US Copyright Group Says ISPs Who Don't Cough Up User Names May Be Guilty Of Inducing Copyright Infringement
from the uh,-good-luck-with-that-one... dept
Thomas Dunlap, the lawyer who set up US Copyright Group, which mimics European operations like ACS:Law in threatening to sue tens of thousands of people on flimsy evidence in mass automated lawsuits for alleged copyright infringement if they don't pay up, sure has some interesting legal theories. We had already noted that at least Time Warner Cable was fighting the subpoenas, and in Dunlap's response, he's claiming that ISPs that don't just roll over and hand over the info open themselves up to charges of contributory copyright infringement under the Grokster standard put forth by the Supreme Court.I can't see how anyone could possibly find Time Warner guilty of inducement for not handing over subscriber info -- especially not under the standards in the Grokster ruling. Those include that the company had to promote that its service could be used for infringement, that they failed to filter out those infringing uses when possible and that the business plan depended on a high volume of infringement. I don't see any of those three things applying to Time Warner and not handing over customer info on subpoenas. This seems like more bluster from Dunlap to try to get Time Warner Cable to just given in and hand over the names, so he can send out letters demanding payment.
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
Filed Under: automated lawsuits, copyright, inducement
Companies: time warner cable, us copyright group
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Saw this coming a while back
And that's when the game is lost. Because then its a matter of court costs and lawyer fees. The average Joe is lost. Shit, GOOGLE folds when confronted by a bunch of Belgium newspapers. (Belgium. Newspapers.)
Obviously, if Time Warner objects to disclosing user names, it encourages terrorist pirate child pornographers to flock to their service, thus they are encouraging TPCP. QED.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
if you have nothing to hide... /sarcasm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
and that's the point, who should decide what info Mike is allowed to get if he just makes up the idea that you infringed on something? ISP's shouldn't just hand over info just because some lawyer asked for it, that's an invasion of privacy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
as an end user, i would be very disappointed in my isp if they didnt help me get contacted and avoid legal action. if the settlement letter was for a few hundred dollars, and the lawsuit might cost me tens of thousands to contest, dont you think i would want to know?
further, and just as important, would the isp become liable to their end user by failing to make them aware of legal action? can you imagine someone found guilty in a default judgement for millions, all because their isp wouldnt help to let the copyright issue be handled up front?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Anyone can simply file a lawsuit. So if Mike wanted to know info about you and filed a lawsuit the ISP should automatically hand over that info? Then, after getting the info, Mike can merely drop the lawsuit and threaten you with another lawsuit if you don't give him money or come to your house and potentially vandalize it or something? No, the filing of a lawsuit isn't enough just because you said so. You must actually substantiate your assertions to some degree and there is nothing substantive about filing a lawsuit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You're either being disingenuous or you have no idea how the legal system works. You can't get a judgment held against you if you were never informed about a lawsuit. So the ISP has nothing to worry about there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sadly, not true. I wish it were otherwise, but you most certainly can get a default judgment against you without ever having been notified. Ditto with having the funds in your bank account seized. Have had this happen to several friends of mine in the last 10 years or so, mostly from collection agencies and a few scumbag lawyers. All they have to do for a lawsuit is claim they sent you the paperwork, at your last known (to them) address. They dont even need to verify it was YOU that got it, just that they made the ATTEMPT. The bank thing requires even less. All they do is go before a judge, with little to no proof of the validity of the debt in question, and the judge grants them the right to go into your bank (if they find out what bank you are at) and as long as they have your SSN, they take any money found in any accounts at that bank with that SSN. Not continually, they have to request this each time, a separate judgment each time, and they cant get what isnt there, but still, you dont even have to be notified of this. You will get a letter from your bank telling you about it AFTER they have taken whatever was in the accounts. It shouldnt be allowed, but the system is so corrupt that lawyers and big CC and banks are in such tight collusion that they care only about raping the consumer for as much as they can take them for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Legal
> you and never give your name up
If they said any such thing you might actually have a point. As they haven't, you don't.
Not only that, if they *did* comply with the requests from this collection group without subpoena, they'd be in massive breach of contract, since every ISP user agreement I've ever seen binds them contractually to protect the customer's privacy unless ordered to turn over the information by a court.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Legal
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Prove the infringement, and I suppose, Time Warner will then give up the names.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
you are suggesting that trials should happen without any defendant, which would mean default judgements. that would entirely kill off due process, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
But to who's satisfaction must you show this? If Mike claims that you infringed on X at Y date and time to his own satisfaction, should your ISP just hand over info? No, there is due process to ensure that at least Mike has a reasonable basis for making his claim.
"you are suggesting that trials should happen without any defendant, which would mean default judgements."
Where did anyone suggest this? You are making things up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
the standard should be pretty simple. if a lawsuit is files, the isp needs to comply or they risk creating liablity for themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Unless you demonstrate the intermediate steps, I'm afraid it's the equivalent of declaring QED, "just because".
But nice semantic trick. I have to give you some credit TAM, you really should be a press secretary--there is no end to the distractive illusions you can spin with your empty rhetoric.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If the ISP doesn't cooperate, the service of process would not be possible, and the lawsuit would not proceed. The judge could order a subpoena against the ISP, but until the ISP complies, no default judgement should be possible.
If, for some wild reason, a default judgement is served without a notice, the defendant can file to have the judgement vacated.
...That's how I understand it, at least.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But he's blustering for audience of attorneys,
Where there's money, there's *NO* morality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: But he's blustering for audience of attorneys,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: But he's blustering for audience of attorneys,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: But he's blustering for audience of attorneys,
I agree, IP maximists just want to make money and have no regard for morality. As far as Time Warner, the only morally responsible thing for them to do would be to protect the privacy of their users from random solicitors that randomly ask for random information based on baseless accusations. Otherwise, Mike can simply ask your ISP for your personal information under the pretext that you are infringing and using your logic your ISP would be immoral for not handing over your information even if Mike just made up the pretext.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thanks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
They're all separate companies these days...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In your face US Copyright Group!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
when the content companies get authorization to use deadly force.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Sweden did a nice job of advertising the pirate party, for example. They got fliers and took to the streets. Americans need to do the same I suppose, that way a larger audience can be exposed to these issues. Hold up signs that says, "Copyright shouldn't last 95 years or the lifetime of an artist plus 70 years!!!" that will quickly get attention. From there on you can hand out brochures directing people to organized websites that document the harm that copyright and patents cause to society and that explains to people how damaged our legal system is from all sides. For those who don't have the Internet but have computer access perhaps you can hand out mini CD's (they'll play on your regular CD player) or regular CD's (whichever is cheaper) that has a bunch of information (ie: text or perhaps audio for a regular CD player for those that have no computer but have CD player access) explaining the harm that patents and copyrights cause. The website should also explain how our mainstream media is being controlled and coerced by laws intended to foster ignorance and what people can do to fix it and ensure wider Internet access. There are ways to reach those who either don't have Internet access or who are unaware of blogs like Techdirt and only mostly watch mainstream media news or keep distant from the news.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
i challenge all techdirt readers to go down the road. stop consuming hollywood movies, mpaa music, american tv shows, american tv in general, and so on. stop consuming. teach them a lesson. heck, i dare you to try, for a week.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Last we checked, ASCAP considered ringtones public performances. If a ringtone of popular song is heard in public space and a techdirt reader hears it, is that consumption? Going by how you consistently support everything Mike doesn't, you've effectively indicated how "going down the road" is an exercise in sheer impracticality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Time Warner is making a reasonable argument here. Matching IP addresses to user names requires a blend of technical knowledge of TWC's logging databases, plus sufficient responsibility to avoid leaks and unauthorized disclosure -- in effect, it's a low ranking computer security job. TWC can't just throw random employees at it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
car makers that dont prevent all drinking and driving might be guilty....
Hammer makers that do not prevent the ability of people or persons to smash people over the head with them can be guilty of aiding an assault or murder
baseball bat and hockey stick owners need to stop violence 100% or they too can be liable for the assaults and violence that occurs.
We also need to make sure that gun makers are held accountable for all the murders and assaults with guns too.
and why stop wiht this stuff
we can give lawyers plenty a work that we dont need too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
p.s.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copying is not Theft
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No law suit with out identity
First off;
1. The US copyright group DOES NOT KNOW WHO YOU ARE! all they have is an IP log, which they do a whois query on, to see which network the IP belongs to.
2. They see the IP is owned by Time Warner cable for instance. THEN they contact time warner saying that they logged this IP at this time downloading this copyright material, demanding them to reveal the identity of this person.
At this point one of two things can happen:
A: TWC Reveals your information like name, address etc... Then you get a ransom letter in the mail demanding payment or else lawsuit.
B: TWC refuses to give out personal info, US group doesnt know who you are, so no letter to you.
At this point they can only file a lawsuit in court and force the isp to give out your info after a judge rulling.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Inducing actions.
Or if I see pictures of people smoking and find explicit details on how to purchase and smoke tobacco is that inducing drug addiction?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just wait
[ link to this | view in chronology ]