MPAA Goes After Its Customers

EyesWideOpen writes "The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) is issuing 'takedown' notices to ISP's to alert them that customers are using their internet service to transmit or post copyrighted movies. The ISP's in turn send a letter to the customers threatening to disable their internet connection unless the offending material is removed. The MPAA is using software that 'cruises file-swapping networks like Gnutella to find copyrighted materials, hunts down the IP address of the poster, then discovers which Internet service provider is being used.'"

False Positives

My first reaction is "so? Sounds fair". I mean, it's going at the source of pirating and illegal sharing, not a problem.

The article raised the issue of false positives. It had this chilling bit on it:

"Of all the letters we have sent out, we only had 2 other people who corresponded back who said we were mistaken," Jacobsen said. "And we didn't think we were."

Oh, wait-- the folks doing the automated search get to decide whether its infringement. This is kinda backwards.

I mean, someone thinks you stole a coke from 7-11, the cops come and listen and maybe a judge makes a verdict-- not the 7-11 clerk.

But here, the person making the allegation gets to decide if it's true or not-- and when has any person ever been really psyched to say "Oh, wait, sorry, I was totally wrong, wasted your time, and opened myself up to legal risk by making a false accusation."

So, neat idea, but the implementation needs some better due process.

Re:Lazy?

I disagree... The MPAA was being lazy going after the software developers before. Now they're moving towards going after the actual offenders. They're getting closer and closer to the actual infringers. Granted, they're doing it slowly, but they're getting there.

Ummm...read the DMCA lately?

The DMCA requires ISP's to takedown materials that are alleged to be infringing until the alleged infringer disputes the allegation. There's a whole messy procedure for the back and forth, and it favors the intital claim of infringment.

Re:False Positives

All systems have false positives. Cops arrest the wrong person. Innocent people get convicted.

The important thing is where are the checks and balances. The right of appeal for instance.

I don't have a problem with the process in principle but I think 24 hours is too short a time to be able to challenge the information.

They should also have the right to have access to the ISP's logs on their connection.

Thats the risk...

Well, that's the risk you take I suppose. If someone was distributing something of mine, this is the way i'd handle it. At least this is an up front and honest way to handle this - better than anything like DRM and palladin and all the other back-handed crap that is going on around us. If your going to serve illeagal files from your own machine, you may as well just sign your name and address on the package and invite trouble. Using something more anonymous, like newsgroups, would be much smarter.

It is a pressure tactic

The difference here is that they would never bring a case against an individual on Gnutella to trial. They'd have little hope of winning, and wouldn't get much money anyway.

Instead, they pressure your ISP to disconnect you, and if your ISP doesn't comply, they sue the ISP, not you, for lots of moolah.

This is indeed a pressure tactic against people who have committed no crime -- the ISPs. An ISP has no way of validating the MPAA's claims, so they either do what they're told with no proof of wrongdoing, or risk a costly battle in court. The MPAA knows this, and uses it to force their hand. As a customer, you'd like to think that your ISP won't bend over backwards to screw you over for someone with no proof, but sadly this is not the case.

As much as I hate to agree...

This is what the MPAA and the RIAA should have done all along. Rather than buy blanket laws that ruin digital media for everyone, they should have stuck to going after the actual people violating their copyrights, rather than treating everyone as criminals. Fundamentally, it's still their right to do that, and if ISPs want to cooperate well that's their business.

Of course, the real reasons behind the DMCA and CBTDPTA and such have a lot more to do with maintaining their tight grip on production and distribution of music and movies, than with protecting their products from being ripped off by consumers.

Can't say I'm applauding this, but this is the one thing they've done in all this file sharing mess that I can't get too up in arms about either.

Uh, those customers are same as shoplifters...

that title is really stupid. Sorry, but if you went into Blockbuster and "lifted" titles you too would be being chased.

Your no longer a customer if your not paying for the content.

Re:Uh, those customers are same as shoplifters...

Blockquoth the poster:

By copying the movie rather than buying it, you are depriving the copyright owner of income.

Thankfully, "denial of income" is not a bona fide crime. If I review a movie and pan it, convincing some people not to see it, am I guilty of "denial of income"? Copyright law is not overly concerned with income -- that's why the usual "I was only copying for non-profit use" defense is bogus.

Infringement is a crime. It is not theft, as it does not deny use of the item in question to the legitimate holder of copyright.

Re:Invasion of Privacy - I think not

It becomes an invasion of privacy if they decide to break into your computer. What is going on here is quite different. Its more akin to people leaving piles of copied movies on the road with a big "take one" sign.

If you make stuff available for download you stuck it up for people to see and put it out in the open.

There are guilty until proven innocent problems with the current take down approaches but the privacy one is a red herring here.