Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Rightscorp Pushing ISPs To Disconnect Repeat Infringers

Posted by Unknown on from the can't-make-art-so-time-to-sue dept.

Torrentfreak acquired slides from the Anti-Piracy and Content Protection Summit indicating that Rightscorp wants ISPs to disconnect repeat copyright infringers, and that 140 small ISPs are already doing so. From the article: Christopher Sabec, CEO of Rightscorp, says that they have been in talks with various Internet providers urging them to step up their game. Thus far a total of 140 ISPs are indeed following this disconnection principle. ... By introducing disconnections Rightcorp hopes to claim more settlements to increase the company’s revenue stream. They offer participating ISPs a tool to keep track of the number of warnings each customer receives, and the providers are encouraged to reconnect the subscribers if the outstanding bills have been paid. ... Cutting off repeat infringers is also in the best interests of ISPs according to Rightscorp, who note that it is a requirement for all providers if they are to maintain their DMCA safe harbor. The presentation slides seem to indicate that Rightscorp is planning to go after the safe harbor protections that ISPs are given under the DMCA in order to force the issue.

5 of 92 comments (clear)

  1. Maintain DMCA safe harbor? by mwvdlee · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How can a company be a threat to an ISP's DMCA safe harbor status without actual court decisions to back up their copyright infringement claims?

    --
    Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    1. Re:Maintain DMCA safe harbor? by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The problem is that

      A problem is that... you mean. There are others.

      Like for example the fact that these download snoopers so far have not shown to have legal status to be enforcing anything. Like the fact that most of these "investigators" don't have anything that qualifies as legal evidence. Like the fact that they have been shown to be breaking the same laws they accuse others of breaking (you can't break the law to enforce the law). Like the fact that cutting off Internet service based on thin evidence of non-criminal wrongdoing is probably illegal.

      Oh, yes, there are MANY problems with this whole scheme. And a lot of it could be solved TOMORROW by the FCC choosing to regulate ISPs as Title II Common Carriers.

    2. Re:Maintain DMCA safe harbor? by easyTree · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I forget, is extortion illegal in the US at the moment? I'm just wondering, as bribing politicians appears to be legal.

      --
      Requiem for the American Dream
  2. DMCA safe harbor irrelevant and hard to get by gavron · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The real question cleverly ignored by these rights-maximalists is
    "Is the ISP/provider responsible for the content posted by others."
    As we know, absent *ACTUAL INDUCEMENT TO INFRINGE*
    the answer is no. There is no secondary liability to ISPs nor
    reponsibility as per the CDA sec 230.

    Now if the ISPs *ACTUALLY INDUCE* (see Napster and possibly Mega,
    or so USDOJ says), then there is a POSSIBLE liability.
    THAT's the only thing providers need to fear, but instead they knee-jerk
    take down material.

    Note that the DMCA notice is not "DMCA Takedown notice" but rather
    "Notice of ***CLAIMED INFRINGEMENT***" (emphasis mine).

    A "safe harbor" doesn't mean that a LACK OF A SAFE HARBOR means
    instant guilt/civil liability. That is a fact lost on most knee-jerk ISPs.

    ISPs should pull up their big-boy shorts and quit taking it in the pants
    from every email-script that tells them to take down content because DMCA.

    E
    my script verifies that this is true under oath and here's my script-copied
    pgp signature because dmca.

  3. Re:The most intriguing thing in this to me... by jlb.think · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The most intriguing thing in this to me... ...is that they were able to identify 140 ISPs, presumably 130 or so of which were not owned by a regional monopoly phone company or a cable company.

    One would be Nextech, owned by Rural Telephone, in northwest Kansas. I've recieved several phone calls from them, and they have shut off my internet before due to supposed infrining. Frankly I think what I do with my internet is none of their damn business. I've even got calls for running a Tor node (not exit) along with I2P. Giving ISP's common carrier status would solve the problem. Since Rural Telephone is a common carrier I wonder if it makes their subsidiary Nextech one too? No such luck I think.