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."
Otherwise, you're rightfully just as culpable and should eat the consequences.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
So, let's see. Record company accuses user of copyright infringement and their ISP is required to terminate their service. It turns out the accusation was "in error". The user has not recourse against their accuser for the false accusation _AND_ no internet service because their ISP cut them off. Yeah, that sounds like a recipe for a ton of frivolous accusations by the copyright holders. Heck, if they could accuse the entire country and force ISPs to cut them off, that would get all the pirates, even though it would be throwing a bunch of babies out with the bath water. And, hey, there's virtually no downside because they can't be counter-sued for the false accusations!
It seriously boggles my mind that people think garbage like this up and think that it makes a hint of sense. If you accuse someone of a crime and are proven wrong, the accused should have every right under the sun to come back at you. Hard.
Bah!
Actually, it would be easy enough to do. Just keep track of everything they post or host as well as the source code of all their web pages. Three strikes right? I suspect it would take all of 6 months to find three instances where an intern has used a chunk of code from someone else's template or a designer uses a bit of a CC image in an advertisement.
I am not sure whether I should be more scared of US or UK Canadian copyright laws. Canada on the other hand, while peeving off some US senators about our independent thinking, is actually thinking about something more reasonable: see here
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
It's getting to the point where it isn't worth leaving *any* trails on the Inet.
More like getting to the point where I don't want to be on the Net at all. Thinking of living the simple life.....move to a little cabin in Montana....I'd have plenty of time and quiet to start writing my manifesto.....
"Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket." -- Eric Hoffer
I'm sure under UK law there are provisions to fight 'unfair contracts'. So even if you do sign an agreement to a company's T's & C's you can later take that company to court to overturn the contract if it's patently unfair (and the ISP would then be liable for all legal costs and possibly compensation to the tune of the cost of your service for the whole contractual term plus any losses you may have incurred if, for instance, you use the service for business purposes). In a situation where you have been disconnected for no legal infraction, I'm sure a court would agree that the Terms and Conditions of the contract were unfair (you have no way of knowing what legally downloadable material might be misconstrued as a breach of copyright beforehand) and you'd win the case. I'm not a legal expert in this field, but if anyone knows someone who is it might be interesting to hear their point of view.
People insists on thinking that the only connection you may have is thru an ISP, where they get ALL the traffic to/from your node.
It is nor very hard neither very expensive (less than 100 pounds per user) to build a totally private wireless WiFi connection with people up to 1Km away using off the shelf available hardware.
Let's go ahead and build a private mesh of house-to-house connections, then use the normal Internet for email, banking and casual harmless browsing.
With high-gain, roof-mounted antennas and Linux-capable WiFi routers, we'd be able to deploy IPv6, OSPF, encrypted wireless links and a whole bunch of other services on a city-wide private network. The possibilities are endless.
Even if it gets infiltrated, the spy would only catch the traffic passing thru his/her node. And that could be further obfuscated by end-to-end encryption and/or really smart use of alternative routes in real time.
The real catch here would be to implement ALL services in a distributed way (try that with DNS).
The BPI may indeed be eventually (jointly) liable, however there is the question as to how you would sue them. The user has a contract with the ISP, and not with the BPI, and in addition the ISPs relationship with the user is under all the consumer protection legislation etc.
So the user has plenty of (relatively easy) ways to take action against the ISP, but not against the BPI. You would probably have to sue the BPI for libel or malicious falsehood - and in the UK that is much _much_ more expensive - requiring you to sue in the high court and with no prospect of legal aid.
Suing the ISP for breach of contract could be done in small claims court, for a _lot_ less money. And they know it. Costs are not awardable in small claims so it would cost the ISP in legal fees to fight any claim (win or lose), and they know they might be advised to just pay up instead. The ISPs may also not want the courts to start examining their TOSs too hard - in case they get ruled unfair. UK banks have been being sued a lot recently over penalty charges and settling many cases - totalling many millions - for just these sort of reasons (that one is now all on-hold pending a high-court test case). The ISPs don't have the deep pockets of the banks and they, quite rightly, don't trust that the BPI will be there to help when the crap hits the fan. They want a back-to-back contract to ensure they get reimbursed, before they take any action. So would I if I was in their position.