Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Piracy

Rightscorp Pushing ISPs To Disconnect Repeat Infringers 92

Posted by Unknown Lamer
from the can't-make-art-so-time-to-sue dept.
Torrentfreak acquired slides from the Anti-Piracy and Content Protection Summit indicating that Rightscorp wants ISPs to disconnect repeat copyright infringers, and that 140 small ISPs are already doing so. From the article: Christopher Sabec, CEO of Rightscorp, says that they have been in talks with various Internet providers urging them to step up their game. Thus far a total of 140 ISPs are indeed following this disconnection principle. ... By introducing disconnections Rightcorp hopes to claim more settlements to increase the company’s revenue stream. They offer participating ISPs a tool to keep track of the number of warnings each customer receives, and the providers are encouraged to reconnect the subscribers if the outstanding bills have been paid. ... Cutting off repeat infringers is also in the best interests of ISPs according to Rightscorp, who note that it is a requirement for all providers if they are to maintain their DMCA safe harbor. The presentation slides seem to indicate that Rightscorp is planning to go after the safe harbor protections that ISPs are given under the DMCA in order to force the issue.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Rightscorp Pushing ISPs To Disconnect Repeat Infringers

Comments Filter:
  • by mwvdlee (775178) on Saturday July 05, 2014 @04:54PM (#47389903) Homepage

    How can a company be a threat to an ISP's DMCA safe harbor status without actual court decisions to back up their copyright infringement claims?

    • by Anonymous Coward

      They want to use the fear of some pre trail jail time to get people to pay up

      • by Imrik (148191)

        They'd have trouble justifying pre-trial jail time for a non-violent offense that doesn't necessarily require jail time as a punishment.

    • by arbiter1 (1204146)
      Its pretty easy, all they gotta prove to the court is the ISP is allowing piracy to happen on their network and not taken any "reasonable" action to stop it. As for what is reasonable is the question. If court finds they haven't done enough then they can be held financially liable for what end users do. They tried it against google for videos on youtube, hence how they got backdoor access to delete shit with almost no oversight.
      • by sumdumass (711423)

        The problem is that the safe harbor provision doesn't require ISPs or Network providers to do anything but remove claimed infringing content per a DMCA request and replace it per a counter claim. Well, that is as long as the infringing content is a product of the third party and not the ISP's actions.

        Doing that should legally be doing enough. This is a bit different than Youtube as youtube exists for the sole purpose of something similar to the copyrighted materials whereas ISPs are simply a carrier allowin

        • by Jane Q. Public (1010737) on Saturday July 05, 2014 @06:10PM (#47390203)

          The problem is that

          A problem is that... you mean. There are others.

          Like for example the fact that these download snoopers so far have not shown to have legal status to be enforcing anything. Like the fact that most of these "investigators" don't have anything that qualifies as legal evidence. Like the fact that they have been shown to be breaking the same laws they accuse others of breaking (you can't break the law to enforce the law). Like the fact that cutting off Internet service based on thin evidence of non-criminal wrongdoing is probably illegal.

          Oh, yes, there are MANY problems with this whole scheme. And a lot of it could be solved TOMORROW by the FCC choosing to regulate ISPs as Title II Common Carriers.

          • by Solandri (704621) on Saturday July 05, 2014 @07:34PM (#47390535)

            Oh, yes, there are MANY problems with this whole scheme. And a lot of it could be solved TOMORROW by the FCC choosing to regulate ISPs as Title II Common Carriers.

            Actually, all this is probably exactly why the FCC is choosing not to regulate ISPs as common carriers. If they do that, then the copyright holders and the government have to do the legwork of tracking down and prosecuting copyright violators. The way it's set up now, they can just threaten the ISP and make the ISP do the busywork for them.

          • by mpe (36238)
            Like for example the fact that these download snoopers so far have not shown to have legal status to be enforcing anything. Like the fact that most of these "investigators" don't have anything that qualifies as legal evidence. Like the fact that they have been shown to be breaking the same laws they accuse others of breaking (you can't break the law to enforce the law).

            Rather you can only do this if you are an actual "cop". Another Issue is if these people do have the authority to represent the copyright
            • Rather you can only do this if you are an actual "cop".

              Even then, the actual legal exceptions for police are fewer and thinner than most people think.

              A few years ago, in one state nearby, the legislature clarified that when police are off-duty (off the clock), they have to obey the same laws, and particularly the same firearms laws, as everybody else. There was a huge howl of protest from law enforcement but they failed to make any legitimate case that it was somehow dangerous or unfair.

              The reality was, they wanted to have it both ways. They wanted to be

        • by Jane Q. Public (1010737) on Saturday July 05, 2014 @06:20PM (#47390247)
          Really what people should keep in mind here is that these "rights" groups aren't doing this to right any real social wrongs. They're doing it to make money. Plain and simple. Make money by threatening to make other suffer.

          If that's not a pretty good description of extortion, I don't know what is.
      • by easyTree (1042254)

        Surely they should be held at minimum partly responsible - I mean, how the hell did their stuff get all over the internet anyway?

        "My dog is not in our house, it's on your lawn - therefore you deserve jail time."

        Hello?

        Also, they seem pretty ironically named; "rightscorp" ? how about people's right to internet? to access all human knowledge (well, at least that part of all human knowledge which hasn't been locked inside the walls of academia, despite being funded by society at large) ? surely that trumps wha

        • Also, they seem pretty ironically named; "rightscorp" ?

          The name appears to derive from the phrase "exclusive rights" in the U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 8.

      • They tried it against google for videos on youtube

        Google is not an ISP.

        • Then what is Google Fiber?

          • Then what is Google Fiber?

            Content and Eyeball networks operate under different legal environments. For example CALEA does not apply to "information services" and serving content carries significantly different legal exposure vs. merely forwarding packets.

            Google acting as an eyeball network for a chosen few has no bearing. Eyeball and content are different. In the context of parents remarks google was acting entirely as a content network.

            Parent tried to use content network examples to make a point about eyeball networks which is ap

    • by jaymz666 (34050)

      It's OK Citizen, if you're not doing anything wrong you have no need to worry.
      Move along.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 05, 2014 @11:20PM (#47391191)

      "140 small ISPs"

      they are simply targeting those who cannot afford to defend themselves, their networks, their business, or their customers; or the rights to due process for all, from the perceived threat of a legal onslaught from big media.

  • by tlambert (566799) on Saturday July 05, 2014 @05:05PM (#47389937)

    The most intriguing thing in this to me... ...is that they were able to identify 140 ISPs, presumably 130 or so of which were not owned by a regional monopoly phone company or a cable company.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      he most intriguing thing in this to me... ...is that they were able to identify 140 ISPs

      Here is a small list of 30 in california alone [dsl-servic...viders.com].

    • by jlb.think (1719718) on Saturday July 05, 2014 @05:50PM (#47390115)

      The most intriguing thing in this to me... ...is that they were able to identify 140 ISPs, presumably 130 or so of which were not owned by a regional monopoly phone company or a cable company.

      One would be Nextech, owned by Rural Telephone, in northwest Kansas. I've recieved several phone calls from them, and they have shut off my internet before due to supposed infrining. Frankly I think what I do with my internet is none of their damn business. I've even got calls for running a Tor node (not exit) along with I2P. Giving ISP's common carrier status would solve the problem. Since Rural Telephone is a common carrier I wonder if it makes their subsidiary Nextech one too? No such luck I think.

  • by gavron (1300111) on Saturday July 05, 2014 @05:11PM (#47389965)

    The real question cleverly ignored by these rights-maximalists is
    "Is the ISP/provider responsible for the content posted by others."
    As we know, absent *ACTUAL INDUCEMENT TO INFRINGE*
    the answer is no. There is no secondary liability to ISPs nor
    reponsibility as per the CDA sec 230.

    Now if the ISPs *ACTUALLY INDUCE* (see Napster and possibly Mega,
    or so USDOJ says), then there is a POSSIBLE liability.
    THAT's the only thing providers need to fear, but instead they knee-jerk
    take down material.

    Note that the DMCA notice is not "DMCA Takedown notice" but rather
    "Notice of ***CLAIMED INFRINGEMENT***" (emphasis mine).

    A "safe harbor" doesn't mean that a LACK OF A SAFE HARBOR means
    instant guilt/civil liability. That is a fact lost on most knee-jerk ISPs.

    ISPs should pull up their big-boy shorts and quit taking it in the pants
    from every email-script that tells them to take down content because DMCA.

    E
    my script verifies that this is true under oath and here's my script-copied
    pgp signature because dmca.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Too bad I use a VPN, so I'll continue to download everything still as I always do before I buy it. It's not exactly like you can return shitty media, don't believe me go to Walmart and try it. They'll say no then after you bitch ten or twenty minuets they'll finally offer an exchange "thank god", but when you get back there they'll only let that exchange be the same piece of shit you're trying to return. It's at that point I get arrested for going ballistic, headbutting the guy trolling me and kicking the c

  • near you to ask them to make sure they don't sell computers to people who will pirate?

  • A reasonable, sane person would demand limiting a pirate's bandwidth; not disconnecting them completely.

    We don't chop off the hands of thieves anymore.

    (But we do put loonies in the loonie bin. Hmm!)

    • by whoever57 (658626)

      (But we do put loonies in the loonie bin. Hmm!)

      At best, only temporarily. Many of the homeless are suffering from various forms of mental illness.

    • A reasonable, sane person would demand limiting a pirate's bandwidth; not disconnecting them completely.

      A reasonable, sane person would demand that we do nothing, because this sort of draconian enforcement is disgusting.

      • A reasonable, sane person would demand limiting a pirate's bandwidth; not disconnecting them completely.

        A reasonable, sane person would demand that we do nothing, because this sort of draconian enforcement is disgusting.

        A reasonable, sane person could choose to do these among many things, being reasonable and sane.

        I mean to say that if a sane person did support draconian enforcement for some disgusting reason then they would not take it to an extreme.

  • I promise to locate and submit at least one copyright-infringing work that is not yet easily available into the standard pirate channels of circulation in protest. It'll probably be something very obscure, as all the mainstream stuff is already out there. I don't know what it'll be yet.

  • So we know which ISPs to avoid or if we should switch.

  • It's a basic human right [www.cbc.ca] to have access to the Internet... except in the "land of the Free" of course.
  • Keep this up (Score:4, Insightful)

    by nurb432 (527695) on Saturday July 05, 2014 @08:04PM (#47390635) Homepage Journal

    And more tools will arise that will drive people so far underground they will never figure out who is doing what. And the more publicity they get, the more 'regular' people will learn there is free stuff out there.

    Lets call it the 'Napster effect'.. (tm)

  • by Anonymous Coward

    How do they expect me to keep downloading all these pirated movies if they keep shutting off my neighbors Internet connections....

    It's like they want me to have to pay for a VPN or something :(

  • I can't fathom why any ISPs in their right mind would go along with this crap.

    Acting against your customer base in this way is a good way to lose customers and ruin your brand. I can only assume not all 140 ISPs have the luxury of not having to give a shit about their customers.

    Most importantly taking punitive action against someone you *suspect* of breaking the law is itself illegal. By taking matters into your own hands you open yourself up to lawsuits from effected customers. SOPA/PIPA crashing and b

  • Ya right (Score:5, Informative)

    by Charliemopps (1157495) on Saturday July 05, 2014 @11:23PM (#47391201)

    I used to work DMCA requests for a moderately large ISP. They are NOT disconnecting people for repeat abuse. They would never disconnect you because some 3rd party doesn't like what your using your connection for. You're a paying customer, and the rights hold is not. There is no financial incentive for them to disconnect you.

    They will disconnect you if you're costing them money however. But for an ISP, that's a difficult thing to do. There are laws, and franchise agreements with the city. They're pretty much required to give you service, even if you cost them money... unless they can find an excuse to disconnect you. Like if you were a software pirate.

    The moral of the story? If you live in an upscale apartment complex, where everyones got 1gig fiber connections, you're never getting disconnected. EVER. If you're 10 miles outside of town in a sparsely populated area with old decaying lines that the ISP has to constantly come out and repair, and every time you start up your torrent client the entire neighborhoods network crawls to a halt, it may be in your best interest to avoid doing things that would give your ISP and excuse to boot you.

    Notice how they said a bunch of small rural ISPs were the only ones who'd started doing this. Yea, this has nothing to do with piracy and everything to do with getting rid of customers that are costing them money.

    • by ToddInSF (765534)
      Thank you for taking the time to contribute something that isn't hysterical and useless.
  • A number of companies have taken to monitoring *ALL* BT traffic of consequence on a *GLOBAL* basis. They know with high degree of coverage what everyone using bit torrent is trading.

    This desperately needs to change. I'm no fan of piracy yet detailed metrics are being used to justify all manner of legislative craziness affecting everyone.

    I don't claim to have any good solutions the market would be likely to embrace... we all need to find one soon.

    • > A number of companies have taken to monitoring *ALL* BT traffic of consequence on a *GLOBAL* basis.

      I call BS on that. The Pirate Bay alone has 46 million peers active. Nobody short of the NSA, and maybe not even them, can monitor that much traffic. If "of consequence" means the several thousand torrents with > 100 active peers, it would be feasible to get statistics, and maybe an IP list, but not monitor the actual traffic between users.

      • I call BS on that. The Pirate Bay alone has 46 million peers active. Nobody short of the NSA, and maybe not even them, can monitor that much traffic.

        You don't need to "monitor traffic" or collect contents. You need only collect signals of peers announcing what they have.

        http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/~tpc/... [bham.ac.uk]

  • by Anonymous Coward

    It's 2014 people! Instead of insisting on getting yourself caught with direct connects and 'no log' vpns (subject to demands just the same, lol, idiots) ALL you stupid torrenters should go fire up https://geti2p.net/ , configure it to donate about five times the bandwidth you use back to the network, then TORRENT THE FUCK out of all the torrents there.
    Totally FREE, totally DARK, no fucking PIG MAFIAA, EVER gonna swoop your ass!!!
    This means you don't have to HIT and RUN leech anymore like the little pussies

  • Here its going to go down if/when they approach the ISP i work for.

    Dear customer.

    We appreciate your patronage over the last 15 years as we grew from a single hotspot operation to the large WISP providing 100k+ customser with the only viable connection to the outside world. You have built your businesses and personal lives on our network and we have worked hard together to fill the last mile gap that was keeping your communities in the stone age.

    Unfortunately due to interference with rights ransom companies

It is better to give than to lend, and it costs about the same.

Working...