NBC Wants FCC To Force ISPs To Police Their Networks For Copyright Infringement
from the that's-a-stretch dept
NBC Universal has filed a comment with the FCC, saying that ISPs should be forced to police their networks (via Broadband Reports) for copyrighted content that's being illegally shared. The company says that 60-70% of all internet traffic is made up of P2P activity, and copyrighted content constitutes 90% of that (he doesn't, of course, note that all content is copyrighted -- and he doesn't seem to distinguish between authorized or fair use content and unauthorized). The lead name on the comments was that of NBCU's lead counsel, who's no stranger to hyperbole: he's also the head of the "Coaltion Against Counterfeiting and Piracy", and claimed last week that the US' "law enforcement resources are seriously misaligned" because, he claims, intellectual property crime "costs" hundred of billions of dollars per year, more than all other property crimes in the country combined. He tries to make a similarly emotional plea in the FCC filing, saying that if three-fourths of internet traffic was child porn, the government wouldn't sit idly by (again, equating file-sharing with child pornography isn't a new trick either).It's slightly ridiculous to say that ISPs should have any responsibility to stop copyright infringement on their networks, because they shouldn't be the arbiters of what is and isn't legal. Since they don't have the expertise or the technology to accurately do so, they'll end up blocking all sorts of legal content -- though it's hard to imagine NBCU and other content companies would really care. While some companies, like AT&T, are taking this step willingly in order to buddy up to Hollywood, NBCU faces an uphill battle in convincing regulators and legislators that ISPs should be required to act as copyright police on its behalf. The safe harbor conventions of the DMCA -- which protect ISPs and platform or service providers from the actions of their users serve a valuable function. Imagine if the construction companies that built roads were required to ensure that nobody drove on streets they built during the commission of a crime: it's hard to see too many roads actually getting built. Furthermore, when content companies themselves can't figure out what content is actually infringing upon their copyrights, how can ISPs be expected to?
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
Once again, one bit on the Internet looks like ano
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Once again, one bit on the Internet looks like
How would the net know my parody (which is covered by fair use) video of Star Wars that I'm willing to share for free from someone else's parody who does not want to share for free.
A web surfer in Utah downloads porn from a Georgia based site of people in a position that is illegal in Utah. Don't laugh becuase some sexual positions (namely anal) are illegal in some states.
And even if some recognition system (and mind you said system would have to be a standard that all ISPs would work with) were set up who would you go back and mark all exising media so that it could be identified?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Once again, one bit on the Internet looks like
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pay it forward.
On Topic:
The problem is that they want people who build and maintain the tubes to make sure nothing illegal is sent through them. :P
It's not the ISPs' job to protect someone else's intellectual property-- in fact, they have no idea what deals have been made with what websites between what copyright holders.
What really gets me is this:
NBCU said that what is missing is that an increasing amount of that Internet traffic is in stolen digital goods, and that service providers must actively battle against such theft. [Emphasis Added]
So, this is why everyone thinks it's stealing. *sigh*
Does the FCC even have authority over ISPs?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Pay it forward.
Not really... Contrary to what people seem to think, an ISP is not a content provider.
Sadly yes. People are stupid, regardless of what education level they have attained. If they are told something they want to hear or it comes from a source they like, it becomes fact regardless of the realities of the situation. As it stands, there is a serious confusion between distinctions of legal issues. Civil issues, which is what a violation of product rights really is, really isn't the job of the government to police. That is what lawsuits are actually for. If it were actually "theft" it would be another matter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So that's a minimum of 54% of all internet bandwidth, being used for illegal file sharing? More than HALF of all the traffic, at the low end, and almost two-thirds at the high?
That seems like it doesn't leave enough room for all the Spam, let alone the entire freaking World Wide Web.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Shhh, they don't like it when you question the numbers. If you do it to much, they will blame Canada again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is the same idiot...
Truly, this is the start of "The Running Man" era, God help us all!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Block all copyrited content
STREAM ONLINE VIDEO!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Now I see why ATT did it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
From comment #5
Civil issues, which is what a violation of product rights really is, really isn't the job of the government to police. That is what lawsuits are actually for. If it were actually "theft" it would be another matter.
The thing is the content owners are trying anything they can to hold on to control. They tried the civil court way in the form of all these frivilous lawsuits targeting college kids, elderly people, and lower class people. Notice how those are some of the main groups of people that would least likely have the knowhow and more importantly the money to fight back against their bullying.
Well now that people are starting to fight back with knowledge the entertainment industry is now trying to buy the laws that they want which would explain all these "coalitions", "groups", and "associations" that are rising up to put an end to piracy. Essentially they are paying Congress to give them infintie protection from economic change so that they (and their future spoiled grandkids) can continue to make money off of music that was written several decades ago.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What the duece?
Not to mention the incredible task of an ISP monitering traffic for copyrighted material. Even if that was technically feasable, a workaround would be posted within days in the doom forums!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What the duece?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Don't post downloadable files if you all don't wan
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Get a new business model already!
Sensible statements like that just don't fly with these greedheads. I remember Ted Turner once saying with a straight face during an interview that no matter how much money you make it never will be enough. I guess you just have to be that kind of rich to understand that kind of thinking. I sure don't.
What this really is is another form of corporate welfare. They haven't sufficient creativity to come up with a way to adapt to the new technology that is changing the face of everybody's marketplace, so they don't know what to do except to cry "Foul!" and treat their own customers like criminals. I don't know how these guys got rich, but it sure isn't because their all that smart. No matter what they do, people will always find a way around it, haven't they figured that out yet? Apparently not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The water and sewer companies should be held responsible for the improper usage of their systems. Only then will the real victims, those tempted to wrongdoing by the current sewage neutrality policies, be safe.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What's next??
If a serial killer is on the loose and gets 3 victims does that mean the police are responsible for victim number 4's death?
I steal a utility truck and use it plant a bomb. Does that mean the utility company I stole it from is responsible?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What's next??
All of the above will be held accountable if and only if there is money to be made by the RIAA/MPAA/Whatever money hungry bastard group. If no money can be made and just some unlucky women gets rape, citizens get blown up.
Fuck em.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
F U
[ link to this | view in chronology ]