Convicted by the Movie Cops

Reckless Visionary writes "Salon has a great article about what it's like to get on the MPAA's bad side. It's a first hand account of what happens when you are accused of violating the DMCA and commentary on the "guilty until proven innocent" nature of today's copyright laws." Pirate movies. Lose access. You are guilty. And this guy was on vacation when it happened, so there's no need for accountability. Hope you don't depend on your net access.

Honestly

[WinDoze]

If my ISP decided to shut me off because someone else accused me of something, and they didn't even bother asking my side of the story, I think I'd be more than happy to terminate my relationship with that ISP.

Ranger Inc

[clinko]

"We never sleep. Our IOS software is constantly searching the Internet 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Our intelligent scanning probes are customized to each client's needs and patrol the Internet searching for suspicious sites."

Isn't scanning illegal now too?

Quick (legal) question...

[Noryungi]

Let me summarize:

• ISP thinks you are spreading pirated movies through Usenet
• ISP cuts off the line and tells you rudely you are violating whatever idiotic law they'd like to protect
• You have no recourse, no information on said pirated movie post and you can't prove anything

I believe that, in such as case, it should be possible to countersue both the ISP, the MPAA and the company doing research for both.

Something like "Unfair termination of service" or "Violation of service agreement" as well as "Slanderous attacks" seem totally possible in this case. Anybody with more legal experience cares to comment?

Chilling, nonetheless... =(

It's all about the Flerbage

[Nater]

Harkening back to that interesting, if wierd, article by ESR: DMCA violates flerbage. Innocent parties had the time wasted, perhaps in this guy's case, his money wasted.

I've heard some noises about how stupid the word 'flerbage' is, but you know what? I sure is a good concept to single out. It sure puts the true effects of law into perspective.

Re:Ranger Inc

[saider]

You could probably filter out Ranger Inc's IP addresses out at your firewall.

They fingered this guy from a Usenet post. Either someone forged the IP address, this guy had his computer compromised, or he actually did it and is crying 'foul' because he was caught. It's hard to say what is up with this article. But it does bring up perfectly valid points about the enforcement of a penalty without due process.

Re:Quick (legal) question...

[Silicon Avatar]

> * ISP thinks you are spreading pirated moviesthrough Usenet

Not to split hairs ... the ISP didn't necessarily think the person was spreading pirated movies. The ISP, as a corporate entity, has just as much 'right' to fear lawyers as we do. There's a provision in the DMCA that basically says "if tell you a user is pirating, you *must* do something or we'll sue you into oblivion". The ISP didn't throw these people in Jail. The ISP didn't call out the police. The ISP didn't even terminate the account.

I think the ISP did a fairly reasonable thing. They directly cut off any ability for the users to further pirate. If the users had been home to see their service had been disconneted, its entirely possible this entire thing would've been resolved within 24 hours.

Now, another debate is whether or not the DMCA should give anyone the 'ability' to demand an ISP take this kind of action ... I find that reprehensible.

Re:WTF

[Steve B]

And it looks like they made a mistake.

Nope; it looks like they recklessly fingered a private citizen as a criminal and disseminated that "mistake" for the express purpose of causing damage to that citizen. This is technically known as "libel" (I assume that the message to the ISP was in written rather than oral form; in the latter case, the term is "slander".)

Copyright law is CIVIL not criminal

[yerricde]

Just because the ISP or anyone believes someone probably did violate copyright laws doesn't give them the right to take action against you. That is, if you believe in being innocent until proven guilty.

Civil law, not criminal law, governs most copyright cases. The only right the accused gets in a civil case is the right to trial by jury. All that "innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt" and "right to remain silent" jazz applies only to criminal cases.

Tactic

[gilroy]

Blockquoth the poster:

Effectively the MPAA has the power to have anyone disconnected from the net whenever they feel like doing so.

Who provides service for the MPAA? Somewhere along the line, they have to connect to the Net, just like us. What if a bunch of people just started accusing them of copyright infringement and getting their service cut?

Or, perhaps more effectively: What about senators and representatives? They often quote an awful lot of stuff; surely one might feel some of it is in violation. And of course, the beauty is, there doesn't have to be a violation, just an accusation of one.

The "terminate now" policy.

[Innominandum]

I was a victim of the "terminate access now - ask questions later" policy. My ISP terminated my account without contacting me first. Honestly, the reasons why don't really relate to anything being discussed here, but it's still the same problem.

Eventually I convinced my ISP to reconnect my service. This involved jumping through a lot hoops because of the internal bureaucracy of the company. And my connection never was restored.

I was treated like crap by the staff. They screwed up many, many times. Nobody would take responsibility for the actions of the company. They recorded my conversations. Everyone kept passing the buck; I was an object of a departmental ping-pong game.

So I decided to take them to court. I am doing this, not because I'm greedy, but to shovel that same shit down their throats. Even if I lose I've already wasted hundreds of their dollars on lawyers. I guess I have a strong case, but it's hard to beat a lawyer at his own game.

I can't get detailed for obvious reasons. But there is a moral to the story: read the contract and the terms of service.

If the terms of service is longer than a page, screw them. Companies that have a huge contract & terms of service are not trying to "protect" themselves; they are trying to waive their "responsibilities." Avoid these kinds of companies like the plague.

Now I am with a new ISP. They have a contract & terms of service which protects them. They can terminate my account if I *violate* the terms of service. But they can't terminate my account if they *suspect* I violated the terms of service. Way better!

Accountability

[SilentChris]

If you're suspected to have committed a crime, you often will be arrested with provocation or even a search warrant. Is the law supposed to wait until you appear before a judge if you're holding an automatic weapon? What if you're a rapist?

You don't need judicial review to be deemed a threat to society. And just because *your* definition of a threat may not be equal to *somebody else's* definition of a threat, or society's, doesn't mean you're free and innocent.

Here it goes

[Frodo]

Who it was that bragged about 'internet freedoms' and 'new reality' and stuff? Here it goes - every step you take is watched. You have absolutely no rights. Your access can be terminated any second without explaining a reason or giving you any chance to explain. All burden to prove your innocense is on you. Nobody has any obligation to even listen to you.
Does no sound like too much of freedom, does it? Does sound as a 'new reality', though. Free people of America, get used to it. It will get worse - how many times would it take for ISP to make 'access history' and share the data? One complaint from MPAA - and you lose your broadband for life. Sounds good?