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."

Comments

Sounds like a great idea

[dingbatdr]

A nice old-fashioned three-way Mexican standoff. Reminds me of the gunfight scene in "The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly."

This idea might have two very nice consequences. First, it might make the RIAA et al much more careful about throwing lawsuits around. Second, it might protect ISP for paying the price for their lawlessness.

Another concern is

[Z00L00K]

that more and more people are using IP telephony as their landline.

What will happen if that service is unavailable for an innocent that needs emergency service? Who is to blame then?

I for sure would want to hold someone personally responsible. The internet connection is more than just an amusement that can be turned off today - it has changed into something much more important.

So cutting off people shall be an alternative that really has to be considered a last resort.

Re:Another concern is

[asuffield]

So cutting off people shall be an alternative that really has to be considered a last resort.

It should be something that only happens if (a) you don't pay, or (b) a court orders it - exactly the same as with a telephone line.

This is all about the media cartel trying to get out of having to prove their cases in court, because their little scam doesn't make a profit when they have to do that.

How is this already not covered

[alan_dershowitz]

I don't see how there isn't already some kind of law covering this. The ISP is being deputized as an agent of the Phonographic Industry when it comes to identifying and cutting off file-sharers. While it may be disputable that the ISP is not liable, I definitely don't see how the Phonographic Industry can absolve liability when its them doing the accusation. The ISP at least initially has to take it on face value that their accusation has some merit, which in my mind at least, absolves them of liability. It would seem to me to be a really bad precedent if you can accuse someone of something, legally force a third-party to take action against the accused, and then use that third-party as a shield against liability for your false accusation.

Re:Simple enough solution

[Mr. Underbridge]

Find out what ISP the Phonographic Institute uses, and file a complaint that they're violating my copyright. According to that logic, the ISP must then disconnect them.

Not quite. The ability to disconnect is still up to the discretion of the ISP. However, the ISP rightly fears that the record companies won't be doing a whole lot of due diligence in eliminating false alarms, and that with the crapflood of requests the ISP won't be able to either. But I don't think you'll have success in calling the Phono group's ISP and getting them disconnected, as satisfying as it may be.

The ISPs' request is a fair one. Basicaly, they're saying that if you want us to do your dirty work, you better indemnify us against the results. Otherwise, you assholes can get a court order before we do anything.

Request to all Uk Slashdotters

[neverutterwhen]

Please write to your MP if you disagree with these proposals. There are a lot of us, and it might just make them think twice before blindly pushing this legislation through.

But can the ISPs sue the copyright holders?

[oneiros27]

I don't work for an ISP currently (I did in the past), but let's consider the situation --

Someone sends a list of 100+ users to the ISP. Those customers pay $20-100 per month for connectivity, depending on the service and area. It might take 2 years before the trials find if the customer is or isn't guilty.

So, if we assume 2 years, $20/month -- that's $480 per user ... at 100 users, that's $48k. Can the ISPs sue for lost revenue?

For big ticket users, it might be even more ... and that doesn't even run into the issues of loss of reputation for disconnecting an innocent party, which might impact other people's decision to use them or not.

Re:But can the ISPs sue the copyright holders?

[Cathoderoytube]

On top of that what would happen if an ISP wrongfully disconnect an entire company from the internet? Are they going to be immune to the wrath of a company that loses $10 000 a day from being offline?

Re:how do you join?

[Anonymous Coward]

Phonographic. Not pornographic. I don't know about that. Some of those covers are pretty suggestive. And the "music" artists are clearly judged more on looks than on talent.

Re:What British Pornography Association needs is

[Rolgar]

Insiteful? He didn't get the group name right. Funny I suppose since Pornography and Phonographic look similar, and spanking can be a fetish and Pornographic . . .

AWW screw it.

An Analogy

[labnet]

An ISP should be given common carrier rights.
For example, if you order illegal items through the postal service, (lets say pirated DVD's), then there is no way your postal service will be cut off. Its up to either the Police, or copyright holder to form a case against you. The ISP is merely the conduit, not an interested party.

Re:Termination at will

[DrSkwid]

UK Law != US law