Internet service providers and the entertainment industry are ramping up their joint initiative to crack down on online piracy without going through lengthy court proceedings.
In 2013, Internet providers sent 1.3 million notices over alleged copyright violations, according to the first statistics on the Copyright Alert System, which were released Wednesday. People who continue to illegally share songs or movies face gradually increasing sanctions.
According to the report, 60,477 people last year received a fifth “strike” and 37,456 received a sixth “strike.” Under the program, Internet providers enforce “mitigation” measures for the fifth and sixth offenses. Offenders who reach those stages can be forced to review copyright education materials before accessing the Internet or have their Internet speed reduced.
The program is expected to double in size this year.
The major movie studios and record labels negotiated with the five largest Internet providers to develop the program in a bid to curb online piracy, which they say is draining billions of dollars from their industry. Under the system, the copyright holders identify the IP address that is allegedly sharing the material without permission and then notify the Internet provider assigned to the account. The entertainment companies emphasize that the purpose of the program is to better educate the public about copyright infringement.
Although no judge or court is involved, consumers can appeal the alerts and sanctions for $35. According to the report, only 265 people appealed any of the 1.3 million alerts. There were no invalid notices, but 47 people won their challenges on the grounds that someone else was using the account to illegally share the material.
Jill Lesser, executive director of the Center for Copyright Information, which oversees the system, said the program has the potential to “move the needle in deterring copyright infringement.”
Chris Dodd, the head of the Motion Picture Association of America, said the program is still in its early stages but that the results are “encouraging.”
“It is going to take everyone working together — both here in the United States and abroad — to find a way to create an Internet that works for everyone,” he said. “The Copyright Alert System shows that collaboration is possible in our efforts against piracy.”
What We're Following See More »
Before we get to the specifics of this exposé about escorts working the Iowa and New Hampshire primary crowds, let’s get three things out of the way: 1.) It’s from Cosmopolitan; 2.) most of the women quoted use fake (if colorful) names; and 3.) again, it’s from Cosmopolitan. That said, here’s what we learned:
- Business was booming: one escort who says she typically gets two inquiries a weekend got 15 requests in the pre-primary weekend.
- Their primary season clientele is a bit older than normal—”40s through mid-60s, compared with mostly twentysomething regulars” and “they’ve clearly done this before.”
- They seemed more nervous than other clients, because “the stakes are higher when you’re working for a possible future president” but “all practiced impeccable manners.”
- One escort “typically enjoy[s] the company of Democrats more, just because I feel like our views line up a lot more.”
No matter where you stand on mandating companies to include a backdoor in encryption technologies, it doesn’t make sense to allow that decision to be made on a state level. “The problem with state-level legislation of this nature is that it manages to be both wildly impractical and entirely unenforceable,” writes Brian Barrett at Wired. There is a solution to this problem. “California Congressman Ted Lieu has introduced the ‘Ensuring National Constitutional Rights for Your Private Telecommunications Act of 2016,’ which we’ll call ENCRYPT. It’s a short, straightforward bill with a simple aim: to preempt states from attempting to implement their own anti-encryption policies at a state level.”
Much has been made of David Brooks’s recent New York Times column, in which confesses to missing already the civility and humanity of Barack Obama, compared to who might take his place. In NewYorker.com, Jeffrey Frank reminds us how critical such attributes are to foreign policy. “It’s hard to imagine Kennedy so casually referring to the leader of Russia as a gangster or a thug. For that matter, it’s hard to imagine any president comparing the Russian leader to Hitler [as] Hillary Clinton did at a private fund-raiser. … Kennedy, who always worried that miscalculation could lead to war, paid close attention to the language of diplomacy.”
The New Covenant. The Third Way. The Democratic Leadership Council style. Call it what you will, but whatever centrist triangulation Bill Clinton embraced in 1992, Hillary Clinton wants no part of it in 2016. Writing for Bloomberg, Sasha Issenberg and Margaret Talev explore how Hillary’s campaign has “diverged pointedly” from what made Bill so successful: “For Hillary to survive, Clintonism had to die.” Bill’s positions in 1992—from capital punishment to free trade—“represented a carefully calibrated diversion from the liberal orthodoxy of the previous decade.” But in New Hampshire, Hillary “worked to juggle nostalgia for past Clinton primary campaigns in the state with the fact that the Bill of 1992 or the Hillary of 2008 would likely be a marginal figure within today’s Democratic politics.”
At first, “it was pleasant” to see Trevor Noah “smiling away and deeply dimpling in the Stewart seat, the seat that had lately grown gray hairs,” writes The Atlantic‘s James Parker in assessing the new host of the once-indispensable Daily Show. But where Jon Stewart was a heavyweight, Noah is “a very able lightweight, [who] needs time too. But he won’t get any. As a culture, we’re not about to nurture this talent, to give it room to grow. Our patience was exhausted long ago, by some other guy. We’re going to pass judgment and move on. There’s a reason Simon Cowell is so rich. Impress us today or get thee hence. So it comes to this: It’s now or never, Trevor.”