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?
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.
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.
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
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
Damn you for making me defend the editors of /. because I feel no love for them. HOWEVER:
/.'s response to it, I became very, very informed about the cult and made it my duty to inform others about the dangers of scientology.
Yes, the editors of Slashdot removed the message in question. However, they posted an article detailing the whole mess along with links to where to find the entire Fishman articles and numerous links to anti-scientology sites.
Before this happened, I had never paid much attention to scientology. Because of what happened and
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.
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.