Copyright Alert System
[19] According to a leaked internal document, AT&T decided that after a 6th alert, a user's "access to many of the most frequently visited websites [would be] restricted" until they completed an "online educational tutorial on copyright".[21] Time Warner Cable stated that it would not discontinue customers' service, but instead redirect users to educational pages on copyright law upon multiple violations.[27] In order to prevail, the subscriber had to successfully challenge a specified number of alerts (possibly more than one) to block the mitigation measure and receive a refund of the filing fee.[25]: 57 The EFF said that the mitigation measures could be imposed without any due process, placing the burden of proof on consumers to show that allegations of copyright infringement are unfounded.[24] Bridy said that because the Copyright Alert System arose from a mass consumer contract, the potential for the repeat-player effect to jeopardize the neutrality of the arbitrators was present.[25]: 55 However, Bridy wrote that the independent review process was optional, and users were free to go to court to remove alerts or challenge mitigation measures, unlike in other consumer contracts where arbitration was mandatory.[12]: 361 [34] In April 2013, IFPI CEO Frances Moore indicated that the role of the United States government was greater than previously acknowledged in bringing content owners and ISPs together to fight copyright infringement.Specifically she claimed Vice President Joe Biden and "Copyright Czar" Victoria Espinel, were critical players in "pushing the parties to come to some type of agreement".The CCI contracted with Stroz Friedberg, a global digital risk management and investigations firm, to conduct an analysis of MarkMonitor's system for monitoring, verifying, and enforcing online copyright infringement on P2P file sharing networks.[10] In August 2013, the CCI announced it had hired Avi Rubin's high-tech litigation consulting firm Harbor Labs to conduct a follow-up review.[43] In March 2014, Harbor Labs completed a limited review of MarkMonitor's system, concluding that the technical design was generally sound, but that the company needs to improve its safeguards against human error and internal malfeasance.[45] The White House supported the memorandum of understanding, calling it "a positive step and consistent with our strategy of encouraging voluntary efforts to strengthen online intellectual property enforcement and with our broader Internet policy principles, emphasizing privacy, free speech, competition and due process".[46] However, the CAS was criticized for a perceived lack of public input, perverse incentives between media corporations and ISPs, harsh mitigation measures, and reversal of burden of proof standards.[48] In March 2013, a Freedom of Information Act request related to the White House's role in the policy was denied by a Washington D.C. federal court.In the first draft of the CCI's memorandum of understanding, it was stated that upon that ISPs would be responsible for providing information collected under the CAS program to Content Owners "if it elects to initiate a legal action against the subscriber".With this information, Malibu Media was able to successfully litigate the first BitTorrent copyright infringement case in American legal history which concluded with a verdict.[53] Tech law professor Derek Bambauer of the University of Arizona, told Ars Technica that the Copyright Alert System "is fundamentally flawed".[57] In June 2013 Warner Brothers Studios began sending warning to users whose internet service was provided by an entity other than one of the five ISP partners of the CCI.[58] In August, Variety revealed that engineers at Comcast and NBC Universal were developing technology designed to recognize the illegal downloading of copyrighted material by its users and launch a pop-up window with links to legal access to such content.
copyrightedpeer-to-peer file sharingCenter for Copyright InformationRecording Industry Association of AmericaMotion Picture Association of Americainternet service providersCablevisionComcastTime Warner CableVerizongraduated responsebandwidth throttlingMarkMonitorElectronic Frontier FoundationBitTorrent trackersdeep packet inspectionIP addresspresumption of innocencearbitrationAmerican Arbitration Associationfair usepublic domaindiscoverydeclaratory judgmentdue processrepeat-player effectWalt Disney Studios Motion PicturesParamount PicturesSony Pictures EntertainmentTwentieth Century Fox Film CorporationUniversal StudiosWarner Brothers EntertainmentUniversal Music GroupWarner Music GroupSony Music EntertainmentEMI MusicAndrew Cuomomemorandum of understandinglobbyingBeryl A. Howellcomputer crimecopyright infringementAvi Rubinperverse incentivesburden of proofFreedom of Information ActSonic.netTorrentFreakUniversity of ArizonaArs TechnicaNBC UniversalChilling effect (law)Wayback MachineInternational Business TimesBusiness InsiderBryn Mawr CollegeCenter for Democracy and Technologywhitehouse.govNational ArchivesNetworksprotocolsDirect ConnectSoribadaSoulseekBitTorrenteDonkeyFastTrackHyphanetGNUnetGnutellaGnutella2OnionSharePerfect DarkRetroshareTriblerWebTorrentZeroNetAudiogalaxyCuteMXLimeWireMorpheusNapsterclientsMagnetMetalinkBackupBroadcatchingDisk sharingGame and video sharingImage sharingMusic sharingPeercastingSeedboxesWeb hostingLegal aspectsPrivacyAnonymous P2PDarknetDarkwebFriend-to-friendOpen music modelPrivate P2PDistributed hash tableMerkle treeNAT traversalPeer exchangeBitTorrent protocol encryptionSuper-seedingBitTorrent trackerUDP hole punchingMicro Transport ProtocolIntellectual propertyArtificial scarcityCensorship by copyrightCopyright trollDigital rights managementGripe siteLegal aspects of file sharingMashupdigitalvideosMonopolies of knowledgeMusic piracyOrphan worksBiopiracyBioprospecting