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.""
There really needs to be some sort of check to counter ISPs being able to do this. Perhaps some sort of law that defines a procedure for preventing things like this, maybe?
Shouldn't that be possible somehow? To be your own ISP. I totaly understand if the ISP don't want to be sued because information violating copyright are traveling trough their servers. But why can't I be my own ISP, and thus take responsibility for what I do with my connection?
ISPs tend to have a limited staff and I would imagine, get a lot of flack from RIAA/MPAA etc... Instead of using (sometimes limited) resources to ferret out real offenders, they just rubber stamp any request that comes in. Survival mechanism perhaps, prob. gets the RIAA off their backs.
Remember, an ISP can do (almost) whatever it wants with it's own network, it's a private company, not the government. So technically it isn't censorship. If you don't like the way they handle speech, start your own ISP, make free speech a cornerstone of your service. If ISPs lose enough business because of how they patrol their networks, maybe then the attitudes will change.
Individual employees just want to save their skin and not have to take the responsibility of taking a wrong decision and being held responsible.
They will continue to do this until the "other path" becomes the path of least resistance, and THAT will only happen when citizens (or consumers in today's parlance) start asserting their rights and bringing companies to boot for unfair suppression of rights.
An Indian-American Hindu committed to non-violent thought/speech/action alarmed by the global explosion of radical Islam
The problem is not that ISPs "acting as judge, jury and private investigator at the same time." . It's rather that they're not acting as jury nor a private investigator. They're not investigating wether the copyright is actually infringed or not.
6 years ago I was hired to track down websites that used my clients copyrighted pictures. It was never a problem to get the pictures removed. Of course, I could prove that my client had the copyright, but it would be a lenghty procedure. So, the ISP's took my word for it, thinking that if my claims where false, the person who uploaded the pictures would complain. I think it's the same reasoning we see today.
censor: to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable
Did they supress or delete something, anything at all? Yes, it is censorship.
Google reveals that the only web sites with sitebuilder/tandc.htm in their URLs are Freeserve/Wanadoo, and the pdf of the article describing the takedown. Therefore it must have been Freeserve or Wanadoo, who are the same company now. I'm glad I have started to move away from Freeserve, although most of my web site is still on their servers, I haven't migrated most of it yet.
I think where it crosses the line is that the ISP has a legal responsiblity/liability for the content. So are they acting on behalf of the government when they take down a site? Is it really "voluntary" action when an ISP can be legally liable if they don't act immediately? How much different is this than direct government action?
I wonder why he didn't name names? I don't see much threat of a lawsuit because he is just reporting what happened. Indeed, since he didn't do a very big test, it would be nice to know who failed the test.
http://www.popularculturegaming.com -- my blog about the culture of videogame players
I imagine this holds true with ISP's also, I would assume larger ISP's get hundreds or thousands of complaints per day, and it's just not worth it to investigate each and every one.
A better approach may be to notify the website owner that the content is in question and will be removed without a timely explanation, however, copyright holders can be pretty impatient.
This is a nonissue.
;)
If the point was to demostrate that you could take something off the internet by forging a copyright notice, I'm not too concerned.
You break multiple laws by doing that. No need to invent new ones.
We are also talking about digital content on the internet, which is trivial to reproduce from backups or what have you. Most likely the ISP wouldn't really delete the content but relocate it to unreachable place incase a mistake happens.
I have to admit I would be a bit miffed if this happened to me. Then again, I run my own server so that rather unlikely.
Bot Assisted Blogging
Don't blame the isp, as a web host I have to worry about DMCA crap, RIAA, MPAA, piracy, lawyers, lawsuits, and litigation. After a while I simply adopt the attitude of "you guys figure this out, send me a copy of the court ruling, if it's OK to have it we'll put the site back, if it's not OK to have it then the site stays down".
No one wants to get caught in the middle of this crap, it's ALL too easy to make these bogus claims and it's ALL too easy to make GOOD on even bogus claims when things such as the DMCA and Patriot Act are out there to give censorship such a big stick.
I don't like censorship, but I don't like flinging my wallet at some sheister lawyer either. In the end I have to weigh the lesser of two evils and while I hate censorship I hate being bankrupt thanks to lawyers or imprisoned thanks to REALLY BAD LAWS even more.
--- www.f-theocean.com
I also on a side note the writter of this story doesn't really under stand the meaning of censorship. Only a government can censor a person, a private company does not have this ability.
Very true. A better analogy, though still flawed, would be a store removing alegedly stolen property from it's shelves. Censorship has nothing to do with copyright violation.
"Eve of Destruction", it's not just for old hippies anymore...
It's not just music. Ulink.net shut down part of my site when I was still hosted by them after receiving a complaint from the Beverly Hills police department for "displaying children with pornography". It was a background picture of the Trix rabbit saying "tits are for kids". Didn't bother telling me about either. It was shut down for days before I noticed and sent them an email asking what was going on.
7th Heaven sarcasm
Ulink quote:
We have been contacted by authorities regarding your displaying of a child star on a page with pornography. For your own protection we had to take down that page or you could be in serious trouble. In the future, please do not display pornography and children together. It is against the law and Ulink policies.
riding round the world on an old motorcycle
Remember those Scientologists and how they told Slashdot to get down and suck it regarding their IP, AND SLASHDOT DID?!?!?
Slashdot has no right to ever be judgemental about censorship, since they themselves were unwilling to stand up against it themselves.
Seems to me, one way to pump up the visibility of this particular problem is to generate bogus copyright complaints on a couple of choice items that would cause a rucus-- though I can't think of one offhand, I'll bet a little thought would produce some interesting potential candidates. Having some Microsoft marketing announcements pulled, for example, might cause some force to be exerted on the problem.
Of course, there is the slight problem of the liability it might expose the claimer to (fraudulent claims), but I would imagine there are probably a few ways to circumvent that...
Disclaimer: I am not recommending illegal activity here, just pointing out the effect a few targeted cases of fraudulent IP claims might have.
For example, when working at a local electronics store we would not give out any store prices over the telephone or Internet. We forced the customer to physically come into the store to see the price. We also would not write the price down for a customer either. This was put into effect so that we didn't get other competing stores calling and asking our prices, only to get a better price to the customer at their store.
Hmmm.
I have taken 10 sites down like this. I used to develop a shareware app 1999 - 2001 and whenever I found a site that contained a Kegenerator or Crack for my app I would send the ISP a polite message saying "Take the site down or legal action will be take". Most of them it was taken down within 24 hours and sometimes the ISP would inform me that the offender was contacted and would have a week to respond/defend themselves before taking it down.
The supreme irony in all this is that Mill advocated the utilitarian theory of ethics first put forward by Bentham. This states that the morally correct one is whatever creates the greatest amount of good (or alleviates the most suffering) for the greatest numbers of people. In this way censorship almost seems to be the right thing to do since stifling one person saves everyone at the ISP the pain of dealing with it.
(Author's note: as a Kantian I don't agree with this conception. I'm merely acting as Devil's advocate.)
The Church of $cientology, as you should know, owns copyright over various texts (specifically, the OT series.) When an anonymous poster reprinted the full text of the posting, Slashdot was served with a notice of infringement. In this case, Slashdot would be taking the heat here, because they cannot blame an anonymous poster. If, however, a person stepped forward claiming that he made the posting and that the take down notice was invalid, then Slashdot would be allowed to restore the content - AND NOT EARLIER.
In this case, a single ISP is performing a takedown in response to a copyright complaint. The material in question is in the public domain, is traceable to an individual user, and was taken down without having the ISP consult with the user. These three facts make this case distinct from Slashdot's scuffle with Co$.
As for you, if you want to complain about hyprocasy, you should *READ THE FUCKING ARTICLES*.
Slashdot removed the messages, and undermined Co$ by posting many links to Anti-CoS sites, along with information on how to get the OT books. If you bothered to remember those important facts, than you would have known that Slashdot didn't collapse - in fact, they acted very reasonably compared to the UK ISP.
As a previous poster mentioned, it IS censorship, but not by the government. Governmental censorship certainly is more insidious that private censorship, since it is more pervasive. You can't step out of the government's jurisdiction, but you can stop using the private company's services.
The problem arises when a "private" entities becomes so large and powerful that that they have a monopoly or cartel and a lot of ties with the government. When the only place you can turn for a service is one of these government subsidized/sanctioned companies, then their censorship is just as bad as anything commited by the government.
Imagine if the phone company started censoring your phone calls? What if you couldn't get insurance unless you stopped speaking on some issue? etc...
LS
There is a fine line between being a cultivated citizen and being someone else's crop. - A. J. Patrick Liszkie
Are there really people like Bill Gates and Donald Trump out to get you?
;-), and the material is old enough, what you're doing is legal everywhere (as far as we can tell).
Yes. Well, maybe not quite as powerful as those two turkeys, but powerful enough.
An interesting case: I've been involved for some years with a crowd that's putting a lot of old music online. It's not at all unusual for some publisher to send C&D letters demanding that some music from the 1800's or earlier be removed because they own the copyright on it.
I've received a few of these, but my web site is on an academic machine, and the admins who run it are well aware of such problems. They just forward such messages to me, and I deal with them.
For people using commercial ISPs, it's common for the ISP to delete such files without notifying the file's owner.
One funny thing is that we often have documentation of when something was first published. We then send back a reply of the form "That music was published in 1735 in London by Georg F Handel; the file in question is clearly not a copy of your publication and the music is public domain. How are you claiming to own the file's content?" We never hear from the publisher again. Not surprising, actually, as we've told them that we can prove that their claim was fraudulent. Their lawyers then advise them to try some other sucker.
Of course, if you scan in a recently published copy of, say, Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata, you are illegally copying a current publication. But if you enter the music by hand using any of the many music editing packages, the result is not legally a "copy" when the music itself is pubic domain. This is something that tends to be obscured or glossed over in most copyright discussions.
We generally do warn people about putting scanned images of published music online, unless you can prove that your paper copy is out of copyright. But if you've created the files yourself without scanning (with anything but your eyes
Still, ISPs can and do take such things down without notice and without recourse. An outstanding question is whether an ISP can be sued for such invalid actions. You can certainly sue a publisher for making a fraudulent copyright claim, at least if they don't back off when you present them with the evidence.
But it's likely that an ISP is immune to prosecution in many countries. They can censor as they like.
Anyone know different?
This could be used as an argument for government-run ISPs. In the US and many other countries, a government agency couldn't censor users' content without a court order, and you have legal recourse. With private ISPs, you apparently have no legal protection at all.
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
provided a followup step occurred, and certain events then took place.
The follow-up step:
1) Contact the ISP(s) that took down the material.
2) Inform them that the material they took down was public domain, or you really own the material or whatever
3) Request that they restore it, and (optional) request a refund for the period of time it was down
The events that should occur:
The ISP in question should obey all your instructions, and refuse to take down the material again until they hear from a legal authority.
They have a duty to protect themselves; I just want to see that they are concerned about protecting themselves from both lawsuits on *both* sides.
It's rare that you're presented with a knob whose only two positions are Make History and Flee Your Glorious Destiny.
Rapid progress my ass.
Oh, ye of little faith. In some places, you may need the patience of a monk, but it will come. It can start out as wireless "mini-nets", and later the "real" net will come to us. In any case, it will happen, sooner or later. And this shall make censorship by anybody impossible.
What?
Lets be real about this.
Most ISP's run a pretty slim margin. The cost of investigation and possible litigation are more than they are willing to pay. Its cheapr to just concede.
Looking further. Is it the ISP's responsibility to fight for YOUR rights at their cost?
Now if our legal system made sense, people would not be able to sue an ISP if you placed said content their. The should sue YOU. Since they do sue the ISP, they are only going to try to protect themselves.
This means that the cost of fighting for your rights is yours, and yours alone. As it should be.
Personally, I tired of people whinning because others don't fight for their rights. Of course, I am one of those whacky individualists who thinks that it is no one's responsibility (except mine) to take care of me.
----- If communism is a system where the government owns business, what do you call a system where business owns govern
Ok, but think of it this way:
/.ed.
A site/article about some company/product is posted to Slashdot. You attempt to access it (because of course you always RTFA first), but the site has been
So you read the comments on slashdot in an effort to learn more. People are really bashing the company/product/service in question, and you form a pretty negative opinion of it, just based on what others are saying, and without any first-hand knowledge.
You tell yourself that you'll bookmark the site and visit it tomorrow, but you never do... and in the back of your mind, that negative opinion persists.
[I wrote this as a hypothetical situation but as I was writing it I realized this is exactly what happened to me when EV1 announced they were licensing SCO technology. The EV1 message board was inaccessible, and so all I had to go on was "EV1 gave SCO money. EV1 == bad." I still think they were suckers to do it, but at least later when I returned to the EV1 site I saw the president of the company had written a letter explaining his actions.]
Remember, you don't always have to tick off "somebody who actually has national media connexions"... a smart/evil person with an internet connection can do quite a bit of damage.
also on a side note the writter of this story doesn't really under stand the meaning of censorship. Only a government can censor a person, a private company does not have this ability.
I've heard this from other people as well, and the issue is that you've got the first amendment confused with the definition of censorship.
From Merriam-Webster:
censorship (noun) 1 a : the institution, system, or practice of censoring b : the actions or practices of censors; especially : censorial control exercised repressively
If I run a chatroom for AOL and I keep the chatroom kiddy-safe by kicking objectionable posters and deleting their remarks, I am censoring the chatroom. The First Amendment to the US Constitution, on the other hand, basically states that the government is usually not permitted to censor individuals (free speech) or publishing interests (free press).
If you wanted to be correct, you could say that the first amendment only prevents the US government from censoring content, and that corporations and people are not limited by "free speech" rights to censor themselves and others who speak or publish through them.
At that point, we get into the interesting topics that this issue raises: is it okay if the government asks nongovernment entities to censor for it? Related question: is it good if nongovernment entities universally censor certain opinions they consider unpalatable (say, antiglobalization)?
But your definition of censorship is in error.
Regards,
Ross
I host about 20 domains for clients on my server.
I once received a letter from lawyers asking me to put a client's site down.
I called the client then only replied with an email saying something like "You say it's illegal, but I understand my client's lawyers disagree. I'm only an ISP, not a lawyer, so I will let you sort this out between professionals. I will close the site if and when I receive an official decision from a judge telling me to do so."
I didn't even word it in a more sophisticated way than above. That email took me 5 minutes. Less than the time to take the site down and notify/apologize/explain the matter to the client (who got a Cc of my reply).
Why would any ISP do it differently and just let down his client, to please some anonymous lawyer?
Of course, I would probably have acted differently if the site had been something I consider clearly unacceptable. But it was just about 2 parties accusing each other of being crooks.
Anyway, I never heard of these lawyers again, but heard much later from my client that they actually did go to court, and were dismissed.
If the site is not *very* obviously illegal, why would an ISP act as a judge?
Isn't there a risk when you are not using primary sources?
A modern edition of Handel might include corrections, later transcriptions and other editorial content still under copyright. I don't trust the notion that a "hand-made" copy is perfectly safe.
I can remove content I disagree with at will from my lawn. Is that censorship, or is that my free speech?
common sense: noun
What those who are ignorant of the subject matter think; usually wrong.
Isn't there a risk when you are not using primary sources?
... ;-)
Of course; it's a serious problem in any sort of historical research.
Back in the 50's, when the Baroque Revival got going, there was a lot of frustration with the centuries of "interpretation" of pre-1750 music by editors who thought that the music wouldn't appeal to current customers unless it was enhanced. It took a lot of work by a lot of people to rediscover the primary sources and learn to interpret them. Nowadays, though, there are a lot of musicians who prefer to use the urtext editions. And many of them prefer to use period instruments.
This work is going on now with a lot of kinds of folk music. Digging through centuries of misinterpretation and enhancement by publishers is a difficult task. It's especially bad in this case because much of the written material was produced by non-practitioners, usually musicians trained in other styles. Undoing their helpful editing can take a lot of time, thought, and playing with the material. Again, it helps to have the right instrument in your hands. A modern perlon-strung guitar isn't a substitute for a 16th-century silk-strung lute, regardless of how closely they're related.
It's a difficult task, but someone's gotta do it
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
How many people realized that the US ISP actually came back with some questions and confirmation before taking action?
Regardless of all the crummy things that are said about the US, and I'm not exactly a zealot here, it should be of significance that this little test did bear one thing out.
The US still has some attempt at considering your right to free speech somewhere in their bones. All this despite our rapidly building demonstrations on the international circuit of Human Rights Violations through censorship and McCarthyism tactics of condemnation by the government.
I'm actually encouraged that there is still some hope for Free Speech in the world
I used to be the guildmaster of an Ultima Online group. Ran the guild website from my own ISP shell account, until a member joined who happened to run a web hosting business. She offered to host the content (which had been created by myself and 2 other members), and she also went and registered a domain name for the guild. Unfortunately, a year later, she and her daughter were causing some serious interpersonal nastiness with other folks in the guild. She quit, and I asked her daughter to leave as well. We just went back to using my original website, and thought that was that. A few months later, out of the blue, my ISP chown root's all my website files and disabled the site. No email notification, no phonecall, nothing...mind you, I'd been a customer for almost 10 years. I called them and asked what was going on. Apparently, the ex-guildmember called up my ISP with some other lady on the line who she claimed was her attorney, and proceeded to throw a fit, threatening to sue both me and my ISP for copyright infringement. As proof, she showed them her website (with all the copied content from my own), and told them that since she owned the guildname.com domain, it was obviously hers. No Cease and Desist letter, not even formal identification of this supposed attorney's credentials...just a phonecall threat, and they shut me down without so much as a notification that they'd done so. Fortunately, once I gave them my own dose of invective, and demanded that the ISP provide me with the contact information for THEIR attorney, so I could sick my own on them, they caved and restored the site. Amusingly, they later forwarded me the email sent to them by the psycho-ex-member: the crux of her complaint was the assertation that "content belongs to the host and domain owner, not the creator". Aparently her "attorney" wasn't too familiar with copyright law :)
Regardless, it's disgusting and troubling that it's so easy for a malicious person to simply shut down a site that they don't like, purely on heresay.
--Bargeld
"I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone. But they've always worked for me." --Dr. Hunter S.
And I've censored stuff in the past. But on the other hand, I've also ignored requests to remove content from our customers websites.
I get no help from anybody in deciding what to allow and what to delete... There are no guidelines, no lawyers to consult, nothing. It's just my judgement every time. Mostly I take the view that if the guy complaining is being an ass and being unreasonable I take what he says with a pinch of salt. It usually doesn't take long to contact the site owner, copy them the complaint and then let the two sort it out between themselves.
Ofc if it's obviously in breech of the law then I'll remove it. But there's surprisingly little which is nowadays.