Aussie ISP Scans Downloads For Copyright Violation

Steve Nakhla writes: "According to this article, Excite@Home has begun snooping users' downloads in order to find copyrighted or pirated material. Violators have their access cut off. As an Excite@home user, this alarms me. What exactly is their definition of copyrighted? Doesn't the New York Times copyright their online articles? Can I not view them any more for fear of violating Excite's policies?"

Comments

Not all of @Home

[alanjstr]

The article says that this is Optus@Home, in Australia.

Re:Isn't everything copyrighted?

[raresilk]

Yes, it's automatic via authorship in the USA, although I believe it formerly was not. I think the poster may be confusing the "copyright notice" (which is commonly placed on copyrighted material to clarify that it's being distributed subject to the author's copyright, rather than being released into the public domain) with the copyright itself. There is an additional USA procedure called "registration," which you need to do in order to bring a lawsuit on your copyright, and also registration is helpful in the dispute itself (e.g., it places a time stamp on your claim of authorship.) But the copyright itself exists even if you never register. There is one exception called the "work for hire" rule. If you author something as part of your employment duties for your employer (like software if you're a programmer) then the copyright automatically goes to your employer, unless you make special contractual arrangements. But if you write a song in spare time, that's still your copyright, because it's not what the company hired you to do.

Additional disclaimer - IAAL, but not a copyright specialist.

Re:Isn't everything copyrighted?

[$FFh]

Yes, any work you create is automatically copywrited unless you specifically put it in the public domain.
http://www.loc.gov/copyright/circs/circ1.html has more details.

IANAL, but i do play one on /.

Monitoring means assuming responsibility for usage

[hillct]

This was an issue circa 1996 when ISPs were wrestling with weather or not they are responsible for the actions of their users ans as such should attempt to keep track of activities on their network. I though the general concensus was that ISPs were not liable for the infringing activities of their users, unless they state that they will attempt to prevent such activity in socuments such as 'Acceptable Use Policies'. It sounds like Excite@Home screwed up their acceptable use policy and some content provider threatened to force them to make good on their statements that they would monitor the network for 'unacceptable uses'. Reharding the acceptable use policy, they say:

A spokesperson from Excite@Home said, "we are not watching every bit and byte, but we would randomly check from time to time."

The US AUP for their service describes illegal acticity but doesn't seem to describe how it will be observed. I was unable to locate the Austrelian policy. Presumably is't different in this regard. Also this statement, supports my theiry that some content provider called them on a badly written AUP that they have to make good on:

"I wouldn't call it policing, we're just trying to comply with the law and by highlighting the issue to customers, its putting us in a better position as acting as a responsible Netizen on the Internet," the spokesperson said.

I've written a couple AUPs in my day and one has to be vary careful about what one says will be done to keep track of user behavior, because any knowlege of illegal activity must be acted upon, whereas simply providing bandwidth does not usually create so many legal obsticles, no matter how many threatening letters you may get from the RIAA and other such organizations.

--CTH