Slashdot Mirror
UK ISPs Want Copyright Holders to Pay if Users Sue
I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "After the recent draft legislation in the UK, which would create a 'three strikes' policy to cut off anyone accused of online piracy, the ISPs are asking for liability protection when users are wrongly identified. They're worried that when users are wrongly blamed for piracy, as has happened in several widely-reported investigations already, they will turn around and sue their ISP. The ISPs, of course, think that the record companies — or whoever else wrongly identified the file sharers — should be the ones to pay out any such judgments. The British Phonographic Industry, however, disagrees and wants the ISPs to simply use their Terms of Service to disconnect people. Apparently, that means they think that the ToS should be able to remove any legal recourse people might otherwise have against being misidentified."
I think you're missing the point. The IFPI need only be accused of piracy instead of actually having committed it. That's kind of the point of this article: wrongfully disconnecting users who are only accused of piracy, regardless if the accusation is valid or not.
Please keep this in mind as it is good advice for any letter-writing campaign:
Most politicians are busy people (or at least consider themsleves to be), so they will generally only make time for those that put in an effort.
In general, a form email is least effort and will generally be ignored.
A non-form email is still low effort and will also be ignored.
A phone call is moderate effort, but will usually be intercepeted.
A form letter (paper, envelope, stamp) without a signature is also somewhat moderate, but will still be ignored.
A form letter with a signature will usually get a response, but along the lines that they don't listen to from letters.
An original typed letter will usually get a somewhat favorable response; although you may just receive a lecture on policy ppositions.
An original hand-written letter will get you attention -- assuming you have neat and legible hand-writing.
A personal visit as a constituent will also get you attention, but should be followed up by some form of traceable communication.
He effected a bored affect.
Actually, there's a thing called "probable cause"
While "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" is required for a conviction, it is not required for an arrest, where the standard is merely "probable cause".
If the cop has probable cause, you cannot sue the police for false arrest. If the "probable cause" was based on evidence that turned out to be false, you can only sue the guy who gave it if it was known to be false.
Witness honestly believes you've done something wrong, and tells the cops. They arrest you on probable cause, but since they don't actually have enough to convict, you get let go. Since both the police and the witness acted in good faith, nobody is liable for false arrest. All you can do is pick up your marbles and go back to your life. Nobody screwed up, so tough shit no soup for you.
Witness has grudge against you, and makes up a vicious lie to get you arrested by the police, who as far as *they* know, have reason to believe you are guilty. You spend time in jail, but since you aren't guilty, you get let go once the evidence fails to pile up. The police are faultless and were simply doing their jobs. However, it is foreseeable that the arrest would be made, so you get to sue the witness for false arrest.
Honest witness tells the cops something's fishy about you, and the cops, looking for an excuse to cause trouble for you, pounce on you with cuffs, and you spend the night in jail. Your PD bails you out after showing the lack of probable cause, and you get out. The cops were way out of line to arrest you, so you can sue the police for false arrest. The witness, however, is innocent, because they could not reasonably foresee an arrest based on their mere "suspicions".
Of course, if you get a witness with an axe to grid with a police department waiting for an excuse to pounce, then you can sue both of them.
Thank god for habeas corpus.
However, since ISP's these days usually have "termination at will" clauses in their TOS, it probably doesn't apply. Simply screaming "copyright infringement" could merely provoke such an "at will" termination (against which no user has recourse), and even if the termination was erroneous, if the ISP simply doesn't want the hassle of reinstating your account, they can squat and tell you to go screw yourself. "It's our network and we'll terminate whoever we damn please" is quite relevant when it comes to proprietary hardware and a dictatorial TOS.
Unlike labor law, AFAIK there is legally nothing that will stop an ISP from going texas sharpshooter and unplugging whoever they feel like. You're only "due process" is whatever the ISP felt like including in your service agreement, which is likely to be entirely in their favor.
It's not copyright infringement to download a copy of a public website.
It would be infringement to host that copy as your own.
I have thought this in Finland where I live - I am sure that this applies to UK as well:
In the criminal law it states (section 38 paragraph 5 and 6) that disturbing communications is a criminal offense.
If you disturb communications and either you work for an operator (ISP) OR if the communications is an emergency call, you will go to jail for at least (!) 4 months but up to 4 years!
If I would work for an ISP, I'd think twice.