Slashdot Mirror
UK ISP Disconnects Customers For File Sharing
think_nix writes "Karoo, an ISP in Hull, in the UK, is disconnecting subscribers without warning if they file-share, or are even suspected of file-sharing. Karoo is the only ISP in the area. Copyright owners are working with the ISP helping them identify and report suspected filesharers using their services. In order to get service restored, subscribers have to go to Karoo's office and sign a form admitting guilt and promising not to do it again. The article states that some subscribers have had their access cut off for more than two years." Update: 07/24 16:29 GMT by KD : The Register is reporting that Karoo has relented and has changed its policy. A spokesman said: "It is evident that we have been exceeding the expectation of copyright owners..."
Folks, due to a recent string of unfortunate postings, I have found myself at the short end of the Karma stick.
If you are a moderator, you have three choices facing you. First, do nothing and affect me neither positively nor negatively. Second, you can mod me down as off-topic, which I will certainly, though reluctantly, agree is an appropriate moderation for this post. Finally you can consider my productive and lively posting history and moderate this comment up.
I'm not begging you, moderators. I know you have your own agendas. Some of you are staunch Open Source zealots and are searching for heretics to burn. Others are pedants who see no benefit in posts that are even slightly divergent from your perspective. Your agenda is your business, and since Slashdot has awarded you with moderation points, your agenda and perspective must have some merit.
What I would ask is simply that you spare a point in rescuing me from an automatic -1 posting level. It doesn't take any extra work on your part, and it will only take 4 of you to put this particular post up to +5.
Thank you for exercising your moderation rights.
just move it to another ISP, once they have no business left they would wisen up
I guess they don't know about file caching...
Sock Puppets: damn_registrars=pudge_confirmer=jimmy_slimmy=raiigunner=cml4524=a_klavan=red4men=ronpaulisanidiot
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingston_upon_Hull#Telephone_system
Get the IP address of the Karoo president, and denounce him to the Karoo tech as the originator of suspicious copyrighted file sharing. Hilarity ensues.
I can't understand that, if theirs only one ISP it should be a requirement to maintain at least basic service. Considering how much government business is moving online, this is now a requirement to function.
"Karoo is the only ISP in the area"....I can diagram the sentence too if you want me to.
Hope they don't patch World of Warcraft on Tuesdays... Oh Noes, file sharing...
Karoo, an ISP in Hull, in the UK, is disconnecting subscribers without warning if they file-share, or are even suspected of file-sharing. Karoo is the only ISP in the area.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
CableOne has disconnected me twice on two different connections. Apparently they get told from companies like NBC that I downloaded something illegal. They say that we are protected by them shutting off my internet. Has this happened to anyone else?!
What struck me about this whole thing is the alleged file-sharer has to sign a document admitting guilt and then the promise that they wouldn't do it again.
Seems awfully heavy handed to me, not to mention legally tricky for those who are accused. What's to say that by signing that document, they won't open themselves up to legal motions by the multinational entertainment companies.
I don't understand why ISPs want to be in the business of policing their users: it costs money to do that. It also costs them lost revenue for cutting off users. Why don't the ISPs just say "It's not our problem" to the copyright holders presumably just as the Postal Service would say if people were sending copyrighted documents, CDs, or DVDs through the mail.
If you reply, do so only to what I explicitly wrote. If I didn't write it, don't assume or infer it.
The summary is incorrect. They still have the option to use dialup from some other company, or satellite.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
"or are even suspected of file-sharing."
That's a blatant infringement on one's human rights, which states that everyone is entitled to a fair trial.
The ISP could get into a lot of shit over that alone.
THE HONOUR OF THE KNIGHTS - CC Licensed Sci-Fi Novel
At first I thought they would disconnect me for sharing ubuntu-9.04-desktop-i386.iso . Then when the summary mentioned copyright owners, I wasn't so sure. Then the summary mentioned "admitting guilt", what guilt?
Apparently "kangaroo court" is now "karoo court"...
Mod parent down. It is more annoying to see this as the first comment on this story than it would be to see the usual FIST PROST / FROST PISS / FIRST PSOT garbage.
Can anybody in the UK shed some light on whether this practise is even legal? How can an ISP act as a judge, jury and executioner especially given that they have spotty evidence at best?
This space left intentionally blank.
The practice of creating polyopolies (local monopolies) started in the UK about the time people figured out how to build power looms.
There should be a similarly rich history of how the English dealt with the problem.
--dave (he who knows not history is doomed to repeat it) c-b
davecb@spamcop.net
DON'T DO IT !!
Swear... SWEAR !!
From the Summary:
"The article states that some subscribers have had their access cut off for more than two years." WRONG.
From the Article:
"The terms and conditions Karoo enforce are not new - the BBC has spoken to customers whose accounts were suspended over two years ago." In actuality, this only means that the enforcement of this policy has been in use for over two years, not that actual customers have been without internet access for that time duration.
well, guilty actually, since there doesn't seem to be any provision for proving your innocence. So, guilty until admitted guilty.
http://community.zdnet.co.uk/blog/0,1000000567,10013286o-2000331761b,00.htm
so move along, there is nothing to see.
Folks,
IP2P is used exclusively to STEAL, and then you want to whine and complain when the big bad riaa/mpaa fingers you. Haha, I've got no sympathy for you.
From my side, there are two factors at play. First, I get a notice via email that then requires _manual processing_. This means that the cost of providing you service, just suddenly went up because now a _person_ has to get involved in your internet service and do something in order to comply with the law. Why do YOUR illegal activities have to cost ME money? Where do you get off thinking you can just go do as you please without there being consequences? We are not going to protect you, and you better get used to the idea that you WILL NOT engage in this behavior without there being risk to you.
Secondly, file sharers use a disproportionate share of bandwidth as compared to legal and legit users, and cutting their asses off has a positive benifical effect on the network. I consider p2p users to be undesireable customers anyways, and so when they get caught and reported to me, I use that opportunity to engage in some education about the teeth in my terms of service. Yes, cutting people off has quite an immediate and therapeutic effect on their behavior, they will behave as we proscribe in the ToS which means not using the service to break the law, and if it happens that they don't like that policy they still get to pay their early termination fee and if there is no other choice where they live, well thats just too damm bad.
We should note that we don't get involved until an authority has filed a notice with us. No notice we have received ever complained that the ip address in question _downloaded_ anything, only that it was making available a copy of the material for _upload_ to others. Without exception, all of these p2p programs default to sharing your download folder back out, so whatever you steal, you then begin passing around to others. If they did anything else (like not defaulting to being a seeder/uploader) then these file sharing networks wouldn't work and there woulnd't be a problem of any notable size.
So lets get it right. The problem is not the big bad isp cutting off it's sweet innocent customers for arbitrary or unreasonable reasons - it is that the wonton theft and trade of copyrighted material has reached such epidemic proportions that it's beginning to cost the ISP's money, and the escelating war between the copyright holders and the thieves (who could very well be grandma who can't find the keyboard anyways) demands a business resolution in order to stem the tide of lost revenue/extra costs associated with the behavior.
At least according to our local newspaper
It's not like internet access is expensive or hard to get in Hull. Internet is peanuts in and around London. Why persecuted users wouldn't move on to a friendlier ISP without this harsh tone I don't know. This ISP looks like they are hard up for cash and can't pay for bandwidth and/or to stupid to install some traffic management, or run by some blind do-gooders. Either way, they'll loose. Plenty more ISP's to sign up with who don't harass their customers like that. If it were me, I'd tell Karoo to kram it sideways.
Those who can, do. Those who cannot, sue.
How about going to their office en masse and burning it down?
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
I live pretty near hull, and am always horrified by the fact they can only access the internet via one ISP (who throttle badly, port block, along with this). It is enough (well, along with Hull being a horrible place) to stop me ever even thinking of living there.
-- Lattyware (www.lattyware.co.uk)
My ISP clearly states in their policy that one should not use their line for illegal activities. And under their punishments is a disconnection. I've had a disconnection for a few days five years ago (for file sharing). If I were to repeat it again and I'm facing a week and then a full disconnection. Immediately disconnecting the line on the first crime seems like bad business to me. It's one customer who won't be paying his monthly bill!
Kingston Communications is to drop its hardline approach of immediately cutting the Internet connection of people caught illegally downloading films and music.
As Hull resident and Karoo broadband customer, I can tell you things are never as simple as they appear. The people who get cut off are those that are saturating their bandwidth, and have ignored multiple warnings, first by email and then by letter. I know lots of people file sharing on a limited basis that have never been cut off. Though a few saturating their bandwidth have received warning email and letters.
i think copyright is a dead concept
but in a world where genocides and starvation and slavery still occur, to speak about "human rights" about internet access is overly pompous
don't ratchet your language up on concerns of, frankly, nonimportant issues to the basics of human dignity
i mean we could also call what karoo is doing "terrorism"
but its the same overuse of terminology meant for far more dire situations than anything remotely touching this case
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
It appears all this bad publicity has caused them to reconsider: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/07/24/karoo_p2p_policy_change/
~comfortably numb~
Since when does the 'fair trial' clause extend to the private sector? I can form an opinion of you without ever granting you a 'fair trial'.
Since certain services provided by the private sector became regulated as public utilities.
according to this independent ratings site.
"I bless every day that I continue to live, for every day is pure profit."
There is no other ISP.
Yes there are. One can switch to dial-up or move house.
</devils-advocate>
It's stated that a user must sign an admission of guilt before reconnecting service, I don't see how that isn't a breach of due process. I'm not a lawyer or an expert, but could one logically conclude that this business is using it's unique position of power to force users to wave their right to a free trial? I read another comment where someone claims it could be an infringement to one's basic human rights, and while I don't quite agree, I think it's an infringement of our legal rights. Karoo is the only provider of wired broadband internet access for these people from what I can tell, and really dial-up and satellite are not feasible options for alot of users, especially those that need a good reliable connection for work with any amount of speed. I know this still isn't forcing a user to admit guilt, but their options are slim unless they choose to go without the internet. Cutting off service is nothing new, but perhaps they should be required to seek more than just any "suspicion" considering that really leaves no need for evidence to back the decision and can be done on the whim of an employee who may just be having a bad day. Or, at the very least, they shouldn't require an admission of guilt, just a contract stating you won't share copyrighted files illegally and if you do you can be held legally responsible. Please, pick that apart and respond, I want to know how far off I could be with this one. Or how right it is...
Isn't that why you pay for bandwidth? If a company advertises I can buy 5 liters of Coke a week for $2, and I drink five liters of Coke a week, and pay my $2, who are they to complain that I'm drinking more than my fair share of Coke? If they cannot afford to actually provide me 5 liters/week for $2, then they should change their advertising and product offering to something more reasonable.
Something that seems to have been missed in all this fury, it that British ISP are vulnerable to the threats of large copyright owners because there is no safe harbour provision as provided for by the DMCA. Large ISP's like BT or Virgin have the financial resources to fight, medium sized ISPs like Karoo or small scale ISPs cannot afford to spend millions defending themselves in the high court.
1) Find a list of all the IP addresses in use and file a copyright violation claim for each and every one of their subscribers.
2) They'll disconnect all their subscribers
3) Profit!
Generally, I agree with you. Government should not unduly interfere with business relationships. Businesses should be, mostly, free to decide who they do business with.
But, when you talk about utilities that have government granted monopolies on running cable through rights-of-way to all the buildings in a geographic area, and no one else is permitted to compete by running their own cables, then its a different story. Such a business should be subject to government regulation, including reasonable regulations that they must offer service to anyone willing to pay, and to cut off service, there should either be lack of payment for an extended period (e.g. don't cut someone off for being just 2 or 3 days late on payment), or because of a *court order* (that is, as a result of perhaps a copyright holder suing someone for copyright violation, the court finding the defendant guilty, and the court issuing an order to terminate their Internet connection; or, in a more extreme case, maybe a judge has seen sufficient evidence to show that an internet connection is likely being used for something like kiddie porn, terrorism, or the operations of some other type of criminal organization, and so issues an emergency order before the trial).
This is like asking for your driver's license back by driving into another policeman.
"It is evident that we have been exceeding the expectation of copyright owners..."
Sit!
Fetch!
Good boy!
A reasonable interpretation of unlimited, in the context of a connection which has an advertised bandwidth limit (i.e. 10mbps down/2mbps up) is that you are limited to the amount of available bandwidth advertised. If I pay for 2mbps up, I'm not really paying for 'unlimited', but I do expect to be able to upload 2mbps without being told I'm consuming 'too much' bandwidth.
Such customers aren't using 'unlimited', they are using the bandwidth that was advertised and which they payed for. When ISPs bring up arguments like "using 100x more bandwidth than other customers" it's just to try to deflect attention away from the fact that they are using exactly what was advertised and which they payed for, and there's nothing wrong with that. It doesn't MATTER that it's 100x more. Other people just *under-utilize* (should that be hyphenated? Not sure) their connections.
user@life.com: ISPADVENT
You are in a suspicious little maze of ISPs, all the same.
ISPADVENT> E
You are in typical little maze of red tape, all alike.
ISPADVENT> SERVICE
You have no service points.
ISPADVENT> N
Oops! The RIAA has eaten you, please play again.
Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
They used to make people sign confessions to witchcraft, too.
With hookers and blackjack I presume?
From TFA:
Kingston Communications is the primary supplier of telecommunications and data services in the City of Hull.
British Telecoms has no lines in the area, and with no other choice of ISP, the residents of Hull often have no choice but to use Karoo if they want an internet connection.
There is no other Telecom company in the area, as Hull has its own telephone system.
And the company running it behaves like a true monopoly is expected to.
Also,
KCOM's Hull operation covers a relatively small geographical area. Although it is under the same Ofcom and EU obligations with respect to local loop unbundling the addressable market is so small that the economics do not - by and large - justify entry by other companies.[4]
To add more complications for any would-be rival of Kingston Communications is the fact that in Hull the first 1 km of wire from the exchange has a cross-section of 0.3 mm sq, as opposed to the standard 0.5 mm sq, requiring a more expensive DSLAM in the telephone exchange for providing an ADSL service.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
We checked our corporate charter and it said we were supposed to do whatever a copyright owner tells us to do, but there was nothing in it about being creative. If we just do whatever they tell us to, we can claim them as an excuse. It's when we get creative and try to be a suck-up that we can get into trouble, so we're going to ratchet back to simply being a yes-man instead of a foot kisser.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
IANAL, but I was taken aback by this bit: "subscribers have to go to Karoo's office and sign a form admitting guilt and promising not to do it again".
Isn't that some sort of vicious breach of common law AND copyright law ? I get that this is an ISP and not a court of law, but a false accusation is a false accusation. They're tangling someone else's copyright interests with their own business model. Employers get into big trouble for far less offensive practices.
-Billco, Fnarg.com
Isn't making assumptions wonderfully fun? I'm one of those *crazy*, and according to you nonexistant, people who use torrents for legal purposes. You will assume I only download illegal material... but what about, for example:
1. I very much enjoy watching video game speed runs. A large majority is available via torrent. Legally. Should I be cut off for this? Some of them are quite large, and use a lot of bandwidth... which costs you money. Should I be treated worse and cut off faster because of that?
2. Despite what you believe, there IS a large quantity of music available legally via torrent. I tend to avoid mainstream stuff, because honestly I think most of it sucks. Should I be cut off for this?
Obviously, I will use less bandwidth than a "heavy" user, but that is irrelevant for the whole 'cut off' aspect.
And now let's stir up a little bit of controversy that may come up, that one day you may eventually have to face. After all, as you have claimed, not everyone is honest, and some people are even scammers or just troublemakers.
Let's look at assumptions a bit more, but from the other perspective. You mentioned that you cut off people who an authority (you neglect to mention which, or how) has fingered as 'uploading' illegal files. Now for the sake of argument, let's delve into this a little bit. Can you confirm that whom you're speaking with is actually an authority, and not someone pretending to be one via email/phone? Could say... anyone with a spoofed phone number or email header make a claim? Secondly, do you attempt in the slightest to confirm these claims, or just accept them at face value?
Say for example, for the sake of stirring up trouble and/or lawsuits, I rename "Megaman9SpeedrunAudioRip.mp3" (and don't say this is stupid... I DO in actuality have audio rips of some game speed runs, which are available to others) to "Britney Spears - Whatever.mp3" and start uploading it. If I were to tell you this after being cut off, would you outright ignore me? Say for example someone with the same mindset as me has a lot of money, has documented the entire process of him doing this (via screenshots, etc), and later comes to you with a lawyer. What would be your reaction? Call them liars and kick them out?
Basically, are you just doing as told, or taking even the slightest responsibility for your actions? Obviously, a large number of people illegally fileshare. Let's say that it's the vast, vast majority. Is that still any reason it condemn the innocent at the same time as the guilty? A few cracked eggs to make an omelette, so to speak?
And as others have mentioned, the technology of torrenting can have immeasurable value in the future, if used correctly. Will you condemn this technology because someone else says it's bad?
I realize that the likely response to all of this will be along the lines of "Virtually all people nowadays illegally fileshare, what can I do about it, the police tell me to cut someone off and I can't disobey them, etc, etc"... but I just wanted to put a few extra thoughts in your mind. Hopefully I succeeded, but I somehow doubt it.
Planet Zebeth - Metroid with a twist
In soviet Russia customers disconnects ISP!
JMule user : http://www.jmule.org
If you want to remain sane with todays bloated web.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
"It is evident that we have been exceeding the expectation of copyright owners..."
When it turned out they weren't willing to take any responsibility for the actions, despite having threatened us with lawsuits if we didn't comply instantly and unreservedly.
There, fixed that for them.
Pug
An Invisible Entity of Vast Power whose existence must be taken on faith alone: Liberal Media
Hmmmmmmm! This clearly all goes back to that on-pitch talk at Man City.
i.e. "...This new service from Cobus is available from Monday 20th July 2009 and allows new and existing Customers to benefit from reduced telephone line rental as well as further reductions on call costs." from http://www.cobuscommunications.co.uk/network_services/index.php
"Whatever you can let be will let you be."
Well, none of us "need" access at all.
But i still say if you *want* to have access, with todays 'web' dialup would be painful at best.
---- Booth was a patriot ----