Australia Eyes Website Censoring And A Graduated Response Program -- Because They Clearly Work So Well

from the you-don't-seem-to-be-learning dept

We've repeatedly pointed out how graduated response anti-piracy programs don't slow piracy. France's Hadopi program is obviously example A, though here in the United States our own graduated response program, where users are either throttled or bombarded with one-sided "educational" materials, has proven equally ineffective at impacting piracy rates. This shouldn't have really been much of a surprise, considering that numerous studies have shown that such programs really don't work and can in some cases have significant negative implications; studies that the entertainment industry and governments promptly ignore.

Right on cue, here comes Australia's Attorney-General George Brandis, who this week indicated that the country will continue its proud tradition of ignoring facts when it comes to Internet policy, and will start considering the use of graduated response programs to purportedly thwart piracy:

“The government will be considering possible mechanisms to provide a ‘legal incentive’ for an Internet service provider to cooperate with copyright owners in preventing infringement on their systems and networks. This may include looking carefully at the merits of a scheme whereby ISPs are required to issue graduated warnings to consumers who are using websites to facilitate piracy."

That there are no merits isn't likely to deter Brandis. Australia's willful obliviousness doesn't end there, with the government considering changing the law to legally force ISPs to take down websites the government doesn't like (which here in the States is obviously something that also just works so well):

"Another option that some stakeholders have raised with me is to provide the Federal Court with explicit powers to provide for third party injunctions against ISPs, which will ultimately require ISPs to 'take down'; websites hosting infringing content."

This is the same Australia that imposed porn filters that were bested by a young kid in all of half an hour. The same Australia whose ISPs quite clearly illustrated the futility and problems with filters. The same Australian government who year after year after year is told that a ham-fisted approach to "managing" or otherwise censoring Internet content causes many more problems that it fixes. Yet here we are once again with the Australian government almost gleeful in its disregard of sound advice, making you wonder what great ideas loom down the road.

Filed Under: australia, censorship, free speech, george brandis, graduated response

Time To Start Again On 'Six Strikes' And Let Internet Users Have A Seat At The Table

from the all-the-stake-holders dept

One of our key concerns with the so-called "voluntary" six strikes agreement set up between the ISPs and the content companies (with a major shove from the White House) was the fact that there was no one representing the users at the table. As much as the White House has insisted that the entertainment industry alone represents "all the stakeholders," the simple fact is that copyright law is supposed to benefit the public, not the legacy industry gatekeepers.

And while it may have been the way things were done around copyright in the past, the public's reaction to SOPA should have changed that equation. No longer should decisions around copyright law that effect the public internet users be made without their input. And, yet, that's exactly what happened with the six strikes agreement. Even if the new Center for Copyright Infringement (CCI), which has been set up to run the new six strikes program, has appointed some consumer rights advocates to its powerless "advisory" board, shouldn't we go back to the drawing board and have a true, open discussion about these things that includes the users of the internet? After all, aren't they the true stakeholders here?

The folks over at the EFF are calling for a complete "reset" on the agreement, and saying that it's time to do it correctly: with internet users at the table, rather than kept out of the room. The statement notes that the advisory board is not the same as including internet users in the process:

An advisory board is just that: a group of advisors, not decisionmakers. No matter how you slice it, subscribers don't have a seat at the table now any more than they did in the earlier negotiations.

Instead, they point out that the only way this is going to be done in a way that's fair and that actually serves the true purpose of copyright law is to start again, and have the discussion done in public where the public has a true say in what happens:

So here's an idea: press reset. This collaboration has been years in the making, with the ISPs under heavy pressure from the content industries and government officials. It may be that they made the best deal they could under the circumstances, but since then the world has changed. If the ISPs decided to take this back to drawing board, we think their customers will stand with them, loudly and publicly -- but only if they also insist that their customers have voice in the process.

Indeed. This may have seemed like a crazy idea pre-SOPA blackout, but since then, the public is aware and energized on this issue -- and they want to participate in the conversation. The number one point we've heard over and over again since the January 18th blackouts is about how the public can get involved in a positive agenda around copyright. Here's a key opportunity. The big ISPs who signed on to this six strikes deal should call for a brand new discussion, one that is not done in a backroom, but is done in public, where the public can take part.

Filed Under: graduated response, six strikes, sopa blackout, white house
Companies: cci, eff

Why Hollywood's Six Strike Plan Should Be Investigated For Antitrust Violations

from the good-points dept

With there being renewed interest in the questionable deal between the RIAA/MPAA and the US's largest ISPs to set up a "six strikes" graduated response plan to cause trouble for those accused (not convicted) of file sharing, some are beginning to realize that the whole plan deserves serious antitrust scrutiny. After all, you have the representatives of two major industries getting together in a room to collude on a plan that will make internet access more expensive for users.

On top of that, since it's based on mere accusations (not convictions) -- and those accusations will come from a company with a terrible track record for accuracy -- you'll have to pay to challenge a strike and (most ridiculous of all) if you do challenge it, you are limited to just six defenses -- significantly less than are allowed under copyright law. That is, if the work is in the public domain, but published after 1923, you have no official defense under the plan. In other words, not only does the plan involve collusion among multiple big industries, but at the outset it assumes guilt before innocence, makes you pay to claim you're innocent, and won't even let you use basic defenses afforded to you under existing copyright law.

All of that seems of questionable legality. It also makes the White House's direct involvement in brokering this plan look even worse. And, once again, it makes us wonder why the real stakeholders, internet users, weren't given a seat at the table. If they were, perhaps this would have been avoided.

Of course, given the White House's involvement in brokering the deal, there doesn't seem much likelihood that the Attorney General will bother to scrutinize the agreement, since it would effectively be challenging his own boss.

That said, the article linked above suggesting that an antitrust inquiry seems necessary is written by Sean Flaim, and is based on his even more thorough research paper detailing why this program needs to be reviewed for antitrust violations. Unfortunately, the chances of that actually happening are still pretty slim.

Filed Under: antitrust, collusion, five strikes, graduated response, isps, six strikes
Companies: mpaa, riaa

ISPs Will Start Acting As Hollywood's Private Online Security Guards By July

from the time-to-find-a-better-ISP dept

Last July, we wrote about how the major ISPs had agreed to a "voluntary" "six strikes" plan (really five strikes, but everyone calls it six...) to start acting as Hollywood's private online security guards. And, by "voluntary" we mean without any input from the actual stake holders (customers) and with significant pressure being applied by the Obama administration. Since then, nothing has been heard, but the RIAA's Cary Sherman has now said that the ISPs involved will roll out their plans by July of this year, a year after the agreement went into place.

Sherman says that the plan had always been to give them a year to deal with the technical aspects of setting up the plan:

"Each isp has to develop their infrastructure for automating the system," Sherman said. They need this "for establishing the database so they can keep track of repeat infringers, so they know that this is the first notice or the third notice. Every ISP has to do it differently depending on the architecture of its particular network. Some are nearing completion and others are a little further from completion."

Funny how, now that the plan is in place, the RIAA has no problem admitting that it required significant infrastructure changes. Somehow I doubt the RIAA is paying for this... meaning that you and I are paying for it with higher fees.

Of course, the real question is what this means for the non-major ISPs who have not agreed to take part in this anti-consumer plan. Will the RIAA and MPAA now start assuming that this is a requirement, despite it not being in the law? That's what they've been doing with content filtering on user-generated content sites now. Multiple lawsuits have pointed out that because YouTube and others have installed upload filters, everyone should have to. I'd imagine it won't be long until they start making the argument that ISPs that don't implement such a plan are "inducing" infringement somehow.

Filed Under: cary sherman, copyright cops, five strikes, graduated response, six strikes
Companies: riaa

Shouldn't Users Have Been At The Table For The Six Strikes Negotiations?

from the look-who-got-screwed dept

We've already discussed the "voluntary" agreement between ISPs and the RIAA/MPAA to create a "six strikes" (I still say the details show it's five strikes, but the internet has overruled me) graduated response plan. In particular, we've noted that the plan appears to limit defenses of users in ways that strike us as questionable (i.e., you can't even claim a work is in the public domain!). Now law professor Eric Goldman and the EFF's Corynne McSherry have put together an analysis of the agreement which highlights how unfortunate it is that this agreement was made completely without anyone representing actual users. It was just big companies, working together to effectively screw over users. The writeup by Goldman and McSherry highlights numerous problems with the agreement when it comes to users (including the fairly bogus "education" component of this project). But where it really shines is in showing just a few examples of where such an agreement could have been much better if there had been someone (anyone!) representing the interest of the users:

* The burden should be on the content owners to establish infringement, not on the subscribers to disprove infringement. The Internet access providers will treat the content owners’ notices of infringement as presumptively accurate--obligating subscribers to defend against the accusations, and in several places requiring subscribers to produce evidence “credibly demonstrating” their innocence. This burden-shift violates our traditional procedural due process norms and is based on the presumed reliability of infringement-detection systems that subscribers haven't vetted and to which they cannot object. (The content owners’ systems will be reviewed by “impartial technical experts,” but the experts’ work will be confidential). Without subscribers being able to satisfy themselves that the notification systems are so reliable that they warrant a burden-shift, content owners should have to prove the merits of their complaints before internet access providers take any punitive action against subscribers.

* Subscribers should be able to assert the full range of defenses to copyright infringement. A subscriber who protests an infringement notice may assert only six pre-defined defenses, even though there are many other possible defenses available in a copyright litigation. And even the six enumerated defenses are incomplete. For example, the “public domain” defense applies only if the work was created before 1923--even though works created after 1923 can enter the public domain in a variety of ways.

* Content owners should be accountable if they submit incorrect infringement notices. A subscriber who successfully challenges an infringement notice gets a refund of the $35 review fee, but the MOU doesn’t spell out any adverse consequences for the content owner that make the mistake – or even making repeated mistakes. Content owners should be on the hook if they overclaim copyright infringement.

* Subscribers should have adequate time to prepare a defense. The MOU gives subscribers only 10 business days to challenge a notice or their challenge rights are waived (a subscriber might get an extra 10 business days "for substantial good cause"). This period isn’t enough time for most subscribers to research and write a proper defense. Subscribers should get adequate time to defend themselves.

* There should be adequate assurances that the reviewers are neutral. The MOU requires that reviewers must be lawyers and specifies that the CCI will train the reviews in “prevailing legal principles” of copyright law – an odd standard given the complexity of, and jurisdictional differences in, copyright law. We’re especially interested in the identity of these lawyers, and why they are willing to review cases for less than $35 each (assuming the CCI keeps some of the $35 review fee for itself). Perhaps there will be a ready supply of lawyer-reviewers who are truly independent. Given the low financial incentives, another possibility is that the reviewers will be lawyers tied—financially or ideologically—to the content owner community. To ensure that the reviewers remain truly neutral, reviewer resumes should be made public, and checks-and-balances should be built into the reviewer selection process to ensure that the deck isn’t stacked against subscribers from day 1.

The chances of any of that actually happening? Yeah, basically none.

It's on this point that IP Czar Victoria Espinel should really be ashamed. After talking up how this agreement would help someone (not clear who?) "win the future," shouldn't she have been the least bit concerned about the most obvious stakeholder who wasn't at the table? We see this way too often with government officials these days. They think the only stakeholders are the businesses, and leave out the citizens they're supposed to represent. Copyright law is supposed to benefit the public, but the public wasn't at the table negotiating this agreement. In fact, pretty much everyone admits that the government focused solely on bringing together these two parties and putting tremendous pressure on the ISPs to cave to the entertainment industry. Couldn't they have used some of that "pressure" to make sure that the public's interest was included? Isn't that what government is supposed to do?

Filed Under: copyright, entertainment industry, graduated response, isps, six strikes, users

Did The Entertainment Industry Backdoor In Forcing ISPs To Kick People Offline, While Claiming It Did Not?

from the sneaky,-sneaky dept

Never underestimate just how sneaky entertainment industry lobbyists can be. They're able to push through all sorts of things that appear innocuous at first, but down the road turn out to be anything but. The ProIP Act (not to be confused with the PROTECT IP Act) is a perfect example of this. It had all sorts of awful provisions, originally, which lots of people protested about. But that allowed the industry to slip in a single "innocuous" provision almost entirely unnoticed. The provision that allowed feds to seize and forfeit "property" used for infringement. This provision got very little scrutiny, and the short discussions that were had about it concerned the ability of the feds to seize things like CD and DVD burners in commercial counterfeiting operations. Not something many people would have an issue with. But, instead, that provision has been used to justify Homeland Security's outright seizure of domain names under very questionable legal theories.

So forgive us for not taking some of the comments from the entertainment industry at face value. We've been burned many times before. As we noted in our post about the new "voluntary" agreement between the entertainment industry and top US ISPs, while the report tries to bend over backwards to insist that the "graduated response" plans don't include disconnecting from the internet, this really isn't true. First, it does push ISPs to cut people off from the web, which for most people is their internet access.

But, it gets even more pernicious than that. The EFF is pointing out a questionable bit of the agreement, which suggests the entertainment industry may be knowingly backdooring disconnections into the agreement by misinterpreting a section of the DMCA (which they also helped write):

The materials emphatically state that ISPs are not required to terminate subscriber accounts as a condition of the agreement with the content industry and that the collaboration does not amount to a “three strikes” regime. But the materials also take pains to assert that the DMCA “requires that the ISPs have in place a termination policy for repeat copyright infringers as a condition of availing themselves of the Act’s ‘safe harbor’ provision.” Translation: The content industry is staking its position that ISPs that don’t terminate subscribers after 5 or 6 alerts will lose their DMCA protection. There are plenty of arguments for why that position is wrong; given that an alert represents nothing more than an allegation untried by a court, we think loss of Internet access would be a draconian measure that Congress did not intend. Nonetheless, it may take an ISP willing to litigate the issue to make the argument.

In case it's not clear, the EFF is showing language that clearly suggests the entertainment industry believes that if ISPs don't kick off those accused (not convicted) of repeat infringing, they lose their own safe harbor protections under the DMCA. And, as we've seen with the way DMCA takedowns work, to nearly everyone, the threat of losing safe harbor protections is the equivalent of a requirement. No company wants to increase their liability, and thus, to avoid a potential claim that failing to kick a user off violates the DMCA, there seems like a good chance most of these ISPs will including kicking people offline entirely as an option here.

The obvious retort from the industry will be that this part is no different than what's been said in the past, because the DMCA has been in place for over a decade. However, while it may be true that the DMCA has been in place that long, no copyright holder has tested this theory that not kicking people off violates the DMCA. By putting it in this document, the entertainment industry is effectively putting ISPs on notice: saying that they may now start focusing in on this.

Pretty neat trick, huh? Claim upfront that the plan has no disconnections, while on the backend include language and a statement that clearly alerts ISPs that if they don't disconnect, they can face much greater liability.

Filed Under: copyright, entertainment industry, graduated response, isps

Major US ISPs Agree To Five Strikes Plan, Rather Than Three

from the how-unfortunate dept

Well, this is hardly a surprise, given the leaks about this last month, but most of the major US ISPs have agreed to a "voluntary graduated response" plan at the urging of the RIAA and the MPAA (with some shoving from the US government).

In our original discussion, we noted that ISPs would have the option to kick people off the web entirely, and in our comments we were attacked by an anonymous person involved in the negotiations, saying we made that up. And yet, the agreement today confirms that kicking users off the web entirely is a possible measure for these ISPs. Of course, the folks behind the plan were careful to try to talk their way around this. They say that it's only the web that gets blocked. Email (um, not if you use web-based email), VoIP "or any security or health service (such as home security or medical monitoring)" will still be allowed to go through. Also the agreement explicitly says that they're not talking about killing anyone's account. This is disingenuous, of course. For most people, having their web access blocked is as good as losing your account entirely. Access to the web is pretty much the whole point of an internet access account these days.

Participating ISPs include AT&T, Cablevision, Comcast, Verizon and Time Warner Cable -- also known as pretty much the only choices the vast majority of Americans have for serious broadband connections. The basics of the plan are a "five strike" plan, rather than the traditional "three." After the fifth strike (and by strike, we mean accusation, not conviction), the ISPs can resort to "mitigation measures":

If, after these educational and acknowledgment alerts, the subscriber’s account still appears to be engaged in content theft, the ISP will send yet another alert. At this time, the ISP may take one of several steps, referred to as “Mitigation Measures” reasonably calculated to stop future content theft. These Mitigation Measures may include, for example: temporary reductions of Internet speeds, redirection to a landing page until the subscriber contacts the ISP to discuss the matter or reviews and responds to some educational information about copyright, or other measures (as specified in published policies) that the ISP may deem necessary to help resolve the matter.

Now, the interesting question: will any of this get people to actually buy music and movies again? That seems doubtful. And, of course, it's worth noting that even with this in place, the MPAA and RIAA are insisting that PROTECT IP is necessary. Funny, I thought that the problem was solved once graduated response was in place.

Those behind the plan bend over backwards to claim this is just an "educational" plan. But education plans don't mean people can no longer access the web. Words mean something. On top of that you can pretty much bet that the "education materials" that will be provided will be typically one-sided and misleading.

The other problem with the plan is that it's still based on accusations, rather than convictions, and if the DMCA has taught us anything, it's that people make false claims of infringement all the time. And if you get an alert that you think is wrong? Well, you have to pay to have it reviewed. Now suddenly this can become a "profit center" for ISPs.

Is this plan as bad as three strikes plans found in Europe and Asia? No. But it's still a bad plan. Anything that involves crippling your internet access based on accusations is ripe for serious abuse. Furthermore, there is little to no evidence that this will actually help the RIAA or MPAA and their associated companies. This is yet another case where the industry is so focused on "piracy" they forgot that they have to actually give people reasons to buy. The problem isn't piracy. The problem is their inability to adapt to a changing market.

Filed Under: copyright, entertainment industry, graduated response, isps
Companies: at&t, cablevision, comcast, mpaa, riaa, time warner cable, verizon

Why ISPs Becoming Hollywood Enforcers Won't Actually Solve Hollywood's Problem

from the and-then-what? dept

It really was all the way back in 2008 that the RIAA claimed it was dropping its brilliant strategy of suing the music industry's biggest fans, claiming that everything would be fine now because ISPs had agreed to a three strikes policy to kick people off the internet based on accusations (never convictions) of copyright infringement. Of course, "three strikes" sounded way too draconian, so the entertainment industry rebranded it "graduated response." And yet, for years, it was tough to find ISPs that had agreed to do so and any time rumors came out that a big ISP was testing such a plan, those ISPs would quickly back down.

All this time, the industry has been putting tremendous pressure on the ISPs, often using the administrative branch to apply even more pressure. In other countries, they were able to pass three strikes legislation (such as in France, South Korea, the UK, etc.), but, when they put out feelers in the US, they quickly realized they couldn't get the support needed to pass a law that would involve kicking people off the internet. Greg Sandoval, over at News.com, is now reporting that the big 3 ISPs: Verizon, AT&T and Comcast are very close to agreeing to a modified three strikes plan. The crux of the plan is to send notices and warnings to people accused (not convicted) of copyright infringement. If you get a few of those, then the response "graduates" (huh?) and the ISP has a variety of options, from slowing down your speeds to limiting you to only visiting a list of 200 popular websites. And, of course, they can kick you off the network.

Comcast and AT&T have been flirting with such programs for years anyway, so it's no surprise to see their names on the list. And now that Comcast owns a majority stake in NBC Universal, it's no shock that they'd align with Hollywood on this. Verizon, historically, has been much more willing to actually stand up for their users, but with less and less competition out there, perhaps they feel they don't need to care about users any more.

However, as we've asked each time such efforts are undertaken in various countries, does the industry have any evidence whatsoever that such efforts make people buy any more? The answer, of course, is no. This is the key problem. The folks in the industry (and the politicians who support them) keep thinking that the problem is "piracy." And if they just got rid of these "freeloaders," the business model solves itself. That is, they look at infringement as the problem, and business model problems as the symptoms. They've got it backwards. The problem is the business model. The infringement is the symptom -- showing that they haven't yet adapted. If you look at the history of infringement, it's the same thing every time: it's always been a leading indicator of industry not adapting fast enough.

So, assuming this is in place already, people are reasonably skeptical that it will actually help the industry do anything. How will it make people buy? Now suddenly one of the most popular routes for learning about new content is blocked out, so you have less marketing ability. The unintended consequences of such policies will be pretty intense as well. It will be costly for ISPs to set up such a system. And dealing with responses from false or misapplied accusations will only serve to increase the cost. The entertainment industry doesn't care about that, because that cost is borne by the consumers. In the meantime, people, who still want to access infringing material, will adopt encryption or other policies to get around ISPs snooping on their activity. It's why Homeland Security has already warned others in the US government that such policies actually make law enforcement more difficult.

In the end, nothing here makes anyone any more interested in buying. If anything, it limits a source for learning about new works, so it decreases the value and decreases the willingness to buy. This seems like a lose-lose-lose proposition for nearly everyone. ISPs have higher costs (passed on to consumers) and are seen as being anti-consumer. Users have less freedom and face punishment based solely on accusation. And the industry that is so in love with this idea, doesn't actually improve their business standing. It's a trifecta of bad results. But watch as the industry declares "victory" and pretends that this will actually help their flailing bottom lines.

Filed Under: graduated response, isps, three strikes
Companies: at&t, comcast, verizon

Study Says File Sharers Would Ignore Warning Letters; Recording Industry Gets The Wrong Message

from the let's-try-this-again... dept

The fight in the UK over how the recording industry will deal with future business models continues. The industry has been pushing hard for ISPs to start kicking people offline, believing (oddly) that pissing off a lot of people and making them lose their internet connections will magically make people want to buy music again -- rather than the reality: which is that it will piss off even more people and make them even less inclined to spend money on the industry. Yet, UK politicians have so far stood firm against a three strikes policy, sometimes claiming that merely sending warning letters should be enough to scare unauthorized file sharers straight. So, of course, it didn't take long for a new industry study to come out saying that a high percentage (around 67%) of file sharers would likely ignore such letters unless they were backed up by other measures, such as a three strikes regime.

So, of course, the industry is using this to demand more than just warning letters be mandated by UK law. But, once again, it appears the industry is getting the wrong message. Rather than realizing what the study is actually saying -- that unauthorized file sharing won't stop -- it seems to think that if it just finds that magic legal bullet, suddenly file sharing will go away and people will start spending again. What they should have recognized is that this study says that people will go to great lengths to file share, even if they know it's illegal, because they do not believe it is wrong or unethical. And, as such, if the industry reps were thinking this through, they might realize that this represents a giant opportunity to build business models around embracing such fan activities, rather than trying to hold back the tide.

Filed Under: file sharing, graduated response, recording industry, three strikes, uk, warning letters

French Constitutional Council Guts 'Three Strikes' As Unconstitutional

from the sorry-Sarkozy dept

Well, that didn't last long at all... After some back and forth (and tremendous pressure from French President -- and known copyright infringer -- Nicolas Sarkozy), France passed a three strikes law that would kick people off the internet for three accusations of unauthorized file sharing. However, it looks like the law may be going nowhere fast. France's Constitutional Council has gutted the law, after finding significant constitutional problems with it. The Council specifically barred the heart of the law: the cutting people off the internet part, noting:

communication and liberty of expression are fundamental rights that only a judge can rule on.

Indeed. The council said that it could be okay to cut off internet users... but only with a judge's permission. It's expected that the law may be adjusted to push these issues in front of a judge -- but that's a much better (though still not perfect) situation, since a judge should at least require evidence rather than simple accusations. Either way, it's yet another defeat for an industry that continues to insist that somehow kicking people offline is going to "save" the industry.

Filed Under: constitution, france, graduated response, nicolas sarkozy, three strikes