Slashdot Mirror


US ISPs Refuse To Disconnect Persistent Pirates (torrentfreak.com)

An anonymous reader writes: The U.S. broadband association USTelecom, a trade association representing many ISPs, is taking a stand against abusive takedown notices and a recent push to terminate the accounts of repeat infringers. They argue that ISPs are not required to pass on takedown notices and stress that their subscribers shouldn't lose Internet access based solely on copyright holder complaints. ustelecoSigned into law nearly two decades ago, the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) aimed to ready copyright law for the digital age. The law introduced a safe harbor for Internet providers, meaning that they can't be held liable for their pirating users as long as they 'deal' with repeat infringers.

34 of 198 comments (clear)

  1. Uhhh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ... the Digital Millenium (sic) Copyright Act (DMCA) aimed to ready copyright law for the digital age.

    Uh huh, yeah, that's what their intent was. Sure.

    1. Re:Uhhh by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes it was. Copyright law was very efficient at being a tool to violate any and all consumer rights in the physical world, the DMCA brought this property to the digital realm.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:Uhhh by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 4, Informative

      It still bothers me when I see articles like this which label copyers or downloaders as "pirates".

      Copyright "piracy" was defined more than 100 years ago. It's a legal term, and it relates to those who copy and reproduce copyrighted works for profit.

      The vast majority of file-sharers are not "pirates". Copyright holders started using that term around 2000 to deliberately muddy the waters surrounding file sharing.

      Just in case there is someone who doesn't yet know: copyright "piracy" is a crime. File sharing, if not done for profit, is not. Uploading could make you the subject of a civil suit, but not a criminal charge. Unless you're doing it for meaningful personal gain.

  2. The customer losses would be too big. by SeaFox · · Score: 2

    They would never agree to willingly lose busieness. It would also highlight the fact there is no competition for broadband in many areas when those customers realized there was no one else to go to for service after being kicked out.

    1. Re:The customer losses would be too big. by Caesar+Tjalbo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah, I reckon those "persistent pirates" pay for the best plans.

      --
      "I'm not much interested in interoperability. I want substitutability. I want to be able to throw your software out."
    2. Re:The customer losses would be too big. by JustNiz · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think the ISPs are just rightly trying to avoid the movie/music industry pushing them into becoming the de-facto "internet police" (along with the associated responsibilities and liabilities) instead of the media industry doing their own dirty work at their own cost.

    3. Re:The customer losses would be too big. by NatasRevol · · Score: 3, Interesting

      This is a good idea in theory.

      But then the ISPs get bought by the media conglomerates who also own the movie/music companies.
      I'm not sure where that all ends up, but probably some ugly meetings.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    4. Re:The customer losses would be too big. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      As someone who used to partake in the darker side of content acquisition, I always paid for the fastest package I could find.

    5. Re:The customer losses would be too big. by SeaFox · · Score: 2

      They probably pay for better than average, but when it's so easy to set up a 24/7 torrent device (a Raspberry PI would be plenty), there's no reason to buy top-tier, you can just let things run in their sweet time and download while you're asleep/away from home. Anything 20 mbps or above will be able to support play-as-you-download if your client is downloading in consecutive piece order.

      But I think that piracy is so widespread that if ISPs actually did shut people off the providers would be losing a significant portion of their customer base, and in todays Wall-Street driven "endless growth" bullshit economy losing even a few people is unforgivable -- this is demonstrated in how companies are so doormat when it comes to enforcing billing policies when a customer threatens to leave, regardless of if they are right.

    6. Re:The customer losses would be too big. by Wootery · · Score: 2

      I had to re-download my entire Steam game library after a hard drive failed

      Wouldn't it make more sense to re-download the games only as you play them, rather than downloading them all at once?

    7. Re:The customer losses would be too big. by Hylandr · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The correct way to provide constructive criticism:

      Make a statement to the contrary, provide supporting evidence. eg:

      You are incorrect as to who bought whom. Comcast bought Time-Warner

      In 2014:
      http://money.cnn.com/2014/02/1...

      In 2015:
      http://www.usatoday.com/story/...

      Wiki:
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      Name calling is not constructive and suggests the name caller may be lacking in maturity, or blood sugar.

      --
      ~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
    8. Re:The customer losses would be too big. by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 2

      You are incorrect as to who bought whom. Comcast bought Time-Warner

      I'm really confused about why this post was modded up. (1) Comcast didn't actually buy Time Warner CABLE, as your links note. Charter is trying to buy Time Warner Cable, but the deal still needs approval. (2) This discussion seems to be about whether media companies buy cable companies or the reverse or whatever... except this purchase is only about Time Warner CABLE. Neither Comcast nor Charter has been buying Time Warner MEDIA, which has been a completely separate corporate entity from Time Warner CABLE since 2009.

    9. Re:The customer losses would be too big. by jfengel · · Score: 2

      But surely those customers are going to want some kind of Internet service. It seems unlikely that they're going to say, "Well, if I can't torrent Orphan Black, I don't need to get email."

      They might even let them sign up for the same company. A few days lack of service, plus a reconnect fee, might convince them to cut out illegal downloads (or at least, try harder to hide it).

      It might end up with all of the downloaders at the one ISP in town who tolerates them. But I suspect that the other ISPs might have ways of putting pressure on them. Especially if they're also the backbone provider, such as in Verizon's case. Even if not, they may be able to tell the backbone provider, "Look, we're losing customers because they're not playing fair, and we'll complain to your peers if you don't tell them to knock it off."

    10. Re:The customer losses would be too big. by ganjadude · · Score: 2

      ummm....comcast did not buy time warner, the sale never happened. it was talked about, but it didnt happen, currently time warner is in the process of being bought by charter communications

      disclosure - i work for time warner

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    11. Re: The customer losses would be too big. by Wootery · · Score: 2

      Woops, I should read to the end of the comment next time :P

  3. Define Pirates by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 5, Insightful

    DCMA is a violation of my privacy and publishing rights as a Canadian citizen in the US under the US/Canada Data Treaty, which is subject to the Canadian Bill of Rights (which was adopted in the 1980s so it has greater rights than Americans do).

    What DCMA calls a pirate is a treaty violation. DCMA is subject to treaty rights, not the other way around.

    You can't steal my rights by calling them piracy.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    1. Re:Define Pirates by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Look, I know Americans don't get it, but you signed two treaties: one with Canada, which grants Canadian citizens in the US the same rights of privacy and data access they have in Canada, stronger rights than Americans.

      And another one with the EU, which does the same thing.

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    2. Re:Define Pirates by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 2

      It has many names. It actually has had different parts ratified by both countries over many years.

      "Under the Treaty, information will not be shared on Canadian or U.S. citizens or permanent residents. Any information shared on travellers and asylum seekers will be handled responsibly and, as with other information sharing agreements, exchanged in accordance with relevant Canadian laws including the Privacy Act to ensure individuals’ privacy rights are considered and protected."

      full information on certain aspects at the usual Canadian Government websites. The fact that you're so clueless you have no ideas you signed away your rights to be pervy to Canadians and EU citizens while they are in the US is not my problem. Try paying attention sometime.

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  4. Repeat infingers by silas_moeckel · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I have no issue with them disconnecting people who lose multiple lawsuits for copyright infringement. I think at this point the MPAA etc has blanket sent notices to every subscriber in the US multiple times so thats far to low of a bar to use.

    --
    No sir I dont like it.
    1. Re:Repeat infingers by NatasRevol · · Score: 2

      illegal notices (no valid proof of claim) are ... illegal.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
  5. Makes sense by twistedcubic · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They are refusing to forward extortion notices to subscribers ("Pay me $8000 or I will sue") because 1) many times these fools either don't have standing to sue for copyright infringement, or don't provide sufficient proof they have standing to sue, 2) the "copyright holder" could easily be an impostor, and no ISP wants to facilitate fraud or fishing, or 3) the copyright holder might be complaining about fair use, which big media companies refuse to acknowledge even exists. I agree, there should be court judgments before an ISP is forced to act.

    1. Re:Makes sense by Tenebrousedge · · Score: 2

      No, they are refusing to forward extortion notices because they have no legal requirement to. Whether or not the entity issuing the takedown request is the rightsholder or is authorized to act on the their part is covered by the DMCA request. The issuer has to affirm under penalty of perjury that they have the right to issue the notice, and it's no skin off the IPS's nose if it's not true -- all things being equal, they would prefer invalid claims.

      The reason that they don't want to forward claims is because [a] it costs money, [b] people who infringe often tend to be more willing to pay for faster connections (or even better, excess bandwidth charges), and [c] they are legally obligated to terminate the services of repeat infringers (17 USC 512 (i)(1)(A), see also[pdf]). Currently, there is no actual legal definition of what constitutes a 'repeat infringer', nor what kind of disconnection policy meets the DMCA guidelines. As noted in TFA, the media industry has been pushing heavily for "three strikes" laws and policies: this is a direct response. It's something of a game of chicken, the ISPs are saying that if the media companies want to play hardball, the ISPs will stop forwarding notices, and then presumably cross their fingers and hope that Congress doesn't want to 'clarify' the law. It should be interesting to see how it plays out: I suspect whoever bought the best Congresscritters will win.

      --
      Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
  6. What is coming up ahead... by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 5, Funny

    If criminals repeatedly use FedEX or UPS to ship/receive stolen merchandise the parcel delivery companies must delist them and stop delivering to their addresses. USPS also should stop delivering letters and packages. If pot growers use electric lights to grow weed, then the electric utility must cut off electricity to the whole building or the apartment complex. Why take half measures, no electricity to the entire zip code. That will teach them.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  7. No Problem, but it should work both ways. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Its fine to disconnect customers after 3 violation notices, as long as:
    they also stop accepting violation notices from any "rights holder" who sents 3 incorrect ones.

  8. The *AA organizations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Personally I'm amazed at how goddamn lazy the RIAA and MPAA have gotten. Do they even do anything to earn their money these days or just go around demanding that everyone else to do their job for them? I wish I had a few billion dollars so I could whine to congress about how hard my job is and everyone else should do it for me for free.

  9. Maybeee by Etherwalk · · Score: 5, Funny

    They would never agree to willingly lose busieness. It would also highlight the fact there is no competition for broadband in many areas when those customers realized there was no one else to go to for service after being kicked out.

    Or maybe even Comcast is unwilling to deal with their own customer service.

  10. Re:Lol by wile_e_wonka · · Score: 4, Funny

    Every ISP I've dealt with has required a physical address. And it has to be real. Whenever I give a fake address for my internet service, I end up getting no service at my real address. Also, every ISP I've dealt with has required real payment. Whenever I give the ISP fake payment information, the ISP doesn't get paid and then cuts off my service.

    Here is what you can do:

    1) Set up a Nevada LLC and use nominee management and registered agent services and get the "physical address in NV" service, which gets you a mailbox with a physical address in NV.
    2) Set up an online bank account for the LLC in which you deposit $100,000 in various increments under $10,000 over time.
    3) Have the Nevada LLC purchase a house someplace that it can rent for a profit.
    4) Using only typed letters and/or an anonymous free email address, get the house rented.
    5) Have the LLC set up another LLC, which second LLC will also open a bank account. Rent profits from the first LLC will be depsosited into the account of the second LLC.
    6) The second LLC will, using only typed letters and anonymous emails, will rent an apartment adjacent to yours (did I mention you have to live in an apartment complex with an empty apartment next door?). Leave the door unlocked and throw away the keys. Furnish the apartment so it looks legit if searched--you don't want the police to search the apartment and find it furnished solely with a wireless router. Maybe even let a squater liver there for a few days.
    7) Have the second LLC order internet for the apartment.
    8) Set up a strong wireless router in the apartment with open access. Use that for all your illigitimate stuff. Dont ever use personally identifying information when hooked in to that signal.
    9) Also make sure you have your own internet service that you use for the legitimate stuff.
    10) When ISP kicks you off for doing illigitimate stuff, have your first LLC set up another largely hidden LLC and bank account, transfer the lease to the new LLC (via letters and emails). Set up new internet service.

    The main problem I see with this is the bank accounts. You'll probably need a tax ID number, so you'll need a real SS# for the IRS. And the bank will need a signatory on the account. I don't think of a good way to set this up truly anonymously.

  11. Rare pleasure by sjames · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I hardly ever get to say this, but I agree with the ISPs whole heatedly. It's not their problem. It's not their job or their legal obligation to do anything about those notices the *IAA and other "reputable organizations" like Prenda send out every time a bird chirps. Especially now that the FCC has made them title ii.

    They don't get to sentence people to digital exile on their whim.

  12. Re:Lol by Hylandr · · Score: 2

    The main problem I see with this is the bank accounts.

    Or the Time and PITA that would be to do.

    It's also illegal to make micro-deposits with the aim to undermine the 10k limit. Like that's going to stop anyone from doing it.

    --
    ~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
  13. Re:Lol by Iamthecheese · · Score: 2

    Or you could just pay for a non-logging VPN, set up an anonymous server for washed bitcoin, and do your stuff through that server.

    --
    If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
  14. Re:Information Sharing Treaty by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 2

    The Canadian Supreme Court ruled that all treaties may not sign away and rights in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

    Which exist no matter where you reside, in or out of Canada.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  15. Re:Safe harbor and repeat infringers by Opportunist · · Score: 2

    "Must the content industry exist?"

    At least ask one relevant question.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  16. let them use the courts for their civil lawsuit by Revek · · Score: 2

    They say piracy but really its civil. I get these notices to deliver their crap letters to our customers. They want us to roll a truck to deliver them for free. Not one has ever subpoenaed us through the courts. When asked to pay for the truck roll they hang up and refuse. They wan't us as a process server for free. We don't live in the land of the free we live in the land of them fee.

  17. Re:Lol by torkus · · Score: 2

    The $10k threshold only applies to cash.

    Checks, credit, wires, and anything with a digital trail is exempt since the funds can be traced.

    The underlying intent is to prevent money laundering/fraud...but it's from 1970 where $10k was significantly more money (about $60k 2016 $'s). Inflation has quietly make this law much more restrictive to the point where 'normal' people doing 'normal' things can and do trip it up and give big brother an excuse to stick their nose in.

    --
    You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.