IFPI Continues To Pressure ISPs; ISPs Start Pushing Back

from the good-for-them dept

We've seen over the past few months that the IFPI has started a world-wide strategy of suing ISPs for not stopping file sharing. This is silly, of course. An ISP should not be responsible for what people do on its network, and forcing them to cut off a lot of perfectly legal activities just to protect an obsolete business model is especially troublesome. Unfortunately, the IFPI's early successes have only emboldened the group, leading to more pressure and more lawsuits. Luckily, at least some ISPs are standing up to the pressure. TorrentFreak notes that Swedish ISP TeliaSonera is aggressively pushing back against legal threats from the IFPI, noting that it has no legal responsibility to cut off file sharer, and the IFPI is really pushing its luck trying to claim otherwise. Somehow, we doubt that the IFPI is going to give up so easily -- and it certainly would be nice to have an ISP win one of these battles in court, so stay tuned...

Filed Under: file sharing, ifpi, isps, liability
Companies: ifpi, teliasonera

Japanese ISPs The Latest To Bow To Pressure From The Entertainment Industry

from the but-how-will-nuclear-secrets-be-leaked-now? dept

It's no secret that the entertainment industry's anti-piracy strategy over the past year or so has focused increasingly on putting legal or peer pressure on ISPs to handle the problem, and there have been quite a few "success" stories (though, the long-term impact may be a lot less successful). The latest is that a bunch of Japanese ISPs have agreed to cut off the users of the incredibly popular "Winny" file sharing application (found via Slashdot) if the entertainment industry alerts them to the IP addresses of excessively heavy users. The ISPs will try to send warning messages to the account holders, but then will cut them off (either temporarily or permanently) if they don't change their usage. It's not clear how carefully the ISPs will review the information sent to them by the industry, or what form any "appeals" process might take. This is unlikely to be particularly effective, but Winny has long been a target in Japan. The creator of the software was found guilty of violating copyright laws even though there are plenty of legitimate uses of the software. Still, however, the press likes to focus on the more sensational data leaks that happened via Winny, including Japan's nuclear secrets.

Filed Under: blocks, copyright, entertainment industry, file sharing, isps, japan, jasrac, winny

Sweden Becoming Less Friendly To File Sharing

from the all-that-lobbying-pays-off dept

Despite having politicians who seem to actually understand the real issues at stake surrounding file sharing (hint: it's not a legal problem having to do with "pirates"), it appears that some in the country are getting fed up with the entertainment industry trying to portray Sweden as a "haven for pirates" thanks to the Pirate Bay (which isn't even hosted in Sweden any more). Earlier this year charges were filed against The Pirate Bay, even though it's still not clear if they actually violated any laws. And, now, some Swedish politicians are saying that ISPs should be required to cough up the information of those accused of sharing files. Oddly, this comes so soon after the EU decided that IP addresses are private info and various other countries in Europe have ruled that ISPs shouldn't hand over info, as user privacy is much more important than propping up the entertainment industry's business model.

Filed Under: file sharing, isps, pirate bay, privacy, sweden
Companies: pirate bay

RIAA Now Open To 'You Must Be A Criminal' Tax On ISP Fees

from the not-the-answer dept

This certainly isn't the first time it's been proposed, but it appears that the RIAA is potentially warming up to the idea of a "music surcharge" that would have ISPs pay $5/month in order to allow anyone to share music online. Just a month ago, we were discussing why this is a bad idea. First, it's effectively treating everyone as a criminal, and forcing those who don't download or share music to subsidize everyone who does. Second, and much more importantly, it's not necessary. If there's anything that the past five years (and the past year especially) has taught us, it's that there are many different ways for musicians to make money without requiring the government to step in and set up a business model for them. In other words, there's no compelling need for such a mandated system. Third, once you do this, it opens up additional questions from other industries. Will the government need to set up laws that prop up their business models as well?

Some people are comparing this new RIAA proposal to the one that the EFF proposed four years ago. However, that one was quite different, in that it was a voluntary licensing system, rather than a mandatory one. In that system, anyone who wanted to could voluntarily pay $5/month to have free reign to share and download music. This new proposal would mandate that ISPs pay the fee (meaning that ISPs would quickly pass the costs on to everyone). That's quite different. It also might be a different story if ISPs voluntarily offered this as a feature for customers -- where they would license the music so anyone could freely share it. That's a case where the ISP would effectively be paying for the creation of music and using its free nature as a promotional good for its service. However, that rationale goes away if it's mandatory. So, while it's nice that the RIAA has woken up (about a decade too late) to the idea that new business models are needed, this proposal isn't a very good idea.

Filed Under: copyright, isps, levy, mandatory, music, riaa
Companies: riaa

As Expected, IFPI 'Advertising' Helps Boost BitTorrent Search Site

from the the-definition-of-insanity dept

For a group that claims it's focused on "educating" people, the recording industry seems amazingly thickheaded in learning lessons itself. Just last week the IFPI succeeded in having an Israeli court demand that Israeli ISPs block bittorrent search site HttpShare. As we noted in that post, this would likely act as tremendous advertising for HttpShare -- and, indeed, that's exactly what has happened. The site claims that traffic has jumped, even requiring the site owners to upgrade the hardware hosting the site -- all thanks to a little "IFPI Advertising."

What's most stunning, however, is that the IFPI didn't realize this would happen. After all, it's happened again and again and again. In fact, just a month ago, a similar action in Denmark over the Pirate Bay greatly increased traffic to the site. Hell, the Pirate Bay first came to international attention (beyond a much smaller niche group of users) after the IFPI pressured gov't officials to take the site down. Of course, rather than recognize this, the IFPI and the RIAA (and the MPAA at times as well) always claim that each of these "shut downs" is a "significant blow" against piracy. Apparently, they never consider what happens next. Makes you think that the execs and lawyers at the recording industry probably aren't very good chess players.

Filed Under: ifpi, ireland, isps, liability, safe harbor
Companies: httpshare, ifpi

IFPI's New Strategy: Sue ISPs For Not Stopping File Sharing

from the making-life-even-worse-for-themselves dept

Earlier this year, the IFPI was successful in convincing a court to force a Danish ISP to block access to the Pirate Bay. Rather than recognizing that this only helped drive more traffic to the Pirate Bay, the folks at the IFPI seem to have gotten it into their heads that the best course of action is to start suing ISPs for not stopping file sharing. Its first target is the large Irish ISP Eircom. Eircom points out all the obvious things: it has no idea what its users are doing on the network, it's just providing the network -- and no one had made it aware of any specific infringing activity. Rather than deal with those very reasonable questions, the record labels responded with the ridiculous "but you know it's happening!" response which we've heard all too often these days. Of course, knowing that unauthorized file sharing is happening on your network and being either liable or able to stop it are two very different things. Basically, the record labels seem to be admitting that they are unable to stop file sharing, so it must be someone else's job. Even worse, they seem to be saying that it's a legal responsibility of someone else to try to prop up their own failed business model. Talk about grasping at straws. I'm not sure if Ireland has laws like the US's safe harbor provisions protecting service providers from liability for the actions of users, but hopefully the Irish courts quickly realize how ridiculous it is to pin liability on an ISP and throw this case out. What's also partly disturbing is the fact that the "but you know it's happening!" comment comes from an EMI exec, just after we thought EMI was moving away from ridiculous IFPI lawsuits. Apparently not.

Filed Under: ifpi, ireland, isps, liability, safe harbor
Companies: eircom, ifpi

British ISPs Hand Over Your Surfing Data To (Former?) Spyware Firm

from the privacy? dept

Earlier this month, we noted that three large UK ISPs had agreed to a questionable deal with a startup named "Phorm." The ISPs would share all of your surfing data with Phorm who would then target advertisements to you based on your surfing patterns. We raised some privacy concerns, and noted that Phorm's claims that it would anonymize the data were laughable, since every "anonymized" data set seems to get quickly de-anonymized. In the comments to that post, one commenter noted that the story was even worse, as Phorm was merely the reincarnation of a spyware firm that had made a rather infamous rootkit. Broadband Reports now has more on that story, noting that the firm has a very shady past. It makes you wonder why these big ISPs would link up with such a company and why more people aren't up in arms about what their ISPs are doing with their data.

Filed Under: adware, clickstream data, isps, spyware, uk
Companies: phorm

Great Firewall Of Japan? Japan Proposes Regulating The Internet

from the dissent-is-harmful dept

It appears that the Japanese government is growing a bit jealous of China's ability to censor anything the government doesn't like online. The Japanese government has proposed new internet regulations that would effectively do the same thing -- requiring Japanese ISPs to filter content that is considered "harmful." As the article notes, this stems from a long-time regulatory relationship between the government and existing news media in Japan -- which has apparently helped keep the same ruling party in power for decades. The internet has now allowed for more open dissent, which the government is hoping to reign in. Of course, the government insists there's nothing nefarious going on here at all. It says the proposal specifically says it's not about censorship (which should set off alarm bells that it clearly is about censorship). Instead, they say they just want to protect citizens against harmful materials. That's the type of soundbite that sounds good, but it's not supported by the actual proposal. If the government is upset about "harmful" information, then that information itself should be outlawed and those responsible for producing the harmful content should be prosecuted for it. Yet, that's not what this proposal is about. It's telling ISPs to determine what's harmful and to block it. And, as many in Japan are pointing out, mobile operators in the country recently started a "voluntary" effort to filter out harmful info, and it's blocking lots of perfectly legitimate info to be on the safe side. This proposal may not be quite as extreme as China's Great Firewall, but it's clearly a step in that direction.

Filed Under: censorship, isps, japan, media control, regulations

Can Someone Explain Why It Should Be An ISP's Responsibility To Deal With File Sharing?

from the it's-a-simple-question dept

Last week, we noted that there was some draft legislation in the UK making the rounds that would have ISPs ban people found to have participated in unauthorized file sharing. Some people responded by saying that this was just a draft and there was no chance it was going to go anywhere. However, the UK's Culture Secretary Andy Burnham is now saying that the government is quite serious about pushing this legislation through, and that ISPs would be wise to implement such a system voluntarily before the government acts: "Let me make it absolutely clear: this is a change of tone from the Government. It's definitely serious legislative intent." What he doesn't make clear, however, is why it should be the ISPs' responsibility to prop up someone else's business model. What's next? Will they push automakers to fight back against bankrobbers who use getaway cars?

Filed Under: business models, file sharing, isps, liability, uk

UK ISPs To Start Tracking Your Surfing To Serve You Ads

from the pirvacy-please dept

For years now, ISPs have been searching for alternative revenue streams to avoid just being "dumb pipes." A few years ago, they picked up on the fact that they have a tremendous amount of data about what you (yes, you!) do online. A bunch of ISPs then started selling your clickstream data to companies that could do something useful with it (though, those ISPs probably neglected to tell you they were doing this). Late last year, we heard about a company that was trying to work with ISPs to make use of that data themselves to insert their own ads based on your surfing history -- and now we've got the first report of some big ISPs moving into this realm. Over in the UK three big ISPs, BT, Carphone Warehouse and Virgin Media have announced plans to use your clickstream data to insert relevant ads as you surf through a new startup called Phorm.

While Phorm claims that it keeps your data private "by tracking individual users with an assigned number only," that's hardly assuring. After all, remember that both AOL and Netflix have released similar anonymized data where identifying info was replaced with an assigned number... and it didn't take long for both sets of data to be de-anonymized. While it's no surprise that ISPs would want to get into the advertising business, and to think that they could better target ads thanks to their knowledge of your entire surfing history, it's going to freak some people out (and potentially cause some serious privacy problems). All the more reason to figure out how encrypt your traffic and hide your activities from your ISP.

Filed Under: advertising, clickstream data, isps
Companies: bt, carphone warehouse, virgin media