![Censorship Censorship](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/censorship_64.png)
![Your Rights Online Your Rights Online](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/yro_64.png)
Censoring The Net With A Hotmail Account 286
Alex Bradbury writes "Members of the Bits of Freedom group conducted a test to see how much it would take for a service provider to take down a website hosting public domain material, and have published their results. They signed up with 10 providers and put online a work by Dutch author Multatuli, who died over 100 years ago. They stated that the work was in the public domain, and that it was written in 1871. They then set up a fake society to claim to be the copyright holders of the work. From a Hotmail address, they sent out complaints to all 10 of the providers. 7 out of 10 complied and removed the site, one within just 3 hours. Only one ISP actually pointed out that the copyright on the work expired many years ago. The conclusion of the investigation is definitely worth reading. The three providers who didn't take down the material are XS4ALL, UPC and Freeler. The company that came out the worst was iFast, who forwarded all the personal details of the site owner to the sender of the fake takedown notice without even being asked to do so."
It shouldn't be that easy (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:It shouldn't be that easy (Score:3, Insightful)
I am amazed that an ISP wouldn't have some process in place to at least check the validity of a party making that request and check the validity of the copyright as well. It wouldn't take much to put such a process in place.,/p>
Why? It isn't as if they lave any liability.
Re:It shouldn't be that easy (Score:3)
Can they afford to lose a client so easily?
Re:It shouldn't be that easy (Score:5, Interesting)
Can they afford to lose a client so easily?
Let's see - $30/mo or a liability in the six figures. That's a tough call.
Re:It shouldn't be that easy (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It shouldn't be that easy (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:It shouldn't be that easy (Score:5, Informative)
Re:It shouldn't be that easy (Score:2, Funny)
Currently an ISP risk paying a huge fine under the European Guideline for Electronic Trade if they don`t remove copyrighted materials (if they can reasonably know it's copyrighted).
I see. You guys just need to pass a DMCA like we have here in the US.
It's probably more about the terms of service (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't think that being free really has much to do with it, although there could perhaps be a correlation. Probably what matters is the terms of service that you agree to. Even if you pay for the service, virtually all terms of service will contain a clause that states the provider can yank your access or hosting or whatever they provide on a whim at their own discretion.
Clearly it might no
Re:It's probably more about the terms of service (Score:3, Insightful)
Being free has to do a lot with it. While the ToS is there to indemnify against damages in case a site is taken down, the fact whether
Re:It shouldn't be that easy (Score:3, Informative)
Goes to show how silly automated takedowns can be, even when entirely internal to the host in question.
[Stuff li
Re:It shouldn't be that easy (Score:5, Insightful)
What they should do is simply leave the site up and refuse to give out any personal details until they receive a court order compelling them to take an action.
Re:It shouldn't be that easy (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't see how that's obstruction of justice. If the ISP requires you to follow due process, and you follow it, then there's no problem at all. You might be pissed they made you go through all that extra work only to have to do what you told them to, but you can't actually do anything about it.
Naturally, I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding is that obstruction of justice is a criminal charge that can only be brought in a criminal case where you have actually tried to prevent the court or the representative of the court (the prosecutor, investigators, etc) from acquiring evidence that materially affects the case.
The reason this doesn't apply in a civil suit is because a civil suit isn't about justice, it's about liability. Copyright is (was) a civil matter. Now copyright infringement is slowly being criminalized. I think it's because the war on drugs failed, so it's just another mechanism to make sure you can always put someone in jail for something.
Re:It shouldn't be that easy (Score:5, Insightful)
>they're *not* going to do.
But thanks to reading the article, one realise it was in the Netherlands and that they will *not* care about the DMCA.
Re:It shouldn't be that easy (Score:3, Interesting)
In the USA.
There's a reason why the European branch of the RIAA is settling their lawsuits against consumers for way less than 2000 dollars; if they asked that much, the accused might as well take it to court, and at least have a chance of winning. (And, IIRC, some are indeed waiting for the court case. Which will presumably never happen, in cas
Re:It shouldn't be that easy (Score:5, Insightful)
They wait for a complaint and then yank whatever was complained about off the server.
This is the cheapest way to handle alledged copyright violations. The people paying to have their material hosted are not going to pay extra to have a group of lawyers check their own material for copyright violations. If the ISP can't get the customer to pay for a team of lawyers to handle complaints of copyright violations then what is an ISP to do?
The problem isn't that the ISP knee-jerk responds to alledged copyright violations; the problem is that the legal system holds ISP's responsible for violations. the party held responsible should be the individual that placed copyrighted material on the internet.
Re:It shouldn't be that easy (Score:2)
It can't be so. What if somebody posts child pornography on a free hosting site, anonymously? Should we free the ISP from all responsibility?
Re:It shouldn't be that easy (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:It shouldn't be that easy (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It shouldn't be that easy (Score:3, Insightful)
In a related story, did you know that you can get into any room of a hotel just by going to the front desk and telling them that you locked your key inside and giving them room number you want. No one's EVER asked me for ID for doing that.
Most people just accept the information presented to them as being factual.
Re:It shouldn't be that easy (Score:2)
You need to be in a big enough hotel, so that the receptionist doesn't recognize he/she's dealing with a different person.
Anyway, don't do it too often. It's a crime (identity theft).
Re:It shouldn't be that easy (Score:3, Informative)
Censorship, or just cautious commercial entities? (Score:5, Insightful)
Which is easier for the smaller ISP to administer and live by?
I'm not saying it's right, we're just in an odd climate around digital rights at the moment.
Re:Censorship, or just cautious commercial entitie (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Censorship, or just cautious commercial entitie (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Censorship, or just cautious commercial entitie (Score:3, Informative)
I can either invest in lawyers to investigate every claim, or drop a few customers with an "ask no questions" policy.
Which is easier for the smaller ISP to administer and live by?
By far the easiest method would be to autoreply with the address where DMCA takedown notices are accepted, mentioning that they must include a statement of accuracy made under penalty of perjury.
Well, you're exactly right (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Well, you're exactly right (Score:2)
I agreed with you until this point... Although holding ISP's legally responsible for their customer's actions is taking things way too far, there still needs to be some way to actually deal with abusive customers. I'm not talking specifically about copyright violators (that varies from person to person), but if the customer is in violation of the ISP's AUP, they should be taken care of by the provider. It's quite likely that illegally distribu
Re:Well, you're exactly right (Score:2, Insightful)
If the customer is in violation of the ISP's AUP, that is a contract between the customer and ISP only. It should not be used as leverage by the government to go after the ISP. Ever.
It is up to the ISP to decide if they want to enforce their agreement/contract. Not yours, mine, or the government.
If the customer is doing something wrong, there is absolutely nothing stopping the copyright holder from going after the customer
Change the system through the system (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Censorship, or just cautious commercial entitie (Score:2, Insightful)
I can either invest in lawyers to investigate every claim, or drop a few customers with an "ask no questions" policy. Which is easier for the smaller ISP to administer and live by? I'm not saying it's right, we're just in an odd climate around digital rights at the moment.
Damn straight. I hope people understand enought to only place part of the blame on the ISPs here. The primary people to blame are those who are behind the insane copyright laws that have caused ISPs to legitimately fear massive fines,
Cease and um....stop...or something... (Score:5, Funny)
My great great grandfather had a newspaper in Lizard Lick, NC back at the turn of the century. I was called "The Lizard Lick Slash/Dot".
Please remove your site from the internet as it's in violation of copyright.
As you may know, the Slash/Dot moved it's headquarters from Lizard Lick to Bugfart, Iowa back in the 40's, just after the war. It's publisher, Mavis Leetdudzki also was the town buggerer and notary public.
Thanks.
Re:Cease and um....stop...or something... (Score:4, Funny)
You mean, four years ago?
How old were your grand-grandfather, grandfather and father when they had children? I'm guessing they were minus eighteen years old.
Re:Cease and um....stop...or something... (Score:2, Funny)
Sincerely, Pedant.
OT (Lizard lick? cool!) (Score:2)
iFast breaks all EU Data Protection Laws (Score:2, Interesting)
(answer: nothing, these agencies exist to suck money and do nothing)
Now that's interesting (Score:5, Interesting)
I can't help but wonder, is this consistent with iFast's user privacy policy? I can't tell, I don't speak Dutch...
Re:Now that's interesting (Score:5, Informative)
I am, unfortunately they have more items explaining when they can stop providing services due to some 'legal' issue than due to not paying. Below is a summary of what I found to be relevant. Mind you, it's a loose translation of their general conditions. Saying they'll cut you off if:
As is said somewhere else, they don't have a privacy statement, at least not on their frontpage. In my opinion the last remark says it all, it is their decision wether something might be illegal or in violation.
Anyway, they seem to be a small and possibly quite new company, probably not able to handle a big case of copyright problems. Not that it's a valid defense but probably the truth anyway.
Disclaimer: I'm an XS4ALL customer, and happy with them: expensive but quality
Re:Now that's interesting (Score:2)
With data protection laws in place you don't necessarily need a privacy policy.
Such a helpful company (Score:5, Funny)
the test is which company is the most helpfull to people sending notices to sites and its obvious that iFast is the most helpful,
Now all I have to do is tell ALL my friends to go with them, iFast will like all the extra business its the least I can do for such a helpful company...
Re:Such a helpful company (Score:2)
When I communicate with an ISP or other service provider regarding one of their customers, I expect them to fully investigate the matter, take whatever action is necessary, and send me a reply within a week or two. I'm sure they're quite busy handling all sorts of emails, and the fastest responder isn't necessarily the one who's doing the best job.
Cowards (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Cowards (Score:2)
Re:Cowards (Score:2)
I'm not surprised . . . becuase we prosecute ISP's (Score:5, Insightful)
For example, if the public library was responsible and liable for all material that was copied on it's self service photocopy machine, then most libraries would probably ban use of the copier or manage and log its use very closely and be willing to share this information with anyone that threatens to sue the library. This would be done to protect the legally liable library. The library would be attempting to shield itself from liability by cooperating with those that were alledgedly infringed and by pointing the finger at the person that actually made the copies. Of course libraries are not liable, the person that uses the copier is liable. This is why photocopy machines are normally self service. This prevents the library from being legally liable.
Unfortunately the same doesn't seem to be true for ISP's. ISP's can be legally liable if they don't provide information about an alleged copyright violator or if they don't remove the allegedly copyrighted material from their servers in a timely fashion. It is unfortunate that even though the ISP may not knowingly endorse infringement or actively participate in the infringement, they could still be held liable (or at least named as an infringing party in an expensive lawsuit).
Unfortunately ISP's have not been afforded legal protection similar to that granted to libraries with respect to photocopiers. It is the system that attempts to hold ISP's liable that is the problem. ISP's are merely reacting to this and trying to protect themselves.
Re:I'm not surprised . . . becuase we prosecute IS (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I'm not surprised . . . becuase we prosecute IS (Score:2)
Actually I think its a good example, libraries and Kinkos went to self service photocopiers because it does afford them significant protection und
So much for innocent into proven guilty. (Score:5, Insightful)
Tie this in with the RIAA/MPAA's apparent automatic search and send bots (that are programmed moronically to boot, a 30kb file's supposedly a movie?) and you also get the potential to take down large chunks of the web illegally. Just wait till the lowlifes out there start doing DoS's using bogus takedown letters instead of packets. Things will probably get mighty ugly.
Re:So much for innocent into proven guilty. (Score:2)
Lowlifes? How about, "s/the lowlifes out there/we/"?
Seriously, the law is broken. It is part of living in a free society that we make the authorities aware of broken laws. What better way to do that than (well, telling them should be the best way but they only respond to mobs, it seems) DoSing a ton of content which isn't really violating copyright?
In fact, make it even better: claim to own t
Erroring on the side of safety (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Erroring on the side of safety (Score:3, Interesting)
Supposedly, they have to attest, under oath, that the letter they send is factual...I think if it becomes too big a problem that ISP's will get the courts involved FOR their customers when the time is right.
Right now, they all know too many people are trying to get away with posting stuff they shouldn't ...they consider themselves "lucky" to "only" get noticed for takedown and not told to "police" their servers f
Sadly, had to request a takedown once (Score:5, Interesting)
Within 20 minutes of his posting it, I politely asked the ISP to take it down (was about midnight), and they had it taken down by morning. Someone obviously got hold of it and hacked a few of our players' accounts, but the source+assets itself never resurfaced.
Good, but hardly original! (Score:3, Informative)
So all they proved... (Score:2)
The hosting sweet spot is selling power/pipe/ping, not managed services. Managed services always cost more than expected when paired with a reasonable SLA. As such, most hosters just take in whoever seems capable of paying, content be damned. When they get a takedown notice, they shut the por
Texan-style! (Score:5, Insightful)
Certainly, ISPs here have been known to overreact to complaints before (and the DMCA gives them specific guidelines that they *must* follow, no matte how unfounded the complaint is) but last I checked, this wasn't specific to Texas. But perhaps these Europeans know something about Texas that I do not ...
Re:Texan-style! (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Texan-style! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Texan-style! (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Texan-style! (Score:4, Interesting)
It probably means "hang first, ask questions later", as in cheesy western movies.
Re:Texan-style! (Score:2)
I think this [dallasobserver.com] could be called "Texan -style justice."
Sounds like a good idea... (Score:2)
If ISPs are so eager to remove potentially offending material, someone could use this as a DOS attack on a commercial website by claiming to own "copyrighted" material on a company's website to the ISP. Those with knee jerk reacti
Not the same thing... (Score:4, Interesting)
The next day, my site was taken offline. PayPal didn't even look at the content: they chose to contact my ISP, which didn't even put up a fight, and to put a hold on my account, without any sort of consent on my part.
About XS4ALL (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm glad that there are companies out there who are willing to stand up for their users when they are right, going so far as to take the heat in court. XS4ALL won the case, too, and the Fishman Affidavit is still hosted there for all to see.
It's logical XS4ALL did not budge : (Score:5, Informative)
2 of the 4 founders of XS4ALL were editors at HackTic ; a paperprinted Slashdot at the time;) http://www.hacktic.nl/
They were succesfull from the first day that they started selling internet access to the consumer ; and kinda set first foot in that area, dragging alot of new ISP's into the market over the years.
Currently they are one of the more expensive ISP's around ; but the whole company radiates the Google-vision : 'do no evil'.
Their customer service was one of the best i -ever- had ; I only found out later that most of their helpdesk are actually screened for -really- knowing about computers ; instead of reading from an autocue all day long.
Re:It's logical XS4ALL did not budge : (Score:3, Interesting)
proud (to be paranoid) XS4all customer since 1997
Re:It's logical XS4ALL did not budge : (Score:4, Informative)
One of the founders of Xs4All and the founder of HackTic is Rop Gonggrijp (now famous on slashdot for lending his car out in the terrible car accident [slashdot.org] a few week back). Xs4all is also the ISP that refused to take down Karin Spaink's [xs4all.nl] website with Scientology papers on it, and went to court over it (which they won). They have a pretty extensive privacy statement [xs4all.nl] for their users, and I do believe they abide that. All in all, this is one of the few ISP's left where the extra euros you spend actually amount to significant value.
Re:It's logical XS4ALL did not budge : (Score:3, Informative)
Go XS4ALL!
Re:It's logical XS4ALL did not budge : (Score:3, Informative)
My experience (Score:3, Interesting)
DIY (Score:4, Interesting)
Granted, I'm still dependent on someone else for connectivity itself, but I found a pretty good DSL provider with terms I can live with, so as long as I keep my systems are zombie free and I don't do anything stupid enough to get an actual court order sent to my DSL provider, I'm pretty safe from this kind of crap (at least more than I was before). And I got broadband service to my house in the process.
I realise it's not an option for a lot of people, but if you want something done right...
Multatuli in Finnish (Score:2, Funny)
1) DirtFire
2) ICame (sexually)
3) FireFromMe
4) DirtArrived
Pick your favourite. I prefer the number 2.
Re:Multatuli in Finnish (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Multatuli in Finnish (Score:2, Informative)
Multatuli is standard fare in Dutch schools, and every Dutchman ought to know that it is a century old. It is clear that the people who took down the website do not have the faintest clue about copyright, or are not Dutch.
UPC result isnt surprising (Score:4, Informative)
see for yourself
Chello.nl [spamhaus.org]
Chello.at [spamhaus.org]
Until you vote (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not worth it for the ISPs. (Score:4, Interesting)
Can You Blame Them? (Score:5, Interesting)
Now, I'm not saying this is right. But there has to be a better incentive than "the good of all humanity" to protect fair use.
Re:Can You Blame Them? (Score:3, Insightful)
Why leave it up? Because if you don't you customer can sue you if it weren't for the TOS.
Why take it down? Because the "copyright holder" can sue you and you TOS can't help you there.
This is allready been used (Score:3, Informative)
Suddenly mails were sent to owners about that the http spread warez and similar. My guess is that the spam-sites created fake mails about this, and after 3 hours the site was closed.
I guess we need a better way of dealing with this.
Isn't that what they are supposed to do? (Score:3, Interesting)
Multatuli (Score:3, Funny)
Re:I would say (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't know how representative this would be of US ISPs, as all the ISPs mentioned in the article are
Re:I would say (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I would say (Score:2)
The US does, its called the DCMA.
Could this be used AGAINST the DMCA? (Score:5, Interesting)
A bunch of motivated slashdotters all go to their local libraries (or anywhere else they can gain anonymous internet access) and create hotmail or yahoo email accounts. Then, they send copyright violation notifications to various ISP's across America, so that a huge number of legitamite sites get taken down.
The resultant customer rage would get media attention, and the ISP's would mention the DMCA as they speak in their own defense. This would bring the harmful effects of the DMCA into the public eye.
Of course, I am not advocating any such thing. Just reflecting on the possibilities.
--AC (emphasis on the C in my case)
...And the result??? (Score:3, Insightful)
In response to such information TERRORISM, next thing we know it becomes a federal offense to open anybody an email account without first demanding a notarized photocopy of their drivers license. DMCA stands.
After all, that's as appropriate as most of the responses to 9-11 have been.
Re:I would say (Score:3, Informative)
Re:I would say (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I would say (Score:3, Informative)
US laws don't apply there, I'm pretty certain.
Re:I would say (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I would say (Score:4, Informative)
Re:I would say (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I would say (Score:2)
Why? What crime have they committed?
Re:I would say (Score:5, Insightful)
Why? What crime have they committed?
The ISP is based in the Netherlands, by handing out data about one of their subscribers without a court order they have violated EU data protection laws. That's a crimial offence...
Al.Re:I would say (Score:2)
Re:I would say (Score:3, Insightful)
One of the most problematic developments in copyright law has been the conversion from civil to criminal law. I'm a believer in the principle of copyright, but only as matter between individuals. If you make unauthorised copies of my comics, it's up to me to go after you (or not, at my discretion); it is not a crime against society or the state that should be subject to a trial of The People v. _______.
Re:I would say (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I would say (Score:5, Informative)
Being a former employee of a major ISP, I can tell you first hand that you are not going to see this reality. Think of this:
You have 6.8 million subscribers, the staff is bare-bones in order to keep the business afloat. It matters not how fiscally responsibe you are, there is little profit in being a service provider when your competitors pay Indians $2/hour for their labor.
Even further, people complain non-stop on the Internet. Just take a gander at a few
So, the only way to effectively survive in this type of enviroment is to assume if something looks legit, take the first steps and let the two third parties deal with it on their own. Plus, if you post some garbage on the web, assume it will get deleted at some point. Keep backups. I repeat KEEP BACKUPS. This way, when the differences are settled, you can just upload you junk again and life will be back to normal.
The direction you should focus you anger towards is the DMCA. I know it sounds cliche, but bombard your congressman and other gov offices with letters and faxes with reasonable explanations as to why you think the DMCA is a bunch of crockery. Sending some $30k a year, over worked, ISP employee who's not got a lot of options for jobs to jail because he was just doing his job is pretty stupid to say the least.
Anyway, go read an ISP's terms of service. They are pretty much immune to anything short of calling you racist names or having sex with your handicapped sister.
Re:I would say (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem here is that the bar for 'looks legit' here seems to be incredibly low. An email from a hotmail account making an allegation, with no evidence to back it up, 'looks legit?' I don't think so.
In such a situation I would think the minimum would be a certified letter with specific allegations, and some sort of evidence showing that the complainant does have a valid copyright, and the material in question does come under it. Anything less should be sent to the bitbucket.
Of course, there's another issue underneath this one - the ISP shouldn't be involved here at all, if there's a legitimate complaint the customer should be sued, and the only involvement with the ISP should be a court order to identify a particular customer. That's where the bad law issue is. But even with the bad law, the ISP shouldn't be jumping to cut off service to its customers based on unsubstantiated and undocumented allegations. I know they can't, realistically, go around making a decent investigation of every complaint - which is why they should simply bitbucket anything that doesn't come with some evidence - which the complaints in this case did not do.
Re:I would say (Score:2, Interesting)
tell me again exactly what law was broken by this group?
Erm..
Perjury?
When you send out a take down notice you are making a legal claim that is not true.