Anti-Piracy Firm Offering ISPs Money For Outing File-Sharers

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Anti-Piracy Firm Offering ISPs Money For Outing File-Sharers

Posted by Soulskill on Saturday January 17, 2009 @03:20AM from the if-at-first-you-don't-succeed,-open-the-checkbook dept.

mytrip points out news that an anti-piracy firm called Nexicon has been offering financial incentives to ISPs in exchange for having the ISPs police their own networks for copyright infringement. Nexicon would offer their services (for a fee) to help the ISPs pinpoint users who are illegally sharing files, and then give the users an option to "settle" through their "Get Amnesty" website. The revenue generated by such settlements would then be shared with the ISPs. Jerry Scroggin, owner of a smaller ISP in Louisiana, is still skeptical, saying, "I would still wind up losing customers. I would also have to pay Nexicon for this ... I have to survive in this economy but I don't have the big marketing dollars that bigger ISPs have. I have to fund 401(K)s and find ways not to lay off people. Giving free rein to the RIAA is not part of my business model."

34 of 132 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Huh, madness by someone1234 · 2009-01-17 03:24 · Score: 4, Interesting

A small ISP could fake the logs and sell out some of their customers.

--
Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
1. Re:Huh, madness by Zerth · 2009-01-17 04:10 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  I've got a few customers I wish I could do that to.
  Unfortunately, that is probably a crime. Especially since I'm not an ISP, so I'd have to crack their wireless router.
2. Re:Huh, madness by eat+here_get+gas · 2009-01-17 05:21 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  "I can't see anything where you'd be breaking a law so far, anyone with a better legal background here?"
  
  right here:
  
  "If you wanna make money as an ISP, send them some bogus logs."
  
  as a law school drop-out (middle of a messy divorce) i see claims of libel, slander, falsification of records, and deception....
  
  --
  the significance of a signature is insignificant
3. Re:Huh, madness by cdrguru · 2009-01-17 05:47 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  An ISP log isn't going to be the final answer. Someone, somewhere is going to be looking at computer hard drives, CDs, DVDd, etc. If they do not find any infringing materials there is no evidence and the matter drops.
  Now I would imagine if the ISP faked up some logs to provide material for the examination of cmoputers and a lot of it turned out to be bogus you would have the ISP getting sued by both ends of this. Because examining the computers (by a qualified forensic examiner) isn't cheap and because losing your computer for a couple of weeks isn't much fun either. So I would say there are substantial risks to faking logs and the end result is that it doesn't go anywhere. No settlements. Because there is no legal action and no possibility of legal action.
  Now if someone wants to go from logs to making a settlement offer to the potential offender, that is just stupid. Because you just tipped your hand and the potential offender then can delete everything from their computer, without penalty, because there is no requirement to preserve evidence. So bypassing the "seize the computer" step nets you nothing in the long run.
4. Re:Huh, madness by Jah-Wren+Ryel · 2009-01-17 09:22 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Now if someone wants to go from logs to making a settlement offer to the potential offender, that is just stupid.
  That is pretty much how ever RIAA case has ever gone.
  
  --
  When information is power, privacy is freedom.
they pitch an interesting plan by v1 · 2009-01-17 03:25 · Score: 5, Insightful

"I would still wind up losing customers. I would also have to pay Nexicon for this ...
They do address this on their web page
THE VALUE: GetAmnesty provides content owners with a new revenue stream by collecting settlement fees on their behalf from those who illegally download their copyrighted content. Further, violators are tagged with a complete history of their downloading activities, which is easily translated to create customer profiles for online marketing purposes.
Looks like they intend for the loss of customers to be more than offset by the extortion payments you receive from some of them.
I'm betting NOT. Suing (or extorting, threatening to sue and selling "protection") your customers has never been an effective business model. You'd think they'd have learned that by now.

--
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
1. Re:they pitch an interesting plan by stranger_to_himself · 2009-01-17 03:38 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  I'm betting NOT. Suing (or extorting, threatening to sue and selling "protection") your customers has never been an effective business model. You'd think they'd have learned that by now.
  True, but the average customer might never know or figure out that it was the ISP that sold them out.
2. Re:they pitch an interesting plan by Kindaian · 2009-01-17 03:42 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  And as they are at that, what differentiates a legal from an illegal download?
  Specially as they don't know if I've or not a license to the download or not!
3. Re:they pitch an interesting plan by McGiraf · 2009-01-17 03:52 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  "(or extorting, threatening to sue and selling "protection") your customers has never been an effective business model. "
  Tell that to the real Mafia.
4. Re:they pitch an interesting plan by Schickeneder · 2009-01-17 03:59 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  That would only work if all the ISPs gave in. In most cities it's easy enough to switch internet service providers, if one gives in to the dark side, simply abandon ship and move on to the next. With Gustav hitting Louisiana recently many customers switched phone and internet providers simply because the others were taking too long to restore services after the outage (even though in most cases it wasn't entirely their fault). I even saw a telecom representative going door to door conducting polls and offering incentives to try and retain some of the customer base. This business model would only work IF the lawsuits consistently paid out, which they don't seem to do. Many of them drag on for years, meanwhile the ISP is left to wait, hoping on some sort of returns, all the while knowing they "betrayed" their customers.
5. Re:they pitch an interesting plan by Penguinisto · 2009-01-17 04:12 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  So the ISP can wait for a small piece of the eventual "settlement fees" and go without money in the interim, or instead continue making regular money right now from a continuing customer...
  Did the RIAA really think this through?
  /P
  
  --
  Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
6. Re:they pitch an interesting plan by owlnation · 2009-01-17 05:02 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  True, but the average customer might never know or figure out that it was the ISP that sold them out.
  The ISP does have a duty to protect the privacy of a customer, I think most people know that it's hard to identify anyone without the ISP coughing up data -- legally or otherwise. Anyway, I don't think that matters. My guess is that the first act of anyone who is accused of file sharing, is to change their ISP, regardless of who found out about them, or sold them out. It only makes sense to do so. Either way, the ISP loses. And rightly so, they should not be giving up data without a solid court warrant to anyone, for any reason.
7. Re:they pitch an interesting plan by cdrguru · 2009-01-17 05:37 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  I think if they see a BitTorrent connection and the content is music or a movie it is pretty much a given that you don't have a license. Maybe you do, so you have a defense. But I'd say it is very much like being caught by the police with a crowbar and a TV after a store was broken into. Sure, you might be completely innocent and you will have plenty of opportunity to prove it. After they arrest you.
8. Re:they pitch an interesting plan by cdrguru · 2009-01-17 05:41 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  The ISP also has a duty under the DMCA Safe Harbor provisions to assist in copyright enforcement. Their responsibility to their customers not to reveal their illegal activities is not so clearly documented.
  This pretty much means that a case can be made that if the ISP doesn't assist in enforcement, perhaps even to this level, that they can lose their Safe Harbor provision and suddenly become a party to every enforcement action against their customers.
  So I think you have it a little backwards. Now maybe the ISP can argue that their requirements for Safe Harbor do not include this plan. Sure, but this is going to be argued at a federal court level and cost millions of dollars to do so. Are their any ISPs that want to get into this that deep?
9. Re:they pitch an interesting plan by TheStonepedo · 2009-01-17 05:55 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  The RIAA loses little to people who use Limewire to download a 128kbps mp3 of a single coyrighted song weeks after its release date. It is possible to utilize private bittorrent trackers to download music in a format that sounds as good the real CD. It would make little sense for the RIAA to target hundreds or thousands of people who downloads a few random, low-quality audio files rather than seeking the few people who download hundreds of perfect-quality albums.
  Those who pose a real threat to the RIAA already keep their tinfoil hats within arm's reach; many bittorrent users use SSL for browsing private trackers and use protocol encryption for bittorrent transfers.
  It would ruin the RIAA's attack model if the average customer was sold out and made aware of the copyright pyramid scheme onto which the music industry clings.
  
  --
  I'll be your candy shop of infinite deliciousity if you'll be my discotheque of endless rump-shaking.
10. Re:they pitch an interesting plan by JoshHeitzman · 2009-01-17 08:11 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  As I remember it those safe harbor provisions don't great a general duty to assist in copyright enforcement, but the a very specific one if the form of honoring take down notices.
  
  --
  Software Inventor
11. Re:they pitch an interesting plan by cjb658 · 2009-01-17 08:29 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  All the encryption in the world won't stop you from getting a DMCA notice. In America, you can sue anyone for any reason. All they need to sue you is an IP address. So if they join a tracker and see your IP address, they'll send your ISP a note.
  Most people find it easier to just pay their extortion fee than go to court.
12. Re:they pitch an interesting plan by Holi · 2009-01-17 11:40 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  I would but they are all in jail.
  I mean honestly, organized crime is a much smaller player then it ever used to be. Its hard to compete with the government sanctioned criminals.
  
  --
  Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
great business model there jim by timmarhy · 2009-01-17 03:26 · Score: 4, Interesting

pay us money, and we MIGHT give you a cut of any profits we make. fuck that, sounds like a pyramid scheme to me.

--
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
1. Re:great business model there jim by damburger · 2009-01-17 05:42 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Welcome to the world of 'Intellectual Property'. The owners of huge amounts of IP demand they be given lots of money on the premise that this will ultimately (through some only vaguely specified mechanism) result in artists being rewarded for the quality of their work.
  
  --
  If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
More than losing customers by davmoo · 2009-01-17 03:37 · Score: 4, Insightful

Besides losing customers, if ISPs start policing their networks like that, don't they then give up some of their "safe haven" protections and all that?

--
I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
Monopoly broadband providers by Spamalope · 2009-01-17 03:40 · Score: 2, Interesting

Why wouldn't a Time Warner or Comcast take them up on such an offer, especially in areas where they are the only broadband provider? Ad a clause to the agreement barring disclosure, and they'll get free money. Anyone think cable companies would avoid this for ethical reasons??
making money from illegal activity? by petes_PoV · 2009-01-17 03:43 · Score: 4, Interesting

So they wait until they find someone doing something illegal[1]. They offer to allow them to atone (financially, of course) for their "crimes". They then share the proceeds with the very ISP which allowed them to perform these acts in the first place.
Apart from the highly dubious moral position, this sounds like either a protection racket or entrapment, or both.
[1] although it won't ever get to court - they'll hope people will just roll over and pay up. So the legality of this "sting" won't ever be tested.

--
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
That pill is poison. by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-17 04:03 · Score: 4, Insightful

Once the ISP's start accepting this money, good bye safe harbor provision. You can't claim to be a common carrier once you've accepted responsibility for policing your content.
Now it's easy--someone with one of your ISP's IP addresses downloaded my copyrighted content? I don't even need to know who they are--I sue the ISP and win.
The potential legal liability an ISP would be signing up for to participate in this is MASSIVE. You're now potential liable for every copyrighted piece of data on your network.
1. Re:That pill is poison. by cdrguru · 2009-01-17 05:28 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  I don't think you understand how ISPs have DMCA Safe Harbor. They have it because they are required to cooperate with enforcement. If they fail to cooperate, they lose. So assisting in enforcement doesn't hurt them.
  Now it is indeed a good question how much cooperation is actually required under the provisions of the DMCA. Clearly, turning over customer information is required, which all ISPs do when properly served. But do they have to go the extra mile as this program does? If I was marketing this program I would certainly spin it that they can cooperate or they can face losing their Safe Harbor status and suddenly become a party to infringement actions brought on their customers.
  The idea that the ISP can shield cusomters from legal action has never existed. Any suggetion that the ISP can afford not to cooperate is going to go out the window pretty soon, should this actually work out.
2. Re:That pill is poison. by noidentity · 2009-01-17 05:42 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Once the ISP's start accepting this money, good bye safe harbor provision. You can't claim to be a common carrier once you've accepted responsibility for policing your content.
  Actually, you just need to say good bye to the pervasive Slashdot myth that ISPs have ever been common carriers.
3. Re:That pill is poison. by JoshHeitzman · 2009-01-17 08:25 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  And you clearly don't understand it. What your talking about here is not enforcement, it is investigation. The only enforcement they are required to cooperate with by the DMCA are take down notices. "Any suggetion that the ISP can afford not to cooperate is going to go out the window pretty soon, should this actually work out." this sounds like something the RIAA wants folks to believe.
  
  --
  Software Inventor
Short Term Gains! Sell Out Your Customers! by erroneus · 2009-01-17 04:03 · Score: 4, Funny

They may not be your customers for long, but we will pay your Tuesday for a customer sell-out today!
Ahh, I see by Xelios · 2009-01-17 04:16 · Score: 5, Insightful

So the RIAA/MPAA's strategy in stopping the lawsuits was simply to outsource that operation to a 3rd party in an attempt to distance themselves from the negative publicity they've been getting. Should anything go wrong, this company will just be cut loose and left to deal with whatever mess they've gotten themselves into, and the cycle will start again with a new company.

--
Murphey's fighting Occam, and we're in the stands.
A little information about Nexicon by Xelios · 2009-01-17 04:24 · Score: 5, Informative

I found this through a quick google search. It seems Nexicon is the company behind YouTube's video identification software, and that it used to be known as Cyco.net, an online seller of cigarettes. After acquiring two small IT companies it had a change of heart, and decided to change its business model from selling tobacco online to providing the content industry with copyright infringement solutions. It makes perfect sense.

Article about the renaming to Nexicon
Article about their work with Youtube

--
Murphey's fighting Occam, and we're in the stands.
This violates common carrier by eyeota · 2009-01-17 04:27 · Score: 3, Informative

This has a huge potential to backfire on the ISPs.

IANAL, but I have worked at an ISP before. ISP have some limited immunity from civil suits because they are a common carrier.
i.e. They're providing transport to another network (the internet) and the information the flows between it is the responsibility of the sender / receiver because they're merely providing the transport. The minute they start to police the network at a content level (like Nexicon suggests) they can potentially be liable for the information passing through their networks because they are now 'aware' of the illegal content and have a responsibility to act.

The cons outweigh the pros for this time of agreement. I dont' expect many ISPs to by into this B.S.
1. Re:This violates common carrier by cdrguru · 2009-01-17 05:23 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  I'm sure it isaid elsewhere, but ISPs are information services and by that designation have no common carrier status whatsoever. What they do have is Safe Harbor, as defined by the DMCA.
  Part of their Safe Harbon immunity requires them to actively respond to takedown request and to cooperate with copyright enforcement. You might be able to read that as requiring them to participate in this sort of program. I know if I was marketing such a program that that is indeed the spin I would put on it.
  Then for the ISP they can decide if they want to defend law-breaking customers and their own actions or if they want to keep their Safe Harbor status. My guess is that there isn't an ISP around that really wants to go down that road unless they have a huge budget for on-staff counsel. Maybe Cox and Comcast and just about nobody else.
Morals or Pocketbook by nurb432 · 2009-01-17 04:40 · Score: 3, Insightful

Sounds to me like that ISP in the story has no moral grounding and would screw its customers if the economy didnt suck.
The war is just beginning people. Are you ready?

--
---- Booth was a patriot ----
dns info for nexicon by awpoopy · 2009-01-17 05:03 · Score: 2, Interesting

Processing nexiconinc.com (74.220.215.80) nexiconinc.com. is in Abuse.net Contacts as 0.0.0.1 * "postmaster@nexiconinc.com" 74.220.215.80 is host280.hostmonster.com. host280.hostmonster.com. is in Abuse.net Contacts as 0.0.0.2 * "postmaster@hostmonster.com" * "abuse@hostmonster.com" 74.220.215.80 is in Blars Block List as 208.43.232.224 * Hosts spamers web sites * Hosts spammers email dropboxes * breakin attempts * Knowingly supports spammers * attepted mail relay * attepted formmail exploit * carreer spammer support * provides connection to rogue isp 74.220.215.80 is in lagengymnastik as 127.0.0.2 * "Please refer to http://groups.google.com/group/news.admin.net-abuse.blocklisting/msg/9fc547194276c164" 74.220.215.80 is in they.com spambait as 209.198.142.156 74.220.215.80 in ASN11798 74.220.192.0/19 IPQuery: 74.220.215.80 Server: whois.arin.net OrgName: Bluehost Inc. OrgID: BLUEH-2 Address: 1215 N. Research Way Q-3500 City: Orem StateProv: UT PostalCode: 84097 Country: US NetRange: 74.220.192.0 - 74.220.223.255 CIDR: 74.220.192.0/19 OriginAS: AS11798 NetName: BLUEHOST-NETWORK-2 NetHandle: NET-74-220-192-0-1 Parent: NET-74-0-0-0-0 NetType: Direct Allocation NameServer: NS1.BLUEHOST.COM NameServer: NS2.BLUEHOST.COM Comment: RegDate: 2007-01-09 Updated: 2007-11-05 I'm sure they have more ip addresses "laying around", however as a starting point: deny from 74.220.192.0/19 in at least everyone's .htaccess file could be nice.

--
I say things which affects my Karma negatively. (and I don't care) For instance; All religion is false.