Recording Industry Asks ISPs To Shut Down Accounts Of File Sharers
from the will-they-have-any-customers-left? dept
The British Phonographic Industry (BPI, the UK equivalent of the RIAA) apparently is taking a slightly different position on going after people who share unauthorized files online. Rather than suing them, they're now presenting evidence to ISPs and asking those ISPs to cancel user accounts for breaking the ISPs' terms of service. This actually seems like a fairly reasonable policy, so long as they don't demand that the ISP automatically remove these users. It certainly beats suing everyone for thousands of dollars and suggesting they drop out of school to pay. There's nothing wrong with giving the ISP evidence and then letting the ISP investigate, as long as they also give the user a chance to make his or her case in response as well. If the customer is actually breaking the terms of service, then its fair game for the ISP to decide how to deal with that subscriber. The BPI, though, suggests in the article that the evidence they've given the ISP is "unequivocal," which is hard to believe given the number of false accusations the industry has made -- and the important fact that an IP address does not identify a specific user. So what will be most interesting is seeing how the industry responds if the various ISPs don't follow their marching orders and shut these accounts down.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
first!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
They better get it right
If they start writing to public utilities saying that I am breaking the law and the ISP should cut off my internet service as a conseqence that is a libelous allegation of criminal conduct if it is wrong and the courts here may slam them hard.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
It's no like the ISP would have a choice. I don't know how it is in England but my ISP agreement clearly states that if it is shown that I am using my connection to engage in illegal actvity (sharing copyrighted material without permission) they will disconnect it. If the ISP is presented with valid data indicating criminal activity, they put themselves in a very tenuous legal position if they DON'T cut you off (I'm not a lawyer but it sounds like aiding and abeting to me).
I have to agree that this is at least a reasonable and legal way to try to deter file sharing. It's also proportional. I've never liked the idea of RIAA suing someone for 10s of thousands of dollars just because they ripped some songs that maybe were worth a couple of bucks each.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
I have no doubt that the RIAA would have power shut off to our houses if it thought it could.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Do you think that the ISP really wants to bring on possible litigations from the RIAA/MPAA to their own table? The customer is supposed to come first...this is true. And of course the customer pays the ISP significant amounts of money for their services. But you're a damn fool if you think that they won't cut a customer (or a few hundred...) to avoid legal battles with these industries.
Now if you wanna lay money down on that...feel free. You'd lose. I had Time Warner threaten to cut my service off because some ass was going over my wireless router and sharing movie files. Upon contacting Time Warner about the e-mails I was receiving from them they were able to cite specific file names, times and IP address sharing them. The only things that they weren't able to tell me were the details of the individual information behind my gateway. (Of course.)
I was told that if they received one more complaint from any insitutions about files being shared...that they would shut down my service.
Think about it.
Now... To those of you out there who might be trying to figure out ways around this BS... Here is your answer for getting into those huge DC hubs without risking your rear:
Download about 30-40GB of Linux ISO files and share THOSE. Believe it or not there are actually people out there looking for them in the hubs rather than being SMART and downloading them from a mirror.
This will not only allow you to get into larger hubs but will also help to advocate the Linux Open-Source initiative. This is what I have always done rather than risking my ass while trying to download a few things.
The RIAA, MPAA or even the BSA can bitch about THAT.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Correction
[ link to this | view in thread ]
IP Addresses in ISP-world
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ISP in the middle
However if they start getting mass numbers of complaints, they'll have a huge uproar to deal with which will lead to complaints to the states or the FCC.
this problem is only manageable if the solution is to victimize a few (nail one to the cross ok, nail hundreds, you got a real riot on your hands) to make examples of them.
The only real solution is for someone to come up with a workable business model that puts the RIAA out of business.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This is what will happen
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This is what will happen
[ link to this | view in thread ]
RIAA
[ link to this | view in thread ]
IMO
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: IMO
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: IMO
I seriously doubt it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
And another reason for compliance...
Has an ISP ever been sued by consumers for not providing the advertised bandwidth? I didn't think so. "Trust us" they say, "it's expensive so it must be fast."
Now they boot the high bandwidth users? Shocking but not surprising.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
And what about...
But your open wireless network allowed your neighbor's kids to illegally download music. And now you don't have an internet connection and you can't figure out why.
Wrongfully screwed, anyone?
(Yes, I realise it's possible to have a closed wireless network.)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: And what about...
This is the brilliance of this particular campaign. The content owner does not need to try to sue a user, it simply leans on the ISP. In the US the ISP is trying to maintain its "safe harbor" status with regards to the DMCA; it is obligated to investigate and shut down the user if the evidence holds up, failing to do so shifts the liability for illegal action to include the ISP.
Your TOS basically says that you are responsible for all packets that originate at your side of the demarc and the ISP really doesn't care what your excuse is if these packets are participating in illegal activity.
You weren't wrongfully screwed, you were either an idiot, a gullible moron, or an asshat and any of these classifications are sufficient justification for the ISP to decide that they no longer want you as a customer.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
So we are mad at the ISPs who may cut these users off because they broke their contract?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
My 2 cents worth
1. If you are going to "aquire" music (or other digital files) take the time to learn the right way to do it (note: right way doesn't always mean legal way).
2. You really should read the fine print on the contract that you signed with your ISP. They will give you another copy if you lost the original (minus signature most likely).
3. Learn which methods of transferring files can be easily monitored by third parties (RIAA on Napster anyone). This will take some homework but it ties in with no. 1. Once you know, avoid the monitoring traps. (another note: easily monitored definatly does not have to be legal, as proved with Napster reverse engineering.)
4. Understand that there is no such thing as annonymous on the internet. There is always a trail created for every little action online. How much of that is logged is another story, but I'm sure that it will soon go the way of 100% logged. If it ever does go to 100% logged you had best stop all activity that is even remotely close to almost illegal no matter what method you were doing it before.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: 'aiding and abetting'
not quite: carriers in the us or the eu [where the state is a signatory to the relavant treaty, which the uk is] are not responsible for the content passed accross their networks. no matter what criminal activity occurs as a result of the packets that they pass, they are not liable.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I've exchanged over 200 CDs in less than three months and spent a little over $100 and it is completely legal and there is NOTHING the RIAA can do to stop it.
The morality of services like this might bother me, if the RIAA, MPAA, Ticketmaster, ClearChannel, et al weren't so absolutely corrupt and immoral themselves.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: IP Addresses in ISP-world
And how are they going to prove (1) what the content was? (2) that the anonymous uploader did not have authority to upload it? and (3) that the user actually and knowingly uploaded the content to a person not authorized to receive it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Also, I would much rather have my ISP drop me and close my connection for good rather than the massive fines that we face by using P2P services. RIAA doesn't really mess around, its a steep fine if they actually bust you.
[ link to this | view in thread ]