Slashdot Mirror
Testing ISP Censorship
ryants writes "As part of a research project, Christian Ahlert ran an interesting experiment. He posted John Stuart Mill's On Liberty, which is clearly in the public domain, on different ISPs. He then sent the ISPs phony copyright violation notices. The results are troubling, with ISPs "acting as judge, jury and private investigator at the same time.""
While the fact that a UK ISP folded immediately, without further investigation, is somewhat troubling (mostly for customers of that provider), the size of the sample does not justify any sort of conclusion. I'd be really interested to know which ISPs have NTD policies, and which do not. The US ISP responded in precisely the manner that I would want my hosting service to employ. Exactly how widespread is the problem?
Of course, if we want this kind of behavior on the part to ISPs to stop, then they have to have some kind of legal shield from copyright damages while they investigate claims of copyright infringement. Normally, I would say that a reasonable approach would serve everyone well, but the legal system seems anything but reasonable these days, particularly in regard to intellectual property. So it would seem (if there is not such a shield already available) that there ought to be some kind of law or ruling that explicitly specifies the duty and liability of ISPs in the event that a copyright violation is alleged. Meaning, of course, that I draw pretty much the same conclusion as Ahlert does. I would prefer that he had documented the problem a little more thoroughly, however.
I remember your eyes, on the twelfth of July...
I am waiting for the day when people start sending(read: abusing) these kind of take down notices in order to shut down a site they don't like, or even worse, competition. Granted, he tested only 2 Internet Providers, but this could become a new form of DoS if providers just started shutting down sites without doing some research. The provider should follow up as the US provider did, give the site owner a chance to defend his/her work.
...It actually mentions a lot about doing just that and how easy it would be. Oh wait.. this is /. ... sorry.
Hmmm.
Let's see... So, he posted it to two, yes that's right--only two, ISPs. One of them took it down without looking into it, and the other actually researched it. So what's his answer to this "problem"? Government regulation, of course! Hmm... Does anyone else see a problem with both his experiment and his conclusion?
You probably shouldn't click this.
Yeah but you are also paying for that bandwidth. OTOH, if I were getting it for free then they can tell me what I can and cannot put up because in that case I am using their bandwidth that they are paying for.
Hmmm.
As the aleged copyright infringement was textual, the US ISP investigated. But put a piece of music or some open source software on a website and try your experiment again, this time citing the DMCA. I'll wager 10 out of 10 fold before you have time to check your email again.
The real problem is that ISPs don't want to be bothered. They don't want to get sued and have to pay a bunch of money to lawyers because of the actions of a couple of customers. So, when they receive a copyright infringement claim, there is very little chance they will actually investigate it, and even less chance they will fight the demand that the material be taken down. Instead, they will almost always automatically take down the "offending" material, no questions asked.
Exactly how widespread is the problem?
I doubt its very widespread, nor is it a "problem". ISPs are a dime a dozen. You can find them to pump your spam, serve your porn, email, whatever. If you don't agree to the terms of use for any reason, simply go to another one.
The slashdot crowd is so wierd about copyright infringements. If I owned an ISP and someone reported that there was a problem with copyrighted material on my equipment, I would take the stuff down too. How much time should I spend seeing if the stuff is a problem. I guestimate 0. If the material is that important and really is OK to redistribute, then a counter from the original person suplying the material will prove to me that its OK to put back up, and I would do it. However, aside from this sample size of 2 "research" experiment, I would guestimate that close to 0.0% of all complaints to and ISP about copyright violations are not copyright violations. I would imagine that most every ISP has a zero tolerance policy (aside from the sleezy ones that will host anything for a price) regarding copyrights, and don't care to spend any time figuring it out.
But why private governance should be less intrusive than government regulation is something I have never quite understood. State censorship, while clearly problematic, is at least open to questioning and accountability. Notice and takedown is censorship without debate.
There are three differences:
1) Choice. Although you can question and debate state censorship, you have no options beyond that questioning and debate. If your government doesn't want you reading Mill's "On Liberty", your only real options are to defect or revolt. But for a private ISP, newspaper, radio station, etc, you have a choice. You have more than one ISP. You have more than one newspaper.
2) Guns. State censorship is backed up by guns, police, armies and navies. If they don't want you to publish a political screed, you're going to be in a world of hurt of you do. Private ISPs can't do anything but cancel your account. The MOST they can do is tell the state that you publishing a political screed, in which case this is an instance of state censorship anyway.
3) Ownership. Who owns the speech that should be free? In the case of state censorship, the state restricts your property of free speech. It has to leave its domain and intrude upon yours. But the situation is the opposite with private ISPs. The website is hosted on the ISPs property. It's their harddrive. They aren't intruding upon your property, but looking after their own. They never have to leave their private domain in order to restrict how their property is being used.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
I have two issues with this article.
First, the sample size is pathetic. Let's sample two ISPs, one in the UK and one in the US, and then draw overly broad conclusions based on those two results. Sounds good to me! (Or perhaps it sounds like a quick, insufficient study trying to support a premise rather than gathering evidence for one.)
Second, the article pays lip service to the issue as seen from the ISPs' point of view. (Granted I'm speaking entirely from the US side of things as I am unfamiliar with UK law in this regard.) ISPs have to deal with the DMCA. Okay, the author mentions this in passing. The author also, again in passing, mentions that ISPs carry liability for the information they host. Put the two together and what do you get? Take down first, look at it later.
However, the point is not that internet self-regulation is a bad form of regulation in itself. Instead, it is that the power an ISP has over content on the internet necessitates a clarification of the legal and governance framework. There ought to be rules about process. In other areas of governance it matters who governs and under what terms - this is also the case in borderless cyberspace.
There are rules and there is a process. It just happens that the author doesn't want to confront them dead-on. "ISPs have too much power, watch what happens when I threaten one!" just isn't a valid tactic in today's litigious society. That's akin to saying "Look at this! If I file a phoney report with the Police about my neighbor being a homicidal murderer, sometimes they come arrest him when they catch him holding a knife!" Flakey at best.
mod parent -1 hairsplitting...
So if you had, say, your masters' thesis, on that UK ISP and I wanted to cause you some trouble, I could sent them a bogus C&D letter and they'd yank your thesis offline without contacting you, or attempting to verify the legitimacy of my C&D letter, and you'd think that's a good thing for them to do?
Please THINK.
In a way, I have to disagree with what the ISP's did in removing/blocking the content. I realize that the ISP's own the network as you've pointed out, but what would stop someone from makng claims about numerous sites over copyrighted material and having those sites shut down. The author doesn't do a very good job explaining the exact setup of the site or the details of the actions by the ISP, so I can't say with certainty that they acted improperly. If the ISP's just pulled the connection based on a bogus claim, imagine the havoc someone could play on web sites.
Picture the ISP for a local politicians website getting a notice that www.somepolitician.org was displaying copyrighted work. Picture that claim coming from www.running-against.org. Without some level of validation, claims could affect legitimate sites.
One would hope that ISP's would require some level of proof indicating the copyright infringement followed by a contacting the website operator to inquire if they can show rights to the use the content. I don't know if this would put too much burden on the ISP though. Maybe not the ideal solution, but seems better than just pulling the connection.
ISPs this, ISPs that. The writer tested TWO ISPs and only ONE responded in an immediately censoring manner. The other provided a detailed questionaire for more information. I'm not suggesting the author doesn't raise a valid freedom of speach concern, but I wouldn't call a "secret shopper" experiement of TWO ISPs statistically useful.
If you're going to do secret investigation hidden camera secret shopper style journalism, you need to select a larger group than TWO ISPs.
This one gang kept wanting me to join cause I'm pretty good with a bo staff.
Bah! Don't try to confuse me with the truth ;)
I disagree with your view on government, but so what. Censorship is censorship. Just because you define it to only apply to government (and so does the law) doesn't mean its not as dangerous. There is no coincidence that megacompanies are buying up media outlets (like MSNBC) to minimize their negative appearances. With all of these megacompanies merging and merging, its going to become pretty difficult to put out the word when they violate the laws that are meant to protect us. I guess we could use the Internet (oops, I just read the article--I guess not). Maybe the only way to combat them is to get a loudspeaker and go to a public square (oops, they don't exist anymore only corporate malls and corporate football stadiums, etc). Hmm... Well I guess since the government didn't define corporate censorship in the 1700s its not dangerous, so I might as well give in. I mean, the important tenents of government never change, right? Right?
When my wife and I started our own message board, a competing board tried to get us to stop perfectly legal activities through extortion; i.e., they threatened to contact our ISP and accuse us of spamming if we didn't do what they wanted.
We didn't do it. They contacted our ISP. I had contacted our ISP in advance with a copy of the extortion email, and it was dealt with appropriately. We never went offline.
Now, that's with a good ISP, that I was in open communication with, and that I warned in advance about the contact, and everything was fine. However, if they had contacted our ISP without first tipping me off to their plans, and had claimed that we were hosting child pornography or infringing someone's copyright, things might have been different.
Chances are it would have taken a couple of days to get it all worked out and back online, but what if the site were politically oriented, and the persons who had it taken down had access to the media?
Imagine this scenario:
1. I post legal, factual information that I feel people should know about before voting for big, powerful mogul;
2. Powerful mogul tells my ISP that I'm doing something illegal (that I'm not doing), and the ISP takes my site down without review;
3. Powerful mogul "leaks" to the news that this site was taken down because of illegal material (let's say child pornography);
4. Most news agencies try to contact me, but a few don't, and run the story as-is;
5. My site is still down, so in the crucial 48 hours after the news story runs, I have no web site to post any kind of rebuttal;
6. Three days later, my site goes back up and my ISP says "it was all nonsense", but it's old news by now. My credibility is shot, and my message is rendered ineffective.
The point of all this, I think, isn't that illegitimate takedown requests can be corrected in a few days, but that illegitimate takedown requests can silence your voice for a crucial period of time that a shrewd, powerful manipulator can leverage for maximum advantage (as in my theoretical example above).
ISP takes down material NO MATTER WHAT (thus immediately preventing possible further infringements). It's then up to the site owner to prove they own the right to post the material.
Ahh, yes, the classic 'guilty until proven innocent' clause guaranteed by the constitution..
Oh, wait...
...which is yet another black hole in his methodology. (See the full report for details of the methodology.)
Quote from the article:
The UK ISP took Mill down almost immediately (in huge letters, as a heading, followed by:)
The US ISP followed up on the dubious complaint, made on behalf of the chairman of the non-existent John Stuart Mill Heritage Foundation, with detailed questions. But the UK ISP took the site down almost immediately, effectively censoring legal content without investigation.
In the full report, he details how the US ISP refused to take down the content *unless he explicitly perjured himself in writing*, acknowledging in writing the phrase "under penalty of perjury". Unsurprisingly he was unwilling to do this and terminated the project - so the US ISP left the content there, and did exactly the right thing - a fact he completely skips over in the summary article.
The reason it did do this was that the DCMA provides a framework for such complaints. While ultimately his point in the article is that government regulation may be preferable to private corporate censorship, he doesn't want to explicitly draw the logical conclusion that in this case the DCMA is working exactly as intended, protecting the alleged infringer against specious claims. Rather he decides to reference "anecdotal evidence" that the DCMA has chilling effects.
Now I believe the DCMA to be one of the most wrong-headed laws ever signed, and I agree with this guy's conclusions, but the report reads obviously that he has started with these conclusions and moulded his data to fit them. His methodology is completely out the window. And that's a problem, because anyone can come up with a "research report"; that proves whatever they want, including the bad guys - and from a methodology perspective this guy could get a job with them.
Exactly. This is how it should work...ISP takes down material NO MATTER WHAT (thus immediately preventing possible further infringements). It's then up to the site owner to prove they own the right to post the material.
This removes the ISP from the role of judge or jury. They are merely the executioner, doing what the law says in either direction. And in turn, they're playing fair with both the content owner and the so-called infringer. What's not to like?
While there is no guarantee that the notice isn't lying, there is ALSO no guarantee that the counter-notice isn't lying.
If you put, let's say, Celine Dion's latest album on your website (which is a hanging offense by any standard, really), and you claim in your counter-notice that Celine's record company is full of shit when they take you down, the ISP will put your page back ASAP.
This is designed mainly to let ISPs off the hook for their user's intentional behavior, whilst also giving "good faith" copyright holders the ability to smack down on casual (i.e. non-counter-notice claiming) infringers without resorting to Federal court at the very first whiff of trouble.
And they can't send a DMCA-notice twice, they MUST put up (go to court) or shut up. At which point they can find out your identity only by a court-ordered subpoena to your ISP (although court oversight of subpoenas isn't that much of a big deal these days).
BTW, if you ever contributed stuff to a GPL'ed program that you notice is being distributed by some company without providing source code -- guess what the cheapest legal option you have is?
It's not perfect (what if you're on a trip around the world and the ISP can't contact you?) but it's a good effort.
This is actually about the only good part in the DMCA, and an example that the UK should follow.
All the rest of the DMCA, now there's the real trouble..
SCO employee? Check out the bounty
Very true. A better analogy...
A better analogy would be to stop it with all the analogies.
Look at it on its own merits. Something that is true for a similar situation may not be true for another situation even though it appears similar. The concepts here are not hard to understand. No analogy is needed. Is it censorship if an individual can have content he disagrees with removed at will? Simple question. Keep to the point.