Convicted by the Movie Cops

Reckless Visionary writes "Salon has a great article about what it's like to get on the MPAA's bad side. It's a first hand account of what happens when you are accused of violating the DMCA and commentary on the "guilty until proven innocent" nature of today's copyright laws." Pirate movies. Lose access. You are guilty. And this guy was on vacation when it happened, so there's no need for accountability. Hope you don't depend on your net access.

Comments

Honestly

[WinDoze]

If my ISP decided to shut me off because someone else accused me of something, and they didn't even bother asking my side of the story, I think I'd be more than happy to terminate my relationship with that ISP.

Re:Honestly

[Drone-X]

If my ISP decided to shut me off because someone else accused me of something, and they didn't even bother asking my side of the story, I think I'd be more than happy to terminate my relationship with that ISP.

Oh really? The article states that the DMCA requires your ISP to disconnect you unless they want to be be held liable too. No ISP would risk a lawsuit for someone who probably did violate copyright.

Don't blame the ISP, it's the DMCA that's broken.

Re:Honestly

[ColdCuts]

Makes sense. You can always go with that *other* cable internet access provider,

right?

Re:Honestly

[Pxtl]

Hmph. This is lawsuit time in my world. Whatever service the MPAA used has just committed libel (or is it slander?). Shrink-wrap licenses that say "We can cancel service at any time" are quite questionable. Whats to stop someone from pulling a totally legal con job that way? It never said though, whether they recieved a refund at all for the time lost. If not, then thats a definite issue.

Re:Honestly

[mesocyclone]

Bwhen you ISP is your only possible broadband access, and they do this, you don't realistically even have that choice!

In many areas today, there is only one broadband provider.

Re:Honestly

[BlueTurnip]

Don't blame the ISP, it's the DMCA that's broken.

What's really broken is the fact that most broadband providers have a virtual monopoly. Back in the days of 56K modems, ISPs were a dime a dozen, and if you were dropped by one, it was no big deal to sign up with another. This situation has changed drastically now that people are dependent on broadband access. DSL is not available everywhere which means many people are dependent on cable modems for broadband, and in most cities there is only one choice of provider.

I'm not saying cable companies should be forced to allow competitors to use their lines, but we should be careful that when fiber optics are installed, that whichever company is given the government granted monopoly to dig trenches on public land to lay cables, that this company must, in return, allow other ISPs to hook up to the other end, giving consumers choice. Then if you are dropped by one, it's no big deal to sign up with another.

Re:Honestly

[Drone-X]

Just because the ISP or anyone believes someone probably did violate copyright laws doesn't give them the right to take action against you. That is, if you believe in being innocent until proven guilty.

Yes, but I find the ISP's reaction pretty normal since they could be held liable too if you were proven guilty. I wouldn't espect my ISP to pay fines when I did something wrong.

The law should protect the ISP here and should only let me pay if I broke the law.

Re:Honestly

[Sir_Real]

Just out of curiosity. How hard is it (and what kind of monetary/time expenditure is necessary) to start a broadband isp. I know with dialup the startup costs in terms of time and money were not so high that they put it out of reach of the average geek.

Andrew

Re:Honestly

[kilgore_47]

Oh really? The article states that the DMCA requires your ISP to disconnect you unless they want to be be held liable too. No ISP would risk a lawsuit for someone who probably did violate copyright.

But what if the MPAA's alegation, like many it makes, is false? If the ISP terminates a user's account based on a false accusation the user might just have legal claims against them.

My ISP, who is very top-notch, probably wouldn't just go pull the plug on a user unless they were sure the grounds to were valid.
I hope.

Re:Honestly

[kilgore_47]

well, if you get kicked off both for DMCA violations you still left up shit creek. Having a choice of two corporations is only slightly better than having one option in the first place.

Re:Honestly

[ocie]

Does anyone know how much information is required to be presented to the ISP? Could I just start calling up ISPs and tell them that my psychic advisor feels that this user or that user had unlawfully uploaded copies of my copyrighted work?

Re:Honestly

[crucini]

If the ISP terminates a user's account based on a false accusation the user might just have legal claims against them.

I don't think so, because that's what the DMCA requires. It doesn't matter if the infringement letter is true or false. As we saw in this story, the ISP can even refuse to show you the letter, so you have no way of debating its validity.

Re:Honestly

[einhverfr]

Oh really? The article states that the DMCA requires your ISP to disconnect you unless they want to be be held liable too. No ISP would risk a lawsuit for someone who probably did violate copyright.

However, could they be held liable for any damages to you that resulted from the termination of your service, particularly if it was a "shoot first, ask questions later" approach? I would not like to be an ISP right now.

Re:Honestly

[unitron]

Whereas the accusation against him in no way inhibited his ability to get screwed.

Ranger Inc

[clinko]

"We never sleep. Our IOS software is constantly searching the Internet 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Our intelligent scanning probes are customized to each client's needs and patrol the Internet searching for suspicious sites."

Isn't scanning illegal now too?

Re:Ranger Inc

[saider]

You could probably filter out Ranger Inc's IP addresses out at your firewall.

They fingered this guy from a Usenet post. Either someone forged the IP address, this guy had his computer compromised, or he actually did it and is crying 'foul' because he was caught. It's hard to say what is up with this article. But it does bring up perfectly valid points about the enforcement of a penalty without due process.

Re:Ranger Inc

[sulli]

Well, to paraphrase Jack Valenti: I sleep a little less well knowing that the MPAA is doing shit like this.

Re:Ranger Inc

[ncc74656]

You could probably filter out Ranger Inc's IP addresses out at your firewall.

rangerinc.com resolves to 209.95.126.167. So does their webserver. whois doesn't say much about what range of addresses they own, so you'd probably want to cut off the entire subnet at your firewall.

Guilty until proven innocent? Gimme a break

[bconway]

How many times have we seen this before? They had their connection to their ISP discontinued! This is hardly a conviction, nor would I in any way consider an ISP to be a government body. Okay, so it was an inconvenience, and the matter was settled, but the ISP was just doing what they felt was right in trying to resolve a problem, and inadvertantly targeted the wrong user. It's not like they were thrown in jail for visiting the US by Adobe. Come on.

Re:Guilty until proven innocent? Gimme a break

[Nater]

That's all beside the point. This guy didn't do anything (so it would seem from the article) and yet, as an innocent net user, his time and effort were wasted on behalf of the MPAA.

Re:Guilty until proven innocent? Gimme a break

[JoeGrind]

Give you a break? The point that you don't seem to think is a big deal has nothing to do with the punishment. The point is that if you are paying money for a service you expect that service. They expect the money and you expect the bandwidth. If an organization which apparently can't even accurately determine the source IP of the traffic they are monitoring just needs to point a finger to get your access shutdown then that seems to be a violation of the contract you have with the ISP.

Not having the ability to surf for pr0n is one thing. However, lots of people use their connections for business uses. It supports their livelihood. When you consider that, it sounds a little more important.

The last point is that the idea of being innocent until being proven guilty by a jury of your peers is one of the tenents of the US, where this action occured. A lot of people jumped on boats and sailed across the see to avoid this sort of behavior. Without that, this sounds could be the Salem Witch Hunt, the Red Scare, or the Inquisition.

Right now it's just being able to check your email. But as we depend on bandwidth more and more in the future it becomes more important. Consider that.

Re:Guilty until proven innocent? Gimme a break

[Neil Watson]

Yes they targeted the wrong user but:

The MPAA and the ISP did not admit any wrong doing or mistake on their part. The made the guy sign a document stating he would not traffic copywrited materials. As far as they are concerned he did it.

Suppose your cable tv was disconnected because the cable company was told that you were making illegal copies of movies and selling them? What would you do? You are accused of being a pirate and the only way you can get your cable service back is to promise not to do it again. But, you never did it in the first place.

Is that just an invoncenience? How would you feel?

Re:Guilty until proven innocent? Gimme a break

[KMitchell]

Today this may be an inconvenience, but give it a couple of years. Would you consider it an inconvenience if your phone was turned off for suspected wrongdoings? How about your electricity or water? Hmmm... We think you're growing something you shouldn't be in there... better shut off the water until we're sure that you're not...

While Internet access will never be as "critical" a service as heat or water, some of us would suffer very real economic damages if our net access was interrupted, and this is only going to get more and more common.

Re:Guilty until proven innocent? Gimme a break

[j7953]

Wait until the owner of your apartment (if you live in a rented one) won't let you in because someone wrote him a letter accusing you of doing "illegal stuff" in there.

I guess that's also just an incovinience?

Come on, this is a serious issue. Maybe not as serious as making you homeless, but still very serious. Effectively the MPAA has the power to have anyone disconnected from the net whenever they feel like doing so. If they're critizied, they can just disconnect their critics. They can force small companies out of business (disconnect Napster's servers before Napster becomes well-known? No problem.) If a case ever goes to court, the worst that can happen to the MPAA is that they have to pay a small refund for some weeks of service interruption. The worst that can happen to you is that you go into jail because the MPAA had the better lawyers. Which is why most people won't sue, but rather shut up.

Re:Guilty until proven innocent? Gimme a break

[gilroy]

Blockquoth the poster:

That's what the police do every day: when they think so one has committed a crime, they arrest him.

Of course, in such a case, the police must charge the person in a timely manner or release them. Judges have ruled that only administrative delays -- and not even those, if egregious -- can warrant holding someone without arraignment. The person arrestesd is entitled to a lawyer and to a full reading of charges. No other action -- forfeiture, etc. -- can be taken until the person is charged, I believe.

Officers who merely hold a suspect while they go fishing open themselves to charges of false arrest and conceivably to civil and criminal penalties. So there are incentives not to go around arresting anyone who might be connected to a crime.

In other words, there are ways to handle these situations and in the real world, the weight falls on those making the accusation: Proof must be offered and the officer will be held accountable. In the bizarro-world of DMCA, though, the weight falls on the individual user.

Re:Guilty until proven innocent? Gimme a break

[Monte]

The point is that if you are paying money for a service you expect that service. They expect the money and you expect the bandwidth. If an organization which apparently can't even accurately determine the source IP of the traffic they are monitoring just needs to point a finger to get your access shutdown then that seems to be a violation of the contract you have with the ISP.

Only on Slashdot would people take broadband access as an inalienable right. This has nothing to do with innocence, guilt or the jury system, and everything to do with the terms of service (ie, contract) that you enter into with the ISP.

Let's take a look at that contract, shall we?

If the author's service was with Time Warner, then she was probably a Roadrunner user. I'm on RR too, and here's an exerpt from the agreement I've got with the NEO (Northeast Ohio) branch - I would imagine hers is similar if not identical:

Time Warner Cable NEO Division and ServiceCo each shall have the right at any time to change or discontinue any aspect or feature of the Road Runner Service, including but not limited to content, hours of availability, Equipment and System Requirements. Either Time Warner Cable NEO Division or Subscriber may terminate the Road Runner Service to Subscriber at any time.

You can find the whole load here

Oops. Looks like the ISP can pull the plug any time they want to, for any reason they want to, and there's exactly jack squat I can do about it.

Eeek! My precious high-speed pr0n, er, business net access is at peril! Whatever shall I do?

Make sure that I'm not dependent on RR for my business needs, that's what. A 56 modem and a serial cable is pretty much all I need to do that. And luckily I can remember how I used to do things before the cable modem was around.

Time Wanker and the MPAA did this pair a favor - now that they understand that their broadband access can evaporate they'll (hopefully) get some backups in place. Perhaps there's a lesson for all of us...?

Re:Guilty until proven innocent? Gimme a break

[j7953]

The police have to tell you what you're accused of. The police cannot have you arrested for more than a certain (short) period. If you have an alibi (like this guy claimed), you have a good chance of not being arrested (though maybe you're not allowed to leave the state until they finish their investigations).

And note that the police are trying to investigate what happened. They will not only try to prove you guilty, they will also collect evindence that might prove your innocence. (That's what they're supposed to do, at least).

The MPAA is not interested in proving you innocent - they want to prove you guilty, and may disregard any evidence that suggests they might be wrong. Even worse, it's ok for them to do so. There isn't any law requiring them to be neutral.

One last thing, the police are a public service, controlled by a democratic goverment, while the MPAA is a for-profit organization. You might want to think twice before giving police powers to a for-profit entity.

Re:Guilty until proven innocent? Gimme a break

[Nater]

People are arrested and spend days in jail before the matter of their guilt is resolved all the time.

In criminal cases. Copyright infringement is not a crime. Criminal law and civil law are different, and copyright law is mostly civil. Copyright infringements are civil infractions. Therefore they are not criminal and it is incorrect to call copyright infringement a crime or equate it with a crime, such as theft. This has been upheld in the Supreme Court.

Now, about being held in jail... When someone appears to have committed a crime, sure, hold them and go through due process and all that. When someone sues someone else and gets an injunction, sure, that's fine too, again, due process. There is no due process with the DMCA. If I told your ISP that you were infringing some copyright of mine, they would be law-bound to either face some liability of their own or shut you down. There's no judicial review of my request, no checking to be sure that it's valid... nothing. The DMCA is a big stick that designed to let copyright holders beat their slaves into submission, nothing more, nothing less.

Re:Guilty until proven innocent? Gimme a break

[mcfiddish]

copyright law is mostly civil.

Is this true? I thought one of the many horrible things about the DMCA is that it criminalizes copyright infringement for digital media.

Re:Guilty until proven innocent? Gimme a break

[Nater]

Is this true? I thought one of the many horrible things about the DMCA is that it criminalizes copyright infringement for digital media

The DMCA adds some criminal provisions to copyright law and that's why I said mostly civil. However, the act of infringement is not now criminal, since the prohibition against it remains squarely in civil law. It is the act of selling a circumvention device that is a felony under Section 1204 of Title 17, U.S. Code.

Re:Guilty until proven innocent? Gimme a break

[Nater]

I've got some pretty big gripes with the DMCA and what how it can be abused, but slavery? Come on.

Re:Guilty until proven innocent? Gimme a break

[crucini]

You are essentially taking the tack that TW is a private entity entitled to enter into, and terminate agreements with other private entities. However they are utilizing your community's streets and telephone poles to run their cable. This comes at a high cost to the community in terms of ripped-up streets, visual intrusion, increased probability of a telephone outage, and opportunity cost - there's only room on the poles for so much cable.

They were granted this privilege, a 'franchise' in exchanging for meeting the community's requirements. Generally, these requirements include a rate tarriff and provision of community access channels. Given the monopoly position they are granted by virtue of their franchise, and given the increasing importance of internet connectivity, their is every reason to support increased regulation of their service. No other utility is allowed to arbitrarily discontinue service.

This does not address the fact that per DMCA they may be compelled by law to discontinue service. I'm just pointing out an important fallacy used by corporatists - they want the corporation to be a private citizen when it comes to contracts, but a public utility when it comes to special privileges from the government.

Why did this happen?

[Randy Rathbun]

I think this pretty well sums it up.

Of course, this particular ISP is in bed with the

[Jeremy Erwin]

Did anybody expect an ISP owned primarily by Time-Warner to act in a responsible manner? After all, the parent company owns several movie studios.

Synergy, hah. More like incest...

Quick (legal) question...

[Noryungi]

Let me summarize:

• ISP thinks you are spreading pirated movies through Usenet
• ISP cuts off the line and tells you rudely you are violating whatever idiotic law they'd like to protect
• You have no recourse, no information on said pirated movie post and you can't prove anything

I believe that, in such as case, it should be possible to countersue both the ISP, the MPAA and the company doing research for both.

Something like "Unfair termination of service" or "Violation of service agreement" as well as "Slanderous attacks" seem totally possible in this case. Anybody with more legal experience cares to comment?

Chilling, nonetheless... =(

Re:Quick (legal) question...

[isorox]

Anybody with more legal experience cares to comment?

On slashdot?

lol!

Re:Quick (legal) question...

[sien]

Yes, as one of the net's chief 15 year old legal experts I'd just like to say that under the 'Really Big Bad Companies' legislation passed by Justice Jon Katz you have recourse to the provisions provided for any geek to sue any company that makes lots of money that you don't like.

Re:Quick (legal) question...

[thryllkill]

Unfair termination of service" or "Violation of service agreement" as well as "Slanderous attacks"

I have no legal experience but I am pretty sure most ISP service agreements include clauses like, "...can terminate service at anytime, with or without notifying the user, for any reason deemed appropriate." or some such garbage. Take a look at your ISP's agreement, just what did you agree to???

Re:Quick (legal) question...

[Silicon Avatar]

> * ISP thinks you are spreading pirated moviesthrough Usenet

Not to split hairs ... the ISP didn't necessarily think the person was spreading pirated movies. The ISP, as a corporate entity, has just as much 'right' to fear lawyers as we do. There's a provision in the DMCA that basically says "if tell you a user is pirating, you *must* do something or we'll sue you into oblivion". The ISP didn't throw these people in Jail. The ISP didn't call out the police. The ISP didn't even terminate the account.

I think the ISP did a fairly reasonable thing. They directly cut off any ability for the users to further pirate. If the users had been home to see their service had been disconneted, its entirely possible this entire thing would've been resolved within 24 hours.

Now, another debate is whether or not the DMCA should give anyone the 'ability' to demand an ISP take this kind of action ... I find that reprehensible.

Re:Quick (legal) question...

[Slak]

As I (IANAL) understand the ISP provision of the DMCA, the accuser makes the allegation under the penalty of perjury. The defendant may also respond (under penalty of perjury) that she is not violating the DMCA. Thus, the author's boyfriend should be able to take the MPAA to court, though only for perjury. However, if the public can bring enough of these suits to bear against the MPAA, it might be able to make the MPAA review this strategy. There might also be grounds for "Class Action" status, but I'm way out of my understanding.

Regards,
Slak

Re:Quick (legal) question...

[Journey]

I should start by saying that IANAL, however, as Duke University's DMCA agent, I've looked into the law very carefully. The fact of the matter is that you can't sue the ISP. Okay, you can sue the ISP but you won't win.

The DMCA has an explicit provision (section 512(g)(1) stating that if an ISP, in good faith, takes down or blocks access to material for which a notice of infringement was received, the ISP can not be held liable for the action. There are some caveats, but I think you would be hard pressed to prove that they had violated these very liberal caveats.

The interesting piece is that ISPs are responding to claims of infringement by taking advantage of the 512(c) safe harbor. A better safe harbor, for the ISP, would be to invoke section 512(a) which limits an ISP's liability for conduit activities, i.e. when the material is not on a computer they do now own (e.g. a gnutella client on your home machine). Presumably if an ISP invoked 512(a), the MPAA/RIAA/SBA would have to go after the user individually. Whether this is a better or worse solution for the end user is a matter for debate :)

Re:Quick (legal) question...

[AugstWest]

If

I think "if" is the operative word here, and is qhat's causing all of the questions. Shouldn't the ISP, upon receiving the request, actually verify that the "offending user" is breaking the law before terminating th account?

Couldn't this means of cutting off internet access be very widely misused and abused? It seems that members of the MPAA could pretty much drop anyone's access, even a competitors, with just a phone call. Not even a phone call to a lawyer.

It's beyond unfortunate, it's downright fucked up. Basically, He Who Has The Most Lawyers Wins in pretty much every case. At that point, what are rights? What good are laws, if they can be bought like stocks?

Re:Quick (legal) question...

[benedict]

Panix in NYC has a "catchall clause" like that, but it only says, "we reserve the right to terminate your account without refund for other kinds of nontrivial misbehavior, although in our
entire history we have never terminated an account for reasons other than those listed here."

http://www.panix.com/panix/rules.html

Re:Quick (legal) question...

[AugstWest]

actually, it was just bad html tags. i'm still not entirely sure how i got it that wrong, it was just bold and italics tags...

Re:Quick (legal) question...

[Skapare]

They cut off the ability to read mail. They cut off all access. They also mistakenly assumed that no one else could have made use of the IP address. If their network is DHCP based, it's trivial to steal an IP address, especially when someone is away. It's the corporate suits at TW and other places that are the ignorant ones. Are you trying to join them?

Re:Quick (legal) question...

[Skapare]

There is no "machine at (insert IP)". To uniquely identify the machine, you must have the NIC MAC address. To get that, the ISP must be notified while the transfer is taking place, or be able to reproduce the transfer (for example a web server still offering the copyrighted file). The IP alone does not accurately identify an exact machine or customer.

Re:Quick (legal) question...

[crucini]

Except that the only part of the complaint letter that is under penalty of perjury is the claim that the writer acts on behalf of the copyright holder. The claim of infringement is not under penalty of perjury, and the DMCA allows 'good faith' as a defense against false claims.

So the MPAA has absolutely no risk. What did you expect?

It's all about the Flerbage

[Nater]

Harkening back to that interesting, if wierd, article by ESR: DMCA violates flerbage. Innocent parties had the time wasted, perhaps in this guy's case, his money wasted.

I've heard some noises about how stupid the word 'flerbage' is, but you know what? I sure is a good concept to single out. It sure puts the true effects of law into perspective.

Very Interesting...

[Rackemup]

They traced back the IP, determined that someone was "supposedly" distributing copyrighted materials from that address and notified the ISP.

The ISP therefore HAS TO CUT OFF THE ACCOUNT or risk being sued by the copyright enforcement agency.

And where's the customer (the one actually paying for the service) in all of this? Left without net access even though they didn't actually break any laws since they claim they weren't even at home when the incident occurred (although I admit that's pretty weak, I can run a file server while I'm away from my computer or mess with the clock to change the upload timestamp and then claim I wasn't home when it happened). No one contacted the customer to confirm anything, it was all done because the MPAA claimed they had "evidence"!

Still, it points out HOW MUCH FREAKIN POWER these copyright agencies have. All the ISP's are so afraid of going to court that they give in every time! Yay freedom!

Re:Very Interesting...

[MadCow42]

Shouldn't they have to get a court order to cut off your access? Shoudn't they have to show some level of proof to an official agency before "convicting" you of the offense?

The cops can't come into my house and take away my VCR for a week because they suspect me of illegally copying movies... they need a warrant. Why they heck is it any different for copyright infringement on the Internet?

Big Brother also has a bunch of Little Brothers running around the 'net... anybody else wanna be a Little Brother?

Mad Mad Mad MadCow.

Re:Very Interesting...

[jandrese]

I remember when you used to have to be a skilled hacker/cracker to shut down someone's account. These days all you need is some offical looking stationary, a small book of leagalize, and the address of their ISP.

I can just see it now. One jerk gets peeved off at someone, so he posts a movie to the usenet with bogus IP packets, then send a letter claiming to be from a major studio to his ISP. The best part is, the first step is completely optional, you can do this all with just the social engineering!

This is why most laws in the US are taken on an "innocent until proven guilty" stance.

Re:Very Interesting...

[Detritus]

The ISP therefore HAS TO CUT OFF THE ACCOUNT or risk being sued by the copyright enforcement agency.

I don't think so.

Read the text of the DMCA, specifically Sec. 512. Limitations on liability relating to material online. By my reading, a service provider has NO liability for material stored on the subscriber's computer, or that transits the service provider's network.

Re:Very Interesting...

[cyberdonny]

> Still, it points out HOW MUCH FREAKIN POWER these copyright agencies have. All the ISP's are so afraid of going to court that they give in every time! Yay freedom!

This problem can be easily tackled: a letter writing campaign! No, not to your senator, but to ISPs. Just make it look like a lawyer's letter claiming that such and such user infringed on this or that copyright. If enough people participate, this will create enough of a disruption that ISPs will become warier and warier of DMCA type letters.

And don't worry about impersonating a lawyer: unlike their electronic counterparts, paper letters are almost untraceable. Just be sure to chose random targets; don't make the mistake of chosing personal enemies.

Re:Very Interesting...

[Detritus]

The text that you quote is in reference to "SYSTEM CACHING", "...the intermediate and temporary storage of material on a system or network controlled or operated by or for the service provider...".

I think this would only apply to things like bulletin boards and news servers that are operated by the service provider.

Fixing the DCMA

[Compulawyer]

Not to sound like a broken record (although I doubt anyone is interested in my comments enough to read all my previous posts, but you never know...) but the only way to get practices like this to end is to become involved.

From reading the article, it seems like the "identification" portion of the pirate hunt process is flawed. I suspect that the reason this person was accused was either because

1. The person processing the information miscopied the IP address; or
2. the IP address was spoofed.

Cases like this are prime for exposing the inherent dangers of relying on IP addresses (or any other electronic address for that matter) as identifiers. The people affected must take the time to address the issues head-on. In this case, and IMHLO (the L is for Legal) a little detailed information of how networks operate applied in the right area would shine the great light of knowledge and understanding into some very dark legal corners.

J'accuse!

[havachu]

From the article:

If we are accused again of distributing copyrighted material, we lose our accounts for two weeks instead of one, and face banishment from our ISP.

McCarthyism is alive and well in America. A little finger pointing is all it takes, and you are discredited forever.

I'll be the devils advocate for a moment...

[Gruneun]

I'm sure the ISP had a terms of service agreement. The first reaction of the ISP when it becomes aware of something illegal it should be to dump the connection immediately. Try arguing that a child pornographer's site should not be shut down until a court decides that it is, in fact, illegal. You and I both know that could be days, weeks, or months.

People make honest mistakes (even people from large corporations) and when they realize they made a mistake, they fix it.

Re:I'll be the devils advocate for a moment...

[Aleatoric]

Sorry, but there is no reason sufficient to override due process.

To bring your 'child pornography' example into alignment with the current discussion, it would be as if you were accused of having child pornography available on your site and were shut down, without even any proof that you actually are hosting it.

The problem is not the whether to determine that the act in question is illegal, the problem is to determine that the course of action taken isn't taken without reasonable evidence that the person in question really is the party providing the illegal items.

Re:I'll be the devils advocate for a moment...

[gilroy]

Blockquoth the poster:

Try arguing that a child pornographer's site should not be shut down until a court decides that it is, in fact, illegal.

OK, how about this: "A child pornographer's site should not be shut down until a court decides that it is, in fact, illegal. It should not be taken down because the principle of Due Process is at the core of the American justice system. Due Process is a statement that citizens have value, that government (and corporations) cannot at whim and willy-nilly obstruct citizens. Due Process is a means wherein justice can be served and the enforcers can be held accountable. I would want to see an alleged child pornography site shut down without a hearing to the exact same extent I'd want an alleged child pornographer's door broken down without a warrant -- that is, not at all."

The courts move expeditiously in important matters. If the crime is really so blatant as to pose an iminent danger to the public, the warrant will come and come quickly. If you can't be bothered to get a warrant, perhaps there's really no substance to the charge.

The powers of government are not untrammeled and unlimited. It is in the long term best interest of every citizen of a free state that the state be restricted in what it can do, even in areas of supposed public safety.

How, then, can it be any less in the interest of every citizen of a free state that corporations be denied this power, too?

The child pornography thing is an obvious straw man argument, but I don't care: It helps highlight the crucial bit of this case, which is not the alleged crime and its seriousness. The focus should be on the egregious and invasive display of arrogant power by the MPAA and the craven, sad, and futile kowtowing of the ISP.

Re:I'll be the devils advocate for a moment...

[dvdeug]

According to the FBI, the vast majority of child pornography claims are actually perfectly legal pictures with no sexual activity whatsoever. So if you shut down every site someone claims "child porn", you'll be shutting down a lot of legal sites.

How long do you think it would take to shutdown a child porn site, anyway? If you had evidence, I'd be surprised if it took more than 24 hours to get a search warrant and take the server, except _maybe_ over holidays.

Been there done that

[isorox]

Something similar happened to me when I ran botf.com

The day after I left for a 3 week sail in summer 1999, my ISP received an anonymous tipoff - at least they wouldnt tell me who, although I have an idea.

The ISP shut the account down straight away, including email access. They then emailed me on webmaster@botf.com with an explanation. Naturally it was unreadable, as I couldnt log in.

About a week after I left I popped into an internet cafe to see what was going on, unfortunatly I couldnt read my botf email, hence had no contact with my ISP.

when I got back, eventually it sorted itself out. I refused to pay for the time though, and as the site had pretty much crumbled to bits (3 weeks with no site means people dont come back), I contacted my credit card company and told them to hold payment.

Why did they shut me down? I had 5 mp3's for download - these were mp3 versions of the wavs freely available on microprose's site. I had had permission to mirror the samples on my site.

The (5) samples were also in a zip file.

The ISP had heard about these files, obviously not researched them or contacted me - and just shut the site down ASAP.

I will never use them again, needless to say. I hadnt been with them long, having just moved from a wonderful ISP, that unfortunatly couldnt offer me the facilities I needed. I have 2 domains with them now, and couldnt be happier with allwebco. Unfortunatly I forget the name of the ISP that shut me down - I think they went out of buisness.

These mp3's were legal, but because of the hysteria of "mp3 == bad" arround then (and still arround today), I lost something ver dear to me.

Ahh well, the game sucked anyway :)

Re:Been there done that

[Coolfish]

These mp3's were legal, but because of the hysteria of "mp3 == bad" arround then (and still arround today), I lost something ver dear to me.

Not that I use OGG, or am a big fan of it (i have never even tried it) but this makes a case for it. "MP3's on my web site? No way! those are illegal! I only have OGG files, and you've never even heard of those have u? Cuz they aren't illegal!"

MPAA & RIAA are Thugs!

[YIAAL]

We need to get rid of these extralegal enforcement methods: if they want to punish you , they should have to go to court, not dragoon your ISP into being the executioner. This requires either (1) a court finding the DMCA unconstitutional (likely): or (2) legislative action (increasingly likely).

George Bush should wake up to the fact that everyone hates the MPAA & RIAA already (a recent NY Times profile of Hillary Rosen says that RIAA staffers don't wear RIAA t-shirts in public anymore because of the abuse they get) and that he can make a lot of political hay by beating up on them.

This is getting out of control

[eyeball]

Has anyone thought of filing a complaint with the MPAA's ISP, and telling them you have found evidence that there are copyrighted materials being pirated from their IP address? Create a dinky little mp3 song, then send a screenshoot of a text-based gnutella session saying it's being offered on x.x.x.x. Hell, why even stop at MPAA.. How would WB feel if they were down for a week? Or Disney? Or your congressman's web site?

Re:This is getting out of control

[crucini]

The DMCA has at least two different provisions. The one you're familiar with is "no trafficking in circumvention devices". However, it also has a provision for handling alleged copyright infringement on the net. The goal, which is actually quite sound, was to clarify the responsibilities of ISP's so they couldn't get sued left and right for the activities of their subscribers.

Unfortunately they chose the wrong solution, from a commoner's perspective. I think the right solution would be that the ISP is never responsible for content, period. If ordered by a court, they would of course have to remove access.

What is considered proof of infringement?

[PureFiction]

The biggest question that remains in my mind in situations like this is how do they determine that you are sharing copyrighted works?

For something to stand up in court, you would need (i would hope) an IP, a date & time, and the actual content in question itself, that was obtained from your machine illegally.

It looks like the majority of these copyright monitoring services simply check file names and consider this sufficient.

What happens when you are using a client that supports any file type (gnutella/freenet/etc) and they find 'Metallica - A history of the band.html' and send your ISP a nastygram? This is obviously not a video or music file, however, unless they download it, how do they know?

Finally, I am concerned about people who use DHCP to configure their net access. Your IP changes every so often on cable/DSL. How accurate are their methods of finding the exact subscriber?

Perhaps the person who had your current IP before you was sharing files. Now you have that IP, and they accidentally terminate your access. Where are the checks and balances in this process?

The only solution in my mind right now is to switch to an ISP that isnt so trigger happy. Perhaps one that requires actual *proof* of any kind that such an infraction occured (like a copy of the file perhaps? even a description?) before terminated an account.

Does anyone know how various DSL/cable modem providers stack up in this regard?

Innocent until proven Uncooperative

[imadork]

Nigam also told me that if I told him my friend's IP address, he could find out exactly what had happened in his case. I told him I'd have to check with my friend first. Kutner then said that if my friend were truly innocent, he wouldn't have anything to hide.
The thing is, he didn't have anything to hide in the first place, and he was still accused.

I used to think that there was nothing wrong with the "if you're really innocent, you would have no problem with this" attitude. But now I see that it's a rather clever way to get people to give up their rights.

By that logic, since I'm really innocent, I should have no problem with letting the Goverment (or Time Warner) look at all the files on my hard drive whenever they want to. I do have a problem with that, not because I pirate music, but because I just don't want them in my hard drive, and I shouldn't have to cooperate with them if I don't want to. (Remember... I haven't even been charged in a court yet, and they're cutting off my access!)

I also have a problem with the "proprietary" techniques that are used to find copyright violators. How can you determine the difference between an illegal copy of "Titanic" and a two-hour streaming file of my dog on her floating raft in my pool named "Titanic"? The answer is that one has better acting, and the other has a bigger boat, but I can't believe that an algorithm can tell the difference between the two when they're all just bits anyway.

How would you feel if the cop pulled you over and said "You broke the law back there, but we can't tell you how we caught you because that's proprietary."? This is no different.

Re:Innocent until proven Uncooperative

[mcfiddish]

Wouldn't you love to live in the United States of Nigam? I wonder if instead of

"if my article had a moral, it should be that piracy is illegal",

he meant to say

"if my article had a moral, it should be that privacy is illegal"

Re:Innocent until proven Uncooperative

[cavemanf16]

A quick Google search found me this article about Puritan persecution in England

From the website: "Queen Elizabeth feared that she would lose her grip on the people if the Puritans were not held in check. She therefore introduced severe legislation against them. In spite of this, the various Puritan groups continued to meet, but secretly, in private homes."

So we know Microsoft and other media outlets fund gov't in a big way from the previous story today, and we know that the DMCA protects these companies' copyrights, and we know that the government is the one passing and enforcing such a law. Hmmm... Sounds like a nice protection racket they've got going there. Keep those in power, there, everyone else: "Kiss our ass or we'll legislate you right out of existence!"

I say again: Those who forget the past, are doomed to repeat it.

Re:Innocent until proven Uncooperative

[SuiteSisterMary]

Nein, that's not entrapment. Entrapment is enticing somebody to do something illegal that they wern't already doing.

This is not entrapment: "I, a cop, was hiding in that building, and saw you speeding. Here is your ticket."
This IS entrapment: "Hey, that's a nice car! Why don't you open her up, and I'll clock you! I've got this nifty speed gun! Don't worry, I won't tell the cops!"

Re:Innocent until proven Uncooperative

[MikeTheYak]

Actually, that's not entrapment either. Entrapment would be something along the lines of, "Hey, buddy, I'll give you fifty bucks if you let me test out my new speed gun." I.e., entrapment occurs when the police actually get you to do something you would normally be unwilling to do. There is a bit of a fine line, though.

Re:Innocent until proven Uncooperative

[SuiteSisterMary]

Your example simply throws money into the mix. If the guy in my second example wasn't going to speed until the cop convinced him to let him clock said speed, it's entrapment.

Re:Innocent until proven Uncooperative

[saider]

Kind of true.

The police officer must be operating his/her car in a legal fasion. At night, if they are on the shoulder of the road, they must have their hazard lights on. If they are on a sidestreet, they must have their headlights on.

It is not about the police being visible, it is about them obeying the law while they enforce it.

BTW - I had a traffic lawyer sucessfully fight a ticket for me on this issue.

DHCP

[wiredog]

He's probably on a DHCP link, the IP address changes every time you log on with those. Well, not all of them, but that's the default. It allows the ISP to have more subscribers on a node than it has addresses. I suspect that the log got bollixed up and linked the port he was on to someone else's IP addr.

Re:DHCP

[gilroy]

Blockquoth the poster:

Based on his girlfriend's story I'd say the guy is probably guilty. A person who logs all network traffic is smart enough to know how to post.

Oh, that's good. The new legal standard will be, "If you're smart enough, you're guilty". If he's that smart, how did he get caught? Well, we won't know, will we -- because RangerNIC and the MPAA won't give details. They didn't even show him any evidence that his IP number was used. This could have been the equivalent of a type, but we'll never know -- because the MPAA need never offer any evidence.

It is amazing to me how many people don't seem to get the point here: The MPAA is operating completely without accountability to anyone. They have deep pockets, so they can certainly intimidate any ISP into rolling over.

And the best the drones on slashdot can say is, "Well, he probably deserved it." Indeed, what we're seeing is, "Well, of course he's guilty. They never would have fingered him otherwise." That's right: trust the Corporation. The Corporation is your friend.

Sometimes I wonder why anyone even bothers anymore.

Re:DHCP

[wiredog]

Yeah, I usually get the same address when I log on but sommetimes my address will change while I'm on because the lease has expired. Getting DHCP working at home was fun. Comcast@home doesn't "officially" support linux so I had to try various switches to get DHCP working. At least they let me run a linux box, I hear there are ISP that don't allow it.

Re:DHCP

[ichimunki]

"If you're smart enough, you're guilty". Isn't that already the legal standard? Seems like plenty of perfectly ethical hackers are getting busted doing stuff that isn't wrong, simply because someone somewhere got afraid of something they didn't understand and decided to play "call the cops on the smart guy" as their way of dealing with it. In fact, they passed their whole stupid DMCA law to codify the practice.

Re:DHCP

[Simon Brooke]

They didn't even show him any evidence that his IP number was used.

Actually, as far as we know based on the information in the story, they didn't even specify what copyright material they alleged had been posted. This is a great way to take out people whom you dislike - randomly accuse them DMCA violation. Sure, you could get sued for perjury, but Joe Average isn't going to go up in court against a large corporation.

Even if he does, in a situation where the large corporation is both the accuser and the ISP, it is perfectly capable of forging the evidence, so this is pretty safe.

The Ultimate Denial of Service Attack

[cloudscout]

If you want to shut down someone's network, simply notify their upstream provider that they are distributing your copyrighted works. If the DMCA requires them to shut down the connection immediately as is implied by this article, what is to stop someone from utilizing this in a malicious manner?

Pirate movies, distribute mp3s

[ACK!!]

ISPs have their service agreements written in such a way that they can terminate service simply because they want to. I though /. had put out on more than one article pointing this out.

Sue them? Please you agreed to the silly terms of service when you came on.

Listen it sucks for the wrongfully screwed but what are you going to do? Go to the competition and set up your mp3/movie file server under a different provider of bandwidth.

ISPs are a dime a dozen until AOL/Time/Warner can shut all of them down.

Its harder to hit a moving target folks.

Probably a DHCP problem

[ruebarb]

Idiots probably tracked an IP that changed when a DHCP license didn't get renewed...If it's like my cable modem, you don't get a static IP. Two weeks later...hmmm..let's hit this IP...whoops? Wrong one now.

That's the rocket science of the MPAA for you...I feel like killing someone.

RB

Copyright Cops and ISP are the same entity

[BierGuzzl]

Time Warner is a copyright cop in their own right... it's more like "When copyright cops join forces" rather than a general indication of how ISP's operate.

It is a profoundly stupid word

[FreeUser]

Flerbiage: (n) 1. An incredibly stupid word invented by the Open Source movement as part of an incredible verbal contortion in an effort to discuss Liberty and Freedom without having to openly admit that they are discussing Liberty and Freedom.

Other than that, you make a very valid point: the DMCA does violate fundamental freedoms, liberties, and constitutional rights. See, no new word or verbal contortions required. :-)

Insider info

[sTeF]

i know from a secret source that the involved ip-adress was in fact:
127.0.0.1

methods

[twitter]

The MPAA looks for people who are distributing movies in any form that they are not authorized to. It uses Ranger Online's software to monitor multiple areas of the Internet, including IRC, Gnutella, Usenet, Web sites, auction sites and ftp sites. It does this on an international basis. When it finds a location that is distributing copyrighted material, it identifies the owner and the host of the material. Citing the DMCA, it sends a letter and notifies the alleged perpetrators that they are infringing on a copyright.

When I asked exactly how they find an instance of piracy (for instance, what search parameters they use), Nigam told me the methods were proprietary information.

Heh, judging from the results they must be using MS Access to keep their records! Nice work. Just a few minutes ago, I was talking to a looser who likes to traffic in warez and movies. While bragging of getting "Spy Kids" two weeks before opening, he was no more worried about getting caught than my grandmother. GET A CLUE, MPAA!
GET A LIFE, PEOPLE! Run your own ftp/http site and provide original content. Get movies from a theater, if you must, or rent them. Geazer! A whole week of bandwith consumption for something dumb like "Spy Kids"? And that crap is competing with me for Slashdot? GRRRR! You don't need this garbage, and it's providers are powerless when you quit demanding it. Sigh of relief.

I wonder what kind of cyber brains are looking for child porn. Loosing email is one thing, having your house raided and all your stuff broken/confiscated is another.

Re:methods

[theNAM666]

I wonder what kind of cyber brains are looking for child porn. Loosing email is one thing, having your house raided and all your stuff broken/confiscated is another.

To: Bureau of Tobacco and Firearms
From: Nigam Enforcement Software Company

Re: Child Pornography Notice #87420

Dear Agent,

A recent probe by our Ranger III pornography detection software has determined that the individual below is distributing child pornography from a web server at the address listed below.

Ranger III has automatically forwarded this case to the Ninth Circuit Court and received an online warrant for search of this address, #CR4789022.

The offender's address is:

Commander Taco
Andover.Net
50 Nagog Park
Acton, MA 01720

Offending IP: 64.28.67.150

Ranger III has also electronically pre-authorized two M-71 tanks, three cases of assault rifles, two hundred incendiary bombs, and five BGM-109 "TOMAHAWK" Cruise Missles for your assault.

Yours cordially,

Nigam Software

WTF

[clark625]

Agreeing with a previous poster, just exactly how much damage was done? Sure, the ISP covered its butt and that resulted in a loss of internet for a couple of days. Big deal. The ISP certainly didn't do anything wrong.

The MPAA, however, may be considered big, mean, and nasty for... oh wait they were just protecting their propery rights. And it looks like they made a mistake. Since Road Runner (TW)is like most ISP and uses Dynamic IPs, this sometimes happens. Oops.

If the writer's boyfriend feels like he was treated terribly, then the process is simple: he can send the MPAA a complaint letter via certified mail. He can even ask them to pay for "damages" of about $5.00 since he was without internet for a couple of days. And maybe the MPAA will actually send an appology letter with a check for $2.50. If the boyfriend is really persistent, file a claim in small claims court--it costs about $35 here,and the loser pays. I'm sure he could get a settlement for $40, or win the case and earn $5.00. Big deal. Of course, then the MPAA will have lost in court...

Re:WTF

[Steve B]

And it looks like they made a mistake.

Nope; it looks like they recklessly fingered a private citizen as a criminal and disseminated that "mistake" for the express purpose of causing damage to that citizen. This is technically known as "libel" (I assume that the message to the ISP was in written rather than oral form; in the latter case, the term is "slander".)

Ability to communicate

[DrCode]

For many, their internet connection is the primary way they communicate with others.

What if your phone service was cut off because you sang a copyrighted song over the line?:-) Or suppose your postal service was suspended because someone accused you of sending or receiving copyrighted material?

Where this will go

[sourcehunter]

I have a (Scary) theory on where this is headed.

What we will have is a Compliance Bureau - a clearing house for people's information, much like today's credit bureaus...

ISPs will report DMCA and other transgressions to these bureaus.

When you go to an ISP to get a new account, they'll run a "Compliance Check" on you instead of a credit check. If you have a file, they'll see what's in it. Your ISP may decide to charge you a higher premium or require you to post a security deposit for insurance purposes if you have a "bad" file.

Sure, after a while, Congress will pass a "Fair Internet Compliance Reporting Act" much like the Fair Credit Reporting Act that is used by creditors and bureaus today, but how much will that REALLY protect us... How many of you out there REALLY trust your credit card company and credit bureau?

There will be a dispute policy, but ultimately it is the ISPs word against yours... so you will have to wear a scarlet "DMCA" every time you go "apply" for internet access.

Unlike a criminal record, this is completely a CIVIL matter, which means preponderance of the evidence - someone thinks the bureau has a decent case, you're screwed for x number of years.

Who's to say that if I just say "hey Time-Warner, go to HELL I'm going elsewhere" they won't put a mark on my file?

Re:Where this will go

[leperjuice]

This is very much akin to MAPS or ORBS.

Put in perspective; if the government won't regulate (and we hope they don't get involved) then the industry participants will. Just as ISPs can exchange (or refuse) mail from anyone they want, so can they refuse to do business with anyone they want. And if a reporting agency is formed to track problem users, is that in itself a bad thing? (Not that I'm arguing for this; read on).

Last I checked, the majority of Slashdot users approved of the actions of MAPS and ORBS because they help reduce the deluge of spam that would otherwise clog our mailboxes.

Having some sort of rating agency is not the horror that we think it is. The problem would be what is the motivation for having said agency, and how would they handle disputes. As far as I recall, MAPS/ORBS are pretty straightforward in their processes of notification and dispute resolution, preciscely because it is a closed system: ISPs are rating other ISP only out of their own need and not due to any external pressure save that of their users. But if the service was closed ("What, I have to pay to see if I'm bad?") or established due to external forces ("What, if we don't check someone's rating, we can be sued?") then you can almost guarantee abuses and failures. It's kind of like (my personal take on) Communism; not a bad idea in theory, but horrible in practice.

Of course, then the whole privacy issue comes into play, and given that I love my privacy, I'd prefer not to have to give it up and be registered. But I have no privacy with my CC company, so it's kind of a slippery slope.

Final note: I don't actually see this happening, but it's just something to ponder when you're bored at work (as I am)...

Re:Where this will go

[crucini]

I like this theory, but it probably won't happen. I like it because it rings true with the way institutions evolve - we go from individual merchants maintaining credit files to associations to corporations.

Why it probably won't happen: the DMCA. That's right, if the DMCA were never passed, ISP's could still have huge liability for infringment and might band together to reduce risk. That's really the driver of credit bureaus - risk reduction. But under the DMCA, the ISP just has to yank your access and they have no liability. Therefore they have no incentive to spend money figuring out if you're going to infringe - they simply get the letter and pull the plug.

Cool theory though.

This is breach of contract

[JoeShmoe]

I seem to remember reading about this kind of thing during the whole Napster incident. If memory serves me correctly, the DMCA states that if someone finds an incident of copyright infringement, they must first attempt to contact the infringer directly with proof of the infringing action and a sworn (under enalty of perjury) statement that they are authorized to act on behalf of the copyright holder.

If this is not possible or the infringer does not respond, then the copyright agent can contact the ISP and submit the same proof of infringment and swore statement.

AT THAT POINT, the DMCA also states the ISP must give you, the "infringer" a chance to refute the charges with a sworn statment (also under penalty of perjury). If you refute the charges, then the ISP is no longer involved, they leave the content/connection alone and the copyright agent must then file charges against you in court to get a court to issue an order to block the material.

So, if they are cutting access without sufficient proof and without giving you a chance to refute, the ISP is violating the DMCA safe harbor provision and your usage agreement. If the proof doesn't meet the standards in the DMCA then it certainly does not meet the watered-down standards of your average terms of service.

IANAL, just what I remember reading.

- JoeShmoe

potential good news

[graveyhead]

I posted this two days ago, but of course 2001-08-21 22:16:52 Mainstream DMCA Coverage(articles,money) (rejected) for some unknown reason :-(

The Washington Post has a small editorial regarding the dangers of the DMCA. Newsweek is carrying a similar piece [registration required]. Although this news is nothing new for the /. crowd, the Post is read regularly by members of congress and their staff. Maybe this is the kick-in-the-pants that congress needs to take another look at this terrible lobby. There is also a relevant discussion here on k5.

Re:potential good news

[graveyhead]

Because jerk-ass I looked at previous DMCA related articles, and that's what they used, flame-boy.

Copyright law is CIVIL not criminal

[yerricde]

Just because the ISP or anyone believes someone probably did violate copyright laws doesn't give them the right to take action against you. That is, if you believe in being innocent until proven guilty.

Civil law, not criminal law, governs most copyright cases. The only right the accused gets in a civil case is the right to trial by jury. All that "innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt" and "right to remain silent" jazz applies only to criminal cases.

Re:Copyright law is CIVIL not criminal

[Zaknafein500]

Civil law, not criminal law, governs most copyright cases. The only right the accused gets in a civil case is the right to trial by jury. All that "innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt" and "right to remain silent" jazz applies only to criminal cases.

Someone please mod this up. This is the absolute truth. In civil law, the defendant does not have near as many protections as they do under criminal law. As a matter of fact, in civil law, you can even be required to testify against your own interests. There is no "pleading the fifth" like you hear about in criminal cases.

Re:Copyright law is CIVIL not criminal

[ichimunki]

And let's not forget the obvious implications of the fact that one of the biggest members of the MPAA is Time-Warner. The same people running this ISP.

How the f*ck do you defend against this sort of complete end-to-end channel ownership? You don't.

Re:Copyright law is CIVIL not criminal

[Dyolf Knip]

Civil law, not criminal law, governs most copyright cases

Tell it to Dmitry.

Yes, that was copyright cirumvention, not just a mere copyright violation, but it's the same piece of legislation governing both cases.

Time-Warner Cable & AOL-Time-Warner connection

[Midnight Thunder]

I think part of the problem in this story is that the guy has an account with 'Time-Warner Cable' who happens to be part of the same company that is an MPAA member. It looks like that there is probably a confidential information flow between the various parts of 'AOL-Time-Warner', hence the reason why it never went through the proper legal channels, ie it was all happening within the same company.

I think the best thing this couple can do is go and find another provider that doesn't have the words AOL, Time or Warner included in its name.

Sure this may not be what is happening, but in this case I am going to play by the same rules and insist the company is guilty until proven innocent.

an aol experience...

[jeffy124]

Ok, before anyone marks me flamebait or something for supporting AOL, this happened many years ago before broadband was widely available (before the AOL-TW merger), during the closing days of pay-by-hour access.

My parents once received an email at their AOL account for alledged violations of their Terms of Service. Turns out my younger brother used some profanity in a chat room and someone reported it. The email contained the log of the chat conversation, when it happened, what room, etc. It basically warned us that should another violation occur, the account would be temporarily disabled, a third violation is termination of the account. But only if the next violation occured within the next few months (dont remember if it was 3 or 6 or something), after that the violation is scratched from the record.

In this case, AOL looked at the evidence and took appropriate steps to issue a warning to the master screen name on the account and what would happen if it occured again. They included the evidence they used to come to the conclusions they did.

I don't know how AOL would respond to accusations of one of their users violating DMCA in today's world, especially with Time Warner being in the same bed as them. I'm no longer an AOL user (now an @Home user), and frankly dont care. I simply wanted to show what it used to be like in the good ol' days on the Internet.

DMCA: 2 reasons for presumption of guilt

[Frank T. Lofaro Jr.]

If they don't cut you off they are liable for MONETARY DAMAGES. There is precendent for multi-million dollar damages - they have been assessed in copyright cases quite recently.

If they do cut you off they aren't civilly liable for damages done to you.

BOTH of these are due to the DMCA. The gov't can't do "guilty unless proven innocent", but they can use extortion by court to force the ISP to act that way.

Gov't taking your money and giving it to the MPAA is a very damaging and frightening thing. A small ISP can be killed easily. A big one can take a lot of damage, or be killed off by huge enough damages. Plus the big ones usually are in cahoots with (or actually are) the content providers.

dirty little secret

[graveyhead]

I find it amusing that no-one ever goes after hotline while trying to abolish P2P software. This one single network has been around far longer than any other P2P software. In case you don't know already, it is an unregulated jungle where you can find just about any piece of software, movie, or mp3 you would ever want. Well, I probably just screwed the whole network by mentioning it here, but I am a karma whore after all ;-)

Re:Trend away from "Innocent until proven guilty"

[Steve B]

Until the MPAA gets the ability to send someone to jail or to fine them WITHOUT TRIAL

Er, they did levy a fine without trial, unless you're going to assert that Net access has no monetary value.

Practical joke

[heikkile]

Anybody want to send an anonymous letter to MPAA complaining that pirated materials are distributed from 204.253.162.16 ? Let them try to shut down the connection and see how EFF would react?

Ohhhh, shit. :) And you'd be immune!

[Myself]

And then you could refuse to back up your accusations, saying you didn't want to reveal your "proprietary" methods.

I can see it now:

Los Angeles, CA -- Today, an online psychic ordered 1,387,529,000 web sites shut down, in accordance with DMCA, claiming they all infringe on his private thoughts. George "Moonglow" Taylor alleges that web sites express private thoughts, and that he makes his income from private thoughts, therefore all the sites in question infringe his private rights. He refused to say how he determined which sites were in violation, citing "proprietary" methods.

Greetings, I'm your Internet Service Provider.

[fobbman]

Hello, subscriber to my ISP services. You, along with tens-of-thousands (or was that hundreds-of-thousands) other people, have selected our services to access the Internet.

If you haven't guessed already, we are attempting to be a profitable company. Most of you all are law-abiding citizens who on occasion like looking at porn sites, which as long as it is not in violation of your communities indecency laws we do not care. However, there are a limited number of you who take part in the illegal trade of intellectual property.

We don't have the time or the FTE's to devote to look at each accusation of piracy that we receive, so instead of getting our balls in a vice we have deemed it best to just cut you off if we get a complaint about you. Jump through some hoops for us and we'll consider reconnecting your Internet.

For us, like any other business, it's about money. We would rather lose your $40/mo. than get nailed for hudreds of thousands of dollars in damages by the MPAA. At the very least we'd have to hire some expensive lawyers to protect us in the matter.

Corporate SWAT

[KelsoLundeen]

Here's the corproate SWAT scenario. Graphic, but true:

Corporate-sponsored, miltary-style copyright squads. Copyright-sponsored SWAT teams, licensed by Microsoft, Adobe, Sun, MPAA, RIAA (under whatever "license" they choose to deem official) running military-style ops to knock out egregious P2P "nodes".

Running an especially active P2P node?

Come 3AM in the morning, expect a white van to pull up outside your house/condo/apartment, filled to the brim with a covert tactical squad in full body armor and carrying fully-automatic weapons, two hundred pound door "key" to knock down those pesky screen doors.

Search warrants? Not a chance. None of this is supported by state, local or even federal law enforcement.

These renegade ops are private. Who has time for a search warrant? Or for due process? What matters here is that the RIAA and MPAA get their results.

You wanna know who these guys are that have their gun barrels pointed at your head? Your girlfriend's head?

Don't mean nothing when one guy has a steel toed boot across the back of your head and is pressing your cheek against the bathroom floor. One weapon is at the back of your head, the other's at the back of your girlfriend's head.

And your dog -- he's already knocked out cold, thanks to the little "dog sleeping darts" these guys carry. Rottweiller? German Shepard? Doesn't make a difference. First thing these guys do is look for the dogs. One dart, and the dog's out cold, lying with his tongue flopped out his mouth in the middle of your living room floor.

Meanwhile, all you see is odd flashes of light coming from all over your house. You can make out maybe five, six guys running around, screaming at the top of their lungs. But you can't tell for sure because everytime you sorta look around, the guy makes sure your forehead hits the floor with a thwap.

Two of your teeth are already on the floor, and you can feel one loose in the back of your mouth. You can't tell if all the blood is coming from your mouth or your split lip.

Your girlfriend is saying something -- yelling -- and these guys from behind their black goggles keep telling her to shut the fuck up. Shut the fuck up. She doesn't. And then you see one guy take some duct tape and put it over her mouth. She's still yelling something, but it's not as loud.

That's when you start hearing the crashes and thumps in the bedroom above you. What are they knocking down -- the shelves? Overturning the beds? Throwing the monitor down on the floor?

Couple seconds later, one guy comes down with your Dell Athlon box. Not the monitor, not the printer, just the white box with the keyboard cable hanging from it. The ethernet cable is still attached and he's dragging your Linksys hub -- bump, bump, bump -- down the stairs. He hustles out the front door. The guy above you gives you one more whack with his boot, then says, "Clear!" to someone.

Suddenly all these guys start saying "Clear" to one another. You hear everybody run out the front door, down your porch, and the sound of tires squealing off.

Meanwhile, you wait. You're not sure what to do. Your girlfriend is dragging her cheek against the kitchen floor to get the tape off her mouth.

And you -- your lips and gums hurt like a sonofabitch. They tied your hands with those plastic twisti-cuffs but you've got one hand free. You touch your mouth -- your front teeth are gone. The blood from your mouth smells metallic. And you're not even sure what happened.

Whatever it was, it took all of 2, maybe 3 minutes.

And you have no idea who it was. For days, you try and figure it out. Cops show up, they're stymied.

Was it a robbery?

Well, no.

These guys -- they were dressed in body armor?

Yeah. Like SWAT.

SWAT? The cops laugh. No, there's no SWAT here, son. Say, do you use drugs? Even smoked a little? Maybe it's some drug deal gone bad? One of your drug buddies come to get more of what you sold him?

No. No it wasn't that.

But the cops are suspicious. Say, maybe you'd like to come down with us? Answer a few questions?

You say, well, no, I'd rather not.

But they insist.

While you're waiting in the back of the cruiser you hear the cops laughing: SWAT, yeah. Sure. What's this guy smoking?

Some weird shit, that's for sure.

They laugh some more.

And that's that.

Tactic

[gilroy]

Blockquoth the poster:

Effectively the MPAA has the power to have anyone disconnected from the net whenever they feel like doing so.

Who provides service for the MPAA? Somewhere along the line, they have to connect to the Net, just like us. What if a bunch of people just started accusing them of copyright infringement and getting their service cut?

Or, perhaps more effectively: What about senators and representatives? They often quote an awful lot of stuff; surely one might feel some of it is in violation. And of course, the beauty is, there doesn't have to be a violation, just an accusation of one.

Re:Tactic

[j7953]

Or, perhaps more effectively: What about senators and representatives? They often quote an awful lot of stuff; surely one might feel some of it is in violation. And of course, the beauty is, there doesn't have to be a violation, just an accusation of one.

That's an interesting idea, but the question here is, will the ISP listen to you? They might fear being sued by the MPAA, but do they also fear you? Due to the DMCA, they are maybe liable for continued copyright infringements when they don't listen to you, but if there is no infringement going on, that's not a problem. I also suppose the ISPs do take a look at who is accused, and don't disconnect "certain persons."

It's an interesting idea, though.

Re:Tactic

[pjrc]

Who provides service for the MPAA?

Apparantly AT&T:

traceroute to www.mpaa.com (216.217.160.183), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets
1 207.149.244.1 (207.149.244.1) 17.148 ms 33.000 ms 15.192 ms
2 router.inetarena.com (206.129.216.3) 33.016 ms 15.767 ms 56.093 ms
3 at-1-2-317.ussttl3-j20c.savvis.net (64.242.127.97) 21.450 ms 20.780 ms 34.566 ms 4 500.POS2-0.GW10.SEA1.ALTER.NET (157.130.191.61) 24.304 ms 20.673 ms 43.967 ms
5 122.ATM3-0.XR2.SEA1.ALTER.NET (152.63.105.254) 42.023 ms 31.879 ms 21.024 ms
6 194.at-0-2-0.TR2.SEA1.ALTER.NET (146.188.200.118) 28.649 ms 24.882 ms 31.065 ms
7 * 110.at-6-1-0.TR2.SAC1.ALTER.NET (146.188.140.13) 41.351 ms 50.155 ms
8 0.so-7-0-0.XR2.SAC1.ALTER.NET (152.63.3.198) 49.494 ms 35.993 ms 47.665 ms
9 0.so-0-0-0.XL2.SAC1.ALTER.NET (152.63.54.1) 35.704 ms 40.110 ms 36.923 ms
10 * 184.ATM7-0.BR4.SAC1.ALTER.NET (152.63.52.213) 42.812 ms 36.069 ms
11 204.255.168.10 (204.255.168.10) 41.345 ms 41.608 ms 41.114 ms
12 c2-pos10-0.snjsca1.home.net (24.7.76.82) 54.857 ms 44.503 ms 51.297 ms
13 c1-pos2-0.slkcut1.home.net (24.7.65.138) 96.155 ms 93.494 ms 95.119 ms
14 wbb1-pos2-0.pop1.ut.home.net (24.7.75.142) 88.055 ms * 120.956 ms
15 10.253.92.34 (10.253.92.34) 81.110 ms 81.002 ms 82.484 ms
16 attsbh.com (216.217.160.183) 81.686 ms 82.358 ms 81.374 ms

Somewhere along the line, they have to connect to the Net, just like us.

Only if you consider DSL/cable/dialup "just like" leasing a dedicated server (probably server cluster) in a massive data center.

What if a bunch of people just started accusing them of copyright infringement and getting their service cut?

1. Since their service is a decicated server, you'd be accusing them of unauthorized distribution from their server... an unlikely circumstance that's easily verified to be a false accusation.
2. MPAA members own the copyrights to nearly mainstream all movies, and they license rights to a great portion of the mainstream recorded music, so it's hard to imagine what you'd accuse them of pirating... software or books ??

Re:Tactic

[gilroy]

Blockquoth the poster:

Somewhere along the line, they have to connect to the Net, just like us.
Only if you consider DSL/cable/dialup "just like" leasing a dedicated server (probably server cluster) in a massive data center.

Point taken. I meant, there has to be someone "upstream" from them, in that they don't form a part of the backbone.

MPAA members own the copyrights to nearly mainstream all movies, and they license rights to a great portion of the mainstream recorded music, so it's hard to imagine what you'd accuse them of pirating... software or books ??

USENET posts. News articles. I dunno. It doesn't matter -- the point is not to prove that they have violated a copyright, but merely to accuse them of it, and so force the ISP to shut their connection while the matter was investigated. It'd only be a minor annoyance, but it'd at least highlight the insanity of the current system.

Imagine shutting wwww.mpaa.com for even a few hours. It might play in the news, if nothing else.

A little noise in the game, perhaps?

[Perianwyr Stormcrow]

A journalistic experiment:

Start a broadband account. Then, a few weeks later, send an evil-looking lawyer letter to the ISP in question, stating that you are the "Mendax Interactive Entertainment Company" and that your game property "Iron Fist Kung Fu" was pirated via IRC on X date from Y ip (yours) and see if it gets cut off...

Excellent story-fodder, and no innocent bystanders harmed.

I agree, /if/...

[Giant Hairy Spider]

...there are consequences for the false accuser.

Similarly, I think when one person accuses another of plotting murder, the police should immediately detain the accused person. But if the accuser lied, or even if they were honestly mistaken, they should be punished severely enough to keep people from making such accusations when they aren't certain.

So when a copyright holder sends a threatening letter to an ISP over a user's alleged copyright infringement, if there is no copyright infringement they should be subject to severe penalties. It shouldn't be a matter of civil law either, requiring the offended party to bear the cost of challenging his accusers, they should simply be able to report it to the police (subject to penalties for false accusation themselves, of course).

You could call the crime "legal thuggery" or something like that, and define it as "manipulation through the insincere threat of baseless litigation."

OTOH, you could just straighten out the civil court system so you can't be hurt by baseless litigation...

In any case, where there isn't any realistic threat of punishment to false accusers, nothing should be done to the accused without proof of guilt.

the Red Queen explained it all

[mikeee]

Verdict first, trial afterwards!

Does anyone here give a damn?

[cr0sh]

I see a lot of posts here, both for and against what happened to this lady, as well as explanations (however brief) as to how the IP could have been spoofed, yadayada...

Nowhere have I seen any mention that someone has emailed her, leting her know more about the DMCA, making her aware of her options (such as switching services - oh! Maybe she can't do that! Maybe she doesn't _know_ that!), or lack thereof. Letting her know more about what the DMCA is being used for (2600, Dmitry, Felton, etc).

Send her an email - show her links! Show her the problem!

Here we have a jounalist who has had the DMCA used against her and her family - but maybe she didn't even know such law existed, and how it could affect her further, as well as her career as a journalist and writer. This woman could be a potential "ally", who may write further stories and do some investigative journalism into the DMCA and its abuse, and threatened abuse.

Email her - let her know more...!

Re:Trend away from "Innocent until proven guilty"

[Frank T. Lofaro Jr.]

The Business Software Alliance can fine people without trial.

I think it is due to contractual penalities provided for in the license agreement (the agreement doesn't even have all the terms, you agree to agree to other terms which are in other documents you don't see). Out courts enforce this for Microsoft. Then BillyG says that he doesn't like judicially interference (in his monopoly). He does like judicial control when it suits (pun intended) him.

Speaking of lawsuits, due process is guaranteed by the Constitution, but not in practice. You can be subjected to "summary judgement for the plaintiff" in which case you lose without a trial.

Waiting for proof or even proper notice is illegal

[Frank T. Lofaro Jr.]

It is illegal to wait for proof. It is even illegal to wait for a proper DMCA notice if you've been given a defective one. See the ALS Scan vs RemarQ case for details.

Re:Under penalty of perjury

[Frank T. Lofaro Jr.]

If they leave off that part "Under penalty of perjury", it is a defective notice, but still substantially complies. The DMCA does require the ISP to take action then too. Especially with the precendent set by ALS Scan vs RemarQ.

Re:If your net connection is worth $200,000...

[Wansu]

If your net connection is worth USD$200,000 to you, you can always move.

Where to? Outta state? A few states over? These big ISPs are regional.

OTOH...

[Darth RadaR]

Internet access is not a Right, it's a service. I'm not saying what the RIAA and the ISP did was cool, but whilst they can't do an illegal search and siezure, they can certainly shut down your internet access without a warrant. The only recourse they will have to deal with is civil (i.e. when you take them to the People's Court and sue them for various damages.)

Disclaimer:IANAL

Re:What is worse...

[Frank T. Lofaro Jr.]

Go back to Russia and then you can work for a company the writes software that Adobe/FBI doesn't like. Then the next time you visit Las Vegas you can get arrested. :(

subpoena the proprietary methods!

[karb]

Heh.

Take the MPAA to court and put out a subpoena for the methods that were used to incriminate these people. :)

Re:1,387,529,000

[Marvin_OScribbley]

... ordered 1,387,529,000 web sites shut down...

He refused to say how he determined which sites were in violation, citing "proprietary" methods.

Well its obvious from the number of web sites that his "proprietary" method is visiting Google. Scarier still is that I recognized that number so quickly... :-)

Dead wrong!

[MadAhab]

Wrong, they can make TimeWarner roll over. RTFA, and read the DMCA, and get up to speed before you speak.

This is also a cable account, not dial-up. There are few places that I know of where multiple choices for broadband exist, so, no, you aren't free to choose service elsewhere. There are very few places that have more than two, so what's the guy supposed to do next time someone misaligns their spreadsheet or the next time some numb fuck at TWC forgets that they use DHCP and, oh, before we steal this guy's money by taking his service away while charging for it, let's check to see that he actually had that IP at the time of the infraction?

The problem is that monpolistically run services are free to screw paying consumers any time they choose with no controls or consequences, at the behest of an unsupervised private interest who needs provide no proof whatsoever that the customer has done anything wrong.

That's fine if your standards of justice are on the level of, say, Mexican police, Soviet mafia, or corrupt local governors in rural China, but for a wealthy, stable country it shows that whoever is supposed to protect citizens against arbitrary harm is asleep at the wheel.

Re:Dead wrong!

[MadAhab]

Try reading the article, too, and understanding these things before you troll again.

Obviously you've never met a lawyer. The DMCA states that infringing material must be brought down upon notice. TimeWarner can't do jack shit about stuff on a newsgroup, and they are unlikely to have the ability to block specific ports to specific subscribers (and it would be a serious network downgrade if they started that kind of stuff), so their lawyers make the following decision: risk large fines fighting the major movie studios arguing the letter of the law against the spirit, or risk $39.95 fucking over some poor schlub by taking his service away, when we know that it will take, at a bare minimum, dozens of hours for him to fight it. Guess who wins? It isn't we the people.

So apparently you are also unfamiliar with the law of unintended consequences and its relationship to the law.

Were it not for the DMCA, they would have no employees slated to respond to infringement requests. I know what I'm talking about; I used to work in the billing department of an ISP and I ended up being the guy to handle Customs department requests looking for dialup records on alleged child pornographers. I had no ability and no authority to get the correct customer records, and I don't doubt that despite my attempts to comply, fully 90% of such requests got blackholed. Under the DMCA, this sort of laxity is no longer the case as ISPs have personnel dedicated to responding to takedown requests, which means that if a request comes in, someone will take something down, whether it makes any kind of sense whatsoever. I'm glad to know that you favor robbery as long as its a corporation stealing from their defenseless customers.

As to your second point, if the city council authorizes your assrape, I'll remember to remind you to vote. You can always go live somewhere else. You clearly have never actually met a local politician if you think they have the inclination or ability to play hardball with a giant corporation like time warner. There are a lot of success stories fighting city hall; name one fighting ma bell! Go live in some south american shithole where selling out the public interest is accepted practice, you'll have more opportunities for mindless toadying there. And I won't have to throw a boatload of cable modems in the river.

Letters from the MPAA...

[Calle Ballz]

...look like this.

My DSL was shut off for about a week because of it. Yes, I was sort of breaking copyright law, and I never argued it... at least I got my DSL back.

Re:Letters from the MPAA...

[Calle Ballz]

As far as my logs showed, no, nothing was downloaded from the user 'Ineedcaffeine'. Which is sort of messed up, could conceivably be faught in court if I could afford the lawyers to fight the battle, but I didn't bother since I have no chance against them.

The "terminate now" policy.

[Innominandum]

I was a victim of the "terminate access now - ask questions later" policy. My ISP terminated my account without contacting me first. Honestly, the reasons why don't really relate to anything being discussed here, but it's still the same problem.

Eventually I convinced my ISP to reconnect my service. This involved jumping through a lot hoops because of the internal bureaucracy of the company. And my connection never was restored.

I was treated like crap by the staff. They screwed up many, many times. Nobody would take responsibility for the actions of the company. They recorded my conversations. Everyone kept passing the buck; I was an object of a departmental ping-pong game.

So I decided to take them to court. I am doing this, not because I'm greedy, but to shovel that same shit down their throats. Even if I lose I've already wasted hundreds of their dollars on lawyers. I guess I have a strong case, but it's hard to beat a lawyer at his own game.

I can't get detailed for obvious reasons. But there is a moral to the story: read the contract and the terms of service.

If the terms of service is longer than a page, screw them. Companies that have a huge contract & terms of service are not trying to "protect" themselves; they are trying to waive their "responsibilities." Avoid these kinds of companies like the plague.

Now I am with a new ISP. They have a contract & terms of service which protects them. They can terminate my account if I *violate* the terms of service. But they can't terminate my account if they *suspect* I violated the terms of service. Way better!

Re:The lunatic left heard from again.

[revscat]

Conspiracy theories? Like what? That corporations have more say in legislation than the general public? Is that a conspiracy theory? I thought conspiracy theories were generally backed up by a lack of proof. Color me silly.

Chuch of Chomsky though, I like that. I need to start going to church anyhoo, so what the hell. Beats the hell out of the ritualistic cannibalism that takes place Sunday's all across the country (and beyond!)

Re:Possible to legally restrict access to a site?

[BlueUnderwear]

I run a DeCSS website, and do indeed block a largish list of known MPAA affiliated IP's. Moreover anything that has law in its hostname gets blocked too, unless it is from Poland (where law is often part of town names, etc => too many false positives).

People from blocked IPs just see This site has been shut down for legal reasons.

People who are not blocked see the page, but at the bottom it has the following disclaimer:

The presence of protective measures on this site does not constitute an admission of guilt, but are rather due to the realization that fighting through a suit can become a timeconsuming and expensive undertaking, even if winning eventually. Btw, come to think of it, these protective measure could even fall under the DMCA, so beware if you're a lawyer, and are seeing this site...

So far, in the almost two years that the site has been up, I've only gotten a single shark-o-gram, and even that one didn't insist after I just ignored him...

Before that, I used similar techniques for a site critical of E*Trade, in order to keep E*Trade's lawyers out...

Muhahaha!

[gnovos]

This, my friends, is the hammer I have been waiting for to start bashing the proverbial heads of all the usenet users who annoy me. From now on, you won't be getting flames from me, instead your ISP will be getting an email from me becuase you quoted my last copywritten post in your reply... Watch out America, here I come! :)

Someone find out who is MPAA's ISP

[gsfprez]

then, we'll call them and tell them that the MPAA is infringing on someone's copyright..

you can figure out the rest.

USA to stop lecturing the world on Freedom

[canadian_right]

Its time for the USA to stop lecturing the world about human rights, and start spreading the one true gospel: Profit is the one true ideal.

All countries should follow the USA's lead and revise all their laws to maximise the profits of large corporations. Small corporations may also make money if it doesn't impact any large corporations. The one obligation of all good citizens is to be good consumers. Each new technology must be embraced. CD's replace vinyl, DVD's replace VHS, you must upgrade.

As has been pointed out by the most important part of society, large corporations, current copyright laws which include archaic concepts like 'fair use' are preventing maximal profits. New laws like the DMCA rectify these glaring loopholes thus moving society towards a more ideal state.

As corporations move to improve the social contract we can look forward to new, enlightened, laws like:

Infinite copyright. Why go to all the trouble of extending copyright laws every twenty years when we can get it right with one change - infinite duration copyright.

Pay per view for all media. This whole idea of 'buying' stuff really cuts into profits. All media will be metered and paid for monthly directly from your pay-check. Manufactures of durable goods will add metering capabilities via wireless (and mandatory) Internet connections so these good corporate citizens who have so long suffered under the penalty of actually selling their goods can share in the new profitability of enlightened American society.

A surtax will be added to all transactions to pay for piracy. We all know that despite the best efforts of good corporate citizens a large percentage of wrong minded consumers will subvert the ideals of the profit driven society. This surtax will help defray the cost of this piracy. To keep paper work to a minimum it will be applied to all transactions.

Minimum consumer quotas will be set. Consumers who fail to meet their quotas will be sent to re-education camps where they will be gently taught the error of their ways. (Special thanks to the Chinese for pioneering this technique).

Anonymous speech will be eliminated. If you're innocent, you have nothing to hide.

Welcome to the new United States of Corporations.

Re:Possible to legally restrict access to a site?

[joshwa]

How did you come to be in the posession of such a list of MPAA IP's? That would have come in handy to me a few months ago when I got my 'letter' ...

Accountability

[SilentChris]

If you're suspected to have committed a crime, you often will be arrested with provocation or even a search warrant. Is the law supposed to wait until you appear before a judge if you're holding an automatic weapon? What if you're a rapist?

You don't need judicial review to be deemed a threat to society. And just because *your* definition of a threat may not be equal to *somebody else's* definition of a threat, or society's, doesn't mean you're free and innocent.

Emailing the fire department

[DrCode]

Not a bad idea if they supported it. When you use the phone, you may have to wait a bit for an answer, and you may use several more seconds explaining to the 911 operator that it's a fire. If they took email, you could have a hot-coded key or icon; you'd just click and run.

Re:Emailing the fire department

[Nurgster]

UNless of course it was a short in your badly put together custom nuilt water-cooled overclocked to 40GHz Athlon that caused the fire.

A nice way to use this

[KjetilK]

Well, in the future, when things are getting tighter, the way this is going to be used is that anybody who are critical of e.g. the movie industry will be harassed by the movie industry sending letters to ISPs to make sure that the person critical of the actions will be shut down on no grounds, repeatedly. That way, free speech can be prevented very easily. This is going to be very bad.

Re:Time-Warner Cable & AOL-Time-Warner connect

[Skapare]

Playing by the same rules, I hereby accuse the suits at Time-Warner Cable of being ignorant about the technology and assuming that just because copyrighted material might be coming from some IP address, this does not rule out that the IP address can be hijacked easily (in fact, it is easier when you are away). While the DHCP server might not assign that address to a request via DHCP from other than the correct NIC address, the ARP query in the router will record whatever NIC answers first. The people who are in authority at Time-Warner Cable apparently are ignorant of this and ignorant of the fact that an IP address does not identify an exact machine. They are therefore guilty until they can prove they are innocent. And I doubt they can do that.

Re:The lunatic left heard from again.

[donutello]

Lunatic because you fail to realize that corporations are not an alien race but that they just represent the people who control them - i.e. a set of people with money.

Feel free to argue against contributions to politicians or mechanisms that allow certain people to contribute more than the others (i.e. soft money - where they disguise their contribution under organizations). However, the fact remains that corporations are not in themselves evil and in fact serve a great purpose to the economy by allowing the shielding of personal financial liability. Blame the stupid laws that allow corporations to make political contributions that an individual cannot - don't blame the corporations for exploiting the law. The bottom line, of course, is that if citizens didn't vote for politicians who supported these laws, then we wouldn't have the problem in the same place.

Blaming "corporations" rather than the individuals that control them is dissimulation at its best.

... or against Time-Warner (the ISP)

[Skapare]

If the MPAA only presented to Time-Warner the IP address, then it was TW that had the responsibility to correctly identify the customer involved. They would have had to verify from their ARP logs that no one but the customer was using that IP address at that time. DHCP logs would not be good enough, since hijacking IP addresses bypasses DHCP. This is assuming they are using DHCP technology. If they are using something else, and that something else has a flaw (most protocols do) with respect to hijacking, then they would have to have some kind of proof that it was his machine, as opposed to someone else who had hijacked the IP address.

In fact, it is not even necessary to hijack the IP via ARP. By using UDP and forged source addresses, someone could operate a server that takes requests on its own IP, but sends answers back on another (we're not talking RFC compliant here). Even ARP wouldn't know about that. Sure, it would take special software in the client end to recognize the wierd response, but designing such a protocol wouldn't really be any harder than any other P2P. In fact I would guess that future (if not even some present) P2P protocols in the works will further hide their origins by the following technique.

Requests to a particular server would be shuffled around P2P nodes until the right one found it, not by IP address, but by certificate included inside, or some other encrypted message. Then responses from that server could be forged with a different IP address, and/or bounced off one or more other servers (with the real destination being encrypted) for 1 or 2 hops, before finally converging on the destination in what appears to be a smurf attack.

Don't think it can't happen. In fact, I would be a bit surprised if it is not already happening. There are some very clever protocol designers out there.

ISPs could filter against these, but it would be very much a cat and mouse chase game. Encapsulation would be used to hide things in other protocols like HTTPS which are virtually impossible to selectively filter (either you block port 443 or you don't).

Riiight- I'll bet you'd change if it were YOU...

[Svartalf]

All it takes to make the ISP "aware" of something is an anonymous tip. They're not going to check it out- they're just going to pull the plug.

Sounds like a great way to do a Denial of Service attack- and get the ISP to do all your dirty work.

If you agree to your little "Devil's" advocate position- would you so terribly mind anyone testing that theory? Yes, you do mind? I thought as much...

Re:OTOH

[Skapare]

DMCA, RIAA, MPAA, all 4 letter words ending in "A".

Not the issue

[einhverfr]

As a network programmer, I could set up an SMTP server using forged addresses and source routing to act an imposter to the MPAA and terminate the service of anyone I don't like.

As a pirate, would I really use my own IP address or would I "borrow" one and use source routing? After all, why not let some one else pay the consequences? How many ISPs check for source routing on outgoing packets anyway? How about valid IP addresses? Of course with Windoze XP, it will get a whole lot easier for the Windoze crowd to take advantage of these wonderful technologies! Unless proper firewalls were maintained in front of receiving internet mail servers (DMZ-style), they would never know the difference.

Here it goes

[Frodo]

Who it was that bragged about 'internet freedoms' and 'new reality' and stuff? Here it goes - every step you take is watched. You have absolutely no rights. Your access can be terminated any second without explaining a reason or giving you any chance to explain. All burden to prove your innocense is on you. Nobody has any obligation to even listen to you.
Does no sound like too much of freedom, does it? Does sound as a 'new reality', though. Free people of America, get used to it. It will get worse - how many times would it take for ISP to make 'access history' and share the data? One complaint from MPAA - and you lose your broadband for life. Sounds good?

Under Penalty of Perjury

[Lord Ender]

So.... The DMCA states that the penalty for making false accusations is Perjury. They made a false claim against the writer. Nail them! Seriously. The law isn't entirely one sided. There is a penalty if they lie in their claims. Make the law work for you.

The Real Issue...

[rdhill316]

...here is not "the Evil MPAA vs. the little guy," the real issue here is why the MPAA feels the need to stop people from distributing movies. Those in the MPAA -- and indeed, most corporations -- view the world differently than most individuals. It is a truly sad day in society when innocent people have their livelihoods violated because of a mistake reaulting from an ideological difference.
The difference is between two schools of thought: those who believe we now live in an information age , and those who believe we live in an information economy .
You see, the first group believes that in today's society, information must be free to flow, and the economy has progressed to a service-based economy, and you should pay for things like materials, labor, and service. The other group believes that the economy should be information-based, and in addition to all the other things, you should pay for the information itself. And sadly, this second group views technology as a threat to their way of life and business, and will do whatever they can to protect what they view as theirs. Unfortunately, tragically, people such as the fellow in this article get caught in the crossfire.
Technology, most notably computers and the Internet, has changed the way of life in today's society. It remains to be seen what we are headed for: information as a way of life, or information as a way of business.

Re:Possible to legally restrict access to a site?

[cyberdonny]

> How did you come to be in the posession of such a list of MPAA IP's? That would have come in handy to me a few months ago when I got my 'letter' ...

Easy. Whenever somebody posted a "letter" to Slashdot, I looked up the IP address of the shark that send it (many times, a website URL, or an e-mail address of sender was helpfully included), and added the relevant IP's to the list. Same thing with the "obvious" domainnames such as mpaa.org, etc. Then I verified in the website log whether I already had a visit from the address. And indeed, more often than not, I had. Most activity came from Weil, Gotshal & Manges.

In addition to this, I found somewhere a rather exhaustive listing of whois records, and grepped that one for obvious keywords such as "law", "avocat", "kanzlei", "advocatie", etc. I had even a regexp to match companies with 4 partners and more in their name (most of those are sharktanks...). Yes, there was some collateral damage (stuff with deLAWare in its name, engineering cabinets (which often also have lots of partners too), or sharks unrelated to MPAA... etc.), but these false positives were pretty much negligible (less than 0.5%).

Colleges

[mr100percent]

Would the colleges be under obligation to suspend your access? Especially if there are whole floors of people running an OpenNap server?

1,610,476,000

[Marvin_OScribbley]

Just today Google updated their counter to the above number. I wonder why it's always an even multiple of 1000...