Slashdot Mirror
EFF: The Music Industry Shouldn't Be Able To Cut Off Your Internet Access (eff.org)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Electronic Frontier Foundation: No one should have to fear losing their internet connection because of unfounded accusations. But some rights holders want to use copyright law to force your Internet service provider (ISP) to cut off your access whenever they say so, and in a case the Washington Post called "the copyright case that should worry all Internet providers," they're hoping the courts will help them. We first wrote about this case -- BMG v. Cox Communications -- when it was filed back in 2014, and last month, EFF, Public Knowledge (PK), and the Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT) urged the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit to overturn a ruling that ISP Cox Communications was liable for copyright infringement. EFF, PK and CDT advised the court to consider the importance of Internet access in daily life in determining when copyright law requires an ISP to cut off someone's Internet subscription. The case turns in part on a provision in copyright law that gives internet intermediaries a safe harbor -- legal protection against some copyright infringement lawsuits -- provided they follow certain procedures. Online platforms like Facebook and YouTube, along with other internet intermediaries, have to "reasonably implement" a policy for terminating "subscribers and account holders" that are "repeat infringers" in "appropriate circumstances." But given the importance of Internet access, the circumstances where it's appropriate to cut off a home Internet subscription entirely are few and far between. The law as written is flexible enough that providers can design and implement policies that make sense for the nature of their service and their subscribers' circumstances. A repeat infringer policy for the company that provides your link to the Internet as a whole should take into account the essential nature of internet access and the severe harm caused by disconnection. But music publisher BMG wants to use this provision to force ISPs to become tougher enforcers of copyright law. According to BMG, ISPs should be required both to forward rights holders' threatening demand letters to their subscribers and terminate a subscriber's Internet access whenever rights holders allege that person has repeatedly violated copyright law. A subscriber is a "repeat infringer" and subject to termination, they argue, whenever they say so. Cox's appeal of the ruling raises two very important issues: (1) Who should be considered a "repeat infringer" who should be cut off from the Internet, and (2) whether ISPs must either cede to rights holders' demands or monitor their subscribers' internet habits to avoid liability. Slashdot reader waspleg adds: Two landmark Supreme Court cases, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., and Sony Corp. of America v. Universal Studios made clear that if a service is capable of significant lawful uses, and the provider doesn't actively encourage users to commit copyright infringement, the provider shouldn't be held responsible when someone nonetheless uses the service unlawfully.
As long as this is an equitable two-way street, I don't see a problem. If, the second time (which would make them a repeat offender) a "rights holder" misuses email to accuse someone falsely their own Internet service is cut off, this could work. Same with misusing the postal service.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
... because the Internet should be classified as a utility similar to electricity.
No one's advocating termination of house power for a third offender.
The music industry, in its current form, is a dying business model and knows full well these broad-reaching attempts to stop digital hemorrhages are just not going to work.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
Its like saying someone can't own a mailbox because someone sent them an illegal package once. It is like saying someone has no right to talk, after hearing something. Copyright infringement is not an offense so awful to take away someone's human right to be on the Internet.
There are many problems with copyright enforcement, two of which is the disproportionate size of litigants and low cost of making a false complaint. There ought to be some liquidated damages like US$1000/day-blocked per 3Mbps in the event of an unsupported/unproven finding. Modest for the complainer, but sufficient to encourage vigorous defense and hence very careful prosecution.
Fixing the copyright term would eliminate many problems: "...a term of 14 years, with the right to renew for one additional 14 year term should the copyright holder still be alive".
Currently, there is so little music in the public domain that it's laughable. Copyright was enacted to protect and incentivize the people who produce artistic works, not to enrich the publishers, heirs and other non-productive entities. This is true all the way back to the original statute in England from 1710.
Imagine if all of the music, books, films, etc. through 1988 were in the public domain, along with and many of the works through 2002. What a different world it would be!
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
You too may be falling for that trick. Lot of the discussion here runs with the implication that while downloading is not as heinous a crime as stealing, it is still sort of unfair to the artists.
Should downloading be a crime at all? Nothing was hurt except a tired, broken, obsolete and extremely inefficient business model that needs to be killed off. If you buy from the grocery store, did you just hurt the fast food industry business model? If you drive a car, did you hurt buggy whip manufacturers? Yes, yes you did! Why aren't those actions crimes, why does the music industry get such special status, get to cling to their business model of choice, when there are other perfectly viable models they could use?
Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"