Slashdot Log In
UK ISPs Want Copyright Holders to Pay if Users Sue
Posted by
Zonk
on Thursday February 14, @01:52PM
from the that-road-goes-both-ways dept.
from the that-road-goes-both-ways dept.
I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "After the recent draft legislation in the UK, which would create a 'three strikes' policy to cut off anyone accused of online piracy, the ISPs are asking for liability protection when users are wrongly identified. They're worried that when users are wrongly blamed for piracy, as has happened in several widely-reported investigations already, they will turn around and sue their ISP. The ISPs, of course, think that the record companies — or whoever else wrongly identified the file sharers — should be the ones to pay out any such judgments. The British Phonographic Industry, however, disagrees and wants the ISPs to simply use their Terms of Service to disconnect people. Apparently, that means they think that the ToS should be able to remove any legal recourse people might otherwise have against being misidentified."
Related Stories
[+]
UK Government To Terminate File Sharers' Net Access 411 comments
An anonymous reader writes "New plans published by the UK Govt show that they hope to terminate internet access for people suspected of breaching copyright by file sharing. Under the proposed new laws ISPs who fail to enforce the policy will face prosecution in the courts. Users falling foul of the new law will be subject to a three strike policy: First suspected instance of illegal file sharing they would receive a warning, at the second — a suspension, and at the third they will have their Internet connection terminated. It isn't clear whether users will be prevented from ever using the internet again, or whether simply subscribing to a new ISP will reset the process."
Firehose:ISPs Want Copyright Holders to Pay if Users Sue by Anonymous Coward
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Simple enough solution (Score:5, Funny)
Find out what ISP the Phonographic Institute uses, and file a complaint that they're violating my copyright. According to that logic, the ISP must then disconnect them.
Continue until they figure out why that's not such a good idea.
Re: (Score:3)
You really expect that to work? Individuals will be presumed guilty, while corporatio
Re:Simple enough solution (Score:5, Funny)
If it's incorporated (a trifle expensive, but worth it, potentially) then even if they countersue it won't do anything to you.
There you go, you're playing at the same level they are, and you can have official CAFFEINE letterhead to play with to boot.
Re:Simple enough solution (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Simple enough solution (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It would be infringement to host that copy as your own.
Re:Simple enough solution (Score:5, Insightful)
Find out what ISP the Phonographic Institute uses, and file a complaint that they're violating my copyright. According to that logic, the ISP must then disconnect them.
Not quite. The ability to disconnect is still up to the discretion of the ISP. However, the ISP rightly fears that the record companies won't be doing a whole lot of due diligence in eliminating false alarms, and that with the crapflood of requests the ISP won't be able to either. But I don't think you'll have success in calling the Phono group's ISP and getting them disconnected, as satisfying as it may be.
The ISPs' request is a fair one. Basicaly, they're saying that if you want us to do your dirty work, you better indemnify us against the results. Otherwise, you assholes can get a court order before we do anything.
The law of unintended consequences; (Score:3)
If I was a pirate (I am not, and have the invoices to prove it.) then;
#1) I will not P2P from my own connection, but from that of a Internet Cafe (shut them down too?) or a so called friends home.
#2) I will do this from
Sounds like a great idea (Score:2, Insightful)
This idea might have two very nice consequences. First, it might make the RIAA et al much more careful about throwing lawsuits arou
Re:Request to all Uk Slashdotters (Score:4, Informative)
Most politicians are busy people (or at least consider themsleves to be), so they will generally only make time for those that put in an effort.
In general, a form email is least effort and will generally be ignored.
A non-form email is still low effort and will also be ignored.
A phone call is moderate effort, but will usually be intercepeted.
A form letter (paper, envelope, stamp) without a signature is also somewhat moderate, but will still be ignored.
A form letter with a signature will usually get a response, but along the lines that they don't listen to from letters.
An original typed letter will usually get a somewhat favorable response; although you may just receive a lecture on policy ppositions.
An original hand-written letter will get you attention -- assuming you have neat and legible hand-writing.
A personal visit as a constituent will also get you attention, but should be followed up by some form of traceable communication.
Re:Request to all Uk Slashdotters (Score:4, Funny)
how do you join? (Score:2, Funny)
Another concern is (Score:5, Insightful)
What will happen if that service is unavailable for an innocent that needs emergency service? Who is to blame then?
I for sure would want to hold someone personally responsible. The internet connection is more than just an amusement that can be turned off today - it has changed into something much more important.
So cutting off people shall be an alternative that really has to be considered a last resort.
Re:Another concern is (Score:5, Insightful)
It should be something that only happens if (a) you don't pay, or (b) a court orders it - exactly the same as with a telephone line.
This is all about the media cartel trying to get out of having to prove their cases in court, because their little scam doesn't make a profit when they have to do that.
On One Condition: (Score:4, Interesting)
Otherwise, you're rightfully just as culpable and should eat the consequences.
Poetic... (Score:3)
The BPI MIght think that, but that does not make it true. The ISPs have their collective asses hanging out in the wind, and they know it. It's too bad they didn't see this coming, when they started agreeing to take sides in this mess in the first place.
If you exercise authority, you incur liability. Pure and simple.
How is this already not covered (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
So.... (Score:5, Interesting)
It seriously boggles my mind that people think garbage like this up and think that it makes a hint of sense. If you accuse someone of a crime and are proven wrong, the accused should have every right under the sun to come back at you. Hard.
Bah!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They could learn from the Canadians (Score:3, Interesting)
But can the ISPs sue the copyright holders? (Score:5, Insightful)
Someone sends a list of 100+ users to the ISP. Those customers pay $20-100 per month for connectivity, depending on the service and area. It might take 2 years before the trials find if the customer is or isn't guilty.
So, if we assume 2 years, $20/month -- that's $480 per user
For big ticket users, it might be even more
Re:But can the ISPs sue the copyright holders? (Score:4, Insightful)
An Analogy (Score:5, Insightful)
For example, if you order illegal items through the postal service, (lets say pirated DVD's), then there is no way your postal service will be cut off. Its up to either the Police, or copyright holder to form a case against you. The ISP is merely the conduit, not an interested party.
Re:Digital fascism (Score:4, Interesting)
It's getting to the point where it isn't worth leaving *any* trails on the Inet.
More like getting to the point where I don't want to be on the Net at all. Thinking of living the simple life.....move to a little cabin in Montana....I'd have plenty of time and quiet to start writing my manifesto.....