Slashdot Mirror
South Korea Joins the "Three Strikes" Ranks
Glyn Moody writes "For years, the content industries having been trying to get laws passed that would stop people sharing files. For years they failed. Then they came up with the 'three strikes and you're out' idea — and it is starting to be put into law around the world. First we had France, followed by countries like Italy, Ireland — and now South Korea: 'On March 3, 2009, the National Assembly's Committee on Culture, Sports, Tourism, Broadcasting & Communications (CCSTB&C) passed a bill to revise the Copyright Law. The bill includes the so called, "three strikes out" or "graduated response" provision.' Why has the 'three strikes' idea caught on where others have failed? And what is the best way to stop it spreading further?"
Found here and here.
Which is why it's caught on. Sharing someone else's copyrighted material is still not legal, and this approach, while stupid, does give people a fair chance to stop.
(Although I can't see it working here in Finland, where people _need_ the net to do stuff like banking.)
.: Max Romantschuk
Simple. Accuse prominent law-makers of copyright violations.
Three times.
Except for the french president, he only needs two more.
There probably needs to be made a ruckus for each law-maker that needs to be disconnected, but after a few successful stories in the media, they'll either write exceptions for themselves into law (and that can easily be used against them next elections) or the law is dropped.
nah, they get 3 strokes !
So who do we get to appeal to when we've been falsely accused. The power company can't cut off my electricity without some legal recourse. The city can't turn off my water or sewer without some legal recourse. Who do I appeal to when my only ISP shuts me off because someone spoofed my IP address or botted my machine, or hijacked my router?
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
If you want to stop it, just stop downloading.
Are you honestly telling me that you have downloaded music or movies e.t.c. and actually believe you deserve it because it's there?
If you really do, I think you need a slap.
TPB and stuff are great and it is funny... but how many people really think deep down that they are correct?
I agree that one download does not mean one lost sale e.t.c. and that half of the stuff these companies say is crap, but it does not mean I deserve to download anything I see.
What exactly is the problem? You break the law, you are punished. Hating on PITA DRM is one thing, but arguing against punishment when you are plainly violating copyright is just stupid.
I don't like your attitude. One sec while I fire off some copyright violations to your isp.
The problem is burden of proof.
mod this guy up - he makes a good point.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
So in other words, we are being Zerg-rushed with 3-strike laws?
In many of these cases, "You break the law" is actually "The RIAA(or local equivalent) accuses you of breaking the law". That is the big problem.
A situation where you can be punished on the strength of a mere accusation, without any legal standards of evidence or proof, is an absolute travesty.
Really, three strikes and you are out is straight from a game someone sat down and created out of thin air one day. Now people are basing laws on the concept? WTF?
You might be able to fight this by Slipping provisions in privacy legislation to prevent record keeping beyond 3 months for this sort of thing. This catches the most egregious offenders, but works no "corruption of blood"
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
3 strikes is more appropriate for a cultural struggle, which is what this is. Many of us firmly believe that intellectual property law is invalid, and that there is no duty to society to follow it. Both we and industries built on IP are trying to convince the public towards our perspective, and the "3 strikes" law gives some limited protection to people who have only heard our side and don't know the legal risks.
In the end, what we hope is that instead of simply "learning and accepting" the concept of intellectual property, people will just be more careful not to get caught, and that eventually we can remove copyright and patent protections entirely from our legal system. In the meantime, it's nice not to have people have their lives ruined in this cultural/legal struggle.
By analogy to other struggles over notions of human dignity and autonomy, if people who were part of the Underground Railroad had a 3-strikes rule, it would've afforded them some protection without requiring a complete victory .. yet.
For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
I hereby accuse you of terrorism. Would you like to face the punishment now, or do you think that due process is important now?
What exactly is the problem?
Probably the fact that there is a seeming lack of due process for the accused.
Accusation and guilt are two entirely different things. The "three strikes" laws are based on three accusations of copyright infringement, not three findings of guilt in a court of law.
So, basically, all I need to do is accuse you of violating my copyright three times, and you'll be disconnected.
Is that fair?
This space left intentionally blank.
You break the law, you are punished.
No. That's not how it works in civilized countries.
It's supposed to work like this: you break the law, you get prosecuted, you have the chance to face your accusers and mount a defense, and if you get convicted, then you are punished.
See the difference?
Well, personally I am fighting a law that could cut my internet access without judicial oversight. That is all. "Don't break the law, don't be in trouble" is fine by me. "Get trouble anyway" is not. This law project doesn't have any appeal mechanism.
This is the end of free wifi spots in France and of anonymous web access.
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
And when I drive 30 in a 30 MPH zone you promise you will remain a safe 3 seconds behind me right?
You won't be one of the countless jerks that rides my bumper until I go 5 over will you?
Before you answer, ask yourself, "I am telling the truth? Would I break the law by riding the bumper of the lawful citizen?"
The reason it has caught on is because it is a childish solution to a childish problem thought up by childish people. No offense to actual children intended.
Harsh penalties for file sharing strike most people as being wrong.
However, wholesale file sharing of copyrighted material also strikes most people as wrong.
A tiered system is seen as being more fair, punishing those who commit a "youthful indiscretion" more lightly, and repeat, presumably more hardcore offenders more harshly.
It makes sense from a limited perspective.
Three problems:
One, as others have mentioned, is a lack of proof or due process.
Two, the punishment is out of proportion to the offense. Going 5mph over the limit could get someone killed. How come we don't have three strikes for speeding? Sharing music is not life-threatening. Internet access is not just nice to have, like TV or radio. For many people it is essential to their employment, to their ability to communicate (though this is a generational thing, so lawmakers are relatively unaware of it), and to their participation in a democratic society.
Three, copyright law has gone way off the rails to the point where it is significantly impairing free speech, innovation, and creativity. Century-long copyright terms, takedown notices to block speech one disagrees with, DRM that seizes control of communications technology, and a tremendous concentration of cultural ownership in the hands of a few companies are bad enough. Strengthening the enforcement of illegitimate and unjust laws only increases the injustice.
What if the owner of the local donut shop could accuse you of speeding? What if three accusations resulted in you losing your license? That's what's happening here - you get accused of a crime _by a business_ and you lose access to something you've paid for. No trial. No requirement of proof of an actual crime. Nothing. "You're guilty" said three times results in you losing access to the internet.
Now, if you consider that fair and right, then you live in a world in which I want no part.
If you are convicted three times, that would be one thing. But punishing someone for being accused three times, likely by the same entity each time, violates long-established principles of due process.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
"What if the owner of the local donut shop could accuse you of speeding?"
Only a policeman would mention "donut shop" and "speeding" in the same sentence.
I hereby accuse you of terrorism. Would you like to face the punishment now, or do you think that due process is important now?
He can't hear you. He unmisteriously disappeared.
Soon well see people holding up music stores instead of file sharing because the punishment would be less harsh.
Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
Are you saying we should be developing our air power as a deterrent to the RIAA/MPAA?
Oh by the way, anyone else notice that those termite traps they plant in the ground look a bit like sunken colonies?
I only look human.
My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
we need a online equivalent of a Lech Walesa. Look at what came out of one simple strike in a shipyard.....
- Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum.
"3 strikes and you're out" - isn't this the kind of cowboy movie world that George W Bush lived in and now we're thankfully past? Up there with trying to explain world geopolitics in terms of "good guys and bad guys" and "you're either with us or against us".
Surely we can have a more nuanced response to legal / political situations now you've got somebody with a brain running the USA?
Incidently, where does "3 strikes and you're out" come from? is it a baseball term? Sorry, not familiar with baseball over here in the UK. The only people carrying baseball bats here are folks who are up to no good and their bats probably have never made contact with a baseball, only other people's knees or heads...
For example:
-Book of Armaments, Chapter 9 (excerpt)
-- I prefer the term "karma escort."
To share once may be regarded as a misfortune... to share twice seems like carelessness... to share three times is considered habitual.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
WB: strike one?
SONY: strike one?
FOX: strike one?
VIACOM: strike one?
DISNEY: strike one?
MPAA: strike one?
(let's not forget politicians)
SEN ORIN HATCH: strike one?
Well, it is only ironic that Berlusconi is passing this kind of law, talking about legality. In Italy's case the cure is probably electing someone slightly more democratic and more honest. In general this problem in my view arises from the industry having far too power, and using this power in order to interfere with things like "fair trial". The only real solution is letting these folks have LESS POWER, and this is only achievable by giving them less money. Don't go to the movies, read a book, build something, find a hobby. If you really must, buy second hand home video and music.
I thought 5 seconds was the mark of safe driving distance. Maybe I've been driving TOO safe.
No, the problem is standard of proof, at least as described. On the other hand, if there is an appeal process and the accused has to prove that they have not made any illegal downloads then you are right, the issue is with the burden of proof.
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
Scenario: the wrong geek gets 2 strikes, gets mad, and fires up a botnet (or just happens to have, say, $20,000 laying around to rent an existing one for a few runs). The botnet causes a significant percentage of users in some country to start getting their "strike warnings". As a result, the fallacy of the idea that IP addresses identify human beings is exposed (or the fallacy that ISPs invest the slightest effort in controlling botnets, if you like).
I welcome it and many like it. I will be setting up my different domain names and sending out emails and letters to all the RIAA and MPAA IPs.
Three strikes and they're out. I guess they didn't realise these laws could be used against them. I hope you all join me in the act.
For us noobs, how about a description of this so-called three-strikes policy? And how about providing links that aren't sticky?
Glad to see a legal system based on baseball. I look forward to blue line rules (hockey) applied to international trade and "go fish" applied to banking regulations.
A surveillance society to keep copyrights in place is not acceptable.
If there has to be a choice between surveillance on all civilian communications and ceasing the copyright regime, I choose ceasing copyrights.
It's the highest number that most politicians can comfortably count up to?
3 strikes unless you are in government or your family is in the music exec business (not the music business).
There are other programs and if you do not want others knowing what "traffic" you carry then you would be wise to use them.
The more I know, the less I know
This is actually pretty funny, +1 Funnah
If you're accused, what is your right of appeal? If you say that you weren't pirating, for example the accuser was mistaken about your or the files' identity, or you had permission of the copyright holder to share files, is a simple denial of accusation sufficient?
What does "out" actually mean? Can you sign up again with the same ISP? A different ISP? Will they block all internet access from wherever you live?
How much discretion is there for the ISP here?
Driving faster than the speed limit isn't legal either. Now, imagine a speed limit of 2 mph in the city and 4 mph in open country. Would you still drive in the legal limit? Fortunately speed limits are more reasonable today than they were in 1865.
But what about a copyright law under which no work has entered the public domain in the last 85 years? Is that reasonable? Under such a draconian law, it's perfectly ethical and fair to disobey the law. Better people than me have disobeyed unfair laws.
We revise our constitution to operate thusly:
There. Problem solved.
Disclaimer: The opinions and actions of the US Gov't are in no way representative of those held by this author or its ci
Look at McCain: he violated multiple copyrights with his ads, claimed that there should be a special exemption to the DMCA laws he voted for just for politicians, and once the campaign was over, everyone completely forgot about it except Jackson Browne, who is still pursuing a lawsuit against McCain, although it's generally considered wildly unlikely that'll go to trial (or that McCain will be fined $3000 for every case of infringement.)
Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
They basically want to frighten people into compliance with their business model. From their PoV, nothing wrong with excessive fright and injustice. Not their problem.
This is a fundamental problem when strong/concentrated interests influence/manipulate a representative democracy to improve their own welfare. The general populace, diffuse interests lose out because of inertia.
rule of wrist is a count of 1 1000 for every 10Mph you are traveling, ~3 seconds is fine for ~30Mph but woefully inadequate for 70+
The more I learn about Windows the more I am surprised it runs at all
Three strikes is the biggest bullshit ever. Copyright traffic does and will pass through many machines until it reaches it's destination. Does this mean EVERY machine gets a strike?
Also, from a business standpoint it is COMPLETELY counter productive. The ISP's would essentially be killing off their customer base. What about businesses? Employees share shit all the time, so the ISP's have to cut a $10,000 monthly agreement because of three violations? Such legislation would cause more economic loss than the actual infringement (businesses included).
Trying to install linux on my microwave, but keep getting a kernel panic...
"The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers."
Sooner or later people will say enough is enough and stop listening to the content industry altogether...
Let's be frank, I and nearly everyone else here and on the net have at least breached copyright on 3 occasions. Should we therefore all be band from using the internet the following will happen:
1) Google will lose all their ad revenue.
2) In fact all companies will no longer have an audience to shovel their products.
3) Companies will fold.
4) Techies will find a way around it anyway.
5) We will laugh because we have the DVD/CD Writers and there is always VHS and tape to fall back to.
It is futile...
Actually on a positive note I have been using Spotify recently, a nice music app that streams music for free with a vocal advert (like the radio) every 20 minutes or so (and always at the end of a track, never in the middle).
When all is said and done, nothing changes...
Massive fraud. With a constant barrage of phony (but authentic looking) infringement letters sent to ISP's. ISP's cannot/will not validate each letter they receive (or have emailed or faxed to them).
I'm 27 - Been online since 1993. This issue has existed since then. Content Empires saw this coming 15+ years ago -- why didn't they restructure their infrastructures? Economies are bad, but trying to squeeze blood from a turnip (millions of file sharers with dynamic ips) is desperate. What sort of AI-driven software can account for the variables involved in 3 strikes and disconnecting a subscription? What about VoIP/Data services? After 3 strikes - the VoIP phone stops working too?
I wonder how the ISPs will react when they amount of people they are "banning" starts to cut into their profits.
At that point, what do they do? Keep losing customers or stop enforcing the laws?
I think this is another case of one industry flirting with another then finding out the other is a wolf in sheep's clothing. I HOPE it REALLY bites them in the ass.
There isn't an issue with copyright. The GPL is copyright, but that's great. The issue is with restrictive copyright licenses that do not benefit the public (the initial aim of copyright).
Please read Misintepreting Copyright
Filesharing through email? Sure, it's doable...
But those attachment limits force you to split your larger files before sending them.
What time? GMT? Great, first problem solved. I'm sure no one will make the mistake of crossing PST with EDT. So now you trust both the RIAA and an ISP to keep all their gear synced to a good time source?
Can it be done? Sure. Will it be done by the same people that think an IP proves who was behind the NAT device? Doubtful.
Grammer Nazis - I mod you "troll" unless you actually add something on-topic. Yes, I know I have mispellings in my sig.
I did not read this whole thread because there is too much... and this is like arguing religion or politics. Here are my comments anywho.
I take you back about 50 years when mimeograph machine started to make copies and then to photocopiers. I wonder where the photocopy industry (Xerox) would be if we had been this stiff about copyrights in those days. OK so "we" passed "fair usage laws". End of problem.
Do we realise how many times copyright laws are broken in offices today throughout the world? Look around the office. How many photocopies of everthing are there around? Magazines, newspapers, printed copies of web sites. Photocopies of this and that at school. We do this without even thinking. I remember when we made a "Xerox" of something instead of a copy. Technically they are all copyright violations. Oh yeah... "fair usage". Right!
OK so "you" need to invent "fair usage" again.
I do understand the need for copyright as in "I take IP of someone else and sell it for profit" as though it were mine.
To use the analogy above, if I share an electronic copy of a tune with a friend, I am simply making a photocopy of the New York Times front page and giving it to someone so they can read it. Yes, I did deprive the artist of 1 sell but I also did it to the New York Times. No one makes a fuss about the latter not even NYT.
Isn't P2P like photocopying. Bet ya the RIAAAAAAA have copies of things. How many A's in that?
Three strikes? Who's on first?
2 strikes is what it should be. 1 strike: you may have been wrongly accused/convicted 2nd strike: you are clearly a career criminal if one stint in jail didn't turn you around.
Anyone else find it ridiculous that file sharing is what is getting this kind of draconian attention? In the meantime, *millions* of compromised zombie systems around the world are used for everything from spamming to hacking corporate and government systems and no one cares or does jack-shit. Want a 3 strikes law that would benefit everyone? How about "Your has been p0wned by the Russian mob. This is your 3rd warning. Goodbye." (followed by your ISP pulling the plug on your sorry ass.)
And what is the best way to stop it spreading further?
Don't buy, don't share, don't download, don't listen, don't watch.
Tune In, Turn On and Drop Out! Starve them all into oblivion. Play the game and they are legitimate.
No incumbents, not no where, not no how.
Vote them out every term.
We sent him to Syria, but they promised with a bow that they wouldn't torture him.
It's been a long time.
If it makes you feel better, I usually keep a huge amount of space in front of me, AND I drive the speed limit, to within .1% of reading.
If someone wants to tailgate me, it's their problem when they get in an accident and the insurance companies find them at-fault for driving dangerously.
It's been a long time.
I record my music from internet radio, which is legal, in my country of residence... And I wouldn't mind buying the tracks if the came at less than a dollar and without DRM... But where I live no such services are available... Stuff from iTunes Plus generally costs about 2USD, and iTunes doesn't even run on my platform of choice...
Some other distributers have started offering mp3's on a small subset of their collection... Meanwhile they support DRM, and create music subscriptions with DRM... E.g. Another company I can't and will not support!
that's a whopping idea. imagine, warner bros is accused of copyright infringement 3 times. and entire warner bros ip range is off the net.
Read radical news here
It's no problem as long as you are confident that people will never be falsely or mistakenly accused due to malice or incompetence.
Then that makes two of us. Except .1% accuracy cannot be guaranteed on my part. Sorry to promote stereotypes of grandmas, but I drive like one.
This would actually violate the human rights article 11. In EU you'd actually be able to test such a "conviction" at the European court of human rights, which AFAIK trumps the national courts.
However, question is just how they are going to implement such law...
By the way, in my opinion all 3 strikes laws, whether it's life-time prison, your drivers license or you internet, is bad!
- People only make them because they are easy so sell... IMO 3-strike laws of anykind are NEVER good!
having lived here for nearly a year Koreans seem to have a fairly relaxed attitude towards things like copyright and trademarks so I can't imagine this being much more than a law on paper that isn't really enforced.
I use my GPS for measurement, so the 0.1% precision can be guaranteed, but I'm not positive of the accuracy.
I figure, I'm throwing around 3380lbs of steel at 60mph. I could seriously hurt myself or someone else. Why bother risking speeding tickets? Why bother leaving my safety in the hands of the idiot in front of me?
It's been a long time.
I think if any company, corporation, charity or any other legal entity is convicted three times of any criminal offence then they should be disbanded/unchartered/dissolved and all the funds and assets should be forfeit to the government.
That's an example of why three strikes is a bad idea.
This game sounds really fun. I can just upload some random warbling melody I record of myself and then start sending out 'strike' notices to everyone I don't like. Of course, they'll be 'striking' back in no time, so it should be quite a battle to see who can get all their strikes in first.
As long as this is an all-in party we should have a ripe old time!
-Book of Armaments, Chapter 9 (excerpt)
It's chapter 2, verses 9 through 21.
Ahem... Your nerd certificate, please.
Your argument contradicts reality.
Let me explain...
Don't break the law and you aren't in trouble.
This is exceptionally unlikely for nearly everyone to do.
First off, if you are not a lawyer by profession, you already lost at that game. All of us reading this have broken probably around a hundred laws just today in our normal daily lives. You included.
Most of those laws aren't even known, occasionally even by the police! They are still public record and 'on the books', thus are law.
Did you know in the state of Ohio, it's illegal to walk down the street with two ice cream cones in your pocket?
It's true.. and despite the unlikelihood of that happening, in addition to its harmlessness, it is still a crime.
It's like people who complain when they get a ticket for "only going 5mph over the limit" (ie, only breaking the law a little).
No, not really at all like that. In that example, a police officer both is witness to your crime, and generally has proof in the form of a radar/laser gun readout.
In the case of what the article speaks of, there is no proof (because it is not needed to make an accusation, by definition.)
Simply by having someone else CLAIM you committed a crime is enough to count as a strike.
Three such CLAIMs and you are offline.
If actual evidence and proof were required in the law, and it went before a judge or a jury of peers, then most of us would not have a problem with this law. But that isn't the case, and so most all of us have a problem with it.
What exactly is the problem? You break the law, you are punished.
Again, if that was actually what the article was saying, not only would it not be a problem, but it wouldn't even be posted on slashdot. But somehow you missed that part in the article (like, you know, all of it)
These people may or may not have committed any crime. It doesn't at all matter.
You are accused of breaking the law, and you get punished. That doesn't seem like a bad thing to you?
If not, then just wait until you get your way. I can find more than three people which will claim you broke a law, just so you won't feel bad about being punished for it when you are punished.
It's been done before.... way back in the AOL days in the warez chatrooms. You want something, ask and then you immediately get like 20 1.44mb files in your email. I see a return to this someday maybe.
Balance of terror.
If they can cut your internet after 3 strikes, you should gain the right to pirate after 4 balls. Since you could play their game and send yourself 4 clearly fake strikes to cheat them out of their copyright, they'd have to limit the strike rule to something that cannot be faked. Yeah right, they'd make the rule as asymmetrical as possible...
How about once you get to 3 strikes, a Big Brother agency (payed by the MAFIAA) would force/help you secure your internet connection and keep scanning for any trace of illegal file sharing. If you're still pirating away but forensics shows that your computer is under bot control, gee that's too bad it's not your fault.
ID: the nose did not occur naturally, how would we wear glasses otherwise? (apologies to Voltaire)
We sent him to Syria, but they promised with a bow that they wouldn't torture him.
Back in the old days they would have gone all Rambo with a Bow. Oh well I guess a pistol whipping is just as good.
If you say something somebody else claims not to like more than twice in your lifetime, your tongue will now be cut out.
Civilization takes communication or interaction of any sort that offends *anyone* very very seriously, and we'll permanently prevent you from interacting with others if you ever upset anybody.
Unfortunately the Corporations controlling most of the world have decided otherwise on your behalf.
Then you should join your local Pirate Party branch. We exist in several countries (see http://www.pp-international.net/ for a list). If your country does not yet have a Pirate Party, then you might help start one. Don't just whine on slashdot as all the other slashdotters. Do something!
Egil MÃller
Piratpartiet (SE)
The bad thing IMHO is that the RIAA represents a collection of companies. This reduces the cost to the record labels as they don't each have to bring case against a defendant. Which in turn makes it cheaper for frivelous lawsuits. I guess it is kind of class action for companies.
Does anyone who proposes a law based on a sports metaphor deserve to be a lawmaker? It's just immature and lacks any kind of intelligence - just like the sport the metaphor is drawn from.
Mod Parent Up.
The problem is that ISP companies aren't just the lines. They're frequently owned by big media 'content providers'... Like Comcast or Time-Warner or whatever other company. They have a stake in keeping content in artificial scarcity of copyright and threatening to cut off internet access.
GP post would make sense if not for that little fact.
09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
+2 Troll is Slashdot's way of saying groupthink is confused
I don't understand the conspiracy theory here. It just doesn't make sense.
I don't either. But don't attribute to a conspiracy what can be caused by simple incompetence.
It's in the ISP's best interest to keep accurate time stamps so they can cut the right person's connection because each customer they turn off is $60 a month they stop making - that adds up after a while. Not to mention that shutting down the wrong people means the RIAA will keep coming back telling them to shut off even more people.
Except they aren't getting it right... see below.
Not to mention all the negative publicity they would get if they shut down the wrong people.
So, what devious hijinks are you expecting?
Well, I've already had my internet connection cancelled falsely by Mediacom cable. I got 1 warning (with service shut off) in like October -- it was (probably?) real, I was torrenting my ass off. I quit torrenting then. I got shut off in December -- no torrenting, but I figured "What the hell, it must have crossed in the mail from before". Late January -- off again. They finally sent me a letter saying what it was off for. FUCKING UFC WRESTLING!!! Guess what, I never watched UFC ever.. I have a log proving the IP address they have in the letter did not match mine, in fact I *never* had that IP address. (I have DHCP but only get a new IP rarely.) They wanted me to sign something or other saying I would cut it out and give 1 last chance, but I said the hell with it and turned in my modem (since I already wasn't doing anything and was falsely pointed at.) I don't want some stupid legal problem in the future because Mediacom cannot match IP addresses & dates to users.
I'm sure EVENTUALLY they'll wonder why the people they start cancelling at random complain so much. But I have my doubts that this is an uncommon problem.
Where's my publicity? I know the owner of a competing ISP, and my preference is to keep it quiet and let Mediacom screw themselves rather than blow the lid and have Mediacom fix it.
You'll run into a few problems, at least under the U.S. version of the DMCA:
1) you can't report copyright violation as an Anonymous Coward, you have to give a name.
2) you have to show specific violations and demonstrate ownership, which is one reason you have to give a name.
3) the person accused should be able to just as easily tell their ISP that they are not violating copyright and get access restored (if it was even taken away).
4) you will have legal liability for sending false notices (because you provided a name); the accused can recoup costs and damages as allowed by the DMCA itself.
It's not something one should take lightly, even if some people take a cavalier attitude. I can't speak for all jurisdictions, of course, but any proper geek should get informed.
Brian "Psychochild" Green
MMO developer's blog