Warner Cable will temporarily interrupt people’s ability to browse the Internet.

It’s expected that the two remaining providers, Cablevison and Comcast, will take similar measures. None of the ISPs will permanently disconnect repeat infringers as part of the plan.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

The parties agreed on a system through which subscribers are warned that their copyright infringements have been observed by rightsholders. After several warnings ISPs may then take a variety of repressive measures to punish the alleged infringers.

From leaked AT&T training documents we learned that the company will block users’ access to popular websites until they complete a copyright education course. However, none of the participating Internet providers have publicly commented on the measures they plan to take, until now.

During a panel discussion hosted by the New York Chapter of the Internet Society, Verizon and Time Warner Cable unveiled details of their plans.

Link Hoewing, Vice President of Internet and Technology Issues for Verizon, said his company will employ a three stage process. The first two alerts will result in a simple notification email informing the users that their connection has been flagged for copyright infringements.

After the second warning comes the acknowledgment phase in which a popup is delivered users. Once received subscribers are required to read and confirm, a process designed to ensure that they are aware of the unauthorized sharing that’s taking place via their account.

If the infringements continue punishments become a reality on the fifth and the sixth alerts. Hoewing said that these repeated infringers will have their Internet connections throttled resulting in significantly slower download speeds. The throttling is temporary and will be lifted after two or three days.

Fernando Laguarda, Time Warner Cable’s Vice President of External Affairs, said his company will take a slightly different approach. The notification and acknowledgment phases are fairly similar, but instead of reducing connection speeds they will restrict users’ Internet browsing by directing them to a landing page.

Laguarda did not explain in detail for how long users will be restricted or what websites they will be able to reach, if any.

CCI’s Executive Director Jill Lesser, who also participated in the panel, stressed that the main purpose of the alerts is to educate the public. The participating parties realize that determined individuals can circumvent the system by using a VPN or switching to other means of file-sharing that are not tracked under the agreement.

“Yes, there are ways around it, and yes there are other ways to pirate,” Lesser said, adding that these hardcore pirates are not the target of the system.

Finally, Lesser said that only large ISPs were invited to join the copyright alert system to make it easier to come to an agreement. However, now that everything is ready to be set in motion, the CCI is planning to invite other Internet providers.

Whether other providers will be eager to join remains to be seen. A Cox spokesperson previously told TorrentFreak that his company was invited but “decided not to participate for internal reasons.”

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

The parties launched the Center for Copyright Information (CCI) and 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.

While it’s broadly described as an anti-piracy effort, the plan currently targets BitTorrent users, and only those who use public trackers. But, this may change in the near future.

Yesterday the CCI published a review of the evidence collecting technology used by tracking company MarkMonitor. The group decided to make a redacted version of the report public after it was revealed that the “independent” expert Stroz Friedberg previously worked for the RIAA.

The review briefly describes how MarkMonitor tracks BitTorrent users. First, the company identifies possibly infringing files and these are then downloaded in full to confirm that they’re real. Next, MarkMonitor requests a piece of the file from a file-sharer, after which it records the IP-address and sends a notice to the alleged infringer’s ISP.

The review concludes that “MarkMonitor’s evidence collection in connection with P2P infringement is robust, defensible, and will withstand adverse party scrutiny or evidentiary challenges.”

However, that doesn’t mean that there’s no room for improvements. The report points out, for example, that MarkMonitor only tracks properly named torrent files that are made available through public BitTorrent trackers, not private ones.

“Consider modifications to the infringement file identification process to include works with obfuscated names, or that are sourced from private trackers,” the report reads.

Unfortunately the paragraph that details this recommendation has been redacted. However, it’s apparent that by including torrents from private trackers the catch rate would be improved therefore boosting the deterrent function of the program.

While private BitTorrent trackers are often considered to be “safer” than public trackers, several of the larger ones are already being monitored by tracking companies. Users of public trackers are the easy pickings for anti-piracy companies, but private trackers can easily be targeted as well.

That said, it may be more of a challenge for MarkMonitor. All users on private trackers – undercover companies like MarkMonitor included – are required to maintain a good ratio of content up and downloaded to preserve their site membership. Doing this without actively participating in the large scale distribution of copyrighted content could prove an issue.

In addition to targeting private BitTorrent trackers, the report also recommends a more secure way to send incriminating data to Internet providers. At the moment the data is sent via email, which is relatively vulnerable to interception.

“Regarding ISP notifications, to the extent possible, move away from reliance on email/SMTP and towards the use of other secure protocols such as HTTPS,” the report reads. Again, the details of this suggestion are redacted.

One minor “flaw” in the report is the claim that “MarkMonitor’s Methodologies effectively identify P2P online copyright infringers,” which is strictly speaking not the case as they only identify IP-addresses.

CCI’s executive director Jill Lesser admits that this may not be the best choice of words indeed, and that no persons can be directly identified.

“You’re right, it’s a question of semantics. The more detailed way to describe the process is that MarkMonitor can only and will only identify the IP addresses associated with the alleged copyright infringement occurring on P2P networks,” Lesser says.

Overall the report answers several important questions and the information that’s made available suggests that MarkMonitor knows what it’s doing.

The “six-strikes” plan is expected to start later this month and as time goes by more questions will be answered, including the possibility that private BitTorrent trackers will be monitored.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

The parties launched the Center for Copyright Information (CCI) last year which will be responsible for the implementation of the plan.

To guarantee the accuracy of the evidence behind the copyright infringement accusations the parties agreed to hire an impartial and independent technology expert. However, their commitment to this promise was questioned last week when the expert turned out to be Stroz Friedberg, a former RIAA lobbying group.

The CCI is clearly well aware of the sensitivities generated by this particularly unfortunate pick.

“Recent reports that a former employee of Stroz Friedberg lobbied several years ago on behalf of RIAA on matters unrelated to CCI have raised questions about the impartiality of Stroz Friedberg,” CCI’s Executive Director Jill Lesser now states.

The CCI is convinced that despite this history Stroz Friedberg is capable of delivering an independent review. However, to reassure the public that it was carried out properly, CCI will hire a new expert to go over the evidence review.

“We are sensitive to any appearance that Stroz lacks independence, and so CCI has decided to have another expert review Stroz’s initial evaluation of the content community’s processes. We will be selecting the additional expert promptly and will make that information available,” Lesser says.

Realizing that openness is in the best interest of all parties involved, CCI has also decided to make Stroz Friedberg’s initial review public.

“In addition, we believe that the report Stroz Friedberg has provided to us speaks for itself. Therefore, we will be releasing that report this week to enable interested parties to review it for themselves,” Lesser states.

The CCI is to be applauded for gradually improving its transparency. Thus far the group has been very reluctant to share information, fueling many conspiracy theories.

A lack of transparency is also at the origin of the current controversy as TorrentFreak learned that other than the RIAA, none of the CCI partners were aware of the link between Stroz Friedberg and the RIAA. It’s not unthinkable that CCI would have picked another company to start with if the RIAA had disclosed this relationship.

However, with their decision to hire a new expert along with a promise to make the original review public, CCI will hope to quieten most critics.

It will be interesting to see how Stroz Friedberg evaluated MarkMonitor’s BitTorrent snooping system. CCI previously concluded that MarkMonitor deserved a green light, but the review is still bound to provide a unique insight into the accuracy of the company’s IP-harvesting techniques.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

The scheme is being coordinated by the Center for Copyright Information (CCI) who agreed to hire an impartial and independent expert to review the evidence that will be used to accuse suspected subscribers.

However, earlier this week the news broke that the touted independent technology expert, Stroz Friedberg, is not so neutral. In fact, the company is a former RIAA lobbying firm.

The lobbying job earned the company more than half a million dollars ($637,000), which makes it hard to view the company as “independent and impartial” as the agreement between the copyright holders and ISPs requires.

In our initial report we already noted that it was rather surprising that, of all the available companies, this one was picked. Stroz Friedberg may operate without any bias, but given the public’s skepticism CCI should have anticipated the backlash.

That is, if they knew about Stroz Friedberg’s history with the RIAA.

A source at the CCI tells TorrentFreak that the RIAA had not informed the participating Internet providers or CCI’s Executive Director Jill Lesser about this unfortunate relationship. Our report on Monday came as a complete surprise to them, and it has been the topic of a heated internal discussion during the days that followed.

While Jill Lesser appears to be unaffected by the controversy in her comments to the press, she and the board members are facing a small crisis which they plan to “do something” about shortly.

TorrentFreak was informed that behind the scenes a few options have been discussed this week.

The first option that’s being considered is to make Stroz Friedberg’s review of the BitTorrent tracking technology public. This would allow the world to see whether it was done properly, as opposed to taking CCI’s word that everything is in order.

A second option that has been discussed is to hire another independent expert, possibly an academic, to confirm that Stroz Friedberg did a proper review.

Initially some forces at the CCI pushed to deliver a quick response to alleviate the concerns about the impartiality of the review, but things appear to be moving slowly. TorrentFreak is informed that it might take a week or two before the group makes an announcement.

Ironically enough, the CCI owes most of the bad press it received over the past months to itself. The group has been very reluctant to give out information to the public, thereby allowing rumors to continue and conspiracy theories to bubble up.

This might be a good time for them to start realizing that sharing information is not always a bad thing.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

The parties agreed on a system through which subscribers are warned that their alleged copyright infringements are unacceptable. Starting next month, ISPs can then take a variety of repressive measures to punish the alleged infringers.

The evidence for these allegations will be collected by an external company, MarkMonitor. Because tracking companies have made false allegations in the past, the CCI agreed to hire an “independent and impartial technical expert” to review the “accuracy and security” of the technology used.

This requirement for an impartial expert review was set in stone in the Memorandum of Understanding, and from an announcement last week the CCI appeared to have kept its word.

“We’ve worked hard to set up a program that is accurate, fair and protects consumer interests at every step in the process. For example, we retained a recognized technology expert, Stroz Friedberg, to evaluate the content community’s system (run by MarkMonitor) for identifying alleged infringement over peer-to-peer networks.”

“Stroz Friedberg has completed its initial review of MarkMonitor’s methodologies and found that the system is accurate and works properly,” the CCI concluded.

While this may sound like good news, it is actually quite a shocker considering the history of the company retained to safeguard the accuracy of “six-strikes” scheme.

Stroz Friedberg is indeed a technology expert, but the group was also the RIAA’s lobbying firm for half a decade.

Between 2004 and 2009 Stroz Friedberg lobbied extensively in Washington on behalf of the RIAA. This consulting job earned the company more than half a million dollars ($637,000).

One of the leading lobbyists on record was Executive Managing Director Beryl Howell, who lobbied U.S. Congress and Senate for copyright laws regarding digital music.

Howell’s anti-piracy past hit the headlines in 2011 since she is currently a federal judge ruling on mass-BitTorrent lawsuits. In this position she continues to protect the interests of copyright holders, and in a recent ruling she pointed out that ISPs are not doing enough to stop copyright infringements.

While Stroz Friedberg may be excellent at what they do, it is hard to see the company as “independent and impartial” as the Memorandum of Understanding requires.

Given the skepticism and sensitivities of the public regarding the “six-strikes” anti-piracy scheme, the appointment is rather unfortunate and quite unbelievable.

This sentiment is shared by University of Idaho Law Professor Annemarie Bridy, who previously concluded that the copyright alert system lacks transparency and favors copyright holders.

“It’s a disappointing choice, particularly in light of CCI’s professed desire to build public confidence in CAS and the fairness of its processes. It would have been refreshing to see an academic computer scientist or some other truly independent party appointed to fill that important role,” Bridy tells TorrentFreak.

“CCI’s choice of a former RIAA lobbying firm makes it clear that the copyright owner parties to the Memorandum of Understanding were more interested in appointing someone they trust than in appointing someone the public can trust,” she adds.

Why CCI did not pick a more neutral party as a technology expert will remain a mystery for now. Choosing to shroud itself in secrecy, the group has stopped responding to our inquiries entirely.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.