BT Seeks Moratorium On Internet Piracy Cases 71
myocardialinfarction writes "In the wake of widespread criticism of ACS:Law and its business model, British Telecom has asked for a moratorium on sharing customer's data in cases of alleged illegal file sharing. 'BT lawyers asked for the adjournment, saying that the firm needed to see details of the security system that would be used to store its customers' data before it could comply with any order. ... "We want to ensure broadband subscribers are adequately protected so that rights holders can pursue their claims for copyright infringement without causing unnecessary worry to innocent people."'"
A corporation protecting its customers? (Score:4, Informative)
Especially in the face of other powerful corporate interests that like to flex a lot of legal muscle? Such instances are few and far between. I don't have any plans on living in the UK, but I'd like to support BT. Their ideas intrigue me and I'd like to subscribe to their newsletter.
On a similar note, I've seen one web hosting company that won't buckle on illegitimate DMCA complaints without being compelled by court order to suspend service. The company I'm thinking of is Hostway. Their service plans and features aren't very good for the money, but if you need a host that will be in your corner in case someone is playing unscrupulous tricks on you with the law, that's one company to look to. Any other examples of corporations truly serving their customers well even when under some level of legal threat?
Re:A corporation protecting its customers? (Score:3, Informative)
It's not heroic to 'beat' cancer or prevail in any other endeavour where your motivation is totally saving or advancing your own ass.
Re:A corporation protecting its customers? (Score:5, Informative)
Specifically, BT are being investigated by the ICO [ico.gov.uk] after it turned out that they sent PlusNet subscriber data to ACS:Law in an unencrypted format; they're also technically in contempt of court as the court order requiring them to hand over said data explicitly required it to be encrypted.
Re:A corporation protecting its customers? (Score:5, Informative)
Sounds a great company to show your support to, I'd be more inclined to support Talk Talk or Virgin since they actually fight to keep there customers privacy. BT and Sky are just back peddling so they don't look so bad in the media.
*European Commission has just brought legal charges against the UK government for not prosecuting BT over the privacy invasion that was Phorm.
Re:A corporation protecting its customers? (Score:4, Informative)
A lot of people seem to be pimping Virgin as a safe option, but this is really ignorant:
http://www.out-law.com/page-9180 [out-law.com]
http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/virgin_to_monitor_filesharing_in_uk.php [readwriteweb.com]
Virgin were also considering their own content service, and part of their offering to the music industry to achieve favourable licensing for this service was to offer to deal with file sharers or hand their details over.
Virgin absolutely cannot be trusted, if not only because they too have a media arm which means, like Sky, have a vested interest in supporting the media industry. I wish people would stop putting them on their list of so called trustworthy ISPs. Virgin will be the first to sell your details off or punish you directly without fair trial if there's money in it for them. They're absolutely one of the worst ISPs to be giving your money to in this respect, but most people get blinded by their shiny 50mbps broadband package it seems when talking about them.
Even TalkTalk were considering Phorm, and it was only when BT got a shit load of bad PR for it that they really backed off of the idea of it. A certain degree of scepticism is needed when dealing with them, however their boss has at least been the most vocal and active in fighting the DEA measures.
Re:Pointless bickering (Score:3, Informative)
The short collective memory (Score:3, Informative)
Just a few years ago, Virgin internet were hitting slashdot front page, and even main stream news, practically weekly for a string of privacy and policy gaffs.
Virgin was my first broadband provider, and was solid until around 2005-2006 where they activated THE EVIL BIT.
They don't want to be an ISP anymore. They want to provide a "media experience" or some irrelevent shit.
When I switched, they pulled a little bit of an AOL on me. They are the new AOL, but without the stigma of AOL.
Do the geek hero thing, and rescue any friends and family from there evil grasps.
Re:Fox guarding the henhouse (Score:3, Informative)
Didn't Time Warner just get a judgement stating that they only need to provide one user's details per day? That sounds like a big step forward considering the RIAA/MPAA were suing people in their thousands which would now take them years.
Here in the UK some ISPs charge a lot for the data. Apparently Virgin Media is one of them, so despite the crappy service and nasty throttling you are at least a bit better protected from the speculative invoicing scams perpetrated by people like ACS:Law. When it costs £120/IP address to get the info the scam breaks down because the return rate on the invoices is so low.
Re:Fox guarding the henhouse (Score:3, Informative)
Time Warner Cable is a separate company from Time Warner movie studios. They de-merged last year.
Re:Digital Economy Act (Score:3, Informative)
http://whereismydata.wordpress.com/2009/02/16/civil-law-norwich-pharmacal-order/ [wordpress.com]
Re:A corporation protecting its customers? (Score:3, Informative)