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.
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."
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! --
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.