Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Piracy AT&T United States Verizon Your Rights Online

US ISPs Refuse To Disconnect Persistent Pirates (torrentfreak.com) 198

An anonymous reader writes: The U.S. broadband association USTelecom, a trade association representing many ISPs, is taking a stand against abusive takedown notices and a recent push to terminate the accounts of repeat infringers. They argue that ISPs are not required to pass on takedown notices and stress that their subscribers shouldn't lose Internet access based solely on copyright holder complaints. ustelecoSigned into law nearly two decades ago, the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) aimed to ready copyright law for the digital age. The law introduced a safe harbor for Internet providers, meaning that they can't be held liable for their pirating users as long as they 'deal' with repeat infringers.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

US ISPs Refuse To Disconnect Persistent Pirates

Comments Filter:
  • Uhhh (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 12, 2016 @01:15PM (#51893687)

    ... the Digital Millenium (sic) Copyright Act (DMCA) aimed to ready copyright law for the digital age.

    Uh huh, yeah, that's what their intent was. Sure.

    • Re:Uhhh (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Opportunist ( 166417 ) on Tuesday April 12, 2016 @02:53PM (#51894441)

      Yes it was. Copyright law was very efficient at being a tool to violate any and all consumer rights in the physical world, the DMCA brought this property to the digital realm.

      • Re:Uhhh (Score:5, Informative)

        by Jane Q. Public ( 1010737 ) on Tuesday April 12, 2016 @06:13PM (#51895801)
        It still bothers me when I see articles like this which label copyers or downloaders as "pirates".

        Copyright "piracy" was defined more than 100 years ago. It's a legal term, and it relates to those who copy and reproduce copyrighted works for profit.

        The vast majority of file-sharers are not "pirates". Copyright holders started using that term around 2000 to deliberately muddy the waters surrounding file sharing.

        Just in case there is someone who doesn't yet know: copyright "piracy" is a crime. File sharing, if not done for profit, is not. Uploading could make you the subject of a civil suit, but not a criminal charge. Unless you're doing it for meaningful personal gain.
        • Agreed in principle. However, the law unfortunately disagrees. We need to vote in more reps to change these laws.

          That 'civil' charge carries $150K 'per instance' fine. It's absurd and why we need to get these laws changed.
        • by jnork ( 1307843 )

          And even "piracy" as originally applied to copyright violations is a deliberately provocative term. I'm pretty sure illicitly copying content doesn't involve capturing ships at sea, raping, pillaging, or killing large numbers of people.

          Usually. I suppose everybody needs a hobby.

  • by SeaFox ( 739806 ) on Tuesday April 12, 2016 @01:15PM (#51893693)

    They would never agree to willingly lose busieness. It would also highlight the fact there is no competition for broadband in many areas when those customers realized there was no one else to go to for service after being kicked out.

    • by Caesar Tjalbo ( 1010523 ) on Tuesday April 12, 2016 @01:18PM (#51893711)
      Yeah, I reckon those "persistent pirates" pay for the best plans.
      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        As someone who used to partake in the darker side of content acquisition, I always paid for the fastest package I could find.

      • by SeaFox ( 739806 )

        They probably pay for better than average, but when it's so easy to set up a 24/7 torrent device (a Raspberry PI would be plenty), there's no reason to buy top-tier, you can just let things run in their sweet time and download while you're asleep/away from home. Anything 20 mbps or above will be able to support play-as-you-download if your client is downloading in consecutive piece order.

        But I think that piracy is so widespread that if ISPs actually did shut people off the providers would be losing a signif

        • by jfengel ( 409917 )

          But surely those customers are going to want some kind of Internet service. It seems unlikely that they're going to say, "Well, if I can't torrent Orphan Black, I don't need to get email."

          They might even let them sign up for the same company. A few days lack of service, plus a reconnect fee, might convince them to cut out illegal downloads (or at least, try harder to hide it).

          It might end up with all of the downloaders at the one ISP in town who tolerates them. But I suspect that the other ISPs might have w

    • by JustNiz ( 692889 ) on Tuesday April 12, 2016 @01:25PM (#51893769)

      I think the ISPs are just rightly trying to avoid the movie/music industry pushing them into becoming the de-facto "internet police" (along with the associated responsibilities and liabilities) instead of the media industry doing their own dirty work at their own cost.

      • by NatasRevol ( 731260 ) on Tuesday April 12, 2016 @01:40PM (#51893853) Journal

        This is a good idea in theory.

        But then the ISPs get bought by the media conglomerates who also own the movie/music companies.
        I'm not sure where that all ends up, but probably some ugly meetings.

      • by Holi ( 250190 )
        Well if they did disconnect their users, and then got sued by said user, they would have an interesting time in court explaining how they have punished a user based on hearsay. Corporations do not get to work outside the law. If you have a dispute it should be handled by the courts, not by some third party with a grudge.
        • Private entities generally have the right to refuse service to anyone as long as it isn't some legally protected reason. Cutting internet off for copyright infringement is about on par with because I don't like your socks in this case. Itwould not be the same as criminal or civil penalties.

          But there may be other problems concerning their franchise agreements. If they cut people off arguments might be made that they aren't serving the public and could be forced to allow competition in possibly using their o

          • Cutting internet off for copyright infringement is about on par with because I don't like your socks in this case.

            Only if the ISPs TOS specified what color socks you were allowed to wear. Most of them prohibit illegal use of the service. Since the ISP is not a police agency, they don't have to follow the "presumed innocent" concept -- not that many police agencies do that anymore.

            If they cut people off arguments might be made that they aren't serving the public and could be forced to allow competition in possibly using their own equipment too.

            I doubt that any of them are worried about that. "Obeying federal law" is a pretty good counter-argument to "you aren't serving the public". And, of course, since all it would take to be "forced" to allow competition is for a competitor to ent

            • The TOS does not need to specify anything in most areas. That is what the right to refuse service actually covers. If you are unfamiliar with that concept then look it up.

              As for the franchise agreement, they very often carry exclusivity clauses for the purpose of infrastructure improvements. As I said, it isn't just competition but having to enable it through the use of said infrastructure. In the case of areas with a single isp for high speed internet, That would likely be access to the cable.

      • I think the ISPs holding out for some way to make money on the copyright extortion racket. As soon as they figure out how to get paid for punishing their customers, they'll be all over it.

    • Maybeee (Score:5, Funny)

      by Etherwalk ( 681268 ) on Tuesday April 12, 2016 @01:32PM (#51893817)

      They would never agree to willingly lose busieness. It would also highlight the fact there is no competition for broadband in many areas when those customers realized there was no one else to go to for service after being kicked out.

      Or maybe even Comcast is unwilling to deal with their own customer service.

    • by KGIII ( 973947 )

      The ISPs are not harassing their customers over stupid crap! Oh, the huge manatee!

      I'm actually not sure why this is being presented as a bad thing. Yeah, some people are jerks. The ISP shouldn't be accountable. Send 'em a letter. Take 'em to court. Scream loudly. Do what you want but leave the ISP out of it.

      I will add that I'm a staunch supporter of copyright and other IP protections/rights. (I'm not in favor of the current system.) Leave the ISP out of it. Chances are, the person paying the bill isn't even

  • Define Pirates (Score:5, Insightful)

    by WillAffleckUW ( 858324 ) on Tuesday April 12, 2016 @01:18PM (#51893713) Homepage Journal

    DCMA is a violation of my privacy and publishing rights as a Canadian citizen in the US under the US/Canada Data Treaty, which is subject to the Canadian Bill of Rights (which was adopted in the 1980s so it has greater rights than Americans do).

    What DCMA calls a pirate is a treaty violation. DCMA is subject to treaty rights, not the other way around.

    You can't steal my rights by calling them piracy.

    • by LWATCDR ( 28044 )

      You are in the US so you are subject to US laws. It would only be a violation of the Canadian Bill of Rights if you are in Canada.

  • Repeat infingers (Score:5, Insightful)

    by silas_moeckel ( 234313 ) <silas@ds[ ]c-corp.com ['min' in gap]> on Tuesday April 12, 2016 @01:25PM (#51893765) Homepage

    I have no issue with them disconnecting people who lose multiple lawsuits for copyright infringement. I think at this point the MPAA etc has blanket sent notices to every subscriber in the US multiple times so thats far to low of a bar to use.

    • illegal notices (no valid proof of claim) are ... illegal.

    • by Tailhook ( 98486 )

      has blanket sent notices to every subscriber in the US multiple times so

      Never seen one here. I don't pirate. If you think they're blanketing everyone you're wrong. Former comcast, centurylink subscriber and current charter subscriber.

      I'm no fan of IP holders but making stuff up is bullshit. I know people that pirate nearly everything they watch/listen to; some have been noticed and others haven't. So my anecdotal evidence is that they're being conservative.

      • I've had multiple relatives and friends get notices for infringement who I know are not do not have kids who might etc. Most of these were obvious scams, with we could make you pay 100k or more send us 1k now and we will settle BS. I'm pretty sure my 90+ year old grandparents were not torrenting considering the only things in the house was some roku's and streaming radio's. So yea I feel pretty safe to say there are many fraudulent notices being sent.

        In any event only lost trials should count anything el

        • by KGIII ( 973947 )

          I might be lazy and pirate. It's odd 'cause I only watch documentaries and they all show up eventually but sometimes I want the whole series and to play it in order. So, I pirate. At the same time, I've Netflix and Hulu+ - except I don't remember when I last logged into either one. It hasn't been in the past six months, at least. I also have a separate, disparate, connection that does nothing but seed. It seeds Linux distros and that's my story and I'm sticking to it. (Well, I always share anything to a 12:

  • Makes sense (Score:5, Insightful)

    by twistedcubic ( 577194 ) on Tuesday April 12, 2016 @01:29PM (#51893791)
    They are refusing to forward extortion notices to subscribers ("Pay me $8000 or I will sue") because 1) many times these fools either don't have standing to sue for copyright infringement, or don't provide sufficient proof they have standing to sue, 2) the "copyright holder" could easily be an impostor, and no ISP wants to facilitate fraud or fishing, or 3) the copyright holder might be complaining about fair use, which big media companies refuse to acknowledge even exists. I agree, there should be court judgments before an ISP is forced to act.
    • No, they are refusing to forward extortion notices because they have no legal requirement to. Whether or not the entity issuing the takedown request is the rightsholder or is authorized to act on the their part is covered by the DMCA request. The issuer has to affirm under penalty of perjury that they have the right to issue the notice, and it's no skin off the IPS's nose if it's not true -- all things being equal, they would prefer invalid claims.

      The reason that they don't want to forward claims is because

    • by KGIII ( 973947 )

      I've been pondering this for a VERY long time. I don't know how old you are but it might be since before you were born. Your user ID indicates that it'd be silly of me to assume that to be the case. So, for now, a very long time indeed.

      We need something FUNCTIONAL that sits below the courts. And no, it's not the bullshit they call arbitration. Findings need to be able to be appealed. It needs to have oversight. Things like IP need to be dealt with in those systems before even seeing a court of law. It needs

  • by 140Mandak262Jamuna ( 970587 ) on Tuesday April 12, 2016 @01:30PM (#51893795) Journal
    If criminals repeatedly use FedEX or UPS to ship/receive stolen merchandise the parcel delivery companies must delist them and stop delivering to their addresses. USPS also should stop delivering letters and packages. If pot growers use electric lights to grow weed, then the electric utility must cut off electricity to the whole building or the apartment complex. Why take half measures, no electricity to the entire zip code. That will teach them.
    • by sims 2 ( 994794 )

      I don't think that's remotely the shipping companies job unless via court order but I've never heard of that happening.

      AFAIK I can get any size transformer and meter installed at my house as I am willing to pay for without being questioned on why I need a 250KVA transformer.

      They tend to be much more concerned with people stealing power than they are with people using obnoxious amounts and paying their bill on time.

      If someone was caught growing pot http://sparkreport.net/2009/03... [sparkreport.net]

      I doubt the electric compan

    • by Kjella ( 173770 )

      If pot growers use electric lights to grow weed, then the electric utility must cut off electricity to the whole building or the apartment complex. Why take half measures, no electricity to the entire zip code. That will teach them.

      Electric lights? I hear there's pot growers using sunlight, it's time to shut it all down. <godmode>*click*</godmode> Eight minutes to go, time to find your nearest pub and a friend from a small planet somewhere in the vicinity of Betelgeuse.

    • Just nuke them from orbit, just to be sure.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 12, 2016 @01:32PM (#51893807)

    Its fine to disconnect customers after 3 violation notices, as long as:
    they also stop accepting violation notices from any "rights holder" who sents 3 incorrect ones.

    • Disconnect infringers from the web for 3 violations and "disconnect" any rights holder from filing after three clearly fraudulent notices in bad faith.

      If rights weren't so easily shifted into shell companies, I'd agree. Unfortunately changing my name is far more complicated than opening another shell corporation.

      • by KGIII ( 973947 )

        Your changing your name is not more complicated than they changing to another shell corporation. What gave you that idea? It's not even remotely more complicated, it's much less complicated. Sure, it's more annoying for you but it's less complicated. You've got very little paperwork to file and only one person to help you - but that doesn't mean it's more complicated.

        Not at all. It's less complicated to change your name. It's easy to do the follow ups with banks, DMV, all that - than it is to pop up a new s

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Personally I'm amazed at how goddamn lazy the RIAA and MPAA have gotten. Do they even do anything to earn their money these days or just go around demanding that everyone else to do their job for them? I wish I had a few billion dollars so I could whine to congress about how hard my job is and everyone else should do it for me for free.

    • Personally I'm amazed at how goddamn lazy the RIAA and MPAA have gotten. Do they even do anything to earn their money these days or just go around demanding that everyone else to do their job for them?

      In the grand scheme of things, we arent actually talking about a lot of money.

      Last I checked the telecom industry handles about $5 trillion annually, while the movie industry only about $35 billion.

      To put this in perspective

      78,000,000,000,000 - Gross world product
      5,000,000,000,000 - Telecom industry (6.4102% of GWP)
      35,000,000,000 - Movie industry (0.0449% of GWP)
      21,000,000,000 - Music industry (0.0269% of GWP)

      This is why the RIAA/MPAA have failed so miserably is getting what they want. Its like

      • What makes content so incredibly powerful as an export good is that you can literally export thin air. You export ... well, essentially nothing. You export something that is trivially easy to multiply at zero cost. That is some powerful export asset.

        To make matters worse, rather than looking at the annual GWP, look at the perceived value of those assets. And realize that this value drops to ZERO if everyone can multiply it at will.

    • Who talks about "earning" any money? They just want to get it, "earn it"... that sounds like they'd have to do some kind of honest work for it.

  • Must the electric company cut power to a bookie joint that pays it's bills just because it's a bookie joint?

  • A more reputable source for the article. Not to say that TorrentFreak isn't reputable, but.... http://www.ustelecom.org/blog/making-progress-copyright-enforcement [ustelecom.org]
  • Rare pleasure (Score:5, Interesting)

    by sjames ( 1099 ) on Tuesday April 12, 2016 @02:16PM (#51894109) Homepage Journal

    I hardly ever get to say this, but I agree with the ISPs whole heatedly. It's not their problem. It's not their job or their legal obligation to do anything about those notices the *IAA and other "reputable organizations" like Prenda send out every time a bird chirps. Especially now that the FCC has made them title ii.

    They don't get to sentence people to digital exile on their whim.

    • by mark-t ( 151149 )

      The ISP's should probably change their terms of service then... since they usually explicitly prohibit using their connection to do things that are illegal. I mean, if they aren't going to enforce it, what's the point of mentioning it?

      This is of course, assuming that sufficient evidence of illegal activity exists in the first place.

      • I mean, if they aren't going to enforce it, what's the point of mentioning it?

        Well... because most "terms of service" are "cover-your-ass" legalese, rather than something companies actively care about.

        Seriously -- is this that hard to understand why a company wants to have a disclaimer like this in their terms? (e.g., By accepting the contract for our services, you agree not to use our services for illegal acts.) If you don't include that disclaimer, some idiot could come after you and say, "You facilitated the illegal actions of person X. Therefore you are partly responsible,"

      • by sjames ( 1099 )

        Why should they? That clause gives THEM the right to terminate the connection for illegal activity, at their discretion. It confers no obligation upon them. Basically it's so that if they see clearly illegal activity (probably as a result of the inevitable backlash), they can dump you quick and easy.

        For the rest, that's a HUUUUUUGE assumption. As I indicated, the various notices are a combination of complaints that birds were chirping something like their song in the background, out and out fraud, incorrect

  • were willing to pay the ISPs to do this per instance and the fee was substantial enough I suspect the ISPs would change their tune.

    Many people are locked in to local ISP monopolies. If they were serious they'd put the money up and people would have no alternative but to either stop/get more sophisticated/or get fleeced for the overpriced media laden with ads and threats...

    • I think that when/if TPP is ever implemented (hoping not) there will be pretty severe punishments for ISPs who do not implement anti-piracy enforcement (even if it's non-infringing, non piracy unfortunately)

      -I'm just sayin'
  • With ISP and media-companies buying each other, it's a matter of time before the ISPs recognize that you are pirating content and just add the full retail price of it to your monthly bill. But at least this is proportional.
  • The only entity that should be able to compel them to disconnect any paying user, is a Judge, issuing a court order to do so, following a conviction for violating copyright law, or as part of a settlement after the end user is sued successfully in civil court -- which would still be a court order. Otherwise it just amounts to hearsay.
  • by Revek ( 133289 ) on Tuesday April 12, 2016 @05:39PM (#51895523)

    They say piracy but really its civil. I get these notices to deliver their crap letters to our customers. They want us to roll a truck to deliver them for free. Not one has ever subpoenaed us through the courts. When asked to pay for the truck roll they hang up and refuse. They wan't us as a process server for free. We don't live in the land of the free we live in the land of them fee.

He who has but four and spends five has no need for a wallet.

Working...