Anti-Piracy Firm Offering ISPs Money For Outing File-Sharers

mytrip points out news that an anti-piracy firm called Nexicon has been offering financial incentives to ISPs in exchange for having the ISPs police their own networks for copyright infringement. Nexicon would offer their services (for a fee) to help the ISPs pinpoint users who are illegally sharing files, and then give the users an option to "settle" through their "Get Amnesty" website. The revenue generated by such settlements would then be shared with the ISPs. Jerry Scroggin, owner of a smaller ISP in Louisiana, is still skeptical, saying, "I would still wind up losing customers. I would also have to pay Nexicon for this ... I have to survive in this economy but I don't have the big marketing dollars that bigger ISPs have. I have to fund 401(K)s and find ways not to lay off people. Giving free rein to the RIAA is not part of my business model."

A little information about Nexicon

[Xelios]

I found this through a quick google search. It seems Nexicon is the company behind YouTube's video identification software, and that it used to be known as Cyco.net, an online seller of cigarettes. After acquiring two small IT companies it had a change of heart, and decided to change its business model from selling tobacco online to providing the content industry with copyright infringement solutions. It makes perfect sense.

Article about the renaming to Nexicon [bizjournals.com]
Article about their work with Youtube [zdnet.com]

This violates common carrier

[eyeota]

This has a huge potential to backfire on the ISPs.

IANAL, but I have worked at an ISP before. ISP have some limited immunity from civil suits because they are a common carrier.
i.e. They're providing transport to another network (the internet) and the information the flows between it is the responsibility of the sender / receiver because they're merely providing the transport. The minute they start to police the network at a content level (like Nexicon suggests) they can potentially be liable for the information passing through their networks because they are now 'aware' of the illegal content and have a responsibility to act.

The cons outweigh the pros for this time of agreement. I dont' expect many ISPs to by into this B.S.

Re:Huh, madness

[eat here_get gas]

"I can't see anything where you'd be breaking a law so far, anyone with a better legal background here?"

right here:

"If you wanna make money as an ISP, send them some bogus logs."

as a law school drop-out (middle of a messy divorce) i see claims of libel, slander, falsification of records, and deception....

Re:This violates common carrier

[cdrguru]

I'm sure it isaid elsewhere, but ISPs are information services and by that designation have no common carrier status whatsoever. What they do have is Safe Harbor, as defined by the DMCA.

Part of their Safe Harbon immunity requires them to actively respond to takedown request and to cooperate with copyright enforcement. You might be able to read that as requiring them to participate in this sort of program. I know if I was marketing such a program that that is indeed the spin I would put on it.

Then for the ISP they can decide if they want to defend law-breaking customers and their own actions or if they want to keep their Safe Harbor status. My guess is that there isn't an ISP around that really wants to go down that road unless they have a huge budget for on-staff counsel. Maybe Cox and Comcast and just about nobody else.

Re:That pill is poison.

[noidentity]

Once the ISP's start accepting this money, good bye safe harbor provision. You can't claim to be a common carrier once you've accepted responsibility for policing your content.

Actually, you just need to say good bye to the pervasive Slashdot myth that ISPs have ever been common carriers.

Re:they pitch an interesting plan

[JoshHeitzman]

As I remember it those safe harbor provisions don't great a general duty to assist in copyright enforcement, but the a very specific one if the form of honoring take down notices.