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

Simple enough solution

[KublaiKhan]

If that's the way they want to play it, then it's quite simple.

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.

Continue until they figure out why that's not such a good idea.

Re:Simple enough solution

[KublaiKhan]

Oh, easy enough to fix that as well. File a DBA as, say..."The Copyright Association Foundation For English and International Network Egress" or something official-sounding. File the complaint as your company.

If it's incorporated (a trifle expensive, but worth it, potentially) then even if they countersue it won't do anything to you.

There you go, you're playing at the same level they are, and you can have official CAFFEINE letterhead to play with to boot.

Re:Simple enough solution

[Telvin_3d]

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.

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.

Re:Simple enough solution

[nickj6282]

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.

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.

On One Condition:

[Penguinisto]

So long as you do not filter, monitor, or read any of your customer's packets, provide due diligence in identification of a customer by records, and only provide info the industry cartels under subpoena (and not just because they ask), then okay - you can be free from liability.

Otherwise, you're rightfully just as culpable and should eat the consequences.

/P

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.

So....

[whisper_jeff]

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!

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:Digital fascism

[Stanislav_J]

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.....

Re:Request to all Uk Slashdotters

[alva_edison]

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.

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:Request to all Uk Slashdotters

[Bob The Magic Camel]

Don't be silly, this is the UK. A large Campaign contribution gets you a Peerage.